united states of proceedings and debates of the 106

Congressional RecordUNUM

E PLURIBUS

United Statesof America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106th CONGRESS, SECOND 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.

.

H8813

Vol. 146 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2000 No. 123

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

called to order by the Speaker pro tem-pore (Mr. SIMPSON).

f

DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKERPRO TEMPORE

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

WASHINGTON, DC,October 5, 2000.

I hereby appoint the Honorable MICHAEL K.SIMPSON to act as Speaker pro tempore onthis day.

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

f

PRAYER

The Reverend Norman B. Steen, TheChristian Reformed Church of Wash-ington, D.C., offered the followingprayer:

Almighty God, Maker of Heaven andEarth, Lord of the Nations, You’ve gotthe whole world in Your strong andloving hands, this grand Capitol build-ing, our beloved Nation, and all peopleeverywhere.

As this session of the House is draw-ing to a close, I ask You, Lord, for theblessing of Your wisdom to fall onthese Congressmen and Congresswomenas they seek the common good in theirdeliberations and debate on this day.

Lord, give them understanding, pa-tience and goodwill as they struggle to

accomplish their legislative goals, andwith this big push now to wrap thingsup before the campaign season movesinto high gear, give our leaders health,strength and endurance to be able towork effectively under all of thesepressures.

And above all, Lord, may Your loveof justice and mercy and peace be re-flected in the work of these dedicatedpublic servants on this day for theblessing of our Nation, for the blessingof the world.

Yours, Lord God, is the kingdom andthe power and the glory forever. 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.

f

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will thegentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. RIV-ERS) come forward and lead the Housein the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ms. RIVERS 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.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by Mr.Lundregan, one of its clerks, an-nounced that the Senate has passedwithout amendment bills and a concur-rent resolution of the House of the fol-lowing titles:

H.R. 1162. An act to designate the bridge onUnited States Route 231 that crosses theOhio River between Maceo, Kentucky, andRockport, Indiana, as the ‘‘William H.Natcher Bridge’’.

H.R. 1605. An act to designate the Federalbuilding and United States courthouse lo-cated at 402 North Walnut Street in Har-rison, Arkansas, as the ‘‘J. Smith HenleyFederal Building and United States Court-house’’.

H.R. 4318. An act to establish the Red RiverNational Wildlife Refuge.

H.R. 4642. An act to make certain per-sonnel flexibilities available with respect tothe General Accounting Office, and for otherpurposes.

H.R. 4806. An act to designate the Federalbuilding located at 1710 Alabama Avenue inJasper, Alabama, as the ‘‘Carl Elliott Fed-eral Building’’.

H.R. 5284. An act to designate the UnitedStates courthouse located at 101 East MainStreet in Norfolk, Virginia, as the ‘‘Owen B.Pickett United States Courthouse’’.

H. Con. Res. 399. Concurrent resolution rec-ognizing the 25th anniversary of the enact-ment of the Education for All HandicappedChildren Act of 1975.

N O T I C E

Effective January 1, 2001, the subscription price of the Congressional Record will be $393 per year or $197 for sixmonths. Individual issues may be purchased for $4.00 per copy. The cost for the microfiche edition will remain $141 peryear with single copies remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based upon the cost of printing anddistribution.

Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer

VerDate 02-OCT-2000 02:50 Oct 06, 2000 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 8633 E:\CR\FM\A05OC7.000 pfrm02 PsN: H05PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8814 October 5, 2000The message also announced that the

Senate has passed with amendments inwhich the concurrence of the House isrequested, bills of the House of the fol-lowing titles:

H.R. 4002. An act to amend the Foreign As-sistance Act of 1961 to revise and improveprovisions relating to famine prevention andfreedom from hunger.

H.R. 4386. An act to amend title XIX of theSocial Security Act to provide medical as-sistance for certain women screened andfound to have breast or cervical cancer undera federally funded screening program, toamend the Public Health Service Act and theFederal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act withrespect to surveillance and information con-cerning the relationship between cervicalcancer and the human papillomavirus (HPV)and for other purposes.

The message also announced that theSenate has passed a bill of the fol-lowing title in which the concurrenceof the House is requested:

S. 2412. An act to amend title 49, UnitedStates Code, to authorize appropriations forthe National Transportation Safety Boardfor fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, andfor other purposes.

The message also announced thatpursuant to Public Law 103–296, theChair, on behalf of the President protempore, and in consultation with theChairman and the Ranking MinorityMember of the Finance Committee, ap-points David Podoff, of Maryland, as amember of the Social Security Advi-sory Board, vice Lori L. Hansen.

f

THE REVEREND NORMAN B.STEEN

(Mr. HOEKSTRA asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute.)

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, it ismy pleasure to welcome the ReverendNorman Steen, pastor of the ChristianReformed Church of Washington, D.C.as a guest chaplain for the House ofRepresentatives.

The Washington, D.C. Christian Re-formed Church has a proud history ofmore than 50 years in the District ofColumbia. The church was founded dur-ing World War II by members of theChristian Reformed Church who cameto Washington from Michigan, Iowa,New Jersey, Washington, and Cali-fornia and from throughout the UnitedStates in order to serve our Nation.

Since that time, the church has root-ed itself in Northeast Washington andhas seen many changes in this city, allthe while serving its members and thecommunity around it.

Reverend Steen has been the pastorof the church since April of 1999. Priorto moving with his wife, Barb, he was aminister at a church in my hometown,the 14th Street Christian ReformedChurch of Holland, Michigan. Duringhis distinguished 25-year career as aminister, Norm has also served church-es in Ridgewood, New Jersey, and Par-kersburg, Iowa.

I hope the entire House will join mein welcoming Reverend Norm Steen asour guest chaplain today.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKERPRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. TheChair will entertain fifteen 1-minutespeeches on each side.

f

CONGRATULATING IAN AMBER

(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendher remarks.)

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, Iwould like to congratulate a remark-able young man and true champion inmy congressional district, Ian Amber.Ian is a straight A honor student atPalmetto Senior High School where heexcels in various academic organiza-tions. But unlike most teenagers, Ianhad to overcome a great obstacle notnormally faced by students.

At age 10, Ian was diagnosed withleukemia and underwent 3 years of in-tense chemotherapy treatment.Through perseverance, he beat cancer;and today, Ian spends his time helpingchildren with life-threatening diseases.

He formed Kids That Care Pediatricand Cancer Fund, the only kid-run or-ganization affiliated with a major hos-pital in South Florida, an organizationin which he raises funds for sick chil-dren.

He also created Trading Places, asensitive-training program for oncol-ogy nurses.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues tohelp me in recognizing Ian’s selflessachievements, and in commending himfor being a shining example to us all.He represents Miami Palmetto well. Herepresents all of us well.

f

THE VAGINA MONOLOGUES

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

Mr. TRAFICANT. Broadway has an-nounced a new play called ‘‘The VaginaMonologues.’’ I quote, the promo statesthat ‘‘Vagina Monologues uses humorand drama to explore such things assexual fantasies, orgasms, pelvic ex-aminations and rape.’’ Now if that isnot enough to entice your condo-minium, this vaginal virtuoso is beingbilled as theater at its finest.

Unbelievable. What is next? RectalDiaries? Men are dropping like flies inAmerica from prostate cancer andBroadway is promoting vaginal titilla-tion.

Beam me up. I advise all New Yorkmen to sleep on their stomachs, and Iyield back all the STDs on the EastCoast.

f

ANY MORE STORIES?

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

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, herewe go again. First it is inventing the

Internet, then it is drugs for his moth-er-in-law and his dog. Now it appearsthe Vice President’s imagination hasreally run wild again. When GovernorBush mentioned traveling to a disasterarea with the head of FEMA, Mr. GOREadded that he traveled with him too.Untrue. Then claimed to be a strongsupporter of the lockbox for Social Se-curity and Medicare. Surprise, sur-prise, the Democrat filibuster holdingup this legislation is waiting for hisfirst sign of support. What about thatpoor Florida girl forced to stand in herclass of 36 because there is no room forher desk? Guess what? Not true again.

What is that phrase about pants onfire? Any more stories?

f

THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENACT

(Ms. RIVERS asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute.)

Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, the Househas done its job, we passed the Vio-lence Against Women Act by a vote of415–3. Nevertheless, the authorizationran out on September 30, 2000.

This critical bill is supported by po-lice officers, judges, prosecutors, gov-ernors, State attorneys general, socialworkers, men and women and chil-dren’s advocates around the Nation. Itdeserves immediate attention from theother body.

The Violence Against Women Actwas originally passed in 1994 and au-thorized over a billion dollars for lawenforcement grants, judicial training,shelters, a national hotline, child abuseand prevention programs. Thousands ofvictims from every State, race, and so-cioeconomic level have relied on theseservices for protection from violence.

VAWA has saved lives and helped re-build even more, and it has served tobreak the cycle of violence in so manyfamilies, by preventing children fromperpetuating the violence they witness.

With the authorization already ex-pired, I respectfully urge the otherbody to pass this important legislation.

f

SQUANDERED OPPORTUNITIES

(Mr. PITTS asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, GovernorGeorge W. Bush has rightly pointed outthat this boom economy is an oppor-tunity we should not squander. It is anopportunity to get our fiscal house inorder to shore up programs like SocialSecurity and Medicare for the nextgeneration.

Unfortunately, the opposition doesnot seem to see it that way. This is thefourth year in a row that the Repub-lican Congress will pay down the publicdebt. That will bring us to half a tril-lion dollars in paid-back debt, and wewill do it while preserving the SocialSecurity and Medicare trust funds 100percent intact.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8815October 5, 2000Mr. Speaker, 22 days ago we sent a

letter to the President asking him tojoin us in this effort, but he has refusedto respond.

The only thing we have heard on thematter is what the President said tothe newspapers: ‘‘It depends on whatour spending commitments are.’’

In other words, he would rather addbillions of dollars in new spending thanpay down the debt, and that is whatGovernor Bush means when he talksabout squandered opportunities.

f

APPROVE COMMONSENSE GUNSAFETY LEGISLATION

(Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York askedand was given permission to addressthe House for 1 minute and to reviseand extend her remarks.)

Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York. Mr.Speaker, the clock is ticking and soonthe 106th Congress may adjourn with-out passing common sense gun safetylegislation. Today, we join peoplethroughout the Nation concernedabout young people and gun violence.

Earlier this week, I joined the gen-tleman from Missouri (Mr. GEPHARDT),the minority leader, and the gentlemanfrom Michigan (Mr. CONYERS) in callingon the gentleman from Illinois (Speak-er HASTERT) to use his influence tocomplete work on the stalled JuvenileJustice Conference.

With the help of the gentleman fromIllinois (Speaker HASTERT), we canjumpstart the conference to approvechild safety locks, to close the gunshow loophole and to ban high-capacityammunition clips. I am pleased thatSenator JOHN MCCAIN has endorsedclosing the gun show loophole.

Governor Pataki has already broughtcommon sense gun laws to my homeState of New York. We need to bringsimilar legislation to all 50 States. Isthere grassroots support for this legis-lation? You bet.

The Million Mom March dem-onstrated that people across the Na-tion want to make their communitiessafe from gun violence. Just this week,college students around the Nationparticipated in First Monday 2000. I ampleased that students from Long Is-land’s Hofstra University participatedin this grassroots educational issue.

To date, the gun lobby has preventedthe Congress from approving nationalgun safety legislation. We do not haveto repeat the past. I ask the gentlemanfrom Illinois (Speaker HASTERT) toconsider this.

f

DEBT REDUCTION STILL BEINGHELD HOSTAGE

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

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, today isday 23 of the debt reduction held hos-tage by the Clinton-Gore administra-tion. It has been 23 days since Congressproposed to lock away 100 percent of

the Social Security and Medicare sur-pluses and dedicate at least 90 percentof the total budget surplus for debt re-duction, but still no answer from theClinton-Gore administration.

There will be an estimated $268 bil-lion surplus this fiscal year alone. Ourquestion is simple: Should it be used topay off our public debt, or should it bespent on ongoing Federal programs?Republicans are for using the surplusto pay off public debt.

Where do President Clinton and VicePresident GORE stand?

Mr. Speaker, I urge the President andthe Vice President to put debt reduc-tion ahead of spending and agree to our90–10 debt reduction proposal.

f

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACTOF 2000

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute.)

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker,the women in my district and womenall across this country need to have theViolence Against Women Act of 2000 re-authorized.

The act was first passed in 1994 andhas been a lifeline to women who arevictims of violence. The current actwould go even further by improving ex-isting provisions and adding new ones,such as dating violence, the provisionof transitional housing, the creation ofsupervised visitation and exchange pro-grams for children, and expanding serv-ices to reach the elderly and previouslyunderserved populations.

The new reauthorization was passedby this body on September 26, but it re-mains a top priority, because the otherbody has yet to pass it.

Mr. Speaker, the Women’s Coalitionof St. Croix, the Women’s ResourceCenter in St. Thomas, and the SafetyZone in St. John are depending on us,the women and the families they carefor, especially their children who alsobecome victims and have a high risk ofthemselves becoming perpetrators, aredepending on us.

I join the other distinguished womenof the House and all of my 415 col-leagues who voted for its passage incalling on the Senate to do the sameand give us a Violence Against WomenAct before we adjourn.

f

ANOTHER INVITATION FOR DEBTELIMINATION

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

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, as youheard my colleague, the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. HERGER), say, ithas been 23 days since this Congressasked the President to join us in dedi-cating 90 percent of next year’s sur-pluses to paying off the debt; and onceagain, they still have had no responseto that request.

The Clinton-Gore administrationmade it very clear they have a priority

on reducing the debt for Third Worldnations, in distant countries awayfrom our shores. Yet they remain si-lent on this issue of debt eliminationfor our own country, for our own Amer-ican working men and women.

Under this Republican-led Congress,we have already paid down $350 billionin debt since 1998, and our plan is tofurther reduce the debt by an addi-tional $240 billion in the year 2001 andcompletely eliminate the debt by 2012,while at the same time preserving andprotecting Social Security and Medi-care.

b 1015

Eliminating the public debt is goodfor the economy and lowers interestrates for minor consumers on every-thing from home mortgages to creditcards, saving American families over$5,000 a year.

Once again, I call upon the Presidentto join me and my colleagues on thisresponsible middle ground to eliminatethe public debt and ensure a stable fu-ture for Americans through genera-tions.

f

URGING CONGRESS TO REAUTHOR-IZE THE VIOLENCE AGAINSTWOMEN ACT

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

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, as wenear the end of the 106th Congress,there are a few bills that Congressmust pass before we go home. To me,one of those ‘‘must pass’’ bills is the re-authorization of the Violence AgainstWomen Act. The House passed VAWA,but the other body has not yet acted onthe bill. There is no more time towaste. This law must be reauthorizedthis year.

The program has done so much. Overthe past 6 years, VAWA has helped mil-lions of women, children, and familieswho have been victims of domesticabuse and sexual assault. This bill isnot controversial. The leaders in theother body have a choice: they can con-tinue to assist victims of domestic vio-lence and sexual assault, or they canturn their backs on them.

To turn their backs when they knowthat VAWA is working would be uncon-scionable. VAWA must reach the Presi-dent’s desk before Congress adjourns.

f

AMERICA NEEDS INTEGRITY INTHE ADMINISTRATION

(Mr. GARY MILLER of Californiaasked and was given permission to ad-dress the House for 1 minute and to re-vise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr.Speaker, guess who made this claim: Ihave been a part of the discussions onthe Strategic Petroleum Reserve sincethe day it was first established.

That boast was made a few days agoby AL GORE, who was not even elected

VerDate 02-OCT-2000 02:50 Oct 06, 2000 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K05OC7.004 pfrm02 PsN: H05PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8816 October 5, 2000to Congress until 2 years after theStrategic Petroleum Reserve was es-tablished. He took credit for it, but hewas not even in Congress when it hap-pened.

Two days ago in the Presidential de-bates, GORE claimed that he was at aFlorida high school when a student hadto stand in class because the classroomwas so overcrowded.

The principal of that school laughedwhen he heard the claim and said, ‘‘Wehave never allowed a student to standin the back of a classroom or to standin a classroom.’’ He also added that theclassroom in question, a science lab,has about $150,000 this year alone innew equipment.

Why does he have to keep makingthese things up? What drives him totake credit for so many things that heclearly had nothing to do with?

Mr. GORE has a problem with thetruth. We need leadership that knowsthe difference between self-serving fan-tasy and reality. Our country is hungryfor integrity.

f


The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.SIMPSON). Members are reminded notto make personal references to theVice President.

f

ASKING MEMBERS TO SUPPORTTHE AMBER ALERT PROGRAM

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

Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, thegentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs.WILSON) introduced a resolution thatrecognizes the importance of a commu-nity initiative, a successful and effec-tive way to combat child abductioncalled the Amber Alert Plan.

The Amber Alert is named afterAmber Hagerman, a 9-year-old girl whowas tragically abducted and murderedin Arlington, Texas, in 1996. The trag-edy of Amber’s case was felt through-out north Texas, and it led to a searchfor new and innovative community re-sponses to help law enforcement offi-cials find missing children.

The Amber Alert is a partnership be-tween broadcasters and law enforce-ment agencies. When law enforcementdetermines a child is missing, they ac-tivate the Amber Alert, by notifyingarea-participating radio stations. Thestations agree to interrupt their pro-gramming and broadcast an emergencyreport, much like an emergency broad-cast system. Their report gives details,like the description of a child or anycars involved. TV stations wouldbroadcast Amber Alert crawlers acrossthe front of their screen, which wouldresemble severe weather warnings.

I unveiled the Amber Alert in my dis-trict. Please join me and the gentle-woman from New Mexico in our effortsto recover missing children and curb

abductions as a cosponsor of the bill.The health and safety of our children isin Members’ hands.

f

THE DEMOCRAT EDUCATIONAGENDA

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of Californiaasked and was given permission to ad-dress the House for 1 minute and to re-vise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California.Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minorityleader, the gentleman from Missouri(Mr. GEPHARDT), delivered an impor-tant address outlining the educationagenda our party will pursue next yearunder a Democratic Congress. Thisagenda reflects our commitments totake bold action to make publicschools strong and effective and to add,not replace, the efforts being made atthe local level.

I applaud the minority leader, thegentleman from Missouri (Mr. GEP-HARDT), for his efforts that began morethan a year ago in a series of meetingsat the Madison Building over dinnersand good conversations.

Here is what we as Democrats pro-pose on education: establish a majornew partnership with States to lowerclass size and assure that every childhas a qualified teacher; offer new in-vestments while holding schools ac-countable for the results; make qualitypreschool available to every child; andprovide direct grants and tax breaks toupgrade and modernize school facili-ties.

We have set down our marker. I lookforward to working with the thenSpeaker, the gentleman from Missouri(Mr. GEPHARDT), in a Democratic Houseto move it forward.

f

PASS THE VIOLENCE AGAINSTWOMEN ACT BEFORE THE ENDOF SESSION

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, thewomen of America want the other bodyto reauthorize the Violence AgainstWomen Act. This landmark legislation,which the House has reauthorized, hassaved lives and rescued countlesswomen from the vicious cycle of familyviolence.

From 1993, when the act was enacted,to 1997, the rate of intimate partner vi-olence fell and the number of femalevictims of intimate violence dropped.American women have VAWA, the Vio-lence Against Women Act, to thank forthese gains.

But there is so much more that needsto be done. In 1998, three out of fourvictims of intimate-partner homicidewere women. The number of womenkilled by an intimate partner increased8 percent between 1997 and 1998. Womenneed VAWA so they can protect them-selves and their children from domesticviolence.

The Violence Against Women Actsaves lives. I urge our colleagues in theother body, pass VAWA before the endof this session.

f


The SPEAKER pro tempore. Mem-bers should avoid urging action by theother body.

f

THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENACT MUST BE REAUTHORIZEDNOW

(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendher remarks.)

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, Oc-tober is Domestic Violence AwarenessMonth. It is just unthinkable that weshould leave Washington and end thissession without reauthorizing the Vio-lence Against Women Act.

Last week, by a powerful 415 to 3,this body overwhelmingly affirmed ourresponsibility to addressing and pro-tecting the needs of all victims of do-mestic violence, stalking, and sexualassault. Every 15 seconds someone inour country is battered. Every day,four women die in this country as a re-sult of domestic violence.

Every person, woman, man, or child,should feel safe at home and in theirneighborhoods. We must ensure thatall victims, including immigrantwomen, are able to report and flee fromdomestic violence without threats ofpersecution or deportation.

We have the opportunity in these re-maining days to pass VAWA. We shoulddo it now.

f

TIME FOR CONGRESS TO PASSVAWA

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

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I will fol-low the Speaker’s instructions in termsof not admonishing any other entity ofthe United States Congress. I wouldsimply rise today to say that we needto have the Violence Against WomenAct passed by the Congress and sent tothe President for his signature.

Last Wednesday this House unani-mously passed VAWA by a vote of 415to 3. We must urge anyone else who cando that to do that.

VAWA expired on September 30. OnSeptember 30, the light went out onjustice across this country on behalf ofall of the women and children who arevictims of violence or who are poten-tial victims, including immigrantwomen.

Without this critical funding, pro-grams serving women and their chil-dren will cease to exist. This is not apolitical game. It is the lives and well-being of women and children across


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8817October 5, 2000this country that are at stake, that arevulnerable.

I would urge further consideration ofVAWA by the United States Congress.

f

ON THE 35TH ANNIVERSARY OFMEDICARE, CONGRESS SHOULDREPAIR GAPS IN COVERAGE

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

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, thisyear we celebrate the 35th anniversaryof Medicare. The program has benefitedover 93 million Americans since it wassigned into law on July 30, 1965, byPresident Johnson.

Yet, our health care system haschanged dramatically since then, withmedical technology in many ways lead-ing the way, and Medicare has not keptpace with that. I am concerned aboutthe widening gap between the Medicareprogram and the cutting edge of med-ical technology.

I am concerned because it means thatmore than 90,000 Medicare-aged peoplein my district cannot gain access to ad-vanced treatment and technologiesthey need. As Congress looks at adjust-ments to the program, we must actnow to repair the gaps in Medicare forthe next 35 years of medical innova-tion.

Medicare’s procedure for adding newtechnologies to the program involvecoverage, coding, and payment deci-sions. Unfortunately, problems anddelays have occurred at each of thesestages. The result is that now it cantake more than 41⁄2 years or more tomake the latest breakthrough treat-ments available to beneficiaries.

I believe that Medicare patients havewaited long enough for a program thatgives them access to the advancedmedical technologies they need. Thatis why I am pleased to lend full supportof H.R. 4395, the Medicare Patient Ac-cess to Technology Act, a bipartisanbill which hopefully we will pass thissession, and which will lead to 21st cen-tury medicine for Medicare bene-ficiaries.

f

SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT’S RE-QUEST FOR INCREASED FUNDINGFOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOP-MENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Irise today to celebrate the 26th anni-versary of the Community Develop-ment Block Grant Program. This pro-gram put local development decisionsin the hands of those who know best,those who live and work in our commu-nity.

This long-term commitment to re-sponsible flexibility has paid off. Theaverage housing program leverage is$2.31 for every Federal dollar spent.

Unfortunately, the Republican lead-ership has chosen to commemorate 26years of job creation and increased af-fordable housing and water improve-ments by stripping the block grant pro-gram of $300 million in the fiscal year2001 VA–HUD bill.

In Lorais, Ohio, a community in mydistrict struggling with the loss of in-dustry and experiencing rents as muchas 50 percent of income, these cutstranslate into a loss of jobs, jobs thatwould have been created next yearthrough construction projects, smallbusiness developments, and retrainingprograms.

This program is simple, it is effec-tive, it is efficient. Communities innortheast Ohio and across the countryare depending on it. Proposed 2001funding levels will, unfortunately,hang them out to dry.

I urge my colleagues to continue ourcommitment to improving people’squality of life. Let us support thePresident’s request and increase fund-ing for the Community DevelopmentBlock Grant Program.

f

RYAN WHITE CARE ACTAMENDMENTS OF 2000

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by directionof the Committee on Rules, I call upHouse Resolution 611 and ask for itsimmediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-lows:

H. RES. 611Resolved, That upon the adoption of this

resolution it shall be in order without inter-vention of any point of order to consider inthe House the bill (S. 2311) to revise and ex-tend the Ryan White CARE Act programsunder title XXVI of the Public Health Serv-ice Act, to improve access to health care andthe quality of care under such programs, andto provide for the development of increasedcapacity to provide health care and relatedsupport services to individuals and familieswith HIV disease, and for other purposes.The bill shall be considered as read foramendment. The amendment in the natureof a substitute printed in the CongressionalRecord and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 8of rule XVIII shall be considered as adopted.The previous question shall be considered asordered on the bill, as amended, to final pas-sage without intervening motion except: (1)one hour of debate on the bill, as amended,equally divided and controlled by the chair-man and ranking minority member of theCommittee on Commerce; and (2) one motionto recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. GOSS) is rec-ognized for 1 hour.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposesof debate only, I am pleased to yieldthe customary 30 minutes to my friend,the distinguished gentleman from Ohio(Mr. HALL), pending which I yield my-self such time as I may consume. Dur-ing consideration of this resolution, alltime yielded is for purposes of debateonly.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fair andstraightforward closed rule for a veryimportant piece of legislation. The rulewaives all points of order against con-

sideration of the bill and provides thatthe amendment in the nature of a sub-stitute printed in the CONGRESSIONALRECORD shall be considered as adopted.

b 1030

This is largely a noncontroversialbill. As no members of the minoritytestified differently last night at theCommittee on Rules, this rule shouldreceive unanimous support, and I urgesupport.

This reauthorization of the RyanWhite CARE Act recognizes the chang-ing demographics of the AIDS epidemicin our country in a way that truly hon-ors the memory of the courageousyoung boy for which the bill was origi-nally named. Today, there are between800,000 and 900,000 persons living withHIV in the United States of Americawith some 40,000 new infections annu-ally. This conference report seeks toshift resources to the most needy areaswhile preserving the best features ofthe current programs.

The gentleman from Virginia (Chair-man BLILEY) should be commended forhis leadership and attention to thiscritical public health issue which is ofconcern to every Member of this body.I am hopeful that the progress made onthis authorization will spur funding foranother essential program for individ-uals afflicted with the HIV virus.

As my colleagues remember and wellknow, this House led the way andadopted the Ricky Ray AuthorizationAct in the last Congress. It authorized$750 million for compassion assistanceand recognition to hemophiliacs whocontracted AIDS through no fault oftheir own because of contaminatedblood products in the 1980s.

Now, the first installment was pro-vided last year, and this year the gen-tleman from Florida (Chairman YOUNG)of the Committee on Appropriationsshould be commended for exceeding thePresident’s request in the Houseversion of the Fiscal Year 2001 Labor-HHS appropriation bill for the next in-stallment.

As negotiations continue and we nearthe end of this Congress, I am hopefulthat the White House will become fullyengaged on the Ricky Ray fundingproblem and work with leadership andCongress to provide full funding forthese victims as soon as humanly pos-sible. The need is great and the time isnow.

I am confident that, if the WhiteHouse shows true leadership and dem-onstrates that this problem is really atop priority for them, we will be ableto move further toward full fundingthis year. Obviously we cannot undothe tragic events of the 1980s, but wecan work to provide assistance to theseindividuals before it is any later.

Mr. Speaker, this rule should engen-der little debate. It is a fair rule for agood bill. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance ofmy time.

Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Iwant to thank the gentleman from


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8818 October 5, 2000Florida (Mr. GOSS) for yielding me thetime.

Mr. Speaker, this is a closed rule. Itwill allow for the consideration of S.2311, which is called the Ryan WhiteCARE Act Amendments of 2000. As thegentleman from Florida has described,this rule provides for 1 hour of generaldebate to be equally divided and con-trolled by the chairman and rankingminority member of the Committee onCommerce. Under this closed rule, noamendments can be offered on theHouse floor.

In 1990, Congress passed the RyanWhite Comprehensive AIDS ResourcesEmergency Act. It was known as theRyan White CARE Act. This law cre-ated programs to help Americans withAIDS and HIV, the virus that causesAIDS, and to slow the spread of HIV.

These programs expired October 1.The bill we are considering will reau-thorize and strengthen the Ryan WhiteCARE Act programs by expanding ac-cess, improving quality, and providingadditional services. Some of thechanges will help target health careservices to the people who need it themost but who can least afford it.

Women, children, infants and youthwith HIV will especially benefit fromthis bill as will low-income individualsand families. AIDS possesses one of thegreatest health challenges of our gen-eration, and there is no way to avoidits tragic grip. However, an active roleby the Federal government can, in myopinion, ease the tragedy by reducingthe number of new HIV cases and bysupporting victims and their families.

The Ryan White CARE Act hasworked. The Federal funds spent underthis law have saved lives and reducedsuffering. These are dollars that couldnot have been better spent. For exam-ple, between 1994 and 1999, pediatricAIDS cases declined by nearly 80 per-cent largely because of these programsfunded by the Federal Governmentunder this Act.

I would like to point out to my col-league that this act offers a frameworkthat we should apply to tackling othertragic diseases, such as childhood can-cer. I hope that Congress will learnfrom the success of this act.

This legislation extending the RyanWhite CARE Act represents our bestresponse to dealing with AIDS and itsconsequences. The bill we are consid-ering is a compromise between the pre-viously passed House and Senateversions. The Senate version passed byunanimous consent. The House versionpassed by a voice vote under suspen-sion of the rules. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this House version.

Because there is general agreementbetween the House and Senate, there isno need for a formal conference com-mittee.

I urge my colleagues to vote for therule and for the bill.


Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I advise thatwe have no speakers lined up, and I

would be prepared to yield back if thegentleman from Ohio (Mr. HALL) has nospeakers.

Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Iyield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield backthe balance of my time, and I move theprevious question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.The resolution was agreed to.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant

to House Resolution 611, I call up theSenate bill (S. 2311) to revise and ex-tend the Ryan White CARE Act pro-grams under title XXVI of the PublicHealth Service Act, to improve accessto health care and the quality of careunder such programs, and to providefor the development of increased capac-ity to provide health care and relatedsupport services to individuals andfamilies with HIV disease, and forother purposes, and ask for its imme-diate consideration.

The Clerk read the title of the Senatebill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.SIMPSON). Pursuant to House Resolu-tion 611, the Senate bill is consideredread for amendment.

The text of S. 2311 is as follows:S. 2311

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 ‘‘Ryan WhiteCARE Act Amendments of 2000’’.SEC. 2. REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) REFERENCES.—Except as otherwise ex-pressly provided, whenever in this Act anamendment or repeal is expressed in terms ofan amendment to, or repeal of, a section orother provision, the reference shall be con-sidered to be made to a section or other pro-vision of the Public Health Service Act (42U.S.C. 201 et seq.).

(b) Table of Contents.—The table of con-tents of this Act is as follows:Sec. 1. Short title.Sec. 2. References; table of contents.TITLE I—AMENDMENTS TO HIV HEALTH

CARE PROGRAMSubtitle A—Purpose; Amendments to Part A

(Emergency Relief Grants)Sec. 101. Duties of planning council, funding

priorities, quality assessment.Sec. 102. Quality management.Sec. 103. Funded entities required to have

health care relationships.Sec. 104. Support services required to be

health care-related.Sec. 105. Use of grant funds for early inter-

vention services.Sec. 106. Replacement of specified fiscal

years regarding the sunset onexpedited distribution require-ment.

Sec. 107. Hold harmless provision.Sec. 108. Set-aside for infants, children, and

women.Subtitle B—Amendments to Part B (Care

Grant Program)Sec. 121. State requirements concerning

identification of need and allo-cation of resources.

Sec. 122. Quality management.Sec. 123. Funded entities required to have

health care referral relation-ships.

Sec. 124. Support services required to behealth care-related.

Sec. 125. Use of grant funds for early inter-vention services.

Sec. 126. Authorization of appropriations forHIV-related services for womenand children.

Sec. 127. Repeal of requirement for com-pleted Institute of Medicine re-port.

Sec. 130. Supplement grants for certainStates.

Sec. 131. Use of treatment funds.Sec. 132. Increase in minimum allotment.Sec. 133. Set-aside for infants, children, and

women.Subtitle C—Amendments to Part C (Early

Intervention Services)Sec. 141. Amendment of heading; repeal of

formula grant program.Sec. 142. Planning and development grants.Sec. 143. Authorization of appropriations for

categorical grants.Sec. 144. Administrative expenses ceiling;

quality management program.Sec. 145. Preference for certain areas.Subtitle D—Amendments to Part D (General

Provisions)Sec. 151. Research involving women, infants,

children, and youth.Sec. 152. Limitation on administrative ex-

penses.Sec. 153. Evaluations and reports.Sec. 154. Authorization of appropriations for

grants under parts A and B.Subtitle E—Amendments to Part F

(Demonstration and Training)Sec. 161. Authorization of appropriations.TITLE II—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONSSec. 201. Institute of Medicine study.

TITLE I—AMENDMENTS TO HIV HEALTHCARE PROGRAM

Subtitle A—Purpose; Amendments to Part A(Emergency Relief Grants)

SEC. 101. DUTIES OF PLANNING COUNCIL, FUND-ING PRIORITIES, QUALITY ASSESS-MENT.

Section 2602 (42 U.S.C. 300ff–12) is amend-ed—

(1) in subsection (b)—(A) in paragraph (2)(C), by inserting before

the semicolon the following: ‘‘, includingproviders of housing and homeless services’’;and

(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘shall—’’and all that follows and inserting ‘‘shallhave the responsibilities specified in sub-section (d).’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(d) DUTIES OF PLANNING COUNCIL.—The

planning council established under sub-section (b) shall have the following duties:

‘‘(1) PRIORITIES FOR ALLOCATION OFFUNDS.—The council shall establish prior-ities for the allocation of funds within the el-igible area, including how best to meet eachsuch priority and additional factors that agrantee should consider in allocating fundsunder a grant, based on the following fac-tors:

‘‘(A) The size and demographic characteris-tics of the population with HIV disease to beserved, including, subject to subsection (e),the needs of individuals living with HIV in-fection who are not receiving HIV-relatedhealth services.

‘‘(B) The documented needs of the popu-lation with HIV disease with particular at-tention being given to disparities in healthservices among affected subgroups withinthe eligible area.

‘‘(C) The demonstrated or probable costand outcome effectiveness of proposed strat-egies and interventions, to the extent thatdata are reasonably available.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8819October 5, 2000‘‘(D) Priorities of the communities with

HIV disease for whom the services are in-tended.

‘‘(E) The availability of other govern-mental and non-governmental resources, in-cluding the State medicaid plan under titleXIX of the Social Security Act and the StateChildren’s Health Insurance Program undertitle XXI of such Act to cover health carecosts of eligible individuals and familieswith HIV disease.

‘‘(F) Capacity development needs resultingfrom gaps in the availability of HIV servicesin historically underserved low-income com-munities.

‘‘(2) COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE DELIVERYPLAN.—The council shall develop a com-prehensive plan for the organization and de-livery of health and support services de-scribed in section 2604. Such plan shall becompatible with any existing State or localplans regarding the provision of such serv-ices to individuals with HIV disease.

‘‘(3) ASSESSMENT OF FUND ALLOCATION EFFI-CIENCY.—The council shall assess the effi-ciency of the administrative mechanism inrapidly allocating funds to the areas ofgreatest need within the eligible area.

‘‘(4) STATEWIDE STATEMENT OF NEED.—Thecouncil shall participate in the developmentof the Statewide coordinated statement ofneed as initiated by the State public healthagency responsible for administering grantsunder part B.

‘‘(5) COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERALGRANTEES.—The council shall coordinatewith Federal grantees providing HIV-relatedservices within the eligible area.

‘‘(6) COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION.—The coun-cil shall establish methods for obtaininginput on community needs and prioritieswhich may include public meetings, con-ducting focus groups, and convening ad-hocpanels.

‘‘(e) PROCESS FOR ESTABLISHING ALLOCA-TION PRIORITIES.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 24 monthsafter the date of enactment of the RyanWhite CARE Act Amendments of 2000, theSecretary shall—

‘‘(A) consult with eligible metropolitanareas, affected communities, experts, andother appropriate individuals and entities, todevelop epidemiologic measures for estab-lishing the number of individuals living withHIV disease who are not receiving HIV-re-lated health services; and

‘‘(B) provide advice and technical assist-ance to planning councils with respect to theprocess for establishing priorities for the al-location of funds under subsection (d)(1).

‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—Grantees under sub-section (d)(1)(A) shall not be required to es-tablish priorities for individuals not in careuntil epidemiologic measures are developedunder paragraph (1).’’.SEC. 102. QUALITY MANAGEMENT.

(a) FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR QUALITY MAN-AGEMENT.—Section 2604 (42 U.S.C. 300ff–14) isamended—

(1) by redesignating subsections (c)through (f) as subsections (d) through (g), re-spectively; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol-lowing:

‘‘(c) QUALITY MANAGEMENT.—‘‘(1) REQUIREMENT.—The chief elected offi-

cial of an eligible area that receives a grantunder this part shall provide for the estab-lishment of a quality management programto assess the extent to which medical serv-ices provided to patients under the grant areconsistent with the most recent PublicHealth Service guidelines for the treatmentof HIV disease and related opportunistic in-fection and to develop strategies for im-provements in the access to and quality ofmedical services.

‘‘(2) USE OF FUNDS.—From amounts re-ceived under a grant awarded under thispart, the chief elected official of an eligiblearea may use, for activities associated withits quality management program, not morethan the lesser of—

‘‘(A) 5 percent of amounts received underthe grant; or

‘‘(B) $3,000,000.’’.(b) QUALITY MANAGEMENT REQUIRED FOR

ELIGIBILITY FOR GRANTS.—Section 2605(a) (42U.S.C. 300ff–15(a)) is amended—

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through(6) as paragraphs (5) through (8), respec-tively; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol-lowing:

‘‘(3) that the chief elected official of the el-igible area will satisfy all requirementsunder section 2604(c);’’.SEC. 103. FUNDED ENTITIES REQUIRED TO HAVE

HEALTH CARE RELATIONSHIPS.(a) USE OF AMOUNTS.—Section 2604(e)(1) (42

U.S.C. 300ff–14(d)(1)) (as so redesignated bysection 102(a)) is amended by inserting ‘‘andthe State Children’s Health Insurance Pro-gram under title XXI of such Act’’ after ‘‘So-cial Security Act’’.

(b) APPLICATIONS.—Section 2605(a) (42U.S.C. 300ff–15(a)) is amended by insertingafter paragraph (3), as added by section102(b), the following:

‘‘(4) that funded entities within the eligiblearea that receive funds under a grant undersection 2601(a) shall maintain appropriate re-lationships with entities in the area servedthat constitute key points of access to thehealth care system for individuals with HIVdisease (including emergency rooms, sub-stance abuse treatment programs, detoxi-fication centers, adult and juvenile deten-tion facilities, sexually transmitted diseaseclinics, HIV counseling and testing sites, andhomeless shelters) and other entities undersection 2652(a) for the purpose of facilitatingearly intervention for individuals newly di-agnosed with HIV disease and individualsknowledgeable of their status but not incare;’’.SEC. 104. SUPPORT SERVICES REQUIRED TO BE

HEALTH CARE-RELATED.(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2604(b)(1) (42

U.S.C. 300ff–14(b)(1)) is amended—(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph

(A), by striking ‘‘HIV-related—’’ and insert-ing ‘‘HIV-related services, as follows:’’;

(2) in subparagraph (A)—(A) by striking ‘‘outpatient’’ and all that

follows through ‘‘substance abuse treatmentand’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘OUT-PATIENT HEALTH SERVICES.—Outpatient andambulatory health services, including sub-stance abuse treatment,’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘; and’’ and inserting a pe-riod;

(3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘(B) in-patient case management’’ and inserting‘‘(C) INPATIENT CASE MANAGEMENT SERV-ICES.—Inpatient case management’’; and

(4) by inserting after subparagraph (A) thefollowing:

‘‘(B) OUTPATIENT SUPPORT SERVICES.—Out-patient and ambulatory support services (in-cluding case management), to the extentthat such services facilitate, enhance, sup-port, or sustain the delivery, continuity, orbenefits of health services for individualsand families with HIV disease.’’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO APPLICA-TION REQUIREMENTS.—Section 2605(a) (42U.S.C. 300ff–15(a)), as amended by section102(b), is further amended—

(1) in paragraph (6) (as so redesignated), bystriking ‘‘and’’ at the end thereof;

(2) in paragraph (7) (as so redesignated), bystriking the period and inserting ‘‘; and’’;and

(3) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(8) that the eligible area has procedures

in place to ensure that services providedwith funds received under this part meet thecriteria specified in section 2604(b)(1).’’.

SEC. 105. USE OF GRANT FUNDS FOR EARLYINTERVENTION SERVICES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2604(b)(1) (42U.S.C. 300ff–14(b)(1)), as amended by section104(a), is further amended by adding at theend the following:

‘‘(D) EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.—Earlyintervention services as described in section2651(b)(2), with follow-through referral, pro-vided for the purpose of facilitating the ac-cess of individuals receiving the services toHIV-related health services, but only if theentity providing such services—

‘‘(i)(I) is receiving funds under subpara-graph (A) or (C); or

‘‘(II) is an entity constituting a point ofaccess to services, as described in paragraph(2)(C), that maintains a relationship with anentity described in subclause (I) and that isserving individuals at elevated risk of HIVdisease; and

‘‘(ii) demonstrates to the satisfaction ofthe chief elected official that no other Fed-eral, State, or local funds are available forthe early intervention services the entitywill provide with funds received under thisparagraph.’’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO APPLICA-TION REQUIREMENTS.—Section 2605(a)(1) (42U.S.C. 300ff–15(a)(1)) is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘serv-ices to individuals with HIV disease’’ and in-serting ‘‘services as described in section2604(b)(1)’’; and

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘serv-ices for individuals with HIV disease’’ and in-serting ‘‘services as described in section2604(b)(1)’’.

SEC. 106. REPLACEMENT OF SPECIFIED FISCALYEARS REGARDING THE SUNSET ONEXPEDITED DISTRIBUTION RE-QUIREMENTS.

Section 2603(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–13(a)(2)) isamended by striking ‘‘for each of the fiscalyears 1996 through 2000’’ and inserting ‘‘for afiscal year’’.

SEC. 107. HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION.

Section 2603(a)(4) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–13(a)(4)) isamended to read as follows:

‘‘(4) LIMITATIONS.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—With respect to each of

fiscal years 2001 through 2005, the Secretaryshall ensure that the amount of a grantmade to an eligible area under paragraph (2)for such a fiscal year is not less than anamount equal to 98 percent of the amountthe eligible area received for the fiscal yearpreceding the year for which the determina-tion is being made.

‘‘(B) APPLICATION OF PROVISION.—Subpara-graph (A) shall only apply with respect tothose eligible areas receiving a grant underparagraph (2) for fiscal year 2000 in anamount that has been adjusted in accordancewith paragraph (4) of this subsection (as ineffect on the day before the date of enact-ment of the Ryan White CARE Act Amend-ments of 2000).’’.

SEC. 108. SET-ASIDE FOR INFANTS, CHILDREN,AND WOMEN.

Section 2604(b)(3) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–14(b)(3)) isamended—

(1) by inserting ‘‘for each population underthis subsection’’ after ‘‘established prior-ities’’; and

(2) by striking ‘‘ratio of the’’ and inserting‘‘ratio of each’’.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8820 October 5, 2000Subtitle B—Amendments to Part B (Care

Grant Program)SEC. 121. STATE REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING

IDENTIFICATION OF NEED AND AL-LOCATION OF RESOURCES.

(a) GENERAL USE OF GRANTS.—Section 2612(42 U.S.C. 300ff–22) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘A State’’ and inserting‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A State’’; and

(2) in the matter following paragraph (5)—(A) by striking ‘‘paragraph (2)’’ and insert-

ing ‘‘subsection (a)(2) and section 2613’’;(b) APPLICATION.—Section 2617(b) (42 U.S.C.

300ff–27(b)) is amended—(1) in paragraph (1)(C)—(A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the

following:‘‘(i) the size and demographic characteris-

tics of the population with HIV disease to beserved, except that by not later than October1, 2002, the State shall take into account theneeds of individuals not in care, based on epi-demiologic measures developed by the Sec-retary in consultation with the State, af-fected communities, experts, and other ap-propriate individuals (such State shall not berequired to establish priorities for individ-uals not in care until such epidemiologicmeasures are developed);’’;

(B) in clause (iii), by striking ‘‘and’’ at theend; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(v) the availability of other governmental

and non-governmental resources;‘‘(vi) the capacity development needs re-

sulting in gaps in the provision of HIV serv-ices in historically underserved low-incomeand rural low-income communities; and

‘‘(vii) the efficiency of the administrativemechanism in rapidly allocating funds to theareas of greatest need within the State;’’;and

(2) in paragraph (2)—(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘and’’

at the end;(B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as

subparagraph (F); and(C) by inserting after subparagraph (B), the

following:‘‘(C) an assurance that capacity develop-

ment needs resulting from gaps in the provi-sion of services in underserved low-incomeand rural low-income communities will beaddressed; and

‘‘(D) with respect to fiscal year 2003 andsubsequent fiscal years, assurances that, inthe planning and allocation of resources, theState, through systems of HIV-relatedhealth services provided under paragraphs(1), (2), and (3) of section 2612(a), will makeappropriate provision for the HIV-relatedhealth and support service needs of individ-uals who have been diagnosed with HIV dis-ease but who are not currently receivingsuch services, based on the epidemiologicmeasures developed under paragraph(1)(C)(i);’’.SEC. 122. QUALITY MANAGEMENT.

(a) STATE REQUIREMENT FOR QUALITY MAN-AGEMENT.—Section 2617(b)(4) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–27(b)(4)) is amended—

(1) by striking subparagraph (C) and insert-ing the following:

‘‘(C) the State will provide for—‘‘(i) the establishment of a quality manage-

ment program to assess the extent to whichmedical services provided to patients underthe grant are consistent with the most re-cent Public Health Service guidelines for thetreatment of HIV disease and related oppor-tunistic infections and to develop strategiesfor improvements in the access to and qual-ity of medical services; and

‘‘(ii) a periodic review (such as through anindependent peer review) to assess the qual-ity and appropriateness of HIV-relatedhealth and support services provided by enti-

ties that receive funds from the State underthis part;’’;

(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and(F) as subparagraphs (F) and (G), respec-tively;

(3) by inserting after subparagraph (D), thefollowing:

‘‘(E) an assurance that the State, throughsystems of HIV-related health services pro-vided under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of sec-tion 2612(a), has considered strategies forworking with providers to make optimal useof financial assistance under the State med-icaid plan under title XIX of the Social Secu-rity Act, the State Children’s Health Insur-ance Program under title XXI of such Act,and other Federal grantees that provide HIV-related services, to maximize access to qual-ity HIV-related health and support services;

(4) in subparagraph (F), as so redesignated,by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; and

(5) in subparagraph (G), as so redesignated,by striking the period and inserting ‘‘; and’’.

(b) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR QUALITYMANAGEMENT.—

(1) AVAILABILITY OF GRANT FUNDS FOR PLAN-NING AND EVALUATION.—Section 2618(c)(3) (42U.S.C. 300ff–28(c)(3)) is amended by insertingbefore the period ‘‘, including not more than$3,000,000 for all activities associated with itsquality management program’’.

(2) EXCEPTION TO COMBINED CEILING ONPLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION FUNDS FORSTATES WITH SMALL GRANTS.—Paragraph (6)of section 2618(c) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–28(c)(6)) isamended to read as follows:

‘‘(6) EXCEPTION FOR QUALITY MANAGE-MENT.—Notwithstanding paragraph (5), aState whose grant under this part for a fiscalyear does not exceed $1,500,000 may use notto exceed 20 percent of the amount of thegrant for the purposes described in para-graphs (3) and (4) if—

‘‘(A) that portion of such amount in excessof 15 percent of the grant is used for its qual-ity management program; and

‘‘(B) the State submits and the Secretaryapproves a plan (in such form and containingsuch information as the Secretary may pre-scribe) for use of funds for its quality man-agement program.’’.SEC. 123. FUNDED ENTITIES REQUIRED TO HAVE

HEALTH CARE RELATIONSHIPS.Section 2617(b)(4) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–27(b)(4)),

as amended by section 122(a), is furtheramended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(H) that funded entities maintain appro-priate relationships with entities in the areaserved that constitute key points of accessto the health care system for individualswith HIV disease (including emergencyrooms, substance abuse treatment programs,detoxification centers, adult and juvenile de-tention facilities, sexually transmitted dis-ease clinics, HIV counseling and testingsites, and homeless shelters), and other enti-ties under section 2652(a), for the purpose offacilitating early intervention for individ-uals newly diagnosed with HIV disease andindividuals knowledgeable of their status butnot in care.’’.SEC. 124. SUPPORT SERVICES REQUIRED TO BE

HEALTH CARE-RELATED.(a) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section

3(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the Ryan White CARE ActAmendments of 1996 (Public Law 104–146) isamended by inserting ‘‘before paragraph (2)as so redesignated’’ after ‘‘inserting’’.

(b) SERVICES.—Section 2612(a)(1) (42 U.S.C.300ff–22(a)(1)), as so designated by section121(a), is amended by striking ‘‘for individ-uals with HIV disease’’ and inserting ‘‘, sub-ject to the conditions and limitations thatapply under such section’’.

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO STATE AP-PLICATION REQUIREMENT.—Section 2617(b)(2)(42 U.S.C. 300ff–27(b)(2)), as amended by sec-

tion 121(b), is further amended by adding atthe end the following:

‘‘(F) an assurance that the State has proce-dures in place to ensure that services pro-vided with funds received under this sectionmeet the criteria specified in section2604(b)(1)(B); and’’.SEC. 125. USE OF GRANT FUNDS FOR EARLY

INTERVENTION SERVICES.Section 2612(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–22(a)), as

amended by section 121, is further amendedby adding at the end the following:

‘‘(6) EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.—TheState, through systems of HIV-relatedhealth services provided under paragraphs(1), (2), and (3) of section 2612(a), may provideearly intervention services, as described insection 2651(b)(2), with follow-up referral,provided for the purpose of facilitating theaccess of individuals receiving the servicesto HIV-related health services, but only ifthe entity providing such services—

‘‘(A)(i) is receiving funds under section2612(a)(1); or

‘‘(ii) is an entity constituting a point of ac-cess to services, as described in section2617(b)(4), that maintains a referral relation-ship with an entity described in clause (i)and that is serving individuals at elevatedrisk of HIV disease; and

‘‘(B) demonstrates to the State’s satisfac-tion that no other Federal, State, or localfunds are available for the early interventionservices the entity will provide with fundsreceived under this paragraph.’’.SEC. 126. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

FOR HIV-RELATED SERVICES FORWOMEN AND CHILDREN.

Section 2625(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–33(c)(2)) isamended by striking ‘‘fiscal years 1996through 2000’’ and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 2001through 2005’’.SEC. 127. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR COM-

PLETED INSTITUTE OF MEDICINEREPORT.

Section 2628 (42 U.S.C. 300ff–36) is repealed.SEC. 128. SUPPLEMENT GRANTS FOR CERTAIN

STATES.Subpart I of part B of title XXVI of the

Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–11et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thefollowing:‘‘SEC. 2622. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS.

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shallaward supplemental grants to States deter-mined to be eligible under subsection (b) toenable such States to provide comprehensiveservices of the type described in section2612(a) to supplement the services otherwiseprovided by the State under a grant underthis subpart in areas within the State thatare not eligible to receive grants under partA.

‘‘(b) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible to receivea supplemental grant under subsection (a) aState shall—

‘‘(1) be eligible to receive a grant underthis subpart; and

‘‘(2) demonstrate to the Secretary thatthere is severe need (as defined for purposesof section 2603(b)(2)(A) for supplemental fi-nancial assistance in areas in the State thatare not served through grants under part A.

‘‘(c) APPLICATION.—A State that desires agrant under this section shall, as part of theState application submitted under section2617, submit a detailed description of themanner in which the State will use amountsreceived under the grant and of the severityof need. Such description shall include—

‘‘(1) a report concerning the disseminationof supplemental funds under this section andthe plan for the utilization of such funds;

‘‘(2) a demonstration of the existing com-mitment of local resources, both financialand in-kind;

‘‘(3) a demonstration that the State willmaintain HIV-related activities at a level


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8821October 5, 2000that is equal to not less than the level ofsuch activities in the State for the 1-year pe-riod preceding the fiscal year for which theState is applying to receive a grant underthis part;

‘‘(4) a demonstration of the ability of theState to utilize such supplemental financialresources in a manner that is immediatelyresponsive and cost effective;

‘‘(5) a demonstration that the resourceswill be allocated in accordance with thelocal demographic incidence of AIDS includ-ing appropriate allocations for services forinfants, children, women, and families withHIV disease;

‘‘(6) a demonstration of the inclusivenessof the planning process, with particular em-phasis on affected communities and individ-uals with HIV disease; and

‘‘(7) a demonstration of the manner inwhich the proposed services are consistentwith local needs assessments and the state-wide coordinated statement of need.

‘‘(d) AMOUNT RESERVED FOR EMERGING COM-MUNITIES.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For awarding grantsunder this section for each fiscal year, theSecretary shall reserve the greater of 50 per-cent of the amount to be utilized under sub-section (e) for such fiscal year or $5,000,000,to be provided to States that contain emerg-ing communities for use in such commu-nities.

‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—In paragraph (1), theterm ‘emerging community’ means a metro-politan area—

‘‘(A) that is not eligible for a grant underpart A; and

‘‘(B) for which there has been reported tothe Director of the Centers for Disease Con-trol and Prevention a cumulative total of be-tween 1000 and 1999 cases of acquired immunedeficiency syndrome for the most recent pe-riod of 5 calendar years for which such dataare available.

‘‘(e) APPROPRIATIONS.—With respect toeach fiscal year beginning with fiscal year2001, the Secretary, to carry out this section,shall utilize 50 percent of the amount appro-priated under section 2677 to carry out partB for such fiscal year that is in excess of theamount appropriated to carry out such partin fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in-volved.SEC. 129. USE OF TREATMENT FUNDS.

(a) STATE DUTIES.—Section 2616(c) (42U.S.C. 300ff–26(c)) is amended—

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1),by striking ‘‘shall—’’ and inserting ‘‘shalluse funds made available under this sectionto—’’;

(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through(5) as subparagraphs (A) through (E), respec-tively and realigning the margins of suchsubparagraphs appropriately;

(3) in subparagraph (D) (as so redesig-nated), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;

(4) in subparagraph (E) (as so redesig-nated), by striking the period and ‘‘; and’’;and

(5) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(F) encourage, support, and enhance ad-

herence to and compliance with treatmentregimens, including related medical moni-toring.’’;

(6) by striking ‘‘In carrying’’ and insertingthe following:

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying’’; and(7) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(2) LIMITATIONS.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—No State shall use funds

under paragraph (1)(F) unless the limitationson access to HIV/AIDS therapeutic regimensas defined in subsection (e)(2) are eliminated.

‘‘(B) AMOUNT OF FUNDING.—No State shalluse in excess of 10 percent of the amount set-aside for use under this section in any fiscal

year to carry out activities under paragraph(1)(F) unless the State demonstrates to theSecretary that such additional services areessential and in no way diminish access totherapeutics.’’.

(b) SUPPLEMENT GRANTS.—Section 2616 (42U.S.C. 300ff–26(c)) is amended by adding atthe end the following:

‘‘(e) SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR THE PROVI-SION OF TREATMENTS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—From amounts madeavailable under paragraph (5), the Secretaryshall award supplemental grants to Statesdetermined to be eligible under paragraph (2)to enable such States to provide access totherapeutics to treat HIV disease as providedby the State under subsection (c)(1)(B) for in-dividuals at or below 200 percent of the Fed-eral poverty line.

‘‘(2) CRITERIA.—The Secretary shall de-velop criteria for the awarding of grantsunder paragraph (1) to States that dem-onstrate a severe need. In determining thecriteria for demonstrating State severity ofneed (as defined for purposes of section2603(b)(2)(A)), the Secretary shall considerwhether limitation to access exist suchthat—

‘‘(A) the State programs under this sectionare unable to provide HIV/AIDS therapeuticregimens to all eligible individuals living ator below 200 percent of the Federal povertyline; and

‘‘(B) the State programs under this sectionare unable to provide to all eligible individ-uals appropriate HIV/AIDS therapeutic regi-mens as recommended in the most recentFederal treatment guidelines.

‘‘(3) STATE REQUIREMENT.—The Secretarymay not make a grant to a State under thissubsection unless the State agrees that—

‘‘(A) the State will make available (di-rectly or through donations from public orprivate entities) non-Federal contributionstoward the activities to be carried out underthe grant in an amount equal to $1 for each$4 of Federal funds provided in the grant; and

‘‘(B) the State will not impose eligibilityrequirements for services or scope of benefitslimitations under subsection (a) that aremore restrictive than such requirements ineffect as of January 1, 2000.

‘‘(4) USE AND COORDINATION.—Amountsmade available under a grant under this sub-section shall only be used by the State toprovide AIDS/HIV-related medications. TheState shall coordinate the use of suchamounts with the amounts otherwise pro-vided under this section in order to maxi-mize drug coverage.

‘‘(5) FUNDING.—‘‘(A) RESERVATION OF AMOUNT.—The Sec-

retary may reserve not to exceed 4 percent,but not less than 2 percent, of any amountreferred to in section 2618(b)(2)(H) that is ap-propriated for a fiscal year, to carry out thissubsection.

‘‘(B) MINIMUM AMOUNT.—In providinggrants under this subsection, the Secretaryshall ensure that the amount of a grant to aState under this part is not less than theamount the State received under this part inthe previous fiscal year, as a result of grantsprovided under this subsection.’’.

(c) SUPPLEMENT AND NOT SUPPLANT.—Sec-tion 2616 (42 U.S.C. 300ff–26(c)), as amendedby subsection (b), is further amended by add-ing at the end the following:

‘‘(f) SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.—Notwith-standing any other provision of law,amounts made available under this sectionshall be used to supplement and not supplantother funding available to provide treat-ments of the type that may be providedunder this section.’’.SEC. 130. INCREASE IN MINIMUM ALLOTMENT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2618(b)(1)(A)(i) (42U.S.C. 300ff–28(b)(1)(A)(i)) is amended—

(1) in subclause (I), by striking ‘‘$100,000’’and inserting ‘‘$200,000’’; and

(2) in subclause (II), by striking ‘‘$250,000’’and inserting ‘‘$500,000’’.

(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section2618(b)(3)(B) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–28(b)(3)(B)) isamended by striking ‘‘and the Republic ofthe Marshall Islands’’ and inserting ‘‘, theRepublic of the Marshall Islands, the Fed-erated States of Micronesia, and the Repub-lic of Palau’’.SEC. 131. SET-ASIDE FOR INFANTS, CHILDREN,

AND WOMEN.Section 2611(b) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–21(b)) is

amended—(1) by inserting ‘‘for each population under

this subsection’’ after ‘‘State shall use’’; and(2) by striking ‘‘ratio of the’’ and inserting

‘‘ratio of each’’.

Subtitle C—Amendments to Part C (EarlyIntervention Services)

SEC. 141. AMENDMENT OF HEADING; REPEAL OFFORMULA GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) AMENDMENT OF HEADING.—The headingof part C of title XXVI is amended to read asfollows:

‘‘PART C—EARLY INTERVENTION AND PRIMARYCARE SERVICES’’.

(b) REPEAL.—Part C of title XXVI (42U.S.C. 300ff–41 et seq.) is amended—

(1) by repealing subpart I; and(2) by redesignating subparts II and III as

subparts I and II.(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) INFORMATION REGARDING RECEIPT OF

SERVICES.—Section 2661(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–61(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘unless—’’ andall that follows through ‘‘(2) in the case of’’and inserting ‘‘unless, in the case of’’.

(2) ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS.—Section 2664(42 U.S.C. 300ff–64) is amended—

(A) in subsection (e)(5), by striking ‘‘2642(b)or’’;

(B) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ‘‘2642(b)or’’; and

(C) by striking subsection (h).SEC. 142. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

GRANTS.(a) ALLOWING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

GRANT TO EXPAND ABILITY TO PROVIDE PRI-MARY CARE SERVICES.—Section 2654(c) (42U.S.C. 300ff–54(c)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), to read as follows:‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may pro-

vide planning and development grants topublic and nonprofit private entities for thepurpose of—

‘‘(A) enabling such entities to provide HIVearly intervention services; or

‘‘(B) assisting such entities to expand thecapacity, preparedness, and expertise to de-liver primary care services to individualswith HIV disease in underserved low-incomecommunities on the condition that the fundsare not used to purchase or improve land orto purchase, construct, or permanently im-prove (other than minor remodeling) anybuilding or other facility.’’; and

(2) in paragraphs (2) and (3) by striking‘‘paragraph (1)’’ each place that such appearsand inserting ‘‘paragraph (1)(A)’’.

(b) AMOUNT; DURATION.—Section 2654(c) (42U.S.C. 300ff–54(c)), as amended by subsection(a), is further amended—

(1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as para-graph (5); and


‘‘(4) AMOUNT AND DURATION OF GRANTS.—‘‘(A) EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.—A

grant under paragraph (1)(A) may be made inan amount not to exceed $50,000.

‘‘(B) CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT.—‘‘(i) AMOUNT.—A grant under paragraph

(1)(B) may be made in an amount not to ex-ceed $150,000.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8822 October 5, 2000‘‘(ii) DURATION.—The total duration of a

grant under paragraph (1)(B), including anyrenewal, may not exceed 3 years.’’.

(c) INCREASE IN LIMITATION.—Section2654(c)(5) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–54(c)(5)), as so redes-ignated by subsection (b), is amended bystriking ‘‘1 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘5 per-cent’’.SEC. 143. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

FOR CATEGORICAL GRANTS.Section 2655 (42 U.S.C. 300ff–55) is amended

by striking ‘‘1996’’ and all that followsthrough ‘‘2000’’ and inserting ‘‘2001 through2005’’.SEC. 144. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CEILING;

QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.Section 2664(g) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–64(g)) is

amended—(1) in paragraph (3), to read as follows:‘‘(3) the applicant will not expend more

than 10 percent of the grant for costs of ad-ministrative activities with respect to thegrant;’’;

(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the periodand inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(5) the applicant will provide for the es-

tablishment of a quality management pro-gram to assess the extent to which medicalservices funded under this title that are pro-vided to patients are consistent with themost recent Public Health Service guidelinesfor the treatment of HIV disease and relatedopportunistic infections and that improve-ments in the access to and quality of medicalservices are addressed.’’.SEC. 145. PREFERENCE FOR CERTAIN AREAS.

Section 2651 (42 U.S.C. 300ff–51) is amendedby adding at the end the following:

‘‘(d) PREFERENCE IN AWARDING GRANTS.—Beginning in fiscal year 2001, in awardingnew grants under this section, the Secretaryshall give preference to applicants that willuse amounts received under the grant toserve areas that are otherwise not eligible toreceive assistance under part A.’’.Subtitle D—Amendments to Part D (General

Provisions)SEC. 151. RESEARCH INVOLVING WOMEN, IN-

FANTS, CHILDREN, AND YOUTH.(a) ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENT TO EN-

ROLL SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF WOMEN ANDCHILDREN.—Section 2671(b) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–71(b)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking subpara-graphs (C) and (D); and

(2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4).(b) INFORMATION AND EDUCATION.—Section

2671(d) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–71(d)) is amended byadding at the end the following:

‘‘(4) The applicant will provide individualswith information and education on opportu-nities to participate in HIV/AIDS-relatedclinical research.’’.

(c) QUALITY MANAGEMENT; ADMINISTRATIVEEXPENSES CEILING.—Section 2671(f) (42 U.S.C.300ff–71(f)) is amended—

(1) by striking the subsection heading anddesignation and inserting the following:

‘‘(f) ADMINISTRATION.—‘‘(1) APPLICATION.—’’; and(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(2) QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.—A

grantee under this section shall implement aquality management program.’’.

(d) COORDINATION.—Section 2671(g) (42U.S.C. 300ff–71(g)) is amended by adding atthe end the following: ‘‘The Secretary actingthrough the Director of NIH, shall examinethe distribution and availability of ongoingand appropriate HIV/AIDS-related researchprojects to existing sites under this sectionfor purposes of enhancing and expanding vol-untary access to HIV-related research, espe-cially within communities that are not rea-sonably served by such projects.’’.

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 2671(j) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–71(j)) is

amended by striking ‘‘fiscal years 1996through 2000’’ and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 2001through 2005’’.SEC. 152. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EX-

PENSES.Section 2671 (42 U.S.C. 300ff–71) is amend-

ed—(1) by redesignating subsections (i) and (j),

as subsections (j) and (k), respectively; and(2) by inserting after subsection (h), the

following:‘‘(i) LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EX-

PENSES.—‘‘(1) DETERMINATION BY SECRETARY.—Not

later than 12 months after the date of enact-ment of the Ryan White Care Act Amend-ments of 2000, the Secretary, in consultationwith grantees under this part, shall conducta review of the administrative, program sup-port, and direct service-related activitiesthat are carried out under this part to ensurethat eligible individuals have access to qual-ity, HIV-related health and support servicesand research opportunities under this part,and to support the provision of such services.

‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days

after the expiration of the 12-month periodreferred to in paragraph (1) the Secretary, inconsultation with grantees under this part,shall determine the relationship between thecosts of the activities referred to in para-graph (1) and the access of eligible individ-uals to the services and research opportuni-ties described in such paragraph.

‘‘(B) LIMITATION.—After a final determina-tion under subparagraph (A), the Secretarymay not make a grant under this part unlessthe grantee complies with such requirementsas may be included in such determination.’’.SEC. 153. EVALUATIONS AND REPORTS.

Section 2674(c) (42 U.S.C. 399ff–74(c)) isamended by striking ‘‘1991 through 1995’’ andinserting ‘‘2001 through 2005’’.SEC. 154. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

FOR GRANTS UNDER PARTS A AND B.Section 2677 (42 U.S.C. 300ff–77) is amended

to read as follows:‘‘SEC. 2677. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA-

TIONS.‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated—‘‘(1) such sums as may be necessary to

carry out part A for each of the fiscal years2001 through 2005; and

‘‘(2) such sums as may be necessary tocarry out part B for each of the fiscal years2001 through 2005.’’.

Subtitle E—Amendments to Part F(Demonstration and Training)

SEC. 161. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.(a) SCHOOLS; CENTERS.—Section 2692(c)(1)

(42 U.S.C. 300ff–111(c)(1)) is amended by strik-ing ‘‘fiscal years 1996 through 2000’’ and in-serting ‘‘fiscal years 2001 through 2005’’.

(b) DENTAL SCHOOLS.—Section 2692(c)(2) (42U.S.C. 300ff–111(c)(2)) is amended by striking‘‘fiscal years 1996 through 2000’’ and inserting‘‘fiscal years 2001 through 2005’’.

TITLE II—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONSSEC. 201. INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE STUDY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 120 daysafter the date of enactment of this Act, theSecretary of Health and Human Servicesshall enter into a contract with the Instituteof Medicine for the conduct of a study con-cerning the appropriate epidemiologicalmeasures and their relationship to the fi-nancing and delivery of primary care andhealth-related support services for low-in-come, uninsured, and under-insured individ-uals with HIV disease.

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—(1) COMPLETION.—The study under sub-

section (a) shall be completed not later than21 months after the date on which the con-tract referred to in such subsection is en-tered into.

(2) ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED.—The studyconducted under subsection (a) shall con-sider—

(A) the availability and utility of healthoutcomes measures and data for HIV pri-mary care and support services and the ex-tent to which those measures and data couldbe used to measure the quality of such fund-ed services;

(B) the effectiveness and efficiency of serv-ice delivery (including the quality of serv-ices, health outcomes, and resource use)within the context of a changing health careand therapeutic environment as well as thechanging epidemiology of the epidemic;

(C) existing and needed epidemiologicaldata and other analytic tools for resourceplanning and allocation decisions, specifi-cally for estimating severity of need of acommunity and the relationship to the allo-cations process; and

(D) other factors determined to be relevantto assessing an individual’s or community’sability to gain and sustain access to qualityHIV services.

(c) REPORT.—Not later than 90 days afterthe date on which the study is completedunder subsection (a), the Secretary of Healthand Human Services shall prepare and sub-mit to the appropriate committees of Con-gress a report describing the manner inwhich the conclusions and recommendationsof the Institute of Medicine can be addressedand implemented.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-ant to House Resolution 611, theamendment in the nature of a sub-stitute printed in the CONGRESSIONALRECORD and numbered 1 is consideredadopted.

The text of S. 2311, as amended pur-suant to House Resolution 611, is as fol-lows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and in-sert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ryan White

CARE Act Amendments of 2000’’.SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents for this Act is as fol-lows:

TITLE I—EMERGENCY RELIEF FORAREAS WITH SUBSTANTIAL NEED FORSERVICESSubtitle A—HIV Health Services Planning

CouncilsSec. 101. Membership of councils.Sec. 102. Duties of councils.Sec. 103. Open meetings; other additional

provisions.Subtitle B—Type and Distribution of GrantsSec. 111. Formula grants.Sec. 112. Supplemental grants.

Subtitle C—Other ProvisionsSec. 121. Use of amounts.Sec. 122. Application.

TITLE II—CARE GRANT PROGRAMSubtitle A—General Grant Provisions

Sec. 201. Priority for women, infants, andchildren.

Sec. 202. Use of grants.Sec. 203. Grants to establish HIV care con-

sortia.Sec. 204. Provision of treatments.Sec. 205. State application.Sec. 206. Distribution of funds.Sec. 207. Supplemental grants for certain

States.Subtitle B—Provisions Concerning Preg-

nancy and Perinatal Transmission of HIVSec. 211. Repeals.Sec. 212. Grants.Sec. 213. Study by Institute of Medicine.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8823October 5, 2000Subtitle C—Certain Partner Notification

ProgramsSec. 221. Grants for compliant partner noti-

fication programs.TITLE III—EARLY INTERVENTION

SERVICESSubtitle A—Formula Grants for States

Sec. 301. Repeal of program.Subtitle B—Categorical Grants

Sec. 311. Preferences in making grants.Sec. 312. Planning and development grants.Sec. 313. Authorization of appropriations.

Subtitle C—General ProvisionsSec. 321. Provision of certain counseling

services.Sec. 322. Additional required agreements.

TITLE IV—OTHER PROGRAMS ANDACTIVITIES

Subtitle A—Certain Programs for Research,Demonstrations, or Training

Sec. 401. Grants for coordinated services andaccess to research for women,infants, children, and youth.

Sec. 402. AIDS education and training cen-ters.

Subtitle B—General Provisions in TitleXXVI

Sec. 411. Evaluations and reports.Sec. 412. Data collection through Centers for

Disease Control and Preven-tion.

Sec. 413. Coordination.Sec. 414. Plan regarding release of prisoners

with HIV disease.Sec. 415. Audits.Sec. 416. Administrative simplification.Sec. 417. Authorization of appropriations for

parts A and B.TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Studies by Institute of Medicine.Sec. 502. Development of rapid HIV test.Sec. 503. Technical corrections.

TITLE VI—EFFECTIVE DATESec. 601. Effective date.TITLE I—EMERGENCY RELIEF FOR AREASWITH SUBSTANTIAL NEED FOR SERVICES

Subtitle A—HIV Health Services PlanningCouncils

SEC. 101. MEMBERSHIP OF COUNCILS.(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2602(b) of the

Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–12(b)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘demo-graphics of the epidemic in the eligible areainvolved,’’ and inserting ‘‘demographics ofthe population of individuals with HIV dis-ease in the eligible area involved,’’; and

(2) in paragraph (2)—(A) in subparagraph (C), by inserting before

the semicolon the following: ‘‘, includingproviders of housing and homeless services’’;

(B) in subparagraph (G), by striking ‘‘orAIDS’’;

(C) in subparagraph (K), by striking ‘‘and’’at the end;

(D) in subparagraph (L), by striking the pe-riod and inserting the following: ‘‘, includingbut not limited to providers of HIV preven-tion services; and’’; and

(E) by adding at the end the following sub-paragraph:

‘‘(M) representatives of individuals whoformerly were Federal, State, or local pris-oners, were released from the custody of thepenal system during the preceding 3 years,and had HIV disease as of the date on whichthe individuals were so released.’’.

(b) CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS.—Section2602(b)(5) of the Public Health Service Act (42U.S.C. 300ff–12(b)(5)) is amended by adding atthe end the following subparagraph:

‘‘(C) COMPOSITION OF COUNCIL.—The fol-lowing applies regarding the membership ofa planning council under paragraph (1):

‘‘(i) Not less than 33 percent of the councilshall be individuals who are receiving HIV-related services pursuant to a grant undersection 2601(a), are not officers, employees,or consultants to any entity that receivesamounts from such a grant, and do not rep-resent any such entity, and reflect the demo-graphics of the population of individualswith HIV disease as determined under para-graph (4)(A). For purposes of the precedingsentence, an individual shall be consideredto be receiving such services if the individualis a parent of, or a caregiver for, a minorchild who is receiving such services.

‘‘(ii) With respect to membership on theplanning council, clause (i) may not be con-strued as having any effect on entities thatreceive funds from grants under any of partsB through F but do not receive funds fromgrants under section 2601(a), on officers oremployees of such entities, or on individualswho represent such entities.’’.SEC. 102. DUTIES OF COUNCILS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2602(b)(4) of thePublic Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–12(b)(4)) is amended—

(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A)through (E) as subparagraphs (C) through(G), respectively;

(2) by inserting before subparagraph (C) (asso redesignated) the following subpara-graphs:

‘‘(A) determine the size and demographicsof the population of individuals with HIVdisease;

‘‘(B) determine the needs of such popu-lation, with particular attention to—

‘‘(i) individuals with HIV disease who knowtheir HIV status and are not receiving HIV-related services; and

‘‘(ii) disparities in access and servicesamong affected subpopulations and histori-cally underserved communities;’’;

(3) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesig-nated), by striking clauses (i) through (iv)and inserting the following:

‘‘(i) size and demographics of the popu-lation of individuals with HIV disease (as de-termined under subparagraph (A)) and theneeds of such population (as determinedunder subparagraph (B));

‘‘(ii) demonstrated (or probable) cost effec-tiveness and outcome effectiveness of pro-posed strategies and interventions, to the ex-tent that data are reasonably available;

‘‘(iii) priorities of the communities withHIV disease for whom the services are in-tended;

‘‘(iv) coordination in the provision of serv-ices to such individuals with programs forHIV prevention and for the prevention andtreatment of substance abuse, including pro-grams that provide comprehensive treat-ment for such abuse;

‘‘(v) availability of other governmentaland non-governmental resources, includingthe State medicaid plan under title XIX ofthe Social Security Act and the State Chil-dren’s Health Insurance Program under titleXXI of such Act to cover health care costs ofeligible individuals and families with HIVdisease; and

‘‘(vi) capacity development needs resultingfrom disparities in the availability of HIV-related services in historically underservedcommunities;’’;

(4) in subparagraph (D) (as so redesig-nated), by amending the subparagraph toread as follows:

‘‘(D) develop a comprehensive plan for theorganization and delivery of health and sup-port services described in section 2604 that—

‘‘(i) includes a strategy for identifying in-dividuals who know their HIV status and arenot receiving such services and for informingthe individuals of and enabling the individ-uals to utilize the services, giving particular

attention to eliminating disparities in accessand services among affected subpopulationsand historically underserved communities,and including discrete goals, a timetable,and an appropriate allocation of funds;

‘‘(ii) includes a strategy to coordinate theprovision of such services with programs forHIV prevention (including outreach andearly intervention) and for the preventionand treatment of substance abuse (includingprograms that provide comprehensive treat-ment services for such abuse); and

‘‘(iii) is compatible with any State or localplan for the provision of services to individ-uals with HIV disease;’’;

(5) in subparagraph (F) (as so redesig-nated), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;

(6) in subparagraph (G) (as so redesig-nated)—

(A) by striking ‘‘public meetings,’’ and in-serting ‘‘public meetings (in accordance withparagraph (7)),’’; and

(B) by striking the period and inserting ‘‘;and’’; and

(7) by adding at the end the following sub-paragraph:

‘‘(H) coordinate with Federal grantees thatprovide HIV-related services within the eligi-ble area.’’.

(b) PROCESS FOR ESTABLISHING ALLOCATIONPRIORITIES.—Section 2602 of the PublicHealth Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–12) isamended by adding at the end the followingsubsection:

‘‘(d) PROCESS FOR ESTABLISHING ALLOCA-TION PRIORITIES.—Promptly after the date ofthe submission of the report required in sec-tion 501(b) of the Ryan White CARE ActAmendments of 2000 (relating to the rela-tionship between epidemiological measuresand health care for certain individuals withHIV disease), the Secretary, in consultationwith planning councils and entities that re-ceive amounts from grants under section2601(a) or 2611, shall develop epidemiologicmeasures—

‘‘(1) for establishing the number of individ-uals living with HIV disease who are not re-ceiving HIV-related health services; and

‘‘(2) for carrying out the duties under sub-section (b)(4) and section 2617(b).’’.

(c) TRAINING.—Section 2602 of the PublicHealth Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–12), asamended by subsection (b) of this section, isamended by adding at the end the followingsubsection:

‘‘(e) TRAINING GUIDANCE AND MATERIALS.—The Secretary shall provide to each chiefelected official receiving a grant under2601(a) guidelines and materials for trainingmembers of the planning council under para-graph (1) regarding the duties of the coun-cil.’’.

(d) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section2603(c) of the Public Health Service Act (42U.S.C. 300ff–12(b)) is amended by striking‘‘section 2602(b)(3)(A)’’ and inserting ‘‘section2602(b)(4)(C)’’.SEC. 103. OPEN MEETINGS; OTHER ADDITIONAL

PROVISIONS.Section 2602(b) of the Public Health Serv-

ice Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–12(b)) is amended—(1) in paragraph (3), by striking subpara-

graph (C); and(2) by adding at the end the following para-

graph:‘‘(7) PUBLIC DELIBERATIONS.—With respect

to a planning council under paragraph (1),the following applies:

‘‘(A) The council may not be chaired solelyby an employee of the grantee under section2601(a).

‘‘(B) In accordance with criteria estab-lished by the Secretary:

‘‘(i) The meetings of the council shall beopen to the public and shall be held onlyafter adequate notice to the public.

‘‘(ii) The records, reports, transcripts, min-utes, agenda, or other documents which were


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8824 October 5, 2000made available to or prepared for or by thecouncil shall be available for public inspec-tion and copying at a single location.

‘‘(iii) Detailed minutes of each meeting ofthe council shall be kept. The accuracy of allminutes shall be certified to by the chair ofthe council.

‘‘(iv) This subparagraph does not apply toany disclosure of information of a personalnature that would constitute a clearly un-warranted invasion of personal privacy, in-cluding any disclosure of medical informa-tion or personnel matters.’’.Subtitle B—Type and Distribution of Grants

SEC. 111. FORMULA GRANTS.(a) EXPEDITED DISTRIBUTION.—Section

2603(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42U.S.C. 300ff–13(a)(2)) is amended in the firstsentence by striking ‘‘for each of the fiscalyears 1996 through 2000’’ and inserting ‘‘for afiscal year’’.

(b) AMOUNT OF GRANT; ESTIMATE OF LIVINGCASES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 2603(a)(3)) of thePublic Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–13(a)(3)) is amended—

(A) in subparagraph (C)(i), by inserting be-fore the semicolon the following: ‘‘, exceptthat (subject to subparagraph (D)), for grantsmade pursuant to this paragraph for fiscalyear 2005 and subsequent fiscal years, thecases counted for each 12-month period be-ginning on or after July 1, 2004, shall be casesof HIV disease (as reported to and confirmedby such Director) rather than cases of ac-quired immune deficiency syndrome’’; and

(B) in subparagraph (C), in the matter afterand below clause (ii)(X)—

(i) in the first sentence, by inserting beforethe period the following: ‘‘, and shall be re-ported to the congressional committees ofjurisdiction’’; and

(ii) by adding at the end the following sen-tence: ‘‘Updates shall as applicable take intoaccount the counting of cases of HIV diseasepursuant to clause (i).’’.

(2) DETERMINATION OF SECRETARY REGARD-ING DATA ON HIV CASES.—Section 2603(a)(3)) ofthe Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.300ff–13(a)(3)) is amended—

(A) by redesignating subparagraph (D) assubparagraph (E); and

(B) by inserting after subparagraph (C) thefollowing subparagraph:

‘‘(D) DETERMINATION OF SECRETARY RE-GARDING DATA ON HIV CASES.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than July 1,2004, the Secretary shall determine whetherthere is data on cases of HIV disease from alleligible areas (reported to and confirmed bythe Director of the Centers for Disease Con-trol and Prevention) sufficiently accurateand reliable for use for purposes of subpara-graph (C)(i). In making such a determina-tion, the Secretary shall take into consider-ation the findings of the study under section501(b) of the Ryan White CARE Act Amend-ments of 2000 (relating to the relationshipbetween epidemiological measures andhealth care for certain individuals with HIVdisease).

‘‘(ii) EFFECT OF ADVERSE DETERMINATION.—If under clause (i) the Secretary determinesthat data on cases of HIV disease is not suffi-ciently accurate and reliable for use for pur-poses of subparagraph (C)(i), then notwith-standing such subparagraph, for any fiscalyear prior to fiscal year 2007 the referencesin such subparagraph to cases of HIV diseasedo not have any legal effect.

‘‘(iii) GRANTS AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCEREGARDING COUNTING OF HIV CASES.—Of theamounts appropriated under section 318B fora fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserveamounts to make grants and provide tech-nical assistance to States and eligible areaswith respect to obtaining data on cases of

HIV disease to ensure that data on suchcases is available from all States and eligibleareas as soon as is practicable but not laterthan the beginning of fiscal year 2007.’’.

(c) INCREASES IN GRANT.—Section2603(a)(4)) of the Public Health Service Act(42 U.S.C. 300ff–13(a)(4)) is amended to read asfollows:

‘‘(4) INCREASES IN GRANT.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For each fiscal year in a

protection period for an eligible area, theSecretary shall increase the amount of thegrant made pursuant to paragraph (2) for thearea to ensure that—

‘‘(i) for the first fiscal year in the protec-tion period, the grant is not less than 98 per-cent of the amount of the grant made for theeligible area pursuant to such paragraph forthe base year for the protection period;

‘‘(ii) for any second fiscal year in such pe-riod, the grant is not less than 95 percent ofthe amount of such base year grant;

‘‘(iii) for any third fiscal year in such pe-riod, the grant is not less than 92 percent ofthe amount of the base year grant;

‘‘(iv) for any fourth fiscal year in such pe-riod, the grant is not less than 89 percent ofthe amount of the base year grant; and

‘‘(v) for any fifth or subsequent fiscal yearin such period, if, pursuant to paragraph(3)(D)(ii)), the references in paragraph(3)(C)(i) to HIV disease do not have any legaleffect, the grant is not less than 85 percent ofthe amount of the base year grant.

‘‘(B) SPECIAL RULE.—If for fiscal year 2005,pursuant to paragraph (3)(D)(ii), data oncases of HIV disease are used for purposes ofparagraph (3)(C)(i), the Secretary shall in-crease the amount of a grant made pursuantto paragraph (2) for an eligible area to ensurethat the grant is not less than 98 percent ofthe amount of the grant made for the area infiscal year 2004.

‘‘(C) BASE YEAR; PROTECTION PERIOD.—Withrespect to grants made pursuant to para-graph (2) for an eligible area:

‘‘(i) The base year for a protection period isthe fiscal year preceding the trigger grant-reduction year.

‘‘(ii) The first trigger grant-reduction yearis the first fiscal year (after fiscal year 2000)for which the grant for the area is less thanthe grant for the area for the preceding fiscalyear.

‘‘(iii) A protection period begins with thetrigger grant-reduction year and continuesuntil the beginning of the first fiscal year forwhich the amount of the grant determinedpursuant to paragraph (2) for the area equalsor exceeds the amount of the grant deter-mined under subparagraph (A).

‘‘(iv) Any subsequent trigger grant-reduc-tion year is the first fiscal year, after theend of the preceding protection period, forwhich the amount of the grant is less thanthe amount of the grant for the precedingfiscal year.’’.SEC. 112. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2603(b)(2) of thePublic Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–13(b)(2)) is amended—

(1) in the heading for the paragraph, bystriking ‘‘DEFINITION’’ and inserting‘‘AMOUNT OF GRANT’’;

(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A)through (C) as subparagraphs (B) through(D), respectively;

(3) by inserting before subparagraph (B) (asso redesignated) the following subparagraph:

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The amount of eachgrant made for purposes of this subsectionshall be determined by the Secretary basedon a weighting of factors under paragraph(1), with severe need under subparagraph (B)of such paragraph counting one-third.’’;

(4) in subparagraph (B) (as so redesig-nated)—

(A) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘and’’ at theend;

(B) in clause (iii), by striking the periodand inserting a semicolon; and

(C) by adding at the end the followingclauses:

‘‘(iv) the current prevalence of HIV disease;‘‘(v) an increasing need for HIV-related

services, including relative rates of increasein the number of cases of HIV disease; and

‘‘(vi) unmet need for such services, as de-termined under section 2602(b)(4).’’;

(5) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesig-nated)—

(A) by striking ‘‘subparagraph (A)’’ eachplace such term appears and inserting ‘‘sub-paragraph (B)’’;

(B) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘2years after the date of enactment of thisparagraph’’ and inserting ‘‘18 months afterthe date of the enactment of the Ryan WhiteCARE Act Amendments of 2000’’; and

(C) by inserting after the second sentencethe following sentence: ‘‘Such a mechanismshall be modified to reflect the findings ofthe study under section 501(b) of the RyanWhite CARE Act Amendments of 2000 (relat-ing to the relationship between epidemiolog-ical measures and health care for certain in-dividuals with HIV disease).’’; and

(6) in subparagraph (D) (as so redesig-nated), by striking ‘‘subparagraph (B)’’ andinserting ‘‘subparagraph (C)’’.

(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATION.—Sec-tion 2603(b)(1)(E) of the Public Health Serv-ice Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–13(b)(1)(E)) is amend-ed by inserting ‘‘youth,’’ after ‘‘children,’’.

(c) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMEND-MENT.—Section 2603(b) of the Public HealthService Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–13(b)) is amend-ed—

(1) by striking paragraph (4);(2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as para-

graph (4); and(3) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated), in

subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘grants’’ andinserting ‘‘grant’’.

Subtitle C—Other ProvisionsSEC. 121. USE OF AMOUNTS.

(a) PRIMARY PURPOSES.—Section 2604(b)(1)of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.300ff–14(b)(1)) is amended—

(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph(A), by striking ‘‘HIV-related—’’ and insert-ing ‘‘HIV-related services, as follows:’’;

(2) in subparagraph (A)—(A) by striking ‘‘outpatient’’ and all that

follows through ‘‘substance abuse treatmentand’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘Out-patient and ambulatory health services, in-cluding substance abuse treatment,’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘; and’’ and inserting a pe-riod;

(3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘(B) in-patient case management’’ and inserting‘‘(C) Inpatient case management’’;

(4) by inserting after subparagraph (A) thefollowing subparagraph:

‘‘(B) Outpatient and ambulatory supportservices (including case management), to theextent that such services facilitate, enhance,support, or sustain the delivery, continuity,or benefits of health services for individualsand families with HIV disease.’’; and

(5) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(D) Outreach activities that are intended

to identify individuals with HIV disease whoknow their HIV status and are not receivingHIV-related services, and that are—

‘‘(i) necessary to implement the strategyunder section 2602(b)(4)(D), including activi-ties facilitating the access of such individ-uals to HIV-related primary care services atentities described in paragraph (3)(A);

‘‘(ii) conducted in a manner consistentwith the requirements under sections2605(a)(3) and 2651(b)(2); and


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8825October 5, 2000‘‘(iii) supplement, and do not supplant,

such activities that are carried out withamounts appropriated under section 317.’’.

(b) EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.—Sec-tion 2604(b) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–14(b)) of the Pub-lic Health Service Act is amended—



‘‘(3) EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The purposes for which

a grant under section 2601 may be used in-clude providing to individuals with HIV dis-ease early intervention services described insection 2651(b)(2), with follow-up referral pro-vided for the purpose of facilitating the ac-cess of individuals receiving the services toHIV-related health services. The entitiesthrough which such services may be providedunder the grant include public health depart-ments, emergency rooms, substance abuseand mental health treatment programs, de-toxification centers, detention facilities,clinics regarding sexually transmitted dis-eases, homeless shelters, HIV disease coun-seling and testing sites, health care points ofentry specified by eligible areas, federallyqualified health centers, and entities de-scribed in section 2652(a) that constitute apoint of access to services by maintaining re-ferral relationships.

‘‘(B) CONDITIONS.—With respect to an enti-ty that proposes to provide early interven-tion services under subparagraph (A), suchsubparagraph applies only if the entity dem-onstrates to the satisfaction of the chiefelected official for the eligible area involvedthat—

‘‘(i) Federal, State, or local funds are oth-erwise inadequate for the early interventionservices the entity proposes to provide; and

‘‘(ii) the entity will expend funds pursuantto such subparagraph to supplement and notsupplant other funds available to the entityfor the provision of early intervention serv-ices for the fiscal year involved.’’.

(c) PRIORITY FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, ANDCHILDREN.—Section 2604(b) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–14(b)) of the Public Health Service Act isamended in paragraph (4) (as redesignated bysubsection (b)(1) of this section) by amendingthe paragraph to read as follows:

‘‘(4) PRIORITY FOR WOMEN, INFANTS ANDCHILDREN.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of pro-viding health and support services to infants,children, youth, and women with HIV dis-ease, including treatment measures to pre-vent the perinatal transmission of HIV, thechief elected official of an eligible area, inaccordance with the established priorities ofthe planning council, shall for each of suchpopulations in the eligible area use, from thegrants made for the area under section2601(a) for a fiscal year, not less than thepercentage constituted by the ratio of thepopulation involved (infants, children,youth, or women in such area) with acquiredimmune deficiency syndrome to the generalpopulation in such area of individuals withsuch syndrome.

‘‘(B) WAIVER.—With respect the populationinvolved, the Secretary may provide to thechief elected official of an eligible area awaiver of the requirement of subparagraph(A) if such official demonstrates to the satis-faction of the Secretary that the populationis receiving HIV-related health servicesthrough the State medicaid program undertitle XIX of the Social Security Act, theState children’s health insurance programunder title XXI of such Act, or other Federalor State programs.’’.

(d) QUALITY MANAGEMENT.—Section 2604 ofthe Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.300ff–14) is amended—

(1) by redesignating subsections (c)through (f) as subsections (d) through (g), re-spectively; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol-lowing:

‘‘(c) QUALITY MANAGEMENT.—‘‘(1) REQUIREMENT.—The chief elected offi-

cial of an eligible area that receives a grantunder this part shall provide for the estab-lishment of a quality management programto assess the extent to which HIV healthservices provided to patients under the grantare consistent with the most recent PublicHealth Service guidelines for the treatmentof HIV disease and related opportunistic in-fection, and as applicable, to develop strate-gies for ensuring that such services are con-sistent with the guidelines for improvementin the access to and quality of HIV healthservices.

‘‘(2) USE OF FUNDS.—From amounts re-ceived under a grant awarded under this partfor a fiscal year, the chief elected official ofan eligible area may (in addition to amountsto which subsection (f)(1) applies) use for ac-tivities associated with the quality manage-ment program required in paragraph (1) notmore than the lesser of—


‘‘(B) $3,000,000.’’.

SEC. 122. APPLICATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2605(a) of thePublic Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–15(a)) is amended—

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through(6) as paragraphs (5) through (8), respec-tively; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol-lowing paragraphs:

‘‘(3) that entities within the eligible areathat receive funds under a grant under thispart will maintain appropriate relationshipswith entities in the eligible area served thatconstitute key points of access to the healthcare system for individuals with HIV disease(including emergency rooms, substanceabuse treatment programs, detoxificationcenters, adult and juvenile detention facili-ties, sexually transmitted disease clinics,HIV counseling and testing sites, mentalhealth programs, and homeless shelters), andother entities under section 2604(b)(3) and2652(a), for the purpose of facilitating earlyintervention for individuals newly diagnosedwith HIV disease and individuals knowledge-able of their HIV status but not in care;

‘‘(4) that the chief elected official of the el-igible area will satisfy all requirementsunder section 2604(c);’’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section2605(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–15(a)(1)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)—(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘serv-

ices to individuals with HIV disease’’ and in-serting ‘‘services as described in section2604(b)(1)’’; and

(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘serv-ices for individuals with HIV disease’’ and in-serting ‘‘services as described in section2604(b)(1)’’;

(2) in paragraph (7) (as redesignated by sub-section (a)(1) of this section), by striking‘‘and’’ at the end;

(3) in paragraph (8) (as so redesignated), bystriking the period and inserting ‘‘; and’’;and

(4) by adding at the end the following para-graph:

‘‘(9) that the eligible area has proceduresin place to ensure that services providedwith funds received under this part meet thecriteria specified in section 2604(b)(1).’’.

TITLE II—CARE GRANT PROGRAMSubtitle A—General Grant Provisions

SEC. 201. PRIORITY FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, ANDCHILDREN.

Section 2611(b) of the Public Health Serv-ice Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–21(b)) is amended toread as follows:

‘‘(b) PRIORITY FOR WOMEN, INFANTS ANDCHILDREN.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of pro-viding health and support services to infants,children, youth, and women with HIV dis-ease, including treatment measures to pre-vent the perinatal transmission of HIV, aState shall for each of such populations use,of the funds allocated under this part to theState for a fiscal year, not less than the per-centage constituted by the ratio of the popu-lation involved (infants, children, youth, orwomen in the State) with acquired immunedeficiency syndrome to the general popu-lation in the State of individuals with suchsyndrome.

‘‘(2) WAIVER.—With respect the populationinvolved, the Secretary may provide to aState a waiver of the requirement of para-graph (1) if the State demonstrates to thesatisfaction of the Secretary that the popu-lation is receiving HIV-related health serv-ices through the State medicaid programunder title XIX of the Social Security Act,the State children’s health insurance pro-gram under title XXI of such Act, or otherFederal or State programs.’’.SEC. 202. USE OF GRANTS.

Section 2612 of the Public Health ServiceAct (42 U.S.C. 300ff–22) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘A State may use’’ and in-serting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A State may use’’;and

(2) by adding at the end the following sub-sections:

‘‘(b) SUPPORT SERVICES; OUTREACH.—Thepurposes for which a grant under this partmay be used include delivering or enhancingthe following:

‘‘(1) Outpatient and ambulatory supportservices under section 2611(a) (including casemanagement) to the extent that such serv-ices facilitate, enhance, support, or sustainthe delivery, continuity, or benefits ofhealth services for individuals and familieswith HIV disease.

‘‘(2) Outreach activities that are intendedto identify individuals with HIV disease whoknow their HIV status and are not receivingHIV-related services, and that are—

‘‘(A) necessary to implement the strategyunder section 2617(b)(4)(B), including activi-ties facilitating the access of such individ-uals to HIV-related primary care services atentities described in subsection (c)(1);

‘‘(B) conducted in a manner consistentwith the requirement under section2617(b)(6)(G) and 2651(b)(2); and

‘‘(C) supplement, and do not supplant, suchactivities that are carried out with amountsappropriated under section 317.

‘‘(c) EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The purposes for which a

grant under this part may be used includeproviding to individuals with HIV diseaseearly intervention services described in sec-tion 2651(b)(2), with follow-up referral pro-vided for the purpose of facilitating the ac-cess of individuals receiving the services toHIV-related health services. The entitiesthrough which such services may be providedunder the grant include public health depart-ments, emergency rooms, substance abuseand mental health treatment programs, de-toxification centers, detention facilities,clinics regarding sexually transmitted dis-eases, homeless shelters, HIV disease coun-seling and testing sites, health care points ofentry specified by States or eligible areas,


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8826 October 5, 2000federally qualified health centers, and enti-ties described in section 2652(a) that con-stitute a point of access to services by main-taining referral relationships.

‘‘(2) CONDITIONS.—With respect to an entitythat proposes to provide early interventionservices under paragraph (1), such paragraphapplies only if the entity demonstrates tothe satisfaction of the State involved that—

‘‘(A) Federal, State, or local funds are oth-erwise inadequate for the early interventionservices the entity proposes to provide; and

‘‘(B) the entity will expend funds pursuantto such paragraph to supplement and notsupplant other funds available to the entityfor the provision of early intervention serv-ices for the fiscal year involved.

‘‘(d) QUALITY MANAGEMENT.—‘‘(1) REQUIREMENT.—Each State that re-

ceives a grant under this part shall providefor the establishment of a quality manage-ment program to assess the extent to whichHIV health services provided to patientsunder the grant are consistent with the mostrecent Public Health Service guidelines forthe treatment of HIV disease and related op-portunistic infection, and as applicable, todevelop strategies for ensuring that suchservices are consistent with the guidelinesfor improvement in the access to and qualityof HIV health services.

‘‘(2) USE OF FUNDS.—From amounts re-ceived under a grant awarded under this partfor a fiscal year, the State may (in additionto amounts to which section 2618(b)(5) ap-plies) use for activities associated with thequality management program required inparagraph (1) not more than the lesser of—


‘‘(B) $3,000,000.’’.SEC. 203. GRANTS TO ESTABLISH HIV CARE CON-

SORTIA.Section 2613 of the Public Health Service

Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–23) is amended—(1) in subsection (b)(1)—(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting be-

fore the semicolon the following: ‘‘, particu-larly those experiencing disparities in accessand services and those who reside in histori-cally underserved communities’’; and

(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after‘‘by such consortium’’ the following: ‘‘is con-sistent with the comprehensive plan under2617(b)(4) and’’;

(2) in subsection (c)(1)—(A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘and’’

after the semicolon at the end;(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the pe-

riod and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and(C) by adding at the end the following sub-

paragraph:‘‘(F) demonstrates that adequate planning

occurred to address disparities in access andservices and historically underserved com-munities.’’; and

(3) in subsection (c)(2)—(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘and’’

after the semicolon;(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the pe-

riod and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and(C) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the

following subparagraph:‘‘(D) the types of entities described in sec-

tion 2602(b)(2).’’.SEC. 204. PROVISION OF TREATMENTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2616(c) of thePublic Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–26(c)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’after the semicolon at the end;

(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the periodand inserting ‘‘; and’’; and


‘‘(6) encourage, support, and enhance ad-herence to and compliance with treatment

regimens, including related medical moni-toring.‘‘Of the amount reserved by a State for a fis-cal year for use under this section, the Statemay not use more than 5 percent to carryout services under paragraph (6), except thatthe percentage applicable with respect tosuch paragraph is 10 percent if the Statedemonstrates to the Secretary that such ad-ditional services are essential and in no waydiminish access to the therapeutics de-scribed in subsection (a).’’.

(b) HEALTH INSURANCE AND PLANS.—Sec-tion 2616 of the Public Health Service Act (42U.S.C. 300ff–26) is amended by adding at theend the following subsection:

‘‘(e) USE OF HEALTH INSURANCE ANDPLANS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out sub-section (a), a State may expend a grantunder this part to provide the therapeuticsdescribed in such subsection by paying on be-half of individuals with HIV disease the costsof purchasing or maintaining health insur-ance or plans whose coverage includes a fullrange of such therapeutics and appropriateprimary care services.

‘‘(2) LIMITATION.—The authority estab-lished in paragraph (1) applies only to the ex-tent that, for the fiscal year involved, thecosts of the health insurance or plans to bepurchased or maintained under such para-graph do not exceed the costs of otherwiseproviding therapeutics described in sub-section (a).’’.SEC. 205. STATE APPLICATION.

(a) DETERMINATION OF SIZE AND NEEDS OFPOPULATION; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.—Section2617(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42U.S.C. 300ff–27(b)) is amended—

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through(4) as paragraphs (4) through (6), respec-tively;

(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol-lowing paragraphs:

‘‘(2) a determination of the size and demo-graphics of the population of individualswith HIV disease in the State;

‘‘(3) a determination of the needs of suchpopulation, with particular attention to—

‘‘(A) individuals with HIV disease whoknow their HIV status and are not receivingHIV-related services; and

‘‘(B) disparities in access and servicesamong affected subpopulations and histori-cally underserved communities;’’; and

(3) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated)—(A) by striking ‘‘comprehensive plan for

the organization’’ and inserting ‘‘comprehen-sive plan that describes the organization’’;

(B) by striking ‘‘, including—’’ and insert-ing ‘‘, and that—’’;

(C) by redesignating subparagraphs (A)through (C) as subparagraphs (D) through(F), respectively;

(D) by inserting before subparagraph (C)the following subparagraphs:

‘‘(A) establishes priorities for the alloca-tion of funds within the State based on—

‘‘(i) size and demographics of the popu-lation of individuals with HIV disease (as de-termined under paragraph (2)) and the needsof such population (as determined underparagraph (3));

‘‘(ii) availability of other governmentaland non-governmental resources, includingthe State medicaid plan under title XIX ofthe Social Security Act and the State Chil-dren’s Health Insurance Program under titleXXI of such Act to cover health care costs ofeligible individuals and families with HIVdisease;

‘‘(iii) capacity development needs resultingfrom disparities in the availability of HIV-related services in historically underservedcommunities and rural communities; and

‘‘(iv) the efficiency of the administrativemechanism of the State for rapidly allo-

cating funds to the areas of greatest needwithin the State;

‘‘(B) includes a strategy for identifying in-dividuals who know their HIV status and arenot receiving such services and for informingthe individuals of and enabling the individ-uals to utilize the services, giving particularattention to eliminating disparities in accessand services among affected subpopulationsand historically underserved communities,and including discrete goals, a timetable,and an appropriate allocation of funds;

‘‘(C) includes a strategy to coordinate theprovision of such services with programs forHIV prevention (including outreach andearly intervention) and for the preventionand treatment of substance abuse (includingprograms that provide comprehensive treat-ment services for such abuse);’’;

(E) in subparagraph (D) (as redesignated bysubparagraph (C) of this paragraph), by in-serting ‘‘describes’’ before ‘‘the services andactivities’’;

(F) in subparagraph (E) (as so redesig-nated), by inserting ‘‘provides’’ before ‘‘a de-scription’’; and

(G) in subparagraph (F) (as so redesig-nated), by inserting ‘‘provides’’ before ‘‘a de-scription’’.

(b) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—Section 2617(b)of the Public Health Service Act, as amendedby subsection (a) of this section, is amend-ed—

(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘HIV’’ andinserting ‘‘HIV disease’’; and

(2) in paragraph (6), by amending subpara-graph (A) to read as follows:

‘‘(A) the public health agency that is ad-ministering the grant for the State engagesin a public advisory planning process, includ-ing public hearings, that includes the par-ticipants under paragraph (5), and the typesof entities described in section 2602(b)(2), indeveloping the comprehensive plan underparagraph (4) and commenting on the imple-mentation of such plan;’’.

(c) HEALTH CARE RELATIONSHIPS.—Section2617(b) of the Public Health Service Act, asamended by subsection (a) of this section, isamended in paragraph (6)—

(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ‘‘and’’at the end;

(2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the pe-riod and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following sub-paragraph:

‘‘(G) entities within areas in which activi-ties under the grant are carried out willmaintain appropriate relationships with en-tities in the area served that constitute keypoints of access to the health care system forindividuals with HIV disease (includingemergency rooms, substance abuse treat-ment programs, detoxification centers, adultand juvenile detention facilities, sexuallytransmitted disease clinics, HIV counselingand testing sites, mental health programs,and homeless shelters), and other entitiesunder section 2612(c) and 2652(a), for the pur-pose of facilitating early intervention for in-dividuals newly diagnosed with HIV diseaseand individuals knowledgeable of their HIVstatus but not in care.’’.SEC. 206. DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.

(a) MINIMUM ALLOTMENT.—Section 2618 ofthe Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.300ff–28) is amended—

(1) by redesignating subsections (b)through (e) as subsections (a) through (d), re-spectively; and

(2) in subsection (a) (as so redesignated), inparagraph (1)(A)(i)—

(A) in subclause (I), by striking ‘‘$100,000’’and inserting ‘‘$200,000’’; and

(B) in subclause (II), by striking ‘‘$250,000’’and inserting ‘‘$500,000’’.

(b) AMOUNT OF GRANT; ESTIMATE OF LIVINGCASES.—Section 2618(a) of the Public Health


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8827October 5, 2000Service Act (as redesignated by subsection(a)(1) of this section) is amended in para-graph (2)—

(1) in subparagraph (D)(i), by inserting be-fore the semicolon the following: ‘‘, exceptthat (subject to subparagraph (E)), for grantsmade pursuant to this paragraph or section2620 for fiscal year 2005 and subsequent fiscalyears, the cases counted for each 12-monthperiod beginning on or after July 1, 2004,shall be cases of HIV disease (as reported toand confirmed by such Director) rather thancases of acquired immune deficiency syn-drome’’;

(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (E)through (H) as subparagraphs (F) through (I),respectively; and

(3) by inserting after subparagraph (D) thefollowing subparagraph:

‘‘(E) DETERMINATION OF SECRETARY REGARD-ING DATA ON HIV CASES.—If under2603(a)(3)(D)(i) the Secretary determines thatdata on cases of HIV disease are not suffi-ciently accurate and reliable, then notwith-standing subparagraph (D) of this paragraph,for any fiscal year prior to fiscal year 2007the references in such subparagraph to casesof HIV disease do not have any legal effect.’’.

(c) INCREASES IN FORMULA AMOUNT.—Sec-tion 2618(a) of the Public Health Service Act(as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of thissection) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)(A)(ii), by inserting be-fore the semicolon the following: ‘‘and then,as applicable, increased under paragraph(2)(H)’’; and

(2) in paragraph (2)—(A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking

‘‘subparagraph (H)’’ and inserting ‘‘subpara-graphs (H) and (I)’’; and

(B) in subparagraph (H) (as redesignated bysubsection (b)(2) of this section), by amend-ing the subparagraph to read as follows:

‘‘(H) LIMITATION.—‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall en-

sure that the amount of a grant awarded toa State or territory under section 2611 orsubparagraph (I)(i) for a fiscal year is notless than—

‘‘(I) with respect to fiscal year 2001, 99 per-cent;

‘‘(II) with respect to fiscal year 2002, 98 per-cent;

‘‘(III) with respect to fiscal year 2003, 97percent;

‘‘(IV) with respect to fiscal year 2004, 96percent; and

‘‘(V) with respect to fiscal year 2005, 95 per-cent,

of the amount such State or territory re-ceived for fiscal year 2000 under section 2611or subparagraph (I)(i), respectively (notwith-standing such subparagraph). In admin-istering this subparagraph, the Secretaryshall, with respect to States or territoriesthat will under such section receive grantsin amounts that exceed the amounts thatsuch States received under such section orsubparagraph for fiscal year 2000, proportion-ally reduce such amounts to ensure compli-ance with this subparagraph. In making suchreductions, the Secretary shall ensure thatno such State receives less than that Statereceived for fiscal year 2000.

‘‘(ii) RATABLE REDUCTION.—If the amountappropriated under section 2677 for a fiscalyear and available for grants under section2611 or subparagraph (I)(i) is less than theamount appropriated and available for fiscalyear 2000 under section 2611 or subparagraph(I)(i), respectively, the limitation containedin clause (i) for the grants involved shall bereduced by a percentage equal to the per-centage of the reduction in such amounts ap-propriated and available.’’.

(d) TERRITORIES.—Section 2618(a) of thePublic Health Service Act (as redesignated

by subsection (a)(1) of this section) is amend-ed in paragraph (1)(B) by inserting ‘‘thegreater of $50,000 or’’ after ‘‘shall be’’.

(e) SEPARATE TREATMENT DRUG GRANTS.—Section 2618(a) of the Public Health ServiceAct (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) ofthis section and amended by subsection (b)(2)of this section) is amended in paragraph(2)(I)—

(1) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) assubclauses (I) and (II), respectively;

(2) by striking ‘‘(I) APPROPRIATIONS’’ andall that follows through ‘‘With respect to’’and inserting the following:

‘‘(I) APPROPRIATIONS FOR TREATMENT DRUGPROGRAM.—

‘‘(i) FORMULA GRANTS.—With respect to’’;(3) in subclause (I) of clause (i) (as des-

ignated by paragraphs (1) and (2)), by insert-ing before the semicolon the following: ‘‘,less the percentage reserved under clause(ii)(V)’’; and

(4) by adding at the end the followingclause:

‘‘(ii) SUPPLEMENTAL TREATMENT DRUGGRANTS.—

‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—From amounts madeavailable under subclause (V), the Secretaryshall make supplemental grants to Statesdescribed in subclause (II) to enable suchStates to increase access to therapeutics de-scribed in section 2616(a), as provided by theState under section 2616(c)(2).

‘‘(II) ELIGIBLE STATES.—For purposes ofsubclause (I), a State described in this sub-clause is a State that, in accordance withcriteria established by the Secretary, dem-onstrates a severe need for a grant undersuch subclause. In developing such criteria,the Secretary shall consider eligibilitystandards, formulary composition, and thenumber of eligible individuals at or below 200percent of the official poverty line to whomthe State is unable to provide therapeuticsdescribed in section 2616(a).

‘‘(III) STATE REQUIREMENTS.—The Sec-retary may not make a grant to a Stateunder this clause unless the State agreesthat—

‘‘(aa) the State will make available (di-rectly or through donations from public orprivate entities) non-Federal contributionstoward the activities to carried out underthe grant in an amount equal to $1 for each$4 of Federal funds provided in the grant; and

‘‘(bb) the State will not impose eligibilityrequirements for services or scope of benefitslimitations under section 2616(a) that aremore restrictive than such requirements ineffect as of January 1, 2000.

‘‘(IV) USE AND COORDINATION.—Amountsmade available under a grant under thisclause shall only be used by the State to pro-vide HIV/AIDS-related medications. TheState shall coordinate the use of suchamounts with the amounts otherwise pro-vided under section 2616(a) in order to maxi-mize drug coverage.

‘‘(V) FUNDING.—For the purpose of makinggrants under this clause, the Secretary shalleach fiscal year reserve 3 percent of theamount referred to in clause (i) with respectto section 2616, subject to subclause (VI).

‘‘(VI) LIMITATION.—In reserving amountsunder subclause (V) and making grantsunder this clause for a fiscal year, the Sec-retary shall ensure for each State that thetotal of the grant under section 2611 for theState for the fiscal year and the grant underclause (i) for the State for the fiscal year isnot less than such total for the State for thepreceding fiscal year.’’.

(f) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 2618(a)of the Public Health Service Act (as redesig-nated by subsection (a)(1) of this section) isamended in paragraph (3)(B) by striking‘‘and the Republic of the Marshall Islands’’and inserting ‘‘the Republic of the Marshall

Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia,and the Republic of Palau, and only for pur-poses of paragraph (1) the Commonwealth ofPuerto Rico’’.SEC. 207. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR CERTAIN

STATES.Subpart I of part B of title XXVI of the

Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–11et seq.) is amended—

(1) by striking section 2621; and(2) by inserting after section 2619 the fol-

lowing section:‘‘SEC. 2620. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS.

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shallaward supplemental grants to States deter-mined to be eligible under subsection (b) toenable such States to provide comprehensiveservices of the type described in section2612(a) to supplement the services otherwiseprovided by the State under a grant underthis subpart in emerging communities with-in the State that are not eligible to receivegrants under part A.

‘‘(b) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible to receivea supplemental grant under subsection (a), aState shall—

‘‘(1) be eligible to receive a grant underthis subpart;

‘‘(2) demonstrate the existence in the Stateof an emerging community as defined in sub-section (d)(1); and

‘‘(3) submit the information described insubsection (c).

‘‘(c) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—A Statethat desires a grant under this section shall,as part of the State application submittedunder section 2617, submit a detailed descrip-tion of the manner in which the State willuse amounts received under the grant and ofthe severity of need. Such description shallinclude—

‘‘(1) a report concerning the disseminationof supplemental funds under this section andthe plan for the utilization of such funds inthe emerging community;

‘‘(2) a demonstration of the existing com-mitment of local resources, both financialand in-kind;

‘‘(3) a demonstration that the State willmaintain HIV-related activities at a levelthat is equal to not less than the level ofsuch activities in the State for the 1-year pe-riod preceding the fiscal year for which theState is applying to receive a grant underthis part;

‘‘(4) a demonstration of the ability of theState to utilize such supplemental financialresources in a manner that is immediatelyresponsive and cost effective;

‘‘(5) a demonstration that the resourceswill be allocated in accordance with thelocal demographic incidence of AIDS includ-ing appropriate allocations for services forinfants, children, women, and families withHIV disease;

‘‘(6) a demonstration of the inclusivenessof the planning process, with particular em-phasis on affected communities and individ-uals with HIV disease; and

‘‘(7) a demonstration of the manner inwhich the proposed services are consistentwith local needs assessments and the state-wide coordinated statement of need.

‘‘(d) DEFINITION OF EMERGING COMMUNITY.—In this section, the term ‘emerging commu-nity’ means a metropolitan area—

‘‘(1) that is not eligible for a grant underpart A; and

‘‘(2) for which there has been reported tothe Director of the Centers for Disease Con-trol and Prevention a cumulative total of be-tween 500 and 1999 cases of acquired immunedeficiency syndrome for the most recent pe-riod of 5 calendar years for which such dataare available (except that, for fiscal year 2005and subsequent fiscal years, cases of HIV dis-ease shall be counted rather than cases of ac-quired immune deficiency syndrome if cases


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8828 October 5, 2000of HIV disease are being counted for purposesof section 2618(a)(2)(D)(i)).

‘‘(e) FUNDING.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2),

with respect to each fiscal year beginningwith fiscal year 2001, the Secretary, to carryout this section, shall utilize—

‘‘(A) the greater of—‘‘(i) 25 percent of the amount appropriated

under 2677 to carry out part B, excluding theamount appropriated under section2618(a)(2)(I), for such fiscal year that is in ex-cess of the amount appropriated to carry outsuch part in fiscal year preceding the fiscalyear involved; or

‘‘(ii) $5,000,000;to provide funds to States for use in emerg-ing communities with at least 1000, but lessthan 2000, cases of AIDS as reported to andconfirmed by the Director of the Centers forDisease Control and Prevention for the fiveyear period preceding the year for which thegrant is being awarded; and

‘‘(B) the greater of—‘‘(i) 25 percent of the amount appropriated

under 2677 to carry out part B, excluding theamount appropriated under section2618(a)(2)(I), for such fiscal year that is in ex-cess of the amount appropriated to carry outsuch part in fiscal year preceding the fiscalyear involved; or

‘‘(ii) $5,000,000;

to provide funds to States for use in emerg-ing communities with at least 500, but lessthan 1000, cases of AIDS reported to and con-firmed by the Director of the Centers for Dis-ease Control and Prevention for the five yearperiod preceding the year for which thegrant is being awarded.

‘‘(2) TRIGGER OF FUNDING.—This sectionshall be effective only for fiscal years begin-ning in the first fiscal year in which theamount appropriated under 2677 to carry outpart B, excluding the amount appropriatedunder section 2618(a)(2)(I), exceeds by at least$20,000,000 the amount appropriated under2677 to carry out part B in fiscal year 2000,excluding the amount appropriated undersection 2618(a)(2)(I).

‘‘(3) MINIMUM AMOUNT IN FUTURE YEARS.—Beginning with the first fiscal year in whichamounts provided for emerging communitiesunder paragraph (1)(A) equals $5,000,000 andunder paragraph (1)(B) equals $5,000,000, theSecretary shall ensure that amounts madeavailable under this section for the types ofemerging communities described in eachsuch paragraph in subsequent fiscal years isat least $5,000,000.

‘‘(4) DISTRIBUTION.—Grants under this sec-tion for emerging communities shall be for-mula grants. There shall be two categories ofsuch formula grants, as follows:

‘‘(A) One category of such grants shall befor emerging communities for which the cu-mulative total of cases for purposes of sub-section (d)(2) is 999 or fewer cases. The grantmade to such an emerging community for afiscal year shall be the product of—

‘‘(i) an amount equal to 50 percent of theamount available pursuant to this sub-section for the fiscal year involved; and

‘‘(ii) a percentage equal to the ratio con-stituted by the number of cases for suchemerging community for the fiscal year overthe aggregate number of such cases for suchyear for all emerging communities to whichthis subparagraph applies.

‘‘(B) The other category of formula grantsshall be for emerging communities for whichthe cumulative total of cases for purposes ofsubsection (d)(2) is 1000 or more cases. Thegrant made to such an emerging communityfor a fiscal year shall be the product of—

‘‘(i) an amount equal to 50 percent of theamount available pursuant to this sub-section for the fiscal year involved; and

‘‘(ii) a percentage equal to the ratio con-stituted by the number of cases for suchcommunity for the fiscal year over the ag-gregate number of such cases for the fiscalyear for all emerging communities to whichthis subparagraph applies.’’.Subtitle B—Provisions Concerning Preg-

nancy and Perinatal Transmission of HIVSEC. 211. REPEALS.

Subpart II of part B of title XXVI of thePublic Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–33et seq.) is amended—

(1) in section 2626, by striking each of sub-sections (d) through (f);

(2) by striking sections 2627 and 2628; and(3) by redesignating section 2629 as section

2627.SEC. 212. GRANTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2625(c) of thePublic Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–33)is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting at the endthe following subparagraph:

‘‘(F) Making available to pregnant womenwith HIV disease, and to the infants ofwomen with such disease, treatment servicesfor such disease in accordance with applica-ble recommendations of the Secretary.’’;

(2) by amending paragraph (2) to read asfollows:

‘‘(2) FUNDING.—‘‘(A) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

For the purpose of carrying out this sub-section, there are authorized to be appro-priated $30,000,000 for each of the fiscal years2001 through 2005. Amounts made availableunder section 2677 for carrying out this partare not available for carrying out this sec-tion unless otherwise authorized.

‘‘(B) ALLOCATIONS FOR CERTAIN STATES.—‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Of the amounts appro-

priated under subparagraph (A) for a fiscalyear in excess of $10,000,000—

‘‘(I) the Secretary shall reserve the appli-cable percentage under clause (iv) for mak-ing grants under paragraph (1) both to Statesdescribed in clause (ii) and States describedin clause (iii); and

‘‘(II) the Secretary shall reserve the re-maining amounts for other States, takinginto consideration the factors described insubparagraph (C)(iii), except that this sub-clause does not apply to any State that forthe fiscal year involved is receiving amountspursuant to subclause (I).

‘‘(ii) REQUIRED TESTING OF NEWBORNS.—Forpurposes of clause (i)(I), the States describedin this clause are States that under law (in-cluding under regulations or the discretionof State officials) have—

‘‘(I) a requirement that all newborn infantsborn in the State be tested for HIV diseaseand that the biological mother of each suchinfant, and the legal guardian of the infant(if other than the biological mother), be in-formed of the results of the testing; or

‘‘(II) a requirement that newborn infantsborn in the State be tested for HIV disease incircumstances in which the attending obste-trician for the birth does not know the HIVstatus of the mother of the infant, and thatthe biological mother of each such infant,and the legal guardian of the infant (if otherthan the biological mother), be informed ofthe results of the testing.

‘‘(iii) MOST SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN CASESOF PERINATAL TRANSMISSION.—For purposesof clause (i)(I), the States described in thisclause are the following (exclusive of Statesdescribed in clause (ii)), as applicable:

‘‘(I) For fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the twoStates that, relative to other States, havethe most significant reduction in the rate ofnew cases of the perinatal transmission ofHIV (as indicated by the number of suchcases reported to the Director of the Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention for the

most recent periods for which the data areavailable).

‘‘(II) For fiscal years 2003 and 2004, thethree States that have the most significantsuch reduction.

‘‘(III) For fiscal year 2005, the four Statesthat have the most significant such reduc-tion.

‘‘(iv) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—For pur-poses of clause (i), the applicable amount fora fiscal year is as follows:

‘‘(I) For fiscal year 2001, 33 percent.‘‘(II) For fiscal year 2002, 50 percent.‘‘(III) For fiscal year 2003, 67 percent.‘‘(IV) For fiscal year 2004, 75 percent.‘‘(V) For fiscal year 2005, 75 percent.‘‘(C) CERTAIN PROVISIONS.—With respect to

grants under paragraph (1) that are madewith amounts reserved under subparagraph(B) of this paragraph:

‘‘(i) Such a grant may not be made in anamount exceeding $4,000,000.

‘‘(ii) If pursuant to clause (i) or pursuantto an insufficient number of qualifying appli-cations for such grants (or both), the fullamount reserved under subparagraph (B) fora fiscal year is not obligated, the require-ment under such subparagraph to reserveamounts ceases to apply.

‘‘(iii) In the case of a State that meets theconditions to receive amounts reservedunder subparagraph (B)(i)(II), the Secretaryshall in making grants consider the fol-lowing factors:

‘‘(I) The extent of the reduction in the rateof new cases of the perinatal transmission ofHIV.

‘‘(II) The extent of the reduction in therate of new cases of perinatal cases of ac-quired immune deficiency syndrome.

‘‘(III) The overall incidence of cases of in-fection with HIV among women of child-bearing age.

‘‘(IV) The overall incidence of cases of ac-quired immune deficiency syndrome amongwomen of childbearing age.

‘‘(V) The higher acceptance rate of HIVtesting of pregnant women.

‘‘(VI) The extent to which women and chil-dren with HIV disease are receiving HIV-re-lated health services.

‘‘(VII) The extent to which HIV-exposedchildren are receiving health services appro-priate to such exposure.’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following para-graph:

‘‘(4) MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.—A conditionfor the receipt of a grant under paragraph (1)is that the State involved agree that thegrant will be used to supplement and notsupplant other funds available to the Stateto carry out the purposes of the grant.’’.

(b) SPECIAL FUNDING RULE FOR FISCALYEAR 2001.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—If for fiscal year 2001 theamount appropriated under paragraph (2)(A)of section 2625(c) of the Public Health Serv-ice Act is less than $14,000,000—

(A) the Secretary of Health and HumanServices shall, for the purpose of makinggrants under paragraph (1) of such section,reserve from the amount specified in para-graph (2) of this subsection an amount equalto the difference between $14,000,000 and theamount appropriated under paragraph (2)(A)of such section for such fiscal year (notwith-standing any other provision of this Act orthe amendments made by this Act);

(B) the amount so reserved shall, for pur-poses of paragraph (2)(B)(i) of such section,be considered to have been appropriatedunder paragraph (2)(A) of such section; and

(C) the percentage specified in paragraph(2)(B)(iv)(I) of such section is deemed to be 50percent.

(2) ALLOCATION FROM INCREASES IN FUNDINGFOR PART B.—For purposes of paragraph (1),the amount specified in this paragraph is the


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8829October 5, 2000amount by which the amount appropriatedunder section 2677 of the Public Health Serv-ice Act for fiscal year 2001 and available forgrants under section 2611 of such Act is anincrease over the amount so appropriatedand available for fiscal year 2000.SEC. 213. STUDY BY INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE.

Subpart II of part B of title XXVI of thePublic Health Service Act, as amended bysection 211(3), is amended by adding at theend the following section:‘‘SEC. 2628. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REDUCING

INCIDENCE OF PERINATAL TRANS-MISSION.

‘‘(a) STUDY BY INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall re-

quest the Institute of Medicine to enter intoan agreement with the Secretary underwhich such Institute conducts a study toprovide the following:

‘‘(A) For the most recent fiscal year forwhich the information is available, a deter-mination of the number of newborn infantswith HIV born in the United States with re-spect to whom the attending obstetrician forthe birth did not know the HIV status of themother.

‘‘(B) A determination for each State of anybarriers, including legal barriers, that pre-vent or discourage an obstetrician frommaking it a routine practice to offer preg-nant women an HIV test and a routine prac-tice to test newborn infants for HIV diseasein circumstances in which the obstetriciandoes not know the HIV status of the motherof the infant.

‘‘(C) Recommendations for each State forreducing the incidence of cases of theperinatal transmission of HIV, including rec-ommendations on removing the barriersidentified under subparagraph (B).

If such Institute declines to conduct thestudy, the Secretary shall enter into anagreement with another appropriate publicor nonprofit private entity to conduct thestudy.

‘‘(2) REPORT.—The Secretary shall ensurethat, not later than 18 months after the ef-fective date of this section, the study re-quired in paragraph (1) is completed and a re-port describing the findings made in thestudy is submitted to the appropriate com-mittees of the Congress, the Secretary, andthe chief public health official of each of theStates.

‘‘(b) PROGRESS TOWARD RECOMMENDA-TIONS.—In fiscal year 2004, the Secretaryshall collect information from the States de-scribing the actions taken by the States to-ward meeting the recommendations specifiedfor the States under subsection (a)(1)(C).

‘‘(c) SUBMISSION OF REPORTS TO CON-GRESS.—The Secretary shall submit to theappropriate committees of the Congress re-ports describing the information collectedunder subsection (b).’’.

Subtitle C—Certain Partner NotificationPrograms

SEC. 221. GRANTS FOR COMPLIANT PARTNER NO-TIFICATION PROGRAMS.

Part B of title XXVI of the Public HealthService Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–21 et seq.) isamended by adding at the end the followingsubpart:

‘‘Subpart III—Certain Partner NotificationPrograms

‘‘SEC. 2631. GRANTS FOR PARTNER NOTIFICA-TION PROGRAMS.

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of Stateswhose laws or regulations are in accordancewith subsection (b), the Secretary, subject tosubsection (c)(2), may make grants to theStates for carrying out programs to providepartner counseling and referral services.

‘‘(b) DESCRIPTION OF COMPLIANT STATE PRO-GRAMS.—For purposes of subsection (a), the

laws or regulations of a State are in accord-ance with this subsection if under such lawsor regulations (including programs carriedout pursuant to the discretion of State offi-cials) the following policies are in effect:

‘‘(1) The State requires that the publichealth officer of the State carry out a pro-gram of partner notification to inform part-ners of individuals with HIV disease that thepartners may have been exposed to the dis-ease.

‘‘(2)(A) In the case of a health entity thatprovides for the performance on an indi-vidual of a test for HIV disease, or thattreats the individual for the disease, theState requires, subject to subparagraph (B),that the entity confidentially report thepositive test results to the State publichealth officer in a manner recommended andapproved by the Director of the Centers forDisease Control and Prevention, togetherwith such additional information as may benecessary for carrying out such program.

‘‘(B) The State may provide that the re-quirement of subparagraph (A) does notapply to the testing of an individual for HIVdisease if the individual underwent the test-ing through a program designed to performthe test and provide the results to the indi-vidual without the individual disclosing hisor her identity to the program. This subpara-graph may not be construed as affecting therequirement of subparagraph (A) with re-spect to a health entity that treats an indi-vidual for HIV disease.

‘‘(3) The program under paragraph (1) iscarried out in accordance with the following:

‘‘(A) Partners are provided with an appro-priate opportunity to learn that the partnershave been exposed to HIV disease, subject tosubparagraph (B).

‘‘(B) The State does not inform partners ofthe identity of the infected individuals in-volved.

‘‘(C) Counseling and testing for HIV diseaseare made available to the partners and to in-fected individuals, and such counseling in-cludes information on modes of transmissionfor the disease, including information on pre-natal and perinatal transmission and pre-venting transmission.

‘‘(D) Counseling of infected individuals andtheir partners includes the provision of in-formation regarding therapeutic measuresfor preventing and treating the deteriorationof the immune system and conditions arisingfrom the disease, and the provision of otherprevention-related information.

‘‘(E) Referrals for appropriate services areprovided to partners and infected individ-uals, including referrals for support servicesand legal aid.

‘‘(F) Notifications under subparagraph (A)are provided in person, unless doing so is anunreasonable burden on the State.

‘‘(G) There is no criminal or civil penaltyon, or civil liability for, an infected indi-vidual if the individual chooses not to iden-tify the partners of the individual, or the in-dividual does not otherwise cooperate withsuch program.

‘‘(H) The failure of the State to notifypartners is not a basis for the civil liabilityof any health entity who under the programreported to the State the identity of the in-fected individual involved.

‘‘(I) The State provides that the provisionsof the program may not be construed as pro-hibiting the State from providing a notifica-tion under subparagraph (A) without theconsent of the infected individual involved.

‘‘(4) The State annually reports to the Di-rector of the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention the number of individuals fromwhom the names of partners have beensought under the program under paragraph(1), the number of such individuals who pro-vided the names of partners, and the number

of partners so named who were notifiedunder the program.

‘‘(5) The State cooperates with such Direc-tor in carrying out a national program ofpartner notification, including the sharing ofinformation between the public health offi-cers of the States.

‘‘(c) REPORTING SYSTEM FOR CASES OF HIVDISEASE; PREFERENCE IN MAKING GRANTS.—Inmaking grants under subsection (a), the Sec-retary shall give preference to States whosereporting systems for cases of HIV diseaseproduce data on such cases that is suffi-ciently accurate and reliable for use for pur-poses of section 2618(a)(2)(D)(i).

‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—For the purpose of carrying out this section,there are authorized to be appropriated$30,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and such sumsas may be necessary for each of the fiscalyears 2002 through 2005.’’.

TITLE III—EARLY INTERVENTIONSERVICES

Subtitle A—Formula Grants for StatesSEC. 301. REPEAL OF PROGRAM.

(a) REPEAL.—Subpart I of part C of titleXXVI of the Public Health Service Act (42U.S.C. 300ff–41 et seq.) is repealed.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Part C oftitle XXVI of the Public Health Service Act(42 U.S.C. 300ff–41 et seq.), as amended bysubsection (a) of this section, is amended—

(1) by redesignating subparts II and III assubparts I and II, respectively;

(2) in section 2661(a), by striking ‘‘unless—’’ and all that follows through ‘‘(2) in thecase of’’ and inserting ‘‘unless, in the caseof’’; and

(3) in section 2664—(A) in subsection (e)(5), by striking ‘‘2642(b)

or’’;(B) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ‘‘2642(b)

or’’; and(C) by striking subsection (h).

Subtitle B—Categorical GrantsSEC. 311. PREFERENCES IN MAKING GRANTS.

Section 2653 of the Public Health ServiceAct (42 U.S.C. 300ff–53) is amended by addingat the end the following subsection:

‘‘(d) CERTAIN AREAS.—Of the applicantswho qualify for preference under this sec-tion—

‘‘(1) the Secretary shall give preference toapplicants that will expend the grant undersection 2651 to provide early interventionunder such section in rural areas; and

‘‘(2) the Secretary shall give special con-sideration to areas that are underserved withrespect to such services.’’.SEC. 312. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

GRANTS.(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2654(c)(1) of the

Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–54(c)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘planninggrants’’ and all that follows and insertingthe following: ‘‘planning grants to public andnonprofit private entities for purposes of—

‘‘(A) enabling such entities to provide HIVearly intervention services; and

‘‘(B) assisting the entities in expandingtheir capacity to provide HIV-related healthservices, including early intervention serv-ices, in low-income communities and af-fected subpopulations that are underservedwith respect to such services (subject to thecondition that a grant pursuant to this sub-paragraph may not be expended to purchaseor improve land, or to purchase, construct,or permanently improve, other than minorremodeling, any building or other facility).’’.

(b) AMOUNT; DURATION.—Section 2654(c) ofthe Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.300ff–54(c)) is further amended—




CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8830 October 5, 2000‘‘(4) AMOUNT AND DURATION OF GRANTS.—‘‘(A) EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.—A

grant under paragraph (1)(A) may be made inan amount not to exceed $50,000.

‘‘(B) CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT.—‘‘(i) AMOUNT.—A grant under paragraph

(1)(B) may be made in an amount not to ex-ceed $150,000.

‘‘(ii) DURATION.—The total duration of agrant under paragraph (1)(B), including anyrenewal, may not exceed 3 years.’’.

(c) INCREASE IN LIMITATION.—Section2654(c)(5) of the Public Health Service Act (42U.S.C. 300ff–54(c)(5)), as redesignated by sub-section (b), is amended by striking ‘‘1 per-cent’’ and inserting ‘‘5 percent’’.SEC. 313. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 2655 of the Public Health ServiceAct (42 U.S.C. 300ff–55) is amended by strik-ing ‘‘in each of’’ and all that follows and in-serting ‘‘for each of the fiscal years 2001through 2005.’’.

Subtitle C—General ProvisionsSEC. 321. PROVISION OF CERTAIN COUNSELING

SERVICES.Section 2662(c)(3) of the Public Health

Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–62(c)(3)) isamended—

(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph(A), by striking ‘‘counseling on—’’ and in-serting ‘‘counseling—’’;

(2) in each of subparagraphs (A), (B), and(D), by inserting ‘‘on’’ after the subpara-graph designation; and

(3) in subparagraph (C)—(A) by striking ‘‘(C) the benefits’’ and in-

serting ‘‘(C)(i) that explains the benefits’’;and

(B) by inserting after clause (i) (as des-ignated by subparagraph (A) of this para-graph) the following clause:

‘‘(ii) that emphasizes it is the duty of in-fected individuals to disclose their infectedstatus to their sexual partners and theirpartners in the sharing of hypodermic nee-dles; that provides advice to infected individ-uals on the manner in which such disclosurescan be made; and that emphasizes that it isthe continuing duty of the individuals toavoid any behaviors that will expose othersto HIV.’’.SEC. 322. ADDITIONAL REQUIRED AGREEMENTS.

Section 2664(g) of the Public Health Serv-ice Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–64(g)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (3)—(A) by striking ‘‘7.5 percent’’ and inserting

‘‘10 percent’’; and(B) by striking ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon

at the end;(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period

and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and(3) by adding at the end the following para-

graph:‘‘(5) the applicant will provide for the es-

tablishment of a quality management pro-gram—

‘‘(A) to assess the extent to which medicalservices funded under this title that are pro-vided to patients are consistent with themost recent Public Health Service guidelinesfor the treatment of HIV disease and relatedopportunistic infections, and as applicable,to develop strategies for ensuring that suchservices are consistent with the guidelines;and

‘‘(B) to ensure that improvements in theaccess to and quality of HIV health servicesare addressed.’’.

TITLE IV—OTHER PROGRAMS ANDACTIVITIES

Subtitle A—Certain Programs for Research,Demonstrations, or Training

SEC. 401. GRANTS FOR COORDINATED SERVICESAND ACCESS TO RESEARCH FORWOMEN, INFANTS, CHILDREN, ANDYOUTH.

(a) ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENT TO EN-ROLL SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF WOMEN AND

CHILDREN.—Section 2671(b) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–71(b)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking subpara-graphs (C) and (D) and inserting the fol-lowing:

‘‘(C) The applicant will demonstrate link-ages to research and how access to such re-search is being offered to patients.’’; and

(2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4).(b) INFORMATION AND EDUCATION.—Section

2671(d) (42 U.S.C. 300ff–71(d)) is amended byadding at the end the following:

‘‘(4) The applicant will provide individualswith information and education on opportu-nities to participate in HIV/AIDS-relatedclinical research.’’.

(c) QUALITY MANAGEMENT; ADMINISTRATIVEEXPENSES CEILING.—Section 2671(f) (42 U.S.C.300ff–71(f)) is amended—

(1) by striking the subsection heading anddesignation and inserting the following:

‘‘(f) ADMINISTRATION.—‘‘(1) APPLICATION.—’’; and(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(2) QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.—A

grantee under this section shall implement aquality management program to assess theextent to which HIV health services providedto patients under the grant are consistentwith the most recent Public Health Serviceguidelines for the treatment of HIV diseaseand related opportunistic infection, and asapplicable, to develop strategies for ensuringthat such services are consistent with theguidelines for improvement in the access toand quality of HIV health services.’’.

(d) COORDINATION.—Section 2671(g) (42U.S.C. 300ff–71(g)) is amended by adding atthe end the following: ‘‘The Secretary actingthrough the Director of NIH, shall examinethe distribution and availability of ongoingand appropriate HIV/AIDS-related researchprojects to existing sites under this sectionfor purposes of enhancing and expanding vol-untary access to HIV-related research, espe-cially within communities that are not rea-sonably served by such projects. Not laterthan 12 months after the date of enactmentof the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of2000, the Secretary shall prepare and submitto the appropriate committees of Congress areport that describes the findings made bythe Director and the manner in which theconclusions based on those findings can beaddressed.’’.

(e) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—Section2671 of the Public Health Service Act (42U.S.C. 300ff–71) is amended—

(1) by redesignating subsections (i) and (j)as subsections (j) and (k), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (h) the fol-lowing subsection:

‘‘(i) LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EX-PENSES.—

‘‘(1) DETERMINATION BY SECRETARY.—Notlater than 12 months after the date of enact-ment of the Ryan White Care Act Amend-ments of 2000, the Secretary, in consultationwith grantees under this part, shall conducta review of the administrative, program sup-port, and direct service-related activitiesthat are carried out under this part to ensurethat eligible individuals have access to qual-ity, HIV-related health and support servicesand research opportunities under this part,and to support the provision of such services.

‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days

after the expiration of the 12-month periodreferred to in paragraph (1) the Secretary, inconsultation with grantees under this part,shall determine the relationship between thecosts of the activities referred to in para-graph (1) and the access of eligible individ-uals to the services and research opportuni-ties described in such paragraph.

‘‘(B) LIMITATION.—After a final determina-tion under subparagraph (A), the Secretary

may not make a grant under this part unlessthe grantee complies with such requirementsas may be included in such determination.’’.

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 2671 of the Public Health Service Act(42 U.S.C. 300ff–71) is amended in subsection(j) (as redesignated by subsection (e)(1) ofthis section) by striking ‘‘fiscal years 1996through 2000’’ and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 2001through 2005’’.SEC. 402. AIDS EDUCATION AND TRAINING CEN-

TERS.(a) SCHOOLS; CENTERS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 2692(a)(1) of the

Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–111(a)(1)) is amended—

(A) in subparagraph (A)—(i) by striking ‘‘training’’ and inserting ‘‘to

train’’;(ii) by striking ‘‘and including’’ and insert-

ing ‘‘, including’’; and(iii) by inserting before the semicolon the

following: ‘‘, and including (as applicable tothe type of health professional involved),prenatal and other gynecological care forwomen with HIV disease’’;

(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘and’’after the semicolon at the end;

(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking the pe-riod and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(D) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(D) to develop protocols for the medical

care of women with HIV disease, includingprenatal and other gynecological care forsuch women.’’.

(2) DISSEMINATION OF TREATMENT GUIDE-LINES; MEDICAL CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES.—Not later than 90 days after the date of theenactment of this Act, the Secretary ofHealth and Human Services shall issue andbegin implementation of a strategy for thedissemination of HIV treatment informationto health care providers and patients.

(b) DENTAL SCHOOLS.—Section 2692(b) ofthe Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.300ff–111(b)) is amended—


‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—‘‘(A) GRANTS.—The Secretary may make

grants to dental schools and programs de-scribed in subparagraph (B) to assist suchschools and programs with respect to oralhealth care to patients with HIV disease.

‘‘(B) ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS.—For purposesof this subsection, the dental schools andprograms referred to in this subparagraphare dental schools and programs that weredescribed in section 777(b)(4)(B) as such sec-tion was in effect on the day before the dateof the enactment of the Health ProfessionsEducation Partnerships Act of 1998 (PublicLaw 105–392) and in addition dental hygieneprograms that are accredited by the Com-mission on Dental Accreditation.’’;

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking‘‘777(b)(4)(B)’’ and inserting ‘‘the section re-ferred to in paragraph (1)(B)’’; and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the fol-lowing paragraph:

‘‘(5) COMMUNITY-BASED CARE.—The Sec-retary may make grants to dental schoolsand programs described in paragraph (1)(B)that partner with community-based dentiststo provide oral health care to patients withHIV disease in unserved areas. Such partner-ships shall permit the training of dental stu-dents and residents and the participation ofcommunity dentists as adjunct faculty.’’.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—(1) SCHOOLS; CENTERS.—Section 2692(c)(1) of

the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.300ff–111(c)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘fiscalyears 1996 through 2000’’ and inserting ‘‘fiscalyears 2001 through 2005’’.

(2) DENTAL SCHOOLS.—Section 2692(c)(2) ofthe Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.300ff–111(c)(2)) is amended to read as follows:


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8831October 5, 2000‘‘(2) DENTAL SCHOOLS.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of

grants under paragraphs (1) through (4) ofsubsection (b), there are authorized to be ap-propriated such sums as may be necessaryfor each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

‘‘(B) COMMUNITY-BASED CARE.—For the pur-pose of grants under subsection (b)(5), thereare authorized to be appropriated such sumsas may be necessary for each of the fiscalyears 2001 through 2005.’’.Subtitle B—General Provisions in Title XXVI

SEC. 411. EVALUATIONS AND REPORTS.Section 2674(c) of the Public Health Serv-

ice Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–74(c)) is amended bystriking ‘‘1991 through 1995’’ and inserting‘‘2001 through 2005’’.SEC. 412. DATA COLLECTION THROUGH CENTERS

FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PRE-VENTION.

Part B of title III of the Public HealthService Act (42 U.S.C. 243 et seq.) is amendedby inserting after section 318A the followingsection:

‘‘DATA COLLECTION REGARDING PROGRAMSUNDER TITLE XXVI

‘‘SEC. 318B. For the purpose of collectingand providing data for program planning andevaluation activities under title XXVI, thereare authorized to be appropriated to the Sec-retary (acting through the Director of theCenters for Disease Control and Prevention)such sums as may be necessary for each ofthe fiscal years 2001 through 2005. Such au-thorization of appropriations is in additionto other authorizations of appropriationsthat are available for such purpose.’’.SEC. 413. COORDINATION.

Section 2675 of the Public Health ServiceAct (42 U.S.C. 300ff–75) is amended—

(1) by amending subsection (a) to read asfollows:

‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary shallensure that the Health Resources and Serv-ices Administration, the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention, the SubstanceAbuse and Mental Health Services Adminis-tration, and the Health Care Financing Ad-ministration coordinate the planning, fund-ing, and implementation of Federal HIV pro-grams to enhance the continuity of care andprevention services for individuals with HIVdisease or those at risk of such disease. TheSecretary shall consult with other Federalagencies, including the Department of Vet-erans Affairs, as needed and utilize planninginformation submitted to such agencies bythe States and entities eligible for support.’’;

(2) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c)as subsections (c) and (d), respectively;

(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol-lowing subsection:

‘‘(b) REPORT.—The Secretary shall bienni-ally prepare and submit to the appropriatecommittees of the Congress a report con-cerning the coordination efforts at the Fed-eral, State, and local levels described in thissection, including a description of Federalbarriers to HIV program integration and astrategy for eliminating such barriers andenhancing the continuity of care and preven-tion services for individuals with HIV diseaseor those at risk of such disease.’’; and

(4) in each of subsections (c) and (d) (as re-designated by paragraph (2) of this section),by inserting ‘‘and prevention services’’ after‘‘continuity of care’’ each place such termappears.SEC. 414. PLAN REGARDING RELEASE OF PRIS-

ONERS WITH HIV DISEASE.Section 2675 of the Public Health Service

Act, as amended by section 413(2) of this Act,is amended by adding at the end the fol-lowing subsection:

‘‘(e) RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING RE-LEASE OF PRISONERS.—After consultation

with the Attorney General and the Directorof the Bureau of Prisons, with States, witheligible areas under part A, and with entitiesthat receive amounts from grants under partA or B, the Secretary, consistent with thecoordination required in subsection (a), shalldevelop a plan for the medical case manage-ment of and the provision of support servicesto individuals who were Federal or Stateprisoners and had HIV disease as of the dateon which the individuals were released fromthe custody of the penal system. The Sec-retary shall submit the plan to the Congressnot later than 2 years after the date of theenactment of the Ryan White CARE ActAmendments of 2000.’’.SEC. 415. AUDITS.

Part D of title XXVI of the Public HealthService Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–71 et seq.) isamended by inserting after section 2675 thefollowing section:‘‘SEC. 2675A. AUDITS.

‘‘For fiscal year 2002 and subsequent fiscalyears, the Secretary may reduce theamounts of grants under this title to a Stateor political subdivision of a State for a fiscalyear if, with respect to such grants for thesecond preceding fiscal year, the State orsubdivision fails to prepare audits in accord-ance with the procedures of section 7502 oftitle 31, United States Code. The Secretaryshall annually select representative samplesof such audits, prepare summaries of the se-lected audits, and submit the summaries tothe Congress.’’.SEC. 416. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION.

Part D of title XXVI of the Public HealthService Act, as amended by section 415 ofthis Act, is amended by inserting after sec-tion 2675A the following section:‘‘SEC. 2675B. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION

REGARDING PARTS A AND B.‘‘(a) COORDINATED DISBURSEMENT.—After

consultation with the States, with eligibleareas under part A, and with entities that re-ceive amounts from grants under part A orB, the Secretary shall develop a plan for co-ordinating the disbursement of appropria-tions for grants under part A with the dis-bursement of appropriations for grants underpart B in order to assist grantees and otherrecipients of amounts from such grants incomplying with the requirements of suchparts. The Secretary shall submit the plan tothe Congress not later than 18 months afterthe date of the enactment of the Ryan WhiteCARE Act Amendments of 2000. Not laterthan 2 years after the date on which the planis so submitted, the Secretary shall completethe implementation of the plan, notwith-standing any provision of this title that isinconsistent with the plan.

‘‘(b) BIENNIAL APPLICATIONS.—After con-sultation with the States, with eligible areasunder part A, and with entities that receiveamounts from grants under part A or B, theSecretary shall make a determination ofwhether the administration of parts A and Bby the Secretary, and the efficiency of grant-ees under such parts in complying with therequirements of such parts, would be im-proved by requiring that applications forgrants under such parts be submitted bienni-ally rather than annually. The Secretaryshall submit such determination to the Con-gress not later than 2 years after the date ofthe enactment of the Ryan White CARE ActAmendments of 2000.

‘‘(c) APPLICATION SIMPLIFICATION.—Afterconsultation with the States, with eligibleareas under part A, and with entities that re-ceive amounts from grants under part A orB, the Secretary shall develop a plan for sim-plifying the process for applications underparts A and B. The Secretary shall submitthe plan to the Congress not later than 18months after the date of the enactment of

the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of2000. Not later than 2 years after the date onwhich the plan is so submitted, the Sec-retary shall complete the implementation ofthe plan, notwithstanding any provision ofthis title that is inconsistent with theplan.’’.SEC. 417. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

FOR PARTS A AND B.Section 2677 of the Public Health Service

Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff–77) is amended to read asfollows:‘‘SEC. 2677. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA-

TIONS.‘‘(a) PART A.—For the purpose of carrying

out part A, there are authorized to be appro-priated such sums as may be necessary foreach of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

‘‘(b) PART B.—For the purpose of carryingout part B, there are authorized to be appro-priated such sums as may be necessary foreach of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.’’.

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONSSEC. 501. STUDIES BY INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE.

(a) STATE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS ON PREV-ALENCE OF HIV.—The Secretary of Healthand Human Services (referred to in this sec-tion as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall request the In-stitute of Medicine to enter into an agree-ment with the Secretary under which suchInstitute conducts a study to provide the fol-lowing:

(1) A determination of whether the surveil-lance system of each of the States regardingthe human immunodeficiency virus providesfor the reporting of cases of infection withthe virus in a manner that is sufficient toprovide adequate and reliable information onthe number of such cases and the demo-graphic characteristics of such cases, bothfor the State in general and for specific geo-graphic areas in the State.

(2) A determination of whether such infor-mation is sufficiently accurate for purposesof formula grants under parts A and B oftitle XXVI of the Public Health Service Act.

(3) With respect to any State whose sur-veillance system does not provide adequateand reliable information on cases of infec-tion with the virus, recommendations re-garding the manner in which the State canimprove the system.

(b) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EPIDEMIOLOG-ICAL MEASURES AND HEALTH CARE FOR CER-TAIN INDIVIDUALS WITH HIV DISEASE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall re-quest the Institute of Medicine to enter intoan agreement with the Secretary underwhich such Institute conducts a study con-cerning the appropriate epidemiologicalmeasures and their relationship to the fi-nancing and delivery of primary care andhealth-related support services for low-in-come, uninsured, and under-insured individ-uals with HIV disease.

(2) ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED.—The Sec-retary shall ensure that the study underparagraph (1) considers the following:

(A) The availability and utility of healthoutcomes measures and data for HIV pri-mary care and support services and the ex-tent to which those measures and data couldbe used to measure the quality of such fund-ed services.

(B) The effectiveness and efficiency of serv-ice delivery (including the quality of serv-ices, health outcomes, and resource use)within the context of a changing health careand therapeutic environment, as well as thechanging epidemiology of the epidemic, in-cluding determining the actual costs, poten-tial savings, and overall financial impact ofmodifying the program under title XIX ofthe Social Security Act to establish eligi-bility for medical assistance under such titleon the basis of infection with the human im-munodeficiency virus rather than providing


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8832 October 5, 2000such assistance only if the infection has pro-gressed to acquired immune deficiency syn-drome.

(C) Existing and needed epidemiologicaldata and other analytic tools for resourceplanning and allocation decisions, specifi-cally for estimating severity of need of acommunity and the relationship to the allo-cations process.

(D) Other factors determined to be relevantto assessing an individual’s or community’sability to gain and sustain access to qualityHIV services.

(c) OTHER ENTITIES.—If the Institute ofMedicine declines to conduct a study underthis section, the Secretary shall enter intoan agreement with another appropriate pub-lic or nonprofit private entity to conduct thestudy.

(d) REPORT.—The Secretary shall ensurethat—

(1) not later than 3 years after the date ofthe enactment of this Act, the study re-quired in subsection (a) is completed and areport describing the findings made in thestudy is submitted to the appropriate com-mittees of the Congress; and

(2) not later than 2 years after the date ofthe enactment of this Act, the study re-quired in subsection (b) is completed and areport describing the findings made in thestudy is submitted to such committees.SEC. 502. DEVELOPMENT OF RAPID HIV TEST.

(a) EXPANSION, INTENSIFICATION, AND CO-ORDINATION OF RESEARCH AND OTHER ACTIVI-TIES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of NIH shallexpand, intensify, and coordinate researchand other activities of the National Insti-tutes of Health with respect to the develop-ment of reliable and affordable tests for HIVdisease that can rapidly be administered andwhose results can rapidly be obtained (inthis section referred to a ‘‘rapid HIV test’’).

(2) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Director ofNIH shall periodically submit to the appro-priate committees of Congress a report de-scribing the research and other activitiesconducted or supported under paragraph (1).

(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—For the purpose of carrying out this sub-section, there are authorized to be appro-priated such sums as may be necessary foreach of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

(b) PREMARKET REVIEW OF RAPID HIVTESTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 daysafter the date of the enactment of this Act,the Secretary, in consultation with the Di-rector of the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention and the Commissioner of Foodand Drugs, shall submit to the appropriatecommittees of the Congress a report describ-ing the progress made towards, and barriersto, the premarket review and commercialdistribution of rapid HIV tests. The reportshall—

(A) assess the public health need for andpublic health benefits of rapid HIV tests, in-cluding the minimization of false positive re-sults through the availability of multiplerapid HIV tests;

(B) make recommendations regarding theneed for the expedited review of rapid HIVtest applications submitted to the Center forBiologics Evaluation and Research and, ifsuch recommendations are favorable, specifycriteria and procedures for such expeditedreview; and

(C) specify whether the barriers to the pre-market review of rapid HIV tests include theunnecessary application of requirements—

(i) necessary to ensure the efficacy of de-vices for donor screening to rapid HIV testsintended for use in other screening situa-tions; or

(ii) for identifying antibodies to HIVsubtypes of rare incidence in the United

States to rapid HIV tests intended for use inscreening situations other than donorscreening.

(c) GUIDELINES OF CENTERS FOR DISEASECONTROL AND PREVENTION.—Promptly aftercommercial distribution of a rapid HIV testbegins, the Secretary, acting through the Di-rector of the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention, shall establish or update guide-lines that include recommendations forStates, hospitals, and other appropriate enti-ties regarding the ready availability of suchtests for administration to pregnant womenwho are in labor or in the late stage of preg-nancy and whose HIV status is not known tothe attending obstetrician.SEC. 503. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

(a) PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.—TitleXXVI of the Public Health Service Act (42U.S.C. 300ff–11 et seq.) is amended—

(1) in section 2605(d)—(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘section

2608’’ and inserting ‘‘section 2677’’; and(B) in paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘section’’

before 2601(a)’’; and(2) in section 2673(a), in the matter pre-

ceding paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘the Agen-cy for Health Care Policy and Research’’ andinserting ‘‘the Director of the Agency forHealthcare Research and Quality’’.

(b) RELATED ACT.—The first paragraph (2)of section 3(c) of the Ryan White Care ActAmendments of 1996 (Public Law 104–146; 110Stat. 1354) is amended in subparagraph(A)(iii) by striking ‘‘by inserting the fol-lowing new paragraph:’’ and inserting ‘‘byinserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesig-nated) the following new paragraph’’.

TITLE VI—EFFECTIVE DATESEC. 601. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made bythis Act take effect October 1, 2000, or uponthe date of the enactment of this Act, which-ever occurs later.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-ant to House Resolution 611, the gen-tleman from Oklahoma (Mr. COBURN)and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.BROWN) each will control 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Oklahoma (Mr. COBURN).

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that is longoverdue. Before we get into the topic ofdiscussions on this bill, I think it isimportant that the American publicknow that this reauthorization is goingto allow at least $1 billion per year tobe spent in Ryan White CARE Act poli-cies and procedures. Also, the Amer-ican public should know that we aregoing to spend about $10 billion a yearon this epidemic, both in terms of re-search, drug treatments, and all associ-ated factors with it.

As we think about that, if we were toapply the same efforts to many otherdiseases in our country, we would beachieving far more than we are today.

This bill is long overdue. It is longoverdue in a lot of ways. It is longoverdue because the government hasfailed through the CDC and the FDAand the NIH to appropriately handlethis epidemic.

Two decades ago, the HIV/AIDS epi-demic was recognized. Our Federal re-sponse to HIV/AIDS epidemic at thattime was to ignore proven publichealth policies. This bill institutes forthe first time in the Ryan White CARE

Act proven public health policies thatwill, in fact, make a difference in thenumber of people who are infected.

These include ensuring medical ac-cess to all who are infected, not a spe-cial select few; early intervention inpeople who are infected; reliable dis-ease surveillance and partner notifica-tion, including a responsibility to notinfect anyone else with this disease. Wewill also, for the first time, recognizeall of those living with HIV rather thanfocusing exclusively on those withAIDS.

There are many other noteworthychanges made by this bill. Waiting liststo access life-saving HIV medicationsunder the AIDS Drug Assistance pro-gram will be eliminated. Preventionwill be incorporated as part of the com-prehensive care program. Planningcouncils will be more representative ofthe infected population. Patients whorely on the CARE Act for their well-being will be given a greater voice inpriority setting, and accountabilitysafeguards will ensure that FederalAIDS funds will be spent on needed pa-tient care. This bill will also provideFederal assistance to States to ensurethat all pregnant women with HIV andtheir children are identified and pro-vided care.

One of the most promising victoriesin the battle against AIDS was a 1994finding that the administration of adrug could significantly reduce thechance that a child born to an HIVpositive mother would become in-fected. Yet, despite these miracles, asignificant number of women still arenot tested for HIV during their preg-nancy, and hundreds of children areneedlessly infected each year with anincurable disease that will prematurelyclaim their lives.

This bill will provide up to $400 mil-lion annually to any State that makesidentifying and ensuring proper carefor HIV and infected women and theirHIV-exposed newborns a priority.

The two States with such baby AIDSlaws, New York and Connecticut, haveexperienced great success. Universalnewborn HIV testing has resulted inthe identification of all HIV-exposedbirths and has allowed hospital andhealth department staff to ensure thatover 98 percent of HIV positive mothersare aware of their HIV status and havenewborns referred for early diagnosisand care of HIV infection. That is ac-cording to Dr. Guthrie Birkhead, thedirector of the New York AIDS Insti-tute.

Dr. Birkhead noted that the rates ofprenatal care have been increasing, notdecreasing as we were told would hap-pen. There has been no detectablechange in prenatal participation trendsthat might be related to the newborntesting program.

The Connecticut baby AIDS law,which requires every newborn to bescreened for HIV if the mother’s statusis unknown, was enacted almost a yearago. In the first 10 months, 26 newbornswho were perinatally exposed to HIV


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8833October 5, 2000have been identified. This is more thanfour times as many as were diagnosedwith HIV in the previous 3 years com-bined.

This substantial financial incentiveamounts to a Federal endorsement ofuniversal HIV newborn testing as aroutine medical practice. I must re-grettably note that the organization inmy profession that purports to rep-resent physicians who care for mothersand women has yet to endorse this. Thequestion we ought to ask ourselves iswhy the American College of Obstetri-cians and Gynecologists, knowing thatwe can save children’s lives and we cantreat women, has failed to yet endorsethis.

This bill will also provide additionalresources to support partner notifica-tion programs so that everyone whohas been exposed to HIV is given theright to know that exposure. In addi-tion, it will empower those who are in-fected to protect others from infectionby providing prevention counseling asa part of a comprehensive care pro-gram. This includes providing adviceon how to disclose one’s HIV status toa potential partner and emphasizing tothose living with HIV that they have aresponsibility not to give this diseaseto anyone else.

Finally, the bill recognizes everyoneliving with HIV and guarantees accessto life-saving treatment to all who areinfected. Current funding formulas arebased on AIDS infection, the end stageof HIV infection. The CDC only re-cently recommended that States begintracking the full scope of the epidemic,not just AIDS. The American publicought to be asking why has it waited solong.

Over 12 years ago, the PresidentialCommission on HIV warned the con-tinual focus on AIDS rather than thefull spectrum of HIV disease has leftour Nation unable to deal adequatelywith the epidemic. Well, this billchanges that. This observation was ab-solutely correct. Yet, it was ignored bythe CDC and Federal policy makers.The results have been devastating.

While our attention was placed onAIDS, the virus silently spread throughcommunities of color, and more andmore women became unknowingly in-fected. Only now are AIDS statisticsrevealing the paths that the virus took10 years ago. Unfortunately, the cas-ualties are increasingly rising forwomen and women of color.

While women and African-Americanscomprise the majority of new HIV in-fections, they also receive less appro-priate care according to the GeneralAccounting Office. This is a direct re-sult of the CARE Act’s misplaced em-phasis on AIDS data and determiningfunding and priority setting. That haschanged with this bill.

All of these changes, while long over-due, will do much to improve our Na-tion’s responsibilities to HIV and AIDSby ensuring medical access to all ofthose who are infected and by pro-viding the proper care for all.

Mr. Speaker, I include the followingletter for the RECORD, as follows:

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE,Washington, DC, August 24, 2000.

Hon. TOM A. COBURN,Vice Chair, Subcommittee on Health and Envi-

ronment, Committee on Commerce, House ofRepresentatives.

Subject: Ryan White CARE Act: Title IFunding for San Francisco

DEAR MR. COBURN: This letter responds toyour request for additional information re-garding funding for San Francisco under theRyan White CARE Act. Specifically, youasked that we compare San Francisco’s fis-cal year 2000 title I grant award, which wasdetermined using the act’s hold-harmlessprovision, with what the award would havebeen had deceased AIDS cases been includedin the calculation. You also asked how fund-ing for San Francisco that was based on theinclusion of deceased AIDS cases would havecompared with the amount San Franciscowould have received if the fiscal year 2000hold-harmless level had been reduced by 25percent.

In brief, San Francisco’s fiscal year 2000title I grant award would have been 26 per-cent less had both living and deceased AIDScases been used to calculate the award in-stead of the current hold-harmless provision.The reason for this result is the substantialdecline in newly reported AIDS cases in SanFrancisco compared with other eligible met-ropolitan areas (EMA). Therefore, a 25-per-cent reduction in the current hold-harmlesslevel would have provided San Franciscowith funding comparable to what it wouldhave received if title I grants had been cal-culated on the basis of both deceased and liv-ing cases.

This analysis is based on data obtainedfrom the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention and computer models we devel-oped to calculate how funding would changeunder various formula scenarios. We per-formed our work in August 2000 according togenerally accepted government auditingstandards.

BACKGROUND

The Ryan White CARE Act of 1990 provideshealth care and preventive services to peopleinfected with the human immunodeficiencyvirus. Prior to the 1996 reauthorization of theact, the number of both living and deceasedAIDS cases was used to distribute title Ifunds among EMAs. Under this practice,areas of the country with the longest experi-ence with the disease had the most deceasedcases and therefore received funding dis-proportionate to their share of living casesin need of care. The 1996 reauthorizationeliminated this practice by counting onlylive AIDS cases. The effect of the change wasto shift funding away from EMAs with high-er proportions of deceased cases and towardthose with newly diagnosed cases. As geo-graphic trends in the disease change, the re-vised formula automatically realigns fund-ing with the current distribution of the dis-ease.

A hold-harmless provision was also in-cluded in the 1996 reauthorization to providefor a gradual transition to new funding lev-els for those EMAs that would otherwisehave experienced substantial funding de-creases. This provision allowed grant awardsfor affected EMAs to decline by no morethan 5 percent by fiscal year 2000. In fiscalyear 1996, four EMAs benefited from thehold-harmless provision: San Francisco, NewYork, Houston, and Jersey City. By fiscalyear 1999, all but San Francisco had madethe transition to the new formula.

Under the current title I formula, EMAsreceive grant awards that are proportionalto the number of living AIDS cases. In fiscal

year 2000, Los Angeles had 6.9 percent of allAIDS cases nationally and received 6.7 per-cent of title I funding. Similarly, Miami had4.4 percent of all AIDS cases and received 4.3percent of title I funding. EMAs received$1,290 in title I funds per AIDS case in fiscalyear 2000. However, because of the hold-harmless provision, San Francisco’s grantaward was substantially higher: it received$2,360 per AIDS case, or 80 percent more thanother EMAs. As a consequence, San Fran-cisco received 6.7 percent of title I formulafunding even though it had just 3.8 percent ofall living AIDS cases.RESULTS OF DIFFERENT FUNDING APPROACHES

If both deceased and living AIDS cases hadbeen used to calculate fiscal year 2000 title Iformula grants instead of the hold-harmlessprovision, San Francisco’s grant would havebeen about 4.9 percent of all title I formulafunding, or 26 percent less than it actuallywas (see fig. 1). Thus, a 25-percent reductionin the current hold-harmless level, as pro-vided for in H.R. 4807, would have an effecton San Francisco’s funding similar to that ofcalculating grant awards on the basis of bothdeceased and living cases.

An important reason that San Francisco’sshare of living AIDS cases is so much lowerthan its share of title I formula funding isthat the rate of new cases has declined to amuch greater extent in San Francisco thanin almost any other area of the country. Asfigure 2 shows, San Francisco’s newly re-ported AIDS cases dropped by over 50 percentbetween 1990 and 1999, while other EMAshave shown either smaller declines (Los An-geles) or increases (Miami).

At the start of the decade, Los Angeles andSan Francisco were reporting nearly thesame number of new AIDS cases (2,130 in LosAngeles and 1,923 in San Francisco). By theend of the decade, San Francisco was report-ing half as many new cases as Los Angeles(904 compared with 2,027). Similarly, at thestart of the decade, Miami was reportingabout half as many new AIDS cases as SanFrancisco (1,076 in Miami compared with1,923 in San Francisco). By the end of thedecade, Miami was reporting about 70 per-cent more new cases than San Francisco.

We did not obtain comments from otherparties because your request pertains to theformula provisions in the law and not to theactivities of any agency or organization.

If you have any questions regarding thisletter, please contact me at (202) 512–7118 orJerry Fastrup at (202) 512–7211. GregDybalski and Michael Williams made majorcontributions to this work.

Sincerely yours,JANET HEINRICH,

Associate Director, Health Financingand Public Health Issues.


b 1045

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Iyield myself such time as I may con-sume.

I first want to commend the gen-tleman from Oklahoma (Mr. COBURN)and the gentleman from California (Mr.WAXMAN) for their outstanding work onthe Ryan White CARE Act Amend-ments of 2000.

I also want to acknowledge the gen-tlewoman from California (Ms. ESHOO).Her constituents should know sheworked exceptionally hard on this bill,particularly on those provisions withparticular significance to San Fran-cisco. The same can be said of the gen-tlewoman from California (Ms. PELOSI).


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8834 October 5, 2000She deserves a great deal of credit andpraise for her ongoing involvement andinput on these provisions.

This bill required a tremendousamount of work and negotiation. Staffmembers Paul Kim and Roland Fosterput in a staggering number of hours,and it shows in the quality of the finalproduct. John Ford, Marc Wheat,Karen Nelson, Eleanor Dehoney alsodeserves our thanks, as well as StaceyRampey and Scott Boule.

Over the last several years, much hasbeen written about ‘‘The changing faceof AIDS.’’ This is not a wholly accuratecharacterization. HIV/AIDS is not amoving target. It does not leave onepopulation when it moves to anotherpopulation. Instead, HIV/AIDS expandsto absorb new populations while con-tinuing its progression in groups al-ready affected by the virus.

When the AIDS epidemic surfaced inthis country 19 years ago, white gaymales were the at-risk population.That has not changed. The populationstill is at an elevated risk. But the epi-demic has expanded its reach dramati-cally in these 2 decades. The latestHIV/AIDS statistics show that AfricanAmerican and Latino communities aresignificantly over-represented in thenumber of new HIV infections. AfricanAmericans comprise 12 percent of thepopulation but accounted for morethan 50 percent of the estimated 40,000new HIV infections in 1999.

The aggressive nature of this viruscalls for an equally aggressive re-sponse, and it speaks to the importanceof updating and reauthorizing the RyanWhite Act. Ryan White programs getinformation and services to the peoplewho need them. They combat the ill-ness as well as the alienation and isola-tion that can be one of its most dis-abling effects.

If HIV/AIDS is a war, and it is set tokill more people worldwide than WorldWar I, World War II, Korea, and Viet-nam combined, then the Ryan Whiteprograms are this Nation’s front linedefenses. The act was created in mem-ory of Ryan White, a young teenagerwho became a national hero in thefight against HIV/AIDS. Ryan wantedto attend school. He wanted to betreated like other young people. Thoseseem like modest goals, but he had toovercome tremendous obstacles toachieve them.

Ryan was a hemophiliac and con-tracted HIV through a bad blood trans-fusion. But he fought against igno-rance, he fought against fear, he foughtagainst prejudice on behalf of all indi-viduals with HIV/AIDS. Ryan died onApril 8, 1990, at the age of 18. Ten yearsafter his death, the law named afterhim carries on his legacy.

The Ryan White CARE Act has madea tremendous difference in the lives ofpeople living with HIV/AIDS. In mydistrict, which includes much of Ohio’sonly title I-eligible metropolitan area,so-called EMA, Ryan White programsprovide primary care and support serv-ices and the kinds of medications that

can tame HIV/AIDS into a chronic,rather than an acute, illness. There ismore to do, and the Ryan White Actwill continue to play a pivotal role.

In Ohio, while AIDS deaths have de-clined, the incidence of HIV/AIDS hasincreased dramatically. After decliningsteadily, the incidence of HIV/AIDSamong young gay males is again on therise. HIV/AIDS is expanding into newpopulations while continuing to spreadin those populations originally at risk.Prevention is vital; treatment is vital;Ryan White programs are vital.

During the 13th International AIDSConference held in Durbin, South Afri-ca, scientists shared some amazing re-search findings. These findings providesorely needed hope for developing na-tions ravaged by HIV/AIDS. The re-search indicates that the so-calledAIDS cocktails, which have revolution-ized HIV/AIDS treatment in the U.S.and other industrialized nations, canbe successfully used even in countrieslacking a sophisticated health care in-frastructure.

That does not mean it will be easy.There must have been times whenRyan White himself felt overwhelmedby the intransigence, the callousness,and the hatred that he encountered.This Nation should fight AIDS hereand abroad with that sense of commit-ment that he had. Reauthorizing RyanWhite is part of that commitment, andI urge its passage.


Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Florida (Mr. BILI-RAKIS), the chairman of the Sub-committee on Health of the Committeeon Commerce.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the gentleman for yielding methis time and for being here to lead ourside on this very, very significant bill.

I too arise in support of this amend-ment to S. 2311, the Ryan White CAREAct Amendments of 2000. This final leg-islation is the result of negotiationsbetween the Senate and the House, andthe resulting bill is designed to bringthe CARE Act into the 21st century.

I salute my committee colleagues,the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.COBURN) and the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. WAXMAN), for their excel-lent work on this legislation; and Iurge Members to support its passage.

My Subcommittee on Health and En-vironment held a hearing on the bill,and the full Committee on Commerceapproved it by voice vote after adopt-ing several bipartisan amendments tofurther refine and strengthen this veryimportant measure.

Before the August recess, the Houseapproved legislation to reauthorize theRyan White CARE Act with strong bi-partisan support. The act provides crit-ical funding to address the needs of pa-tients living with HIV and AIDS. S.2311 reflects the agreements reachedbetween the House and the Senate, andI expect this bill to be signed into lawin the near future.

The Ryan White ComprehensiveAIDS Resources Emergency, or‘‘CARE’’ Act as we call it, was enactedin 1990 and Congress approved bipar-tisan legislation to reauthorize the lawin 1996. The Ryan White CARE Act pro-vides critical funding for health and so-cial services to the estimated 1 millionAmericans living with HIV and AIDS.The bill before us will ensure thatthese patients continue to receive thecare and medications they need to en-hance and prolong their lives.

The bill makes an important changeby relying on the number of HIV-in-fected individuals as opposed to onlythe number of persons living withAIDS as the basis for allocating fund-ing under titles I and II of the RyanWhite CARE Act. By targeting re-sources to the front line of the epi-demic, we will be able to reduce trans-mission rates and ensure the necessaryinfrastructure is in place to providecare to HIV-positive individuals assoon as possible.

This change will allow the FederalGovernment to be proactive instead ofreactive in the fight against HIV andAIDS. It should be noted, however, Mr.Speaker, that this shift will only occurwhen reliable data on HIV prevalenceis available.

The bill also includes a ‘‘hold harm-less’’ provision to ensure that no met-ropolitan area will suffer a drastic re-duction in CARE Act funds. The billwhich originally passed the Housewould have hurt certain cities such asSan Francisco. In this regard, Mr.Speaker, I will submit for the RECORDa letter that GAO sent to the gen-tleman from Oklahoma (Mr. COBURN).After lengthy negotiations, it has beenagreed the hold harmless reduction willbe a compromised 15 percent over thenext 5 years.

The Ryan White CARE Act must bereauthorized to improve our publichealth strategies. The bill before uswill ensure that the HIV/AIDS epi-demic can be tracked more accuratelyand that appropriate funding and infor-mation about this disease can be di-rected effectively. I have been very en-couraged to hear from patient advo-cates in support of this measure. Forexample, AIDS Action stated that it is‘‘very pleased with the compromise billthat has been negotiated between theHouse and the Senate. It represents amodernization of the CARE Act andwill allow us to provide quality care forpeople with HIV and AIDS.’’

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want toagain recognize the hard work of allthe Members and their staffs, whose bi-partisan efforts advanced this reau-thorization bill. The gentleman fromOklahoma (Mr. COBURN) and the gen-tleman from California (Mr. WAXMAN),who I mentioned previously, and staffmembers Roland Foster and Paul Kimworked very hard to advance thismeasure in the House, working withSenators JEFFORDS, FRIST, and KEN-NEDY. And obviously, working with mycounterpart on the other side in the


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8835October 5, 2000subcommittee, the gentleman fromOhio (Mr. BROWN), the gentleman fromMichigan (Mr. DINGELL), et cetera, wewere able to craft this compromise leg-islation.

It is a critical piece of legislationthat can literally save lives, and I urgeall Members to join me today in sup-porting this important legislation.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 5 minutes to the gentlewomanfrom California (Ms. PELOSI), who hasbeen one of the real leaders in thiswhole process in pulling this bill to-gether.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thistime, and I want to compliment him onhis great leadership on this legislation;he and the gentleman from Florida(Mr. BILIRAKIS) for their leadership,and I associate myself with the com-ments that the gentleman from Floridamade in recognition of those whoworked so hard to make it a success;and, if it is allowed, to especially rec-ognize the work of Senator KENNEDYfor bringing about the compromisesthat exist in this bill.

The gentleman from California (Mr.WAXMAN) has been a champion in Con-gress since the onset of the AIDS epi-demic, and his leadership is very muchin evidence in this bill; and the rankingmember, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.BROWN), helped us through some dif-ficult times here, but I think the prod-uct is one that this whole body canwholeheartedly support. That is why,Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support ofthe reauthorization of the Ryan WhiteCARE Act.

Passage of this vital legislation isthe most important action this Con-gress can take on the issue of AIDSthis year. And I would like to thankagain the Committee on Commerce,the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. DIN-GELL), the gentleman from Virginia(Mr. BLILEY), the gentleman from Flor-ida (Mr. BILIRAKIS), the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. WAXMAN), the gen-tleman from Ohio (Mr. BROWN), andalso point out the distinguished workof the gentlewoman from California(Ms. ESHOO).

The gentlewoman from California(Ms. ESHOO) lives in the same metro-politan area that I do. We are in thesame area for care and treatment andprevention for people with HIV/AIDS.This is about care today, but her lead-ership on the committee has been in-dispensable to the success that we seehere today with this legislation.

Since the beginning of the AIDS epi-demic, my district in San Franciscohas been one of the most severely im-pacted in the country. When I came tothe Congress 13 years ago, we had al-ready lost over 13,000 of our friends andloved ones to the AIDS epidemic. Thatis 13,000, 13 years ago. We have sufferedgreatly, but we have learned a lot wewould like the rest of the country tobenefit from as we have responded tothis challenge.

The Ryan White CARE Act was mod-eled on a system of community-based

care that we developed to face the cri-sis in the 1980s. As a result of this workearly in the epidemic, San Franciscoproduced data that showed the countrythat comprehensive HIV/AIDS care andservices not only saved lives but alsosaved money and valuable health careresources. Today, the CARE Act pro-grams provide foundation for care andtreatment for low-income individualswith HIV and AIDS.

The recent declines we have seen inAIDS deaths are a direct result of thetherapies and services that have beenmade more widely available throughthe CARE Act to large numbers of un-insured and underinsured people withHIV and AIDS. Each year, the CAREAct ensures that approximately half amillion people, 500,000 people, livingwith HIV and AIDS have access to themedical services, including pharma-ceuticals that are needed to sustainand prolong life. This represents ap-proximately two-thirds of the individ-uals living with HIV/AIDS in this coun-try.

Although great strides have beenmade, there is much more to be done.The combination therapies that havebrought us so much hope are still notreaching all those in need. The chang-ing nature of the HIV/AIDS epidemic,along with the continuing impact of itin traditionally affected communities,has created new challenges for theCARE Act. People of color now rep-resent the majority of new AIDS cases,and the proportion of new AIDS casesamong women has grown from 11 per-cent in 1990 to 23 percent in most re-cent statistics.

In addition, new HIV infections haveremained constant at 40,000 cases peryear. These new infections, combinedwith the decline in AIDS deaths, meansmore individuals than ever before areliving with HIV and in need of treat-ment regimens that are costly, com-plicated and lifelong. As a result, thedemand on HIV care providers hasgrown.

The Ryan White CARE Act’s remark-able ability to adapt to the changingnature of the AIDS epidemic was con-firmed earlier this year when a GAO re-port concluded that the CARE Act ishelping our public health infrastruc-ture adjust to these new challenges bydirecting services to African Ameri-cans, Hispanics, and women in higherproportions than their representationin the AIDS population.

Again, I thank our colleagues, in-cluding the gentleman from Oklahoma(Mr. COBURN) and the Committee onCommerce for their great work. Thisprogram is an important example ofthe way that effective leadership at theFederal, State, and local levels cantranslate into improved health out-comes for the people of this country. Ithink it also is a wonderful example ofbipartisanship, where we can all cometogether and give what I hope will beunanimous support for this act. I urgemy colleagues to vote ‘‘yes’’ on the re-authorization.

Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Sub-committee on Labor, Health andHuman Services, and Education of theCommittee on Appropriations, and oneof the priorities we have there is re-search, prevention, and care for peoplewith HIV/AIDS.

b 1100

We want to focus heavily on preven-tion. We must continue our researchfor a cure. We are trying to find a vac-cine and, hopefully, that will happenbefore not too long. But we must neverforget the people out there who are di-agnosed with HIV and AIDS now.

I am pleased that the bill eventuallywill recognize and count those infectedwith HIV but not full-blown cases ofAIDS in the numbers and in the for-mula. I wish that would have beensooner. But, nonetheless, there is therecognition. I commend the legislatorson the committee, members of thecommittee, for making that distinc-tion and having it be a part of our for-mula down the road.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want tocommend the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. WAXMAN) who I see now onthe floor. As I said earlier, he has beena champion since day one on this issue.We have all been very well-served byhis leadership, that of the gentlemanfrom Ohio (Mr. BROWN) and others.

I urge my colleagues to vote aye.Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the remainderof the time on our side be controlled bythe gentleman from Florida (Mr. BILI-RAKIS).

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

There was no objection.Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield

31⁄2 minutes to the gentlewoman fromMaryland (Mrs. MORELLA).

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the gentleman for yielding methe time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong supportof the Ryan White CARE Act Amend-ments of 2000. I want to thank the gen-tleman from Florida (Chairman BILI-RAKIS) for his leadership in bringingthis bill to the floor and the gentlemanfrom Ohio (Mr. BROWN), the rankingmember, for his role in so doing.

And also, there are other colleaguesof ours who deserve particular atten-tion. The gentleman from Oklahoma(Mr. COBURN), the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. WAXMAN) and the gen-tleman from Ohio (Mr. BROWN) workedvery hard. They were dedicated in theircommitment and their hard work haspaid off for these critical programs.

The CARE Act represents the largestauthorization of Federal funds specifi-cally designated to provide health andsocial services to people infected withHIV. Declaring an AIDS emergency,Congress passed the Ryan White Com-prehensive AIDS Resources EmergencyAct in August of 1990. Six years later,we voted to reauthorize the CARE Act


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8836 October 5, 2000by a unanimous vote in the House ofRepresentatives and a 97–3 vote in theSenate.

Over the last 9 years, the CARE Acthas helped increase the availability ofprimary care health and support serv-ices especially for the uninsured andunderinsured persons with HIV disease.The multi-title structure of the CAREAct has worked effectively to dramati-cally improve the quality of life forpeople living with HIV and their fami-lies. It has helped to reduce cost of in-patient care and increase access to carefor underserved populations, includingpeople of color.

The legislation we are consideringtoday revises the grant formulas toshift the emphasis of the programsaway from treating people with full-blown AIDS to people with the viralprecursor, HIV, of AIDS. This legisla-tion includes a new formula beginningin 2005 for distributing funds to Statesand cities based on the number of bothAIDS and HIV cases compared to thecurrent formula, which allocates fundsbased solely on AIDS cases.

Also included in this measure is $20million to reduce HIV mother-to-childtransmission. The bill also addressesprevention of the disease by including$30 million for tracking the disease andencouraging people to notify theirpartners.

Additionally, those receiving carethrough Ryan White programs are re-quired to enroll in counseling pro-grams.

Today, promising new drug therapieshave brought new hope and new chal-lenges to the battle against the epi-demic, but these new drugs do not con-stitute a cure and an effective vaccineis still years away. Moreover, thetreatments do not work for everyone,they are difficult to access especiallyfor communities of color, and theirlong-term efficacy remains unknown.Nonetheless, AIDS deaths have de-clined dramatically in the last 3 yearsand more people are living longer withHIV.

The HIV/AIDS epidemic thus remainsan enormous health emergency in theUnited States, and it will remain sointo this century. The state of the epi-demic points to an increase rather thana decrease in the overall need forhealth care, drug treatment, socialservices. As a Nation, we must con-tinue our effort to expand access tothese services for people living withHIV/AIDS, particularly in communitiesof color and women.

This Ryan White CARE Act has prov-en to be an essential and effective partof the Federal response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. This legislation will en-sure we continue this response.

I certainly ask this body to supportthis comprehensive, meaningful andtruly successful legislation.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 41⁄2 minutes to the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. WAXMAN) whoplayed a very central role in the nego-tiations on this bill.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thetime.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong supportof S. 2311, the Ryan White CARE ActAmendments of 2000.

As the original author of the RyanWhite CARE Act and the coauthor ofthe House reauthorization bill, H.R.4807, I want to applaud the Membersand the staffs on both sides of the aislefor moving this crucial legislation withsuch speed and bipartisan cooperation.

I want to recognize the gentlemanfrom Oklahoma (Mr. COBURN) for hiscommitment to reauthorizing this Actand his leadership in fashioning thecompromises that allowed us to movethe bill I think virtually unanimouslythrough the House and to get an agree-ment with the Senate. He made thisconsensus legislation a reality.

The gentleman from Florida (Chair-man BILIRAKIS), the gentleman fromOhio (Mr. BROWN), the gentleman fromVirginia (Chairman BLILEY), and thegentleman from Michigan (Mr. DIN-GELL) have lent their unqualified sup-port. And numerous Members, includ-ing the gentlewoman from California(Ms. PELOSI), the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. TOWNS), the gentlewomanfrom California (Ms. ESHOO), the gen-tleman from Texas (Mr. RODRIGUEZ)and the gentlewoman from the VirginIslands (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN) have helpedensure its passage.

Mr. Speaker, the original CARE Actwas enacted in the wake of a decade oflost opportunities. I told this House in1990 that, ‘‘Having missed our oppor-tunity to provide an ounce of preven-tion, we must now prepare to pay forpounds and pounds of cure.’’

Today, the AIDS epidemic is every-where. It threatens everyone. But thereis still no vaccine and there is still nocure. Nevertheless, the Ryan WhiteCARE Act has made an enormous dif-ference. It provides care to tens ofthousands of Americans living withHIV/AIDS. It helps their families copewith the burdens of AIDS and HIV in-fection, and it provides urgently need-ed funding to community providers andhospitals to combat the epidemic.

Today’s overwhelming bipartisansupport for the CARE Act dem-onstrates that Congress understandshow crucial it is to the health and wel-fare of our country.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation pre-serves the best features of the CAREAct while making reforms to better re-spond to a changing epidemic.

First and foremost, this legislationbetter addresses the needs of individ-uals with HIV who have not developedAIDS. In 2004, we will determinewhether to use nationwide data on HIVinfection in the CARE Act. I believethis will happen, and I have been toldby the State of California that theywill have such data by 2004.

We also call on States and cities todo more to reach those who are not re-ceiving care and to serve the needs ofour historically underserved commu-

nities. We call for ending lingering dis-parities in care and for better coordina-tion of HIV/AIDS treatment with pre-vention.

We have also focused CARE Act pro-grams on the needs of vulnerable popu-lations. Funds will be allocated to bet-ter reflect the proportions of women,children, infants and youth with HIV. Iexpect this will increase such fundingfor those populations in the future.

This legislation also greatly expandsour national effort to eliminate theperinatal transmission of HIV/AIDS.These new funds will help bring thenumber of babies born with HIV in ourcountry down to zero.

We also redirect funding to cities andStates in the greatest need of assist-ance. The title I and title II ‘‘holdharmless’’ provisions have been revisedto ensure a manageable transition tofunding allocations which better re-flect the epidemic. At the same time,potential disruptions in patient careare minimized. And the title I, title II,and AIDS Drug Assistance Program(ADAP) supplemental grants will assistcities and States with the greatestneed of funds.

These are the principal reforms tothe CARE Act. They will expand ac-cess, improve quality, and enhanceservices for individuals with HIV andAIDS.

Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, muchmore could be done and much moreneeds to be done. We must expand Med-icaid to provide care to individualswith HIV who have not developedAIDS. We must lead the global searchfor an effective HIV vaccine and a curefor AIDS. And we must provide re-sources and our hard-earned expertiseto help other countries combat the epi-demic.

For today, though, I am pleased thatwe will fulfill the expectations ofJeanne White, the mother of RyanWhite, and of so many Americans liv-ing with HIV and AIDS by reauthor-izing the Ryan White CARE Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of theRyan White CARE Act Amendments.

As the original author of the Ryan WhiteCARE Act and the co-author of the House re-authorization bill, H.R. 4807, I want to applaudthe Members and the staff on both sides ofthe aisle for moving this crucial legislation withsuch speed and bipartisan cooperation.

I want to recognize Dr. COBURN for his com-mitment to reauthorizing the CARE Act. Hehas made this consensus legislation a reality.Chairman BILIRAKIS and Mr. BROWN, ChairmanBLILEY and Mr. DINGELL have lent their un-qualified support. And numerous Members, in-cluding Ms. PELOSI, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. ESHOO,Mr. RODRIGUEZ and Dr. CHRISTENSEN, havehelped ensure its passage.

Mr. Speaker, the original CARE Act was en-acted in the wake of a decade of lost opportu-nities. I told this House in 1990 that, ‘‘Havingmissed our opportunity to provide an ounce ofprevention, we must now prepare to pay forpounds and pounds of cure.’’

Ten years ago, there were those who spokeof the AIDS epidemic as a thing of the past.There were those who dismissed the disease


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8837October 5, 2000as a danger to others, and not themselves.And there were those who opposed the RyanWhite CARE Act.

Mr. Speaker, they were wrong then, andthey are wrong today. The AIDS epidemic iseverywhere. It threatens everyone. It is dev-astating the globe from Russia to subSaharanAfrica. And there is still no vaccine. There isstill no cure.

But in the face of these challenges, theCARE Act has made a difference. The CAREAct provides care to tens of thousands ofAmericans living with HIV/AIDS. If helps theirfamilies cope with the burdens of AIDS andHIV infection. And it provides urgently neededfunding to community providers and hospitalsto combat the epidemic.

Today’s overwhelming bipartisan support forthe CARE Act demonstrates that Congressunderstands how crucial it is to the health andwelfare of our country.

Let me highlight the important ways this leg-islation preserves the best and proven fea-tures of the CARE Act, while making importantand substantial reforms to better respond to achanging epidemic. I am particularly pleasedthat this consensus House and Senate legisla-tion reflects virtually all of the provisions andagreements reached by this House in H.R.4807.

Most important of all, this legislation betteraddresses the needs of individuals with HIVwho have not developed AIDS. With 40,000new infections every year and improved pros-pects for delaying the onset of AIDS, the num-ber of new deaths from AIDS has declined butthe number of individuals with HIV is rising in-exorably. In response, this legislation calls onthe Secretary of Health and Human Servicesto determine in 2004 whether we have nation-wide data on accurate and reliable cases ofHIV infection which can be used in allocatingCARE Act funds. I believe this will happen,and I have been told by the State of Californiathat they are confident they will have suchdata by 2004.

We also call on States and cities to betterdetermine the number and demographics ofindividuals with HIV. We require special effortsto reach those who are not receiving care andserve the needs of our historically under-served communities. We call for ending lin-gering disparities in care. And we requireStates, cities and the Federal government todevelop new strategies to better coordinateHIV/AIDS treatment with prevention.

The need for better coordination cuts acrosssystems of care, Federal agencies, States, cit-ies, providers and community organizations.Ten years ago, I described the CARE Act asproviding ‘‘a continuum of prevention serv-ices—counseling and testing, diagnostics forthose who test positive, and therapeutics forthose whose diagnostics indicate a medicalintervention.’’ Patients receiving care underthe CARE Act today deserve seamless con-tinuity between testing, counseling, treatments,support and prevention services.

Just last week, the Institute of Medicine re-leased a comprehensive report on our nation’sHIV prevention efforts. They concluded that‘‘prevention services for HIV-infected peopleshould be integrated into the standard of careat all primary care centers, sexually-trans-mitted disease clinics, drug treatment facilities,and mental health centers.’’ This is preciselywhat we set out to accomplish in H.R. 4807,and this policy is reflected fully in this finalconsensus legislation.

This legislation also strengthens the respon-siveness of CARE Act programs to the public.Title I Planning Councils will include a greaternumber of independent individuals with HIV/AIDS. Planning Council meetings and recordswill be exposed to greater public ‘‘sunshine.’’All Planning Council members will receive im-proved training. And States will make theirplanning more accessible to a broader rangeof public stakeholders.

We have also focused CARE Act programson the needs of vulnerable populations. Justyesterday, the Office of National AIDS Policyannounced that half of the 40,000 new HIV in-fections every year occur among our teensand young adults. In this legislation, funds willbe allocated to better reflect the proportions ofwomen, children, infants and youth with HIV.I expect this will increase such funding forthese populations in the future.

We have also strengthened the Title IV pro-gram for medical care, social services, and ac-cess to research for low-income children,youth, women and families. States and citiesmust develop novel strategies to coordinatetheir HIV/AIDS services and substance abuseservices. And the Secretary of Health andHuman Services must develop a plan in con-sultation with the Attorney General for thetreatment of prisoners with HIV/AIDS.

This legislation greatly expands our nationaleffort to eliminate the perinatal transmission ofHIV/AIDS. The last ten years have seen a dra-matic decline in such cases, due largely to thetreatment of pregnant mothers withzidovudine. In an important compromise, wehave increased an existing $10 million CAREAct grant program by $20 million, with a pro-portion of new funds set aside for States witheither mandatory newborn testing or significantdeclines in perinatal transmission. I am con-fident these funds will be well spent on offer-ing counseling and testing to all pregnantwomen, outreach to high-risk women andother innovative prevention efforts.

Funding has also been redirected to citiesand States with the greatest need of additionalassistance. The Title I and Title II ‘‘hold harm-less’’ provisions have been revised to ensurea manageable transition to funding allocationswhich better reflect the current distribution andepidemiology of the epidemic. This will be ac-complished while minimizing potential disrup-tions in care for individuals with HIV/AIDS.Under Title II, States’ base funds as well astheir total funding will be held harmless to asmall percentage of loss.

Under Title I, a city’s potential loss in its for-mula allocation is limited to a percentage ofthe amount allocated to the city in the baseyear preceding its need for the hold harmless.In its fifth, consecutive year of need for thehold harmless, a city would lose no more than15 percent of its base year allocation. Suchlosses would not be compounded, as wascontemplated in the original Senate bill. But ifthe Secretary determines that data on HIVprevalence will be used in Title I formulagrants in 2005, no city may lose more than 2percent of its 2004 formula allocation in 2005.

Additionally, Title I supplemental grants andnew AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP)supplemental grants will be directed to citiesand States with ‘‘severe need’’ for such fund-ing, based on more objective and quantitativecriteria. And new Title II supplemental formulagrants will be given to ‘‘emerging commu-nities’’ with AIDS case counts which fall belowthe threshold for Title I eligibility.

These are the principal reforms to theCARE Act. They will expand access, improvequality and enhance services for individualswith HIV/AIDS. And I want to recognize thehard work of House staff, including RolandFoster, Paul Kim, Karen Nelson, Marc Wheat,John Ford, Eleanor Dehoney, Brent Delmonte,Katie Porter, Anne Esposito and House Legis-lative Counsel Pete Goodloe, in making thispossible.

Mr. Speaker, much more could be done andmuch more needs to be done. We must ex-pand Medicaid to provide care to individualswith HIV who have not developed AIDS. Wemust lead the global search for an effectiveHIV vaccine and a cure to AIDS. And we mustprovide resources and our hard-earned exper-tise to help other countries combat the epi-demic.

For today, though, I am pleased we will ful-fill the expectations of Jeanne White, themother of Ryan White, and of so many Ameri-cans living with HIV and AIDS by reauthorizingthe Ryan White CARE Act.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield2 minutes to the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. GILMAN) the chairman of theCommittee on International Relations.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thetime.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in supportof S. 2311, the Ryan White CARE ActAmendments as adopted by the Senate.It is a primary source of Federal AIDSprevention and treatment funding. Icommend the gentleman from Florida(Mr. BILIRAKIS), the subcommitteechairman on health and environment;the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.COBURN); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.BROWN); and the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. WAXMAN) for their full sup-port of this important measure.

This legislation accomplishes manyof our most important HIV goals:modifying the eligibility requirementsand allocation formulas for grants toState and local governments; givingStates increased flexibility to providea wider range of treatments and sup-port services; emphasizing the provi-sion of services for women, infants, andchildren by substituting special grantset-asides; capping administrative andevaluation expenses for the grant pro-grams; and requiring States to imple-ment the Center for Disease Controlguidelines regarding HIV testing andcounseling for pregnant women.

Also included in this measure is animportant fund, $20 million, to reduceHIV transmission from mothers totheir babies and $30 million for track-ing the disease and encouraging peopleto notify their partners, and provisionsto require people receiving carethrough Ryan White programs to en-roll in counseling programs.

In short, Mr. Speaker, this legisla-tion not only demonstrates the bipar-tisan humanitarian spirit of this Con-gress, but also in working together inareas of mutual concern that we canaccomplish worthy goals.

Accordingly, I am in strong supportof the Ryan White CARE Amendmentsand I urge our colleagues to adopt it atthe earliest possible date.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8838 October 5, 2000Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I

yield 21⁄2 minutes to the gentlewomanfrom California (Mrs. CAPPS) who is aregistered nurse and has been a realleader on all kinds of public healthissues.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thankmy colleague for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong supportof the Ryan White CARE Act Amend-ments of 2000. I commend my col-leagues on the Committee on Com-merce and others for all of their hardwork.

Today’s medical advances allowmany individuals with AIDS to leadlonger and more productive lives. How-ever, as patients live longer, the cost oftheir care and treatment has placed anever-greater demand on community-based organizations and State andlocal governments.

In the face of these challenges, theRyan White CARE Act has made agreat difference. This CARE Act pro-vides care to tens of thousands ofAmericans living with HIV/AIDS.

Recently I spoke with the Health Ed-ucator, Jayne Brechwald, with theSanta Barbara County Health CareServices in my district. She works on adaily basis with members of the com-munity who benefit greatly from RyanWhite funding. She spoke in strongsupport of funding for crucial servicessuch as Meals on Wheels, food banks,housing counseling. She also praisedprograms which help those diagnosednavigate the options available forthem. These include the medical care,education, and dental care that are soimportant during this terrifying timein a person’s life.

In Jayne’s words, ‘‘Ryan White fund-ing is really about local control. Theprogram requires that we do a needsassessment every year so that we havea very targeted, specific idea of howthe population we serve is changingand how the funding is being utilized.’’

I believe that the Ryan White Actrepresents the Federal Government atits best. This program defers to localexpertise, while providing the neededhelping hand of targeted Federal fund-ing.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud this legisla-tion and urge its passage.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield21⁄2 minutes to the gentleman fromPennsylvania (Mr. GREENWOOD).

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the gentleman for yielding methe time. I also thank the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. BILIRAKIS) for hisleadership on this issue; as well as theminority chair of the Subcommittee onHealth, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.BROWN); and the gentleman from Okla-homa (Mr. COBURN) and the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. WAXMAN) for theircollaboration. Anytime the gentlemanfrom Oklahoma (Mr. COBURN) and thegentleman from California (Mr. WAX-MAN) agree on something, it has got tobe pretty close to right on.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thankDorothy Mann from the Philadelphia

area, a friend of mine, who helped ne-gotiate one of the toughest aspects ofthis bill; and that has to do with thetesting of newborns.

b 1115

AIDS is clearly the worst epidemic inmodern history. It is a tragedy, and ithas struck down so many millions ofpeople around the world. But of all ofits victims, certainly the children, thenewborns, are the most innocent andthe ones who tug most heavily on ourhearts.

Four million women become preg-nant in this country every year and7,000 of those 4 million women are HIVpositive. Several hundred of the babiesthat they bear will be born HIV posi-tive. Of those little children, fully halfof them will die before they reach theage of 3; and by the age of 5, 90 percentof them have perished. So obviouslyanything that can be done to rescuethese children from that horrible fateneeds to be done. When a woman’s HIVstatus is known during her pregnancy,in two-thirds of the cases the child canbe prevented from becoming HIV posi-tive with AZT treatments that aregiven during pregnancy, during laborand several weeks afterwards, and Ce-sarian deliveries seem to very dramati-cally reduce the likelihood that thechild will become HIV positive.

What we have done in this bill to tryto solve the logjam between those whodo and those who do not believe inmandatory testing is we have put $30million in here to go to those Statesthat either have mandatory testinglaws or do the most through a varietyof programs to reduce the incidence ofHIV being passed on to newborns. InNew York, they have had a law on thebooks for 3 years; and they have beenable to identify every child who couldpotentially become exposed to HIVthrough delivery. They have been ableto prevent all of that. In 98 percent ofthe cases, the mother has been able toget treatment. It has been wildly suc-cessful.

This bill goes a long way to makingsure that that track record will applyto every State in the Union.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 2 minutes to the distinguishedgentlewoman from the District of Co-lumbia (Ms. NORTON).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding time, and Ithank him and his partners on theother side for their hard work in bring-ing this most important legislation tothe floor.

This week, the surgeon general wasquoted as saying the epidemic hasevolved to become increasingly an epi-demic of people of color, of women andof the young. We have got to get rid ofthis epidemic, not let it evolve; andwhat we are doing here this morningwill have a great deal to do with get-ting rid of it.

The disease has moved to a dev-astating place, Mr. Speaker, to thepoorest communities of color. Blacks

are only 12 percent of the population.They are 50 percent of the new cases.Almost 80 percent of the new casesamong women are black and Latinowomen. Half of the new cases occur inyouth. We are now finding that wehave to educate each new cohort per-haps every 4 or 5 years of gay men be-cause the newest cohort needs to learnwhat those that have passed on in their20s perhaps had to learn. We are deal-ing with a preventable disease. Butwhen people get this disease, they needour care and they need our love.

