Congressional RecordUNUM

E PLURIBUS

United Statesof America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 105th

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.

H759

Vol. 144 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1998 No. 20

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

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

f

DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKERPRO TEMPORE

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

WASHINGTON, DC,March 4, 1998.

I hereby designate the Honorable EDWARDA. PEASE to act as Speaker pro tempore onthis day.

NEWT GINGRICH,Speaker of the House of Representatives.

f

PRAYER

The Chaplain, Reverend James DavidFord, D.D., offered the following pray-er:

We are grateful, O God, that in aworld that often is marked by perplex-ity and confusion, there are proud mo-ments of renewal that encourage us inthe depths of our souls and help us tosee a brighter and more noble future.Whenever we anticipate new ideas, newresponsibilities, new aspirations or am-bitions, our hearts and minds, our verybeings can be invigorated and sus-tained by the opportunities before us.Of all your gifts, gracious God, forwhich we give boundless thanks, it isfor the gift of life with all its wonderand all its glory. Make us conscious ofthis very special gift so that we willlead lives of gratitude and of praise.This is our earnest prayer. Amen.

f

THE JOURNAL

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

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

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will thegentleman from New Jersey (Mr.SAXTON) come forward and lead theHouse in the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

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

f

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

A message in writing from the Presi-dent of the United States was commu-nicated to the House by Mr. ShermanWilliams, one of his secretaries.

f

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKERPRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. TheChair will entertain 15 one-minutespeeches on each side.

f

IRA PLAN TO ENTER SOCIALSECURITY SWEEPSTAKES

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, on Feb-ruary 27, 1997, I introduced with Major-ity Leader ARMEY a bill to expand theIRA system.

In today’s Congressional Daily, theheadline is ‘‘Kasich Enters IRA planinto Social Security Sweepstakes.’’This is good news. It goes on to sayHouse Budget Chairman KASICH todayfloated a plan to use part of the wind-fall, meaning the surplus in our budget,to establish a government system of in-dividual retirement accounts. This isgood news.

H.R. 891 would increase the amountthat one could contribute over a periodof years from today’s maximum of

$2,000 to $7,000 annually. It would alsoincrease the salary threshold from to-day’s level to $110,000, including allMembers of the middle class. It wouldalso permit withdrawals for a numberof purposes, including medical expensesand education costs, in addition tothose already permitted.

This is a good bill. I urge all my col-leagues to become cosponsors.

f

DEMOCRATS WANT TO IMPROVEPUBLIC SCHOOLS

(Mr. PALLONE asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, theDemocratic leadership in the Houseand Senate are unveiling the details oflegislation today to improve America’spublic schools. Our plans are in markedcontrast to the Republican leadershipthat continues to stress tuition vouch-ers and other efforts that will provideless funding for public schools. Lastsession the Republicans went so far asto advocate abolishing the Departmentof Education.

Democrats want to give America’stowns and cities the ability to reduceclass size through hiring an additional100,000 new qualified teachers. Reduc-ing class size is the best way to raisestudent achievement, and smallerclasses also provide for better dis-cipline.

Democrats also want to address theneed for renovations to school build-ings and new construction. We will pro-vide tax incentives to help States andlocal districts accelerate the pace ofnew construction and renovation.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans do not be-lieve in public education. The Demo-crats, on the other hand, want the Fed-eral Government to improve America’spublic schools.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH760 March 4, 1998TAX CODE NEEDS OVERHAUL

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

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, thePresident referred to the proposedoverhaul of the Tax Code as irrespon-sible. He went on to say that the Re-publican effort to reform the Nation’scurrent income tax code would be sim-ply reckless for the economy and fami-lies.

Mr. President, I respectfully dis-agree. In my opinion, it would be irre-sponsible for Congress not to overhaulthis Tax Code. It would be irresponsiblefor this Congress to allow such an in-equitable, punitive Tax Code to con-tinue to stifle the economic growth inthis country. Mr. President, I feel it isirresponsible for you and your adminis-tration to blatantly stump for the sta-tus quo when the status quo representsa tax collection agency that is abusiveto innocent working men and women,intrusive into the lives of each andevery taxpayer, and callous to everyAmerican citizen.

Although it is not clear at this pointwhich type of alternative tax systemwould be best for this country, what isclear, however, is that the current taxsystem is broken and must undergo acomplete overhaul. Mr. President, theonly irresponsible action is your sup-port for an unconscionable, unfair anddefective tax system.

f

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKERPRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Mem-bers are reminded that they are to ad-dress their remarks to the Chair andnot to other government officials.

f

PUBLIC EDUCATION PROVIDESOPPORTUNITY FOR THE FUTURE

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

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, Americahas a deep and strong commitment topublic education. Education is a needfor all Americans. Public educationneeds to be available for all Americans,not just a select few. In America we tryto provide education for everyone.

Vouchers take away valuable re-sources from public education and pro-vide it only to that select few. Thisprogram is not about school choice. Itis about destroying the public edu-cation system and leaving the majorityof America’s youth without a choiceand without a good education.

Today we have a fine group of youngTexans from El Paso who attend publicschools, who are here with us in Wash-ington. Public education provides anopportunity for their future. It pro-vides opportunity to many families notonly in my own district but throughoutour Nation who choose public edu-cation.

MARRIAGE TAX ELIMINATION ACT

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

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today Irise to ask the question of why shouldwe pass the Marriage Tax EliminationAct. I think it is best explained with aseries of questions.

Do Americans feel that it is fair thata working married couple pays highertaxes just because they are married?Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21million married working couples payan average of $1,400 more than an iden-tical working couple living togetheroutside of marriage? Do Americans feelthat it is right that our Tax Code actu-ally provides them an incentive to getdivorced?

Twenty-one million married workingcouples pay on the average of $1,400more in taxes just because they aremarried. In the south suburbs of Chi-cago, that is 1 year’s tuition at a com-munity college. That is 3 months worthof day care.

The Marriage Tax Elimination Actnow has 238 bipartisan cosponsors. Itwould immediately eliminate the mar-riage tax penalty. The marriage taxpenalty is unfair and it is wrong. Letus eliminate the marriage tax penaltyand do it now.

f

ON THE CUTTING EDGE INDEALING WITH RAPISTS

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

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, theOklahoma Senate passed a bill to allowcastration of convicted rapists. That isright. Castration. Opponents say it iscruel. Victims say it is about time. Isay hats off, and anything else off, tothe Oklahoma Senate. Maybe, justmaybe, Mr. Speaker, rapists will notonly think twice, they will start think-ing 3 and 4 times before they brutalizeour constituents.

I also would like to say that no mat-ter how you slice this, Mr. Speaker,Oklahoma is on the cutting edge whenit comes to dealing with rapists. Forthose who say, ‘‘How do you really feel,Jim?’’ I recommend that Oklahoma goa step further. Put it into law, thenhire Lorena Bobbitt to administer theprogram.

I yield back whatever might be leftafter Oklahoma is done with rapists.

f

AMERICANS WANT FAIRER,SIMPLER TAX SYSTEM

(Mr. JONES asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, on Mondaythe President indicated that he willnot support efforts to sunset the Inter-nal Revenue Code and to replace itwith a fairer, simpler tax system. His

statement has caused me a great con-cern, especially since I do not knowhow much longer American familiesand businesses can afford to shoulderthe tremendous tax burden they arecurrently facing. Taxes are simply toohigh, and the Internal Revenue Code istoo lengthy and too complicated.

Polls prove that a fairer, simpler taxsystem is what the American peoplewant. I know from speaking to the peo-ple in my district that it is not onlywhat they want, it is what they need. Iurge the President to join those of uswho are working to give the Americanpeople the tax relief they deserve, wantand need. It is past time for a fairer,simpler tax system in this country.

f

SELF-DETERMINATION FORPUERTO RICO

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute.)

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker,today is a very important day for thepeople of Puerto Rico, but it is a moreimportant day for the democratic proc-ess. This afternoon the House of Rep-resentatives will debate H.R. 856, theUnited States-Puerto Rico Self-Deter-mination Act. This bill sets up a plebi-scite that will determine the futurestatus of Puerto Rico.

The American people should knowthat this bill was designed to guaran-tee statehood for Puerto Rico becauseit was written by the party that sup-ports statehood. I will say this again. IfH.R. 856 becomes law, Puerto Rico willbe the 51st State, whether or not thepeople of Puerto Rico want it to be.

H.R. 856 is not the result of a demo-cratic process. By defeating this bill,we will be sending a message that wetruly honor the idea of self-determina-tion for the people of Puerto Rico. Iurge my colleagues not to be fooled bythe arguments of the other side. A votefor H.R. 856 is a vote for statehood, nota vote for self-determination.

f

BUDGET SURPLUS

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speak-er, the Congressional Budget Office,known in Washington as the CBO, an-nounced yesterday that the Federalbudget is expected to have a surplus of$8 billion this year. That will be thefirst time in Washington there hasbeen a balanced budget since 1969, 29years ago.

Now, of course the liberals will behappy to have a surplus because theywant to take that money and spend iton new programs and bigger social pro-grams from Washington, D.C. Conserv-atives will be happy because they wantto pass more tax cuts so that the mid-dle class can keep more of their money.

Demagogues will be happiest of all,because they can tell more lies about

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H761March 4, 1998protecting Social Security, knowingfull well that Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system with the moneygoing out as fast as it comes in. Theyare counting on the fact that most peo-ple will have no idea exactly how apay-as-you-go system works.

But American taxpayers should bethe happiest of all, because a balancedbudget means lower interest rates,which means people can buy housesmore easily, and cars. It is a good dayfor the American people.

f

WELCOME TO THE LAMP-LIGHT-ERS, EL PASO SINGING GROUP

(Mr. REYES asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, this morn-ing I stand here proudly and would liketo welcome a group of young peoplefrom El Paso, Texas. This is a group ofsingers that is called the Lamplighters,that sings a positive message aboutlife.

This group was formed in 1987 at Hen-derson middle school through the vi-sion of Mr. Jim Marshall and the sup-port of the principal, Mr. Ralph Chavis.The Lamplighters are a group that ismade up of 40 middle school studentsages 11 to 15, and they are sitting inthe gallery to my left. They are heregetting a firsthand look at democracyin action.

The Lamplighters sing a collection of25 songs that include themes such asbiculturalism, success, friendship,search for the truth, believing in them-selves and understanding God. Theirmission is to light up life with positivethemes through song, a goal they al-ways accomplish with every perform-ance, such as this morning performingfor the Texas delegation.

b 1015

Today I welcome the Lamplighters toWashington, D.C., where I am pleasedthey are here, and I know that theywill experience firsthand and appre-ciate the excitement of democracy inaction. Welcome.

f

SUNSET THE CURRENT TAX CODE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I was dis-appointed this week to hear the Presi-dent label Republican efforts to sunsetthe Internal Revenue Code as irrespon-sible. I want to tell you my definitionof irresponsible. Last year only one infive calls to the IRS customer hotlinegot through. That is irresponsible.

The IRS sends out 8 million pages offorms and instructions each year,enough to circle the Earth 28 times.That is irresponsible.

Every year, Money Magazine asks 50different tax preparers to prepare a 1040form for a sample family. No two pre-parers ever arrive at the same answer,

and the results vary by thousands ofdollars. That is irresponsible.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of legis-lation to sunset the Internal RevenueCode. There is nothing radical aboutaccountability from a governmentagency or working towards a fairer,flatter Tax Code. If you want a truedefinition of irresponsibility, look atour current Tax Code. Maintaining thestatus quo is the most irresponsiblething that we could do to our Nationand to our future.

f

REFORM THE IRS(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was

given permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, thisHouse must reform the IRS. The out-rageous recently released GAO reportdocuments that the IRS unfairly sin-gles out taxpayers in the South forrandom audits. The GAO reports that47 percent of the random tax auditsduring the past 3 years were in 11Southern states that represent only 29percent of the population. More than 85percent of those audits had incomes ofless than $25,000, many of whom dependupon the Earned Income Tax Credit forour working poor.

Why should an individual be threetimes more likely to be audited inNorth Carolina than in the State ofMassachusetts? North Carolinians arehonest people. Why should they be sub-jected to this kind of treatment? As aformer small businessman and a South-ern taxpayer, I am outraged at this re-port and call for immediate action toreform the IRS.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join mycolleagues on the Democratic side andthose on the Republican side in passingIRS reform last year. The findings ofthat report provide some clear exam-ples of why our esteemed colleagues inthe other body should quit draggingtheir feet and join the House in passingreform.

f

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES CONTINUEIN SUDAN

(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, I rise todayto speak to the massive human rightsabuses occurring in Sudan. The Khar-toum Government, the National Is-lamic Front, is waging a war on theChristian and Animist South. TheNorthern army has committed horrify-ing atrocities against individuals andcommunities, including moderate Mus-lims who do not adhere to the Khar-toum agenda. Women and children aresold into slavery. Young boys are con-scripted to combat their own villages.Pastors often are thrown into wells,doused with oil, and lit on fire to burnto their death.

Much of the humanitarian aid inSudan is distributed through Khar-

toum Government forces, who forceconversion to extremist Islam in ex-change for food.

On May 23, 1997, Northern authoritiesdetained and imprisoned Mr. FaisalAbadallh, a Sudanese Christian accusedof evangelism. In January of 1998, au-thorities charged Mr. Abadallh with 12offenses, three of which could lead tothe death penalty.

Mr. Speaker, the President actedwisely in imposing sanctions on Sudanin 1997. However, we must not leave theissue at that point. It is outrageousthat this terrible suffering continues.Our Nation should continue to speakout.

f

SUPPORT THE SCHOOLINFRASTRUCTURE BILL

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas askedand was given permission to addressthe House for 1 minute and to reviseand extend her remarks.)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr.Speaker, it is appropriate this morningthat we had in our chamber studentsfrom El Paso, Texas, the Lamplighters,formed from Henderson Middle School,the constituents of my colleague fromTexas, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.REYES), because today is an importantday for Americans. We heard just re-cently a disturbing study about the im-balance of the performance of our stu-dents in America in math and science.Well, today we stand on the side of ourstudents and on the side of learning byoffering to the American people aschool infrastructure bill that willbegin to go throughout this Nation andfix the leaking roofs, the falling roofs,the expanded crowdedness that we havein our school districts across the Na-tion.

The school infrastructure bill thatthe Democrats will be offering todaywill say once and for all that we wantour children in America to learn in safeand secure conditions. Then we willadd another 100,000 teachers to ourcommunities, 100,000 trained individ-uals committed to teaching our chil-dren, committed to preparing them forthe 21st century.

I ask my colleagues in this body tosupport this legislation and stand onthe side of our children.

f

LIBERALS OPPOSE TAX REFORM(Ms. PRYCE of Ohio asked and was

given permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendher remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,what does a liberal do when confrontedwith a tax cut? He opposes it. He con-demns it. He becomes outraged at thevery idea that Washington could getalong with a little less and a familycould do with a little more.

I opened up the Washington Post tofind the headline, President BashesGOP Tax Plan. Then turning to theNew York Times, I find this headline:Clinton Attacks GOP Tax OverhaulPlan.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH762 March 4, 1998It appears that the days of working

on a bipartisan basis with the Repub-lican Congress are over. Liberals areupset. In fact, they are mad at thePresident for finally helping to pass atax cut for middle-class families lastyear. So the liberals will not let thePresident continue down the road oftax relief, IRS reform, and overhaul ofthe Tax Code.

I guess the New Democrats at theWhite House are no longer calling theshots these days. It is too bad. TheAmerican people want tax reform.

f

IMPROVING EDUCATION

(Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon asked andwas given permission to address theHouse for 1 minute and to revise andextend her remarks.)

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker,sometimes standing on the floor of theHouse of Representatives is like stand-ing in an echo chamber. As soon as onemember says they want to do some-thing to help rebuild our public schoolsand provide a better education for ourchildren, everybody starts saying it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it is time to stoptalking about it and to start doingsomething about it. That is why wehave introduced legislation that wouldreduce class sizes by hiring an addi-tional 100,000 qualified teachers, andlegislation that would give states andlocal school districts help with newschool construction and new renova-tion.

I believe these bills are a great op-portunity for every legislator who saysthey care about education to follow uptheir words with actions. If Membersare serious about making improve-ments in our education system, I urgethem to cosponsor these bills.

f

BEING TRUTHFUL ABOUT THEBALANCED BUDGET

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

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, we did getgood news yesterday, and that goodnews was that for the first time in 30years, the Federal Government isabout to pay its bills. For the firsttime in 30 years, we are about to run asurplus, not a deficit.

But we also need to remember thatwe run two sets of books here in Wash-ington. One is the external set ofbooks, the books that reflect themoney that comes in and the moneythat goes out into all funds, and thesecond set of books reflects what weare doing to continue to borrow fromthe Social Security Trust Fund andfrom the Highway Trust Fund.

Mr. Speaker, we need to not only bal-ance the budget on that one set ofbooks, but we need to balance thebudget on the second set of books aswell. Do not continue to increase thedebt; do not spend this new money, thisexternal surplus, on new programs;

stop borrowing from the Social Secu-rity Trust Fund and stop borrowingfrom the Highway Trust Fund. Pay allthe bills and be truthful with theAmerican people, and treat the trustfunds like they are truly trust funds.

f

TARGETED TAX CUTS NEEDED

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speak-er, I came to the well because I haveheard one speaker after another fromthe other side suggest that the Presi-dent came out against tax cuts andthat the natural reaction of the Demo-cratic Party is to be opposed to taxcuts.

I would remind my colleagues that infact the President has proposed a num-ber of tax cuts, and that in fact a ma-jority of the Democrats voted for taxcuts as part of the balanced budgetagreement. What we are opposed to iseliminating the Tax Code, as the otherside has proposed, without anything toreplace it. That could wreak havoc onour economy.

Imagine when banks and the real es-tate community have to determinewhat would be the real cost of homes,for example, if you did not have amortgage interest deduction, or anynumber of other assets if you did nothave depreciation expenses.

We are in favor of tax cuts, but tar-geted tax cuts; tax cuts for familieswho are finding it difficult to affordchild care expenses, or higher edu-cation expenses. Targeted tax cuts iswhat we need, not irresponsible elimi-nation of the Tax Code.

f

CONTRACT WITH AMERICA ASUCCESS

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, in 1994,along the campaign trail, Republicanssaid that if the Republican Party be-came the majority, that we would passa legislative agenda called the Con-tract with America within the first 100days of the 1995 session.

Washington pundits and the typicalstatus quo Washington liberals said,number one, they would not; numbertwo, they could not; and then when theprocess was going on, they said theyshould not. All the Democrats foughtit, kicking and screaming and yelling,saying it was going to lead to economicdisaster, and all voted against welfarereform and voted against tax cuts forthe middle class.

What happened? Within 100 days, theContract with America passes, andwhat is the result? In 1995, the deficit,$164 billion; 1996, the deficit, $107 bil-lion; 1997, the deficit, $22 billion; and in1998, just announced, a surplus of $8 bil-lion.

Where are all those Democrats whosaid that the Contract with Americawas going to be an economic disaster,who fought tax cuts for the middleclass? The proof is that the budget isbalanced, it worked, and I hope nexttime they do not fight us.

f

IMPROVING AMERICA’S PUBLICSCHOOLS

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

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, lastweek the Washington Post reportedsome grim news: The scores of Ameri-cans high school seniors ranked nearthe bottom in a rigorous new inter-national exam in math and science.

This is unacceptable. Our schoolsclearly need help, and this body needsto get moving. Democrats are eager toget to work to reduce our class sizes, torepair crumbling schools, to put com-puters in classrooms and to provide anatmosphere in which our children canlearn.

But my Republican colleagues, whatthey want to do is they want to throwout public education, to end public edu-cation as we know it. What they wantto do is one more time make educationthe purview of the rich and of thewealthy. They also want to have taxcuts, tax cuts for the wealthiest Ameri-cans, one more time.

Let us put our kids first, and notlast. Education should be our top prior-ity, public education, the great equal-izer, which has allowed all of us to beable to live up to and work to our po-tential, no matter where we are on thesocioeconomic scale. Let us get towork on education. Let us improveAmerica’s public schools.

f

MAKING AMERICAN EDUCATIONTHE ENVY OF THE WORLD

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

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I do notthink there is any disagreement inAmerica that perhaps the most sacredresponsibility we have is the educationof our children, and I do not thinkthere is any doubt in anybody’s mindthat the best way to beat the world andto be the envy of the world in the edu-cation of our children is to have thevery, very best public education sys-tem in the world. There is no one Iknow that wants anything less thanthe very, very best public education forour children.

But, unhappily, Mr. Speaker, we havesome children that are being left be-hind today. In Washington, D.C., wehave some very, very good schools, andin Washington, D.C. we have somecatastrophically bad schools.

Just a few months ago, 7,500 families,distressed about what was happening

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H763March 4, 1998with their children and the bad schoolsin which they were trapped, applied fora meager 1,000 scholarships that wouldenable those mothers and those fathersto move their children to a betterschool of their choice.

b 1030

The people of Washington, D.C., espe-cially those who are not at the toprungs of the socioeconomic ladder,want their children to have the sameopportunity as the wealthy people whohave their children in Sidwell Friends.

We have a bill that we will bring tothe floor here in a few days, a bill thatwould allow 2,000 scholarships for thevery poorest families in America, fromamong those who apply to be chosen atrandom, so that those parents can usethose scholarships to take their childto that school where the child can suc-ceed.

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, I havemet some of those children who up tothis point have been the lucky recipi-ents of the private scholarships, pri-vately funded scholarships made avail-able to their families. By over 60 per-cent, these bright young boys and girlssay they like math and science thebest. If we put a bright young mind ina school where they are encouraged,where somebody cares and takes thetime, and yes, indeed, offers a littlediscipline along with that encourage-ment, we see a bright, happy child.

We will bring that bill to the floor.We will pass that bill. I hope Memberson both sides of the aisle can find com-passion for the children that overridestheir desire to comply with unions, andI hope when we send that bill to thePresident and he picks up that pen, hewill realize he has the lives of 2,000beautiful children in his hands. He cansign the bill and give them the oppor-tunity, or he can veto the bill and sat-isfy the unions.

f

BEFORE WE SPEND OUR FEDERALSURPLUS, WE BETTER MAKESURE WE REALLY HAVE ONE

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

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, everyday we hear all kinds of talk now abouthow we are going to spend the Federalsurplus. Before everyone gets all giddyabout all this extra cash, however, wehad really better take a closer look.

Alan Sloan, the Wall Street editor ofNewsweek, recently wrote in the Wash-ington Post, ‘‘But get a grip. There isno surplus. If you do math the normalway, instead of Uncle Sam’s way, thereis nothing resembling a budget surpluson the horizon.’’ Mr. Sloan wrote thatall the talk about a surplus comes be-cause we are using Federal budget ac-counting instead of real world account-ing.

As he pointed out, ‘‘Virtually the en-tire difference between Federal mathand real-world math involves Social

Security’s retirement and disabilityfunds, whose surpluses are masking thedeficit in the rest of the budget.’’

If we were not using the Social Secu-rity and many other trust funds to off-set or mask the size of the deficit, wewould still have a huge deficit on top ofan already horrendous $5.5 trillion na-tional debt.

Mr. Speaker, before we begin cele-brating and spending our supposed, al-leged surplus, we had better make surethat we really have one. We are veryfar from it right now.

f

PRESIDENT CLINTON TURNING HISBACK ON TAX REFORM

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

Mr. DELAY. Mr. Speaker, earlier thisweek, President Clinton turned hisback on fundamental tax reform by re-forming the tax code. He said that get-ting rid of the current tax code and re-placing it with a better one is irrespon-sible.

The President is finally revealing histrue liberal self. As we enter a new cen-tury, we need a new tax code. We needa tax code that encourages savings andinvestment. We need a tax code that issimple, so that our citizens do not needto hire accountants and lawyers tocomply with the rules. We need a taxcode that takes less money from work-ing families. We need a tax code thatgives the American people a break, notmanipulates their lives.

For 40 years, the Democrats in thisCongress built a tax code that was rid-dled with loopholes, ridiculous rules,and hard-to-understand regulations, allto control our lives. It is time to tearthat system down and build a better,simpler, and fairer tax code for thenext century.

f

THE SOLOMON ENGLISH LAN-GUAGE EMPOWERMENT AMEND-MENT

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

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, in justa few minutes this House will begin de-bate on something that is probably themost important issue that we will takeup on the floor this Congress duringthis entire year. It is the question ofwhether or not to start in motion thewheels that will begin to admit PuertoRico as a State to this Union.

I would just hope that all Members,and because of their interest for theirconstituents, would pay particular at-tention. I would suggest that theycome over here. This debate is going totake 7 or 8 hours on this floor, but it isvery, very important.

I will be offering an amendment thatwill begin to emphasize that based onthis premise, for the past two centurieswe have forged a Nation out of our dif-

ferent peoples by emphasizing our com-mon beliefs, our common ideals, andperhaps, most importantly, Mr. Speak-er, our common language.

Our English language has permittedthis country to live up to our motto,our national motto, and that motto ise pluribus unum, and it means ‘‘out ofmany, one.’’ The English language isthe reason that we have survived theselast 200 years. Think about it.

f

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATIONOF H.R. 856, UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STA-TUS ACT

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by di-rection of the Committee on Rules, Icall up House Resolution 376 and askfor its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-lows:

H. RES. 376

Resolved, That at any time after the adop-tion of this resolution the Speaker may, pur-suant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare theHouse resolved into the Committee of theWhole House on the state of the Union forconsideration of the bill (H.R. 856) to providea process leading to full self-government forPuerto Rico. The first reading of the billshall be dispensed with. General debate shallbe confined to the bill and shall not exceedninety minutes equally divided and con-trolled by Representative Young of Alaska,Representative Miller of California, Rep-resentative Solomon of New York, and Rep-resentative Gutierrez of Illinois or their des-ignees. After general debate the bill shall beconsidered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment rec-ommended by the Committee on Resourcesnow printed in the bill, it shall be in order toconsider as an original bill for the purpose ofamendment under the five-minute rule theamendment in the nature of a substituteprinted in the Congressional Record andnumbered 1 pursuant to clause 6 of ruleXXIII. That amendment in the nature of asubstitute shall be considered as read. Pointsof order against that amendment in the na-ture of a substitute for failure to complywith clause 5(a) or rule XXI are waived.

SEC. 2. (a) Before consideration of anyother amendment, it shall be in order to con-sider the amendment printed in the Congres-sional Record and numbered 3 pursuant toclause 6 of rule XXIII. Consideration of thatamendment shall be preceded by an addi-tional period of general debate, which shallbe confined to the subject of that amend-ment and shall not exceed one hour equallydivided and controlled by RepresentativeSolomon of New York and a Member opposedto that amendment.

(b) Consideration of the amendment print-ed in the Congressional Record and num-bered 2 pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIIIshall be preceded by an additional period ofgeneral debate, which shall be confined tothe subject of that amendment and shall notexceed thirty minutes equally divided andcontrolled by Representative Serrano of NewYork and a Member opposed to that amend-ment.

(c) Amendments specified in subsections(a) and (b) of this resolution shall be consid-ered as read and shall not be subject to a de-mand for division of the question in theHouse or in the Committee of the Whole.Consideration of those amendments, and allamendments thereto, shall not exceed onehour.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH764 March 4, 1998SEC. 3. During consideration of the bill for

amendment, the Chairman of the Committeeof the Whole may accord priority in recogni-tion on the basis of whether the Member of-fering an amendment has caused it to beprinted in the portion of the CongressionalRecord designated for that purpose in clause6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shallbe considered as read. The Chairman of theCommittee of the Whole may: (1) postponeuntil a time during further consideration inthe Committee of the Whole a request for arecorded vote on any amendment; and (2) re-duce to five minutes the minimum time forelectronic voting on any postponed questionthat follows another electronic vote withoutintervening business, provided that the mini-mum time for electronic voting on the firstin any series of questions shall be fifteenminutes. At the conclusion of considerationof the bill for amendment the Committeeshall rise and report the bill to the Housewith such amendments as may have beenadopted. Any Member may demand a sepa-rate vote in the House on any amendmentadopted in the Committee of the Whole tothe bill or to the amendment in the nature ofa substitute made in order as original text.The previous question shall be considered asordered on the bill and amendments theretoto final passage without intervening motionexcept one motion to recommit with or with-out instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-tleman from New York (Mr. SOLOMON)is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for pur-poses of debate only, I yield the cus-tomary 30 minutes to my good friend,the gentleman from Massachusetts(Mr. MOAKLEY), pending which I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.During consideration of the resolution,all time yielded is for debate purposesonly.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 376 isan open rule providing for consider-ation of H.R. 856, which is the theUnited States-Puerto Rico PoliticalStatus Act. The rule provides 90 min-utes of general debate, equally dividedand controlled by the gentleman fromAlaska (Mr. YOUNG), the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. MILLER), myself,the gentleman from New York (Mr.SOLOMON), and the gentleman from Illi-nois (Mr. GUTIERREZ), or their des-ignees.

The rule makes in order the amend-ment in the nature of a substitute of-fered by the gentleman from Alaska(Chairman YOUNG) and printed in theCONGRESSIONAL RECORD and numbered1, which shall be considered as read.

The rule also waives clause 5(a) ofrule XXI prohibiting appropriations ina legislative bill against the amend-ment in the nature of a substitute. TheCommittee on Rules understands thiswaiver to be technical in nature, andfurther understands that the Commit-tee on Appropriations has no objectionto it.

Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule.However, the Committee on Rules de-cided to single out two significant pol-icy amendments for particular treat-ment for debate on this floor. The com-mittee determined that these amend-ments should receive a specified debatetime and a time certain to close debate

on those amendments and any amend-ments thereto.

These two amendments are the Solo-mon amendment, which clarifies theofficial role of English in governmentactivities, and the Serrano amend-ment, which relates to eligibility ofmainland U.S. citizens of Puerto Ricandescent to vote in a referendum.

After general debate on the bill,there will be an additional period ofgeneral debate on the Solomon amend-ment, and then 1 hour of considerationof the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the rule also providesthat the amendment of the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SERRANO) willhave 30 minutes of additional generaldebate time, similar to the Solomonamendment, and 1 hour of consider-ation for the amendment process; inother words, amendments offered tothat amendment.

The rule further provides that boththe Solomon amendment and theSerrano amendment shall be consid-ered as read and shall not be subject toa demand for a division of the questionin the House or in the Committee ofthe Whole, but there will be second de-gree amendments allowed to it, similarto an open rule process.

Mr. Speaker, the rule also providesthat the Chair is authorized to accordpriority in recognition to Members whohave preprinted their amendments inthe CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that ap-peared today.

The rule also allows for the Chair-man of the Committee of the Whole topostpone votes during 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.

Mr. Speaker, as the Members are wellaware, this is an extremely controver-sial issue. It is controversial among theAmerican people, and it is certainlycontroversial among the people thatreside on the islands of Puerto Rico.Members of the House are divided onthis issue, and not necessarily byparty.

However, despite our differences overthe substance of the legislation, manyof us have agreed that the fairest wayto consider this very controversial anddifficult issue is under an open rule,and I commend Chairman YOUNG forhis cooperation in bringing this matterto the floor under these considerationstoday.

b 1045The gentleman is an outstanding

Member of this body, and even thoughhe and I will tangle somewhat on thefloor, we will remain good friends whenwe leave here. He and I very rarely everdiffer. He and I have fought hundreds ofbattles on this floor in the last 20 yearson the issue of property rights, individ-ual property rights of individual Amer-icans, and we will continue to do thatas long as the two of us are left stand-ing on this floor.

Mr. Speaker, I admonished Memberswho appeared before the committeeyesterday to comport themselves in adignified fashion and to exercise re-straint in determining which amend-ments to offer and how many would beoffered. I am pleased to note that theMembers who appeared yesterday be-fore the Committee on Rules agreed tooffer a finite and limited number ofamendments. That means that those inopposition to the bill will probablyoffer 10 or 12 amendments at the verymost. Then there are several amend-ments by those that might be support-ive of the bill itself, that might havesome perfecting amendments as well.But other than that, we would expectthat this debate would continuethrough the day, but under no cir-cumstances would carry over into to-morrow.

So we would hope that Memberswould come here, that they would bedignified in their remarks, and that wewould speak to the issues and not getinto a lot of superfluous conversation.I would urge support of the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance ofmy time.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman from New York (Mr.SOLOMON), my very dear friend, foryielding me the customary half-hour.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of thisopen rule, and I commend my Chair-man for allowing the rule to come tothe floor in this position.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of self-deter-mination for the people of Puerto Ricohas been an issue for many, many dec-ades. This year marks the 100th anni-versary of Puerto Rico’s being part ofthe United States.

Eighty-three years ago, Mr. Speaker,in the midst of World War I, Congressextended American citizenship to theresidents of Puerto Rico with all of itsrights and responsibilities, includingbeing subject to the military draft.Since then, over 200,000 Puerto Ricanshave served in this country’s variousmilitary endeavors. Puerto Ricanspresently abide by all American lawspassed by this Congress. They are alsorequired to serve on juries. They pledgetheir allegiance to the flag of theUnited States.

This bill we consider today, Mr.Speaker, is a bill giving 3.8 million peo-ple of Puerto Rico their long-overdueright to self-determination. Contraryto what some people say, this is not astatehood bill. It simply allows thepeople of Puerto Rico to decide forthemselves what kind of relationshipthey will have with the United Statesrather than having it forced uponthem.

Under this bill, Puerto Rico has sev-eral options. They can be integratedinto the Union, as has Hawaii, or theycan remain a separate Nation as the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H765March 4, 1998Philippines did. And since 80 percent ofthe voters of Puerto Rico go to thepolls, we can be assured that their deci-sion will represent a very strong ma-jority.

Once they make that decision, nomatter what that decision may be, Ibelieve we should support them. And Iam not the only one who feels thatway.

Mr. Speaker, eight years ago I was anoriginal cosponsor of the legislationwhich passed the House to allow Puer-to Ricans to vote on the status of theirrelationship with this country. Unfor-tunately, Mr. Speaker, that bill died inthe Senate, but it did have the supportof the majority of this House.

Self-determination also had the sup-port of one of America’s most popularPresidents. I have here, Mr. Speaker, astatement by the idol of the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SOLOMON), Presi-dent Reagan. He supported PuertoRican self-determination in a state-ment dated January 12, 1982, which Iwould like to put in the RECORD.

In his statement, President Reagansays: ‘‘Puerto Ricans have fought be-side us for decades and have worked be-side us for generations. We recognizethe right of the Puerto Rican people toself-determination. President Reaganalso said that he believed that state-hood would benefit both the people ofPuerto Rico and their fellow Americancitizens in the States.’’

President Clinton supports the legis-lation, as did every Republican Presi-dent since Dwight Eisenhower. Mr.Speaker, it is a good idea whose time islong overdue. After 83 years of Amer-ican citizenship, this country owesthese people the right to make theirown decision. We owe them self-deter-mination. They are American citizens,Mr. Speaker, and they should be treat-ed as such.

Unfortunately, in addition to PuertoRican self-determination, which is avery popular idea, there is anotherissue which is being linked to the bill,the issue of whether the United Stateswill pick an official government lan-guage. Although English is certainlythe de facto language of our country,the Framers of our Constitution delib-erately refused to establish a nationalreligion or a national language. Peoplecome from all over the world to livehere, and are not linked to one anotherby common language. They are linkedto one another, Mr. Speaker, because oftheir love of freedom, their love of lib-erty.

President Reagan said, and I wouldlike the gentleman from New York, mydear friend, the former Marine to hearthis, Mr. Reagan said, and I quote, ‘‘Instatehood, the language and culture ofthe island, rich in history, would be re-spected, for in the United States thecultures of the world live together withpride.’’

In fact, when the Constitution wasdrafted, there were nearly as manypeople speaking German in this coun-try as there were speaking English.

English is already the primary lan-guage used in business, government,cultural affairs in the United States.But if we require English in all govern-mental functions, people who call 911and cannot speak fluent English mightbe in a lot of trouble.

So rather than mandating Englishand prohibiting technicians from doingtheir jobs in life-threatening situationsinvolving non-English speakers, I sug-gest we recognize the primary role ofEnglish in our national affairs, butallow the use of languages in othergovernmental functions when it is ap-propriate.

I think what I am trying to say, Mr.Speaker, is that people should be al-lowed to speak whatever language getsthe job done at 911, in police depart-ments, and with emergency and medi-cal technicians. In doing so we wouldnot only be respecting the wishes ofour Founding Fathers but also prob-ably saving many lives in the process.

So I urge my colleagues to supportthis rule, and I would like to just readone other statement which is attrib-uted to Ronald Reagan. It appeared inRoll Call Thursday, February 26. And Iquote again from Ronald Reagan whosaid this January 12, 1982. He said ‘‘Instatehood, the language and the cul-ture of the island, rich in history andin tradition, would be respected, for inthe United States, the cultures of theworld live together with pride.’’

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues tosupport this rule, to support the bill,and to defeat the English-only amend-ment.

Mr. Speaker, I include the followingfor the RECORD:

[The White House, Office of the PressSecretary, Jan. 12, 1982]

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

When I announced my candidacy for thisoffice more than two years ago, I pledged tosupport statehood for the Commonwealth ofPuerto Rico, should the people of that islandchoose it in a free and democratic election.Today I reaffirm that support, still confidentin my belief that statehood would benefitboth the people of Puerto Rico and their fel-low American citizens in the 50 states.

While I believe the Congress and the peopleof this country would welcome Puerto Ricanstatehood, this Administration will acceptwhatever choice is made by a majority of theisland’s population.

No nation, no organization nor individualwould mistake our intent in this. The statusof Puerto Rico is an issue to be settled bythe peoples of Puerto Rico and the UnitedStates. There must be no interference in thedemocratic process.

Puerto Ricans have borne the responsibil-ities of U.S. citizenship with honor and cour-age for more than 64 years. They have foughtbeside us for decades and have worked besideus for generations. Puerto Rico is playing animportant roll in the development of theCaribbean Basin Initiative and its strongtradition of democracy provides leadershipand stability in that region. In statehood,the language and culture of the island—richin history and tradition—would be respected,for in the United States the cultures of theworld live together with pride.

We recognize the right of the Puerto Ricanpeople to self-determination. If they choosestatehood, we will work together to devise a

union of promises and opportunity in ourFederal union of sovereign states.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance ofmy time.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume,just to respond to the gentleman fromBoston, Massachusetts (Mr. MOAKLEY)my very, very close friend.

Mr. Speaker, I would say, yes, I didserve in the United States MarineCorps back during the Korean War. Idid not have the privilege of serving incombat, but I served with a great manyPuerto Rican citizens of the UnitedStates and to this day they are some ofthe greatest friends that I have.

Unfortunately, they are divided onthis issue just as the rest of the PuertoRican people are, those that are stillalive, some of which I talked to just inthe last 48 hours. It breaks down whereone-third of them are for statehood,one-third of them are for common-wealth, and surprisingly, one-third ofthem are for independence. I did notthink that would be that high, but thatis the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I take a little umbrageat the gentleman, my good friend,pointing to the ads that appeared inRoll Call, and not just in Roll Call butin the Washington Times and all kindsof papers. Millions of dollars have beenspent by lobbyists trying to force aparticular issue on this Congress, and Ido not think the Congress is going tolisten to that today because they are apretty astute body.

But concerning my hero RonaldReagan and, yes, he is my hero and hewill forever be, even in spite of hisphysical condition today. It is so sad.But President Reagan, yes, he did. Hesupports self-determination, but hedoes not support this bill or its delib-erately skewed language favoringstatehood.

Mr. Speaker, let me read this letterthat I just received dated February 27,and it is from the Ronald ReaganFoundation. It says, ‘‘Dear Congress-man Solomon, thank you for your re-quest to clarify President Reagan’sparticipation in the current debate onPuerto Rican statehood. As I am sureyou understand, President Reagan isno longer participating in campaigns ofany kind.’’ Despite the unauthorizeduse of his name, appearing in that RollCall, ‘‘photograph and quotes in a re-cent ad in the Washington Times andRoll Call, he is not now nor will he everbe taking any position on H.R. 856, theissue of statehood for Puerto Rico, orself-determination for the PuertoRican people.’’ And it goes on to say,‘‘I hope this clarifies that issue.’’

Mr. Speaker, I was not going to getinto a debate on this during the rulebecause I was hopeful that we couldmove on to the general debate timeitself so that we would not be inter-rupted by other votes. But there aremany things that have held this coun-try together over the last 200 years.Many of them, as I quoted before, ‘‘epluribus unum’’ means out of many

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH766 March 4, 1998one. It means patriotism, it meanspride, it means volunteerism. Butabove all it means that we speak acommon language in this country.

We are a melting pot of the entireworld, of every ethnic background inthe entire world, and we are proud ofthat. But had we let these various lan-guages become a part of our Americanculture, this democracy would not behere today. And if my colleagues donot believe it, come up to my congres-sional district which borders on Can-ada, and see how we are faced with asituation in Quebec that literally tearsthat country asunder. We just cannotallow that to happen. And that is whyat the appropriate time I will be offer-ing an amendment that will clarify theEnglish-first language in this country.

Having said all of that, I appreciatethe remarks of the gentleman fromMassachusetts (Mr. MOAKLEY).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as hemay consume to the gentleman fromAlaska (Mr. YOUNG), one of the men Irespect most in this body, chairman ofthe Committee on Resources, and thesingle representative from the greatState of Alaska.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, Irise in support of the rule for consider-ation of the United States-Puerto RicoPolitical Status Act, H.R. 856.

The proposed open rule is consistentwith the process which is followed bythe Committee on Resources in the de-velopment of this bill to resolve theUnited States political status problemwith Puerto Rico.

This was an effort to reach out andinclude as many sectors as possible ina fair manner in which the facts wereopenly aired and examined without re-spect to special interests or local polit-ical considerations.

I can confirm that as the chairman ofthe House committee of jurisdictionfor territorial affairs, the committeefollowed and completed every legisla-tive step in the development of this ini-tiative during the past 4 years from1995 to the present time.

Five extensive hearings with thebroadest participation possible wereheld in Washington and Puerto Rico.Testimony was heard from individualswith many different views on the fu-ture relationship of Puerto Rico andthe United States. Special attentionwas given to allow the three principalparties in Puerto Rico, each represent-ing the status of commonwealth, inde-pendence, or statehood, to presenttheir preferred definition with their re-spective status options.

Subsequent deliberations by Mem-bers of Congress were complete and ex-haustive. All the issues have beenraised and debated.

Once Members examined the com-plexity of the problems, they realizedthat this bill is the most viable way toaddress the problems facing the UnitedStates due to failure to permanentlyresolve Puerto Rico’s status.

The bill’s self-determination processin H.R. 856 is a carefully crafted three-

stage process, a three-stage processleading to full self-government forPuerto Rico as a separate sovereign na-tion or a State of the Union if the ma-jority of the people are ready to changethe current form of local self-govern-ment as the Commonwealth of PuertoRico.

b 1100Congress and the Americans of Puer-

to Rico will be required to vote in eachof the three stages of the bill. I want tostress that. Congress and the Ameri-cans of Puerto Rico will be required tovote in each of the three stages of thebill, an initial referendum, a 10-yeartransition plan, and the final imple-mentation act. If there is no majorityfor change, then the status quo contin-ues and United States citizens of Puer-to Rico are consulted again by referen-dum at least once every 10 years.

The Committee on Resources over-whelmingly approved and reported ittwice, first in the 104th Congress andnow in the 105th Congress. I firmly be-lieve it is appropriate and necessary forthe full House to now consider theUnited States-Puerto Rico PoliticalStatus Act, H.R. 856.

In carrying out congressional respon-sibilities under the Constitution forterritories, Congress will be able to di-rectly respond to the request of theLegislature of Puerto Rico to the 105thCongress to define the status choicesand authorize a process to resolvePuerto Rico’s political status dilemma.I support this rule, and I will discuss indebate the merits of all amendmentsthat come before us.

I want my colleagues to understandthis is nothing new. This is a project Iworked on, my committee has workedon, the people of Puerto Rico haveworked on for the last 4 years. It istime to act. It is time for this Con-gress, this House, to pass this legisla-tion for America, for the people ofPuerto Rico. This rule is a good rule,and I urge passage of the rule but,more than that, the defeat of someamendments and final passage of thislegislation, long overdue for the peopleof Puerto Rico.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.Maybe I did not make myself clear. Iam not insinuating in any way thatformer President Ronald Reagan is forthis bill. All I want to do was to reada statement he put out in a press re-lease. Once a President speaks, use ofthat language is never unauthorizedbecause that is his statement. It is his-tory. Once again, he said, in statehood,the language and culture of the island,rich in history, rich in tradition, wouldbe respected, for in the United Statesthe cultures of the world live togetherwith pride. Ronald Reagan.

The reason I wanted to make it soplain is because I know my dear friend,the gentleman from New York (Mr.SOLOMON), idolizes President Reagan,and rightly so. I just wanted to be surehe knew what the President’s thoughtswere when he did address the PuertoRican situation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to thegentleman from New York (Mr.SERRANO).

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise instrong support of this rule and instrong support of the bill which we aredealing with today. This is indeed ahistoric moment because, make nomistake about it, this is the first timethat a rule has come on this floor ac-companying a bill of this nature thatwill, in my opinion, begin a process toend what I and many other people con-sider, and all should consider, thepresent colonial status of Puerto Rico.

In order to do this, we have to putforth a process. This rule puts forth aprocess for the debate, and the bill putsforth the process for ending the colo-nial status. We have to immediatelyattack that which is being said eitherwith a lack of information or viciouslyto defeat the bill, which is that thisbill leads Puerto Rico towards state-hood. How can it do that if this Con-gress is not committing itself at thispoint to any of the three options?

What this Congress is saying is, wewill allow you in consultation with usto take a vote, and then the results ofthat vote will become our consider-ation here on the House floor. Somemay be afraid that the vote wouldcome out against the option theyfavor. That is democracy. Some may beafraid that the option somebody favorswill never be dealt with. We can onlyfind out. But I assure my colleaguesthat nothing will happen unless we ap-prove this rule and approve this bill. Infact, I often tell people, I have a 31-year-old daughter and a 4-year-oldgranddaughter. I suspect that if thisbill fails today, my grandchildren, asadults, will still be discussing the colo-nial status of Puerto Rico.

As we get close to the year 2000, andonce in a while we listen to the U.N.,the U.N. has suggested that all coun-tries unload their territories and colo-nies before 2000. The greatest democ-racy on Earth still holds close to 4 mil-lion people in that kind of a situation.I do not care if statehood wins. I do notcare if independence wins. I do careevery day when I get up and I realizethat the children of Puerto Rico are allmembers of a colony. It is good for theU.S. Government to change this. It isgood for the Puerto Rican people tochange it.

So I congratulate the gentlemanfrom Alaska (Mr. YOUNG) for bringingthis bill, and I congratulate my col-league the gentleman from New York(Mr. SOLOMON) for this rule. I will notagree with the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. SOLOMON) on everythingtoday, and I will not agree on manythings during the session with the gen-tleman from Alaska (Mr. YOUNG), butwe agree on this beyond anything else,and that is why I was proud to add myname as a co-prime sponsor early on.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H767March 4, 1998I do not move back from that com-

mitment. I support the Young bill withevery bit of strength in this body, be-cause after 100 years with the U.S. and405 years with Spain, it is time thatPuerto Rico knew whether it can jointhe community of nations as an inde-pendent Nation or gain sovereignty byjoining the Union.

Either one is correct. The present isnot. I support the rule. Vote for it. AndI will support the bill strongly today. Iam sure that if I am given time, youwill hear from me a few times duringthe day today.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield6 minutes to the gentleman from Puer-to Rico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO).

(Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO asked andwas given permission to revise and ex-tend his remarks.)

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speak-er, I rise to support the rule for thisH.R. 856. Today this House will con-sider the United States-Puerto RicoPolitical Status Act. For the people Irepresent, the 3,800,000 United Statescitizens living in Puerto Rico, the en-actment of this legislation would bethe single most important political de-velopment in 100 years. Yet many ofmy colleagues may wonder why thislegislation is necessary and why theyor their constituents should care aboutPuerto Rico.

They should care because, geographyaside, no citizen and no constituency inthis Nation is an island. They shouldcare because the rights and privilegesdenied to one group of citizens threat-en the rights and privileges enjoyed bythe entire body politic. They shouldcare because as individuals and as aNation, to paraphrase the English au-thor C.S. Lewis, we are defined by thechoices we make. Incrementally, inseemingly insignificant small steps, wemake decisions, and those decisions de-fine us. Our choices tell us who we are.

The fundamental choice before thisHouse today is this: Do we cherish theprinciples of our democracy enough toput an end to 100 years of colonialismand extend the right of full self-deter-mination to the U.S. citizens of PuertoRico? A century ago when the victori-ous United States signed the Treaty ofParis ending the Spanish-AmericanWar, it acquired Puerto Rico as a pos-session. Article 9 of the treaty statedthat the civil rights and political sta-tus of the native inhabitants of the ter-ritories hereby ceded to the UnitedStates shall be determined by the Con-gress. Subsequent Supreme Court deci-sions have ruled that Puerto Rico’sstatus is that of an incorporated terri-tory subject to the plenary authorityof Congress under the territorial clauseof the Constitution.

Exercising its powers, Congressgranted citizenship to the residents ofPuerto Rico by statute in 1917. And in1950, with the passage of the PuertoRico Federal Relations Act, Congressauthorized the people of Puerto Rico todraw up a Constitution and organize alocal government.

Let us be clear about what the Puer-to Rico Federal Relations Act did anddid not do. After nearly a half centuryof obfuscation, some partisans wouldhave us believe that Puerto Rico’s cur-rent commonwealth status is the prod-uct of a bilateral pact between PuertoRico and the United States and thatthe island is really a free associatedState or an associated Republic. Butthe unvarnished truth is that PuertoRico’s colonial status remains un-changed. As a territory, we are self-governed in local matters not coveredby Federal laws, but we have never ex-ercised self-determination.

The Congressional record is clear.The intent of the Puerto Rico FederalRelations Act was to create a provi-sional government until the issue ofstatus was resolved, and if anythingwas decided in the 1993 plebiscite, it isthat for the first time since the UnitedStates arrived on our shores, PuertoRico is being ruled by Congress underan agreement that does not have thesupport of the majority of the people ofPuerto Rico. We are being governedwithout the consent of the governed.

Like Dorothy in the Land of Oz, wecould sit here, click our heels threetimes, and wish the problem would dis-appear. Where would it go, to Kansas?But it will not. The fact is that onlyCongress has the authority to resolvethis dilemma, and only Congress cancreate an environment in which PuertoRicans can legitimately address thisissue.

This is precisely what the UnitedStates-Puerto Rico Political StatusAct is designed to do. This legislationdoes not endorse one political choiceover another. It is status neutral. All itseeks to do is create constitutionallysound and congressionally approveddefinitions of status options to be con-sidered by the people of Puerto Rico.

The bill proposes a timetable for ref-erendums on status, and it makes pro-visions, should they prove necessary,for a smooth transition to and for theimplementation of a new political sta-tus. These measures are critical if thestatus process is to go forward and ifself-determination by the people ofPuerto Rico is to have any meaning oflegitimacy. The people of Puerto Rico,to borrow words of Israel’s Golda Meirfrom 1946, only want that which isgiven naturally to all peoples of theworld, to be masters of our fate. Thatfor which the Puerto Ricans foughtside by side with our fellow citizens inthe mainland, defending other coun-tries on foreign shores, to stand for theright of people’s self-determination, isbeing denied to 3.8 million U.S. citi-zens.

Some of my colleagues in this Housewhose districts include large PuertoRican communities would deny us this.But unlike my constituents, these ex-patriate Puerto Ricans enjoy votingrepresentation in Congress and theright to vote in Presidential elections,and although the economic, social andpolitical affairs of the residents of

Puerto Rico are in great measure con-trolled by the government in which wehave little to say, they would still denythe right to vote and the right to vot-ing representation by opposing thisbill.

All of my colleagues here today havethe privilege of voting yes or no on theUnited States-Puerto Rico PoliticalStatus Act. Yet I am the sole Rep-resentative of this House for 3.8 millionU.S. citizens in Puerto Rico. I cannotvote. This is the defining legislationfor my constituents, and I cannot vote.This legislation would end 100 years ofPuerto Rico’s colonial relationshipwith the Nation, yet I cannot vote.

I ask you, do you cherish the prin-ciples of our democracy enough to dis-mantle 100 years of colonialism and ex-tend the right of full self-determina-tion to the U.S. citizens of PuertoRico? I hope you do, for our sake andfor the Nation’s sake.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consumejust to respond somewhat to the lastseveral speakers.

Just responding to the statement ofthe gentleman from Massachusetts(Mr. MOAKLEY) about the position ofPresident Ronald Reagan on this bill, Idid not read the last sentence in thisletter from his Chief of Staff JoanneDrake. It says, I hope this clears upany misunderstandings that these adsmay have caused. These ads did not re-ceive the authorization of RonaldReagan to run.

b 1115Now, let me also state for the gen-

tleman from Massachusetts (Mr. MOAK-LEY) that I had another idol, too, thatI idolized very much, and he used to sitin that chair up there. He was a goodfriend of the gentleman’s, and his namewas Tip O’Neill. He was one prettytough hombre, but he was pretty fair tous in the minority and that is why Ialso respected him a great deal

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gen-tleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I wouldpoint out to the gentleman that he justused a non-English word. Is the gen-tleman sure he wants to put that in theRECORD, ‘‘hombre’’?

Mr. SOLOMON. Well, Mr. Speaker,reclaiming my time, let me also re-spond a little bit on the colonialismissue by my very, very good friend, thegentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. RO-MERO-BARCELO). And I was willing toeven yield him an additional minute ifhe had needed it. But it really hurts alot of our feelings on both sides of theaisle to talk about this issue of colo-nialism because, my colleagues, thereis no colonialism.

If the people of Puerto Rico over-whelmingly want statehood in thiscountry, I will be the first to help leadthe fight to bring them in, just as wedid for the Northern Marianas, for theMarshall Islands, for Palau and for Mi-cronesia. When the issues came up, we

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH768 March 4, 1998pushed for them to make a decision oneway or the other, but we did not try tojam one particular idea on them.

And, consequently, the Marshall Is-lands and Palau and Micronesia be-came sovereign Nations under a freeassociation with the United Stateswhereby we do help them, they providemilitary bases to us, and there is avery close relationship. But under nocircumstances did we try to keep themin a colonial position.

The Northern Marianas chose to stayas a trust to the United States ofAmerica, but they chose it. We did notask them to. So is that colonialism?The answer is absolutely not. And thetruth of the matter is when the PuertoRican people, when they overwhelm-ingly want statehood, as did the peopleof Alaska and as did the people of Ha-waii, when the vote came in a plebi-scite in Alaska, 83 percent of the peoplewanted statehood. Eighty-three per-cent. When the people of Hawaii want-ed to come into this Nation of ours asthe 49th State, they wanted it by 94percent.

Today, my good friend, the gen-tleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO), indicated that the majorityof people in Puerto Rico want state-hood. That just is not true. In the lastplebiscite of 1993, a majority of the peo-ple wanted something other than state-hood. And I defy anyone to come downhere and show me the facts any dif-ferently.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as hemay consume to the gentleman fromthe State of Mississippi (Mr. WICKER), avery, very important Member of thisbody and a member of the Committeeon Appropriations.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thistime. I have the greatest respect forthe gentleman from New York (Mr.SOLOMON), the chairman of the Com-mittee on Rules. He is put in a very dif-ficult position today. He has a toughjob, Mr. Speaker. He is put in the posi-tion of presenting a rule to this bodyon a bill that he is vigorously, vigor-ously opposed to. So I have always re-spected him for the hard job he has,but even more so today because of theposition that he has found himself in.

I also have the greatest respect forsome of the proponents of this legisla-tion. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr.YOUNG), chairman of the Committee onResources, is a very effective leader inthe House of Representatives. He be-lieves fervently in this issue, and he isentitled to his beliefs and his opinionsand has worked very effectively for thelegislation, and I have great respect forhis viewpoint.

However, I do oppose the bill and op-pose the rule, Mr. Speaker, because Ido not believe the American peoplehave enough facts about this issue. I donot believe the American people areprepared to have their national legisla-ture move on a decision concerningPuerto Rican statehood.

Now, there are people who have risenon the floor today and previously, who

said this is not a statehood bill, but Iwould submit to my colleagues, Mr.Speaker, that this is very much astatehood bill. And this is the reason—as the chairman has previously stated,Puerto Rico has voted previously, veryrecently, on the issue of statehood, andthey rejected the idea of statehood;1993, I believe, was the latest plebiscite.This bill, if passed by the House of Rep-resentatives, and if enacted by the Sen-ate and signed by the President, wouldsay to the Commonwealth of PuertoRico, ‘‘Vote again, you did not get itright last time.’’ If Puerto Rico votesfor statehood with 50 percent plus 1, abare majority, then the Congress of theUnited States will have to decide theissue to decide. We must vote on a billto decide whether to grant the Com-monwealth of Puerto Rico their state-hood. However, in this referendum thatis proposed by this bill, if PuertoRicans vote once again for common-wealth status, this bill says, ‘‘Wait aminute, you didn’t get it right. We willlet that decision stand, but just for alittle while. And after 10 years youmust vote again and you must voteagain and you must vote again untilyou get it right. And the right decisionis statehood.’’

So I would say that the bill is de-signed to eventually get a decision bythe Puerto Rican people for statehood.And because of that, I say that enact-ment of the bill would inevitably putus down the path to admitting PuertoRico as the 51st State, and that is a se-rious, serious decision. This is a majordecision.

Adding a star to the United Statesflag is a major decision for Americansto make. It is a serious matter whichCongress and the American people needto have a full understanding about. I donot think the American people knowthis issue is out there. When I wenthome to my constituents, they had noidea that Congress was about to voteon a bill which will inevitably lead tostatehood.

So for that reason, I oppose the rule.I respect the chairman for bringing itforward, but I think that if we as abody want to take the position todaythat, having had this debate this morn-ing, this issue is not ripe for a decisionand we need to go back and have a fur-ther national conversation about this,I think the correct decision is to vote‘‘no’’ on the rule. And that will be myvote, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume tosay that this is the first time I haveheard that one of the major problemswith this bill is adding a star to theflag. Betsy Ross did not have any trou-ble, and she did not even have the ma-chinery we have today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to thegentleman from Illinois (Mr. GUTIER-REZ).

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I risein opposition to this bill but in supportof the rule. I would like to thank thegentleman from New York (Mr. SOLO-

MON), the chairman of the Committeeon Rules, and the gentleman from Mas-sachusetts (Mr. MOAKLEY), for havingan open rule today, because, finally, weare going to have some debate on thisvery critical issue, debate that I mustsay that on numerous occasions I, as aMember of this Congress, who rep-resents over 150,000 Puerto Ricans inmy district, was not allowed to partici-pate in that debate. I think that waswrong. And now we want to have a de-bate here. So I want to thank both ofthe gentlemen for that.

I only come to raise one issue rightnow. I have a very deep preoccupationat this point, concern, and that is thatall of these proceedings are being con-ducted in English. All of these proceed-ings are being conducted in English,and yet the people of Puerto Rico arethe ones who are going to have to in-terpret everything that this Congressis doing. Many of them are not going tobe able to understand what is going onhere today, Mr. Speaker.

I know some of my colleagues willsmile and chuckle, but it really is notanything funny. It is serious. Peopleshould understand, American citizensshould understand what it is this Con-gress is doing in terms of their posi-tion.

Let me give my colleagues an exam-ple, gentlemen. If I walk into a theater,a movie theater today anywhere inPuerto Rico, anywhere in Puerto Rico,there are subtitles to everything saidin English, in every movie theater inPuerto Rico. Why? So that the peoplecan grasp what is going on in themovie. Many times I would laugh twoseconds ahead of the rest of the audi-ence because by the time they read thetranslation, I am an English nativespeaker, and I would understand that.

So I bring that as an issue that evenin movie theaters, even in entertain-ment, and this is much more importantthan that. Look, if we were in theHouse of Representatives in San Juan,Puerto Rico, all of this would be goingon in Spanish. So the legislators, whenthey legislate in Puerto Rico, do it allin Spanish. If we were in the Senate inPuerto Rico it would all be being con-ducted in Spanish so that the peoplewould understand the proceedings ofthe representatives they elect.

If we were in a courtroom, the judgeand the lawyers would all be speakingin Spanish. If we were buying a piece ofproperty today, we would register thatpiece of property, not in English, but inSpanish.

So I would like to ask the chairmanof the Rules Committee to see if thereis some way that we might not havesome simultaneous broadcast of this, away in which this House of Representa-tives could translate so that the peopleof Puerto Rico can be fully informed ofthe farce of self-determination which isbeing perpetuated upon them with thisbill here today.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I havetwo remaining speakers. How muchtime do I have, Mr. Speaker, and how

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H769March 4, 1998much time does the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. SOLOMON) have?

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.PEASE). The gentleman from Massachu-setts (Mr. MOAKLEY) has 9 minutes re-maining, and the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. SOLOMON) has 10 minutes re-maining.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield4 minutes to the gentlewoman from theVirgin Islands (Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN).

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Speak-er, I thank the gentleman from Massa-chusetts for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of therule. This is an important day for thepeople of Puerto Rico. As a representa-tive of the Virgin Islands, an unincor-porated territory of the U.S., we fullysupport our brothers and sisters andour neighbor to the northwest on theirjourney to determine their relationshipto the United States and achieve fullself-government.

As we do so, we fully recognize howmuch what is done here today will like-ly influence and impact on the deter-mination of our future relationship aswell.

For this reason, it is of the utmostimportance to us that Congress and theadministration support the process ofself-determination, which it does. It isalso important, however, that the proc-ess be one generated, determined, anddriven by the people of Puerto Rico,and that the integrity of this processbe maintained.

I am, therefore, Mr. Speaker, verysympathetic to the concerns of the sup-porters of commonwealth for fairnessin the presentation of the option theyrepresent and all other options of H.R.856.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned not onlythat the definition presently in the billdoes not reflect their input from thePDP, but also that H.R. 856 containslanguage which could lead one to con-clude that the status of commonwealthwould be a less than desirable choicefor the people of Puerto Rico.

What may be viewed, Mr. Speaker, bysupporters of statehood for Puerto Ricoand reflected in this bill as an insup-portable, undemocratic, and colonialstatus, could in fact be what my con-stituents and those of other territorialdelegates aspire to, given the same op-portunity.

While commonwealth may not be astatus which provides complete andfull self-government today, its con-stitutional limitations should not betrumpeted for the sake of expediency.

This Congress has a responsibility toensure that any process it creates forthe people of Puerto Rico or any of theisland territories to exercise theirright to self-determination must bebalanced and provide inclusion and fairtreatment for all of the options avail-able.

In this regard, I look forward to sup-porting an amendment in the nature ofa substitute which I understand will beoffered later and which was worked outby the authors of H.R. 856 and the gen-

tleman from California (Mr. MILLER),the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, the people of PuertoRico have waited 100 years for the op-portunity to be given a legitimatechance to exercise the full right tocomplete self-determination. While notperfect, the bill before us today is agood beginning.

We have an opportunity to say to thepeople of Puerto Rico, as well as theVirgin Islands and the other terri-tories, that the Congress of the UnitedStates respects us and will provide afair and comprehensive process for usto make known our choice on the fur-ther political status of our islandswhenever we are ready to do so.

The question of political status hasfor too long dominated the politicallandscape in Puerto Rico. What we dohere today will go a long way towardsfinally resolving this issue once and forall. I urge passage of the rule.

I thank the gentleman from Massa-chusetts for yielding me time.

b 1130

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I sub-mit for the RECORD a short explanationof section 6 of H.R. 856, an analysis ofthat section of the expedited proce-dures.

The document is as follows:ANALYSIS OF SECTION 6 OF H.R. 856

Requires the majority leaders in both theHouse of Representatives and the Senate tointroduce legislation to implement the tran-sition plan and implementation plan, as thecase may be, no later than 5 legislative daysafter the President submits such legislationto Congress.

Requires such legislation to be imme-diately referred to the committee or com-mittees of jurisdiction and, if not reportedwithin 120 calendar days of session after itsintroduction, automatically discharged andplaced on the appropriate legislative cal-endar.

Makes in order, as a highly privileged mat-ter in the House and a privileged matter inthe Senate, a motion to proceed to the con-sideration of the legislation qualified underthese expedited procedures by a Member fa-voring the legislation, but not until: (1) thelegislation has been on the calendar for 14legislative days; (2) the Member consultswith the presiding officer of the respectiveHouse as to scheduling; and (3) after thethird legislative day after the Member givesnotice to the respective House.

Waives all points of order against the mo-tion and against consideration of the motionand, if agreed to, requires the House or theSenate, as the case may be, to proceed to im-mediate consideration of the legislationwithout intervening motion (except one mo-tion to adjourn) or other business.

Stipulates that in the House of Represent-atives, the legislation would be: consideredin the Committee of the Whole; debatable forfour hours equally divided between a pro-ponent and an opponent; and subject to afour hour amendment process (excluding re-corded votes and quorum calls).

Requires, after the committee rises, thatthe previous question be considered as or-dered to final passage without interveningmotion, except one motion to recommit withor without instructions.

Provides procedures in the House and Sen-ate for the hook-up of identical legislationpassed by both Houses or, in the event that

one House receives a request for a conferencefrom the other House, to a make in orderafter three legislative days following the re-ceipt of such a request a motion by anyMember to disagree to the amendment of theother House and agree to the conference.

Defines the term ‘‘legislative day’’ in theHouse and the Senate to mean a day onwhich such House is in session.

Provides that the procedures of H.R. 856are enacted as an exercise of the constitu-tional rulemaking authority of the Houseand the Senate with full recognition of theright of either House to change its rules atanytime.SHORT EXPLANATION OF SECTION 6 OF H.R. 856

H.R. 856 requires a referendum to be heldby December 31, 1998, on Puerto Rico’s pathto self-government either through U.S.statehood or through sovereign independenceor free association. It requires the Presidentto submit to the Congress for approval legis-lation for: (1) a transition plan of up to tenyears which leads to full self-government forPuerto Rico; and (2) a recommendation forthe implementation of such self-governmentconsistent with Puerto Rico’s approval.

Section 6 of H.R. 856 specifies the expeditedprocedures in the House of Representativesand the Senate for the consideration of legis-lation introduced to implement a transitionplan and an implementation plan. Legisla-tion introduced in the 104th Congress (H.R.3024) contained procedures that the RulesCommittee found to be unworkable and in-consistent with the stated goals of the legis-lation. Consequently, on September 18, 1996,the Committee reported H.R. 3024 with a newSection 6, which more clearly reaches thestated goal and rational behind including theexpedited procedures in the bill, as well asbeing consistent with the Rules of the Housegoverning normal procedure. Those sameprovisions are contained in Section 6 of H.R.856.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield31⁄2 minutes to the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. ROHRABACHER), an ex-tremely outstanding Member of thisbody.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker,first let me thank the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. SOLOMON) for the lead-ership that he is providing on thisissue. We have learned quite often thatproviding leadership on controversialissues leads one to personal attacks.The gentleman from New York (Mr.SOLOMON) has courageously steppedforward to provide leadership on thisissue that is not only important to thepeople of Puerto Rico but also impor-tant to the people of the United Statesof America as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, while I oppose H.R. 856in its current form, I do support anopen rule for its consideration. Thenumber one reason why this bill shouldbe opposed is because it sets up basi-cally, as we have heard in this debateso far, an unfair and undemocraticprocess that will cause the largestgroup of Puerto Rican voters to boy-cott the election, thus producing aphony majority for statehood.

Whenever any other territory hascome into the Union, they have peti-tioned for giving their residents the op-portunity for an up or down, yes or novote. That is the normal process that isexpected, but it is not good enough forPuerto Rico. Why? Because the Puerto

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH770 March 4, 1998Rican Government is controlled bystatehood supporters who know frompast balloting and current polling thatthey would lose a fair up and down voteon statehood.

The statehood supporters have ma-neuvered the Committee on Resourcesinto constructing a ballot that will notreflect the will of the people. This isbecause the definition of ‘‘common-wealth’’ in the bill describes a colonialstatus that is unacceptable tocommonwealthers, leaving them nochoice but to boycott the election sincethey oppose all 3 options offered by thebill.

Back in Puerto Rico, statehood sup-porters are gloating about how the def-inition being used in the bill will guar-antee a victory for statehood eventhough they know the majority of peo-ple do not support statehood. They areright about the outcome of this bill,but they are wrong to do this to thepeople of Puerto Rico.

The phony pro-statehood majorityproduced by this bill then sets in mo-tion a mandatory statehood vote inCongress next year and two more votesin Puerto Rico. But even then, that fardown the road to statehood, H.R. 856still does not provide the people ofPuerto Rico an up or down vote, a yesor no vote as to whether or not theywant to become a State.

Why are we so afraid to treat thepeople of Puerto Rico as we have everyother State that has entered theUnion? This is what we have done toevery other people who wanted to jointhe Union. We have given them a yes orno vote on statehood. Why are peoplenow trying to maneuver it so the peo-ple of Puerto Rico do not have this op-portunity? Because they know that thepeople of Puerto Rico, given the oppor-tunity, will vote ‘‘no’’ on statehood.

Mr. Speaker, the fair way to handlethis is the way we have always done it,is to give the people a chance for an upor down vote. If this is a first step to-ward statehood, if this is a first steptoward treating the Puerto Rican peo-ple as all other citizens of the UnitedStates, they should be treated just asevery other group trying to join theUnited States were treated. H.R. 856 re-jects the simple, fair way that wasgood enough for everybody else andsubstitutes a skewed ballot with fore-ordained results. We should not standfor this unfair, undemocratic process.We should reject H.R. 856 while accept-ing the rule.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield1 minute to the gentlewoman from NewYork (Ms. VELAZQUEZ).

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentlewoman from NewYork (Ms. VELAZQUEZ).

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.PEASE). The gentlewoman from NewYork (Ms. VELAZQUEZ) is recognized for2 minutes.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I risein strong opposition to the bill. I thankthe gentleman from New York (Mr.SOLOMON) for providing the only thing

that is fair about this bill, that is, toprovide a rule that will provide a freeand open debate. That is what this billneeds.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about self-determination. This is legislation thathas been drafted by the statehood sup-porters. They were the ones who pro-vided the definition for the common-wealth, indeed denying access to thedemocratic process by not allowing 48percent of the people of Puerto Rico toparticipate in this debate. Forty-eightpercent of the people of Puerto Ricosupported commonwealth 5 years agowhen the last plebiscite was held. Buthere we are presenting to the Housefloor legislation that will favor thestatehood for Puerto Rico.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake. Byvoting on this legislation, we are im-posing statehood to the people of Puer-to Rico. It is a shame that today byproviding in the commonwealth defini-tion that citizenship is statutory, it isshameful, it is a lack of respect to thepeople of Puerto Rico, it is a lack of re-spect to the men and women who havedied, who have fought defending thiscountry, and it is to say to even thesupporters of the Commonwealth ofPuerto Rico, you cannot support theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico becausewe will take the citizenship away fromyou. This is not about self-determina-tion. This is about making Puerto Ricothe 51st State of the Nation.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yieldthe balance of my time to the gen-tleman who represents the northernpart of Puerto Rico, that is, Provi-dence, Rhode Island (Mr. KENNEDY).

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr.Speaker, I thank the gentleman fromMassachusetts (Mr. MOAKLEY) foryielding me the time. I appreciate thechance to address the point of the gen-tlewoman from New York (Ms.VELAZQUEZ) about this bill because itwas addressed earlier by the gentlemanfrom Chicago, Illinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ)about the fact that this process wasnot fair. It is ironic that this processwas not fair because it did not includethe commonwealth definition. Yet inthe bill itself, the commonwealth hasan opportunity to vote for the statusquo in this legislation.

But let me address the issue that shebrought up. The reason why this is soawful to the gentlewoman from NewYork (Ms. VELAZQUEZ) and people ofPuerto Rican descent is the same rea-son it is awful for people who feel thatwe ought to have statehood for PuertoRico. That is, without statehood thepeople of Puerto Rico are put down.

Just as she said, without statehood,the people of Puerto Rico can havetheir citizenship denied, because it willbe up to this Congress in its constitu-tional authority, given the fact thatPuerto Rico is a territory under theterritorial clause of this United StatesConstitution, that at any time thisCongress can take away the citizenshipof the people of Puerto Rico. At anytime the people of Puerto Rico can

have the Solomon language imposed onthem.

The irony with the gentleman fromIllinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ) saying ‘‘I wishthis was in Spanish’’ is that the onlyway to guarantee the people of PuertoRico that they have a right to speaktheir own language is if they get to be-come a State. Because if they are aState, they have the rights under the10th Amendment of the United StatesConstitution. They reserve the powerto decide what their local languagewill be, just as every other State inthis Union is able to do.

The irony is, unless Puerto Rico be-comes a State, they will not be able todecide what their language will be,they will not ever be able to vote forthe things that we vote on regularlythat affect them. The irony in this de-bate is that we keep hearing that thisprocess is unfair.

Let us understand. The gentlemanfrom Mississippi (Mr. WICKER) said thatwe already had a referendum. Unfortu-nately, Mr. Speaker, the problem is itdoes not matter what Puerto Ricodoes. The whole purpose of this debateis that the Congress has to give its ap-proval so that Puerto Rico can decide.

They cannot decide now. They neverhad the decision. Those plebisciteswere not sanctioned by the UnitedStates Congress. And because theywere not sanctioned by the UnitedStates Congress, they have no mean-ing. Why? Because, once again, PuertoRico is under the territorial clause ofthe United States Constitution, mean-ing until they become a State or untilthey become an independent nation,they cannot choose for themselves.

That is why we are putting this billforward, because we believe they oughtto be able to decide for themselves.That is what this debate is all about. Iwant to commend the gentleman fromAlaska (Mr. YOUNG), and I want tocommend the gentleman from Massa-chusetts (Mr. MOAKLEY). I want tothank them for having this debate andallowing this debate to come on thefloor.

I need to repeat this. We can argueuntil we are blue in the face about anyother issue. Just understand this. Puer-to Rico is under the territorial clauseof the United States Constitution. I ama member of the Committee on Re-sources. The Committee on Resourceshas jurisdiction over territories andcommonwealths and Native Americanreservations. Have my colleagues everheard of that before? It is called theterritorial clause. We have to vote on abill to allow the people of Puerto Ricothe right to make a choice.

I am really looking forward to thisdebate because the fact of the matteris, if we understand the simple factthat this is simply about giving thecongressional authority to the peopleof Puerto Rico so they can make uptheir own mind, then I think this de-bate will become clearer.

Let me just conclude by saying withrespect to English as the mandatory

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H771March 4, 1998language by the Solomon amendment,there will be an amendment to the Sol-omon amendment that will allow us totreat Puerto Rico, in the event that itbecomes a State, which I hope it does,like any other State in this country.But the Solomon amendment is veryunfair and discriminatory because itaffects the people of Puerto Rico sin-gularly and it does not apply to thepeople of Puerto Rico the same way itapplies to everyone else in this coun-try. I might add, English is the officiallanguage in all the proceedings withingovernment on the island of PuertoRico.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I lookforward to the debate with the gen-tleman from Rhode Island on the Solo-mon amendment. I might also add thatthe gentleman ought to be a littlemore benevolent in his praise for thosewho brought this bill to the floor.Think about that, when he only men-tioned the names of YOUNG and MOAK-LEY.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to thegentlewoman from New York (Ms.VELAZQUEZ).

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I justwould like to respond to the gentlemanfrom Rhode Island (Mr. KENNEDY).

The problem with this bill is dueprocess. If we are talking here aboutself-determination, what we are sayingis we are going to provide an open,democratic process for all the politicalparties and all the political sectors inPuerto Rico to participate. This legis-lation does not do that. Why, instead ofwriting the definition among the gen-tleman from California (Mr. MILLER),the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.YOUNG) and the gentleman from PuertoRico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO).

In fact the president of the PopularDemocratic Party knew about the newdefinition when he was approached by areporter in Puerto Rico. The definitionwas rewritten when El Nuevo Dia, thelargest newspaper in Puerto Rico, pub-lished a poll that said that 75 percentof the people of Puerto Rico favored acommonwealth option to be included inthis bill.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.Let me be brief so we can get on withthe debate on the bill.

I would like to point out that thereare those that think that some peopleare pandering for the Hispanic vote. Iwould just like to point out that in thenational Latino poll back in 1992,which is the last official poll on record,that the Mexican-American people inthe United States of America that livehere opposed statehood by 55.4 percent.In other words, they were supporting acommonwealth. The Cuban-Americanpeople supported commonwealth by 60percent. And the Puerto Rican peoplesupported commonwealth by 69 per-cent. I just wanted to get that in. I sub-mit this poll for the RECORD.

The document referred to follows:

H.R. 856 (THE UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICOPOLITICAL STATUS ACT) IS NOT ONLY BADPOLICY, IT IS BAD POLITICS

Polls you may have heard of urge support forH.R. 856

‘‘[I]t is clear that the key to winning theLatino vote is to find issues that specificallyappeal to them. Puerto Rico is just such anissue.’’—Luntz Research Companies, Lan-guage of the 21st CenturyPolls you may not have heard of disagree with

Frank Luntz(1) Hispanics are not uniformly in support

of statehood.

SUPPORT FOR STATUS OF PUERTO RICO BY ETHNICINDICATORS

Status of Puerto Rico

National origin Nativity

Mexi-can

PuertoRican Cuban Foreign

bornNativeborn

Statehood ......................... 22.3 27.2 28.6 23.4 27.4Commonwealth ................. 60.3 69.2 65.3 68.5 55.5Independence ................... 17.3 3.6 6.2 8.1 17.0

—de la Garza, Hernandez, Falcon, Garcia andGarcia, ‘‘Mexican, Puerto Rican and CubanForeign Policy Perspectives,’’ Garcia,Pursing Power, 1997.

[In percent]

Preferred status of Puerto Rico Mexi-can

PuertoRican Cuban Anglo

A state .............................................. 23.9 27.1 35.2 26.4A commonwealth .............................. 55.4 69.4 60.7 47.9Independent ...................................... 20.7 3.5 4.1 25.7

—National Latino Political Survey, 1992.(2) Support for Puerto Rico statehood

among U.S. voters declines as they are toldmore about the costs and demands of state-hood

PercentU.S. voters favoring statehood for

Puerto Rico .................................... 65Percentage still in favor after being

told English and Spanish wouldshare equal status in Puerto Rico .. 55(Mason-Dixon Research, 1997. Note: Mason

Dixon did not mention that roughly 60 per-cent of the residents of the island of PuertoRico, according to its Governor, Rafael Her-nandez Colon, speak little or no English.Other estimates place this figure at the 80%level. Nor did they mention that statehoodwould cost the taxpayers as much as $4 bil-lion annually, according to the General Ac-counting Office.)

b 1145Mr. Speaker, this whole debate is

going to boil down to a statementwhich was made by one of the most re-spected Members of this body, the gen-tleman from Puerto Rico (Commis-sioner ROMERO-BARCELO), in his book,when he said, ‘‘As I have stated manyother times, our language and our cul-ture are not negotiable.’’

Mr. Speaker, that is a very, very truestatement. This entire debate that willtake place over the next 7 or 8 hourswill set forth the principle that anyState that will be brought into thisUnion, as all previous States before,will come under the exact same laws asevery other State in the Nation. Thatmeans that they will have no specialnational anthem, they will have nospecial flag, they will have no specialOlympic team; they will be the same asevery other State in this union.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speak-er, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gen-tleman from Puerto Rico.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speak-er, I think to deny to yourself and toyour children and to your people yourheritage, to deny your language andwho you are, is to deny yourself, yourbeing. The fact that we want to main-tain Spanish does not mean that we aregoing to not want to speak Englishalso. What we are asking is, do not im-pose English only. Let us be bilingual,and let us help the Nation in our rela-tionship with Latin America.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, re-claiming my time, if the gentlemanreads the Solomon amendment, theSolomon amendment is setting forthinto law that for every State of theUnion, all 50 States today, that Englishwill be the official language of instruc-tion. That is what it does.

If this bill becomes law tomorrow,then all 50 States are affected tomor-row by that Solomon amendment. Itdoes not affect Puerto Rico. But ifPuerto Rico 2 years or 3 or 4 years fromnow would become a State, thenEnglish would be the official languageof instruction, but it would in no wayprohibit a second language of Spanishor any other language from beingtaught on the Island of Puerto Rico.That is a fact, and that is what we willdebate here in a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for thisrule would hope there would not be avote on it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balanceof my time, and I move the previousquestion on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

PEASE). The question is on the resolu-tion.

The question was taken; and theSpeaker pro tempore announced thatthe ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. WICKER. 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 370, nays 41,not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 27]

YEAS—370

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsArmeyBaeslerBakerBaldacciBallengerBarciaBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBecerraBentsen

BereuterBermanBerryBilbrayBilirakisBishopBlagojevichBlileyBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrady

Brown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCanadyCannonCardinCastleChamblissChristensenClayClayton

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH772 March 4, 1998ClementClyburnCobleCoburnCollinsCombestConditConyersCookCookseyCoxCoyneCramerCrapoCubinCummingsCunninghamDannerDavis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis (VA)DealDeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeLayDeutschDiaz-BalartDickeyDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleDreierDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEngelEnglishEnsignEshooEtheridgeEvansEverettFarrFattahFawellFazioFilnerFoleyForbesFordFossellaFowlerFoxFranks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrostFurseGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGekasGephardtGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodlatteGordonGossGrangerGreenGreenwoodGutierrezGutknechtHall (OH)HamiltonHansenHastertHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayworthHefnerHergerHillHilliardHincheyHinojosaHobsonHoekstraHoldenHooleyHornHostettlerHoughton

HoyerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson (WI)Johnson, E. B.Johnson, SamKanjorskiKapturKasichKellyKennedy (MA)KennellyKildeeKilpatrickKimKind (WI)King (NY)KleczkaKlinkKlugKnollenbergKolbeKucinichLaFalceLampsonLantosLargentLaTouretteLazioLeachLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)LinderLipinskiLivingstonLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucasMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MantonManzulloMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcDermottMcGovernMcHaleMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller (CA)Miller (FL)MingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMoran (KS)Moran (VA)MorellaMurthaMyrickNadlerNealNethercuttNeumannNeyNorthupNussleOberstarOlver

OrtizOwensOxleyPackardPallonePappasParkerPascrellPastorPaulPaxonPaynePeasePelosiPeterson (MN)Peterson (PA)PickeringPickettPittsPomboPomeroyPorterPortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRahallRamstadRangelRedmondReyesRiggsRiversRodriguezRoemerRohrabacherRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRushRyunSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSanfordSawyerSaxtonSchaefer, DanSchumerScottSerranoShadeggShawShaysShermanShusterSisiskySkaggsSkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (OR)Smith (TX)Smith, AdamSnowbargerSnyderSolomonSouderSprattStabenowStearnsStenholmStokesStricklandStumpStupakSununuTalentTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)ThomasThompsonThornberryThuneThurmanTierneyTraficantTurnerUptonVelazquezVentoVisclosky

WalshWatersWatkinsWatt (NC)Watts (OK)Waxman

Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WexlerWeygandWhiteWise

WolfWoolseyWynnYatesYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NAYS—41

AderholtArcherBachusBryantCarsonChabotCostelloCraneDuncanEmersonGoodeGoodlingGrahamHall (TX)

HefleyHillearyIstookJenkinsJonesKingstonLaHoodLathamLewis (KY)MetcalfNorwoodObeyPetriRegula

RileyRogersRoyceSalmonSchaffer, BobSensenbrennerSessionsSmith, LindaSpenceWampWellerWhitfieldWicker

NOT VOTING—19

ChenowethDoolittleEwingFrank (MA)GibbonsGonzalezHarman

Kennedy (RI)LutherPoshardRoganRos-LehtinenScarboroughSchiff

ShimkusStarkTiahrtTorresTowns

b 1209

Messrs. ARCHER, GRAHAM,HEFLEY and RILEY changed theirvote from ‘‘yea’’ to ‘‘nay.’’

Ms. DELAURO changed her 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

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No.27, I was inadvertertly detained. Had I beenpresent, I would have voted ‘‘aye.’’

f

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVID-ING FOR CONSIDERATION OFH.R. 2369, WIRELESS PRIVACYENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1998

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, from the Com-mittee on Rules, submitted a privi-leged report (Rept. No. 105–427) on theresolution (H. Res. 377) providing forconsideration of the bill (H.R. 2369) toamend the Communications Act of 1934to strengthen and clarify prohibitionson electronic eavesdropping, and forother purposes, which was referred tothe House Calendar and ordered to beprinted.

f

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVID-ING FOR CONSIDERATION OFH.R. 3130, CHILD SUPPORT PER-FORMANCE AND INCENTIVE ACTOF 1998

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, from the Com-mittee on Rules, submitted a privi-leged report (Rept. No. 105–428) on theresolution (H. Res. 378) providing forconsideration of the bill (H.R. 3130) toprovide for an alternative penalty pro-cedure for States that fail to meet Fed-eral child support data processing re-quirements, to reform Federal incen-tive payments for effective child sup-port performance, and to provide for a

more flexible penalty procedure forStates that violate interjurisdictionaladoption requirements, which was re-ferred to the House Calendar and or-dered to be printed.

f

UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICOPOLITICAL STATUS ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.PEASE). Pursuant to House Resolution376 and rule XXIII, the Chair declaresthe House in the Committee of theWhole House on the State of the Unionfor the consideration of the bill, H.R.856.

b 1212

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. 856) toprovide a process leading to full self-government for Puerto Rico, with Mr.DIAZ-BALART 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 fromAlaska (Mr. YOUNG), the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. MILLER), the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. SOLOMON)and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.GUTIERREZ) each will control 221⁄2 min-utes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Alaska (Mr. YOUNG).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I yield myself such time as I mayconsume.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very histori-cal moment, one that is long overdue.In debate on the rule, there were somestatements made that I think shouldbe clarified before I go into the fulltext of my presentation today, why Isupport this legislation.

The Northern Marianas were men-tioned and other territories were men-tioned, and how they came into thisgreat united part of our United States,even as territories are separate govern-ments. But, for instance, the NorthernMarianas, the Government of theUnited States and the Government ofthe Northern Marianas will consultregularly on all matters affecting therelationship between them. At the re-quest of either government, and notless frequently than every 10 yearsthere shall be an additional consulta-tion taken.

Mr. Chairman, over 100 years ago,this Congress was passionately discuss-ing the 400-year-old colonial grip thatSpain had on the islands adjacent toand south of Florida. Just over 2 weeksearlier, on February 15, 266 Americanservicemen lost their lives in Havanaharbor with the explosion of the UnitedStates warship, the Maine.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H773March 4, 1998b 1215

The monument to these gallant meanstands highest above all else in Arling-ton National Monument. Many otherslost their lives in the ensuing Spanish-American War amid the cries of ‘‘Re-member the Maine.’’ But why?

This Congress declared war and sentAmericans in harm’s way in the de-fense of the sacred ideal: self-deter-mination. America won the war, andassumed sovereignty over Cuba, PuertoRico, and some of Spain’s Pacific pos-sessions. All but one are no longer ter-ritories. Only Puerto Rico still stands,after 100 years, a territory.

Mr. Chairman, Congress promptly de-livered on its promise of self-deter-mination to the people of Cuba by pro-viding for a process which permittedCuba to become a separate sovereignafter a few brief years.

In contrast, the Rough Rider who hadcharged up San Juan Hill to ensure theUnited States’ victory in the Caribbeanhad become President of the UnitedStates and urged Congress to grantUnited States citizenship to the peopleof Puerto Rico in his 1905 State of theUnion address. Quote, ‘‘I earnestly ad-vocate the adoption of legislationwhich will explicitly confer Americancitizenship on all citizens of PuertoRico. There is, in my judgment, no ex-cuse for the failure to do this.’’

I believe President Teddy Roosevelt’swords are even more true today to thisbill as when he spoke them in 1905.

Our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico,now numbering some 4 million, havebeen loyal to this Nation and have val-iantly fought in every major conflict.We have all benefited in ways that can-not be calculated from the bravery, theloyalty, and the patriotism of over200,000 Americans from Puerto Ricowho have served in our Nation’s ArmedForces.

It is clear that a heavy price has beenpaid by Puerto Rico for this country,which has yet to fully deliver on thepromise of the U.S. General Miles whenhe landed in Puerto Rico 100 years agothis year:

‘‘In the continuation of the waragainst the Kingdom of Spain by thepeople of the United States, in thecause of freedom, justice and human-ity, their military forces have come tooccupy the island of Puerto Rico. Theycome bearing the flag of freedom. Theybring you the encouraging strength ofa Nation of free people whose greatestpower consists of justice and humanityfor all those who live in their commu-nity. The principal objective will be togive the people of your beautiful islandthe largest extent of freedom possible.We have not come to wage war, but tobring protection, not just for you butfor your property, in order to promoteyour prosperity and in order to obtainfor you the privileges and the blessingsof our government. It is not our pur-pose to interfere with any of the lawsand customs present that are wise andbeneficial.’’

The Congress provided Puerto Ricowith increasing levels of self-govern-

ment for the first half of this century,culminating with the authorization in1950 for the process of a development ofa local constitutional government.

By 1952, Congress conditionally ap-proved a draft constitution submittedby the legislature of Puerto Rico. Afterthose changes were made by PuertoRico, the new constitutional govern-ment of the territory became effectiveunder the name declared by the con-stitutional convention as the Common-wealth of Puerto Rico.

The establishment of local constitu-tional self-government did not alterCongress’ constitutional responsibilityunder the Territorial Clause for PuertoRico. However, it was under the firstyears of the commonwealth that Presi-dent Eisenhower established the Eisen-hower Doctrine regarding Puerto Ricowhich is still in effect today and is re-flected in the United States-PuertoRico Political Status Act.

After the local constitutional govern-ment of Puerto Rico was established,Puerto Rico was removed from theUnited Nations’ decolonization list,prompting questions as to whetherPuerto Rico was still a territory underthe sovereignty of the United Statesand subject to the authority of Con-gress. President Eisenhower, a Repub-lican, acted decisively by sending amessage to the United Nations that herecommended that the United StatesCongress grant Puerto Rico separatesovereignty if requested by the PuertoRicans through the legislature of Puer-to Rico.

While the legislature has never peti-tioned for separate sovereignty, thelegislature sent joint resolutions toCongress in 1993, 1994, and 1997 request-ing congressional action. Keep that inmind, because I have heard time andagain that the Congress, by doing this,is dictating to the Puerto Rican people.But the legislature sent to this Con-gress in 1993, 1994, 1997 requesting con-gressional action to define the politicalstatus and establish a process to re-solve, establish the process to resolvePuerto Rico’s political status dilemma.

Although in recent years the PuertoRican legislature formally requestedthe Congress to resolve Puerto Rico’spolitical status, U.S. citizens in PuertoRico had been advocating action forover a decade. I remember the submis-sion to Congress in 1985 to 1987 of over350,000 individually signed petitions forfull citizenship rights. This incrediblegrassroots effort was led by Dr. MiriamRamirez of the nonprofit, nonpartisancivic organization, Puerto Ricans inCivic Action.

Mr. Chairman I believe this initiativeinfluenced the then president of theSenate to include in his first State ofthe Union address as President on Feb-ruary 9, 1989, the following request:‘‘I’ve long believed the people of PuertoRico should have their right to deter-mine their own political future. Per-sonally, I strongly favor statehood. ButI urge the Congress to take the nec-essary steps to allow the people to de-cide in a referendum.’’

Mr. Chairman, about the same timeas President Bush requested Congressauthorize a political status referendumin Puerto Rico, the three presidents ofthe three principal political status par-ties in Puerto Rico asked Congress tohelp resolve Puerto Rico’s politicalstatus, as Puerto Rico has never beenformally consulted as to their choice ofultimate political status.

While Congress has yet to formallyrespond to the request of the President,the leaders of Puerto Rico, and the pe-titions of the Americans in PuertoRico, this bill will do just what hasbeen asked by the people of PuertoRico in numerous years and numeroustimes by the president of the Senate,by the Presidents in the past in theirplatforms.

The United States-Puerto Rico Polit-ical Status Act, H.R. 856, establishes inFederal law for the first time a processto resolve Puerto Rico’s political sta-tus. I remind my colleagues it will nothappen overnight, regardless of whatwe do here today. This is just a processthat will take place.

My colleague who was speaking onthe rule said that the public is notaware of this action today. May I re-mind my colleagues that if we were topass this bill today, and I hope we dopass this bill today, it must be passedby the Senate and the people of PuertoRico must also pass it in 1998. It comesback to the Congress in 1999, and by1999 we again in Congress must act. Wemust pass a bill approving the transi-tional stage. Then it goes back to thepeople of Puerto Rico. And, by the way,the start of the transition period be-gins in the year 2000.

But this more than anything else is abill that establishes the right to deter-mine for the first time in 100 yearstheir self-determination. It is a fairand balanced process that has been de-veloped with an enormous amount ofinput. Mr. Chairman, I resent certainMembers saying that this has not beenfair. We asked all of those people in-volved, all three parties, to submitwhat their definition should be in thisbill. We have in my substitute recog-nized commonwealth. We recognizeindependence. We set forth a processwhich will create a State.

Mr. Chairman, if it does become aState, I am one of the few people, alongwith the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.ABERCROMBIE) that has gone throughthis process.

I have heard some statements heretoday about English language only.When Alaska became a State, that wasnot a requirement. We had 52 differentdialects in Alaska. People speakEnglish. They also speak many otherlanguages. It was not a requirement.Hawaii has two official languages.They have English and Hawaiian. NewMexico has two official languages,English and Spanish.

The concept of the amendments thatwill be offered to this bill, especiallythe amendment of the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. SOLOMON), he is my

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH774 March 4, 1998good friend and we talk about whatgood friends we are, it is a poison pillamendment. America is a melting pot.It is a group of people coming togetherunder one flag. We all speak differentlanguages at different times. Some ofus are more fortunate to speak morethan one language, but we must alwaysrecognize the cohesive part of theUnited States, and that is being anAmerican. English will come. But topick out one part of this bill and to saythis is a requirement before it everhappens is a poison pill amendment tothis legislation.

Let us talk about history again. Thisis the last territory of the greatest de-mocracy, America. A territory whereno one has a true voice, although ourgovernment does an excellent job, butthere are approximately 4 millionPuerto Ricans that have one voice thatcannot vote. This is not America as Iknow it. This is an America that talksone thing and walks another thing.This is an America that is saying, ifMembers do not accept this legislation,‘‘no’’ to who I think are some of thegreatest Americans that have everserved in our armed forces and areproud to be Americans but do not havethe representation that they need.

This legislation is just the beginning.It is one small step of many steps. It isa step for freedom, it is a small step forjustice, it is a small step for America.But collectively it is a great stride fordemocracy and for justice.

This legislation should pass. Theamendment of the gentleman from NewYork (MR. SOLOMON) should be de-feated. We should go forth and showthe people of America, show the peopleof Puerto Rico, that our hearts aretrue, so that the rest of the world willfollow the example of the great UnitedStates and free their territories andfree the people so they can have self-determination. This is what this billdoes, and that is all it does.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 30 seconds to the gen-tleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO).

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I would love to be able to speakfor 30 minutes, an hour or two hours onthis subject, but there are so manyother people that want to speak on thissubject, and many of my colleagueshave heard me over and over on this,that I am going to yield some of thetime that I would have been allotted sothat other Members of this Congresscan address the House in support ofthis bill which is a very, very impor-tant bill for the people of Puerto Rico,for the 3,800,000 U.S. citizens in PuertoRico.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I yield myself 41⁄2 minutes.

(Mr. MILLER of California asked andwas given permission to revise and ex-tend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, the Committee on Resources of

the House of Representatives had anobligation to report to this floor a fairand accurate plan for the citizens ofPuerto Rico to choose their status. Ibelieve that this committee has metthat obligation.

Mr. Chairman I thank the gentlemanfrom Alaska (Mr. YOUNG), chairman ofthe committee, for leading us throughwhat has been a difficult process. I alsothank the gentleman from Puerto Rico(Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO), our friend, forall of his help in this process.

Mr. Chairman, the people of PuertoRico, if this bill is passed, will be giventhe opportunity by the Congress of theUnited States under the laws of thisNation to choose their status. Theycan choose to continue in the common-wealth arrangement, they could chooseto become an independent nation, theycould choose to become one of theStates of the United States of America.

Our obligation was to see that whenthis process went forward to the peopleof Puerto Rico, that it was a fair proc-ess, that it was an accurate process. Wehad had an earlier plebiscite where theparties wrote their own definitions andthe people voted, and the Congress hasdone nothing because the Congressknew in fact those definitions, whetherthey were of statehood or of common-wealth, were, in fact, not accurate andwould not be supported by the Congressof the United States and did not reflectthe laws and the Constitution of thiscountry.

In the committee, I was very dis-traught at beginning of this process be-cause I felt that those who supportcommonwealth were not able topresent their definition to the Con-gress, to the committee. I worked veryhard so that that definition could beoffered. I offered that definition. It wasturned down overwhelming on a bipar-tisan basis. It was something called‘‘enhanced commonwealth.’’ It was sortof a make-believe status of common-wealth.

b 1230

The suggestion was that if you votedfor commonwealth, you would then beempowered to pick your way throughthe Constitution of the United Statesand the laws of the United States andpick and choose which laws you wantedto apply and not have apply, and thatyou did not have to live under thepower of the Congress of the UnitedStates or of the Constitution of theUnited States. That simply was unac-ceptable to the overwhelming majorityof the committee. I believe it is unac-ceptable to the overwhelming majorityof this House. Someone can certainlycome forward and offer that amend-ment this afternoon, should theychoose, and I believe it would clearlybe unacceptable to the people of thiscountry.

So what we put forth is a definitionof commonwealth that recognizes theircurrent status today, that they live ina commonwealth arrangement. It saysPuerto Rico is joined in relationship

under the national sovereignty of theUnited States. It is the policy of theCongress that this relationship shouldonly be dissolved by mutual consent.That is the situation that we have.

We went on to say that in the exer-cise of the sovereignty, the laws of thecommonwealth shall govern PuertoRico to the extent that they are con-sistent with the Constitution of theUnited States. There is no other way todo business, consistent with the Con-stitution of the United States, treatiesand laws of the United States, and theCongress retains its constitutional au-thority to enact laws that it deemsnecessary relating to Puerto Rico.

That is the burden of commonwealth.That is why some people do not like it.Some people would prefer independenceover commonwealth, and some peoplewould prefer statehood. There is a cer-tain burden to commonwealth. We can-not pretend that there is not. But thepeople of Puerto Rico ought to be ableto choose that. They have to be able tochoose the status that they want.

That is what this legislation does. Itenables the people of Puerto Rico tomake their choice; not our choice,their choice. And hopefully under thislegislation, the Congress would thenhonor that choice after the Presidentand others have worked out a plan toenable that choice to go forward. Thatis what this legislation does. Nothingmore, nothing less.

I think it is an important piece oflegislation. I think it is recognizedthat the people of Puerto Rico are enti-tled to and must have a free and fairvote on this matter. I would hope thatmy colleagues would support this legis-lation to allow that to happen.

Mr. Chairman, the House today considersH.R. 856, a complex bill that has, at its core,a very basic concept: the right of a free peopleto determine the political system under whichthey live.

Puerto Rico has been a part of the UnitedStates for a century. Its residents, whetherthey live in San Juan, Mayaguez, New York orSan Francisco, are United States citizens.H.R. 856 gives those 4 million Americans theright to decide their future status relationshipto the rest of the United States: to become anindependent nation, to become a state, or toremain in commonwealth status.

Unlike some of my colleagues who haveworked on this issue over the past decade, Ido not have a personal preference. I believestatus should be determined by the governed.Our obligation is to present fair and accuratestatus options to the voters of Puerto Rico—options that reflect Constitutional and politicalreality—and to honor the choice made by amajority of the voters.

During much of the consideration of this leg-islation by the Resources Committee in thisCongress and the previous Congress, I couldnot support the legislation because I did notbelieve that the very sizeable number of Puer-to Rican voters who support the Common-wealth option were treated fairly. Originally,this bill did not even contain any Common-wealth option.

But I am pleased to say that ChairmanYOUNG worked closely with me and with oth-ers to ensure that each of the political parties

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H775March 4, 1998was heard, and that we ultimately agreed ondefinitions that are fair and accurate. They areincluded in Mr. YOUNG’s substitute, and I sup-port that substitute strongly.

Rarely have we seen more intense lobbyingon an issue. It is obvious that opinions are di-vided on Puerto Rico’s status and on this leg-islation. But let them address some of the mis-conceptions and misrepresentations that arebeing circulated about this bill, because Mem-bers should not be confused and should notbe deceived into voting on this subject basedon inaccuracies.

No one in this Chamber is more qualifiedthan I to speak about how we addressed theCommonwealth issue. I so strongly advocatedinclusion of a Commonwealth option that I wasaccused of being pro-Commonwealth. Thedefinition of Commonwealth supplied by thatparty, which is similar in many respects to thedefinition on the ballot during the 1993 ref-erendum in Puerto Rico, is not accurate andis not acceptable to the Congress. It is not ac-ceptable that Puerto Rico would be eligible forfull participation in all federal programs withoutpaying taxes; it is not acceptable that PuertoRico would pick and choose which federallaws apply on the island; it is not acceptablethat Puerto Rico would be free to make itsown foreign treaties.

I appreciate that this is what the supportersof ‘‘enhanced Commonwealth’’ want. But theCongress is not prepared to give such unprec-edented rights to Puerto Rico while denyingthem to every state in the Union. Neverthe-less, I offered that definition in the ResourcesCommittee so that it would be clear what isand is not acceptable to the Congress. It wasoverwhelmingly, and bipartisanly, defeated.And Congress should not offer an option tothe voters of Puerto Rico that we are not pre-pared to embrace.

The definition of Puerto Rico now includedin the substitute by Mr. YOUNG may not beutopian, but it is historically and Constitu-tionally accurate.

There are some who argue that this bill isunfair because it fails to recognize that PuertoRico is a ‘‘nation.’’ Puerto Rico, like manyother areas of the United States, has a uniquehistory and unique culture; that is in part whatmakes our country so remarkable and endur-ing. But Puerto Rico is not a nation in anysense under U.S. law or international law. Ourrefusal to recognize Puerto Rico as a ‘‘nation’’in H.R. 856 is not a slight; it is accurate.

There are some who oppose this bill be-cause they do not want America to ‘‘wake uptomorrow’’ and find out Puerto Rico is going tobe the 51st state. This bill provides for a plebi-scite to choose among three options, only oneof which is statehood. Even if that option ischosen, there is a transition period of up to adecade during which a plan for achievingstatehood would be developed, and thenvoted on in the Congress and in Puerto Rico.And Congress also will vote on an admissionsact. So no one should be under amisimpression that this legislation railroadsstatehood.

Some have raised concerns that admittingPuerto Rico at some point in the future willcost some states seats in this House. I per-sonally support increasing the size of theHouse to 441 seats to accommodate the 6new seats Puerto Rico would occupy. In anyevent, that is a statutory decision to be madeby the Congress, just as Congress increased

the size of the House permanently when othermulti-Member territories were admitted in the19th and early 20th century.

There are those who argue that Puerto Ricowould cost the federal government moneywere it to become a state. I would hope thatthe financial status of citizens would not be anissue in determining whether they are ac-corded the full rights of citizenship. I thoughtwe had resolved that issue by declaring thepoll tax and properly ownership unconstitu-tional. And we should be careful about apply-ing such a standard: as of FY 1996, 29states—more than half—received more federalexpenditures than they paid in taxes. Let’s notimpose a standard on Puerto Rico that wewouldn’t apply to other states.

I also have noted some questions as to whythe bill calls for periodic referenda should ei-ther permanent status—independence orstatehood—not be selected. Let us be clearthat the bill authorizes additional referenda, itdoes not mandate them. The purpose of thereferenda is to determine a permanent status,and commonwealth is generally recognizednot to meet that test. Should the voters ofPuerto Rico decide to continue as a common-wealth, they could do so indefinitely.

Lastly, let me address what has unfortu-nately become a centerpiece of this debate:whether we should, in this legislation, mandateEnglish as the official national language.

The House voted on that legislation in 1996;the leadership could bring it before the fullHouse again at any time. But this is not thetime or place to do it. The Solomon amend-ment declares English to be the national lan-guage, but it imposes a series of additionalunconstitutional burdens on the people ofPuerto Rico, requiring that ‘‘all communica-tions with the federal government by the gov-ernment or people of Puerto Rico shall be inEnglish’’; requiring that ‘‘English will be thesole official language of all federal governmentactivities in Puerto Rico’’; imposing English asthe ‘‘language of instruction in public schools.’’

We don’t need to single out Puerto Rico likethis, to inflame this debate and insult the 500-year-old culture of 4 million Americans. Wehave a reasonable alternative amendment thatis going to be introduced by CongressmenDAN BURTON, BILL MCCOLLUM, DON YOUNGand myself that takes a different, and fairer,approach. The Clinton Administration supportsour substitute.

Our amendment says Puerto Rico, if it be-comes a state, will be treated exactly likeevery other state. If Congress decides thatEnglish is to be the official language andpasses a comprehensive law to that effect,then Puerto Rico will be covered Just likeevery other state. But let’s not single out Puer-to Rico in a divisive and unconstitutional man-ner for special treatment.

Our amendment also calls for Puerto Ricoto promote the teaching of English becausethat language is clearly the language that al-lows for the fullest participation in all aspectsof American life. And we call for inclusion inany transition plan of proposals and incentivesfor promoting English proficiency in theschools and elsewhere in Puerto Rico. Surely,we can reasonably address this issue in anequitable manner without passing aconfrontational and unfair insult to our fellowcountrymen and women.

The time has come to tell the people ofPuerto Rico that the rest of the nation of which

they are a part is prepared to hear their viewsand respond to their desires. That we willstand by our historic and legal tradition that in-clusion in America is not dependent on one’sbackground or ethnicity, but on a common al-legiance to this nation and its Constitution.After being a part of the United States for 100years, after sending its sons to war five timesin this century, it is time that this Congressrecognized the right of Puerto Rico to deter-mine its future in a democratic fashion. That isthe purpose and the policy contained in H.R.856, and I call on the House today to passthis bill, and defeat the divisive Solomonamendment.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

In April of 1775, hundreds of bravemen stormed the bridges of Lexingtonand Concord, setting in motion a revo-lutionary struggle for liberty that cul-minated in my hometown of Saratoga,New York, in the greatest victory forindividual freedom and democracy inall of human history. That blood-stained victory of our forefathers hasleft the legacy that you and I and all ofus call America.

Liberty and justice and democracy,these are words that do more than de-scribe our Nation’s ideals and prin-ciples. They are the very essence ofthis country of ours. These ideals areable to thrive and to dominate the po-litical and economic landscapes of theUnited States because of the people’sdevotion to its unit as a Nation, to anidea that there is something unique,something distinct about being anAmerican.

Throughout my military service, mysmall-business career and the last 31years in public office, I have dedicatedmy life to further the principles offreedom and democracy and self-deter-mination throughout this world. Likeall of my colleagues, I have beenblessed to live in this most free anddemocratic Nation in the world, andsometimes you ought to travel over-seas into the former Soviet Union andsee how much they respect this democ-racy of ours. It was a product of bloodand sweat and commitment to prin-ciple, of those who have gone before us.

While serving in the United StatesMarine Corps during the Korean era, Iwas privileged to serve side by sidewith so many Puerto Rican Americans,great people, great personal friends ofmine, and to be stationed for a time onthe island of Viacus in Puerto Ricowhere I made some of my closestfriendships that today still exist, andduring that time I was able to gain apersonal affection for the people ofPuerto Rico and for their love of lib-erty and their distinct culture. As a re-sult Puerto Rico and its people hold avery warm space in my heart.

Today the House considers a billwhich may lead to a dramatic and per-manent change in the lives of theseU.S. citizens. It is billed by its support-ers as a bill to permanently resolve thepolitical status of Puerto Rico througha process of self-determination. Buthowever lofty and worthy the objec-tives of this bill, it is a flawed measure

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH776 March 4, 1998that flips the very principles of self-de-termination and democracy on theirheads, Mr. Chairman. In establishing aself-determination process for PuertoRico, Congress, under the U.S. Con-stitution, must answer to two distinctyet equally important interests, mycolleagues should listen to this, thecitizens of Puerto Rico and the citizensof the United States. I believe this billas currently drafted fails to answer toeither interest, either the Puerto Ricancitizens or the American citizens onthis mainland, for this bill actuallyviolates self-determination. Read theconference, read the report of this billwhich was authored by the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. MILLER).

I strongly support allowing the citi-zens of Puerto Rico to vote on the fu-ture of their political status. In fact,they actually do not need to get per-mission from this Congress of theUnited States to do so. In fact, they al-ready did in 1952, in 1967, and again in1993. However, I firmly believe that inorder for a political process to deliverself-determination, it must alwaysallow for the participation of all of itscitizens, not just some. This bill as cur-rently drafted not only requires, butlisten to this, it demands that PuertoRico hold a plebiscite before the end ofthis year, 1998. Who are we to tellthem? In that referendum the citizensof Puerto Rico will be asked to choosebetween commonwealth, between sepa-rate sovereignty and statehood. Thisseems to be simple enough. However,Mr. Chairman, there is a catch to it.

Members of this House should beaware that the Statehood Party ofPuerto Rico supports the ballot defini-tion of statehood in this bill, and thePuerto Rican Independence Party sup-ports the ballot definition of independ-ence in this bill. However, the Com-monwealth Party, the party that actu-ally won every past referendum on po-litical status, does not support the def-inition of commonwealth in this bill.And ask yourself why not?

In fact, the definition of common-wealth was written not just once buttwice by the supporters of the state-hood option without the approval ofthe vast majority of the people inPuerto Rico, the CommonwealthParty. What this means is that thelargest political party in Puerto Ricois faced with a grave choice under thisbill. They can either choose to cam-paign, to support, to vote for a ballotdefinition that directly contradicts thevery premise of their political party’sexistence, or they cannot participate inthe referendum. They have chosen notto participate, and that is a terribleshame.

So first and foremost, the House isdebating a measure designed to deter-mine Puerto Rico’s political status inwhich one of the three local politicalparties, in fact the largest in PuertoRico, will not even participate. How isthat going to take an accurate anddemocratic measure of the politicalchoices of those 3.8 million U.S. citi-zens there? The fact is, it is not.

Mr. Chairman, back in 1990, the lasttime this House considered similar leg-islation, all of the parties were sup-portive of the process and supportedthat bill because it was a fair bill. Ivoted for it. It sailed through theHouse under suspension of the rulesonly to be stalled in the other body.Today we debate a controversial billnot just here in the United States, butalso in Puerto Rico.

One final comment on this bill’s self-determination problems, Mr. Chair-man. As this bill currently stands, itrequires Puerto Rico permanently tohold this referendum every 10 yearsuntil statehood gets 50 percent plus 1.Then the transition and implementa-tion process begins. Since the currentsupport for independence hoversaround 5 percent and for statehoodaround 45 percent, the likely outcomeof a forced decennial vote seems likelyto be statehood with hardly half thepopulation supporting it.

This bill also contains certain con-stitutional pitfalls. Mr. Chairman,Members should listen carefully towhat I am about to say because theirconstituents want to know this. Underthis bill, if the citizens of Puerto Ricochoose statehood in the first referen-dum, the constitutional protectionsgiven States begin to apply to PuertoRico upon the President’s submissionof a transition plan taking Puerto Ricofrom commonwealth to statehood.

What this means is that the processof integrating Puerto Rico into thisUnion begins with a vote of the transi-tion bill. Members better rememberthat. According to the Supreme Courtin Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico, wayback in 1922, once the process of inte-gration begins, it is very difficult to re-verse, and we will not reverse it.

The catch with this provision is thatunder this bill, Congress will be re-quired to vote on this transition planas early as early next year. While Puer-to Rico may not officially join theUnion for another 5 or 6 or 7 or 10years, the vote to begin the admissionsprocess could take place as early asnext year, and there would be no turn-ing back at that point.

Such a voting strategy is almostidentical to that done when we gaveaway the Panama Canal to Panamaand when Great Britain gave HongKong back to China. Members betterstart thinking about that because theirconstituents are thinking about it. Avote to do it occurs now, while it actu-ally changes hands sometime in the fu-ture. That is what we are voting onhere today.

Mr. Chairman, our constituents wantto know, they want us to listen and tobe careful about this. With the referen-dum required to be held before the endof this year, this bill requires thePresident to send Congress transitionlegislation within 180 days of that ref-erendum. That means if that referen-dum is held in December, as late as De-cember of this year, within 180 days thePresident is ordered to send us a tran-

sition bill. Within 5 days of the receiptof that bill, the majority leaders of theHouse and the Senate are required tointroduce the bill. And within 120 daysof introduction, a vote occurs on thebill on the floor of this House of Rep-resentatives, which could happen nextJuly or August or September or Octo-ber or November or December of 1999.That is how close this is.

In essence, this bill sets up a processwhereby the citizens of Puerto Rico areforced to vote until they choose state-hood, and then the process kicks in tohigh gear under expedited proceduresas I have just outlined.

Yes, it is true that it may take up to10 years, as the bill says, for the proc-ess to run its course, but the bulk ofthe actual process occurs up front, andMembers had better understand it.

The most serious constitutional res-ervation of this bill involves the treat-ment of the rights enjoyed by the peo-ple of Puerto Rico currently under thecommonwealth status. The ballot con-tained in the bill states that Congressmay determine which rights under theUnited States Constitution are guaran-teed to the people of Puerto Rico.

This statement is wrong at severallevels. First, it rests upon the remark-able proposition that Congress has theauthority to deprive the people ofPuerto Rico of any and all of their con-stitutional rights. This provision ofthis bill is demonstrably false, Mr.Chairman, because even Puerto Rico, ifit were an unincorporated territory,the people of Puerto Rico would be stillguaranteed fundamental constitutionalrights. That is why so many people inPuerto Rico support commonwealth.

The description of the citizenshiprights of Puerto Rico is similarlyflawed. It states that Puerto Ricansare merely statutory citizens and im-plies that their citizenship may be re-voked by Congress. Well, the people ofPuerto Rico are United States citizenswithin the meaning of the 14th amend-ment. Get the amendment out. Read it.The 14th amendment. These pointswere clearly enunciated yesterday byour colleague, the chairman of theHouse Committee on the Judiciary,Subcommittee on the Constitution. Wehave it over here, if Members want toread it.

Third and finally, this bill fails toclearly lay out how assimilation wouldoccur under the bill for either PuertoRico or the United States, and this isthe most important part of this entiredebate. As I stated earlier, I have agreat deal of respect for the pride andfor the culture of the people of PuertoRico. They are wonderful people. I be-lieve, as do many of my colleagues,that Puerto Rico is a nation, it isunique and distinct in its own right,and Puerto Rico has every right to pre-serve and enhance this rich heritage ofculture and history. That is their right.

But if the citizens of Puerto Ricofreely choose to seek statehood, theyshould understand clearly, and I thinkmy good friend the gentleman from Il-linois (Mr. GUTIERREZ) made this point

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H777March 4, 1998earlier, what are the assimilation ex-pectations of the American people, ofthe 260 million Americans in this coun-try? Puerto Rico deserves a clear, con-cise and direct discussion of theseissues. They have not had that. Theydo not know what the assimilationwould be. Admitting a State requiresthe assimilation of a territory withinthe Union of States, and language dif-ferences are the number one barrier toactual assimilation. The bill before ustoday contains the most vacuous state-ment of language policy that I haveever seen.

b 1245How will the average citizen of Puer-

to Rico understand what this means ifwe cannot even understand what itmeans ourselves? And I would askevery Member back in their offices topick up the bill and read it. In this re-gard, the bill’s language regardingEnglish is weak, it is inadequate, andmust be clarified for the benefit of thepeople of the island of Puerto Rico be-cause they need to know what they aregetting into.

My fellow colleagues, it was WinstonChurchill who stated that the gift ofcommon language is a priceless inher-itance and, Members, not explicitlystating what role Puerto Rico’s inher-ited Spanish language and our commontongue, English, would play in a Stateof Puerto Rico, I believe, would be agrave mistake for everyone.

To rectify this I intend to, later inthe debate, offer an amendment regard-ing the role of the English language,which I believe very clearly explainsthis issue to both the American peopleand to the people of Puerto Rico.

Now, some of my friends are going toargue that I have specifically selectedthe statehood option for the bulk of mycriticism with this bill and that it ismerely a process bill which includesthat as an option. Let me make some-thing perfectly clear. For my constitu-ents in upstate New York, who arewedged between Canada and New YorkCity, between Quebec and New YorkCity, the statehood option for PuertoRico is the choice with the most far-reaching and permanent consequences.It is a permanent relationship that re-quires assimilation, and that choiceneeds to be decided by an overwhelm-ing majority of the citizens of PuertoRico before my constituents and beforemy colleagues’ constituents will agreeto let them join the Union.