I am grateful to the gay and lesbiancommunity of this country for the wayin which they brought this issue to theforefront and now have helped us gath-er a bipartisan majority for the RyanWhite bill. If we continue to do whatwe are doing today, we will show whatwe all know, that this is a disease, un-like heart disease and unlike cancer,that we can prevent. This is a diseasethat we can eliminate. I thank all ofthose who contributed to this momenton the House floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentlewomanfrom California (Ms. WOOLSEY).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend her re-marks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise insupport of H.R. 4807, to reauthorize theRyan White CARE Act. This reauthor-ization is very important to our Na-tion. It is particularly important to myconstituents in the North Bay acrossthe Golden Gate Bridge from San Fran-cisco, and for all of the people in theentire San Francisco Bay region. Thisact provides crucial services for careand treatment for individuals with HIVand AIDS. To date, the CARE act hasworked to dramatically improve thequality of life for people living withHIV and for their families. It has re-duced the use of costly inpatient careas well as increased the access to high-quality care for underserved popu-lations.

By supporting this important legisla-tion, Mr. Speaker, we are ensuring thatthe thousands of Americans living withHIV/AIDS can continue to receive thecare and the treatment that is abso-lutely necessary for their comfort andfor their survival.

Mr. Speaker, we must spare no effortto fight the HIV/AIDS epidemic. By re-authorizing the Ryan White CARE Act,we are taking a positive step to suc-cessfully dealing with this very deadlydisease. We must adopt the reauthor-ization.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromIllinois (Mr. DAVIS).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, Irise today in strong support of theRyan White CARE Act. And I rise be-cause this legislation has meant somuch to so many people throughoutthe country. The Ryan White CARE


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8839October 5, 2000Act has meant so much that there aremany people who feel as they tell theirstories that without it they simplywould not be alive.

Mr. John Davis, the newly elected co-chair of the city of Chicago’s HIV serv-ices planning council, says if it was notfor the Ryan White CARE Act, hewould probably be dead. Mr. Davis, aformer heroin addict, says that hisroad to recovery began with him seek-ing help at a Ryan White-funded hous-ing program.

Like Mr. Davis, thousands of othersthroughout the country have had thesame experiences. Mr. Derrick Hicksfrom Chicago is able to live longer andget access to medications he may nototherwise be able to afford. And so, aswe continue to see the impact and theeffects of this program throughout thecountry, I simply rise to support it andsay that without it many people wouldnot have had the quality of life. I urgecontinued support.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Iyield myself the balance of my time.

I again ask for this House’s supportfor the Ryan White CARE Act. It is atremendous testament to bipartisan-ship support and the negotiating skillsof the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.COBURN) and the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. WAXMAN) and their staffs. Iask for unanimous support from thisHouse for this very good legislationthat will make a big difference in deal-ing with this dreadful disease.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo theremarks that the gentleman from Ohio(Mr. BROWN) just made. I had plannedto do so, also. It is just amazing whatcan be done from a bipartisan stand-point if people really are sincere andreally care about solving an issue rath-er than being concerned about dema-goguery, if you will, or with some ofthe things that take place. The factthat the gentleman from Oklahoma(Mr. COBURN) and the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. WAXMAN) worked sowell on this and were able to get itdone speaks well for both of them andfor the Congress when it works in thatway.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance ofmy time to the gentleman from Okla-homa (Mr. COBURN).

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want tofirst recognize Paul Kim for his greathelp on the gentleman from Califor-nia’s (Mr. WAXMAN) staff; Marc Wheat,the majority counsel on our side; andRoland Foster, a staff member of minewho has been with me for 6 years sinceI have been in Congress.

This is a good bill. There is no ques-tion about it. But this bill is notenough. Forty thousand people thisyear are going to become infected withHIV. It does not have to happen. We

should be asking the CDC, we should beasking the FDA, we should be askingthe NIH why they would not use provenpublic health policy to stop this epi-demic.

The best way to treat people withHIV today is to make sure no one elseever encounters this disease. This is apreventable disease. Although we havegone a long way from where we were inputting in the public health policiesthat should be there, they are still notthere. The reason they are not there isnot a good enough reason. We haveproven in the medical community thatwe can secure and hold confidentiallyanybody’s HIV status. We have beenperfect on that score. And to use thatas a reason now not to move to thenext step, I challenge my friend, thegentleman from Ohio (Mr. BROWN), andI challenge the gentleman from Florida(Mr. BILIRAKIS) that in the next Con-gress and the Congress that followsthat you will look very closely at whatpublic health policies could do to pre-vent that 40,000 people from never get-ting the disease.

We know. We handled the tuber-culosis epidemic in this country. Westopped it dead with a whole lot less ef-fort. This is something we can accom-plish. We have proven with this billthat if we will work and talk togetherand understand each other’s motiva-tions, problems and concerns, thatthrough discussion and bipartisan ap-proach that we can solve those prob-lems. The 40,000 people out there thisyear that are going to get infected de-serve for us to do that. As I leave thisbody, what I would ask is the Membersof this body, look at real problems, notthe political things that surround it;and if we will do that, 40,000 people willnot be infected.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio(Mr. BROWN) for his work. The gen-tleman from California (Mr. WAXMAN)has been great to work with. I appre-ciate the ability that we can expressourselves through true concern andsolve a problem. I would hope thatevery Member of this body will supportthis bill.

I also would leave one message withmy colleagues. There are diseasesmuch greater than this disease thatface our country today. Diabetes willtake tons more people than HIV.Breast cancer will take tons more peo-ple than HIV. And yet we are not any-where close to the same dollar commit-ment in those diseases as we are HIV.Because we have had a misguided pol-icy on treatment of HIV, we are spend-ing dollars that could be spent in otherareas. I would beg the body to look atthat.

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in supportof this amendment to S. 2311, the Ryan WhiteCARE Act Amendments of 2000. I congratu-late Dr. COBURN and Mr. WAXMAN for their ex-cellent work on this legislation, and salute mycolleagues on the Commerce Committee who,through workmanlike diligence and thoughtful-

ness, have dramatically improved the way theRyan White CARE Act will work now and intothe future.

Before the August recess, the House actedon a bi-partisan basis to authorize the RyanWhite CARE Act. This very important Act pro-vides funding to address the needs of thoseliving with HIV and AIDS. Because of the im-portance of this legislation, I made it a priorityto resolve the differences between the House-passed bill and the bill passed in the otherbody. As the newsletter AIDS Policy and Lawreported, ‘‘The negotiators decided to use theHouse bill, sponsored by Representatives TOMCOBURN, and HENRY WAXMAN, as the vehiclefor renewing the statute through fiscal year2005. The Senate bill was scrapped, with onlya few of its provisions being folded into theCoburn-Waxman H.R. 4807.’’ The negotiatingteam, which included my staff and those fromthe offices of Representatives BILIRAKIS, WAX-MAN, DINGELL, BROWN, Senators JEFFORDS,FRIST, and KENNEDY, achieved a good com-promise. I have an additional statement thatexplains our work in greater detail that I willenter into the record for myself and the nego-tiators just mentioned. I commend the pas-sage of this important legislation to my col-leagues.

As many of my colleagues may recall,President Reagan’s HIV Commission con-cluded that ‘‘early diagnosis of HIV infection isessential’’ because HIV infection ‘‘can betreated more effectively when detected early.’’The medical breakthroughs which have beendeveloped in the twelve years since the incep-tion of this report make early intervention evenmore important than ever, and I am pleasedthat this legislation recognizes that partnercounseling and referral activities are the mosteffective early intervention to identify thosewho do not know their status in the earlystages of the disease.

Very importantly, this bill begins the processof basing Ryan White CARE Act funding onHIV cases, not AIDS cases. Such a changewill ensure that Ryan White CARE Act dollarsgo where the disease is growing quickly, notto the areas with the highest historicalincidences of AIDS. It also provides incentivesfor States to implement re commendations be-latedly issued by the Centers for Disease Con-trol and Prevention to move to HIV reportingsystems, one of the most important publichealth initiatives in America at the close of the20th Century.

It is a national tragedy that public health offi-cials in the States were unable or unwilling tomove to HIV reporting years ago. The identi-fication of HIV reporting as a serious publichealth concern was identified by the first Pres-idential Commission on HIV, appointed byPresident Ronald Reagan, which stated that‘‘The term ‘AIDS’ is obsolete. ‘HIV infection’more correctly defines the problem. The med-ical, public health, political, and communityleadership must focus on the full course ofHIV infection rather than concentrating on laterstages of the disease . . . Continual focus onAIDS rather than the entire spectrum of HIVdisease has left our nation unable to deal ade-quately with the epidemic. Federal and statedata collection efforts must now be focused onearly HIV reports, while still collecting data onsymptomatic disease.’’

It is imperative that the Ryan White CAREAct be reauthorized to provide


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8840 October 5, 2000the incentives to move public health in theright direction so that the HIV/AIDS epidemiccan be tracked more accurately, and appro-priate funding and information about this dis-ease be better directed.

As many of my colleagues will recall, whenwe last brought the Ryan White bill to the floorin July, the most contentious issue was thebill’s ‘‘hold harmless’’ provision. The bill whichoriginally passed the House would havetrimmed the substantial overpayments re-ceived by San Francisco so that it wouldeventually receive no more per capita thanany other metropolitan area.

After lengthy negotiations, it has beenagreed that the hold harmless reduction willbe a compromise between the original Houseand Senate provisions, which will now be a re-duction of 15% over the next five years toslow the transition to equitable funding.

I ask my colleagues to join with me in sup-port of this important legislation that moves usin the right direction as we enter the 21st Cen-tury.RYAN WHITE CARE ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000

MANAGERS’ STATEMENT OF EXPLANATION

The Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of2000 reauthorize Title XXVI of the PublicHealth Service Act to ensure that individ-uals living with HIV and AIDS receive healthcare and related support services. The legis-lation contains authorization for appropria-tions and programmatic changes to ensurethe CARE Act programs respond to evolvingdemographic trends in the HIV/AIDS epi-demic and advances in treatment and care.

I. BACKGROUND

In March, 1990, Congress enacted the RyanWhite CARE Act, honoring Ryan White, ayoung man who taught the Nation to re-spond to the HIV/AIDS epidemic with hopeand action rather than fear. By the spring of1990, over 128,000 people had been diagnosedwith AIDS in the United States and 78,000had died of the disease. The CARE Act wasreauthorized in 1996, as the epidemic spreadto more than 600,000 Americans diagnosedwith AIDS and amidst the nationwide rec-ognition that CARE Act programs were in-dispensable to the care and treatment ofAmericans with HIV/AIDS.

The CARE Act Amendments of 2000 marksthe second reauthorization of the CARE Act.In the last twenty years, the HIV/AIDS epi-demic has claimed over 420,000 Americanmen, women, and children. Today, the Cen-ters for Disease Control and Prevention esti-mates that there are currently between800,000 and 900,000 persons living with HIV inthe United States, with 40,000 new infectionsannually.

While there is still no cure, the CARE Acthas been instrumental in responding to thepublic health, social and economic burdensof the HIV/AIDS epidemic. However, thesteady expansion and changed demographicsof the epidemic, as well as the improved sur-vival time for people living with AIDS, areplacing increasing stress on State and localhealth care systems, community based orga-nizations and families providing care. Mostimportantly, the epidemic is expanding be-yond major cities to smaller cities and ruralregions, and disproportionately affectingwomen, communities of color, children andyouth.

The Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of2000 preserves the best and proven features ofexisting CARE Act programs. But the CAREAct Amendments of 2000 also makes impor-tant and substantial reforms to respond tothe significant changes in the HIV/AIDS epi-demic of the last 5 years.

II. ORGANIZATION OF SERVICES UNDER THE CAREACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000

Title I. Emergency Relief for Areas withSubstantial Need for Services: Providesemergency relief grants to 51 eligible metro-politan areas (EMAs) disproportionately af-fected by the HIV epidemic to provide pri-mary care and HIV-related support servicesto people with HIV and AIDS. Half of theTitle I funding is distributed by formula; theremaining half is distributed competitively,based on the demonstration of severity ofneed and other criteria.

Planning Council membership has been re-vised to include HIV prevention providers,homeless and housing service providers, andrepresentatives of prisoners. A third of Plan-ning Council members must be individualswith HIV/AIDS receiving care who are notofficers, employees or consultants to Title Igrantees.

Title II. CARE Grant Program: Providesformula grants to States, District of Colum-bia, Puerto Rico and U.S. territories to im-prove the quality of health care and supportservices for individuals with HIV disease andtheir families. The funds are used: to providemedical support services, to continue healthinsurance payments, to provide home careservices, and, through the AIDS Drug Assist-ance Programs (ADAP), to provide medica-tions necessary for the care of these individ-uals. Supplemental formula grants areawarded to States with ‘‘emerging commu-nities’’ which are ineligible for grants underTitle I.

Subtitle B provides discretionary grants toStates for the reduction of perinatal trans-mission of HIV, and for HIV counseling, test-ing, and outreach to pregnant women. Sub-title C provides discretionary grants toStates for partner notification, counselingand referral services.

Title III. Early Intervention Services:Funds nonprofit entities providing primarycare and outpatient early intervention serv-ices, including case management, coun-seling, testing, referrals, and clinical and di-agnostic services to individuals diagnosedwith HIV. The unfunded program of Stateformula grants in current law is repeated.

Title IV. Other Programs and Activities:Provides grants for comprehensive servicesto children, youth, and women living withHIV and their families. Such services includeprimary, specialty and psychosocial care, aswell as HIV outreach and prevention activi-ties. Grantees must demonstrate linkages to,and provide clients with access and edu-cation on, HIV/AIDS clinical research.

Title IV newly authorizes the AIDS Edu-cation and Training Centers (AETC), a net-work of 14 regional centers conducting clin-ical HIV education and training of healthproviders, to provide prenatal and gyneco-logical care. The HIV/AIDS Dental Reim-bursement program, covering uncompen-sated oral health care for patients with HIV/AIDS, is expanded to provide community-based care in underserved areas.

Under Subtitle B, general provisions au-thorize CDC data collection for CARE Actplanning and evaluation, enhanced inter-agency coordination of HIV services and pre-vention, development of a plan for the casemanagement of prisoners with HIV, and ad-ministrative provisions related to audits,and a plan for simplification of CARE Actgrant disbursements.

Title V. General Provisions: Authorizes In-stitute of Medicine (IOM) studies and expan-sion of Federal support for the developmentof rapid HIV tests. Makes necessary andtechnical corrections in Title XXVI of thePublic Health Service Act.

III. SUMMARY OF SELECTED PROVISIONS

Use of HIV Case Data in Formula Grants

In order to target funding more accuratelyto reflect the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the Man-agers have revised and updated the Title Iand Title II formulas to make use of data oncases of HIV infection as well as of AIDS. InFiscal Year (FY) 2005, HIV and AIDS casedata is intended to be used in the Title I andTitle II formulas.

However, no later than July 1, 2004, theSecretary shall determine whether HIV casedata, as reported to and confirmed by the Di-rector of CDC, is sufficiently accurate andreliable from all eligible areas and States forsuch use in the formula. The Secretary shallalso consider the findings of the Institute ofMedicine (IOM) study undertaken under sec-tion 501(b).

If the Secretary makes an adverse deter-mination regarding HIV case data, the Man-agers intend that only AIDS case data willbe used in FY2005 formula allocations. TheSecretary shall also provide grants and tech-nical assistance to States and eligible areasto ensure that accurate and reliable HIVcase data is available no later than FY2007.

Planning and priority setting

The Managers have strengthened the ca-pacity of EMAs and States to plan,prioritize, and allocate funds, based on thesize and demographic characteristics of thepopulations with HIV disease in the eligiblearea. Planning, priority setting, and fundingallocation processes must take into accountthe demographics of the local HIV/AIDS epi-demic, existing disparities in access HIV-re-lated health care, and resulting adversehealth outcomes. It is the intent of the Man-agers that CARE Act dollars more closelyfollow the shifting trends in the local epi-demic and address disparities in health careaccess and health outcomes as well as theneed for capacity development within thelocal and State HIV health care infrastruc-tures.

The Managers intend both EMAs andStates to develop strategies to bring intoand retain in care those individuals who areaware of their HIV status but are not receiv-ing services. As part of this process, theManagers place the highest priority onEMAs and States focusing on eliminatingdisparities in access and services among af-fected subpopulations and historically un-derserved communities. The Managers recog-nize, however, that the relative availabilityor lack of HIV prevalence data will be re-flected in the scope, goals, timetable and al-location of funds for implementation of thestrategy.

The Managers also expect the Secretary tocollaborate with Title I and II grant recipi-ents and providers to develop epidemiologicmeasures and tools for use in identifying per-sons with HIV infection who know their HIVstatus but are not in care. The Managers rec-ognize the difficulty the EMAs and Statesmay experience in identifying persons withHIV infection who are not in care and whomay be unknown to any health or social sup-port system. The efforts on the part of EMAsand States to accomplish these importanttasks, however, should not be delayed untilthis process is complete. Instead, the Man-agers expect Title I and II grant recipients toestablish and implement strategies respon-sive to these urgent needs before the devel-opment of nationally uniform measures, tothe extent that is practicable and to whichnecessary prevalence data is reasonablyavailable.

The Managers have also authorized out-reach activities in Title I and II intended to


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8841October 5, 2000identify individuals with HIV disease knowtheir HIV status but are not receiving serv-ices. The intent is to ensure that EMAs andStates understand that outreach activitieswhich are consistent with early interventionservices and necessary to implement theaforementioned strategies, are appropriateuses of Title I and II funds. It is not the Man-agers’ intent that such activities supplant orotherwise duplicate activities such as casefinding, surveillance and social marketingcampaigns currently funded and adminis-tered by the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC). Instead, this authoriza-tion reflects the urgency of increasing thecoordination between HIV prevention andHIV care and treatment services in all CAREAct programs.Hold harmless provisions

The hold-harmless provisions are intendedto minimize loss and stabilize systems ofcare in EMAs and States, while assuring thatfunds are allocated in Title I and II to reflectthe current distribution and epidemiology ofthe epidemic.

The Managers have revised the Title I holdharmless to limit a potential loss in anEMA’s formula allocation to a small per-centage of the amount allocated to the eligi-ble are in the previous (or base) year. AnEMA may lose no more than 15 percent of itsbase formula allocation over five years, be-ginning with 2 percent in the first year andincreasing in subsequent years. If the Sec-retary determines that data on HIV preva-lence are accurate and reliable for use in de-termining Title I formula grants for FiscalYear 2005, all EMAs may lose no more than2 percent of their Fiscal Year 2004 formulaallocation in that year.

Should an EMA experience a decline in itsTitle I formula allocation followed by an in-tervening year in which there is not decline,its losses in any subsequent, nonconsecutiveyear of decline would once again be limitedto 2 percent (ie., the intervening year ‘resetsthe clock’).

The Managers intend to ensure that essen-tial primary care and support services arenot compromised by short-term fluctuationsin AIDS case counts. Because no new EMA isexpected by HRSA’s Bureau of HIV/AIDS torequire that hold harmless in the first threeor four years of this reauthorization period,the Managers expect this policy will shieldall eligible areas, save those currently re-quiring the hold harmless, from any mean-ingful loss in Title I formula funding.

Under the Title II hold harmless, a Stateor territory may lose no more than 1 percentfrom the previous fiscal year amounts, or 5percent over the 5-year reauthorization pe-riod. This protection extends to base Title IIfunding (which excludes funds for AIDS DrugAssistance Programs (ADAP)), as well as tooverall Title II funding.Women, child, infants, and youth set-aside

The Managers are aware of the rising inci-dence of HIV among youth and women, par-ticularly women of color, and recognize thechallenges in assuring them access to pri-mary care and support services for HIV andAIDS. The Managers intend to increase theavailability of primary care and health-re-lated supportive services under Title I andTitle II for each of the four groups describedin the set-aside. Youth are added as a newcategory within this set-aside. The Managersintend the term ‘‘youth’’ to include personsbetween the ages of 13 and 24, and ‘‘children’’to include those under the age of 13, includ-ing infants.

The Managers clarify that the set-asidesfor women, infants, children, and youth withHIV disease be allocated proportionally,based on the percentage of the local HIV-in-fected population that each group rep-

resents. The Managers intend that theStates and EMAs continue to make every ef-fort to reach and serve women, infants, chil-dren, and youth living with HIV/AIDS by al-locating sufficient resources under Titles Iand II to serve each of these populations.The Managers also recognize that these pri-ority populations often comprise a greaterproportion of HIV cases rather than AIDScases in a local area. This distinction shouldbe taken into account where necessary prev-alence data is reasonably available.

The Mangers are aware that these popu-lations may also have access to HIV carethrough other parts of Title XXVI, Medicaid,State Children’s Health Insurance Program(SCHIP), and other Federal and State pro-grams. Therefore, the requirements to pro-portionally allocate funds provided underTitle II to each of these populations may bewaived for States which reasonably dem-onstrate that these populations are receivingadequate care.Capacity development

Titles I, II and III of this legislation pro-vide a new focus on strengthening the capac-ity of minority communities and under-served areas where HIV/AIDS is having a dis-proportionate impact. Currently, many un-derserved urban and rural areas are not ableto compete successfully for planning grantsand early intervention service grants due tothe lack of infrastructure and experiencewith the Ryan White Care Act programs.This gap in services available is increasinglyimportant, as the HIV and AIDS epidemicextends into rural communities. In additionto authorizing capacity development underTitles I and II, the Managers establish a pref-erence for rural areas under Title III thatwill allow program administrators to targetcapacity development grants, planninggrants, and the delivery of primary careservices to rural communities with a grow-ing need for HIV services. However, urbanareas are not excluded from considerationfor future grants nor is funding reduced tocurrent grants in urban areas.Quality management

The Managers recognize the importance ofhaving CARE Act grantees ensure that qual-ity services are provide to people with HIVand that quality management activities areconducted on an ongoing basis. Quality man-agement programs are intended to servegrantees in evaluating and improving thequality of primary care and health-relatedsupportive services provided under this act.The quality management program should ac-complish a threefold purpose: (1) assist directservice medical providers funded through theCARE Act in assuring that funded servicesadhere to established HIV clinical practicesand Public Health Service (PHS) guidelinesto the extent possible; (2) ensure that strate-gies for improvements to quality medicalcare include vital health-related supportiveservice in achieving appropriate access andadherence with HIV medical care; and (3) en-sure that available demographic, clinical,and health are utilization information isused to monitor the spectrum of HIV-relatedillnesses and trends in the local epidemic.

The Managers expect the Secretary to pro-vide States with guidance and technical as-sistance for establishing quality manage-ment programs, including disseminatingsuch models as have been developed byStates and are already being utilized byTitle II programs and in clinical practice en-vironments. Furthermore, the Managers in-tend that the Secretary provide clarificationand guidance regarding the distinction be-tween use of CARE Act funds for such pro-gram expenditures that are covered as theirplanning and evaluation and funds for pro-gram support costs. It is not the Managers’

intent to divert current program resourcesor to reassign current program support costsor clinical quality programs to new costareas, if they are an integral part of aState’s current quality management efforts.

Program support costs are described as anyexpenditure related to the provision of deliv-ering or receiving health services supportedby CARE Act funds. As applied to the clin-ical quality programs, these costs include,but are not limited to, activities such aschart review, peer-to-peer review activities,data collection to measure health indicatorsor outcomes, or other types of activities re-lated to the development or implementationof a clinical quality improvement program.Planning and evaluation costs are related tothe collection and analysis of system andprocess indicators for purposes of deter-mining the impact and effectiveness of fund-ed health-related support services in pro-viding access to and support of individualsand communities within the health deliverysystem.Early intervention services

The Managers authorize early interventionservices as eligible services under Titles Iand II under certain circumstances. TheManagers intend to allow grantees to providecertain early intervention services, such asHIV counseling, testing, and referral serv-ices, to individuals at high risk for HIV in-fection, in accordance with State or EMAplanning activities. The Managers recognizethe range of organizations that may be eligi-ble to provide early intervention services, in-cluding other grantees under Titles I, II andIII such as community based organizations(CBOs) that act as points of entry into thehealth care system for traditionally under-served and minority populations.

The Managers believe that referral rela-tionships maintained by providers of earlyintervention services are essential to in-creasing the number of people with HIV/AIDS who are identified and to bringingthem into care earlier in the progression oftheir disease.Health-care related support services

The Managers wish to stress the impor-tance of CARE Act funds in meeting thehealth care needs of persons and familieswith HIV disease. The Act requires supportservices provided through CARE Act funds tobe health care related. States and EMAsshould ensure that support services meet theobjective of increasing access to health careand ongoing adherence with primary careneeds. The Managers reaffirm the critical re-lationship between support service provisionand positive health outcomes.Title I planning council duties and membership

The Managers have amended numerous as-pects of CARE Act programs to enhance thecoordination between HIV prevention andHIV/AIDS care and treatment services. Inthis case, Planning Council membership ofthe providers of HIV prevention services willhelp assure this coordination. To improverepresentation of underserved communities,providers of services to homeless populationsand representatives of formerly incarceratedindividuals with HIV disease are included inplanning council membership. It is the in-tent of the Managers that the needs of allcommunities affected by HIV/AIDS and allproviders working with the service areas berepresented. The Managers also intend thePlanning Councils more adequately reflectthe gender and racial demographics of theHIV/AIDS population within their respectiveEMAs.

The Managers also intend that patientsand consumers of Title I services constitutea substantial proportion of Planning Councilmemberships. The prohibition of officers,


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8842 October 5, 2000employees and consultants is not intended toimpede the participation qualified, moti-vated volunteers with Title I grantees fromserving on Planning Councils where they donot maintain significant financial relation-ships, volunteers may be reimbursed reason-able incidental costs, including for trainingand transportation, which help to facilitatetheir important contribution to the Plan-ning Councils.

To ensure that new Planning Council mem-bers are adequately prepared for full partici-pation in meetings, the Managers direct theSecretary to ensure that proper training andguidance is provided to members of theCouncils. The Managers also expect PlanningCouncils to provide assistance, such as trans-portation and childcare, to facilitate theparticipation of consumers, particularlythose from affected subpopulations and his-torically underserved communities.

Consistent with the ‘‘sunshine’’ policies ofthe Federal Advisory Committee Act(FACA), all meetings of the Planning Coun-cils shall be open to the public and be heldafter adequate notice to the public. Detailedminutes, records, reports, agenda, and otherrelevant documents should also be availableto the public. The Managers intend for suchdocuments to be available for inspection andcopying at a single location, including post-ing on the Internet.Title I supplemental

In order to target funding to areas ingreatest need of assistance, severity of needis given a greater weight of 33 percent in theaward of Title I supplemental grants. TheManagers intend that Title I supplementalawards are not intended to be allocated onthe basis of formula grant allocations. In-stead, such supplemental awards are to be di-rected principally to those eligible areaswith ‘‘severe need,’’ or the greatest or ex-panding public health challenges in con-fronting the epidemic. The Managers haveincluded additional factors to be consideredin the assessment of severe need, includingthe current prevalence of HIV/AIDS, and thedegree of increasing and unmet needs forservices. Additionally, the Managers believethat syphilis, hepatitis B and hepatitis Cshould be regarded as important co-morbidities to HIV/AIDS.

It is the Managers’ strong view thatHRSA’s Bureau of HIV/AIDS should employstandard, quantitative measures to the max-imum extent possible in lieu of narrativeself-reporting when awarding supplementalawards. The Managers therefore renew theBureau’s obligation to develop in a timelymanner a mechanism for determining severeneed upon the basis of national, quantitativeincidence data. In this regard, the Managersrecognize that adequate and reliable data onHIV prevalence may not be uniformly avail-able in all eligible areas on the date of enact-ment. It is noted, however, that ‘‘HIV dis-ease’’ under the CARE Act encompasses bothpersons living with AIDS as well as personsdiagnosed as HIV positive who have not de-veloped AIDS.Title II base minimum funding

The minimum Title II base award is in-creased in order to increase the fundingavailable to States for the capacity develop-ment of health system programs and infra-structure. The Federated States of Micro-nesia and the Republic of Palau are includedas entities eligible to receive Title II funds,in recognition of the need to establish a min-imum level of funding to assist in buildingHIV infrastructure.Title II public participation

The Managers urge States to strengthenpublic participation in the Ryan White TitleII planning process. While the Managers do

not intend that States be mandated to con-sult with all entities participating in theTitle I planning process, reference to suchentities is intended to provide guidance tothe States that such entities are importantconstituencies which the States should en-deavor to include in their planning proc-esses. Moreover, States may demonstratecompliance with the new requirement of anenhanced process of public participation byproviding evidence that existing mechanismsfor consumer and community input providefor the participation of such entities. The in-tent is to allow States to utilize the optimalpublic advisory planning process, such asspecial planning bodies or standing advisorygroups on HIV/AIDS, for their particularpopulation and circumstances.

The Managers are also aware of the dif-ficulties that some States with limited re-sources may encounter in convening publichearings over large geographic or rural areasand encourage the Secretary to work withthese States to develop appropriate processesfor public input, and to consider such limita-tions when enforcing these requirements.

Title II HIV care consortia

The Managers intend that the States con-tinue to work with local consortia to ensurethat they identify potential disparities in ac-cess to HIV care services at the local level,with a special emphasis on those experi-encing disparities in access to care, histori-cally underserved populations, and HIV in-fected persons not in care. However, theManagers do not intend that States and/orconsortia be mandated to consult with allentities participating in the Title I planningprocess. Rather, reference to such entities isintended to provide guidance to the Statesthat such entities are important constitu-encies which the States should endeavor toinclude in their planning processes.

Title II ‘‘emerging communities’’ supplement

There continues to be a growing need toaddress the geographic expansion of this epi-demic, and this Act continues the effortsmade during the last reauthorization to di-rect resources and services to areas that areparticularly underserved, including ruralareas and metropolitan areas with signifi-cant AIDS cases that are not eligible forTitle I funding. A supplemental formulagrant program is created within Title II tomeet HIV care and support needs in non-EMA areas. There are a large number ofareas within States that do not meet the def-inition of a Title I EMA but that, neverthe-less, experience significant numbers of peo-ple living with AIDS. This provision stipu-lates that these ‘‘emerging communities,’’defined as cities with between 500 and 1,999reported AIDS cases in the most recent 5-year period, be allocated 50 percent of newappropriations to address the growing needin these areas. Funding for this provision istriggered when the allocations to carry outPart B, excluding amounts allocated undersection 2618(a)(2)(I), are $20,000,000 in excessof funds available for this part in fiscal year2000, excluding amounts allocated under sec-tion 2618(a)(2)(I). States can apply for thesesupplemental awards by describing the sever-ity of need and the manner in which fundsare to be used.

The Managers intend to acknowledge thechallenges faced by many areas with a sig-nificant burden of HIV and AIDS and a lackof health care infrastructure or resources toprovide HIV care services. This supplementalprogram allows the Secretary to makegrants to States to address HIV service needsin these underserved areas. The Managersunderstand the necessity to continue to sup-port existing and expanding critical Title IIbase services.

AIDS Drug Assistance Program supplementalgrant and expanded services

Under this Act, the AIDS Drug AssistanceProgram (ADAP) has been strengthened toassist States in a number of areas. The Sec-retary is authorized to reserve 3 percent ofADAP appropriations for discretionary sup-plemental ADAP grants which shall beawarded in accordance with severity of needcriteria established by the Secretary. Suchcriteria shall account for existing eligibilitystandards, formulary composition and thenumber of patients with incomes at or below200 percent of poverty. The Managers alsoencourage the Secretary to consider suchfactors as the State’s ability to remove re-strictions on eligibility based on currentmedical conditions or income restrictionsand to provide HIV therapeutics consistentwith PHS guidelines.

States are also required to match the Fed-eral supplemental at a rate of 1:4. The Man-agers expect the State to continue to main-tain current levels of effort in its ADAPfunding. The Managers intend that the 25percent State match required to receivefunds under this section be implemented in aflexible manner that recognizes the vari-ations between Federal, State, and pro-grammatic fiscal years.

In addition, up to 5 percent of ADAP fundswill be allowed to support services that di-rectly encourage, support, and enhance ad-herence with treatment regimens, includingmedical monitoring, as well as purchasehealth insurance plans where those plansprovided fuller and more cost-effective cov-erage of AIDS therapies and other neededhealth care coverage. However, up to 10 per-cent of ADAP funds may be expended forsuch purposes if the State demonstrates thatsuch services are essential and do not dimin-ish access to therapeutics. Finally, the Man-agers recognize that existing Federal policyprovides adequate guidelines to states forcarrying out provisions under this section.Partner notification, perinatal transmission,

and counseling servicesDiscretionary grants are authorized under

this Act for partner notification, counselingand referral services. The Managers havealso expanded the existing grant program toStates for the reduction of perinatal trans-mission of HIV, and for HIV counseling, test-ing, and outreach to pregnant women. Fund-ing for perinatal HIV transmission reductionactivities is expanded, with additional grantsavailable to States with newborn testinglaws or States with significant reductions inperinatal HIV transmission. In addition, thisAct further specifies information to be con-veyed to individuals receiving HIV positivetest results in order to reduce risk of HIVtransmission through sex or needle-sharingpractices.Coordination of coverage and services

This Act also strengthens the require-ments made on the States and EMAs in anumber of areas aimed at improving the co-ordination of coverage and services. Grant-ees must assess the availability of otherfunding sources, such as Medicaid and theState Children’s Health Insurance Program(SCHIP) and improve efforts to ensure thatCARE Act funds are coordinated with otheravailable payers.Titles III and IV administrative expenses

The administrative cap for the directlyfunded Title III programs is increased. Theadministrative cap for Title III grants israised from 7.5 percent to 10 percent to cor-respond with the 10 percent cap on individualcontractors in Title I. The Secretary is di-rected to review administrative and programsupport expenses for Title IV, in consulta-tion with grantees. In order to assure that


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8843October 5, 2000children, youth, women, and families haveaccess to quality HIV-related health and sup-port services and research opportunities, theSecretary is directed to work with Title IVgrantees to review expenses related to ad-ministrative, program support, and directservice-related activities.Title IV access to research

This Act removes the requirement thatTitle IV grantees enroll a ‘‘significant num-ber’’ of patients in research projects. TitleIV provides an important link betweenwomen, children, and families affected byHIV/AIDS and HIV-related clinical researchprograms. The ‘‘significant number’’ require-ment is removed here to eliminate the incen-tive for providers to inappropriately encour-age or pressure patients to enroll in researchprograms.

To maintain appropriate access to researchopportunities, providers are required to de-velop better documentation of the linkagesbetween care and research. The Secretary ofHealth and Human Services (HHS), throughthe National Institutes of Health (NIH), isalso directed to examine the distribution andavailability of HIV-related clinical programsfor purposes of enhancing and expanding ac-cess to clinical trials, including trials fundedby NIH, CDC and private sponsors. The Man-agers encourage the Secretary to assure thatNIH-sponsored HIV-related trials are respon-sive to the need to coordinate the healthservices received by participants with theachievement of research objectives. Nor dothe Managers intend this requirement to re-quire the redistribution of funds for such re-search projects.Part F Dental Reimbursement Program

The Managers have established new grantsfor community-based oral health care to sup-port collaborative efforts between dentaleducation programs and community-basedproviders directed at providing oral healthcare to patients with HIV disease in cur-rently unserved areas and communities with-out dental education programs. Although theDental Program has been tremendously suc-cessful, there is still a large HIV/AIDS popu-lation that has not benefitted because thereis not a dental education institution partici-pating in their area. These patients are alsoin need of dental services that could be pro-vided at community sites if more commu-nity-based providers would partner with adental school or residency program. In thesepartnerships, dental students or residentscould provide treatment for HIV/AIDS pa-tients in underserved communities under thedirection of a community-based dentist whowould serve as adjunct faculty. By encour-aging dental educational institutions topartner with community-based providers,the Managers intend to address to unmetneed in these areas by ensuring that dentaltreatment for the HIV/AIDS population isavailable in all areas of the country, not justwhere dental schools are located.Technical assistance and guidance

The Managers reaffirm the Secretary’s re-sponsibility in providing needed guidanceand tools to grantees in assisting them incarrying out new requirements under thisAct. The Secretary is required to work withStates and EMAs to establish epidemiologicmeasures and tools for use in identifying thenumber of individuals with HIV infection, es-pecially those who are not in care. The legis-lation requests an IOM study to assist theSecretary in providing this advice to grant-ees.

The Managers understand that the Sec-retary has convened a Public Health ServiceWorking Group on HIV Treatment Informa-tion Dissemination, which has produced rec-ommendations and a strategy for the dis-

semination of HIV treatment information tohealth care providers and patients. Recog-nizing the importance of such a strategy, theManagers intend that the Secretary issueand begin implementation of the strategy toimprove the quality of care received by peo-ple living with HIV/AIDS.Data collection through CDC

The Managers believe that an additionalauthorization for HIV surveillance activitiesunder the CDC will serve to advance the pur-poses of the CARE Act. To better identifyand bring individuals with HIV/AIDS intocare, States and cities may use such fundingto enhance their HIV/AIDS reporting sys-tems and expand case finding, surveillance,social marketing campaigns, and other pre-vention service programs. Notwithstandingits strong interest in improving the coordi-nation between HIV prevention and HIV careand treatment services, the Managers intendthat this enhanced funding for CDC and itsgrantees ensure that CARE Act programsand funds not duplicate or be diverted to ac-tivities currently funded and administeredby the CDC.Coordination

This Act requires the Secretary to submita plan to Congress concerning the coordina-tion of Health Resources and Services Ad-ministration (HRSA), Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention (CDC), SubstanceAbuse and Mental Health Services Adminis-tration (SAMHSA), and Health Care Financ-ing Administration (HCFA), to enhance thecontinuity of care and prevention servicesfor individuals with HIV disease or those atrisk of such disease. The Managers believethat much greater effort is required to en-sure that the provision of HIV preventionand care services becomes as seamless aspossible, and that coordination be pursued atthe Federal level, in the States and localcommunities to eliminate any administra-tive barriers to the efficient provision ofhigh quality services to individuals with HIVdisease.

A second plan for submission to Congressfocuses on the medical case management andprovision of support services to persons withHIV released from Federal or State prisons.Administrative simplification

The Managers intend for the Secretary ofHHS to explore opportunities to reduce theadministrative requirements of Ryan CAREAct grantees through simplifying andstreamlining the administrative processesrequired of grantees and providers under Ti-tles I and II. In consultation with granteesand service providers of both parts, the Sec-retary is directed to (1) develop a plan for co-ordinating the disbursement of appropria-tions for grants under Title I with the dis-bursement of appropriations for grants underTitle II, (2) explore the impact of biennialapplication for Titles I and II on the effi-ciency of administration and the administra-tive burden imposed on grantees and pro-viders under Titles I and II, and (3) developa plan for simplifying the application proc-ess for grants under Titles I and II. It is theintent of the Managers to improve the abil-ity of grantees to comply with administra-tive requirements while decreasing theamount of staff time and resources spent onadministrative requirements.Program and service studies

The Managers request that the Secretary,through the IOM, examine changing trendsin the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the financingand delivery of primary care and supportservices for low-income, uninsured, andunderinsured and individuals with HIV dis-ease. The Secretary is directed to make rec-ommendation regarding the most effectiveuse of scarce Federal resources. The purpose

of the study is to examine key factors associ-ated with the effective and efficient financ-ing and delivery of HIV services (includingthe quality of services, health outcomes, andcost-effectiveness). The Managers expectthat the study would include examination ofCARE Act financing of services in relation toexisting public sector financing and privatehealth coverage; general demographics andcomorbidities of individuals with HIV dis-ease; regional variations in the financing andcosts of HIV service delivery; the avail-ability and utility of health outcomes meas-ures and data for measuring quality of RyanWhite funded service; and available epide-miological tools and data sets necessary forlocal and national resource planning and al-location decisions, including an assessmentof implementation of HIV infection report-ing, as it impacts these factors.

The Managers also require an IOM studyfocuses on determining the number ofnewborns with HIV, where the HIV status ofthe mother is unknown; perinatal HIV trans-mission reduction efforts in States; and bar-riers to routine HIV testing of pregnantwomen and newborns when the mothers’ HIVstatus is unknown. The study is intended toprovide States with recommendations on im-proving perinatal prevention services and re-ducing the number of pediatric HIV/AIDScases resulting from perinatal transmission.Development of Rapid HIV Test

The Managers encourage the Secretary toexpedite the availability of rapid HIV testswhich are safe, effective, reliable and afford-able. The Managers intend that the NationalInstitutes of Health expand research whichmay lead to such tests. The Managers alsointend that the Director of CDC should takeprimary responsibility, in conjunction withthe Commissioner of Food and Drugs, for areport to Congress on the public health needand recommendations for the expedited re-view of rapid HIV tests. The Managers be-lieve that the Food and Drug Administrationshould account for the particular applica-tions and urgent need for rapid HIV tests, asarticulated by public health experts and theCDC, when determining the specific require-ments to which such tests will be held priorto marketing.Department of Veterans Affairs

The Managers note that the U.S. Depart-ment of Veterans Affairs is the largest singledirect provider of HIV care and services inthe country. Over 18,000 veterans receivedHIV care at VA facilities in 1999. Veteranswith HIV infection are eligible to participatein Ryan White Title I and Title II programswhen they meet eligibility requirements setby EMAs and States, whose plans for the de-livery of services must account for the avail-ability of VA services. VA facilities are eligi-ble providers of HIV health and support serv-ices where appropriate. The Managers expectthat HRSA’s Bureau of HIV/AIDS shall en-courage Ryan White grantees to develop col-laborations between providers and VA facili-ties to optimize coordination and access tocare to all persons with HIV/AIDS.International HIV/AIDS Initiatives

The Managers note that the CARE Act pro-vides a model of service delivery and Federalpartnerships with States, cities and commu-nity-based organizations which should provevaluable in global efforts to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The Managers strongly en-courage the Secretary, the Bureau of HIV/AIDS at HRSA, and the CDC to provide tech-nical assistance available to other countrieswhich has already proven invaluable in help-ing to limit the suffering caused by HIV/AIDS. It is the Managers’ hope that thehard-earned knowledge and experiencegained in this country can benefit peoplewith HIV/AIDS overseas.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8844 October 5, 2000Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I strongly sup-

port S. 2311, the Ryan White Care ActAmendments of 2000. Enactment of this legis-lation will truly make a difference in people’slives.

The Ryan White CARE Act, without ques-tion, was the most important legislation Con-gress has ever enacted for people living withHIV and AIDS. Every year, CARE Act fundsprovide lifesaving medical and social servicesfor tens of thousands of uninsured and under-insured Americans battling these devastatingdiseases. AIDS medications, viral load testing,treatment education, and case managementare just a few of the essential support servicesprovided by federal CARE Act dollars.

Each of the programs created under theCARE Act services a specific need yet, com-bined, they make up the health care and so-cial service safety net of last resort. Since it’screation in 1990, reliability and stability havebeen the two cornerstones of the Ryan Whitelaw. When we passed the House version ofthe reauthorization in July, I spoke out againsta provision that ran directly contrary to thissafety net principle. A 25 percent reduction inthe ‘‘hold harmless’’ that was part of the origi-nal House bill would have caused a rapid de-stabilization of systems of care in the BayArea and potentially around the country. Ifought that provision and I’m so pleased thatthe bill before us today includes a more equi-table formula that reflects the changing face ofthe disease without gutting funding to any oneEligible Metropolitan Area (EMA).

More people than ever are living with HIV/AIDS and the CARE Act must keep pace withthe increasing demands. When the CARE Actwas passed in 1990, there were 155,619 AIDScases. In 1996, there were 481,234 cases.Today, America has 733,374 recorded casesof HIV/AIDS. AIDS is the leading cause ofdeath among African Americans between theages of 25–44 and the second leading causeof death among Latinos in the same agegroup. HIV/AIDS are still very much with usand we must ensure that all those infected getthe medical and social services they need tolive longer, more productive lives.

And that’s exactly what’s been happening.Access to new medications and treatments,such as combination antiretroviral therapies,has significantly lengthened the life expect-ancy of people with HIV/AIDS. People withAIDS are living longer and those with HIVaren’t progressing as quickly to full-blownAIDS. Thankfully, it’s no longer necessarily adeath sentence. This, in turn, underscores theincreasing need for services. As people livelonger, their dependence on CARE Act pro-grams greatly increases; hence, the impor-tance of reauthorizing the Ryan White Act.

So, I thank my colleagues, Senators KEN-NEDY and JEFFORDS and RepresentativesBROWN, WAXMAN and COBURN, and theirstaffs, for their work on S. 2311 and for theirdedication to reauthorizing the CARE Act thisyear. It’s a good bill that will do wonderfulthings for people across this country. I urgemy colleagues’ enthusiastic support.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise insupport of S. 2311, Ryan White Care Act. Iam very thankful that were are acting on thisvery important bill, before we run out of time,to ensure that individuals living with HIV andAIDS will receive the health care and relatedsupported services that they need. While, S.2311 is not perfect, it does provide the nec-

essary authorizations for appropriations andprogrammatic changes to ensure that theCARE Act is responsive to the evolving demo-graphic trends in the HIV/AIDS epidemic andadvances in treatment care.

I am also pleased that one of my major con-cerns with the House bill to reauthorize theCARE Act, HR 4807, involving incentives forHIV testing of pregnant women and infants, isnot in the bill before us today. I oppose man-datory testing of any sub-population, and Istrongly believe, that this body must give fullconsideration to the IOM study as it relates tothis issue.

I am encouraged that S. 2311 also changescity and state funding formulas to encompassall who are infected with HIV and not just pro-vide resources for individuals who have pro-gressed to AIDS. This change responds to thechanging nature of the epidemic and thenewer treatment protocols, which begin medi-cation earlier.

It allows for treatment programs to beginand expand critical prevention efforts. This billalso more effectively represents the burden ofthe disease and the need for care. In addition,this measure makes a concerted effort to sup-port the fact, that the funding ‘‘needs’’ to followthe trends of the disease (which are dispropor-tionately and increasingly affecting people ofcolor).

It also encourages reporting of HIV infec-tions by states (many do not now report).Such adherence to reporting, will improve ourability to be more progressive and get in frontof this epidemic by increasing prevention andoutreach efforts.

Another major area that is of critical concernto the Congressional Black Caucus and thecommunities we represent (which are primarilypeople of color), is the community planningcouncils, their composition, effectiveness andoperations. This process has not worked wellfor many disenfranchised communities underexisting authorization. Community input is es-sential to effective service provision at thelocal level. Therefore, we are encouraged bythe requirement in the bill that planning, pri-ority setting and funding allocation processesmust take into account the demographics ofthe local HIV/AIDs epidemic, existing dispari-ties in access to HIV—related care.

In this regard, I also encourage that AfricanAmericans and other people of color be appro-priately represented in the clinical trials and in-vestigator pools based on the trends of thedisease.

I would be remiss if, I did not say that basedon the past epidemiology, and several studiesand forecasts, FY 2001 funding for the all im-portant ADAP program falls around $100 mil-lion dollars short of what will be needed toprovide treatment to those infected.

This dramatic shortfall represents the manylow income, uninsured and under-insuredAmericans who will not receive appropriatecare, and further puts this country far fromwhere we need to be in fighting this epidemicand saving the lives of those infected andmost at-risk.

We in the Caucus and our partners in theCongress and the communities we serve, re-main vigilant in the nation’s fight against theHIV/AIDS crisis. The Ryan White Care Act isthe lifeline to countless Americans infectedwith HIV and AIDS. It is our best ammunitionin the war against this devastating diseasethat is plaguing our nation. Clearly, we in the

U.S. Congress must not wait until this diseasebegins to mirror the pandemic in Africa. Anenhanced, strengthened, responsive and ade-quately funded Ryan White Care Act is abso-lutely essential to intensified care, treatment,prevention and outreach.

I urge my colleagues to support this muchneeded and important bill.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to expressmy strong support for the Ryan White CareAct Amendments of 2000. Over the past tenyears, the Ryan White Care Act has rep-resented a unique partnership between fed-eral, state and local officials in delivering pre-vention and treatment services to those af-fected by this disease.

The good news is the Care Act has ex-panded access to high quality health care,which is more important than ever in accom-modating the growing numbers of people livingwith HIV and AIDS. As a result, it is importantthat federal funds distributed to states and cit-ies most impacted by the disease, such asLong Beach, are needs-based. These amend-ments are an important step towards the equi-table distribution of federal resources for peo-ple living with HIV and AIDS.

These amendments will also allow heavilyimpacted areas such as Long Beach to usetheir funds now for early intervention services,so they can locate people living with HIV andget them into care. With HIV infecting morethan 40,000 Americans each year—at an av-erage treatment cost of $200,000 per indi-vidual—prevention strategies remain the mostcost effective use of public health dollars.

Today, there are nearly 3800 AIDS cases inLong Beach alone. The Ryan White Care ActAmendments will go a long way in improvingaccess to health care for these Americans, inaddition to slowing the rate of new infections,especially in communities of color. I ampleased to lend my support to this importantbill and encourage all my colleagues to do thesame.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise instrong support of S. 2311, the Ryan WhiteCARE Act Amendments of 2000. This bill willmake a real and profound difference in thelives of persons living with HIV/AIDS by pro-viding resources for essential primary carehealth and support services.

The Ryan White CARE Act was first passedin 1990. Since that time, the face of the HIV/AIDS epidemic has changed but the need forthe Ryan White CARE Act has not. Today, itis more important than ever that we act to ex-pand access to health and social services.

Since coming to Congress, I have had theopportunity to visit with many of my constitu-ents who have benefited from the Ryan WhiteCARE Act. Person after person has told methat, without this Act, they would be unable toafford the treatments needed so that they canremain healthy and productive members oftheir community. As members of Congress,we have supported increased medical re-search efforts that have led to promising treat-ment advances for people living with HIV/AIDS. The Ryan White CARE Act helps to en-sure that people can actually obtain that treat-ment. It helps them find affordable housingand employment opportunities. It is a programthat works and deserves our continued sup-port.

In my district, as in other parts of the coun-try, the HIV/AIDS epidemic continues tothreaten individuals, families and communities.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8845October 5, 2000I want to recognize the outstanding efforts ofmany in combating this crisis, both here andin the Chicagoland area. In particular, I wantto thank Representative HENRY WAXMAN forhis outstanding leadership. As the originalsponsor of the Ryan White CARE Act, he hasworked to make sure that it remains effectiveand is flexible enough to address the changingnature of this epidemic.

I also want to point out the enormous effortsof the City of Chicago and, specifically, theDepartment of Public Health. Mayor RichardDaley has developed a strategic plan to pro-vide a comprehensive response to this epi-demic, working with providers, prevention ex-perts, community representatives and, mostimportantly, people living with HIV/AIDS. Rec-ognizing that today there are more people liv-ing with an AIDS diagnosis in Chicago than atany other time, the City is working to preventnew infections, provide access to drug thera-pies and other treatments, improve other serv-ices such as affordable housing, and ensurethat resources are used as effectively as pos-sible to reflect changing needs. Reauthoriza-tion of the Ryan White CARE Act with ade-quate funding is essential to meeting thosegoals. I also want to point out the importantwork of the AIDS Foundation of Chicago andChicago Health Outreach in this effort.

Finally, we must recognize that women andpeople of color represent a disproportionatenumber of new AIDS cases. Many of thoseimpacted are uninsured, have no regular ac-cess to primary care services, and are unableto afford anti-HIV therapies. I am working withthe Evanston Health Department and the faithcommunity in my district to reach out to thesecommunities and provide information on pre-vention and available services. Therefore, Iam pleased that S. 2311 makes improvementsin the Ryan White CARE Act to help eliminatedisparities in access to services and outreachto underserved communities.

I urge my colleagues to support the RyanWhite CARE Act reauthorization and to followup on this action by providing full appropriationlevels for its essential services.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in supportof S. 2311, which reauthorizes ‘‘The RyanWhite CARE Act’’.

HIV infection and AIDS in Brooklyn remainsa difficult battle. The Centers for Disease Con-trol found that minorities now account for morethan half of all new cases in the United States.AIDS now kills more black men that gunshotwounds. And, it is also the leading cause ofdeath for Hispanic men ages 25 to 44. Thisdisease has equally affected women and chil-dren in minority communities. Eighty-four per-cent of the AIDS cases involving children, age12 and under, can be found in the black com-munity. And, AIDS has now become the sec-ond leading cause of death for black womenand the third leading cause for Hispanicwomen.

I have witnessed these statistics first hand.My congressional district has the highest inci-dence of new AIDS cases of any area in NewYork City. Brownsville has more people livingwith AIDS than 12 States. It has the secondhighest number of blacks living with AIDS inall of New York City. In addition, East NewYork and the Ft. Greene neighborhoods havelarge populations of women living with AIDS.

Yet, we have not witnessed either the re-search or treatment and care dollars followingthe change in disease patterns. While Brook-

lyn is the epicenter of this disease in NewYork City, the majority of the Ryan White andNIH funds are still going to organizationswhich do not serve this constituency. In re-sponse to language which I worked to includein this legislation, hopefully, this trend will behalted. And, minority communities, likeBrownsville, Ft. Greene and East New York,will receive their fair share of treatment dol-lars.

I am very pleased that with today’s floorconsideration of the Ryan White CARE Act wewill be able to continue to bring resources tothose communities and people who are im-pacted by AIDS and HIV infection. And, Iwould urge my colleagues to vote for its pas-sage.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to takethis opportunity to commend Mr. WAXMAN andMr. COBURN for their hard work on the reau-thorization of the Ryan White CARE Act of2000. The Ryan White CARE Act providesgrants to eligible metropolitan areas that aredisproportionately affected by the HIV epi-demic; it provides grants to the states and ter-ritories to provide health care support servicesto people living with HIV/AIDS; it provides pro-grams which support outpatient HIV earlyintervention services for low-income, medicallyunderserved people in existing primary caresystems; and it provides services for children,youth, women and families in a comprehen-sive, community-based, family-centered sys-tem of care.

I am glad to see that the Ryan White CAREAct Amendment of 2000 which I am a cospon-sor, addresses the needs of people living withHIV and AIDS. As we witness the dramaticchanges taking place in other world nationsnow confronting exploding epidemics of HIV/AIDS, we recognize that the course of the HIVepidemic is also changing.

Racial and ethnic minorities are increasinglybecoming affected with this dreadful diseaseat an alarming rate. With adequate funding,the Ryan White CARE Act can continue pro-viding medical services to people living withHIV/AIDS, which can help to improve theirquality of life.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of mycolleagues who have come to the floor todayto speak on the importance of reauthorizingthe Ryan White CARE Act of 2000. I ampleased that this important piece of legislationpassed the House and Senate and that theleadership considered this important reauthor-ization before the end of this congressionalsession.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strongsupport of S. 2311, the Ryan White CARE ActAmendments of 2000. This is important bipar-tisan legislation and I am pleased to see it onthe floor today on its way to swift passage. Iwant to thank the authors for hearing the con-cerns that were raised when the bill first camethrough the House, and I believe we havereached a good compromise.

Mr. Speaker, the AIDS epidemic has rav-aged our communities throughout the country.The statistics are devastating. Through De-cember 1998, nearly 700,000 people hadbeen diagnosed with AIDS. Over 400,000 ofthese people have died. The Centers for Dis-ease Control and Prevention estimates thatover 40,000 people become infected with HIVeach year with an estimated 600,000 to900,000 people living with HIV today.

As a nation, we could have thrown up ourhands and given up in the face of this terrible

tragedy. But in 1990, in one of the great legis-lative achievements of the last decade, Con-gress took action to address this emergencyand passed the Ryan White CARE Act. TheCARE Act is a comprehensive program pro-viding treatment and support services to thoseliving with HIV and AIDS. It has brought hopeand a little humanity to this terrifying crisis.

The CARE Act is a model of how we canaccomplish great things in this chamber. Byworking together, we have produced a pro-gram that provides vital health services topeople across the country while targeting com-munities most in need. It is an efficient pro-gram that has been an unqualified success.

We haven’t found a cure for AIDS yet, butscientists are making promising discoveriesevery day, bringing hope that we may one dayrid ourselves of this disease once and for all.Until then, there is the CARE Act, reaching outto people who are suffering with HIV andAIDS today and who need our help to leadhealthy and productive lives. This is a humaneprogram that deserves our strong support.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker,I rise in strong support for a cause that mustbe sustained and implemented in Americatoday. S. 2311, ‘‘Ryan White CARE Act of2000’’ will reauthorize the funds for programswhile also changing the formula for currentdistribution of Ryan White programs. Mr.Speaker, I support this measure that builds oncontinuing efforts to safeguard the lives ofthose suffering the most. Accordingly, I ap-plaud the efforts to bring this important legisla-tion to the floor today before the end of the106th Congress.

Thanks to the persuasive skills by thoseworking on behalf of those afflicted with theHIV/AIDS epidemic, the funding formula withinthis legislation will actually ensure that minori-ties are properly covered. The legislationmaintains the integrity of the multistructure ofthe CARE Act, allowing funds to be targetedto the areas hardest hit by the HIV and AIDSepidemic. In addition, I am pleased that thelegislation maintains and, in fact, strengthensthe decision-making authority of local planningcouncils and allows resources to be used tolocate and bring more individuals into thehealth care system. Further, I am also de-lighted to learn that the bill will provide moreindividuals with early intervention services,such as counseling and testing.

This bill will give states the option to readilyextend Medicaid coverage to people living withHIV. If adopted, states will have the ability toadd poor and low-income uninsured personsliving with HIV to the list of persons categori-cally eligible for Medicaid. This is very impor-tant for people of the 18th Congressional Dis-trict of Texas who deserve every opportunityto getting the proper coverage it is so criticalthat they receive quality care. There are HIV-infected persons in my district and acrossAmerica that need some relief immediatelyand thus I am pleased by the Medicaid provi-sion in the legislation.

Under current rules, most people living withHIV are ineligible for Medicaid until they haveprogressed to AIDS and are disabled. Yet,new treatment, such as highly activeantiretrovial therapy (HAART), are successfullydelaying the progression from HIV infection toAIDS. That is exciting, Mr. Speaker. We canturn this situation around. These advances,along with access to comprehensive healthcare, have improved the health and quality of


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8846 October 5, 2000life for many people living with HIV. However,without access to Medicaid these advanceswill remain out of reach for thousands of poorand low-income uninsured people living withHIV.

Early access to HIV treatment through Med-icaid, as provided by this legislation, will resultin a reduction of new AIDS cases, increasethe quality of life of thousands living with HIV,reduce high medical interventions such as in-patient hospitalizations and terminal care, in-crease tax revenues and reduce costs in theSSI and SSDI programs.

Another initiative, that effects personally my18th district in Texas, is the establishment ofa new supplementary competitive grant pro-gram for states in ‘‘severe need’’. HHS mustconsider the importance of HIV and AIDS, theincreased need for service along with the levelof unmet need. HHS also must look at dispari-ties in the access to services for historicallyunderserved communities. Acknowledgment ofloopholes is being met and solutions beingmade to combat the destitute situation manyunderserved communities find themselves in.

Finally, I believe it is significant that the re-authorization of the Ryan White Act has thestrong support of the Human Rights Campaignand AIDS Action, two organizations that hasdone monumental work in the promotion ofbetter health care and other critical benefits forthose afflicted with HIV/AIDS. As a result oftheir hard work, we have a bipartisan effortthat finally begins to seek to reach out to mi-norities in unprecedented fashion.

Congress has long recognized the broadscope of benefits of CARE Act programs tothose impacted by the HIV and AIDS. Weneed to continue helping those in need andredouble our efforts to eliminate the epidemicof HIV/AIDS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge mycolleagues to strongly support this legislation.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ex-press my strong support for passing S. 2311to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Housereauthorization (H.R. 4807) that we passed byvoice vote on July 27, 2000. I am equallyproud to stand in support of Senate bill 2311.I urge my colleagues to continue their supportfor these amendments by voting for S. 2311,and help ensure that those with AIDS will con-tinue to receive the support and resourcesthey need.

Mr. Speaker, we all know the troubling sta-tistics. Since its inception, AIDS has claimedover 400,000 lives in the United States. An es-timated 900,000 Americans are living withHIV/AIDS today. Women account for 30 per-cent of new infections. Over half of all new in-fections occur in persons under 25. As theAIDS crisis has continued year after year, ithas become more and more difficult for any-one to claim that AIDS is someone else’sproblem.

Since 1990, the CARE Act has helped es-tablish a comprehensive, community-basedcontinuum of care for uninsured and under-in-sured people living with HIV and AIDS, includ-ing access to primary medical care, pharma-ceuticals, and support services. The CAREAct provides services to people who would nototherwise have access to care.

As a result of the CARE Act, many peoplewith HIV and AIDS are leading longer andhealthier lives today.

Mr. Speaker, since my election to Congress,I have strongly supported increases in funding

for medical research. As the spouse of a phy-sician, I have a special affinity for those suf-fering from life-threatening illnesses. I knowsome believe that government is the problemand not the solution. But the truth is the oppo-site: in times of great human suffering and in-justice, our government has acted to help ourfellow citizens overcome life-threatening condi-tions and situations. Federal aid for the RyanWhite CARE Act is a prime example of thegood government can do in the face of trag-edy and national danger.

By passing S. 2311, we are making clearthat the AIDS epidemic in the United Stateswill receive the attention and public health re-sponse it deserves.

By passing S. 2311 today, Mr. Speaker, wewill affirm our commitment to people living withHIV/AIDS and their families. We will also beaffirming our dedication to sound public policy.By reauthorizing the CARE Act, today, Mr.Speaker, we will give hope and a real chancefor a better life to thousands of HIV/AIDS vic-tims.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today toexpress my strong support for S. 2311, theRyan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000.This is an excellent bill and it deserves our im-mediate consideration and support.

I want to take particular note of the way inwhich this bill has been developed. This billcomes to us by way of a remarkable bipar-tisan effort led by my good friend and col-league Representative WAXMAN and from theother side of the aisle, RepresentativeCOBURN. Given the complexity of the RyanWhite program and the potentially controver-sial nature of the subject matter, the fact thatwe will pass a good bill at this time of yearwith a strong bipartisan vote is a tribute tothem.

Our colleagues in the other body have alsoworked hard on this bill and are to be con-gratulated for their effort. Senators JEFFORDS,KENNEDY, and FRIST have been solid partnersin forging the legislation before us today.

The CDC estimates that more than 900,000persons in America are now living with HIV.Approximately one-third of these personsknow they are infected and are receiving treat-ment. Another third know they are infected,but are not receiving treatment. Another thirddoes not know they are infected. Anothercomplication is that HIV infections are occur-ring in every region of the country and inevery kind of situation. Underserved areas,such as rural areas, are having a particularlydifficult time because they lack the infrastruc-ture of proven prevention and treatment pro-grams.

In brief, S. 2311 keeps those programs thathave withstood the test of time. Just as signifi-cantly, it makes changes where they wereneeded. The four titles of the Ryan WhiteCARE Act contain a variety of grants and for-mulas that distribute funds at the state andlocal levels. As we all know, changing pro-grams of this kind is never easy. In this case,we have successfully blended the need forchange with the need for continuity of care forthose areas that have been especially hard hitby the HIV/AIDS epidemic. On this point, letme note the great work of our colleagues Rep-resentatives ESHOO, TOWNS and PELOSI. Inote, also, that a listing of all of the changesmade to the Ryan White program by this billis set forth in the statement of managers thatwill be included in the record of today’s pro-ceedings.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledgethe work of ranking member of the Health andEnvironment Subcommittee, RepresentativeBROWN, and the Subcommittee Chairman,Representative BILIRAKIS. They have forged asolid working relationship on a variety of billsthat have come before us this year and weare grateful for their hard work and coopera-tion.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.SIMPSON). All time for debate has ex-pired.

Pursuant to House Resolution 611,the previous question is ordered on theSenate bill, as amended.

The question is on the third readingof the Senate bill.

The Senate bill was ordered to beread a third time, and was read thethird time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Thequestion is on the passage of the Sen-ate bill.

The question was taken; and theSpeaker pro tempore announced thatthe ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, onthat I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were—yeas 411, nays 0,not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No. 512]

YEAS—411

AbercrombieAckermanAderholtAllenAndrewsArcherArmeyBacaBachusBairdBakerBaldacciBaldwinBallengerBarciaBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBartonBassBecerraBentsenBereuterBermanBerryBiggertBilbrayBilirakisBishopBlagojevichBlileyBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBonoBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brady (TX)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCanady

CannonCappsCapuanoCardinCarsonCastleChabotChamblissChenoweth-HageClaytonClementClyburnCobleCoburnCollinsCombestConditConyersCookCookseyCostelloCoxCoyneCramerCraneCrowleyCubinCummingsCunninghamDannerDavis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis (VA)DealDeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeLayDeMintDeutschDiaz-BalartDickeyDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoolittleDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlers

EhrlichEmersonEngelEnglishEtheridgeEvansEverettEwingFarrFattahFilnerFletcherFoleyForbesFordFossellaFowlerFrank (MA)FrelinghuysenFrostGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGonzalezGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGrangerGreen (TX)Green (WI)GreenwoodGutierrezGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HansenHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayesHayworthHergerHill (IN)Hill (MT)HillearyHilliardHincheyHinojosa


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8847October 5, 2000HobsonHoeffelHoekstraHoldenHoltHooleyHornHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInsleeIsaksonIstookJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJenkinsJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson, E.B.Johnson, SamJones (NC)Jones (OH)KanjorskiKapturKasichKellyKennedyKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)KingstonKleczkaKnollenbergKolbeKucinichKuykendallLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLantosLargentLarsonLathamLaTouretteLeachLeeLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)LutherMaloney (NY)ManzulloMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCreryMcDermottMcGovernMcHughMcInnisMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)

Meeks (NY)MenendezMetcalfMicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller, GaryMiller, GeorgeMingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMooreMoran (KS)Moran (VA)MorellaMyrickNadlerNapolitanoNealNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOberstarOlverOrtizOseOwensOxleyPackardPallonePascrellPastorPaynePeasePelosiPeterson (MN)Peterson (PA)PetriPhelpsPickeringPickettPittsPomboPomeroyPorterPortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRahallRamstadRegulaReyesReynoldsRileyRiversRodriguezRoemerRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRushRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SaboSalmonSanchezSandersSandlinSanfordSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchaffer

SchakowskyScottSensenbrennerSerranoSessionsShadeggShawShaysShermanSherwoodShimkusShowsShusterSimpsonSisiskySkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SnyderSouderSpenceSprattStabenowStarkStearnsStenholmStricklandStumpStupakSununuTalentTancredoTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TerryThomasThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrtTierneyToomeyTownsTraficantTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)UptonVelazquezViscloskyVitterWaldenWalshWampWatersWatkinsWatt (NC)Watts (OK)WaxmanWeinerWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWexlerWeygandWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfWoolseyWuWynnYoung (AK)

NOT VOTING—22

BerkleyBoniorClayEshooFranks (NJ)GephardtHefleyKing (NY)

KlinkLazioMaloney (CT)McCollumMcIntoshMiller (FL)MurthaObey

PaulRangelSweeneyVentoWiseYoung (FL)

b 1151

So the Senate bill was passed.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

The title of the Senate bill wasamended so as to read: ‘‘A bill toamend the Public Health Service Actto revise and extend programs estab-lished under the Ryan White Com-prehensive AIDS Resources EmergencyAct of 1990, and for other purposes.’’.

A motion to reconsider was laid onthe table.

Stated for:Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker,

I was unavoidably detained during rollcall voteNo. 512. Had I been present I would havevoted ‘‘yes.’’

f

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATIONOF H.R. 2941, LAS CIENEGAS NA-TIONAL CONSERVATION AREA INTHE STATE OF ARIZONA

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr.Speaker, by direction of the Com-mittee on Rules, I call up House Reso-lution 610 and ask for its immediateconsideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-lows:

H. RES. 610Resolved, That at any time after the adop-

tion of this resolution the Speaker may, pur-suant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare theHouse resolved into the Committee of theWhole House on the state of the Union forconsideration of the bill (H.R. 2941) to estab-lish the Las Cienegas National ConservationArea in the State of Arizona. The first read-ing of the bill shall be dispensed with. Allpoints of order against consideration of thebill are waived. General debate shall be con-fined to the bill and shall not exceed onehour equally divided and controlled by thechairman and ranking minority member ofthe Committee on Resources. After generaldebate the bill shall be considered foramendment under the five-minute rule. Inlieu of the amendment recommended by theCommittee on Resources now printed in thebill, it shall be in order to consider as anoriginal bill for the purpose of amendmentunder the five-minute rule the amendmentin the nature of a substitute printed in theCongressional Record and numbered 1 pursu-ant to clause 8 of rule XVIII. That amend-ment in the nature of a substitute shall beconsidered as read. All points of orderagainst that amendment in the nature of asubstitute are waived. During considerationof the bill for amendment, the Chairman ofthe Committee of the Whole may accord pri-ority in recognition on the basis of whetherthe Member offering an amendment hascaused it to be printed in the portion of theCongressional Record designated for thatpurpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amend-ments so printed shall be considered as read.The Chairman of the Committee of theWhole may: (1) postpone until a time duringfurther consideration in the Committee ofthe Whole a request for a recorded vote onany amendment; and (2) reduce to five min-utes the minimum time for electronic votingon any postponed question that follows an-other electronic vote without interveningbusiness, provided that the minimum timefor electronic voting on the first in any se-ries of questions shall be 15 minutes. At theconclusion of consideration of the bill foramendment the Committee shall rise and re-port the bill to the House with such amend-ments as may have been adopted. Any Mem-ber may demand a separate vote in theHouse on any amendment adopted in theCommittee of the Whole to the bill or to theamendment in the nature of a substitute

made in order as original text. The previousquestion shall be considered as ordered onthe bill and amendments thereto to finalpassage without intervening motion exceptone motion to recommit with or without in-structions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-tleman from Washington (Mr.HASTINGS) is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr.Speaker, for the purpose of debateonly, I yield the customary 30 minutesto the gentlewoman from New York(Ms. SLAUGHTER), pending which I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.During consideration of this resolu-tion, all time yielded is for the purposeof debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington askedand was given permission to revise andextend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr.Speaker, H. Res. 610 is an open rulewaiving all points of order against theconsideration of H.R. 2941, a bill to es-tablish the Las Cienegas National Con-servation Area in the State of Arizona.

The rule provides 1 hour of generaldebate to be equally divided betweenthe chairman and ranking minoritymember of the Committee on Re-sources. The rule makes in order as anoriginal bill for the purpose of amend-ment the amendment in the nature of asubstitute printed in the CONGRES-SIONAL RECORD and numbered 1, whichshall be open for amendment at anypoint. The rule waives all points oforder against the amendment in thenature of a substitute.

The rule also authorizes the Chair toaccord priority in recognition to Mem-bers who have preprinted their amend-ments in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.The rule further allows the chairmanof the Committee on the Whole to post-pone votes during the consideration ofthe bill and to reduce voting time to 5minutes on a postponed question if thevote follows a 15-minute vote.

Finally, the rule provides for one mo-tion to recommit, with or without in-structions.

H.R. 2941, a bill introduced by thedistinguished gentleman from Arizona(Mr. KOLBE), establishes the LasCienegas National Conservation Areain parts of Pima, Santa Cruz, andCochise Counties in Arizona. The billdirects the Secretary of the Interior todevelop a management plan for the42,000 acre area which will conserve,protect, and enhance its resources andvalues.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation also au-thorizes the Secretary to purchase orexchange necessary acreage for theconservation area from willing sellers,both individuals and from the State ofArizona.

The bill preserves a significantamount of land that is home to an im-portant cross-section of plants andwildlife. It also creates 142,000-plus acreplanning district that is an importantfirst step towards providing a biologi-cal corridor from the north of Tucsonto Mexico for animal movements that


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8848 October 5, 2000are necessary for the long-term viabil-ity of some species.

In addition, two of southern Arizo-na’s perennial streams, the CienegaCreek and the Babocamari River,would be protected by this legislation,ensuring a long-term sustainable ripar-ian area.

b 1200

Land will also be available for humanuse in ranching, hunting, and recre-ation.

H.R. 2941 was reported by unanimousconsent by the Committee on Re-sources on September 20, 2000. Accord-ingly, I urge my colleagues to supportboth the rule, House Resolution 610,and the underlying bill.


Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, Iyield myself such time as I may con-sume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendher remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I risein support of this open rule, and urgemy colleagues to pass it.

The underlying bill comes after ex-tensive negotiations between the bill’ssupporters and the administration, andwould establish the Las Cienegas Na-tional Conservation Area located in Ar-izona.

This land is important for a diversecross-section of plants and wildlife.The bill creates the 137,000-acreSonoita Valley Conservation PlanningDistrict, which includes the 42,000 acreLas Cienegas National ConservationArea.

Moreover, the bill would provide animportant first step to creating a bio-logical corridor that extends fromnorth of Tucson to Mexico for animalmovements that are necessary for thelong-term viability of some species.

In addition, two of southern Arizo-na’s perennial streams, the CienegaCreek and the Babocomari River,would be protected, ensuring a long-term, sustainable riparian area.


Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr.Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minuteto the author of this bill, the gen-tleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise insupport of this rule for H.R. 2941, theLas Cienegas National ConservationArea Establishment Act.

As the gentleman from Washingtonsaid, it is an open rule, and deservessupport of all the Members of thisbody.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, Ihave no further requests for time, andI yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr.Speaker, I have no further requests fortime, I yield back the balance of mytime, and I move the previous questionon the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

question is on the resolution.

The question was taken; and theSpeaker pro tempore announced thatthe ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I objectto the vote on the ground that aquorum 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 411, nays 0,not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No. 513]

YEAS—411

AbercrombieAckermanAderholtAllenAndrewsArcherArmeyBacaBachusBakerBaldacciBaldwinBallengerBarciaBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBartonBassBecerraBentsenBereuterBerkleyBermanBerryBiggertBilbrayBilirakisBishopBlagojevichBlileyBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBoniorBonoBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brady (TX)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCanadyCannonCappsCapuanoCardinCarsonCastleChabotChamblissClaytonClementClyburnCobleCoburnCollinsCombestConditConyersCookCookseyCostelloCox

CoyneCramerCraneCrowleyCubinCummingsCunninghamDannerDavis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis (VA)DealDeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeLayDeMintDeutschDiaz-BalartDickeyDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoolittleDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEngelEnglishEtheridgeEvansEverettEwingFarrFattahFilnerFletcherFoleyForbesFordFossellaFowlerFrank (MA)FrelinghuysenFrostGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGekasGephardtGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGonzalezGoodeGoodlatteGordonGossGrahamGreen (TX)Green (WI)GreenwoodGutierrezGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HansenHastings (FL)

Hastings (WA)HayesHayworthHergerHill (IN)Hill (MT)HillearyHilliardHincheyHinojosaHobsonHoeffelHoekstraHoldenHoltHooleyHornHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInsleeIsaksonIstookJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJenkinsJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson, E. B.Johnson, SamJones (NC)Jones (OH)KanjorskiKapturKasichKellyKennedyKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)KingstonKleczkaKnollenbergKolbeKucinichKuykendallLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLantosLargentLarsonLathamLaTouretteLeachLeeLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)Manzullo

MarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCreryMcDermottMcGovernMcHughMcInnisMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMetcalfMicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller, GaryMiller, GeorgeMingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMooreMoran (KS)Moran (VA)MorellaMyrickNadlerNapolitanoNealNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOberstarOlverOrtizOseOwensOxleyPackardPallonePascrellPastorPeasePelosiPeterson (MN)Peterson (PA)PetriPhelpsPickeringPickettPitts

PomboPomeroyPorterPortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRahallRamstadRangelRegulaReyesReynoldsRileyRiversRodriguezRoemerRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRushRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SaboSalmonSanchezSandersSandlinSanfordSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchafferSchakowskyScottSensenbrennerSerranoSessionsShadeggShawShaysShermanSherwoodShimkusShowsShusterSimpsonSisiskySkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)

SnyderSouderSpenceSprattStarkStearnsStenholmStricklandStumpStupakSununuTalentTancredoTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TerryThomasThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrtTierneyToomeyTownsTraficantTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)UptonVelazquezViscloskyVitterWaldenWalshWampWatersWatkinsWatt (NC)Watts (OK)WaxmanWeinerWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWexlerWeygandWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfWoolseyWuWynnYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NOT VOTING—22

BairdChenoweth-HageClayEshooFranks (NJ)GoodlingGrangerHefley

King (NY)KlinkLazioMcCollumMcIntoshMiller (FL)MurthaObey

PaulPayneStabenowSweeneyVentoWise

b 1220

Ms. MCCARTHY of Missouri changedher vote from ‘‘nay’’ to ‘‘yea.’’

So the resolution was agreed to.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

f

FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THESENATE

A further message from the Senateby Mr. Lundregan, one of its clerks, an-nounced that the Senate has passedwithout amendment a joint resolutionof the House of the following title:

H.J. Res. 110. Joint Resolution making fur-ther continuing appropriations for the fiscalyear 2001, and for other purposes.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8849October 5, 2000QUESTION OF PERSONAL

PRIVILEGEMr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to

a point of a personal privilege.The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

QUINN). The Chair has been apprised ofthe predicate on which the gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. SHUSTER)seeks recognition and finds (in con-sonance with the precedents cited insection 708 of the House Rules andManual) that it qualifies as a questionof personal privilege under rule IX.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania(Mr. SHUSTER) is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, first, Iwant to thank the Members of theCommittee on Standards of OfficialConduct for concluding what has beena 4-year nightmare to myself and myfamily. In fact, 4 years, 1 month and 31days ago, a group associated withRalph Nader filed an ethics complaintagainst me.

I have agreed to accept a single letterof reproval to settle this matter. Now,this letter of reproval deals with mat-ters of appearances of improprieties towhich I acknowledge. I am very pleasedthat the committee dismissed the wildand inaccurate charges originally filedby the Nader group. I am very pleasedthat not a single allegation, not a scin-tilla of evidence, not a hint of any ofthis referred to any actions that I tookthat influenced my activities as chair-man of my committee.

Now, the Webster dictionary definesreproval. As we know, a letter ofreproval, by definition, is the mildestform of sanction. The Webster dic-tionary defines it as, and I quote, ‘‘toscold or correct, usually gently andwith kindly intent.’’

Now, I must confess I feel neithergentle nor kindly about this 4-yearnightmare which has been so difficultfor my family and which has cost hun-dreds of thousands of dollars in legalfees.

It began with this Nader organizationcomplaint filed. And under the rules, itis a fact, not an opinion, it is a factthat, under the rules, such a complaintmust include the signatures of threesitting Members. It is a fact, not anopinion, that at least one of those sig-natures, not only was not by a Member,his name was not even spelled cor-rectly. So on the face of it, this shouldhave been rejected in the very begin-ning. The then committee began theinvestigation by violating their ownrules. But that is something behind us.

It is also a fact that, in the week ofOctober 5, 1998, 2 years ago, the thenchairman of the committee sought meout and said to me, and I can quote itbecause I immediately not only wroteit down, but also sent it to my attor-neys and sent a copy of a letter to thedistinguished gentleman himself tomake sure that I had not misunder-stood. He said to me that, after confer-ring with other Members of the com-mittee, that they wanted to wrap upthe matter by year’s end because therewas nothing of substance. It was, and I

emphasize, I quote, ‘‘B.S.’’ I imme-diately prepared a memorandum, andof course my family and I proceeded onthis basis.

As it turned out, that was 2 yearsago. I was told they wanted to wrap itup by year’s end. It did not happen. Weregret that. But we went on to do ourbest to try to comply with this night-mare.

It is also a matter of public recordthat the chairman of the investigationcommittee and I have had bad bloodover the years, largely, although notexclusively, over the fact that I refusedto block a 6-runway which he wantedkilled for his airport. At the time, peo-ple came to me and said ‘‘you shouldobject under the rules to that gen-tleman being chairman of the sub-committee.’’ I said absolutely not. Isaid then that gentleman is an honor-able gentleman, and I said now thatgentleman is an honorable gentleman.So I agreed for us to proceed underthose rules.

I agreed to this letter. It is true that,after my chief of staff of 22 years re-tired, I and my new chief of staff con-tacted that old chief of staff numeroustimes on official business to get guid-ance because that former chief of staffwas the only one who had the knowl-edge that we needed to conduct the af-fairs of our office. If that created anappearance of impropriety, absolutely.That is true.

It is also true that my wife and I andmy family went to Puerto Rico onwhat we believed to be an official trip.While it is true that we did, indeed,meet with two different organizationson official business plus, as a memberof the Permanent Select Committee onIntelligence, I took time to meet withDEA agents on drug matters relatingto Puerto Rico, nevertheless it wasconcluded by the committee that thistrip was more recreational. I acceptthat judgment that it created the ap-pearance of recreation.

It is also true that my congressionalstaff contributed many times to workin my campaign. It is true that we keptno written records. I acknowledge that.I admit that. If that is an appearanceof impropriety, so be it. We understandthat the particular staff person inquestion did testify that she workednights and weekends to make it up.But, absolutely, we did not keeprecords which have been deemed to beadequate, and so I have no problem inacknowledging that violation.

It is also true that the Bud Shusterfor Congress Committee spent hun-dreds of thousands of dollars on dinnersand charter flights. We identified it aspolitical. But it is true that we did notspell out the details. We did not spellout who it was we had dinner with. Wedid not spell out the purpose of the din-ner. We reported it all on our FEC re-ports, but we did not provide any de-tail. So if that is an appearance of im-propriety, so be it. I accept it.

Also, the word ‘‘excessive’’ was usedin spending campaign funds. Now, if

one comes from a rural area, we do nothave the benefit of airlines, scheduledairlines. We have to use charter flights.

b 1230

But between the dinners and theflights, these campaign expenses were‘‘excessive.’’ We thought that wassomething the FEC was supposed todeal with, but nevertheless we acceptthat. If that created the appearance ofimpropriety, so be it.

But I would point out, in fact, it real-ly raises my hackles a bit when peoplesay, ‘‘Well, you didn’t have any opposi-tion.’’ My colleagues, I have got to con-fess to the sin of pride. I am the onlyPennsylvanian in our Nation’s historywho has won both the Democratic andthe Republican nominations ninetimes. These Democratic nominationsdid not fall out of the sky. We conductvery, very complicated write-in cam-paigns. And in 11 counties, we have hadto run 11 campaigns for a write-in cam-paign. It costs a lot of money.

We work 365 days a year on the polit-ical end of our activities, and we dospend an awful lot of money. And ifthat created the appearance of impro-priety, I accept that.

Now, if our practices created the ap-pearance of impropriety, our attorneysat one point said, wait a minute, theseare common practices. I said, well, Ithought they were, but maybe they arenot. So our attorneys initiated inves-tigations into the FEC reports as wellas the ethics report of 35 Members ofCongress, both sides of the aisle, par-ticularly Members of the Committeeon Standards of Official Conduct andthe leadership in the Congress to seewhether these practices were also con-ducted by other Members of the Con-gress. And, indeed, they discoveredthat in a vast majority of the cases,meals, with the full range of Wash-ington restaurants, Mr. K’s, Red Sage,Morton’s, Capitol Grill, were paid forby campaign expenses. The Palm, theMCI Center, private clubs, golfing ex-penses; all paid for with campaign ex-penses. Entertainment, music, florists,commercial airfare.

Indeed, I emphasize since we do nothave commercial flights in rural Penn-sylvania, I had to rely on charterflights, but we spent an awful lot ofmoney on it. And if that created an ap-pearance of impropriety, absolutely Iaccept that.

Members, as they traveled around instyle, Sun Valley, campaign expensesor paid for by private groups; Sun Val-ley, Idaho, Jackson Hole, Aspen, Boul-der, Miami, Boca Raton, Orlando, Ft.Myers, Naples, Palm Springs, PebbleBeach, the list goes on and on, Mexico,Puerto Rico, Bermuda, Virgin Islands,Cuba, Panama, London, Scotland, Ire-land, Rome, Zurich, Tokyo, HongKong, Singapore, South Africa, etcetera, et cetera, all paid for by privategroups.

Now, it is a fact that we did not keepa record of how much of my time wasspent on official business and how


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8850 October 5, 2000much time was spent on recreation.This is one of the things that the Con-gress and the committee might want toconsider clarifying this, so that when aMember does go on a trip paid for by aprivate group, he should keep a recordof how many hours and minutes hespends on official business and howmany hours and minutes he spends onrecreations so we would know clearlyand so my colleagues do not find them-selves in the same difficulty in whichwe have found ourselves.

In fact, I considered introducing leg-islation, but it is not my style to dosomething with tongue-in-cheek to saythat we have got to have writtenrecords of every time we go and have adinner with somebody, and we mustwrite down who the person was andwhat was talked about. Do we reallywant that around here? Well, what isgood for the goose is good for the gan-der, but it is certainly not my point tosuggest that that should be done.

I have to tell my colleagues that myattorneys read the committee report,and they take violent exception tosome of the characterizations in it, andurge, by the way, that all my col-leagues read our reply to the report,but I accept the letter of reproval. I ac-cept the appearance of impropriety. Inthe course of it, my attorneys tell methere were 150 subpoenas, 75 witnesses,33 depositions; and they tell me timeand time again in debriefings that theywere informed that these witnesses bythe staff attorneys were intimidated,were threatened, and were harassed.

I want to emphasize very strongly,these are not the gentlemen and ladieson the Committee on Standards of Offi-cial Conduct. As far as I have been ap-prised, the gentlemen and the ladies onthe Committee on Standards of OfficialConduct conducted themselves in amanner which we all would expectthem to conduct themselves. The staff,of course, was a different situation.

So in conclusion, this 4-year ordeal isover. I accept the findings to stop thehemorrhaging of legal fees and to putthis behind us. I am less than thrilledby the drumbeat of malicious, inac-curate newspaper stories which haveappeared over the period of time. I cer-tainly want to thank my family andmy friends, my staff and my colleaguesfor their tremendous support which Ihave received during this 4-year night-mare. And perhaps most significantly,as a result of the tremendous support Ihave received, our Committee onTransportation and Infrastructure hasbeen able to be an effective committee,has been a committee which in fact,more than any other committee in theCongress, I am told, has seen 119 piecesof legislation signed into law, the larg-est and most productive committee ofthe Congress with, indeed, some his-toric pieces of legislation.

So I accept the findings of the com-mittee in order to put this behind us.And most importantly I want to thankall my colleagues for their tremendoussupport over this period of time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, willthe gentleman yield?

Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gen-tleman from Minnesota.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, theapologia pro vita sua we have justheard from the gentleman in the well isand represents one of the most in-tensely personal moments in this body;one of the most human experiencesthat we engage in. None of us, unlesswe stand in that well, as the gentlemanhas just done, can understand the painand the difficulty, but also thestrength of character it takes to de-liver the statement the gentleman hasjust made, and to say ‘‘I accept thejudgment.’’ But it is characteristic ofthe gentleman to do so.

The gentleman has led the com-mittee throughout all this ordeal withdignity and effectiveness. I know howpained the gentleman is over this re-port, but I am proud of this momentthat he has taken to address his col-leagues and to address the country andto address this institution, and I thankthe gentleman.

Mr. SHUSTER. Reclaiming my time,Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend,and I yield back the balance of mytime.

f

LAS CIENEGAS NATIONAL CON-SERVATION AREA IN THE STATEOF ARIZONA

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.LAHOOD). Pursuant to House Resolu-tion 610 and rule XVIII, the Chair de-clares the House in the Committee ofthe Whole House on the State of theUnion for the consideration of the bill,H.R. 2941.

b 1240

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolveditself into the Committee of the WholeHouse on the State of the Union for theconsideration of the bill (H.R. 2941) toestablish the Las Cienegas NationalConservation Area in the State of Ari-zona, with Mr. QUINN in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

rule, the bill is considered as havingbeen read the first time.

Under the rule, the gentleman fromUtah (Mr. HANSEN) and the gentlemanfrom West Virginia (Mr. RAHALL) eachwill control 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Utah (Mr. HANSEN).

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume,and I rise in full support of H.R. 2941,which establishes the Cienegas Na-tional Conservation Area and theSonoita Valley Conservation PlanningDistrict in the State of Arizona. Au-thored by my colleague, the gentlemanfrom Arizona (Mr.KOLBE), this legisla-tion will ensure the future protectionand use of this area.

The purpose of H.R. 2941 is to pre-serve the many historical, recreation,and rangeland resources of the region

while also allowing for environ-mentally responsible grazing and recre-ation to continue. The planning dis-trict consists of approximately 137,000acres of land in the Arizona counties ofPima and Santa Cruz. The conserva-tion area on the southern end of theplanning district encompasses nearly42,000 acres of Federal public land.Both of these management prescrip-tions will conserve, protect, and en-hance for the benefit and enjoyment ofpresent and future generations theunique aquatic, wildlife, cave, histor-ical, and other resources and valueswhich allowing livestock grazing andrecreation to continue.

In 1995, the Sonoita Valley PlanningPartnership was formed to work onpublic lands issues in the Empire-Cienega Resources Conservation Area,which the BLM established in 1988. Thepartnership is comprised of variousstakeholders, such as hiking clubs,conservation organizations, grazingand mining interests, off-highway vehi-cle clubs, mountain bike clubs, as wellas Federal, States, and county govern-ment entities. The SVPP has developeda collaborative management plan forthese lands, and the National Con-servation Area designation gives thisplan’s objectives permanence.

The establishment of this conserva-tion planning district and nationalconservation will not affect any prop-erty rights of any lands or interests inlands held by the State of Arizona, anypolitical subdivisions of the State ofArizona, or any private landowners. Inaddition, reasonable access to non-fed-erally owned lands or interest in landswithin the NCA must be provided. Theestablishment of the National Con-servation Area must also allow formultiple use, such as grazing, motor-ized vehicles, military overflights, andhunting.

Mr. Chairman, this bill ensures thedesignation of the NCA will not lead tothe creation of protective perimetersor buffer zones. This bill also assuresthat any activity or use on lands out-side the NCA are not precluded as a re-sult of the designation. In addition,this bill directs the Secretary to de-velop and implement a comprehensivemanagement plan for the long-termmanagement of the area.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the gen-tleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE), de-serves a lot of credit for bringing H.R.2941 to this point. Following the initialhearing on this legislation, many con-cerns were raised about boundaries,private and State lands, and grazinglanguage. After several months of ne-gotiation with the minority and theSecretary of the Interior, he has pro-duced legislation that is balanced andreasonable. I want to commend thegentleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE)for his patience and hard work. This isa worthy piece of legislation, and Istrongly urge my colleagues to supportH.R. 2941.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8851October 5, 2000Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield

3 minutes to the gentleman from Ari-zona (Mr. PASTOR), a member of thepowerful Committee on Appropria-tions.

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

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise tosupport this legislation, which I havecosponsored and is of tremendous im-portance to Arizona maintenance.

I appreciate the efforts of the chair-man of the Committee on Resources,the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.YOUNG); and the ranking member, thegentleman from California (Mr.GEORGE MILLER); as well as the sub-committee chairman, the gentlemanfrom Utah (Mr. HANSEN); and my dearfriend, the gentleman from West Vir-ginia (Mr. RAHALL), for moving thislegislation.

As my colleagues know, this legisla-tion will designate approximately206,000 acres of land within Pima,Cochise, and Santa Cruz Counties as aNational Conservation Area. I rep-resent the area of the designation with-in Santa Cruz County. I believe, as domany others within Arizona, that it isimportant for this area to be des-ignated a National Conservation Area.

b 1245

This designation would allow for thelocal people to continue their involve-ment in the use and preservation ofthis area by having a say in the impor-tant management plan to be developedby the Secretary of Interior.

In 1988, the Empire-Cienegas Re-sources Conservation Area was estab-lished by the Bureau of Land Manage-ment. In 1995, in order to address andwork on land issues within the Con-servation Area, a diverse and caringgroup of citizens formed the SonoitaValley Planning Partnership. Virtuallyevery group with an interest in the useand conservation of the area was in-cluded in the Partnership.

Conservation organizations have con-tinued to have a say in how this landshould be used and protected. Hikingclubs address the needs of the areaboth in the recreational activities andpreservation. Off-highway vehicle clubsand mountain biking clubs have ex-plored ways to use this land while pro-tecting its pristine value and not spoil-ing it for wildlife and for plant species.

Ranchers have joined the Partnershipto best explain how the land can beused for grazing without having a det-rimental impact on the environment.Mining companies continue to workwithin the Partnership in hopes of en-suring an area will be preserved forrecreation, wildlife, and beauty.

Finally, State, Federal, and localgovernments have been included to ad-dress the needs of their constituentswhich are not part of other groups.

Mr. Chairman, I commend theSonoita Valley Planning Partnershipfor having developed a managementplan for these lands. By Congress desig-

nating Las Cienegas as a National Con-servation Area, we will give a perma-nence to the bold and innovative planthat the Partnership has developed. Infact, the management plan is the coreof this National Conservation Area des-ignation. In simple terms, it is a planby local people for local lands.

Mr. Chairman, while there are manydetails to this legislation, it is impor-tant to point out that this bill wouldpreserve a significant amount of landfrom Tucson to Mexico. It would createa biological corridor that is necessaryfor the long-term survival of severalspecies that move within the des-ignated area, not to mention pro-tecting a diverse cross-section ofplants. It would also sustain a long-term riparian area along two southernArizona perennial streams.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we allknow there are several options for pro-tecting this land. After looking at allthe alternatives, I support the ap-proach of the gentleman from Arizona(Mr. KOLBE) of the Sonoita ValleyPlanning Partnership as the best alter-native to maintaining and preservingthis area. By designating this area as aNational Conservation Area, we aretaking a practical and meaningful ap-proach toward preserving our environ-ment in southeastern Arizona.

I urge my colleagues to support thisimportant legislation.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I amhappy to yield such time as he mayconsume to the author of this legisla-tion, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.KOLBE), who has done such an out-standing job on this legislation.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman from Utah (Mr. HANSEN)for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, to paraphrase WinstonChurchill, consideration of H.R. 2941marks not the beginning of the end forthis legislation, but rather the end ofthe beginning.

I say that because this is the cul-mination of 5 years of work by the peo-ple who live and work in the area, butits enactment will mark the beginningof an effort to preserve 143,000 acres ofland so that future generations canenjoy Arizona’s great western heritage,ranching, outdoor recreation and vastopen spaces of desert filled with wild-life.

This bill establishes the Las CienegasNational Conservation Area. Mr. Chair-man, for the benefit of my colleagues,‘‘Las Cienegas’’ means ‘‘the marshes,’’something we do not normally asso-ciate with Arizona. And yet this riverbottom, this watershed is indeed one ofthe spectacular areas of marshes andbogs.

The legislation will ensure that aland management plan is developedthat is consistent with local needs andinterests. Besides grazing and recre-ation, other authorized uses of thelands and the NCA include motorizedvehicles on specified roads and trails,continued military overflights, andhunting in accordance with State law.

However, future mineral leases areprohibited. The management plan ofthis NCA must be based on the localpartnership’s land use plan that hasbeen collaborative in nature. The planmust include educational programs aswell as the strategies for managementof wildlife, cultural resources, and caveresources.

The bill also protects private prop-erty rights and it ensures access to pri-vate and other non-Federal propertieswithin the NCA boundary.

This legislation reflects, I believe, abalanced approach to land manage-ment that recreation, hunting andranching can coexist with the Sonorandesert ecosystem. Several perspectiveshave been brought to the table duringthe 5 years that this vision has beenmolded into its current shape, and thegentleman from Utah (Mr. HANSEN) al-luded to some of that.

The interest of hiking clubs, of con-servation groups, of grazing permit-tees, of mountain bike clubs, as well asState and county governments have allbeen intricately involved and inter-woven in this consensus building proc-ess.

The bill does indeed, as a result, havevery broad support. Both counties af-fected by this bill have passed unani-mous bipartisan resolutions of support.It has shown to have bipartisan supporthere in the House of Representatives.It has support from the Department ofArmy and the very nearby FortHuachuca. It has support of the City ofTucson and support of the EmpireRanch Foundation, of environmentalorganizations, of the Arizona and PimaTrail Associations, of the Southern Ar-izona Mountain Bike Association, ofthe Green Valley Hiking Club. Andtoday, just this morning, I am pleasedto say that the Governor of the Stateof Arizona has just faxed us a letter ofher support.

Yes, it even has the support of devel-opers.

The bill establishes a 142,800 acresSonoita Valley Acquisition PlanningDistrict, which includes the 42,000 acresLas Cienegas National ConservationArea.

The goal of this acquisition planningdistrict is to give the Secretary of theInterior the authority to reach a con-sensual agreement with the Governorof Arizona to acquire the State landsand prevent urban sprawl in the region.

This is a one-way street, however.The Secretary of Interior has to try tonegotiate and coordinate with theState, but the State must weigh its op-tions and decide whether this would bebeneficial for them. If the State orother non-Federal landowners decidenot to participate in this vision, thislegislation does not prevent them fromdoing anything that would be allowedtoday on that land. It simply providesanother option to the State as themajor landholder within this acquisi-tion planning area.

Also, let me point out that there areno private lands within the NCA


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8852 October 5, 2000boundary, and non-Federal land withinthe acquisition planning district couldbecome a part of the National Con-servation Area only if they are ac-quired from a willing seller or if a con-servation easement is purchased by theBureau of Land Management.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be heretoday representing the people of south-eastern Arizona on the development ofthis legislation. They have made a veryconscious effort to work with theirneighbors, to understand the differinginterests, the competing interests thatare included in this bill, and to comeup with a plan that meets everyone’sneeds.

Lastly, I would like to take this op-portunity to express my thanks and ap-preciation to the multitude of peoplewho have helped us to get to this point.Many people have put their heart andsoul into this bill.

I think of Luther Propst and MaryVint with the Sonoran Institute; Johnand Mac Donaldson and John McDon-ald with the Empire Ranch, and I onlywish, I might add, that I could givethem some rain right now for their cat-tle and their feed; of Sheldon Clark,Peter Backus; Supervisors Ray Carrollof Pima County and Ron Morriss ofSanta Cruz County; Arizona Game &Fish Commissioner Joe Carter; andJesse Juen and Laurie Sedlmayr withthe Bureau of Land Management.

I also commend Governor Hull andher staff for their valuable contribu-tions to the legislation. I especiallywant to thank my colleague, the gen-tleman from Arizona (Mr. PASTOR), forhis consistent support. Lisa Daly withLegislative Counsel has to be com-mended for dealing with my staff’s con-stant pestering and pleasantly andcompetently dealing with the seem-ingly never-ending changes to the bill.

Finally, I thank my own staff in Ari-zona: Kay McLoughlin, BernadettePolley. And as a witness to just howlong this has been going on, I expressmy thanks also to Melinda Carrell, whoretired more than a year ago, not, Imight add, because of this bill, butplayed an instrumental role in devel-oping this legislation.

Without the dedicated work of KevinMessner, who is with me on the floortoday, giving birth to this bill count-less times, negotiating improvements,and maneuvering through mine fields,we would not be here on the floor withthis bill today.

And finally, last but not least, let mealso thank the gentleman from Utah(Mr. HANSEN), the chairman of sub-committee; Allen Freemyer from themajority staff; and Rick Healy fromthe minority staff for their invaluableinput for bringing us here. These folkshave been invaluable in this effort. Igive my heartfelt thanks to them andsay this is what I think the legislativeprocess ought to be about.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favorof a 5-year bipartisan, multi-interestcompromise that is being asked for bythe people, and I can say virtually allthe people, of southern Arizona.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to com-mend and congratulate the gentlemanfrom Arizona (Mr. KOLBE) for the man-ner in which he has moved this legisla-tion, as well as the subcommitteechairman, the gentleman from Utah(Mr. HANSEN).

At the appropriate time, I will sub-mit the statement of the ranking mem-ber, the gentleman from California(Mr. GEORGE MILLER) for the RECORD.

We support the revised bill.Mr. Chairman, I have no further re-

quests for time, and I yield back thebalance of my time.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemanfrom Arizona (Mr. KOLBE) for the excel-lent presentation that he just gave usconcerning this piece of legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr.Chairman, H.R. 2941, introduced by Mr.KOLBE, would establish a new national con-servation area (NCA) in southeastern Arizona,near Tucson. The area consists of hills, grass-lands and marshes along a stretch of CienegaCreek. Left unaddressed, this area is likely tosuccumb to urban sprawl.

At the hearing on H.R. 2941, Interior Sec-retary Babbitt testified in general support aconservation designation for the area. How-ever, there were a significant number of prob-lems with the language of the bill that the Sec-retary and others elaborated on.

Between the hearing and mark up of thelegislation there were discussions among themajority and minority staffs, as well as BLMstaff and the bill sponsor on changes thatcould be made to the bill to make it an accept-able proposal.

We appreciate the fact that the bill reportedby the Resources Committee made manypositive changes to the bill. However, in oneinstance the reported bill represented a stepbackward rather than a step forward.

We did not support the language in theCommittee bill as it pertains to grazing. Thislanguage had the effect of according grazinga higher status than it has under current law.While the revised bill had many good featuresto it, on grazing it fell short.

I am pleased that the version of the billmade in order today under the Rule includesprovisions that address the problem with thegrazing language of the Committee-reportedbill. The new language provides for environ-mentally sustainable grazing on appropriatelands within the conservation area. As such,this language will be consistent with the pro-tection of the important resource values of thearea.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work of Rep-resentative KOLBE and his staff in addressingthis important matter. I will be supporting H.R.2941 with this new language and urge my col-leagues to do likewise.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I haveno further requests for time, and Iyield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. All time for generaldebate has expired.

In lieu of the amendment rec-ommended by the Committee on Re-sources printed in the bill, it shall bein order to consider as an original bill

for the purpose of amendment underthe 5-minute rule an amendment in thenature of a substitute printed in theCONGRESSIONAL RECORD and numbered1. That amendment in the nature of asubstitute shall be considered as read.

The text of the amendment in the na-ture of a substitute is as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and in-sert the following new text:

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.For the purposes of this Act, the following

definitions apply:(1) CONSERVATION AREA.—The term ‘‘Con-

servation Area’’ means the Las Cienegas Na-tional Conservation Area established by sec-tion 4(a).

(2) ACQUISITION PLANNING DISTRICT.—Theterm ‘‘Acquisition Planning District’’ meansthe Sonoita Valley Acquisition PlanningDistrict established by section 2(a).

(3) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The term ‘‘man-agement plan’’ means the management planfor the Conservation Area.

(4) PUBLIC LANDS.—The term ‘‘publiclands’’ has the meaning given the term insection 103(e) of the Federal Land Policy andManagement Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)),except that such term shall not include in-terest in lands not owned by the UnitedStates.

(5) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’means the Secretary of the Interior.SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SONOITA VAL-

LEY ACQUISITION PLANNING DIS-TRICT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—In order to provide for fu-ture acquisitions of important conservationland within the Sonoita Valley region of theState of Arizona, there is hereby establishedthe Sonoita Valley Acquisition PlanningDistrict.

(b) AREAS INCLUDED.—The AcquisitionPlanning District shall consist of approxi-mately 142,800 acres of land in the Arizonacounties of Pima and Santa Cruz, includingthe Conservation Area, as generally depictedon the map entitled ‘‘Sonoita Valley Acqui-sition Planning District and Las CienegasNational Conservation Area’’ and dated Oc-tober 2, 2000.

(c) MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—As soonas practicable after the date of the enact-ment of this Act, the Secretary shall submitto Congress a map and legal description ofthe Acquisition Planning District. In case ofa conflict between the map referred to insubsection (b) and the map and legal descrip-tion submitted by the Secretary, the map re-ferred to in subsection (b) shall control. Themap and legal description shall have thesame force and effect as if included in thisAct, except that the Secretary may correctclerical and typographical errors in suchmap and legal description. Copies of the mapand legal description shall be on file andavailable for public inspection in the Officeof the Director of the Bureau of Land Man-agement, and in the appropriate office of theBureau of Land Management in Arizona.SEC. 3. PURPOSES OF THE ACQUISITION PLAN-

NING DISTRICT.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall nego-

tiate with land owners for the acquisition oflands and interest in lands suitable for Con-servation Area expansion that meet the pur-poses described in section 4(a). The Sec-retary shall only acquire property under thisAct pursuant to section 7.

(b) FEDERAL LANDS.—The Secretary,through the Bureau of Land Management,shall administer the public lands within theAcquisition Planning District pursuant tothis Act and the applicable provisions of theFederal Land Policy and Management Act of1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), subject to valid


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8853October 5, 2000existing rights, and in accordance with themanagement plan. Such public lands shallbecome part of the Conservation Area whenthey become contiguous with the Conserva-tion Area.

(c) FISH AND WILDLIFE.—Nothing in thisAct shall be construed as affecting the juris-diction or responsibilities of the State of Ar-izona with respect to fish and wildlife withinthe Acquisition Planning District.

(d) PROTECTION OF STATE AND PRIVATELANDS AND INTERESTS.—Nothing in this Actshall be construed as affecting any propertyrights or management authority with regardto any lands or interest in lands held by theState of Arizona, any political subdivision ofthe State of Arizona, or any private propertyrights within the boundaries of the Acquisi-tion Planning District.

(e) PUBLIC LANDS.—Nothing in this Actshall be construed as in any way diminishingthe Secretary’s or the Bureau of Land Man-agement’s authorities, rights, or responsibil-ities for managing the public lands withinthe Acquisition Planning District.

(f) COORDINATED MANAGEMENT.—The Sec-retary shall coordinate the management ofthe public lands within the Acquisition Plan-ning District with that of surrounding coun-ty, State, and private lands consistent withthe provisions of subsection (d).SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LAS CIENEGAS

NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA.(a) IN GENERAL.—In order to conserve, pro-

tect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoy-ment of present and future generations theunique and nationally important aquatic,wildlife, vegetative, archaeological, paleon-tological, scientific, cave, cultural, histor-ical, recreational, educational, scenic, range-land, and riparian resources and values ofthe public lands described in subsection (b)while allowing livestock grazing and recre-ation to continue in appropriate areas, thereis hereby established the Las Cienegas Na-tional Conservation Area in the State of Ari-zona.

(b) AREAS INCLUDED.—The ConservationArea shall consist of approximately 42,000acres of public lands in the Arizona countiesof Pima and Santa Cruz, as generally de-picted on the map entitled ‘‘Sonoita ValleyAcquisition Planning District and LasCienegas National Conservation Area’’ anddated October 2, 2000.

(c) MAPS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—As soonas practicable after the date of the enact-ment of this Act, the Secretary shall submitto Congress a map and legal description ofthe Conservation Area. In case of a conflictbetween the map referred to in subsection (b)and the map and legal description submittedby the Secretary, the map referred to in sub-section (b) shall control. The map and legaldescription shall have the same force and ef-fect as if included in this Act, except thatthe Secretary may correct clerical and typo-graphical errors in such map and legal de-scription. Copies of the map and legal de-scription shall be on file and available forpublic inspection in the Office of the Direc-tor of the Bureau of Land Management, andin the appropriate office of the Bureau ofLand Management in Arizona.

(d) FOREST LANDS.—Any lands included inthe Coronado National Forest that are lo-cated within the boundaries of the Conserva-tion Area shall be considered to be a part ofthe Conservation Area. The Secretary of Ag-riculture shall revise the boundaries of theCoronado National Forest to reflect the ex-clusion of such lands from the Coronado Na-tional Forest.SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT OF THE LAS CIENEGAS NA-

TIONAL CONSERVATION AREA.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall man-

age the Conservation Area in a manner that

conserves, protects, and enhances its re-sources and values, including the resourcesand values specified in section 4(a), pursuantto the Federal Land Policy and ManagementAct of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and otherapplicable law, including this Act.

(b) USES.—The Secretary shall allow onlysuch uses of the Conservation Area as theSecretary finds will further the purposes forwhich the Conservation Area is establishedas set forth in section 4(a).

(c) GRAZING.—The Secretary of the Interiorshall permit grazing subject to all applicablelaws, regulations, and Executive Orders con-sistent with the purposes of this Act.

(d) MOTORIZED VEHICLES.—Except whereneeded for administrative purposes or to re-spond to an emergency, use of motorized ve-hicles on public lands in the ConservationArea shall be allowed only—

(1) before the effective date of a manage-ment plan prepared pursuant to section 6, onroads and trails designated for use of motor-ized vehicles in the management plan thatapplies on the date of the enactment of thisAct; and

(2) after the effective date of a manage-ment plan prepared pursuant to section 6, onroads and trails designated for use of motorvehicles in that management plan.

(e) MILITARY AIRSPACE.—Prior to the dateof the enactment of this Act the FederalAviation Administration approved restrictedmilitary airspace (Areas 2303A and 2303B)which covers portions of the ConservationArea. Designation of the Conservation Areashall not impact or impose any altitude,flight, or other airspace restrictions on cur-rent or future military operations or mis-sions. Should the military require additionalor modified airspace in the future, the Con-gress does not intend for the designation ofthe Conservation Area to impede the mili-tary from petitioning the Federal AviationAdministration to change or expand existingrestricted military airspace.

(f) ACCESS TO STATE AND PRIVATE LANDS.—Nothing in this Act shall affect valid exist-ing rights-of-way within the ConservationArea. The Secretary shall provide reasonableaccess to nonfederally owned lands or inter-est in lands within the boundaries of theConservation Area.

(g) HUNTING.—Hunting shall be allowedwithin the Conservation Area in accordancewith applicable laws and regulations of theUnited States and the State of Arizona, ex-cept that the Secretary, after consultationwith the Arizona State wildlife managementagency, may issue regulations designatingzones where and establishing periods whenno hunting shall be permitted for reasons ofpublic safety, administration, or public useand enjoyment.

(h) PREVENTATIVE MEASURES.—Nothing inthis Act shall preclude such measures as theSecretary determines necessary to preventdevastating fire or infestation of insects ordisease within the Conservation Area.

(i) NO BUFFER ZONES.—The establishmentof the Conservation Area shall not lead tothe creation of protective perimeters or buff-er zones around the Conservation Area. Thefact that there may be activities or uses onlands outside the Conservation Area thatwould not be permitted in the ConservationArea shall not preclude such activities oruses on such lands up to the boundary of theConservation Area consistent with other ap-plicable laws.

(j) WITHDRAWALS.—Subject to valid exist-ing rights all Federal lands within the Con-servation Area and all lands and interesttherein which are hereafter acquired by theUnited States are hereby withdrawn from allforms of entry, appropriation, or disposalunder the public land laws and from loca-tion, entry, and patent under the mining

laws, and from operation of the mineral leas-ing and geothermal leasing laws and allamendments thereto.SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

(a) PLAN REQUIRED.—Not later than 2 yearsafter the date of the enactment of this Act,the Secretary, through the Bureau of LandManagement, shall develop and begin to im-plement a comprehensive management planfor the long-term management of the publiclands within the Conservation Area in orderto fulfill the purposes for which it is estab-lished, as set forth in section 4(a). Consistentwith the provisions of this Act, the manage-ment plan shall be developed—

(1) in consultation with appropriate de-partments of the State of Arizona, includingwildlife and land management agencies, withfull public participation;

(2) from the draft Empire-Cienega Eco-system Management Plan/EIS, dated October2000, as it applies to Federal lands or landswith conservation easements; and

(3) in accordance with the resource goalsand objectives developed through theSonoita Valley Planning Partnership processas incorporated in the draft Empire-CienegaEcosystem Management Plan/EIS, dated Oc-tober 2000, giving full consideration to themanagement alternative preferred by theSonoita Valley Planning Partnership, as itapplies to Federal lands or lands with con-servation easements.

(b) CONTENTS.—The management plan shallinclude—

(1) provisions designed to ensure the pro-tection of the resources and values describedin section 4(a);

(2) an implementation plan for a con-tinuing program of interpretation and publiceducation about the resources and values ofthe Conservation Area;

(3) a proposal for minimal administrativeand public facilities to be developed or im-proved at a level compatible with achievingthe resource objectives for the ConservationArea and with the other proposed manage-ment activities to accommodate visitors tothe Conservation Area;

(4) cultural resources management strate-gies for the Conservation Area, prepared inconsultation with appropriate departmentsof the State of Arizona, with emphasis onthe preservation of the resources of the Con-servation Area and the interpretive, edu-cational, and long-term scientific uses ofthese resources, giving priority to the en-forcement of the Archaeological ResourcesProtection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa etseq.) and the National Historic PreservationAct (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) within the Con-servation Area;

(5) wildlife management strategies for theConservation Area, prepared in consultationwith appropriate departments of the State ofArizona and using previous studies of theConservation Area;

(6) production livestock grazing manage-ment strategies, prepared in consultationwith appropriate departments of the State ofArizona;

(7) provisions designed to ensure the pro-tection of environmentally sustainable live-stock use on appropriate lands within theConservation Area;

(8) recreation management strategies, in-cluding motorized and nonmotorized dis-persed recreation opportunities for the Con-servation Area, prepared in consultationwith appropriate departments of the State ofArizona;

(9) cave resources management strategiesprepared in compliance with the goals andobjectives of the Federal Cave ResourcesProtection Act of 1988 (16 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.);and

(10) provisions designed to ensure that if aroad or trail located on public lands within


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8854 October 5, 2000the Conservation Area, or any portion ofsuch a road or trail, is removed, consider-ation shall be given to providing similar al-ternative access to the portion of the Con-servation Area serviced by such removedroad or trail.

(c) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In order tobetter implement the management plan, theSecretary may enter into cooperative agree-ments with appropriate Federal, State, andlocal agencies pursuant to section 307(b) ofthe Federal Land Policy and ManagementAct of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1737(b)).

(d) RESEARCH ACTIVITIES.—In order to as-sist in the development and implementationof the management plan, the Secretary mayauthorize appropriate research, including re-search concerning the environmental, bio-logical, hydrological, cultural, agricultural,recreational, and other characteristics, re-sources, and values of the ConservationArea, pursuant to section 307(a) of the Fed-eral Land Policy and Management Act of1976 (43 U.S.C. 1737(a)).

SEC. 7. LAND ACQUISITION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) PRIORITY TO CONSERVATION EASE-

MENTS.—In acquiring lands or interest inlands under this section, the Secretary shallgive priority to such acquisitions in the formof conservation easements.

(2) PRIVATE LANDS.—The Secretary is au-thorized to acquire privately held lands orinterest in lands within the boundaries ofthe Acquisition Planning District only froma willing seller through donation, exchange,or purchase.

(3) COUNTY LANDS.—The Secretary is au-thorized to acquire county lands or interestin lands within the boundaries of the Acqui-sition Planning District only with the con-sent of the county through donation, ex-change, or purchase.

(4) STATE LANDS.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is author-

ized to acquire lands or interest in landsowned by the State of Arizona located withinthe boundaries of the Acquisition PlanningDistrict only with the consent of the Stateand in accordance with State law, by dona-tion, exchange, purchase, or eminent do-main.

(B) SUNSET OF AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE BYEMINENT DOMAIN.—The authority to acquireState lands under subparagraph (A) shall ex-pire 10 years after the date of the enactmentof this Act.

(C) CONSIDERATION.—As consideration forthe acquisitions by the United States oflands or interest in lands under this para-graph, the Secretary shall pay fair marketvalue for such lands or shall convey to theState of Arizona all or some interest in Fed-eral lands (including buildings and other im-provements on such lands or other Federalproperty other than real property) or anyother asset of equal value within the State ofArizona.

(D) TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION.—All Fed-eral agencies are authorized to transfer ju-risdiction of Federal lands or interest inlands (including buildings and other im-provements on such lands or other Federalproperty other than real property) or anyother asset within the State of Arizona tothe Bureau of Land Management for the pur-pose of acquiring lands or interest in landsas provided for in this paragraph.

(b) MANAGEMENT OF ACQUIRED LANDS.—Lands acquired under this section shall,upon acquisition, become part of the Con-servation Area and shall be administered aspart of the Conservation Area. These landsshall be managed in accordance with thisAct, other applicable laws, and the manage-ment plan.

SEC. 8. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.(a) PROTECTION OF CERTAIN LANDS.—Not

later than 2 years after the date of the enact-ment of this Act, the Secretary shall submitto Congress a report describing the most ef-fective measures to protect the lands northof the Acquisition Planning District withinthe Rincon Valley, Colossal Cave area, andAgua Verde Creek corridor north of Inter-state 10 to provide an ecological link toSaguaro National Park and the RinconMountains and contribute to local govern-ment conservation priorities.

(b) IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACT.—Notlater than 5 years after the date of the enact-ment of this Act, and at least at the end ofevery 10-year period thereafter, the Sec-retary shall submit to Congress a report de-scribing the implementation of this Act, thecondition of the resources and values of theConservation Area, and the progress of theSecretary in achieving the purposes forwhich the Conservation Area is establishedas set forth in section 4(a).

The CHAIRMAN. During consider-ation of the bill for amendment, theChair may accord priority in recogni-tion to a Member offering an amend-ment that he has printed in the des-ignated place in the CONGRESSIONALRECORD. Those amendments will beconsidered read.

The Chairman of the Committee ofthe Whole may postpone a request for arecorded vote on any amendment andmay reduce to a minimum 5 minutesthe time for voting on any postponedquestion that immediately follows an-other vote, provided that the time forvoting on the first question shall be aminimum of 15 minutes.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer anamendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. KOLBE:Page 14, beginning on line 2, strike ‘‘by do-

nation, exchange, purchase, or eminent do-main’’ and insert ‘‘by donation, exchange, orpurchase’’.

Page 14, strike lines 4 through 8.Page 14, line 9, strike ‘‘(C)’’ and insert

‘‘(B)’’.Page 14, line 19, strike ‘‘(D)’’ and insert

‘‘(C)’’.

Mr. KOLBE (during the reading). Mr.Chairman, I ask unanimous consentthat the amendment be considered asread and printed in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromArizona?

There was no objection.Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, just very

briefly, this represents the last piece ofthe compromise on this legislation.After discussions at the last hour lastnight with the Secretary of Interior,we have agreed to remove the provisionproviding for any eminent domain pro-visions in the legislation.

If Arizona adopts a constitutionalchange this year, the provisions deal-ing with sale or exchange will still bevalid, but we have removed the emi-nent domain. And this amendment ac-complishes that.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Utah.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, we haveexamined the amendment to theamendment in the nature of a sub-stitute and we feel it is a good amend-ment, and we would accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I include for theRECORD the following letter and at-tachment from the CongressionalBudget Office:

U.S. CONGRESS,CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, October 5, 2000.Hon. DON YOUNG,Chairman, Committee on Resources,U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The CongressionalBudget Office has prepared the enclosed costestimate for H.R. 2941, a bill to establish theLas Cienegas National Conservation Area inthe State of Arizona.

If you wish further details on this esti-mate, we will be pleased to provide them.The CBO staff contact is Megan Carroll, whocan be reached at 226–2860.

Sincerely,BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).Enclosure.

H.R. 2941—A bill to establish the Las CienegasNational Conservation Area in the state ofArizona

As reported by the House Committee on Re-sources on October 4, 2000

CBO estimates that H.R. 2941 would haveno significant impact on the federal budget.The bill could affect direct spending (includ-ing offsetting receipts); therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply, but we esti-mate that any such impacts would be lessthan $500,000 in any given year.

H.R. 2941 would establish the Sonoita Val-ley Conservation Planning District on 136,900acres of land in Arizona. The bill would au-thorize the Secretary of the Interior to es-tablish and operate an advisory council for10 years to assist the Secretary in managingpublic lands within the proposed district.Within the district, H.R. 2941 also would es-tablish the Las Cienegas National Conserva-tion Area on 42,000 acres of federal lands andwould specify requirements for managingthose lands. The bill would direct the Sec-retary to prepare a management plan for thearea and would authorize the Secretary toacquire, through purchase or exchange, non-federal lands within its boundaries. Subjectto valid existing rights, H.R. 2941 wouldwithdraw federal lands within the conserva-tion area from mining and from mineral andgeothermal leasing and development. Fi-nally, H.R. 2941 would require the Secretaryto report to the Congress on activities with-in the proposed planning district and con-servation area.

Based on information from the Bureau ofLand Management (BLM), CBO estimatesthat implementing this legislation wouldcost about $500,000 annually, assuming ap-propriation of the necessary sums. That esti-mate includes the estimated costs of estab-lishing and managing the proposed districtand conservation area, operating the advi-sory council, updating an existing manage-ment plan, and preparing the required re-ports.

Withdrawing lands within the proposedconservation area from mining and frommineral and geothermal leasing and develop-ment could result in forgone offsetting re-ceipts from those lands if, under current law,the land would generate receipts from thoseactivities. According to BLM, however, thoselands currently generate no significant re-ceipts from such activities, and the agencydoes not expect them to generate significantreceipts over the next 10 years. CBO esti-mates that any forgone receipts that might


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8855October 5, 2000result under this provision would total lessthan $500,000 a year.

H.R. 2941 contains no intergovernmental orprivate-sector mandates as defined in theUnfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).Any significant costs incurred by state,local, or tribal governments would resultfrom voluntary decisions to participate inmanaging the areas affected by this bill.

The CBO staff contact for this estimate isMegan Carroll, who can be reached at 226–2860. This estimate was approved by Peter H.Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director forBudget Analysis.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlemanfrom West Virginia.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, we ac-cept the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE).

The amendment was agreed to.The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other

amendments? If not, the question is onthe amendment in the nature of a sub-stitute, as amended.

The amendment in the nature of asubstitute, as amended, was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose;and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.MCHUGH) having assumed the chair,Mr. QUINN, Chairman of the Committeeof the Whole House on the State of theUnion, reported that that Committee,having had under consideration the bill(H.R. 2941) to establish the LasCienegas National Conservation Areain the State of Arizona, pursuant toHouse Resolution 610, he reported thebill back to the House with an amend-ment adopted by the Committee of theWhole.

b 1300The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

MCHUGH). Under the rule, the previousquestion is ordered.

Is a separate vote demanded on theamendment to the amendment in thenature of a substitute adopted by theCommittee of the Whole? If not, thequestion is on the amendment in thenature of a substitute.

The amendment in the nature of asubstitute was agreed to.

The bill was ordered to be engrossedand read a third time, was read thethird time, and passed, and a motion toreconsider was laid on the table.

f

GENERAL LEAVEMr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that all Membersmay have 5 legislative days withinwhich to revise and extend their re-marks on H.R. 2941, the legislation justpassed.

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

There was no objection.f

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3244,VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING ANDVIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT OF2000Mr. SMITH of New Jersey submitted

the following conference report and

statement on the bill (H.R. 3244) tocombat trafficking of persons, espe-cially into the sex trade, slavery, andslavery-like conditions in the UnitedStates and countries around the worldthrough prevention, through prosecu-tion and enforcement against traf-fickers, and through protection and as-sistance to victims of trafficking:

CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 106–939)The committee of conference on the dis-

agreeing votes of the two Houses on theamendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.3244), an Act to combat trafficking of per-sons, especially into the sex trade, slavery,and slavery-like conditions, in the UnitedStates and countries around the worldthrough prevention, through prosecution andenforcement against traffickers, and throughprotection and assistance to victims of traf-ficking, having met, after full and free con-ference, have agreed to recommend and dorecommend to their respective Houses as fol-lows:

That the House recede from its disagree-ment to the amendment of the Senate andagree to the same with an amendment as fol-lows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be in-serted by the Senate amendment, insert thefollowing:SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Victims of Traf-ficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000’’.SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION OF ACT INTO DIVISIONS;

TABLE OF CONTENTS.(a) DIVISIONS.—This Act is organized into

three divisions, as follows:(1) DIVISION A.—Trafficking Victims Protec-

tion Act of 2000.(2) DIVISION B.—Violence Against Women Act

of 2000.(3) DIVISION C.—Miscellaneous Provisions.(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of con-

tents for this Act is as follows:Sec. 1. Short title.Sec. 2. Organization of Act into divisions; table

of contents.DIVISION A—TRAFFICKING VICTIMS

PROTECTION ACT OF 2000Sec. 101. Short title.Sec. 102. Purposes and findings.Sec. 103. Definitions.Sec. 104. Annual Country Reports on Human

Rights Practices.Sec. 105. Interagency Task Force To Monitor

and Combat Trafficking.Sec. 106. Prevention of trafficking.Sec. 107. Protection and assistance for victims

of trafficking.Sec. 108. Minimum standards for the elimi-

nation of trafficking.Sec. 109. Assistance to foreign countries to meet

minimum standards.Sec. 110. Actions against governments failing to

meet minimum standards.Sec. 111. Actions against significant traffickers

in persons.Sec. 112. Strengthening prosecution and pun-

ishment of traffickers.Sec. 113. Authorizations of appropriations.DIVISION B—VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

ACT OF 2000Sec. 1001. Short title.Sec. 1002. Definitions.Sec. 1003. Accountability and oversight.TITLE I—STRENGTHENING LAW ENFORCE-

MENT TO REDUCE VIOLENCE AGAINSTWOMEN

Sec. 1101. Full faith and credit enforcement ofprotection orders.

Sec. 1102. Role of courts.Sec. 1103. Reauthorization of STOP grants.Sec. 1104. Reauthorization of grants to encour-

age arrest policies.

Sec. 1105. Reauthorization of rural domestic vi-olence and child abuse enforce-ment grants.

Sec. 1106. National stalker and domestic vio-lence reduction.

Sec. 1107. Amendments to domestic violence andstalking offenses.

Sec. 1108. School and campus security.Sec. 1109. Dating violence.TITLE II—STRENGTHENING SERVICES TO

VICTIMS OF VIOLENCESec. 1201. Legal assistance for victims.Sec. 1202. Shelter services for battered women

and children.Sec. 1203. Transitional housing assistance for

victims of domestic violence.Sec. 1204. National domestic violence hotline.Sec. 1205. Federal victims counselors.Sec. 1206. Study of State laws regarding insur-

ance discrimination against vic-tims of violence against women.

Sec. 1207. Study of workplace effects from vio-lence against women.

Sec. 1208. Study of unemployment compensa-tion for victims of violence againstwomen.

Sec. 1209. Enhancing protections for older anddisabled women from domestic vi-olence and sexual assault.

TITLE III—LIMITING THE EFFECTS OFVIOLENCE ON CHILDREN

Sec. 1301. Safe havens for children pilot pro-gram.

Sec. 1302. Reauthorization of victims of childabuse programs.

Sec. 1303. Report on effects of parental kidnap-ping laws in domestic violencecases.

TITLE IV—STRENGTHENING EDUCATIONAND TRAINING TO COMBAT VIOLENCEAGAINST WOMEN

Sec. 1401. Rape prevention and education.Sec. 1402. Education and training to end vio-

lence against and abuse of womenwith disabilities.

Sec. 1403. Community initiatives.Sec. 1404. Development of research agenda

identified by the Violence AgainstWomen Act of 1994.

Sec. 1405. Standards, practice, and training forsexual assault forensic examina-tions.

Sec. 1406. Education and training for judgesand court personnel.

Sec. 1407. Domestic Violence Task Force.TITLE V—BATTERED IMMIGRANT WOMENSec. 1501. Short title.Sec. 1502. Findings and purposes.Sec. 1503. Improved access to immigration pro-

tections of the Violence AgainstWomen Act of 1994 for batteredimmigrant women.

Sec. 1504. Improved access to cancellation of re-moval and suspension of deporta-tion under the Violence AgainstWomen Act of 1994.

Sec. 1505. Offering equal access to immigrationprotections of the ViolenceAgainst Women Act of 1994 for allqualified battered immigrant self-petitioners.

Sec. 1506. Restoring immigration protectionsunder the Violence AgainstWomen Act of 1994.

Sec. 1507. Remedying problems with implemen-tation of the immigration provi-sions of the Violence AgainstWomen Act of 1994.

Sec. 1508. Technical correction to qualifiedalien definition for battered immi-grants.

Sec. 1509. Access to Cuban Adjustment Act forbattered immigrant spouses andchildren.

Sec. 1510. Access to the Nicaraguan Adjustmentand Central American Relief Actfor battered spouses and children.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8856 October 5, 2000Sec. 1511. Access to the Haitian Refugee Fair-

ness Act of 1998 for batteredspouses and children.

Sec. 1512. Access to services and legal represen-tation for battered immigrants.

Sec. 1513. Protection for certain crime victimsincluding victims of crimesagainst women.

TITLE VI—MISCELLANEOUSSec. 1601. Notice requirements for sexually vio-

lent offenders.Sec. 1602. Teen suicide prevention study.Sec. 1603. Decade of pain control and research.DIVISION C—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONSSec. 2001. Aimee’s law.Sec. 2002. Payment of anti-terrorism judgments.Sec. 2003. Aid to victims of terrorism.Sec. 2004. Twenty-first century amendment.

DIVISION A—TRAFFICKING VICTIMSPROTECTION ACT OF 2000

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.This division may be cited as the ‘‘Trafficking

Victims Protection Act of 2000’’.SEC. 102. PURPOSES AND FINDINGS.

(a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this divisionare to combat trafficking in persons, a contem-porary manifestation of slavery whose victimsare predominantly women and children, to en-sure just and effective punishment of traf-fickers, and to protect their victims.

(b) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that:(1) As the 21st century begins, the degrading

institution of slavery continues throughout theworld. Trafficking in persons is a modern formof slavery, and it is the largest manifestation ofslavery today. At least 700,000 persons annually,primarily women and children, are traffickedwithin or across international borders. Approxi-mately 50,000 women and children are traffickedinto the United States each year.

(2) Many of these persons are trafficked intothe international sex trade, often by force,fraud, or coercion. The sex industry has rapidlyexpanded over the past several decades. It in-volves sexual exploitation of persons, predomi-nantly women and girls, involving activities re-lated to prostitution, pornography, sex tourism,and other commercial sexual services. The lowstatus of women in many parts of the world hascontributed to a burgeoning of the traffickingindustry.

(3) Trafficking in persons is not limited to thesex industry. This growing transnational crimealso includes forced labor and involves signifi-cant violations of labor, public health, andhuman rights standards worldwide.

(4) Traffickers primarily target women andgirls, who are disproportionately affected bypoverty, the lack of access to education, chronicunemployment, discrimination, and the lack ofeconomic opportunities in countries of origin.Traffickers lure women and girls into their net-works through false promises of decent workingconditions at relatively good pay as nannies,maids, dancers, factory workers, restaurantworkers, sales clerks, or models. Traffickers alsobuy children from poor families and sell theminto prostitution or into various types of forcedor bonded labor.

(5) Traffickers often transport victims fromtheir home communities to unfamiliar destina-tions, including foreign countries away fromfamily and friends, religious institutions, andother sources of protection and support, leavingthe victims defenseless and vulnerable.

(6) Victims are often forced through physicalviolence to engage in sex acts or perform slav-ery-like labor. Such force includes rape andother forms of sexual abuse, torture, starvation,imprisonment, threats, psychological abuse, andcoercion.

(7) Traffickers often make representations totheir victims that physical harm may occur tothem or others should the victim escape or at-tempt to escape. Such representations can havethe same coercive effects on victims as directthreats to inflict such harm.

(8) Trafficking in persons is increasingly per-petrated by organized, sophisticated criminalenterprises. Such trafficking is the fastest grow-ing source of profits for organized criminal en-terprises worldwide. Profits from the traffickingindustry contribute to the expansion of orga-nized crime in the United States and worldwide.Trafficking in persons is often aided by officialcorruption in countries of origin, transit, anddestination, thereby threatening the rule of law.

(9) Trafficking includes all the elements of thecrime of forcible rape when it involves the invol-untary participation of another person in sexacts by means of fraud, force, or coercion.

(10) Trafficking also involves violations ofother laws, including labor and immigrationcodes and laws against kidnapping, slavery,false imprisonment, assault, battery, pandering,fraud, and extortion.

(11) Trafficking exposes victims to serioushealth risks. Women and children trafficked inthe sex industry are exposed to deadly diseases,including HIV and AIDS. Trafficking victimsare sometimes worked or physically brutalized todeath.

(12) Trafficking in persons substantially af-fects interstate and foreign commerce. Traf-ficking for such purposes as involuntary ser-vitude, peonage, and other forms of forced laborhas an impact on the nationwide employmentnetwork and labor market. Within the context ofslavery, servitude, and labor or services whichare obtained or maintained through coerciveconduct that amounts to a condition of ser-vitude, victims are subjected to a range of viola-tions.

(13) Involuntary servitude statutes are in-tended to reach cases in which persons are heldin a condition of servitude through nonviolentcoercion. In United States v. Kozminski, 487U.S. 931 (1988), the Supreme Court found thatsection 1584 of title 18, United States Code,should be narrowly interpreted, absent a defini-tion of involuntary servitude by Congress. As aresult, that section was interpreted to crim-inalize only servitude that is brought aboutthrough use or threatened use of physical orlegal coercion, and to exclude other conductthat can have the same purpose and effect.

(14) Existing legislation and law enforcementin the United States and other countries are in-adequate to deter trafficking and bring traf-fickers to justice, failing to reflect the gravity ofthe offenses involved. No comprehensive law ex-ists in the United States that penalizes therange of offenses involved in the traffickingscheme. Instead, even the most brutal instancesof trafficking in the sex industry are often pun-ished under laws that also apply to lesser of-fenses, so that traffickers typically escape de-served punishment.

(15) In the United States, the seriousness ofthis crime and its components is not reflected incurrent sentencing guidelines, resulting in weakpenalties for convicted traffickers.

(16) In some countries, enforcement againsttraffickers is also hindered by official indiffer-ence, by corruption, and sometimes even by offi-cial participation in trafficking.

(17) Existing laws often fail to protect victimsof trafficking, and because victims are often ille-gal immigrants in the destination country, theyare repeatedly punished more harshly than thetraffickers themselves.

(18) Additionally, adequate services and facili-ties do not exist to meet victims’ needs regardinghealth care, housing, education, and legal as-sistance, which safely reintegrate traffickingvictims into their home countries.

(19) Victims of severe forms of traffickingshould not be inappropriately incarcerated,fined, or otherwise penalized solely for unlawfulacts committed as a direct result of being traf-ficked, such as using false documents, enteringthe country without documentation, or workingwithout documentation.

(20) Because victims of trafficking are fre-quently unfamiliar with the laws, cultures, and

languages of the countries into which they havebeen trafficked, because they are often subjectedto coercion and intimidation including physicaldetention and debt bondage, and because theyoften fear retribution and forcible removal tocountries in which they will face retribution orother hardship, these victims often find it dif-ficult or impossible to report the crimes com-mitted against them or to assist in the investiga-tion and prosecution of such crimes.

(21) Trafficking of persons is an evil requiringconcerted and vigorous action by countries oforigin, transit or destination, and by inter-national organizations.

(22) One of the founding documents of theUnited States, the Declaration of Independence,recognizes the inherent dignity and worth of allpeople. It states that all men are created equaland that they are endowed by their Creatorwith certain unalienable rights. The right to befree from slavery and involuntary servitude isamong those unalienable rights. Acknowledgingthis fact, the United States outlawed slaveryand involuntary servitude in 1865, recognizingthem as evil institutions that must be abolished.Current practices of sexual slavery and traf-ficking of women and children are similarly ab-horrent to the principles upon which the UnitedStates was founded.

(23) The United States and the internationalcommunity agree that trafficking in persons in-volves grave violations of human rights and is amatter of pressing international concern. Theinternational community has repeatedly con-demned slavery and involuntary servitude, vio-lence against women, and other elements oftrafficking, through declarations, treaties, andUnited Nations resolutions and reports, includ-ing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abo-lition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institu-tions and Practices Similar to Slavery; the 1948American Declaration on the Rights and Dutiesof Man; the 1957 Abolition of Forced Labor Con-vention; the International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights; the Convention AgainstTorture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrad-ing Treatment or Punishment; United NationsGeneral Assembly Resolutions 50/167, 51/66, and52/98; the Final Report of the World Congressagainst Sexual Exploitation of Children (Stock-holm, 1996); the Fourth World Conference onWomen (Beijing, 1995); and the 1991 MoscowDocument of the Organization for Security andCooperation in Europe.

(24) Trafficking in persons is a transnationalcrime with national implications. To deter inter-national trafficking and bring its perpetratorsto justice, nations including the United Statesmust recognize that trafficking is a serious of-fense. This is done by prescribing appropriatepunishment, giving priority to the prosecutionof trafficking offenses, and protecting ratherthan punishing the victims of such offenses. TheUnited States must work bilaterally and multi-laterally to abolish the trafficking industry bytaking steps to promote cooperation amongcountries linked together by international traf-ficking routes. The United States must also urgethe international community to take strong ac-tion in multilateral fora to engage recalcitrantcountries in serious and sustained efforts toeliminate trafficking and protect trafficking vic-tims.SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS.

In this division:(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMIT-

TEES.—The term ‘‘appropriate congressionalcommittees’’ means the Committee on ForeignRelations and the Committee on the Judiciary ofthe Senate and the Committee on InternationalRelations and the Committee on the Judiciary ofthe House of Representatives.

(2) COERCION.—The term ‘‘coercion’’ means—(A) threats of serious harm to or physical re-

straint against any person;(B) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to

cause a person to believe that failure to perform


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8857October 5, 2000an act would result in serious harm to or phys-ical restraint against any person; or

(C) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legalprocess.

(3) COMMERCIAL SEX ACT.—The term ‘‘commer-cial sex act’’ means any sex act on account ofwhich anything of value is given to or receivedby any person.

(4) DEBT BONDAGE.—The term ‘‘debt bondage’’means the status or condition of a debtor arisingfrom a pledge by the debtor of his or her per-sonal services or of those of a person under hisor her control as a security for debt, if the valueof those services as reasonably assessed is notapplied toward the liquidation of the debt or thelength and nature of those services are not re-spectively limited and defined.

(5) INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.—The term ‘‘in-voluntary servitude’’ includes a condition ofservitude induced by means of—

(A) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended tocause a person to believe that, if the person didnot enter into or continue in such condition,that person or another person would suffer seri-ous harm or physical restraint, or

(B) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legalprocess.

(6) MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR THE ELIMINATIONOF TRAFFICKING.—The term ‘‘minimum stand-ards for the elimination of trafficking’’ meansthe standards set forth in section 108.

(7) NONHUMANITARIAN, NONTRADE-RELATEDFOREIGN ASSISTANCE.—The term ‘‘nonhumani-tarian, nontrade-related foreign assistance’’means—

(A) any assistance under the Foreign Assist-ance Act of 1961, other than—

(i) assistance under chapter 4 of part II ofthat Act that is made available for any program,project, or activity eligible for assistance underchapter 1 of part I of that Act;

(ii) assistance under chapter 8 of part I ofthat Act;

(iii) any other narcotics-related assistanceunder part I of that Act or under chapter 4 or5 part II of that Act, but any such assistanceprovided under this clause shall be subject tothe prior notification procedures applicable toreprogrammings pursuant to section 634A ofthat Act;

(iv) disaster relief assistance, including anyassistance under chapter 9 of part I of that Act;

(v) antiterrorism assistance under chapter 8 ofpart II of that Act;

(vi) assistance for refugees;(vii) humanitarian and other development as-

sistance in support of programs of nongovern-mental organizations under chapters 1 and 10 ofthat Act;

(viii) programs under title IV of chapter 2 ofpart I of that Act, relating to the Overseas Pri-vate Investment Corporation; and

(ix) other programs involving trade-related orhumanitarian assistance; and

(B) sales, or financing on any terms, underthe Arms Export Control Act, other than sales orfinancing provided for narcotics-related pur-poses following notification in accordance withthe prior notification procedures applicable toreprogrammings pursuant to section 634A of theForeign Assistance Act of 1961.

(8) SEVERE FORMS OF TRAFFICKING IN PER-SONS.—The term ‘‘severe forms of trafficking inpersons’’ means—

(A) sex trafficking in which a commercial sexact is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or inwhich the person induced to perform such acthas not attained 18 years of age; or

(B) the recruitment, harboring, transpor-tation, provision, or obtaining of a person forlabor or services, through the use of force,fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjectionto involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bond-age, or slavery.

(9) SEX TRAFFICKING.—The term ‘‘sex traf-ficking’’ means the recruitment, harboring,transportation, provision, or obtaining of a per-son for the purpose of a commercial sex act.

(10) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each ofthe several States of the United States, the Dis-trict of Columbia, the Commonwealth of PuertoRico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam,American Samoa, the Commonwealth of theNorthern Mariana Islands, and territories andpossessions of the United States.

(11) TASK FORCE.—The term ‘‘Task Force’’means the Interagency Task Force to Monitorand Combat Trafficking established under sec-tion 105.

(12) UNITED STATES.—The term ‘‘UnitedStates’’ means the fifty States of the UnitedStates, the District of Columbia, the Common-wealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Amer-ican Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of theNorthern Mariana Islands, and the territoriesand possessions of the United States.

(13) VICTIM OF A SEVERE FORM OF TRAF-FICKING.—The term ‘‘victim of a severe form oftrafficking’’ means a person subject to an act orpractice described in paragraph (8).

(14) VICTIM OF TRAFFICKING.—The term ‘‘vic-tim of trafficking’’ means a person subjected toan act or practice described in paragraph (8) or(9).SEC. 104. ANNUAL COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN

RIGHTS PRACTICES.(a) COUNTRIES RECEIVING ECONOMIC ASSIST-

ANCE.—Section 116(f) of the Foreign AssistanceAct of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151(f)) is amended to readas follows:

‘‘(f)(1) The report required by subsection (d)shall include the following:

‘‘(A) A description of the nature and extent ofsevere forms of trafficking in persons, as definedin section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protec-tion Act of 2000, in each foreign country.

‘‘(B) With respect to each country that is acountry of origin, transit, or destination for vic-tims of severe forms of trafficking in persons, anassessment of the efforts by the government ofthat country to combat such trafficking. The as-sessment shall address the following:

‘‘(i) Whether government authorities in thatcountry participate in, facilitate, or condonesuch trafficking.

‘‘(ii) Which government authorities in thatcountry are involved in activities to combat suchtrafficking.

‘‘(iii) What steps the government of that coun-try has taken to prohibit government officialsfrom participating in, facilitating, or condoningsuch trafficking, including the investigation,prosecution, and conviction of such officials.

‘‘(iv) What steps the government of that coun-try has taken to prohibit other individuals fromparticipating in such trafficking, including theinvestigation, prosecution, and conviction of in-dividuals involved in severe forms of traffickingin persons, the criminal and civil penalties forsuch trafficking, and the efficacy of those pen-alties in eliminating or reducing such traf-ficking.

‘‘(v) What steps the government of that coun-try has taken to assist victims of such traf-ficking, including efforts to prevent victims frombeing further victimized by traffickers, govern-ment officials, or others, grants of relief from de-portation, and provision of humanitarian relief,including provision of mental and physicalhealth care and shelter.

‘‘(vi) Whether the government of that countryis cooperating with governments of other coun-tries to extradite traffickers when requested, or,to the extent that such cooperation would be in-consistent with the laws of such country or withextradition treaties to which such country is aparty, whether the government of that countryis taking all appropriate measures to modify orreplace such laws and treaties so as to permitsuch cooperation.

‘‘(vii) Whether the government of that countryis assisting in international investigations oftransnational trafficking networks and in othercooperative efforts to combat severe forms oftrafficking in persons.

‘‘(viii) Whether the government of that coun-try refrains from prosecuting victims of severe

forms of trafficking in persons due to such vic-tims having been trafficked, and refrains fromother discriminatory treatment of such victims.

‘‘(ix) Whether the government of that countryrecognizes the rights of victims of severe forms oftrafficking in persons and ensures their accessto justice.

‘‘(C) Such other information relating to traf-ficking in persons as the Secretary of State con-siders appropriate.

‘‘(2) In compiling data and making assess-ments for the purposes of paragraph (1), UnitedStates diplomatic mission personnel shall con-sult with human rights organizations and otherappropriate nongovernmental organizations.’’.

(b) COUNTRIES RECEIVING SECURITY ASSIST-ANCE.—Section 502B of the Foreign AssistanceAct of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2304) is amended by add-ing at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(h)(1) The report required by subsection (b)shall include the following:

‘‘(A) A description of the nature and extent ofsevere forms of trafficking in persons, as definedin section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protec-tion Act of 2000, in each foreign country.

‘‘(B) With respect to each country that is acountry of origin, transit, or destination for vic-tims of severe forms of trafficking in persons, anassessment of the efforts by the government ofthat country to combat such trafficking. The as-sessment shall address the following:

‘‘(i) Whether government authorities in thatcountry participate in, facilitate, or condonesuch trafficking.

‘‘(ii) Which government authorities in thatcountry are involved in activities to combat suchtrafficking.

‘‘(iii) What steps the government of that coun-try has taken to prohibit government officialsfrom participating in, facilitating, or condoningsuch trafficking, including the investigation,prosecution, and conviction of such officials.

‘‘(iv) What steps the government of that coun-try has taken to prohibit other individuals fromparticipating in such trafficking, including theinvestigation, prosecution, and conviction of in-dividuals involved in severe forms of traffickingin persons, the criminal and civil penalties forsuch trafficking, and the efficacy of those pen-alties in eliminating or reducing such traf-ficking.

‘‘(v) What steps the government of that coun-try has taken to assist victims of such traf-ficking, including efforts to prevent victims frombeing further victimized by traffickers, govern-ment officials, or others, grants of relief from de-portation, and provision of humanitarian relief,including provision of mental and physicalhealth care and shelter.

‘‘(vi) Whether the government of that countryis cooperating with governments of other coun-tries to extradite traffickers when requested, or,to the extent that such cooperation would be in-consistent with the laws of such country or withextradition treaties to which such country is aparty, whether the government of that countryis taking all appropriate measures to modify orreplace such laws and treaties so as to permitsuch cooperation.

‘‘(vii) Whether the government of that countryis assisting in international investigations oftransnational trafficking networks and in othercooperative efforts to combat severe forms oftrafficking in persons.

‘‘(viii) Whether the government of that coun-try refrains from prosecuting victims of severeforms of trafficking in persons due to such vic-tims having been trafficked, and refrains fromother discriminatory treatment of such victims.

‘‘(ix) Whether the government of that countryrecognizes the rights of victims of severe forms oftrafficking in persons and ensures their accessto justice.

‘‘(C) Such other information relating to traf-ficking in persons as the Secretary of State con-siders appropriate.

‘‘(2) In compiling data and making assess-ments for the purposes of paragraph (1), United


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8858 October 5, 2000States diplomatic mission personnel shall con-sult with human rights organizations and otherappropriate nongovernmental organizations.’’.SEC. 105. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE TO MON-

ITOR AND COMBAT TRAFFICKING.(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The President shall es-

tablish an Interagency Task Force to Monitorand Combat Trafficking.

(b) APPOINTMENT.—The President shall ap-point the members of the Task Force, whichshall include the Secretary of State, the Admin-istrator of the United States Agency for Inter-national Development, the Attorney General,the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Healthand Human Services, the Director of Central In-telligence, and such other officials as may bedesignated by the President.

(c) CHAIRMAN.—The Task Force shall bechaired by the Secretary of State.

(d) ACTIVITIES OF THE TASK FORCE.—TheTask Force shall carry out the following activi-ties:

(1) Coordinate the implementation of this divi-sion.

(2) Measure and evaluate progress of theUnited States and other countries in the areasof trafficking prevention, protection, and assist-ance to victims of trafficking, and prosecutionand enforcement against traffickers, includingthe role of public corruption in facilitating traf-ficking. The Task Force shall have primary re-sponsibility for assisting the Secretary of Statein the preparation of the reports described insection 110.

(3) Expand interagency procedures to collectand organize data, including significant re-search and resource information on domesticand international trafficking. Any data collec-tion procedures established under this sub-section shall respect the confidentiality of vic-tims of trafficking.

(4) Engage in efforts to facilitate cooperationamong countries of origin, transit, and destina-tion. Such efforts shall aim to strengthen localand regional capacities to prevent trafficking,prosecute traffickers and assist trafficking vic-tims, and shall include initiatives to enhance co-operative efforts between destination countriesand countries of origin and assist in the appro-priate reintegration of stateless victims of traf-ficking.

(5) Examine the role of the international ‘‘sextourism’’ industry in the trafficking of personsand in the sexual exploitation of women andchildren around the world.

(6) Engage in consultation and advocacy withgovernmental and nongovernmental organiza-tions, among other entities, to advance the pur-poses of this division.

(e) SUPPORT FOR THE TASK FORCE.—The Sec-retary of State is authorized to establish withinthe Department of State an Office to Monitorand Combat Trafficking, which shall provide as-sistance to the Task Force. Any such Officeshall be headed by a Director. The Directorshall have the primary responsibility for assist-ing the Secretary of State in carrying out thepurposes of this division and may have addi-tional responsibilities as determined by the Sec-retary. The Director shall consult with non-governmental organizations and multilateral or-ganizations, and with trafficking victims orother affected persons. The Director shall havethe authority to take evidence in public hear-ings or by other means. The agencies rep-resented on the Task Force are authorized toprovide staff to the Office on a nonreimbursablebasis.SEC. 106. PREVENTION OF TRAFFICKING.

(a) ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVES TO PREVENT ANDDETER TRAFFICKING.—The President shall es-tablish and carry out international initiatives toenhance economic opportunity for potential vic-tims of trafficking as a method to deter traf-ficking. Such initiatives may include—

(1) microcredit lending programs, training inbusiness development, skills training, and jobcounseling;

(2) programs to promote women’s participationin economic decisionmaking;

(3) programs to keep children, especially girls,in elementary and secondary schools, and toeducate persons who have been victims of traf-ficking;

(4) development of educational curricula re-garding the dangers of trafficking; and

(5) grants to nongovernmental organizationsto accelerate and advance the political, eco-nomic, social, and educational roles and capac-ities of women in their countries.

(b) PUBLIC AWARENESS AND INFORMATION.—The President, acting through the Secretary ofLabor, the Secretary of Health and HumanServices, the Attorney General, and the Sec-retary of State, shall establish and carry outprograms to increase public awareness, particu-larly among potential victims of trafficking, ofthe dangers of trafficking and the protectionsthat are available for victims of trafficking.

(c) CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT.—The Presi-dent shall consult with appropriate nongovern-mental organizations with respect to the estab-lishment and conduct of initiatives described insubsections (a) and (b).SEC. 107. PROTECTION AND ASSISTANCE FOR VIC-

TIMS OF TRAFFICKING.(a) ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS IN OTHER COUN-

TRIES.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of State and

the Administrator of the United States Agencyfor International Development, in consultationwith appropriate nongovernmental organiza-tions, shall establish and carry out programsand initiatives in foreign countries to assist inthe safe integration, reintegration, or resettle-ment, as appropriate, of victims of trafficking.Such programs and initiatives shall be designedto meet the appropriate assistance needs of suchpersons and their children, as identified by theTask Force.

(2) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT.—In estab-lishing and conducting programs and initiativesdescribed in paragraph (1), the Secretary ofState and the Administrator of the United StatesAgency for International Development shalltake all appropriate steps to enhance coopera-tive efforts among foreign countries, includingcountries of origin of victims of trafficking, toassist in the integration, reintegration, or reset-tlement, as appropriate, of victims of trafficking,including stateless victims.

(b) VICTIMS IN THE UNITED STATES.—(1) ASSISTANCE.—(A) ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS AND SERVICES.—

Notwithstanding title IV of the Personal Re-sponsibility and Work Opportunity Reconcili-ation Act of 1996, an alien who is a victim of asevere form of trafficking in persons shall be eli-gible for benefits and services under any Federalor State program or activity funded or adminis-tered by any official or agency described in sub-paragraph (B) to the same extent as an alienwho is admitted to the United States as a ref-ugee under section 207 of the Immigration andNationality Act.

(B) REQUIREMENT TO EXPAND BENEFITS ANDSERVICES.—Subject to subparagraph (C) and, inthe case of nonentitlement programs, to theavailability of appropriations, the Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, the Secretary ofLabor, the Board of Directors of the Legal Serv-ices Corporation, and the heads of other Federalagencies shall expand benefits and services tovictims of severe forms of trafficking in personsin the United States, without regard to the im-migration status of such victims.

(C) DEFINITION OF VICTIM OF A SEVERE FORMOF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS.—For the purposesof this paragraph, the term ‘‘victim of a severeform of trafficking in persons’’ means only aperson—

(i) who has been subjected to an act or prac-tice described in section 103(8) as in effect on thedate of the enactment of this Act; and

(ii)(I) who has not attained 18 years of age; or(II) who is the subject of a certification under

subparagraph (E).

(D) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than Decem-ber 31 of each year, the Secretary of Health andHuman Services, in consultation with the Sec-retary of Labor, the Board of Directors of theLegal Services Corporation, and the heads ofother appropriate Federal agencies shall submita report, which includes information on thenumber of persons who received benefits orother services under this paragraph in connec-tion with programs or activities funded or ad-ministered by such agencies or officials duringthe preceding fiscal year, to the Committee onWays and Means, the Committee on Inter-national Relations, and the Committee on theJudiciary of the House of Representatives andthe Committee on Finance, the Committee onForeign Relations, and the Committee on the Ju-diciary of the Senate.

(E) CERTIFICATION.—(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii), the cer-

tification referred to in subparagraph (C) is acertification by the Secretary of Health andHuman Services, after consultation with the At-torney General, that the person referred to insubparagraph (C)(ii)(II)—

(I) is willing to assist in every reasonable wayin the investigation and prosecution of severeforms of trafficking in persons; and

(II)(aa) has made a bona fide application fora visa under section 101(a)(15)(T) of the Immi-gration and Nationality Act, as added by sub-section (e), that has not been denied; or

(bb) is a person whose continued presence inthe United States the Attorney General is ensur-ing in order to effectuate prosecution of traf-fickers in persons.

(ii) PERIOD OF EFFECTIVENESS.—A certificationreferred to in subparagraph (C), with respect toa person described in clause (i)(II)(bb), shall beeffective only for so long as the Attorney Gen-eral determines that the continued presence ofsuch person is necessary to effectuate prosecu-tion of traffickers in persons.

(iii) INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION DE-FINED.—For the purpose of a certification underthis subparagraph, the term ‘‘investigation andprosecution’’ includes—

(I) identification of a person or persons whohave committed severe forms of trafficking inpersons;

(II) location and apprehension of such per-sons; and

(III) testimony at proceedings against suchpersons.

(2) GRANTS.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of

appropriations, the Attorney General may makegrants to States, Indian tribes, units of localgovernment, and nonprofit, nongovernmentalvictims’ service organizations to develop, ex-pand, or strengthen victim service programs forvictims of trafficking.

(B) ALLOCATION OF GRANT FUNDS.—Ofamounts made available for grants under thisparagraph, there shall be set aside—

(i) three percent for research, evaluation, andstatistics;

(ii) two percent for training and technical as-sistance; and

(iii) one percent for management and adminis-tration.

(C) LIMITATION ON FEDERAL SHARE.—The Fed-eral share of a grant made under this paragraphmay not exceed 75 percent of the total costs ofthe projects described in the application sub-mitted.

(c) TRAFFICKING VICTIM REGULATIONS.—Notlater than 180 days after the date of enactmentof this Act, the Attorney General and the Sec-retary of State shall promulgate regulations forlaw enforcement personnel, immigration offi-cials, and Department of State officials to imple-ment the following:

(1) PROTECTIONS WHILE IN CUSTODY.—Victimsof severe forms of trafficking, while in the cus-tody of the Federal Government and to the ex-tent practicable, shall—

(A) not be detained in facilities inappropriateto their status as crime victims;


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8859October 5, 2000(B) receive necessary medical care and other

assistance; and(C) be provided protection if a victim’s safety

is at risk or if there is danger of additional harmby recapture of the victim by a trafficker, in-cluding—

(i) taking measures to protect trafficked per-sons and their family members from intimidationand threats of reprisals and reprisals from traf-fickers and their associates; and

(ii) ensuring that the names and identifyinginformation of trafficked persons and their fam-ily members are not disclosed to the public.

(2) ACCESS TO INFORMATION.—Victims of se-vere forms of trafficking shall have access to in-formation about their rights and translationservices.

(3) AUTHORITY TO PERMIT CONTINUED PRES-ENCE IN THE UNITED STATES.—Federal law en-forcement officials may permit an alien individ-ual’s continued presence in the United States, ifafter an assessment, it is determined that suchindividual is a victim of a severe form of traf-ficking and a potential witness to such traf-ficking, in order to effectuate prosecution ofthose responsible, and such officials in inves-tigating and prosecuting traffickers shall pro-tect the safety of trafficking victims, includingtaking measures to protect trafficked personsand their family members from intimidation,threats of reprisals, and reprisals from traf-fickers and their associates.

(4) TRAINING OF GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL.—Appropriate personnel of the Department ofState and the Department of Justice shall betrained in identifying victims of severe forms oftrafficking and providing for the protection ofsuch victims.

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in subsection (c)shall be construed as creating any private causeof action against the United States or its officersor employees.

(e) PROTECTION FROM REMOVAL FOR CERTAINCRIME VICTIMS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 101(a)(15) of the Im-migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1101(a)(15)) is amended—

(A) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subpara-graph (R);

(B) by striking the period at the end of sub-paragraph (S) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following newsubparagraph:

‘‘(T)(i) subject to section 214(n), an alien whothe Attorney General determines—

‘‘(I) is or has been a victim of a severe form oftrafficking in persons, as defined in section 103of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of2000,

‘‘(II) is physically present in the UnitedStates, American Samoa, or the Commonwealthof the Northern Mariana Islands, or at a port ofentry thereto, on account of such trafficking,

‘‘(III)(aa) has complied with any reasonablerequest for assistance in the investigation orprosecution of acts of trafficking, or

‘‘(bb) has not attained 15 years of age, and‘‘(IV) the alien would suffer extreme hardship

involving unusual and severe harm upon re-moval; and

‘‘(ii) if the Attorney General considers it nec-essary to avoid extreme hardship—

‘‘(I) in the case of an alien described in clause(i) who is under 21 years of age, the spouse,children, and parents of such alien; and

‘‘(II) in the case of an alien described inclause (i) who is 21 years of age or older, thespouse and children of such alien,if accompanying, or following to join, the aliendescribed in clause (i).’’.

(2) CONDITIONS OF NONIMMIGRANT STATUS.—Section 214 of the Immigration and NationalityAct (8 U.S.C. 1184) is amended—

(A) by redesignating the subsection (l) addedby section 625(a) of the Illegal Immigration Re-form and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996(Public Law 104–208; 110 Stat. 3009–1820) as sub-section (m); and

(B) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(n)(1) No alien shall be eligible for admission

to the United States under section 101(a)(15)(T)if there is substantial reason to believe that thealien has committed an act of a severe form oftrafficking in persons (as defined in section 103of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of2000).

‘‘(2) The total number of aliens who may beissued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrantstatus during any fiscal year under section101(a)(15)(T) may not exceed 5,000.

‘‘(3) The numerical limitation of paragraph (2)shall only apply to principal aliens and not tothe spouses, sons, daughters, or parents of suchaliens.’’.

(3) WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR INELIGIBILITYFOR ADMISSION.—Section 212(d) of the Immigra-tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)) isamended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(13)(A) The Attorney General shall determinewhether a ground for inadmissibility exists withrespect to a nonimmigrant described in section101(a)(15)(T).

‘‘(B) In addition to any other waiver that maybe available under this section, in the case of anonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(T),if the Attorney General considers it to be in thenational interest to do so, the Attorney General,in the Attorney General’s discretion, may waivethe application of—

‘‘(i) paragraphs (1) and (4) of subsection (a);and

‘‘(ii) any other provision of such subsection(excluding paragraphs (3), (10)(C), and (10(E)) ifthe activities rendering the alien inadmissibleunder the provision were caused by, or were in-cident to, the victimization described in section101(a)(15)(T)(i)(I).’’.

(4) DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITHRESPECT TO ‘‘T’’ VISA NONIMMIGRANTS.—Section101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8U.S.C. 1101) is amended by adding at the endthe following new subsection:

‘‘(i) With respect to each nonimmigrant aliendescribed in subsection (a)(15)(T)(i)—

‘‘(1) the Attorney General and other Govern-ment officials, where appropriate, shall providethe alien with a referral to a nongovernmentalorganization that would advise the alien regard-ing the alien’s options while in the UnitedStates and the resources available to the alien;and

‘‘(2) the Attorney General shall, during theperiod the alien is in lawful temporary residentstatus under that subsection, grant the alienauthorization to engage in employment in theUnited States and provide the alien with an‘employment authorized’ endorsement or otherappropriate work permit.’’.

(5) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing inthis section, or in the amendments made by thissection, shall be construed as prohibiting the At-torney General from instituting removal pro-ceedings under section 240 of the Immigrationand Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a) against analien admitted as a nonimmigrant under section101(a)(15)(T)(i) of that Act, as added by sub-section (e), for conduct committed after thealien’s admission into the United States, or forconduct or a condition that was not disclosed tothe Attorney General prior to the alien’s admis-sion as a nonimmigrant under such section101(a)(15)(T)(i).

(f) ADJUSTMENT TO PERMANENT RESIDENT STA-TUS.—Section 245 of such Act (8 U.S.C 1255) isamended by adding at the end the followingnew subsection:

‘‘(l)(1) If, in the opinion of the Attorney Gen-eral, a nonimmigrant admitted into the UnitedStates under section 101(a)(15)(T)(i)—

‘‘(A) has been physically present in theUnited States for a continuous period of at least3 years since the date of admission as a non-immigrant under section 101(a)(15)(T)(i),

‘‘(B) has, throughout such period, been a per-son of good moral character, and

‘‘(C)(i) has, during such period, complied withany reasonable request for assistance in the in-

vestigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking,or

‘‘(ii) the alien would suffer extreme hardshipinvolving unusual and severe harm upon re-moval from the United States,the Attorney General may adjust the status ofthe alien (and any person admitted under thatsection as the spouse, parent, or child of thealien) to that of an alien lawfully admitted forpermanent residence.

‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alienadmitted under section 101(a)(15)(T) who is in-admissible to the United States by reason of aground that has not been waived under section212, except that, if the Attorney General con-siders it to be in the national interest to do so,the Attorney General, in the Attorney General’sdiscretion, may waive the application of—

‘‘(A) paragraphs (1) and (4) of section 212(a);and

‘‘(B) any other provision of such section (ex-cluding paragraphs (3), (10)(C), and (10(E)), ifthe activities rendering the alien inadmissibleunder the provision were caused by, or were in-cident to, the victimization described in section101(a)(15)(T)(i)(I).

‘‘(2) An alien shall be considered to havefailed to maintain continuous physical presencein the United States under paragraph (1)(A) ifthe alien has departed from the United Statesfor any period in excess of 90 days or for anyperiods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days.

‘‘(3)(A) The total number of aliens whose sta-tus may be adjusted under paragraph (1) duringany fiscal year may not exceed 5,000.

‘‘(B) The numerical limitation of subpara-graph (A) shall only apply to principal aliensand not to the spouses, sons, daughters, or par-ents of such aliens.

‘‘(4) Upon the approval of adjustment of sta-tus under paragraph (1), the Attorney Generalshall record the alien’s lawful admission for per-manent residence as of the date of such ap-proval.’’.

(g) ANNUAL REPORTS.—On or before October31 of each year, the Attorney General shall sub-mit a report to the appropriate congressionalcommittees setting forth, with respect to the pre-ceding fiscal year, the number, if any, of other-wise eligible applicants who did not receivevisas under section 101(a)(15)(T) of the Immigra-tion and Nationality Act, as added by sub-section (e), or who were unable to adjust theirstatus under section 245(l) of such Act, solely onaccount of the unavailability of visas due to alimitation imposed by section 214(n)(1) or245(l)(4)(A) of such Act.SEC. 108. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR THE ELIMI-

NATION OF TRAFFICKING.(a) MINIMUM STANDARDS.—For purposes of

this division, the minimum standards for theelimination of trafficking applicable to the gov-ernment of a country of origin, transit, or des-tination for a significant number of victims ofsevere forms of trafficking are the following:

(1) The government of the country should pro-hibit severe forms of trafficking in persons andpunish acts of such trafficking.

(2) For the knowing commission of any act ofsex trafficking involving force, fraud, coercion,or in which the victim of sex trafficking is achild incapable of giving meaningful consent, orof trafficking which includes rape or kidnap-ping or which causes a death, the government ofthe country should prescribe punishment com-mensurate with that for grave crimes, such asforcible sexual assault.

(3) For the knowing commission of any act ofa severe form of trafficking in persons, the gov-ernment of the country should prescribe punish-ment that is sufficiently stringent to deter andthat adequately reflects the heinous nature ofthe offense.

(4) The government of the country shouldmake serious and sustained efforts to eliminatesevere forms of trafficking in persons.

(b) CRITERIA.—In determinations under sub-section (a)(4), the following factors should be


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8860 October 5, 2000considered as indicia of serious and sustainedefforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking inpersons:

(1) Whether the government of the countryvigorously investigates and prosecutes acts ofsevere forms of trafficking in persons that takeplace wholly or partly within the territory ofthe country.

(2) Whether the government of the countryprotects victims of severe forms of trafficking inpersons and encourages their assistance in theinvestigation and prosecution of such traf-ficking, including provisions for legal alter-natives to their removal to countries in whichthey would face retribution or hardship, andensures that victims are not inappropriately in-carcerated, fined, or otherwise penalized solelyfor unlawful acts as a direct result of being traf-ficked.

(3) Whether the government of the countryhas adopted measures to prevent severe forms oftrafficking in persons, such as measures to in-form and educate the public, including potentialvictims, about the causes and consequences ofsevere forms of trafficking in persons.

(4) Whether the government of the country co-operates with other governments in the inves-tigation and prosecution of severe forms of traf-ficking in persons.

(5) Whether the government of the country ex-tradites persons charged with acts of severeforms of trafficking in persons on substantiallythe same terms and to substantially the same ex-tent as persons charged with other seriouscrimes (or, to the extent such extradition wouldbe inconsistent with the laws of such country orwith international agreements to which thecountry is a party, whether the government istaking all appropriate measures to modify or re-place such laws and treaties so as to permit suchextradition).

(6) Whether the government of the countrymonitors immigration and emigration patternsfor evidence of severe forms of trafficking in per-sons and whether law enforcement agencies ofthe country respond to any such evidence in amanner that is consistent with the vigorous in-vestigation and prosecution of acts of such traf-ficking, as well as with the protection of humanrights of victims and the internationally recog-nized human right to leave any country, includ-ing one’s own, and to return to one’s own coun-try.

(7) Whether the government of the countryvigorously investigates and prosecutes public of-ficials who participate in or facilitate severeforms of trafficking in persons, and takes all ap-propriate measures against officials who con-done such trafficking.SEC. 109. ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES

TO MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS.Chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance

Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) is amended byadding at the end the following new section:‘‘SEC. 134. ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES

TO MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS FORTHE ELIMINATION OF TRAFFICKING.

‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is au-thorized to provide assistance to foreign coun-tries directly, or through nongovernmental andmultilateral organizations, for programs,projects, and activities designed to meet the min-imum standards for the elimination of traf-ficking (as defined in section 103 of the Traf-ficking Victims Protection Act of 2000), includ-ing—

‘‘(1) the drafting of laws to prohibit and pun-ish acts of trafficking;

‘‘(2) the investigation and prosecution of traf-fickers;

‘‘(3) the creation and maintenance of facili-ties, programs, projects, and activities for theprotection of victims; and

‘‘(4) the expansion of exchange programs andinternational visitor programs for governmentaland nongovernmental personnel to combat traf-ficking.

‘‘(b) FUNDING.—Amounts made available tocarry out the other provisions of this part (in-

cluding chapter 4 of part II of this Act) and theSupport for East European Democracy (SEED)Act of 1989 shall be made available to carry outthis section.’’.SEC. 110. ACTIONS AGAINST GOVERNMENTS FAIL-

ING TO MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS.(a) STATEMENT OF POLICY.—It is the policy of

the United States not to provide nonhumani-tarian, nontrade-related foreign assistance toany government that—

(1) does not comply with minimum standardsfor the elimination of trafficking; and

(2) is not making significant efforts to bringitself into compliance with such standards.

(b) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—(1) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than June 1 of

each year, the Secretary of State shall submit tothe appropriate congressional committees a re-port with respect to the status of severe forms oftrafficking in persons that shall include—

(A) a list of those countries, if any, to whichthe minimum standards for the elimination oftrafficking are applicable and whose govern-ments fully comply with such standards;

(B) a list of those countries, if any, to whichthe minimum standards for the elimination oftrafficking are applicable and whose govern-ments do not yet fully comply with such stand-ards but are making significant efforts to bringthemselves into compliance; and

(C) a list of those countries, if any, to whichthe minimum standards for the elimination oftrafficking are applicable and whose govern-ments do not fully comply with such standardsand are not making significant efforts to bringthemselves into compliance.

(2) INTERIM REPORTS.—In addition to the an-nual report under paragraph (1), the Secretaryof State may submit to the appropriate congres-sional committees at any time one or more in-terim reports with respect to the status of severeforms of trafficking in persons, including infor-mation about countries whose governments—

(A) have come into or out of compliance withthe minimum standards for the elimination oftrafficking; or

(B) have begun or ceased to make significantefforts to bring themselves into compliance,since the transmission of the last annual report.

(3) SIGNIFICANT EFFORTS.—In determinationsunder paragraph (1) or (2) as to whether thegovernment of a country is making significantefforts to bring itself into compliance with theminimum standards for the elimination of traf-ficking, the Secretary of State shall consider—

(A) the extent to which the country is a coun-try of origin, transit, or destination for severeforms of trafficking;

(B) the extent of noncompliance with the min-imum standards by the government and, par-ticularly, the extent to which officials or em-ployees of the government have participated in,facilitated, condoned, or are otherwise complicitin severe forms of trafficking; and

(C) what measures are reasonable to bring thegovernment into compliance with the minimumstandards in light of the resources and capabili-ties of the government.

(c) NOTIFICATION.—Not less than 45 days ormore than 90 days after the submission, on orafter January 1, 2003, of an annual report undersubsection (b)(1), or an interim report undersubsection (b)(2), the President shall submit tothe appropriate congressional committees a noti-fication of one of the determinations listed insubsection (d) with respect to each foreign coun-try whose government, according to such re-port—

(A) does not comply with the minimum stand-ards for the elimination of trafficking; and

(B) is not making significant efforts to bringitself into compliance, as described in subsection(b)(1)(C).

(d) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS.—The de-terminations referred to in subsection (c) are thefollowing:

(1) WITHHOLDING OF NONHUMANITARIAN,NONTRADE-RELATED ASSISTANCE.—The Presidenthas determined that—

(A)(i) the United States will not provide non-humanitarian, nontrade-related foreign assist-ance to the government of the country for thesubsequent fiscal year until such governmentcomplies with the minimum standards or makessignificant efforts to bring itself into compli-ance; or

(ii) in the case of a country whose governmentreceived no nonhumanitarian, nontrade-relatedforeign assistance from the United States duringthe previous fiscal year, the United States willnot provide funding for participation by offi-cials or employees of such governments in edu-cational and cultural exchange programs for thesubsequent fiscal year until such governmentcomplies with the minimum standards or makessignificant efforts to bring itself into compli-ance; and

(B) the President will instruct the UnitedStates Executive Director of each multilateraldevelopment bank and of the InternationalMonetary Fund to vote against, and to use theExecutive Director’s best efforts to deny, anyloan or other utilization of the funds of the re-spective institution to that country (other thanfor humanitarian assistance, for trade-relatedassistance, or for development assistance whichdirectly addresses basic human needs, is not ad-ministered by the government of the sanctionedcountry, and confers no benefit to that govern-ment) for the subsequent fiscal year until suchgovernment complies with the minimum stand-ards or makes significant efforts to bring itselfinto compliance.

(2) ONGOING, MULTIPLE, BROAD-BASED RE-STRICTIONS ON ASSISTANCE IN RESPONSE TOHUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.—The President hasdetermined that such country is already subjectto multiple, broad-based restrictions on assist-ance imposed in significant part in response tohuman rights abuses and such restrictions areongoing and are comparable to the restrictionsprovided in paragraph (1). Such determinationshall be accompanied by a description of thespecific restriction or restrictions that were thebasis for making such determination.

(3) SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCE.—The Secretaryof State has determined that the government ofthe country has come into compliance with theminimum standards or is making significant ef-forts to bring itself into compliance.

(4) CONTINUATION OF ASSISTANCE IN THE NA-TIONAL INTEREST.—Notwithstanding the failureof the government of the country to comply withminimum standards for the elimination of traf-ficking and to make significant efforts to bringitself into compliance, the President has deter-mined that the provision to the country of non-humanitarian, nontrade-related foreign assist-ance, or the multilateral assistance described inparagraph (1)(B), or both, would promote thepurposes of this division or is otherwise in thenational interest of the United States.

(5) EXERCISE OF WAIVER AUTHORITY.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The President may exercise

the authority under paragraph (4) with respectto—

(i) all nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related for-eign assistance to a country;

(ii) all multilateral assistance described inparagraph (1)(B) to a country; or

(iii) one or more programs, projects, or activi-ties of such assistance.

(B) AVOIDANCE OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EF-FECTS.—The President shall exercise the author-ity under paragraph (4) when necessary toavoid significant adverse effects on vulnerablepopulations, including women and children.

(6) DEFINITION OF MULTILATERAL DEVELOP-MENT BANK.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘mul-tilateral development bank’’ refers to any of thefollowing institutions: the International Bankfor Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-national Development Association, the Inter-national Finance Corporation, the Inter-Amer-ican Development Bank, the Asian DevelopmentBank, the Inter-American Investment Corpora-tion, the African Development Bank, the Afri-can Development Fund, the European Bank for


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8861October 5, 2000Reconstruction and Development, and the Mul-tilateral Investment Guaranty Agency.

(e) CERTIFICATION.—Together with any notifi-cation under subsection (c), the President shallprovide a certification by the Secretary of Statethat, with respect to any assistance described inclause (ii), (iii), or (v) of section 103(7)(A), orwith respect to any assistance described in sec-tion 103(7)(B), no assistance is intended to be re-ceived or used by any agency or official whohas participated in, facilitated, or condoned asevere form of trafficking in persons.SEC. 111. ACTIONS AGAINST SIGNIFICANT TRAF-

FICKERS IN PERSONS.(a) AUTHORITY TO SANCTION SIGNIFICANT

TRAFFICKERS IN PERSONS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The President may exercise

the authorities set forth in section 203 of theInternational Emergency Economic Powers Act(50 U.S.C. 1701) without regard to section 202 ofthat Act (50 U.S.C. 1701) in the case of any ofthe following persons:

(A) Any foreign person that plays a signifi-cant role in a severe form of trafficking in per-sons, directly or indirectly in the United States.

(B) Foreign persons that materially assist in,or provide financial or technological support foror to, or provide goods or services in support of,activities of a significant foreign trafficker inpersons identified pursuant to subparagraph(A).

(C) Foreign persons that are owned, con-trolled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalfof, a significant foreign trafficker identifiedpursuant to subparagraph (A).

(2) PENALTIES.—The penalties set forth in sec-tion 206 of the International Emergency Eco-nomic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705) apply to vio-lations of any license, order, or regulationissued under this section.

(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS ON IDENTIFICATIONAND SANCTIONING OF SIGNIFICANT TRAFFICKERSIN PERSONS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Upon exercising the author-ity of subsection (a), the President shall reportto the appropriate congressional committees—

(A) identifying publicly the foreign personsthat the President determines are appropriatefor sanctions pursuant to this section and thebasis for such determination; and

(B) detailing publicly the sanctions imposedpursuant to this section.

(2) REMOVAL OF SANCTIONS.—Upon sus-pending or terminating any action imposedunder the authority of subsection (a), the Presi-dent shall report to the committees described inparagraph (1) on such suspension or termi-nation.

(3) SUBMISSION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.—Reports submitted under this subsection may in-clude an annex with classified information re-garding the basis for the determination made bythe President under paragraph (1)(A).

(c) LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE AC-TIVITIES NOT AFFECTED.—Nothing in this sec-tion prohibits or otherwise limits the authorizedlaw enforcement or intelligence activities of theUnited States, or the law enforcement activitiesof any State or subdivision thereof.

(d) EXCLUSION OF PERSONS WHO HAVE BENE-FITED FROM ILLICIT ACTIVITIES OF TRAFFICKERSIN PERSONS.—Section 212(a)(2) of the Immigra-tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) isamended by inserting at the end the followingnew subparagraph:

‘‘(H) SIGNIFICANT TRAFFICKERS IN PERSONS.—‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Any alien who is listed in a

report submitted pursuant to section 111(b) ofthe Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000,or who the consular officer or the Attorney Gen-eral knows or has reason to believe is or hasbeen a knowing aider, abettor, assister, con-spirator, or colluder with such a trafficker in se-vere forms of trafficking in persons, as definedin the section 103 of such Act, is inadmissible.

‘‘(ii) BENEFICIARIES OF TRAFFICKING.—Exceptas provided in clause (iii), any alien who theconsular officer or the Attorney General knows

or has reason to believe is the spouse, son, ordaughter of an alien inadmissible under clause(i), has, within the previous 5 years, obtainedany financial or other benefit from the illicit ac-tivity of that alien, and knew or reasonablyshould have known that the financial or otherbenefit was the product of such illicit activity, isinadmissible.

‘‘(iii) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN SONS ANDDAUGHTERS.—Clause (ii) shall not apply to a sonor daughter who was a child at the time he orshe received the benefit described in suchclause.’’.

(e) IMPLEMENTATION.—(1) DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY.—The Presi-

dent may delegate any authority granted by thissection, including the authority to designateforeign persons under paragraphs (1)(B) and(1)(C) of subsection (a).

(2) PROMULGATION OF RULES AND REGULA-TIONS.—The head of any agency, including theSecretary of Treasury, is authorized to takesuch actions as may be necessary to carry outany authority delegated by the President pursu-ant to paragraph (1), including promulgatingrules and regulations.

(3) OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW.—Such rulesand regulations shall include procedures afford-ing an opportunity for a person to be heard inan expeditious manner, either in person orthrough a representative, for the purpose ofseeking changes to or termination of any deter-mination, order, designation or other action as-sociated with the exercise of the authority insubsection (a).

(f) DEFINITION OF FOREIGN PERSONS.—In thissection, the term ‘‘foreign person’’ means anycitizen or national of a foreign state or any enti-ty not organized under the laws of the UnitedStates, including a foreign government official,but does not include a foreign state.

(g) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sectionshall be construed as precluding judicial reviewof the exercise of the authority described in sub-section (a).SEC. 112. STRENGTHENING PROSECUTION AND

PUNISHMENT OF TRAFFICKERS.(a) TITLE 18 AMENDMENTS.—Chapter 77 of title

18, United States Code, is amended—(1) in each of sections 1581(a), 1583, and 1584—(A) by striking ‘‘10 years’’ and inserting ‘‘20

years’’; and(B) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘If

death results from the violation of this section,or if the violation includes kidnapping or an at-tempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or theattempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, oran attempt to kill, the defendant shall be finedunder this title or imprisoned for any term ofyears or life, or both.’’;

(2) by inserting at the end the following:‘‘§ 1589. Forced labor

‘‘Whoever knowingly provides or obtains thelabor or services of a person—

‘‘(1) by threats of serious harm to, or physicalrestraint against, that person or another person;

‘‘(2) by means of any scheme, plan, or patternintended to cause the person to believe that, ifthe person did not perform such labor or serv-ices, that person or another person would sufferserious harm or physical restraint; or

‘‘(3) by means of the abuse or threatenedabuse of law or the legal process,shall be fined under this title or imprisoned notmore than 20 years, or both. If death resultsfrom the violation of this section, or if the viola-tion includes kidnapping or an attempt to kid-nap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt tocommit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attemptto kill, the defendant shall be fined under thistitle or imprisoned for any term of years or life,or both.‘‘§ 1590. Trafficking with respect to peonage,

slavery, involuntary servitude, or forcedlabor‘‘Whoever knowingly recruits, harbors, trans-

ports, provides, or obtains by any means, any

person for labor or services in violation of thischapter shall be fined under this title or impris-oned not more than 20 years, or both. If deathresults from the violation of this section, or ifthe violation includes kidnapping or an attemptto kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or the at-tempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or anattempt to kill, the defendant shall be finedunder this title or imprisoned for any term ofyears or life, or both.‘‘§ 1591. Sex trafficking of children or by force,

fraud or coercion‘‘(a) Whoever knowingly—‘‘(1) in or affecting interstate commerce, re-

cruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, orobtains by any means a person; or

‘‘(2) benefits, financially or by receiving any-thing of value, from participation in a venturewhich has engaged in an act described in viola-tion of paragraph (1),knowing that force, fraud, or coercion describedin subsection (c)(2) will be used to cause the per-son to engage in a commercial sex act, or thatthe person has not attained the age of 18 yearsand will be caused to engage in a commercialsex act, shall be punished as provided in sub-section (b).

‘‘(b) The punishment for an offense undersubsection (a) is—

‘‘(1) if the offense was effected by force,fraud, or coercion or if the person transportedhad not attained the age of 14 years at the timeof such offense, by a fine under this title or im-prisonment for any term of years or for life, orboth; or

‘‘(2) if the offense was not so effected, and theperson transported had attained the age of 14years but had not attained the age of 18 yearsat the time of such offense, by a fine under thistitle or imprisonment for not more than 20 years,or both.

‘‘(c) In this section:‘‘(1) The term ‘commercial sex act’ means any

sex act, on account of which anything of valueis given to or received by any person.’’

‘‘(2) The term ‘coercion’ means—‘‘(A) threats of serious harm to or physical re-

straint against any person;‘‘(B) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to

cause a person to believe that failure to performan act would result in serious harm to or phys-ical restraint against any person; or

‘‘(C) the abuse or threatened abuse of law orthe legal process.

‘‘(3) The term ‘venture’ means any group of 2or more individuals associated in fact, whetheror not a legal entity.‘‘§ 1592. Unlawful conduct with respect to doc-

uments in furtherance of trafficking, peon-age, slavery, involuntary servitude, orforced labor‘‘(a) Whoever knowingly destroys, conceals,

removes, confiscates, or possesses any actual orpurported passport or other immigration docu-ment, or any other actual or purported govern-ment identification document, of another per-son—

‘‘(1) in the course of a violation of section1581, 1583, 1584, 1589, 1590, 1591, or 1594(a);

‘‘(2) with intent to violate section 1581, 1583,1584, 1589, 1590, or 1591; or

‘‘(3) to prevent or restrict or to attempt to pre-vent or restrict, without lawful authority, theperson’s liberty to move or travel, in order tomaintain the labor or services of that person,when the person is or has been a victim of a se-vere form of trafficking in persons, as defined insection 103 of the Trafficking Victims ProtectionAct of 2000;shall be fined under this title or imprisoned fornot more than 5 years, or both.

‘‘(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to the con-duct of a person who is or has been a victim ofa severe form of trafficking in persons, as de-fined in section 103 of the Trafficking VictimsProtection Act of 2000, if that conduct is causedby, or incident to, that trafficking.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8862 October 5, 2000‘‘§ 1593. Mandatory restitution

‘‘(a) Notwithstanding sections 3663 or 3663A,and in addition to any other civil or criminalpenalties authorized by law, the court shallorder restitution for any offense under thischapter.

‘‘(b)(1) The order of restitution under this sec-tion shall direct the defendant to pay the victim(through the appropriate court mechanism) thefull amount of the victim’s losses, as determinedby the court under paragraph (3) of this sub-section.

‘‘(2) An order of restitution under this sectionshall be issued and enforced in accordance withsection 3664 in the same manner as an orderunder section 3663A.

‘‘(3) As used in this subsection, the term ‘fullamount of the victim’s losses’ has the samemeaning as provided in section 2259(b)(3) andshall in addition include the greater of the grossincome or value to the defendant of the victim’sservices or labor or the value of the victim’slabor as guaranteed under the minimum wageand overtime guarantees of the Fair LaborStandards Act (29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.).

‘‘(c) As used in this section, the term ‘victim’means the individual harmed as a result of acrime under this chapter, including, in the caseof a victim who is under 18 years of age, incom-petent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legalguardian of the victim or a representative of thevictim’s estate, or another family member, orany other person appointed as suitable by thecourt, but in no event shall the defendant benamed such representative or guardian.‘‘§ 1594. General provisions

‘‘(a) Whoever attempts to violate section 1581,1583, 1584, 1589, 1590, or 1591 shall be punishablein the same manner as a completed violation ofthat section.

‘‘(b) The court, in imposing sentence on anyperson convicted of a violation of this chapter,shall order, in addition to any other sentenceimposed and irrespective of any provision ofState law, that such person shall forfeit to theUnited States—

‘‘(1) such person’s interest in any property,real or personal, that was used or intended to beused to commit or to facilitate the commission ofsuch violation; and

‘‘(2) any property, real or personal, consti-tuting or derived from, any proceeds that suchperson obtained, directly or indirectly, as a re-sult of such violation.

‘‘(c)(1) The following shall be subject to for-feiture to the United States and no propertyright shall exist in them:

‘‘(A) Any property, real or personal, used orintended to be used to commit or to facilitate thecommission of any violation of this chapter.

‘‘(B) Any property, real or personal, whichconstitutes or is derived from proceeds traceableto any violation of this chapter.

‘‘(2) The provisions of chapter 46 of this titlerelating to civil forfeitures shall extend to anyseizure or civil forfeiture under this subsection.

‘‘(d) WITNESS PROTECTION.—Any violation ofthis chapter shall be considered an organizedcriminal activity or other serious offense for thepurposes of application of chapter 224 (relatingto witness protection).’’; and

(3) by amending the table of sections at thebeginning of chapter 77 by adding at the endthe following new items:‘‘1589. Forced labor.‘‘1590. Trafficking with respect to peonage, slav-

ery, involuntary servitude, orforced labor.

‘‘1591. Sex trafficking of children or by force,fraud, or coercion.

‘‘1592. Unlawful conduct with respect to docu-ments in furtherance of traf-ficking, peonage, slavery, invol-untary servitude, or forced labor.

‘‘1593. Mandatory restitution.‘‘1594. General provisions.’’.

(b) AMENDMENT TO THE SENTENCING GUIDE-LINES.—

(1) Pursuant to its authority under section 994of title 28, United States Code, and in accord-ance with this section, the United States Sen-tencing Commission shall review and, if appro-priate, amend the sentencing guidelines and pol-icy statements applicable to persons convicted ofoffenses involving the trafficking of persons in-cluding component or related crimes of peonage,involuntary servitude, slave trade offenses, andpossession, transfer or sale of false immigrationdocuments in furtherance of trafficking, and theFair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant andSeasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

(2) In carrying out this subsection, the Sen-tencing Commission shall—

(A) take all appropriate measures to ensurethat these sentencing guidelines and policystatements applicable to the offenses describedin paragraph (1) of this subsection are suffi-ciently stringent to deter and adequately reflectthe heinous nature of such offenses;

(B) consider conforming the sentencing guide-lines applicable to offenses involving traffickingin persons to the guidelines applicable to peon-age, involuntary servitude, and slave trade of-fenses; and

(C) consider providing sentencing enhance-ments for those convicted of the offenses de-scribed in paragraph (1) of this subsectionthat—

(i) involve a large number of victims;(ii) involve a pattern of continued and fla-

grant violations;(iii) involve the use or threatened use of a

dangerous weapon; or(iv) result in the death or bodily injury of any

person.(3) The Commission may promulgate the

guidelines or amendments under this subsectionin accordance with the procedures set forth insection 21(a) of the Sentencing Act of 1987, asthough the authority under that Act had notexpired.SEC. 113. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS INSUPPORT OF THE TASK FORCE.—To carry out thepurposes of sections 104, 105, and 110, there areauthorized to be appropriated to the Secretaryof State $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2001 and$3,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TOTHE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV-ICES.—To carry out the purposes of section107(b), there are authorized to be appropriatedto the Secretary of Health and Human Services$5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $10,000,000 forfiscal year 2002.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TOTHE SECRETARY OF STATE.—

(1) ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS IN OTHER COUN-TRIES.—To carry out the purposes of section107(a), there are authorized to be appropriatedto the Secretary of State $5,000,000 for fiscalyear 2001 and $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.

(2) VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO OSCE.—Tocarry out the purposes of section 109, there areauthorized to be appropriated to the Secretaryof State $300,000 for voluntary contributions toadvance projects aimed at preventing traf-ficking, promoting respect for human rights oftrafficking victims, and assisting the Organiza-tion for Security and Cooperation in Europeparticipating states in related legal reform forfiscal year 2001.

(3) PREPARATION OF ANNUAL COUNTRY RE-PORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS.—To carry out the pur-poses of section 104, there are authorized to beappropriated to the Secretary of State such sumsas may be necessary to include the additionalinformation required by that section in the an-nual Country Reports on Human Rights Prac-tices, including the preparation and publicationof the list described in subsection (a)(1) of thatsection.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TOATTORNEY GENERAL.—To carry out the purposesof section 107(b), there are authorized to be ap-

propriated to the Attorney General $5,000,000 forfiscal year 2001 and $10,000,000 for fiscal year2002.

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TOPRESIDENT.—

(1) FOREIGN VICTIM ASSISTANCE.—To carry outthe purposes of section 106, there are authorizedto be appropriated to the President $5,000,000 forfiscal year 2001 and $10,000,000 for fiscal year2002.

(2) ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES TOMEET MINIMUM STANDARDS.—To carry out thepurposes of section 109, there are authorized tobe appropriated to the President $5,000,000 forfiscal year 2001 and $10,000,000 for fiscal year2002.

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TOTHE SECRETARY OF LABOR.—To carry out thepurposes of section 107(b), there are authorizedto be appropriated to the Secretary of Labor$5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $10,000,000 forfiscal year 2002.DIVISION B—VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

ACT OF 2000SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.

This division may be cited as the ‘‘ViolenceAgainst Women Act of 2000’’.SEC. 1002. DEFINITIONS.

In this division—(1) the term ‘‘domestic violence’’ has the

meaning given the term in section 2003 of title Iof the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe StreetsAct of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg–2); and

(2) the term ‘‘sexual assault’’ has the meaninggiven the term in section 2003 of title I of theOmnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg–2).SEC. 1003. ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT.

(a) REPORT BY GRANT RECIPIENTS.—The At-torney General or Secretary of Health andHuman Services, as applicable, shall requiregrantees under any program authorized or reau-thorized by this division or an amendment madeby this division to report on the effectiveness ofthe activities carried out with amounts madeavailable to carry out that program, includingnumber of persons served, if applicable, numbersof persons seeking services who could not beserved and such other information as the Attor-ney General or Secretary may prescribe.

(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Attorney Gen-eral or Secretary of Health and Human Services,as applicable, shall report biennially to theCommittees on the Judiciary of the House ofRepresentatives and the Senate on the grantprograms described in subsection (a), includingthe information contained in any report underthat subsection.TITLE I—STRENGTHENING LAW ENFORCE-

MENT TO REDUCE VIOLENCE AGAINSTWOMEN

SEC. 1101. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT ENFORCE-MENT OF PROTECTION ORDERS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Part U of title I of the Om-nibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968(42 U.S.C. 3796hh et seq.) is amended—

(1) in the heading, by adding ‘‘AND EN-FORCEMENT OF PROTECTION ORDERS’’ atthe end;

(2) in section 2101(b)—(A) in paragraph (6), by inserting ‘‘(including

juvenile courts)’’ after ‘‘courts’’; and(B) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(7) To provide technical assistance and com-

puter and other equipment to police depart-ments, prosecutors, courts, and tribal jurisdic-tions to facilitate the widespread enforcement ofprotection orders, including interstate enforce-ment, enforcement between States and tribal ju-risdictions, and enforcement between tribal ju-risdictions.’’; and

(3) in section 2102—(A) in subsection (b)—(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the

end;(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at

the end and inserting ‘‘, including the enforce-ment of protection orders from other States and


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8863October 5, 2000jurisdictions (including tribal jurisdictions);’’;and

(iii) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(3) have established cooperative agreements

or can demonstrate effective ongoing collabo-rative arrangements with neighboring jurisdic-tions to facilitate the enforcement of protectionorders from other States and jurisdictions (in-cluding tribal jurisdictions); and

‘‘(4) in applications describing plans to fur-ther the purposes stated in paragraph (4) or (7)of section 2101(b), will give priority to using thegrant to develop and install data collection andcommunication systems, including computerizedsystems, and training on how to use these sys-tems effectively to link police, prosecutors,courts, and tribal jurisdictions for the purposeof identifying and tracking protection ordersand violations of protection orders, in those ju-risdictions where such systems do not exist orare not fully effective.’’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(c) DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.—The

Attorney General shall annually compile andbroadly disseminate (including through elec-tronic publication) information about successfuldata collection and communication systems thatmeet the purposes described in this section. Suchdissemination shall target States, State andlocal courts, Indian tribal governments, andunits of local government.’’.

(b) PROTECTION ORDERS.—(1) FILING COSTS.—Section 2006 of part T of

title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and SafeStreets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg–5) isamended—

(A) in the heading, by striking ‘‘FILING’’ andinserting ‘‘AND PROTECTION ORDERS’’ after‘‘CHARGES’’;

(B) in subsection (a)—(i) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the

following:‘‘(1) certifies that its laws, policies, and prac-

tices do not require, in connection with theprosecution of any misdemeanor or felony do-mestic violence offense, or in connection withthe filing, issuance, registration, or service of aprotection order, or a petition for a protectionorder, to protect a victim of domestic violence,stalking, or sexual assault, that the victim bearthe costs associated with the filing of criminalcharges against the offender, or the costs associ-ated with the filing, issuance, registration, orservice of a warrant, protection order, petitionfor a protection order, or witness subpoena,whether issued inside or outside the State, trib-al, or local jurisdiction; or’’; and

(ii) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ‘‘2 years’’and inserting ‘‘2 years after the date of enact-ment of the Violence Against Women Act of2000’’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(c) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term

‘protection order’ has the meaning given theterm in section 2266 of title 18, United StatesCode.’’.

(2) ELIGIBILITY FOR GRANTS TO ENCOURAGE AR-REST POLICIES.—Section 2101 of part U of title Iof the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe StreetsAct of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796hh) is amended—

(A) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph(4) and inserting the following:

‘‘(4) certify that their laws, policies, and prac-tices do not require, in connection with theprosecution of any misdemeanor or felony do-mestic violence offense, or in connection withthe filing, issuance, registration, or service of aprotection order, or a petition for a protectionorder, to protect a victim of domestic violence,stalking, or sexual assault, that the victim bearthe costs associated with the filing of criminalcharges against the offender, or the costs associ-ated with the filing, issuance, registration, orservice of a warrant, protection order, petitionfor a protection order, or witness subpoena,whether issued inside or outside the State, trib-al, or local jurisdiction.’’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(d) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term‘protection order’ has the meaning given theterm in section 2266 of title 18, United StatesCode.’’.

(3) APPLICATION FOR GRANTS TO ENCOURAGEARREST POLICIES.—Section 2102(a)(1)(B) of partU of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control andSafe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796hh–1(a)(1)(B)) is amended by inserting before thesemicolon the following: ‘‘or, in the case of thecondition set forth in subsection 2101(c)(4), theexpiration of the 2-year period beginning on thedate of enactment of the Violence AgainstWomen Act of 2000’’.

(4) REGISTRATION FOR PROTECTION ORDERS.—Section 2265 of title 18, United States Code, isamended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(d) NOTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION.—‘‘(1) NOTIFICATION.—A State or Indian tribe

according full faith and credit to an order by acourt of another State or Indian tribe shall notnotify or require notification of the partyagainst whom a protection order has been issuedthat the protection order has been registered orfiled in that enforcing State or tribal jurisdic-tion unless requested to do so by the party pro-tected under such order.

‘‘(2) NO PRIOR REGISTRATION OR FILING ASPREREQUISITE FOR ENFORCEMENT.—Any protec-tion order that is otherwise consistent with thissection shall be accorded full faith and credit,notwithstanding failure to comply with any re-quirement that the order be registered or filed inthe enforcing State or tribal jurisdiction.

‘‘(e) TRIBAL COURT JURISDICTION.—For pur-poses of this section, a tribal court shall havefull civil jurisdiction to enforce protection or-ders, including authority to enforce any ordersthrough civil contempt proceedings, exclusion ofviolators from Indian lands, and other appro-priate mechanisms, in matters arising within theauthority of the tribe.’’.

(c) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—The table ofcontents for title I of the Omnibus Crime Controland Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 etseq.) is amended in the item relating to part U,by adding ‘‘AND ENFORCEMENT OF PROTECTIONORDERS’’ at the end.SEC. 1102. ROLE OF COURTS.

(a) COURTS AS ELIGIBLE STOP SUB-GRANTEES.—Part T of title I of the OmnibusCrime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42U.S.C. 3796gg et seq.) is amended—

(1) in section 2001—(A) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘Indian trib-

al governments,’’ and inserting ‘‘State and localcourts (including juvenile courts), Indian tribalgovernments, tribal courts,’’; and

(B) in subsection (b)—(i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘, judges,

other court personnel,’’ after ‘‘law enforcementofficers’’;

(ii) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘, judges,other court personnel,’’ after ‘‘law enforcementofficers’’; and

(iii) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘, court,’’after ‘‘police’’; and

(2) in section 2002—(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘State and

local courts (including juvenile courts),’’ after‘‘States,’’ the second place it appears;

(B) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph(3) and inserting the following:

‘‘(3) of the amount granted—‘‘(A) not less than 25 percent shall be allo-

cated to police and not less than 25 percent shallbe allocated to prosecutors;

‘‘(B) not less than 30 percent shall be allo-cated to victim services; and

‘‘(C) not less than 5 percent shall be allocatedfor State and local courts (including juvenilecourts); and’’; and

(C) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ‘‘court,’’after ‘‘law enforcement,’’.