It must be clear to our good friendsin Puerto Rico that if they choosestatehood, it is still within Congress’powers as representatives of this coun-try to say no. Statehood may be an op-tion at some point in the future, butthe American people are going to haveto examine that situation at that time,and that time is today. We cannotforce a decision on the citizens of Puer-to Rico and the citizens of Puerto Ricocannot force the United States to ac-cept a decision.

The Puerto Rican people deserve toknow exactly what they are voting on

and the American people deserve toknow the ramifications of each of thoseoptions. Until this bill becomes an ac-tual self-determination bill, passesconstitutional muster in all of its com-ponents, and fundamentally addressesthe issue of assimilation, I will opposethis bill. And I hope we can clarify itby adoption of my amendment later onthis afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, Irise as the designee of the gentlemanfrom Illinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ), and Iyield myself such time as I may con-sume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to expressmy strenuous opposition to H.R. 856,the United States-Puerto Rico Politi-cal Status Act. Mr. Chairman, I thinkthat we can all agree that the people ofPuerto Rico must be given the right toself-determination. Unfortunately,H.R. 856 does not accomplish this.

This bill is the product of a flawedlegislative process that was designed toproduce a very specific result. It waswritten without consulting all the par-ties that have a very real interest inits outcome.

Proponents of H.R. 856 will try to saythat this is a bill about self-determina-tion. They are misleading their col-leagues. Instead, H.R. 856 is a one-sidedbill that is biased in favor of PuertoRican statehood. It was written by theparty that supports statehood in a waythat promotes statehood without con-sulting all the participants in thisvery, very sensitive process.

Under H.R. 856, Puerto Ricans will begiven the choice between statehood,Commonwealth status or separate sov-ereignty, yet the Commonwealth op-tion does not even guarantee citizen-ship. Why was citizenship not statu-tory back in 1990 when this Housevoted for this bill? I do not understandwhat happened since 1990.

The authors of this legislation havesaid that our citizenship is statutory.Simply put, this means that our citi-zenship can be taken away. Tell that tothe widows of men who fought and diedin foreign wars so that citizenship ofall Americans will be guaranteed. Mr.Chairman, tell that to my uncle, whofought valiantly in Korea for my col-leagues and for me and for all Ameri-cans everywhere.

Furthermore, if the people of PuertoRico were to choose Commonwealthstatus, the bill will require furtherplebiscites until either statehood orseparate sovereignty wins. This doublestandard applied to Commonwealthshows how the deck is stacked in favorof statehood. Under those conditions,not even the most forceful defender ofCommonwealth status will vote for it.

Many people forget that the originalversion of this bill did not even includea Commonwealth option. The partythat supports Commonwealth statushad no input in the drafting of H.R. 856and has been repeatedly shut out of theprocess. Amazingly, the president of

the Commonwealth party learnedabout the bill’s definition of Common-wealth from a reporter.

In fact, the statehood party had torewrite the Commonwealth definitionafter a poll in a major Puerto Ricannewspaper showed that 75 percent ofPuerto Ricans supported the inclusionof a fair and balanced Commonwealthoption, which this bill lacks. Today,and I repeat, today in Puerto Rico anew poll was released that shows that65 percent of the people of Puerto Ricoreject this bill.

Mr. Chairman, it is an outrage to thedemocratic process that the definitionfor Commonwealth status was writtenby the very party that opposes it. It islike allowing Republicans to decidewho could appear on a Democratic bal-lot.

Five years ago, the people of PuertoRico held a plebiscite on this issue andchose to maintain their current status.This is a situation that the losers inthat contest do not seem willing to ac-cept. Yet the outcome was an impor-tant one. It reaffirmed the permanentUnited States citizenship of the peopleof Puerto Rico that is guaranteedunder the Constitution. It acknowl-edged the bilateral nature of the U.S.-Puerto Rico relationship. It confirmedthe autonomous status of Puerto Rico,which can only be changed by mutualconsent.

The supporters of H.R. 856 are reject-ing each and every one of these argu-ments when they say that citizenshipcan only be protected under statehood.Puerto Ricans are American citizensand we are proud to be American citi-zens. We do not need a plebiscite toprove that we are Americans any morethan the people of Massachusetts orVirginia do.

This bill is not the result of a demo-cratic process. It does not define all thechoices to the satisfaction of the verypeople who will participate in thisplebiscite. By defeating this bill wewill be sending a message that we trulyhonor the idea of self-definition for thepeople of Puerto Rico.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleaguesto not be fooled by the arguments ofthe other side. A vote for H.R. 856 is avote for statehood, not a vote for self-determination.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 5 minutes to the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. MCCOLLUM).

(Mr. MCCOLLUM asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, wehave embarked on one of the more sig-nificant debates this Congress willhave in this 2-year period, maybe oneof the more significant debates that wecan have because we are trying to finda way to resolve concerns we all haveabout a part of the United States.Make no mistake about it, Puerto Ricois part of the United States.

In my State of Florida, which is rightnext door, it is a neighbor, it is a very

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH778 March 4, 1998friendly neighbor, the people of PuertoRico are citizens of the United States.There are no Customs checks or bound-aries between our country and theirs ormy State and Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth. It isa funny kind of status to most of us be-cause we do not think of it in that wayvery often, at least I do not. I knowthat anybody who lives in Puerto Ricocan come live at my State or Texas orMinnesota or New York, anywhere, anytime they want to. That is fine.

Travel is free. People talk to eachother all the time. There is a commonbond that is there. And I think it is im-portant for us as we debate this billtoday to recognize the depth of this re-lationship and the importance of it andthe tenderness of it.

The people of Puerto Rico have sac-rificed many times over for the UnitedStates. Many men have given theirlives in the service of this countryfrom Puerto Rico over the years. Wehave been partners for years and yearsand years.

I believe it is very, very importantthat we give the people of Puerto Rico,as this bill does, an opportunity to de-termine what they wish us to considerin this Congress in the coming yearsregarding their future status.

It is not, as has been said before, thatthis legislation would determinewhether or not Puerto Rico were to bea State or not. It is to give to the peo-ple of Puerto Rico a plebiscite, a vote,an opportunity to say yes to statehood,we would like you to consider that,Congress, or, no, we would rather stayin the Commonwealth status, or pos-sibly we would rather be independent.

If this is not resolved in favor ofstatehood or independence now, it pro-vides a vehicle for there to be futureopportunities for the people of PuertoRico to speak out on this issue and todebate all of those things that havebeen discussed today that need to bedebated. There needs to be that kind ofdebate. That is what it is all about.

Yes, if Puerto Rico becomes a State,there will be expectations on bothsides. We need to have a further airingof that. That is what the plebiscite de-bate in Puerto Rico would be all about.

Certainly assimilation in that broadsense of the word has always been partof the American tradition. But we as-similate immigrants into this country,and Puerto Ricans are not immigrants.They are citizens. But we assimilateimmigrants into this country, and, ul-timately, make them citizens everyyear, every day. We have done it sincethe beginning of the nations history.

We should not be concerned aboutthe challenges involved in it. I do notthink either side should be concerned.But we should be open about it. Weshould discuss it, and we should have afair debate about it. But above all else,we need to be sure that the people ofPuerto Rico get the chance to havethat debate first.

So I urge my colleagues in thestrongest sort of way to vote for this

resolution today to give the PuertoRican people that opportunity.

I would like to make a couple of com-ments, too, about who has supportedthis in the past. We have heard peopledebate, what did Ronald Reagan orGeorge Bush say about it? Well, whenthe Puerto Rican statehood plebiscitewas being discussed in November 1993,Ronald Reagan said,

My friends, as you consider whether or notyou wish to continue being a part of theUnited States, I want you to know one thing,the United States will welcome you withopen arms.

We’ve always been a land of varied culturalbackgrounds and origins, and we believefirmly that our strength is our diversity.

There is much Puerto Rico can contributeto our Nation, which is why I personallyfavor statehood. We hope you will join us.

Thank you and God bless you.

So I think that it is important thatwe understand that the history hasbeen of this Nation that many, many,many people have urged statehood onPuerto Rico in the past. But, again,that is not the purpose of the plebi-scite. It is for the people of Puerto Ricoto decide that.

We are also going to hear the ques-tion about English being discussed outhere. The gentleman from New York(Mr. SOLOMON), a moment ago, was dis-cussing that question.

I favor English as the official lan-guage of the United States. I have beena cosponsor of bills to do that for along time. All 50 States, and if we geta 51st State, the 51st State, too, shouldabide by that. That should be our offi-cial language. We should put it in thestatute of the books of this country tosay that. But to attach it to this billsends the wrong signal.

We are interested in seeing PuertoRico treated as everybody else. If weactually have an official language stat-ute ever become law, and I hope itdoes, it should apply to all of the terri-tories, the Commonwealths, the posses-sions of the United States. It should beknown that English is the official lan-guage of the United States. But I donot believe it should be adopted on thisbill today.

I would urge the support for the sub-stitute amendment that I am helpingcosponsor later on.

The CHAIRMAN. Who rises as thedesignee for the gentleman of Califor-nia (Mr. MILLER)?

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I do, Mr.Chairman.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, wehave a Member that has to get back toa hearing, so I would take him out oforder.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes tothe gentleman from Virginia (Mr.GOODLATTE.)

(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, Irise in strong opposition to H.R. 856 be-cause I have serious reservations aboutthe constitutionality of this legislationwhich authorizes the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico to hold a referendum todetermine Puerto Rico’s political fu-ture and prescribes the wording of theballot to be submitted to the voters.

Under the Act, the voters of PuertoRico purportedly may choose to main-tain the current Commonwealth sta-tus, to become a State, or to become anindependent Nation. The ballot lan-guage mandated by the Act, however,severely mischaracterizes anddenigates Puerto Rico’s currentCommonwealth status.

b 1300

The ballot language mandated by theact, however, severely mischarac-terizes and denigrates Puerto Rico’scurrent commonwealth status. Theserepeated misstatements clearly appearto be designed to ensure that the state-hood option prevails. Any doubt on thisvanishes when the act’s prescribed bal-lot is read in conjunction with otherprovisions of the act.

For instance, the act calls for a ref-erendum every 10 years until the state-hood option prevails. And the legisla-tive history, the committee report isopenly hostile to the current common-wealth status. Thus, a referendumusing the prescribed ballot would denythe people of Puerto Rico an informedand accurate choice concerning theirfuture political status and would revealnothing about the true sentiments ofthe people of Puerto Rico on this im-portant question.

The most serious misstatements con-tained in the act relate to its treat-ment of the rights enjoyed by the peo-ple of Puerto Rico under common-wealth status. The ballot contained inH.R. 856 states that Congress may de-termine the rights under the UnitedStates Constitution that are guaran-teed to the people of Puerto Rico. Thisstatement is wrong.

The act’s description of the citizen-ship rights of the people of Puerto Ricois similarly flawed. The act states thatPuerto Ricans are merely statutorycitizens and implies that their citizen-ship may be revoked by Congress. Thepeople of Puerto Rico, however, rightnow are United States citizens withinthe meaning of the 14th Amendment ofthe United States Constitution.

The ballot language mandated byH.R. 856 also mischaracterizes PuertoRico’s current political status. The actdescribes Puerto Rico as an unincor-porated territory of the United States.Beyond the pejorative connotations as-sociated with this term, which wasused to describe the United States’ co-lonial possessions, this description isinappropriate because the UnitedStates Supreme Court has held thatPuerto Rico, like a State, is an autono-mous political entity sovereign overmatters not ruled by the Constitution.But these falsehoods are to be right onthe ballot, mischaracterizing the com-monwealth’s status, when PuertoRicans vote.

The purpose of the proposed referen-dum is to learn the sentiments of the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H779March 4, 1998people of Puerto Rico. In light of thefundamental inaccuracies, any referen-dum using the prescribed ballot couldnot be relied upon as an honest reflec-tion of the sentiments of the people ofPuerto Rico. Accordingly, the act ascurrently formulated necessarily failsto accomplish its very purpose.

Equally important, these fundamen-tal inaccuracies in the ballot’s descrip-tion of the commonwealth status op-tion effectively deny the people ofPuerto Rico their constitutional rightto exercise the franchise in a meaning-ful way. As the proponents of PuertoRican statehood well understand, thecommonwealth option described in theballot will attract no significant sup-port among Puerto Rico’s voters, in-cluding voters who are otherwise ar-dent advocates of continuing PuertoRico’s commonwealth status.

Thus, the referendum contained inthe act infringes on the voting rightsof the people of Puerto Rico by pre-senting them with a factually inac-curate choice, a false choice as to theirpolitical future status. In short, H.R.856 presents the people of Puerto Ricowith a ballot that is stacked in favor ofthe statehood option. From the verystart, the election is rigged. The ballotlanguage mandated by the act is de-signed to ensure this result regardlessof the true sentiments of the people ofPuerto Rico.

Such a palpably deficient ballotraises serious constitutional issues.Moreover, as a matter of policy, it cer-tainty cannot be justified as an effortto give Puerto Ricans meaningful self-determination. Mr. Chairman, I opposethis legislation and I ask others to doso as well.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I yield myself 30 seconds to re-spond to the gentleman’s comments. Iwant everybody to understand onething. As chairman of this committee,we did this job right.

The gentleman talks about constitu-tionality. He does not know the Con-stitution from something else. We sentthis down to the Justice Department.They reviewed it with the best con-stitutional lawyers. Everything in thisbill is constitutional. I did this job cor-rectly as chairman. To have someonesay it is not constitutional or allude itis unconstitutional when it has beenthoroughly scrubbed by those thatknow the Constitution, I think is inap-propriate.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 3 minutes to the gen-tleman from Rhode Island (Mr. KEN-NEDY).

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr.Chairman, let me just underscore this.Let us go over it and over it and overit again. If Members do not like thelanguage of this bill, if they do not likethe definition of commonwealth in thisbill, they do not like commonwealth. IfMembers find that the language thatwe use to describe commonwealth is re-pugnant——

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willsuspend.

The Chair will admonish those in thegallery and remind all persons thatthey are here as guests of the House,and that any manifestation of approvalor disapproval of any of the proceed-ings is a violation of the rules of theHouse and will not be permitted.

The gentleman may proceed.Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr.

Chairman, the fact is that if everyoneis so insulted by this process, I hearthe gentlewoman from New York (Ms.VELAZQUEZ) and the gentleman from Il-linois (Mr. GUTIERREZ) say, ‘‘I don’tlike this process because they shut outa political party in Puerto Rico.’’ Letus understand what they are shuttingout, although it is not the case, I willargue.

But let us just assume that we areshutting out the PDP, the Populares inPuerto Rico. What do they want? Theywant the commonwealth status. Whatis the commonwealth status? It is colo-nial status. It is saying that this Con-gress can decide unilaterally, withoutPuerto Rico’s opinion or approval,what we want Puerto Rico to do. Endof story, I say to the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. SOLOMON).

So when you talk about how we arebeing unfair, think about it. We arebeing unfair because we do not likecommonwealth. You bet I do not likecommonwealth. I do not like the factthat 3.8 million people aredisenfranchised, 3.8 million UnitedStates citizens who fought in our wars,who died in our wars are not even al-lowed to vote for their Commander inChief. Can you imagine?

This country was founded, at theBoston tea party we declared our Revo-lutionary War, because we did not haverepresentation here. That is what theydo not have. Puerto Ricans cannot de-cide this bill. The gentleman fromPuerto Rico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO) hasno vote. He represents 3.8 millionUnited States citizens. This is a billthat affects them, and they have novote. What is that, other than colonial-ism?

This bill will give them statehood ifthey vote for it. Let us say they do notwant to vote for statehood now, theystill like this quasi-colonial status. Wegive them an opportunity, because inthe final analysis, it has to be theUnited States.

I think it is so insulting that I haveto be up here deciding on somethingthat the people of Puerto Rico shouldbe able to decide with or without myapproval, with or without the approvalof the gentleman from New York (Mr.SOLOMON), with or without the ap-proval of the gentleman from Alaska(Mr. YOUNG). We represent otherStates. Why should we have any say inthe matter with respect to PuertoRico? We were not elected by the Puer-to Ricans. They deserve their own rep-resentation. If we vote for this bill,they will get their own representation.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Iyield myself such time as I may con-sume. Let me explain to the gentlemanfrom Rhode Island (Mr. KENNEDY) whywe are deciding this bill. We are decid-ing this bill because, unlike the de-scription that the gentleman fromPuerto Rico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO) hasgiven, we did not welcome the UnitedStates to Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico wasinvaded by the United States duringthe Spanish-American Civil War.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Noargument there. No argument there.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let us be clear.The gentleman is right. We are makingthe decisions because that is what ishappening.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly op-pose H.R. 856 because this is the exactopposite of what its supporters pretendit to be. H.R. 856 is supposed to be a billfor self-determination, not for state-hood, which my friend from Rhode Is-land has every ability, he is for state-hood. That is what he wants. If I werefor statehood and I was willing to gam-ble everything for statehood, I wouldbe for this bill because this is a guaran-tee that statehood is going to win theplebiscite. I can understand that. Letus be clear.

Now I want to be clear about my po-sition, also, Mr. Chairman. I am forindependence for Puerto Rico. I am forindependence for Puerto Rico. Therewas a time that the statehooders andthe commonwealthers and the wholesystem would jail people like me forbeing for independence for Puerto Rico.That is why there are not more peoplefor the independence of Puerto Rico. Asthey jailed the people of your formerfatherland, Ireland, for wishing theindependence and the sovereignty ofthat nation.

I would suggest to everybody whatwe can oppose, and it is wrong. Sup-porters of this bill have approached mycolleagues on both sides of the aisle,Mr. Chairman, and told them that thepassage of this bill only means thatCongress authorizes the people of Puer-to Rico to express their preference forpolitical status among 3 options.

Some supporters of the bill haveplayed a very cynical game of tellingsome of my Democrats, ‘‘Vote for thisbill, and you will have 6 new Demo-cratic Members of the House and 2 newDemocratic Senators. That is why weshould vote for the bill.’’ That is beingand that should be said here, becausethat is part of the debate and the con-versation, and we should fully explainto the people of Puerto Rico how it isthat this Congress is arriving at a deci-sion to make their self-determination.

At the same time, some of the verysame people have circulated a memo-randum full of very strange statistics.Mr. Chairman, beware of strange num-bers for they could be telling strangerlies. It is a memorandum entitled‘‘Puerto Rico, Republican Territory,’’in which some magician tries to con-vince the uninformed that Puerto Ricowill produce 6 Republican Congressmenand 2 Republican Senators.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH780 March 4, 1998It sounds strange to me. The gentle-

woman from New York (Ms.VELAZQUEZ), a Puerto Rican; the gen-tleman from Illinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ),of Puerto Rican descent; the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SERRANO); andeven the Resident Commissioner hasdecided to sit on our side of the aisle,the main proponent of this bill, and heis in the Democratic Caucus. Let usnot play games with one side or theother getting some advantage overthis, because that is not respectful. Mr.Chairman, this is a strange manner inwhich to conduct a serious debate onthe future of a whole people.

Self-determination is a serious mat-ter. The sacred right of self-determina-tion has to be exercised in a totallydemocratic, open and above-board fash-ion. The true sovereignty of any na-tion, and Puerto Rico is indeed a na-tion, rests with its people. I think thatthe Members of this Congress shouldunderstand what the people of PuertoRico believe, because this is somethingthat is going to affect them.

They did a poll in Puerto Rico, ElNuevo Dia, that is The New Day, thelargest paper of circulation in PuertoRico; by the way, owned by astatehooder. They asked the people. Onthe nationality question, 65 percent ofthe people see themselves as PuertoRican and not American, 65 percent ofthe people in Puerto Rico; 62 percent ofthe people consider their Nation to bePuerto Rico and not the United States.

But at the same time, 75 percent con-sider their American citizenship to bevery important. Strange, you say, thatsounds like a contradiction. It is thecontradiction of colonialism, obvi-ously. But it is also what the authorsof this understand very well. On theone hand, they tell you, Puerto Rico isnot a nation, it is just a group of peo-ple. It is this little tropical island thatsits out there somewhere in the Carib-bean.

But let me tell everybody in thisroom, the people of Puerto Rico whichyou are deciding today their options,consider themselves as a Nation. Theyconsider to have a nationality, that na-tionality being Puerto Rican. Youshould understand that. You should un-derstand that very, very clearly.

At the same time they want to keeptheir American citizenship. I thinkthat that is very clear. Just March 4,they asked the people of Puerto Ricowhat they think about the Young bill.They asked the people of Puerto Rico.They said 35 percent reject the Youngbill, 33 percent support the Young bill,and another third do not have an opin-ion on the Young bill. It says if PuertoRicans within the great diaspora ofPuerto Rico, that is Puerto Ricans inthe United States, do not get to voteon this, over half of them say weshould reject the Young bill.

b 1315

That is the people of Puerto Rico.But let me go further, Mr. Chairman,because I think it is very, very, very

important that we understand what isgoing on here.

Look, there is a value I hold evendearer than my wish for the independ-ence of Puerto Rico, and that is the re-spect that I have for the true aspira-tions of the Puerto Rican people. Thatis their inalienable right of the peopleof Puerto Rico to their self-determina-tion.

That is precisely why I oppose thisbill so strongly. H.R. 856 is exactly theopposite. It is a bill, read it, it is a billthat is cleverly designed to obtain anartificial majority for statehood forPuerto Rico and to lead Congress downan irreversible path, first through theincorporation of Puerto Rico, and thento the admission of Puerto Rico as the51st State of this great union. In fact,some opponents of H.R. 856 call this atrap.

Now, Congress makes an offer ofstatehood to the people of Puerto Rico.The only requirement, the only re-quirement, is that a simple majorityvote in favor of statehood. But the bal-lot is so stacked in favor of statehoodthat I am going to read a quote, and,please, listen to this quote:

The Resident Commissioner, CARLOSROMERO-BARCELO, said, ‘‘Victory forstatehood is guaranteed because thedefinition of ‘‘commonwealth’’ does notinclude fiscal autonomy and does notinclude U.S. citizenship, a guarantee.The definition of Commonwealth inthis bill is that of a territory. We justleft the word ‘‘territory’’ out.’’ Quote-end quote of the Resident Commis-sioner of Puerto Rico here.

So I am not saying this bill isstacked in favor of statehood; the veryproponent, the Resident Commissionerof Puerto Rico, has stated this pub-licly, and that is wrong, to play poli-tics, partisan politics.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank thegentleman from Alaska (Mr. YOUNG),and I want to thank the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. MILLER), becauseboth gentlemen have been decent withme. When I asked to participate intheir hearings, they both know thatthey had to override objections of cer-tain Members to allow me to partici-pate in their committee, but they did.The gentleman from California (Mr.MILLER) and the gentleman from Alas-ka (Mr. YOUNG) have always listened tome, have always come and said, ‘‘Luis,what do you think? Let us talk aboutthis.’’

I know that the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. MILLER) tried to fix this. Iknow he did. He did make every at-tempt to fix this, and I know that hewent to everybody and tried to bringpeople together. He testified so yester-day, and I know it to be a fact. Unfor-tunately, it was not able to be done. Itwas not able to be done. This has to bea process of consensus, of building peo-ple together.

Mr. Chairman, do you know some-thing? That is why I did not yield, be-cause when I asked for the opportunityto speak about this issue, I was ob-

jected to time and time again. I will re-spect the wishes of those who wish tospeak to this issue that have respectedthe wishes of the people of Puerto Ricoand all Members of this House, but donot expect treatment from me whichothers have disregarded for others.

Once the people of Puerto Rico votefor statehood under this rather unfairgame plan, the Commonwealth Partyhas said it cannot participate in theplebiscite. That is going to be a prob-lem. You have got about 48 percent ofthe people who say if you do it thisway, we are not going to participate inthis thing.

Now, I am going to make one laststatement and then reserve the balanceof my time. Look, this is serious. Thisis serious. If you approve this Youngbill, do you know what you have said?You have said that 3.8 million PuertoRicans do not have the protection ofthe 14th Amendment of the Constitu-tion of the United States. You havesaid that their American citizenship isnot guaranteed.

I will tell you what people will say.They will never take it away. ThisCongress would never take an action.

Do you know something? My dad didnot get to see me until I was a yearold, I would say to the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. SOLOMON), becausewhen he was called to duty, he served.He served, Mr. Chairman.

How can we say that my dad and tensof thousands of other Puerto Ricanswho have served this Nation, right,that their citizenship is statutory, canbe taken away from them at a whim ofCongress? I do not believe that.

As a matter of fact, in the 1950 Na-tionality Act, this Congress approvedsomething that says the 50 states andPuerto Rico, anyone born there, is pro-tected by the 14th Amendment and arecitizens of this country. That is whatthe 1950 Nationality Act says.

So do not come back here and saythat commonwealth is statutory citi-zenship, because, you know something?I want Puerto Rico to be a free andindependent nation, and in that I dis-agree with my colleague, the gen-tleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO). The gentleman wants it tobe assimilated and a state, but I thinkit is important, it is important, thatthe people of Puerto Rico have the defi-nitions that they can have.

Lastly, in 1993, when the ResidentCommissioner’s party was in power inPuerto Rico, the Statehood Party, theycontrolled the two houses, the Houseand the Senate, and they controlledthe governorship. They had a plebiscitein Puerto Rico.

Why, when they controlled all therules in Puerto Rico, was the Common-wealth status not not a territory? Whywas not the citizenship not statutorywhen that came up?

Why is it? As a matter of fact, in 1990we unanimously accepted some defini-tions here, 1990, and none of these con-siderations. Do you want to know why?Because they want to stack the cards.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H781March 4, 1998If the people of Puerto Rico want

statehood, I will be the first one tocome here and support statehood forPuerto Rico, but it has got to be a fairprocess. People can laugh and peoplecan chide, because they do not under-stand the seriousness of this matter.This is about the 14th Amendment.This is about my dad, this is about mywife, Soraida, born in Moca, PuertoRico; and I do not intend to go back toher tomorrow and say her citizenship isany less than mine. She was born a cit-izen of this country, and I am going toprotect her right. It is not statutory, itis protected.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 3 minutes to the gen-tleman from Missouri (Mr. GEPHARDT),the minority leader.

(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman,there is no right more fundamental toour democracy than the right of peopleto decide their political future. Amer-ican democracy was conceived in thegreat struggle of the RevolutionaryWar, and it originated out of a fight forself-determination by the Americancolonists to be able to control theirown affairs.

We have long asserted this right, notonly for Americans, but for people allover the world. We have insisted thatthis is a universal human right thatevery human being should enjoy. Socertainly it should and must be a fun-damental right for people living underthe American flag as American citi-zens. Yet almost 4 million Americancitizens, the people of Puerto Rico,have not enjoyed this right.

We have the opportunity to ensuretoday that American citizens who havesacrificed their loved ones in our wars,who serve our country in and out ofuniform, and who obey our laws, shouldhave a say in their political future. Thepeople of Puerto Rico deserve an oppor-tunity to vote on their future politicalstatus, and this bill simply gives themthat opportunity. The choice should betheirs, and this Congress should re-spect that outcome.

This is a simple issue of basic humanrights. The bill should easily becomelaw. But today there are many in thisCongress who want to hold this legisla-tion hostage to an extreme agenda.

The Solomon English-only legisla-tion, which House Republicans pushedthrough 2 years ago, but which died inthe Senate and which has laid dormantever since, would impose English-onlyrestrictions that are unnecessary anddivisive. While immigrants from allethnic groups understand the impor-tance and the necessity of learningEnglish, the Solomon amendment doesnothing to make this happen anyquicker or easier.

The fact that some have raised thisissue today is a slap in the face to thepeople of Puerto Rico, who love Amer-

ica and love their heritage. Instead ofenforcing political rights, this amend-ment would undermine them by weak-ening the Voting Rights Act and end-ing bilingual access. Instead of expand-ing access to government, the Solomonamendment chills communications be-tween Members of Congress and con-stituents. It imposes unique require-ments on the people of Puerto Ricothat Congress has not imposed on citi-zens of any other State of the UnitedStates.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members tosupport the bipartisan substitute thatis being put forward by the leadershipof this committee. It recognizes that itis in the best interests of our Nationand our citizens to promote the teach-ing of English, and it sets the goal ofenabling students to achieve Englishlanguage proficiency by the age of 10.It does not threaten free and openspeech and communication of publicsafety, and it does not single out thepeople of Puerto Rico for unique, ex-traordinary requirements that we askof no other State in the United Statesof America.

Finally, it is time to get on with thebusiness at hand. It is time to extendthe same rights to the people of PuertoRico that billions of other peoplearound the world take for granted.Puerto Rico has been a member of ourAmerican family for over 100 years.The people of Puerto Rico have waitedlong enough to finally decide their owndestiny. More than a half decade agoFranklin Roosevelt said this to Con-gress. He said, ‘‘Freedom means the su-premacy of human rights everywhere.’’Our support, he said, goes to those whostruggle to gain those rights or keepthem.

Mr. Chairman, we have a magnificentopportunity today, a bipartisan oppor-tunity, an opportunity to extend themagic and the blessing of freedom andhuman rights and self-determination tothe almost 4 million citizens of theUnited States, the people of PuertoRico. Vote against the Solomonamendment, vote for the bipartisansubstitute, and vote for this legislationfor the meaning of America to bebrought to the people of Puerto Rico.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 11⁄2 minutes to the gen-tleman from Guam (Mr. UNDERWOOD).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemanfrom Guam.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Guam (Mr. UNDERWOOD) is recog-nized for 21⁄2 minutes.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gen-tleman from Alaska.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I would like to apologize to thegentleman. In my passionate plea forPuerto Rico, I forgot the great Terri-tory of Guam. We are working veryclose together. It slipped my mind. SoI do apologize to the gentleman.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, re-claiming my time, I thank the gen-

tleman for entering that into theRECORD.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong sup-port of H.R. 856 and urge my colleaguesto vote for this very important legisla-tion. I applaud the work of the gen-tleman from Alaska (ChairmanYOUNG), the gentleman from California(Mr. MILLER), and my fellow statutorycitizen, the gentleman from PuertoRico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO).

H.R. 856 is significant because it es-tablishes Federal responsibility in aprocess of self-determination for thepeople of Puerto Rico that would leadto decolonization. The Treaty of Paris,which ceded Puerto Rico and Guam tothe U.S. in 1898, clearly gave the re-sponsibility to this body for determin-ing the political status of the inhab-itants of these territories. Until thisbody does this, these areas will con-tinue to remain colonies, 100 yearssince the end of the Spanish-AmericanWar. Until we do this, there will not beclarity in the ultimate political statusof these unincorporated territories.

b 1330

The bill before us clearly states thatthe Federal Government has the re-sponsibility to act within a specifictime frame and in unequivocal termsso that the process itself does not leadto more frustration and uncertainty.The Federal responsibility must beconsistent with a modern 21st centuryunderstanding of decolonization, and itmust lead to a process which forces ex-peditious action.

Today, 100 years after the Spanish-American War, the U.S. Congress hasthe unique opportunity and the moralobligation to resolve Puerto Rico’squest for a clear political status for itscitizens. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. Chairman, if Members supportdemocracy and the principle of fair-ness, I urge Members to vote for 856. Itis the right thing to do for the citizensof the Caribbean island, to demonstratethat this country is second to none inthe exercise of self-determination, thatwe are second to none in honoring ourtreaty obligations, and that we are sec-ond to none in the full implementationof democracy.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 2 minutes to the gen-tleman from Maryland (Mr. HOYER).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman from Puerto Rico foryielding time to me.

I rise in strong support of this legis-lation. I rise in strong support for thesubstitute that will be put forth to theSolomon amendment, and in oppositionto the Solomon amendment.

Since 1985 I have served on the Hel-sinki Commission, which was chargedsince 1976 to oversee the implementa-tion of the Helsinki Final Act. Withinthat act it said that the internationalcommunity ought to respect the self-determination of peoples.

It is one of the most troubling issuesthat confronts the international com-munity and the emerging democracies

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH782 March 4, 1998around the world. It is difficult becausewe need to determine what group, whatsize, how many do you need for self-de-termination. Does it need to be anidentifiable, geographic area? If so,how large? It is an issue that we dealwith in Yugoslavia.

Always, always, always the UnitedStates is on the side of those who as-pire to make their own decisions. Onthis floor we have heard some very ar-ticulate expressions on both sides ofthis issue, from people who know thepolitics of Puerto Rico far more than I.But I know that those articulate peo-ple will debate this issue vigorously,and it will be the people of Puerto Ricowho make this decision, as it shouldbe. But it is important that this Con-gress express at home, within our ownNation, that same conviction on behalfof self-determination that we expressaround the world.

I would hope that we would over-whelmingly, in a bipartisan way, passthis legislation. I want to commend thegentleman from Alaska (Mr. YOUNG)for his leadership on this issue, and thegentleman from California (Mr. MIL-LER), and indeed, the delegate fromPuerto Rico, and all of those who par-ticipate in this debate.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 2 minutes to the gen-tleman from Maryland (Mr. WYNN).

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman from Puerto Rico foryielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of thebill before us today. I rise in oppositionto the Solomon amendment. I rise insupport of the bipartisan substitute.

Mr. Chairman, the essence of the billbefore us today is to allow the peopleof Puerto Rico to make the decisionsabout their own destiny, what we liketo refer to as self-determination.

For the last few decades we havetalked long and often hard about theimportance of self-determination in allparts of the world: in Russia, in Cuba,around the globe. It is now time to talkabout self-determination for one of ournearest neighbors.

This is not that complicated. That isthe beauty of democratic elections.Members have heard here today thatthere are lots of points of view aboutthis issue within Puerto Rico. Thosedifferences can be resolved by demo-cratic elections. That is what we arehere today to do, not to impose anyparticular form of government, be itstatehood, independence, or Common-wealth status, but rather, to let thepeople, the people themselves decidewhat form of government they believeis most desirable.

The point is that today PuertoRicans can fight in our wars but cannotelect the Commander in Chief. Theycan contribute to Social Security, andthey do, but they cannot receive SocialSecurity benefits. We need to changethis, and we need to use our time-hon-ored democratic processes to do that.

Mr. Chairman, let me talk for a mo-ment about this notion embodied in

the Solomon amendment of Englishonly. We all recognize that English isthe common language of our country.It is the dominant language of ourcountry. But who was it that decidedthat to be an American you had tospeak the language of the British Isles?I am not sure that makes sense.

We were a country founded on toler-ance, multiculturalism. It seems to mewe can make room for those peoplewho speak other languages. We left theOld World to create the New World forprecisely this reason, to leave theconformities and traditions of the OldWorld behind. I think it is time wemove forward to true multiculturalismand accept the fact that we do not haveto have an ordered language in our so-ciety. I urge the adoption of the bill be-fore us.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 3 minutes to the gen-tleman from Texas (Mr. BONILLA).

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

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the de-bate we are hearing today reminds meof the demagoguing we heard backwhen the new majority took over inJanuary of 1995. We tried to do somethings that were right for the country,and we were demagogued as those whowere trying to end the school lunchprogram, as those who were trying toeliminate Medicare, and as those whowere trying to hurt the environment.We all knew that was not true, but yetthe demagoguing continued.

The demagoguing continues today bythose who are opposed to this bill, whosay that it is going to somehow createa State, a new State, instantly. That isfalse. That is demagoguing.

There is also demagoguing about howthis bill might be promoting bilingual-ism. That is not true at all, but none-theless the arguments continue. Theysay this is anti-Commonwealth. That isalso not true. The demagogues know itbut they continue to make these argu-ments, in spite of the truth and sub-stance of what we are trying to accom-plish here today.

For those who think somehow thatthis is going to end the official lan-guage of the world, it is also a case ofdemagoguing. English is the officiallanguage of the world. One hundredfifty seven of 168 airlines have Englishas their official language. There are3,000 newspapers printed in English inthe country of India. Six members ofthe European Free Trade Associationall conduct their business in English,despite the fact that none of the sixmembers are from English-speakingnations. Three hundred thousand Chi-nese speak English in their own coun-try. Forty-four countries have Englishas their official language.

The size of the English language, thenumber of words in the English lan-guage, is about 1 million. If we countthe insects, and entomologists saythere are a million known insects thatcould also become words, if we added

them to our language, you could make2 million words that would be part ofthe English language, compared toother languages, like German, that hasabout 184,000, and French, that hasabout 100,000 words.

For those fear-mongers who think weneed some kind of amendment on thisbill to help us promote English,English is already the official languageof the world. We do not need an amend-ment to tell us that. It is going to con-tinue to be the official language of theworld. We should support H.R. 856, andall proudly, because of what it standsfor, and not be fear-mongering aboutwhat it might do to the great languageof English that is used worldwide.

I say to my friends, let us stop thedemagoguing, let us stop the fear-mongering that we have injected intothis debate. Lighten up and supportH.R. 856.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 11⁄2 minutes to the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. DEUTSCH).

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding timeto me.

Mr. Chairman, this is truly a historicdebate in this Congress. This is mysixth year as a Member of this Con-gress. It is the first time we are reallytalking about an issue about the fun-damental union of our States. That isreally what we are talking about.

In this Chamber over the last 100years, and before that in the otherChamber just down the hall for 100years before that, or just about, this isthe kind of debates that went on. Un-less it was one of the first original 13colonies, each State went through aprocess. There were different debatesand different things that went throughthat process. But that is where we arenow.

I think part of the acknowledgmentof this bill is something that obviouslyis controversial, but I think the fact,and people can debate it, is that thestatus of Commonwealth is an unstableequilibrium. In a sense, the bill ac-knowledges that. It can continue, butit cannot continue indefinitely. Theprocess of the legislation specificallyputs that into statute, and that is whyit is critical that this legislation pass.

I would mention that the amendmentby the gentleman from New York (Mr.SOLOMON), I think we should acknowl-edge what the amendment offered bythe gentleman from New York (Mr.SOLOMON) attempts to do. We need tobe direct about this.

This amendment is really not ger-mane to this bill. It is an issue that inand of itself can be discussed and de-bated, but to turn English into the offi-cial language of the United States isnot about this bill. It does not deserveto be on this bill, and it is inappropri-ately on this bill. I think we have tounderstand the reason it is on this billis to kill the bill.

However anyone in this Chamberfeels about that particular issue, and Iknow it is a passionate issue, I urge the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H783March 4, 1998defeat of the Solomon amendment andthe support of the substitute offered bythe gentleman from Alaska (Mr.YOUNG) and the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. MILLER) and others to as-sure that this historic opportunity istaken advantage of.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 856 will enable Con-gress to administer and determine the statusof Puerto Rico in the same manner this institu-tion has been administering and decolonizingterritories since the Northwest Ordinance of1789. The historical constitutional practice ofthe United States has been to decolonize non-state territories which come under U.S. sov-ereignty by either full incorporation leading tostatehood (as in the case of Alaska and Ha-waii) or separate nationhood (Philippines).

For too long Puerto Rico has been divertedfrom the historical process of decolonization.Because local self-government was estab-lished under P.L. 81–600 in 1952, Congresshas pretended that Puerto Rico could be ad-ministered permanently as a territory with in-ternal constitutional self-government. However,the local constitution did not create a separatenation as the pro-commonwealth party inPuerto Rico argues. Puerto Rican born Ameri-cans are still disenfranchised in the federal po-litical system which is supreme in the territoryas long as the U.S. flag flies over the island.

Puerto Rico is not a ‘‘free associated state’’in the U.S. constitutional sense or under inter-national law as recognized by the UnitedStates. Puerto Rico remains a colony. That isnot my choice of words, that is the term usedby the McKinley Administration to describePuerto Rico. It is also the term used by theformer chief justice of the Puerto Rico Su-preme Court who was one of the architects ofthe commonwealth constitution.

Because H.R. 856 will define the real andtrue options that the Congress and the peoplein Puerto Rico have to resolve the statusquestion, I strongly support this bill. Informingthe voters in the territory of the real definitionof commonwealth, statehood and separatesovereignty including free association is nec-essary because of the misleading adoption in1952 of the Spanish words for ‘‘free associa-tion’’ by the pro-commonwealth party to de-scribe the current commonwealth status. Nowonder people are confused!

Only when people understand the real op-tions can there be informed self-determination,and only when there has been informed self-determination can Congress then decide whatstatus is in the national interest. Then the sta-tus of Puerto Rico can be resolved if there isagreement on the terms for status change. Ifnot the status quo continues, but the processto decolonize Puerto Rico will exist. ThenPuerto Rico’s colonial status will continue onlyas long as the people of Puerto Rico are un-able to choose between statehood and inde-pendence on terms acceptable to Congress.

To promote a better understanding of thenature of free association, I would like toshare the following background paper on freeassociation written by the U.S. Ambassadorwho negotiated free association treaties forPresident Reagan. The U.S. has a free asso-ciation relationship with three Pacific islandnations, and this status is very different fromthe free association espoused by the so-called‘‘autonomists in Puerto Rico’’—who want to bea separate sovereign nation but also keepU.S. nationally and citizenship.

That ‘‘have it both ways’’ approach to freeassociation was attempted in the case of theMicronesian Compact of Free Association, butthe State Department, Justice Department andCongress rejected that model as unconstitu-tional and unwise. It was an attempt to ‘‘per-fect’’ the legal theory of the Puerto Rican com-monwealth as a form of permanent self-gov-ernment, a nation-within-a-nation concept thathas always failed and always will because theU.S. constitution does not allow a Quebec-likeproblem in our Federal system.

Ambassador Zeder’s explanation of free as-sociation as an option for Puerto Rico makesthe ground rules for this form of separate sov-ereignty very clear and easy to understand. Iinclude his statement for the RECORD.

The statement referred to is as follows:UNDERSTANDING FREE ASSOCIATION AS A FORM

OF SEPARATE SOVEREIGNTY AND POLITICALINDEPENDENCE IN THE CASE OFDECOLONIZATION OF PUERTO RICO

(By Ambassador Fred M. Zeder, II)Consistent with relevant resolutions of the

U.N. General Assembly, Puerto Rico’s op-tions for full self-government are: Independ-ence (Example: Philippines); Free Associa-tion (Example: Republic of the Marshall Is-lands); Integration (Example: Hawaii). See,G.A. Resolution 1514 (1960); G.A. Resolution1541 (1960); G.A. Resolution 2625 (1970).

For purposes of international law includ-ing the relevant U.N. resolutions inter-national conventions to which the U.S. is aparty, the current status of Puerto Rico isbest described as substantial but incompleteintegration. This means that thedecolonization process that commenced in1952 has not been fulfilled.

As a matter of U.S. domestic constitu-tional law, a territory within U.S. sov-ereignty which has internal constitutionalself-government but is not fully integratedinto the national system of political unionon the basis of equality remains an unincor-porated territory, and can be referred to as a‘‘commonwealth.’’ (Example: Puerto Ricoand the Northern Mariana Islands).

For purposes of U.S. constitutional law,independence and free association are statusoptions which are created and exist on theinternational plane. Thus, instead of the sov-ereign primacy of Congress under the terri-torial clause, the sources of constitutionalauthority with respect to nations with sepa-rate sovereignty include the article II, sec-tion 2 treaty-making power and the applica-ble article I, section 8 powers of Congresssuch as that relating to nationality and im-migration law.

Relations between the U.S. and a nationwhich is independent or in free associationare conducted on the basis of internationallaw. Thus, independence and free associationare status options which would remove Puer-to Rico from its present existence within thesphere of sovereignty of the United Statesand establish a separate Puerto Rican sov-ereignty outside the political union and fed-eral constitutional system of the UnitedStates.

Instead of completing the integration proc-ess through full incorporation and statehood,either independence or free associationwould ‘‘dis-integrate’’ Puerto Rico from theUnited States. This would terminate U.S.sovereignty, nationality and citizenship andend application of the U.S. Constitution inPuerto Rico. In other words, the process ofgradual integration which began in 1898, andwhich was advanced by statutory U.S. citi-zenship in 1917 and establishment of con-stitutional arrangements approved by thepeople in 1952, would be terminated in favorof either independence or free association.

Under either independence or free associa-tion, the U.S. and Puerto Rico could enterinto treaties to define relations on a sov-ereign-to-sovereign basis. Free associationas practiced by the U.S. is simply a form ofindependence in which two sovereign nationsagree to a special close relationship that in-volves delegations of the sovereign powers ofthe associated to the United States in suchareas as defense and other governmentalfunctions to the extent both parties to thetreaty-based relationship agree to continuesuch arrangements.

The specific features of free associationand balance between autonomy and inter-dependence can vary within well-defined lim-its based on negotiated terms to which bothparties to the arrangement have agreed, butall such features must be consistent with thestructure of the agreement as a treaty-basedsovereign-to-sovereign relationship. In U.S.experience and practice, even where free as-sociation has many features of a dependentterritorial status the sources and allocationof constitutional authority triggered by theunderlying separation of sovereignty, na-tionality and citizenship causes the relation-ship to evolve in the direction of full inde-pendence rather than functional re-integra-tion.

Free association is essentially a transi-tional status for peoples who do not seek fullintegration, but rather seek to maintainclose political, economic and security rela-tions with another nation during the periodafter separate sovereignty is achieved.Again, this could be accomplished by treatybetween independent nations as well. Thus,free association is a form of separate sov-ereignty that usually arises from the rela-tionship between a colonial power and a peo-ple formerly in a colonial status who at leasttemporarily want close ties with the formercolonial power for so long as both partiesagree to the arrangements.

Free association is recognized as a distinctform of separate sovereignty, even though le-gally it also is consistent with independence.Specifically, free association is consistentwith independence because, as explainedbelow, the special and close bilateral rela-tionship created by a free association treatyor pact can be terminated in favor of conven-tional independence at any time by eitherparty.

In addition, the U.S. and the internationalcommunity have recognized that a separatenation can be a party to a bilateral pact offree association and be an independent na-tion in the conventional sense at the sametime. For example, the Republic of the Mar-shall Islands is party to the Compact of FreeAssociation with the United States, but hasbeen admitted to the United Nations as anindependent nation.

Thus, the international practice regardingfree association actually is best understoodas a method of facilitating thedecolonization process leading to simple andabsolute independence. Essentially, it allowsnew nations not prepared economically, so-cially or strategically for emergence intoconventional independence to achieve sepa-rate nationhood in cooperation with aformer colonial power or another existingnation.

Under international law and practice in-cluding the relevant U.N. resolutions and ex-isting free association precedents, free asso-ciation must be terminable at will by eitherparty in order to establish that the relation-ship is consistent with separate sovereigntyand the right of self-determination is pre-served. This international standard, also rec-ognized by the U.S., is based on the require-ment that free association not be allowed tobecome merely a new form of internationallyaccepted colonialism.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH784 March 4, 1998Specifically, free association is not in-

tended to create a new form of territorialstatus or quasi-sovereignty. It is not a ‘‘na-tion-within-a-nation’’ relationship or a formof irrevocable permanent union, but is,again, a sovereign-to-sovereign treaty-basedrelationship which is either of limited dura-tion or terminable at will by either partyacting unilaterally.

In other words, both parties have a sov-ereign right to terminate the relationship atany time. The free association treaty mayprovide for the terms and measures whichwill apply in the event of unilateral termi-nation, but the ability of either party to doso can not be conditioned or encumbered insuch a manner that the exercise of the rightto terminate the relationship effectively isimpaired or precluded.

For that reason, the territory and popu-lation of each nation involved must be with-in the sovereignty, nationality and citizen-ship of that nation, and the elements andmechanisms of the free association relation-ship must be defined consistent with that re-quirement. Separate and distinct sov-ereignty and nationality must be establishedat the time of decolonization and preservedunder the relationship or the ability of ei-ther party to terminate will be impaired.

Thus, the major power may grant to peopleof the free associated nation special rightsnormally associated with the major power’sown citizenship classifications, such as openimmigration and residence rights.

However, these arrangements are subjectto the same terminability as the overall re-lationship, and thus may be either for a lim-ited duration or subject to unilateral termi-nation by either party at any time.

Consequently, there can be no permanentmass dual nationality because this would beinconsistent with the preservation of the un-derlying separate sovereignty. Any specialrights or classifications of the major powerextended to the people of a free associatednation are more in the nature of residencyrights and do not prevent either nation fromexercising separate sovereignty with respectto the nationality its own population.

Upon termination of the free associationrelationship by either party, any such classi-fications or special residency rights will besubject to unilateral termination as well.Both during and after any period of free as-sociation, the people of each of the two na-tions will owe their allegiance to and havethe separate nationality of their own coun-try. Any attempt to deviate from thesenorms of international law and practicewould undermine the sovereignty of both na-tions, and would impair the right of self-de-termination which must be preserved to en-sure the relationship is based on consentrather than coercion.

In summary, the United States recognizeseach of the three U.N. accepted status op-tions for Puerto Rico to achieve full self-gov-ernment. One of those options, integration,is within U.S. sovereignty and the federal po-litical union, the other two, independenceand free association, exist without U.S. sov-ereignty, nationality and citizenship.

Obviously, Puerto Rico can not act unilat-erally to establish a new status. This is sonot only because of U.S. sovereignty and theauthority of Congress under the territorialclause, but also because Puerto Rico seeksthe agreement of the U.S. to the terms underwhich any of these options would be imple-mented. This means Congress must agree tothe terms under which a new status is de-fined and implemented.

There is no right on the part of PuertoRico unilaterally to define its relationshipwith the United States. Nor would it be con-sistent with U.S. commitments to respectthe right of self-determination for non-self-

governing people under U.S. administrationto dispose of the territory of Puerto Rico ina manner which does not take into accountthe freely expressed wishes of the residents.

Thus, as the two parties which must defineand carry out a future relationship based onconsent and the right of self-determinationwhich each must exercise, Congress, on be-half of the United States, and the people ofPuerto Rico, acting through their constitu-tional process, must decide whetherdecolonization will be completed throughcompletion of the process for integrationinto union or separation and nationhoodapart from the U.S. for Puerto Rico.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 21⁄2 minutes to the gentlemanfrom Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY).

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.Chairman, I thank the gentleman foryielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, I have been impressedin this debate thus far about the deter-mination of us as Members of Congressto provide for real self-determinationfor the great people of Puerto Rico. Ithink it is fundamentally important tothe Puerto Rican people themselvesand to all of us as Americans, when wetalk about the most important issue,perhaps, that we can determine in thisChamber, as to whether or not and whowe define as American citizens, that weare clearly saying to the Puerto Ricanpeople that they are welcome as notonly citizens of this country, but theyare in fact welcome as a 51st State.

But, and I mean a serious but, foranyone who has taken the time to visitPuerto Rico, to not just visit there inthe sense of getting a nice suntan, butgoing there and talking with the Puer-to Rican people and gaining a betterunderstanding of their own identifica-tion, the truth of the matter is thereare millions of Puerto Ricans that con-sider themselves to be Puerto Ricans,Puerto Ricans first.

American citizens, yes. They arewilling to fight and die for this coun-try. But I do not consider myself aMassachusettan first and then anAmerican, I consider myself to be anAmerican.

I think that we as American citizensought to fundamentally be wide enoughin the breadth of our knowledge andour sense of other human beings toallow them their own self-identifica-tion. That means that we ought to re-spect those that believe in the Com-monwealth party.

I have a great many friends that arecommonwealthers and statehooders.But I have great respect for the Com-monwealth party, and I believe thatthis bill unfairly slants the way we de-fine Commonwealth by bringing upissues as to whether or not this meansthat Puerto Rican people are going tobe forever faced with determinationsby this body as to whether or not weare going to consider them to be citi-zens, whether or not we are going totax them, a whole series of questionsthat effectively undermines one groupof Puerto Ricans that over and overagain has stood up for equality statusversus statehood.

If the people of Puerto Rico claimand vote for statehood, I would be thefirst in this Chamber to vote with themand to give them their vote and voicehere in the Congress of the UnitedStates. But if in fact they choose Com-monwealth status, then let us respectthat as well, and let us make this anevenhanded debate that does not slightone side or the other, but gives this im-portant issue the respect it is due.

b 1345Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield

such time as he may consume to thegentleman from New York (Mr. GIL-MAN), the honorable chairman of theCommittee on International Relations.

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

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman from New York (Mr.SOLOMON) for yielding me this time.Mr. Chairman, I rise today in supportof H.R. 856, the United States-PuertoRico Political Status Act, allowingPuerto Ricans to determine their fu-ture political status.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R.856, the United States-Puerto Rico PoliticalStatus Act, which will allow Puerto Ricans todetermine their future political status.

This bill would give the U.S. citizens ofPuerto Rico the right to self-determination. Ibelieve every U.S. citizen should be affordedthat opportunity.

The right to self-determination is a founda-tion or our freedoms. By voting against thisbill, we would be sending a message that wedon’t believe other citizens should be giventhe opportunity and privilege of voting that weenjoy.

Puerto Ricans have served and died in warsdefending democracy for years, yet they can-not elect a President or participate in the legis-lative process. This is unjust and un-American.Voting for H.R. 856 will entrust 3.8 million His-panic Americans who reside in Puerto Ricowith the power of an educated vote on self-de-termination.

Furthermore, voting for H.R. 856 does notconfer statehood to Puerto Rico, but merelyestablishes a referendum that sets the termsand clarifies the choices to allow PuertoRicans to determine their future political sta-tus. With regard to the language of the island,Puerto Rico recognized English as an officiallanguage of the local government in 1902—longer than any other American domain.English is the language of the local and fed-eral governments, courts, and businesses, andis also in the curriculum of all the schools onthe island of Puerto Rico.

As chairman of the International RelationsCommittee, I recognize the importance of sup-porting democratic principles abroad. Support-ing H.R. 856 were enormously help tostrengthen U.S. relations with Latin Americannations. It is equally important to supportthese democratic standards here in America,by voting for a non-binding referendum.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues tojoin in voting for H.R. 856, and grant PuertoRicans the right to self-determination.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 1 minute to the gentle-woman from the District of Columbia(Ms. NORTON).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H785March 4, 1998Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr.ROMERO-BARCELO) for yielding me thistime.

Mr. Chairman, a matter of self-deter-mination should be a matter thatbrings unanimous consent in this body,and it pains to me to see divisions andsplits. If the bill is imperfect, there aremany hurdles yet to go: additional is-land votes, additional congressionalvotes provided by the bill. Also, thevote to be taken in Puerto Rico is non-binding.

Above all, we cannot get ahead of thePuerto Rican people. In 1993, we in theDistrict of Columbia had a historicvote on statehood. That is not whatthis vote is about. It is about allowingthe Puerto Rican people to decide whataffiliation they themselves desire. Thisis what we say we want people aroundthe world to decide.

I represent half a million people inthe District of Columbia who identifywith Puerto Ricans because we too aretreated as less than full Americans, liv-ing here right under the noses of theCongress of the United States. Weknow what it is like to fight and die inwars while suffering denials of con-comitant rights.

The District has even fewer rightsthan Puerto Ricans because we do nothave the right to self-government. Wein the District feel a deep kinshipwhich demands for self-determinationaround the world, and especially self-determination among our own in Puer-to Rico.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemanfrom Mississippi (Mr. TAYLOR).

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr.Chairman, as we debate this, there are20,000 Puerto Ricans serving in theArmed Forces of the United States. Inthis century, 200,000 have taken thepledge to defend our country. As re-cently as the Vietnam war, almost asmany Puerto Ricans as Mississippiansgave their lives for our country. And asrecently as the Gulf War, when Amer-ican casualties were miraculously low,four Puerto Ricans died for the UnitedStates of America.

Mr. Chairman, if that is not the priceto pay for the privilege of decidingwhether or not they want to be a State,then what is? They have paid the price.They deserve the right to make thatdecision.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleaguesto please vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield3 minutes to the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. HORN), one of the Membersthat would probably be considered theleast partisan of all on both sides ofthe aisle.

(Mr. HORN asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman from New York (Mr.SOLOMON), chairman of the Committeeon Rules, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly insupport of the amendment offered by

the gentleman from New York. I willsupport it. But I will also vote againstthis bill.

We have a wonderful Resident Com-missioner here from Puerto Rico.There is excellent representation fromGuam, the District of Columbia, VirginIslands, American Samoa. But I thinkthis is just wrong public policy. Weshould not be raising false expectationsof any group. I think the one way to doit is to say right now, let us not kidourselves, this is not a good idea.

Puerto Rico is the result of the Span-ish-American War. It has a wonderfulpeople. What the gentleman from Mis-sissippi said is absolutely correct.Many of them have given their lives forour country. There are also wonderfulpeople in Guam, Saipan, the Virgin Is-lands, American Samoa, and the Dis-trict of Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I would say to thegentlewoman from the District of Co-lumbia (Ms. NORTON) that we can solvethe District’s problem very easily anddo what Congress did in the NineteenthCentury when it ceded back to Virginiathat part of the District of Columbiawhich had been carved out of Virginia.Give it back to Maryland, and the Dis-trict would have full representation.

But Puerto Rico should never havebeen a territory. Cuba was never a ter-ritory. Cuba has been independent.Granted, the Marines occupied themand a number of other countries fromtime to time. But we should have leftCuba independent. We did. We shouldhave left Puerto Rico independent. Wedid not. And we need not continue thaterror forever.

We kept our promise to the Phil-ippines that they would be independentin 1946. There is many a Filipino life ofthe Philippine Scouts, PhilippineArmy, that helped the United States inthe sad, sad days of 1941 when the Japa-nese Empire extended its military andNaval forces southward in Asia.

Many of the 50,000 Cambodians in myCity of Long Beach have talked to meand asked if Cambodia could become aState. Now, that would be a wonderfulidea. They are wonderful people. Nopeople except the Jews, the Kurds, theArmenians, and a few others have hadto go through the hell that the peopleof Cambodia have gone through. Onemillion were killed by Pol Pot. But asI have told them, it does not makesense for them to be a State of theUnited States. We have to draw theline.

And for those who have small Statesand want the second representative,just forget about it if six representa-tives come in from anywhere, PuertoRico or any other territory that seeksstatehood.

The niceness of the people and theirheroism, we should honor. But weshould not be getting ourselves entan-gled in situations that will be anotherQuebec, no matter how much we teachthe English language. And, frankly, wehave to say ‘‘no’’ from the beginning.Let us not make a major mistake. Vote

‘‘yes’’ for the Solomon amendment and‘‘no’’ on the passage of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Illinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ) has 1minute remaining; the gentleman fromPuerto Rico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO) has31⁄2 minutes remaining; the gentlemanfrom Alaska (Mr. YOUNG) has one-halfminute remaining; and the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SOLOMON) has one-half minute remaining.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I havea parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate it.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I be-lieve under the procedures of the Housethat it would be appropriate at thistime for the gentleman from Illinois(Mr. GUTIERREZ) to use up his time,then the gentleman from Puerto Rico,then myself, and then reserving theclose for the chairman of the commit-tee. Would that not be in order? Iwould suggest it, at any rate.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rec-ognize Members to close general debatein reverse of the order in which theMembers opened. Therefore, the Chairwill recognize Members to close debateas follows: The gentleman from Illinois(Mr. GUTIERREZ), the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. SOLOMON), the gen-tleman from California (Mr. MILLER),and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.YOUNG).

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Iyield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlemanfrom Mississippi (Mr. TAYLOR) was veryeloquent when he spoke about thethousands of Puerto Ricans that havegiven their lives in the armed forces.And the gentleman ended his state-ment by saying they should be able tovote for statehood. Indeed, they should.

That is not the question here. Thequestion is should not they be able tovote for other statuses also, and shouldwe stack the deck against them and infavor of statehood? Listen. I want ev-erybody to understand this. We cannothave self-determination if the peoplewho are going to have the plebiscite donot agree with the definitions, if wesay to those people when they walkinto the ballot box, and this is what weare asking them to do: statehood, citi-zenship guaranteed; commonwealth,maybe, including those thousands andthousands that have served in theArmed Forces that are citizens today.That is weighting it against, and it isunfair.

So if we are going to bring up thecourage, if we are going to bring up thecommitment and the service, let themdecide in a fair manner what their fu-ture is. And I remind my colleagues,this is not a group of people. It is nota territory. It is a nation. They feelthat they are a nation. Puerto Rico isa separate and distinct country.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, briefly, the reason Ihave opposed this bill in its present

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH786 March 4, 1998form is because it sets in motion a pro-cedure that would possibly bring Puer-to Rico into the Union with a simplevote of 50 percent plus 1. When Alaskacame in, 83 percent of the people want-ed statehood. When Hawaii came in, 94percent of the people wanted state-hood. We cannot have another Quebecon our hands like Canada. If the over-whelming majority of the people ofPuerto Rico want statehood, I will bethe first to stand up here to fight fortheir admittance. Until that time, Ithink we should oppose this bill.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 1 minute to the gentle-woman from Hawaii (Mrs. MINK).

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman,I thank the gentleman from PuertoRico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO) for yield-ing me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong sup-port of H.R. 856, and oppose the Solo-mon amendment and support the Mil-ler substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gen-tleman from Alaska (Mr. YOUNG) forhis leadership in this matter. His Stateand my State went through years andyears of agony, of pleading with thisCongress to be admitted as a completepartner, as a State. We went throughmuch this same type of argument onmany side issues. And I regret that mydear friends are in opposition to thisproposal on the grounds that they donot feel that the ballot is fairly stated.

The central issue here is that thepeople of Puerto Rico are being giventhe decision-making opportunity. Theyhave to cast their ballots one way oranother. The issue of statehood versuscommonwealth will be clearly debatedby the people.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that this is anissue which goes to the very heart ofthis democracy and the people of Puer-to Rico ought to be given the right tovote.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 856 is the first congres-sionally recognized framework that establishesa referendum for the people of Puerto Rico todetermine whether they choose to be a com-monwealth, state, or independent nation.

H.R. 856 is not a bill granting statehood, itis a bill to allow American citizens to deter-mine their political future. Some argue againstH.R. 856 because they do not like the defini-tion of commonwealth or simply do not sup-port statehood and do not want to see thesame rights and benefits accorded all statesgiven to Puerto Rico. We do not know how thepeople of Puerto Rico will vote. However, weowe our fellow Americans the chance to de-cide for themselves what relationship theywish to have with the United States.

For example, some say the bill’s definitionof Puerto Rico’s current territorial or ‘‘common-wealth’’ status is not attractive as statehood.Each status has its advantages and disadvan-tages. If a majority of the residents of PuertoRico were to choose to remain a common-wealth under H.R. 856, their relationship withthe United States would not change.

There are some who oppose the possibilityof Puerto Rico becoming a state because bothSpanish and English are the official languagesof Puerto Rico. These opponents wish to ‘‘as-

similate’’ Puerto Rico into the United Statesand believe the only way to ‘‘assimilate’’ theseresidents is to declare English as the officiallanguage. This is not true. At least four terri-tories: Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, andHawaii were admitted as states with constitu-tional provisions protecting the rights ofFrench, Spanish, Native American, and NativeHawaiian speaking residents. How can we im-pose different standards of Puerto Rico.

Many would have us believe that PuertoRico residents have no interest in speaking orteaching or conducting business in English.This is simply not true. For example:

85 percent of Post-Secondary school stu-dents speak English and Spanish.

English is used in all official communicationsby federal agencies on the island. All docu-ments presented before the United States Dis-trict Court for the District of Puerto Rico are inEnglish. Court proceedings in the FederalCourt are conducted in English.

Since 1900 the public school system has of-fered bilingual education. English is taughtfrom Kindergarten through 12 grade.

The Puerto Rico Department of Education isimplementing a program to strengthen the bi-lingual skills of public school students. Thisprogram consists of a strong emphasis onreading English and Spanish starting in Kin-dergarten; English textbooks in math andscience; English immersion programs; as wellas teacher exchange programs between thecontinental United States and Puerto Rico toimprove English teaching skills.

32 professions in Puerto Rico require theirmembers to take licensing examinations inEnglish. They include Accounting, Architec-ture, Engineering, Medicine, and Optometry.Puerto Rico’s largest weekly newspaper, TheCaribbean Business, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning The San Juan Star, the third largestdaily newspaper, are both completely inEnglish.

Even with this English foundation alreadyexisting in Puerto Rico, H.R. 856 stresses theneed for a continued English presence by stat-ing that ‘‘English shall be the common lan-guage of mutual understanding in the UnitedStates.’’

Proposing an ‘‘English-only’’ amendment toH.R. 856 opens up an issue larger than Puer-to Rico. An amendment declaring English asthe official language of the United States af-fects every state. This is an unnecessaryamendment that is larger than the bill at handand should be debated standing alone and notattached to H.R. 856.

English is by far our Nation’s common lan-guage. According to the U.S. Census Bureau,95 percent of Americans currently speakEnglish ‘‘well’’ or ‘‘very well.’’ It is becauseEnglish is already the language of the U.S.and its people, and because there is no threatthat English will be subsumed by other lan-guages, that I do not think English-Onlyamendments affecting all Americans should beenacted.

For the past 100 years, the people of PuertoRico have served America with loyalty, prideand commitment. They have a right to decidewhat form of relationship Puerto Rico shouldhave with the United States. I support a plebi-scite. Hawaii as a Territory also was accordedU.S. citizens status and later voted to becomea state. The people of Puerto Rico should alsodecide this for themselves. H.R. 856 allowsthem to do so.

I urge the passage of H.R. 856.Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-

man, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. ENGEL).

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise instrong support of H.R. 856. To me thisis a question of equity and fairness.There are nearly 4 million PuertoRicans who are American citizens whoare denied the right to self-determina-tion. This bill simply starts a process.It is nothing more, nothing less.

We will be able to find out from thisprocess what Puerto Ricans want. Wecan then respond to that process. Thisis only fair. The people of Puerto Ricodid not ask to be a part of this country100 years ago, remember. They becamea part by the Spanish-American War,and as was pointed out, they have beenloyal citizens. They have the sameright to self-determination as allAmericans do.

Mr. Chairman, I represent a districtin the Bronx, in Westchester County inNew York. We have many, many Puer-to Ricans living there and the peopleare positively excited about the factthat their brethren on Puerto Rico willhave the opportunity to have this dia-logue. As my colleague from Hawaiisaid, the people of Alaska and Hawaiiwent through much the same thing.Much of the arguments that wereraised against them coming into theUnion are being raised now.

We do not favor any one thing. Wewant the process to start. The people ofPuerto Rico deserve nothing less.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I yield myself such time as I mayconsume.

Mr. Chairman, I guess we should bediscussing here an amendment as towhether this Nation should be allowedto invade any country that does notspeak English. That is the problem.

Mr. Chairman, there has been somuch demagoguery here. When theydiscuss it they say that we are not al-lowing the people that support com-monwealth to vote because we say thatcitizenship is statutory. What else isit? There is a Constitution of theUnited States that says that thoseborn in a State are citizens and alsothose that are naturalized are citizens.The Constitution does not say any-thing else.

So it is by law in 1917 that estab-lished that those born in Puerto Ricoshall be citizens of the United States,so we are citizens by a statute. Andthat statute cannot be repealed to denythose that are citizens the right of citi-zenship. But that statute can be re-pealed to say and amended to say thatthose that are born from the year 2,000on will no longer be citizens by reasonof birth, and the people of Puerto Ricoshould know that under commonwealththat could happen. We say it will prob-ably not happen because it is the policyof the Nation to maintain those thatare born in Puerto Rico from now onalso as citizens, but they must knowthe truth.

The people of the commonwealthhave been voting for lies for many,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H787March 4, 1998many years and they have been misled.The United Nations was misled whenthis country went to the United Na-tions and said Puerto Rico hasachieved a full measure of self-govern-ment. All of my colleagues know that Iam here and I cannot vote. I cannoteven vote for this bill that is so impor-tant for the people of Puerto Rico.

Mr. Chairman, all we are asking isgive us an opportunity for self-deter-mination. Give us an opportunity tovote whether we want to stay as we areor we want to be a State or we want tobe independent. This is self-determina-tion, what we have fought for on for-eign soils all over the world.

b 1400Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-

man, I yield myself the balance of mytime.

Again, this is our opportunity, as weclose this debate to thank everybodyparticipating in the debate for their de-corum and their honesty and theirstrong beliefs. I believe that this is thecorrect way to go. I believe it is theright thing to do. This is justice.

I will strongly oppose the Solomonamendment. I will support the biparti-san amendment of BURTON-YOUNG-MIL-LER, and I suggest respectfully thatthis is the right thing for Congresstoday. And as we stop this great cen-tury and begin a new century, the rightthing to do for the Americans of Puer-to Rico and the great United States ofAmerica.

Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, Irise in support of the Puerto Rico Political Sta-tus Act. The bill would grant the four millionU.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico the right todetermine their own future.

This year marks the one hundredth anniver-sary of Puerto Rico’s accession into theUnited States at the end of the Spanish-Amer-ican War. Over that time, Puerto Rico hasmade major contributions to this nation, includ-ing the service of more than 200,000 of itsyoung men and women in the armed forces ofthe United States. More than 8,000 have giventheir lives in defense of our nation’s freedom.Given the many contributions residents ofPuerto Rico have made to the United States,I support this initiative for Puerto Rico’s self-determination.

The self-determination process of H.R. 856ensures that the people of Puerto Rico andthe people of the United States, through theirrepresentatives in Congress, will each have avoice in the three stages of resolving PuertoRico’s political status. As you know, the bill al-lows residents of Puerto Rico to determine thepolitical status of their island by a democraticreferendum process. Under the bill, voterschoose either to retain the current common-wealth structure for local self government as aterritory, separate sovereignty, or statehood.

This bill does not mandate that Puerto Ricobecome a state. The bill would leave the deci-sion to the local residents to exercise their col-lective voice and determine the future of Puer-to Rico. However, should residents favorstatehood, the bill outlines a transition planthat includes incentives and opportunities forresidents to learn English.

Mr. Chairman, the United States is knownthe world over as the promoter and keeper of

political freedom. We must allow the UnitedStates citizens living in Puerto Rico to deter-mine their political future as well.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in oppo-sition to H.R. 856, the United States-PuertoRico Political Status Act.

Back during my baseball days, I actuallylived in Puerto Rico for two years. And I thinkI have some idea about life on the island. Ithas a long, rich history, and a vibrant culture.Living there was a wonderful experience.

But, I think that it’s this history and culturethat dictate that Puerto Rico should be inde-pendent from the United States. No matterhow hard the proponents of statehood, orthose who support continuing commonwealthstatus, argue their case, I don’t think they canreconcile the fact that Puerto Rico has strongtraditions that profoundly separates it fromAmerica.

It is a separation that cannot be bridged.I recognize that on the surface there are

similarities between America and Puerto Rico.Politically and economically some links havebeen forged during Puerto Rico’s years as anAmerican Commonwealth.

But these connections are only skin deep.Beyond that the customs and culture of PuertoRico are predominantly their own, or muchmore closely identified with other Latin or His-panic cultures.

The vast majority of its residents speakSpanish, not English. And in the most recentreferenda, held just five years ago, the resi-dents were profoundly divided over their is-land’s future. None of the options—independ-ence, statehood, or commonwealth status—re-ceived even a majority vote, much less a ring-ing endorsement.

If an overwhelming majority of residentswanted to join the United States that would beone thing. But the indecision among PuertoRicans simply reflects the fact that the dis-tance between the U.S. and Puerto Rico ismuch greater than the 950 miles of ocean thatseparate San Juan from Miami.

Mr. Chairman, I think Puerto Rico should beindependent. I don’t think it should be a state,and I don’t think it should be a commonwealth.And I think that no matter what we do heretoday, there is no way we can overcome thefact that America and Puerto Rico are sepa-rated by profound differences.

The bill before us today claims to present uswith a choice for helping Puerto Ricans deter-mine their future. But, it is a false choice be-cause no matter how long we debate this mat-ter in Congress, and no matter how manyreferenda are held in Puerto Rico, their is onlyone inevitable outcome—independence.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I risetoday in support of the Young-Miller substitutefor H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto RicoPolitical Status Act.

The political status of Puerto Rico has beena topic of discussion of the Committee on Re-sources, and its predecessor Committees, fordecades. My interest in Puerto Rico began inthe 1970’s when I was a member of the staffof Congressman Phil Burton of California. Ilearned then of the political divisions withinPuerto Rico, and those political divisions arestill in existence.

From my perspective, all three political par-ties in Puerto Rico make persuasive argu-ments in support of their respective positions,and I believe all three are viable political op-tions. Additionally, I believe a political status of

free association is a possibility for Puerto Ricoto consider at some point in the future, butgiven the present political makeup of the com-monwealth, I do not believe it should be in-cluded on the ballot at this time.

Before I make my specific comments onH.R. 856, I want to note for the record that Ithink it is critically important that throughoutthis process, as an institution, Congress mustpresent itself as fair and as evenhanded aspossible. When I speak of self-determinationfor Puerto Rico, in my mind, that means thepeople of Puerto Rico choose their owncourse, and in making that choice all optionsshould be available for the people of PuertoRico to consider.

Even though Congress has plenary authorityover Puerto Rico, I believe it would be a seri-ous mistake for the Congress to impose its willupon the people of Puerto Rico without fairand equitable consultation with the PuertoRican leaders and the people. I place suchhigh concern on this issue because it is mysense that if Congress is not scrupulouslyevenhanded in this regard, three things canhappen. First, the U.S. citizens in Puerto Ricolose their trust in the process and in Congressas an institution. Second, if events do not goas smoothly as Congress might hope, it will bethe Congress that will be blamed for the prob-lems, and rightfully so. Third, we all know po-litical status is an emotional issue in PuertoRico. The Commonwealth has a long historyof fair and impartial elections with voting per-centages which are the envy of every state ofthe United States. If the political status selec-tion process were perceived as unfair, I fearthe consequences of even the perception ofpartiality, and again, I believe Congress wouldhave to take its share of the blame and re-sponsibility.

Mr. Chairman, as I see it, the underlyingproblem, if it is a problem at all, is that over90% of the people of Puerto Rico are almostevenly split on which political course theyshould follow. As a result of this, no one groupcan obtain a majority of votes. Until thatchanges, any affirmative action Congresstakes will not be in accordance with the wish-es of the majority in Puerto Rico. Given thosefacts, I believe it is neither wise, nor good pol-icy, to tilt the scales, just to acquire a majority.

I do have a few concerns with this legisla-tion I want to note. I have said repeatedly thatI do not like the idea of one political group de-fining another political group’s definition ofitself. To a certain extent, we have that prob-lem in this bill—the bill contains a definition ofCommonwealth status, but it was not draftedand is not supported by the political partywhich supports that status. It is difficult to aska political organization to vote for or support astatus its members do not support, and that isa serious concern I have with this bill. The sit-uation is complicated by the apparent reluc-tance of the Popular Democratic Party to pro-vide a definition of ‘‘Commonwealth’’ whichcould be included in the bill.

Because of the opposition of the one of themajor political parties to a key definition in thebill, it was not an easy decision for me to sup-port this bill. I support the definitions containedin the Young-Miller substitute, but want to notethat I do not consider the definition of Com-monwealth as describing a static relationship

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH788 March 4, 1998as some have stated. Rather, I believe it de-scribes the current dynamic relationship be-tween the people of Puerto Rico and the peo-ple of the United States, which can and shouldbe changed over time.

Secondly, while some may not considerPuerto Rico’s current relationship with theUnited States to be a permanent one, it doesnot make sense to force a change on the peo-ple of Puerto Rico which they do not want. Itwould be a serious mistake to encourage thepeople into a ‘‘permanent’’ political status thatwill not best serve their long-term interests.

Third, Mr. Speaker, is the issue of the useof the English and Spanish languages in Puer-to Rico. Coming from an insular area in whichSamoan and English are spoken I see nothingto gain and much to lose by forcing the citi-zens of Puerto Rico to give up part of theirSpanish heritage by prohibiting them fromspeaking to each other in Spanish.

On the other hand, we will not be wellserved as a nation if the vast majority of thecitizens of one of our states do not speakEnglish, and speak it well. The example ofQuebec, Canada has been often discussedthese last few weeks, but that is not the onlyexample. I would also point to the problems inthe Balkans and in many countries in sub-Sa-haran Africa. This is a very difficult issuewhich I believe is appropriately addressed inthe Burton-Miller-Young amendment, and Isupport that amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in supportof H.R. 856, legislation which would provide aframework by which the people of Puerto Ricomay determine their political status.

Various speakers during today’s debate willdiscuss a number of aspects of this legislationand the sensitive issues it raises.

However, as the ranking Democratic Mem-ber on the Subcommittee on Surface Trans-portation, I will limit my remarks to how PuertoRico is currently being treated under the fed-eral highway and transit programs, and whatthe process of self-determination could meanto the island.

Today, the people of Puerto Rico are thebeneficiaries of federal highway dollars eventhough they do not pay any federal motor fueltaxes into the Highway Trust Fund.

On the surface, that may appear to be agood deal of Puerto Rico and a bad deal forthe rest of the country.

Yet, our contribution to the highway infra-structure of the island is relatively small. In-deed, over the six-year life of ISTEA, startingwith 1992 and ending with 1997, Puerto Ricoreceived $492 million in federal highway dol-lars.

It is interesting to note that with a populationof about 3.8 million people, Puerto Rico re-ceived considerably less than Hawaii, a Statewith similar characteristics in terms of the fac-tors used to apportion federal highway dollarsto the States.

With a much smaller population of 1.2 mil-lion, Hawaii received a little more than $1.2billion in federal highway dollars during ISTEAcompared to the $492 million sent to PuertoRico.

On the other hand, if we simply look to pop-ulation, Connecticut with about 3.3 million peo-ple received $2.2 billion over ISTEA comparedto Puerto Rico’s $492 million.

As such, while Puerto Rico, which pays nofederal motor fuel taxes, receives federal high-way dollars, the amount is nowhere near it

would receive if it was a State and its resi-dents contributed into the Highway TrustFund.

In fact, under existing formulas, if PuertoRico was a State it would receive back in fed-eral highway dollars far more than what it con-tributes in motor fuel taxes as is the case withHawaii, Connecticut and many other States.

Is there a pressing need to make transpor-tation improvements in Puerto Rico, yes, cer-tainly.

Anyone who has driven the streets ofSantruce, of Rios Piedras, of Bayamon or any-where else in San Juan knows of the massivecongestion which plagues that city.

This is not to say that the government is notmaking efforts to make improvements.

For example, Tren Urbano is one of if notthe best new transit start anywhere in theUnited States. Yet, the federal share currentlyis only 30% of that project while other, lessdeserving transit projects, have federal shareof at least 50% with some up to 80%.

Why is this? I think in part it is due to theresourcefulness of the governor and his ad-ministration. But I also think it is in part be-cause they feel there may be limits to the ex-tent of federal transit dollars they can seekunder Commonwealth status.

In conclusion, I would observe that the peo-ple of Puerto Rico have shed their blood indefense of the United States. For over 100years they have been a junior partner in thedevelopment of the greatest Democracy in theworld that is this country. The relationship hasbeen mutually beneficial.

However, I believe it is time, once again, forthe people of Puerto Rico to make a deter-mination as to their political status.

Do they want a full seat at the table that isthese United States, to be a full and equalpartner, or do they want to continue to sit atthat table on a small stool as a common-wealth, or do they want to go their own wayas a separate nation.

That is what this legislation is about.I urge a yes vote on H.R. 856.The CHAIRMAN. All time for general

debate has expired.Pursuant to the rule, the amendment

in the nature of a substitute printed inthe CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and num-bered 1 is considered as an original billfor the purpose of amendment and isconsidered as having been read.

The text of the amendment in the na-ture of a substitute is as follows:

Amendment in the nature of a sub-stitute:

Strike all after the enacting clause and in-sert the following:SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited asthe ‘‘United States-Puerto Rico PoliticalStatus Act’’.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of con-tents for this Act is as follows:Sec. 1. Short title, table of contents.Sec. 2. Findings.Sec. 3. Policy.Sec. 4. Process for Puerto Rican full self-

government, including the ini-tial decision stage, transitionstage, and implementationstage.

Sec. 5. Requirements relating to referenda,including inconclusive referen-dum and applicable laws.

Sec. 6. Congressional procedures for consid-eration of legislation.

Sec. 7. Availability of funds for thereferenda.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.The Congress finds the following:(1) Puerto Rico was ceded to the United

States and came under this Nation’s sov-ereignty pursuant to the Treaty of Parisending the Spanish-American War in 1898.Article IX of the Treaty of Paris recognizedthe authority of Congress to provide for thepolitical status of the inhabitants of the ter-ritory.

(2) Consistent with establishment ofUnited States nationality for inhabitants ofPuerto Rico under the Treaty of Paris, Con-gress has exercised its powers under the Ter-ritorial Clause of the Constitution (articleIV, section 3, clause 2) to provide by severalstatutes beginning in 1917, for the UnitedStates citizenship status of persons born inPuerto Rico.

(3) Consistent with the Territorial Clauseand rulings of the United States SupremeCourt, partial application of the UnitedStates Constitution has been established inthe unincorporated territories of the UnitedStates including Puerto Rico.

(4) In 1950, Congress prescribed a procedurefor instituting internal self-government forPuerto Rico pursuant to statutory author-ization for a local constitution. A local con-stitution was approved by the people ofPuerto Rico, approved by Congress, subjectto conforming amendment by Puerto Rico,and thereupon given effect in 1952 after ac-ceptance of congressional conditions by thePuerto Rico Constitutional Convention andan appropriate proclamation by the Gov-ernor. The approved constitution establishedthe structure for constitutional governmentin respect of internal affairs without alteringPuerto Rico’s fundamental political, social,and economic relationship with the UnitedStates and without restricting the authorityof Congress under the Territorial Clause todetermine the application of Federal law toPuerto Rico, resulting in the present ‘‘Com-monwealth’’ structure for local self-govern-ment. The Commonwealth remains an unin-corporated territory and does not have thestatus of ‘‘free association’’ with the UnitedStates as that status is defined under UnitedStates law or international practice.

(5) In 1953, the United States transmittedto the Secretary-General of the United Na-tions for circulation to its Members a formalnotification that the United States no longerwould transmit information regarding Puer-to Rico to the United Nations pursuant toArticle 73(e) of its Charter. The formalUnited States notification document in-formed the United Nations that the ces-sation of information on Puerto Rico wasbased on the ‘‘new constitutional arrange-ments’’ in the territory, and the UnitedStates expressly defined the scope of the‘‘full measure’’ of local self-government inPuerto Rico as extending to matters of ‘‘in-ternal government and administration, sub-ject only to compliance with applicable pro-visions of the Federal Constitution, thePuerto Rico Federal Relations Act and theacts of Congress authorizing and approvingthe Constitution, as may be interpreted byjudicial decision.’’. Thereafter, the GeneralAssembly of the United Nations, based uponconsent of the inhabitants of the territoryand the United States explanation of the newstatus as approved by Congress, adopted Res-olution 748 (VIII) by a vote of 22 to 18 with 19abstentions, thereby accepting the UnitedStates determination to cease reporting tothe United Nations on the status of PuertoRico.

(6) In 1960, the United Nations General As-sembly approved Resolution 1541 (XV), clari-fying that under United Nations standards

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H789March 4, 1998regarding the political status options avail-able to the people of territories yet to com-plete the process for achieving full self-gov-ernment, the three established forms of fullself-government are national independence,free association based on separate sov-ereignty, or full integration with another na-tion on the basis of equality.

(7) The ruling of the United States Su-preme Court in the 1980 case Harris v.Rosario (446 U.S. 651) confirmed that Con-gress continues to exercise authority overPuerto Rico pursuant to the TerritorialClause found at Article IV, section 3, clause2 of the United States Constitution; and inthe 1982 case of Rodriguez v. Popular Demo-cratic Party (457 U.S. 1), the Court confirmedthat the Congress delegated powers of ad-ministration to the Commonwealth of Puer-to Rico sufficient for it to function ‘‘like aState’’ and as ‘‘an autonomous political en-tity’’ in respect of internal affairs and ad-ministration, ‘‘sovereign over matters notruled by the Constitution’’ of the UnitedStates. These rulings constitute judicial in-terpretation of Puerto Rico’s status which isin accordance with the clear intent of Con-gress that establishment of local constitu-tional government in 1952 did not alter Puer-to Rico’s fundamental status.

(8) In a joint letter dated January 17, 1989,cosigned by the Governor of Puerto Rico inhis capacity as president of one of PuertoRico’s principal political parties and thepresidents of the two other principal politi-cal parties of Puerto Rico, the United Stateswas formally advised that ‘‘. . . the People ofPuerto Rico wish to be consulted as to theirpreference with regards to their ultimate po-litical status’’, and the joint letter stated‘‘. . . that since Puerto Rico came under thesovereignty of the United States of Americathrough the Treaty of Paris in 1898, the Peo-ple of Puerto Rico have not been formallyconsulted by the United States of America asto their choice of their ultimate politicalstatus’’.

(9) In the 1989 State of the Union Message,President George Bush urged the Congress totake the necessary steps to authorize a fed-erally recognized process allowing the peopleof Puerto Rico, for the first time since theTreaty of Paris entered into force, to freelyexpress their wishes regarding their futurepolitical status in a congressionally recog-nized referendum, a step in the process ofself-determination which the Congress hasyet to authorize.

(10) On November 14, 1993, the Governmentof Puerto Rico conducted a plebiscite initi-ated under local law on Puerto Rico’s politi-cal status. In that vote none of the three sta-tus propositions received a majority of thevotes cast. The results of that vote were: 48.6percent for a commonwealth option, 46.3 per-cent statehood, and 4.4 percent independ-ence.

(11) In a letter dated December 2, 1994,President William Jefferson Clinton in-formed leaders in Congress that an ExecutiveBranch Interagency Working Group on Puer-to Rico had been organized to coordinate thereview, development, and implementation ofexecutive branch policy concerning issues af-fecting Puerto Rico, including the November1993 plebiscite.

(12) Under the Territorial Clause of theConstitution, Congress has the authority andresponsibility to determine Federal policyand clarify status issues in order to resolvethe issue of Puerto Rico’s final status.

(13) On January 23, 1997, the Puerto RicoLegislature enacted Concurrent Resolution2, which requested the 105th Congress ‘‘. . . torespond to the democratic aspirations of theAmerican citizens of Puerto Rico’’ by ap-proving legislation authorizing

‘‘. . . a plebiscite sponsored by the FederalGovernment, to be held no later than 1998’’.

(14) Nearly 4,000,000 United States citizenslive in the islands of Puerto Rico, whichhave been under United States sovereigntyand within the United States customs terri-tory for almost 100 years, making PuertoRico the oldest, largest, and most populousUnited States island territory at the south-eastern-most boundary of our Nation, lo-cated astride the strategic shipping lanes ofthe Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea.

(15) Full self-government is attainable onlythrough establishment of a political statuswhich is based on either separate sov-ereignty and nationality or full and equalUnited States nationality and citizenshipthrough membership in the Union.SEC. 3. POLICY.

(a) CONGRESSIONAL COMMITMENT.—In rec-ognition of the significant level of local self-government which has been attained byPuerto Rico, and the responsibility of theFederal Government to enable the people ofthe territory to freely express their wishesregarding political status and achieve fullself-government, this Act is adopted with acommitment to encourage the developmentand implementation of procedures throughwhich the permanent political status of thepeople of Puerto Rico can be determined.

(b) LANGUAGE.—English is the common lan-guage of mutual understanding in the UnitedStates, and in all of the States duly and free-ly admitted to the Union. The Congress rec-ognizes that at the present time, Spanishand English are the joint official languagesof Puerto Rico, and have been for nearly 100years; that English is the official language ofFederal courts in Puerto Rico; that the abil-ity to speak English is a requirement forFederal jury services; yet Spanish ratherthan English is currently the predominantlanguage used by the majority of the peopleof Puerto Rico; and that Congress has theauthority to expand existing English lan-guage requirements in the Commonwealth ofPuerto Rico. In the event that the referendaheld under this Act result in approval of sov-ereignty leading to Statehood, it is antici-pated that upon accession to Statehood,English language requirements of the Fed-eral Government shall apply in Puerto Ricoto the same extent as Federal law requiresthroughout the United States. Congress alsorecognizes the significant advantage thatproficiency in Spanish as well as English hasbestowed on the people of Puerto Rico, andfurther that this will serve the best interestsof both Puerto Rico and the rest of theUnited States in our mutual dealings in theCaribbean, Latin America, and throughoutthe Spanish-speaking world.SEC. 4. PROCESS FOR PUERTO RICAN FULL SELF-

GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING THE INI-TIAL DECISION STAGE, TRANSITIONSTAGE, AND IMPLEMENTATIONSTAGE.

(a) INITIAL DECISION STAGE.—A referendumon Puerto Rico’s political status is author-ized to be held not later than December 31,1998. The referendum shall be held pursuantto this Act and in accordance with the appli-cable provisions of Puerto Rico’s electorallaw and other relevant statutes consistentwith this Act. Approval of a status optionmust be by a majority of the valid votescast. The referendum shall be on the ap-proval of 1 of the 3 options presented on theballot as follows:

‘‘Instructions: Mark the status option youchoose as each is defined below. Ballot withmore than 1 option marked will not becounted.

‘‘A. COMMONWEALTH.—If you agree, markhere lll

‘‘Puerto Rico should retain Common-wealth, in which—

‘‘(1) Puerto Rico is joined in a relationshipwith and under the national sovereignty ofthe United States. It is the policy of the Con-gress that this relationship should only bedissolved by mutual consent.

‘‘(2) Under this political relationship, Puer-to Rico like a State is an autonomous politi-cal entity, sovereign over matters not ruledby the Constitution of the United States. Inthe exercise of this sovereignty, the laws ofthe Commonwealth shall govern in PuertoRico to the extent that they are consistentwith the Constitution, treaties, and laws ofthe United States. Congress retains its con-stitutional authority to enact laws it deemsnecessary relating to Puerto Rico.

‘‘(3) Persons born in Puerto Rico haveUnited States citizenship by statute as se-cured by the Constitution. It is the policy ofthe United States that citizenship will con-tinue to be granted to persons born in PuertoRico. The rights, privileges, and immunitiesprovided for by the United States Constitu-tion apply in Puerto Rico, except where lim-ited by the Constitution to citizens residingin a State.

‘‘(4) Puerto Rico will continue to partici-pate in Federal programs and may be en-abled to participate equally with the Statesin the programs where it is not now partici-pating equally contingent on the payment ofcontributions, which may include paymentof taxes, as provided by Federal law.

‘‘B. SEPARATE SOVEREIGNTY.—If you agree,mark here lll

‘‘The people of Puerto Rico should becomefully self-governing through separate sov-ereignty in the form of independence or freeassociation, in which—

‘‘(1) Puerto Rico is a sovereign Republicwhich has full authority and responsibilityover its territory and population under aconstitution which is the supreme law, pro-viding for a republican form of governmentand the protection of human rights;

‘‘(2) the Republic of Puerto Rico is a mem-ber of the community of nations vested withfull powers and responsibilities for its ownfiscal and monetary policy, immigration,trade, and the conduct in its own name andright of relations with other nations andinternational organizations, including therights and responsibilities that devolve upona sovereign nation under the general prin-ciples of international law;

‘‘(3) the residents of Puerto Rico owe alle-giance to and have the nationality and citi-zenship of the Republic of Puerto Rico;

‘‘(4) The Constitution and laws of theUnited States no longer apply in PuertoRico, and United States sovereignty in Puer-to Rico is ended; thereupon birth in PuertoRico or relationship to persons with statu-tory United States citizenship by birth inthe former territory shall cease to be a basisfor United States nationality or citizenship,except that persons who had such UnitedStates citizenship have a statutory right toretain United States nationality and citizen-ship for life, by entitlement or election asprovided by the United States Congress,based on continued allegiance to the UnitedStates: Provided, That such persons will nothave this statutory United States national-ity and citizenship status upon having ormaintaining allegiance, nationality, andcitizenship rights in any sovereign nation,including the Republic of Puerto Rico, otherthan the United States;

‘‘(5) The previously vested rights of indi-viduals in Puerto Rico to benefits based uponpast services rendered or contributions madeto the United States shall be honored by theUnited States as provided by Federal law;

‘‘(6) Puerto Rico and the United Statesseek to develop friendly and cooperative re-lations in matters of mutual interest asagreed in treaties approved pursuant to their

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH790 March 4, 1998respective constitutional processes, and lawsincluding economic and programmatic as-sistance at levels and for a reasonable periodas provided on a government-to-governmentbasis, trade between customs territories,transit of citizens in accordance with immi-gration laws, and status of United Statesmilitary forces; and

‘‘(7) a free association relationship may beestablished based on separate sovereign re-public status as defined above, but with suchdelegations of government functions andother cooperative arrangements as may beagreed to by both parties under a bilateralpact terminable at will by either the UnitedStates or Puerto Rico.

‘‘C. STATEHOOD.—If you agree, mark herelll

‘‘Puerto Rico should become fully self gov-erning through Statehood, in which—

‘‘(1) the people of Puerto Rico are fullyself-governing with their rights securedunder the United States Constitution, whichshall be fully applicable in Puerto Rico andwhich, with the laws and treaties of theUnited States, is the supreme law and hasthe same force and effect as in the otherStates of the Union;

‘‘(2) the State of Puerto Rico becomes apart of the permanent union of the UnitedStates of America, subject to the UnitedStates Constitution, with powers not prohib-ited by the Constitution to the States, re-served to the State of Puerto Rico in its sov-ereignty or to the people;

‘‘(3) United States citizenship of those bornin Puerto Rico is recognized, protected andsecured in the same way it is for all UnitedStates citizens born in the other States;

‘‘(4) rights, freedoms, and benefits as wellas duties and responsibilities of citizenship,including payment of Federal taxes, apply inthe same manner as in the several States;

‘‘(5) Puerto Rico is represented by twomembers in the United States Senate and isrepresented in the House of Representativesproportionate to the population;

‘‘(6) United States citizens in Puerto Ricoare enfranchised to vote in elections for thePresident and Vice President of the UnitedStates; and

‘‘(7) English is the official language ofbusiness and communication in Federalcourts and Federal agencies as made applica-ble by Federal law to every other State, andPuerto Rico is enabled to expand and buildupon existing law establishing English as anofficial language of the State government,courts, and agencies.’’.

(b) TRANSITION STAGE.—(1) PLAN.—(A) Within 180 days of the re-

ceipt of the results of the referendum fromthe Government of Puerto Rico certifyingapproval of a ballot choice of full self-gov-ernment in a referendum held pursuant tosubsection (a), the President shall developand submit to Congress legislation for atransition plan of not more than 10 yearswhich leads to full self-government for Puer-to Rico consistent with the terms of this Actand the results of the referendum and in con-sultation with officials of the three branchesof the Government of Puerto Rico, the prin-cipal political parties of Puerto Rico, andother interested persons as may be appro-priate.

(B) Additionally, in the event of a vote infavor of separate sovereignty, the Legisla-ture of Puerto Rico, if deemed appropriate,may provide by law for the calling of a con-stituent convention to formulate, in accord-ance with procedures prescribed by law,Puerto Rico’s proposals and recommenda-tions to implement the referendum results.If a convention is called for this purpose, anyproposals and recommendations formallyadopted by such convention within time lim-its of this Act shall be transmitted to Con-

gress by the President with the transitionplan required by this section, along with theviews of the President regarding the compat-ibility of such proposals and recommenda-tions with the United States Constitutionand this Act, and identifying which, if any,of such proposals and recommendations havebeen addressed in the President’s proposedtransition plan.

(C) Additionally, in the event of a vote infavor of United States sovereignty leading toStatehood, the President shall include in thetransition plan provided for in this Act—

(i) proposals and incentives to increase theopportunities of the people of Puerto Rico tolearn to speak, read, write, and understandEnglish fully, including but not limited to,the teaching of English in public schools, fel-lowships, and scholarships. The transitionplan should promote the usage of English bythe United States citizens of Puerto Rico, inorder to best allow for—

(I) the enhancement of the century oldpractice of English as an official language ofPuerto Rico, consistent with the preserva-tion of our Nation’s unity in diversity andthe prevention of divisions along linguisticlines;

(II) the use of language skills necessary tocontribute most effectively to the Nation inall aspects, including but not limited toHemispheric trade;

(III) the promotion of efficiency to all peo-ple in the conduct of the Federal and Stategovernment’s official business; and

(IV) the ability of all citizens to take fulladvantage of the economical, educational,and occupational opportunities through fullintegration with the United States; and

(ii) the effective date of incorporation,thereby permitting the greatest degree offlexibility for the phase-in of Federal pro-grams and the development of the economythrough fiscal incentives, alternative tax ar-rangements, and other measures.

(D) In the event of a vote in favor of Com-monwealth, the Government of Puerto Ricomay call a Special Convention to developproposals for submission to the Presidentand the Congress for changes in Federal pol-icy on matters of economic and social con-cern to the people of Puerto Rico. The Presi-dent and the Congress, as appropriate, shallexpeditiously consider any such proposals.The Commonwealth would assume any ex-penses related to increased responsibilitiesresulting from such proposals.

(2) CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION.—Theplan shall be considered by the Congress inaccordance with section 6.

(3) PUERTO RICAN APPROVAL.—(A) Not later than 180 days after enactment

of an Act pursuant to paragraph (1) provid-ing for the transition to full self-governmentfor Puerto Rico as approved in the initial de-cision referendum held under subsection (a),a referendum shall be held under the applica-ble provisions of Puerto Rico’s electoral lawon the question of approval of the transitionplan.

(B) Approval must be by a majority of thevalid votes cast. The results of the referen-dum shall be certified to the President of theUnited States.

(c) IMPLEMENTATION STAGE.—(1) PRESIDENTIAL RECOMMENDATION.—Not

less than two years prior to the end of theperiod of the transition provided for in thetransition plan approved under subsection(b), the President shall submit to Congress ajoint resolution with a recommendation forthe date of termination of the transition andthe date of implementation of full self-gov-ernment for Puerto Rico within the transi-tion period consistent with the ballot choiceapproved under subsection (a).

(2) CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION.—Thejoint resolution shall be considered by theCongress in accordance with section 6.

(3) PUERTO RICAN APPROVAL.—(A) Within 180 days after enactment of the

terms of implementation for full self-govern-ment for Puerto Rico, a referendum shall beheld under the applicable provisions of Puer-to Rico’s electoral laws on the question ofthe approval of the terms of implementationfor full self-government for Puerto Rico.

(B) Approval must be by a majority of thevalid votes cast. The results of the referen-dum shall be certified to the President of theUnited States.SEC. 5. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO

REFERENDA, INCLUDING INCONCLU-SIVE REFERENDUM AND APPLICA-BLE LAWS.

(a) APPLICABLE LAWS.—(1) REFERENDA UNDER PUERTO RICAN LAWS.—

The referenda held under this Act shall beconducted in accordance with the applicablelaws of Puerto Rico, including laws of PuertoRico under which voter eligibility is deter-mined and which require United States citi-zenship and establish other statutory re-quirements for voter eligibility of residentsand nonresidents.

(2) FEDERAL LAWS.—The Federal laws ap-plicable to the election of the Resident Com-missioner of Puerto Rico shall, as appro-priate and consistent with this Act, alsoapply to the referenda. Any reference in suchFederal laws to elections shall be considered,as appropriate, to be a reference to thereferenda, unless it would frustrate the pur-poses of this Act.

(b) CERTIFICATION OF REFERENDA RE-SULTS.—The results of each referendum heldunder this Act shall be certified to the Presi-dent of the United States and the Senate andHouse of Representatives of the UnitedStates by the Government of Puerto Rico.

(c) CONSULTATION AND RECOMMENDATIONSFOR INCONCLUSIVE REFERENDUM.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—If a referendum providedin section 4(b) or (c) of this Act does not re-sult in approval of a fully self-governing sta-tus, the President, in consultation with offi-cials of the three branches of the Govern-ment of Puerto Rico, the principal politicalparties of Puerto Rico, and other interestedpersons as may be appropriate, shall makerecommendations to the Congress within 180days of receipt of the results of the referen-dum regarding completion of the self-deter-mination process for Puerto Rico under theauthority of Congress.

(2) ADDITIONAL REFERENDA.—To ensure thatthe Congress is able on a continuing basis toexercise its Territorial Clause powers withdue regard for the wishes of the people ofPuerto Rico respecting resolution of PuertoRico’s permanent future political status, inthe event that a referendum conducted undersection 4(a) does not result in a majorityvote for separate sovereignty or statehood,there is authorized to be further referenda inaccordance with this Act, but not less thanonce every 10 years.SEC. 6. CONGRESSIONAL PROCEDURES FOR CON-

SIDERATION OF LEGISLATION.(a) IN GENERAL.—The majority leader of

the House of Representatives (or his des-ignee) and the majority leader of the Senate(or his designee) shall each introduce legisla-tion (by request) providing for the transitionplan under section 4(b) and the implementa-tion recommendation under section 4(c) notlater than 5 legislative days after the date ofreceipt by Congress of the submission by thePresident under that section, as the casemay be.

(b) REFERRAL.—The legislation shall be re-ferred on the date of introduction to the ap-propriate committee or committees in ac-cordance with rules of the respective Houses.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H791March 4, 1998The legislation shall be reported not laterthan the 120th calendar day after the date ofits introduction. If any such committee failsto report the bill within that period, thatcommittee shall be automatically dischargedfrom consideration of the legislation, andthe legislation shall be placed on the appro-priate calendar.

(c) CONSIDERATION.—(1) After the 14th legislative day after the

date on which the last committee of theHouse of Representatives or the Senate, asthe case may be, has reported or been dis-charged from further consideration of suchlegislation, it is in order after the legislationhas been on the calendar for 14 legislativedays for any Member of that House in favorof the legislation to move to proceed to theconsideration of the legislation (after con-sultation with the presiding officer of thatHouse as to scheduling) to move to proceedto its consideration at any time after thethird legislative day on which the Memberannounces to the respective House concernedthe Member’s intention to do so. All pointsof order against the motion to proceed andagainst consideration of that motion arewaived. The motion is highly privileged inthe House of Representatives and is privi-leged in the Senate and is not debatable. Themotion is not subject to amendment, or to amotion to postpone, or to a motion to pro-ceed to the consideration of other business.A motion to reconsider the vote by whichthe motion is agreed to or disagreed to shallnot be in order. If a motion to proceed to theconsideration of the legislation is agreed to,the respective House shall immediately pro-ceed to consideration of the legislation with-out intervening motion (exception one mo-tion to adjourn), order, or other business.

(2)(A) In the House of Representatives, dur-ing consideration of the legislation in theCommittee of the Whole, the first reading ofthe legislation shall be dispensed with. Gen-eral debate shall be confined to the legisla-tion, and shall not exceed 4 hours equally di-vided and controlled by a proponent and anopponent of the legislation. After general de-bate, the legislation shall be considered asread for amendment under the five-minuterule. Consideration of the legislation foramendment shall not exceed 4 hours exclud-ing time for recorded votes and quorumcalls. At the conclusion of the bill foramendment, the Committee shall rise andreport the bill to the House with suchamendments as may have been adopted. Theprevious question shall be considered as or-dered on the legislation and amendmentsthereto to final passage without interveningmotion, except one motion to recommit withor without instructions. A motion to recon-sider the vote on passage of the legislationshall not be in order.

(B) In the Senate, debate on the legisla-tion, and all amendments thereto and debat-able motions and appeals in connectiontherewith, shall be limited to not more than25 hours. The time shall be equally dividedbetween, and controlled by, the majorityleader and the minority leader or their des-ignees. No amendment that is not germaneto the provisions of such legislation shall bereceived. A motion to further limit debate isnot debatable.

(3) Appeals from the decisions of the Chairrelating to the application of the rules of theSenate or the House of Representatives, asthe case may be, to the procedure relating tothe legislation described in subsection (a)shall be decided without debate.

(d) CONSIDERATION BY OTHER HOUSE.—(1) If,before the passage by one House of the legis-lation described in subsection (a) that wasintroduced in that House, that House re-ceives from the other House the legislationdescribed in subsection (a)—

(A) the legislation of the other House shallnot be referred to a committee and may notbe considered in the House that receives itotherwise than on final passage under sub-paragraph (B)(ii) or (iii); and

(B)(i) the procedure in the House that re-ceives such legislation with respect to suchlegislation that was introduced in thatHouse shall be the same as if no legislationhad been received from the other House; but

(ii) in the case of legislation received fromthe other House that is identical to the legis-lation as engrossed by the receiving House,the vote on final passage shall be on the leg-islation of the other House; or

(iii) after passage of the legislation, thelegislation of the other House shall be con-sidered as amended with the text of the leg-islation just passed and shall be consideredas passed, and that House shall be consideredto have insisted on its amendment and re-quested a conference with the other House.

(2) Upon disposition of the legislation de-scribed in subsection (a) that is received byone House from the other House, it shall nolonger be in order to consider such legisla-tion that was introduced in the receivingHouse.

(e) Upon receiving from the other House amessage in which that House insists upon itsamendment to the legislation and requests aconference with the House of Representa-tives or the Senate, as the case may be, onthe disagreeing votes thereon, the House re-ceiving the request shall be considered tohave disagreed to the amendment of theother House and agreed to the conference re-quested by that House.

(f) DEFINITION.—For the purposes of thissection, the term ‘‘legislative day’’ means aday on which the House of Representativesor the Senate, as appropriate, is in session.

(g) EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWER.—Theprovisions of this section are enacted by theCongress—

(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking powerof the Senate and the House of Representa-tives and, as such, shall be considered as partof the rules of each House and shall super-sede other rules only to the extent that theyare inconsistent therewith; and

(2) with full recognition of the constitu-tional right of either House to change therules (so far as they relate to the proceduresof that House) at any time, in the same man-ner, and to the same extent as in the case ofany other rule of that House.SEC. 7. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR THE

REFERENDA.(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) AVAILABILITY OF AMOUNTS DERIVED FROM

TAX ON FOREIGN RUM.—During the period be-ginning October 1, 1997, and ending on thedate the President determines that allreferenda required by this Act have beenheld, from the amounts covered into thetreasury of Puerto Rico under section7652(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of1986, the Secretary of the Treasury—

(A) upon request and in the amounts iden-tified from time to time by the President,shall make the amounts so identified avail-able to the treasury of Puerto Rico for thepurposes specified in subsection (b); and

(B) shall transfer all remaining amounts tothe treasury of Puerto Rico, as under currentlaw.

(2) REPORT OF REFERENDA EXPENDITURES.—Within 180 days after each referendum re-quired by this Act, and after the end of theperiod specified in paragraph (1), the Presi-dent, in consultation with the Governmentof Puerto Rico, shall submit a report to theUnited States Senate and United StatesHouse of Representatives on the amountsmade available under paragraph (1)(A) andall other amounts expended by the State

Elections Commission of Puerto Rico forreferenda pursuant to this Act.

(b) GRANTS FOR CONDUCTING REFERENDAAND VOTER EDUCATION.—From amounts madeavailable under subsection (a)(1), the Gov-ernment of Puerto Rico shall make grants tothe State Elections Commission of PuertoRico for referenda held pursuant to theterms of this Act, as follows:

(1) 50 percent shall be available only forcosts of conducting the referenda.

(2) 50 percent shall be available only forvoter education funds for the central rulingbody of the political party, parties, or otherqualifying entities advocating a particularballot choice. The amount allocated for ad-vocating a ballot choice under this para-graph shall be apportioned equally amongthe parties advocating that choice.

(c) ADDITIONAL RESOURCES.—In addition toamounts made available by this Act, thePuerto Rico Legislature may allocate addi-tional resources for administrative and votereducation costs to each party so long as thedistribution of funds is consistent with theapportionment requirements of subsection(b).

The CHAIRMAN. Before consider-ation of any other amendment, it shallbe in order to consider Amendmentnumber 3 printed in the RECORD, whichshall be preceded by an additional pe-riod of general debate confined to thesubject of that amendment. That de-bate shall not exceed 1 hour, equallydivided and controlled by the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. SOLOMON)and a Member opposed.

Consideration of Amendment number2 printed in the RECORD shall be pre-ceded by an additional period of gen-eral debate confined to the subject ofthat amendment. That debate shall notexceed 30 minutes, equally divided andcontrolled by the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. SERRANO) and a Member op-posed. Amendments specified in section2(a) and 2(b) of House Resolution 376shall be considered read and shall notbe subject to a demand for division ofthe question. Consideration of each ofthose amendments and any amend-ments thereto shall not exceed 1 hour.

During consideration of the bill foramendment, the Chair may accord pri-ority in recognition to a Member offer-ing an amendment that he has printedin the designated place in the CONGRES-SIONAL RECORD. Those amendmentswill be considered read.

The Chairman of the Committee ofthe Whole may postpone a request forany recorded voted on any amendmentand may reduce to a minimum of 5minutes the time for voting on anypostponed question that immediatelyfollows another vote, provided that thetime for voting on the first questionshall be a minimum of 15 minutes.

It is now in order to debate the sub-ject matter of the amendment offeredby the gentleman from New York (Mr.SOLOMON).

The gentleman from New York (Mr.SOLOMON) and a Member opposed, eachwill control 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SOLOMON).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH792 March 4, 1998Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-

man, I and the gentleman from Califor-nia jointly would like to control the re-maining 30 minutes in opposition to beequally divided.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, re-serving the right to object.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom California (Mr. MILLER) wouldhave priority recognition. He could getunanimous consent to give half of histime to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I ask unanimous consent to dothat.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromCalifornia?

Mr. SOLOMON. Reserving the rightto object, Mr. Chairman, to whomeveris making the unanimous consent re-quest here, I would not object when thetime comes, but there will be, as I un-derstand, an amendment offered by thegentleman from Indiana, an amend-ment, a substitute to my amendment.If we are going to give unanimous con-sent to manage the time jointly, Iwould like to ask unanimous consentthat I be able to claim the time in op-position to the gentleman’s substituteto my amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has notdetermined at this point how thatamendment is going to be considered.That amendment may be debated underthe 5-minute rule within the timelimit.

Mr. SOLOMON. The problem is, wewould like to have Members in opposi-tion and for the amendment and not gointo the 5-minute rule.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I just wanted to ask of the Chairhow the time on my amendment, whenit comes in order, will be divided andhow it should be divided?

The CHAIRMAN. As of now, it will beconsidered under the 5-minute rule.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I have a par-liamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate it.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, we are discussing the amendmentof the gentleman from New York under1 hour of the rule. The time should bedivided equally between the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SOLOMON) 30 min-utes and the gentleman from California(Mr. MILLER) 30 minutes, yielding 15minutes to the gentleman from Indi-ana; is that correct?

The CHAIRMAN. That could happen.Once the amendment is pending, wemay then proceed under the 5-minuterule.

Mr. SOLOMON. Reserving the rightto object, Mr. Chairman, that wouldtake unanimous consent, and that iswhy I am reserving the right to object,because when the Burton amendmentis offered, I would ask agreement that

we be able to not proceed under the 5-minute rule, but to divide the timeequally 15 minutes for the substituteand 15 minutes opposed. We could havedone this in the rule, but we did not doit because we wanted to get the unani-mous consent on the floor.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gen-tleman from California.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, my understanding is there maybe additional amendments. So the per-son who offers a perfecting amendmentor whatever to the gentleman’s amend-ment to the substitute would get time,I assume, to explain their amendmentor something.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, con-tinuing my reservation of objection, Iyield to the gentleman from Illinois(Mr. GUTIERREZ) for some input on thissubject.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Ibelieve I have the only other amend-ment. I have a perfecting amendment.Obviously the Burton substitute wouldgo first, but I have a perfecting amend-ment. So if we could reach an agree-ment so that my perfecting amend-ment would get 10 minutes of time, Iwould not ask for an extraordinaryamount of time, so that I could havethe perfecting amendment and reserveat least 10 minutes of time outside ofthe gentleman’s hour that he alreadyhas. Then we could all have a unani-mous consent, and I think we might beable to figure this out.

Mr. SOLOMON. Continuing my res-ervation of objection, might I inquireof the Chair whom would be recognizedfirst to offer an amendment either inthe form of a substitute or a perfectingamendment to my amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wouldnot wish to anticipate recognition atthis time. The Chair would grant rec-ognition to the Member that would risefirst and seek recognition and if bothrise, grant priority of recognition tothe appropriate Member.

Mr. SOLOMON. Would it not be doneby seniority, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wouldobviously take into account seniorityand committee membership.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, Iwithdraw my reservation of objection.We will cross that bridge when wecome to it.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. A perfectingamendment, Mr. Chairman, precedesthe determination of an amendment. Asubstitute comes after the amendmentor at the end of the amendment proc-ess. Am I not correct?

The CHAIRMAN. The two amend-ments may be pending at the sametime.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank theChair.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Reserving theright to object, Mr. Chairman, I wouldlike to sit down and let the Membersfigure out the rest of it. My only con-cern is that because of the gentleman’sranking and seniority here that I be al-lowed, if the gentleman just says,‘‘Congressman, I will make sure youget your 10 minutes,’’ and the gen-tleman will allow me, and I will limitmy perfecting amendment to 10 min-utes, and then we can proceed with therest of this. The gentleman’s word isvery valuable to me, and I will justtake that. Then I can sit down and letthese gentlemen figure out the rest ofit.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, as I understand it, we are goingto be under the 5-minute rule whichwould govern the time distribution; isthat correct?

The CHAIRMAN. As of now, that iscorrect.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, should we ask unanimous consentthat each one of the amendments, sincethere is only two, be given 15 minutesfor each amendment for debate, equal-ly divided among proponents and oppo-nents? I will make a unanimous con-sent request to that effect.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman maymake that request by unanimous con-sent.

Mr. MILLER of California. Reservingthe right to object, currently under therule there will be 1 hour on the amend-ments to Solomon; is that correct?

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, willthe gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of California. I yield tothe gentleman from New York.

Mr. SOLOMON. Under the rule therewould be 1 hour of general debate onthe Solomon amendment before it iscalled up. After the 1 hour has expired,then I would call up the amendmentand then it would be subject to amend-ment by the two gentlemen.

Mr. MILLER of California. With 1hour of total time to all amendments?

Mr. SOLOMON. That is correct.PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate it.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. May I make asuggestion to all my good friends. Whydo we not begin the debate, general de-bate, and then let us work out thetimeframe of the amendments that willbe offered.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SOLOMON) will berecognized for 30 minutes, and a Mem-ber opposed will be recognized for 30minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SOLOMON).

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

From the very beginning our Nationhas recognized that the prosperity ofthe people of America depended ontheir continuing firmly united, and thewishes and the prayers and the efforts

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H793March 4, 1998of our best and wisest citizens havebeen constantly directed to that ob-ject. These are the words of the wisdomof The Federalist papers of John Jay,our country’s first Chief Justice of theSupreme Court.

Justice Jay went on to say, I haveoften taken notice that providence hasbeen pleased to give this one connectedcountry to one united people, a peopledescended from the same ancestors,speaking the same language, attachedto the same principles of government,very similar in their manners and theircustoms, and who, by their joint coun-cils and arms and efforts, fighting sideby side throughout a long and bloodywar, have nobly established their gen-eral liberty and their independence.

That is the history of our country.Based on this premise, for the past

two centuries we have forged a Nationout of our different peoples by empha-sizing our common beliefs, our com-mon ideals and, perhaps most impor-tantly of all, our common language.

Our English language has permittedthis country to live up to our nationalmotto, E Pluribus Unum, which meansout of many, one.

Mr. Chairman, it is in this spirit thatI offer the English language empower-ment amendment to the U.S.-PuertoRico Political Status Act. In short,this amendment is based on two verysimple principles. It is based on unity,and it is based on opportunity. My de-votion to unity and the English lan-guage is premised on the belief thatour strength in unity can best be pre-served through the prevention of divi-sions along linguistic or cultural lines.Such cultural divisions have been en-countered by Canada with Quebec andcould be with the U.S. and Puerto Ricotoday.

Now, what do I mean by this divisionof linguistic lines? These divisions arenot between people, but they are be-tween opportunities. Americans who donot know English are segregated. Theyare segregated from those who do, sep-arated from everything the UnitedStates and its precious Constitutionstands for.

A reaffirmation of English as the of-ficial language is absolutely necessaryto demonstrate that the Federal Gov-ernment’s goal is to desegregate allAmericans. This is because America iscomposed of people who have for cen-turies pulled themselves up by theirbootstraps with courage and a vision topursue the opportunity that Americahas to offer. Consequently my amend-ment is intended to ensure that noAmerican citizen, no matter what theircultural background, no matter wheth-er they live in Puerto Rico or Iowa, hasto be trapped in a linguistic box, keptaway from those tools of opportunity.

This is the land of opportunity andthe land of language, the land of oppor-tunity and English. There should be noambiguity about this fact. The usageand understanding of English is thekey to economic and educational op-portunity in this country of ours.

Therefore, we as the Federal Govern-ment must do everything we can topromote and to enhance the ability ofall Americans no matter what theirheritage to read, to speak and under-stand this language of opportunity.

Based on this visionary premise dur-ing the 104th Congress, the House ofRepresentatives voted, and the gen-tleman from California (Mr.CUNNINGHAM) will speak to that in aminute, voted 259 to 169 in favor of thebill which declared English the officiallanguage of the United States. How-ever, the provisions of this bill beforeus today undermine the principles ofthat empowerment act, and they denyopportunities to the children and thepeople of Puerto Rico, make no mis-take about it. Furthermore, this billdoes not address how the omission ofPuerto Rico as an official SpanishState would affect English as the offi-cial language of the United States Gov-ernment. Nor does it protect the rightsof English-speaking Americans inPuerto Rico or the rights of the chil-dren of Puerto Rico to learn English.