(b) ELIGIBLE GRANTEES; USE OF GRANTS FOREDUCATION.—Section 2101 of part U of title I ofthe Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Actof 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796hh) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘State andlocal courts (including juvenile courts), tribalcourts,’’ after ‘‘Indian tribal governments,’’;

(2) in subsection (b)—(A) by inserting ‘‘State and local courts (in-

cluding juvenile courts),’’ after ‘‘Indian tribalgovernments’’;

(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘policiesand’’ and inserting ‘‘policies, educational pro-grams, and’’;

(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘parole andprobation officers,’’ after ‘‘prosecutors,’’; and

(D) in paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘parole andprobation officers,’’ after ‘‘prosecutors,’’;

(3) in subsection (c), by inserting ‘‘State andlocal courts (including juvenile courts),’’ after‘‘Indian tribal governments’’; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(e) ALLOTMENT FOR INDIAN TRIBES.—Not less

than 5 percent of the total amount made avail-able for grants under this section for each fiscalyear shall be available for grants to Indian trib-al governments.’’.SEC. 1103. REAUTHORIZATION OF STOP GRANTS.

(a) REAUTHORIZATION.—Section 1001(a) of titleI of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe StreetsAct of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)) is amended bystriking paragraph (18) and inserting the fol-lowing:

‘‘(18) There is authorized to be appropriatedto carry out part T $185,000,000 for each of fiscalyears 2001 through 2005.’’.

(b) GRANT PURPOSES.—Part T of title I of theOmnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg et seq.) is amended—

(1) in section 2001—(A) in subsection (b)—(i) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘racial, cul-

tural, ethnic, and language minorities’’ and in-serting ‘‘underserved populations’’;

(ii) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘and’’ at theend;

(iii) in paragraph (7), by striking the period atthe end and inserting a semicolon; and

(iv) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(8) supporting formal and informal state-

wide, multidisciplinary efforts, to the extent notsupported by State funds, to coordinate the re-sponse of State law enforcement agencies, pros-ecutors, courts, victim services agencies, andother State agencies and departments, to violentcrimes against women, including the crimes ofsexual assault, domestic violence, and dating vi-olence;

‘‘(9) training of sexual assault forensic med-ical personnel examiners in the collection andpreservation of evidence, analysis, prevention,and providing expert testimony and treatment oftrauma related to sexual assault;’’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(c) STATE COALITION GRANTS.—‘‘(1) PURPOSE.—The Attorney General shall

award grants to each State domestic violence co-alition and sexual assault coalition for the pur-poses of coordinating State victim services ac-tivities, and collaborating and coordinatingwith Federal, State, and local entities engagedin violence against women activities.

‘‘(2) GRANTS TO STATE COALITIONS.—The At-torney General shall award grants to—

‘‘(A) each State domestic violence coalition, asdetermined by the Secretary of Health andHuman Services through the Family ViolencePrevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10410 etseq.); and

‘‘(B) each State sexual assault coalition, asdetermined by the Center for Injury Preventionand Control of the Centers for Disease Controland Prevention under the Public Health ServiceAct (42 U.S.C. 280b et seq.).

‘‘(3) ELIGIBILITY FOR OTHER GRANTS.—Receiptof an award under this subsection by each Statedomestic violence and sexual assault coalitionshall not preclude the coalition from receivingadditional grants under this part to carry outthe purposes described in subsection (b).’’;

(2) in section 2002(b)—


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8864 October 5, 2000(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as

paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively;(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘4 percent’’

and inserting ‘‘5 percent’’;(C) in paragraph (5), as redesignated, by

striking ‘‘$500,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$600,000’’;and

(D) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol-lowing:

‘‘(2) 2.5 percent shall be available for grantsfor State domestic violence coalitions under sec-tion 2001(c), with the coalition for each State,the coalition for the District of Columbia, thecoalition for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,and the coalition for the combined Territories ofthe United States, each receiving an amountequal to 1⁄54 of the total amount made availableunder this paragraph for each fiscal year;

‘‘(3) 2.5 percent shall be available for grantsfor State sexual assault coalitions under section2001(c), with the coalition for each State, the co-alition for the District of Columbia, the coalitionfor the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and thecoalition for the combined Territories of theUnited States, each receiving an amount equalto 1⁄54 of the total amount made available underthis paragraph for each fiscal year;

‘‘(4) 1⁄54 shall be available for the developmentand operation of nonprofit tribal domestic vio-lence and sexual assault coalitions in Indiancountry;’’;

(3) in section 2003, by striking paragraph (7)and inserting the following:

‘‘(7) the term ‘underserved populations’ in-cludes populations underserved because of geo-graphic location (such as rural isolation), un-derserved racial and ethnic populations, popu-lations underserved because of special needs(such as language barriers, disabilities, alienagestatus, or age), and any other population deter-mined to be underserved by the State planningprocess in consultation with the Attorney Gen-eral;’’ and

(4) in section 2004(b)(3), by inserting ‘‘, andthe membership of persons served in any under-served population’’ before the semicolon.SEC. 1104. REAUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS TO EN-

COURAGE ARREST POLICIES.Section 1001(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime

Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.3793(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (19)and inserting the following:

‘‘(19) There is authorized to be appropriatedto carry out part U $65,000,000 for each of fiscalyears 2001 through 2005.’’.SEC. 1105. REAUTHORIZATION OF RURAL DOMES-

TIC VIOLENCE AND CHILD ABUSEENFORCEMENT GRANTS.

Section 40295(c) of the Violence AgainstWomen Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13971(c)) is amend-ed—

(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting thefollowing:

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to beappropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(3) ALLOTMENT FOR INDIAN TRIBES.—Not less

than 5 percent of the total amount made avail-able to carry out this section for each fiscal yearshall be available for grants to Indian tribalgovernments.’’.SEC. 1106. NATIONAL STALKER AND DOMESTIC VI-

OLENCE REDUCTION.(a) REAUTHORIZATION.—Section 40603 of the

Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.14032) is amended to read as follows:‘‘SEC. 40603. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA-

TIONS.‘‘There is authorized to be appropriated to

carry out this subtitle $3,000,000 for each of fis-cal years 2001 through 2005.’’.

(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 40602(a)of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42U.S.C. 14031 note) is amended by inserting ‘‘andimplement’’ after ‘‘improve’’.SEC. 1107. AMENDMENTS TO DOMESTIC VIO-

LENCE AND STALKING OFFENSES.(a) INTERSTATE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.—Section

2261 of title 18, United States Code, is amended

by striking subsection (a) and inserting the fol-lowing:

‘‘(a) OFFENSES.—‘‘(1) TRAVEL OR CONDUCT OF OFFENDER.—A

person who travels in interstate or foreign com-merce or enters or leaves Indian country withthe intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate aspouse or intimate partner, and who, in thecourse of or as a result of such travel, commitsor attempts to commit a crime of violenceagainst that spouse or intimate partner, shall bepunished as provided in subsection (b).

‘‘(2) CAUSING TRAVEL OF VICTIM.—A personwho causes a spouse or intimate partner to trav-el in interstate or foreign commerce or to enteror leave Indian country by force, coercion, du-ress, or fraud, and who, in the course of, as aresult of, or to facilitate such conduct or travel,commits or attempts to commit a crime of vio-lence against that spouse or intimate partner,shall be punished as provided in subsection(b).’’.

(b) INTERSTATE STALKING.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 2261A of title 18,

United States Code, is amended to read as fol-lows:‘‘§ 2261A. Interstate stalking

‘‘Whoever—‘‘(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce

or within the special maritime and territorial ju-risdiction of the United States, or enters orleaves Indian country, with the intent to kill,injure, harass, or intimidate another person,and in the course of, or as a result of, such trav-el places that person in reasonable fear of thedeath of, or serious bodily injury to, that per-son, a member of the immediate family (as de-fined in section 115) of that person, or thespouse or intimate partner of that person; or

‘‘(2) with the intent—‘‘(A) to kill or injure a person in another State

or tribal jurisdiction or within the special mari-time and territorial jurisdiction of the UnitedStates; or

‘‘(B) to place a person in another State ortribal jurisdiction, or within the special mari-time and territorial jurisdiction of the UnitedStates, in reasonable fear of the death of, or se-rious bodily injury to—

‘‘(i) that person;‘‘(ii) a member of the immediate family (as de-

fined in section 115) of that person; or‘‘(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that per-

son;uses the mail or any facility of interstate or for-eign commerce to engage in a course of conductthat places that person in reasonable fear of thedeath of, or serious bodily injury to, any of thepersons described in clauses (i) through (iii);shall be punished as provided in section2261(b).’’.

(2) AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL SENTENCINGGUIDELINES.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Pursuant to its authorityunder section 994 of title 28, United States Code,the United States Sentencing Commission shallamend the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to re-flect the amendment made by this subsection.

(B) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.—In car-rying out subparagraph (A), the Commissionshall consider—

(i) whether the Federal Sentencing Guidelinesrelating to stalking offenses should be modifiedin light of the amendment made by this sub-section; and

(ii) whether any changes the Commission maymake to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines pur-suant to clause (i) should also be made with re-spect to offenses under chapter 110A of title 18,United States Code.

(c) INTERSTATE VIOLATION OF PROTECTIONORDER.—Section 2262 of title 18, United StatesCode, is amended by striking subsection (a) andinserting the following:

‘‘(a) OFFENSES.—‘‘(1) TRAVEL OR CONDUCT OF OFFENDER.—A

person who travels in interstate or foreign com-

merce, or enters or leaves Indian country, withthe intent to engage in conduct that violates theportion of a protection order that prohibits orprovides protection against violence, threats, orharassment against, contact or communicationwith, or physical proximity to, another person,or that would violate such a portion of a protec-tion order in the jurisdiction in which the orderwas issued, and subsequently engages in suchconduct, shall be punished as provided in sub-section (b).

‘‘(2) CAUSING TRAVEL OF VICTIM.—A personwho causes another person to travel in inter-state or foreign commerce or to enter or leave In-dian country by force, coercion, duress, orfraud, and in the course of, as a result of, or tofacilitate such conduct or travel engages in con-duct that violates the portion of a protectionorder that prohibits or provides protectionagainst violence, threats, or harassment against,contact or communication with, or physicalproximity to, another person, or that would vio-late such a portion of a protection order in thejurisdiction in which the order was issued, shallbe punished as provided in subsection (b).’’.

(d) DEFINITIONS.—Section 2266 of title 18,United States Code, is amended to read as fol-lows:‘‘§ 2266. Definitions

‘‘In this chapter:‘‘(1) BODILY INJURY.—The term ‘bodily injury’

means any act, except one done in self-defense,that results in physical injury or sexual abuse.

‘‘(2) COURSE OF CONDUCT.—The term ‘courseof conduct’ means a pattern of conduct com-posed of 2 or more acts, evidencing a continuityof purpose.

‘‘(3) ENTER OR LEAVE INDIAN COUNTRY.—Theterm ‘enter or leave Indian country’ includesleaving the jurisdiction of 1 tribal governmentand entering the jurisdiction of another tribalgovernment.

‘‘(4) INDIAN COUNTRY.—The term ‘Indiancountry’ has the meaning stated in section 1151of this title.

‘‘(5) PROTECTION ORDER.—The term ‘protec-tion order’ includes any injunction or otherorder issued for the purpose of preventing vio-lent or threatening acts or harassment against,or contact or communication with or physicalproximity to, another person, including anytemporary or final order issued by a civil andcriminal court (other than a support or childcustody order issued pursuant to State divorceand child custody laws, except to the extentthat such an order is entitled to full faith andcredit under other Federal law) whether ob-tained by filing an independent action or as apendente lite order in another proceeding solong as any civil order was issued in response toa complaint, petition, or motion filed by or onbehalf of a person seeking protection.

‘‘(6) SERIOUS BODILY INJURY.—The term ‘seri-ous bodily injury’ has the meaning stated in sec-tion 2119(2).

‘‘(7) SPOUSE OR INTIMATE PARTNER.—The term‘spouse or intimate partner’ includes—

‘‘(A) for purposes of—‘‘(i) sections other than 2261A, a spouse or

former spouse of the abuser, a person whoshares a child in common with the abuser, anda person who cohabits or has cohabited as aspouse with the abuser; and

‘‘(ii) section 2261A, a spouse or former spouseof the target of the stalking, a person whoshares a child in common with the target of thestalking, and a person who cohabits or hascohabited as a spouse with the target of thestalking; and

‘‘(B) any other person similarly situated to aspouse who is protected by the domestic or fam-ily violence laws of the State or tribal jurisdic-tion in which the injury occurred or where thevictim resides.

‘‘(8) STATE.—The term ‘State’ includes a Stateof the United States, the District of Columbia,and a commonwealth, territory, or possession ofthe United States.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8865October 5, 2000‘‘(9) TRAVEL IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COM-

MERCE.—The term ‘travel in interstate or foreigncommerce’ does not include travel from 1 Stateto another by an individual who is a member ofan Indian tribe and who remains at all times inthe territory of the Indian tribe of which the in-dividual is a member.’’.SEC. 1108. SCHOOL AND CAMPUS SECURITY.

(a) GRANTS TO REDUCE VIOLENT CRIMESAGAINST WOMEN ON CAMPUS.—Section 826 of theHigher Education Amendments of 1998 (20U.S.C. 1152) is amended—

(1) in paragraphs (2), (6), (7), and (9) of sub-section (b), by striking ‘‘and domestic violence’’and inserting ‘‘domestic violence, and dating vi-olence’’;

(2) in subsection (c)(2)(B), by striking ‘‘anddomestic violence’’ and inserting ‘‘, domestic vi-olence and dating violence’’;

(3) in subsection (f)—(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and

(3) as paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively;(B) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as re-

designated by subparagraph (A)) the following:‘‘(1) the term ‘dating violence’ means violence

committed by a person—‘‘(A) who is or has been in a social relation-

ship of a romantic or intimate nature with thevictim; and

‘‘(B) where the existence of such a relation-ship shall be determined based on a consider-ation of the following factors:

‘‘(i) the length of the relationship;‘‘(ii) the type of relationship; and‘‘(iii) the frequency of interaction between the

persons involved in the relationship.’’;(C) in paragraph (2) (as redesignated by sub-

paragraph (A)), by inserting ‘‘, dating’’ after‘‘domestic’’ each place the term appears; and

(D) in paragraph (4) (as redesignated by sub-paragraph (A))—

(i) by inserting ‘‘or a public, nonprofit organi-zation acting in a nongovernmental capacity’’after ‘‘organization’’;

(ii) by inserting ‘‘, dating violence’’ after ‘‘as-sists domestic violence’’;

(iii) by striking ‘‘or domestic violence’’ and in-serting ‘‘, domestic violence or dating violence’’;and

(iv) by inserting ‘‘dating violence,’’ before‘‘stalking,’’; and

(4) in subsection (g), by striking ‘‘fiscal year1999 and such sums as may be necessary foreach of the 4 succeeding fiscal years’’ and in-serting ‘‘each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005’’.

(b) MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR SCHOOLSECURITY.—Title I of the Omnibus Crime Con-trol and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended byinserting after part Z the following new part:

‘‘PART AA—MATCHING GRANT PROGRAMFOR SCHOOL SECURITY

‘‘SEC. 2701. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General is

authorized to make grants to States, units oflocal government, and Indian tribes to provideimproved security, including the placement anduse of metal detectors and other deterrent meas-ures, at schools and on school grounds.

‘‘(b) USES OF FUNDS.—Grants awarded underthis section shall be distributed directly to theState, unit of local government, or Indian tribe,and shall be used to improve security at schoolsand on school grounds in the jurisdiction of thegrantee through one or more of the following:

‘‘(1) Placement and use of metal detectors,locks, lighting, and other deterrent measures.

‘‘(2) Security assessments.‘‘(3) Security training of personnel and stu-

dents.‘‘(4) Coordination with local law enforcement.‘‘(5) Any other measure that, in the deter-

mination of the Attorney General, may providea significant improvement in security.

‘‘(c) PREFERENTIAL CONSIDERATION.—Inawarding grants under this part, the AttorneyGeneral shall give preferential consideration, iffeasible, to an application from a jurisdiction

that has a demonstrated need for improved secu-rity, has a demonstrated need for financial as-sistance, and has evidenced the ability to makethe improvements for which the grant amountsare sought.

‘‘(d) MATCHING FUNDS.—‘‘(1) The portion of the costs of a program pro-

vided by a grant under subsection (a) may notexceed 50 percent.

‘‘(2) Any funds appropriated by Congress forthe activities of any agency of an Indian tribalgovernment or the Bureau of Indian Affairs per-forming law enforcement functions on any In-dian lands may be used to provide the non-Fed-eral share of a matching requirement fundedunder this subsection.

‘‘(3) The Attorney General may provide, in theguidelines implementing this section, for the re-quirement of paragraph (1) to be waived or al-tered in the case of a recipient with a financialneed for such a waiver or alteration.

‘‘(e) EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION.—In awardinggrants under this part, the Attorney Generalshall ensure, to the extent practicable, an equi-table geographic distribution among the regionsof the United States and among urban, subur-ban, and rural areas.

‘‘(f) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—The AttorneyGeneral may reserve not more than 2 percentfrom amounts appropriated to carry out thispart for administrative costs.‘‘SEC. 2702. APPLICATIONS.

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—To request a grant underthis part, the chief executive of a State, unit oflocal government, or Indian tribe shall submitan application to the Attorney General at suchtime, in such manner, and accompanied by suchinformation as the Attorney General may re-quire. Each application shall—

‘‘(1) include a detailed explanation of—‘‘(A) the intended uses of funds provided

under the grant; and‘‘(B) how the activities funded under the

grant will meet the purpose of this part; and‘‘(2) be accompanied by an assurance that the

application was prepared after consultationwith individuals not limited to law enforcementofficers (such as school violence researchers,child psychologists, social workers, teachers,principals, and other school personnel) to en-sure that the improvements to be funded underthe grant are—

‘‘(A) consistent with a comprehensive ap-proach to preventing school violence; and

‘‘(B) individualized to the needs of eachschool at which those improvements are to bemade.

‘‘(b) GUIDELINES.—Not later than 90 daysafter the date of the enactment of this part, theAttorney General shall promulgate guidelines toimplement this section (including the informa-tion that must be included and the requirementsthat the States, units of local government, andIndian tribes must meet) in submitting the appli-cations required under this section.‘‘SEC. 2703. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.

‘‘Not later than November 30th of each year,the Attorney General shall submit a report tothe Congress regarding the activities carried outunder this part. Each such report shall include,for the preceding fiscal year, the number ofgrants funded under this part, the amount offunds provided under those grants, and the ac-tivities for which those funds were used.‘‘SEC. 2704. DEFINITIONS.

‘‘For purposes of this part—‘‘(1) the term ‘school’ means a public elemen-

tary or secondary school;‘‘(2) the term ‘unit of local government’ means

a county, municipality, town, township, village,parish, borough, or other unit of general gov-ernment below the State level; and

‘‘(3) the term ‘Indian tribe’ has the samemeaning as in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-De-termination and Education Assistance Act (25U.S.C. 450b(e)).

‘‘SEC. 2705. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA-TIONS.

‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated tocarry out this part $30,000,000 for each of fiscalyears 2001 through 2003.’’.SEC. 1109. DATING VIOLENCE.

(a) DEFINITIONS.—(1) SECTION 2003.—Section 2003 of title I of the

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of1968 (42 U.S.C. 3996gg–2) is amended—

(A) in paragraph (8), by striking the period atthe end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(9) the term ‘dating violence’ means violence





persons involved in the relationship.’’.(2) SECTION 2105.—Section 2105 of title I of the

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796hh–4) is amended—

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at theend;

(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period atthe end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(3) the term ‘dating violence’ means violence





persons involved in the relationship.’’.(b) STOP GRANTS.—Section 2001(b) of title I of

the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Actof 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg(b)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘sexual as-sault and domestic violence’’ and inserting ‘‘sex-ual assault, domestic violence, and dating vio-lence’’; and

(2) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘sexual as-sault and domestic violence’’ and inserting ‘‘sex-ual assault, domestic violence, and dating vio-lence’’.

(c) GRANTS TO ENCOURAGE ARREST POLI-CIES.—Section 2101(b) of title I of the OmnibusCrime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42U.S.C. 3796hh(b)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘and datingviolence’’ after ‘‘domestic violence’’; and

(2) in paragraph (5), by inserting ‘‘and datingviolence’’ after ‘‘domestic violence’’.

(d) RURAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CHILDABUSE ENFORCEMENT.—Section 40295(a) of theSafe Homes for Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.13971(a)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘and datingviolence (as defined in section 2003 of title I ofthe Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Actof 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3996gg–2))’’ after ‘‘domestic vi-olence’’; and

(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘and datingviolence (as defined in section 2003 of title I ofthe Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Actof 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3996gg–2))’’ after ‘‘domestic vi-olence’’.

TITLE II—STRENGTHENING SERVICES TOVICTIMS OF VIOLENCE

SEC. 1201. LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS.(a) IN GENERAL.—The purpose of this section

is to enable the Attorney General to awardgrants to increase the availability of legal assist-ance necessary to provide effective aid to victimsof domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assaultwho are seeking relief in legal matters arising as


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8866 October 5, 2000a consequence of that abuse or violence, atminimal or no cost to the victims.

(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:(1) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.—The term ‘‘domestic

violence’’ has the meaning given the term in sec-tion 2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Controland Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg–2).

(2) LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS.—The term‘‘legal assistance’’ includes assistance to victimsof domestic violence, stalking, and sexual as-sault in family, immigration, administrativeagency, or housing matters, protection or stayaway order proceedings, and other similar mat-ters. No funds made available under this sectionmay be used to provide financial assistance insupport of any litigation described in paragraph(14) of section 504 of Public Law 104–134.

(3) SEXUAL ASSAULT.—The term ‘‘sexual as-sault’’ has the meaning given the term in section2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control andSafe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg–2).

(c) LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS GRANTS.—The Attorney General may award grants underthis subsection to private nonprofit entities, In-dian tribal governments, and publicly fundedorganizations not acting in a governmental ca-pacity such as law schools, and which shall beused—

(1) to implement, expand, and establish coop-erative efforts and projects between domestic vi-olence and sexual assault victim services organi-zations and legal assistance providers to providelegal assistance for victims of domestic violence,stalking, and sexual assault;

(2) to implement, expand, and establish effortsand projects to provide legal assistance for vic-tims of domestic violence, stalking, and sexualassault by organizations with a demonstratedhistory of providing direct legal or advocacyservices on behalf of these victims; and

(3) to provide training, technical assistance,and data collection to improve the capacity ofgrantees and other entities to offer legal assist-ance to victims of domestic violence, stalking,and sexual assault.

(d) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible for a grantunder subsection (c), applicants shall certify inwriting that—

(1) any person providing legal assistancethrough a program funded under subsection (c)has completed or will complete training in con-nection with domestic violence or sexual assaultand related legal issues;

(2) any training program conducted in satis-faction of the requirement of paragraph (1) hasbeen or will be developed with input from and incollaboration with a State, local, or tribal do-mestic violence or sexual assault program or co-alition, as well as appropriate State and locallaw enforcement officials;

(3) any person or organization providing legalassistance through a program funded undersubsection (c) has informed and will continue toinform State, local, or tribal domestic violence orsexual assault programs and coalitions, as wellas appropriate State and local law enforcementofficials of their work; and

(4) the grantee’s organizational policies do notrequire mediation or counseling involving of-fenders and victims physically together, in caseswhere sexual assault, domestic violence, or childsexual abuse is an issue.

(e) EVALUATION.—The Attorney General mayevaluate the grants funded under this sectionthrough contracts or other arrangements withentities expert on domestic violence, stalking,and sexual assault, and on evaluation research.

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be ap-

propriated to carry out this section $40,000,000for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

(2) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—(A) TRIBAL PROGRAMS.—Of the amount made

available under this subsection in each fiscalyear, not less than 5 percent shall be used forgrants for programs that assist victims of domes-tic violence, stalking, and sexual assault onlands within the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe.

(B) VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT.—Of theamount made available under this subsection ineach fiscal year, not less than 25 percent shallbe used for direct services, training, and tech-nical assistance to support projects focused sole-ly or primarily on providing legal assistance tovictims of sexual assault.

(3) NONSUPPLANTATION.—Amounts madeavailable under this section shall be used tosupplement and not supplant other Federal,State, and local funds expended to further thepurpose of this section.SEC. 1202. SHELTER SERVICES FOR BATTERED

WOMEN AND CHILDREN.(a) REAUTHORIZATION.—Section 310(a) of the

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42U.S.C. 10409(a)) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to beappropriated to carry out this title $175,000,000for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.’’.

(b) STATE MINIMUM; REALLOTMENT.—Section304 of the Family Violence Prevention and Serv-ices Act (42 U.S.C. 10403) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘for grants toStates for any fiscal year’’ and all that followsand inserting the following: ‘‘and available forgrants to States under this subsection for anyfiscal year—

‘‘(1) Guam, American Samoa, the UnitedStates Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth ofthe Northern Mariana Islands shall each be al-lotted not less than 1⁄8 of 1 percent of theamounts available for grants under section303(a) for the fiscal year for which the allotmentis made; and

‘‘(2) each State shall be allotted for paymentin a grant authorized under section 303(a),$600,000, with the remaining funds to be allottedto each State in an amount that bears the sameratio to such remaining funds as the populationof such State bears to the population of allStates.’’;

(2) in subsection (c), in the first sentence, byinserting ‘‘and available’’ before ‘‘for grants’’;and

(3) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(e) In subsection (a)(2), the term ‘‘State’’

does not include any jurisdiction specified insubsection (a)(1).’’.SEC. 1203. TRANSITIONAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIO-LENCE.

Title III of the Family Violence Preventionand Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10401 et seq.) isamended by adding at the end the following:‘‘SEC. 319. TRANSITIONAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE.

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall awardgrants under this section to carry out programsto provide assistance to individuals, and theirdependents—

‘‘(1) who are homeless or in need of transi-tional housing or other housing assistance, as aresult of fleeing a situation of domestic violence;and

‘‘(2) for whom emergency shelter services areunavailable or insufficient.

‘‘(b) ASSISTANCE DESCRIBED.—Assistance pro-vided under this section may include—

‘‘(1) short-term housing assistance, includingrental or utilities payments assistance and as-sistance with related expenses, such as paymentof security deposits and other costs incidental torelocation to transitional housing, in cases inwhich assistance described in this paragraph isnecessary to prevent homelessness because anindividual or dependent is fleeing a situation ofdomestic violence; and

‘‘(2) support services designed to enable an in-dividual or dependent who is fleeing a situationof domestic violence to locate and secure perma-nent housing, and to integrate the individual ordependent into a community, such as transpor-tation, counseling, child care services, case man-agement, employment counseling, and other as-sistance.

‘‘(c) TERM OF ASSISTANCE.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2),

an individual or dependent assisted under this

section may not receive assistance under thissection for a total of more than 12 months.

‘‘(2) WAIVER.—The recipient of a grant underthis section may waive the restrictions of para-graph (1) for up to an additional 6-month periodwith respect to any individual (and dependentsof the individual) who has made a good-faith ef-fort to acquire permanent housing and has beenunable to acquire the housing.

‘‘(d) REPORTS.—‘‘(1) REPORT TO SECRETARY.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—An entity that receives a

grant under this section shall annually prepareand submit to the Secretary a report describingthe number of individuals and dependents as-sisted, and the types of housing assistance andsupport services provided, under this section.

‘‘(B) CONTENTS.—Each report shall include in-formation on—

‘‘(i) the purpose and amount of housing as-sistance provided to each individual or depend-ent assisted under this section;

‘‘(ii) the number of months each individual ordependent received the assistance;

‘‘(iii) the number of individuals and depend-ents who were eligible to receive the assistance,and to whom the entity could not provide theassistance solely due to a lack of available hous-ing; and

‘‘(iv) the type of support services provided toeach individual or dependent assisted under thissection.

‘‘(2) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Secretaryshall annually prepare and submit to the Com-mittee on the Judiciary of the House of Rep-resentatives and the Committee on the Judiciaryof the Senate a report that contains a compila-tion of the information contained in reports sub-mitted under paragraph (1).

‘‘(e) EVALUATION, MONITORING, AND ADMINIS-TRATION.—Of the amount appropriated undersubsection (f) for each fiscal year, not morethan 1 percent shall be used by the Secretary forevaluation, monitoring, and administrative costsunder this section.

‘‘(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.’’.SEC. 1204. NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOT-

LINE.Section 316(f) of the Family Violence Preven-

tion and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10416(f)) isamended by striking paragraph (1) and insert-ing the following:

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to beappropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.’’.SEC. 1205. FEDERAL VICTIMS COUNSELORS.

Section 40114 of the Violent Crime Control andLaw Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–322; 108 Stat. 1910) is amended by striking‘‘(such as District of Columbia)—’’ and all thatfollows and inserting ‘‘(such as District of Co-lumbia), $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001through 2005.’’.SEC. 1206. STUDY OF STATE LAWS REGARDING IN-

SURANCE DISCRIMINATION AGAINSTVICTIMS OF VIOLENCE AGAINSTWOMEN.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shallconduct a national study to identify State lawsthat address discrimination against victims ofdomestic violence and sexual assault related toissuance or administration of insurance policies.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after thedate of enactment of this Act, the Attorney Gen-eral shall submit to Congress a report on thefindings and recommendations of the study re-quired by subsection (a).SEC. 1207. STUDY OF WORKPLACE EFFECTS FROM

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.The Attorney General shall—(1) conduct a national survey of plans, pro-

grams, and practices developed to assist employ-ers and employees on appropriate responses inthe workplace related to victims of domestic vio-lence, stalking, or sexual assault; and


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8867October 5, 2000(2) not later than 18 months after the date of

enactment of this Act, submit to Congress a re-port describing the results of that survey, whichreport shall include the recommendations of theAttorney General to assist employers and em-ployees affected in the workplace by incidents ofdomestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault.SEC. 1208. STUDY OF UNEMPLOYMENT COM-

PENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF VIO-LENCE AGAINST WOMEN.

The Secretary of Labor, in consultation withthe Attorney General, shall—

(1) conduct a national study to identify Statelaws that address the separation from employ-ment of an employee due to circumstances di-rectly resulting from the experience of domesticviolence by the employee and circumstances gov-erning that receipt (or nonreceipt) by the em-ployee of unemployment compensation based onsuch separation; and

(2) not later than 1 year after the date of en-actment of this Act, submit to Congress a reportdescribing the results of that study, togetherwith any recommendations based on that study.SEC. 1209. ENHANCING PROTECTIONS FOR OLDER

AND DISABLED WOMEN FROM DO-MESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL AS-SAULT.

(a) ELDER ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND EXPLOI-TATION.—The Violence Against Women Act of1994 (108 Stat. 1902 et seq.) is amended by add-ing at the end the following:‘‘Subtitle H—Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Ex-

ploitation, Including Domestic Violence andSexual Assault Against Older or DisabledIndividuals

‘‘SEC. 40801. DEFINITIONS.‘‘In this subtitle:‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The terms ‘elder abuse, ne-

glect, and exploitation’, and ‘older individual’have the meanings given the terms in section 102of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.3002).

‘‘(2) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.—The term ‘domesticviolence’ has the meaning given such term bysection 2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Con-trol and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.3796gg–2).

‘‘(3) SEXUAL ASSAULT.—The term ‘sexual as-sault’ has the meaning given the term in section2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control andSafe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg–2).‘‘SEC. 40802. TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR LAW EN-

FORCEMENT OFFICERS.‘‘The Attorney General may make grants for

training programs to assist law enforcement offi-cers, prosecutors, and relevant officers of Fed-eral, State, tribal, and local courts in recog-nizing, addressing, investigating, and pros-ecuting instances of elder abuse, neglect, andexploitation and violence against individualswith disabilities, including domestic violenceand sexual assault, against older or disabled in-dividuals.‘‘SEC. 40803. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA-

TIONS.‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to

carry out this subtitle $5,000,000 for each of fis-cal years 2001 through 2005.’’.

(b) PROTECTIONS FOR OLDER AND DISABLEDINDIVIDUALS FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ANDSEXUAL ASSAULT IN PRO-ARREST GRANTS.—Sec-tion 2101(b) of part U of title I of the OmnibusCrime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42U.S.C. 3796hh et seq.) is amended by adding atthe end the following:

‘‘(8) To develop or strengthen policies andtraining for police, prosecutors, and the judici-ary in recognizing, investigating, and pros-ecuting instances of domestic violence and sex-ual assault against older individuals (as definedin section 102 of the Older Americans Act of 1965(42 U.S.C. 3002)) and individuals with disabil-ities (as defined in section 3(2) of the Americanswith Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.12102(2))).’’.

(c) PROTECTIONS FOR OLDER AND DISABLEDINDIVIDUALS FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN STOP GRANTS.—Section2001(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Controland Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.3796gg(b)) (as amended by section 1103(b) of thisdivision) is amended by adding at the end thefollowing:

‘‘(10) developing, enlarging, or strengtheningprograms to assist law enforcement, prosecutors,courts, and others to address the needs and cir-cumstances of older and disabled women whoare victims of domestic violence or sexual as-sault, including recognizing, investigating, andprosecuting instances of such violence or assaultand targeting outreach and support, counseling,and other victim services to such older and dis-abled individuals; and’’.

TITLE III—LIMITING THE EFFECTS OFVIOLENCE ON CHILDREN

SEC. 1301. SAFE HAVENS FOR CHILDREN PILOTPROGRAM.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General mayaward grants to States, units of local govern-ment, and Indian tribal governments that pro-pose to enter into or expand the scope of exist-ing contracts and cooperative agreements withpublic or private nonprofit entities to providesupervised visitation and safe visitation ex-change of children by and between parents insituations involving domestic violence, childabuse, sexual assault, or stalking.

(b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In awarding grantsunder subsection (a), the Attorney General shalltake into account—

(1) the number of families to be served by theproposed visitation programs and services;

(2) the extent to which the proposed super-vised visitation programs and services serve un-derserved populations (as defined in section 2003of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and SafeStreets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg–2));

(3) with respect to an applicant for a contractor cooperative agreement, the extent to whichthe applicant demonstrates cooperation and col-laboration with nonprofit, nongovernmental en-tities in the local community served, includingthe State or tribal domestic violence coalition,State or tribal sexual assault coalition, localshelters, and programs for domestic violence andsexual assault victims; and

(4) the extent to which the applicant dem-onstrates coordination and collaboration withState and local court systems, including mecha-nisms for communication and referral.

(c) APPLICANT REQUIREMENTS.—The AttorneyGeneral shall award grants for contracts andcooperative agreements to applicants that—

(1) demonstrate expertise in the area of familyviolence, including the areas of domestic vio-lence or sexual assault, as appropriate;

(2) ensure that any fees charged to individ-uals for use of programs and services are basedon the income of those individuals, unless other-wise provided by court order;

(3) demonstrate that adequate security meas-ures, including adequate facilities, procedures,and personnel capable of preventing violence,are in place for the operation of supervised visi-tation programs and services or safe visitationexchange; and

(4) prescribe standards by which the super-vised visitation or safe visitation exchange willoccur.

(d) REPORTING.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after

the last day of the first fiscal year commencingon or after the date of enactment of this Act,and not later than 180 days after the last day ofeach fiscal year thereafter, the Attorney Gen-eral shall submit to Congress a report that in-cludes information concerning—

(A) the number of—(i) individuals served and the number of indi-

viduals turned away from visitation programsand services and safe visitation exchange (cat-egorized by State);

(ii) the number of individuals from under-served populations served and turned awayfrom services; and

(iii) the type of problems that underlie theneed for supervised visitation or safe visitationexchange, such as domestic violence, childabuse, sexual assault, other physical abuse, or acombination of such factors;

(B) the numbers of supervised visitations orsafe visitation exchanges ordered under this sec-tion during custody determinations under a sep-aration or divorce decree or protection order,through child protection services or other socialservices agencies, or by any other order of acivil, criminal, juvenile, or family court;

(C) the process by which children or abusedpartners are protected during visitations, tem-porary custody transfers, and other activitiesfor which supervised visitation is establishedunder this section;

(D) safety and security problems occurringduring the reporting period during supervisedvisitation under this section, including the num-ber of parental abduction cases; and

(E) the number of parental abduction cases ina judicial district using supervised visitationprograms and services under this section, bothas identified in criminal prosecution and cus-tody violations.

(2) GUIDELINES.—The Attorney General shallestablish guidelines for the collection and re-porting of data under this subsection.

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $15,000,000 for each of fiscalyears 2001 and 2002.

(f) ALLOTMENT FOR INDIAN TRIBES.—Not lessthan 5 percent of the total amount made avail-able for each fiscal year to carry out this sectionshall be available for grants to Indian tribalgovernments.

SEC. 1302. REAUTHORIZATION OF VICTIMS OFCHILD ABUSE PROGRAMS.

(a) COURT-APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATEPROGRAM.—Section 218 of the Victims of ChildAbuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13014) is amendedby striking subsection (a) and inserting the fol-lowing:

‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—There is authorized tobe appropriated to carry out this subtitle$12,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through2005.’’.

(b) CHILD ABUSE TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR JU-DICIAL PERSONNEL AND PRACTITIONERS.—Section224 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42U.S.C. 13024) is amended by striking subsection(a) and inserting the following:

‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—There is authorized tobe appropriated to carry out this subtitle$2,300,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through2005.’’.

(c) GRANTS FOR TELEVISED TESTIMONY.—Sec-tion 1001(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Con-trol and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.3793(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (7)and inserting the following:

‘‘(7) There is authorized to be appropriated tocarry out part N $1,000,000 for each of fiscalyears 2001 through 2005.’’.

(d) DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.—The At-torney General shall—

(1) annually compile and disseminate informa-tion (including through electronic publication)about the use of amounts expended and theprojects funded under section 218(a) of the Vic-tims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.13014(a)), section 224(a) of the Victims of ChildAbuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13024(a)), and sec-tion 1007(a)(7) of title I of the Omnibus CrimeControl and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.3793(a)(7)), including any evaluations of theprojects and information to enable replicationand adoption of the strategies identified in theprojects; and

(2) focus dissemination of the information de-scribed in paragraph (1) toward community-based programs, including domestic violence andsexual assault programs.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8868 October 5, 2000SEC. 1303. REPORT ON EFFECTS OF PARENTAL

KIDNAPPING LAWS IN DOMESTIC VI-OLENCE CASES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney Generalshall—

(1) conduct a study of Federal and State lawsrelating to child custody, including custody pro-visions in protection orders, the Uniform ChildCustody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Actadopted by the National Conference of Commis-sioners on Uniform State Laws in July 1997, theParental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980 andthe amendments made by that Act, and the ef-fect of those laws on child custody cases inwhich domestic violence is a factor; and

(2) submit to Congress a report describing theresults of that study, including the effects of im-plementing or applying model State laws, andthe recommendations of the Attorney General toreduce the incidence or pattern of violenceagainst women or of sexual assault of the child.

(b) SUFFICIENCY OF DEFENSES.—In carryingout subsection (a) with respect to the ParentalKidnaping Prevention Act of 1980 and theamendments made by that Act, the AttorneyGeneral shall examine the sufficiency of de-fenses to parental abduction charges availablein cases involving domestic violence, and theburdens and risks encountered by victims of do-mestic violence arising from jurisdictional re-quirements of that Act and the amendmentsmade by that Act.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $200,000 for fiscal year 2001.

(d) CONDITION FOR CUSTODY DETERMINA-TION.—Section 1738A(c)(2)(C)(ii) of title 28,United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘he’’and inserting ‘‘the child, a sibling, or parent ofthe child’’.

TITLE IV—STRENGTHENING EDUCATIONAND TRAINING TO COMBAT VIOLENCEAGAINST WOMEN

SEC. 1401. RAPE PREVENTION AND EDUCATION.(a) IN GENERAL.—Part J of title III of the Pub-

lic Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280b et seq.) isamended by inserting after section 393A the fol-lowing:‘‘SEC. 393B. USE OF ALLOTMENTS FOR RAPE PRE-

VENTION EDUCATION.‘‘(a) PERMITTED USE.—The Secretary, acting

through the National Center for Injury Preven-tion and Control at the Centers for Disease Con-trol and Prevention, shall award targeted grantsto States to be used for rape prevention andeducation programs conducted by rape crisiscenters, State sexual assault coalitions, andother public and private nonprofit entities for—

‘‘(1) educational seminars;‘‘(2) the operation of hotlines;‘‘(3) training programs for professionals;‘‘(4) the preparation of informational mate-

rial;‘‘(5) education and training programs for stu-

dents and campus personnel designed to reducethe incidence of sexual assault at colleges anduniversities;

‘‘(6) education to increase awareness aboutdrugs used to facilitate rapes or sexual assaults;and

‘‘(7) other efforts to increase awareness of thefacts about, or to help prevent, sexual assault,including efforts to increase awareness in un-derserved communities and awareness among in-dividuals with disabilities (as defined in section3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(42 U.S.C. 12102)).

‘‘(b) COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION OF IN-FORMATION ON SEXUAL ASSAULT.—The Secretaryshall, through the National Resource Center onSexual Assault established under the NationalCenter for Injury Prevention and Control at theCenters for Disease Control and Prevention,provide resource information, policy, training,and technical assistance to Federal, State, local,and Indian tribal agencies, as well as to Statesexual assault coalitions and local sexual as-

sault programs and to other professionals andinterested parties on issues relating to sexual as-sault, including maintenance of a central re-source library in order to collect, prepare, ana-lyze, and disseminate information and statisticsand analyses thereof relating to the incidenceand prevention of sexual assault.

‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be

appropriated to carry out this section $80,000,000for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

‘‘(2) NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER ALLOT-MENT.—Of the total amount made availableunder this subsection in each fiscal year, notmore than the greater of $1,000,000 or 2 percentof such amount shall be available for allotmentunder subsection (b).

‘‘(d) LIMITATIONS.—‘‘(1) SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.—Amounts

provided to States under this section shall beused to supplement and not supplant other Fed-eral, State, and local public funds expended toprovide services of the type described in sub-section (a).

‘‘(2) STUDIES.—A State may not use more than2 percent of the amount received by the Stateunder this section for each fiscal year for sur-veillance studies or prevalence studies.

‘‘(3) ADMINISTRATION.—A State may not usemore than 5 percent of the amount received bythe State under this section for each fiscal yearfor administrative expenses.’’.

(b) REPEAL.—Section 40151 of the ViolenceAgainst Women Act of 1994 (108 Stat. 1920), andthe amendment made by such section, is re-pealed.SEC. 1402. EDUCATION AND TRAINING TO END VI-

OLENCE AGAINST AND ABUSE OFWOMEN WITH DISABILITIES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General, inconsultation with the Secretary of Health andHuman Services, may award grants to States,units of local government, Indian tribal govern-ments, and nongovernmental private entities toprovide education and technical assistance forthe purpose of providing training, consultation,and information on domestic violence, stalking,and sexual assault against women who are indi-viduals with disabilities (as defined in section 3of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42U.S.C. 12102)).

(b) PRIORITIES.—In awarding grants underthis section, the Attorney General shall give pri-ority to applications designed to provide edu-cation and technical assistance on—

(1) the nature, definition, and characteristicsof domestic violence, stalking, and sexual as-sault experienced by women who are individualswith disabilities;

(2) outreach activities to ensure that womenwho are individuals with disabilities who arevictims of domestic violence, stalking, and sex-ual assault receive appropriate assistance;

(3) the requirements of shelters and victimservices organizations under Federal anti-dis-crimination laws, including the Americans withDisabilities Act of 1990 and section 504 of theRehabilitation Act of 1973; and

(4) cost-effective ways that shelters and victimservices may accommodate the needs of individ-uals with disabilities in accordance with theAmericans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

(c) USES OF GRANTS.—Each recipient of agrant under this section shall provide informa-tion and training to organizations and programsthat provide services to individuals with disabil-ities, including independent living centers, dis-ability-related service organizations, and domes-tic violence programs providing shelter or re-lated assistance.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $7,500,000 for each of fiscalyears 2001 through 2005.SEC. 1403. COMMUNITY INITIATIVES.

Section 318 of the Family Violence Preventionand Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10418) is amended by

striking subsection (h) and inserting the fol-lowing:

‘‘(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $6,000,000 for each of fiscalyears 2001 through 2005.’’.SEC. 1404. DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH AGENDA

IDENTIFIED BY THE VIOLENCEAGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 1994.


(1) direct the National Institute of Justice, inconsultation and coordination with the Bureauof Justice Statistics and the National Academyof Sciences, through its National ResearchCouncil, to develop a research agenda based onthe recommendations contained in the report en-titled ‘‘Understanding Violence AgainstWomen’’ of the National Academy of Sciences;and

(2) not later than 1 year after the date of en-actment of this Act, in consultation with theSecretary of the Department of Health andHuman Services, submit to Congress a reportwhich shall include—

(A) a description of the research agenda de-veloped under paragraph (1) and a plan to im-plement that agenda;

(B) recommendations for priorities in carryingout that agenda to most effectively advanceknowledge about and means by which to pre-vent or reduce violence against women.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated suchsums as may be necessary to carry out this sec-tion.SEC. 1405. STANDARDS, PRACTICE, AND TRAINING

FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT FORENSIC EX-AMINATIONS.


(1) evaluate existing standards of training andpractice for licensed health care professionalsperforming sexual assault forensic examinationsand develop a national recommended standardfor training;

(2) recommend sexual assault forensic exam-ination training for all health care students toimprove the recognition of injuries suggestive ofrape and sexual assault and baseline knowledgeof appropriate referrals in victim treatment andevidence collection; and

(3) review existing national, State, tribal, andlocal protocols on sexual assault forensic exami-nations, and based on this review, develop arecommended national protocol and establish amechanism for its nationwide dissemination.

(b) CONSULTATION.—The Attorney Generalshall consult with national, State, tribal, andlocal experts in the area of rape and sexual as-sault, including rape crisis centers, State andtribal sexual assault and domestic violence coa-litions and programs, and programs for criminaljustice, forensic nursing, forensic science, emer-gency room medicine, law, social services, andsex crimes in underserved communities (as de-fined in section 2003(7) of title I of the OmnibusCrime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42U.S.C. 3796gg–2(7)), as amended by this divi-sion).

(c) REPORT.—The Attorney General shall en-sure that not later than 1 year after the date ofenactment of this Act, a report of the actionstaken pursuant to subsection (a) is submitted toCongress.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $200,000 for fiscal year 2001.SEC. 1406. EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR

JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL.(a) GRANTS FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR

JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL IN STATECOURTS.—

(1) SECTION 40412.—Section 40412 of the EqualJustice for Women in the Courts Act of 1994 (42U.S.C. 13992) is amended—

(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph(18);


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8869October 5, 2000(B) by striking the period at the end of para-

graph (19) and inserting a semicolon; and(C) by inserting after paragraph (19) the fol-

lowing:‘‘(20) the issues raised by domestic violence in

determining custody and visitation, includinghow to protect the safety of the child and of aparent who is not a predominant aggressor ofdomestic violence, the legitimate reasons parentsmay report domestic violence, the ways domesticviolence may relate to an abuser’s desire to seekcustody, and evaluating expert testimony incustody and visitation determinations involvingdomestic violence;

‘‘(21) the issues raised by child sexual assaultin determining custody and visitation, includinghow to protect the safety of the child, the legiti-mate reasons parents may report child sexualassault, and evaluating expert testimony in cus-tody and visitation determinations involvingchild sexual assault, including the current sci-entifically-accepted and empirically valid re-search on child sexual assault;

‘‘(22) the extent to which addressing domesticviolence and victim safety contributes to the ef-ficient administration of justice;’’.

(2) SECTION 40414.—Section 40414(a) of theEqual Justice for Women in the Courts Act of1994 (42 U.S.C. 13994(a)) is amended by inserting‘‘and $1,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2001through 2005’’ after ‘‘1996’’.

(b) GRANTS FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING FORJUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL IN FEDERALCOURTS.—

(1) SECTION 40421.—Section 40421(d) of theEqual Justice for Women in the Courts Act of1994 (42 U.S.C. 14001(d)) is amended to read asfollows:

‘‘(d) CONTINUING EDUCATION AND TRAININGPROGRAMS.—The Federal Judicial Center, incarrying out section 620(b)(3) of title 28, UnitedStates Code, shall include in the educationalprograms it prepares, including the trainingprograms for newly appointed judges, informa-tion on the aspects of the topics listed in section40412 that pertain to issues within the jurisdic-tion of the Federal courts, and shall preparematerials necessary to implement this sub-section.’’.

(2) SECTION 40422.—Section 40422(2) of theEqual Justice for Women in the Courts Act of1994 (42 U.S.C. 14002(2)) is amended by inserting‘‘and $500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2001through 2005’’ after ‘‘1996’’.

(c) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EQUALJUSTICE FOR WOMEN IN THE COURTS ACT OF1994.—

(1) ENSURING COLLABORATION WITH DOMESTICVIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT PROGRAMS.—Sec-tion 40413 of the Equal Justice for Women in theCourts Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13993) is amendedby adding ‘‘, including national, State, tribal,and local domestic violence and sexual assaultprograms and coalitions’’ after ‘‘victim advo-cates’’.

(2) PARTICIPATION OF TRIBAL COURTS IN STATETRAINING AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS.—Section40411 of the Equal Justice for Women in theCourts Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13991) is amendedby adding at the end the following: ‘‘Nothingshall preclude the attendance of tribal judgesand court personnel at programs funded underthis section for States to train judges and courtpersonnel on the laws of the States.’’.

(3) USE OF FUNDS FOR DISSEMINATION OFMODEL PROGRAMS.—Section 40414 of the EqualJustice for Women in the Courts Act of 1994 (42U.S.C. 13994) is amended by adding at the endthe following:

‘‘(c) STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE.—The StateJustice Institute may use up to 5 percent of thefunds appropriated under this section for annu-ally compiling and broadly disseminating (in-cluding through electronic publication) informa-tion about the use of funds and about theprojects funded under this section, includingany evaluations of the projects and informationto enable the replication and adoption of theprojects.’’.

(d) DATING VIOLENCE.—(1) SECTION 40411.—Section 40411 of the Equal

Justice for Women in Courts Act of 1994 (42U.S.C 13991) is amended by inserting ‘‘dating vi-olence,’’ after ‘‘domestic violence,’’.

(2) SECTION 40412.—Section 40412 of such Act(42 U.S.C 13992) is amended—

(A) in paragraph (10), by inserting ‘‘and dat-ing violence (as defined in section 2003 of title Iof the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe StreetsAct of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3996gg–2))’’ before thesemicolon;

(B) in paragraph (11), by inserting ‘‘and dat-ing violence’’ after ‘‘domestic violence’’;

(C) in paragraph (13), by inserting ‘‘and dat-ing violence’’ after ‘‘domestic violence’’ in bothplaces that it appears;

(D) in paragraph (17), by inserting ‘‘or datingviolence’’ after ‘‘domestic violence’’ in bothplaces that it appears; and

(E) in paragraph (18), by inserting ‘‘and dat-ing violence’’ after ‘‘domestic violence’’.SEC. 1407. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TASK FORCE

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (108Stat. 1902 et seq.) (as amended by section 1209(a)of this division) is amended by adding at theend the following:

‘‘Subtitle I—Domestic Violence Task Force‘‘SEC. 40901. TASK FORCE.

‘‘(a) ESTABLISH.—The Attorney General, inconsultation with national nonprofit, non-governmental organizations whose primary ex-pertise is in domestic violence, shall establish atask force to coordinate research on domestic vi-olence and to report to Congress on any overlap-ping or duplication of efforts on domestic vio-lence issues. The task force shall be comprised ofrepresentatives from all Federal agencies thatfund such research.

‘‘(b) USES OF FUNDS.—Funds appropriatedunder this section shall be used to—

‘‘(1) develop a coordinated strategy tostrengthen research focused on domestic vio-lence education, prevention, and interventionstrategies;

‘‘(2) track and report all Federal research andexpenditures on domestic violence; and

‘‘(3) identify gaps and duplication of efforts indomestic violence research and governmental ex-penditures on domestic violence issues.

‘‘(c) REPORT.—The Task Force shall report toCongress annually on its work under subsection(b).

‘‘(d) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this sec-tion, the term ‘domestic violence’ has the mean-ing given such term by section 2003 of title I ofthe Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Actof 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg–2(1)).

‘‘(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $500,000 for each of fiscal years2001 through 2004.’’.TITLE V—BATTERED IMMIGRANT WOMEN

SEC. 1501. SHORT TITLE.This title may be cited as the ‘‘Battered Immi-

grant Women Protection Act of 2000’’.SEC. 1502. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—(1) the goal of the immigration protections for

battered immigrants included in the ViolenceAgainst Women Act of 1994 was to remove immi-gration laws as a barrier that kept battered im-migrant women and children locked in abusiverelationships;

(2) providing battered immigrant women andchildren who were experiencing domestic vio-lence at home with protection against deporta-tion allows them to obtain protection ordersagainst their abusers and frees them to cooper-ate with law enforcement and prosecutors incriminal cases brought against their abusers andthe abusers of their children without fearingthat the abuser will retaliate by withdrawing orthreatening withdrawal of access to an immigra-tion benefit under the abuser’s control; and

(3) there are several groups of battered immi-grant women and children who do not have ac-

cess to the immigration protections of the Vio-lence Against Women Act of 1994 which meansthat their abusers are virtually immune fromprosecution because their victims can be de-ported as a result of action by their abusers andthe Immigration and Naturalization Servicecannot offer them protection no matter howcompelling their case under existing law.

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this titleare—

(1) to remove barriers to criminal prosecutionsof persons who commit acts of battery or extremecruelty against immigrant women and children;and

(2) to offer protection against domestic vio-lence occurring in family and intimate relation-ships that are covered in State and tribal protec-tion orders, domestic violence, and family lawstatutes.SEC. 1503. IMPROVED ACCESS TO IMMIGRATION

PROTECTIONS OF THE VIOLENCEAGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 1994 FORBATTERED IMMIGRANT WOMEN.

(a) INTENDED SPOUSE DEFINED.—Section101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended by adding at the endthe following:

‘‘(50) The term ‘intended spouse’ means anyalien who meets the criteria set forth in section204(a)(1)(A)(iii)(II)(aa)(BB),204(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II)(aa)(BB), or240A(b)(2)(A)(i)(III).’’.

(b) IMMEDIATE RELATIVE STATUS FOR SELF-PETITIONERS MARRIED TO U.S. CITIZENS.—

(1) SELF-PETITIONING SPOUSES.—(A) BATTERY OR CRUELTY TO ALIEN OR ALIEN’S

CHILD.—Section 204(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Immigra-tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1154(a)(1)(A)(iii)) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(iii)(I) An alien who is described in subclause(II) may file a petition with the Attorney Gen-eral under this clause for classification of thealien (and any child of the alien) if the aliendemonstrates to the Attorney General that—

‘‘(aa) the marriage or the intent to marry theUnited States citizen was entered into in goodfaith by the alien; and

‘‘(bb) during the marriage or relationship in-tended by the alien to be legally a marriage, thealien or a child of the alien has been battered orhas been the subject of extreme cruelty per-petrated by the alien’s spouse or intendedspouse.

‘‘(II) For purposes of subclause (I), an aliendescribed in this subclause is an alien—

‘‘(aa)(AA) who is the spouse of a citizen of theUnited States;

‘‘(BB) who believed that he or she had mar-ried a citizen of the United States and withwhom a marriage ceremony was actually per-formed and who otherwise meets any applicablerequirements under this Act to establish the ex-istence of and bona fides of a marriage, butwhose marriage is not legitimate solely becauseof the bigamy of such citizen of the UnitedStates; or

‘‘(CC) who was a bona fide spouse of a UnitedStates citizen within the past 2 years and—

‘‘(aaa) whose spouse died within the past 2years;

‘‘(bbb) whose spouse lost or renounced citizen-ship status within the past 2 years related to anincident of domestic violence; or

‘‘(ccc) who demonstrates a connection be-tween the legal termination of the marriagewithin the past 2 years and battering or extremecruelty by the United States citizen spouse;

‘‘(bb) who is a person of good moral character;‘‘(cc) who is eligible to be classified as an im-

mediate relative under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) orwho would have been so classified but for thebigamy of the citizen of the United States thatthe alien intended to marry; and

‘‘(dd) who has resided with the alien’s spouseor intended spouse.’’.

(2) SELF-PETITIONING CHILDREN.—Section204(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the Immigration and Nation-ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(iv)) is amendedto read as follows:


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8870 October 5, 2000‘‘(iv) An alien who is the child of a citizen of

the United States, or who was a child of aUnited States citizen parent who within thepast 2 years lost or renounced citizenship statusrelated to an incident of domestic violence, andwho is a person of good moral character, who iseligible to be classified as an immediate relativeunder section 201(b)(2)(A)(i), and who resides,or has resided in the past, with the citizen par-ent may file a petition with the Attorney Gen-eral under this subparagraph for classificationof the alien (and any child of the alien) undersuch section if the alien demonstrates to the At-torney General that the alien has been batteredby or has been the subject of extreme crueltyperpetrated by the alien’s citizen parent. Forpurposes of this clause, residence includes anyperiod of visitation.’’.

(3) FILING OF PETITIONS.—Section 204(a)(1)(A)of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)) is amended by adding atthe end the following:

‘‘(v) An alien who—‘‘(I) is the spouse, intended spouse, or child

living abroad of a citizen who—‘‘(aa) is an employee of the United States Gov-

ernment;‘‘(bb) is a member of the uniformed services

(as defined in section 101(a) of title 10, UnitedStates Code); or

‘‘(cc) has subjected the alien or the alien’schild to battery or extreme cruelty in the UnitedStates; and

‘‘(II) is eligible to file a petition under clause(iii) or (iv);shall file such petition with the Attorney Gen-eral under the procedures that apply to self-pe-titioners under clause (iii) or (iv), as applica-ble.’’.

(c) SECOND PREFERENCE IMMIGRATION STATUSFOR SELF-PETITIONERS MARRIED TO LAWFULPERMANENT RESIDENTS.—

(1) SELF-PETITIONING SPOUSES.—Section204(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Immigration and Nation-ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(B)(ii)) is amendedto read as follows:

‘‘(ii)(I) An alien who is described in subclause(II) may file a petition with the Attorney Gen-eral under this clause for classification of thealien (and any child of the alien) if such a childhas not been classified under clause (iii) of sec-tion 203(a)(2)(A) and if the alien demonstratesto the Attorney General that—

‘‘(aa) the marriage or the intent to marry thelawful permanent resident was entered into ingood faith by the alien; and

‘‘(bb) during the marriage or relationship in-tended by the alien to be legally a marriage, thealien or a child of the alien has been battered orhas been the subject of extreme cruelty per-petrated by the alien’s spouse or intendedspouse.

‘‘(II) For purposes of subclause (I), an aliendescribed in this paragraph is an alien—

‘‘(aa)(AA) who is the spouse of a lawful per-manent resident of the United States; or

‘‘(BB) who believed that he or she had mar-ried a lawful permanent resident of the UnitedStates and with whom a marriage ceremony wasactually performed and who otherwise meetsany applicable requirements under this Act toestablish the existence of and bona fides of amarriage, but whose marriage is not legitimatesolely because of the bigamy of such lawful per-manent resident of the United States; or

‘‘(CC) who was a bona fide spouse of a lawfulpermanent resident within the past 2 yearsand—

‘‘(aaa) whose spouse lost status within thepast 2 years due to an incident of domestic vio-lence; or

‘‘(bbb) who demonstrates a connection be-tween the legal termination of the marriagewithin the past 2 years and battering or extremecruelty by the lawful permanent residentspouse;

‘‘(bb) who is a person of good moral character;‘‘(cc) who is eligible to be classified as a

spouse of an alien lawfully admitted for perma-

nent residence under section 203(a)(2)(A) or whowould have been so classified but for the bigamyof the lawful permanent resident of the UnitedStates that the alien intended to marry; and

‘‘(dd) who has resided with the alien’s spouseor intended spouse.’’.

(2) SELF-PETITIONING CHILDREN.—Section204(a)(1)(B)(iii) of the Immigration and Nation-ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(B)(iii)) is amendedto read as follows:

‘‘(iii) An alien who is the child of an alienlawfully admitted for permanent residence, orwho was the child of a lawful permanent resi-dent who within the past 2 years lost lawfulpermanent resident status due to an incident ofdomestic violence, and who is a person of goodmoral character, who is eligible for classificationunder section 203(a)(2)(A), and who resides, orhas resided in the past, with the alien’s perma-nent resident alien parent may file a petitionwith the Attorney General under this subpara-graph for classification of the alien (and anychild of the alien) under such section if thealien demonstrates to the Attorney General thatthe alien has been battered by or has been thesubject of extreme cruelty perpetrated by thealien’s permanent resident parent.’’.

(3) FILING OF PETITIONS.—Section 204(a)(1)(B)of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(B)) is amended by adding atthe end the following:

‘‘(iv) An alien who—‘‘(I) is the spouse, intended spouse, or child

living abroad of a lawful permanent residentwho—

‘‘(aa) is an employee of the United States Gov-ernment;

‘‘(bb) is a member of the uniformed services(as defined in section 101(a) of title 10, UnitedStates Code); or

‘‘(cc) has subjected the alien or the alien’schild to battery or extreme cruelty in the UnitedStates; and

‘‘(II) is eligible to file a petition under clause(ii) or (iii);shall file such petition with the Attorney Gen-eral under the procedures that apply to self-pe-titioners under clause (ii) or (iii), as applica-ble.’’.

(d) GOOD MORAL CHARACTER DETERMINATIONSFOR SELF-PETITIONERS AND TREATMENT OFCHILD SELF-PETITIONERS AND PETITIONS IN-CLUDING DERIVATIVE CHILDREN ATTAINING 21YEARS OF AGE.—Section 204(a)(1) of the Immi-gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1))is amended—

(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C)through (H) as subparagraphs (E) through (J),respectively;

(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) thefollowing:

‘‘(C) Notwithstanding section 101(f), an act orconviction that is waivable with respect to thepetitioner for purposes of a determination of thepetitioner’s admissibility under section 212(a) ordeportability under section 237(a) shall not barthe Attorney General from finding the petitionerto be of good moral character under subpara-graph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) if theAttorney General finds that the act or convic-tion was connected to the alien’s having beenbattered or subjected to extreme cruelty.

‘‘(D)(i)(I) Any child who attains 21 years ofage who has filed a petition under clause (iv) ofsection 204(a)(1)(A) that was filed or approvedbefore the date on which the child attained 21years of age shall be considered (if the child hasnot been admitted or approved for lawful perma-nent residence by the date the child attained 21years of age) a petitioner for preference statusunder paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(a),whichever paragraph is applicable, with thesame priority date assigned to the self-petitionfiled under clause (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A). Nonew petition shall be required to be filed.

‘‘(II) Any individual described in subclause (I)is eligible for deferred action and work author-ization.

‘‘(III) Any derivative child who attains 21years of age who is included in a petition de-scribed in clause (ii) that was filed or approvedbefore the date on which the child attained 21years of age shall be considered (if the child hasnot been admitted or approved for lawful perma-nent residence by the date the child attained 21years of age) a petitioner for preference statusunder paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(a),whichever paragraph is applicable, with thesame priority date as that assigned to the peti-tioner in any petition described in clause (ii). Nonew petition shall be required to be filed.

‘‘(IV) Any individual described in subclause(III) and any derivative child of a petition de-scribed in clause (ii) is eligible for deferred ac-tion and work authorization.

‘‘(ii) The petition referred to in clause (i)(III)is a petition filed by an alien under subpara-graph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii) or (B)(iii) in whichthe child is included as a derivative bene-ficiary.’’; and

(3) in subparagraph (J) (as so redesignated),by inserting ‘‘or in making determinationsunder subparagraphs (C) and (D),’’ after ‘‘sub-paragraph (B),’’.

(e) ACCESS TO NATURALIZATION FOR DIVORCEDVICTIMS OF ABUSE.—Section 319(a) of the Immi-gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1430(a)) isamended—

(1) by inserting ‘‘, or any person who obtainedstatus as a lawful permanent resident by reasonof his or her status as a spouse or child of aUnited States citizen who battered him or her orsubjected him or her to extreme cruelty,’’ after‘‘United States’’ the first place such term ap-pears; and

(2) by inserting ‘‘(except in the case of a per-son who has been battered or subjected to ex-treme cruelty by a United States citizen spouseor parent)’’ after ‘‘has been living in maritalunion with the citizen spouse’’.SEC. 1504. IMPROVED ACCESS TO CANCELLATION

OF REMOVAL AND SUSPENSION OFDEPORTATION UNDER THE VIO-LENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF1994.

(a) CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AND ADJUST-MENT OF STATUS FOR CERTAIN NONPERMANENTRESIDENTS.—Section 240A(b)(2) of the Immigra-tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(2)) isamended to read as follows:

‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR BATTERED SPOUSE ORCHILD.—

‘‘(A) AUTHORITY.—The Attorney General maycancel removal of, and adjust to the status of analien lawfully admitted for permanent resi-dence, an alien who is inadmissible or deport-able from the United States if the alien dem-onstrates that—

‘‘(i)(I) the alien has been battered or subjectedto extreme cruelty by a spouse or parent who isor was a United States citizen (or is the parentof a child of a United States citizen and thechild has been battered or subjected to extremecruelty by such citizen parent);

‘‘(II) the alien has been battered or subjectedto extreme cruelty by a spouse or parent who isor was a lawful permanent resident (or is theparent of a child of an alien who is or was alawful permanent resident and the child hasbeen battered or subjected to extreme cruelty bysuch permanent resident parent); or

‘‘(III) the alien has been battered or subjectedto extreme cruelty by a United States citizen orlawful permanent resident whom the alien in-tended to marry, but whose marriage is not le-gitimate because of that United States citizen’sor lawful permanent resident’s bigamy;

‘‘(ii) the alien has been physically present inthe United States for a continuous period of notless than 3 years immediately preceding the dateof such application, and the issuance of acharging document for removal proceedingsshall not toll the 3-year period of continuousphysical presence in the United States;

‘‘(iii) the alien has been a person of goodmoral character during such period, subject tothe provisions of subparagraph (C);


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8871October 5, 2000‘‘(iv) the alien is not inadmissible under para-

graph (2) or (3) of section 212(a), is not deport-able under paragraphs (1)(G) or (2) through (4)of section 237(a) (except in a case described insection 237(a)(7) where the Attorney General ex-ercises discretion to grant a waiver), and hasnot been convicted of an aggravated felony; and

‘‘(v) the removal would result in extremehardship to the alien, the alien’s child, or thealien’s parent.

‘‘(B) PHYSICAL PRESENCE.—Notwithstandingsubsection (d)(2), for purposes of subparagraph(A)(i)(II) or for purposes of section 244(a)(3) (asin effect before the title III–A effective date insection 309 of the Illegal Immigration Reformand Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996), analien shall not be considered to have failed tomaintain continuous physical presence by rea-son of an absence if the alien demonstrates aconnection between the absence and the bat-tering or extreme cruelty perpetrated against thealien. No absence or portion of an absence con-nected to the battering or extreme cruelty shallcount toward the 90-day or 180-day limits estab-lished in subsection (d)(2). If any absence or ag-gregate absences exceed 180 days, the absencesor portions of the absences will not be consid-ered to break the period of continuous presence.Any such period of time excluded from the 180-day limit shall be excluded in computing thetime during which the alien has been physicallypresent for purposes of the 3-year requirementset forth in section 240A(b)(2)(B) and section244(a)(3) (as in effect before the title III–A effec-tive date in section 309 of the Illegal Immigra-tion Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Actof 1996).

‘‘(C) GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.—Notwith-standing section 101(f), an act or conviction thatdoes not bar the Attorney General from grantingrelief under this paragraph by reason of sub-paragraph (A)(iv) shall not bar the AttorneyGeneral from finding the alien to be of goodmoral character under subparagraph (A)(i)(III)or section 244(a)(3) (as in effect before the titleIII–A effective date in section 309 of the IllegalImmigration Reform and Immigrant Responsi-bility Act of 1996), if the Attorney General findsthat the act or conviction was connected to thealien’s having been battered or subjected to ex-treme cruelty and determines that a waiver isotherwise warranted.

‘‘(D) CREDIBLE EVIDENCE CONSIDERED.—Inacting on applications under this paragraph,the Attorney General shall consider any credibleevidence relevant to the application. The deter-mination of what evidence is credible and theweight to be given that evidence shall be withinthe sole discretion of the Attorney General.’’.

(b) CHILDREN OF BATTERED ALIENS AND PAR-ENTS OF BATTERED ALIEN CHILDREN.—Section240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act(8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)) is amended by adding at theend the following:

‘‘(4) CHILDREN OF BATTERED ALIENS AND PAR-ENTS OF BATTERED ALIEN CHILDREN.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney Generalshall grant parole under section 212(d)(5) to anyalien who is a—

‘‘(i) child of an alien granted relief under sec-tion 240A(b)(2) or 244(a)(3) (as in effect beforethe title III–A effective date in section 309 of theIllegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Re-sponsibility Act of 1996); or

‘‘(ii) parent of a child alien granted reliefunder section 240A(b)(2) or 244(a)(3) (as in effectbefore the title III–A effective date in section 309of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immi-grant Responsibility Act of 1996).

‘‘(B) DURATION OF PAROLE.—The grant of pa-role shall extend from the time of the grant ofrelief under section 240A(b)(2) or section244(a)(3) (as in effect before the title III–A effec-tive date in section 309 of the Illegal Immigra-tion Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Actof 1996) to the time the application for adjust-ment of status filed by aliens covered under thisparagraph has been finally adjudicated. Appli-

cations for adjustment of status filed by alienscovered under this paragraph shall be treated asif they were applications filed under section204(a)(1) (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) forpurposes of section 245 (a) and (c). Failure bythe alien granted relief under section 240A(b)(2)or section 244(a)(3) (as in effect before the titleIII–A effective date in section 309 of the IllegalImmigration Reform and Immigrant Responsi-bility Act of 1996) to exercise due diligence in fil-ing a visa petition on behalf of an alien de-scribed in clause (i) or (ii) may result in revoca-tion of parole.’’.

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Any individual who be-comes eligible for relief by reason of the enact-ment of the amendments made by subsections (a)and (b), shall be eligible to file a motion to re-open pursuant to section 240(c)(6)(C)(iv). Theamendments made by subsections (a) and (b)shall take effect as if included in the enactmentof section 304 of the Illegal Immigration Reformand Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Pub-lic Law 104–208; 110 Stat. 587). Such portions ofthe amendments made by subsection (b) that re-late to section 244(a)(3) (as in effect before thetitle III–A effective date in section 309 of the Il-legal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Re-sponsibility Act of 1996) shall take effect as ifincluded in subtitle G of title IV of the ViolentCrime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994(Public Law 103–322; 108 Stat. 1953 et seq.).SEC. 1505. OFFERING EQUAL ACCESS TO IMMI-

GRATION PROTECTIONS OF THE VIO-LENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 1994FOR ALL QUALIFIED BATTERED IM-MIGRANT SELF-PETITIONERS.

(a) BATTERED IMMIGRANT WAIVER.—Section212(a)(9)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Nation-ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(C)(ii)) is amendedby adding at the end the following: ‘‘The Attor-ney General in the Attorney General’s discretionmay waive the provisions of section212(a)(9)(C)(i) in the case of an alien to whomthe Attorney General has granted classificationunder clause (iii), (iv), or (v) of section204(a)(1)(A), or classification under clause (ii),(iii), or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(B), in any casein which there is a connection between—

‘‘(1) the alien’s having been battered or sub-jected to extreme cruelty; and

‘‘(2) the alien’s—‘‘(A) removal;‘‘(B) departure from the United States;‘‘(C) reentry or reentries into the United

States; or‘‘(D) attempted reentry into the United

States.’’.(b) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIM WAIVER.—(1) WAIVER FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIO-

LENCE.—Section 237(a) of the Immigration andNationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)) is amended byinserting at the end the following:

‘‘(7) WAIVER FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIO-LENCE.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General isnot limited by the criminal court record and maywaive the application of paragraph (2)(E)(i)(with respect to crimes of domestic violence andcrimes of stalking) and (ii) in the case of analien who has been battered or subjected to ex-treme cruelty and who is not and was not theprimary perpetrator of violence in the relation-ship—

‘‘(i) upon a determination that—‘‘(I) the alien was acting is self-defense;‘‘(II) the alien was found to have violated a

protection order intended to protect the alien; or‘‘(III) the alien committed, was arrested for,

was convicted of, or pled guilty to committing acrime—

‘‘(aa) that did not result in serious bodily in-jury; and

‘‘(bb) where there was a connection betweenthe crime and the alien’s having been batteredor subjected to extreme cruelty.

‘‘(B) CREDIBLE EVIDENCE CONSIDERED.—Inacting on applications under this paragraph,the Attorney General shall consider any credible

evidence relevant to the application. The deter-mination of what evidence is credible and theweight to be given that evidence shall be withinthe sole discretion of the Attorney General.’’.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section240A(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nation-ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(C)) is amended byinserting ‘‘(except in a case described in section237(a)(7) where the Attorney General exercisesdiscretion to grant a waiver)’’ after ‘‘237(a)(3)’’.

(c) MISREPRESENTATION WAIVERS FOR BAT-TERED SPOUSES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS ANDLAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS.—

(1) WAIVER OF INADMISSIBILITY.—Section212(i)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act(8 U.S.C. 1182(i)(1)) is amended by inserting be-fore the period at the end the following: ‘‘or, inthe case of an alien granted classification underclause (iii) or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A) orclause (ii) or (iii) of section 204(a)(1)(B), thealien demonstrates extreme hardship to the alienor the alien’s United States citizen, lawful per-manent resident, or qualified alien parent orchild’’.

(2) WAIVER OF DEPORTABILITY.—Section237(a)(1)(H) of the Immigration and NationalityAct (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(H)) is amended—

(A) in clause (i), by inserting ‘‘(I)’’ after ‘‘(i)’’;(B) by redesignating clause (ii) as subclause

(II); and(C) by adding after clause (i) the following:‘‘(ii) is an alien who qualifies for classifica-

tion under clause (iii) or (iv) of section204(a)(1)(A) or clause (ii) or (iii) of section204(a)(1)(B).’’.

(d) BATTERED IMMIGRANT WAIVER.—Section212(g)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act(8 U.S.C. 1182(g)(1)) is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or’’ atthe end;

(2) in subparagraph (B), by adding ‘‘or’’ atthe end; and

(3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) thefollowing:

‘‘(C) qualifies for classification under clause(iii) or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A) or classifica-tion under clause (ii) or (iii) of section204(a)(1)(B);’’.

(e) WAIVERS FOR VAWA ELIGIBLE BATTEREDIMMIGRANTS.—Section 212(h)(1) of the Immigra-tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(h)(1)) isamended—

(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘and’’and inserting ‘‘or’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(C) the alien qualifies for classification

under clause (iii) or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A)or classification under clause (ii) or (iii) of sec-tion 204(a)(1)(B); and’’.

(f) PUBLIC CHARGE.—Section 212 of the Immi-gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182) isamended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(p) In determining whether an alien de-scribed in subsection (a)(4)(C)(i) is inadmissibleunder subsection (a)(4) or ineligible to receivean immigrant visa or otherwise to adjust to thestatus of permanent resident by reason of sub-section (a)(4), the consular officer or the Attor-ney General shall not consider any benefits thealien may have received that were authorizedunder section 501 of the Illegal Immigration Re-form and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996(8 U.S.C. 1641(c)).’’.

(g) REPORT.—Not later than 6 months afterthe date of enactment of this Act, the AttorneyGeneral shall submit a report to the Committeeson the Judiciary of the Senate and the House ofRepresentatives covering, with respect to fiscalyear 1997 and each fiscal year thereafter—

(1) the policy and procedures of the Immigra-tion and Naturalization Service under which analien who has been battered or subjected to ex-treme cruelty who is eligible for suspension ofdeportation or cancellation of removal can re-quest to be placed, and be placed, in deportationor removal proceedings so that such alien mayapply for suspension of deportation or cancella-tion of removal;


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8872 October 5, 2000(2) the number of requests filed at each dis-

trict office under this policy;(3) the number of these requests granted re-

ported separately for each district; and(4) the average length of time at each Immi-

gration and Naturalization office between thedate that an alien who has been subject to bat-tering or extreme cruelty eligible for suspensionof deportation or cancellation of removal re-quests to be placed in deportation or removalproceedings and the date that the immigrant ap-pears before an immigration judge to file an ap-plication for suspension of deportation or can-cellation of removal.SEC. 1506. RESTORING IMMIGRATION PROTEC-

TIONS UNDER THE VIOLENCEAGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 1994.

(a) REMOVING BARRIERS TO ADJUSTMENT OFSTATUS FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.—

(1) IMMIGRATION AMENDMENTS.—Section 245 ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1255) is amended—

(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘or the sta-tus of any other alien having an approved peti-tion for classification under subparagraph(A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of section204(a)(1) or’’ after ‘‘into the United States.’’;and

(B) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘Subsection(a) shall not be applicable to’’ and inserting thefollowing: ‘‘Other than an alien having an ap-proved petition for classification under subpara-graph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (A)(v), (A)(vi), (B)(ii),(B)(iii), or (B)(iv) of section 204(a)(1), subsection(a) shall not be applicable to’’.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments madeby paragraph (1) shall apply to applications foradjustment of status pending on or made on orafter January 14, 1998.

(b) REMOVING BARRIERS TO CANCELLATION OFREMOVAL AND SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION FORVICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.—

(1) NOT TREATING SERVICE OF NOTICE AS TER-MINATING CONTINUOUS PERIOD.—Section240A(d)(1) of the Immigration and NationalityAct (8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1)) is amended by striking‘‘when the alien is served a notice to appearunder section 239(a) or’’ and inserting ‘‘(A) ex-cept in the case of an alien who applies for can-cellation of removal under subsection (b)(2),when the alien is served a notice to appearunder section 239(a), or (B)’’.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment madeby paragraph (1) shall take effect as if includedin the enactment of section 304 of the Illegal Im-migration Reform and Immigrant ResponsibilityAct of 1996 (Public Law 104–208; 110 Stat. 587).

(3) MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN TRANSITIONRULES FOR BATTERED SPOUSE OR CHILD.—Section309(c)(5)(C) of the Illegal Immigration Reformand Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended—

(A) by striking the subparagraph heading andinserting the following:

‘‘(C) SPECIAL RULE FOR CERTAIN ALIENSGRANTED TEMPORARY PROTECTION FROM DEPOR-TATION AND FOR BATTERED SPOUSES AND CHIL-DREN.—’’; and

(B) in clause (i)—(i) in subclause (IV), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the

end;(ii) in subclause (V), by striking the period at

the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and(iii) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(VI) is an alien who was issued an order to

show cause or was in deportation proceedingsbefore April 1, 1997, and who applied for suspen-sion of deportation under section 244(a)(3) of theImmigration and Nationality Act (as in effectbefore the date of the enactment of this Act).’’.

(4) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments madeby paragraph (3) shall take effect as if includedin the enactment of section 309 of the Illegal Im-migration Reform and Immigrant ResponsibilityAct of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note).

(c) ELIMINATING TIME LIMITATIONS ON MO-TIONS TO REOPEN REMOVAL AND DEPORTATIONPROCEEDINGS FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIO-LENCE.—

(1) REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Section 240(c)(6)(C) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1229a(c)(6)(C)) is amended by adding at the endthe following:

‘‘(iv) SPECIAL RULE FOR BATTERED SPOUSESAND CHILDREN.—The deadline specified in sub-section (b)(5)(C) for filing a motion to reopendoes not apply—

‘‘(I) if the basis for the motion is to apply forrelief under clause (iii) or (iv) of section204(a)(1)(A), clause (ii) or (iii) of section204(a)(1)(B), or section 240A(b)(2);

‘‘(II) if the motion is accompanied by a can-cellation of removal application to be filed withthe Attorney General or by a copy of the self-pe-tition that has been or will be filed with the Im-migration and Naturalization Service upon thegranting of the motion to reopen; and

‘‘(III) if the motion to reopen is filed within 1year of the entry of the final order of removal,except that the Attorney General may, in theAttorney General’s discretion, waive this timelimitation in the case of an alien who dem-onstrates extraordinary circumstances or ex-treme hardship to the alien’s child.’’.

(B) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment madeby subparagraph (A) shall take effect as if in-cluded in the enactment of section 304 of the Il-legal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Re-sponsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1229–1229c).

(2) DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any limita-

tion imposed by law on motions to reopen or re-scind deportation proceedings under the Immi-gration and Nationality Act (as in effect beforethe title III–A effective date in section 309 of theIllegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Re-sponsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note)),there is no time limit on the filing of a motionto reopen such proceedings, and the deadlinespecified in section 242B(c)(3) of the Immigra-tion and Nationality Act (as so in effect) (8U.S.C. 1252b(c)(3)) does not apply—

(i) if the basis of the motion is to apply for re-lief under clause (iii) or (iv) of section204(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and NationalityAct (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)), clause (ii) or (iii) ofsection 204(a)(1)(B) of such Act (8 U.S.C.1154(a)(1)(B)), or section 244(a)(3) of such Act(as so in effect) (8 U.S.C. 1254(a)(3)); and

(ii) if the motion is accompanied by a suspen-sion of deportation application to be filed withthe Attorney General or by a copy of the self-pe-tition that will be filed with the Immigrationand Naturalization Service upon the granting ofthe motion to reopen.

(B) APPLICABILITY.—Subparagraph (A) shallapply to motions filed by aliens who—

(i) are, or were, in deportation proceedingsunder the Immigration and Nationality Act (asin effect before the title III–A effective date insection 309 of the Illegal Immigration Reformand Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8U.S.C. 1101 note)); and

(ii) have become eligible to apply for reliefunder clause (iii) or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A)of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)), clause (ii) or (iii) of sec-tion 204(a)(1)(B) of such Act (8 U.S.C.1154(a)(1)(B)), or section 244(a)(3) of such Act(as in effect before the title III–A effective datein section 309 of the Illegal Immigration Reformand Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8U.S.C. 1101 note)) as a result of the amendmentsmade by—

(I) subtitle G of title IV of the Violent CrimeControl and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Pub-lic Law 103–322; 108 Stat. 1953 et seq.); or

(II) this title.SEC. 1507. REMEDYING PROBLEMS WITH IMPLE-

MENTATION OF THE IMMIGRATIONPROVISIONS OF THE VIOLENCEAGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 1994.

(a) EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ABUSERS’ CITIZEN-SHIP STATUS ON SELF-PETITION.—

(1) RECLASSIFICATION.—Section 204(a)(1)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

1154(a)(1)(A)) (as amended by section 1503(b)(3)of this title) is amended by adding at the endthe following:

‘‘(vi) For the purposes of any petition filedunder clause (iii) or (iv), the denaturalization,loss or renunciation of citizenship, death of theabuser, divorce, or changes to the abuser’s citi-zenship status after filing of the petition shallnot adversely affect the approval of the petition,and for approved petitions shall not precludethe classification of the eligible self-petitioningspouse or child as an immediate relative or af-fect the alien’s ability to adjust status undersubsections (a) and (c) of section 245 or obtainstatus as a lawful permanent resident based onthe approved self-petition under such clauses.’’.

(2) LOSS OF STATUS.—Section 204(a)(1)(B) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1154(a)(1)(B)) (as amended by section 1503(c)(3)of this title) is amended by adding at the endthe following:

‘‘(v)(I) For the purposes of any petition filedor approved under clause (ii) or (iii), divorce, orthe loss of lawful permanent resident status bya spouse or parent after the filing of a petitionunder that clause shall not adversely affect ap-proval of the petition, and, for an approved pe-tition, shall not affect the alien’s ability to ad-just status under subsections (a) and (c) of sec-tion 245 or obtain status as a lawful permanentresident based on an approved self-petitionunder clause (ii) or (iii).

‘‘(II) Upon the lawful permanent residentspouse or parent becoming or establishing theexistence of United States citizenship throughnaturalization, acquisition of citizenship, orother means, any petition filed with the Immi-gration and Naturalization Service and pendingor approved under clause (ii) or (iii) on behalfof an alien who has been battered or subjectedto extreme cruelty shall be deemed reclassifiedas a petition filed under subparagraph (A) evenif the acquisition of citizenship occurs after di-vorce or termination of parental rights.’’.

(3) DEFINITION OF IMMEDIATE RELATIVES.—Section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration andNationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(b)(2)(A)(i)) isamended by adding at the end the following:‘‘For purposes of this clause, an alien who hasfiled a petition under clause (iii) or (iv) of sec-tion 204(a)(1)(A) of this Act remains an imme-diate relative in the event that the United Statescitizen spouse or parent loses United States citi-zenship on account of the abuse.’’.

(b) ALLOWING REMARRIAGE OF BATTERED IM-MIGRANTS.—Section 204(h) of the Immigrationand Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(h)) is amend-ed by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Remar-riage of an alien whose petition was approvedunder section 204(a)(1)(B)(ii) or 204(a)(1)(A)(iii)or marriage of an alien described in clause (iv)or (vi) of section 204(a)(1)(A) or in section204(a)(1)(B)(iii) shall not be the basis for revoca-tion of a petition approval under section 205.’’.SEC. 1508. TECHNICAL CORRECTION TO QUALI-

FIED ALIEN DEFINITION FOR BAT-TERED IMMIGRANTS.

Section 431(c)(1)(B)(iii) of the Personal Re-sponsibility and Work Opportunity Reconcili-ation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1641(c)(1)(B)(iii)) isamended to read as follows:

‘‘(iii) suspension of deportation under section244(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act(as in effect before the title III–A effective datein section 309 of the Illegal Immigration Reformand Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996).’’.SEC. 1509. ACCESS TO CUBAN ADJUSTMENT ACT

FOR BATTERED IMMIGRANTSPOUSES AND CHILDREN.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The last sentence of the firstsection of Public Law 89–732 (November 2, 1966;8 U.S.C. 1255 note) is amended by striking theperiod at the end and inserting the following: ‘‘,except that such spouse or child who has beenbattered or subjected to extreme cruelty may ad-just to permanent resident status under this Actwithout demonstrating that he or she is residingwith the Cuban spouse or parent in the United


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8873October 5, 2000States. In acting on applications under this sec-tion with respect to spouses or children whohave been battered or subjected to extreme cru-elty, the Attorney General shall apply the provi-sions of section 204(a)(1)(H).’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment madeby subsection (a) shall be effective as if includedin subtitle G of title IV of the Violent CrimeControl and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Pub-lic Law 103–322; 108 Stat. 1953 et seq.).SEC. 1510. ACCESS TO THE NICARAGUAN ADJUST-

MENT AND CENTRAL AMERICAN RE-LIEF ACT FOR BATTERED SPOUSESAND CHILDREN.

(a) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF CERTAIN NICA-RAGUAN AND CUBAN BATTERED SPOUSES.—Sec-tion 202(d) of the Nicaraguan Adjustment andCentral American Relief Act (8 U.S.C. 1255 note;Public Law 105–100, as amended) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraph(B) and inserting the following:

‘‘(B) the alien—‘‘(i) is the spouse, child, or unmarried son or

daughter of an alien whose status is adjusted tothat of an alien lawfully admitted for perma-nent residence under subsection (a), except thatin the case of such an unmarried son or daugh-ter, the son or daughter shall be required to es-tablish that the son or daughter has been phys-ically present in the United States for a contin-uous period beginning not later than December1, 1995, and ending not earlier than the date onwhich the application for adjustment under thissubsection is filed; or

‘‘(ii) was, at the time at which an alien filedfor adjustment under subsection (a), the spouseor child of an alien whose status is adjusted tothat of an alien lawfully admitted for perma-nent residence under subsection (a), and thespouse, child, or child of the spouse has beenbattered or subjected to extreme cruelty by thealien that filed for adjustment under subsection(a);’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(3) PROCEDURE.—In acting on an application

under this section with respect to a spouse orchild who has been battered or subjected to ex-treme cruelty, the Attorney General shall applysection 204(a)(1)(H).’’.

(b) CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AND SUSPEN-SION OF DEPORTATION TRANSITION RULES FORCERTAIN BATTERED SPOUSES.—Section309(c)(5)(C) of the Illegal Immigration and Re-form and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996(division C of Public Law 104–208; 8 U.S.C. 1101note) (as amended by section 1506(b)(3) of thistitle) is amended—

(1) in clause (i)—(A) by striking the period at the end of sub-

clause (VI) (as added by section 1506(b)(3) ofthis title) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(VII)(aa) was the spouse or child of an alien

described in subclause (I), (II), or (V)—‘‘(AA) at the time at which a decision is ren-

dered to suspend the deportation or cancel theremoval of the alien;

‘‘(BB) at the time at which the alien filed anapplication for suspension of deportation orcancellation of removal; or

‘‘(CC) at the time at which the alien registeredfor benefits under the settlement agreement inAmerican Baptist Churches, et. al. v.Thornburgh (ABC), applied for temporary pro-tected status, or applied for asylum; and

‘‘(bb) the spouse, child, or child of the spousehas been battered or subjected to extreme crueltyby the alien described in subclause (I), (II), or(V).’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(iii) CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONS.—In acting

on a petition filed under subclause (VII) ofclause (i) the provisions set forth in section204(a)(1)(H) shall apply.

‘‘(iv) RESIDENCE WITH SPOUSE OR PARENT NOTREQUIRED.—For purposes of the application ofclause (i)(VII), a spouse or child shall not be re-quired to demonstrate that he or she is residing

with the spouse or parent in the UnitedStates.’’.

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments madeby subsections (a) and (b) shall be effective as ifincluded in the Nicaraguan Adjustment andCentral American Relief Act (8 U.S.C. 1255 note;Public Law 105–100, as amended).SEC. 1511. ACCESS TO THE HAITIAN REFUGEE

FAIRNESS ACT OF 1998 FOR BAT-TERED SPOUSES AND CHILDREN.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 902(d)(1)(B) of theHaitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of1998 (division A of section 101(h) of Public Law105–277; 112 Stat. 2681–538) is amended to readas follows:

‘‘(B)(i) the alien is the spouse, child, or un-married son or daughter of an alien whose sta-tus is adjusted to that of an alien lawfully ad-mitted for permanent residence under subsection(a), except that, in the case of such an unmar-ried son or daughter, the son or daughter shallbe required to establish that the son or daughterhas been physically present in the United Statesfor a continuous period beginning not later thanDecember 1, 1995, and ending not earlier thanthe date on which the application for such ad-justment is filed;

‘‘(ii) at the time of filing of the application foradjustment under subsection (a), the alien is thespouse or child of an alien whose status is ad-justed to that of an alien lawfully admitted forpermanent residence under subsection (a) andthe spouse, child, or child of the spouse hasbeen battered or subjected to extreme cruelty bythe individual described in subsection (a); and

‘‘(iii) in acting on applications under this sec-tion with respect to spouses or children whohave been battered or subjected to extreme cru-elty, the Attorney General shall apply the provi-sions of section 204(a)(1)(H).’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment madeby subsection (a) shall be effective as if includedin the Haitian Refugee Immigration FairnessAct of 1998 (division A of section 101(h) of Pub-lic Law 105–277; 112 Stat. 2681–538).SEC. 1512. ACCESS TO SERVICES AND LEGAL REP-

RESENTATION FOR BATTERED IMMI-GRANTS.

(a) LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTIONGRANTS.—Section 2001(b) of part T of title I ofthe Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Actof 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg(b)) (as amended by sec-tion 1209(c) of this division) is amended by add-ing at the end the following:

‘‘(11) providing assistance to victims of domes-tic violence and sexual assault in immigrationmatters.’’.

(b) GRANTS TO ENCOURAGE ARRESTS.—Section2101(b)(5) of part U of title I of the OmnibusCrime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42U.S.C. 3796hh(b)(5)) is amended by inserting be-fore the period the following: ‘‘, includingstrengthening assistance to such victims in im-migration matters’’.

(c) RURAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CHILDABUSE ENFORCEMENT GRANTS.—Section40295(a)(2) of the Violent Crime Control andLaw Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–322; 108 Stat. 1953; 42 U.S.C. 13971(a)(2)) isamended to read as follows:

‘‘(2) to provide treatment, counseling, and as-sistance to victims of domestic violence andchild abuse, including in immigration matters;and’’.

(d) CAMPUS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GRANTS.—Section 826(b)(5) of the Higher EducationAmendments of 1998 (Public Law 105–244; 20U.S.C. 1152) is amended by inserting before theperiod at the end the following: ‘‘, including as-sistance to victims in immigration matters’’.SEC. 1513. PROTECTION FOR CERTAIN CRIME VIC-

TIMS INCLUDING VICTIMS OFCRIMES AGAINST WOMEN.

(a) FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.—(1) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following

findings:(A) Immigrant women and children are often

targeted to be victims of crimes committed

against them in the United States, includingrape, torture, kidnaping, trafficking, incest, do-mestic violence, sexual assault, female genitalmutilation, forced prostitution, involuntary ser-vitude, being held hostage or being criminallyrestrained.

(B) All women and children who are victims ofthese crimes committed against them in theUnited States must be able to report these crimesto law enforcement and fully participate in theinvestigation of the crimes committed againstthem and the prosecution of the perpetrators ofsuch crimes.

(2) PURPOSE.—(A) The purpose of this section is to create a

new nonimmigrant visa classification that willstrengthen the ability of law enforcement agen-cies to detect, investigate, and prosecute cases ofdomestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking ofaliens, and other crimes described in section101(a)(15)(U)(iii) of the Immigration and Nation-ality Act committed against aliens, while offer-ing protection to victims of such offenses inkeeping with the humanitarian interests of theUnited States. This visa will encourage law en-forcement officials to better serve immigrantcrime victims and to prosecute crimes committedagainst aliens.

(B) Creating a new nonimmigrant visa classi-fication will facilitate the reporting of crimes tolaw enforcement officials by trafficked, ex-ploited, victimized, and abused aliens who arenot in lawful immigration status. It also giveslaw enforcement officials a means to regularizethe status of cooperating individuals during in-vestigations or prosecutions. Providing tem-porary legal status to aliens who have been se-verely victimized by criminal activity also com-ports with the humanitarian interests of theUnited States.

(C) Finally, this section gives the AttorneyGeneral discretion to convert the status of suchnonimmigrants to that of permanent residentswhen doing so is justified on humanitariangrounds, for family unity, or is otherwise in thepublic interest.

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF HUMANITARIAN/MATE-RIAL WITNESS NONIMMIGRANT CLASSIFICATION.—Section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Na-tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) (as amendedby section 107 of this Act) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subpara-graph (S);

(2) by striking the period at the end of sub-paragraph (T) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following newsubparagraph:

‘‘(U)(i) subject to section 214(o), an alien whofiles a petition for status under this subpara-graph, if the Attorney General determinesthat—

‘‘(I) the alien has suffered substantial phys-ical or mental abuse as a result of having beena victim of criminal activity described in clause(iii);

‘‘(II) the alien (or in the case of an alien childunder the age of 16, the parent, guardian, ornext friend of the alien) possesses informationconcerning criminal activity described in clause(iii);

‘‘(III) the alien (or in the case of an alienchild under the age of 16, the parent, guardian,or next friend of the alien) has been helpful, isbeing helpful, or is likely to be helpful to a Fed-eral, State, or local law enforcement official, toa Federal, State, or local prosecutor, to a Fed-eral or State judge, to the Service, or to otherFederal, State, or local authorities investigatingor prosecuting criminal activity described inclause (iii); and

‘‘(IV) the criminal activity described in clause(iii) violated the laws of the United States or oc-curred in the United States (including in Indiancountry and military installations) or the terri-tories and possessions of the United States;

‘‘(ii) if the Attorney General considers it nec-essary to avoid extreme hardship to the spouse,the child, or, in the case of an alien child, the


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8874 October 5, 2000parent of the alien described in clause (i), theAttorney General may also grant status underthis paragraph based upon certification of agovernment official listed in clause (i)(III) thatan investigation or prosecution would beharmed without the assistance of the spouse,the child, or, in the case of an alien child, theparent of the alien; and

‘‘(iii) the criminal activity referred to in thisclause is that involving one or more of the fol-lowing or any similar activity in violation ofFederal, State, or local criminal law: rape; tor-ture; trafficking; incest; domestic violence; sex-ual assault; abusive sexual contact; prostitu-tion; sexual exploitation; female genital mutila-tion; being held hostage; peonage; involuntaryservitude; slave trade; kidnapping; abduction;unlawful criminal restraint; false imprisonment;blackmail; extortion; manslaughter; murder; fe-lonious assault; witness tampering; obstructionof justice; perjury; or attempt, conspiracy, or so-licitation to commit any of the above mentionedcrimes.’’.

(c) CONDITIONS FOR ADMISSION AND DUTIES OFTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL.—Section 214 of suchAct (8 U.S.C. 1184) (as amended by section 107 ofthis Act) is amended by adding at the end thefollowing new subsection:

‘‘(o) REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO SECTION101(a)(15)(U) VISAS.—

‘‘(1) PETITIONING PROCEDURES FOR SECTION101(a)(15)(U) VISAS.—The petition filed by an alienunder section 101(a)(15)(U)(i) shall contain acertification from a Federal, State, or local lawenforcement official, prosecutor, judge, or otherFederal, State, or local authority investigatingcriminal activity described in section101(a)(15)(U)(iii). This certification may also beprovided by an official of the Service whoseability to provide such certification is not lim-ited to information concerning immigration vio-lations. This certification shall state that thealien ‘‘has been helpful, is being helpful, or islikely to be helpful’’ in the investigation or pros-ecution of criminal activity described in section101(a)(15)(U)(iii).

‘‘(2) NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS.—‘‘(A) The number of aliens who may be issued

visas or otherwise provided status as non-immigrants under section 101(a)(15)(U) in anyfiscal year shall not exceed 10,000.

‘‘(B) The numerical limitations in subpara-graph (A) shall only apply to principal aliensdescribed in section 101(a)(15)(U)(i), and not tospouses, children, or, in the case of alien chil-dren, the alien parents of such children.

‘‘(3) DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITHRESPECT TO ‘U’ VISA NONIMMIGRANTS.—With re-spect to nonimmigrant aliens described in sub-section (a)(15)(U)—

‘‘(A) the Attorney General and other govern-ment officials, where appropriate, shall providethose aliens with referrals to nongovernmentalorganizations to advise the aliens regardingtheir options while in the United States and theresources available to them; and

‘‘(B) the Attorney General shall, during theperiod those aliens are in lawful temporary resi-dent status under that subsection, provide thealiens with employment authorization.

‘‘(4) CREDIBLE EVIDENCE CONSIDERED.—In act-ing on any petition filed under this subsection,the consular officer or the Attorney General, asappropriate, shall consider any credible evi-dence relevant to the petition.

‘‘(5) NONEXCLUSIVE RELIEF.—Nothing in thissubsection limits the ability of aliens who qual-ify for status under section 101(a)(15)(U) to seekany other immigration benefit or status forwhich the alien may be eligible.’’.

(d) PROHIBITION ON ADVERSE DETERMINATIONSOF ADMISSIBILITY OR DEPORTABILITY.—Section384(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Im-migrant Responsibility Act of 1996 is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph(1)(C);

(2) by striking the comma at the end of para-graph (1)(D) and inserting ‘‘, or’’; and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (1)(D) the fol-lowing new subparagraph:

‘‘(E) in the case of an alien applying for sta-tus under section 101(a)(15)(U) of the Immigra-tion and Nationality Act, the perpetrator of thesubstantial physical or mental abuse and thecriminal activity,’’; and

(4) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘section101(a)(15)(U),’’ after ‘‘section 216(c)(4)(C),’’.

(e) WAIVER OF GROUNDS OF INELIGIBILITY FORADMISSION.—Section 212(d) of the Immigrationand Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)) is amend-ed by adding at the end the following new para-graph:

‘‘(13) The Attorney General shall determinewhether a ground of inadmissibility exists withrespect to a nonimmigrant described in section101(a)(15)(U). The Attorney General, in the At-torney General’s discretion, may waive the ap-plication of subsection (a) (other than para-graph (3)(E)) in the case of a nonimmigrant de-scribed in section 101(a)(15)(U), if the AttorneyGeneral considers it to be in the public or na-tional interest to do so.’’.

(f) ADJUSTMENT TO PERMANENT RESIDENT STA-TUS.—Section 245 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) isamended by adding at the end the followingnew subsection:

‘‘(l)(1) The Attorney General may adjust thestatus of an alien admitted into the UnitedStates (or otherwise provided nonimmigrant sta-tus) under section 101(a)(15)(U) to that of analien lawfully admitted for permanent residenceif the alien is not described in section212(a)(3)(E), unless the Attorney General deter-mines based on affirmative evidence that thealien unreasonably refused to provide assistancein a criminal investigation or prosecution, if—

‘‘(A) the alien has been physically present inthe United States for a continuous period of atleast 3 years since the date of admission as anonimmigrant under clause (i) or (ii) of section101(a)(15)(U); and

‘‘(B) in the opinion of the Attorney General,the alien’s continued presence in the UnitedStates is justified on humanitarian grounds, toensure family unity, or is otherwise in the pub-lic interest.

‘‘(2) An alien shall be considered to havefailed to maintain continuous physical presencein the United States under paragraph (1)(A) ifthe alien has departed from the United Statesfor any period in excess of 90 days or for anyperiods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days un-less the absence is in order to assist in the inves-tigation or prosecution or unless an official in-volved in the investigation or prosecution cer-tifies that the absence was otherwise justified.

‘‘(3) Upon approval of adjustment of statusunder paragraph (1) of an alien described insection 101(a)(15)(U)(i) the Attorney Generalmay adjust the status of or issue an immigrantvisa to a spouse, a child, or, in the case of analien child, a parent who did not receive a non-immigrant visa under section 101(a)(15)(U)(ii) ifthe Attorney General considers the grant ofsuch status or visa necessary to avoid extremehardship.

‘‘(4) Upon the approval of adjustment of sta-tus under paragraph (1) or (3), the AttorneyGeneral shall record the alien’s lawful admis-sion for permanent residence as of the date ofsuch approval.’’.

TITLE VI—MISCELLANEOUSSEC. 1601. NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR SEXU-

ALLY VIOLENT OFFENDERS.(a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited

as the ‘‘Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act’’.(b) NOTICE WITH RESPECT TO INSTITUTIONS OF

HIGHER EDUCATION.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 170101 of the Violent

Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994(42 U.S.C. 14071) is amended by adding at theend the following:

‘‘(j) NOTICE OF ENROLLMENT AT OR EMPLOY-MENT BY INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—

‘‘(1) NOTICE BY OFFENDERS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In addition to any otherrequirements of this section, any person who isrequired to register in a State shall provide no-tice as required under State law—

‘‘(i) of each institution of higher education inthat State at which the person is employed, car-ries on a vocation, or is a student; and

‘‘(ii) of each change in enrollment or employ-ment status of such person at an institution ofhigher education in that State.

‘‘(B) CHANGE IN STATUS.—A change in statusunder subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be reported bythe person in the manner provided by State law.State procedures shall ensure that the updatedinformation is promptly made available to a lawenforcement agency having jurisdiction wheresuch institution is located and entered into theappropriate State records or data system.

‘‘(2) STATE REPORTING.—State proceduresshall ensure that the registration informationcollected under paragraph (1)—

‘‘(A) is promptly made available to a law en-forcement agency having jurisdiction wheresuch institution is located; and

‘‘(B) entered into the appropriate Staterecords or data system.

‘‘(3) REQUEST.—Nothing in this subsectionshall require an educational institution to re-quest such information from any State.’’.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment madeby this subsection shall take effect 2 years afterthe date of enactment of this Act.

(c) DISCLOSURES BY INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHEREDUCATION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 485(f)(1) of the High-er Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)) isamended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(I) A statement advising the campus commu-nity where law enforcement agency informationprovided by a State under section 170101(j) ofthe Violent Crime Control and Law EnforcementAct of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14071(j)), concerning reg-istered sex offenders may be obtained, such asthe law enforcement office of the institution, alocal law enforcement agency with jurisdictionfor the campus, or a computer network ad-dress.’’.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment madeby this subsection shall take effect 2 years afterthe date of enactment of this Act.

(d) AMENDMENT TO FAMILY EDUCATIONALRIGHTS AND PRIVACY ACT OF 1974.—Section444(b) of the General Education Provisions Act(20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)), also known as the FamilyEducational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, isamended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(7)(A) Nothing in this section may be con-strued to prohibit an educational institutionfrom disclosing information provided to the in-stitution under section 170101 of the ViolentCrime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994(42 U.S.C. 14071) concerning registered sex of-fenders who are required to register under suchsection.

‘‘(B) The Secretary shall take appropriatesteps to notify educational institutions that dis-closure of information described in subpara-graph (A) is permitted.’’.SEC. 1602. TEEN SUICIDE PREVENTION STUDY.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be citedas the ‘‘Teen Suicide Prevention Act of 2000’’.

(b) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—(1) measures that increase public awareness of

suicide as a preventable public health problem,and target parents and youth so that suiciderisks and warning signs can be recognized, willhelp to eliminate the ignorance and stigma ofsuicide as barriers to youth and families seekingpreventive care;

(2) suicide prevention efforts in the year 2000should—

(A) target at-risk youth, particularly youthwith mental health problems, substance abuseproblems, or contact with the juvenile justicesystem;

(B) involve—(i) the identification of the characteristics of

the at-risk youth and other youth who are con-templating suicide, and barriers to treatment ofthe youth; and


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8875October 5, 2000(ii) the development of model treatment pro-

grams for the youth;(C) include a pilot study of the outcomes of

treatment for juvenile delinquents with mentalhealth or substance abuse problems;

(D) include a public education approach tocombat the negative effects of the stigma of, anddiscrimination against individuals with, mentalhealth and substance abuse problems; and

(E) include a nationwide effort to develop, im-plement, and evaluate a mental health aware-ness program for schools, communities, and fam-ilies;

(3) although numerous symptoms, diagnoses,traits, characteristics, and psychosocialstressors of suicide have been investigated, nosingle factor or set of factors has ever come closeto predicting suicide with accuracy;

(4) research of United States youth, such as a1994 study by Lewinsohn, Rohde, and Seeley,has shown predictors of suicide, such as a his-tory of suicide attempts, current suicidal idea-tion and depression, a recent attempt or com-pleted suicide by a friend, and low self-esteem;and

(5) epidemiological data illustrate—(A) the trend of suicide at younger ages as

well as increases in suicidal ideation amongyouth in the United States; and

(B) distinct differences in approaches to sui-cide by gender, with—

(i) 3 to 5 times as many females as males at-tempting suicide; and

(ii) 3 to 5 times as many males as females com-pleting suicide.

(c) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is toprovide for a study of predictors of suicideamong at-risk and other youth, and barriersthat prevent the youth from receiving treatment,to facilitate the development of model treatmentprograms and public education and awarenessefforts.

(d) STUDY.—Not later than 1 year after thedate of enactment of this Act, the Secretary ofHealth and Human Services shall carry out, di-rectly or by grant or contract, a study that isdesigned to identify—

(1) the characteristics of at-risk and otheryouth age 13 through 21 who are contemplatingsuicide;

(2) the characteristics of at-risk and otheryouth who are younger than age 13 and arecontemplating suicide; and

(3) the barriers that prevent youth describedin paragraphs (1) and (2) from receiving treat-ment.

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section such sums as may be necessary.SEC. 1603. DECADE OF PAIN CONTROL AND RE-

SEARCH.The calendar decade beginning January 1,

2001, is designated as the ‘‘Decade of Pain Con-trol and Research’’.

DIVISION C—MISCELLANEOUSPROVISIONS

SEC. 2001. AIMEE’S LAW(a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited

as ‘‘Aimee’s Law’’.(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:(1) DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENSE.—The term

‘‘dangerous sexual offense’’ means any offenseunder State law for conduct that would con-stitute an offense under chapter 109A of title 18,United States Code, had the conduct occurred inthe special maritime and territorial jurisdictionof the United States or in a Federal prison.

(2) MURDER.—The term ‘‘murder’’ has themeaning given the term in part I of the UniformCrime Reports of the Federal Bureau of Inves-tigation.

(3) RAPE.—The term ‘‘rape’’ has the meaninggiven the term in part I of the Uniform CrimeReports of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(c) PENALTY.—(1) SINGLE STATE.—In any case in which a

State convicts an individual of murder, rape, or

a dangerous sexual offense, who has a priorconviction for any one of those offenses in aState described in paragraph (3), the AttorneyGeneral shall transfer an amount equal to thecosts of incarceration, prosecution, and appre-hension of that individual, from Federal law en-forcement assistance funds that have been allo-cated to but not distributed to the State thatconvicted the individual of the prior offense, tothe State account that collects Federal law en-forcement assistance funds of the State thatconvicted that individual of the subsequent of-fense.

(2) MULTIPLE STATES.—In any case in which aState convicts an individual of murder, rape, ora dangerous sexual offense, who has a priorconviction for any one or more of those offensesin more than one other State described in para-graph (3), the Attorney General shall transferan amount equal to the costs of incarceration,prosecution, and apprehension of that indi-vidual, from Federal law enforcement assistancefunds that have been allocated to but not dis-tributed to each State that convicted such indi-vidual of the prior offense, to the State accountthat collects Federal law enforcement assistancefunds of the State that convicted that individualof the subsequent offense.

(3) STATE DESCRIBED.—A State is described inthis paragraph if—

(A) the average term of imprisonment imposedby the State on individuals convicted of the of-fense for which the individual described inparagraph (1) or (2), as applicable, was con-victed by the State is less than the average termof imprisonment imposed for that offense in allStates; or

(B) with respect to the individual described inparagraph (1) or (2), as applicable, the indi-vidual had served less than 85 percent of theterm of imprisonment to which that individualwas sentenced for the prior offense.For purposes of subparagraph (B), in a Statethat has indeterminate sentencing, the term ofimprisonment to which that individual was sen-tenced for the prior offense shall be based on thelower of the range of sentences.

(d) STATE APPLICATIONS.—In order to receivean amount transferred under subsection (c), thechief executive of a State shall submit to the At-torney General an application, in such form andcontaining such information as the AttorneyGeneral may reasonably require, which shall in-clude a certification that the State has con-victed an individual of murder, rape, or a dan-gerous sexual offense, who has a prior convic-tion for one of those offenses in another State.

(e) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Any amount transferred

under subsection (c) shall be derived by reduc-ing the amount of Federal law enforcement as-sistance funds received by the State that con-victed such individual of the prior offense beforethe distribution of the funds to the State. TheAttorney General shall provide the State withan opportunity to select the specific Federal lawenforcement assistance funds to be so reduced(other than Federal crime victim assistancefunds).

(2) PAYMENT SCHEDULE.—The Attorney Gen-eral, in consultation with the chief executive ofthe State that convicted such individual of theprior offense, shall establish a payment sched-ule.

(f) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sectionmay be construed to diminish or otherwise affectany court ordered restitution.

(g) EXCEPTION.—This section does not apply ifthe individual convicted of murder, rape, or adangerous sexual offense has been released fromprison upon the reversal of a conviction for anoffense described in subsection (c) and subse-quently been convicted for an offense describedin subsection (c).

(h) REPORT.—The Attorney General shall—(1) conduct a study evaluating the implemen-

tation of this section; and(2) not later than October 1, 2006, submit to

Congress a report on the results of that study.

(i) COLLECTION OF RECIDIVISM DATA.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Beginning with calendar

year 2002, and each calendar year thereafter,the Attorney General shall collect and maintaininformation relating to, with respect to eachState—

(A) the number of convictions during that cal-endar year for—

(i) any dangerous sexual offense;(ii) rape; and(iii) murder; and(B) the number of convictions described in

subparagraph (A) that constitute second or sub-sequent convictions of the defendant of an of-fense described in that subparagraph.

(2) REPORT.—Not later than March 1, 2003,and on March 1 of each year thereafter, the At-torney General shall submit to Congress a re-port, which shall include—

(A) the information collected under paragraph(1) with respect to each State during the pre-ceding calendar year; and

(B) the percentage of cases in each State inwhich an individual convicted of an offense de-scribed in paragraph (1)(A) was previously con-victed of another such offense in another Stateduring the preceding calendar year.

(j) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall takeeffect on January 1, 2002.SEC. 2002. PAYMENT OF CERTAIN ANTI-TER-

RORISM JUDGMENTS.(a) PAYMENTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsections (b)

and (c), the Secretary of the Treasury shall payeach person described in paragraph (2), at theperson’s election—

(A) 110 percent of compensatory damagesawarded by judgment of a court on a claim orclaims brought by the person under section1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States Code, plusamounts necessary to pay post-judgment inter-est under section 1961 of such title, and, in thecase of a claim or claims against Cuba, amountsawarded as sanctions by judicial order on April18, 2000 (as corrected on June 2, 2000), subject tofinal appellate review of that order; or

(B) 100 percent of the compensatory damagesawarded by judgment of a court on a claim orclaims brought by the person under section1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States Code, plusamounts necessary to pay post-judgment inter-est, as provided in section 1961 of such title,and, in the case of a claim or claims againstCuba, amounts awarded as sanctions by judicialorder on April 18, 2000 (as corrected June 2,2000), subject to final appellate review of thatorder.Payments under this subsection shall be madepromptly upon request.

(2) PERSONS COVERED.—A person described inthis paragraph is a person who—

(A)(i) as of July 20, 2000, held a final judg-ment for a claim or claims brought under section1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States Code, againstIran or Cuba, or the right to payment of anamount awarded as a judicial sanction with re-spect to such claim or claims; or

(ii) filed a suit under such section 1605(a)(7)on February 17, 1999, June 7, 1999, January 28,2000, March 15, 2000, or July 27, 2000;

(B) relinquishes all claims and rights to com-pensatory damages and amounts awarded as ju-dicial sanctions under such judgments;

(C) in the case of payment under paragraph(1)(A), relinquishes all rights and claims to pu-nitive damages awarded in connection withsuch claim or claims; and

(D) in the case of payment under paragraph(1)(B), relinquishes all rights to execute againstor attach property that is at issue in claimsagainst the United States before an inter-national tribunal, that is the subject of awardsrendered by such tribunal, or that is subject tosection 1610(f)(1)(A) of title 28, United StatesCode.

(b) FUNDING OF AMOUNTS.—(1) JUDGMENTS AGAINST CUBA.—For purposes

of funding the payments under subsection (a) in


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8876 October 5, 2000the case of judgments and sanctions enteredagainst the Government of Cuba or Cuban enti-ties, the President shall vest and liquidate up toand not exceeding the amount of property of theGovernment of Cuba and sanctioned entities inthe United States or any commonwealth, terri-tory, or possession thereof that has been blockedpursuant to section 5(b) of the Trading with theEnemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5(b)), sections 202and 203 of the International Emergency Eco-nomic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1702), or anyother proclamation, order, or regulation issuedthereunder. For the purposes of paying amountsfor judicial sanctions, payment shall be madefrom funds or accounts subject to sanctions asof April 18, 2000, or from blocked assets of theGovernment of Cuba.

(2) JUDGMENTS AGAINST IRAN.—For purposes offunding payments under subsection (a) in thecase of judgments against Iran, the Secretary ofthe Treasury shall make such payments fromamounts paid and liquidated from—

(A) rental proceeds accrued on the date of en-actment of this Act from Iranian diplomatic andconsular property located in the United States;and

(B) funds not otherwise made available in anamount not to exceed the total of the amount inthe Iran Foreign Military Sales Program ac-count within the Foreign Military Sales Fundon the date of enactment of this Act.

(c) SUBROGATION.—Upon payment under sub-section (a) with respect to payments in connec-tion with a Foreign Military Sales Program ac-count, the United States shall be fully sub-rogated, to the extent of the payments, to allrights of the person paid under that subsectionagainst the debtor foreign state. The Presidentshall pursue these subrogated rights as claims oroffsets of the United States in appropriate ways,including any negotiation process which pre-cedes the normalization of relations between theforeign state designated as a state sponsor ofterrorism and the United States, except that nofunds shall be paid to Iran, or released to Iran,from property blocked under the InternationalEmergency Economic Powers Act or from theForeign Military Sales Fund, until such sub-rogated claims have been dealt with to the satis-faction of the United States.

(d) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense ofCongress that the President should not nor-malize relations between the United States andIran until the claims subrogated have been dealtwith to the satisfaction of the United States.

(e) REAFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY.—Congressreaffirms the President’s statutory authority tomanage and, where appropriate and consistentwith the national interest, vest foreign assets lo-cated in the United States for the purposes,among other things, of assisting and, where ap-propriate, making payments to victims of ter-rorism.

(f) AMENDMENTS.—(1) Section 1610(f) of title28, United States Code, is amended—

(A) in paragraphs (2)(A) and (2)(B)(ii), bystriking ‘‘shall’’ each place it appears and in-serting ‘‘should make every effort to’’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following newparagraph:

‘‘(3) WAIVER.—The President may waive anyprovision of paragraph (1) in the interest of na-tional security.’’.

(2) Subsections (b) and (d) of section 117 of theTreasury Department Appropriations Act, 1999(as contained in section 101(h) of Public Law105–277) are repealed.SEC. 2003. AID FOR VICTIMS OF TERRORISM.

(a) MEETING THE NEEDS OF VICTIMS OF TER-RORISM OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1404B(a) of the Vic-tims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603b(a)) isamended as follows:

‘‘(a) VICTIMS OF ACTS OF TERRORISM OUTSIDEUNITED STATES.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director may makesupplemental grants as provided in 1402(d)(5) to

States, victim service organizations, and publicagencies (including Federal, State, or local gov-ernments) and nongovernmental organizationsthat provide assistance to victims of crime,which shall be used to provide emergency relief,including crisis response efforts, assistance,training, and technical assistance, and ongoingassistance, including during any investigationor prosecution, to victims of terrorist acts ormass violence occurring outside the UnitedStates who are not persons eligible for com-pensation under title VIII of the Omnibus Dip-lomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986.

‘‘(2) VICTIM DEFINED.—In this subsection, theterm ‘victim’—

‘‘(A) means a person who is a national of theUnited States or an officer or employee of theUnited States Government who is injured orkilled as a result of a terrorist act or mass vio-lence occurring outside the United States; and

‘‘(B) in the case of a person described in sub-paragraph (A) who is less than 18 years of age,incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, in-cludes a family member or legal guardian ofthat person.

‘‘(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in thissubsection shall be construed to allow the Direc-tor to make grants to any foreign power (as de-fined by section 101(a) of the Foreign Intel-ligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.1801(a)) or to any domestic or foreign organiza-tion operated for the purpose of engaging in anysignificant political or lobbying activities.’’.

(2) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made bythis subsection shall apply to any terrorist actor mass violence occurring on or after December21, 1988, with respect to which an investigationor prosecution was ongoing after April 24, 1996.

(3) ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION.—Not laterthan 90 days after the date of enactment of thisAct, the Director shall establish guidelinesunder section 1407(a) of the Victims of Crime Actof 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10604(a)) to specify the cat-egories of organizations and agencies to whichthe Director may make grants under this sub-section.

(4) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 1404B(b)of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C.10603b(b)) is amended by striking‘‘1404(d)(4)(B)’’ and inserting ‘‘1402(d)(5)’’.

(b) AMENDMENTS TO EMERGENCY RESERVEFUND.—

(1) CAP INCREASE.—Section 1402(d)(5)(A) ofthe Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C.10601(d)(5)(A)) is amended by striking‘‘$50,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000,000’’.

(2) TRANSFER.—Section 1402(e) of the Victimsof Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C 10601(e)) isamended by striking ‘‘in excess of $500,000’’ andall that follows through ‘‘than $500,000’’ and in-serting ‘‘shall be available for deposit into theemergency reserve fund referred to in subsection(d)(5) at the discretion of the Director. Any re-maining unobligated sums’’.

(c) COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF INTER-NATIONAL TERRORISM.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Victims of Crime Act of1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601 et seq.) is amended by in-serting after section 1404B the following:‘‘SEC. 1404C. COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF

INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:‘‘(1) INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.—The term

‘international terrorism’ has the meaning giventhe term in section 2331 of title 18, United StatesCode.

‘‘(2) NATIONAL OF THE UNITED STATES.—Theterm ‘national of the United States’ has themeaning given the term in section 101(a) of theImmigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1101(a)).

‘‘(3) VICTIM.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘victim’ means a

person who—‘‘(i) suffered direct physical or emotional in-

jury or death as a result of international ter-rorism occurring on or after December 21, 1988with respect to which an investigation or pros-ecution was ongoing after April 24, 1996; and

‘‘(ii) as of the date on which the internationalterrorism occurred, was a national of the UnitedStates or an officer or employee of the UnitedStates Government.

‘‘(B) INCOMPETENT, INCAPACITATED, OR DE-CEASED VICTIMS.—In the case of a victim who isless than 18 years of age, incompetent, incapaci-tated, or deceased, a family member or legalguardian of the victim may receive the com-pensation under this section on behalf of thevictim.

‘‘(C) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding any otherprovision of this section, in no event shall an in-dividual who is criminally culpable for the ter-rorist act or mass violence receive any com-pensation under this section, either directly oron behalf of a victim.

‘‘(b) AWARD OF COMPENSATION.—The Directormay use the emergency reserve referred to insection 1402(d)(5)(A) to carry out a program tocompensate victims of acts of international ter-rorism that occur outside the United States forexpenses associated with that victimization.

‘‘(c) ANNUAL REPORT.—The Director shall an-nually submit to Congress a report on the statusand activities of the program under this section,which report shall include—

‘‘(1) an explanation of the procedures for fil-ing and processing of applications for com-pensation;

‘‘(2) a description of the procedures and poli-cies instituted to promote public awarenessabout the program;

‘‘(3) a complete statistical analysis of the vic-tims assisted under the program, including—

‘‘(A) the number of applications for compensa-tion submitted;

‘‘(B) the number of applications approved andthe amount of each award;

‘‘(C) the number of applications denied andthe reasons for the denial;

‘‘(D) the average length of time to process anapplication for compensation; and

‘‘(E) the number of applications for compensa-tion pending and the estimated future liabilityof the program; and

‘‘(4) an analysis of future program needs andsuggested program improvements.’’.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section1402(d)(5)(B) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984(42 U.S.C. 10601(d)(5)(B)) is amended by insert-ing ‘‘, to provide compensation to victims ofinternational terrorism under the programunder section 1404C,’’ after ‘‘section 1404B’’.

(d) AMENDMENTS TO VICTIMS OF CRIMEFUND.—Section 1402(c) of the Victims of CrimeAct 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601(c)) is amended by add-ing at the end the following: ‘‘Notwithstandingsection 1402(d)(5), all sums deposited in theFund in any fiscal year that are not madeavailable for obligation by Congress in the sub-sequent fiscal year shall remain in the Fund forobligation in future fiscal years, without fiscalyear limitation.’’.SEC. 2004. TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT ENFORCE-

MENT.(a) SHIPMENT OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR IN

VIOLATION OF STATE LAW.—The Act entitled‘‘An Act divesting intoxicating liquors of theirinterstate character in certain cases’’, approvedMarch 1, 1913 (commonly known as the ‘‘Webb-Kenyon Act’’) (27 U.S.C. 122) is amended byadding at the end the following:‘‘SEC. 2. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN FEDERAL DIS-

TRICT COURT.‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—‘‘(1) the term ‘attorney general’ means the at-

torney general or other chief law enforcementofficer of a State or the designee thereof;

‘‘(2) the term ‘intoxicating liquor’ means anyspirituous, vinous, malted, fermented, or otherintoxicating liquor of any kind;

‘‘(3) the term ‘person’ means any individualand any partnership, corporation, company,firm, society, association, joint stock company,trust, or other entity capable of holding a legalor beneficial interest in property, but does notinclude a State or agency thereof; and


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8877October 5, 2000‘‘(4) the term ‘State’ means any State of the

United States, the District of Columbia, theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territoryor possession of the United States.

‘‘(b) ACTION BY STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL.—If the attorney general has reasonable cause tobelieve that a person is engaged in, or has en-gaged in, any act that would constitute a viola-tion of a State law regulating the importation ortransportation of any intoxicating liquor, theattorney general may bring a civil action in ac-cordance with this section for injunctive relief(including a preliminary or permanent injunc-tion) against the person, as the attorney generaldetermines to be necessary to—

‘‘(1) restrain the person from engaging, orcontinuing to engage, in the violation; and

‘‘(2) enforce compliance with the State law.‘‘(c) FEDERAL JURISDICTION.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The district courts of the

United States shall have jurisdiction over anyaction brought under this section by an attor-ney general against any person, except one li-censed or otherwise authorized to produce, sell,or store intoxicating liquor in such State.

‘‘(2) VENUE.—An action under this sectionmay be brought only in accordance with section1391 of title 28, United States Code, or in the dis-trict in which the recipient of the intoxicatingliquor resides or is found.

‘‘(3) FORM OF RELIEF.—An action under thissection is limited to actions seeking injunctiverelief (a preliminary and/or permanent injunc-tion).

‘‘(4) NO RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL.—An actionunder this section shall be tried before the court.

‘‘(d) REQUIREMENTS FOR INJUNCTIONS AND OR-DERS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In any action broughtunder this section, upon a proper showing bythe attorney general of the State, the court mayissue a preliminary or permanent injunction torestrain a violation of this section. A propershowing under this paragraph shall require thata State prove by a preponderance of the evi-dence that a violation of State law as describedin subsection (b) has taken place or is takingplace.

‘‘(2) ADDITIONAL SHOWING FOR PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION.—No preliminary injunction may begranted except upon—

‘‘(A) evidence demonstrating the probability ofirreparable injury if injunctive relief is notgranted; and

‘‘(B) evidence supporting the probability ofsuccess on the merits.

‘‘(3) NOTICE.—No preliminary or permanentinjunction may be issued under paragraph (1)without notice to the adverse party and an op-portunity for a hearing.

‘‘(4) FORM AND SCOPE OF ORDER.—Any pre-liminary or permanent injunction entered in anaction brought under this section shall—

‘‘(A) set forth the reasons for the issuance ofthe order;

‘‘(B) be specific in terms;‘‘(C) describe in reasonable detail, and not by

reference to the complaint or other document,the act or acts sought to be restrained; and

‘‘(D) be binding upon—‘‘(i) the parties to the action and the officers,

agents, employees, and attorneys of those par-ties; and

‘‘(ii) persons in active concert or participationwith the parties to the action who receive actualnotice of the order by personal service or other-wise.

‘‘(5) ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE.—In a hear-ing on an application for a permanent injunc-tion, any evidence previously received on an ap-plication for a preliminary injunction in con-nection with the same civil action and thatwould otherwise be admissible, may be made apart of the record of the hearing on the perma-nent injunction.

‘‘(e) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—This sectionshall be construed only to extend the jurisdic-tion of Federal courts in connection with State

law that is a valid exercise of power vested inthe States—

‘‘(1) under the twenty-first article of amend-ment to the Constitution of the United States assuch article of amendment is interpreted by theSupreme Court of the United States includinginterpretations in conjunction with other provi-sions of the Constitution of the United States;and

‘‘(2) under the first section herein as such sec-tion is interpreted by the Supreme Court of theUnited States; but shall not be construed togrant to States any additional power.

‘‘(f) ADDITIONAL REMEDIES.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A remedy under this sec-

tion is in addition to any other remedies pro-vided by law.

‘‘(2) STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS.—Nothing inthis section may be construed to prohibit an au-thorized State official from proceeding in Statecourt on the basis of an alleged violation of anyState law.‘‘SEC. 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

‘‘(a) EFFECT ON INTERNET TAX FREEDOMACT.—Nothing in this section may be construedto modify or supersede the operation of theInternet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note).

‘‘(b) INAPPLICABILITY TO SERVICE PRO-VIDERS.—Nothing in this section may be con-strued to—

‘‘(1) authorize any injunction against aninteractive computer service (as defined in sec-tion 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47U.S.C. 230(f)) used by another person to engagein any activity that is subject to this Act;

‘‘(2) authorize any injunction against an elec-tronic communication service (as defined in sec-tion 2510(15) of title 18, United States Code) usedby another person to engage in any activity thatis subject to this Act; or

‘‘(3) authorize an injunction prohibiting theadvertising or marketing of any intoxicating liq-uor by any person in any case in which suchadvertising or marketing is lawful in the juris-diction from which the importation, transpor-tation or other conduct to which this Act ap-plies originates.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section and theamendments made by this section shall becomeeffective 90 days after the date of this enactmentof this Act.

(c) STUDY.—The Attorney General shall carryout the study to determine the impact of thissection and shall submit the results of suchstudy not later than 180 days after the enact-ment of this Act.

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘An Act tocombat trafficking in persons, especiallyinto the sex trade, slavery, and involuntaryservitude, to reauthorize certain Federalprograms to prevent violence againstwomen, and for other purposes.’’.

And the Senate agree to the same.

BENJAMIN GILMAN,BILL GOODLING,CHRIS SMITH,HENRY J. HYDE,NANCY L. JOHNSON,SAM GEJDENSON,TOM LANTOS,BEN CARDIN,

Managers on the Part of the House.

From the Committee on the Judiciary:ORRIN HATCH,STROM THURMOND,

From the Committee on Foreign Relations:

JESSE HELMS,SAM BROWNBACK,JOE BIDEN,PAUL WELLSTONE,

Managers on the Part of the Senate.JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF

THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCEThe managers on the part of the House and

the Senate at the conference on the dis-agreeing votes of the two Houses on the

amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.3244) an Act to combat trafficking of persons,especially into the sex trade, slavery, andslavery-like conditions, in the United Statesand countries around the world through pre-vention, through prosecution and enforce-ment against traffickers, and through pro-tection and assistance to victims of traf-ficking, submit the following joint state-ment to the House and the Senate in expla-nation of the effect of the action agreed uponby the managers and recommended in the ac-companying conference report:

Division A of the conference agreement isthe Trafficking Victims Protection Act of2000, an act to combat trafficking in persons,especially into the sex trade, slavery, and in-voluntary servitude, in the United Statesand foreign countries. Division B is the Vio-lence Against Women Act of 2000, an act toreauthorize federal programs that combat vi-olence against women, to strengthen law en-forcement to reduce violence against women,to strengthen services to victims of violence,to limit the effects of violence on children,to strengthen education and training to com-bat violence against women, to enact newprocedures for the protection of battered im-migrant women, and to extend the ViolentCrime Reduction Trust Fund. Division C con-sists of anti-crime measures including provi-sions to encourage States to incarcerate in-dividuals convicted of murder, rape, or childmolestation, to facilitate recovery by vic-tims of terrorism against the assets of for-eign entities that have been held responsiblefor such terrorism; and to provide for injunc-tive relief in Federal district court to en-force State laws relating to the interstatetransportation of intoxicating liquor.

CONCERNING DIVISION AThe managers on the part of the House and

the Senate at the conference on the dis-agreeing votes of the two Houses on theamendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.3244), an Act to combat trafficking of per-sons, especially into the sex trade, slavery,and involuntary servitude, in the UnitedStates and foreign countries, through pre-vention, through prosecution and enforce-ment against traffickers, and through pro-tection and assistance to victims of traf-ficking, submit the following joint state-ment to the House and the Senate in expla-nation of the effect of the action agreed uponby the managers and recommended in the ac-companying conference report:

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1 of the House bill states that thisAct may be cited as the Trafficking VictimsProtection Act of 2000 and lists its contents.Section 1 of the Senate amendment is sub-stantially identical to the House provision.The conference agreement provides that thisAct may be cited as the Trafficking VictimsProtection Act of 2000 and includes a table ofcontents.

SEC. 2. PURPOSES AND FINDINGS

Section 2 of the House bill states that thepurposes of this Act are to combat traf-ficking in persons, to ensure just punishmentof traffickers, and to protect their victims.Section 2 of the House bill also includes find-ings to the effect that every year millions ofpeople, predominantly women and children,are trafficked within or across internationalborders; that many victims are traffickedinto the international sex industry, oftenthrough force, fraud, or coercion; that traf-ficking in persons is not limited to sex traf-ficking, but often involves forced labor andother violations of human rights; that traf-ficking is a growing transnational problemthat is increasingly perpetrated by organizedcriminal enterprises; that existing legisla-tion and law enforcement in the United


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8878 October 5, 2000States and abroad are inadequate to detertrafficking, bring traffickers to justice, andmeet the safe reintegration needs of traf-ficking victims; that in some countries, anti-trafficking efforts are hindered by official in-difference, corruption, and sometimes evenofficial participation in trafficking; thattrafficking in persons is a matter of pressinginternational concern, and that the UnitedStates must work bilaterally and multilater-ally to abolish trafficking and protect traf-ficking victims. The House findings also in-clude references to the Declaration of Inde-pendence, the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights, and numerous treaties andother international instruments.

Section 2 of the Senate amendment con-tains identical purposes and similar findings,with a more succinct set of references tointernational agreements. Section 2 of theSenate amendment also contains findings tothe effect that victims of severe forms oftrafficking in persons should not be inappro-priately incarcerated, fined, or otherwise pe-nalized, and that existing United States stat-utes on involuntary servitude have been nar-rowly construed, in the absence of a defini-tion by Congress, to exclude certain cases inwhich persons are held in a condition of ser-vitude by nonviolent coercion.

Section 2 of the conference agreement issubstantially identical to section 2 of theSenate amendment.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS

Section 3 of the House bill defines certainterms used in this Act. ‘‘Sex trafficking’’ isdefined as the purchase, sale, recruitment,harboring, transportation, transfer, or re-ceipt of a person for the purpose of a com-mercial sex act. ‘‘Severe forms of traffickingin persons’’ is defined as sex trafficking in-duced by force, coercion, fraud, or deception,or involving a person under the age of 18, aswell as trafficking for the purpose of sub-jecting the trafficked person to involuntaryservitude, slavery, or slavery-like practicesby force, coercion, fraud, or deception.‘‘Slavery-life practices’’ means inducementof a person to perform labor or other servicesby force, coercion, or by any scheme, plan, orpattern to cause the person to believe thatfailure to perform the work will result in theinfliction of serious harm, debt bondageamounting to involuntary servitude, or sub-jection to conditions so harsh or degradingas to provide a clear indication that the per-son has been subjected to them by force, orcoercion. In the context of this bill, ‘‘seriousharm’’ could include physical restraint thatseverely limits freedom of movement. ‘‘Coer-cion,’’ as defined, includes the use of force,violence, and physical restraint, as well asacts calculated to have the same effect (suchas the credible threat of serious harm). TheHouse provision also defines ‘‘nonhumani-tarian foreign assistance’’ to include certainassistance under the Foreign Assistance Actof 1961 and the Export-Import Bank Act of1945.

Section 3 of the Senate amendment con-tains definitions similar to those in theHouse bill, with several exceptions. The Sen-ate provision defines ‘‘debt bondage’’ as acondition in which personal services arepledged as security for a debt but in whicheither reasonable value of such services isnot in fact applied to the debt or the lengthand nature of such services are unlimited orundefined. The Senate definitions do not usethe term ‘‘deception’’ in the definition of se-vere forms of trafficking. The Senate provi-sion omits the House definition of ‘‘slavery-like practices’’ because this term is not con-tained elsewhere in the Senate bill. Instead,the Senate provision makes clear that ‘‘in-voluntary servitude’’ includes a condition ofservitude induced by means of any act,

scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause abelief that serious harm or physical restraintwould otherwise occur, or by the abuse orthreatened abuse of the legal process andalso includes a definition of ‘‘coercion.’’ TheSenate provision also includes definitions of‘‘State’’ and ‘‘United States’’ which includethe District of Columbia and United Statesterritories and possessions. Finally, the Sen-ate omits the definitions of ‘‘act of a severeform of trafficking’’ and ‘‘nonhumanitarianforeign assistance’’ contained in the Housebill.

Section 3 of the conference agreement issimilar to the Senate provision, except thatit includes a definition of ‘‘nonhumanitarian,nontrade-related foreign assistance’’ similarto the definition contained in the House pro-vision, but excluding assistance under theExport-Import Bank Act of 1945 and undertitle IV of chapter 2 of part I of the ForeignAssistance Act of 1961, relating to the Over-seas Private Investment Corporation. Theconference agreement also includes a defini-tion of ‘‘coercion’’ corresponding to the defi-nition included in 18 U.S.C. sec. 1591, addedby section 12 of this Act, which provides fora criminal offense of sex trafficking.

In various sections, the conference agree-ment uses more general terms such as ‘‘traf-ficking’’ or ‘‘trafficking in persons’’ ratherthan the more limited term ‘‘severe forms oftrafficking in persons.’’ In such contexts,these terms are intended to be used in amore general sense, giving the President andother officials some degree of discretion toapply the relevant provisions to a broaderrange of actions or victims beyond those as-sociated with severe forms of trafficking inpersons. Such discretion is particularly ap-propriate in assistance to and protection ofvictims, because trafficked women and chil-dren may have a compelling need for such as-sistance and protection even though theyhave not been subjected to severe forms oftrafficking. In this connection, the con-ference agreement includes a definition of‘‘victims of trafficking’’ that would encom-pass a broader class of victims in certainprograms. Where, however, this Act uses theterm ‘‘victims of severe forms of traf-ficking,’’ even in provisions related to pro-tection and assistance, the application ofsuch provisions is limited to such victims.

SEC. 4. ANNUAL COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMANRIGHTS PRACTICES

Section 4 of the House bill requires theSecretary of State to include in the annualCountry Reports a list of foreign countriesthat are countries of origin, transit, or des-tination for a significant number of victimsof severe forms of trafficking, as well as in-formation such as the extent to which gov-ernment officials in such countries are in-volved in such trafficking, and an assess-ment of the steps governments are taking tocombat trafficking and to assist victims oftrafficking and protect their rights. Section4 of the Senate amendment is substantiallyidentical to the House provision, except thatit does not require a list of countries andwould therefore effectively require informa-tion about severe forms of trafficking in per-sons to be provided in the annual CountryReport for each foreign country.

Section 4 of the conference agreement issimilar to the Senate provision except thatit amends sections 116(f) and 502B of the For-eign Assistance Act of 1961, requiring certaininformation on trafficking in persons to beprovided in the Country Reports. The sectionas amended will limit the required reportingin the Country Reports to severe forms oftrafficking in persons, but gives the Sec-retary of State discretion to include suchother information on trafficking as the Sec-retary deems appropriate. As with other

human rights violations, the extent to whichtrafficking in persons is discussed in theCountry Report for a particular countryshould be commensurate with the extent ofthe problem in such country.

SEC. 5. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE TO MONITORAND COMBAT TRAFFICKING

Section 5 of the House bill provides thatthe President shall establish an Inter-Agen-cy Task Force to Monitor and Combat Traf-ficking and authorizes the establishment anOffice in the State Department to provide as-sistance to the Task Force. Section 5 of theSenate provision is substantially identical tothe House provision, except that it requiresthe Task Force, beginning in 2002, to publishan annual list of countries which do notmeet the minimum standards set forth insection 8, and authorizes interim reportswith respect to such countries. Section 5 ofthe conference agreement is substantiallyidentical to the House provision, althoughthe conference agreement does provide insection 10 for annual and interim reports oncountries whose governments do not complywith the minimum standards. It also pro-vides that the Task Force will have primaryresponsibility for advising the Secretary ofState on preparation of the reports in sec-tion 10.

SEC. 6. PREVENTION OF TRAFFICKING

Section 6 of the House bill charges thePresident, acting through the Agency forInternational Development and other agen-cies and in consultation with appropriatenon-governmental organizations, with estab-lishing initiatives to enhance economic op-portunity for potential trafficking victimsas a means of deterring trafficking, such asmicrocredit lending programs, training, andeducation. It also directs the President to es-tablish programs to increase public aware-ness of the dangers of trafficking and theprotections available to victims. Section 6 ofthe of the Senate amendment is substan-tially identical to section 6 of the House bill.Section 6 of the conference agreement isidentical to the Senate provision.

SEC. 7. PROTECTION AND ASSISTANCE FORVICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING

Subsection 7(a) of the House bill chargesthe State Department and the Agency forInternational Development (AID) with estab-lishing programs and initiatives in foreigncountries to assist victims of trafficking.Subsection 7(a) of the Senate amendment issubstantially identical to the House provi-sion. Subsection 7(a) of the conference agree-ment is identical to the Senate provision, ex-cept that all authorities are vested in thePresident.

Subsection 7(b) of the House bill directsthe Attorney General, the Secretaries ofLabor and of Health and Human Services,and the Board of Directors of the Legal Serv-ices Corporation to expand assistance to vic-tims of severe forms of tafficking in theUnited States. The provision makes clearthat for the purpose of receiving benefits, a‘‘victim of a severe form of trafficking’’means only a person who has been subjectedto such trafficking and who either has notobtained the age of 15 years or is the subjectof a certification that he or she (1) is willingto assist in every reasonable way in the in-vestigation and prosecution of severe formsof trafficking in persons, and (2) either hasmade a bona fide application for a visa underthe provisions of immigration law added bysection 7(f), or is a person whose presence inthe United States the Attorney General isensuring in order to effectuate prosecutionof traffickers. In addition, the section makesvictims of severe forms of trafficking in theUnited States eligible for benefits under theCrime Victims Fund without regard to their


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8879October 5, 2000immigration status, and allows the AttorneyGeneral to make grants to local govern-ments and nonprofit organizations to expandservices for victims of trafficking. It alsoprovides trafficking victims a civil right ofaction against traffickers for violations of 18U.S.C. 1589 (trafficking into slavery-like con-ditions) or 1589A (sex trafficking of childrenor by force, fraud, or coercion).

Subsection 7(b) of the Senate amendmentis similar to the House provision except thatit does not contain the certification require-ment as a condition on eligibility for bene-fits. It also contains no reference to theCrime Victims Fund and does not provide acivil right of action.

Subsection 7(b) of the conference agree-ment contains the certification requirementfor benefit eligibility. The conference agree-ment, however, requires a certification onlyfor victims who have attained the age of 18years. This subsection of the conferenceagreement is similar to the Senate provisionin that it provides no civil right of action.The conferees emphasize that nothing in thisAct will preclude trafficking victims fromavailing themselves of applicable State,local or other Federal laws in seeking com-pensatory or other damages and relief in anycivil proceeding. The House provision mak-ing victims eligible for benefits under theCrime Victims Fund has been deleted as un-necessary, because current law does not barsuch victims from receiving such benefits onaccount of their immigration status. Theconferees expect that the Office of Victims ofCrimes will provide assistance to these vic-tims, even though this provision was deleted.In addition, the conferees believe that inmaking grants under this section, the Attor-ney General and other federal officialsshould consider whether the prospectivegrantee denies services to a trafficking vic-tim solely on account of conduct incident tothat person’s status as a victim.

Subsection 7(c) of the House bill requiresthe Attorney General and the Secretary ofState to promulgate regulations to ensurethat: (1) victims of severe forms of traf-ficking are provided with appropriate shelterand care while in Federal custody; (2) vic-tims are not jailed or fined merely becausethey were trafficked; (3) victims have accessto legal assistance and translation services;(4) victims are assured continuous presencein the United States to assist in the prosecu-tion of traffickers; and (5) State and JusticeDepartment personnel are trained in identi-fying and protecting victims of severe formsof trafficking.

Subsection 7(c) of the Senate amendmentis similar to the House provision, with toprincipal exceptions. First, it does not re-quire regulations that explicitly prohibit in-carceration, fines, or other penalties againstvictims on account of their having been traf-ficked. Instead, it requires regulations thatprohibit the detention of victims in facilitiesinappropriate to their status as crime vic-tims. Second, it requires regulations underwhich the Attorney General ‘‘may’’ ensurethe continued presence of a person in theUnited States in order to effectuate prosecu-tion of traffickers if the person is both a vic-tim and a potential witness.

Subsection 7(c) of the Senate conferenceagreement is substantially identical to theSenate provision. The conferees believe thatthe House provision with respect to jailing,fining, or otherwise penalizing victims of se-rious crimes on account of their status ascrime victims or on account of conduct com-mitted under duress incident to such statusrestates existing criminal law and is there-fore unnecessary. The conferees also believethat training provided to State Departmentof Justice Department personnel should in-clude methods for achieving antitrafficking

objectives through nondiscriminatory appli-cation of immigration laws and others laws.

Subsection 7(d) of the House bill makesclear that nothing in subsection (c) creates aprivate cause of action against the UnitedStates or its employees. Subsection 7(d) ofthe Senate amendment is identical to theHouse provision. Subsection 7(d) of the con-ference agreement is identical to both provi-sions.

Subsection 7(e) of the House bill makesfunds derived from the sale of assets seizedfrom and forfeited by traffickers (pursuantto section 12(e) of the House bill) availablefor the victim assistance under subsections(a) and (b). The Senate amendment containsno corresponding provision. The conferenceagreement is identical to the Senate amend-ment.

Section 7(f) of the House bill creates a newnonimmigrant. ‘‘T’’ visa for certain victimsof severe forms of trafficking. Eligibilitywould be limited to persons who: (1) are vic-tims of a severe form of trafficking in per-sons, as defined in section 3 of the act; (2) arein the United States or at a United Statesport of entry by reasons of having been traf-ficked here; (3) are no older than 14 years ofage or were induced to participate in the sextrade or slavery-like practices by force, coer-cion, fraud, or deception, did not voluntaryagree to any arrangement including suchparticipation, and have complied with anyreasonable request for assistance in the in-vestigation or prosecution of traffickingacts; and (4) have a well-founded fear of ret-ribution involving the infliction of severeharm upon removal from the United Statesor would suffer extreme hardship in connec-tion with the trafficking upon removal fromthe United States. It also permits the Attor-ney General to grant a ‘‘T’’ visa if necessaryto avoid extreme hardship to the victim’sspouse, sons and daughters (who are not chil-dren), and the parents if the victim is under21 years old. A victim’s children who are un-married and under 21 years old need not es-tablish extreme hardship to receive a ‘‘T’’visa. It precludes anyone in this section fromreceiving a ‘‘T’’ visa if there is substantialreason to believe that the person has com-mitted an act of a severe form of traffickingin persons. The House provision permits theAttorney General to waive grounds of inad-missibility, including health-relatedgrounds, public charge, and, with the excep-tion of security, international child abduc-tion, and former citizens who renounced citi-zenship to avoid taxation, any other provi-sion of section 212(a) of the INA if the activi-ties rendering the alien inadmissible werecaused by the trafficking. It states that theINS is not prohibited from instituting re-moval proceedings against an alien admittedwith a ‘‘T’’ visa for conduct committed afterthe alien’s admission into the United States,or for conduct or a condition that was notdisclosed to the Attorney General prior tothe alien’s admission. The House provisionalso places an annual cap of 5,000 on ‘‘T’’visas for trafficking victims. Finally, theHouse provision permits the Attorney Gen-eral to adjust the status of a ‘‘T’’ visa holderto that of a permanent resident if the alien:(1) has been physically present in the UnitedStates for a continuous period of at least 3years since the date of admission; (2) hasthroughout such period been a person of goodmoral character; (3) has during such periodcomplied with any reasonable request for as-sistance in the investigation or prosecutionof trafficking acts; and (4) has a well-foundedfear of retribution involving the infliction ofsevere harm upon removal from the UnitedStates, or would suffer extreme hardship inconnection with the trafficking upon re-moval from the United States. It also per-mits the Attorney General to adjust the sta-

tus of the victim’s spouse, parents, and mar-ried and unmarried sons and daughters, if ad-mitted with a ‘‘T’’ visa, to that of an alienlawfully admitted for permanent residence.An annual cap of 5,000 is placed on adjust-ments of status for victims. The provisionalso permits the Attorney General to waivegrounds of inadmissibility, including health-related grounds, public charge, and, with theexception of security, international child ab-duction, and former citizens who renouncedcitizenship to avoid taxation, any other pro-vision of section 212(a) of the INA if the ac-tivities rendering the alien inadmissiblecaused by the trafficking.

Subsection 7(e) and (f) of the Senateamendment are similar to section 7(f) of theHouse bill. The Senate provision allows vic-tims who meet all other eligibility require-ments for the ‘‘T’’ visa to make a showing of‘‘extreme hardship’’ whether or not suchhardship is ‘‘in connection with the victim-ization.’’ The Senate provision also makes avictim’s spouse and minor children eligiblefor visas only on a showing that their pres-ence in the United States would be ‘‘nec-essary to avoid extreme hardship.’’ The Sen-ate provision makes a victim’s parents eligi-ble for visas only if the victim is under theage 21, and provides no eligibility for a vic-tim’s sons and daughters who are not minorchildren. The Senate provision contained noannual limitation on the number of non-immigrant visas or on the number of personseligible to adjust status to permanent resi-dence. The Senate provision allowing towaive grounds of inadmissibility was broaderthan the House provision, allowing waiversof all grounds except participation in Nazipersecution, genocide, and related grounds.

Subsection 7(e) and (f) of the conferenceagreement are similar to the House bill butincorporate elements of the Senate amend-ment. The conferees believe that an appli-cant who voluntarily agrees to be smuggledinto the United States in exchange for work-ing to pay off the smuggling fee is not eligi-ble for the ‘‘T’’ visa, unless the applicant be-comes a victim of a severe form of traf-ficking in persons as defined by the Act. Theconference provision requires that a victimwould face ‘‘extreme hardship involving un-usual and severe harm’’ upon removal as anelement in establishing eligibility for a visa.The conferees expect that the Immigrationand Naturalization Service and the Execu-tive Office for Immigration Review will in-terpret the ‘‘extreme hardship involving un-usual and severe harm’’ to be a higher stand-ard than just ‘‘extreme hardship.’’ Thestandard shall cover those cases where a vic-tim likely would face genuine and serioushardship if removed from the United States,whether or not the severe harm is physicalharm or on account of having been traf-ficked. The extreme hardship shall involvemore than the normal economic and socialdisruptions involved in deportation. The con-ference provision is also similar to the Sen-ate provision in requiring a showing of ex-treme hardship for the admission of a vic-tim’s spouse and minor children and in con-taining no provision for admission of adultsons and daughters. The conference provisionis identical to the House provision with re-spect to waivers of grounds of inadmis-sibility.

The conference agreement limits the num-ber of nonimmigrant visas to 5000 per yearand also contains an annual limit of 5000 onthe number of ‘‘T’’ visa holders who are eli-gible to adjust their status to lawful perma-nent residence. The conference provisionalso adds a new subsection (g), directing theImmigration and Naturalization Service toreport annually on whether any otherwise el-igible applicant has been denied a visa or ad-justment of status solely on account of the


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8880 October 5, 2000annual limitation. The conferees expect thatthis report will list the number of visa andadjustment applications filed, the number ofdenials for any reason, and the number de-nied on account of the annual limitation.The conferees believe that the annual limita-tion of 5000 is sufficient to include all bonafide victims of severe forms of trafficking inpersons who meet all other eligibility re-quirements. If experience should indicatethat the number is insufficient to include allsuch bona fide eligible victims, it would beappropriate for Congress to consider enact-ing legislation to increase the annual limita-tion.

SEC. 8 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR THEELIMINATION OF TRAFFICKING

Section 8 of the House bill establishesminimums standards applicable to govern-ments of countries that are countries of ori-gin, transit, or destination for a significantnumber of victims of severe forms of traf-ficking in persons. The section provides thatsuch governments should enact laws thatprohibit and severely punish such traffickingand should make serious and sustained ef-forts to eliminate such trafficking. The sec-tion sets forth a number of indicia of suchserious and sustained efforts, including vig-orous prosecution of offenders, protection ofvictims, education of the public and of po-tential victims, and cooperation with inter-national efforts to stop trafficking. Section 8of the Senate amendment is substantiallysimilar to the House provision. Section 8 ofthe conference agreement is substantiallysimilar to the House and Senate provisions.The conferees do not expect that a govern-ment would be required to fulfill all the cri-teria in subsection 8(b) in order to be making‘‘serious and sustained efforts’’ to eliminatesevere forms of trafficking in persons. Rath-er, the subsection requires only that the Sec-retary consider these factors in determiningwhether the government is making such ef-forts.

SEC. 9 ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES TOMEETING MINIMUM STANDARDS

Section 9 of the House bill authorizes theAgency for International Development tofund activities designed to help foreign coun-tries meet the minimum standards outlinedin section 8(a) of this Act. Such activities in-clude, but are not limited to, assistance indrafting anti-trafficking legislation, traininglaw enforcement and judicial system offi-cials in the investigation and prosecution oftrafficking cases, and efforts by foreign gov-ernments to assist victims. Section 9 of theSenate amendment is similar to the Houseprovision but makes clear that such activi-ties may be conducted through nongovern-mental or multilateral organizations andmay include the expansion of exchange pro-grams and international visitor programs.Section 9 of the conference agreement is sub-stantially identical to the Senate provision.

SEC. 10. ACTIONS AGAINST GOVERNMENTSFAILING TO MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS

Section 10 of the House bill requires theSecretary of State to submit to Congress anannual report on the status of severe formsof trafficking, consisting of a list of coun-tries that do not meet the minimum stand-ards set forth in section 8 of the Act, to-gether with such other information as theSecretary may wish to provide. The sectionprovides that the Secretary may also file in-terim reports. Beginning in FY 2002, the sec-tion requires that for each government thatfails to meet the minimum standards, thePresident ‘‘shall’’ either (a) withhold non-humanitarian U.S. foreign assistance to thatgovernment and direct that the U.S. execu-tive directors of multilateral lendinginstutions vote against nonhumanitarian as-

sistance to that government during the fol-lowing fiscal year; or (b) waive these require-ments if the President finds that the provi-sion of nonhumanitarian assistance to thatcountry is in the national interest of theUnited States.

Section 10 of the Senate amendment pro-vides that, with respect to each country thatdoes not meet the minimum standards setforth in section 8, the President ‘‘may’’ takeany of a number of actions, including with-holding foreign assistance, instructing theU.S. executive directors of multilateral lend-ing institutions to vote against loans or as-sistance to such countries, prohibiting armssales, and restricting exports to such coun-tries.

Section 10 of the conference agreement issimilar to the Senate provision with respectto countries whose governments do not com-ply with the minimum standards but aremaking significant efforts to bring them-selves into compliance, in that is contains noprovision for actions against such countries,thereby leaving the President free to take noaction or to take any action that is withinthe President’s discretion under current law.This section of the conference agreement issimilar to the House provision only with re-spect to countries whose governments notonly fail to comply with the minimum stand-ards, but also fail to make significant effortsto comply with such standards. With respectto this small number of truly egregious of-fenders, the conference agreement contains aprovision similar to the House bill, but withthe following additional limitations: (1) Therequirement that the President either with-hold assistance to the foreign government orwaive the withholding requirement is lim-ited to assistance which is ‘‘nonhumani-tarian’’ and also ‘‘nontrade-related.’’ (2)Similarly, the provision with respect tointernational financial institutions is lim-ited to non-humanitarian, nontrade-relatedloans and other utilizations of funds. For thepurposes of this provision, the conferees con-sider humanitarian assistance to includedebt relief extended by international finan-cial institutions to governments in order toallow such governments to meet the basicneeds of the people of their countries. (3) ThePresident may waive these requirements if awaiver would promote the purposes of thisAct, such as in a case in which the Presidentbelieves providing assistance will cause theoffending government to attempt to complywith the minimums standards. (4) The Presi-dent may also waive the requirements if forany other reason he believes a waiver to bein the national interest. (5) The Presidentmay use the waiver authority with respectto all assistance and extensions of credit toa government or with respect to any subsetof such assistance or extensions of credit. (6)The President must use the waiver authorityas necessary to avoid substantial adverse im-pact on vulnerable populations includingwomen and children. (7) In lieu of notifyingCongress that aid will be withdrawn or thatone of the waiver authorities granted by thissection will be used, the President may no-tify Congress that the government of a coun-try is already subject to broad-based reduc-tions in assistance due to human rights vio-lations and that no additional measures aredeemed appropriate. Finally, (8) the require-ment will not go into effect until 2003. Thethree-year delay in implementation of thisprovision is intended to give foreign govern-ments time to begin making efforts to com-ply with the minimum standards. The con-ferees emphasize that the provisions of thisAct clearly require that in assessing therecords of foreign governments with respectto the minimum standards for the elimi-nation of trafficking, the President andother executive branch officials must not

limit their scrutiny to the governments ofcountries of origin for victims of severeforms of trafficking in persons, but mustapply equally close scrutiny to the govern-ments of transit countries and countries ofdestination for such victims.

SEC. 11. ACTIONS AGAINST SIGNIFICANTTRAFFICKERS IN PERSONS

Section 11 of the House bill authorizes theSecretary of State to compile and publish alist of foreign persons who have a significantrole in a severe form of trafficking in per-sons, directly or indirectly in the UnitedStates, who materially support such persons,or who are owned or controlled by such per-sons. It allows the President to impose Inter-national Emergency Economic Power Acts(IEEPA) sanctions, including the freezing ofassets located in the United States, withoutregard to section 202 of such Act against anyforeign person on that list, and requires thatthe President report to Congress on any suchsanctions. It also allows for the non-disclo-sure of persons on the list for intelligenceand law enforcement reasons, and requiresthat Congress be notified of such exclusionson an annual basis. Subsection 11(e) excludessignificant traffickers, persons who know-ingly assist them, and their spouses, sons,and daughters who knowingly benefit fromthe proceeds of their trafficking activities,from entry into the United States. This ap-proach is similar to that adopted by the For-eign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, en-acted in Title VIII of the Intelligence Au-thorization Act of 2000, P.L. 106–120.

Section 11 of the Senate amendment issimilar to the House provision in that it pro-vides authority to the President to block as-sets and transactions of foreign persons whowere traffickers in persons and foreign per-sons who materially assist or are owned,controlled or directed by such persons. TheHouse bill and the Senate amendment alsoinclude similar provisions for compiling listsof such persons and for reporting on whatpersons were subject to the authority toblock assets and transactions. Finally, theSenate section also includes a provisionsimilar to the House amendment to the Im-migration and Nationality Act making inad-missible persons subject to blocking undersection 11 as well as spouses, sons and daugh-ters who had obtained financial benefit fromsuch persons and who knew or should haveknown that the financial benefit was theproduct of trafficking in persons.

Section 11 of the conference agreement issimilar in substance to the House and Senateprovisions. The conferees determined that inlight of the discretionary character of bothproposals, a streamlined provision for desig-nating and reporting on persons subject tothe section was warranted, with all author-ity vested in the President rather than inother executive branch officials. A provisionwas added explicitly providing the Presidentauthority to delegate any responsibility.While the provision explicitly refers to theauthority to make derivative designations,the conferees intend that any authority orresponsibility in this section may be dele-gated. The conferees expect that a substan-tial part of this authority will be delegatedto the Secretary of the Treasury, since theOffice of Foreign Assets Control within theDepartment of the Treasury is responsiblefor administering other blocking programs.However, the conferees also expect that thedelegation of authority under section 11 orregulations promulgated to implement thissection will ensure that appropriate agenciessuch as the Departments of State and Jus-tice are involved in the designation processcontemplated under this section.

The conferees remain concerned regardingadministrative actions that may seriously


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8881October 5, 2000affect the livelihood of persons subject tosuch actions but that are not subject to ahearing prior to their application. The con-ferees have been assured that blocking au-thority of this type is generally exercisedonly on persons who have most of their as-sets abroad, and the chief effect of blockingorders is to prohibit U.S. persons from en-gaging in transactions with such persons.While this assurance decreases the concernof the conferees that the provisions may in-advertently be used against an innocent per-son who would then be unable to use any ofhis or her assets to live during a challenge toa determination, the conferees included aprovision requiring the agency admin-istering this section to provide an expeditedprocess for hearing from any person subjectto this section, including any designationmade directly by the President. It also pro-vides that nothing in this section precludesjudicial review of determinations under thissection. The conferees recognize, however,that courts will give significant deference toa foreign policy determination of the Presi-dent, which would be basis for making deter-minations under this section.

Finally, several of the conferees raisedconcerns regarding the provision makingcertain spouses and children of traffickersinadmissible. In order to address these con-cerns, the conference agreement contains anexception for sons and daughters who wereminor children at the time they received abenefit from trafficking enterprises.

SEC. 12. STRENGTHENING PROSECUTION ANDPUNISHMENT OF TRAFFICKERS

Section 12 of the House bill amends chap-ter 77 of title 18 of the United States Code toincrease penalties for involuntary servitudeand other existing crimes, adds several newcriminal violations in the areas of traf-ficking in persons, and amends the sen-tencing guidelines related to these crimes.Subsection (a) increases the penalties for in-voluntary servitude, peonage and other ex-isting crimes from 10 years to 20 years andprovides for life imprisonment if the viola-tion includes kidnaping, aggravated sexualabuse or an attempt to kill. Subsection (a)also adds several new crimes to title 18. Sec-tion 1589 creates a new crime of forced laborfor persons who knowingly provide or obtainthe labor or services of a person by threats ofserious harm to, or physical restraintagainst that person or another; by use offraud, deceit or misrepresentation if the per-son is a minor, mentally disabled, or other-wise particularly susceptible to undue influ-ence; by the means of any scheme, plan orpattern intended to cause the person to be-lieve that if the person did not perform suchlabor or services, serious harm or physicalrestraint would be inflicted on that person oranother; or by means of the abuse or threat-ened abuse of law or the legal process. Newsection 1590 would criminalize trafficking ofany person in violation of Chapter 77 of title18, including by those who benefit financiallyor otherwise by such trafficking. New Sec-tion 1591 creates a crime for trafficking per-sons into a criminal sex act by coercion,fraud, deceit, misrepresentation or otherabusive practices, as defined in this section.Subsection (a) also establishes a crime forunlawful conduct with respect to documentsin furtherance of trafficking, peonage, slav-ery, involuntary servitude or forced labor,and provides for mandatory restitution tovictims of offenses under chapter 77 of title18. A new subsection 1594 provides generalprovisions ensuring that attempts and con-spiracy of certain crimes in chapter 77 aretreated in the same manner as a completedviolation and provides for asset forfeitureand witness protection. Finally, section 12(b)provides amendments to U.S. sentencing

guidelines regarding crimes contained in theamended chapter 77 of title 18.

Section 12 of the Senate amendment issimilar to the House bill, but with certainimportant differences. Rather than add anew section 1589, the Senate amendment pro-vides a definition of involuntary servitude insection 1584 to include a condition of ser-vitude induced by means of any act, scheme,plan, or pattern intended to cause a personto believe that the person or another personwould suffer serious harm or physical re-straint or the abuse or threatened abuse ofthe legal process. The Senate amendmentalso provides for new crimes for traffickingwith respect to peonage, slavery or involun-tary servitude, but does not extend thecriminal misconduct to persons who benefitfinancially or otherwise from trafficking.The Senate amendment provides for a newsection of title 18 of the United States Codefor sex trafficking, but limits it to cases offorce, fraud, or coercion, as defined in thatsection. The Senate amendment also in-cludes new sections relating to unlawful con-duct with respect to documents in further-ance of trafficking and other crimes, andlikewise has provisions identical to theHouse bill on mandatory restitution. Fi-nally, the Senate amendment provides gen-eral provisions regarding asset forfeiture,witness protection and amendments to U.S.sentencing guidelines.

Section 12 of the conference agreement issubstantially similar to the House provision,but incorporates a number of provisions con-tained in the Senate amendment. In order toaddress issues raised by the decision of theUnited States Supreme Court in UnitedStates v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988), theagreement creates a new section 1589 onforced labor in form similar to the Housebill. The agreement does not contain a provi-sion included in the House bill addressingfraud or deception to obtain labor or servicesof minors, mentally incompetent persons, orpersons otherwise particularly susceptible.In deleting these provisions, the confereesaddressed the concerns of some members ofthe conference that the similar House billprovision might have criminalized conductthat is currently regulated by labor law.However, the conferees are aware that theDepartment of Justice may seek additionalstatutory changes in future years to furtheraddress the issues raised in Kozminski, ascourts and prosecutors develop experiencewith the new crimes created by this Act.

Section 1589 is intended to address the in-creasingly subtle methods of traffickers whoplace their victims in modern-day slavery,such as where traffickers threaten harm tothird persons, restrain their victims withoutphysical violence or injury, or threaten direconsequences by means other than overt vio-lence. Section 1589 will provide federal pros-ecutors with the tools to combat severeforms of worker exploitation that do not riseto the level of involuntary servitude as de-fined in Kozminski. Because provisions with-in section 1589 only require a showing of athreat of ‘‘serious harm,’’ or of a scheme,plan, or pattern intended to cause a personto believe that such harm would occur, fed-eral prosecutors will not have to dem-onstrate physical harm or threats of forceagainst victims. The term ‘‘serious harm’’ asused in this Act refers to a broad array ofharms, including both physical and nonphys-ical, and section 1589’s terms and provisionsare intended to be construed with respect tothe individual circumstances of victims thatare relevant in determining whether a par-ticular type or certain degree of harm or co-ercion is sufficient to maintain or obtain avictim’s labor or services, including the ageand background of the victims.

For example, it is intended that prosecu-tors will be able to bring more cases in which

individuals have been trafficked into domes-tic service, an increasingly common occur-rence, not only where such victims are keptin service through overt beatings, but alsowhere the traffickers use more subtle meansdesigned to cause their victims to believethat serious harm will result to themselvesor others if they leave, as when a nanny isled to believe that children in her care willbe harmed if she leaves the home. In othercases, a scheme, plan, or pattern intended tocause a belief of serious harm may refer tointentionally causing the victim to believethat her family will face harms such as ban-ishment, starvation, or bankruptcy in theirhome country. Section 1589 will in certaininstances permit prosecutions where chil-dren are brought to the United States andface extreme nonviolent and psychologicalcoercion (e.g. isolation, denial of sleep, andother punishments). A claim by an adult of afalse legal relationship with a child in orderto put the child in a condition of servitudemay constitute a scheme, plan or patternthat violates the statute, if there is a show-ing that such a scheme was intended to cre-ate the belief that the victim or some otherperson would suffer serious harm.

The conference agreement also includesnew section 1590 for the crime of traffickingwith respect to peonage, slavery, involun-tary servitude, or forced labor. The confereesadopted the approach of the Senate bill withrespect to this new crime and agreed not toextend it to persons who benefit financiallyor otherwise from the trafficking out of aconcern that such a provision might includewithin its scope persons, such as stock-holders in large companies, who have an at-tenuated financial interest in a legitimatebusiness where a few employees might act inviolation of the new statute. The conferenceagreement also creates new section 1591 pun-ishing sex trafficking, which is similar tocomparable provisions in both the House billand the Senate amendment. Also, the con-ference agreement creates new section 1592,which punishes wrongful conduct with re-spect to immigration and identification doc-uments in the course of a violation of one ofseveral provisions of chapter 77 of title 18,when such conduct is engaged in with the in-tent to violate one of the sections, or whensuch conduct is for the purpose of preventingor restricting, without lawful authority, aperson’s liberty to move or travel in inter-state or foreign commerce, or to maintainthe labor or services of another, knowingthat such person is a victim of severe formsof trafficking, as defined by section 3 of thisAct. This revision is intended to address, inpart, cases where one of the other crimes ofchapter 77 is not completed, but where thereis evidence that a trafficker intended tocommit such a crime and withheld or de-stroyed immigration or identification docu-ments for the purpose of preventing the traf-ficking victim from escaping. Finally, theconference agreement contains provisionssimilar to the Senate bill regarding manda-tory restitution, general provisions, and sen-tencing guidelines.

SEC. 13. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 13 of the House bill authorizes atotal of $94.5 million ($31.5 million forFY2000, $63 million for FY01) in the followingcategories: (a) Interagency Task Force: $1.5million for fiscal year 2000, $3 million for fis-cal year 2001; (b) Health and Human Servicesfor victim assistance in the United States: $5million for fiscal year 2000, $10 million forfiscal year 2001; (c) Department of State forforeign victim assistance: $5 million for fis-cal year 2000, $10 million for fiscal year 2001;(d) The Attorney General for victim assist-ance in the United States: $5 million for fis-cal year 2000, $10 million for fiscal year 2001;


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8882 October 5, 2000(e) The President for (1) foreign victim as-sistance: $5 million for fiscal year 2000, $10million for fiscal year 2001, and (2) assistanceto help countries meet minimum traffickingstandards: $5 million for fiscal year 2000, $10million for fiscal year 2001; and (f) Depart-ment of Labor for victim assistance in theUnited States: $5 million for fiscal year 2000,$10 million for fiscal year 2001.

Section 13 of the Senate bill is similar tothe House provision, except that it author-izes funding for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Italso authorizes $300,000 in fiscal year 2001 fora voluntary contribution to the Organizationfor Security and Co-operation in Europe andsuch sums as may be necessary to includethe additional information required by sec-tion 4 in the annual Country Reports onHuman Rights Practices.

Section 13 of the conference agreement issubstantially identical to the Senate provi-sion.

CONCERNING DIVISION B, THE VIOLENCEAGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 2000

The Violence Against Women Act of 2000accomplishes two basic things:

First, the bill reauthorizes through FiscalYear 2005 the key programs included in theoriginal Violence Against Women Act, suchas the STOP, Pro-Arrest, Rural Domestic Vi-olence and Child Abuse Enforcement, andcampus grants; battered women’s shelters;the National Domestic Violence Hotline;rape prevention and education grant pro-grams; and three victims of child abuse pro-grams, including the court-appointed specialadvocate program (CASA).

Second, the Violence Against Women Actof 2000 makes some targeted improvementsthat our experience with the original Act hasshown to be necessary, such as—

(1) Authorizing grants for legal assistancefor victims of domestic violence, stalking,and sexual assault;

(2) Providing funding for transitional hous-ing assistance;

(3) Improving full faith and credit enforce-ment and computerized tracking of protec-tion orders;

(4) Strengthening and refining the protec-tions for battered immigrant women;

(5) Authorizing grants for supervised visi-tation and safe visitation exchange of chil-dren between parents in situations involvingdomestic violence, child abuse, sexual as-sault, or stalking; and

(6) Expanding several of the key grant pro-grams to cover violence that arises in datingrelationships.

We append to this joint statement a sec-tion by section analysis of the bill and amore detailed section by section analysis ofthe provisions contained in Title V, whichaddresses the plight of battered immigrantwomen.DIVISION B—THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

ACT OF 2000SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY

Sec. 1001. Short Title

Names this division the Violence AgainstWomen Act of 2000.Sec. 1002. Definitions

Restates the definitions ‘‘domestic vio-lence’’ and ‘‘sexual assault’’ as currently de-fined in the STOP grant program.Sec. 1003. Accountability and Oversight

Requires the Attorney General or Sec-retary of Health and Human Services, as ap-plicable, to require grantees under any pro-gram authorized or reauthorized by this divi-sion to report on the effectiveness of the ac-tivities carried out. Requires the AttorneyGeneral or Secretary, as applicable, to reportbiennially to the Senate and House JudiciaryCommittees on these grant programs.

Title I—Strengthening Law Enforcement ToReduce Violence Against Women

Sec. 1101. Improving Full Faith and Credit En-forcement of Protection Orders

Helps states and tribal courts improveinterstate enforcement of protection ordersas required by the original Violence AgainstWomen Act of 1994. Renames Pro-ArrestGrants to expressly include enforcement ofprotection orders as a focus for grant pro-gram funds, adds as a grant purpose tech-nical assistance and use of computer andother equipment for enforcing orders; in-structs the Department of Justice to identifyand make available information on prom-ising order enforcement practices; adds as afunding priority the development and en-hancement of data collection and sharingsystems to promote enforcement of protec-tion orders.

Amends the full faith and credit provisionin the original Act to prohibit requiring reg-istration as a prerequisite to enforcement ofout-of-state orders and to prohibit notifica-tion of a batterer without the victim’s con-sent when an out-of-state order is registeredin a new jurisdiction. Requires recipients ofSTOP and Pro-Arrest grant funds, as a condi-tion of funding, to facilitate filing and serv-ice of protection orders without cost to thevictim in both civil and criminal cases.

Clarifies that tribal courts have full civiljurisdiction to enforce protection orders inmatters arising within the authority of thetribe.Sec. 1102. Enhancing the Role of Courts in Com-

bating Violence Against WomenEngages state courts in fighting violence

against women by targeting funds to be usedby the courts for the training and educationof court personnel, technical assistance, andtechnological improvements. Amends STOPand Pro-Arrest grants to make state andlocal courts expressly eligible for fundingand dedicates 5 percent of states’ STOPgrants for courts.Sec. 1103. STOP Grants Reauthorization

Reauthorizes through 2005 this vital stateformula grant program that has succeeded inbringing police and prosecutors in close col-laboration with victim services providersinto the fight to end violence againstwomen. (‘‘STOP’’ means ‘‘Services andTraining for Officers and Prosecutors.’’) Pre-serves the original Act’s allocations ofstates’ STOP grant funds of 25 percent to po-lice and 25 percent to prosecutors, but in-creases grants to victim services to 30 per-cent (from 25 percent), in addition to the 5percent allocated to state, tribal, and localcourts.

Sets aside five percent of total funds avail-able for State and tribal domestic violenceand sexual assault coalitions and increasesthe allocation for Indian tribes to 5 percent(up from 4 percent in the original Act).

Amends the definition of ‘‘underservedpopulations’’ and adds additional purposeareas for which grants may be used.

Authorization level is $185 million/year(FY 2000 appropriation was $206.75 million(including a $28 million earmark for civillegal assistance)).Sec. 1104. Pro-Arrest Grants Reauthorization

Extends this discretionary grant programthrough 2005 to develop and strengthen pro-grams and policies that mandate and encour-age police officers to arrest abusers whocommit acts of violence or violate protectionorders.

Sets aside 5 percent of total amounts avail-able for grants to Indian tribal governments.

Authorization level is $65 million/year (FY2000 appropriation was $34 million).Sec. 1105. Rural Domestic Violence and Child

Abuse Enforcement Grants ReauthorizationExtends through 2005 these direct grant

programs that help states and local govern-

ments focus on problems particular to ruralareas.

Sets aside 5 percent of total amounts avail-able for grants to Indian tribal governments.

Authorization level is $40 million/year (FY2000 appropriation was $25 million.Sec. 1106. National Stalker and Domestic Vio-

lence Reduction Grants ReauthorizationExtends through 2005 this grant program to

assist states and local governments in im-proving databases for stalking and domesticviolence.

Authorization level is $3 million/year (FY1998 appropriation was $2.75 million).Sec. 1107. Clarify Enforcement to End Interstate

Battery/StalkingClarifies federal jurisdiction to ensure

reach to persons crossing United States bor-ders as well as crossing state lines by use of‘‘interstate or foreign commerce language.’’Clarifies federal jurisdiction to ensure reachto battery or violation of specified portionsof a protection order before travel to facili-tate the interstate movement of the victim.Makes the nature of the ‘‘harm’’ required fordomestic violence, stalking, and interstatetravel offenses consistent by removing therequirement that the victim suffer actualphysical harm from those offenses that pre-viously had required such injury.

Resolves several inconsistencies betweenthe protection order offense involving inter-state travel of the offender, and the protec-tion order offense involving interstate travelof the victim.

Revises the definition of ‘‘protectionorder’’ to clarify that support or child cus-tody orders are entitled to full faith andcredit to the extent provided under otherFederal law—namely, the Parental Kid-naping Prevention Act of 1980, as amended.

Extends the interstate stalking prohibitionto cover interstate ‘‘cyber-stalking’’ that oc-curs by use of the mail or any facility ofinterstate or foreign commerce, such as bytelephone or by computer connected to theInternet.Sec. 1108. School and Campus Security

Extends the authorization through 2005 forthe grant program established in the HigherEducation Amendments of 1998 and adminis-tered by the Justice Department for grantsfor on-campus security, education, training,and victim services to combat violenceagainst women on college campuses. Incor-porates ‘‘dating violence’’ into purpose areasfor which grants may be used. Amends thedefinition of ‘‘victim services’’ to includepublic, nonprofit organizations acting in anongovernmental capacity, such as victimservices organizations at public universities.

Authorization level is $10 million/year (FY2000 STOP grant appropriation included a $10million earmark for this use).

Authorizes the Attorney General to makegrants through 2003 to states, units of localgovernment, and Indian tribes to provide im-proved security, including the placement anduse of metal detectors and other deterrentmeasures, at schools and on school grounds.

Authorization level is $30 million/year.Sec. 1109. Dating Violence

Incorporates ‘‘dating violence’’ into cer-tain purpose areas for which grants may beused under the STOP, Pro-Arrest, and RuralDomestic Violence and Child Abuse Enforce-ment grant programs. Defines ‘‘dating vio-lence’’ as violence committed by a person:(A) who is or has been in a social relation-ship of a romantic or intimate nature withthe victim; and (B) where the existence ofsuch a relationship shall be determinedbased on consideration of the following fac-tors: (i) the length of the relationship; (ii)the type of relationship; and (iii) the fre-quency of interaction between the personsinvolved in the relationship.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8883October 5, 2000Title II—Strengthening Services to Victims

of ViolenceSec. 1201. Legal Assistance to Victims of Domes-

tic Violence and Sexual AssaultBuilding on set-asides in past STOP grant

appropriations since fiscal year 1998 for civillegal assistance, this section authorizes aseparate grant program for those purposesthrough 2005. Helps victims of domestic vio-lence, stalking, and sexual assault who needlegal assistance as a consequence of that vio-lence to obtain access to trained attorneysand lay advocacy services, particularly probono legal services. Grants support training,technical assistance, data collection, andsupport for cooperative efforts between vic-tim advocacy groups and legal assistanceproviders.

Defines the term ‘‘legal assistance’’ to in-clude assistance to victims of domestic vio-lence, stalking, and sexual assault in family,immigration, administrative agency, orhousing matters, protection or stay awayorder proceedings, and other similar mat-ters. For purposes of this section, ‘‘adminis-trative agency’’ refers to a federal, state, orlocal governmental agency that provides fi-nancial benefits.

Sets aside 5 percent of the amounts madeavailable for programs assisting victims ofdomestic violence, stalking, and sexual as-sault in Indian country; sets aside 25 percentof the funds used for direct services, train-ing, and technical assistance for the use ofvictims of sexual assault.

Appropriation is $40 million/year (FY 2000STOP grant appropriation included a $28 mil-lion earmark for this use).Sec. 1202. Expanded Shelter for Battered Women

and Their ChildrenReauthorizes through 2005 current pro-

grams administered by the Department ofHealth and Human Services to help commu-nities provide shelter to battered women andtheir children, with increased funding to pro-vide more shelter space to assist the tens ofthousands who are now being turned away.

Authorization level is $175 million/year(FY 2000 appropriation was $101.5 million).Sec. 1203. Transitional Housing Assistance for

Victims of Domestic ViolenceAuthorizes the Department of Health and

Human Services to make grants to provideshort-term housing assistance and supportservices to individuals and their dependentswho are homeless or in need of transitionalhousing or other housing assistance as a re-sult of fleeing a situation of domestic vio-lence, and for whom emergency shelter serv-ices are unavailable or insufficient.

Authorization level is $25 million for FY2001.Sec. 1204. National Domestic Violence Hotline

Extends through 2005 this grant to meetthe growing demands on the National Do-mestic Violence Hotline established underthe original Violence Against Women Actdue to increased call volume since its incep-tion. Requires annual reports on the Hot-line’s operation.

Authorization level is $2 million/year (FY2000 appropriation was $2 million).Sec. 1205. Federal Victims Counselors Grants

ReauthorizationExtends through 2005 this program under

which U.S. Attorney offices can hire coun-selors to assist victims and witnesses inprosecution of sex crimes and domestic vio-lence crimes.

Authorization level is $1 million/year (FY1998 appropriation was $1 million).Sec. 1206. Study of State Laws Regarding Insur-

ance Discrimination Against Victims of Vio-lence Against Women

Requires the Attorney General to conducta national study to identify state laws that

address insurance discrimination againstvictims of domestic violence and submit rec-ommendations based on that study to Con-gress.Sec. 1207. Study of Workplace Effects from Vio-

lence Against WomenRequires the Attorney General to conduct

a national survey of programs to assist em-ployers on appropriate responses in theworkplace to victims of domestic violence orsexual assault and submit recommendationsbased on that study to Congress.Sec. 1208. Study of Unemployment Compensa-

tion For Victims of Violence Against WomenRequires the Attorney General to conduct

a national study to identify the impact ofstate unemployment compensation laws onvictims of domestic violence when the vic-tim’s separation from employment is a di-rect result of the domestic violence, and tosubmit recommendations based on thatstudy to Congress.Sec. 1209. Enhancing Protections for Older and

Disabled Women from Domestic Violenceand Sexual Assault

Adds as new purposes areas to STOP grantsand Pro-Arrest grants the development ofpolicies and initiatives that help in identi-fying and addressing the needs of older anddisabled women who are victims of domesticviolence or sexual assault.

Authorizes the Attorney General to makegrants for training programs through 2005 toassist law enforcement officers, prosecutors,and relevant court officers in recognizing,addressing, investigating, and prosecutinginstances of elder abuse, neglect, and exploi-tation and violence against individuals withdisabilities, including domestic violence andsexual assault, against older or disabled indi-viduals.

Authorization is $5 million/year.Title III—Limiting the Effects of Violence

on ChildrenSec. 1301. Safe Havens for Children Pilot Pro-

gramEstablishes through 2002 a pilot Justice

Department grant program aimed at reduc-ing the opportunity for domestic violence tooccur during the transfer of children for visi-tation purposes by expanding the avail-ability of supervised visitation and safe visi-tation exchange for the children of victimsof domestic violence, child abuse, sexual as-sault, or stalking.

Authorization level is $15 million for eachyear.Sec. 1302. Reauthorization of Victims of Child

Abuse Act GrantsExtends through 2005 three grant programs

geared to assist children who are victims ofabuse. These are the court-appointed specialadvocate program, child abuse training forjudicial personnel and practitioners, andgrants for televised testimony of children.

Authorization levels are $12 million/yearfor the special advocate program, $2.3 mil-lion/year for the judicial personnel trainingprogram, and $1 million/year for televisedtestimony (FY 2000 appropriations were $10million, $2.3 million, and $1 million respec-tively).Sec. 1303. Report on Parental Kidnaping Laws

Requires the Attorney General to studyand submit recommendations on federal andstate child custody laws, including custodyprovisions in protection orders, the ParentalKidnaping Prevention Act of 1980, and theUniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and En-forcement Act adopted by the National Con-ference of Commissioners on Uniform StateLaws in July 1997, and the effect of thoselaws on child custody cases in which domes-tic violence is a factor. Amends emergencyjurisdiction to cover domestic violence.

Authorization levels is $200,000.Title IV—Strengthening Education and

Training To Combat Violence AgainstWomen

Sec. 1401. Rape Prevention and Education Pro-gram Reauthorization

Extends through 2005 this Sexual AssaultEducation and Prevention Grant program;includes education for college students; pro-vides funding to continue the National Re-source Center on Sexual Assault at the Cen-ters for Disease Control and Prevention.

Authorization level is $80 million/year (FY2000 appropriation was $45 million).Sec. 1402. Education and Training to End Vio-

lence Against and Abuse of Women withDisabilities

Establishes a new Justice Departmentgrant program through 2005 to educate andprovide technical assistance to providers oneffective ways to meet the needs of disabledwomen who are victims of domestic violence,sexual assault, and stalking.

Authorization level is $7.5 million/year.Sec. 1403. Reauthorization of Community Initia-

tives to Prevent Domestic ViolenceReauthorizes through 2005 this grant pro-

gram to fund collaborative communityprojects targeted for the intervention andprevention of domestic violence.

Authorization level is $6 million/year (FY2000 appropriation was $6 million).Sec. 1404. Development of Research Agenda

Identified under the Violence AgainstWomen Act.

Requires the Attorney General to directthe National Institute of Justice,in consulta-tion with the Bureau of Justice Statisticsand the National Academy of Sciences,through its National Research Council, todevelop a plan to implement a research agen-da based on the recommendations in the Na-tional Academy of Science report ‘‘Under-standing Violence Against Women,’’ whichwas produced under a grant awarded underthe original Violence Against Women Act.

Authorization is for such sums as may benecessary to carry out this section.Sec. 1405. Standards, Practice, and Training for

Sexual Assault Forensic ExaminationsRequires the Attorney General to evaluate

existing standards of training and practicefor licensed health care professionals per-forming sexual assault forensic examina-tions and develop a national recommendedstandard for training; to recommend sexualassault forensic examination training for allhealth care students; and to review existingprotocols on sexual assault forensic exami-nations and, based on this review, develop arecommended national protocol and estab-lish a mechanism for its nationwide dissemi-nation.

Authorization level is $200,000 for FY 2001.Sec. 1406. Education and Training for Judges

and Court Personnel.Amends the Equal Justice for Women in

the Courts Act of 1994, authorizing $1,500,000each year through 2005 for grants for edu-cation and training for judges and court per-sonnel in state courts, and $500,000 each yearthrough 2005 for grants for education andtraining for judges and court personnel infederal courts. Adds three areas of trainingeligible for grant use.Sec. 1407. Domestic Violence Task Force

Requires the Attorney General to establisha task force to coordinate research on do-mestic violence and to report to Congress onany overlapping or duplication of effortsamong the federal agencies that address do-mestic violence.

Authorization level is $500,000.Title V—Battered Immigrant Women

Strengthens and refines the protections forbattered immigrant women in the original


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8884 October 5, 2000Violence Against Women Act. Eliminates anumber of ‘‘catch-22’’ policies and unin-tended consequences of subsequent changesin immigration law to ensure that domesticabusers with immigrant victims are broughtto justice and that the battered immigrantsCongress sought to help in the original Actare able to escape the abuse.

Title VI—MiscellaneousSec. 1601. Notice Requirements for Sexually Vio-

lent OffendersAmends the Jacob Wetterling Crimes

Against Children and Sexually Violent Of-fender Registration Act to require sex of-fenders already required to register in aState to provide notice, as required underState law, or each institution of higher edu-cation in that State at which the person isemployed, carried on a vocation, or is a stu-dent. Requires that state procedures ensurethat this registration information is prompt-ly made available to law enforcement agen-cies with jurisdiction where the institutionsof higher education are located and that it isentered into appropriate State records ordata systems. These changes take effect 2years after enactment.

Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965to require institutions of higher education toissue a statement, in addition to other dis-closures required under that Act, advisingthe campus community where law enforce-ment agency information provided by aState concerning registered sex offendersmay be obtained. This change takes effect 2years after enactment.

Amends the Family Educational Rightsand Privacy Act of 1974 to clarify that noth-ing in that Act may be construed to prohibitan educational institution from disclosinginformation provided to the institution con-cerning registered sex offenders; requires theSecretary of Education to take appropriatesteps to notify educational institutions thatdisclosure of this information is permitted.Sec. 1602. Teen Suicide Prevention Study

Authorizes a study by the Secretary ofHealth and Human Services of predictors ofsuicide among at-risk and other youth, andbarriers that prevent the youth from receiv-ing treatment, to facilitate the developmentof model treatment programs and public edu-cation and awareness efforts.

Authorization is for such sums as may benecessary.Sec. 1603. Decade of Pain Control and Research

Designates the calendar decade beginningJanuary 1, 2001, as the ‘‘Decade of Pain Con-trol and Research.’’DIVISION B—THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

ACT OF 2000Title V—The Battered Immigrant Women

Protection Act of 2000SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Generally designed to improve on effortsmade in VAWA 1994 to prevent immigrationlaw from being used by an abusive citizen orlawful permanent resident spouse as a toolto prevent an abused immigrant spouse fromreporting abuse or leaving the abusive rela-tionship. This could happen because gen-erally speaking, U.S. immigration law givescitizens and lawful permanent residents theright to petition for their spouses to begranted a permanent resident visa, which isthe necessary prerequisite for immigratingto the United States. In the vast majority ofcases, granting the right to seek the visa tothe citizen or lawful permanent residentspouse makes sense, since the purpose offamily immigration visas is to allow U.S.citizens or lawful permanent residents tolive here with their spouses and children.But in the unusual case of the abusive rela-tionship, an abusive citizen or lawful perma-

nent resident can use control over his or herspouse’s visa as a means to blackmail andcontrol the spouse. The abusive spouse woulddo this by withholding a promised visa peti-tion and then threatening to turn the abusedspouse in to the immigration authorities ifthe abused spouse sought to leave the abuseror report the abuse.

VAWA 1994 changed this by allowing immi-grants who demonstrate that they have beenbattered or subjected to extreme cruelty bytheir U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resi-dent spouses to file their own petitions forvisas without the cooperation of their abu-sive spouse. VAWA 1994 also allowed abusedspouses placed in removal proceedings toseek ‘‘cancellation of removal,’’ a form ofdiscretionary relief from removal availableto individuals in unlawful immigration sta-tus with strong equities, after three yearsrather than the seven ordinarily required.Finally, VAWA 1994 granted similar rights tominor children abused by their citizen orlawful permanent resident parent, whose im-migration status, like that of the abusedspouse, would otherwise be dependent on theabusive parent. VAWA 2000 addresses resid-ual immigration law obstacles standing inthe path of battered immigrant spouses andchildren seeking to free themselves fromabusive relationships that either had notcome to the attention of the drafters ofVAWA 1994 or have arisen since as a result of1996 changes to immigration law.Sec. 1501. Short Title

Names this tile the Battered ImmigrantWomen Protection Act of 2000.Sec. 1502. Findings and Purposes

Lays out as the purpose of the title build-ing on VAWA 1994’s efforts to enable bat-tered immigrant spouses and children to freethemselves of abusive relationships and re-port abuse without fear of immigration lawconsequences controlled by their abusive cit-izen or lawful permanent resident spouse orparent.Sec. 1503. Improved Access to Immigration Pro-

tections of the Violence Against Women Actof 1994 for Battered Immigrant Women

Allows abused spouses and children whohave already demonstrated to the INS thatthey have been the victims of battery or ex-treme cruelty by their spouse or parent tofile their own petition for a lawful perma-nent resident visa without also having toshow they will suffer ‘‘extreme hardship’’ ifforced to leave the U.S., a showing that isnot required if their citizen or lawful perma-nent resident spouse or parent files the visapetition on their behalf. Eliminates U.S.residency as a prerequisite for a spouse orchild of a citizen or lawful permanent resi-dent who has been battered in the U.S. orwhose spouse is a member of the uniformedservices or a U.S. government employee tofile for his or her own visa, since there is noU.S. residency prerequisite for non-batteredspouses’ or children’s visas. Retains currentlaw’s special requirement that abusedspouses and children filing their own peti-tions (unlike spouses and children for whomtheir citizen or lawful permanent residentspouse or parent petitions) demonstrate goodmoral character, but modifies it to give theAttorney General authority to find goodmoral character despite certain otherwisedisqualifying acts if those acts were con-nected to the abuse.

Allows a victim of battery or extreme cru-elty who believed himself or herself to be acitizen’s or lawful permanent resident’sspouse and went through a marriage cere-mony to file a visa petition as a batteredspouse if the marriage was not valid solelyon account of the citizen’s or lawful perma-nent resident’s bigamy. Allows a battered

spouse whose citizen spouse died, whosespouse lost citizenship, whose spouse lostlawful permanent residency, or from whomthe battered spouse was divorced to file avisa petition as an abused spouse within twoyears of the death, loss of citizenship or law-ful permanent residency, or divorce, pro-vided that the loss of citizenship, status ordivorce was connected to the abuse sufferedby the spouse. Allows a battered spouse tonaturalize after three years residency asother spouses may do, but without requiringthe battered spouse to live in marital unionwith the abusive spouse during that period.

Allows abused children or children ofabused spouses whose petitions were filedwhen they were minors to maintain their pe-titions after they attain age 21, as their cit-izen or lawful permanent resident parentwould be entitled to do on their behalf hadthe original petition been filed during thechild’s minority, treating the petition asfiled on the date of the filing of the originalpetition for purposes of determining its pri-ority date.

Sec. 1504. Improved Access to Cancellation ofRemoval and Suspension of Deportationunder the Violence Against Women Act of1994

Clarifies that with respect to battered im-migrants, IIRIRA’s rule, enacted in 1996, thatprovides that with respect to any applicantfor cancellation of removal, any absencethat exceeds 90 days, or any series of ab-sences that exceed 180 days, interrupts con-tinuous physical presence, does not apply toany absence or portion of an absence con-nected to the abuse. Makes this change ret-roactive to date of enactment of IIRIRA. Di-rects Attorney General to parole children ofbattered immigrants granted cancellationuntil their adjustment of status applicationhas been acted on, provided the battered im-migrant exercises due diligence in filing suchan application.

Sec. 1505. Offering Equal Access to ImmigrationProtections of the Violence Against WomenAct of 1994 for All Qualified Battered Immi-grant Self-Petitioners

Grants the Attorney General the authorityto waive certain bars to admissibility orgrounds of deportability with respect to bat-tered spouses and children. New AttorneyGeneral waiver authority granted (1) forcrimes of domestic violence or stalkingwhere the spouse or child was not the pri-mary perpetrator of violence in the relation-ship, the crime did not result in serious bod-ily injury, and there was a connection be-tween the crime and the abuse suffered bythe spouse or child; (2) for misrepresenta-tions connected with seeking an immigra-tion benefit in cases of extreme hardship tothe alien (paralleling the AG’s waiver au-thority for spouses and children petitionedfor by their citizen or lawful permanent resi-dent spouse or parent in cases of extremehardship to the spouse or parent); (3) forcrimes of moral turpitude not constitutingaggravated felonies where the crime wasconnected to the abuse (similarly parallelingthe AG’s waiver authority for spouses andchildren petitioned for by their spouse orparent); (4) for health related grounds of in-admissibility (also paralleling the AG’swaiver authority for spouses and children pe-titioned for by their spouse or parent); and(5) for unlawful presence after a prior immi-gration violation, if there is a connection be-tween the abuse and the alien’s removal, de-parture, reentry, or attempted reentry.Clarifies that a battered immigrant’s use ofpublic benefits specifically made available tobattered immigrants in PRWORA does notmake the immigrant inadmissible on publiccharge ground.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8885October 5, 2000Sec. 1506. Restoring Immigration Protections

under the Violence Against Women Act of1994

Establishes mechanism paralleling mecha-nism available to spouses and children peti-tioned for by their spouse or parent to enableVAWA-qualified battered spouse or child toobtain status as lawful permanent residentin the United States rather than having togo abroad to get a visa.

Addresses problem created in 1996 for bat-tered immigrants’ access to cancellation ofremoval by IIRIRA’s new stop-time rule.That rule was aimed at individuals gamingthe system to gain access to cancellation ofremoval. To prevent this, IIRIRA stoppedthe clock on accruing any time toward con-tinuous physical presence at the times INSinitiates removal proceedings against an in-dividual. This section eliminates applicationof this rule to battered immigrant spousesand children, who, if they are sophisticatedenough about immigration law and had suffi-cient freedom of movement to ‘‘game thesystem’’, presumably would have filed self-petitions, and more likely do not even knowthat INS has initiated proceedings againstthem because their abusive spouse or parenthas withheld their mail. To implement thischange, allows a battered immigrant spouseor child to file a motion to reopen removalproceedings within 1 year of the entry of anorder of removal (which deadline may bewaived in the Attorney General’s discretionif the Attorney General finds extraordinarycircumstances or extreme hardship to thealien’s child) provided the alien files a com-plete application to be classified as VAWA-eligible at the time the alien files the re-opening motion.

Sec. 1507. Remedying Problems with Implemen-tation of the Immigration Provisions of theViolence Against Women Act of 1994

Clarifies that negative changes of immi-gration status of abuser or divorce afterabused spouse or child files petition underVAWA have no effect on status of abusedspouse or child. Reclassifies abused spouse orchild as spouse or child of citizen if abuserbecomes citizen notwithstanding divorce ortermination of parental rights (so as not tocreate incentive for abuse victim to delayleaving abusive situation on account of po-tential future improved immigration statusof abuser). Clarifies that remarriage has noeffect on pending VAWA immigration peti-tion.

Sec. 1508. Technical Correction to QualifiedAlien Definition for Battered Immigrants

Makes technical change of description ofbattered aliens allowed to access certainpublic benefits so as to use correct pre-IIRIRA name for equitable relief from depor-tation/removal (‘‘suspension of deportation’’rather than ‘‘cancellation of removal’’) forpre-IIRIRA cases.

Sec. 1509. Access to Cuban Adjustment Act forBattered Immigrant Spouses and Children

Allows battered spouses and children to ac-cess special immigration benefits availableunder Cuban Adjustment Act to otherspouses and children of Cubans on the basisof the same showing of battery or extremecruelty they would have to make as VAWAself-petitioners; relieves them of Cuban Ad-justment Act showing that they are residingwith their spouse/parent.

Sec. 1510. Access to the Nicaraguan Adjustmentand Central American Relief Act for Bat-tered Spouses and Children

Provides access to special immigrationbenefits under NACARA to battered spousesand children similarly to the way section 509does with respect to Cuban Adjustment Act.

Sec. 1511. Access to the Haitian Refugee Fair-ness Act of 1998 for Battered Spouses andChildren

Provides access to special immigrationbenefits under HRIFA to battered spousesand children similarly to the way section 509does with respect to Cuban Adjustment Act.Sec. 1512. Access to Services and Legal Rep-

resentation for Battered ImmigrantsClarifies that Stop grants, Grants to En-

courage Arrest, Rural VAWA grants, CivilLegal Assistance grants, and Campus grantscan be used to provide assistance to batteredimmigrants. Allows local battered women’sadvocacy organizations, law enforcement orother eligible Stop grant applicants to applyfor Stop funding to train INS officers andimmigration judges as well as other law en-forcement officers on the special needs ofbattered immigrants.Sec. 1513. Protection for Certain Crime Victims

Including Victims of Crimes Against WomenCreates new nonimmigrant visa for victims

of certain serious crimes that tend to targetvulnerable foreign individuals without immi-gration status if the victim has suffered sub-stantial physical or mental abuse as a resultof the crime, the victim has informationabout the crime, and a law enforcement offi-cial or a judge certifies that the victim hasbeen helpful, is being helpful, or is likely tobe helpful in investigating or prosecuting thecrime. The crime must involve rape, torture,trafficking, incest, sexual assault, domesticviolence, abusive sexual contact, prostitu-tion, sexual exploitation, female genital mu-tilation, being held hostage, peonage, invol-untary servitude, slave trade, kidnapping,abduction, unlawful criminal restraint, falseimprisonment, blackmail, extortion, man-slaughter, murder, felonious assault, witnesstampering, obstruction of justice, perjury,attempt or conspiracy to commit any of theabove, or other similar conduct in violationof Federal, State, or local criminal law. Capsvisas at 10,000 per fiscal year. Allows Attor-ney General to adjust these individuals tolawful permanent resident status if the alienhas been present for 3 years and the Attor-ney General determines this is justified onhumanitarian grounds, to promote familyunity, or is otherwise in the public interest.