These are crucial, important ques-tions to answer because according tothe 1990 U.S. census, and this is so im-portant, less than 24 percent of the U.S.citizens in Puerto Rico speak Englishfluently, while 98 percent do actuallyspeak Spanish. All children in the pub-lic schools are taught only in Spanishfrom kindergarten through the highschool, while English is taught as asecond language.

b 1415

To correct these weaknesses of theunderlying bill, my amendment basi-cally does two things, and this is ex-actly what it does:

First, it replaces the language in thisbill, the nebulous language policywhich states that ‘‘English is the com-mon language of mutual understandingin the United States.’’ It replaces itwith the clearer and simpler statementthat ‘‘English is the official languageof the Federal Government,’’ applica-ble to the entire Nation, as done in theEmpowerment Act in the last Congresswhich overwhelmingly passed thisHouse with strong Republican andDemocratic support.

Secondly, it addresses Congress’ fun-damental responsibility to ensure thatany State meet certain standards andprovide certain fundamental rights andprotections. In 1845 and again in 1911our United States Supreme Court heldthat Congress may require a new Stateto meet certain standards before itwould be admitted. As a result, myamendment tailors the statehood bal-lot to reflect this national officialEnglish policy. It states that the Con-gress expects that a future State ofPuerto Rico would promote English asthe official language of the State gov-ernment, of its courts and agencies,and that English would be the languageof instruction in public schools butwould not bar the teaching of Spanishin those same public schools. These

provisions will guarantee current andfuture generations of Puerto Rico un-fettered access to the tools with whichto successfully assimilate into thisUnion of ours, should they choose tobecome a State at a later date.

Today can be a historic day, my col-leagues, a day in which Congress notonly debates the future political statusof 3.8 million U.S. citizens, but also aday which will focus and strengthenthose things which unite us as a Nationand which expand the horizons of op-portunity for all our citizens.

This is an amendment of oppor-tunity, my colleagues. It is a vision ofunity and compassionate measures. Itdeserves all of America’s support, fromthe young dairy farmer in Argyle, NewYork, to the logging family in Olym-pia, Washington, to the schoolteacherin San Juan, Puerto Rico. I urge mycolleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 2 minutes to the gen-tleman from Texas (Mr. EDWARDS).

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, whatAmerica needs is English plus, notEnglish only. What America needs is toteach English, not preach it. WhatAmerica needs is to respect diversity,not divisiveness. The last time I visitedthe Statue of Liberty, that eloquentlady did not say ‘‘Spanish-speakingpeople not accepted here.’’

The blood spilled and lives lost bythousands of Spanish-speaking Amer-ican veterans has not been limited toEnglish only, and it is wrong to denythose veterans the very rights forwhich they fought. Whether intendedor not, this debate on English only isdivisive and insults the culture of mil-lions of Hispanic Americans, AsianAmericans, Korean Americans and oth-ers.

Mr. Chairman, the brightest days ofAmerica’s history have come when wewere inclusive, when we added womenand racial and religious minorities tothe rights enumerated in our Declara-tion of Independence and Constitution.The darkest days of America’s historyhave come when we excluded our citi-zens from full participation in our de-mocracy; for example, when black vet-erans were allowed to die for the veryfreedoms they were denied right hereat home. I hope this will be a brightday for all of America’s citizens, not adark day that will turn us backwardsinto a quagmire of divisiveness.

The 3 percent of American citizensthat do not speak English, many ofthem seniors living with their childrenin their homes, hardly pose a threat tothe greatest democracy in the historyof the world. If Hispanics and otherAmericans, such as Korean Americansin my district, are willing to work hardand pay taxes and serve us in uniform,then surely we should show them thebrightest, the best of America today.

Vote ‘‘no’’ on the Solomon amend-ment.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH794 March 4, 1998Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield

5 minutes to the gentleman from Lou-isiana (Mr. LIVINGSTON), one of theMembers of this body that has beenharassed by Members in his own partyand Members on both sides of the aislebut is one of the real stand-up Membersin this House.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Ithank my friend for yielding me thistime. The other gentleman from Lou-isiana was disappointed the gentlemanwas not speaking about him. Hethought and I thought the gentlemanfrom New York was speaking abouthim.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strongsupport of the amendment by the gen-tleman from New York, the Solomonamendment to H.R. 856, the UnitedStates-Puerto Rico Political StatusAct. Regardless of how we feel aboutthe ultimate bill, the fact is that thisbill’s current provision on English isweak and inadequate and needs to bestrengthened. H.R. 856 says thatEnglish will be the common languageof mutual understanding in the UnitedStates. That means really nothing.Common language is not an officiallanguage.

That facts are that less than half ofall the citizens of Puerto Rico canspeak English. Less than half canspeak English. And according to TheNew York Times, fully 90 percent ofthe island’s 650,000 public school stu-dents lack basic English skills by thetime they graduate. If Puerto Rico be-comes a State, this situation will be in-tolerable. A youngster growing up inPuerto Rico will speak Spanish, willnot speak English. And, in my opinion,a youngster growing up in the UnitedStates needs to speak the common lan-guage.

If my wife and I take a child to Spainand raise the child in Spain, we willraise the child speaking Spanish sothat he can communicate, or she cancommunicate in the language of theNation. We will not expect Spain toteach our kid English if we are going tolive in their country. Likewise, weought to expect people growing up inthis Nation to speak English so thatthey can communicate for their owngood and become productive citizens.

Our common language is the tie thatbinds us all. The motto of this Nation,‘‘E Pluribus Unum,’’ ‘‘out of many,one,’’ should remind us that we are aNation of different peoples and culturesbut we are united. The ability to com-municate in a common tongue is thekey to success that unites us in our de-mocracy.

We see in Canada that different lan-guages can seriously impair the unityof a nation, and that nation is about tocome apart at the seams because theyspeak a different language.

The Solomon amendment is onlycommon sense. By establishing Englishas the official language of the FederalGovernment, the Solomon amendmentwill make it perfectly clear thatEnglish will be the language of the

Federal Government across the Nation.Not just in Puerto Rico, across the Na-tion.

Under Solomon, Puerto Ricans mayfreely speak Spanish at home or any-where they please, but the State ofPuerto Rico will promote English asthe official language of the State gov-ernment, of the courts, of the agencies,and in the schools teaching in Englishwill be mandated in public schools.This will make citizens of the islandfull and equal partners in America in afashion our Founding Fathers envi-sioned and it will make them produc-tive citizens of the United States ofAmerica.

I urge the adoption of the Solomonamendment and the defeat of all theperfecting and the substituting amend-ments which will delete it and attemptto nullify the provisions of the Solo-mon amendment. English is the Amer-ican language.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 2 minutes to the gen-tleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO).

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, right now, in Puerto Rico, morepeople are watching this C–SPAN on aper-capita basis than in any State ofthe Nation. That belies the statementsthat have been made here that the peo-ple of Puerto Rico do not understandEnglish.

More than about 50 percent of thepeople know and understand English.Twenty-five percent are proficient inEnglish. But how many children areproficient in English when they grad-uate from high school in the 50 Statesof the Nation? There is a very low pro-ficiency in English from graduates inthe 50 States. But all of those people inPuerto Rico, if they cannot under-stand, they have somebody in theirfamily or a friend that is translatingwhat is going on here, and they knowwhat is going on.

When they say that in order to votethat we have to be proficient inEnglish, my God, why was that not de-cided when we were granted citizen-ship? A person who asks for naturaliza-tion, he takes a test in English. Now, 95percent of the people of Puerto Ricocan pass that test without any prob-lem; that is a citizenship test.

So the test that we give people whoask for citizenship has less require-ments than what we are trying to re-quire in this amendment from the peo-ple of Puerto Rico who have been citi-zens since 1917, for 81 years, who foughttogether, who worked together tomake this Nation what it is today.They fought in the foreign soils defend-ing the right to self-determination.

They say, oh, this bill tells the peo-ple of Puerto Rico the wrong things. Itdoes not allow the people of PuertoRico to understand that they mustspeak English. We know we must speakEnglish. Everybody in Puerto Ricoknows that. We know that English isthe language of the world. What is any-one here afraid of?

We should be in the country, insteadof trying to impose English, promotingthe learning of English by providingopportunities to learn English, provid-ing more opportunities for people whounderstand the language and to speakit and to write it. That is what thisshould be all about, not about trying toimpose. This is not a dictatorship. Thisis a democracy. Let us not belie whatwe are.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I yield myself such time as I mayconsume.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentlemanfrom Indiana using the time of the gen-tleman from New York?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I have 15 minutes, and the gen-tleman from California (Mr. MILLER)has 15 minutes in opposition. That iswhat was decided.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair’s under-standing is the gentleman from Indianawas going to make that unanimousconsent request.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, wehave no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. But as of now, weare under the 60 minutes divided forthe underlying subject.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.BURTON) has 15 minutes of our 30 min-utes because the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. SOLOMON) withdrew his ob-jection.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair had madean announcement that the hour wouldbe divided 30 minutes and 30 minutesunder the rule. The Chair would nowentertain a unanimous consent requestto further divide the time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I ask unanimous consent that 15minutes of the time allocated to meunder the rule be allocated to the gen-tleman from Indiana (Mr. BURTON) atthis time.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromCalifornia?

There was no objection.The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-

nizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.BURTON.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I yield myself such time as I mayconsume.

Mr. Chairman, I am one of the 165 co-sponsors of H.R. 123, which was a bill todeclare English as the official languageof the Government of the UnitedStates. I strongly believe that that is agood piece of legislation.

However, after having said that, I donot believe that that particular pieceof legislation belongs in this bill. Thisbill is a bill that is designed to give thepeople of Puerto Rico the right to letthe Congress of the United States knowwhether they want to be an independ-ent nation, whether they want to re-main a Commonwealth, or whetherthey want to become a State.

It does not mean that they will be-come a State, because any decisionthat they make in this referendum will

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H795March 4, 1998have to come back to the Congress ofthe United States for final determina-tion. And the process is going to takeabout 10 years if the process is followedaccording to the legislation that wehave before us.

So the fact of the matter is this billis designed to find out what the peopleof Puerto Rico really want.

Why are we doing this, because therewas a plebiscite in Puerto Rico just afew years ago? A few years ago, therewas a plebiscite; and each of the par-ties, the Commonwealth party, thestatehood party, and the independentparty were able to define for them-selves what Commonwealth meant,what statehood meant, and what inde-pendence meant. Because of that, thepeople of Puerto Rico, when theyvoted, were voting based upon the de-termination that was being made bythe party who wanted their vote.

What we decided to do was, we de-cided to find out from leading legal au-thorities what statehood meant, whatCommonwealth meant, and what inde-pendence meant so that the people ofPuerto Rico, when they voted on theplebiscite, would be voting on the factsand not on what some party said.

We have contacted the legislativecounsel of the Congress of the UnitedStates for their input. We have con-tacted the Congressional ResearchService for their input. We have con-tacted the Department of Justice ofthe United States for their input, andother constitutional experts.

What we have determined in this billis what is constitutionally defined asstatehood, independence, and Common-wealth status.

b 1430And so the people of Puerto Rico,

when they vote on this plebiscite, willbe voting on what the facts are and notwhat some party says in Puerto Ricowho has a reason to define their partyin a certain way. The CommonwealthParty, in the definition that was on theplebiscite a few years ago, was not de-fined correctly. What we are doing isclarifying that in the language that isin this bill, that will go on the ballot ifwe pass this legislation.

Like I said earlier, I am for theEnglish legislation that was before thisbody some years ago. I was a cosponsorof that. I do not believe the Solomonamendment as written has any place inthis legislation. Because there is someconfusion about this, this is becomingan English-only bill, which it shouldnot be.

I have a perfecting amendment or asubstitute amendment which will, ef-fective immediately, allow for Englishproficiency in Puerto Rico by the ageof 10. I think that the people of PuertoRico, when they read the substitutethat I have, will be very happy withthat because it encourages learningEnglish in all the schools and all theinstitutions down there by the age of10. We think that that will happen.

Let me just add one more point. Thatis, the people of Puerto Rico already

are citizens of the United States ofAmerica. We are not talking aboutsome country out there in the middleof nowhere. Those people have citizen-ship already. For us to deny them theability to decide whether they want tobe a commonwealth or if they want tobecome independent or a State I thinkis just dead wrong.

Let us not muddy up the waters byadding the Solomon language to this,which is a pervasive issue. He is talk-ing about English for the entire UnitedStates of America. We are talkingabout a plebiscite bill for Puerto Rico.Let us decide the Puerto Rico issuewith the amendment that I am goingto add which will encourage English asthe language down there, proficiencyby the age of 10. And then later on if wewant to, let us go back to the English-only bill that we had before this bodysome time ago and debate that as aseparate issue, but not on the PuertoRico bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 11⁄2 minutes to the gen-tleman from Minnesota (Mr. VENTO).

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

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise instrong opposition to the Solomonamendment. It is a clear example of asolution to a problem that does notexist. It may seem to some that thisrequirement is a laudable goal but thefact is that the proponents of this bill,the delegations and so forth that sup-port it, are against this amendment. Itis an unnecessary, ineffective and divi-sive amendment.

It is unnecessary because English andSpanish have been the official lan-guages of Puerto Rico since 1902. Toput that in perspective, STROM THUR-MOND was born way back in 1902. Thatis a long time ago. Furthermore, thisbill already has a provision highlight-ing the importance of English as acommon language. It states, and Iquote, ‘‘English is the common lan-guage of mutual understanding in theUnited States, and that this policyshall apply in all of the States. That isall that is needed to accomplish thestated goal of the Solomon amend-ment’s proponents.’’

Furthermore, of course, our Nation isa melting pot. My grandparents were ofGerman and Italian ancestry. I amproud of my parents and the wonderfulheritage we share. But I am and we areall Americans, and as such I believe thestrength of our Nation is derived notfrom laws that mandate our Americanpatriotism and demand our fidelity butfrom core values and common beliefsthat define and guide our rights and re-sponsibilities. Whatever language wespeak, write or think in, our freedomand liberties are not bound by butrather transcend the limits and theboundaries of such language.

The Solomon amendment strikes atthe core value of such American belief

and practice. It says that we must doto Puerto Rico that which we did notdo to the Scandinavian and GermanMidwest territories to achieve state-hood, to superimpose a language re-quirement and condition statehoodconsideration upon what is in essencethe denial of that heritage, culture andhistory. Vote no on this Solomonamendment.

This Solomon amendment is big govern-ment, and big brother, at its worst.

This Solomon amendment would require theEnglish language to be the official language ofall government functions in the United States.It is possible that, if the current version of thislegislation passes, the people of Puerto Ricowill vote to join the Union as the 51st stateand that the Congress would respond by en-acting legislation which would grant PuertoRican statehood. What this amendment re-quires, then, is that English will be the officiallanguage of Puerto Rico. English would be theofficial language in all of the affairs of stategovernment, including teaching in publicschools. Supporters of this amendment say itspassage will empower the citizens of PuertoRico. Their goal is the ‘‘long term assimilationof Puerto Ricans into American society.’’

Now that may seem to many upon its faceto be a pretty laudable goal. The problem isthat the main supporter of this legislation, Mr.ROMERO-BARCELO, is deeply opposed to sucha provision. The Congressional Hispanic Cau-cus opposes it as well. They say, and I agree,that this amendment is unnecessary, ineffec-tive and divisive.

It’s unnecessary because English and Span-ish have been the official languages of PuertoRico since 1902. To put that into perspective,STROM THURMOND was born way back in1902. Furthermore, H.R. 856 already has aprovision highlighting the importance ofEnglish as a common language. H.R. 856states, and I quote, ‘‘English is the commonlanguage of mutual understanding in theUnited States, and that this policy shall applyin all of the states.’’ This is all that is neededto accomplish the stated goal of the Amend-ment proponents.

The Solomon amendment iteration of thismatter is ineffective because far from empow-ering people, it would make government inPuerto Rico work far less efficiently. Aroundhalf of all people in Puerto Rico over the ageof five are bilingual. That means the other halfdon’t speak English or Spanish. Passing thisamendment means that this close to 50% ofpeople will not be able to vote because theywon’t understand the English-only ballots.They’ll have some trouble in courts of law, be-cause they won’t be able to understand theproceedings. They’ll have one heck of a timetrying to file Federal taxes—which is, as we allknow, pretty complicated even if you know theEnglish language. And they may not even beable to speak with 911 operators in emer-gencies. That doesn’t sound like empower-ment to me, Mr. Chairman. That sounds like abad idea.

Now the one thing you hear people whosupport this amendment say again and againis that H.R. 856 will create an American Que-bec. Quite the contrary, it would be the Solo-mon amendment that creates a situation simi-lar to that which has ripped Canada apart inrecent years. The lesson from Canada should

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH796 March 4, 1998be that you should never, ever legislate a lan-guage requirement. Far from creating an at-mosphere that would ease assimilation, thisamendment would create an atmosphere of di-vision, suspicion and mistrust.

Finally, as we approach the 21st Century,multilingualism is something we need to en-courage. As the reach of the global economyincreases, the ability to speak more than onelanguage will be an important and marketableskill. If this bill passes, and citizens of PuertoRico choose to join the Union as the 51ststate, their impressive ability to use Englishand Spanish will be something we could all beproud of and respect, not denigrate.

America is a melting pot. My grandparentswere German and Italian, and I am proud ofmy parents and the wonderful heritage we allshare. But I am and we are all Americans, andas such I believe that the strength of our na-tion is derived not from laws that mandate ourAmerican patriotism and demand our fidelity,but from core values and common beliefs thatdefine our rights and responsibilities. What-ever language we speak, write or think in, ourfreedom and liberty are not bound by but rath-er transcend the limits, the boundaries of suchlanguage. The Solomon amendment strikes atthe core value of such American belief. It saysthat we must do to Puerto Rico that which wedidn’t do to the Scandinavian and GermanMidwest territories to achieve statehood: su-perimpose a language requirement and condi-tion statehood consideration upon what is inessence the denial of a heritage, culture andhistory. This amendment results in a price weshould not place on statehood. Join me in op-posing the Solomon amendment!

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield5 minutes to the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. CUNNINGHAM), the sponsorof the official English bill that passedthis House overwhelmingly with bipar-tisan support 2 years ago.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,one thing I think the members of Puer-to Rico will see, I think this is one ofthe most healthy debates that I haveseen on this floor in 7 years. It is issue-oriented. I have got conservatives forand against, I have got liberals for andagainst, and each with individual ideas.I commend both sides of this.

I did not have time to speak on thefloor. I would like to speak to theamendment but I would also like tospeak to the bill.

Teddy Roosevelt, Rough Rider, SanJuan Hill, and yes, many, many mem-bers from Puerto Rico have shed theirblood to support democracy and fightcommunism and socialism around theworld just like many Americans have. Ithink you know how most of us feelabout that.

I would also say that the people, nownearly 4 million Puerto Ricans, havevoted on several occasions on theseissues. I know for me, and I will saythis and I will give you my support, itis not required by Congress that theyvote on what their determinationwants to be. If you have at least two-thirds instead of 50 plus one on a veryimportant issue like this, this gen-tleman will support it, but not on a 50plus one vote.

I think if we look, the Puerto Ricanpeople themselves are divided on this

particular issue. Quebec has been men-tioned. I am not going to let the gen-tleman from Indiana (Mr. BURTON) giveme any more golf bags after this, but Iwould say that if he wants to encour-age them to learn English, if we askthe people of Quebec and encouragethem to learn English instead ofFrench, look at the problems they havehad, it would not happen. I think ittakes stronger.

Mr. Chairman, I was disappointed inthe minority leader at his representa-tion of the English provision in this.Let me tell my colleagues why. First ofall, there were 259 votes. I went fromthe very extreme portion of a bill aschairman of the committee and downto the lower portions and moderatedthe bill to where even States had theright, after this body had said Englishis the common language of our govern-ment, that each individual State had aright to change that. It gave them thatoption. There was no mandatory thingthere. I thought that that was veryfair. I think that is why we got such bi-partisan support for it. I think the mis-representation was not well proposedin the bill.

I think another big issue, it fails tofollow the precedents of other U.S. ter-ritories that joined the Union, Hawaii,Alaska, with the great percentages.They really want it. It should be some-thing very special to the great major-ity of a country. Puerto Rico, as thegentleman said, they feel they are acountry. It should be the great expec-tation of a great majority of thatgroup before they become an Americancitizen. I do not want another Quebechere. I do not want in Puerto Rico thatkind of division and that divisiveness. Ithink that that is a legitimate issue.

They said it is a poison pill. Theformer Governor of Arkansas had a billsimilar to this, Governor Clinton, 23States in our Union. That is not ex-treme, as the minority leader said. Ijust think if we are going to speak, Ithink we need to speak not disingen-uously but purport what the bill says.It is English as a common language,not English only.

When I was in the Philippines, thePhilippines was going to have Tagalogas its official language. I recommendedto President Ramos that that was adisservice because it has no root inmath or science. I speak a little Taga-log. They would do themselves a dis-service internationally.

I went to Vietnam. They are carryingcomputers, they are learning Englishand they are studying business becausethey understand. That is all we areasking for Puerto Rico, that they dothat. Instead of speaking Spanish firstin their classrooms and English second,it should be turned around, if theywant a bite of the American dream. Ithink that is very, very important.

I would ask my colleagues, thinkcarefully about this. If we can have avote from Puerto Rico, where the ma-jority of them say we want to be anAmerican citizen, I think only a very

small percentage of the group that areopposed to this would say no. But wedo not have that. I ask my colleaguesto take a look at that.

I would say, Mr. Chairman, as I men-tioned, the bill by both sides of theaisle has been represented well withthe issues. I thank my colleagues forthat. But this is more serious thanmost bills we have coming up here. Ithink that is the reason we have givenit so much time. Give yourself thetime, look at the issues on both sidesof it, and I think you will not supportthe bill and you will not support thesubstitute but you will support theSolomon amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I yield myself 1 minute.

First of all let me point out to mycolleague from California, the people ofPuerto Rico are citizens of the UnitedStates. They already are citizens. Hesays if they want a bite of the Amer-ican dream. They already are Ameri-cans. The only problem is they areAmericans without representation.They do not have any Congressmen.They do not have any Senators. Theydo not have any representation in thisbody. Yet they are American citizens.They are like orphans out in a stormwalking around saying, ‘‘Where are myparents?’’ It does not make any sense.

This plebiscite is an advisory plebi-scite, I will say to my colleague fromCalifornia. This is an advisory plebi-scite. What is he afraid of? All we areasking for is an opinion from the peo-ple of Puerto Rico on what they want.If they come back and only 51 percentsay that they want statehood or theywant commonwealth, we decide in thisbody whether or not we want to pro-ceed any further. I think if it was thatclose, we probably would not. But letus say they come back and that 70 per-cent want statehood and only 10 per-cent or 20 percent want common-wealth. At that point I think that weas a body ought to make that deter-mination.

But make no mistake about it, theseare American citizens without rep-resentation in the Congress of theUnited States, and that is wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes tothe gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. ABER-CROMBIE).

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, Iam speaking on the time of the gen-tleman from Indiana (Mr. BURTON). Iam speaking from the majority side ofthe aisle because I am speaking on histime. I am looking at the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. MILLER) right nowwho is smiling at me, and trying to getover the hush that came over thecrowd as someone moves to this side. Iam looking for the gentleman fromAlaska (Mr. YOUNG), my very ablechairman.

I point that out because this is a non-partisan issue and is being cast, I amvery sorry to say, in somewhat par-tisan terms, not necessarily by partybut partisan terms, as if there is aright side and a wrong side. As the gen-tleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. ROMERO-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H797March 4, 1998BARCELO) has indicated, as the gen-tleman from Indiana (Mr. BURTON) hasindicated, as the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. MILLER) has indicated, andthe gentleman from Alaska (Mr.YOUNG), what we are trying to do heretoday is to aid and assist, as Membersof the House of Representatives, theself-determination of fellow citizens.

The gentleman from Indiana (Mr.BURTON) has been adamant on this. I donot think we are going to find a morepartisan person in the House with re-spect to the question of English and itsbeing used as common languagethroughout the United States. But thatissue will be debated in another venue,at another time.

What we are talking about here issomething that I ask Members, as arepresentative from the last State tocome into the Union. We have onlybeen a State for 38 years. We have beena State for less years than many peoplein this body have been alive and serv-ing in public office.

b 1445

So it is very, very particularly poign-ant in some respects to me today tostand here as someone who was notborn in Hawaii and has the privilege toserve in Hawaii.

I was born in the east of the UnitedStates, in Buffalo, New York, in thearea represented by the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. PAXON) today. Itnever occurred to me that one day Iwould have the privilege and honor ofstanding in the well of this House toserve the people not only of Hawaii,but of the United States of America.

That will happen in Puerto Rico. Wecannot determine ahead of time whatis going to happen there. The conven-tional wisdom, as some will recall,when Hawaii and Alaska came into theUnion, was that Hawaii would be a Re-publican State, and, indeed, we electeda Republican Governor in our very firstState election, and that Alaska wouldbe a democratic State.

As you know, that has worked dif-ferently. We have had Republican of-fice holders here, we have had Demo-cratic office holders here. This is not apartisan issue.

Mr. Chairman, I appeal to my Repub-lican friends, please, take into accountthat our fellow citizens are merely ask-ing for the opportunity to determinetheir future. Join Democrats and Re-publicans all together and vote for thebill and against this particular amend-ment.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemanfrom Maryland (Mr. HOYER).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thistime.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposi-tion to the Solomon amendment and instrong support of the substitute lan-guage.

Mr. Chairman, English is fast becom-ing the language of the world. It is notwe English speakers who need to fear

the integrity of our language; it is, in-deed, others who have concerns.

We, as I said earlier in this debate,who support so strongly the principlesof the Helsinki Act, have advocated incountry after country after countrythat they give to people within theircountry respect of their cultural andtheir national identities. Of course,language is a critical component ofthat.

The Soviet Union, my friends will re-call, tried to have everybody speakRussian on the concept that if every-body spoke Russian, there would be asense of unity within the Soviet Union.But that unity was at the point of asword. It will not get you what youwant.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of thesubstitute, and opposition to the Solo-mon amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromArizona (Mr. HAYWORTH) for the pur-pose of entering into a colloquy withme.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I dorise for the purpose of entering into acolloquy with the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. CUNNINGHAM), who will bespeaking for the sponsor of the amend-ment, the gentleman from New York(Mr. SOLOMON).

First let me compliment my friendfrom New York for introducing this im-portant amendment. This amendmentwill save precious taxpayer dollars,while reaffirming that English shouldbe the official language of the govern-ment. A common language of govern-ment is essential to our health as a Na-tion.

Let me turn to the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. CUNNINGHAM). It is myunderstanding it was the intention ofthe gentleman from New York (Mr.SOLOMON), the author of this amend-ment, to include the entire text of H.R.123, the Bill Emerson English LanguageEmpowerment Act of 1997, as thisamendment. Is that correct?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gen-tleman from California.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, itwas the intention of the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SOLOMON) to in-clude the text of H.R. 123 in thisamendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, re-claiming my time, as the gentlemanknows, I worked with the authors ofH.R. 123 to include certain sections ofthe bill that recognize the unique sta-tus of Native Americans under ourConstitution and various treaties. Sec-tion 167 of H.R. 123 explicitly states,‘‘Nothing in this chapter shall be con-strued to limit the preservation or useof Native Alaskans or Native Americanlanguages as defined in the NativeAmerican Languages Act.’’ Section 169of the bill further states that the meas-ure does not apply to ‘‘the teaching ofthese languages.’’ These provisionswere added at my behest to protect the

unique obligations we have to NativeAmericans.

Again, asking the gentleman fromCalifornia, was it the intention of thegentleman from New York (Mr. SOLO-MON) to protect the various obligationsof our native people?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, ifthe gentleman will yield further, it wasthe full intention to protect NativeAmerican languages, as these sovereigntribes have a unique relationship withthe Federal Government. Unfortu-nately, the Parliamentarian ruled thatadding these sections would not be ger-mane to the bill we are debating. I lookforward to working with the gentlemanin seeing that the Native Americanlanguages are protected as the billworks its way through the legislativeprocess.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. FARR).

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chair-man, I was sitting in my office listen-ing to this debate, and really the ques-tion is what does the 105th Congresshave to fear? It really sounds like twothings.

First of all, we are fearful of PuertoRico having an election, which is es-sentially a public opinion election.Since when did Congress fear elections?

The other thing we have is we arefearing people that speak other lan-guages. Why? One hundred four ses-sions that went before us did not fearthat. In fact, our forefathers who ad-mitted Louisiana, New Mexico, Okla-homa and Hawaii, allowed those statesto come in and protected the rights ofthose people to speak French, Spanish,Native American and Hawaiian, Aloha,a language that everybody uses in busi-ness.

What about our forefathers who re-built this room we are all sitting in, in1949 and 1950. If you look around, thereare 23 lawgivers that we respect. Theseare the people who historically gave usthe under-law for American law. Thesewere the lawmakers, lawgivers, as wecall them. There are 23 of them. Onlythree of them spoke English, and one ofthose, Thomas Jefferson, also spokeFrench.

Mr. Chairman, what are we afraid of?Defeat this amendment and pass thebill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, Iyield two minutes to the gentlemanfrom South Carolina (Mr. GRAHAM).

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I know this is an emo-tional issue to many folks. The com-monwealth status of Puerto Rico hasbeen a long-standing status and it con-fers upon its people certain rights ofcitizenship.

This body is about to take it to a newlevel. I do not believe the Americanpeople are any closer to understandingthis issue than when we started. It istaking everybody in the country bysurprise.

It is a big deal to me. I think we arerushing into it. But if we are going to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH798 March 4, 1998do it, we need to recognize certainthings.

Three out of four people in PuertoRico are not fluent in the English lan-guage, and we are setting in motionthe possibility of Puerto Rico becom-ing a State in a couple or three years.

The legislative affairs of the Com-monwealth of Puerto Rico are con-ducted in Spanish. The Federal Courtsystem requires that jurors speakEnglish to sit as jurors, but the Statecourt system, or the equivalent there-of, is conducted in Spanish, so if any-body finds themselves in Puerto Ricoas a State, chances are you are goingto be tried in a language you do not un-derstand.

What the gentleman from New York(Mr. SOLOMON) is trying to do is bringunanimity to the 50 or 51 states, sayingthe common language that unites us isEnglish, and it would apply to allstates, not just the Commonwealth ofPuerto Rico.

If we are going to go down this road,we certainly need this piece of legisla-tion. But I believe it is ill-advised to dothis without the goodwill of the Amer-ican people behind us and without ex-actly understanding where the peopleof Puerto Rico are.

I do not understand why we are doingit, but if we are going to do it, theEnglish component of the Solomonamendment is essential to integratingPuerto Rico into the United States in aviable way. When 3 out of 4 people can-not speak English, that is a road mapfor disaster, if you are going to be apart of the United States.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemanfrom Rhode Island (Mr. KENNEDY).

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr.Chairman, I rise in strong oppositionto this English only amendment. Thegentleman from New York says that weneed this amendment to empower thecitizens of Puerto Rico to be full andequal partners in this Union.

What will empower the people ofPuerto Rico to be full participants inthis Union is if we get about votingthis bill through and allowing them theright to finally have self-determinationon the island, so that they can have allthe rights and privileges of their Amer-ican citizenship status which they arecurrently denied because they areunder Commonwealth status, which, ifI need to remind Members, means theyare under the territorial clause of theUnited States.

Ironically, we could pass Englishonly requirements for the people ofPuerto Rico under the current terri-torial status, because that is ourpower. If they become a State, which Ihope they will, they will retain the10th Amendment power to decide whattheir own language will be.

So it is interesting. If they become aState, they will be able to decide forthemselves; if they remain a Common-wealth, it is up to us to decide whattheir language is going to be.

Vote against the Solomon amend-ment, and vote for the passage of thebill.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I yield myself 11⁄2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, earlier in the debatethe gentleman from California (Mr.CUNNINGHAM) got up and spoke abouthis legislation dealing with English asan official language. The point wasmade that all states would be treatedthe same, and the states had a right tochange some requirements under the10th Amendment, should they decide todo so.

The problem with the Solomonamendment is that in fact in this legis-lation it treats Puerto Rico differentlythan any other State in the Union, be-cause it goes on and declares thatEnglish is the official language of theUnited States. But it then goes on tosay the people of Puerto Rico can onlycommunicate with the Federal Govern-ment in English and that the FederalGovernment can only communicatewith the people of Puerto Rico inEnglish.

This means if you are a DEA agent,you can only speak English if you areengaged in an activity. If you are theFBI, you can only speak English if youare engaged in an activity. If you areengaged in a search and rescue and thepeople do not speak English, you canonly speak to them in English.

I do not think that is what we wantto do. There is a legitimate debate tobe had under the Cunningham legisla-tion. We had it two years ago. I suspectwe will have it again before this year isout. That would apply to all of thestates equally and the states would re-tain their rights.

But the Solomon amendment goes farbeyond those requirements and singlesout Puerto Rico for special burdensometreatment. People can only write totheir member of Congress, should theychoose statehood and have Members inthe Congress of the United States, theycould only write to them in English. Itwould be against the law to write tothem in Spanish or in another lan-guage. It would be against the law topetition the President of the UnitedStates or the Congress in any otherlanguage. That is not true anywhereelse in this country.

We ought to make sure that if wedeal with this issue, that we treat allof the states on an equal footing. Thissays if Puerto Rico becomes a state, itwould be singled out for much moreburdensome treatment than the gen-eral debate on English as an officiallanguage.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I yield two minutes to my goodfriend, the gentleman from New York(Mr. SERRANO).

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, let mefirst say that I rise in strong opposi-tion to the Solomon amendment and infavor, strong support, of the substitutelanguage.

Let me say that the gentleman fromIndiana (Mr. BURTON) is very coura-geous in taking this stance. He sup-ports English only, but he knows itdoes not belong in this bill. That iswhat this issue is all about.

Why not be fair? Why single PuertoRico out? If it decides to become aState and if we allow it to become aState, it shall be governed by the lawof the land. Everyone knows that. Butwhy single it out now? Why try tomake a statement that is unfair and astatement that is not necessary?

The issue on the whole is one that isnot necessary. Everyone knows thateveryone learns to speak English bothin Puerto Rico and here. As an His-panic American, a Latino and PuertoRican, I can tell you, we do not goaround spending time figuring out hownot to learn English. Do I not soundlike a person who tries every day toimprove on the language? I am going toget it right one of these days.

This is a bad amendment, and itshould not be here.

Let me close with this: When Latinosor Hispanics sit around the dinnertable and the issue of language comesup, it is never a plot against theEnglish language.

b 1500

It is usually a lament about the factthat the children and the grand-children no longer speak Spanish. Sowith that recognition, what is the fear?Let us go forward. Let us allow thisbill to take place. Let us make thisvote possible.

Let us not muddy the waters anymore. Let the people of Puerto Rico,the Puerto Rican people, have a voteon this issue. Let us not single themout for anything that you do not singleother States out for.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. BILBRAY).

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I risein support of the Solomon amendment.I would like to clarify an issue. The mi-nority leader, the gentleman from Mis-souri (Mr. GEPHARDT) stated that wehave never placed any language condi-tion on any territory that was consid-ering statehood.

I want to clarify that that is false,that in fact in 1811 Congress specifi-cally required that Louisiana adoptEnglish as the official language oftheir proceedings, of all governmentwritings, and all government functions.They not only required Louisiana in1811 to do it, they required Oklahomaand New Mexico to specifically have toteach in English as a primary lan-guage. In fact, Arizona was required toguarantee that its executive and legis-lative officials would conduct businessin the English language.

So let us not talk about singling outanyone. The fact is this has a histori-cal record that says that when theissue of language has become a ques-tion, English is the common languageof these United States; that has beenclarified by Congress again and again,and has been placed as a requirementon any territory wishing to gain state-hood that they must, too, adoptEnglish as their official common lan-guage.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H799March 4, 1998Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact

that the gentleman from Illinois andthe gentlewoman from New York pro-posed a substitute to the substitute,which really shows where some peoplemay be coming from on this issue.That is, their substitute to the sub-stitute says let us make Spanish theofficial language of Puerto Rico.

I think what we are saying is let usbe up front about it. We should clarifyto the people of Puerto Rico that partof the transition from territory toState is going to be transition fromSpanish to English. That is de facto.Let us do it up front, be truthful to thepeople of Puerto Rico, let us not prom-ise them State and local governmentwe cannot deliver.

The fact is the assimilation of anyterritory into the greater Union isgoing to happen not just politically butculturally, socially, and linguistically.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 2 minutes to the gen-tleman from Guam (Mr. UNDERWOOD).

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding timeto me.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in support ofthe substitute and in opposition to theSolomon amendment. We are making alanguage issue out of a self-determina-tion issue.

People understand that the use ofEnglish in Puerto Rico is somethingthat is essential to understand here.But there is no one that I know of thatdoes not want to learn English to fullyfunction in American society. Thereare very few people in Puerto Rico thatI know of who do not want to learnEnglish. In fact, in Puerto Rico there isa clear educational policy which fos-ters English, and indeed, English canbe used for official purposes. If PuertoRicans choose statehood under thisframework, those policies would bestrengthened. I think this is under-stood and acceptable.

But what is not acceptable is toallow Puerto Ricans the right to self-determination and in the same processto decide in advance of their choicethat they not be treated the same wayas other States.

The Solomon amendment tries to usethe language issue to deliver a blow tothe possibility of Puerto Rican state-hood by putting a restriction on theirpossible admission, which other Stateshave not had in their history. The Bur-ton substitute is a responsible, coher-ent, moderate statement about the re-alities of American life, the necessityof English, but also recognizes that thetolerance of differences is a corner-stone of American democracy, thateducation is better than coercion, thatknowing more is better than knowingless, that addition is better than sub-traction, that knowing more languagesis not un-American.

Thank you, all of you.Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-

man, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemanfrom Texas (Mr. GREEN).

Mr. GREEN. I thank the gentlemanfor yielding me the time, Mr. Chair-man.

I also join with my colleague, thegentleman from New York (Mr.SERRANO) who says he is working everyday to speak English, and so am I, toimprove on our use of the language.But I will never speak English likethey do in New York or Boston or evenother parts of our country.

I oppose the Solomon amendmentand support the substitute amendment.To make English our official languagelimits our Nation. English is our offi-cial language. It is our common lan-guage. We always have used English. Itdid not take a law in this Congress todo that. It has not taken 200 years todo it. We do it because we want to.

To file a document in court in theUnited States, or a public record, it hasto be in English or an English trans-lation. Our citizenship ceremonies arein English, even though we did haveone aberration of a Federal judge doingit in Arizona. But it has to be inEnglish, by statute.

Furthermore, English only is unwar-ranted because two of our States, NewMexico and Hawaii, have two officiallanguages. In Hawaii it is English andHawaiian, and in New Mexico it isEnglish and Spanish. I hope the PuertoRican voters would choose statehoodand integrate English into their lan-guage.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 11⁄2 minutes to the gen-tleman from Georgia (Mr. LEWIS).

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chair-man, I want to thank my friend andcolleague for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amend-ment. We do not need it. English is thepredominant and common language ofthis Nation. English is used in govern-ment and courts throughout PuertoRico. We must encourage everyone tospeak English, but we must not dis-criminate against those who speakother languages.

Puerto Ricans are citizens of theUnited States. We must not deny thepeople of Puerto Rico their heritage.They contribute to the diversity andrichness of our country. This amend-ment will make government more dif-ficult. It will make communicationmore difficult.

Mr. Chairman, we should encourageeveryone to learn English, but weshould not deny Spanish-speakingAmericans their tradition. English isthe primary language of our Nation. Inalmost every corner of the worldEnglish is the language of inter-national affairs, of international poli-tics and business. We do not need thisamendment. This amendment tells ourcitizens, deny your heritage, forgetyour roots. That is the wrong messagefor a great Nation, for a great people, aproud people to send.

Let us embrace diversity and learnfrom each other. This is how we havegrown and prospered as a great Nationand a great people. I urge all of my col-leagues, Democrats and Republicans,to vote no on the Solomon amendment.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield3 minutes to the gentleman from Vir-

ginia, Mr. BOB GOODLATTE, a distin-guished member of the Committee onthe Judiciary.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the chairman for yielding timeto me, and for his leadership on thisissue.

Mr. Chairman, it has been said thatthe Solomon amendment is not con-stitutional. Nothing could be furtherfrom the truth. Let me read right fromthe language of the amendment. Itsays, ‘‘English is the official languageof all business and communication ofthe Federal Government of the UnitedStates, and all communications withthe Federal Government will be inEnglish unless generally applicableFederal law provides otherwise.’’

Puerto Rico as a State promotesEnglish as the official language of theState government, courts, and agen-cies. English is the language of instruc-tion in public schools. This is not amandate, this is similar to what wehave required of Louisiana, Oklahoma,and other States in the past, and it issimply not correct that this is inappro-priate.

In the last Congress, this body over-whelmingly passed similar language toapply to the entire country, and shoulddo so with regard to Puerto Rico today.English is the language used by ourgovernment. It is the language of com-merce, and it is the common languageof the overwhelming majority of theAmerican people.

Language differences are the numberone barrier to full assimilation, andPuerto Rico is certainly no exception.According to the 1990 U.S. census, lessthan 24 percent of Puerto Ricans speakEnglish fluently, and a 1997 surveyfound that 76 percent of Puerto Ricansthink it unacceptable to have Englishas their official language. It is no coin-cidence, therefore, that a recent pollconcluded that only 16 percent of Puer-to Ricans consider themselves to beAmericans.

Before the people of the UnitedStates accept Puerto Rico into theirUnion, they expect the people of Puer-to Rico to want to be a part of it. Makeno mistake, H.R. 856 will create anAmerican Quebec. If Puerto Rico gainsstatehood under this bill, it is likely todeclare Spanish as the official lan-guage, which could then force the U.S.Government to make Spanish thequasi-official language to accommo-date the needs of Puerto Ricans.

Not only would this significantly un-dermine the long-term assimilation ofPuerto Ricans into American society,but it would also increase the pressurefor the rest of the United States to be-come officially bilingual.

Language is the common bond thatholds our Nation together. A commonlanguage allows the children of Vir-ginia to communicate with and learnfrom the children of California. With-out this amendment, the same will notbe true for the children of Puerto Rico.Without this amendment, children will

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH800 March 4, 1998never have the opportunity to partici-pate fully and equally with their fellowcitizens.

Mr. Chairman, pro-statehood forceshave stated on many occasions thattheir language and culture are not ne-gotiable. Congress is not asking anyoneto negotiate away their culture, butthe Constitution grants Congress thepower to determine the rules for state-hood, and that Constitution was estab-lished to create a more perfect Union,not a more divided Nation.

We must make clear that PuertoRico must be prepared to be an equalpartner. Support the Solomon amend-ment and oppose the Burton sub-stitute.

If Congress passes H.R. 856 without thisamendment, we will embroil ourselves in a di-visive debate that will last for years to come.When we welcome a new state into our greatunion, we should do so by building bridgesthat unite us, not roads that divide us. PuertoRico statehood without English as the officiallanguage is a bad idea that is sure to createtension between the states, enormous admin-istrative nightmares, and huge costs to theAmerican people. Our states are united, andthey should remain so. The American peopledo not want, and cannot afford, another Que-bec.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Sol-omon amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 1 minute to the gentle-woman from New York (Ms.VELAZQUEZ.)

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendher remarks.)

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, Irise in strong opposition to the Solo-mon amendment. This amendmentwould outlaw elected officials fromcommunicating with their constituentsin Spanish. It will hamper the effortsof Federal agencies to collect taxes, in-form citizens of their rights, and en-sure due process, and it will endangerlives by making illegal anything butEnglish to be used, even by police de-partment and paramedics respondingto life-threatening situations.

This amendment is guaranteed tomake government inefficient and inef-fective and jeopardize the civil rightsof some of society’s most vulnerablemembers.

I represent one of the highest non-English-speaking populations in thecountry. Under the Solomon amend-ment, I will be barred from commu-nicating with the people of the TwelfthDistrict of New York in a second lan-guage. This will keep me from doingwhat they elected me to do. Thisamendment is divisive and unneces-sary. It does not belong on this legisla-tion.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Georgia (Mr. BOBBARR), a distinguished member of theCommittee on the Judiciary.

(Mr. BARR of Georgia asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman,I rise in support of the Solomonamendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Solo-mon English Language Empowerment Amend-ment. The English language portion of 856 ismeaningless. The Solomon amendment willclarify this vague language by designatingEnglish as the official language of the UnitedStates; requiring that English be the sole offi-cial language of all federal communication inPuerto Rico and; making English the officiallanguage of state government courts andagencies; making English the language of in-struction in public schools.

Americans speak English. Many Americansspeak more than one language. In fact, manyof my colleagues on both sides of the isle arebilingual. But everyone in this chamber under-stands the importance of speaking English. Infact, I believe that every member in this Housewho would be called upon to counsel a foreignspeaking immigrant, would tell them that themost important thing that this immigrant coulddo to begin to assimilate and become suc-cessful in America is to learn English.

If Puerto Rico became a state, the citizensof Puerto Rico would send to us Representa-tives and Senators. Now Puerto Ricans mightbe given a choice between candidate A whodoesn’t speak English and candidate B who isbilingual. Hopefully, they would elect the bilin-gual candidate. The business of this body andthe business of America is conducted inEnglish.

Currently, in America, you can go from stateto state and understand the laws, the govern-ment, the courts, from New Hampshire to Ha-waii. This notion would fundamentally changeif Puerto Rico were to be admitted without theSolomon Amendment. Puerto Rico conductsits official business in Spanish. This is evenafter 100 years of influence by the UnitedStates. Puerto Ricans are essentially sayingthat we do not recognize America. We do notwant to assimilate. We want to be PuertoRico, and we want to be Spanish.

Mr. Chairman, 63% of Puerto Ricans can’trecite the Pledge of Allegiance. Sixty Six per-cent do not know the words to the Star Span-gled Banner. This makes sense when youlearn that only 16% of Puerto Ricans considerthemselves to be American. By themselves,these polling numbers don’t trouble me. I don’twant to force anyone to be American whodoesn’t want to. However, just as PuertoRicans have every right to maintain theirSpanish heritage and their Spanish language,so too does America have every right to main-tain its English language tradition. This is afundamental building block of our nation, andthe basic fiber that binds this great country to-gether.

Mr. Chairman, English has been and hope-fully always will be the common link betweenthe melting pot of cultures in our nation. Wehave many different cultures in our nation,from the woods of Maine to the shores of thePacific north west, from 10,000 lakes of Min-nesota to Georgia’s Golden Isles. The cul-tures, the religions, the traditions vary asgreatly as the miles. Yet, the English languagebinds these people together in a proud tradi-tion that we have come to know, as beingAmerican.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield2 minutes to the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. RIGGS), chairman of the

Committee on Education and theWorkforce that has jurisdiction overthe English language issues, and a veryvaluable Member of this body.

Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe distinguished chairman of the Com-mittee on Rules and sponsor of thisamendment for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, let me say first of all,I support the right of Puerto Rico resi-dents, American citizens, to have self-determination, to choose statehoodover the current status as a Common-wealth. But I believe as a condition ofstatehood those voting in any kind ofreferendum or plebiscites should ac-knowledge and accept English as theofficial common and commercial lan-guage of our country.

I have a little bit different perspec-tive on this issue, as the chairman ofthe Subcommittee on Early Childhood,Youth and Families. My concern istwofold: too often bilingual educationfails our young people, and the alarm-ing dropout rate of Hispanic studentsin America.

Too many of our young people arenot getting the education and the jobtraining that they need to live success-ful and productive adult lives, to takeadvantage, if you will, of all thesehigh-tech jobs that our economy con-tinues to create every day. For them,the have-nots of tomorrow, it is a per-sonal tragedy. For our country it is avery serious, it is a very real challenge,because we need a skilled work force toremain competitive.

I mentioned the bilingual education.The statistics are appalling. One-thirdof all Hispanic students nationwide, ac-cording to the U.S. Department of Edu-cation’s own report, drop out, and thatfigure is closer to 50 percent in myhome State of California. In fact, ifMembers really want to boil the debatedown, last year only 6.7 percent of lim-ited English proficient students inCalifornia public schools have learnedenough English to move into main-stream classes.

We have the largest school district inthe State, the Los Angeles School Dis-trict, suing the Governor because theGovernor wants to administer tests inreading, writing, and math to all stu-dents in the second through 11thgrades, but only in English.

b 1515

Bilingual education is too often afailure. It does not promote a transi-tion to English fluency, but it trapsyoungsters in a dependency on non-English languages and special help.‘‘Bilingual’’ has become a misnomer.English as a second language shouldnot mean second-class citizenship.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members tosupport the Solomon amendment, andlet us reform bilingual education.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. GEKAS).

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, when Iserved in the Armed Forces, I was sta-tioned for a while in Puerto Rico. I was

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H801March 4, 1998eager to learn Spanish so that I couldcommunicate with the people of PuertoRico. So I walked into a restaurant,after studying my Spanish to an n’thdegree, and I said proudly, after I sawa picture of a hot dog on the back ofthe counter, ‘‘Hagame el favor dedarme un perro caliente.’’ And so theyoungster looks at me, turns around tothe cook and says, ‘‘One hot dog witheverything.’’

The point is that he knew English.That he knew that I knew English. Hewas helping me with my Spanish, but Ilearned that first lesson there, thatmost of the people either speak Englishin Puerto Rico or want to speakEnglish in Puerto Rico.

Our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico intime will be 100 percent able to speakEnglish. By that time, they will blendin perfectly to our English languagecustoms for the entire country.

Mr. Chairman, I support the sub-stitute.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemanfrom Rhode Island (Mr. WEYGAND).

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

Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I risetoday in opposition to this amendment.I remember talking with my grand-parents about their parents who cameto this country from Ireland and Ger-many. And many of my colleagues’ an-cestors came from Portugal or Franceor from other places where they reallylearned what it was that was greatabout this country.

We never required them to come intothis country and learn English beforethey got here. What they came for wasthe great thing that they saw in thiscountry: the opportunity for them andtheir children to have a better world.They learned English because theywanted to learn English, not becausethe Congress told them they had to.

Our children today are all over theworld on computers. Businesses are allover the world. Do my colleagues knowwhat the common language is? English.The Congress did not have to tell themthat it should be English. They learnedit. They made it that way.

Yet this Congress sees fit here todayto try to impose something they havenever imposed upon any other State,making sure that English is the officiallanguage. It is unnecessary. It is an im-position that should not be condoned.We should vote down this amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. DEUTSCH), my goodfriend.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, Ithink it is important to point out thatthis is a bipartisan issue in terms ofpeople rejecting the Solomon amend-ment and supporting the substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. RIGGS) was stillhere just in terms of responding to hiscomments. If the amendment was justwhat the gentleman said he wanted, it

probably would not be so bad. It wouldbe at least a relevant debate. But thisamendment is not limited to PuertoRico. This amendment really has noplace in this debate.

This amendment is an issue whichshould have been debated on its own,not on this bill. The Solomon amend-ment’s purpose is to kill the bill. Thatis its purpose.

We can debate the issue of PuertoRico’s ability to determine its futureoutside of that. The substitute allowsus to do that. When we want to, we cantalk better requirements for statehood,requirements for issues on Puerto Ricooutside of the requirements for the en-tire country. That is what the debateneeds to be about.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagueson both sides of the aisle to votestrongly in favor of the substitute andagainst the Solomon amendment, andto give the people of Puerto Rico theopportunity to decide their own future.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemanfrom Illinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ).

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Irise in strong opposition to the Solo-mon amendment. I think we haveheard here time and time again thatwhen called to duty, drafted, called toserve, there is no litmus test, there isno test of language for people. Indeed,the 65th Infantry served with distinc-tion and honor and valor in the Koreanconflict, and almost everybody spokeone language as the troops were or-dered into battle, and that languagewas Spanish.

We should not raise this as an issuehere today. The language of the peopleof Puerto Rico is Spanish. We shouldrespect that.

Just as I have said before, it would bedetrimental, it would be detrimental toattach to statehood an English lan-guage requirement, because then peo-ple who would want to become a Statewould say, well, I cannot accept it thatway. It is wrong.

We understand what the language ofour people is. Look in Puerto Ricotoday. From kindergarten through 12thgrade of high school, English is taught,but people have preserved their Span-ish language. Let us respect them.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, how much time do I have remain-ing?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Indiana (Mr. BURTON) has one-quarter of 1 minute remaining.

Mr. BURTON on Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield1 minute to the gentleman from Vir-ginia (Mr. GOODE), an outstandingMember of this body on the other sideof the aisle.

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I rise insupport of the Solomon amendment be-cause I fear a Quebec-type situation inthis country. Now is the time to estab-lish English as the official language. Ifwe do that in this bill and if we followsuit in 123, we will not have problems

cropping up like in Canada and acrossthe world.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell my col-leagues that if we have that up front,everybody knowing it, it is better. Mygreat-grandmother was German andshe never learned to speak English. Shewas at a disadvantage her whole timein this country, and I think we need tostart with English first.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODE. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Indiana.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I would just like to know whatlanguage the gentleman from Virginiaspeaks. He sounds like he is from downSouth some place.

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, it is‘‘Southern’’ English.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, howmuch time does the gentleman from In-diana have remaining?

The CHAIRMAN. One-quarter of oneminute.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield15 seconds to the gentleman from Indi-ana (Mr. BURTON) out of the goodnessof my heart.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield2 minutes to the very distinguishedgentleman from California (Mr. ROHR-ABACHER).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman,I rise in support of the Solomonamendment. This bill is aimed at ad-mitting a State to the Union that isoverwhelmingly populated by Spanish-speaking people who have a proud cul-ture and are proud of their languageand view themselves as a separate na-tion.

The people of Puerto Rico have no in-tention of giving up their language ortheir culture or their Olympic teams ortheir Miss Universe contestants, andthere is no reason they should have togive these things up if they do notwant to become part of a State, resi-dents of a State of the Union.

However, if they expect to be resi-dents of a State of the Union and to beAmericans first, they must speak thecommon language and English is thecommon language; and to become partof our culture, not to maintain theirseparate culture, to root for our Olym-pics team and have our Miss Universecontestant as their contestant.

Mr. Chairman, I support the SolomonEnglish language amendment to thisbill because it takes the appropriatesteps to put Puerto Ricans on noticethat statehood means becoming part ofour Nation and no longer being part ofa separate culture and a separate na-tion, especially as reflected by a sepa-rate language.

We should make sure that no one isfooled into thinking that the UnitedStates is becoming a bilingual society,a bilingual Nation trying to accommo-date itself to this nation within a na-tion. And that nation within a nation,there are people there who believe in

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH802 March 4, 1998independence. In the past we rememberwhen there were independence peoplewho violently wanted independence forPuerto Rico.

The fact is they have a proud cultureand a proud nation. They are not partof the United States unless they arewilling to become part of the UnitedStates.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 856 is wrong forthe people of Puerto Rico and it iswrong for the people of the UnitedStates. ‘‘E pluribus unum.’’ We are onepeople and that is fine. Let us be onepeople. But if a people expect to be partof the United States, they should bepart of the United States.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemanfrom Puerto Rico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO) to close our side on this de-bate.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 30 seconds to the gen-tleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO), the balance of my time, sothat the gentleman will have 11⁄2 min-utes to close.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Puerto Rico is recognized for 11⁄2minutes.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, if the English-first or English-only amendment were really meant tobe for improvement of the bill, at leastwe could understand it. But theEnglish-first supporters have distrib-uted a paper here where it says even ifthis bill passes, this amendmentpasses, that Members should voteagainst H.R. 856. In other words, theyare against the bill and this amend-ment is being used merely as a way toput a poison pill on the bill.

In Puerto Rico, as I have said overand over again, we are not rejectingEnglish. We are embracing English. Wewere the first jurisdiction to approveEnglish as an official language in 1902,but we also want Spanish as an officiallanguage. Both languages. We want tobe bilingual. What is wrong with that?

This morning, earlier today, we hadthe gentleman from Illinois sayingthat in Puerto Rico the movies weredubbed. The majority of the moviesshown in Puerto Rico are not dubbed.They are in English and the moviehouses are full.

At the Blockbusters, the majority ofthe films that are rented out are notsubtitled and neither are the moviessubtitled. And in Puerto Rico the peo-ple who are watching these proceedingsnow on C-SPAN understand what isgoing on.

As the gentleman said a little whileago, when he asked for the ‘‘perrocaliente,’’ that is one of the problemsthat people who go to Puerto Rico tolearn to speak Spanish have. The Puer-to Ricans speak English.

Mr. Chairman, they say PuertoRicans do not feel that they are a partof a Nation. We have to take a look atthat. Why is that? There are 50 stars,not 51 stars. We still have not been ad-mitted into the family. Once we are ad-

mitted into the family, not 50 percent,60 percent, but 100 percent of the peopleof Puerto Rico will feel that they arepart of the Nation.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I havea parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate it.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, isthere no further time outstandingother than mine?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman mayclose debate.

Mr. SOLOMON. And the Chairman isrecognizing me for that purpose?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman iscorrect.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to lis-ten to this in their offices. If the Solo-mon amendment is defeated, or if theSolomon amendment is watered downand this bill becomes law and PuertoRico becomes a State, any citizen ofthe State of Puerto Rico can bring anaction against the United States ofAmerica Government or against anyone of the other 50 States and demandbilingual equal treatment under theEqual Footing Doctrine. Members bet-ter think about that when they casttheir votes in half an hour from now.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-ance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section2(a) of House Resolution 376, it is nowin order to consider Amendment No. 3printed in the Congressional RECORD.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I askunanimous consent that the hour of de-bate on the Solomon amendment, theGutierrez amendment thereto, if of-fered, and the Burton substitute, if of-fered, be divided and controlled as fol-lows: 30 minutes to the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. SOLOMON), 6 minutes tothe gentleman from Illinois (Mr.GUTIERREZ), 12 minutes to the gen-tleman from Indiana (Mr. BURTON), and12 minutes to the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. MILLER), subject to equi-table reductions, if necessary, to re-main within the 1 hour of consider-ation permitted under this rule. I thinkthis is an agreed-to unanimous consentrequest.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromNew York?

There was no objection.AMENDMENT NO. 3 OFFERED BY MR. SOLOMON

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I offeran amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des-ignate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as fol-lows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. SOLOMON:At the end of section 2, add the following

paragraph:(16) In 1996, the United States House of

Representatives overwhelmingly declaredthat ‘‘the official language of the FederalGovernment is English’’. According to the1990 United States Census, less than 24 per-cent of the citizens of Puerto Rico speak

English fluently. The enhancement ofEnglish as the official language of PuertoRico is consistent not only with this state-ment of policy, but also with the preserva-tion of our Nation’s unity in diversity andthe prevention of divisions along linguisticlines. Proficiency in the English language isnecessary for all citizens to enjoy the fullrights and benefits of their citizenship asguaranteed by the Constitution and to con-tribute most effectively to the Nation in allaspects. Conducting the business of Federaland State governments in English is the bestway to promote efficiency and fairness toevery citizen. Only proficiency in Englishcan provide all Americans the enjoyment ofthe rights and benefits of full participationin the American economy and union.

Strike subsection (b) of section 3 and in-sert the following new subsection:

(b) OFFICIAL LANGUAGE.—The official lan-guage of the Federal Government is English.The legislature of Puerto Rico has estab-lished a bilingual policy by making bothSpanish and English official languages ofPuerto Rico, but has continued to operate itsgovernment solely in Spanish, as the major-ity of the people in Puerto Rico are not pro-ficient in English. In the event that thereferenda held under this Act results in ap-proval of a request to Congress that PuertoRico be admitted to the Union as a State andthe Congress approves such statehood,English will be the sole official language ofall Federal Government activities in PuertoRico and, unless otherwise provided by gen-erally applicable Federal law, all commu-nications with the Federal Government bythe Government or people of Puerto Ricowill be in English. This Act, the proceduresauthorized by this Act, and the possible ac-cession of Puerto Rico to statehood do notcreate or alter any rights of a person to gov-ernment services in languages other thanEnglish.

In section 4(a), strike paragraph (7) of sub-paragraph C of the referendum language andinsert the following new paragraph:

‘‘(7) English is the official language of allbusiness and communication of the FederalGovernment of the United States and allcommunications with the Federal Govern-ment will be in English unless generally ap-plicable Federal law provides otherwise.Puerto Rico, as a State, promotes English asthe official language of the State govern-ment, courts, and agencies. English is thelanguage of instruction in public schools.’’.

Strike subparagraph (C) of section 4(b)(1)and insert the following new subparagraph:

(C) Additionally, in the event of a vote infavor of United States sovereignty leading tostatehood, the President shall include in thetransition plan provided for in this Act thatthe Federal and State governments imple-ment programs and incentives to promotethe acquisition and usage of English by thecitizens of Puerto Rico, including but notlimited to, teaching in English in publicschools, the availability of fellowships andscholarships to increase the opportunities ofthe people of Puerto Rico to learn to speak,read, write, and understand English, and theprovision of educational instruction inEnglish to persons not in schools.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GUTIERREZ TOTHE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SOLOMON

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Ioffer an amendment to the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. GUTIERREZ to

the amendment offered by Mr. SOLOMON:In the amendment proposed to section 4(a)

of the bill, in lieu of the text proposed to beinserted as paragraph (7) of subparagraph Cof the referendum language, insert the fol-lowing:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H803March 4, 1998‘‘(7) Spanish is an official language of

Puerto Rico and its only vernacular lan-guage and as such is the official language ofbusiness and communication—

‘‘(A) in the State government, courts,schools, and agencies; and

‘‘(B) in Federal courts and agencies whensuch courts and agencies are acting in orwith regard to Puerto Rico.’’.

b 1530Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I

yield myself 2 minutes and 30 seconds.Mr. Chairman, this bill is supposed to

be about self-determination. Self-deter-mination should be informed. TheStatehood Party in Puerto Rico haspromised statehood. This means thatunder statehood, Puerto Rico gets tokeep its culture and its language, and Iagree with the gentleman from PuertoRico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO) that thatis the kind of statehood that we shouldhave.

As a matter of fact, and I quote froma book, Statehood is for the Poor, pub-lished in 1978 by the current ResidentCommissioner, the gentleman fromPuerto Rico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO):Our culture and our language are notnegotiable.

That is published in Statehood is forthe Poor by the Resident Commis-sioner. And I believe that the people ofPuerto Rico have come to understandand to accept that that is the way thatstatehood would be proposed and thattheir culture and their language wouldbe something that is protected.

Puerto Rico has spoken Spanish forover 500 years. When I get to PuertoRico and see my parents, we speak inSpanish. When I go to a courtroom inPuerto Rico, it is in Spanish. When Iregister a deed, it is in Spanish. Whena police officer pulls somebody over forgoing a little too quickly, the citationis in Spanish, and the subsequent sen-tencing, I assure my colleagues, is inSpanish, and you better have a lawyerthat can speak Spanish.

When you to go school and you grad-uate, your diploma is printed in Span-ish. Every record, including your birthcertificate, is in Spanish. Spanish isthe language of the people.

Are we talking about civil rights?Let us not talk about imposing anotherlanguage. Go to Puerto Rico today. Goto the Veterans Administration or So-cial Security Administration office inPuerto Rico today, and everyone willspeak to you in Spanish, unlike Chi-cago or New York or Oklahoma, be-cause Spanish is the language there.And since statehood has been proposedin Puerto Rico, the culture and thelanguage are nonnegotiable. I think weshould guarantee that to the gen-tleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO), the Resident Commissioner.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I ask unanimous consent to op-pose the amendment offered by thegentleman from Illinois (Mr. GUTIER-REZ).

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I object, Mr. Chair-man.

The CHAIRMAN. The time has beenallocated pursuant to the unanimous-consent request that was agreed to ear-lier.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 2 minutes to the gen-tleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO).

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I rise in opposition to this amend-ment submitted by the gentleman fromIllinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ) because thisamendment is intended to be a poisonpill against those that are for the bill.It is supposed to be intended as a poi-son pill, because in Puerto Rico the lawis that both English and Spanish areofficial languages, and you can havedocuments in English, and the agenciesin Puerto Rico are by law obligated togive those documents in English if acitizen requests for those documents inEnglish. You can register property anddeeds drafted in the English language.

So what has been said here is nottrue. We want to maintain that rightof all citizens to have their documentsand their business with governmenttransacted in either Spanish orEnglish. Those that do not understandwill be provided with a translation. Wewill provide people to translate theirbusiness for them. This would be animposition upon Puerto Rico and willbe against the laws of Puerto Rico.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.GUTIERREZ), who lives in Chicago andwould like to have independence, nowhe is acting like a colonial power im-posing laws in Congress that would re-peal the laws that we have, that wouldamend the laws without the people ofPuerto Rico voting for it, without thelegislature participating. We opposethis amendment very strongly.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentlewomanfrom New York (Ms. VELAZQUEZ).

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, Irise in strong support of this amend-ment. Mr. Chairman, this amendmentwill make Spanish the official lan-guage of Puerto Rico. It will protectwhat already exists. If supporters ofthis bill are voting for self-determina-tion for the Puerto Ricans, they willsupport allowing them to speak theirown language. They will support allow-ing them to do business and operatetheir courts as they have for almost 500years.

Mr. Chairman, I have sat on thisfloor and listened to the arguments ofmy colleagues on the other side of thisissue. I have heard many distinguishedMembers of this body argue, some pas-sionately, some angrily, that by sup-porting this bill they are protectingthe people of Puerto Rico. They saythat we must allow self-determinationfor Puerto Rico because they respectour culture, our history and our rightto control our destiny.

I have argued that this bill does notprovide self-determination, but I willaccept that the supporters of this billthink they are promoting the wishes ofthe people of Puerto Rico. Well, if that

is the case, they will have to maketheir argument in Spanish because themajority of the people of Puerto Ricodo not speak English. And why shouldthey? The fact is that our culture, ourhistory, our essence is rooted in theSpanish language. More than that, it isthe language of the legal system, theCommonwealth Government and allnon-Federal official business. If thesupporters of this bill really respectthe people of Puerto Rico, they willsupport this amendment which makesSpanish the official language of PuertoRico.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Iyield myself such time as I may con-sume.

I will close by making the followingarguments. I think they have not beenrefuted here today. In a book writtenin 1978, Statehood is for the Poor, writ-ten and authored by the Resident Com-missioner of Puerto Rico, the gen-tleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO), he stated clearly and un-equivocally that language and cultureare nonnegotiable.

Now, when the campaign goes toPuerto Rico, I want to make sure thatif that is what they are saying to thepeople of Puerto Rico, that that iswhat this Congress is guaranteeingthem. Let us not let them be under anyillusions about what is going to be.Since that is exactly what has beenproposed by the Statehood Party andrepeated so many times, I want thosestatehooders who have applauded, whohave cheered, who have cherishedstatehood and want to preserve theirlanguage and culture, to have exactlywhat they have demanded and askedand rallied for. So, therefore, in thename of self-determination, I ask thatthis amendment be adopted so that werespect the wishes of the StatehoodParty. We should do no less.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recordedvote on this perfecting amendment andmake a point of order that a quorum isnot present.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to theunanimous-consent request, debate willtake place on all three of the amend-ments that are being discussed, andthen they would be held.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Ihave a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate it.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, wewill be able to ask for a vote on thisperfecting amendment later on. I havenot relinquished my right.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, willthe gentleman yield?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to the gen-tleman from New York.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, Iwould be glad to assist the gentlemanin seeing to it that he gets his vote atthe appropriate time.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will putthe question at the appropriate time.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the Chair.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH804 March 4, 1998AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BURTON OF INDI-

ANA AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE AMENDMENTOFFERED BY MR. SOLOMON

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I offer an amendment as a sub-stitute for the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. BURTON of Indi-

ana as a substitute for the amendment of-fered by Mr. SOLOMON:

In section 3, amend subsection (b) to readas follows:

(b) OFFICIAL ENGLISH LANGUAGE.—In theevent that a referendum held under this Actresults in approval of sovereignty leading toStatehood, upon accession to Statehood, theofficial language requirements of the FederalGovernment would apply to Puerto Rico inthe same manner and to the same extent asthroughout the United States.

Add at the end of section 3 the followingnew subsection:

(c) ENGLISH LANGUAGE EMPOWERMENT.—Itis in the best interest of the Nation for Puer-to Rico to promote the teaching of Englishas the language of opportunity and empower-ment in the United States in order to enablestudents in public schools to achieve Englishlanguage proficiency by the age of 10.

In section 4(a), in the referendum languagefor Statehood, amend paragraph (7) to readas follows:

‘‘(7) Official English language require-ments of the Federal Government apply inPuerto Rico to the same extent as Federallaw requires throughout the United States.’’.

In subparagraph (C) of section 4(B)(1),strike ‘‘(C) Additionally,’’ and all that fol-lows through ‘‘(ii) the effective date’’ and in-sert the following:

(C) Additionally, in the event of a vote infavor of continued United States sovereigntyleading to Statehood, the transition plan re-quired by this subsection shall—

(i) include proposals and incentives to in-crease the opportunities of the people ofPuerto Rico to expand their English pro-ficiency in order to promote and facilitatecommunication with residents of all otherStates of the United States and with theFederal Government, including teaching inEnglish in public schools, awarding fellow-ships and scholarships, and providing grantsto organizations located in various commu-nities that have, as a purpose, the promotionof English language skills;

(ii) promote the use of English by theUnited States citizens in Puerto Rico inorder to ensure—

(I) efficiency in the conduct and coordina-tion of the official business activities of theFederal and State Governments;

(II) that the citizens possess the languageskill necessary to contribute to and partici-pate in all aspects of the Nation; and

(III) the ability of all citizens of PuertoRico to take full advantage of the opportuni-ties and responsibilities accorded to all citi-zens, including education, economic activi-ties, occupational opportunities, and civicaffairs; and

(iii) include the effective date

Mr. BURTON of Indiana (during thereading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unani-mous consent that the amendment beconsidered as read and printed in theRECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromIndiana?

There was no objection.Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-

man, I yield myself such time as I mayconsume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer areasonable substitute to the Solomon

English only amendment. Although Iagree that we need to debate and passan English only bill or a constitutionalamendment making English the offi-cial language of our government, hold-ing U.S. citizens hostage in PuertoRico, not allowing self-determinationto take place is against my stronglyheld beliefs in democracy.

English has been made an issue tokill this Puerto Rico plebiscite bill.H.R. 856 is a process bill to advance thedemocratic cause, to advance theFounding Fathers’ idea that freedomand democracy demand self-determina-tion.

That is what this debate is reallyabout. Nevertheless, English has beenbrought into the debate, forcing meand others to offer an alternative. Sup-porters of H.R. 123, the Bill EmersonEnglish Language Empowerment Act,share Mr. SOLOMON’s English languagepolicy goals but should not supportthis amendment to H.R. 856. I sup-ported strongly Mr. Emerson’s billwhen it was on the floor.

The Solomon amendment is notfaithful to H.R. 123. Instead the Solo-mon amendment does two things theHouse has never endorsed. Number one,the Solomon amendment requires bal-lot language on the statehood optionwhich confuses voters to believe thatCongress has imposed English as theexclusive official language of PuertoRico’s potential State government,which is not the case. And two, it alsoconfuses the voters that English is theexclusive language of instruction inPuerto Rico’s public schools, which isnot the case.

The Solomon amendment does notempower the 3.8 million U.S. citizens ofPuerto Rico by promoting Englishunder the current commonwealth terri-tory status. Instead, the Solomonamendment would promote continu-ation of an enclave of disenfranchisedSpanish-speaking U.S. citizens, a rec-ipe for creating a Quebec-style separat-ism under the American flag, whichnone of us wants.

We can avoid this by passing the Bur-ton-Miller-McCollum-Young sub-stitute. Our amendment would be effec-tive immediately, immediately.English proficiency by age 10 is theFederal policy standard for school stu-dents in American’s largest and mostpopulous territory if my amendmentpasses. Our amendment eliminates am-biguity and constitutional flaws in theSolomon amendment with clear andconstitutionally sound provisions ap-plying to Puerto Rico, if it becomes aState, the same national English pol-icy applicable to all other States.

The irony of the Solomon amend-ment is that it would isolate PuertoRico from the purpose the amendmentwants to establish when it wants to es-tablish English as the official languageof the United States. The Solomonamendment would apply English to allof the 50 States, but would carve out aterritory, Puerto Rico, under the U.S.flag without the benefit of English as

the official language until and only ifPuerto Rico became a State after 10years. However, under my substitute,there would be an immediate effect bya new national policy to promote theteaching of English to enable studentsin public schools to achieve Englishlanguage proficiency by the age of 10right now. In other words, 50 Stateswould be required to have English asthe official language, but not PuertoRico, until they became a State. Soyou fortified the position that that isgoing to be a Spanish-speaking Statefor at least 10 years.

My amendment would make surethat English would be a proficiency,there would be proficiency in Englishby age 10 in Puerto Rico immediately,not waiting 10 years.

The last couple of evenings I was ableto watch Braveheart on television.This heroic story of the freedom fight-ers of Scotland led by William Wallaceover their British rulers resonates evento this day.

b 1545

Like Scotland, Puerto Rico desires achance at true freedom. However, rath-er than take the debate to the battle-field, they ask us simply for the oppor-tunity to take the debate to the ballotbox.

Yes, they have local self-government,but under their current status PuertoRicans are, in effect, ruled by the U.S.Congress but without any representa-tion in Congress. Puerto Ricans haveno vote in the Congress but yet can becalled into battle in a war on behalf ofthe United States at a moment’s no-tice.

Yes, freedom and democracy are atthe heart of this debate over H.R. 856.Do we believe in a free people exercis-ing their right to self-determination ordo we not? That is the real question weare debating today.

We should, in my opinion, do theright thing and give Puerto Rico theopportunity to let Congress clearlyknow if they want to be a State, aCommonwealth or an independentcountry. And once we find out, and mycolleagues need to know this, the finaldetermination on the status of PuertoRico rests with this body.

The plebiscite we are talking about isadvisory only. We are just asking thatthe people of Puerto Rico be able to letus know in the Congress, in a clearlydefined way, what they want. Once weknow that, then the Congress makesthe final determination.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume,and I would tell this body that back in1983 I was sitting in front of my lockerin the gym when a young man from In-dianapolis, Indiana came by and satnext to me in the gym and we began totalk, and we have been talking since1938.

And I said to myself, ‘‘There is an-other Jerry Solomon coming along

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H805March 4, 1998here. He sounds to me like a true tradi-tional doctrinaire conservative and,therefore, when I retire in a few years,I would feel safe that he was here.’’ Mybeliefs have been shattered. I cannotbelieve he is offering this guttingamendment to the Solomon amend-ment, the true conservative position inthis body, and that is why I rise somuch against his amendment.

This amendment enshrines, my col-leagues, the language right of thePuerto Ricans in statute in a way thatwill spark years of litigation in Statesacross this country. Remember this,because sure as I am standing here, itis going to happen.

Any Puerto Rican anywhere in theU.S. could challenge Federal and indi-vidual State laws and declarations ofEnglish as the official language. NoState would be able to protect its offi-cial English law until all States passEnglish as the official language, andthat will not happen if they are beingsued, Mr. Chairman. The amount oflawsuits that will come about will beunbelievable if the Solomon amend-ment is gutted by this amendment.

This amendment deletes my amend-ment’s finding and declaration ofEnglish as the official language. It de-letes the protections for English-speak-ing citizens. It deletes protections forStates which have declared Englishtheir official language until all Stateshave done so.

The Burton amendment adds a newEnglish proficiency standard that con-flicts with the Equal Educational Op-portunity Act and other language pro-visions in current law. And the liberalson the other side of the aisle shouldthink about that.

The Burton amendment misleads vot-ers as to what Congress will require asa minimum standard for the admissionof a State. Do we want to mislead thePuerto Rican people? If there is reallya 10-year period before admission, whyshould the people of Puerto Rico knowthat they are voting on somethingwhich Congress will not accept?

And finally, my colleagues, the Mil-ler-Burton amendment limits thePresident’s ability to deal with the lan-guage issue and to protect English,which was recognized in the officialEnglish bill that passed this Houseoverwhelmingly 2 years ago with bipar-tisan support.

If my colleagues understand theissue, they will come over here andvote down the Burton-Miller amend-ment and support the Solomon amend-ment, and then Puerto Rico will have achance when the overwhelming major-ity of those people understand thatEnglish will be the official languageand will not divide this country.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 11⁄2 minutes to the gentle-woman from California (Ms. PELOSI).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thistime and commend the gentleman from

Indiana (Mr. BURTON), the gentlemanfrom Alaska (Mr. YOUNG) and the gen-tleman from California (Mr. MILLER)for the bipartisan substitute they areoffering to the Solomon amendment. Irise in support of the underlying legis-lation to grant self-determination tothe people of Puerto Rico and in oppo-sition to the Solomon amendment, andin support of this amendment.

English and Spanish are already theofficial languages of the Government ofPuerto Rico and have been since 1902.English is taught in public schoolsfrom kindergarten through highschool. And it is my understandingthat 95 percent of Puerto Ricans whoachieve education beyond high schoolare fluent in both languages.

I want to be clear to my colleaguesand read directly from the Burtonamendment: In the event that a ref-erendum under this act results in ap-proval of sovereignty leading to state-hood, upon accession to statehood theofficial language requirements of theFederal Government would apply toPuerto Rico in the same manner and tothe same extent as throughout theUnited States.

Let us support this amendment,which treats Puerto Rico the same asevery other State, if Puerto Ricochooses to become a State. The Burtonsubstitute also recognizes that it is inthe best interest of the United Statesand Puerto Rico to promote the teach-ing of English and sets the goal of ena-bling students to achieve proficiencyby the age of 10.

Mr. Chairman, my friend, the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. SOLOMON),whom I hold in the highest regard, isacting in a very unSolomon like modewith this amendment today. It is notwise and it is not fair. I urge my col-leagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemanfrom Alaska (Mr. YOUNG), the chair-man of the Committee on Resourcesand my great friend and colleague.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I rise in strong support of thesubstitute to the Solomon amendment.

For those that are listening to thisgreat debate, in order to help the pub-lic know about what Congress has beendoing about Puerto Rico for the past 4years, all hearings, testimony, reports,amendments and the bill can be foundon the Committee on Resources’ homepage at www.house.gov/resources/.

I have just read an editorial in theWashington Times that said there wereno hearings on this legislation. Wehave spent 4 years having hearings andinput from everybody participating inthis legislation. To have a leadingnewspaper be that irresponsible is nocall for true journalism in this greatNation of ours. Talk about propaganda.It is wrong when a leading newspapercan, in fact, promote something that isincorrect to the general public.

So remember, www.house.gov/resources/ to hear the history of howthis came to the floor today.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 2 minutes to the gen-tleman from Michigan (Mr. BONIOR).

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thistime.

When my grandfather first set foot inthis country, he was a young man fromUkraine, and he did not speak a wordof English. Not a single word. He camehere for a better future. Like millionsof immigrants before him and millionswho have come after him, my grand-father set out to work. He got a job, heraised a family, and he learned the lan-guage. There was no law telling himthat he had to learn English. There wasno need for a law. He learned Englishbecause it was practical; because hewanted to.

My grandfather’s story is not unique.In this country, a country built by im-migrants from around the world, 95percent of the people speak English.That is right, 95 percent, according tothe latest census.

So I ask my colleagues, what is thepurpose, what is the purpose of thisEnglish-only amendment and whatbenefits will it bring? Well, the answeris none. This amendment will onlyinterfere with business, it will impedethe efficient function of government, itwill deny people their constitutionalrights, and it could conceivably andpossibly even endanger their lives.

What purpose is served if a publichealth worker, perhaps a doctor who istrying to stop the spread of a deadlydisease, is only allowed to speak withpeople who know English? None. Butthat is what this amendment couldlead to.

In fact, this English-only amendmentcould effectively prevent thousands ofcitizens, American citizens, from vot-ing by denying them their rights underthe Voting Rights Act. That is goingtoo far.

This country is successful becausemillions of people, people from hun-dreds of countries, have chosen tothrow in their lot together to build acommon future. Our democracy thrivesbecause it is built on a foundation offreedom.

Passing a law telling people whatlanguage they have to speak is akin totelling them what words they mustsay.

So in closing, Mr. Chairman, I urgemy colleagues to vote for this sub-stitute, the Miller-Young substitute,and against the Solomon amendment.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I might consume.

Just to set the record straight, mostpeople around here can read bills. Ifthey read the bill, they will know thatthe Solomon English language em-powerment amendment only affectsthose things that the government doesthat are binding and enforceable. Itdoes not affect things such as the infor-mation gathering operations of the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH806 March 4, 1998government such as the census formsand welfare forms. It does not do that.It does not affect public health issuesor politicians campaigning in their dis-trict. It does not do that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes tothe gentleman from Georgia (Mr.BARR), one of the constitutional law-yers in this body. He is an outstandingmember of the Committee on the Judi-ciary.

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman,I thank the gentleman from New York(Mr. SOLOMON) for yielding me thistime.

Although I have not had the honorand pleasure of talking since 1983 withthe gentleman from Indiana, I do knowhim as a man of great courage andhonor and have enjoyed serving withhim on his Committee on GovernmentReform and Oversight.

I know him to be a gentleman who isconstantly waging battles against gov-ernment mismanagement, against gov-ernment waste, against governmentbureaucrats. I know him as a gen-tleman who inevitably and constantlyis speaking the truth bluntly and doesnot suffer government bureaucrats andfools at all.

I must, therefore, express some sur-prise at the amendment that the gen-tleman from Indiana is offering andwould respectfully urge my colleaguesto vote against it.

There are such things as wolves insheep’s clothing. This is a sheep insheep’s clothing. If one looks behindthe facade of the rhetoric here, floweryand lengthy as it is, one finds abso-lutely nothing, zero, zip, nada.

Not only is there nothing in thisamendment in terms of requiring theEnglish language in any way, shape, orform in Puerto Rico if it is admitted tostatehood, but it actually, I believe, byits terms, would set us back. One hasto read simply from page 2.

Additionally, in the event of a votein favor of continued United Statessovereignty leading to statehood, thetransition plan required by this sub-section shall include proposals and in-centives to increase the opportunitiesof the people of Puerto Rico to expandtheir English proficiency in order topromote and facilitate communicationwith residents of all other States of theUnited States and the Federal Govern-ment, including teaching in English inpublic schools, awarding fellowshipsand scholarships, and providing grantsto organizations located in variouscommunities that have as a purposethe promotion of English languageskills.

This will set up more bureaucrats.Who is going to monitor this? Where isthe money going to come from forthese proposals and incentives to in-crease the opportunities? We are goingto be paying for it.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amend-ment. What we ought to do is have anup or down vote on the Solomonamendment. I believe it is a good,solid, and worthy, and constitutionally

sound amendment that is not violativeof any provisions in our Constitution,including the 10th amendment.

This amendment to the Solomonamendment offered by the gentlemanfrom Indiana sounds good. It soundsnice. It sounds like there is substancethere. But in reality, it is not there.

There is nothing here other than lan-guage that will get us involved in amorass of additional grants and moneyprograms and bureaucrats trying to de-termine whether or not these moniesare being spent to truly incentivize, asthey say now days, to promote and fa-cilitate communication, et cetera.

I urge our colleagues to look behindthe fancy rhetoric here, to an emptyamendment, to vote it down, and votein favor of the Solomon amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 11⁄2 minutes to the gen-tleman from Texas (Mr. RODRIGUEZ).

(Mr. RODRIGUEZ asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, Irise in support of this bipartisan sub-stitute which brings some commonsense and fairness to the debate.

No one doubts the importance ofEnglish for all Americans. It is ourcommon language. I tell my studentsand my constituents back home that tosucceed in this global economy, in thismodern world, we must learn English,and not only learn, but master inEnglish. English is the key for oppor-tunity. This amendment allows this op-portunity to provide that instructionand that training in English.

b 1600

It would treat Puerto Rico in a justmanner, as it would treat all the otherexisting States. I would like to remindall the Members in this House that theterritories prior to being accepted,such as Hawaii, we also allowed themthe opportunity to be able to keeptheir native language. When we dealtwith the Territory of Oklahoma, wealso recognized the Native Americansin that area. When we looked at NewMexico, we also took into consider-ation the Spanish in that particularcommunity.

The Solomon amendment would pre-vent millions of Americans and woulddiscriminate against a lot of individ-uals in Texas and others and in PuertoRico itself. This is not fair. It is notright. I would ask that Members votefor this particular amendment. Mr.Chairman, in the age of increasingglobal competition, we should be nur-turing some of our Nation’s most val-ued treasures, our culture, our lan-guage and our skills, not curtailingthem.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I yield myself such time as I mayconsume. I would just like to say to mycolleague from New York and my col-league from Georgia, my very goodfriends, if they will look on page 2 ofmy amendment, the second paragraph,it says, in section 4(a) in the referen-

dum language for statehood, amendparagraph 7 to read as follows: ‘‘Offi-cial English language requirements ofthe Federal Government apply in Puer-to Rico to the same extent as Federallaw requires throughout the UnitedStates.’’ The law will be the same forPuerto Rico, the same English lan-guage law for Puerto Rico as it is forthe rest of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume. Iwould just point out to the gentlemanfrom Indiana (Mr. BURTON), so does myamendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes tothe gentleman from Savannah, Georgia(Mr. KINGSTON).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman from New Yorkfor yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition tothe Burton, Miller and companyamendment. I think it is just a fig leafdesigned to put us all in court and takeaway a lot of power from States. IfMembers are for English first as a lan-guage, as an issue, then they need tooppose it and they need to support Sol-omon.

It is not unusual for us to demandsuch things and try to amend bills andso forth to do what we want to. Thereis nothing unusual about it. Oklahomaand New Mexico were both required tohave State constitutions providingthat public school education be con-ducted in English. Arizona was re-quired to guarantee that its executiveand legislative officials could write,speak and understand English.

That is all the Solomon language istrying to do. Culturally it is trying togo a little bit beyond the languagequestion. I think one of the things thathas inspired the Solomon language isthe situation with Quebec, north of ourborder. In 1995 Quebec had a vote andcame very close to receiving a major-ity for independence. It was a vote of49.4 percent, 10 percent higher than ithad been 15 years earlier. It is very pos-sible that in the future, Quebec will se-cede from Canada.

Is there any correlation betweenPuerto Rico and Quebec? Let us look atit. What do they have in common?Both had their own languages and cul-tures long before becoming part ofEnglish-speaking majority nations,should that happen. Both had popu-lations in which the overwhelming ma-jority speak a language different fromthat of the majority of the rest of theNation, and both have political move-ments that focus on independence asthe key to maintaining a separate cul-ture and linguistic identity. Both haveeconomic elites that speak Englishwhile the more economically disadvan-taged citizens do not.

It is quite possible that if we look atthe number, 82 percent of the people ofQuebec are French speakers, 98 percentof the people of Puerto Rico are Span-ish speakers. The strong cultural iden-tity which we are all aware of in this

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H807March 4, 1998House, and the strong cultural identitythat we want the good American citi-zens of Puerto Rico to maintain, is atrisk here.

This is a statehood vote. This is notjust let us see how you feel about it.This is starting the car and pulling itout in the driveway. You do not do thatunless you are going to take a trip, Mr.Chairman. This is a statehood vote. Itwill radically change the culture inPuerto Rico and lead to a lot of divi-sion in the United States over it.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemanfrom Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY).

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.Chairman, simply put, we ought nothold the issue of Puerto Rico’s politicalstatus hostage to the question of mak-ing English the official language of allgovernment functions across theUnited States. Mr. Chairman, if thathappened a lot of us here in the Con-gress would be barred from speaking onthe House floor. I have been accused ofa lot of things in my career in politics,but speaking English has not alwaysbeen one of them. I once rememberhearing a colloquy between JamieWhitten and Kika de la Garza on thisHouse floor, and I could not understanda thing anybody said.

In fact, I heard the remarks of thegentleman from New York (Mr. SOLO-MON) as he introduced his amendmentand if I was not mistaken, he employeda foreign phrase from the language of adead empire. Along with the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SOLOMON), I be-lieve deeply in the principle of ‘‘epluribus unum,’’ out of many, one. ButI think the gentleman from New Yorkought to be allowed to enunciate theprinciple in the original language.Whether it is Hawaiian or CajunFrench, Polish or even Gallic, there aremillions of Americans who speak lan-guages other than English and there isno reason to reduce their first tonguesto second-class linguistic citizenship.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 1 minute to the gentle-woman from the Virgin Islands (Ms.CHRISTIAN-GREEN).

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chair-man, I rise in strong opposition to theSolomon amendment and in support ofthe Burton-Young-Miller-McCollumsubstitute. The Solomon amendment ispatently unfair to the people of PuertoRico and does not belong in this proc-ess of self-determination.

Mr. Chairman, the people of PuertoRico have been loyal American citizensfor more than 100 years. It is high timethat they be given the opportunity tomake a choice once and for all on whattheir political relationship will be. Toallow the Solomon amendment to passwould pollute the current bill and itsintent, causing possibly the entireprocess to be derailed.

We need to remain focused and clear.H.R. 856 is not supposed to be a state-hood bill. There are actually 4 options.The people of Puerto Rico can chooseany one. But if their choice is to be-

come the 51st State of the Union, weshould vote that choice on its merits.

We are a country noted for its richcultural diversity. Let us not dishonorthat history. Reject the Solomonamendment.

I urge my colleagues to support theBurton-Miller-Young-McCollum sub-stitute and the right of the people ofPuerto Rico to self-determination. Icommend my colleagues for bringingthis substitute to the floor.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.We can bring this to a head at anypoint now. I think it has been a verygood debate. Certainly Members havestated their feelings.

I want to ask Members this questionone more time: Will Congress have tobegin conducting House and Senatefloor proceedings in both Spanish andEnglish? Will the CONGRESSIONALRECORD, Federal Register and UniformCommercial Code need to be printed inSpanish and English? The answer is itmay be. Will a State of Puerto Rico beable to force other States to conducttheir official business in a languageother than English? The answer is verylikely.

It will result in many lawsuits allacross this country. I suppose if youare a lawyer or if you have got childrenwho are entering the law profession,perhaps you ought to vote for this billbecause you are certainly going to gen-erate a lot of work for them.

Mr. Chairman, I could go on and onand on. But I am going to say one moretime that if this amendment, the Solo-mon amendment, is defeated, or if it iswatered down, anyone in this countrycan bring an action anywhere in theUnited States and could challenge Fed-eral and individual State laws and dec-larations of English as the official lan-guage. No State would be able to pro-tect its official English language.

Again, these are very, very impor-tant matters. I am going to just reit-erate one more time the proceduresthat are going to take place. I have al-ready said what would happen if theSolomon amendment is defeated or wa-tered down. But if this bill becomes lawwithout the Solomon amendment,within the next 9 months, before theend of 1998, we are ordering, demand-ing, requiring the island of Puerto Ricoto conduct a plebiscite, and we are or-dering, demanding and requiring themto do this until they finally vote forstatehood. Mr. Chairman, that is abso-lutely wrong.

If we pass this bill and if the Presi-dent signs it within over the next sev-eral weeks, that plebiscite will be heldbecause it will be mandated by thisCongress on the Puerto Rican people.Within 180 days after that, which takesus towards midyear of 1999, the Presi-dent must give us his transition plan.Then written into this law in section 6is a requirement that this Congresswill have to vote on that within 120days.

That, Mr. Chairman, is the turningpoint. It is the turning point when we

no longer can deny Puerto Rico state-hood, no matter what the percentage ofapproval is by the Puerto Rican people.Mr. Chairman, that is wrong. If we donot have the kind of overwhelming sup-port that we had in Hawaii and that wehad in Alaska, we are going to end upin a situation almost identical to whatwe have in Quebec, Canada today, andwe cannot allow that to happen.

The one major issue that has heldthis country together for all these 200years as a melting pot of all ethnicbackgrounds throughout the entireworld, it does not matter whether it isthe Pacific, it does not matter whetherit is Europe, wherever it is, it is thecommon language of English that haskept us together. That keeps our espritde corps, it keeps our patriotism alive,because we all speak that one lan-guage. That is what is at stake on thevoting on this amendment in a fewminutes.

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman,will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gen-tleman from Georgia.

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman,I would like to point out and reiterateto the membership in voting on theBurton amendment the language pre-viously cited by its author, that ‘‘theofficial English language requirementsof the Federal Government apply inPuerto Rico to the same extent as Fed-eral law requires throughout theUnited States,’’ does nothing but sim-ply lock in the status quo. English isalready required for Federal purposesin Puerto Rico. Yet notwithstandingthat, the overwhelming majority ofPuerto Ricans do not understandEnglish, do not speak English. Thislanguage in the Burton amendment,which its author cites as a strengthen-ing amendment, simply maintains thestatus quo. It goes no further and can-not go further by its terms.

I thank the gentleman from NewYork for yielding.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I re-serve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I yield myself 11⁄2 minutes.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield1 minute to the gentleman from Indi-ana (Mr. BURTON).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, let me just say that I think theamendment, my substitute, the gen-tleman from California’s substitute,solves the English language issue ifyou want to have it attached to thisbill. But this bill is not about theEnglish language, nor should it be. It isabout whether or not the people ofPuerto Rico have a right to let theCongress of the United States know ifthey want to be a State, a common-wealth or independent.

b 1615

This English issue is a red herringthat has been put into the bill to try todrive a stake through the heart of thebill to kill it. That is what they wantto do. They want to kill the bill. It

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH808 March 4, 1998should not even be here in here. Weshould be debating the English onlyissue in a separate piece of legislationas we have in the past.

This is a plebiscite bill to find outfrom the people of Puerto Rico whatstatus they want. Do they want to be aState, do they want to be a common-wealth, or independent? If they want tobe a State, for instance, it has to comeback to the Congress and a process ofabout 8 or 10 years is going to takeplace before they become a State. Sothe Congress is going to make the finaldetermination anyhow. This is a redherring.

The other thing I want to say is thatI have great respect for my colleagues,but I think that every one of my col-leagues who are opposing this bill, Ihope every one of my colleagues whoare sitting in their offices will focus onthe main issue at hand today, and thatis do people who are American citizens,and that is the people of Puerto Rico,do the people who are American citi-zens have the right to say, we wantrepresentation if we are going to bepaying the price in wars and taxes andeverything else for this country. Dothey have that right? They should.They are American citizens.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, willthe gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield tothe gentleman from New York.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, thegentleman is standing up and saying,‘‘JERRY SOLOMON brought this Englishdebate into this bill.’’ Here is the bill.It is not my bill. This is the committeebill. On page 10, line 1, section B, lan-guage, ‘‘English shall be the commonlanguage of mutual understanding inthe United States.’’ It goes on forpages. I did not introduce this into thebill, you folks did.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, reclaiming my time, I would sayto the gentleman from New York (Mr.SOLOMON), the reason we did was be-cause we knew the gentleman as thechairman of the Committee on Ruleswas going to put this amendment intothe process. That is why we did it, andthe gentleman knows it.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I might consume.

With the Parliamentarians sitting upthere I went to the Parliamentariansand said, I do not want to go beyondthe germaneness of this bill. I will notdo it. I will not use the power of ourCommittee on Rules to do that. I couldhave done it, Mr. Chairman, as the gen-tleman knows. Instead, we wrote anamendment germane to the bill. So Ithink the gentleman misspoke.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, if the gentleman will yield, I donot think I owe the gentleman an apol-ogy. First of all, the bill only author-izes that language, authorizes theEnglish provisions in that bill. It doesnot mandate them, if the gentlemanreads that.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, re-claiming my time, nor does my amend-ment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I yield myself such time as I mayconsume.

Mr. Chairman, the coauthor, thesponsor of this amendment, the gen-tleman from Indiana (Mr. BURTON) hasquite properly stated what this amend-ment is about. This amendment isabout should at the end of this processthe people of Puerto Rico decide tochoose statehood as an option and acondition under which they want tolive, the language in the Burton sub-stitute says they will be treated thesame as any other State. They will betreated the same as the citizens of Ne-braska or California or New York orFlorida or Louisiana or anywhere else.

If this Congress should decide thatEnglish is the official language of thiscountry and wants to add a lot of re-quirements about that at some futuredate, if Puerto Rico is a State, PuertoRico will live under those requirementsthe same as the citizens of any otherState.

If Puerto Rico petitions to become aState, and we agree to that, and theyvote for that and we vote for that, theyare petitioning to become a State oncoequal terms of every other citizen ofevery other State. The Solomonamendment goes beyond that. It goesbeyond that to require, require, thatthe communications be only in Englishand people can only communicate withthe Federal Government in English, farbeyond what is required today in anylaw that we have.

So what we said was not knowing yetwhat the people of Puerto Rico will de-termine, let us just level the playingfield, so, again, this debate cannot beused, because in the politics of thecampaign, statehood versus common-wealth versus independence, peoplewant to argue you are going to loseyour right to speak Spanish, you aregoing to be forced to speak onlyEnglish, you are not going to have citi-zenship. This campaign gets way out ofcontrol. So we tried to put languagehere which is very simple. You will betreated, should you vote for statehood,the same as any other citizen in anyother State, period, with respect to therequirements of the English languageof the Federal Government.

That is fair, and I think it is proper,when people are going to engage in ahistorical vote about their status fromthat point forward.

That is what this committee owedthem, that is what this Congress owesthem, and the Burton amendment al-lows that to happen. It simply levelsout the playing field with respect toEnglish. They will know that they willnot be discriminated against becausethey speak Spanish; they will not beburdened because they do not have fullcompliance with English. They willsimply be treated the same as all otherAmerican citizens.

Many people have risen on this floortoday to testify as to the contributions

the Puerto Rican people, the citizens ofthis country, have made to the growthof this country in every aspect of ourhistory. All we are saying to those peo-ple is, you will be treated the same aseveryone else who has made that con-tribution. And when you make the de-cision to choose statehood or common-wealth, you will know that the playingfield is level here.

That is what the Burton amendmentaccomplishes. That is not what theSolomon amendment does. The Solo-mon amendment puts a series of condi-tions beyond that level playing field,that in the text of his amendmentapply only to Puerto Rico and only tothose communications between thecitizens of Puerto Rico and the govern-ment. That we should reject.

If later we want to do that, and Mr.CUNNINGHAM indicated that maybe theEnglish as an official language bill willcome back, if that prevails and passesand is signed into law, that will be thelaw of the land with respect to the peo-ple in Puerto Rico and the people inCalifornia. But we should not be tryingto guide that determination here, be-cause this is about a plebiscite, andthis is about what people can expect tohappen and not happen should theychoose one of the three alternativesoutlined in the legislation.

This committee worked very hard.Mr. YOUNG held a whole series of hear-ings in Puerto Rico and here to try anddetermine the fairest way to presentthese three options. We ought not nowtry to put our thumb on one side of thescale one way or the other with respectto the outcome of that vote.

The people of Puerto Rico ought tobe able to make their choice in thisplebiscite about their status, and thenit will be incumbent upon the Congressto either accept or reject that or tocondition that. But we will then knowwhat the choice of the people of PuertoRico is.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the Burtonamendment maintains the integrity ofthis process so that we will know whenthat vote is taken, that we have pro-vided free and fair options with respectto the status for the people of PuertoRico to choose.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemanfrom Texas (Mr. GREEN).

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

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman from Indiana for yield-ing me time.

I would also thank the gentlemanfrom Indiana (Mr. BURTON), the gen-tleman from California (Mr. MILLER),the gentleman from Florida (Mr.MCCOLLUM) and the gentleman fromAlaska (Mr. YOUNG) for bringing notonly the bill, but this amendment here,because this is what is going to bringus together, I hope.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H809March 4, 1998Mr. Chairman, I would say to the

gentleman from New York (Mr. SOLO-MON), I understand that English lan-guage does bring us together, but wehave more in common than just ourlanguage. As a Nation we are held to-gether by love of liberty and freedom,no matter what language we speak andno matter how we speak English, be-cause we speak English in differentways, from Texas to Maine, to Bostonto Florida and everywhere else. Butthat is what this amendment talksabout.

Let me read the language for theMembers who are maybe watching intheir offices. ‘‘The official language re-quirements of the Federal Governmentshall apply to Puerto Rico in the samemanner as and the same extent asthroughout the United States.’’

If the citizens of Puerto Rico make adecision for statehood, they will comein on the same level as the citizens ofTexas. You can come to Texas andspeak Spanish, you can come and speakEnglish; but if you go into a court-room, you are going to speak Englishor have a translator.

They could speak whatever languagethey want, because that is the freedomwe enjoy. I have people in Texas whoare proud to be German and speak Ger-man, but when they go to court theyhave to have an English translation.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for theBurton amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-man, I yield the balance of my time tothe gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.KENNEDY).

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Rhode Island is recognized for 30seconds.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr.Chairman, I thank the gentleman foryielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, ultimately this is apolitical football. The Solomon amend-ment is meant to kill this bill. Tothink that we are asking the PuertoRican people to be forced to speakEnglish. I would ask the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SOLOMON), howoften did we ask the 200,000 PuertoRicans who served in our Nation’s mili-tary and were putting their lives onthe line in defense of this liberty howwell they spoke English? And why is itright for us now to say they have tospeak English? When they were goodenough to die for this country, theywere good enough to serve for thiscountry, now we are going to imposethe English language on them, when itwas never the case when it happened tocome to them serving in our Nation’smilitary.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to try tohold myself down a little bit after theremarks from my friend, the gen-tleman from Rhode Island (Mr. KEN-NEDY) over there. It seems like he andI always get into it about this time. Iwill just tell my good friend that Ihelped teach the Puerto Ricans in the

military how to speak English, and Iam very proud of it.

We are going to close this out, and ithas been a good debate, up until thelast couple of speakers. The Solomonamendment does nothing different thanwhat we have done for Oklahoma, forLouisiana, for New Mexico and for Ari-zona. But now it becomes even moreimportant, because I will state onceagain that if the Solomon amendmentis defeated, if the Burton amendmentallows the Solomon amendment to bewatered down, we are going to jeopard-ize the future of this democracy ofours, because it means that PuertoRico could possibly be brought in with-in the next 24 months into this Unionwith only a very, very small majorityof people wanting citizenship. Weshould never, never let that happen. Aswe did with Hawaii, as we did withAlaska, we should always have over-whelming support, not only of thoseareas that want to come into theUnited States, but also of the Amer-ican people.

The polls show that the Americanpeople are opposed to this legislationin its present form. It shows that thePuerto Rican people in the last plebi-scite were opposed to statehood, andwe should clear these up before thismatter ever becomes law. But, just as asafeguard, we ought to pass the Solo-mon amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me say in closingthat the Solomon amendment has thesupport of U.S. English, it has the sup-port of English First, it has support ofthe English Language Advocates, it hassupport of the Center for Equal Oppor-tunity. All grassroots English groupsin this country support the Solomonamendment and oppose the wateringdown of the amendment, whether it beby MILLER-BURTON or by anyone else.So I urge support of the Solomonamendment and defeat of the Miller-Burton amendment.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today toexpress my vehement opposition to H.R. 856,the United States-Puerto Rico Political StatusAct, and to the English-only language amend-ment offered by the gentleman from NewYork.

At the outset, I want to extend my full sup-port to my fellow colleagues, NYDIA VELAZQUEZ(D–NY) and JOSE SERRANO (D–NY), in theirefforts to ensure that the people of PuertoRico have a ‘‘voice’’ in this process. As Con-gresswoman VELAZQUEZ stated earlier today,‘‘Why don’t we let Puerto Rico decide what’sbest for Puerto Rico.’’

For close to one hundred years, Puerto Ricohas been a Commonwealth of the UnitedStates. Puerto Rican citizens have abided bythe laws of the United States; they have par-ticipated in defending the United States in var-ious wars; and even joined the military duringpeaceful times. Both English and Spanish arethe official languages of Puerto Rico. Theyclearly are an integral part of our representa-tive government. We should take extreme cau-tion and listen to their concerns.

Moreover, we should not, as some of ourcolleagues are trying to do, force them toabide by a stringent English-only language re-

quirement. How can we force such an arbi-trary requirement on the citizens of PuertoRico when none exists for any of the 50states? As the bridge to Latin America, al-ready over 85% of Puerto Ricans are fluent inboth English and Spanish. Further, the UnitedStates does not have an official language law,and we should not start by imposing one ona geographic area as diverse as Puerto Rico.For over four hundred years, our country hasbeen a ‘‘melting pot’’ for people of all racialand ethnic backgrounds. In fact, we pride our-selves on this unique aspect of our history.We are a nation founded on the principles offreedom and equality for all.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that my colleagueswill remember these principles and support theright of self-determination for the citizens ofPuerto Rico.

Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today tooppose the English-only provisions being of-fered to this bill to define the political status ofPuerto Rico.

I have consistently opposed English-onlyprovisions to bills that have been before theHouse and do so again today. While I under-stand my friends who advocate thesechanges, we simply disagree. As the rep-resentative of a border district—as a man whohas grown up speaking two languages everyday of my life—I understand the dynamics ofthis proposal.

People on one side see the English lan-guage as the defining and unifying element ofthe United States. Those who believe as I do,that the English language is the most impor-tant element of economic development in ourcountry, also realize that it is the democraticinstitutions and history of the United Statesthat define us as a country and a community.

This policy, while well intentional, will makesome untenable changes. It will rescind theuse of bilingual education, a valuable programto children of new immigrants. It will prohibitthe use of bilingual voting materials and bal-lots. In a democracy, su voto es su voz—yourvote is your voice. We would be stifling a deepdemocratic tradition if we kept voting and bal-loting information out of the hands of thosewho speak a language other than English.

Probably the most insidious thing anEnglish-only policy would do would prohibit theuse of dual language public health notices.Now, it has been our experience in SouthTexas that health care knows no single lan-guage, and it has been our experience thatdiseases know no border. This would be aprofoundly bad idea, and it would only hurt ev-eryone, not just those who do not speakEnglish.

I would like to associate myself with the re-marks of my friend CHET EDWARDS who saidthat we need to teach English, not preach it.Spanish is the language of commerce in mostcountries of the Americas. The Spanish-speaking countries are the largest potentialmarket for U.S. goods—we must not let theopportunity to sell them our products go by.Our schools, and this government, must learnthe language of world commerce—which isprimarily English, but is also increasinglySpanish.

Let us not take a bad idea and make itworse. Please join me in opposing the Englishonly provisions of this bill.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in supportof the Burton-McCollum-Young substitute tothe Solomon English amendment to H.R. 856.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH810 March 4, 1998Under this amendment, the English lan-

guage would be immediately fostered in Puer-to Rico—unlike the Solomon amendment,which applies the English language require-ments only if the U.S. citizens of Puerto Ricochoose to become a State. The Burton sub-stitute would allow all students to be proficientin the English language by age 10.

Please join me in supporting the Burtonsubstitute to the Solomon English amendment.This bipartisan substitute provides an impartialand equitable alternative.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I rise in oppo-sition to the amendment to HR 856, offered byRepresentative SOLOMON, requiring English tobe the official language of all governmentfunctions across the entire United States andsupport the substitute amendment offered byRepresentatives BURTON, MILLER, and YOUNG,which would treat Puerto Rico the same asevery other state; which recognizes the pri-mary role of English in our national affairs;and which would not preclude the use of otherlanguages in government functions when ap-propriate.

As a member of the House Judiciary Com-mittee, it comes as no surprise to me that yetagain the proponents of the English-onlymovement are attempting to divide this coun-try with English-only legislation.

While we in this country do not alwaysagree, we share a common set of democraticideals and values—a commitment to freedom,equality, tolerance and opportunity. This iswhat holds us together—not language.

On the same principle, I want to make myposition clear that there is no place forEnglish-only legislation in this country.English-only is nothing more than a politicaltactic. Why else would we be seeking to im-plement English-only policies when 95 percentof the U.S. population already speaksEnglish?

What the Solomon amendment really doesis effectively to disenfranchise a large popu-lation of citizens for the purely political reasonthat they traditionally vote Democratic ratherthan Republican.

Specific to this bill, the real fear of the Re-publicans is that in the event that Puerto Ricojoins the Union as a state, the majority of thevoting population may turn out voting Demo-cratic. Puerto Ricans see through this veiledpolitical attempt. So do current registered vot-ers.

English-only alienates ordinary citizens.Let’s face the reality of the 21st century—welive in a multicultural and multilingual society,and this is America’s strength. We are a proudnation of immigrants. Many immigrants re-cently have become citizens, and embrace theopportunity which many were deprived in theirnative country to vote.

Many immigrants also are learning Englishfaster than ever, as indicated by increased en-rollment in English classes. By abolishing bilin-gual ballots, the English-only measure seeksto undermine standing law—the Voting RightsAct of 1965—and to frustrate the participationof U.S. citizens in the political process.

We need to keep out English-only legislationand retain bilingual voting materials not only toallow voters to engage meaningfully in our de-mocracy, but also to permit voters to partici-pate on an informed basis. They need to knowwho is running for office and also to under-stand more complex voting issues such asconstitutional amendments.

Republicans may misguide the Americanpeople with the argument that empoweringvoters with bilingual assistance costs tax dol-lars. Nothing could be farther from the truth.Studies show that the cost of bilingual assist-ance for voting is either nominal or causes noadditional costs. A GAO report shows that of295 responding jurisdictions, written assist-ance costs less than 8 percent of election ex-penditures and it estimates that costs 18states nothing. Oral language assistance iseven less burdensome.

As important as voting, ordinary citizensneed access to our government. We do notwant to cripple government with English-onlymandates, lest the police, 911 operators andEmergency Medical Service technicians wouldbe unable to do their jobs in life threateningsituations involving an individual with little flu-ency in English.

Conversely, the government needs to con-tinue to provide services to ordinary citizens.Restricting the ability of agencies to dispenseinformation to the public in a language otherthan English would undermine important gov-ernment functions such as collecting taxes, in-forming citizens of their fundamental rights,promoting equal educational opportunity andpublic health and safety, and ensuring dueprocess under the law.

English-only isolates the U.S. from the restof the world. Similar to the evolving society inwhich we live, our world is also changing. Welive in a global economy, requiring Americansto be more cognizant of the language, the cul-tural norms and sensitivities and businesspractices of our international trading partners.The time calls for us to adapt—which does notmean imposing that our government functionsin one language—English only.

The majority of federal documents are al-ready in English. According to the General Ac-counting Office, only 0.06 percent of federaldocuments are printed in non-English lan-guages. Rather than restrict the use of non-English languages, we should be expandingour fluency in several different languages.Thirty-two million Americans speak a secondlanguage. They are competitive with the restof the world.

I urge my colleagues to vote against theSolomon amendment, and resist this latest at-tempt to divide our country, and weaken itsposition globally and vote in favor of the sub-stitute to the Solomon amendment offered byRepresentatives BURTON, MILLER, and YOUNG.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yieldback the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Illinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ),to the amendment offered by the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. SOLOMON).

The question was taken; and theChairman announced that the noes ap-peared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Idemand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I havea parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate it.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I un-derstood that we were going to try toreduce the second vote down to 5 min-

utes. How do we do that? How do wepropound a recorded vote at this time?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has theauthority to do it. Pursuant to therules, the Chair will announce the sub-sequent two votes (if ordered) will be 5minute votes.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, be-fore we vote, there have been somepretty scandalous things occurring.

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote isordered. The gentleman from Illinois isout of order.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. If the Chairmanwill, please, I do have a very goodpoint. This is very serious. We are vio-lating the rules of the House, Mr.Chairman. This is being handed outagainst our rules.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlemanhave a parliamentary inquiry?

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Ihave a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate it.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, canthis be handed out to Members of theHouse of Representatives as they arewalking in here, to ask people to voteyes or no on different amendments asthey walk in here, without having theletterhead of the U.S. Congress andwithout it being signed by some Mem-ber of Congress?

The CHAIRMAN. Handouts handedout to the membership must indicatewho authorized them.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman,then I bring to the attention of theChair that this is being handed outamongst us without signature, withoutthe letterhead, not in accordance withour rules, and I would ask that theChair protect in any way possible theintegrity of the rules of the House.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will doeverything possible so that the rules ofthe House are adhered to and compliedwith.

Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII,the Chair may reduce to not less than5 minutes the time for any recordedvote, if ordered, on the Burton sub-stitute amendment to the Solomonamendment or on the Solomon amend-ment without intervening business ordebate.

The vote was taken by electronic de-vice, and there were—ayes 13, noes 406,answered ‘‘present’’ 1, not voting 10, asfollows:

[Roll No. 28]

AYES—13

ConyersDavis (IL)GutierrezKennedy (MA)McKinney

Meeks (NY)OwensPastorPayneRush

SerranoTownsVelazquez

NOES—406

AbercrombieAckermanAderholtAllenAndrewsArcherArmeyBachusBaesler

BakerBaldacciBallengerBarciaBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBarton

BassBatemanBecerraBentsenBereuterBermanBerryBilbrayBilirakis

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H811March 4, 1998BishopBlagojevichBlileyBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBradyBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BryantBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCanadyCannonCardinCarsonCastleChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenClayClaytonClementClyburnCobleCoburnCollinsCombestConditCookCookseyCostelloCoxCoyneCramerCraneCrapoCubinCummingsCunninghamDannerDavis (FL)Davis (VA)DealDeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeLayDeutschDiaz-BalartDickeyDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEngelEnglishEnsignEshooEtheridgeEvansEverettEwingFarrFattahFawellFazioFilnerFoleyForbesFordFossellaFowlerFox

Frank (MA)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrostFurseGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGekasGephardtGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGrangerGreenGreenwoodGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HamiltonHansenHastertHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHefnerHergerHillHillearyHilliardHincheyHinojosaHobsonHoekstraHoldenHooleyHornHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJenkinsJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson (WI)Johnson, E. B.Johnson, SamJonesKanjorskiKapturKasichKellyKennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKimKind (WI)King (NY)KingstonKleczkaKlinkKlugKnollenbergKolbeKucinichLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLantosLargentLathamLaTouretteLazioLeachLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLivingstonLoBiondo

LofgrenLoweyLucasMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MantonManzulloMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcDermottMcGovernMcHaleMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcIntyreMcKeonMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)MenendezMetcalfMicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller (CA)Miller (FL)MingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMoran (KS)Moran (VA)MorellaMurthaMyrickNadlerNealNethercuttNeumannNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOxleyPackardPallonePappasParkerPascrellPaulPaxonPeasePelosiPeterson (MN)Peterson (PA)PetriPickeringPickettPittsPomboPomeroyPorterPortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRahallRamstadRangelRedmondRegulaReyesRiggsRileyRiversRodriguezRoemerRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRyun

SaboSalmonSanchezSandersSandlinSanfordSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchaefer, DanSchaffer, BobScottSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawShaysShermanShusterSisiskySkaggsSkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (OR)Smith (TX)

Smith, AdamSmith, LindaSnowbargerSnyderSolomonSouderSpenceSprattStabenowStarkStearnsStenholmStokesStricklandStumpStupakSununuTalentTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)ThomasThompsonThornberryThuneThurman

TiahrtTierneyTraficantTurnerUptonVentoViscloskyWalshWampWatkinsWatt (NC)Watts (OK)WaxmanWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWexlerWeygandWhiteWhitfieldWickerWiseWolfWoolseyWynnYatesYoung (AK)Young (FL)

ANSWERED ‘‘PRESENT’’—1

Waters

NOT VOTING—10

DoolittleGonzalezHarmanKilpatrick

LutherPoshardSchiffSchumer

ShimkusTorres

b 1651

Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois,BECERRA, SMITH of Texas, SMITH ofMichigan, MALONEY of Connecticut,BATEMAN, and RANGEL changedtheir vote from ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

Ms. MCKINNEY and Messrs. OWENS,KENNEDY of Massachusetts, and CON-YERS changed their vote from ‘‘no’’ to‘‘aye.’’

So the amendment to the amendmentwas rejected.

The result of the vote was announcedas above recorded.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Indiana (Mr. BURTON) as asubstitute for the amendment offeredby the gentleman from New York (Mr.SOLOMON).

The question was taken; and theChairman announced that the ayes ap-peared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I de-mand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

Chair’s prior announcement, this willbe a 5-minute vote.

The vote was taken by electronic de-vice, and there were—ayes 238, noes 182,not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 29]

AYES—238

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBaldacciBallengerBarciaBarrett (WI)BartonBecerraBentsenBermanBerryBishopBlagojevich

BlumenauerBoehlertBonillaBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BurtonBuyerCampCampbell

CannonCardinCarsonCastleClayClaytonClementClyburnConditCookCostelloCoyneCramerCummingsDanner

Davis (FL)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDiaz-BalartDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEngelEnglishEnsignEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFazioFilnerFoleyForbesFordFoxFrank (MA)FrostFurseGalleglyGejdensonGekasGephardtGibbonsGilchrestGilmanGordonGrangerGreenGreenwoodHall (OH)HamiltonHansenHastings (FL)HefnerHilliardHincheyHinojosaHooleyHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHulshofJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJohnJohnson (WI)Johnson, E. B.

KanjorskiKapturKellyKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKimKind (WI)KleczkaKlinkKlugKolbeKucinichLaFalceLampsonLantosLazioLeachLevinLewis (GA)LofgrenLoweyMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MantonMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcHaleMcInnisMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller (CA)MingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMoran (VA)MorellaMurthaNadlerNealOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensOxleyPallonePascrell

PastorPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PomboPomeroyPortmanPrice (NC)RahallRangelRedmondReyesRiggsRiversRodriguezRoemerRos-LehtinenRothmanRoybal-AllardRushSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSaxtonScottSerranoShawShermanSkaggsSkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (NJ)Smith, AdamSnyderSprattStabenowStarkStokesStricklandStupakTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)ThompsonThornberryThurmanTierneyTurnerVentoViscloskyWalshWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWexlerWeygandWiseWoolseyWynnYatesYoung (AK)

NOES—182

AderholtArcherArmeyBachusBaeslerBakerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBassBatemanBereuterBilbrayBilirakisBlileyBluntBoehnerBradyBryantBunningBurrCallahanCalvertCanadyChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenCobleCoburnCollinsCombest

ConyersCookseyCoxCraneCrapoCubinCunninghamDavis (VA)DealDeLayDickeyDreierDuncanDunnEmersonEverettEwingFawellFossellaFowlerFranks (NJ)FrelinghuysenGanskeGillmorGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGutierrezGutknechtHall (TX)

HastertHastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHergerHillHillearyHobsonHoekstraHoldenHornHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJenkinsJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJonesKasichKing (NY)KingstonKnollenbergLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinski

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH812 March 4, 1998LivingstonLoBiondoLucasManzulloMcCreryMcDadeMcHughMcIntoshMenendezMetcalfMiller (FL)Moran (KS)MyrickNethercuttNeumannNeyNorthupNorwoodNusslePackardPappasParkerPaulPaxonPeasePeterson (PA)PetriPickeringPickett

PittsPorterPryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRamstadRegulaRileyRoganRogersRohrabacherRoukemaRoyceRyunSalmonSanfordScarboroughSchaefer, DanSchaffer, BobSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShaysShusterSisiskySmith (MI)Smith (OR)Smith (TX)Smith, Linda

SnowbargerSolomonSouderSpenceStearnsStenholmStumpSununuTalentTaylor (NC)ThomasThuneTiahrtTownsTraficantUptonVelazquezWampWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhiteWhitfieldWickerWolfYoung (FL)

NOT VOTING—10

DoolittleGonzalezHarmanKilpatrick

LutherPoshardSchiffSchumer

ShimkusTorres

b 1701

Messrs. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado,HASTERT, BAESLER, ROGAN, andHALL of Texas changed their votefrom ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

Mrs. KELLY and Mr. SMITH of NewJersey changed their vote from ‘‘no’’ to‘‘aye.’’

So the amendment offered as a sub-stitute for the amendment was agreedto.

The result of the vote was announcedas above recorded.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. SOLOMON),as amended.

The question was taken; and theChairman announced that the ayes ap-peared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I de-mand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

Chair’s prior announcement, this willbe a 5-minute vote.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO (during thevote). Mr. Chairman, I have a par-liamentary inquiry. I was standinghere, and the Chairman did not see me.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate it.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I have to explain to everyonewhat this second vote is. There is con-fusion in the hall as to what this sec-ond vote is.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has ex-plained to the Members what this voteis.

The vote was taken by electronic de-vice, and there were—ayes 265, noes 153,not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 30]

AYES—265

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBaldacciBallengerBarciaBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartonBecerraBentsenBereuterBerryBishopBlagojevichBoehlertBonillaBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BurtonBuyerCampCampbellCanadyCannonCardinCarsonCastleChristensenClayClaytonClementClyburnConditCookCostelloCoyneCramerCummingsDannerDavis (FL)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDiaz-BalartDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleDuncanEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEngelEnglishEnsignEshooEtheridgeEvansEwingFarrFattahFazioFilnerFoleyForbesFordFossellaFoxFrank (MA)FrostGalleglyGejdensonGekasGephardtGibbonsGilchrest

GillmorGilmanGordonGrangerGreenGreenwoodHall (OH)HamiltonHansenHastings (FL)HefnerHilliardHincheyHinojosaHoldenHooleyHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHulshofHunterIstookJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJenkinsJohnJohnson (WI)Johnson, E. B.KanjorskiKapturKellyKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKimKind (WI)King (NY)KleczkaKlinkKlugKolbeKucinichLaFalceLampsonLantosLazioLeachLevinLewis (GA)LofgrenLoweyLucasMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MantonMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcDermottMcGovernMcHaleMcHughMcInnisMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller (CA)MingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMoran (KS)Moran (VA)

MorellaMurthaNadlerNealNorthupNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensOxleyPallonePascrellPastorPaynePeasePelosiPeterson (MN)Peterson (PA)PickeringPomboPomeroyPortmanPrice (NC)QuinnRahallRamstadRangelRedmondReyesRiggsRiversRodriguezRoemerRos-LehtinenRothmanRoybal-AllardRushRyunSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSaxtonSchaffer, BobSerranoShawShermanSkaggsSkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith, AdamSnyderSprattStabenowStarkStokesStricklandStupakTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)ThomasThompsonThornberryThurmanTierneyTurnerVentoViscloskyWalshWampWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWexlerWeygandWiseWoolseyWynnYatesYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NOES—153

AderholtArcherArmeyBachusBaesler

BakerBarrBartlettBassBateman

BilbrayBilirakisBlileyBlumenauerBlunt

BoehnerBradyBryantBunningBurrCallahanCalvertChabotChamblissChenowethCobleCoburnCollinsCombestConyersCookseyCoxCraneCrapoCubinCunninghamDavis (VA)DealDeLayDickeyDreierDunnEmersonEverettFawellFowlerFranks (NJ)FrelinghuysenGanskeGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGutierrezGutknechtHall (TX)HastertHastings (WA)HayworthHefley

HergerHillHillearyHobsonHoekstraHornHutchinsonHydeInglisJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJonesKasichKingstonKnollenbergLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLivingstonLoBiondoManzulloMcIntoshMenendezMetcalfMiller (FL)MyrickNethercuttNeumannNeyNorwoodPackardPappasParkerPaulPaxonPetriPickettPittsPorterPryce (OH)Radanovich

RegulaRileyRoganRogersRohrabacherRoukemaRoyceSalmonSanfordScarboroughSchaefer, DanScottSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShaysShusterSisiskySmith (MI)Smith (OR)Smith, LindaSnowbargerSolomonSouderSpenceStearnsStenholmStumpSununuTalentTaylor (NC)ThuneTiahrtTownsTraficantUptonVelazquezWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhiteWhitfieldWickerWolf

NOT VOTING—12

BermanDoolittleFurseGonzalez

HarmanKilpatrickLutherPoshard

SchiffSchumerShimkusTorres

b 1711

Mr. SALMON, Mr. COOKSEY, andMs. DUNN changed their vote from‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

Mr. PASCRELL and Mr. BERRYchanged their vote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’

So the amendment, as amended, wasagreed to.

The result of the vote was announcedas above recorded.

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee willrise informally in order that the Housemay receive a message.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.HASTERT), assumed the Chair.

f

SUNDRY MESSAGES FROM THEPRESIDENT

Sundry messages in writing from thePresident of the United States werecommunicated to the House by Mr.Sherman Williams, one of his secretar-ies.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. TheCommittee will resume its sitting.

f

UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICOPOLITICAL STATUS ACT

The Committee resumed its sitting.

b 1715

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, it ismy intention to offer amendment num-ber 2 that was printed in the RECORD atthis time.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H813March 4, 1998The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to

debate the subject matter of theamendment by the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. SERRANO). The gen-tleman from New York (Mr. SERRANO)and a Member opposed each will con-trol 15 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SERRANO).

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Iwould like to claim the 15 minutes inopposition.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, would a member of the commit-tee, would he have an opportunity tobe the first recognized in opposition,too?

Would a member of the committeethat is sponsoring this bill, would I notbe entitled to be recognized in opposi-tion, too, to control the time?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman iscorrect; the priority of recognitionwould grant to the gentleman fromPuerto Rico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO)recognition previous to the gentlemanfrom Illinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ).

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I wouldlike to be recognized in opposition, Mr.Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. So the gentleman isclaiming the time in opposition?

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. That is cor-rect.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, par-liamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, noone on this side of the aisle is going tohave any time on this amendment, andI would like to ask the gentleman if hewould yield me half of his time in op-position.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I ask unanimous consent to yieldhalf of my time to the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. SOLOMON) in opposition.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromPuerto Rico?

There was no objection.PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Parliamentary in-quiry, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Iwant to make sure how this all works.I understand that the gentleman fromNew York has an amendment and I alsohave an amendment to his amendment.When does that happen in terms of theprocedure here today?

The CHAIRMAN. The subject matterof the amendment offered by the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. SERRANO)is going to be generally debated nowfor 30 minutes. After that time the gen-tleman from New York will offer hisamendment, and then the amendmentof the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.GUTIERREZ) may be offered to the

amendment of the gentleman from NewYork, if the gentleman from Illinoiswould have one.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And in order forme to offer an amendment to theamendment, I would need to get some-one who controls time within that 30minutes or I would never be able tooffer it? And I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. No. If the gen-tleman offers a substitute amendmentat that time, debate on that substituteamendment would be under the 5-minute rule.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So I would get myown 5 minutes? So it is my understand-ing, and I thank the Chairman for hisindulgence, and excuse my lack ofknowledge of the procedures here.

I want to make sure, because what Iwould like to do is make sure that thegentleman from New York can have hisamendment. I just want to make surethat at some point, because of the halfhour, I either get to introduce this asan amendment or as a substitute andthat that will be guaranteed by theHouse that I can do that.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willbe able to propose his substitute or per-fecting amendment if offered withinthe one hour of permitted consider-ation.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that Ipresent today, amendment number 2,would provide for American citizensborn in Puerto Rico, who reside outsidethe island, to participate in this vote.

Let me, as I begin, Mr. Chairman,note that this amendment has beenagreed to by the chairman of the com-mittee and chief sponsor of the bill, thegentleman from Alaska (Mr. YOUNG),and he will speak to this issue in a fewminutes.

The gentleman from Alaska supportsour amendment because he feels that itis a fair amendment that speaks to alegitimate issue. Mr. Chairman, thoseof us born on the island of Puerto Rico,and indeed all Puerto Ricans, feel verymuch a part of the island of PuertoRico regardless of where we are living.Regardless of where we find ourselves,we very much feel a part of the islandand, therefore, we feel very much thatany vote taken in Puerto Rico on thepolitical status of the island should in-clude us.

Let me be clear that this bill doesnot say, nor do I believe, that I shouldbe involved in electing the Governor ofPuerto Rico or the mayor of my home-town of Mayaguez or anything likethat. This bill comes about becausemany of us understand the fact thatthe relationship between the U.S. andPuerto Rico created certain situationsthroughout our history which made alot of us, either through our parents oras adults, leave the island. We left theisland physically but we never didleave the island in many other aspects.In addition, so many of us travel backand forth to the island that the unionbetween the two places or the two com-munities has remained one.

My original amendment, Mr. Chair-man, included not only those born onthe island, but included the children ofat least one parent born on the islandwho were born anywhere outside the is-land. That amendment, in all honesty,had about six votes. And since I cancount a little better than that, I beganto deal with that issue. It was based onthe fact that we removed that partfrom the amendment that the gen-tleman from Alaska, the author of thebill, agreed to the amendment. Thisthen allows thousands of Puerto Ricanswho live throughout the 50 States tovote in the plebiscite.

Now, in addition, Mr. Chairman,there is precedence throughout theworld, in different votes that have beentaken, for this kind of involvement.This is not a new idea. What I do wantmy colleagues to understand is that ifwe face this vote, and I know this isgoing to sound funny, thinking interms of States, the idea of one personliving in one State voting in anotherState, we would never agree to this.But this is not about voting in anotherState, this is about the future of a ter-ritory, of a colony.

And when that future is decided for-ever, and statehood is forever, andindependence is forever, and an associ-ated republic is forever, and thosethree could be the options that come inat the end, then all of the children ofthe territory, all of the children of thecolony, should be allowed to vote.

I want to close with this. I want tothank the chairman of this committeenot only for the bill but for consentingto my amendment, and I would imploreMembers on both sides to take his leadin accepting an amendment that hasbeen around 8 years. I may be the onlyMember of the House who had anamendment before there was a bill, andnow there is a bill to attach theamendment to.

This is a good amendment, it maxi-mizes the number of people who willparticipate and, in my opinion, makesthis plebiscite truly an American plebi-scite because it includes more thanjust the people who live on the island.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I yield myself such time as I mayconsume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition tothis amendment very, very reluctantly.Very reluctantly because my fellowMember, the gentleman from New York(Mr. SERRANO), has been a very greatsupporter of our H.R. 856, our bill forU.S.-Puerto Rico political status, and Ifeel very grateful for everything he hasdone.

I know the gentleman does this be-cause he believes in it, otherwise hewould not do it. I know he believes inthis very, very dearly. I stand up al-most regretfully to oppose it, but Imust oppose it because I am convincedthat were this to pass, we are includingan element into the result of the elec-tions that could really create a serioussituation.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH814 March 4, 1998If Puerto Ricans were to vote in

Puerto Rico, which is as it always hasbeen, and we have had two plebiscitesand the referendum for the approval ofthe Constitution, and in none of themthe Puerto Ricans who reside in themainland have been allowed to vote.The rule that residents control, youhave to be a U.S. citizen and a residentof Puerto Rico has always controlledall elections and all referenda in Puer-to Rico.

To change this, the majority thatvoted here in the mainland who do notreside in Puerto Rico and who are notgoing to receive the favorable or nega-tive impact of that vote will then im-pose their will on the people of PuertoRico.

I think this is for the people of Puer-to Rico who live in Puerto Rico to de-cide and not for those brothers and sis-ters of ours that have moved to themainland.

Many times, as the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. SERRANO) says, it wasagainst their will. Economic conditionsforced them to move. So be it. But theyhave moved. People like the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SERRANO) havetheir families here. Their children wereborn here. Eventually they might govisit Puerto Rico, but they are going tostay here forever, for the rest of theirlives. They are not planning to go backto Puerto Rico.

So I repeat again that the results ofthe vote, whether good or bad, will af-fect directly the people that live inPuerto Rico. It will affect emotionallythose that live here in the mainland.But just the fact that we have an emo-tional attachment and a feeling emo-tionally about the results is not a suffi-cient right to vote and create some-thing that is of impact to the people ofPuerto Rico.

One example, the gentlewoman fromNew York (Ms. VELAZQUEZ) is againstthis bill. And she does not want thePuerto Ricans to vote and have the op-portunity to vote on this bill. Yet, ifshe were to vote, she would be votingagainst statehood. She would be de-priving the people of Puerto Rico theright to vote and the right to represen-tation. But she has that right to vote,and she has that right to representa-tion. We do not have that.

Someone that has that right, howcan they be voting in an event to de-prive those citizens that do not havethat right and looking for that right? Ithink this is something that would cre-ate a confusion. It would create unfair-ness and an injustice to the people ofPuerto Rico. I must oppose this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield1 minute to the gentlewoman of NewYork (Ms. VELAZQUEZ).

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, Iwant to make a clarification. It is im-portant for Puerto Ricans in the main-land to participate, because, in fact,Puerto Ricans in the United States,they go back and forth to Puerto Rico.

But there are many Puerto Ricans herewho have suffered political persecutionin Puerto Rico, and they are in theUnited States because of the politicalenvironment in Puerto Rico.

In fact, when I was a professor at theUniversity of Puerto Rico, I was politi-cally persecuted. I decided to leave theisland. I should have the right. This isnot any State election. This is a uniqueand special election on the future andthe political destiny of Puerto Rico. Ofcourse I should have the right to havea say in that determination.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman fromPuerto Rico says we are not effected.The fact of life is my 40 years in thiscountry have been affected by the rela-tionship between Puerto Rico and theUnited States.

Secondly, the gentleman understandsthat his citizenship and mine are statu-tory. This vote may change that rela-tionship. My child’s citizenship is con-stitutional. I have a stake as to whatdecision is made on the island becauseI may be affected in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes tothe gentleman from Alaska (Mr.YOUNG), my leader on this issue.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I rise in support of this amend-ment, and I do so reluctantly, althoughmy good friend, the gentleman fromPuerto Rico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO),and I have been working very close.

But I thought about this after thegentleman from New York (Mr.SERRANO) testified before the commit-tee, and I tried to put myself in placeof a young man or young woman whohad to, either for economical reasonsor other reasons, had to go to theUnited States, because they are citi-zens now by statute, had to go to theUnited States to get employment andto work.

b 1730

This is a very serious system wherewe may set forth here an independentnation. I would like to know, I wouldlike to participate, because I am still acitizen of Puerto Rico although I havegone to the United States. I would liketo know if it becomes a State then ev-erything is equal, or it remains theoriginal commonwealth that it is now.

But more than that we have to un-derstand, these persons have a role toplay because they were born on the is-land. They were born on the island.Keep that in mind. They had not leftthe island other than for economic rea-sons or for family, but they were bornon the island.

I will not support grandchildren,aunts, uncles and all the rest of thembecause they are citizens of the UnitedStates, because they were born here, inthe United States. But I think it is im-perative that we allow that individualwho for some reason had to leave the

island, as beautiful as it is, and now heis being asked to not make a decision,not participate in a decision that willaffect his or her life.

After many hours of debate and dis-cussion with myself, and that some-times gets awful boring, I decided infavor of the Serrano amendment. Iwant to compliment him for offeringit. I am going to urge the gentlemanfrom Puerto Rico who has been thehorse in this whole program to be verycareful in what he offers, and if he of-fers something, to please not ask for avote on it. Because what will happen inthe long run, people are going to betired, and we never know what mighthappen.

Let us say we do what is correct forthe Puerto Rican people today. Al-though we can voice our opinion, let uskeep this to the minimum of mechani-cal efforts to make sure this bill comesto fruition and a vote tonight.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I yield myself such time as I mayconsume. I take the advice of thechairman of our committee very seri-ously. I will consider it very, very, veryseriously.

I want to again repeat that it hurtsme very much really to take any kindof opposite position to the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SERRANO), my col-league here on this issue. I know howdeeply he feels about it. But as deeplyas he feels about it, I also feel deeplyabout the fact that in Puerto Rico, thepeople who are going to be votingwould not like to see the results oftheir vote affected by the vote that istaken outside of Puerto Rico, by peoplethat even though they were born inPuerto Rico, reside somewhere else,they have a right to vote, and are re-siding there and are going to die thereand probably live there for the rest oftheir lives. Whatever happens in Puer-to Rico is going to, yes, affect them di-rectly, there is no doubt about it.

But I want to clarify something forthe record. The fact is that the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. SERRANO)has a statutory citizenship, the sameas I have, that we are citizens becausein 1917 a law was passed that said allpersons born in Puerto Rico shall becitizens of the United States. But theresults of the plebiscite or the referen-dum will not affect his citizenship ormy citizenship. It will not affect thecitizenship of any of those that areborn, only of those that are born afterthe status change occurs.

If Puerto Rico opts for statehood,once Puerto Rico becomes a State,then those that are born in Puerto Ricoas a State will be constitutional citi-zens because its constitution says thatonly those that are born in the Stateshall be citizens and also those that arenaturalized. It does not talk about any-thing else. Then we are citizens be-cause the law provides us citizenship.

That is why in the definition of com-monwealth in the bill we say that thecitizenship is statutory under common-wealth. That means that the Congress

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H815March 4, 1998may in the future if it feels like it sayfrom this day on, or from the futureday on, those born in Puerto Rico shallno longer be citizens. They can do thatif we are a commonwealth. They can-not do that if we are a State. That iswhy I say the citizenship is statutory.

Also, the citizenship of the childrenin Puerto Rico will not be constitu-tional until Puerto Rico becomes aState. Our citizenship will remain thesame. The citizenship of his childrenwill remain the same.

Even to be more clear to the peopleof Puerto Rico, we are not pushing thisor misguiding anybody. When we saidthat citizenship is statutory, we alsoadded a statement that says that it isthe policy of Congress to keep grantingcitizenship to people born in PuertoRico under commonwealth. That isspecified in the bill. When people talkabout the unfairness of the bill, no, no,the definition of commonwealth isabout as fair as it can be, the onlything, it is true. How can a territory bebetter than a State?

That is why they are at a disadvan-tage. Because when people read the def-inition of commonwealth as what it is,a territory, they realize that there aremuch more advantages to statehood,even though those in the territory donot pay Federal income taxes and willnot be paying Federal income taxes aslong as Puerto Rico is a territory. Butwe also want to assume our respon-sibility and pay our share. We nowhave a commonwealth which is a wel-fare commonwealth, a welfare terri-tory, because we are not contributingand not paying our share.

As a State Puerto Rico not onlywould pay their share but we would bepaying over $4.5 billion in taxes if wewere a State right now. The additionalcost at this point in time would beabout $3.1 billion, a net benefit ofabout $1.4 billion to the Treasury ofthe United States.

So all of these things that have beenflying around against Puerto Rico,against Puerto Rico being a State, allof them are misguided. They are half-truths, some of them, some are com-pletely erroneous, some are completelyfalse. I beseech everybody here on thisamendment to, yes, we will have to lis-ten to Serrano, but please let us voteagainst it.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield3 minutes to the gentleman from Illi-nois (Mr. GUTIERREZ).

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Ithink this is a very enlightening andinteresting debate, because as so elo-quently has been stated by the chair-man of the Committee on Resources,he has basically paraphrased that thereare nationals, that there is a national-ity, that Puerto Rico is a nation andthat the people born in that nationshould determine the future of that na-tion.

I think if for no other reason, thishas accomplished very, very much. Be-cause when the Serrano amendment,which I hope is adopted later on, and I

have an amendment to it, when it isadopted, it will say that the people ofPuerto Rico are a duly constituted peo-ple born on that island and born onthat island of a nation of people, and sothey should participate, much as theAlgerians who lived in France partici-pated, much as the Irish who lived inGreat Britain participated, much asthe people of all of the other countriescolonized.

What we have stated here is PuertoRico is a colony of the United States.Therefore, that all members of thatcolony. So Puerto Rico is a nation.That by accepting, and I want to thankthe gentleman from Alaska (Mr.YOUNG) for finally so eloquently stat-ing that point here today, because Ithink that that is an important part.Remember, that that is what we aredoing, bringing two nations together.We should do it very, very carefully,with consultation and making surethat each partner understands what weare doing.

Let me just take exception onceagain, because I see that there is onething that the gentleman from Alaska(Mr. YOUNG) and the gentleman fromPuerto Rico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO)and the gentleman from New York (Mr.SERRANO) all agree with in unison.That is, that Puerto Rican citizenshipif you are born on the island of PuertoRico is statutory. I think that iswrong. I think that is wrong.

Let me just state for the record thatthe Immigration Nationality Act of1945 tracked from the language of the1940 act, it says that all those who livein the United States, including Alaska,Hawaii and Puerto Rico, are nationalsof that country and born in the UnitedStates. Once again what we are sayingis that if you are born in Puerto Rico,like my dad, like my wife, that hercitizenship if you adopt this Young billcan be taken away.

Let me just make two points. A, doesanybody really believe in this roomthat this Congress would ever takeaway the citizenship of 3.8 million peo-ple? Does anybody in this room thinkthat will ever happen? Absolutely not.No President would ever sign that leg-islation. If no one would ever do it andno court would ever sanction it, why isit that we are saying it is statutory?

On the one hand we say it is statu-tory. On the other hand I am sure thatwe will all dive on the blade so thatthat citizenship would never be takenaway. I am sure every Member herewould say, ‘‘But I would never allowthat to happen.’’ If you are never goingto allow it to happen and no Presidentwould sign it, then let us not make itstatutory.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield2 minutes to the gentlewoman from theVirgin Islands (Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN),a person who well understands whatthe discussion is about.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. I thank thegentleman from New York for yieldingme this time. Mr. Chairman, I ampleased to rise today in support of the

amendment offered by the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SERRANO) whichwould allow the persons born in PuertoRico but who do not currently resideon that island to vote in the referen-dum authorized by H.R. 856.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 856, if enacted,would allow the people of Puerto Ricoto exercise their rights to self-deter-mination. The principle of self-deter-mination as stated in Article 2 of theUnited Nations charter declares that,and I quote, all peoples have the rightto self-determination; by virtue of thatright they freely determine their polit-ical status and freely pursue their eco-nomic, social and cultural develop-ment.

Like the gentleman from New York(Mr. SERRANO), I believe the right of apeople to determine their political sta-tus is a fundamental one. And unlikelocal elections, a referendum on thefinal political status of Puerto Ricowould affect the future of all PuertoRicans, whether they live in or out ofPuerto Rico. And so it is only rightthat on an election that will have suchprofound consequences on the future oftheir island, all Puerto Ricans whowere born in the islands be given theopportunity to exercise their right toself-determination. I ask my colleaguesto vote ‘‘yes’’ on the Serrano amend-ment.

I also want to take this opportunityto thank and commend the gentlemanfrom Alaska (Mr. YOUNG) for his leader-ship on H.R. 856 and his willingness tolisten to all sides, as well as his com-mitment to all of the United Statesterritories.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, a lot has been saidhere almost in disagreement but yetspeaking about statutory citizenshipand constitutional citizenship. Makeno mistake about it, I have no doubtthat my citizenship is different thanthe one my son who was born in theBronx has. I do not have a doubt aboutthat. I do not have to be a constitu-tional lawyer to know that I became acitizen on the island of Puerto Ricowhen I was born there, because it wasa law in 1917 that said so. That law waspassed by Congress. The Constitutionis not amended by Congress. There is awhole process to change that.

And so I am clear on the fact that myson’s citizenship is one that is pro-tected by the Constitution of theUnited States and if I am not mis-taken, there are only a few ways inwhich he can lose that citizenship. One,for instance, he could be found guiltyof treason, but it has to be some ex-treme circumstance by which he wouldlose that citizenship.

But I have no doubt that this Con-gress can pass a law to take away fromme my citizenship and the citizenshipof the gentleman from Puerto Rico(Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO), the gentle-woman from New York (Ms.VELAZQUEZ), and the people who live onthe island of Puerto Rico. Would they

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH816 March 4, 1998do it? Probably not. Would a court up-hold it? Possibly not. Can they do it?Absolutely. One thing is clear, thisCongress has the right on this kind ofcitizenship to pass a law here sayingthat beginning next Monday, every per-son born in Puerto Rico is no longer acitizen, an American citizen.

The outcome of this plebiscite doesaffect people like myself who were bornon the island. I understand the concernof the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.GUTIERREZ) and the gentlewoman fromNew York (Ms. VELAZQUEZ). I wouldhave wanted to include in this amend-ment all Puerto Ricans regardless ofwhere they were born, but I am also apractical person who understands thatit is better to accomplish this tremen-dous victory that the gentleman fromAlaska (Mr. YOUNG) has accepted thanto go with something I could not getand would not be able to gather anysupport.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume,just to talk about the precedent thatwe might be setting here. I worrysomewhat with the changeover thathas happened in the United StatesHouse of Representatives, where two-thirds of the Members are new in thelast 4 years. But some of us have tolook back institutionally and look atsituations like this.

b 1745I know of no other precedent that we

have ever set where we allowed votersin one part of the United States to castvotes in other parts. I have a situationrepresenting the Adirondack Moun-tains and the Catskill Mountains inNew York State, and we have a lot ofpeople who live in Connecticut, live inNew Jersey, live in Westchester Countyor live in New York City, and they can-not come up, although they used to doit, but it was illegal, they cannot comeup to the Adirondacks and cast votesup there. This is a similar situation.

Now, those people, if they live inConnecticut and they want representa-tion up there, one of the two spouseswill change their registration and votein my congressional district up in themountains. This seems to me a similarsituation, because really we are lettingsome U.S. citizens cast votes twicethat really affect the entire UnitedStates of America.

I just think we have to be very care-ful about the precedent we are settinghere. It is because of that I will prob-ably oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would just clarifywhat my colleague, the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SOLOMON), said.This is a different kind of vote. I wouldnot propose on this floor to vote forGovernor of Puerto Rico or mayor ofMayaguez, my hometown. This is a spe-cial and unique vote.

In addition, the gentleman may besurprised to know there were constitu-ents of yours who did set perhaps aprecedent you do not want by voting inPolish elections. There is a bill in theDominican Republic to allow Ameri-cans of Dominican descent to vote inthose elections; Colombians; Peru-vians. This is happening in otherplaces.

I am not proposing that. I am propos-ing a one-time vote on this very uniquesituation about a status question.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes tothe gentleman from Guam (Mr. UNDER-WOOD), who understands what I amgoing through here today.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, Iwant to reiterate for those of us whoare statutory citizens, i.e., citizens byvirtue of congressional action, we rep-resent a unique category of humanbeings that are under the Americanbody politic, proud Americans, but rec-ognizing that we have a unique status.

That is why this amendment is nec-essary, because it speaks to the issuenot just of political self-determination,but ultimately to the issue of who hasthat right to self-determination.

This is not the same kind of electionthat one has when one votes for electedofficials. We have fought long and hardin this country to make sure that thatkind of voting is extended to all thosepeople who are represented by electedofficials. But this is an issue of politi-cal self-determination.

When you are born in Wisconsin orborn in Idaho, you cannot get up in themorning and decide that Idaho or Wyo-ming should have one day an electionwhich gives them the full range ofchoices about whether they should beindependent or have a special relation-ship with the United States. They are aState. They are full and equal partnersin the American body politic. The CivilWar has settled that issue once and forall.

But what do we have here? We havehere a unique group of individuals, ofpeople who have been subsumed intothe American flag through conquest,and by virtue of that they have alwaysbeen extended citizenship through con-gressional action. It is their statusthat is at stake. It is their individualstatus that is at stake. That is why itmakes perfectly good sense that whenwe deal with the issue of self-deter-mination, we must deal with the issueof who has a right to self-determina-tion.

Any piece of legislation which dealswith the self-determination of PuertoRico, or even in the case of my ownhome island of Guam, must always dealin a serious and thoughtful way withwho actually has this right to self-de-termination. Whomever was colonizedshould be the participants indecolonization. In the case of PuertoRico, it is Puerto Ricans. In legalterms, it must be the people whose citi-zenship is in control of Congress.

If we value Puerto Rican self-deter-mination, and if we really value the

meaning of the vote, we would dealwith the issue of voter eligibility. Mr.SERRANO has offered an amendmentwhich deals with this issue in athoughtful and meaningful way. Thegentleman wants all Puerto Ricans tobe allowed participation. The peoplewho became citizens by virtue of con-gressional action are the people whoselives and political futures are at stake.Those people must be the ones to makethe choice about their homeland, abouttheir future. It is their future which isat stake. Anything less would make amockery of the process and com-promise the meaning of self-determina-tion.

Mr. Chairman, I must reiterateagain, a self-determination election isvery different from any other kind.

Mr. SOLOMON. I yield 1 minute tothe gentleman from Illinois (Mr.GUTIERREZ).

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, thisis academic debate we are having here.We are asked to believe the following:That Mr. SERRANO, who was born inPuerto Rico, who came to the UnitedStates of America, who was allowedinto the halls of this Congress with fullvoting privileges, that his citizenshipcan be revoked; that there is a court inthis Nation, a Congress, a Presidentand a court in this Nation, that will af-firm that.

We know that that is just nevergoing to happen. Let us face it. Raiseyour hand anyone who believes thatwill ever, ever happen. It will not.Think about it. You have tens of thou-sands of men and women who served inthe Armed Forces with honorable dis-charges. What court in this Nationwould take away their citizenship?They paid taxes, they were born, theirbirth certificates. Think about it. It isnot going to happen.

So let us not play the game of fearwith the people of Puerto Rico and in-ject fear. That is what is wrong withthis bill, that we put them into fear. Itis never going to happen, and we allknow it.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we have debated theamendment. I understand we are goingto go on to the amendment processnow. The gentleman from Puerto Rico(Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO) has an amend-ment, I believe, and I believe the gen-tleman from Illinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ)does as well.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-ance of my time so we can move on tothe amendment process.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me close by sayingthat I do not function out of fear, interms of putting fear on anyone else. Ifunction out of fact.

The fact of life is that we would notbe here dealing with this very good billunless we understood that there is aunique relationship between PuertoRico and the United States. If every-thing was fine and dandy, we would notbe here passing this bill.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H817March 4, 1998Mr. Chairman, I do not try to bring

fear into people, but I know what thiscountry is capable of doing. We are agreat Nation, but at times we are gov-erned in a behavior that may makechanges.

I do not want to run the risk of find-ing out what kind of citizenship I have.I think I already know. Is that good? Isthat bad? How do I live with it? I dealtwith it. I worked my way up the sys-tem and became a member of the U.S.Congress. Sometimes I try to do a pret-ty good job at it.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is importantto note that this amendment todayspeaks to the fact that so many of uswho left the island did so as a result ofa relationship between the U.S. andPuerto Rico, a relationship that start-ed off with a military invasion andwhich, at this date, has not ended withanything which brings either independ-ence or statehood.

Puerto Rico remains in limbo, and,as Puerto Rico remains in limbo andwe try to solve that situation by bring-ing forth this bill, then I continue toput before you that this vote belongsto all of the children of that colony, allof the children of that territory. Yes, Iam affected by the results of that vote.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that ev-eryone takes the lead of the gentlemanfrom Alaska (Chairman YOUNG), andaccepts this amendment without avote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-ance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section2(b) of House Resolution 376, it is nowin order to consider amendment 2printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

AMENDMENT NO. 2 OFFERED BY MR. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I offerAmendment No. 2.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des-ignate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as fol-lows:

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. SERRANO:In section 5(a), add at the end the following

paragraph:(3) UNITED STATES CITIZENS BORN IN PUERTO

RICO ELIGIBLE TO VOTE.—Notwithstandingparagraphs (1) and (2), an individual residingoutside of Puerto Rico shall be eligible tovote in the referenda held under this Act ifthat individual—

(A) is a United States citizen because ofthat individual’s birth in Puerto Rico; and

(B) would be eligible to vote in suchreferenda but for that individual’s residencyoutside of Puerto Rico.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to therule, consideration of this amendmentand any amendments thereto shall notexceed 1 hour.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SERRANO) for 5minutes in support of his amendment.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Ihave a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate it.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, willI still be able to offer my substituteamendment after the gentleman from

New York (Mr. SERRANO) finishes withhis amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Illinois may offer his amendmentat any time during the pendency of theamendment offered by the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SERRANO).

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman,there is not a limit of time anymorefor amendments?

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of-fered pursuant to the rule by the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. SERRANO)will be pending for no longer than onehour. At any point during that pend-ency, the gentleman from Illinois mayoffer his substitute.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, fur-ther parliamentary inquiry. I hadasked earlier of the Chairman if Iwould be guaranteed an opportunity tooffer my amendment, and the Chair-man said yes. I hope that that will stillstand.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentlemanfrom Illinois offering his amendmentat this time?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I do not think Ican proceed. The gentleman is amend-ing his amendment, am I correct?

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, if thegentleman will yield, if I may, I wouldlike to clarify this unique rule, wherewe debated my amendment before I of-ficially presented it. Is that correct?

The CHAIRMAN. The last period ofdebate was general debate on the sub-ject matter of the amendment of thegentleman from New York (Mr.SERRANO). Now the gentleman has of-fered his amendment, and it is in orderfor a substitute amendment to be of-fered for the gentleman’s amendment.AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GUTIERREZ AS A

SUBSTITUTE FOR THE AMENDMENT OFFEREDBY MR. SERRANO.Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I

offer an amendment as a substitute forthe amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. GUTIERREZ as a

substitute for the amendment offered by Mr.SERRANO:

In section 5(a), add at the end the followingnew paragraph:

(3) ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE.—Notwithstandingparagraphs (1) and (2), an individual residingoutside of Puerto rico shall be eligible tovote in the referenda held under this Act ifthat individual—

(A) is a United States citizen because ofthat individual’s birth in Puerto Rico, orsatisfies requirements that shall be pre-scribed by the Electoral Commission ofPuerto Rico (which shall include methods,provisions to include Puerto Ricans whohave at least one parent who was born inPuerto Rico) for registering and voting inabsentia in referenda held under this Act;and

(B) would be eligible to vote in suchreferenda but for that individual’s residencyoutside of Puerto Rico.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objectionthe substitute was entertained prior tothe 5 minute speech on the underlyingamendment by the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. SERRANO). The gen-tleman from New York is now recog-nized for 5 minutes on the underlying

amendment, after which it will be inorder for the gentleman from Illinois(Mr. GUTIERREZ) to proceed for 5 min-utes on the substitute.

There was no objection.

b 1800

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I wantto reiterate the fact that when the gen-tleman from Alaska (Chairman YOUNG)accepted my amendment, and as weheard, he spoke in favor of that amend-ment, he did it with the full under-standing that what he was acceptingwas an amendment that he could notonly explain but that both of us couldactually argue in favor of, withoutanyone being able to raise any ques-tions about it.

Both the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.YOUNG) and I have had concerns waybefore this about who constituted andwhat constituted the body of PuertoRicans that should vote.

I repeat once more, I personallywould have wanted to include everyonethat the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.GUTIERREZ) would like to include. Butthe fact of life is that that amendment,bringing it to that point, would havehad very little support not only incommittee, in negotiations, but on theHouse floor. I feel that my amendmentaccomplishes 95 percent of the missionthat we set out years ago to accom-plish, which was to enlarge the voteand bring in more Puerto Ricans intothis decision-making process.

I understand clearly my colleague,my brother, the gentleman from Chi-cago, my fellow Puerto Rican brotherfrom Chicago’s desire to include morepeople. I had to explain to my son whymy amendment did not include him.But I feel confident that I can explainit, as I have here today, and I feel con-fident that if we move forward with theamendment as is, that we will in factallow for a large body of people whowould be affected directly to partici-pate.

What we need to do here today is todo whatever we have to do, but not putinto jeopardy the underlying amend-ment which is accepted by ChairmanYOUNG. In other words, in proposingany other amendment to my amend-ment, please keep in mind that wecould throw out everything that wehave gained up to this moment.

So I respect the amendment before usnow, but I would hope that in no waythis amendment takes away the impor-tance of the underlying amendment,and I would hope that the gentlemanfrom Chicago would actually considerretiring his amendment in favor of theone we have worked on for so long.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Illinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ) is recog-nized for 5 minutes on his substituteamendment.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman,first let me say to my good and distin-guished friend, the gentleman fromNew York, that I would not offer thisamendment if I thought it was frivo-lous, if I thought it was silly, if I

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH818 March 4, 1998thought it was somehow just some-thing that I woke up in the morningand thought it was the right thing todo. No, I say to the gentleman fromNew York, I think this amendment isvery appropriate.

But I want to thank the gentleman.He has been here for a long time. Iwent to a hearing back in New Yorkwhen the gentleman first got elected toCongress, and I traveled from Chicagoto New York City, and I remember thegentleman was chairing that meeting.The interesting thing about that meet-ing that the gentleman from New York(Mr. SERRANO) was chairing was that itwas bilingual, it was both in Englishand Spanish, something unfortunatelythat these proceedings are not, becausehe wished at that time for everybodyto understand, because I know that thegentleman understood that PuertoRicans spoke Spanish and that wastheir language.

So we do not do that for that pur-pose. I will say one thing, we will askfor a vote on this, but we will ask fora voice vote on this amendment. Wewill ask—I told the gentleman fromNew York when we were in the backthat I would do that, that I would askfor a voice vote, so we can debate it.

Now, having said that, and I hope anytrepidation that the fine gentlemanfrom New York might have that wecould somehow stir this away, becausethe gentleman feels he has it, and Ihope that at least, I really, sincerelyhope that we get at least what the gen-tleman wants. Let me now refer back.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is interest-ing. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr.YOUNG) said something that was reallyinteresting. He said that when it cameto Puerto Rico, they were born there. Ido not remember that in Alaska welooked for former Alaskans that got tovote whether Alaska should become aState. I do not remember that welooked for everybody born in Hawaii inorder for Hawaiians to make a decisionwhether we should become a State, orthat we looked for former people thatmay have even fought at the Alamo be-fore we said that those are all the peo-ple from Texas, before they become aState.

But we are doing it, and rightfullyso, for the people of Puerto Rico, be-cause it is a Nation and it is different.That is why, I say to the gentlemanfrom Alaska (Mr. YOUNG), by his verywords, I continue to tell him, he can-not treat this merely as a territory, asanother group of people, some chattelthat happened to have come to theUnited States because of a victory dur-ing the Spanish-American war. It is apeople, it is a Nation, and we should becareful and diligent in ensuring that aswe proceed, we make sure that the de-cisions that we make are going to begood for all of us. That is why I suggestthat we extend the amendment.

What does my amendment do? Myamendment says the following. Let meexplain it as simply as I can say it.See, the gentleman from New York

(Mr. JOSE SERRANO), if he has a broth-er, because his parents moved to theUnited States of America from the na-tion of Puerto Rico, his brother’s birthcertificate says the same mom, samedad, Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico, just ashis, except, of course, his would havebeen in the Bronx, maybe his brother,and his would have been in PuertoRico. So you would have two brotherswho have an exact same claim, andusing your very expressions, that theycame here because of political persecu-tion, the one brother who came herebecause of political persecution andmay have returned and be living inPuerto Rico today, something that thegentleman from New York (Mr.SERRANO) has decided not to do, hemay be living there today, right? Wecannot figure this out.

So I am simply saying, let the fam-ily, and I know that the gentlemanfrom Alaska (Mr. YOUNG) said thatevery cousin, uncle, but no, that is notwhat I am saying. In my family, I mar-ried Soraida and she has 14 brothersand sisters. Nine of them were born onthe island of Puerto Rico. Because ofeconomic and social conditions, thenine of them moved with mom and dadto Chicago. The other five subse-quently were born. Their birth certifi-cates are identical. They are PuertoRican nationals, both born in PuertoRico. The only difference is five birthcertificates say Cook County. So wecan prove it.

It is not like I am saying anybody. Inorder to vote, you have to have a birthcertificate, and where it says ‘‘Momborn in Puerto Rico, dad born in Puer-to Rico,’’ you get to vote; not the chil-dren, not like my daughter and thechildren of other generations. Just sothat those generations, that immediategeneration that has such close ties canvote. Let me just tell the Memberswhy. Many Puerto Ricans move backto the island of Puerto Rico.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment tothe amendment makes the amendmenteven less acceptable. Let us thinkabout what would happen. A personborn in Puerto Rico, but his parentswere there because they were on a con-tract working for 5 years from theState of Wisconsin, and they have twochildren born in Puerto Rico duringthose 5 years, then they move back toWisconsin. They never go back to Puer-to Rico. The children never go to Puer-to Rico. They never learn Spanish.They would be qualified to vote underthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. SERRANO).

However, somebody born in PuertoRico, or somebody born in New York,and at an early age his parents got di-vorced and somehow he ended up backin Puerto Rico living with his grand-parents, or aunt and uncle, and he grewup in Puerto Rico, and he got marriedin Puerto Rico, went to school in Puer-to Rico, got married in Puerto Rico, hehad children in Puerto Rico, and then

he got a good job in Pennsylvania so hemoved to Pennsylvania.

Now he is living in Pennsylvania, andhe is planning in 20 years, he is goingto go back to Puerto Rico, but he hasnot demonstrated it, he is just think-ing about it. He cannot vote, becausehe was born in New York, not in PuertoRico. Yet, he has much more relation-ship with Puerto Rico, much moreemotional attachments with PuertoRico than the one that was born thereand obviously now lives in Wisconsinand is not even concerned about PuertoRico. Yet the other one can vote. Sothat could bring constitutional chal-lenges to this vote.

The way that the gentleman from Il-linois is proposing, then that multi-plies, that kind of situation, with theparents and the children and the grand-children. If you have the children ofthose who were born in Puerto Rico,then you get somebody who was bornin Puerto Rico and moved to theUnited States and he is living some-where else, in Wisconsin, Wyoming, inIowa, and his sons were born over thereand they were raised over there, theyhave never been in Puerto Rico, andthey can vote in Puerto Rico becauseone of their parents was born in PuertoRico? This is just carrying the thing toan absurdity.

These people who have no attach-ments to Puerto Rico, either emotion-ally or otherwise, would be allowed tovote and change the results of the voteto be held in Puerto Rico. That is whyI think we have to oppose this. Itwould set a tremendous precedent.

They say, well, this is not an elec-tion. Right, this is not an election toelect a Governor or to elect a can-didate, candidates to come to theHouse or the Senate. No. But then thisis a referendum. Now, if that precedentwas established, it would mean that inTexas or in Maine or in Illinois or inCalifornia, if there is a referendum andthere is an amendment to the Constitu-tion, and those that were born in thatState are living somewhere else, thenthey should also be allowed to vote inthat referendum. That might changethe situation in their State where theyare from, where they have family.

We have established rules of law.Only those that are U.S. citizens andwho have residence in the place wherethey are, they are allowed to vote.Those Puerto Ricans who cannot votein Puerto Rico in national electionswhen they move to a State, then theyacquired residency in the State andthen they can vote in the national elec-tions for the President, they can votefor Congressmen, they can vote for aSenator, they can vote for Governor,they can vote for the State legislature,they can vote for mayors. They have afull vote.

We cannot vote in their States. Wecannot vote in anything that affectsthem, and we have family and relativesin the States. We cannot vote in theirStates, even though we feel attach-ments to something that may affect

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H819March 4, 1998them, but they can vote in PuertoRico.

That is a very, very, very bad prece-dent. As I said, I hate to oppose theproposal offered by the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. SERRANO), because hehas worked so strongly on this bill,like we all have, and he is a goodfriend, and I know he sincerely believesin this. He is emotional about it. Butthis is my conviction. I have worked,when I started in politics, I was work-ing in my party within electoral af-fairs, and I know the impossibility ofputting this into effect.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ac-knowledge the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. SERRANO) for his leadershipon this issue. This amendment, theGutierrez amendment, builds on his ex-cellent work. The Gutierrez amend-ment to the amendment offered by thegentleman from New York (Mr.SERRANO) would allow all PuertoRicans to participate in this historicplebiscite.

The problem that the gentlemanfrom Puerto Rico has, it seems like hedoes not understand, this is about self-determination. This is not about aState election. We know that the peo-ple from New York have to vote on anyelection in New York and that theycannot vote on any election that takesplace in Pennsylvania.

But this is not about any State elec-tion, this is about the political futureof Puerto Rico. In fact, we PuertoRicans, we are only 3 million PuertoRicans in the United States. For themost part Puerto Ricans have not par-ticipated in the electoral process herein the United States. Because of theclose ties that they still have withPuerto Rico, they follow more closelythe political situation in Puerto Ricothan they do in terms of what is goingon in the United States.

So it is important that PuertoRicans in Puerto Rico participate andthe Puerto Ricans in the mainland andtheir children participate. Some ofthem are here because they left the is-land because of economic reasons.Some Puerto Ricans are here not be-cause they wanted to be here, but be-cause of political persecution. If that isthe case, they are entitled to have asay in this self-determination process.

It will be unfair to deny it, to the en-tire Puerto Rican community, to par-ticipate in this process. We are a na-tion. The United States recognizes thatPuerto Rico is a nation, that what hap-pens there affects us, and this is an im-portant process for all the PuertoRicans here and in Puerto Rico.

I would say, I would urge my col-leagues to allow this to be a fair proc-ess for all Puerto Rican Americans liv-ing in Puerto Rico and in the main-land. They should have a right to de-termine the political future of PuertoRico. At least let us make this legisla-tion better by allowing them to par-

ticipate in the final outcome of PuertoRico.

b 1815

This is a legislation that has beendrafted so that we push one side of thepolitical formulas in Puerto Rico. It isa legislation that supports statehoodfor Puerto Rico.

Allow all Puerto Ricans to partici-pate and to say ‘‘no’’ to statehood and‘‘yes’’ to the democratic process.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, willthe gentleman yield?

Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gen-tleman from Illinois.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman from New York(Mr. SOLOMON) very much for yieldingme this time.

Mr. Chairman, let us think aboutthis a moment. We want all the peopleto be able to participate in this processthat can participate in this process. Ithink we all really want that. Thinkabout it one moment. Someone is bornon the island. They spend 30 yearsthere. They move because of economicreasons. They do not get to vote. But ifthey show up on the island 3 monthsbefore the elections, register there andhave no emotional tie until their nextpromotion or their next job transfer,they get to determine the future ofthat island.

Mr. Chairman, think about it. Thinkabout it. Mr. Chairman, I say to thegentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. RO-MERO-BARCELO), the Resident Commis-sioner who is an ardent strong sup-porter of statehood, that I would thinkhe would wish to cherish the fact thatpeople born on the island of PuertoRico who live in the United States ofAmerica, and who live statehood andwho understand statehood, would be al-lowed to participate because he is suchan ardent supporter of statehood. Andsince they live in a State, it seems tome they would be voting for statehoodbecause that is what they want, be-cause they already live in a State andthey want everything that he alreadywants for the people of Puerto Rico.

Why deny those very Puerto Ricansborn on that island the opportunity toparticipate when they live in theUnited States already in a State andunderstand this better? Let us bringthe community together. Let us bringus all together, because I think thatthat is what is really vitally impor-tant.

Mr. Chairman, I stand here today tospeak for the 100,000-plus PuertoRicans that live in my district in Chi-cago who really want to participate inthis process.

Let me end by saying that I thinkthe work that the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. SERRANO) has done hasraised a lot of other issues. We will dis-agree, however, and I must state this,that it is not statutory. That the 14thAmendment of our Constitution applies

to the gentleman, applies to all ofthose Puerto Ricans, and that weshould not use any tactics in order todo that.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I wouldlike to ask that if there is no objection,that we vote on my amendment to theSerrano amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Illinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ)as a substitute for the amendment of-fered by the gentleman from New York(Mr. SERRANO).

The amendment offered as a sub-stitute for the amendment was re-jected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. SERRANO).

The question was taken; and theChairman announced that the ayes ap-peared to have it.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I de-mand a recorded vote, and pending thatI make the point of order that aquorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. Evidently, aquorum is not present.

Pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, theChair announces that he will reduce toa minimum of 5 minutes the period oftime within which a vote by electronicdevice, if ordered, will be taken on thepending question following the quorumcall. Members will record their pres-ence by electronic device.

The call was taken by electronic de-vice.

The following Members responded totheir names:

[Roll No. 31]

ANSWERED ‘‘PRESENT’’—405

AbercrombieAckermanAderholtAllenAndrewsArmeyBachusBaeslerBakerBaldacciBallengerBarciaBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBecerraBentsenBereuterBermanBerryBilbrayBilirakisBishopBlagojevichBlileyBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBoehnerBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBradyBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)Bryant

BunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCanadyCannonCardinCarsonCastleChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenClayClaytonClementClyburnCobleCoburnCollinsCombestConditConyersCookCookseyCostelloCoxCoyneCramerCraneCrapoCummingsCunninghamDannerDavis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis (VA)DealDeGette

DelahuntDeLauroDeLayDeutschDiaz-BalartDickeyDicksDixonDoggettDoyleDreierDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEngelEnglishEnsignEshooEtheridgeEvansEverettEwingFarrFattahFawellFazioFilnerFoleyForbesFordFossellaFowlerFoxFranks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrostFurseGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGephardt

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH820 March 4, 1998GibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGrangerGreenGreenwoodGutierrezGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HamiltonHansenHastertHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHefnerHergerHillHillearyHilliardHincheyHobsonHoekstraHoldenHooleyHornHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJenkinsJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson, E.B.Johnson, SamJonesKanjorskiKapturKasichKellyKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKimKind (WI)King (NY)KingstonKleczkaKlinkKlugKnollenbergKolbeKucinichLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLantosLargentLathamLazioLeachLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLivingstonLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucasMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)

MantonManzulloMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcDermottMcGovernMcHaleMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMetcalfMicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller (CA)Miller (FL)MingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMoran (KS)Moran (VA)MorellaMurthaMyrickNadlerNealNethercuttNeumannNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensOxleyPackardPallonePappasParkerPascrellPastorPaulPaxonPaynePeasePelosiPeterson (MN)PetriPickeringPickettPittsPomboPomeroyPorterPortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRahallRamstadRangelRedmondRegulaReyesRileyRiversRodriguezRoemerRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRothman

RoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRushRyunSaboSalmonSanchezSandersSandlinSanfordSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchaffer, BobScottSensenbrennerSerranoSessionsShadeggShawShaysShermanShusterSisiskySkaggsSkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (OR)Smith (TX)Smith, AdamSmith, LindaSnowbargerSnyderSolomonSouderSpenceSprattStabenowStarkStearnsStenholmStokesStricklandStumpStupakSununuTalentTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)ThomasThompsonThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrtTierneyTownsTraficantTurnerUptonVelazquezVentoViscloskyWalshWampWatersWatkinsWatt (NC)Watts (OK)WaxmanWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWexlerWeygandWhiteWhitfieldWickerWiseWolfWoolseyWynnYatesYoung (AK)Young (FL)

b 1837

The CHAIRMAN. Four hundred fiveMembers have answered to their name,

a quorum is present, and the commit-tee will resume its business.

RECORDED VOTE

The pending business is the demandof the gentleman from New York (Mr.SOLOMON) for a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-

minute vote.The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were—ayes 57, noes 356,not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 32]

AYES—57

AckermanBlagojevichBoniorBrown (CA)CarsonCoxDavis (IL)DelahuntDeLauroDiaz-BalartEngelFurseGejdensonGilmanGutierrezHincheyHoyerJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)

JeffersonJohnson (CT)Johnson, E. B.Kennedy (MA)KennellyLewis (GA)Maloney (CT)MarkeyMcGovernMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeeks (NY)MenendezMiller (CA)MoakleyNadlerNealObeyOlver

OwensPallonePastorPayneRangelRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRushSandersSerranoShaysTierneyTownsVelazquezWatersWellerWynnYoung (AK)

NOES—356

AbercrombieAderholtAllenAndrewsArcherArmeyBachusBaeslerBakerBaldacciBallengerBarciaBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBecerraBentsenBereuterBermanBerryBilbrayBilirakisBishopBlileyBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBradyBrown (FL)Brown (OH)BryantBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCanadyCannonCardinCastleChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenClay

ClaytonClementClyburnCobleCoburnCollinsCombestConditConyersCookCookseyCostelloCoyneCramerCraneCrapoCubinCummingsCunninghamDannerDavis (FL)Davis (VA)DealDeFazioDeGetteDeLayDeutschDickeyDicksDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEnsignEshooEtheridgeEvansEverettEwingFarrFattahFawellFazioFilnerFoleyForbesFordFossellaFowlerFox

Frank (MA)FrelinghuysenFrostGalleglyGanskeGephardtGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGrangerGreenGreenwoodGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HamiltonHansenHastertHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHefnerHergerHillHillearyHilliardHinojosaHobsonHoekstraHoldenHooleyHornHostettlerHoughtonHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJenkinsJohnJohnson (WI)Johnson, SamJonesKanjorskiKapturKasichKellyKennedy (RI)Kildee

KimKind (WI)King (NY)KingstonKleczkaKlinkKlugKnollenbergKolbeKucinichLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLantosLargentLathamLazioLeachLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLivingstonLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucasMaloney (NY)MantonManzulloMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcDermottMcHaleMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcIntyreMcKeonMeek (FL)MetcalfMicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller (FL)MingeMinkMollohanMoran (KS)Moran (VA)MorellaMurthaMyrickNethercutt

NeumannNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOberstarOrtizOxleyPackardPappasParkerPascrellPaulPaxonPeasePelosiPeterson (MN)PetriPickeringPickettPittsPomboPomeroyPorterPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRahallRamstadRedmondRegulaReyesRiggsRileyRiversRodriguezRoemerRoganRogersRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRyunSaboSalmonSanchezSandlinSanfordSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchaffer, BobScottSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawShermanShuster

SisiskySkaggsSkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (OR)Smith (TX)Smith, AdamSmith, LindaSnowbargerSnyderSolomonSouderSpenceSprattStabenowStarkStearnsStenholmStokesStricklandStumpStupakSununuTalentTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)ThomasThompsonThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrtTraficantTurnerUptonVentoViscloskyWalshWampWatkinsWatt (NC)Watts (OK)WaxmanWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WexlerWeygandWhiteWhitfieldWickerWiseWolfWoolseyYatesYoung (FL)

NOT VOTING—17

DingellDoolittleFranks (NJ)GekasGonzalezHarman

KilpatrickLaTouretteLutherPeterson (PA)PortmanPoshard

Schaefer, DanSchiffSchumerShimkusTorres

b 1848

Mr. SNYDER changed his vote from‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

Mr. COX of California changed hisvote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’

So the amendment was rejected.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I was unfor-tunately absent for rollcall votes 28 through32. Had I been present, I would have votedyes on rollcall votes 29 (Burton) and 32(Serrano), no on rollcall votes 28 (Gutierrez)and 30 (Solomon), and present on rollcall vote31, a quorum call.

In particular, I am disappointed that theHouse has silenced the voice of PuertoRicans living on the mainland by denying thema vote in this historic referendum.

If you have ever been to New York City’sPuerto Rican Day Parade, you have seen first-hand the pride that Puerto Ricans living on the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H821March 4, 1998mainland have in their rich heritage. Theirlinks to the island—their economic, cultural,political, and family connections—make themintensely interested in Puerto Rico’s politicalidentity.

The referendum established by H.R. 856 isno typical election. It is the most momentousdecision the people of Puerto Rico have evermade. We should have ensured that all PuertoRicans were able to participate in their peo-ple’s choice.

For that reason, I filed an amendment to ex-pand voting eligibility to all Puerto Ricans liv-ing on the mainland—both those who wereborn on the island and those who have atleast one parent who was born here. Thisamendment was very similar to one offered bymy colleagues Mr. GUTIERREZ and Ms.VELAZQUEZ, which was unfortunately defeatedon a voice vote.

Even with this serious flaw, Mr. Chairman, Istill believe it is important for Congress toallow the people of Puerto Rico to determinetheir own future. For that reason, even thoughthe bill has its shortcomings, I want to give thepeople of Puerto Rico this historic opportunityto determine their own destiny, and am votingin favor of H.R. 856.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, willthe gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to thegentleman from Kentucky.

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

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding tome, and I rise in opposition to H.R. 856.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I do not want the full 5 minutes,but I do want to suggest to the Mem-bers on the floor that it is my inten-tion to entertain the amendments thatwill be offered by the gentleman fromIllinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ) and the gen-tlewoman from New York (Ms.VELAZQUEZ) and that we will roll thevotes until 9 o’clock. At that time, Ihope the gentleman and the gentle-woman, and whoever is offering amend-ments, will have come to a fruition, fi-nalization, of these amendments sothat we can bring this legislation tothe end of the day very quickly.

That is my intent, to have no morevotes until, I believe, 9 o’clock.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, willthe gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to thegentleman from Illinois.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman from Alaska foryielding to me. I want to say twothings on behalf of the gentlewomanfrom New York (Ms. VELAZQUEZ) andmyself.

We do not intend to call for any re-corded votes, at least on our amend-ments, any subsequent recorded voteson our amendments. Just so that thegentleman will know, we will debatethem but not ask for recorded votes onthem, A.

Although we promised the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. SOLOMON) and thegentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.

MOAKLEY) that we would offer no morethan 12, we will offer no more than 5additional amendments.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I thank the gentleman, and Ithank the chairman of the Committeeon Rules.

There will be an amendment offeredby the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.BARR). I understand that will be de-bated. But I would suggest that every-body will have at least an hour if theywish to go to dinner or go to the officeto do some work, and then after 8o’clock all holds are barred and wehope to bring this to finalization by 9o’clock.AMENDMENT NO. 36 OFFERED BY MR. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Ioffer an amendment numbered 36.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des-ignate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as fol-lows:

Amendment number 36 offered by Mr.Gutierrez: At the end of section 2, add thefollowing paragraph:

(16) By providing for the people of PuertoRico to express their preference as to its per-manent political status, Congress is awarethat Puerto Rico is sociologically and cul-turally a Caribbean and Latin-American na-tion, formed by a blend of European, African,and native ethnics with distinctive culturewhich, unlike the several States, has Span-ish as a common language. According to the1990 decennial census of population, only21,000 persons born in the several States livein Puerto Rico.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman,first, before I begin, and I do not knowif we can do something, but I figurewith the will and the ability and theknowledge that the gentleman of NewYork (Mr. SOLOMON) has, and the gen-tleman of California (Mr. MILLER) has,and the goodwill, that we can figuresome way, because they keep referringto all of these amendments as minewhen, indeed, Mr. Chairman, I justwant to make it clear for the recordthat every last amendment is a Gutier-rez-Velazquez amendment.

Apparently, we did not do the rightthing when we introduced them, but ifsomehow along the way that could beclarified, I think that is very impor-tant, because the gentlewoman fromNew York and I are working togetheron each one of these amendments.

I rise to offer my amendment to sec-tion 2 of the bill, the findings section.My amendment adds language to thebill to clarify that Puerto Rico is, in-stead, a nation.

I offer this amendment because Ithink it is very important that boththe people of Puerto Rico and the peo-ple of the United States understandclearly what the United States Con-gress is doing in relation to the peopleof Puerto Rico.

The people of Puerto Rico considerthemselves a nation. I think thatshould be made abundantly clear to allthe Members of this House. They con-sider themselves a nation, a separateand distinct people.

They love their American citizen-ship. Some of my colleagues say that is

a contradiction. That is the contradic-tion we get with colonialism. It is nottheir contradiction. It is a contradic-tion that we have. But everyone shouldunderstand that.

They love their American citizen-ship. But yet if you ask them, whereare you from, they say Puerto Rico,not in the same sense that maybe theChairman, when you say where are youfrom, and he would say from Florida,or I might say from someplace, or thegentleman from New York (Mr. SOLO-MON) might say from New York, fromthe Empire State of New York.

No, I suggest to all of my colleagues,if they go to a Puerto Rican Day cele-bration anywhere in the United Statesof the America, in the United States ofAmerica, you have what you have, andit is the reality. If we walk up to thosepeople and they are celebrating theirnationality, and you say what are you,they say I am Puerto Rican. What areyou? They say, I am Puerto Rican.That is the way they feel.

Then if you ask them, what are youa citizen of? They say the UnitedStates of America. That is the distinctdifference that we must understand.That is why I must offer this amend-ment so that people understand it isnot another territory. It is not anothergroup of people. It is not. It is very dif-ferent and distinct.

I think we should remind ourselves ofthat as we proceed with these delibera-tions. The people of Puerto Rico havean ethnicity, have a language, have aculture. Excuse me, strike the wordethnicity, have an idiosyncracy oftheir own.

There are words in Spanish—(Thegentleman from Illinois spoke in Span-ish). I mean, if you are from Mexico orColombia or from Cuba, they say youare from Puerto Rico—(The gentlemanfrom Illinois spoke in Spanish). That isthe way it works, because those, in-deed, are from here.

We may wish, as my mother manytimes said—(The gentleman from Illi-nois spoke in Spanish), which meansyou may wish to hide yourself from theskies with your hand, but you cannot.

The fact is that Puerto Rico is a na-tion, and we should recognize this herein this bill. It is a nation of people whoare citizens of the United States.

Remember something. PresidentClinton said, oh, but in America, wehave people from Poland, and they arePolish Americans. We have people fromIreland, and they are Irish Americans.We have people from Germany, andthey are German American, and on,and on, and on. He said, we all blendhere together in the United States ofAmerica. That is true.

The difference is, I would say toPresident Clinton, there is a Germany,a Poland, and an Ireland. When youmake Puerto Rico a State, is there aPuerto Rico as a State or as a nation?

Let us understand this is different.All of those people came here as immi-grants to this country with the intentof staying here forever. The people of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH822 March 4, 1998Puerto Rico want to have a special re-lationship with this Nation. Let us tryto see if we cannot do that and achievethat together. I end my comments withthat.

b 1900

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will re-mind all Members that remarks in lan-guages other than English cannot betranscribed by the Official Reporters ofDebate and cannot be printed by theGovernment Printing Office. Membersmay, however, submit translations oftheir remarks in other languages andsuch translations will appear in theRECORD in the distinctive type associ-ated with an extension or revision ofremarks.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, Puerto Rico is a na-tion, a Latin American nation and aCaribbean nation. It is a historicallyconstituted stable ethnic communitywith a common culture, a common his-tory, a common economic life, and itsown language, Spanish. But more im-portantly, there is a common psychol-ogy of a people who are unique in theircustoms, traditions, music and way ofbeing. We call it Boricua. It is unfortu-nate that the sponsors of this bill haveignored this fact.

Puerto Rico has been long recognizedby the courts, Congress and inter-national countries as being a distinctnation. Puerto Rico’s special status asa separate nation under the sov-ereignty of the United States derivesfrom an extensive history of legalprecedents. The Supreme Court recog-nized Puerto Rico as a distinct nationwhen, in the early part of the century,it decided that Puerto Rico was in factan unincorporated territory whichnever intended to become a State. Con-gress recognized Puerto Rico as a dis-tinct Nation in 1917 when it extendedU.S. citizenship to Puerto Rican na-tionals.

This is a national issue which dealswith the rights of the Puerto Rican na-tion to self-determination. The islandexisted as its own nation well beforethey were annexed in 1898 by theUnited States. The people of PuertoRico who are the subject of this pend-ing legislation already consider them-selves a nation and are in fact a nationwho are not willing to renounce theirown culture, their own heritage and,most of all, their own language inorder to join the Union.

Our amendment to the ‘‘findings’’section makes Congress aware thatPuerto Rico is sociologically and cul-turally a Caribbean and Latin Amer-ican nation. It is made up of people ofEuropean, African and nativeethnicities with a distinct culturewhich, unlike several States, has Span-ish as a common language.

I would like to correct the gentlemanfrom Puerto Rico who said that we em-braced the English language in 1902.No, that was not so. Let us set the

record straight. English was imposedupon the people of Puerto Rico in 1902and still to this day, even with thatimposition, the large majority of thepeople of Puerto Rico do not speakEnglish.

Mr. Chairman, Puerto Ricans arevery proud of their cultural heritageand of their Puerto Rican nationalidentity. This pride for the homelandtranscends barriers and oceans. AsPuerto Ricans leave the island, theytake with them the intense pride theyfeel for their nation. Puerto Rico, thenation, shares common geographicalspaces, a long history, its own eco-nomic life and its very distinct Carib-bean, Latin American culture, butabove all a common language, Spanish.Puerto Ricans have been speakingSpanish for 500 years, the first 100under Spanish rule and the last cen-tury under American rule. Its closestneighbors in the Caribbean all speakSpanish.

Language, history and culture aredistinct characteristics that all pointto Puerto Rico being a nation. Thisamendment will make Congress appre-ciate and adopt that reality. I urge mycolleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I move to strike the requisitenumber of words.

Mr. Chairman, I want to define theword ‘‘nation’’. It has several mean-ings, but the meaning that is acceptedthroughout the world and the meaningwe first find in the dictionary is a self-containing body politic that has a rela-tionship with other countries and othernations and has representation inworldwide organizations.

Puerto Rico is not a nation. PuertoRico is a community. That we are defi-nitely, a community, a communitythat has its own characteristics likecommunities throughout the world andcommunities throughout this Nationhave their characteristics. Our lan-guage is Spanish. But we also are ableto speak English.

Everyone in Puerto Rico recognizesthe importance of English. We not onlyrecognize it in Puerto Rico, I think thewhole world recognizes it. A group ofmembers of the Hispanic Caucus wentover to Spain recently, 5 of us, on atrip, a good will trip. We had meetingswith the King and the President, thePresident of the Chamber of Deputies,the President of the Senate. One thingwe realized in Spain is that they studyEnglish from the first grade on, andthey accept and they realize thatEnglish is the lingua franca. Through-out the world, everyone is coming torecognize that.

At home, when I was governor, I vis-ited every single high school in PuertoRico. When I asked them about theissues, the students that stood up, theyalways infallibly, the students, the par-ents, the teachers said that they want-ed to have better opportunities to learnEnglish. That was in every high schoolin Puerto Rico.

If you pick up a newspaper in PuertoRico, in the job offers on Sunday, 90

percent or more of the job offers say bi-lingual, bilingual, bilingual. Everyonerealizes that they have to speakEnglish. There is no resentmentagainst English. On the contrary.

When they talk about this Nation,there is no such thing as a nation inPuerto Rico. We are a community. Wehave no international standing. We arepart of the United States. It was men-tioned a little while ago, the IrishAmericans, the English Americans, theItalian Americans, the French Ameri-cans, but the Puerto Ricans are PuertoRicans. Do Texans call themselvesTexan Americans or Californian Amer-icans or New Yorker Americans? No,they are New Yorkers, Texans, Califor-nians, and we are Puerto Ricans, be-cause we are part of the Nation.

Part of our culture is the Americandemocracy and the values for which itstands. That is what the people ofPuerto Rico and everyone has acceptedhere, they realize it, they want theirU.S. citizenship, and they will notchange their U.S. citizenship for any-thing and they will not trade it, theywill not accept anything else.

Some of them might be misguided asto what it means to be a U.S. citizenand might not realize that they do nothave all the privileges and all therights and all the responsibilities thatother citizens do. But one thing thepeople want to do, they want to be self-supporting and we want to pay into thefiscal system and share alike, likebrothers and sisters, with the rest ofour citizens.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I move to strike the requisitenumber of words, and I rise in opposi-tion to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, our two colleagues insupport of their amendment described,I think accurately, a history of PuertoRico but they did not accurately de-scribe the nation. It is that history,that is the reason why we are heretoday, so that the people of PuertoRico can freely and openly choose thestatus which they desire. Because ofthat history, because of how this rela-tionship has evolved, that is why weare here today, to pass this legislationand then the people in Puerto Rico canmake the decision about their status. Ioppose this amendment.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr.Chairman, I move to strike the req-uisite number of words.

(Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania askedand was given permission to revise andextend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr.Chairman, I rise in opposition to theamendment. I think it arises out of thejustified pride of the authors, but I donot think we need to really define herethe nationhood of Puerto Rico. Thereal issue before us is Puerto Ricanself-determination. I strongly supportthe underlying bill, H.R. 856, whichwould allow us to move forward andallow Puerto Rico to make a strongand clear decision on its own destiny.

Since the founding of our Nation, the con-cept of self-determination has been a central

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H823March 4, 1998value of how we define ourselves as Ameri-cans and what we expect of other nations. Asour Nation has grown, we have championedthese values abroad. Today, we ask the de-veloping democracies in Eastern Europe andthe former Soviet Union to empower their citi-zens. We demand similar rights for commu-nities like Taiwan and Tibet where the nationalright of self-determination has been chal-lenged. We confront those nations like NorthKorea and Cuba that actively repress the nat-ural right of self-determination by their owncitizens.

I believe that we must now extend thissame principle to Puerto Rico, a territory ofthe United States since 1917 and a common-wealth since 1952. As a commonwealth, thecitizens of Puerto Rico exist in political twilight.They are not incorporated as a U.S. State andare not represented in Congress as such. But,they do not exist as a separate nation either.The U.S. flag proudly flies over San Juan andits citizens have fought alongside of us in war.

Today, the U.S. House of Representativeshas an historic opportunity to express howmuch we appreciate the rich and positive con-tributions by the citizens of Puerto Rico. I sin-cerely believe we are a better nation due totheir presence. To show our gratitude and ourrespect, we must pass H.R. 856. The legisla-tion provides a non-biased, three-way ballotallowing the residents of Puerto Rico tochoose between the current commonwealthstatus which is not permanent or to move to-wards independence or statehood. It is impor-tant to note that this bill does not create a self-executing process towards statehood. I alsowant to emphasize that the U.S. Congresswould be the ultimate authority in decidingwhether to ratify a possible choice of state-hood by the citizens of Puerto Rico.

I join House Resources Committee Chair-man DON YOUNG and the bill’s bipartisan list ofcosponsors in support of the referendum sinceit serves the national interest and begins theend to Puerto Rico’s ambiguous territory sta-tus. Historically, the United States has ad-vanced democratic self-determination proce-dures in its territories on terms acceptable tothe U.S. Congress. The referenda enabled theresidents to achieve the equality of full citizen-ship, through either statehood or independ-ence. Since World War II, Congress has ful-filled this responsibility with respect to the Phil-ippines, Hawaii and Alaska, but not with re-spect to Puerto Rico—the largest and mostpopulous U.S. territory.

Much confusion and misinformation hasbeen deliberately raised by the bills opponentsin hopes of dooming its passage. If you listento the opponents of H.R. 856 and those whooppose a fully self-governing Puerto Rico, theywould have you believe that this bill is a voteon statehood. Nothing could be further fromthe truth. Chairman DON YOUNG, the primaryauthor of the bill, went to great lengths tomake any change in Puerto Rico’s politicalstatus gradual and subject to terms acceptableto Congress.

As the United States strives to uphold theresponsibility of being a beacon of democracy,we must undo the last vestiges of colonialism.After 100 years since Puerto Rico joined us inassociation, the United States should let thepeople of Puerto Rico exercise the liberty andindependence of decision that our flag rep-resents.

The time to do the right thing is now. Wecannot forget that 3.8 million citizens—the

residents of Puerto Rico—have second-classstatus within our democracy. I call on my col-leagues to support H.R. 856, the UnitedStates-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, and torespect the rights of the people of PuertoRico.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I move to strike the requisitenumber of words. The hour is gettinglate and it gets more difficult to par-ticipate.

I oppose this amendment, as PuertoRico is not a nation. This bill will en-able Puerto Rico to become a nation asa separate sovereignty if a majority ofthe U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico vote tobe independent. This provision is po-tentially confusing and should not beaccepted, and I oppose the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Illinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ).

The amendment was rejected.AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offeran amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. STEARNS: In

paragraph (2) of section 5(c)—(1) strike ‘‘sovereignty or statehood, there

is’’ and insert the following (and adjust themargins accordingly):sovereignty or statehood—

(A) there is(2) strike the period at the end and insert

‘‘; and’’; and(3) add at the end the following new sub-

paragraph:(B) not later than 90 days after such

referenda, there shall be a second referen-dum held in accordance with this Act whichshall be on the approval of 1 of the 2 optionswhich received the most votes in the firstreferendum. Such 2 options shall be pre-sented on the ballot using the same languageand in the same manner as they were pre-sented in the first referendum.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, Iwanted the amendment to be read be-cause a lot of Members will not knowwhat it is about and I thought theycould hear the amendment itself. Basi-cally, this is an amendment to providefor a runoff referendum if the first ref-erendum required in the bill does notresult in a 50 plus percent vote forindependence or statehood. My amend-ment is a simple method of improvingH.R. 856 to make the self-determina-tion process more fair for the PuertoRican people.

My amendment seeks to abbreviatethis self-determination process byholding a runoff referendum no morethan 90 days after the first referendum.Because there would be only twochoices at this point, voters could moreeasily achieve a binding majority votefor statehood, commonwealth, or inde-pendence in my proposed runoff. Such aprocess would avoid the lengthy proc-ess we have in the bill.

Let us review this again. First,should the runoff referendum result ina majority for one of the 3 processes,yet it did not have a full 51 percent,then we would have another election,90 days later, and the top 2 would bevoted on to see which one would be the

winner. The runoff would serve to coa-lesce the interests of the voters be-cause those who first voted for thethird option would then be forced tovote for the first or second options inthe runoff. This knowledge of PuertoRico’s preference on the issues couldhelp us here in Congress tailor futurereferenda to their preferences.

I am introducing this amendment toH.R. 856 because I think it is importantto expedite the process. What the cur-rent polls show is that 45 percent of thePuerto Rican voters support common-wealth and only 35 percent supportstatehood. Nevertheless, should PuertoRico choose commonwealth, H.R. 856mandates continued referenda until ei-ther statehood or independence gainsthe majority.

Would it not be nice within 90 daysafter the first referendum to have thetop two voter preferences voted againand we decide immediately what thePuerto Rican voters support? Theywould be subjected to the same thingwe have here in Congress. When peoplerun for Congress during the primary,the first two in the primary run for afinal runoff before the general election.Why keep having the same vote overand over on such a protracted timeframe? In the alternative, why not con-sider the desires of the Puerto Ricanswhen allowing them to hold futurevotes and tailor future referenda toachieve a concrete result?

Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeksto abbreviate the lengthy process out-lined in the bill and to clarify imme-diately, within 90 days, the desires ofthe Puerto Rican people for futurereferenda, both through a runoff ref-erendum in 90 days. Supporting thisamendment will produce an improvedbill for Puerto Rico’s self-determina-tion. I urge my colleagues to supportmy amendment.

b 1915.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I rise in opposition to the amend-ment.

Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused,because we have heard a lot of debatetoday about the Congress forcing peo-ple to do things, and I am afraid thatwhat this will do is put the pressure ontwo groups to have the vote within 90days. To my knowledge, this never hap-pened in any other case in the UnitedStates if there was not a majority. Infact, there have been other areas thatdid not have a majority, and they hadto wait and wait and wait until theydid it again. I am a little confused whyit is necessary to do this on this bill.

It is very clear in my bill, it says youhave to have a majority. The gen-tleman from Georgia (Mr. BARR) willoffer an amendment that I will not sup-port that wants a super majority. Thissays we are going to have a vote on thetwo top ones in 90 days.

This adds confusion to the bill and isnot necessary. I reluctantly oppose theamendment. I just heard about it, andthe gentleman talked to me a moment

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH824 March 4, 1998ago, and I do not really know what it isgoing to try to accomplish, so I do op-pose the amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure thatthis approach works. I think afterlooking at a number of different ap-proaches, the committee decided thatall three options ought to be on theballot; that the people, given the polit-ical cultural history of people on theislands, they ought to be able to ex-press it along those lines.

I am sure there are many people thatmight vote for independence, whichhistorically has been the third partyout. The notion of a runoff to many ofthese people, that is not an option tothem. They would not go from inde-pendence to saying they are looking forstatehood. It does not work.

This is a political process where peo-ple have very, very strong convictions.We may want to transport the main-land system, where people kind of wan-der around between Republicans andDemocrats and different options and donot seem to hold the same kind of con-victions. On this issue, people havevery strongly held positions, and thefact that you lose the runoff does notmean you then convert that positionimmediately to one of the other op-tions, because that is not how your po-litical positions have evolved or havebeen articulated over the many yearsof this relationship.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, willthe gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of California. I yield tothe gentleman from Florida.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, for ex-ample, let us say it turns out common-wealth gets 46 percent, statehood gets43 percent, and the remaining goes fora sovereign nation. Then you wouldhave the runoff of the commonwealthand the statehood. Those people whobelieve in independence would probablysupport Commonwealth, and it wouldmove to probably 53 or 54 percent. Sothen we in Congress would know imme-diately that they prefer the common-wealth or independence alternativerather than statehood.

I think that information is very im-portant for the people in Puerto Ricoto know and important for Members ofCongress to know when we determinewhether this country should move for-ward to statehood. It is another criti-cal piece of information. It gives de-mocracy a chance to work, and givesthe people who support independencean opportunity to vote again.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, reclaiming my time, I am notsure that is a real option to many ofthe people who support independence.They will have to determine that. I re-main opposed to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. STEARNS).

The question was taken; and theChairman announced that the noes ap-peared to have it.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I de-mand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to HouseResolution 376, further proceedings onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. STEARNS)will be postponed.

Are there further amendments to thebill?AMENDMENT NO. 5 OFFERED BY MR. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Ioffer Amendment No. 5.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des-ignate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as fol-lows.

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. GUTIER-REZ: In section 2, in paragraph (2), strike‘‘Consistent with establishment of UnitedStates nationality for inhabitants of PuertoRico under the Treaty of Paris,’’.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, thegentleman from Alaska (Mr. YOUNG)spoke earlier about the hour being lateand how people do not listen and do notpay attention, but I have got to tellyou, we got to. This is a very impor-tant issue.

Why do I want to strike these words?I hope that the gentleman from Alaska(Mr. YOUNG) and others would partici-pate in this debate, because I think itis important.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to present anamendment and to move the first threelines of the findings under the word‘‘Paris,’’ because that statement isfalse.

I have there at my desk a completecopy and text of the Treaty of Parissigned by both the United States ofAmerica and Spain, in Paris, France,on December 10, 1898. I have read, andI hope all of the Members before theyenter into a decision read the Treaty ofParis.

Mr. Chairman, the only, I repeat, theonly mention of the word ‘‘national-ity’’ is found within Article IX of thetreaty, and it refers to the future Span-ish subjects residing in the newly ac-quired territories. Because this issuegoes directly to whether Puerto Ricansnot only are a distinct people, but alsoto whether this fact has always beenrecognized by our Congress, our gov-ernment, and the people of the UnitedStates, Mr. Chairman, I am going toquote it in full.

Article IX. Listen. You will learn alittle bit of history tonight.

‘‘Spanish subjects, natives of the Pe-ninsula, residing in the territory overwhich Spain by the present treaty re-linquishes or secedes her sovereignty,may remain in such territory or mayremove therefrom, retaining in eitherevent all their rights of property, in-cluding the right to sell or dispose ofsuch property or its proceeds, and theyshall also have the right to carry on intheir industry, commerce and profes-sions, being subject in respect thereofto such laws that are applicable toother foreigners. In case they remainin the territory, they may preservetheir allegiance to the Crown of Spainby making before a court of record,

within a year from the date of the ex-change of ratification of this treaty, adeclaration of their decision to pre-serve such allegiance; in default ofwhich declaration they shall be held tohave renounced it and adopted the na-tionality of the territory in which theymay reside,’’ Puerto Rico.

So when we talk about the issue ofnationality, it is right in the Treaty ofParis.

‘‘The civil rights and the politicalstatus of the native inhabitants of theterritories hereby ceded to the UnitedStates shall be determined by the Con-gress.’’

Let me repeat that. ‘‘The civil rightsand political status of the native in-habitants of the territory,’’ that isPuerto Rico, ‘‘hereby ceded to theUnited States shall be determined bythe Congress.’’

Mr. Chairman, I challenge any of mycolleagues to prove me wrong and tofind another place in the text of theTreaty of Paris in question the word‘‘nationality.’’ It is nowhere else to befound in the treaty.

Now, let us go back to the treaty. ‘‘Indefault of which declaration they shallbe held to have renounced it and adopt-ed the nationality of the territory inwhich they may reside.’’

‘‘The nationality of the territory inwhich they may reside.’’

What nationality? Of Puerto Rico.Now, Mr. Chairman, as I understand

it, treaties are in essence contracts be-tween two or several nations. Treatiestend to be specific and clear. The fail-ure of a treaty between two or severalnations to be clear about its terms hasled on more than one occasion to dis-pute.

Mr. Chairman, this is serious busi-ness. If the United States Congresswished to grant Puerto Ricans the na-tionality of the United States, as it isclaimed in the so-called findings of theYoung bill, why is it not spelled outclearly and specifically in the Treatyof Paris?

Let me go back and read to you otherrelevant parts of the treaty which Ithink will shed light on this article. InArticle I of the treaty, it says, ‘‘Spainrelinquishes all claims of sovereigntyover the title of Cuba.’’

In Article II it says, ‘‘Spain cedes tothe United States the island of PuertoRico and other islands now under Span-ish sovereignty in the West Indies, andthe island of Guam in the Marianas orLadrones.’’

In Article III it says, ‘‘Spain cedes tothe United States the archipelagoknown as the Philippine Islands.’’

Mr. Chairman, I ask, where in thisTreaty of Paris did the Congress of theUnited States expressly extend UnitedStates nationality?

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the last word.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, willthe gentlewoman yield?

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gen-tleman from Illinois.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Iask, where in the Treaty of Paris did

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H825March 4, 1998the Congress of the United States ex-pressly extend United States national-ity, think about that, to the people ofCuba, to the people of Guam, to thepeople of the Philippines or PuertoRico? It is nowhere to be found in theTreaty of Paris.

This so-called finding is a lie. It im-plies that the failure to declare alle-giance to the Crown of Spain by a spec-ified date meant the establishment ofUnited States nationality for the in-habitants of Puerto Rico. In otherwords, they interpret the Treaty ofParis to say, hey, if you did not re-nounce your sovereignty under Spain,you became nationals. But we did notsay that. The United States of Americadid not grant that to those people. Itsays, of nationals of that territory, theonly territory being Puerto Rico.

The terms of the treaty are veryclear. Spanish subjects who fail to de-clare their allegiance to the SpanishCrown by a specified date became, inthe words of the Treaty of Paris, notAmericans or American citizens, butnationals of the territory in whichthey reside. In the case of Puerto Rico,clearly they became nationals of Puer-to Rico, because they were not citizensof the United States, and we did notgrant them United States nationality.

I ask anybody to look at that treatyand find something different.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is veryclear, they became Cuban nationals,Guam nationals, Philippine nationals,and Puerto Rican nationals. And youknow something, Mr. YOUNG, the Cu-bans became independent. Guam, thePhilippines. So think about it, theywere nationals of a nation, along withother people of other territories.

Mr. Chairman, Puerto Rico is a sepa-rate and distinct nation with its ownculture, language and history. But theproponents of H.R. 856 seek to deny theexistence of the Puerto Rican nationwith its very defined terms.

Mr. Chairman, this fact of the exist-ence of a clearly defined Puerto Ricannationality is exactly the reason whyCongress has not once in 100 yearssince the Treaty of Paris incorporatedPuerto Rico as a territory.

Mr. Chairman, there is very exten-sive public available research whichwill substantiate each and every one ofmy assertions.

Finally, I will limit my presentationto the following: Think about it. Afterthe Treaty of Paris, what is the nextdocument that we have in relationshipbetween Puerto Rico and the UnitedStates? You know what it was, Mr.YOUNG? It was the act of Congress in1900 known as the Foraker Act, thefirst organic act of Puerto Rico. Andguess what? Under the section GeneralProvisions of that act of Congress, itputs to rest any notion that the Treatyof Paris established United States na-tionality for inhabitants of PuertoRico, as is alleged in this false finding,because I am going to quote it to you.This is an act of Congress, 1900 ForakerAct, section 7:

All inhabitants continuing to reside there-in who were Spanish subjects on the 11th dayof April, 1899, and their children born subse-quent to them, shall be deemed and held tobe citizens of Puerto Rico, and as such enti-tled to the protection of the United States,except such as have elected to preserve theirallegiance to the Crown of Spain in accord-ance with the provisions of the treaty ofpeace between the United States and Spain;and they, together with such citizens of theUnited States as may reside in Puerto Rico,shall constitute the body politic under thename people of the people of Puerto Rico.

b 1930

Puerto Rico is a nation, under theForaker Act of Congress. We did notgive them nationality, we did not givethem anything. We signed a treaty. Soplease stop saying that it is a group ofpeople; the Foraker Act in 1990 andevery subsequent piece of legislation. Iam not, and I ask anybody to stand upand find where in the Foraker Act itsays that Puerto Ricans were grantedAmerican nationality. It is not there inthe Treaty of Paris.

I would think that King George III,he must have just turned. I can just seehim. If he would just show up for a sec-ond, I could just see him, because KingGeorge must have said, God, did I justhear a Member of Congress say thatPuerto Rico is not a nation, that it isjust a group of people? Because I think,as the King of England, I once said thatabout the 13 colonies.

They said those 13 colonies are not anation. That is not a group of people,that is just a group of colonies that wegot out there that we own. They wouldhave been cheering and applauding theEnglish throne. They would have said,God, we have Members of Congress whosay to us today, in 1998, after 1776 de-claring our independence from the Kingand England, that still people disputethat there are nations out there. Theyare there. The facts are clear.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I move to strike the requisitenumber of words.

Mr. Chairman, I had a teacher in lawschool who said that when you had thefacts, you harped on the facts. Whenyou had the law on your side, youharped on the law. When you did nothave the facts or law on your side, youmade a hell of a mess, and pleaded allover the place.

That is precisely what the gentlemanfrom Illinois is doing. He is trying toconfuse the issues here. I repeat oncemore, Puerto Rico is not a nation, aswe understand nations to be, and theyhave no participation in internationalorganizations as a separate nation. TheUnited States represents Puerto Ricoand all the 50 States in all inter-national organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I want to submit, if thegentleman from Illinois and the gentle-woman from New York feel that theybelong to a different nation, a differentnation than the United States, I wouldrecommend that perhaps they shouldrenounce their seats and let someAmericans occupy their seats.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I rise in opposition to the amend-ment.

Mr. Chairman, the Congress is giventhe responsibility to determine thecivil rights and status of the inhab-itants of Puerto Rico under the Treatyof Paris. I have the Treaty of Paris infront of me. I do not want to get intoa great debate with my friend, the gen-tleman from Illinois, but Congress ex-tended U.S. sovereignty to Puerto Ricoand U.S. nationality to its residents.

Consequently, I oppose the amend-ment, and I think that we ought tohave a vote on the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there further de-bate on the amendment?

If not, the question is on the amend-ment offered by the gentleman from Il-linois (Mr. GUTIERREZ).

The amendment was rejected.The CHAIRMAN. Are there further

amendments?AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BARR OF GEORGIA

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman,I offer an amendment, the short ver-sion.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. BARR of Geor-

gia: In section 4(c)(3)(B), strike ‘‘Approvalmust be by a majority of the valid votescast.’’ and insert ‘‘Approval of the separatesovereignty option must be by a majority ofthe valid votes cast, and approval of thestatehood option must be by a super-major-ity of 75 percent of the valid votes cast.’’.

In section 5(c)(2), strike ‘‘majority votefor’’ and insert ‘‘in the approval of’’.

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman,we have heard a lot of proponents ofH.R. 856 argue that this bill is nec-essary in order to offer the people ofPuerto Rico the opportunity to deter-mine their own political destiny. Thisis not right. This is not correct.

No one disputes that Puerto Ricoshould have the right to self-deter-mination. As a matter of fact, they al-ready have that right. Nothing pre-vents the Puerto Rican people from pe-titioning Congress for admission to theUnion without the necessity of a feder-ally-mandated plebiscite. But PuertoRico has not done so. Why not? It mayvery well be that because ever sincethe first plebiscite was held in 1952, themajority of Puerto Ricans have neverasked for statehood.

In the last plebiscite, held in 1993,none of the status options received amajority of the vote. In fact, only 46percent of Puerto Ricans chose state-hood, while an even larger number, 49percent, voted to retain Common-wealth status. Concerning the perma-nent, irrevocable nature of statehood,it does not make sense to grant it un-less the overwhelming majority ofPuerto Ricans favor such a step.

Recent national polls show thatAmerican and Puerto Ricans alike sup-port a requirement that statehood beapproved by a supermajority of PuertoRican voters. According to an April1997 Public Opinion Strategies poll, 61percent of mainland Americans favoreda requirement that statehood be ap-proved by a supermajority of at least 75percent of the popular vote.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH826 March 4, 1998Likewise, a June 1997 poll of Puerto

Rican voters conducted by AmericanViewpoint demonstrated that 57 per-cent of Puerto Ricans also supportedsuch a requirement.

The amendment I am offering followsthe will of the people, both in theUnited States mainland and in PuertoRico, a 75 percent supermajority forthe Puerto Rican approval vote, whichin the later step is a completely rea-sonable requirement when one consid-ers the fact that Alaskans gave 83 per-cent approval to statehood and Hawaiigave 94 percent.

Why is a supermajority requirementnecessary? Let us look at the big pic-ture. English is the common languageof the United States. It is not the com-mon language of Puerto Rico. Spanishis an official language of Puerto Rico.It is the language of its courts and itslegislature and its schools.

According to the 1990 census, lessthan a quarter of all Puerto Ricansspeak English. In 1996 this House votedoverwhelmingly to make English theofficial language of the United States.Eighty-six percent of Americans favormaking English the official language ofthe United States and 74 percent ofAmericans favor a requirement makingPuerto Rico accept English as its offi-cial language prior to becoming aState.

Puerto Rican statehood and the over-whelming mandate for making Englishthe official language of the UnitedStates will inevitably generate a con-tentious debate over issues of languageand culture. If this friction translatesinto political turmoil similar to thebitter separatist struggle in Quebec, itcould undermine the long-term assimi-lation of Puerto Rico, or even worse,provoke resentment, violence, or actsof terrorism against mainland U.S. andsupporters of Puerto Rican statehood.

This is why I say to my colleagues,let the will of the people be heard, butlet us make sure it truly is the will ofthe people, consistent with the histori-cal standards that were maintainedwith regard to the admission of thelast two States of the Union, Alaskaand Hawaii, during which or in both ofwhich votes, well over 80 percent of thepeople voted for statehood.

What we are simply saying in thiscase, with regard to Puerto Rico be-coming a State, is that before that be-comes a reality, and in order to ensurea true plebiscite, we ought to requireand should require through this amend-ment a 75 percent supermajority.

I ask adoption of this amendment.Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-

man, I rise in opposition to the amend-ment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the question ofthe gentleman, if I understand the gen-tleman correctly, he has modified hisamendment from the original textwhere it only applies to the admissionstage; is that correct?

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman,will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to thegentleman from Georgia.

Mr. BARR of Georgia. That is cor-rect.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. This does notapply to the plebiscite that will betaken in the first stage?

Mr. BARR of Georgia. That is cor-rect.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. That does notapply to the second stage?

Mr. BARR of Georgia. To the PuertoRican approval after congressional con-sideration?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. This is notnecessary, except only in the casewhere the plebiscite voted for state-hood and they made the application tothe Congress, the Congress votes, thereis a transition stage, this goes back,and they have to reach the 75 percent?

Mr. BARR of Georgia. That is cor-rect.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The onlyquestion I have, what other States re-quired that in the title or in the text ofthe statehood act? Were there anyother States that ever required that?

Mr. BARR of Georgia. I think this isa unique situation. The gentleman iscertainly correct in his implicationthat this has not been required before,but I do not think that is necessarily areason why, in this particular case,given the language difficulties and thevery strong feelings; I mean, the gen-tleman is sitting at a desk where thereis a bullet hole by some Puerto Ricanseparatists. Tempers can run very highon this.

This amendment was intended sothat it truly reaches the vast majorityof people, and I think will be a temper-ing amendment as well.

Mr. Chairman, to those who say that this isnothing but rhetoric; that it couldn’t happenhere, well, I have news for you. It has alreadyhappened here. Right here in this very Cham-ber. On March 1, 1954, Puerto Rican national-ists ascended to the House gallery, drew pis-tols, and opened fire. Before they were sub-dued, five Congressmen lay wounded on theHouse floor. To this very day, we can see theevidence of their handiwork. Inside that desk,is a drawer with a bullet hole.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlemanfrom Georgia (Mr. BARR) is correct inone aspect of his amendment. That is,I think that ultimately for this act tosucceed, the vote to change the statusin Puerto Rico to State should be by asupermajority.

In the past, that has happened inother States because of the enthusiasmby the end of the process for statehood,and when they in fact voted on the ad-mission, as the proponents of thisamendment pointed out, they voted by79 percent and other supermajorities,but there was no requirement that theyvoted. Had Alaska voted by 50.1 per-cent, it would have been a State. Itvoted by 79, but there was no require-ment. This would be the first time thatwe have placed this requirement onthis.

I agree with that requirement, but Iam deeply disturbed by the fact that

we have a 75 percent threshold here. Ijust think that we have raised the barwhere in fact this amendment, in alllikelihood, could torpedo this act; orshould the people in Puerto Ricochoose to go forward with the processof adopting statehood, that this in factcould be a defeat of that aspect.

I think a reasonable higher percent-age, above 50 percent, is understand-able, but I do not believe that 75 per-cent is it, and for that reason I wouldoppose this amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I just rise in supportof the amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Georgia (Mr. BARR) thatwould require the supermajority of 75percent. The reason is that we haveheard many times that no other Stateshave had to have this requirement. Butno other States have been so appar-ently divided on the question of becom-ing a State; no other territories, if youwill.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that 75 per-cent is conservative. I believe it is aminimum level. It would bother methat we would have a territory thatwants to become a State with less than75 percent. I would think, Mr. Chair-man, that it would be 90 or 95 percentof the people wanting to join officiallyas a State into the great United Statesof America.

I believe that the 75 percent is therebecause the gentleman from Georgia(Mr. BARR) and many Members of Con-gress realize that this is a controver-sial measure. It is a measure that is di-viding the island of Puerto Rico. We donot know if it is going to be yes, we donot know if it is going to be no, butboth sides agree that it is going to bea very, very close vote.

I think it would be a shame to admita new State to the Union where we donot have at least 75 percent of the peo-ple who enthusiastically are willingand want all the rights and privilegesof being a State.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I move to strike the requisitenumber of words.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amend-ment on the basis that this 75 percenton the final vote the third time is ex-cessive. Today with the mass mediaand the use of the mass media in anykind of election, it is easy to reach 25percent or more. Just by one 26 per-cent, all of a sudden something stops.And 74 percent, a majority in PuertoRico, then if the opposition gets 26 per-cent, the whole thing stops.

I think the requirement of 75 percentis extremely high. I think it woulddampen the spirits of the people them-selves, to say, why should we be re-quired 75 percent when nobody else wasrequired more than 50 percent? SomeStates were even admitted to theUnion with less than 50 percent. Theyvoted for statehood less than 50 per-cent, yet they were admitted into the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H827March 4, 1998Union. With Puerto Rico it is 75 per-cent. I think this is too exaggerated,and I would oppose it.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I move to strike the requisitenumber of words.

Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of infor-mation being disseminated by membersof this committee that this is astacked deck against Commonwealth. Iwould respectfully ask them to readthe bill. In fact, it enhances the Com-monwealth position. I am a little bitconcerned that the type of informationbeing displayed and disseminated byother members of this House to thosethat did vote in favor of the Young-Miller-McCollum-Burton amendmentought to understand that this bill hasbeen carefully crafted contrary to whatpeople may say, and only the Congresshas the right to define what Common-wealth is.

b 1945

Only the Congress. And so, Mr. Chair-man, those who will be watching thisdebate on television should reconsidersome of the information they have re-ceived in the very few minutes sincethe last vote. I just ask Members to dothat as they watch this debate, to un-derstand that we have crafted this billvery balanced and very straight-forward.

Those who say the bill has not seri-ously considered commonwealth, lookat the original text. I did not be eveninclude commonwealth in it. But be-cause supporters of commonwealthcame to me, we wrote with the gen-tleman from California (Mr. MILLER) adefinition that does give them advan-tage. I would just like to suggest thatwe stick to the script.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr.Chairman, I move to strike the req-uisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, once again I wouldlike to commend the gentleman fromAlaska (Mr. YOUNG), chairman of theCommittee on Resources, for his workon this bill. It is a historic bill. I feelvery privileged to be a member of thiscommittee, to have been able to workon this legislation, to have had thechance to travel to Puerto Rico manytimes over the course of the last 2years to hear the voice of the people ofPuerto Rico.

Initially when I came to Puerto RicoI was sympathetic to the common-wealth cause because that is the causethat has been historically identifiedwith the Democratic Party of which Iam a Member. And yet I felt from thetestimony of the people in Puerto Ricothat there is a transformation going onin Puerto Rico, because the people ofPuerto Rico have finally come to therealization that commonwealth statusis no longer the best of both worlds. Itdoes not mean, as many people thoughtit meant, that there was a bilateralagreement between the people of Puer-to Rico and the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I wish that we had hadthat bilateral agreement. I wish the

people were right when they said thatthey had an equal voice as the UnitedStates when it came to determiningthe laws of Puerto Rico. But unfortu-nately, Mr. Chairman, that is not thecase right now in Puerto Rico.

If we need evidence of it, all we needto do is go back to the 103rd Congress,last Congress, and see that this Con-gress unanimously, without the sup-port of the people of Puerto Rico, didaway with 936, the tax status in PuertoRico. The reason we did away with itis, guess what, it is up to this Congressto choose; not the people of PuertoRico. I find that very upsetting. I findthat very troubling that we in thisCongress can decide arbitrarily whatthe law is going to be for Puerto Rico,and yet they have no voice in the mat-ter. So that is why we have come tothis bill and that is why we need tosupport this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion let mejust say those who say commonwealthis not favored in this legislation areright, because when we define common-wealth status we understand that itcan be nothing more than territorialstatus. Like it or not, that is the legalopinion of the Supreme Court, of theconstitutional experts. Even theUnited Nations know that common-wealth status is not a recognized finalstatus.

So when people say we leave it up foranother vote and another vote and an-other vote when there is not a majoritywho vote for statehood, the reason isthat some day the people of PuertoRico have to choose between the con-stitutionally accepted choices of finalstatus, i.e. independence which is rec-ognized, or full assimilation with theUnited States with respect to state-hood for the people of Puerto Rico.

Now, in conclusion, let me just sayanybody who has been to the PuertoRican community in my State shouldknow that simply because they are inRhode Island does not mean they havetaken away any of their Puerto Ricanidentity. I know for sure that, havingbeen to Puerto Rico, even if they be-come an ‘‘estado,’’ it is not going tochange the people of Puerto Rico. Theywill still be the shining star of the Car-ibbean and will still have their ownculture and identity. There is nothingthat will take that away from them.

But ultimately they will have theright of every other American citizento vote for a Congressman who willrepresent them in the halls of this Con-gress when we choose to make deci-sions that affect the people of PuertoRico. That is why we need to pass theYoung bill as is and let a majority ofthe public decide, which has alwaysbeen the case: a majority decides.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say tothe gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.KENNEDY), my friend, that number one,I think it would be good for us if thegentleman could please offer to us the

Supreme Court decision sometime thatstates that the commonwealth does notexist, because I would like to read it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to alsosee something from the United Na-tions, since the gentleman referred tothe United Nations, where the UnitedNations says that the autonomous sta-tus is somehow also something that isnot acceptable in international law.Because I would really like to see thatfor my own edification.

I think that that is important be-cause I think that that is the processthat we are about here today, is learn-ing from one another. Because I canbring the gentleman the Foraker Actthat was passed in 1900 that says thisCongress gave Puerto Ricans PuertoRican citizenship. I have here the Trea-ty of Paris which says that those mem-bers of that territory will be nationalsof that territory. Complete, completedisregard for these findings that wehave here.

So there is a lot to be debated and Ithink that we really do have to under-stand something. Let us have a debateabout some constructive questions. Un-fortunately, because of the way therules are worked out, we only could de-bate it today. It seems interesting.

I always wondered, as I said yester-day, if we were determining our futurerelationship with Israel, if the 40-some-odd Jewish Members and others of ushere who care about that relationshipwould want to limit it to one day; if itwere about Ireland, if the gentlemanfrom Rhode Island and others wouldsay, ‘‘God, Luis,’’ if I came to them andsaid we have to limit it to one day; ifit was about South Africa and the Afri-can-American Members would say, ‘‘Wehave to limit it to one day?’’ It is sad.So much to discuss. So much to debate.So much to learn about. And yet so lit-tle time to make this momentous deci-sion.

That is what I really think. No onehears about the Foraker Act. Did mycolleagues read the Jones Act of 1917?Did they read Law 600 of 1950? No, it islike the complete history is in thesefindings. Findings that were prepared.

Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat some-thing. I think that the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. MILLER) did a great job,but let us understand something. Thegentleman said before the Committeeon Rules yesterday that when he couldnot reach an agreement with the‘‘commonwealthers,’’ he took that defi-nition from the commonwealthers,took it to them and it was rejected.Then do my colleagues know what hedid next? He said he sat down with thegentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. RO-MERO-BARCELO) and the two of themmade an agreement of what that defini-tion should be.

I do not think that is an exactly fairand equitable manner of arriving atdefinitions that are going to determinethe future of Puerto Rico. I thought wehad a democracy here, bipartisan. Mr.Chairman, can my colleagues imagineif I got to write the platform for the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH828 March 4, 1998Democratic Party and said here it is,go run on it?

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr.Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to the gen-tleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr.Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman’sfrustration that we have only had aday. I have enjoyed the fact that wecould pack a lot into this day, evenmore than the time that we have.

Let me just say that consistent withthe Principles 6, 7, 8, and 9 of theAnnex Resolution 1541 of the UnitedNations General Assembly, the U.N.,statehood is the decolonizing status op-tion for decolonization.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, re-claiming my time for a moment, be-cause that is interesting, the UnitedNations. And what about section 748?

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Inde-pendence also.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. It is also independ-ence, and also autonomy is in there. Isit not interesting that the gentlemansays that the United Nations says thatself-determination is statehood, the ul-timate assimilation of one country byanother?

My only point is the Supreme Courthas ruled on this thing invariably dif-ferently. There is no definite decisionabout that. All I am saying is thatCabot Lodge went down there, madethe agreement. We went before theCommittee on Decolonization. We wentbefore them, before the world commu-nity, and said the people of PuertoRico and the United States havereached a compact. We came back hereto Congress and we said this is what weare going to respect.

Now I know the gentleman is goingto go back and say that did not existand it was a big lie. The Congress lied.Cabot Lodge lied. We were all one bigliar. Is that what we are saying heretoday? Eisenhower lied. Everybodylied. I do not think quite we can saythat.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Georgia (Mr. BARR).

The question was taken; and theChairman announced that the noes ap-peared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman,on that I demand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to HouseResolution 376, further proceedings onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Georgia (Mr. BARR) will bepostponed.AMENDMENT NO. 29 OFFERED BY MS. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, Ioffer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des-ignate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as fol-lows:

Amendment No. 29 offered by Ms.VELAZQUEZ: At the end of section 2, add thefollowing new paragraph:

(16) On November 18, 1997, the SupremeCourt of Puerto Rico decided in Ramirez de

Ferrer v. Mari Bras, CT–96–14, that there ex-ists a Puerto Rican citizenship which is‘‘separate and distinct’’ from the UnitedStates citizenship and that persons born inPuerto Rico who are Puerto Rican citizensmay not be denied the right to vote in Puer-to Rico even if they are not United Statescitizens.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman,this amendment adds a new finding tothe bill. It recognizes the separate anddistinct nature of Puerto Rican citizen-ship.

The amendment provides that on No-vember 18, 1997, the Supreme Court ofPuerto Rico decided that there existsPuerto Rican citizenship which is sepa-rate and distinct from the UnitedStates citizenship. The court furtherfound that persons born in Puerto Ricowho are Puerto Rican citizens may notbe denied the right to vote in PuertoRico if they are not United States citi-zens.

Juan Mari Bras, the subject of thislawsuit, has challenged us to take aclose look at the nature of Puerto Riconationality and citizenship. The pro-ponents of the bill insist that the Puer-to Rican people have no rights otherthan what Congress has granted them.This reading of history is outrightwrong and deceiving. This deliberateomission of fact from the findings isyet another example of the misleadinghand behind the drafting of this bill.

By omitting this finding, we are ig-noring the fundamental protections ofinternational human rights as well asthe U.S. Constitution. Almost 50 yearsago, several years after the creation ofthe United Nations, the Universal Dec-laration of Human Rights, a treatysigned and ratified by the UnitedStates Congress, provided under Arti-cle 15 that everyone has a right to na-tionality.

Furthermore, Article 19 of the Amer-ican Declaration of the Rights and Du-ties of Man, as well as article 20 of theAmerican Convention of HumanRights, recognized this fundamentalinternational right and protection.

The existence of a separate and dis-tinct Puerto Rican citizenship and thatthe Puerto Rican people form a Nationcannot be questioned. The PuertoRican people have a distinct languageand culture and a defined geographicalterritory, and it has been self-govern-ing since the 1950s through the com-monwealth relationship entered withmutual consent with the UnitedStates.

Neither the Jones Act nor the PuertoRican Federal Relations Act tookPuerto Ricans’ inherent right to theirown nationality and to be citizens oftheir nation. The Supreme Court, thePuerto Rico Supreme Court’s recentruling confirms this historical andlegal interpretation.

Mr. Chairman, we should not approvea bill with such a misinterpretation ofPuerto Rico’s nationality and citizen-ship rights. I urge my colleagues tosupport my amendment.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support ofthis amendment. I propose to add thisfinding because I think it is very im-portant for Congress to understand thereality of the Puerto Rican people.This bill makes a formal offer of state-hood, too.

This amendment informs Congressand the American people about a veryrecent and very important decisionmade by the Supreme Court of PuertoRico of the Commonwealth of PuertoRico, of which the Resident Commis-sioner was once Governor.

b 2000In the case of Miriam J. Ramirez de

Ferrer, a great supporter of statehoodin Puerto Rico, against Juan MariBras, somebody who wishes independ-ence for Puerto Rico, in this momen-tous decision the Supreme Court ofPuerto Rico, not Luis Gutierrez, theCongressman from the Fourth Districtof the State of Illinois, but the Su-preme Court of Puerto Rico determinedthat Puerto Rican citizenship is abirthright of all persons born on the is-land, borne of the natural right of allpersons guaranteed under the Constitu-tion of the Commonwealth of PuertoRico. I did not make this up. This is arecent decision of the Supreme Courtof Puerto Rico. Talk about self-deter-mination.

Are we simply going to disregardthat decision, the same Supreme Courtwhere there is a statehood Governorcurrently in Puerto Rico? This Su-preme Court decision based both onFederal law and precedent as well asthe Constitution of the Commonwealthwas that Puerto Rican citizenship is,and I quote, separate and distinct fromUnited States citizenship.

A very well known and respectedleader of the movement for PuertoRican independence, Mr. Juan MariBras traveled to Venezuela and in ac-cordance with U.S. law went to theU.S. Embassy in Venezuela and filed anapplication to renounce his Americancitizenship. He returned to Puerto Ricoand resumed his law practice. A yearlater he received a formal certificateaccepting his resignation of Americancitizenship. When he registered to votein Puerto Rico, his right to vote in thePuerto Rican election was challenged.The case went all the way to the Puer-to Rican Supreme Court, which upheldhis right to vote in Puerto Rican elec-tions. The Court decided also thatwhile it was constitutional for thePuerto Rican Legislature to requireU.S. citizenship to vote in Puerto Rico,along with residence and other require-ments, native-born Puerto Ricans areguaranteed their right to vote in Puer-to Rican elections by sole virtue oftheir Puerto Rican citizenship con-ferred to them by their birth in PuertoRico. So states the Supreme Court ofPuerto Rico.

This is very important because ithighlights the important fact thatPuerto Rico is indeed a nation, thatcitizenship and nationality are two dif-ferent things. It is in the Treaty of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H829March 4, 1998Paris. It is in the Foraker Act. It is inthis recent decision, because I knowthat some of my colleagues are saying,why are you going so far back? Well, Iwent back 90 years, and now I am com-ing present.

Members should know this, this Con-gress, that the Supreme Court Jus-tices, all American citizens, had de-cided, what do you do with Juan MariBras? He was born in Puerto Rico. Herenounces his American citizenship.What country do you send him to?Where do you get rid of him to? TheSupreme Court said he was born onthis island, there is nothing we can do.He renounced it, and he has no othercountry because he is a national of thisnation, Puerto Rico.

I suggest to anybody to please ex-plain to me what you do with people inthe circumstances of Juan Mari Bras.

Now, I think it is important that wediscuss and debate all these issues. Un-fortunately, we will not have enoughtime today.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I rise in opposition to the amend-ment, and I move to strike the req-uisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, we have been hearingabout the nation of Puerto Rico, andonce again I repeat, Puerto Rico ingeopolitical terms is not a nation. Onemight consider Puerto Rico a nation insociological terms, but not in geo-political position.

We are a community. What the gen-tleman from Illinois and the gentle-woman from New York are trying to dohere is trying to confuse the issue bysaying Puerto Rico is a nation, a dif-ferent nation; therefore we have totreat it differently from what we treatall the other U.S. citizens. But theissue before us is clear. The issue be-fore us is, are we going to allow self-de-termination or not to the U.S. citizensin Puerto Rico. All this extraneous ma-terial that is being brought up heretoday is for the purpose of confusing.There is no legitimate purpose on thisissue to have to consider what hap-pened in 1900, what happened in 1902.

What we are trying to do is what hap-pens now, what happens in the future.The decision in the case of Juan MariBras was by a Supreme Court in PuertoRico where five out of the seven mem-bers were appointed by the Governor,who is of the Commonwealth Party,and all of them had been active politi-cally before they were appointed to thebench. The Chief Judge of the SupremeCourt of Puerto Rico was a lawyer ofthe Commonwealth Party in electoralmatters, in matters of election. He isthe Chief Judge of the Supreme Court.

The decision by the Supreme Courtvery carefully kept away from all Fed-eral laws and the U.S. Constitutionvery carefully so the decision could notbe questioned in the Federal forum. Ithas been highly criticized as a horren-dous judicial decision by many out-standing attorneys in Puerto Rico.

So those things happen in this issueof the status. This is why it is nec-

essary to bring before Congress andCongress allow the people of PuertoRico to vote to see if we can put an endand decide finally which road PuertoRico is going to take.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gentle-woman from New York (Ms.VELAZQUEZ).

The amendment was rejected.The CHAIRMAN. Are there further

amendments?AMENDMENT NO. 4 OFFERED BY MR. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Ioffer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des-ignate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as fol-lows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. GUTIER-REZ:

Strike section 2 and redesignate the suc-ceeding sections accordingly.

In section 1(b), in the table of contents,strike the item relating to section 2 and re-designate the succeeding items accordingly.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, thisamendment seeks to address the graveinjustice done to the independence andto the commonwealth versions of Puer-to Rican history that are included inthese findings. As I have shown pre-viously in the debate on the findingssections, the findings sections to be in-cluded in this bill have been chosen toprovide a distorted pro-statehood ver-sion of Puerto Rican history, beginningwith the very denial that Puerto Ricoever existed as a nation and as a peo-ple.

It is unfair to present such an unbal-anced view of the Puerto Rican historyif the true objective of this bill weretruly self-determination. Rather thanattempt a superficial discussion on his-torical facts on which those of us witha little knowledge of Puerto Rican his-tory find it very hard to agree upon,and upon which, in all truth, the ma-jority of my colleagues unfortunatelyknow little of the details, and of the in-terpretation of those historical details,we are asked to subscribe to with ourvote.

This bill is so slanted in favor ofstatehood, especially in the findingssection, that it is really an overkill.The purpose of this very convenientlyselected presentation of Puerto Ricanhistory is to provide political ammuni-tion to the Statehood Party during theplebiscite campaign. Adoption of thisamendment will make this bill less un-fair and less skewed in favor of state-hood.

I have just shown you clearly, Ithink, when we spoke about the Treatyof Paris, that nowhere in the Treaty ofParis, and I asked the gentleman fromPuerto Rico if he has found in theTreaty of Paris where it says UnitedStates nationality, because if he findsit, then you know I will take it back,because then maybe I missed it some-where, but he has not responded tothat. Where it is in the Foraker Act of1900, I asked the gentleman from Puer-to Rico to please find. And it says

there, Puerto Rican citizenship. It ex-ists. It existed as a nation of people.

There is a difference between nation-ality and citizenship. That has alreadybeen determined throughout the world.Yes, Puerto Ricans are nationals. Iknow that some of them feel less Puer-to Rican than others and that theremay be degrees to which people feel. Iam sure that when we had the greatwar of independence from Great Brit-ain, there were many of those who said,oh, God, I do not want to be a memberof that new emerging Nation of those13 colonies. I kind of like King George.He is okay. And there were others whofelt as Thomas Paine, as Jefferson andas others, that it was time to incor-porate into a new Nation and to makethat Nation valid. That is what wehave got in Puerto Rico.

Let us understand it. Let us not skewthe issue. I ask that the findings justsimply be eliminated because what youare doing, if you allow these findings,is a blank check, because they willtake these findings, convert them into30-second commercials and distort thereality of the congressional intent.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Illinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ).

The amendment was rejected.The CHAIRMAN. Are there further

amendments?AMENDMENT NO. 21 OFFERED BY MR. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Ioffer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des-ignate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as fol-lows:

Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. GUTIER-REZ:

In section 4(a), insert after paragraph (6) ofthe referendum language for Statehood thefollowing new paragraph (and redesignatethe succeeding paragraphs accordingly):

‘‘(7) Notwithstanding the Amateur SportsAct of 1978. Puerto Rico retains its separateOlympic Committee and ability to competeunder its own flag and national anthem ininternational athletic competitions, evenagainst the United States.’’

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman,under statehood, according to theInternational Olympic Committee andthe Amateur Sports Act of 1979, theUnited States Olympic is the sole rep-resentative in the Olympic games andPan American games, of which PuertoRico participates in both the Olympics,sending its own team from Puerto Ricoto the Olympics and Pan Americangames. No other body or organizationcan represent the U.S. or any partthereof if they become a State of theUnion. If Puerto Rico becomes a State,it is extremely unlikely that they maycompete in Olympic games separatelyfrom the U.S. as an Olympic team, ashas been the long history of the peopleof Puerto Rico. To the end the Inter-national Olympic Committee grantedthe National Olympic Committee ofthe United States exclusive powers fortheir representation for their respec-tive countries at the Olympic gamesand all other OIC-sanctioned events.