AIMEE’S LAW

This bill penalizes States that fail to incar-cerate criminals convicted of murder, rape,and dangerous sexual offenses for long prisonterms. In cases in which a State convicts aperson of murder, rape, or a dangerous sex-ual offense, and that person has a prior con-viction for any one of those offenses in a des-ignated State, the designated State mustpay, from federal law enforcement assistancefunds, the incarceration and prosecution costof the latter State. (The Attorney Generalwould transfer the federal law enforcementfunds from the prior State to the subsequentState.)

A State is a designated State and is sub-ject to penalty under this section if (1) theaverage term of imprisonment imposed bythe State on persons convicted of the offensefor which that person was convicted is lessthan the average term of imprisonment im-posed for that offense in all states; or (2)that person had served less than 85 percent ofthe prison term to which he was sentencedfor the prior offense. (In making this cal-culation, if the State has an indeterminatesentencing system, the prison term shall beconsidered the lower range of the sentence.For example, if a person is sentenced 10-to-12years, then the calculation is whether theperson served 85 percent of 10 years.)Concerning Sec. 2002 and 2003 of Division C.

Sections 2002 and 2003, which may be re-ferred to as the Justice for Victims of Ter-

rorism Act, helps American victims of ter-rorism abroad collect court-awarded com-pensation and ensures that the responsiblestate sponsors of terrorism pay a price fortheir crimes.

In March 1985, Terry Anderson, an Amer-ican journalist working in Beirut, was kid-napped by agents of the Islamic Republic ofIran. He was held captive by his kidnappersin deplorable conditions until early Decem-ber 1991.

During the 1980’s three other individualsworking in Lebanon, David Jacobsen, an ad-ministrator of the American University hos-pital in Beirut, Joseph Ciccippio, a comp-troller of the American University schooland hospital and Frank Reed, a principal ofa private secondary school in Beirut, werealso held captive by agents of the IslamicRepublic of Iran.

In April 1995, Alisa Flatow, a 20-year-oldcollege student from New Jersey, was on abus on the Gaza strip going to a Passoverholiday celebration. A terrorist from the Ira-nian backed Islamic Jihad rammed his carloaded with explosives into the bus, killingMs. Flatow and seven others.

Two Americans studying in Israel, Mat-thew Eisenfeld and Sara Duker were killed ina suicide bombing of a bus in Jerusalem inFebruary 1996. Those responsible were pro-vided training, money, and resources byIran.

Also in February 1996, Cuban MiG aircraftshot down two aircraft flown by the ‘‘Broth-ers to the Rescue’’ humanitarian organiza-tion in international airspace over the Flor-ida Straits. Three American citizens werekilled in the attack by the Cuban govern-ment.

Antiterrorism Act of 1996 gave these andother American citizens injured in acts ofterrorism their survivors to bring a lawsuitagainst the terrorist state responsible forthat act. Congress and the President delib-erately created an exception to the doctrineof foreign sovereign immunity and to thestatutory protections of the Foreign Sov-ereign Immunities Act, limited to victims’cases against countries on the State Depart-ment’s list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Following enactment of the AntiterrorismAct of 1996, numerous American victims filedsuit against terrorist states. Each of the vic-tims described above, or surviving familymembers, has been awarded judgements byU.S. courts. However, the victims were notable to collect on their judgements. Iran andCuba have few, if any, assets in the UnitedStates not blocked by the Treasury Depart-ment under sanctions laws or otherwise heldby the U.S. Government. The President didnot exercise existing authorities to makethose assets available.

After the Brothers to the Rescue incident,at a February 26, 1996, White House pressbriefing President Clinton stated ‘‘I am ask-ing that Congress pass legislation that willprovide immediate compensation to the fam-ilies, something to which they are entitledunder international law, out of Cuba’sblocked assets here in the United States. IfCongress passes this legislation, we can pro-vide the compensation immediately,’’ ThePresident did vest funds from blocked Cubanaccounts to make modest payments to theBrothers to the Rescue families as a ‘‘hu-manitarian gesture.’’

Section 117 of the Treasury and GeneralGovernment Appropriations Act for fiscalyear 1999, explicitly made the assets of for-eign terrorist states blocked by the TreasuryDepartment under sanctions laws availablefor attachment by U.S. courts for the verylimited purpose of satisfying AntiterrorismAct judgements.

That legislation authorized the Presidentto waive the requirements of that provision


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8886 October 5, 2000in the interest of national security, but thescope of that waiver authority remains indispute. Presidential Determination 99–1 as-serted broad authority to waive the entiretyof the provision. But the District Court ofthe Southern District of Florida, in Alejandrev. Republic of Cuba, rejected the Administra-tion’s view and held, instead, that the Presi-dent’s authority applied only to section 117’srequirement that the Secretaries of Stateand Treasury assist a judgement creditor inidentifying, locating, and executing againstnon-blocked property of a foreign terroriststate.

Subsection 1(f) of this bill repeals thewaiver authority granted in Section 117 ofthe Treasury and General Government Ap-propriations Act for fiscal year 1999, replac-ing it will a clearer but narrower waiver au-thority in the underlying statute. The Com-mittee hopes clarity in the legislative his-tory and intent of subsection 1(f), in the con-text of the section as a whole, will ensure ap-propriate application of the new waiver au-thority.

This is a key issue for American victims ofstate-sponsored terrorism who have sued orwho will in the future sue the responsibleterrorism-list state, as they are entitled todo under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996. Vic-tims who already hold U.S. court judge-ments, and a few whose related cases willsoon be decided, will receive their compen-satory damages as a result of this legisla-tion.

The Committee intends that this legisla-tion will similarly help other pending and fu-ture Antiterrorism Act plaintiffs as andwhen U.S. courts issue judgements againstthe foreign state sponsors of specific ter-rorist acts. The Committee shares the par-ticular interest of the sponsors of this legis-lation in ensuring that the families of thevictims of Pan Am flight 103 should be ableto collect damages promptly if they candemonstrate to the satisfaction of a U.S.court that Libya is indeed responsible forthat heinous bombing. The Committee issimilarly interested in pending suits againstIraq.

In replacing the waiver, the conferees ac-cept that the President should have the au-thority to waive the court’s authority to at-tach blocked assets. But to understand theview of the committee with respect to theuse of the waiver, it must be read within thecontext of other provisions of the legislation.

A waiver of the attachment provisionwould seem appropriate for final and pendingAnti-Terrorism Act cases identified in sub-section (a)(2) of this bill. In these cases, judi-cial attachment is not necessary because theexecutive branch will appropriately paycompensatory damages to the victims anduse blocked assets to collect the funds fromterrorist states.

Of particular significance, this section re-affirms the President’s statutory authority,inter alia, to vest blocked foreign govern-ment assets and where appropriate makepayments to victims of terrorism. The Presi-dent has the authority to assist victims withpending and future cases.

The Committee’s intent is that the Presi-dent will review each case when the courtissues a final judgement to determine wheth-er to use the national security waiver,whether to help the plaintiffs collect from aforeign state’s non-blocked assets in theUnited States whether to allow the courts toattach and execute against blocked assets, orwhether to use existing authorities to vestand pay those assets as damages to the vic-tims of terrorism.

When a future President does make a deci-sion whether to invoke the waiver, he shouldconsider seriously whether the national se-curity standard for a waiver has been met. In

enacting this legislation, Congress is ex-pressing the view that the attachment andexecution of frozen assets to enforce judge-ments in cases under the Anti-Terrorism Actof 1996 is not by itself contrary to the na-tional security interest. Indeed, in the viewof the Committee, it is generally in the na-tional security interest of the United Statesto make foreign state sponsors of terrorismpay court-awarded damages to American vic-tims, so neither the Foreign Sovereign Im-munities Act nor any other law will stand inthe way of justice. Thus, in the view of thecommittee the waiver authority should notbe exercised in a routine or blanket manner,but only where U.S. national security inter-ests would be implicated in taking actionagainst particular blocked assets or wherealternative recourse—such as vesting andpaying those assets—may be preferable tocourt attachment.

Future Presidents should follow the prece-dent set by this legislation, and find the bestway to help victims of terrorism collect ontheir judgements and make terrorist statespay for their crimes.

The conference report also includes a sec-tion, Section 2003, dealing with support forvictims of international terrorism. This sec-tion will enable the Office for Victims ofCrime (OVC) to provide more immediate andeffective assistance to Americans who arevictims of terrorism abroad—Americans likethose killed or injured in the embassy bomb-ings in Kenya and Tanzania, and in the PanAm 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland.These victims deserve help, but existing pro-grams are failing to meet their needs.

Section 2003(a) of the conference reportwill permit OVC to serve these victims bet-ter by expanding the types of assistance forwhich the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA)emergency reserve fund may be used, and therange of organizations to which assistancemay be provided. These changes will not re-quire new or appropriated funds: They sim-ply allow OVC greater flexibility in using ex-isting reserve funds to assist victims of ter-rorism abroad, including the victims of theLockerbie and embassy bombings.

Section 2003(b) will authorize OVC to raisethe cap on the VOCA emergency reserve fundfrom $50 million to $100 million, so that thefund is large enough to cover the extraor-dinary costs that would be incurred if a ter-rorist act caused massive casualties, and toreplenish the reserve fund with unobligatedfunds from its other grant programs.

Section 2003(c) will simplify the presently-authorized system of using VOCA funds toprovide victim compensation to Americanvictims of terrorism abroad, by permittingOVC to establish and operate an inter-national crime victim compensation pro-gram. This program will, in addition, coverforeign nationals who are employees of anyAmerican government institution targetedfor terrorist attack. The source of funding isthe VOCA emergency reserve fund, whichCongress authorized in an amendment to the1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Pen-alty Act.

Section 2003(d) clarifies that deposits intothe Crime Victims Fund remain available forintended uses under VOCA when not ex-pended immediately. This should quell con-cerns raised regarding the effect of spendingcaps included in appropriations bills lastyear and this. The appropriations’ actionswere meant to defer spending, not to removedeposits from the Fund. This provisionmakes that explicit.SUMMARY OF S. 577—TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT

ENFORCEMENT ACT

The purpose of S. 577 is to provide a mecha-nism to enable States to effectively enforcetheir laws against the illegal interstate ship-

ment of alcoholic beverages. While Federallaw already prohibits the interstate ship-ment of alcohol in violation of state law, un-fortunately, that general prohibition lacksany enforcement mechanism. S. 577 providesthat mechanism by permitting the AttorneyGeneral of a State, who has reasonable causeto believe that his or her State laws regu-lating the importation and transportation ofalcohol are being violated, to file an actionin federal court for an injunction to stopthose illegal shipments.

S. 577 only reaches those that violate thelaw. It only allows actions for an injunctionif a person is ‘‘engaged in’’ or ‘‘has engagedin’’ an act that would constitute a violationof a State law, but prohibits injunctions torestrain otherwise lawful advertising. Addi-tionally, S. 577 provides that no preliminaryinjunctions could be obtained without: (1)proving irreparable injury, and (2) a prob-ability of success on the merits. S. 577 alsoincludes a provision on the ‘‘Rules of Con-struction,’’ which states that the power con-veyed by this act is limited to the valid exer-cise of power vested in the states under the21st Amendment in accordance with Su-preme Court precedent and interpretation,and shall not be interpreted to grant tostates any additional power.

BENJAMIN GILMAN,BILL GOODLING,CHRIS SMITH,HENRY HYDE,NANCY L. JOHNSON,SAM GEJDENSON,TOM LANTOS,BEN CARDIN,

Managers of the Part of the House.From the Committee on the Judiciary:

ORRIN HATCH,STROM THURMOND,

From the Committee on Foreign Relations:JESSE HELMS,SAM BROWNBACK,JOE BIDEN,PAUL WELLSTONE,

Managers of the Part of the Senate.

f

MICROENTERPRISE FOR SELF-RE-LIANCE AND INTERNATIONALANTI-CORRUPTION ACT OF 2000

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent to take from theSpeaker’s table the bill (H.R. 1143) toestablish a program to provide assist-ance for programs of credit and otherfinancial services for microenterprisesin developing countries, and for otherpurposes, with a Senate amendmentthereto, and concur in the Senateamendment.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.The Clerk read the Senate amend-

ment, as follows:Senate amendment:Strike out all after the enacting clause and

insert:SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Microenterprisefor Self-Reliance and International Anti-Cor-ruption Act of 2000’’.SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents for this Act is as follows:Sec. 1. Short title.Sec. 2. Table of contents.

TITLE I—MICROENTERPRISE FOR SELF-RELIANCE ACT OF 2000

Sec. 101. Short title.Sec. 102. Findings and declarations of policy.Sec. 103. Purposes.Sec. 104. Definitions.Sec. 105. Microenterprise development grant as-

sistance.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8887October 5, 2000Sec. 106. Micro- and small enterprise develop-

ment credits.Sec. 107. United States Microfinance Loan Fa-

cility.Sec. 108. Report relating to future development

of microenterprise institutions.Sec. 109. United States Agency for Inter-

national Development as globalleader and coordinator of bilat-eral and multilateral microenter-prise assistance activities.

Sec. 110. Sense of Congress on consideration ofMexico as a key priority in micro-enterprise funding allocations.

TITLE II—INTERNATIONAL ANTI-CORRUP-TION AND GOOD GOVERNANCE ACT OF2000

Sec. 201. Short title.Sec. 202. Findings and purpose.Sec. 203. Development assistance policy.Sec. 204. Department of the Treasury technical

assistance program for developingcountries.

Sec. 205. Authorization of good governance pro-grams.

TITLE III—INTERNATIONAL ACADEMICOPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2000

Sec. 301. Short title.Sec. 302. Statement of purpose.Sec. 303. Establishment of grant program for

foreign study by American collegestudents of limited financialmeans.

Sec. 304. Report to Congress.Sec. 305. Authorization of appropriations.Sec. 306. Effective date.TITLE IV—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Support for Overseas Cooperative De-velopment Act.

Sec. 402. Funding of certain environmental as-sistance activities of USAID.

Sec. 403. Processing of applications for trans-portation of humanitarian assist-ance abroad by the Department ofDefense.

Sec. 404. Working capital fund.Sec. 405. Increase in authorized number of em-

ployees and representatives of theUnited States mission to theUnited Nations provided livingquarters in New York.

Sec. 406. Availability of VOA and Radio Martimultilingual computer readabletext and voice recordings.

Sec. 407. Availability of certain materials of theVoice of America.

Sec. 408. Paul D. Coverdell Fellows ProgramAct of 2000.

TITLE I—MICROENTERPRISE FOR SELF-RELIANCE ACT OF 2000

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.This title may be cited as the ‘‘Microenterprise

for Self-Reliance Act of 2000’’.SEC. 102. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS OF POL-

ICY.Congress makes the following findings and

declarations:(1) According to the World Bank, more than

1,200,000,000 people in the developing world, orone-fifth of the world’s population, subsist onless than $1 a day.

(2) Over 32,000 of their children die each dayfrom largely preventable malnutrition and dis-ease.

(3)(A) Women in poverty generally have largerwork loads and less access to educational andeconomic opportunities than their male counter-parts.

(B) Directly aiding the poorest of the poor, es-pecially women, in the developing world has apositive effect not only on family incomes, butalso on child nutrition, health and education,as women in particular reinvest income in theirfamilies.

(4)(A) The poor in the developing world, par-ticularly women, generally lack stable employ-ment and social safety nets.

(B) Many turn to self-employment to generatea substantial portion of their livelihood. In Afri-ca, over 80 percent of employment is generatedin the informal sector of the self-employed poor.

(C) These poor entrepreneurs are oftentrapped in poverty because they cannot obtaincredit at reasonable rates to build their assetbase or expand their otherwise viable self-em-ployment activities.

(D) Many of the poor are forced to pay inter-est rates as high as 10 percent per day to moneylenders.

(5)(A) The poor are able to expand their in-comes and their businesses dramatically whenthey can access loans at reasonable interestrates.

(B) Through the development of self-sus-taining microfinance programs, poor peoplethemselves can lead the fight against hungerand poverty.

(6)(A) On February 2–4, 1997, a global Micro-credit Summit was held in Washington, Districtof Columbia, to launch a plan to expand accessto credit for self-employment and other financialand business services to 100,000,000 of theworld’s poorest families, especially the women ofthose families, by 2005. While this scale of out-reach may not be achievable in this short time-period, the realization of this goal could dra-matically alter the face of global poverty.

(B) With an average family size of five,achieving this goal will mean that the benefitsof microfinance will thereby reach nearly halfof the world’s more than 1,000,000,000 absolutepoor people.

(7)(A) Nongovernmental organizations, suchas those that comprise the Microenterprise Coa-lition (such as the Grameen Bank (Bangladesh,)K–REP (Kenya), and networks such as AccionInternational, the Foundation for InternationalCommunity Assistance (FINCA), and the creditunion movement) are successful in lending di-rectly to the very poor.

(B) Microfinance institutions such as BRAC(Bangladesh), BancoSol (Bolivia), SEWA Bank(India), and ACEP (Senegal) are regulated fi-nancial institutions that can raise funds di-rectly from the local and international capitalmarkets.

(8)(A) Microenterprise institutions not onlyreduce poverty, but also reduce the dependencyon foreign assistance.

(B) Interest income on the credit portfolio isused to pay recurring institutional costs, assur-ing the long-term sustainability of developmentassistance.

(9) Microfinance institutions leverage foreignassistance resources because loans are recycled,generating new benefits to program partici-pants.

(10)(A) The development of sustainable micro-finance institutions that provide credit andtraining, and mobilize domestic savings, is acritical component to a global strategy of pov-erty reduction and broad-based economic devel-opment.

(B) In the efforts of the United States to leadthe development of a new global financial archi-tecture, microenterprise should play a vital role.The recent shocks to international financialmarkets demonstrate how the financial sectorcan shape the destiny of nations. Microfinancecan serve as a powerful tool for building a moreinclusive financial sector which serves the broadmajority of the world’s population including thevery poor and women and thus generate moresocial stability and prosperity.

(C) Over the last two decades, the UnitedStates has been a global leader in promoting theglobal microenterprise sector, primarily throughits development assistance programs at theUnited States Agency for International Develop-ment. Additionally, the Department of theTreasury and the Department of State haveused their authority to promote microenterprisein the development programs of international fi-nancial institutions and the United Nations.

(11)(A) In 1994, the United States Agency forInternational Development launched the

‘‘Microenterprise Initiative’’ in partnership withthe Congress.

(B) The initiative committed to expandingfunding for the microenterprise programs of theAgency, and set a goal that, by the end of fiscalyear 1996, one-half of all microenterprise re-sources would support programs and institu-tions that provide credit to the poorest, withloans under $300.

(C) In order to achieve the goal of the micro-credit summit, increased investment in micro-finance institutions serving the poorest will becritical.

(12) Providing the United States share of theglobal investment needed to achieve the goal ofthe microcredit summit will require only a smallincrease in United States funding for inter-national microcredit programs, with an in-creased focus on institutions serving the poorest.

(13)(A) In order to reach tens of millions ofthe poorest with microcredit, it is crucial to ex-pand and replicate successful microfinance in-stitutions.

(B) These institutions need assistance in de-veloping their institutional capacity to expandtheir services and tap commercial sources ofcapital.

(14) Nongovernmental organizations havedemonstrated competence in developing net-works of local microfinance institutions andother assistance delivery mechanisms so thatthey reach large numbers of the very poor, andachieve financial sustainability.

(15) Recognizing that the United States Agen-cy for International Development has developedvery effective partnerships with nongovern-mental organizations, and that the Agency willhave fewer missions overseas to carry out itswork, the Agency should place priority on in-vesting in those nongovernmental network insti-tutions that meet performance criteria throughthe central funding mechanisms of the Agency.

(16) By expanding and replicating successfulmicrofinance institutions, it should be possibleto create a global infrastructure to provide fi-nancial services to the world’s poorest families.

(17)(A) The United States can provide leader-ship to other bilateral and multilateral develop-ment agencies as such agencies expand theirsupport to the microenterprise sector.

(B) The United States should seek to improvecoordination among G–7 countries in the sup-port of the microenterprise sector in order to le-verage the investment of the United States withthat of other donor nations.

(18) Through increased support for micro-enterprise, especially credit for the poorest, theUnited States can continue to play a leadershiprole in the global effort to expand financialservices and opportunity to 100,000,000 of thepoorest families on the planet.SEC. 103. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this title are—(1) to make microenterprise development an

important element of United States foreign eco-nomic policy and assistance;

(2) to provide for the continuation and expan-sion of the commitment of the United StatesAgency for International Development to the de-velopment of microenterprise institutions as out-lined in its 1994 Microenterprise Initiative;

(3) to support and develop the capacity ofUnited States and indigenous nongovernmentalorganization intermediaries to provide credit,savings, training, technical assistance, andbusiness development services to microentre-preneurs;

(4) to emphasize financial services and sub-stantially increase the amount of assistance de-voted to both financial services and complemen-tary business development services designed toreach the poorest people in developing coun-tries, particularly women; and

(5) to encourage the United States Agency forInternational Development to coordinate micro-finance policy, in consultation with the Depart-ment of the Treasury and the Department of


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8888 October 5, 2000State, and to provide global leadership amongbilateral and multilateral donors in promotingmicroenterprise for the poorest of the poor.SEC. 104. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:(1) BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.—The

term ‘‘business development services’’ meanssupport for the growth of microenterprisesthrough training, technical assistance, mar-keting assistance, improved production tech-nologies, and other services.

(2) MICROENTERPRISE INSTITUTION.—The term‘‘microenterprise institution’’ means an institu-tion that provides services, including micro-finance, training, or business development serv-ices, for microentrepreneurs.

(3) MICROFINANCE INSTITUTION.—The term‘‘microfinance institution’’ means an institutionthat directly provides, or works to expand, theavailability of credit, savings, and other finan-cial services to microentrepreneurs.

(4) PRACTITIONER INSTITUTION.—The term‘‘practitioner institution’’ means any institutionthat provides services, including microfinance,training, or business development services, formicroentrepreneurs, or provides assistance tomicroenterprise institutions.SEC. 105. MICROENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT

GRANT ASSISTANCE.Chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance

Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) is amended byadding at the end the following new section:‘‘SEC. 131. MICROENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT

GRANT ASSISTANCE.‘‘(a) FINDINGS AND POLICY.—Congress finds

and declares that—‘‘(1) the development of microenterprise is a

vital factor in the stable growth of developingcountries and in the development of free, open,and equitable international economic systems;

‘‘(2) it is therefore in the best interest of theUnited States to assist the development of micro-enterprises in developing countries; and

‘‘(3) the support of microenterprise can beserved by programs providing credit, savings,training, technical assistance, and business de-velopment services.

‘‘(b) AUTHORIZATION.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out this part,

the President is authorized to provide grant as-sistance for programs to increase the availabilityof credit and other services to microenterpriseslacking full access to capital training, technicalassistance, and business development services,through—

‘‘(A) grants to microfinance institutions forthe purpose of expanding the availability ofcredit, savings, and other financial services tomicroentrepreneurs;

‘‘(B) grants to microenterprise institutions forthe purpose of training, technical assistance,and business development services for micro-enterprises to enable them to make better use ofcredit, to better manage their enterprises, and toincrease their income and build their assets;

‘‘(C) capacity-building for microenterprise in-stitutions in order to enable them to better meetthe credit and training needs of microentre-preneurs; and

‘‘(D) policy and regulatory programs at thecountry level that improve the environment formicroentrepreneurs and microenterprise institu-tions that serve the poor and very poor.

‘‘(2) IMPLEMENTATION.—Assistance authorizedunder paragraph (1) (A) and (B) shall be pro-vided through organizations that have a capac-ity to develop and implement microenterpriseprograms, including particularly—

‘‘(A) United States and indigenous privateand voluntary organizations;

‘‘(B) United States and indigenous creditunions and cooperative organizations; or

‘‘(C) other indigenous governmental and non-governmental organizations.

‘‘(3) TARGETED ASSISTANCE.—In carrying outsustainable poverty-focused programs underparagraph (1), 50 percent of all microenterprise

resources shall be targeted to very poor entre-preneurs, defined as those living in the bottom50 percent below the poverty line as establishedby the national government of the country. Spe-cifically, such resources shall be used for—

‘‘(A) direct support of programs under thissubsection through practitioner institutionsthat—

‘‘(i) provide credit and other financial servicesto entrepreneurs who are very poor, with loansin 1995 United States dollars of—

‘‘(I) $1,000 or less in the Europe and Eurasiaregion;

‘‘(II) $400 or less in the Latin America region;and

‘‘(III) $300 or less in the rest of the world; and‘‘(ii) can cover their costs in a reasonable time

period; or‘‘(B) demand-driven business development

programs that achieve reasonable cost recoverythat are provided to clients holding povertyloans (as defined by the regional poverty loanlimitations in subparagraph (A)(i)), whetherthey are provided by microfinance institutionsor by specialized business development servicesproviders.

‘‘(4) SUPPORT FOR CENTRAL MECHANISMS.—ThePresident should continue support for centralmechanisms and missions, as appropriate,that—

‘‘(A) provide technical support for field mis-sions;

‘‘(B) strengthen the institutional developmentof the intermediary organizations described inparagraph (2);

‘‘(C) share information relating to the provi-sion of assistance authorized under paragraph(1) between such field missions and intermediaryorganizations; and

‘‘(D) support the development of nonprofitglobal microfinance networks, including creditunion systems, that—

‘‘(i) are able to deliver very small loansthrough a significant grassroots infrastructurebased on market principles; and

‘‘(ii) act as wholesale intermediaries providinga range of services to microfinance retail institu-tions, including financing, technical assistance,capacity-building, and safety and soundness ac-creditation.

‘‘(5) LIMITATION.—Assistance provided underthis subsection may only be used to supportmicroenterprise programs and may not be usedto support programs not directly related to thepurposes described in paragraph (1).

‘‘(c) MONITORING SYSTEM.—In order to maxi-mize the sustainable development impact of theassistance authorized under subsection (b)(1),the Administrator of the agency primarily re-sponsible for administering this part shall estab-lish a monitoring system that—

‘‘(1) establishes performance goals for such as-sistance and expresses such goals in an objectiveand quantifiable form, to the extent feasible;

‘‘(2) establishes performance indicators to beused in measuring or assessing the achievementof the goals and objectives of such assistance;

‘‘(3) provides a basis for recommendations foradjustments to such assistance to enhance thesustainable development impact of such assist-ance, particularly the impact of such assistanceon the very poor, particularly poor women; and

‘‘(4) provides a basis for recommendations foradjustments to measures for reaching the poor-est of the poor, including proposed legislationcontaining amendments to enhance the sustain-able development impact of such assistance, asdescribed in paragraph (3).

‘‘(d) LEVEL OF ASSISTANCE.—Of the fundsmade available under this part, the FREEDOMSupport Act, and the Support for East EuropeanDemocracy (SEED) Act of 1989, including localcurrencies derived from such funds, there areauthorized to be available $155,000,000 for eachof the fiscal years 2001 and 2002, to carry outthis section.

‘‘(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:‘‘(1) BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.—The

term ‘business development services’ means sup-

port for the growth of microenterprises throughtraining, technical assistance, marketing assist-ance, improved production technologies, andother services.

‘‘(2) MICROENTERPRISE INSTITUTION.—Theterm ‘microenterprise institution’ means an in-stitution that provides services, including micro-finance, training, or business development serv-ices, for microentrepreneurs.

‘‘(3) MICROFINANCE INSTITUTION.—The term‘microfinance institution’ means an institutionthat directly provides, or works to expand, theavailability of credit, savings, and other finan-cial services to microentrepreneurs.

‘‘(4) PRACTITIONER INSTITUTION.—The term‘practitioner institution’ means any institutionthat provides services, including microfinance,training, or business development services, formicroentrepreneurs, or provides assistance tomicroenterprise institutions.’’.SEC. 106. MICRO- AND SMALL ENTERPRISE DE-

VELOPMENT CREDITS.Section 108 of the Foreign Assistance Act of

1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151f) is amended to read as fol-lows:‘‘SEC. 108. MICRO- AND SMALL ENTERPRISE DE-

VELOPMENT CREDITS.‘‘(a) FINDINGS AND POLICY.—Congress finds

and declares that—‘‘(1) the development of micro- and small en-

terprises is a vital factor in the stable growth ofdeveloping countries and in the developmentand stability of a free, open, and equitableinternational economic system; and

‘‘(2) it is, therefore, in the best interests of theUnited States to assist the development of theenterprises of the poor in developing countriesand to engage the United States private sectorin that process.

‘‘(b) PROGRAM.—To carry out the policy setforth in subsection (a), the President is author-ized to provide assistance to increase the avail-ability of credit to micro- and small enterpriseslacking full access to credit, includingthrough—

‘‘(1) loans and guarantees to credit institu-tions for the purpose of expanding the avail-ability of credit to micro- and small enterprises;

‘‘(2) training programs for lenders in order toenable them to better meet the credit needs ofmicroentrepreneurs; and

‘‘(3) training programs for microentrepreneursin order to enable them to make better use ofcredit and to better manage their enterprises.

‘‘(c) ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA.—The Adminis-trator of the agency primarily responsible foradministering this part shall establish criteriafor determining which credit institutions de-scribed in subsection (b)(1) are eligible to carryout activities, with respect to micro- and smallenterprises, assisted under this section. Suchcriteria may include the following:

‘‘(1) The extent to which the recipients ofcredit from the entity do not have access to thelocal formal financial sector.

‘‘(2) The extent to which the recipients ofcredit from the entity are among the poorestpeople in the country.

‘‘(3) The extent to which the entity is orientedtoward working directly with poor women.

‘‘(4) The extent to which the entity recoversits cost of lending.

‘‘(5) The extent to which the entity imple-ments a plan to become financially sustainable.

‘‘(d) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT.—Assistanceprovided under this section may only be used tosupport micro- and small enterprise programsand may not be used to support programs notdirectly related to the purposes described in sub-section (b).

‘‘(e) PROCUREMENT PROVISION.—Assistancemay be provided under this section without re-gard to section 604(a).

‘‘(f) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Of the amounts authorized

to be available to carry out section 131, there areauthorized to be available $1,500,000 for each of


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8889October 5, 2000fiscal years 2001 and 2002 to carry out this sec-tion.

‘‘(2) COVERAGE OF SUBSIDY COSTS.—Amountsauthorized to be available under paragraph (1)shall be made available to cover the subsidycost, as defined in section 502(5) of the FederalCredit Reform Act of 1990, for activities underthis section.’’.SEC. 107. UNITED STATES MICROFINANCE LOAN

FACILITY.(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of part I of the

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 etseq.), as amended by section 105 of this Act, isfurther amended by adding at the end the fol-lowing new section:‘‘SEC. 132. UNITED STATES MICROFINANCE LOAN

FACILITY.‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Administrator is

authorized to establish a United States Micro-finance Loan Facility (in this section referred toas the ‘Facility’) to pool and manage the riskfrom natural disasters, war or civil conflict, na-tional financial crisis, or short-term financialmovements that threaten the long-term develop-ment of United States-supported microfinanceinstitutions.

‘‘(b) DISBURSEMENTS.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall

make disbursements from the Facility to UnitedStates-supported microfinance institutions toprevent the bankruptcy of such institutionscaused by—

‘‘(A) natural disasters;‘‘(B) national wars or civil conflict; or‘‘(C) national financial crisis or other short-

term financial movements that threaten thelong-term development of United States-sup-ported microfinance institutions.

‘‘(2) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance underthis section shall be in the form of loans or loanguarantees for microfinance institutions thatdemonstrate the capacity to resume self-sus-tained operations within a reasonable time pe-riod.

‘‘(3) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION PROCE-DURES.—During each of the fiscal years 2001and 2002, funds may not be made available fromthe Facility until 15 days after notification ofthe proposed availability of the funds has beenprovided to the congressional committees speci-fied in section 634A in accordance with the pro-cedures applicable to reprogramming notifica-tions under that section.

‘‘(c) GENERAL PROVISIONS.—‘‘(1) POLICY PROVISIONS.—In providing the

credit assistance authorized by this section, theAdministrator should apply, as appropriate, thepolicy provisions in this part that are applicableto development assistance activities.

‘‘(2) DEFAULT AND PROCUREMENT PROVI-SIONS.—

‘‘(A) DEFAULT PROVISION.—The provisions ofsection 620(q), or any comparable provision oflaw, shall not be construed to prohibit assist-ance to a country in the event that a privatesector recipient of assistance furnished underthis section is in default in its payment to theUnited States for the period specified in suchsection.

‘‘(B) PROCUREMENT PROVISION.—Assistancemay be provided under this section without re-gard to section 604(a).

‘‘(3) TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CREDIT ASSIST-ANCE.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Credit assistance providedunder this section shall be offered on such termsand conditions, including fees charged, as theAdministrator may determine.

‘‘(B) LIMITATION ON PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF FI-NANCING.—The principal amount of loans madeor guaranteed under this section in any fiscalyear, with respect to any single event, may notexceed $30,000,000.

‘‘(C) EXCEPTION.—No payment may be madeunder any guarantee issued under this sectionfor any loss arising out of fraud or misrepresen-tation for which the party seeking payment isresponsible.

‘‘(4) FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.—All guaranteesissued under this section shall constitute obliga-tions, in accordance with the terms of suchguarantees, of the United States of America,and the full faith and credit of the UnitedStates of America is hereby pledged for the fullpayment and performance of such obligations tothe extent of the guarantee.

‘‘(d) FUNDING.—‘‘(1) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—Of the amounts

made available to carry out this part for the fis-cal year 2001, up to $5,000,000 may be madeavailable for—

‘‘(A) the subsidy cost, as defined in section502(5) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990,to carry out this section; and

‘‘(B) the administrative costs to carry out thissection.

‘‘(2) RELATION TO OTHER FUNDING.—Amountsmade available under paragraph (1) are in addi-tion to amounts available under any other pro-vision of law to carry out this section.

‘‘(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:‘‘(1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘Adminis-

trator’ means the Administrator of the agencyprimarily responsible for administering thispart.

‘‘(2) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMIT-TEES.—The term ‘appropriate congressional com-mittees’ means the Committee on Foreign Rela-tions of the Senate and the Committee on Inter-national Relations of the House of Representa-tives.

‘‘(3) UNITED STATES-SUPPORTED MICROFINANCEINSTITUTION.—The term ‘United States-sup-ported microfinance institution’ means a finan-cial intermediary that has received funds madeavailable under part I of this Act for fiscal year1980 or any subsequent fiscal year.’’.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 120 days after thedate of enactment of this Act, the Administratorof the United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment shall submit to the Committee onForeign Relations of the Senate and the Com-mittee on International Relations of the Houseof Representatives a report on the policies,rules, and regulations of the United StatesMicrofinance Loan Facility established undersection 132 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,as added by subsection (a).SEC. 108. REPORT RELATING TO FUTURE DEVEL-

OPMENT OF MICROENTERPRISE IN-STITUTIONS.

(a) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after thedate of the enactment of this Act, the Presidentshall submit to the appropriate congressionalcommittees a report on the most cost-effectivemethods and measurements for increasing theaccess of poor people overseas to credit, other fi-nancial services, and related training.

(b) CONTENTS.—The report described in sub-section (a)—

(1) shall include how the President, in con-sultation with the Administrator of the UnitedStates Agency for International Development,the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of theTreasury, will develop a comprehensive strategyfor advancing the global microenterprise sectorin a way that maintains market principles whileensuring that the very poor overseas, particu-larly women, obtain access to financial servicesoverseas;

(2) shall provide guidelines and recommenda-tions for—

(A) instruments to assist microenterprise net-works to develop multi-country and regionalmicrolending programs;

(B) technical assistance to foreign govern-ments, foreign central banks, and regulatory en-tities to improve the policy environment formicrofinance institutions, and to strengthen thecapacity of supervisory bodies to supervisemicrofinance institutions;

(C) the potential for Federal chartering ofUnited States-based international microfinancenetwork institutions, including proposed legisla-tion;

(D) instruments to increase investor con-fidence in microfinance institutions which

would strengthen the long-term financial posi-tion of the microfinance institutions and attractcapital from private sector entities and individ-uals, such as a rating system for microfinanceinstitutions and local credit bureaus;

(E) an agenda for integrating microfinanceinto United States foreign policy initiativesseeking to develop and strengthen the global fi-nance sector; and

(F) innovative instruments to attract fundsfrom the capital markets, such as instrumentsfor leveraging funds from the local commercialbanking sector, and the securitization ofmicroloan portfolios; and

(3) shall include a section that assesses theneed for a microenterprise accelerated growthfund and that includes—

(A) a description of the benefits of such afund;

(B) an identification of which microenterpriseinstitutions might become eligible for assistancefrom such fund;

(C) a description of how such a fund could beadministered;

(D) a recommendation on which agency oragencies of the United States Governmentshould administer the fund and within whichsuch agency the fund should be located; and

(E) a recommendation on how soon it might benecessary to establish such a fund in order toprovide the support necessary for microenter-prise institutions involved in microenterprise de-velopment.

(c) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEESDEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘appro-priate congressional committees’’ means theCommittee on International Relations of theHouse of Representatives and the Committee onForeign Relations of the Senate.SEC. 109. UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTER-

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AS GLOB-AL LEADER AND COORDINATOR OFBILATERAL AND MULTILATERALMICROENTERPRISE ASSISTANCE AC-TIVITIES.

(a) FINDINGS AND POLICY.—Congress findsand declares that—

(1) the United States can provide leadership toother bilateral and multilateral developmentagencies as such agencies expand their supportto the microenterprise sector; and

(2) the United States should seek to improvecoordination among G–7 countries in the sup-port of the microenterprise sector in order to le-verage the investment of the United States withthat of other donor nations.

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense ofCongress that—

(1) the Administrator of the United StatesAgency for International Development and theSecretary of State should seek to support andstrengthen the effectiveness of microfinance ac-tivities in United Nations agencies, such as theUnited Nations Development Program (UNDP),which have provided key leadership in devel-oping the microenterprise sector; and

(2) the Secretary of the Treasury should in-struct each United States Executive Director ofthe multilateral development banks (MDBs) toadvocate the development of a coherent and co-ordinated strategy to support the microenter-prise sector and an increase of multilateral re-source flows for the purposes of building micro-enterprise retail and wholesale intermediaries.SEC. 110. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CONSIDER-

ATION OF MEXICO AS A KEY PRI-ORITY IN MICROENTERPRISE FUND-ING ALLOCATIONS.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the followingfindings:

(1) An estimated 45,000,000 of Mexico’s100,000,000 population currently lives below thepoverty line, accounting for 20 percent of allpoor in Latin America.

(2) Mexico cannot create enough salaried jobsto absorb new workers entering the labor force.

(3) While many poor families depend on micro-enterprise initiatives to generate a livelihood,


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8890 October 5, 2000the United States Agency for International De-velopment currently has 2 microcredit projectsin Mexico, receiving less than one percent ofoverall microenterprise funding in Latin Amer-ica and the Caribbean during the last decade.

(4) Mexico’s microenterprise activity has beenconstrained because its financial institutionscannot expand financial services to a larger cli-entele due to a lack of capital, inefficient finan-cial and administrative management, and a lackof institutional support for microfinance institu-tions’ particular needs.

(5) Mexican nongovernmental organizations,such as Compartamos, have demonstrated com-petence in developing local microfinance pro-grams.

(6) On July 2, 2000, Vicente Fox Quesada ofthe Alliance for Change was elected President ofthe United Mexican States.

(7) The President-elect of Mexico has identi-fied entrepreneurship and the start-up of newmicrocredit institutions as key economic prior-ities.

(8) Microenterprise and entrepreneurial initia-tives have proven to be successful components offree market development and economic stability.

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense ofCongress that—

(1) providing Mexico’s poor with economic op-portunity and microfinance services is funda-mental to Mexico’s economic development;

(2) microenterprise can have a positive impacton Mexico’s free market development; and

(3) the United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment should consider Mexico as a keypriority in its microenterprise funding alloca-tions.TITLE II—INTERNATIONAL ANTI-CORRUP-

TION AND GOOD GOVERNANCE ACT OF2000

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.This title may be cited as the ‘‘International

Anti-Corruption and Good Governance Act of2000’’.SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:(1) Widespread corruption endangers the sta-

bility and security of societies, undermines de-mocracy, and jeopardizes the social, political,and economic development of a society.

(2) Corruption facilitates criminal activities,such as money laundering, hinders economic de-velopment, inflates the costs of doing business,and undermines the legitimacy of the govern-ment and public trust.

(3) In January 1997 the United Nations Gen-eral Assembly adopted a resolution urging mem-ber states to carefully consider the problemsposed by the international aspects of corruptpractices and to study appropriate legislativeand regulatory measures to ensure the trans-parency and integrity of financial systems.

(4) The United States was the first country tocriminalize international bribery through theenactment of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Actof 1977 and United States leadership was instru-mental in the passage of the Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development(OECD) Convention on Combatting Bribery ofForeign Public Officials in International Busi-ness Transactions.

(5) The Vice President, at the Global Forumon Fighting Corruption in 1999, declared corrup-tion to be a direct threat to the rule of law andthe Secretary of State declared corruption to bea matter of profound political and social con-sequence for our efforts to strengthen demo-cratic governments.

(6) The Secretary of State, at the Inter-Amer-ican Development Bank’s annual meeting inMarch 2000, declared that despite certain eco-nomic achievements, democracy is being threat-ened as citizens grow weary of the corruptionand favoritism of their official institutions andthat efforts must be made to improve governanceif respect for democratic institutions is to be re-gained.

(7) In May 1996 the Organization of AmericanStates (OAS) adopted the Inter-American Con-vention Against Corruption requiring countriesto provide various forms of international co-operation and assistance to facilitate the pre-vention, investigation, and prosecution of actsof corruption.

(8) Independent media, committed to fightingcorruption and trained in investigative jour-nalism techniques, can both educate the publicon the costs of corruption and act as a deterrentagainst corrupt officials.

(9) Competent and independent judiciary,founded on a merit-based selection process andtrained to enforce contracts and protect prop-erty rights, is critical for creating a predictableand consistent environment for transparency inlegal procedures.

(10) Independent and accountable legisla-tures, responsive political parties, and trans-parent electoral processes, in conjunction withprofessional, accountable, and transparent fi-nancial management and procurement policiesand procedures, are essential to the promotionof good governance and to the combat of corrup-tion.

(11) Transparent business frameworks, includ-ing modern commercial codes and intellectualproperty rights, are vital to enhancing economicgrowth and decreasing corruption at all levels ofsociety.

(12) The United States should attempt to im-prove accountability in foreign countries, in-cluding by—

(A) promoting transparency and account-ability through support for independent media,promoting financial disclosure by public offi-cials, political parties, and candidates for publicoffice, open budgeting processes, adequate andeffective internal control systems, suitable fi-nancial management systems, and financial andcompliance reporting;

(B) supporting the establishment of audit of-fices, inspectors general offices, third partymonitoring of government procurement proc-esses, and anti-corruption agencies;

(C) promoting responsive, transparent, andaccountable legislatures that ensure legislativeoversight and whistle-blower protection;

(D) promoting judicial reforms that crim-inalize corruption and promoting law enforce-ment that prosecutes corruption;

(E) fostering business practices that promotetransparent, ethical, and competitive behaviorin the private sector through the development ofan effective legal framework for commerce, in-cluding anti-bribery laws, commercial codes thatincorporate international standards for businesspractices, and protection of intellectual propertyrights; and

(F) promoting free and fair national, state,and local elections.

(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this title is toensure that United States assistance programspromote good governance by assisting othercountries to combat corruption throughout soci-ety and to improve transparency and account-ability at all levels of government and through-out the private sector.SEC. 203. DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE POLICY.

(a) GENERAL POLICY.—Section 101(a) of theForeign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.2151(a)) is amended in the fifth sentence—

(1) by striking ‘‘four’’ and inserting ‘‘five’’;(2) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

(3);(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at

the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and(4) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(5) the promotion of good governance

through combating corruption and improvingtransparency and accountability.’’.

(b) DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE POLICY.—Sec-tion 102(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961(22 U.S.C. 2151–1(b)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (4)—(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara-

graph (E);

(B) in subparagraph (F), by striking the pe-riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(G) progress in combating corruption and im-

proving transparency and accountability in thepublic and private sector.’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(17) Economic reform and development of ef-

fective institutions of democratic governance aremutually reinforcing. The successful transitionof a developing country is dependent upon thequality of its economic and governance institu-tions. Rule of law, mechanisms of accountabilityand transparency, security of person, property,and investments, are but a few of the criticalgovernance and economic reforms that underpinthe sustainability of broad-based economicgrowth. Programs in support of such reformsstrengthen the capacity of people to hold theirgovernments accountable and to create economicopportunity.’’.SEC. 204. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY TECH-

NICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FORDEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

Section 129(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151aa(b)) is amended by addingat the end the following:

‘‘(3) EMPHASIS ON ANTI-CORRUPTION.—Suchtechnical assistance shall include elements de-signed to combat anti-competitive, unethical,and corrupt activities, including protectionagainst actions that may distort or inhibittransparency in market mechanisms and, to theextent applicable, privatization procedures.’’.SEC. 205. AUTHORIZATION OF GOOD GOVERN-

ANCE PROGRAMS.(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of part I of the

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 etseq.), as amended by sections 105 and 107, is fur-ther amended by adding at the end the fol-lowing:‘‘SEC. 133. PROGRAMS TO ENCOURAGE GOOD

GOVERNANCE.‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAMS.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The President is authorized

to establish programs that combat corruption,improve transparency and accountability, andpromote other forms of good governance incountries described in paragraph (2).

‘‘(2) COUNTRIES DESCRIBED.—A country de-scribed in this paragraph is a country that is el-igible to receive assistance under this part (in-cluding chapter 4 of part II of this Act) or theSupport for East European Democracy (SEED)Act of 1989.

‘‘(3) PRIORITY.—In carrying out paragraph(1), the President shall give priority to estab-lishing programs in countries that received asignificant amount of United States foreign as-sistance for the prior fiscal year, or in which theUnited States has a significant economic inter-est, and that continue to have the most per-sistent problems with public and private corrup-tion. In determining which countries have themost persistent problems with public and privatecorruption under the preceding sentence, thePresident shall take into account criteria suchas the Transparency International Annual Cor-ruption Perceptions Index, standards and codesset forth by the International Bank for Recon-struction and Development and the Inter-national Monetary Fund, and other relevantcriteria.

‘‘(4) RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Assistance provided for

countries under programs established pursuantto paragraph (1) may be made available not-withstanding any other provision of law that re-stricts assistance to foreign countries. Assistanceprovided under a program established pursuantto paragraph (1) for a country that would other-wise be restricted from receiving such assistancebut for the preceding sentence may not be pro-vided directly to the government of the country.

‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—Subparagraph (A) does notapply with respect to—

‘‘(i) section 620A of this Act or any com-parable provision of law prohibiting assistance


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8891October 5, 2000to countries that support international ter-rorism; or

‘‘(ii) section 907 of the Freedom for Russia andEmerging Eurasian Democracies and Open Mar-kets Support Act of 1992.

‘‘(b) SPECIFIC PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES.—Theprograms established pursuant to subsection (a)shall include, to the extent appropriate, projectsand activities that—

‘‘(1) support responsible independent media topromote oversight of public and private institu-tions;

‘‘(2) implement financial disclosure amongpublic officials, political parties, and candidatesfor public office, open budgeting processes, andtransparent financial management systems;

‘‘(3) support the establishment of audit offices,inspectors general offices, third party moni-toring of government procurement processes,and anti-corruption agencies;

‘‘(4) promote responsive, transparent, and ac-countable legislatures and local governmentsthat ensure legislative and local oversight andwhistle-blower protection;

‘‘(5) promote legal and judicial reforms thatcriminalize corruption and law enforcement re-forms and development that encourage prosecu-tions of criminal corruption;

‘‘(6) assist in the development of a legalframework for commercial transactions that fos-ters business practices that promote transparent,ethical, and competitive behavior in the eco-nomic sector, such as commercial codes that in-corporate international standards and protec-tion of intellectual property rights;

‘‘(7) promote free and fair national, state, andlocal elections;

‘‘(8) foster public participation in the legisla-tive process and public access to government in-formation; and

‘‘(9) engage civil society in the fight againstcorruption.

‘‘(c) CONDUCT OF PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES.—Projects and activities under the programs es-tablished pursuant to subsection (a) may in-clude, among other things, training and tech-nical assistance (including drafting of anti-cor-ruption, privatization, and competitive statu-tory and administrative codes), drafting of anti-corruption, privatization, and competitive statu-tory and administrative codes, support for inde-pendent media and publications, financing ofthe program and operating costs of nongovern-mental organizations that carry out suchprojects or activities, and assistance for travel ofindividuals to the United States and other coun-tries for such projects and activities.

‘‘(d) ANNUAL REPORT.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of State, in

consultation with the Secretary of Commerceand the Administrator of the United StatesAgency for International Development, shallprepare and transmit to the Committee on Inter-national Relations and the Committee on Appro-priations of the House of Representatives andthe Committee on Foreign Relations and theCommittee on Appropriations of the Senate anannual report on—

‘‘(A) projects and activities carried out underprograms established under subsection (a) forthe prior year in priority countries identifiedpursuant to subsection (a)(3); and

‘‘(B) projects and activities carried out underprograms to combat corruption, improve trans-parency and accountability, and promote otherforms of good governance established underother provisions of law for the prior year insuch countries.

‘‘(2) REQUIRED CONTENTS.—The report re-quired by paragraph (1) shall contain the fol-lowing information with respect to each countrydescribed in paragraph (1):

‘‘(A) A description of all United States Gov-ernment-funded programs and initiatives tocombat corruption and improve transparencyand accountability in the country.

‘‘(B) A description of United States diplomaticefforts to combat corruption and improve trans-parency and accountability in the country.

‘‘(C) An analysis of major actions taken bythe government of the country to combat corrup-tion and improve transparency and account-ability in the country.

‘‘(e) FUNDING.—Amounts made available tocarry out the other provisions of this part (in-cluding chapter 4 of part II of this Act) and theSupport for East European Democracy (SEED)Act of 1989 shall be made available to carry outthis section.’’.

(b) DEADLINE FOR INITIAL REPORT.—The ini-tial annual report required by section 133(d)(1)of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as addedby subsection (a), shall be transmitted not laterthan 180 days after the date of the enactment ofthis Act.

TITLE III—INTERNATIONAL ACADEMICOPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2000

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.This title may be cited as the ‘‘International

Academic Opportunity Act of 2000’’.SEC. 302. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

It is the purpose of this title to establish anundergraduate grant program for students oflimited financial means from the United Statesto enable such students to study abroad. Suchforeign study is intended to broaden the outlookand better prepare such students of dem-onstrated financial need to assume significantroles in the increasingly global economy.SEC. 303. ESTABLISHMENT OF GRANT PROGRAM

FOR FOREIGN STUDY BY AMERICANCOLLEGE STUDENTS OF LIMITED FI-NANCIAL MEANS.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Subject to the avail-ability of appropriations and under the authori-ties of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Ex-change Act of 1961, the Secretary of State shallestablish and carry out a program in each fiscalyear to award grants of up to $5,000, to individ-uals who meet the requirements of subsection(b), toward the cost of up to one academic yearof undergraduate study abroad. Grants underthis Act shall be known as the ‘‘Benjamin A.Gilman International Scholarships’’.

(b) ELIGIBILITY.—An individual referred to insubsection (a) is an individual who—

(1) is a student in good standing at an institu-tion of higher education in the United States (asdefined in section 101(a) of the Higher Edu-cation Act of 1965);

(2) has been accepted for up to one academicyear of study on a program of study abroad ap-proved for credit by the student’s home institu-tion;

(3) is receiving any need-based student assist-ance under title IV of the Higher Education Actof 1965; and

(4) is a citizen or national of the UnitedStates.

(c) APPLICATION AND SELECTION.—(1) Grant application and selection shall be

carried out through accredited institutions ofhigher education in the United States or a com-bination of such institutions under such proce-dures as are established by the Secretary ofState.

(2) In considering applications for grantsunder this section—

(A) consideration of financial need shall in-clude the increased costs of study abroad; and

(B) priority consideration shall be given to ap-plicants who are receiving Federal Pell Grantsunder title IV of the Higher Education Act of1965.SEC. 304. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

The Secretary of State shall report annuallyto the Congress concerning the grant programestablished under this title. Each such reportshall include the following information for thepreceding year:

(1) The number of participants.(2) The institutions of higher education in the

United States that participants attended.(3) The institutions of higher education out-

side the United States participants attendedduring their study abroad.

(4) The areas of study of participants.SEC. 305. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated$1,500,000 for each fiscal year to carry out thistitle.SEC. 306. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This title shall take effect October 1, 2000.TITLE IV—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 401. SUPPORT FOR OVERSEAS COOPERATIVEDEVELOPMENT ACT.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be citedas the ‘‘Support for Overseas Cooperative Devel-opment Act’’.

(b) FINDINGS.—The Congress makes the fol-lowing findings:

(1) It is in the mutual economic interest of theUnited States and peoples in developing andtransitional countries to promote cooperativesand credit unions.

(2) Self-help institutions, including coopera-tives and credit unions, provide enhanced op-portunities for people to participate directly indemocratic decision-making for their economicand social benefit through ownership and con-trol of business enterprises and through the mo-bilization of local capital and savings and suchorganizations should be fully utilized in fos-tering free market principles and the adoptionof self-help approaches to development.

(3) The United States seeks to encouragebroad-based economic and social development bycreating and supporting—

(A) agricultural cooperatives that provide ameans to lift low income farmers and rural peo-ple out of poverty and to better integrate theminto national economies;

(B) credit union networks that serve people oflimited means through safe savings and by ex-tending credit to families and microenterprises;

(C) electric and telephone cooperatives thatprovide rural customers with power and tele-communications services essential to economicdevelopment;

(D) housing and community-based coopera-tives that provide low income shelter and workopportunities for the urban poor; and

(E) mutual and cooperative insurance compa-nies that provide risk protection for life andproperty to under-served populations oftenthrough group policies.

(c) GENERAL PROVISIONS.—(1) DECLARATIONS OF POLICY.—The Congress

supports the development and expansion of eco-nomic assistance programs that fully utilize co-operatives and credit unions, particularly thoseprograms committed to—

(A) international cooperative principles,democratic governance and involvement ofwomen and ethnic minorities for economic andsocial development;

(B) self-help mobilization of member savingsand equity and retention of profits in the com-munity, except for those programs that are de-pendent on donor financing;

(C) market-oriented and value-added activitieswith the potential to reach large numbers of lowincome people and help them enter into themainstream economy;

(D) strengthening the participation of ruraland urban poor to contribute to their country’seconomic development; and

(E) utilization of technical assistance andtraining to better serve the member-owners.

(2) DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES.—Section 111 ofthe Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.2151i) is amended by adding at the end the fol-lowing: ‘‘In meeting the requirement of the pre-ceding sentence, specific priority shall be givento the following:

‘‘(1) AGRICULTURE.—Technical assistance tolow income farmers who form and develop mem-ber-owned cooperatives for farm supplies, mar-keting and value-added processing.

‘‘(2) FINANCIAL SYSTEMS.—The promotion ofnational credit union systems through creditunion-to-credit union technical assistance thatstrengthens the ability of low income people and


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8892 October 5, 2000micro-entrepreneurs to save and to have accessto credit for their own economic advancement.

‘‘(3) INFRASTRUCTURE.—The support of ruralelectric and telecommunication cooperatives foraccess for rural people and villages that lack re-liable electric and telecommunications services.

‘‘(4) HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES.—Thepromotion of community-based cooperativeswhich provide employment opportunities andimportant services such as health clinics, self-help shelter, environmental improvements,group-owned businesses, and other activities.’’.

(d) REPORT.—Not later than 6 months afterthe date of enactment of this Act, the Adminis-trator of the United States Agency for Inter-national Development, in consultation with theheads of other appropriate agencies, shall pre-pare and submit to Congress a report on the im-plementation of section 111 of the Foreign As-sistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151i), as amend-ed by subsection (c).SEC. 402. FUNDING OF CERTAIN ENVIRON-

MENTAL ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES OFUSAID.

(a) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN ENVI-RONMENTAL ACTIVITIES.—Of the amounts au-thorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year2001 to carry out chapter 1 of part I of the For-eign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 etseq.; relating to development assistance), thereis authorized to be available at least $60,200,000to carry out activities of the type carried out bythe Global Environment Center of the UnitedStates Agency for International Developmentduring fiscal year 2000.

(b) ALLOCATION FOR WATER AND COASTAL RE-SOURCES.—Of the amounts made available undersubsection (a), at least $2,500,000 shall be avail-able for water and coastal resources activitiesunder the natural resources management func-tion specified in that subsection.SEC. 403. PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR

TRANSPORTATION OF HUMANI-TARIAN ASSISTANCE ABROAD BYTHE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) PRIORITY FOR DISASTER RELIEF ASSIST-ANCE.—In processing applications for the trans-portation of humanitarian assistance abroadunder section 402 of title 10, United States Code,the Administrator of the United States Agencyfor International Development shall afford apriority to applications for the transportation ofdisaster relief assistance.

(b) MODIFICATION OF APPLICATIONS.—The Ad-ministrator of the United States Agency forInternational Development shall take all pos-sible actions to assist applicants for the trans-portation of humanitarian assistance abroadunder such section 402 in modifying or com-pleting applications submitted under such sec-tion in order to meet applicable requirementsunder such section. The actions shall include ef-forts to contact such applicants for purposes ofthe modification or completion of such applica-tions.SEC. 404. WORKING CAPITAL FUND.

Section 635 of the Foreign Assistance Act of1961 (22 U.S.C. 2395) is amended by adding atthe end the following new subsection:

‘‘(m)(1) There is established a working capitalfund (in this subsection referred to as the‘fund’) for the United States Agency for Inter-national Development (in this subsection re-ferred to as the ‘Agency’) which shall be avail-able without fiscal year limitation for the ex-penses of personal and nonpersonal services,equipment, and supplies for—

‘‘(A) International Cooperative AdministrativeSupport Services; and

‘‘(B) rebates from the use of United StatesGovernment credit cards.

‘‘(2) The capital of the fund shall consist of—‘‘(A) the fair and reasonable value of such

supplies, equipment, and other assets pertainingto the functions of the fund as the Adminis-trator determines,

‘‘(B) rebates from the use of United StatesGovernment credit cards, and

‘‘(C) any appropriations made available forthe purpose of providing capital,minus related liabilities.

‘‘(3) The fund shall be reimbursed or creditedwith advance payments for services, equipment,or supplies provided from the fund from applica-ble appropriations and funds of the Agency,other Federal agencies and other sources au-thorized by section 607 at rates that will recovertotal expenses of operation, including accrual ofannual leave and depreciation. Receipts fromthe disposal of, or payments for the loss or dam-age to, property held in the fund, rebates, reim-bursements, refunds and other credits applicableto the operation of the fund may be deposited inthe fund.

‘‘(4) At the close of each fiscal year the Ad-ministrator of the Agency shall transfer out ofthe fund to the miscellaneous receipts accountof the Treasury of the United States suchamounts as the Administrator determines to bein excess of the needs of the fund.

‘‘(5) The fund may be charged with the cur-rent value of supplies and equipment returnedto the working capital of the fund by a post, ac-tivity, or agency, and the proceeds shall hecredited to current applicable appropriations.’’.SEC. 405. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZED NUMBER OF

EMPLOYEES AND REPRESENTATIVESOF THE UNITED STATES MISSION TOTHE UNITED NATIONS PROVIDEDLIVING QUARTERS IN NEW YORK.

Section 9(2) of the United Nations Participa-tion Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287e–1(2)) is amendedby striking ‘‘18’’ and inserting ‘‘30’’.SEC. 406. AVAILABILITY OF VOA AND RADIO

MARTI MULTILINGUAL COMPUTERREADABLE TEXT AND VOICE RE-CORDINGS.

Section 1(b) of Public Law 104–269 (110 Stat.3300) is amended by striking ‘‘5 years’’ and in-serting ‘‘10 years’’.SEC. 407. AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN MATERIALS

OF THE VOICE OF AMERICA.(a) AUTHORITY.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the provisions of

this section, the Broadcasting Board of Gov-ernors (in this section referred to as the‘‘Board’’) is authorized to make available to theInstitute for Media Development (in this sectionreferred to as the ‘‘Institute’’), at the request ofthe Institute, previously broadcast audio andvideo materials produced by the Africa Divisionof the Voice of America.

(2) DEPOSIT OF MATERIALS.—Upon the requestof the Institute and the approval of the Board,materials made available under paragraph (1)may be deposited with the University of Cali-fornia, Los Angeles, or such other appropriateinstitution of higher education (as defined insection 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)) that is approved by theBoard for such purpose.

(3) SUPERSEDES EXISTING LAW.—Materialsmade available under paragraph (1) may be pro-vided notwithstanding section 501 of the UnitedStates Information and Educational ExchangeAct of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1461) and section 208 ofthe Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FiscalYears 1986 and 1987 (22 U.S.C. 1461–1a).

(b) LIMITATIONS.—(1) AUTHORIZED PURPOSES.—Materials made

available under this section shall be used onlyfor academic and research purposes and maynot be used for public or commercial broadcastpurposes.

(2) PRIOR AGREEMENT REQUIRED.—Before mak-ing available materials under subsection (a)(1),the Board shall enter into an agreement withthe Institute providing for—

(A) reimbursement of the Board for any ex-penses involved in making such materials avail-able;

(B) the establishment of guidelines by the In-stitute for the archiving and use of the materialsto ensure that copyrighted works contained inthose materials will not be used in a mannerthat would violate the copyright laws of the

United States (including international copyrightconventions to which the United States is aparty);

(C) the indemnification of the United Statesby the Institute in the event that any use of thematerials results in violation of the copyrightlaws of the United States (including inter-national copyright conventions to which theUnited States is a party);

(D) the authority of the Board to terminatethe agreement if the provisions of paragraph (1)are violated; and

(E) any other terms and conditions relating tothe materials that the Board considers appro-priate.

(c) CREDITING OF REIMBURSEMENTS TO BOARDAPPROPRIATIONS ACCOUNT.—Any reimbursementof the Board under subsection (b) shall be de-posited as an offsetting collection to the cur-rently applicable appropriation account of theBoard.

(d) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The au-thority provided under this section shall ceaseto have effect on the date that is 5 years afterthe date of enactment of this Act.SEC. 408. PAUL D. COVERDELL FELLOWS PRO-

GRAM ACT OF 2000.(a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited

as the ‘‘Paul D. Coverdell Fellows Program Actof 2000’’.

(b) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the followingfindings:

(1) Paul D. Coverdell was elected to theGeorge State Senate in 1970 and later becameMinority Leader of the Georgia State Senate, apost he held for 15 years.

(2) Paul D. Coverdell served with distinctionas the 11th Director of the Peace Corps from1989 to 1991, where he promoted a fellowshipprogram that was composed of returning PeaceCorps volunteers who agreed to work in under-served American communities while they pur-sued educational degrees.

(3) Paul D. Coverdell served in the UnitedStates Senate from the State of Georgia from1993 until his sudden death on July 18, 2000.

(4) Senator Paul D. Coverdell was beloved byhis colleagues for his civility, bipartisan efforts,and his dedication to public service.

(c) DESIGNATION OF PAUL D. COVERDELL FEL-LOWS PROGRAM.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Effective on the date of en-actment of this Act, the program under section18 of the Peace Corps Act (22 U.S.C. 2517) re-ferred to before such date as the ‘‘Peace CorpsFellows/USA Program’’ is redesignated as the‘‘Paul D. Coverdell Fellows Program’’.

(2) REFERENCES.—Any reference before thedate of enactment of this Act in any law, regu-lation, order, document, record, or other paperof the United States to the Peace Corps Fellows/USA Program shall, on and after such date, beconsidered to refer to the Paul D. Coverdell Fel-lows Program.

Mr. GILMAN (during the reading).Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consentthat the Senate amendment be consid-ered as read and printed in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection.The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the original request of thegentleman from New York?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I re-serve the right to object.

(Mr. GEJDENSON asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I willnot object. I just take the time tospend one moment to commend thechairman and the conferees on this im-portant piece of legislation. It was not


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8893October 5, 2000long ago that the chairman and I andthe First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clin-ton, joined together to continue thiseffort to make microenterprise a cen-tral element of our foreign assistance.I want to say that the chairman hasdone an outstanding job in continuingthat effort.

I yield to the gentleman from NewYork for any comments he mightmake.

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

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding and I thankthe gentleman from Connecticut whohas been a cosponsor of this measurefor being so supportive of this measure.

I am pleased today to ask our col-leagues to support H.R. 1143, the Micro-enterprise for Self-Reliance and Inter-national Anti-Corruption Act of 2000.

Mr. Speaker, the House passed H.R. 1143,the Microenterprise of Self-Reliance Act, in1999 to increase support for the very impor-tant work of microenterprise institutions theworld over who produce tangible results andchange the lives of thousands of poor peoplein developing societies.

This landmark bill not only honors the fineorganizations and leaders who promote pri-vate enterprise and development effortsthroughout the world in furtherance of ourcountry’s objective of helping those who helpthemselves, but also serves to place a higherpriority on microenterprise programs as an es-sential component of our development assist-ance.

This bill is designed to provide a frameworkfor the delivery of seed capital to poor entre-preneurs who are the backbone of the infor-mal economies in developing countries. Bystrengthening micro enterprises, more incomeis generated and jobs are created at thegrassroots level. Hence, poor economies growand the need for foreign development assist-ance declines.

In Africa, more than 80 percent of employ-ment is generated in the informal sector by theself-employed poor. However, many poor en-trepreneurs are trapped in poverty becausethey cannot obtain credit at reasonable ratesto build their asset base or expand their other-wise viable self-employment activities.

The microenterprise community has clearlydemonstrated that the poor are capable of ex-panding their incomes and their businessesdramatically when they can access micro-loans at reasonable rates. H.R. 1143, author-izes programs that can reach these poor peo-ple who want to help themselves and therebyhelp to build their societies.

To date, many fine organizations such asthe Foundation for International CommunityAssistance, Action International, and Opportu-nities International have built fine records thatillustrate that lending directly to the poor is agood investment and that poor people can dorepay their loans and build successful busi-nesses.

Mr. Speaker, Microenterprise institutions notonly reduce poverty, but they also reduce de-pendency and enhance self-worth. These areultimately the objectives that we all wish toachieve in the developing world.

I am pleased to highlight that microenter-prise institutions are very successful in raising

private funds in conjunction with those pro-vided by our government. These efforts arecommendable and should be replicated inother foreign assistance programs as well. It isprecisely this approach of having the privateand public sectors working together that willyield the results and genuine development thatwe all seek for the less fortunate of the globe.

By providing access to micro credit to theworld’s poor, our country stimulates the entre-preneurial spirit and helps to develop andstimulate the informal economies of some ofthe world’s poorest countries. This investment,rather than a hand out, makes good senseand makes a true difference in the lives of theless fortunate.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the microenter-prise community, especially the Microenter-prise Coalition, including FINCA, Action Inter-national, and Results for their constructivesuggestions and assistance. I am also gratefulfor the assistance provided by the Administra-tion and the staff of the Senate Foreign Rela-tions Committee.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Reclaiming mytime under my reservation, if I couldjust add, also, I would like to thankthe gentleman from Arizona (Mr.KOLBE), the gentlewoman from Florida(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN) and the chairman,as well, for their work on the anti-cor-ruption portions of this conference re-port. This is an important piece of leg-islation. America has lost as much as$26 billion to foreign bribes. We havenow got our G–8 partners joining withus to fight corruption and bribery. Thislegislation will help build strong de-mocracies globally.

Over the past five years, U.S. firms over-seas lost nearly $26 billion in business oppor-tunities to foreign competitors offering bribes.

Unethical business practices continue tojeopardize our ability to compete effectively inthe international market.

Bribery and other forms of corruption im-pede governments in their efforts to deliverbasic services to their citizens; they underminethe confidence of people in democracy; andthey are all too often linked with trans-bordercriminal activity, including drug-trafficking, or-ganized crime, and money laundering.

In 1999, the Vice President convened aGlobal Conference on Fighting Corruptionwhere he declared corruption to be a directthreat to the rule of law and a matter of pro-found political and social consequence for ourefforts to strengthen democratic governments.

It is inarguably in the U.S. national interestto fight corruption and promote transparencyand good governance.

My bill will make anti-corruption measures akey principle of our foreign aid program.

By helping these countries root out corrup-tion, bribery and unethical business practices,we can also help create a level playing fieldfor U.S. companies doing business abroad.

When Congress passed the Foreign CorruptPractices Act in 1977, the United States be-came the first industrialized country to crim-inalize corruption. It took us nearly two dec-ades to get all the other industrialized nationsto do the same. But American leadership andperseverance succeeded in getting countrieswhich once offered tax write-offs for bribes topass laws that criminalized bribery.

This bill extends our leadership in fightingcorruption to the developing countries.

The International Anti-Corruption and GoodGovernance Act of 2000 requires that foreignassistance be used to fight corruption at alllevels of government and in the private sectorin countries that have persistent problems withcorruption, particularly where the UnitedStates has a significant economic interest.

The bill would also require an annual reporton U.S. efforts in fighting corruption in thosecountries which have the most persistent prob-lems. My intent in requiring this report is to getfrom the Administration a comprehensive lookat all U.S. efforts—diplomatic as well asthrough our foreign aid program—in those 15–20 countries where we have a significant eco-nomic interest or a substantial foreign aid pro-gram and where there is a persistent problemwith corruption.

This bill makes an important contribution topro-actively preventing crises that would resultfrom stifled economic growth, lack of foreigninvestment, and erosion of the public’s trust ingovernment.

Among other things, the act establishesanti-corruption and good governance pro-grams as priorities within our foreign assist-ance programs. The act underscores the im-portance of our efforts to combat corruptionand promote good governance overseas.

It will also allow administrations some flexi-bility in those relatively rare circumstanceswhere developments on the ground, such as acoup or an economic crisis, would otherwiserestrict it from acting through nongovernmentalorganizations.

Thus, provisions of law that would otherwiserestrict assistance to foreign countries aremade inapplicable, with certain exceptions, toassistance provided in furtherance of this act.Assistance that would have been prohibitedexcept for this authority cannot be provided di-rectly to the government of such a country, butcan be provided to the government throughgrants and contracts with nongovernmental or-ganizations.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reserva-tion of objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the original request of thegentleman from New York?

There was no objection.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.f

SPECIAL ORDERSThe SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

QUINN). Without prejudice to the pos-sible resumption of legislative businessand under the Speaker’s announcedpolicy of January 6, 1999, and under aprevious order of the House, the fol-lowing Members will be recognized for5 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

FEDERAL RESERVE NOTESThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr.METCALF) is recognized for 5 minutes.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8894 October 5, 2000Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, I am

certain that U.S. citizens would be fu-rious if they realized that each personpays $100 each year to the Federal Re-serve to rent the paper money we use.Why do we each pay $100 for the privi-lege of using Federal Reserve noteswhen we could use United StatesTreasury currency with no cost at all?If we issued our paper money the sameway that we issue our coins, we couldreduce the national debt by $600 billionand eliminate $30 billion out of annualpayments, interest payments on theTreasury bonds, interest on the U.S.Treasury bonds held by the Federal Re-serve supposedly to back the currency.

The Federal Reserve notes we use aretechnically liabilities of the Fed. Itwould be easy to fix this badly brokensystem. Congress need only pass a lawdeclaring that all Federal Reservenotes are officially United StatesTreasury currency. This would relievethe Fed of all liability for our papermoney, and they would then be re-quired to return the bonds that theyhave held as backing for our currencypresently.

We owe it to the citizens of our coun-try to make every effort to reduce thisfoolish and costly burden.

f

COMMENDING IDAHO STUDENTSFOR TAKING THE PLEDGE TOSAVE OUR SCHOOLS FROM VIO-LENCE

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, tragicevents often imprint on our mindsvivid memories. Most Americans re-member exactly where they were whenPresident John F. Kennedy was killedor when the Challenger spaceship ex-ploded. I believe Americans will re-member where they were when twohigh school students in Littleton, Colo-rado, killed 13 innocent people.

As the Representative for Idaho’sSecond Congressional District, I clear-ly remember when I learned of the Col-umbine massacre. I was voting on a se-ries of bills when a member of my staffpulled me to the television. I watchedas students ran out of the school ac-companied by SWAT teams. I wit-nessed a young man breaking a secondstore library window and falling into afireman’s arms in order to escape therampage. These images will hauntAmerica forever.

Unfortunately, school violence is toocommon today. In 1940, public schoolteachers ranked the top seven discipli-nary problems in public schools. Theywere talking out of turn, chewing gum,making noise, running in the hall, cut-ting in line, dress code violations andlittering. In 1990, the problems hadchanged to drug and alcohol abuse,pregnancy, suicide, rape, robbery andassault. In the last 12 months alone thenumber of children bringing weaponsto schools in Idaho is up more than 25

percent. Our problems have changedsignificantly and so must our solu-tions.

After the Columbine tragedy, I de-cided a dialogue must begin on thelocal level to bring about positivechange rather than focusing on Federallegislation. I organized three town hallmeetings in my district called SavingOur Schools, or SOS meetings. I in-vited the student body presidents toparticipate in a panel about school vio-lence. Each president from the sur-rounding schools also signed anantiviolence pledge that they tookback to their high schools.

Today, it is my pleasure to reportthat more than 5,000 students fromover 40 Idaho high schools in my dis-trict took the pledge. The pledge reads:‘‘I pledge to keep my school and com-munity safe by never using violence tosolve my disagreements and takingpersonal responsibility for my ac-tions.’’ Some of those Idaho highschools include Aberdeen High School,Blackfoot High School from which Igraduated, Buhl, Burley, Butte,Castleford, Firth, and on and on.

The maturity and perception of thestudents during the town hall meetingsand assemblies impressed me. Idahoholds top-notch students who careabout their schools. School violence isnot going away, and there is not justone answer. But my hope is thatschools and communities will look foranswers tailored to their needs to en-sure schools are places of learning, notof fear.

I encourage my colleagues to initiatesimilar dialogues with the students,parents and school officials in the com-munities of their districts before trag-edy strikes, not after. As we begin an-other school year, I hope my House col-leagues will urge the students in theirdistricts to take the pledge against vio-lence in our Nation’s schools.

f

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

(Mr. FILNER addressed the House.His remarks will appear hereafter inthe Extensions of Remarks.)

f

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, on April 12,I led an hour of debate of prescription drugcoverage for senior citizens. I read three let-ters from around the state from seniors whoshared their personal stories. On the 12th, Imade a commitment to continue to read a dif-ferent letter every week until the House enactsreform. That was six months ago. Althoughthe House passed a prescription drug bill thissummer, I believe it will not help most seniors.So, I will continue to read letters until Con-gress enacts a real Medicare prescription drugbenefit. This week, I will read a letter fromHarriet Simmons of Detroit, Michigan.

Text of the letter:Dear Congresswoman STABENOW: I am writ-

ing to express my concern over the esca-lating cost of prescription drugs for seniors.As a senior myself, I must take the medi-cines prescribed by my doctor to maintainmy health. The cost of these drugs can risefrom month to month. Sometimes, I havehad to purchase half of my medicine or takeless so it will last longer.

The Michigan Emergency PharmaceuticalProgram for Seniors provides temporary helpfor 3 months out of the year if you qualify.But, what are we to do the remaining 9months? Many seniors are too young or justabove the income guidelines to qualify. Weneed help in obtaining our prescriptions forthe above cited reasons. I support your ef-forts to lower the cost of drugs for seniors.

I would like to add: We are senior citizenstoday but yesterday we were active, tax pay-ing citizens. Don’t mistreat us now. We needprotection.

Sincerely,HARRIETT SIMMONS.

Harriet deserves a genuine Medicare pre-scription drug benefit. Time is running out todo something in this Congress. We mustenact real prescription drug reform before weadjourn.

f

SOCIAL SECURITY SOLVENCY

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, this is good news, I think, for peoplethat are concerned with Social Secu-rity. Social Security is one of Amer-ica’s most important programs. I thinkwe have missed a great opportunity inthe last 8 years not to develop the kindof policy changes in Social Securitythat will for sure keep it solvent. Nowit is part of the great debate, and Ithink it is important that we all under-stand a little better how the Social Se-curity program works. Social Securitybenefits are a guaranteed act; and thefact is, is that there is going not to beenough money coming in from the pay-roll tax to pay benefits without somechanges. The big change is a better re-turn on the investments.

When Franklin Roosevelt created theSocial Security program over 6 decadesago, he wanted it to feature a privatesector component to build retirementincome. Social Security was supposedto be one leg of a three-legged stool tosupport retirees. It was supposed to gohand in hand with personal savings andprivate pension plans. Of course, whenit passed through the Senate, it is in-teresting. The Senate on two votesback in 1935 said that it had to be op-tional investments so individuals couldinvest their own money. Provisionswere put into that law so that certainStates and counties would be allowedto have alternative private investmentplans, and now we are seeing countiesin Texas and around the country thatopted out of Social Security gettingfour or five, six, 10 times as much bene-fits from their pension retirementplans that they own as opposed to whatSocial Security would pay.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8895October 5, 2000The biggest risk is doing nothing at

all in Social Security. One thing I amconcerned about is President Clintonand Vice President GORE have sug-gested that we simply add huge, giantIOUs to the Social Security trust fund.The problem with that is that the fullfaith and credit of this country is good,but the way we pay back Treasurynotes now is simply to borrow moremoney. If we are going to borrow $20trillion, it is going to tremendouslychange the economics of this country.

b 1315

Social Security has a total unfundedliability of over $20 trillion. The SocialSecurity trust fund contains nothingbut IOUs. That means you have to ei-ther borrow the money to pay it back,increase taxes to pay it back, or youhave to reduce benefits. We have tohave two things very clear: No increasein taxes, and no reduction in benefitsfor existing or near-term retirees.

To keep paying the promised SocialSecurity benefits, the payroll tax willhave to be increased at least 50 percentof total income or benefits will have tobe cut by one-third. Neither of thoseoptions are good.

In conclusion, this is the dem-onstrated problem of Social Security.We are in a short range up to for thenext 12 to 15 years of a little moremoney coming in in the Social Secu-rity payroll tax than is needed to paybenefits. But then look what happensin the out years. Twenty trillion, in to-day’s dollars, but in those dollars thatare going to have to be paid out overand above what is coming in from theSocial Security tax 50 or 60 years fromnow, it is going to be 120 trillion ofthose inflated future year dollars. Hugeproblems. It needs to be dealt withnow. We have to get a better return onthe investment.

The six principles of saving SocialSecurity that I and Senator RODGRAMS have come up with are: Protectthe current and future beneficiaries;allow freedom of choice; preserve thesafety net; make Americans better off,not worse off; create a fully funded sys-tem; and no increase in taxes.

Right now the average Americanworker pays more in the payroll FICAtax than in the income tax. Seventy-eight percent of American workers paymore in the FICA tax than they do theincome tax. Let us not increase taxeson them again. Let us do somethingnow, so we do not pass this burden onto our kids and grandkids.

f

RYAN WHITE CARE ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.QUINN). Under a previous order of theHouse, the gentlewoman from Texas(Ms. JACKSON-LEE) is recognized for 5minutes.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr.Speaker, it is my pleasure to be able torise and support S. 2311, the reauthor-ization of the Ryan White CARE Act.This legislation needed to come to the

floor before the end of the 106th Con-gress. It is imperative that we continuethe fight for treatment dollars to dealwith those who are HIV infected andthose who are affected.

Thanks to the efforts of collabora-tion, this legislation provides a fundingformula that will actually ensure thatall Americans suffering from this dev-astating disease are properly covered.In particular, it will work to enhancesome of the devastated areas in Afri-can-American areas and Hispanic areasto provide resources for those commu-nities.

The legislation maintains the integ-rity of the multi-structure of theCARE Act, allowing funds to be tar-geted to the areas hardest hit by theHIV and AIDS epidemic. In addition, Iam pleased that the legislation main-tains and, in fact, strengthens the deci-sion-making authority of local plan-ning councils and allows resources tobe used to locate and bring more indi-viduals into the health care system.

I am also delighted to learn that thebill will provide more individuals withearly intervention services, such ascounseling and testing. This is particu-larly important in the 18th Congres-sional District, where many faith-basedorganizations, nonprofits, are now real-izing the importance of education andprevention and speaking the culturallanguage of the different unique com-munities that need to understand thedangers of not having knowledge aboutHIV and AIDS.

This bill, that I have supported inyears past and am delighted to extendmy support, extends Medicare coverageto people living with HIV. Under thislegislation adopted now, States willhave the ability to add poor and low-in-come uninsured persons living withHIV to the list of persons categoricallyeligible for Medicaid.

This is very important for people inthe 18th Congressional District here inHouston for getting proper coverage,and it is very critical that they receivethe kind of quality care that is nec-essary. There are HIV-infected personsin my district and across America thatneed some relief immediately, and thusthe Medicaid provision is imperative.

Under current rules, most people liv-ing with HIV are ineligible for Med-icaid until they have progressed toAIDS and are disabled. We wanted toengage individuals who are infected sothey can have the proper care andtreatment. We know with the newhealth care revolutions and the newdrug treatments that have come about,it is very important to have earlyintervention so that these individualscan live full, active lives. New treat-ments, such as the highly active hearttherapy, are successfully delaying theprogression of HIV progression toAIDS.

Mr. Speaker, this is very exciting. Wecan turn this situation around. Earlyaccess to HIV treatment is imperative.I remember coming to this Congress inthe early 1990s or in 1990 as a local

elected official to join with SenatorKENNEDY as he introduced the RyanWhite treatment dollars.

This reauthorization is a testimonythat it works, that treatment works,and now we must focus on prevention.I believe the legislation must be signedby the President. The formula will addto people’s lives; it will in fact savelives. I am very delighted to supportthis legislation, and I look forward toit being signed by the President so thatit can save lives, not only in Texas andin my district, but throughout this Na-tion, as we continue to fight the AIDSepidemic throughout the world.

f

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

(Mr. MICA addressed the House. Hisremarks will appear hereafter in theExtensions of Remarks.)

f

CONGRESS RESTORES THE UPARRPROGRAM

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California.Mr. Speaker, earlier this week theHouse passed the Department of Inte-rior appropriations conference reportfor the year 2001 by an overwhelmingmargin. Many of the votes for that leg-islation were the result of an historiccommitment of funds to efforts to pre-serve our national resources, includingparks and other public lands, wildlife,endangered species, forest programsand others.

We are providing this supportthrough a new $1.6 billion Lands fundbecause of the severe underfunding ofresource programs over the past decadethat have led to a deterioration of theenvironment and the recreational op-portunities for tens of millions ofAmericans who treasure their nationalparks, wilderness areas, coasts andother public lands.

No program has been moreunjustifiably undermined than theUrban Parks and Recreation Programknown as UPARR.

UPARR is a vital program that pro-vides on a matching basis relativelysmall grants to towns and citiesthroughout America to try and providesome expanded recreational opportuni-ties to children who have very few al-ternative recreational opportunities.Across this country, there are dozensof towns and cities where baseballfields are overgrown, soccer fields areshort of equipment, gyms and courtsare unusable, and every day tens ofthousands of children pass by those va-cant and useless playgrounds and gymsand have to find something to do afterschool and in their evening hours.These are the children who fall prey tocrime and drugs and gangs and inap-propriate sexual activity that place


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8896 October 5, 2000these children and their futures injeopardy.

UPARR answers a terrible need forthese children in their communities.And yet, for the past decade, UPARRhas been denied funding by the Con-gress. Even though dozens of cities andtowns filed applications and were pre-pared to raise the matching funds, theCongress refused to provide even mini-mal funding for UPARR, despite all thestatements of concern about children’swell-being and about the need for afterschool athletics and mentoring pro-grams.

For the past several years, I havebeen working with a wide range of or-ganizations to fund the UPARR pro-gram. I want to pay special tribute toTom Cove, the Vice President of theSporting Goods Manufacturers Associa-tion, who has spent so much of his timehelping to build a network of peopleoutside of Washington on behalf ofUPARR’s revival and who has been sosuccessful here in the Congress and theadministration in persuading people ofthis vital program.

The UPARR coalition consists of adiverse array of organizations and in-terests, including the National Councilof Youth Sports, which represents 46million children through the NationalYouth Sports Leagues, such as LittleLeague, Pop Warner football; the Ama-teur Athletic Union; the U.S. SoccerFoundation; PONY baseball; and theU.S. Conference of Mayors, especiallyMayor Victor Ashe of Knoxville, MarkMorial of New Orleans, and RosemaryCorbin of Richmond, California.

We have also had tremendous helpfrom professional sports organizationsand players, who recognize the need inproviding young people a safe place toplay and learn. I want to recognize ourfriends at the National FootballLeague, the NFL Player Association,and Major League Baseball’s ‘‘RevivingBaseball in the Inner Cities’’ program.We have also had great support fromthe Police Athletic League, and I espe-cially want to recognize them. Theyhave fought long and hard with us fortoday’s victory for UPARR.

I also want to pay tribute to some ofthe people in the Seventh Congres-sional District of California who havebeen energetic and indefatigable sup-porters of UPARR, including MayorRosemary Corbin of Richmond, Cali-fornia; C.A. Robertson of the RichmondPolice Activities League and the state-wide Police Activities League; theGreater Vallejo Recreation Districtand its general manager, SkipRadziewicz; and the Tri-City CountyOpen Space Committee and its chair,Duane Krumm.

Throughout the Nation, individualssuch as these have joined together anddemanded that Congress provide sub-stantial new funding for UPARR; andthis week, they succeeded. When webegan this effort, UPARR was receiv-ing nothing, only a few short years ago,not one cent, despite all the rhetoricabout concern for our children. So we

committed ourselves to UPARR’s re-vival; and we began slow, finding a cou-ple of million dollars on the Housefloor from here and there.

We were able to convince the Clintonadministration that this was a worthyprogram that met the President andFirst Lady’s goals for children, and acouple of million dollars was includedin last year’s budget.

This year the President asked for $10million; and in the bill we passedtoday, that number was increased to$30 million for each of the next 6 years.I want to thank the members of theCommittee on Appropriations for thatincrease, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.REGULA), the gentleman from Wis-consin (Mr. OBEY), and the gentlemanfrom Washington (Mr. DICKS). And weintend to get more, because with thisprogram we can turn our cities aroundand we can change the lives of millionsof young children.

Today’s bill, while not the level offunding we sought in the Conservationand Reinvestment Act, is an enormousincrease to $30 million for each of thenext 6 years, with the promise of moreabove that. With the coalition we havebuilt, I am confident we will success-fully compete for dollars within theCommittee on Appropriations forUPARR dollars and build a network ofrecreation and athletic facilitiesthroughout the cities and towns of thisNation.

f

STATEMENT OF ROANE COUNTY,TENNESSEE, HIGH SCHOOL PRIN-CIPAL JODY MCLOUD CON-CERNING SCHOOL PRAYERThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gen-tleman from Tennessee (Mr. DUNCAN) isrecognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, severalyears ago, William Raspberry, thegreat columnist for the WashingtonPost, asked in a column these words.He said, ‘‘Is it not just possible thatanti-religious bias masquerading as re-ligious neutrality has cost this countryfar more than it has been willing to ac-knowledge?’’ I think that is a verygood question.

In light of that, I would like to reada statement that Roane County, Ten-nessee, high school principal JodyMcLoud read over the public addresssystem before his school’s first footballgame on September 1, following the Su-preme Court decision outlawing or ban-ning prayer at high school footballgames across the Nation.

Mr. McLoud said this:It has always been the custom at Roane

County High School football games to say aprayer and play the National anthem tohonor God and country. Due to a recent rul-ing by the Supreme Court, I am told thatsaying a prayer is a violation of Federal caselaw.

As I understand the law at this time, I canuse this public facility to approve of sexualperversion and call it an alternative lifestyleand if someone is offended, that’s okay.

I can use it to condone sexual promiscuityby dispensing condoms and calling it safesex. If someone is offended, that’s okay.

I can even use this public facility topresent the merits of killing an unborn babyas a viable means of birth control. If some-one is offended, no problem.

I can designate a school day as Earth Dayand involve students in activities to reli-giously worship and praise the GoddessMother Earth and call it ecology.

I can use literature, videos and presen-tations in the classroom that depict peoplewith strong traditional Christian convictionsas simple minded and ignorant and call it en-lightenment.

However, if anyone uses this facility tohonor God and ask Him to bless this eventwith safety and good sportsmanship, Federalcase law is violated.

This appears to be, at best, inconsistent,and, at worst, diabolical.

Mr. MCLoud continued.Apparently we are to be tolerant of every-

thing and everyone except God and His com-mandments.

Nevertheless, as a school principal, I fre-quently ask staff and students to abide byrules with which they do not necessarilyagree. For me to do otherwise would be atbest inconsistent and at worst hypocritical. Isuffer from that affliction enough uninten-tionally. I certainly do not need to add an in-tentional transgression.

For this reason, I shall ‘‘render unto Cae-sar that which is Caesar’s’’ and refrain pray-ing at this time. However, if you feel in-spired to honor, praise and thank God and toask Him in the name of Jesus to bless thisevent, please feel free to do so. As far as Iknow, that is not against the law yet.

That is the statement by RoaneCounty, Tennessee, High School Prin-cipal Jody McLoud.

I can tell you that we open up everysession of the House and Senate withprayer, but it is unfortunate, the re-cent Supreme Court decision.

I commend Roane County, Tennessee,High School Principal Jody McLoud forthis very fine statement, and I close byasking the question that William Rasp-berry asked a few years ago in his col-umn, is it not just possible that anti-religious bias, masquerading as reli-gious neutrality, has cost this Nationfar more than it has been willing to ac-knowledge?

f

b 1330

RESTORE FEDERAL RECOGNITIONTO THE MIAMI NATION OF INDI-ANA

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.QUINN). Under a previous order of theHouse, the gentleman from Indiana(Mr. SOUDER) is recognized for 5 min-utes.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, thisafternoon I have introduced a bill torestore the Federal recognition to theMiami Nation of Indiana.

The Miami Nation of Indiana is oneof our most historic Indian nations.Unfortunately, it is not currently rec-ognized by the Federal Government. Itis an ironic situation that we face.When Anthony Wayne won the battleof Fallen Timbers that lead directly tothe Treaty of Greenville in 1795, theMiami Nation, at that point a defeatednation, entered into negotiations overa period of time with William Henry


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8897October 5, 2000Harrison in the Northwest Territoryand the Federal Government, cedingmillions of acres.

Chief Richardville, the civil chief ofthe tribe, and Little Turtle, the warchief of the Miami Nation, did the bestthey could to keep as many Miamis inIndiana as possible, approximately atthat point 800. The rest were trans-ported in one of the many cases of mis-treatment of Native Americans by theAmerican Government, and movedacross the Mississippi River.

That tribe continued to be recognizedand currently is basically the Miami ofOklahoma. They have completely atthis point a distinctive history, a dis-tinctive tribal form of governmentfrom the Miami Nation of Indiana.They moved across the Mississippi,then down into Oklahoma, have theirown tribal governments and work withthat, and occasionally even come inconflict with their brothers from Indi-ana over what to do with artifacts,over what things are important in thetribe. Because quite frankly, the Indi-ana Miami are not in many ways a tra-ditional nation, in the sense they werenot part of the reservation system thatmany other Indian tribes in Americawere part of.

Their goals as a tribe are different.Theirs are predominantly historic andcultural goals as opposed to necessarilythe same financial goals, because theyare more or less integrated in, but thatdoes not mean that they have not beena continual independent nation. Muchof this is detailed in the book ‘‘TheMiami Indians of Indiana.’’ This par-ticular book was given to me byCharles Bevington, or Meshintoquah,chief of the Pecongeah Clan of theMiami Nation of Indiana.

And he, Chuck, still gets benefitsfrom the treaty of Greenville from 1795.His kids get benefits from the Treatyof Greenville; yet our government saysthey are not an Indian tribe. Now, waita minute. If they are getting treatybenefits directly from 1795, this seemslike a tad of a stretch.

Let me make a couple of points withthis: one is, they have been in con-tinual relationship with the FederalGovernment, one of the standards to bean independent Indian nation. One ofthe problems was that in 1897, the Sec-retary of the Interior based on an opin-ion by a then assistant Secretary with-drew the acknowledgment of the Indi-ana Miamis as a tribe.

Since then, Congress has never ter-minated this relationship. Since then,there has been an acknowledgmentthat that was an error in 1897. In 1990,the Department of the Interior specifi-cally admitted that the opinion of At-torney General Van Devanter was in-correct and that the trust relationshipof the Indiana Miamis was wrongfullyterminated. In other words, in 1897 thiswas wrongfully done. They reappealedto the BIA and lost their appeal, be-cause, apparently, some of the minutesfrom meetings in either the late 1950sor early 1960s were lost partly because

the Secretary’s house trailer burnedand the Miami did not have records oftheir continual meetings they had.They had powwows in our district, andthroughout parts of northern Indianathey have had a consistent form oftribal government. So we are basicallylooking at technicalities that have dis-qualified a nation that is one of ourmost historic.

Let me give my colleagues a coupleof examples. The famous Indian chief,Little Turtle, was one of the greatestwarriors in American history. This is adrawing by a Miami of Indiana personwho lives in Fort Wayne area, myhometown. What is interesting aboutthis is, this is not a drawing that iscontemporary of its period, because theonly oil painting of Little Turtle wasin the White House, and it was burnedwhen the White House was burned in1812 when James Madison was Presi-dent. And it was by Gilbert Stuart.

But this is a likeness drawn afterthat. Little Turtle is famous becauseon American soil, he is the only personto have defeated full-blown Americanarmies authorized by this Congress,not once, but twice, bigger defeats,than Custard, bigger defeats than theWestern, different things where CrazyHorse and Sitting Bull and all of thosefamous Indian chiefs, Little Turtle de-feated American armies twice.

George Washington said they had toget the junction of the rivers in what isnow Fort Wayne but at that time wasKekionga, because it was the control-ling of the Northwest territory and wewould have never had a Lewis andClark. We never would have had a Lou-isiana Purchase if we could not getcontrol of the Northwest Territory.Little Turtle twice defeated those ar-mies.

He was victorious right near EelRiver where his settlement was, and healso defeated La Balme from France,who was considered the foremost cal-vary officer in France.

But then Little Turtle realized hewas not going to be able to defeat An-thony Wayne. He stayed in the coali-tion with Blue Jacket and other Indiantribes, the Shawnee and others; butthey were defeated at the battle ofFallen Timbers and that led to achange in the West. Little Turtle de-cided to work with the United StatesGovernment. Then the civil chief, ChiefRichardville, also decided to work withthe United States Government and inFort Wayne. We hope within a fewmonths this will be a national historiclandmark; it is the oldest Indian treatyhouse east of the Mississippi still on itssite.

It is Chief Richardville’s house. It iswhere the Miami Nation congregated.It was their civil chief. We also haveRichardville’s son-in-law Lafontaine,in an Indian house. After all, Indiana isnamed after the Indians, but we do nothave respect and have not respectedthem enough.

We have two treasures of thesehomes. This is apparently the only Na-

tive American home east of the Mis-sissippi on its original site.Richardville and Little Turtle were infact in essence punished because theystopped warring with the UnitedStates.

It is time that the United States cor-rect what are acknowledged wrongs indecertifying the Miami Nation in 1897,to reconcile the bookkeeping error.One last point, they have agreed by a12 to zero council meeting to suspendtheir gaming rights. The act says thatpursuant they will not pursue gamingin class 3, and only be allowed with ex-pressed approval from Congress.

It is unfortunate that true rights arebeing denied because of gambling, butthey have agreed to suspend theirs.

f

JAMES RIADY INVITES BILLCLINTON TO LIPPO BOARD

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speak-er, last year, during our investigation,the Committee on Government Reformhad John Huang testify that JamesRiady, a close personal friend of thePresident of the United States, orga-nized a scheme to funnel a million dol-lars into the President’s campaign inthe early 1990s. Around $700,000 to$800,000 of that money was raised,brought into the country from Indo-nesia through conduits, and funneledinto the campaign as had been prom-ised.

We believe much more than that wasbrought in, but that is all we could ac-count for. Most of that money was sentback, was returned, because it was ille-gal campaign contributions. We havebeen after the Justice Department forsome time to, in absentia, indict Mr.Riady for illegal campaign contribu-tions and for obstruction of justice.

Mr. Riady fled the country. He is nowliving in Indonesia, and he is one of themajor partners or executive officers inthe Lippo Group, which was formed byhis father, Mochtar Riady, sometimeago.

Mr. Riady also orchestrated a com-plex scheme to launder over $4 millionin political contributions to variouscampaigns, parties and other nonprofitgroups in addition to the money thathe gave to the President’s campaign inthe early 1990s.

And throughout the 1990s, he workedwith John Huang, helped get JohnHuang appointed to the DemocraticNational Committee leadership, so thathe could extract more money from ille-gal sources in China and the Far East,including Indonesia.

The Justice Department has notmoved to indict Mr. Riady, and that issomething that we have really beenfighting with them about, because wethink, even though he is in Indonesia,he has violated American law, he hasfled the country, and he has not com-plied with subpoenas from our com-mittee and others.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8898 October 5, 2000One of the things that really bothers

me, and the reason I come to the floortoday, is not to rehash what we haveknown for a long time, Mr. Speaker;but today we find out that Mr. Riadyinvites the President of the UnitedStates to be on the Lippo board of di-rectors in Indonesia. This comes rightfrom the Far Eastern Economic Reviewthat was reported today, and I urge mycolleagues to look at the article.

Mr. Speaker, I include this article forthe RECORD.

RIADY INVITES CLINTON TO LIPPO BOARD

Indonesian tycoon James Riady has in-vited U.S. President Bill Clinton to join theboard of Lippo Group when he steps downfrom Office early next year, according tobusiness people who have met Riady in Ja-karta recently. Riady has been telling busi-ness contacts in Jakarta that he expectsClinton to accept, even though the U.S.president has been dogged by allegationsthat Riady funnelled illegal foreign dona-tions to Clinton’s 1992 and 1996 election cam-paigns. A former Lippo Group employee re-ports that as far back as the mid-1990’s Riadywas said to be trying to recruit Clinton tothe board as soon as he left office. Jakartapolice are currently helping the U.S. JusticeDepartment in its investigation of the al-leged campaign contributions.

The article reads like this: ‘‘Riadyinvites Clinton to Lippo board. Indo-nesian tycoon James Riady has invitedPresident Bill Clinton to join the boardof Lippo Group when he steps downfrom office early next year, accordingto business people who have met withMr. Riady in Jakarta recently. Riadyhas been telling business contacts inJakarta that he expects Clinton to ac-cept even though the U.S. Presidenthas been dogged by allegations thatRiady funneled illegal foreign con-tributions to the 1992 and 1996 cam-paigns.’’

The thing that is interesting aboutthis, and I am not accusing the Presi-dent of anything, so I do not want to bestopped for anything, but the thingthat is interesting about this, Mr.Speaker, is that the beneficiary of oneof the major decisions by the adminis-tration was the Riady group, the LippoGroup, in Indonesia.

Sometime in the 1990s, the Presidenttook the coal reserve, the largest cleanburning coal reserve in the UnitedStates, out of possible production inUtah and made it a national park.Many engineers told us that this couldhave been mined in an environmentallysafe way; but, nevertheless, the Presi-dent said he wanted to make it a na-tional park to preserve the ecology.

Now the beneficiary of that was theLippo Group in Indonesia, because theyhave one of the largest clean burningmining operations in the entire world.And when you take this large reserveout of possible production in Utah, theonly real beneficiary that we could findwas the Riadys and the Lippo Group inIndonesia.

In addition to that, Mr. Riady metwith the President in the back of a carin 1992, and again in 1996 worked withhim, met with him, and funneled, we

believe, millions of dollars in illegalcampaign contributions in from Indo-nesia and from China and many ofthose hundreds of thousands of dollarsof this money was returned because itwas to be illegal.

Now we find out that the Riady groupis going to put the President on theboard of directors when he leaves officein January. All I can say is that thisreally bothers me a great deal, becauseall of the information we have wouldlead one to believe that the very strongpossibility exists that a lot of thesethings were done to benefit the Riadygroup, and now they are going to putthe President on the board of directors.I think every American ought to knowthat.

f

NO ENERGY POLICY UNDERCURRENT ADMINISTRATION

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker,I, again, rise in the special orders formy colleagues to understand the im-portance of the energy policy of theUnited States under this present ad-ministration, which is zero. There is noenergy policy. In fact, under this ad-ministration, we have declined the useof nuclear. We have declined the use ofoil. We have declined the use of coal.We have declined the use of hydro.

And, in fact, there has never been aposition where they have developedany new power as our population growsand our economy grows. We are usingmore power every day, and this admin-istration has sought not to do it.

During an election time, the presi-dential candidate, what is his name,Mr. GORE, decides to asks us to lowerthe price of fuel in the Northeast byusing our reserves. Now, I cannot thinkof anything more ridiculous and usinga reserve that was set up when I washere and this Congress set it up forstrategic purposes, in case there was acutting off of our shipping channelsand we needed that fuel for militarypurposes. That is why it was set up.

There is no shortage of oil. Yes, thereis an increase of prices because we aredependent because of this administra-tion’s policy on foreign oil. Now, wehave a lot of oil and gas in the UnitedStates of America. We just have notbeen able to find it or develop it be-cause of the policies of the Departmentof Interior, the President of the UnitedStates and the Vice President.

What I am very familiar with, ofcourse, is Alaska. Everybody knowsthat Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay, 16 billionbarrels have been delivered to theUnited States. Every American citizenhas benefited from that. It has notgone overseas. It was from PrudhoeBay, developed in 1973 by this Congressbecause we had an embargo in place.

What else do we have in Alaska? Wehave in Alaska a place called 1002 area,right here, right here, 74 miles from

the existing pipeline that could deliverus a million barrels a day for the nexthundred years.

Everybody said what is a million bar-rels a day? I heard the other night thatmy so-called candidate, Mr. GORE, he isnot my candidate, but the candidate ofmany unenlightened people, Mr. GOREsaid we should not destroy the pristineareas, the last ones we have in Alaska.Alaska, every area you see in Alaskahas been set aside here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here, here,here, here, all the way around 147 mil-lion acres of land, set aside for wilder-ness for a great purpose for the Amer-ican people. Right up here we have 1.5million acres that has the potential, 39billion barrels of oil.

b 1345That is 39 billion barrels of oil, a mil-

lion barrels a day which we are nowbuying from Saddam Hussein that wecould be producing and shippingthrough our pipeline to the Americanpeople. But what does Mr. GORE say?Oh, we cannot develop it.

Show me one area where he sug-gested developing will occur. He hasnot done it in his 8 years, he did not doit when he was in the House, and he didnot do it while he was in the Senate.He does not believe in it.

To have him say now that we aregoing to use the reserve and not sup-port opening this ANWR area to me isridiculous.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, the foot-print is less than 12,000 acres, to givethe American people, give the Amer-ican people 1 million barrels a day forthe next 100 years. That is what is socrucially important.

But along those lines, keep in mindthere has been no energy policy by Mr.GORE. He has none now; and he willhave none in the future, other than thefact he wants us all to peddle bicycles.That is his idea.

He raised taxes while he was in theSenate, and he has proposed raisingtaxes while he was Vice President. Re-member, Mr. Speaker, and my col-leagues who drive back and forth andfly an airplane, those taxes were raisedsupposedly to stop our consumption. Ithas not done so, and in the meantimewe have become more dependent, 57percent today and by the year 2005 itwill be 60 percent, which we will be de-pendent upon foreign countries for oil.

By the way, anytime someone con-trols us 60 percent, we will do anythingthey tell us to do. As bad as it is, wewill do it because they control us. Thatis what this administration has done tous; they have made us subservient tothe foreign countries and not America.

I always hear the Vice President talkabout big oil. There is no big oil thatbelongs to America anymore; it be-longs to the foreigners. He supportedthat.

We have heard the previous speakertalk about the Lippo situation, thecoal situation. There is another classicexample where being dependent on for-eign countries is wrong. We must as a


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8899October 5, 2000Nation have an energy policy. We musthave a President who understands theenergy policy. This is crucially, cru-cially important.

f

THE NEED FOR A NATIONALENERGY POLICY

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.QUINN). Under a previous order of theHouse, the gentleman from Pennsyl-vania (Mr. GEKAS) is recognized for 5minutes.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, the gen-tleman from Alaska has outlined thenecessity for energizing an energy pol-icy. That is important for the future ofour country. The lack of the currentadministration’s intentions towardsformulating an energy policy gives usthis mandate now to do so in theirplace, so the gentleman from Alaskaproperly says Alaskan oil, ANWR, isone element of that.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker,will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Alaska.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I want tocompliment the gentleman because hehas introduced a bill to do just that, totake into consideration all of the fac-ets of energy, to take and decide howmany Btus we need for the future ofthis Nation.

Right now that has not happened. Infact, the administration has closeddown 34 refineries in the United States.The last refinery, built in 1980, was inAlaska. That is what has happened tous.

The gentleman’s bill, and I believe Iam a sponsor with the gentleman, itsays to bring to light the need for nu-clear power, hydropower, wind power,for conservation, for gas, and for oil,and to put it all together in a packageso that my grandchildren will have theability to have Btus available to themso they can live, yes, a better way. Ibelieve that is crucially important.

Mr. GEKAS. The national goal underthe energy policy which is embodied inthe bill that we propose calls for ourbeing energy independent in 10 years.

What do we have to do? Increase byany means possible the correct and en-vironmentally safe drilling on domes-tic properties, on domestic lands, onour Federal lands or wherever it is pos-sible in the western part of our Nationor in Alaska, as the gentleman has out-lined, and utilizing all the other de-vices we may have, our technologies,for solar, for hydroelectric that are ourown, waiting for us to use for our ownpurposes.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gen-tleman will continue to yield, Mr.Speaker, I would like to suggest thatmany people are very much unaware ofthe new demand on electrical power.

Twenty-five years ago we did nothave that demand. The power beinggenerated today, which we are nowusing mostly fossil fuels, natural gas,coal, no oil, but those two things, nowthe demand comes from that which we

all take for granted, and that is thecomputer, the Internet.

The Internet alone, just the Internet,not the total, the Internet alone in-creased the consumption of electricalpower 7 percent this year. Seven per-cent of our energy now is being used bythe Internet.

Mr. GEKAS. Our bill, called the NRGbill, NRG, national resource govern-ance, NRG, energy, calls for the estab-lishment of a commission, a blue rib-bon commission, which will put to-gether all these various facets that weare talking about and balance themwith conservation, good conservationmethods, and provide for us within 10years no longer to have to depend onOPEC oil or any foreign oil. That is aDeclaration of Independence in energythat is on the horizon if only we willseize the opportunity.

What worse kind of position can theUnited States be in than to have tokneel in front of the OPEC countries tobeg them to produce more oil, begthem to send us more oil, beg them tosell us more oil?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gen-tleman will yield one more moment, Isaid before that the only energy policythe administration has had is a set ofknee pads so they can beg. The inap-propriate conduct of trying not toallow us to produce energy, all forms ofenergy, in the last 8 years, has broughtus to this point.

We have to wake up. The gentleman’sbill does it. I am proud to be a sponsorof it. I hope everybody that is listen-ing, and I know I am not supposed tosay this, but all my colleagues who arelistening, I hope they understand wehad better approach this with the posi-tive side of production.

We cannot, as we listen to AL GORE,conserve our way into self-sufficiency.That is impossible. Everybody knowsit. As long as we are growing, and weare growing, our economy is growing,we have to have energy. That means allthe forms of energy that we know,mankind is realizing today. To say nois wrong.

By the way, if I may, gas, naturalgas, $2.15 last year, $5.40 today, it isgoing to $6 because demand is so great.Many of the great fields that wouldhave been drilled, should have beendrilled, have been put off limits by thisPresident and this Vice President.

Let us have a policy of energy devel-opment and deliveries to our people sowe do not have to go back. Instead ofissuing knee pads to every American sothey can beg for energy, let us have theability to say, I am American and wehave our own power.

Mr. GEKAS. I ask our colleagues tocosponsor the NRG bill for self-suffi-cient energy in the United States.

f

THE PROBLEM OF HIV/AIDS ANDMETHODS TO COMBAT IT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Underthe Speaker’s announced policy of Jan-uary 6, 1999, the gentleman from Illi-

nois (Mr. DAVIS) is recognized for 60minutes as the designee of the minor-ity leader.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, Iwant to thank the esteemed gentlemanfrom California (Mr. DIXON) for joiningme this afternoon as we discuss one ofthe most serious problems facing ourcountry and, indeed, our world today,that is, the problem of HIV/AIDS andall of the problems associated with it,as well as talk about ways in which wecan combat it.

Earlier today we passed the RyanWhite Comprehensive AIDS Relief Act,which provides resources to fight thisdreadful disease. I think our passage ofthis act today is further indication ofhow serious this Congress takes thisproblem and the approaches that wehave begun to use in terms of providingresources to deal with it.

Although money is needed, and re-sources is one way of impacting posi-tively the situation, there are otherthings that people can do that do infact cost money, but sometimes not asmuch as we think. There are manyagencies, organizations, and groupsthroughout America and throughoutthe world who are making use of them-selves in every possible way to do whatit is that they can to arrest this dis-ease.

One of the areas that we have themost difficulty with is in teenagers.Despite the fact that most Americanteenagers are aware of methods for pre-venting pregnancy and STD infection,reports indicate that nearly half ofteenagers engage in unprotected sexualactivity. In turn, morbidity and infec-tion rates due to HIV continue to riseas young adults become one of the fast-est-growing populations contractingHIV/AIDS.

In addition, recent reports estimatethat at least 20 to 30 percent of youngmen may be infected with herpes sim-plex virus, regardless of sociologicaldemographic background.

As a matter of fact, in some manner,we are all affected by the hardships ofthese diseases because they have placedhardships on our communities, no mat-ter where we are or who we are. Con-sequently, programs dedicated to in-forming young adults about safe sexpractices in an appropriate and effec-tive manner are vital.

One such national effort is ProjectAlpha, which is a creation of Alpha PhiAlpha Fraternity, Incorporated.

Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, foundedin 1906 at Cornell University, has thedistinction of being the first intercolle-giate fraternity established for AfricanAmericans. Since its inception, AlphaPhi Alpha fraternity has provided voiceand vision to the struggle of AfricanAmericans and people of color aroundthe world.

Today Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity,Incorporated, has approximately 150,000members. Past and present membersinclude noted sociologist W.E.B.DuBois, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.,former Senator Ed Brooks, Dr. Martin


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8900 October 5, 2000Luther King, Jr., Supreme Court Jus-tice Thurgood Marshall, former Con-gressman and ambassador AndrewYoung, former Representative BillGray, who heads the United Negro Col-lege Fund, the noted author and activ-ist, Paul Robeson, the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. DIXON), the gentlemanfrom Alabama (Mr. HILLIARD), the gen-tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.FATTAH), the gentlemen from NewYork (Mr. MEEKS and Mr. RANGEL), thegentleman from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT).

I, too, Mr. Speaker, am pleased to bea member of the Mu Mu Lambda chap-ter of this illustrious group, Alpha PhiAlpha, Incorporated.

Project Alpha, in the spirit of thispowerful legacy, was established to ad-dress the major social, economic, andhealth problems related to troublingtrends in teen pregnancy and STDs.

Since the early 1980s, Alpha PhiAlpha fraternity has implemented theProject Alpha Program, along with theMarch of Dimes Foundation, and hastaught thousands of young men aboutthe consequences of STDs and teenagepregnancy from a male perspective.

Over the past 20 years, members ofAlpha have worked with the staff andvolunteers of the March of Dimes BirthDefects Foundation to reach hundredsof communities and thousands ofyoung men throughout America andthe world.

In an effort to herald this program tothe entire Nation, the second week ofOctober has been declared ProjectAlpha Week, and from October 7 to Oc-tober 14 each chapter of Alpha PhiAlpha will devote time to reviewingthe medical, legal, and socioeconomicissues involving teen pregnancy andSTD infection with teens while encour-aging responsible behavior.

I want to commend the brothers ofAlpha and the Alpha Project, for with-out preventative programs such as thissuccessful one, we will pay greatly inthe future with higher rates of teenpregnancy and birth defects, higherrates of HIV and other STDs, and ulti-mately, a lower quality of life for allmembers of our society.

b 1400

Now, it is my pleasure to yield to thegentleman from California (Mr. DIXON),the ranking member of the PermanentSelect Committee on Intelligence, mybrother, and fellow Alpha member.

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I thank thegentleman from Illinois very much foryielding to me, and I am very pleasedto join with him in this tribute, notonly to the Alpha fraternity, but thefight and the cause.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to risetoday to commemorate Project AlphaWeek and to honor the brothers ofAlpha Phi Alpha Fraternity and theMarch of Dimes for their efforts overthe past 20 years on this project.

Project Alpha is a collaboration be-tween Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity andthe March of Dimes to reduce teenagepregnancy and sexually transmitted

diseases by engaging young men beforethey have established risk-taking be-havior patterns.

During the week of October 7 through14, young men in communities acrossthis Nation will participate in ProjectAlpha conferences.

Project Alpha is one of Alpha PhiAlpha Fraternity’s three national pro-grams. These national programs,‘‘Project Alpha,’’ ‘‘Go to High School-Go to College,’’ and ‘‘A Voteless PeopleIs a Hopeless People’’ exemplify AlphaPhi Alpha’s focus on assisting commu-nities through leadership, scholarship,and service.

The curriculum at the Project Alphaconferences will stress three main ele-ments, knowledge building, motivationand taking the message back.

In my hometown of Los Angeles,more than 200 young men are expectedto benefit from Project Alpha programsthis year. I would like to commend the12 Southern California chapters whoare participating in this year’s pro-gram.

The program’s financial supportersand presenters also should be recog-nized for their contributions to thecommunity. This year’s program willinclude Michael Cooper, former L.A.Laker star, and State Senator TeresaHughes. Support is also being providedby the Magic Johnson Theater Cor-poration; the New Leaders, an organi-zation of young African-American pro-fessionals; and the Holman UnitedMethodist Church.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like totake this opportunity to highlight an-other project that the Alpha Phi Alphahas spearheaded, the Martin LutherKing, Jr. Memorial project. I am hon-ored to have worked with Alpha PhiAlpha to enact legislation to allow theKing Memorial project to move for-ward.

In 1996, the gentlewoman from Mary-land (Mrs. MORELLA) and I carried thebill to authorize the memorial. In 1998,we passed legislation approving a per-manent site on the National Mall forthe King Memorial.

The fraternity has since establishedan independent foundation to coordi-nate this project and is engaged in rais-ing funds for the Martin Luther King,Jr. Memorial. I am very proud that theeffort to honor Dr. King, a man ofunique national stature, with a memo-rial in the Nation’s capital has tran-scended the fraternity and become aproject of national significance.

The commitment to community thatAlpha Phi Alpha instills in its mem-bers is exemplary. I am honored to bea member of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fra-ternity, and I am pleased to commendboth Alpha Phi Alpha and the March ofDimes for their efforts on ProjectAlpha.

From Project Alpha to the King Me-morial to helping to shape generationsof great African-American men, AlphaPhi Alpha has contributed so much toour Nation. I am very proud of thebrothers that serve in the Congress of

the United States with me who aremembers of the Alpha Fraternity.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,let me just ask the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. DIXON), we know thatHIV-related illness and death now havethe greatest impact on young people.As a matter of fact, AIDS is the lead-ing cause of death among Americans 25to 44 years old. In this same age group,AIDS now account, on an average, forone in every three deaths among Afri-can-American men and one in fivedeaths in African-American women.

Between 1990 and 1995, AIDS inci-dents among people 13 to 25 years oldrose nearly 20 percent. While AIDS in-cidents among both young gay and bi-sexual men and young injecting drugusers was relatively constant duringthis time period, AIDS incidentsamong young heterosexual men andwomen rose more than 130 percent.

In a project like Project Alpha, whatis it that one can say or what does onesay to young people to try and impactupon them the serious consequences ofcertain kinds of behavior?

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, if the gen-tleman will yield, I think that one doestwo things, and Project Alpha reachesto both of them. One, one can explainto them the impact on the communityas it relates to health, as it relates tofuture planning for a young person.Two, one can explain to them andmake clear to them that this kind ofepidemic can be avoided if they controlthemselves and practice what is tradi-tionally called safe sex.

There is probably no greater threatto minority communities today thanthe national health problem of HIV in-fection. So to reach out to young men16, 17, of college age to spread informa-tion and to make them realize the dan-ger I think is a great public service.

But just as important, I think thatwe have to make the entire minoritycommunity aware of this danger, andwe cannot stress it too much because,as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.DAVIS) indicated from his facts, it is agrowing concern; and the facts con-tinue to show that the spread in theminority communities is runningahead of the spread in the majoritycommunities.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, Icertainly want to thank the gentlemanfrom California, not only for his par-ticipation and his leadership here inthe Congress but also his willingness inthe community where he lives to be in-volved, to be interactive with youngpeople, and to try and help them to un-derstand how they can improve thequality of life, not only for themselves,but for others. We certainly appreciatehis assistance.

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I thank thegentleman from Illinois for taking thetime to spread the word. It is an honorfor me to serve with him and my othercolleagues, not only as I said in theHouse of Representatives, but as mem-bers in the same fraternity.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,it is my pleasure now to yield time to


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8901October 5, 2000the distinguished gentleman from theCity of Brotherly Love, Pennsylvania(Mr. FATTAH), who not only providesgreat leadership in the field of edu-cation, which means that he is a nat-ural to be involved in this kind ofproject, but who is an inspiration to allof those who have known and workedwith him for years.

I am proud to call him, not only mycolleague, but also my Alpha brother.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, let methank the distinguished gentlemanfrom the great State of Illinois (Mr.DAVIS) and the City of Chicago, who isa fraternity brother of mine.

I come to the floor just ever so brief-ly just to add my voice in support forthis effort. It really is a substantial ef-fort that, even if I was not a member ofthis great fraternity, I would be sup-portive of it, because it really gets atthe heart of where we need to be, andthat is communicating with individualyoung men and with our young peoplein a way which is relevant in terms ofthe choices that they have to make,the choice points that they confront,that will have an impact on their lifechances in a way that they cannot evenimagine at 12 and 13 and 14 and 15 yearsof age.

So I just want to thank the gen-tleman from Illinois for carving outthis special order for a very specialmessage. I want to thank all of my fra-ternity brothers throughout this coun-try and, in fact, beyond the nationalborders of this country who are com-mitted to education and committed tothis effort in particular in terms ofraising the awareness of young peopleabout the choices that they have tomake, and the fact that, if they makethe right choice, they stand to reap thereward, and if they make the wrongchoice, not only do they suffer the con-sequence, but our entire communityand our society suffer the consequencesof the choices, assuming they make thewrong one.

So I want to thank the gentlemanfrom Illinois (Mr. DAVIS) and my otherAlpha brothers.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,listening to the gentleman from Penn-sylvania (Mr. FATTAH), there is no onethat I know of who is more concernedabout education. I remember one of theincidents that happened that sort of re-inforced that. I remember the Presi-dent had invited the gentleman fromPennsylvania and his family to theWhite House as he was about to signone of the gentleman’s bills. The gen-tleman from Pennsylvania decided thathis son needed to go to school that day,that he could not come.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, our fra-ternity had the ‘‘Stay in School and Goto College.’’ That was one of the veryearly programs of the Alphas. My sonhad a perfect attendance up throughhis high school graduation, and it wasan important choice. But, nonetheless,his record of a perfect attendance wasimportant to him and acknowledgmentof the importance that we place on

education. So now he is a freshman incollege. He is doing well.

I think it is important that we asadults indicate to young people wherethey need to place their value. Hobnob-bing at the White House is one thing,but learning and earning a diploma andeventually a degree so that one day onecan be in the White House as the resi-dent of it, as the Chief Executive, is amuch more important goal in life.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,it is my pleasure to yield to the gen-tleman from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT), onewho does, in fact, also have perfect at-tendance, especially perfect attendancewhen it comes to representing theneeds, hopes and aspirations of his peo-ple and representing the effort to makeAmerica a better Nation in which tolive.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I appre-ciate and commend the gentlemanfrom Illinois (Mr. DAVIS), my colleagueand Alpha brother, for scheduling thisspecial order this afternoon. I am de-lighted that we have an opportunitythrough this special order to talkabout the proud history of Alpha PhiAlpha and its ongoing nationwide ef-forts to meet some of the critical needsof the African-American community.

We have already heard, men of AlphaPhi Alpha have had a strong positiveimpact on our society in every profes-sion and in every field of endeavor. Iam fortunate to serve with many of ourAlpha colleagues: The gentleman fromthe 15th Congressional District of NewYork (Mr. RANGEL), the gentlemanfrom the 32nd Congressional District ofCalifornia (Mr. DIXON), the gentlemanfrom the 7th Congressional District ofAlabama (Mr. HILLIARD), the gen-tleman from the 2nd Congressional Dis-trict of Pennsylvania (Mr. FATTAH), thegentleman from the 6th CongressionalDistrict of New York (Mr. MEEKS).

We follow the proud footsteps ofAdam Clayton Powell who was electedin Congress in the late 1940s and manyother Alpha brothers who have servedin Congress and prepared the pathwayfor numerous other Alpha brothers whoserve in public office at the local, Stateand Federal levels.

Alphas can also claim three of thebig four Civil Rights movements. Sowhen one considers the members ofthis distinguished fraternity, it shouldcome at no surprise that Alpha broth-ers would be in the leadership of ad-dressing some of our most serious so-cial problems. Whitney Young, MartinLuther King, Floyd McKessick werealso in the forefront as Alpha brothersin the civil rights movement. They fo-cused on the right to vote. As has al-ready been indicated, one of the earlyslogans of the fraternity was ‘‘Avoteless people is a hopeless people.’’Because of this focus, the Martin Lu-ther King Memorial is so appropriate,and we are proud to have an Alphamember so honored.

We also must not forget the lateThurgood Marshall who argued the Su-preme Court case Brown v. Board of

Education, which desegregated publicschools and led to the fall of Jim Crowlaws everywhere. That is important tonote because education has been such acritical issue in the Alpha history.

‘‘Go to high school, go to college’’was another early slogan, an early pro-gram in Alpha Phi Alpha. ProjectAlpha is another one of those impor-tant projects.

Young African-American males todayface many challenges, truancy, illit-eracy, drugs, violence and teen father-hood. And those needs need to be ad-dressed. That is why the week of Octo-ber 7 through October 14 will be ProjectAlpha week, focusing on Project Alpha.

For some 20 years, now, Alpha PhiAlpha fraternity has worked with theMarch of Dimes in an effort to respondto the challenges facing young blackmales. Project Alpha is a result of thisproject, and its mission has been tocreate a national program to prepareyoung men for the roles that they willbe expected to assume in their adult-hood.

In communities throughout thiscountry, Project Alpha has created safehavens for young men to learn aboutand explore ways to develop protectivefactors to minimize the impact of thesocial hazards which are present today.

Project Alpha provides education onsexuality, fatherhood, and the role ofmen in responsible relationships. Itmotivates young men to make smartdecisions about their future and totake an active role in achieving theirdesired goals. It is a daunting task thatProject Alpha has taken on.

Young black men today face manyobstacles on their road to adulthood.African-American males continue tolag behind their female counterparts inmost measures of academic progress. Itis particularly unfortunate to notethat 25 percent of all black men can ex-pect to have some contact with thecriminal justice system.

b 1415We know already that nationally 3

out of every 10 young black males arein jail, prison, on probation, or other-wise involved in the criminal justicesystem. While unemployment levels forAfrican Americans are at an all-timelow, the rate continues to be unaccept-able in many urban communities, andthis presents yet another risk factorfor young African American males.

By focusing on those 12 to 15, ProjectAlpha lays the groundwork early fordeveloping the protective factors thatreduces the likelihood of teen father-hood and the associated risks that re-sult from teen pregnancy. By providingpositive role models from the commu-nity, Project Alpha teaches the partici-pants about the social, economic andpersonal consequences of early father-hood. And by reducing the rate of teenpregnancy, we are improving the likeli-hood that these young men will stay inschool, stay away from drug use andother negative behaviors.

That is why we congratulate theAlpha Phi Alpha in designating Octo-ber 7 through 14 as Project Alpha


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8902 October 5, 2000Week. I want to thank the gentlemanfrom Illinois (Mr. DAVIS), my brotherAlpha member, for holding this specialorder this afternoon. I applaud themembers of Alpha Phi Alpha and theMarch of Dimes for their continuedcommitment to improving the lives ofyoung African American males in theAfrican American community andagain congratulate the gentleman onholding this special order.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank thegentleman very much, and I would liketo get the gentleman’s reaction, if Icould, to how much on target ProjectAlpha is.

A study by the National Cancer Insti-tute confirms existent data which re-veals that as each generation comes ofage, there is a substantial increase inthe rate of infection as individualsenter their late teens and early 20s,with infection peaking in the mid tolate 20s. Sustained, targeted preventionfor each group entering young adult-hood is what will keep these wavesfrom developing.

Behavioral science has also shownthat a balance of prevention messagesis important for young people, and thattotal abstinence from sexual activity isthe only sure way to prevent sexualtransmission of HIV infection. Despiteall of the efforts, some young peoplemay still engage in sexual intercoursethat puts them at risk for HIV andother STDs. For these individuals, thecorrect and consistent use of latexcondoms has been shown to be highlyeffective in preventing the trans-mission of HIV and other STDs.

How important does the gentlemanthink it is for older, and I would notnecessarily say that all the Members ofAlpha Phi Alpha are old, but more ma-ture members of our society to shareconcepts, ideas and experiences withyounger people, as this project kind ofattempts to do, in steering them in amore appropriate direction? And wouldthe gentleman have any challenge forother groups and organizations as tohow they can be more helpful?

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I think the gentle-man’s question really answers itself.The course in Project Alpha, and I haveparticipated in many of the activitiesat the national convention and inclasses in Project Alpha in my ownhome community in Virginia, and theyteach responsibility, they teach absti-nence, they teach safe sex; and it isdone in such a way that they have therole models from the community com-ing in and explaining the importance ofavoiding teen pregnancy and avoidingthe sexually transmitted diseases.

These kinds of role models, I think,can show that they do have a future.One of the high risk factors of gettinginto trouble is when young people donot feel that they have a future. Theytend to involve themselves in morerisky behaviors because they thinkthey have nothing to lose. When theysee role models and can see a path, par-ticularly a continuum of role models,some of the older ones, like the gen-

tleman, and younger ones, like me, andeven younger ones, they can see thatthey have a future within their life.They see that there are jobs availableand careers available. And to the ex-tent that they involve themselves inrisky behaviors, they place that futureat risk.

So we challenge other groups to getinvolved in the same kinds of inter-action with our young people, becausewe can have a significant impact inkeeping them out of trouble to beginwith and keeping them on the righttrack, and that is why Project Alpha isso important.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Let me justthank the gentleman for his responseand for his participation. People throwout accolades, and sometimes they aremeaningful and sometimes not asmeaningful; but when it comes to rolemodeling, I would certainly think thatthe gentleman has been and continuesto be one, not only as a Member of Con-gress but also in the community wherethe gentleman lives and works. So Iwant to thank the gentleman for com-ing and for sharing with us this after-noon.

Mr. SCOTT. I thank the gentlemanas well, and I would want to point outthat the gentleman himself has been astalwart advocate of civil rights andvoting rights. Just yesterday, we had aspecial order involving voting rightsand the importance of voting, and myfellow fraternity brother has been oneof the leaders in that effort.

I want to congratulate the gentlemanon his leadership. He has a long historyof public service, going back to localgovernment in Chicago, and that cer-tainly shows that the gentleman is arole model and an Alpha that everyonecan be proud of.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Well, I thankthe gentleman. As we have discussedthis afternoon and we have pointedout, all of our speakers have, the im-pact of HIV and AIDS in the AfricanAmerican community, we know that ithas indeed been devastating. As a mat-ter of fact, through December of 1998,the Center for Disease Control had re-ceived reports of 688,200 AIDS cases.And of those, 251,408 cases occurredamong African Americans. Rep-resenting only an estimated 12 percentof the total United States population,African Americans make up almost 37percent of all AIDS cases reported inthis country.

Researchers estimate that 240,000 to325,000 African Americans, about one in50 African American men and one in 160African American women, are infectedwith HIV. Of those infected with HIV,it is estimated that more than 106,000African Americans are living withAIDS. So when we see a program likeProject Alpha, there is no doubt aboutits importance in mentoring, educatingand encouraging young adults to be re-sponsible during their teen years andbeyond.

According to the CDC, 10 nationalstudies have shown that education pro-

grams increase safer sex practicesamong young people who are sexuallyactive. These programs also lead to ab-stinence, fewer sexual partners, and in-creased and more effective use of con-traception among young men andwomen.

The other major objective of ProjectAlpha is teen pregnancy reductionfrom a male perspective. And althoughteen birth rates experienced a declinebetween 1991 and 1996 across all ethnicand economic groups, the country isbeginning to see a new surge in preg-nant women under 20 years of age.Some important facts to consider are:the United States has the highest preg-nancy rate of all developed countries.About 1 million teenagers become preg-nant each year, of which 95 percent areunintended. Public cost as a result to-taled $120 billion between 1985 and 1990,a circumstance that may resume if cur-rent trends continue. It is estimatedthat $48 billion could have been saved ifbirth had been postponed.

Eleven States are implementing com-prehensive integrated youth programsto prevent teen pregnancies. While oth-ers have assistance programs, the De-partment of Health and Human Serv-ices’ recent annual report reveals that32 States have no specified goals re-garding this issue. However, ProjectAlpha has vision with long-range bene-fits: to reduce teenage pregnancy,thereby reducing child poverty; reduc-ing high school dropout rates andboosting the probability that youngadults can fully achieve their poten-tial.

Furthermore, realizing that theseprograms are traditionally targeted to-wards raising awareness in youngwomen, Project Alpha focuses onreaching young men, an important yetoften overlooked factor in the teenpregnancy problem. By educatingyoung men about contraception andemphasizing personal responsibility,positive changes in attitude and behav-ior can make a positive difference.

Finally, again, I would like to con-gratulate Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternityand the March of Dimes for recognizingthe need for Project Alpha and holdinga week that not only serves youngAmericans in our communities nation-wide, but also fulfills the alpha pledge:First of All, Servant of All. Does thegentleman have any other comments?

Mr. SCOTT. I would just like tothank the March of Dimes and ProjectAlpha for providing this guidance toour young citizens, and I thank thegentleman for organizing this specialorder.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the gentleman once again, andFirst of All, Servant of All, we shalltranscend all.

f

REPUBLICAN PLAN FOR ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.PEASE). Under the Speaker’s an-nounced policy of January 6, 1999, the


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8903October 5, 2000gentleman from Texas (Mr. SESSIONS)is recognized for 60 minutes as the des-ignee of the majority leader.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, what Iwould like to do is to take a few min-utes this afternoon and to begin a dis-cussion with those Members who havebeen a part of what we have been doingwith economic development, a plan bythe Republican Party, House and Sen-ate. This plan gives us an opportunityto lead this country into further eco-nomic development, an opportunity todevelop not only the plans that wehave had for quite some time on mov-ing this country forward by stoppingthe deficit spending that has gone on,but also to turn the country to wherewe are able to look at ourselves andwhat we want in the future of thiscountry so that we have economic de-velopment and prosperity in this coun-try.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to firsttalk to what this Congress began doingin 1995, after the election that tookplace in 1994 where we signed the Con-tract With America. Back in 1994, whenthe Republicans began the effort wecalled the Contract With America, westarted this plan and idea, which Isigned on to because I believed, as myRepublican colleagues did, that it wasa comprehensive way for us to beginthe discussion about how we changethe power structure from Washington,D.C. to move power back home; how wego about balancing the budget and stillmaintaining economic prosperity and,lastly, how we take the power that isin Washington and empower peopleback home to begin making their owndecisions.

b 1430

We knew in 1994, just as we do today,that money equals power, probably al-ways has and probably always will, andthat the people who have the moneyare the people that are the decisionmakers and they are the people thatwill control, many times, the destiny.

Yet we understood that, back in 1994,the estimates were that this Congress,the Congress that was a DemocraticCongress at that time, would continuenot only spending every single pennythat came to Washington, D.C., butthey would also take that money andspend more than what we had. Thatwas called deficit spending, creating adebt that would be long-term on thiscountry. And in 1994, by and large, wehad a debt in this country of $5.5 tril-lion.

The Contract with America, whichhas been the baseline document for Re-publicans and this Congress to moveforward on, has become really a con-tract with America that would lead tothe development of where we are today.

What happened as a result of thatwas that two different times this Re-publican Congress, understanding thatwelfare was a huge issue in this coun-try, people on welfare needed to comeand join what was going on not only inworkplaces but would also be a better

relationship that they would have withtheir families to go and create opportu-nities for those families, many timeshaving a job where they had not hadthem in generations, and so what hap-pened was we changed the dynamics bychanging the law.

What happened in that entire endeav-or was we all of a sudden created eco-nomic opportunity. Instead of someseven million people being on welfaretoday, as they were back before 1996,there are now seven million people whoget up every morning and leave theirhome and go to work. They go to workand they become taxpayers. They havebecome credible people that we canlook at and say they have made ourcountry better. Many times they maybe doormen or cooks, they may be driv-ers, they may be involved in teachingour children. But they are people whohave made a significant gain in theirown personal life and for the life of ourNation.

We are now at the point where theseseven million people have created op-portunities, because they are now tax-payers, to become a part of paying intowhat this country has with its system,Social Security, Medicare, the oppor-tunity to pay school taxes, to have astrong voice because they now feel agreater responsibility, and they havebeen empowered to become a part ofwhat we are doing.

What has happened is that this Re-publican Congress went from 1996 to1997 and we had a package, an eco-nomic development package, it wascalled a tax cut package also, and weunderstood as conservatives that wewould incent America to begin theprocess of wanting to not only investin jobs and opportunities but also toinvest in our stock market and thecritical mass that was necessary tobegin our infrastructure capitals, andwe did this by first cutting taxes. Itwas a following up with what happenedwith us having our welfare changes.And we cut taxes. We cut the capitalgains tax.

Of course there were people that didnot want us to do that. The tax collec-tors that were in Washington, D.C.,said, we should not do that. That willruin our deficit. We were told it wouldcost the tax collector $9 billion. In fact,what it did is it brought in $90 billion.It was the catalyst for this countrycompletely turning around to where weall of a sudden then had a surplus.

For, you see, if you do not have a sur-plus, you cannot pay off your debts.What it did is it changed the directionto where we quit spending money onwelfare and started spending more oneducation and on the infrastructure ofthis country.

Point two: We looked at families andsaid, you are the most important assetAmerica has; and we created what wasthen called a $500 per-child tax credit.It has been nothing less than mar-velous to see my neighbors and friendswho want to take care of their ownfamily who now have a chance to get

back their hard-earned money so thatthey can take care of their own chil-dren.

Point three: We raised the exemptionon what is called the death tax, estatetax. We looked at who was being hurtand we compromised with the Presi-dent and said, we need to raise the ex-emption.

We went immediately to farmers,people who own their only property foragriculture, and we raised the exemp-tion. We changed this because we be-lieved then and believe now that thepeople who own their own land and ag-riculture, for the people that own theirown small businesses who, yes, mayhave assets and resources but are cashpoor, should not, based upon death,have these assets taxed to the point towhere their heirs have to sell the farm,sell the small business and break it upsimply to pay the tax collector.

These are the things that we did tobring us to the point where we are inAmerica where we have created a sur-plus. We now have breathing room. Wenow know and are prepared as a Con-gress to move forward with the newPresident, a new President that has abold plan about how we are going tonot only make America sound by pay-ing down the debt but by creating eco-nomic opportunity for the future.

I am pleased to be joined today bymy good friend, the majority leader ofthe United States Congress, the gen-tleman from Texas (Mr. ARMEY). Thegentleman from Texas has been a lead-er in the efforts to make sure that theplans that will develop America towhere people get back more money intheir pocket to where they have thepower will be a key to our future be-cause he is not only majority leaderbut he is also a grandfather and he rec-ognizes that the future of this countryrests with our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlemanfrom Texas (Mr. ARMEY) on this mat-ter.

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman from Texas (Mr. SES-SIONS) for taking this hour so that wecan conduct this discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I think we in Americaought to recognize our heroes, weought to recognize the people that helpthis Nation prosper and do well.

There is no doubt in my mind thatthis Nation owes a debt of gratitude toBill and Al. Bill and Al can rightfullybe cited as the people that perhapsmore than anybody else has made itpossible for this Nation to be as pros-perous as it is.

More than any other two people, per-haps these two people, Bill and Al, arethe people that we can credit for allthe jobs, the prosperous economy, thefact that the Federal Government isrunning a surplus, the fact that thatsurplus combined with the fiscal re-straint we have shown here in theHouse of Representatives has allowedus just on last Saturday to have paiddown an astonishing, an astonishing$350 billion in debt in the last 3 fiscalyears.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8904 October 5, 2000Bill and Al, Mr. Speaker, have done

so much more than any other two peo-ple I can think ever to warrant our ap-plause and our appreciation for whatthey have done to make all this pos-sible.

So I would like this body to join meto give a special thank you to Bill andAl, Bill Gates and Alan Greenspan.Without their hard work, we could nothave prospered the way we have done.

That is not necessarily the voice thatyou will hear out of the campaign, Mr.Speaker. The Vice President is runningfor President, and the essence of hismessage is, this prosperity is the bestidea I ever had. He is saying, withoutmyself and the President, we couldnever have had this prosperity; and ifyou do not elect me President, youmay lose your prosperity.

It is a frightening thought, Mr.Speaker. When I listen to these speech-es on the campaign trail and I realizethat the argument that I am hearing isthat, the President and I gave you theprosperity and if you lose us, you willlose the prosperity, I am haunted bythis fear that on Tuesday we will winthe election and I will wake up onWednesday and discover the Internethas gone away.

But let us look at this. The VicePresident says, my plan will secure theprosperity, my plan will preserve thesurplus, my plan will continue to buydown debt and save Social Security.

We have taken the trouble to look atthe Vice President’s plan. And, Mr.Speaker, the Vice President is puttingout an economic plan that would spendthe on-budget surplus. Indeed he wouldnot only spend all of the on-budget sur-plus, and this is what I refer to in com-mon parlance as the income tax sur-plus, but he would even return us tothose frightening days of yesteryearwhen this Government continuouslyraided the Social Security, and underthe Vice President’s plan, should he getelected and implement his plan, wewould not only spend all of the incometax surplus, but he would go back tothe days of raiding the Social Securitytrust fund and spending those monies,as well.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gen-tleman from California.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thankmy friend for yielding.

The reason I am here is that, withtwo distinguished Texans having takenthe floor, I think it is important toprovide a little geographic perspectiveto this debate.

The fact of the matter is my geo-graphic perspective comes from Cali-fornia and the area which I am privi-leged to represent, Los Angeles, whichhappened to be the site of the Demo-cratic National Convention.

At the Staples Center, we saw theVice President deliver a speech inwhich he unveiled about 37 differentprograms which, based on the studieswe found, would cost a projected $2.3

trillion. And so, my friend is right ontarget when he talks about the factthat when we look at where it is we aregoing and the things that have beenproposed, we are going back to a dra-matic level of spending.

In fact, I have argued that if, Godforbid, AL GORE were to be electedPresident of the United States, thereare many people, certainly on our sideof the aisle, who might look back andthink, my gosh, would it not be won-derful if we had the days of Bill Clintonagain. Because we know that it hasbeen President Clinton who has em-braced the 1997 balanced budget agree-ment, putting us on the road towardsbalancing the budget not through thetax increase, much of which has beenrepealed in 1993 that he put throughand which Vice President GORE was thedeciding vote on in the United StatesSenate when they voted to do thingslike have a $48 billion cut in Medicarethat was included in that package thatthey are so proud of, and at the sametime we saw the President embrace ourtax reduction effort in 1997.

He has embraced the traditional Re-publican themes of free trade, and weare very proud that he joined with usin doing a number of free trade things;and, of course, the welfare reform bill,which, as we all have said time andtime again, he twice vetoed and ulti-mately signed.

My point is that those bipartisan ac-complishments which President Clin-ton has joined us on, would I believe inlarge part be reversed with many of theprograms that my friend is referring tothat have been unveiled by the VicePresident.

I think it is very important for theAmerican people to know that, whilepeople have said that the moniker oftax and spend which traditionally hadbeen put around the necks of Demo-crats in the past and we Republicanshave so often said tax-and-spend Demo-crats, it has been not as easy to do thatover the past few years since PresidentClinton joined with us in a number ofinitiatives, but if we look at this pro-posal which has come forward fromVice President GORE, tax and spendwould be an understatement for thepattern that we would have.

I wonder if my friend would agreewith that.

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, yes, Iwould. I must say, if the gentlemanfrom Texas will continue to yield to us,my colleague says the Vice Presidenttoday embraces the welfare reform andhe embraces the budget agreement wereached in 1997.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I said thePresident did.

Mr. ARMEY. The President did.The fact of the matter is part of the

story that the Vice President does nottell us is that he did in fact vote in 1993for President Clinton’s budget, thatbudget that increased taxes, a largerincrease in taxes than any other timein the history of the world, increasedtaxes on gasoline, increased taxes on

Social Security benefits, increasedtaxes across the Nation.

b 1445

Then in 1997, in fact, he vehementlyobjected to our budget agreementwhere we reduced taxes and set us onthe course to a balanced budget. Theclear fact of the matter is that if youtook the Congressional Budget Officeand the Office of Management andBudget at the White House, the projec-tions that they made in 1994 for wherewe would be this fiscal year under thePresident’s 1993 budget, that budget forwhich the Vice President so consist-ently claims credit by virtue of havingcast the tie-breaking vote in the Sen-ate, that under that budget had it con-tinued, we would have had a $264 bil-lion deficit this year. Now, that wasnot my projection. That was the pro-jection made by the President’s ownOffice of Management and Budget,which was agreed to by the Congres-sional Budget Office.

It was only after 1995, 1996, and espe-cially 1997 where we made this enor-mous change in direction in the budgetthat we began to see the projectionschange; and, indeed, rather than a $264billion deficit that was projected forthis year under the President’s 1993budget, today, thanks to the 1997 budg-et, the welfare reform and the otherthings that we did, we have an actualsurplus of $250 billion. From $268 bil-lion in deficit to $250 billion of actualsurplus is a half a trillion dollars’worth of budget turnaround.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman willyield on that point, I think it is impor-tant for us to note that with that $264billion projected deficit, it pales incomparison to the projected spendinglevel that we would see under theseplans that have been unveiled by VicePresident GORE. I think that is one ofthe most troubling things. As bad asthose proposals were projecting a $264billion deficit, they look wonderful,and almost like a surplus, compared towhat has been put before us as far asprojected spending.

Mr. ARMEY. The gentleman is abso-lutely right. I am reminded of thatwonderful song by another very impor-tant and colorful Californian, MerleHaggard, ‘‘Rainbow Stew,’’ whereMerle Haggard bemoans the Americanfear that Presidents will go throughthe White House door and not do whatthey said they would do. In the case ofthe Vice President’s budget proposal, Ithink, Mr. and Mrs. America, our fearshould be that this President would gothrough the White House door and dowhat he said he would do.

We all look at Bill Clinton, and wethink of him as a big spender; but whenyou think of President Clinton as a bigspender, you have got to recognize thatas a big spender, he is a piker next toVice President AL GORE and his plans.Vice President AL GORE wants $3 fornew government spending programscompared to every $1 in new programsrequested by President Clinton. That is


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8905October 5, 2000what I call an awful lot of risky, biggovernment spending schemes.

Vice President GORE’s spending pro-posals add up to at least $2.7 trillion innew Federal spending over the next 10years. This is important for us to un-derstand: he would spend the entireprojected on-budget surplus to pay forhis massive expansion of government.That is not what he said the othernight. He said the other night he isgoing to preserve the surplus. But thefact is if he got his way on the spend-ing proposal that he is campaigning on,he would spend the entire income taxsurplus.

Mr. SESSIONS. It is interesting thatwhat took place the other night withthe discussion of what the Vice Presi-dent said, and he looks right at thecamera and says it. Yet he looked atthe camera and talked about him beingin our home State a year ago when wewere having natural disasters and thenadmitted a day later, well, he was notthere at all. He told us a story aboutthe school where the girl who is thedaughter of the restaurateur did noteven have a desk to sit at. Yet the rea-son why, we now find out, after thefact, that 100 new computers werebeing delivered to the school that dayand her desk was taken to put a com-puter on it.

Which person can we trust? I wouldsuggest to you it is the numbers thatyou have talked about that is his realplan and the real effects that it willhave.

Mr. ARMEY. That is what we are try-ing to do here. For example, one of theother things we discover when we lookat the plan proposed by Vice PresidentGORE is that for every dollar by whichhe would cut taxes, and I might men-tion, that would be a net tax cut be-cause he has in fact more actual tax in-creases than he has tax reductions inhis budget plan, but for every net dol-lar of tax reduction, he would raisegovernment spending by $6.75.

His spending spree would not stopthere. His plan would also spend fromthe Social Security trust fund. Westopped the raid on Social Security,and we will not go back.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a factwe should recognize here. I think it isa telling statistical comparison. If wetake the period of time from 1980 to1990, the United States people sent tothis government a doubling of themoney they sent because of the eco-nomic growth that followed in the firstcouple of years of the Reagan adminis-tration in 1981 and 1982.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman willyield, that was due to one measure. Itwas the Economic Recovery Tax Act of1981, which Ronald Reagan pushed forand was able to get ultimately somesouthern Democrats and some of yourTexas colleagues to vote in favor of.That laid the groundwork for a dou-bling of that flow of revenues to theTreasury through the decade of the1980s.

Mr. ARMEY. Through the decade ofthe 1980s. This incidentally is labeled

by the Vice President and his friends as‘‘the decade of greed,’’ where also inci-dentally you had charitable giving notonly double but charitable giving tofaith-based institutions triple duringthis period of time. The American peo-ple did a magnificent job. They notonly built more, created more jobs,earned more, paid more in taxes; butthey doubled what they gave to char-ities and tripled what they gave tofaith-based charities. Yet they havethe audacity to look at you and me andour families back home and indict usas having lived a decade of greed.

We doubled what we sent to Wash-ington. Bless us. What did Washingtondo with it? Washington increasedspending by $1.68 for every increaseddollar we sent them. It does not takeany genius to figure this one out. Anytime you increase the money coming inby a dollar and increase the moneygoing out by $1.68, you are going to runa deficit. That is what we did. That def-icit was so large that it not only spentall of the Social Security trust fundsurpluses we generated in those areas,up to $60, $70, $80 billion a year; but itran a $250 billion deficit.

Let me just say, since 1994, after weput in the massive restructuring ofwhat we call entitlement or mandatoryspending, that spending that couldnever be touched by any President butit was required by Congress to restruc-ture the actual spending programs,welfare reform being the most ap-plauded incident of such reform, thathas put 4 million people to work thatup to that point had lived in the hope-less despair of welfare. But since thatperiod of time, for every increased dol-lar the American people have sent in toWashington, spending has gone up byless than 50 cents. Once again, it doesnot take a genius to figure that oneout. If you have got an increased dollarcoming out and you are spending outless than 50 cents, you are running asurplus.

That surplus was the product of twothings: the prosperity of the Americanpeople, the job creation, the expansion,the invention that we see in this mag-nificent electronic revolution that weare surrounded by in America, the in-creased tax bonus that came to Wash-ington because America was doingwell; and a first time in my lifetime re-straint of government spending by a re-sponsible Congress that did the onething that everybody by that timeknew was imperative, reformed the in-stitutionalized, mandatory governmentspending programs that had been con-structed through all that period oftime beginning in the mid-1960s calledthe Great Society programs of Presi-dent Johnson, and added to quite oftenby, and most often by, Members of thisbody.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman willyield on that point, when I heard himmention the Great Society, I was re-minded of an analysis that I heard ofthe programs that have been put for-ward by the Vice President, and an

independent analyst, I frankly have toadmit I do not remember which one itwas, I was either reading the news-paper or I may have listened to it onNational Public Radio, they came onand talked about how these proposalswhich have come forward from the VicePresident actually match, or in somecases even exceed, the level of spendingthat we saw launched as the Great So-ciety.

We do know full well that the spend-ing on subventions that we sawlaunched with the Great Society werein excess of $5.2 trillion, as SpeakerHASTERT likes to say, with a T, that istrillion with a T, $5.2 trillion in spend-ing; and we saw during that period oftime the poverty level in this countrygo from 14.7 percent to 15.2 percent.And so that pattern has clearly failed.And we all know very well that it hasfailed around the world, as we haveseen people clawing toward self-deter-mination.

We are watching the situation unfoldat this moment in Belgrade where hun-dreds of thousands of people are storm-ing to have self-determination becausethey feel that their votes were improp-erly counted there. The rest of theworld is moving towards individual ini-tiative, responsibility, self-determina-tion, and the proposals that have comeforward from Vice President GORE shiftus back to the failed policies of theGreat Society. That is something thatI think again the American people needto know and it is an extraordinarilytroubling situation.

Mr. ARMEY. I want to ask the gen-tleman from Texas (Mr. SESSIONS), weall watched this debate the other nightand we are always impressed with glibpoliticians. People who can turn aphrase impress us. I always like awordsmith. But every time I see one ofthese politicians that can come alongand so slickly recite expressions,phrases, numbers, I always have tostop and ask myself, can that fellowreally be trusted with words and num-bers?

One of the things the Vice Presidentmade a big point of the other night wasthat if you elect me, we will never,ever, ever touch your Social Securitytrust funds. Now, first of all they havegot a bad track record on that. But wetake a look again at his budget pro-posals. And his very own proposalswhen you score them out, they esti-mate that the Vice President would robthe trust fund of between $500 billionand $900 billion to pay for his newspending agenda.

Mr. and Mrs. America, we are todaycelebrating the fact that we have made$350 billion in debt reduction; and herewe have got a fellow that has comealong and said, ‘‘I’m going to spend be-tween $500 billion and $900 billion topay for my new programs.’’

Mr. SESSIONS. I think the gen-tleman is right. What is interesting isthat I felt like that there should havebeen some tracer along the bottomabout truth in advertising, because, in


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8906 October 5, 2000fact, what happened is that the VicePresident made it seem like that hewould support these lockboxes thatwould be available for Social Securityand Medicare; and yet it is the VicePresident’s own party, the Senate mi-nority leader TOM DASCHLE, that willnot allow seniors today to be able tohave their own lockbox for Social Se-curity. And yet we are supposed totrust the Vice President to say if hewere only President, he would accom-plish what he cannot get done or Presi-dent Clinton cannot get done today.Truth in advertising should be impor-tant.

Mr. ARMEY. Yes, it should. Here isanother case in point. The gentlemanfrom California will recognize this dis-tinguished professor from StanfordUniversity, Dr. John Cogan. The VicePresident says his plan would cost $200billion over 10 years. We have alreadyseen that the estimates are that itwould rob the trust fund of between$500 billion and $900 billion. The VicePresident says it would cost only $200billion over the next years. Let us nottake my word for it. Let us not takehis word for it. Perhaps I might be per-ceived as one of those glib politicians,such a good wordsmith. How about Dr.John Cogan of Stanford University. Hesays that the Vice President’s planwould cost $160 billion in the very firstyear alone. Yet the Vice President saysthat it would be $200 billion over 10years.

Again, you have got to have an objec-tive measure of these numbers. Ladiesand gentlemen, be very, very carefulwhen somebody says, ‘‘I’m from Wash-ington; I’m here to help you. Trust me,I’m from the government.’’ I think it isbetter to get a second opinion and asecond opinion from the professor fromStanford would be helpful here.

b 1500

Mr. DREIER. I am going to give asecond opinion, but it is my opinion ofwhat Professor Cogan had to say on theissue of tax reduction. My friend, an-other Dallas friend of mine here, thegentleman from Texas (Mr. SESSIONS),just handed me a clip from the edi-torial page of the ‘‘Wall Street Jour-nal.’’

First, I see we are joined by anothergentleman from Texas (Mr. HALL).

Mr. SESSIONS. All conservatives.Mr. DREIER. I am happy to have the

gentleman from Texas (Mr. HALL) join-ing us. Let me say as we look at wherewe stand on this tax proposal, thething that was very, very troubling wasthis argument that, of course, every bitof benefit goes to the richest 1 percentof the American people. We continue tohave that argument put forward.

Professor Cogan has really blown thetop right off of that argument, as waspointed out, in this piece in the Jour-nal the day before yesterday, in whichit talks about the fact that people atthe lowest end of economic spectrumare those that have the greatest per-centage reduction.

I guess if you look at the fact thatthere are people who make largeamounts of money and maybe pay$500,000, $1 million in taxes, you havegot to ask if someone does pay $500,000in taxes, as Michael Reagan posed lastnight on his radio program when I wastalking to him, are they not entitled tosome type of reduction? Well, underthe plan that Governor Bush has putforward, they would get about a 10 per-cent reduction in their tax burden.

Yet those who are earning less than$35,000 a year get how much, based onthis assessment that Professor Coganhas put forward? A 100 percent reduc-tion. Why? Because if you couple thedoubling of the child tax credit from$500 to $1,000, along with the overallrate reduction, it is very, very clearthat those who are earning less than$35,000 are the greatest percentagebeneficiaries from this program thathas been put forward by GovernorBush.

Again, that has not gotten out there,but Professor Cogan very correctlypoints to that, those who are in theupper-income levels have the lowestpercentage reduction. But it does seemto me that the argument that we havebeen getting for the past severalmonths on this us-versus-them classwarfare, that is why I think GeorgeBush is right on target when he de-scribes himself as a uniter and not a di-vider.

I have oft quoted our former col-league, the late Senator Paul Tsongas,who said it so well. He said, ‘‘The prob-lem with my Democratic Party is thatthey love employees, but they hate em-ployers.’’ So that has created a situa-tion where we do not recognize whatmy friend from Dallas, Texas (Mr.ARMEY) has just mentioned, where thepeople in, for example, the technologysector of the economy, 45 percent ofour Nation’s gross domestic productgrowth in the past 3 years has comefrom these job creators.

Yes, there are a lot of very rich peo-ple, and I know my friend opened bytalking about Bill and AL. Bill Gates isone of them, who has been very suc-cessful financially. But look at what hehas created in jobs, in improving thequality of life and standard of living,not only here in the United States, butaround the world. So they are tremen-dous beneficiaries of this successfulman, who has had the incentive to tryand look at creative ways to deal withchallenges that are out there. Andthese proposals, which would be so di-visive, that the Vice President has putforward, would do little more than sti-fle that kind of creativity. I find itvery troubling.

Mr. HALL of Texas. If the gentlemanwould yield, does the gentleman re-member when it was indicated that aGeorge McKinney, who was a friend ofthe Vice President, had to go to Can-ada, as a $25,000 a year man, had to goto Canada to get satisfaction in thehealth field. I just wondered, who senthim up there for the last 8 years? I

think a real good answer would havebeen, you know, 81⁄2 years is longenough for that to happen. If they putthe right folks in position and thencharge up here, he will not have to goto Canada; he can go to his cornerdrugstore.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time,there has been a good question that hasbeen thrown on the floor, and certainlythe gentleman from Texas (Mr. HALL),a man of great stature and also withgrandchildren at home, as I looked atjust in being the father of two littleboys, I heard AL GORE talk about thetop 1 percent. He was running againstsuccess in America, people who are suc-cessful, people who obviously havemade so much money that, by golly, weshould run against them.

In fact, I have always taught as aparent, as a scoutmaster, and even asan employer and certainly in my con-gressional district, we want and needpeople who will come and work hard.Yes, they will be rewarded for whatthey do, but expect them to give backto their community.

Bill Gates, incredible amounts ofmoney that he has given for learningprojects, for opportunity to employpeople, and yet what do we hear? Wehear Vice President GORE attack BillGates, attack the top 1 percent.

It is a philosophy that then flows di-rectly to the Attorney General of theUnited States, who, rather than tryingto encourage competition, goes andbeats up the largest, most value-packed company in the world, that hascreated millions of jobs.

Since that time, it is the AttorneyGeneral and her actions of governmentthat have put the economy at risk. Itis the high-tech companies that todayare worried about their profits, thatare worried about it.

Of course, the question that camefrom Mr. Lehrer was about the worldeconomy. I believe the answer is it isthe United States Government and ALGORE, through the policies and proce-dures because they do not like peopleto be rich, they do not want people tobe successful, for envy reasons, thatwould destroy what we have built up inthis country.

Mr. ARMEY. Maybe the gentlemanfrom Texas might make a point. Iwould like to come back to that pointtoo.

Mr. HALL of Texas. I thank the ma-jority leader and the gentleman fromDallas. Everybody, from a young manlike Calvin Clyde from Tyler, Texas,who sits by my side, to people past myage, are a little sick of pitting classagainst class. I think that is old stock.I do not think it sets well. I think theAmerican people can see through that.

Mr. ARMEY. I want to talk aboutthis 1 percent. I am getting tired ofhearing it. When we tried to do the $500per child tax credit, they said that isfor the top 1 percent richest people ofAmerica. Give me a break on that. Iraised five children. I never felt rich atany time when one of those babies


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8907October 5, 2000came along. I perhaps had blessings be-yond my wildest dreams in all five ofthem, but I do not remember feelingrich.

We said, well, we will eliminate themarriage penalty. They came back andsaid, that is a tax break for your richfriends. Again, come on, how manyyoung people getting married feel rich?They may feel blessed, but, bless theirhearts, they do not feel rich. If they doget married, why stick them with a$1,400 tax penalty? I laugh at our TaxCode. It just tickles me.

We have got a generous, althoughconstantly eroding, home mortgage de-duction to encourage us to buy ahouse, and then we have got a marriagepenalty to encourage us to live in itout of wedlock. The government can-not make up their mind as to whatthey want to do in their social engi-neering. But that top 1 percent, thishas become a mantra. No matter whattax reduction you talk about, it getsthe same indictment.

Here is the real story. The real storyof the debate is whose money is it? If Ireduce taxes, I thereby will take less ofyour money. It is your money. But howis it characterized? As me having a bigtax giveaway.

I cannot give away what is not mineto give. It is your money. And that isthe fundamental message. Why is it ifthey take 90 percent of the budget sur-plus and we commit to buying downdebt, and then take from that 10 per-cent that remains the essential spend-ing for a lot of our emergencies, likethe fires and floods you have been see-ing, to restore our military readinessso our children will be safe on the jobas they defend liberty here and abroad,a few of the other things, and then sayanother 5 percent of it we give back intaxes, or just refuse to take it away intaxes, why is that going to blow a holein the budget when you have got, by al-ternative, a spending proposal that is$1.2 trillion over the next 10 years?Why is it they always say, when Ispend more of your money, that is goodfor the economy; but if I leave you tospend more of your money, that is badfor the economy?

Let me just finish my point. In theend, whether I spend the money or thegovernment spends the money, the acidtest is, am I getting what I need formyself and my family?

Now, the Vice President, he presumeshe knows better. He thinks he can,through the government, buy better forme and my family than I can. My re-sponse to that is, oh, yeah? When wasthe last time you got your wife theright birthday present? I cannot evenfigure it out for my wife, who I knowbetter than any other person in theworld and love more than all other peo-ple in the world. And I cannot get theright birthday present. Why does some-body in Washington think they can doa better job for my wife than I can, or,for that matter, for me? The audacityof that just amazes me.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the majorityleader for being here today, and I will

tell the gentleman that I believe histime as a professor of economics notonly pays often, has paid off in thepast, but will pay off in the future. It isa matter of freedom. It is a matter offreedom about who is going to makedecisions for who.

One of the things which we as con-servatives repeatedly speak about isthat we believe it is not only ourmoney, but it should be our decision-making process also. I think it reallygets back to this question of who isgoing to make the decisions for us. It iseither going to be the tax collector orthe taxpayer. And money still equalspower, and the opportunity to havemoney in your pocket means that youcannot only engage in the debate andbe a part of what is happening, but youcan have a say in the final answer. Andwhen Washington, D.C. gets all themoney, which is what AL GORE wants,then they will be the decision maker inlife.

If we give the money back to the tax-payer, which is what George Bush andthe Republican Party wants, then wewill have an opportunity for people tonot only come and participate in Amer-ica, but for their answer to be the win-ning answer, their dream to be the big-ger dream.

I yield to the gentleman from Cali-fornia.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I appreciate thegentleman having this special order. Ihave been absolutely fascinated withsome of the claims I see being made byour liberal Democrat brethren, and oneof them is that the big thing now is toattack our tax cut plan, because we aregiving a tax cut to the wealthiest 1 per-cent of Americans. Of course, theynever point out those are the Ameri-cans who paid a lot of the taxes, and, infact, I believe the figures are that thetop 5 percent of taxpayers paid a ma-jority of the income taxes in this coun-try.

So it is really Marxist class warfare,is what it is. In fact, I do not like touse the term ‘‘middle class,’’ and I hearVice President GORE use that termover and over and over again. It is aMarxist term. You will never find inthe U.S. Constitution any reference to‘‘class.’’ In fact, it says all men are cre-ated equal. It is the very opposite ofthis idea of classes that are to be pittedagainst each other, somehow usinggovernment to redistribute benefitsfrom one to go to the other.

I was absolutely fascinated to hearthe attack levied recently by the VicePresident on Republicans, and specifi-cally Governor Bush, over this 1 per-cent, over giving the tax cut to allAmericans, including the 1 percent ofthe wealthiest, and yet he then turnsaround and attacks the Republicans fornot giving free prescription drugs tothe top 1 percent of wealthiest Ameri-cans.

Figure that one out. If that is not theheight of hypocrisy and nonsense, I donot know what is. His socialistic disas-trous plan for prescription drugs would

destroy the surplus that we haveworked so hard in the 6 years of Repub-lican administration of this Congressto build up. He would create just an-other huge entitlement program thatwould result pretty much in govern-ment price fixing, and the drug indus-try would drop innovation and wouldbe giving all these free prescriptiondrugs to people who do not need them,and all the time he is telling us what agreat fiscal conservative he is.

Mr. SESSIONS. It is interesting thatthe facts of what George Bush’s owntax plan is all about was in the ‘‘WallStreet Journal,’’ a review of it, on Sep-tember 5 of this year. Here is what itdoes. I quote from this article. ‘‘TheBush tax cut does not favor the rich.’’

The ‘‘Wall Street Journal’’ says,‘‘The Bush tax cut does not favor therich. This is not a flat tax, or even aproportional cut, though such cutswould be more efficient in economicterms. Rather, higher income familiesget lower percentage reductions.’’

b 1515This is household income. Those

earning $50,000 to $75,000 a year wouldsee an average cut of 30 percent. Mycolleagues, I will tell you that this isexactly in line with what our econom-ics have been, to take the burden awayfrom people who earn between $50,000and $75,000. Families earning $75,000 to$100,000 would see an average cut of 18percent, and those earning more than$100,000 would have an average reduc-tion of 10 percent.

Mr. Speaker, what this does veryclearly is say that where you have twopeople, perhaps they are both teachersmaking $35,000 and $35,000, they wouldreceive a cut of 30 percent.

All the time in my district, whereverI go, I try and talk about how teachersare great for not only our schools andour children, but for America; and theytalk about they want a pay raise, theyneed more money, they need moremoney. The George Bush tax planwould give the average teacher and aspouse a 30 percent tax cut.

I cannot imagine any school boardgiving their teachers a 30 percent taxincrease. We need to have a tax cut.This government is too big and coststoo much money. We need to give thepower back, yes, even to our ownteachers.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas(Mr. ARMEY).

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thinkthe gentleman from Texas also makesa point, you have to define your terms.What is a tax cut? George Bush sug-gests, like most of us would and thecommon sense parlance, that a tax cutis a reduced tax bill to those peoplewho pay taxes. Is not that what mostAmericans would think?

Vice President GORE has one schemehere where he asks the IRS to actuallywrite checks to people who do not evenpay taxes, and he calls that a tax cut.Now, I call that a spending spree. Itseems to me that there is a very defini-tional thing.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8908 October 5, 2000Can you imagine when the Vice

President talks about his tax cuts thatwhat is featured in there is this riskyscheme where he is going to say to theIRS, you write checks to people who donot even pay taxes, and we will call ita tax cut. I would not call it that atall. I would call that a funds distribu-tion.

Mr. Speaker, I pay taxes. The IRShas taken my tax money and given itto somebody else, but they are cer-tainly not reducing anybody’s taxes inthe process. Let us start with making afundamental thing. A tax cut shouldbe, by definition, a reduction in the taxliability of somebody who pays a tax.Is that not a fair definition?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I wouldagree with the gentleman. I wouldagree with that.

Mr. ARMEY. I think the gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. TOOMEY) ishere with us.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, if thegentleman would yield, I would like toadd to this discussion the followingthought: clearly, Governor Bush madethe case, I thought very persuasively,and the choice between Vice PresidentAL GORE and what Governor Bushcomes down to is will we be a freer so-ciety in which the men and women whoproduce the assets and resources of ourcountry get to decide how to allocatethose assets and resources, or will it bea less free society and we will see theFederal Government’s massive newpowers, massive new spending that theVice President has proposed and be-lieves in?

I would just like to make two obser-vations. First, if we believe in the verycentral premise on which our Nationwas founded, the principle of individualliability, then that is a very compel-ling reason in and of itself to supportGovernor Bush, because he wants to ex-pand the freedom of the men andwomen of our country. But if we arenot persuaded by that principle, then Iwould suggest that we ask ourselves,what does the empirical evidence sug-gest? What does the data suggest aboutthe results of economic freedom?

The fact is, the jury is in, the verdictis in. The outcome is very, very clear.Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to mycolleagues that they might want toread an annual report that is producedby the Heritage Foundation in coopera-tion with the Wall Street Journal, andit is a fascinating report. What it does,it measures the extent to which var-ious societies around the world are eco-nomically free.

It measures things such as the levelof government expenditures in an econ-omy, the level of the tax burden, theamount of the regulatory burden,whether or not currencies are ex-changeable. It takes this measurement,and it evaluates those countries whichare essentially free economies, and itanalyzes those which are essentiallyunfree, and then it shows an aston-ishing interesting correlation betweeneconomic freedom and wealth and pros-perity.

In fact, I would suggest my col-leagues turn to page 21 of this report,it is the 2000 Index of Economic Free-dom by the Heritage Foundation andWall Street Journal, and what it dem-onstrates is empirically and objec-tively beyond a dispute that thoseeconomies, those societies that aremost free are also most prosperous,allow their people to create the mostwealth, have the highest standard ofliving, and the greatest opportunity inthe world. And those societies whichare least free have the greatest povertyand misery.

We know that that happens on theextremes. We know that the SovietUnion was an economic disaster, andthe United States has been an eco-nomic miracle, but the important pointthat this study illustrates is that it isnot only true on the extremes, but it istrue on the continuum in between.

Mr. Speaker, just to finish and toconclude, the point that it makes isthat if we move in the direction ofgreater economic freedom, loweringthe tax burden, lowering governmentregulation, limiting Federal spending,limiting the control of our society inthe hands of politicians and bureau-crats in Washington, if we limit thatand we expand personal freedom andeconomic freedom, we will have moreprosperity, more economic growth,more opportunity, more people withbigger take-home paychecks able to dothe things that work best for theirfamilies; and that is the society that Ithink we all want.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.TOOMEY). The gentleman hits right tothe point, and that is, we want to be inan America where we have opportunityand faith in each other and faith in ourfuture.

I yield to the gentleman from Wis-consin (Mr. RYAN), to talk about thesurplus dollars.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker,I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.SESSIONS) for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Com-mittee on the Budget, and we workvery closely at taking a look at whosenumbers add up, what we are going todo with the Federal budget surplus. Ihave here an apples-to-apples compari-son of the Bush plan for the surplusand the Gore plan for the surplus.

I think it is very important to putaside all the rhetoric you hear, becausea lot of times when you listen to politi-cians’ rhetoric, when you listen to thepresidential campaign rhetoric or themedia’s interpretation of the rhetoric,you do not actually see what is beingproposed. Let us take a look at what isactually being proposed.

We have a monumental chance, a his-toric opportunity to use this surplus toaddress the many challenges facing ourNation. We have a chance to pay offour national debt. We have a chance toshore up Social Security. We have achance to modernize and fix Medicare,and we have a chance to let people

keep more of their hard-earned moneyas they continue to overpay theirtaxes.

What the Gore plan does is it says forevery dollar coming into the FederalGovernment in the form of a budgetsurplus for the next 10 years, we aregoing to take 46 cents out of that sur-plus dollar, 46 cents out of every sur-plus dollar will go toward Washington,will go toward new spending.

Mr. Speaker, 36 cents of every sur-plus dollar will go towards Social Secu-rity and Medicare and paying down thedebt. You take a look at the Gore plan,he has said in his speech and I notice inthe debate we are going to pay off thedebt by 2012.

The Bush plans the debt off even fast-er. It puts more money towards pre-serving Social Security and Medicareand paying off the debt. It puts 58 centsof every surplus dollar toward payingoff the debt, preserving Social Securityand Medicare.

The point is, if my colleagues take alook at the blue slice of this pie in theBush plan, after paying off the debt,after stopping the raid on Social Secu-rity, paying off the debt in 12 years,after having a meaningful prescriptiondrug benefit, people are still going tobe overpaying their taxes, and Gov-ernor Bush is proposing that 29 cents ofevery surplus dollar go back to the peo-ple who gave us the surplus, the tax-payers.

What is the alternative to that vi-sion? It is not paying down debt. It isnot a question of cutting taxes or pay-ing off debt. It is a question of afterpaying off the debt and shoring up So-cial Security and Medicare, giving peo-ple their money back or spending it onnew programs in Washington, which iswhat the Vice President is proposing.

He is proposing a minor 7 cents out ofevery surplus dollar going back to thetaxpayers who gave us the surplus inthe first place and a whopping 46 centsof new spending out of every surplusdollar. So the question that the VicePresident has answered, is, it is not aquestion of paying off debt, it is a ques-tion of not giving anybody their moneyback or spending more money on newprograms in Washington.

If my colleagues take a look at theamount of spending, Bush wants tospend $278 billion over the next 10 yearsabove and beyond the current budgetsfor national defense, for education, forfixing Medicare. GORE wants to in-crease spending by $2.1 trillion. He isproposing the largest spending increasein 35 years to double the size of theFederal Government in 10 years. Thatis the proposal you see with the Gorebudget.

Mr. Speaker, this is a huge election.This is about philosophy and vision.The question is, do you want yourmoney to come to Washington and tostay in Washington, so that Wash-ington then can give you some of yourmoney back if you engage in behaviorthat they approve of; or do you want tokeep some more of your own money in


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8909October 5, 2000your paycheck to begin with? Do youwant us to become fiscally responsibleand pay off our debts before we launchinto new spending sprees and creatingmore programs?

These are the questions that arebeing answered that are going to be online in the ballot this November be-tween Bush and Gore.

I would like to thank the gentlemanfrom Texas (Mr. SESSIONS), who has or-chestrated this hour and thank him forthe time he has given.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.RYAN). I thank the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. DREIER), the chairmanof the Committee on Rules, and alsothe gentleman from Texas (Mr.ARMEY), the majority leader. We havehad an opportunity today to speakabout the differences between what isAL GORE’s old tax and scheme plansversus confidence and security that wewill make sure that people make theirown decisions back at home which iscalled the George Bush plan.

I want to thank my colleagues fornot only participating today, but forthe fervency of their belief that Amer-ica’s greatest days lie ahead of us; thatI believe that America’s greatest daysand no problem that cannot be solvedin America, because America will beresponsible for its own destiny and thefuture, not the government.

f

ILLEGAL NARCOTICS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.PEASE). Under the Speaker’s an-nounced policy of January 6, 1999, thegentleman from Florida (Mr. MICA) isrecognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleasedto come to the floor this afternoon, andI hope to talk about the issue that Iusually come on Tuesday to talk aboutbut was preempted by the presidentialdebates on Tuesday night, that is, theproblem of illegal narcotics and thedamage that illegal narcotics havedone across our land.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but cometo the floor, though, preceding my col-leagues who just spoke about some ofthe differences and the great balancethat we have that may be undone herein this next election and some of thedifferences between the candidates onthe issues.

I sat with many of my colleagues,Mr. Speaker, and watched the debates.There are some things I would havementioned that were not mentioned.Governor Bush has not been part of thelegislative process here. The governorwas chief executive of the State ofTexas.

Mr. GORE has been a Member of theother body, and the differences arevery dramatic. He served a number ofyears as a Member of Congress and fi-nally as a Member of the other body,and it was interesting.

Before I get into the drug portion ofmy talk this afternoon, I want to talkabout some of the differences that are

very distinct, the failure of the VicePresident, when he was a Member ofCongress, to ever come forth with abalanced budget; the failure of Mr.GORE to ever come forward with a pro-posal to secure Social Security. He istalking about a lockbox.

b 1530

The Republicans did a lockbox here.He is talking about paying down thedeficit by 2012. We are talking aboutpaying down the deficit sooner thanthat with the plan that we have.

There are things that he had an op-portunity, but why did he not proposethis? When the Democrats had controlof both Houses of Congress, the Senate,by a wide margin, and this body hereby a wide veto-proof margin, theycould do basically anything they want-ed to do. What did they do? He said,well, I cast the deciding vote for aneconomic policy.

Well, Mr. Speaker, his plan was topass a deciding vote to increase taxesto the highest level they had. The planthat they brought to this floor of theHouse of Representatives in 1993 whenthey passed that huge tax increase pro-jected, their projections were a $200 bil-lion deficit this year. That would havebeen on top of raiding social security,which they had done decade after dec-ade when they controlled this body.

What a farce, to have this side andone of the leaders of the other sidecome before the American people andtell them that he is going to solve theproblem if he is given another chance.

He had a chance in the Congress, hehad a chance when they controlled thisplace for 2 years with a wide, wide mar-gin. What did they do? They taxed andthey spent the largest tax increase.

Talk about energy policy, they donot have a clue of an energy policy.They have allowed the United States ofAmerica to be held hostage by ten dic-tators and by Middle East sheiks andothers and allowed our reliance fromaround 50 percent on foreign oil to gonow into the 56 percent and growingrange. So we are held hostage. That istheir policy.

What is amazing is that we are beingheld hostage by people in the MiddleEast, we who sent, under PresidentBush, our young men and women to diefor them, and they cannot even nego-tiate an oil deal to give us a better rateon the per barrel oil price.

They do not have a clue of an energypolicy. On our side of the aisle, we haveall backed a domestic plan and tried toincrease domestic production, tried toget alternative fuels. I have been up tothe ANWR region of Alaska. The foot-print that they had and the technologythey had years ago when they took oilout of Prudhoe Bay, and even takingoil out of Prudhoe Bay, it is not thesame technology today that it was 20years ago. There is a very small im-print and footprint for oil production.

There is no reason why we have to beenergy dependent. We can put a man onthe moon. And there is no reason why

we cannot devise technology for nu-clear energy. Some countries producemuch, much more of their energy sup-ply by nuclear means. They do notwant to talk about that, of course. Butthere is no reason why we cannot doaway with nuclear waste and turn thatactually into energy production. Thereis no reason why we should be held hos-tage. Under this administration, wehave increased our dependency to for-eign sources.

Those are some of the things that Inoticed in the debate.

They talk about a tax cut and bal-ancing the budget without hurting peo-ple. We heard the other side here, as weattempted to balance the budget. Bal-ancing the budget is something theycould have done for 40 years here. Allthey had to do was match the expendi-tures with the revenues. It is not acomplicated thing. Most Americans doit every week. They have to limit theirexpenditures to what they take in.

We did that, and kicking and scream-ing and dragging some of our peoplethrough elections and calling themnames and accusing them of all kindsof atrocities is unfair. They want to dothat again with Mediscare, with scar-ing seniors about social security.

Stop and think. I have great respectfor senior citizens all in my familythat I know because they have beenaround a long time, and they are notfooled by those who will tell them thatthey bankrupted social security whenthey had control of the entire process.They were not only bankrupting thecountry in these huge deficit expendi-tures, but dipping into the social secu-rity trust fund, dipping into the High-way Trust Fund, dipping into the avia-tion trust fund, dipping into the Fed-eral employees’ trust fund.

Every one of these accounts theyraided, until we were just about at ourfinancial knees. Thank goodness a Re-publican majority, a new majority inthe House and in the other body, camealong to rescue that.

So now the folks from the other sidethat raided these funds, we restoredthe funds and took the abuse fromthem and were putting our Nation’s fi-nances in order, and they had the gallto go before the American people andtell them that they need another 4years in the White House to solve theseproblems. They need control of theHouse and Senate.

Mr. Speaker, their history is tax andspend. Their history. We passed legisla-tion putting our financial House inorder. We also passed a $1,000 tax creditfor those people who have children inthis country when they said we couldnot do it, that we could not do that. Wepassed a marriage penalty tax whichwas vetoed by those same folks thathave taken control that want to denytens and tens of millions of workingmen and women a little bit of moneyback in their pocket and not be penal-ized for being married.

Is that family-friendly? Is that help-ing working people? So I saw those de-bates, too. I am so glad my colleagues


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8910 October 5, 2000were here before me to reiterate someof the issues.

The question of education, for 40years the other side has done nothingbut bring power to Washington, as faras education. We heard in the debatesthat only 6 cents of every dollar comesfrom the Federal Government. We havea Department of Education with thou-sands of bureaucrats, most of them inWashington, D.C., 5,000, and manythousands of contract employees. Theydisguise the true number of employees.I will talk about Federal employees injust a moment.

But in education, we have 5,000, andwithin just a few miles of my voice inthis Capitol there are 3,000 Departmentof Education Federal employees.

One time I took a student who wasvisiting here. We were on our way downto the White House. We drive from theCapitol to the White House and see allof these buildings, these massive build-ings. He asked me, what do people do inthose buildings? We passed the Depart-ment of Education. I told him, thereare 3,000 Federal education employeesjust in Washington, D.C. I will tell youwhat they do, they administer hun-dreds of Federal education programs.We were up to 760 Federal educationprograms, all well-meaning, but allthat required administration and over-head.

Not only do they require it in down-town Washington in those buildings,where they make $60,000 to $100,000, onaverage, and show me one teacher inmy district that makes $60,000 to$100,000. I do not know of any. But theymake it in those buildings here.

I will tell the Members what thosepeople do in the Department of Edu-cation: They pass rules and regula-tions. They administer those 760 pro-grams.

I have no problem with the FederalGovernment providing money to edu-cation. In fact, I guarantee Members, ifwe ask this question and people wouldanswer, this would be the response. Thequestion would be, if we were thinkingabout it, who would provide more fund-ing for education, Republicans orDemocrats? If we had an audience here,Mr. Speaker, of citizens sitting here,they would probably say the Demo-crats would.

That is wrong. The Democrats, whenthey had control, again, and when theywere running these deficits, they putvery little money into education andincreases.

If we take the same period of timethat we have had control of this Houseand we go back when they had control,we dramatically increased the fundingand money available for education as apercentage compared to what they did,and put more money in student loans.The difference is that they put moremoney in administration. They putmore emphasis on regulation. Theywant the control here in Washington,D.C., so that is why they not only re-quire those 3,000 Federal employeeshere administering these programs,

again, well-intended, but they requirethem in the regional offices.

Then, what is worse is they requirethem in the State capitals and down atthe school boards until we get down tothe poor teacher. The teacher is heldcaptive by rules, regulations, by themandates coming from Washington. Iguarantee Members that if we had aPresident GORE, he would be the kingof rules and regulations, and more con-trol in Washington.

That is what the debate is about: Dowe want Washington and the FederalGovernment to have more control,more power, more authority, or do wewant the money that is hard earned bythe taxpayers to go back to the tax-payers? That is the major question, themajor difference, for the people whoget their check at the end of the weekand they look at the check and there isvery little left.

I remember when my daughter grad-uated a couple of years ago from col-lege. Her biggest shock was to get herfirst paycheck. She almost cried. Shesaid, dad, I have hardly anything left,and she was not making that muchmoney. But she was shocked, as everyAmerican worker is shocked, at theend of the week, how much they haveleft; at the end of the month, at theend of the year, how much they haveleft.

This is one of the best fundamentaldebates this Congress and this countryhas ever heard, because the debate isabout where that money is going toend up and who controls that money:whether we control it, have it back inour pockets, or whether they send it toWashington and tell us how our schoolwill be run, whether they add more ad-ministrators in that Department ofEducation in Washington, whetherthey force more administrators at theregional level, whether they force moreat the school level.

I served in the State legislature inTallahassee, Florida, the capital, backin the seventies. If Members go to Tal-lahassee, Florida, there is a huge cap-itol building. I was there when theybuilt it.

But the second biggest building inTallahassee, Florida, is a skyscraperwhich is a Department of Education, aState Department of Education. ThatDepartment of Education grew to ahuge bureaucracy, one, because of someof the rules and regulations and man-dates that came out of Washington.Again, they only supply 6 cents onevery dollar. The rest of the moneycomes from local property taxes, Statesales tax and State fees and localmoney. But they pass down to the locallevel this huge bureaucracy, this redtape, so a teacher is held hostage in herclassroom, so a principal cannot con-trol the school, so the school board hasto have hundreds and hundreds of man-dated Federal employees carrying outFederal mandates.

That is where the education moneygoes. That is why this is a great andfundamental debate. If people want

government to have more control,there is a very clear choice. If theywant education mandated out of Wash-ington, there is a very clear choice. Ifthey want more regulations in edu-cation, there is a very clear choice.

Some of this is not rocket science.We know that children need basic edu-cation. Governor Bush, I heard his pro-posal for Head Start. What a great pro-posal. What he has done in Texas withhis young people, if we could do thatfor our country, for our children, whichare the poorest and most at-risk chil-dren in this country, they need basiceducation. They need to be able to readand write and do simple math. It is notcomplicated. My wife was an elemen-tary schoolteacher, and this is some ofthe answer.

Let me tell the Members what theyput in place. Even I tried to change it,and we cannot change the bureaucracybecause they will veto it. This Presi-dent will veto it.

With Head Start, a great program, Iwas involved in helping, when I went tothe University of Florida some 40 yearsago, before some of my colleagues herewere even born, I was trying to helpyoung people, particularly with an in-stitution, with the University of Flor-ida.

Here is a great education universitynext to a community in Gainesvillethat had many poor children who didnot have an opportunity for education.

The Great Start concept is to takegood resources, teaching resources, andto give those young people the abilityto have a head start, to have access toeducation so that they have the basicskills so when they enter school theycan do simple math, they can read.

b 1545Governor Bush, and I hope will be

President Bush, proposed that we con-vert Head Start into a reading programor at least an emphasis on reading andbasic skills.

I have a good Head Start program inmy local area, but we also have a HeadStart program which I examined in myarea. My Head Start program, the pub-lic one, is a great example of what weshould not be doing with taxpayermoney. One of the Head Start pro-grams spends between $8,000 and $9,000per year per student for a part-timeprogram which is basically a glorifiedbaby-sitting program. It has turnedinto a minority employment programso that the student who is coming outof a disadvantaged home is going into adisadvantaged program and not learn-ing.

I examined the program, and the pro-gram had administrators, over 20 ad-ministrators in a program for around400 students, 20 administrators earningbetween $16,000 and $60,000. The teach-ers, there was not one certified teacherin the program, not one certified teach-er. The so-called teachers were makingbetween $12,000 and $16,000. Is that ahead start? That is a farce.

But if those children who are so dis-advantaged had just a minimal oppor-tunity to learn to read, to learn to do


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8911October 5, 2000simple mathematics. Try to hire some-one today who can do simple mathe-matics and read out there, it is verydifficult.

One of my community college presi-dents told me that over half of the stu-dents entering community college inmy area need remedial education. Wehave an education recession, and thatis because they have taken the powerto Washington with all of these man-dates and regulations.

Do my colleagues know what theyhave done? They have failed. They havefailed. A teacher cannot teach. Ateacher goes into the classroom inmany areas and is threatened with bod-ily harm. One of my district aid’s wifeis a teacher in one of the schools incentral Florida and has been physicallyattacked.

There is not much the teacher cando. The teacher has lost control of theclassroom. Why? Because of the liberalpolicies and left wing policies of well-intended people who have managed totake control away from parents, fromteachers, from principals and localschool administrators and amass themall here in Washington, D.C.

That is the clear choice that theAmerican people are going to have: Doyou want more power here in Wash-ington over education? Do you wantmore mandates? Do you want morerules? Do you want the people who, for40 years, have brought power and regu-lation to education and so encap-sulated the regulation of educationthat a teacher cannot teach, a parentcannot discipline, that we cannot teachbasics, that we have programs thatwere intended to give children a headstart? What do they do? They keepthem at the lowest common denomi-nator.

We look at what Governor Bush didjust with education in the State ofTexas for his young people. These arethe young people. If we fail them, askany teacher what will happen, ask anyprincipal what will happen. First, thesewill be the disruptive students in theclassroom. Next, they will be the drop-out students who used to be in theclassroom and who are now roamingour streets and neighborhoods. Theywill be the social problems. These chil-dren will be the social problems be-cause they cannot read, they cannot domathematics.

As chairman of the Subcommittee onCriminal Justice, Drug Policy, andHuman Resources, I have had the op-portunity to sit in some of our prisonsand some of our drug treatment pro-grams and penal institutions andtalked to young people and talked toalso those older who were incarceratedbehind bars, the lost souls of this coun-try. A common denominator among al-most all of them is that they failed inschool. They did not succeed in school.

Of course many of them came fromdisruptive families, and they had sub-stance abuse problems, and I will try totalk about that in the rest of my talk.But one of the basic problems with

young people getting into trouble isthe lack of education, lack of beingable to compete in and participate inschool and having basic educationalskills.

So if for no other reason if on thebasis of education, we turn over to thetax and spenders and the regulatorsand the mandators, this Congress andthat White House, it would be a verysad day for America. It would be a verysad day for education in this country.

I talked a little bit about educationbureaucrats. I do not advocate the nec-essary abolishment of the Departmentof Education. The Federal governmentcan play a role. I do not know that weneed 5,000 people or 3,000 people in Edu-cation. My God, we might have to havesome of them go out and teach for aliving and actually be in a classroomand stop regulating. We might have totake those dollars instead of thegobbledegook administration of themand the hundreds of millions of dollarsspent on administration and blockgrant that money.

We passed a simple proposal here totry to get 90 percent of Federal dollarsinto the classroom and to the teacher.To get a good teacher, one has to paya good teacher. To have a student ableto learn in a classroom, one wants thedollar to go there, not the dollar to goto Washington.

This is an unbelievable statistic. Butunder their plan, the Democrat plan,under what they have done for 40 yearsin bringing education and bureaucracyto Washington, almost 90 percent ofFederal dollars go to everything butbasic education. Our plan was to turnthat around for teachers, for studentsto benefit.

Now, just take a few minutes. Iwould pray that the American peoplewould take a few minutes, Mr. Speak-er, and look at what is being proposedhere and what has been done here totheir schools, public schools.

I was educated in a public school. Mywife was educated in a public school.My wife was a teacher in a publicschool. I think public schools are oneof the best institutions this countryhas ever created. But they are man-aging to ruin them. That is why theygo to charter schools. That is why theyare proposing vouchers as an alter-native, because they are failing.

So if we want them to fail more, wecan regulate them more from Wash-ington. If we want them to succeed, wecan put parents and teachers in con-trol. We can have that money comefrom here and be a partner with them,but let local parents and students andeducators make the decisions. Let ustake back the schools.

That is what I think Governor Bushis talking about, successful programsand education that teach basics. Ba-sics. If one cannot read and write inthis society or do simple math, howcan one function? So that is a greatdifference. I am glad my colleagueswere here to talk about it.

Before I talk about the drug situa-tion, I have to talk about Federal em-

ployees. I heard the Vice President ofthe United States taking credit for,and I could almost cry when he did it,for reducing the size of the Federal bu-reaucracy, I think he said by morethan 300,000 Federal employees.

Mr. Speaker, those 300,000 Federalemployees were almost all Federal De-fense employees. They have not met abureaucrat that they do not like onthis side of the aisle. They love to ex-pand the size of government, and theyhave had a great deal of experience atit, whether it is the Department ofEducation.

They cut the Defense civilian em-ployees, and almost every one of thosecuts came out of those agencies. If onelooks at it, EPA is bigger than it everhas been, the Department of Com-merce. Then if we see any shrinkage,Mr. Speaker, do not let them fool us.Do not let the Vice President of theUnited States, who knows better, tellus that he has reduced the size of theFederal bureaucracy because it just isnot so.

I will tell my colleagues, as chairmanof the Subcommittee on Civil Service,I will tell my colleagues where the bod-ies are buried. What they have done isthey have contracted for employees. Sowe have millions and millions of Fed-eral contract employees rather thanFederal employees on the payroll.

So that is where some of these folksare. The only agency I know of thatBill Clinton cut when he came in, hereduced the Drug Czar’s office from 120to about 27. We have managed, fortu-nately, with General McAffrey and oth-ers to try to restore the viability ofthat office. But it has been a struggle.That is where they made their cuts.

That might be a good lead into thesubject that I came to talk about thatI usually talk about on Tuesday nightbut was preempted by the debates. Iwanted to make a few points. It is veryfrustrating as a Member of Congress tohave seen the folks who brought thiscountry into fiscal disarray, who oper-ated this Congress, this House of Rep-resentatives like a poorly run southernplantation with taxpayers subsidizingthe Member’s restaurant downstairs,with the House bank run as a piggybank for anyone who wanted to write acheck and bounce a check and have thetaxpayers fund it, who wanted to see 17people deliver ice, even though they in-stituted refrigerators here in the re-cent years, they still had 17 peoplespending three-quarters of a milliondollars delivering ice the morning andafternoon, who ran this place like apoorly managed southern plantation isthe only comparison I could give. Theshoe shine operation was subsidized.The haircut was subsidized.

What did we do? We came in. We cutthis committee staff by a third. I wassitting with a Member here, and I re-lated this to the Member, a new Mem-ber of my side of the aisle. Republicansdo not even recall what the Repub-licans have done in the Congress. Wecut the committee staff by one-third.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8912 October 5, 2000We cut the number of committees byone-third. We privatized the diningroom and turned it over to a privateoperator. We no longer subsidize thebarber shop, the shoe shine shop. Theyare private vendors. We took out theprinting office which was doing sweet-heart deals for Members, and now youmust compete with everyone.

Let me tell my colleagues one morethat just galls me. They had disabledpeople that were blocking the Repub-lican National Headquarters yesterday.I saw them, I guess it was, last night.I thought I would stop and talk tothose people, but they did not want tohear the truth.

When I was a Member and came hereas a minority member in 1993 when BillClinton took over, when the Democratshad control of the House of Representa-tives and the other body, I had visuallydisabled blinded people coming to visitme as a Member of Congress, and theybounced off the walls going down thehalls. There were no accommodationsfor disabled.

I wrote the chairman of the Com-mittee on House Administration, and Isaid, it is a disgrace that the House ofRepresentatives does not live under thelaws that we have. I came from thebusiness sector, and the business sectorwas not allowed to ignore the law.Business people must go by the letterof the law, the Americans With Disabil-ities law. There is no reason why thisCongress should not accommodate it,particularly the House of Representa-tives, the people’s house.

Do my colleagues know what theDemocrat chairman did? He ignoredme. I wrote him again, and he ignoredme. I wrote him again. They ignoredthe disabled. The disabled Americanswho come to this Capitol, came to thisCapitol when they controlled by widemargins the House of Representativesand the other body, and they ignoredthe disabled.

I begged them if they would pleaseaccommodate. These are good people.They deserve to have the law enforcedas far as the House of Representatives,their people’s house, even when theycome to lobby or talk to or visit theirMembers of Congress. They ignored me.

One of the greatest satisfactions Ihad was, when we took over the Houseof Representatives, we passed the Con-gressional Accountability Act. We putthe Congress, the House of Representa-tives under the same laws as the busi-ness people. One of the greatest days ofsatisfaction that I have ever had, and ifI never serve another day in the Houseof Representatives, is when they put aplaque on my door, and it said JOHN L.MICA; and underneath in braille, it hada braille reading for my constituents,so when they visited me they could betreated the same way they would inthe private sector.

That was denied when they con-trolled this entire body by huge mar-gins and could have done anythingthey wanted to do. That was denied thedisabled in my district.

If one goes around the Capitol, and Iam now on the Committee on HouseAdministration, it is ironic how tablesturn. The Committee on House Admin-istration that would not even hear aminority member asking about helpingthe disabled, it is ironic. I now serve onthat as one of the Speaker’s designeeson House Administration. Go aroundand see what we have done.

b 1600

This place was a disgrace, and we arestill trying to get it so it is accessibleto the disabled.

The fire alarms. We are still workingto get them in order so it is a safeworkplace even for the people whowork here, which they ignored, as wellas the access to people who are dis-abled.

But I am very proud of what we did.Every Member of the Republican sideof the aisle can be very proud of whatthey did and of their legacy, not onlyas far as putting this country’s finan-cial house in order but in the area ofputting the people’s House in order. So,as Paul Harvey says, ‘‘That’s the restof the story,’’ or a little bit more of thestory.

I guess they got my dander up be-tween watching the debates and nothearing what should have been said.But we do need to continue theprogress that we have made: keepingour financial house in order, helpingAmericans have a few more dollars intheir pocket, working Americans, andhelping people get off of government. Iguess those who want a lot of controlby government and want power inWashington, it is better to have peoplerelying on them here in Washington.God only knows what JFK would besaying these days. He said, ‘‘Ask notwhat your country can do for you, butwhat you can do for your country.’’The other side seems to think it is askhow much more Washington can do foryou, and we will get your vote and yourmoney. It is sort of sad, and I hope theAmerican people pay attention to whatis going on here.

As chairman of the Subcommittee onCriminal Justice, Drug Policy andHuman Resources, I have a very smallresponsibility of all the responsibilitieshere. I do not have control over thebudget. I am one vote out of 435. I donot have control over the appropria-tions process. But I do have responsi-bility to try to focus on our nationaldrug policy, and for the past year anda half, as chairman, and since assum-ing that and leaving as chairman of theSubcommittee on Civil Service of theCommittee on Government Reform, Ihave tried to do my best to deal with aproblem which we inherited as a newmajority.

The other side was convinced whenthey came in to office that we did notneed a war on drugs, so they began sys-tematically dismantling what wastruly a war on drugs. Now, if we allthink back to the administration ofRonald Reagan and George Bush, they

instituted a number of policies, com-munity-based policies, against nar-cotics. The First Lady led a ‘‘Just sayno’’ effort. The President was engagedin this, we had a vice presidential taskforce, we had an Andean policy wherewe went after the drugs at their source.We brought in the military and theCoast Guard, not into arresting peoplebut into drug surveillance; and we hadan almost 50 percent decline in druguse in this country back from 1985 to1990. I brought that chart up andshowed it many times.

With the Clinton administration, thefirst thing they did was fire everybody,just about everybody, in the drugczar’s office. They took the militaryout of the war on drugs. They stoppedintelligence sharing with our allies,who were going after drug traffickers.And it is better to have them go afterthem than to spend our resources.They blocked aid to Colombia, and thatis why we have a $1.3 billion aid pack-age to Colombia because they very di-rectly stopped aid and informationsharing and any type of assistancegoing to Colombia.

Now Colombia has gone from prac-tically having no production of heroinand no production of cocaine in 1993,this is the total supply of heroin pro-duced in Colombia in 1993, this is azero, I hope my colleagues can see this,this is a zero in 1993, and in 6 years ofthe Clinton-Gore lack of a drug policy,and an actually obstructive drug policyin Colombia, what they have managedto do is to have that come from zeroproduction of heroin to being up to 75percent of the world’s supply. Andmost of that is coming into the UnitedStates from South America.

This is the most recent report I havehad as the chairman. We know wherethe drugs are coming from. Heroin iscoming from South America. We see itis at 65 percent of all the heroin. Weknow this and DEA knows this. Theyhave supplied me with these figures be-cause they can do a DNA signatureanalysis and almost tell the field thatthe heroin has come from. So we knowthat now in the Clinton-Gore adminis-tration, in 6, 7 years, they have man-aged to turn Colombia from producingzero to 65 percent of everything on thestreets seized in the United States; 75percent of the world’s supply, as wesee. These are DEA figures given to me.

The other huge increase we see isMexico. From 1997 to 1998 they wentfrom 14 to 17 percent, a 20 percent in-crease in the country that we gavetrade assistance to; that we helped tosecure their peso during their financialdisaster. We loaned them money. Wehave given them the best trade benefitsof probably any nation in the historyof negotiation over trade. We gavethem the best benefits. This adminis-tration certified Mexico as cooper-ating; yet they increased by 20 percentin one year the production of heroin.They blocked any aid going to Colom-bia and turned it into the biggest pro-ducer.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8913October 5, 2000So here are two of our problems: we

know where it is coming from. It iscoming across the border from Mexico.It is being produced, the last 6, 7,years, under the Clinton-Gore adminis-tration, in Colombia, where they de-nied aid; they denied assistance. Andeven several years ago, when we appro-priated $300 million to go to Colombia,that money was bungled in getting de-livery of goods and resources to Colom-bia to go after narcotics traffickingand also eradicating the narcotics pro-duction in that country.