Evidently, if Puerto Ricans arepushed to vote in favor of statehood,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH830 March 4, 1998they are going to lose one of their mosttreasured traditions of representationin the sports arena. Furthermore,Puerto Rico would no longer be able toparticipate in the Olympics as a sepa-rate entity. Puerto Ricans would beforced to lose one of their richest andtreasured sources of patriotic pride.

I want to remind my fellow col-leagues that Puerto Rico is such aproud nation that when PresidentCarter called for a boycott of the Mos-cow games in 1990, the Puerto Ricannational Olympic team sent two ath-letes with a Puerto Rican flag. Thinkabout it. Puerto Rico as a nation willnever give up its Olympic representa-tion that ties them with the U.S. be-cause they could not disappoint theirnational athletes that train so hard.Think about it. The President of theUnited States says, we are going toboycott, and yet the people of PuertoRico send their own Olympic team,American citizens, to go and partici-pate while other citizens. You see howthey are different. You see how there isa separate relationship. Let us under-stand that.

I just want to make one last point. Idid have an amendment to pardonBobby Knight because Bobby Knightwent out to Puerto Rico in 1976, this istrue, just to make the point, 1979 dur-ing the Pan American games, probablythe Resident Commissioner remem-bers, and in the final for the gold medalit was the United States and Cuba, andthere were 20,000 fans there, and theywere all chanting, Cuba, Cuba, Cuba,not because they believed in Com-munism, not because they believed inFidel Castro, but because they had asense of the great andeano, the JoseMarti. They were applauding the ath-letes from another Spanish-speakingcountry. Unfortunately, he did not getit and he made some obscene gestures,was arrested and said, how can thesecitizens of the United States not becheering for the American team? Why?Because they loved their Americancitizenship, but they are a differentand a special kind of people.

Let us treat them specially in ac-cordance with their fine tradition.That is why I present this amendment.Let us allow them to continue to havetheir Olympic team even if they are aState of the Union, because we want torespect their great history and pride.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I rise in opposition to the amend-ment.

Mr. Chairman, we must have seen adifferent Pan American games in Puer-to Rico because I certainly, the eventthat he talked about Bobby Knight didnot happen with Cuba. It was some-thing that happened during the prac-tice, and then it was very, he pushed anofficer of the law and he said somevery, very unfavorable remarks aboutPuerto Rico, insulting remarks aboutPuerto Rico and Puerto Ricans. There-fore, he earned the hatred and the badwill of the people of Puerto Rico. Andthey took it out on the team, and ithad nothing to do with Cuba.

Always there are people in PuertoRico that feel, members of the pro-Communist party, which has neverbeen registered as a voting party, didnot maintain a registration as a votingparty, and they got about half a per-cent of the vote when they went intoelections. Yes, they went there andcheered Cuba, but it was not everyonethat was there. I was there at thosegames.

To say that Puerto Rico cannot par-ticipate, well, Puerto Rico can partici-pate if that would be the desire of thepeople of Puerto Rico, and that was thedecision of the Olympic Committee.The International Olympic Committeeis a private organization. It is not anofficial government organization. As amatter of fact, they say, government,stay out. In the International OlympicCommittee bylaws it is specificallystated that any province, any State,any jurisdiction that has been allowedto have a committee, a team represent-ing them in the Olympics, if they be-come integrated with another nation,become a State of or a part of anothernation, they can maintain their ownOlympic committee. And that is whathas happened with Hong Kong.

b 2015

However, whether or not we partici-pate in the Olympic games every 4years for 2 weeks cannot be put in thesame table of consideration as the eco-nomic welfare of the people of PuertoRico and the political equality of thepeople of Puerto Rico; the right tovote, the right to representation andthe right to participate in a democraticsystem. We believe in democracy. Wecannot put that aside in order to par-ticipate in the games every 4 years for2 weeks. That is not in the same tableof consideration.

So this, again, is another issue thatis brought in just to confuse and to tryto tell people they should not vote forthis bill because, after all, this is self-determination and this is what Amer-ica is all about.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the last word.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, willthe gentlewoman yield?

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gen-tleman from Illinois.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Icertainly do not want to make this thekind of issue that the resident commis-sioner wants to make it. I just want tomake the point the fact is BobbyKnight had a few problems in PuertoRico. He was arrested. And he did saysome very disparaging words, and thosedisparaging words had a direct rela-tionship between the games that werebeing played there and the reaction.

He could not understand how 10American citizens, if we want to makeit, it was more than 10 I assure theresident commissioner, could cheer fora team other than the United Stateswhen it was going for a gold medal.And subsequently he got into sometrouble about that. But it just talks

about the special nature of the rela-tionship.

I want people to understand. It didnot happen in Alaska and it did nothappen in Hawaii and it did not happenin Texas. Why can we bring up all theseissues, and it happened in Puerto Rico,of language and culture? And the resi-dent commissioner said it was not geo-political. Okay. But he said it was so-ciological. That is pretty incredible.That is an admission here. Sociologicalnationality. Let us examine what thatmeans. That means it is a separate anddistinct people.

That is our point here. Our point hereis let us have a fair referendum. Look,there was a referendum in 1993. Theparty of the resident commissioner wasthe party that wrote the script and therules. Everyone voted. The residentcommissioner, that if statehood wouldhave won that plebiscite, that he wasgoing to come here and demand state-hood for Puerto Rico. So the gen-tleman thought that was a good plebi-scite then and those were good rulesand regulations then. Why is it todaythat the gentleman comes with thisother version when he would havetaken that version and asked us tohave adopted it back 5 short years ago?

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, Iyield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there further de-bate on the amendment?

If not, the question is on the amend-ment offered by the gentleman from Il-linois (Mr. GUTIERREZ).

The question was taken; and theChairman announced that the noes ap-peared to have it.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Idemand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to HouseResolution 376, further proceedings onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Illinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ)will be postponed.

Are there further amendments?Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I

offer an amendment.The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des-

ignate the amendment.Which amendment is the gentleman

proposing?PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Parliamentary in-quiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, isthere going to be any time allotted toclose this debate after the end of all ofthe amendments?

The CHAIRMAN. After voting on theamendments, Members can strike thelast word, after which the Committeewill rise and report.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. There will be anadditional 5 minutes then at the end sowe can all close, those who wish toclose; is that true?

The CHAIRMAN. We are proceedingunder the 5-minute rule. This amend-ment that the gentleman proposes,though the gentleman has not statedwhich amendment——

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H831March 4, 1998Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let me explain,

and the Chair can help me. I really donot want to propose an amendment, Ijust want to be able to close. And I wasinformed that there would be no oppor-tunity after all the amendments wereexhausted to say anything in closing

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, does the gentleman mean to closeon the whole bill?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Yes, on the whole.Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. There will be

an opportunity to close on the wholebill after the amendments are voted on.We can move to strike the last word.

The CHAIRMAN. Members will beable to offer pro forma amendmentsand move to strike the last word.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Pro formaamendments, move to strike the lastword and speak on the bill itself.AMENDMENT NO. 24 OFFERED BY MR. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, Ioffer amendment number 24.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des-ignate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as fol-lows:

Amendment number 24 offered by Mr.GUTIERREZ:

In section 4(a), after paragraph (6) of thereferendum language for statehood, insertthe following new paragraphs (and redesig-nate the succeeding paragraphs accordingly):

‘‘(7) Section 30A of the Internal RevenueCode of 1986 will continue in effect for 20years after Puerto Rico becomes a State oruntil the State of Puerto Rico achieves thesame per capita income as the State with thenext lowest per capta income.

‘‘(8) The internal revenue laws of theUnited States will not apply to residents ofthe State of Puerto Rico until such time asthe State of Puerto Rico achieves the sameper capita income as the State with the nextlowest per capita income.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, wehave had a good long day here of de-bate and discussion and I think thatpeople should understand something.This is a very serious decision that weare entering into. I know we have hadthis debate about statutory citizenshipall day and it is just very important tome.

It is important because I think thatwe have shown that the 14th amend-ment should apply to all the people ofPuerto Rico. Think about it. The 14thamendment of the Constitution of theUnited States will be simply thrown upin the air if we adopt this. That iswrong. It is wrong to all those citizenson the island of Puerto Rico.

I want a fair process. I want a processthat says here is independence, and aversion of independence a little kinderand gentler and a little more realisticthan the one offered here; a version ofstatehood, a realistic version of state-hood, the kind of statehood that I livedin Puerto Rico.

I would like to tell everybody that in1972, when I was 19 years old, I reg-istered to vote. The first time I votedwas in San Sabastian, Puerto Rico, sotake it from me, I know what thestatehooders propose, what the inde-pendence people propose, what the

commonwealthers propose, because Iwas there listening for many years. Iwent to the University of Puerto Rico.I graduated from high school in PuertoRico. Politics, politics and the nationalquestions and status is something thatwe debate and discuss everyday.

Let me tell my colleagues, if we donot clarify some of these things, here iswhat we will get: the 30 second spotthat is going to scare the living day-lights out of anybody. I see it already.Vote for statehood or your citizenshipwill be taken away. And you know,whoever pays, my mother said—(thegentleman spoke in Spanish)—I amsorry, I am not supposed to say. Basi-cally what that means is that a paperwill hold whatever you write on it. Andwhoever has the money to write those30-second scripts and to put them up onthe TV set, that is wrong for us toallow something like that. That iswrong for people to go in.

Let us not force a vote on any issue.That is what we are doing here. It iswrong to talk about citizenship whichwe all know will never be taken awayfrom a people. And if we know it willnever be taken away, let us not let itbe used in this plebiscite.

And let us have a plebiscite. And I re-iterate once again, whoever wins fairand square, we can all come togetherand move forward, move forward as apeople.

I would like to say this last thing.Look, when Members of this Congresstalked about South Africa and NelsonMandela, nobody ever said they shouldjust move back to South Africa if theythought that was so important. WhenMembers of this Congress talk aboutIreland and the importance of Irelandand its independence, nobody says theyshould go back to Ireland if they wantto talk about that. When Members inthis Congress talk about Israel andtalk about their proud Judaism, no-body says they have to go back. Whenpeople talk about Cuba, nobody says goback to Cuba. Why is it that when peo-ple want to raise issues because I am ofPuerto Rican descent that I am told goback to Puerto Rico or do not haveanything to do with it.

The resident commissioner is invitedto come to my district any day, as hehas often done. I think we should all beinvited to speak to one another asbrothers and sisters in the quest forjustice, equality and a fair and reason-able solution to this very critical sta-tus question.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair-man, I move to strike the last word.

In closing I again want to reiteratethat I think that the committee hasbrought to the floor of the House a fairprocedure for determining the futurestatus of Puerto Rico, should the citi-zens of Puerto Rico decide to engage inthat process.

There is no question that thesechoices are difficult choices, and thatis why the process is set forth in themanner it is so that the Puerto Ricancitizens can be best informed as they

proceed down this path as to whetheror not they want to choose independ-ence, statehood or Commonwealth sta-tus.

And there is a very real difference be-tween these three statuses. People liketo pretend that they can argue thatthey are sort of the same, enhancedCommonwealth; that is, to pretend likeyou have all of the same rights as thecitizens of the United States of Amer-ica, but they know, in reality, they donot. So Commonwealth will have someburdens.

Statehood, because it puts them inthe same status as all of the rest of thecitizens, there will be people in PuertoRico that think that that brings bur-den to the selection, to the plebiscite.They will make those decisions, andthey will argue about them back andforth.

But the fact is that if you vote to be-come a State, you become a State. Youshare all of the benefits and all of theliabilities. If you vote to continue inCommonwealth, you are something lessthan that. You do not share equallywith the citizens of California in publicassistance payments and educationpayments and education to the handi-cap and food stamps and nutrition pro-grams, because you are not a State.

The representatives of Puerto Ricohistorically have tried to boost thoseallotments, to boost those payments,to argue that these are citizens whoare treated unfairly. But that has notbeen how the Congress has responded.

So those citizens are deprived the fullbenefits, but they are deprived the fullbenefits because the Congress has de-cided that they are not the same ascitizens of the States. That is a burdenof Commonwealth. People do not liketo talk about that.

Another burden a Commonwealth hasis it does not want to acknowledge thatit has to live under the laws of thiscountry as put forth by the Congress ofthe United States, but it does.

If this was, in fact, a nation today,then what are we doing here today? Weare here because, under the current ar-rangement, they are forced to liveunder Federal laws of this country, andsome people do not like that. They be-lieve they would rather be a separatenation, or they believe that, if theyhave to live under these laws, they alsowant to participate in the benefits ofeverything else that goes along withbeing a State.

The definition of Commonwealth isan accurate description of the status ofPuerto Rico today. That is the statusthat we would ask the people to voteon. That is Commonwealth today. Notwhat they hope Commonwealth wouldbe, not what they would like it to be,but what it is under the laws of thiscountry and the Constitution of theUnited States of America.

If you cannot, if that is not a winninghand in the election, so be it. But thatis the laws of this country. That is theConstitution of this country. Yes, it isdifferent. It is different than being a

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH832 March 4, 1998citizen of the State of the UnitedStates of America.

Now, many people have come to myoffice, and they have argued to me howreally it is not different. Folks, it isdifferent. That is what this electionwill be about. We treat them dif-ferently every day. That is what upsetsso many people, that citizens of theUnited States of America can be treat-ed in this fashion as this Congress de-liberates action after action after ac-tion.

The remedy for that is statehood, orthe remedy for that is independence, orthe status quo, which would be Com-monwealth. Those are the choices atthe end of the day that the people ofPuerto Rico will have to decide. Thoseare the choices in a fair and open andjust manner that this committee pre-sents to the plebiscite.

The people of Puerto Rico will makea determination of which status theywant to determine. If the Olympicteam is so important, then I guess theycan take Commonwealth. They cancontinue that. But then they have tolook the citizens in the eye and say,but by the same token, you cannotshare in the benefits of all the othercitizens of the United States.

If it is less important, they might de-cide that the great athletes of PuertoRico can run on the American teamand participate, and they can share inequal benefits. That is what this isabout. And at the end of the day, thisbill presents that in a fair and openfashion.

b 2030Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, today has been aneducation for a lot of Americanswatching this debate. Perhaps somepeople have learned about the passionssurrounding this debate. Maybe somepeople have come to understand atleast a little bit how proud the peopleof Puerto Rico are to be American citi-zens, how proud we are to live in a de-mocracy in which the concept of freeand open debate not only survives butthrives.

Of course, Mr. Chairman, I am aproduct of that freedom. I am an Amer-ican citizen born on the island of Puer-to Rico, came to the mainland, waselected to Congress and stand beforethis body a full-fledged voting Memberof this great legislative body. I have agreat respect for this institution, but Iam concerned that a process is aboutto be imposed on the people of PuertoRico that is anything but democratic.

I appreciate the intention of my col-leagues on both sides of the aisle toallow for the self-determination of thepeople of Puerto Rico. I have said thisbefore and I will say it again. This billis not about self-determination. It isabout statehood. This bill is the prod-uct of a process that did not consultthe very people it affects the most.

In 1990 a commonwealth status defi-nition was agreed to by the authors of

H.R. 856 that was acceptable to the in-terested parties. The chairman of theCommittee on Resources voted for thedefinition at the time. The currentranking member of the committeevoted for the definition at that time.The definitions were acceptable to theparties that represented the statehood,commonwealth and independent op-tions.

But now it seems that the very defi-nitions that were agreed to unani-mously in the House of Representativesare not good enough. My colleaguesseem intent now on forcing a vote onPuerto Rico that includes new defini-tions that many Puerto Ricans strong-ly disagree with. I will tell my col-leagues that if they truly want self-de-termination for Puerto Rico, they willvote against this bill.

I have heard my colleagues whom Ihave great respect for tell me that Ishould vote for independence. I haveheard my colleagues tell me that Ishould vote for statehood. The fact isthat I do not really have a choice, be-cause if this plebiscite is held underthis bill, we will see a 51st State, notbecause the people of Puerto Rico wantto be a State. If they wanted that, theywould have voted that way in the plebi-scite of 1993. No, they will vote forstatehood because under the defini-tions in this bill, commonwealth is notreally an option.

The authors of this bill have alreadysaid that their intention was to elimi-nate commonwealth status as a viableoption and they were successful. Infact, the authors of this bill did noteven offer commonwealth as an optionin the plebiscite when they originallywrote this bill.

Mr. Chairman, many people in thisChamber will tell us that they knowwhat is best for the people of PuertoRico. My response is why do we not letPuerto Rico decide what is best forPuerto Rico? Why do we not give ourparticipants equal input in determin-ing how a status bill should be written?Why do we not give all Puerto Ricansthe right to vote on that question?

I do not think that this House shouldbe in the business of telling the peopleof Puerto Rico what is best for the peo-ple of Puerto Rico. They should makethat decision. That is what self-deter-mination is all about. That is why Iask my colleagues today to oppose thislegislation.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr.Chairman, I move to strike the req-uisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a reallycomplicated debate for people who arejust learning about it for the first timeover the course of today. I have had thebenefit of having the last couple ofyears in the Committee on Resourcesto listen to this testimony consist-ently, and to have had the chance tovisit Puerto Rico, as I said earlier.

What really came about from mymany hours of listening to testimonyis this issue that I think is somethingthat makes the gentlewoman from New

York (Ms. VELAZQUEZ) and the gen-tleman from Illinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ)so upset, and that is, this Congress de-cides what the fate of Puerto Rico iswhether or not the people of PuertoRico like it or not.

The thing about it is, I am in totalagreement with the sympathies andconcerns of the gentleman from Illinois(Mr. GUTIERREZ) and the gentlewomanfrom New York (Ms. VELAZQUEZ). I amas outraged as anyone else, as the gen-tlewoman just said, that this Congressshould think that it could make anydecision affecting Puerto Rico withoutthe opinions and the people of PuertoRico being part of that decision-mak-ing process. That is why I am for state-hood. That is why I am for this bill.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman fromNew York said that this common-wealth definition was decided by thecommittee very unfairly. Let us under-stand, if we decided what the common-wealth definition was based upon theway the commonwealth party wantedit decided, we would have had a littlebit of everything we wanted.

I heard this commonwealth defini-tion. I said, ‘‘This commonwealth defi-nition sounds pretty good.’’ I said, ‘‘Itsounds so good I want Rhode Island tohave commonwealth status.’’ I betevery other Member in this place wouldlike to have commonwealth status theway the commonwealth party in Puer-to Rico wants it to be defined.

But, Mr. Chairman, we have a respon-sibility not to define commonwealthstatus in any partisan terms but to de-fine commonwealth status based uponthe laws of what commonwealthmeans. As much as my good friends saythat commonwealth status means thatwe are a nation, that commonwealthstatus means this or that, or guesswhat the United Nations said, the proofis in the pudding.

Whenever a bill comes up that relatesto Puerto Rico, it is referred to theCommittee on Resources. Why? Be-cause the Committee on Resources hasjurisdiction over Indian and insular af-fairs, meaning territories. Meaning nomatter what we may say about the Su-preme Court decisions, no matter whatwe may say about U.N. resolutions, theproof is in the pudding.

We are sitting here debating this. Wewould not be debating this if there wasa bilateral pact. If Puerto Rico reallyhad the say in this matter, they wouldhave said, ‘‘Hey, U.S. Congress, wedon’t need you to give us the right tovote. We have the right to vote.’’

Puerto Rico could not do that be-cause they are under the TerritorialClause of the United States Constitu-tion, like it or not. Mr. Chairman,there is the old Snickers ad that says,‘‘No matter how you slice it, it stillcomes up peanuts.’’ The fact of thematter is, no matter how you definecommonwealth, it still comes up Terri-torial Clause. That is the bottom linehere.

That is why I think this is a goodbill, because ultimately the people of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H833March 4, 1998Puerto Rico will have a say in theirfinal determination and finally getsome representation on this floor.

I want to conclude by saying the gen-tleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO) has taken on this issue sin-gularly, being the Resident Commis-sioner who has not had the chance tovote but who has taken his positionvery seriously and has been a tirelessadvocate on behalf of the people he rep-resents. On the eve of this historicvote, I want to salute the gentlemanfrom Puerto Rico for the job that hehas done on behalf of the people ofPuerto Rico; the gentleman from Alas-ka (Mr. YOUNG), as well as the gen-tleman from California (Mr. MILLER).

Let us support this bill, and let usend colonial status for 3.8 million peo-ple and finally make them full citizensof this country with voting representa-tion in this United States Congress.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chair-man, I move to strike the requisitenumber of words.

Mr. Chairman, I first of all wouldlike to thank the gentleman from Alas-ka (Mr. YOUNG), the chairman of ourcommittee, for the dedicated amountof work that he has put into this bill.He lived the frustrations of being a ter-ritory, so he really believes in it andfeels it. The people of Puerto Rico, notonly the people of Puerto Rico, thepeople of this Nation will be gratefulfor the steps that we are taking heretoday, and I hope we take this step inthe final passage of the bill.

I want to thank the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. MILLER), our rankingmember, also for the dedication that hetoo has put into this bill, for being in-strumental in doing away with all thesuspiciousness that reasonable peoplewould have about this bill and the defi-nitions. We worked hard and we feelthat our chairman, our ranking mem-ber and all of the members of the com-mittee were very careful in makingthis bill a very, very serious and veryobjective bill.

I want to make also a special men-tion, when we started this bill, I hadmy very serious differences with thegentleman from New York (Mr. SOLO-MON), the chairman of the Committeeon Rules. But as we have dealt withthis bill, the gentleman from New Yorkhas been a real gentleman. He has al-ways kept his word. He has been a for-midable opponent in this bill, but Imust recognize that he has been a realgentleman. I would thank him for hisdedication, also, to his job.

The gentleman from Rhode Island(Mr. KENNEDY) and all the others thathave worked hard on this bill, I wantto thank them all.

In Puerto Rico, as I mentioned ear-lier, they are watching this on C-SPAN. I think this probably will be oneof the most watched programs in Puer-to Rico for a long, long, long, longtime. Everybody is understanding whatis happening here. Those who do notunderstand English, believe me, somerelative or some friend or some fellow

workers there are translating the pro-ceedings for them. They are hopingthat their faith in this Congress, theirfaith in their Nation, in the UnitedStates, will be confirmed today.

Because, as we have spoken before,this bill is about self-determination.This bill is about the opportunity of 3.8million U.S. citizens who have beendisenfranchised for 81 years, for 81years disenfranchised, where they havenot been able to participate in thedemocratic process of their Nation. Wehave been part of the United States for100 years it will be July 25, the Amer-ican troops first landed in Puerto Ricoin 1898. This Monday was precisely the81st anniversary of our citizenship.

As we take a look at the procedureshere today, one of my greatest sorrowsand I am sure one of the greatest sor-rows of the people of Puerto Rico is tofind that the most adamant and vocif-erous opponents of this bill have been,one, a gentlewoman that was born inPuerto Rico and the other, a gen-tleman that was not born in PuertoRico but is from Puerto Rican extrac-tion, that they are opposing it at everyinstance, that the people of PuertoRico have a chance for self-determina-tion.

They have given a lot of reasons whythis should not happen but it all boilsdown that they oppose this bill. Theysay that this bill is tilted toward state-hood. That is not correct. This bill isnot tilted toward statehood. This billspells out the differences betweenstatehood, between independence andbetween commonwealth.

For the first time, for the first timesince Puerto Rico has been involved inplebiscite and their status, they aregoing to be voting on a bill that definescommonwealth as what it is. I want toread the definition of commonwealthbecause so much has been said. No onewill disagree with this definition:

‘‘Commonwealth. Puerto Rico shouldretain commonwealth in which PuertoRico is joined in a relationship withand under the national sovereignty ofthe United States. It is the policy ofthe Congress that this relationshipshould only be dissolved by mutualconsent.’’

That is a correct and precise state-ment that was carefully drafted by ourchairman and by the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. MILLER). Yes, I partici-pated in the conversations. However,my decisions were not what made thefinal wording of this bill.

‘‘Two. Under this political relation-ship, Puerto Rico, like a State, is anautonomous political entity, sovereignover matters not ruled by the Constitu-tion of the United States. In the exer-cise of this sovereignty, the laws of thecommonwealth shall govern in PuertoRico to the extent that they are con-sistent with the Constitution, the trea-ties and laws of the United States.’’

b 2045Congress retains its constitutional

authority to enact laws it deems nec-essary relating to Puerto Rico.

What is false? That is exactly as it is.Everything in this bill is the truth, andthat is what the people of Puerto Ricoshould be given a choice to vote on.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that all Mem-bers will vote for this bill, not only forPuerto Rico, but for the sake of thisNation.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Illinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ).

The amendment was rejected.The CHAIRMAN. Are there further

amendments to the bill?SEQUENTIAL VOTES POSTPONED IN COMMITTEE

OF THE WHOLE

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to HouseResolution 376, proceedings will nowresume on those amendments on whichfurther proceedings were postponed, inthe following order:

An amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. STEARNS); anamendment offered by the gentlemanfrom Georgia (Mr. BARR); and Amend-ment No. 21, offered by the gentlemanfrom Illinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ).

The Chair will reduce to 5 minutesthe time for any electronic vote afterthe first vote in this series.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. STEARNS

The CHAIRMAN. The pending busi-ness is the request for a recorded voteon the amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. STEARNS) onwhich further proceedings were post-poned, and on which the noes prevailedby a voice vote.

The Clerk will designate the amend-ment.

The Clerk designated the amend-ment.

RECORDED VOTE

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote hasbeen demanded.

A recorded vote was ordered.The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were—ayes 28, noes 384,not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 33]

AYES—28

BachusCampbellCarsonCombestCubinDuncanHergerHornHunterIstook

JonesKingstonMcIntoshMoran (KS)PaulPetriRadanovichRohrabacherSanfordSchaffer, Bob

SensenbrennerShadeggShermanSmith, LindaSnowbargerSouderStearnsTaylor (NC)

NOES—384

AbercrombieAckermanAderholtAllenAndrewsArcherArmeyBaeslerBakerBaldacciBallengerBarciaBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBecerra

BentsenBereuterBerryBilirakisBishopBlagojevichBlileyBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBradyBrown (CA)Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)BryantBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCannonCardinCastleChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenClayClaytonClement

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH834 March 4, 1998ClyburnCobleCoburnCollinsConditConyersCookCookseyCostelloCoxCoyneCramerCraneCrapoCummingsCunninghamDannerDavis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis (VA)DealDeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeLayDeutschDiaz-BalartDickeyDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleDreierDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEngelEnglishEnsignEshooEtheridgeEvansEverettEwingFarrFattahFawellFazioFilnerForbesFordFossellaFowlerFoxFrank (MA)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrostFurseGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGekasGephardtGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGreenGreenwoodGutierrezGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HamiltonHansenHastertHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHefnerHillHillearyHilliardHincheyHinojosaHobson

HoekstraHoldenHooleyHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHulshofHutchinsonHydeInglisJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJenkinsJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson (WI)Johnson, E. B.Johnson, SamKanjorskiKapturKasichKellyKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKimKind (WI)King (NY)KleczkaKlinkKlugKnollenbergKolbeKucinichLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLantosLargentLathamLaTouretteLazioLeachLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLivingstonLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucasMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MantonManzulloMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcCreryMcDermottMcGovernMcHaleMcHughMcInnisMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMetcalfMicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller (CA)Miller (FL)MingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMoran (VA)MorellaMurthaMyrickNadlerNealNethercutt

NeumannNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensOxleyPackardPallonePappasParkerPascrellPastorPaxonPaynePeasePelosiPeterson (MN)Peterson (PA)PickeringPickettPittsPomboPomeroyPorterPortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRahallRamstadRangelRedmondRegulaReyesRileyRiversRodriguezRoemerRoganRogersRos-LehtinenRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRushRyunSaboSalmonSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchumerScottSerranoSessionsShawShaysShusterSisiskySkaggsSkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith, AdamSnyderSolomonSpenceSprattStabenowStarkStenholmStokesStricklandStumpStupakSununuTalentTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)ThomasThompsonThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrt

TierneyTownsTraficantTurnerUptonVelazquezVentoViscloskyWalshWamp

WatersWatkinsWatt (NC)Watts (OK)WaxmanWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWexlerWeygand

WhiteWhitfieldWickerWiseWolfWoolseyWynnYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NOT VOTING—18

BermanBilbrayDoolittleFoleyGonzalezGranger

HarmanKilpatrickLutherMcDadePoshardRiggs

Schaefer, DanSchiffShimkusSmith (OR)TorresYates

b 2105

Mr. BASS and Mr. WISE changedtheir vote from ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

So the amendment was rejected.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to HouseResolution 376, the Chair announcesthat he will reduce to a minimum of 5minutes the period of time withinwhich a vote by electronic device willbe taken on each amendment on whichthe Chair has postponed further pro-ceedings.AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BARR OF GEORGIA

The CHAIRMAN. The pending busi-ness is the demand for a recorded voteon the amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Georgia (Mr. BARR) onwhich further proceedings were post-poned and on which the noes prevailedby voice vote.

The Clerk will designate the amend-ment.

The Clerk designated the amend-ment.

RECORDED VOTE

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote hasbeen demanded.

A recorded vote was ordered.The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute

vote.The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were—ayes 131, noes 282,not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 34]

AYES—131

AderholtArcherArmeyBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBatemanBereuterBoehnerBradyBryantBunningCallahanCanadyCastleChamblissChenowethChristensenCobleCoburnCollinsCombestCraneCrapoCubinCunninghamDannerDeal

DickeyDreierDuncanEmersonEverettEwingFawellFossellaFowlerGibbonsGilchrestGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGrangerGreenwoodGutknechtHall (TX)Hastings (WA)HayworthHergerHillHillearyHobsonHoekstraHornHostettlerHunter

HydeInglisIstookJenkinsJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJonesKingstonKlugKnollenbergLazioLewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLivingstonMcCreryMcHughMcIntoshMetcalfMiller (FL)MyrickNeumannNeyNorthupNorwoodOxleyPaulPaxonPeasePeterson (PA)

PetriPittsPorterPortmanPryce (OH)RegulaRoganRogersRohrabacherRoyceRyunSalmonSanfordScarborough

Schaffer, BobSensenbrennerShadeggShawShaysShermanShusterSisiskySmith (MI)Smith (TX)SnowbargerSolomonSouderSpence

SprattStearnsStumpSununuTaylor (NC)ThornberryTiahrtUptonWampWeldon (PA)WellerWickerWolf

NOES—282

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBachusBaeslerBakerBaldacciBarciaBarrett (WI)BassBecerraBentsenBerryBilbrayBilirakisBishopBlagojevichBlileyBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBonillaBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BurrBurtonBuyerCalvertCampCampbellCannonCardinCarsonChabotClayClaytonClementClyburnConditConyersCookCookseyCostelloCoxCoyneCramerCummingsDavis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis (VA)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeLayDeutschDiaz-BalartDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEngelEnglishEnsignEshooEtheridgeEvansFattahFazioFilner

FoleyForbesFordFoxFrank (MA)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFurseGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGekasGephardtGillmorGilmanGordonGreenGutierrezHall (OH)HamiltonHansenHastertHastings (FL)HefleyHefnerHilliardHincheyHinojosaHoldenHooleyHoughtonHoyerHulshofHutchinsonJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJohnJohnson (WI)Johnson, E. B.KanjorskiKapturKasichKellyKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKimKind (WI)King (NY)KleczkaKlinkKolbeKucinichLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLantosLargentLathamLaTouretteLeachLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)LoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucasMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MantonManzulloMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcDermott

McGovernMcHaleMcInnisMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller (CA)MingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMoran (KS)Moran (VA)MorellaMurthaNadlerNealNethercuttNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensPackardPallonePappasParkerPascrellPastorPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PickeringPickettPomboPomeroyPrice (NC)QuinnRadanovichRahallRamstadRangelRedmondReyesRileyRiversRodriguezRoemerRos-LehtinenRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRushSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSaxtonSchumerScottSerranoSessionsSkaggsSkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (NJ)Smith, AdamSmith, LindaSnyderStabenowStarkStenholm

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H835March 4, 1998StokesStricklandStupakTalentTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)ThomasThompsonThuneThurman

TierneyTownsTraficantTurnerVelazquezVentoViscloskyWalshWatersWatkinsWatt (NC)Watts (OK)

WaxmanWeldon (FL)WexlerWeygandWhiteWhitfieldWiseWoolseyWynnYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NOT VOTING—17

BermanDoolittleFarrFrostGonzalezHarman

KilpatrickLutherMcDadePoshardRiggsSchaefer, Dan

SchiffShimkusSmith (OR)TorresYates

b 2112

Mr. ENSIGN changed his vote from‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

So the amendment was rejected.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

b 2115

AMENDMENT NO. 21 OFFERED BY MR. GUTIERREZ

The CHAIRMAN. The pending busi-ness is the demand for a recorded voteon the amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Illinois (Mr. GUTIERREZ)on which further proceedings werepostponed and on which the noes pre-vailed by voice vote.

The Clerk will redesignate theamendment.

The Clerk redesignated the amend-ment.

RECORDED VOTE

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote hasbeen demanded.

A recorded vote was ordered.The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-

minute vote.The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were—ayes 2, noes 413,answered ‘‘present’’ 1, not voting 14, asfollows:

[Roll No. 35]

AYES—2

Gutierrez Velazquez

NOES—413

AbercrombieAckermanAderholtAllenAndrewsArcherArmeyBachusBaeslerBakerBaldacciBallengerBarciaBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBecerraBentsenBereuterBerryBilbrayBilirakisBishopBlagojevichBlileyBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBoehner

BonillaBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBradyBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BryantBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCanadyCannonCardinCarsonCastleChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenClayClaytonClementClyburnCoble

CoburnCollinsCombestConditConyersCookCookseyCostelloCoxCoyneCramerCraneCrapoCubinCummingsCunninghamDannerDavis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis (VA)DealDeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeLayDeutschDiaz-BalartDickeyDicksDingellDixonDoggett

DooleyDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEngelEnglishEnsignEshooEtheridgeEvansEverettEwingFarrFattahFawellFazioFilnerFoleyForbesFordFossellaFowlerFoxFrank (MA)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrostFurseGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGekasGephardtGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGrangerGreenGreenwoodGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HamiltonHansenHastertHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHefnerHergerHillHillearyHilliardHincheyHinojosaHobsonHoekstraHoldenHooleyHornHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJenkinsJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson (WI)Johnson, E. B.Johnson, SamJonesKanjorskiKapturKasichKellyKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)

KennellyKildeeKimKind (WI)King (NY)KingstonKleczkaKlinkKlugKnollenbergKolbeKucinichLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLantosLargentLathamLaTouretteLazioLeachLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLivingstonLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucasMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MantonManzulloMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcCreryMcDermottMcGovernMcHaleMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMetcalfMicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller (CA)Miller (FL)MingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMoran (KS)Moran (VA)MorellaMurthaMyrickNadlerNealNethercuttNeumannNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensOxleyPackardPallonePappasParkerPascrellPastorPaulPaxonPaynePeasePelosiPeterson (MN)

Peterson (PA)PetriPickeringPickettPittsPomboPomeroyPorterPortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRahallRamstadRangelRedmondRegulaReyesRileyRiversRodriguezRoemerRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRushRyunSaboSalmonSanchezSandersSandlinSanfordSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchaffer, BobSchumerScottSensenbrennerSerranoSessionsShadeggShawShaysShermanShusterSisiskySkaggsSkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith, AdamSmith, LindaSnowbargerSnyderSolomonSouderSpenceSprattStabenowStarkStearnsStenholmStokesStricklandStumpStupakSununuTalentTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)ThomasThompsonThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrtTierneyTorresTownsTraficantTurnerUptonVentoViscloskyWalsh

WampWatkinsWatt (NC)Watts (OK)WaxmanWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)

WellerWexlerWeygandWhiteWhitfieldWickerWise

WolfWoolseyWynnYoung (AK)Young (FL)

ANSWERED ‘‘PRESENT’’—1

Waters

NOT VOTING—14

BermanDoolittleGonzalezHarmanKilpatrick

LutherMcDadePoshardRiggsSchaefer, Dan

SchiffShimkusSmith (OR)Yates

b 2122

So the amendment was rejected.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other

amendments?Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the last word.Mr. Chairman, we have been on the

floor since 10 o’clock this morning. Wehave had a very, very good debate. Theamendment process is over. The com-mittee is about to rise. I just wanted toalert the body that there will be a re-vote on the Solomon amendment asamended by Miller-Burton. That votehas been requested by U.S. English andthose of us who do not want to see thisthing die.

Mr. Chairman, I would just read acouple of paragraphs out of this letterfrom U.S. English. It says, ‘‘There hasbeen much confusion over U.S. Eng-lish’s position concerning the amend-ment introduced by RepresentativesBurton, Miller, and Young. U.S.English wishes to clarify this matter.’’

Mr. Chairman, they go on to say thatthe Burton-Miller amendment is mean-ingless and has absolutely no legal ef-fect. They go on to say that U.S.English strongly supports the Solomonamendment as originally introduced,and should the Solomon amendment bere-voted on in the full House, that theywould ask for a ‘‘no’’ vote on the Solo-mon amendment as amended, and I toowill ask for a ‘‘no’’ vote on that whenit is re-voted.

At the same time, I would rise in op-position to the bill. I think Membersall must revisit it one more time.Without the Solomon amendment lan-guage in the bill, anyone anywhere inthe United States can challenge Fed-eral and individual State laws and dec-larations of English as the official lan-guage. This opens up Pandora’s box,should the bill ever become law with-out that amendment. I think we allshould consider that.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all ofmy colleagues that participated in thedebate. They have worked from 10o’clock this morning until the night onthis historical moment. Much has beensaid about this bill. A lot of it true;some of it not so true.

But I would ask Members in yourhearts to think about one thing for onemoment. We are being asked to re-voteon an amendment that was offered by

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH836 March 4, 1998the gentleman from New York (Mr.SOLOMON). And if Members defeat theSolomon amendment, they are leftwith the language in the bill. Keep thatin mind.

Mr. Chairman, I started this processover 4 years ago. I have had the hear-ings. I have done it the right way. Iwant to thank the leadership on myside of the aisle and the leadership onthat side of the aisle for allowing thisdebate to begin. This is just one smallstep, as I said earlier in the day. Thisis one small step to bring justice toAmerica and to the Puerto Rican peo-ple. I believe it is crucially importantas we go into the year 2000.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is the bestthing we can do for democracy and forthis great Nation. I thank you for theindulgence. I gave my word. I gave mycommitment that we would bring thisbill to the floor for America and thePuerto Rican people. This is the legis-lative process. This is how this Houseshould work. Not behind closed doors,not by secret meetings, but open de-bate, discussing the merits, the consand the pros of legislation that decidesthe destiny of this great Nation.

I am asking my colleagues to vote‘‘yes’’ on the Burton-Miller-Young billas they voted before.

b 2130

I am asking my colleagues to voteyes on the amendment offered by thegentleman from New York (Mr. SOLO-MON), my good friend, as he asked youto do. I am asking them to vote yes onfinal passage so we can begin this ven-ture into future generations.

The CHAIRMAN. 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.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, theCommittee rises.

Accordingly the Committee rose; andthe Speaker pro tempore (Mr. BONILLA)having assumed the chair, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Chairman of the Committee ofthe Whole House on the State of theUnion, reported that that Committee,having had under consideration the bill(H.R. 856) to provide a process leadingto full self-government for PuertoRico, pursuant to House Resolution 376,he reported the bill back to the Housewith an amendment adopted by theCommittee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Underthe rule, the previous question is or-dered.

Is a separate vote demanded on theamendment to the amendment in thenature of a substitute adopted by theCommittee of the Whole?

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I de-mand a vote on the so-called Solomonamendment, as amended.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. TheClerk will report the amendment onwhich a separate vote has been de-manded.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment:

In section 3, amend subsection (b) to readas follows:

(b) OFFICIAL ENGLISH LANGUAGE.—In theevent that a referendum held under this Actresults in approval of sovereignty leading toStatehood, upon accession to Statehood, theofficial language requirements of the FederalGovernment would apply to Puerto Rico inthe same manner and to the same extent asthroughout the United States.

Add at the end of section 3 the followingnew subsection:

(c) ENGLISH LANGUAGE EMPOWERMENT.—Itis in the best interest of the Nation for Puer-to Rico to promote the teaching of Englishas the language of opportunity and empower-ment in the United States in order to enablestudents in public schools to achieve Englishlanguage proficiency by the age of 10.

In section 4(a), in the referendum languagefor Statehood, amend paragraph (7) to readas follows:

‘‘(7) Official English language require-ments of the Federal Government apply inPuerto Rico to the same extent as Federallaw requires throughout the United States.’’.

In subparagraph (C) of section 4(B)(1),strike ‘‘(C) Additionally,’’ and all that fol-lows through ‘‘(ii) the effective date’’ and in-sert the following:

(C) Additionally, in the event of a vote infavor of continued United States sovereigntyleading to Statehood, the transition plan re-quired by this subsection shall—

(i) include proposals and incentives to in-crease the opportunities of the people ofPuerto Rico to expand their English pro-ficiency in order to promote and facilitatecommunication with residents of all otherStates of the United States and with theFederal Government, including teaching inEnglish in public schools, awarding fellow-ships and scholarships, and providing grantsto organizations located in various commu-nities that have, as a purpose, the promotionof English language skills;

(ii) promote the use of English by theUnited States citizens in Puerto Rico inorder to ensure—

(I) efficiency in the conduct and coordina-tion of the official business activities of theFederal and State Governments;

(II) that the citizens possess the languageskill necessary to contribute to and partici-pate in all aspects of the Nation; and

(III) the ability of all citizens of PuertoRico to take full advantage of the opportuni-ties and responsibilities accorded to all citi-zens, including education, economic activi-ties, occupational opportunities, and civicaffairs; and

(iii) include the effective date

Mr. SOLOMON (during the reading).Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consentthat the amendment be considered asread 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. The

question is on the amendment.The question was taken; and the

Speaker pro tempore announced thatthe ayes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I de-mand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were—ayes 240, noes 177,not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 36]

AYES—240

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBaldacciBarciaBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartonBecerraBentsenBereuterBerryBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBoehlertBonillaBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BurtonCampbellCannonCardinCarsonCastleChristensenClayClaytonClementClyburnConditConyersCookCostelloCoyneCramerCummingsDannerDavis (FL)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDiaz-BalartDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEngelEnglishEshooEtheridgeEvansEwingFarrFattahFazioFilnerFoleyForbesFordFossellaFoxFrank (MA)FrostFurseGallegly

GejdensonGekasGephardtGilchrestGillmorGilmanGordonGrangerGreenGreenwoodHall (OH)HamiltonHastings (FL)HefnerHilliardHincheyHinojosaHooleyHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHulshofJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJohnJohnson (WI)Johnson, E. B.KanjorskiKapturKellyKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKimKind (WI)King (NY)KleczkaKlinkKolbeKucinichLaFalceLampsonLantosLazioLeachLevinLewis (GA)LofgrenLoweyMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MantonMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcHaleMcHughMcInnisMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller (CA)MingeMinkMoakley

MollohanMoran (VA)MorellaMurthaNadlerNealNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensOxleyPallonePascrellPastorPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PomeroyPrice (NC)QuinnRadanovichRahallRangelRedmondReyesRiversRodriguezRoemerRos-LehtinenRothmanRoybal-AllardRushSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSaxtonSchumerScottSerranoShawShermanSkaggsSkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith, AdamSnyderSprattStabenowStarkStokesStricklandStupakTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)ThompsonThurmanTierneyTorresTurnerVentoViscloskyWalshWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWexlerWeygandWiseWoolseyWynnYoung (AK)

NOES—177

AderholtArcherArmeyBachusBaeslerBakerBallengerBarrBartlettBassBatemanBilbrayBilirakis

BlileyBluntBoehnerBradyBryantBunningBurrBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyChabot

ChamblissChenowethCobleCoburnCollinsCombestCookseyCoxCraneCrapoCubinCunninghamDavis (VA)

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H837March 4, 1998DealDeLayDickeyDreierDuncanDunnEmersonEnsignEverettFawellFowlerFranks (NJ)FrelinghuysenGanskeGibbonsGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGutierrezGutknechtHall (TX)HansenHastertHastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHergerHillHillearyHobsonHoekstraHoldenHornHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJenkinsJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJonesKasichKingston

KlugKnollenbergLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLivingstonLoBiondoLucasManzulloMcCreryMcIntoshMenendezMetcalfMiller (FL)Moran (KS)MyrickNethercuttNeumannNeyNorthupNorwoodPackardPappasParkerPaulPaxonPeasePeterson (PA)PetriPickeringPickettPittsPomboPorterPortmanPryce (OH)RamstadRegulaRileyRoganRogers

RohrabacherRoukemaRoyceRyunSalmonSanfordScarboroughSchaffer, BobSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShaysShusterSisiskySmith (MI)Smith (OR)Smith, LindaSnowbargerSolomonSouderSpenceStearnsStenholmStumpSununuTalentTaylor (NC)ThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtTownsTraficantUptonVelazquezWampWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhiteWhitfieldWickerWolfYoung (FL)

NOT VOTING—13

BermanDoolittleGonzalezHarmanKilpatrick

LutherMcDadePoshardRiggsSchaefer, Dan

SchiffShimkusYates

b 2147

Mr. BENTSEN and Mr. HILLIARDchanged their vote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’

So the amendment, as amended, wasagreed to.

The result of the vote was announcedas above recorded.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.BONILLA). The question is on theamendment in the nature of a sub-stitute.

The amendment in the nature of asubstitute was agreed to.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Thequestion is on engrossment and thirdreading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossedand read a third time, and was read thethird time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Thequestion is on the passage of the bill.

The question was taken; and theSpeaker pro tempore announced thatthe noes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speak-er, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were—ayes 209, noes 208,not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 37]

AYES—209

AbercrombieAckerman

AllenAndrews

BaldacciBarcia

Barrett (WI)BecerraBentsenBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBoehlertBonillaBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BurtonBuyerCalvertCannonCardinCarsonClayClaytonClementClyburnConditConyersCookseyCoyneCummingsDavis (FL)Davis (VA)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeLayDeutschDiaz-BalartDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleEdwardsEhlersEngelEnglishEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFazioFilnerFoleyForbesFordFrank (MA)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrostFurseGalleglyGejdensonGekasGephardt

GilchrestGilmanGrangerGreenHall (OH)HamiltonHastings (FL)HefnerHilliardHincheyHinojosaHoldenHooleyHoyerJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJohnJohnson, E. B.KanjorskiKellyKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKimKing (NY)KlinkKolbeKucinichLaFalceLampsonLantosLazioLeachLevinLewis (GA)LofgrenLoweyMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MantonMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcHaleMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller (CA)MingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMoran (VA)Morella

MurthaNadlerNealOberstarOlverOrtizOwensPalloneParkerPascrellPastorPaynePelosiPeterson (PA)PomboPomeroyPrice (NC)QuinnRahallRangelRedmondReyesRodriguezRoemerRos-LehtinenRothmanRoybal-AllardSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSaxtonSchumerScottSerranoSkaggsSkeenSlaughterSmith (NJ)Smith, AdamSnyderSprattStarkStenholmStokesStupakTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)ThompsonThurmanTierneyTorresTurnerVentoViscloskyWalshWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWexlerWeygandWiseWoolseyWynnYoung (AK)

NOES—208

AderholtArcherArmeyBachusBaeslerBakerBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBereuterBerryBilbrayBilirakisBlileyBluntBoehnerBradyBryantBunningBurrCallahanCampCampbellCanady

CastleChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenCobleCoburnCollinsCombestCookCostelloCoxCramerCraneCrapoCubinCunninghamDannerDavis (IL)DealDickeyDreierDuncanDunnEhrlichEmersonEnsignEverett

EwingFawellFossellaFowlerFoxGanskeGibbonsGillmorGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGreenwoodGutierrezGutknechtHall (TX)HansenHastertHastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHergerHillHillearyHobsonHoekstra

HornHostettlerHoughtonHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJenkinsJohnson (CT)Johnson (WI)Johnson, SamJonesKapturKasichKind (WI)KingstonKleczkaKlugKnollenbergLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLivingstonLoBiondoLucasManzulloMcCreryMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcIntyreMenendezMetcalfMiller (FL)Moran (KS)

MyrickNethercuttNeumannNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleObeyOxleyPackardPappasPaulPaxonPeasePeterson (MN)PetriPickeringPickettPittsPorterPortmanPryce (OH)RadanovichRamstadRegulaRileyRiversRoganRogersRohrabacherRoukemaRoyceRushRyunSalmonSanfordScarboroughSchaffer, BobSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShaw

ShaysShermanShusterSisiskySkeltonSmith (MI)Smith (OR)Smith (TX)Smith, LindaSnowbargerSolomonSouderSpenceStabenowStearnsStricklandStumpSununuTalentTannerTaylor (NC)ThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtTownsTraficantUptonVelazquezWampWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhiteWhitfieldWickerWolfYoung (FL)

NOT VOTING—13

BermanDoolittleGonzalezHarmanKilpatrick

LutherMcDadePoshardRiggsSchaefer, Dan

SchiffShimkusYates

b 2207

The Clerk announced the followingpair:

On this vote:Mr. McDade for, with Mr. Riggs against.

Mr. FOSSELLA and Mr. RUSHchanged their vote from ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania andMr. POMEROY changed their votefrom ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’

So the bill was passed.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

f

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKERPRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.BONILLA). The Chair will remind allpersons in the gallery that they arehere as guests of the House and thatany manifestation of approval or dis-approval of proceedings are in viola-tion of the rules of the House.

f

REPORT ON PAYMENTS TO CUBAPURSUANT TO CUBAN DEMOC-RACY ACT OF 1992—MESSAGEFROM THE PRESIDENT OF THEUNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 105–221)

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be-fore the House the following messagefrom the President of the UnitedStates; which was read and, without

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH838 March 4, 1998objection, referred to the Committeeon International Relations and orderedto be printed:

To the Congress of the United States:This report is submitted pursuant to

1705(e)(6) of the Cuban Democracy Actof 1992, 22 U.S.C. 6004(e)(6) (the ‘‘CDA’’),as amended by section 102(g) of theCuban Liberty and Democratic Solidar-ity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, PublicLaw 104–114 (March 12, 1996), 110 Stat.785, 22 U.S.C. 6021–91 (the ‘‘LIBERTADAct’’), which requires that I report tothe Congress on a semiannual basis de-tailing payments made to Cuba by anyUnited States person as a result of theprovision of telecommunications serv-ices authorized by this subsection.

The CDA, which provides that tele-communications services are permittedbetween the United States and Cuba,specifically authorizes the President toprovide for payments to Cuba by li-cense. The CDA states that licensesmay be issued for full or partial settle-ment of telecommunications serviceswith Cuba, but may not require anywithdrawal from a blocked account.Following enactment of the CDA onOctober 23, 1992, a number of U.S. tele-communications companies success-fully negotiated agreements to providetelecommunications services betweenthe United States and Cuba consistentwith policy guidelines developed by theDepartment of State and the FederalCommunications Commission.

Subsequent to enactment of the CDA,the Department of the Treasury’s Of-fice of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)amended the Cuban Assets ControlRegulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 515 (the‘‘CACR’’), to provide for specific licens-ing on a case-by-case basis for certaintransactions incident to the receipt ortransmission of telecommunicationsbetween the United States and Cuba, 31C.F.R. 515.542(c), including settlementof charges under traffic agreements.

The OFAC has issued eight licensesauthorizing transactions incident tothe receipt or transmission of tele-communications between the UnitedStates and Cuba since the enactment ofthe CDA. None of these licenses per-mits payments to the Government ofCuba from a blocked account. For theperiod July 1 through December 31,1997, OFAC-licensed U.S. carriers re-ported payments to the Government ofCuba in settlement of charges undertelecommunications traffic agreementsas follows:AT&T Corporation (formally,

American Telephone and Tele-graph Company) ...................... $11,991,715

AT&T de Puerto Rico ................ 298,916Global One (formerly, Sprint In-

corporated) ............................. 3,180,886IDB WorldCom Services, Inc.

(formerly, IDB Communica-tions, Inc.) ............................... 4,128,371

MCI International, Inc. (for-merly, MCI CommunicationsCorporation) ........................... 4,893,699

Telefonica Larga Distancia dePuerto Rico, Inc. ..................... 105,848

WilTel, Inc. (formerly, WilTelUnderseas Cable, Inc.) ............. 5,608,751

WorldCom, Inc. (formerly, LDDSCommunications, Inc.) ............ 2,887,684

$33,095,870

I shall continue to report semiannu-ally on telecommunications paymentsto the Government of Cuba fromUnited States persons.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.THE WHITE HOUSE, March 4, 1998.

f

CONTINUATION OF NATIONALEMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TOIRAN—MESSAGE FROM THEPRESIDENT OF THE UNITEDSTATES (H. DOC. NO. 105–222)

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be-fore the House the following messagefrom the President of the UnitedStates; which was read and, togetherwith the accompanying papers, withoutobjection, referred to the Committeeon International Relations and orderedto be printed:

To the Congress of the United States:Section 202(d) of the National Emer-

gencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) providesfor the automatic termination of a na-tional emergency unless, prior to theanniversary date of its declaration, thePresident publishes in the Federal Reg-ister and transmits to the Congress anotice stating that the emergency is tocontinue in effect beyond the anniver-sary date. In accordance with this pro-vision, I have sent the enclosed notice,stating that the national emergencydeclared with respect to Iran on March15, 1995, pursuant to the InternationalEmergency Economic Powers Act (50U.S.C. 1701–1706) is to continue in effectbeyond March 15, 1998, to the FederalRegister for publication. This emer-gency is separate from that declared onNovember 14, 1979, in connection withthe Iranian hostage crisis and thereforerequires separate renewal of emergencyauthorities.

The factors that led me to declare anational emergency with respect toIran on March 15, 1995, have not beenresolved. The actions and policies ofthe Government of Iran, including sup-port for international terrorism, its ef-forts to undermine the Middle Eastpeace process, and its acquisition ofweapons of mass destruction and themeans to deliver them, continue tothreaten the national security, foreignpolicy, and economy of the UnitedStates. Accordingly, I have determinedthat it is necessary to maintain inforce the broad programs I have au-thorized pursuant to the March 15, 1995,declaration of emergency.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.THE WHITE HOUSE, March 4, 1998.

f

CONTINUATION OF NEED FOR U.S.ARMED FORCES IN BOSNIA ANDHERZEGOVINA—MESSAGE FROMTHE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITEDSTATES (H. DOC. NO. 105–223)

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be-fore the House the following message

from the President of the UnitedStates; which was read and, togetherwith the accompanying papers, withoutobjection, referred to the Committeeon International Relations and theCommittee on Appropriations and or-dered to be printed:

To the Congress of the United States:

I hereby certify that the continuedpresence of U.S. armed forces, afterJune 30, 1998, in Bosnia andHerzegovina is required in order tomeet the national security interests ofthe United States, and that it is thepolicy of the United States that U.S.armed forces will not serve as, or beused as, civil police in Bosnia andHerzegovina.

This certification is presented pursu-ant to section 1203 of the National De-fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year1998, Public Law 105–85, and section 8132of the National Defense AppropriationsAct for Fiscal year 1998, Public Law105–56. The information required underthese sections is in the report that ac-companies this certification. The sup-plemental appropriations request re-quired under these sections is beingforwarded under separate cover.

America has major national interestsin peace in Bosnia. We have learnedfrom hard experience in this turbulentcentury that America’s security andEurope’s stability are intimatelylinked. The Bosnian war saw the worstfighting—and the most profound hu-manitarian disaster—on that continentsince the end of the Second World War.The conflict could easily have spreadthrough the region, endangering oldAllies and new democracies alike. Alarger conflict would have cast doubton the viability of the NATO allianceitself and crippled prospects for ourlarger goal of a democratic, undivided,and peaceful Europe.

The Dayton framework is the key tochanging the conditions that madeBosnia a fuse in a regional powder keg.It is decisively in American intereststo see Dayton implemented as rapidlyas feasible, so that peace becomes self-sustaining. U.S. leadership is as essen-tial to sustaining progress as it hasbeen to ending the war and laying thefoundation for peace.

I expect the size of the overall NATOforce in Bosnia and Herzegovina willremain similar to that of the currentSFOR. However, the U.S. contributionwould decline by about 20 percent, asour Allies and partners continue toshoulder an increasing share of theburden.

Although I do not propose a fixedend-date for this presence, it is by nomeans open-ended. Instead, the goal ofthe military presence is to establishthe conditions under which Dayton im-plementation can continue without thesupport of a major NATO-led militaryforce. To achieve this goal, we have es-tablished concrete and achievable

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H839March 4, 1998benchmarks, such as the reform of po-lice and media, the elimination of ille-gal pre-Dayton institutions, the con-duct of elections according to demo-cratic norms, elimination of cross-en-tity barriers to commerce, and aframework for the phased and orderlyreturn of refugees. NATO and U.S.forces will be reduced progressively asachievement of these benchmarks im-proves conditions, enabling the inter-national community to rely largely ontraditional diplomacy, internationalcivil personnel, economic incentivesand disincentives, confidence-buildingmeasures, and negotiation to continueimplementing the Dayton Accords overthe longer term.

In fact, great strides already havebeen made towards fulfilling theseaims, especially in the last ten monthssince the United States re-energizedthe Dayton process. Since Dayton, astable military environment has beencreated; over 300,000 troops returned tocivilian life and 6,600 heavy weaponshave been destroyed. Public security isimproving through the restructuring,retraining and reintegration of localpolice. Democratic elections have beenheld at all levels of government andhard-line nationalists—especially inthe Republika Srpska—are increas-ingly marginalized. Independent mediaand political pluralism are expanding.Over 400,000 refugees and displaced per-sons have returned home—110,000 in1997. One third of the publicly-indictedwar criminals have been taken intocustody.

Progress has been particularly dra-matic since the installation of a pro-Dayton, pro-democracy Government inRepublika Srpska in December. Al-ready, the capital of Republika Srpskahas been moved from Pale to BanjaLuka; media are being restructuredalong domestic lines; civil police aregenerally cooperating with the reformprocess; war criminals are surrender-ing; and Republika Srpska is workingdirectly with counterparts in the Fed-eration to prepare key cities in bothentities for major returns of refugeesand displaced persons.

At the same time, long-standing ob-stacles to inter-entity cooperation alsoare being broken down: a common flagnow flies over Bosnia institutions, acommon currency is being printed, acommon automobile license plate isbeing manufactured, and mail is beingdelivered and trains are running acrossthe inter-entity boundary line.

Although progress has been tangible,many of these achievements still arereversible and a robust internationalmilitary presence still is required atthe present time to sustain theprogress. I am convinced that theNATO-led force—and U.S. participationin it—can be progressively reduced asconditions continue to improve, untilthe implementation process is capableof sustaining itself without a majorinternational military presence.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.THE WHITE HOUSE, March 3, 1998.

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speak-er, I ask unanimous consent that allMembers may have 5 legislative dayswithin which to revise and extend theirremarks on H.R. 856, the bill justpassed.

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

There was no objection.f

AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TOMAKE CORRECTIONS IN EN-GROSSMENT OF H.R. 856, UNITEDSTATES-PUERTO RICO POLITICALSTATUS ACT

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speak-er, I ask unanimous consent that in theengrossment of the bill, H.R. 856, theClerk be authorized to make technicaland conforming changes as may be nec-essary to reflect the action of theHouse just taken.

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

There was no objection.f

PERMISSION FOR MEMBER TO BECONSIDERED AS FIRST SPONSOROF H.R. 1232

Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that I may here-after be considered as the first sponsorof H.R. 1232, a bill originally intro-duced by Representative Bono of Cali-fornia, for the purposes of adding co-sponsors and requesting reprints pursu-ant to clause 4 of rule XXII.

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

There was no objection.f

APPOINTMENT OF INDIVIDUALSTO AMTRAK REFORM COUNCIL

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Withoutobjection, and pursuant to the provi-sions of section 203(b)(1) of Public Law105–134, the Chair announces theSpeaker’s appointment of the followingindividuals on the part of the House tothe Amtrak Reform Council for a termof 5 years:

Mrs. Christine Todd Whitman of NewJersey;

Mr. Bruce Chapman of Washington;and

Mr. Christopher Gleason of Pennsyl-vania.

There was no objection.f

SOCIAL SECURITY

(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked andwas given permission to address theHouse for 1 minute and to revise andextend his remarks, and include extra-neous material.)

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speak-er, continuing the discussion on do wereally have a surplus, yesterday theCongressional Budget Office estimated

that this year we would have a surplusof $8 billion. However, this year we areborrowing about $90 billion from theSocial Security trust fund, so we arehoodwinking the American people, pre-tending there is a surplus.

We have come a long ways. We havecut down overspending by over $200 bil-lion over the last 3 years, but it is nota surplus. We still have a long way togo, and it is important that we put So-cial Security first. Anybody that wouldlike a copy of this survey, please let meknow. I will include this for theRECORD.

In this survey, the voters profoundlydislike using Social Security surplusesto subsidize the remainder of the Fed-eral Government. Ninety-three percentwant Congress to balance the budgetwithout using the Social Security de-posits.

Let us still stay on track. Let us geta more efficient, more constructivegovernment that is going to serve theneeds of government at a lesser taxrate and more efficiently and not usethe surplus to mask the deficit.

We have asked questions about Social Se-curity on three national surveys this year.

The primary observations are:Voters profoundly dislike using the Social

Security surpluses to subsidize the remain-der of the federal government. 93% wantCongress to balance the budget withoutusing SS deposits.

Voters overwhelmingly reject ‘‘raiding’’ ofthe Trust Fund. 74% approve of a new federallaw prohibiting Congress and the Presidentfrom raiding the Social Security Trust Fundto cover deficit spending.

Voters are inclined to believe that the fed-eral government is using Social SecurityTrust Fund surpluses to mask the size of thedeficit.

The President’s credibility on Social Secu-rity is not secure.

Voters would rather use the overall budgetsurplus to shore up Social Security than tocut taxes, pay down debt or spend on federalprograms.

Younger voters don’t believe they’ll getSocial Security when they retire, and Repub-licans are especially dubious.

Voters do not consider the Social Securitysystem to be basically sound.

Personal Savings Accounts is the preferredapproach to strengthen Social Security.

ALL GOP DEMS IND

Personal Savings Accounts ............................. 43 52 34 47Eliminate benefits/rich .................................... 18 13 22 21Raise retirement age ....................................... 10 11 11 9Raise payroll taxes .......................................... 6 4 8 4Reduce benefits for everyone .......................... 3 3 4 3

Voters are strongly in favor (six to one) ofallowing those under 40 to privately invest aportion of their payroll taxes for their futureretirement.

f

b 2015

SPECIAL ORDERSThe SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

PITTS). Under the Speaker’s announcedpolicy of January 7, 1997, and under aprevious order of the House, the follow-ing Members will be recognized for 5minutes each.

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

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH840 March 4, 1998(Mr. LIPINSKI addressed the House.

His remarks will appear hereafter inthe Extensions of Remarks.)

f

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gen-tleman from Minnesota (Mr. GUT-KNECHT) is recognized for 5 minutes.

(Mr. GUTKNECHT addressed theHouse. His remarks will appear here-after in the Extensions of Remarks.)

f

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the 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

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

(Mr. RIGGS addressed the House. Hisremarks will appear hereafter in theExtensions of Remarks.)

f

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gentle-woman from California (Ms. WATERS) isrecognized for 5 minutes.

(Ms. WATERS addressed the House.Her remarks will appear hereafter inthe Extensions of Remarks.)

f

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

(Mr. KINGSTON addressed the House.His remarks will appear hereafter inthe Extensions of Remarks.)

f

BALANCING THE BUDGET

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

Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday,the Congressional Budget Office an-nounced that they anticipate we willhave an $8 billion surplus in this fiscalyear. This is a remarkable announce-ment. It is an historic announcement.

We have waited for over 30 years forthe good news that the budget would,at long last, be balanced. However, asimportant and as significant as thismay be, I urge that we not celebrateexcessively. Why is this? It is becausewe still have a great deal of heavy lift-ing to do.

The announcement does not recog-nize the tragic condition that we faceas a Nation with respect to our fiscalaffairs. First, it does not recognize thatwe continue to operate on a consoli-dated Federal budget or unified Fed-eral budget which rolls all trust fundoperations into the bottom line.

As a consequence, it glosses over thefact that we are borrowing $100 billion

in fiscal 1998 from the Social SecurityTrust Fund because that Trust Fund isrunning a surplus. It is running a sur-plus because the baby-boom generationis in its peak earning years, and it iscontributing at the maximum level,and it is not drawing out.

So in reality, if we would discountthis subsidy to the operating budgetfrom the Social Security Trust Funds,we would not have an $8 billion sur-plus. Instead, we would have a $92 bil-lion deficit.

We have some heavy lifting to do toovercome this $92 billion deficit thatremains. That is one reason we shouldnot celebrate too strongly.

Secondly, we have to remember thatwe have a debt of approximately $5.4trillion, approximately $20,000 for everyman, woman and child in this country.Indeed, it is heartwarming to learnthat under one theory of calculatingthe budget, we have a surplus of $8 bil-lion. But, remember, this is little morethan about $17 for each man, womanand child that we can take off of that$20,000 debt.

So, again, we have a long ways to go.In fact, if you look at the years overwhich this surplus has been projected,we would probably not be able to re-duce that debt by as much as even$1,000. So we have a ways to go interms of making a dent in this vast na-tional debt.

A third reason that we should notcelebrate too strongly is that we haveobligations that we have incurred inthe operation of the Social Securityprogram and the Medicare programthat are not funded. The unfunded li-abilities of those two programs areconservatively estimated to be at least$3 trillion and $9 trillion respectively.That is a total of at least $12 trillion,or approximately two and a half timesthe current national debt.

We have a great deal to do in reform-ing and revising the Social Securityand Medicare programs, improvingtheir funding, to make sure that this $9trillion or $3 trillion unfunded liabilityin those respective programs does nothit us squarely between the eyes or ourchildren and grandchildren between theeyes 30, 40, 50 years from now.

So, although we should tarry and rec-ognize the significance of this accom-plishment, of having at least a $8 bil-lion surplus in terms of historic cal-culations, we should not be exuberant.In fact, I do not even think we shouldcrack out the champagne. We couldprobably celebrate with a near beer andenjoy the fizz, but remain sober andcommitted to yet attacking with re-newed vigor the problems that lieahead in making sure that our finan-cial fiscal house is in order in thiscountry, and making sure that thiscountry has a financial condition thatwe are proud to leave as a legacy to ourchildren and grandchildren.

We should not allow the partisanshipthat has unfortunately divided us onall too many occasions to overcomeour commitment to doing the right

thing by the next generation in theyears to come.

f

THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE BY THEINDEPENDENT COUNSEL

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr.NETHERCUTT) is recognized for 5 min-utes.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, Irise today to address a subject that ison the minds of all Americans, the pur-suit of justice by the IndependentCounsel.

In recent weeks, we have seen thepersonal character and motives of Ken-neth Starr subjected to an unprece-dented number of insults and attacksby friends of the President, attackswhich are designed to delay justice andshift focus away from the truth.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, these attacksonly tarnish our system of law inAmerica. Our criminal justice systemwas designed to operate outside the po-litical arena. It was intended that offi-cers of the court would seek justicebased on the presentation of the factsand the determination of whether con-duct based on these facts was unlawfulor not.

The search for truth and determina-tion of the facts has sadly become anindictment by political operatives ofthe Independent Counsel and his office.Diverting attention from the facts ofthis case does not serve justice, it sim-ply demeans the Presidency.

Mr. Speaker, Congress passed theIndependent Counsel statute in re-sponse to the Watergate experience of1974, assuring that an independentlyappointed court official would best beable to seek justice involving allega-tions against high government offi-cials. Moving the prosecution processoutside the White House best assuresthat credible allegations of wrongdoingagainst such officials will not go un-checked. It is certainly not in our na-tional interests for a President to in-vestigate himself.

The history of the Independent Coun-sel statute is interesting. Congress re-authorized it three times. PresidentClinton himself signed the reauthoriza-tion legislation in 1994. Many Membersof this Congress back in 1994 voted forsuch reauthorization.

Under the law, the IndependentCounsel is given the same investigativeauthority as the Department of Jus-tice. The authority includes conduct-ing grand jury investigations, grantingimmunity to witnesses, and challeng-ing in court any privilege claims or at-tempts to withhold evidence on na-tional security grounds.

We must also understand, Mr. Speak-er, that obtaining testimony by sub-poena is an important investigativetool to determine the facts of allega-tions of wrongdoing by the President.Without facts, neither truth nor justicecan be preserved.

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney Generalappointed Mr. Starr through a judicial

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H841March 4, 1998panel and maintains full authority toremove the Independent Counsel. Mr.Starr was not appointed because hewas without integrity; he was ap-pointed because he is a fine lawyer,possessed of substantial legal skills andexperience, and respected for his char-acter and honesty.

If President Clinton genuinely be-lieves Mr. Starr has acted beyond au-thority, the Attorney General may re-move him for cause and appoint a dif-ferent Independent Counsel. The powerto do so resides in this President.

If the President believes the insultsthat his spokesmen level at Mr. Starr,then the President should seek re-moval. If he does not agree with thoseinsults, the President should instructhis defenders to stop their public criti-cism, criticism that is not designed tolearn the truth, but to deflect it andbring contempt on our justice system.

With international challenges facingour country, the public needs reassur-ance that our highest national leader istruthful, that his representations to usare reliable, that we can trust his wordon matters of national security, thathe is an honorable representative forall Americans. Under the cir-cumstances, the President’s sacredhonor is in question. All the criticismsagainst the Independent Counsel by po-litical operatives of the President donot change that at all. Their criticismsserve not the best interests of thecountry nor the one standard thatAmericans support most, the truth.

Mr. Speaker, all Americans need toknow that our President is honorable.Seeking the truth should not just beanother political campaign. Assaultingour legal system and the officers of thecourt who administer it, who serveunder it, may have temporary politicalbenefit. Public opinion polls ebb andflow, but the long-term damage is morelasting. Public distrust of our legalsystem, the system in which we wantour citizens to have faith, will resultfrom a contradiction of the nobleAmerican principle that we are a coun-try of laws, not men. That rule of lawand justice is of paramount importanceto a civil society. No person, no matterhow popular, is above the law.

Mr. Speaker, we should all take acareful look at the phenomenon unfold-ing before us, the gaming of our justicesystem, where criticizing legal author-ity is the defense weapon of choice,where putting a proper spin on the evi-dence is a substitute for being truthfuland honest and accepting the con-sequences.

b 2230

Free societies governed by laws fairlyadministered can prevail over politicaltyranny only if citizens have faith inand respect for authorities chargedwith enforcing the laws. Law is the em-bodiment of the moral sentiment of thepeople. The laws of our country are themost perfect branch of ethics. Lawsshould be like death, which spares noone. It has been said that every viola-

tion of truth is a stab at the heart ofhuman society.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, our soci-ety, our country, needs the truth inthis instance. To people of integrity,there would be no conversation soagreeable as that of a man, be he thePresident or the independent counsel,who has no intention to deceive. Thewithholding of truth can be a worse de-ception than a direct misstatement.Searching for the truth is the noblestoccupation of mankind. Obscuring it isa curse on our society that will damageour institutions of government and ournational spirit for years to come.

f

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.PITTS). Under a previous order of theHouse, the gentleman from Illinois(Mr. DAVIS) is recognized for 5 minutes.

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois addressed theHouse. His remarks will appear here-after in the Extensions of Remarks.)

f

EXPLAINING THE ATTITUDES,CONCERNS, AND BELIEFS OFOUR CONSTITUENTS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Underthe Speaker’s announced policy of Jan-uary 7, 1997, the gentleman from Colo-rado (Mr. SCHAFFER) is recognized forhalf of the time until midnight as thedesignee of the majority leader.

Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado.Mr. Speaker, tonight I am joined bysome of my colleagues from the fresh-man Republican class, which includesindividuals who were elected in 1996and were sworn in at the beginning of1997. This class is one that has come tothis microphone often during specialorders to talk about the agendas thatwe have set forward and that we arefighting to promote here in Congress,but more recently, we have had the op-portunity to spend a considerableamount of time back at home in our re-spective districts, holding and conduct-ing a number of town meetings and vis-iting with constituents and speakingabout the issues that are taking placehere, and describing our activities toour constituents.

So tonight our focus is primarily toreport back to the Congress and to ourcolleagues about those things we haveheard from our constituents, and to infact explain the attitudes and opinionsand beliefs of those constituents to therest of the House.

With that in mind I am joined to-night by the gentleman from South Da-kota (Mr. THUNE) and also the gen-tleman from great State of Minnesota,Mr. ROY BLUNT, is here. We may bejoined by another gentleman from theState of Michigan, who has suggestedhe may join us tonight. I just wantedto have a general discussion with theMembers here, and yield time back andforth and talk about the things wehave heard.

As for me, conducting several townmeetings and visiting throughout thecountry, throughout the district, rath-

er, the concern for the key issue in thecountry of the national debt seemed tobe first and foremost on people’sminds, at about $5.5 trillion. That debt,when divided by the number of citizensin the country, comes to about $20,000per man, woman, and child.

People are quite concerned aboutproviding some real relief with thatdebt. People are encouraged by thenews that we have heard and the re-ports that the economy has done sowell and has allowed the American tax-payers to catch up with the spending ofCongress, so we anticipate a budgetsurplus; that is to suggest that thedebt may be eliminated, and that is,again, according to the way the gov-ernment does its accounting. But thereal question is what to do with a sur-plus if one is found to exist.

What I am hearing for the most partis that people would like to see us findsome strategy to retire that debt, ei-ther pay it off directly, to try to find away to relieve the tax burden on theAmerican people in a way that allowsthem to be more productive, and gen-erate more revenue to the Federal Gov-ernment through tax relief, and a num-ber of other strategies that have beensuggested to me.

People would still like to see us moveforward on our goals to provide furthertax relief, to rein in the abuses at theIRS, and to begin treating taxpayers asthough we are innocent until the IRSproves we might be guilty, rather thanthe other way around, as the burden isunfairly placed on taxpayers todaywhen there is some question over taxobligation and liability.

Education was the third key issuethat I had heard back in my district.We have had a lot of discussion aboutthe government trying to usurp anindependent national testing strategythat we have today, with independentoperations that provide nationalbenchmarks for our schools. The Clin-ton administration, as we know, hasbeen trying to establish a nationaltesting procedure through the U.S. De-partment of Education in a govern-ment-owned sort of fashion.

Many people in my district, in factmost people who are familiar with theproposal, have flatly rejected it and be-lieve that we ought to defer authorityback to our States and really focus onthe freedom to teach and liberty tolearn at the most local level. So that isa general sense of the key issues thathave been raised in my town meetings.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlemanfrom South Dakota (Mr. THUNE) to tellus what he has been hearing.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman from Colorado for yield-ing to me.

I would say that there has been a lotof talk lately about how great theeconomy is doing, and just yesterdaythe Congressional Budget Office an-nounced that we actually have an $8billion Federal surplus in 1998. I thinkthat is remarkable when we thinkabout where we have come from, start-ing when our side took a poll of the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH842 March 4, 1998Congress back in 1994, and began togovern in 1995, and how progressivelyeach year we have been able to whittleaway at the deficit to the point todaywhere the fiscal discipline has actuallypaid off and we are doing something interms of talking about operating witha surplus. I think that is a remarkableachievement.

It has been almost 30 years since thathappened, since government was in theblack. When we think about 30 yearsago, most people now serving in Con-gress probably were probably closer tostudying civics in high school or in thecollege classroom than they were tovoting on the House floor. There are alot of staffers, interns, and pages nowworking here in the House that werenot even born yet back in 1969, whichwas the last time that we actually bal-anced the budget, the last time that itwas at that point in time that we senta man to walk on the Moon for thefirst time, and he took a giant step for-ward for mankind, and yet we havebeen walking backwards in terms ofthe fiscal path we have been on for thiscountry.

Our booming economy, the budgetsurplus, are really truly, I think, note-worthy and very positive developmentsfor our Nation. However, I would alsosay that we still have a long way to go,because as the gentleman mentionedwith the unified budget concept, wehave reached balance. We are actuallyoperating in the black.

But the fact of the matter is that wecontinue to borrow from the Social Se-curity trust fund, which masks thetrue size of the deficit. This year about$100 billion, and already some $650 bil-lion, have been borrowed from the So-cial Security trust fund. That is a very,very serious issue which needs to be ad-dressed.

When I go back to my State of SouthDakota, and I spent a long time outthere over the President’s Day break,and then again last weekend andtalked to my constituents, they arenot ready quite yet to break out thebubbly and start celebrating the sur-plus. We may be doing well, but thatdoes not necessarily mean Congresscan pat itself on the back and assumethat everyone in America is satisfied.

When I travel back to South Dakota,I meet a lot with young families wherethe husband and wife are trying to jug-gle jobs and schedules so that they canpay the bills, pay for day care, and stillfind a way to see their kids and eachother at the end of the week.

I meet college students who are tak-ing a full load of classes plus trying towork 40 hours a week on top of it topay for their school. I meet with re-tired South Dakotans and senior citi-zens across my State who are worriedabout the Medicare program and SocialSecurity program. I meet a lot ofyoung professionals who are just start-ing out in their careers who, when youask them if they believe that SocialSecurity is going to be there for them,laugh it off. In fact, a recent survey

found that more people believe in UFOsthan believe that Social Security isgoing to be there when they retire.

So we may have a budget surplus inthe unified sense, as we call it, here inCongress, but the people who createdthat surplus through their hard workand tax dollars are not necessarily see-ing the benefits of our booming econ-omy.

The American people are still over-taxed, and we saw some statistics justthe other day at USA Today where ittalked about the overall tax burden onthe average family in this country, andhow it has increased in each decade, inthe past several decades, to the pointtoday that where the average family offour spends 38.2 percent of all theirearnings just to pay taxes at one level,be it the Federal, State or local level.That is an enormous tax burden.

In terms of the overall economy, weheard the President say the other nightthat we have the smallest governmentin 35 years. I am not sure which cri-teria he was using, but I think wewould have to look far and wide to findanything that would suggest that.

The fact of the matter again is thatwe are now, in terms of tax revenues,taxing people of this country at 20.1percent, by the President’s budget, ofour total gross domestic product. Thatis the largest tax burden collectivelyon our society since the Second WorldWar.

So to make sure that we do not goback to the budget wilderness we havebeen wandering in for the last 30 years,I believe that we have to do some sig-nificant things, which I will talk a lit-tle bit about in terms of some of thesolutions that I see out there in termsof a long-term fix for the fiscal prob-lems that are facing us as we headdown the road with Social Security, asthe number of people who are retiringand receiving benefits outnumber thosepoor who are paying in and workinghard to pay into that system, and welook at what we can do in terms of anew tax code for a new century.

Those are some things we had talkedabout collectively on our side of theaisle that we have established as prior-ities. I have some suggestions as wellin terms of how we go about doingthat.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, willthe gentleman yield?

Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Iyield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, Ithank my colleagues for inviting me,and for letting an old-timer join themthis evening. But having been here in1993 when this President set his prior-ities, and then seeing his budget thathe just submitted to the Committee onthe Budget a couple of weeks ago, andhaving Alan Greenspan testify to theCommittee on the Budget today, I can-not help but reinforce how positive isthe direction that we are going in.

Alan Greenspan came in and saidthat what we really need to do is weneed to stick to the discretionary

budget caps, because interest rates andthe markets and the financial expertsreally are not taking us at our word.They are really not believing that wecan actually hold tough on the discre-tionary spending.

So he sent us a clear message today,saying hold tight on discretionaryspending caps and we will continue tosee the benefits in our economy, be-cause what we will do is we will con-tinue to see lower interest rates; hold-ing spending, perhaps cutting taxes.

But what is our President doing? Hisbudget proposed increasing spending,so the 20.1 percent would go up; in-creasing taxes; and actually takes usback to a deficit. The President’s budg-et proposal as scored by CBO says wewill have a couple of years of surplus,low surplus, but by 2000, we are goingto go back to deficit.

If we did nothing, if we all went homefor the next 5 years and did nothing, wewould be better off than doing thePresident’s budget, because he in-creases taxes, but it is back to the oldpolicies that we saw before from thisPresident: let us increase taxes, let usincrease spending. We would be $43 bil-lion better off in terms of reducing thedeficit if we did nothing. This Presi-dent wants to increase spending and in-crease taxes, and do it in such a waythat government grows and the deficitcomes back.

Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado.Mr. Speaker, I think people around thecountry recognize that, when it getsright down to it. People are beginningto get wise to the budget manipula-tions that they see from the WhiteHouse.

I know in Missouri, and I apologize,earlier I mentioned that the gentlemanfrom Missouri (Mr. BLUNT) was fromMinnesota. That is not the case. Letme apologize. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Missouri (Mr. BLUNT).

Mr. BLUNT. We have warmer wintersin Missouri, and there are lots of othergood things about our State.

Mr. Speaker, one of those is, I thinkit was one of my predecessors in Con-gress from our State about 100 yearsago gave our State the name, theShow-me State. He said, I am fromMissouri, you have to show me. Andcertainly we are skeptical, as manypeople are in my district are, aboutreally what is happening as we work tobalance this budget.

Now clearly, clearly the last twoCongresses and the hard work of theAmerican people have gotten us a longway. I think in January of 1995 the pro-jected deficit for last year was $365 bil-lion. This was after the President’s taxincrease, this was after 2, 3 years of theClinton administration, and the pro-jected deficit was $365 billion.

It turned out to be $22 billion. We gotthat announcement yesterday. As thegentleman from South Dakota (Mr.THUNE) mentioned, it looks like nowfor the first time in 30 years we arerunning a surplus, but of course whatMissourians wonder about is how

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H843March 4, 1998we could be running a surplus and stillbe increasing the national debt. Clearlythat does not make sense from theshow-me standard that we would wantto set for whether you are in a surplussituation or not.

We need to continue to work to besure that we quit, that we stop thisprocess of borrowing from the trustfunds, that we really do run a surplus,before we even think about how tospend that surplus. That does not meanwe cannot do some tax relief, that doesnot mean we cannot take advantage ofthese good economic times, but it cer-tainly does mean that we should not becommitting the government to newprograms based on some surplus, whenwe are still borrowing this year $100-plus billion from the Social Securitytrust fund, from the Highway TrustFund.

We want to see that surplus in ourState become a real surplus. We wouldlike to say that this unified budget isactually treating the trust funds likethey were trust funds, and is actuallypaying all the bills that the govern-ment has coming in, and beginning topay down the national debt, not con-tinuing to increase the national debt.

It would be pretty hard to convinceany Missourians, particularly south-west Missourians, where I am from,that you have a surplus, and you arecontinuing to borrow and you are con-tinuing to increase your debt byaround $150 billion. That does notsound like a surplus to us. The Wash-ington standard is not a good enoughstandard for hard-working taxpayerswho want to see us have a real surplus.

But again, I do not want to say thatin a way that takes away from whathas already happened, because we havegone from a projected deficit of $365billion to, today, a surplus under thesame standards, the same rules, thesame guidelines, of about $8 billion.That is a pretty big turnaround. Wejust need to turn that corner a littlebit more before we feel like we are to-tally in the kind of situation where weare starting to paying off the debt in-stead of increasing the debt.

I think the hard work of the Amer-ican people and the vitality of oureconomy, and frankly, the hard workof this Congress to set those budgetcaps that our friend, the gentlemanfrom Michigan (Mr. HOEKSTRA) hastalked about, and to stay within thosecaps and see the interest rates go downand the economic vitality that pro-duces and the additional tax dollarsthat that produces, the additional taxdollars that the tax cuts that we wereable to do last year have produced,have made a real change in America.

b 2245

But we have to be careful that we donot follow the lead of the Presidentjust a month ago, 6 weeks ago in thisChamber where in 75 minutes, in a 75-minute State of the Union message, heproposed about $75 billion in newspending. That sounds like the era of

big government is definitely back. Andcertainly a $75 billion, $1-billion-per-minute record is probably the recordfor anybody’s State of the Union ad-dress ever in the history of the coun-try, and this Congress and the tax-payers of America really cannot letthat happen. I do not think they wantthat to happen.

Frankly, I think that is why we havenot heard much about the President’sspending proposals since he walked outof here at the State of the Union mes-sage and nobody responded to an Amer-ica that goes right back into deep, deepdebt the first time we think we may beable to make our payments in onemonth. That is not going to happen. Ithink we are all hearing that as wehave had time to go back home.

Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado.Mr. Speaker, let me issue a word of en-couragement to conservatives and Re-publicans across the country based onwhat I heard back home. I want toshare some statistics briefly. It wasnot too long ago in Colorado that wehad runaway spending at the Statelevel and high taxes. The voters in Col-orado through a series of initiativesand ballot proposals capped spending ofour State budget and spending of all ofour local governments. They addition-ally placed pretty severe tax limita-tions on State government and localgovernment.

I remember at the time when I wasserving back in the State Senate, thatthe liberals in Colorado were just whin-ing and crying about these limitationson spending and tax increases asthough it was somehow going to crushthe State. And those of us on the con-servative side and the Republicanparty back in Colorado stood ourground and maintained that, no, we be-lieve very firmly in these conservativeeconomic principles that if we lowertaxes, we increase revenue to the Statebecause of economic growth and pros-perity. And when we lower spending,we move more authority out of thehalls of government and into thehomes of free people throughout theState.

Back in Colorado during the townmeetings I just returned from, thingsare pretty good economically when itcomes down to it. Colorado is almostan oasis in the west when it comes toeconomics. And here is the real impactof tax reduction and spending reduc-tions in my State for those who doubtthat these principles work and that theRepublicans and conservatives here inCongress are on the right track.

This is a report I am going to refer tofrom the Center on Budget and PolicyPriorities, a very liberal organizationin its goals and objectives. But here iswhat they found in one of the lowesttax States in the union: The poorestone-fifth of our population in my Statesince the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s re-alized the greatest amount of economicgrowth and income growth in poorhouseholds. This is the poorest fifth.Their incomes over that 10-year periodgrew 39 percent.

The second fifth of income cat-egories, their income grew 21 percent.The middle fifth saw income growth of12 percent. The fourth group there,which is almost to the richest cat-egory, had a 6 percent growth and therichest fifth of Colorado citizens saw 16percent growth. All income categoriessaw a remarkable growth over a 10-year period.

Mr. Speaker, that is very impressive.What is most impressive is that lowtaxes, smaller spending has resulted ina 39 percent growth rate for the poorestone-fifth of the residents of my districtin my State.

I would suggest when we talk aboutspending and taxes within the contextof compassionate and humanitarian ap-proaches to serving our people, theproof is right here. That it is far morehumanitarian, it is far more compas-sionate to take cash out of Washing-ton, D.C., not even bring it here but toleave it back into the hands of the peo-ple who earned that wealth, who areable to turn income into jobs or arewilling to take the risks as entre-preneurs and create wealth on a locallevel and at the State level in a waythat honest to goodness has helped thepoorest fifth of my State.

That means that there is more dol-lars to spend not on welfare, not onvarious entitlement programs andhandout programs in my State, al-though we continue to do that, butmore dollars are going to classrooms,for example. More dollars are going tothe important priorities that when Itravel around the State people tell methey want to see us invest in.

So we are doing it on a State level.These are accomplishments that Con-gress does not deserve a whole lot ofcredit for and should not try to takethat. But what it does show is that ifwe can find strategies to turn more ofthe authority of Washington, D.C. backto our States, we can find strategies toshrink the size of the Federal Govern-ment and empower our people locally,that we can expect more of this. Wecan expect to see more of the poorestfamilies in the country begin to be-come self-sufficient and move towardhigher income categories and achievereal success. That is a Republican vi-sion and a strategy that we all standfor and one that I am proud to say thatit is working and it ought to be a pointof encouragement for this Congress andthe rest of the States of the Union.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I canunderstand why the gentleman fromColorado might be reluctant to yield tothe gentleman from Michigan only be-cause we have talked about the oasis inthe west, but Michigan in many re-spects is the oasis of the Midwest.

Under our governor, the State I be-lieve since 1990 has had 24 tax cuts. Wehave moved from a point where ourstructural unemployment was higherthan the national average for a numberof years. It was structural. It was said

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH844 March 4, 1998that Michigan’s unemployment ratecannot get below the national average.I think now for the last 2 or 3 years ourunemployment rate has been below thenational average. Surprisingly, but notreally because we have implementedthe same strategies, tax cuts, aggres-sive business promotion, Michigan lastyear led the Nation in terms of job cre-ation.

So, again, by returning power at theState level, we have returned it backto families, to businesses to grow jobs.That helps everybody. That benefitseverybody.

The governor across the lake from usin Wisconsin I believe announced thathe was recently signing the last wel-fare checks because now in Wisconsinthey are going to restore the dignitythat anybody receiving State assist-ance is going to be receiving a pay-check. They are going to be workingfor their benefits. So the kinds of strat-egies that the gentleman was talkingabout in Colorado are taking place andbeing successful all around the coun-try. Lowering taxes, cutting spendingand returning power back to the locallevel.

Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado.Mr. Speaker, it is interesting we findRepublican governors or Republicanlegislators leading the way at theState level. It is a clear distinctionthat is exhibited here between whatour party represents and what our lib-eral colleagues on the other side of theaisle represent.

They define compassion by how muchmoney government can give away tothe charity of politicians’ choices. Webelieve we define compassion by howmuch money we leave in the hands ofthose who earn it and encourage moreto earn higher wages. The experiencesin Michigan and Colorado are great ex-amples.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, if the gen-tleman would yield, not to be outdonehere, since we have heard from Michi-gan and Colorado, but let me just sayas well that in South Dakota we areleading the way in many respects. Weare one of the few States which doesnot have a personal corporate incometax. For that reason we have attracteda lot of economic development to aState where certainly the climate isnot always conducive to attractingpeople.

We have businesses coming into ourState because we are very attractiveand have a great work ethic. And wehave in a systematic way in the lastfew years as well lowered taxes. Onproperty taxes, our legislature went 5percent farther. They lowered thosetaxes by 20 percent a couple of yearsback. Cumulatively, over the past 3 or4 years, a 25 percent rollback in prop-erty taxes in our State. I think that issignificant.

What it tells us that it is consistentwith our philosophy and I think it issomething that should apply here atthe Federal level too. That is that wewant to make the Federal Government

smaller and the family budget bigger. Ithink that is a principle that is sharedby a lot of our governors, our Statelegislatures around this country.Frankly, we want to see Washington doless so that the American family cando more.

Mr. Speaker, when we in a system-atic way work to that end, I think wegive the opportunity to our people, ourfamilies, the hard-working Americansin all of our States and congressionaldistricts to do what they do best.

So I would still say, and I think inhaving this discussion tonight it is im-portant to remember that one of ourfirst priorities and it has been men-tioned earlier and I think we would allagree with it, is that we have to pre-serve Social Security. We have to dosomething about this enormous debtthat we have accumulated.

Washington has not had the fiscaldiscipline up until recently for a verylong time. And inasmuch as our Statesare doing well, the Federal Govern-ment is not doing so well when itcomes to the debt that we have rackedup on the next generation. I think thatwe need to put a systematic plan inplace to address that issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am cosponsoring legis-lation offered by the gentleman fromWisconsin (Mr. NEUMANN) which woulddo that. I think perhaps some of mycolleagues in the Chamber this eveningare as well. That bill basically saysthat if there is a surplus, and there issome debate about that, but to the ex-tent that there is a surplus, two-thirdsof that should go to paying down thedebt and restoring our trust funds, So-cial Security, transportation, environ-mental et cetera, and the last thirdshould be used for lowering our taxburden on the people in America.

Furthermore, it puts a plan in place,a discipline over time that says theFederal Government cannot spendmore than 99 percent of what it takesin in revenue. Each year we set aside 1percent and apply that toward thedebt. And having done that based oneconomic assumptions that I think arefairly modest in a period of 30 years, wewould have actually eliminated in itsentirety the $5.5 trillion debt that wehave accumulated.

This is very significant because as wepare down that debt, we also pare downthe interest payment which is chewingup a good part of the Federal budget.This year about $250 billion in interest.I use the illustration because it issomething in my part of the countrypeople will understand. But every per-sonal income tax dollar raised west ofthe Mississippi River and then some isapplied just toward the interest on thedebt. That is something that when theCommittee on Appropriations does thebudget here in Congress that they dobefore anything else. They have towrite the check to pay the interest onthe debt.

That is tax dollars from hard-work-ing Americans that do not go to anyimportant governmental or public pur-

pose. We are not paving any roads withthat or doing anything to advance edu-cation or improve the quality of ourkids’ education in this country. We aresimply saying that that is a product ofthe 30 or 40 years of fiscal neglect.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is high timewe do something to address that. Iwould certainly encourage my col-leagues here this evening to work withus as cosponsors of that legislation andmove us in a direction that will addressthe long-term issue, and that is the ir-responsible spending patterns that wehave had here which have led us to thispoint.

Mr. Speaker, I notice we have thegentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. PE-TERSON) here in the Chamber. I amwondering if he might have somethingto add to the discussion. We have beentalking about what most of us haveheard over the course of listening andtown meetings back in our home dis-tricts.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr.Speaker, it is interesting. I wanted toshare my perspective of the President’smessage that we heard here in this halla few weeks ago. It was a prettysmooth message. But in the first twoparagraphs, he talked about Social Se-curity first. That is pretty basic. Thathas been applauded throughout thecountry.

But when he went on in the hour-longspeech, he spent the money that couldhave put Social Security first. I guessit is pretty basic fundamentals. My col-leagues have already chatted about it abit. But we are balancing the budget byborrowing $100 billion in his proposedbudget from Social Security. And whenwe add up all of the trust funds, wereally will increase the debt if we passthe President’s budget by about $140billion to $150 billion. That is increas-ing the debt.

We may not be spending more gen-eral fund revenues than we are takingin, but we are spending more moneythan we are taking in. To me that isbasically fundamental. So I think thePresident in his smooth talk, as I callit, talked about Social Security firstand then put it last.

The other issue about his overall pro-posal that bothered me in basic budget-ing, this is only my second Federalbudget but I have dealt with 19 Statebudgets. In the State, whenever we gota one-time funding source where wehad a windfall of a few million dollars,in the State it was millions, here it isbillions, but he was going to use thesupposed talked-about tobacco settle-ment to build a budget. And when wetake one-time revenues, and we mayget them 2 or 3 years, I am not surewhat the settlement will be or howsoon it is going to pay out, but it is notforever revenue. It is temporary reve-nue.

When we build a budget with tem-porary revenue, down the road we areeither going to cut that spending orraise taxes to replace that spending.That is bad budgeting. That is basic,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H845March 4, 1998fundamental poor budgeting. That ispart of the President’s proposal.

b 2300

I think if we really want to put So-cial Security first, I think we have avery short window. I think in the next2 to 3 years, we have some unusual rev-enue growth, if we do not somehowscrew up the economy in this country,if we do not take this opportunity toback out of borrowing from Social Se-curity and actually start a trust fund,leave that 100 million, make that 100billion. In a 3-year period if we couldstop borrowing at all, we would alreadyhave accumulated 200 billion actualmoney in the bank to be invested wise-ly and could be building for those whoare worried about Social Security inthe future.

If it was my choice, if I were king, Iwould take the tobacco settlement andwhatever payments are part of it. Iknow we have farmers to take care of.There is a lot things to solve with thetobacco settlement because there arepeople that are going to be displacedout there. I have sensitivity to that.But whatever money is not allocated inthat settlement, I would put in theMedicare Trust Fund. Now we havestarted to help extend the Medicareprogram for more than 10 years out be-cause that is all that it is solventtoday. Those are two things that wouldsend the right message to especiallythe seniors in this country.

A couple other things that I wantedto mention was the sunsetting the IRS.I see the President has taken us on forsunsetting the IRS in the Tax Code asif that is irresponsible. I think the gen-tleman from Oklahoma (Mr. LARGENT)did an outstanding job the other day ofhis theory that it should be a nationaldebate in the next Presidential elec-tion. And if we sunset it and give our-selves the time to go through the nextelection, when we are electing the nextPresident, we can elect a Presidentthat tells the American people whatkind of a simplified Tax Code theywant and that he is going to give them.I think it would be an absolute time todebate that nationwide.

Those are just a few of the thingsthat I think are very important.

Mr. BLUNT. Let me say in that re-gard, the President, I think yesterday,started right down the path that we allshould anticipate in the fight to sunsetthe Tax Code. The President said, if wesunset the Tax Code, we would nothave mortgage deductions anymore.Who says we would not have mortgagedeductions anymore? The Presidenttakes a couple of hundred words, a cou-ple thousand words, maybe, out of a 5.5million word Tax Code and holds thoseup to the American people and says,now, to save this, we have to have allof this.

The pressure to maintain the TaxCode is going to be right here in Wash-ington. There is not a single thing inthe Tax Code that somebody did notwant in there. There is not a single

thing in the Tax Code that some spe-cial interest did not want in there.

The Tax Code is out of control. It isnot a creature of the IRS. It is a crea-ture of the Congress. But I think yes-terday we saw exactly the reason thatwe need to go ahead and commit toslay the dragon of the Tax Code andthen have the debate about a new sys-tem, because we saw the President getsome response by just taking one ap-pealing thing in a Tax Code that large-ly does not appeal to anybody and say-ing, you do not want to lose this. Andif you slay the Tax Code without a newplan, you are going to lose this.

The truth is that the folks who arereally out there to protect the 5.5 mil-lion word Tax Code, and by the way,the Declaration of Independence had1,300 words in it, the entire Old andNew Testament has 773,000 words in it.The Tax Code is eight times as big asthe Old and New Testament. I think itis 42,000 pages of Tax Code and 20,000pages of the IRS interpretations ofwhat the 42,000 pages mean, and nobodyunderstands that Tax Code.

But if we do not commit ourselves toeliminate the code first, the debate onwhat to replace it with will be used asthe way to ensure that we never elimi-nate the code, because you will see thegreatest efforts at class warfare. Youwill see the greatest efforts atgenerational warfare, all waged by peo-ple who want to save some sliver ofthat Tax Code that they worked sohard to get in there that does not helpanybody in America but them.

The commitment that we wouldmake as a Congress to eliminate theTax Code at a future date, and I believethe bill that many of us, I am certainlycosponsoring the legislation, the dateon our legislation is December 31, 2001,with the commitment to have a newsystem in place by Independence Day2001, 6 months in advance of when itwould necessarily have to go into ef-fect, to slay that Tax Code and thenhave this national debate that has tomeet the framework of being fairer,being simpler, producing no more reve-nue than the current Tax Code pro-duces and to really truly eliminate theIRS as we know it, because the IRS isonly the IRS because of a Tax Codethat nobody fully understands. Andthat is what allows the IRS in its worstcases to be the IRS.

One of the most frustrating things inthe world would have to be a well-in-tentioned IRS employee with a TaxCode that can mean anything some-body at the IRS decides it may mean inany given instance. We need to committo eliminate that code, and I think thePresident is just as wrong on this as hewas last spring when he told us the IRSdoes not need to be reformed. Andthen, again, 6 weeks ago here he turnedto the Senate and says, and why do younot pass those IRS reforms that theHouse passed last year. Remember, hewas opposed to those IRS reforms andsaid the IRS was running better than itever had in any time certainly than it

was 5 years ago when he took office.That is just not true. He admitted asmuch in the State of the Union mes-sage.

Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado.Mr. Speaker, it was so ironic when thePresident made this speech about char-acterizing our efforts to rein in the IRSas somehow irresponsible, it is impor-tant to note where he made the speech.I do not want to malign the group hewas before and speaking in front of, butit was a special interest group of a par-ticular group of individuals who are in-volved in a certain aspect of financialinstitutions.

But that really illustrates what issick about tax policy in Washington inthe first place. You stand in front ofthe interest group that happens to bein town for one week or another, tellthem what they want to hear abouttheir little part of the Tax Code, andthat, over time, if you look at it in re-verse, is how the Tax Code was createdto be the way it is now, why it is so ri-diculous.

I think what brings us all here to-gether as Republicans tonight is thatwe want to put the average Americantaxpayer first. We have spent a consid-erable amount of time traveling aroundour districts listening to real peoplewho do not care about this loophole orthat loophole or that advantage or thisdisadvantage in the Tax Code. Theywant the entire program reined in.They want us to exercise our authorityand provide the oversight and demandthe accountability that we ought to do,and they want us to focus on liberatingthe American public so that this TaxCode, which now represents about 20percent of the burden just in Federalincome tax to the average Americanfamily, is reduced.

Is that what you are hearing in yourpart of the State?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, that isexactly what I hear, listening to ourcolleague from Missouri. What we arefinding is at the State level Governorsare aggressively slaying the dragons ofbig State government, whether it isSouth Dakota, whether it is Coloradoor Michigan. They are trimming backon bureaucracy. They are loweringtaxes. They are doing all the thingsthat the other side said you cannot doit.

The people need this. Governmenthas to deliver these services. And whatwe are seeing at the State level is kindof like, we can slay those dragons, andwhen we do, the average person bene-fits because they keep more of theirown money.

We create more jobs which increaseswages, and we have to learn that samelesson here in Washington, that we cango out and slay those dragons. We canslay the Tax Code and develop a betterTax Code than what has developed overthe last 30 years because of special in-terests.

We can change the education bu-reaucracy here in Washington so thatwe are focusing on kids again. The edu-cation bureaucracy here in Washington

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH846 March 4, 1998focuses on special interests. It focuseson everything but kids learning. Thestudy that came out last week, theTimms international study, devastat-ing for America. I think in science andmath we scored 19, 20 out of 21 coun-tries. That is an improvement becausein some of the other studies that havebeen done internationally, we scoredabout 38 or 39. These were high schoolseniors. The only reason we moved upis we are not compared to as manycountries as we were in the other stud-ies.

But it is devastating that we are notturning out the kinds of kids out of oureducation system that we need to beturning out. We have gone around thecountry listening, and we will be inyour State in a couple weeks. We havebeen, I think, in 14 different States.You have to focus on parents, localcontrol, basic academics in the class-room and safe and drug-free schools.That is the message.

What we have learned is Washingtonprograms are focused on bureaucracyand paperwork. We have 760 programsand, you say, hallelujah, now I knowwhy we have an Education Departmentto coordinate all these 760 programs.Wrong. They go through 39 differentagencies. We have got to slay thatdragon, get the education bureaucracyin Washington out of here and get it fo-cused on kids, parents and local con-trol, and helping those children learn,not bureaucracy, bureaucrats or paper-work in Washington.

Mr. THUNE. Let me just pick up onwhat the gentleman from Michigansaid there, because I think the underly-ing theme that we are hearing in allthese discussions this evening is thewhole issue of personal freedom, takingthe bureaucracy out of Washington,D.C., and allowing families and Stateand local governments to do what theydo best.

And really I think that seems to me,the gentleman from Missouri talkedabout the Tax Code, 341⁄2 pounds, weput it on a scale. It is an atrocity. Andyou think about the captivity thatthat puts people in this country in.They are so dependent and need to bereleased and unburdened from theshackles of big government.

If we can come up with a way thatsimplifies that process, I did mine acouple weeks ago. I speak firsthandfrom this. It is a remarkable, remark-able experience to try and go throughand sort through all those forms andtry and come up with, get your tax re-turn prepared and completed in a waythat satisfies all those regulations. ButI think the same thing is true in edu-cation.

We are not viewed, I do not believe,out there as people who want to doanything to undermine the educationof our children. We want a higher qual-ity system, a better value to the tax-payers which puts more of the choiceand freedom back home in living roomswith the men and women of this coun-try.

I happen to believe, as I think every-body in the Chamber this evening does,that fundamentally we are a lot betterserved, my children are infinitely bet-ter off and your children and grand-children, if we have that focus, thatpoint of control back home as opposedto here in Washington.

I think the underlying theme in ev-erything we are talking about is liber-ating people from big government pro-grams, from an education bureaucracy,from a tax bureaucracy, a revenue col-lecting bureaucracy, and putting morecontrol and power in their hands. Asthe gentleman from Missouri men-tioned earlier, there has been a lot offoot-dragging along the way.

IRS reform was an issue which wasvery popular with us, and the Presidentbasically pooh-poohed it until he foundit was also popular with the Americanpublic. Then all of a sudden he wasback at the table saying this is a greatidea. You look at, along the way, wel-fare reform. Nobody said that couldhappen. A balanced budget, nobodysaid those things could happen. Now weare talking about scrapping the TaxCode. He is saying that is irresponsible.

The only thing that is irresponsibleis defending the status quo. We have anopportunity here over the next coupleof years to do something that is signifi-cant and historic, which builds uponthe progress of welfare reform, bal-anced budget, lower taxes, Medicare re-form, and that is to reform this TaxCode, to scrap the old one and startfrom the ground up with somethingthat makes sense because the one thatwe have today does not.

If we have to bring everybody kick-ing and screaming at the White Housealong on this journey, so be it, becauseI think the American public supportsus. They are going to be leading theway when we give them some opportu-nities to look at the alternatives thatare out there. I think it is all aboutmore personal freedoms, smaller gov-ernment, lower taxes and putting morecontrol and more decisionmaking au-thority in the hands of individuals asopposed to government.

Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado.The Tax Code keeps cash out of thehands of families who might want toput their kids into a higher educationsetting or some other academic settingthat would make them more market-able and more profitable in the jobmarket, and these regulations that wetalk about with respect to educationdrive up effectively the cost of edu-cation for all of our children through-out the country.

The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.BLUNT) is a former college president.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I appre-ciate that. One of the things that weall worked for and voted for last yearright here on the House floor was a res-olution that did exactly what you andthe gentleman from Michigan (Mr.HOEKSTRA) and others want to do andthe gentleman from South Dakota (Mr.THUNE) was mentioning with edu-

cation. I know the gentleman fromPennsylvania (Mr. PETERSON) was anadvocate of this. That was, let us getwhat money we spend where it does themost good. Let us be focused on edu-cation, not focused on bureaucrats.This is the right kind of solution thatwe need.

I think 310 Members of the House,which means that lots of Democratsjoined virtually all the Republicans,and we passed a resolution that saidthat 90 cents out of every dollar inevery Federal elementary and second-ary program needed to get to the class-room, the Dollars to the ClassroomAct. And suddenly we are reducing allthat money that is used up by bureau-crats, all that money that is used up bypeople figuring out new forms to fillout and by people that have to fill outthose forms and by people that monitorthose forms. We are saying, let us getthat money to where it will do somegood.

b 1315Let us be sure that we do not waste

$1,800 for every classroom in Americaevery year, like we are doing now whenwe are getting about 65 cents out ofevery dollar in the classroom. Let usget 90 cents out of every dollar in theclassroom. Let us let parents be in-volved in that decision. Let us let localbuilding administrators be involved inspending that money. But mostly letus let teachers and kids get together.Let us put that money not in the handsof some bureaucrats in Washington, oreven in all of our State capitals, let usput that money in the hands of ateacher who knows every child’s namein that class. That can make a dif-ference.

Mr. THUNE. The gentleman presid-ing, it is his legislation we are talkingabout.

Mr. BLUNT. That is exactly right.The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

PITTS). The Chair would advise the gen-tlemen that there being no designee ofthe minority leader, the gentlemanfrom Colorado (Mr. SCHAFFER) mayproceed for up to 15 minutes more.

The gentleman is recognized.Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, you are in the chair andcannot join us in the discussion, butalso a Member of the freshman classthe gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.PITTS) has led the way in urging thisCongress and our Federal Governmentto put more cash into the classroomsand basically starve the bureaucracyback in Washington and put childrenfirst. And it is a project that we are allvery happy to be a part of and be sup-porting and we commend him for hisleadership.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania(Mr. PETERSON) also has worked onsimilar efforts back in his home State,and he may have a little more to add tothat.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Thegentleman used the words ‘‘starve thebureaucracy.’’ As I look at the Wash-ington bureaucracy, I do not thinkthere is anybody starving.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H847March 4, 1998The President, in his message, also

talked about that government wassmaller, I forget by what percentagethan when he came here. When we addback the million people who have beentaken out of the military, our govern-ment bureaucracy has grown im-mensely under the administration ofthe present President. I am told thereare departments that have doubled. Ithink EPA has doubled in numbers ofemployees. There are other depart-ments that are 50 percent bigger. Whilewe were cutting the military im-mensely, the rest of this government,as far as personnel is concerned, hasexploded.

There is a line item in the budgetcalled general government. And I amgoing on memory here tonight becauseI have not looked it up recently, but ifmy memory is correct it was a $10 bil-lion line item that in his budget wasgoing to increase to 17 billion. It wasgeneral government. That is personnel.That is bureaucracy. So he was askingfor a 42 percent increase in that lineitem in this year’s budget.

That is an area we need to take alook at it. I know I am personally hav-ing an audit done on how many em-ployees there are in each departmentand how many there have been for therecent years. And if we want to wastemoney, build a huge bureaucracy. TheFederal Government should not havethese huge bureaucracies.

I know my communities cannot dealwith EPA, my businesses cannot effec-tively deal with EPA, but they can ef-fectively deal with their State environ-mental agencies, who should be imple-menting the programs that we des-ignate or that we prioritize. So I thinkwe can take a huge look at cuttingback.

Pennsylvania had a Governor a fewyears ago by the name of DickThornberg. I think my colleagues knowhim or know of him. He cut the size ofgovernment from about 105,000 to92,000. Now, at that time I was a Statelegislator and then ran for the Senateabout that same period of time, but Iwas serving in government. As he cutthe bureaucracy and improved themanagement, our casework in our of-fices, helping people deal with govern-ment, went down measurably becausehe made those departments much moreefficient, more professionally run, withless people, so our workload of helpingcommunities and people deal with gov-ernment became much less.

As soon as we got a new Governorwho did not pay attention to that andstarted adding more people to the pay-roll, our workload in our offices wentup because of the inefficiency of thebureaucracy that was not well man-aged.

That is another point I wanted tomake in my concluding comments. Wemeasure Governors and Presidents onwhat they propose, not on what theydo. We really should be taking a lookat this administration and why did wehave $23 billion in wrongful spending in

Medicare; why do we have 21 percenterror rate in the tax credits? We couldgo on and on with the long list. That ispoor management.

That is the job of an administrator,is to run government. But we only talkabout what they propose, what theypromise, and what they are going to dofor us, when the first job of a CEO is tomanage a company. The first job of aPresident or a Governor is to managetheir government. And we should bemeasuring our leaders on how theymanage the resources that we givethem and the programs we give them.

I think if we did that, things wouldchange a lot because they would stoptalking about new programs and theywould start paying attention to man-aging government. And I think we needto change our whole focus.

Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Ihave a question I would like to pose tomy four colleagues, and that is with re-spect to this issue of reining in govern-ment and the success we have seen atthe State level, what the President iscriticizing, trying to rein in the IRSthrough sunset provisions is not newthroughout the country. I am curioushow many of my colleagues’ Stateshave sunset provisions that we dealwith at the State regulatory level. Areany of my colleagues’ States involvedin those back home?

There are several States that do. Iwill give an example out in Colorado.Pennsylvania does. In Colorado, if welook at every regulatory agency in ourState laws, at the end of the statutethere is a termination date. The PublicUtilities Commission, by way of an ex-ample. Eight billion dollars worth ofcommerce and industry is regulated bythat agency in my State. At the end ofthe act, if we open up the law books, itsays this agency expires and termi-nates, goes away effectively on, and itwill say June 31 in some year out in thefuture, 5 or 10 years out in the future.

What these sunset dates do, andmany people do not understand this,this does not mean the agency goesaway, but what it does do is it shiftsthe burden away from the governmentand it takes the advantage away fromthe bureaucracy, away from the statusquo, and gives all of the advantages forreform to the taxpayers and the people.

That is what would happen if wesunsetted the IRS, and the reason weare pushing so hard for it. Getting anyincremental change in that act is sodifficult here because we have to get218 majority votes here, another major-ity vote in the Senate, we have to com-promise it, too, and somehow find away to get the President to sign it.That is a tall order. But if we shift theburden and say we must come up withmajority agreement in all three, theHouse, Senate and the President, orelse the whole agency expires, well, Ithink people will start negotiating alot more seriously. They start puttingthe taxpayers ahead of the bureau-crats, they start putting real reformahead of status quos.

And that is why sunset dates are soeffective. They are responsible. Theyare done in several States and done soquite effectively. And I think we oughtto take a lesson from the playbookfrom many States and employ sunsetdates, not just on the IRS, althoughthat is the best place to start, but inseveral regulatory agencies.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Ifthe gentleman will yield there, I wouldlike to ask this question of the gen-tleman from Michigan, who is our edu-cation expert; if we had a sunset provi-sion in all 700-some programs in theDepartment of Education, the gentle-man’s committee would be pretty busy,would it not, reviewing all those astheir times came due?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gen-tleman for asking the question. Abso-lutely. Because if there is anotheragency in a department that needs tobe sunsetted, not that we need to getrid of it but that we need to reevaluateits purpose, because we know we arenot getting the kind of results that wewant so we know we have to do some-thing; then we have to go through andwe ought to be evaluating those 760programs. We know that out of thosedollars, 30 to 35 cents never gets to theclassroom, which is where the leveragepoint is.

So then we should come back, and Ihave a list here of what does the Fed-eral education program do or what doesthe President want it to do. The Presi-dent wants the Federal education pro-gram to build our schools and hire ourteachers. Are those Federal respon-sibilities? I do not know. We reallyshould have a good debate about that.I am not sure. I do not think so.

We want it to develop our curricu-lum, test our kids, feed them break-fast, feed them lunch, teach themabout sex, teach them about drugs, doafter-school programs. But other thanthat, it is our local schools. Now, arethose, are all of those decisions bestdriven from Washington?

This is where the education depart-ment has evolved from since 1979. Andif we go back through the debate, inthe debate in 1979, the people who par-ticipated in support of the educationdepartment said we do not want tomove control from parents and thelocal and the State level to Washing-ton. We just want to facilitate. Well, inreality if we take a look at where thatbureaucracy has gone, it has movedwell beyond its original mandate. Itshould have been sunsetted so we couldhave reevaluated the direction and theimpact and the performance on an on-going regular basis, rather than creat-ing an agency where bureaucrats arejust feeding themselves and gettingbigger and bigger and bigger and losingfocus of their real job.

Mr. THUNE. If the gentleman willyield on that point, because it is an im-portant point. The fact we do not havesunset provisions in Federal programsis what I think makes the President’sbudget so dangerous.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH848 March 4, 1998The gentleman from Pennsylvania

made the point earlier about the factthat there is all this new spending: 39new entitlement programs. We cannotcreate a program in this city and everhope, even though its purpose ceases toexist, to get rid of it if the time evercomes.

So I think before we embark on thisroad of new Federal spending, new gov-ernment, new Washington programs,which is clearly the direction that thePresident wanted to go when he cameout with his budget, and I did notcount it up, but a billion dollars aminute is a pretty astonishing rate ofgovernment growth, but that is whatthe State of the Union address was allabout, creating new Washington bu-reaucracy and new Washington spend-ing.

And I think that is a very dangerousroad to start down, given the fact thatany time we create entitlement pro-grams in this city, they are there tostay.

I think that he is assuming a wholelot of things about the performance ofthis economy that we really do notknow about. I think we would be muchbetter served to the extent that wehave addressed long-term issues likeSocial Security, like Medicare, havingdone that, that any dollars that areleft, we ought to give them back to thetaxpayers whose dollars they are in thefirst place and really ought to havefirst claim.

So I think you make an importantpoint when you talk about all the var-ious programs over time that havebeen created, never been evaluated. Be-fore we head down that road again, Ithink the American public would bebetter served if we talk in a very fun-damental way about ensuring that wedo not create new Washington spend-ing. I think that is an important pointthat we probably all agree on.

Mr. BLUNT. If the gentleman willyield, I think that is exactly right. Ithink what happens is, if you do havesunset provisions, every agency notonly is aware that it is going to haveto come up for review, but every as-signment it is given is going to have tocome up for review, and that just doesnot happen now.

We have lots of programs on thebooks that are not funded, are under-funded, or just out there waiting forthat moment when they can come backin and grab some more money. Nobodyever challenges those things. I thinkthat one of the great reviews we coulddo would be to do that.

I think one of our freshman col-leagues, the gentleman from Texas(KEVIN BRADY) has legislation he isworking on that would really put sun-set provisions in as an automatic partof any new program that goes into ef-fect, any new agency that goes into ef-fect. Then of course we ought to goback and attach those same provisionsto old agencies.

I think what happens in Colorado andother States that have this is the de-

partments themselves pretty quicklycome back to the legislature and say,when they see something that is goingto be a problem for them, when itcomes time to defend it, when it comestime for them to be reauthorized, theysay in advance, you know, we thinkthis is really not working out like wethought it would. We think you oughtto eliminate this, because we do notwant to come back 2 years from nowand explain why we have not been ableto make it work. I think that is one ofthe things we could do to begin to getthis government under control.

Also the other thing that has beenmentioned so often tonight that wehave taken great advantage of over thelast 3 years has been the States them-selves. How many times tonight in ourdiscussion have we talked about,whether it is welfare programs or edu-cation programs, how much benefit weare getting by letting the 50 States be50 laboratories for change?