We will hear next week from DEAand from GAO and others that havelooked at this situation, and they willoutline that ‘‘the gang that can’t shootstraight’’ could not even get the aidethat we appropriated more than 2 yearsago to Colombia to try to get this situ-ation under control. That scares me asfar as the $1.3 billion we just appro-priated. Even when it is appropriated,they cannot get it straight.

The same is true for another deadlydrug, which is cocaine. In 1993, Presi-dent Bush had gotten the production ofcocaine almost under control. Theywent after the cartels. They had an An-dean strategy. We have to remember,from a position of wimping out on thenarcotics issue, which is sort of thetrademark of this administration, backto what took place in 1989. PresidentBush found one government traffickingin illegal narcotics, primarily cocaine,and what did he do? He sent our troopsin and they surrounded the house. Ifmy colleagues will remember, those ofus that followed this, they surroundedand captured Noriega. He was capturedbecause he was dealing in drugs anddrug trafficking, and that is what hewas charged with. And then there isthis administration that has turned itsback on trying to stop the production.

This was a successful program. Whenwe reduce drug use 50 percent from 1985to 1992 in this country, when it is re-duced by 50 percent, that is a success-ful program. But they will tell us thatthe war on drugs has failed. Their waron drugs has failed. Their war on drugswas a dismantling of any effort ondrugs, and the evidence could not bemore clear.

Now, finally we have gotten thePresident’s attention. In 7 years, I be-lieve the President mentioned the waron drugs eight times, just before theColombian appropriation. When we donot have leadership from the top, whenwe do not have an effective strategy,when we take the military and surveil-lance out of the war on drugs, what dowe have? We have a huge supply ofdrugs. That is why they are dying inVermont, that is why they are dying inOregon, that is why they are dying inmy State, that is why they are dying inBaltimore, right down the street fromhere in Baltimore. ‘‘Drug OverdoseDeaths Exceed Slayings,’’ this is a re-cent headline, September 15, in Balti-more. That means that there are moredrug-related deaths than homicides.

This would be a horrible headline inany community. It has appeared in the

headlines in my community. But thenational media will not pay attentionto this. We held a hearing a week agoon this, but in the United States ofAmerica, for the first time in the his-tory of statistics, drug-induced deaths,drug-related deaths in the UnitedStates of America exceeded homicides.For the first time. They do not wantthat information out. The media wouldnot cover it. God forbid anyone shouldthink that they are not doing a greatjob. But when the drug czar and DonnaShalala held a conference severalweeks ago that drug use among eighthgraders had dropped slightly, theychampioned that like we had solved thewhole problem.

I tell my colleagues, the problem isserious. Ask any parent, ask any youngperson. These are the headlines that wesee: ‘‘High Schoolers Report More DrugUse.’’ Ask any high schooler, ask anyparent, ask any single parent, anymother, any set of parents what one oftheir greatest fears is, and that is tohave their child addicted to narcotics.Not only the problem of addiction, it isthe problem of death. And now we haveall kinds of drugs on the street.

We have a huge supply. We saw wheresome of the supply is coming from. Iam not sure if the Speaker has anHDTV or how many of my colleagueshere have an HDTV. Probably not toomany. Some might say, well, what isan HDTV? And what does high defini-tion television have to do with drugs?It is a simple economics equation.When there is a short supply and a highprice, there is not the demand.

We have heroin, we have cocaine, wehave methamphetamine, we have Ec-stasy, we have all of these drugs flood-ing our streets; and the administrationhas dismantled any effort to go afterthe supply, to go after the producingcountries, to stop drugs most cost ef-fectively at their source. And that iswhy we have an incredible supply ofheroin, that is why we have heroinoverdose deaths. Not only do we haveheroin overdose deaths, we also haveon the streets of our country the mostpure heroin and cocaine that our drugenforcement people have ever seen, andour young people are mixing it with al-cohol and with other drugs, and theyare dying like flies. That is why drug-related deaths, and many of them withour young people, now exceed homi-cides in the United States.

Now, some people would say that theanswer is treatment. And I heard thisGeraldo Rivera debate the other nightwith one of the pro-legalizers talkingabout this is just a health problem.This is just a health problem. We treateverybody and we will be fine.

b 1615

Well, they tried the health problemapproach in Baltimore and they grewfrom a small number of addicts tosomewhere between 60,000 and 80,000 ad-dicts. Of course, the population wentfrom 900,000 to 600,000 because peopleleft Baltimore. They had a mayor who

had a liberalization policy, no enforce-ment policy. And what happened? Al-most the same number of homicidesevery year. And we saw where nowdrug-induced deaths exceed homicidein Baltimore. That did not work and itdoes not work.

The alternative is zero tolerance.Rudy Giuliani did it in New York. Hecut the murders from over 2,000 in ayear when he took office to 600. Sixhundred is about double what Balti-more had, and Baltimore has 600,000population. And there are millions andmillions in New York City. RudyGiuliani, through a zero tolerance pol-icy and going after drug dealers, cut allcrime in New York City.

Walk through New York City and youwill see the evidence of it by 58 per-cent. The seven major felony cat-egories were cut by 58 percent. So itnot only cut murders from 2,000 downto 600, it cut down all of the mayhemand the felonies. But this is treatment.

Now, they say we did not put enoughmoney in treatment and we hear thatfrom the other side. We put money intreatment, even under the Republicans,a 26 percent increase in treatmentsince 1995 funds. Every year we putmoney in treatment. And we see whathas happened with interdiction, withinternational programs, when theother side, the Democrats, and underthe Clinton-Gore policy cut the inter-diction, cut the international sourcecountry programs.

We have a huge increase in drug usein almost every category in the UnitedStates because we have a huge supplycoming in. And we can never treatenough people. So we will continue toput money into treatment. But do notlet them fool you that this is a healthproblem that we can treat our way outof this. You cannot have a war or anykind of a conflict and only treat thewounded in battle.

And once someone is addicted to nar-cotics, our success rate in public pro-grams is a 60/70 percent failure rate.Only a 20/30 percent success rate. Andthese people are repeat and repeat. Askany parent who has an addicted youngperson. Ask any adult who has been ad-dicted to narcotics. And it is the hard-est thing in the world to treat thesepeople.

If we follow the Baltimore model, wewill have tens and tens of millions ofpeople who are addicted. We cannot af-ford that. We have asked this adminis-tration to go after drug dealers. Andthe Clinton-Gore administration from1992 to 1996, this is a chart that wassupplied to us by the administrationand all the statistics come from the ad-ministration, it is entitled IndividualDefendants Prosecuted in FederalCourts in Drug Prosecutions 1992 to1996, they cut the prosecution of goingafter drug offenders from 29,000 here to26,000 in 1996. So when we got afterthem to go after drug dealers and drugoffenders, and we are not talking aboutpeople with small amounts of posses-sion, we are talking about people deal-ing in death and destruction in huge


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8914 October 5, 2000quantities trafficking in illegal nar-cotics, they dropped the prosecution.

And what happened is these are theheadlines from the ‘‘Dallas MorningNews’’: ‘‘Federal Drug Offenders Spend-ing Less Time in Prison Study Finds.’’We went after them, and we started toget the prosecutions up. And now wefind in 2000 the drug offenders arespending less time in prison.

We cannot win with these folks. Firstthey will not prosecute folks; and thenwhen they prosecute them, we finallyget them to prosecute them and theydo not let them serve prison terms.

That is unfortunate. What is also un-fortunate is our country is now beingravaged by not only heroin, not only bycocaine and other drugs of high purityand deadly levels, but we have a newplague across this country and that isthe plague of Ecstasy and designerdrugs.

We just had a young person at theUniversity of Central Florida die froman overdose of designer drugs just thepast few days. We have young peoplewho are dying from Ecstasy. We had ahearing of our subcommittee in At-lanta and heard a father talk of hisdaughter who about 2 years ago tookEcstasy and went into convulsions.And for 2 years that family wentthrough hell. The daughter was in acoma and finally died.

We have had hearings where we hadfathers talk about their sons who havetried Ecstasy and did not get a secondchance. They are part of those statis-tics of drug related deaths that exceedhomicides.

One father from Orlando told me,‘‘Mr. Mica, drug related deaths arehomicides.’’

But one of the great misconceptionsyoung people have is that Ecstasy is aharmless drug, designer drugs you cantake and feel good.

This is a brain scan provided to us bythe National Institute of Drug Abuse,who does scientific studies. This is abrain scan of a normal brain. This is abrain that has dealt with Ecstasy. Ec-stasy destroys the brain tissue and itcreates a Parkinson’s type disease al-most in the brain, a destruction of thebrain. This is a brain scan after use ofEcstasy.

The young people and adults of thiscountry must realize that they have adangerous commodity out there. Andnow some of it is mixed with all kindsof substances and used with otherdrugs and is deadly.

It is amazing how this stuff is pack-aged. This is not a little cottage indus-try. This has turned into a huge indus-try of deadly drugs in designer pack-ages.

I do not know if we can focus on this,but they put all kinds of fancy designerlabels on these drugs. This was pro-vided to us by U.S. Customs Service,and that is what is out there. They tryto make it attractive to our young peo-ple, and this is what our young peopleget is a brain, if they survive, that isdamaged. And you do not repair thisdamage to the brain.

So right now we are facing an Ec-stasy epidemic. We are facing it inCalifornia.

I see my colleague the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. OSE) is here. Wewere in his district for a hearing. Imight want to yield to the gentlemanto comment about his perspective.Maybe he can relate, too, to the Housepart of this problem. The gentlemandoes a fantastic job working on thesubcommittee but shares, as a fatherand a parent, my concern for what ishappening with illegal narcotics.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. OSE).

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank thegentleman from Florida for yielding tome. And I do want to commend his ef-forts on the Subcommittee on CriminalJustice, Drug Policy and Human Re-sources, on which I am honored toserve with him as chairman.

He has in fact been to my district fora hearing, and at that hearing we heardthe traumatic tales of families whosevery fiber was ripped from seam toseam from the abuse of drugs by folkswho should know better.

I was hopeful, if I might, Mr. Speak-er, if I could just have just a few mo-ments to speak about, frankly, a fraud-ulent initiative on the California ballotthat will contribute to a far more pro-nounced number of experiences than wehave even today.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleasedto yield to the gentleman. I think wehave about 4 minutes, but I think it isimportant that he gets this messageout to our colleagues, the Speaker, andthe American people.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, as my col-leagues know, in California we have aninteresting process called the initiativeprocess. And on this year’s ballot wehave Prop 36, which is labeled Sub-stance Abuse and Crime PreventionAct of 2000.

I have a copy of it here. And it is in-teresting. I have gone through and Ihave flagged the various parts of itthat are so troublesome. This is about4,500 words in total. And it is inter-esting, it is being marketed on thebasis of treatment. It provides treat-ment to people, that if we approve this,Californians will receive treatment.But of its 4,500 words, only 383 of themspeak directly within the initiative toproviding treatment for people. So canyou imagine that, less than a tenth ofthe words in this initiative.

Let me tell my colleagues that whatthis initiative really does is it imposesthe wisdom of a criminal defense attor-ney, it interjects that into Californiastatute under the guise of providingtreatment for folks who need drugtreatment.

There is nothing in here that pro-vides treatment to Californians. Itchanges criminal statute to allow peo-ple who violate our laws as it relates todrug possession and use are treated,but it does not provide a single dollarfor drug treatment to people who des-perately need it.

And keep in mind that this is an ini-tiative written by a criminal defenseattorney. The initiative itself wasfunded by three people who do not evenlive in California. There is no medicalanalysis, no medical input to draftingthis. It is a shameful fraud being, at-tempting to be perpetrated on the vot-ers of California.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, just in thecourse of our committee hearings, thegentleman and I have heard time aftertime after time from medical profes-sional after medical professional aftermedical professional that drug testingis an inherent and integral part of asuccessful drug treatment program.This initiative, the $120 million to beappropriated under this initiative, nota dime of it can be used for drug test-ing whatsoever. So the initiative elimi-nates the chance to use the most suc-cessful tool we have. I just want tomake that clear.

I appreciate being able to come downhere and visit with the gentleman fromFlorida (Mr. MICA).

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank thegentleman from California (Mr. OSE)for his comments, and I thank him forthe leadership on our Subcommittee onCriminal Justice, Drug Policy andHuman Resources.

As we conclude, I again call to theattention of my colleagues, the Speak-er, and the American people the needto be vigilant on the issue of illegalnarcotics, not to make the mistake ofthe past, not to be fooled by thelegalizers, but to make this countrysafe for our children and the next gen-eration and stop the ravages of illegalnarcotics. Because illegal drugs do de-stroy lives and do a great deal of dam-age to our society and our country andparticularly to our families and youngpeople.

f

NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY INAMERICA

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.MARTINEZ). Under the Speaker’s an-nounced policy of January 6, 1999, thegentleman from New Jersey (Mr.PALLONE) is recognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I risetoday to discuss the Democrats’ andthe Clinton-Gore administration’s en-ergy policy versus the Republicans’lack of energy policy and the Repub-licans’ support for big oil rather thanthe consumers.

I also have to underscore the factthat the Democrats’ energy policy pro-tects rather than sacrifices environ-mental protection.

I know I am going to be joined thisevening by some of my colleagues, andI wanted to first yield if I could to thegentleman from the great State ofTexas (Mr. STENHOLM).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the gentleman from New Jerseyfor yielding to me, and I appreciatevery much his taking this time todayto talk about the lack of a national en-ergy policy.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8915October 5, 2000Perhaps the best known price in

America today is that of gasoline.Americans see it posted along the roada dozen or two times a day. They pullin to fill up every week to 10 days, ifnot more often.

It is also a price that perhaps becauseof that visibility can generate a lot ofheat, especially when it is going up, asit has this year.

This is in fact a price that tells thecomplex story of global supply and de-mand, of technological change and ofenvironmental consciousness, and ofshifting consumer taste and socialchange.

Despite the long-term trend, pricesmove up and down a great deal. Thesefluctuations can be caused, amongother things, by political events, shiftin supply and demand of fuel, weather,the level of inventories, disruptions inrefinery operations, and the introduc-tion of new environmental standards.

b 1630

Over the last year or so, retail gaso-line prices in the United States havebounced down and then up from verylow levels and then back up to veryhigh levels. In February of 1999, the na-tional average retail price fell to 95cents per gallon, the lowest since 1989in nominal dollars and one of the low-est levels ever seen in inflated dollars,and 30 percent lower than the price 2years earlier. Not much more than ayear later, they had risen to the recenthighs of over $1.50 per gallon nation-wide.

These price swings were detrimentalto the producer and the consumer. Thetrucking industry, for example, in mydistrict and all over the United Stateshad a hard time maintaining oper-ations as usual under the economicstrain experienced by their businessesas a result of these price increases. Ag-riculture also has borne the brunt.Today, high oil prices reflect in partthe U.S. economic boom and recoveringeconomies elsewhere.

According to the study done by Cam-bridge Energy Research Associates, gasprice conditions felt this summer wereattributed to four primary forces act-ing on the market: number one, theprice of crude oil, where for every $1per barrel, gasoline prices increased 2to 3 cents; two, inventories are lowbased on production constraints; three,new environmental regulations havecreated numerous variations, RFG,ethanol, MTBE, in gasoline contentsmaking it difficult to transport or mixgas from one area into the next duringtimes of crisis; four, the booming econ-omy has created a 2 percent higher de-mand for gasoline over last summer.This coupled with the fact that Ameri-cans are driving more per person peryear, 13,000 miles per person per year,has increased demand.

The last President or last adminis-tration to attempt to create a new en-ergy policy was President Carter. Icannot remember a time when the Con-gress, particularly in the last 6 years,

in which we have had a serious debatein this Congress regarding energy pol-icy.

A national energy policy is a mustfor the United States and this policymust decrease America’s dependenceon foreign oil. Our Nation gets almost60 percent of our oil from foreignsources, and this is absolutely unac-ceptable as it puts our economic andnational security at risk. The reju-venation of the domestic oil and gas in-dustry will benefit all Americans andensure an energy security for this Na-tion far into the future. Wide swings inprice are not good for consumers or forproducers. I happen to represent the oilpatch. Less than 2 years ago when oilprices were at critically low levels, wehad $8 per barrel prices, domestic oiland gas producers in my district, the17th District of Texas, were strugglingto keep their operations open andmany did not.

In my district, claims for unemploy-ment from the oil and gas industryquadrupled from 1,171 to 4,730 betweenDecember of 1997 and December of 1998.During this time, the lost wellheadvalue dropped $5.79 million and thevalue of oil to the Texas economydropped by almost $1 billion. The num-ber of producing wells declined by 2,855during this time as well. In my homecounty of Jones, oil production in De-cember of 1997 was 83,706 barrels; in De-cember of 1998 it had dropped to 69,000barrels; and in December of 1999 it haddeclined to 58,000 barrels. That is a de-cline of 25,000 barrels per month fromDecember of 1997 to December of 1999,or a decline of 30 percent. Total domes-tic crude oil production has declinedfrom 8.7 million barrels per day in theUnited States in 1986, the first oil pricecollapse, to 5.9 billion barrels per day.

When prices are below the cost of ex-ploring and producing crude, thesesmall independent producers cannotstay in business, and it has a ripple ef-fect throughout local communities asschools and hospitals in Texas rely ona healthy oil and gas industry for reve-nues. At the time, we warned thatcritically low prices have the potentialto turn into a price shock. Unfortu-nately, this is a lesson that we shouldhave learned many times over the last2 decades. I would like to find any evi-dence anywhere in which this Congress,the 106th, attempted to do anythingabout the low prices.

If there was a time of dramatic dem-onstration, the compacted experienceof the last 3 years with its highs andlows illustrates the need for our Nationto take responsibility for its energy fu-ture. We do need a free market for theproduction of energy, but it cannot bea free market dominated by foreignproducing countries that do not haveour best interests at heart. Congressneeds, in fact must consider measuresto help restore market stability withdomestic crude oil and natural gasprices, maintaining a level where do-mestic producers can compete in aglobal market. However, our national

energy policy must recognize both pro-ducer and consumer issues.

Last week, the House considered theenergy and water appropriations con-ference agreement which deleted lan-guage added in by the House earlierthis session to reauthorize the Stra-tegic Petroleum Reserve and to createa Northeast home heating oil reserve. Ifind it reckless that in the midst ofhome heating oil shortages in theNortheastern States, this Congress ison the verge of allowing the Presi-dent’s authority to use the StrategicPetroleum Reserve to lapse.

Authorization of the SPR expired onMarch 31 of this year, 6 months ago.The House supported a measure thatwould reauthorize the SPR, the Stra-tegic Petroleum Reserve, and ensurethat it would be filled with domesticcrude oil to capacity with specific op-tions leading to the expansion of theSPR capacity. Many of us stood on thisfloor and through letters and Dear Col-leagues encouraged the Congress 2years ago when we had the opportunityto buy oil from domestic producers at$8 a barrel and put it into the StrategicPetroleum Reserve which would havebeen a good investment for this coun-try, a good investment for taxpayerdollars, to buy it at $8, to support thedomestic industry when we had achance to. But because of overt con-cerns about unrealistic budgets, themajority on this body refused to evenconsider it.

It is irresponsible, I believe, to refusethat the SPR be reauthorized, givingthis and future Presidents all meansavailable to respond to any possible en-ergy supply emergency. It is in our na-tional security interest. The Depart-ment of Energy cannot establish a re-gional home heating oil reserve untilCongress either reauthorizes the SPRor separately passes legislation author-izing the creation of such a reservewith a responsible trigger. Are we try-ing to send a message from Congress tomany vulnerable consumers that theywill have to sacrifice other needs justto heat their homes this winter? Addi-tionally, shortages in natural gas willbe the next energy issue before us whenbrownouts start occurring in citiesshort on natural gas used to createelectricity, a direct result of the col-lapse of the independent oil and gasproducing industry in the UnitedStates because when you stop drillingfor oil, you also stop drilling for gas.Gas is often found in the process of dis-covering oil. That is something that wehave been very, very shortsighted onwith our, again, lack of a national en-ergy policy.

Let me just quickly outline some ofthe things that this Congress shouldhave done this year, or last year. Con-gress needs to consider measures tohelp restore market stability with do-mestic crude and natural gas pricesmaintaining a level where domesticproducers can compete in a global mar-ket. However, our national energy pol-icy must recognize both producer and


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8916 October 5, 2000consumer issues. We need to enact leg-islation that provides tax relief formarginal well production, providing asafety net for producers when pricesare critically low. We need to enactlegislation that provides tax incentivesfor inactive well recovery aimed atbringing plugged or abandoned wellsback on line. We need to pass the Wat-kins-Stenholm proposal that wouldcorrect the inequity facing Americanoil producers who must meet regu-latory costs avoided by producers inother countries by imposing an envi-ronmental equalization fee on im-ported crude oil and refined products atthe level of cost domestic producerscurrently spend on compliance withFederal environmental regulations.

We need to encourage production ofunconventional fuels. I have recentlycosponsored the Energy Security forAmerican Consumers Act that aims tostimulate production of unconven-tional gas in the hope that our Nationwill be better equipped to meet our fu-ture energy needs. This bill would ex-tend the section 29 tax credit for un-conventional gas production and willprovide the energy sector with a nec-essary incentive to produce gas that isboth difficult and costly to obtain.

We need to enact legislation expens-ing geological and geophysical costs,delaying rental payments and extend-ing the suspension of net income limi-tation of percentage depletion for mar-ginal wells. We need to enact a low-cost emergency lending program forthe benefit of domestic oil and gas pro-ducers. We need to enact legislationthat would enhance recovery and wild-cat exploration. We must open our Fed-eral lands, both onshore and offshore,except in the most treasured environ-ments, to responsible exploration.From 1997 to 1999, oil well completionsfor drilling for new reserve declined 54percent. But by providing financial in-centives to increase domestic oil pro-duction and exploration, we can en-courage the discovery of new domesticoil reserves.

We need to ensure that the StrategicPetroleum Reserve is filled with do-mestic crude oil to capacity and to theextent that the filled capacity does notmeet a 90-day supply of foreign im-ported petroleum, expand the SPR ca-pacity. We need to ensure that theNortheastern States are not in the po-sition where they are facing homeheating oil shortages that will harmconsumers by establishing a homeheating oil reserve in the Northeast.Despite the fact that the Presidentacted administratively in July to cre-ate it, the Congress still needs to au-thorize the use of this new reserve.

We need to enact legislation to pro-mote new developments in the access,production and use of natural gas. Weneed to enact legislation to promoteresearch in exploring other avenues ofenergy, including solar, wind, hydro-electric and other renewable energy re-sources. We need to enact legislation toprovide tax incentives encouraging

consumers to make energy-efficientimprovements to their homes and pur-chase energy-efficient automobiles, aswell as further promote and fundLIHEAP.

It is imperative that Congress worktogether setting aside partisan dif-ferences to ensure price stability,prices that are not so low that pro-ducers are put out of business andprices that are not so high that theyhurt consumers and threaten our econ-omy. America needs a balanced, for-ward-looking energy policy based onthe proposals that have been put beforethis Congress. We need a responsibleapproach that will infuse our energysector with both efficiency and com-petition seeking to protect Americaagainst emergencies in the energy mar-ket.

Mr. Speaker, these are the thingsthat we should have done. I would chal-lenge very many individuals on eitherside of the aisle to show anything thatwe have done other than not avoid thetemptation of pointing the finger.There are many, many solutions. I amvery happy today, and I again thankthe gentleman from New Jersey fortaking this 1 hour. I thank him for al-lowing me to show at least in this oneMember’s mind some of the things thatwe should have been doing in this Con-gress, and some of the proposals thatare being advocated now of where weneed to go in the next administrationand in the next Congress.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wantto thank my colleague from Texas forhis remarks and two things, first of all,I think he points out very successfully,that it is the Congress that needs toact on authorizing these energy initia-tives that would help the Americanconsumer, and we know that for thepast 6 years, the Republicans have beenin the majority and they have not doneit. I know the gentleman does not liketo point a finger; but the bottom lineis, the Republican leadership runs thisplace, and they have not put forwardan energy policy, and they have notbeen willing to enact the policies thatthe Clinton-Gore administration haveput forward.

I also wanted to thank my colleaguebecause I see the concern he expressedfor the Northeast, particularly theneed to authorize the Northeast homeheating oil reserve which, again, theRepublican leadership has not beenwilling to do and has been trying tostop the reserve actually from beingpassed. The gentleman mentioned gasprices. There is an article in the StarLedger, which is the major newspaperin my home State of New Jersey, todaythat is entitled ‘‘Gas Heat Costs WillBe Soaring. Jersey’s Four UtilitiesWant Rate Hikes as High as 40 Per-cent.’’ If I could just in the first coupleof paragraphs of the article, it says:

Heating bills could rise as much as 40 per-cent for some New Jersey consumers thiswinter if rate increases requested yesterdayby the State’s four natural gas utilities areapproved by regulators. The four utilities

covering millions of customers filed peti-tions seeking emergency relief with theState board of public utilities which is ex-pected to act on the proposals at its nextmeeting on Tuesday. The increases would beeffective immediately.

So what he is saying about the im-pact ultimately on gas prices is cer-tainly coming true. Most important isthe fact that the Republican leadershipcontinues to oppose the President’s ini-tiative, backed up by Vice PresidentGORE, to tap the Strategic PetroleumReserve, the SPR. I just wanted topoint out briefly, and then I would liketo yield to my other colleague fromTexas, that it is ironic that GovernorBush and the Republican leadershiphere and the Republican leadership onthe Committee on Commerce, which Iserve on which has jurisdiction overenergy policy, continue to criticize thePresident and the Vice President withregard to the SPR, because if I couldjust recount a little history here be-cause I think it is important since theRepublican leadership came into themajority, or actually I could take iteven further back to when PresidentBush was in office.

When President Bush sold oil fromthe reserve from the SPR during theGulf War, domestic reserves were high-er than today and crude prices were $5per barrel cheaper. Yet he said he re-leased the oil not because of nationalsecurity but to, ‘‘calm the markets.’’So even President Clinton’s prede-cessor, President Bush, recognized thefact that the SPR could be tapped, notfor security reasons, but to make surethat prices did not continue to rise.

b 1645But, beyond that, since the Repub-

lican leadership has been in chargehere in the Congress, since 1996, theytwice passed laws requiring the sale ofoil from the reserve, over 28 millionbarrels, to help pay for GOP budget pri-orities. Selling the oil from the SPRjust to make ends meet in terms of thebudget. Then, last year, in 1999, the Re-publican leaders, the gentleman fromTexas (Mr. ARMEY) and the gentlemanfrom Texas (Mr. DELAY), joined 35other Republicans to introduce a billthat would not only eliminate the De-partment of Energy, but abolish theReserve, abolish the SPR.

Since taking control, Republicanshave let the President’s authority tofully use the Reserve lapse three times,totaling 18 months. The SPR authoritylast lapsed on March 31. In 1999, Repub-licans blocked the Clinton Administra-tion proposal to buy 10 million barrelsof oil when crude prices were only $10 abarrel. This is what the gentlemanfrom Texas (Mr. STENHOLM) was saying.The purchase would have helped do-mestic producers and fill part of the 115million barrels of SPR capacity in theReserve.

I am only trying to bring up dramati-cally that we have Governor Bush andthe Republican leadership here criti-cizing President Clinton, Vice Presi-dent GORE, for tapping the Reserve to


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8917October 5, 2000try to bring prices down, and we knowthe Republicans have a history goingall the way back to President Bush oftapping the SPR for similar reasons,but, at the same time, trying to abol-ish it altogether and not even have itavailable for use in a time like this,when prices have been going up.

So I am just glad that President Clin-ton acted on Vice President GORE’s ad-vice and decided to go ahead and tapthe SPR, because we know it did havethe impact of stabilizing prices andeven reducing prices to some extent.

I would like to yield now to anotherone of my colleagues from Texas, thechairman of our Democratic Caucus,who has been chairing a task force onenergy policy and has been very effec-tive in not only bringing forth the mes-sage in terms of what the Democratsare trying to do here, but trying to getthe Republicans to act on the Demo-crats’ proposals.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank thegentleman for yielding.

For the past 22 years, I have had thehonor of serving the people of Texas,America’s prototypical energy pro-ducing State, so I know that we canachieve bipartisan consensus aroundenergy policy if we want to.

Unfortunately, for 6 years this Re-publican Congress has been AWOL onenergy policy, and, when they have notbeen asleep at the wheel, they have ledthe fight against energy independencefor America, slashing energy efficiencyprograms, trying to eliminate the De-partment of Energy and selling off theStrategic Petroleum Reserve.

Earlier this year, gas prices surgedaround the Nation, and then, as now,the Republican Congress chose irre-sponsible partisan attacks against theadministration, not reasonable re-sponses with bipartisan support. Mostoutrageously though, this RepublicanCongress has consistently ignored orkilled Democratic energy policies, andthen turned around and tried to scorepolitical points when oil prices wentup.

For more than 6 months, for in-stance, the United States has been in aweaker position to negotiate withOPEC, because the Republican Con-gress continues to withhold one of thePresident’s chief tools for dealing withan energy crisis, the clear authority tofully use the Strategic Petroleum Re-serve.

This winter, families in the North-east face a repeat of last winter, recordhigh home heating prices, because thisRepublican Congress refuses to create aNortheast Heating Oil Reserve. Justlast week, in a fit of partisan pique,Republican leaders again played poli-tics with these two key pieces of Amer-ica’s energy security arsenal, deletingthem from the energy and water appro-priations bill.

In the midst of an energy crisis, thisRepublican Congress still refuses totake the simplest of steps to increaseAmerica’s energy independence. Fortu-nately, President Clinton and Vice

President GORE have showed their lead-ership to ignore Republican partisan-ship and to act decisively and appro-priately to address our immediate en-ergy problems. After the President an-nounced that he would address short-ages by swapping oil out of the Reservethis year in exchange for more oil nextyear, oil prices dropped nearly $6 a bar-rel, their lowest level in almost amonth. In contrast, oil prices imme-diately jumped when Republican Rep-resentative JOE BARTON of Texas an-nounced that he would try to stop theoil swap.

While we are on the subject of theReserve swap, let me take a minute toclear up some misconceptions beingperpetuated by some of our Republicanfriends.

First of all, Republicans like to at-tack the President’s move as political.Well, was it political for northeasternRepublicans to call for deployment ofthe Reserve? Hardly. They, like ALGORE and the rest of us, are trying todo what we can to protect familiesfrom having to choose between heatingtheir homes and buying groceries thiswinter.

Indeed, families in the Northeast arefacing the prospect of another winterof low oil inventories and high homeheating oil prices, as much as 30 per-cent higher than last year. Across thecountry, gas prices are still too high. Itwould have been irresponsible, a ter-rible abdication of leadership, to ignorethis coming energy crisis in the wayRepublican leaders are trying to do.

Second, Republicans claim the Presi-dent risked national security by usingthe Reserve to help families sufferingfrom the energy crisis. This is as hypo-critical as it is ridiculous. After all, didit threaten national security when thisRepublican Congress sold off 28 millionbarrels of oil from the Reserve to payfor its budget priorities in 1996? Did itthreaten national security when thisRepublican Congress stopped the ad-ministration from increasing the Re-serve’s inventory last year, when oilprices were at just $10 a barrel, whichwould have strengthened the Reserveand helped domestic producers? Anddid it threaten national security whenRepublican leaders, like the gentlemanfrom Texas (Mr. DELAY), the gen-tleman from Texas (Mr. ARMEY), andthe gentleman from Missouri (Mr.BLUNT) tried last year to abolish theStrategic Petroleum Reserve alto-gether? Probably so.

But by swapping oil out of the Re-serve now for more oil next year, thePresident’s action will not just helpconsumers this winter, it will alsostrengthen the Reserve and increasenational security. In fact, the Depart-ment of Energy announced yesterdaythat its swap agreement with 11 oilcompanies had been completed, andthat it would yield the Reserve a netincrease of 1.5 million barrels of oil.

Once you put politics aside, it isclear that the administration’s actionwas good for families in the Northeast

beset by high home heating oil prices,and it was good for us in Texas, wherelong distances and high gas prices cantake a real toll on people’s pocket-books.

Fortunately, where American con-sumers see an energy crisis, Republicanleaders see a political opportunity; anopportunity to score political pointsagainst a President they despise and anopportunity to cover up their 6-yearrecord of negligence on energy inde-pendence. That is profoundly dis-appointing, because there is no doubtabout the seriousness of home heatingoil shortages this winter and continuedhigh gas prices.

This Republican Congress has theability and the responsibility to domore than just play partisan blamegames while American consumers aresuffering. Congressional Democrats,President Clinton and Vice PresidentGORE, have consistently tried to de-velop a comprehensive energy inde-pendence policy that has broad supportacross partisan, regional and industrylines. We have worked to reduce Amer-ica’s dependence on foreign oil by en-couraging environmentally friendly do-mestic production.

Under the Clinton Administration,natural gas production on Federallands on shore has increased nearly 60percent since 1992, and under the Clin-ton Administration, oil production off-shore in the Gulf of Mexico has in-creased 62 percent since 1992. But,again, Republican leaders have pre-ferred politics to progress, so Repub-lican energy policy pretty much startsand ends at drilling in the pristineAlaska National Wildlife Reserve, de-spite the fact that it would not resultin a drop of oil on the market for yearsand despite the fact that the most re-cent U.S. Geological Survey estimatesmake clear that the amount of recover-able oil, which amounts to less than 6months of U.S. domestic oil consump-tion, is not nearly enough to justify de-spoiling forever this pristine wildlifereserve.

In contrast, Democratic tax incen-tives for marginal wells and to furtherincrease domestic production, whichhave broad support, have been ignoredin this Republican Congress. Repub-lican leaders have been even more hos-tile to our efforts to increase energy ef-ficiency and develop alternative ener-gies. Over the past 6 years, the Repub-lican Congress has underfunded solar,renewable and conservation programsby $1.3 billion below the President’s re-quest, and, if Republicans had not cutthe weatherization assistance programby 50 percent in 1995, then 250,000 morehouseholds could have been helped,which would have decreased demandfor oil.

When Republicans first took controlof the Congress, they voted to kill theLow Income Home Heating Energy As-sistance Program, LIHEAP, whichhelped the neediest Americans in themidst of an energy crisis, and the fol-lowing year Republicans proposed


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8918 October 5, 2000changing LIHEAP so that disadvan-taged families could be forced tochoose between buying food and heat-ing their homes.

For the past 6 years, the threat toAmerica’s energy security has comefrom this Republican Congress and itsrefusal to treat energy policy as any-thing other than a partisan politicalopportunity. It is long past time thatRepublican leaders finally stop playingpolitical games with oil prices andbegan working with us to give Americathe common sense, comprehensive en-ergy independence policy it needs.

I thank the gentleman very much fortaking out this special order, so thatwe could discuss these very importantissues with the American public.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank mycolleague from Texas.

If I could just reiterate two of thethings the gentleman mentioned, be-cause I think they are so important,one is this whole effort by GovernorBush and the Republican leadershipnow to insist that, because of the crisisin oil prices, that we have to nowthreaten the environment again, eitherwith drilling in ANWAR and Alaska oroffshore the continental coast of theUnited States.

As the gentleman points out, this hasno immediate impact. I mean, we arenot talking pie in the sky here, we aretalking about our constituents, andbeing from New Jersey and the North-east, I know this is an immediate crisisthat people are facing. They do notwant to hear about what is going tohappen in a few years; they are facingthe crisis now.

The one thing that President Clin-ton’s proposal by tapping the SPR doeswas to actually reduce prices, and ulti-mately I think stabilize a market in away that has an immediate impact.That is what is really important.

I never cease to be amazed how ourRepublican colleagues talk about pol-icy, but they do not seem to respond tothe immediate need that people have,and that is what Vice President GOREand President Clinton were doing whenthey talked about the need to tap theSPR.

The other thing that I think is so im-portant that the gentleman pointedout, and we do not hear that too often,is this idea that by the Republicans notpursuing a real energy policy for ourcountry, it leaves us weak to foreignexploitation.

I think what I have noticed withPresident Clinton and Vice PresidentGORE is they keep saying that we needto tap the SPR, not only because of theimmediate impact on prices, but be-cause it has an impact on our ability toinfluence OPEC and the cartel, the oilcartel, if you will, that is trying todrive prices up.

As the cartel and OPEC know that weare going to take action on our ownand tap the SPR, they realize that theycannot influence prices as much asthey have been able to and take advan-tage of the situation over the last 6months.

So, again, we need to make some pol-icy initiatives here. Certainly the Re-publican leadership in the Congress hasnot been willing to do it, and the ad-ministration has essentially had to acton its own with regard to the SPR andthe decision also to move to create thisNortheast Home Heating Oil Reserve.But, at the same time, instead of react-ing positively to that, the Republicanleadership comes here and says, oh, no,we do not want the Northeast HeatingOil Reserve, and we do not want you tobe able to pass the SPR, and theypassed the energy and water appropria-tions conference bill last week that ac-tually would eliminate both of thoseoptions.

It is an outrageous step. It is out-rageous that at a time when the Amer-ican people are crying for some actionto deal with the rise in oil prices andthe rise that is going to result in homeheating oil, as well as natural gasprices, and the response of the Repub-lican leadership in the Congress is tosay no, we do not want you to be ableto tap the SPR. We want to pass legis-lation that says you cannot pass theSPR and pass legislation that says youcannot set up this Northeast HomeHeating Oil Reserve. I just cannot be-lieve that that is their response to thepublic outcry for the need to action toaddress the crisis.

I wanted to, in the time that I haveleft, I wanted to develop a little morethe reason why I believe very stronglythat the Republican leadership here inthe House has not only failed to ad-dress the immediate energy needs, butis really trying to dismantle and elimi-nate any effort to set any kind of U.S.energy policy that would create inde-pendence on our part for the future.

b 1700And I wanted to give some examples

of action that has taken place eitherhere or in the other body over the lastfew weeks. Just last week or within thelast 2 weeks, Senator MURKOWSKI fromthe other body came to the floor, onceagain, to push for drilling Alaska’s lastremaining open space, the Arctic Na-tional Wildlife Refuge. Not only is headvocating what I consider a policy ofdestruction; but as I mentioned before,drilling the Arctic Refuge will notproduce a drop of oil for several years,and, on the other hand, would onlyproduce several months’ worth of sup-ply, while destroying this precious re-source for future generations.

We have said over and over again,both in the House and in the otherbody, that we do not want to tapANWR, the Arctic Refuge, because ofthe negative impact on the environ-ment.

What I see now is my colleagues onthe other side of the aisle trying to usethe current crisis as an excuse to goagainst what has been a bipartisan po-sition, not to drill in the Arctic Ref-uge. What I would suggest is that in-stead of trying to drill the Arctic Ref-uge, we should be banning exports ofAlaskan oil to other nations.

I think a lot of people are not evenaware of the fact that we are now on adaily basis in the process of exportingAlaskan oils to other countries, Japanand other countries.

If we really want to take some actionthat is going to have an impact onprices here, use that, make that oilavailable here, rather than ship it over-seas.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I wouldsay, too, is that we had the GOP, and Icall it the Big Oil GOP leadership onthe other side of the aisle, in both theHouse and the other body. We are re-luctant to investigate whether the oilcompanies were profiting excessivelyfrom gas price spikes this summer.

They do not even want to let us in-vestigate the problem and try to comeup with a solution. And I guess the fearis that if the investigations proceed, itis going to uncover that the oil compa-nies are trying to undermine the con-cerns of the American people and showthat they are really in league, essen-tially, with OPEC and the cartel to tryto drive up prices.

Now, the Clinton administration didthe investigation and the investigationthat they did proved that the increasein prices this summer was not due toenvironmental standards, as the Re-publican majority has alleged, but infact was a result of the oil giant’sgreed and their effort to simply driveup prices.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, wouldthe gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.PALLONE) yield for a question?

Mr. PALLONE. On this point?Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.Mr. PALLONE. I will yield, not the

whole time, but sure I would yield fora question.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Has the gentlemanvisited the area up there?

Mr. PALLONE. The Arctic Refuge?Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.Mr. PALLONE. No, I have not.Mr. MARTINEZ. I have. I used to

hear stories all the time about howbuilding of the pipeline and all the restof the things they were doing and ex-ploration up there, that would hurt thecaribou herds and destroy the tundra.And I was quite surprised when I went,actually, that upon visiting the area,the first place the area where the oildrilling is taking place is so cold thatthe workers cannot be out there forany more than a short length of time,and they have to be brought in and re-lieved by other workers.

I actually asked the rangers there,because the environmentalists were soconcerned about the destruction of theenvironment, as the gentleman hassuggested, how many people had actu-ally visited the area of the previousyear, and there had been three peoplevisiting the area. And he said awhileback, a couple of years back, there wasactually more than that that visited,because there was the big debate aboutwhether or not to drill there in that pe-riod of time, and they were mostly peo-ple that were protesters of the drillingthere; there was 12.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8919October 5, 2000Now, the closest they could get to

that area is a mountain peak, which isquite a few miles that you can seeright down across the whole flat area,where they would contemplate drilling.And there is nothing there.

It is absolutely barren, but what I didsee, and I was really surprised, as wewere traveling along the road alongsideof the pipeline, I looked out there andI saw thousands and thousands of car-ibou, thousands of them. And I had toget down and take a picture. I askedthe bus driver to stop the bus, and Iwent on down.

Now the one big thing that every-body was concerned about then, theyeven caused the people who built thatroad to build ramps over the road sothe caribou could cross over, becausethat would be the only place that itwould cross over because of the pipe-line there. And so I got down—let mefinish this one statement.

Mr. PALLONE. I will, then I want tomove on.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I got down off thebus to take a picture, and I was busysnapping a picture out here of all ofthese caribou out there; and all of asudden, I realized there was somethingvery close to me. At the buttress of thesupport for the pipeline, there was acaribou standing there eating, munch-ing the tundra and looking at me, andI turned around and took a picture. Ihave a picture. I would like to show thegentleman. And he was absolutely soclose to me I could almost reach outand touch him. He did not seem dis-turbed at all.

Then I noticed that the caribou werecrossing, not over the ramps they builtfor them, but anywhere, anywherealong that road.

So I am wondering, and the questionthat I have for the gentleman is, if thisis to be so pristine that it is going tobe disturbed and it has not seemed todo it yet, would we not rather havethat oil than be dependent, because 18years after when I got here, they werestill arguing and complaining aboutbeing dependent on OPEC and the oilover there, and in 18 years we have notdeveloped a policy.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr.STENHOLM) stood here and said he hasnot heard any talk here in the Con-gress or in the White House about de-veloping a strategy or developing.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let meanswer the gentleman’s question. I amwilling to give the gentleman sometime and that is fine. I would like toanswer the question and move on, be-cause I do have other things to say. Letme just answer the gentleman’s ques-tion. Then I will not yield to the gen-tleman any more, because I want tofinish with my comments.

I do appreciate the fact that the gen-tleman came to the floor and expressedhis concern. I understand that somepeople would like to explore in the Arc-tic Refuge, but I think that in manyways, your comments make me feeleven more strongly about why it

should not be taking place. Obviously,when the gentleman went there, it wasa very beautiful area; the gentlemanwas witnessing the wildlife. The gen-tleman seems to feel that whatever hashappened so far has not had an impact,but it is obvious from what the gen-tleman witnessed that it is a very sen-sitive area, and there is a lot of wild-life. And it is a very beautiful, pristinearea.

I would maintain that given that factand given the fact that we are not real-ly talking about that much oil over thelong time that is going to impact, Ithink, U.S. energy policy that weshould not take the risk; that the veryfact that it is difficult to get there andit is difficult for people to deal withthe situation there means that if therewas a spill or if there were environ-mental problems, it would be thatmuch more difficult to clean it up.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the envi-ronmentalists take the view that thisis a beautiful, pristine area. There is aterrific risk involved, a significantrisk, because of the delicate nature ofit, and the fact that it is so far awayand difficult to access; and that itshould not be tapped for that reason;and that if we have to make a decisionand weigh the risks that it is just notworth the effort.

It is very similar to what I have inNew Jersey. There have been proposalsby mineral management’s agency todevelop offshore oil resources off thecoast of New Jersey. And argumentshave been made back and forth aboutwhether it is a good idea. And basicallymy position, because I represent thecoastal area where this would takeplace, has been we have a huge tourismindustry. We make billions of dollarsevery year from having safe beachesand clean water. Frankly, we do notwant to take the risk, because we knowthat the amount of oil that is availablethere probably would only be a fewmonths in terms of America’s supply,and it is just not worth the effort.

So I think part of it is weighing ofthe risk, and I just do not think it isworth it in the case of ANWR. I willnot yield again. I do not mean to cutthe gentleman off. I have a lot more tosay.

Mr. MARTINEZ. The gentleman hasa lot more time. I just have one ques-tion.

Mr. PALLONE. I do not have thatmuch more time, I will not yield to thegentleman any more. I thank the gen-tleman for coming down.

Mr. Speaker, I have another one ofmy Democratic colleagues here that isjoining me here. But just before I yieldto him, I just wanted to make a fewmore comments about the Republicanopposition to the tapping of the SPR.And I just want to point out, as someof my Democratic colleagues have, howpolitically motivated this was, becauseas we know in the past, the Repub-licans have not hesitated to sell off theSPR, to tap the SPR, for reasons notrelated to national security or even ad-

vocated that there not be an SPR andit be abolished.

It is interesting that in this case,when the President suggested that hewas going to move forward and tap theSPR because of the high oil prices,there were some Republicans also thatjoined with the Democrats saying thatthat was a good idea. In fact, over 100House Members, including 20 Repub-licans, such as the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. GILMAN), the chairmanof the Committee on International Re-lations, and the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. LAZIO) of the House Com-mittee on Commerce, sent a letter toPresident Clinton requesting the tap.

I, for one, would not heed the allega-tions, if you will, of the big oil ticket,the Bush-Cheney ticket that somehowthis is a bad thing. Because if you willnotice, even if you are a Republicanand from the Northeast, you think it isa good idea, because my colleagues areconcerned about the impact on yourconstituents in New Jersey, New Yorkand the other States that are beingnegatively impacted by these high oilprices.

The other thing that I think is veryinteresting is that actually we havenot even had opposition from the oilindustry or even from some Members ofOPEC to the tapping of the SPR.

We had a situation where this wasquoted in the Washington Post lastweek where John Lichtblau, I do notknow if I am pronouncing it properly,the chairman of the Petroleum Indus-try Research Foundation, said that theprice drop that occurred after the SPRwas tapped reflects the fact that inven-tories will be increased. He went on tosay while very recently there havebeen speculation about $40-a-barrel oil,now there is speculation that will dropto below $30. He actually thought itwas a good idea that we tap the SPR.

We had the Venezuelan oil ministerand OPEC president, Ali Rodriguez, af-firm the administration’s belief and in-tent in releasing oil from the SPR inthat same Post article where he said Ithink oil prices will not remain attheir high levels.

My point is, I do not even see opposi-tion necessarily from the industry oreven from OPEC, because they under-stand that prices were going up andthey needed to be stabilized. I really donot have any clue where GovernorBush and Vice President nominee Che-ney are coming from where they criti-cize the Democrats and the Vice Presi-dent and the President for tapping theSPR. It just seems like they just donot care about the impact on theAmerican people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague,the gentleman from the State ofMassachussetts (Mr. TIERNEY).

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thankmy colleague, the gentleman from NewJersey (Mr. PALLONE), for yielding; andI come here just to add to some of thegentleman’s comments when the gen-tleman was discussing the fact thatthis is, in fact, very bipartisan.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8920 October 5, 2000I understand all the rhetoric during

the campaign trails, and I understandthat two people that are largely in-volved with the oil industry are tryingto make this a political situation; butthat, in fact, is not the case. I was oneof those 114-plus Members that signed aletter to the President asking him todo a number of things that would im-prove the energy situation.

I joined a number of my colleaguesfrom the mid-Atlantic States, as wellas from my home State of Massachu-setts and New England in talking withthe President and the Department ofEnergy as far back as last winter whenthese problems originated. We haveconsistently asked the President totake the kind of preemptive movesthat we thought were necessary settingup a reserve for the Northeastern area,releasing fuel from the SPR, from theStrategic Petroleum Reserve, to coverthat difference.

Trying to make this into a casewhere people think that that releasewas to cover all of our needs is way offbase. The fact of the matter is there isa gap between what is produced andwhat is consumed, and it is only thatgap that we are trying to affect. Weasked the OPEC countries to producemore oil, and they are trying to dothat.

We have asked the non-OPEC foreignproducers to produce more oil, andthey tell us they are trying to produceit. We now need to go to the domesticproducers who have not been producingmore. In fact, in a hearing with theCommittee on Government Reform, atwhich I was present, one of the officialsfrom the Exxon-Mobil company wasquestioned; and the answer was they,in fact, made 272 percent more profitsin the second quarter of 2000 than inthe second quarter of 1999, while simul-taneously reducing their productionbudget by some 30 percent.

Most of the domestic oil producers,the large companies, have, in fact, beenmaking enormous profits in compari-son to the previous year and have beencutting back.

The President did a responsible thingthat Democrats and Republicans haveasked him to do. There were any num-ber of Republicans from the mid-Atlan-tic States and the Northeastern Statesthat joined in that letter to the Presi-dent asking him to do something withthe funds, asking him to set up a NewEngland reserve and asking him to re-lease some of the Strategic PetroleumReserve.

Our colleagues on the Republicanside from New York, one of them isrunning for the Senate, the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. GILMAN), our col-leagues from Maryland, our Republicancolleagues from Connecticut, and soon, one of our colleagues from Maine isa Republican. The fact of the matter is,this is geographic in nature of wherethe hurt is going to be felt, and it isnonpartisan in terms of people tryingto help their constituencies and get-ting the President to do the rightthing.

b 1715We should not politicize this. We

should understand that we have to askevery oil producer, whether they aredomestic or foreign in nature, to stepup to the plate and produce some moreoil. They can do that, and it is abouttime that they step forward and dothat, but also understand that the Re-publican party has a responsibilityhere. It is that party that has been pro-hibiting the President from having theflexibility he needs because they havenot reauthorized the strategic reserveclauses of the act that need to be dealtwith.

There is no excuse for that. Theyhave let it lapse most recently inMarch, right in the middle of this oilsituation, and that is just not respon-sible.

They have still yet to put the author-ization language in for the Northeastreserve. We have made the appropria-tions on that. A responsible govern-ment would make sure that we havethe authority in the President to re-lease the Strategic Petroleum Reserveas and when needed in small amounts.

That would be far more responsiblethan what was done by the Republicanmajority in 1996 and 1997. At that pointin time they did not swap what was inthe Strategic Petroleum Reserve, theysold it, about $227 million dollars in1996 for the sense of bringing down partof the deficit, and about $227 million in1997 to pay for some other appropria-tions that they wanted to pay for. Theysold it, they did not swap it.

In fact, last year when we on theDemocratic side wanted to have thePresident get authority to buy 10 mil-lion more barrels, that was shot downby our friends on the Republican side.So we could have been increasing theStrategic Petroleum Reserve at an in-terim at a low price when it was downto $10 or $12 a barrel, and that was re-jected.

This is the same group that on occa-sion has voted to get rid of the Depart-ment of Energy, and along with it anyStrategic Petroleum Reserve at all,and now for political reasons they aresaying, gee, it is a national securityissue that we are going to swap some.Unlike them, the President was notgoing to sell it, he was going to swapit.

As a consequence of that, we are ac-tually going to get 11⁄2 million morebarrels back a year from now than itwas actually swapped out in the in-terim period, so we are going to havean increase in the Strategic PetroleumReserve that our friends on the otherside of the aisle wanted to eliminatealtogether.

So if they really want to talk aboutsecurity, let us do the sensible thinghere and support the President’s ac-tion. Let us make sure people in themid-Atlantic States and Northeast andelsewhere that might be really jeopard-ized by the severe cold winter, makesure that the supply is there, makesure we are doing everything we can

do; and most notably, for those thathave low incomes, make sure theLIHEAP monies get out to people, justas the President has done, so they canfill their tanks while it is lower andmake sure they have the best possibleopportunity to weather this winter.

I thank my colleague, the gentlemanfrom New Jersey, for taking the timeand giving me the time to address thissure. The record must be set straight:This is not about politics, this is aboutpeople’s health and safety, as well asour Nation’s security.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman, because I think what heis pointing out, and the Democratshave all been pointing out this after-noon, is that we are just trying to ad-dress the problems that the averageperson faces leading into the wintermonths.

It was really encouraging to see thaton our side of the aisle, on the Demo-cratic side, we started off this after-noon with two colleagues from Texas.We might think, why do they careabout the Northeast? But they obvi-ously do. They both said very emphati-cally how important it was to try toaddress the price issue and set up theNortheast Petroleum Reserve, which Iknow the gentleman and other Mem-bers from the Massachusetts delegationhave been very much involved with.

That is what this is all about. That iswhat the President and the Vice Presi-dent, they represent the whole countryand they have to worry about peopleall over the country. I just think it iscommendable that we are here express-ing that concern, and we have col-leagues on the Republican side saying,oh, no, that is not the way to go.

Mr. TIERNEY. If the gentleman willyield, Mr. Speaker, during our com-mittee hearings we also heard a lot oftalk about the fact, whether or not thisoil could be processed, that refinerieswere running at capacity and what-ever.

What we found out is that that wasjust more rhetoric, also. The refineriesgenerally run at 95 percent, 96 percent,during the months just past. Thenthere is a retooling period, and in ourfavor, just at the end of this month,that will be over and they would bedown to a capacity of 90 or 91 percent,which they can then kick back up to95, 96 percent, to get out this homeheating oil.

That is a circumstance working inour favor. In fact, people within the in-dustry are welcoming this. The Depart-ment of Energy has been talking withpeople within the industry. Oddlyenough, they also understand thatthere is a situation out there thatneeds to be addressed and they are co-operating. So that is another reason totake it out of the political realm andleave it in the realm of people’s secu-rity, safety, and health.

Hopefully we will have that sort ofdiscussion, and not the sort of rhetoricthat has been going around.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate the gen-tleman’s comments. Of course, I have


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8921October 5, 2000been talking about the lack of a GOPenergy policy, but I could just mentionbriefly here for maybe a few minutes orso that the administration, the Clin-ton-Gore administration, for the last 7years has been trying to get the Con-gress to enact a really positive energypolicy. Of course, for 6 of those 7 yearsthey have had to deal with the Repub-lican leadership that has simply notbeen willing to adopt it.

Just to give an example, because Ikeep hearing the Republicans sayingthey want to open up ANWR, theywant to do drilling offshore, but earlierthis year when we passed an appropria-tions bill in the House, the Presidenthad come forward with his budget pro-posing major initiatives for energy effi-ciency, energy conservation, alter-native sources of energy.

The House bill that passed, the Houseappropriations bill that passed I guessin July or so, had $201 million less thanthe President’s request with regard toenergy conservation and $71 millionbelow the existing appropriations levelfor energy conservation. This was at atime when we were already starting toexperience higher prices and less abil-ity to get foreign oil from OPEC.

Just to give an idea of these cuts andhow they cut what the President hadproposed, it was a $143 million cut, acomplete elimination of applied re-search and development at the Depart-ment of Energy for certain conserva-tion programs. They canceled 400 R&Dprojects in 33 States by 15 Federal labs,22 universities, and others. There was a$14 million cut in the Low-incomeHome Weatherization Assistance Pro-gram, which would mean about 7,000fewer low-income families would havetheir energy bills reduced. There was a$2 million cut from industrial co-gen-eration, which funds R&D.

Then, in that appropriations bill,there was $67 million less than thePresident’s request for solar and re-newable energy. There were cuts in bio-mass fuels and biopower R&D, reduc-tions in solar electricity R&D, cuts inR&D for wind power, which if ade-quately funded would be competitivejust within a few years.

I could go on and on here, and I willnot because I am running out of time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, if thegentleman would yield before he runsout of his time, when I hear peoplestart to politicize this and say that itis a national security issue to swap oilout of the Strategic Petroleum Re-serve, one thing we have to remind peo-ple is that it is a swap, and the oil willcome back with additional oil.

Secondly, the very people who aremaking that acquisition now are thepeople who in 1995 filed a bill that wasknown as H.R. 1649, the Department ofEnergy Abolishment Act.

As part of that act, it would ask toeliminate the reserve totally and selloff 571 million barrels of oil. Now, thereare 35 people on the other side of theaisle that signed onto that, includingthree of the very highest members of

their leadership, who are the same peo-ple now who have the audacity to go onthe floor or elsewhere and start to saythat a swap is somehow affecting na-tional security.

So not only is it totally wrong and itis not affecting national security inany adverse way, and it is what our al-lies and what other foreign countriesthink is a good thing to do, as well asbusiness and others, but it is abso-lutely contradictory to their past be-havior and their past comments.

I think the public can pretty muchget in line as to whether people areacting as statesmen or politicianswhen they make assertions like that. Iam going to let it go at that messageand defer back to you, but I think it isimportant for people to know that thiswas a good move. People in the North-east and New England, and Massachu-setts in particular, are very pleasedthat the LIHEAP money has gotten re-lieved. Our people and low-income sen-iors will have that relief.

We are pleased there is a Northeastreserve being set up so the gap can beaddressed, and hopefully keep the sup-ply up and the prices somewhere withinthe stratosphere. We are very pleasedthat the President indicated he wasgoing to release from the Strategic Pe-troleum Reserve, and already we haveseen the prices drop on that, except fora slight rebound when Members on theother side of the aisle indicated theywould try to block it.

The psychological effect, already amonth before it hits the market, hasshown it is bringing prices down. Thatis going to help our seniors, people inour districts generally, and our smallbusinesses, who cannot stand the kindof high prices that are going on andstill be productive and get their busi-ness done in a way to support theirfamilies.

Again, I thank the gentleman for al-lowing me to address this on the floor.I think it is important to get this in-formation out.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for coming down andjoining us during this time.

I think we have a couple of minutesleft, so I would just like to point out,Mr. Speaker, that all the Democratsare really asking is that instead of try-ing to reverse the positive steps thatthe administration is taking and mak-ing these false accusations, that theGOP adopt a sound energy policy andpass the measures that the Democratshave been advocating and that havebeen proposed by the Clinton and Goreadministration in its budget request.

Above all, we should be imple-menting measures that sustain ournatural resources, practical measuresthat would conserve energy, promoteour long-term energy security, and pro-mote international competitivenessand alternative energy resources, allwithout sacrificing our economicgrowth.

For example, before we adjourn, theGOP leadership should pass the admin-

istration’s request for funding and taxincentives for energy efficiency and re-newable energy measures, efficient en-ergy research and development, weath-erization, and alternative fuel vehiclesand mass transit.

I also urge my colleagues on theother side of the aisle to pass legisla-tion banning the export of Alaskan oil.Earlier last week, one of my colleagueson the Democratic side introduced abill promoting wind energy. This is thekind of creative thinking we need toreduce our dependence on domestic andforeign fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, the Republican ma-jority has done the opposite. It hasvastly underfunded programs for thepast 6 years that my Democratic col-leagues and I and President Clintonand Vice President GORE have pro-moted, programs that would have con-served energy and prevented the situa-tion we now face.

The Republican majority has an op-portunity in the waning days of theCongress, we have a couple of weeksleft, to reverse their course and help uspass sound legislation to avert an evengreater energy crisis this winter. Iwould certainly urge them to do so.

f

FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THESENATE

A message from the Senate by Mr.Lundregan, one of its clerks, an-nounced that the Senate agrees to thereport of the committee of conferenceon the disagreeing votes of the twoHouses on the amendment of the Sen-ate to the bill (H.R. 4578) ‘‘An Act mak-ing appropriations for the Departmentof the Interior and related agencies forthe fiscal year ending September 30,2001, and for other purposes.’’

f

ISSUES REGARDING OIL PRODUC-TION AND CONDITIONS IN RURALAMERICAThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gen-tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. PETER-SON) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr.Speaker, I came down here to talkabout rural issues, but I feel a littlecompelled to talk a little bit aboutwhat was just discussed.

I come from Pennsylvania, and infact 5 miles from my home the first oilwell in America was drilled, Drake’swell. So I come from an area where mydistrict had four refineries, we onlyhave three now, but an area that hasbeen in the oil business since it start-ed. It is where all the major oil compa-nies in America started, in westernPennsylvania, because that is the firstoil field that was developed.

It is interesting to talk to peopleabout these simple ways to fix thisproblem when it is obvious they havenever been in a refinery and they cer-tainly do not understand the oil busi-ness.

I am going to just back up a little bitand talk about the problem we have


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8922 October 5, 2000with oil going from $10 to $35 a barrel.It is because we have been 1 million ormore barrels short per day in our vol-ume that is necessary, so we are gradu-ally creating a shortage. When we havea shortage in the marketplace, wedrive the price up.

We still have a shortage in the mar-ketplace. We are still not importingand domestically producing enough oilto build up a supply.

Normally, in the spring, refinerieshave all of these tank farms full of gas-oline because they cannot produceenough gasoline in the summertime forus to drive our cars as much as we do,so they build those supplies.

In the summertime and in the fall,they build up the supplies of homeheating oil, and they have this reserve.This country is way behind. All the re-fineries are way behind in building upjust the normal stocks that they needfor this winter for home heating.

Now, we are talking about instantlystarting a reserve for New England. InPennsylvania, a number of years agowhen we had the first energy crisis, wehad reserves. We had oil and gasolineand fuel oil set aside. Then it was allo-cated. That is what they are talkingabout to help themselves in New Eng-land when the pipeline is only half full,and it needs to be full to have enoughto do the winter. If we put some in aset-aside reserve, we cause a shortage.

I remember when I argued with ourDepartment of Energy in Pennsylvaniabecause we were having this problemevery year, and I spent half of my timehelping people get fuel oil or gasolinefor the gas stations.

I said, I think we are close enough involume now where if you would nothave anything in reserve this year, thesystem would work. And we argued forweeks. Finally they did that, and wedid not have any problem that year.

But the problem we have now, nomatter what we do, the refineries inAmerica cannot fill those tanks to sup-ply us, and especially if we have a coldwinter, we really are in a dilemma.They run at 96 to 97 percent capacity,so there is not much room to refinemore than they are refining.

What people do not realize, my sonworks in a refinery. He is an elec-trician in a refinery. They are gettingready for a 4- or 8-week shutdownwhere they stop refining. They have todo this to different parts of the refin-ery annually, and sometimes twice ayear, because the refinery runs at suchhigh temperatures, such high pres-sures, certain pipes and valves andthings all have to be replaced every somany months.

b 1730So they shut the refinery down and

rebuilt all those lines and rebuilt allthose things so that it is safe. Other-wise, these lines would wear out fromheat and pressure, and the refinerywould blow up. They are a very dan-gerous facility.

So refineries have to shut down forweeks and months and sometimes 2months at a time. It depends on if it isa minor overhaul or major overhaul,

and they just have to do it. Some ofthe shortages that we have had is whenwe have had refineries down longerthan they anticipated.

I can remember when my son saidthey were going to have a 4-week shut-down, and they ended up with a 6-weekshutdown because they had problemsthey did not realize they had.

So this is not a simple process. Sud-denly saying we are going to set someoil aside for New England could actu-ally cause us a national shortage thatwould double the price. So I thinkthose from New England ought tothink carefully that we need to fill thepipeline of oil that we refine, we needto get some more normal reserves thatwe historically have had before westart setting some aside for any onepart of the country. It is not a simpleissue.

I also was a little amused. I am notgoing to say that wind does not havesome potential in a few parts of thecountry. We spent billions on wind. Wehave not had much progress. The re-searchers have told me they have justabout researched wind to death.

I heard a speaker last year that saidif we built windmills, the latest type ofwindmills, a mile wide from coast tocoast, that would be 3,000 miles ofwindmills a mile wide. Now think ofthe imprint that makes on the land-scape. Think of the environmental im-pact statement one would have to getto do that. We would produce 11 per-cent of our electricity.

Is it the answer to our future energyneeds? No, I do not think wind willever be. It is not dependable. So manyparts of the country, one just cannotcount on it. One cannot store it whenone has it. It is not a resource that wecan count on. So I think to pour a lotof money in wind is throwing themoney to the wind from my point ofview.

I do have to say that those who aresuddenly trying to say the Republicansare the cause of high oil prices in thiscountry, I was one a couple years agothat said $10 oil will destroy our coun-try’s ability to produce its own oil. InPennsylvania, most of the producershave gone broke. In Texas and Okla-homa, many of the producers wentbroke.

Mr. Speaker, $10 oil destroyed our oilinfrastructure; and because of that, onejust cannot turn the spigot on. We haveto find ways to get them the resourcesthey need so they can rebuild, becausea lot of them went broke with $10 oil;and the infrastructure is no longer inplace. It is not a simple issue.

f

RECESSThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-

ant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair de-clares the House in recess subject tothe call of the Chair.

Accordingly (at 5 o’clock and 32 min-utes p.m.), the House stood in recesssubject to the call of the Chair.

f

b 2138AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the Housewas called to order by the Speaker pro

tempore (Mr. DREIER) at 9 o’clock and38 minutes p.m.

f

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4475,DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR-TATION AND RELATED AGEN-CIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

Mr. YOUNG of Florida submitted thefollowing conference report on the bill(H.R. 4475) making appropriations forthe Department of Transportation andrelated agencies for the fiscal year end-ing September 30, 2001, and for otherpurposes:

CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 106–940)

The committee of conference on the dis-agreeing votes of the two Houses on theamendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.4475) ‘‘making appropriations for the Depart-ment of Transportation and related agenciesfor the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001,and for other purposes’’, having met, afterfull and free conference, have agreed to rec-ommend and do recommend to their respec-tive Houses as follows:

That the House recede from its disagree-ment to the amendment of the Senate, andagree to the same with an amendment, asfollows:

In lieu of the matter stricken and insertedby said amendment, insert: That the followingsums are appropriated, out of any money in theTreasury not otherwise appropriated, for theDepartment of Transportation and related agen-cies for the fiscal year ending September 30,2001, and for other purposes, namely:

Section 101. (a) The provisions of the fol-lowing bill are hereby enacted into law, H.R.5394 of the 106th Congress, as introduced on Oc-tober 5, 2000.

(b) In publishing the Act in slip form and inthe United States Statutes at Large pursuant tosection 112, of title 1, United States Code, theArchivist of the United States shall include afterthe date of approval at the end an appendix set-ting forth the text of the bill referred to in sub-section (a) of this section.

And the Senate agree to the same.FRANK R. WOLF,TOM DELAY,RALPH REGULA,HAROLD ROGERS,RON PACKARD,SONNY CALLAHAN,TODD TIAHRT,ROBERT B. ADERHOLT,KAY GRANGER,C.W. BILL YOUNG,MARTIN OLAV SABO

(except for provisionsto withhold high-way funds fromstates that do notadopt 0.08 blood al-cohol concentra-tion laws),

JOHN W. OLVER,ED PASTOR,CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK


JOSE´

E. SERRANO,MICHAEL P. FORBES,DAVID R. OBEY (with

exception to denial offunds to states without0.08 BAC),



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8923October 5, 2000RICHARD C. SHELBY,PETE V. DOMENICI,ARLEN SPECTER,CHRISTOPHER S. BOND,SLADE GORTON,ROBERT F. BENNETT,BEN NIGHTHORSE

CAMPBELL,TED STEVENS,FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,ROBERT C. BYRD,BARBARA A. MIKULSKI,HARRY REID,HERB KOHL,PATTY MURRAY,DANIEL K. INOUYE,

Managers on the Part of the Senate.

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OFTHE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE

The mangers on the part of the House ofRepresentatives and the Senate at the con-ference on the disagreeing votes of the twoHouses on the amendment of the Senate tothe bill (H.R. 4475) making appropriations forthe Department of Transportation and re-lated agencies for the fiscal year ending Sep-tember 30, 2001, and for other purposes, sub-mit the following joint statement to theHouse of Representatives and the Senate inexplanation of the effect of the action agreedupon by the managers and recommended inthe accompanying conference report.

The Senate deleted the entire House billafter the enacting clause and inserted theSenate bill.

The conference agreement would enact theprovisions of H.R. 5394 as introduced on Octo-ber 5, 2000. The text of that bill follows:

A BILL Making appropriations for the De-partment of Transportation and relatedagencies for the fiscal year ending Sep-tember 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled, That the following sumsare appropriated, out of any money in theTreasury not otherwise appropriated, for theDepartment of Transportation and related agen-cies for the fiscal year ending September 30,2001, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For necessary expenses of the Office of theSecretary, $63,245,000: Provided, That not morethan 52 percent of the funds made availableunder this heading shall be obligated and notmore than 224 full time equivalent staff yearsfunded through the end of the second quarter offiscal year 2001: Provided further, That funds inexcess of 52 percent and 224 full time equivalentstaff years shall be available only if the Sec-retary transmits a request to the House and Sen-ate Committees on Appropriations for these ad-ditional funds: Provided further, That not to ex-ceed $60,000 for allocation within the Depart-ment for official reception and representationexpenses as the Secretary may determine: Pro-vided further, That not more than $15,000 of theofficial reception and representation funds shallbe available for obligation prior to January 20,2001.

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

For necessary expenses of the Office of CivilRights, $8,140,000.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, ANDDEVELOPMENT

For necessary expenses for conducting trans-portation planning, research, systems develop-ment, development activities, and makinggrants, to remain available until expended,$11,000,000.

TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICECENTER

Necessary expenses for operating costs andcapital outlays of the Transportation Adminis-trative Service Center, not to exceed$126,887,000, shall be paid from appropriationsmade available to the Department of Transpor-tation: Provided, That such services shall beprovided on a competitive basis to entities with-in the Department of Transportation: Providedfurther, That the above limitation on operatingexpenses shall not apply to non-DOT entities:Provided further, That no funds appropriated inthis Act to an agency of the Department shall betransferred to the Transportation Administra-tive Service Center without the approval of theagency modal administrator: Provided further,That no assessments may be levied against anyprogram, budget activity, subactivity or projectfunded by this Act unless notice of such assess-ments and the basis therefor are presented tothe House and Senate Committees on Appropria-tions and are approved by such Committees.

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTERPROGRAM

For the cost of guaranteed loans, $1,500,000,as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 332: Provided, Thatsuch costs, including the cost of modifying suchloans, shall be as defined in section 502 of theCongressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided fur-ther, That these funds are available to subsidizetotal loan principal, any part of which is to beguaranteed, not to exceed $13,775,000. In addi-tion, for administrative expenses to carry outthe guaranteed loan program, $400,000.

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

For necessary expenses of Minority BusinessResource Center outreach activities, $3,000,000,of which $2,635,000 shall remain available untilSeptember 30, 2002: Provided, That notwith-standing 49 U.S.C. 332, these funds may be usedfor business opportunities related to any modeof transportation.

COAST GUARDOPERATING EXPENSES

For necessary expenses for the operation andmaintenance of the Coast Guard, not otherwiseprovided for; purchase of not to exceed five pas-senger motor vehicles for replacement only; pay-ments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97–377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and sec-tion 229(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.429(b)); and recreation and welfare,$3,192,000,000, of which $341,000,000 shall beavailable for defense-related activities; and ofwhich $25,000,000 shall be derived from the OilSpill Liability Trust Fund: Provided, That noneof the funds appropriated in this or any otherAct shall be available for pay for administrativeexpenses in connection with shipping commis-sioners in the United States: Provided further,That none of the funds provided in this Actshall be available for expenses incurred foryacht documentation under 46 U.S.C. 12109, ex-cept to the extent fees are collected from yachtowners and credited to this appropriation: Pro-vided further, That none of the funds in thisAct shall be available for the Coast Guard toplan, finalize, or implement any regulation thatwould promulgate new maritime user fees notspecifically authorized by law after the date ofthe enactment of this Act.

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, ANDIMPROVEMENTS

For necessary expenses of acquisition, con-struction, renovation, and improvement of aidsto navigation, shore facilities, vessels, and air-craft, including equipment related thereto,$415,000,000, of which $20,000,000 shall be de-rived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; ofwhich $156,450,000 shall be available to acquire,repair, renovate or improve vessels, small boatsand related equipment, to remain available untilSeptember 30, 2005; $37,650,000 shall be availableto acquire new aircraft and increase aviation

capability, to remain available until September30, 2003; $60,113,000 shall be available for otherequipment, to remain available until September30, 2003; $63,336,000 shall be available for shorefacilities and aids to navigation facilities, to re-main available until September 30, 2003;$55,151,000 shall be available for personnel com-pensation and benefits and related costs, to re-main available until September 30, 2002; and$42,300,000 for the Integrated Deepwater Sys-tems program, to remain available until Sep-tember 30, 2003: Provided, That the Com-mandant of the Coast Guard is authorized todispose of surplus real property, by sale or lease,and the proceeds shall be credited to this appro-priation as offsetting collections and madeavailable only for the National Distress and Re-sponse System Modernization program, to re-main available for obligation until September 30,2003: Provided further, That upon initial sub-mission to the Congress of the fiscal year 2002President’s budget, the Secretary of Transpor-tation shall transmit to the Congress a com-prehensive capital investment plan for theUnited States Coast Guard which includes fund-ing for each budget line item for fiscal years2002 through 2006, with total funding for eachyear of the plan constrained to the funding tar-gets for those years as estimated and approvedby the Office of Management and Budget: Pro-vided further, That the amount herein appro-priated shall be reduced by $100,000 per day foreach day after initial submission of the Presi-dent’s budget that the plan has not been sub-mitted to the Congress: Provided further, Thatthe Commandant shall transfer $5,800,000 to theCity of Homer, Alaska, for the construction of amunicipal pier and other harbor improvements,contingent upon the City of Homer entering intoan agreement with the United States to accom-modate Coast Guard vessels and to supportCoast Guard operations at Homer, Alaska.ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

For necessary expenses to carry out the CoastGuard’s environmental compliance and restora-tion functions under chapter 19 of title 14,United States Code, $16,700,000, to remain avail-able until expended.

ALTERATION OF BRIDGES

For necessary expenses for alteration or re-moval of obstructive bridges, $15,500,000, to re-main available until expended.

RETIRED PAY

For retired pay, including the payment of ob-ligations therefor otherwise chargeable to lapsedappropriations for this purpose, and paymentsunder the Retired Serviceman’s Family Protec-tion and Survivor Benefits Plans, and for pay-ments for medical care of retired personnel andtheir dependents under the Dependents MedicalCare Act (10 U.S.C. ch. 55), $778,000,000.

RESERVE TRAINING

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For all necessary expenses of the Coast GuardReserve, as authorized by law; maintenance andoperation of facilities; and supplies, equipment,and services, $80,375,000: Provided, That nomore than $22,000,000 of funds made availableunder this heading may be transferred to CoastGuard ‘‘Operating expenses’’ or otherwise madeavailable to reimburse the Coast Guard for fi-nancial support of the Coast Guard Reserve:Provided further, That none of the funds in thisAct may be used by the Coast Guard to assessdirect charges on the Coast Guard Reserves foritems or activities which were not so chargedduring fiscal year 1997.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, ANDEVALUATION

For necessary expenses, not otherwise pro-vided for, for applied scientific research, devel-opment, test, and evaluation; maintenance, re-habilitation, lease and operation of facilitiesand equipment, as authorized by law,$21,320,000, to remain available until expended,


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8924 October 5, 2000of which $3,500,000 shall be derived from the OilSpill Liability Trust Fund: Provided, That theremay be credited to and used for the purposes ofthis appropriation funds received from Stateand local governments, other public authorities,private sources, and foreign countries, for ex-penses incurred for research, development, test-ing, and evaluation.

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATIONOPERATIONS

For necessary expenses of the Federal Avia-tion Administration, not otherwise provided for,including operations and research activities re-lated to commercial space transportation, ad-ministrative expenses for research and develop-ment, establishment of air navigation facilities,the operation (including leasing) and mainte-nance of aircraft, subsidizing the cost of aero-nautical charts and maps sold to the public,lease or purchase of passenger motor vehicles forreplacement only, in addition to amounts madeavailable by Public Law 104–264, $6,544,235,000,of which $4,414,869,000 shall be derived from theAirport and Airway Trust Fund, of which$5,200,274,000 shall be available for air trafficservices program activities; $694,979,000 shall beavailable for aviation regulation and certifi-cation program activities; $139,301,400 shall beavailable for civil aviation security program ac-tivities; $189,988,000 shall be available for re-search and acquisition program activities;$12,000,000 shall be available for commercialspace transportation program activities;$48,443,600 shall be available for Financial Serv-ices program activities; $54,864,000 shall beavailable for Human Resources program activi-ties; $99,347,000 shall be available for RegionalCoordination program activities; and$105,038,000 shall be available for Staff Officesprogram activities: Provided, That none of thefunds in this Act shall be available for the Fed-eral Aviation Administration to plan, finalize,or implement any regulation that would promul-gate new aviation user fees not specifically au-thorized by law after the date of the enactmentof this Act: Provided further, That there may becredited to this appropriation funds receivedfrom States, counties, municipalities, foreign au-thorities, other public authorities, and privatesources, for expenses incurred in the provisionof agency services, including receipts for themaintenance and operation of air navigation fa-cilities, and for issuance, renewal or modifica-tion of certificates, including airman, aircraft,and repair station certificates, or for tests re-lated thereto, or for processing major repair oralteration forms: Provided further, That of thefunds appropriated under this heading, not lessthan $5,000,000 shall be for the contract towercost-sharing program and not less than $750,000shall be for the Centennial of Flight Commis-sion: Provided further, That funds may be usedto enter into a grant agreement with a nonprofitstandard-setting organization to assist in thedevelopment of aviation safety standards: Pro-vided further, That none of the funds in thisAct shall be available for new applicants for thesecond career training program: Provided fur-ther, That none of the funds in this Act shall beavailable for paying premium pay under 5U.S.C. 5546(a) to any Federal Aviation Adminis-tration employee unless such employee actuallyperformed work during the time correspondingto such premium pay: Provided further, Thatnone of the funds in this Act may be obligatedor expended to operate a manned auxiliaryflight service station in the contiguous UnitedStates: Provided further, That none of the fundsin this Act may be used for the Federal AviationAdministration to enter into a multiyear leasegreater than 5 years in length or greater than$100,000,000 in value unless such lease is specifi-cally authorized by the Congress and appropria-tions have been provided to fully cover the Fed-eral Government’s contingent liabilities: Pro-vided further, That none of the funds in thisAct for aeronautical charting and cartography

are available for activities conducted by, or co-ordinated through, the Transportation Adminis-trative Service Center.

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

For necessary expenses, not otherwise pro-vided for, for acquisition, establishment, and im-provement by contract or purchase, and hire ofair navigation and experimental facilities andequipment as authorized under part A of sub-title VII of title 49, United States Code, includ-ing initial acquisition of necessary sites by leaseor grant; engineering and service testing, in-cluding construction of test facilities and acqui-sition of necessary sites by lease or grant; andconstruction and furnishing of quarters and re-lated accommodations for officers and employeesof the Federal Aviation Administration sta-tioned at remote localities where such accom-modations are not available; and the purchase,lease, or transfer of aircraft from funds avail-able under this head; to be derived from the Air-port and Airway Trust Fund, $2,656,765,000, ofwhich $2,334,112,400 shall remain available untilSeptember 30, 2003, and of which $322,652,600shall remain available until September 30, 2001:Provided, That there may be credited to this ap-propriation funds received from States, counties,municipalities, other public authorities, and pri-vate sources, for expenses incurred in the estab-lishment and modernization of air navigationfacilities: Provided further, That upon initialsubmission to the Congress of the fiscal year2002 President’s budget, the Secretary of Trans-portation shall transmit to the Congress a com-prehensive capital investment plan for the Fed-eral Aviation Administration which includesfunding for each budget line item for fiscalyears 2002 through 2006, with total funding foreach year of the plan constrained to the fund-ing targets for those years as estimated and ap-proved by the Office of Management and Budg-et: Provided further, That the amount hereinappropriated shall be reduced by $100,000 perday for each day after initial submission of thePresident’s budget that the plan has not beensubmitted to the Congress: Provided further,That none of the funds in this Act may be usedfor the Federal Aviation Administration to enterinto a capital lease agreement unless appropria-tions have been provided to fully cover the Fed-eral Government’s contingent liabilities at thetime the lease agreement is signed.

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT


For necessary expenses, not otherwise pro-vided for, for research, engineering, and devel-opment, as authorized under part A of subtitleVII of title 49, United States Code, includingconstruction of experimental facilities and ac-quisition of necessary sites by lease or grant,$187,000,000, to be derived from the Airport andAirway Trust Fund and to remain availableuntil September 30, 2003: Provided, That theremay be credited to this appropriation funds re-ceived from States, counties, municipalities,other public authorities, and private sources, forexpenses incurred for research, engineering, anddevelopment.

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)


For liquidation of obligations incurred forgrants-in-aid for airport planning and develop-ment, and noise compatibility planning and pro-grams as authorized under subchapter I ofchapter 471 and subchapter I of chapter 475 oftitle 49, United States Code, and under otherlaw authorizing such obligations; for adminis-tration of such programs; for administration ofprograms under section 40117; for procurement,installation, and commissioning of runway in-cursion prevention devices and systems at air-ports; and for inspection activities and adminis-

tration of airport safety programs, includingthose related to airport operating certificatesunder section 44706 of title 49, United StatesCode, $3,200,000,000, to be derived from the Air-port and Airway Trust Fund and to remainavailable until expended: Provided, That noneof the funds under this heading shall be avail-able for the planning or execution of programsthe obligations for which are in excess of$3,200,000,000 in fiscal year 2001, notwith-standing section 47117(h) of title 49, UnitedStates Code: Provided further, That notwith-standing any other provision of law, not morethan $53,000,000 of funds limited under thisheading shall be obligated for administration.



(RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)Of the unobligated balances authorized under

49 U.S.C. 48103, as amended, $579,000,000 are re-scinded.

AVIATION INSURANCE REVOLVING FUND

The Secretary of Transportation is hereby au-thorized to make such expenditures and invest-ments, within the limits of funds available pur-suant to 49 U.S.C. 44307, and in accordancewith section 104 of the Government CorporationControl Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), asmay be necessary in carrying out the programfor aviation insurance activities under chapter443 of title 49, United States Code.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIONLIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Necessary expenses for administration and op-eration of the Federal Highway Administrationnot to exceed $295,119,000 shall be paid in ac-cordance with law from appropriations madeavailable by this Act to the Federal HighwayAdministration together with advances and re-imbursements received by the Federal HighwayAdministration: Provided, That of the fundsavailable under section 104(a) of title 23, UnitedStates Code: $4,000,000 shall be available forCommercial Remote Sensing Products and Spa-tial Information Technologies under section 5113of Public Law 105–178, as amended; $10,000,000shall be available for the National Historic Cov-ered Bridge Preservation Program under section1224 of Public Law 105–178, as amended;$5,000,000 shall be available for the constructionand improvement of the Alabama State Docks,and shall remain available until expended;$10,000,000 shall be available to Auburn Univer-sity for research activities at the Center forTransportation Technology and to construct abuilding to house the center, and shall remainavailable until expended; $7,500,000 shall beavailable for ‘‘Child Passenger Protection Edu-cation Grants’’ under section 2003(b) of PublicLaw 105–178, as amended; and $25,000,000 shallbe available for the Transportation and Commu-nity and System Preservation Program undersection 1221 of Public Law 105–178, as amended.

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS


(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)None of the funds in this Act shall be avail-

able for the implementation or execution of pro-grams, the obligations for which are in excess of$29,661,806,000 for Federal-aid highways andhighway safety construction programs for fiscalyear 2001: Provided, That within the$29,661,806,000 obligation limitation on Federal-aid highways and highway safety constructionprograms, not more than $437,250,000 shall beavailable for the implementation or execution ofprograms for transportation research (sections502, 503, 504, 506, 507, and 508 of title 23, UnitedStates Code, as amended; section 5505 of title 49,United States Code, as amended; and sections5112 and 5204–5209 of Public Law 105–178) forfiscal year 2001; not more than $25,000,000 shallbe available for the implementation or executionof programs for the Magnetic Levitation Trans-portation Technology Deployment Program (sec-tion 1218 of Public Law 105–178) for fiscal year


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8925October 5, 20002001, of which not to exceed $1,000,000 shall beavailable to the Federal Railroad Administra-tion for administrative expenses and technicalassistance in connection with such program, ofwhich not to exceed $1,500,000 shall be availableto the Federal Railroad Administration for‘‘Safety and operations’’, and, notwithstandingsection 1218(c)(4) of Public Law 105–178, ofwhich $1,000,000 shall be available for low speedmagnetic levitation research and development;not more than $31,000,000 shall be available forthe implementation or execution of programs forthe Bureau of Transportation Statistics (section111 of title 49, United States Code) for fiscalyear 2001: Provided further, That within the$218,000,000 obligation limitation on IntelligentTransportation Systems, the following sumsshall be made available for Intelligent Transpor-tation System projects in the following specifiedareas:

State of Alaska, $2,350,000;Alameda-Contra Costa, California, $500,000;Aquidneck Island, Rhode Island, $500,000;Austin, Texas, $250,000;Automated crash notification system, UAB,

$1,000,000;Baton Rouge, Louisiana, $1,000,000;Bay County, Florida, $1,500,000;Beaumont, Texas, $150,000;Bellingham, Washington, $350,000;Bloomington Township, Illinois, $400,000;Calhoun County, Michigan, $750,000;Carbondale, Pennsylvania, $2,000,000;Cargo Mate, New Jersey, $750,000;Charlotte, North Carolina, $625,000;College Station, Texas, $1,800,000;Commonwealth of Virginia, $5,500,000;Corpus Christi, Texas (vehicle dispatching),

$1,000,000;Delaware River Port Authority, $1,250,000;DuPage County, Illinois, $500,000;Fargo, North Dakota, $1,000,000;Fort Collins, Colorado, $1,250,000;Hattiesburg, Mississippi, $500,000;Huntington Beach, California, $1,250,000;Huntsville, Alabama, $3,000,000;I–70 West project, Colorado, $750,000;Inglewood, California, $600,000;Jackson, Mississippi, $1,000,000;Jefferson County, Colorado, $4,250,000;Johnsonburg, Pennsylvania, $1,500,000;Kansas City, Missouri, $1,250,000;Lake County, Illinois, $450,000;Lewis & Clark Trail, Montana, $625,000;Montgomery County, Pennsylvania,

$2,000,000;Moscow, Idaho, $875,000;Muscle Shoals, Alabama, $1,000,000;Nashville, Tennessee, $500,000;New Jersey regional integration/TRANSCOM,

$3,000,000;North Central Pennsylvania, $750,000;North Las Vegas, Nevada, $1,800,000;Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs, California,

$500,000;Oakland and Wayne Counties, Michigan,

$1,500,000;Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission,

$1,500,000;Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, $500,000;Puget Sound regional fare collection, Wash-

ington, $2,500,000;Rensselaer County, New York, $500,000;Rochester, New York, $1,500,000;Sacramento County, California, $875,000;Sacramento to Reno, I–80 corridor, $100,000;Sacramento, California, $500,000;Salt Lake City (Olympic Games), Utah,

$1,000,000;San Antonio, Texas, $100,000;Santa Teresa, New Mexico, $500,000;Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, $400,000;Seabrook, Texas, $1,200,000;Shreveport, Louisiana, $1,000,000;South Dakota commercial vehicle, ITS,

$1,250,000;Southeast Michigan, $500,000;Southhaven, Mississippi, $150,000;

Spokane County, Washington, $1,000,000;Springfield-Branson, Missouri, $750,000;St. Louis, Missouri, $500,000;State of Arizona, $1,000,000;State of Connecticut, $3,000,000;State of Delaware, $1,000,000;State of Illinois, $1,000,000;State of Indiana (SAFE–T), $1,000,000;State of Iowa (traffic enforcement and tran-

sit), $2,750,000;State of Kentucky, $1,500,000;State of Maryland, $3,000,000;State of Minnesota, $6,500,000;State of Missouri (rural), $750,000;State of Montana, $750,000;State of Nebraska, $2,600,000;State of New Mexico, $750,000;State of North Carolina, $1,500,000;State of North Dakota, $500,000;State of Ohio, $2,000,000;State of Oklahoma, $1,000,000;State of Oregon, $750,000;State of South Carolina statewide, $2,000,000;State of Tennessee, $1,850,000;State of Utah, $1,500,000;State of Vermont, $500,000;State of Wisconsin, $1,000,000;Texas border phase I, Houston, Texas,

$500,000;Tuscaloosa, Alabama, $2,000,000;Tuscon, Arizona, $1,250,000;Vermont rural ITS, $1,500,000;Washington, DC area, $1,250,000;Washoe County, Nevada, $200,000;Wayne County, Michigan, $5,000,000;Williamson County/Round Rock, Texas,

$250,000:Provided further, That, notwithstanding PublicLaw 105–178, as amended, funds authorizedunder section 110 of title 23, United States Code,for fiscal year 2001 shall be apportioned basedon each State’s percentage share of funding pro-vided for under section 105 of title 23, UnitedStates Code, for fiscal year 2001, except that be-fore such apportionments are made, $156,486,491shall be set aside for projects authorized undersection 1602 of Public Law 105–178, as amended;$25,000,000 shall be set aside for the Indian Res-ervation Roads Program under section 204 oftitle 23, United States Code $18,467,857 shall beset aside for the Woodrow Wilson MemorialBridge project authorized by section 404 of theWoodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge AuthorityAct of 1995, as amended; $10,000,000 shall be setaside for the commercial driver’s license programunder motor carrier safety grants authorized bysection 31102 of title 49, United States Code; and$1,735,039 shall be set aside for the Alaska High-way authorized by section 218 of title 23, UnitedStates Code. Of the funds to be apportionedunder section 110 for fiscal year 2001, the Sec-retary shall ensure that such funds are appor-tioned for the Interstate Maintenance program,the National Highway system program, thebridge program, the surface transportation pro-gram, and the congestion mitigation and airquality program in the same ratio that eachState is apportioned funds for such program infiscal year 2001 but for this section: Provided,That, notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, of the funds apportioned to the State ofOklahoma under section 110 of title 23, UnitedStates Code, for fiscal year 2001, $8,000,000 shallbe available only for the widening of US 177from SH–33 to 32nd Street in Stillwater, Okla-homa; $4,300,000 shall be available only for thereconstruction of US 177 in the vicinity of Cim-arron River, Oklahoma; $1,500,000 shall beavailable only for the reconstruction of US 70from Broken Bow, Oklahoma to the Arkansasstate line; $1,000,000 shall be available only toimprove Battiest-Pickens Road between Battiestand Pickens, Oklahoma; $140,000 shall be avail-able only to conduct a feasibility study of in-creasing lanes or adding passing lanes on SH 3in McCurtain, Pushmataha and Atoka Coun-ties, Oklahoma; and $100,000 shall be availableonly for the reconstruction of US 70 in Marshall

and Bryan Counties, Oklahoma: Provided fur-ther, That, notwithstanding any other provisionof law, of the funds apportioned to the State ofMississippi under section 110 of title 23, UnitedStates Code, for fiscal year 2001, $24,600,000 maybe available for construction of an interchangefor a connector road from the interchange toU.S. Highway 51, between mile markers 115 and120 on I–55 in Mississippi: Provided further,That, notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, of the funds apportioned to the State ofNew York under section 110 of title 23, UnitedStates Code, for fiscal year 2001, $4,000,000 shallbe available only to upgrade and improve theAlbany North Creek intermodal transportationcorridor: Provided further, That, notwith-standing any other provision of law, of thefunds apportioned to the State of Nebraskaunder section 110 of title 23, United States Code,for fiscal year 2001, $3,500,000 shall be availableonly for the construction of a pedestrian over-pass in Lincoln: Provided further, That, not-withstanding any other provision of law, of thefunds apportioned to the State of Alabamaunder section 110 of title 23, United States Code,for fiscal year 2001, $8,000,000 shall be availableonly for construction of the Patton Islandbridge in Lauderdale County, Alabama: Pro-vided further, That, notwithstanding any otherprovision of law, of the funds apportioned to theState of California under section 110 of title 23,United States Code, for fiscal year 2001,$46,000,000 shall be available only for trafficmitigation and other improvements to existingSR710 in South Pasadena, Pasadena and ElSerano: Provided further, That, notwith-standing any other provision of law, the obliga-tion limitation distributed for specific projectsdescribed herein shall remain available until ex-pended and shall be in addition to the amountof any obligation limitation imposed on obliga-tions for Federal-aid highway and highwaysafety construction programs for future fiscalyears.



(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Notwithstanding any other provision of law,for carrying out the provisions of title 23, UnitedStates Code, that are attributable to Federal-aidhighways, including the National Scenic andRecreational Highway as authorized by 23U.S.C. 148, not otherwise provided, including re-imbursement for sums expended pursuant to theprovisions of 23 U.S.C. 308, $28,000,000,000 or somuch thereof as may be available in and derivedfrom the Highway Trust Fund, to remain avail-able until expended.

EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM


For an additional amount for the EmergencyRelief Program for emergency expenses resultingfrom floods and other natural disasters, as au-thorized by section 125 of title 23, United StatesCode, $720,000,000, to be derived from the High-way Trust Fund and to remain available untilexpended: Provided, That the entire amount isdesignated by the Congress as an emergency re-quirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) ofthe Balanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985, as amended: Provided fur-ther, That the entire amount shall be availableonly to the extent that an official budget requestfor $720,000,000, that includes designation of theentire amount of the request as an emergencyrequirement as defined in the Balanced Budgetand Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, istransmitted by the President to the Congress.

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETYADMINISTRATION

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

For necessary expenses for administration ofmotor carrier safety programs and motor carriersafety research, pursuant to section 104(a) of


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8926 October 5, 2000title 23, United States Code, not to exceed$92,194,000 shall be paid in accordance with lawfrom appropriations made available by this Actand from any available take-down balances tothe Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administra-tion, together with advances and reimburse-ments received by the Federal Motor CarrierSafety Administration: Provided, That suchamounts shall be available to carry out thefunctions and operations of the Federal MotorCarrier Safety Administration.

NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM




For payment of obligations incurred in car-rying out 49 U.S.C. 31102, $177,000,000, to be de-rived from the Highway Trust Fund and to re-main available until expended: Provided, Thatnone of the funds in this Act shall be availablefor the implementation or execution of programsthe obligations for which are in excess of$177,000,000 for ‘‘Motor Carrier Safety Grants’’.

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETYADMINISTRATION

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

For expenses necessary to discharge the func-tions of the Secretary, with respect to trafficand highway safety under chapter 301 of title49, United States Code, and part C of subtitle VIof title 49, United States Code, $116,876,000 ofwhich $85,321,000 shall remain available untilSeptember 30, 2003: Provided, That none of thefunds appropriated by this Act may be obligatedor expended to plan, finalize, or implement anyrulemaking to add to section 575.104 of title 49 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations any require-ment pertaining to a grading standard that isdifferent from the three grading standards(treadwear, traction, and temperature resist-ance) already in effect: Provided further, Thatnone of the funds appropriated in this Act maybe obligated or expended to purchase a vehicleto conduct New Car Assessment Program crashtesting at a price that exceeds the manufactur-er’s suggested retail price, unless the Secretarysubmits a request for a waiver that is approvedby the House and Senate Committees on Appro-priations: Provided further, That the Depart-ment of Transportation shall fund a study withthe National Academy of Sciences on whetherthe static stability factor is a scientifically validmeasurement that presents practical, useful in-formation to the public including a comparisonof the static stability factor test versus a testwith rollover metrics based on dynamic drivingconditions that may induce rollover events: Pro-vided further, That nothing in this provisionprohibits NHTSA from completing action on itsproposal to provide rollover rating informationto the public while the National Academy ofSciences conducts this study: Provided further,That to the extent NHTSA continues action onits rollover ratings proposal during the study,the agency shall consider any available prelimi-nary deliberations or conclusions available fromthe National Academy of Sciences before com-pleting action on its proposal, and shall con-sider coordinating any final action on its pro-posal with the completion of the National Acad-emy of Sciences study: Provided further, Thatthe National Academy of Sciences shall completethis study and issue a report to the House andSenate Committees on Appropriations not laterthan nine months after the date of enactment ofthis Act: Provided further, That after the Na-tional Academy of Sciences submits its findingsto the Congress and the National Highway Traf-fic Safety Administration, the National High-way Traffic Safety Administration shall for-mally review and respond within thirty days tothe study findings and propose any appropriaterevisions to the consumer information programbased on that review.





For payment of obligations incurred in car-rying out the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403, to re-main available until expended, $72,000,000, to bederived from the Highway Trust Fund: Pro-vided, That none of the funds in this Act shallbe available for the planning or execution ofprograms the total obligations for which, in fis-cal year 2001, are in excess of $72,000,000 for pro-grams authorized under 23 U.S.C. 403.

NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER


For expenses necessary to discharge the func-tions of the Secretary with respect to the Na-tional Driver Register under chapter 303 of title49, United States Code, $2,000,000, to be derivedfrom the Highway Trust Fund, and to remainavailable until expended.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS




Notwithstanding any other provision of law,for payment of obligations incurred in carryingout the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 402, 405, 410, and411 to remain available until expended,$213,000,000, to be derived from the HighwayTrust Fund: Provided, That none of the fundsin this Act shall be available for the planning orexecution of programs the total obligations forwhich, in fiscal year 2001, are in excess of$213,000,000 for programs authorized under 23U.S.C. 402, 405, 410, and 411 of which$155,000,000 shall be for ‘‘Highway Safety Pro-grams’’ under 23 U.S.C. 402, $13,000,000 shall befor ‘‘Occupant Protection Incentive Grants’’under 23 U.S.C. 405, $36,000,000 shall be for ‘‘Al-cohol-Impaired Driving CountermeasuresGrants’’ under 23 U.S.C. 410, and $9,000,000shall be for the ‘‘State Highway Safety DataGrants’’ under 23 U.S.C. 411: Provided further,That none of these funds shall be used for con-struction, rehabilitation, or remodeling costs, orfor office furnishings and fixtures for State,local, or private buildings or structures: Pro-vided further, That not to exceed $7,750,000 ofthe funds made available for section 402, not toexceed $650,000 of the funds made available forsection 405, not to exceed $1,800,000 of the fundsmade available for section 410, and not to exceed$450,000 of the funds made available for section411 shall be available to NHTSA for admin-istering highway safety grants under chapter 4of title 23, United States Code: Provided further,That not to exceed $500,000 of the funds madeavailable for section 410 ‘‘Alcohol-ImpairedDriving Countermeasures Grants’’ shall beavailable for technical assistance to the States.

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

For necessary expenses of the Federal Rail-road Administration, not otherwise provided for,$101,717,000, of which $5,899,000 shall remainavailable until expended: Provided, That, aspart of the Washington Union Station trans-action in which the Secretary assumed the firstdeed of trust on the property and, where theUnion Station Redevelopment Corporation orany successor is obligated to make payments onsuch deed of trust on the Secretary’s behalf, in-cluding payments on and after September 30,1988, the Secretary is authorized to receive suchpayments directly from the Union Station Rede-velopment Corporation, credit them to the ap-propriation charged for the first deed of trust,and make payments on the first deed of trustwith those funds: Provided further, That suchadditional sums as may be necessary for pay-ment on the first deed of trust may be advancedby the Administrator from unobligated balancesavailable to the Federal Railroad Administra-

tion, to be reimbursed from payments receivedfrom the Union Station Redevelopment Corpora-tion.

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

For necessary expenses for railroad researchand development, $25,325,000, to remain avail-able until expended.RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM

The Secretary of Transportation is authorizedto issue to the Secretary of the Treasury notesor other obligations pursuant to section 512 ofthe Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Re-form Act of 1976 (Public Law 94–210), as amend-ed, in such amounts and at such times as maybe necessary to pay any amounts required pur-suant to the guarantee of the principal amountof obligations under sections 511 through 513 ofsuch Act, such authority to exist as long as anysuch guaranteed obligation is outstanding: Pro-vided, That pursuant to section 502 of such Act,as amended, no new direct loans or loan guar-antee commitments shall be made using Federalfunds for the credit risk premium during fiscalyear 2001.

RHODE ISLAND RAIL DEVELOPMENT

For the costs associated with construction of athird track on the Northeast Corridor betweenDavisville and Central Falls, Rhode Island,with sufficient clearance to accommodate doublestack freight cars, $17,000,000 to be matched bythe State of Rhode Island or its designee on adollar-for-dollar basis and to remain availableuntil expended.

NEXT GENERATION HIGH-SPEED RAIL

For necessary expenses for the Next Genera-tion High-Speed Rail program as authorizedunder 49 U.S.C. 26101 and 26102, $25,100,000, toremain available until expended.

ALASKA RAILROAD REHABILITATION

To enable the Secretary of Transportation tomake grants to the Alaska Railroad, $20,000,000shall be for capital rehabilitation and improve-ments benefiting its passenger operations, to re-main available until expended.

WEST VIRGINIA RAIL DEVELOPMENT

For capital costs associated with track, signal,and crossover rehabilitation and improvementson the MARC Brunswick line in West Virginia,$15,000,000, to remain available until expended.

CAPITAL GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROADPASSENGER CORPORATION

For necessary expenses of capital improve-ments of the National Railroad Passenger Cor-poration as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 24104(a),$521,476,000, to remain available until expended:Provided, That the Secretary shall not obligatemore than $208,590,000 prior to September 30,2001.

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATIONADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

For necessary administrative expenses of theFederal Transit Administration’s programs au-thorized by chapter 53 of title 49, United StatesCode, $12,800,000: Provided, That no more than$64,000,000 of budget authority shall be avail-able for these purposes: Provided further, Thatof the funds in this Act available for the execu-tion of contracts under section 5327(c) of title 49,United States Code, $1,000,000 shall be trans-ferred to the Department of Transportation’sOffice of Inspector General for costs associatedwith the audit and review of new fixed guide-way systems: Provided further, That not to ex-ceed $2,500,000 for the National Transit Data-base shall remain available until expended.

FORMULA GRANTS

For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C.5307, 5308, 5310, 5311, 5327, and section 3038 ofPublic Law 105–178, $669,000,000, to remainavailable until expended: Provided, That nomore than $3,345,000,000 of budget authorityshall be available for these purposes: Provided


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8927October 5, 2000further, That of the funds provided under thisheading, $60,000,000 shall be available for grantsfor the costs of planning, delivery, and tem-porary use of transit vehicles for special trans-portation needs and construction of temporarytransportation facilities for the XIX WinterOlympiad and the VIII Paralympiad for theDisabled, to be held in Salt Lake City, Utah:Provided further, That in allocating the fundsdesignated in the preceding proviso, the Sec-retary shall make grants only to the Utah De-partment of Transportation, and such grantsshall not be subject to any local share require-ment or limitation on operating assistance underthis Act or the Federal Transit Act, as amended:Provided further, That notwithstanding section3008 of Public Law 105–178, the $50,000,000 tocarry out 49 U.S.C. 5308 shall be transferred toand merged with funding provided for the re-placement, rehabilitation, and purchase of busesand related equipment and the construction ofbus-related facilities under ‘‘Federal TransitAdministration, Capital investment grants’’.

UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C.5505, $1,200,000, to remain available until ex-pended: Provided, That no more than $6,000,000of budget authority shall be available for thesepurposes.

TRANSIT PLANNING AND RESEARCH

For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C.5303, 5304, 5305, 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 5314,5315, and 5322, $22,200,000, to remain availableuntil expended: Provided, That no more than$110,000,000 of budget authority shall be avail-able for these purposes: Provided further, That$5,250,000 is available to provide rural transpor-tation assistance (49 U.S.C. 5311(b)(2)),$4,000,000 is available to carry out programsunder the National Transit Institute (49 U.S.C.5315), $8,250,000 is available to carry out transitcooperative research programs (49 U.S.C.5313(a)), $52,113,600 is available for metropolitanplanning (49 U.S.C. 5303, 5304, and 5305),$10,886,400 is available for State planning (49U.S.C. 5313(b)); and $29,500,000 is available forthe national planning and research program (49U.S.C. 5314).

TRUST FUND SHARE OF EXPENSES



Notwithstanding any other provision of law,for payment of obligations incurred in carryingout 49 U.S.C. 5303–5308, 5310–5315, 5317(b), 5322,5327, 5334, 5505, and sections 3037 and 3038 ofPublic Law 105–178, $5,016,600,000, to remainavailable until expended, and to be derived fromthe Mass Transit Account of the Highway TrustFund: Provided, That $2,676,000,000 shall bepaid to the Federal Transit Administration’sformula grants account: Provided further, That$87,800,000 shall be paid to the Federal TransitAdministration’s transit planning and researchaccount: Provided further, That $51,200,000shall be paid to the Federal Transit Administra-tion’s administrative expenses account: Providedfurther, That $4,800,000 shall be paid to the Fed-eral Transit Administration’s university trans-portation research account: Provided further,That $80,000,000 shall be paid to the FederalTransit Administration’s job access and reversecommute grants program: Provided further,That $2,116,800,000 shall be paid to the FederalTransit Administration’s capital investmentgrants account.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS


For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C.5308, 5309, 5318, and 5327, $529,200,000, to remainavailable until expended: Provided, That nomore than $2,646,000,000 of budget authorityshall be available for these purposes: Providedfurther, That notwithstanding any other provi-sion of law, there shall be available for fixedguideway modernization, $1,058,400,000; there

shall be available for the replacement, rehabili-tation, and purchase of buses and related equip-ment and the construction of bus-related facili-ties, $529,200,000, together with $50,000,000transferred from ‘‘Federal Transit Administra-tion, formula grants’’; and there shall be avail-able for new fixed guideway systems$1,058,400,000, together with $4,983,828 madeavailable for the Pittsburgh airport buswayproject under Public Law 105–66, together with$1,488,750 made available for the Burlington toGloucester, New Jersey line under Public Law103–331, together with $20,521,470 previously ap-propriated for the Orlando Lynx light railproject remaining unobligated as of ordeobligated after September 30, 2000; to be avail-able as follows:

$10,400,000 for Alaska or Hawaii ferryprojects;

$500,000 for the Albuquerque/Greater Albu-querque mass transit project;

$25,000,000 for the Atlanta, Georgia, Northline extension project;

$1,000,000 for the Austin, Texas, capital metrolight rail project;

$3,000,000 for the Baltimore central LRT dou-ble track project;

$5,000,000 for the Birmingham, Alabama, tran-sit corridor;

$25,000,000 for the Boston South Boston Pierstransitway project;

$1,000,000 for the Boston Urban Ring project;$2,000,000 for the Burlington-Bennington

(ABRB), Vermont, commuter rail project;$1,000,000 for the Calais, Maine, branch line

regional transit program;$2,000,000 for the Canton-Akron-Cleveland

commuter rail project;$3,000,000 for the Central Florida commuter

rail project;$5,000,000 for the Charlotte, North Carolina,

north-south corridor transitway projects;$35,000,000 for the Chicago METRA commuter

rail projects;$15,000,000 for the Chicago Ravenswood and

Douglas branch reconstruction projects;$1,500,000 for the Clark County, Nevada, RTC

fixed guideway project;$4,000,000 for the Cleveland Euclid corridor

improvement project;$1,000,000 for the Colorado Roaring Fork Val-

ley project;$70,000,000 for the Dallas north central light

rail extension project;$3,000,000 for the Denver Southeast corridor

project;$20,200,000 for the Denver Southwest corridor

project;$500,000 for the Detroit, Michigan, metropoli-

tan airport light rail project;$50,000,000 for the Dulles corridor project;$15,000,000 for the Fort Lauderdale, Florida,

Tri-County commuter rail project;$1,000,000 for the Galveston, Texas, rail trolley

extension project;$15,000,000 for the Girdwood to Wasilla, Alas-

ka, commuter rail project;$500,000 for the Harrisburg-Lancaster capital

area transit corridor 1 commuter rail project;$1,000,000 for the Hollister/Gilroy branch line

rail extension project;$2,500,000 for Honolulu, Hawaii, bus rapid

transit project;$2,500,000 for the Houston advanced transit

project;$10,750,000 for the Houston regional bus

project;$3,000,000 for the Indianapolis, Indiana,

northeast-downtown corridor project;$1,000,000 for the Johnson County, Kansas, I–

35 commuter rail project;$3,500,000 for Kansas City, Missouri,

Southtown corridor project;$4,000,000 for the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee

rail extension project;$3,000,000 for the Little Rock, Arkansas, river

rail project;$8,000,000 for the Long Island Railroad East

Side access project;

$2,000,000 for the Los Angeles Mid-City andEast Side corridors projects;

$50,000,000 for the Los Angeles North Holly-wood extension project;

$3,000,000 for the Los Angeles-San DiegoLOSSAN corridor project;

$2,000,000 for the Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New Hampshire commuter rail project;

$10,000,000 for the MARC expansion projects—Penn-Camden lines connector and midday stor-age facility;

$1,000,000 for the Massachusetts North Shorecorridor project;

$6,000,000 for the Memphis, Tennessee, med-ical center rail extension project;

$6,000,000 for the Nashville, Tennessee, re-gional commuter rail project;

$121,000,000 for the New Jersey Hudson Bergenproject;

$7,000,000 for the Newark-Elizabeth rail linkproject;

$2,000,000 for the Northern Indiana southshore commuter rail project;

$1,000,000 for the Northwest New Jersey-Northeast Pennsylvania passenger rail project;

$10,000,000 for the Oceanside-Escondido, Cali-fornia, light rail extension project;

$2,000,000 for the Orange County, California,transitway project;

$10,000,000 for the Philadelphia-ReadingSETPA Schuylkill Valley metro project;

$2,000,000 for the Philadelphia SEPTA CrossCounty metro project;

$10,000,000 for the Phoenix metropolitan areatransit project;

$5,000,000 for the Pittsburgh North Shore-cen-tral business district corridor project;

$12,000,000 for the Pittsburgh stage II lightrail project;

$7,500,000 for the Portland-Interstate MAXLRT extension project;

$2,000,000 for the Portland, Maine, marinehighway program;

$5,000,000 for the Puget Sound RTA Soundercommuter rail project;

$10,000,000 for the Raleigh-Durham-ChapelHill Triangle transit project;

$500,000 for the Rhode Island-Pawtucket andT.F. Green commuter rail and maintenance fa-cility;

$35,200,000 for the Sacramento, California,south corridor LRT project;

$2,000,000 for the Salt Lake City-Universitylight rail line project;

$1,000,000 for the San Bernardino, California,Metrolink project;

$31,500,000 for the San Diego Mission ValleyEast light rail project;

$80,000,000 for the San Francisco BART exten-sion to the airport project;

$12,250,000 for the San Jose Tasman West lightrail project;

$75,000,000 for the San Juan Tren Urbanoproject;

$1,500,000 for the Santa Fe-Eldorado, NewMexico, rail link project;

$50,000,000 for the Seattle, Washington, cen-tral link LRT project;

$4,000,000 for the Spokane, Washington, SouthValley corridor light rail project;

$1,000,000 for the St. Louis, Missouri,MetroLink Cross County connector project;

$60,000,000 for the St. Louis-St. ClairMetroLink extension project;

$8,000,000 for the Stamford, Connecticut, fixedguideway corridor;

$6,000,000 for the Stockton, California,Altamont commuter rail project;

$5,000,000 for the Twin Cities Transitwaysprojects;

$50,000,000 for the Twin Cities Transitways—Hiawatha corridor project;

$3,000,000 for the Virginia Railway Expresscommuter rail project;

$7,500,000 for the Washington Metro-BlueLine extension-Addison Road (Largo) project;

$2,000,000 for the West Trenton, New Jersey,rail project;


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8928 October 5, 2000$2,500,000 for the Whitehall and St. George

ferry terminal projects;$5,000,000 for the Wilmington, Delaware,

downtown transit corridor project; and$1,000,000 for the Wilsonville to Washington

County, Oregon, commuter rail project:Provided further, That any funds previously ap-propriated for the Miami-Dade Transit east-west multimodal corridor project and the MiamiMetro-Dade North 27th Avenue corridor projectremaining unobligated as of or deobligated afterSeptember 30, 2000, are to be made available forthe South Miami-Dade Busway Extensionproject: Provided further, That funds madeavailable under the heading ‘‘Capital invest-ment grants’’ in Division A, Section 101(g) ofPublic Law 105–277 for the ‘‘Colorado-NorthFront Range corridor feasibility study’’ are to bemade available for ‘‘Colorado-Eagle Airport toAvon light rail system feasibility study’’; andthat funds made available in Public Law 106–69under ‘‘Capital investment grants’’ for busesand bus-related facilities that were designatedfor projects numbered 14 and 20 shall be madeavailable to the State of Alabama for buses andbus-related facilities.

DISCRETIONARY GRANTS



Notwithstanding any other provision of law,for payment of previous obligations incurred incarrying out 49 U.S.C. 5338(b), $350,000,000, toremain available until expended and to be de-rived from the Mass Transit Account of theHighway Trust Fund.

JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE GRANTS

Notwithstanding section 3037(l)(3) of PublicLaw 105–178, as amended, for necessary ex-penses to carry out section 3037 of the FederalTransit Act of 1998, $20,000,000, to remain avail-able until expended: Provided, That no morethan $100,000,000 of budget authority shall beavailable for these purposes: Provided further,That up to $250,000 of the funds provided underthis heading may be used by the Federal TransitAdministration for technical assistance and sup-port and performance reviews of the Job Accessand Reverse Commute Grants program.SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATIONSAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION

The Saint Lawrence Seaway DevelopmentCorporation is hereby authorized to make suchexpenditures, within the limits of funds and bor-rowing authority available to the Corporation,and in accord with law, and to make such con-tracts and commitments without regard to fiscalyear limitations as provided by section 104 of theGovernment Corporation Control Act, as amend-ed, as may be necessary in carrying out the pro-grams set forth in the Corporation’s budget forthe current fiscal year.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

For necessary expenses for operations andmaintenance of those portions of the Saint Law-rence Seaway operated and maintained by theSaint Lawrence Seaway Development Corpora-tion, $13,004,000, to be derived from the HarborMaintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to PublicLaw 99–662.

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMSADMINISTRATION

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS

For expenses necessary to discharge the func-tions of the Research and Special Programs Ad-ministration, $36,373,000, of which $645,000 shallbe derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund, andof which $4,707,000 shall remain available untilSeptember 30, 2003: Provided, That up to$1,200,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C.5108(g) shall be deposited in the general fund ofthe Treasury as offsetting receipts: Provided

further, That there may be credited to this ap-propriation, to be available until expended,funds received from States, counties, municipali-ties, other public authorities, and privatesources for expenses incurred for training, forreports publication and dissemination, and fortravel expenses incurred in performance of haz-ardous materials exemptions and approvalsfunctions.

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

For expenses necessary to conduct the func-tions of the pipeline safety program, for grants-in-aid to carry out a pipeline safety program, asauthorized by 49 U.S.C. 60107, and to dischargethe pipeline program responsibilities of the OilPollution Act of 1990, $47,044,000, of which$7,488,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Li-ability Trust Fund and shall remain availableuntil September 30, 2003; of which $36,556,000shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund,of which $23,837,000 shall remain available untilSeptember 30, 2003; and of which $3,000,000 shallbe derived from amounts previously collectedunder 49 U.S.C. 60301: Provided, That amountspreviously collected under 49 U.S.C. 60301 shallbe available for damage prevention grants toStates.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C.5127(c), $200,000, to be derived from the Emer-gency Preparedness Fund, to remain availableuntil September 30, 2003: Provided, That notmore than $14,300,000 shall be made availablefor obligation in fiscal year 2001 from amountsmade available by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 5127(d):Provided further, That none of the funds madeavailable by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 5127(d) shallbe made available for obligation by individualsother than the Secretary of Transportation, orhis designee.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL


For necessary expenses of the Office of In-spector General to carry out the provisions ofthe Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended,$48,450,000: Provided, That the Inspector Gen-eral shall have all necessary authority, in car-rying out the duties specified in the InspectorGeneral Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 3) to in-vestigate allegations of fraud, including falsestatements to the government (18 U.S.C. 1001),by any person or entity that is subject to regula-tion by the Department: Provided further, Thatthe funds made available under this headingshall be used to investigate, pursuant to section41712 of title 49, United States Code: (1) unfairor deceptive practices and unfair methods ofcompetition by domestic and foreign air carriersand ticket agents; and (2) the compliance of do-mestic and foreign air carriers with respect toitem (1) of this proviso.

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD


For necessary expenses of the Surface Trans-portation Board, including services authorizedby 5 U.S.C. 3109, $17,954,000: Provided, Thatnotwithstanding any other provision of law, notto exceed $900,000 from fees established by theChairman of the Surface Transportation Boardshall be credited to this appropriation as offset-ting collections and used for necessary and au-thorized expenses under this heading: Providedfurther, That the sum herein appropriated fromthe general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis as such offsetting collections arereceived during fiscal year 2001, to result in afinal appropriation from the general fund esti-mated at no more than $17,054,000.

TITLE IIRELATED AGENCIES

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATIONBARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD


For expenses necessary for the Architecturaland Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,as authorized by section 502 of the Rehabilita-tion Act of 1973, as amended, $4,795,000: Pro-vided, That, notwithstanding any other provi-sion of law, there may be credited to this appro-priation funds received for publications andtraining expenses.

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETYBOARD


For necessary expenses of the National Trans-portation Safety Board, including hire of pas-senger motor vehicles and aircraft; services asauthorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for in-dividuals not to exceed the per diem rate equiva-lent to the rate for a GS–15; uniforms, or allow-ances therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C.5901–5902) $62,942,000, of which not to exceed$2,000 may be used for official reception andrepresentation expenses.

TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

SEC. 301. During the current fiscal year appli-cable appropriations to the Department ofTransportation shall be available for mainte-nance and operation of aircraft; hire of pas-senger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchase ofliability insurance for motor vehicles operatingin foreign countries on official department busi-ness; and uniforms, or allowances therefor, asauthorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901–5902).

SEC. 302. Such sums as may be necessary forfiscal year 2001 pay raises for programs fundedin this Act shall be absorbed within the levelsappropriated in this Act or previous appropria-tions Acts.

SEC. 303. Hereafter, funds appropriated underthis or any other Act for expenditures by theFederal Aviation Administration shall be avail-able: (1) except as otherwise authorized by titleVIII of the Elementary and Secondary Edu-cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), for ex-penses of primary and secondary schooling fordependents of Federal Aviation Administrationpersonnel stationed outside the continentalUnited States at costs for any given area not inexcess of those of the Department of Defense forthe same area, when it is determined by the Sec-retary that the schools, if any, available in thelocality are unable to provide adequately for theeducation of such dependents; and (2) for trans-portation of said dependents between schoolsserving the area that they attend and theirplaces of residence when the Secretary, undersuch regulations as may be prescribed, deter-mines that such schools are not accessible bypublic means of transportation on a regularbasis.

SEC. 304. Appropriations contained in this Actfor the Department of Transportation shall beavailable for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceedthe per diem rate equivalent to the rate for anExecutive Level IV.

SEC. 305. None of the funds in this Act shallbe available for salaries and expenses of morethan 104 political and Presidential appointees inthe Department of Transportation: Provided,That none of the personnel covered by this pro-vision or political and Presidential appointees inan independent agency funded in this Act maybe assigned on temporary detail outside the De-partment of Transportation or such independentagency.

SEC. 306. None of the funds in this Act shallbe used for the planning or execution of anyprogram to pay the expenses of, or otherwisecompensate, non-Federal parties intervening inregulatory or adjudicatory proceedings fundedin this Act.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8929October 5, 2000SEC. 307. None of the funds appropriated in

this Act shall remain available for obligation be-yond the current fiscal year, nor may any betransferred to other appropriations, unless ex-pressly so provided herein.

SEC. 308. The expenditure of any appropria-tion under this Act for any consulting servicethrough procurement contract pursuant to sec-tion 3109 of title 5, United States Code, shall belimited to those contracts where such expendi-tures are a matter of public record and availablefor public inspection, except where otherwiseprovided under existing law, or under existingExecutive order issued pursuant to existing law.

SEC. 309. (a) No recipient of funds made avail-able in this Act shall disseminate personal infor-mation (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2725(3)) obtainedby a State department of motor vehicles in con-nection with a motor vehicle record as definedin 18 U.S.C. 2725(1), except as provide in 18U.S.C. 2721 for a use permitted under 18 U.S.C.2721.

(b) 18 U.S.C. 2725 is amended by:In paragraph (2) striking the word ‘‘and’’;

and inserting after paragraph 3:‘‘(4) ‘highly restricted personal information’

means an individual’s photograph or image, so-cial security number, medical or disability infor-mation; and

‘‘(5) ‘express consent’ means consent in writ-ing, including consent conveyed electronicallythat bears an electronic signature as defined insection 106(5) of Public Law 106–229.’’

(c) 18 U.S.C. 2721(a) is amended to read as fol-lows:

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A State department ofmotor vehicles, and any officer, employee, orcontractor thereof, shall not knowingly discloseor otherwise make available to any person orentity:

‘‘(1) personal information, as defined in 18U.S.C. 2725(3), about any individual obtained bythe department in connection with a motor vehi-cle record, except as provided in subsection (b)of this section; or

‘‘(2) highly restricted personal information, asdefined in 18 U.S.C. 2725(4), about any indi-vidual obtained by the department in connec-tion with a motor vehicle record, without the ex-press consent of the person to whom such infor-mation applies, except uses permitted in sub-sections (b)(1), (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(9): Pro-vided, That subsection (a)(2) shall not in anyway affect the use of organ donation informa-tion on an individual’s driver’s license or affectthe administration of organ donation initiativesin the States.’’

(d) 18 U.S.C. 2721(b) is amended by insertingbefore ‘‘may be disclosed’’ ‘‘, subject to sub-section (a)(2),’’.

(e) 18 U.S.C. 2721 is amended by insertingafter subsection (d):

‘‘(e) PROHIBITION ON CONDITIONS.—No Statemay condition or burden in any way theissuance of an individual’s motor vehicle recordas defined in 18 U.S.C. 2725(1) to obtain expressconsent. Nothing in this paragraph shall be con-strued to prohibit a State from charging an ad-ministrative fee for issuance of a motor vehiclerecord.’’

(f) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Sec-retary shall not withhold funds provided in thisAct for any grantee if a State is in noncompli-ance with this provision.

SEC. 310. (a) For fiscal year 2001, the Sec-retary of Transportation shall—

(1) not distribute from the obligation limita-tion for Federal-aid Highways amounts author-ized for administrative expenses and programsfunded from the administrative takedown au-thorized by section 104(a) of title 23, UnitedStates Code, and paragraph (7) of this section,for the highway use tax evasion program, andamounts provided under section 110 of title 23,United States Code, excluding $128,752,000 pur-suant to subsection (e) of section 110 of title 23,as amended, and for the Bureau of Transpor-tation Statistics;

(2) not distribute an amount from the obliga-tion limitation for Federal-aid Highways that isequal to the unobligated balance of amountsmade available from the Highway Trust Fund(other than the Mass Transit Account) for Fed-eral-aid highways and highway safety programsfor the previous fiscal year the funds for whichare allocated by the Secretary;

(3) determine the ratio that—(A) the obligation limitation for Federal-aid

Highways less the aggregate of amounts not dis-tributed under paragraphs (1) and (2), bears to

(B) the total of the sums authorized to be ap-propriated for Federal-aid highways and high-way safety construction programs (other thansums authorized to be appropriated for sectionsset forth in paragraphs (1) through (7) of sub-section (b) and sums authorized to be appro-priated for section 105 of title 23, United StatesCode, equal to the amount referred to in sub-section (b)(8)) for such fiscal year less the aggre-gate of the amounts not distributed under para-graph (1) of this subsection;

(4) distribute the obligation limitation for Fed-eral-aid Highways less the aggregate amountsnot distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) ofsection 117 of title 23, United States Code (relat-ing to high priority projects program), section201 of the Appalachian Regional DevelopmentAct of 1965, the Woodrow Wilson MemorialBridge Authority Act of 1995, and $2,000,000,000for such fiscal year under section 105 of title 23,United States Code (relating to minimum guar-antee) so that the amount of obligation author-ity available for each of such sections is equalto the amount determined by multiplying theratio determined under paragraph (3) by thesums authorized to be appropriated for such sec-tion (except in the case of section 105,$2,000,000,000) for such fiscal year;

(5) distribute the obligation limitation pro-vided for Federal-aid Highways less the aggre-gate amounts not distributed under paragraphs(1) and (2) and amounts distributed under para-graph (4) for each of the programs that are allo-cated by the Secretary under title 23, UnitedStates Code (other than activities to whichparagraph (1) applies and programs to whichparagraph (4) applies) by multiplying the ratiodetermined under paragraph (3) by the sums au-thorized to be appropriated for such program forsuch fiscal year;

(6) distribute the obligation limitation pro-vided for Federal-aid Highways less the aggre-gate amounts not distributed under paragraphs(1) and (2) and amounts distributed under para-graphs (4) and (5) for Federal-aid highways andhighway safety construction programs (otherthan the minimum guarantee program, but onlyto the extent that amounts apportioned for theminimum guarantee program for such fiscalyear exceed $2,639,000,000, and the Appalachiandevelopment highway system program) that areapportioned by the Secretary under title 23,United States Code, in the ratio that—

(A) sums authorized to be appropriated forsuch programs that are apportioned to eachState for such fiscal year, bear to

(B) the total of the sums authorized to be ap-propriated for such programs that are appor-tioned to all States for such fiscal year; and

(7) Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, after determining the amount of funds tobe allocated to the surface transportation pro-gram, to the bridge program, to the congestionmitigation and air quality improvement pro-gram, and to the Interstate and National High-way System program, under section 110 of title23, United States Code, deduct a sum, in anamount not to exceed 11⁄6 percent of the summade available to each program, to administerthe provisions of law to be financed from appro-priations for the Federal-aid highways program.

(b) EXCEPTIONS FROM OBLIGATION LIMITA-TION.—The obligation limitation for Federal-aidHighways shall not apply to obligations: (1)under section 125 of title 23, United States Code;(2) under section 147 of the Surface Transpor-

tation Assistance Act of 1978; (3) under section9 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981; (4)under sections 131(b) and 131( j) of the SurfaceTransportation Assistance Act of 1982; (5) undersections 149(b) and 149(c) of the Surface Trans-portation and Uniform Relocation AssistanceAct of 1987; (6) under sections 1103 through 1108of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi-ciency Act of 1991; (7) under section 157 of title23, United States Code, as in effect on the daybefore the date of the enactment of the Trans-portation Equity Act for the 21st Century; and(8) under section 105 of title 23, United StatesCode (but, only in an amount equal to$639,000,000 for such fiscal year).

(c) REDISTRIBUTION OF UNUSED OBLIGATIONAUTHORITY.—Notwithstanding subsection (a),the Secretary shall after August 1 for such fiscalyear revise a distribution of the obligation limi-tation made available under subsection (a) if aState will not obligate the amount distributedduring that fiscal year and redistribute suffi-cient amounts to those States able to obligateamounts in addition to those previously distrib-uted during that fiscal year giving priority tothose States having large unobligated balancesof funds apportioned under sections 104 and 144of title 23, United States Code, section 160 (as ineffect on the day before the enactment of theTransportation Equity Act for the 21st Century)of title 23, United States Code, and under sec-tion 1015 of the Intermodal Surface Transpor-tation Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 1943–1945).

(d) APPLICABILITY OF OBLIGATION LIMITA-TIONS TO TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PRO-GRAMS.—The obligation limitation shall apply totransportation research programs carried outunder chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code,except that obligation authority made availablefor such programs under such limitation shallremain available for a period of 3 fiscal years.

(e) REDISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN AUTHORIZEDFUNDS.—Not later than 30 days after the date ofthe distribution of obligation limitation undersubsection (a), the Secretary shall distribute tothe States any funds: (1) that are authorized tobe appropriated for such fiscal year for Federal-aid highways programs (other than the programunder section 160 of title 23, United States Code)and for carrying out subchapter I of chapter 311of title 49, United States Code, and highway-re-lated programs under chapter 4 of title 23,United States Code; and (2) that the Secretarydetermines will not be allocated to the States,and will not be available for obligation, in suchfiscal year due to the imposition of any obliga-tion limitation for such fiscal year. Such dis-tribution to the States shall be made in the sameratio as the distribution of obligation authorityunder subsection (a)(6). The funds so distributedshall be available for any purposes described insection 133(b) of title 23, United States Code.

(f) SPECIAL RULE.—Obligation limitation dis-tributed for a fiscal year under subsection (a)(4)of this section for a section set forth in sub-section (a)(4) shall remain available until usedand shall be in addition to the amount of anylimitation imposed on obligations for Federal-aid highway and highway safety constructionprograms for future fiscal years.

SEC. 311. The limitations on obligations for theprograms of the Federal Transit Administrationshall not apply to any authority under 49U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for obli-gation, or to any other authority previouslymade available for obligation.

SEC. 312. None of the funds in this Act shallbe used to implement section 404 of title 23,United States Code.

SEC. 313. None of the funds in this Act shallbe available to plan, finalize, or implement regu-lations that would establish a vessel traffic safe-ty fairway less than five miles wide between theSanta Barbara Traffic Separation Scheme andthe San Francisco Traffic Separation Scheme.

SEC. 314. Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, airports may transfer, without consider-ation, to the Federal Aviation Administration


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8930 October 5, 2000(FAA) instrument landing systems (along withassociated approach lighting equipment andrunway visual range equipment) which conformto FAA design and performance specifications,the purchase of which was assisted by a Federalairport-aid program, airport development aidprogram or airport improvement program grant.The Federal Aviation Administration shall ac-cept such equipment, which shall thereafter beoperated and maintained by FAA in accordancewith agency criteria.

SEC. 315. None of the funds in this Act shallbe available to award a multiyear contract forproduction end items that: (1) includes economicorder quantity or long lead time material pro-curement in excess of $10,000,000 in any 1 yearof the contract; (2) includes a cancellationcharge greater than $10,000,000 which at thetime of obligation has not been appropriated tothe limits of the Government’s liability; or (3) in-cludes a requirement that permits performanceunder the contract during the second and subse-quent years of the contract without condi-tioning such performance upon the appropria-tion of funds: Provided, That this limitationdoes not apply to a contract in which the Fed-eral Government incurs no financial liabilityfrom not buying additional systems, subsystems,or components beyond the basic contract re-quirements.

SEC. 316. Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, and except for fixed guideway mod-ernization projects, funds made available by thisAct under ‘‘Federal Transit Administration,Capital investment grants’’ for projects specifiedin this Act or identified in reports accom-panying this Act not obligated by September 30,2003, and other recoveries, shall be made avail-able for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.

SEC. 317. Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, any funds appropriated before October1, 2000, under any section of chapter 53 of title49, United States Code, that remain availablefor expenditure may be transferred to and ad-ministered under the most recent appropriationheading for any such section.

SEC. 318. None of the funds in this Act may beused to compensate in excess of 335 technicalstaff-years under the federally funded researchand development center contract between theFederal Aviation Administration and the Centerfor Advanced Aviation Systems Developmentduring fiscal year 2001.

SEC. 319. Funds received by the Federal High-way Administration, Federal Transit Adminis-tration, and Federal Railroad Administrationfrom States, counties, municipalities, other pub-lic authorities, and private sources for expensesincurred for training may be credited respec-tively to the Federal Highway Administration’s‘‘Federal-Aid Highways’’ account, the FederalTransit Administration’s ‘‘Transit Planning andResearch’’ account, and to the Federal RailroadAdministration’s ‘‘Safety and Operations’’ ac-count, except for State rail safety inspectorsparticipating in training pursuant to 49 U.S.C.20105.

SEC. 320. None of the funds in this Act shallbe available to prepare, propose, or promulgateany regulations pursuant to title V of the MotorVehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (49U.S.C. 32901 et seq.) prescribing corporate aver-age fuel economy standards for automobiles, asdefined in such title, in any model year that dif-fers from standards promulgated for such auto-mobiles prior to the enactment of this section.

SEC. 321. Funds made available for Alaska orHawaii ferry boats or ferry terminal facilitiespursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5309(m)(2)(B) may be usedto construct new vessels and facilities, or to im-prove existing vessels and facilities, includingboth the passenger and vehicle-related elementsof such vessels and facilities, and for repair fa-cilities: Provided, That not more than $3,000,000of the funds made available to Hawaii pursuantto 49 U.S.C. 5309(c)(2)(B) may be used by theState of Hawaii to initiate and operate a pas-senger ferryboat services demonstration project

to test the viability of different intra-island andinter-island ferry routes.

SEC. 322. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302,funds received by the Bureau of TransportationStatistics from the sale of data products, fornecessary expenses incurred pursuant to 49U.S.C. 111 may be credited to the Federal-aidhighways account for the purpose of reimburs-ing the Bureau for such expenses: Provided,That such funds shall be subject to the obliga-tion limitation for Federal-aid highways andhighway safety construction.

SEC. 323. None of the funds in this Act may beobligated or expended for employee trainingwhich: (a) does not meet identified needs forknowledge, skills and abilities bearing directlyupon the performance of official duties; (b) con-tains elements likely to induce high levels ofemotional response or psychological stress insome participants; (c) does not require prior em-ployee notification of the content and methodsto be used in the training and written end ofcourse evaluations; (d) contains any methods orcontent associated with religious or quasi-reli-gious belief systems or ‘‘new age’’ belief systemsas defined in Equal Employment OpportunityCommission Notice N–915.022, dated September 2,1988; (e) is offensive to, or designed to change,participants’ personal values or lifestyle outsidethe workplace; or (f) includes content related tohuman immunodeficiency virus/acquired im-mune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) otherthan that necessary to make employees moreaware of the medical ramifications of HIV/AIDSand the workplace rights of HIV-positive em-ployees.

SEC. 324. None of the funds in this Act shall,in the absence of express authorization by Con-gress, be used directly or indirectly to pay forany personal service, advertisement, telegraph,telephone, letter, printed or written material,radio, television, video presentation, electroniccommunications, or other device, intended or de-signed to influence in any manner a Member ofCongress or of a State legislature to favor or op-pose by vote or otherwise, any legislation or ap-propriation by Congress or a State legislatureafter the introduction of any bill or resolutionin Congress proposing such legislation or appro-priation, or after the introduction of any bill orresolution in a State legislature proposing suchlegislation or appropriation: Provided, That thisshall not prevent officers or employees of theDepartment of Transportation or related agen-cies funded in this Act from communicating toMembers of Congress or to Congress, on the re-quest of any Member, or to members of State leg-islature, or to a State legislature, through theproper official channels, requests for legislationor appropriations which they deem necessaryfor the efficient conduct of business.

SEC. 325. (a) IN GENERAL.—None of the fundsmade available in this Act may be expended byan entity unless the entity agrees that in ex-pending the funds the entity will comply withthe Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a–10c).

(b) SENSE OF THE CONGRESS; REQUIREMENTREGARDING NOTICE.—

(1) PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENTAND PRODUCTS.—In the case of any equipmentor product that may be authorized to be pur-chased with financial assistance provided usingfunds made available in this Act, it is the senseof the Congress that entities receiving the assist-ance should, in expending the assistance, pur-chase only American-made equipment and prod-ucts to the greatest extent practicable.

(2) NOTICE TO RECIPIENTS OF ASSISTANCE.—Inproviding financial assistance using funds madeavailable in this Act, the head of each Federalagency shall provide to each recipient of the as-sistance a notice describing the statement madein paragraph (1) by the Congress.

(c) PROHIBITION OF CONTRACTS WITH PERSONSFALSELY LABELING PRODUCTS AS MADE INAMERICA.—If it has been finally determined bya court or Federal agency that any person in-tentionally affixed a label bearing a ‘‘Made in

America’’ inscription, or any inscription withthe same meaning, to any product sold in orshipped to the United States that is not made inthe United States, the person shall be ineligibleto receive any contract or subcontract madewith funds made available in this Act, pursuantto the debarment, suspension, and ineligibilityprocedures described in sections 9.400 through9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.

SEC. 326. In addition to the funds limited inthis Act, $54,963,000, to be derived from theHighway Trust Fund (other than the MassTransit Account), shall be available for section1069(y) of Public Law 102–240.

SEC. 327. Rebates, refunds, incentive pay-ments, minor fees and other funds received bythe Department from travel management cen-ters, charge card programs, the subleasing ofbuilding space, and miscellaneous sources are tobe credited to appropriations of the Departmentand allocated to elements of the Departmentusing fair and equitable criteria and such fundsshall be available until December 31, 2001.

SEC. 328. Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, rule or regulation, the Secretary ofTransportation is authorized to allow the issuerof any preferred stock heretofore sold to the De-partment to redeem or repurchase such stockupon the payment to the Department of anamount determined by the Secretary.

SEC. 329. For necessary expenses of the Am-trak Reform Council authorized under section203 of Public Law 105–134, $750,000, to remainavailable until September 30, 2002: Provided,That the duties of the Amtrak Reform Councildescribed in section 203(g)(1) of Public Law 105–134 shall include the identification of Amtrakroutes which are candidates for closure or re-alignment, based on performance rankings de-veloped by Amtrak which incorporate informa-tion on each route’s fully allocated costs andridership on core intercity passenger service,and which assume, for purposes of closure or re-alignment candidate identification, that Federalsubsidies for Amtrak will decline over the 4-yearperiod from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2002:Provided further, That these closure or realign-ment recommendations shall be included in theAmtrak Reform Council’s annual report to theCongress required by section 203(h) of PublicLaw 105–134.

SEC. 330. Item number 1473 in the table con-tained in section 1602 of the Transportation Eq-uity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 311) isamended by striking ‘‘Stony’’ and inserting‘‘Commerce’’.

SEC. 331. None of the funds in this Act may beused to make a grant unless the Secretary ofTransportation notifies the House and SenateCommittees on Appropriations not less thanthree full business days before any discretionarygrant award, letter of intent, or full fundinggrant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more isannounced by the department or its modal ad-ministrations from: (1) any discretionary grantprogram of the Federal Highway Administrationother than the emergency relief program; (2) theairport improvement program of the FederalAviation Administration; or (3) any program ofthe Federal Transit Administration other thanthe formula grants and fixed guideway mod-ernization programs: Provided, That no notifi-cation shall involve funds that are not availablefor obligation.

SEC. 332. Of the funds provided for fiscal year2001 in section 232 of the Miscellaneous Appro-priations Act, 2000, as enacted by section1000(a)(5) of the Consolidated AppropriationsAct, 2000, $20,000,000 shall be available only forfire and life safety improvements to enable theJames A. Farley Post Office in New York City tobe used as a train station and commercial cen-ter.

SEC. 333. None of the funds in this Act shallbe available for planning, design, or construc-tion of a light rail system in Houston, Texas.

SEC. 334. Section 3030(b) of the TransportationEquity Act for the 21st Century (Public Law


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8931October 5, 2000105–178) is amended by adding at the end thefollowing:

‘‘(72) Wilmington Downtown transit corridor.‘‘(73) Honolulu Bus Rapid Transit project.’’.SEC. 335. None of the funds appropriated or

made available by this Act or any other Actshall be used (1) to adopt any proposed rule orproposed amendment to a rule contained in theNotice of Proposed Rulemaking issued on April24, 2000 (Docket No. FMCSA–97–2350–953), (2) toadopt any rule or amendment to a rule similarin substance to a proposed rule or proposedamendment to a rule contained in such Notice,or (3) if any such proposed rule or proposedamendment to a rule has been adopted prior toenactment of this section, to enforce such ruleor amendment to a rule: Provided, That nothingin this section shall apply to issuing and pro-ceeding, through all stages of rulemaking otherthan adoption of a final rule, under subchapterII of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code ona supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking tobe issued in Docket No. FMCSA–97–2350–953that contains proposed rules and proposedamendments to rules that take appropriate ac-count of the information received for filing inthe docket on the Notice of Proposed Rule-making (Docket No. FMCSA–97–2350–953).

SEC. 336. Section 3038(e) of Public Law 105–178is amended by striking ‘‘50’’ and inserting ‘‘90’’.

SEC. 337. Item number 273 in the table con-tained in section 1602 of the Transportation Eq-uity Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105–178) is amended by striking ‘‘Reconstruct I–235and improve the interchange for access to theMLKing Parkway.’’ and inserting ‘‘Construc-tion of the north-south segments of the MartinLuther King Jr. Parkway in Des Moines.’’.

SEC. 338. Item number 328 in the table con-tained in section 1602 of the Transportation Eq-uity Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105–178) is amended by inserting before ‘‘of’’ the fol-lowing: ‘‘or construction’’.

SEC. 339. Section 1602 of the TransportationEquity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 256) isamended—

(1) by striking item number 63, relating toOhio; and

(2) in item number 186, relating to Ohio, bystriking ‘‘3.75’’ and inserting ‘‘7.5’’.

SEC. 340. (a) Of the funds apportioned to theCommonwealth of Massachusetts under each ofsubsections (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4) ofsection 104 and section 105 of title 23, UnitedStates Code, the Secretary shall withhold obli-gation of Federal funds and all project approv-als for the Central Artery/Tunnel project in fis-cal year 2001 and each fiscal year thereafter un-less the Secretary of the Department of Trans-portation determines that the Commonwealthmeets each of the following criteria:

(1) The Commonwealth is in full compliancewith the partnership agreement that was exe-cuted on June 22, 2000, between the FederalHighway Administration, the MassachusettsTurnpike Authority, the Massachusetts High-way Department, and the Massachusetts Execu-tive Office of Transportation and Construction.

(2) The Commonwealth is in full compliancewith the balanced statewide program memo-randum of understanding entered into by theMassachusetts Highway Department, the Execu-tive Office of Transportation and Construction,and metropolitan planning organizations in theCommonwealth of Massachusetts.

(3) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts shallspend no less than $400,000,000 each year forconstruction activities and specific transpor-tation projects as defined in the Balanced State-wide Program Memorandum of Understandingon projects other than the Central Artery/Tun-nel project.

(b) After June 22, 2000, the Secretary of Trans-portation shall not approve new net advanceconstruction for the Central Artery/Tunnelproject in an amount greater than $222,000,000and no conversion of advance construction toobligation authority shall cause the Federal

share of funding for the Central Artery/Tunnelproject to exceed $8,549,000,000.

(c) Of the funds apportioned to the Common-wealth of Massachusetts under each of sub-sections (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4) of section104 and section 105 of title 23, United StatesCode, the Secretary shall withhold obligation ofFederal funds and all project approvals for theCentral Artery/Tunnel project in fiscal year 2001and each fiscal year thereafter until the Inspec-tor General of the Department of Transpor-tation finds the annual update of the CentralArtery/Tunnel project finance plan consistentwith Federal Highway Administration financialplan guidance and the Secretary of the Depart-ment of Transportation approves the annual up-date of the finance plan, except for fiscal year2001 when approval of the annual update of thefinance plan will not be required until December1, 2000.

(d) Total Federal contributions to the CentralArtery/Tunnel project shall not exceed$8,549,000,000.

(e) Should the Secretary withhold Federalfunds apportioned to the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts under subsections (b)(1), (b)(2),(b)(3), and (b)(4) of section 104 and section 105of title 23, United States Code, for the CentralArtery/Tunnel project in any fiscal year fornoncompliance with this section, such fundsshall be available to the Commonwealth of Mas-sachusetts for projects other than the CentralArtery/Tunnel project in that fiscal year.

(f) This section shall be in effect for each fis-cal year in which any Federal funds are madeavailable to construct the Central Artery/Tunnelproject in Boston, Massachusetts.

(g) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisionsof this section to the contrary, the Secretary isauthorized to approve conversion of advanceconstruction to obligation authority and other-wise make Federal funds available to the Com-monwealth of Massachusetts without regard tothe requirement of the section, other than sub-section (d), if and only if to the extent nec-essary, as evidenced by a certificate of the Sec-retary of Administration and Finance of theCommonwealth of Massachusetts satisfactory tothe Secretary, to enable the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts to pay all or any portion of theprincipal amount of notes issued by the Com-monwealth of Massachusetts pursuant to sec-tion 9 through 10D of chapter 11 of the Massa-chusetts acts of 1997, as amended, to financecosts of the Central Artery/Tunnel project in an-ticipation of the receipts of Federal funds: Pro-vided, That no funds derived from the sale ofgrant anticipation notes shall be used to exceedthe caps described in subsections (b) and (d).

SEC. 341. Section 3027(c)(3) of the Transpor-tation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C.5307 note; 112 Stat. 2681–477), relating to servicesfor elderly and persons with disabilities, isamended by striking ‘‘$1,000,000’’ and inserting‘‘$1,444,000’’.

SEC. 342. Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, unobligated balances from section149(a)(45) and section 149(a)(63) of Public Law100–17 and the Ebensburg Bypass Demonstra-tion Project of Public Law 101–164 may be usedfor improvements along Route 56 in CambriaCounty, Pennsylvania, including the construc-tion of a parking facility in the vicinity.

SEC. 343. None of the funds in this Act shallbe used for the planning, development, or con-struction of California State Route 710 freewayextension project through South Pasadena,California.

SEC. 344. None of the funds made available inthis Act may be used for engineering work re-lated to an additional runway at New OrleansInternational Airport.

SEC. 345. Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, up to $800,000 of unobligated balancesfrom capital investment grants available forFayette County, Pennsylvania intermodal facili-ties and buses in the Department of Transpor-tation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,

1999 (Public Law 105–277) and the Departmentof Transportation and Related Agencies Appro-priations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106–69) may bemade available for an intermodal parking facil-ity in Cambria County, Pennsylvania.

SEC. 346. None of the funds appropriated bythis Act shall be used to propose or issue rules,regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose ofimplementation, or in preparation for implemen-tation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adoptedon December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan at theThird Conference of the Parties to the UnitedNations Framework Convention on ClimateChange, which has not been submitted to theSenate for advice and consent to ratificationpursuant to article II, section 2, clause 2, of theUnited States Constitution, and which has notentered into force pursuant to article 25 of theProtocol.

SEC. 347. None of the funds appropriated bythis Act or any other Act shall be used to paythe salaries and expenses of personnel who pre-pare or submit appropriations language as partof the President’s Budget submission to the Con-gress of the United States for programs underthe jurisdiction of the Appropriations Sub-committees on Department of Transportationand Related Agencies that assumes revenues orreflects reductions from the previous year due touser fee proposals that have not been enactedinto law prior to the submission of the budgetunless such budget submission identifies whichadditional spending reductions should occur inthe event the user fee proposals are not enactedprior to the date of the convening of a committeeof conference for the fiscal year 2002 appropria-tions Act.

SEC. 348. In addition to the authority providedin section 636 of the Treasury, Postal Service,and General Government Appropriations Act,1997, as included in Public Law 104–208, title I,section 101(f), as amended, beginning in fiscalyear 2001 and thereafter, amounts appropriatedfor salaries and expenses for the Department ofTransportation may be used to reimburse an em-ployee whose position is that of safety inspectorfor not to exceed one-half the costs incurred bysuch employee for professional liability insur-ance. Any payment under this section shall becontingent upon the submission of such infor-mation or documentation as the Departmentmay require.

SEC. 349. None of the funds in this Act shallbe used to pursue or adopt guidelines or regula-tions requiring airport sponsors to provide to theFederal Aviation Administration without costbuilding construction, maintenance, utilitiesand expenses, or space in airport sponsor-ownedbuildings for services relating to air traffic con-trol, air navigation or weather reporting. Theprohibition of funds in this section does notapply to negotiations between the Agency andairport sponsors to achieve agreement on‘‘below-market’’ rates for these items or to grantassurances that require airport sponsors to pro-vide land without cost to the FAA for air trafficcontrol facilities.

SEC. 350. None of the funds provided in thisAct or prior Appropriations Acts for CoastGuard ‘‘Acquisition, construction, and improve-ments’’ shall be available after the fifteenth dayof any quarter of any fiscal year beginning afterDecember 31, 2000, unless the Commandant ofthe Coast Guard first submits a quarterly reportto the House and Senate Committees on Appro-priations on all major Coast Guard acquisitionprojects including projects executed for theCoast Guard by the United States Navy and ves-sel traffic service projects: Provided, That suchreports shall include an acquisition schedule, es-timated current and year funding requirements,and a schedule of anticipated obligations andoutlays for each major acquisition project: Pro-vided further, That such reports shall rate on arelative scale the cost risk, schedule risk, andtechnical risk associated with each acquisition


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8932 October 5, 2000project and include a table detailing unobli-gated balances to date and anticipated unobli-gated balances at the close of the fiscal yearand the close of the following fiscal year shouldthe Administration’s pending budget request forthe acquisition, construction, and improvementsaccount be fully funded: Provided further, Thatsuch reports shall also provide abbreviated in-formation on the status of shore facility con-struction and renovation projects: Provided fur-ther, That all information submitted in such re-ports shall be current as of the last day of thepreceding quarter.

SEC. 351. Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, beginning in fiscal year 2004, the Sec-retary shall withhold 2 percent of the amountrequired to be apportioned for Federal-aid high-ways to any State under each of paragraphs (1),(3), and (4) of section 104(b) of title 23, UnitedStates Code, if a State has not enacted and isnot enforcing a provision described in section163(a) of chapter 1 of title 23, United StatesCode; in fiscal year 2005, the Secretary shallwithhold 4 percent of the amount required to beapportioned for Federal-aid highways to anyState under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4)of section 104(b) of title 23, United States Code,if a State has not enacted and is not enforcinga provision described in section 163(a) of title 23,United States Code; in fiscal year 2006, the Sec-retary shall withhold 6 percent of the amountrequired to be apportioned for Federal-aid high-ways to any State under each of paragraphs (1),(3), and (4) of section 104(b) of title 23, UnitedStates Code, if a State has not enacted and isnot enforcing a provision described in section163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and begin-ning in fiscal year 2007 and in each fiscal yearthereafter, the Secretary shall withhold 8 per-cent of the amount required to be apportionedfor Federal-aid highways to any State undereach of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of section104(b) of title 23, United States Code, if a Statehas not enacted and is not enforcing a provisiondescribed in section 163(a) of title 23, UnitedStates Code. If within four years from the datethat the apportionment for any State is reducedin accordance with this section the Secretarydetermines that such State has enacted and isenforcing a provision described in section 163(a)of chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, theapportionment of such State shall be increasedby an amount equal to such reduction. If at theend of such four-year period, any State has notenacted and is not enforcing a provision de-scribed in section 163(a) of title 23, United StatesCode, any amounts so withheld shall lapse.

SEC. 352. (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstandingany other provision of law, including the Sur-plus Property Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 765, chapter479; 50 U.S.C. App. 1622 et seq.), the Secretary ofTransportation (or the appropriate Federal offi-cer) may waive, without charge, any of theterms contained in any deed of conveyance de-scribed in subsection (b) that restrict the use ofany land described in such a deed that, as ofthe date of enactment of this Act, is not beingused for the operation of an airport or for airtraffic. A waiver made under the preceding sen-tence shall be deemed to be consistent with therequirements of section 47153 of title 49, UnitedStates Code.

(b) DEED OF CONVEYANCE.—A deed of convey-ance referred to in subsection (a) is a deed ofconveyance issued by the United States beforethe date of enactment of this Act for the convey-ance of lands to a public institution of highereducation in Oklahoma.

(c) USE OF LANDS SUBJECT TO WAIVER.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other

provision of law, the lands subject to a waiverunder subsection (a) shall not be subject to anyterm, condition, reservation, or restriction thatwould otherwise apply to that land as a resultof the conveyance of that land by the UnitedStates to the institution of higher education.

(2) USE OF LANDS.—An institution of highereducation that is issued a waiver under sub-

section (a) may use revenues derived from theuse, operation, or disposal of that land only forweather-related and educational purposes thatinclude benefits for aviation.

(d) GRANTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other

provision of law, if an institution of higher edu-cation that is subject to a waiver under sub-section (a) received financial assistance in theform of a grant from the Federal Aviation Ad-ministration or a predecessor agency before thedate of enactment of this Act, then the Sec-retary of Transportation may waive the repay-ment of the outstanding amount of any grantthat the institution of higher education wouldotherwise be required to pay.

(2) ELIGIBILITY TO RECEIVE SUBSEQUENTGRANTS.—Nothing in paragraph (1) shall affectthe eligibility of an institution of higher edu-cation that is subject to that paragraph from re-ceiving grants from the Secretary of Transpor-tation under chapter 471 of title 49, UnitedStates Code, or under any other provision of lawrelating to financial assistance providedthrough the Federal Aviation Administration.

SEC. 353. The table contained in section 1602of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21stCentury is amended in item 1006 (112 Stat. 294)by striking ‘‘Extend NW 86th Street from NW70th Street’’ and inserting ‘‘Construct a roadfrom State Highway 141’’.

SEC. 354. For the purpose of constructing anunderpass to improve access and enhance high-way/rail safety and economic development alongStar Landing Road in DeSoto County, Mis-sissippi, the State of Mississippi may use fundspreviously allocated to it under the transpor-tation enhancements program, if available.

SEC. 355. Section 1214 of Public Law 105–178,as amended, is further amended by adding anew subsection to read as follows:

‘‘(s) Notwithstanding section 117 (c) of title 23,United States Code, for project number 1646 insection 1602 of Public Law 105–178, the non-Fed-eral share of the project may be funded by Fed-eral funds from an agency or agencies not partof the United States Department of Transpor-tation.’’.

SEC. 356. Hereafter, the New Jersey Transitcommuter rail station to be located at the inter-section of the Main/Bergen line and the North-east Corridor line in the State of New Jerseyshall be known and designated as the ‘‘FrankR. Lautenberg Station’’: Provided, That the Sec-retary of Transportation shall ensure that anyand all applicable reference in law, map, regula-tion, documentation, and all appropriate sign-age shall make reference to the ‘‘Frank R. Lau-tenberg Station’’.

SEC. 357. None of the funds in this Act may beavailable for the planning, development or con-struction of a multi-lane, limited access express-way at section 800, Pennsylvania Route 202 inBucks County, Pennsylvania.

SEC. 358. Item 131 in the table under ‘‘FederalTransit Administration, Capital investmentgrants’’ in Public Law 106–69 is amended byadding after ‘‘buses’’ the following: ‘‘, bus-re-lated equipment and bus facilities’’.

SEC. 359. Each executive agency shall estab-lish a policy under which eligible employees ofthe agency may participate in telecommuting tothe maximum extent possible without diminishedemployee performance. Not later than 6 monthsafter the date of the enactment of this Act, theDirector of the Office of Personnel Managementshall provide that the requirements of this sec-tion are applied to 25 percent of the Federalworkforce, and to an additional 25 percent ofsuch workforce each year thereafter.

SEC. 360. Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, new fixed guideway system funds avail-able for the Jackson, Mississippi, IntermodalCorridor in the Department of Transportationand Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998,Public Law 105–66, may be made available forobligation during this fiscal year for studies toevaluate and define transportation alternatives

for this project, including an intermodal facilityat Jackson International Airport, and for re-lated preliminary engineering, final design orconstruction.

SEC. 361. Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, up to $499,000 of the funds made avail-able in item 760 of section 1602 of the Transpor-tation Equity Act for the 21st Century shall beavailable for corridor planning studies betweenwestern Baldwin County and Mobile MunicipalAirport.

SEC. 362. Item number 78 in section 1107(b) ofthe Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi-ciency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–240) isamended by inserting ‘‘Akron Innerbelt (StateRoute 59) corridor, Broadway viaduct replace-ment, and High Street viaduct replacement,’’after ‘‘extension,’’.

SEC. 363. Section 117(c) of title 23, UnitedStates Code, is amended by inserting before theperiod at the end of the following: ‘‘; except thatthe Federal share on account of the project to becarried out under item 1419 of the table con-tained in section 1602 of the Transportation Eq-uity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 309), re-lating to reconstruction of a road and causewayin Shiloh Military Park in Hardin County, Ten-nessee, shall be 100 percent of the total costthereof’’.

SEC. 364. Section 30118 of title 49, UnitedStates Code, is amended—

(1) in subsections (a), (b)(1), and (c), by in-serting ‘‘, original equipment,’’ before ‘‘or re-placement equipment’’ each place it appears;and

(2) in subsection (c)—(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as

subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, andindenting appropriately;

(B) by striking ‘‘A manufacturer’’ and insert-ing the following: ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A manu-facturer’’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(2) DUTY OF MANUFACTURERS.—For the pur-

poses of paragraph (1), a manufacturer of amotor vehicle, original equipment, or replace-ment equipment shall have a duty to review andconsider information, including information re-ceived from any foreign source, to learn whetherthe vehicle or equipment contains a defect ordoes not comply with an applicable motor vehi-cle safety standard.’’.

SEC. 365. Funds appropriated to the FederalTransit Administration under the heading‘‘Transit planning and research’’ for inter-national activities in Public Law 106–69 shall betransferred to and administered by the Agencyfor International Development for transpor-tation needs in the frontline states to theKosovo conflict, as determined to be appropriateby the Administrator of the Agency for Inter-national Development.

SEC. 366. Under the heading ‘‘DiscretionaryGrants’’ in Public Law 105–66, ‘‘$4,000,000 forthe Salt Lake City regional commuter systemproject;’’ is amended to read ‘‘$4,000,000 for thetransit and other transportation-related por-tions of the Salt Lake City regional commutersystem and Gateway intermodal terminal;’’.

SEC. 367. Of the amounts to be made availablein fiscal year 2001 under section 1404 (safety in-centives to prevent operation of motor vehiclesby intoxicated persons) of Public Law 105–178,$2,492,121 shall be made available to the Com-monwealth of Kentucky for adopting a 0.08blood alcohol content standard. Thereafter theremaining funds shall be distributed by formulato the eligible states, including Kentucky.

SEC. 368. Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, the Secretary of Transportation shallwaive repayment of any Federal-aid highwayfunds expended by the City of Spokane, Wash-ington on the Lincoln Street Bridge Project.

SEC. 369. Items 218 and 219 in the table under‘‘Federal Transit Administration, Capital in-vestment grants’’ in Division A, section 101(g) ofPublic Law 105–277 and items 222 and 223 in thetable under ‘‘Federal Transit Administration,


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8933October 5, 2000Capital investment grants’’ in Public Law 106–69 are amended by inserting ‘‘and bus and busfacilities’’ at the end of each item.

SEC. 370. Item number 6 in the table containedin section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Actfor the 21st Century (Public Law 105–178) isamended by inserting after ‘‘Kaysville’’, ‘‘andwithin the amount provided, $2,000,000 for re-pair and reconstruction of the North Ogden Di-vide Highway’’.

SEC. 371. Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, States may use funds provided in thisAct under section 402 of title 23, United StatesCode, to produce and place highway safety pub-lic service messages in television, radio, cinema,and print media, and on the Internet in accord-ance with guidance issued by the Secretary ofTransportation. Any State that uses funds forsuch public service messages shall submit to theSecretary a report describing and assessing theeffectiveness of the messages.

SEC. 372. Notwithstanding section 402 of theDepartment of Transportation and RelatedAgencies Appropriations Act, 1982 (49 U.S.C.10903 nt), Mohall Railroad, Inc. may abandontrack from milepost 5.25 near Granville, NorthDakota, to milepost 35.0 at Lansford, North Da-kota, and the track so abandoned shall not becounted against the 350 mile limitation con-tained in that section.

SEC. 373. Item number 163 in the table con-tained in section 1602 of the Transportation Eq-uity Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105–178) is amended by inserting before the numeral‘‘which includes the study, design, and con-struction related to local street improvementsneeded to complement the extension ofKapkowski Road’’.

SEC. 374. Item number 331 in the table con-tained in section 1602 of the Transportation Eq-uity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 269) isamended by striking ‘‘highway access’’ and in-serting ‘‘highway and freight rail access’’.

SEC. 375. For capital costs associated withtrack relocation, track construction and reha-bilitation, highway-rail separation constructionactivities including right-of-way acquisition andutility relocation, and signal improvements inMuscle Shoals, Tuscumbia, and Sheffield, Ala-bama, $5,000,000 to the Alabama Department ofTransportation, to remain available until ex-pended: Provided, That obligation of federalfunds is contingent upon a match of no lessthan 75 percent from non-federal sources.

SEC. 376. For capital costs associated withtrack acquisition and rehabilitation betweenStrasburg Junction and Shenandoah Caverns,Virginia, $1,000,000 to Valley Trains and Tours,to remain available until expended: Provided,That the obligation of federal funds is contin-gent upon an agreement with Norfolk SouthernCorporation on track usage and financial sup-port by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

SEC. 377. Item 1135 of the table contained insection 1602 of the Transportation Equity Actfor the 21st Century (112 Stat. 298) is amendedby striking ‘‘Replace Barton Road/M 14 inter-change, Ann Arbor’’ and inserting ‘‘Conduct astudy of all possible alternatives to the currentM–14/Barton Drive interchange in Ann Arbor,including relocation of M–14/U.S. 23 from MapleRoad to Plymouth Road, mass transit options,and other means of reducing commuter trafficand improving highway safety’’.

SEC. 378. Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, in addition to amounts made availablein this Act or any other Act, the following sumsshall be made available from the Highway TrustFund (other than the Mass Transit Account):$50,000,000 for the intelligent transportation in-frastructure program as authorized by section5117(b)(3) of Public Law 105–178; $8,500,000 forconstruction of, and improvements to, 17th Ave-nue and 23rd Avenue highway ramps in Denver,Colorado; $1,000,000 for engineering, construc-tion of, and improvements to, the Cascade Gate-way Border Project in Whatcom County, Wash-ington; $100,000,000 for construction of, and im-

provements to, Corridor D on the Appalachiandevelopment highway system in the State ofWest Virginia; $1,500,000 for construction of,and improvements to, the Alameda Corridor-East Gateway to American Trade corridorproject, California; $4,000,000 for constructionof, and improvements to, Avenue G viaduct andconnector roads in Council Bluffs, Iowa;$34,100,000 for design and construction of theBirmingham, Alabama Northern Beltline;$13,500,000 for construction of, and improve-ments to, US 231 from Bowling Green toScottsville, Kentucky; $150,000 for improvementsto the Broad Street and Wyckoff Road intersec-tion, including traffic light upgrades, in theBorough of Eatontown, New Jersey; $12,000,000for construction of road expansion and improve-ments to, the Broad Street Parkway in Nashua,New Hampshire; $10,000,000 to construct inter-changes US 281 at FM 2812, FM 162, FM 490, SP122, and SH 186 in Texas; $12,500,000 to con-struct interchanges US 77 at Business 77 North,FM 3186, FM 490, SP 122, and SP 413 in Texas;$30,000,000 for construction of, and improve-ments to, the Cooper River Bridge in SouthCarolina; $100,000,000 for construction of, andimprovements to, Corridor X on the Appa-lachian development highway system in theState of Alabama; $4,000,000 for construction,including related activities, of an interchange atCounty Highway J and US 10 and to upgrade asegment of US 10 to a four-lane highway in Por-tage County, Wisconsin; $5,000,000 for construc-tion, including related activities, of the CraigRoad overpass between I–15 and Lossee Road inthe City of North Las Vegas, Nevada; $30,200,000for construction of, and improvements to,bridges and other projects on the Dalton High-way, Alaska; $3,200,000 for improvements toDayton Road in Ames, Iowa; $15,000,000 for con-struction of, and improvements to, the Detroit,Michigan Ambassador Bridge Gateway project;$24,000,000 for construction of, and improve-ments to, FAST Corridor in Washington;$10,000,000 for construction of, and improve-ments to, the Fort Washington Way reconfig-uration project, Cincinnati, Ohio; $35,000,000 forconstruction of, and improvement to, the FourBears Bridge in North Dakota; $50,000,000 forconstruction of, and improvements to, the GlennHighway/George Parks Highway interchange inAlaska; $8,000,000 for preliminary design of theInterstate Route 69 Great River Bridge crossingthe Mississippi at Bolivar County, Mississippi;$8,000,000 for reconstruction of, and other im-provements to, Halls Mill Road in FreeholdTownship and Monmouth County, New Jersey;$4,500,000 for construction of, and improvementsto, Hamakua-Hilo corridor road and bridgeprojects, Hawaii; $35,000,000 for construction,including related activities, of an extension ofHighway 180 from the City of Mendota to I–5 inFresno County, California; $10,000,000 to up-grade Highway 36 in Marion County, Missouri,to four-land divided highway; $9,750,000 forwidening, relocation of, and other improvementsto South Carolina Highway 5, including the re-moval and relocation of municipal utilities, be-tween Interstate 85 in Cherokee County, SouthCarolina and Interstate 77 in York County,South Carolina; $10,000,000 for upgrading High-way 60 in Shannon and Carter counties, Mis-souri, to four-lane divided highway; $6,400,000for Hoeven Valley corridor, Sioux City, road,intersection, and rail crossing improvements, inIowa; $20,000,000 for environmental work, de-sign, and construction of the Hoover Dam by-pass four-lane bridge; $13,500,000 for construc-tion of, and improvements to, I–15 between mile-post 0 and milepost 16, from the Utah border toDeep Creek, Idaho; $10,000,000 for constructionof, and improvements to, the I–15 Southboundproject, Nevada; $10,000,000 for construction of,and improvements to, I–195 in Rhode Island;$6,400,000 for municipality relocation costs for I–235 in Polk County, Iowa; $12,000,000 for envi-ronmental work, preliminary survey and design,and reconstruction of I–35 from Des Moines to

Ankeny, Iowa, $36,000,000 for construction, in-cluding related activities, of the I–39/US 51/SH29 corridor (Wausau Beltline) in and aroundWausau, Wisconsin; $94,000,000 for constructionof, and improvements to, I–49 in the State of Ar-kansas; $18,400,000 for environmental work, pre-liminary survey and design of I–69 in Ten-nessee;; $10,000,000 for construction of, and im-provements to, the I–80/US 395 interchange inReno, Nevada; $2,800,000 for border crossing im-provements on I–87, in New York; $8,000,000 forconstruction of, and improvements to, the I–95to Transitway access project in Stamford, Con-necticut; $4,000,000 for construction of, and im-provements to, U.S. Department of Transpor-tation structure numbered 289–961–H at FASRoute 37 in Illinois; $250,000 for improvements atthe Rosedal Road and Provinceline Road inter-section in the Township of Princeton, New Jer-sey; $1,200,000 for improvements to CountyRoute 605 in Delaware Township and WestAmwell Township, Hunterdon County, New Jer-sey; $2,500,000 for improvements to the Route 9and Route 520 intersection in Marlboro Town-ship, New Jersey; $5,000,000 for improvement toUS 73 from State Avenue North to Marxen Roadin Wyandotte County, Kansas; $5,000,000 for in-stallation of sound barriers along the Route 309Expressway between Limekiln Pike and StateRoute 63 in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania;$8,700,000 for construction, including related ac-tivities, of a new interchange on I–435 atDonahoo Road in Wyandotte County, Kansas;$15,000,000 for construction of, and improve-ments to, the intersection at 27th Street and Air-port Road in Billings, Montana; $5,000,000 forconstruction of, and improvements to, KahukuBridges, Hawaii; $5,500,000 for construction of,and improvements to, the Kansas Lane Con-nector Road alignment project in Monroe, Lou-isiana; $4,000,000 for construction of, and im-provements to, Kekaha, Kauai access roads, Ha-waii; $10,000,000 for planning, environmentalwork, and preliminary engineering of highway,pedestrian vehicular, and bicycle access to theJohn F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Artsin the District of Columbia; $2,500,000 for con-struction of, and improvement to, Kihei Road,Hawaii; $10,000,000 for Lafayette Street accessimprovements from the US 202 DannehowerBridge to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, includingextension of Lafayette Street to theConshohocken Road, intersection improvementsand bridge, reconstruction in Norristown, Penn-sylvania; $12,400,000 for widening and overlay/guard rail work on SR 789 between Lander andHudson, Wyoming; $500,000 for reconstruction ofLewisville Road in Lawrence Township, NewJersey; $3,200,000 for construction of, and im-provements to, the Martin Luther King, Jr.Bridge in Toledo, Ohio; $9,300,000 for construc-tion of, and improvements to, the Midtown Westintermodal ferry terminal, New York City, NewYork; $5,000,000 for construction, including re-lated activities, of an extension of MississippiHighway 44, including a bridge over the PearlRiver, in Lawrence County, Mississippi;$13,000,000 for construction of, and improve-ments to, the Missouri River pedestrian crossingin Omaha, Nebraska; $5,000,000 for the NJCDCTraining Facility Project in Paterson, New Jer-sey; $16,000,000 for construction of, and im-provements to, North Shore Road in SwainCounty, North Carolina; $3,500,000 for construc-tion of, and improvements to, the Norwich, Con-necticut intermodal facility project; $1,500,000for construction of, and improvements to,Padanaram and Little River Road bridgeprojects in Dartmouth, Massachusetts;$11,000,000 for reconstruction activities on thePotee Street Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland;$250,000 for reconstruction of Institute Street,Lockwood Avenue, First Street, Second Street,


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8934 October 5, 2000Third Street, Ford Avenue, Liberty Street, andBond Street in the Borough of Freehold, NewJersey; $4,200,000 for relocation and related con-struction activities thereto of MacArthur Boule-vard in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; $1,200,000for grade crossing eliminations along Route 17in Chemung County, New York; $4,000,000 forconstruction of, and improvements to, Route 2between St. Johnsbury, Vermont and the NewHampshire State Line; $500,000 for improvementsto Route 35 at Clinton Avenue and other inter-sections in the Borough of Eatontown, Mew Jer-sey; $500,000 for Route 35 corridor improvements,including signal upgrades, in the Borough ofEatontown, New Jersey; $2,600,000 for construc-tion of, and improvements to, the NianguaBridge on Route 5 in Camden County, Missouri;$1,000,000 for improvements to Route 641 inHunterdon County, New Jersey; $25,000,000 forconstruction, including related activities, of theRoute 7 North bypass in Brookfield, Con-necticut; $6,000,000 for construction of, and im-provements to, the Route 9 Bennington Bypass,Vermont; $5,000,000 for construction of, and im-provements to, Saddle Road, Hawaii; $1,200,000for reconstruction of School Road East in Marl-boro Township, New Jersey; $29,000,000 for con-struction of, and improvements to, a SoutheastConnector Route between I–90 and SD 79 inSouth Dakota; $5,000,000 for improvements, in-cluding traffic signal system upgrades, to StateRoute 99 in Shoreline, Washington; $500,000 forthe Township of Princeton, New Jersey munic-ipal complex road improvements, including im-provements to the Valley, Mount Lucas, Ter-hune and Cherry Hill roadways in the Town-ship of Princeton, New Jersey; $23,600,000 forconstruction of, and improvements to, US 12 be-tween Aberdeen and I–29 in South Dakota;$40,000,000 for construction of, and improve-ments to, US 19 in Pinellas County, Florida;$25,000,000 for construction of, and improve-ments to, US 50 Parkersburg bypass in West Vir-ginia; $10,000,000 for construction of, and im-provements to, US 63 in Jonesboro, Arkansas;$5,000,000 for construction of, and improvementsto, US 101 in Oregon; $4,000,000 for constructionof, and improvements to, US 54 in Kansas;$100,000,000 for construction of, and improve-ments to, the US 82 bridge over the MississippiRiver at Greenville, Mississippi; $10,000,000 forconstruction of, and improvements to, includingwidening, of US 95 between Laughlin Cutoffand Railroad Pass, Nevada; $1,000,000 for im-provements to the Van Wyck Expressway,Queens County, New York; and $20,000,000 forwidening US 53 from two lanes to four lanesfrom Minnesota Highway 169 north of Virginia,Minnesota to Cook, Minnesota; Provided, Thatthe amounts appropriated in this section shallremain available until expended and shall notbe subject to, or computed against, any obliga-tion limitation or contract authority set forth inthis Act or any other Act.

SEC. 379. (a) Section 412(a) of the WoodrowWilson Memorial Bridge Authority Act of 1995(109 Stat. 627; 112 Stat. 159) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)—(A) by striking ‘‘There is’’ and inserting the

following:‘‘(A) HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.—There is’’; and(B) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(B) GENERAL FUND.—‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts

made available under subparagraph (A), there isappropriated to pay the costs described in sub-paragraph (A) $600,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.

‘‘(ii) CONDITION.—Notwithstanding any otherprovision of law, the additional funds madeavailable by clause (i) shall be made availableonly when 1 or more of the Capital Region juris-dictions accepts conveyance from the Secretaryof all right, title, and interest of the UnitedStates in and to the new Bridge.

‘‘(iii) MANNER OF USE.—The use of the addi-tional funds made available by clause (i) shallbe subject to title 23, United States Code.’’;

(2) in paragraph (2)—

(A) by striking ‘‘Funds’’ and inserting ‘‘Ex-cept as provided in paragraph (3), funds’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘this section’’ and inserting‘‘paragraph (1)(A)’’; and

(3) by striking ‘‘Code; except that—’’ and in-serting the following: ‘‘Code.

‘‘(3) CONDITIONS.—With respect to funds au-thorized or appropriated by this section—’’.

(b) Section 412 of the Woodrow Wilson Memo-rial Bridge Authority Act of 1995 (109 Stat. 627;112 Stat. 159) is amended by adding at the endthe following:

‘‘(d) LIMITATION ON FEDERAL CONTRIBU-TION.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para-graph (2), the aggregate of the amounts madeavailable from the Highway Trust Fund and thegeneral fund of the Treasury under this sectionshall not exceed $1,500,000,000.

‘‘(2) EXCLUDED AMOUNTS.—Amounts madeavailable for the Project under section 110 oftitle 23, United States Code, shall be excludedfrom the limitation established by paragraph(1).’’.

SEC. 380. Section 5309(g)(4) of title 49 UnitedStates Code is amended by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after‘‘(4)’’ and by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(B) For fiscal year 2001 and thereafter, theamount equivalent to the last 2 fiscal years offunding authorized under section 5338(b) fornew fixed guideway systems and extensions toexisting fixed guideway systems referred to insubparagraph (A) shall be the amount equiva-lent to the last 3 fiscal years of such authorizedfunding.

‘‘(C) Any increase in the total estimatedamount of future obligations of the Governmentand contingent commitments to incur obliga-tions covered by all outstanding letters of in-tent, full funding grant agreements, and earlysystems work agreements as a result of applica-tion of subparagraph (B) instead of subpara-graph (A) shall be available as follows:

‘‘(1) $269,100,000 for the Chicago, IllinoisMetra commuter rail project, that consists of thefollowing elements: the Kane County extension;the North Central double-tracking project; andthe Southwest corridor extension.

‘‘(2) $565,600,000 for the Chicago Transit Au-thority project that consists of the following ele-ments: Ravenswood Branch station and line im-provements and the Douglas Branch reconstruc-tion project.

‘‘(3) For new fixed guideways and extensionsto existing fixed guideway systems other thanfor projects referred to in paragraphs (1) and(2); except that for fiscal year 2001, such in-crease under this paragraph shall not be avail-able for allocation by the department or formaking future obligations of the Governmentand contingent commitments until April 1, 2001.

‘‘(D) Of the amount that would be availableunder subparagraph (A) if subparagraph (B)were not in effect and would have otherwisebeen allocated by the Federal Transit Adminis-tration to those projects referred to in subpara-graphs (C)(1) and (C)(2) shall be available asfollows:

‘‘(1) $60,000,000 for the Minneapolis Hiawathacorridor light rail project, which shall be in ad-dition to amounts otherwise allocated undersubparagraph (A), for a total of $334,300,000.

‘‘(2) $217,800,000 for the Dulles corridor busrapid transit project, that consists of a light railextension from the West Falls Church metrorailstation to Tysons Corner, Virginia and busrapid transit from Tysons Corner to the DullesInternational Airport.

‘‘(E) Any amount that would be availableunder subparagraph (A) if subparagraph (B)were not in effect and would have otherwisebeen allocated by the Federal Transit Adminis-tration to those projects referred to in subpara-graphs (C)(1) and (C)(2), shall not be availablefor allocation by the department or for makingfuture obligations of the Government and con-tingent commitments until April 1, 2001, exceptfor those projects referred to in subparagraph(D)(1) and (D)(2).

‘‘(F) Future obligations of the Governmentand contingent commitments made against thecontingent commitment authority under section3032(g)(2) of the Intermodal Surface Transpor-tation Efficiency Act of 1991 for the San Fran-cisco BART to the Airport project for fiscalyears 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 shall becharged against section 3032(g)(2) of the Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of1991.

‘‘(G) Any amount that would be availableunder subparagraph (A) if subparagraph (F)were not in effect and would otherwise havebeen allocated by the Federal Transit Adminis-tration to the project in subparagraph (F) shallnot be available for allocation by the depart-ment or for making future obligations of theGovernment and contingent commitments untilApril 1, 2001.’’.

SEC. 381. Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, within one week from the date of enact-ment of this Act, the Federal Transit Adminis-trator shall sign a Full Funding Grant Agree-ment for the MOS–2 segment of the New JerseyUrban Core—Hudson Bergen project.

SEC. 382. None of the funds appropriated inthis or any other Act may be used to adjust theboundary of the Point Retreat Light Station orto otherwise limit the property at the Point Re-treat Light Station currently under lease to theAlaska Lighthouse Association: Provided, Thatany modifications to the boundary of the PointRetreat Light Station made after January 1,1998 is hereby declared null and void.

TITLE IV

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

GIFTS TO THE UNITED STATES FOR REDUCTION OFTHE PUBLIC DEBT

For deposit of an additional amount into theaccount established under section 3113(d) of title31, United States Code, to reduce the publicdebt, $5,000,000,000.

TITLE V

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES


For an additional amount in support of theNation’s counterterrorism efforts, $6,424,000:Provided, That these funds shall be for estab-lishing a new interagency National TerroristAsset Tracking Center in the Office of ForeignAssets Control: Provided further, That thesefunds may be used to reimburse any Departmentof the Treasury organization for costs of pro-viding support for this effort.

DEPARTMENT-WIDE SYSTEMS AND CAPITALINVESTMENTS PROGRAMS


For an additional amount for the integratedTreasury wireless network, $15,000,000, to re-main available until expended: Provided, Thatthese funds shall be transferred to accounts andin amounts as necessary to satisfy the require-ments of the Department’s offices, bureaus, andother organizations: Provided further, That thistransfer authority shall be in addition to anyother transfer authority provided: Provided fur-ther, That none of the funds appropriated shallbe used to support or supplement the InternalRevenue Service appropriations for InformationSystems.

EXPANDED ACCESS TO FINANCIAL SERVICES


For an additional amount to develop and im-plement programs to expand access to financialservices for low- and moderate-income individ-uals, $8,000,000, to remain available until ex-pended: Provided, That of these funds, such


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8935October 5, 2000sums as may be necessary may be transferred toaccounts of the Department’s offices, bureaus,and other organizations: Provided further, Thatthis transfer authority shall be in addition toany other transfer authority provided.FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER

SALARIES AND EXPENSESFor an additional amount to establish and op-

erate a metropolitan area law enforcementtraining center for the Department of the Treas-ury, other Federal agencies, the United StatesCapitol Police, and the Washington, D.C., Met-ropolitan Police Department, $5,000,000: Pro-vided, That the principal function of the centershall be for firearms and vehicle operation re-qualification: Provided further, That use of thecenter for training for other state and local lawenforcement agencies may be provided on aspace-available basis: Provided further, Thatthe Federal Law Enforcement Training Centeris authorized to obligate funds in anticipation ofreimbursement from agencies receiving trainingsponsored by the Federal Law EnforcementTraining Center, except that total obligations atthe end of the fiscal year shall not exceed totalbudgetary resources available at the end of thefiscal year: Provided further, That the costs oftransportation to and from the center, ammuni-tion, vehicles, and instruction at the centershall be funded either directly by participatinglaw enforcement agencies, or through reimburse-ment of actual costs to this appropriation: Pro-vided further, That of the funds provided, nomore than $1,500,000 may be obligated until afunding plan for the center has been submittedto the Committees on Appropriations: Providedfurther, That all Federal property in the Na-tional Capital Region that is in the surplusproperty inventory of the General Services Ad-ministration shall be available for selection anduse by the Secretary of the Treasury as the siteof such a metropolitan area law enforcementtraining center. If the Secretary of the Treasuryidentifies a parcel of such property that is ap-propriate for use for such a center, the propertyshall not be treated as excess property or sur-plus property (as those terms are used in theFederal Property and Administrative ServicesAct of 1949) and administrative jurisdiction overthe property shall be transferred to the Sec-retary for use for such a center.

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS,AND RELATED EXPENSES

For an additional amount for design and con-struction of a metropolitan area law enforce-ment training center, including firearms and ve-hicle operations requalification facilities,$25,000,000, to remain available until expended:Provided, That of the funds provided, no morethan $3,000,000 may be obligated until a designand construction plan has been submitted to theCommittees on Appropriations.BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS

SALARIES AND EXPENSESFor an additional amount, $4,148,000, for par-

ticipation in Joint Terrorism Task Forces.UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSESFor an additional amount, $18,934,000: Pro-

vided, That $10,000,000 shall be for technologyand infrastructure along the northern border:Provided further, That $6,600,000 shall be forhiring counterterrorism agents for deploymentalong the northern border: Provided further,That none of the funds provided for the north-ern border shall be obligated until the Commis-sioner of the Customs Service submits for ap-proval to the Committees on Appropriations aplan for the deployment of the resources andpersonnel: Provided further, That $2,334,000shall be for participation in Joint TerrorismTask Forces.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

TAX LAW ENFORCEMENTFor an additional amount, $7,974,000: Pro-

vided, That $3,135,000 shall be in support of the

money laundering strategy: Provided further,That $4,839,000 shall be for participation inJoint Terrorism Task Forces.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS

For necessary expenses of the Internal Rev-enue Service, $71,751,000, to remain availableuntil September 30, 2003, for the capital asset ac-quisition of information technology systems, in-cluding management and related contractualcosts of said acquisitions, including contractualcosts associated with operations authorized by 5U.S.C. 3109: Provided, That none of these fundsmay be obligated until the Internal RevenueService submits to the Committees on Appropria-tions, and such Committees approve, a plan forexpenditure that (1) meets the capital planningand investment control review requirements es-tablished by the Office of Management andBudget, including Circular A–11 part 3; (2) com-plies with the Internal Revenue Service’s enter-prise architecture, including the modernizationblueprint; (3) conforms with the Internal Rev-enue Service’s enterprise life cycle methodology;(4) is approved by the Internal Revenue Service,the Department of the Treasury, and the Officeof Management and Budget; (5) has been re-viewed by the General Accounting Office; and(6) complies with the acquisition rules, require-ments, guidelines, and systems acquisition man-agement practices of the Federal Government.

STAFFING TAX ADMINISTRATION FOR BALANCEAND EQUITY


For necessary expenses of the Internal Rev-enue Service related to the hiring of new staff,$141,000,000: Provided, That these funds shall betransferred to the appropriations accounts for‘‘Processing, Assistance, and Management’’,‘‘Tax Law Enforcement’’, and ‘‘InformationSystems’’ in accordance with a staffing plan ap-proved by the Department of the Treasury andthe Office of Management and Budget: Providedfurther, That none of these funds may be trans-ferred or obligated until such staffing plan issubmitted to, and approved by, the Committeeson Appropriations: Provided further, That thistransfer authority shall be in addition to anyother transfer authority provided.

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE


For an additional amount, $2,904,000, for par-ticipation in Joint Terrorism Task Forces.EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THEPRESIDENTOFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CENTER


For an additional amount, $7,000,000: Pro-vided, That $5,000,000 shall be available for con-tinued operation of the technology transfer pro-gram: Provided further, That $2,000,000, to re-main available until expended, shall be avail-able for counternarcotics research and develop-ment projects, to be used for the continued de-velopment of a wireless interoperability commu-nication project in Colorado.

UNANTICIPATED NEEDS

For expenses necessary to enable the Presi-dent to meet unanticipated needs, in further-ance of the national interest, security, or de-fense which may arise at home or abroad duringthe current fiscal year, as authorized by 3U.S.C. 108, $3,500,000: Provided, That, of suchamount, $2,500,000 shall become available onMarch 31, 2001, and shall be provided to theElections Commission of the Commonwealth ofPuerto Rico as a transfer to be used for objec-tive, non-partisan citizens’ education and achoice by voters regarding the islands’ futurestatus: Provided further, That none of the fundsdescribed in the preceding proviso may be obli-gated until 45 days after the Elections Commis-sion of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico sub-mits to the Committees on Appropriations for

approval an expenditure plan developed jointlyby the Popular Democratic Party, the New Pro-gressive Party, and the Puerto Rican Independ-ence Party: Provided further, That the ElectionsCommission of the Commonwealth of PuertoRico shall include the expenditure plan addi-tional views from any party that does not agreewith the plan.

INDEPENDENT AGENCIESGENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

REAL PROPERTY ACTIVITIES

FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND

LIMITATIONS ON AVAILABILITY OF REVENUE


For an additional amount to be deposited in,and to be used for the purposes of, the Fund es-tablished pursuant to section 210(f) of the Fed-eral Property and Administrative Services Act of1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 490(f)), $11,350,000:Provided, That $3,000,000 shall be available fornon-prospectus construction: Provided further,That $8,350,000, to remain available until ex-pended, shall be available for repairs and alter-ations.

POLICY AND OPERATIONS

For an additional amount, $13,789,000 ofwhich $2,060,000 shall be for the electronic gov-ernment initiative, of which $2,000,000 shall befor the regulatory information service center, ofwhich $2,000,000 shall be for facilitating postconveyance remediation to be performed by theCity of Waltham, Massachusetts, of which$2,000,000 shall be for a grant to the Institute forBiomedical Science and Biotechnology, of which$2,000,000 shall be for a grant to the Center forAgricultural Policy and Trade Studies, of which$1,000,000 shall be for a grant to the Berwick,Pennsylvania Industrial Development Author-ity, of which $1,000,000 shall be a grant toEwing-Lawrence Sewerage Authority in EwingTownship, New Jersey, of which $750,000 shallbe for logistical support of the World Police andFire Games in Indiana, and of which $979,000shall be for base operations.

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDSADMINISTRATION

REPAIRS AND RESTORATION

For an additional amount for repairs to theJohn F. Kennedy Presidential Library,$6,610,000, to remain available until expended.

GENERAL PROVISIONS—THIS TITLESEC. 501. (a) PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL AGEN-

CY MONITORING OF PERSONAL INFORMATION ONUSE OF INTERNET.—None of the funds madeavailable in the Treasury and General Govern-ment Appropriations Act, 2001 may be used byany Federal agency—

(1) to collect, review, or create any aggregatelist, derived from any means, that includes thecollection of any personally identifiable infor-mation relating to an individual’s access to oruse of any Federal government Internet site ofthe agency; or

(2) to enter into any agreement with a thirdparty (including another government agency) tocollect, review, or obtain any aggregate list, de-rived from any means, that includes the collec-tion of any personally identifiable informationrelating to an individual’s access to or use ofany nongovernmental Internet site.

(b) EXCEPTIONS.—The limitations establishedin subsection (a) shall not apply to —

(1) any record of aggregate data that does notidentify particular persons;

(2) any voluntary submission of personallyidentifiable information;

(3) any action taken for law enforcement, reg-ulatory, or supervisory purposes, in accordancewith applicable law; or

(4) any action described in subsection (a)(1)that is a system security action taken by the op-erator of an Internet site and is necessarily inci-dent to the rendition of the Internet site servicesor to the protection of the rights or property ofthe provider of the Internet site.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8936 October 5, 2000(c) RELATION TO OTHER PROVISION.—Section

644 of the Treasury and General GovernmentAppropriations Act, 2001 (relating to Federalagency monitoring of personal information onuse of the Internet) shall not have effect.

(d) DEFINITIONS.—For the purposes of thissection:

(1) The term ‘‘regulatory’’ means agency ac-tions to implement, interpret or enforce authori-ties provided in law.

(2) The term ‘‘supervisory’’ means examina-tions of the agency’s supervised institutions, in-cluding assessing safety and soundness, overallfinancial condition, management practices andpolicies and compliance with applicable stand-ards as provided in law.

SEC. 502. (a) CLARIFICATION OF PERMISSIBLEUSE OF FACSIMILE MACHINES AND ELECTRONICMAIL TO FILE INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURESTATEMENTS.—Section 304 of the Federal Elec-tion Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) isamended by adding at the end the followingnew subsection:

‘‘(d)(1) Any person who is required to file astatement under subsection (c) of this section,except statements required to be filed electroni-cally pursuant to subsection (a)(11)(A)(i) mayfile the statement by facsimile device or elec-tronic mail, in accordance with such regulationsas the Commission may promulgate.

‘‘(2) The Commission shall make a documentwhich is filed electronically with the Commis-sion pursuant to this paragraph accessible tothe public on the Internet not later than 24hours after the document is received by theCommission.

‘‘(3) In promulgating a regulation under thisparagraph, the Commission shall provide meth-ods (other than requiring a signature on thedocument being filed) for verifying the docu-ments covered by the regulation. Any documentverified under any of the methods shall be treat-ed for all purposes (including penalties for per-jury) in the same manner as a document verifiedby signature.’’.

(b) TREATMENT OF LINES OF CREDIT OBTAINEDBY CANDIDATES AS COMMERCIALLY REASONABLELOANS.—Section 301(8)(B) of such Act of 1971 (2U.S.C. 431(8)(B)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause(xiii);

(2) by striking the period at the end of clause(xiv) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following newclause:

‘‘(xv) any loan of money derived from an ad-vance on a candidate’s brokerage account, cred-it card, home equity line of credit, or other lineof credit available to the candidate, if such loanis made in accordance with applicable law andunder commercially reasonable terms and if theperson making such loan makes loans derivedfrom an advance on the candidate’s brokerageaccount, credit card, home equity line of credit,or other line of credit in the normal course ofthe person’s business.’’.

(c) REQUIRING ACTUAL RECEIPT OF CERTAININDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE REPORTS WITHIN 24HOURS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 304(c)(2) of such Act(2 U.S.C. 434(c)(2)) is amended in the matter fol-lowing subparagraph (C)—

(A) by striking ‘‘shall be reported’’ and insert-ing ‘‘shall be filed’’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following newsentence: ‘‘Notwithstanding subsection (a)(5),the time at which the statement under this sub-section is received by the Secretary, the Commis-sion, or any other recipient to whom the notifi-cation is required to be sent shall be consideredthe time of filing of the statement with the re-cipient.’’.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section304(a)(5) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(5)) isamended by striking ‘‘or (4)(A)(ii)’’ and insert-ing ‘‘or (4)(A)(ii), or the second sentence of sub-section (c)(2)’’.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments madeby this section shall apply with respect to elec-tions occurring after January 2001.

SEC. 503. Of the amounts provided to the Of-fice of National Drug Control Policy for fiscalyear 2001 for the anti-doping efforts of theUnited States Olympic Committee, the Directorof such Office shall make direct payment of$3,300,000 to The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, In-corporated, for the conduct of anti-doping ac-tivities: Provided, That these funds shall be pro-vided not later than 30 days after the date ofthe enactment of this Act: Provided further,That of the funds made available for this effort,The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency shall have thesole authority to obligate these funds for thepromotion of anti-doping efforts relating toUnited States athletes in the Olympic, PanAmerican, and Paralympic Games.

SEC. 504. Section 640 of the Treasury and Gen-eral Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (relat-ing to Civil Service Retirement System) shall nothave effect.

SEC. 505. (a) CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYS-TEM.—The table under section 8334(c) of title 5,United States Code, is amended—

(1) in the matter relating to an employee bystriking:

‘‘7.5 ........... January 1, 2001, to December 31,2002.

7 ................ After December 31, 2002.’’

and inserting the following:

‘‘7 ............... After December 31, 2000.’’;

(2) in the matter relating to a Member or em-ployee for Congressional employee service bystriking:

‘‘8 ........... January 1, 2001, to Decem-ber 31, 2002.

7.5 .......... After December 31, 2002.’’

and inserting the following:‘‘7.5 .......... After December 31, 2000.’’;

(3) in the matter relating to a law enforcementofficer for law enforcement service and fire-fighter for firefighter service by striking:


7.5 .......... After December 31, 2002.’’


(4) in the matter relating to a bankruptcyjudge by striking:

‘‘8.5 ........ January 1, 2001, to Decem-ber 31, 2002.

8 ............. After December 31, 2002.’’

and inserting the following:‘‘8 ............ After December 31, 2000.’’;

(5) in the matter relating to a judge of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the ArmedForces for service as a judge of that court bystriking:


8 ............. After December 31, 2002.’’


(6) in the matter relating to a United Statesmagistrate by striking:


8 ............. After December 31, 2002.’’


(7) in the matter relating to a Court of FederalClaims judge by striking:


8 ............. After December 31, 2002.’’


(8) in the matter relating to a member of theCapitol Police by striking:


7.5 .......... After December 31, 2002.’’


and(9) in the matter relating to a nuclear mate-

rials courier by striking:‘‘8 ........... January 1, 2001 to Decem-

ber 31, 2002.7.5 .......... After December 31, 2002.’’

and inserting the following:‘‘7.5 .......... After December 31, 2000.’’.

(b) FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYS-TEM.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 8422(a) of title 5,United States Code, is amended by strikingparagraph (3) and inserting the following:

‘‘(3) The applicable percentage under thisparagraph for civilian service shall be as fol-lows:‘‘Employee ....... 7 ............ January 1, 1987,

to December31, 1998.

7.25 ........ January 1, 1999,to December31, 1999.

7.4 .......... January 1, 2000,to December31, 2000.

7 ............ After December31, 2000.

Congressionalemployee.




7.5 .......... After December31, 2000.

Member ............ 7.5 .......... January 1, 1987,to December31, 1998.



8 ............ January 1, 2001,to December31, 2002.

7.5 .......... After December31, 2002.

Law enforce-ment officer,firefighter,member of theCapitol Police,or air trafficcontroller.




7.5 .......... After December31, 2000.

Nuclear mate-rials courier.

7 ............ January 1, 1987,to October 16,1998.

7.5 .......... October 17, 1998,to December31, 1998.



7.5 .......... After December31, 2000.’’.

(2) MILITARY SERVICE.—Section 8422(e)(6) oftitle 5, United States Code, is amended—

(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘and’’after the semicolon;

(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘; and’’and inserting a period; and


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8937October 5, 2000(C) by striking subparagraph (C).(3) VOLUNTEER SERVICE.—Section 8422(f)(4) of

title 5, United States Code, is amended—(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘and’’

after the semicolon;(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘; and’’

and inserting a period; and(C) by striking subparagraph (C).(c) CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIRE-

MENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 7001(c)(2) of the Bal-

anced Budget Act of 1997 (50 U.S.C. 2021 note)is amended—

(A) in the matter before the colon, by striking‘‘December 31, 2002’’ and inserting ‘‘December31, 2000’’; and

(B) in the matter after the colon, by strikingall that follows ‘‘December 31, 2000.’’.

(2) MILITARY SERVICE.—Section 252(h)(1)(A) ofthe Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act(50 U.S.C. 2082(h)(1)(A)), is amended—



(d) FOREIGN SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DIS-ABILITY SYSTEM.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 7001(d)(2) of the Bal-anced Budget Act of 1997 (22 U.S.C. 4045 note)is amended—

(A) in subparagraph (A)—(i) in the matter before the colon, by striking

‘‘December 31, 2002’’ and inserting ‘‘December31, 2000’’; and

(ii) in the matter after the colon, by strikingall that follows ‘‘December 31, 2000.’’; and

(B) in subparagraph (B)—(i) in the matter before the colon, by striking

‘‘December 31, 2002’’ and inserting ‘‘December31, 2000’’; and

(ii) in the matter after the colon, by strikingall that follows ‘‘December 31, 2000.’’.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section805(d)(1) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22U.S.C. 4045(d)(1)) is amended, in the table in thematter following subparagraph (B), by striking:

‘‘January 1, 2001,through December 31,2002, inclusive.

7.5

After December 31, 2002 .. 7’’

and inserting the following:

‘‘After December 31, 2000 7’’.

(e) FOREIGN SERVICE PENSION SYSTEM.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 856(a)(2) of the For-

eign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4071e(a)(2)) isamended by striking all that follows ‘‘December31, 2000.’’ and inserting the following:

‘‘7.5 ........ After December 31, 2000.’’.

(2) VOLUNTEER SERVICE.—Section 854(c)(1) ofthe Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C.4071c(c)(1)) is amended—



(f) CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.—Not-withstanding section 8334 (a)(1) or (k)(1) of title5, United States Code, during the period begin-ning on October 1, 2002, through December 31,2002, each employing agency (other than theUnited States Postal Service or the MetropolitanWashington Airports Authority) shall con-tribute—

(1) 7.5 percent of the basic pay of an em-ployee;

(2) 8 percent of the basic pay of a congres-sional employee, a law enforcement officer, amember of the Capitol police, a firefighter, or anuclear materials courier; and

(3) 8.5 percent of the basic pay of a Member ofCongress, a Court of Federal Claims judge, aUnited States magistrate, a judge of the United

States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, ora bankruptcy judge,in lieu of the agency contributions otherwise re-quired under section 8334(a)(1) of such title 5.

(g) CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIRE-MENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM.—Notwith-standing section 211(a)(2) of the Central Intel-ligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C.2021(a)(2)), during the period beginning on Oc-tober 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002, theCentral Intelligence Agency shall contribute 7.5percent of the basic pay of an employee partici-pating in the Central Intelligence Agency Re-tirement and Disability System in lieu of theagency contribution otherwise required undersection 211(a)(2) of such Act.

(h) FOREIGN SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DIS-ABILITY SYSTEM.—Notwithstanding any provi-sion of section 805(a) of the Foreign Service Actof 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4045(a)), during the period be-ginning on October 1, 2002, through December31, 2002, each agency employing a participant inthe Foreign Service Retirement and DisabilitySystem shall contribute to the Foreign ServiceRetirement and Disability Fund—

(1) 7.5 percent of the basic pay of each partici-pant covered under section 805(a)(1) of such Actparticipating in the Foreign Service Retirementand Disability System; and

(2) 8 percent of the basic pay of each partici-pant covered under paragraph (2) or (3) of sec-tion 805(a) of such Act participating in the For-eign Service Retirement and Disability System,in lieu of the agency contribution otherwise re-quired under section 805(a) of such Act.

(i) The amendments made by this section shalltake effect upon the close of calendar year 2000,and shall apply thereafter.

SEC. 506. Of the amount provided to theUnited States Secret Service for fiscal year 2001and specified for activities related to investiga-tions of exploited children, $2,000,000 shall beavailable to the United States Secret Service forforensic and related support of investigations ofmissing and exploited children and shall remainavailable until September 30, 2001.

SEC. 507. (a) Section 108 of the LegislativeBranch Appropriations Act, 2001 is amended toread as follows:

‘‘SEC. 108. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.—(a) IN GENERAL.—There shall be within the Cap-itol Police an Office of Administration to beheaded by a Chief Administrative Officer as fol-lows:

‘‘(1) Not later than 60 days after the date ofthe enactment of this Act, the Chief Administra-tive Officer shall be appointed by the Chief ofthe Capitol Police after consultation with theCapitol Police Board and the Comptroller Gen-eral, and shall report to and serve at the pleas-ure of the Chief of the Capitol Police.

‘‘(2) The Comptroller General shall evaluatethe performance of the Chief Administrative Of-ficer in carrying out the duties and responsibil-ities of the Office of Administration as outlinedin this section. The Comptroller General shallmeet with the Chief of the Capitol Police andthe Capitol Police Board at least quarterly toprovide an analysis of the performance of theChief Administrative Officer. The ComptrollerGeneral shall report the results of the evalua-tion to the Chief of the Capitol Police, the Cap-itol Police Board, the Committees on Appropria-tions of the House of Representatives and Sen-ate, the Committee on House Administration ofthe House of Representatives, and the Com-mittee on Rules and Administration of the Sen-ate.

‘‘(3) The Chief of the Capitol Police shall ap-point as Chief Administrative Officer an indi-vidual with the knowledge and skills necessaryto carry out the responsibilities for budgeting,financial management, information technology,and human resource management described inthis section.

‘‘(4) The Chief Administrative Officer shall re-ceive basic pay at a rate determined by the Cap-itol Police Board, but not to exceed the annual

rate of basic pay payable for ES–2 of the SeniorExecutive Service, as established under sub-chapter VIII of chapter 53 of title 5, UnitedStates Code (taking into account any com-parability payments made under section 5304(h)of such title).

‘‘(5) The Capitol Police shall reimburse fromavailable appropriations any costs incurred bythe Comptroller General under this section,which shall be deposited to the appropriation ofthe General Accounting Office then availableand remain available until expended.

‘‘(b) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The Chief Adminis-trative Officer shall have the following areas ofresponsibility:

‘‘(1) BUDGETING.—The Chief AdministrativeOfficer shall—

‘‘(A) prepare and submit to the Capitol PoliceBoard an annual budget for the Capitol Police;and

‘‘(B) execute the budget and monitor throughperiodic examinations the execution of the Cap-itol Police budget in relation to actual obliga-tions and expenditures.

‘‘(2) FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT.—The Chief Ad-ministrative Officer shall—

‘‘(A) oversee all financial management activi-ties relating to the programs and operations ofthe Capitol Police;

‘‘(B) develop and maintain an integrated ac-counting and financial system for the CapitolPolice, including financial reporting and inter-nal controls, which—

‘‘(i) complies with applicable accounting prin-ciples, standards, and requirements, and inter-nal control standards;

‘‘(ii) complies with any other requirements ap-plicable to such systems; and

‘‘(iii) provides for—‘‘(I) complete, reliable, consistent, and timely

information which is prepared on a uniformbasis and which is responsive to financial infor-mation needs of the Capitol Police;

‘‘(II) the development and reporting of cost in-formation;

‘‘(III) the integration of accounting and budg-eting information; and

‘‘(IV) the systematic measurement of perform-ance;

‘‘(C) direct, manage, and provide policy guid-ance and oversight of Capitol Police financialmanagement personnel, activities, and oper-ations, including—

‘‘(i) the recruitment, selection, and training ofpersonnel to carry out Capitol Police financialmanagement functions; and

‘‘(ii) the implementation of Capitol Policeasset management systems, including systemsfor cash management, debt collection, and prop-erty and inventory management and control;and

‘‘(D) shall require annual financial statementsfor the Capitol Police and provide for an annualaudit of the financial statements by an inde-pendent public accountant in accordance withgenerally accepted government auditing stand-ards.

‘‘(3) INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.—The ChiefAdministrative Officer shall—

‘‘(A) direct, coordinate, and oversee the acqui-sition, use, and management of informationtechnology by the Capitol Police;

‘‘(B) promote and oversee the use of informa-tion technology to improve the efficiency and ef-fectiveness of programs of the Capitol Police;and

‘‘(C) establish and enforce information tech-nology principles, guidelines, and objectives, in-cluding developing and maintaining an infor-mation technology architecture for the CapitolPolice.

‘‘(4) HUMAN RESOURCES.—The Chief Adminis-trative Officer shall—

‘‘(A) direct, coordinate, and oversee humanresources management activities of the CapitolPolice;

‘‘(B) develop and monitor payroll and timeand attendance systems and employee services;and


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8938 October 5, 2000‘‘(C) develop and monitor processes for re-

cruiting, selecting, appraising, and promotingemployees.

‘‘(c) ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.—‘‘(1) PERSONNEL.—The Chief Administrative

Officer is authorized to select, appoint, employ,and discharge such officers and employees asmay be necessary to carry out the functions,powers, and duties of the Office of Administra-tion, but shall not have the authority to hire ordischarge uniformed and operational policeforce personnel.

‘‘(2) RESOURCES OF OTHER AGENCIES.—TheChief Administrative Officer may utilize re-sources of another agency on a reimbursablebasis to be paid from available appropriations ofthe Capitol Police.

‘‘(d) PLAN.—No later than 180 days after ap-pointment, the Chief Administrative Officershall prepare and submit to the Chief of theCapitol Police, the Capitol Police Board, andthe Comptroller General, a plan—

‘‘(1) describing the policies, procedures, andactions the Chief Administrative Officer willtake in carrying out the responsibilities assignedunder this section;

‘‘(2) identifying and defining responsibilitiesand roles of all offices, bureaus, and divisions ofthe Capitol Police for budgeting, financial man-agement, information technology, and humanresources management; and

‘‘(3) detailing mechanisms for ensuring thatthe offices, bureaus, and divisions perform theirresponsibilities and roles in a coordinated andintegrated manner.

‘‘(e) REPORT.—No later than September 30,2001, the Chief Administrative Officer shall pre-pare and submit to the Chief of the Capitol Po-lice, the Capitol Police Board, and the Comp-troller General, a report on the Chief Adminis-trative Officer’s progress in implementing theplan described in subsection (d) and rec-ommendations to improve the budgeting, finan-cial, information technology, and human re-sources management of the Capitol Police, in-cluding organizational, accounting and admin-istrative control, and personnel changes.

‘‘(f) SUBMISSION TO COMMITTEES.—The Chiefof the Capitol Police shall submit the plan re-quired in subsection (d) and the report requiredin subsection (e) to the Committees on Appro-priations of the House of Representatives and ofthe Senate, the Committee on House Administra-tion of the House of Representatives, and theCommittee on Rules and Administration of theSenate.

‘‘(g) TERMINATION OF ROLE.—As of October 1,2002, the role of the Comptroller General, as es-tablished by this section, will cease.’’.

(b) The amendment made by subsection (a)shall take effect as if included in the enactmentof the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,2001.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Department ofTransportation and Related Agencies Appro-priations Act, 2001’’.

Following is explanatory language on H.R.5394, as introduced on October 5, 2000.

The conferees on H.R. 4475 agree with thematter included in H.R. 5394 and enacted inthis conference report by reference and thefollowing description of it. This bill was de-veloped through negotiations by the con-ferees on the differences in H.R. 4475. Ref-erences in the following description to the‘‘conference agreement’’ means the matterincluded in the introduced bill enacted bythis conference report.

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTIVES

The conferees agree that Executive Branchpropensities cannot substitute for Congress’own statements concerning the best evidenceof Congressional intentions; that is, the offi-cial reports of the Congress. The committeeof conference approves report language in-cluded by the House (House Report 106–622)or the Senate (Senate Report 106–309 accom-

panying the companion measure S. 2720) thatis not changed by the conference. The state-ment of the managers, while repeating somereport language for emphasis, is not intendedto negate the language referred to above un-less expressly provided herein.

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

During fiscal year 2001, for the purposes ofthe Balanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177), asamended, with respect to funds provided forthe Department of Transportation and re-lated agencies, the terms ‘‘program, project,and activity’’ shall mean any item for whicha dollar amount is contained in an appro-priations Act (including joint resolutionsproviding continuing appropriations) or ac-companying reports of the House and SenateCommittees on Appropriations, or accom-panying conference reports and joint explan-atory statements of the committee of con-ference. In addition, the reductions madepursuant to any sequestration order to fundsappropriated for ‘‘Federal Aviation Adminis-tration, Facilities and equipment’’ and for‘‘Coast Guard, Acquisition, construction, andimprovements’’ shall be applied equally toeach ‘‘budget item’’ that is listed under saidaccounts in the budget justifications sub-mitted to the House and Senate Committeeson Appropriations as modified by subsequentappropriations Acts and accompanying com-mittee reports, conference reports, or jointexplanatory statements of the committee ofconference. The conferees recognize that ad-justments to the above allocations may berequired due to changing program require-ments or priorities. The conferees expect anysuch adjustment, if required, to be accom-plished only through the normal reprogram-ming process.STAFFING INCREASES PROVIDED BY CONGRESS

The conferees direct the Department ofTransportation to fill expeditiously any posi-tions added in the conference agreement,without regard to agency-specific staffingtargets which may have been previously es-tablished to meet the mandated government-wide staffing reductions.

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY


The conference agreement provides a totalof $63,245,000 for salaries and expenses of thevarious offices comprising the office of thesecretary. Though both the House and Sen-ate had proposed to provide separate appro-priations for the individual offices withinthe office of the secretary, the conferenceagreement provides a single, consolidatedappropriation. The conferees believe that thenew administration may wish to reorganizethe offices of the secretary to delete redun-dant and duplicative activities that may beperformed by other elements of the depart-ment or may be of limited benefit to the of-fice of the secretary; a consolidated appro-priation for the salaries and expenses for theoffices within the office of the secretary willprovide the new secretary greater flexibilityto reorganize the office.

The following table summarizes the fiscalyear 2001 appropriation for each OST office:

Conferenceagreement

Immediate Office of theSecretary ........................ $1,827,000

Immediate Office of theDeputy Secretary ........... 587,000

Office of the General Coun-sel ................................... 9,972,000

Office of the Assistant Sec-retary for Policy ............ 3,011,000

Office of the Assistant Sec-retary for Aviation andInternational Affairs ...... 7,289,000

Conferenceagreement

Office of the Assistant Sec-retary for Budget andPrograms ........................ 7,362,000

Office of the Assistant Sec-retary for GovernmentalAffairs ............................ 2,150,000

Office of the Assistant Sec-retary for Administra-tion ................................. 19,020,000

Office of Public Affairs ...... 1,674,000Executive Secretariat ....... 1,181,000Board of Contract Appeals 496,000Office of Small and Dis-

advantaged Business Uti-lization ........................... 1,192,000

Office of Intelligence andSecurity ......................... 1,262,000

Office of the Chief Informa-tion Officer ..................... 6,222,000

Total, salaries and ex-penses, office of thesecretary ..................... 63,245,000

Reprogramming guidelines.—While providinga consolidation of office-by-office appropria-tions for OST, the conferees still want to en-sure that adequate Congressional oversightand control is maintained over these ex-penses. Therefore, the Secretary of Transpor-tation is directed to notify the House andSenate Committees on Appropriations inwriting of any change in funding greaterthan five percent from the office-by-officelevels approved by Congress for this appro-priation. The Secretary is further directednot to make such a change without the ap-proval of the House and Senate Committeeson Appropriations.

The conference agreement includes a pro-vision that limits the availability of fundsappropriated under this heading to no morethan 52 percent and not more than 224 full-time equivalent staff years funded throughthe end of the second quarter of fiscal year2001.

Reception and representation activities.—Theconference agreement includes a provisionthat increases to $60,000 the amount of fundsto be available for official reception and rep-resentation activities. The conference agree-ment includes a provision, as proposed bythe Senate, that limits to $15,000 the amountof funds that may be obligated for official re-ception and representation costs prior toJanuary 20, 2001.

Monthly reporting requirement.—The con-ferees direct the office of the secretary to re-port monthly on the status of all out-standing reports and reporting requirements,including the status of delinquent Congres-sional mandated or requested reports and anestimated completion and delivery date.

Administrative directives.—The conferees di-rect that the department submit its fiscalyear 2002 congressional justification mate-rials for the salaries and expenses of the of-fices of the secretary at the same level of de-tail provided in the Congressional justifica-tions presented in fiscal year 2001.

The conferees direct that assessmentscharged by the office of the secretary to themodal administrations shall be for adminis-trative activities, not policy initiatives.

Immediate office of the secretary.—The con-ference agreement provides a total of$1,827,000 for expenses of the immediate of-fice of the secretary for fiscal year 2001.Funds to support a second deputy chief ofstaff or a contractor to perform similar du-ties are deleted by this agreement(¥$150,000).

Office of the general counsel.—The con-ference agreement provides a total of$9,972,000 for expenses of the office of thegeneral counsel. Within the funds provided,no more than 5 FTEs and $500,000 shall be


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8939October 5, 2000available to support the department’s pro-posed ‘‘Accessibility for All America’’ initia-tive. Further, the conference agreement pro-vides sufficient resources for advisory or re-ferral activities related to aviation competi-tion guidelines on the part of the depart-ment.

Office of aviation and international affairs.—The conference agreement disallows fundingas proposed by the House for a new positionof special assistant to the assistant sec-retary for aviation and international affairs(¥$120,000). Funding is provided to hire up totwo additional transportation industry ana-lysts in fiscal year 2001.

The conferees are aware of, and applaud,the department’s efforts to promote foreignair carrier service to and through Alaska.Alaska is uniquely positioned as an inter-national air cargo hub for efficient sortingand consolidation of cargo moving betweenmultiple United States and foreign points.The conferees encourage the department toexplore using Alaska as a testing ground foreven greater liberalization of foreign and do-mestic air carriers’ rights to carry inter-national air cargo on route legs betweenAlaska and other United States points. Suchliberalization would optimize the geographicadvantage of Alaska for air cargo transfer.In addition, such steps would also optimizethe flexibility that the department hassought for Alaska as an international avia-tion hub. Without vigorous initiative on thepart of the department, the United Statesstands to lose to foreign airports the eco-nomic activity for labor, industry, and con-sumers that increased domestic and foreigntransfer authority could generate for theUnited States.

Office of the assistant secretary for budgetand programs.—A total of $7,362,000 is pro-vided for the office of the assistant secretaryfor budget and programs. Within the fundsprovided, not more than $100,000 is availablefor workforce training activities to supple-ment existing training expenditures.

Office of the assistant secretary for adminis-tration.—Consistent with the actions of boththe House and Senate, the conference agree-ment does not provide funding for employeedevelopment training (¥$1,160,000); however,limited funds have been provided to supple-ment existing training activities, as dis-cussed in the preceding paragraph.

Office of intelligence and security.—Fundingprovided for the office of intelligence and se-curity totals $1,262,000 and excludes re-sources for infrastructure protection activi-ties. The conference agreement includesfunds for these activities within amounts ap-propriated to the Research and Special Pro-grams Administration.

Office of the chief information officer.—Theconference agreement provides a total of$6,222,000 for salaries and expenses of the of-fice of the chief information officer (CIO).Funding is not provided to implement in fis-cal year 2002 a pilot project that has yet tobe defined or determined by the depart-ment’s architecture working group. Suchfunding should be considered in the contextof the department’s fiscal year 2002 appro-priations request.

The conferees concur with the directions ofthe House that no major information tech-nology (IT) procurement within the depart-ment occur until after a review by the CIOhas been conducted to determine system de-ficiencies, vulnerabilities, compatibilitywith, and relative need of such systems com-pared to other departmental systems re-quirements. Furthermore, the conferees di-rect the CIO to approve all IT and tele-communications infrastructure items andexpenditures for all systems that are non-mode specific (e.g., common grants systems).

Office of intermodalism.—Funding for the of-fice of intermodalism is provided within

amounts made available to the Federal High-way Administration, as proposed by theHouse.

Fractional ownership demonstration pro-gram.—The conferees encourage the Sec-retary of Transportation to execute a dem-onstration program, to be conducted for aperiod of not to exceed eighteen months, ofthe fractional ownership concept for per-forming administrative support flight mis-sions. The purpose of this demonstration isto determine whether cost savings, increasedoperational flexibility, and aircraft avail-ability can be realized by DOT through frac-tional ownership compared to in-house own-ership of aircraft. This demonstration shallbe competitive, and encompass a suite of air-craft covering a majority of the depart-ment’s support missions, including those bythe Coast Guard, FAA, and NASA (to the ex-tent those aircraft are currently operated bythe FAA). The Secretary is directed to re-port the results of this project to the Houseand Senate Committees on Appropriationswithin three months of completing the eval-uation. If the Secretary does not conductsuch an evaluation, the Secretary is directedto submit a report to the House and SenateCommittees on Appropriations providing adetailed explanation of that decision.

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

The conference agreement provides$8,140,000 for the office of civil rights as pro-posed by the House instead of $8,000,000 asproposed by the Senate.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, ANDDEVELOPMENT

The conference agreement provides$11,000,000 for transportation planning, re-search, and development instead of $3,300,000as proposed by the House and $5,300,000 asproposed by the Senate. The conferees, how-ever, agree with the reductions from thebudget request proposed by the House. Fund-ing provided under this heading shall beavailable for the following activities:

2001 Special Winter Olym-pics ................................. $1,400,000

Ensuring consumer infor-mation and choice in theairline industry .............. 1,000,000

Transportation manage-ment planning for theSalt Lake City WinterOlympic Games (section1223 of TEA21) ................. 2,000,000

Automotive workforcetraining .......................... 3,000,000

The conferees encourage the secretary andeach of the modal administrations to workwith the National Center for Missing and Ex-ploited Children and the transportation in-dustry to identify and implement initiativesto maximize the transportation sector’s in-volvement in the effort to relocate missingchildren.

Transportation management planning for theSalt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympic Games.—The conference agreement includes $2,000,000for transportation management planning forthe Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games,as authorized under section 1223(c) of TEA21.These funds shall be available for planningactivities and related temporary and perma-nent transportation infrastructure invest-ments based on the transportation manage-ment plan approved by the Secretary.

Radionavigation and positioning initiatives.—No funding is provided for additional studyactivities described under ‘‘GPS vulner-ability study follow-on requirements’’ and‘‘technical support of GPS spectrum protec-tion and coordination’’ of the congressionaljustification as additional funding and guid-ance is provided for similar initiatives andactivities elsewhere in the department. Re-

programming requests in this area will be re-viewed if submitted and justified appro-priately.

Automotive workforce training.—The con-ference agreement includes $3,000,000 for de-velopment and implementation of a work-force training program designed for specificissues related to the automotive manufac-turing industry.

Telework.—The Secretary shall conduct anassessment of the existing practices and in-frastructure involved with telework effortsin the greater New York metropolitan areaand determine if a telework program, sup-ported by the federal government, could pro-vide significant incentives for increasing theuse of telework, thereby reducing vehiclemiles traveled and improving air quality.The assessment should identify representa-tives from local government, environmentalorganizations and transportation agencieswho would comprise a New York City designteam for implementing a telework program.Within six months, the Secretary shall re-port to Congress on the findings of thisstudy. To carry out these activities, the con-ference agreement includes $300,000.

TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICECENTER

The conference agreement includes a limi-tation of $126,887,000 on activities of thetransportation administrative service center(TASC) instead of $119,387,000 as proposed bythe House and $173,278,000 as proposed by theSenate. The conferees concur in the rec-ommendations of the House to disallow theproposed transfer of the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration’s Office ofAeronautical Charting and Cartography tothe TASC (¥$43,963,000) and to disallow pro-posed new staffing increases (¥$461,000). Theincrease of $7,500,000 above the House-passedlevel has been provided to accommodatesolely the anticipated increased workloadstemming from creation of the FederalMotor Carrier Safety Administration.

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTERPROGRAM

The conference agreement includes a limi-tation on guaranteed loans of $13,775,000, asproposed by the House, instead of a limita-tion of $13,775,000 on direct loans as proposedby the Senate. Further, the conferenceagreement provides subsidy and administra-tive costs totaling $1,900,000, as proposed byboth the House and the Senate.

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

The conference agreement provides$3,000,000 for minority business outreach ac-tivities, as proposed by both the House andthe Senate.

COAST GUARD

OPERATING EXPENSES

The conference agreement provides$3,192,000,000 for Coast Guard operating ex-penses as proposed by the House instead of$3,039,460,000 as proposed by the Senate. Theagreement specifies that $341,000,000 of thetotal is available only for defense-related ac-tivities, as proposed by the House, instead of$641,000,000 proposed by the Senate. Theagreement does not include language pro-posed by the Senate which would have al-lowed a transfer of up to $100,000,000 from theFAA’s operating budget to augment theCoast Guard’s drug interdiction activities orOST’s Office of Intelligence and Security.The bill also does not include language pro-posed by the Senate which would have re-quired the Coast Guard to reimburse the Of-fice of Inspector General for Coast Guard-re-lated audits and investigations.

Specific adjustments.—The following tablesummarizes the House and Senate’s proposedadjustments to the Coast Guard’s budget re-quest and the final conference agreement:


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8940 October 5, 2000Item and rec-ommendation

Houserecommended

Senaterecommended

Conferenceagreement

Repricing of civilianPC&B .................. +$2,051,000 .......................... ..........................

Polar icebreaker re-imbursement ...... +3,800,000 +$7,734,000 +7,734,000

International Mari-time InformationSafety System(IMISS)—defer ... ¥398,000 ¥398,000 ¥398,000

MTS leadership andcoordination—defer ................... ¥801,000 ¥801,000 ¥801,000

CG workstation sup-port—defer ........ ¥750,000 .......................... ..........................

NTIA fees—deferincrease ............. ¥426,000 .......................... ..........................

‘‘One DOT’’ initia-tives—defer ....... ¥304,000 .......................... ¥304,000

Aviation detachmentsupport—defer .. ¥3,904,000 .......................... ¥3,904,000

Nonpay COLA—smaller increase ¥6,268,000 .......................... ¥1,363,000

Military pay andbenefits .............. .......................... ¥1,004,000 ..........................

Military health care .......................... ¥105,000 ..........................Permanent change

of station ........... .......................... ¥8,785,000 ¥3,000,000Training and edu-

cation ................. .......................... ¥7,484,000 ¥2,065,000Atlantic area com-

mand .................. .......................... ¥193,000 ¥193,000Headquarters direc-

torates ................ .......................... ¥125,000 ¥Headquarters-man-

aged units ......... .......................... ¥1,760,000 ¥706,000Aircraft mainte-

nance ................. .......................... ¥13,075,000 ..........................Electronic mainte-

nance ................. .......................... ¥1,500,000 ..........................Shore facility main-

tenance .............. .......................... ¥5,000,000 ¥2,000,000Vessel maintenance .......................... ¥4,315,000 ..........................Undistributed re-

duction ............... .......................... ¥122,729,000 ..........................

Total .......... ¥7,000,000 ¥159,540,000 ¥7,000,000

Pilot project on occupational and health haz-ards of Coast Guard personnel.—The confereesagree to provide $1,000,000 for the pilotproject, proposed by the Senate, regardingthe unique occupational and health hazardsof Coast Guard personnel. This project shallbe conducted in coordination with TulaneUniversity and the University of Alabama—Birmingham.

Boatracs systems.—The conferees under-stand that the Coast Guard has purchased

several ‘‘boatracs’’ systems in an effort toaddress communications problems within theeighth district. This text communicationssystem is often the only form of communica-tion between the district headquarters andcutters on patrol performing search and res-cue missions. This system could be used asan interim measure, before full implementa-tion of the National Distress and ResponseSystem Modernization Project, which couldsave lives by providing consistent and reli-able communications among Coast Guard as-sets. The Coast Guard is encouraged toevaluate the boatracs system on this basisduring fiscal year 2001.

Assessment of progress to replace single hulltanker fleet with double hull ships.—The con-ferees direct the United States Coast Guard,in consultation with the Maritime Adminis-tration, to assess the status of replacementof single hull tank vessels with double hulltank vessels, and report the findings of thisassessment to the House and Senate Com-mittees on Appropriations. This reportshould include: (1) a list of double hull ves-sels and their carrying capacity in the U.S.-flag fleet; (2) a list of single hull vessels andtheir carrying capacity and the year inwhich each single hull vessel is scheduled tobe phased out of service under the Oil Pollu-tion Act; and (3) the amount of oil trans-ported each year by domestic U.S.-flag tankvessels to meet the energy needs of theUnited States. This report shall be sub-mitted by February 1, 2001.

Search and rescue station staffing.—The con-ferees are concerned that, in the wake of theNational Transportation Safety Board reporton the sinking of the sailboat Morning Dew,the Coast Guard has still not implementedneeded staffing improvements at the nation’ssearch and rescue (SAR) stations. Eventhough a recent Coast Guard analysis con-cluded that an additional 109 personnel wereneeded at these centers, the Coast Guard ad-vised the House that the service ‘‘does notbelieve additional operation center staffingis required in fiscal year 2001 and has not re-quested any be provided’’. The conferees reit-

erate the concerns expressed in the House re-port regarding deficiencies in the CoastGuard’s search and rescue posture, andstrongly encourage the service to address thepersonnel shortfalls at search and rescue sta-tions within the funding levels provided forfiscal year 2001. In addition, the conferees di-rect the Office of Inspector General, in con-sultation with the National TransportationSafety Board, to conduct a thorough reviewof readiness of the nation’s SAR stations, in-cluding personnel shortfalls, equipment ade-quacy, training adequacy, and the relativesupport for SAR programs and activities inthe Coast Guard command structure. Theconferees direct that this report be com-pleted and submitted to the appropriatecommittees of the Congress no later thanMarch 1, 2001.

Indonesian Coast Guard.—The conferees donot agree with direction in the Senate reportfor the Coast Guard to work with representa-tives of the Indonesian government on offi-cer training and to study turning over sur-plus vessels to improve the capability of theIndonesian Coast Guard.

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, ANDIMPROVEMENTS

The conference agreement includes$415,000,000 for acquisition, construction, andimprovement programs of the Coast Guardinstead of $515,000,000 as proposed by theHouse and $407,747,660 as proposed by theSenate. Consistent with past years and theHouse and Senate bills, the conference agree-ment distributes funds in the bill by budgetactivity.

Great Lakes Icebreaker.—No procurementfunding or direction is provided in this Actfor the Great Lakes Icebreaker (Mackinawreplacement) project, as the full estimatedcost of this vessel has been provided in priorappropriations Acts.

A table showing the distribution of this ap-propriation by project as included in the fis-cal year 2001 House bill, Senate bill, and theconference agreement follows:


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8941October 5, 2000


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8942 October 5, 2000ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND

RESTORATION

The conference agreement includes$16,700,000 for environmental compliance andrestoration as proposed by both the Houseand Senate.

ALTERATION OF BRIDGES

The conference agreement includes$15,500,000 for alteration of bridges deemedhazardous to marine navigation as proposedby the Senate instead of $14,740,000 proposedby the House. The conference agreement dis-tributes these funds as follows:

ConferenceBridge and location agreement

New Orleans, LA, FloridaAvenue RR/HW Bridge .... $3,925,000

Brunswick, GA, Sidney La-nier Highway Bridge ....... 3,000,000

Charleston, SC, LimehouseBridge ............................. 2,000,000

Mobile, AL, Fourteen MileBridge ............................. 3,000,000

Morris, IL, EJ&E RailroadBridge ............................. 3,000,000

Oshkosh, WI, Fox RiverBridge ............................. 575,000

Total ............................ 15,500,000Florida Avenue Bridge.—The conferees agree

to provide $3,925,000 for this project, and di-rect that $500,000 of this funding shall bemade available to the Port of New Orleans tocover the federal portion of a study of thefeasibility of development of the MilleniumPort in south Louisiana.

Fox River Bridge.—Funding of $575,000 isprovided for removal of the bridge across theFox River at mile point 56.9 in Oshkosh, Wis-consin.

RETIRED PAY

The conference agreement includes$778,000,000 for Coast Guard retired pay asproposed by both the House and the Senate.This is scored as a mandatory program forfederal budget purposes. The conferenceagreement deletes language proposed by theHouse authorizing these funds for the pay-ment of fifteen-year career status bonuses.The conferees do not believe that retentionbonuses paid to active duty personnel areconsistent with the purposes of this pro-gram, and have seen no evidence that thesepayments constitute mandatory expendi-tures of the Coast Guard, as are the otherelements of this mandatory appropriation.Sufficient funding is provided under ‘‘Oper-ating expenses’’ for payment of these bo-nuses to qualified personnel.

RESERVE TRAINING


The conference agreement provides$80,375,000 for reserve training as proposed bythe House instead of $80,371,000 as proposedby the Senate. The agreement allows the Re-serves to reimburse the Coast Guard oper-ating account up to $22,000,000 for CoastGuard support of Reserve activities, as pro-posed by the Senate, instead of $21,500,000 asproposed by the House.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, ANDEVALUATION

The conference agreement provides$21,320,000 for Coast Guard research, develop-ment, test, and evaluation as proposed bythe Senate instead of $19,691,000 as proposedby the House. The conferees agree that with-in the funding provided, $500,000 is to addressship ballast water exchange issues, instead of$1,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

OPERATIONS

The conference agreement provides$6,544,235,000 for operating expenses of the

Federal Aviation Administration as proposedby the House instead of $6,350,250,000 as pro-posed by the Senate. These funds are in addi-tion to amounts made available as a manda-tory appropriation of user fees in the FederalAviation Administration ReauthorizationAct of 1996 (Public Law 104–264). Of the totalamount provided, $4,414,869,000 is to be de-rived from the airport and airway trust fund,consistent with Public Law 106–181. The totalfunding provided is $569,235,000 (9.5 percent)above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.

Contract tower program funding.—The con-ference agreement provides $55,300,000 for thecontract tower program, which is theamount assumed in the budget estimate.FAA is directed not to reprogram thesefunds to any other activity or to reducethem to satisfy budget shortfalls which maydevelop throughout the fiscal year. In addi-tion, the conference agreement includes$5,000,000 for the contract tower cost-sharingprogram.

Contract tower program extension.—The con-ferees agree with Senate direction to theFAA Administrator to submit the overduereport on this program, but do not agreewith the Senate direction that this reportshould include a timeline for expanding theprogram. In addition, the report should ad-dress recent findings and recommendationsof the DOT Inspector General regarding ex-pansion of the contract tower program.

Criteria for contract tower program eligi-bility.—The conferees believe that FAA’s con-tract tower program has worked well fromboth the government’s perspective and theusers’ perspective. Through this program,many aircraft are able to operate more effi-ciently and safely into airports with con-tract towers, where FAA-operated towerswould otherwise not be available due to pro-hibitive costs. The conferees are concerned,however, that the traffic counts used to es-tablish eligibility for the contract tower pro-gram, and for establishment of certain navi-gation aids, are erroneous in that certainpart 121 operations, including regional jets,are not being classified as air carrier oper-ations. After promulgation of FAA’s ‘‘onelevel of safety’’ rule, the conferees believethat such a distinction is no longer justified.The FAA is urged to change promptly itstraffic count methodology to conform to thechanges in operator classification broughtabout by the one level of safety rulemaking.

Specific designations for the contract towerprogram.—The conferees do not agree withSenate direction to include certain airportsin the contract tower program. However, theconferees understand that the Boca Raton,Olive Branch, Henderson, and Tupelo Munic-ipal airports are eligible for this program,and encourage FAA to include those airportsin the program if they meet eligibility cri-teria.

Implementation of the whistleblower protec-tion program.—The conferees direct that, notlater than eighteen months after enactmentof this Act, the Secretary of Transportation,in conjunction with the Secretary of Labor,report to the House and Senate Committeeson Appropriations on measures to assure ef-fective implementation of section 519 of Pub-lic Law 106–181. This report shall include adescription of the initial implementation ofthe whistleblower protection program andrecommendations to strengthen the enforce-ment of such provisions. The study shall beperformed by a firm with recent experienceanalyzing employee protection provisions inthe transportation sector.

Civil aviation security activities and oper-ations.—Continuing reports of the GeneralAccounting Office, the DOT Office of Inspec-tor General, and the Surveys and Investiga-

tions staff of the House Appropriations Com-mittee highlight a number of serious prob-lems in FAA’s civil aviation security activi-ties which need to be addressed. A lack ofstrong management and planning has led toa haphazard and minimal deployment of ex-plosive detection systems at our nation’s air-ports, as well as underutilization of the ma-chines which are deployed; specifications forbomb detection equipment driven by polit-ical considerations rather than security ex-pertise; unnecessary tension between FAAand airport security officials in some loca-tions; and lack of management attention andcorrective action after field tests, includingsafety issues raised by FAA’s special ‘‘redteam’’ conducting undercover assessments atmajor airports. The conferees cannot providethe entire funding increase requested by thisorganization in the face of these continuingproblems, and expects FAA to address thesemanagement issues expeditiously. The con-ference agreement also directs FAA to sub-mit a comprehensive strategic plan for thecivil aviation security program, as proposedby the Senate. The FAA is encouraged to in-clude comprehensive details in this plan re-garding specific goals and objectives for theprogram for each of the next five years.

GPS implementation and procedures.—Theconferees agree to transfer to this account$2,200,000 from ‘‘Facilities and equipment’’.This funding was budgeted for the develop-ment of GPS approach procedures as part ofthe GPS wide area augmentation system(WAAS) program. However, this activity isapparently not related to development ofWAAS, but is a routine operating expense ofthe agency. As such, these expendituresshould be contained in the agency’s oper-ating budget. In addition, the conferenceagreement includes $3,000,000 only for imple-mentation of a navigation database withinternet access for users.

Administration of potential shortfall due toEAS transfer.—The conferees do not agreewith House direction specifying that anyshortfall in operations funding due to trans-fer of funds to the essential air service (EAS)program should be borne by the ‘‘Facilitiesand equipment’’ appropriation.

Regulation of flight crew operating environ-ment.—The conferees are pleased that theFAA and the Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA) recently initiated ajoint effort to consider whether OSHA work-place safety standards can be applied to air-line crewmembers during flight operations.Enhancing workplace safety for flight crew-members is, of course, desirable. While theconferees recognize the importance of FAAand OSHA working together to ensure thatone agency does not unnecessarily block ap-plication of the other’s regulations, the con-ferees believe it is imperative that FAAmaintain exclusive responsibility for theregulation and enforcement of policies whichaffect the safety of flight operations. If, inthe FAA’s view, an OSHA-proposed work-place safety and health regulation wouldcompromise the safe operation of aircraft, inthe overriding interest of aviation safety,the FAA’s view should predominate.

Airspace redesign.—The conference agree-ment includes $8,500,000 for the New York/New Jersey airspace redesign and concurs inthe directive of the Senate regarding the re-programming of these funds.

The following table compares the con-ference agreement to the levels proposed inthe House and Senate bills by budget activ-ity:


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8944 October 5, 2000


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8946 October 5, 2000FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT


The conference agreement provides$2,656,765,000 for facilities and equipment as

proposed by the House and the Senate. Thisis the level authorized by Public Law 106–181,and represents an increase of $581,765,000 (28percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enactedlevel.

The following table provides a breakdownof the House and Senate bills and the con-ference agreement by program:


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8950 October 5, 2000Advanced technology development and proto-

typing.—The conference agreement includes$56,480,000 for advanced technology develop-ment and prototyping, to be distributed asfollows:

Item House rec-ommended

Senaterecommended

Conferenceagreement

Items in budget ..... $40,620,000 $28,868,000 $40,000,000Airport research ...... 7,380,000 7,380,000 7,380,000Concrete pavement

research ............. 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000UWB/GPS ................ 0 2,600,000 2,600,000GPS anti-jamming .. 0 1,000,000 1,000,000Runway incursion

activities ............ 0 0 3,500,000

Total .......... 50,000,000 45,848,000 56,480,000

The conference agreement includes$5,000,000 for the runway incursion reductionprogram, compared to $1,500,000 in the budg-et estimate. The additional funds are neededto address nationwide technology initiativesrecommended by the National Runway Safe-ty Summit in June 2000, and should not bereprogrammed to any other project or activ-ity. Of the funds provided under ‘‘Airport re-search’’, $2,000,000 is for airfield pavementimprovement activities authorized undersections 905 and 743 of Public Law 106–181.

The $2,600,000 for ultra-wide band (UWB)/GPS work is provided to assess the vulner-ability of aviation uses of the GPS signal tointerference from electronic devices. Newinitiatives in this area should be coordinatedwith all appropriate stakeholders in indus-try, the National Telecommunications andInformation Agency, the Department of De-fense, the U.S. Congress, and the FederalCommunications Commission. In addition,$1,000,000 is available for anti-jamming ini-tiatives, to improve the resilience of theGPS signal to jamming through improvedantennae, signal processing technology, orother means.

Safe flight 21.—The conference agreementprovides $35,000,000 for the safe flight 21 pro-gram, as proposed by the Senate, and agreesto the Senate’s allocation of those additionalfunds. The conferees direct that, of the fundsprovided for the Ohio Valley portion of thisprogram, not less than $1,000,000 shall be fora safety study assessing the relative safetybenefits of ADS-B technology, including anassessment of the use of ADS-B for conflictdetection and resolution. In addition, theconferees encourage FAA to schedule a near-term evaluation of the potential use of ADS-B technology to address the runway incur-sion problem.

Aviation weather services improvements.—Theadditional $3,000,000 provided for this pro-gram is to support the collaborative effortbetween FAA and NOAA’s National SevereStorms Laboratory to continue research andtesting of phased array radar technology andto incorporate airport/aircraft tracking andweather information. Funding of $10,000,000was provided for this program in the Depart-ment of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000.

Aeronautical datalink applications.—Theconferees do not agree with Senate directionregarding the qualifications for a contractorfor air-to-ground communications.

Static transfer switches.—The conferees un-derstand that the FAA administrator hasidentified funding to complete procurementunder the existing contract to supply enroute centers with static transfer switches.These switches enable the centers to switchin back-up power quickly enough to preventcomputers from ‘‘crashing,’’ and replaceequipment which lacks this important capa-bility. The conferees support funding for thisprocurement.

Free flight phase one.—Of the funds pro-vided for this program, $3,000,000 is to imple-ment the departure spacing program (DSP)to support Dulles International Airport, as

proposed by the House, and $4,500,000 is forthe program proposed by the Senate to im-plement DSP for the New York/New Jerseymetropolitan area. The amount provided in-cludes the sums necessary for the installa-tion of bar-coded strips at the airports iden-tified in the Senate report. DSP funds shouldnot be reprogrammed to other regions or ac-tivities.

Terminal automation.—The conferenceagreement provides $117,000,000 for this pro-gram, instead of $114,850,000 proposed by theHouse and $116,850,000 proposed by the Sen-ate. Funding is included to install and com-mission DBRITE systems at Mid-Delta Air-port in Mississippi, and at Gainesville Re-gional and Boca Raton airports in Florida.The conferees understand that existingDBRITE systems are available for redeploy-ment to new sites as a result of other mod-ernization activities.

Distance measuring equipment (DME).—Theamount provided above the request for thisprogram shall be for the installation of DMEon runway 11 at Newark International Air-port.

En route communications and control facili-ties.—Of the funds provided, $3,200,000 is onlyfor relocation of RTR–A and RTR–D radar fa-cilities at Lambert-St. Louis InternationalAirport in Missouri.

Air traffic control tower and Tracon improve-ments.—Of the funds provided, $1,500,000 is tocontinue the cable loop relocation project atLambert-St. Louis International Airport inMissouri.

Instrument landing system establishment/up-grade.—Funding provided for instrumentlanding systems (ILS) shall be distributed asfollows:

Location AmountActivities in President’s

budget ............................. $16,000,000National replacement pro-

gram (categories I/II/III) 22,325,000Lonesome Pine Airport,

VA .................................. 1,000,000

Jimmy Stewart Airport,PA .................................. 855,000

Lafayette Regional Air-port, LA .......................... 1,000,000

Statesboro-Bulloch CountyAirport, GA .................... 1,797,000

Buffalo Niagara, NY (ILS/MALSR) ......................... 3,798,000

Searcy Airport, AR ........... 2,000,000Dulles International, VA

(DME) ............................. 300,000Wichita MidContinent, KS 1,100,000Colonel James Jabara Air-

port, KS .......................... 1,100,000Cleveland Hopkins Inter-

national, OH ................... 4,000,000Orlando International, FL

(install category III) ....... 2,000,000Meridian/Key Field, MS .... 2,000,000Atlanta Hartsfield Inter-

national, GA (5th run-way) ................................ 4,000,000

Evanston Airport, WY ....... 2,500,000Muscatine Municipal Air-

port, IA ........................... 1,600,000Kalealoa Airport, HI .......... 2,300,000Decatur Airport, AL .......... 1,000,000Gulf Shores Municipal, AL 1,300,000Lehigh Valley Inter-

national, PA ................... 2,000,000Klawock Airport, AK ......... 1,000,000Mexico Airport, MO ........... 2,000,000Harry Browne Airport, MI 1,000,000Wexford County Airport,

MI ................................... 1,500,000London-Corbin Airport, KY 2,000,000Somerset Airport, KY (lo-

calizer/NDB) ................... 500,000Newport News-Williams-

burg Airport, VA ............ 2,000,000

Location AmountSierra Blanca Regional

Airport, NM .................... 350,000Minneapolis-St. Paul

International, MN (local-izer/glideslope) ................ 675,000

Total ............................ 85,000,000The FAA recently signed a multiyear con-

tract for additional instrument landing sys-tems. The conferees direct FAA to initiateno less than two ILS demonstration projectswhich permit the manufacturer and airportsexpedited and full procurement, project man-agement, and installation authority. Thistype of ‘‘turnkey’’ approach will allow an as-sessment of the potential for added cost sav-ings and schedule efficiencies compared totraditional FAA acquisitions.

Runway visual range.—Of the $8,000,000 pro-vided for this program, $1,300,000 is for itemscited in the Senate report, $250,000 is forRVR equipment at the Minneapolis-St. PaulInternational Airport in Minnesota, and$5,000,000 is for continued acquisition of nextgeneration RVR systems.

Voice switching and control system (VSCS).—The conference agreement provides $2,700,000in this budget line for activities to addressthe audio clipping, automatic gain control,and tone notching problems found in FAAvoice switches. The funding is designed, inpart, to address recommendations of FAA’sAOS–510 organization in Oklahoma City con-cerning the rapid deployment voice switch(RDVS), as well as provide solutions forthese problems in the ICSS, ETVS, andVSCS switching systems. The conferees un-derstand that a single, commercial-off-the-shelf system may be available to addressthese problems in all of the systems men-tioned.

Precision runway monitors.—The conferenceagreement does not include funding to in-stall a precision runway monitor (PRM) atNewark International Airport as proposed bythe Senate. The conferees recognize that theprocurement of this equipment is prematureat this time. The conferees note, however,that one of the Administrator’s new ‘‘chokepoint’’ initiatives includes measures to in-crease the efficiency of air traffic flows andreduce airspace complexity for aircraft des-tined to New York and New Jersey. This ini-tiative will facilitate the development of ar-rival procedures at Newark Internationalthat could reduce ATC delays once a PRMwith accompanying LDA and glideslope is in-stalled. As such, the conferees direct the Ad-ministrator to continue to work with therelevant aviation authorities in the regiontoward the installation of a PRM and LDAwith glideslope at Newark International Air-port once the ‘‘choke points’’ initiative isfully implemented. Toward that end, theconferees expect the Administrator to con-tinue to work toward the completion of allnecessary environmental analyses so thatthis installation can take place as soon aspossible.

Terminal voice switch replacement.—The con-ferees agree to provide $14,000,000 for thisprogram, and direct FAA not to reprogramany of those resources without Congressionalapproval.

Houston area air traffic system.—The con-ference agreement includes $12,000,000 in ini-tial funding for the Houston area air trafficsystem (HAATS). These funds shall be underadministrative control of the FAA South-west Region, which is the charter holder forthis important capacity enhancement pro-gram. Funds are intended for instrumentlanding systems and other facilities andequipment necessary to carry out the pro-gram, and shall not be reprogrammed with-out Congressional approval. The confereesare aware that FAA has approved the recordof decision for a major capacity expansion at


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8951October 5, 2000Houston area airports. To ensure that the re-quired navigation and landing aids, radar po-sitions, and related equipment is provided ina timely manner, FAA established a specialcharter for this program, giving overall pro-gram responsibility to the Southwest Re-gion. This is similar to past charter pro-grams in Dallas, Atlanta, Austin, and North-ern Virginia. In the case of Houston, how-ever, the FAA has neglected to provide fund-ing for the program. The conference agree-ment corrects this oversight.

Low-cost airport surface detection equip-ment.—The conferees agree to provide$8,400,000 for the low-cost airport surface de-tection equipment (ASDE) program as pro-posed by the Senate, instead of $15,000,000 asproposed by the House, and do not agree withHouse direction regarding contracting strat-egies for this program. The conferees agreewith the House that runway incursions arean urgent safety issue which should be rap-idly addressed, in part, through the applica-tion of modern technology. Disappointingly,however, the FAA has not put forward a via-ble or affordable program worthy of Congres-sional support. In response to Congressionaldirection to develop a low-cost alternative totoday’s ASDE–3 system, the agency proposesone twice as expensive and designed forlower-activity airports. In response to direc-tion requiring ten systems in the field bySeptember 2002, the agency proposes onereaching that capability three years later. Inaddition to these programmatic concerns,the conferees are not convinced of the agen-cy’s commitment to this program. Althoughthe FAA Administrator announced in June2000 that 25 low-cost ASDE systems would beacquired, the agency’s five-year capital plansubmitted two months later provides lessthan half the resources necessary to accom-plish that goal. In addition, the agency hassteadfastly refused to support the additionalfunding recommended by the House for thecoming fiscal year. The conferees cannot re-sponsibly provide additional first-year fund-ing for this program until the agency dem-onstrates the long-term commitment of re-sources and the leadership needed to carry itto fruition. In lieu of funds for an acquisitionwhich the agency does not yet support, theconferees have provided an additional$3,500,000 in advanced development funds forrunway incursion technology initiatives.

Terminal air traffic control facilities replace-ment.—The conference agreement includes$145,492,606 for replacement of air traffic con-trol towers and other terminal facilities. Theagreement distributes these funds as follows:

Location AmountVero Beach, FL ................. $5,600,000Albert Whitted, FL ............ 75,000Dayton International, OH 4,000,000WK Kellogg, MI ................. 2,000,000Sky Harbor, AZ ................. 9,000,000Cleveland, OH .................... 3,000,000Richmond, VA ................... 5,700,000Martin State, MD .............. 1,000,000Medford, OR ...................... 1,000,000Billings Logan, MT ............ 2,000,000Grand Canyon, AZ ............. 267,000Missoula, MT ..................... 500,000Pangborn, WA ................... 1,000,000Paine Field, WA ................ 1,000,000McArthur Airport, NY ....... 750,000Rogue Valley, OR .............. 1,425,500Fort Wayne, IN .................. 2,000,000Cheyenne, WY ................... 1,450,000Morristown, NJ ................. 2,500,000Oakland, CA ...................... 23,912,347LaGuardia, NY .................. 23,440,000Boston, MA ........................ 24,936,914Savannah, GA .................... 7,741,015Topeka, KS ........................ 4,361,840St. Louis, MO .................... 3,317,000Newark, NJ ........................ 2,407,500

I05Location AmountRoanoke, VA ..................... 2,140,000Birmingham, AL ............... 1,359,540Pt. Columbus, OH .............. 1,000,000Wilkes-Barre, PA ............... 959,200Houston Hobby, TX ........... 818,550Champaign, IL ................... 749,000Little Rock, AR ................. 642,000Bedford, MA ...................... 535,000Newburgh, NY ................... 1,000,000Merrill Field, AK ............... 321,000Wilmington, DE ................. 305,000Salina, KS ......................... 267,500N. Las Vegas, NV ............... 214,000Orlando, FL ....................... 177,900Atlanta, GA ....................... 167,900Chantilly, VA .................... 75,000Gulfport, MS ..................... 75,000Kalamazoo, MI .................. 75,000Deer Valley, AZ ................. 75,000Broomfield, CO .................. 75,000Miami, FL ......................... 51,900Seattle, WA ....................... 25,000

Total ............................... 145,492,606Richmond airport traffic control tower, VA.—

The Richmond International Airport is inthe midst of a terminal expansion programwhich requires a new airport control towerto be operational by 2002. While the FAAsupports construction of a new tower, theagency estimates that, using its normal pro-cedures, the agency would not complete thetower until the year 2004, delaying the capac-ity expansion program by two years. SinceRichmond believes it can meet the scheduleif it manages this project, the conferees di-rect FAA to explore construction of the re-placement tower under a construction agree-ment or other transaction authority withthe Richmond International Airport, pursu-ant to which the airport would construct thetower, using predominantly FAA funding,and FAA would own, operate, and maintainthe facility.

Morristown airport traffic control tower,NJ.—The conference agreement includes$2,500,000 for the construction of a replace-ment air traffic control tower at the Morris-town, New Jersey airport. The conferees rec-ognize that the current tower is deterio-rating rapidly and needs to be replaced assoon as possible. Toward that end, the con-ferees direct the FAA Administrator to enterinto a reimbursable agreement with the air-port through which the remaining construc-tion costs borne by the airport will be reim-bursed by the FAA over the next few years.

Airport surveillance radar (ASR–9).—Theconferees provide $11,122,000 for this programas proposed by the House, of which $4,000,000is for the radar system specified in the Housereport for Palm Springs Airport in Cali-fornia. The conferees agree not to specify ad-ditional systems for acquisition at this time,but direct the FAA to initiate or continuepreliminary site surveys and other necessarystudies for locations cited in the Senate re-port as well as Cherry Capital Airport inMichigan, Gainesville Regional Airport inFlorida, and Jackson Hole Airport in Wyo-ming. Funds for these studies may be derivedeither from this budget line or from fundsprovided for terminal digital radar (ASR–11)implementation. The conferees understandthat the FAA has committed to installing aTARDIS unit at the Gainesville RegionalAirport and direct the FAA to move expedi-tiously to install this equipment as an in-terim solution to the airport’s radar needs.In addition, $2,400,000 of the funding providedis for removal and relocation of the existingASR–9 radar system at Lambert-St. LouisInternational Airport in Missouri.

Puget Sound radar shortcomings.—The con-ferees direct the FAA Administrator to con-duct a study assessing the best means of cor-recting shortcomings related to deficientradar coverage in the southern Puget Soundairspace in the State of Washington.

Voice recorder replacement program.—Theconference agreement provides $3,632,000 forthis program as proposed by the Senate in-stead of $2,632,000 as proposed by the House.With these additional funds, the FAA is di-rected to conduct the study cited in the Sen-ate report regarding deployable flight datarecorders and support the FAA TechnicalCenter’s ‘‘integrated aircraft data collectionand reporting’’ project to develop an im-proved method of collecting, storing, andanalyzing critical aircraft flight data byground-based means.

Automated surface observing system(ASOS).—The conferees agree to provide$11,500,000 for this program instead of$8,213,900 proposed by the House and$13,213,900 proposed by the Senate. Of thefunds provided, $80,000 is for installation ofan automated weather observing system atMonticello Airport in Wayne County, Ken-tucky and $100,000 is for installation of anAWOS III system at Dexter Airport inArkadelphia, Arkansas. Funding is also in-cluded for installation of an automatedweather sensor system (AWSS) forOwensboro-Daviess County Airport in Ken-tucky.

Approach lighting system improvement pro-gram (ALSIP).—The conference agreementprovides $30,000,000 for this program, to bedistributed as follows:

Location House Senate Agreement

Activities in Presi-dent’s budget .... $1,040,000 $1,100,000 $1,040,000

ALSF–2 acquisition 9,575,000 .......................... 3,400,000MALSR acquisition 3,500,000 .......................... 2,025,000ALSIP Newport &

North Bend, OR .. 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,500,000ALSF–2 Cleveland

Intl, OH .............. 3,000,000 .......................... 3,000,000ALSF–2 Min-

neapolis-St. PaulIntl, MN .............. .......................... .......................... 1,500,000

MALSR Starkville,MS ...................... 560,000 .......................... 560,000

MALSR, Millington,TN ....................... 425,000 .......................... 425,000

MALSR install run-way 34L, SaltLake City, UT ..... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000

MALSR/REIL MonroeCty, NC ............... 1,000,000 .......................... 1,000,000

Meridian/Key FieldMALSR, MS ......... .......................... 2,300,000 2,300,000

Atlanta Hartsfield,GA ...................... .......................... 2,300,000 1,500,000

Juneau Airport, AK .. .......................... 2,000,000 1,500,000Las Cruces Inter-

national, NM ...... .......................... 2,750,000 1,600,000Bethel Airport, AK ... .......................... 2,000,000 1,500,000Saginaw MBS Intl,

MI ....................... .......................... 500,000 500,000MALSR, Baton

Rouge, LA ........... .......................... 2,000,000 1,500,000Taxiway lighting

system, GadsdenAirport IndustrialPark, AL ............. .......................... .......................... 150,000

Total .......... 26,100,000 21,450,000 30,000,000

Aviation access, remote locations in Alaska.—The conferees note that most remote Alaskavillages do not have access to hospitals orclinics because they are not connected to theroad system. Therefore, they must rely onaircraft medevacs in the event of a medicalemergency. The conferees have been in-formed that an air evacuation of a heart at-tack victim was delayed for three days be-cause the village of Hoonah lacked naviga-tional aids, and that medevacs in wintermonths are restricted to just a few hours ofdaylight because communities lack runwaylights. The Administrator is directed towork with the Indian Health Service and theCoast Guard to determine the extent of thisproblem, and similar access problems inother remote communities, and make rec-ommendations to the House and SenateCommittees on Appropriations by March 1,2001 on what steps should be taken.

Explosive detection systems.—The confereesagree to provide $99,500,000 for the acquisi-tion and deployment of explosive detection


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8952 October 5, 2000systems at airports as proposed by the Sen-ate instead of $136,417,606 as proposed by theHouse. The conference agreement distributesfunds as shown below:

Activity FY 2001 budgetestimate

Conferenceagreement

Bulk EDS systems ............................. $31,200,000 $40,000,000Trace detection systems ................... 15,200,000 12,000,000Threat image projection (TIP) sys-

tems .............................................. 25,320,000 22,000,000Threat containment units ................. 750,000 ............................Computer-based training (CBT) sys-

tems .............................................. ............................ 2,000,000System integration ............................ 25,030,000 21,500,000SAFPAS .............................................. ............................ 2,000,000

Total ..................................... 97,500,000 99,500,000

Bulk explosive detection systems.—The con-ferees agree with the concern of the Housethat FAA has not been successful at devel-oping a viable second source for the acquisi-tion of bulk EDS systems, several years afterthe program was initiated. Competitionamong vendors is critical for minimizinggovernment costs and lowering technicalrisk, and FAA’s lack of enthusiasm for sec-ond source development continues to be dis-appointing. A recent investigation of theHouse Appropriations Committee’s Surveysand Investigations staff concluded that FAAhas failed to use consistent criteria in evalu-ating different vendors; has failed to for-mally document test criteria and the basis

for test decisions; and has applied differentperformance standards to different vendors.Some vendors have been allowed to deployequipment to airports without FAA certifi-cation; some have been required to receivecertification; and still others have not beenapproved until completion of post-certifi-cation operational tests. In all, it is clearthat FAA has neither effectively promotedcompetition nor evaluated different vendorsfairly against a single performance and test-ing standard. This has resulted in a singlevendor receiving contracts for an over-whelming majority of systems, several yearsafter attempts were begun to develop a sec-ond source. The conferees will not continueto provide funding for these important ma-chines unless a level playing field is estab-lished. Although the conference agreementincludes $40,000,000 for bulk explosive detec-tion systems, an increase of $8,800,000 abovethe budget estimate, the conferees directthat these funds shall be made available inequal amounts to procure explosive detec-tion systems from both certified sources.Further, the FAA shall not unduly delaycontract awards to either vendor, by ensur-ing that the timing of contract awards to thetwo vendors are paired to the greatest extentpracticable.

Strategic Alliance for Passenger Airline Safe-ty.—As proposed by the Senate, the con-

ference agreement includes $2,000,000 for theStrategic Alliance for Passenger AirlineSafety (SAFPAS) to conduct development,integration, evaluation, and testing of theconcept of remote airline passenger check-inand baggage drop-off. If successful, thiscould enhance airline passenger check-in ef-ficiency as well as enhance security by dis-tributing the baggage screening load acrosstime and locations, allow for a more meas-ured flow of baggage and more time per bagfor screening. This could also reduce thepressure at airport security checkpoints byreducing the number of bags being presentedimmediately before flight departures.

Center for advanced aviation systems develop-ment.—Within the amount made available forthis activity, adequate funding has been pro-vided to continue development of flight man-agement system procedures for Newark andTeterboro airports, New Jersey.

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT


The conference agreement provides$187,000,000 for FAA research, engineering,and development instead of $184,366,000 asproposed by the House and $183,343,000 as pro-posed by the Senate.

The following table shows the distributionof funds in the House and Senate bills andthe conference agreement:


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8954 October 5, 2000Security research.—The conferees encourage

FAA’s research organization to work withthe OST Office of Intelligence and Securityto consider FAA financial support of avia-tion-related activities conducted throughthat office. The Office of Intelligence and Se-curity is tasked with certain responsibilitiesregarding critical infrastructure protectionand awareness. Since the large majority ofDOT’s critical infrastructure is in the FAA,it may be appropriate for the agency to sup-port these activities financially.

Strobe light evaluation.—The conferees di-rect FAA to provide, out of available funds,up to $500,000 to conduct a test program com-paring how various runway approach light-ing systems affect a pilot’s visual effective-ness during the landing phase. FAA data in-dicate that ‘‘steady burning’’ approach lightscan cause temporary changes in pilot visualacuity, which can affect the ability of thepilot to determine objects at a distance.

Propulsion and fuel systems.—Of the fundsprovided, $1,500,000 is for the minimum oc-tane fuel research cited in the House reportand $1,500,000 is for the Specialty MetalsProcessing Consortium cited in the Senatereport.

Explosives and weapons detection.—The con-ference agreement includes $42,606,000 as pro-posed by the Senate instead of $37,460,000 asproposed by the House and included in thebudget estimate. Of this amount, $6,000,000 isto continue development of the pulsed fastneutron analysis (PFNA) cargo inspectionsystem, as proposed by the Senate. No fundsare allocated to the Safe Skies initiative.Further, the conference agreement provides$1,000,000 for the FAA to fund dual use X-raytechnology development at Huntsville Inter-national Airport, Alabama, to facilitate themovement of large amounts of palletizedcargo through scanning systems with veryhigh levels of contraband and threat detec-tion.

Aging aircraft.—The conference agreementprovides $33,384,000 for this program insteadof $29,384,000 as proposed by the House and$34,684,000 as proposed by the Senate. Of thefunds provided, $5,000,000 is for the NationalInstitute for Aviation Research. The con-ferees have included an increase of $1,000,000above the budget request for the Center forAviation Systems Reliability (CASR);$1,000,000 above the budget request for activi-

ties of the engine titanium consortium ef-fort; and $10,000,000 for the activities of theAirworthiness Assurance Center of Excel-lence, including research at the non-destruc-tive inspection validation center.





The conference agreement includes a liqui-dating cash appropriation of $3,200,000,000, asproposed by the House and the Senate.

Obligation limitation.—The conferees agreeto an obligation limitation of $3,200,000,000for the ‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ programas proposed by the House and the Senate.This is the amount authorized by Public Law106–181.

High priority projects.—Of the funds coveredby the obligation limitation in this bill, theconferees direct FAA to provide not lessthan the following funding levels, out ofavailable discretionary resources, for the fol-lowing projects in the correspondingamounts:


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8959October 5, 2000The conferees further direct that the spe-

cific funding allocated above shall not di-minish or prejudice the application of a spe-cific airport or geographic region to receiveother AIP discretionary grants or multiyearletters of intent.

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport,OH.—The conferees are aware of the need forfurther noise mitigation at Cleveland Hop-kins International Airport and of the City ofCleveland’s residential sound insulation pro-gram to address this issue. Although the cityis currently limited to caps for residentialand institutional noise set-aside funding, itis expected that these caps will be withdrawnby the FAA because of the significant in-crease being made available in noise set-aside funding. Accordingly, the confereesurge FAA to give strong consideration to thecity’s request for multi-year noise set-asidefunding to address sound insulation needs forhomes and facilities around the airport.

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport,MN.—The conferees provide $10,000,000 fornoise mitigation activities for the westsideof the new Minneapolis-St. Paul Inter-national Airport north/south runway, pend-ing FAA’s review of the noise impacts of theproject.

Denver noise mitigation study.—In House re-port 105–648, the House Committee on Appro-priations instructed FAA to work with theDenver International Airport Study Coordi-nation Group, the DIA noise abatement of-fice, and other affected Colorado commu-nities to identify measures, includingchanges in flight patterns, which would re-duce aircraft noise. In addition to consid-ering average noise levels (particularly incommunities with average noise levels over65 LDN), the FAA was instructed to addressthe specific altitude of Colorado commu-nities. The conferees urge FAA to continueto work with these entities to resolve theirconcerns. The conferees direct FAA to pro-vide a letter report detailing its findings andrecommended actions to the House and Sen-ate Committees on Appropriations no laterthan August 1, 2001.

Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport,PA.—The conference agreement provides dis-cretionary funding of $3,000,000 only for theJoseph M. McDade terminal facility at theWilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airportin Pennsylvania.

Letters of intent.—The conferees urge theFAA to award letters of intent for multiyearcapital projects at the following airports:

Location:Memphis International, TNLambert-St. Louis International, MOClearwater-St. Petersburg International,

FLPiedmont Triad International, NCAnchorage International, AKGeorge Bush Intercontinental, TXOrlando International, FLBaltimore-Washington International, MDHartsfield-Atlanta International, GAAlliance Airport, TXOakland Pontiac International, MINorth Las Vegas, NVCherry Capital Airport, MIHouston area letter of intent.—The conferees

urge FAA to give priority consideration tothe letter of intent application from the Cityof Houston. The city has proposed a majorexpansion of airside capacity, with positiveeffects on system delay and a favorable ben-efit-cost ratio, as part of a larger airport ex-pansion program largely financed by locally-generated funds.

Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.—The conferees encourage the FAA Adminis-trator to award a supplemental letter of in-tent for Lambert-St. Louis InternationalAirport in Missouri and include within theconference agreement $10,000,000 in discre-

tionary funding for the new W–1W runwayand related improvements at this airport.

Piedmont Triad International Airport runwayproject.—The Conferees direct the FAA togive full and immediate consideration to thePiedmont Triad Airport Authority’s applica-tion for a letter of intent for construction ofa parallel runway (5L–23R) and related im-provements. These improvements will pro-vide substantial capacity, safety and eco-nomic benefits and will facilitate committedexpansion of operations at the airport.

Hartsfield-Atlanta International Airport.—The conferees are aware of the capacity andsafety benefits that will accrue from the ad-dition of a fifth runway at Hartsfield-At-lanta International Airport. The confereesdirect FAA to give full and immediate con-sideration to the airport authority’s applica-tion for a letter of intent for construction ofa fifth runway.

GPS approach development.—Theconfererence agreement does not include theSenate’s direction to make available$4,500,000 of administrative funds only for thedevelopment of GPS approaches. Funding forthis activity is provided in other appropria-tions.



(RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

The conference agreement includes a re-scission of unused contract authority total-ing $579,000,000, as proposed by both theHouse and the Senate. These funds are abovethe annual obligation ceiling for fiscal year2000, and remain unavailable to the program.

AVIATION INSURANCE REVOLVING FUND

The conference agreement retains lan-guage authorizing expenditures and invest-ments from the Aviation Insurance Revolv-ing Fund for aviation insurance activities, asproposed by both the House and the Senate.This provision has been carried in appropria-tions Acts for many years.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION


The conference agreement limits adminis-trative expenses of the Federal Highway Ad-ministration (FHWA) to $295,119,000, insteadof $290,115,000 as proposed by the House and$386,658,000 as proposed by the Senate.

The conference agreement provides thatcertain sums be made available under sec-tion 104(a) of title 23, U.S.C. to carry outspecified activities, as follows: $4,000,000shall be available for commercial remotesensing products and spatial informationtechnologies under section 5113 of PublicLaw 105–178, as amended; $10,000,000 shall beavailable for the national historic coveredbridge preservation program under section1224 of Public Law 105–178, as amended;$5,000,000 shall be available for the construc-tion and improvement of the Alabama StateDocks; $10,000,000 shall be available to Au-burn University for the Center for Transpor-tation Technology; $7,500,000 shall be madeavailable for ‘‘Child Passenger ProtectionEducation Grants’’ under section 2003(b) ofPublic Law 105–178, as amended; and$25,000,000 shall be available for the transpor-tation and community and system preserva-tion program under section 1221 of PublicLaw 105–178, as amended.

The recommended distribution by programand activity of the funding provided forFHWA’s administrative expenses is as fol-lows:FHWA administrative ex-

penses ............................. $315,834,000Undistributed reduction

in administrative ex-penses .......................... ¥1,000,000

Defer information tech-nology increases pendingCIO review ...................... ¥2,400,000

Defer increases for work-place development .......... ¥4,330,000

Delete funding requestedfor rural transportationplanning initiatives ........ ¥1,000,000

Eliminate funding for cli-mate change center ........ ¥1,000,000

Deny funding for nationalrural development part-nership program ............. ¥500,000

Delete funding for the Gar-ret A. Morgan program ... ¥688,000

Delete funding for 2 newFTE for small and dis-advantaged business ac-tivities ............................ ¥230,000

Deny funding for develop-ment of regional trans-portation plan for theMississippi River Deltainitiative ........................ ¥1,000,000

Delete funding for ‘‘work-ing better together’’ ac-tivities ............................ ¥500,000

Provide $1,000,000 for theoffice of intermodalism .. ¥317,000

Deny increases for tech-nology transfer and shar-ing activities .................. ¥5,000,000

Disallow funds for the na-tional personal transpor-tation survey .................. ¥4,750,000

Congestion mitigation andsuburban mobility initia-tive ................................. +2,000,000National personal transportation survey.—

The conference agreement does not includeadditional resources for the national per-sonal transportation survey within FHWA’slimitation on administrative expenses.Funds have been provided within policy re-search and the Bureau of TransportationStatistics to continue the national personaltransportation survey in fiscal year 2001.

International trade data systems.—The con-ference agreement includes $1,620,000, as re-quested, for international trade data sys-tems. The conferees agree with the directionof the House to provide the House and Sen-ate Committees on Appropriations by Feb-ruary 1, 2001 a detailed cost estimate for thedevelopment and deployment of the com-plete system, including cost sharing by otherparticipating federal, state and local agen-cies, and a schedule for full deployment. Theconferees encourage the FHWA within thefunds provided for this activity to conduct astudy on transportation issues emergingfrom NAFTA with the University of Texas atEl Paso and Dowling College of Long Island,New York, and to work with the ArcticCouncil to identify opportunities for inter-national cooperation and development in thecircumpolar region.

Research and development administrative ex-penses.—The level provided for administra-tive expenses of the FHWA shall includefunding, as proposed by the House, to sup-port various administrative activities thatwere requested within the research and tech-nology programs.

Inspector General cost reimbursements.—Theconference agreement provides up to$3,524,000 for Inspector General audit cost re-imbursements. These funds are transferredfrom FHWA’s administrative takedown asauthorized under section 104(a) of title 23 tothe office of the inspector general.

Corporate average fuel economy.—Up to$1,000,000 is provided under this heading toconduct a study of corporate average fueleconomy standards. This study is more fullydiscussed under ‘‘National Highway TrafficSafety Administration, Operations and re-search.’’

Dual logos on interstate signs.—The con-ferees understand that in response to the es-tablishment of shared facilities for res-taurants and other services along interstate


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8960 October 5, 2000highways, there is growing interest in theplacement of dual logos on interstate signsto provide information to the traveling pub-lic. The Commonwealth of Kentucky is con-sidering a demonstration project that wouldallow for the use of dual logos in one slot oninterstates marking gas, food and lodging fa-cilities. The conferees believe this proposalhas merit and direct the FHWA to approveKentucky’s request, should it be submitted.

New Jersey turnpike tremley point inter-change.—The conferees are aware of a pro-posal to construct a new truck-only inter-change at exit 12A of the New Jersey Turn-pike to provide commercial vehicle accessand to alleviate congestion in Linden, NewJersey. The conferees stand in support ofthis initiative and encourage the appropriatetransportation officials in the State of NewJersey to expedite construction of this criti-cally needed congestion mitigation project.

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal.—The con-ferees direct the Secretary of the Army, act-ing through the Chief of Engineers, to re-move lead-based paint from the St. GeorgesBridge in Delaware, to repaint the bridge,and to conduct an assessment for rehabilita-tion of the bridge using available ‘‘Oper-ations and maintenance’’ general funds fromEnergy and Water Development Appropria-tions Acts.

LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

The conference agreement deletes the limi-tation on transportation research of$437,250,000 proposed by the House. Fundingfor transportation research programs and ac-tivities is included within the overall limita-tion on federal-aid highways, as proposed bythe Senate.


The conference agreement limits obliga-tions for the federal-aid highways programto $29,661,806,000 as proposed by both theHouse and the Senate. The conference agree-ment also includes the following limitationswithin the overall limitation on obligationsfor the federal-aid highways program as pro-posed by the Senate: $437,250,000 for transpor-tation research; $25,000,000 for the magneticlevitation transportation technology deploy-ment program; $31,000,000 for the Bureau ofTransportation Statistics; and $218,000,000 forintelligent transportation systems. Withinthe funds provided for magnetic levitation,not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be available tothe Federal Railroad Administration for ad-ministrative expenses associated with theprogram; not to exceed $1,500,000 shall beavailable to the Federal Railroad Adminis-tration for ‘‘Safety and operations’’; and notmore than $1,000,000 shall be available forlow-speed magnetic levitation research anddevelopment. The House bill contained nosimilar sub-limitations.

The conference agreement also includes aprovision which, after deducting $156,486,491for high priority projects; $25,000,000 for theIndian reservation roads program; $18,467,857for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge; $10,000,000for commercial driver’s license programunder motor carrier safety grants; and$1,735,039 for the Alaska Highway, distributesrevenue aligned budget authority directly tothe states consistent with each state’s indi-vidual guaranteed share under section 1105 ofPublic Law 105–178. This approach is similarto the policy enacted for fiscal year 2000 andmaximizes the resources flowing to indi-vidual states.

The conference agreement includes severalprovisions that stipulate how funds appor-tioned under section 110 of title 23, U.S.C. tothe states of Oklahoma, Mississippi, NewYork, Nebraska, Alabama and California areto be allocated within those states. TheFHWA is directed to ensure that the statedepartments of transportation of these

states in no way diminish their annualplanned expenditures from their regular fed-eral-aid apportionment on the projects speci-fied in this conference agreement.

Commonwealth of Kentucky.—The confereesexpect the Kentucky Transportation Cabinetto pre-finance the right-of-way phase for thePennyrile Parkway Extension from Hopkins-ville to I–24 in Christian County, which is tobe funded from the state’s annual allotmentof federal national highway system funds.

Environmental streamlining pilot program.—The conferees direct the Secretary of Trans-portation to designate the New Hampshire I–93 corridor project (from Manchester toSalem) as an environmental streamliningpilot project to demonstrate timely identi-fication and resolution of issues, flexiblemitigation strategies, and balanced decision-making. The conferees further expect theFHWA’s New Hampshire Division Adminis-trator, the Federal Transit Administration’sRegion 1 Administrator, the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency’s Region 1 Admin-istrator, the U.S. Army Corps of EngineersNortheast District Engineer, and the Fishand Wildlife Service Regional Director toserve on this project’s board of directors andas principal partners for the duration of thisproject. This pilot may serve as a model forthe application of ‘‘project partnering’’ toimplement section 1309 of the TransportationEquity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat.232–234).

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Within the funds provided for surfacetransportation research, the conferenceagreement includes $66,000,000 for highwayresearch and development for the followingactivities:Safety ................................ $15,000,000Pavements ......................... 15,000,000Structures ......................... 15,000,000Environment ..................... 6,200,000Policy ................................ 4,600,000Planning and real estate ... 4,100,000Advanced research ............. 900,000Highway operations and

asset management .......... 5,200,000

Total ............................ 66,000,000Within the funds provided for highway re-

search and development, the conferees en-courage the FHWA to provide up to $250,000for continuation of the PM–10 study.

Safety.—The conference agreement in-cludes $15,000,000 for safety research. FHWAis required to implement a comprehensiveresearch and technology program that willensure safety R&D and deployment activitiesreceive at least the same amount of fundsthat were provided in fiscal year 2000. Withinthe funds provided for safety research, theconferees encourage the FHWA to expand itsefforts to improve traffic safety at varioustypes of intersections. In addition, the con-ferees encourage the FHWA to provide: up to$500,000 to explore traffic striping technologyimprovements which enhance reflectivity inheavy rain; up to $2,000,000 to determine theeffectiveness of Freezefree anti-icing sys-tems; up to $2,000,000 for cooperative re-search at the Western Washington Univer-sity Vehicle Research Institute for safetyand related initiatives; and up to $500,000 forrural bridge safety research in cooperationwith the Vermont Agency of Transportation.Lastly, the conferees encourage the FHWAto provide up to $1,800,000 to the Transpor-tation Research Institute at the GeorgeWashington University for multi-modalcrash analysis, simulation, and modeling foroccupant protection and human surviv-ability; and for advanced research into im-proving performance and safety of transpor-tation networks, including but not limitedto information, communications, command

and control, and logistics at the physical,operational and information levels.

Pavements.—The conference agreement pro-vides $15,000,000 for pavements research.Within the funds provided for pavements re-search, the conferees encourage the FHWAto provide: up to $750,000 for cement concretepavement research at Iowa State Univer-sity’s Transportation Research and Edu-cation Center; up to $2,000,000 for alkali sili-ca reactivity research with lithium basedtechnologies; up to $2,000,000 for further re-search into the GSB–88 emulsified sealer/binder treatment; up to $2,500,000 for the Na-tional Center for Asphalt Technology Pave-ment Research at Auburn University; up to$2,000,000 for a cooperative polymer additivedemonstration involving South CarolinaState University and Clemson University;and up to $1,000,000 for geosynthetic materialpavement research at the Western Transpor-tation Institute.

Structures.—The conference agreement pro-vides $15,000,000 for structures research.Within the funds provided for structures re-search, the conferees encourage the FHWAto provide: up to $2,000,000 for research at theCenter for Advanced Bridge Engineering atWayne State University; up to $2,000,000 fornondestructive testing research at the UtahTransportation Center; up to $1,500,000 foradvanced sensor and inspection research atthe New Mexico State University Bridge Re-search Center; up to $2,000,000 for earthquakehazards mitigation research at the Univer-sity of Missouri-Rolla; up to $2,000,000 for re-lated engineering research at West VirginiaUniversity; up to $2,000,000 for polymer ma-trix composite research for wood structuresat the University of Maine; up to $2,000,000for a rustproofing and paint technologytransfer project using the I–110 bridge fromI–10 to U.S. 90; and up to $1,500,000 for cooper-ative work with the Transportation Re-search Center at the Washington State Uni-versity.

Environment.—The conference agreementprovides $6,200,000 for environmental re-search. Within the funds provided for this re-search activity, the FHWA is encouraged toprovide: up to $1,000,000 for the SustainableTransportation Systems Lab and the Na-tional Center for Transportation Technologyfor mitigation research for heavily-traf-ficked national parks; up to $1,500,000 for adust and persistent particulate abatementdemonstration study in Kotzebue, Alaska;and up to $1,000,000 to facilitate the air qual-ity work at the National Environmental Res-piratory Center.

Policy.—The conference agreement in-cludes $4,600,000 for policy research. Suffi-cient funding provided under this activity,together with resources provided to the Bu-reau of Transportation Statistics, shallallow for continued, undiminished work onthe national personal transportation survey.The conference agreement deletes funding tocontinue or to revise the truck size andweight study, as well as funding requestedfor research cooperation with various inter-national organizations. Both the House andSenate Committees on Appropriations ex-pect to be consulted before future inter-national agreements are consummated bythe department that are likely to require fi-nancial support by the FHWA.

Highway operations and asset management.—The conference agreement provides $5,200,000for highway operations and asset manage-ment. Within the funds provided for this ac-tivity, the conferees encourage the FHWA toprovide: up to $800,000 for innovative infra-structure financing best practices researchongoing at the University of Southern Cali-fornia; up to $1,000,000 for the road life re-search program in New Mexico; and up to$2,000,000 for the Center for Advanced Sim-ulation Technology in New York and Auburn


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8961October 5, 2000University for continued work on a transpor-tation management plan.

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

The conference agreement includes a totalof $218,000,000 for intelligent transportationsystems (ITS), of which $118,000,000 is avail-able for ITS deployment and $100,000,000 isfor ITS research and development. Withinthe funds available for intelligent transpor-tation systems deployment, the conferenceagreement provides that not less than thefollowing sums shall be available for intel-ligent transportation projects in these speci-fied areas:

ConferenceProject agreement

Alameda-Contra Costa,California ....................... $500,000

Aquidneck Island, RhodeIsland .............................. 500,000

Austin, Texas .................... 250,000Automated crash notifica-

tion system, UAB ........... 1,000,000Baton Rouge, Louisiana .... 1,000,000Bay County, Florida .......... 1,500,000Beaumont, Texas ............... 150,000Bellingham, Washington ... 350,000Bloomington Township, Il-

linois .............................. 400,000Calhoun County, Michigan 750,000Carbondale, Pennsylvania 2,000,000Cargo Mate, New Jersey .... 750,000Charlotte, North Carolina 625,000College Station, Texas ...... 1,800,000Commonwealth of Ken-

tucky .............................. 1,500,000Commonwealth of Virginia 5,500,000Corpus Christi, Texas (ve-

hicle dispatching) ........... 1,000,000Delaware River Port Au-

thority ............................ 1,250,000DuPage County, Illinois .... 500,000Fargo, North Dakota ......... 1,000,000Fort Collins, Colorado ....... 1,250,000Hattiesburg, Mississippi .... 500,000Huntington Beach, Cali-

fornia .............................. 1,250,000Huntsville, Alabama .......... 3,000,000I–70 West project, Colorado 750,000Inglewood, California ........ 600,000Jackson, Mississippi .......... 1,000,000Jefferson County, Colorado 4,250,000Johnsonburg, Pennsyl-

vania ............................... 1,500,000Kansas City, Missouri ....... 1,250,000Lake County, Illinois ........ 450,000Lewis & Clark trail, Mon-

tana ................................ 625,000Montgomery County,

Pennsylvania .................. 2,000,000Moscow, Idaho ................... 875,000Muscle Shoals, Alabama ... 1,000,000Nashville, Tennessee ......... 500,000New Jersey regional inte-

gration/TRANSCOM ....... 3,000,000North Central Pennsyl-

vania ............................... 750,000North Las Vegas, Nevada .. 1,800,000Norwalk and Sante Fe

Springs, California ......... 500,000Oakland and Wayne Coun-

ties, Michigan ................. 1,500,000Pennsylvania Turnpike

Commission .................... 1,500,000Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 500,000Puget Sound regional fare

collection, Washington ... 2,500,000Rensselaer County, New

York ............................... 500,000Rochester, New York ......... 1,500,000Sacramento County, Cali-

fornia .............................. 875,000Sacramento to Reno, I–80

corridor .......................... 100,000Sacramento, California ..... 500,000Salt Lake City (Olympic

Games), Utah .................. 1,000,000

ConferenceProject agreement

San Antonio, Texas ........... 100,000Santa Teresa, New Mexico 500,000Schuylkill County, Penn-

sylvania .......................... 400,000Seabrook, Texas ................ 1,200,000Shreveport, Louisiana ....... 1,000,000South Dakota commercial

vehicle, ITS .................... 1,250,000Southeast Michigan .......... 500,000Southhaven, Mississippi .... 150,000Spokane County, Wash-

ington ............................. 1,000,000Springfield-Branson, Mis-

souri ............................... 750,000St. Louis, Missouri ............ 500,000State of Alaska ................. 2,350,000State of Arizona ................ 1,000,000State of Connecticut ......... 3,000,000State of Delaware .............. 1,000,000State of Illinois ................. 1,000,000State of Indiana (SAFE–T) 1,000,000State of Iowa (traffic en-

forcement and transit) ... 2,750,000State of Maryland ............. 3,000,000State of Minnesota ............ 6,500,000State of Missouri (rural) ... 750,000State of Montana .............. 750,000State of Nebraska .............. 2,600,000State of New Mexico .......... 750,000State of North Carolina ..... 1,500,000State of North Dakota ...... 500,000State of Ohio ..................... 2,000,000State of Oklahoma ............ 1,000,000State of Oregon ................. 750,000State of South Carolina .... 2,000,000State of Tennessee ............ 1,850,000State of Utah ..................... 1,500,000State of Vermont .............. 500,000State of Wisconsin ............. 1,000,000Texas border phase I, Hous-

ton, Texas ....................... 500,000Tucson, Arizona ................ 1,250,000Tuscaloosa, Alabama ......... 2,000,000Vermont rural ITS ............ 1,500,000Washington, DC area ......... 1,250,000Washoe County, Nevada .... 200,000Wayne County, Michigan .. 5,000,000Williamson County/Round

Rock, Texas .................... 250,000

Projects selected for funding shall con-tribute to the integration and interoper-ability of intelligent transportation systems,consistent with the criteria set forth inTEA21.

District of Columbia.—The conference agree-ment includes $1,250,000 for intelligent trans-portation systems in the national capital re-gion. Within the amount provided, the con-ferees urge funding be made available to de-velop with George Mason University a sys-tem which coordinates ITS responses tomajor capital projects in Northern Virginia.

Commonwealth of Virginia.—Within the$5,500,000 provided for ITS projects in theCommonwealth of Virginia, $3,000,000 shallbe for the I–81 corridor in the ShenandoahValley and southwestern Virginia to improvesafety. The conferees are encouraged by theopportunities to improve safety with ITSprograms such as the collection and distribu-tion of real time information, installation ofdynamic message signs and safety monitors,coordination of emergency response, andother systems. The conferees expect the Vir-ginia Department of Transportation, work-ing in partnership with Virginia PolytechnicInstitute, James Madison University, andGeorge Mason University, to acceleratetimely solutions to improve safety on the I–81 corridor.

The conference agreement provides$100,000,000 for ITS research and developmentactivities, to be distributed by activity asfollows:Research and development $48,680,000

Operational tests ............... 11,820,000Evaluations ....................... 7,750,000Architecture and standards 13,750,000Integration ........................ 9,000,000Program support ............... 9,000,000

Total ............................ 100,000,000ITS standards, research, operational tests and

development.—Within the $100,000,000 providedfor ITS standards, research, operationaltests and development, the conference agree-ment includes, as proposed by the House,$7,300,000 for commercial vehicle researchand $30,000,000 for intelligent vehicle initia-tive research, of which $5,000,000 shall beavailable for the initial phase of an oper-ational test to advance collision avoidancetechnologies in the light vehicle platform.The conference agreement deletes $600,000identified in the Senate report to initiate thedesign, engineering and installation of intel-ligent transportation systems at railroad-highway crossings on rail corridors.FERRY BOATS AND FERRY TERMINAL FACILITIES

Within the funds available for ferry boatsand ferry terminal facilities, funds are to beavailable for the following projects and ac-tivities:

Project ConferenceBaylink ferry service,

Vallejo, California .......... $1,000,000Broward County, Florida ... 2,300,000Cherry Grove, Long Island

ferry boat dock, NewYork ............................... 360,000

Curtis vessel replacementfor Rockland and VinalHaven, Maine .................. 250,000

Dorena Ferry MississippiRiver Crossing, Mis-sissippi ........................... 500,000

Gees Bend ferry, Alabama 1,000,000Greenport and Sag Harbor,

New York, ferry service .. 400,000Jamaica Bay transpor-

tation hub, New York ..... 680,000Fishers Island ferry ter-

minal expansion, NewLondon, Connecticut ...... 1,250,000

Penns Landing dock im-provements, Pennsyl-vania ............................... 800,000

Port of Corpus Christi(North Harbor) ferry fa-cility, Texas ................... 1,000,000

Potomac river ferry, Vir-ginia ............................... 660,000

Providence and Newportferry, Rhode Island ......... 1,000,000

Provincetown, Massachu-setts, terminal improve-ments .............................. 300,000

Sandusky, Ohio, river ferry 500,000Savannah water taxi, Geor-

gia .................................. 400,000St. Johns River water taxi,

Jacksonville, Florida ..... 500,000State of Ohio ferries .......... 500,000Treasure Island ferry serv-

ice initiation and pier re-construction, San Fran-cisco, California ............. 1,000,000

MAGNETIC LEVITATION TRANSPORTATIONTECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM

The conference agreement provides a totalof $25,000,000 for the high-speed magneticlevitation (maglev) technology deploymentprogram. Of this total, $1,000,000 is for theFederal Railroad Administration (FRA) toadminister the program; $1,500,000 is trans-ferred to FRA for safety and operations ac-tivities; and $1,000,000 is for low-speedmaglev development.

The conferees direct that $21,500,000 betransferred to FRA for the deployment ofhigh-speed maglev projects. Of this total, the


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8962 October 5, 2000conference agreement recommends the fol-lowing amounts be made available for pre-construction planning and environmentalimpact assessments:Port Authority of Alle-

gheny County, Pennsyl-vania: Pittsburgh Inter-national Airport link ..... $5,000,000

Maryland Department ofTransportation: Balti-more-Washington Inter-national Airport-Wash-ington, D.C. link ............. 1,000,000

California-Nevada SuperSpeed Train Commission:Las Vegas, NV to Ana-heim, CA ......................... 1,000,000

Georgia/Atlanta RegionalCommission: Atlanta, GAto Chattanooga, TN ........ 1,000,000

Southern California Asso-ciation of Governments:Los Angeles Inter-national Airport toMarch Air Force Base ..... 1,000,000

Florida Department ofTransportation ............... 1,000,000

Greater New Orleans Ex-pressway Commission ..... 1,000,000The remaining funding ($10,500,000) shall be

reserved for the projects that the Depart-ment of Transportation selects from amongthe seven candidates to continue in fiscalyear 2001.

Low-speed maglev program.—A total of$6,000,000 has been allocated for low-speedmaglev programs in fiscal year 2001. Thisfunding is comprised of $1,000,000 transferredfrom the high-speed maglev program, insteadof $3,000,000 as proposed by the Senate, and$5,000,000 from section 3015(c) of Public Law105–178. This funding is to be allocated as fol-lows:Segmented rail phased in-

duction electric mag-netic motor (SERA-PHIM) project ................. $2,000,000

Colorado IntermountainFixed Guideway Author-ity Airport link project .. 2,000,000

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvaniaairborne shuttle system 2,000,000

NATIONAL CORRIDOR PLANNING ANDDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Within the funds available for the nationalcorridor planning and development program,funds are to be available for the followingprojects and activities:

Project ConferenceAnniston Evacuation cor-

ridor, Calhoun County,Alabama ......................... $3,000,000

Avalon Boulevard/405 Free-way interchange, Carson,California ....................... 875,000

Boca Raton trafficcalming, Florida ............. 500,000

City of North Ridgeville,Lorain County, Ohiograde crossing improve-ments .............................. 600,000

Coalfields expressway Vir-ginia ............................... 4,000,000

Coalfields expressway,West Virginia ................. 10,000,000

Downtown FitchburgRoute 12 extension, Mas-sachusetts ....................... 2,000,000

Hatcher Pass (phase I),Alaska ............................ 2,000,000

I–25 corridor from Alamedato Logan, Colorado ......... 4,000,000

I–29 Port of Entry, UnionCounty, South Dakota ... 2,000,000

I–35 corridor expansion,Waco, Texas .................... 1,325,000

I–5 South Medford inter-change and Delta Park,Oregon ............................ 1,000,000

Project ConferenceI–65 upgrade, Clark Coun-

ty, Indiana ...................... 1,350,000I–66, Somerset to London,

Kentucky ........................ 5,000,000I–69 corridor, Louisiana ..... 2,300,000I–69 corridor, Texas ........... 3,000,000I–74 bridge, Moline, Illinois 5,600,000Madison County, KY 21 and

I–75, Kentucky ................ 1,000,000New Boston Road improve-

ments, Mercer County,Illinois ............................ 3,000,000

Radio Road overpass, Cityof Sulphur Springs,Texas .............................. 1,350,000

Route 104, Virginia ............ 1,000,000South Shore industrial

safety overpass, Indiana 4,750,000Stevenson expressway, Illi-

nois ................................. 3,800,000US 19, Florida .................... 10,000,000US 25 improvements, Ken-

tucky .............................. 2,000,000US 321 and US 74, Gasden

and Mecklenburg Coun-ty, North Carolina .......... 500,000

US 395 North Spokane cor-ridor, Washington ........... 1,000,000

US 43, Alabama ................. 4,000,000US 51 widening, Decatur,

Illinois ............................ 1,350,000US 95 (Milepost 522 to Ca-

nadian border), Idaho ..... 1,900,000US Route 2, New Hamp-

shire ............................... 1,500,000US–61 (Avenue of the

Saints), Missouri ............ 4,000,000WI 29 (Chippewa Falls by-

pass, Wisconsin) ............. 3,000,000TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY AND SYSTEM

PRESERVATION PROGRAM

The conference agreement includes a totalof $50,000,000 for the transportation and com-munity and system preservation program, ofwhich $25,000,000 is derived from funds pro-vided under section 104(a) of title 23, UnitedStates Code. Within the funds made avail-able for the transportation and communityand system preservation program, funds areto be distributed to the following projectsand activities:

Project Conference20/20 vision project in Con-

cord, New Hampshire ...... $500,000Arkansas River, Wichita,

Kansas, pedestrian trans-portation facility ........... 1,000,000

Bangor, Maine, intermodalhub facility planning,railroad crossing sig-nalization, bike and pe-destrian trails ................ 600,000

Bedford, New Hampshire,corridor planning ........... 250,000

Billings, Montana, open/green space improvementproject ............................ 775,000

Bowling Green, Kentucky,Riverfront Developmenttransportation enhance-ments .............................. 1,000,000

Buckeye Greenbelt park-way beautification, To-ledo, Ohio ....................... 250,000

Burlington, Vermont,North Street and ChurchStreet improvements ...... 1,100,000

Chantry Flats Road, SierraMadre, California ........... 600,000

Charleston, West Virginia,Kanawha BoulevardWalkway project ............ 2,000,000

City of Angola and SteubenCity, Indiana, bike path 325,000

City of Bedminster, NewJersey, bike path ............ 500,000

City of Coronado, Cali-fornia, mobility improve-ments .............................. 600,000

City of Ferndale, Michi-gan, traffic signals ......... 50,000

Project ConferenceClaiborne County, Mis-

sissippi, access road fromUS 61 to new port facility 400,000

Clay/Leslie County, Ken-tucky .............................. 2,000,000

Clovis, New Mexico, streetrevitalization ................. 750,000

Community and environ-mental transportationacceptability process,California ....................... 1,000,000

Delong Mountain Alaska,airport access and re-lated planning ................ 300,000

Downtown Omaha, Ne-braska, access and rede-velopment project .......... 300,000

East Redoubt Avenue im-provements, Soldotna,Alaska ............................ 725,000

El Segundo, California,intermodal facility im-provements ..................... 1,000,000

Elwood bicycle/pedestrianbridge, County of SantaBarbara, California ......... 250,000

Fairbanks, Alaska, down-town transit and culturalintegration planning ...... 450,000

Fairfax cross county trail/Potomac National Herit-age Scenic Trail, Vir-ginia ............................... 500,000

Flint, Michigan, transpor-tation planning and ori-gin & destination ship-ping study ....................... 150,000

Fort Worth, Texas, trolleystudy .............................. 750,000

Heritage Corridor Projectstudy, Illinois ................. 200,000

High capacity transpor-tation system study, Al-buquerque, New Mexico .. 500,000

Houston, Texas, MainStreet ConnectivityProject ........................... 750,000

Hudson River WaterfrontWalkway, New Jersey ..... 2,000,000

Huffman Prairie FlyingField Pedestrian andMultimodal Gateway En-trance, Dayton, Ohio ...... 700,000

Humboldt Greenwayproject, Hennepin Coun-ty, Minnesota ................. 1,000,000

Jackson traffic congestionmitigation planning,Mississippi ...................... 600,000

Johnstown, Pennsylvania,pedestrian andstreetscape improve-ments .............................. 400,000

Kansas City, Missouri,Illus Davis Mall enhance-ments .............................. 350,000

Las Cruces, New Mexicorailroad and transpor-tation museum ............... 200,000

Lincoln Parish transpor-tation plan, Louisiana .... 1,500,000

Lodge freeway pedestrianoverpass, Detroit, Michi-gan .................................. 9,000,000

Manchester, Vermont, pe-destrian initiative .......... 375,000

Marked Tree, Arkansas, toI–55 along U.S. Highway63 improvements andcontrolled access lanes ... 600,000

Minnesota Trunk Highway610/10 interchange con-struction at I–94 ............. 1,650,000


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8963October 5, 2000Project Conference

Mitchell Marina develop-ment, Greenport, NewYork ............................... 250,000

Mobile, Alabama, GM&Ointermodal center/Am-trak station .................... 650,000

Montana DOT/WesternMontana College state-wide geological signproject ............................ 200,000

Montana statewide railgrade separation studyand environmental re-view ................................ 400,000

New Bedford, Massachu-setts, North Terminal .... 200,000

New Orleans, Louisiana,intermodal transpor-tation research ............... 950,000

NW 7th Avenue corridorimprovement project,Miami, Florida ............... 100,000

Ohio and Erie Canalcorrdior trail develop-ment, Ohio ...................... 1,000,000

Olympic Discovery Trail,Washington .................... 580,000

Owensboro riverfront de-velopment project .......... 300,000

Palmer, Alaska, urban re-vitalization ..................... 200,000

Park Avenue realignment,Borough of Flemington,New Jersey ..................... 1,175,000

Pedestrian and bicycleroute projects, City ofHenderson, Nevada ......... 375,000

Pedestrian improvements,Lake Cumberland Trail,Kentucky ........................ 100,000

Pioneer Courthouse Squarelobby renovation project,Portland Oregon ............. 400,000

Puget Sound freight mobil-ity systems team project 20,000

Quincy, Illinois, 18thStreet Bridge project ...... 300,000

Raton, New Mexico, raildepot/intermodal centerredevelopment ................ 750,000

Roberto Clemente Park pe-destrian improvements,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 600,000

Rockville, Maryland, TownCenter accessibility im-provement plan .............. 250,000

Roseville, California, his-toric district revitaliza-tion project .................... 500,000

Route 16 improvements,Ellenboro and Harris-ville, West Virginia ........ 250,000

Route 522 construction,Town of South Bruns-wick, New Jersey ............ 250,000

Satsop Development Parkroad improvements,Grays Harbor, Wash-ington ............................. 1,700,000

Soundview Greenway inthe Bronx, New York,New York ........................ 1,000,000

South Kingshighway busi-ness district pilot pro-gram, St. Louis Missouri 100,000

Springfield, Missouri, cen-ter city plan ................... 750,000

SR 99 corridor improve-ments, Shoreline, Wash-ington ............................. 1,000,000

Talkeetna, Alaska, parkinglot/pedestrian safety ac-cess ................................. 400,000

Tulsa/Sapula UnionRailraod overpass atOakridge ElementarySchool, Oklahoma .......... 400,000

Uptown transportationmanagement program,New Mexico .................... 500,000

Project ConferenceUtah-Coloralo ‘‘Isolated

Empire’’ rail connectorstudy .............................. 500,000

Van Buren and Russelville,Arkansas, environmentalassessments and im-provements ..................... 1,000,000

Virginia Beach, Virginia,bike trail ........................ 400,000

Virginia weigh stations ..... 1,000,000Walkable edgewater initia-

tive, Chicago, Illinois ..... 100,000West Baden Springs preser-

vation project, Indiana ... 1,000,000Wheeling, West Virginia,

Victorian Village Trans-portation Initiative ........ 500,000

Weigh stations, Virginia.—Funding has beenprovided in the conference agreement fortwo mobile weigh stations for the Common-wealth of Virginia to curb illegal overweighttrucks using U.S. Route 50 and U.S. 17(Crooked Run Valley) to bypass the perma-nent weigh station on I–81. The conferees ex-pect that one such portable weigh stationwill be used in this region, which includesFauquier, Clarke and Loudoun counties.

BRIDGE DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM

Within the funds available for the bridgediscretionary program, funds are to be avail-able for the following projects and activities:

Project Conference14th Street Bridge, Vir-

ginia ............................... $5,000,000Chouteau Bridge, Jackson

County, Missouri ............ 5,000,000Clement C. Clay Bridge re-

placement, Morgan/Madi-son counties, Alabama ... 1,000,000

Fairfield-Benton-Kennecbec River Bridge,Maine ............................. 4,000,000

Florida Memorial Bridge,Florida ........................... 10,000,000

Historic Woodrow WilsonBridge, Mississippi ......... 3,200,000

Missisquoi Bay Bridge,Vermont ......................... 3,500,000

Oaklawn Bridge, SouthPasadena, California ...... 500,000

Pearl Harbor MemorialBridge replacement, Con-necticut .......................... 3,200,000

Powell County Bridge,Montana ......................... 1,500,000

Santa Clara Bridge,Oxnard, California .......... 6,500,000

Star City Bridge, West Vir-ginia ............................... 6,500,000

US 231 bridge over Ten-nessee River, Alabama ... 8,900,000

US 54/US 69 Bridge, Kansas 2,000,000Waimalu Bridge replace-

ment on I–1, Hawaii ........ 3,400,000Washington Bridge, Rhode

Island .............................. 6,000,000FEDERAL LANDS

Within the funds available for the federallands program, funds are to be available forthe following projects and activities:

Project Conference14th Street Bridge, Wash-

ington DC/Virginia ......... $2,500,000Acadia National Park

trails and road projects .. 500,000Bear River Migratory Bird

Refuge access road ......... 950,000Boyer Chute National

Wildlife Refugee pavingproject ............................ 2,500,000

Broughton Bridge, ClayCounty, Kansas ............... 100,000

Charles M. Russell/FortPeck Roads coalition ac-cess project ..................... 500,000

Chincoteague Refuge, Vir-ginia ............................... 500,000

Project ConferenceChugach Road, Alaska ....... 250,000Clark Fork River bridge re-

placement, phase 2, Idaho 1,500,000Crescent Lake National

Wildlife Refuge accessroad, Nebraska ............... 500,000

Cumberland Gap, Ken-tucky .............................. 900,000

Daniel Boone Parkway,Kentucky ........................ 1,000,000

Delaware Water Gap Rec-reational Area ................ 1,000,000

Forest Highway 26 ............. 650,000Fort Baker, California ....... 100,000Giant Springs Road reloca-

tion L&C interpretivecenter, Great Falls, Mon-tana ................................ 800,000

Highway 323 betweenElzada and Ekalaka ........ 1,000,000

Highway 419 reconstruc-tion ................................. 2,600,000

Historic Kelso depot, Mo-jave National Preserva-tion, California ............... 2,500,000

Iditarod (Millenium trail) 1,100,000Hawaii Volcanoes National

Park and Hanalei ValleyScenic Lookout on Kauai 1,500,000

Lake Cumberland accessroad and improvements .. 750,000

Lake Tahoe Binwall repairand drainage improve-ment ............................... 500,000

Lowell National HistoricPark, western canalwalkway improvements .. 500,000

Manassas Battlefield ac-cess ................................. 500,000

Metlakatla/Walden PointRoad ............................... 1,250,000

Milford Lake replacementbridge (Corps of Engi-neers lake) ...................... 250,000

Mongap Visitor Center—Upper Delaware Scenicand Recreational River .. 900,000

Mount Saint Helen’s Na-tional Park access fromColdwater’s visitor’s cen-ter to US 12, Randall,Washington .................... 100,000

Natchez Trace Parkwaymulti-use trail ................ 300,000

New Mexico Route 4 JemezPueblo Bypass ................ 300,000

New River Gorge NationalRiver road and safety im-provements ..................... 3,000,000

Old Lock I park accessroad ................................ 1,000,000

Pasagshak Road realign-ment and improvement .. 500,000

Rampart Road Eureka con-nector ............................. 500,000

Ridgefield National Wild-life Refuge visitor’s cen-ter, Clark County, Wash-ington ............................. 200,000

Route 600, Virginia ............ 1,550,000Sawtooth National Forest

access (phase 2), Idaho .... 500,000SD 240 loop, Cedar Pass

landslide stabilization,Badlands National Monu-ment ............................... 1,700,000

Second access road forFort Eustis, Virginia ...... 1,750,000

Silvio Conte NationalWildlife Refuge publicroads ............................... 500,000

Soldier Hallow, Utah ......... 1,200,000


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8964 October 5, 2000Project Conference

Teton Trail Pass (phase 3),Idaho .............................. 500,000

Timucuan Ecological andHistoric Preserve, Flor-ida .................................. 450,000

Traffic circle at MountVernon, Virginia ............ 250,000

US 26 upgrade, Oregon ....... 1,500,000Utah Trail, Joshua Tree

National Park, California 1,500,000

The conferees direct that the funds allo-cated above are to be derived from theFHWA’s public lands discretionary program,and not from funds allocated to the Fish andWildlife Service’s and National Park Serv-ice’s regions.

BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

The conference agreement provides$31,000,000 for the Bureau of TransportationStatistics (BTS), as proposed by both theHouse and the Senate. Within the funds pro-vided to BTS, $600,000 shall be available forstatistical analysis of the National QualityInitiative, and up to $4,750,000 may be allo-cated for the national personal transpor-tation survey. As noted earlier in this re-port, the funding provided herein, supple-mented with funding provided within thepolicy research activity, shall be sufficientto continue work on the national personaltransportation survey in fiscal year 2001.




The conference agreement provides a liqui-dating cash appropriation of $28,000,000,000for the federal-aid highways program as pro-posed by both the House and the Senate.

EMERGENCY RELIEF HIGHWAYS


The conference agreement includes an ap-propriation of $720,000,000 to fund the back-log of requests for damage repairs necessarydue to disasters. Since the beginning of fiscalyear 1999, the emergency relief program hasbeen facing heavy demand for on-going fund-ing needs from events in prior years. This,coupled with requests for funding to addressevents which occurred in fiscal year 1999such as Hurricanes Floyd and Dennis, has ledto the current backlog of requests. The fund-ing needs far exceed the annual authoriza-tion of $100,000,000 for the emergency reliefprogram. Consistent with the purpose ofthese funds, the entire amount has been des-ignated as an emergency requirement pursu-ant to the Balanced Budget and EmergencyDeficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM


The conference agreement under title IIIprovides an appropriation of $54,963,000 fromthe highway trust fund for the Appalachiandevelopment highway system. The followingtable reflects the estimated distribution offunds by state:Alabama ............................ $6,051,799Georgia .............................. 2,418,532Kentucky ........................... 5,551,582Maryland.. ......................... 946,351Mississippi ......................... 678,682New York ........................... 1,304,379North Carolina .................. 3,563,079Ohio ................................... 2,729,017Pennsylvania ..................... 14,797,439South Carolina .................. 296,470Tennessee .......................... 6,784,784Virginia ............................. 1,426,067West Virginia .................... 8,414,819

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETYADMINISTRATION

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY


The conference agreement includes$92,194,000 for administrative expenses of the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administra-tion as proposed by both the House and theSenate. Of this total, $82,344,000 is for oper-ating expenses and $9,850,000 is for research.The following adjustments are made to thebudget request:

High-risk, intrastate car-rier information ............. ¥$500,000

Contract for vision exemp-tion program .................. ¥638,000

Personnel adjustments ...... +38,000Crash collection data (sec-

tion 225e) ........................ +225,000Operation Respond ............ +375,000Research and technology ... +200,000Motor carrier safety advi-

sory committee .............. +100,000Uniform carrier registra-

tion ................................. +200,000

High-risk, intrastate carrier information.—The conference agreement deletes fundingfor the high-risk intrastate carrier informa-tion program under the operating expenseaccount and recommends funding for this ac-tivity under the national motor carrier safe-ty grant program because of its direct rel-evance to state motor carrier safety.

Personnel adjustments.—A total of 119 new,full-time employees (FTE) have been ap-proved for fiscal year 2001, one FTE morethan requested. Changes to the personnelbudget request are as follows: vision exemp-tion specialists (+3), information systems an-alysts (+1), international specialist (¥1),technology specialist (¥1), motor carriersafety grant personnel (+1), and executivesecretariat (¥2). Also, the conference agree-ment approves the 20 new border inspectorsrequested in the budget.

Crash collection data.—The conferenceagreement provides $2,975,000 to ensure thatFMCSA fully implements section 225(e) ofthe Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Actof 1999. These funds should be used to im-prove data collection on motor carrier crash-es, strengthen data analysis, link driver cita-tion information with other informationdatabases, help train state employees andmotor carrier safety enforcement officials,and ensure an increased focus on problemdrivers through the integration of driver andcrash data.

Research and technology.—A total of$9,850,000 has been provided for research andtechnology initiatives, an increase of $200,000above the budget request. The additionalfunding permits an increased effort on the‘‘share the road’’ and ‘‘no-zone’’ initiatives.

School transportation study.—FMCSA shallcontinue funding the school transportationstudy required by section 4030 of TEA21 atthe same level provided in fiscal year 2000.

Motorcoach driver fatigue.—The confereesnote that the Federal Motor Carrier SafetyAdministration has acknowledged in its no-tice of proposed rulemaking on truckinghours-of-service that little is known aboutthe operations of over-the-road buses andmotorcoaches. The conferees believe thatthere should be additional study of the oper-ations, driver practices and driver fatigueissues specific to over-the-road buses beforeany revisions to the existing trucking hours-of-service rules are finalized, and encouragethe Secretary to conduct such studies to in-form additional regulatory proposals in thisarea.




The conference agreement provides a liqui-dating cash appropriation of $177,000,000 forthe national motor carrier safety program asproposed by the House and the Senate.




The conference agreement includes a limi-tation on obligations of $177,000,000 for motorcarrier safety grants proposed by the Houseand the Senate. This agreement allocatesfunding in the following manner:Basic motor carrier safety

grants ............................. $130,000,000Performance-based incen-

tive grants ...................... 7,500,000Border assistance .............. 8,000,000Priority initiatives ............ 8,000,000State training and admin-

istration ......................... 1,500,000Crash causation (section

224f) ................................ 5,000,000Information systems and

strategic safety initia-tives ................................ 17,000,000

Information systems ......... (3,700,000)Motor carrier analysis ....... (2,300,000)Implementation of PRISM (5,000,000)Driver programs ................ (1,000,000)Data collection and anal-

ysis ................................. (5,000,000)Total ............................ 177,000,000

Commercial driver’s license (CDL) program.—In addition to the funding provided underthis account, a total of $10,000,000 has beenprovided from funds authorized under section104(a) of title 23, U.S.C. This funding shallonly be available for the commercial driver’slicense program. Within the funds provided,FMCSA should work with the American As-sociation of Motor Vehicle Administrators,the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance,lead MCSAP agencies, and licensing agenciesto establish a working group to improve allaspects of the CDL program. In addition,FMCSA should consider sponsoring one ortwo pilot projects involving law enforcementand drivers licensing agencies to explore newand innovative ways to ensure that driverswho have been convicted of a disqualifyingoffense do not operate during the period ofsuspension or revocation. Finally, FMCSAshould continue to support the judicial andprosecutorial outreach effort. FMCSA shallsubmit a letter to both the House and SenateCommittees on Appropriations by April 1,2001 summarizing efforts to increase qualitycontrol in the CDL program and effortstaken to provide technical and training as-sistance to the states.

Automated brake testing equipment.— Ac-cording to 1999 data, the most common out-of-service violations were brake-related (37percent). Virginia has been researching andexploring opportunities to use infrared brakeinspection equipment and has found one newtechnology that could significantly help toidentify brake deficiencies in a timely man-ner. Within the high priority allocation, suf-ficient funding should be provided for theCommonwealth of Virginia to install andtest infrared brake inspection equipment(both fixed and hand held) at a few weighstations.

Covert operations.—Within funding providedfor high priority activities, $500,000 shall beused to conduct covert operations and surveythe extent of this problem. FMCSA shall re-port on the survey results by May 1, 2001,outlining the extent to which out-of-servicenotices are being violated. This surveyshould be conducted on a sufficiently largesample size so that the scope and nature ofthe challenge are fully made known to theHouse and Senate Committees on Appropria-tions.

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETYADMINISTRATION


The conference agreement provides$116,876,000 from the general fund for high-way and traffic safety activities instead of


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8965October 5, 2000$107,876,000 as proposed by the House. TheSenate did not provide a general fund appro-priation for NHTSA’s operations and re-search activities. Instead, the Senate pro-vided the same amount ($107,876,000) from thehighway trust fund for these activities. Theadditional $9,000,000 provided above theHouse and Senate levels shall be available tosupplement the Office of Safety Defects andfor other tire-related initiatives in the wakeof the Firestone recall.

A total of $85,321,000 shall remain availableuntil September 30, 2003 instead of $77,671,000as proposed by the House and $77,670,000 asproposed by the Senate.

The agreement includes a provision carriedsince fiscal year 1996 that prohibits NHTSAfrom obligating or expending funds to plan,finalize, or implement any rulemakings thatwould add requirements pertaining to tiregrading standards that are not related tosafety performance. This provision was con-tained in both the House and Senate bills.

The conference agreement includes a pro-vision that prohibits NHTSA from pur-chasing a vehicle to conduct new car assess-ment program crash testing at a price thatexceeds the manufacturer’s suggested retailprice, as proposed by the Senate. The Housebill contained no similar provision. If thisprovision unduly limits NHTSA’s ability totest a new vehicle expeditiously, the Sec-retary may seek a waiver of this languagefrom the House and Senate Committees onAppropriations.

The conference agreement modifies a pro-vision proposed by the Senate that wouldhave prohibited rollover testing using staticstability factors. The agreement allowsNHTSA to move forward with the rolloverrating proposal while the National Academyof Sciences (NAS) studies static versus dy-namic testing. NHTSA shall then be requiredto review the findings of the NAS study andpropose any appropriate revisions to its test-ing procedures within 30 days of receivingthe study.



(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATOINS)


The conference agreement provides$72,000,000 from the highway trust fund tocarry out provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403 as pro-posed by both the House and the Senate.

The following table summarizes the con-ference agreement for operations and re-search (general fund and highway trust fundcombined) by budget activity:Salaries and benefits ......... $57,130,000Travel ................................ 1,276,000Operating expenses ............ 19,810,000Contract programs:

Safety performance ........ 7,366,000Safety assurance ............ 15,987,000Highway safety programs 41,776,000Research and analysis .... 57,536,000General administration .. 645,000

Grant administration re-imbursements ................. ¥10,650,000

Total ............................ 190,876,000Operating expenses.—A total of $19,810,000

has been provided for operating expenses.Within this total, sufficient funds should beprovided for computer-related expenses forall administrative functions, including civilrights, public affairs, counsel, planning andpolicy, and administration. However, com-puter support should be funded at the fiscalyear 2000 level. The conferees believe thatthis level of funding is adequate, and urgeNHTSA to adopt a more cost-effective ap-proach to managing computer support ex-penses. A detailed report on fiscal year 2000computer support expenditures, as requested

by the House, shall be provided to the Houseand Senate Committees on Appropriationsby December 31, 2000.

New car assessment program (NCAP).—Theconference agreement provides $5,556,000 forthe new car assessment program. This fullyfunds the budget request for this program,except for the small dummy component, andprovides sufficient funding to support a Na-tional Academy of Sciences study of the pro-posed rollover rating based on the static sta-bility factor. A total of $500,000 has been in-cluded in the research and analysis contractprogram to crash 14 passenger vehicles witha small stature dummy to acquire essentialtest data and to assure that these dummiesare satisfactorily developed for compliancetesting associated with the new air bag rulein 2004. The agency has informed the Houseand Senate Committees on Appropriationsthat it will not release the results of crashesconducted to test the small stature dummyas part of NCAP.

Safety defects.—The conference agreementdefers $145,000 requested to monitor and in-vestigate recreational, transit, and emer-gency vehicles, as proposed by the Senate.

Auto hotline.—A total of $1,232,000 has beenprovided for the auto safety hotline, con-sistent with actions in the House and Senatereports.

Safe communities.—Funding has been de-leted for the safe communities program, con-sistent with action taken by both the Houseand the Senate.

National occupant protection program.—Theconference agreement provides $11,000,000 forthe national occupant protection program.Within the funds provided, $1,000,000 shall beused to implement an innovative demonstra-tion program for locally developed initia-tives to increase seat belt usage, as proposedby the Senate.

The conferees direct the department’s In-spector General to analyze the effectivenessand efficiency of the occupant protectionprogram managed by the office of trafficsafety programs. This review should considerthe scope and direction of NHTSA’s effortsto increase seat belt use rates and whetherthe agency is allocating funds to partner-ships, demonstration projects, and other ac-tivities that are most likely to achieve thedepartment’s performance goals. The reviewalso should consider the quality and natureof the technical assistance provided byNHTSA’s regional staff to states and localgovernments that benefit from highway traf-fic safety grants programs.

Section 157 program.—NHTSA shall conducta review of the procedures and processes usedto administer the section 157 innovativegrant program and submit a report to theHouse and Senate Committees on Appropria-tions by December 1, 2000, that details howgrant administration will be improved andgrant awards made more expeditiously with-in the constraints of existing law.

Emergency medical services head injury re-search.—A total of $2,250,000 has been pro-vided for emergency medical services. Of thisamount, $750,000 shall be provided to theBrain Trauma Foundation to continue phasethree of the guidelines for pre-hospital man-agement of traumatic brain injury.

Aggressive driving.—A total of $750,000 hasbeen provided to develop and implement aregional education and driver modificationprogram to combat aggressive driving inMaryland, Virginia, and the District of Co-lumbia. Funding should be allocated as spec-ified in the House report.

Rural trauma.—The conference agreementallocates $250,000 to the University ofVermont’s College of Medicine and FletcherAllen Health Care to determine if the sur-vival rate of rural vehicular accidents couldbe improved through the application of ad-

vanced mobile video telecommunicationslinks between a level 1 trauma center andambulance crews, as proposed by the Senate.

The agreement also includes $500,000 tocontinue a project at the University of SouthAlabama on rural vehicular trauma victims,as proposed by the Senate.

School bus occupant protection.—Within con-tract funds, $250,000 is allocated to MercerUniversity Research Center to support aschool bus safety initiative, as proposed bythe Senate. The House contained no similarprovision.

Biomechanics.—At a minimum, NHTSAshould continue to support the biomechanicsprogram at the fiscal year 2000 level. Theconferees are very supportive of the workbeing conducted by the crash injury researchand engineering network (CIREN) and areencouraged that private sector interestshave agreed to fund two additional CIRENcenters. Because of this commitment, no fed-eral funding should be provided to expandthe number of federally funded centers in fis-cal year 2001.

In addition, the conferees agree to provide$1,000,000 to the Injury Control Research Cen-ter at the University of Alabama to conductresearch related to cervical spine and para-lyzing neck injuries that result from motorvehicle accidents.

Special crash investigations.—The privatesector has agreed to fund 300 special crashinvestigations per year to collect and ana-lyze real world crash data as proposed by Na-tional Transportation Safety Board. Thiswill double the number of investigations con-ducted in fiscal year 2000. However, the con-ferees agree that, despite where such con-tributions are derived (i.e. from the public orprivate sector) to conduct these investiga-tions, the results are to be treated as publicdata and no conditions shall be attached totheir release.

Side glazing.—In 1991, NHTSA was requiredto address deaths and injuries resulting fromaccidents caused by motor vehicle rollovers,primarily focusing on the use of advancedglazing for vehicle windows, to prevent occu-pant ejection during rollovers. Since 1991,NHTSA has issued two interim reports con-cluding that advanced side glazing in pas-senger vehicles could save up to 1,300 livesper year, but NHTSA has yet to complete afinal report. Therefore, the conferees directNHTSA to complete and issue a final reporton advanced side glazing by the end of cal-endar year 2000.

Grant administration.—Under TEA21,NHTSA may withhold up to five percent ofthe funding for the grant program for admin-istrative costs. The conference agreement re-flects a five percent draw down(¥$10,650,000).

CAFE language.—A general provision (Sec.320) is included that prohibits the use offunds to prepare, prescribe, or promulgatecorporate average fuel economy (CAFE)standards for automobiles that differ fromthose previously enacted. In addition, theconferees request the National Academy ofSciences, in consultation with the Depart-ment of Transportation, to conduct a studyto evaluate the effectiveness and impacts ofCAFE standards. The study shall examine,among other factors, those considerationsoutlined in 49 U.S.C. section 32902(F); the im-pact of CAFE standards on motor vehiclesafety; disparate impacts on the U.S. auto-motive sector; the effect on U.S. employ-ment in the automotive sector; and the ef-fect of requiring CAFE calculations for do-mestic and non-domestic fleets. The Na-tional Academy of Sciences shall completethis study no later than July 1, 2001, and sub-mit it to the appropriate committees of theCongress and the Department of Transpor-tation. Section 320 of this Act should not be


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8966 October 5, 2000interpreted as preventing the Department ofTransportation from providing the NationalAcademy of Sciences with pertinent data andtechnical guidance and expertise, as nec-essary. As noted previously in the FederalHighway Administration’s ‘‘Limitation onadministrative expenses’’, up to $1,000,000 hasbeen allocated for this study.

NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER


The conference agreement provides$2,000,000 for the National Driver Register asproposed by both the House and the Senate.Of this funding, up to $250,000 may be usedfor the technology assessment authorizedunder section 2006 of TEA21.




The conference agreement provides$213,000,000 to liquidate contract authoriza-tions for highway traffic safety grants, asproposed by both the House and the Senate.




The conference agreement limits obliga-tions for highway traffic safety grants to$213,000,000 as proposed by both the Houseand the Senate. A total of $10,650,000 hasbeen provided for administration of thegrant programs as proposed by both theHouse and the Senate. Of this total, notmore than $7,750,000 of the funds made avail-able for section 402; not more than $650,000 ofthe funds made available for section 405; notmore than $1,800,000 of the funds made avail-able for section 410; and not more than$450,000 of the funds made available for sec-tion 411 shall be available to NHTSA for ad-ministering highway safety grants underchapter 4 of title 23. This language is nec-essary to ensure that each grant programdoes not contribute more than five percentof the total administrative costs.

As noted within the Federal Highway Ad-ministration, the conference agreement pro-vides $7,500,000 for child passenger protectioneducation grants. The amount is the same asproposed by the House. The Senate proposedno similar appropriation.

The conference agreement retains bill lan-guage, proposed by both the House and Sen-ate, that limits technical assistance tostates from section 410 to $500,000.

The conference agreement prohibits theuse of funds for construction, rehabilitationor remodeling costs, or for office furnishingsand fixtures for state, local, or private build-ings or structures, as proposed by both theHouse and the Senate.

The bill includes separate obligation limi-tations with the following funding alloca-tions:State and community

grants ............................. $155,000,000Occupant protection incen-

tive grants ...................... 13,000,000Alcohol incentive grants ... 36,000,000State highway safety data

grants ............................. 9,000,000FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

The conference agreement appropriates$101,717,000 for safety and operations insteadof $102,487,000 as proposed by the House and$99,390,000 as proposed by the Senate. None ofthis funding is to be offset from user fees. Ofthe total amount, $5,899,000 shall remainavailable until expended instead of $5,249,000as proposed by the House and $4,957,000 asproposed by the Senate.

In addition to the funding provided forsafety and operations, $2,500,000 is provided

to the Federal Railroad Administration fromfunds made available under section 1218 ofPublic Law 105–178. These funds shall be usedto administer the magnetic levitation pro-gram, for Operation Lifesaver, for AlaskaRailroad liabilities, and for track inspectionactivities. Of this total, no more than$1,000,000 shall be for administration of themaglev program.

The following adjustments were made tothe budget estimate:Deny new staff positions ... ¥$564,000Reduce funding for travel .. ¥250,000Reduce information tech-

nology initiative ............ ¥594,000Decrease new employee de-

velopment funding .......... ¥360,000Deny new outreach initia-

tive ................................. ¥500,000Decrease funding for pro-

gram evaluation ............. ¥200,000Operation Respond ............ ¥100,000Operation Lifesaver ........... +425,000Southeast transportation

center ............................. +350,000Fatigue countermeasures

program .......................... +200,000Blakeley Island connector

study .............................. +100,000Operation Lifesaver.—A total of $1,025,000

has been provided to Operation Lifesaver. Ofthis total, not less than $300,000 shall be usedto deploy its national public service cam-paign.

Southeast transportation center.—The con-ference agreement provides $350,000 to estab-lish an intermodal emergency responsetraining center for the southeast region ofthe country, to be located in Meridian, Mis-sissippi. These funds shall be used for equip-ment and program costs associated with es-tablishment of the center, to include railpassenger equipment and track, a functionalrail-highway grade crossing, rail and motorcarrier hazardous material vehicles and con-tainers, and other passenger rescue and haz-ardous materials training facilities. Federalfunds provided for the center shall bematched with funding and in-kind contribu-tions from industry, local governments, andother organizations.

Fatigue countermeasures.—A total of $500,000has been provided for fatigue counter-measures. Of this amount, $250,000 shall beused to develop and implement educationaland training programs designed to increasethe awareness of fatigue throughout the railindustry and $250,000 shall be used to performvalidation testing of controlled light eye re-action testing devices in order to establish abody of fatigue testing data and to assist indeveloping effective fatigue counter-measures.

Blakeley Island connector study.—The con-ference agreement provides $100,000 for agrant to Alabama State Docks, a state-owned facility, for a study of the cost andeconomic benefits of restoring rail service onBlakeley Island in Mobile Bay.

Illinois rail-grade crossings.—The State of Il-linois, and in particular, northeastern Illi-nois, has the largest number of rail-gradecrossings and quiet zones in the country. Theconferees recognize Illinois’ efforts to reduceaccidents at these grade crossings and en-courage FRA to work with communities innortheastern Illinois to further improve rail-grade crossing safety. This work should in-clude offering technical assistance, identi-fying federal funding sources, and estab-lishing federal-state-local task forces to im-prove safety and reduce accidents in this re-gion. FRA should pay particular attention toenforcement enhancements and improvededucational outreach in its efforts to help re-duce risks to motorists and pedestrians.

The conference agreement deletes bill lan-guage contained in the Senate bill requiring

FRA to reimburse the Department of Trans-portation’s Inspector General $1,500,000 forthe costs associated with rail audits and in-vestigations. The House bill contained nosimilar provision.

The conference agreement includes a pro-vision that authorizes the Secretary to re-ceive payments from the Union Station Re-development Corporation, credit them to thefirst deed of trust, and make payments onthe first deed of trust. These funds may beadvanced by the Administrator from unobli-gated balances available to the Federal Rail-road Administration and must be reimbursedfrom payments received by the Union Sta-tion Redevelopment Corporation. Both theHouse and Senate bills contained these pro-visions.

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The conference agreement provides$25,325,000 for railroad research and develop-ment instead of $26,300,000 as proposed by theHouse and $24,725,000 as proposed by the Sen-ate. None of this funding is to be offset fromuser fees. The following table summarizesthe conference agreement by budget activ-ity:Equipment, operations,

and hazardous materials $11,450,000Train occupant protec-

tion .............................. (5,350,000)Rolling stock safety as-

surance ........................ (1,287,000)Human factors ................ (2,978,000)Hazardous materials

transportation ............. (1,000,000)Grade crossings—human

factors ......................... (835,000)Track and vehicle track

interaction ..................... 8,300,000Track and components

study ........................... (4,150,000)Track-train interaction

safety ........................... (3,050,000)Grade crossing infra-

structure ..................... (600,000)Marshall/Nebraska

project ......................... (500,000)Railroad systems safety .... 4,650,000

Safety of high-speedground transportation (4,400,000)

Performance-based regu-lations ......................... (250,000)

Research and developmentfacilities and equipment 925,000T–6 vehicle ...................... (500,000)Transportation Test Cen-

ter ................................ (425,000)

Total ............................... 25,325,000Higher capacity rail cars on light density

tracks.—Within the funds provided, FRAshould continue to conduct a study on trackand bridge requirements for the handling of286,000-pound rail cars as specified in theHouse report.RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM

The conference agreement includes a pro-vision proposed by both the House and Sen-ate specifying that no new direct loans orloan guarantee commitments shall be madeusing federal funds for the payment of anycredit premium amount during fiscal year2001. No federal appropriation is requiredsince a non-federal infrastructure partnermay contribute the subsidy amount requiredby the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the formof a credit risk premium. Once received,statutorily established investigation chargesare immediately available for appraisals andnecessary determinations and findings.

RHODE ISLAND RAIL DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations for the Rhode Island raildevelopment project in fiscal year 2001 total$17,000,000, as proposed by the House. The


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8967October 5, 2000Senate bill allocated, within funds availableto the Department of Transportation,$10,000,000 to the Rhode Island rail develop-ment project. With this appropriation, thefederal commitment to this project is com-pleted.

NEXT GENERATION HIGH-SPEED RAIL

The conference agreement provides$25,100,000 for the next generation high-speedrail program instead of $22,000,000 as pro-posed by the House and $24,900,000 as pro-posed by the Senate. The following tablesummarizes the conference agreement bybudget activity:Train control projects: $11,000,000

Illinois project ................ (7,000,0000)Michigan project ............ (3,000,000)Digital radio network ve-

hicle tracking system .. (500,000)Transportation safety re-

search alliance ............ (500,000)Non-electric locomotives: 6,800,000

Advanced locomotivepropulsion system ....... (3,800,000)

Prototype locomotives ... (3,000,000)Grade crossings and inno-

vative technologies:4,300,000

North Carolina sealedcorridor ....................... (700,000)

Mitigating hazards ......... (2,500,000)Low-cost technologies .... (1,100,000)

Track and structures ......... 1,300,000Corridor planning activi-

ties ................................. 1,700,000Total ............................ 25,100,000

Transportation safety research alliance.—Theconference agreement provides $500,000 forthe Transportation Safety Research Alliance(TSRA) instead of $2,000,000 as proposed bythe Senate. The conferees direct FRA to en-sure that TSRA uses appropriated funds todeliver a positive train control componentproduct that is usable as a stand alone sys-tem without the need for proprietary soft-ware and that this software is accompaniedby adequate user documentation. Fundingfor this project should continue to bematched on a dollar-for-dollar basis byTSRA.

Sealed corridor initiative.—A total of $700,000has been provided for North Carolina’s sealedcorridor initiative. The report and associatedfunding, proposed by the Senate, has beendeleted.

Cant deficiency speed study.—Within fundsprovided, FRA shall analyze the safety im-pact from operations of passenger trains onfreight rail trackage at up to five inches ofcant deficiency for speeds between 80 and 110miles per hour, as outlined in the Senate re-port. FRA should provide a report to theHouse and Senate Committees on Appropria-tions by November 30, 2000.

Corridor planning.—A total of $1,700,000 hasbeen provided for corridor planning activi-ties to be distributed as follows:

Midwest regional rail ini-tiative, preliminary engi-neering and design andeligible right-of-way im-provements ..................... $1,000,000

Boston, MA to Burlington,VT high-speed corridorfeasibility study ............. 200,000

Southeast corridor exten-sion from Charlotte, NCto Macon, GA ................. 200,000

Gulf Coast high-speed railcorridor from Mobile, ALto New Orleans, LA ........ 300,000

Rail-highway crossing hazard eliminations.—Under section 1103 of TEA21, an automaticset-aside of $5,250,000 is made available eachyear for the elimination of rail-highwaycrossing hazards. A limited number of railcorridors are eligible for these funds. Of

these set-aside funds, the following alloca-tions were made:

High-speed rail corridor,Washington, D.C. toRichmond, VA ................ $750,000

High-speed rail corridor,Mobile, AL to New Orle-ans, LA ........................... 1,500,000

Salem, OR ......................... 1,500,000Atlanta to Macon, GA ....... 125,000Eastern San Fernando Val-

ley, CA ............................ 125,000Keystone high-speed rail

corridor, Harrisburg toPhiladelphia, PA ............ 500,000

High-speed rail corridor,Milwaukee to Madison,WI ................................... 500,000

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MNto Chicago, IL high-speedrail corridor (Min-neapolis/St. Paul toLaCrescent, MN) ............. 250,000

ALASKA RAILROAD REHABILITATION

The conference agreement provides$20,000,000 for the Alaska Railroad as pro-posed by the Senate. The House bill con-tained no similar appropriation. This fund-ing should be used to continue ongoing trackrehabilitation ($10,000,000), signalized auto-mated siding access between Wasilla andPotter Marsh, and track relocation/highwaycrossing eliminations.

WEST VIRGINIA RAIL DEVELOPMENT

The conference agreement provides$15,000,000 for capital costs associated withtrack, signal, and crossover rehabilitationand improvements on the MARC Brunswickline in West Virginia, as proposed by theSenate. The House bill contained no similarprovision.

CAPITAL GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROADPASSENGER CORPORATION

The conference agreement provides$521,476,000 for capital grants to the NationalRailroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) asproposed by the House instead of $521,000,000as proposed by the Senate. Bill language, asproposed by the House, is retained that lim-its the Secretary from obligating more than$208,590,000 of the funding provided prior toSeptember 30, 2001. The Senate bill limitedthe obligation rate to $208,400,000.

Fencing along the Northeast Corridor.—Am-trak continues to make progress in enhanc-ing safety along the tracks where high-speedrail will soon be operating. For example, al-most 35,000 linear feet of chain-link fencinghas been installed in Massachusetts to re-duce trespassing along the railroad right-of-way. Earlier this year, the town of Mansfieldasked for an additional 12,710 linear feet offencing to be installed (phase III). On March15, 2000, the President of Amtrak made acommitment to complete the installation ofthe fencing that has been requested beforehigh-speed rail is operational. While the con-ferees recognize that Amtrak has limitedfunds and must balance many competingcapital investment priorities, the confereesbelieve Amtrak should install the remaining12,710 feet of fencing that was requested byMansfield prior to Amtrak’s March 15, 2000testimony before the House AppropriationsCommittee. The same kind of fencing shouldbe installed as was installed previously. IfMansfield and Amtrak agree that there is aneed for more secure fencing within phaseIII, then they may seek a waiver of this limi-tation from the House and Senate Commit-tees on Appropriations. Should the commu-nity identify additional areas in need offencing (phases IV and V), then those costsshall be borne solely by these communities.

Rail service in western Virginia.—The Com-monwealth of Virginia and Amtrak have

been in discussions about the reestablish-ment of service between Washington, D.C.,Bristol, Virginia, and Richmond, Virginia.Amtrak is encouraged to continue workingwith the Commonwealth of Virginia and theappropriate freight railroads to identify andaddress costs, infrastructure improvements,and operational needs to initiate such a serv-ice.

Alliance, Ohio.—Amtrak shall work withthe City of Alliance, Norfolk Southern Cor-poration, and the State of Ohio to devise aplan to improve accessibility, visibility,safety and information at the Alliance, Ohiostation. This report should be submitted tothe House and Senate Committees on Appro-priations within 180 days of enactment ofthis Act.

South end infrastructure improvements.—Am-trak is directed to provide quarterly reports,beginning on December 31, 2000, to the Houseand Senate Committees on Appropriations,the Senate Committee on Commerce, andthe House Committee on Transportation andInfrastructure regarding (1) the cost-sharingarrangements agreed to among the users ofthe southern end of the Northeast Corridor,and (2) ongoing work to implement rec-ommendations contained in the south endcorridor infrastructure improvement plan.

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

The conference agreement provides$64,000,000 for administrative expenses of theFederal Transit Administration as proposedby both the House and the Senate. Withinthe total, the conference agreement appro-priates $12,800,000 from the general fund, asproposed by both the House and the Senate.

The conference agreement includes a pro-vision that transfers $1,000,000 from projectmanagement oversight funds to the Inspec-tor General for reimbursement of audit andfinancial reviews of major transit projects asproposed by the House. The Senate bill pro-posed that $3,000,000 from funds under thisheading shall be used to reimburse the In-spector General for costs associated with au-dits and investigations of all transit-relatedissues and systems. The conference agree-ment also includes a provision that not toexceed $2,500,000 for the National TransitDatabase shall remain available until ex-pended.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years.—Theconference agreement provides that the FTElevel in fiscal year 2001 shall not rise in ex-cess of 495 FTE. Additional staffing increasesmay be considered by the House and SenateCommittees on Appropriations through theregular reprogramming process.

Information technology activities.—The con-ference agreement deletes funds requestedfor several technology programs pending theoffice of the secretary’s chief information of-ficer review and full identification of out-year costs (¥$650,000). Sufficient funding hasbeen included under this heading for infra-structure data protection, continued oper-ation of the transportation electronic awardand management application program, andannual electronic procurement life cyclemaintenance, licenses and core operations.

Other items.—The conference agreementprovides sufficient funds for workforce plan-ning and training and equipment and officerenovation. In addition, the conferees haveincluded $250,000 for regional and state-basedgrantee workshops.

National Transit Database.—Funding of$2,500,000 for operation of the National Tran-sit Database has been included under thisheading, rather than in the research and de-velopment account as proposed by the Sen-ate. The conferees further direct that none ofthe funds made available in this Act forproject management oversight activities


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8968 October 5, 2000may be used to supplement funds herein forthe National Transit Database.

Project management oversight.—The con-ferees agree that funding made available forproject management oversight shall includeat least $21,900,000 for project managementoversight reviews and $4,500,000 for financialmanagement reviews.

The conferees direct that the FTA submitto the House and Senate Committees on Ap-propriations, the Inspector General and theGeneral Accounting Office the quarterly fi-nancial management oversight and projectmanagement oversight reports for eachproject with a full funding grant agreement.

With the likelihood of an increasing num-ber of transit projects requiring project over-sight, the conferees are concerned that thefunds available to finance these oversight ac-tivities may soon be insufficient to monitoradequately all large-dollar projects. In fact,the FTA anticipates that a funding shortfallof about $5,000,000 will occur in fiscal year2002, and that it will then have to make dif-ficult choices as to how it will apply limitedoversight funds. FTA has yet to identify thelevel of funding shortfalls that may occur be-yond fiscal year 2002 and how it will addressany shortfalls. In order to address FTA’soversight needs and to protect the federal in-vestment in these transit projects, the con-ferees direct the FTA to develop a plan to (1)determine the amount of funds needed tomaintain an adequate level of oversight forall projects requiring oversight and the levelof funding that likely will be available forthis purpose; (2) identify options to coverany projected funding shortfalls; and (3)identify steps to respond to any shortfallsthat may occur. The FTA should provide thisplan with the 2002 budget submission to theCongress for consideration.

Full funding grant agreements.—TEA21, asamended, requires that the FTA notify theHouse and Senate Committees on Appropria-tions as well as the House Committee onTransportation and Infrastructure and theSenate Committee on Banking 60 days beforeexecuting a full funding grant agreement. Inits notification to the House and SenateCommittees on Appropriations, the confereesdirect the FTA to include therein the fol-lowing: (a) a copy of the proposed full fund-ing grant agreement; (b) the total and an-nual federal appropriations required for thatproject; (c) yearly and total federal appro-priations that can be reasonably planned oranticipated for future FFGAs for each fiscalyear through 2003; (d) a detailed analysis ofannual commitments for current and antici-pated FFGAs against the program authoriza-tion; and (e) a financial analysis of theproject’s cost and sponsor’s ability to fi-nance, which shall be conducted by an inde-pendent examiner and shall include an as-sessment of the capital cost estimate and thefinance plan, the source and security of allpublic- and private-sector financial instru-ments, the project’s operating plan whichenumerates the project’s future revenue andridership forecasts, and planned contin-gencies and risks associated with theproject.

The conferees also direct the FTA to in-form the House and Senate Committees onAppropriations before approving scopechanges in any full funding grant agreement.Correspondence relating to scope changesshall include any budget revisions or pro-gram changes that materially alter theproject as originally stipulated in the fullfunding grant agreement, and shall includeany proposed change in rail car procure-ments.

FORMULA GRANTS

The conference agreement provides a totalprogram level of $3,345,000,000 for transit for-

mula grants, as proposed by both the Houseand the Senate. Within this total, the con-ference agreement appropriates $669,000,000from the general fund as proposed by boththe House and the Senate. The conferenceagreement provides that the general fund ap-propriation shall be available until ex-pended.

The conference agreement provides thatfunding made available for the clean fuel for-mula grant program under this heading shallbe transferred to and merged with fundingprovided for the replacement, rehabilitationand purchase of buses and related equipmentand the construction of bus-related facilitiesunder ‘‘Federal Transit Administration, Cap-ital investment grants’’.

The conference agreement includes a pro-vision that sets aside $60,000,000 from the for-mula grants program to fund the Salt LakeCity Olympic transit program, instead of$40,000,000 as proposed by the House. TheSenate bill contained no similar provision.Funds shall be available for grants for thecosts of planning, delivery, and temporaryuse of transit vehicles for special transpor-tation needs and construction of permanentand temporary transportation facilities forthe XIX Winter Olympiad and the VIIParalympiad for the Disabled, to be held inSalt Lake City, Utah. In allocating thefunds, the Secretary shall make grants onlyto the Utah Department of Transportation,and such grants shall not be subject to anylocal share requirement or limitation on op-erating assistance under this Act or the Fed-eral Transit Act, as amended. This appro-priation is similar to one provided in supportof the Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta,Georgia in the fiscal year 1995 Department ofTransportation and Related Agencies Appro-priations Act.

The FTA, when evaluating the local finan-cial commitment of new rail extension orbusway projects, shall consider the extent towhich projects’ sponsors have used the ap-preciable increases in the formula grants ap-portionment for alternative analyses andpreliminary engineering activities of suchsystems.

The conferees expect the Washington Met-ropolitan Area Transit Authority to use theappreciable increases in its section 5307 ap-portionment and the transportation infra-structure finance and innovation act (TIFIA)loan provided to WMATA to ensure that firecommunications are in place in WMATA’stunnels.

UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

The conference agreement provides a totalprogram level of $6,000,000 for universitytransportation research as proposed by boththe House and the Senate. Within the total,the conference agreement appropriates$1,200,000 from the general fund as proposedby both the House and the Senate. The con-ference agreement provides that the generalfund shall be available until expended.

TRANSIT PLANNING AND RESEARCH

The conference agreement provides a totalprogram level of $110,000,000 for transit plan-ning and research as proposed by both theHouse and the Senate. Within the total, theconference agreement appropriates$22,200,000 from the general fund as proposedby both the House and the Senate. The con-ference agreement provides that the generalfund appropriation shall be available untilexpended.

Within the funds appropriated for transitplanning and research, $5,250,000 is providedfor rural transportation assistance; $4,000,000is provided for the National Transit Insti-tute; $8,250,000 is provided for the transit co-operative research program; $52,113,600 isprovided for metropolitan planning;$10,886,400 is provided for state planning; and

$29,500,000 is provided for the national plan-ning and research program.

The conference agreement deletes a provi-sion proposed by the Senate that would haveset aside $3,000,000 for Great Cities Univer-sities consortium from funds made availablefor transit cooperative research. Funding forthis activity is provided under the nationalplanning and research account.

Transit cooperative research program.—With-in the funds provided for transit cooperativeresearch, $1,500,000 is allocated for phase 2 re-design activities of the national transit data-base.

National planning and research.—Within thefunding provided for national planning andresearch, the Federal Transit Administra-tion shall make available the followingamounts for the programs and activities list-ed below:

ConferenceAgreement

Mid-America regionalcouncil coordinated tran-sit planning, Kansas Citymetro area ...................... $750,000

Sacramento area council ofgovernments regional airquality planning and co-ordination study ............. 250,000

West Virginia Universityfuel cell technology in-stitute propulsion andITS testing ..................... 1,000,000

University of Rhode Island,Kingston traffic conges-tion study component .... 150,000

Trans-lake Washingtonland use effectivenessand enhancement review 450,000

State of Vermont electricvehicle transit dem-onstration ....................... 500,000

Acadia Island, Maine ex-plorer transit system ex-perimental pilot program 150,000

Center for Compositesmanufacturing ................ 950,000

Southern Nevada air qual-ity study ......................... 800,000

Project ACTION (TEA21) ... 3,000,000Southeastern Pennsylvania

Transit Authority ad-vanced propulsion con-trol system (TEA21) ....... 3,000,000

Fairbanks extreme tem-perature clean fuels re-search ............................. 800,000

Safety and security pro-grams .............................. 6,100,000

National rural transit as-sistance program ............ 750,000

Mississippi State Univer-sity bus service expan-sion plan ......................... 100,000

CALSTART/WESTART ..... 3,000,000Hennepin County commu-

nity transportation, Min-nesota ............................. 1,000,000

Electric transit vehicle in-stitute, Tennessee .......... 500,000

South Amboy, New Jerseytransit study .................. 200,000

Great Cities Universitiesconsortium ..................... 2,000,000

Long Island, New Yorktransportation land useprojects .......................... 250,000

JOBLINKS ......................... 1,050,000The conference agreement deletes funding

requested for the Garrett A. Morgan program(¥$200,000).

Fuel cell bus and bus facilities program.—None of the funds available under this head-ing shall supplement funding provided undersection 3015(b) of Public Law 105–178 for thefuel cell bus and bus facilities program.

Safety and security programs.—The con-ference agreement includes $6,100,000 for


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8969October 5, 2000safety and security programs. The confereesdirect that these funds are to be wholly ad-ministered by the office of safety and secu-rity to advance safety programs and are notto be transferred to other offices to supportlesser priority activities.

TRUST FUND SHARE OF EXPENSES



The conference agreement provides$5,016,600,000 in liquidating cash for the trustfund share of transit expenses as proposed byboth the House and the Senate.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS


The conference agreement provides a totalprogram level of $2,646,000,000 for capital in-vestment grants, as proposed by both theHouse and Senate. Within the total, the con-ference agreement appropriates $529,200,000from the general fund as proposed by boththe House and the Senate.

Within the total program level,$1,058,400,000 is provided for fixed guidewaymodernization; $529,200,000 is provided for thereplacement, rehabilitation, and purchase ofbuses and related equipment and the con-struction of bus-related facilities; and$1,058,400,000 is provided for new fixed guide-way systems, as proposed by both the Houseand the Senate. Funds derived from the for-mula grants program totaling $50,000,000 areto be transferred and merged with funds pro-vided for the replacement, rehabilitation andpurchase of buses and related equipment andthe construction of bus-related facilitiesunder this heading. In addition to the$1,058,400,000 provided in this Act for newstarts, the conference agreement reallocates$26,994,048 to other new start projects con-tained in this Act. Reallocated funds are de-rived from unobligated balances from thefollowing new start projects:Burlington to Gloucester,

New Jersey (Public Law103–331) ............................ $1,488,750

Orlando, Florida Lynxlight rail project ............. 20,521,470

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvaniaairport busway project(Public Law 105–66) ......... 4,983,828The conference agreement deletes lan-

guage proposed by the Senate that wouldhave required the Administrator of the Fed-eral Transit Administration, not later thanFebruary 1, 2001, to submit individually tothe House and Senate Committees on Appro-priations the recommended grant fundinglevels for the respective buses and bus-re-lated facilities and new fixed guidewayprojects listed in the Senate bill and accom-panying report. The House bill contained nosimilar provisions.

The conference agreement also deletes lan-guage proposed by the Senate that listed newfixed guideway systems and extensions to ex-isting systems that are eligible to receivefunding for final design and construction orare eligible to receive funding for alter-natives analysis and preliminary engineer-ing. The House bill contained no similar pro-vision.

The conference agreement includes a pro-vision that makes funds appropriated to theMiami-Dade east-west multimodal and theMiami Metro-Dade North 27th Avenue cor-ridor projects in previous Department ofTransportation and Related Agencies Appro-priations Acts available to the Miami, Flor-ida south busway project.

The conference agreement includes a pro-vision proposed by the Senate that makesfunds appropriated in Public Law 105–277 forthe Colorado-North Front Range corridorfeasibility study available for the Colorado-Eagle Airport to Avon light rail system fea-

sibility study. The House bill contained aprovision that would have returned thesefunds to the new starts program for realloca-tion to other new start projects in fiscal year2001.

The conference agreement includes a pro-vision proposed by the Senate that makesfunds appropriated in Public Law 106–69, thefiscal year 2000 Department of Transpor-tation and Related Agencies AppropriationsAct, for certain bus and bus facilitiesprojects in the state of Alabama available tothe state of Alabama for buses and bus facili-ties. The House bill contained no similar pro-vision.

Three-year availability of section 5309 discre-tionary funds.—The conference agreement in-cludes a provision that permits the adminis-trator to reallocate discretionary new startand bus facilities funds from projects whichremain unobligated after three years. Theconferees, however, direct the FTA not to re-allocate funds provided in the 1997 and 1998Department of Transportation and RelatedAgencies Appropriations Acts for the fol-lowing projects:New starts

Burlington—Essex, Vermont commuter railCleveland Berea Red Line extensionColorado Roaring Fork Valley rail projectJackson, Mississippi intermodal corridorGalveston, Texas rail trolley system projectNew York St. George ferry terminal projectNew Orleans Canal Street corridor projectNew Orleans Desire Streetcar projectNorth Carolina Triangle Transit projectSalt Lake City, Utah commuter rail projectSan Bernardino Metrolink projectSan Diego Mid-Coast projectVirginia Railway Express—Woodbridge sta-

tion improvement projectBuses and bus facilities

Arlington, Virginia Clarendon canopyproject

Buena Park, California bus facilitiesBurlington, Vermont multimodal centerChatham, Georgia bus facilityColumbia, South Carolina buses and bus fa-

cilitiesCorvalis, Oregon buses and bus facilitiesDulles, Virginia busesEl Paso, Texas demand response facilityEverett, Washington multimodal centerFolsom, California multimodal facilityGalveston, Texas buses and bus facilitiesJackson, Mississippi maintenance facilityKing County, Washington park and ride ex-

pansionLake Tahoe, California intermodal transit

centerMilwaukee, Wisconsin intermodal facilityMinnesota Metro Council Transit Operators,

buses and bus facilitiesMobile, Alabama buses and intermodal fa-

cilitiesModesto, California bus maintenance facilityMonroe, Louisiana busesNew Castle, Delaware buses and bus facilitiesNew Haven, Connecticut multimodal centerNorth Carolina buses and bus facilitiesRed Rose Transit Authority, PennsylvaniaRialto, California Metro Link depotSacramento, California bus facilitySaint Tammany Parish, buses and bus facili-

tiesSalt Lake City, Ogden and West Valley, Utah

intermodal facilitiesSan Joaquin, California buses and bus facili-

tiesSanta Clara, California buses and bus facili-

tiesSeattle, Washington Kingdome intermodal

facilitySonoma County, California park and ride fa-

cilityStaten Island, New York mobility projectTampa, Florida buses and bus facilities

Tucson, Arizona intermodal facilityWilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania mobility project

The conferees agree that when the Con-gress extends the availability of funds thatremain unobligated after three years andwould otherwise be available for reallocationat the discretion of the administrator, suchfunds are extended only for one additionalyear, absent further congressional direction.

The conferees direct the FTA to reprogramfunds from recoveries and previous appro-priations that remain available after threeyears and are available for reallocation toonly those section 3 new starts that have fullfunding grant agreements in place on thedate of enactment of this Act, and with re-spect to bus and bus facilities, only to thosebus and bus facilities projects identified inthe accompanying reports of the fiscal year2001 Department of Transportation and Re-lated Agencies Appropriations Act. The FTAshall notify the House and Senate Commit-tees on Appropriations 15 days prior to anysuch proposed reallocation.

Bus and bus facilities.—The conferenceagreement provides $529,200,000, togetherwith $50,000,000 transferred from ‘‘FederalTransit Administration, Formula grants’’and merged with funding under this heading,for the replacement, rehabilitation and pur-chase of buses and related equipment and theconstruction of bus-related facilities. Fundsprovided for buses and bus facilities are to bedistributed as follows:

ConferenceState of Alabama:

Alabama State Docksintermodal passengerand freight facility ...... $1,000,000

Birmingham—JeffersonCounty Transit Au-thority buses and busfacilities ...................... 1,000,000

Dothan—Wiregrass Tran-sit Authority buses andbus facilities ................ 750,000

Huntsville Space andRocket Center inter-modal center ............... 2,000,000

Hunstville, intermodalfacility ........................ 500,000

Huntsville InternationalAirport intermodalcenter .......................... 5,000,000

Lanett, vans ................... 250,000Mobile Waterfront Ter-

minal ........................... 5,000,000Montgomery—Moulton

Street Intermodal Fa-cility ........................... 3,000,000

Montgomery, civil rightstrail trolleys ................ 250,000

Shelby County, vans ....... 200,000Staewide, bus and bus fa-

cilities ......................... 1,500,000Tuscaloosa interdiscipli-

nary science buildingparking and intermodalfacility ........................ 9,500,000

University of AlabamaBirmingham fuel cellbuses ............................ 2,000,000

University of South Ala-bama, bus and bus fa-cilities ......................... 2,000,000

University of North Ala-bama, buses and bus fa-cilities ......................... 2,500,000

State of Alaska:Alaska State Fair park

and ride and passengershuttle system ............. 1,000,000

Denali Depot intermodalfacility ........................ 3,000,000

Fairbanks Bus/RailIntermodal Facility .... 3,100,000

Fairbanks parking ga-rage and intermodalcenter .......................... 1,100,000


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8970 October 5, 2000ConferenceHomer Alaska Maritime

Wildlife Refuge inter-modal and welcomecenter .......................... 850,000

Port McKenzie inter-modal facilities ........... 7,500,000

Ship Creek pedestrainand bus facilities andintermodal center/parking garage ............ 5,000,000

State of Arizona:Mesa bus maintenance

facility—Regional Pub-lic Transportation Au-thority ......................... 2,000,000

Phoenix, bus and bus fa-cilities ......................... 4,500,000

South Central Avenuetransit center .............. 2,000,000

Tucson intermodal trans-portation center atUnion Pacific Depot .... 3,000,000

Tucson, bus and bus fa-cilities ......................... 1,000,000

State of Arkansas:Central Arkansas Transit

Authority, bus and busfacilities ...................... 1,055,000

Hot Springs—nationalpark intermodal park-ing facility .................. 500,000

Nevada County, vans andmini-vans .................... 90,000

Pine Bluff, buses ............. 290,000River Market and Col-

lege Station LiviableCommunities Program 1,100,000

State of Arkansas, smallrural and elderly andhandicapped transitbuses and bus facilities 3,000,000

State of California:AC Transit zero-emis-

sions fuel cell bus de-ployment demonstra-tion project ................. 1,000,000

Alameda Contra CostsTransit District, busesand bus facilities ......... 500,000

Anaheim, Buses and Busfacilities ...................... 250,000

Brea, buses ..................... 150,000Calabasas, buses ............. 500,000Contra Costa Transit Au-

thority (County Con-nection), buses ............. 500,000

City of Livemore, parkand ride facility ........... 500,000

Commerce, buses ............ 1,000,000Compton, buses and bus-

related equipment ....... 250,000Culver City, buses .......... 750,000Davis, buses .................... 1,000,000El Dorado, buses ............. 500,000El Segundo, Douglas

Street gap closure andintermodal facility ...... 2,100,000

Folsom, transit stations 1,500,000Foothill Transit, buses

and bus facilities ......... 2,500,000Fresno, intermodal fa-

cilities ......................... 500,000Humboldt County, buses

and bus facilities ......... 500,000Los Angeles County Met-

ropolitan Transpor-tation Authority, buses 4,500,000

Marin County, bus facili-ties .............................. 910,000

Modesto, bus facility ...... 250,000Monrovia, electric shut-

tles .............................. 580,000Monterey Salinas Tran-

sit Authority, busesand bus facilities ......... 500,000

Municipal Transit Opera-tors Coalition, buses .... 2,000,000

Oceanside, intermodal fa-cility ........................... 2,000,000

ConferencePlacer County, buses and

bus facilities ................ 500,000Playa Vista, Shuttle

buses and bus-relatedequipment and facili-ties .............................. 3,000,000

Redlands, trolley project 800,000Rialto, intermodal facil-

ity ................................ 550,000Riverside County, buses 500,000Sacramento, buses and

bus facilities ................ 1,000,000San Bernardino, inter-

modal facility .............. 1,600,000San Bernardino, train

station ......................... 600,000San Diego, East Village

station improvementplan ............................. 1,000,000

San Francisco, MUNIbuses and bus facilities 2,000,000

Santa Barbara County,mini-buses ................... 240,000

Santa Clara ValleyTransportation Au-thority, buses .............. 500,000

Santa Clarita, mainte-nance facility .............. 2,000,000

Santa Cruz, buses andbus facilities ................ 1,550,000

Sonoma County, busesand bus facilities ......... 1,000,000

Sunline transit agency,buses ............................ 1,000,000

Temecula, bus shelters ... 200,000Vista, bus center ............ 300,000

State of Colorado:Statewise bus and bus fa-

cilities ......................... 10,000,000State of Connecticut:

Bridgeport, intermodalcenter .......................... 5,000,000

Hartford/New Britainbusway ......................... 750,000

New Haven, trolley carsand related equipment 1,000,000

New London, paradeproject transit im-provements .................. 2,000,000

Norwich bus terminaland pedestrian access .. 1,000,000

Waterbury, bus garage ... 1,000,000State of Delaware:

Statewide bus and bus fa-cilities ......................... 3,500,000

State of Florida:Statewide bus and bus fa-

cilities ......................... 15,500,000State of Georgia:

Atlanta, buses and busfacilities ...................... 2,000,000

Chatham, buses and busfacilities ...................... 2,000,000

Cobb County, buses ........ 1,250,000Georgia Regional Transit

Authority, buses andbus facilities ................ 3,000,000

State of Hawaii:Honolulu bus and bus fa-

cility improvements .... 6,000,000State of Idaho:

Statewide, bus and busfacilities ...................... 3,500,000

State of Illinois:Harvey, intermodal fa-

cilities and relatedequipment ................... 250,000


State of Indiana:Evansville, buses and bus

facilities ...................... 1,500,000Gary—Adam Benjamin

intermodal Center ....... 800,000Greater Lafayette Public

Corporation—WabashLanding buses and busfacilities ...................... 1,500,000

ConferenceIndianapolis, buses and

bus-related equipment 2,500,000South Bend, buses .......... 3,000,000West Lafayette, buses

and bus facilities ......... 2,100,000State of Iowa:

Ames maintenance facil-ity ................................ 1,200,000

Cedar Rapids intermodalfacility ........................ 1,200,000

Clinton facility expan-sion .............................. 500,000

Des Moines park and ride 700,000Dubuque, buses and bus

facilities ...................... 560,000Iowa City intermodal fa-

cility ........................... 1,200,000Mason City, bus facility 905,000Sioux City multimodal

ground transportationcenter .......................... 2,000,000

Sioux City Trolley sys-tem .............................. 700,000


Waterloo, buses and busfacilities ...................... 537,000

State of Kansas:Johnson County, buses ... 250,000Kansas City, buses .......... 2,000,000Kansas City, JOBLINKS 250,000Kansas Department of

Transportation, ruraltransit buses ................ 3,000,000

Lawrence bus and bus fa-cilities ......................... 500,000

Topeka, transit facility .. 600,000Wichita, buses and ITS

related equipment ....... 3,000,000Wyandotte County, buses 250,000

Commonwealth of Ken-tucky:

Audubon Area Commu-nity Action .................. 190,000

Bluegrass CommunityAction, buses and bus-related equipment ....... 160,000

Central Community Ac-tion .............................. 100,000

Community Action ofSouthern Kentucky ..... 100,000

Fulton County, vans andbuses ............................ 140,000

Hardin County, buses ..... 300,000Kentucky Department of

Transportation ............ 500,000Kentucky (southern and

eastern) transit vehi-cles .............................. 3,000,000

Lexington, LexTran,buses and bus facilities 3,500,000

Louisville, bus and busfacilities ...................... 3,000,000

Maysville, bus-relatedequipment ................... 64,000

Morehead, buses and bus-related equipment ....... 39,000

Murray/Calloway Coun-ty, buses and bus re-lated equipment .......... 60,000

Northern KentuckyTransit Agency, vans .. 42,000

Paducah Transit Author-ity, bus and bus facili-ties .............................. 2,000,000

Pennyrile, vans and re-lated equipment .......... 200,000

Pikeville, transit facility 2,000,000State of Louisiana:

Lafeyette multi-modalfacility ........................ 1,250,000

Plaquemines Panishferry ............................ 1,000,000

St. Bernard Parish inter-modal facilities ........... 1,250,000



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8971October 5, 2000Conference

State of Maine:Bangor intermodal trans-

portation center .......... 1,500,000Statewide, bus, bus fa-

cilities and ferries ....... 4,000,000State of Maryland:


Commonwealth of Massa-chusetts:

Attleboro, intermodal fa-cilities ......................... 1,000,000

Berkshire, buses and busfacilities ...................... 1,000,000

Beverly and Salem,intermodal station im-provements .................. 600,000

Brockton, intermodalcenter .......................... 1,000,000

Lowell, transit hub ......... 1,250,000Merrimack Valley Re-

gional Transit Author-ity, bus facility ........... 500,000

Montachusett, bus facili-ties, Leominister ......... 250,000

Montachusett, inter-modal facilty, Fitch-burg ............................. 1,375,000

Pioneer Valley,Pratransit vehicles andequipment ................... 1,000,000

Springfield, intermodalfacility ........................ 500,000

Woburn, buses and busfacilities ...................... 250,000

State of Michigan:Detroit, buses and bus fa-

cilities ......................... 3,000,000Flint, buses and bus fa-

cilities ......................... 500,000Lapeer, multi-modal

transportation facility 50,000SMART community

transit, buses and para-transit vehicles ........... 4,125,000

Statewide, buses and busfacilities ...................... 11,000,000

Traverse City, transferstation ......................... 1,000,000

State of Minnesota:Greater Minnesota buses

and bus facilities ......... 1,250,000Metro Transit, buses and

bus facilities ................ 13,500,000St. Cloud, buses and bus

facilities ...................... 2,125,000State of Mississippi:

Brookhaven multimodaltransportation center .. 1,000,000

Coast Transit Authoritymultimodal facilityand shuttle service ...... 3,000,000

Harrison county,multimodal center ...... 1,500,000

Jackson, buses ................ 1,000,000Picayune multimodal

center .......................... 650,000State of Mississippi rural

transit vehicles and re-gional transit centers .. 3,000,000

State of Missouri:Bi-State Development

Agency, buses .............. 3,000,000Dunklin, Mississippi,

Scott, Ripley, Stoddardand Cape Ciradeaucounties, buses and busfacilities ...................... 1,000,000

Excelsior Springs bus re-placement .................... 200,000

Jefferson City van andequipment purchase .... 250,000

Kansas City, buses andbus facilities ................ 1,300,000

OATS buses and vans ..... 2,000,000Southeast Missouri

Transportation Servicebus and bus facilities ... 1,000,000

ConferenceSouthwest Missouri

State University, inter-modal facility .............. 1,000,000

St. Joseph bus replace-ment ............................ 1,000,000

State of Missouri bus andbus facilities ................ 3,000,000

State of Montana:Billings buses and inter-

modal facility .............. 4,000,000Blackfoot Indian Res-

ervation bus facility .... 500,000Great Falls Transit dis-

trict buses and bus fa-cilities ......................... 1,000,000

Missoula Ravalli Trans-portation ManagementAssociation buses ........ 750,000

State of Nebraska:Missouri River pedes-

trian crossing—Omaha 4,000,000State of Nevada:

Clark County bus pas-senger intermodal fa-cility—Henderson ........ 2,000,000

Clark County, bus rapidtransit ......................... 3,500,000

Lake Tahoe CNG busesand fleet conversion .... 2,000,000

Reno and Sparks, busesand bus facilities ......... 1,000,000

Washoe County buses andbus facilities ................ 3,000,000

State of New Jersey:Elizabeth Ferry Project 500,000New Jersey Transit al-

ternative fuel buses ..... 4,000,000Newark Arena bus im-

provements .................. 4,000,000Trenton, train/inter-

modal station .............. 5,000,000State of New Mexico:

Albuquerque automaticvehicle monitoring sys-tem (SOLAR) ............... 2,000,000

Albuquerque bus replace-ment ............................ 1,250,000

Albuquerque, transit fa-cility ........................... 5,000,000

Angel Fire Bus and BusFacilities ..................... 750,000

Carlsbad, intermodal fa-cilities ......................... 630,000

Clovis, buses and bus fa-cility ........................... 1,625,000

Las Cruces, buses ........... 500,000Santa Fe buses and bus

facilities ...................... 2,000,000Valencia County, trans-

portation station im-provements .................. 1,250,000

State of New York:Buffalo, buses ................. 2,000,000Buffalo, intermodal facil-

ity ................................ 500,000Eastchester, Metro North

facilities ...................... 250,000Greenport and Sag Har-

bor, ferries and vans .... 60,000Highbridge pedestrian

walkway ...................... 100,000Jamaica, intermodal fa-

cilities ......................... 250,000Larchmont, intermodal

facility ........................ 1,000,000Long Beach, bus mainte-

nance facility .............. 750,000Midtown West inter-

modal ferry terminal ... 7,000,000Nassau County, buses ..... 2,300,000New Rochelle, inter-

modal transportationcenter .......................... 1,000,000

Oneida County, buses ..... 1,000,000Rensselaer County, inter-

modal facility .............. 500,000Rochester, buses and bus

facilities ...................... 2,000,000

ConferenceSaratoga County, buses .. 650,000Suffolk County, senior

and handicapped vans .. 500,000Sullivan County, buses,

bus facilities, and re-lated equipment .......... 1,250,000

Syracuse, buses .............. 3,175,000Tompkins County, inter-

modal facility .............. 625,000Weschester County,

buses ............................ 1,000,000Weschester and Duchess

counties, vans .............. 200,000State of North Carolina:


State of North Dakota:Statewide bus and bus fa-

cilities ......................... 2,500,000State of Ohio:

Cincinnati—intermodalimprovements .............. 1,000,000

Cincinnati RiverfrontTransit Center ............. 3,000,000

Columbus Near Easttransit center .............. 1,000,000

Dayton—Second andMain MultimodalTransportation Center 625,000


State of Oklahoma:Metropolitan Tulsa Tran-

sit Authority pedes-trian and streetscapeimprovements .............. 2,500,000

Oklahoma City bustransfer center ............ 2,500,000


State of Oregon:Albany bus purchase—

Linn-Benton transitsystem ......................... 200,000

Basin Transit Systembuses ............................ 160,000

Columbia County ADAbuses ............................ 110,000

Coos County buses .......... 70,000Corvallis Transit System

operations facility ....... 260,000Hood River County bus

and bus facility ........... 240,000Lakeview buses .............. 50,000Lane Transit District

buses and bus facility .. 1,000,000Philomath buses ............. 40,000Redmond, buses and vans 50,000Rogue Valley buses ........ 960,000Salem Area Transit Dis-

trict buses ................... 1,500,000Sandy buses .................... 220,000South Clackamas Trans-

portation District bus 90,000South Corridor Transit

Center and park andride facilities inClackamas County ...... 1,500,000

Sunset Empire TransitDistrict improvementsto Clatsop CountyIntermodal Facility .... 800,000

Tillamook County Dis-trict transit facilities .. 160,000

Union County bus ........... 44,000Wasco County buses ....... 96,000

Commonwealth of Pennsyl-vania:

Allegheny County, buses 250,000Area Transit Authority,

ITS related activities .. 1,800,000Beaver County, buses ..... 1,000,000Berks County, buses and

bus facilities ................ 1,000,000Bethlehem intermodal

facility ........................ 1,500,000Bradford County, buses

and bus facilities ......... 1,000,000


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8972 October 5, 2000Conference

Bucks County, inter-modal facility improve-ments ........................... 1,250,000

Cambria County TransitAuthority, mainte-nance facilities ............ 750,000

Centre Area Transpor-tation Authority, buses 1,600,000

Fayette County, mainte-nance facilities ............ 500,000

Indiana, maintenance fa-cilities ......................... 350,000

Lancaster, buses ............. 1,000,000Lycoming County, buses

and bus facilities ......... 2,000,000Mid County Transit Au-

thority, buses .............. 135,000Mid Mon Valley Transit

Authority, buses .......... 250,000Monroe County, buses

and bus facilities ......... 1,000,000Philadelphia—Frankford

Transportation Center 3,500,000Philadelphia, Callowhill

bus garage ................... 250,000Phoenixville, transit re-

lated improvements .... 1,250,000Somerset County, ITS re-

lated equipment .......... 100,000Westmoreland County,

buses and relatedequipment ................... 240,000

Wilkes-Barre intermodaltransportation center .. 1,000,000

State of Rhode Island:Statewide, buses and bus

facilities ...................... 4,000,000State of South Carolina:


State of Tennessee:Southern Coalition for

Advanced Transpor-tation, buses ................ 2,000,000


State of Texas:Austin, buses .................. 500,000Brazos Transit District,

buses ............................ 500,000Corpus Christi, buses and

bus facilities ................ 1,000,000Dallas, buses ................... 2,000,000El Paso, buses ................. 1,000,000Fort Worth, intermodal

transportation center .. 3,500,000Fort Worth, buses and

bus facilities ................ 3,000,000Galveston, buses and bus

facilities ...................... 250,000Harris County, buses and

bus facilities ................ 2,000,000Houston Metro, Main

Street Transit Corridorimprovements .............. 1,000,000

Lubbock, buses and busfacilities ...................... 1,000,000

Texas Rural Transit Ve-hicle Fleet Replace-ment Program ............. 4,000,000

Waco, maintenance facil-ity ................................ 1,650,000

State of Utah:Statewide Olympic bus

and bus facilities ......... 10,000,000State of Vermont:

Burlington multimodaltransportation center .. 1,500,000

Bellows FallsMultimodal .................. 1,500,000

Brattleboro multimodalcenter .......................... 2,500,000

Central Vermont TransitAuthority buses andbus facilities ................ 1,500,000

Chittenden County trans-portation authority,buses ............................ 1,000,000

ConferenceVermont Statewide para-

transit ......................... 1,500,000Commonwealth of Vir-

ginia:Statewide bus and bus fa-

cilities ......................... 15,464,000State of Washington:

Clallam County, trans-portation center .......... 500,000

Clark County, inter-modal facilities ........... 1,000,000

Ephrata, buses ................ 440,000Everett, buses ................. 1,500,000King County Metro

Eastgate Park andRide ............................. 3,000,000

King County Metro tran-sit bus and bus facili-ties .............................. 2,000,000

Renton/Port Quendalltransit project ............. 500,000

Richland, bus mainte-nance facility .............. 1,000,000

Snohomish County, busesand bus facilities ......... 1,000,000

Sound Transit, regionalexpress buses ............... 2,000,000

Statewide combinedsmall transit systemrequest—bus and busfacilities ...................... 1,250,000

Thurston County, bus-re-lated equipment .......... 1,250,000

State of West Virginia:Statewide buses and bus

facilities ...................... 2,000,000State of Wisconsin:


State of Wyoming:Cheyenne transit and op-

eration facility ............ 920,000State of Alabama.—The conference agree-

ment provides a total of $1,500,000 for busesand bus facilities within the State of Ala-bama. Within the funds provided to thestate, $25,000 shall be available for LamarCounty vans.

State of Florida.—The conferees direct thatthe funds provided to the State of Florida forbuses and bus facilities are to be allocated toall providers within the state, including Tal-lahassee.

Hot Springs, Arkansas.—Up to $560,000 of thefunds allocated for the transportation depotand plaza project in Hot Springs, Arkansasin the fiscal year 2000 Department of Trans-portation and Related Agencies Appropria-tions Act may be available for buses and busfacilities.

Commonwealth of Kentucky.—The con-ference agreement includes $500,000 for busesand bus facilities for the Kentucky Depart-ment of Transportation, to be allocated asfollows: $88,000 for the city of Frankfort forminibuses; $64,000 for Community Action ofFayette/Lexington for cutaways and lifts;and $102,400 for Lexington Red Cross forminibuses.

State of Louisiana.—The conference agree-ment includes $2,500,000 for buses and bus fa-cilities in the State of Louisiana. Thesefunds are to be allocated as follows: Alexan-dria buses and vans, $40,000; Baton Rougebuses and bus equipment, $50,000; JeffersonParish buses and bus related facilities,$20,000; Lafayette buses and bus related fa-cilities, $300,000; Louisiana Department ofTransportation and Development vans,$135,000; Monroe buses and bus related facili-ties, $135,000; New Orleans bus lease-mainte-nance, $1,510,000; Shreveport buses, $295,000;and St. Tammany Parish park and ride,$15,000.

State of Michigan.—The conference agree-ment includes $11,000,000 for statewide busesand bus facilities. These funds are to be allo-

cated only for the following transit agencies:Holland, Cadillac/Wexford, Grand Haven,Ludington, Manistee County, Yates Town-ship, Muskegon area transit authority,Barry County, Ionia, Ionia transit authority,Alma, Big Rapids, Clare County, CrawfordCounty transit commission, Gladwin County,Greenville, Isabella County transit commis-sion, Midland, Midland County, OgemawCounty, Roscommon County, Shiawassee,Twin Cities, Berrien County, Cass County,Dowagiac DAR, Kalamazoo County, VanBuren County, Battle Creek, Adrian, Brancharea transit authority, Eaton County,Mecosta County, Lenawee County, BayMetro and Saginaw.

Nassau County, New York.—The conferenceagreement includes $2,300,000 for bus and busfacilities in Nassau County, New York. Ofthat amount, not less than $400,000 shall bemade available for service to and from theNassau County Medical Center and its com-munity health centers.

State of Utah.—The conference agreementincludes $10,000,000 for Olympic buses and busfacilities in the State of Utah. These fundsare to be available for temporary and perma-nent bus and bus facility investments to sat-isfy the transportation requirements of the2002 Winter Olympic Games. These funds areto be allocated by the Secretary based on theapproved transportation management planfor the Salt Lake City 2002 Winter OlympicGames and the Secretary shall make grantsonly to the Utah Department of Transpor-tation.

Commonwealth of Virginia.—The conferenceagreement includes $15,464,000 for the Com-monwealth of Virginia for buses and bus fa-cilities which shall be distributed as follows:Loudoun Transit multi-modal facility,$1,500,000; Hampton Roads bus and bus facili-ties, $2,500,000; Prince William County fleetreplacement, $3,000,000; Fair Lakes League,$500,000; Springfield station improvements,$500,000; Fairfax County Transportation As-sociation of Greater Springfield, $500,000,Falls Church Bus Rapid Transit terminus,$1,000,000; Lynchburg bus and bus facility,$1,500,000; Jamestown/Yorktown and Wil-liamsburg CNG bus, $1,500,000; Danville busreplacement, $58,000; Farmville bus and busfacilities, $100,000; Charlottesville bus andbus facilities, $1,000,000; City of Richmondbus and bus facilities, $2,000,000.

New fixed guideway systems.—In total, theconference agreement provides $1,085,394,048for new fixed guideway systems, of which$1,058,400,000 is from new appropriations and$26,994,048 is derived from funds made avail-able in previous appropriations acts thathave been reprogrammed to new starts fund-ing in fiscal year 2001. The conference agree-ment provides for the following distributionof the recommended funding for new fixedguideway systems as follows:

Project Conference levelAlaska or Hawaii ferry

projects .......................... $10,400,000Albuquerque/Greater Albu-

querque mass transitproject ............................ 500,000

Atlanta—MARTA northline extension project ..... 25,000,000

Austin Capital Metro lightrail project ..................... 1,000,000

Baltimore central LRTdouble track project ....... 3,000,000

Birmingham, Alabamatransit corridor .............. 5,000,000

Boston—South BostonPiers transitway project 25,000,000

Boston Urban Ring project 1,000,000Burlington-Bennington

(ABRB), Vermont com-muter rail project ........... 2,000,000

Calais, Maine branch lineregional transit program 1,000,000


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8973October 5, 2000Project Conference level

Canton-Akron-Clevelandcommuter rail project .... 2,000,000

Central Florida commuterrail project ..................... 3,000,000

Charlotte, North Carolina,north corridor and southcorridor transitwayprojects .......................... 5,000,000

Chicago—METRA com-muter rail projects ......... 35,000,000

Chicago—Ravenswood andDouglas Branch recon-struction projects ........... 15,000,000

Clark County, Nevada RTCfixed guideway project ... 1,500,000

Cleveland Euclid corridorimprovement project ...... 4,000,000

Colorado Roaring ForkValley project ................. 1,000,000

Dallas north central lightrail extension project ..... 70,000,000

Denver—Southeast cor-ridor project ................... 3,000,000

Denver—Southwest cor-ridor project ................... 20,200,000

Detroit, Michigan metro-politan airport light railproject ............................ 500,000

Dulles corridor project ...... 50,000,000Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Tri-County commuterrail project ..................... 15,000,000

Galveston rail trolley ex-tension project ............... 1,000,000

Girdwood to Wasilla, Alas-ka commuter rail project 15,000,000

Harrisburg-Lancaster cap-ital area transit corridor1 commuter rail project 500,000

Hollister/Gilroy branchline rail extensionproject ............................ 1,000,000

Honolulu, Hawaii bus rapidtransit project ................ 2,500,000

Houston advanced transitproject ............................ 2,500,000

Houston regional busproject ............................ 10,750,000

Indianapolis, Indiananortheast-downtown cor-ridor project ................... 3,000,000

Johnson County, Kansas I–35 commuter rail project 1,000,000

Kansas City, MissouriSouthtown corridorproject ............................ 3,500,000

Kenosha-Racine-Mil-waukee rail extensionproject ............................ 4,000,000

Little Rock, Arkansasriver rail project ............. 3,000,000

Long Island Railroad EastSide access project ......... 8,000,000

Los Angeles Mid-City andEast Side corridorsprojects .......................... 2,000,000

Los Angeles North Holly-wood extension project ... 50,000,000

Los Angeles—San DiegoLOSSAN corridor project 3,000,000

Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New Hampshirecommuter rail project .... 2,000,000

MARC expansion projects—Penn-Camden lines con-nector and midday stor-age facility ..................... 10,000,000

Massachusetts North Shorecorridor project .............. 1,000,000

Memphis, Tennessee Med-ical Center rail extensionproject ............................ 6,000,000

Nashville, Tennessee re-gional commuter railproject ............................ 6,000,000

New Jersey Hudson Bergenproject ............................ 121,000,000

Project Conference levelNewark-Elizabeth rail link

project ............................ 7,000,000Northern Indiana south

shore commuter railproject ............................ 2,000,000

Northwest New Jersey-Northeast Pennsylvaniapassenger rail project ..... 1,000,000

Oceanside-Escondido, Cali-fornia light rail exten-sion project .................... 10,000,000

Orange County, Californiatransitway project .......... 2,000,000

Philadelphia-ReadingSEPTA Schuylkill Val-ley metro project ............ 10,000,000

Philadelphia SEPTA CrossCounty metro project ..... 2,000,000

Phoenix metropolitan areatransit project ................ 10,000,000

Pittsburgh North Shore—central business districtcorridor project .............. 5,000,000

Pittsburgh stage II lightrail project ..................... 12,000,000

Portland—Interstate MAXLRT extension project .... 7,500,000

Portland, Maine marinehighway program ........... 2,000,000

Puget Sound RTA Soundercommuter rail project .... 5,000,000

Raleigh-Durham-ChapelHill Triangle Transitproject ............................ 10,000,000

Rhode Island-Pawtucketand T.F. Green com-muter rail and mainte-nance facility ................. 500,000

Sacramento, Californiasouth corridor LRTproject ............................ 35,200,000

Salt Lake City—Universitylight rail line project ..... 2,000,000

San Bernardino, CaliforniaMetrolink project ........... 1,000,000

San Diego Mission ValleyEast light rail project .... 31,500,000

San Francisco BART ex-tension to the airportproject ............................ 80,000,000

San Jose Tasman Westlight rail project ............. 12,250,000

San Juan Tren Urbanoproject ............................ 75,000,000

Santa Fe-Eldorado, NewMexico rail link project 1,500,000

Seattle, Washington—Cen-tral Link LRT project .... 50,000,000

Spokane, WashingtonSouth Valley corridorlight rail project ............. 4,000,000

St. Louis, MissouriMetroLink Cross Countyconnector project ........... 1,000,000

St. Louis-St. ClairMetroLink extensonproject ............................ 60,000,000

Stamford, Connecticutfixed guideway corridor .. 8,000,000

Stockton, CaliforniaAltamont commuter railproject ............................ 6,000,000

Twin Cities Transitwaysprojects .......................... 5,000,000

Twin Cities Transitways—Hiawatha corridorproject ............................ 50,000,000

Virginia Railway Expresscommuter rail project .... 3,000,000

Washington Metro—BlueLine extension—AddisonRoad (Largo) project ...... 7,500,000

West Trenton, New Jerseyrail project ..................... 2,000,000

Whitehall and St. Georgeferry terminal projects ... 2,500,000

Wilmington, Delawaredowntown transit cor-ridor project ................... 5,000,000

Project Conference levelWilsonville to Washington

County, Oregon com-muter rail project ........... 1,000,000Austin, Texas capital metro light rail

project.—The conference agreement includes$1,000,000 for preliminary engineering workfor the north/south and southeast corridor inAustin, Texas.

Boston—South Boston Piers transitwayproject.—The conference agreement includes$25,000,000 for the South Boston Pierstransitway project. Because of constructiondelays and coordination of this project withthe Central Artery/Tunnel project, the con-ferees direct that none of the funds providedin this Act for the South Boston Pierstransitway project shall be available until(1) the project sponsor produces a financeplan that clearly delineates the full cost tocomplete the project, as well as otherplanned capital and operational require-ments of the MBTA, and the manner inwhich the sponsor expects to pay these costs;(2) the FHWA and the FTA conducts a finalreview and accepts the plan and certifies tothe House and Senate Committees on Appro-priations that the fiscal management of theproject meets or exceeds accepted U.S. gov-ernment standards; (3) the General Account-ing Office and the Department of Transpor-tation’s Inspector General conduct an inde-pendent analysis of the plans and providesuch analysis to the House and Senate Com-mittees on Appropriations within 60 days ofFTA accepting the plan; and (4) the Houseand Senate Committees on Appropriationshave concluded their review of the analysiswithin 60 days of the transmittal of the anal-ysis to the Committees. Lastly, the Housedirects the FTA and the IG to conduct ongo-ing, continual financial management reviewsof this project.

Central Florida commuter rail project.—Forthe central Florida commuter rail project,the conference agreement provides $3,000,000.The conferees are aware that local agenciesin Orlando, Florida rescinded their plans toproceed with a light rail project in the Or-lando area, for which nearly $56,000,000 inpreviously appropriated funds were madeavailable, and are now proceeding with com-muter rail. While the conference agreementreallocates these balances from the Orlandolight rail project to other projects in fiscalyear 2001, the conferees are mindful of thecontinuing need to improve mobility in thegreater Orlando area and will consider futureappropriations for the central Florida com-muter rail project as plans are approved bythe appropriate local, state and federal agen-cies.

Chicago-METRA commuter rail projects.—Theconference agreement includes $35,000,000 forpreliminary engineering, design and con-struction on the METRA commuter railprojects in Chicago, Illinois.

Denver-Southeast cooridor project.—The con-ference agreement includes $3,000,000 for theDenver southeast corridor project, as pro-posed by the House. The conferees have pro-vided this amount without prejudice to thepending full funding grant agreement, whilerecognizing that the federal financial com-mitment to the southwest line was first nec-essary to complete.

Dulles corridor.—The conference agreementincludes $50,000,000 for preliminary engineer-ing and design on the Dulles corridor project.

Girdwood to Wasilla, Alaska, commuter railproject.—The conferees agree that all ref-erences in the fiscal year 2000 Department ofTransportation and Related Agencies Appro-priations Act and accompanying statementof managers referring to Girdwood, Alaska,commuter rail project and North Anchorageto Girdwood are intended to refer to theGirdwood to Wasilla, Alaska, commuter railproject as contained in the Act.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8974 October 5, 2000Kansas City, Missouri southtown corridor.—

The conference agreement includes $3,500,000for engineering and design work for thesouthtown corridor light rail project in Kan-sas City, Missouri.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Au-thority.—The conferees expect that the Wash-ington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritywill undertake from resources available tothe Authority access improvements atBallston Metro station.

Whitehall and St. George ferry terminalprojects.—The conference agreement provides$2,500,000 for the Whitehall and St. Georgeferry terminal projects in the New York Cityarea.

DISCRETIONARY GRANTS



The conference agreement includes$350,000,000 in liquidating cash for discre-tionary grants as proposed by both the Houseand the Senate.

JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE GRANTS

The conference agreement includes a totalprogram level of $100,000,000 for job accessand reverse commute grants as proposed bythe House and the Senate. Within this total,the conference agreement appropriates$20,000,000 from the general fund as proposedby the House and the Senate. The conferenceagreement includes a provision that waivesthe cap for small urban and rural areas andprovides that up to $250,000 of the funds ap-propriated under this heading may be usedfor technical assistance, technical supportand performance reviews of the job accessand reverse commute grants program.

Funds appropriated for the job access andreverse commute grants program are to bedistributed as follows:

Project ConferenceAlameda and Contra-Costa

Counties, California ....... $500,000Archuleta County, Colo-

rado ................................ 75,000Athol/Orange community

transportation, Massa-chusetts .......................... 400,000

Broome County Transit,New York ........................ 250,000

Broward County, Florida ... 2,000,000Buffalo, New York ............. 500,000Capital District Authority,

New York ........................ 250,000Central Kenai Peninsula

public transportation ..... 500,000Central Ohio ...................... 750,000Chatham, Georgia ............. 500,000Chicago, Illinois ................ 1,000,000Commonwealth of Virginia 4,500,000Corpus Christi RTA, Texas 550,000Des Moines, Dubuque,

Sioux City, Delaware andJackson Counties, Iowa .. 1,600,000

District of Columbia .......... 1,000,000Dona Ana County, New

Mexico ............................ 250,000DuPage County, Illinois .... 500,000Easter Seals West Alabama

work transition pro-grams .............................. 850,000

Fresno, Tulare, Kings andKern Counties, California 3,000,000

Greater Erie CommunityAction Committee, Penn-sylvania .......................... 400,000

Hillsborough County, Flor-ida .................................. 600,000

Project ConferenceIndianapolis, Indiana ......... 1,000,000Kansas City, Kansas .......... 1,000,000Las Cruces, New Mexico .... 260,000Los Angeles, California ..... 3,500,000Mantanuska-Susitna bor-

ough, M.A.S.C.O.T, Alas-ka ................................... 60,000

Meramec CommunityTransit programs, Mis-souri ............................... 150,000

Mobile, Alabama ............... 250,000Monterey, California ......... 150,000Nassau County, New York 500,000North Oakland County,

Michigan ........................ 250,000OATS job access programs,

Missouri ......................... 750,000Pittsburgh Port Authority

of Allegheny County,Pennsylvania .................. 2,000,000

Portland, Oregon ............... 1,840,000Rhode Island community

food bank transportation 100,000Rhode Island Public Tran-

sit Authority .................. 1,000,000Rochester, New York ......... 300,000Sacramento, California ..... 1,000,000San Francisco, California .. 275,000Santa Clara County, Cali-

fornia .............................. 500,000SEPTA, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania .................. 3,000,000Sitka, Alaska transit ex-

pansion program ............. 400,000Southern Illinois RIDES ... 150,000State of Alabama .............. 1,500,000State of Arkansas .............. 4,000,000State of Illinois ................. 1,000,000State of Maine ................... 500,000State of Maryland ............. 2,400,000State of New Hampshire .... 340,000State of New Mexico .......... 2,000,000State of Oklahoma ............ 4,500,000State of Tennessee ............ 2,000,000State of Vermont .............. 1,500,000State of Washington .......... 2,000,000State of West Virginia ....... 1,500,000State of Wisconsin ............. 4,700,000Suffolk County, New York 445,000Sullivan County, New York 200,000Tompkins County, New

York ............................... 300,000Troy State University,

Alabama—Rosa ParksCenter ............................. 2,000,000

Tucson, Arizona ................ 1,000,000Tysons Corner/Dulles Cor-

ridor, Virginia ................ 500,000Ulster County, New York .. 200,000Washoe County, Nevada .... 1,000,000Ways to Work family loan

program, SoutheasternU.S. ................................. 2,000,000

Western Massachusetts ..... 350,000York County, Maine .......... 900,000

State of Tennessee.—Of the funds providedto the State of Tennessee, $500,000 shall beavailable to Chattanooga Area RegionalTransit Authority in Chattanooga, Ten-nessee.

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

The conference agreement appropriates$13,004,000 for operations and maintenance ofthe Saint Lawrence Seaway DevelopmentCorporation as proposed by the House. TheSenate bill provided $12,400,000.

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMSADMINISTRATION

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS

The conference agreement appropriates$36,373,000 for research and special programsinstead of $36,452,000 as proposed by theHouse and $34,370,000 as proposed by the Sen-ate. Within this total, $4,707,000 is availableuntil September 30, 2003 as proposed by theHouse instead $4,201,000 as proposed by theSenate. The following adjustments are madeto the budget estimate:

Slight reduction in haz-ardous materials inter-national standards ......... ¥$23,000

Fund 2 of 5 new emergencytransportation positions ¥244,000

Reduce proposed increasesfor crisis response ........... ¥300,000

Reduce funding for newtransportation infra-structure program .......... ¥2,400,000

Deny funding for univer-sity marine grants .......... ¥2,500,000

Human centered fatigue re-search ............................. +300,000

Continue to fund GarrettMorgan program in-house .............................. ¥200,000

Reduction in business mod-ernization ....................... ¥564,000

Reduce employee develop-ment funding .................. ¥227,000

Net adjustment tobudget estimate ........... ¥$6,158,000

Bill language is retained that permits upto $1,200,000 in fees to be collected and depos-ited in the general fund of the Treasury asoffsetting receipts. Also, bill language is in-cluded that permits funds received fromstates, counties, municipalities, other publicauthorities and private sources for expensesincurred for training, reports publicationand dissemination, and travel expenses in-curred in the performance of hazardous ma-terials exemptions and approval functions.Both of these provisions were contained inthe House and Senate bills.

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

The conference agreement provides a totalof $47,044,000 for the pipeline safety programinstead of $40,137,000 as proposed by theHouse and $43,144,000 as proposed by the Sen-ate. Within this total, $23,837,000 is availableuntil September 30, 2003 instead of $20,713,000as proposed by the House and $24,432,000 asproposed by the Senate.

Of this total, the conference agreementspecifies that $7,488,000 shall be derived fromthe Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; $36,556,000from the Pipeline Safety Fund; and $3,000,000from the reserve fund. The House bill allo-cated $4,263,000 from the Oil Spill LiabilityTrust Fund and $35,874,000 from the PipelineSafety Trust Fund. The Senate bill provided$8,750,000 from the Oil Spill Liability TrustFund; $31,894,000 from the Pipeline SafetyFund; and $2,500,000 from the reserve fund.

Bill language specifies that the reservefund should be used for damage preventiongrants to states as proposed by the Senate.The House bill contained no similar provi-sion.

The following table reflects the total allo-cation for pipeline safety in fiscal year 2001:

Budget activity Pipelinesafety fund

Oil spill li-ability trust

fund

Reservefund 1 Total

Personnel, compensation, and benefits ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... $8,963,000 $900,000 .................... $9,863,000Operating expenses ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,614,000 1,345,000 .................... 4,959,000Information systems ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 935,000 400,000 .................... 1,335,000



Budget activity Pipelinesafety fund

Oil spill li-ability trust

fund

Reservefund 1 Total

Risk assessment and technical studies .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 850,000 400,000 .................... 1,250,000Compliance ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 200,000 100,000 .................... 300,000Training and information dissemination .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 800,000 300,000 .................... 1,100,000Emergency notification ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 100,000 .................... .................... 100,000Public education and damage control ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 300,000 200,000 .................... 500,000Oil Pollution Act ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .................... 2,443,000 .................... 2,443,000Research and development ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,744,000 .................... .................... 2,744,000State grants .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15,000,000 1,400,000 .................... 16,400,000Risk management ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50,000 .................... .................... 50,000One-call notification ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 .................... .................... 1,000,000Damage prevention grants ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 .................... $3,000,000 5,000,000

Total ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 36,556,000 7,488,000 3,000,000 47,044,000

1 Funding derived from the reserve fund is not directly appropriated.

State of Washington.—Within the funds pro-vided for operating expenses, the conferenceagreement provides $800,000 to the State ofWashington to match the state legislature’ssupplemental appropriation for pipeline safe-ty activities as directed by the Senate. TheHouse contained no similar appropriation.

Research and development.—The budget re-quest for research and development has beenincreased by $600,000 to support airbornemapping research, technology, and engineer-ing in support of improved leak detection,analysis, and response by federal, state, andindustry pipeline safety officials.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

The conference agreement provides $200,000for emergency preparedness grants as pro-posed by both the House and the Senate. Theconference agreement includes a limitationon obligation of $14,300,000 instead of$13,227,000 as proposed by the Senate. TheHouse bill carried no similar provision.

Bill language, proposed by the Senate,which delayed the registration and proc-essing fees collected under the emergencypreparedness grant program from July 1 toSeptember 30, 2000, has been deleted. TheHouse bill contained no similar provision.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL


The conference agreement appropriates$48,450,000 for the Office of Inspector Generalinstead of $48,050,000 as proposed by theHouse and $49,000,000 (including transfers) asproposed by the Senate. The agreement doesnot include language proposed by the Senatederiving $38,500,000 of program funding bytransfer from DOT modal administrations,and does include House language authorizingthe use of funds for investigation of fraud,deceptive trade practices, and unfair meth-ods of competition in the airline industry.

DCAA audits.—The conferees reiterate con-cerns expressed by the House and Senateover the declining modal requests for con-tract audits performed by the Defense Con-tract Audit Agency (DCAA). These audits area primary tool in the prevention of govern-ment waste, fraud, and abuse, and will not beneglected by the Department of Transpor-tation. The Committees on Appropriationswill continue to monitor this issue, and mayconsider mandated set-aside funding fromthe modal administrations, or other strongmeasures, if the lack of support continues.The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Pro-grams is directed to ensure that all modaladministrations are reminded, in writing, ofthe importance of these audits, and is re-quested to work with the Office of InspectorGeneral to track formally and review DCAAaudit requests on a monthly or quarterlybasis throughout the coming fiscal year.

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD


The conference agreement appropriates$17,954,000 for salaries and expenses of theSurface Transportation Board as proposed by

the House instead of $17,000,000 as proposedby the Senate. In addition, the conferenceagreement includes language, proposed bythe House, which allows the Board to offset$900,000 of its appropriation from fees col-lected during the fiscal year. The Senate billallowed the Board to collect $954,000 in feesto augment its appropriation.

Union Pacific/Southern Pacific(UP/SP) merg-er.—On December 12, 1997, the Board granteda joint request of Union Pacific RailroadCompany and the City of Wichita and Sedg-wick County, KS (Wichita/Sedgwick) to tollthe 18-month mitigation study pending in Fi-nance Docket No. 32760. The decision indi-cated that, at such time as the parties reachagreement or discontinue negotiations, theBoard would take appropriate action.

By petition filed June 26, 1998, Wichita/Sedgwick and UP/SP indicated that they hadentered into an agreement, and jointly peti-tioned the Board to impose the agreement asa condition of the Board’s approval of theUP/SP merger. By decision dated July 8,1998, the Board agreed and imposed theagreement as a condition to the UP/SP merg-er. The terms of the negotiated agreementremain in effect. If UP/SP or any of its divi-sions or subsidiaries materially changes or isunable to achieve the assumptions on whichthe Board based its final environmentalmitigation measures, then the Board shouldreopen Finance Docket 32760 if requested byinterested parties, and prescribe additionalmitigation properly reflecting these changesif shown to be appropriate.

March 2000 hearings.—On March 7–10, 2000,the STB held a series of public hearingsabout major rail consolidations and the fu-ture of the rail network. Following theissuance of its new merger policy, the STBshall submit to the House and Senate Com-mittees on Appropriations, the Senate Com-merce Committee, and the House Transpor-tation and Infrastructure Committee a re-port which: (1) identifies concerns that wereraised at the March 2000 hearings; (2) detailsthe actions that the STB will undertake toaddress these concerns; and (3) indicateswhere the STB lacks the authority and/orpersonnel resources to effectively addressthese concerns. This report shall be due July1, 2001.

TITLE II—RELATED AGENCIESARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION

BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD


The conference agreement provides$4,795,000 for the Architectural and Transpor-tation Barriers Compliance Board as pro-posed by both the House and the Senate.

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


The conference agreement appropriates$62,942,000 for salaries and expenses of theNational Transportation Safety Board asproposed by the House instead of $59,000,000as proposed by the Senate. Within the fundsprovided, NTSB should continue partici-pating in the interagency initiative on avia-tion safety in Alaska.

Training center and research facility.—NTSBshall enter into an agreement to locate itstraining center and research facility on landprovided by George Washington Universityat the Loudoun County, Virginia campus.This new facility, sought by the NTSB, willprovide NTSB additional laboratory space,classrooms, and conference space as well ashouse the wreckage of TWA flight 800.

TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Sec. 301 allows funds for aircraft; motor ve-hicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or al-lowances, as authorized by law as proposedby both the House and Senate.

Sec. 302 requires pay raises to be fundedwithin appropriated levels in this Act or pre-vious appropriations Acts as proposed byboth the House and Senate.

Sec. 303 modifies and makes permanent theHouse and Senate provision that allowsfunds for expenditures for primary and sec-ondary schools and transportation for de-pendents of Federal Aviation Administrationpersonnel stationed outside the continentalUnited States.

Sec. 304 limits appropriations for servicesauthorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the rate for anExecutive Level IV as proposed by both theHouse and Senate.

Sec. 305 prohibits funds in this Act for sal-aries and expenses of more than 104 politicaland Presidential appointees in the Depart-ment of Transportation and includes a provi-sion that prohibits political and Presidentialpersonnel to be assigned on temporary detailoutside the Department of Transportation oran independent agency funded in this Act asproposed by both the Senate and House.

Sec. 306 prohibits pay and other expensesfor non-Federal parties in regulatory or ad-judicatory proceedings funded in this Act asproposed by both the House and Senate.

Sec. 307 prohibits obligations beyond thecurrent fiscal year and prohibits transfers offunds unless expressly so provided herein asproposed by both the House and Senate.

Sec. 308 limits consulting service expendi-tures of public record in procurement con-tracts as proposed by both the House andSenate.

Sec. 309 modifies the Senate provision tocodify prohibitions against the release ofcertain personal information without expressconsent of the person to whom such informa-tion pertains; and inserts a new subsectionthat prohibits the withholdings of funds pro-vided in this Act for any grantee if a Stateis in noncompliance with this provision. TheHouse proposed no similar provision.

Sec. 310 modifies the distribution of theFederal-aid highways program proposed bythe Senate. The House proposed no similarprovision.

Sec. 311 exempts previously made transitobligations from limitations on obligationsas proposed by both the House and Senate.

Sec. 312 prohibits funds for the NationalHighway Safety Advisory Commission asproposed by both the House and Senate.

Sec. 313 prohibits funds to establish a ves-sel traffic safety fairway less than five miles


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8976 October 5, 2000wide between Santa Barbara and San Fran-cisco traffic separation schemes as proposedby both the House and Senate.

Sec. 314 allows airports to transfer to theFederal Aviation Administration instrumentlanding systems as proposed by both theHouse and Senate.

Sec. 315 prohibits funds to award multiyearcontracts for production end items that in-clude certain specified provisions as pro-posed by both the House and Senate.

Sec. 316 allows funds for discretionarygrants of the Federal Transit Administrationfor specific projects, except for fixed guide-way modernization projects, not obligated bySeptember 30, 2003, and other recoveries tobe used for other projects under 49 U.S.C.5309 as proposed by both the House and Sen-ate.

Sec. 317 allows transit funds appropriatedbefore October 1, 2000, and that remain avail-able for expenditure to be transferred as pro-posed by both the House and Senate.

Sec. 318 prohibits funds to compensate inexcess of 335 technical staff years under thefederally funded research and developmentcenter contract between the Federal Avia-tion Administration and the Center for Ad-vanced Aviation Systems Development in-stead of 320 technical staff years as proposedby both the House and Senate.

Sec. 319 allows funds received by the Fed-eral Highway Administration, Federal Tran-sit Administration, and the Federal RailroadAdministration from States, counties, mu-nicipalities, other public authorities, andprivate sources for expenses incurred fortraining to be credited to each agency’s re-spective accounts as proposed by the Houseand Senate.

Sec. 320 prohibits funds to be used to pre-pare, propose, or promulgate any regulationpursuant to title V of the Motor Vehicle In-formation and Cost Savings Act prescribingcorporate average fuel economy standardsfor automobiles as defined in such title, inany model year that differs from standardspromulgated for such automobiles prior toenactment of this section as proposed by theHouse. The Senate proposed no similar provi-sion.