There are great results happening inState after State after State where wehave allowed them leeway in areas likewelfare that they have not had before.The Governor of Wisconsin just theother day, as was pointed out, wrotethe last welfare check. There are notgoing to be any more of those checksissued in that State. It has made a dra-matic difference in the way they ap-proach this problem.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Iguess a concluding remark for me isone of the first things I said tonight. Ithink we really have 3 years to backout of the trust funds. If we do not stopborrowing from the trust funds thenext 3 years, we probably will not havean economy that will allow us to dothat. I think we have a limited time tostop borrowing from them. I think thepressure ought to be on.

I do not think we have to whack andcut with a cleaver. I think we just haveto be a little bit frugal like we are withour own money, just a little bit frugalhere in Washington. We can stop bor-rowing from the trust funds, and wecan make sure Social Security andMedicare are strong and that our chil-dren do not have the debt that we aregoing to leave them if we do not do it.

Mr. SCHAFFER of Colorado. Ourtime has expired this evening. I appre-ciate the Speaker and his indulgenceand for presiding tonight. By the way,Republican freshmen have an hourscheduled again next week on Wednes-day, so I hope everybody will join ushere again. We will continue our dis-cussions about how we can move au-thority out of Washington back to theStates and back to the policymakersand leaders who are closest to the peo-ple and know most about how to leadthis great country.

f

LEAVE OF ABSENCEBy unanimous consent, leave of ab-

sence was granted to:Mr. LUTHER of Minnesota (at the re-

quest of Mr. GEPHARDT) for today,March 4, on account of family illness.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan (at therequest of Mr. GEPHARDT) for after 3p.m. today and the balance of the weekon account of a family emergency.

f

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

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

(The following Members (at the re-quest of Mr. PALLONE) to revise and ex-tend their remarks and include extra-neous material:)

Mr. LIPINSKI, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. FILNER, for 5 minutes, today.Ms. WATERS, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. MINGE, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, for 5 minutes,

today.(The following Members (at the re-

quest of Mr. NETHERCUTT) to revise andextend their remarks and include ex-traneous material:)

Mr. NETHERCUTT, for 5 minutes,today.

Mr. CAMPBELL, for 5 minutes, onMarch 5.

Mrs. MORELLA, for 5 minutes, onMarch 5.

f

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

By unanimous consent, permission torevise and extend remarks was grantedto:

(The following Members (at the re-quest of Mr. PALLONE) and to includeextraneous matter:)

Mr. HAMILTON.Mr. DAVIS of Illinois.Mr. PALLONE.Mr. DINGELL.Mr. JOHN.Mr. STARK.Mr. FORD.Mr. BENTSEN.Mr. WISE.Mr. PASCRELL.Mr. SANDLIN.Ms. NORTON.Mr. KIND.Ms. DELAURO.Mrs. LOWEY.Mr. FROST.Mr. TOWNS.Mr. VISCLOSKY.Mr. SCHUMER.(The following Members (at the re-

quest of Mr. NETHERCUTT) and to in-clude extraneous matter:)

Mrs. MORELLA.Mr. FORBES.Mr. KING.Mr. DAVIS of Virginia.Mr. WOLF.Mr. PACKARD.Mr. GILMAN.Mr. GALLEGLY.Mr. ROHRABACHER.Mr. PORTER.(The following Members (at the re-

quest of Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado)and to include extraneous matter:)

Mr. RANGEL.Mr. MCGOVERN.Mr. CLYBURN.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H849March 4, 1998Mrs. MEEK of Florida.Mr. TIAHRT.Mr. BARR of Georgia.

f

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado.Mr. Speaker, I move that the House donow adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accord-ingly (at 11 o’clock and 30 minutesp.m.), the House adjourned until to-morrow, Thursday, March 5, 1998, at 10a.m.

f

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS,ETC.

Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, execu-tive communications were taken fromthe Speaker’s table and referred as fol-lows:

7686. A letter from the Administrator, Ag-ricultural Marketing Service, transmittingthe Service’s final rule—Walnuts Grown inCalifornia; Decreased Assessment Rate[Docket No. FV97–984–1 FIR] received Feb-ruary 27, 1998, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agri-culture.

7687. A communication from the Presidentof the United States, transmitting his re-quests for FY 1998 supplemental appropria-tions and FY 1999 budget amendments to ad-dress emergency funding needs related to thesituation in Bosnia and in Southwest Asia aswell as to natural disasters in the UnitedStates; and to designate these requests asemergency requirements pursuant to section251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, asamended, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1107; (H. Doc.No. 105–220); to the Committee on Appropria-tions and ordered to be printed.

7688. A letter from the Secretary of De-fense, transmitting the report to Congressfor Department of Defense purchases fromforeign entities in fiscal year 1997, pursuantto Public Law 104–201, section 827 (110 Stat.2611); to the Committee on National Secu-rity.

7689. A letter from the Secretary of De-fense, transmitting a report that the Depart-ment has not authorized any category ofmerchandise to be sold in, at, or by com-missary stores, pursuant to 10 U.S.C.2486(b)(11); to the Committee on National Se-curity.

7690. A letter from the Director, SelectiveService System, transmitting a report on theoperation of the system for fiscal year 1997,pursuant to 50 U.S.C. app. 460(g); to the Com-mittee on National Security.

7691. A letter from the President andChairman, Export-Import Bank of the UnitedStates, transmitting the semiannual reporton tied aid credits, pursuant to Public Law99–472, section 19 (100 Stat. 1207); to the Com-mittee on Banking and Financial Services.

7692. A letter from the Secretary, Depart-ment of Health and Human Services, trans-mitting the 1997 annual report on the LoanRepayment Program for Research Generally,pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2541–1(i); to the Com-mittee on Commerce.

7693. A letter from the Director, Regula-tions Policy and Management Staff, Foodand Drug Administration, transmitting theAdminstration’s final rule— Extralabel Ani-mal Drug Use; Fluoroquinolones andGlycopeptides; Order of Prohibition [DocketNo.97N–0172] received March 3, 1998, pursuantto 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee onCommerce.

7694. A letter from the Chairman, Councilof the District of Columbia, transmitting acopy of D.C. Act 12–271, ‘‘Suspension of Liq-uor Licenses Amendment Act of 1998’’ re-ceived March 2, 1998, pursuant to D.C. Codesection 1—233(c)(1); to the Committee onGovernment Reform and Oversight.

7695. A letter from the Chairman, Councilof the District of Columbia, transmitting acopy of D.C. Act 12–272, ‘‘Make a DifferenceSelection Committee Establishment Act of1998’’ received March 2, 1998, pursuant to D.C.Code section 1—233(c)(1); to the Committeeon Government Reform and Oversight.

7696. A letter from the Chairman, Councilof the District of Columbia, transmitting acopy of D.C. Act 12–273, ‘‘Natural and Artifi-cial Gas Gross Receipts Tax Amendment of1998’’ received March 2, 1998, pursuant to D.C.Code section 1—233(c)(1); to the Committeeon Government Reform and Oversight.

7697. A letter from the Chairman, Councilof the District of Columbia, transmitting acopy of D.C. Act 12–276, ‘‘Commercial MobileTelecommunication Service Tax Clarifica-tion Amendment Act of 1998’’ received March2, 1998, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1—233(c)(1); to the Committee on GovernmentReform and Oversight.

7698. A letter from the Chairman, Councilof the District of Columbia, transmitting acopy of D.C. Act 12–268, ‘‘UnemploymentCompensation Tax Stabilization SecondTemporary Amendment Act of 1998’’ receivedMarch 2, 1998, pursuant to D.C. Code section1—233(c)(1); to the Committee on Govern-ment Reform and Oversight.

7699. A letter from the Chairman, Councilof the District of Columbia, transmitting acopy of D.C. Act 12–270, ‘‘Testing of DistrictGovernment Drivers of Commercial MotorVehicles for Alcohol and Controlled Sub-stances Temporary Amendment Act of 1998’’received March 2, 1998, pursuant to D.C. Codesection 1—233(c)(1); to the Committee onGovernment Reform and Oversight.

7700. A letter from the Chairman, Councilof the District of Columbia, transmitting acopy of D.C. Act 12–278, ‘‘Equal OpportunityFor Local, Small, and Disadvantaged Busi-ness Enterprises Temporary Act of 1998’’ re-ceived March 2, 1998, pursuant to D.C. Codesection 1—233(c)(1); to the Committee onGovernment Reform and Oversight.

7701. A letter from the Chairman, Councilof the District of Columbia, transmitting acopy of D.C. Act 12–277, ‘‘Mortgage Lenderand Broker Act of 1996 Temporary Amend-ment Act of 1998 ’’ received March 2, 1998,pursuant to D.C. Code section 1—233(c)(1); tothe Committee on Government Reform andOversight.

7702. A letter from the Director, FederalMediation and Conciliation Service, trans-mitting the 1996 annual report in compliancewith the Inspector General Act Amendmentsof 1988, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. section8G(h)(2); to the Committee on GovernmentReform and Oversight.

7703. A letter from the Chairman, FederalReserve System, transmitting a report of ac-tivities under the Freedom of InformationAct for the calendar year 1997, pursuant to 5U.S.C. 552(d); to the Committee on Govern-ment Reform and Oversight.

7704. A letter from the Director, Office ofScience and Technology Policy, transmit-ting a report of activities under the Freedomof Information Act for the calendar year1997, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(d); to the Com-mittee on Government Reform and Over-sight.

7705. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor,U.S. Trade and Development Agency, trans-mitting a report of activities under the Free-dom of Information Act for the calendar year1997, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(d); to the Com-mittee on Government Reform and Over-sight.

7706. A letter from the Acting Director, Of-fice of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oce-anic and Atmospheric Administration, trans-mitting the Administration’s final rule—Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic ZoneOff Alaska; Offshore Component of Pollockin the Aleutian Islands Subarea [Docket No.971208296–7296–01; I.D. 022098B] received March2, 1998, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); tothe Committee on Resources.

7707. A letter from the Director, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration,transmitting the Administration’s finalrule—Financial Assistance for Research andDevelopment Projects to Strengthen and De-velop the U.S. Fishing Industry [Docket No.960223046–8030–03; I.D. 012398C] (RIN: 0648–ZA09) received March 2, 1998, pursuant to 5U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Re-sources.

7708. A letter from the Acting Director, Of-fice of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oce-anic and Atmospheric Administration, trans-mitting the Administration’s final rule—Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico,and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pe-lagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico andSouth Atlantic; Closure [Docket No.970930235–8028–02; I.D. 022498A] receivedMarch 2, 1998, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.

7709. A letter from the Deputy AssistantAdminstrator for Fisheries, National Oce-anic and Atmospheric Administration, trans-mitting the Administration’s final rule—Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico,and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pe-lagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico andSouth Atlantic; Amendment 8 [Docket No.970606131–8033–02; I.D. 041497C] (RIN: 0648–AG25) received March 2, 1998, pursuant to 5U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Re-sources.

7710. A letter from the Director, Office ofSustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, transmittingthe Administration’s final rule—Fisheries ofthe Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;Inshore Component Pollock in the BeringSea Subarea [Docket No. 971208296–7296–01;I.D. 022598C] received March 2, 1998, pursuantto 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee onResources.

7711. A letter from the Deputy AssistantAdministrator for Fisheries, National Oce-anic and Atmospheric Administration, trans-mitting the Administration’s final rule—Taking and Importing Marine Mammals;Taking of Ringed Seals Incidental to On-IceSeismic Activity [Docket No. 970725179–8017–03; I.D. 071497A] (RIN: 0648–AK33) receivedMarch 3, 1998, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.

7712. A letter from the Independent Coun-sel, Office of Independent Counsel, transmit-ting the third annual report, pursuant to 28U.S.C. 598(a)(2); to the Committee on the Ju-diciary.

7713. A letter from the Secretary of Trans-portation, transmitting the Fifteenth An-nual Report of Accomplishments Under theAirport Improvement Program for the FiscalYear 1996, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. app.2203(b)(2); to the Committee on Transpor-tation and Infrastructure.

7714. A letter from the General Counsel,Department of Transportation, transmittingthe Department’s final rule—AirworthinessDirectives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 Se-ries Airplanes [Docket No. 97–NM–264–AD;Amendment 39–10169; AD 97–19–16] (RIN: 2120–AA64) received February 27, 1998, pursuant to5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee onTransportation and Infrastructure.

7715. A letter from the Acting Director,Regulations Policy and Management Staff,Food and Drug Administration, transmittingthe Administration’s final rule—Indirect

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH850 March 4, 1998Food Additives: Polymers [Docket No. 97F–0336] received February 27, 1998, pursuant to5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee onTransportation and Infrastructure.

7716. A letter from the Chief Counsel, In-ternal Revenue Service, transmitting theService’s final rule—Source and GroupingRules for Foreign Sales Corporation TransferPricing [Docket No. REG–102144–98] (RIN:1545–AV90) received March 2, 1998, pursuantto 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee onWays and Means.

7717. A letter from the Chairman, U.S.Merit Systems Protection Board, transmit-ting the appropriation justification for theU.S. Merit Systems Protection Board(MSPB)for fiscal year 1999; jointly to the Commit-tees on Government Reform and Oversightand Appropriations.

f

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ONPUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports ofcommittees were delivered to the Clerkfor printing and reference to the propercalendar, as follows:

Mrs. MYRICK: Committee on Rules. HouseResolution 377. Resolution providing for con-sideration of the bill (H.R. 2369) to amend theCommunications Act of 1934 to strengthenand clarify prohibitions on electronic eaves-dropping, and for other purposes (Rept. 105–427). Referred to the House Calendar.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio: House Resolution 378.Resolution providing for consideration of thebill (H.R. 3130) to provide for an alternativepenalty procedure for States that fail tomeet Federal child support data processingrequirements, to reform Federal incentivepayments for effective child support per-formance, and to provide for a more flexiblepenalty procedure for States that violateinterjurisdictional adoption requirements(Rept. 105–428). Referred to the House Cal-endar.

f

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 5 of Rule X and clause 4of Rule XXII, public bills and resolu-tions were introduced and severally re-ferred, as follows:

By Mr. SMITH of Oregon:H.R. 3317. A bill to provide that each State

may establish a pilot program for mediationof private rights of action under the Migrantand Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protec-tion Act; to the Committee on Educationand the Workforce.

By Mr. BAKER (for himself and Mr.PALLONE):

H.R. 3318. A bill to amend title 49, UnitedStates Code, to improve the one-call notifi-cation process, and for other purposes; to theCommittee on Transportation and Infra-structure.

By Mr. WAMP:H.R. 3319. A bill to provide for notice to

owners of property that may be subject tothe exercise of eminent domain by privatenongovernmental entities under certain Fed-eral authorization statutes, and for otherpurposes; to the Committee on Resources.

By Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr.STARK, Mr. MATSUI, Mrs. KENNELLYof Connecticut, Mr. COYNE, Mr.LEVIN, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. MCDERMOTT,Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. NEAL ofMassachusetts, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr.JEFFERSON, Mr. BECERRA, Mrs. THUR-MAN, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. GEPHARDT, Mr.BONIOR, Mr. YATES, Mr. CONYERS, Mr.MURTHA, Mr. HEFNER, Mr. WAXMAN,Mr. FROST, Mr. GEJDENSON, Mr. SCHU-

MER, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. EVANS, Mr.OWENS, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. KENNEDYof Massachusetts, Mr. SAWYER, Ms.PELOSI, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. AN-DREWS, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ms.DELAURO, Mr. DOOLEY of California,Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. SANDERS, Mr.OLVER, Mr. FILNER, Mr. GREEN, Mr.HILLIARD, Mr. HINCHEY, Mrs.MALONEY of New York, Mr. MEEHAN,Mr. RUSH, Mr. UNDERWOOD, Ms.VELAZQUEZ, Mr. KENNEDY of RhodeIsland, Ms. JACKSON-LEE, Ms.LOFGREN, Mr. STRICKLAND, Mr.BLAGOJEVICH, Ms. CARSON, Ms.DEGETTE, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Ms. KIL-PATRICK, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms.SANCHEZ, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. TIERNEY,Mr. WEXLER, and Mr. WEYGAND):

H.R. 3320. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-enue Code of 1986 to expand the incentivesfor the construction and renovation of publicschools; to the Committee on Ways andMeans.

By Mr. BARR of Georgia:H.R. 3321. A bill to amend the Communica-

tions Assistance for Law Enforcement Act,and for other purposes; to the Committee onthe Judiciary.

By Mr. EDWARDS:H.R. 3322. A bill to repeal the prohibition

on the use of Robert Gray Army Airfield atFort Hood, Texas, by civil aviation; to theCommittee on National Security.

By Mr. GUTKNECHT:H.R. 3323. A bill to amend the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States to pro-vide for duty-free treatment of oxidizedpolyacrylonitrile fibers; to the Committeeon Ways and Means.

By Mrs. MYRICK:H.R. 3324. A bill to suspend from January 1,

1998, until December 31, 2002, the duty onSE2SI Spray Granulated (HOE S 4291); to theCommittee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts:H.R. 3325. A bill to suspend temporarily the

duty on a certain chemical; to the Commit-tee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts:H.R. 3326. A bill to suspend temporarily the

duty on 2–Ethylhexanoic acid; to the Com-mittee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts:H.R. 3327. A bill to suspend temporarily the

duty on the chemical Polyvinyl butyral; tothe Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts (forhimself and Mr. MEEHAN):

H.R. 3328. A bill to suspend temporarily theduty on a certain anti-HIV and anti-AIDSdrug; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Ms. NORTON:H.R. 3329. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to expand certain enter-prise zone incentives applicable to portionsof the District of Columbia and to providefor individuals who are residents of the Dis-trict of Columbia a maximum rate of tax of15 percent on income from sources within theDistrict of Columbia; to the Committee onWays and Means.

By Mr. RIGGS:H.R. 3330. A bill to prohibit discrimination

and preferential treatment on the basis ofrace, sex, color, national origin, or ethnicityin connection with admission to an institu-tion of higher education participating in anyprogram authorized under the Higher Edu-cation Act of 1965; to the Committee on Edu-cation and the Workforce.

By Mr. SAXTON (for himself, Mr.ARMEY, and Mr. CAMPBELL):

H.R. 3331. A bill to ensure the transparencyof International Monetary Fund operations;to the Committee on Banking and FinancialServices.

By Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himselfand Mr. BROWN of California):

H.R. 3332. A bill to amend the High-Per-formance Computing Act of 1991 to authorizeappropriations for fiscal years 1999 and 2000for the Next Generation Internet program, torequire the Advisory Committee on High-Performance Computing and Communica-tions, Information Technology, and the NextGeneration Internet to monitor and give ad-vice concerning the development and imple-mentation of the Next Generation Internetprogram and report to the President and theCongress on its activities, and for other pur-poses; to the Committee on Science.

By Mr. STARK:

H.R. 3333. A bill to establish a policy of theUnited States with respect to nuclear non-proliferation; to the Committee on Inter-national Relations.

By Mr. THORNBERRY (for himself,Mrs. CUBIN, and Mr. BRADY):

H.R. 3334. A bill to provide certainty for,reduce administrative and compliance bur-dens associated with, and streamline and im-prove the collection of royalties from Fed-eral and outer continental shelf oil and gasleases, and for other purposes; to the Com-mittee on Resources.

By Mrs. THURMAN:

H.R. 3335. A bill to amend the AgriculturalAdjustment Act to require the timely appli-cation to imported fruits and vegetables ofgrade, size, quality, and maturity require-ments applicable to comparable domesticallyproduced fruits and vegetables under agricul-tural marketing orders; to the Committee onAgriculture.

By Mrs. THURMAN (for herself and Mr.EVANS):

H.R. 3336. A bill to name the Department ofVeterans Affairs medical center in Gaines-ville, Florida, as the ‘‘Malcolm Randall De-partment of Veterans Affairs MedicalCenter‘‘; to the Committee on Veterans’ Af-fairs.

By Mrs. MORELLA (for herself, Mr.DIXON, and Mr. CUMMINGS):

H.J. Res. 113. A joint resolution approvingthe location of a Martin Luther King, Jr.Memorial in the Nation’s Capitol; to theCommittee on Resources.

By Mr. SHAW (for himself and Mr.MICA):

H.J. Res. 114. A joint resolution disapprov-ing the certification of the President undersection 490(b) of the Foreign Assistance Actof 1961 regarding foreign assistance for Mex-ico during fiscal year 1998; to the Committeeon International Relations, and in additionto the Committee on Banking and FinancialServices, for a period to be subsequently de-termined by the Speaker, in each case forconsideration of such provisions as fall with-in the jurisdiction of the committee con-cerned.

By Mr. HOUGHTON (for himself, Mr.LEVIN, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania,Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr.MATSUI, Mr. LEACH, Mr.BLUMENAUER, Mr. DAVIS of Florida,Mr. HALL of Texas, and Mr. MORAN ofVirginia):

H. Con. Res. 233. Concurrent resolutioncalling on Japan to establish and maintainan open, competitive market for consumerphotographic film and paper and other sec-tors facing market access barriers in Japan;to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. PAYNE:

H. Con. Res. 234. Concurrent resolution re-garding the human rights situation in Sudanand Mauritania, including the practice ofchattel slavery and all other forms of booty;to the Committee on International Rela-tions.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H851March 4, 1998ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

Under clause 4 of rule XXII, sponsorswere added to public bills and resolu-tions as follows:

H.R. 44: Mr. COOK, Mr. UNDERWOOD, Ms.STABENOW, and Mr. POMEROY.

H.R. 65: Mr. CAMP and Mr. PETERSON ofMinnesota.

H.R. 66: Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut.H.R. 107: Ms. BROWN of Florida.H.R. 146: Mr. RAHALL.H.R. 284: Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin, Mr.

SANDERS, and Mr. CLAY.H.R. 303: Mr. LOBIONDO and Mr. CAMP.H.R. 306: Mr. MASCARA, Mr. RAHALL, Mr.

ETHERIDGE, and Mr. SAWYER.H.R. 371: Ms. SANCHEZ.H.R. 372: Mr. NADLER.H.R. 665: Mr. CANADY of Florida.H.R. 900: Ms. WATERS and Mrs. JOHNSON of

Connecticut.H.R. 981: Mr. VENTO, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. ADAM

SMITH of Washington, Mr. ENGEL, Mrs.TAUSCHER, and Mr. NADLER.

H.R. 1016: Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania.H.R. 1062: Mr. EVERETT.H.R. 1075: Mrs. ROUKEMA and Mr. FAZIO of

California.H.R. 1215: Mr. VENTO, Mr. PALLONE, and

Mr. PASTOR.H.R. 1261: Mr. CHRISTENSEN and Mr. GREEN-

WOOD.H.R. 1289: Mr. DEUTSCH and Mr. ENSIGN.H.R. 1302: Ms. SLAUGHTER and Mr.

BALDACCI.H.R. 1356: Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington,

Mr. CHRISTENSEN, MR. BROWN of California,and Mrs. THURMAN.

H.R. 1401: Mr. WELLER, Mr. HINCHEY, andMr. ENSIGN.

H.R. 1525: Mr. BROWN of Ohio.H.R. 1531: Mr. HEFLEY.H.R. 1571: Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of

Texas and Mr. HILLIARD.H.R. 1573: Mr. ALLEN.H.R. 1605: Mr. FROST.H.R. 1656: Mr. GREENWOOD.H.R. 1670: Ms. DELAURO.H.R. 1736: Ms. JACKSON-LEE.H.R. 1786: Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr.

WATTS of Oklahoma, and Ms. SANCHEZ.H.R. 1816: Mr. DOOLITTLE.H.R. 1873: Mr. SHAYS.H.R. 2020: Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. GILCHREST, Mr.

GOODLING, Mr. COYNE, Ms. FURSE, and Mr.MORAN of Kansas.

H.R. 2023: Mr. ANDREWS.H.R. 2130: Mr. LOBIONDO, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr.

MOLLOHAN, Mr. STENHOLM, and Mr. CONDIT.H.R. 2173: Mr. BATEMAN, Mr. BARRETT of

Wisconsin, and Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts.H.R. 2174: Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. AN-

DREWS, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas,Mr. KUCINICH, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York,Mr. TIERNEY, Ms. SANCHEZ, Mr. CLAY, andMr. PICKETT.

H.R. 2202: Mr. BLUMENAUER.H.R. 2257: Ms. WOOLSEY and Mr. CALVERT.H.R. 2290: Ms. RIVERS.H.R. 2305: Mr. BURTON of Indiana and Mr.

COOKSEY.H.R. 2409: Mr. BROWN of Ohio.H.R. 2457: Mr. GEJDENSON.H.R. 2500: Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr.

JOHN, and Mr. CRAMER.H.R. 2652: Mr. VENTO.H.R. 2695: Mr. SCHUMER and Mrs. CLAYTON.H.R. 2698: Mr. ACKERMAN, Ms. KILPATRICK,

Mr. LAFALCE, Mr. FILNER, Ms. FURSE, Mr.CONYERS, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr.KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. FORD, Ms.HOOLEY of Oregon, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr.PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. DAVIS of Illi-nois, Ms. NORTON, Mrs. TAUSCHER, and Mr.MANTON.

H.R. 2699: Mr. EVANS and Mr. DEUTSCH.H.R. 2715: Mr. CANADY of Florida.

H.R. 2752: Mr. ORTIZ and Mr. GREEN.H.R. 2754: Mr. RUSH, Mr. FILNER, Mr.

FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. COYNE,and Mr. WYNN.

H.R. 2870: Mr. LANTOS, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr.CAMPBELL, and Mr. SMITH of New Jersey.

H.R. 2883: Mr. TALENT, Mr. BOEHNER, andMr. YOUNG of Alaska.

H.R. 2888: Ms. RIVERS.H.R. 2914: Mr. CLAY.H.R. 2923: Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. ENGLISH of

Pennsylvania, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. ENGEL, Mr.OXLEY, and Mr. GILCHREST.

H.R. 2938: Mr. WICKER and Mr. DEUTSCH.H.R. 2941: Mr. SMITH of New Jersey and Mr.

COBURN.H.R. 2951: Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. POM-

EROY, Mr. BALDACCI, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr.PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. SHADEGG, Ms.FURSE, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, and Mr.SANDLIN.

H.R. 2968: Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr.COOKSEY, Mr. CAMPBELL, and Mr. EHLERS.

H.R. 2973: Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, Mr. STU-PAK, Mr. DEFAZIO, and Mr. BARRETT of Ne-braska.

H.R. 2981: Ms. LOFGREN and Mr. MILLER ofCalifornia.

H.R. 2992: Mr. BRYANT.H.R. 3007: Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. CALVERT, Mr.

KUCINICH, and Mr. LUTHER.H.R. 3027: Mr. LEWIS of Georgia.H.R. 3028: Mr. LEWIS of Georgia.H.R. 3029: Mr. HOUGHTON.H.R. 3086: Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. BALLENGER,

Mr. MORAN of Virginia, and Mr. SAWYER.H.R. 3097: Mr. HUNTER, Mr. BARTON of

Texas, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. HASTINGS of Wash-ington, Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky, Mr.LATOURETTE, Mr. LIVINGSTON, Mr. SAM JOHN-SON, and Mr. ARMEY.

H.R. 3103: Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. SESSIONS, andMr. JENKINS.

H.R. 3144: Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania.H.R. 3158: Mr. GILMAN.H.R. 3161: Mr. WEXLER and Mr. GUTKNECHT.H.R. 3162: Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania.H.R. 3205: Mr. GEJDENSON.H.R. 3216: Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. HALL of Ohio,

Mr. SANDLIN, and Ms. FURSE.H.R. 3224: Mr. CALVERT and Mr.

FALEOMAVAEGA.H.R. 3228: Mr. DAVIS of Florida.H.R. 3240: Mr. HILLIARD, Mr. BROWN of Cali-

fornia, Mr. YATES, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Mr.GUTIERREZ, and Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA.

H.R. 3251: Mr. DICKS, Mr. HASTINGS of Flor-ida, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. NEAL of Massachu-setts, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. NADLER,Mr. EVANS, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr.HINCHEY, Mr. CAMPBELL, and Mr. LEWIS ofGeorgia.

H.R. 3254: Mr. ROGAN.H.R. 3260: Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. KNOLLEN-

BERG, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. BAR-RETT of Wisconsin, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. REG-ULA, Mr. GILLMOR, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. COBLE,and Mr. LAHOOD.

H.R. 3269: Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. FILNER,Mr. FROST, Mr. CLYBURN, and Mr. LEWIS ofGeorgia.

H.R. 3282: Mr. SUNUNU.H.R. 3287: Ms. WOOLSEY and Mr. WEYGAND.H.R. 3288: Mr. BACHUS and Mr. REDMOND.H.R. 3291: Mr. BOYD, Mr. SAWYER, and Mr.

NETHERCUTT.H.J. Res. 78: Mr. GALLEGLY.H. Con. Res. 14: Mr. TOWNS.H. Con. Res. 27: Mr. FRANK of Massachu-

setts, Mr. PASTOR, and Mr. WAXMAN.H. Con. Res. 41: Mr. BRYANT.H. Con. Res. 125: Mr. CALVERT and Mr.

ROHRABACHER.H. Con. Res. 195: Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHN-

SON of Texas.H. Con. Res. 211: Mr. HOSTETTLER.H. Con. Res. 215: Mr. SNYDER, Mr. HILL-

IARD, Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr.JEFFERSON, and Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA.

H. Con. Res. 219: Mr. GREEN, Mr. BONIOR,Mr. LANTOS, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. CALVERT, Mr.MILLER of Florida, Mr. WEXLER, Mr.FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr.DEUTSCH, and Mr. SHERMAN.

H. Res. 267: Mrs. MYRICK.H. Res. 312: Ms. FURSE, Mr. ROHRABACHER,

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, and Mrs. TAUSCHER.H. Res. 358: Mrs. CLAYTON.H. Res. 364: Mr. PORTER and Mr. BEREUTER.

f

AMENDMENTSUnder clause 6 of rule XXIII, pro-

posed amendments were submitted asfollows:

H.R. 3130OFFERED BY: MR. CARDIN

AMENDMENT NO. 2: In the table of contentsof the bill, add at the end the following:

TITLE IV—IMMIGRATION PROVISIONSSec. 401. Aliens ineligible to receive visas

and excluded from admissionfor nonpayment of child sup-port.

Sec. 402. Effect of nonpayment of child sup-port on establishment of goodmoral character.

Sec. 403. Authorization to serve legal proc-ess in child support cases oncertain arriving aliens.

Sec. 404. Authorization to obtain informa-tion on child support paymentsby aliens.

At the end of the bill, add the following:TITLE IV—IMMIGRATION PROVISIONS

SEC. 401. ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISASAND EXCLUDED FROM ADMISSIONFOR NONPAYMENT OF CHILD SUP-PORT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 212(a)(10) of theImmigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1182(a)(10)) is amended by adding at the endthe following:

‘‘(F) NONPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT.—‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Any alien is inadmissible

who is legally obligated under a judgment,decree, or order to pay child support (as de-fined in section 459(i) of the Social SecurityAct), and whose failure to pay such childsupport has resulted in an arrearage exceed-ing $5,000, until child support paymentsunder the judgment, decree, or order are sat-isfied or the alien is in compliance with anapproved payment agreement.

‘‘(ii) APPLICATION TO PERMANENT RESI-DENTS.—Notwithstanding section101(a)(13)(C), an alien lawfully admitted forpermanent residence in the United Stateswho has been absent from the United Statesfor any period of time shall be regarded asseeking an admission into the United Statesfor purposes of this subparagraph.

‘‘(iii) WAIVER AUTHORIZED.—The AttorneyGeneral may waive the application of clause(i) in the case of an alien, if the AttorneyGeneral—

‘‘(I) has received a request for the waiverfrom the court or administrative agencyhaving jurisdiction over the judgment, de-cree, or order obligating the alien to paychild support that is referred to in suchclause; and

‘‘(II) determines that the likelihood of thearrearage being eliminated, and all subse-quent child support payments timely beingmade by the alien, would increase substan-tially if the waiver were granted.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentmade by this section shall take effect 180days after the date of the enactment of thisAct.SEC. 402. EFFECT OF NONPAYMENT OF CHILD

SUPPORT ON ESTABLISHMENT OFGOOD MORAL CHARACTER.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 101(f) of the Im-migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1101(f)) is amended—

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH852 March 4, 1998(1) in paragraph (8), by striking the period

at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and(2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the fol-

lowing:‘‘(9) one who is legally obligated under a

judgment, decree, or order to pay child sup-port (as defined in section 459(i) of the SocialSecurity Act), and whose failure to pay suchchild support has resulted in any arrearage,unless child support payments under thejudgment, decree, or order are satisfied orthe alien is in compliance with an approvedpayment agreement.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentmade by this section shall apply to aliens ap-plying for a benefit under the Immigrationand Nationality Act on or after 180 daysafter the date of the enactment of this Act.SEC. 403. AUTHORIZATION TO SERVE LEGAL

PROCESS IN CHILD SUPPORT CASESON CERTAIN ARRIVING ALIENS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 235(d) of the Im-migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1225(d)) is amended by adding at the end thefollowing:

‘‘(5) AUTHORITY TO SERVE PROCESS IN CHILDSUPPORT CASES.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—To the extent consistentwith State law, immigration officers are au-thorized to serve on any alien who is an ap-plicant for admission to the United Stateslegal process with respect to any action toenforce or establish a legal obligation of anindividual to pay child support (as defined insection 459(i) of the Social Security Act).

‘‘(B) DEFINITION.—For purposes of subpara-graph (A), the term ‘legal process’ means anywrit, order, summons or other similar proc-ess, which is issued by—

‘‘(i) a court or an administrative agency ofcompetent jurisdiction in any State, terri-tory, or possession of the United States; or

‘‘(ii) an authorized official pursuant to anorder of such a court or agency or pursuantto State or local law.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentmade by this section shall apply to aliens ap-plying for admission to the United States onor after 180 days after the date of the enact-ment of this Act.SEC. 404. AUTHORIZATION TO OBTAIN INFORMA-

TION ON CHILD SUPPORT PAY-MENTS BY ALIENS.

Section 453(h) of the Social Security Act(42 U.S.C. 653(h)) is amended by adding at theend the following:

‘‘(4) PROVISION TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ANDSECRETARY OF STATE OF INFORMATION ON PER-SONS DELINQUENT IN CHILD SUPPORT PAY-MENTS.—On request by the Attorney Generalor the Secretary of State, the Secretary ofHealth and Human Services shall provide therequestor with such information as the Sec-retary of Health and Human Services deter-mines may aid them in determining whetheran alien is delinquent in the payment ofchild support.’’.

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill toprovide for an alternative penalty procedurefor States that fail to meet Federal child

support data processing requirements, to re-form Federal incentive payments for effec-tive child support performance, to providefor a more flexible penalty procedure forStates that violate interjurisdictional adop-tion requirements, to amend the Immigra-tion and Nationality Act to make certainaliens determined to be delinquent in thepayment of child support inadmissible andineligible for naturalization, and for otherpurposes.’’.

H.R. 3130

OFFERED BY: MR. GILMAN

AMENDMENT NO. 3: At the end of the bill,add the following:

TITLE V—INCLUSION OF CHILD CARECOSTS IN CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS

SEC. 501. INCLUSION OF CHILD CARE COSTS INCHILD SUPPORT ORDERS.

Section 466(a) of the Social Security Act(42 U.S.C. 666(a)) is amended by insertingafter paragraph (19) the following:

‘‘(20) CHILD CARE COSTS.—Procedures underwhich all child support orders issued ormodified in the State on or after the date ofthe enactment of this paragraph include, inthe case of a custodial parent who is em-ployed or is actively seeking employment, aprovision proportionately allocating actualchild care costs between the custodial andnoncustodial parents based on the income ofeach parent, excluding income from childsupport.’’.

Congressional RecordUNUM

E PLURIBUS

United Statesof America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 105th

CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

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

S1297

Vol. 144 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1998 No. 20

SenateThe Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was

called to order by the President protempore [Mr. THURMOND].

PRAYER

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

It was 161 years ago today that Presi-dent Andrew Jackson gave a clarioncall to prayer in his farewell address.Jackson’s words challenge us: ‘‘Youhave the highest of human trusts com-mitted to your care. Providence hasshowered on this favored land blessingswithout number, and has chosen you asthe guardians of freedom to preserve itfor the benefit of the human race. MayHe who holds in His hands the destiniesof nations, make you worthy of the fa-vors He has bestowed and enable you,with pure hearts and hands and sleep-less vigilance, to guard and defend, tothe end of time, the great charge Hehas committed to your keeping.’’

Let us pray.Almighty God, as the sword of these

piercing words hangs over this Senatechamber today, provide the Senatorswith a renewed sense of awe and won-der over the awesome challenge Youhave entrusted to them. Thank You forthe abundant courage You provideleaders who seek first and foremost toknow and do Your will. Through ourLord and Savior. Amen.f

RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITYLEADER

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ablemajority leader, Senator LOTT of Mis-sissippi, is recognized.f

SCHEDULE

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senatewill resume consideration now of S.1173, the ISTEA surface transportationreauthorization legislation. As underthe consent agreement, the Senate willconclude 1 hour of debate on the

DeWine-Lautenberg amendment re-garding alcohol levels, with a vote oc-curring on or in relation to theDeWine-Lautenberg amendment at ap-proximately 10:30 this morning. Fol-lowing that vote, it’s hoped that theSenate will be able to debate anamendment dealing with funding lev-els. In addition, this afternoon the Sen-ate will hopefully debate an amend-ment to be offered by Senator McCon-nell. Therefore, Members should be pre-pared for votes throughout today’s ses-sion.

As a reminder to all Senators, thefirst rollcall vote today will occur at10:30 a.m.

I urge the Senate to work hard tomake progress today. If we can havethis debate and vote at 10:30 and go tothe funding level resolution and hope-fully find a way to complete that todayand move on to the McConnell amend-ment and hopefully get to a vote onthat, a great deal can be accomplishedtoday and we can move the bill alongconsiderably.

Mr. President, I would like to yieldmyself leader time so that I may com-ment on the Lautenberg amendmentbriefly.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ma-jority leader is recognized.f

THE LAUTENBERG-DEWINEAMENDMENT REGARDINGBLOOD-ALCOHOL LEVELS

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as I under-stand the amendment, it would requireStates to enact the .08 alcohol contentlegislation instead of the present, Ithink, .10 level of alcohol to be consid-ered drunk. That has to be done bySeptember 30, 2000. NoncompliantStates would lose 5 percent of highwayfunding on October 1, 2000, and then 10percent thereafter. Currently, 15 Statesalready have the .08 level of alcoholcontent to be considered drunk indrunk driving cases.

Mr. President, I think we should en-courage people not to drink. We shouldencourage all people not to drink ex-cessively. We should do all that we canto get the States to pass the lowerlevel of .08. I support that. We need tocombat the problem of drunken driv-ing.

I understand the tragedy and the rav-ages of people that drink and drive. Myfather was killed in just such an acci-dent. So this is not an issue that I takelightly. But I will oppose this amend-ment. This is a typical Federal Govern-ment attitude—not to encourage youto do right, not to say if you do theright thing, there will be incentives init for you; no; you do it our way, or wewill punish you; you will lose funds ifyou don’t do it the way we say. Somepeople say President Reagan did thesame thing. Yes, and I opposed it then,too.

I am very much opposed to alcohol-ism and drinking and driving. But forus to stand here and pontificate abouthow you must do it our way, that thisis the solution, or we are going to takeyour funds away, what about poorStates like mine where people arekilled every week because of bad roads,potholes in the roads, dangerousbridges? What about safety? If a State,for whatever reason, by mistake or ob-viously for the wrong reasons, doesn’tdo it, we take a big chunk of moneyaway from them. Is that going to savelives? No. As a matter of fact, it maylead to more lives being lost.

So while I know this is well-inten-tioned, and while I support the intentor the goals of this legislation, the ideathat we are going to punish States be-cause you don’t do it our way I think isthe wrong thing to be doing. I hope mycolleagues will think about this very,very seriously before they cast a votein favor of this amendment.

Mr. THURMOND. Will the able Sen-ator yield?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield tothe Senator from South Carolina.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1298 March 4, 1998Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I

commend our able majority leader onhis statement and the position he hastaken in this matter. I am sick andtired of the Federal Government tryingto dictate to the States and threatento withhold funds if the States don’t dowhat the Federal Government wants.Let us take a stand here today to showthat the States have their rights andwill not be invaded by the Federal Gov-ernment.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.Several Senators addressed the

Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Minnesota——Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, when we

go back on the bill, we will have anhour, equally divided, and the distin-guished Senator from New Jersey isn’there, who controls that time, but let’sget started here.

f

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, leadership time isreserved.

f

EXPLANATION OF ABSENCE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wishto announce that Senator JEFFORDSwill necessarily be absent from today’sSenate session due to an illness in thefamily.

f

INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANS-PORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF1997

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the Senate will nowresume consideration of S. 1173, whichthe clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:

A bill (S. 1173) to authorize funds for con-struction of highways, for highway safetyprograms, and for mass transit programs,and for other purposes.

The Senate resumed consideration ofthe bill.

Pending:Lautenberg Amendment No. 1682 (to

Amendment No. 1676), to prohibit the posses-sion of any open alcoholic beverage con-tainer, or the consumption of any alcoholicbeverage, in the passenger area of a vehicleon a public highway.

AMMENDMENT NO. 1682

Mr. CHAFEE. How much time willthe Senator from Minnesota need?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take 3 min-utes.

Mr. CHAFEE. I will yield 3 minutesto the Senator from Minnesota, andthe Senator from Rhode Island wants 5minutes, and the Senator from Illinoiswants 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The timeuntil 10:30 is now evenly divided.

The Senator from Minnesota is rec-ognized.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Iam pleased to come to the floor today

to add my voice to those of my col-leagues, Senators LAUTENBERG andDEWINE, in support of this amendmentto require states to pass .08 blood alco-hol content (BAC) laws.

People who drive while they are im-paired are placing all of us in harm’sway. The real issue is whether or not aperson should be driving after consum-ing alcohol. There is no good reasonthat this should be accepted as a stand-ard practice in our society.

Opponents to this amendment willargue such things as ‘‘this means thata 120-pound woman could not driveafter drinking two glasses of wine’’. Ibelieve they are missing the point. Thepoint is that if a person is impaired byalcohol, he or she should not be driv-ing—period. The point is that some-one’s BAC might reach .08 after con-sumption of a certain amount of alco-hol, and that BAC level might just beindicative of physical impairment thatwould affect driving ability. We are nottalking about someone being fallen-down drunk, but perhaps a youngwoman whose reaction time might beslowed, so that as a young child dartsout into the street in front of her car,she is unable to react quickly, enoughto hit the brakes in time to stop thecar from hitting the child. Was thiswoman ‘‘drunk’’? No, but the alcohol inher body slowed her reaction time.

Here are some facts from the Na-tional Institute on Alcohol and AlcoholAbuse at NIH that help to explain theissue:

The brain’s control of eye movementsis highly vulnerable to alcohol. In driv-ing, the eye must focus briefly on im-portant objects and track them as theyand the vehicle being driven move.BAC’s of .03 to .05 can interfere withthese eye movements.

Steering is a complex task in whichthe effects of alcohol on eye-to-handreaction time are super-imposed uponthe effects on vision, studies haveshown that significant impairment insteering ability may begin at a BAC aslow as .04.

Alcohol impairs nearly every aspectof information processing by the brain.Alcohol-impaired drivers require moretime to read a street sign or to respondto a traffic signal than unimpaireddrivers. Research on the effects of alco-hol on performance by both automobileand aircraft operators shows a narrow-ing of the attention field starting at aBAC of approximately .04.

The National Public Services Re-search Institute reports the following:

Approximately 10 percent of milesdriven at BAC’s of .08 and above are atBAC’s between .08 and .10. Every year,crashes that involve drivers at BAC’sof .08 to .99 kill 660 people and injure28,000.

Driving with a BAC of .08 is veryrisky. They estimate that crash costsaverage $5.80 per mile driven with aBAC of .10 or higher, $2.50 a mile for aBAC between .08 and .99, and only 11cents a mile for each mile driven whilesober.

The preliminary evaluation of the .08legislation by the National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration indi-cates that this law will reduce alcohol-related fatalities by 5 to 8 percent. Thisis at least comparable to the impact ofother laws such as zero tolerance foryouth, administrative license revoca-tion or graduated licensing.

The evidence is clear. There is nogood argument against the .08 legisla-tion. In fact, responsible alcohol dis-tributors and manufacturers shouldfavor it. There is no excuse not to im-plement a law that could decrease traf-fic fatalities by 600 each year, and de-crease traffic-related injuries by manythousands. We need to be responsibleand encourage the implementation of.08 legislation in all states, and to pro-vide incentive for doing so.

Mr. President, again, I want to addmy voice to my colleagues, SenatorLAUTENBERG and Senator DEWINE, andsupport this amendment to requireStates to pass the .08 blood alcoholcontent law.

Mr. President, people who drive whilethey are impaired are placing all of usin harm’s way. That is really the issue.Now, opponents of this amendmenthave argued that this is going to meansuch a thing as, ‘‘A 120-pound womancould not drive after drinking twoglasses of wine.’’ I believe they missthe point. The point is, if a person isimpaired by alcohol, he or she shouldnot be driving, period.

There are some important facts laidout by the National Institute on Alco-hol Abuse. It lays out clearly why thisamendment is so important. The evi-dence is really clear. There is no goodreason and no good argument to beagainst this .08 legislation. In fact, re-sponsible alcohol distributors and man-ufacturers should favor it.

There is no excuse not to implementa law that could decrease fatalities by600 each year and decrease traffic-re-lated injuries by many thousands. Weneed to be responsible, and we need toencourage the implementation of the.08 legislation in all States and to pro-vide those States incentives for doingso. I urge my colleagues to support thisamendment.

Mr. President, on a personal note, Iwant to thank Minnesota MothersAgainst Drunk Driving for all thatthey have done to educate all of us inmy State, including me as a Senator. Ihave been at their gatherings, and Isay to my colleague, Senator LOTT, Iabsolutely accept what he says in thebest of faith. I know he is committedto the general concept. But I believe,after spending time with these familieswho have lost so many loved ones inthese accidents, that we ought to be astough as possible. This is a matter ofpublic health. We ought to make surethat we have as few people driving whoare impaired from alcohol as possiblearound our country. This is an issue forour national community. This is a

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1299March 4, 1998matter of public health. This is protec-tion for families in our country. This isthe right thing to do. I hope we get astrong majority vote for this amend-ment.

I yield the floor.Mr. REED addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Rhode Island.Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise

today in support of the Lautenberg-DeWine amendment, and I commendboth Senators for this excellent amend-ment. It would, as previous speakershave discussed, establish a .08 blood al-cohol concentration level, or BAClevel, as a threshold for driving underthe influence throughout the UnitedStates.

As we all know, drunk driving is ascourge on the highways of the UnitedStates of America. It is something thatwe are all against. This legislationwould take a very positive step to en-sure that all States provide for a veryrigorous .08 blood alcohol contentstandard as their measure of drivingunder the influence of alcohol.

This law builds on previous success.Since 1986, alcohol-related fatalities onour roads have decreased by 28 percent.That is a result of the efforts of many,many people. It is the result of tougherlaws, increased enforcement, publiceducation, and particularly the work ofMothers Against Drunk Driving, whohave done so much to illustrate thisproblem and reach policymakersthroughout the United States. Al-though we are proud of this success, wecan and must do more.

In 1996, more than 17,000 people werekilled because of drunk driving. Now,these deaths are not accidents becausethese are tragedies that could havebeen avoided—many of them—if we hadtougher laws and better enforcement.That is what we are about today. Weare trying to declare throughout thiscountry that we have a tough standardfor those who would drink and drive, astandard that would save livesthroughout this country in every com-munity.

I don’t think any of my colleagueswould like to say to a family who losta loved one and tell them, ‘‘Well, thestandard of .10 was OK,’’ because inthat situation it’s not OK. We can dobetter. We know these laws work, andwe want to make them work much,much better.

In essence, the .08 blood alcohol con-centration standard means fewerdeaths on the roads of America, fewerdriving fatalities, fewer young peoplecut down in the prime of their lives,and it means a safer America. That iswhat we should stand for today.

Currently, 15 States already haveadopted a .08 blood alcohol concentra-tion standard. A recent study by Bos-ton University showed that theseStates experienced a 16 percent declinein fatal driver crashes where the driv-er’s BAC was .08 or greater. Alreadythese States have shown that thisstandard saves lives. And we can dobetter.

It is estimated that nationally, if weadopt the .08 standard, we can save be-tween 500 and 600 lives a year. Thoseare impressive statistics. But livesalone are not at stake. Each yeardrunk driving accidents cost this coun-try $45 billion. That is six times morethan we spend on Pell grants. We cando better. We can save lives. We cansave resources. We can make our worldmuch, much safer.

There are those who argue that thiswould put a huge constraint on law-abiding Americans who occasionallywill have a drink and then drive. Thatis something I don’t think is true at allbecause under this standard a 170-pound man must consume more thanfour drinks in an hour on an emptystomach to reach this BAC. A womanof 135 pounds would have to consumethree drinks. That is not social drink-ing. That is drinking irresponsibly, andthen getting into an automobile.

This law will not affect the reason-able, rational, careful, deliberate per-son who may have one social drink ortwo and then drive. In fact, the Amer-ican Medical Association said thatreally the beginning of impairment isnot .08, it is .05 blood alcohol content.So this standard is far from what medi-cal experts would argue is the begin-ning of deterioration of motor skillswhen one drives an automobile. We cando better. We have to recognize todaythat we must do better.

There are those of my colleagues whohave suggested that this proposal is animproper infringement on the preroga-tives of the States. First of all, we havetaken positive steps before in this land.For example, just a few years ago weadopted through congressional action azero-tolerance policy that would sayfor young people driving that the bloodalcohol content was basically zero,that they should have no drinks if theyare driving an automobile, and we haveseen success already.

Mr. President, we have already seenthe success of our zero-tolerance policythroughout the United States, a policythat was promulgated through Con-gress and adopted by many States,where fatalities at night by youngerdrivers have dropped 16 percent inStates that are following the zero-tol-erance policy.

So this law and this approach is notan impermissible imposition on theStates. It is a rational, reasonable wayto encourage what is the right thing todo. It is small comfort that if oneState, such as my State of Rhode Is-land, adopts this standard but it is notadopted next door in Massachusetts orConnecticut, and someone in Massa-chusetts comes speeding into my State.That is not a States’ rights issue. Thatis an issue of interstate commerce, ofnational economy, of national high-ways that reach every corner of thiscountry regardless of State lines. Wedon’t stop the national highways at theState lines. We shouldn’t stop good,sensible bills that will control drunkdriving in this country at the Statelines.

I urge passage of this legislation, andagain commend Senators LAUTENBERGand DEWINE for their excellent effort.

I yield my time.Several Senators addressed the

Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Rhode Island.Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would

like to yield 5 minutes against theamendment to the senior Senator fromOklahoma.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Oklahoma is recognized.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, regret-fully I rise in opposition to this amend-ment. I say regretfully because if Iwere in the State Senate of Oklahoma,I would vote in favor of this amend-ment. Presently, there is no Federalstandard or Federal law for blood alco-hol level—none. So we have an effortnow to federalize a national problem. Idon’t think we should do that.

I led the effort years ago that wouldallow the States to set speed limits. Ithought the States should set the speedlimits, not the Federal Government. Ididn’t say that I thought every Stateshould increase their speed limits. Ithought States should set the speedlimit.

What about the alcohol level? Again,if I were a State legislator, I wouldsupport the lower level. Fifteen Stateshave this level—.08. Maybe it should belower. Let the States make that deci-sion. I hate to federalize problems, andI hate to tell the States that if theydon’t do such and such we are going towithhold 10 percent of their money, or5 percent of their money the first fewyears and 10 percent thereafter.

Whose money is it? Is that Federalmoney? No. That money is paid for byour constituents, by our consumers,and by our people who are on the road.They pay that money. It comes toWashington, DC, and now we start put-ting strings on it. We basically tell theStates if you do not pass a law that wehave determined is best—and I don’tknow anything about blood alcohollimits. I have heard three beers, I haveheard four beers. I don’t know. I havenot done the homework. I will taketheir word for it. But really, should webe dictating or mandating that on theStates? I don’t think so. And tell theStates if they don’t pass such and such,we are going to withhold 5 percent oftheir funds.

We are talking about millions andmillions—hundreds of millions—of dol-lars. In a few years, it will be 10 per-cent. So it is a real heavy penalty ifthey don’t subscribe to our Federal dic-tate. I just disagree with that. Thatmoney came from the States. It camefrom individuals. This is not Federalmoney. For us to put on these strings,I think is a mistake.

I am very sympathetic to the goal ofthe authors of the amendment, and Icompliment them for trying to say wewant to reduce drunken drivers on thestreets. I want to do the same thing. Ijust do not agree with their tactics.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1300 March 4, 1998The Commerce Committee amend-

ment has some incentives to encourageStates to lower levels, and if the Stateslower those levels, they can get moremoney. In other words, a little bit of acarrot. This is a heavy stick. As a mat-ter of fact, this is more than a heavystick. This is a dagger. This says youhave to do it. I think we should encour-age it.

Again, I go back to the Constitution.Sometimes we ignore the Constitution.But the 10th amendment to the Con-stitution says:

The powers not delegated to the UnitedStates by the Constitution, nor prohibitedby it to the States, are reserved to theStates respectively, or to the people.

Time and time again we come to thisbody and we find a problem. And drunkdriving is a real serious problem. Butwe want to have a Federal solution:The Federal Government knows best. Ithink the framers of the Constitutionwere right when they said we shouldreserve those powers to the States andto the people, and encourage theStates—maybe even give them a littlebonus—if they make some moves thatwe think would be positive. But to fed-eralize it and now, for the first time inhistory, have a blood alcohol contentwhich has always been the prerogativeof the States, in my opinion, is wrong.

I can count the votes. My guess isthat the proponents probably have thevotes.

But I think, again, we are tramplingon States’ rights. We are also tram-pling on this idea or encouraging thisidea that if there is a problem, we needa Federal solution, and we will not giveback your money. I resented that whenI was a State legislator. I resented thefact that when we sent our highwaymoneys to Washington, DC, from ourState, we only got about 80 cents back.That bothered me. We would only getabout 80 cents on the dollar back.Then, not only that, when we got the 80cents back, we got all the strings at-tached: You have to have the Federalhighway speed limit; you have to haveall of these other Federal require-ments; you have to have the Davis-Bacon standard. You have to pass all ofthese rules. By the time we compliedwith those rules, that dollar wouldonly buy about 60 some cents’ worth ofroad. It wasn’t a very good deal for ourState.

So I would like to not put more puni-tive actions on the States if they don’tcomply with what we think—Govern-ment knows best.

Again, I want to compliment the au-thors. But I think this is an intrusioninto States and I urge my colleagues tovote no on the amendment.

Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 5

minutes to the Senator from Illinois.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Illinois is recognized.Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair. Mr.

President, I thank the Senator fromMontana.

Let me at the outset salute my col-leagues, Senator FRANK LAUTENBERG of

New Jersey and Senator MIKE DEWINEof Ohio, who are, on a bipartisan basis,offering an amendment today which iscritically important to the safety ofAmerican families.

America has learned the dangers ofdrunk driving. Americans understandthat we lose one of our neighbors, orone of our children, or one of ourfriends, or one of the people we workwith every 30 minutes to a drunk driv-er—every 30 minutes. America under-stands that this law which we are de-bating will save 500 to 600 lives eachyear. It will spare countless parents,spouses, and friends from the senselesstragedy of drunk driving deaths.

America understands. Does the U.S.Senate understand? The vote will an-swer the question in just a few mo-ments.

Let me address the issue of Statesrights. I don’t believe this debate isabout States rights. I think it is time,in this particular situation, to rejectthis well-worn argument when it comesto saving lives.

I can remember this argument aboutStates rights a few years ago when Iserved in the House because there wasa hodgepodge of standards around theUnited States. In some States youcould drink at the age of 18, some atthe age of 21, and we decided to makeit uniform. The States said this is amistake, that the Federal Governmentshouldn’t to it, that it is the heavyhand of Central Government trying toimpose its will on States. Of course, itmade no sense.

In my home State of Illinois, wherethe kids at night would drive acrossthe border to Wisconsin and drink le-gally and then drive home drunk, kill-ing themselves and innocent people, itmade no sense. We rejected it. We saidit will be a national uniform standarddrinking age of 21. What we are sayinghere is that we will have a nationaluniform standard when it comes todrunk driving.

This debate is not about protectingStates rights. This debate is about pro-tecting families that live in everyState. It is about protecting familieswho go on vacation from State to Stateand worry about their safety. It isabout people who go to the store andthink it is just a casual trip in the carand find, because of a drunk driver,that a fatal accident or a serious acci-dent resulting. That is what this de-bate is really about. Families thatcross State lines shouldn’t fear thatthere is more danger in one State orthe other to drunk drivers.

I think we have to react to the re-ality of the number of Americans whoare losing their lives each year becauseof drunk driving.

The New York Times probably said itbest in the title to its editorial: ‘‘OneNation, Drunk or Sober.’’ Should it bea different standard in each State be-cause of the issue of States rights? Canyou imagine going to the funeral home,can you imagine meeting with thegrieving parents, or the students when

someone has lost a classmate, and say-ing, ‘‘I am sorry we cannot do more ondrunk driving because it is an issue ofStates rights?’’ How empty that argu-ment sounds when we are talkingabout saving lives.

When you look at the groups that aresupporting this, listen to what the WallStreet Journal has to say. This is noliberal organization. It is pretty con-servative. And they say:

Safe alcohol levels should be set by healthexperts, not the lobby for Hooters andHarrah’s. The Lautenberg-DeWine–Loweyamendment isn’t a drive toward prohibitionbut an uphill push toward health consensus.

Then go to the experts—not only thehealth experts—who will tell you thatthe impairment of drivers at .08 is a se-rious matter. They estimate that some40 percent of all of the alcohol-relatedaccidents occur with people who havebeen drinking and have imbibed at alevel that doesn’t quite reach .10 but isat .08, and still is very serious.

Then, of course, go beyond the healthexperts. Talk to the law enforcementpeople—the people who respond tothese accidents, the people who have tosee the tragedy when someone makes aterrible decision to drink and driveand, as a consequence, lives are lostand people are injured. They standshoulder to shoulder begging us to passthis Lautenberg-DeWine amendment,as does the organization, MothersAgainst Drunk Driving.

I want to salute them especially.This is the type of political movementin America which is really, I guess,unique to our country; people who havebeen touched by tragedy come togetherand say, ‘‘Let’s make a difference; let’sspare other lives that might be lost.’’Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, Stu-dents Against Drunk Driving in Illinoisand around the Nation have really ledthis debate.

I am happy to stand in support of theLautenberg-DeWine amendment. Ithink doing this will not only savelives, but it will put to rest once andfor all this empty argument that thisis really about States rights. This isabout much more. It is about therights of every family in every State toget on the highway and to realize thatthey can be safe.

I thank the Chair.Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I, in

control of the opponents’ time, yield 5minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Wyoming is recognized.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Presi-dent. I thank the chairman for thetime.

Mr. President, we are here againtalking about an issue that seems tocome up every time there are highwaybills and highway funds to be distrib-uted. We always come up with thisquestion of process, of who has the re-sponsibility to make the kinds of lawsthat would be there.

I am disappointed that some of thespeakers just previous have indicated

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1301March 4, 1998they don’t think the States have theability to make the decisions, thatthey don’t think the State legislaturesfeel as passionately about drunkendriving as we do. I think they do. Ihave been there. To say, ‘‘Well, this issomething the States simply can’t do,or aren’t capable of doing, or don’t careabout,’’ it seems to me is not fair orbalanced.

I think we ought to talk about theprocess here. And the process is, howdo we best deal with States as a Fed-eral entity, in this case, with highwayfunding? This isn’t the first kind ofmandate that has been applied. Everytime this comes up we have mandates,whether it be highways, helmets,whether it be speed limits—which, bythe way, were put on in a similar kindof process and were changed later be-cause it didn’t work very well.

There is no one in this place or noone that I know of in the whole coun-try who doesn’t want to do more aboutpreserving safety in driving. There isno one here who cares more about thelosses that we have. That is not theissue here. The issue is process, proce-dure, and what is the proper role indoing it. I think we ought to considerincentives, and we have done that; $25million of incentives here for theStates to do this. But instead we movetowards penalties.

We have been through this a numberof times, and we are back at it again.I think we ought to give the leadership.And the President wants to give leader-ship on this issue. Why doesn’t he dothat as President? We can do that. Ifthis is the proper level, and I do notdisagree with it, I would support it inmy State, my State legislature. Butthe process is what we are talkingabout. Should this body say to theStates, ‘‘Look, if you want the moneythat your people pay into the fund, ifyou want it back, then you have to dowhat the Congress prescribes″? It is notas if the money came from somewhereelse. This money came from the States.

So it is a difficult one and I, frankly,have misgivings about even rising totalk about it, but I do think the sys-tem is important. The process is impor-tant here, and we ought to really con-sider it over a period of time, as to howmuch of this sort of thing we do. We doit each time this arises.

So I think we ought to put on all thepressure that we can. I think we oughtto have all the incentives that are pos-sible to move towards safer driving, tomove toward doing something aboutdrunk driving losses. But I think wealso ought to ask ourselves aboutwhere do we stop in this idea of penal-izing the States if they do not properlyadhere to what this body proclaimsthey ought to do.

So I appreciate very much the oppor-tunity for us to debate this. I am, ofcourse, a great supporter of this bill,and hope we can move forward with it.I, frankly, hope we can do it withoutencumbering it with mandates of anykind. I thought we were going to be

able to do that this year. The fact isthe committee, I think it is fair to say,probably wasn’t in support of doing itand therefore it did not come out of thecommittee that way. But now, ofcourse, we are continuing to work onit. So I hope we can find additionalways, other ways, incentives to movetowards .08. I have no objection to that.On the contrary, I support it.

On the other hand, I do think it isnecessary for us, over time, to take astrong look at the kinds of processesand procedures that we impose on theStates. I am sorry I cannot make aslight of States rights as has been madeon the floor this morning, as if it doesnot pertain. It does, in fact, pertain.And we have different kinds of condi-tions.

Mr. President, I appreciate the time,I thank the chairman for his time, andI look forward to the debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Whoyields time? The Senator from RhodeIsland.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I urgeopponents, please come to the floor. Wehave something like 25 minutes left onthe opponents’ time. Here is the oppor-tunity that they have to speak. So Iurge any opponents who wish to speakto come quickly to the floor. Now isthe chance to voice their opposition tothe amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed theChair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from New Jersey.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I know the Sen-ator from Ohio has been looking forsome time. I ask the Senator howmuch time he needs.

Mr. DEWINE. Let me inquire, if Icould, how much time the proponentshave left?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pro-ponents have a little over 10 minutes.The opponents have a little over 15minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask the chair-man of the committee, the Senatorfrom Rhode Island, whether or not, ifhe does not have any opposition speak-ers, he might help us out with a fewminutes?

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes; I will be glad to. Ifthere is nobody here who wishes tospeak against, and we have time left, Iam certainly glad to yield.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield to theSenator from Ohio, 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Ohio is recognized.

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I appre-ciate some of the very eloquent com-ments that have been made this morn-ing on the Senate floor. I appreciatethe comments about States rights. Letme say, though, that there are very fewtimes when we, as Members of the Sen-ate, can come to the floor and cast ourvotes when we will know that the votewe cast will save lives. That is true inthis case. There is absolutely no doubtabout it. Lives will be saved and fami-lies will be spared the heartache of los-ing a child or mother or father.

There are other things I think weclearly know and that are not in dis-pute. That is one. The second is that noone has come to the floor suggestingthat a person who tests .08 has anybusiness being behind the wheel of acar. That is not really in dispute at all.No doctor who has looked at this, noemergency room doctor who has lookedat it, no police officer who is involvedin testing people, pulling them overand seeing what they test and lookingat their reflexes, looking at how theyact —everyone who has had that expe-rience agrees—at .08, no one should bebehind the wheel. If anyone has a doubtabout it, think of it this way: If youwere at a party and someone had fourbeers in an hour and you watched himdrink those four beers in an hour, andyou observed he didn’t have anythingto eat, four beers in 1 hour, and helooked over after that time and said,‘‘Let me take your little 5-year-olddaughter’’—my daughter, a 5-year-old,is named Anna—‘‘Let me take her upto the Tastee-Freez and buy her an icecream cone; I’ll drive her up.’’ Howmany of us would put her in that car?We would not do that. There is nodoubt about it. So it is absolutely areasonable standard.

Does it include social drinkers? Weare not talking about one or two beersand a pizza. We are talking about peo-ple who have absolutely no business be-hind the wheel of a car.

I think Ronald Reagan did say itbest. I think he had it right in 1984. Hesupported a similar type concept, andthat concept was that there should be aminimum standard across the countryfor the drinking age, and it should be21 no matter where you were in thecountry. He supported that. The greatchampion of States rights said in thiscase a national uniform standard willsave lives and makes common sense.This is what Ronald Reagan said in 1984when he signed the bill:

This problem is much more than just aState problem. It’s a national tragedy. Thereare some special cases in which overwhelm-ing need can be dealt with by prudent andlimited Federal influence. In a case like thisI have no misgivings about a judicious use ofFederal inducements to save precious lives.

It is a minimum standard. It is a ra-tional standard. Doesn’t it make sensethat when you get in your car and putyour family in the car and go on atrip—many of us cross two or threeState lines every week; every day,some of us—doesn’t it make sensethere should be some assurance thatthere is a minimum standard that ex-ists, no matter where you drive yourcar in this country? Doesn’t that makesense? I think it does.

So, I think it is a question—yes, it isa question of rights. The rights of fami-lies, the right to live, the right to havea fair chance on the highway not tohave someone come at you who hasbeen drinking and driving. That iswhat this is all about.

So I urge my colleagues to vote‘‘yes’’ on this amendment in the vote

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1302 March 4, 1998that will take place in 20 or 25 minutes.It is a rare opportunity among all thethings we debate, all the rhetoric—

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The timeof the Senator has expired.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, Iyield another minute to the Senatorfrom Ohio.

Mr. DEWINE. It is a rare opportunityto save lives. I urge my colleagues totake this rare opportunity and spare afamily, spare hundreds of families,life’s greatest tragedy, and that is theloss of a loved one.

I yield the floor.Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I

rise today in strong support of theamendment offered by Senator LAU-TENBERG and Senator DEWINE to imple-ment a nationwide .08 blood alcohollevel requirement for DUI offenses.

Let me begin by saying that I agreewith those who say alcohol consump-tion—and how much is enough—shouldbe a matter of personal responsibility.Adults should have the common senseto know when enough is enough andwhen not to get behind the wheel.

Tragically, however, the statisticsshow common sense is not that com-mon.

In California, we already have the .08standard and still the accident ratesare staggering. According the Califor-nia Highway Patrol, there were 91,654DUI arrests and 37,622 DUI accidents in1996. Also in that year, there were 1,254fatalities and 35,654 injuries due toDUI-related accidents. Let me remindyou this is with the standard we arepushing for in this bill.

To put these statistics in perspective,in California there were 3,555 total traf-fic fatalities in 1996. Nearly 40 percentof the traffic fatalities in California in1996 were alcohol related. I understandthis is consistent with the national av-erage which show that 41 percent of alltraffic fatalities are alcohol related.

According to a MADD survey, 68.8Americans support lowering the legalblood alcohol limit to .08. That samesurvey showed that 53 percent of Amer-icans consider drunk drivers to be thenation’s number one highway safetyproblem.

However, when you cut through thenumbers, this is really an issue aboutsaving lives and about personal safety.Every American—no matter wherethey live—has a right to feel safe onour highways. I believe tough DUIlaws, including strict blood alcohollimits, do reduce drunk driving and domake our roads safer.

I urge my colleagues to support thisamendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, drunkdrivers are a menace to all of us. LastSeptember, a car driven by an alcohol-impaired teenager went off the roadnear Montpelier, Vermont, killingteenagers Brian Redmond and RyanKitchen. This was a rare enough trag-edy in Vermont that it sent the entirestate into mourning. Nationwide, how-ever, the story is far different. Morethan 40 percent of all traffic fatalities

are alcohol-related—more than 17,000in 1996 alone.

I am proud that Vermont is one ofonly 15 states that already has a .08blood alcohol standard. Vermontershave a longstanding awareness of thedangers of drunk driving, and I advo-cated adoption of the toughest statedrunk driving laws in the nation whileserving as State’s Attorney inChittenden County. Today, Vermonthas a state law which lowers thethreshold for drivers under the age of21 to .02 percent, one of the toughestlaws in the nation.

The amendment which we are consid-ering will establish a .08 standard in all50 states. If enacted, states will havethree years to enact .08 laws, or theywill have a portion of their highwayconstruction funds withheld. With alldue respect to the cosponsors of thisamendment, I have reservations aboutthis approach. I have always been asenator who believes that, wheneverpossible, Congress should respect eachstate’s right to govern itself. I am un-comfortable when we in Washingtonsay that we will penalize states finan-cially when they do not behave as wesee fit. I think we in Congress use thatthreat too often. Instead of punish-ments, we should offer incentives forstates to adopt tougher drinking anddriving laws. It would be better to offersupplemental transportation resourcesto those states that meet a higherstandard. The rest of the states wouldfollow soon enough once they see theirneighbors benefitting from doing theright thing.

Nevertheless, I am convinced thatSenator LAUTENBERG’s amendment willsave lives, just as the .08 standard hassaved lives in Vermont. Although thisamendment will not directly affectVermont, I will vote for it. I am con-vinced that we can send a strong signalto all Americans that there should beone standard for drinking and driving.This nation has made some progress inthe war on drinking and driving, andwith this legislation we can save stillmore lives.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I sharethe concern of my colleagues from NewJersey and Ohio, and all the cosponsorsof this amendment.

I am in complete agreement with theview that there should be a no toler-ance policy for drinking and driving.That kind of irresponsibility is inex-cusable; the senseless human tragedy itproduces is unpardonable. Our lawsshould be severe enough to deter any-one who thinks he or she can abuse al-cohol and drive without impairment.Our law enforcement officials shouldhave the tools they need to locate andstop these accidents waiting to happen.

My state of Idaho is one of the statesthat has already adopted a blood alco-hol content standard of .08 percent.They believed this was a reasonablestandard, based on sound data, thatwould help save lives. Other stateshave come to the same conclusion andmade the same choice.

And that brings me to my point.While I would support a strong reso-

lution from this Senate denouncingdrunk driving or even recommendingthe adoption of this particular bloodalcohol content standard, I cannot en-dorse this amendment. The federal gov-ernment should leave this decision tothe states, where it constitutionallybelongs in the first place.

I am confident if the facts truly sup-port it, this standard will be adoptedvoluntarily by every state. However, Iam not willing to say today that this isthe one and only way to solve the ter-rible problem of drunk driving, northat it is the best way. We’ve heard alot on this floor and from the adminis-tration about how our states are ‘‘lab-oratories of ideas.’’ Instead of burden-ing them with new federal mandates,we should be ensuring they have themaximum freedom and flexibility towork out effective solutions for localproblems, especially problems of thismagnitude.

In short, transportation dollars thatare critical to public safety should notbe threatened in order to force statesinto compliance with the ‘‘solution ofthe day’’—no matter how well in-tended.

While I strongly agree with the goalof stopping drunk driving in America, Istrongly disagree with the path thisamendment would take to achieve thatgoal. For all of these reasons, I have noalternative but to vote against thisamendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, Irise in support of the bi-partisanamendment introduced by Mr. LAUTEN-BERG and Mr. DEWINE to set a nationalillegal blood alcohol content (BAC)limit of .08 for drivers over age 21. I amproud to be an original co-sponsor ofthe bill upon which this amendment isbased.

Mr. President, the drunk drivingproblem is a national disgrace. Its se-vere emotional and financial costs tosociety are staggering. In 1996, morethan 17,000 Americans died in alcohol-related crashes. That means someonein America loses a loved one every 30seconds to a driver who is drunk. In1996, more than 321,000 persons were in-jured in crashes where police reportthat alcohol was present.

When you count up the health carecosts, lost work, and other economicimpacts, alcohol-related crashes alsoadd up to a monetary loss to society ofmore than $44 billion every year. It’snot surprising that a recent survey byAllstate identified drunk driving as the#1 highway safety problem in the eyesof a majority of Americans.

We know that the physical and men-tal abilities of virtually all drivers areimpaired at .08. This impairment in-cludes critical driving tasks such as vi-sion, balance, reaction time and hear-ing, judgement, and the ability to con-centrate. The heightened risk of acrash starts with the first drink, butrises rapidly when BAC is as high as.08. For example, the National Highway

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1303March 4, 1998Traffic Safety Administration has con-cluded that, in single-vehicle crashes,the relative risk for drivers with a BACbetween .05 and .09 is more than 11times greater than for drivers with noalcohol in their systems.

Although setting a minimum BACisn’t the only answer to our nationaldrunk driving problem, it’s a necessarypart of the solution. Studies show that.08 actually has saved lives where it islaw by deterring unsafe drinking be-havior. In fact, figures show that evenheavy drinkers, who account for alarge number of drunk driving arrests,are less likely to get behind the wheelbecause of .08 laws. We also should re-member that .08 makes it easier for po-lice and courts to do their jobs—theyare less likely accept excuses whenfaced with offenders who have BAC lev-els at or around .10.

A national strategy to require driversafety measures like this one hasworked before. We have seen, for exam-ple, how earlier national laws that re-quire seat belts and mandate zero tol-erance for drinking and driving underage 21 dramatically have reduced driv-ing fatalities. More than an estimated16,000 lives have been saved since 1975by the 21 drink age law. It also is veryimportant to remember that the con-cept of .08 is not new or radical. 15States already have adopted .08. Manyindustrialized nations have even lowerlegal limits ranging from .02 to .08.

Don’t be misled by those who mayargue that .08 laws prohibit reasonablealcohol consumption. Such is not theexperience of States that have adoptedthis law. To be legally drunk under a.08 standard, a 170-pound male mustconsume four and a half drinks in anhour and on an empty stomach. That’snot what I consider social drinking andthat’s just not the kind of behaviorthat most of us who drive would con-sider safe.

Mr. President, we need .08 BAC as anational limit. Having one mandatorynational standard doesn’t permit con-fusion about what’s safe and what’sreasonable. Pedestrians, passengers,and safe drivers all need protectionfrom drunk drivers no matter wherethey live.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Whoyields time?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President,how much time do we have on our side?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pro-ponents of the Lautenberg amendmenthave about 41⁄2 minutes. Those opposedhave about 15 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr.President. I yield myself such time aswe have available, with the hope thatwhen the Senator from Rhode Islandreturns we will be able to—will theSenator from Rhode Island allow 5minutes to me at this juncture if thereis no one else?

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. I think the Sen-ator has a little time left. Why doesn’the consume that and go into our timefor the remainder?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. OK.

Mr. CHAFEE. I think we will haveplenty of time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield myself asmuch time as I have available.

First, I ask unanimous consent weadd Senator HOLLINGS as a cosponsor ofthis amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President,we are getting to the point where weare going to wrap up this debate. Ithank my friend and colleague fromOhio, Senator MIKE DEWINE, for hissupport, his commitment, and his workon this issue. He has fought tena-ciously to reduce drunk driving. I hopehe and I at the end of this debate willbe able to shake hands on behalf of theAmerican people and say we have donesomething good this morning.

I remind our colleagues, as I listen tothe debate, about the issues that I hearbeing discussed. Frankly, it bewildersme, because I stand next to the pictureof a child who was 9 when a drunk driv-er took her life. I hear discussions ofprocess, that the process is the issue.The process is not the issue. The issueis whether or not we want to say toevery American parent, ‘‘We have donesomething more to save, perhaps, yourchild or your grandchild or your sisteror your brother.’’ That is the issue, andthat is, I hope, what the American peo-ple are going to say when they look atthe vote count and say, ‘‘My Senatorstood up for life.’’

‘‘My Senator,’’ on the other hand,they can brag, ‘‘proudly, stood up forprocess.’’

Can you imagine in the homes acrossAmerica, all the people who are goingto be applauding because someonestood up for process? It is outrageous.It cannot be that way.

In the balcony sit people I have cometo know, people I have come to knowvery well: Brenda, Randy and Steph-anie Frazier—mother, father and sisterof Ashley.

I wish I could ask them to speakabout their view of process, whether ornot they think that process is thething that we ought to be talkingabout. Or should we be talking aboutthe loss that they had, that they do notwant anyone else to experience.

Before Senators vote on this amend-ment, I ask them to think about theirchildren and think about the pain thatcould come from the loss of a childthey know and love. Today we canspare parents across this country, inall 50 States, the grief experienced bythe Frazier family.

Mr. President, I hope that the happyhour is over for drunk drivers. Everyyear in this country more people arekilled in alcohol-related crashes thanwere killed in our worst year of fight-ing in Vietnam. And the country stoodin national mourning at that time. Bylowering to .08 the blood alcohol levelat which a person is considered legallydrunk, we can save more than 500 liveseach year.

Mr. President, drunk driving is acrime, a crime like assault, like shoot-ing at someone, like murder; and itshould be treated with the same sever-ity as other crimes that bring harm ordeath to another person. We can pre-vent many injuries and deaths that re-sult from drunk driving by making .08the national alcohol limit, just like 21is the drinking age limit across thecountry. And if we do that, we couldsave lots of lives, like other western-ized countries—like Canada, like Ire-land, like Great Britain, Germany andSwitzerland. Poland has a .03 BAC, andSweden .02.

We can make .08 work in America, ifwe pass this amendment and declareour opposition to violence on our high-ways. Because it is at .08 that a per-son’s capacity to function is impaired.Their vision, balance, reaction time,judgment, self-control—this is thelevel at which they are medicallydrunk. And if they are deemed medi-cally drunk, we ought to deem them le-gally drunk, in every State, no matterwhere they live.

Mr. President, the alcohol lobby istrying to bottle up this bill. We are nottargeting social drinkers. We are tar-geting drunk drivers. And when youget drunk, it is your business. Butwhen you get drunk and drive, it is ourbusiness. We are not asking people tostop drinking. We are not running atemperance society here. We are ask-ing them not to drive if they aredrunk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator has consumed all of the pro-ponents’ time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. About 3 moreminutes?

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, 3 more minutesfrom the opponents’ side.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Sen-ator from Rhode Island.

By enacting this law, we can standwith our Nation’s families and preventthe loss of life that tears a familyapart. We can stand with the public in-terest against the narrow opposition ofspecial interests.

Mr. President, we should do the rightthing and pass this amendment. TheWashington Post said it this morningin its editorial: The vote is a vote tocreate ‘‘a single, clear certified and ef-fective standard across the country asto what constitutes drunk driving.’’

Let us vote to protect our children,our families—not drunk drivers. And Iask everybody to take one final look atthis beautiful child’s face before theycast a vote.

I will yield the floor, but before doingthat, Mr. President, I say thank you tomy friend and colleague from Rhode Is-land for his support for this amend-ment, and also to the Senator fromMontana who has been forthright andsupportive of this amendment as well.

Mr. President, have the yeas andnays been asked for?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeasand nays have not been.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask for theyeas and nays.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1304 March 4, 1998The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a

sufficient second?There is a sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time?Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am

deeply concerned over the high inci-dence of highway fatalities in ourcountry that involve alcohol.

In 1996, more than 17,000 lives werelost as a result of alcohol-related colli-sions out of the 40,000 deaths overall inour country. So that is about nearlyhalf. I believe that this measure willhelp reduce that.

I understand the views of the oppo-nents who think that it should be leftto the States. But when you have asmall State such as mine where thereare people who are constantly goinginto the neighboring States, back andforth, it seems to me that in order tomake our highways safer, and whichobviously involves out-of-Staters, alaw such as this is necessary. So I sup-port it, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I am pleased to joinwith my colleagues from New Jersey,Senator LAUTENBERG, and from Ohio,Senator DEWINE, in support of theamendment to strengthen drunk driv-ing laws throughout the Nation.

I am very concerned about the safetyof our nation’s highways. I am particu-larly troubled by the high incidence ofhighway motor vehicle injuries and fa-talities involving alcohol. The statis-tics are truly alarming. In 1996, morethan 17,000 lives were lost on our na-tion’s highways as a result of alcohol-related collisions. This represents near-ly half of the 40,000 fatalities thatoccur on U.S. highways every year. Thereal tragedy, however, is that drunkdriving accidents are completely avoid-able.

This amendment would strengthendrunk driving laws across the countryand dramatically reduce the number offatalities attributable to driving whileintoxicated. The amendment specifi-cally targets those states that have notenacted a .08 blood alcohol content(BAC) drunk driving law.

In 1997, the National Highway Trans-portation Safety Administration(NHTSA) issued a report entitled ‘‘Set-ting Limits, Saving lives: The Case for.08 BAC Laws.’’ The report cited stud-ies which indicate that virtually alldrivers, regardless of skill, are signifi-cantly impaired at the .08 BAC level.At that level, basic driving skills suchas braking, steering and speed control,as well as judgment, reaction time, andfocused attention are adversely af-fected.

Contrary to the claims of those whooppose this amendment, the .08 stand-ard does not punish social drinking. Toexceed the .08 limit, one would need toconsume an excessive amount of alco-hol. The NHTSA report includes an ex-ample. In order to exceed the .08 BAClevel, a 170 pound male would need toconsume more than four drinks in an

hour, while a 137-pound woman wouldneed to consume three drinks, the re-port indicates.

Despite these statistics, 35 statesstill maintain the higher .10 standardbefore someone is considered legallydrunk—and that puts many lives atrisk. Drunk drivers not only risk theirown lives, but the lives of every othermotorist on the road. The .08 level is asensible approach to preventing sense-less tragedies on our nation’s road-ways. I urge my colleagues to supportthis amendment. Thank you.

Mr. President, I know the Senatorfrom Oklahoma would like some time.And the opponents have 10 minutes?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The op-ponents have 10 minutes remaining.

Who yields time?Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Oklahoma.Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, par-

liamentary inquiry. Is the situationsuch that we are going to vote eitherup or down on the amendment or a mo-tion to table the amendment?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A motionto table could be made.

Mr. NICKLES. I understand. Is theamendment amendable?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If themotion to table fails, it will then besubject to amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. Is it subject to amend-ment prior to a motion to table?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theunanimous consent agreement pro-hibits that at the present time.

Mr. NICKLES. I understand.Mr. President, one of the reasons why

I rise in opposition to the amendmentis, the penalty is too hard. I care justas much about the child that SenatorLAUTENBERG alluded to as anybodyelse. I care just as much about wantingto eliminate drunk driving as anybodyin this Chamber.

The penalty under this bill is tooharsh. And 10 percent of the highwayfunds is—looking at any State—theState of Texas is $1 billion over 6 years.That is a pretty big penalty. The pen-alty in my State of Oklahoma is $200million. That is a pretty big penalty.

The reason why I was asking or in-quiring about is it amendable is thatmaybe we should change the penaltyfrom 5 percent and 10 percent to half apercent and 1 percent. You are stilltalking about real money that wouldbe a real incentive, but 10 percent istoo high. In other words, we want toencourage States.

I mention the Commerce Committeeamendment has an incentive program.It is not a lot. I think we found outfrom staff—I did not know when I mademy earlier comments—$25 million, notmuch of a carrot, a little bit of a car-rot. So we encourage States to do it.Maybe that should be enhanced a littlebit.

But I look at the draconian penaltiesin this thing. This thing is really adagger at the highway program to take10 percent of the funds. In the State of

Michigan you are talking about $477million. That is a lot of money. I mean,so the penalties, in my opinion, are toohigh.

The reason why I was inquiring abouta second-degree amendment is maybewe should change the penalty andmake it 1 percent or 2 percent insteadof 10 percent. I think it is too much ofa gun at the head of the States andsaying, ‘‘You have to do this or you’regoing to lose hundreds of millions ofdollars.’’

The State of Texas would lose $1 bil-lion over 6 years. The State of Califor-nia over $1 billion. For the State ofCalifornia it would be $1.3 billion overa 6-year period of time. That is a lot ofmoney.

So I understand the desire that somepeople want to Federalize alcohol-con-tent crimes. That, I believe, should beleft in the State’s jurisdiction. I kindof wonder, if you have States that arenot complying—maybe the States aregoing to change their law but do notreally enforce it. Are we going to havethe Federal Government come in andsay, ‘‘Wait a minute. Now you’re goingto have to monitor the amount of en-forcement’’?

We cannot have the State of RhodeIsland say, well, they are going tochange the law but not really enforceit until you get over the .1. I do notknow that that would happen, but Iquestion the wisdom of Federalizingblood alcohol content.

It has not been a Federal crime. Ithas not been a Federal incidence. Nowwe are saying the Federal Governmentis telling the States, you have to dothis or you will lose hundreds of mil-lions of dollars—in some States bil-lions of dollars. I think it is overkill. Ithink it is too punitive. I think weshould consider—and maybe we willnot do it now; I know the bill has a lit-tle ways to go; it still has the con-ference—but if this provision is goingto be in, I think we should reduce thepenalties.

I think it is far too harsh. It is toomuch of a dictate, too much of a man-date, too much trampling on, I believe,of the Federal Government saying,‘‘Before you get your money back, youmust do the following: Before you getyour highway money back, we’re goingto put an additional string on it, an ad-ditional penalty, up to 10 percent,which is hundreds of millions of dol-lars.’’ I think it goes too far.

So, Mr. President, one other com-ment. My colleagues alluded to thefact that in 1984 we did something com-parable, and we had a national drink-ing age of 21. Now, it might surprisesome of my colleagues on the otherside. I supported that. And the reasonis, I live very close to the border inOklahoma. And Oklahoma had a 21;Kansas had an 18. And we had peoplerunning back and forth across theState line to take advantage of thatsituation. Not a very safe situation. SoI supported it.

I saw some differences in that provi-sion, although the penalty was still

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1305March 4, 1998very high. It was too high then, in myopinion. This, I think, is a little bit dif-ferent. Now we are Federalizing bloodalcohol content, and I seriously doubtthe wisdom of doing that. And we areputting far too heavy of a burden onthe States for noncompliance.

Again, for those of us that read theConstitution and say all of the rightsand powers are reserved to States andthe people, I think some of our col-leagues and proponents, who have verygood intentions, in the bill are saying,there is a problem and, therefore, wehave to have a Federal solution. We aregoing to use the heavy hand of the Fed-eral Government and withhold fundsthat come from the States, come fromthe people, and say, you cannot havethat money back unless you do as wedetermine what is proper. I think thatis a mistake.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time?Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we have

additional time for opponents. Howmuch time is there for the opponents?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four anda half minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE. Four and a half min-utes. So now is the time. Again, I urgeany opponents to please come to thefloor and use that time.

Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Sen-ator from Rhode Island would yield fora question?

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.Mr. DORGAN. I am a supporter of the

amendment, but I am wondering if Imight use one minute if no one else isseeking recognition.

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. Let us leave itthis way: The Senator from South Da-kota can proceed. If somebody comesin on this side and wants to speak inopposition, then I would appreciate itif the Senator would then yield.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from North Dakota is recognized.

Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senatorfrom Rhode Island.

The Senator from Oklahoma was dis-cussing the 21-year-old drinking age.That was established in legislation byCongress some long while ago. In fact,I believe the provisions in that bill,with respect to penalties for thoseStates that would not comply, areidentical to the provisions of the pen-alties in this bill.

We have decided, as a country, thereare certain things that are national inscope. Our road program is a nationalprogram, a program of priorities. And Ithink this amendment simply says, letus determine what represents drunkdriving so that you are not driving inone State versus another, and come upto an intersection, when you cross theState line, and find someone drivingdown the road that is drunk but in factis not legally drunk because that Statehas a different set of rules.

In fact, you can now—and I hope tochange this—you can now drive anddrink in five States. In five States youcan put a whiskey bottle in one hand

and a driver’s wheel in the other anddrive down the road and you are legal.In over 20 States someone else in thecar can have a party while the driverdrives as long as the driver does notdrink.

I also will propose, following thisamendment at some point, that inevery State in this country we have aprohibition on open containers of alco-hol in vehicles. So the point I wantedto make with respect to the commentsby the previous speaker was, we havetried incentive programs.

For example, a number of years agowe had an incentive program. Incentivegrants were established, since the early1990s, with respect to trying to per-suade the States to pass legislationprohibiting open containers in vehi-cles. We have said, we want incentivesto be available to prevent open con-tainers in vehicles and pass legislationto prevent open containers in vehicles.Despite that, in 1998, 22 States stillprohibit open containers in vehicles.Incentives do not work. I do not thinkwe ought to talk about incentives onthis issue. And alcohol and vehicles donot mix.

No one in America should be able todrive and drink at the same time. Yetin five States you can. Nowhere inAmerica should a car be driven downthe road to meet anyone here, theirfamilies or anyone in America, andthen at the next intersection have, ifnot the driver drinking, the rest of thepeople in the car with open containersof alcohol. If we don’t decide to havethe will to at least require that in thiscountry, then we will not stop the car-nage on American roads.

I appreciate the Senator offering theamendment. I intend to support it andI hope my colleagues will support it, aswell.

Mr. CHAFEE. How much time re-mains?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is1 minute remaining.

Mr. CHAFEE. One minute for the op-ponents. I see no one prepared to takethat time. If somebody from the pro-ponents wishes to use it, with the un-derstanding that as soon as an oppo-nent appears they will yield——

Mr. LAUTENBERG. By the time wefinish with the 1 minute—we couldyield back all 37 seconds that remain.

Mr. CHAFEE. Do you want to speaknow?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Sen-ator from Rhode Island.

The arguments have been made abun-dantly clear. We are talking aboutsomething that will save lives. We aretalking, on the other hand, aboutwhether or not the process is appro-priate or whether or not the penaltiesare too high.

I submit to Members that there is nopenalty too high to permit a child likethis to live a full life. No penalty toosevere. I think when Senators votehere, that is what they ought to bethinking about—thinking about thepeople back home and how they willreact to a vote they are making here.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.SMITH of Oregon). All time has expired.The question is on agreeing to theamendment. The yeas and nays havebeen ordered. The clerk will call theroll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.Mr. MCCAIN (when his name was

called). Present.Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on this

vote I have a pair with the Senatorfrom Hawaii, Mr. INOUYE. If he werepresent and voting, he would vote‘‘yea.’’ If I were permitted to vote, Iwould vote ‘‘nay.’’ Therefore, I with-hold my vote.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that theSenator from Kansas (Mr. ROBERTS)and the Senator from Vermont (Mr.JEFFORDS) are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Sen-ator from Ohio (Mr. GLENN) is nec-essarily absent.

On this vote, the Senator from Mon-tana (Mr. BAUCUS) is paired with theSenator from Hawaii (Mr. INOUYE).

If present and voting, the Senatorfrom Hawaii would vote ‘‘yea’’ and theSenator from Montana would vote‘‘nay.’’

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are thereany other Senators in the Chamber de-siring to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 62,nays 32, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 20 Leg.]YEAS—62

AbrahamAkakaBidenBingamanBondBoxerBreauxBumpersByrdChafeeClelandCoatsCollinsConradCoverdellD’AmatoDaschleDeWineDoddDomeniciDorgan

DurbinFairclothFeinsteinFristGortonGrammHarkinHatchHelmsHollingsHutchisonJohnsonKennedyKerreyKerryKohlLautenbergLeahyLevinLiebermanLugar

McConnellMikulskiMoseley-BraunMoynihanMurkowskiMurrayReedRobbRockefellerRothSarbanesShelbySmith (OR)SnoweSpecterStevensTorricelliWarnerWellstoneWyden

NAYS—32

AllardAshcroftBennettBrownbackBryanBurnsCampbellCochranCraigEnziFeingold

FordGrahamGramsGrassleyGreggHagelHutchinsonInhofeKempthorneKylLandrieu

LottMackNicklesReidSantorumSessionsSmith (NH)ThomasThompsonThurmond

ANSWERED ‘‘PRESENT’’—1

McCain

PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR—1Baucus, againstNOT VOTING—4

GlennInouye

JeffordsRoberts

The amendment (No. 1682) was agreedto.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I moveto reconsider the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that mo-tion on the table.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1306 March 4, 1998The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Rhode Island is recognized.Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I just

want to point out to the Members whatthe next order of business will be. Wenow will take up the funding amend-ment that provided a good deal of addi-tional money for a whole series ofStates, every State, and we would like,obviously, to get a time agreement onthat, but we are having some troubledoing it. We are going to get startednonetheless.

AMENDMENT NO. 1684 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1676

(Purpose: To provide for the distribution ofadditional funds for the Federal-aid high-way program.)

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I sendan amendment to the desk and ask forits immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.

CHAFEE], for himself, Mr. LOTT, Mr. DASCHLE,Mr. BYRD, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. WAR-NER, Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, Mr.KEMPTHORNE, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. BOND, Mr.HUTCHINSON, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. LAUTEN-BERG, Mr. REID, and Mr. LIEBERMAN, proposesan amendment numbered 1684 to AmendmentNo. 1676.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

(The text of the amendment is print-ed in today’s RECORD under ‘‘Amend-ments Submitted.’’)

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, yester-day, the Committee on Environmentand Public Works held an importantmeeting on the pending business beforethe Senate; namely, the underlyinglegislation, S. 1173, the Intermodal Sur-face Transportation Efficiency Act of1997. During yesterday’s business meet-ing, the committee agreed unani-mously, the 18 members of the commit-tee voted 18–0, to adopt an amendmentto S. 1173, which will provide an addi-tional $25.9 billion for the Nation’shighway programs over the next 5years. The additional funds will bringthe total authorization for highways inthe bill to $171 billion.

As I mentioned last Thursday in myopening statement on ISTEA II, whichis how we will refer to the underlyinglegislation, the majority leader, Sen-ator LOTT, and Senators DOMENICI,D’AMATO, BYRD, GRAMM, WARNER, BAU-CUS, and I have been working to try toresolve the difficult issue of how muchadditional funding should be directedto transportation. We have partici-pated in a challenging but ultimatelyproductive set of meetings. Although Iam not an advocate of spending the 4.3cents gasoline tax on highways, I be-lieve that the agreement we reached isa fair one that will allow the Senate tocomplete its work on ISTEA in a time-ly fashion.

The principal question on everyone’smind is how this additional fundingwill be allocated among the 50 Statesand various ISTEA programs. I ampleased that the amendment before usdistributes the new money in a mannerthat is responsible to all States and toall regions of the country. Moreover,the committee amendment does not af-fect the allocations or program struc-ture in the underlying ISTEA II bill.The lion’s share of the additionalfunds, $18.9 billion, goes to all 50 Statesin the same proportion as the formulasunder S. 1173.

Before we proceed, I want to outlinethe package adopted by the committeeyesterday. To make the bill fairer, thecommittee amendment provides addi-tional funds for those States that didnot fare as well as the majority of theStates in S. 1173.

First of all, this amendment does ad-dress the inequities of the so-calleddonor States, those States that con-tribute more money to the highwaytrust fund than they receive from theFederal aid highway program. The un-derlying bill, S. 1173, as reported, guar-anteed that each State would receiveat least 90 cents in return for everydollar allocated to the States from thetrust fund. The amendment before usincludes an additional $1.9 billion overthe life of the bill to ensure that eachState receives at least 91 cents in re-turn.

Now, the States that will benefitfrom this donor State bonus are thefollowing: Alabama, Arizona, Califor-nia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, NorthCarolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, SouthCarolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,and Wisconsin. These States have com-plete flexibility to use the additionalfunds for any purpose authorized undertitle 23, which is the Federal aid high-way title of the U.S. Code. That is thefirst thing we did.

Second, there are a number of dense-ly populated States, such as California,Illinois, and New Jersey, where highvolumes of traffic clog the roads andhigh repair costs impede routine main-tenance. The committee amendmentprovides an additional $1.8 billion overthe next 5 years for these high-densityStates. The additional funds may bespent for any purpose authorized undertitle 23 to relieve the terrible conges-tion problems and address tremendousinfrastructure needs.

Those States which are neither donorStates nor high-density States alsomay spend a percentage, 22 percent, ofthe additional funds they receive pur-suant to this amendment for any pur-pose authorized under title 23.

The committee amendment also pro-vides additional funds for those ISTEAprograms directed to regions of thecountry with unique needs. For in-stance, the Appalachian DevelopmentHighway System was first authorizedin law in 1965, but is not yet completed.The committee amendment provides anadditional $1.89 billion for the Appa-

lachian Highway Program for fiscalyears 1999 through 2003 to help com-plete the 3,025 mile system.

Second, as a result of the implemen-tation of the North American FreeTrade Agreement (NAFTA) and otherkey trade agreements, states along theMexican and Canadian borders have ex-perienced a substantial increase intruck traffic. The increased traffic andcongestion along these routes has put aheavy burden on the corridors thatconnect border locations and otherports of entry. The committee amend-ment provides $450 million over thenext five years in contract authorityfor the nation’s border infrastructureand trade corridors.

Third, the roads that run through thenation’s parks, Indian reservations,and other public lands are in greatneed of maintenance and repair. Thecommittee amendment provides an ad-ditional $850 million over 5 years forthe Federal Lands Highway Program.

This is in addition to the money thatwas included in the bill originally aswe submitted it.

Of the $850 million total, the commit-tee amendment provides $50 million peryear for fiscal years 1999 through 2003to help address the mounting needs ofthe nation’s 49,000 miles of Indian res-ervation roads. An additional $50 mil-lion per year for the next 5 years, isprovided for the Public Lands HighwayProgram, which funds Forest Serviceroads and other public roads that runthrough federal lands.

The remaining $350 million in theFederal Lands portion of the commit-tee amendment is directed to the ParkRoads and Park Ways Program. An in-tegral part of our National Parks Sys-tem is the 8,000 miles of park roads andparkways that make the splendor ofthese national treasures accessible toall Americans. Fifty million dollars ofthe $70 million annually for the ParkRoads and Parkways Program is di-rected to these roads that run throughour national park system.

The remaining $20 million per year isset-aside to address the backlog ofneeds for the roads in our NationalWildlife Refuge System. I am delightedthat the committee has agreed to in-clude this additional funding for the4,250 miles of refuge roads within thesystem. Indeed, the National WildlifeRefuge System, which is administeredby the Fish and Wildlife Service, playsa pivotal role in the conservation offish and wildlife resources throughoutthe country. The additional funds pro-vided in the committee amendmentwill allow the Service to better focusits appropriations on the core missionof protecting fish and wildlife and theirhabitats.

Mr. President, before closing, I wantto thank all of the members of thecommittee for their diligence and co-operation in adopting the amendmentbefore us.

I see Senator WARNER here, who hasbeen a very valuable ally and origina-tor, actually, of much that is in thislegislation.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1307March 4, 1998I thank them all for their diligence

and cooperation in adopting theamendment before us. I thank the ma-jority leader, Senator LOTT, who pre-sided over the negotiations in which wearrived at this compromise; SenatorBYRD, Senator WARNER, whom I pre-viously mentioned, Senator BAUCUS,the ranking member of the full com-mittee, who has been so helpful, Sen-ator GRAMM, and particularly SenatorDOMENICI. All I thank for their deter-mination and resolve during our dis-cussions.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate tosupport the amendment before us so wecan proceed to the business at handand enact an ISTEA II bill which willbring the Nation’s transportation sys-tem into the next century.

I thank the Chair.Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

HUTCHINSON). The Senator from Vir-ginia.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wantto defer to the distinguishing rankingmember. Then I shall follow dutifullythe seniority of our committee.

First, I thank the chairman, and Iwill include those remarks.

But we have on the floor here the dis-tinguished senior Senator from SouthCarolina, the President pro tempore,who has counseled with me, and othermembers of the committee, on a regu-lar basis concerning this. The distin-guished Senator represents SouthCarolina, which is in the category of adonor State, as is the State of Virginia.I wish to assure the senior Senatorfrom South Carolina—and perhaps thechairman can join me—that his Statewill receive an allocation of 91 percentunder the formulation that I and oth-ers have worked out. We, in the courseof the recalculation, specifically askedthe chairman and the distinguishedranking member, as, over the weekend,we reworked the formula. It was mydesire to raise the level from 90 to 91percent with respect to as many donorStates as we could achieve. But accord-ing to my calculations, I represent tothe distinguished Senator from SouthCarolina that his State has achieved a91 percent mark.

Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Montana.Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, may I

say, as chairman of the TransportationSubcommittee, that the answer is yes.In fact, currently there are a goodnumber of States—so-called ‘‘donor’’States—which contribute more to thehighway trust fund than they receivein terms of highway allocations. Theyreceive actually less than 90 percent.There are some States down around the80s. One, I think, is 76 percent. I am notsure about South Carolina. But the billthat passed the committee made surethat there is a floor of 90 percent—thatdonor States get at least 90 percent.Through the able efforts of the Senatorfrom Virginia, and others—Virginia isoften a donor State—that was thenraised to 91 percent.

This was one of the areas of concernthat we on the committee had when weconsidered additional money under theByrd-Gramm-Warner-Baucus amend-ment; that is, there are some Statesthat felt they needed additional moneybecause of high density, and others be-cause they are donor States. There aresome Western States that felt becausethey are public land States they shouldget some, too. And then the Appalach-ian Regional Commission felt thatthere was not enough money in the un-derlying bill. So the amendment wouldgive a little more to Appalachia.

But the long and short of it is thatSouth Carolina, and all donor States,will, under the amendment now pend-ing, combined with the underlying bill,receive at least 91 percent. Tech-nically, it is 91 percent of the percent-age of their contribution of the fundsthat are allocated, but for all intentsand purposes, it is raised from 90 per-cent to 91 percent.

Mr. President, while I have the floor,I would like to follow on the pointsmade by the very distinguished andable chairman of the committee, Sen-ator CHAFEE, very generally. Several ofus—Senator CHAFEE, myself, SenatorBYRD, Senator GRAMM, Senator WAR-NER, Senator DOMENICI, and, most par-ticularly, the majority leader, SenatorTRENT LOTT, met many, many timesover the last several weeks to find afair way to distribute dollars thatwould be raised in the act transferring4.3 cents of the gasoline tax to thetrust fund, and then back to theStates.

Essentially, we came up with a pro-gram dealing first with States that hadlegitimate concerns as a consequenceof the committee bill and then distrib-uting the rest back to the States ac-cording to the percentage share thatthey were receiving under the bill so asnot to give any favoritism to anyone inplace.

That is what we did. It is an agree-ment that was agreed to by all themain parties. We, at the same time,talked with many other Senators whowere not part of this conversation inorder to have a result that reflectedfairness to regions in all parts of thecountry.

It is also an agreement agreed to bySenator DOMENICI, the very, very ablechairman of the Senate Budget Com-mittee. He said he would find a waywith these increases to come up with abalanced budget resolution that doesnot exceed the caps in the budget reso-lution so that those who are concernedthat this additional money might‘‘bust the budget’’ may rest much moreassured that is not the case. If anybodycan find a way to not balance the budg-et and not bust the caps and get therest of the additional money because ofthis amendment, certainly SenatorDOMENICI can do that.

I might add, Mr. President, thatthese issues are never easy. EveryState feels that it should have a fewmore highway dollars, and every State

feels that its share is not quite as fairas the share of other States. There isno magic in this. It is just a matter oflooking at all the claims, all the equi-ties, and all the differences in differentparts of the country. Some States aredonor States and some States aredonee States. Others have completedtheir interstate highways later, ratherthan earlier. Some States have realbridge problems that need to be ad-dressed. Some States, like in ours, inthe West, next to public lands, counton a lot of tourists who visit ourStates. For example, in the State ofMontana, there is tourism with tour-ists going to visit Yellowstone or Gla-cier Parks. Some tourists pay a littlebit of Montana tax to the degree thatthey travel in our State. But we inMontana have to pay a lot to maintainthose highways. So it is adding all ofthose equities together as best we pos-sibly can.

On the numbers again, just so every-one is clear, the underlying bill spendsabout $145 billion in contract authorityover 6 years on the highway program.The amendment that we are now ad-dressing, that is before the body, adds$6 billion for a total $171 billion in con-tract authority that would be spent al-located among the States.

I do not want to get too technicalabout this, but contract authority isnot exactly the same as obligation lim-itations or outlays, which is to saythat the Budget Committee will deter-mine what those obligation limitationsare. The Appropriations Committeewill then decide how much of the totalit can spend. The Appropriations Com-mittee will not be bound to spend thefull $171 billion unless it wants to. TheAppropriations Committee can spend alittle less, if it decides in its deter-mination that it is more appropriatebecause it will have to find some off-sets to spend this additional money.Obviously, there will be some compel-ling needs with the Budget Committeewith other ideas and other programs,but still with the contract authorityset at $171 billion over 6 years, there isa tremendous incentive for the BudgetCommittee and the AppropriationsCommittee to spend—allocate out-lays—the actual dollars going to theStates to build highways at a levelvery close to $171 billion—not entirely,but very, very close.

This underlying bill, Mr. President, Iremind Senators, is much, much moreflexible than the current highway pro-gram. The current highway programhas 11 separate categories that arepretty rigid; somewhat inflexible. Theygive State highway departments grayhairs sometimes, because one State’sneeds—say that were Arkansas—is alittle bit different from another State’sneeds—let’s say Montana or Rhode Is-land or Virginia or South Carolina.

So we collapsed those 11 categoriesinto 6. And the six are now much moreflexible, very flexible. For example, oneof the main categories is called ‘‘sur-face transportation account.’’ You can

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1308 March 4, 1998take money out of that for Amtrak, ifyou want. You can take money out ofthat for mass transit, if you want. Youcan spend more on enhancements, ifyou wish. There is a lot of flexibilityhere, flexibility that the States have,much more flexibility given to Statesthan is the case under the currenthighway bill. The departments oftransportation commissioners wantedthis. It makes sense to the committeethat much more delegation of flexibil-ity be given to the States.

For those who are concerned aboutthe Congestion Mitigation Air QualityProgram, CMAQ, actually there aremore dollars in this bill than the cur-rent CMAQ program. CMAQ is impor-tant because we want to make surethat building more highways is consist-ent with improving air quality. Wepassed the Clean Air Act in 1991, tellingStates and cities that are not in at-tainment to undertake certain actionsto bring their air quality standardsinto compliance. Obviously, if youbuild a lot more lanes, have a lot moretraffic in the city, more cars, moreauto emissions, sometimes it is incon-sistent with the goals of air quality im-provement. So, basically, the CMAQmoney is there to help deal with thatproblem.

And, I might say, in the first cat-egory, called ‘‘interstate mainte-nance,’’ called ‘‘national highway sys-tem money,’’ there is a restriction:You cannot build additional lanes forsingle occupancy. You can for HOVlanes, again to address congestion andair quality problems, but you cannotbuild lanes just for single-occupancycars. Again, we are trying to mergetwo competing programs together.

I might say, this is particularly im-portant, this amendment, to my Stateof Montana. We are a big State. Wedon’t have a lot of people. In fact, wehave more miles per capita of highwaysthan any other State in the Nation.Our State gasoline tax is the thirdhighest in the Nation. We are payingfor our highways as best as we possiblycan. We are not a big industrial State.In fact, we are a relatively poor State.I am embarrassed to say this, but Mon-tana, today, ranks 46th in the Nationfor per capita income. We were 35th,36th, not too many years ago. We arenow down to 46th.

It is tough. We don’t have the moneyin Montana to pay for our roads, andthis is going to go a long way. Mr.President, 90 percent of the householdsin Montana make multiple trips of over100 miles each year, and that is com-pared with a national average of 80 per-cent. As I say, tourists come to Mon-tana—actually it’s 8 million visitorswho come to visit our State. It is beau-tiful. Glacier National Park in thesummertime—a lot of people come tofish and camp out and bring their fami-lies from all over the country. In thewinter, of course, there is skiing,whether it’s downhill, cross-country, orsnowmobiling, which is very popular inour State.

I will just sum up by saying, as muchas it sounds like we spend a lot ofmoney on highways, in the larger con-text this really is not enough. Today,the United States spends, State, localand Federal combined, about $34 billiona year on our highways. The Depart-ment of Transportation did a needsstudy, what is needed to be spent justto maintain the current condition ofour highways, recognizing winter andsummer things get beat up and so onand so forth. They concluded thatabout $54 billion a year should be spentjust to maintain the current level ofmaintenance of America’s highway sys-tem. So if we want to do better, weshould spend, according to the Depart-ment of Transportation, maybe $70 bil-lion a year, so as to improve our high-way system, to keep up with the high-way system in Germany, for example,and some other countries that spend alot of money on their highways.

Of course, their gasoline taxes aremuch higher than they are in theUnited States, but those dollars go toimprove their highways. That is a deci-sion that those countries have made.We are spending $171 billion over 6years. That is a far cry from $60, $70billion over 1 year. It is just an exam-ple of what other countries are doingcompared with what our needs are, toexplain that the current bill, as impor-tant as it is, is probably not enough ifwe wanted to improve upon our currentsystem.

I am going to yield the floor to who-ever wants to speak here. Again, Ithank all those who worked very hardon this and hope we can conclude thisbill very quickly, because we have togo to conference on the House-passedbill whenever they pass their bill. ByMay 1, the bill has to be signed by thePresident. By May 1, that’s when thecurrent program expires. We were a bitderelict last year in the Senate whenwe did not pass the highway bill eventhough the program expired June 30 oflast year. We got tied up on campaignfinance reform, and we agreed to movethe transportation bill up to one of thefirst orders of business in 1998. Thatslipped a little, but fortunately here weare.

It is very important that we move ex-peditiously to meet our Nation’s needsand satisfy Americans who want to beassured that we have the highway pro-gram in place, a solid 6-year program,so contractors can plan and State de-partments of transportation can planahead and we do not have to worryabout this on-again/off again problemthat we are currently facing with ourprogram. So I hope we do move veryexpeditiously to pass not only thisamendment but the full bill so we canget on to work with the House in theconference and pass the bill.

I yield the floor.Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I won-

der if the Senator will engage in a col-loquy? As subcommittee chairman—fortunately, I have had as my rankingmember the distinguished Senator

from Montana from the very first dayof the consideration of this bill in theEnvironment Committee, and of coursewe initiated the work in the sub-committee. The Senator from Montanaand I decided that we were not going toseek retribution for some of the inequi-ties in the 1991 ISTEA, but we weregoing to try to establish a formula andother provisions in the bill whichbrought about the greatest equityachievable, in a bipartisan way, in thispiece of legislation. I feel that we haveremained true to that fundamentalprinciple that the Senator from Mon-tana and I laid down on day 1.

Do you share that view?Mr. BAUCUS. I answer the point of

the very distinguished Senator fromVirginia that I very much do. I mightremind the Senator of several factswhich substantiate his point.

No. 1, the current highway programis based on very dated data. It is basedon the 1980 census. We even have inhere the 1916 postal road formula—thatis in the current law. Of course, the billwe are passing today brings it up todate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I haveeven used the example, the pony ex-press was still in here someplace.

Mr. BAUCUS. Once we get this legis-lation passed, we are out of the ponyexpress era because we will have cur-rent data, data reflecting how manymiles people travel in their State, lanemiles, vehicle miles, et cetera. That isa formula based on the actual usageand needs in the State, which is criti-cal.

In addition to that, I might add tomy distinguished friend that therewere earlier separate competing bills.There was a STEP 21 bill sponsored bythe Senator from Virginia; there was aSTARS 2000 bill, which had a littleWestern influence; there was ISTEA-Plus, I think the name of it was, or theISTEA bill which was sponsored by thenortheastern Members of the Senate.

With the leadership of Senator WAR-NER we were able to bring the threebills together. We didn’t favor one re-gion over another. On a very bipartisanbasis, you on your side and I on myside, along with Senator CHAFEE, hadto come up with a bill which is fair toAmerica, fairest to the country.

We passed our bill out of committee.Even though we did the very best wecould, there were still some Senatorswho had some concerns. Some of themwere off the committee. We dealt withthose concerns with this amendmenton a very bipartisan basis.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague,because I felt as a trustee of thesefunds—and when you and I, for exam-ple, joined on the first amendment totry to add additional funding, we weregoing to win that when, obviously,leadership was able to persuade one ortwo colleagues and we came within onevote, to my recollection.

Then along came the distinguishedsenior Senator from Texas and our dis-tinguished former majority leader, the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1309March 4, 1998distinguished Senator from West Vir-ginia, and you and I joined in that ef-fort, even though we were at odds withour distinguished chairman and othermembers of the committee. We felt itwas imperative to add these funds.With the add-on, I want to make clear,we left the basic formula intact, 90 per-cent intact, and simply superimposedthis amendment on top.

Again, under the guidance of the dis-tinguished chairman of the committeeand yourself—and I had a voice in it, ofcourse—we again tried to achieve eq-uity. I specifically asked the chairmanto make certain that in the recalcula-tion, over the weekend, we get as manyStates as possible above the 90 to 91percent. I think we have done that.There may be some 90.8, some fraction.But in order to achieve the fundamen-tal equity, we did our very best insuperimposing this add-on, on the un-disturbed basic bill, as the allocationswere made up in that bill.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is exactly right.In fact, in a nutshell, we believe it isonly fair to the American people that aportion of the gasoline tax that goes tothe trust fund be allocated to theStates. We took that amount, 3.45cents, and essentially allocated it ac-cording to the provisions of the under-lying bill without changing the for-mulas, making a couple of minorchanges to accommodate some legiti-mate concerns of Senators. That is ba-sically what we have done. Frankly, Icannot think of a fairer way to do it.

I am also reminded there is sort of afeeling in the room, and also the feel-ing in the committee when we acted onthis in the room where we put this to-gether—you can tell when it’s fair ornot fair. Everybody was happy and feltgood. It felt good. Also, in the commit-tee, when the committee reported outthis amendment, you could tell, too, itpassed unanimously with Senators allaround, as the Senator well knows.

Mr. WARNER. That’s owing to theleadership of Senator CHAFEE, in thefirst bill, and you—Senator CHAFEE andyou as ranking. When we brought, shallwe say, the subcommittee bill, beforethe full committee, I was astonishedwe got a unanimous vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. I was, too.Mr. WARNER. Now with Senator

CHAFEE’s leadership, we got anotherunanimous vote in our committee. ButI have felt the will of the entire Senatewas represented in various groups onour committee. We listened carefully,took things into consideration, and didthe best we could. I am urging Sen-ators to support this amendment. But Icaution those who want to come andperhaps give their own proposal, becareful, because once you take one partof this formula and move it, you will besurprised how all the States begin togo up and down in other areas of thecalculations.

So, I think the Senate will have torepose a lot of trust in our committee.But that trust is predicated on theprinciple of fairness that we started

with when the first word of this billwas placed down by the subcommittee,and it has transcended—that concept offairness is throughout our work.

I thank my distinguished colleague.Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Texas.Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I rise in

support of the amendment. I thank mycolleagues, each of those who are onthe floor, and my dear colleague fromWest Virginia, Senator BYRD, who isnot here, for their leadership in bring-ing us to the point at which we findourselves today.

What I would like to do is to explainthe problem we sought to deal with,say a little bit about how we came tobe at this point, and then try to ex-plain why every Member of the Senateshould rejoice that we have reached apoint where we are going to take avery dramatic step in terms of improv-ing the quality of America’s highwaysand, in doing so, improve their safety,their efficiency, and not only save thelives of thousands of our fellow citi-zens, but improve the lives of tens ofmillions of Americans who use ourhighways.

I entered this debate over one simpleissue, and I have always viewed it as anissue that has to do with honesty inGovernment and equity. The issue thatI entered the debate on, along withSenator BYRD and joined by SenatorBAUCUS and Senator WARNER, was anissue that boils down to basic trust.And that is, people go to the filling sta-tion and, in a lot of States in theUnion, that little clip that you used toput on the nozzle where you couldpump the gas and go on about yourbusiness and do something else, manyStates have taken that clip off. So youoften find yourself standing there hold-ing this nozzle, and every once in awhile, in desperation, somebody readsthe gasoline pump.

When you read the gasoline pump, itsort of gives the good news and the badnews story. The bad news is a third ofthe cost of buying a gallon of gasolinein America is taxes. The good news is,at least, as it says it on the pump, thatthe gasoline tax is a user fee and thatuser fee is used to build roads. So whileyou should be unhappy that a third ofthe cost of a gallon of gasoline is goingto pay taxes, you should be happy withthe fact that at least those taxes aregoing to build the very roads that youare going to ride on in burning up thatgasoline that you are buying.

I entered this debate because the badnews is true, a third of the cost of agallon of gasoline is, in fact, taxes, buttoday it is not true that all those taxesgo to build roads. In fact, beginning inthe 1990s, the Federal Governmentstarted diverting highway trust fundsto other use. So we collected gasolinetaxes, those moneys were put into thetrust fund, but by not spending thosemoneys on highways, we were able tospend those moneys on other things.

Then, in 1993, the Congress adoptedthe first permanent gasoline tax in

American history since we had thehighway trust fund where the moneywent to general revenues, and so themoney was spent and none of it wasspent on highways.

That produced a situation by thisyear where roughly 25 to 30 cents out ofevery dollar paid by every American ingasoline taxes goes not to build roadsbut to fund other expenditures of theFederal Government.