Sec. 321 allows funds made available forAlaska or Hawaii ferry boats or ferry ter-minal facilities to be used to construct newvessels and facilities or to improve existingvessels and facilities, and for repair facili-ties. The conference agreement includes anew provision allowing the State of Hawaiito use not more than $3,000,000 of theamounts it receives from this program toinitiate and operate an inter-island andintra-island demonstration project. The Sen-ate proposed to allow funds made availablefor Alaska or Hawaii ferry boats or ferry ter-minal facilities to be used to construct newvessels and facilities, to provide passengerferryboat service, or to improve existing ves-sels and facilities, and for repair facilities.The House proposed no similar provision.

Sec. 322 allows funds received by the Bu-reau of Transportation Statistics to be sub-ject to the obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways and highway safety construc-tion as proposed by both the House and Sen-ate.

Sec. 323 prohibits the use of funds for anytype of training which: (1) does not meetneeds for knowledge, skills, and abilitiesbearing directly on the performance of offi-cial duties; (2) could be highly stressful oremotional to the students; (3) does not pro-vide prior notification of content and meth-ods to be used during the training; (4) con-tains any religious concepts or ideas; (5) at-tempts to modify a person’s values or life-style; or (6) is for AIDS awareness training,except for raising awareness of medicalramifications of AIDS and workplace rights

as proposed by the House. The Senate pro-posed no similar provision.

Sec. 324 prohibits the use of funds in thisAct for activities designed to influence Con-gress or a state legislature on legislation orappropriations except through proper, offi-cial channels as proposed by both the Houseand Senate.

Sec. 325 requires compliance with the BuyAmerican Act as proposed by both the Houseand Senate.

Sec. 326 provides an appropriation of$54,963,000 from the Highway Trust Fund forthe Appalachian development highway sys-tem instead of providing $54,963,000 from thegeneral fund as proposed by the Senate. TheHouse proposed no similar appropriation.

Sec. 327 credits to appropriations of theDepartment of Transportation rebates, re-funds, incentive payments, minor fees andother funds received by the Department fromtravel management centers, charge card pro-grams, the subleasing of building space, andmiscellaneous sources as proposed by boththe House and Senate. Such funds receivedshall be available until December 31, 2001.

Sec. 328 authorizes the Secretary of Trans-portation to allow issuers of any preferredstock to redeem or repurchase preferredstock sold to the Department of Transpor-tation as proposed by the House and Senate.

Sec. 329 provides $750,000 for the AmtrakReform Council instead of $495,000 proposedby the Senate and $450,000 proposed by theHouse. Sec. 329 also includes provisions thatamend section 203 of Public Law 105–134 re-garding the Amtrak Reform Council’s rec-ommendations on Amtrak routes identifiedfor closure or realignment as proposed byboth the House and Senate.

Sec. 330 amends item number 1473 in sec-tion 1602 of Public Law 105–178 by striking‘‘Stony’’ and inserting ‘‘Commerce’’. TheHouse and Senate proposed no similar provi-sion.

Sec. 331 prohibits funds in this Act unlessthe Secretary of Transportation notifies theHouse and Senate Committees on Appropria-tions not less than three full business daysbefore any discretionary grant award, letterof intent, or full funding grant agreement to-taling $1,000,000 or more is announced by thedepartment or its modal administrations asproposed by both the House and Senate.

Sec. 332 specifies that $20,000,000 madeavailable for the James A. Farley Post Officebuilding in fiscal year 2001 must be spentonly on fire and life safety initiatives. Theconferees consider fire and life safety im-provements to include, but not be limited to,matters concerning ventilation, vertical ac-cess, and egress. The Pennsylvania StationRedevelopment Corporation shall be thegrantee for these funds and shall control ex-penditures. The House proposed to rescind$60,000,000 for the James A. Farley Post Of-fice Building. The Senate bill contained nosimilar rescission.

Sec. 333 prohibits funds for planning, de-sign, or construction of a light rail system inHouston, Texas, as proposed by the House.The Senate proposed no similar provision.

Sec. 334 amends section 3030(b) of PublicLaw 105–178 to authorize the Wilmingtondowntown transit corridor and the Honolulubus rapid transit project as proposed by theSenate. The House proposed no similar provi-sion.

Sec. 335 prohibits the use of funds in thisact to adopt the rulemaking on Hours ofService of Drivers; Driver Rest and Sleep forSafe Operations (Docket No. FMCSA 97–2350–953), and includes a provision that allows theFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administra-tion to proceed through all stages of therulemaking, including issuing a supple-mental notice of proposed rulemaking, ex-cept the adoption of a final rule. The Senate

proposed prohibiting the use of funds in thisact to consider, finalize, or enforce the rule-making. The House proposed no similar pro-vision.

Sec. 336 amends section 3038(e) of PublicLaw 105–178 pertaining to the federal share ofthe rural transportation accessibility incen-tive program as proposed by both the Houseand Senate.

Sec. 337 amends item number 273 of section1602 of Public Law 105–178 pertaining to theMartin Luther King Jr. Parkway in DesMoines, Iowa, as proposed by the House. TheSenate proposed no similar provision.

Sec. 338 amends item number 328 of section1602 of Public Law 105–178 pertaining to Lou-isiana Highway 30 as proposed by the House.The Senate proposed no similar provision.

Sec. 339 amends items numbered 63 and 186of section 1602 of Public Law 105–178 per-taining to projects in Ohio as proposed bythe House. The Senate proposed no similarprovision.

Sec. 340 pertains to funds apportioned tothe Commonwealth of Massachusetts and theCentral Artery/Tunnel project. The Houseproposed prohibiting funds in this Act forsalaries and expenses of any departmentalofficial to authorize project approvals or ad-vance construction authority for the CentralArtery/Tunnel project in Boston, Massachu-setts. The Senate proposed limiting the totalFederal contribution for the project to notmore than $8,549,000,000.

This provision is included in the con-ference agreement without prejudice to thecurrent administration of the MassachusettsTurnpike Authority (MTA). Following yearsof obfuscation, the current administration atMTA has been forthcoming with details ofthe cost overruns on, and the costs-to-com-plete, the Central Artery/Tunnel project, aswell as identifying the means by which theCommonwealth of Massachusetts plans to fi-nance the project’s costs. Moreover, theMTA recently negotiated with the FederalHighway Administration, the MassachusettsHighway Department and the MassachusettsExecutive Office of Transportation and Con-struction a partnership agreement that lim-its federal financial participation in theproject and sets forward other terms andconditions, including the requirement thatthe Commonwealth undertake a balancedstatewide construction program of$400,000,000 a year in construction activitiesand specific transportation projects in theCommonwealth other than the Central Ar-tery/Tunnel project. The conferees commendthe MTA for these actions. This provision isnot intended to impugn the administrationof, or the recent actions taken by, the MTA,but rather to codify the partnership agree-ment to ensure that federal financial partici-pation in the Central Artery/Tunnel projecthas an upper limit, and to ensure that theFederal Highway Administration and theSecretary of the Department of Transpor-tation fulfill their fiduciary responsibilitiesto the American taxpayer.

Sec. 341 amends section 3027(c)(3) of PublicLaw 105–178 relating to services for the elder-ly and persons with disabilities as proposedby the House. The Senate proposed no simi-lar provision.

Sec. 342 allows unobligated balances undersection 149 of Public Law 100–17 and theEbensburg bypass demonstration project ofPublic Law 101–164 to be used for improve-ments along Route 56 in Cambria County,Pennsylvania, as proposed by the House. TheSenate proposed no similar provision.

Sec. 343 prohibits funds in this Act for theplanning, development, or construction ofthe California State Route 710 freeway ex-tension project through South Pasadena,California, as proposed by the House. TheSenate proposed no similar provision.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8977October 5, 2000Sec. 344 prohibits funds in this Act for en-

gineering work related to an additional run-way at New Orleans International Airport asproposed by the House. The Senate proposedno similar provision.

Sec. 345 provides that $800,000 from capitalinvestment grants in Public Law 105–277 maybe available for an intermodal parking facil-ity in Cambria County, Pennsylvania. TheHouse and Senate proposed no similar provi-sion.

Sec. 346 prohibits funds in this Act to beused for the implementation of the KyotoProtocol prior to its ratification as proposedby the Senate. The House proposed no simi-lar provision.

Sec. 347 modifies the Senate provision toprohibit the submission of a budget requestthat assumes revenues or reflects a reduc-tion from the previous year due to user feeproposals that have not been enacted intolaw prior to the submission of the Presi-dent’s budget unless the budget submissionidentifies which additional spending reduc-tions should occur in the event the user feeproposals are not enacted prior to the date ofa committee of conference for the fiscal year2002 appropriations Act. The House proposedno similar provision.

Sec. 348 provides that amounts appro-priated for salaries and expenses for the De-partment of Transportation may be used toreimburse safety inspectors for not to exceedone-half the costs incurred by such employ-ees for professional liability insurance, con-tingent upon the submission of required in-formation or documentation by the Depart-ment, as proposed by the Senate. The Houseproposed no similar provision.

Sec. 349 prohibits funds in this Act to beused to adopt guidelines or regulations re-quiring airport sponsors to provide the Fed-eral Aviation Administration ‘‘without cost’’buildings, maintenance, or space for FAAservices, as proposed by the Senate. The pro-hibition does not apply to negotiations be-tween FAA and airport sponsors concerning‘‘below market’’ rates for such services or togrant assurances that require airport spon-sors to provide land without cost to the FAAfor air traffic control facilities. The Houseproposed no similar provision.

Sec. 350 modifies the Senate provision torequire the Coast Guard to submit quarterlyreports beginning after December 31, 2000, tothe House and Senate Committees on Appro-priations on all major Coast Guard acquisi-tion projects. The House proposed no similarprovision.

Sec. 351 modifies the Senate provision thatwithholds the highway funds of States thatfail to adopt a blood alcohol content level in-toxication standard of .08 by fiscal year 2004.Under the conference agreement, States thatdo not adopt this standard will lose a portionof their highway funds each year, beginningin fiscal year 2004 (2 percent in 2004, 4 percentin 2005, 6 percent in 2006, and 8 percent in2007). If States enter into compliance by theend of 2007, funds withheld by sanction arerestored in the State’s apportionment. TheHouse proposed no similar provision.

Sec. 352 allows the Federal Aviation Ad-ministration to provide for the conveyanceof airport property to an institution of high-er education in Oklahoma as proposed by theSenate. The House proposed no similar provi-sion.

Sec. 353 amends item 1006 of section 1602 ofPublic Law 105–178 regarding a highwayproject in Polk County, Iowa, as proposed bythe Senate. The House proposed no similarprovision.

Sec. 354 allows the State of Mississippi touse funds previously allocated to it underthe transportation enhancement program, ifavailable, for constructing an underpassalong Star Landing Road in DeSoto County,

Mississippi, as proposed by the Senate. TheHouse proposed no similar provision.

Sec. 355 modifies the Senate provision thatamends section 1214 of Public Law 105–178 toprovide that the non-Federal share of projectnumber 1646 in section 1602 may be funded byFederal funds from an agency or agenciesnot part of the Department of Transpor-tation. The Senate proposed that the Sec-retary shall not delegate responsibility forcarrying out the project to a State. TheHouse proposed no similar provision.

Sec. 356 modifies the Senate provision thatdesignates the New Jersey transit commuterrail station located at the intersection of theMain/Bergen line and the Northeast Corridorline in the State of New Jersey as the‘‘Frank R. Lautenberg Station’’. The Houseproposed no similar provision.

Sec. 357 prohibits funds in this Act for theplanning, development, or construction of anexpressway at section 800 on PennsylvaniaRoute 202 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.The House and Senate proposed no similarprovision.

Sec. 358 amends Public Law 106–69 to allowfunding for buses, bus-related equipment andbus facilities in the State of Michigan. TheHouse and Senate proposed no similar provi-sion.

Sec. 359 establishes a program to reducetraffic congestion that will allow eligibleemployees of federal agencies to participatein telecommuting to the maximum extentpossible without diminished employee per-formance. Within one year, the Office of Per-sonnel Management shall evaluate the effec-tiveness of the program and report to Con-gress. Each agency participating in the pro-gram shall develop criteria to be used in im-plementing such a policy and ensure thatmanagerial, logistical, organizational, orother barriers to full implementation andsuccessful functioning of the policy are re-moved. Each agency should also provide foradequate administrative, human resources,technical, and logistical support for carryingout the policy. Telecommuting refers to anyarrangement in which an employee regularlyperforms officially assigned duties at homeor other work sites geographically conven-ient to the residence of the employee. Eligi-ble employees mean any satisfactorily per-forming employee of the agency whose jobmay typically be performed at least one dayper week. The House and Senate proposed nosimilar provision.

Sec. 360 provides that new fixed guidewaysystem funds previously provided in PublicLaw 105–66 may be used for projects in Jack-son, Mississippi. The House and Senate pro-posed no similar provision.

Sec. 361 provides that funds made availablein item number 760 of section 1602 of PublicLaw 105–178 shall be used for corridor plan-ning studies between western Baldwin Coun-ty and Mobile Municipal Airport in Alabama.The House and Senate proposed no similarprovision.

Sec. 362 amends section 1107(b) of PublicLaw 102–240 as it pertains to projects inAkron, Ohio. The House and Senate proposedno similar provision.

Sec. 363 pertains to the federal share of thetotal cost relating to the reconstruction of aroad and causeway in the Shiloh MilitaryPark in Hardin County, Tennessee. TheHouse and Senate proposed no similar provi-sion.

Sec. 364 amends section 30118 of title 49,United States Code, to require motor vehiclemanufacturers to review and consider infor-mation from any foreign source on defects ofmotor vehicles, original equipment, or re-placement equipment that do not complywith applicable motor vehicle safety stand-ards. The House and Senate proposed nosimilar provision.

Sec. 365 allows funds appropriated to theFederal Transit Administration to be trans-ferred to the Agency for International Devel-opment for transportation needs in theFrontline states to the Kosovo conflict. TheHouse and Senate proposed no similar provi-sion.

Sec. 366 allows funds provided in PublicLaw 105–66 for the Salt Lake City regionalcommuter system project to be used fortransit and other transportation-related por-tions of the Salt Lake City regional com-muter system and Gateway intermodal ter-minal. The House and Senate proposed nosimilar provision.

Sec. 367 provides funding from section 1404of Public Law 105–178 to the Commonwealthof Kentucky. The House and Senate proposedno similar provision.

Sec. 368 directs the Secretary of Transpor-tation to waive repayment of any federal-aidhighway funds expended on the LincolnStreet Bridge project by the City of Spo-kane, Washington. The House and Senateproposed no similar provision.

Sec. 369 amends previous appropriationsActs to allow funding for bus and bus facili-ties. The House and Senate proposed no simi-lar provision.

Sec. 370 amends item number 6 in section1602 of Public Law 105–178 to provide withinamounts previously made available $2,000,000for repair and reconstruction of the NorthOgden Divide Highway in Utah. The Houseand Senate proposed no similar provision.

Sec. 371 allows States to use highway safe-ty program funds (section 402 of title 23,United States Code) to produce and placehighway safety service messages in tele-vision, radio, cinema, Internet, and printmedia based on guidance issued by the Sec-retary of Transportation; and requiresStates to report to the Secretary on the useof such funds for public service messages.The House and Senate proposed no similarprovisions.

Sec. 372 provides that the Mohall Railroad,Inc. may abandon track from Granville toLansford, North Dakota, and that such aban-doned track will not count against the limi-tation contained in section 402 of Public Law97–102. The House and Senate proposed nosimilar provision.

Sec. 373 amends item number 163 in section1602 of Public Law 105–178 related to the ex-tension of Kapkowski Road in New Jersey toallow for the study, design, and constructionof local street improvements. The House andSenate proposed no similar provisions.

Sec. 374 amends item number 331 in section1602 of Public Law 105–178 to allow funds pro-vided for Humboldt Bay and Harbor Port inCalifornia to be used for highway and freightrail access. The House and Senate proposedno similar provision.

Sec. 375 appropriates $5,000,000 to the Ala-bama Department of Transportation forMuscle Shoals, Tuscumbia, and Sheffieldhighway-rail improvements. The House andSenate proposed no similar appropriation.

Sec. 376 appropriates $1,000,000 to ValleyTrains and Tours for track acquisition andrehabilitation between Strasburg Junctionand Shenandoah Caverns, Virginia. Thisfunding is contingent upon an agreementwith Norfolk Southern Corporation on trackusage. In addition, funding is contingent onfinancial support by the Commonwealth ofVirginia for this project. The House and Sen-ate proposed no similar appropriation.

Sec. 377 amends item number 1135 in sec-tion 1602 of Public Law 105–178 to allow fundsto be used to study all possible alternativesto the current M–14/Barton Drive inter-change in Ann Arbor, Michigan, including re-location of M–14/U.S.23 from Maple Road toPlymouth Road, mass transit options, andother means of reducing commuter traffic


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8978 October 5, 2000and improving highway safety. The Houseand Senate proposed no similar provision.

Sec. 378 provides necessary expenses, to bederived from the Highway Trust Fund, forvarious projects within the United States.The House and Senate proposed no similarappropriations.

Sec. 379 provides additional funding for theWoodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge. The$1,500,000,000 limitation on federal contribu-tion prescribed in this section is not in-tended to preclude states from using federal-aid apportionments or other federal-aidfunds made available to the states for costsassociated with the Woodrow Wilson Bridgeproject. The House and Senate proposed nosimilar appropriation.

Sec. 380 provides contingent commitmentauthority to the Federal Transit Adminis-tration for specific capital investmentgrants. The House and Senate proposed nosimilar provision.

Sec. 381 requires the Federal Transit Ad-ministrator to sign a full funding grantagreement for the MOS–2 segment of theNew Jersey Urban Core-Hudson Bergenproject.

Sec. 382 prohibits funding in this or anyother Act for adjusting the boundary of thePoint Retreat Light Station in Alaska orotherwise limiting property at that stationcurrently under lease to the Alaska Light-house Association. The provision also nul-lifies any modifications to the boundary atthat station made after January 1, 1998.

The conference agreement deletes theHouse and Senate provisions that reducefunding and limit obligation authority foractivities of the Transportation administra-tive service center. The House proposed re-ducing funding by $4,000,000 for activities ofthe center and limiting obligation authorityto $115,387,000. The Senate proposed reducingfunding by $53,430,000 for activities of thecenter and limiting obligation authority to$119,848,000.

The conference agreement deletes the Sen-ate provision that limits necessary expensesof advisory committees to $1,500,000 of thefunds provided in this Act to the Departmentof Transportation and provides that this lim-itation shall not apply to negotiated rule-making advisory committees or the CoastGuard’s advisory council on roles and mis-sions as proposed by the Senate.

The conference agreement deletes the pro-vision proposed by both the House and Sen-ate that authorizes the Secretary of Trans-portation to transfer appropriations by nomore than 12 percent among the offices ofthe Office of the Secretary.

The conference agreement deletes theHouse and Senate provisions that prohibitfunds in this Act for activities under the Air-craft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program.According to the Federal Aviation Adminis-tration, this provision is no longer nec-essary.

The conference agreement deletes the Sen-ate provision that allows the Department ofTransportation to enter into a fractional air-craft ownership demonstration. Report lan-guage is included on this subject under titleI, Office of the Secretary, Salaries and ex-penses.

The conference agreement deletes the Sen-ate provision that expands the exemptionfrom Federal axle weight restrictions pres-ently applicable only to public transit busesto all over-the-road buses and directs that astudy and report concerning applicability ofmaximum axle weight limitations to over-the-road buses and public transit vehicles besubmitted to the Congress.

The conference agreement deletes the Sen-ate provision that amends section 1105(c) ofPublic Law 102–240 to clarify the alignmentof the Ports-to-Plains corridor from Laredo,Texas, to Denver, Colorado.

The conference agreement deletes the Sen-ate provision that expresses the sense of theSenate that Congress and the Presidentshould immediately take steps to address thegrowing safety hazard associated with thelack of adequate parking space for trucksalong interstate highways.

The conference agreement deletes the Sen-ate provision that provides for the NationalAcademy of Sciences to conduct a study onnoise impacts of railroad operations, includ-ing idling train engines on the quality of lifeof nearby communities, the quality of theenvironment (including consideration of airpollution), and safety.

The conference agreement deletes the Sen-ate provision that provides $10,000,000 withinthe funds made available in this Act for thecosts associated with the construction of athird track on the Northeast Corridor be-tween Davisville, and Central Falls, RhodeIsland; provides $2,000,000 for a joint UnitedStates-Canada commission to study the fea-sibility of connecting the rail system inAlaska to the North American continentalrail system; $400,000 for passenger rail cor-ridor planning activities for development ofthe Gulf Coast high speed rail corridor; and$250,000 to the city of Traverse City, Michi-gan, for a comprehensive transportationplan. The House proposed no similar provi-sion. Funding for these projects was consid-ered in title I of the conference agreement.

The conference agreement deletes the Sen-ate provision that expresses the sense of theSenate regarding funding for Coast Guardoperations and acquisitions during fiscalyears 2000 and 2001.

The conference agreement deletes the Sen-ate provision that prohibits non-safety re-lated funds to be used for any airport-relatedgrant for the Los Angeles International Air-port made to the City of Los Angeles, or anyintergovernmental body of which it is amember, by the Department of Transpor-tation or the Federal Aviation Administra-tion, until the Administration concludes therevenue diversion investigation initiated inDocket 13–95–05 and either takes action ordetermines that no action is warranted.

TITLE IV—DEPARTMENT OF THETREASURY

BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

GIFTS TO THE UNITED STATES FOR REDUCTIONOF THE PUBLIC DEBT

The conference agreement includes title IVthat appropriates $5,000,000,000 for the reduc-tion of the public debt instead of supple-mental appropriations of $12,200,000,000 forthe fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, forthe reduction of the public debt proposed bythe Senate. The House Bill contained nosimilar title.

TITLE V—DEPARTMENT OF THETREASURY

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES


The conferees agree to provide an addi-tional $6,424,000 to establish a new inter-agency National Terrorist Asset TrackingCenter (NTATC), to reimburse Treasury De-partment law enforcement bureaus fordetailees to the Center, and for five new posi-tions to reinforce the analytical componentof the Office of foreign Assets Control.

VEHICLE USAGE AND REPLACEMENT

The conferees agree with the concerns ex-pressed by the Senate over the lack ofprogress by the Department of the Treasuryand its bureaus in establishing a centralizedvehicle acquisition program, despite havingbeen provided $1,000,000 for such purposes infiscal year 1999. The conferees agree with theSenate that the Department must take ac-tion before additional funding is provided.

The conferees therefore direct that no fundsfor new vehicle acquisition shall be obligatedor expended until the Department has: (1) de-veloped and implemented the vehicle datawarehouse, and (2) provided the committeeswith a report that confirms that policy di-rectives and operating procedures with re-gard to vehicles have been fully imple-mented. The conferees expect that the man-date established in section 116 of Public Law105–277 shall remain in force.

DEPARTMENT-WIDE SYSTEMS AND CAPITALINVESTMENTS PROGRAMS

The conferees agree to provide an addi-tional $15,000,000 for the Integrated Treasury(Wireless) Network.

EXPANDED ACCESS TO FINANCIAL SERVICES

The conferees agree to provide an addi-tional $8,000,000 for this account.

TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND

The conferees clarify that they haveagreed to fund $29,107,000 of the $42,500,000that the Administration proposed to fund infiscal year 2001 through the Super Surplus inregular appropriations. No funds are pro-vided for Customs Service vehicle replace-ment ($11,000,000) and Acquisition and Main-tenance for the Federal Law EnforcementTraining Center ($2,393,000).

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAININGCENTER


The conferees agree to provide an addi-tional $5,000,000 to the Federal Law Enforce-ment Training Center (FLETC) to establishand operate a metropolitan area law enforce-ment training center for the Treasury De-partment, other federal agencies, the UnitedStates Capitol Police, and the Washington,D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, pri-marily as a place for firearms and vehicle op-eration requalification. The conferees pro-vide that $3,500,000 of such funding wouldonly be made available for obligation afterFLETC submits a detailed spending plan tothe Committees on Appropriations.

The conferees are aware that as many as6,000 federal law enforcement officers in theWashington area require routine skills train-ing, but existing facilities in the region arenot meeting this need, in particular for theTreasury Department, the Park Police, theState Department, and the U.S. Capitol Po-lice, The shortage of facilities applies tolocal law enforcement agencies as well, inparticular the Washington, D.C. Metropoli-tan Police Department.

The conferees are aware of the work by theInteragency Firearms Range Working Group(IFRWG) and strongly supports its mandateto identify a site and plan for establishmentand operation of a Washington, D.C. area fa-cility, to meet the need for regular perish-able skills training for federal and other lawenforcement agencies. The conferees under-stand that such training would include fire-arms requalification, driver training, andpossibly other continuous routine training.The conferees expect this facility to accom-modate as well the unique in-service andagency specific training requirements of theU.S. Capitol Police.

The conferees have seen the preliminaryplan developed by FLETC for such a local fa-cility, to include semi-enclosed and enclosedfirearms facilities as well as vehicle oper-ation courses, and agree that such a facility,to generate the benefits of consolidated lawenforcement training, must be designed,built and operated to meet priority needs forcontinuing professional training, and toavoid needless duplication or inefficiency.The conferees understand that this facilitywill be for daytime training operations only,with no residential or dining facilities. The


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8979October 5, 2000conferees expect that any federal agencyseeking funding for new or expanded trainingfacilities in the capital region will partici-pate in and coordinate such requests throughFLETC and the IFRWG, and that FLETCwill strive to accommodate, as space per-mits, any requests for training from locallaw enforcement agencies.

The conferees direct the Federal Law En-forcement Training Center to work with theGeneral Services Administration (GSA) toidentify a site for this facility within theGSA inventory of Federal land.

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS,AND RELATED EXPENSES

The conferees agree to provide an addi-tional $25,000,000 for design and constructionof a metropolitan area law enforcementtraining center, including firearms and vehi-cle operations requalification facilities, toremain available until expended. Such fund-ing would include the costs of architectureand engineering plans, design and construc-tion for firearms ranges, vehicle operationranges, tactical operations training facilitiesand related teaching facilities such as class-rooms and non-lethal shoot houses, as wellas administrative and support facilities. Theconferees include language making$22,000,000 of these funds unavailable for obli-gation until a complete design and construc-tion plan with associated timelines and costbreakouts has been submitted to the Com-mittees on Appropriations.BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS


The conferees agree to provide an addi-tional $4,148,000 for 30 agents to participatein Joint Terrorism Task Forces.

UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE


The conferees agree to provide an addi-tional $18,934,000 for counterterrorism activi-ties, including $2,334,000 for 17 agents to par-ticipate in Joint Terrorism Task Forces;$10,000,000 for northern border security infra-structure; and $6,600,000 for 48 agents tocounter-terrorist threats along the northernborder. The conferees have also included lan-guage prohibiting obligation of funds for thenorthern border until a plan for the deploy-ment of resources and personnel has beensubmitted for approval to the Committees onAppropriations.

NORTHERN BORDER SECURITY

The conferees have long agreed on the in-adequacy of the federal response to smug-gling and other threats facing the southernborder and ports of entry to the U.S. The se-curity threat to the northern border of theU.S. was made plain last winter followingthe arrests of suspected terrorists attempt-ing to enter the United States from Canadainto Washington State and Vermont. Theneed for increased vigilance along our long,undefended border with Canada is beyonddispute while at the same time commercewith Canada, our major bilateral tradingpartner, grows apace.

Aging infrastructure and staffing short-ages have created significant bottlenecks aswell as increased vulnerability to potentialsecurity threats at a number of northernports of entry. Yet the conferees perceive in-adequate planning for and commitment toprovide the necessary personnel, facilitiesand related infrastructure to keep our bordercrossings safe and yet facilitate the smoothmovement of commerce and passengers.Shortcomings in infrastructure are readilyvisible to visitors to the border, but so arethe sparse staffing levels. The northern bor-der extends nearly 4,000 miles, but has onlyabout 300 agents and inspectors, while the2,000 mile southwest border has 8,000. In addi-

tion to increases in agents and inspectorsneeded to meet the threat of terrorism, addi-tional land border inspectors are called for inthe 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Im-migrant Responsibility Act, which has notbeen fully implemented.

The conferees therefore direct the U.S.Customs Service, working with the GeneralServices Administration, the Immigrationand Naturalization Service, and other agen-cies responsible for border inspection and fa-cilities, to address the inadequacies thatpresently exist in facilities and personneland submit to the Congress a plan to addressthem with the submission of the fiscal year2002 budget.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION MODEL

The Customs Service told the Committeesover a year ago that the customs staffing re-source allocation model was near comple-tion. However, the model remains under re-view and not operational. At the same time,the Committees have not received any infor-mation about the characteristics of themodel. Given then numerous requests to es-tablish, expand, or preserve Customs pres-ence at various ports, it is essential thatCustoms have such a model in place to per-mit a more transparent and consistent basisfor making such decisions. While the con-ferees recognize that the use of such a modelwould not by itself mechanically determineall staffing and organizational decisions,they expect the Committees to be able to un-derstand and review future funding requests.The conferees therefore direct Customs andthe Treasury Department to expedite com-pletion of the model and to report to theCommittees not later than February 1, 2001on the characteristics and application of themodel and on the status of its implementa-tion. The conferees request that the GeneralAccounting Office review the resource allo-cation model and supporting data used forthis analysis, and report to the Committeeson the validity and reliability of the modeland its findings.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

PROCESSING, ASSISTANCE AND MANAGEMENT

ELECTRONIC TAX ADMINISTRATION

In its June 30, 2000, annual report to Con-gress, the Electronic Tax Administration Ad-visory Committee (ETAAC) emphasized itsposition that IRS should stress partnerships,not competition, with the private sector andstate and local governments in achieving itselectronic tax administration objectives. Inthis regard, ETAAC believes it is inappro-priate for IRS to offer no-cost electronic fil-ing over the Internet, either by developingits own software or aligning itself with alimited number of ‘‘authorized e-file pro-viders.’’ IRS is directed to provide the Com-mittees on Appropriations a report com-menting on the ETAAC position as well asmaking any recommendations to address theconcerns raised by ETAAC within 120 days ofthe enactment of this Act. The confereesshare these concerns and further direct theIRS to delay implementing no-cost Internettax filing services until such report has beensubmitted to and reviewed by the Commit-tees.

TAX LAW ENFORCEMENT

The conferees agree to provide $7,974,000,including $3,135,000 for support of the moneylaundering strategy, and an additional$4,839,000 for 35 agents to participate in JointTerrorism Task Forces.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS

The conferees to provide $71,751,000 for in-formation technology investments. The re-lease of these funds is subject to conditionssimilar to those required for funds pre-viously appropriated for modernizing the

major computer systems of the Internal Rev-enue Service.

STAFFING TAX ADMINISTRATION FOR BALANCEAND EQUITY

The conferees agree to provide $141,000,000in a new account established to fund the hir-ing of additional staff by the Internal Rev-enue Service (IRS). Release of these funds issubject to a staffing plan, to be approved bythe Department of the Treasury, Office ofManagement and Budget, and the Commit-tees on Appropriations. The conferees areaware of the IRS’ continuing reassessment ofits specific staffing needs in light of its im-plementation of the IRS Restructuring andReform Act of 1998, as indicated by the re-cent IRS requests for substantive transfersof funding and positions among its appro-priations accounts. The current organiza-tional restructuring within the IRS also hascreated uncertainty with respect to its spe-cific staffing needs. The conferees look for-ward to working with the Administration toensure that balance and equity are achievedwith respect to IRS staffing requirements fortax administration.

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE


The conferees agree to provide an addi-tional $2,904,000 for 21 agents to participatein Joint Terrorism Task Forces.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ANDFUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


The conferees urge the Office of Manage-ment and Budget to allocate at least two-thirds of the additional staff for use in sup-porting the management function of the Of-fice, which is limited to the Deputy Directorfor Management and the Statutory Offices—the Office of Federal Financial Management,the Office of Federal Procurement Policy,and the Office of Information and RegulatoryAffairs.

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTCENTER

The conferees agree to provide an addi-tional $7,000,000 for the Counterdrug Tech-nology Assessment Center, including$5,000,000 for the continued operation of thetechnology transfer program and $2,000,000for the continued development of the wire-less interoperability communication projectcurrently underway in Colorado. This much-needed project is in direct response to thewireless communication difficulties experi-enced by State and local law enforcementduring the Columbine High School tragedy.

UNANTICIPATED NEEDS

The conferees agree to provide $3,500,000 forUnanticipated Needs of the President, in-cluding $2,500,000 as a transfer to the Elec-tions Commission of the Commonwealth ofPuerto Rico for objective, non-partisan citi-zens’ education for a choice by voters on theislands’ future status; the conferees makethe $2,500,000 transfer available on March 21,2001. The conferees include a provision pro-hibiting the use of funds by the ElectionsCommission until 45 days after the Commis-sion submits to the Committees on Appro-priations for approval an expenditure plandeveloped jointly by the Popular DemocraticParty, the New Progressive Party, and thePuerto Rican Independence Party. The con-ferees also include a provision requiring theElections Commission to include in the ex-penditure plan additional views from anyparty that does not agree with the plan.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8980 October 5, 2000INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND

CONSTRUCTION

The conferees agree to provide $3,000,000 fornon-prospectus construction projects.

SALT LAKE CITY COURTHOUSE

The conferees are aware of issues sur-rounding the site of the Salt Lake Citycourthouse. The conferees direct GSA to ex-amine these issues and report to the Com-mittees on Appropriations, the House Com-mittee on Transportation and Infrastruc-ture, and the Senate Committee on Environ-ment and Public Works within 120 days ofenactment of this Act on the status of thesite and recommendations on resolving anyoutstanding issues. In addition, the confereesdirect that GSA may not take any furthercondemnation action prior to the Commit-tees’ receipt of the report. The conferees di-rect GSA to consult with the AdministrativeOffice of the U.S. Courts and the appropriateauthorities in the preparation of this report.

REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS

The conferees agree to provide $8,350,000 fora repair and alteration project associatedwith a courthouse annex in Columbia, SouthCarolina

RENTAL OF SPACE

The conferees are concerned with the envi-ronmental conditions of the Customs Houseat Terminal Island, California. While manyCustoms employees have been temporarilymoved from the Customs House to healthierwork environments, the conferees are con-cerned about the health and safety of the re-maining employees at the facility. The con-ferees understand that the General ServicesAdministration (GSA) is working with theCustoms Service to resolve the situation atthe Customs House to identify permanentspace and relocate Customs personnel.

The conferees understand that GSA isworking jointly with the Customs Service torelocate the Office of the Customs SpecialAgent in Charge by December 31, 2000. OtherCustoms employees will be moved to a newleased location by May 31, 2001. The high-tech customs laboratory will remain at Ter-minal Island as requested by the CustomsService. The conferees are concerned thatplans for relocation of Customs employeesoccur as scheduled and direct the CustomsService and GSA to report no later than Jan-uary 15, 2001, on the situation facing the Cus-toms Service employees remaining at thisfacility and the status of the permanentmove.

BUILDING OPERATIONS

ACCESS TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

The conferees are aware that significantcost savings to the government are beingachieved by the FTS 2001 and the Metropoli-tan Area Acquisition programs administeredby GSA as a result of increased competitionamong communications services. The con-ferees are also aware that such potentialcost savings may be jeopardized by buildingaccess limitations for telecommunicationproviders. The conferees note that legisla-tion has been introduced in Congress in-tended to promote non-discriminatory or fairand reasonable access to telecommuni-cations services for Federal agencies. The

conferees direct the executive branch iden-tify building telecommunications access bar-riers and take necessary steps to ensure thattelecommunications providers are given fairand reasonable access to provide service toFederal agencies in buildings where the Fed-eral government is the owner or tenant.

TUCSON, ARIZONA

The conferees direct the GSA to reach amutual agreement with the City of Tucson,Arizona regarding the use of the federallyowned property at 26–72 East Congress by Oc-tober 24, 2000.

POLICY AND OPERATIONS

The conferees agree to provide an addi-tional $13,789,000 for policy and operations,including $2,060,000 for the electronic govern-ment initiative, $2,000,000 for the regulatoryinformation service center, $2,000,000 for fa-cilitating post conveyance remediation to beperformed by the City of Waltham, Massa-chusetts, $2,000,000 for a grant to the Insti-tute for Biomedical Science and Bio-technology, $2,000,000 for the Center for Agri-cultural Policy and Trade Studies, $1,000,000for a grant to the Berwick Industrial Devel-opment Authority in Pennsylvania, $1,000,000for a grant to the Ewing-Lawrence SewerageAuthority in Ewing Township, New Jersey,$750,000 for logistical support of the WorldPolice and Fire Games, and $979,000 for baseoperations.

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS

ADMINISTRATION

REPAIRS AND RESTORATION

The conferees agree to provide an addi-tional $6,610,000 for repairs to the John F.Kennedy Presidential Library.

GENERAL PROVISIONS—THIS TITLE

FEDERAL INTERNET SITES

The conferees have included a new provi-sion (Section 501) prohibiting the use offunds by agencies funded in the Treasury andGeneral Government Appropriations Act,2001, to use federal Internet sites to collect,review, or create any aggregate list that in-cludes the collection of any personally iden-tifiable information relating to an individ-ual’s access to or use of any federal govern-ment Internet site of the agency. Section 644of the Treasury and General Government Ap-propriations Act, 2001, shall not have effect.

FEC REFORMS

The conferees have included a new provi-sion (Section 502) regarding certain reformswithin the FEC, including a clarification ofthe permissible use of fax and electronicmail, a clarification of the treatment of linesof credit, and requiring the actual receipt ofcertain independent expenditure reportswithin 24 hours.

U.S. OLYMPIC ANTI-DOPING EFFORTS

The conferees have included a new provi-sion (Section 503) to clarify that the fundsmade available to the United States OlympicCommittee for anti-doping efforts in theTreasury and General Government Appro-priations Act, 2001 will be provided to TheU.S. Anti-Doping Agency, Incorporated(USADA). USADA, a private organization, isresponsible for the anti-doping program inthe United States relating to participationby U.S. athletes in the Olympic, Pan Amer-ican, and Paralympic Games. The conferees

agree to make these funds available toUSADA based on their understanding thatthe conduct of such anti-doping programs isthe responsibility of USADA and not of anyfederal government agency.

FEDERAL RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

The conferees agree to include a new provi-sion (Section 504) that Section 640 of theTreasury and General Government Appro-priations Act, 2001 shall not have effect. Theconferees further agree to include a new pro-vision (Section 505) regarding Civil Serviceretirement contributions.

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE ASSISTANCE

FOR INVESTIGATIONS RELATED TO MISSING

AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN

The conferees agree to include a new provi-sion (Section 506) providing that $2,000,000 offiscal year 2001 funding for the U.S. SecretService that was specified for activities re-lated to investigations of missing and ex-ploited children shall be available for foren-sic and related support of such investiga-tions, to remain available until September30, 2001.

SECTION 108 OF THE LEGISLATIVE

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

The conferees have included a new provi-sion (Section 507) amending Section 108 ofthe Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,2001 contained in House Report 106–796. Theamendment places the Chief AdministrativeOfficer (CAO) under the direct control of theChief of the U.S. Capitol Police, in consulta-tion with the Comptroller General of theUnited States. The Comptroller General willmonitor the performance of the CAO and re-port same to the Chief the U.S. Capitol Po-lice, the Capitol Police Board, and the appro-priations and authorizing committees of theSenate and House of Representatives. TheChief will report the CAO’s plans andprogress made in resolving the several ad-ministrative problems of the Capitol Policeto the appropriations and authorizing com-mittees of the Senate and House of Rep-resentatives.

REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO EXPORT

THRESHOLDS FOR COMPUTERS

The conferees expect that the assessmentprovided by the Comptroller General pursu-ant to Section 314 of the Legislative BranchAppropriations Act, 2001 shall include, at aminimum:

(1) An evaluation of the adequacy of thestated justification for any proposed changesto computer performance export controlthresholds given in the Presidential reportreferred to in subsection (d) of section 1211 ofthe National Defense Authorization Act forFiscal Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. App. 2404 note), asamended; and

(2) An evaluation of the likely impact ofany proposed changes to computer perform-ance export control thresholds upon—

(A) the national security and foreign pol-icy interests of the United States;

(B) the security of countries friendly to, orallied with, the United States;

(C) multilateral export control regimes ofwhich the United States is a member; and

(D) United States policies designed to slowor prevent the proliferation of weapons ofmass destruction or ballistic missile tech-nology.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH8982 October 5, 2000The following table provides a tabular summary of the fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropria-

tions Act.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH9004 October 5, 2000CONFERENCE TOTAL—WITH COMPARISONS

The total new budget (obligational) au-thority for the fiscal year 2001 recommendedby the Committee of Conference, with com-parisons to the fiscal year 2000 amount, the2001 budget estimates, and the House andSenate bills for 2001 follow:

[In thousands of dollars]

New budget (obligational)authority, fiscal year2000 ................................. $15,084,976

Budget estimates of new(obligational) authority,fiscal year 2001 ................ 16,146,737

House bill, fiscal year 2001 15,773,944

Senate bill, fiscal year 2001 15,295,300

Conference agreement, fis-cal year 2001 .................... 18,492,649

Conference agreementcompared with:

New budget(obligational) author-ity, fiscal year 2000 ...... +3,407,673

Budget estimates of new(obligational) author-ity, fiscal year 2001 ...... +2,345,912

House bill, fiscal year2001 .............................. +2,718,705

Senate bill, fiscal year2001 .............................. +3,197,349

FRANK R. WOLF,TOM DELAY,RALPH REGULA,HAROLD ROGERS,RON PACKARD,SONNY CALLAHAN,TODD TIAHRT,ROBERT B. ADERHOLT,KAY GRANGER,C.W. BILL YOUNG,MARTIN OLAV SABO


JOHN W. OLVER,ED PASTOR,CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK


JOSE E. SERRANO,MICHAEL P. FORBES,DAVID R. OBEY

(with exception todenial of funds tostates without 0.08BAC),


RICHARD C. SHELBY,PETE DOMENICI,ARLEN SPECTER,CHRISTOPHER S. BOND,SLADE GORTON,ROBERT F. BENNETT,BEN NIGHTHORSE

CAMPBELL,TED STEVENS,FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,ROBERT C. BYRD,BARBARA A. MIKULSKI,HARRY REID,HERB KOHL,PATTY MURRAY,DANIEL K. INOUYE,

Managers on the Part of the Senate.

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-ant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair de-clares the House in recess subject tothe call of the Chair.

Accordingly (at 9 o’clock and 39 min-utes p.m.), the House stood in recesssubject to the call of the Chair.

f

b 2306

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the Housewas called to order by the Speaker protempore (Mr. DREIER) at 11 o’clock and6 minutes p.m.

f

REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVINGPOINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CON-FERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4475,DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR-TATION AND RELATED AGEN-CIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

Mr. REYNOLDS, from the Com-mittee on Rules, submitted a privi-leged report (Rept. No. 106–941) on theresolution (H. Res. 612) waiving pointsof order against the conference reportto accompany the bill (H.R. 4475) mak-ing appropriations for the Departmentof Transportation and related agenciesfor the fiscal year ending September 30,2001, and for other purposes, which wasreferred to the House Calendar and or-dered to be printed.

f

REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVINGPOINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CON-FERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3244,TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTEC-TION ACT OF 2000

Mr. REYNOLDS, from the Com-mittee on Rules, submitted a privi-leged report (Rept. No. 106–942) on theresolution (H. Res. 613) waiving pointsof order against the conference reportto accompany the bill (H.R. 3244) tocombat trafficking of persons, espe-cially into the sex trade, slavery, andslavery-like conditions, in the UnitedStates and countries around the worldthrough prevention, through prosecu-tion and enforcement against traf-fickers, and through protection and as-sistance to victims of trafficking,which was referred to the House Cal-endar and ordered to be printed.

f

CORRECTION TO THE CONGRES-SIONAL RECORD OF TUESDAY,OCTOBER 3, 2000 AT PAGE H8699

The following bill was inadvertentlyprinted in the wrong version and ap-pears below in the correct version aspassed by the House.

f

AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INTHE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURYACT OF 2000

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move to sus-pend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S.2045) to amend the Immigration and Nation-

ality Act with respect to H–1B non-immigrant aliens.

The Clerk read as follows:S. 2045

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,

TITLE I—AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESSIN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.This title may be cited as the ‘‘American

Competitiveness in the Twenty-first CenturyAct of 2000’’.SEC. 102. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN VISA ALLOT-

MENTS.(a) FISCAL YEARS 2001–2003.—Section

214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nation-ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is amended—

(1) by redesignating clause (v) as clause(vii); and

(2) by striking clause (iv) and inserting thefollowing:

‘‘(iv) 195,000 in fiscal year 2001;‘‘(v) 195,000 in fiscal year 2002;‘‘(vi) 195,000 in fiscal year 2003; and’’.(b) ADDITIONAL VISAS FOR FISCAL YEARS

1999 AND 2000.—(1) IN GENERAL.—(A) Notwithstanding sec-

tion 214(g)(1)(A)(ii) of the Immigration andNationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)(ii)),the total number of aliens who may be issuedvisas or otherwise provided nonimmigrantstatus under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) ofsuch Act in fiscal year 1999 is increased by anumber equal to the number of aliens whoare issued such a visa or provided such statusduring the period beginning on the date onwhich the limitation in such section214(g)(1)(A)(ii) is reached and ending on Sep-tember 30, 1999.

(B) In the case of any alien on behalf ofwhom a petition for status under section101(a)(15)(H)(I)(b) is filed before September 1,2000, and is subsequently approved, thatalien shall be counted toward the numericalceiling for fiscal year 2000 notwithstandingthe date of the approval of the petition. Not-withstanding section 214(g)(1)(A)(iii) of theImmigration and Nationality Act, the totalnumber of aliens who may be issued visas orotherwise provided nonimmigrant statusunder section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such Actin fiscal year 2000 is increased by a numberequal to the number of aliens who may beissued visas or otherwise provided non-immigrant status who filed a petition duringthe period beginning on the date on whichthe limitation in such section 214(g)(1)(A)(iii)is reached and ending on August 31, 2000.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Paragraph (1) shalltake effect as if included in the enactment ofsection 411 of the American Competitivenessand Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (ascontained in title IV of division C of the Om-nibus Consolidated and Emergency Supple-mental Appropriations Act, 1999; Public Law105–277).SEC. 103. SPECIAL RULE FOR UNIVERSITIES, RE-

SEARCH FACILITIES, AND GRAD-UATE DEGREE RECIPIENTS; COUNT-ING RULES.

Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Na-tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)) is amended byadding at the end the following new para-graphs:

‘‘(5) The numerical limitations containedin paragraph (1)(A) shall not apply to anynonimmigrant alien issued a visa or other-wise provided status under section101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) who is employed (or has re-ceived an offer of employment) at—

‘‘(A) an institution of higher education (asdefined in section 101(a) of the Higher Edu-cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))), or a re-lated or affiliated nonprofit entity; or

‘‘(B) a nonprofit research organization or agovernmental research organization.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H9005October 5, 2000‘‘(6) Any alien who ceases to be employed

by an employer described in paragraph (5)(A)shall, if employed as a nonimmigrant aliendescribed in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), whohas not previously been counted toward thenumerical limitations contained in para-graph (1)(A), be counted toward those limita-tions the first time the alien is employed byan employer other than one described inparagraph (5).

‘‘(7) Any alien who has already been count-ed, within the 6 years prior to the approvalof a petition described in subsection (c), to-ward the numerical limitations of paragraph(1)(A) shall not again be counted towardthose limitations unless the alien would beeligible for a full 6 years of authorized ad-mission at the time the petition is filed.Where multiple petitions are approved for 1alien, that alien shall be counted onlyonce.’’.SEC. 104. LIMITATION ON PER COUNTRY CEILING

WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.

(a) SPECIAL RULES.—Section 202(a) of theImmigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1152(a)) is amended by adding at the end thefollowing new paragraph:

‘‘(5) RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMI-GRANTS.—

‘‘(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOTSUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDI-TIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE.—If the total num-ber of visas available under paragraph (1),(2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a cal-endar quarter exceeds the number of quali-fied immigrants who may otherwise beissued such visas, the visas made availableunder that paragraph shall be issued withoutregard to the numerical limitation underparagraph (2) of this subsection during theremainder of the calendar quarter.

‘‘(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAINCOUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (E).—In thecase of a foreign state or dependent area towhich subsection (e) applies, if the totalnumber of visas issued under section 203(b)exceeds the maximum number of visas thatmay be made available to immigrants of thestate or area under section 203(b) consistentwith subsection (e) (determined without re-gard to this paragraph), in applying sub-section (e) all visas shall be deemed to havebeen required for the classes of aliens speci-fied in section 203(b).’’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Section 202(a)(2) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)) isamended by striking ‘‘paragraphs (3) and (4)’’and inserting ‘‘paragraphs (3), (4), and (5)’’.

(2) Section 202(e)(3) of the Immigration andNationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)(3)) isamended by striking ‘‘the proportion of thevisa numbers’’ and inserting ‘‘except as pro-vided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion ofthe visa numbers’’.

(c) ONE-TIME PROTECTION UNDER PER COUN-TRY CEILING.—Notwithstanding section214(g)(4) of the Immigration and NationalityAct (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(4)), any alien who—

(1) is the beneficiary of a petition filedunder section 204(a) of that Act for a pref-erence status under paragraph (1), (2), or (3)of section 203(b) of that Act; and

(2) is eligible to be granted that status butfor application of the per country limita-tions applicable to immigrants under thoseparagraphs,may apply for, and the Attorney Generalmay grant, an extension of such non-immigrant status until the alien’s applica-tion for adjustment of status has been proc-essed and a decision made thereon.SEC. 105. INCREASED PORTABILITY OF H–1B STA-

TUS.(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 214 of the Immi-

gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) is

amended by adding at the end the followingnew subsection:

‘‘(m)(1) A nonimmigrant alien described inparagraph (2) who was previously issued avisa or otherwise provided nonimmigrantstatus under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) is au-thorized to accept new employment upon thefiling by the prospective employer of a newpetition on behalf of such nonimmigrant asprovided under subsection (a). Employmentauthorization shall continue for such alienuntil the new petition is adjudicated. If thenew petition is denied, such authorizationshall cease.

‘‘(2) A nonimmigrant alien described inthis paragraph is a nonimmigrant alien—

‘‘(A) who has been lawfully admitted intothe United States;

‘‘(B) on whose behalf an employer has fileda nonfrivolous petition for new employmentbefore the date of expiration of the period ofstay authorized by the Attorney General;and

‘‘(C) who, subsequent to such lawful admis-sion, has not been employed without author-ization in the United States before the filingof such petition.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentmade by subsection (a) shall apply to peti-tions filed before, on, or after the date of en-actment of this Act.SEC. 106. SPECIAL PROVISIONS IN CASES OF

LENGTHY ADJUDICATIONS.(a) EXEMPTION FROM LIMITATION.—The lim-

itation contained in section 214(g)(4) of theImmigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1184(g)(4)) with respect to the duration of au-thorized stay shall not apply to any non-immigrant alien previously issued a visa orotherwise provided nonimmigrant statusunder section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of that Acton whose behalf a petition under section204(b) of that Act to accord the alien immi-grant status under section 203(b) of that Act,or an application for adjustment of statusunder section 245 of that Act to accord thealien status under such section 203(b), hasbeen filed, if 365 days or more have elapsedsince—

(1) the filing of a labor certification appli-cation on the alien’s behalf (if such certifi-cation is required for the alien to obtain sta-tus under such section 203(b)); or

(2) the filing of the petition under such sec-tion 204(b).

(b) EXTENSION OF H1–B WORKER STATUS.—The Attorney General shall extend the stayof an alien who qualifies for an exemptionunder subsection (a) in one-year incrementsuntil such time as a final decision is made onthe alien’s lawful permanent residence.

(c) INCREASED JOB FLEXIBILITY FOR LONGDELAYED APPLICANTS FOR ADJUSTMENT OFSTATUS.—

(1) Section 204 of the Immigration and Na-tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) is amended byadding at the end the following new sub-section:

‘‘(j) JOB FLEXIBILITY FOR LONG DELAYEDAPPLICANTS FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TOPERMANENT RESIDENCE.—A petition undersubsection (a)(1)(D) for an individual whoseapplication for adjustment of status pursu-ant to section 245 has been filed and re-mained unadjudicated for 180 days or moreshall remain valid with respect to a new jobif the individual changes jobs or employers ifthe new job is in the same or a similar occu-pational classification as the job for whichthe petition was filed.’’.

(2) Section 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigrationand Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A)) isamended by adding at the end the followingnew clause:

‘‘(iv) LONG DELAYED ADJUSTMENT APPLI-CANTS.—A certification made under clause (i)with respect to an individual whose petitionis covered by section 204(j) shall remain valid

with respect to a new job accepted by the in-dividual after the individual changes jobs oremployers if the new job is in the same or asimilar occupational classification as the jobfor which the certification was issued.’’.

(d) RECAPTURE OF UNUSED EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANT VISAS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding anyother provision of law, the number of em-ployment-based visas (as defined in para-graph (3)) made available for a fiscal year(beginning with fiscal year 2001) shall be in-creased by the number described in para-graph (2). Visas made available under thissubsection shall only be available in a fiscalyear to employment-based immigrants underparagraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act.

(2) NUMBER AVAILABLE.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph

(B), the number described in this paragraphis the difference between the number of em-ployment-based visas that were made avail-able in fiscal year 1999 and 2000 and the num-ber of such visas that were actually used insuch fiscal years.

(B) REDUCTION.—The number described insubparagraph (A) shall be reduced, for eachfiscal year after fiscal year 2001, by the cu-mulative number of immigrant visas actu-ally used under paragraph (1) for previousfiscal years.

(C) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this para-graph shall be construed as affecting the ap-plication of section 201(c)(3)(C) of the Immi-gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1151(c)(3)(C)).

(3) EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISAS DEFINED.—Forpurposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘em-ployment-based visa’’ means an immigrantvisa which is issued pursuant to the numer-ical limitation under section 203(b) of theImmigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1153(b)).SEC. 107. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN REQUIRE-

MENTS AND AUTHORITIESTHROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2002.

(a) ATTESTATION REQUIREMENTS.—Section212(n)(1)(E)(ii)) of the Immigration and Na-tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)(E)(ii)) isamended by striking ‘‘October 1, 2001’’ andinserting ‘‘October 1, 2003’’.

(b) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR INVESTIGATIVEAUTHORITIES.—Section 413(e)(2) of the Amer-ican Competitiveness and Workforce Im-provement Act of 1998 (as contained in titleIV of division C of Public Law 105–277) isamended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2001’’and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2003’’.SEC. 108. RECOVERY OF VISAS USED FRAUDU-

LENTLY.Section 214(g)(3) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184 (g)(3)) isamended to read as follows:

‘‘(3) Aliens who are subject to the numer-ical limitations of paragraph (1) shall beissued visas (or otherwise provided non-immigrant status) in the order in which peti-tions are filed for such visas or status. If analien who was issued a visa or otherwise pro-vided nonimmigrant status and countedagainst the numerical limitations of para-graph (1) is found to have been issued suchvisa or otherwise provided such status byfraud or willfully misrepresenting a materialfact and such visa or nonimmigrant status isrevoked, then one number shall be restoredto the total number of aliens who may beissued visas or otherwise provided such sta-tus under the numerical limitations of para-graph (1) in the fiscal year in which the peti-tion is revoked, regardless of the fiscal yearin which the petition was approved.’’.SEC. 109. NSF STUDY AND REPORT ON THE ‘‘DIG-

ITAL DIVIDE’’.(a) STUDY.—The National Science Founda-

tion shall conduct a study of the divergence


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH9006 October 5, 2000in access to high technology (commonly re-ferred to as the ‘‘digital divide’’) in theUnited States.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 18 monthsafter the date of enactment of this Act, theDirector of the National Science Foundationshall submit a report to Congress settingforth the findings of the study conductedunder subsection (a).SEC. 110. MODIFICATION OF NONIMMIGRANT PE-

TITIONER ACCOUNT PROVISIONS.(a) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—Section 286(s)

of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8U.S.C. 1356(s)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘56.3 per-cent’’ and inserting ‘‘55 percent’’;

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘28.2 per-cent’’ and inserting ‘‘23.5 percent’’;


‘‘(4) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION COM-PETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM FOR K–12 MATH,SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—15 percent of theamounts deposited into the H–1B Non-immigrant Petitioner Account shall remainavailable to the Director of the NationalScience Foundation until expended to carryout a direct or matching grant program tosupport private-public partnerships in K–12education.

‘‘(B) TYPES OF PROGRAMS COVERED.—TheDirector shall award grants to such pro-grams, including those which support the de-velopment and implementation of standards-based instructional materials models and re-lated student assessments that enable K–12students to acquire an understanding ofscience, mathematics, and technology, aswell as to develop critical thinking skills;provide systemic improvement in trainingK–12 teachers and education for students inscience, mathematics, and technology; sup-port the professional development of K–12math and science teachers in the use of tech-nology in the classroom; stimulate system-wide K–12 reform of science, mathematics,and technology in rural, economically dis-advantaged regions of the United States;provide externships and other opportunitiesfor students to increase their appreciationand understanding of science, mathematics,engineering, and technology (including sum-mer institutes sponsored by an institution ofhigher education for students in grades 7–12that provide instruction in such fields); in-volve partnerships of industry, educationalinstitutions, and community organizationsto address the educational needs of disadvan-taged communities; provide college pre-paratory support to expose and prepare stu-dents for careers in science, mathematics,engineering, and technology; and provide forcarrying out systemic reform activitiesunder section 3(a)(1) of the National ScienceFoundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C.1862(a)(1)).’’;

(4) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘6 per-cent’’ and inserting ‘‘5 percent’’; and

(5) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘3 per-cent’’ each place it appears and inserting‘‘2.5 percent’’.

(b) LOW-INCOME SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.—Section 414(d)(3) of the American Competi-tiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of1998 (as contained in title IV of division C ofPublic Law 105–277) is amended by striking‘‘$2,500 per year.’’ and inserting ‘‘$3,125 peryear. The Director may renew scholarshipsfor up to 4 years.’’.

(c) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—Section 414of the American Competitiveness and Work-force Improvement Act of 1998 (as containedin title IV of division C of Public Law 105–277) is amended by adding at the end the fol-lowing new subsection:

‘‘(e) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—The Sec-retary of Labor and the Director of the Na-tional Science Foundation shall—

‘‘(1) track and monitor the performance ofprograms receiving H–1B Nonimmigrant Feegrant money; and

‘‘(2) not later than one year after the dateof enactment of this subsection, submit a re-port to the Committees on the Judiciary ofthe House of Representatives and the Sen-ate—

‘‘(A) the tracking system to monitor theperformance of programs receiving H–1Bgrant funding; and

‘‘(B) the number of individuals who havecompleted training and have entered thehigh-skill workforce through these pro-grams.’’.SEC. 111. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS AND

PROJECTS TO PROVIDE TECHNICALSKILLS TRAINING FOR WORKERS.

Section 414(c) of the American Competi-tiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of1998 (as contained in title IV of division C ofPublic Law 105–277; 112 Stat. 2681–653) isamended to read as follows:

‘‘(c) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS ANDPROJECTS TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL SKILLSTRAINING FOR WORKERS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—‘‘(A) FUNDING.—The Secretary of Labor

shall use funds available under section286(s)(2) of the Immigration and NationalityAct (8 U.S.C. 1356(s)(2)) to establish dem-onstration programs or projects to providetechnical skills training for workers, includ-ing both employed and unemployed workers.

‘‘(B) TRAINING PROVIDED.—Training fundedby a program or project described in sub-paragraph (A) shall be for persons who arecurrently employed and who wish to obtainand upgrade skills as well as for persons whoare unemployed. Such training is not limitedto skill levels commensurate with a four-year undergraduate degree, but should in-clude the preparation of workers for a broadrange of positions along a career ladder. Con-sideration shall be given to the use of grantfunds to demonstrate a significant ability toexpand a training program or projectthrough such means as training more work-ers or offering more courses, and trainingprograms or projects resulting from collabo-rations, especially with more than one smallbusiness or with a labor-management train-ing program or project. The need for thetraining shall be justified through reliableregional, State, or local data.

‘‘(2) GRANTS.—‘‘(A) ELIGIBILITY.—To carry out the pro-

grams and projects described in paragraph(1)(A), the Secretary of Labor shall, in con-sultation with the Secretary of Commerce,subject to the availability of funds in the H–1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account,award—

‘‘(i) 75 percent of the grants to a localworkforce investment board establishedunder section 116(b) or section 117 of theWorkforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C.2832) or consortia of such boards in a region.Each workforce investment board or con-sortia of boards receiving grant funds shallrepresent a local or regional public-privatepartnership consisting of at least—

‘‘(I) one workforce investment board;‘‘(II) one community-based organization or

higher education institution or labor union;and

‘‘(III) one business or business-related non-profit organization such as a trade associa-tion: Provided, That the activities of suchlocal or regional public-private partnershipdescribed in this subsection shall be con-ducted in coordination with the activities ofthe relevant local workforce investmentboard or boards established under the Work-force Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2832);and

‘‘(ii) 25 percent of the grants under the Sec-retary of Labor’s authority to award grants

for demonstration projects or programsunder section 171 of the Workforce Invest-ment Act (29 U.S.C. 2916) to partnershipsthat shall consist of at least 2 businesses ora business-related nonprofit organizationthat represents more than one business, andthat may include any educational, labor,community organization, or workforce in-vestment board, except that such grantfunds may be used only to carry out a strat-egy that would otherwise not be eligible forfunds provided under clause (i), due to bar-riers in meeting those partnership eligibilitycriteria, on a national, multistate, regional,or rural area (such as rural telework pro-grams) basis.

‘‘(B) DESIGNATION OF RESPONSIBLE FISCALAGENTS.—Each partnership formed undersubparagraph (A) shall designate a respon-sible fiscal agent to receive and disbursegrant funds under this subsection.

‘‘(C) PARTNERSHIP CONSIDERATIONS.—Con-sideration in the awarding of grants shall begiven to any partnership that involves anddirectly benefits more than one small busi-ness (each consisting of 100 employees orless).

‘‘(D) ALLOCATION OF GRANTS.—In makinggrants under this paragraph, the Secretaryshall make every effort to fairly distributegrants across rural and urban areas, andacross the different geographic regions of theUnited States. The total amount of grantsawarded to carry out programs and projectsdescribed in paragraph (1)(A) shall be allo-cated as follows:

‘‘(i) At least 80 percent of the grants shallbe awarded to programs and projects thattrain employed and unemployed workers inskills in high technology, information tech-nology, and biotechnology, including skillsneeded for software and communicationsservices, telecommunications, systems in-stallation and integration, computers andcommunications hardware, advanced manu-facturing, health care technology, bio-technology and biomedical research andmanufacturing, and innovation services.

‘‘(ii) No more than 20 percent of the grantsshall be available to programs and projectsthat train employed and unemployed work-ers for skills related to any single specialtyoccupation, as defined in section 214(i) of theImmigration and Nationality Act.

‘‘(3) START-UP FUNDS.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in

subparagraph (B), not more than 5 percent ofany single grant, or not to exceed $75,000,whichever is less, may be used toward thestart-up costs of partnerships or new train-ing programs and projects.

‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—In the case of partner-ships consisting primarily of small busi-nesses, not more than 10 percent of any sin-gle grant, or $150,000, whichever is less, maybe used toward the start-up costs of partner-ships or new training programs and projects.

‘‘(C) DURATION OF START-UP PERIOD.—Forpurposes of this subsection, a start-up periodconsists of a period of not more than 2months after the grant period begins, atwhich time training shall immediately beginand no further Federal funds may be used forstart-up purposes.

‘‘(4) TRAINING OUTCOMES.—‘‘(A) CONSIDERATION FOR CERTAIN PROGRAMS

AND PROJECTS.—Consideration in the award-ing of grants shall be given to applicantsthat provide a specific, measurable commit-ment upon successful completion of a train-ing course, to—

‘‘(i) hire or effectuate the hiring of unem-ployed trainees (where applicable);

‘‘(ii) increase the wages or salary of incum-bent workers (where applicable); and

‘‘(iii) provide skill certifications to train-ees or link the training to industry-accepted


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H9007October 5, 2000occupational skill standards, certificates, orlicensing requirements.

‘‘(B) REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANT APPLICA-TIONS.—Applications for grants shall—

‘‘(i) articulate the level of skills that work-ers will be trained for and the manner bywhich attainment of those skills will bemeasured;

‘‘(ii) include an agreement that the pro-gram or project shall be subject to evalua-tion by the Secretary of Labor to measureits effectiveness; and

‘‘(iii) in the case of an application for agrant under subsection (c)(2)(A)(ii), explainwhat barriers prevent the strategy frombeing implemented through a grant madeunder subsection (c)(2)(A)(i).

‘‘(5) MATCHING FUNDS.—Each applicationfor a grant to carry out a program or projectdescribed in paragraph (1)(A) shall state themanner by which the partnership will pro-vide non-Federal matching resources (cash,or in-kind contributions, or both) equal to atleast 50 percent of the total grant amountawarded under paragraph (2)(A)(i), and atleast 100 percent of the total grant amountawarded under paragraph (2)(A)(ii). At leastone-half of the non-Federal matching fundsshall be from the business or businesses orbusiness-related nonprofit organizations in-volved. Consideration in the award of grantsshall be given to applicants that provide aspecific commitment or commitments of re-sources from other public or private sources,or both, so as to demonstrate the long-termsustainability of the training program orproject after the grant expires.

‘‘(6) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—An entitythat receives a grant to carry out a programor project described in paragraph (1)(A) maynot use more than 10 percent of the amountof the grant to pay for administrative costsassociated with the program or project.’’.SEC. 112. KIDS 2000 CRIME PREVENTION AND

COMPUTER EDUCATION INITIATIVE.(a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be

cited as the ‘‘Kids 2000 Act’’.(b) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the fol-

lowing findings:(1) There is an increasing epidemic of juve-

nile crime throughout the United States.(2) It is well documented that the majority

of juvenile crimes take place during after-school hours.

(3) Knowledge of technology is becomingincreasingly necessary for children in schooland out of school.

(4) The Boys and Girls Clubs of Americahave 2,700 clubs throughout all 50 States,serving over 3,000,000 boys and girls pri-marily from at-risk communities.

(5) The Boys and Girls Clubs of Americahave the physical structures in place for im-mediate implementation of an after-schooltechnology program.

(6) Building technology centers and pro-viding integrated content and full-time staff-ing at those centers in the Boys and GirlsClubs of America nationwide will help fostereducation, job training, and an alternativeto crime for at-risk youth.

(7) Partnerships between the public sectorand the private sector are an effective way ofproviding after-school technology programsin the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.

(8) PowerUp: Bridging the Digital Divide isan entity comprised of more than a dozennonprofit organizations, major corporations,and Federal agencies that have joined to-gether to launch a major new initiative tohelp ensure that America’s underservedyoung people acquire the skills, experiences,and resources they need to succeed in thedigital age.

(9) Bringing PowerUp into the Boys andGirls Clubs of America will be an effectiveway to ensure that our youth have a safe,crime-free environment in which to learn the

technological skills they need to close thedivide between young people who have accessto computer-based information and tech-nology-related skills and those who do not.

(c) AFTER-SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY GRANTS TOTHE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA.—

(1) PURPOSES.—The Attorney General shallmake grants to the Boys and Girls Clubs ofAmerica for the purpose of funding effectiveafter-school technology programs, such asPowerUp, in order to provide—

(A) constructive technology-focused activi-ties that are part of a comprehensive pro-gram to provide access to technology andtechnology training to youth during after-school hours, weekends, and school vaca-tions;

(B) supervised activities in safe environ-ments for youth; and

(C) full-time staffing with teachers, tutors,and other qualified personnel.

(2) SUBAWARDS.—The Boys and Girls Clubsof America shall make subawards to localboys and girls clubs authorizing expendituresassociated with providing technology pro-grams such as PowerUp, including the hiringof teachers and other personnel, procure-ment of goods and services, including com-puter equipment, or such other purposes asare approved by the Attorney General.

(d) APPLICATIONS.—(1) ELIGIBILITY.—In order to be eligible to

receive a grant under this section, an appli-cant for a subaward (specified in subsection(c)(2)) shall submit an application to theBoys and Girls Clubs of America, in suchform and containing such information as theAttorney General may reasonably require.

(2) APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.—Each ap-plication submitted in accordance with para-graph (1) shall include—

(A) a request for a subgrant to be used forthe purposes of this section;

(B) a description of the communities to beserved by the grant, including the nature ofjuvenile crime, violence, and drug use in thecommunities;

(C) written assurances that Federal fundsreceived under this section will be used tosupplement and not supplant, non-Federalfunds that would otherwise be available foractivities funded under this section;

(D) written assurances that all activitiesfunded under this section will be supervisedby qualified adults;

(E) a plan for assuring that program activi-ties will take place in a secure environmentthat is free of crime and drugs;

(F) a plan outlining the utilization of con-tent-based programs such as PowerUp, andthe provision of trained adult personnel tosupervise the after-school technology train-ing; and

(G) any additional statistical or financialinformation that the Boys and Girls Clubs ofAmerica may reasonably require.

(e) GRANT AWARDS.—In awarding subgrantsunder this section, the Boys and Girls Clubsof America shall consider—

(1) the ability of the applicant to providethe intended services;

(2) the history and establishment of the ap-plicant in providing youth activities; and

(3) the extent to which services will be pro-vided in crime-prone areas and techno-logically underserved populations, and ef-forts to achieve an equitable geographic dis-tribution of the grant awards.

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be

appropriated $20,000,000 for each of the fiscalyears 2001 through 2006 to carry out this sec-tion.

(2) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—Funds to carry outthis section may be derived from the ViolentCrime Reduction Trust Fund.

(3) CONTINUED AVAILABILITY.—Amountsmade available under this subsection shallremain available until expended.SEC. 113. USE OF FEES FOR DUTIES RELATING TO

PETITIONS.(a) Section 286(s)(5) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(s)(5)) is amend-ed to read as follows: ‘‘4 percent of theamounts deposited into the H–1B Non-immigrant Petitioner Account shall remainavailable to the Attorney General until ex-pended to carry out duties under paragraphs(1) and (9) of section 214(c) related to peti-tions made for nonimmigrants described insection 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), under paragraph(1) (C) or (D) of section 204 related to peti-tions for immigrants described in section203(b).’’.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision ofthis Act, the figure on page 14, line 16 isdeemed to be ‘‘22 percent’’; the figure onpage 16, line 14 is deemed to be ‘‘4 percent’’;and the figure on page 16, line 16 is deemedto be ‘‘2 percent’’.SEC. 114. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ‘‘J’’ NON-

IMMIGRANTS FROM NUMERICALLIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO ‘‘H-1B’’NONIMMMIGRANTS.

The numerical limitations contained insection 102 of this title shall not apply toany nonimmigrant alien granted a waiverthat is subject to the limitation contained inparagraph (1)(B) of the first section 214(l) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (relat-ing to restrictions on waivers).SEC. 115. STUDY AND REPORT ON THE ‘‘DIGITAL

DIVIDE’’.(a) STUDY.—The Secretary of Commerce

shall conduct a review of existing public andprivate high-tech workforce training pro-grams in the United States.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 18 monthsafter the date of enactment of this Act, theSecretary of Commerce shall submit a reportto Congress setting forth the findings of thestudy conducted under subsection (a).SEC. 116. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this title (or anyamendment made by this title) or the appli-cation thereof to any person or circumstanceis held invalid, the remainder of the title(and the amendments made by this title) andthe application of such provision to anyother person or circumstance shall not be af-fected thereby. This section be enacted 2days after effective date.

TITLE II—IMMIGRATION SERVICES ANDINFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.This title may be cited as the ‘‘Immigra-

tion Services and Infrastructure Improve-ments Act of 2000’’.SEC. 202. PURPOSES.

(a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this titleare to—

(1) provide the Immigration and Natu-ralization Service with the mechanisms itneeds to eliminate the current backlog inthe processing of immigration benefit appli-cations within 1 year after enactment of thisAct and to maintain the elimination of thebacklog in future years; and

(2) provide for regular congressional over-sight of the performance of the Immigrationand Naturalization Service in eliminatingthe backlog and processing delays in immi-gration benefits adjudications.

(b) POLICY.—It is the sense of Congressthat the processing of an immigration ben-efit application should be completed notlater than 180 days after the initial filing ofthe application, except that a petition for anonimmigrant visa under section 214(c) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act shouldbe processed not later than 30 days after thefiling of the petition.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH9008 October 5, 2000SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:(1) BACKLOG.—The term ‘‘backlog’’ means,

with respect to an immigration benefit ap-plication, the period of time in excess of 180days that such application has been pendingbefore the Immigration and NaturalizationService.

(2) IMMIGRATION BENEFIT APPLICATION.—Theterm ‘‘immigration benefit application’’means any application or petition to confer,certify, change, adjust, or extend any statusgranted under the Immigration and Nation-ality Act.SEC. 204. IMMIGRATION SERVICES AND INFRA-

STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT AC-COUNT.

(a) AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY GEN-ERAL.—The Attorney General shall take suchmeasures as may be necessary to—

(1) reduce the backlog in the processing ofimmigration benefit applications, with theobjective of the total elimination of thebacklog not later than one year after thedate of enactment of this Act;

(2) make such other improvements in theprocessing of immigration benefit applica-tions as may be necessary to ensure that abacklog does not develop after such date; and

(3) make such improvements in infrastruc-ture as may be necessary to effectively pro-vide immigration services.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be

appropriated to the Department of Justicefrom time to time such sums as may be nec-essary for the Attorney General to carry outsubsection (a).

(2) DESIGNATION OF ACCOUNT IN TREASURY.—Amounts appropriated pursuant to para-graph (1) may be referred to as the ‘‘Immi-gration Services and Infrastructure Improve-ments Account’’.

(3) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—Amounts ap-propriated pursuant to paragraph (1) are au-thorized to remain available until expended.

(4) LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES.—None ofthe funds appropriated pursuant to para-graph (1) may be expended until the reportdescribed in section 205(a) has been sub-mitted to Congress.SEC. 205. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) BACKLOG ELIMINATION PLAN.—(1) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 90

days after the date of enactment of this Act,the Attorney General shall submit a reportto the Committees on the Judiciary and Ap-propriations of the Senate and the House ofRepresentatives concerning—

(A) the backlogs in immigration benefitapplications in existence as of the date of en-actment of this title; and

(B) the Attorney General’s plan for elimi-nating such backlogs.

(2) REPORT ELEMENTS.—The report shall in-clude—

(A) an assessment of the data systems usedin adjudicating and reporting on the statusof immigration benefit applications, includ-ing—

(i) a description of the adequacy of existingcomputer hardware, computer software, andother mechanisms to comply with the adju-dications and reporting requirements of thistitle; and

(ii) a plan for implementing improvementsto existing data systems to accomplish thepurpose of this title, as described in section202(a);

(B) a description of the quality controls tobe put into force to ensure timely, fair, accu-rate, and complete processing and adjudica-tion of such applications;

(C) the elements specified in subsection(b)(2);

(D) an estimate of the amount of appro-priated funds that would be necessary in

order to eliminate the backlogs in each cat-egory of immigration benefit applicationsdescribed in subsection (b)(2); and

(E) a detailed plan on how the AttorneyGeneral will use any funds in the Immigra-tion Services and Infrastructure Improve-ments Account to comply with the purposesof this title.

(b) ANNUAL REPORTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Beginning 90 days after

the end of the first fiscal year for which anyappropriation authorized by section 204(b) ismade, and 90 days after the end of each fiscalyear thereafter, the Attorney General shallsubmit a report to the Committees on theJudiciary and Appropriations of the Senateand the House of Representatives concerningthe status of—

(A) the Immigration Services and Infra-structure Improvements Account includingany unobligated balances of appropriationsin the Account; and

(B) the Attorney General’s efforts to elimi-nate backlogs in any immigration benefitapplication described in paragraph (2).

(2) REPORT ELEMENTS.—The report shall in-clude—

(A) State-by-State data on—(i) the number of naturalization cases adju-

dicated in each quarter of each fiscal year;(ii) the average processing time for natu-

ralization applications;(iii) the number of naturalization applica-

tions pending for up to 6 months, 12 months,18 months, 24 months, 36 months, and 48months or more;

(iv) estimated processing times adjudi-cating newly submitted naturalization appli-cations;

(v) an analysis of the appropriate proc-essing times for naturalization applications;and

(vi) the additional resources and processchanges needed to eliminate the backlog fornaturalization adjudications;

(B) the status of applications or, where ap-plicable, petitions described in subparagraph(C), by Immigration and NaturalizationService district, including—

(i) the number of cases adjudicated in eachquarter of each fiscal year;

(ii) the average processing time for suchapplications or petitions;

(iii) the number of applications or peti-tions pending for up to 6 months, 12 months,18 months, 24 months, 36 months, and 48months or more;

(iv) the estimated processing times adjudi-cating newly submitted applications or peti-tions;

(v) an analysis of the appropriate proc-essing times for applications or petitions;and

(vi) a description of the additional re-sources and process changes needed to elimi-nate the backlog for such processing and ad-judications; and

(C) a status report on—(i) applications for adjustments of status

to that of an alien lawfully admitted for per-manent residence;

(ii) petitions for nonimmigrant visas undersection 214 of the Immigration and Nation-ality Act;

(iii) petitions filed under section 204 ofsuch Act to classify aliens as immediate rel-atives or preference immigrants under sec-tion 203 of such Act;

(iv) applications for asylum under section208 of such Act;

(v) registrations for Temporary ProtectedStatus under section 244 of such Act; and

(vi) a description of the additional re-sources and process changes needed to elimi-nate the backlog for such processing and ad-judications.

(3) ABSENCE OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS.—Inthe event that no funds are appropriated sub-

ject to section 204(b) in the fiscal year inwhich this Act is enacted, the Attorney Gen-eral shall submit a report to Congress notlater than 90 days after the end of such fiscalyear, and each fiscal year thereafter, con-taining the elements described in paragraph(2).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The questionis on the motion offered by the gentlemanfrom Utah (Mr. CANNON) that the House sus-pend the rules and pass the Senate bill S.2045.

The question was taken; and (two-thirdshaving voted in favor thereof) the rules weresuspended and the Senate bill was passed.

A motion to reconsider was laid on thetable.

f

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTEDBy unanimous consent, permission to

address the House, following the legis-lative program and any special ordersheretofore entered, was granted to:

(The following Members (at the re-quest of Mr. STENHOLM) to revise andextend their remarks and include ex-traneous material:)

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

Mr. PALLONE, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. FILNER, for 5 minutes, today.Ms. STABENOW, for 5 minutes, today.(The following Members (at the re-

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana, for 5 minutes,today, and October 6, 10, 11, 12, and 13.

Mr. DUNCAN, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. SOUDER, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. GEKAS, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. MICA, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, for 5

minutes, today.(The following Members (at their own

request) to revise and extend their re-marks and include extraneous mate-rial:)

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, for5 minutes, today.

f

ENROLLED BILLS AND A JOINTRESOLUTION SIGNED

Mr. THOMAS, from the Committeeon House Administration, reportedthat that committee had examined andfound truly enrolled bills and a jointresolution of the House of the followingtitles, which were thereupon signed bythe Speaker:

H.R. 1800. To amend the Violent CrimeControl and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 toensure that certain information regardingprisoners is reported to the Attorney Gen-eral.

H.R. 2752. To direct the Secretary of the In-terior to sell certain public land in LincolnCounty through a competitive process.

H.R. 2773. To amend the Wild and ScenicRivers Act to designate the Wekiva Riverand its tributaries of Wekiwa Springs Run,Rock Springs Run, and Black Water Creek inthe State of Florida as components of thenational wild and scenic rivers system.

H.R. 4579. To provide for the exchange ofcertain lands within the State of Utah.

H.R. 4583. To extend the authorization forthe Air Force Memorial Foundation to estab-lish a memorial in the District of Columbiaor its environs.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H9009October 5, 2000H.J. Res. 110. Making further continuing

appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, andfor other purposes.

f

SENATE ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

The SPEAKER announced his signa-ture to enrolled bills of the Senate ofthe following titles:

S. 366. An act to amend the National TrailsSystem Act to designate El Camino Real deTierra Adentro as a National Historic Trail.

S. 1198. An act to establish a 3-year pilotproject for the General Accounting Office toreport to Congress on economically signifi-cant rules of Federal agencies, and for otherpurposes.

S. 2045. An act to amend the Immigrationand Nationality Act with respect to H–1Bnonimmigrant aliens.

S. 2272. An act to improve the administra-tive efficiency and effectiveness of the Na-tion’s abuse and neglect courts and for otherpurposes consistent with the Adoption andSafe Families Act of 1997.

f

BILL PRESENTED TO THEPRESIDENT

Mr. THOMAS, from the Committeeon House Administration, reportedthat that committee did on this daypresent to the President, for his ap-proval, a bill of the House of the fol-lowing title:

H.R. 4365. To amend the Public HealthService Act with respect to children’shealth.

f

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I movethat the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accord-ingly (at 11 o’clock and 8 minutesp.m.), the House adjourned until Fri-day, October 6, 2000, at 9 a.m.

f

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS,ETC.

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

10460. A letter from the Acting ExecutiveDirector, Commodity Futures Trading Com-mission, transmitting the Commission’sfinal rule—Profile Documents for Com-modity Pools (RIN: 3038–AB60) received Octo-ber 4, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);to the Committee on Agriculture.

10461. A letter from the Director, Office ofManagement and Budget, transmitting a re-port on the Cost Estimate for Pay-As-You-Go Calculations; to the Committee on theBudget.

10462. A letter from the Director, Office onManagement and Budget, transmitting a re-port on the Estimates Contained in P.L. 106–259 Department of Defense AppropriationsAct, FY 2001; to the Committee on the Budg-et.

10463. A letter from the Special Assistant,Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communica-tions Commission, transmitting the Com-mission’s final rule—Amendment of Section73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM BroadcastStations (Rocksprings, Texas) [MM DocketNo. 99–336; RM–9758] received October 2, 2000,pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Com-mittee on Commerce.

10464. A letter from the Special Assistantto the Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau,

Federal Communications Commission, trans-mitting the Commission’s final rule—Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Al-lotments, FM Broadcast Stations. (Bristol,Vermont) [MM Docket No. 99–260; RM–9686]received October 2, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.

10465. A letter from the Special Assistantto the Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau,Federal Communications Commission, trans-mitting the Commission’s final rule—Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Al-lotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Sheffield,Pennsylvania) [MM Docket No. 00–60; RM–9827] (Erie, Illinois) [MM Docket No. 00–61;RM–9840] (Due West, South Carolina) [MMDocket No. 00–62; RM–9846] received October2, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); tothe Committee on Commerce.

10466. A letter from the Special Assistantto the Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau,Federal Communications Commission, trans-mitting the Commission’s final rule—Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Al-lotments, FM Broadcast Stations. (Jackson-ville, Georgia) [MM Docket No. 00–84; RM–9855] (Las Vegas, New Mexico) [MM DocketNo. 00–85; RM–9868] (Vale, Oregon) [MMDocket No. 00–86; RM–9869] (Waynesboro,Georgia) [MM Docket No. 00–89; RM–9872](Fallon, Nevada) [MM Docket No. 00–111;RM–9900] (Weiser, Oregon) [MM Docket No.00–112; RM–9901] received October 2, 2000, pur-suant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Com-mittee on Commerce.

10467. A letter from the Special Assistantto the Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau,Federal Communications Commission, trans-mitting the Commission’s final rule—Amendment of section 73.202(b), Table of Al-lotments, FM Broadcast Stations. (Pitkin,Lake Charles, Moss Bluff, and Reeves, Lou-isiana, and Crystal Beach, Galveston, Mis-souri City, and Rosenberg, Texas.) [MMDocket No. 99–26; RM–9436; RM–9651; RM–9652] received October 2, 2000, pursuant to 5U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee onCommerce.

10468. A letter from the Chief, Policy andRules Division, Federal CommunicationsCommission, transmitting the Commission’sfinal rule—Amendment of Part 15 of theCommission’s Rules Regarding Spread Spec-trum Devices [ET Docket No. 99–231] receivedOctober 2, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.

10469. A letter from the Associate BureauChief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,Federal Communications Commission, trans-mitting the Commission’s final rule—Revi-sion of the Commission’s Rules To EnsureCompatibility with Enhanced 911 EmergencyCalling Systems [CC Docket No. 94–102] re-ceived October 2, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.

10470. A letter from the Special Assistantto the Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau,Federal Communications Commission, trans-mitting the Commission’s final rule—Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Al-lotments, FM Broadcast Station (Andalusia,Alabama and Holt, Florida) [MM Docket No.00–17; RM–9814] received October 2, 2000, pur-suant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Com-mittee on Commerce.

10471. A letter from the Special Assistantto the Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau,Federal Communications Commission, trans-mitting the Commission’s final rule—Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Al-lotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Rangley,Silverton and Ridgway, Colorado) [MMDocket No. 99–151, RM–9559, RM–9932] re-ceived October 2, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.

10472. A letter from the Assistant Sec-retary for Legislative Affairs, Department ofState, transmitting certification of a pro-

posed Manufacturing License Agreementwith Italy [Transmittal No. DTC 127–00], pur-suant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(d); to the Committeeon International Relations.

10473. A letter from the Assistant LegalAdviser for Treaty Affairs, Department ofState, transmitting Copies of internationalagreements, other than treaties, entered intoby the United States, pursuant to 1 U.S.C.112b(a); to the Committee on InternationalRelations.

10474. A letter from the Auditor, District ofColumbia, transmitting a copy of a reportentitled ‘‘Audit of the Advisory Neighbor-hood Commission 3B for the period October1, 1997 through December 31, 1999,’’ pursuantto D.C. Code section 47–117(d); to the Com-mittee on Government Reform.

10475. A letter from the Auditor, District ofColumbia, transmitting a copy of a reportentitled ‘‘Certification of the Fiscal Year2000 Revised Revenue Estimate of$3,225,180,000 in Support of the District’s $189Million Multimodal General ObligationBONDs,’’ pursuant to D.C. Code section 47–117(d); to the Committee on Government Re-form.

10476. A letter from the Chairman, Con-sumer Product Safety Commission, trans-mitting a report on the revised StrategicPlan; to the Committee on Government Re-form.

10477. A letter from the Attorney General,Department of Justice, transmitting a reporton the Strategic Plan for 2000–2005; to theCommittee on Government Reform.

10478. A letter from the Acting Secretary,Department of Veterans Affairs, transmit-ting a report on the Strategic Plan 2001–2006;to the Committee on Government Reform.

10479. A letter from the The Administrator,Environmental Protection Agency, transmit-ting a report on the Strategic Plan for FY2000–2005; to the Committee on GovernmentReform.

10480. A letter from the Chairman, FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, transmit-ting a report on the Strategic Plan for 2000–2005; to the Committee on Government Re-form.

10481. A letter from the Chairman, FederalTrade Commission, transmitting a report onthe Strategic Plan for FY 2000–2005; to theCommittee on Government Reform.

10482. A letter from the Executive Director,Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation,transmitting a report on the five-year Stra-tegic/Operational Plan for FY 2000–2005; tothe Committee on Government Reform.

10483. A letter from the Director, Office ofPersonnel Management, transmitting a re-port on the 2000 Inventory of Commercial Ac-tivities; to the Committee on GovernmentReform.

10484. A letter from the Director, Office ofPersonnel Management, transmitting a re-port on the Federal Human Resources Man-agement for the 21st century Strategic PlanFY 2000–2005; to the Committee on Govern-ment Reform.

10485. A letter from the Secretary of Labor,transmitting a report on the Strategic Planfor 1999–2004; to the Committee on Govern-ment Reform.

10486. A letter from the Chairman, Ten-nessee Valley Authority, transmitting acopy of the annual report in compliance withthe Government in the Sunshine Act duringthe calendar year 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.552b(j); to the Committee on Government Re-form.

10487. A letter from the Acting Director,Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion, transmitting the Administration’s finalrule—Atlantic Highly Migratory SpeciesFisheries; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna [I.D.081600A] received October 3, 2000, pursuant to


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH9010 October 5, 20005 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee onResources.

10488. A letter from the Acting AssociateAdministrator for Procurement, NationalAeronautics and Space Administration,transmitting the Administration’s finalrule—Acquisition of Training Services—re-ceived October 2, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Science.

10489. A letter from the Chief, RegulationsUnit, Internal Revenue Service, transmittingthe Service’s final rule—Monthly Limit forTransit Passes and Transportation in a Com-muter Highway Vehicle Provided by an Em-ployer to Employees Under Section 132(f) ofthe Internal Revenue Code [Announcement2000–78] received October 4, 2000, pursuant to5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee onWays and Means.

10490. A letter from the Chief, RegulationsUnit, Internal Revenue Services, transmit-ting the Service’s final rule—Automatic ap-proval of changes in funding methods [Rev.Procedure 2000–40] received October 3, 2000,pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Com-mittee on Ways and Means.

10491. A letter from the Chairman, UnitedStates International Trade Commission,transmitting the annual report on the im-pact of the Andean Trade Preference Act onU.S. Industries and Consumers and on DrugCrop Eradication and Crop Substitution, pur-suant to 19 U.S.C. 3204; to the Committee onWays and Means.

10492. A letter from the Acting Director ofCommunications and Legislative Affairs,Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-sion, transmitting a report on the Employ-ment of Minorities, Women and People withDisabilities in the Federal Government;jointly to the Committees on GovernmentReform and Education and the Workforce.

f

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ONPUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONSUnder clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of

committees were delivered to the Clerkfor printing and reference to the propercalendar, as follows:

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Re-sources. H.R. 3241. A bill to direct the Sec-retary of the Interior to recalculate the fran-chise fee owed by Fort Sumter Tours, Inc., aconcessioner providing service to FortSumpter National Monument in South Caro-lina, and for other purposes; with an amend-ment (Rept. 106–937). Referred to the Com-mittee of the Whole House on the State ofthe Union.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Re-sources. S. 1936. An act to authorize the Sec-retary of Agriculture to sell or exchange allor part of certain administrative sites andother National Forest System land in theState of Oregon and use the proceeds derivedfrom the sale or exchange for National For-est System purposes; with an amendment(Rept. 106–938). Referred to the Committee ofthe Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey: Committee ofConference. Conference report on H.R. 3244.A bill to combat trafficking on persons, espe-cially into the sex trade, slavery, and slav-ery-like conditions in the United States andcountries around the world through preven-tion, through prosecution and enforcementagainst traffickers, and through protectionand assistance to victims of trafficking(Rept. 106–939). Ordered to be printed.

Mr. WOLF: Committee of Conference. Con-ference report on H.R. 4475. A bill making ap-propriations for the Department of Transpor-tation and related agencies for the fiscalyear ending September 30, 2001, and for otherpurposes (Rept. 106–940). Ordered to be print-ed.

Mr. REYNOLDS: Committee on Rules.House Resolution 612. Resolution waivingpoints of order against the conference reportto accompany the bill (H.R. 4475) making ap-propriations for the Department of Transpor-tation and related agencies for the fiscalyear ending September 30, 2001, and for otherpurposes (Rept. 106–941). Referred to theHouse Calendar.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio: Committee on Rules.House Resolution 613. Resolution waivingpoints of order against the conference reportto accompany the bill (H.R. 3244) to combattrafficking of persons, especially into the sextrade, slavery, and slavery-like conditions inthe United States and countries around theworld through prevention, through prosecu-tion and enforcement against traffickers,and through protection and assistance tovictims of trafficking (Rept. 106–942). Re-ferred to the House Calendar.

f

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XII, publicbills and resolutions were introducedand severally referred, as follows:

By Mr. WELLER:H.R. 5389. A bill to authorize the Secretary

of the Army to convey certain real propertyin the city of Joliet, Illinois, to the JolietPark District for use as the park district’sheadquarters; to the Committee on Trans-portation and Infrastructure.

By Mr. BILBRAY:H.R. 5390. A bill to amend the Nazi War

Crimes Disclosure Act to extend the exist-ence of the interagency working group estab-lished under that Act, and to clarify the au-thority of that group and the application ofthat Act regarding records pertaining to theImperial Government of Japan; to the Com-mittee on Government Reform.

By Mr. ROHRABACHER:H.R. 5391. A bill to establish the White

House Commission on the National Momentof Remembrance; to the Committee on Gov-ernment Reform.

By Mr. TALENT (for himself and Mr.CRANE):

H.R. 5392. A bill to amend title XVIII of theSocial Security Act to provide relief forsmall business concerns from Medicare con-solidated billing requirements and to excludeservices of certain providers from the skillednursing facility prospective payment sys-tem, and for other purposes; to the Com-mittee on Commerce, and in addition to theCommittee on Ways and Means, 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. MCCOLLUM (for himself andMs. BALDWIN):

H.R. 5393. A bill to amend title 18, UnitedStates Code, to provide a criminal penaltyfor the unauthorized placement of a writingwith a consumer product, and for other pur-poses; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. WOLF:H.R. 5394. A bill making appropriations for

the Department of Transportation and re-lated agencies for the fiscal year ending Sep-tember 30, 2001, and for other purposes; tothe Committee on Appropriations.

By Mrs. CAPPS (for herself and Mr.WU):

H.R. 5395. A bill to provide for qualifiedwithdrawals from the Capital ConstructionFund (CCF) for fishermen leaving the indus-try and for the rollover of Capital Construc-tion Funds to individual retirement plans; tothe Committee on Ways and Means, 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. DIAZ-BALART:H.R. 5396. A bill to amend section 81 of the

Tariff Act of 1930 to amend the definition ofa foreign trade zone operator, and for otherpurposes; to the Committee on Ways andMeans.

By Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mr. LA-FALCE, Mr. EVANS, Mr. ABERCROMBIE,Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr.BAIRD, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BARRETT ofNebraska, Mr. BARTLETT of Mary-land, Mr. BECERRA, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr.BERRY, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr.BLUMENAUER, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr.BONIOR, Mrs. BONO, Mr. BORSKI, Mr.BRADY of Pennsylvania, Ms. BROWN ofFlorida, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. CAN-NON, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CAPUANO, Ms.CARSON, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mrs.CLAYTON, Mr. CONDIT, Mr. COYNE, Mr.CRAMER, Ms. DANNER, Mr. DAVIS of Il-linois, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. DICKS, Mr.DINGELL, Mr. DIXON, Mr. ETHERIDGE,Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. FARR ofCalifornia, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FORBES,Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr.FROST, Mr. GEJDENSON, Mr.GALLEGLY, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. GON-ZALEZ, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. GORDON,Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. GUTIERREZ,Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. HASTINGS ofFlorida, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. HOLDEN,Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. JEFFER-SON, Mr. JENKINS, Mrs. JONES of Ohio,Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Ms.KAPTUR, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. KENNEDY ofRhode Island, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. KIND,Mr. KLINK, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr.LARSON, Mr. LATOURETTE, Ms. LEE,Mr. LEVIN, Ms. LOFGREN, Mrs. LOWEY,Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Ms.MCCARTHY of Missouri, Mr.MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr.MCINTYRE, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr.MCNULTY, Mrs. MALONEY of NewYork, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. MASCARA,Mr. MATSUI, Mr. MEEHAN, Mrs. MEEKof Florida, Mr. MEEKS of New York,Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. METCALF, Mr.MICA, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mr.GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr.MOORE, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr.MURTHA, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. NEALof Massachusetts, Mr. NEY, Ms. NOR-TON, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. OBEY, Mr.ORTIZ, Mr. OWENS, Mr. PACKARD, Mr.PALLONE, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. PAYNE,Ms. PELOSI, Mr. PETERSON of Min-nesota, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsyl-vania, Mr. PHELPS, Mr. POMEROY, Mr.PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. RAHALL,Mr. RANGEL, Mr. REYES, Mr.RODRIGUEZ, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr.ROMERO-BARCELO, Mrs. ROUKEMA, Ms.ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. RUSH, Mr.SANDERS, Mr. SANDLIN, Ms.SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCOTT, Mr.SERRANO, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. SHERMAN,Mr. SHOWS, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr.SMITH of Washington, Mr. SMITH ofNew Jersey, Mr. SNYDER, Mr. SPRATT,Ms. STABENOW, Mr. STARK, Mr.STEARNS, Mr. STRICKLAND, Mr. STU-PAK, Mr. SWEENEY, Mrs. TAUSCHER,Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, Mr.THOMPSON of California, Mr. THUNE,Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. UDALLof Colorado, Mr. WALDEN of Oregon,Mr. WAMP, Ms. WATERS, Mr.WEYGAND, Mr. WISE, Ms. WOOLSEY,Mr. WU, and Mr. WYNN):

H.R. 5397. A bill to require the Secretary ofthe Treasury to mint coins in commemora-tion of veterans of the Armed Forces of the

VerDate 02-OCT-2000 07:22 Oct 06, 2000 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\L05OC7.000 pfrm02 PsN: H05PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H9011October 5, 2000United States and to use the proceeds of sur-charges imposed on the sale of such coins tofund the transportation of veterans to andfrom hospitals administered by the Sec-retary of Veterans Affairs; to the Committeeon Banking and Financial Services.

By Mr. JOHN:H.R. 5398. A bill to provide that land which

is owned by the Coushatta Tribe of Lou-isiana but which is not held in trust by theUnited States for the Tribe may be leased ortransferred by the Tribe without further ap-proval by the United States; to the Com-mittee on Resources.

By Mr. LOBIONDO:H.R. 5399. A bill to authorize the Secretary

of the Interior to study the suitability andfeasibility of designating the Abel and MaryNicholson House located in Elsinboro Town-ship, Salem County, New Jersey, as a unit ofthe National Park System, and for otherpurposes; to the Committee on Resources.

By Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma (for him-self and Mr. WATKINS):

H.R. 5400. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-enue Code of 1986 to modify the retail tax onheavy trucks and trailers to exclude tractorssuitable for use with vehicles weighing 33,000pounds or less; to the Committee on Waysand Means.

By Mr. MOORE (for himself, Mr. WAT-KINS, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, Mr.STENHOLM, Mr. SISISKY, Mr. CONDIT,Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, Mr.CRAMER, Mr. BISHOP, Mr. POMEROY,Mr. SCOTT, Ms. MCCARTHY of Mis-souri, Mr. BERRY, Mr. JOHN, Mr.SANDLIN, Mr. TURNER, and Mr.SHOWS):

H.R. 5401. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-enue Code of 1986 to extend the section 29credit for producing fuel from a nonconven-tional source; to the Committee on Ways andMeans.

By Mrs. MORELLA (for herself and Mr.BARTLETT of Maryland):

H.R. 5402. A bill to amend the Chesapeakeand Ohio Canal Development Act to extendto the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal NationalHistorical Park Commission; to the Com-mittee on Resources.

By Mr. SOUDER:H.R. 5403. A bill to restore Federal recogni-

tion to the Miami Nation of Indiana; to theCommittee on Resources.

By Mr. STARK (for himself, Mr. NEALof Massachusetts, Mr. JEFFERSON,and Mr. COYNE):

H.R. 5404. A bill to amend title XVIII of theSocial Security Act to establish and imple-ment a comprehensive system under theMedicare Program to assure quality of carefurnished to Medicare beneficiaries, and re-duce the incidence of medical errors, and forother purposes; to the Committee on Waysand Means, and in addition to the Committeeon Commerce, for a period to be subse-quently determined by the Speaker, in eachcase for consideration of such provisions asfall within the jurisdiction of the committeeconcerned.

By Mr. TIERNEY (for himself, Mr. AN-DREWS, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York,and Mr. KILDEE):

H.R. 5405. A bill to amend title I of the Em-ployee Retirement Income Security Act of1974 to provide emergency protection for re-tiree health benefits; to the Committee onEducation and the Workforce, and in addi-tion to the Committee on the Budget, for aperiod 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. WOLF:H.R. 5406. A bill to amend title 5, United

States Code, to provide for rank awards for

certain senior career employees; to the Com-mittee on Government Reform.

By Mr. LAZIO (for himself, Mr. GIL-MAN, and Mr. REYNOLDS):

H. Con. Res. 418. Concurrent resolution ex-pressing the sense of the Congress regardingthe current level of violence between theIsraelis and the Palestinians; to the Com-mittee on International Relations.

f

MEMORIALS

Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorialswere presented and referred as follows:

475. The SPEAKER presented a memorialof the Senate of the State of Michigan, rel-ative to Resolution No. 209 memorializingthe United States Army Corps of Engineeersto hold public hearings on its proposed ero-sion mitigation policy for portions of theLake Michigan shoreline; to the Committeeon Transportation and Infrastructure.

476. Also, a memorial of the House of Rep-resentatives of the State of Ohio, relative toResolution No. 60 memorializing the Con-gress of the United States to propose andpass legislation to return adequate fundingto states to fund the employment securitysystem, ensuring a fair return to employerfor the Federal Unemployment Tax Act; tothe Committee on Ways and Means.

f

PRIVATE BILLS ANDRESOLUTIONS

Under clause 3 of rule XII,Mr. BECERRA introduced a bill (H.R. 5407)

for the relief of Tony Lara; which was re-ferred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

f

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

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

H.R. 531: Ms. VELAZQUEZ.H.R. 561: Mr. SMITH of Washington,H.R. 640: Ms. BERKLEY.H.R. 783: Ms. BALDWIN.H.R. 963: Mr. WALDEN of Oregon.H.R. 1303: Mr. ISTOOK, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD,

and Mr. MICA.H.R. 1450: Ms. BALDWIN.H.R. 2166: Mr. BAIRD, Mr. GREEN of Wis-

consin, Mr. PHELPS, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. MAR-KEY, and Mr. CHABOT.

H.R. 2520: Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut.H.R. 2551: Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. MALONEY

of Connecticut, Mr. BEREUTER, and Mr.LOBIONDO.

H.R. 2620: Ms. CARSON and Mr. SMITH ofNew Jersey.

H.R. 3083: Mr. COYNE, Mr. KUCINICH, andMr. SERRANO.

H.R. 3256: Mr. UDALL of New Mexico.H.R. 3453: Ms. PRYCE of Ohio.H.R. 3514: Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mrs. NORTHUP,

Mr. PHELPS, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr.MOAKLEY, Mr. CONDIT, and Mr. WEYGAND.

H.R. 3558: Mr. DINGELL.H.R. 3628: Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania.H.R. 3712: Mr. MCNULTY.H.R. 4025: Mr. ENGLISH.H.R. 4082: Mr. MORAN of Virginia.H.R. 4102: Mr. DUNCAN and Mr. SCHAFFER.H.R. 4281: Mr. OXLEY.H.R. 4328: Mr. FOLEY.H.R. 4511: Mr. SCHAFFER and Mr. NUSSLE.H.R. 4547: Mr. MCCOLLUM, Mr. OXLEY, and

Ms. DANNER.H.R. 4549: Mr. EWING.H.R. 4580: Mr. WALDEN of Oregon.H.R. 4624: Mr. FARR of California.

H.R. 4740: Mr. BEREUTER and Mr. DIXON.H.R. 4874: Ms. CARSON and Mr. GRAHAM.H.R. 4894: Mr. ETHERIDGE.H.R. 4936: Mr. GREEN of Texas.H.R. 4971: Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin and

Mr. GOODLATTE.H.R. 5015: Mr. GREEN of Texas and Ms. CAR-

SON.H.R. 5027: Mr. SCHAFFER.H.R. 5067: Mr. REYES.H.R. 5132: Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. MCHUGH, Mrs.

LOWEY, Mrs. MORELLA, Mrs. JONES of Ohio,Mr. GORDON, and Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD.

H.R. 5137: Mr. MCCOLLUM, Mr. PORTER, Ms.MCCARTHY of Missouri, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio,Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mrs. ROUKEMA, Mr.BILIRAKIS, and Mr. MCNULTY.

H.R. 5147: Mr. RANGEL, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr.ROTHMAN, Mr. HALL of Texas, and Mr. MAR-TINEZ.

H.R. 5148: Mr. WEXLER.H.R. 5151: Ms. DANNER and Mr. BILBRAY.H.R. 5152: Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island,

Mr. LAMPSON, and Ms. ESHOO.H.R. 5159: Mr. ABERCROMBIE.H.R. 5164: Mr. DEUTSCH, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr.

LATOURETTE, and Mr. KLINK.H.R. 5180: Mr. STARK.H.R. 5238: Ms. BERKLEY.H.R. 5258: Mr. DELAY, Ms. GRANGER, Mr.

FROST, Mr. HALL of Ohio, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr.SPENCE, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. TRAFICANT, Mr.SESSIONS, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mrs. CLAYTON,Mrs. EMERSON, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. SAM JOHN-SON of Texas, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. ALLEN, Mr.HINOJOSA, Mr. OBERSTAR, Ms. MCKINNEY, Ms.KILPATRICK, Mr. MINGE, Mr. FATTAH, Mr.JEFFERSON, Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr.SALMON, Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska, Mr.RADANOVICH, Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE, Mr.HOBSON, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. WALDEN of Oregon,Mr. GILCHREST, Mr. HILLEARY, Mr. GOOD-LATTE, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. WAMP, Mrs.FOWLER, Mr. HANSEN, Mr. JENKINS, and Mr.WU.

H.R. 5261: Mr. SERRANO and Mr. ENGEL.H.R. 5268: Mr. NETHERCUTT, Mrs. KELLY,

Mr. DOYLE, Mr. REYES, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr.SANDLIN, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr.MORAN of Virginia, Mr. GARY MILLER of Cali-fornia, and Mr. COYNE.

H.R. 5271: Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota.H.R. 5322: Mr. GEORGE MILLER of Cali-

fornia.H.R. 5337: Mr. SMITH of New Jersey and Ms.

PELOSI.H.R. 5350: Mr. NETHERCUTT.H.R. 5373: Mr. SCHAFFER and Mr. VITTER.H. Con. Res. 58: Mr. KLINK and Ms. SLAUGH-

TER.H. Con. Res. 341: Mr. BOEHLERT and Mr.

HALL of Ohio.H. Con. Res. 370: Ms. SANCHEZ.H. Con. Res. 395: Ms. SCHAKOWSKY.H. Con. Res. 401: Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. DOYLE,

Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. CANADY of Florida, Mr.WYNN, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. PAYNE, and Ms.MCKINNEY.

H. Con. Res. 404: Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. LEWISof California, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. SMITH ofWashington, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington,Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. INSLEE, and Mr. MALONEYof Connecticut.

H. Con. Res. 408: Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska,Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. GREEN ofTexas, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, and Mr.GOODLATTE.

H. Con. Res. 412: Ms. SLAUGHTER and Mr.FARR of California.

H. Res. 347: Ms. SLAUGHTER.H. Res. 437: Mr. SANDLIN.H. Res. 537: Mr. PRICE of North Carolina,

Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. OLVER, andMr. LUCAS of Oklahoma.

VerDate 02-OCT-2000 08:35 Oct 06, 2000 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\L05OC7.100 pfrm08 PsN: H05PT1

Congressional RecordUNUM

E PLURIBUS

United Statesof America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106th

CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

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

.

S9875

Vol. 146 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2000 No. 123

Senate(Legislative day of Friday, September 22, 2000)

The Senate met at 9:30 a.m., on theexpiration of the recess, and was calledto order by the President pro tempore(Mr. THURMOND).

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. To-day’s prayer will be offered by ourguest Chaplain, Rev. ClaudePomerleau, CSC, University of Port-land, Oregon.

PRAYER

The guest Chaplain, Rev. ClaudePomerleau, offered the following pray-er:

Let us pray:Lord and Master of the universe, we

dare to name You Mother and Fatherbecause You are the Source of all thatwe are, all that we have, and all thatwe do. You have also sent us Your Spir-it, and so we call ourselves Your chil-dren. We know that You love us, andthat this gift goes beyond our greatestexpectations.

O God, bless all the Members of theSenate, this day and always. May theyact in accordance with Your Spirit asthey serve this Nation and work for amore peaceful and secure world. Maythey be just and compassionate in theirwork as You are just and compas-sionate with Your creation, and maythey be a sign of Your presence for thisNation and the world.

We pray that we may always be in-struments of Your peace, even in themidst of unresolved problems and con-stant human conflicts. And, as a result,

may we strive to be a mosaic of Yourrenewing presence in this world,through which we have a brief but glo-rious passage. Amen.

f

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Honorable MIKE CRAPO, a Sen-ator from the State of Idaho, led thePledge of Allegiance, 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

RECOGNITION OF THE ACTINGMAJORITY LEADER

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.CRAPO.) The Senator from Alaska isrecognized.

f

SCHEDULE

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, onbehalf of the leader, I have been askedto announce today that the Senate willresume consideration of H.J. Res. 110,the continuing resolution. Under theorder, the time until 10 a.m. will beequally divided with a vote scheduledto occur at 10 a.m. Following the vote,the Senate is expected to resume de-bate on the conference report to ac-company H.R. 4578, the Interior appro-priations bill. Cloture was filed on theconference report and it is hoped an

agreement can be reached to have thecloture vote during today’s session.The Senate may also begin consider-ation of any other conference reportsavailable for action. I thank my col-leagues for their attention.

Mr. President, I understand the Sen-ator from Vermont would like to makea very special introduction. It will bemy intention then to speak, and takethe time of Senator STEVENS, leavinghim about 5 minutes remaining on ourside.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I didn’t un-derstand. Is that a unanimous consentrequest for something?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. No unan-imous consent request was made.

The Senator from Vermont.

f

THE GUEST CHAPLAIN

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thankmy friend from Alaska for his usualcourtesies. I will take time on our sidebriefly.

I thank the Senate Chaplain, Dr.Ogilvie, for his courtesy in inviting to-day’s visiting Chaplain, Father ClaudePomerleau. Father Pomerleau is veryspecial to me; he is my brother-in-law.He is the chairman of the departmentof history and political science at theUniversity of Portland. He has a distin-guished career, a doctorate from theUniversity of Denver, where actually

N O T I C E

Effective January 1, 2001, the subscription price of the Congressional Record will be $393 per year or $197 for sixmonths. Individual issues may be purchased for $4.00 per copy. The cost for the microfiche edition will remain $141 peryear with single copies remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based upon the cost of printing anddistribution.

Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9876 October 5, 2000one of his lead professors was Dr. Mad-eleine Albright’s father. He speaksmany, many languages. He is seen as aleading authority on Latin America.He teaches in Chile as well as at theUniversity of Portland—in fact, he justcame back from there.

I could go through all these thingsabout him, but from a personal point ofview he is very special to me. His sis-ter, Marcelle, and I have been marriednow for 38 years, and he was presentwhen we were married, as were hisbrother Rene and his father and moth-er, Phil and Cecile Pomerleau. Phil andCecile are no longer with us, but I havea feeling they look down in pride attheir son this morning, as we all do. Heis a teacher, he is a mentor, a brother,a son, a beloved uncle—in our familyhe has been all of those and more.

He has been a very dear friend to me.I think of what Edward Everett Hale, aformer distinguished Senate Chaplain,once said. He was asked:

Do you pray for the Senators, Dr. Hale?

And he said:No, I look at the Senators and I pray for

the country.

I am privileged to have a brother whonot only prays for the country, butprays for this Senator. I consider it, inmy 26 years here, one of the rarestprivileges I have had to be able to seehim on the floor.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Alaska.Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for

a comment about Senator LEAHY?The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the

Senator yield?Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield.Mr. REID. Mr. President, before Sen-

ator LEAHY and his brother-in-lawleave, I want the good Father to knowhow much the Senate cares about youand Marcelle. You have expressed sowell your feelings about your brother-in-law, but we want you to know howmuch the entire Senate on both sidesof the aisle respects Senator LEAHY andyour lovely sister.f

MAKING CONTINUING APPROPRIA-TIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR2001—Resumed

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report the resolution bytitle.

The legislative clerk read as follows:A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 110) making

further continuing appropriations for the fis-cal year 2001, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Alaska.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, whatis the time circumstance on this bill?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thereare 12 minutes a side. The time is even-ly divided.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield the 12 minuteson this side to the Senator from Alas-ka.


ENERGY POLICY

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Ithink it is important to note the situa-tion escalating in the Mideast as a con-sequence of the tensions. It is unfortu-nate it would be at a time when we hadhoped there would be an effort to get afirm peace agreement. As a con-sequence of that, I think it is impor-tant to bring to the attention of mycolleagues a reality relative to the re-lease of the Strategic Petroleum Re-serve at the recommendation of VicePresident GORE to our President.

As you know, the President did re-lease 30 million barrels of the StrategicPetroleum Reserve. This was the larg-est single release of crude oil from SPRin the 25-year history of the reserve.The administration has claimed thishas been a successful effort because theprice of oil has dropped. Notwith-standing that, using SPR to manipu-late prices is contrary to the law be-cause we have not reauthorized SPR,and of course the success of this is de-termined in the long term, not theshort term.

But I wish to bring to the attentionof each and every Member some facts.Since the President made his an-nouncement, there has been no newheating oil placed into the market andno measurable rise in inventories. Itmay surprise some of you, particularlythose in the Northeast, to know thatAmerican consumers may, under thecurrent arrangement, never see any ofthe product refined from the crude oilthat we released from our Strategic Pe-troleum Reserve. Let me explain whybecause this is important.

In the arrangement, there was abso-lutely no requirement that those whosuccessfully bid on crude oil from theStrategic Petroleum Reserve needed torefine it into heating oil. They may de-cide to make gasoline or some otherproduct.

Second, there is absolutely nothingthat prevents this product from beingshipped to foreign markets, either inits crude form or as a refined productsuch as heating oil.

Guess what. That is just what is hap-pening. We are shipping heating oil toEurope. Look at the Wall Street Jour-nal this morning. Let me quote:

Europe’s market for heating oil is 50 per-cent bigger than the U.S. heating oil market.Europe’s stocks are even tighter and pricesthere are a few cents a gallon higher, so U.S.refiners have renewed incentive to ship heat-ing oil across the Atlantic. . . . U.S. exportsof heating oil to Europe have ballooned near-ly six times, in the first 7 months of thisyear. . . .

That tells the story of the arrange-ment that the administration made totake the oil out of SPR and increaseour heating oil supply. What has hap-pened with it is it is going to Europe.I am not surprised by this, in the senseof the market going to the highestprice where it can generate a return.But I am astonished about the claim ofthe administration and those who sup-port the movement of SPR, and the re-

lease, that it was done because of con-cerns over supply for the benefit of theAmerican consumer. The Americanconsumer has not benefited. This is aspin being put on by the pundits.

I asked the Secretary of Energypointblank at a hearing last week:

Is it possible as a result of oil being re-leased from SPR that prices could fall but nonew heating oil would find its way into theU.S. heating market?

Do you know what the answer was? Itcould happen. The irony is that we aregoing to release oil from our StrategicPetroleum Reserve to provide productto a European market. That should notbe lost on the American consumer orMembers of this body.

Finally, SPR was created for one spe-cific purpose: as a reserve in case oursupply, our dependence on OPEC andother countries, is disrupted. We are 58-percent dependent on imported oil. Wehave a situation in the Mideast. Iraq isclaiming Kuwait is stealing its oil, thesame claim it made prior to the Per-sian Gulf war. Kuwait is now claimingIraq stole oil during the gulf war. Theentire Israeli-Palestinian peace processappears, unfortunately, to have fallenapart. All this leads to a reminder thatwe should not use our petroleum re-serve for political purposes, and thatappears to be what we have done inthis arrangement.

Mr. President, how much time is re-maining on this side?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator has 71⁄2 minutes remaining.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask the Chair toadvise me when I have 4 minutes re-maining.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair will do so.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, asa consequence of the focus on energybetween our two Presidential can-didates, it is very appropriate that weidentify differences.

The Vice President has said he has anenergy plan that focuses not only onincreasing the supply but also on work-ing on the consumption side, but thereal facts are the Vice President doesnot practice what he preaches. Let’slook at the record over the last 71⁄2years.

The administration has opposed do-mestic oil exploration and production.We have had 17 percent less productionsince Clinton-Gore took office, and thefacts are it decreased the number of oilwells from 136,000 and the number ofgas wells has decreased by 57,000. Theseare wells that have actually beenclosed since 1992. There has been abso-lutely no utilization of American coalin coal-fired electric generating plants.We have not built a new plant since1990.

The difficulty is the EnvironmentalProtection Agency has made it so un-economic that the industry simply can-not get the permits. We force the nu-clear energy to choke on its own waste.We were one vote short in the Senateto pass a veto override. Yet the U.S.Court of Appeals has given the indus-try a liability case in the Court of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9877October 5, 2000Claims, with a liability to the tax-payers of somewhere between $40 bil-lion and $80 billion.

The administration threatens to teardown hydroelectric dams out West.What are we going to do there? We aregoing to take the traffic off the riversand put it on the highways. We have ig-nored electric reliability and supplyconcerns. Go out to California, particu-larly San Diego, where they have seenprice spikes and brownouts, no newgeneration, no new transmission. Thishas happened on the Vice President’swatch.

Natural gas prices in the last 10months have gone from $2.60 to $5.40 fordelivery. That is the problem we arefacing, and that is the record underthis administration.

Let’s not forget one more thing. TheVice President talks about cuttingtaxes. The Vice President himself castthe vote in 1993 to raise the gas tax 4.3cents a gallon. He did not just cast thevote; he broke the tie, and that is thesignificance of the record with regardto a contribution to increase domesticenergy in this country. Instead ofdoing something to increase domesticoil supply, the Vice President and theadministration would rather blame bigoil profiteering, and that is ironic.Where was big oil a year ago when oilwas selling for $10 a barrel? Who wasprofiteering then, Mr. President?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator has 4 minutes remaining.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Who sets the priceof oil? OPEC.

I thank the Chair and reserve the re-mainder of our time for Senator STE-VENS, who wants to claim that time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Nevada.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, it seems tome the majority is crying because theprice of oil has dropped. The Presidentmade a decisive step and said we aregoing to pump oil from our reserve. Im-mediately, the price of oil dropped.Today it is below $30 a barrel. The ma-jority seems so concerned that whatthe President has done has helped—theprice of oil has dropped.

I suggest my friends in the majoritytalk to the Governor of Texas or maybethe man running for Vice President.They have connections with the oil in-dustry. Maybe they could talk him intonot shipping oil overseas if that is, infact, what is happening. They are cry-ing crocodile tears because what ishappening here is good. We laid out ingreat detail yesterday what this ad-ministration has done to lower theprice of oil to make sure the economywas in good shape.

I am also continually amazed at whatthe majority says about the Vice Presi-dent: He broke the tie, so there is a 4-cent-per-gallon increase in gas; isn’tthat too bad?

Let’s look at the history. Remember,the majority was saying all kinds ofbad things would happen. The Repub-licans were saying all kinds of badthings would happen if, in fact, the

Clinton and Gore budget deficit reduc-tion plan passed. It passed.

Prior to passing, listen to what theRepublicans had to say.

CONRAD BURNS:So we’re still going to pile up some more

debt. But most of all, we’re going to costjobs in this country.

He was wrong on both counts. Thereare 22 million new jobs and, of course,the debt is gone.

ORRIN HATCH said:Make no mistake, this will cost jobs.

Wrong again.PHIL GRAMM, the Senator from

Texas:I want to predict here tonight that if we

adopt this bill, the American economy isgoing to get weaker, not stronger, and thedeficit 4 years from today will be higher thanit is today, and not lower. When it is all saidand done, people will pay more taxes, theeconomy will create fewer jobs, Governmentwill spend more money, and the Americanpeople will be worse off.

I am not going to go into detail, butwe have 300,000 fewer Federal employ-ees than in 1992. We have the lowestunemployment in some 40 years. Wehave created 22 million jobs. We have aFederal Government today that issmaller than when President Kennedywas President. I think those on theother side should realize, yes, the VicePresident did cast a decisive vote, butit was so decisive that it put this coun-try on the road to economic recovery.

I also suggest my friends should stoptalking about nuclear waste. We knowthere is not going to be another nu-clear powerplant built in America, butwe also recognize that rather thanspending time on nuclear waste, whydon’t they talk about alternative en-ergy—solar, wind, and geothermal?

My friend from Alaska continuallytalks about energy policy. I respect hisopinion, but I continue to believe he isabsolutely wrong.

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield me3 minutes?

Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield tomy friend from California from thetime we have.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from California.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thankmy friend for setting the recordstraight and for doing such a good jobbecause we do have to remember wherewe were when the Clinton-Gore admin-istration took office.

In my State, there was suffering;there was no hope; people’s dreamswere set aside; the economy was in thetank; and there was double-digit unem-ployment. Today we are in the midst ofthe greatest economic recovery ever. Itdates back to the vote AL GORE castbecause he was the deciding vote onthat budget. The Republicans predictedgloom and doom, deficits and debt, un-employment and the rest. Let’s face it;they were wrong. We do not want to goback to those days of high deficits.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appre-ciate the assistant Democratic leader

yielding me time because I want totalk briefly about the Violence AgainstWomen Act, and then I am going tomake a unanimous consent request, ofwhich I believe the other side has beenmade aware.

The Violence Against Women Act, alandmark law that was passed in 1994,has now expired. We have to reauthor-ize it. It is crucial. It has expired.

Is this an important and worthy act?Yes, it is. Both sides of the aisle agree.We have seen a 21-percent reduction inviolence against women. We have seenshelters for battered women and theirfamilies built. They have gone up from1,200 to about 2,000. We see doctorstrained to recognize domestic abuseand police men and women trained torecognize domestic abuse. So we areseeing, in the figures, a decrease in theviolence.

But we cannot allow this law to die.The point is, it passed the House over-whelmingly. It is a clean bill. But thereare political games going on over here.People want to attach all kinds of dif-ferent things to the Violence AgainstWomen Act. It can stand alone on itsown two feet. Senator BIDEN wrote thatact a long time ago. When I was in theHouse, he asked me to carry it. He hasbeen joined by Senator HATCH. Theyhave worked together now on this newreauthorization.

The last point I want to make beforemaking my unanimous consent requestis this: It may be called the ViolenceAgainst Women Act, but this act di-rectly attacks the problem of childrenin these homes. We have to realize thatchildren under the age of 12 live in ap-proximately 4 out of 10 homes that ex-perience domestic violence.

We look at Hollywood—and we arecritical of what they are doing in termsof the R-rated films shown to kids—butthe fact is, there is only one reliablepredictor of future violence. If a malechild sees one parent beat another par-ent, he is twice as likely to abuse hisown wife as the son of nonviolent par-ents.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator’s time has expired.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, how muchtime do we have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fiveminutes remaining.

Mr. REID. I yield the Senator 2 moreminutes.

Mrs. BOXER. We have a situationwhere we know if a child sees violencein the home, that child is very likelyto repeat that violence. We have toprotect these children by stopping theviolence.

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST—H.R. 1248

At this time, Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Senateproceed to the immediate consider-ation of Calendar No. 834, H. 1248, anact to prevent violence against women,that the bill be considered read a thirdtime and passed, the motion to recon-sider be laid upon the table, and thatany statements relating to the bill beprinted in the RECORD.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9878 October 5, 2000Several Senators addressed the

Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Nevada.Mr. REID. Reserving the right to ob-

ject, I ask the Senator, under my res-ervation, this bill which has done somuch good in the country, has itlapsed?

Mrs. BOXER. Yes. The ViolenceAgainst Women Act reauthorizationhas expired. We can’t permit this tocontinue any longer. The House acted,and well over 400 Members voted to re-authorize it.

Mr. REID. Is the Senator telling methat right now the law is not in effectin our country?

Mrs. BOXER. In essence, the author-ization has definitely expired. Myfriend is right. That is why I make thisrequest in a most urgent fashion.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection?

Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Wyoming.Mr. THOMAS. Reserving the right to

object, I rise on behalf of the leader,who is working now with Members onthe other side. I do not know of anyonewho disagrees with what the Senatorfrom California has said. No one I knowof disagrees with the bill. I certainly donot. However, there is a process under-way. I object to the unanimous consentrequest.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objec-tion is heard.

Who yields time?Time runs equally against both sides.Mr. REID addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Nevada.Mr. REID. How much time is remain-

ing on the minority side?The PRESIDING OFFICER. There

are 3 minutes on the minority side.Mr. REID. I yield 2 minutes to the

Senator from California.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from California.Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator REID,

once more, for yielding me some time.I understand the Republican side of

the aisle wants to attach differentpieces of legislation to the ViolenceAgainst Women Act, and that is whatis slowing it down. I know they want tosee this act go forward. But I have tosay to them, there is an easy way to doit.

I am very disappointed we had thisobjection this morning. We had a beau-tiful prayer—a beautiful prayer—givenby Senator LEAHY’s brother-in-law. Ifyou heard what he said, he prayed thatwe in the Senate could work to do goodworks—to do good works. I know thatis what we all strive to do every singleday we get up in the morning. But itseems to me that good work such asthe Violence Against Women Act iseasy to do. We do not have to use it asa train to which we attach differentpieces of legislation.

I see Senator WELLSTONE on thefloor. He has worked so hard in the

area of the trafficking of women world-wide. Yes, we have no objection if wemarry these two, if you will, pieces oflegislation together because they makesense. One is talking about violence athome; one is talking about taking girlsand putting them into sex trafficking.And it is a sin upon the world that thishappens. We agreed to do this. It couldhave been done in a minute. We do notneed to come on the floor and have along period of time to discuss this. Iam sure the Senator would agree; wecould have a few comments.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator’s 2 minutes have expired.

Mrs. BOXER. I am very disappointedthis morning that we haven’t been ableto do at least one good thing for thewomen and children of this country,and that is to pass the House bill, theViolence Against Women Act, to get itdone.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Whoyields time?

Time runs equally against both sides.Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like

to ask a question of my friend fromCalifornia in the minute we have re-maining.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.Mr. REID. With all this compas-

sionate conservatism around, do youthink it would be good if the Governorof Texas interceded in this matter?

Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I would call on theGovernor to intercede with our friendson the other side. He was asked aboutthe Violence Against Women Act onthe campaign trail. He was unaware ofit. He said he had not heard of it, al-though Texas has received about $75million, and they have built batteredwomen shelters. Then when he studiedit, he said he supported it, for which Iam very grateful. But this is a goldenmoment for him.

Since we have passed the bill, I wantto say to my friend from Nevada, inti-mate-partner violence has decreased by21 percent. Again, we have seen thenumber of battered women shelters in-crease by 60 percent. Before there weremore animal shelters than there werefor women and children. So we shouldact. I hope my friends will reconsider.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All thetime of the minority has expired.

Who yields time?Time will run on the majority side.Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Wyoming.Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think

we are getting prepared, within a cou-ple minutes now, to have a vote on thecontinuing resolution. I simply want torise again to say I do not disagree atall with what the Senator from Cali-fornia is saying. But the fact is, thereis a plan. There is a plan to operateunder here. The Senate does not simplyreact because someone gets up and saysit is time to do this. There are negotia-tions going on between the leader andSenators on the other side.

I am sure this will indeed be done. Wehave a lot of things that need to be

done. I would suggest that we ought toget the whole thing planned a little bit.I am a little surprised that this Sen-ator is talking about objecting to mov-ing forward because I think there havebeen quite a few objections comingfrom that side that has gotten us towhere we are now. That is not reallythe point. The point is, we will handlethis bill. The leader has prepared to dothat.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I hopewe can now proceed to the vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will read the joint resolution forthe third time.

The joint resolution was read thethird time.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask forthe yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeasand nays have been requested.

Is there a sufficient second?There appears to be a sufficient sec-

ond.The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint

resolution having been read the thirdtime, the question is, Shall the jointresolution pass? The yeas and nayshave been ordered. The clerk will callthe roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the

Senator from North Carolina (Mr.HELMS) and the Senator from Vermont(Mr. JEFFORDS) are necessarily absent.

Mr. REID. I announce that the Sen-ator from California (Mrs. FEINSTEIN)and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.LIEBERMAN) are necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.BUNNING). Are there any other Sen-ators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 95,nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 264 Leg.]

YEAS—95

AbrahamAkakaAllardAshcroftBaucusBayhBennettBidenBingamanBondBoxerBreauxBrownbackBryanBunningBurnsByrdCampbellChafee, L.ClelandCochranCollinsConradCraigCrapoDaschleDeWineDoddDomeniciDorganDurbinEdwards

EnziFeingoldFitzgeraldFristGortonGrahamGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHagelHarkinHatchHollingsHutchinsonHutchisonInhofeInouyeJohnsonKennedyKerreyKerryKohlKylLandrieuLautenbergLevinLincolnLottLugarMackMcCain

McConnellMikulskiMillerMoynihanMurkowskiMurrayNicklesReedReidRobbRobertsRockefellerRothSantorumSarbanesSchumerSessionsShelbySmith (NH)Smith (OR)SnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondTorricelliVoinovichWarnerWellstoneWyden

NAYS—1

Leahy

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9879October 5, 2000NOT VOTING—4

FeinsteinHelms

JeffordsLieberman

The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 110)was passed.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, Imove to reconsider the vote and to laythat motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggestthe absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro-ceeded to call the roll.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Iask unanimous consent that the orderfor the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.f

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORAND RELATED AGENCIES APPRO-PRIATIONS ACT, 2001—CON-FERENCE REPORT—Resumed

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report the pending business.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:

A conference report to accompany H.R.4578, an act making appropriations for theDepartment of the Interior and related agen-cies for fiscal year ending September 30, 2001,and for other purposes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I suggest the ab-sence of a quorum.



Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

SENATE AGENDA

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the situa-tion we are in right now is interesting.It is different from any similar period Ican recall in nearly 26 years in the Sen-ate. We are at the end of the fiscalyear—we have actually gone beyondthe end of the fiscal year—and nothingseems to be happening. I voted againstthe continuing resolution, not becauseI do not think we should keep the Gov-ernment going—of course we should; itis unfortunate to close down the Gov-ernment—but more to express my con-cern that we are not doing our busi-ness.

We have not passed our appropria-tions bills as we should. We all talkabout how we make Government moreefficient or how we make Governmentbetter. But imagine if you are runningone of these Agencies or one of theseDepartments and you have to make thedecisions for the year, and Congress,which has a mandate under law to passthe appropriations bills by September30, we are here on October 5 and are no-where near completing the bills.

Yet in a Congress that spends moretime investigating than legislating, weare perfectly willing to have investiga-

tions and actually bring a lot of theseDepartments to a halt while we askthem question after question, even ifthe questions have already been asked,and yet we are unwilling to do our ownwork on time. It is not the way it canbe done, and it is not the way it shouldbe done.

I strongly urge Senators to considernext year when we come back, no mat-ter who wins the Presidency, no matterwho wins seats in the Senate or in theother body, that we spend more timetrying to do things that actually helpthe country, that we set aside some ofthe partisanship and bitterness thathas marked this Senate actually sinceimpeachment time, which in itself wasmarked by partisanship when impeach-ment was rushed through in a lameduck House of Representatives andthen passed over to this body. It ap-pears in many ways we lost our footingat that time and never got back oncourse.

There are bills that have bipartisansupport. There was one I was dis-cussing on the floor a few minutes agowith the distinguished Senator fromColorado, the Campbell-Leahy bullet-proof vest bill. This is a bill that pro-vides money for bulletproof vests forlaw enforcement officers.

Senator CAMPBELL and I served inlaw enforcement before we came toCongress. We served at a time whenmuch of law enforcement did not facethe danger it does now, but we keptenough of our ties to law enforcementand so we know how difficult it is. Weknow that the men and women we sendout to protect all of us are themselvesso often the victims of the same crimi-nals from whom they try to protect us.

Bulletproof vests are a $500 or $600item. They wear out in 5 years. A lot ofdepartments, especially small depart-ments in States such as Vermont orrural areas like Texas, cannot affordthese vests. I have letters from hun-dreds of law enforcement people fromaround the country who tell me thatunder the original Campbell-Leahybill, they finally have a sense of secu-rity because they have bulletproofvests. We want to extend that for acouple more years. Yet we cannot evenget a vote on it.

This is a bill which, if it is brought toa vote in this Chamber, I am willing tobet virtually every Senator, Repub-lican and Democrat, will vote for. Howcan one vote against it? Yet there hasbeen one hold on the Republican side ofthe aisle, and we cannot bring up thisvital law enforcement piece of legisla-tion.

I wanted to be sure—I am hearingfrom law enforcement agencies allacross the country: Why can’t you passit?—so I actually made the point ofchecking with all 46 Democratic Sen-ators: Do any of you have any objec-tion to voting on this on a second’s no-tice? They said: No, pass it by unani-mous consent, if you want.

I ask whoever is holding it up on theother side not to continue to hold itup.

Mr. President, I return to ask the Re-publican leadership what is holding upenactment of the Bulletproof VestPartnership Grant Act of 2000? This isa bill I introduced with Senator CAMP-BELL and others last April. The SenateJudiciary Committee considered andand reported the bill unanimously tothe full Senate back in June. I havesince been working to get Senate con-sideration, knowing that it will passoverwhelmingly if not unanimously.

Unfortunately, an anonymous ‘‘hold’’on the Republican side prevented en-actment before the Senate recessed inJuly. I have been unable to discoverwhich Republican Senator opposes thebill or why, and that remains truetoday.

We have been working for severalmonths to pass the Bulletproof VestPartnership Grant Act of 2000. It hasbeen cleared by all Democratic Sen-ators.

That it has still not passed the fullSenate is very disappointing to me, asI am sure that it is to our nation’s lawenforcement officers, who need life-sav-ing bulletproof vests to protect them-selves. Protecting and supporting ourlaw enforcement community shouldnot be a partisan issue.

Senator CAMPBELL and I worked to-gether closely and successfully in thelast Congress to pass the BulletproofVest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 intolaw. This year’s bill reauthorizes andextends the successful program that wehelped create and that the Departmentof Justice has done such a good job im-plementing.

I have charts here that show how suc-cessful the Bulletproof Vests GrantProgram has been for individual states.In its first year of operation in 1999,the program funded the purchase of167,497 vests with $23 million in federalgrant funds.

For the State of Alabama, the pro-gram funded the purchase of 2,287 bul-letproof vests for law enforcement offi-cers in 1999. For the State of Cali-fornia, the program funded the pur-chase of 28,106 bulletproof vests for lawenforcement officers in 1999. For theState of Colorado, the program fundedthe purchase of 1,844 bulletproof vestsfor police officers in 1999.

For the State of Idaho, the programfunded the purchase of 711 bulletproofvests for law enforcement officers in1999. For the State of Michigan, theprogram funded the purchase of 2,932bulletproof vests for law enforcementofficers in 1999. For the State of Min-nesota, the program funded the pur-chase of 1,052 bulletproof vests for lawenforcement officers in 1999. For theState of Mississippi, the program fund-ed the purchase of 1,283 bulletproofvests for law enforcement officers in1999. For the State of Missouri, the pro-gram funded the purchase of 2,919 bul-letproof vests for law enforcement offi-cers in 1999.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9880 October 5, 2000For the State of New York, the pro-

gram funded the purchase of 13,004 bul-letproof vests for law enforcement offi-cers in 1999. For the State of Okla-homa, the program funded the pur-chase of 3,042 bulletproof vests for lawenforcement officers in 1999. For theState of Rhode Island, the programfunded the purchase of 792 bulletproofvests for law enforcement officers in1999. For the State of Utah, the pro-gram funded the purchase of 1,326 bul-letproof vests for law enforcement offi-cers in 1999. For my home State ofVermont, the program funded the pur-chase of 361 bulletproof vests for policeofficers in 1999. For big and smallstates, the program was a success in itsfirst year.

I have a second chart that shows howsuccessful the Bulletproof Vests GrantProgram has been for individual statesin its second year of operation. In 2000,the program funded the purchase of158,396 vests with $24 million in federalgrant funds.

For the State of Alabama, the pro-gram funded the purchase of 2,498 bul-letproof vests for law enforcement offi-cers in 2000. For the State of Cali-fornia, the program funded the pur-chase of 27,477 bulletproof vests for lawenforcement officers in 2000. For theState of Colorado, the program fundedthe purchase of 2,288 bulletproof vestsfor police officers in 2000.

For the State of Idaho, the programfunded the purchase of 477 bulletproofvests for law enforcement officers in2000. For the State of Michigan, theprogram funded the purchase of 3,427bulletproof vests for law enforcementofficers in 2000. For the State of Min-nesota, the program funded the pur-chase of 709 bulletproof vests for lawenforcement officers in 2000. For theState of Mississippi, the program fund-ed the purchase of 1,364 bulletproofvests for law enforcement officers in2000. For the State of Missouri, the pro-gram funded the purchase of 1,221 bul-letproof vests for law enforcement offi-cers in 2000.

For the State of New York, the pro-gram funded the purchase of 11,969 bul-letproof vests for law enforcement offi-cers in 2000. For the State of Okla-homa, the program funded the pur-chase of 3,389 bulletproof vests for lawenforcement officers in 2000. For theState of Rhode Island, the programfunded the purchase of 313 bulletproofvests for law enforcement officers in2000. For the State of Utah, the pro-gram funded the purchase of 1,326 bul-letproof vests for law enforcement offi-cers in 2000. For my home State ofVermont, the program funded the pur-chase of 175 bulletproof vests for policeofficers in 2000. For the second year ina row, the program was a great success.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that these two charts listing thenumber of bulletproof vests purchasedand the Federal grant amounts foreach state in 1999 and 2000 under theBulletproof Vest Partnership GrantProgram be printed in the RECORD atthe conclusion of my remarks.


(See exhibit 1.)Mr. LEAHY. The Bulletproof Vest

Partnership Grant Act of 2000 builds onthe success of this program by doublingits annual funding to $50 million forfiscal years 2002–2004. It also improvesthe program by guaranteeing jurisdic-tions with fewer than 100,000 residentsreceiving the full 50–50 matching fundsbecause of the tight budgets of thesesmaller communities and by makingthe purchase of stab-proof vests eligi-ble for grant awards to protect correc-tions officers in close quarters in localand county jails.

We have 20 cosponsors on the newbill, including a number of Democratsand Republicans. This is a bipartisanbill that is not being treated in a bipar-tisan way. For some unknown reason aRepublican Senator has a hold on thisbill and has chosen to exercise thatright anonymously.

More than ever before, police officersin Vermont and around the countryface deadly threats that can strike atany time, even during routine trafficstops. Bulletproof vests save lives. It isessential the we update this law sothat many more of our officers who arerisking their lives everyday are able toprotect themselves.

I hope that the mysterious ‘‘hold’’ onthe bill from the other side of the aislewill disappear. The Senate should passwithout delay the Bulletproof VestPartnership Grant Act of 2000 and sendto the President for his signature intolaw.

Before we recessed last July, I in-formed the Republican leadership thatthe House of Representatives hadpassed the companion bill, H.R. 4033, byan overwhelming vote of 413–3. I ex-pressed my hope that the Senate wouldquickly follow suit and pass the House-passed bill and send it to the President.President Clinton has already endorsedthis legislation to support our Nation’slaw enforcement officers and is eagerto sign it into law.

I find it ironic that the Senate inJuly passed the Federal Law Enforce-ment Animal Protection Act, H.R. 1791.That bill increased the penalties forharming dogs and horses used by fed-eral law enforcement officers. Presi-dent Clinton signed that bill into lawon August 2nd.

The majority acted quickly to pro-tect dogs and horses used by law en-forcement officers but has stalled ac-tion on legislation to provide life-sav-ing protection for law enforcement of-ficers themselves. The Senate shouldhave moved as quickly in July to passthe Bulletproof Vest Partnership GrantAct of 2000 and sent it to the Presidentfor his signature into law.

Several more months have come andgone. Unfortunately, nothing haschanged. Not knowing what the mis-understanding of our bill is, I find it isimpossible to overcome an anonymous,unstated objection. I, again, ask who-ever it is on the Republican side who

has a concern about this program toplease come talk to me and to SenatorCAMPBELL. I hope that the Senate willdo the right thing and pass this impor-tant legislation without further unnec-essary delay.

EXHIBIT 1

BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT ACT—YEAR1999

State Total vests Approvedamount

Alabama .................................................... 2,287 $230,343.84Alaska ....................................................... 395 90,309.65Arizona ...................................................... 1,705 334,099.97Arkansas ................................................... 778 180,830.13California .................................................. 28,106 2,843,427.56Colorado .................................................... 1,844 303,622.83Connecticut ............................................... 3,637 547,507.96Delaware ................................................... 1,526 69,533.76District of Columbia ................................. 844 44,899.70Florida ....................................................... 9,641 985,708.59Georgia ...................................................... 4,067 528,480.98Guam ......................................................... 145 6,000.00Hawaii ....................................................... 330 100,865.57Idaho ......................................................... 711 101,673.49Illinois ....................................................... 9,035 1,337,252.98Indiana ...................................................... 5,375 774,582.31Iowa ........................................................... 1,954 441,262.08Kansas ...................................................... 1,257 195,605.72Kentucky .................................................... 1,510 234,990.82Louisiana ................................................... 3,112 330,409.06Maine ........................................................ 626 161,374.59Maryland ................................................... 3,772 329,998.45Massachusetts .......................................... 2,255 274,032.76Michigan ................................................... 2,932 658,931.12Minnesota .................................................. 1,052 146,378.98Mississippi ................................................ 1,283 201,931.59Missouri ..................................................... 2,919 478,933.33Montana .................................................... 435 101,647.37Nebraska ................................................... 905 127,329.90Nevada ...................................................... 394 84,441.26New Hampshire ......................................... 450 143,632.09New Jersey ................................................. 5,336 838,439.10New Mexico ............................................... 1,388 321,910.87New York ................................................... 13,004 1,240,481.60North Carolina ........................................... 5,974 750,998.79North Dakota ............................................. 397 81,443.98Northern Mariana Islands ......................... 375 38,000.00Ohio ........................................................... 5,506 1,084,863.95Oklahoma .................................................. 3,042 348,374.03Oregon ....................................................... 1,847 342,712.74Pennsylvania ............................................. 8,360 1,018,781.60Puerto Rico ................................................ 1,496 212,091.20Rhode Island ............................................. 792 192,873.46South Carolina .......................................... 2,286 451,685.53South Dakota ............................................ 228 57,206.42Tennessee .................................................. 2,576 331,638.90Texas ......................................................... 9,245 1,350,816.23Utah .......................................................... 1,326 325,181.42U.S. Virgin Island ...................................... 356 6,000.00Vermont ..................................................... 361 96,386.81Virginia ...................................................... 3,559 426,197.77Washington ............................................... 1,840 387,177.81West Virginia ............................................. 645 128,878.93Wisconsin .................................................. 2,065 441,721.01Wyoming .................................................... 221 49,814.46

Total ...................................................... 167,497 22,913,725.04

BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT ACT—YEAR1999

State Number vests BVP funding

Alabama .................................................. 2,498 333,476.91Alaska ..................................................... 202 38,435.26Arizona .................................................... 2,569 474,444.89Arkansas ................................................. 408 164,433.89California ................................................ 27,477 2,983,332.71Colorado .................................................. 2,288 388,322.15Connecticut ............................................. 1,904 308,881.86Delaware ................................................. 2,214 216,210.35District of Columbia ............................... 1,580 171,768.76Florida ..................................................... 11,769 1,433,916.06Georgia .................................................... 4,780 749,046.97Guam ....................................................... ........................ ..........................Hawaii ..................................................... 2,331 388,037.21Idaho ....................................................... 477 120,627.95Illinois ..................................................... 6,761 923,328.88Indiana .................................................... 3,842 513,415.07Iowa ......................................................... 1,011 210,632.67Kansas .................................................... 1,048 201,192.38Kentucky .................................................. 1,363 241,682.86Louisiana ................................................. 3,510 421,933.86Maine ...................................................... 576 120,651.83Maryland ................................................. 2,782 265,643.15Massachusetts ........................................ 3,582 754,073.82Michigan ................................................. 3,427 622,564.00Minnesota ................................................ 709 234,776.23Mississippi .............................................. 1,364 239,899.81Missouri ................................................... 1,221 224,177.96Montana .................................................. 271 80,877.76Nebraska ................................................. 622 90,276.24Nevada .................................................... 1,176 141,612.32New Hampshire ....................................... 489 118,470.26New Jersey ............................................... 5,579 1,227,933.41

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9881October 5, 2000BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT ACT—YEAR

1999—Continued

State Number vests BVP funding

New Mexico ............................................. 1,195 200,141.76New York ................................................. 11,969 1,817,314.92North Carolina ......................................... 3,183 530,987.91North Dakota ........................................... 352 43,284.36Northern Mariana Islands ....................... 355 107,033.50Ohio ......................................................... 5,015 950,198.19Oklahoma ................................................ 3,389 562,865.11Oregon ..................................................... 2,456 416,464.24Pennsylvania ........................................... 8,260 1,577,238.20Puerto Rico .............................................. 1,337 147,861.47Rhode Island ........................................... 313 84,417.94South Carolina ........................................ 1,727 256,551.50South Dakota .......................................... 157 27,845.87Tennessee ................................................ 2,154 286,436.37Texas ....................................................... 5,962 802,886.82U.S. Virgin Island .................................... 341 45,361.11Utah ........................................................ 837 171,546.50Vermont ................................................... 175 43,806.27Virginia .................................................... 3,415 446,645.52Washington ............................................. 2,690 525,935.54West Virginia ........................................... 512 75,650.56Wisconsin ................................................ 2,418 437,207.69Wyoming .................................................. 159 44,134.89

Total .................................................... 158,396 24,005,803.78

JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today isOctober 5, the first anniversary of anevent I hope I will not see again in theSenate. I have spoken many timesabout the Senate being the conscienceof the Nation, and it should be. A yearago today, I believe the country washarmed by a party-line vote. Thatparty-line vote defeated the nomina-tion of Justice Ronnie White to theFederal district court in Missouri. Jus-tice White, on the Missouri SupremeCourt, had the highest qualifications.He passed through the Senate Judici-ary Committee. He had the highestABA ratings. He is a distinguished Af-rican American jurist. Yet when itcame to a vote, every Democrat votedfor him and every Republican votedagainst him. I believe that was a mis-take and one we will regret. I spoke onthis nomination on October 15 and 21 oflast year and more recently this year.

Fifty-one years ago this month—Iwas 9 years old—the Senate confirmedPresident Truman’s nomination of Wil-liam Henry Hastings to the Court ofAppeals for the Third Circuit. That wasactually the first Senate confirmationof an African American to our Federalcourts—only 51 years ago. Thirty-oneyears ago, the Senate confirmed Presi-dent Johnson’s nomination ofThurgood Marshall to the U.S. Su-preme Court. When we rejected RonnieWhite, I wonder if we went backward orwe moved forward.

This year, the Judiciary Committeehas even refused to move forward witha hearing on Roger Gregory or JudgeJames Wynn to the Fourth Circuit. Itis interesting—talk about bipartisan-ship—one of these men is a distin-guished African American, a legalscholar, strongly supported by both theRepublican and Democratic Senatorsfrom his State. Senator WARNER, a dis-tinguished and respected Member ofthis body and a Republican, stronglysupports him. Senator ROBB, an equallydistinguished and respected Member ofthis body and a Democrat, a decoratedwar hero, also supports him, and thePresident nominated him. We cannoteven get a vote.

I hope this does not continue. I sug-gest, again, whoever wins the Presi-dency, whoever wins seats or losesseats in the Senate, that we not do thisnext year.

This year, the Judiciary Committeereported only three nominees to theCourt of Appeals all year. We denied acommittee vote to two outstandingnominees who succeeded in gettinghearings. I understand the frustrationof Senators who know Roger Gregory,Judge James Wynn, Kathleen McCreeLewis, Judge Helene White, BonnieCampbell, and others should have beenconsidered and voted on.

There are multiple vacancies on theThird, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth,Tenth, and District of Columbia Cir-cuits; 23 current vacancies. Our appel-late courts have nearly half of the judi-cial vacancies in the Federal court sys-tem. That has to change. I hope it will.

I see my distinguished colleague andfriend from Texas on the floor. I wantto assure her I will yield the floor verysoon.

But I hope we can look again and askourselves objectively, without any par-tisanship, can we not do better onjudges?

I quoted Gov. George Bush on thefloor a couple days ago. I said I agreedwith him. On nominations, he said weshould vote them up or down within 60days. If you don’t want the person, voteagainst them. The Republican Partyshould have no fear of that. They havethe majority in this body. They canvote against them if they want, buthave the vote. Either vote for them orvote against them. Don’t leave peoplesuch as Helene White and BonnieCampbell—people such as this—justhanging forever without even getting arollcall vote. That is wrong. It is not aresponsible way and besmirches theSenate, this body that I love so much.

I consider it a privilege to serve here.This is a nation of a quarter of a billionpeople; and only 100 of us can serve atany one time to represent this wonder-ful Nation. It is a privilege that ourStates give us. We should use the privi-lege in the most responsible way tobenefit all of us.

When Senators do not vote their con-science, they risk the debacle that wewitnessed last October 5th, when a par-tisan political caucus vote resulted in afine man and highly qualified nomineebeing rejected by all Republican Sen-ators on a party-line vote. The Senatewill never remove the blot that oc-curred last October when the Repub-lican Senators emerged from a Repub-lican Caucus to vote lockstep againstJustice White. At a Missouri Bar Asso-ciation forum last week, Justice Whiteexpressed concern that the rejection ofhis nominations to a Federal judgeshipwill have a ‘‘chilling effect’’ on the de-sire of other young African Americanlawyers to seek to serve on our judici-ary.

President Clinton has tried to makeprogress on bringing greater diversityto our federal courts. He has been suc-

cessful to some extent. With our help,we could have done so much more. Wewill end this Congress without havingacted on any of the African Americannominees, Judge James Wynn or RogerGregory, sent to us to fill vacancies onthe Fourth Circuit and finally inte-grate the Circuit with the highest per-centage of African American popu-lation in the country, but the one Cir-cuit that has never had an AfricanAmerican judge. We could have actedon the nomination of Kathleen McCreeLewis and confirmed her to the SixthCircuit to be the first African Amer-ican woman to sit on that Court. In-stead, we will end the year withouthaving acted on any of the three out-standing nominees to the Sixth Circuitpending before us.

This Judiciary Committee has re-ported only three nominees to theCourts of Appeals all year. We haveheld hearings without even including anominee to the Courts of Appeals anddenied a Committee vote to two out-standing nominees who succeeded ingetting hearings. I certainly under-stand the frustration of those Senatorswho know that Roger Gregory, JudgeJames Wynn, Kathleen McCree Lewis,as well as Judge Helene White, BonnieCampbell and others should have beenconsidered by this Committee andvoted on by the Senate this year.

There continue to be multiple vacan-cies on the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,Ninth, Tenth and District of ColumbiaCircuits. With 23 current vacancies, ourappellate courts have nearly half of thetotal judicial emergency vacancies inthe federal court system. I note thatthe vacancy rate for our Courts of Ap-peals is more than 12 percent nation-wide. If we were to take into accountthe additional appellate judgeships in-cluded in the Hatch-Leahy FederalJudgeship Act of 2000, S.3071, a bill thatwas requested by the Judicial Con-ference to handle current workloads,the vacancy rate on our federal courtsof appeals would be more than 17 per-cent.

The Chairman declares that ‘‘there isand has been no judicial vacancy cri-sis’’ and that he calculates vacanciesat ‘‘less than zero.’’ The extraordinaryservice that has been provided by ourcorps of senior judges does not meanthere are no vacancies. In the federalcourts around the country there re-main 63 current vacancies and severalmore on the horizon. With the judge-ships included in the Hatch-Leahy Fed-eral Judgeship Act of 2000, there wouldbe over 130 vacancies across the coun-try. That is the truer measure of va-cancies, many of which have been long-standing judicial emergency vacanciesin our southwest border states. Thechief judges of both the Fifth and SixthCircuits have had to declare their en-tire courts in emergencies since thereare too many vacancies and too fewcircuit judges to handle their work-load.

The chairman misconstrues the les-sons of the 63 vacancies at the end of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9882 October 5, 2000the 103rd Congress in 1994. I wouldpoint out that in 1994 the Senate con-firmed 101 judges to compensate fornormal attrition and to fill the vacan-cies and judgeships created in 1990. Infact, that Congress reduced the vacan-cies from 131 in 1991, to 103 in 1992, to112 in 1993, to 63 in 1994. Vacancies weregoing down and we were acting withRepublican and Democratic Presidentsto fill the 85 judgeships created by aDemocratic Congress under a Repub-lican President in 1990. Since Repub-licans assumed control of the Senate inthe 1994 election the Senate has noteven kept up with normal attrition. Wewill end this year with more vacanciesthan at the end of the session in 1994.As I have pointed out, the vacanciesare most acute among our courts of ap-peals. Further, we have not acted toadd the judgeships requested by the Ju-dicial Conference to meet increasedworkloads over the last decade.

According to the Chief Justice’s 1999year-end report, the filings of cases inour Federal courts have reached recordheights. In fact, the filings of criminalcases and defendants reached theirhighest levels since the ProhibitionAmendment was repealed in 1933. Alsoin 1999, there were 54,693 filings in the12 regional courts of appeals. Overallgrowth in appellate court caseload lastyear was due to a 349 percent upsurgein original proceedings. This sudden ex-pansion resulted from newly imple-mented reporting procedures, whichmore accurately measure the increasedjudicial workload generated by thePrisoner Litigation Reform Act andthe Antiterrorism and Effective DeathPenalty Act, both passed in 1996.

Let me also set the record straight,yet again, on the erroneous but oft-re-peated argument that ‘‘the Clinton Ad-ministration is on record as havingstated that a vacancy rate just over 7percent is virtual full-employment ofthe judiciary.’’ That is not true.

The statement can only be alluded toan October 1994 press release. It shouldnot be misconstrued in this manner.That press release was pointing outthat at the end of the 103rd Congress ifthe Senate had proceeded to confirmthe 14 nominees then pending on theSenate calendar, it would have reducedthe judicial vacancy rate to 4.7 percent,which the press release then proceededto compare to a favorable unemploy-ment rate of under 5 percent.

Unfortunately, the chairman’s asser-tions are demonstrably false. Contraryto his statement, the Justice Depart-ment’s October 12, 1994 press releasethat he cites does not equate a 7.4 per-cent vacancy rate with ‘‘full employ-ment,’’ but rather a 4.7 percent rate.Additionally, the vacancy rate was notreduced to 4.7 percent in 1994, andstands at three times that today.

The Justice Department release wasnot a statement of administration posi-tion or even a policy statement but apoorly designed press release that in-cluded an ill-conceived comment. Jobvacancy rates and unemployment rates

are not comparable. Unemploymentrates are measures of people who donot have jobs not of Federal offices va-cant without an appointed office hold-er.

When I learned that some Repub-licans had for partisan purposes seizedupon this press release, taken it out ofcontext, ignored what the press releaseactually said and were manipulating itinto a misstatement of Clinton admin-istration policy, I asked the AttorneyGeneral, in 1997, whether there was anylevel or percentage of judicial vacan-cies that the administration consideredacceptable or equal to ‘‘full employ-ment.’’

The Department responded:There is no level or percentage of vacan-

cies that justifies a slow down in the Senateon the confirmation of nominees for judicialpositions. While the Department did once, inthe fall of 1994, characterize a 4.7 percent va-cancy rate in the federal judiciary as theequivalent of the Department of Labor ‘fullemployment’ standard, that characterizationwas intended simply to emphasize the hardwork and productivity of the Administrationand the Senate in reducing the extraordinarynumber of vacancies in the federal Article IIIjudiciary in 1993 and 1994. Of course, there isa certain small vacancy rate, due to retire-ments and deaths and the time required bythe appointment process, that will alwaysexist. The current vacancy rate is 11.3 per-cent. It did reach 12 percent this past sum-mer. The President and the Senate shouldcontinually be working diligently to fill va-cancies as they arise, and should alwaysstrive to reach 100 percent capacity for theFederal bench.

At no time has the Clinton adminis-tration stated that it believes that 7percent vacancies on the federal benchis acceptable or a virtually full federalbench. Only Republicans have ex-pressed that opinion. As the JusticeDepartment noted three years ago inresponse to an inquiry on this veryquestions, the Senate should be ‘‘work-ing diligently to fill vacancies as theyarise, and should always strive to reach100 percent capacity for the federalbench.’’

Indeed, I informed the Senate ofthese facts in a statement in the CON-GRESSIONAL RECORD on July 7, 1998, sothat there would be no future mis-understanding or misstatement of therecord. Nonetheless, in spite of thefacts and in spite of my July 1998 state-ment and subsequent statements onthis issue over the past three years,these misleading statements continueto be repeated.

Ironically, the Senate could reducethe current vacancy rate to under 5percent if we confirmed the 39 judicialnominees that remain bottled up beforethe Judiciary Committee. Instead ofmisstating the language of a 6-year-oldpress release that has since been dis-credited by the Attorney General her-self, the chairman would have my sup-port if we were working to get those 39more judges confirmed.

I regret to report again today thatthe last confirmation hearing for fed-eral judges held by the Judiciary Com-mittee was in July, as was the last

time the Judiciary Committee reportedany nominees to the full Senate.Throughout August and September andnow into the first week in October,there have been no additional hearingsheld or even noticed, and no executivebusiness meetings have included anyjudicial nominees on the agenda. Bycontrast, in 1992, the last year of theBush administration, a Democraticmajority in the Senate held three con-firmation hearings in August and Sep-tember and continued to work to con-firm judges up to and including the lastday of the session.

I continue to urge the Senate to meetits responsibilities to all nominees, in-cluding women and minorities. So longas the Senate is in session, I will urgeaction. That highly-qualified nomineesare being needlessly delayed is most re-grettable. The Senate should join withthe President to confirm well-qualified,diverse and fair-minded nominees tofulfill the needs of the Federal courtsaround the country.

As I noted on the floor earlier thisweek, the frustration that many Sen-ators feel with the lack of attentionthis Committee has shown long pend-ing judicial nominees has simply boiledover. I understand their frustrationand have been urging action for sometime. This could all have been easilyavoided if we were continuing to movejudicial nominations like Democratsdid in 1992, when we held hearings inSeptember and confirmed 66 judgesthat Presidential election year.

I regret that the Judiciary Com-mittee and the Senate is not holdingadditional hearings, that we only actedon 39 nominees all year and that wehave taken so long on so many ofthem. I deeply regret the lack of ahearing and a vote on so many quali-fied nominees, including Roger Greg-ory, Judge James Wynn, Judge HeleneWhite, Bonnie Campbell, EnriqueMoreno, Allen Snyder and others. And,I regret that a year ago today, the Sen-ate rejected the nomination of JusticeRonnie White to the Federal DistrictCourt of Missouri on a partisan, party-line vote.

Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield fora question?

Mr. LEAHY. I yield for a question.Mr. REID. I say to my friend from

Vermont, the bulletproof vest bill thatyou wrote and that you have spokenabout here on the floor this morning—is that right?

Mr. LEAHY. That is right.Mr. REID. It would greatly benefit

rural Nevadans; is that not right?Mr. LEAHY. There is no question it

would benefit rural Nevada. Of course,the distinguished deputy leader was inlaw enforcement himself. He knows thethreat that police officers face. Thatthreat is not exclusive to big cities, byany means.

Mr. REID. I say to my friend, thelead Democrat on the Judiciary Com-mittee, Nevada is an interesting State.Seventy percent of the people in Ne-vada live in the metropolitan Las

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9883October 5, 2000Vegas area. Another about 20 percentlive in the Reno metropolitan area.The 10 percent who are spread outaround the rest of the State coverthousands and thousands of squaremiles, and there are many small com-munities that do not have the re-sources that the big cities have to pro-vide, for example, bulletproof vests.

I say to my friend from Vermont, doyou agree that people who work inrural America in law enforcement de-serve the same protection as those whowork in urban centers throughoutAmerica?

Mr. LEAHY. There is no questionabout it. In fact, in the 1999 bill theywere able to purchase nearly 400 vests,many of those in the rural areas. If weget this through, now they can pur-chase 1,176 vests.

I say this because the Senate movedvery quickly to pass a bill that in-creased the penalties if we harmed dogsor horses used by law enforcement. Inother words, we could quickly zip thisthrough and pass a bill saying the pen-alty will be increased if one harms adog or horse used by law enforcement,but, whoops, we can’t pass a bipartisanpiece of legislation protecting the lawenforcement officer himself or herself.I think of Alice in Wonderland, I haveto admit, under those circumstances.

Mr. REID. I say to my friend, I amhappy we are looking out for animals.I support that and was aware of thatlegislation, but I think it is about timewe started helping some of these ruralpolice departments in Nevada that areso underfunded and so badly in need ofthis protection.

Mr. LEAHY. I say to my friend fromNevada, I, too, support the bill pro-tecting animals in law enforcement.But I wish we could have added thisother part. If you have the police offi-cer out with the police dog, that policeofficer deserves protection. If you havea police officer out there with a horse—in many parts of both urban and ruralareas horses are still used for a numberof reasons by police officers—then let’salso protect the police officer.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the

Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. AL-

LARD). The Senator from Texas.Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent, on behalf ofthe leader, at 1 o’clock today, the Sen-ator from Illinois, Mr. FITZGERALD, berecognized to make closing remarks onthe Interior appropriations conferencereport for up to 45 minutes, and fol-lowing the use or yielding back oftime, the cloture vote occur, notwith-standing rule XXII, and following thatvote, if invoked, the conference reportbe considered under the following timerestraints: 10 minutes equally dividedbetween the two managers, 10 minutesequally divided between the chairmanand ranking member of Appropriations;30 minutes under the control of Sen-ator LANDRIEU, 15 minutes under thecontrol of Senator MCCAIN.

I further ask consent that followingthe use or yielding back of time, theSenate proceed to vote on adoption ofthe conference report, without any in-tervening action or debate.

Mr. REID. Reserving the right to ob-ject, I wonder if the Senator would bekind enough to change the time until 2o’clock. I think that has been agreed toon your side. I did not hear. SenatorFITZGERALD is to be given 1 hour ratherthan 45 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President,that is acceptable. We could change thetime to start at 2 o’clock today, withSenator FITZGERALD having 1 hour.


Without objection, it is so ordered.Mrs. HUTCHISON. In light of this

agreement, Mr. President, the nextvote will be at approximately 3 o’clock.

Let me revise, once again, the unani-mous consent request to begin at 1o’clock, leaving the 1-hour timeframefor Mr. FITZGERALD; therefore, in lightof the agreement, the vote would occurat approximately 2 o’clock, with an-other vote on adoption of the con-ference report at 3:30 today. If I couldwrap all of that in together as a unani-mous consent request, that would bemy hope. I make that unanimous con-sent request.


Mr. REID. The confusion is not onthe part of the Senator from Texas. Itis my confusion. I apologize for insert-ing that 2 o’clock time. There wassome confusion on my part. The debatewill start at 1 and we will vote around2.


The Senator from Texas.Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent to speak as inmorning business for up to 20 minutes.


JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President,having heard my distinguished col-league from Vermont talk about thejudicial selection process, I rise tocommend Senator HATCH and his lead-ership of the Judiciary Committee.

It is very difficult to accommodateall of the requests and responsibilitiesthat are entailed in a lifetime appoint-ment to the Federal bench. I thinkSenator HATCH has done the very bestjob he possibly could in getting ap-pointments through, appointmentsthat are reflective of Clinton adminis-tration priorities. The vast majority ofClinton appointees have gone through.In my home State of Texas, we havehad 20 nominations. Senator GRAMMand I have supported 18 of those, and 17have gone through. There is still onepending that we support.

I think Senator HATCH has bent overbackwards to do his due diligence butto respect the wishes of the Democraticside and the administration. I don’twant to leave unchallenged some of the

comments made that indicate that se-rious consideration has not been givento every single Clinton appointee andthat in most cases those appointeeshave been put forward.

It is important that a lifetime ap-pointment be scrutinized because thereis no accountability of that lifetimeappointment. We need to look at all ofthe factors surrounding a particularnominee, knowing the power that aFederal judge has and that the ac-countability is limited.

I applaud Senator HATCH. I think hehas done a terrific job under very dif-ficult circumstances. I hope he willcontinue the due diligence and alsocontinue apace with the nominationsprocess.

HOSPITAL PRESERVATION ACT

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Irise to discuss the Hospital Preserva-tion Act that Senator ABRAHAM and Iintroduced last year. We achieved par-tial relief for hospitals last year, butwe have reintroduced it this year in anattempt to get more relief for the be-leaguered hospitals of our country.

Today we have both the House Waysand Means Committee and the SenateFinance Committee working on thisvery important legislation. We willhave legislation that will, at least forthis year, restore the cuts that arebeing made to our hospitals in Medi-care payments, but I am hoping we canget more. In fact, there are many areasof our health care system that havebeen undercut by a combination of theBalanced Budget Act and have actuallybeen cut even more forcefully by theHealth Care Financing Administrationthan was ever intended by Congress.

When we passed the Balanced BudgetAct, we said we would look at the ef-fects, and if we needed to refine it inany way, we would do that. Congresshas met its responsibility in that re-gard. We had the Balanced Budget ActRefinement Act passed. We have comeback and restored cuts that were toomuch. That is what we are doing in thebill that is before us or will be beforeus very soon, that is now being consid-ered by the House Committee on Waysand Means and the Senate FinanceCommittee. In fact, the legislationwould increase payments to hospitals,nursing homes, home health care agen-cies, managed care organizations, andother health providers that are paidunder Medicare.

This legislation is needed especiallyfor our hospitals because they are thefront line of our health care deliverysystem. This legislation builds on leg-islation Congress passed last year thatreversed some of the cuts in providerpayments that did result from the Bal-anced Budget Act and from excessiveadministrative actions taken by theHealth Care Financing Administration.

Last year’s bill contained importantprovisions that have helped preservethe ability of American hospitals tocontinue to provide the highest level ofhealth care anywhere in the world. TheBalanced Budget Refinement Act that

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9884 October 5, 2000Congress passed last year did make thesituation a little brighter for some ofthese struggling hospitals. It eases thetransition from cost-based reimburse-ment to prospective payment for hos-pital outpatient services. It restoressome of the cuts to disproportionateshare payments, and it provides tar-geted relief for teaching hospitals andcancer and rehabilitation hospitals.

I was proud to have been the primeadvocate in the Senate for one of theprovisions in that bill that restored thefull inflation update for inpatient hos-pital services for sole community pro-vider hospitals, those located primarilyin rural areas that provide the only in-stitutional care in a 35-mile geographicarea. However, last year’s bill was real-ly just a start. I think we have allheard from hospitals that they arereally hurting. Hospitals are actuallybeginning to close, in Texas and allover the Nation. Independent estimatesare that this trend will only get worseunless something is done.

I and many of my colleagues in Con-gress continue to hear from hospitaladministrators, trustees, health profes-sionals that they were struggling tomaintain the quality and variety ofhealth services in the face of mountingbudget pressures. With the statutoryand HCFA-imposed cuts that they wereseeing, many efficiently run hospitalsbegan for the first time to run deficitsand threaten closure. For many ofthese hospitals to close, particularlythose in rural areas, would mean notonly the loss of life-saving medicalservices to the residents of the area butalso the loss of a core component oflocal communities. Jobs would be lost.Businesses would wither, and the senseof community and stability a local hos-pital brings would suffer.

My colleague, Senator Spence ABRA-HAM of Michigan, and I began the taskof looking for the best way to providesignificant assistance to these hos-pitals to make sure the payments theywere receiving for taking Medicare pa-tients were fair and adequate to enablethem to continue serving our Nation’sseniors, and also to have the supportthey need to run their hospitals. We de-cided to try to expand the sole commu-nity provider hospital provision to allhospitals.

The bill we have introduced willmake sure that Medicare payments forinpatient services actually keep upwith the rate of hospital inflation. Wewill restore the full 1.1 percent inscheduled reductions from the annualinflation updates for inpatient servicescalled for by the Balanced Budget Act.Moreover, rather than just applying toa small group of hospitals, this legisla-tion would benefit every hospital inAmerica, providing an estimated $7.7billion in additional Medicare pay-ments over the next 5 years.

Now, you may ask, where is that $7.7billion going to come from? Well, whenwe passed the Balanced Budget Act, weprojected savings of $110 billion overthe 5-year period that should have oc-

curred from the cuts we put in the Bal-anced Budget Act. But, in fact, insteadof $110 billion, we are now projecting$220 billion in savings. So the $7.7 bil-lion just for this part of the bill has al-ready been saved, and $100 billion moreis estimated when you take into ac-count the whole 5 years.

So the bottom line is, we cut toomuch; we are going to restore part ofthose cuts; and we are still going to beapproximately $100 billion ahead. So wewill have saved $100 billion, as we in-tended to do, but we will restore thecuts that have caused such hardshipsto the hospitals throughout our coun-try.

The bill that is being considered bythe House Ways and Means Committeecontains a full 1-year restoration in theinflation update for hospitals. Thepending Senate Finance Committeebill would restore the cuts in 2001, butit only delays the 2002 cuts until 2003.This is progress.

I so appreciate Senator ROTH andSenator MOYNIHAN’s efforts in the Sen-ate Finance Committee. But I don’twant to delay those cuts. I want to re-store the cuts for the full 2 years. Ihope that in the end we can go aheadand do that because these hospitalsneed to know that there is a stabilityin their budgeting, that they will beable to look at the restoration in thecuts for the next 2 years. They need tobe able to plan. They need to knowthey will have the adequate funding forMedicare that they must have to givethe services in the community and tosupport the hospital for all of the peo-ple and the health care needs of thecommunity.

So we are not doing anything thatwould bust the budget or go into defi-cits. The fact is, this is a refinement.We have cut $100 billion too much, andwe are restoring $8 billion of that.

In the bill that is being considered bythe Senate Finance Committee, wealso will strengthen the Medicare pay-ments for the disproportionate sharehospitals, for home health care agen-cies, for graduate medical education,and for Medicare+Choice plans. We arenot out of the woods, but we are takinga major step in the right direction.

I commend Senator ROTH for hisleadership of the committee, alongwith Senator MOYNIHAN. I implore Con-gress to move swiftly on this very im-portant legislation. We cannot go outof session without addressing the issueof keeping our hospitals from sufferingdisastrous cuts in Medicare—cuts thatthey cannot absorb and cuts that arenot warranted. This is our responsi-bility, Mr. President.

I thank my colleague, Senator ABRA-HAM, for helping me so much on thisissue. He has been a leader. After lis-tening to hospital personnel in hishome State of Michigan, he came tome and said, ‘‘We have to do some-thing; let’s do it together,’’ and I said,‘‘Great,’’ because we must act beforewe leave this year in Congress. We can-not go forward without addressing this

very important issue for the hospitalsand health care providers of our coun-try.

CERTIFICATION OF MEXICO

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Iwant to speak briefly on a sense-of-the-Senate resolution I have introduced onbehalf of myself and Senators GRASS-LEY, GRAMM, KYL, DOMENICI, DODD,FEINSTEIN, HOLLINGS, and SESSIONS.

We have submitted this sense-of-the-Senate resolution to deal with theissue of the certification of Mexico.Several of us introduced a bill earlierin the session after the election of thenew President of Mexico, Vicente Fox,to try to address the issue of two newadministrations in both of our coun-tries that will be faced with the auto-matic certification of the issue of howwe are dealing with illegal drug traf-ficking as a bilateral effort in our twocountries, but with two administra-tions that have not had time to sitdown and come up with a plan thatwould cooperate fully in this very im-portant effort.

Since time is so short, we have comeup with a sense-of-the-Senate resolu-tion that I think will at least say it isthe will of the Senate. If we can passthis before we adjourn sine die, I thinkit will be a major step in the right di-rection to give some relief to the twonew Presidents who will be sworn in forboth of our countries and to say, firstof all, we in the Senate take this veryseriously. One of the most importantissues for our countries is dealing withillegal drug trafficking between Mexicoand the United States. Realizing thatneither President could be held ac-countable yet for the programs thatshould be put in place, we are going tohave a 1-year moratorium.

This is the sense-of-the-Senate reso-lution:

Whereas Mexico will inaugurate a new gov-ernment on 1 December 2000 that will be thefirst change of authority from one party toanother;

Whereas the 2nd July election of VincenteFox Quesada of the Alliance for Changemarks an historic transition of power inopen and fair elections;

Whereas Mexico and the United Statesshare a 2,000 mile border, Mexico is theUnited States’ second largest trading part-ner, and the two countries share historic andcultural ties;

Whereas drug production and traffickingare a threat to the national interests and thewell-being of the citizens of both countries;

Whereas U.S.-Mexican cooperation ondrugs is a cornerstone for policy for bothcountries in developing effective programs tostop drug use, drug production, and drugtrafficking; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved,(a) The Senate, on behalf of the people of

the United States(1) welcomes the constitutional transition

of power in Mexico;(2) congratulates the people of Mexico and

their elected representatives for this historicchange;

(3) expresses its intent to continue to workcooperatively with Mexican authorities topromote broad and effective efforts for thehealth and welfare of U.S. and Mexican citi-zens endangered by international drug traf-ficking, use, and production.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9885October 5, 2000(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense

of the Senate that the incoming new govern-ments in both Mexico and the United Statesmust develop and implement a counterdrugprogram that more effectively addresses theofficial corruption, the increase in drug traf-fic, and the lawlessness that has resultedfrom illegal drug trafficking, and that a one-year waiver of the requirement that thePresident certify Mexico is warranted to per-mit both new governments time to do so.

I appreciate very much SenatorGRASSLEY working with me on thissense-of-the-Senate resolution. All ofmy cosponsors represent a bipartisaneffort across the borders and acrossboth sides of the aisle.

Mr. President, I want to just say Iwent to Mexico leading a delegation ofMembers of Congress. It was the firstcongressional delegation to visit Mex-ico with the new President-elect, andwe were able to sit down and visit withboth President Zedillo, the President ofMexico, and the President-elect,Vicente Fox. I want to say how encour-aged we were with the dynamism ofPresident-elect Fox, with his absoluteassurance that this drug issue is one ofthe most important of all the issues be-tween our two countries, and theypromised to work hand in hand withthe new administration that will beelected in the United States in Novem-ber, and with Members of Congress todo everything they can working withus to cooperate in stopping the canceron both of our countries that this drugtrafficking is causing.

When we have a criminal element inMexico and a criminal element in theUnited States, that is bad for both ofour countries. It is preying on the abil-ity of our country to have full eco-nomic freedom, to grow and prosper,and to have friendly relations acrossour borders. The drug trafficking issueis the big cloud over both of our coun-tries. I believe that President-ElectFox is going to pursue this vigorously.

I also want to say that PresidentZedillo has taken major steps in thatdirection for his country. He, first ofall, laid the groundwork for the democ-racy that clearly was shown in this lastelection. Instead of handpicking a suc-cessor and not allowing free primaries,he did the opposite. He allowed the freeprimaries and he said in every waythey were going to have open and freeelections. President Zedillo has madehis mark on Mexico. He was a very im-portant President for recognizing thatthe time had come for free and openelections in Mexico. He is to be com-mended, and I think he will go down inthe history books as one of the greatPresidents of Mexico.

In addition, President Zedillo triedvery hard to cooperate in the effortthat we were making in drug traf-ficking. I would say that no one be-lieves that we are nearly where weneed to be in that regard. But I thinkhe took some very important firststeps.

I see a ray of sunshine in Mexico. Ourcountry to the South is a very impor-tant country to the United States.

They are our friends. We share culturalties. We share family ties.

It is in all of our interests that wehave the strongest bond between Mex-ico and the United States—just as wehave with Canada and the UnitedStates. These are our borders. I havealways said that I believe the strength-ening of our hemisphere is going to bea win for all three of our countries.

I want to go all the way through thetip of South America in our trading re-lations and in the building of all of oureconomies because I think that is ourfuture. Our countries depend on eachother. We are interdependent, and ourfriendship and our alliances will be im-portant for the security and viabilityof all of our countries in the WesternHemisphere.

I am very pleased that we have intro-duced this sense of the Senate. I urgemy colleagues to help us pass thissense of the Senate so that we will beable, next session, to say that the Sen-ate has spoken, and that we want togive some time to certification so thatour countries can go forward with ourtwo new Presidents and have a strongworking relationship.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield thefloor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.The legislative clerk proceeded to

call the roll.Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.


Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent I be allowed tospeak for no more than 10 minutes asin morning business.


ENERGY POLICY

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my atten-tion was drawn this morning to an arti-cle in the Washington Times where ourSecretary of Energy, Bill Richardson,defends energy policy by saying some-thing that I found fascinating, to thepoint of absurdity. He says, ‘‘We arenot in an energy crisis.’’

I am not quite sure how Mr. Richard-son defines ‘‘crisis,’’ but I do know Mr.Richardson has recognized, at least for12 months, a problem. Am I to under-stand that the reason for the absenceof an energy policy in the Clinton ad-ministration is that we recognize aproblem, but we are not going to doanything about it until it becomes acrisis?

Home heating oil last year, in theNortheast, began at 80 cents to 90 centsa gallon. It went to nearly $2 beforethat season was over. It was contractedthis summer at $1.19, and it is now sell-ing at $1.40. I call that a crisis if I amlow income and I want a warm homethis winter. I call it a crisis if I want totravel cross-country and I can’t affordto fill my gas tank. I call it a crisis ifI am a trucker and I can’t up my con-

tracts to absorb my fuel or energycosts and I must turn my truck backin, as thousands are now doing—turn-ing their trucks back in on the leaseprograms under which they acquiredthem when they planned to move thecommerce of America across this coun-try.

Mr. Secretary, earlier this year, youflew numerous times to the MiddleEast with a tin cup in hand, beggingthe sheiks of the OPEC nations to turnthe valve on just a little bit and let outa little more oil, hopefully droppingthe price of crude and therefore low-ering the cost at the pump. For a mo-ment in time it worked. Then the pricestarted ratcheting up as the marketsbegan to understand that what hadhappened was pretty much artificialand pretty much rhetorical in natureand that, in fact, the supplies had notincreased to offset the demand.

While all of that was going on, under-neath the surface of this issue were afew basic facts. We have lost over 30 re-fineries in the last decade because theycouldn’t afford to comply with theClean Air Act; they couldn’t retrofit ina profitable way. They were not giventax credits and other tools because itwas ‘‘big oil’’ and you dare not causethem any benefits that might ulti-mately make it to the marketplace sothe consumer could ultimately benefit.Those refineries went down.

Here we are at a time when the priceof crude oil peaked and the Vice Presi-dent ran to the President and saidplease release SPR, and that has beendone, or at least it is now being orga-nized to be done, and it may lowerprices. Yet that was a Strategic Petro-leum Reserve that was destined to beused only for a crisis. And the Sec-retary of Energy says no crisis. Hehimself said yesterday before the Na-tional Press Club there is no energycrisis in this country. But there was acrisis last week and the Presidentagreed to release the oil out of SPR.

I don’t get it. I do not think I amthat ignorant. I serve on the EnergyCommittee. We reviewed this. We haveargued for a decade that there is aproblem in the making, but this admin-istration will not put down a policy,even though they see a problem, unlessthe problem becomes a crisis.

But now there is not a crisis, so whyare we releasing the Strategic Petro-leum Reserve, which was designed notonly for a crisis but for a nationalemergency, one that was inflicted uponus by a reduction or a stoppage of theflow of foreign crude coming into oureconomy that might put our economyat risk.

The Secretary says we have a short-term problem and we will work it outin time.

Mr. Secretary, what does ‘‘working itout’’ mean? Have you proffered or pro-posed a major energy policy before theCongress of the United States? No, you

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9886 October 5, 2000have not. Have you suggested an in-crease in production of domestic re-sources so we could lower our depend-ency on foreign oil? No, you have not,Mr. Secretary.

So the American public ought to beasking of this administration, the VicePresident, the President, and the Sec-retary of Energy: Mr. Secretary, Mr.President, and Mr. Vice President, ifthere is no crisis, then why are youtapping the very reserves that we haveset aside for a time of crisis? Somehowit doesn’t fit.

There were political allegations 3 or 4weeks ago when the Vice President wasasking the President to release the pe-troleum reserve. He was saying therewas a crisis, or a near crisis. That gotdone. And yesterday,

In remarks before the National Press Club,[Secretary] Richardson said the ‘‘politicalcampaign’’ was behind Gore’s accusationsagainst [big] oil companies and that a surgein demand for oil in the United States andabroad is the real reason gasoline, heating-oil and natural-gas prices have soared thisyear. ‘‘We are not in an energy crisis.’’

Mr. Secretary, if you are traveling orif you are not wealthy and you have topick up the 100 percent increased costin your energy bills and your heatingbills, I am going to tell you that is acrisis. But my guess is, it is typical ofthis administration, a problem is aproblem until there is a crisis, andthen you find a solution; 8 years with-out a solution to this problem spellscrisis.

I am sorry, Mr. Secretary, but yourrhetoric doesn’t fit the occasion, nordoes it rectify the problem.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from North Dakota.Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent to speak in morn-ing business for 10 minutes, and I askto be followed by the Senator fromWest Virginia, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, whowill speak on the same subject.


THE ‘‘CAPTIVE SHIPPER’’ PROBLEM

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, theSenator from West Virginia, Mr.ROCKEFELLER and I, along with theSenator from Montana, Mr. BURNS,have been working on legislation deal-ing with our railroad service in thiscountry. We have introduced legisla-tion, S. 621, entitled the Railroad Com-petition and Service Improvement Actwhich addresses problems associatedwith shippers who are ‘‘captive’’ or de-pendent on one railroad for their ship-ping needs. Mr. President, I have withme a letter from over 280 chief execu-tive officers of American corporationswriting about this subject.

I ask unanimous consent it be print-ed in the RECORD following my presen-tation.


(See Exhibit 1.)Mr. DORGAN. These CEOs of some of

America’s largest companies, and com-

panies all across this country, join usexpressing concern about what hashappened to America’s railroads. Thereis no competition in the railroad indus-try in this country. The deregulationof the rail industry occurred, now, over20 years ago. At that point, we had 42class I railroads. Now we are down toonly about four major railroad oper-ations in this country—two in the Eastand two in the West. Rather than en-couraging some competitive frame-work in the rail industry, the deregula-tion of the railroad industry has re-sulted in a handful of regional monopo-lies. They rely on bottlenecks to exertmaximum power over the marketplace.

These megarailroads dominate rail-road traffic, generating 95 percent ofthe gross ton miles and nearly 94 per-cent of the revenues, and they control90 percent of all coal movement in thiscountry, 70 percent of all grain move-ment in America, and 88 percent of allchemical movement in this country.

It is quite clear what consolidationhas meant to all Americans. Let megive a practical example. If you are afarmer in my State of North Dakotaand you want to sent a load of wheat tomarket and you put that load of wheaton a railcar in Bismarck, ND, and sendit to Minneapolis, MN, a little over 400miles, you will pay $2,300. If you aregoing to ship that same carload ofwheat from Minneapolis to Chicago,about the same distance, you do notpay $2,300, you pay less than $1,000.

Why the difference? Why are wecharged more than double as North Da-kotans to ship wheat about the samedistance? Because there is no competi-tion on the line from Bismarck to Min-neapolis, but there is competition be-tween Minneapolis and Chicago, so theprices are competitive. Where there iscompetition, there are lower rates.Where there is no competition, thereare monopoly prices. They say to busi-nesses and farmers: Here’s the charge;if you don’t like it, don’t use our serv-ice.

What other service exists? There isonly one line, only one railroad. Thereis a monopoly service, and they are en-gaged in monopoly pricing, and wehave no regulatory authority to saythis is wrong.

We have what are called ‘‘captiveshippers.’’ These are Main Street busi-nesses, family farmers, big companies,small companies, and they are heldcaptive by the railroad companies thatsay to them: We have the rails, we havethe cars, we have the company, andhere’s what the service is going to costyou; if you don’t like it, tough luck.

In the circumstance I just described,the railroad says to a North Dakotafarmer: We’re going to charge you dou-ble what we charge other people. Why?Because we choose to. Why? Becausewe want to; because we have the mus-cle to do it, and if you don’t like it,take a hike.

That is what is going on in this in-dustry where there is no competitionand where we have shippers being heldcaptive all across this country.

Do rail costs matter much to my partof the country? Let me give anotherexample.

Grain prices have collapsed. A farmerdoes not get much for grain these days.If you take wheat to an elevator inMinot, ND, that elevator pays about$2.40 a bushel for it, which is a pit-tance—it is worth a lot more thanthat—the cost to ship that $2.40 a bush-el wheat to the west coast is nearly$1.20 a bushel. Half the value of thatwheat on the west coast ends up beingtransportation costs by the railroad in-dustry.

How can they do that? It’s pricinggouging and nobody can do much aboutit because there is no regulatory au-thority to say it is wrong. They hidebehind the Staggers Rail Act which de-regulated the railroads, gave themenormous power, and resulted in a sub-stantial concentration. The result is,all across this country we have ship-pers who are now held captive, they arelocked in by an industry that says:This is what we are going to chargeyou; if you don’t like it, that’s toughluck.

What happens if someone believesthis is really arbitrary, really unfairand they intend to complain about it?We had what was called the InterstateCommerce Commission. That was agroup of folks who had died from theneck up. Nobody told them, but theywere dead from the neck up and hadone big rubber stamp down there. Itsaid: ‘‘Approved’’ They had one big rub-ber stamp and one big ink pad. What-ever the railroads wanted, the ICC said:‘‘Approved.’’

We got rid of the ICC. Now we have aSurface Transportation Board, and wehave someone at the Surface Transpor-tation Board, Linda Morgan, to whom Ipay a compliment. She put a morato-rium on mergers. We had another pro-posal for a merger, and she slapped ona moratorium. That merger fell apart.Good for her. It is the first good sign oflife for a long while among regulators.Good for her. But all of the mergerdamage is pretty well done. Linda Mor-gan is fighting a lonely battle at theSurface Transportation Board.

Let me show you what happens whensomebody files a complaint for unfairrail charges. You file a complaint, andhere are the steps. First of all, youneed to ante up some money. The filingfee for the standard procedure of com-plaint will be $54,000. It differs in somecases. If you have a beef with the rail-road, first of all, understand you aretaking on somebody with a lot moremoney and muscle than you have, No.1. No. 2, you are going to pay a filingfee to file a complaint against the rail-road freight rates, and then when youfile the complaint, you ought to expectto live a long time because you are notgoing to get a result for a long, longtime. In fact, some folks in Montanafiled a complaint against a railroad. Ittook 17 years—17 years—for the com-plaint to go through the process, andthen it never really got resolved in a

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9887October 5, 2000satisfactory way. That is why rail ship-pers understand it does not make muchsense to take the railroads on.

You have the railroad with the mus-cle to make these things stick, andthen you have regulators who havelargely been braindead for a long, longtime and do not want to do much. Theexception again is we have a new Sur-face Transportation Board. Linda Mor-gan showed some courage, so there issome hope with the current STB.

What is happening in this countrymust change. Senator ROCKEFELLER,who has been a leader on this issue,and I have held hearings on it. We bothserve on the Senate Commerce Com-mittee. We are joined by SenatorBURNS in our efforts. It is a bipartisaneffort.

We want to pass the S. 621, but we arenot going to get it done by the end ofthis year. What we are hoping for isthat the 280 plus CEOs of companiesacross this country, large and small,who wrote this letter saying they aresick and tired of being held captive byshipping rates imposed by railroadsthat are noncompetitive—a rate thatdoes not often relate to value for serv-ice—will get the attention in Congressthat they deserve. We hope these CEOscontinue to weigh in, in a significantway, with those who matter in thisCongress to say: ‘‘Let’s do somethingserious about this issue.’’ This is atough issue but it is one Congress hasa responsibility to tackle.

I pay credit to my colleague fromWest Virginia, Senator ROCKEFELLER.He has been working on this issue for along time. I have been privileged towork with him. We know that which isworth doing takes some time to getdone often, but we are not going toquit. The message to the 280 companiesthat have signed this letter, the mes-sage to our friends in Congress is: Wehave a piece of legislation that tries totackle this issue of monopoly con-centration and inappropriate pricing inthe railroad industry. It tackles theissue on behalf of captive shippers allacross this country—family farmersand Main Street businesses and oth-ers—and we are not going to quit.

We hope as we turn the corner at thestart of this next Congress that we willbe able to pass legislation that willgive some help and some muscle tothose in this country who are now pay-ing too much. They expect to be able tooperate in a system that has competi-tion as a regulator in the free market,and that has not existed in the rail in-dustry for some long while.

I yield the floor, and I believe mycolleague from West Virginia will alsohave some things to say.

EXHIBIT 1

SEPTEMBER 26, 2000.Hon. JOHN MCCAIN,Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee,Washington, DC.Hon. ERNEST HOLLINGS,Ranking Member, Senate Commerce Committee,Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCCAIN AND SENATOR HOL-LINGS: We are writing to ask that shipper

concerns with current national rail policy begiven priority for Commerce Committee ac-tion next Congress. The Staggers Rail Actwas enacted in 1980 with the goal of replac-ing government regulation of the railroadswith competitive market forces. Since thattime, the structure of the nation’s rail indus-try has changed dramatically. Where therewere 30 Class I railroad systems operating inthe U.S. in 1976, now there are only seven.While major railroads in North America ap-pear poised to begin another round of con-solidations in the near future, the SurfaceTransportation Board continues to adhere topolicies that hamper rail competition. Struc-tural changes in the rail industry combinedwith STB policies have stopped the goal ofthe Staggers Rail Act dead in its tracks.

We depend on rail transportation for thecost-effective, efficient movement of rawmaterials and products. The quality and costof rail transportation directly affects ourability to compete in a global marketplace,generate low cost energy, and contribute tothe economic prosperity of this nation. Cur-rent rail policies frustrate these objectivesby allowing railroads to prevent competitiveaccess to terminals, maintain monopoliesthrough ‘‘bottleneck pricing,’’ and hamperthe growth of viable short line and regionalrailroads through ‘‘paper barriers.’’

We applaud the Commerce Committee’sleadership on behalf of consumers con-cerning proposed mergers in the airline in-dustry. America’s rail consumers also needyour support and leadership to respond effec-tively to the dramatic changes that are un-derway in the rail industry. Bipartisan legis-lation is currently pending in both the Sen-ate and House of Representatives that takesa modest, effective approach in attemptingto remove some of the most critical impedi-ments to competition. Please work with usand take the steps that are needed to createa national policy that ensures effective, sus-tainable competition in the rail industry.