Senator BYRD and I started this de-bate because we believed that that wasdishonest. We believed that the Gov-ernment was deceiving the Americanpeople, and we thought it was wrong.We thought it was wrong to take adedicated tax and spend it on generalGovernment rather than spending itfor the purpose to which Americanshad been led to believe that they werepaying the tax.

Our first victory in this roughly 2-year effort was on the tax bill last yearwhere we were able to take that 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline awayfrom general revenue and put it backinto the highway trust fund where itbelonged. It was a big issue, because 4.3cents per gallon collects roughly $7 bil-lion a year in revenues.

We were successful in that effort.Then, last year, we started the effortto guarantee that the money was actu-ally spent on highways. That effort, bySenator BYRD and myself, produced acoalition with Senator BAUCUS andSenator WARNER, the chairman andranking member of the subcommitteewith jurisdiction over the highway bill.That started a negotiation whichreached a successful conclusion the daybefore yesterday in a new highway bill,for all practical purposes, very dif-ferent than the bill that the Presidentproposed, very different from the billthat came out of the committee, and Ithink different in being better.

The bill before us guarantees thatover the next 6 years, we will movefrom a situation where almost 30 centsout of every dollar of gasoline taxestoday is diverted to some use otherthan building highways and for trans-portation purposes to spend on generalprograms. We will move from that situ-ation today to a situation 6 years fromnow when this bill is fully in effect sothat every penny of the 4.3-cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline, which is now di-verted to other uses, will be used forthe purpose of improving the transpor-tation system of America and buildingroads.

That will mean that this bill will,over the next 6 years, spend $173 billionon highways. The difference in thenumber that Senator BAUCUS used andthis number is that about $2 billion ofthe expenditure is under another titlein the Commerce Committee, and I donot want people to be confused tothink we have taken away $2 billionfrom the agreement that we announcedthe other day. The total is $173 billion.

What does that mean relative to thehighway bill that has just ended? Whatit means nationwide is that by the eco-nomic growth we have experienced, by

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1310 March 4, 1998the growth in the collection of gasolinetaxes and by dedicating every penny ofgasoline taxes to build roads, nation-wide we are going to increase theamount of money for highway con-struction over the next 6 years, as com-pared to the last 6 years, by 45 percent.That is a dramatic change. As a resultof this bill, Americans who would havedied on roads in West Virginia andTexas and all over America will notdie. As a result of this bill, people whowould have waited in congestion, tak-ing time away from their work or theirfamily, will find that that congestionhas been abated.

So we are not just talking aboutspending another $26 billion of moneyon highways, the purpose for which themoney was collected. But we are talk-ing about improving the lives of Ameri-cans by the tens of millions and savingthe lives of thousands of our fellowcitizens.

Secondly, by getting out of this ab-surd situation we were in under theprevious bill where we were using the1980 census for no other purpose thanto discriminate in favor of States thatwere losing population and againstthose that were gaining population, bygoing to the current census, a Statelike my State, which has been growingvery rapidly, will not only benefit fromthe fact that we are not allowing 30cents out of every dollar of money col-lected in gasoline taxes to be siphonedoff to pay for something else, but byusing the current census and throughother factors, the State of Texas willhave an increase in highway fundingover the previous bill of 60 percent. Ob-viously, that is a big deal for my State.It is a big deal for every State in theUnion.

Some people will say, ‘‘Well, but ifyou’re spending the money on high-ways, you’re not spending the moneyon other things.’’ When we debated thisbill for the first time at the end of thelast session, our opposition came frompeople who basically said, ‘‘Well,spending money on highways is great,but if you spend this money on high-ways, we can’t spend it on otherthings.’’

Let me respond to that in two ways.First of all, we do have a great need inhighways, but the real argument is notone of relative need. The real argumentis we collected the money for the pur-pose of building highways. This is adedicated tax. So those who find todaya sad occasion because for the firsttime since the mid-eighties we are ac-tually going to spend gasoline taxes onhighways and they are unhappy be-cause we are not going to spend themoney on other things, let me say, asI have said in the past, that they re-mind me of rustlers who have beenstealing our cattle. We finally catchthem, we call the sheriff out, we don’thang them, we don’t even make themgive our old cattle back they stole. Allwe say to them is, ‘‘You have to quitstealing our cattle.’’ We will hear froma few of them today, and their basic re-

sponse will be, ‘‘Well, that’s great, butwhere do I get my beef? If I can’t robthe highway trust fund, where do I getthis money to do all this good I wantto do?’’

I have two responses. One, that is notmy problem. Two, we should havenever been spending highway trustfund money for other purposes. Weshould have never let the Federal Gov-ernment collect money in gasolinetaxes and turn around and spend it forsomething other than the purpose forwhich those taxes were collected.

So I believe this is a happy day. Is ev-erybody satisfied? I have great appre-ciation of the situation of SenatorCHAFEE and Senator BAUCUS and Sen-ator WARNER. You can’t satisfy every-body. We have a highway system thatis a national system and, obviously, Ihave been unhappy about the fact thatmy State was getting 77 cents for everydollar we sent to Washington. I havecomplained vigorously, and partly as aresult of that complaint, we havechanged the bill. We have gotten rid ofthe 1980 census, and we are going tohave a dramatic increase in fundinggoing to States like mine.

You can always say, ‘‘We wantmore,’’ but I think it is important, andSenator CHAFEE has made the pointand I agree with it, we have a NationalHighway System. When we were build-ing roads across Texas in the 1950s and1960s, the Interstate Highway System,we were more of a beneficiary State.But what good is it to have an Inter-state Highway System that when itgets to Western States, you don’t havethe highway? If it is an east-west ornorth-south system and you have aState that has a low population and alow formula and, as a result, can’tbuild its system, do you have a na-tional system?

There are always going to be years,because of the ongoing building of theinterstate system, where some Statesare going to get more than a dollarback, some are going to get less. Butthanks to Senator WARNER—and I con-gratulate him and thank him person-ally—under this bill, for all practicalpurposes, no State will ever again getless than 91 cents out of every dollar informula money back that they send toWashington in terms of highway taxes.

What that means is, no matter whatwe are doing in terms of a national sys-tem, at least that minimum will beavailable to every State. I think that isa dramatic improvement, and I think itis something of which people can beproud.

I think this is a major step forward.I thank everyone who has worked onthe bill. I have enjoyed having the op-portunity to work with the sponsors,with Senator CHAFEE. I thank SenatorLOTT for his ability to bring everybodytogether. I think it has been a classiccase of democracy at work. Someoneonce said that there are two things youdon’t want to watch people do. One ismaking sausage and the other is mak-ing laws.

But I have to say that I think anycivics class at any high school inAmerica that sat through the wholeprocess on writing this highway bill,that sat in every meeting and every ne-gotiation, and that watched the give-and-take, that listened to the intellec-tual content of the debate, both publicand private debate, that watched theconsensus form, would go away con-vinced that, while our system is notperfect, it is clearly the best systemthat has ever been devised by the mindof man.

So I am proud of this bill. I am happyfor my State. I am happy for the coun-try. I believe that this is a dramaticimprovement. And while I do not agreewith or support every single provisionof the bill, you reach a point where youhave to say, this is the best we aregoing to do given that we have 100Members of the Senate. There will bethose who will be offering amendmentsto try to tear this consensus apart. I donot intend to support any of thoseamendments. I think we have put to-gether a good bill. And I think it istime to get on with improving ourhighway system, with saving lives,with improving the quality of life forhundreds of millions of people all overthe country.

So I am for this amendment. I am forthis bill. And I congratulate those whohave been the leaders of that effort.

I yield the floor.Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Virginia.Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank

the distinguished senior Senator fromTexas for his remarks, personal andotherwise, directed at those who puttogether this amendment.

But now I say to all colleagues, weare entering into that phase which Ihave called in previous iterations ofthe highway bill, the ‘‘battle of thecharts.’’ And the charts are comingover the transom, under the transom,and from all directions. And it comesdown to whether or not someone canput up a matrix which benefits theirState a little bit more. But I assureyou, it is at the detriment of someoneelse. And you have to at some point,when the votes come, decide: Did thecommittee or did not the committeetry and do an equitable distribution ofthe funds?

The basic bill reported out by thesubcommittee, then by the full com-mittee, is unchanged. But in workingout the most equitable distribution wecould under the add-on, as a con-sequence of the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment, you could figure itseveral different ways. And therein Ipresume the debate will focus in justsuch time as we proceed to vote on thisamendment. And there are means bywhich you could calculate it in a dif-ferent way.

I think Senators are perfectly enti-tled to fight. And they should. But itall comes back to, will their formula beviewed as an equitable distribution ofthe funds?

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1311March 4, 1998And I say that when the final vote is

taken it is my hope and it is my expec-tation that the Senate will express itsconfidence in the ability of the com-mittee—under the guidance of the dis-tinguished majority leader, and, in-deed, with the valued input of SenatorBYRD, Senator GRAMM of Texas—thatwe did the best we could to make equi-table distribution of the apple.

So let us now engage in the ‘‘battleof the charts.’’ I hope Senators willcome to the floor and express theirviews with respect to their individualStates and their own view as to wheth-er or not equity was achieved.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Michigan.Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let

me thank our friends on the committeefor their effort here. And we are tryingto get information to help us decide ex-actly how we should respond to thecommittee amendment. That informa-tion was requested as soon as theamendment was adopted. We are stillawaiting for that information.

I think it is only fair to those States,States that have been particularly putin a donor position decade after decadeafter decade, which is the case withmany of our States, that we get the in-formation that we sought. We verywell—I am speaking just for myself—we very well may end up supportingthis amendment. But it would seem tome, as a matter of fundamental fair-ness, that when an amendment thiscomplex and this important to ourStates is brought to the floor, thatwhere information is sought from theDepartment of Transportation, that in-formation be forthcoming before weare expected to vote on this amend-ment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if theSenator would yield, I know of no rea-son why the chairman, who is momen-tarily absent from the floor, or theranking member or myself is trying topush this to a conclusion prior to thosewho desire to have additional informa-tion get all that information and havefree discussion on it.

So please do not send out the alarmthat, in my judgment, we are trying toroll this thing through before allStates have an opportunity to examinethe complexity of this and get such in-formation and charts as they so desire.

Mr. LEVIN. I very much appreciateit.

Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator wouldyield for me to further make the pointof the Senator from Virginia, the Sen-ator knows my office is also calling theDOT to light a fire under them to getthe information back so that the Sen-ator from Michigan has all the infor-mation he wants in order to make aninformed decision.

He is absolutely right. I mean, herepresents his State and wants to rep-resent it to the fullest. And he believes,correctly, that he would like to havemore information. And so we are doing

our best to get the information for theSenator. Once he does have it, I amquite confident things will work out.But it is more important, first, to getthat information.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friends fromMontana and Virginia for their supportin our effort to get this informationand, indeed, for their long, hard effortsto try to bring a conclusion to this ef-fort to come up with a fair highwaybill.

The problem is, as the Chair and oth-ers know, there are some States thathave not been treated equitably andfairly, at least in our eyes, over thedecades.

First, the Senator from Texas cor-rectly says we have a National High-way System. And that is true. I do notthink it would be possible to build aninterstate across Montana if Montanaonly got back the amount of money ingas tax for the building of that inter-state that was sent to Washington byfolks buying gas in Montana. I have nodoubt of the truth of that comment.

I have been to Montana. I have beenon those interstates. I understand that.I appreciate that. Indeed, I would sup-port that if this were coming up forfunding in the 1950s. But that does notexplain why a whole bunch of otherStates that are not in that situationget back a $1.20, $1.40, $1.60, $1.80, $2 forevery dollar they send.

We can explain some of this to ourconstituents. And I have. I get up anduse Montana as the example. And I say,it is only right, if you are going tohave an Interstate System, that moremoney go to build an interstate inMontana than is coming from Mon-tana. That is the point the Senatorfrom Texas made.

But, again, let me emphasize, thereare a whole bunch of States that thatis not applicable to, who have for dec-ades gotten back a heck of a lot morethan they have sent into this systemand put into that trust fund. And thoseof us that have been in a donor positionfor decades, because of these formulaswhich were put in here many yearsago, cannot possibly justify the hugeamounts which many donee Stateshave received which do not relate tothe fact that they are sparsely popu-lated and have large distances to cross.

And while my friend from Texas maybe correct in the case of some Statesfalling into the donor or donee situa-tion, depending upon what year youmay be looking at, there are otherStates which have been in the donorsituation constantly throughout whereyou cannot justify this. And there hasbeen some effort in this bill to correctthe unfairness. And I want to thank myfriends from Rhode Island, Montana,Virginia, and to others, Texas, whoparticipated in this effort to get a lit-tle more fairness for the so-calleddonor States. I want to thank them forthat effort.

Does it come close to repairing theunfairness? I do not know. And we arenot going to know until we get this

data. There are a lot of complicationsin these formulas. My dear friend fromVirginia is right, you get all kinds ofcharts coming in. I mean, one chartwhich we already have shows that two-thirds of the States actually get asmaller percentage under the commit-tee amendment than they did underthe underlying bill.

If that is true—and some of thosebeing donor States—if that is true, howdo donor States then get a guarantee of91 cents back instead of 90 cents, ifsome of those two-thirds of the Statesthat get a smaller percentage underthe committee amendment are donorStates?

My State gets a smaller percentageunder the committee amendment thanit does under the underlying bill. Youcan add all the money you want, whichis what the committee did, but theproblem still is going to remain interms of the percentage of the con-tribution unless something else hap-pens here. We should be in a worse per-centage situation under the committeeamendment than we were under the un-derlying bill. But that is what we wantto look at in terms of charts.

I have questions about the densitygroup. How is that defined? I havehighly dense, congestive places in theState of Michigan, but I am not one ofthose 10 States. How is it defined? Andwhy? And why is it that 10 States allget the same amount of money for den-sity no matter where they may fall onsome density chart? No matter wherethey fall, they all get the same amountof money year after year, but Statesthat do not quite reach the level ofdensity get nothing. I would like to atleast know why and how, how that isarrived at.

I have a number of questions which Iwould like to have answered. Are thosespecial categories—for instance, den-sity. When you get a density bonus ora density amount in this bill, does thatcount in terms of the donor State guar-antee of 91 percent? Does that counttowards that? We do not know. Perhapssome of the sponsors of the amendmentcould answer that question.

And to my friend from Texas, my un-derstanding is it is not 91 cents back onthe dollar; it is 91 percent of contribu-tion. And that, as a matter of fact, isnot 91 percent of your contributions,because there is something taken offthe top here. So it is 91 percent of thecontributions of the amount which isdistributed to the States which is lessthan 100 percent.

I wish it were 91 cents on the dollar,I tell my good friend from Texas. I wishit were that every buck we are going tosend to Washington, from here on in,we are assured we are going to get 91cents back. That is not my understand-ing of what this bill does.

So I think here that there is an un-derlying feeling on the part of manyStates two things: One, that we need afairer treatment; and, two, that wewant to see some data. And, three,speaking now for myself, when we re-ceive that data, it may answer a whole

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1312 March 4, 1998lot of these questions so that indeedsomeone like me may end up voting foran amendment such as this, as being animprovement over the status quo.

Now, there is another problem whichnone of us are going to solve here. Andthat is that there are offsets for thisincrease. And we do not know wherethose offsets are coming from. Becausethe budget is going to be adopted afterwe adopt this bill. And the BudgetCommittee is going to have to find, asI understand it for this upcoming year,$1 billion-plus. We do not know wherethat $1 billion-plus is coming from.

Now, we are all in that boat. But it isa problem that we all ought to be con-cerned about. Is that $1 billion going tocome from education? Is that $1 billioncoming from veterans? It is going tocome from domestic discretionaryspending. And even those who vote forthis amendment, it seems to me, haveto be concerned with what lies downthe road in terms of paying for thiscommittee add-on.

Again, that is nothing which datafrom the highway department is goingto be able to answer. That is somethingwhich we are going to have to fight outor debate in the weeks and monthsahead. But it is a real concern. It is anunanswered question. In this case it isa question which cannot be answeredprior to the time when we will be vot-ing on this amendment. But, nonethe-less, it should be raised as a flag, Ithink, for all of us. Even those of uswho intensely support this amendment,it seems to me, would have some con-cern about, how are we going to pay forthe offset, to pay for the amount ofmoney which has been added?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if Icould interject. I thank the Senator. Irose for the purpose of a clarifyingstatement. You do not pose that in anyway as a delay of a judgment by theSenate on the pending amendment? Itis just a realization that at some pointin time the Senate, as a body, will haveto consider where the offsets camefrom, but not in the context of gettinga definitive answer for the purposes ofaddressing a yea or nay on this amend-ment; am I not correct?

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct.Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.Mr. LEVIN. As I said, that is a con-

cern that I hope all of us have regard-less of how we end up voting on thisamendment as to how that money isgoing to be paid for, how that offset isgoing to be achieved.

Second is something I am very muchconcerned about. We keep hearingthoughts, rumors as to where this iscoming from, but that will not be re-solvable. I do believe the good chair-man of the Budget Committee has indi-cated there will be no undue impact onany domestic discretionary program asa result, but I haven’t seen those exactwords—I have heard that secondhand—that the Senator from New Mexico, thechairman of the Budget Committee,has said something like no undue im-pact on any discretionary program.

But I’m not going to quote him becauseI didn’t actually see the quote itself.

So what it comes down to is that wehave an amendment that is pending.We have a request for information rel-ative to a complicated amendment,made yesterday to the highway depart-ment. We don’t have that information.

If the managers of the bill and thesponsors of this amendment are willingto get that information forthcomingbefore our vote, it seems to me we ei-ther ought to have a quorum, as I un-derstand they are on their way, or weought to set aside this amendment foran hour or two so those of us who arenot decided on how to vote on thisamendment could be in a positionwhere we could vote on it.

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. WARNER. On behalf of the dis-tinguished Senator from Oklahoma,Mr. INHOFE, for purposes of this debate,I ask unanimous consent that Mr. An-drew Wheeler be granted floor privi-leges.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ran acalculation for the Senator fromMichigan and I will send it over to mygood friend. He and I came to the Sen-ate together and sit on the ArmedServices Committee together. We havehad many debates. The records are full.If the Senator would, take a look atthat and see whether or not my analy-sis of your State is correct. But as I lis-tened carefully, the Senator made therepresentation to the Senate in his re-marks that there are some States thatwill get less money than they wouldunder the underlying bill.

Mr. LEVIN. That is not correct. TheSenator is not correct. I said abouttwo-thirds of the States get a smallerpercentage under the amendment thanthey do under the underlying bill. Iwill give the Senator some examplesand have them printed in the RECORD.

I believe this chart comes from theFederal Highway Administration. Ithink every State gets more money be-cause there is a significant amount ofmoney that is added to the pot. Mystatement is that about 38 States get asmaller percentage of a larger pot thanthey did.

Mr. WARNER. Let’s talk about thepot. You are addressing the amend-ment that is pending before the Senatewhich we refer to as an add-on to theunderlying bill.

Mr. LEVIN. That is correct. The potI refer to is the total pot after the add-on. I am saying under this chart of thehighway administration, this came inyesterday.

Mr. WARNER. I have a copy.Mr. LEVIN. If you look at the right-

hand column, at the minuses, lookingat the 6-year percentages with the so-called ‘‘option,’’ which is the commit-tee amendment, 38 of the States have alittle minus in front of them, meaningthey usually get a slightly smaller per-centage of the larger pot, which is rep-resented by the amount of money to-

tally there after the committee amend-ment is adopted. That is the referenceI made.

Every State gets more money andevery State—to put it very bluntly, saythat Michigan contributes an addi-tional $110 million to the highway fundin this larger pot. That $110 million ofthe delta, the extra money going intothis pot, to enlarge it, comes fromMichigan, and we get back $100 million.These are hypothetical numbers. Thatmeans we are getting back moremoney, right? But we have put in, ac-tually, a larger share of money towardsthe amount that is going out.

My good friend from Texas, I amsure, would agree it is about time thatthe money that goes to the highwayfund is distributed to the States. It islong overdue. We shouldn’t be havingsurpluses built up from gas tax dollarswhich our people pay in order to buildand maintain highways. That is longoverdue.

My point here, however, is that ofthe extra amount of that $26 billionthat the committee adds, say Michi-gan’s share of that $26 billion is $110million—I am making up numbershere—and if we get back from thatextra amount $100 million, the answeris, yes, we are getting back more thanwe did under the underlying bill, but itstill could be a smaller percentage ofthe total than we would have gottenunder the underlying bill.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I willyield momentarily.

Let’s see if we can narrow the Sen-ator’s concern. The Senator’s concernis not with the underlying bill; it is themanner in which the funds were allo-cated, roughly $6.9 billion to five pro-grams, and that $6.9 billion coming offof the total $25.8 billion, is that cor-rect?

Mr. LEVIN. The answer is correct.The questions that I have are relativeto the amendment that we don’t havethe information on.

Mr. WARNER. The Senator expressesat the moment some disagreement asto how the committee took the total of$25.8 billion, then took a sum of $6.9billion and allocated it to five pro-grams; basically, is that the area inwhich the Senator has disagreement?

Mr. LEVIN. No, I have questions inthat area. I don’t have a disagreementuntil I get the information, and then Imay or may not have a disagreement.

Mr. WARNER. And that hopefully isforthcoming.

I yield the floor.Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, our dear

colleague from Michigan reminds me ofthe drowning man that is on the vergeof going down for the third time and wehave thrown him an inner tube and heis complaining that he has to swim alittle to get to it.

Mr. LEVIN. Will my friend yield for aquick comment?

Mr. GRAMM. I never stop in the mid-dle of an analogy.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1313March 4, 1998The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

BURNS). The Senator from Texas hasthe floor.

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator mightyield.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. I remindSenators to address each other throughthe third party. The Senator fromTexas has the floor.

Mr. GRAMM. I will get to the pointbecause I’m basically trying to answerquestions the Senator raised.

Let me go back to his made-up exam-ple. Currently, every taxpayer inAmerica who pays gasoline taxes is ba-sically being cheated out of 25 cents onthe dollar on average of what they payin because it says right on the pumpthe money is going for highways andit’s not. This amendment, over a 6-yearperiod, eliminates that problem.

The Senator from Michigan is sayingif Michigan taxpayers now paying 4.3cents per gallon are currently paying$110 million in gasoline taxes in thattax, what if this amendment only givesMichigan $100 million to build roadsfrom this 4.3 cents per gallon. It seemsto me you don’t have to have studiedhigh mathematics to understand thatMichigan is a lot better off getting $100million of the $110 million than theywere getting zero from the $110 million.

When you look at the formula, be-cause of the makeup of the NationalHighway System, there are manyStates that will not get every penny ofit back to their State but they aregoing to be substantially better offthan they are now and a tremendousamount of the underlying inequity willbe fixed. That is the first point I want-ed to make.

The second point I want to make isin terms of offsets, where we are goingto cut other programs to pay for this,that we are going to decide those off-sets in the budget. Every Member ofthe Senate will have an opportunity tovote on that.

Before we weep too much about theoffsets, I go back to my example of therustler who has been stealing our cat-tle by taking 25 cents out of every $1 ingasoline tax and spending it on some-thing else. It may be that in the proc-ess someone discovers that this rustleractually gave money to the First Bap-tist Church, but are we going to arguethat we don’t want to stop rustling be-cause a rustler contributed moneywhen the plate was passed at the FirstBaptist Church? The point is, we haveto take the money away. That moneyshould never have been there in thefirst place. This money should havebeen spent on roads from the begin-ning.

Finally, before I yield to the Senator,and I will be happy to do it or yield thefloor and let him have the floor, whatI will try to do not just for the Senatorfrom Michigan but for all of our col-leagues, I will try to explain some ofthe logic of the underlying bill. I’m noton the committee but I have studiedthe thing and understand it so thatSenator BYRD and I could write our

amendment with Senator BAUCUS andSenator WARNER, so, in fact, I find my-self in possession of information that Inever wanted to have to begin with butI think it is relevant to this whole de-bate. I don’t think people really under-stand how the highway program works.Maybe as one who is a new possessor ofthis knowledge, I find it really reflectson this whole problem we are dealingwith.

Let me try to very briefly deviatefrom my background as a school-teacher, and be brief. Let me try to runthrough it and then explain the gamesthat people can play if they chose to.Since the beginning of our highwayprogram, we have had a general rule ofthumb, and that has been a division ofmoney from the highway trust fund.That portion that goes to highways hasgone into two pots. One pot is moneythat is available nationally under anaccount that is overseen by the Sec-retary of Transportation and the Na-tional Highway Administration, andthat has normally been roughly 10 or 11percent, total. That has focused on in-dividual priorities and a series of con-cerns that have not generally beendealt with by the allocation to theStates. The other 90 percent has goneto the States. This is not a new inven-tion with this bill. It has been true inevery highway bill that we have had. Itis true in this bill.

Now, I could personally go throughthis bill and take the 10 percent ofitems that will be funded under the na-tional account and say there are a lotof these programs that I am not for. Idon’t want to create sadness by talkingabout what they are, but the point is,since they deal with concerns for a bigcountry, and Texas is one piece of it—the most important piece, the largestpiece—and shares more interest incommon with the country because wehave more diversity than anybody else,it is true that we have money for build-ing roads on public lands. We areblessed in Texas in that we were acountry first so we have virtually nopublic lands. We never thought it madesense when we came into the Union tohave the United States own our State.So we will get virtually no money outof the account that is available forbuilding highways on public lands. It isa little over $1 billion, if my memoryserves me right.

Now, I could stand up here and say,‘‘Look, Texas has got no public landsto speak of. We are not going to get apenny out of that $1 billion.’’ The pointbeing, like the distinguished PresidingOfficer who is from a Western State, hedidn’t choose to have the Federal Gov-ernment own a huge chunk of hisState. Probably over half the land inhis State is owned by the Federal Gov-ernment. I feel sorry for him. I don’tthink it is right. I would like to seesome of that land back in privatehands, I say to the Presiding Officer.The point is that is part of a nationalsystem. The Presiding Officer can’thelp it that the Federal Governmentowns over half of his State.

So, to adjust, in the 10 percent of thebill, we have a whooping $1 billion thathis State will benefit from, and myState won’t benefit. We won’t get anyof the money. Now, I could do a chartthat says you eliminate that programfor funds to be spent on public landsand I could show Texas gets moremoney. I can show that Virginia getsmore money. We have money in herefor roads on Indian reservations. Wehad the most bitter part of the Indianwars in my State. We had Apaches andComanches raiding our capital in the1870s. We have only a couple of tiny,little Indian reservations in Texas.Oklahoma has vast quantities, as doesArizona.

Now, I could stand up here and say,well, look, by building roads on Indianreservations, you are not doing any-thing for Texas. I could take that bil-lion dollars for roads on Indian reserva-tions in the 10 percent national ac-count in the bill—I could strip it outand say, look, you distribute it to allthe States, and every State will gain.In fact, you would probably get 40 ofthe 50 States in the Union that wouldgain if you did that. But is that howyou write a national highway bill?

So the point I am making is that tosingle out parts of the 10 percent andsay that if we eliminated them, wecould have more to give the States,look, if I were writing the highway billby myself, I would not even have the 10percent. I would give all of it to theStates. But I am not writing the high-way bill by myself. What I am tryingto explain to people is that when youare singling out programs like the Ap-palachian Regional Highway Program,you are singling out a program thathas been in every highway bill since1965. The money that is being providedis actually a smaller percentage of theoverall bill than President Clinton re-quested. The amount of money beingprovided is a smaller percent than wasspent under the last highway bill, whenyou add up all the expenditures.

This is a program that became thelaw of the land in 1965. The program ison the verge of moving toward comple-tion. You can single it out if you wantto, but how is it less meritorious thanbuilding roads on public lands? How isit less meritorious than building roadson Indian reservations? It’s part of aseries of national priorities.

Now, in case you don’t know muchabout geography, Texas is not part ofAppalachia. My State doesn’t benefitone bit from that provision. But thepoint is, it has been part of every pro-gram since 1965, and it is part of this 10percent overhead to deal with specificprograms. So if we could go back andreinvent the world, change the wholehighway system, this logic would makesense. But I think singling out a coupleof programs when there are many oth-ers that are more vulnerable—and wecan all play this game—in the end youdon’t have a highway bill.

Let me say, in terms of density, thatI don’t have to read very well to see

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1314 March 4, 1998that Texas, which has 3 of the 10 larg-est cities in the country, does not bene-fit a nickel—not a penny—from thisdensity thing. Where did this densitything come from? First of all, I am notaccepting any responsibility. I am noton the committee. I would love to takeit out. But what is it trying to do?

Well, the old highway bill was writ-ten under the 1980 census, which wasoutrageous. It happened because theHouse has been, until the last reappor-tionment, dominated by the East andMidwest. All of our formulas are riggedto take money away from the Southand the West and give it to the Eastand the Midwest. We all know it. Weare beginning to fix it with this high-way bill. But as a result of getting ridof the 1980 census, which is only 18years old, by doing that we are goingto have some States that are substan-tial losers, and our colleagues aregoing to have to go back to theirStates and say that in the highway billwe really got a dramatic change rel-ative to the old bill, basically becausepeople voted with their feet to move offto California, Texas, Virginia andGeorgia.

What this whole density provision isabout is trying to cushion the blow tothose States. So I could offer anamendment—as apparently is beingcontemplated by others—to say, strikethis density provision. Let me lookhere before I say that. Virginia getsnothing out of the density provision. Iwill mention one more. Rhode Islandgets nothing from the density provi-sion. So we could offer an amendmentto strike the density provision and givethat money to other States, and wecould show that 40 States of the Unionbenefit and only 10 or 15 lose. But thepurpose was to write a bill that everyState in the Union can live with, andwhere people, in good conscience, cango home and say that given where weare, given the growth pattern of thecountry, we did as well as we could ex-pect to have done, given what has hap-pened to the population in the countryand the movement of population.

So I want to urge my colleagues tounderstand that we have always had adivision of roughly 90–10 in the fundsfor national priorities and to theStates. I wish we had no 10 percent, butwe do, and we always have. Singlingout specific programs is simply not fairwhen we look at the other programs,whether it’s building roads on Indianlands or public lands, simply becausewe have no Indian lands in our State,or we have no public lands to speak ofin our State. We need to understandwhat a national highway bill is aboutis dealing with those things.

I want to conclude by going back toARC. I know more about ARC than Iever started out wanting to know,given that I am not from there. But Ihave had the privilege, in the last year,of working with a man who is verymuch committed to Appalachia. When

Senator BYRD was born in Appalachia,it was a big red letter banner day forAppalachia and for West Virginia. Hecares about this program intensely. Sopeople look at this and say that is agood and ready target. There are only13 States in Appalachia, and thatmeans there are 26 Senators. Again,when you take 100 and subtract 26, youget more than a majority.

I want to be sure that everybody un-derstands the following points:

No. 1. Appalachia has been part ofthe national section of this bill, in oneform or another, since 1965. I guessSenator BYRD was the only person whowas here in 1965 and who voted for it,but it passed and it’s the law of theland.

No. 2. We have a smaller percentageof the amount of money we are spend-ing in this bill going to Appalachiathan the President asked for. We havea smaller percentage of this bill goingto Appalachia than was actually fund-ed over the last 6 years as a result ofthe appropriations process and the oldbill, and so anybody who thinks thatthis is some new program that has beenput into this bill, that is providingmoney that was not there over the last30 years, or that somehow it is provid-ing more money as a percentage of thebill than we had in the past, is simplywrong.

I urge my colleagues, if you are goingto single out one little program, re-member that everybody can play thisgame, whether it’s Indian land road-building or public land roadbuilding, or25 other categories; we can each picksome part of the bill that does not ben-efit our State and we can try to takethat part away to add money to theformula. But the truth is that thisroughly 90–10 formula has been in placethroughout the whole history of thehighway bill, and, in fact, if youknocked out this program and didn’tchange the makeup of the highway bill,the Secretary of Transportation woulddecide where the money is spent andwould probably spend it on exactly thesame thing.

So I wanted our colleagues to under-stand how the bill is made up, and Ithink that, other than the handful ofpeople on the committee, people don’tknow. So it looks like some giant con-spiracy against them when, in fact, ifyou look at the totality of it, it makessense. Since we all resent deals we arenot part of—I certainly do—these dealsthey put together in committee lookmysterious. But I think if you under-stand how the bill has evolved over thelast 30 years and how it is made up, itis pretty reasonable, again, for thekind of work we are doing.

I wasn’t trying to get into a debatewith the Senator from Michigan. I amfrom a big-time donor State. My State,under the old highway bill, got back 77cents out of every dollar. We are goingto get back 91 cents out of every dollarin this bill, and I rejoice. It is progress.

In the future, when we build a vastNorth-South interstate system to gowith our East-West system, maybe inthe next highway bill, people will bestanding here saying that Texas is get-ting back $2.12 for every dollar, becausenow you are building these interstatesfrom Lubbock to Texarkana.

The point is, that is what a NationalHighway System is about. When itworks in our favor, we are all quietabout it, hoping nobody notices. Whenit works against us, we scream to theheavens. That is how the systemworks.

I would be happy to yield the floorand let the Senator from Michiganspeak, or answer a question. I didn’twant to stop in the middle of my anal-ogy, knowing how clever the Senatorfrom Michigan was, knowing he woulddestroy it outright.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thankthe Senator from Texas. It has been in-teresting. I may have made a mistake.Perhaps I should have taken the blockof money that was to correct the in-equity of the donor States and put itup there above the line as one of thoseprograms. But it was a program. Whilenot clearly identified above, it was aprogram. Let me give you some exam-ples.

In the 1991 ISTEA I bill—I was a con-feree and I was in the second row andwas told to be quiet while the dominat-ing chairmen, predominantly from theNortheast, controlled it. That billcame out, and Massachusetts got $2.45;Connecticut, $1.92; New York, $1.25;Maine, $1.23; New Jersey, $1.09; Penn-sylvania, $1.16. The donor States:South Carolina got 72 cents; Missouri,85 cents; Michigan, 80 cents; Mis-sissippi, 83 cents; Virginia, 79 cents;Florida, 82 cents.

You bet I took a block of money andI straightened it out, together with thesupport of my distinguished rankingmember, the senior Senator from Mon-tana. We straightened it out. We tooka chunk of money and balanced thatthing out so that now, with the under-lying bill, they get 90 cents—not theseegregious disproportionate sums, but 90cents.

With the amendment before us, wetried to allocate the dollars so thedonor States came up—as many as wecould—to 91 cents. Maybe one or twowere a fraction under, about 90.8 cents.But that’s what we tried to do underthis bill. There it is.

I am going to put into the RECORD atthis point a chart, in the battle of thecharts now, to show all of the Statesand how they fared under the 1991 billcompared to the underlying bill at 90percent.

I ask unanimous consent that thechart be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the chartwas ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1315March 4, 1998COMPARISON OF AVERAGE ANNUAL APPORTIONMENTS FOR VARIOUS SURFACE TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION PROPOSALS*

[In thousands of dollars]

State

ISTEAP.L. 102–240

Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi-ciency Act II

S. 1173

$ % %HTF $ % %

HTF

Alabama .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 332,076 1.815 0.8181 440,984 1.997 0.9000Alaska ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 212,284 1,160 4,5339 273,823 1.240 4.8445Arizona ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 256,005 1.399 0.8110 342,955 1.553 0.9000Arkansas .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 262,823 1.437 0.9944 293,697 1.330 0.9205California ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,670,616 9.133 0.9046 2,020,441 9.150 0.9063Colorado .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 200,876 1.098 0.8602 281,614 1.275 0.9989Connecticut ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 352,884 1.929 1.9283 379,110 1.717 1.7161Delaware .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 72,760 0.398 1.3807 103,788 0.470 1.6315Dist. of Col. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 92,104 0.504 3.9887 99,792 0.452 3.5799Florida ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 768,405 4.201 0.8210 1,016,800 4.605 0.9000Georgia ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 544,262 2.975 0.7638 774,165 3.506 0.9000Hawaii ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 126,495 0.692 2.6738 131,960 0.598 2.3106Idaho ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 125,018 0.683 1,2451 181,076 0.820 1.4939Illinois ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 683,258 3.735 1.0105 734,596 3.327 0.9000Indiana ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 408,059 2.231 0.8254 537,118 2.432 0.9000Iowa ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 220,676 1.206 1.0352 291,408 1.320 1.1324Kansas ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 210,018 1.148 0.9936 289,137 1.309 1.1331Kentucky .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 285.474 1.561 0.8097 383,071 1.735 0.9000Louisiana ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 264,040 1.443 0.8187 391,813 1.774 1.0064Maine ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 117,708 0.643 1.2310 126,672 0.574 1.0974Maryland .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 305,888 1.678 1.0020 332,751 1.507 0.9000Massachusetts .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 830,024 4.537 2.4582 392,393 1.777 0.9627Michigan .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 514,446 2.812 3.8023 696,628 3.155 0.9000Minnesota .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 280,668 1.534 1.0733 330,117 1.495 1.0458Mississippi ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 202,329 1.106 0.8345 278,518 1.261 0.9516Missouri ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 404,387 2.211 0.8553 525,443 2.379 0.9206Montana .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 161,661 0.884 1.8457 234,074 1.060 2.2139Nebraska ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 142,252 0.778 0.9603 185,431 0.840 1.0369Nevada ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 117,301 0.641 1.0027 161,202 0.730 1.1415New Hampshire ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 88,413 0.483 1.1842 114,829 0.520 1.2741New Jersey ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 521,026 2.848 1.0925 532,188 2.410 0.9244New Mexico ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 178,413 0.975 1.1226 231,866 1.050 1.2085New York ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,001,465 5.475 1.2562 1,126,672 5.102 1.1707North Carolina ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 478,873 2.618 0.8336 624,113 2.826 0.9000North Dakota ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 116,258 0.636 1.7645 161,202 0.730 2.0267Ohio ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 655,612 3.584 0.9369 760,300 3.443 0.9000Oklahoma .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 259,702 1.420 0.8421 347,988 1.576 0.9347Oregon ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 212,793 1.163 0.8934 284,368 1.288 0.9890Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 889,978 4.865 1.1697 836,244 3.787 0.9104Rhode Island ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 106,052 0.580 2.1089 128,078 0.580 2.1098South Carolina .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 234,009 1.279 0.7246 350,872 1.589 0.9000South Dakota ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 119,442 0.653 1,8165 172,243 0.780 2.1699Tennessee .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 365,565 1.998 0.7947 499,764 2.263 0.9000Texas ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,174,846 6.423 0.8396 1,520,201 6.884 0.9000Utah ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 130,046 0.711 0.8311 190,431 0.862 1.0082Vermont ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 79,486 0.435 1.4840 103,788 0.470 1.6052Virginia ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 414,607 2.267 0.7970 565,171 2.559 0.9000Washington ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 341,090 1.865 0.9506 405,928 1.838 0.9371West Virginia ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 209,819 1.147 1.4239 225,365 1.021 1.2669Wisconsin .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 352,373 1.926 0.9544 401,139 1.817 0.9000Wyoming .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 115,092 0.629 1.3513 167,827 0.760 1.6323Puerto Rico ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 81,874 0.448 N/A 101,332 0.459 N/A

Total ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18,292,630 100.0 .................... 22,082,486 100.0 ....................

*Federal Lands Highway Program funds are excluded from this comparison.

Mr. GRAMM. Will the distinguishedSenator yield?

Mr. WARNER. Yes.Mr. GRAMM. Listening to the Sen-

ator talk about eliminating the tre-mendous inequity in the 1991 bill, Ithink it would behoove every Memberof the Senate, when they are looking athow well off they are under your billwith our amendment, to look at howthey did in 1991 and see that each of theinequities that we chafe under are fardiminished under your bill and, ofcourse, knowing you represent Vir-ginia, and listening to the fact that onthe old highway bill you were sitting inthe back room in obscurity and silence,and now you speak with such greatclarity, it reminds me of the old sayingin the part of the country we are from,which is, ‘‘Save your Confederatemoney, boys, the South will riseagain.’’

Mr. WARNER. Before we invoke toomuch history here, it wasn’t just theSouth; it was Michigan and some otherStates that were in the donor category.But I am going to put this on the table.So, when the call up yonder is takenhere shortly on this amendment, youcan see exactly where you fared underthe 1991 bill compared to where you

fare under this bill. And it is abso-lutely striking.

Again, I am back to try to be helpfulamong the several States. There stands90 like a stone wall. We tried to getabove 90 as best we could for as manydonor States. And I think when thefinal charts come out, I can show youexactly where the donor States wentunder the recalculations that we getunder the amendment.

But I thank the Senator from Texas.It was very interesting to listen to hisrendition, which was accurate, or Iwould have interjected. It was accurateas to how these bills have been putthrough, through the years. And youcan fault the ARC. My State happensto be a beneficiary. Therefore, when Ispeak in support of ARC, I do so thinkthat Virginia is a beneficiary. It isproudly in the Appalachian corridor.But that program has been there since1965. It was enacted by the U.S. Senatein conjunction with the House. As amatter of fact, I think it was WilliamJennings Randolph who was thenchairman of the committee on which Iam proudly serving, and now under theleadership of Senator CHAFEE and Sen-ator BAUCUS. But that was at thattime. And it is a program that is unfin-

ished, as Senator BYRD pointed out,and hopefully this will take it almostto completion under this bill.

So I thank the Senator from Texas.Mr. President, if there are other Sen-

ators desiring to speak, I will yield thefloor.

Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Michigan.Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.First, let me assure my good friend

from Texas that I agree with most ofwhat he said, including the reference toSenator BYRD, as not only a red letterday for West Virginia when SenatorBYRD came to the Senate, but it was ared letter day for the Nation and forthe Senate when Senator BYRD came tothe Senate. And his effort on behalf ofthe Appalachian Regional Commissionis one that I think is a justified effort.

This is a national bill. I happen toagree with that. The Senator fromTexas made reference to the fact thatthis is a national bill. This is also acomplicated amendment. Those of uswho have been in the donor status fordecades want to understand. There areother Senators who would like to getthe data that hopefully now the Trans-portation Department is providing us.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1316 March 4, 1998But for those of us who have given tensof millions, totaling hundreds of mil-lions of dollars, as donor States, basedon formulas which cannot be justifiedin our eyes, we surely want to under-stand what these new formulas provide,and why.

I asked a question about the new den-sity program. It is a new program. Thisis not one that has been in the law forsome time like the ARC or the publiclands. This is a new program based ondensity. How are those rules divided?For those of us who have dense areas inour States, why is it that we are not onthe list while some others States areon the list? It may be a very good for-mula. It may be a fair formula, takenin context. But it is a new formula andone I surely want to understand sincewe have some dense areas in my State.

We have asked for some information.I think it is only fair that we get thisinformation. It is going to affect howat least some of us may vote on thisamendment. Speaking for myself, it isgoing to affect how I vote on thisamendment. In some sense, we are bet-ter off. There is a 91 percent assurance,we are told, that is built into the law.That is an improvement over the past.

However, there are some disadvan-tages to the approach as well. One ofthe disadvantages is that we now are

creating a very large uncertainty as tohow these added funds are going to bepaid for with other programs. We can-not solve that here. But we all have tounderstand that we are taking thatrisk. For those of us who are still in asignificant donor position, even thoughit has improved over the last ISTEA,we have to weigh the risk of losing im-portant discretionary programs againstthe improvements that we seek.

My good friend from Texas talkedabout throwing a lifeline to somebodywho is drowning. Is this a 10-foot life-line to somebody who is drowning 20feet offshore? That is the question wehave to analyze. Does someone in theposition of representing a donor Statevote for this because it is an improve-ment, with all the risks that are there?Or do we vote no on this because it stillembodies for 6 more years an unfair-ness that we perceive?

All I am urging upon my colleaguesis this: that surely fairness dictates, ifnot the outcome of formulas, we begiven information upon which we wishto rely in voting on an amendment ina bill. As I said, I may vote for thisamendment, I may vote for the bill,but we want information to help usmake that judgment. For those of uswho have been in a donor State posi-tion for decades, it seems to me that

this is a fair thing for us to ask and afair thing for us to expect.

I have no need to talk longer on this.I do have a need to get the informationwhich will permit me to make that as-sessment, which I have referred to.

I will suggest the absence of aquorum, unless there is somebody elsewho wishes to speak, in order that wecan now visit with the transportationpeople and obtain that informationthat we have been waiting for.

Mr. President, unless there is some-body else who wishes to address thebody at this point, I note the absenceof a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call theroll.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the chart thatI referred to of the Federal HighwayAdministration be printed in theRECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

1998–2003—ISTEA II ADDED FUNDS APPORTIONED BY NET ISTEA II PERCENTAGE[Dollars in thousands]

State

Average annual apportionmentsallocations for ARC & Density,

and bonus payments Dollars, Delta

Six-year percentages

S.1173, 6-yr Option, 6-yrS.1173, 6-yr Option, 6-yr Delta

Alabama ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 140,999 543,453 102,454 1.9970 2.0819 0.0850Alaska ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 273,832 312,932 39,099 1.2400 1.1988 ¥0.0412Arizona ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 342,967 404,698 61,731 1.5531 1.5504 ¥0.0027Arkansas ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 293,707 335,644 41,937 1.3300 1.2858 ¥0.0442California ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,020,393 2,372,013 351,621 9.1490 9.0871 ¥0.0619Colorado ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 281,603 321,812 40,209 1.2752 1.2329 ¥0.0423Connecticut ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 379,110 433,131 53,021 1.7167 1.6593 ¥0.0574Delaware ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 103,791 118,611 14,820 0.4700 0.4544 ¥0.0156Dist. of Col. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 99,792 114,042 14,250 0.4519 0.4369 ¥0.0150Florida ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,016,835 1,214,381 197,546 4,6046 4.6523 0.0477Georgia .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 774,191 914,267 140,076 3.5058 3.5025 ¥0.0033Hawaii ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 131,987 150,818 18,831 0.5977 0.5778 ¥0.0199Idaho ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 181,083 206,939 25,856 0.8200 0.7928 ¥0.0272Illinois ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 734,622 884,279 149,658 3.3266 3.3876 0.0610Indiana .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 537,137 633,817 96,680 2.4323 2.4281 ¥0.0042Iowa ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 291,411 333,019 41,608 1.3196 1.2758 ¥0.0438Kansas ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 289,146 330,434 41,288 1.3093 1.2659 ¥0.0435Kentucky ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 383,084 473,511 90,427 1.7347 1.8140 0.0793Louisiana ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 391,895 447,919 56,023 1.7746 1.7160 ¥0.0587Maine ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 126,698 144,810 18,112 0.5737 0.5548 ¥0.0190Maryland ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 332,762 414,089 81,327 1.5069 1.5864 0.0795Massachusetts .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 392,383 478,422 86,039 1.7768 1.8328 0.0560Michigan ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 696,652 822,044 125,391 3.1547 3.1492 ¥0.0054Minnesota .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 330,122 377,264 47,142 1.4949 1.4453 ¥0.0496Mississippi ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 278,522 322,152 43,630 1.2612 1.2342 ¥0.0271Missouri ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 525,467 600,512 75,045 2.3795 2.3005 ¥0.0789Montana ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 234,082 267,506 33,424 1.0600 1.0248 ¥0.0352Nebraska ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 185,430 211,902 26,472 0.8397 0.8118 ¥0.0279Nevada .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 161,208 184,226 23,018 0.7300 0.7058 ¥0.0242New Hampshire ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 114,833 131,229 16,396 0.5200 0.5027 ¥0.0173New Jersey ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 532,206 638,198 105,991 2.4100 2.4449 0.0349New Mexico ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 231,874 264,982 33,108 1.0500 1.0151 ¥0.0349New York ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,126,664 1,324,725 198,061 5.1019 5.0750 ¥0.0269North Carolina ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 624,134 744,883 120,748 2.8263 2.8536 0.0273North Dakota ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 161,208 184,226 23,018 0.7300 0.7058 ¥0.0242Ohio ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 760,326 916,776 156,450 3.4430 3.5121 0.0691Oklahoma .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 348,008 397,705 49,697 1,5759 1.5236 ¥0.0523Oregon ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 284,363 324,966 40,603 1.2877 1.2449 ¥0.0428Pennsylvania ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 836,421 1,054,347 217,926 3.7876 4.0392 0.2516Rhode Island ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 128,083 146,371 18,288 0.5800 0.5607 ¥0.0193South Carolina .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 350,884 413,990 63,107 1.5889 1.5860 ¥0.0029South Dakota ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 172,249 196,844 24,595 0.7800 0.7541 ¥0.0259Tennessee .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 499,781 615,535 115,754 2.2632 2.3581 0.0949Texas ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,520,253 1,793,886 273,632 6.8842 6.8723 ¥0.0119Utah ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 190,417 217,615 27,198 0.8623 0.8337 ¥0.0286Vermont ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 103,791 118,611 14,820 0.4700 0.4544 ¥0.0156Virginia .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 565,190 699,238 134,048 2.5594 2.6788 0.1194Washington ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 405,917 463,879 57,962 1.8381 1.7771 ¥0.0610West Virginia ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 225,413 305,472 80,059 1.0207 1.1703 0.1495Wisconsin .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 401,153 473,357 72,204 1.8165 1.8134 ¥0.0031Wyoming ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 167,833 191,797 23,964 0.7600 0.7348 ¥0.0252Puerto Rico ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 101,332 115,802 14,470 0.4589 0.4436 ¥0.0152

Total Apportioned ................................................................................................................................................................................. 22,083,248 26,103,083 4,019,835 100.0000 100.0000 ........................

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1317March 4, 1998Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest

the absence of a quorum.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.The legislative clerk proceeded to

call the roll.Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unan-

imous consent that the order for thequorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I take thefloor because we are presently in aquorum call and I thought it might bea good time for me not to overly im-pose on the Senate, since the Senate isnot having any debate at the momentanyway.

Mr. President, Sir Francis Bacon,who was the Lord Chancellor and whoultimately went to the Tower—hewasn’t executed, but he went to theTower. In 1621, he was impeached andhe was sent to the Tower for acceptingbribes, which he admitted. He saidthere are three things that make a na-tion great and prosperous: a fertilesoil, busy workshops, and easy convey-ance for men and goods from place toplace.

The Persians knew the importance ofgood roads, and had a network of roadsthat connected Susa and Ecbatana andSardis and Babylon and Ninevah andCarchemish. Cyrus the Great was theking of Anshan in 559 B.C., and he be-came the king of all Persia when he de-feated the Medes in 550. From 550 B.C.until 529 B.C. Cyrus ruled. Cyrus waskilled in a battle with the Massagetai,whose ruling queen was namedTomyris—Tomyris. It’s a very interest-ing story.

Herodotus, the author of history,tells us about it. I won’t repeat thatpart today. Cyrus was killed in 529 B.C.and Cambyses, his son—Cambyses II—ruled from 529 to 522 B.C. Then Dariusthe Great ruled from 522 B.C. to 485B.C.

Darius the Great—and Herodotustells us this—Darius became king uponthe neigh of a horse. He and some oth-ers joined in a conspiracy and assas-sinated an imposter to the throne.Upon the death of the imposter, theseseven conspirators, of which Dariuswas one, decided they had to make adecision as to who would rule. Theyhad a very interesting discussion aboutdemocracy and aristocracy and monar-chy. Herodotus tells us all about it. Itwould be interesting for Senators toread that, or to reread it in the eventthey have already done so.

In any event, they decided at sunrisethey would go out into the suburbs,these several conspirators, and thatthe first horse that neighed, the riderof that horse would be king of Persia.Darius subsequently told his groom,Oebares, about this and said, ‘‘This iswhat we have agreed upon. Do you haveany ideas?’’ Oebares said, ‘‘Yes, don’tyou be concerned about it. Your horsewill be the first to neigh.’’

That evening, Oebares took the fa-vorite mare of Darius’ horse into the

suburbs and tied her to a tree. He thentook Darius’ horse to where the marewas tethered, and, after a little while,returned with Darius’s horse into thecity for the night. The next morning,Darius and the other conspirators rodeout into the suburbs with their horses.As they came near to the area wherethe mare was still tethered, Darius’horse neighed. The other conspiratorsimmediately fell down upon the groundand proclaimed Darius to be the newking of all Persia. This is according toHerodotus.

Darius the Great built great roads.The Egyptians knew how to build goodroads, the Etruscans, theCarthaginians, but the Romans werethe truly great roadbuilders. Some ofthe roads and bridges that the Romansbuilt hundreds of years ago are still inuse. Many Senators who have visitedRome and have gone out to Tivoli—afew hours drive—have traveled the OldAppian Way, which was built by AppiusClaudius Caecus, beginning in 312 B.C.and extending from Rome to Capua andon to Brundisium. The Romans knewhow to build roads. They understoodthat in the center of the road there hadto be a crown so that the water woulddrain off on each side and that on eachside there had to be a ditch for the run-off water. These roads enabled theRoman legions to reach any part of thevast Roman empire. The Romans weregreat roadbuilders. And they builtbridges, some of which are still in usetoday.

Now, roads in our time are very im-portant and we have heard the expres-sion that America is a country onwheels. People are on wheels. They aregoing hither, thither and yon at alltimes.

The Department of Transportationhas indicated that the highways in allof the national system have deterio-rated and that only 39 percent of thehighways in the national system are in‘‘good’’ condition.

We now have this highway bill thathas come to the floor and we have al-ready discussed the amendment, how itcame about, and the meetings thattook place in the majority leader’s of-fice. I said before and I say again, themajority leader performed a tremen-dous service in inviting those who wereparticipants in the discussions, invit-ing them to his office and sitting withus each day, assisting us in reaching anagreement which now takes the form ofan amendment to the ISTEA II bill, theIntermodal Surface Transportation Ef-ficiency Act.

I came into these meetings, in a way,as someone out of the highways andhedges. I am not on the Environmentand Public Works Committee. I am noton the Budget Committee. The Envi-ronment and Public Works Committeehas jurisdiction over this legislation. Iam not on that committee. Mr. BAUCUSis the ranking member of that commit-tee. Mr. CHAFEE is the chairman. Mr.WARNER is a member of that commit-tee and is chairman of the Transpor-

tation Subcommittee of that commit-tee. Mr. DOMENICI is chairman of theBudget Committee, and Mr. GRAMM ofTexas is a member of the Budget Com-mittee. Those were the participants. Ibelieve Mr. D’AMATO sat in on one ortwo meetings. He is chairman of theBanking Committee, which has juris-diction over the mass transit moneys.That was not part of our amendment.

So, as I say, I was a stranger, in ef-fect, to these meetings, not being amember of the committees that weredirectly involved. But I got into thisthing because of Appalachia and be-cause the moneys that were being de-posited into the highway trust fundwere not being spent for highways. AndI talked with various Senators, uponone occasion with the Senator fromMontana, Mr. BAUCUS. I said, ‘‘We needhelp on Appalachian highways.’’ Hesaid, ‘‘Well, we need more money, weneed more money.’’ I said, ‘‘OK, let’sspend the money that is going into thehighway trust fund. That is what thepeople think it is being collected for;let’s spend it.’’

Mr. GRAMM of Texas had offered anamendment last year in the FinanceCommittee to transfer the 4.3-cent gastax, of which 3.45 cents is for highwaysand 0.85 cent, or a little less than 1penny per gallon, is for mass transit.

Mr. GRAMM had taken the bull by thehorns and had, in the Finance Commit-tee, offered an amendment, which wasadopted, to transfer the 4.3 cents gastax into the trust fund.

Senator GRAMM’s amendment waslater adopted by the Congress in theTaxpayer Relief Act. Congress adoptedthat proposal, and that money has beengoing into the highway trust fund butnot being spent.

For those two reasons, I invited my-self to the ‘‘party.’’ I came up with thisfine team of GRAMM, BAUCUS, and WAR-NER, and we all said, ‘‘Let’s spend thatmoney on highways and bridges,’’ andwe accordingly joined in sponsoring theamendment to do so.

That is how the Romans would havespent it. That is how the Etruscanswould have spent it. I think that ifDarius and the Persians were heretoday, they would say spend it onroads.

The four of us worked hard over a pe-riod of several weeks and months toget other cosponsors on the amend-ment. In the final analysis, we got 54cosponsors in all. The day we reachedan agreement on the amendment, mayI say to the Senator from Montana, Mr.BAUCUS, I received a call from a 55thSenator saying, ‘‘I want to get on thatamendment.’’

So it is never too late—never toolate, never too late—to go to the altar,never too late to get religion, never toolate to join in a good cause.

There were several Senators who saidthey did not want to cosponsor theamendment for various reasons, but ifit came to a vote, they would supportthe amendment. I hope that will be thecase.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1318 March 4, 1998This bill does not please everybody. I

have not talked about Appalachia be-cause I sense that there is a tendencyfor some people to think that I am onlyinterested in Appalachia. However, Ilistened to Senator GRAMM just a littlewhile ago make an excellent case forAppalachia.

Many times I have read Daniel Web-ster’s reply to Senator Hayne of SouthCarolina on Tuesday and Wednesday,January 26 and 27, 1830. It was on Janu-ary 26 and 27 that Webster took thefloor in the old Chamber just down thehall and made his magnificent reply toSenator Hayne of South Carolina.

Many of the schoolboys in this coun-try years ago memorized those speech-es by Webster. We used to do thosethings. Webster spoke from about 12pages of notes, one of the great, greatspeeches of all time, perhaps not thegreatest. Demosthenes in his orationon the Crown probably delivered thegreatest oration of all time. Cicero wasonce asked which of Demosthenes’speeches he liked best, and he said,‘‘The longest.’’

Webster, in his debate with Hayne,made my case concerning ‘‘a road overthe Alleghanies.’’ I have quoted him anumber of times over the years. I willnot do that today. The record has beenmade.

But I could not have said it betterthan did Senator GRAMM earlier today.

So much for Appalachia at this point.I came here today to speak on the over-all amendment. The adoption of thisamendment signals a critical milestonein restoring integrity to our highwaytrust fund and the trust of the travel-ing public—the trust of the travelingpublic in their Federal Government.You drive up to the gas tank and youbuy gasoline; you pay 18.3 cents onevery gallon of gasoline in Federaltax—18.3 cents.

The ranking member of the Environ-ment and Public Works Committee,who knows a lot about these things—Iam not supposed to know a lot aboutthis subject; don’t know a lot aboutanything probably, not as much as Iused to know on many subjects.

The Senator from Montana will cor-rect me if I make a misstep here. TheAmerican people when they drive up tothat gas pump see the little cylinderrunning round and round and round,and they know that the gas is flowingout of that nozzle into the tank oftheir car. As that cylinder rolls, thegas is pouring out of the nozzle. Intheir mind’s eye, they should also seethat as that cylinder rolls and the gasflows into the tank, there is alsomoney flowing from their purchaseinto the highway trust fund. Just asthe cylinder rolls, that money is flow-ing right into the highway trust fund.

So, there is 18.3 cents on the gallonthat they pay in Federal tax. As Sen-ator GRAMM has put it a number oftimes—the only part we are talkingabout here is the last 4.3 cents perma-nent gas tax that was added by theCongress—we are not talking about the

cattle that were rustled before the 4.3cents tax was enacted, we just wantyou to stop rustling the cattle.

In any event, we are talking aboutthe 4.3 cents. Actually, in our amend-ment, we are talking about the 3.45cents of that 4.3 cents, and we say thatthe people believe that that money isgoing into the construction and repairand maintenance of the highway sys-tem.

That trust fund was created in 1956. Iam probably the only Member of theSenate who was in Congress at thetime that trust fund was created. Thatwas during the Eisenhower administra-tion, when the interstate system ofhighways was created, all of which hasbeen completed. That trust fund iswhat we are talking about. The 4.3cents gas tax is going into the trustfund, and it should be spent on high-ways.

My colleagues and I who cosponsorthis amendment are simply saying let’skeep faith with the American people.

Senators GRAMM, BAUCUS, WARNERand I have toiled mightily over theselast several months to boost the re-sources available over the next 6 yearsto better meet the needs of our Na-tion’s transportation infrastructureand better spend the resources that arecollected from the public and depositedin the highway trust fund.

Over the last several years, spendingon our Nation’s highways has been re-stricted so severely that the highwayaccount of the highway trust fund nowshows an unspent balance of more than$12 billion, money that sits idle in thetrust fund, serving only the purpose ofoffsetting the Federal deficit at a timewhen our roadways and bridges are de-teriorating at a rapid rate and our con-stituents are required to sit in ever-worsening traffic jams.

This past summer, the Senate adopt-ed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997which, through the efforts of my col-league Senator GRAMM, took the 4.3cents gas tax initially levied for deficitreduction and moved that revenue intothe Highway Trust Fund. As I indi-cated earlier, of that 4.3 cents, 3.45cents was newly-deposited into thehighway account of the highway trustfund. However, the ISTEA II bill re-ported by the Environment and PublicWorks Committee, S. 1173, did not au-thorize one penny—one penny—of thatadditional revenue to be spent on ourNation’s highways and bridges. It wasat this time—part of this is a repeti-tion of what I have said earlier—it wasat this time that Senator GRAMM and Ijoined forces to mount a campaign toamend the committee bill so as toallow the spending of the resources ofthe 4.3 cents—spend it.

We were very pleased to be joined inour efforts by Senators BAUCUS andWARNER, respectively, the rankingmember and chairman of the SurfaceTransportation Subcommittee.

It has been a vigorous battle that wehave waged here over the past severalweeks trying to gain the minds and the

hearts of other Senators. Up to oneweek ago we had 54 cosponsors, andthen we got a 55th one. But we werefaced with very able adversaries inthese meetings in Senator LOTT’s of-fice—very able adversaries in SenatorDOMENICI and Senator CHAFEE.

One week ago, the majority leader,Mr. LOTT, invited us to his chambers inan effort to negotiate a compromise onthis issue. And I have commended andwill commend again the fair-mindedmanner in which the majority leaderpresided over those negotiations.

Senators BAUCUS and GRAMM andWARNER and I were not inclined to ne-gotiate a solution that in any wayabandoned our principle of authorizingthe spending of the revenue in thehighway account of the highway trustfund. And we made that point veryclear. Even so, there were other factorsthat appropriately were brought intothe discussion and merited the atten-tion of all participants.

Specifically, the Congressional Budg-et Office has reestimated the revenuestream of the 4.3 cents coming into thetrust fund, as well as the overall costof the committee-reported ISTEA bill.It also reestimated the total amount ofnew revenue coming into the trust fundover the life of the next highway bill,1998–2003. The changes reflected in thisamendment, in comparison to theoriginal Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warneramendment, largely reflect the appro-priate differences in CBO’s estimates.

The original Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment authorized $30.9billion, an amount equivalent to CBO’soriginal estimate of the revenue to thehighway account of the trust fund forthe period, fiscal years 1999–2003. CBOreestimated this revenue stream to bea level of $27.4 billion. This amendmentthat we are cosponsoring, that we arepresently considering today, totals$25.9 billion of the $27.4 billion that wehad asked for. So we came down from$27.4 billion to $25.9 billion. And, assuch, this amendment covers 94 percentof our initial goal.

Now, Mr. President, I have been inseveral high-level negotiations in mypublic career of 52 years. It is rare thatI am offered 94 percent of my originalposition and, as such, I, along withSenators GRAMM, BAUCUS and WARNER,embraced this final compromise. Andas was true under the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment, everyState—every State; every State; everyState—will see substantially increasedhighway funding authorized in thisbill.

Now, we brought money to the table.And I can understand how everybodynow wants a chunk of that money thatwe brought to the table. And theyshould have a chunk. I came to theSenate from the House of Representa-tives when there were 48 States in theUnion. And when I was sworn in onJanuary 3, 1959, the two Alaska Sen-ators were sworn in with me. Therewere 96 Senators, and those two AlaskaSenators that were sworn in with me

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1319March 4, 1998made 98 Senators. Later that year, thetwo new Hawaii Senators came in tomake a total of 100 Senators.

Well, 50 States in the United Statesare benefiting under this amendment. Iwanted to see the tide rise for everyState—the tide would rise and lift theboats for all the States. I wanted to seethat money taken out of the trust fundand spent for highways and bridges inall 50 States.

And I wanted the people of Appa-lachia, who have waited 32 years, to seetheir boats rise. I wanted to see a con-sistent, secure source of funding forthose Appalachian highways. Appa-lachia consists of 13 States, 200,000square miles, 22 million people in Ap-palachia. We are all concerned abouthelping the disadvantaged and minori-ties.

Well, here is a whole region of people,stretching from southwest New Yorkdown the spine of the Appalachiansinto northern Mississippi and Alabama,people who have been disadvantaged.Yes. We are also a minority in someways, a minority of people for whomthe general prosperity of the Nationhas not been fully enjoyed.

I was here when Congress passed thelegislation authorizing the Appalach-ian Development highway system in1965. For the entire Appalachian re-gion, 78 percent of the highways havebeen completed—78 percent. In WestVirginia, only 74 percent of the Appa-lachian highways have been completed.West Virginia is the only State amongthe 13 States that is wholly within Ap-palachia.

The people of Appalachia have beenpromised this a long time. It, too, is apart of the Nation.

So, out of the roughly $26 billion inour amendment, yes, $2.5 billion is forAppalachia. Not just for West Virginia,but the 13 States of Appalachia. I amproud of Appalachia, proud to be aWest Virginian. I asked for only asmall portion, $2.5 billion, for the 13Appalachian States, and all the rest ofthe money that I helped to bring to thetable can be spread throughout the 50States.

Every State—every State—will seesubstantially increased dollars as a re-sult of this amendment. Moreover, Sen-ator DOMENICI’s participation in thesenegotiations has given rise to an un-derstanding that additional outlayswill be found through the budget reso-lution to enable the AppropriationsCommittee to fund these additional au-thorizations.

I thank Senator DOMENICI, whobrought his considerable expertise onbudgetary matters to the negotiatingtable. Here is a little bit more aboutAppalachia. I have already spokenabout Appalachia, but I will read it. Itwon’t take long.

Regarding the Appalachian Develop-ment Highway System (ADHS), I haveworked long and hard to secure con-tract authority authorizations for theprogram in the new highway bill.

Let the States in Appalachia drawdown contract authority from a reli-

able source of funds and complete theirsystem, and in doing so, they, too, willlift all the books of the Nation.

In January of 1997, over a year ago, Ivisited the President in the Oval Officeand urged him to include contract au-thority authorizations for the Appa-lachian Highway System in his ISTEAII proposal. He expressed his supportfor my position and, subsequently, didinclude $2.19 billion in contract author-ity in his ISTEA II proposal.

Under the agreement that has beenreached, authorizations of contract au-thority for the Appalachian HighwaySystem will result in a total of $2.19billion in authorized contract author-ity over the six years, 1998–2003. This isthe same amount as requested by thePresident, a compromise which I amwilling to accept.

Let me emphasize that these fundswill not be earmarked in any way.They will be allocated to the states onthe basis of the mileage yet to be com-pleted and on the cost to complete thatmileage.

At markup the day before yesterday,the Environment and Public WorksCommittee utilized the new resourcesthat were agreed to in the negotiationsto satisfy the concerns of several othermembers from several other regions ofthe country. The amendment includesadditional authorizations for the donorstates, for parks and refuge roads, andfor a new ‘‘density’’ program.

As I say, each of us would like tohave more in this bill. I don’t watchTV very much. I am very selectiveabout what I watch on that magnifi-cent medium, but I do watch thesepresentations that come along fromtime to time that show us what is hap-pening out in animal country. I see agroup of animals chasing another ani-mal. I see the powerful lion, a herd oflions, and they are stalking, stalking,stalking a poor gazelle, a zebra, orsome other animal. Finally the lion—ah, the king of beasts!

I remember the old fable in which afox and a lion were having a discussion,and the fox said, ‘‘Look, I have manywhelps, and you have only one.’’ Thelion answered and said, ‘‘Yes I haveonly one, but that is a lion.’’

The lion closes in for the kill. Thelion attacks the victim, and then allthe other lions rush in and seize ashare of the kill. They want in on thekill. That is like it is sometimes in pol-itics.

I hope that with the adoption of thisamendment the Senate will move rap-idly to debate the remaining amend-ments to the bill so we can ensure theearliest possible opportunity to send acomprehensive 6-year transportationbill to the President. I remind my col-leagues that, including today, there are33 sessions remaining through May 1.Come the stroke of that clock, 12o’clock midnight on May 1, no Statecan obligate an additional dollar forhighways. We have to move rapidly toadopt a highway program. We must re-member that our colleagues in the

other body have yet to act on a 6-yearhighway bill. With the breaking of thislogjam, I hope our colleagues in theother body will move expeditiously topass a robust multiyear highway billthat meets or exceeds the levels au-thorized here today so that the author-izing committees can get to conferenceand send a bill to the President prior toMay 1.

Before I yield the floor, I want tothank sincerely our minority leader,Senator DASCHLE, who carefully mon-itored our progress and supported ourefforts. Again, I thank my principal co-sponsors, Senators GRAMM, BAUCUS andWARNER. We did not allow ourselves tobe divided in this effort, and the levelof funding in this amendment reflectsthe success we enjoy by remainingunited.

Finally, let me thank SenatorsDOMENICI and CHAFEE, two fine com-mittee chairmen, who are equally abletoday as allies as they were as adver-saries at an earlier time. This is an im-portant bill to you who are listeningand watching via television and radio.This is for you and it is for your chil-dren—your children.An old man traveling a lone highwayCame at evening, cold and grayTo a chasm vast and wide and steep,With waters rolling cold and deep.The old man crossed in the twilight dim;The sullen stream held no fears for him.But he turned, when he reached the other

side,And he built a bridge to span the tide.

‘‘Old man,’’ said a fellow pilgrim standingnear,

‘‘You are wasting your strength in buildinghere.

Your journey will end with the passing day,And you never again will travel this way.You have crossed the chasm deep and wide;Why build you a bridge at eventide?‘‘

The builder lifted his old gray head.‘‘Good friend, in the path I have come,’’ he

said,‘‘There followeth after me todayA youth whose feet must pass this way.This chasm, which was but naught to me,To that fair youth might a pitfall be.He, too, must cross in the twilight dim.Good friend, I am building this bridge for

him.’’

Mr. President, I yield the floor andsuggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.COATS). The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro-ceeded to call the roll.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.GREGG). Without objection, it is so or-dered.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Iknow the time is running out on thedebate on this major amendment, theamendment that is in the nature of asubstitute. But I wanted to take about5 minutes and express my views aboutit.

Frankly, it is common knowledgearound here that I was not in favor ofmoving quickly with the ISTEA bill.But clearly, we are ready now. We have

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1320 March 4, 1998had ample opportunity to discuss howmuch money is coming into the trustfund from the 4.3 cents, how much con-tract authority ought to be obligatedto use it up during the next 5 years.Part of that would be in 1998. So it is a6-year cycle. We arrived at a conclu-sion that is pretty clear and prettyclose to fair, in my opinion. In fact, Ithink it is about as well as we can do.

America needs highways. The U.S.Government has a lot of programs it isinvolved in that are not its responsibil-ity. But there is no question that it isthe responsibility of the Federal Gov-ernment to appropriately handle thegasoline tax money and to let ourStates build roads with it. So, in a veryreal sense, it is a very high priority,because for many things that we spendmoney on, we are not, in a sense, astrustees, obligated to spend money forthose things. And there are scores ofthem.

So I have come to the conclusionthat the dollar number of $173 billionas the total expenditure over the next5 years is a right number, consisting ofthe gasoline tax of 4.3 cents which usedto be in the general fund and is now inthe trust fund. I believe it is going tohelp our States in many ways, and Ithink in many parts of the UnitedStates it is going to provide some very,very healthy employment where it isneeded.

In addition, it seems to me that thechairman of the Committee on Envi-ronment and Public Works, with theable assistance of Senator BAUCUS asits ranking member, and the entirecommittee, all of whom have voted infavor of this amendment, have put to-gether a very good cross section of thekinds of things we need in these chang-ing times to carry out our responsibil-ity with reference to this gasolinemoney and get some national programsthat are necessary and put as much ofit as we can—91 percent minimum—toevery State, as I understand it, in re-turn for their dollars so that they canbegin this process of gearing up tobuild more roads. And they will take alittle while for that. This is a very bigincrease. They are not going to be ableto start next month with a maximumeffort in this program. It will take therest of this year and part of next yearbefore it is actually built up to themaximum.

But I think the American people,probably on more than anything elsewe are going to be voting on aroundhere—a broad cross section, not a littlespecial interest or a sliver of our soci-ety, but a very broad cross section—want more roads, if we have gasolinetax money to pay for them. And manyStates have put their own gasoline taxon it and are even doing more.

There is nothing more frustrating forthe people in my home State in a grow-ing city to find out—already when weare not even 1 million in population—that their roads are clogged, the free-ways are not working, and nothingcauses them to wonder more what is

going on in terms of planning and ap-propriate expenditure of resources. Weare about to say to them that I thinkthis is about as good as we can do, withall of the competing interests. This isabout as fair a program for all of thesovereign States and for the kind ofspecial highway research and the likethat is necessary.

So from my standpoint, I am on theamendment. I wasn’t on the originalByrd-Gramm amendment. We had somevery lengthy debates trying to arriveat the right dollar number—we did—that permit me in good conscience tosay that we have a good bill. There aresome very legitimate questions. And, ifthere were Senators here, they couldprobably ask me, with some degree ofdifficulty—and I would have some de-gree of difficulty answering them—thatis, since every year we put in an appro-priated amount for these highwaysthat comes within the annual cap thatwe must live with, the annual total do-mestic program spending, how are wegoing to add this to the entourage ofAmerican programs that exist and stillmeet that cap when we didn’t con-template this program?

Let me repeat, I see no difficultydoing that for the next year. We haveto find just a little over $1 billion toaccomplish that purpose in the firstyear. It grows a little bit, because con-tract authority is slow to spend, and itwill get bigger. In the fourth and fifthyear, it will be bigger, and then wellbeyond the caps that will be spent. Butcaps won’t be around in the last year ofthis expenditure. Nonetheless, I believethat since this is so vitally important,that we will find the wherewithal tomeet our caps—that is, meet our totaldomestic expenditures—and, yet, beable to fund this program.

If some Senator, insisting on know-ing precisely what program would beconstrained, cut back or eliminated inorder to pay for it, I wouldn’t be pre-pared to tell you that. But I am pre-pared to tell you that the Budget Com-mittee will have to do that. It willmake some recommendations on howwe pay for this program and maintainthe authenticity and variety of ourcaps where we believe that our bal-anced budget will be a balanced budget.I think we can get there.

I thank everybody who participated,and all who have joined today in thisamendment can say they were part ofthe original amendment which pushedthis forward. And I have no quibblewith them. There were a lot of Sen-ators on that—not quite as many asthe proponents would have liked. I hada little bit to do with that. I askedsome not to go on so that we couldmake an agreement. I hope they arenot feeling put upon, having waitedand now to be able to vote for this billand be on it. I don’t like to do that, butI sort of thought it would be better foreveryone if we slowed up a little bit.And it turned out well.

I yield the floor. I suggest the ab-sence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded tocall the roll.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, wespent a good deal of time this after-noon without any action on the floor,in quorum calls. We want very much toget on with this bill. People ought tobring over their amendments. If theyhave problems—as you know, we arejust dealing solely with the so-calledChafee amendment, which is the majoramendment dealing with the increasedfinancing for a whole series of pro-grams. I see no reason why we shouldnot go to a vote. No one has broughtover any amendments. Nobody is pro-posing anything here on the floor. Wehave worked out the ones who have. Wehave worked them out. Others say theyare going to get together. They may bealong. It is all very indefinite. I see noreason why at a quarter of 3 we shouldnot have a vote.

So, Mr. President, that is the tilt Ihave, because I want to get on withthis bill. There are other lengthyamendments after this. This is not thelast amendment by a long shot. Thereare other amendments that we have toconsider. We have one involving dis-advantaged business enterprises and awhole series of others. There are some100-plus amendments out there. Clear-ly, hopefully, they are not all going tobe brought up, but we ought to get onwith this. If people have problems,come on over here.

Several Senators addressed theChair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Montana.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I chimein with the remarks of the distin-guished Senator, chairman of our com-mittee, Senator CHAFEE, and encourageSenators who do have amendments onthis underlying amendment to come onover. I am going to encourage thechairman to go to a final vote on thisamendment in the next 25 minutes, bya quarter of 3. Senators have had morethan ample notice all day long, cer-tainly this afternoon, and having heardfrom the chairman and from myself, allthe offices around, they have about 25minutes to get here. That is more thanfair. I think it is, frankly, in fairnessto other Senators who want to get onwith this bill, move on with it—it’s infairness to them that we vote by aquarter to 3 on this final amendment.Unless Senators come to the floor withtheir amendments where we can workout some kind of time agreement insome expeditious manner, I reallystrongly encourage the chairman tovote at quarter to 3 if there are nopending amendments.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, to the Senator

from Oklahoma.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1321March 4, 1998Mr. INHOFE. I share the frustration

of the chairman and ranking member. Iadvise them I have an amendmentwhich is at the desk. Everything hasbeen worked out with the minority,majority, EPA. In a very few minutes Iwould like to set aside any business totake that up. It should be a very shortamendment and should be voice voted.

Mr. CHAFEE. I agree with the Sen-ator from Oklahoma. He has workedwith us, starting last night. I just fin-ished a conversation with the Adminis-trator of EPA. The Senator and the Ad-ministrator have worked out theirproblems. Certainly it is something Ican accept, and I will have an oppor-tunity to discuss it with the rankingmember, and I am confident he willfind it acceptable, too. That’s what wewant to do. Let’s get on with thesethings. The Senator from Oklahomahas been over here.

I just want to say to the Senatorfrom Oklahoma, as soon as we get hisworked out then we will move to setaside this and see if we can’t dispose ofhis amendment quickly.

The Senator from Florida?Mr. MACK. I just want to address

myself to comments that were made bySenator LEVIN a little earlier with re-spect to, frankly, those of us who areconsidered donor States. We are stilllooking for more information. I under-stand from your point of view we haveall the information that there is tohave, and we ought to have sufficientdata to make decisions about where weare on this amendment.

I would say to the distinguished Sen-ator that last evening several of us metwith our staffs, going over, askingquestions about what the impact of theamendment would be to our individualStates. There was no clarity last night.We called and asked for a meeting thismorning with individuals from thehighway department, to come downand go over the data with us. They didso this morning. We asked for addi-tional information. They are workingon getting that information back to us.We hope sometime this afternoon thatinformation would be available to us.We will then be in a better position toevaluate just exactly where we are.

I must say, maybe it is because I amdealing from a position of real extremefrustration, representing a State thatwe believe under the old proposal hadabout 77 cents back for what we hadcontributed in the past, in the lastyear. I remember the debates and thediscussions that we had 5 years ago,kind of saying, ‘‘This is never going tohappen to us again,’’ that is being adonor State to the extent that we havebeen.

So we are concerned and we do notfeel that we have enough data to makea decision. We think it is unfair to say,let’s just go ahead and move thisamendment at this time. We do nothave, and have not had, the time thatyou all have had over these last severalmonths to be working on this bill. Wehave this opportunity now to try to

evaluate what the amendment does. Weare making a reasonable request. Weare not trying to delay the bill. So, Iask the amendment be set aside untilwe have an opportunity to get this in-formation and we can then discuss howwe proceed.

Mr. CHAFEE. I say to the distin-guished Senator from Florida, I wouldbe very reluctant to set this aside. Ithas been my experience in this place,once you set it aside, if we had 10 prob-lems now, we will have 30 problems bytomorrow as everybody’s staff gins upmore problems in response to the legis-lation before us.

I don’t know——Mr. BAUCUS. Will the chairman

yield?Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.Mr. BAUCUS. Maybe one solution

here—there is no perfect solution.Maybe one solution might be to voteon this amendment, and Senators whohave concerns about this amendmentcan state them, that is, they are votingfor it kind of on reservation or some-thing like that, pending informationthat they get, and reserve the oppor-tunity to offer amendments at a latertime. I say that because this amend-ment, I suspect, is going to pass.Therefore, that will have passed and wewill be done with it. Then we can stilladdress the concerns that the Senatorfrom Florida may or may not have, andhaving passed this amendment doesn’tput him in a disadvantageous position.

Mr. WARNER. I think in our discus-sions you intended a voice vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. A voice vote would bemore helpful to the Senators who donot know.

Mr. WARNER. I think the seniormanagers of the bill would be willingto accept that.

Mr. CHAFEE. You guessed it right.Mr. WARNER. Then the bill is open

for amendments throughout the courseof further deliberations.

Mr. MACK. Again, I appreciate theresponse. I understand. Each of us hashad the opportunity to manage a bill.We know how we want to keep that billmoving. The longer it lays out there,the more difficulties it attracts. So Iunderstand the concerns of the man-agers.

Give us a few moments, those of uswho are the donor States, an oppor-tunity to take a look at this and seehow we might proceed.

Mr. CHAFEE. If the distinguishedSenator from Florida is talking abouta few moments, he is stirring my heart.

Mr. MACK. We might have a several-hour debate on what the definition of‘‘moment’’ is.

Mr. CHAFEE. We all know what‘‘moment’’ means. If you want severalmoments, you go to it. As of now, I’msaying everybody come on over herewith their amendments, all individualscome with their amendments, andhopefully we would like to have a voteby a quarter of 3. But because of theurging of the Senator from Florida, afew moments will get us along for awhile.

Please, all I would say to the Senatorfrom Florida, a few moments reallydoesn’t mean a meeting at 6 o’clock to-night.

Mr. MACK. I understand.Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from

Rhode Island yield for a moment?Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.Mr. LEVIN. I think what the Senator

from Florida is saying—I concur—is wewould be able in a few moments toknow whether the suggestion of theSenator from Montana would be ac-ceptable to us, and that could literallybe in a few moments, and then wecould have a voice vote promptly, andthen, with the understanding set forthand the suggestions set forth by theSenator from Montana, be able to con-sider the data which we expect later ontoday at a later time.

Mr. CHAFEE. You have a few mo-ments. Come on back and see us in afew moments. Let’s all agree that a fewmoments isn’t very long.

Mr. BAUCUS. I would like to, if Icould, quantify a little bit what a fewmoments means. Can the Senators tellus that a few moments means no morethan 15 minutes?

Mr. MACK. We might debate thisissue for an hour or two——

Mr. BAUCUS. At least let us know in15 minutes whether you can accept.

Mr. MACK. It was indicated a littleearlier that there would be maybe 25minutes. I think our definition of ‘‘mo-ment’’ would fit within that range.

Mr. BAUCUS. We have used up about10 minutes of it.

Mr. CHAFEE. All right.Mr. BAUCUS. OK; 25. Mr. President, I

suggest the absence of a quorum.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.The legislative clerk proceeded to

call the roll.Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, as I pre-viously announced, we want to get onwith this legislation. It is my intentionthat at 3 o’clock, I will ask unanimousconsent that amendment No. 1684 beagreed to, the motion to reconsider belaid upon the table, and the amend-ment be considered as original text forthe purpose of further amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that Sen-ators WYDEN and SESSIONS be added ascosponsors of this amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it isthe intention to seek a voice vote; wewant to make that clear.

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, it will be my in-tention, as I say, at 3 o’clock to pro-ceed with a voice vote on the amend-ment.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator fromRhode Island yield?

Mr. CHAFEE. In the interim, if Sen-ators wish to talk on this subject orothers, I will reserve the time at 3

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1322 March 4, 1998o’clock to proceed with this unanimousconsent request.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator fromRhode Island yield?

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.Mr. LEVIN. I want to say to the Sen-

ator that this is acceptable to this Sen-ator as a way of proceeding, so we canpreserve our rights after we get thematerial we have been waiting for todetermine whether or not we wish atthat time to offer amendments relatingto the subject we discussed this morn-ing. I thank my good friend fromRhode Island.

Mr. CHAFEE. We, obviously, hopethe Senator will not have an amend-ment, but should he have one, we shallbe delighted to receive it.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if Imight, Senator MACK wishes to associ-ate himself with the remarks of theSenator from Michigan. He was veryactive in the discussions on this, aswas the Senator from Michigan. So wethank them as a group speaking on be-half of the donor States. I have beenone of the major spokesmen for donorStates, and I am glad to have the as-sistance of my colleagues.

Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Montana.Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank

the Senators on the floor who are con-cerned about protecting their rights,and I thank them for being so accom-modating. We have worked out an ar-rangement where we can move forwardwith this bill and, yet, they can stillprotect their rights and offer amend-ments if they so choose. I thank them.

It is my understanding, Mr. Presi-dent, the Senator from Michigan wouldlike to have a colloquy.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wouldlike to have a colloquy, if my goodfriend from Montana is able to do it atthis time.

Is it the intent of this bill, assumingthis amendment is adopted, to returnto the States 91 percent of their shareof contributions to the trust fund or 91cents of each gas tax dollar sent to thehighway trust fund?

Mr. BAUCUS. I say to my friend, ofthe amounts apportioned to the States,the goal is to give States 91 percent oftheir percent share of contributions tothe highway trust fund.

Mr. LEVIN. So, it is not true, then,because of various administrative, re-search and special funds set aside andnot distributed to all the States, thatthe total dollars returned to each Statewould be less than 91 percent of its con-tributions to the highway trust fundhighway account?

Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is correct.However, let me make an importantpoint. In the underlying bill, 10 percentof the money is used for things such asresearch, emergency relief for naturaldisasters and administrative costs.That 10 percent is not counted in thecalculation of the State’s share. But

this is not a new concept. These are na-tional programs. It is the approachthat has been taken in the previousISTEA program as well. It is not new.In the amendment, I say to the Sen-ator, we have given Michigan actuallya better deal.

In this amendment, we calculate thedollars needed to give you a 91-percentshare. This calculation, for the firsttime, includes other programs. In-cluded in the calculation under theamendment are the additional amountsapportioned to the States, that is $18.9billion, plus the $1.8 billion in the newdensity program and the $1.89 billion inthe Appalachian highway program. Theresult is that 91 percent is now cal-culated on a larger universe of fundsthan in the underlying bill.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend. Justto be clear, the 91-percent share doesnot assure a minimum 91 cents back oneach dollar sent to the trust fund; interms of cents on the dollar guaran-teed, a 91-percent share is going to beless for each State, as it always hasbeen, than 91 cents on the dollar.

Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is correct.Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend

and yield the floor.Mr. BAUCUS. I suggest the absence

of a quorum.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. COL-

LINS). The clerk will call the roll.The legislative clerk proceeded to

call the roll.Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I

ask unanimous consent that the orderfor the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, Iask unanimous consent that theamendment No. 1684 be laid aside until4:10, at which time it would then comeup under the prior arrangement thatwe had.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, theSenator from Oklahoma has an amend-ment.

Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Oklahoma is recognized.AMENDMENT NO. 1687

(Purpose: To ensure that the States have thenecessary flexibility to implement the newstandards for ozone and particulate mat-ter)Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I

have an amendment at the desk, and Iask for its consideration.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:.

The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. INHOFE),for himself and Mr. BREAUX, proposes anamendment numbered 1687.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I askunanimous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:At the end of the bill, add the following:TITLE .—OZONE AND PARTICULATE

MATTER STANDARDSFINDINGS AND PURPOSES

SECTION 1. (a) The Congress finds that—

(1) There is a lack of air quality monitor-ing data for fine particle levels, measured asPM2.5, in the United States and the Statesshould receive full funding for the monitor-ing efforts;

(2) Such data would provide a basis for des-ignating areas as attainment or nonattain-ment for any PM2.5 national ambient airquality standards pursuant to the standardspromulgated in July 1997;

(3) The President of the United States di-rected the Administrator in a memorandumdated July 16, 1997, to complete the nextperiodic review of the particulate matter na-tional ambient air quality standards by July2002 in order to determine ‘‘whether to reviseor maintain the standards’’;

(4) The Administrator has stated thatthree years of air quality monitoring datafor fine particle levels, measured as PM2.5

and performed in accordance with any appli-cable federal reference methods, is appro-priate for designating areas as attainment ornonattainment pursuant to the July 1997promulgated standards; and

(5) The Administrator has acknowledgedthat in drawing boundaries for attainmentand nonattainment areas for the July 1997ozone national air quality standards, Gov-ernors would benefit from considering imple-mentation guidance from EPA on drawingarea boundaries;

(b) The purposes of this title are—(1) To ensure that three years of air qual-

ity monitoring data regarding fine particlelevels are gathered for use in the determina-tion of area attainment or nonattainmentdesignations respecting any PM2.5 nationalambient air quality standards;

(2) To ensure that the Governors have ade-quate time to consider implementation guid-ance from EPA on drawing area boundariesprior to submitting area designations re-specting the July 1997 ozone national ambi-ent air quality standards;

(3) To ensure that implementation of theJuly 1997 revisions of the ambient air qualitystandards are consistent with the purposes ofthe President’s Implementation Memoran-dum dated July 16, 1997.

PARTICULATE MATTER MONITORING PROGRAM

SEC. 2. (a) Through grants under section103 of the Clean Air Act the Administrator ofthe Environmental Protection Agency shalluse appropriated funds no later than fiscal2000 to fund one hundred percent of the costof the establishment, purchase, operationand maintenance of a PM2.5 monitoring net-work necessary to implement the nationalambient air quality standards for PM2.5

under section 109 of the Clean Air Act. Thisimplementation shall not result in a diver-sion or reprogramming of funds from otherFederal, State or local Clean Air Act activi-ties. Any funds previously diverted or repro-grammed from section 105 Clean Air Actgrants for PM2.5 monitors must be restoredto State or local air programs in fiscal year1999.

(b) EPA and the States shall ensure thatthe national network (designated in section2(a)) which consists of the PM2.5 monitorsnecessary to implement the national ambi-ent air quality standards is established byDecember 31, 1999.

(c) The Governors shall be required to sub-mit designations for each area following pro-mulgation of the July 1997 PM2.5 nationalambient air quality standard within one yearafter receipt of three years of air qualitymonitoring data performed in accordancewith any applicable federal reference meth-ods for the relevant areas. Only data fromthe monitoring network designated in sec-tion 2(a) and other federal reference methodPM2.5 monitors shall be considered for suchdesignations. In reviewing the State Imple-mentation Plans the Administrator shall

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1323March 4, 1998consider all relevant monitoring data re-garding transport of PM2.5.

(d) The Administrator shall promulgatedesignations of nonattainment areas no laterthan one year after the initial designationsrequired under paragraph 2(c) are required tobe submitted. Notwithstanding the previoussentence, the Administrator shall promul-gate such designations not later than Dec.31, 2005.

(e) The Administrator shall conduct a fieldstudy of the ability of the PM2.5 Federal Ref-erence Method to differentiate those par-ticles that are larger than 2.5 micrograms indiameter. This study shall be completed andprovided to Congress no later than two yearsfrom the date of enactment of this legisla-tion.

OZONE DESIGNATION REQUIREMENTS

SEC. 3. (a) the Governors shall be requiredto submit designations of nonattainmentareas within two years following the promul-gation of the July 1997 ozone national ambi-ent air quality standards.

(b) The Administrator shall promulgatefinal designations no later than one yearafter the designations required under para-graph 3(a) are required to be submitted.

ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 4. Nothing in sections 1–3 above shallbe construed by the Administrator of Envi-ronmental Protection Agency or any court,State, or person to affect any pending litiga-tion or to be a ratification of the ozone orPM2.5 standards.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, wehave had an amendment and actuallyhave had a bill to address a problemthat many of us are concerned withhaving to do with a change that wasproposed by the Administrator of theEPA in November 2 years ago. Thismade dramatic changes in the stand-ards for particulate matter and forozone.

We held extensive hearings. As chair-man of the Clean Air Subcommittee,we had seven hearings on this bill. Ithas become very controversial. The Ad-ministrator of the EPA has set thestandards. After having gone throughthe process of the hearings and theprocess of the comment periods, it isnow set. However, in the memorandumof implementation by the President, wehave a time guideline for the imple-mentation of these standards. Let merepeat that. The standards are set inboth particulate matter and in ozonebut not yet implemented. The imple-mentation period provides for certainperiods of time for establishing a PMmonitoring network for collecting datafor Governors to recommend areas ofdesignation for the EPA to designatenew nonattainment areas, and then forthe States to submit State implemen-tation plans. That would be true onboth ozone and particulate matter.

What we are attempting to do withthis bill is to take these guidelines tomake sure that they are in order andthat everyone has ample time to carryout what has to be done in order to im-plement these standards. That wouldrequire a period of time.

So what I have done with this amend-ment is take the memorandum of im-plementation from President Clintonand put that down into periods of timeas he recommends, and we are adding

that as an amendment. Obviously, thisis germane to this bill because if we areto find ourselves out of attainment, itwould dramatically affect the abilityof the States to be able to have theirtransportation funds.

So with the following three excep-tions, this amendment only puts intothe bill the time guidelines that wehave all agreed to. It has been signedoff on by the minority and the major-ity and the EPA.

The first one is an area that does notaffect time lines. It has to do with fullyfunding. This is a conscientious con-cern. However, the States have talkedto us through the Governors associa-tions, U.S. Conference of Mayors, thecounties, and the rest of them sayingthat what they don’t want to have isan unfunded mandate whereby theywould have all of these obligations tomonitor the PM and go through all ofthis and not have it funded. This por-tion of the amendment, section (2)(a),requires that the EPA absorb all ofthese costs.

The next area is one that meets aproblem that mostly concerns the agri-cultural community throughout Amer-ica; that is, their concern with howthey will be treated. Section 2(e) saysthat this study would take place thatwould address the concerns of farmerswho believe that they will be targetedfor PM 2.5. And we talked about PM 2.5.We are talking about 2.5 micrograms asopposed to the current 10 and emissionslarger than 2.5.

This is their concern. Everyone hasagreed that this is a legitimate concernthat the farmers of America have, andwe are accommodating them.

The last section that does not affectjust the timeline is section 4 where itsays:

Nothing in section 1–3 above shall be con-strued by the Administrator of the Environ-mental Protection Agency or any court,State, or person to affect any pending legis-lation.

There is some pending legislation.I would like to add that I had a con-

versation with Administrator Browner,and we have had many nice conversa-tions. While we have occasionally dis-agreed philosophically on some things,I did agree with her that if this amend-ment passes and survives the con-ference, passes and then is signed intolaw, I have no intention of bringing upany other legislation or amendmentsaffecting the national ambient airquality standards; that is, barring any-thing totally unforeseen. I can’t imag-ine what that would be.

Mr. President, my amendment todayaddresses the EPA’s revised Particu-late Matter and Ozone National Ambi-ent Air Quality Standards. As youknow, I have been a vocal critic of theEPA’s revised Particulate Matter andOzone National Ambient Air QualityStandards. My subcommittee has heldextensive hearings on both standards,and I am convinced, based on therecord developed in those hearings,that those standards are not needed to

protect the health of our citizens, orour environment, and that the imple-mentation of these standards will im-pose huge costs on the country, thatare completely unjustified. For thesereasons, I have sponsored legislationthat would require EPA to reconsiderthese standards, before they are imple-mented.

I rise today to pursue a narrower ob-jective. The administration has an-nounced an implementation plan forboth standards. However, a number ofconcerns have been raised about EPA’sability to implement this plan underthe Clean Air Act. One key concern hasbeen whether EPA can hold off on des-ignation areas as not meeting the newstandards—i.e., as nonattainmentareas.

With regard to PM 2.5 (the new Par-ticulate Matter standard), three yearsof federal reference method monitoringdata are necessary to designate areas,and a monitoring network—funded byEPA, not the states—needs to be put inplace to generate these data.

With regard to the ozone standard,EPA needs to develop guidance on non-attainment boundaries, before the des-ignation process can even begin. EPAsays that this guidance will be avail-able in 1999, but, the states still mustsubmit their recommended designa-tions to EPA this July unless some-thing is done.

The amendment I have offered is de-signed to address these concerns bygiving the Agency clear authority toproceed with the schedule announcedby the President last July. I am offer-ing it because I believe it would be un-acceptable for the Congress to allow asituation to develop where uncertaintyabout EPA’s legal authority could re-sult in confusion and chaos.

I caution, however, that this legisla-tion does not affirm the standards.Whether those standards are lawful,appropriate, and necessary is still anopen question that is being consideredby the Courts. We can’t realisticallyexpect this question to be answered ina year or more. This legislation is de-signed to assure that the agency hasclear authority to proceed with its im-plementation schedule, while the veryimportant questions about the legit-imacy of these standards are still de-bated.

This legislation addresses only thetiming of attainment designationunder the President’s implementationplan for these standards. EPA recentlyproposed to order the states to developplans, that, among other things, wouldrequire reductions in inter-state emis-sions that might be contributing toexceedances of the 8-hour ozone stand-ard. A number of legal and factual ob-jections to this proposal have beenraised by states, industry, and others.Since this is only a proposal, I have notaddressed in this legislation EPA’s au-thority under the Act to require anyreductions before state plans are devel-oped after areas have been designated.

I thank very much Senator BAUCUS,Senator CHAFEE, and Administrator

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1324 March 4, 1998Browner, as well as some of the staff:Chris Hessler, Jimmie Powell, withwhom I worked closely, Barbara Rob-erts, and Tom Sliter. They have beenvery cooperative and very helpful inbringing this to the point where we aretoday.

At this point I yield for questions.Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I

rise in support of the amendmentwhich has been offered by my colleaguewho is the chairman of the Clean AirSubcommittee of the EnvironmentCommittee. He has identified some im-portant concerns about the implemen-tation of the recently revised so-calledNational Ambient Air Quality Stand-ards.

This is a very complicated area. TheSenator from Oklahoma has invested agood deal of time and energy studyingthis and educating our committeeabout it. His subcommittee, as he men-tioned, held seven hearings on the sub-ject here in Washington and another inOklahoma. He and his staff led thesometimes difficult negotiations onthis amendment to, as he noted, a suc-cessful conclusion.

I want to applaud the Senator fromOklahoma for his efforts both on thisamendment and on the larger issue ofthe NAAQs rule. He has invested agreat deal of energy and time in study-ing this complicated matter and edu-cating the Environment and PublicWorks Committee about it. His sub-committee held seven hearings on theissue here in Washington, and anotherin Oklahoma. He and his staff led thesometimes difficult negotiations onthis amendment to a successful conclu-sion. His efforts and patience haveserved us all well because the amend-ment before us will improve the imple-mentation of the NAAQs.

This amendment seeks to ensure thatcommitments made last year abouthow the standards would be imple-mented are upheld. The EnvironmentalProtection Agency said it would cover100 percent of the costs associated withinstalling and operating the new mon-itors needed to measure fine particu-late matter. Having made the promise,the federal government must ensurethat it is kept. This amendment woulddo that.

The amendment would also requirethree years of data collection beforeplanning starts for additional pollutioncontrols. The EPA has decided that itneeds three years of data to ensurethat chronic sources of particulatematter are accurately identified. Com-plete data will enable states to developappropriate control strategies. Reduc-ing PM 2.5 is important to the publichealth but we must be sure that newcontrols are used where they are need-ed. Without sufficient monitoring data,we will not be certain the right sourcesare targeted for controls, and we maynot achieve the improved air quality orthe health benefits that we are seek-ing.

Along the same lines, we need to besure we can chemically distinguish one

type of particulate from another. Thatis the only way State air officials willknow if they need to reduce pollutionfrom wood stoves or power plants. Thisamendment requires a field study ofthe monitors to ensure that they areserving this purpose effectively.

The EPA promised the States thatthey would have both the resources andthe information necessary to imple-ment the NAAQs rule. Through thisamendment, the Senator from Okla-homa is attempting to enforce thosecommitments.

All of the goals of this amendmentare worthy and reasonable and I urgeeveryone to support it.

Essentially what the amendmentdoes is the following: There have to bemonitors set up to measure particulatematter and ozone levels and other mat-ter. The question is, Who is going topay for these monitors? Is it going tobe the Federal Government? The Ad-ministrator indicated it would be theFederal Government, but there seemsto be some backing off from that.

The amendment of the Senator fromOklahoma says that the Environ-mental Protection Agency would cover100 percent of the costs of installation.You have to install these things andoperate them. You have to go out andcheck these new monitors to measurethe fine particulate matter.

That is the first thing the Senatorhas accomplished in this amendment.That is a very welcome provision be-cause the State budgets are havingtrouble keeping up with the require-ments of the Clean Air Act.

The other part of his amendmentwould codify the requirement underthe National Ambient Air QualityStandards. That calls for 3 years ofdata collection before there can be adesignation of nonattainment for thisparticular part of so-called particulatematter. So, the EPA has decided that 3years of data are necessary to ensurethat chronic sources of particulatematter are accurately identified. As Iunderstand the amendment of the Sen-ator, it requires 3 years. Am I correct?

Mr. INHOFE. That is correct.Mr. CHAFEE. So, this is a difficult

area. The assurance that the Senatorfrom Oklahoma has put in, dealingwith both the period and also who isgoing to pay for these monitors, is agood one. We are glad to accept it onthis side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Montana is recognized.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, thisis a happy day, because it was not toolong ago here that, after the EPA an-nounced new standards for ozone andsmall particulates, there was going tobe a huge uproar in the Senate andthere would be a big battle over wheth-er or not the EPA should be allowed togo ahead with these new standards.

Frankly, however, as Senators havelooked at this issue—and I take my hatoff to the Senator from Oklahoma,Senator INHOFE, who has come up withthis amendment—the effect of this

amendment is not to delay those stand-ards and not to in any way impedethose standards, but rather set up aprocedure which helps, frankly, assurethe process will continue on a fairbasis; namely, that the monitoringcosts—and they will be quite extensive;that is monitoring the air in variousparts of the country, particularly non-attainment areas—will be paid for bythe Environmental Protection Agency.That is not by States. The States willbe fully reimbursed for their monitor-ing costs. So that helps establish asolid program because we know wherethe money is going to come from and itwill be fully paid for.

A second major change here, at leasta clarification, is that States will notbe faced with new nonattainment des-ignations under the Clean Air Act forPM 2.5—that is the small particu-lates—without 3 years of monitoringdata. That at least makes sense, thatwe have 3 years of monitoring data. Infact, the EPA-proposed standard wasbased on a 3-year average anyway. Soas a practical matter, this is a measurewhich will help assure that the stand-ards will be addressed fairly, com-prehensively, and also in a timely man-ner. So this version of this amendment,unlike earlier versions that had beenfiled, does not delay implementation ofthe new air quality standards.

This version also has no language init which revokes the standards. Therewas some concern that these standardsmight be revoked. That is not in here.Also, there is no provision that pro-poses a moratorium on EPA.

In short, the new standards will goforward as envisioned. I might say toSenators, this is a long, involved proc-ess. It could take 10, 12 years beforesome of these standards actually evergo into effect, if they ever do. If theydo go into effect, they are at the behestof and designation of States. That is,States, under what is called State im-plementation plans, would designatewhat actions various entities, whetherthey are powerplants or automobiles orwhat not, would have to do in order toqualify. And that would take a longtime.

So I finish where I began. This is ahappy day. This is a resolution. It is acompromise. And I think it is going tohelp people be more assured, on a moresolid, fair basis, that our air will becleaner in those parts of the countrywhere it needs to be cleaned up. I thinkit is a good amendment, and I thankthe Senator very much for his amend-ment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is therefurther debate? The Senator fromRhode Island.

Mr. CHAFEE. I would like to extendthe thanks of all of us to the Senatorfrom Oklahoma, Senator INHOFE, be-cause he was willing to compromise. Hetalked with the Administrator of EPA,Ms. Browner, several times. I did, too.He was willing to give. He did not de-mand it only be his way. It was a suc-cessful compromise. I congratulate theSenator.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1325March 4, 1998Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator

from Rhode Island. I further ask unani-mous consent that Senator JEFF SES-SIONS be added as an original cospon-sor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if Imay, I would like to briefly inquirewith my colleague how his amendmentwill affect areas of my state.

It is my understanding that thisamendment will not in any way inter-fere with or delay efforts currently un-derway by EPA and various states toaddress the issue of pollution trans-ported across state lines. Is that cor-rect?

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, that is correct.The amendment is simply designed toprovide greater certainty for states,small businesses and consumers regard-ing control strategies for the newozone and particulate matter stand-ards.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, thisamendment codifies a time line for theAdministrator to promulgate final des-ignations under the new ozone and PMstandards. Is it the Senator’s intentionthat areas in violation because theyare heavily impacted by dirty air fromother states should be ‘‘held harmless’’in the interim period or not be penal-ized with more air-pollution controlsby being ‘‘bumped up’’ to a higher non-attainment status?

Mr. INHOFE. That is my intention.Should this not be the case, we wouldhave to revisit this issue legislatively.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, Irise in support of the amendment of-fered by my colleague from Oklahoma,Senator INHOFE.

The Senator’s amendment will en-sure that federal funding is available toconstruct and operate a nationwidemonitoring system for fine particles,and it will allow future designation de-cisions to be based on three completeyears of monitoring data. The amend-ment would also provide Governorswith two years to consider regionaltransport issues prior to submittingnew ozone redesignations.

This amendment will not, as someopponents may contend, roll back ordelay the new standards. On the con-trary, the amendment does not changethe new standards and adheres to thePresident’s own time table for achiev-ing them. In fact, this amendment mayactually strengthen the new standardsby establishing a legally certain sched-ule for putting them into place. More-over, this amendment is critically im-portant because it will make sure thatfuture Clean Air Act designations willbe based on actual air quality datarather than guesswork and extrapo-lation. In view of the anticipated costsassociated with meeting the new stand-ards, we must take this very simplestep.

Last summer, when the President an-nounced new air quality standards forsoot and smog, he also promised thatthe Federal Government would work

closely with states and local commu-nities to implement these standards ina fair, flexible and cost-effective man-ner. For many communities in Penn-sylvania, the imposition of new stand-ards has been a very bitter pill to swal-low, but the promised implementationplan has offered a spoonful of sugar tohelp the medicine go down. While thePresident’s pledge has been appre-ciated, it is my view that this amend-ment is necessary in order to givestates and communities reassurancethat the promised implementation planwill be followed. Thank you, and I urgethe adoption of this amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ampleased to be a cosponsor of thisamendment, and I wish to thank mycolleague from Oklahoma, Mr. INHOFE,for his efforts in this regard. These newrules, which modify the ambient airquality standards for ozone and partic-ulate matter, would severely impactWest Virginia. Up to ten counties inmy home state might be thrown intononattainment under these rules, and alarge number of industries might be ad-versely affected, including chemicals,construction, steel production, glassmanufacturing, coal-fired utility powerplants, pulp and paper mills, and com-mercial trucking.

On a national level, the impact ofthese rules is even greater, with earlyestimates from the President’s Councilof Economic Advisors that these rulesmight cost $60 billion annually. Manymajor urban areas have not yet com-plied with the current ozone standard,and are not even close to being able todo so. These urban areas have not evencompleted their plans on how they willcomply with the current standard.Basic logic would dictate that thesestates should first finish these plans,and enforce the current standard, be-fore moving on to even more ambitiousproposals. Instead, these states mustconstantly revise their air plans, evenwhile never completing those plans. AsI stated in an earlier letter to the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency (EPA),these states are trapped in the cleanair version of the perpetual motion reg-ulatory machine, where replanning be-comes as important as actual imple-mentation and enforcement.

In the area of particulates, there isalmost no national monitoring data,and there is weak scientific and tech-nical support for the rule. The EPA andthe environmental community refer toa small number of studies that supportthe rule, but there is room for seriousdebate about whether a clear connec-tion between PM 2.5 and health-relatedproblems has been established.

The amendment before us is actuallyquite modest in its goals, and unfortu-nately does not address many of thesebroader problems with this air rule.The amendment codifies promisesmade by the Administration with re-gard to the time schedule to imple-ment the new rules, and also codifiesprovisions for funding a nationwidenetwork of monitoring stations for par-

ticulate matter. The Administration’sproposed time schedule is not legallybinding, and this amendment will en-sure that the EPA cannot later alterthe terms of the implementation pack-age that it has offered to state govern-ments.

Despite these modest goals, thisamendment holds the EPA’s feet to thefire, and will ensure that promisesmade to the states will be honored. Iam pleased to cosponsor the amend-ment offered by Senator INHOFE, andensure that promises made to WestVirginia are promises kept by the EPA.

Mr. CHAFEE. We are prepared tovote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Montana.

Mr. BAUCUS. If I might beg the in-dulgence of the chairman of the com-mittee, I understand the Senator fromCalifornia, Senator BOXER, might wantto speak on this amendment. She islooking at it at the moment. I suggestif procedurally we can do that, we askconsent this be temporarily laid asideso Senator REID can speak. He mayhave an amendment here, too. I do notexpect a problem, but I, in good faith,must tell the Senator I am informedSenator BOXER would like to have theopportunity to perhaps speak on thisamendment.

Mr. CHAFEE. That is her privilege.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Rhode Island.Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Would it be a good idea to go ahead,rather than set it aside, and recognizethe Senator from Nevada? It may beready at that time.

Mr. BAUCUS. That’s probably a bet-ter alternative, that we keep talkingon the amendment and Senator REIDcan keep talking, too.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.FAIRCLOTH). The Senator from Nevadais recognized.

Mr. REID. I say to the two managersof the bill, I do have an amendment. Iunderstand it has been reviewed thor-oughly over the last several days bythe staff and it is acceptable. If there isadequate time, I would be happy tospeak on the bill also now.

Mr. BAUCUS. I might suggest youspeak on the bill and/or your amend-ment. Once this amendment is disposedof, then we can vote on your amend-ment. Either way.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have anamendment. I will send it to the desk.Is there an amendment pending thatneeds to be set aside?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There isan amendment pending.

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consentthat that be the case.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask consent the Sen-ator speak on his amendment. The Sen-ator from Oklahoma—speak on yourown amendment. We will dispose of theInhofe amendment, and then——

Mr. REID. If we set aside the amend-ment of the Senator from Oklahomamy statement on my amendment willonly take a minute.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1326 March 4, 1998Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator from

Nevada yield? Is it the Senator’s inten-tion to have an amendment on myamendment or speak on my amend-ment?

Mr. REID. I want to speak on myamendment. Your amendment is ac-ceptable. I have nothing to say aboutyour very fine amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thepending business is the amendment of-fered by the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consentthat it be set aside.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered. The Senatorfrom Nevada.

AMENDMENT NO. 1688 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1676

(Purpose: To provide support for Federal,State, and local efforts to carry out trans-portation planning for the Tahoe NationalForest, the Toiyabe National Forest, theEldorado National Forest, and the areasowned by States and local governmentsthat surround Lake Tahoe and protect theenvironment and serve transportation)Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an

amendment to the desk and ask for itsimmediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID], forhimself, Mr. BRYAN, Mrs. BOXER, and Mrs.FEINSTEIN, proposes an amendment num-bered 1688 to amendment No. 1676.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unan-imous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:On page 253, between lines 15 and 16, insert

the following:‘‘(3) LAKE TAHOE REGION.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall—‘‘(i) establish with the Federal land man-

agement agencies that have jurisdiction overland in the Lake Tahoe region (as defined inthe Lake Tahoe Regional Planning Compact)a transportation planning process for the re-gion; and

‘‘(ii) coordinate the transportation plan-ning process with the planning process re-quired of State and local governments underthis section, section 135, and chapter 53 oftitle 49.

‘‘(B) INTERSTATE COMPACT.—‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii),

notwithstanding subsection (b), to carry outthe transportation planning process requiredby this section, the consent of Congress isgranted to the States of California and Ne-vada to designate a metropolitan planningorganization for the Lake Tahoe region, byagreement between the Governors of theStates of California and Nevada and units ofgeneral purpose local government that to-gether represent at least 75 percent of the af-fected population (including the central cityor cities (as defined by the Bureau of theCensus)), or in accordance with proceduresestablished by applicable State or local law.

‘‘(ii) INVOLVEMENT OF FEDERAL LAND MAN-AGEMENT AGENCIES.—

‘‘(I) REPRESENTATION.—The policy board ofa metropolitan planning organization des-ignated under subparagraph (A) shall includea representative of each Federal land man-agement agency that has jurisdiction overland in the Lake Tahoe region.

‘‘(II) FUNDING.—In addition to funds madeavailable to the metropolitan planning orga-

nization under other provisions of this titleand under chapter 53 of title 49, not morethan 1 percent of the funds allocated undersection 202 may be used to carry out thetransportation planning process for the LakeTahoe region under this subparagraph.

‘‘(C) ACTIVITIES.—‘‘(i) HIGHWAY PROJECTS.—Highway projects

included in transportation plans developedunder this paragraph—

‘‘(I) shall be selected for funding in a man-ner that facilitates the participation of theFederal land management agencies thathave jurisdiction over land in the LakeTahoe region; and

‘‘(II) may, in accordance with chapter 2, befunded using funds allocated under section202.

‘‘(ii) TRANSIT PROJECTS.—Transit projectsincluded in transportation plans developedunder this paragraph may, in accordancewith chapter 53 of title 49, be funded usingamounts apportioned under that title for—

‘‘(I) capital project funding, in order to ac-celerate completion of the transit projects;and

‘‘(II) operating assistance, in order to paythe operating costs of the transit projects,including operating costs associated withunique circumstances in the Lake Tahoe re-gion, such as seasonal fluctuations in pas-senger loadings, adverse weather conditions,and increasing intermodal needs.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, this amend-ment is offered on my behalf and thatof Senators BRYAN, BOXER and FEIN-STEIN. It has the support of the Stategovernments of both California and Ne-vada, and it is an amendment that isvery simple. It grants MetropolitanPlanning Organization status for theLake Tahoe basin on the border be-tween California and Nevada.

Not only is Lake Tahoe the mostbeautiful place on the Earth, and it hasbeen deemed to be such since the timeMark Twain first looked at it and saidit was the ‘‘fairest place on all theEarth,’’ locals within the basin, theWashoe Indian Tribe, and the Stategovernments of Nevada and California,have long recognized the unique statusof Lake Tahoe. But, in addition to itsbeauty, it is certainly one of the mostfragile environments anyplace in theworld. For many years the competinginterests in the basin have found waysto work together to protect the famedwater quality of the lake. These part-nerships have been developed and areunique and have proved the notion thatit is not necessary to harm the econ-omy to improve the environment.

Mr. President, last summer PresidentClinton convened a Summit. He andVice President GORE AND five Cabinetofficers came to Lake Tahoe and spent2 days. They addressed the relatedtransportation, forest health and waterquality concerns that face the Basin.Transportation was identified as one ofthe key areas where improvements ininfrastructure could also yield key en-vironmental benefits. MPO status rec-ognizes the unique bi-State nature ofthe Tahoe basin and enhances the abil-ity of local residents to compete fortransportation planning funding.

I appreciate very much the consider-ation of both sides and would ask thatthis amendment be accepted.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is therefurther debate on the amendment?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, thisamendment is satisfactory to this side.It is my understanding—I have talkedwith the distinguished ranking mem-ber—the amendment is acceptable tothe minority side likewise.

We are prepared to accept it, and Icongratulate the Senator from Nevadafor his amendment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If therebe no further debate, the question is onagreeing to the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1688) to amend-ment No. 1676 was agreed to.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move toreconsider the vote.

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that mo-tion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, with thepermission of the manager of the bill—if the manager of the bill would ratherI speak at a later time, I will be happyto do that. I just wanted to speak onthe bill if there is nothing going on inhere on the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE. Well, we are waitingfor the Senator from California.

Mr. REID. As soon as she shows——Mr. CHAFEE. We want to be sure she

is going to show. The Senator fromOklahoma has been very patient.

Mr. REID. Whenever you learn she isnot going to come or she does come, Iwill be happy, with a wave of the hand,to sit down.

Mr. CHAFEE. Why don’t we say yougo ahead for 10 minutes and let’s seewhat happens, with the understandingyou will yield if she comes over so shecan say her piece.

Mr. REID. Or if for any other reasonthe manager of the bill wants to speak.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Nevada.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise as anoriginal cosponsor and very strong sup-porter of S. 1173, the Intermodal Sur-face Transportation Efficiency Act.Both S. 1173 and the amendment addingan additional $26 billion to the billpassed unanimously out of the Com-mittee on Environment and PublicWorks, a committee I have served onvery proudly for my years in the U.S.Senate.

I want to also say, and spread acrossthe Record of this Senate, what a tre-mendously fine job has been done bythe chairman of this committee andthe ranking member of this committeeto allow this bill to be where it istoday. It has been very hard work.Frankly, it would have been nice if wehad done it last year, but we didn’t.The reason we are where we are todayis because of the work of the chairmanof the full committee and the work ofthe ranking member of the committee.The States of Rhode Island and Mon-tana have many reasons to be proud ofthe two Senators who are managingthis bill, but for no reason should theybe more proud of their Senators thanthe work they have done on this bill.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1327March 4, 1998Their committee work has been out-standing and is certainly somethingthat everybody in this country, notonly the people from the States ofRhode Island and Montana, should feelvery good about, what is happening onthis floor.

Every person who is a Member of theU.S. Senate or the House of Represent-atives has a stake in a national trans-portation system that is second tonone, one that meets the present andfuture needs of the American people.This bill is not perfect, but it is a tre-mendously strong bill. Moving peopleand goods quickly and efficientlythroughout the Nation is one of themost important things we can do tomaintain a strong economy. Far toomuch time and productivity is lostwaiting in traffic.