Sincerely,Fred Webber, President and CEO, Amer-

ican Chemistry Council;Glenn English, CEO, National Rural Elec-

tric Cooperative Association;Alan Richardson, Executive Director,

American Public Power Association;Tom Kuhn, President, Edison Electric In-

stitute;Henson Moore, President and COE, Amer-

ican Forest and Paper Association;Kevern R. Joyce, Chairman, President and

CEO, Texas-New Mexico Power Company;Jeffrey M. Lipton, President and CEO,

NOVA Chemicals Corporation;Robert N. Burt, Chairman and CEO, FMC

Corporation;Allen M. Hill, President and CEO, Dayton

Power and Light Company;Paul J. Ganci, Chairman and CEO, Central

Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation;David T. Flanagan, President and CEO,

CMP Group, Inc;Charles F. Putnik, President, CONDEA

Vista Company;Thomas S. Richards, Chairman, President

and CEO, RGS Energy Group, Inc;W. Peter Woodward, Senior Vice President,

Chemical Operations, Kerr-McGee ChemicalLLC;

Phillip D. Ashkettle, President and CEO,M.A. Hanna Company;

Eugene R. McGrath, Chairman, Presidentand CEO, Consolidated Edison, Inc.;

David M. Eppler, President and CEO, ClecoCorporation;

Robert B. Catell, Chairman and CEO,KeySpan Energy;

Thomas L. Grennan, Executive VP, Elec-tric Operations, Western Resources, Inc,;

Joseph H. Richardson, President and CEO,Florida Power Corporation;

Wayne H. Brunetti, President and CEO,Xcel Energy, Inc.;

Myron W. McKinney, President and CEO,Empire District Electric Company;

Erle Nye, Chairman, TXU Corporation;Corbin A. McNeill, Jr., Chairman, Presi-

dent and CEO, PECO Energy Company;James E. Rogers, Vice Chairman, Presi-

dent and CEO, Cinergy Corp.;Stanley W. Silverman, President and CEO,

The PQ Corporation;Robert Edwards, President, Minnesota

Power;William G. Bares, Chairman and CEO, The

Lubrizol Corporation;Stephen M. Humphrey, President and CEO,

Riverwood International;Thomas A. Waltermire, Chairman and

CEO, The Geon Company;James R. Carlson, Vice President, Flocryl

Inc.;John M. Derrick, Jr., Chairman and CEO,

Pepco;David D. Eckert, Executive Committee

Member, Rhodia Inc.;Frederick F. Schauder, Ltd., CFO and HD

of Business Service Center, Lonza Group,Ltd.;

Marvin W. Zima, President, OMNOVA So-lutions Performance Chemicals;

Simon H. Upfill-Brown, President, andCEO, Haltermann, Inc.;

Thomas A. Sugalski, President, CXYChemicals, USA;

John L. MacDonald, Chairman and Presi-dent, JLM Industries Inc.;

David A. Wolf, President, Perstorp Polyols,Inc.;

Roger M. Frazier, Vice President, PearlRiver Polymers Inc.;

Yoshi Kawashima, Chairman and CEO,Reichhold, Inc.;

Geroge F. MacCormack, Group Vice Presi-dent, Chemicals and Polyester, DuPont;

C. Bert Knight, President and CEO, Sud-Chemie Inc.;

James A. Cederna, President and CEO, Cal-gon Carbon Corporation;

Bernard J. Beaudoin, President, KansasCity Power and Light;

William S. Stavropoulos, President andCEO, The Dow Chemical Company;

Andrew J. Burke, President and CEO,Degussa-Huls Corporation;

Geroge A. Vincent, Chairman, President &CEO, The C.P. Hall Company;

William Cavanaugh, III, Chairman, Presi-dent and CEC, Carolina Power & Light Com-pany;

Richard B. Priory, Chairman, Presidentand CEO, Duke Energy Corporation;

Howard E. Cosgrove, Chairman, Presidentand CEO, Conectiv;

Gary L. Neale, Chairman, president andCEO, NiSource Inc.;

Robert L. James, President & CEO, Jones-Hamilton Co.;

Vincent A. Calarco, Chairman, Presidentand CEO, Crompton Corporation;

Earnest W. Deavenport, Jr., Chairman andCEO, Eastman Chemical Company;

Reed Searle, General Manager, Inter-mountain Power Agency;

Robert Roundtree, General Manager, CityUtilities of Springfield, MO;

Walter W. Hasse, General Manager, James-town Board of Public Utilities;

Glenn Cannon, General Manager, WaverlyIowa Light and Power;

Jeffrey L. Nelson, General Manager, EastRiver Electric Power Cooperative;

Mike Waters, President, Montana GrainGrowers Association;

Terry F. Steinbecker, President & CEO, St.Joseph Light & Power Company;

Hugh T. McDonald, President, Entergy Ar-kansas, Inc.;

Dave Westbrock, General Manager, Heart-land Consumers Power;

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9888 October 5, 2000David M. Radtcliffe, President & CEO,

Georgia Power Company;Stephen B. King, President and CEO,

Tomah3 Products, Inc.;Donald W. Griffin, Chairman, President

and CEO, Olin Corporation;Ian MacMillan, Technical Manager, Octel-

Starreon LLC;Martin E. Blaylock, Vice President, Manu-

facturing Operations, Monsanto Company;G. Ashley Allen, President, Milliken Chem-

ical, Division of Milliken & Co.;Dwain S. Colvin, President, Dover Chem-

ical Corporation;Bill W. Waycaster, President and CEO,

Texas Petrochemicals LP;David C. Hill, President and CEO, Chemi-

cals Division, J.M. Huber Corporation;Mark P. Bulriss, Chairman, President and

CEO, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation;Michael E. Ducey, President and CEO, Bor-

den Chemical, Inc.;Chuck Carpenter, President, North Pacific

Paper Co.;Richard R. Russell, President and CEO,

GenTek Inc.; General Chemical Corporation;John T. Files, Chairman of the Board,

Merichem Company;John C. Hunter, Chairman, President and

CEO, Solutia Inc.;William M. Landuyt, Chairman and CEO,

Millennium Chemicals, Inc.;Kevin Lydey, President and CEO, Blandin

Paper Company Inc.;J. Roger Harl, President and CEO, Occi-

dental Chemical Corporation;Rajiv L. Gupta, Chairman and CEO, Rohm

and Haas Company;Sunil Kumar, President and CEO, Inter-

national Specialty Products;Kenneth L. Golder, President and CEO,

Clariant Corporation;Michael Fiterman, President and CEO, Lib-

erty Diversified Industries;Nicholas R. Marcalus, President and CEO,

Marcal Paper Mills Inc.;Charles H. Fletcher, Jr., Vice President,

Neste Chemicals Holding Inc.;William J. Corbett, Chairman and CEO,

Silbond Corporation;Robert Betz, President, Cognis Corpora-

tion;Arnold M. Nemirow, Chairman and CEO,

Bowater Inc.;Harry J. Hyatt, President, Sasol North

America;Eugene F. Wilcauskas, President and CEO,

Specialty Products Division, Church &Dwight Co., Inc.;

Robert C. Buchanan, Chairman and CEO,Fox River Paper Co.;

David W. Courtney, President and CEO,CHEMCENTRAL Corporation;

Joseph F. Firlit, President and CEO,Soyland Power Cooperative;

Ronald Harper, CEO and General Manager,Dakota Coal Company and Dakota Gasifi-cation Co.;

Richard Midulla, Executive VP and Gen-eral Manager, Seminole Electric Coopera-tive, Inc.;

Dan Wiltse, President, National BarleyGrowers Association;

William L. Berg, President and CEO,Dairyland Power Cooperative;

Charles L. Compton, General Manager,Saluda River Electric Cooperative;

Don Kimball, CEO, Arizona Electric PowerCooperative, Inc.;

Gary Smith, President and CEO, AlabamaElectric Cooperative, Inc.;

Stephen Brevig, Executive VP and GeneralManager, NW Iowa Power Cooperative;

Frank Knutson, President and CEO, Tri-State G and T Association, Inc.;

Robert W. Bryant, President and GeneralManager, Golden Spread Electric Coopera-tive;

Marshall Darby, General Manager, SanMiguel Electric Cooperative, Inc.;

Thomas W. Stevenson, President and CEO,Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative;

Kimball R. Rasmussen, President and CEO,Deseret G and T Cooperative;

Thomas Smith, President and CEO,Oglethorpe Power Corporation;

Evan Hayes, President, Idaho Grain Pro-ducers Association;

Gary Simmons, Chairman, Idaho BarleyCommission;

Randy Peters, Chairman, Nebraska WheatBoard;

Terry Detrick, President, National Asso-ciation of Wheat Growers;

Leland Swenson, President, NationalFarmers Union;

Frank H. Romanelli, President and CEO,Metachem Products, L.L.C.;

Frederick W. Von Rein, Vice President,GM Fisher Chemical, Fisher Scientific Com-pany LLC;

Raymond M. Curran, President and CEO,Smurfit Stone Container Corp.;

Floyd D. Gottwald, Jr., Chairman and CEO,Albemarle Corporation;

Richard G. Bennett, President, ShearerLumber Products;

John Begley, President and CEO, PortTownsend Paper Company;

Gregory T. Cooper, President and CEO,Cooper Natural Resources;

Mark J. Schneider, Chief Executive Offi-cer, Borden Chemicals and Plastics;

Kees Verhaar, President and CEO, JohnsonPolymer;

L. Ballard Mauldin, President, ChemicalProducts Corporation;

George M. Simmons, President of FirstChemical Corporation, ChemFirst Inc;

Christopher T. Fraser, President and CEO,OCI Chemical Corporation;

Gerhardus J. Mulder, CEO and Vice Chair-man of the Board, Felix Schoeller TechnicalPapers, Inc.;

John F. Trancredi, President, North Amer-ican Chemical Co., IMC Chemicals Inc.;

Christian Maurin, Chairman and CEO,Nalco Chemical Company;

Nicholas P. Trainer, President, SartomerCompany, Inc.;

Thomas H. Johnson, Chairman, President,and CEO, Chesapeake Corporation;

Gordon Jones, President and CEO, BlueRidge Paper Products Inc.;

David Lilley, Chairman, President andCEO, Cytec Industries Inc.;

Mario Concha, Vice President, Chemical &Resins, Georgia-Pacific Corporation;

Duane C. McDougall, President and CEO,Willamette Industries, Inc.;

Kennett F. Burnes, President and COO,Cabot Corporation;

Aziz I. Asphahani, President and CEO,Carus Chemical Company;

Thomas M. Hahn, President and CEO, Gar-den State Paper Company;

Dan F. Smith, President and CEO,Lyondell Chemical Company;

Frank R. Bennett, President, BennettLumber Products Inc.;

Joseph G. Acker, President, Hickson DanChemical Corporation;

James F. Akers, President, The CrystalTissue Company;

Lee F. Moisio, Executive Vice President,Vertex Chemical Corporation;

Richard G. Verney, Chairman and CEO,Monadnock Paper Mills, Inc.;

Helge H. Wehmeier, President and CEO,Bayer Corporation;

Michael Flannery, Chairman and CEO,Pope and Talbot, Inc.;

R. P. Wollenberg, Chairman and CEO,Longview Fiber Company;

Michael T. Lacey, President and COO,Ausimont USA, Inc.;

Michael J. Kenny, President, Laporte Inc.;Jean-Pierre Seeuws, President and CEO,

ATOFINA Petrochemicals, Inc.;Michael J. Ferris, President and CEO, Pio-

neer Americas, Inc.;Edward A. Schmitt, President and CEO,

Georgia Gulf Corporation;Peter A. Wriede, President and CEO, EM

Industries, Inc.;Fred G. von Zuben, President and CEO, The

Newark Group;Paul J. Norris, Chairman, President and

CEO, W.R. Grace & Co.;George H. Glatfelter II, Chairman, Presi-

dent and CEO, P.H. Glatfelter Company;Larry M. Games, Vice President, Procter &

Gamble;David C. Southworth, President, South-

worth Company;Harvey L. Lowd, President, Kao Special-

ties Americas LLC;Richard Connor, Jr., President, Pine River

Lumber Co., Ltd.;William Wowchuk, President, Eaglebrook,

Inc.;W. Lee Nutter, Chairman, President and

CEO, Rayonier;Robert Carr, President and Chief Operating

Officer, Schenectady International, Inc.;Robert Strasburg, President, Lyons Falls

Pulp & Paper, Inc.;J. Edward, CEO, Gulf States Paper Cor-

poration;Gorton M. Evans, President and CEO, Con-

solidated Papers, Inc.;John K. Robinson, Group Vice President,

BP Amoco p.l.c.;David J. D’Antoni, Sr. Vice President and

Group Operating Officer, Ashland Inc.;Pierre Monahan, President and CEO, Alli-

ance Forest Products, Inc.;Peter Oakley, Chairman and CEO, BASF

Corporation;Charles K. Valutas, Sr. Vice President and

Chief Administrative Officer, Sunoco, Inc.;Leroy J. Barry, President and CEO, Madi-

son Paper Industries;Norman S. Hansen, Jr., President, Monad-

nock Forest Products, Inc.;Dan M. Dutton, CEO, Stinson Lumber

Company;Michael L. Kurtz, General Manager,

Gainesville Regional Utilities;William P. Schrader, President, Salt River

Project,Jim Harder, Director, Garland Power and

Light;Gary Mader, Utilities Director, City of

Grand Island, Nebraska;Robert W. Headden, Electric Super-

intendent, City of Escanaba, Michigan;Darryl Tveitakk, General Manager, North-

ern Municipal Power Agency;Steven R. Rogel, Chairman, President and

CEO, Weyerhaeuser Company;John T. Dillon, Chairman and CEO, Inter-

national Paper Company;Roy Thilly, CEO, Wisconsin Public Power,

Inc.;Tom Heller, CEO, Missouri River Energy

Services;Charles R. Chandler, Vice Chairman, Greif

Bros Corp.;Rudy Van der Meer, Member, Board of

Management, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc.;William B. Hull, President, Hull Forest

Products, Inc.;Larry M. Giustina, General Manager,

Giustina Land and Timber Co.;Daniel S. Sanders, President, ExxonMobil

Chemical Company;Thomas E. Gallagher, Sr. Vice President,

Coastal Paper Company;F. Casey Wallace, Sales Manager, Alle-

gheny Wood Products Inc.;Terry Freeman, President, Bibler Bros

Lumber Company;William Mahnke, Vice President, Duni

Corporation;

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9889October 5, 2000Neil Carr, President, Elementis Special-

ties;Chris A. Robbins, President, EHV

Weidmann Industries Inc.;James Lieto, President, Chevron Oronite

Company LLC;Marvin A. Pombrantz, Chairman and CEO,

Baylord Container Corp.;M. Glen Bassett, President, Baker

Petrolite Corporation;Glen Duysen, Secretary, Sierra Forest

Products;Kent H. Lee, Senior Vice President of Spe-

ciality Chemicals, Ferro Corporation;James L. Burke, President and CEO, SP

Newsprint Company;Dana M. Fitzpatrick, Executive Vice Presi-

dent, Fitzpatrick and Weller, Inc.;Bert Martin, President, Fraser Papers Inc.;Carl R. Soderlind, Chief Executive Officer,

Golden Bear Oil Specialties;Charles L. Watson, Chairman and CEO,

Dynegy, Inc.;Alan J. Noia, Chairman, President and

CEO, Allegheny Energy;Ronald D. Earl, General Manager and CEO,

Illinois Municipal Electric Agency;Steven Svec, General Manager, Chillicothe

Municipal Utilities;Michael G. Morris, Chairman, President

and CEO, Northeast Utilities;Jay D. Logel, General Manager, Muscatine

Power and Water;Robert A. Voltmann, Executive Director &

Chief Executive Officer, TransportationIntermediaries Association;

Andrew E. Goebel, President and Chief Op-erating Officer, Vectren Corporation;

Bob Johnston, President and CEO, Munic-ipal Electric Authority of Georgia;

Rick Holly, President, Plum Creek;A.D. Correll, Chairman and CEO, Georgia-

Pacific Corporation;Robert M. Owens, President and CEO,

Owens Forest Products;Charles E. Platz, President, Montell North

America Inc.;Nirmal S. Jain, President, BaerLocher

USA;Will Kress, President, Green Bay Pack-

aging Inc.;Stanley Sherman, President and CEO, Ciba

Specialty Chemicals Corporation;Charles A. Feghali, President, Interstate

Resources Inc.;Charles H. Blanker, President, Esleeck

Manufacturing Company, Inc.;Dennis H. Reilley, President and CEO,

Praxair, Inc.;Vohn Price, President, The Price Com-

pany;Lawrence A. Wigdor, President and CEO,

Kronos, Inc.;Eric Lodewijk, President and Site Man-

ager, Roche Colorado Corporation;James L. Gallogly, President and CEO,

Chevron Phillips Chemical Company;Takashi Fukunaga, General Manager, Spe-

cialty Chemicals, Mitsui & Co. (USA), Inc.;James A. Mack, Chairman and CEO,

Cambrex Corporation;F. Quinn Stepan, Sr., Chairman and CEO,

Stepan Company;John R. Danzeisen, Chairman, ICI Amer-

icas Inc.;Harold A. Wagner, Chairman and CEO, Air

Products and Chemicals, Inc.;Bernard J. Darre, President, The Shepherd

Chemical Company;Frank A. Archinaco, Executive Vice Presi-

dent, PPG Industries, Inc.;Gary E. Anderson, President and CEO, Dow

Corning Corporation;David S. Johnson, President and CEO,

Ruetgers Organics Corporation;Whitson Sadler, President and CEO, Solvay

America, Inc.;Peter L. Acton, General Manager, Arizona

Chemical Company;

Wallace J. McCloskey, President, TheNorac Company, Inc.;

Gregory Bialy, President and CEO,RohMax USA, Inc.;

Arthur R. Sigel, President and CEO, Vel-sicol Chemical Corporation;

H. Patrick Jack, President and CEO,Aristech Chemical Corporation;

Michael E. Campbell, Chairman and CEO,Arch Chemicals, Inc.;

James B. Nicholson, President and CEO,PVS Chemicals, Inc.;

D. George Harris, Chairman, D. GeorgeHarris and Associates;

James E. Gregory, President, Dyneon LLC;Toshihoko Yoshitomi, President,

Mitsubishi Chemical America Inc.;William H. Joyce, Chairman, President &

CEO, Union Carbide Corporation;Kenneth W. Miller, Vice Chairman, Air

Liquide America Corporation;Norman Blank, Senior Vice President, Re-

search & Development, Sika Corporation;Edward W. Kissel, President and COO, OM

GROUP, INC.;Mario Meglio, Director of Marketing,

Kuehne Chemical Company, Inc.;Jerry L. Golden, Executive Vice President-

Americas, Shell Chemical Company;Thomas E. Reilly, Jr., Chairman and CEO,

Reilly Industries, Inc.;Joseph F. Raccuia, CEO, Encore Paper

Company, Inc.;Alex Kwader, President and CEO,

Fibermark;John A. Luke, Jr., Chairman and CEO,

Westvaco Corporation;George J. Griffith, Jr., Chairman and

President, Merrimac Paper Co.;George Harad, Chairman and CEO, Boise

Cascade Corporation;L. Pendleton Siegel, Chairman and CEO,

Potlatch Corporation;Monte R. Haymon, President and CEO,

Sappi Fine Paper;George D. Jones III, President, Seaman

Paper Company, Inc.;Jon M. Huntsman, Sr., Chairman, Hunts-

man Corporation;Jerry Tatar, Chairman and CEO, The Mead

Corporation;Larry L. Weyers, Chairman, President and

CEO, WPS Resources Corporation;Jan B. Packwood, President and CEO,

IDACORP, Inc.;E. Linn Draper, Jr., Chairman, President

and CEO, American Electric Power;Steven E. Moore, Chairman, President and

CEO, OGE Energy Corp.;John MacFarlane, Chairman, President

and CEO, Otter Tail Power Company;H. Peter Burg, Chairman and CEO, First

Energy Corp.;John Rowe, Chairman, President and CEO,

Unicom Corporation;Erroll B. Davis, Jr., Chairman, President

and CEO, Alliant Energy Corporation;Alan Richardson, President and CEO,

PacifiCorp;William F. Hecht, Chairman, President and

CEO, PPL Corporation;Bob Stallman, President, American Farm

Bureau Federation;William Rodecker, Director, Occupational

Health, Safety & Environmental Affairs, EliLilly and Company.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FITZ-GERALD). The Senator from New Jer-sey.

ALS TREATMENT AND ASSISTANCE ACT

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, allof us in our public lives on occasionmeet an individual under cir-cumstances and remains with us. Theyare so powerful in their impact that

they haunt us and, if we are true to ourresponsibilities, also lead us to involve-ment. It could be circumstances of astruggling family attempting to paytheir bills. It could be someone in enor-mous physical or emotional distress.

I rise today because 3 years ago I meta young family from Burlington Coun-ty, NJ, who had exactly this impact onme, my life, and my own service in theSenate.

Kevin O’Donnell was 31 years old, adevoted father who was skiing with hisdaughter one weekend, when he noticeda strange pain in his leg. It persisted,which led him to visit his family doc-tor. Here, he was shocked to learn, de-spite his apparent good health, the vi-brancy of his own life and his youngage, that he had been stricken withALS, known to most Americans as LouGehrig’s disease.

We are fortunate that ALS is a veryrare disorder. It affects 30,000 individ-uals in our Nation, with an additional5,000 new cases diagnosed every year.We should be grateful it is so rare be-cause the impact on an individual andtheir health and their family is dev-astating. Indeed, there are few diseasesthat equal the impact of ALS on an in-dividual.

It is, of course, a neurological dis-order that causes the progressive de-generation of the spinal cord and thebrain. Muscle weakness, especially inthe arms and legs, leads to confine-ment to a wheelchair. In time, breath-ing becomes impossible and a res-pirator is needed. Swallowing becomesimpossible. Speech becomes nearly im-possible. Muscle by muscle, legs toarms to chest to throat, all motor ac-tivity of the body shuts down.

While ALS usually strikes peoplewho are over 50 years old, indeed, thereare many cases of young people beingafflicted with this disease. Once thedisease strikes, life expectancy is 3 to 5years. But the difficulty is, life expect-ancy is not measured from diagnosis; itis measured from the first symptoms.

Diagnosing ALS is very difficult.What can appear as a pain in the legcan be overlooked for months. Muscledisorders can be ignored for a year.Doctors have a difficult time diag-nosing Lou Gehrig’s disease.

Not surprisingly, after diagnosed, thefinancial burdens are enormous. Workis impossible. Twenty-four hour care islikely. Wheelchairs, respirators, nurs-ing care can easily cost between$200,000, to a quarter of a million dol-lars a year.

Families struggle with this financialburden while they are also strugglingwith the certainty of death at a youngage.

This leads me to the responsibilitiesof this institution.

Patients with ALS must wait 2 yearsbefore becoming eligible for Medicare.For 2 years—no help, no funds, no as-sistance. As a result, 17,000 ALS pa-tients currently are ineligible for Medi-care services. And thousands of these

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9890 October 5, 2000individuals will die having never re-ceived one penny of Medicare assist-ance. Their death from ALS is a fore-gone conclusion. It could come in ayear or 2 years or 3, but we are requir-ing a 2-year waiting period before thereis any assistance.

Clearly, ALS, the problems of diag-nosis, the certainty of death, the rapiddeterioration of the human body, wasnot considered with this 2-year waitingperiod.

Nearly 3 years ago, I first introducedlegislation that would eliminate the 24-month waiting period for ALS fromMedicare. Most of the people who werewith me that day here in the Senatewhen we introduced this legislation arenow dead. Most of them never receivedany Medicare assistance. Only I re-main, having been there that day offer-ing this legislation again to bring helpto these people.

But their agony and the burdens ontheir families have now been succeededby thousands of others, who at thetime probably had never heard of ALSdisease, certainly did not know thatMedicare, upon which their familieshad come to rely, would be out of reachto them in such a crisis.

The ALS Treatment and AssistanceAct, since that day, has enjoyed bipar-tisan support, with 28 cosponsors in theSenate, 12 Republicans and 16 Demo-crats. In the House of Representatives,280 Democrats and Republicans havecosponsored the legislation.

This spring, the Senate unanimouslyadopted this legislation as part of themarriage penalty tax bill, which, ofcourse, did not become law.

Both Houses, both parties have re-sponded to this terrible situation.

Two weeks ago, when Senator MOY-NIHAN and Senator DASCHLE introducedS. 3077, the Balanced Budget Refine-ment Act of 2000, I was very proud thatthe ALS provision was included intheir legislation. Last Wednesday, theALS waiver was included in the bal-anced budget refinement legislationapproved by the House Commerce Com-mittee. So there is still hope.

As every Member of this institutionknows, the calendar is late. Regret-fully, we are again at a time of yearwhen the legislative process ceases towork as it is taught in textbooksacross the country. There will not bean opportunity for me to advocate thislegislation for ALS patients by offeringan amendment on the Senate floor tothe Medicare package developed by theFinance Committee. That option issimply not going to exist under theprocedures and the calendar of the Sen-ate.

I am, therefore, left with the fol-lowing circumstances. Having lostmany of those ALS patients, on whosebehalf I originally began this effort, anew group of families are now helpingme across the country. They, too, havea year or two remaining in their livesand need this help.

If I can succeed in getting this provi-sion, with the support of my col-

leagues, in the balanced budget refine-ments that ultimately will be passedby this Senate, for those people beforetheir deaths, there is still hope. If Ifail, then these people, too, will expirebefore they get any assistance from theGovernment.

I do not know of an argument not topass this legislation. I do not know ofa point that any Senator in any party,at any time, could make, to argue onthe merits, that these ALS patientsshould not get a waiver under Medi-care, in the remaining months or yearsof their lives, to get some financial as-sistance.

The unanimous support of the Senatepreviously, I think, is testament to thefact that we are of one mind. I simplynow would like to ask my colleagues,in these final days, knowing that therewill be a Medicare balanced budget re-finement bill, that this provision be in-cluded.

I also, Mr. President, ask unanimousconsent to have printed in the RECORDa copy of the letter that was sent toChairman ROTH last week, signed by 16of my colleagues in the Senate, Demo-crats and Republicans, asking for in-clusion of the ALS legislation in a bal-anced budget refinement package.

There being no objection, the letterwas ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

U.S. SENATE,Washington, DC, September 25, 2000.

Hon. WILLIAM V. ROTH,Chairman, Senate Finance Committee,Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN ROTH: As the FinanceCommittee prepares to mark-up a BalancedBudget Act refinement package for Medicareproviders, we urge your support for the in-clusion of an important provision of S. 1074,the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Treat-ment Act. This provision would eliminatethe 24-month waiting period for Medicarewhich prevents ALS patients from receivingthe immediate care they desperately need.

As you know, ALS is a fatal neurologicaldisorder that affects 30,000 Americans. Itsprogression results in total paralysis, leav-ing patients without the ability to move,speak, swallow or breathe and therefore to-tally dependent on care givers for all aspectsof life. Without a cure or any effective treat-ment, the life expectancy of an ALS patientis only three to five years.

A common problem for individuals strick-en with ALS is that, due to the progressivenature of the disease and the lack of any di-agnostic tests, a final diagnosis is oftenmade after a year or more of symptoms andsearching for answers. This delay results in aloss of valuable time that could have beenspent in starting treatment early. Once a di-agnosis is finally made, the tragedy is need-lessly worsened by Medicare’s 24-monthwaiting period which forces ALS patients towait until the final months of their illness toreceive care.

Eliminating this unfair restriction for ALSpatients enjoys strong bipartisan support inthe Senate and the House. In fact, the Houseversion of this bill has the support of 280 co-sponsors. Including this legislation in a BBArefinement package will represent a firstreal step toward improving the quality of lifefor Americans stricken with ALS. We lookforward to working with you, and appreciate

your consideration of this important legisla-tion.

Sincerely,

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, Ithank you for the time and I thank mycolleagues for their indulgence. I yieldthe floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from West Virginia.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. First, I wouldlike to comment on the comments thatwere made by Senator TORRICELLI fromNew Jersey. I thought they were pro-found, moving, and obviously urgent.

What I regret to have to report tohim is that the Senate Finance Com-mittee, on which I serve on the minor-ity side, has concluded there will be nomarkup. There will with no markup onthe balanced budget amendment. Sothis is very sad. This is part of thedenigration of the process of this entireinstitution.

There is no health care legislationthat has come out of the Finance Com-mittee, or anywhere else, in the last 2years. We could go through that litany.

But I want to report my profound dis-couragement to the Senator that wewere told yesterday there would be nomarkup, no markup on the one thingthat we could do to help not only thepeople you are talking about but allthe hospitals and hospices and skillednursing facilities, home health agen-cies in our States which are suffering.

So we have to rely on the good will ofthe President when he meets with lead-ers, Republican leaders. Hopefully,maybe a Democrat will be included inthat meeting. Maybe something canhappen.

But this is where we have arrived atin this institution. It is unfortunate. Itis wretched. It has a terrible con-sequence for the people who you somovingly and eloquently talked about.

RAILROAD COMPETITION

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, Icome before the Senate today to speakabout an issue—the plight of captiveshippers—on which the Senator fromNorth Dakota, Mr. DORGAN, spoke andon which I have been working for 16years, every day I have been in theSenate, with a complete, absolute, andtotal lack of success. One doesn’t ordi-narily admit those things, but I saythat because that is how bad the situa-tion is. That is how unwilling the Con-gress is to address this problem eventhough it affects every single Senatorand every single Congressman in theentire United States of America with-out a single exception.

How did this happen is the samequestion as asking why is it that peo-ple complain about planes being latebut don’t take any interest in aviationpolicy. We are a policy body. We aremeant to deliberate; we are meant todiscuss issues. We don’t. We don’t takeany interest in aviation. So we com-plain but don’t do anything. We takeno interest in railroad policy, and sowe don’t complain and we don’t do any-thing.

As a result, the American Associa-tion of Railroads, which is one of the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9891October 5, 2000all-time most powerful lobbying groupsin the country, has its way. As SenatorDORGAN said, they have their way al-though there are only really four orfive railroads left. When I came here in1985, as the junior Senator from WestVirginia, there were 50 or 60 class Irailroads. Those are the big ones. Nowthere are four or five, probably soon tobe two or three.

When the Staggers Act was passed toderegulate the railroads, which unfor-tunately this Congress did in 1980, theydivided it into two parts. They said forthose railroads which had competition,the market would set the price. Butthey said there are about—let’s pickthe number—20 percent of all railroadswhich have no competition. In the coalmines, steel mills, granaries, and man-ufacturing facilities that these rail-roads serve, there is no competition.Their rates would be determined by theInterstate Commerce Commission atthat time. Now it is called the SurfaceTransportation Board. Very few of mycolleagues know anything about theSurface Transportation Board or knewanything about the Interstate Com-merce Commission, even though manyof their people are suffering vastlyfrom the consequences of the inactionof these two bodies.

We don’t have railroad competitionin many aspects of our economy. Youcan’t move coal by a pickup truck andyou can’t fly it in an airplane, youhave to move it in a train. Sometimesyou can put it in a truck, but you haveto basically put it in a train. The Pre-siding Officer knows that very well; hecomes from a State that produces coal.

I also am going to submit the sameletter the Senator from North Dakotadid for the RECORD so it appears at theconclusion of my remarks. It is an ex-traordinary letter to Chairman MCCAINand Senator HOLLINGS signed by 282CEOs—not government relations peo-ple, not lobbyists, but by CEOs. It isthe most extraordinary document ofcommitment and anger over a subject Ihave seen in the 16 years I have been inthe Senate. I have never seen anythinglike this before.

This is obviously a matter of enor-mous importance to my State. Most ofwhat we produce has to be moved byrailroad: Chemicals; coal; steel; lum-ber. It is a place where railroads havean enormous presence and railroadsdominate.

This letter seeks to make railroadpolicy a top concern. These people sayit is their top legislative concern. Theyrepresent virtually every industry, andall parts of the country.

I don’t know how we got to this situ-ation. I think it is ignorance on thepart of the Congress, it is inattention,to some degree laziness on the part ofthe Commerce Committee and the Con-gress. It doesn’t rise to the level of acrisis which hits us one day and grabsall the headlines. It is like the ALSabout which the Senator from New Jer-sey was talking. It just creeps slowly.It just gradually destroys parts of theeconomy.

Let me explain the situation thisway. Imagine if I decided I wanted tofly to Dallas, TX, from Charleston, WV,and I was told I had to go through At-lanta. We don’t have a lot of directconnections out of West Virginia. Andsuppose the airline told me, told thisSenator, that they would not tell mehow much my ticket would cost fromAtlanta to Dallas. I would be outraged.All kinds of people would jump into theaction. They couldn’t do that. Thatwould be illegal. It would be wrong.

The railroads can do what the air-lines are prevented from doing. Theycan refuse to quote you a price on whatis called bottleneck situations, wherethey will not tell you how much it isgoing to cost on a monopoly segment.By doing that they control the price ofwhatever you are shipping, whereveryou are shipping it. That is wrong.

One of the reasons they are able to dothat is that railroads, unlike virtuallyevery other industry that has been de-regulated, have antitrust exemption.Why do railroads have antitrust pro-tection? Can anybody give me a reasonthey would have antitrust protection?They have been deregulated. No otherindustry that has been deregulated hasan exemption from our antitrust law,but the railroads do, because the Amer-ican Railroad Association moves veryquietly and skillfully under the radarof attention. It is a huge and powerfulgroup. It doesn’t make waves, doesn’tcause notice. It hands out tremendousamounts of money, but they do theirwork below the radar screen.

As a result, when chemicals move outof the Kenawha Valley and the OhioValley in West Virginia and when coalmoves out of southern West Virginiaand northern West Virginia, we are vic-tims in many circumstances to captiveshipping. We are captives of the rail-roads. They can charge our companieswhatever they want, and they do. It isillegal, but the railroads have on theirside the Surface Transportation Board,which is supposed to ‘‘regulate’’ them,but instead is concerned only with howmuch money the railroads are making.So why should the railroads do any-thing other than make the most moneythey can? And they do.

I know of no other situation like thatin America. I come from a family thatknew something about monopoly. And,properly and correctly, a Presidentnamed Theodore Roosevelt came alongand ended that because it was wrong. Itwas done in those times. That is theway those businesses were done, but itwas wrong.

Well, it is wrong what the railroadsare doing today on captive shipping.For 16 years we have been fightingthis—16 years, no progress, nothing.The STB comes up and they say: Weneed to have rules and regulationsfrom the Congress. The folks in theCommerce Committee say: We are hav-ing all kinds of hearings.

We don’t have hearings. We tech-nically have hearings, but they are nothearings. They are not probing hear-

ings. A couple people drop in; a couplepeople drop out. Consumers everywheresuffer from this, and they don’t evenknow about it. We should, because it isour responsibility to protect con-sumers. Where the law says the rail-road companies cannot do somethingwhich they are doing, we should beupset by that. And if it is 20 percent ofrailroad traffic, we should be angryabout it. But we don’t care. We don’tcare.

Again, many, if not most, of theproducts and commodities—coal andchemicals especially—being shipped bycompanies in West Virginia these prod-ucts are shipped by companies, areshipped by companies that are captiveto a single railroad. Only one lineserves most of these plants. The rail-roads have all power: This is what youare going to pay; if you don’t want topay it, then we won’t serve you.

And they use a lot of other strong-arm tactics, which I will not go into,although I am protected on the floorand I could, and I would be happy to,but I won’t do it. But they use strong-arm tactics; they know how to usethem and they do use them. There arefour or five major railroads, and theycan use strong-arm tactics and getaway with it. All the others have beenmerged and eaten up. So the shippersare forced to pay whatever the rail-roads want to charge. If my colleaguesthink that is fair, fine.

This is what it’s like: When you walkinto a grocery store to buy bread, youknow what bread is supposed to cost.But no, the grocer says, no, you haveto pay three times the usual cost. Idon’t think my colleagues would standfor that. But my colleagues do put upwith this, by continuing to let rail-roads charge whatever they want—notwhat the market says the cost shouldbe—even though it costs their constitu-ents and companies in their statesmore money than it should, and putspeople out of work.

Why won’t my colleagues get inter-ested in this subject? Why won’t theyrequire the STB and the railroads tofollow the law? Why doesn’t the Com-merce Committee take this more seri-ously?

I cannot remember any significantperiod of time since I have been in thisbody that I have not had a steady flowof complaints from my ‘‘captive’’ ship-pers—large and small companies thatare captive to one railroad. They haveno alternative but to pay what the rail-road says they must. There is only oneline going in; what are they going todo? Carry it out by hand? The StaggersAct said the railroads shouldn’t exer-cise this kind of control. The captiveshippers cannot set their own price.The railroads set the price on the mo-nopoly segment, often without tellingshippers what the price is, and therebycontrol the price along the entireroute. This happens—today and everyday—in the American economy. This isfree market?

So businesses in my State and inyour State, Mr. President, and the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9892 October 5, 2000State of the Senator from Alaska arehindered from making the kinds ofprofits and putting a number of peopleto work because we in Congress chooseto ignore an enormous American prob-lem.

I’d like to say a little bit about whythis has all happened. I have talkedabout the diminution of the number ofrailroads. We have just two railroadson the east coast and two on the westcoast, and one running the length ofthe Mississippi. These five railroadscollect 95 percent of all freight reve-nues, as Senator DORGAN said. Prettysoon, that number may be reduced tojust two railroads, period. These rail-roads are not exactly having a hardtime. This level of ‘‘competition’’—with just a few railroads controlling 95percent of the traffic—means, primafacie, that we really have no competi-tion at all. You just say 95 percent, andthere you have it. By definition, thereis no competition.

During the last 5 years, the pace ofrailroad consolidation has been diz-zying. In 1996, the merger of the UnionPacific and Southern Pacific Railroadsthrew the entire country into crisis.Did we care? Yes, briefly, for a week orso. There were some stories in the WallStreet Journal—we heard about theHouston railyard being shut down—andsome of the rest of the country noticed,too. It was a strange and confusingrailroad problem, and we didn’t havetime to figure it out; that was our atti-tude. So it came and it went. But itcost endless millions of dollars andendless lost jobs.

But we need to look at what hap-pened. The results of that merger—cre-ating one huge, unresponsive railroad,from two large unresponsive rail-roads—were major service disruptions,plant closings, thousands of lost work-days, and endless millions of dollarslost by companies all over this coun-try.

We had the same thing on a smallerscale in West Virginia and in the East.We have had our own merger. Conrailwas divided kind of piecemeal betweenCSX and Norfolk Southern Railroads.A period of disruption followed thatmerger also—perhaps not the scale ofthe UP–SP debacle—but still dev-astating and frustrating to my manu-facturers in my State and throughoutthe Northeast. The railroads didn’tworry because they knew nobody herewas paying any attention.

Rail consolidation isn’t the only cul-prit. Several unjustified andcounterintuitive rulings made by theSurface Transportation Board and itspredecessor agency, the InterstateCommerce Commission, have stifledrailroad competition and made mattersmuch worse.

These agencies have enormous powerin our economy. Their key decision wasthe 1996 ‘‘bottleneck’’ decision to whichI have already referred. That allows arailroad to remain in control of its es-sential facilities, known as ‘‘bottle-necks’’ and effectively prevent a rail

customer from getting to a competingrailroad, or even getting a price. Inother words, where railroads share aline, they won’t let you use it. Theywon’t let anybody else use it. Theywon’t tell you what it would cost evenif you work out some kind of arrange-ment. They control the cost of shippingalong your whole route, and they shutyou down.

The court of appeals upheld the deci-sion of the STB as not being ‘‘arbitraryor capricious.’’ So that seems to be onthe side of the railroads. In its deci-sion, the court of appeals went out ofits way to say that the bottleneck deci-sion was, one, not the only interpreta-tion that the STB could have madeunder the law; and, two, not nec-essarily the interpretation the courtitself would have made.

Since then, the STB, predictably, hasrefused to revisit this decision andseems to take the official position thatit does not have the legal authority toreach any other conclusion withoutspecific direction from Congress to putcompetition first. Well, I don’t haveany problem with that, except Con-gress hasn’t been paying any attentionand probably won’t do that anytimesoon. There is no chance we will dothat in the Commerce Committee now.Public anger hasn’t been galvanized,and congressional anger hasn’t beengalvanized. Congressional passivenessrules.

Under the protective rulings of theSurface Transportation Board, rail-roads are the only industry in the Na-tion that have both been deregulatedand allowed to maintain monopolypower over its essential facilities. Con-gress, the Federal agencies, and theFederal courts have specifically pre-vented telephone companies, airlines,natural gas pipelines, and electric util-ities from controlling essential facili-ties, while at the same time they enjoythe benefits of deregulation.

I reject the notion that the StaggersRail Act intentionally allowed rail-roads to use their bottleneck facilitiesto prevent customers access to com-petition. That is wildly illogical andwildly untrue. It goes against everyprinciple of the American market econ-omy. Likewise, it makes no sense, andruns counter to the law of the land, forthe STB to view protection of the fi-nancial health of the railroads as itsoverriding mission, which they do. Inall of their history, they have neverfound a railroad to be revenue ade-quate. That is the technical term. Inother words, they have never found arailroad which is making enoughmoney. The railroads have to makemore money, suppress competition, ac-cording to the STB.

So if we in Congress really care aboutthe long-term viability of the freightrailroad industry, we have to examineand make fundamental changes to thepolicy. But first we have to understandit—and we don’t, and we won’t, untilpeople get motivated.

The railroad industry itself is givenunwarranted special treatment, about

which I have spoken, regarding theantitrust review. They are totally ex-empt from review by the Antitrust Di-vision of the Department of Justice. In-stead, it is left to the Surface Trans-portation Board to determine whethera merger or acquisition is ‘‘in the pub-lic interest.’’

Now, fortunately, as the Senatorfrom North Dakota indicated, the STBis quite concerned about its mergerpolicy. Hurrah. They see, as I do, thevery real and ominous possibility thata final round of railroad mergers couldleave us with just two transcontinentalrailroads carrying 97 percent of allAmerican rail freight.

So the STB responded this year byinstituting a 15-month moratorium onmajor railroad mergers. They are alsoconducting a rulemaking on theirmerger procedures.

I commend this unprecedented andimportant letter from 282 chief execu-tive officers of huge American compa-nies and small American companies toall of my colleagues. My guess is thatvery few colleagues will read that let-ter because we are passive, because thisissue is under our radar. Or more accu-rately, we have decided to ignore it.When it comes to ignoring this prob-lem, we have an unblemished record ofsuccess, even though our inactionhurts companies and people in everypart of this country.

Their letter sends a compelling mes-sage to Congress that the status quo onrailroad policy is unacceptable andmust be changed. Senator BURNS, Sen-ator DORGAN, and I have a bill to do ex-actly that, if we can get anybody topay attention to it.

I thank the Presiding Officer. I yieldthe floor.


Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Ithank my colleague from West Vir-ginia. I sympathize with the exposurethat his State has. Of course, myState, unfortunately, is not connectedto the rest of the United States by rail.We have a State-owned railroad andwould like to have the opportunity tohave a railroad connection. I am sym-pathetic to his cause.

ENERGY CRISIS

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Iwould like to address a couple of situa-tions that I think are paramount in ourconsideration of issues before us today.I know most of my colleagues areaware of the current situation in Bel-grade and the uprising against the dic-tatorship of Milosevic. I understandthe situation is very grave at thistime. I know we are all hopeful therewill be no serious loss of life as a resultof the uprising. I am sure my col-leagues will join me in our prayers andhopes that the opposition’s Kostunicawill be successful in ousting Milosevicand instituting a democratic andpeaceful new government in Yugo-slavia. I know the Senate hopes for thebest and that the nightmare in Yugo-slavia may soon be at an end.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9893October 5, 2000Unfortunately, we have a similar sit-

uation in the Middle East and thefighting that is going on between theIsraelis and the Palestinians. Over 67people have been killed.

I think it appropriate at a time whenwe are facing an energy crisis in thiscountry to recognize the volatility as-sociated with the area where we aremost dependent on our oil supply;namely, the Middle East. Fifty-eightpercent of our oil is imported primarilyfrom OPEC.

As we look at the situation today, werecognize the fragility, if you will, andthe sensitivity associated with relyingon that part of the world, particularlywhen we see the action by this admin-istration in the last few days of draw-ing down oil from the Strategic Petro-leum Reserve which is set up for thespecific purpose of ensuring that wehave an adequate supply in storage if,indeed, our supply sources are inter-rupted.

By drawing that reserve down 30 mil-lion barrels, we sent a signal to OPECthat we were drawing down own oursavings account making us more vul-nerable, if you will, to those who holdthe leverage on the supply of oil; name-ly, OPEC, Venezuela, Mexico, and othercountries.

I wanted to make that observationand further identify, if you will, thatwe have a situation that needs correc-tion. We still have time to do it in thisbody; that is, to pass the EPCA reau-thorization bill.

As a consequence of the effort by themajority leader yesterday to bring thatbill up—H.R. 2884—the reauthorizationbill, I think it is important that werecognize why we need it.

First, it reauthorizes the StrategicPetroleum Reserve. The authorizationexpired in March of this year.

It creates a home heating oil reservewith a proper trigger mechanism thatis needed.

It provides State-led education pro-grams on ‘‘summer fill″ and fuel budg-eting programs.

It requires the Secretary of Defenseto concur with drawdowns and indicatethat those drawdowns will not impactnational security.

It strengthens weatherization pro-grams by increasing the per-dwellingallowance.

It requires yearly reports on the sta-tus of fuel supply prior to the heatingseason.

We have worked hard at trying tobring this to the floor and get itpassed.

Yesterday, the Senator from Cali-fornia indicated there was still opposi-tion to the bill. It is my understandingthat comments were made about thebipartisan substitute we have offered.As a consequence, I believe there is aneed for a response.

One, the Senator claimed that wecould take up and pass the underlyingbill—H.R. 2884—without amendment.

This simply can’t happen. The under-lying bill does not contain responsible

trigger mechanisms to protect SPRfrom inappropriate withdrawal.

The Secretary of Energy has askedfor a more responsible trigger mecha-nism than is contained in the under-lying bill. The Secretary is right. Weneed that. This is our insurance policyif we have a blowup in the Middle East.

Second, by accepting the House bill,we would lose the opportunity tostrengthen the weatherization programcontained in the substitute and wewould also lose the mandate for a year-ly report from the Department of En-ergy on the status of our fuel headinginto the winter contained in the sub-stitute.

These are important issues. I am surethe Senator from California wouldagree that she would support these.

But, as a consequence, to suggestthat we can accept the House bill thatdoesn’t include the triggering mecha-nism is the very point that I want tobring up.

The Senator from California also saidthe Federal Government should not bein the oil business and that they don’tdo well in the oil business. I certainlyagree. We don’t do well with the Stra-tegic Petroleum Reserve. We havebought high and sold low out of thatreserve.

But it is even more important nowthat we have moved some of our oil tobuild up a heating oil reserve.

Isn’t it ironic that the facts are,since the beginning of this year, morethan 152,000 barrels of distillate—heat-ing oils, light diesels, and so forth—have been exported each day. We areexporting fuel oils and heating oilsthat we ought to be holding in our re-serve since we have a shortage of heat-ing oil for the Northeast States thatare so dependent on it. That is notwhat we are doing.

According to today’s Wall StreetJournal, that number is ballooningeven higher because of tight suppliesand higher prices in Europe. In otherwords, we need more of it here, but weare sending it over to Europe—as op-posed to the administration putting aclosure or requiring that crude oil betaken out of SPR and be refined forheating oil and held in this country inreserve.

That isn’t in the requirement for the30 million barrels that went out ofSPR. The companies that bid on it cando whatever they wish with it. So wehaven’t accomplished anything. Whereis it going? It is going to Europe.

I agree with the Senator from Cali-fornia that the Federal Governmentshould not be in the oil business. Theyare doing a lousy job of it, and theirSPR withdrawal is strictly a politicalcover to try to imply that the adminis-tration is doing something about thecrisis so we don’t get too excited aboutthe election that is coming up. It is acharade.

The Senator from California claimsthe royalty-in-kind provisions are acharade allowing oil companies to payfair market value—and this Senator is

trying to undercut efforts to resolvevaluation issues.

While I would like to take credit forall the provisions in our bill, in fair-ness, they were worked out with theranking member of the committee,Senator BINGAMAN, and the administra-tion. In fact, the royalty-in-kind pro-gram was initiated in 1994 by noneother than Vice President GORE as partof the reinvention of government totest new, more efficient ways of col-lecting its royalty share.

If the Senator from California is say-ing that AL GORE’s efforts to reinventgovernment have been a failure andhave cost the American taxpayer mil-lions of dollars, I would certainly re-spect her opinion.

Furthermore, a provision requiresthat the Government receive benefits‘‘equal to or greater’’ than it wouldhave received under a royalty evalua-tion program.

Finally, the Senator accused me—theSenator from Alaska—of trying tomove this program ‘‘in the dark ofnight.’’

Well, I am disappointed by thatstatement. Prior to even taking thissubstitute up on the floor, my staff ap-proached the staff of the Senator fromCalifornia to work to resolve concernsin a good-faith effort.

The staff of Senator BINGAMAN, theranking member of the Energy Com-mittee, which I chair, spent countlesshours answering the Senator’s ques-tions and addressing her concerns. Un-fortunately, those efforts evidentlyhave been unsuccessful.

So any argument that the RIK lan-guage in this bill has not gone throughan appropriate process pales in com-parison to that alleged lack of processinvolved in a ‘‘rider’’ on the same sub-ject the Senator from California sup-ports in the Interior appropriationsbill.

You cannot have it both ways.The arguments are simply empty

rhetoric premised on the assumptionthat oil companies are inherently badand any program dealing with themmust be flawed. The implication is thatthe oil companies are profiteering.

There is no mention that we wereselling oil in this country at $10 a bar-rel a year ago. Now it is $33 a barrel.

Who sets the price of oil? Is it ‘‘BigOil’’ in the United States? No. It isOPEC. OPEC provides 58 percent of thesupply. It is Venezuela and Mexico.You pay the price, or you leave it.

I am prepared to bring up this billunder a reasonable time agreement, de-bate the issue at length, and have theSenator from California offer anamendment to strike the provision ifshe finds it objectionable. That is herright. I support that right.

But it is time we move the Senateversion of this very important bill toreauthorize the Strategic PetroleumReserve, and establish a home heatingoil reserve, and get the administrationfocused on the reality that the oil theypropose to take out of SPR is being re-fined and sent over to Europe to meet

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9894 October 5, 2000their heating oil demands. That is thereality.

If we don’t move this legislation, theSenator from California will have tobear the responsibility. It is uncon-scionable to me at a time when we facean energy crisis—not only oil and nat-ural gas but other areas and in ourelectric industry—that we find someother important bills being held up. Wehave passed out of the Committee anelectric power reliability bill. The pur-pose was the recognition that we havea shortage of generating capability inthis country.

We have not expanded our generatingcapacity to meet the demand. As a con-sequence of that, we have not pro-gressed with a distribution system tomeet the demand that is growing. Soout of the Committee, along with Sen-ator GORTON, we specifically worked toget an electric power reliability bill. Itis sitting here waiting for passage.What it does—and the administrationwants it—it sets up a way to share theshortage.

That sounds ironic, but we have ashortage of generating capacity. Wehave seen spiking costs very high, hun-dreds and thousands of dollars, forshort periods of time. The reliabilitybill administers in a fair manner, toensure that if there is any surplus inone area, it is moved to other areaswithout the exposure of spiking. Wecannot seem to move that on the floorof the other body. We are going into atimeframe where, if we get a cold win-ter and higher electric demands, wewill need that legislation.

Another bill, of course, that we con-sidered is our electricity deregulationbill, a comprehensive bill. The problemwas there was a mandate to have 71⁄2percent of our energy derived from re-newables. That is easy to say. The ad-ministration mandated that bill. Butthere is no way to enforce it becausewe simply don’t have the technical ca-pability to achieve 71⁄2 percent of ourenergy from non-hydro renewables. Itis less than 2 percent now.

They say we haven’t spent enoughmoney or been dedicated or made acommitment. I remind my colleagues,we have extended in 5 years $1.5 billionin direct spending to subsidize develop-ment of renewables. We have given taxincentives for renewables of $4.9 bil-lion. I support renewables, but we justcan’t pick them up. The wind doesn’talways blow outside. In my State ofAlaska, it is not always sunny. Solarpanels do not always work.

As a consequence, I remind my col-leagues, when you fly out of Wash-ington from time to time, you don’tleave here on hot air, you need energy.We have a crisis. We have not passedthe electric power reliability legisla-tion, we have not passed comprehen-sive electricity deregulation, and weare in a situation where we have takenoil from SPR and now we are seeingthat oil move to Europe.

I want to use the remaining time todo a contrast because I want to empha-

size the significance of the energy poli-cies as proposed by our two Presi-dential candidates. Make no mistake,on energy policy the differences be-tween Vice President GORE and Gov-ernor Bush could not be more clear.

Let’s look at costs. We have added upthe Bush proposal, $7.1 billion over 10years. The Gore proposal, which thenewspapers have added up—which areusually somewhat favorable to the VicePresident—costs 10 times more thanthat, somewhere between $80 and $125billion. They are still trying to pindown the figures. The Vice Presidentwants to raise prices and limit supplyof fossil energy, which makes up over80 percent of our energy needs. By dis-couraging domestic production, the ad-ministration has forced us to be moredependent on foreign oil, placing ournational security at risk and, ofcourse, raising prices.

The Vice President’s only answer inthe first debate was to give you solar,wind, biomass technologies, that arenot yet available. Again, I remind mycolleagues, we have spent $1.5 billion indirect spending and $4.9 billion in taxincentives over 5 years trying to de-velop more renewables.

In contrast, Governor Bush would ex-pand domestic production of oil andnatural gas, reduce imports below 50percent, and ensure affordable and se-cure supplies by developing resourcesat home. He would invest ample re-sources into emerging clean fossil tech-nologies, renewable energy, and energyconservation programs, but, most ofall, he won’t bet on our energy future.Governor Bush will use the energy oftoday to yield cleaner, more affordableenergy sources for tomorrow.

Now, let’s look at the record. TheVice President has said he has an en-ergy plan that focuses not only on in-creasing the supply but also workingon the consumption side. The factsshow the Vice President doesn’t prac-tice what he preaches. The administra-tion has actually decreased energy sup-ply during the past 71⁄2 years. Theyhave opposed domestic oil productionand exploration. We have 17 percentless production since Clinton-Goretook office. We have closed 136,000 oilwells and 57,000 gas wells since 1992.They oppose the use of plentiful Amer-ican coal and clean coal technology.The EPA makes it uneconomical tohave a coal-generating plant. The de-mand is there for energy, but clearlycoal is simply almost off limits becauseof the process.

We force the nuclear industry tochoke on its waste. We are one voteshort in this body of passing a vetooverride, yet the U.S. court of appeals,in a liability case, ruled the Govern-ment had the responsibility to take thewaste. The cost to the taxpayers hereis somewhere between $40 and $80 bil-lion in liability due the industry as aconsequence of the Federal Govern-ment’s failure to honor the sanctity ofthe contract.

They have threatened to tear downhydroelectric dams. Where are they

going to place the traffic that moveson barges? Put it on the highways?That will take away 10 percent of ourNation’s electricity.

They ignored electric power reli-ability and supply concerns. Go out toSan Diego and see the price spikesthere—no new generation, no newtransmission in southern California.

They have claimed to support in-creased use of natural gas, yet theyhave kept Federal lands off limits tonatural gas production; approximately64 percent of the overthrust belt in theMidwest—Wyoming, Colorado, Mon-tana—is off limits to exploration. Weall remember in this body the VicePresident coming and sitting as Presi-dent of the Senate, utilizing his tie-breaking vote in 1993 to raise the gastax.

We recall initially he wanted a Btutax to reduce consumption of energywhen the administration first came in.There has been a series of taxes. Weheard a lot about it in the debate theother day. The Vice President said thetax plan favors the richest 1 percent.Yet 2 percent of the people pay 80 per-cent of the taxes. He didn’t mentionthat.

Talking about crude oil and the VicePresident, instead of doing somethingto increase the domestic supply of oil,the Vice President seems to want toblame big oil for profiteering as acause for high prices. This simply is aneffort to distract attention from thereal problems, to cover for this Admin-istration’s lack of a real energy strat-egy.

One year ago, oil was being givenaway at $10 a barrel. Who was profit-eering, Mr. Vice President? WereAmerican oil companies simply beinggenerous? The small U.S. companies—‘‘Small Oil’’—were suffering, with136,000 stripper and marginal oil wellsclosed. Our domestic energy industrywas in real trouble. Stripper wells can-not make it at $10 a barrel.

The six largest oil companies—ALGORE’s ‘‘big oil’’—only comprise 15 per-cent of the world oil market. In con-trast, OPEC—Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ven-ezuela, Mexico, Iraq—produce 30 mil-lion barrels a day and control 41 per-cent of the world’s oil market. OPECcontrols the supply. Therefore, they setthe price, not the United States.

If we don’t like their price, I guess wedon’t have to buy their oil. But obvi-ously we are addicted to it. By discour-aging domestic exploration and in-creasing our reliance on foreign oil, theVice President would take away thatoption, essentially, forcing us to payOPEC’s price for oil, holding us hostageto foreign governments, as the case isnow.

What about Governor Bush? He wouldencourage new domestic oil and gas ex-plorations. As he said Tuesday: Theonly way to become less dependent onforeign sources of crude oil is to ex-plore at home. Charity begins at home.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9895October 5, 2000Just opening up the ANWR Coastal

Plain in my State of Alaska to explo-ration would increase domestic produc-tion by a million barrels a day. I bet itwould drop the price of oil $10 to $15 abarrel. The same amount, a millionbarrels a day, is slightly more thanwhat we import from Iraq. Here is aperson we don’t trust, whom we foughta war against, yet we are dependent on,and that is Saddam Hussein. Shouldn’twe produce this oil at home ratherthan risk our national security by rely-ing on Iraq for energy needs?

Yesterday I gave a few facts, not fic-tion, about oil exploration and gas ex-ploration in my State. My colleaguefrom Nevada, who is not on the floortoday, continued to refer to outdatedestimates and recoverable oil fromANWR using oil prices. He said at aprice of $18 a barrel, ANWR was likelyto yield a low-end estimate of 2.4 bil-lion barrels, but that still is 1 millionbarrels a day for 6 years, Mr. President.

And the prices will be much higherthan that—they will be $25 a barrel, ormore. According to the U.S. GeologicalSurvey, the ANWR Coastal Plain islikely to yield 10 billion barrels of re-coverable oil, nearly as much asPrudhoe Bay. But it is interesting toreflect on Prudhoe Bay because thatone area has supplied one-fifth of ouroil needs for the last 20 years. ANWRcould do the same for the next 20 years.Remember the realities associatedwith estimates. They estimatedPrudhoe Bay would produce 10 billionbarrels, and it has produced over 12 bil-lion and is still producing over a mil-lion a day.

I want to talk about natural gas be-cause Governor Bush’s energy plan ismore than just increasing the domesticsupply of oil. He would also expand ac-cess to natural gas on Federal landsand build more gas pipelines.

The Vice President makes no men-tion of natural gas, leaving the mostcritical part of America’s energy mixpolicy simply unsaid. Yet natural gasis vital for home heating and electricpower. 50 percent of U.S. homes, 56 mil-lion, use natural gas for heating. Nat-ural gas provides 15 percent of our Na-tion’s electric power, and that gener-ating capability has no place to go formore capacity other than natural gasbecause you can’t get permitted. Mr.President, 95 percent of our new elec-tric power plants will be powered bynatural gas as the fuel of choice, butthis administration refuses to allowthe exploration and production of gas,or the construction of pipelines, to in-crease the supply of gas to customers.

Demand has gone up faster than sup-ply. This yields higher prices. And ourdemand for gas will only increase. TheEIA expects natural gas consumptionto increase from 22 trillion cubic feetnow to 30 to 35 trillion cubic feet by2010.

The administration touts natural gasas its bridge to the energy future—ourcleanest fossil fuel—fewer emissions,efficient end use for industrial and res-

idential applications, huge domesticsupply, no need to rely on imports. Yetthey place Federal lands off limits tonew natural gas production. Where arewe going to get it? Mr. President, 64percent of the Rocky Mountain over-thrust belt is off limits. The roadlesspolicy of the Foreign Service locks up40 million acres of public land, andthere is a moratorium on OCS drillinguntil 2012. Where is it going to comefrom, thin air?

AL GORE would even cancel existingleases. He made a statement in Rye,NH, on October 21, 1999:

I’ll make sure there is no new oil leasingoff the coasts of California and Florida. Andthen I would go much further: I will do ev-erything in my power to make sure thatthere is no new drilling off these sensitiveareas—even in areas already leased by pre-vious administrations.

The American people ought to wakeup. Where is our energy going to comefrom? Now there is no strategic naturalgas reserve, is there, like we have foran oil, for the Vice President to fallback on in the case of natural gasprices. This administration simply ig-nored energy, and now we are in trou-ble and they are covering their behind.

Natural gas is now over $5.30 perthousand cubic feet. Less than 10months ago it was $2.16.

The differences are clear. The VicePresident would limit new natural gasproduction and force higher prices forconsumers. Governor Bush would en-courage domestic production of naturalgas and the construction of pipelines toget it there.

We talked, finally, about renewables.The Vice President said Tuesday that:

We have to bet on the future and move be-yond the current technologies to have awhole new generation of more efficient,cleaner energy technologies.

That sounds fine, but how are wegoing to get there? I think we all agreein this case our energy strategy shouldinclude improved energy efficiency, aswell as expanded use of alternativefuels and renewable energy and a mixof fuel oil, natural gas, nuclear, andhydro.

But the critical question is how doyou get there from here? The VicePresident would make a bet. He wouldbet that by diminishing supply of con-ventional fuels such as oil and naturalgas, you will be more willing to payhigher prices and make renewablescompetitive. He will support higher en-ergy taxes, just as he did in 1993 whenhe cast the tie-breaking vote to raisegas taxes. And he will favor more regu-lations, more central controls on en-ergy use standards for each part of oureveryday life.

The Vice President will tell you whatkind of energy you could use, howmuch of it you could use, and howmuch you would have to pay for it.

In contrast, Governor Bush wouldharness America’s innovative techno-logical capability and give us the tech-nologies of tomorrow by using theAmerican ‘‘can do’’ spirit. Governor

Bush would set aside the up-front fundsfrom leasing Federal lands fromANWR, for oil and gas—the ‘‘bid bo-nuses’’—to be earmarked for basic re-search into renewable energy. He has aplan. It is a workable plan. It is notsmoke and mirrors. The productionroyalty from oil and gas leases wouldbe invested in energy conservation andlow-income family programs such asLIHEAP or weatherization assistance.Using tax incentives, Governor Bushwould expand use of renewable energyin the marketplace—building on suc-cessful experience in the State ofTexas. As a result of Governor Bush’sefforts on electricity restructuring,Texas will be one of the largest mar-kets for renewable energy, about 2000new megawatts.

Finally, Governor Bush would alsomaintain existing hydroelectric damsand streamline the Federal relicensingprocess. AL GORE would breach thedams in the Pacific Northwest.

The Vice President will try to lay theblame on Congress. He said we haveonly approved about 10 percent of theirbudget requests for renewable energy.Here again the Vice President is twist-ing the facts. According to the Con-gressional Research Service, we haveprovided $2.88 billion in funding for re-newable energy since 1992; 86 percent oftheir request.

The conclusion, the bottom line, isthe contrast between the candidatesand their energy policies could not bemore clear. The Vice President wantsto raise prices and limit the supply offossil energy which makes up over 80percent of our energy needs, replacingit with solar, wind, and biomass tech-nologies which are just not widelyavailable or affordable today.

Governor Bush would expand the do-mestic production of oil and naturalgas, ensuring affordable and securesupplies. He won’t bet on our energyfuture. Governor Bush will use the en-ergy of today to yield cleaner more af-fordable energy sources for tomorrow.

The choice for the American con-sumers on November 7 is clear. Supporta candidate with a positive plan to re-duce dependence on Saddam Hussein,the Middle East, and other areas;produce here at home and use all ourenergy resources, our coal, our oil, ourhydro, our nuclear, and natural gas be-cause we are going to need them all tokeep the U.S. economy going.

Remember, you can’t fly out of hereon hot air.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

VOINOVICH). The time until 2 o’clock isunder the control of the Senator fromIllinois.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Iask unanimous consent I be allowed tospeak for up to 5 minutes, with theconsent from the Senator from Illinois.


YUGOSLAVIA

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, itis my intention to speak for a couple of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9896 October 5, 2000minutes, and then I will suggest theabsence of a quorum and ask if the dis-tinguished Chair would also like to saya few words. And if he indicates such, Iwill step aside.

I want to speak about something thatis happening that is very important toour country and to the rest of theworld. As we speak, hundreds of thou-sands of Yugoslavian people are dem-onstrating in the streets, saying theywant the election result to be declared.It was an election. There is a questionabout how free it was.

Certainly President Milosevic is try-ing to have a runoff, to have time toget his troops back together. But it isclear the people of Yugoslavia arestanding up for their rights. During allthe time the United States has beendealing with the issue of PresidentMilosevic and his wife continuing tokeep down the people of Yugoslaviaand the satellite countries—Monte-negro, Macedonia, Kosovo—to keepthem from having the opportunity toexpress their free will, we in Americahave said to the people of Yugoslavia:Please, make your voices heard.

We will be supportive of what thepeople of that country want to happen.Clearly, there has been somewhat of arevolution in this last election period.

I hope and pray for the people ofYugoslavia that they will get theirvoice, that they will have their voicesheard, that they will have representa-tion in Parliament, and that the trulyelected President of Yugoslavia will beable to take office.

It is impossible for us to know if theelection was fair. It is impossible for usto know if there should be a runoff.Certainly the people have taken mat-ters into their own hands, and theyhave shown a spirit that cannot be de-nied.

The hearts and prayers of the peopleof America are with the people ofYugoslavia today, hoping they will beable to have a free and fair Presidentialelection; that they will be able to havea Parliament that is truly representa-tive of the people of Yugoslavia. Thatextends to the people of Montenegro,the people of Macedonia, the people ofKosovo, that they, too, will have theirfree will to be in control of their coun-tries.

We are watching in our country andwe wish them the best. We hope thepeople of Yugoslavia can take controlof their own destiny. That is what wewould wish for every person in theworld, for every country in the world,and no less certainly for Yugoslavia.

I yield the floor and suggest the ab-sence of a quorum.



Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, Iask unanimous consent that the orderfor the quorum call be rescinded.


Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, Iexpress my appreciation to all the

Members of this distinguished bodyand, in particular, our Senate leaderson both sides of the aisle for the oppor-tunity they have given me over thelast couple days to speak to a matterof great importance, in my mind, amatter which, though it concerns onlya relatively small portion of the Inte-rior conference committee report thatis before the Senate, I think nonethe-less is a matter that goes to the heartof the Government’s appropriationsprocess.

I want to review and describe the fili-buster I have conducted since about 2days ago. It has had four major parts.

First, I explained the project aboutwhich I was concerned: The AbrahamLincoln Presidential Library to bebuilt in Springfield, IL. This is aproject I support, and I am working tohelp make sure the project is ade-quately funded over the next coupleyears in the Senate.

Second, I explained our insistence onFederal competitive bidding and de-scribed the bill the Senate supportedwhich detailed the competitive bid pro-vision. This body, on its own, when fo-cused on the narrow issue of whetherthe Federal funding the Congress is ap-proving for the Abraham Lincoln Li-brary would require that the project becompetitively bid in accordance withFederal bidding guidelines, all Mem-bers from all 50 States, agreed that theFederal competitive bid guidelinesshould be attached.

However, the Interior conferencecommittee report that is before us hasstripped out that competitive biddingrequirement, and since the project nowis in the heart of this AppropriationsCommittee report, which has manyother projects and appropriations forprograms and Departments of the Fed-eral Government all over the country,it is now in a bill that will no doubtpass the Senate.

Third, I compared the State versusthe Federal procurement process andprocedure.

Finally, I gave the context in whichthese concerns arise. I read a series ofarticles from publications fromthroughout the State of Illinois thatdiscussed, first, the various contexts inwhich the issues of competitive biddinghave come up in the State of Illinoisand, second, the potential for insiderabuse when there are not tight require-ments that competitive bidding be ap-plied to a government constructionproject or a government lease or topractically any kind of project inwhich the Federal or State governmentis involved.

It has been my effort to make thebest possible case that Federal com-petitive bidding rules should be at-tached to the Lincoln Library.

I began by reviewing the time line ofthis project. This project was first dis-cussed 2 years ago, or more, under theadministration of then Gov. Jim Edgarof the State of Illinois. In the first fewmonths of February 1998, GovernorEdgar at that time was proposing a $40

million library. Later, we saw how, byMarch of 1999 in a new administration,the project had grown to a $60 millionproject. Then we saw how, by April of1999, they were discussing $148 millionproject to construct the Abraham Lin-coln Presidential Library in Spring-field, IL.

Since then, I think the numbers havefallen back down, and we are reallytalking about a $115 million to $120million project: $50 million will comefrom the Federal Government, $50 mil-lion will come from the State, and therest will come from private sources.

I also talked about the specific lan-guage in the Interior conference com-mittee report that is before us.

I noted that that authorization for$50 million in funding, coupled with anappropriation for $10 million thatwould be distributed in this fiscal year,does not specify who is to get the $50million authorization. The authoriza-tion language does not require that themoney be delivered to the State of Illi-nois. It says the money will be deliv-ered to an entity that will be selectedlater by the Department of the Interiorin consultation with the Governor ofthe State of Illinois.

I have been concerned by the wideopen nature of that language. Whenyou think about wording a bill thatmoney will be funneled to an entitythat is going to be selected later, we donot know what that entity is. Thatraises cause for concern. What happensif that money falls outside of the handsof State or Federal officials altogetherand is in private hands? Will there beany controls on it at all?

I also mentioned that I was con-cerned, if this money did go to theState of Illinois—it may well go to theState of Illinois—the State would prob-ably hand it over to its Capital Devel-opment Board.

I noted that the Illinois Capital De-velopment Board, which builds many ofthe State’s buildings, such as prisons,built the State of Illinois Building inthe city of Chicago, IL. They have anunusual provision in the general Stateprocurement code, a highly irregularand unusual provision, that allows theCapital Development Board to estab-lish ‘‘by rule construction purchasesthat may be made without competitivesealed bidding and the most competi-tive alternate method of source selec-tion that shall be used.’’

I pointed out that with this lack of ahard and fast requirement, if themoney were to flow to the State of Illi-nois, and the Capital DevelopmentBoard were to construct this library,the Capital Development Board, bytheir own statute, would have the au-thority to opt out of competitively bid-ding this project.

I do not think a project of any mag-nitude, paid for by the taxpayers,should be done without competitivebidding. Obviously, there is too muchpotential for abuse. We want to makesure we get the best value for the tax-payers. It would be irresponsible for

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9897October 5, 2000the Congress to not require competi-tive bidding, in my judgment, and notjust on a small project but most par-ticularly for a very large project suchas this, a $120 million project.

I also want to note—to give somescale to the size of a $120 million build-ing—we have some Illinois structuresand cost comparisons. The source forthis is the State Journal-Register, thenewspaper in Springfield, IL, from aMay 1, 2000, article.

They said that the estimated cost,adjusted for inflation, of building theIllinois State Capitol in today’s dollarswould be $70 million. So $120 million ismuch more expensive. The Lincoln Li-brary would be much more expensivethan the State capital.

There is another building in Spring-field that is worth $70 million. That isthe Illinois State Revenue Departmentbuilding, the Willard Ice Building,built in 1981 to 1984. It would probablycost about $70 million to build. That isa huge building.

The Prairie Capital Convention Cen-ter: It is estimated to have cost $60million in today’s dollars.

The Abraham Lincoln Library will bemuch more expensive than all of thesevery major buildings in Springfield, IL.On a project of this magnitude, obvi-ously we need to have the constructioncontracts competitively bid.

In discussing the State procurementcode, I noted that the State Capital De-velopment Board had the ability to optout of competitively bidding projects.It was for that reason, when I saw thelanguage of this measure that origi-nally came over to us from the House,I decided we ought to look at attachingtougher guidelines.

We compared the State procurementcode to the Federal procurement code,and I determined that in order that wenot have to worry about the State opt-ing out of competitive bidding, and inorder that we not have to worry aboutsome other flaws in the State procure-ment code, we would instead attach theFederal guidelines.

When I was in Springfield as a Statesenator for 6 years, back in 1997 I votedfor the current State procurementcode. It is indeed some improvementover the old State procurement laws.Nonetheless, it does have some prob-lems and it could be better. I regretthat I missed the loophole that allowsthe Capital Development Board to optout of competitively bidding a project.

I also discussed, at length, yesterdayhow the Capital Development Boardwas sending around a letter sayingthey would competitively bid thisproject, no matter what. They also sug-gested that their rules require them tocompetitively bid this project.

That contention is conclusively de-molished by the language of the Statestatute, which shows that they do nothave to competitively bid. They aresending out a letter saying they wouldcompetitively bid. Obviously, that doesnot create a legal requirement. Theysent the letter to me. Maybe it creates

a contractual obligation to me, but itdoes not make them legally account-able in the bidding process. How canyou hold someone accountable if thecode is optional? That is the problemwith the State procurement code.

Furthermore, I noted, when I had adiscussion with Senator DURBIN—he, ofcourse, along with all other Senatorsin this body, supported the passage ofthe Senate provision which requiredcompetitive bidding in accordance withthe Federal guidelines. However, he didraise the question, How would theState be able to adapt itself so it wouldapply the Federal competitive biddingguidelines?

I pointed out that the State codecontemplates, in fact, that from timeto time Federal guidelines will be at-tached on grants from the Federal Gov-ernment and that the State has statu-tory authority to adopt all its formsand procedures in order to make surethey can comply with guidelines im-posed by the Federal Government,much in the same way the State wouldhave to comply with any guidelines theFederal Government gave along withfunding for education, for health carefor the indigent, for Medicaid dollars,or the like. Absolutely, there is noth-ing wrong with that, nor is there any-thing unusual about that. That is whythe State contemplates it in its pro-curement code.

I also reviewed, at length, the con-text in which this debate has occurred.I read a series of articles from publica-tions throughout the State of Illinoisinto the RECORD. Those articles discussthe various contexts in which competi-tive bidding had come up before in theawarding of construction contracts, ofleases for State buildings, of licensesfor riverboats.

I also discussed loans the State hadgiven out back in the early 1980s tobuild luxury hotels, loans that neverwere repaid, and it seemed the bor-rowers had never really been held fullyaccountable.

I told you that from my experience ofseveral years in the Illinois State legis-lature, I could not casually dismissthis history. It is seared in my memoryfrom many bruising battles I had whenI was a State senator in the IllinoisState Senate from 1993 to the end of1998.

Finally, we asked the questionwhether the Lincoln Library is anotherone of those insider deals, such as theones we discussed when we read intothe RECORD stories of leases of Statebuildings to the State in which itseemed the people who owned the prop-erty made out real well but the Stateseemed to be paying very exorbitantrental rates, and also mishaps that wehad with construction projects in thepast.

We described how, with the very lu-crative Illinois riverboat licenses, someof which could be worth in the hun-dreds of millions of dollars each, theminute you got one of those riverboatlicenses, you would have the ability to

earn in some cases $100 million a year,and that these licenses could be consid-ered extremely valuable. They wouldprobably sell on the open market formany times the amount of annualearnings that would accrue to one ofthose licenses.

We described how those very valuablelicenses were given out in the State ofIllinois on a no-bid basis for a totalconsideration of $85,000 apiece. I de-scribed how I thought that was wrong,that those licenses, instead of beinghanded out as political bonbons to con-nected political insiders who happen tobe longtime, big-dollar contributors toboth sides of the aisle, that we shouldnot have just given them away likethat. They should have been competi-tively bid, and the people who wantedthose lucrative licenses should nothave been going through the legisla-ture or through a gaming board madeup of officials handpicked by the Gov-ernor to see who would become thenext multimillionaire in the State ofIllinois.

Had we had competitive bidding forthose riverboat licenses, then we mightnot have had all the articles writtenabout how it was that only a handful ofpolitically connected people just hap-pened to wind up being the ones whogot these phenomenally lucrative gam-bling licenses.

They were lucrative licenses not onlybecause they were gambling licensesbut because they were monopoly li-censes. There could be only 10 river-boats in the State of Illinois. If therecould only be 10 restaurants or 10 ho-tels in the State of Illinois, then the li-cense to operate one of those res-taurants or hotels would be very valu-able as well.

We reviewed at length all the prob-lems that happened and all the ques-tions that get raised when a govern-mental body gives out privileges orcontracts or leases without tight pro-cedures to make sure that political fa-voritism does not enter into the equa-tion and without tight guidelines tomake sure there is a fair and equitablecompetitive bidding process.

After this whole discussion, in whichsome names of prominent political peo-ple seemed to be coming up again andagain and again in many of the arti-cles, we finally arrived at the question,is this Abraham Lincoln Library to bebuilt in Springfield—the constructionhas not started yet; it is scheduled tostart on Lincoln’s birthday next year,2001; they have awarded some architec-ture and engineering contracts andsome design contracts—just anotherinsider deal? We concluded that it mayor may not be. We won’t know until itis done, until we see how it is done. Butwe concluded that, clearly, given thewhole history of problems we have seenagain and again and again in recentState history with the awarding of con-struction contracts, leases, privileges,licenses, that we ought to do our verybest to prevent this project from be-coming just one more insider deal. And

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9898 October 5, 2000we noted what a horrible, ugly irony itwould be if a monument to ‘‘HonestAbe’’ Lincoln, arguably our country’sgreatest President, wound up havingany taint at all.

That is what we are seeking to avoid.We should do our very best to preventit from becoming an insider deal.

Moreover, we have many red flagsthat have to be taken into account. Wehave the price increases from $40 to $60to now $120 million. We have the loca-tion of the library. The library site hasrecently been selected. This is a map ofSpringfield. This is the State Capitolcomplex. This is where Abraham Lin-coln’s home is. It is now run by the Na-tional Park Service. There is, in fact,an entire neighborhood that has beenrenovated and kept up to look as wethink it looked in the day and age thatAbraham Lincoln and his family livedthere.

This is where the Capital ConventionCenter is. This is where the AbrahamLincoln Library is now planned. Thatwas the site selected. Maybe that is thebest site. I don’t know. One may neverknow. It is close to the old State Cap-itol, which Abraham Lincoln actuallyserved in and spoke in when he was aState legislator. It is near the Abra-ham Lincoln law office. Is it the bestsite? I don’t know. Did political favor-itism come into consideration in se-lecting that site? I don’t know. Wedon’t know.

One thing is interesting, though.This hotel, the Renaissance SpringfieldHotel, is very close to the proposed li-brary. That is the hotel that, as we dis-cussed yesterday, was built with tax-payer money in the form of a Stateloan given out back in the early 1980s.The loan was never paid back, thoughsome payments were made on the loan.The people who got the loan still ownthe hotel and still manage it. Presum-ably if the Lincoln Library results inincreased tourism revenue and morepeople coming to visit the city ofSpringfield, there will be a lot of tour-ist dollars. Some projections estimateas much as $140 million in tourist rev-enue will be added by the constructionof the library in Springfield. Certainlysome of that would probably accrue tothe benefit of those who have the Ren-aissance Springfield Hotel.

The price increases, the location ofthe library, we note these things. Wenote the involvement of individualswhose names have come up in the pastand were described again and again inmany of the articles read into theRECORD. And we note the general prob-lem that the State has had withprojects such as this in the past.

Given all these red flags, isn’t it ap-propriate that we be extra careful andthat we do everything we can to ensurethat the project be appropriately com-petitively bid? It is for that reasonthat I attached the Federal competi-tive bid guidelines when the authoriza-tion bill came into the Senate. Theseguidelines were adopted unanimouslyin the Senate Energy Committee and,

ultimately, the whole Senate unani-mously adopted these guidelines andsent the bill back to the House.

We are here today because we have tovote on the Interior conference com-mittee report which has appropriationsfor the project tucked in, but with theSenate requirements for competitivebidding in accordance with Federalguidelines stripped out. It is the factthat those competitive bid guidelinesare not contained within the authoriza-tion and appropriations for the libraryin this Interior conference committeereport that I am here on the floor ofthe Senate.

Mr. President, this debate, as I havesaid, goes to the very heart of the ap-propriations process itself. We need totake great care with the taxpayers’money. The money represents precioushours of hard work, sweat, and timeaway from their families. The Amer-ican people are fundamentally gen-erous and they will permit reasonableexpenditures for the good of their coun-try and their communities. The peopleof Springfield, IL, are as generous asany, and they are as fine a people asany.

I have heard more from the people ofSpringfield, IL, than from anywhereelse in my State about the importanceto them of having an honest and eth-ical bidding process on this librarythat they hope will be a credit to theircommunity for ages to come. But whilethe people are generous and they arewilling to permit us to make reason-able expenditures in support of ourStates and communities, the taxpayersdo expect that they not be abused. Weneed to do our best to make sure thereare sufficient safeguards so that thepeople can know their hard work is notbeing trampled on, that politicallyconnected individuals are not derivingprivate profit at the expense of the tax-payers, all under the guise of a publicworks project.

I know that in this Chamber our re-marks go out to the entire country. Iam well aware of it in this debate be-cause our office is receiving cor-respondence from people all over theUnited States who find interestingwhat has happened in Illinois. But Iwant to address these remarks now ex-clusively to the people of my State—the land of Lincoln—Illinois.

In a very short time now, the Senatewill soon take a vote on the Interiorappropriations conference report. Thisis the vehicle that contains the LincolnLibrary provisions we have been talk-ing about in this filibuster.

When the Senate votes, we will losebecause the Interior bill itself is a billwith considerable support for projectsaround the country—it is an $18 billionbill that literally has implications forevery State in the Nation—my col-leagues will vote for it. Even thosewho, along with me, believe the Lin-coln Library should have Federal com-petitive bidding rules attached to themoney that will be appropriated todaywill do so.

As I have noted, all Members of thisbody, earlier this week, voted in favorof Federal competitive bidding guide-lines for this project when we had avote just on that narrow issue. We can-not have a vote to take out the lan-guage that is in the conference com-mittee report that does not require thecompetitive bidding. These are therules of the Senate. However, when thevote is called and we lose, I do notwant the people of Illinois to be dis-couraged by the difficulties we haveencountered. If nothing else, from thematerials we have introduced into theRECORD, it is clear that the politicalculture of Illinois is entrenched andformidable—so entrenched and formi-dable that a simple provision such ascompetitive bidding could become con-troversial.

Our effort in these last couple of daysis just a baby step. Real change canonly come as the people of Illinois seemore, know more, and gradually cometo realize that they do indeed have thepower to make it different. Realchange comes from the bottom, fromthe people up. All those of us in thisbody can do is observe, think, exerciseour very best judgment, and then makethe case.

Today and yesterday, we have madethe case. In a little while, the oppo-nents of our simple competitive bid re-quirement will prevail. But the nexttime you hear of leases, or loans, orcapital projects, or riverboat licensesgoing to political insiders, you will re-member this debate; and together wewill rejoin the fight and redouble ourefforts for the next time.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent to speak as inmorning business for 10 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection? I object.

Mr. GRASSLEY. May I speak just onthe bill?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Can wesuggest the absence of a quorum?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I don’t want to gothrough that if I don’t have to.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, Iyield the remainder of my time to theoccupant of the chair, SenatorVOINOVICH from Ohio.

(Mr. FITZGERALD assumed thechair.)

ELECTIONS IN THE BALKANS

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, asmy colleagues are well aware, I have akeen interest in what happens in theBalkans because I believe what hap-pens in Southeastern Europe impactson our national security, our economicwell-being in Europe, the stability ofEurope and yes, world peace.

For the better part of the 20th Cen-tury, Western Europe and the U.S. havehad an enormous stake in what has oc-curred in Southeastern Europe.

However, we have not done enough topay attention to what is happeningthere, dating back to the time whenformer Secretary of State, Jim Baker,said of Yugoslavia that ‘‘we don’t havea dog in this fight.’’

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9899October 5, 2000Unfortunately, that line of thinking

has prevailed, and we’ve allowedSlobodan Milosevic to wreak havoc.Over the last decade, he has spreaddeath and destruction to the people ofSerbia, Kosovo and Croatia and we allknow that U.S. troops now are inKosovo and Bosnia because of him.

Even a U.S. and NATO led air warlast year was not sufficient to bring anend to the Milosevic regime.

Since the end of the war, I have beenworking hard on three essential itemsthat I believe will bring peace and sta-bility to the region. First, I have beenworking with leaders here and abroadto help stop the ethnic cleansing inKosovo; second, to try and make surethat we keep our promises to the Sta-bility Pact of Southeast Europe. Tothat end, I recently met with BodoHomback, the head of the StabilityPact to underscore the importance ofthe Stability Pact; and third, I havebeen working tirelessly to support de-mocracy in Serbia, a cause I took onwhen I was governor of the State ofOhio.

When I was in Bucharest at the Orga-nization for the Security and Coopera-tion of Europe, OSCE, in July of thisyear, I introduced a resolution onSoutheastern Europe that called to theattention of the OSCE’s ParliamentaryAssembly the situation in Kosovo andSerbia, and made clear the importanceof democracy in Serbia.

I pointed out to my OSCE colleaguesin that resolution that Milosevic was athreat to the stability, peace and pros-perity of the region. I argued that inorder for the nations of that region tobecome fully integrated into Europe—for the first time in modern history—Milosevic’s removal from office was ab-solutely essential.

My resolution put the OSCE, as abody, on record as condemning theMilosevic regime and insisting on therestoration of human rights, the rule oflaw, free press and respect for ethnicminorities in Serbia. I was pleased thatmy resolution passed, despite strongopposition by the delegation from theRussian Federation.

Many people had become resigned tothe fact that if the NATO bombing andthe hardships that followed the end ofthe air war did not produce widespreadanti-Milosevic sentiment, the prospectfor Milosevic’s removal from office bythe Serbian people would not happenany time soon. Even Milosevic himselffelt confident enough in his rulershipof Yugoslavia to call for general elec-tions nine months earlier than theywere supposed to occur.

On Sunday, September 24th, historicelections took place in Yugoslavia inspite of the worst type of conditionsthat could possibly hamper free andfair elections, including military andpolice presence at polling places; bal-lots counted by Milosevic appointees;reports of ‘‘ballot stuffing;’’ intimida-tion of voters during the election proc-ess; and the refusal to allow inde-pendent observers to monitor electionpractices and results.

In spite of all that, the people won.They won because of the old Serbianslogan—Samo, Sloga, Srbina,Spasava—which translates into ‘‘onlyunity can save the Serbs’’, or, ‘‘inunity there is strength for the Serbs.’’

And I might say the opposition fi-nally got its act together with prayersto St. Sava, and with enlightenmentfrom the Holy Spirit.

It was the political force of the peo-ple that propelled law professor, andpolitical unknown, Vojislav Kostunica,to victory.

This monumental victory over an in-dicted war criminal proves that theSerb people strongly desire positivechange. They want to see their countrymove beyond the angry rhetoric andnationalistic fires fanned by Milosevic.

And let me make this point clear:Mr. Kostunica’s victory and his sup-port are not the result of Western in-fluence.

And although Milosevic had pre-viously acknowledged that Mr.Kostunica had more votes, we learnedyesterday afternoon that his pawns onthe constitutional court declared thatthe September 24th elections were un-constitutional.

This latest and most blatant attemptby Milosevic to thwart the will of thepeople is the final insult to the citizensof Yugoslavia.

The citizens of Yugoslavia—througha constitutional election—have spoken.They have elected a new President.

The Serb people, driven by a desire tolive free from the dictatorship ofMilosevic, have been pushed to taketheir election mandate by force. Theyare, at this very moment, engaged in astruggle to throw off the shackles ofoppression.

In light of these developments, I amprayerful that the Serb people will beable to enforce their will, and thatthey will remember their slogan—Samo, Sloga, Srbina, Spasava—and re-main united at this very importanttime for freedom.

I also pray that the Serb militaryand police forces will avoid bloodshed,recognizing that their brothers and sis-ters only seek the freedom that a ty-rant has denied them.

Let me be clear, Mr. President: thisis not a revolution. The Serb people areenforcing the mandate of their electionbecause this man who has been beatenrefuses to relinquish power.

He ought to understand that he’s ei-ther going to walk out of there or goout on a stretcher or in a body bag.

Mr. President, we in the UnitedStates must render our support to theSerb people immediately, and convinceour allies and the nations of the worldthat Vojislav Kostunica is the new andlegitimately elected leader of Serbia,and we need to convince Russia thatthey should immediately tell Milosevicthat the game is over; it’s time to go.

Mr. President, we also need to assurethe Serbian people—who have beenlong-standing friends of this nation andalso our allies in World War II—that we

are still their friends and that it isMilosevic who has been the problem,not the Serbian people.

The Serb people need to know thatwith their new leader, VojislavKostunica, we will remove our sanc-tions against Serbia and help them re-invigorate their economy and re-estab-lish their self-respect and the UnitedStates will welcome them into thelight of freedom and a bright new chap-ter in Serbian history.

Thank you Mr. President. I yield thefloor.

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, onceagain, we are witness to the belated ifinevitable fall of a tyrannical regimethat failed to convince the populationunder its control that its worst enemylay outside that nation’s borders. As Ispeak, the Serbian people are stormingYugoslavia’s Parliament building andseizing television stations. In the townof Kolubara, coal miners and tens ofthousands of supporters have openlyand peacefully defied the Milosevic re-gime’s efforts at stemming the tide ofhistory. A regime that stands accusedof crimes against humanity is on itsdeathbed, and the United States mustnot hesitate to declare its unequivocalsupport for those brave enough to defythat regime.

The people of Yugoslavia have spo-ken very clearly. They turned out toelect a new President, and SlobodanMilosevic’s efforts to manipulate thedemocratic process has not succeeded.The formidable internal security appa-ratus that Milosevic and his supportersin the Socialist Party, as well as theYugoslav United Left, the Communistorganization led by his wife MirjanaMarkovic, have established cannotsave him.

The new defense doctrine PresidentMilosevic approved just 2 months agolisted as its highest priority preserva-tion of the regime that today findsitself under the gravest threat to itssurvival. While the United States mustexercise care in how its role in develop-ments in Serbia are perceived, it mustnot fail to lend its moral support tothose fighting for democracy.

Since 1992, the Balkans have been thescene of the bloodiest fighting in Eu-rope since World War II. The wars thathave ravaged Bosnia-Herzegovina andKosovo produced a list of war criminalsthat will take years to try, in theevent they are brought to justice. Atremendous amount of the blame forthat situation resides in one man—Slobodan Milosevic. He was instru-mental in creating the environment inwhich those atrocities occurred andpresided over military campaigns thatgave the world a new and onerousphrase: ethnic cleansing.

There are those who believe theUnited States did not have a role toplay in supporting democratization inSerbia. Those of us who supportedS.720, the Serbia Democratization Act,however, have remained firm in ourconviction that U.S. support for de-mocracy in that troubled nation was

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9900 October 5, 2000something to be proud of and couldplay a positive role in facilitating posi-tive change in Yugoslavia. That S.720has remained stuck in the House is un-fortunate, but the message that it sentmerely by its introduction was power-ful. We cannot selectively stand forfreedom and should not be ashamedthat it provides the moral foundationof our foreign policy. Ongoing events inSerbia illustrate vividly the intense de-sire for democracy in Serbia and theUnited States should not hesitate tostate its strong support for the electionof Vojislav Kostunica and for the forcesof change in Yugoslavia.

The Balkan powderkeg is facing itsmost promising period of change sincethe end of the Cold War. We should notbe idle witnesses to that change. I urgethe House to speak forcefully on thisissue by passing the Serbia Democra-tization Act at once. The symbolism ofU.S. support for democratic changewill not play into the hands of a dis-credited regime in its death throes. Onthe contrary, it will tell the people ofYugoslavia that we stand with them onthe verge of a new era.

Mr. President, I suggest the absenceof a quorum.


The legislative clerk proceeded tocall the roll.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

CLOTURE MOTION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the clerk will re-port the motion to invoke cloture.

The legislative clerk read as follows:We, the undersigned Senators, in accord-

ance with the provisions of Rule XXII of theStanding Rules of the Senate, do herebymove to bring to a close debate on the con-ference report to accompany H.R. 4578, theDepartment of the Interior appropriationsbill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unan-imous consent, the mandatory quorumcall has been waived.

The question is, Is it the sense of theSenate that debate on the conferencereport to accompany H.R. 4578, the In-terior appropriations bill, shall bebrought to a close? The yeas and naysare required under the rule. The clerkwill call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the

Senator from Vermont (Mr. JEFFORDS)is necessarily absent.

Mr. REID. I announce that the Sen-ator from California (Mrs. FEINSTEIN)and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.LIEBERMAN) are necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are thereany other Senators in the Chamberwho desire to vote:

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 89,nays 8, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 265 Leg.]

AbrahamAkakaAllardAshcroft

BaucusBayhBennettBiden

BingamanBondBoxerBrownback

BryanBunningBurnsByrdCampbellChafee, L.ClelandCochranCollinsConradCraigCrapoDaschleDeWineDoddDomeniciDorganDurbinEdwardsEnziFristGortonGrammGramsGrassleyGregg

HagelHarkinHatchHelmsHollingsHutchinsonHutchisonInouyeJohnsonKennedyKerreyKerryKohlKylLautenbergLeahyLevinLincolnLottLugarMackMcConnellMikulskiMillerMoynihanMurkowski

MurrayNicklesReedReidRobbRobertsRockefellerRothSantorumSarbanesSchumerSessionsShelbySmith (OR)SnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondTorricelliVoinovichWarnerWellstoneWyden

NAYS—8

BreauxFeingoldFitzgerald

GrahamInhofeLandrieu

McCainSmith

NOT VOTING—3

Feinstein Jeffords Lieberman

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On thisvote, the yeas are 89, the nays are 8.Three-fifths of the Senators duly cho-sen and sworn having voted in the af-firmative, the motion is agreed to.

The Senator from Washington.Mr. GORTON. Will the Presiding Offi-

cer state what the order of business isnow?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There isa time limit on the conference report,10 minutes equally divided between thetwo managers, 10 minutes equally di-vided between the chairman and rank-ing member of the AppropriationsCommittee, 30 minutes under the con-trol of Senator LANDRIEU, and 15 min-utes under the control of SenatorMCCAIN.

Mr. GORTON. I thank the PresidingOfficer, and I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Arizona.

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I rise inopposition to the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that a listof the unauthorized and unrequestedearmarks, earmarks added in con-ference, be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:f

OBJECTIONABLE PROVISIONS IN H.R. 4578, CON-FERENCE REPORT FOR FY 2001, DEPARTMENTOF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIESAPPROPRIATIONS

Bill LanguageAdditional $1,762,000 for assessment of the

mineral potential of public lands in Alaskapursuant to section 1010 of Public Law 96–487.

Earmark of $2,000,000 provided to local gov-ernments in southern California for planningassociated with the Natural CommunitiesConservation Planning (NCCP) program.

Earmark of $1,607,000 for security enhance-ments in Washington, D.C.

Earmark of $1,595,000 for the acquisition ofinterests in Ferry Farm, George Washing-ton’s Boyhood Home and for management ofthe home.

An additional $5,000,000 for Save America’sTreasures for various locale-specificprojects.

Earmark of $650,000 for Lake ChamplainNational Historic Landmarks.

Earmark of $300,000 for the Kendall CountyCourthouse.

Earmark of $365,000 for the U.S. Grant Boy-hood Home National Historic Landmarkwhich should be derived from the HistoricPreservation Fund.

Earmark of $1,000,000 of the total of thegrants made available to the State of Mary-land under Title IV of the Surface MiningControl and Reclamation Act of 1977 if theamount is set aside in an acid mine drainageabatement and treatment fund establishedunder a State law.

Earmark of $300,000 shall be for a grant toAlaska Pacific University for the develop-ment of an ANILCA training curriculum.

Provision stating that none of the funds inthis Act may be used to establish a new Na-tional Wildlife Refuge in the Kankakee Riverbasin that is inconsistent with the UnitedStates Army Corps of Engineers’ efforts tocontrol flooding and siltation in that area.

Provision stating that notwithstandingany other provision of law, the Secretary ofthe Interior shall designate Anchorage, Alas-ka, as a port of entry for the purpose of sec-tion 9(f)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of1973.

Provision stating that notwithstandingany other provision of law, the Secretary ofthe Interior shall convey to Harvey R.Redmond of Girdwood, Alaska, at no cost, allright, title, and interest of the United Statesin and to United States Survey No. 12192,Alaska, consisting of 49.96 acres located inthe vicinity of T. 9N., R., 3E., Seward Merid-ian, Alaska.

Provision which requires a land exchangeregarding the Mississippi River Wildlife andFish refuge.

Provision which authorizes a land ex-change in Washington between the Fish andWildlife Service and Othello Housing Au-thority.

Provision which authorizes the establish-ment of the First Ladies National HistoricSite in Canton, Ohio.

Provision which authorizes the Palace ofGovernors in New Mexico.

Provision which authorizes the South-western Pennsylvania Heritage PreservationCommission.

Provision which redesignates the Cuya-hoga Valley National Recreation Area as aNational Park.

Provision which authorizes the WheelingNational Heritage Area in West Virginia.

Earmark of $500,000 to be available for lawenforcement purposes on the Pisgah andNantahala National Forests.

Earmark of $990,000 for the purpose of im-plementing the Valles Caldera PreservationAct, which shall be available to the Sec-retary for the management of the VallesCaldera National Preserve, New Mexico.

Earmark of $5,000,000 to be allocated to theAlaska Region, in addition to its normal al-location for the purposes of preparing addi-tional timber for sale, to establish a 3-yeartimber supply and such funds may be trans-ferred to other appropriations accounts asnecessary to maximize accomplishment.

Earmark of $700,000 shall be provided tothe State of Alaska for monitoring activitiesat Forest Service log transfer facilities, inthe form of an advance, direct lump sumpayment.

Earmark of $5,000,000 is appropriated andshall be deposited into the Southeast AlaskaEconomic Disaster Fund without further ap-propriation or fiscal year limitation. TheSecretary of Agriculture shall distributethese funds to the City of Craig in fiscal year2001.

Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, 80 percent of the funds appropriated to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9901October 5, 2000the Forest Service in the National ForestSystem’ and ‘Capital Improvement andMaintenance’ accounts and planned to be al-located to activities under the ‘Jobs in theWoods’ program for projects on NationalForest land in the State of Washington maybe granted directly to the Washington StateDepartment of Fish and Wildlife for accom-plishment of planned projects.

Language stating that funds appropriatedto the Forest Service shall be available forpayments to counties within the ColumbiaRiver Gorge National Scenic Area.

Language stating that the Secretary of Ag-riculture is authorized to enter into grants,contracts, and cooperative agreements as ap-propriate with the Pinchot Institute for Con-servation, as well as with public and otherprivate agencies, organizations, institutions,and individuals, to provide for the develop-ment, administration, maintenance, or res-toration of land, facilities, or Forest Serviceprograms, at the Grey Towers National His-toric Landmark.

Language stating that funds appropriatedto the Forest Service shall be available, asdetermined by the Secretary, for paymentsto Del Norte County, California.

Earmark of $5,000,000 to be designated bythe Indian Health Service as a contributionto the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corpora-tion (YKHC) to start a priority project forthe acquisition of land, planning, design andconstruction of 79 staff quarters at Bethel,Alaska, subject to a negotiated projectagreement between the YKHC and the IndianHealth Service.

Provision stating that notwithstandingany other provision of law, for fiscal year2001 the Secretaries of Agriculture and theInterior are authorized to limit competitionfor watershed restoration project contractsas part of the ‘Jobs in the Woods’ componentof the President’s Forest Plan for the PacificNorthwest or the Jobs in the Woods Programestablished in Region 10 of the Forest Serv-ice to individuals and entities in historicallytimber-dependent areas in the States ofWashington, Oregon, northern California andAlaska that have been affected by reducedtimber harvesting on Federal lands.

Provision which continues a provision reg-ulating the export of Western Red Cedarfrom National forest System Lands in Alas-ka.

Provision which continues to limit miningand prospecting on the Mark Twain NationalForest in Missouri.

Provision limiting competition for fire andfuel treatment and watershed restorationcontracts in California.

Provision that amends the Columbia RiverGorge National Scenic Area Act to expeditethe acquisition of critical lands within theNSA dealing with land appraisal assump-tions utilized by the Forest Service to ac-quire land within the Columbia River GorgeNational Scenic Area.

Provision that adds the ‘‘Boise LaboratoryReplacement Act of 2000’’ that permits thesale of the Forest Service Boise, ID, labora-tory site, occupied by the Rocky MountainResearch Station, and the use of the pro-ceeds to purchase interests in a multi-agencyfacility at the University of Idaho.

Conference Report LanguageBureau of Land Management

Earmark of $500,000 for Montana State Uni-versity weed program.

Earmark of $750,000 for Idaho weed control.Earmark of $900,000 for Yukon River salm-

on.Earmark of $1,000,000 for Missouri River ac-

tivities associated with the Lewis and ClarkBicentennial celebration.

Earmark of $500,000 for the Missouri Riverundaunted stewardship program.

Earmark of $700,000 for the development ofa mining claim information system in Alas-ka.

Earmark of $500,000 for a coalbed methaneEIS in Montana.

Earmark of $650,000 for the Montana cadas-tral project.

Earmark of $300,000 for the Utah geo-graphic reference project.

Earmark of $2,400,000 for Alaska convey-ance.

Earmark of $500,000 to prepare an EIS forfuture coal bed methane and conventionaloil and gas development in the Montana por-tion of the Power River Basin.

Earmark of $500,000 for the UndauntedStewardship program, which will allow forlocal input and participation in grants toprotect historic sites along the Lewis andClark Trail. This program is to be coopera-tively administered by the Bureau and Mon-tana State University.

Language which encourages the Bureau towork with the Waste Management Educationand Research Consortium (WERC) at NewMexico State University in addressing theproblem of abandoned mine sites in the west-ern United States.

Earmark of $482,000 for an Alaska rural firesuppression program (Wildland fire manage-ment).

Earmark of $482,000 for a rural Alaska firesuppression program. (Wildland fire suppres-sion).

Earmark of $8,800,000 is to be made avail-able to the Ecological Restoration Institute(ERI) of Northern Arizona University,through a cooperative agreement with theBureau of Land Management, to support newand existing ecologically-based forest res-toration activities in ponderosa pine forests.

Earmark of $3,760,000 for construction atthe Coldfoot Visitor Center.

Earmark of $400,000 for construction at theFort Benton Visitor Center.

Earmark of $200,000 for construction at theCalifornia Train Interpretive Center.

Earmark of $500,000 for construction at theBlackwell Island Facility.

Language which encourages the Bureau towork with the town of Escalante and Gar-field County, UT to ensure that the con-struction of the science center is consistentwith the Escalante Center master plan.

Earmark of $5,000,000 for land acquisitionin El Dorado County, CA.

Earmark of $2,000,000 for land acquisitionat Organ Mountains, New Mexico.

Earmark of $2,000,000 for land acquisitionfor Upper Crab Creek, Washington.Fish and Wildlife Service

Earmark of $2,000 for Everglades for re-source management.

Earmark of $1,500,000 for cold water fish inMontana and Idaho.

Earmark of $270,000 for the California/Ne-vada desert resource initiative.

Earmark of $1,000,000 for Central Valleyand Southern California habitat conserva-tion planning.

Earmark of $500,000 for bighorn sheep con-servation in Nevada.

Increases in the recovery program include$5,000,000 for matching grants for Pacificsalmon conservation and restoration inWashington.

Earmark of $288,000 for wolf recovery inIdaho.

Earmark of $100,000 for wolf monitoring bythe Nez Perce tribe.

Earmark of $600,000 for eider research atthe Alaska SeaLife Center.

Earmark of $600,000 for Lahontan cutthroattrout restoration.

Earmark of $500,000 for the black cappedvireo in Texas.

Increase of $1,400,000 for Washington salm-on enhancement.

Increase of $4,000 for bull trout recovery inWashington.

Increase of $500,000 for private lands con-servation efforts in Hawaii.

Increase of $50,000 for rehabilitation of theWhite River in Indiana in response to a re-cent fish kill.

Increase of $252,000 in project planning forthe Middle Rio Grande Bosque program.

Increase of $350,000 for Long Live the Kingsand Hood Canal Salmon EnhancementGroup.

Increase of $575,000 to reduce sea bird by-catch in Alaska.

Increase of $360,000 for staffing and oper-ations associated with the new port of entrydesignation in Anchorage, Alaska.

Increase of $5,000,000 for the WashingtonHatchery Improvement Project.

Increase of $184,000 for marking of hatch-ery salmon in Washington.

Earmark of $11,051,000 for the Alaska sub-sistence program.

Earmark of $750,000 for the Klamath Riverflow study.

Earmark of $500,000 for Trinity River res-toration.

Earmark of $200,000 for Yukon River fish-eries management studies.

Earmark of $100,000 for Yukon River Salm-on Treaty education efforts.

Increase of $2,000,000 for Pingree Forestnon-development easements in Maine to behandled through the National Fish and Wild-life Foundation.

The increase provided in consultation forcold water fish in Montana and Idaho are forpreparation and implementation of plans,programs, or agreements identified by theStates of Idaho and Montana that will ad-dress habitat for freshwater aquatic specieson non-Federal lands.

Earmark of $800,000 in new joint venturesfunding for the Atlantic Coast.

Earmark of $750,000 in new joint venturesfunding for Lower Mississippi.

Earmark of $650,000 in new joint venturesfunding for Upper Mississippi.

Earmark of $1,400,000 in new joint venturesfunding for Prairie Pothole.

Earmark of $700,000 in new joint venturesfunding for Gulf Coast.

Earmark of $700,000 in new joint venturesfunding for Playa Lakes.

Earmark of $400,000 in new joint venturesfunding for Rainwater Basin.

Earmark of $1,000,000 in new joint venturesfunding for Intermountain West.

Earmark of $550,000 in new joint venturesfunding for Central Valley.

Earmark of $700,000 in new joint venturesfunding for Pacific Coast.

Earmark of $370,000 in new joint venturesfunding for San Francisco Bay.

Earmark of $400,000 in new joint venturesfunding for Sonoran.

Earmark of $370,000 in new joint venturesfunding for Arctic Goose.

Earmark of $370,000 in new joint venturesfunding for Black Duck.

Earmark of $550,000 in new joint venturesfunding for Sea Duck.

Earmark of $593,000 for Alaska MaritimeNWR, AK (Headquarters/Visitor Center).

Earmark of $500,000 for Bear River NWR,UT (Water management facilities).

Earmark of $3,600,000 for Bear River NWR,UT (Education Center).

Earmark of $350,000 for Canaan ValleyNWR, WV (Heavy equipment replacement).

Earmark of $500,000 for Clarks River NWR,KY (Garage and visitor access).

Earmark of $250,000 for Great DismalSwamp NWR, VA (Planning and public use).

Earmark of $800,000 for John Heinz NWR,PA (Administrative wing).

Earmark of $700,000 for Kealia Pond NWR,HI (Water control structures).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9902 October 5, 2000Earmark of $180,000 for Kodiak NWR, AK

(Visitor Center/planning).Earmark of $130,000 for Mason Neck NWR,

VA (ADA accessibility).Earmark of $600,000 for Mason Neck NWR,

VA (Non-motorized trail).Additional $5,000,000 for National Conserva-

tion Training Center, WV (Fourth Dor-mitory).

Earmark of $2,000,000 for Noxubee NWR,MS (Visitor Center).

Earmark of $300,000 for Pittsford NFH, VT(Planning and design/hatchery rehabilita-tion).

Earmark of $115,000 for Seatuck & SayvilleNWRs, NY (Visitor facilities).

Earmark of $1,512,000 for Silvio O. ConteNWR, VT (Education Center).

Earmark of $1,100,000 for White River NWR,AR (Visitor Center construction).

Earmark of $350,000 for White SulphurSprings NFH, WV (Holding and propagation).

Earmark of $20,000 for White SulphurSprings NFH, WV (Office renovations).

Earmark of $500,000 for land acquisition atBack Bay NWR (VA).

Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisitionfor Big Muddy NWR (MO).

Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisitionfor Bon Secour NWR (AL).

Earmark of $1,750,000 for land acquisitionfor Centennial Valley NWR (MT).

Earmark of $500,000 for land acquisition forClarks River NWR (KY).

Earmark of $2,100,000 for land acquisitionfor Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Project (SD).

Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisitionfor Edwin B. Forsythe NWR (NJ).

Earmark of $1,150,000 for land acquisitionfor Grand Bay NWR (AL).

Earmark of $1,500,000 for land acquisitionfor Lake Umbagog NWR (NH).

Earmark of $500,000 for land acquisition forMinnesota Valley NWR (MN).

Earmark of $600,000 for land acquisition forNeal Smith NWR (IA).

Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisitionfor Northern Tallgrass NWR (MN).

Earmark of $800,000 for land acquisition forPatoka River NRW (IN).

Earmark of $1,300,000 for land acquisitionfor Prime Hook NWR (DE).

Earmark of $750,000 for land acquisition forSilvo O. Conte NWR (CT/MA/NH/VT).

Earmark of $1,500,000 for land acquisitionfor Stewart B. McKinney NWR (CT).

Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisitionfor Waccamaw NWR (SC).

Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisitionfor Walkill River (NJ).

National Park Service

Earmark of $975,000 for the 9 NationalTrails.

Increase of $2,300,000 for Harpers Ferry De-sign Center.

Earmark of $350,000 to repair the light-house at Fire Island NS.

Earmark of $75,000 to repair the OceanBeach Pavilion at Fire Island, NS.

Earmark of $309,000 for repairs of theBachlott House.

Earmark of $100,000 for the Alberty Housewhich are both located at Cumberland IslandNS.

Earmark of $500,000 for maintenanceprojects at the Ozark National ScenicRiverways Park.

Earmark of $200,000 for a wilderness studyat Apostle Islands NL, WI.

Language that directs the National ParkService make sufficient funds available toassure that signs marking the Lewis andClark route in the State of North Dakota areadequate to meet National Park Servicestandards.

Language that directs that, within theamounts provided for operation of the Na-

tional Park System, the Service shall pro-vide the necessary funds, not to exceed$350,000, for the Federal share of the coopera-tive effort to provide emergency medicalservices in the Hawaii Volcanoes NationalPark.

Language stating that considerationshould be given to groups involved in hikingand biking trails in southeastern Michiganand the Service is encouraged to work coop-eratively with groups in this area.

Increase of $100,000 for Gettysburg NMPtechnical assistance.

Increase of $250,000 for the National Centerfor Preservation Technology.

Language that directs that implementa-tion funds for the Hudson River Valley Na-tional Heritage Area are contingent uponNational Park Service approval of the man-agement and interpretive plans that are cur-rently being developed.

Earmark of $742,000 for Alaska Native Cul-tural Center.

Earmark of $100,000 for Aleutian World WarII National Historic Area.

Earmark of $2,300,000 for Chesapeake BayGateways.

Earmark of $300,000 for Dayton AviationHeritage Commission.

Earmark of $2,250,000 for Four Corners In-terpretive Center.

Earmark of $500,000 for Lamprey River.Earmark of $500,000 for Mandan On-a-Slant

Village.Earmark of $500,000 for National First La-

dies Library.Additional $40,000 for Roosevelt Campo-

bello International Park Commission.Earmark of $500,000 for Route 66 National

Historic Highway.Earmark of $495,000 for Sewall-Belmont

House.Earmark of $400,000 for Vancouver Na-

tional Historic Reserve.Earmark of $594,000 for Wheeling National

Heritage Area.Earmark of $100,000 for Women’s Progress

Commission.An additional $7,276,000 for various locale-

specific Historic Preservation projects.Earmark of $500,000 for Antietam NB, MD

(stabilize/restore battlefield structures).Earmark of $1,360,000 for Apostle Islands

NL, WI (erosion control).Additional $600,000 for Apostle Islands NL,

WI (rehab Outer Island lighthouse).Earmark of $300,000 for Canaveral NS, FL

(Seminole Rest).Earmark of $300,000 for Canaveral NS, FL.Earmark of $4,000,000 for Corinth NB, MS

(construct visitor center).Earmark of $779,000 for Cumberland Island

NS, GA (St. Mary’s visitor center).Additional $1,000,000 for Cuyahoga NRA,

OH (stabilize riverbank).Earmark of $1,300,000 for Dayton Aviation

NHP, OH (east exhibits).Earmark of $114,000 for Delaware Water

Gap NRA, PA/NJ (Depew site).Earmark of $350,000 for Down East Heritage

Center, ME.Earmark of $500,000 for Dry Tortugas NP,

FL (stabilize and restore fort).Earmark of $129,000 for Edison NHS, NJ

(preserve historic buildings and museum col-lections).

Earmark of $1,175,000 for Edison NHS, NJ.Earmark of $1,500,000 for Ft. Stanwix NM,

NY (completes rehabilitation).Earmark of $386,000 for Ft. Washington

Park, MD (repair masonry wall).Earmark of $300,000 for Gateway NRA, NY/

NJ (preservation of artifacts at Sandy Hookunit).

Earmark of $100,000 for George WashingtonMemorial Parkway, MD/VA (Belle Haven).

Earmark of $300,000 for George WashingtonMemorial Parkway, MD/VA (Mt. Vernontrail).

Earmark of $511,000 for Grand Portage NM,MN (heritage center).

Earmark of $1,500,000 for Hispanic CulturalCenter, NM (construct cultural center).

Earmark of $3,000,000 for Hot Springs NP,AR (rehabilitation).

Earmark of $2,500,000 for John H. ChafeeBlackstone River Valley NHC, RI/MA.

Earmark of $795,000 Kenai Fjords NP, AK(completes interagency visitor center de-sign).

Earmark of $10,000,000 for Lincoln Library,IL.

Earmark of $290,000 for Lincoln Home NHS,IL (restore historic structures).

Earmark of $487,000 for Longfellow NHS,MA (carriage barn).

Additional $945,000 for Manzanar NHS, CA(establish interpretive center and head-quarters).

Earmark of $2,543,000 for Missouri Recre-ation River Research & Education Center,NE (Ponca State Park).

Earmark of $500,000 for Morristown NHP,NJ.

Earmark of $500,000 for Morris ThompsonVisitor and Cultural Center, AK (planning).

Earmark of $150,000 for Mt. Rainier NP, WA(exhibit planning and film).

Additional $7,500,000 for National Constitu-tion Center, PA (Federal contribution).

Earmark of $6,000,000 for National Under-ground RR Freedom Center, OH.

Earmark of $338,000 for New Jersey CoastalHeritage Trail, NJ (exhibits, signage).

Earmark of $800,000 for New River GorgeNR, WV (repair retaining wall, visitor facili-ties, technical support).

Earmark of $445,000 for New River GorgeNR, WV (repair retaining wall, visitor facili-ties, technical support).

Earmark of $10,000,000 for Palace of theGovernors, NM (build museum).

Earmark of $203,000 for Palo Alto Battle-field NHS, TX (completes visitor center).

Earmark of $1,614,000 for Palo Alto Battle-field NHS, TX (completes visitor center).

Earmark of $1,000,000 for Shiloh NMP, TN(erosion control).

Earmark of $3,000,000 for Southwest Penn-sylvania Heritage, PA (rehabilitation).

Earmark of $240,000 for St. Croix NSR, WI(planning for VC/headquarters; rehabilitateriver launch site).

Earmark of $330,000 for St. Croix NSR, WI(planning for VC/headquarters; rehabilitateriver launch site).

Earmark of $445,000 for St. Gaudens NHS,NH (collections building, fire suppression).

Earmark of $20,000 for St. Gaudens NHS,NH (collections building, fire suppression).

Earmark of $340,000 for Statue of Libertyand Ellis Island, NY/NJ (ferry terminal utili-ties).

Earmark of $2,000,000 for Statue of Libertyand Ellis Island, NY/NJ (ferry terminal utili-ties).

Earmark of $500,000 for Tuskegee AirmenNHS, AL (stabilization planning).

Earmark of $365,000 for U.S. Grant BoyhoodHome, OH (rehabilitation).

Earmark of $2,000,000 for Vancouver NHR,WA (exhibits, rehabilitation).

Earmark of $739,000 for Vicksburg NMP,MS (various).

Earmark of $550,000 for Vicksburg NMP,MS (various).

Earmark of $788,000 for Washita BattlefieldNHS, OK (visitor center planning).

Earmark of $4,000,000 for Wheeling Herit-age Area, WV

Earmark of $38,000 for Wilson’s Creek NB,MO (complete library).

Earmark of $200,000 for Wright BrothersNM, NC (planning for visitor center restora-tion).

Earmark of $1,500,000 to complete the Fed-eral investment at Fort Stanwix NM in NewYork.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9903October 5, 2000Language expecting the Service to provide

the necessary funds, within the amounts pro-vided for Equipment Replacement, to replacethe landing craft at Cumberland Island NSand replace the airplane at Glen Canyon Na-tional Recreation Area.

Earmark of $300,000 to initiate a LincolnHighway Study to initiate a study to definethe cultural significance and value to theNation of the Congaree Creek site in Lex-ington County, SC, as part of the CongareeNational Swamp Monument, and a study fora national heritage area in the UpperHousatonic Valley in Northwest Con-necticut.

Land Acquistion and Conservation Fund:Earmark of $200,000 for Apostle Islands NL

(WI).Earmark of $1,200,000 for Appalachian NST

(Ovoka Farm) (VA).Earmark of $1,000,000 for Brandywine Bat-

tlefield (PA).Earmark of $1,200,000 for Chickamauga/

Chattanooga NMP (TN).Earmark of $1,000,000 for Delaware Water

Gap NRA (PA).Earmark of $3,250,000 for Ebey’s Landing

NHR (WA).Earmark of $2,000,000 for Gulf Islands NS

(Cat Island) (MS).Earmark of $2,000,000 for Ice Age NST

(Wilke Tract) (WI).Earmark of $2,000,000 for Indiana Dunes NL

(IN).Earmark of $1,300,000 for Mississippi Na-

tional River RA (Lower Phalen Creek) (MN).Earmark of $2,700,000 for Petroglyph NM

(NM).Earmark of $2,200,000 for Saguaro NP (AZ).Earmark of $1,000,000 for Shenandoah NHA

(VA).Earmark of $1,300,000 for Sitka NHP (Shel-

don Jackson College) (AK).Earmark of $1,100,000 for Sleeping Bear

Dunes NL (MI).Earmark of $1,500,000 for Stones River NB

(TN).Earmark of $1,500,000 for Wrangell-St. Elias

NP & Pres. (AK).Earmark of $2,000,000 for the purchase of

Cat Island, MS (subject to authorization).Earmark of $1,000,000 included for the

Shenandoah Valley Battlefields NationalHistoric District is contingent upon the finalapproval by the Secretary of the Interior ofthe Commission.

Earmark of $1,500,000 for the intended pur-chase of patented mining claims in Wrangell-St. Elias National Park by the NationalPark Service.

Earmark of $250,000 for the Hawaiian vol-cano program.

Earmark of $475,000 for Yukon Flats geol-ogy surveys.

Earmark of $1,200,000 for the Nevada goldstudy.

Earmark of $300,000 for Lake Mead/Mojaveresearch.

Earmark of $300,000 for the Lake Cham-plain toxic study.

Earmark of $450,000 for Hawaiian watermonitoring.

Earmark of $300,000 for the Southern Mary-land aquifer study.

Earmark of $180,000 for a Yukon Riverchum salmon study.

Earmark of $750,000 for the continuation ofthe Mark Twain National Forest miningstudy to be accomplished in cooperationwith the water resources division and theForest Service.

Earmark of $4,000,000 to create NBII ‘nodes’to work in conjunction with private and pub-lic partners to provide increased access toand organization of information to addressthese and other challenges. These funds areto be distributed as follows: $350,000 for Pa-cific Basin, Hawaii; $1,000,000 for Southwest,

Texas; $1,000,000 for Southern Appalachian,Tennessee; $200,000 for Pacific Northwest,Washington; $250,000 for Central Region,Ohio; $200,000 for North American Avian Con-servation, Maryland; $250,000 for NetworkStandards and Technology, Colorado; $400,000for Fisheries Node, Virginia and Pennsyl-vania; $200,000 for California/Southwest Eco-systems Node, California; and, $150,000 forGreater Yellowstone Ecosystem Node, Mon-tana.

Language stating that funding is providedfor light distancing and ranging (LIDAR)technology to assist with recovery of Chi-nook Salmon and Summer Chum Salmonunder the Endangered Species Act. Thesefunds should be used in Mason County, WABureau of Indian Affairs

Earmark of $500,000 for Alaska subsistence.Earmark of $176,000 for the Reindeer Herd-

ers Association.Earmark of $1,000,000 for a distance learn-

ing, telemedicine, fiber optic pilot programin Montana.

Earmark of $146,000 for Alaska legal serv-ices.

Earmark of $200,000 for forest inventory forthe Uintah and Ouray tribes.

Earmark of $300,000 for a tribal guidingprogram in Alaska.

Earmark of $1,000,000 for the distancelearning project on the Crow, Fort Peck, andNorthern Cheyenne reservations.

Increase of $1,250,000 for Aleutian Pribilofchurch repairs, which completes this pro-gram as authorized.

Increase of $50,000 for Walker River (WeberDam).

Increase of $200,000 for Pyramid Lake.Increase of $2,000,000 for the Great Lakes

Fishing Settlement.TITLE II—RELATED AGENCIES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Earmark of $250,000 to the University ofWashington silviculture effort at the Olym-pic Natural Resource Center. The managershave also agreed with Senate direction con-cerning funding levels for the wood utiliza-tion laboratory in Sitka, AK, and for oper-ations of the Forest Research Laboratorieslocated in Princeton, Parsons, and Morgan-town, WV, and funds for the CROP study onthe Colville National Forest, WA.

Language which directs the Forest Serviceto provide total operational funding of$750,000 to the Rapid City, SD, lab.

Language which directs the Forest Serviceto provide $502,000 in appropriated funds forthe Wind River canopy crane, WA. This fund-ing includes proposed funding for the NewYork City watershed and the Senate pro-posed funding for Utah technical educationand State of Washington stewardship activi-ties.

An additional $750,000 for an update of thecooperative study on the New York-New Jer-sey highlands area.

Language directing $1,400,000 to theOssippee Mountain conservation, easementNH, and also to direct no less than $2,000,000to the Great Mountain, CT, easement, and noless than $2,000,000 for the West Branch, ME,project.

Language stating the importance of forestprotection in South Carolina and encouragethe Forest Service to work with the appro-priate State agencies to ensure continuationof these much needed protections.

Increase of $450,000 for the Chicago Wilder-ness Study.

Earmark of $500,000 for cooperative activi-ties in Forest Park in St. Louis, MO.

Earmark of $250,000 in a direct lump sumpayment for the United Fisherman of Alaskato implement an educational program to

deal with subsistence management and otherfisheries issues.

Earmark of $5,000,000 to assist a land trans-fer for Kake, AK; these funds are contingentupon an authorization bill being enacted.

Earmark of $2,000,000 to cost-share kiln-drying facilities in southeast and south-cen-tral Alaska.

Language stating that the funds providedfor reforestation on abandoned mine lands inKentucky are to be matched with funds pro-vided in this bill to the Department of En-ergy for carbon sequestration research, aswell as other non-federal funds.

Earmark of $900,000 for the University ofWashington and Washington State Univer-sity extension forestry effort.

Earmark of $1,878,000 for Columbia RiverGorge economic development in the Statesof Washington and Oregon.

Earmark of $300,000 for the CROP projecton the Colville NF, WA.

Earmark of $1,000,000 for acid mine clean-up on the Wayne NF, OH.

Earmark of $360,000 for the Rubio Canyonwaterline analysis on the Angeles NF, CA.

Increase of $1,500,000 increase for aquaticrestoration in Washington and Oregon.

Increase of $1,250,000 increase for LakeTahoe watershed protection.

Increase of $300,000 for invasive weed pro-grams on the Okanogan NF and other east-ern Washington national forests with nomore than five percent of these funds to beassessed as indirect costs.

Earmark of $200,000 for the Batten KillRiver, VT, project.

Earmark of $700,000 for operations of theContinental Divide trail.

Earmark of $100,000 for the MonongahelaInstitute effort at Seneca Rocks, WV.

Earmark of $120,000 for the MonongahelaNF, Cheat Mountain assessment, WV.

Earmark of $100,000 for cooperative rec-reational site planning on the Wayne NF,OH.

Earmark of $100,000 for cooperative effortsregarding radios for use at Tuckerman’s Ra-vine on the White Mountain NF, NH.

Earmark of $68,000 for the Talimena scenicbyway.

Language which directs the Forest Serviceto conduct a feasibility study on con-structing a recreational lake on theBienville NF in SMITH County, MS.

Earmark of $790,000 for forestry treatmentson the Apache-Sitgreaves NF, AZ.

Earmark of $250,000 for a Pacific Crest traillands team.

Earmark of $500,000 for special needs on thePisgah and Nantahala NFs.

Additional $2,000,000 for the Quincy Li-brary Group project, CA.

Additional $5,000,000 for Tongass NF, AK,timber pipeline.

Earmark of $500,000 in the minerals and ge-ology management activity to support nec-essary administrative duties related to theKensington Mine in southeast Alaska.

Earmark of $600,000 is provided for coopera-tive research and technology developmentbetween Federal fire research and fire man-agement agencies and the University of Mon-tana National Center for Landscape FireAnalysis.

Earmark $263,000 for Apache-SitgreavesNF, AZ, urban interface.

Earmark of $6,947,000 for windstorm dam-age in Minnesota.

Earmark of $1,500,000 for the Lake Tahoebasin.

Earmark of $2,400,000 for work on the GiantSequoia National Monument and SequoiaNational Forests.

Earmark of $7,500,000 is a direct lump sumpayment to the Kenai Peninsula Borough tocomplete the activities outlined in thespruce bark beetle task force action plan.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9904 October 5, 2000Ten percent of these funds shall be madeavailable to the Cook Inlet Tribal Councilfor reforestation on Native inholdings andFederal lands identified by the task force.

Language emphasizing the need for a cost-share for the Grey Towers, PA, funding.

Language encouraging the Forest Serviceto work with Tulare County, CA, on plans forrecreational facilities.

Earmark of $2,000,000 for the Forest Serv-ice to develop a campground in the MiddleFork Snoqualmie Valley in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, WA.

Earmark of $2,000,000 to purchase non-de-velopment scenic easements in Pingree For-est, ME.

Earmark for Lake Tahoe, NV of $2,000,000for cooperative erosion grants in State andprivate forestry, $1,250,000 for the NFS vege-tation and watershed activity to enhancerestoration of sensitive watersheds, $1,500,000in capital improvement and maintenance tohelp fix the ailing road system, and $1,500,000in wildfire management funding to enhanceforest health by reducing hazardous fuel.

Earmark of $5,500,000 for management ofnational forest system lands for subsistenceuses in Alaska as proposed by the Senate.

–The Forest Service is encouraged to givepriority to projects for the Alaska jobs-in-the-woods program that enhance the south-east Alaska economy, such as the SoutheastAlaska Intertie.

Increase of $2,000,000 is provided for a dem-onstration of solid oxide technology inNuiqsut, Alaska.

Earmark of $278,000 for the Golden, CO,field office.

Indian Health Service

Earmark of $225,000 for the Shoalwater Bayinfant mortality prevention program.

Increases for the Alaska immunizationprogram include $70,000 for pay costs and$2,000 for additional immunizations.

Within the funding provided for contracthealth services, the Indian Health Serviceshould allocate an increase to the KetchikanIndian Corporation’s (KIC) recurring budgetfor hospital-related services for patients ofKIC and the Organized Village of Saxman(OVS) to help implement the agreementreached by the Indian Health Service, KIC,OVS and the Southeast Alaska RegionalHealth Corporation on September 12, 2000.The additional funding will enable KIC topurchase additional related services at thelocal Ketchikan General Hospital.

Earmark of $1,000,000 for the NorthwestPortland area AMEX program.

Earmark of $4,500,000 is provided for con-struction of the Smithsonian AstrophysicalObservatory’s facility at Hilo, Hawaii.

TITLE V—EMERGENCY/SUPPLEMENTALPROVISIONS

Department of Interior

$1,500,000 for the preparation and imple-mentation of plans, programs, or agreementsidentified by the State of Idaho that will ad-dress habitat for freshwater aquatic specieson non-Federal lands in the State.

$1,000,000 to be made available to the Stateof Idaho to fund habitat enhancement, main-tenance, or restoration projects consistentwith such plans, programs, or agreements.

$5,000,000 for the conservation and restora-tion of Atlantic salmon in the Gulf of Maine,with funds provided to the National Fish andWildlife Foundation, the Atlantic SalmonCommission and the National Academy ofSciences for specified activities.

$8,500,000 to various specific locales to re-pair or replace buildings, equipment, roads,bridges, and water control structures dam-aged by natural disasters; funds are to beused for repairs to Service property in thestates of Maryland, New Jersey, North Caro-

lina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia,and Washington.

$1,2000,000 for repair of the portions of theYakima Nation’s Signal Peak Road.

An additional $1,800,000 for repairs in Alas-ka, Colorado, Connecticutt, Florida, Georgia,Kansas, Maryland-Delaware-Washington,D.C., Massachusetts-Rhode Island, Nevada,New Hampshire-Vermont, New Jersey, NewYork, North Carolina, North Dakota, Penn-sylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, andVirginia.Department of Agriculture

$2,000,000 for an avalanche prevention pro-gram in the Chugach National Forest, KenaiNational Park, Kenai National Wildlife Ref-uge and nearby public lands.

$7,249,000 to the National forest system fordamage caused by severe windstorms in theStates of Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Total earmarks in report .. $372,064,000Total supplemental/emer-

gency earmarks .............. 28,249,000Total combined earmarks 400,313,000

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, first, Icongratulate Mr. FITZGERALD, the Sen-ator from Illinois, for his valiant effortto prevent a contract to be let withoutany competition. I do not understandwhy contracts that entail expenditureof taxpayers’ funds should not be let ina competitive fashion so that the tax-payers can receive the maximum valuefor their investments in their Govern-ment. I congratulate Senator FITZ-GERALD for his valiant effort.

This year’s final agreement providesa much-needed infusion of funding forconservation, wildlife management,and Native American programs. How-ever, once again, I express my objec-tions to the amount of excessive porkbarrel spending and extraneous legisla-tive riders included in this final agree-ment.

The agreement exceeds its overallbudget by $2.5 billion, increasing spend-ing by 25 percent, with funding levelsthat are close to $4 billion higher thanthe House bill and $3 billion more thanthe Senate bill.

We are entering a remarkable phaseof American political history. Thespigot is on, and it is on in a fashion Ihave not seen in the years I have spentin the Congress.

The new conference agreement hastaken pork barrel spending to higherproportions by adding more than $120million more in earmarks that eitherwere not included in the Senate orHouse bill or added funding forunrequested or unauthorized projects.In addition to higher amounts of porkbarrel spending, appropriators conven-iently designated billions more inemergency spending, including nearly$30 million in ‘‘emergency funds’’ forlocale-specific earmarks.

As I said, I have a list that was print-ed in the RECORD. Several of our favor-ites: $1.25 million for weed programs atMontana State University and Idaho—weed programs that are specific to twouniversities; $5.25 million for a newdormitory at the National ConstitutionTraining Center; $20,000 for office ren-ovations at the White Sulfur SpringsNational Fish Hatchery. Guess where.West Virginia. We have several fish

hatcheries in my State of Arizona. Iwonder if maybe we could get a littlerefurbishment for our offices, as well asthose in West Virginia.

There is $487,000 for a carriage barnin Longfellow National Historic Site inMassachusetts—a carriage barn.

Here is one of my favorites. I thinkwe should all be impressed by thepressing need for this: $176,000 for theReindeer Herders Association. For theReindeer Herders Association, $176,000is earmarked.

That also happens to be out of theBureau of Indian Affairs funding. Nevermind that we have dilapidated housing,terrible schools, nutrition programsthat need to be funded in the Bureau ofIndian Affairs, my friends, but we putin $176,000 for that vitally needed Rein-deer Herders Association. I am sureSanta Claus is very pleased that thesefunds will be going to the ReindeerHerders Association.

You will find something very inter-esting, Mr. President, as I go throughthe list of earmarks and as people readthe RECORD. You will see the namesAlaska, West Virginia, WashingtonState, and Hawaii appear with amazingfrequency, which I am sure is pure co-incidence.

So we have $1 million for a distancelearning telemedicine, fiber-optic pilotprogram in Montana.

Here is an important one. Here is avital item that had to be earmarked:$1.5 million to refurbish the VulcanStatue in Alabama. I am not familiarwith the Vulcan Statue, but I am sureit needed to be refurbished over anyother statue in America that may needto be refurbished.

Here is one that should interest tax-payers and entertain all of us: $400,000for the Southside Sportsman Club inNew York. Take heart, all Southsidesportsmen, help is on the way: $400,000for your operations.

There is $5 million for the South-east—guess where—Alaska EconomicDisaster Fund, which was not includedin either the Senate or House pro-posals, ordered to be used for Craig,AK, to assist with economic develop-ment. Times are tough in Craig, myfriends. They need $5 million in Craig.

I urge those who are interested tofind out what the population of Craig,AK, might be. I think that might turnout to be a fair amount of money percapita.

There is $500,000 for administrativeduties at the Kensington Mine insoutheast Alaska—ta-da, Mr. Presi-dent—for administrative duties at theKensington Mine in southeast Alaska.

We have lots of mines in my State. Ihope they will consider helping themwith their administrative duties intheir mines, as well.

Mr. President, the list goes on and onand on.

So $2 million for the purchase of CatIsland in Mississippi; $5 million for aland transfer in Kake, AK; $4.6 millionfor the Wheeling National HeritageArea in West Virginia, which has re-ceived earmarks in previous Interior

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9905October 5, 2000appropriations without any authoriza-tion. I should point out that new legis-lative language was tacked on to thisreport to finally authorize this project,although it certainly never wentthrough the normal process of ap-proval.

I hope the taxpayers will be able tosee how we are spending their dollars.It is remarkable.

I believe in the debate one of the can-didates was saying: You ain’t seennothing yet. Mr. President, you ain’tseen nothing yet. Wait until we get tothe omnibus bill which very few of uswill have ever seen or read when wevote yes or no on it. We will have a re-markable document, one I think histo-rians in the centuries ahead will viewwith interest and puzzlement.

Mr. President, I yield the remainderof my time.

ATLANTIC SALMON CONSERVATION ANDRESTORATION

Ms. COLLINS. I want to thank thedistinguished Chairman of the InteriorAppropriations Subcommittee for hisinvaluable help in securing funding forvital, time-sensitive, on-the-ground At-lantic salmon conservation and res-toration programs in Maine on anemergency basis. Due to your efforts,$5.0 million in emergency appropria-tions were included in the Interior Ap-propriations conference report for thispurpose. It is critical that these fundsbe on the ground this year in order todemonstrate a federal financial com-mitment to salmon in my State, andthat a listing under the EndangeredSpecies Act is not necessary to con-serve and restore Maine’s Atlanticsalmon.

Mr. GORTON. My home state, too,has experienced the disruption that afederal endangered species listing cancause. I therefore appreciate the im-portance and urgency of the fundssought by the Senator from Maine.

Ms. COLLINS. The emergency appro-priation included in the Interior Appro-priations conference report will make asubstantial contribution to salmonconservation and restoration efforts inthe State. The funds will be madeavailable to the National Fish andWildlife Foundation (or ‘‘NFWF’’),which has made a commitment to meto allocate the monies to worthwhileprojects as soon as possible. The con-ference report provides $5.0 million toNFWF, of which $2.0 million will bemade available to the Atlantic SalmonCommission and $500,000 will be madeavailable to the National Academy ofSciences. The remaining $2.5 millionwill be administered by NFWF to carryout a grant program that will fund on-the-ground projects to further Atlanticsalmon conservation or restoration ef-forts in coordination with the State ofMaine and the Maine Atlantic SalmonConservation Plan.

The conference report contains lan-guage indicating that funds adminis-tered by NFWF will be subject to costsharing. Is it your understanding, Mr.Chairman, that this language means

the $2.5 million administered by NFWFto carry out a grant program must bematched, in the aggregate, by at least$2.5 million in non-federal funds?

Mr. GORTON. The Senator fromMaine is correct. I expect that the $2.5million grant program administered byNFWF will leverage at least $2.5 mil-lion overall in additional, nonfederalfunds.

Ms. COLLINS. And is it also your un-derstanding, Mr. Chairman, that the$2.0 million made available to the At-lantic Salmon Commission and the$500,000 made available to the NationalAcademy of Sciences will not be sub-ject to any matching requirement?

Mr. GORTON. That is also correct.Ms. COLLINS. I want to again thank

the distinguished Chairman of the Inte-rior Appropriations Subcommittee. Incrafting this conference report, he hasaccomplished a Herculean task withthis usual grace and skill. And the $5.0million he has helped secure will pro-mote a vigorous and effective salmonconservation and restoration effort inmy State.

Mr. GORTON. As I have said before, Igreatly admire the Senator fromMaine’s tenacity and her unfailing de-votion to the best interests of herState.

LAKE TAHOE LAND ACQUISITION COLLOQUY

Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman, I wouldlike to request your help interpretingthe language that was inserted into theconference report pertaining to the useof funds appropriated for the acquisi-tion of environmentally sensitive prop-erty at Lake Tahoe. That languagestates that no funds may be used to ac-quire urban lots. To my knowledge,‘‘urban lots’’ is a term that is not de-fined in this bill or any related statuteor regulation. As a result, I want tomake sure that we clarify what we in-tend by the term urban lot.

As you know, the plan to protectLake Tahoe is predicated in large partof the Lake Tahoe Preservation Act of1981 (H.R. 7306), commonly known asthe Santini-Burton Act, and com-panion California and Nevada bondacts. Together, these State and Federalacts provide for the purchase and stew-ardship of environmentally sensitivelands in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Thelegislative history of the Santini-Bur-ton Act indicated that approximately$150 million worth of land in LakeTahoe would be purchased (approxi-mately $100 million has been expendedto date). The Santini-Burton Act gen-erally identified lands eligible for pur-chase, and was followed by the adop-tion of a comprehensive plan identi-fying specific criteria for purchases.That plan was subject to an Environ-mental Impact Statement and accom-panying public comment process, andthis plan remains in effect to this day.

I am confident that, with the correctinformation in hand, Congress will di-rect the Forest Service to go forwardwith the completion of the program. Inthe meantime, however, the effort toprotect Lake Tahoe is likely to sustain

significant damage if the language inthe conference report is mistakenly in-terpreted to reverse long standing pol-icy decisions. That is why I am askingfor your concurrence to direct the For-est Service to interpret the language ina manner consistent with the existingprogram.

Specifically, I want to make it clearthat the term ‘‘urban lot’’ does not in-clude environmentally sensitive lands.The current program designates a prop-erty’s eligibility for acquisition ac-cording to its environmental sensi-tivity because that is the purpose ofthe acquisition program. Such designa-tions reflect extensive analysis and thesupport of the local community. Thisreport language should not be inter-preted to change this methodologysuch that acquisition eligibility isbased on an unspecified and invariablyrandom geographic distinction. In alllikelihood, any ill-conceived geo-graphic standard would exclude themost environmentally sensitive prop-erty that the ongoing program is de-signed to protect.

I believe that the report language isconsistent with the current practice offederal land acquisition in the LakeTahoe basin. Do you share my under-standing that the definition of ‘‘urbanlots’’ includes only those propertiesthat are presently qualified for urbandevelopment?

Mr. GORTON. That is my under-standing.

Mr. REID. Then it makes sense forany prohibition on land acquisition re-ferred to in the report language toapply only if to properties that satisfyall of the following criteria: (1) theyare not adjacent to current forest sys-tem lands, (2) they are within TahoeRegional Planning Agency’s urbanboundaries, (3) they are not adjacent toLake Tahoe, or to waters orstreamzones tributary to Lake Tahoe,and (4) they are presently eligible totake residential or commercial devel-opment. This clarification integratesthe intent of the new conference reportlanguage to limit such acquisitions toessential sensitive lands while retain-ing the basic purpose of the LakeTahoe land acquisition program.

Mr. GORTON. In response to my col-league, the senior Senator from Ne-vada, let me say that your under-standing of the issues affecting LakeTahoe is correct. Your concerns seemreasonable, as does your interpretationof the language in question.

Mr. REID. I appreciate the Chair-man’s understanding and concurrenceon this very important issue.

REGARDING SEC. 156 AND ACCOMPANYINGREPORT LANGUAGE

Mr. REID. Mr. President, as theChairman knows, I included languagein this bill that directs the Departmentof Interior to finalize the so-called 3809regulations, which govern hardrockmining operations on public lands, andto do so consistently with the findingsand recommendations of a study com-pleted by the National Research Coun-cil or NRC. The language is identical to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9906 October 5, 2000language enacted in last year’s omni-bus bill. I want to emphasize my intentin offering this language, and requestthe Chairman’s understanding and con-currence. Briefly, my intent is to en-sure that the Department of Interior fi-nalizes a rule that protects the envi-ronment and that takes into accountthe direction of Congress and the find-ings and recommendations of the NRCreport.

Mr. GORTON. I am glad to assist myfriend, the senior Senator from Nevada.In clarifying Congress’ intent in enact-ing these provisions. I agree with hisstatement that the Committee intendsfor Interior to study the entire NRC re-port carefully and to adopt a rule thatis consistent with the findings and rec-ommendations of that report.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, last yearCongress adopted this requirementthat Interior finalize 3809 rule changesonly if they are ‘‘not inconsistent’’with the recommendations of the NRCreport I already described. Parsing thisstatutory language to the point of ab-surdity, the Interior Solicitor quicklywrote and circulated a legal opinionconcluding that Congress intended bythis action to require Interior’s consid-eration only of material in the reportspecifically labeled as ‘‘recommenda-tions’’—amounting only to a few linesof the report—and no other informa-tion in the report. And, he went on toconclude that this law imposes no sig-nificant limitations on the agency’sability to finalize its proposed 3809rule. This year we have adopted theconsistency requirement again, just asit was written last year. I ask theChairman, did we enact the languageagain just to ratify the legal conclu-sion that Interior could finalize 3809rules essentially without restrictions?

Mr. GORTON. I thank my friend, andemphasize that we did not act againthis year just to ratify the actions ofthe Department of Interior. The Com-mittee to reemphasize its original in-tent: That Interior study the NRC re-port carefully, and that any final 3809regulations promulgated be consistentwith that report.

Mr. REID. One last question that Ihave concerns a statement made bysome of our House colleagues duringHouse consideration of the FY 2001 In-terior appropriations bill in which theysuggested an interpretation of the on-going rulemaking including broad dis-cretion to deny mining permits, by re-defining the existing statutory defini-tion of unnecessary or undue degrada-tion. Does the Chairman of the sub-committee who helped develop thislanguage agree that our House col-leagues are suggesting an interpreta-tion that clearly goes beyond currentlaw and that section 156 specificallystates that nothing in this provisionshall be construed to expand existingauthority.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.Section 156 states, ‘‘nothing in this sec-tion shall be construed to expand theexisting statutory authority of the

Secretary.’’ The interpretation sug-gested by our House colleagues wouldrequire additional statutory authoritywhich Interior does not have and isspecifically denied by this bill.

Mr. REID. I thank the Chairman forhis help in clarifying the Committee’sintent.

U.S. FOREST SERVICE NATIONAL FIRERETARDANTS

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I wouldlike to engage in a colloquy with thedistinguished Chairman of the Interiorand Related Agencies AppropriationsSubcommittee on an issue that affectsthe Forest Service and forest fire fight-ing in the West.

Mr. GORTON. I would be glad to en-gage in such a discussion with myfriend, the distinguished Chairman ofForest and Public Lands Subcommitteeof the Energy and Natural ResourcesCommittee.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the U.S.Forest Service has announced its in-tention to move to gum thickened/so-dium ferrocyanide aerially applied fireretardants in the 2004 bid process. TheService is to be commended for thisinitiative that seeks a more effectiveand environmentally friendly means toaddress the wildfires with which wehave become so painfully accustomedin the West. Indeed, the Forest Serv-ice’s own research shows that gumthickened retardants are 25–40 percentmore effective than un-thickenedretardants. The criteria called for in2004, though, can be met today. Is itthe Committee’s view that the U.S.Forest Service should be striving for amore environmentally friendly productand should use such a product as soonas possible?

Mr. GORTON. I agree with that view.It should be the U.S. Forest Service’spriority to use the most effective, envi-ronmentally protective aerially appliedfire retardants.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, as youknow, the after-effects of wildfires aredevastating to the landscape. MotherNature has a way of bringing life backto the land when all appears lost. How-ever, even Mother Nature cannot erasefor years the stains on the lands causedby some aerially applied fireretardants. This is especially of con-cern where historical and archeologicalresources, national parks, wildernessareas and urban/wilderness areas areconcerned. Would you agree that U.S.Forest Service should preserve the op-tion for local foresters to use lessstaining fugitive retardants where, intheir judgment, it is warranted?

Mr. GORTON. I would agree that theU.S. Forest Service should preserve theoption to use such fire retardants inorder to minimize the long-term visualimpacts of wildfires.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, the U.S.Forest Service has historically sup-ported competition in the supply of fireretardants through the inclusion of aviability clause in its bids. For thefirst time, the upcoming 2001 bid proc-ess may be conducted by sealed bid. It

is unclear whether viability will be aconsideration. This is a critical issue ina fire season like the one we just expe-rienced. Would you agree that the U.S.Forest Service should support competi-tion in the supply of aerially appliedfire retardants?

Mr. GORTON. I would agree thatmaintaining dual suppliers of high per-formance, environmentally acceptablefire retardants is critical to the mis-sion of the Service.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chairman forthis clarification.

GREAT FALLS HISTORIC DISTRICT, PATERSON,NEW JERSEY

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, Iwould like to inquire of the Chairmanof the Subcommittee on Interior andRelated Agencies, Senator GORTON,about one aspect of the conference re-port.

Mr. Chairman, the conference reportto the Interior Appropriations bill forFiscal Year 2001 does not include fund-ing for construction projects in theGreat Falls Historic District, locatedin the City of Paterson, New Jersey.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman,

by way of background, the Great FallsHistoric District was established inSection 510 of Public Law 104–33, theOmnibus Parks bill of 1996. This legis-lation, which I coauthored, is designedto preserve the historic character ofthe City of Paterson, New Jersey. LikeLowell, Massachusetts, Paterson holdsa prominent place in our nation’s in-dustrial past. Few people realize thatPaterson was the first planned indus-trialized city. Alexander Hamiltonhimself chose the area around theGreat Falls for his laboratory, and heestablished the Society for Useful Man-ufacturers right in Paterson. The workof its citizens and the wealth of its nat-ural resources soon caused Paterson tothrive, and it became a mecca forcountless numbers of immigrants, in-cluding my own family. The skills andspirit of these immigrants madePaterson one of our nation’s leadingcenters for textile manufacturing,earning the nickname ‘‘Silk City.’’

Mr. Chairman, the 1996 legislationauthorizes the Secretary of the Inte-rior to provide grants through the His-toric Preservation Fund for up to one-half of the costs of preparing a plan forthe development of historic, architec-tural, natural, cultural, and interpre-tive resources within the Great FallsDistrict. The Secretary may also pro-vide matching funds for implementa-tion of projects identified in the plan.The total federal authorization for theGreat Falls Historic District is $3.3million.

Mr. Chairman, since the authorizinglegislation establishing the Great FallsHistoric District specifically enablesthe City to receive up to $250,000 inmatching federal funds for preparationof a historic preservation plan, the Sec-retary could provide these fundsthrough the funds provided in the con-ference report for the Historic Preser-vation Fund.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9907October 5, 2000Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.

This bill includes appropriations fromthe Historic Preservation Fund thatcould be used for eligible projects suchas that for the Great Falls in Paterson.

Mr. BYRD. I concur with the Chair-man that the Great Falls project is eli-gible to receive Historic PreservationFunds, for preparation of its plan.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, Iunderstand that the Great Falls His-toric District would be eligible to re-ceive up to $250,000 of these funds forpreparation of a historic preservationplan, and that, once these plans arecompleted, an additional $50,000 inmatching funds is available from theHistoric Preservation Fund for tech-nical assistance and $3 million is avail-able for restoration, preservation, andinterpretive activities.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to includea letter from the Mayor of the City ofPaterson to the regional director of theNational Park Service, expressing theCity’s interest in moving forward withdevelopment of the Great Falls devel-opment plan. I hope that this letterwill confirm to the Service and to theChairman and Ranking Member, thatthe City is fully prepared to providethe necessary match to develop theplan. I am confident that the City willwork closely with the Service on devel-opment of a plan, and that, once it iscompleted, the City may apply for theremaining authorized funds for comple-tion of specific projects.

Mr. GORTON. I appreciate the Sen-ator’s interest in this matter, and I askunanimous consent that a copy of theletter be inserted in the RECORD.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank theChairman and the Ranking Member.

There being no objection, the letterwas ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

CITY OF PATERSON,OFFICE OF THE MAYOR,

Paterson, NJ, October 4, 2000.MARIE RUST,Northeast Regional Director, National Park

Service, 200 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia,PA.

Re: Public Law 104–333.DEAR MS. RUST: This is to reaffirm our sin-

cere interest in, and need of, the funding ofPublic Law 104–333. Ever since the authoriza-tion of the 3.3 million dollars for the GreatFalls Redevelopment Act we have been anx-iously awaiting the appropriation. We arecommitted to provide the necessary localmatch.

The preparation of the Development Planrequired by the Act is an essential first stepin documenting the feasibility of a NationalPark. After the Plan, our two primary ac-tivities in the district remain to be the rede-velopment of the former ATP Site includingthe Gun Mill and the rehabilitation of theraceway. Both projects are essential to theachievement of the economic developmentobjectives of the Urban History Initiative.The initial Gun Mill stabilization has beensuccessfully completed. We are awaiting theexecution of the Programmatic Agreementso that we may continue with the engineer-ing and other site preparation and stabiliza-tion work for the former ATP Site. The over-all raceway and prioritization has been com-pleted. Final plans are ready for the UpperRaceway section.

We continue to pursue other sources offunding including TEA–21 Enhancement, theNew Jersey Historic Trust, New JerseyGreen Acres, and others. If these are not suc-cessful I will ask the City Council to bondany remaining local share. This is to assureyou that we will secure the local match forwhatever amount Congress appropriates.

Very truly yours,MARTIN G. BARNES,

Mayor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I havebeen a long time supporter of CARA—the Conservation and ReinvestmentAct. The concept behind CARA was avisionary one—to take revenues gen-erated from the extraction of offshoreoil and gas resources and reinvest thempermanently and automatically in ournation’s invaluable wildlife, coastal,and public land resources.

The CARA proposal that was devel-oped in a cooperative, bipartisan wayby the Senate Energy Committee of-fered an opportunity for this Congressto make an historic contribution toconservation and to truly leave behinda legacy that we could be proud of andfrom which our children would benefit.

Instead, we are faced with a situationin which this overwhelmingly popularbill will never be considered on theSenate floor.

The House passed its version ofCARA back in May by an over-whelming vote of 315 to 102; it was avote that brought in supporters fromacross the political spectrum andaround the country. More recently, aletter signed by 63 Senators was sent tothe Senate leadership requesting thatCARA be brought to the floor.

Yet the Republican leadership has re-fused to let this bill move forward.

I ask my colleagues, what does ittake to get a vote around here? Howcan we say that we are doing the peo-ple’s business, if a bill that is as broad-ly supported as CARA cannot even bevoted upon?

We have now been presented with apackage in the Interior appropriationsbill that purports to fulfill the goals ofCARA. I am tremendously disappointedto say that this package does very lit-tle to accomplish the goals of CARA.

CARA would have provided nearly $45billion to important conservation pro-grams over the next 15 years. The Inte-rior proposal provides roughly $6 bil-lion and only makes those funds avail-able for the next 6 years.

But far more disappointing than thediscrepancy in funding levels is thefact that the Interior proposal does lit-tle to guarantee that these funds willactually be made available each yearfor specific conservation purposes.

Instead, the Interior proposal willforce important and beneficial pro-grams like Urban Parks and Recre-ation to battle against other importantprograms like the Historic Preserva-tion program for funding each year.

What made CARA remarkable wasthe fact that it would have providedthe Urban Parks program, or state fishand wildlife agencies, or endangeredspecies recovery efforts, with a predict-able and reliable amount of funding.

This feature would have ensured thatimportant conservation efforts wouldNOT be subject to the uncertainties ofthe annual appropriations cycle, butinstead could be certain that fundingwould be available over the long term.And as a result, these conservationprograms could have finally plannedand implemented ambitious, long-termconservation efforts. The Interior ap-propriations proposal fails to providethis sort of certainty.

I will vote for the Interior appropria-tions bill. The bill funds many impor-tant programs that I care about and inmaking a nod to CARA it will providesome increased funding for things likethe state’s portion of the Land andWater Conservation Fund.

I am also pleased that the most egre-gious anti-environmental riders thatappeared in earlier versions of this billhave been removed.

However, I hope nobody will inter-pret my vote for this bill as a sign ofsupport for what I view as a hijackingof CARA. I remain deeply disturbedthat a bill that had the potential to doas much good as CARA will never seethe light of day.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr.President, it is with great regret that Irise today to oppose the Conference Re-port to the Interior Appropriationsbill.

I want to begin by praising my col-leagues on the Committee on Appro-priations who have worked so hard onthis bill and conference report. I knowthey have faced many difficult issues,competing demands for limited re-sources, and the pressure of time asthis Congress winds down. And thereare many good provisions in this bill,including several that will benefit myhome State of New Hampshire. The billincludes two projects that have beenparticularly important to me and forwhich I requested funding—the Lam-prey River & St. Gaudens. I appreciatethe efforts of the Appropriations Com-mittee to provide that funding.

Unfortunately, notwithstandingthese and other good provisions, thebill fails to deliver what we as electedofficials have promised the Americanpeople. I want to take this opportunityto explain, especially to my fellowGranite Staters, why I am votingagainst the Interior AppropriationsConference Report.

First, I am deeply disappointed thatthis bill does not include full fundingfor the Land and Water ConservationFund or for the many important pro-grams included in the Conservationand Reinvestment Act. In failing toprovide this funding, I believe that wehave truly squandered an opportunitythat may never exist again. Even moreimportantly, I believe we failed to liveup to the promise we made years ago todedicate a percentage of the revenuesfrom oil and gas production on theOuter Continental Shelf to the con-servation and enhancement of fish,wildlife, lands and waters.

Congress came close to keeping thatpromise when the House passed by an

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9908 October 5, 2000overwhelming margin of three to one alandmark conservation bill—the so-called Conservation and ReinvestmentAct (CARA). The Senate Energy andNatural Resources Committee passed acompanion bill in July. The CARA billreflects our collective commitment toinvesting in the environment for our-selves and for future generations.

I am proud that I was able to play apart in bringing attention to the bill inthe Senate. On May 24, 2000, I held ahearing on the Senate bill in the Com-mittee on Environment and PublicWorks. Although that Committee,which I chair, did not have primary ju-risdiction over the bill, I felt it was im-portant to hold the hearing to helpbuild support for the legislation and tohighlight some of the very importantprograms that would be enhanced bythe passage of the bill. These programsincluded funding for the EndangeredSpecies Act and Pittman-RobertsonAct, both of which are in the jurisdic-tion of the Committee on Environmentand Public Works. I said it then, and Iwant to reaffirm it today. Now is thetime for the Federal government tostep up to the plate and assist in theefforts to protect our natural re-sources—not by grabbing up more Fed-eral land, but by working in partner-ship with States and private land-owners and providing much-neededfunding for critically underfunded pro-grams. The CARA bill would have donethat.

Instead, the Interior AppropriationsConference Report includes a mereshadow of the real CARA.

Instead of providing full permanentfunding for the Land and Water Con-servation Fund, the Interior Con-ference Report appropriates only $600million for one year and only $90 mil-lion of that is allocated for statesidefunding. The CARA bill I cosponsoredwould have provided the States with aguaranteed $450 million a year to con-duct numerous worthwhile conserva-tion projects, including creating newparks and building soccer fields. Thelimited appropriation provided by theConference Report, by contrast, withno guarantees for future years, isn’tCARA; it’s business as usual.

The bottom line is that Americanslike to spend their time outdoors. Overhalf of all Americans will tell you thattheir preferred vacation spots are na-tional parks, forests, wilderness areas,beaches, shorelines and mountains.And almost all Americans—94 percentbelieve we should be spending moremoney on land and water conservation.

I agree with those Americans who be-lieve that it’s time to invest some ofthe budget surplus in our environment.For years now, we have been tellingthe tax payers that there isn’t anymoney available for conservation pro-grams and that it’s up to landowners tobear the burdens of saving our land andnatural resources. Well, in my opinion,those days are over. It’s past time forthe federal government to contributeits fair share, and the Interior Con-

ference Report falls far short in thatrespect.

Second, I am extremely troubled bythe fact that the Conference Reportprovides no protections for privateproperty rights. CARA did. The realCARA bill provided an unprecedentedlevel of protection for the private landowner. For example, the Senate CARAbill that I cosponsored expressly pro-hibited the federal government fromusing any CARA funds to implementregulations on private property. In ad-dition, all Federal acquisitions of landthrough the Land and Water Conserva-tion Fund would have been subject tosignificantly more restrictions thanunder current law. Not one of thoseprivate property rights protections isincluded in the Interior AppropriationsConference Report.

Third, I cannot support the languagein the Conference Report that estab-lishes a vague new Federal ‘‘wildlifeconservation program’’ that imposesnew, but undefined, obligations on theStates and gives broad discretion tothe federal Fish and Wildlife Service todefine those obligations. The InteriorAppropriations Conference Report di-rects the Fish and Wildlife Service tocreate a new $300 million state grantprogram subject only to the approvalof the Committee on Appropriations.That is inappropriate.

The Committee on Environment andPublic Works is responsible for over-seeing wildlife programs; it is our pre-rogative and responsibility to review,discuss, and ultimately authorize anywildlife program. Yet, this new pro-gram was inserted at the last minute,behind closed doors, without any publicdebate or consultation with the Com-mittee of jurisdiction. For that reason,I must oppose its inclusion in this Con-ference Report. The concept may be agood one, but this is not the right proc-ess or the appropriate vehicle.

Finally, I must oppose the Con-ference Report because of the adverseimpact it will have on thousands ofcitizens of New Hampshire who dependupon and enjoy the White MountainNational Forest.

When the Senate passed its InteriorAppropriations bill in July, it includedan important provision excluding theWhite Mountain National Forest fromthis Administration’s broad policy ofprohibiting the construction of all newroads in previously undisturbed areasof national forests, the so-calledroadless policy. We excluded the WhiteMountain National Forest from this‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ roadless policy, notbecause we want thousands of miles ofnew roads in the White Mountains, butbecause these decisions should be madeat the local level through the forestplanning process, by the people wholive near, enjoy, and use the NationalForest.

I have deep concerns about the Ad-ministration’s roadless policy because Ibelieve it is intended to limit publicaccess and legitimate public use of ournational forests. But even more impor-

tantly, in the context of the WhiteMountain National Forest, it wouldspecifically override an existing forestmanagement plan that maintains abalance between economic activity,recreation and environmental protec-tion—a forest management plan thatwas developed through a collaborativeprocess involving state and local gov-ernment officials, local citizens, andfederal officials. I firmly believe thatStates and local citizens should play asignificant role in making the manage-ment decisions relating to the forestlands in their communities, includingthe decisions about roads.

It was for that reason that I stronglysupported the language that was in-cluded in the Senate bill that allowedthe citizens of New Hampshire to makethose decisions through the forestplanning process for the White Moun-tain National Forest, rather than sim-ply mandating a blanket roadless pol-icy from Washington, D.C. That impor-tant provision, however, has now beendropped from the Conference Report. Ibelieve that Washington D.C.’s roadlesspolicy will hurt New Hampshire. It willhave significant economic, social, andecological impacts. And it will under-mine the cooperative dialogue thattook place during the revision of theforest plan. Therefore, I cannot supporta Conference Report that does not in-clude language protecting the WhiteMountain National Forest from unnec-essary and inappropriate interferencefrom Washington’s bureaucrats.

The Interior Appropriations billpassed by the Senate last July also in-cluded a specific exemption for NorthCountry residents from the user feesthat the National Forest Servicecharges for access to the White Moun-tain National Forest. That exemptionhas now been deleted.

I have long been opposed to user feesin the White Mountain National Forestbecause I believe it is fundamentallyunfair to local residents. In areas, likethe North Country of New Hampshire,where the Federal Government ownsmuch of the land, communities lose asignificant portion of their propertytax base which they need to fundschools and other necessary social pro-grams and infrastructure. Residents inthese communities then have to makeup the shortfall. The user fee, on top ofthe loss in local tax revenue, imposesan unfair burden for local citizens. It iswrong for the Federal government tocharge local residents in the NorthCountry a fee for enjoying the WhiteMountain National Forest when theyare already subsidizing the Forest.

As I stated at the beginning, thereare many good provisions in this Inte-rior Conference Report. I applaud thework that my colleagues have done andappreciate the support they have givento important New Hampshire projects.Therefore, it is with great reluctancethat I oppose the Conference Report.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Icome to the floor today to speak abouttwo provisions of great concern to my

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9909October 5, 2000state of Minnesota. While this con-ference report clearly missed the op-portunity to make a historic, longterm, commitment to our environ-mental heritage, I rise in support ofthis legislation because it does rep-resent an important first step in manyconservation accounts, and includesvital funding to restore Minnesota’sNational Forests.

First of all, I want to make clearthat I am disappointed that the fullConservation and Reinvestment Act,CARA, was not included in this Inte-rior Appropriations bill. CARA, as re-ported out of the Senate Energy andNatural Resources Committee, is land-mark legislation that would commit $3billion annually for 15 years to con-servation and natural resource protec-tion. CARA would provide $37.4 millionof stable funding annually to the con-servation and protection of Min-nesota’s natural resources.

However the compromise in this billdoes not reflect the spirit or intent ofthe full CARA bill. First of all thisConference report does not guaranteemultiple year funding for the states,which was the entire premise of CARA.When it comes to protecting our coast-lines (on the North Shore in Min-nesota) and open spaces (in NorthernMinnesota), expanding our urban parks(in the metro Twin Cities area), or in-vesting in wildlife conservation, theannual appropriation approach hasproven not to work in the past and isunlikely to work in the future. In addi-tion, the report does not include dedi-cated funding for wildlife conservationprograms, which puts Minnesota’swildlife conservation needs in competi-tion with other state conservation pro-grams, and makes it possible that Min-nesota would receive no funds for wild-life preservation from this legislation.While, overall I am encouraged thatthis legislation more than doubles con-servation funding from the $742 millionin the current fiscal year to $1.6 billionin FY 2000, we should not loose sight ofthe fact that this conference report isclearly no substitute for a full fundedCARA bill.

On a related matter, I am pleased theconference committee has restored thebalance of the Forest Service’s requestfor Minnesota’s National Forests. Dur-ing consideration of the Interior Ap-propriations bill, Senators GORTON andBYRD agreed to my amendment to in-clude $7.2 million in additional emer-gency funds for Minnesota’s NationalForests. And today the Senate willtake an important step that will re-store the balance of emergency fundsrequested earlier this year by the Supe-rior, Chippewa and Chequamegon Na-tional Forests’ for blowdown recoveryefforts.

Furthermore, this legislation in-cludes an important regular, FY 2001appropriation for the Superior Na-tional Forest, that my colleague fromMinnesota and I were able to work ontogether. These monies would be avail-able to the Forest Service next year

and are vital to continued recovery ef-forts in northern Minnesota.

These national forests bore the bruntof a massive once-in-a-thousand yearwind and rain storm that devastatedparts of northern Minnesota on July 4,1999. The storm damaged over 300,000acres in seven counties, including asmuch as 70 percent of the trees in ournational forests, and washed out nu-merous roads. The damage caused bythis storm has severely hindered theU.S. Forest Service’s ability to respon-sibly manage the Chippewa and Supe-rior National Forests.

The most troubling aspect of thisstorm for the people of northern Min-nesota is the continued extreme risk ofa catastrophic fire resulting from thetremendous amount of downed anddead timber. Funding provided to theForest Service through this legislationwill be used for immediate and futurerecovery efforts, and to reduce thethreat of a major wildland fire.

The storm has changed affected por-tions of the forests for years to comeand has created new risks and experi-ences for visitors and residents. SinceJuly 4th, the Superior and ChippewaNational Forests officials have beenworking with state, county, and localofficials on storm recovery activitiesand planning to meet future needs.

Immediately after the storm the For-est Service, in conjunction with State,County and local governments began asearch and rescue operation that lastedfor 15 days from July 4 to July 19, 1999.Fortunately not a single life was lostin the storm, however there were 20medical evacuations from the Bound-ary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness,BWCAW. The most severe case was abroken neck. In addition, the forestService conducted a search of 2,200camp sights in the BWCAW to ensureno one was trapped. And finally USFScrews cleared approx. 200 miles ofroads, and reconstructed 6 miles ofemergency roads.

Once the emergency search and res-cue was completed, the U.S. ForestService turned their attention to re-ducing hazards that could negativelyaffect visitors, residents and local busi-nesses that depend on the BWCAW andthe National Forests. The Forest Serv-ice brought in 191 people including anadministrative team and several crewsfrom across the country to return fa-cilities to a safe condition so theycould be reopened and used during therest of the year.

And now the Superior National For-est is proposing to reduce the risk offire escaping the Boundary WatersCanoe Area Wilderness, BWCAW, byusing prescribed burning within thewilderness. The 1.1 million-acreBWCAW, located in northeastern Min-nesota adjacent to the Canadian bor-der, is one of the most heavily usedwildernesses in the United States.

The proposal is to reduce the in-creased risk of wildfire associated withthe July 4, 1999, storm. The proposedaction is to treat approximately 47,000

to 81,000 acres of the wilderness withprescribed fire over a five to six yeartime period.

The goal of this project is to improvepublic safety by reducing the potentialfor high intensity wildland fires tospread from the BWCAW into areas ofintermingled ownership, which includehomes, cabins, resorts and other im-provements, or across the inter-national border into Canada. This willbe accomplished in a manner which issensitive to ecological and wildernessvalues, and protects fire personnel andBWCAW visitor safety during imple-mentation.

While the Forest Service has been en-gaged in this work for many months, itis clear that much is yet to be done,and that it is going to take many yearsto dig out from under the storm and torestore the forest to a more normal andhealthy state. However this cannothappen without adequate funding. Thisis a victory for all of Minnesota, and Iam grateful to my colleagues for theirsupport. I am very pleased that theSenate approved the remainder of thesebadly needed funds today, especiallyfor the people of northern Minnesota,who cannot wait.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I amdelighted that the conference reportfor Interior appropriations before thisbody today makes a significant invest-ment in Wisconsin’s only unit of theNational Park System, the Apostle Is-lands National Lakeshore. The Lake-shore recently celebrated its 30th anni-versary on September 26, 2000, and Irise today to express my gratitude tothe Senior Senator from West Virginia(Mr. BYRD) and the Senator from Wash-ington (Mr. GORTON) for working withme to ensure that some of the highestpriority needs at the Lakeshore aremet.

I have been raising the need for thesefunds since 1998. On April 22 of thatyear, I introduced legislation, namedfor former Senator Gaylord Nelson whowas the sponsor of the federal legisla-tion that created the Lakeshore, to tryto make sure that the Park Service hasthe funds included in this bill today.This bill helps to fund a wildernesssuitability study of the Lakeshore asrequired by the Wilderness Act. Most ofthe Lakeshore is managed as wilder-ness, yet the required study has not yetbeen completed so that Congress canevaluate whether there is a need for aformal legal designation. This bill re-tains amendment language that I of-fered during the Senate considerationof Interior appropriations and provides$200,000 for that purpose.

The bill also provides funds to thePark Service to protect the historyRaspberry and Outer Island lighthouseswhich are threatened by erosion. The21 islands of the Apostle Islands Na-tional Lakeshore have six lighthouses,the greatest number of lighthouses onany property in federal ownership any-where in the country. They are all atleast 100 years old, and many of themare still used as aids to navigation andare in need of Federal help.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9910 October 5, 2000By providing funds in this bill to en-

sure the success of the Lakeshore wecontribute to another larger success—our efforts to clean and protect our en-vironment and provide places for peo-ple to rest and refresh themselves. Ihave been very pleased in the willing-ness of the bill’s managers to supportmy efforts to draw attention to thispark. They have other, bigger parksthat also have funding needs. But themanagers understood my appeal on be-half of the people of Wisconsin withthese funds. They know, as I do, thatwhen the American people sit amongthe hemlocks on Outer Island, walkalong the shore, travel to Devils Island,observe the waters of Lake Superior,they know protection of the Apostles isworth a federal investment.

The investments in the Apostles areauthorized investments, part of the re-quirements that we gave the ParkService when we created the Lake-shore. As delighted as I am that thesefunds have been included by the man-agers, I remain concerned about thefact that this bill provides funds andpolicy direction for unauthorizedprojects, authorizes new projects andcontinues to contain a number of pol-icy riders that affect environmentalprotection. Because these riders re-main, I will vote against the bill.

I am concerned that this body is be-coming habituated to the practice ofenvironmental legislation by rider.This leaves Members of this body, likemyself, who are very concerned aboutlegislation which has the potential toadversely effect the implementation ofenvironmental law, or change federalnatural resource policy, with limitedoptions. We must, by either strikingthe riders, or trying to modify their ef-forts, do the work of the authorizingcommittees on the floor of this body.With limited floor time on spendingbills, and with the pressure to pass ap-propriations bills or risk shutting downor disrupting important Governmentprograms, we do not do the best by theenvironment that we can and must doin our legislative efforts.

I believe that the Senate should notinclude provisions in spending billsthat weaken environmental laws orprevent potentially environmentallybeneficial regulations from being pro-mulgated by the federal agencies thatenforce federal environmental law.

For more than two decades, we havebeen a remarkable bipartisan con-sensus on protecting the environmentthrough effective environmental legis-lation and regulation. I believe we havea responsibility to the American peopleto protect the quality of our publiclands and resources. That responsi-bility requires that the Senate expressits strong distaste for legislative ef-forts to include proposals in spendingbills that weaken environmental lawsor prevent potentially beneficial envi-ronmental regulations from being pro-mulgated or enforced by the federalagencies that carry out Federal law.

Every year I hold a town hall meet-ing in each one of Wisconsin’s 72 coun-

ties. When I hold these meetings, thepeople of Wisconsin continue to expresstheir grave concern that, when ridersare placed in spending bills, major de-cisions regarding environmental pro-tection are being made without thebenefit of an up or down vote.

When this bill passed the Senate ini-tially on July 18, 2000, I was one of twoSenators to vote against it because oflegislative riders. I know that the billmanagers worked long and hard tokeep a number of the most controver-sial riders, many of which I was con-cerned about, off of this bill and I com-mend them for that. However, I amalso concerned that there is a categoryof riders to which we have becomehabituated: riders on Alaska red cedar,riders on mining regulations, riders ongrazing permits. There are also new au-thorizing provisions in this bill, suchas developing forensic laboratory serv-ice fees for Fish and Wildlife investiga-tions into wildlife mortality, and a newprogram to develop a reduced fee pro-gram for developing a reduced fee pro-gram to accommodate nonlocal travelthrough the National Park System.Why aren’t these matters being dis-cussed in the authorizing committees?These issues may have merit, but Ithink they should be handled by thecommittees of jurisdiction.

We cannot continue to put the Ap-propriations Committee in the positionof having to decide which of these rid-ers are more or less important. Thesemeasures need to be referred to the au-thorizing committees, and we need torestore the trust of the American peo-ple that we are proceeding with thepeople’s business in a fashion which al-lows for open debate and actual delib-eration.

I yield the floor.Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am

pleased to rise today in strong supportof the conference report accompanyingH.R. 4578, the Interior and relatedagencies appropriations bill for fiscalyear 2001.

As a member of the Interior Appro-priations Subcommittee and the jointHouse-Senate conference committee, Iappreciate the difficult task before thedistinguished subcommittee chairmanand ranking member to balance the di-verse priorities funded in this bill—from our public lands, to major Indianprograms and agencies, energy con-servation and research, and the Smith-sonian and federal arts agencies. Theyhave done a masterful job meeting im-portant program needs in this finalbill.

The pending conference report pro-vides an unprecedented $18.9 billion innew budget authority and $11.9 billionin new outlays to fund the Departmentof Interior and related agencies. Whenoutlays from prior-year budget author-ity and other completed actions aretaken into account the Senate bill to-tals $18.9 billion in BA and $17.4 billionin outlays for fiscal year 2001. The Sen-ate bill is exactly at the revised section302(b) allocation for both BA and in

outlays filed by the AppropriationsCommittee earlier today.

I would particularly like to thankSenator GORTON and Senator BYRD fortheir commitment to Indian programsin this year’s Interior and related agen-cies appropriation bill. They have in-cluded increases of $160 million for Bu-reau of Indian Affairs education con-struction, $214 million for the IndianHealth Service, and nearly $102 millionfor the operation of Indian programs.

I commend the subcommittee chair-man and ranking member for bringingthis important measure to the floorwith significant resources totaling $1.6billion to address the aftermath of thedevastating summer and fall forestfires, including my initiative to under-take hazardous fuels reduction activi-ties within the urban/wildland inter-face to protect our local commu-nities—the so-called Happy Forests ini-tiative.

This bill also includes an important,bipartisan compromise to establish anew Land Conservation, Preservationand Infrastructure Program that willdedicate $12 billion over the next sixyears to conservation programs. This isan unprecedented commitment to con-servation efforts by the Federal Gov-ernment. I am pleased to support thisinitiative in its final form.

I appreciate the consideration givenby my colleagues to several priorityitems for my constituents in New Mex-ico, which are included in the final bill.

I urge my colleagues to support thefinal version of the fiscal year 2001 In-terior and related agencies Appropria-tions bill, and I ask unanimous consentthat the Budget Committee scoring ofthe bill be printed in the RECORD atthis point.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

H.R. 4578, INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS, 2001, SPENDINGCOMPARISONS—CONFERENCE REPORT

[Fiscal year 2001, in millions of dollars]

Generalpurpose

Manda-tory Total

Conference Report:Budget authority .................................. 18,883 59 18,942Outlays ................................................. 17,284 70 17,354

Senate 302(b) allocation:Budget authority .................................. 18,883 59 18,942Outlays ................................................. 17,284 70 17,354

2000 level:Budget authority .................................. 14,769 59 14,828Outlays ................................................. 14,833 83 14,916

President’s request:Budget authority .................................. 16,413 59 16,472Outlays ................................................. 15,967 70 16,037

House-passed bill:Budget authority .................................. 14,723 59 14,782Outlays ................................................. 15,164 70 15,234

Senate-passed bill:Budget authority .................................. 15,875 59 15,934Outlays ................................................. 15,591 70 15,661

CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TOSenate 302(b) allocation:

Budget authority .................................. ................ ................ ................Outlays ................................................. ................ ................ ................

2000 level:Budget authority .................................. 4,114 ................ 4,114Outlays ................................................. 2,451 ¥13 2,438

President’s request 1

Budget authority .................................. 2,470 ................ 2,470Outlays ................................................. 1,317 ................ 1,317

House-passed bill:Budget authority .................................. 4,160 ................ 4,160Outlays ................................................. 2,120 ................ 2,120

Senate-passed bill:Budget authority .................................. 3,008 ................ 3,008

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9911October 5, 2000H.R. 4578, INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS, 2001, SPENDING

COMPARISONS—CONFERENCE REPORT—Continued[Fiscal year 2001, in millions of dollars]

Generalpurpose

Manda-tory Total

Outlays ................................................. 1,693 ................ 1,693

1 The comparison between the conference report and the President’s re-quest is skewed because the conference report includes $1.5 billion in emer-gency firefighting funds that the President indicated he would request, butfor which OMB never submitted a formal request to the Congress, so theamount is not reflected in the President’s request.

Note.—Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted forconsistency with scorekeeping conventions.

Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time?Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am

in line for time, but I would be happyto yield to the Senator for 5 or 10 min-utes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Ten minutes.Ms. LANDRIEU. I just need the 30

minutes that were reserved for me. Iwould be happy to yield to the Senatorfrom Iowa.

Mr. President, I suggest the absenceof a quorum.



Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.


Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, Icome to the floor today, as I havemany times in the last couple ofmonths, to speak about an issue that isso important for so many Members inthe Senate, and our colleagues on theHouse side, and to supporters every-where, the Conservation and Reinvest-ment Act.

We will be voting on the Interior ap-propriations bill in just a few mo-ments. I plan, with all due respect tothose who have worked on this bill—and I acknowledge their hard work—tovote no because it fails to embrace theprinciples outlined in the Conservationand Reinvestment Act.

I express my respect for the membersof the Appropriations Committee. Theyhave a very tough job. They arecharged with a great responsibility.While we have disagreed over this par-ticular issue, we have worked togetheras we have tried and continue to try toreach a bipartisan compromise overthis great battle for a legacy for ourenvironment.

In particular, I thank Senator TEDSTEVENS from Alaska, our chairman,and Senator ROBERT BYRD from WestVirginia, our ranking member, whohave been very attentive to the callingand the requests of the CARA sup-porters in this regard. While we havedisagreed on this issue, it has not beenpersonal. My remarks today are in-tended strictly to be constructive andhopefully to help us chart a course tonavigate in the future on this impor-tant issue.

I will read into and submit for theRECORD the excellent comments from

individuals and Governors and mayorsreflected in newspapers around ourcountry, literally from the west coastto the east coast, from the south to thenorth, from interior communities tocoastal communities, literally thou-sands and thousands of positive edi-torials and articles written about whatwe are attempting to do. From theState of Illinois, we have had some ofour best editorials on this subject, ofwhich the Presiding Officer has been asupporter.

From the Seattle Post, May 18, a fewmonths ago this year, talking aboutCARA:

It is a bold approach to environmental con-servation and restoration. If ever there werea win-win for all the squabbling factions per-manently encamped in the corridors of Cap-itol Hill to argue about the environment,this bill has to be it.

From the Providence Journal, RI,September 19:

Even with the unusual level of bipartisansupport that this measure has, it could eas-ily get lost in the last days of an election-year session. Citizens should press Congressto get it on to the desk of President, whowould sign it.

While time is short, where there is awill there is a way, and the people ofRhode Island surely believe that.

From the Los Angeles Times, Sep-tember 18:

This measure should be plucked from thepack and made law.

Chicago Tribune, from the homeState of the Presiding Officer:

As Congress churns through its last daysbefore adjournment, one issue of environ-mental impact should not be left in the dust,the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, orCARA.

The New York Times just last week:Before adjourning next month, Congress

should approve two of the most importantconservation bills in many years. One bill,the Conservation and Reinvestment Act,would guarantee $45 billion over 15 years fora range of environmental purposes, includingwilderness protection.

Again, from my own paper, the NewOrleans Times Picayune, which a fewmonths back, actually, in its frustra-tion in trying to communicate ourmessage, said:

Senators from inland states don’t seem tounderstand why Louisiana and other coastalstates should receive the bulk of this envi-ronmental money generated by offshore rev-enues and maybe that is because their statesaren’t disappearing.

From the Tampa Tribune:The Conservation Reinvestment Act is a

necessary and sensible measure that wouldallow our nation to safeguard its naturalheritage. It deserves Senate support.

Finally, from the Detroit Free Press,one of our most supportive editorials,in June of this year:

One of CARA’s most exciting aspects, infact, is the ability to focus on smallerprojects than the Federal Government nor-mally would, including urban green spaces,walkways, small slices of important habitat.For those with visions of a walkable river-front in Detroit, of selective preservation ofnatural spots in the path of development,CARA is a dream come true—if the Senatorscontrolling its fate will set it free.

I don’t think CARA is going to getset free in the vote that we are goingto have in just a few minutes, but thatis the process. We will continue ourfight. We will continue to talk aboutthis important issue, and we will be or-ganized and ready for next year.

In addition, there are still days leftin this session where CARA could be,or something more like it, set free sothat we can begin and can continuesome of the very important environ-mental work going on in the country.

Let me say, not all of that environ-mental work takes place in Wash-ington, D.C. Not all of that environ-mental work takes place among Fed-eral agencies, although they have arole. A lot of this work takes place inour hometowns all across the Nation,with our Governors’ offices, with ourmayors and our county commissions,on ball fields and soccer fields, oncleanup days and Earth Days all overthe Nation. That is the hope thatCARA would bring that will be left onthe table today.

I will submit all of these for theRECORD in my closing remarks.

In addition, let me make the pointthat some people have claimed that theCARA legislation was just helpingcoastal States. I will submit for theRECORD a wonderful editorial todayfrom a place right in the middle of ourNation, the Kansas City Star, aboutthe Conservation Reinvestment Act,realizing that time is short, but I wantto read what they say from Kansas andMissouri:

This is not the time to give up. Despite theapparent bipartisan agreement, this latestversion of the Conservation and Reinvest-ment Act, also known as CARA, should notbe the one approved by Congress.

Let us try to unite and find the willto salvage what we can, and perhapsthere is a possible way to do that.

Let me read for the RECORD, as Ibegin closing, a letter to the editor ofall the ones that were received, andthere were literally hundreds writtenby many distinguished people fromaround our country, the one we re-ceived that just stood out above all theothers was a wonderful letter writtenby Lady Bird Johnson and by the dis-tinguished leader, Laurance Rocke-feller, who is the uncle to our colleaguefrom West Virginia whom we so admireand respect and for whom we have suchaffection. Laurance Rockefeller is 98years old. I will read into the RECORDwhat Lady Bird and Laurence Rocke-feller said about the actions we shouldbe taking now:

The 20th century can rightly be calledAmerica’s conservation century. From Presi-dent Theodore Roosevelt forward, Americansbegan to embrace their land rather than justuse it. This ethic of conservation has cre-ated, protected and preserved tens of mil-lions of acres of open space in America, en-compassing everything from national parksto neighborhood soccer fields.

But conservation is not something thatconcludes just because a century does. Weare not done, nor will we ever be. While pro-tecting our natural resources is often a

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9912 October 5, 2000quiet, steady exercise, sometimes momentsof great opportunity arise. We are at such amoment now.

They go on to write:The U.S. Senate has before it legislation

that would do more to protect America’sheritage than anything in a generation. TheConservation and Reinvestment Act is in thetrue spirit of the early conservationists: Itplans for the future while solving the imme-diate; it provides for recreation as well aspreservation; it ensures significant state andlocal input and control; and it has bipartisansupport. The House has passed the bill andthe Senate Energy and Natural ResourcesCommittee has approved it. With the admin-istration supporting the legislation, all thatis needed is Senate action in the remainingdays of this Congress.

CARA’s origins stretch back to 1958, whenPresident Eisenhower created the OutdoorRecreation Resources Review Commission toconduct a three-year inquiry into America’sgrowing outdoor needs. Its findings sug-gested a new approach: Not only should theFederal Government step up its lagging landacquisition program to round out our Na-tional Park System, but it should also em-bark on a new venture to provide matchingfunds that state and local governments coulduse to meet a broader set of outdoor needs.

In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnsonsigned into law a bill creating the Land andWater Conservation Fund, which not only af-firmed these commitments but set Americanconservation on a course it still follows.

The foresight embedded in LWCF—an em-phasis on Federal/state/local partnerships,long-term planning, permanent acquisitionand urban recreation—was strengthenedlater in the 1960s by tapping money from off-shore oil and gas leases to fund LWCFprojects. The wisdom of doing so was strik-ingly simple: Utilize the exploitation of onepublic natural resource in order to protectand conserve another. Congress had made apromise and found a way to keep it. And foryears, the LWCF worked wonders. More than37,000 projects have been sparked by the ini-tiative, helping states and localities acquire2.3 million acres of parkland and adding 3.4million acres of new Federal lands to our na-tional bounty. The LWCF has funded openspace in literally every county in America,and is responsible for everything from help-ing preserve Civil War battlefields to pur-chasing land for Rocky Mountain NationalPark to building the baseball field down thestreet from your house.

After 15 years of generally faithful adher-ence to LWCF’s unique bargain, Presidentialadministrations and Congress began to redi-rect large chunks of fund revenues fromtheir intended purposes to other budgetitems. Since 1980, more than $11 billion hasbeen diverted from these projects, creating astaggering backlog of Federal, state andlocal land protection needs.

They continue and write:We urgently need to restore the promise.

That’s what CARA will do. CARA representsthe first good opportunity in 20 years to setour conservation path back on track. It notonly fully funds the LWCF, but also address-es critical needs in wildlife management,urban parks, coastal protection—

Which is so important to my Stateand to many of our States, particularlyMississippi, Alabama, and all along theeast and west coasts—and historic preservation. Most important, itestablishes a dependable source of fundingfor these programs. The prescience of thosewho created the fund was that conservationespecially could not be a haphazard thing;

population growth, the inexorable march ofdevelopment and simple wear and tear on re-sources require a permanent commitment.CARA returns us to that premise, providingapproximately $3 billion a year and a firmprecedent for future funding.

CARA returns us to another importantideal: bipartisanship.

Sometimes that is in too short sup-ply here in Washington.

Republican Don Young of Alaska and Dem-ocrat George Miller of California did a mas-terful job of steering CARA through theHouse, winning a 315–102 vote. In the Senate,Republican Frank Murkowski of Alaska andDemocrat Jeff Bingaman of New Mexicobrought the bill out of committee with sup-port from Senators of both parties. In thesegridlocked times, CARA’s bipartisan treat-ment is a reminder that policy can some-times overcome politics.

They conclude by saying:We hope the full Senate will heed that re-

minder and act on CARA now.

We have worked as partners on con-servation issues for almost four dec-ades. Our hope has always been thatAmerican leaders would act so thattheir children—all children—wouldhave something to look forward to. Byreviving the Land and Water Conserva-tion Fund before Congress goes homethis year, it can provide just that.

Unfortunately, the bill before us doesnot do what this vision outlined. Itdoes do many good things, but it fallsshort of this vision. In the last 10 min-utes that I have, I want to finalize mycomments by making just a few morepoints and submit a letter for theRECORD.

According to the Webster’s Dic-tionary, ‘‘legacy’’ means somethinghanded down from an ancestor or pred-ecessor or from the past, or to be-queath.

For more than 3 years, many in thisbody, dozens of Members of the Houseof Representatives, hundreds of mayorsand Governors, thousands of environ-mentalists and wildlife groups, andmillions of Americans have been call-ing for a true environmental legacy.

Those of my colleagues who will, in afew minutes, support the Interior ap-propriations conference report will doso for many good reasons. My greatfriend from Idaho, Senator CRAIG,spoke eloquently yesterday about themoney in this bill to fight the wildfires raging across the western plains.That is a very good reason to supportthis bill.

As the temperature gets ready to dipacross America this winter, there isgreat need for a home heating oil re-serve, and that is in this bill. That is avery good reason to support it.

In my State of Louisiana, the Cat Is-land Refuge, which is the oldest cy-press forest in North America—and itmay be the only one left—gets moneyin this bill. The New Orleans Jazz Com-mission and the Cane River NationalHeritage Area, the oldest settlement inthe Louisiana Purchase, are reasons tosupport this bill.

However, if anyone here is lookingfor a true legacy, a long-term commit-

ment to our vanishing coastlines, ourdisappearing wildlife, and our crum-bling parks and historic treasures, youwill not find that in this bill.

The true legacy would have been theConservation Reinvestment Act—a billwhich has bipartisan support by a vastmajority of the Congress and supportfrom the President of the UnitedStates. However, today we will beasked to vote on what really amountsto sort of a CARA cardboard cutout—one that kind of looks like the realthing, but it is really flimsy and hol-low, one which fails to deliver thegreat promise that we had at this op-portunity for our children and ourgrandchildren.

For 3 years, a monumental and his-toric coalition built around this billand congressional leaders designed it ina way to merit support across the aisleand across the Nation.

Early on, some environmentalistscharged it was a pro-drilling bill. So weclarified the language to make sure itwas drilling neutral to gather theirsupport.

I think—and there are some of mycolleagues on the floor who can attestto this—that perhaps we failed to go asfar as we should have. But I believe wemade great strides in meeting the con-cerns of some of those who claimedthat this bill would have compromisedprivate property rights and would haveallowed the Federal Government tobuy up land without willing seller pro-visions and congressional approval.

We worked mightily to meet thoseobjectives, and we believe the com-promise that we came up with was fairand good along these lines.

I know for the past few years I havecajoled, bargained, and spoken to somany of my friends and colleagues tolisten to the merits of this proposal. Iam sure on more than one occasionwhen they saw me coming, they ranthe other way. But I believe this is soimportant that we should take thisstep now.

When I am asked how we can affordto do this, my answer is simple: Howcan we afford not to?

Since 1930, Louisiana has lost morethan 1,500 square miles of marsh. TheState loses between 25 and 30 mileseach year—nearly a football field ofwetlands every 30 minutes in my State.

By 2050, we will lose more than 600square miles of marsh and almost 400square miles of swamp.

That means the Nation will lose anarea of coastal wetlands about the sizeof Rhode Island—about the size of yourState, Mr. President. We are aboutready to lose it.

In the past 100 years, as so eloquentlyspoken about yesterday by our col-league from Florida, Senator BOBGRAHAM, southern Florida’s Evergladeshave been reduced to one-fifth theirformer size.

In the past 30 years, the populationof blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bayhas been barely hanging on, much tothe dismay, I know, of Senator MIKUL-SKI and Senator SARBANES, who fight

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S9913October 5, 2000vigorously for renewal in the Chesa-peake.

In the middle of this century, a boat-er could look down into Lake Tahoe’sdepths and see 100 feet. Today that ismore like 60, or 70, and dropping everyday. Senator FEINSTEIN and SenatorBOXER know that CARA could be one ofthe answers—not the only answer buttruly one of the answers to help.

These facts are staggering. More im-portantly, it will take decades to turnit around.

So let’s begin now.I ask each of my colleagues to put

themselves in the shoes of our Gov-ernors, our mayors, and our natural re-source officials. All of these local offi-cials are charged just as we are withdeveloping long-range strategies tocombat vanishing coastlines, dis-appearing wildlife, and crumblingtreasures. But if we don’t enact CARA,or something very close to it, a fundingstream they can count on year in andyear out, their efforts will bemarginalized.

The Gulf of Mexico does not wait forcongressional approval to claim 30square miles of Louisiana every year.Hurricanes do not lobby congressionalappropriators before they claim pre-cious beaches in Mississippi, Alabama,Florida, and the eastern seaboard.Mother nature does not testify in frontof Congress before she floods our parks,eats away at the Everglades, and takesher toll on our historic treasures.

Let us look closely at what we aredoing here today. I ask that we not belulled into believing that this is any-thing more than a minor downpaymenton a debt we owe to our children.

In the past 2 years, I think we havemade much progress in recognizing thecontribution of the coastal States—particularly States such as Louisiana,Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama—which generate these offshore revenuesin the first place.

Because I have received assurancesfrom both leaders, Senator LOTT ofMississippi, and Senator DASCHLE ofSouth Dakota, that both coastal im-pact assistance and wildlife protectioncan be addressed in other bills in thisCongress, I have withdrawn my objec-tions to final passage of this bill.

Although CARA supporters will losethe vote today, we will grow stronger.We will come back energized and readyto fight for what our country reallyneeds—a true environmental legacy.The coalition knows that this is adownpayment. And, like all who areowed a debt, we will come to collect.

Winston Churchill once said:Want of foresight. . .unwillingness to act

when action would be simple and effective. . . lack of clear thinking, confusion ofcounsel until the emergency comes . . . untilself-preservation strikes its jarringgong. . .these are features which constitutethe endless repetition of history.

Colleagues, let us heed these words.Let us come next year prepared with awillingness to act. Let us think clearlybefore the emergencies come. Let us

not wait until our environmental pres-ervation hangs in the balance. And letus listen to the cause of the Americanpeople—people from my State, peoplefrom your State, people from all of ourStates who say they need something onwhich they can depend—a steadystream of revenue; a partnership thatthey can depend on to help preservewhat is best about America while pro-tecting private property rights, whileprotecting the great balance betweenland ownership and land maintenance,while protecting the great needs of ourcoastline and our interior.

We need a bill that America can growon and depend on and prosper from inthe decades ahead.

I thank again the appropriators fortheir hard work. I thank the author-izers for their tremendous vision.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent to have printed in the RECORD alist of wonderful people who need to bethanked for their efforts and, in doingso, not conceding that there is not stillsome time left to make some correc-tions and improvements but recog-nizing that the time is short and wewill continue to pursue this avenue.But this is a list of coalition membersfrom the National Wildlife Federation;Sporting Goods Manufacturers Associa-tion; National Governors’ Association;the Nature Conservancy; Louisiana De-partment of Natural Resources; Ameri-cans for our Heritage and Recreation;International Association of Fish andWildlife Agencies that worked so hardon this effort; U.S. Soccer Foundation;National Wildlife Federation; CoastalConservation Association; OutdoorRecreation Coalition of America; Trustfor Public Lands; Coastal States Orga-nization, which Jack Caldwell helpedto head up; National Coalition of StateHistoric Preservation Officers, particu-larly the Governor of Oregon who wasso helpful, and many other Governors;the Wilderness Society; Southern Gov-ernors Association; my Governor, Gov-ernor Foster, who lent a hand early on;Land Trust Alliance; and the Coalitionto Restore Coastal Louisiana.

Those are just a few. There are somany more and I know my time isprobably up.

I also ask unanimous consent to haveprinted in the RECORD the names ofmany of the staff people who helpedmake this possible.


CARA COALITION MEMBERS

Mark Van Putten, Jodi Applegate, JimLyon, Steve Schimburg—National Wild-life Federation

Sandy Briggs—Sporting Goods Manufactur-ers Association

Jena Carter, Diane Shays—National Gov-ernor’s Association

Tom Cassidy, Jody Thomas, David Weiman—The Nature Conservancy

Sidney Coffee—Louisiana Department ofNatural Resources

Tom Cove—Sporting Goods ManufacturersAssociation

Jane Danowitz—Americans for our Heritageand Recreation

Glenn Delaney, Naomi Edelson, Max Peter-son—International Association of Fishand Wildlife Agencies

Jim Range—International Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies/The AmericanAirgun Field Target Association

Gary Taylor—International Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies

Herb Giobbi—U.S. Soccer FoundationPam Goddard—National Wildlife FederationBob Hayes—Coastal Conservation Associa-

tionMyrna Johnson—Outdoor Recreation Coali-

tion of AmericaLesly Kane—Trust for Public LandTony MacDonald—Coastal States Organiza-

tionNancy Miller—National Coalition of State

Historic Preservation OfficersAndrew Minkiewicz, Kevin Smith—Governor

Kitzhaber of OregonRindy O’Brien—The Wilderness SocietyBeth Osborne—Southern Governor’s Associa-

tionBob Szabo—Van Ness—Feldman Law FirmRussell Shay—Land Trust AllianceMark Davis—Coalition to Restore Coastal

LouisianaACTIVELY SUPPORTIVE MEMBERS AND STAFFS

Senator Thomas Daschle—Mark Childress,Eric Washburn

Senator Trent Lott—Jim ZiglarSenator Bingaman—Minority Energy Com-

mittee Staff: Bob Simon, Sam Fowler,David Brooks, Mark Katherine Ishee,Kyra Finkler

Senator Murkowski—Majority Energy Com-mittee Staff: Andrew Lundquist, KellyJohnson

Senator Mike DeWine—Paul PalagyiSenator John Breaux—Fred Hatfield, Steph-

anie Leger, Mallory MooreSenator Max Baucus—Brian Kuehl, Norma

Jane Sabiston, Jason Schendle, AylinAzikalin, Alyson Azodeh

All democratic colleagues on Energy Com-mittee and Senator Fitzgerald.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I endby saying that sometimes it takes abold act to receive something on whichwe can really build. CARA is a boldact.

In a bill with $15 billion, asking for afew hundred million for States andlocal governments, a few hundred mil-lion for our coastal communities, a fewhundred million for wildlife, was nottoo much to ask. I am very hopeful inthe years ahead we can meet the prom-ise of CARA.

I ask unanimous consent to haveprinted excerpts of editorial support.


WHY CARA? WHY NOW?EXCERPTS OF EDITORIAL SUPPORT FOR THE

CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT

‘‘It’s a bold approach to environmentalconservation and restoration. If ever therewere a win-win for all the squabbling fac-tions permanently encamped in the corridorsof Capitol Hill to argue about the environ-ment, this bill has to be it.’’ Seattle Post-In-telligencer, May 18, 2000.

‘‘The Conservation and Reinvestment Acthas the magic to get through Congress in anelection year: money for lots of states, cre-ative compromises and an odd-couple pair ofsponsors from the right and left.’’—SeattleTimes, May 9, 2000.

‘‘Even with the unusual level of bipartisansupport that this measure has, it could eas-ily get lost in the last days of an election-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES9914 October 5, 2000year session. Citizens should press Congressto get it onto the desk of President Clinton,who should sign it.’’—Providence (Rhode Is-land) Journal, September 19, 2000.

‘‘This measure should be plucked from thepack and made law.’’—Los Angeles Times,September 18, 2000.

‘‘By passing the act, the Senate will dem-onstrate that in the current prosperity,America is not forgetting its other riches,those bestowed on it by nature.’’—San JoseMercury News, September 17, 2000.

‘‘As Congress churns though its last daysbefore adjournment, one issue of environ-mental impact should not be left in the dust:the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, orCARA.’’—Chicago Tribune, September 16,2000.

‘‘Before adjourning next month, Congressshould approve two of the most importantconservation bills in many years. One bill,the Conservation and Reinvestment Act,would guarantee $45 billion over 15 years fora range of environmental purposes, includingwilderness protection.’’—The New YorkTimes, September 13, 2000.

‘‘One of the most important and com-prehensive pieces of conservation legislationin U.S. history deserves immediate passageby the Senate. It is a bill most Americanshave never heard of: The Conservation andReinvestment Act, or CARA.’’—St. LouisPost-Dispatch, September 11, 2000.

‘‘This is a rare piece of legislation. Its pur-pose is clear and simple. Its funding is ready.Its public benefit would be immense, and sowould its public support, if anyone couldhear about it through the blare of election-eering. All it needs is attention by our sen-ators in the next three weeks.’’—San DiegoUnion-Tribune, September 7, 2000.

‘‘Senators from inland states don’t seem tounderstand why Louisiana and other coastalstates should receive the bulk of the environ-mental money generated by offshore oil rev-enues. And maybe that’s because their statesaren’t disappearing.’’—The (New Orleans)Times-Picayune, July 18, 2000.

‘‘Back in the ’60s, Congress set aside $900million yearly from offshore oil revenue forthe Land and Water Conservation Fund to fi-nance purchases of important natural beautyspots. But over the years Congress routinelyrobbed the fund to spend the money else-where, and Iowa was routinely shut out whenthe remainder was divided. CARA restoresthe fund and adds much more.’’—The DesMoines Register, July 8, 2000.

‘‘This landmark legislation deserves achance, and it will be a shame if opponentsmanage to use the clock or unreasonable ar-guments to kill it. While senators out Westworry about the federal government gainingmore control over land, those of us who livein Louisiana worry about the acres of coastthat are crumbling into the Gulf of Mexico.One fear is speculation, the other is all tooreal.’’—The (New Orleans) Times-Picayune,September 19, 2000.

‘‘The Conservation and Reinvestment Actis a necessary and sensible measure thatwould allow our nation to safeguard its nat-ural heritage. It deserves the Senate’s sup-port.’’—The Tampa Tribune, July 7, 2000.

‘‘CARA is considered to be the most sig-nificant conservation funding legislation anyCongress has ever considered.’’—Times Daily(Florence, Alabama), July 10, 2000.

‘‘The Conservation and Reinvestment Actis a strong and balanced realization of thephilosophy that government revenues gen-erated by exploiting natural resources oughtto be spent, in large part, on protecting re-sources elsewhere. That’s philosophy thatCongress has long honored on paper, andshould now put into practice.’’—The (Min-neapolis) Star Tribune, July 3, 2000.

‘‘One of CARA’s most exciting aspects, infact, is the ability to focus on smaller

projects than the federal government nor-mally would, including urban green spaces,walkways and small slices of important habi-tat. For those with visions of a walkableriverfront in Detroit, of selective preserva-tion of natural spots in the path of develop-ment, CARA is a dream come true—if thesenators controlling its fate will set itfree.’’—Detroit Free Press, June 27, 2000.

‘‘The most important land conservationbill in many years is now before the UnitedStates Senate, and time is running out.’’—The New York Times, June 27, 2000.

‘‘It’s a reasonable, bipartisan way forAmerica to create long-term funding for con-serving our natural heritage.’’—The (Salem,Oregon) Statesman Journal, June 14, 2000.

‘‘CARA is a good program that promoteslocal initiative toward parks, resource con-servation and historic preservation. We hopeour senators change their positions and givethe support it deserves.’’—The Idaho States-man, June 13, 2000.

‘‘We need to make it clear that we, theAmerican people, want the Senate to passthe most significant wildlife, parks andrecreation legislation in over 30 years.’’—ThePueblo (Colorado) Chieftain, June 11, 2000.

‘‘This is a quality-of-life bill for the future,one that holds enormous promise for the pro-tection of dwindling natural and cultural re-sources. Passage means benefits for the cur-rent generation of Americans, and a chanceto continue those gains for generations yetto come.’’—The Buffalo (New York) News,May 22, 2000.

‘‘So long as good sense continues to pre-vail, this legislation may signal the begin-ning of an era, none too soon, in which envi-ronmental impact has a more prominent seatat the table.’’—Winston-Salem Journal, May19, 2000.

[From the Kansas City Star, Oct. 5, 2000]CONSERVATION MONEY

The proposed Conservation and Reinvest-ment Act, which would transfer millions ofdollars from federal off-shore oil leases to fi-nancially starved local and state parks andwildlife programs, is in trouble.

Thanks to a deal devised by congressionalnegotiators on the Interior Department ap-propriations bill, the House has approved apale version of the landmark legislation thatearlier had been endorsed by two-thirds ofthe House, more than half of the Senate andPresident Clinton.

The President has endorsed this inferioragreement, saying that ‘‘while we had hopedfor even more’’ he wanted to praise the con-servation, wildlife and recreation groups, aswell as citizens, who worked so hard for theconservation act.

This is not the time to give up. Despite theapparent bipartisan agreement, this latestversion of the Conservation and Reinvest-ment Act, also known as CARA, should notbe the one approved by Congress. It falls farshort of the original that has been pushed byconservation groups, cities, counties andstates.

Under a strong bipartisan effort, Congresshas been on the verge of restoring the moneyto its rightful uses. Of the $3 billion CARAwould provide, Missouri annually stands togain $34.7 million and Kansas $17.3 millionfor natural resource preservation and park-land acquisition. Kansas and Missouri citiesand counties could use their share of themoney to improve state and local parks, pur-chase land for parks, and other recreationalpurposes.

The substitute version falls short in themoney it would guarantee over the longterm. In one example, $350 million annuallyfor nongame wildlife programs has been cutto $50 million.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott andMinority Leader Tom Daschle have an-nounced their intention to push to restoreCARA to its former self. They are backed bythe nation’s governors, who have sought sig-nificant conservation funding for stateneeds. The original version is the one thatshould be passed.

Approval of CARA could be one of the mostsignificant victories of this Congress.

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous con-sent to take the remaining time of theSenator from Arizona, which I believeis 4 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Would the distinguishedSenator allow me to use 5 minutes ofmy time as the ranking member on thesubcommittee?

Mr. THOMAS. Go right ahead.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from West Virginia.Mr. BYRD. I trust that the distin-

guished Senator will not leave thefloor. I hope he will follow me imme-diately. If he is in great haste, I will beglad to yield to him.

Mr. THOMAS. Go right ahead.Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in the

short time available before the Senatevotes on final passage of the Interiorappropriations conference report, Iwant to again urge my colleagues tosupport this measure. It is a good com-promise that balances the needs of ourparks, our forests, our wildlife refuges,and our trust responsibilities to Amer-ican Indians, against the resourcesmade available to us. That task—thetask of reconciling identified needswith limited resources—is not easy.

I am particularly pleased with thelevel of funding in this bill for fossilenergy research. The new power plantimprovement initiative, along with theother fossil energy research programsin the Department of Energy, are crit-ical to this nation’s energy security.Working to curtail our reliance on im-ported oil, and ensuring that our cur-rent fleet of power plants are efficientand environmentally sound, should bethe cornerstone of the next administra-tion’s energy policy. I can assure thenext president, whomever he may be,that I, for one, am ready to assist inthat endeavor.

Mr. President, I also wish to take amoment to thank the chairman of thefull committee, Senator TED STEVENS,for his interest in this bill, for his con-tinued support, and for his willingnessto work with Senator GORTON and meto ensure that we were able to get tothis point. In particular, I am gratefulfor his help in making additional re-sources available to the Interior sub-committee. Without those resources,we could not have crafted this bill.

Finally, Mr. President, let me againthank my colleague, the subcommitteechairman, Senator GORTON. He and hisstaff have truly been a pleasure towork with.

When I talk of staff, let me brieflymention my own staff person, PeterKiefhaber. I believe this is his first bill,first major bill, to assist me on this