I give an example to all. People insouthern California are connected withthe people of southern Nevada by I–15.I–15 is a tremendously burdened road.The chairman of the committee cameto Nevada and heard testimony regard-ing the importance of this legislation.He heard firsthand about the tremen-dous difficulty we have moving peopleto and from southern Nevada andsouthern California.

Mr. President, it is no longer a ques-tion of having people come to LasVegas for purposes of tourism. Theproblem is that the road is clogginginterstate commerce. Vehicles, trucksmoving produce, cannot move on thisroad. It is too crowded. This is only anexample of what is happening in otherparts of the country, although theproblem of I–15 is magnified because ofhow old it is and how much repairneeds to be done on it.

The original ISTEA legislation in1991 was really the brain child of thecommittee chair at that time, SenatorPAT MOYNIHAN from the State of NewYork. He did very good work. He wasvisionary in this bill. It changed thethrust of legislation dealing with sur-face transportation that had been in ef-fect since the Second World War. Thelegislation in 1991 was one of the mostfar-reaching and innovative pieces oflegislation ever produced by Congress.It laid out a road map for transpor-tation for the entire 21st century.

Rather than focusing upon the com-pletion of the Interstate System,ISTEA focused on connecting differentmodes of transportation to meet theneeds of the future. I enjoyed verymuch working on that legislation as aMember of this committee, and I thinkit is some of the most rewarding workthat I have done since I have been aMember of Congress.

With the exception of the Depart-ment of Defense authorization bill,ISTEA is going to be the largest moneybill that Congress will take up thisyear. I also say, although I do not seehim on the floor of the Senate today,the subcommittee chair of the Trans-portation Subcommittee, Senator JOHNWARNER, is a fine Senator.

I had the pleasure of serving withhim when I was chairman of a sub-

committee and he was ranking mem-ber. Coincidentally, I was talking withsomeone this morning who is a friendof Senator WARNER. We talked withsome affection about the work that theSenator from Virginia does generally,but especially in this committee andthis subcommittee. I commend and ap-plaud the work of Senator WARNER inthis legislation.

We have to recognize, with the excep-tion of the defense authorization billthis year, ISTEA II is going to be thelargest money bill Congress will takeup this year. As such, we have a tre-mendous responsibility to get it right.Our economy is utterly dependent uponhaving a strong and vital system oftransportation. The creation of thisintermodal system will require all theinnovative and creative thinking wecan muster at the Federal, State, re-gional and, yes, local levels. The Stateof Nevada has a tremendous need foradequate highways, I say second tonone.

The State of Nevada is the mostmountainous State in the Union, ex-cept for the State of Alaska. We have314 mountain ranges. We have 32 moun-tains that are over 11,000 feet high. Wehave tremendous growth in the Stateof Nevada. Just to give you one illus-tration, in Clark County, where LasVegas is located, we need to build morethan one elementary school eachmonth to keep up with the growth ofstudents in that area. So we have realproblems.

Also, we have a State that is ex-tremely large. Within its borders, youcould place the States of New Jersey,Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Is-land, Vermont, New Hampshire andDelaware, and then still have some leftover. None of these States would touchone another, and there would still be,as I have indicated, plenty of room tocut up Virginia and use it to fill in thegaps joining all these States.

We have the additional problem that87 percent of the State of Nevada isowned by the Federal Government. Welead the Nation in Federal ownership ofland.

Nevada is also a bridge State. Hun-dreds of thousands of tons of goodstravel across Nevada through Utah, Ar-izona, and to and from California. TheCANAMEX route, one of the NAFTAcorridors, traverses Nevada, crossingover the top of the Hoover Dam bridge.When I say the Hoover Dam bridge,that is really a misnomer. You crossright over Hoover Dam. One of thegreatest bottlenecks in the country isover Hoover Dam. Traffic is lined upsometimes 5 to 10 miles trying to getover that dam, and to think of the safe-ty involved in not having adequatetransportation moving over that dam—it is unsafe. If there were an accidentof some kind, it would really do ex-treme damage to the water supplies ofsouthern California and the small areasbelow Hoover Dam. We have to dosomething about that also.

In southern Nevada, thousands andthousands of new people move in each

month. In fact, almost 300 people a daymove into Las Vegas alone. So we haverapid growth. In 1970, there were fewerthan 500,000 residents in the wholeState of Nevada. By the year 2000,there will be 2 million. That is thegrowth that is taking place in Nevada.

In 1970, there were 2.2 billion vehiclemiles traveled in Nevada. By the year2000, there will be over 12.5 billion vehi-cle miles traveled in Nevada. Accom-modation of such growth requires inno-vative thinking and creative planningon the part of the State and localtransportation people.

Again, talking about the State of Ne-vada and all that growth, I have indi-cated that it takes a lot of innovativethinking on the part of the State tomake sure that this all works out well.It also necessitates imposing one of thestiffest State and local taxes in the Na-tion. We have done that. We have doneit willingly, because we recognize thatif we are going to meet the demands ofthe traffic problems in Nevada, we can-not depend only on the Federal Govern-ment. We have done our share andmore.

In spite of that, Nevada needs astrong, effective Federal level of effort,and that is what this bill does. As writ-ten, ISTEA II provides a total of $173billion for highways, highway safety,and other surface transportation pro-grams over the next 5 1/2 years.

I hope that as soon as this bill passesout of this Chamber, the House of Rep-resentatives will take it up and get abill back to us, so we can go to con-ference and get this very important billworked out so that the departments oftransportation in the 50 States knowwhat is ahead of them. They can dotheir bidding, they can let their con-tracts prior to the bad weather happen-ing, and go ahead and have a smoothtransition. We badly need to do that.

Overall, this bill represents a 40-per-cent increase in funding over the origi-nal ISTEA bill some 6 years ago. Withthe completion of the Interstate High-way System, it is vital we turn our at-tention to developing multimodaltransportation policies that will allowus to not only maintain the excellentinfrastructure we have, but also tomove forward to meet the demands of anew century.

In many ways, transportation issuesof the future will be vastly more dif-ficult than the ones of yesterday. Welive in an increasingly diverse Nation,one that is no longer able to be solelydependent upon the automobile. Evenin a State as vast as Nevada, a bridgeState, where we desperately need moreroads, we are also seriously looking atthe role monorails, magnetic levita-tion, and other high-speed rail systemscan play in our future transportationinfrastructure.

I think one of the finest parts of thisbill is something that Senator MOY-NIHAN and I have worked on, and thatis the part of the bill that deals withmagnetic levitation. Yesterday, Sen-ator MOYNIHAN brought a box that con-tained a model of a maglev train to the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1328 March 4, 1998committee. In his statement, he madea plea for funding to design and imple-ment a magnetic levitation system. Weneed to do that.

Mr. President, our airports areclogged all over the country; our high-ways are clogged all over the country.We need a way of moving people forrelatively short distances, up to 300miles. The only way we can do thatrapidly and efficiently with the tech-nology we now have is with magneticlevitation.

In the 1960s, two scientists werestuck in traffic in New York. Theywere MIT professors. They said, ‘‘Thisis ridiculous that we are stuck in traf-fic; let’s do something about it.’’ Theywent back to the laboratories and in-vented magnetic levitation.

We, as a country, helped at the Fed-eral level. We provided moneys for re-search and development of this veryunique mode of transportation. We didit for a few years and dropped it. Assoon as we dropped it, Germany andJapan picked it up, and they are nowway ahead of us with this. It is too bad.We are the ones who should be in theforefront of developing this mode oftransportation. We need to get onboard.

This bill contains an authorization of$1 billion for magnetic levitation, andit actually provides funds, up to $30million, for some grants that will getthis program going. This is very, veryimportant, and I express my apprecia-tion to Senator MOYNIHAN for his goodwork in this area.

The money that is in the bill is amodest amount to move this projectforward, but it is an amount; it is morethan we have ever done. There is tre-mendous funding in the bill for all ourindividual States and other areas, andI am happy we do have some for mag-netic levitation. As I indicated before,this bill is not perfect. But I am proudof the progress we have made. The billis good for all States. It is tremen-dously important. It is a great productfor the country.

The bill before us does a fine job ofbalancing many of our Nation’s com-peting priorities for transportationwhile giving the States the flexibilitythey need to expend dollars in waysthat make sense, given the many re-gional differences we have in our coun-try. I am supportive of the congestionmitigation and air quality improve-ment program and the transportationenhancement program. The additionalmoney and increased flexibility arevery positive developments. A nationaltransportation system that does notaddress environmental issues is onethat would not be living up to the ex-pectations of the American people.

Other important programs, such asthe intelligent transportation systemprogram, have both a positive impacton the environment and also improvethe efficiency of the highways. It is adual track. I held, as I indicated ear-lier, a field hearing in Las Vegas lastyear focused on intelligent transpor-

tation systems, and the response wastremendous. Local governments aroundLas Vegas and Reno have all begun toput innovative high-tech transpor-tation programs into place, and theyare very pleased with the initial re-sults.

I am also supportive of a strong Fed-eral Lands Highway Program. As aSenator from a Western State—and re-member, I said earlier 87 percent of theState of Nevada is owned by the Fed-eral Government—so as a Senator froma Western State with a huge amount ofpublic land, it is impossible to over-state how important is the vital life-line that these road and highway fundsprovide to rural Americans.

I want to say a few words on safety.I support the efforts of my friend, Sen-ator MCCAIN from Arizona, to develop asafety title for inclusion in the overallauthorization. I have a strong recordon safety, and in this legislation, I amvery happy to support this title.

I want to spend a couple minutes dis-cussing a safety issue that we are notaddressing in nearly enough detail inthis reauthorization. As the chairmanand ranking member know, I have op-posed triple-trailer trucks. I believethey are both intimidating and unsafe.I have, since offering my amendmenton this issue—talking about movingforward on this—I have received scoresand scores of letters from all over thecountry from people who are afraid ofthese trucks. I believe they are incom-patible with our obligation to provide asafe network of roads and highways.

I do appreciate the input that I havereceived from the trucking industry.But my fear of these triple-trailertrucks is not something that I bearalone. I recognize that for a variety ofreasons, though, this is not a majorityview. I have been in the Congress longenough, I have served in legislativebodies long enough, to know when Ihave enough votes. I do not haveenough votes to have my amendmentadopted. I am not going to go forwardwith my amendment because, I repeat,I do not have the votes to pass it.

Many of my colleagues argue there isjust not enough accurate data avail-able to make an educated decision onthis issue. Although I would counterthat mere common sense should dic-tate that triple-trailer trucks do notbelong on the same roads as a pas-senger car, I agree that there is an ap-palling lack of data available on thissubject. Information given out by thetrucking industry is unreliable andpeople cannot underscore the validityof it because it is put out by the truck-ing industry. What we need is the De-partment of Transportation to do somework on this and get some real facts todetermine the accident rate and whatthese big trucks do to our roads andmake a decision as to: Is the length ofthe truck an important element or is ithow much these trucks weigh? We haveto get more information on this. Thereis a lack of data available on this sub-ject.

Mr. President, in an attempt to rem-edy this deficiency, I have been work-ing with many, including the AmericanTrucking Association, for months totry to forge an agreement that wouldallow us to better study the safety, en-vironmental, and infrastructure im-pacts of all classes of longer-combina-tion vehicles. I have been doing thissince last fall when we first introducedthis legislation.

Obviously, the American TruckingAssociation disagrees with me that tri-ples and others of these long vehiclesare unsafe, but they acknowledge thatthere is a public perception problem,and they have been willing to workwith me, which I appreciate. Unfortu-nately, though, I found that there islittle common ground between thesafety community and the AmericanTrucking Association on what are theacceptable bounds for a comprehensivestudy of size, weight, and other truck-ing issues. No matter what model wecame up with, various parties certainlywould not agree with what we shoulddo. As a result, I am unable to come upwith a compromise on this subjectright now. I would ask the Secretary ofTransportation to take a look at thisissue. It is a very important issue inthe 16 States where we have these tri-ple-trailer trucks.

It is extremely frustrating to me andis a situation we, as a body, should notallow to continue. There is an over-whelming lack of useful data availableto the U.S. Senate concerning longer-combination vehicles. So I call uponthe trucking industry, all of the safetygroups, and the U.S. Department ofTransportation, to work it out, not ina combative fashion, but to sit downand work together to come up withvalid information, which we do nothave. It is not acceptable for the mis-trust that exists between these groupsto continue to stand in the way of acomprehensive, complete, and objec-tive study of these longer-combinationvehicles. As I have indicated, I am notoffering my amendment today, but theSenate dialogue on the subject is justbeginning.

I want to also say, as I see in theChamber today the ranking member ofthe Appropriations Committee, theformer majority and minority leader ofthe Senate, that we are to the point onthis bill where we are as a result of thework done by the Senator from WestVirginia. Others of us joined in theoriginal amendment, but I think every-one recognizes it has been the tena-cious nature of the Senator from WestVirginia to move forward on this legis-lation that has us at a point where weare today with a bill with $26 billionmore actual real dollars in it than wewould have had. We have a bill that weare going to get out of this Senatewithin the next week or 10 days, and itis all, I believe, as a result of the workdone by the Senator from West Vir-ginia, which the Senator from Nevadavery much appreciates.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thankthe distinguished Senator.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1329March 4, 1998Mr. REID. Finally, although we are

not yet discussing the transit title, letme say a few words about public trans-portation.

Las Vegas is the fastest growing cityin the Nation. There is some debate asto whether it is Las Vegas or the sub-urb of Henderson, where I graduatedfrom high school. But that area of thecountry is growing extremely rapidly,as I have already explained. Yet before1992, it had, at best, a very weak masstransit system. In 1992, the CitizensArea Transit—we call it CAT—ownedby the Regional Transportation Com-mission, and operated on a contractbasis, began a fixed-route bus systemfor Las Vegas.

The response has been tremendous.The Las Vegas community has trulyembraced CAT. In less than 5 years,ridership on CAT has grown from 14.9million annual riders to over 35 millionin 1996, a total ridership growth of 134percent, and going up each day.

The fare box recovery ratio is high.Most of the system’s costs are recov-ered without requiring a huge subsidy.The bus fleet is 100-percent compliantwith the Americans With DisabilitiesAct.

So impressive has been CAT’s abilityto grow efficiently and effectively, thatthe American Public Transit Associa-tion last year awarded its OutstandingAchievement Award to CAT in thehardest-to-win midsized system cat-egory. This is a tremendous feat forsuch a young system. After all, Mr.President, this system does not rely onmuch in the way of Federal funds. Thedollars that the Federal Transit Ad-ministration has provided has beenvery timely and useful to this bus sys-tem. For that reason, I would opposeefforts to change transit formulas toprovide a minimum allocation toStates without or with only minimaltransportation systems.

Let me conclude today, Mr. Presi-dent, by saying that I join with my col-leagues on both sides of the aisle insaying that the fuels taxes paid intothe highway trust fund each year willsupport significantly higher spendingon transportation, and I am very happythat Congress is now moving in that di-rection.

These are trust fund moneys. Everytime you go buy a tank of gas at theservice station, the money that is col-lected there, a portion of it, goes intothe highway trust fund. Those moneysshould be used for that purpose, andthat purpose only. To do otherwisewould be a violation of the enormoustrust the American people have sent usto Washington to uphold.

Our Nation’s infrastructure rep-resents the lifeline that fuels our econ-omy. When we neglect to adequatelyprovide for the health of this lifeline,all of us suffer. Whether it is unsafeand degraded roads or pollution causedfrom overcongestion, all of us are af-fected. The price is not only the incon-venience of traversing a dilapidated in-frastructure. Indeed, the real price is

the increased costs all of us pay forgoods and services because of the bur-dens placed on a steady flow of thestream of commerce. It is similar to acholesterol buildup, I guess, in the ar-teries, Mr. President. Eventually thereis a steep price to pay.

Again, I congratulate my colleagues,Senators CHAFEE, BAUCUS, WARNER,and BYRD, on a job well done. I lookforward to working with all my fellowSenators in passing this strong, vital 6-year bill as quickly as possible, andthen urging the House to move forwardjust as quickly so we can get the bill tothe President for his signature.

Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Rhode Island.Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank

the distinguished Senator from Nevadafor his kind comments. He has been avery valuable member of the Environ-ment and Public Works Committee, Iguess, ever since he came here to theSenate. We have worked closely to-gether on a whole series of matters. Hehas particularly been involved with theEndangered Species Act, revisions ofwhich I hope we can bring to a conclu-sion pretty soon. So I thank the Sen-ator for all his very constructive workin our committee and on this legisla-tion likewise.

AMENDMENT NO. 1687

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Sen-ator from California has no objection.So let us proceed with the approval ona voice vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thequestion is on agreeing to amendmentNo. 1687.

The amendment (No. 1687) was agreedto.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I moveto reconsider the vote by which theamendment was agreed to.

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that mo-tion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent to have printed inthe RECORD letters of support from theNational Governors Association, theU.S. Chamber of Commerce, and twoother letters.

There being no objection, the letterswere ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION,Washington, DC, March 3, 1998.

Senator JAMES INHOFE,SROB, Washington, DC

DEAR SENATOR INHOFE: On behalf of the na-tion’s Governors we are writing in support ofa requirement that EPA pay one hundredpercent of the cost of monitoring for the newfine particle air quality standard. We alsourge Congress to codify the time frames inthe President’s directive for implementingthe new federal standards for ozone and par-ticulate matter.

As you realize, state face a heavy burden ofperformance under the federal air qualitystandards. The costs of new monitoring net-works will be substantial. Moreover, whilemany states regard the EPA’s implementingtimeframe as unrealistic, we are concernedthat we may be given even less time than

promised to monitor and submit data to theEPA. It would be self-defeating if states wereshortchanged on the resources for monitor-ing and the time allowed for implementationof the new air quality standards. If stateswere not provided with adequate time andresources to carry out their responsibilities,the underlying purpose and objective of thefederal requirements might not be realized.For that reason, it is important to codify thePresident’s schedule for implementing thenew air quality standards, and to ensure thatEPA pays for all costs associated with thenew monitoring requirements.

If you have any questions, please don’thesitate to contact us or Mr. Tom Curtis ofNGA at 624–5389.

Sincerely,GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,

Chairman.TOM CARPER,

Vice Chairman.

NFIB,Washington, DC, March 3, 1998.

JAMES INHOFE,U.S. Senate,Washington, DC

DEAR SENATOR INHOFE: On behalf of the600,000 small business members of the Na-tional Federation of Independent Business(NFIB), I am writing to urge you to supportthe Inhofe Amendment to the Senate High-way bill (ISTEA).

Members of the Administration have stat-ed that a nationwide monitoring system forPM2.5 is necessary to classify nonattainmentareas under the new clean air standards. Asstates seek ways to comply with the newstandards, it is critical that these decisionsbe based on sound data provided by this typeof monitoring network.

By ensuring the construction and oper-ation of a new nationwide PM2.5 monitoringsystem, the Inhofe Amendment provides aframework of reliable data and sound scienceto assist states with control strategies.

In a recent NFIB survey, a strong majorityof small business owners favored requiringagencies to use sound science and valid evi-dence before issuing new rules.

The new stringent standards for ozone andparticulate matter will undoubtedly resultin expanded emissions controls on smallbusinesses in areas of the country that havenot been subject to prior regulation. Des-ignation of nonattainment areas will bearheavily on those least able to shoulder theburden—small businesses. It is imperativethat designations for the new standards besupported by sound, accurate data.

Thank you for your consideration of ourrequest and your support for small business.

DAN DANNER,Vice President,

Federal Government Relations.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THEUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Washington, DC, March 3, 1998.To Members of the United States Senate:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce urges yoursupport for the amendment to be offered bySenator Inhofe to S. 1173, the IntermodalSurface Transportation Efficiency Act. TheU.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’slargest business federation, representingmore than three million businesses and orga-nizations of every size, sector, and region.

From an economic standpoint, immediateimplementation of the new standards wouldtriple the number of communities out ofcompliance, at a time when continuing im-provements are being made to the nation’sair quality. The amendment will providestates, businesses and consumers greater cer-tainty that control strategies for attainingcompliance with both the new ozone and fine

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1330 March 4, 1998particulate matter standards are based onreliable data. The amendment will providethe necessary funding to the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) for establishing anationwide monitoring network for PM2.5

and allows for the collection of three fullyears of monitoring data before EPA decideswhich areas of the country do not meet thenew standard. The amendment is consistentwith the timelines set froth in PresidentClinton’s Memorandum on Implementationof the new National Ambient Air QualityStandards (NAAQS) for ozone and PM2.5.

Accordingly, we urge your support for theInhofe amendment to ensure that the newNAAQS are based on the best data possible.The U.S. Chamber will consider includingthe vote on this amendment to S. 1173 in itsannual How They Voted ratings.

Sincerely,R. BRUCE JOSTEN,

Executive Vice President,Government Affairs.

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVEEXCHANGE COUNCIL,

Washington, DC, March 2, 1998.Senator JAMES INHOFE,Russell Senate Office Building,Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR INHOFE: It has come to myattention that you are considering anamendment to the Senate Highway bill,known as ISTEA, dealing with the Environ-mental Protection Agency’s revised NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards for particu-late matter. I commend you on addressingthis important issue.

ALEC’s members comprise over 3,000 statelegislators in all fifty states. These newstandards will seriously impact our stateeconomies and divert scarce funds fromother health and environment priorities.Thus, it is crucial that these standards notbe imposed prematurely.

ALEC has adopted the Resolution on Ozoneand particulate Matter NAAQS Revisions,(enclosed), a model resolution opposing therapid implementation of these changes. Inthe resolution, ALEC notes that little mon-itoring information has been developed as tothe beneficial health effects of new stand-ards. ALEC believes more study is needed toascertain if a casual link exists between par-ticles of 2.5 microns and possible adversehealth effects. Also, ALEC supports furtherstudy to determine the actual benefits andcosts involved.

ALEC’s model legislation has been consid-ered by many state legislatures, and has al-ready passed in seven states. I hope this in-formation is helpful as you continue your de-liberations on this issue. If you have anyquestions, I encourage you to call ScottSpendlove, Acting Director of ALEC’s En-ergy, Environment, Natural Resources andAgriculture Task Force, at (202) 466–3800.

Sincerely.DUANE PARDE,Executive Director.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that Senator BYRDbe added as a cosponsor to the Inhofeamendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CHAFEE. I suggest the absenceof a quorum, Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded tocall the roll.

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. Presi-dent, I ask unanimous consent that theorder for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. Presi-dent, I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUNpertaining to the introduction of S.1705 are located in today’s RECORDunder ‘‘Introduction of Bills and JointResolutions.’’)

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. Presi-dent, I suggest the absence of aquorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call theroll.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I alsowould like to thank the Presiding Offi-cer. This is actually my time to be inthe Chair, and I appreciate his givingme the opportunity to speak on theISTEA legislation before us. I will tryto be brief in light of his willingness tostay a little extra today.

I just thought I would take a fewminutes to review as I see it theprogress that has been made reallygoing all the way back to last year inthe effort to try to address the prob-lems of infrastructure and transpor-tation in our country. Let me do thatthough, first, from my perspective as aSenator from the State of Michigan.

For quite a long time—in fact, longerthan anybody around seems to be ableto remember—our State has been oneof the States which was referred to asa donor State. That means that whengas tax moneys are sent to Washing-ton, more moneys get sent from Michi-gan than ever come back in the form ofsupport for the highway system. Weunderstand and I think have shownover the years a great deal of patiencewith the formulas that have been usedand the return on investment that hastaken place.

We understood, for example, whenthe Interstate Highway System wasbeing built that a lot of States neededto have additional dollars beyond thatwhich they could generate from theirown gas tax revenues in order to buildthe system so that we could transportMichigan cars to the South or to theWest and to the east coast, or Michiganagriculture products and take advan-tage of receiving in exchange the goodsand services that other States were ex-porting. However, because we are send-ing more dollars to Washington thanwe have received back, it has meantthat our State has not been able to doall that we would like to in order toprepare our own infrastructure for the21st century.

We are especially beset by specificproblems in Michigan. One is the factthat the weather in our State tends tobe quite a bit colder than the averagefor the entire country. Particularly inthe northern parts of Michigan we en-counter winters that are very severe.And that has an effect on the road sys-tem.

We also, of course, confront problemsthat relate to the age of our system.The Interstate System in our State ofMichigan on average is approximately7 years older than the national aver-age, which means that some of ourroads are more in need of service andrepair than might be the case in otherparts of the country.

For this variety of reasons, it hasbeen my view from the beginning of thediscussion of transportation legisla-tion, which really was initiated lastyear, that it is indispensable thatMichigan receive more money back,more dollars back, than we have beenreceiving in previous years. To thatend, our State legislature and our Gov-ernor addressed this issue very clearlyin 1997. The Governor came forth witha very bold plan aimed at trying toprovide adequate revenues and re-sources to put Michigan’s roads on apath to being in good shape for thenext century. Half of the plan essen-tially was a plan that basically reliedon Michigan to assume a greater re-sponsibility.

So the State legislature and the Gov-ernor signed into law legislation whichincreased our States’ gas tax by a littleover 4 cents to generate approximately$200 million more per year to be avail-able for our State department of trans-portation. The Governor also chargedall of us who are Federal legislatorswith the job of bringing back more dol-lars to Michigan as part of the reau-thorization of the ISTEA legislation.The target he set for us was $200 mil-lion as well, and it was his view that, ifthe State could increase by $200 millionwhat it invested in roads and if theFederal Government’s share could beincreased by $200 million, that $400 mil-lion amount would give Michigan anexcellent chance to address its repairneeds, new roads needs, and a varietyof other transportation needs.

We have been working on this, obvi-ously, now for quite a long time. Ithink the progress to date has beengood. The strategy that I have taken ortried to work on here as a Member ofthe Senate has really been a three-partstrategy. Earlier this week, on Mon-day, we learned that the second of thethree parts had been successfully com-pleted. The first part was successfullycompleted in 1997, and we will soonwork on the balance. But let me talkabout that strategy briefly and why, atleast from Michigan’s point of view,things are much more positive todaythan they were just a few days ago.

The first part of the strategy wassimple. It was to shift into the nationalhighway transportation trust fund allthe gas tax revenues being sent toWashington from Michigan and otherStates. As you know, in 1993, when weincreased the Federal gas taxes by 4.3cents, it was the first time those dol-lars didn’t go into the highway trustfund; they went into the general fund.For a lot of us that didn’t make sense.Several of us tried to have that 4.3cents repealed. We didn’t have enough

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1331March 4, 1998votes to get that job done. But what wedid have was support this past yearduring the deliberations on the tax billin the summer of 1997 to shift those taxdollars from the general fund to thetransportation fund, to make thosedollars now available, if we authorizedit, to be spent on transportation. Thatwas step one. It was a big victory fordonor States.

Step two took place earlier thisweek. After a lengthy behind-the-scenes and public set of discussions anddebates and negotiations, the decisionwas made to spend a considerablygreater amount of money on transpor-tation over the pendency of the ISTEAlegislation than had been expected tobe spent when the legislation was firstbrought to the Senate last year. Essen-tially, that amount will be approxi-mately $25 billion additional over thistimeframe. This is good news. It meansthat the 4.3 cents we are transferringinto to the trust fund will not be al-lowed to increase the trust fund sur-plus but instead be available to bespent on transportation so the donorStates will have the opportunity to seemore of their gas tax moneys comingback.

It has been estimated that the com-bination of the underlying legislationwhich was introduced here and the newdollars that are going to be made avail-able will for Michigan put us at leastat the $200 million mark and perhapsconsiderably beyond that. That, ofcourse, is the final step in the process.

What I wanted to do in my brief re-marks today was to thank the chair-man of the Environment and PublicWorks Committee and the rankingmember and others who have been hereworking and will continue, I am sure,for the next several days to be workingfor the progress that has been made; toalso thank those who were involved inthese budget discussions, particularlySenator DOMENICI, with whom I had nu-merous meetings and discussions onthis over the course of the last severalmonths, for his willingness to work onthe new budget resolution in such away as to accommodate the additionalspending on transportation. I think weare making progress in the right direc-tion.

The final step, obviously, is to deter-mine how the new dollars and all themoney will be allocated. As a donorState, I have made it very clear to theranking member, to the chairman, andothers that we in Michigan would liketo see donor States get as much equityas possible. We recognize in this Cham-ber that we are not the majority ofStates. We also recognize that thereare unique needs in various regions ofthe country, which we will try to ad-dress.

For my part, I want to be as helpfulto the process as possible, and at thesame time I want to make it clear thatas a Senator from Michigan I am goingto do everything I can to try to makesure that our voice is heard and thatwe address to the degree we possibly

can in this Chamber the need forStates that are donor States to gettheir fair share. I hope we can finishthis process in a way, as I said, that al-lows us to not only hit but exceed the$200 million per year increase that theGovernor has set for us. I am moredefinitely on course for doing that, andI appreciate the progress that hastaken place so far.

I look forward to working with ev-erybody. I will keep my constituentsapprised as further developmentsoccur. But to those from Michigan whoare tuned in or who will be followingthis debate, I do want to make it clearthat we have succeeded, first, in shift-ing the gas tax revenues into the trustfund; second, we have now succeeded inmaking sure that those revenues com-ing into the trust fund will be spent.When you add those together you defi-nitely see Michigan on the road to re-ceiving a much greater number of dol-lars back from Washington than hasbeen the case. That is the kind of direc-tion I hope we can continue rightthrough to the end of this legislationboth here in the Senate and ultimatelywhen we work with the House to finishthis up later this year.

Mr. President, thank you.I yield the floor.I suggest the absence of a quorum.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.The bill clerk proceeded to call the

roll.Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.ABRAHAM). Without objection, it is soordered.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent to set aside thepending amendment, which is theChafee amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we havea series of amendments that have beenagreed to by both sides.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Rhode Island.

AMENDMENT NO. 1690 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1676

(Purpose: To modify State infrastructurebank matching requirements)

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I sendto the desk an amendment on behalf ofSenator MURKOWSKI and ask for its im-mediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.

CHAFEE], for Mr. MURKOWSKI, proposes anamendment numbered 1690 to amendmentNo. 1676.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:On page 191, line 12, strike the semicolon

at the end and insert ‘‘, except that if theState has a higher Federal share payable

under section 120(b) of title 23, United StatesCode, the State shall be required to contrib-ute only an amount commensurate with thehigher Federal share;’’.

Mr. CHAFEE. This amendment bythe junior Senator from Alaska is inconnection with State infrastructurebanks. This amendment restores theso-called sliding scale matching ratefor States having large amounts of fed-erally owned land. Under the currentState Infrastructure Bank Pilot Pro-gram, such States may provide a small-er non-Federal match for Federal con-tributions of capitalizing grants.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If therebe no further debate, the question is onagreeing to the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1690) was agreedto.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I moveto reconsider the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that mo-tion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 1691 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1676

(Purpose: To include as a goal of the innova-tive bridge research and construction pro-gram the development of new non-destructive bridge evaluation technologiesand techniques)

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the sec-ond amendment which I have is by thesenior Senator from New Mexico, Sen-ator DOMENICI. I send it to the desk andask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.

CHAFEE], for Mr. DOMENICI, proposes anamendment numbered 1691 to amendmentNo. 1676.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:On page 371, line 6, strike ‘‘and’’ after the

semicolon.On page 371, line 10, strike the period and

insert ‘‘; and’’.On page 371, between lines 10 and 11, insert

the following:‘‘(6) the development of new non-

destructive bridge evaluation technologiesand techniques.’’

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, whatthis amendment does is deal with inno-vative bridge research and construc-tion. There is such a program. Thiswould include the development of non-destructive bridge evaluation tech-nologies and techniques. This is an im-portant part of bridge safety research.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If therebe no further debate, the question is onagreeing to the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1691) was agreedto.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I moveto reconsider the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that mo-tion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1332 March 4, 1998AMENDMENT NO. 1692 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1676

(Purpose: To refine the criteria of selectionfor Federal assistance for Trade Corridorand Border Infrastructure, Safety, andCongestion Relief projects)Mr. BAUCUS. On behalf of Senator

MOYNIHAN, I send an amendment to thedesk and ask for its immediate consid-eration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:The Senator from Montana [Mr. BAUCUS],

for Mr. MOYNIHAN, proposes an amendmentnumbered 1692 to amendment No. 1676.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:On page 98, line 7, amend subparagraph

1116(d)(2)(A) by striking ‘‘of commercial ve-hicle traffic’’ each place it appears and sub-stituting ‘‘and value of commercial traffic’’.

Mr. BAUCUS. This amendment, as Imentioned, I am offering on behalf ofSenator MOYNIHAN from New York. Itclarifies that the Secretary shall con-sider the value of commodities travel-ing through a State in addition to thevolume of the commodities when se-lecting proposals in the border infra-structure and trade corridor program.

We have examined this amendment. Ithink it has also been cleared by theother side. I urge the adoption of theamendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If therebe no further debate, the question is onagreeing to the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1692) was agreedto.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I moveto reconsider the vote.

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that mo-tion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 1693 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1676

(Purpose: To clarify the planning provisionsof the bill)

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I sendan amendment to the desk on behalf ofSenators MOSELEY-BRAUN and DURBIN,and ask for its immediate consider-ation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:The Senator from Montana [Mr. BAUCUS],

for Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, for herself and Mr.DURBIN, proposes an amendment numbered1693 to amendment No. 1676.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:On page 249, strike lines 5 through 11 and

insert the following:‘‘(2) REDESIGNATION.—‘‘(A) PROCEDURES.—A metropolitan plan-

ning organization may be redesignated byagreement between the Governor and unitsof general purpose local government that to-gether represent at least 75 percent of the af-fected population (including the central city

or cities as defined by the Bureau of the Cen-sus) as appropriate to carry out this section.

‘‘(B) CERTAIN REQUESTS TO REDESIGNATE.—A metropolitan planning organization shallbe redesignated upon request of a unit orunits of general purpose local governmentrepresenting at last 25 percent of the affectedpopulation (including the central city or cit-ies as defined by the Bureau of the Census) inany urbanized area—

‘‘(I) whose population is more than 5,000,000but less than 10,000,000, or

‘‘(ii) which is an extreme nonattainmentarea for ozone or carbon monoxide as definedunder the Clean Air Act.Such redesignation shall be accomplishedusing procedures established by subpara-graph (A).

Mr. BAUCUS. On behalf of SenatorMOSELEY-BRAUN, this is an amendmentto, frankly, correct an error that wasmade in the drafting of the Environ-ment and Public Works Committee billbefore us today. The effect of thisamendment, therefore, would be to re-turn to current law.

When the committee drafted the billbefore us, that is ISTEA II, we did notmake any major changes to the currentISTEA planning provisions. The lan-guage the Senator from Illinois is re-inserting should not have been deletedfrom the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If therebe no further debate, the question is onagreeing to the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1693) was agreedto.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I moveto reconsider the vote.

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that mo-tion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 1694 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1676

(Purpose: To provide for research into theinteractions between information tech-nology and future travel demand)

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I haveanother amendment. This is on behalfof Senator Barbara BOXER.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:The Senator from Montana [Mr. BAUCUS],

for Mrs. BOXER, proposes an amendmentnumbered 1694 to amendment No. 1676.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:On page 345, line 6, strike ‘‘and’’.On page 345, line 9, strike the period and

insert ‘‘; and’’.On page 345, between lines 9 and 10, insert

the following:‘‘(H) research on telecommuting, research

on the linkages between transportation, in-formation technology, and community devel-opment, and research on the impacts of tech-nological change and economic restructuringon travel demand.

Mr. BAUCUS. This amendment on be-half of the Senator from California,Mrs. BOXER would expand the currentresearch programs to include how tele-commuting and other technologicaland economic changes can affect trav-

el. I believe this is a good amendmentand will help fill the gap in our re-search programs. California certainlyis a State with telecommuting andother technologies, and travel, and Iurge the adoption of the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If therebe no further debate, the question is onagreeing to the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1694) was agreedto.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I moveto reconsider the vote.

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that mo-tion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we areworking to try to get another amend-ment up.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thinkperhaps this might be a time when wemight do the best we could to alert ourcolleagues as to what is taking place.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Rhode Island.

Mr. CHAFEE. The major amendmentwe have been on since 10:30 this morn-ing, what you might call the so-calledChafee amendment, has been tied upwith some difficulties. We have notbeen able to move to a vote on that. Wehave set it aside to take up other mat-ters. At this time, I would like verymuch if we could take up the Dorganamendment, if that is possible. If thatis not possible, and that will take anhour, we would soon be able to alertpeople whether we will be able to dothat or not.

Absent that, and even in addition tothat, there would be an amendment ofabout a half an hour by the junior Sen-ator from New Mexico, Senator BINGA-MAN. If the Dorgan amendment is notavailable to take up, then it would bemy suggestion we go directly to theBingaman amendment, which wouldtake a half hour.

So it is possible that we would havesome votes—a vote at somewherearound 6 o’clock. As you can note frommy statement here, there are some‘‘ifs’’ involved in all this. I am doingthe best I can to keep our fellow Sen-ators alerted to what the situation is.

Mr. BAUCUS. We are making everyeffort to locate both those Senatorsand we are urging them to come to thefloor as quickly as possible. I am un-able to report at this time whetherthey will be able to come to the floor,but we will certainly try.

Mr. CHAFEE. I say further, what wewould like to do is to dispose of the un-derlying amendment, that is theamendment before us, the so-calledChafee amendment. If we cannot do ittonight—and I see problems withthat—certainly do it the first thing inthe morning. Then we would go to theMcConnell amendment on disadvan-taged business enterprises. He has indi-cated he would be ready. Actually, Itold him we were going to do that thisafternoon, so my predictions are nottotally accurate on what we are takingup and what we might take up.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1333March 4, 1998But we are doing the best we can.

That is a major amendment and willtake some time. We would certainlylike to get to that amendment as soonas we can. The key thing is to disposeof the so-called Chafee amendment assoon as we can.

Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Montana.Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I fully

concur with the agenda laid out by thedistinguished chairman, and hope weaccomplish it. Meanwhile, I ask unani-mous consent Senator CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN be added as a cosponsor of theunderlying amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CHAFEE. I suggest the absenceof a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro-ceeded to call the roll.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, Iask unanimous consent that the orderfor the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. COL-LINS). Without objection, it is so or-dered.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I amauthorized to announce on behalf ofthe majority leader there will be nomore votes this evening. We will an-nounce shortly the schedule for tomor-row, what time we will be coming in,what votes will be coming up and whenthey will be coming up. We will beready to announce that very, veryshortly.

I ask unanimous consent that Sen-ator DOMENICI be added as a cosponsorto the Chafee amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, weare waiting for the final arrangementsfor the schedule for early tomorrow,and pending that, I suggest the absenceof a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded tocall the roll.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, Iask unanimous consent that the orderfor the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, be-fore we start, I once again say to any-body who hasn’t yet got the message, Ihave been authorized by the majorityleader to announce that there will beno further rollcall votes this evening.

Madam President, I ask unanimousconsent that at 9 a.m. on Thursday, im-mediately following the resumption ofthe highway bill, Senator BINGAMAN berecognized in order to offer an amend-ment regarding liquor drive-throughs. Ifurther ask unanimous consent thatthere be 30 minutes for debate, equallydivided in the usual form, on thatamendment. I further ask consent thatimmediately following that debate, theamendment be set aside and Senator

DORGAN be recognized to offer anamendment regarding open containers.I ask consent that there be 60 minutesfor debate, equally divided in the usualform, on that amendment. Finally, Iask consent that at the expiration ofthat time, at approximately 10:30 a.m.on Thursday, the Senate proceed to avote on or in relation, first, to the Dor-gan amendment, to be followed by avote on or in relation to the Bingamanamendment. I also ask unanimous con-sent that no amendments be in order tothe above-mentioned amendments.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.f

MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, Iask unanimous consent that there nowbe a period for morning business, withSenators permitted to speak thereinfor up to 5 minutes each.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.f

THE BUDGET

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President,shortly, the Congressional Budget Of-fice—that is the official professionalstaff that has been in existence formany years that helps the Congresswith budgeting—is going to issue—it isalready prepared, it is ready for a for-mal issuance—an analysis of the Presi-dent’s budgetary proposals for the year1999.

Before I tell the Senate what theyare going to conclude, let me hearkenback to when the President issued hisbudget. There were many Senators whoasked me, ‘‘How can the President haveso many new domestic programs whenwe have an agreed-upon limit for theyear 1999 and the year 2000 and the year2001, all the way to the year 2003, thatdoesn’t permit any growth in the Fed-eral domestic program?’’ As a matterof fact, to be accurate, it permits .5percent growth, which the Congres-sional Budget Office has said, doing thearithmetic, it is even high; you cannotgrow that much.

So I was being asked: Where can thePresident find money for his educationinitiative—whether you are for it oragainst it—for his child care proposal—whether you are for it or against it—and a long shopping list of programs?And I believe I said then, and said onthe floor of the Senate, I do not believehe can. I believe he has tried to find away to spend more than the agreementsays we can spend, but says he isn’t bytransferring revenues and receipts tothe Appropriations Committee so theycan spend the money and take creditfor the revenues and receipts and othermatters like that.

Well, as a matter of fact, the Con-gressional Budget Office says that thePresident is $68 billion in excess of theagreed-upon amounts we can spend foreach of these 5 years—$68 billion overthe budget agreement caps on the do-

mestic discretionary programs, on thedomestic program part of the appro-priations process.

Now, that is very important, becauseto the extent that that is correct, thenobviously, unless Senators want to goback and restrain and cut and elimi-nate domestic programs, they areclearly not going to be able to fundvery much of the President’s new do-mestic initiative list that was forth-coming and stated in his State of theUnion address.

Now, frankly, I did not believe, asone who has worked on this for sometime, that the President could ex-change matters in that way, and whatI said has now been vindicated by theprofessionals who do the work for theCongress. If you could do it that way,then obviously these agreed-upon capswould be meaningless, for all youwould have to do is find revenues andreceipts, and the Government couldgrow and grow in terms of the amountthat we spend and still say that we arewithin the agreed-upon caps becauseyou offset the receipts against the ex-penditures.

Apparently, the Congressional Budg-et Office said that is not possible andthen found that some of the expendi-tures are going to spend out more thanthe President says. Now, that is inter-esting, because if you wonder where weare on surpluses, you know the Presi-dent said we had a $220 billion surplusover 5 years. The Congressional BudgetOffice, in its report, says the surplusfor the 5 years, Mr. President, will beless than half of that, it will be $108 bil-lion—slightly less than one-half ofwhat he predicted.

In addition to that fact, which shouldsober us up a bit, this professionalevaluation done for us by an independ-ent entity—not the economists whowork for the President, and not thePresident’s Office of Management andBudget, but an independent group—they also say that the budget, the waythe President is spending it, goes out ofkilter and that in the year 2000 we arein deficit again. In other words, wecome out, have a little surplus—a littlesurplus—and then in 2000 we are in def-icit again. We come out of it shortlyafterwards. But it does put us in a veryawkward position, as we speak of theaccumulation of surpluses over time,to find that the numbers we are goingto be forced to use are going to saythere is no surplus in the year 2000.

Now, I wish that the President wasright in his $220 billion surplus over 5years. I wondered about it, especiallywith all the new spending. But I wastoday to some extent—some sober lan-guage enters our discussions now, a lit-tle sobering-up with reference to wherewe are. And, I will insert in the RECORDthe Congressional Budget Office’s anal-ysis in toto for everyone to read.

One last comment. The CongressionalBudget Office has modified the annualsurpluses also substantially so thatthere are no significant surpluses inthe early years—maybe 4, 5, 6, 7 billiondollars, but nothing significant.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1334 March 4, 1998Now, that means that our job around

here is a lot more difficult, becausewhenever anybody thinks it does notmatter whether we overspend, we aregoing to be confronted with the sober-ing fact that we had better not be look-ing to the President’s budget for guid-ance or advice because it will justmake matters worse.f

THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, atthe close of business yesterday,Wednesday, March 3, 1998, the federaldebt stood at $5,528,586,832,076.70 (Fivetrillion, five hundred twenty-eight bil-lion, five hundred eighty-six million,eight hundred thirty-two thousand,seventy-six dollars and seventy cents).

One year ago, March 3, 1997, the fed-eral debt stood at $5,358,957,000,000(Five trillion, three hundred fifty-eightbillion, nine hundred fifty-seven mil-lion).

Five years ago, March 3, 1993, the fed-eral debt stood at $4,197,838,000,000(Four trillion, one hundred ninety-seven billion, eight hundred thirty-eight million).

Ten years ago, March 3, 1988, the fed-eral debt stood at $2,492,076,000,000 (Twotrillion, four hundred ninety-two bil-lion, seventy-six million).

Fifteen years ago, March 3, 1983, thefederal debt stood at $1,219,388,000,000(One trillion, two hundred nineteen bil-lion, three hundred eighty-eight mil-lion) which reflects a debt increase ofmore than $4 trillion—$4,309,198,832,076.70 (Four trillion, threehundred nine billion, one hundred nine-ty-eight million, eight hundred thirty-two thousand, seventy-six dollars andseventy cents) during the past 15 years.f

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Messages from the President of theUnited States were communicated tothe Senate by Mr. Williams, one of hissecretaries.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

As in executive session the PresidingOfficer laid before the Senate messagesfrom the President of the UnitedStates submitting sundry nominationswhich were referred to the appropriatecommittees.

(The nominations received today areprinted at the end of the Senate pro-ceedings.)f

REPORT CONCERNING NATIONALSECURITY INTERESTS WITH RE-SPECT TO BOSNIA ANDHERZEGOVINA—MESSAGE FROMTHE PRESIDENT—PM 105

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid be-fore the Senate the following messagefrom the President of the UnitedStates, together with an accompanyingreport; which was referred to the Com-mittee on Foreign Relations.

To the Congress of the United States:I hereby certify that the continued

presence of U.S. armed forces, after

June 30, 1998, in Bosnia andHerzegovina is required in order tomeet the national security interests ofthe United States, and that it is thepolicy of the United States that U.S.armed forces will not serve as, or beused as, civil police in Bosnia andHerzegovina.

This certification is presented pursu-ant to section 1203 of the National De-fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year1998, Public Law 105–85, and section 8132of the National Defense AppropriationsAct for Fiscal Year 1998, Public Law105–56. The information required underthese sections is in the report that ac-companies this certification. The sup-plemental appropriations request re-quired under these sections is beingforwarded under separate cover.

America has major national interestsin peace in Bosnia. We have learnedfrom hard experience in this turbulentcentury that America’s security andEurope’s stability are intimatelylinked. The Bosnian war saw the worstfighting—and the most profound hu-manitarian disaster—on that continentsince the end of the Second World War.The conflict could easily have spreadthrough the region, endangering oldAllies and new democracies alike. Alarger conflict would have cast doubton the viability of the NATO allianceitself and crippled prospects for ourlarger goal of a democratic, undivided,and peaceful Europe.

The Dayton framework is the key tochanging the conditions that madeBosnia a fuse in a regional powder keg.It is decisively in American intereststo see Dayton implemented as rapidlyas feasible, so that peace becomes self-sustaining. U.S. leadership is as essen-tial to sustaining progress as it hasbeen to ending the war and laying thefoundation for peace.

I expect the size of the overall NATOforce in Bosnia and Herzegovina willremain similar to that of the currentSFOR. However, the U.S. contributionwould decline by about 20 percent, asour Allies and partners continue toshoulder an increasing share of theburden.

Although I do not propose a fixedend-date for this presence, it is by nomeans open-ended. Instead, the goal ofthe military presence is to establishthe conditions under which Dayton im-plementation can continue without thesupport of a major NATO-led militaryforce. To achieve this goal, we have es-tablished concrete and achievablebenchmarks, such as the reform of po-lice and media, the elimination of ille-gal pre-Dayton institutions, the con-duct of elections according to demo-cratic norms, elimination of cross-en-tity barriers to commerce, and aframework for the phased and orderlyreturn of refugees. NATO and U.S.forces will be reduced progressively asachievement of these benchmarks im-proves conditions, enabling the inter-national community to rely largely ontraditional diplomacy, internationalcivil personnel, economic incentives

and disincentives, confidence-buildingmeasures, and negotiation to continueimplementing the Dayton Accords overthe longer term.

In fact, great strides already havebeen made towards fulfilling theseaims, especially in the last ten monthssince the United States re-energizedthe Dayton process. Since Dayton, astable military environment has beencreated; over 300,000 troops returned tocivilian life and 6,600 heavy weaponshave been destroyed. Public security isimproving through the restructuring,retraining, and reintegration of localpolice. Democratic elections have beenheld at all levels of government andhard-line nationalists—especially theRepublika Srpska—are increasinglymarginalized. Independent media andpolitical pluralism are expanding. Over400,000 refugees and displaced personshave returned home—110,000 in 1997.One third of the publicly-indicted warcriminals have been taken into cus-tody.

Progress has been particularly dra-matic since the installation of a pro-Dayton, pro-democracy Government inRepublika Srpska in December. Al-ready, the capital of Republika Srpskahas been moved from Pale to BanjaLuka; media are being restructuredalong democratic lines; civil police aregenerally cooperating with the reformprocess; war criminals are surrender-ing; and Republika Srpska is workingdirectly with counterparts in the Fed-eration to prepare key cities in bothentities for major returns of refugeesand displaced persons.

At the same time, long-standing ob-stacles to inter-entity cooperation alsoare being broken down: a common flagnow flies over Bosnian institutions, acommon currency is being printed, acommon automobile license plate isbeing manufactured, and mail is beingdelivered and trains are running acrossthe inter-entity boundary line.

Although progress has been tangible,many of these achievements still arereversible and a robust internationalmilitary presence still is required atthe present time to sustain theprogress. I am convinced that theNATO-led force—and U.S. participationin it—can be progressively reduced asconditions continue to improve, untilthe implementation process is capableof sustaining itself without a majorinternational military presence.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.THE WHITE HOUSE, March 3, 1998.f

REPORT ON TELECOMMUNI-CATIONS PAYMENTS TO THEGOVERNMENT OF CUBA FROMU.S. PERSONS—MESSAGE FROMTHE PRESIDENT—PM 106The PRESIDING OFFICER laid be-

fore the Senate the following messagefrom the President of the UnitedStates, together with an accompanyingreport; which was referred to the Com-mittee on Foreign Relations.

To the Congress of the United States:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1335March 4, 1998This report is submitted pursuant to

1705(e)(6) of the Cuban Democracy Actof 1992, 22 U.S.C. 6004(e)(6) (the ‘‘CDA’’),as amended by section 102(g) of theCuban Liberty and Democratic Solidar-ity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, PublicLaw 104–114 (March 12, 1996), 110 Stat.785, 22 U.S.C. 6021–91 (the ‘‘LIBERTADAct’’), which requires that I report tothe Congress on a semiannual basis de-tailing payments made to Cuba by anyUnited States person as a result of theprovision of telecommunications serv-ices authorized by this subsection.

The CDA, which provides that tele-communications services are permittedbetween the United States and Cuba,specifically authorizes the President toprovide for payments to Cuba by li-cense. The CDA states that licensesmay be issued for full or partial settle-ment of telecommunications serviceswith Cuba, but may not require anywithdrawal from a blocked account.Following enactment of the CDA onOctober 23, 1992, a number of U.S. tele-communications companies success-fully negotiated agreements to providetelecommunications services betweenthe United States and Cuba consistentwith policy guidelines developed by theDepartment of State and the FederalCommunications Commission.

Subsequent to enactment of the CDA,the Department of the Treasury’s Of-fice of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)amended the Cuban Assets ControlRegulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 515 (the‘‘CACR’’), to provide for specific licens-ing on a case-by-case basis for certaintransactions incident to the receipt ortransmission of telecommunicationsbetween the United States and Cuba, 31C.F.R. 515.542(c), including settlementof charges under traffic agreements.

The OFAC has issued eight licensesauthorizing transactions incident tothe receipt or transmission of tele-communications between the UnitedStates and Cuba since the enactment ofthe CDA. None of these licenses per-mits payments to the Government ofCuba from a blocked account. For theperiod July 1 through December 31,1997, OFAC-licensed U.S. carriers re-ported payments to the Government ofCuba in settlement of charges undertelecommunications traffic agreementsas follows:

Amount

AT&T Corporation (for-mally, American Tele-phone and TelegraphCompany) ....................... $11,991,715

AT&T de Puerto Rico ........ 298,916Global One (formerly,

Sprint Incorporated) ...... 3,180,886IDB WorldCom Services,

Inc. (formerly, IDB Com-munications, Inc.) .......... 4,128,371

MCI International, Inc.(formerly, MCI Commu-nications Corporation) ... 4,893,699

Telefonica Larga Distanciade Puerto Rico, Inc. ........ 105,848

WilTel, Inc. (formerly,WilTel Underseas Cable,Inc.) ................................ 5,608,751

AmountWorldCom, Inc. (formerly,

LDDS Communications,Inc.) ................................ 2,887,684

33,095,870

I shall continue to report semiannu-ally on telecommunications paymentsto the Government of Cuba fromUnited States persons.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.THE WHITE HOUSE, March 4, 1998.f

REPORT OF THE NOTICE OF THECONTINUATION OF THE IRANEMERGENCY—MESSAGE FROMTHE PRESIDENT—PM 107

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid be-fore the Senate the following messagefrom the President of the UnitedStates, together with an accompanyingreport; which was referred to the Com-mittee on Banking, Housing, andUrban Affairs.

To The Congress of the United States:Section 202(d) of the National Emer-

gencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) providesfor the automatic termination of a na-tional emergency unless, prior to theanniversary date of its declaration, thePresident publishes in the Federal Reg-ister and transmits to the Congress anotice stating that the emergency is tocontinue in effect beyond the anniver-sary date. In accordance with this pro-vision, I have sent the enclosed notice,stating that the national emergencydeclared with respect to Iran on March15, 1995, pursuant to the InternationalEmergency Economic Powers Act (50U.S.C. 1701–1706) is to continue in effectbeyond March 15, 1998, to the FederalRegister for publication. This emer-gency is separate from that declared onNovember 14, 1979, in connection withthe Iranian hostage crisis and thereforerequires separate renewal of emergencyauthorities.

The factors that led me to declare anational emergency with respect toIran on March 15, 1995, have not beenresolved. The actions and policies ofthe Government of Iran, including sup-port for international terrorism, its ef-forts to undermine the Middle Eastpeace process, and its acquisition ofweapons of mass destruction and themeans to deliver them, continue tothreaten the national security, foreignpolicy, and economy of the UnitedStates. Accordingly, I have determinedthat it is necessary to maintain inforce the broad programs I have au-thorized pursuant to the March 15, 1995,declaration of emergency.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.THE WHITE HOUSE, March 4, 1998.f

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

At 11:33 a.m., a message from theHouse of Representatives, delivered byMr. Hays, one of its reading clerks, an-nounced that the House has passed thefollowing bill, with amendments, inwhich it requests the concurrence ofthe Senate:

S. 347. An act to designate the Federalbuilding located at 100 Alabama Street,N.W., in Atlanta, Georgia, as the ‘‘Sam NunnFederal Center.’’

The message also announced thatpursuant to the provisions of section114(b) of Public Law 100–458 (2 U.S.C.1103), the Chair announces the Speak-er’s appointment of the following Mem-ber of the House to the Board of Trust-ees for the John C. Stennis Center forPublic Service Training and Develop-ment to fill the existing vacancy there-on, the term to expire on September 27,1999; Mr. PICKERING of Mississippi.

The message further announced thatHouse has passed the following bill, inwhich it requests the concurrence ofthe Senate:

H.R. 217. An act to amend title IV of theStewart B. McKinney Homeless AssistanceAct to consolidate the Federal programs forhousing assistance for the homeless into ablock grant program that ensures thatStates and communities are provided suffi-cient flexibility to use assistance amountseffectively.

The message also announced thatpursuant to the provisions of section517(e)(3) of the Employee RetirementIncome Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.1131), the Chair announces the Speak-er’s appointment of the following par-ticipants on the part of the House tothe National Summit on RetirementSavings: Ms. Meredith Bagby of NewYork, Mr. James E. Bayne of Texas,Mr. Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. of SouthCarolina, Ms. Joyce Campbell of Wash-ington, D.C., Ms. Hilda Cannon of Geor-gia, Mr. Christopher W. Clement of Ari-zona, Mr. Benjamin Tanner Domenechof Virginia, Mr. Clinton A. Demetriouof Georgia, Mr. Pete du Pont of Dela-ware, Mr. Adam Dubitsky of Washing-ton, D.C., Ms. Lynn D. Dudley of Wash-ington, D.C., Mr. Ric Edelman of Vir-ginia, Mr. John N. Erlenborn of Mary-land, Ms. Shannon Evans of Nevada,Mr. Harris W. Fawell of Illinois, Mr.Peter J. Ferrara of Virginia, Mr. RayGaydos of Washington, D.C., Mr. CraigGhloston of Texas, Mr. ArthurGlatfelter of Pennsylvania, Mr. DylanGlenn of Georgia, Mr. James T. Gordonof Georgia, Mr. Brian H. Graff of Vir-ginia, Mr. Matthew Greenwald of Wash-ington, D.C., Mr. Brent R. Harris ofCalifornia, Mr. Donald K. Hill of Geor-gia, Ms. Amy M. Holmes of Washing-ton, D.C., Ms. Karen A. Jordan of Ar-kansas, Mr. John Kimpel of Massachu-setts, Mrs. Beth Kobliner of New York,Mr. Gerald Letendre of New Hamp-shire, Mr. Ronald Lyons of Ohio, Mrs.Patricia De L. Marvil of Virginia, Mr.Philip Matthews of Connecticut, Mr.Thomas J. McInerney of Connecticut,Mr. Kevin M. McRaith of New Mexico,Ms. Rita D. Metras of New York, Ms.Lena Moore of Washington, D.C., Ms.Dana Muir of Michigan, Ms. HeatherNauert of Washington, D.C., Mr. Jef-frey M. Pollock of New Hampshire, Ms.Pati Robinson of Washington, Ms. An-drea Batista Schlesinger of New York,Mr. Eugene Schweikert of South Caro-lina, Mr. Charles Schwab of California,Ms. Victoria L. Swaja of Arizona, Mr.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1336 March 4, 1998Richard Thau of New York, Ms. SandraR. Turner of Florida, Mrs. Sunny War-ren of Georgia, Mr. Albert Zapanta ofVirginia, and Mr. Roger Zion of Indi-ana.

f

MEASURES REFERRED

The following bill was read the firstand second times by unanimous con-sent and referred as indicated:

H.R. 217. An act to amend title IV of theStewart B. McKinney Homeless AssistanceAct to consolidate the Federal programs forhousing assistance for the homeless into ablock grant program that ensures thatStates and communities are provided suffi-cient flexibility to use assistance amountseffectively; to the Committee on Banking,Housing, and Urban Affairs.

f

EXECUTIVE AND OTHERCOMMUNICATIONS

The following communications werelaid before the Senate, together withaccompanying papers, reports, and doc-uments, which were referred as indi-cated:

EC–4119. A communication from the Presi-dent of the United States, transmitting, pur-suant to law, the report of 24 proposed rescis-sions of budgetary resources; referred joint-ly, pursuant to the order of January 30, 1975,as modified by the order of April 11, 1986, tothe Committee on Appropriations, to theCommittee on the Budget, to the Committeeon Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, tothe Committee on Energy and Natural Re-sources, and to the Committee on Commerce,Science, and Transportation.

EC–4120. A communication from the Sec-retary of Defense, transmitting, pursuant tolaw, a report concerning the CooperativeThreat Reduction Program; to the Commit-tee on Armed Services.

f

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS ANDJOINT RESOLUTIONS

The following bills and joint resolu-tions were introduced, read the firstand second time by unanimous con-sent, and referred as indicated:

By Mr. BREAUX:S. 1704. A bill for the relief of Renee Merhej

and Wadih Merhej; to the Committee on theJudiciary.

By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN (for herself,Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.KENNEDY, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. DASCHLE,Mr. REID, Mr. GLENN, Mr. LAUTEN-BERG, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. KERRY, and Mr.REED):

S. 1705. A bill to amend the Internal Reve-nue Code of 1986 to expand the incentives forthe construction and renovation of publicschools; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. BINGAMAN:S. 1706. A bill to amend title 23, United

States Code, to encourage States to enactlaws that ban the sale of alcohol through adrive-up or drive-through sales window; tothe Committee on Environment and PublicWorks.

By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr.KENNEDY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. BUMPERS,and Mr. BYRD):

S. 1707. A bill to amend the Federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for im-proved safety of imported foods; to the Com-mittee on Labor and Human Resources.

By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mrs.MURRAY, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr.KENNEDY, Mr. DODD, Mrs. BOXER, Mr.BREAUX, Mr. ROBB, Mr. LEVIN, Mr.LAUTENBERG, Mr. GLENN, Mr. KERRY,Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. REID, Mr. REED,and Mr. BRYAN):

S. 1708. A bill to improve education; to theCommittee on Labor and Human Resources.

By Mr. SPECTER:S. 1709. A bill to authorize the Secretary of

Labor to provide assistance to States for theimplementation of enhanced pre-vocationaltraining programs, in order to improve thelikelihood of enabling welfare recipients tomake transitions from public assistance toemployment, and for other purposes; to theCommittee on Labor and Human Resources.

By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself, Mr.LEVIN, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. STEVENS, Mr.ROBB, Mr. WARNER, Mr. SARBANES,and Ms. MIKULSKI) (by request):

S. 1710. A bill to provide for the correctionof retirement coverage errors under chapters83 and 84 of title 5, United States Code; tothe Committee on Governmental Affairs.

f

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT ANDSENATE RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. CHAFEE (for Mr. LOTT):S. Res. 191. A resolution making Majority

party appointments for the Committee onGovernmental Affairs for the 105th Congress;considered and agreed to.

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs.BOXER, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. DURBIN,and Mr. SANTORUM):

S. Con. Res. 79. A concurrent resolution tocommend the bravery and honor of the citi-zens of Remy, France, for their actions withrespect to Lieutenant Houston Braly and torecognize the efforts of the 364th FighterGroup to raise funds to restore the stainedglass windows of a church in Remy; to theCommittee on the Judiciary.

f

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCEDBILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN (forherself, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mrs.MURRAY, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr.GRAHAM, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr.REID, Mr. GLENN, Mr. LAUTEN-BERG, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. KERRY,and Mr. REED):

S. 1705. A bill to amend the InternalRevenue Code of 1986 to expand the in-centives for the construction and ren-ovation of public schools; to the Com-mittee on Finance.THE PUBLIC SCHOOL MODERNIZATION ACT OF 1998

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. Presi-dent, I send to the desk a bill and askfor its appropriate referral.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The billwill be received and appropriately re-ferred.

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. Presi-dent, today I am pleased to introduce,along with a number of my colleagues,the Public School Modernization Act of1998. This legislation addresses one ofthe most fundamental problems withpublic education in America, and thatis that many of our elementary andsecondary schools are literally fallingdown around our children.

The Public School Modernization Actof 1998 will help States and school dis-tricts finance their school improve-ment priorities. It will help them mod-ernize classrooms so that no childmisses out on the information age. Itwill help them ease overcrowding sothat no child is forced to learn theprinciples of geometry in a gym-nasium. It will help them patch leakyroofs, fix broken plumbing, andstrengthen the facilities that providethe foundation for our children’s edu-cation. Without this support, schoolswill continue to crumble under theweight of deferred maintenance and ne-glect, and our children’s education, andtheir future, and our Nation’s future,will suffer as a result.

Education in America correlates withopportunity for individuals, but alsofor our country as a whole. The rungsof the ladder of opportunity in Americaare crafted in the classroom. Considerthat high school graduates earn 46 per-cent more each year than those whodon’t graduate from high school. Col-lege graduates earn 155 percent moreevery year than those who do not grad-uate from high school. Over the courseof a lifetime, the most educated Ameri-cans will earn five times as much asthe least educated Americans. So edu-cation is clearly related to individualprosperity and the ability of people tofunction in this new economy.

Education also correlates to almostall indicia of economic and social well-being. Educational attainment can di-rectly be tied to income, to health, tothe likelihood of being on welfare, tothe likelihood of being incarcerated ina prison, and to the likelihood of vot-ing and participating in our democ-racy.

However, education is more than atool simply to lift people out of pov-erty or to provide a better standard ofliving for individuals. It is also the en-gine that will drive America’s economyin the 21st century. In a Wall StreetJournal survey last year of leadingU.S. economists, 43 percent of themsaid that the single most importantthing that we could do to increase ourlong-term economic growth would beto invest more in education and re-search and development. Nothing elsecame close to education in that survey.One economist said, ‘‘One of the fewthings that economists will agree uponis the fact that economic growth isvery strongly dependent on our ownabilities.’’

A recent study by the ManufacturingInstitute concluded that increasing theeducation level of workers by 1 yearraises the productivity level by 8.5 per-cent in manufacturing. Imagine, Mr.President, if you will, that in this glob-al economy, the only way we will beable to hold on to our position as thecountry in the world with the higheststandard of living is if we prepare ourwork force—as a whole, all of ourworkers—to compete at the highestlevel of competition and to produce atthe highest level of productivity.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1337March 4, 1998The Public School Modernization Act

of 1998 represents the kind of invest-ment that will result in better futuresfor our children and a better future forour country. The bill strengthens thefundamental tenet of American edu-cation—local control. By helpingschools finance their capital improve-ment priorities, the Federal Govern-ment can free local resources for edu-cational activities and can help givecommunities the kind of buildings thatthey need before they can implementthe kinds of school reforms that par-ents and educators are demanding.

The Public School Modernization Actof 1998 creates a simple, effective, andeasy-to-administer means of helpingcommunities modernize their schools.The bill creates a new category of zerocoupon bonds for States and school dis-tricts to issue to finance capital im-provements. It allocates $21.8 billionworth of bonding authority to Statesand large school districts over the next2 years.

Over 5 years, the bill will cost ourNational Government only $3.3 billion,but $21.8 billion worth of new construc-tion and modernization will be madeavailable by that $3.3 billion, whichmeans for every Federal dollar that weinvest over the next 5-year period,there will be an additional 6.6 in Stateand local dollars. That is a pretty goodleverage capacity from this kind of in-vestment.

Perhaps most important, though, Mr.President, is that this bill is bureauc-racy-free, or as close to bureaucracy-free as we can manage. States andschool districts need only to complywith two main requirements beforeissuing these new school modernizationbonds. First, they must conduct a sur-vey of their school facility needs,which you would think that everyschool district would have already, butthe truth is they don’t, yet. Second,they must describe how they intend toallocate the bonding authority to as-sure that schools with the greatestneeds and the least resources benefit.That is it. Those are the only strings.There is no reapplying for funds, nocontinuous oversight, no getting indi-vidual projects approved by some Fed-eral agency. The plan is simple. It willwork. And it will strengthen localschools.

Mr. President, the magnitude of theschool facilities problem is so greattoday that many districts cannotmaintain the kind of educational envi-ronment necessary to teach all of ourchildren the kinds of skills they willneed to compete in the 21st century,global economy.

We commissioned a study by theGAO a couple years ago. What theyconcluded was that every day some 14million children in this country—14million children—attend schools inneed of major renovations or outrightreplacement, 7 million children everyday attend schools with life-threaten-ing safety code violations, and it willcost $112 billion to bring the schools up

to code. This is not bells and whistles,this is not equipping them with com-puters and fancy new cosmetics, butjust to address the toll that decades ofdeferred maintenance have taken onour school facilities across this coun-try.

In my State of Illinois, school mod-ernization and construction needs top$13 billion. Many of our school districtshave a difficult time enough just buy-ing textbooks, pencils, and teacher sal-aries, let alone financing capital im-provements. This would free local re-sources for education by providing Fed-eral support for bricks and mortar.

By the way, the national school re-pair price tag, as enormous as itsounds, does not include the cost ofwiring our schools for modern tech-nology. One of the greatest barriers tothe incorporation of modern computersinto classrooms is the physical condi-tion of many school buildings. Youcan’t very well use a computer if youdon’t have an electrical system work-ing in the wall to plug it into. Accord-ing to the GAO study, almost half ofall schools—half of all schools—lackenough electrical power for the full-scale use of computers, 60 percent lackthe conduits to connect classroomcomputers to a network, and morethan 60 percent of the schools lackenough phone lines for instructionaluse.

Last year, principal Rita Melius fromWaukegan, IL, came to Washingtonand told of her experience with com-puter technology at her school. Shethought she was doing the right thingby equipping her schools with modernschool technology, but when she de-ployed the computers around theschools, fires started in the buildingbecause the wiring was so old. Her ex-perience is being replicated all overthis country as communities try tobring their schools into the informa-tion age. This legislation will give Ms.Melius, and others like her, the re-sources to modernize their classrooms.

Mr. President, it will also give com-munities the power to relieve over-crowding. According to the U.S. De-partment of Education, just to keep upwith growing enrollment, we will needto build some 6,000 new schools overthe next 10 years.

I have visited schools in Illinoiswhere study halls are being held in thehallways, literally, because there is noother space. I have seen stairway land-ings converted into computer labs. Ihave seen cardboard partitions used toturn one classroom into two. I pointout, Mr. President, that particularschool was in what could be called abasement. It wasn’t exactly a base-ment, it was at ground level, but theyhad cardboard separating two classesfrom each other. There is a school,frankly, where the lunchroom has beenconverted into two classrooms, wherestudents eat in the gymnasium. Andinstead of having gym, they have‘‘adaptive physical education’’ whilethey stand next to their desks, because

the gyms are being used forlunchrooms. It is really shameful, Mr.President, and it is the situation thatwe find in almost a third of the schoolsin this country.

Again, I point out that this phenome-non is not just an inner-city problem.It exists in rural communities and sub-urban communities as well—just aboutone-third in each type of communityacross the United States.

Teachers and parents know full wellthat these conditions directly affectthe ability of their children to learn,and research backs up that intuition.Two separate studies found a 10 to 11percent achievement gap betweenthose students in good buildings andthose in shabby or poor buildings, aftercontrolling for all other factors.

Other studies have found that whenbuildings are in poor condition, stu-dents are more likely to misbehave.Three leading researchers recently con-cluded, ‘‘. . .there’s no doubt thatbuilding condition affects academicperformance.’’

This morning, in a press conferencein which a student from a local schooltalked about overcrowded conditions,he mentioned that they were havingdiscipline problems from fights break-ing out from what he called ‘‘hallrage,’’ because the overcrowding situa-tion in the school was so perverse andextreme that students were literallybumping into each other trying tomove from class to class. So we have asituation here in which academic per-formance is affected.

I think it is time to mention some-thing at this point. We just saw, thisweek, the grades come in on an inter-national math and science test. The re-sults were profoundly disturbing.American students scored close to thebottom, or at the bottom, on everymath and physics test offered.

Now, here we are. A new study ofhigh school seniors in 23 countriesshows U.S. students scored signifi-cantly lower than students in othercountries. This is in math, nationswith scores above the internationallevel: Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark,Switzerland, Iceland, and Norway. Na-tions with scores close to the inter-national average: Italy, Russia, Lith-uania, Czech Republic, and the UnitedStates. Nations lower than the inter-national level: Cyprus and South Afri-ca. We are in the category of nationswith scores lower than the inter-national level, which includes: France,Russia, Switzerland, Denmark, Cyprus,Lithuania, Australia, Greece, Sweden,Canada, Slovenia, Italy, Czech Repub-lic, Germany, and the United States isnext to last in advanced mathematics.In physics: Norway, Sweden, Russia,Denmark, Slovenia, Germany, Aus-tralia, Cyprus, Latvia, Greece, Switzer-land, Canada, France, Czech Republic,Austria, and the United States. We arelast. From the President down to thelocal township officials, this should bea clarion call that we have to work toimprove the quality of our schools.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1338 March 4, 1998Our school facilities problems di-

rectly result, Mr. President, from ourarchaic school funding formula andsystem. The current system, the waywe fund schools, was established a cen-tury ago when the Nation’s wealth wasmeasured in terms of property wealth,in terms of landholdings. Wealth is nolonger accumulated just in land, andthe funding mechanism that ties fund-ing of our education to the local prop-erty tax is no longer appropriate, nor isit adequate.

Again, according to the GAO, poorand middle-class school districts trythe hardest to raise revenue from theproperty tax, but the system worksagainst them. In some 35 States, poordistricts—that is, districts with small-er property tax bases—have higher taxrates than wealthy districts, but theyraise less revenue because there is lessproperty wealth to tax.

This local funding model, this modelof depending on the local property taxto fund education, does not work forschool infrastructure, just as it wouldnot work for our highways or any otherinfrastructure.

It is ironic that we are here talkingabout the highway bill. Imagine whatwould happen if we based our system ofroads on the same funding model weuse for education. Imagine if everycommunity was responsible for theconstruction and maintenance of theroads within its borders. In all likeli-hood, we would see smooth, good roadsin the wealthy towns, a patchwork ofmediocre roads in middle-incometowns, and very few roads at all in poorcommunities. Transportation would behostage to the vagaries of wealth andgeography. Commerce and travel wouldbe difficult, and navigation of such asystem would not serve the best inter-ests of our whole country. That hypo-thetical, unfortunately, precisely de-scribes the way that we fund our publiceducation system.

I believe we need a new approach. Weneed a partnership among all levels ofgovernment and the private sector thatpreserves local control in educationbut creates a financing balance thatbetter serves local property taxpayers,children, schools, and indeed our entirecountry. This new act I am introducingtoday represents such a new partner-ship. It is a simple and effective meansof leveraging limited Federal re-sources, strengthening local control ofeducation, and improving the edu-cational opportunity for every child.

I urge my colleagues to take a closelook at the needs of the schools intheir own States and decide what theystand for: higher property taxes andcrumbling schools, or lower propertytaxes and a new partnership to improveour schools for the 21st century. I be-lieve that we have some opportunitieshere.

Again, I have visited a lot of schoolsand I have seen what happens when weengage the resources sufficient to pro-vide an environment and support need-ed for our children to learn. American

kids are no dumber than kids anywhereelse in the world. There is no reason forus to be at the bottom of this inter-national testing. It is not their fault. Itis our fault for failing to engage appro-priately, to give public education thekind of support that it needs to have.

Now, there is some good news I wouldlike to call to your attention. A groupof some 20 Illinois school districts, ledby Superintendent Paul Kimmelman,banded together to form a group calledthe First in the World Consortium.Their goal was to score first in theworld on the international math andscience test. At the same time thatthese results came out, Mr. President,the results from the First in the WorldConsortium came out also. They suc-ceeded. The students in that consor-tium placed first in the world whencompared with other countries, whichis far above the dismal performance ofour country as a whole.

What does this consortium have thatthe schools in our country lack? It isnot the makeup of students. The kidsare as capable anywhere in the coun-try, whether they come from rich fami-lies or poor families. We have some ofthe brightest students in the world,who need only the opportunity tolearn. The difference, however, is whatsupports we, as a community, a na-tional community, can provide forthem—schools with first-rate facilities,small classes, modern technology, andsupportive communities.

So I hope that we will all take a lookat the importance of this legislation.This is a way that we can engage thesupport of the National Government,our national community, acting in ournational interest to serve our most im-portant resource, which is our children.If we don’t invest in them and if wedon’t build up these schools, many ofwhich were built—I am making an as-sumption about age, but when you andI were in grammar school, Mr. Presi-dent, these schools were built almost ageneration ago and, in many instances,more than a generation ago. That gen-eration saw fit to provide facilitiesthat were suitable for learning. Thatwe have not, I believe, speaks volumesfor us.

I think our generation has an abso-lute obligation and duty to provide forthis generation, the next generation ofAmericans, no less an opportunity thanwe inherited from the last generationof Americans. We have a duty to see toit that they have the ability to geteducated and to take their talent as faras those talents will take them, tomaximize the ability of every person torise to the absolute best level that heor she can, based on his or her naturaltalents.

Those natural talents, though, Mr.President, have to be nurtured in anenvironment and in facilities that aresuitable for learning. This legislationwill begin, hopefully, to create thekind of partnership that will allow theNational, State, and local governmentsto stop the finger-pointing, stop the

blame game, stop pushing the buck,and say it is somebody else’s duty, orresponsibility, or fault, and allow us tocome together on behalf of what isclearly in our interest as citizens notonly of cities and States and local com-munities, but as citizens of this greatcountry.

This is why we have to come to-gether. This is why we have to put theold, tired arguments behind us. This iswhy I think we should take a variety ofideas and put them out so that we canreach a consensus on getting some re-sults, getting results that will serveour children’s interests.

The public certainly wants us to doit. According to a bipartisan poll re-leased earlier this year, some 76 per-cent of registered voters would supporta $30 billion, 10-year Federal commit-ment to rebuild and modernize ourschools. This legislation provides forthat kind of a partnership. I certainlyhope, Mr. President, that the Membersof this body will review the GAO re-ports regarding their own States, be-cause this is not just an Illinois prob-lem, this is not just a North Carolinaproblem, or a Wyoming problem; this isa problem for America, and every Statein this country has the same problemin the same ways. I urge them to exam-ine the reports by the General Ac-counting Office regarding the conditionof schools in their States, I ask themto examine the report of the GeneralAccounting Office regarding the prop-erty tax dependence in their States,and I urge them to sign on and cospon-sor this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that the bill and a summary of thebill be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

S. 1705Be 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 ‘‘PublicSchool Modernization Act of 1998’’.SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF INCENTIVES FOR PUBLIC

SCHOOLS.(a) IN GENERAL.—Part IV of subchapter U

of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of1986 (relating to incentives for educationzones) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘PART IV—INCENTIVES FOR QUALIFIEDPUBLIC SCHOOL MODERNIZATION BONDS‘‘Sec. 1397E. Credit to holders of qualified

public school modernizationbonds.

‘‘Sec. 1397F. Qualified zone academy bonds.‘‘Sec. 1397G. Qualified school construction

bonds.‘‘SEC. 1397E. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED

PUBLIC SCHOOL MODERNIZATIONBONDS.

‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—In the case ofa taxpayer who holds a qualified publicschool modernization bond on the credit al-lowance date of such bond which occurs dur-ing the taxable year, there shall be allowedas a credit against the tax imposed by thischapter for such taxable year the amount de-termined under subsection (b).

‘‘(b) AMOUNT OF CREDIT.—

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1339March 4, 1998‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The amount of the credit

determined under this subsection with re-spect to any qualified public school mod-ernization bond is the amount equal to theproduct of—

‘‘(A) the credit rate determined by the Sec-retary under paragraph (2) for the month inwhich such bond was issued, multiplied by

‘‘(B) the face amount of the bond held bythe taxpayer on the credit allowance date.

‘‘(2) DETERMINATION.—During each cal-endar month, the Secretary shall determinea credit rate which shall apply to bondsissued during the following calendar month.The credit rate for any month is the percent-age which the Secretary estimates will onaverage permit the issuance of qualified pub-lic school modernization bonds without dis-count and without interest cost to theissuer.

‘‘(c) LIMITATION BASED ON AMOUNT OFTAX.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The credit allowed undersubsection (a) for any taxable year shall notexceed the excess of—

‘‘(A) the sum of the regular tax liability(as defined in section 26(b)) plus the tax im-posed by section 55, over

‘‘(B) the sum of the credits allowable underpart IV of subchapter A (other than subpartC thereof, relating to refundable credits).

‘‘(2) CARRYOVER OF UNUSED CREDIT.—If thecredit allowable under subsection (a) exceedsthe limitation imposed by paragraph (1) forsuch taxable year, such excess shall be car-ried to the succeeding taxable year andadded to the credit allowable under sub-section (a) for such taxable year.

‘‘(d) QUALIFIED PUBLIC SCHOOL MODERNIZA-TION BOND; CREDIT ALLOWANCE DATE.—Forpurposes of this section—

‘‘(1) QUALIFIED PUBLIC SCHOOL MODERNIZA-TION BOND.—The term ‘qualified publicschool modernization bond’ means—

‘‘(A) a qualified zone academy bond, and‘‘(B) a qualified school construction bond.‘‘(2) CREDIT ALLOWANCE DATE.—The term

‘credit allowance date’ means, with respectto any issue, the last day of the 1-year periodbeginning on the date of issuance of suchissue and the last day of each successive 1-year period thereafter.

‘‘(e) OTHER DEFINITIONS.—For purposes ofthis part—

‘‘(1) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.—Theterm ‘local educational agency’ has themeaning given to such term by section 14101of the Elementary and Secondary EducationAct of 1965. Such term includes the local edu-cational agency that serves the District ofColumbia but does not include any otherState agency.

‘‘(2) BOND.—The term ‘bond’ includes anyobligation.

‘‘(3) STATE.—The term ‘State’ includes theDistrict of Columbia and any possession ofthe United States.

‘‘(4) PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITY.—The term‘public school facility’ shall not include anystadium or other facility primarily used forathletic contests or exhibitions or otherevents for which admission is charged to thegeneral public.

‘‘(f) CREDIT INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME.—Gross income includes the amount of thecredit allowed to the taxpayer under thissection and the amount so included shall betreated as interest income.

‘‘(g) BONDS HELD BY REGULATED INVEST-MENT COMPANIES.—If any qualified publicschool modernization bond is held by a regu-lated investment company, the credit deter-mined under subsection (a) shall be allowedto shareholders of such company under pro-cedures prescribed by the Secretary.‘‘SEC. 1397F. QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.

‘‘(a) QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BOND.—Forpurposes of this part—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified zoneacademy bond’ means any bond issued aspart of an issue if—

‘‘(A) 95 percent or more of the proceeds ofsuch issue are to be used for a qualified pur-pose with respect to a qualified zone acad-emy established by a local educational agen-cy,

‘‘(B) the bond is issued by a State or localgovernment within the jurisdiction of whichsuch academy is located,

‘‘(C) the issuer—‘‘(i) designates such bond for purposes of

this section,‘‘(ii) certifies that it has written assur-

ances that the private business contributionrequirement of paragraph (2) will be metwith respect to such academy, and

‘‘(iii) certifies that it has the written ap-proval of the local educational agency forsuch bond issuance, and

‘‘(D) the term of each bond which is part ofsuch issue does not exceed 15 years.

‘‘(2) PRIVATE BUSINESS CONTRIBUTION RE-QUIREMENT.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of para-graph (1), the private business contributionrequirement of this paragraph is met withrespect to any issue if the local educationalagency that established the qualified zoneacademy has written commitments from pri-vate entities to make qualified contributionshaving a present value (as of the date ofissuance of the issue) of not less than 10 per-cent of the proceeds of the issue.

‘‘(B) QUALIFIED CONTRIBUTIONS.—For pur-poses of subparagraph (A), the term ‘quali-fied contribution’ means any contribution(of a type and quality acceptable to the localeducational agency) of—

‘‘(i) equipment for use in the qualified zoneacademy (including state-of-the-art tech-nology and vocational equipment),

‘‘(ii) technical assistance in developingcurriculum or in training teachers in orderto promote appropriate market driven tech-nology in the classroom,

‘‘(iii) services of employees as volunteermentors,

‘‘(iv) internships, field trips, or other edu-cational opportunities outside the academyfor students, or

‘‘(v) any other property or service specifiedby the local educational agency.

‘‘(3) QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY.—The term‘qualified zone academy’ means any publicschool (or academic program within a publicschool) which is established by and operatedunder the supervision of a local educationalagency to provide education or trainingbelow the postsecondary level if—

‘‘(A) such public school or program (as thecase may be) is designed in cooperation withbusiness to enhance the academic curricu-lum, increase graduation and employmentrates, and better prepare students for therigors of college and the increasingly com-plex workforce,

‘‘(B) students in such public school or pro-gram (as the case may be) will be subject tothe same academic standards and assess-ments as other students educated by thelocal educational agency,

‘‘(D) the comprehensive education plan ofsuch public school or program is approved bythe local educational agency, and

‘‘(E)(i) such public school is located in anempowerment zone or enterprise community(including any such zone or community des-ignated after the date of the enactment ofthis section), or

‘‘(ii) there is a reasonable expectation (asof the date of issuance of the bonds) that atleast 35 percent of the students attendingsuch school or participating in such program(as the case may be) will be eligible for freeor reduced-cost lunches under the school

lunch program established under the Na-tional School Lunch Act.

‘‘(4) QUALIFIED PURPOSE.—The term ‘quali-fied purpose’ means, with respect to anyqualified zone academy—

‘‘(A) constructing, rehabilitating, or re-pairing the public school facility in whichthe academy is established,

‘‘(B) providing equipment for use at suchacademy,

‘‘(C) developing course materials for edu-cation to be provided at such academy, and

‘‘(D) training teachers and other schoolpersonnel in such academy.

‘‘(5) TEMPORARY PERIOD EXCEPTION.—Abond shall not be treated as failing to meetthe requirement of paragraph (1)(A) solely byreason of the fact that the proceeds of theissue of which such bond is a part are in-vested for a reasonable temporary period(but not more than 36 months) until suchproceeds are needed for the purpose forwhich such issue was issued. Any earnings onsuch proceeds during such period shall betreated as proceeds of the issue for purposesof applying paragraph (1)(A).

‘‘(b) LIMITATIONS ON AMOUNT OF BONDSDESIGNATED.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There is a national zoneacademy bond limitation for each calendaryear. Such limitation is—

‘‘(A) $400,000,000 for 1998,‘‘(B) $1,400,000,000 for 1999,‘‘(C) $1,400,000,000 for 2000, and‘‘(D) except as provided in paragraph (3),

zero after 2000.‘‘(2) ALLOCATION OF LIMITATION.—‘‘(A) ALLOCATION AMONG STATES.—‘‘(i) 1998 LIMITATION.—The national zone

academy bond limitation for calendar year1998 shall be allocated by the Secretaryamong the States on the basis of their re-spective populations of individuals below thepoverty line (as defined by the Office of Man-agement and Budget).

‘‘(ii) LIMITATION AFTER 1998.—The nationalzone academy bond limitation for any cal-endar year after 1998 shall be allocated bythe Secretary among the States in the man-ner prescribed by section 1397G(d); exceptthat, in making the allocation under thisclause, the Secretary shall take into accountBasic Grants attributable to large local edu-cational agencies (as defined in section1397G(e)).

‘‘(B) ALLOCATION TO LOCAL EDUCATIONALAGENCIES.—The limitation amount allocatedto a State under subparagraph (A) shall beallocated by the State education agency toqualified zone academies within such State.

‘‘(C) DESIGNATION SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONAMOUNT.—The maximum aggregate faceamount of bonds issued during any calendaryear which may be designated under sub-section (a) with respect to any qualified zoneacademy shall not exceed the limitationamount allocated to such academy undersubparagraph (B) for such calendar year.

‘‘(3) CARRYOVER OF UNUSED LIMITATION.—Iffor any calendar year—

‘‘(A) the limitation amount under this sub-section for any State, exceeds

‘‘(B) the amount of bonds issued duringsuch year which are designated under sub-section (a) with respect to qualified zoneacademies within such State,

the limitation amount under this subsectionfor such State for the following calendaryear shall be increased by the amount ofsuch excess. The preceding sentence shallnot apply if such following calendar year isafter 2002.‘‘SEC. 1397G. QUALIFIED SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

BONDS.‘‘(a) QUALIFIED SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

BOND.—For purposes of this part, the term‘qualified school construction bond’ meansany bond issued as part of an issue if—

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1340 March 4, 1998‘‘(1) 95 percent or more of the proceeds of

such issue are to be used for the construc-tion, rehabilitation, or repair of a publicschool facility,

‘‘(2) the bond is issued by a State or localgovernment within the jurisdiction of whichsuch school is located,

‘‘(3) the issuer designates such bond forpurposes of this section, and

‘‘(4) the term of each bond which is part ofsuch issue does not exceed 15 years.Rules similar to the rules of section1397F(a)(5) shall apply for purposes of para-graph (1).

‘‘(b) LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF BONDS DES-IGNATED.—The maximum aggregate faceamount of bonds issued during any calendaryear which may be designated under sub-section (a) by any issuer shall not exceed thesum of—

‘‘(1) the limitation amount allocated undersubsection (d) for such calendar year to suchissuer, and

‘‘(2) if such issuer is a large local edu-cational agency (as defined in subsection (e))or is issuing on behalf of such an agency, thelimitation amount allocated under sub-section (e) for such calendar year to suchagency.

‘‘(c) NATIONAL LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OFBONDS DESIGNATED.—There is a nationalqualified school construction bond limita-tion for each calendar year. Such limitationis—

‘‘(1) $9,700,000,000 for 1999,‘‘(2) $9,700,000,000 for 2000, and‘‘(3) except as provided in subsection (f),

zero after 2000.‘‘(d) HALF OF LIMITATION ALLOCATED

AMONG STATES.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—One-half of the limita-

tion applicable under subsection (c) for anycalendar year shall be allocated among theStates under paragraph (2) by the Secretary.The limitation amount allocated to a Stateunder the preceding sentence shall be allo-cated by the State education agency toissuers within such State and such alloca-tions may be made only if there is an ap-proved State application.

‘‘(2) ALLOCATION FORMULA.—The amount tobe allocated under paragraph (1) for any cal-endar year shall be allocated among theStates in proportion to the respectiveamounts each such State received for BasicGrants under subpart 2 of part A of title I ofthe Elementary and Secondary EducationAct of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6331 et seq.) for themost recent fiscal year ending before suchcalendar year. For purposes of the precedingsentence, Basic Grants attributable to largelocal educational agencies (as defined in sub-section (e)) shall be disregarded.

‘‘(3) MINIMUM ALLOCATIONS TO STATES.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall ad-

just the allocations under this subsection forany calendar year for each State to the ex-tent necessary to ensure that the sum of—

‘‘(i) the amount allocated to such Stateunder this subsection for such year, and

‘‘(ii) the aggregate amounts allocatedunder subsection (e) to large local edu-cational agencies in such State for suchyear,

is not less than an amount equal to suchState’s minimum percentage of one-half ofthe national qualified school constructionbond limitation under subsection (c) for thecalendar year.

‘‘(B) MINIMUM PERCENTAGE.—A State’s min-imum percentage for any calendar year isthe minimum percentage described in sec-tion 1124(d) of the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6334(d)) forsuch State for the most recent fiscal yearending before such calendar year.

‘‘(4) ALLOCATIONS TO CERTAIN POSSES-SIONS.—The amount to be allocated under

paragraph (1) to any possession of the UnitedStates other than Puerto Rico shall be theamount which would have been allocated ifall allocations under paragraph (1) weremade on the basis of respective populationsof individuals below the poverty line (as de-fined by the Office of Management and Budg-et). In making other allocations, the amountto be allocated under paragraph (1) shall bereduced by the aggregate amount allocatedunder this paragraph to possessions of theUnited States.

‘‘(5) APPROVED STATE APPLICATION.—Forpurposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘approvedState application’ means an applicationwhich is approved by the Secretary of Edu-cation and which includes—

‘‘(A) the results of a recent publicly-avail-able survey (undertaken by the State withthe involvement of local education officials,members of the public, and experts in schoolconstruction and management) of suchState’s needs for public school facilities, in-cluding descriptions of—

‘‘(i) health and safety problems at such fa-cilities,

‘‘(ii) the capacity of public schools in theState to house projected enrollments, and

‘‘(iii) the extent to which the publicschools in the State offer the physical infra-structure needed to provide a high-qualityeducation to all students, and

‘‘(B) a description of how the State will al-locate to local educational agencies, or oth-erwise use, its allocation under this sub-section to address the needs identified undersubparagraph (A), including a description ofhow it will—

‘‘(i) give highest priority to localities withthe greatest needs, as demonstrated by inad-equate school facilities coupled with a lowlevel of resources to meet those needs,

‘‘(ii) use its allocation under this sub-section to assist localities that lack the fis-cal capacity to issue bonds on their own, and

‘‘(iii) ensure that its allocation under thissubsection is used only to supplement, andnot supplant, the amount of school construc-tion, rehabilitation, and repair in the Statethat would have occurred in the absence ofsuch allocation.

Any allocation under paragraph (1) by aState education agency shall be binding ifsuch agency reasonably determined that theallocation was in accordance with the planapproved under this paragraph.

‘‘(e) HALF OF LIMITATION ALLOCATED AMONGLARGEST SCHOOL DISTRICTS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—One-half of the limita-tion applicable under subsection (c) for anycalendar year shall be allocated under para-graph (2) by the Secretary among local edu-cational agencies which are large local edu-cational agencies for such year. No qualifiedschool construction bond may be issued byreason of an allocation to a large local edu-cational agency under the preceding sen-tence unless such agency has an approvedlocal application.

‘‘(2) ALLOCATION FORMULA.—The amount tobe allocated under paragraph (1) for any cal-endar year shall be allocated among largelocal educational agencies in proportion tothe respective amounts each such agency re-ceived for Basic Grants under subpart 2 ofpart A of title I of the Elementary and Sec-ondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6331et seq.) for the most recent fiscal year end-ing before such calendar year.

‘‘(3) LARGE LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘largelocal educational agency’ means, with re-spect to a calendar year, any local edu-cational agency if such agency is—

‘‘(A) among the 100 local educational agen-cies with the largest numbers of childrenaged 5 through 17 from families living below

the poverty level, as determined by the Sec-retary using the most recent data availablefrom the Department of Commerce that aresatisfactory to the Secretary, or

‘‘(B) 1 of not more than 25 local edu-cational agencies (other than those describedin clause (i)) that the Secretary of Educationdetermines (based on the most recent dataavailable satisfactory to the Secretary) arein particular need of assistance, based on alow level of resources for school construc-tion, a high level of enrollment growth, orsuch other factors as the Secretary deemsappropriate.

‘‘(4) APPROVED LOCAL APPLICATION.—Forpurposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘approvedlocal application’ means an applicationwhich is approved by the Secretary of Edu-cation and which includes—

‘‘(A) the results of a recent publicly-avail-able survey (undertaken by the local edu-cational agency with the involvement ofschool officials, members of the public, andexperts in school construction and manage-ment) of such agency’s needs for publicschool facilities, including descriptions of—

‘‘(i) the overall condition of the local edu-cational agency’s school facilities, includinghealth and safety problems,

‘‘(ii) the capacity of the agency’s schoolsto house projected enrollments, and

‘‘(iii) the extent to which the agency’sschools offer the physical infrastructureneeded to provide a high-quality educationto all students,

‘‘(B) a description of how the local edu-cational agency will use its allocation underthis subsection to address the needs identi-fied under subparagraph (A), and

‘‘(C) a description of how the local edu-cational agency will ensure that its alloca-tion under this subsection is used only tosupplement, and not supplant, the amount ofschool construction, rehabilitation, or repairin the locality that would have occurred inthe absence of such allocation.A rule similar to the rule of the last sen-tence of subsection (d)(5) shall apply for pur-poses of this paragraph.

‘‘(f) CARRYOVER OF UNUSED LIMITATION.—Iffor any calendar year—

‘‘(1) the amount allocated under subsection(d) to any State, exceeds

‘‘(2) the amount of bonds issued duringsuch year which are designated under sub-section (a) pursuant to such allocation,the limitation amount under such subsectionfor such State for the following calendaryear shall be increased by the amount ofsuch excess. A similar rule shall apply to theamounts allocated under subsection (e). Thesubsection shall not apply if such followingcalendar year is after 2002.’’.

(b) REPORTING.—Subsection (d) of section6049 of such Code (relating to returns regard-ing payments of interest) is amended by add-ing at the end the following new paragraph:

‘‘(8) REPORTING OF CREDIT ON QUALIFIEDPUBLIC SCHOOL MODERNIZATION BONDS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of sub-section (a), the term ‘interest‘ includesamounts includible in gross income undersection 1397E(f) and such amounts shall betreated as paid on the credit allowance date(as defined in section 1397E(d)(2)).

‘‘(B) REPORTING TO CORPORATIONS, ETC.—Except as otherwise provided in regulations,in the case of any interest described in sub-paragraph (A) of this paragraph, subsection(b)(4) of this section shall be applied withoutregard to subparagraphs (A), (H), (I), (J), (K),and (L)(i).

‘‘(C) REGULATORY AUTHORITY.—The Sec-retary may prescribe such regulations as arenecessary or appropriate to carry out thepurposes of this paragraph, including regula-tions which require more frequent or moredetailed reporting.’’

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1341March 4, 1998(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.—(1) The table of parts for subchapter U of

chapter 1 of such Code is amended by strik-ing the item relating to part IV and insert-ing the following new item:

‘‘Part IV. Incentives for qualified publicschool modernization bonds.’’.

(2) Part V of subchapter U of chapter 1 ofsuch Code is amended by redesignating bothsection 1397F and the item relating theretoin the table of sections for such part as sec-tion 1397H.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATES.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in

paragraph (2), the amendments made by thissection shall apply to obligations issuedafter December 31, 1998.

(2) REPEAL OF RESTRICTION ON ZONE ACAD-EMY BOND HOLDERS.—The repeal of the limi-tation of section 1397E of the Internal Reve-nue Code of 1986 (as in effect on the day be-fore the date of the enactment of this Act) toeligible taxpayers (as defined in subsection(d)(6) of such section) shall apply to obliga-tions issued after December 31, 1997.

BILL SUMMARY

The Public School Modernization Act cre-ates and expands tax incentives to helpStates and school districts meet their schoolmodernization and construction priorities.The bill includes two major provisions.

QUALIFIED SCHOOL MODERNIZATION BONDS

The bill allows state and local govern-ments to issue ‘‘qualified school moderniza-tion bonds’’ to fund the construction, mod-ernization, and rehabilitation of publicschools. Bondholders, instead of receiving in-terest, would receive annual Federal incometax credits. The maximum term of the bondswould be 15 years.

A total of $9.7 billion of authority to issuequalified school modernization bonds wouldbe allowed in each of 1999 and 2000, half toStates and half to the 100 school districtswith the largest numbers of poor children(The District of Columbia is considered aState.) The authority allocated to the 100large districts would be based on theamounts of Federal assistance receivedunder Title I, Basic Grants. In addition, theSecretary of Education would have the au-thority to designate 25 additional districts toreceive bond authority directly from theFederal government. The authority allo-cated to States would also be based on theState’s share of Title I, Basic Grants, exclud-ing the 100 large districts and any others des-ignated by the Secretary to receive bond au-thority directly from the Federal govern-ment. A small portion of the total amount ofbond authority would be set aside for eachU.S. possession (other than Puerto Rico,which is considered a State) based on itsshare of the total U.S. poverty population. AState, possession, or eligible school districtwould be permitted to carry forward any un-used portion of its allocation until Septem-ber 30, 2003.

Under the proposal, a bond would be treat-ed as a qualified school modernization bondif three requirements are met. First, the De-partment of Education must approve aschool construction plan of the State, terri-tory, or school district that: (1) dem-onstrates that a survey has been undertakenof the construction and renovation needs inthe jurisdiction, (2) describes how the juris-diction will assure that bond proceeds areused for the purposes of this proposal, and (3)explains how it will use its allocation to as-sist localities that lack the fiscal capacity toissue bonds on their own. Second, the issuinggovernment must receive an allocation forthe bond from the State, territory, or eligi-ble district. Third, 95 percent or more of the

bond proceeds must be used to construct orrehabilitate public school facilities.

QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS

The bill makes three changes to the exist-ing qualified zone academy bonds (created inthe Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997). First, thebill increases the 1999 bond cap from $400million to $1.4 billion and adds an additional$1.4 billion of bond cap in 2000. Second, thebill expands the list of permissible uses ofproceeds to include new school construction.Third, the bill sets the maximum term ofqualified zone academy bonds at 15 years.

Qualified zone academy bonds can be usedby school districts, starting this year, forschool improvement purposes. The subsidymechanism is the same as with the newschool modernization bonds—Federal taxcredits to bondholders in lieu of interest—but there are several requirements associ-ated with zone academy bonds. First, schoolsmust secure 10% of the funding for theschool improvement project from the privatesector before issuing the zone academybonds. Second, the school must work withthe private sector to enhance the curriculumand increase graduation rates and employ-ment rates. Finally, in order to be eligible,the school must either have 35% of studentseligible for the free- and reduced-price lunchprogram, or be located in an empowermentzone or enterprise community.

COST

The Joint Committee on Taxation esti-mates the total cost of this proposal is $3.3billion/5 years and $9 billion/10 years. TheDepartment of Treasury estimates the costis $5 billion/5 years.

The proposal is fully paid for within Presi-dent Clinton’s balanced budget.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I amhonored to be a sponsor of the PublicSchool Modernization Act of 1998, in-troduced today by Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN to help communities across thecountry in their struggle to modernize,repair, and rebuild their school facili-ties.

Schools across the nation face seri-ous problems of overcrowding. Anti-quated facilities are suffering fromphysical decay, and are not equipped tohandle the needs of modern education.

Across the country, 14 million chil-dren in a third of the nation’s schoolsare learning in substandard buildings.Half the schools have at least one un-satisfactory environmental condition.It will take over $100 billion just to re-pair existing facilities nationwide.

Massachusetts is no exception. 41% ofour schools across the state report thatat least one building needs extensiverepair or should be replaced. Three-quarters report serious problems inbuildings, such as plumbing or heatingdefects. 80% have at least one unsatis-factory environmental factor.

In Boston, many schools cannot keeptheir heating systems functioningproperly. On a given day, 15 to 30schools complain that their heat is notworking.

The leaking roof at Revere HighSchool is so serious that the new firesystem is threatened. School Commit-tee members estimate that fixing theroof will cost an additional $1 million,and they don’t know where to get themoney.

It is difficult enough to teach orlearn in dilapidated classrooms. But

now, because of escalating enroll-ments, those classrooms are increas-ingly overcrowded. The nation willneed 6,000 new schools in the next fewyears, just to maintain current classsizes.

State governments and local commu-nities are working hard to meet thesechallenges. In Massachusetts, underthe School Building Assistance Act,the state will pay 50–90% of the mostsevere needs. 124 schools now have ap-proved projects, and are on a waitinglist for funding. The state share shouldbe $91 million this year, but only $35million is available. More than 50 otherprojects are awaiting approval. Withthat kind of deficit at the state andlocal level, it is clear that the federalgovernment has a responsibility to act.

I am pleased that President Clintonhas made this issue one of his highestpriorities. The legislation we are intro-ducing will allow states and local gov-ernments to issue $22 billion in bondsover the next five years for school re-pairs and construction. Half of theamount will go to state governments,and the other half will go to the 100 cit-ies across the nation with the largestnumbers of low-income children, in-cluding Boston and Springfield. Thebonds will be interest-free for thestates and cities—Uncle Sam will paythe interest.

Under this plan, the state govern-ment in Massachusetts can issue $230million in bonds for construction andrenovation of school buildings. TheCity of Boston can issue an additional$90 million, and the City of Springfieldcan issue an additional $36 million, sothat a total of $356 million in bondswill be available to help Massachusettsschools under this legislation.

Good teaching and good schools arethreatened if school buildings are un-safe and need repairs. President Clin-ton has made it a top priority to seethat America has the best publicschools in the world. And my Demo-cratic colleagues and I intend to do allwe can to see that we reach that goal.

Investing in schools is one of the bestinvestments America can possiblymake. For schools across America, helpis truly on the way—and it can’t comea minute too soon.

By Mr. BINGAMAN:S. 1706. A bill to amend title 23,

United States Code, to encourageStates to enact laws that ban the saleof alcohol through a drive-up or drive-through sales window; to the Commit-tee on Environment and Public Works.

THE DRUNK DRIVING CASUALTY PREVENTIONACT OF 1998

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I risebriefly to discuss a very importantmatter relating to the safety of our Na-tion’s streets and highways, DWI-relat-ed injuries and fatalities. This is aproblem that in spite of many preven-tion efforts, remains a serious concern.

The statistics are compelling. For ex-ample, on Thanksgiving, Christmas,New Years Eve, and New Years Day

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1342 March 4, 19981996, there were 576 DWI-related fatali-ties on our Nation’s highways. In thatsame year, nearly 1.1 million peoplewere injured in alcohol-related crashes.Motor vehicle crashes are the leadingcause of death for 15- to 20-year-olds.About 3 in 10 Americans will be in-volved in an alcohol-related crash atsome time in their lives. Alcohol-relat-ed crashes cost society $45 billion an-nually. To make matters worse, theloss of quality of life and pain and suf-fering costs total over $134 billion an-nually.

My home state of New Mexico is notexempt. In fact, the National TrafficSafety Administration reports thatNew Mexico leads the country in DWI-related deaths per capita, a rate of 11.79deaths per 100,000 people. This rate is 19percent higher than the No. 2 state,Mississippi, and is more than twice thenational rate of 5.05 deaths per 100,000.

Indeed, these statistics paint a verygrim picture. What makes this pictureeven more tragic, Mr. President, isthat DWI-related injuries and fatalitiesare preventable. It clearly is within ournational interest to do everything wecan to reverse this course. One obviousway to prevent further deaths on ourhighways is to ensure the sobriety ofdrivers. That is why I proudly am co-sponsoring Senator LAUTENBERG’s andSenator DEWINE’s bill to establish anational blood-alcohol content stand-ard of .08. Additionally, I am cospon-soring Senator DORGAN’s bill to pro-hibit open containers of alcohol inautomobiles. I urge my Senate col-leagues to help pass these bills thisyear.

Another contributing factor to theproblem that I believe would make asignificant difference if eliminated isthe practice of selling alcohol bev-erages through drive-up sales windows.This practice only makes it more easyfor a drunk driver to purchase alcohol,and it contributes heavily to the DWI-fatality rate in New Mexico. Eliminat-ing these drive-up liquor windows is es-sential to reducing these injuries andfatalities.

When I was in New Mexico 2 weeksago, I held a series of seminars withhigh school students from throughoutthe state, and I listened to their con-cerns about the problems in the stateand in the country. One young man,Simon Goldfine, who is a student atDel Norte High School in Albuquerque,agreed that the DWI rate in New Mex-ico is much too high, and one reason heexplained is these drive-in liquor win-dows. Simon explained that if a drunkperson has to walk into a liquor store,it will be easier to determine if he isdrunk than if he simply sat in his vehi-cle. And Simon asked if somethingcould be done to eliminate the win-dows. Today I would like to tell Simonthat we will do something about it.

Today, at Simon’s urging, I am intro-ducing legislation, the Drunk DrivingCasualty Prevention Act of 1998 to pro-hibit the sale of alcohol through drive-up sales windows.

Mr. President, I believe no one inAmerica will disagree with Simon thatthis ban will make a difference. Ac-cording to one study, there are 26states that do not permit drive-up win-dows. In 1996, these states had a 15 per-cent lower average drunk driving fatal-ity rate than the 24 states that permitthese windows. In the states with theban, the average rate was 4.6 per 100,000people, as opposed to 5.46 in all otherstates. On a percentage basis, stateswith a ban had a 14.5 percent lowerdrunk driving fatality rate than statesthat permit sales windows.

In 1996, comparing 19 western statesin particular, the nine states with aban had a 31 percent lower averagedrunk driving fatality rate than theten states that permit the windows.

In 1995, there were 231 drunk drivingfatalities in New Mexico. Based on the14-percent lower drunk driving fatalityrate, it is estimated that closing drive-up liquor windows could save between32 and 35 lives annually in New Mexico.Nowhere is it more true that if we cansave one life by closing these windows,we should do it.

The differences can be explained be-cause there are three main benefits toclosing drive-up liquor windows: first,it is easier and more accurate to checkIDs over the sales counter. Minors havetestified that it is very easy to ille-gally purchase alcohol at a drive-upwindow where it is difficult to deter-mine their age. Second, it is easier tovisually observe a customer for cluesthat they are impaired by alcohol orother substance if they have to walkinto a well-lit establishment to maketheir purchase. Moreover, in one mu-nicipal court in New Mexico, 33 percentof DWI offenders reported having pur-chased their liquor at drive up win-dows. Some members of AlcoholicsAnonymous say they now realize theycould have known each other years ear-lier if they had only looked in theirrear view mirror while in line at adrive-up window. And third, it sends aclear message to the population thatdrinking and driving will not be toler-ated.

The Behavior Health Research Centerof the Southwest conducted a study,the purpose of which was to determinethe characteristics and arrest cir-cumstances of DWI offenders whobought alcohol at a drive-up liquorwindow compared to those who ob-tained alcohol elsewhere. Nearly 70 per-cent of offenders studied reported hav-ing purchased the alcohol they drankprior to arrest. Of those offenders, 42percent bought package liquor, and ofthose offenders, the drive-up windowwas the preferred place of purchase.Additionally, the study showed thatdrive-up window users were 68 percentmore likely to have a serious alcoholproblem than other offenders. Drive-upwindow users also are 67 percent morelikely to be drinking in their vehicleprior to arrest than other offenders.This study showed that drive-up win-dows facilitate alcohol misuse in vul-

nerable populations. The persons mostaffected are the high-risk problemdrinkers, and when liquor availabilityis restricted, it is among those offend-ers that use, and consequently alcohol-related offenses, declines the most.

There are some that may contendthat closing these windows is going tohurt small businesses. To the contrary.Closing these drive-up liquor windowswill actually help increase profits, andit is very easy to explain. When a cus-tomer has to walk into an establish-ment, he or she is very likely to pur-chase more than the original item. Thecustomer is likely to pick up, for ex-ample, potato chips, sodas, and maga-zines. This is not as likely to happen atthe drive-up window simply becausethe customers cannot see the itemsfrom their vehicle. In McKinley Coun-ty, New Mexico, which is the onlycounty in New Mexico to ban thesewindows, businesses actually saw ajump in profits. Most importantly, be-cause of its DWI prevention strategy,McKinley County’s alcohol-related in-jury and fatality rate dropped from 272per 100,000 in 1989 to 183 per 100,000 in1997.

Mr. President, I believe we have agreat opportunity here to reduce DWIinjuries and fatalities. Therefore, Iplan to offer this bill as an amendmentto the ISTEA legislation, and I urgemy Senate colleagues to join me. I askunanimous consent that the rest of thebill be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill wasordered to be printed in the RECORD, asfollows:

S. 1706Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-

resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,SECTION 1. BAN ON SALE OF ALCOHOL THROUGH

DRIVE-UP OR DRIVE-THROUGHSALES WINDOWS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 23,United States Code, is amended by insertingafter section 153 the following:‘‘§ 154. Ban on sale of alcohol through drive-

up or drive-through sales windows‘‘(a) WITHHOLDING OF APPORTIONMENTS FOR

NONCOMPLIANCE.—‘‘(1) FISCAL YEAR 2000.—The Secretary shall

withhold 5 percent of the amount required tobe apportioned to any State under each ofparagraphs (1)(A), (1)(C), and (3) of section104(b) on October 1, 1999, if the State does notmeet the requirements of paragraph (3) onthat date.

‘‘(2) SUBSEQUENT FISCAL YEARS.—The Sec-retary shall withhold 10 percent (includingany amounts withheld under paragraph (1))of the amount required to be apportioned toany State under each of paragraphs (1)(A),(1)(C), and (3) of section 104(b) on October 1,2000, and on October 1 of each fiscal yearthereafter, if the State does not meet the re-quirements of paragraph (3) on that date.

‘‘(3) REQUIREMENTS.—A State meets the re-quirements of this paragraph if the State hasenacted and is enforcing a law (including aregulation) that bans the sale of alcoholthrough a drive-up or drive-through saleswindow.

‘‘(b) PERIOD OF AVAILABILITY; EFFECT OFCOMPLIANCE AND NONCOMPLIANCE.—

‘‘(1) PERIOD OF AVAILABILITY OF WITHHELDFUNDS.—

‘‘(A) FUNDS WITHHELD ON OR BEFORE SEP-TEMBER 30, 2002.—Any funds withheld under

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1343March 4, 1998subsection (a) from apportionment to anyState on or before September 30, 2002, shallremain available until the end of the thirdfiscal year following the fiscal year forwhich the funds are authorized to be appro-priated.

‘‘(B) FUNDS WITHHELD AFTER SEPTEMBER 30,2002.—No funds withheld under this sectionfrom apportionment to any State after Sep-tember 30, 2002, shall be available for appor-tionment to the State.

‘‘(2) APPORTIONMENT OF WITHHELD FUNDSAFTER COMPLIANCE.—If, before the last day ofthe period for which funds withheld undersubsection (a) from apportionment are to re-main available for apportionment to a Stateunder paragraph (1)(A), the State meets therequirements of subsection (a)(3), the Sec-retary shall, on the first day on which theState meets the requirements, apportion tothe State the funds withheld under sub-section (a) that remain available for appor-tionment to the State.

‘‘(3) PERIOD OF AVAILABILITY OF SUBSE-QUENTLY APPORTIONED FUNDS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any funds apportionedunder paragraph (2) shall remain availablefor expenditure until the end of the third fis-cal year following the fiscal year in whichthe funds are so apportioned.

‘‘(B) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN FUNDS.—Sumsnot obligated at the end of the period re-ferred to in subparagraph (A) shall lapse.

‘‘(4) EFFECT OF NONCOMPLIANCE.—If, at theend of the period for which funds withheldunder subsection (a) from apportionment areavailable for apportionment to a State underparagraph (1), the State does not meet therequirements of subsection (a)(3), the fundsshall lapse.’’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The analysisfor chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code,is amended by inserting after the item relat-ing to section 153 the following:‘‘154. Ban on sale of alcohol through drive-up

or drive-through sales win-dows.’’.

By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself,Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr.BUMPERS, and Mr. BYRD)

S. 1707. A bill to amend the FederalFood, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to pro-vide for improved safety of importedfoods; to the Committee on Labor andHuman Resources.

THE SAFETY OF IMPORTED FOOD ACT OF 1998

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I risetoday to introduce the ‘‘Safety of Im-ported Food Act of 1998.’’ I am proud tobe the sponsor of this important legis-lation to provide the American peoplewith safer imported foods. This legisla-tion is part of President Clinton’s foodsafety initiative. Its purpose is to pro-vide for improved safety of importedfood consistent with U.S. food safetyrequirements.

The bill expands FDA authority toensure the safety of imported foods intwo very important ways. It authorizesthe Secretary to deny entry of im-ported food products if it is determinedthat the products do not meet the U.S.food safety requirements. It also au-thorizes the secretary to consider, indetermining whether imported foodproducts meet U.S. food safety require-ments, a refusal to allow necessary in-spections or testing.

Our nation’s food supply has goneglobal. Once our imported food con-sisted mainly of bulk staples. Now we

import growing quantities of freshfruits and vegetables, seafood, andmany other foods. Thirty-eight percentof all fruit and 12% of all vegetablesconsumed in the U.S. are imported. Im-ported food entries doubled in the last7 years and a 30% increase is expectedby 2002.

We have been put on alert by recentcases of food borne illness. Michiganschool children were sickened by im-ported strawberries contaminated byHepatitis A. There have been wide-spread reports of cyclospora from im-ported raspberries. Soft cheese fromEurope has been found to be contami-nated with listeria and salmonella. Andradish seed sprouts from the Far Easthave been found infected with Ecoli0157:H7.

The impact of unsafe food is stagger-ing. As many as 33 million people be-come ill each year from contaminatedmeat, poultry and produce. Over $3 bil-lion are spent in hospitalization due tofood related illness. Added to that arethe losses in productivity.

Now that our food supply has goneglobal, our food safety measures mustgo global as well. Current authority re-quires FDA to rely on inspection andtesting at the border to ensure thatsafety standards are met. With the everincreasing quantities of importedfoods, it is impossible for FDA to in-spect more than a small percentage ofshipments. Additionally, such inspec-tions are often impractical, given theperishable nature of many of the im-ported foods. The FDA may also placemore general restrictions on imports,but only after a problem has surfaced,often after a major outbreak of illnesshas occurred. Both of these types ofmeasures address the problem of unsafefood reactively.

The ‘‘Safety of Imported Food Act’’places the emphasis on the underlyingfood system of control at the foodsource, a more preventive means of ad-dressing food safety. It focuses on theconditions that cause problems ratherthan the problem once it has occurred.By allowing FDA to consider the foodsafety system in place, the bill pro-vides the means by which FDA can useits limited resources more efficiently.

There are several things this bill doesnot do. It does not shut our borders orimmediately deny entry of importedfood upon enactment. It does not re-quire inspections or access withoutconsent. In fact, it does not create anynew inspection authority, either for-eign or domestic.

The bill is short, but what it willachieve is significant. It will provideFDA with authority to ensure that allimported foods meet the U.S. level ofprotection, consistent with rights andobligations under international tradeagreements. It provides FDA with amore effective enforcement tool andthe ability to use its resources more ef-fectively. Under the bill, foreign pro-ducers may have an incentive to up-grade their food safety systems. Mostimportantly, the bill will provide the

American public with greater assur-ance that imported foods meet thesame safety standards as do foods pro-duced in the U.S.

I wish to commend President Clintonand Vice President GORE in makingfood safety a top priority. By strength-ening the food supply both here andabroad, I believe we make the world asafer place to live. I look forward tothe Senate’s support of this importantlegislation.

By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself,Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. DODD,Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BREAUX, Mr.ROBB, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LAUTEN-BERG, Mr. GLENN, Mr. KERRY,Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. REID, Mr.REED and Mr. BRYAN):

S. 1708. A bill to improve education;to the Committee on Labor and HumanResources.THE REVITALIZE AND EMPOWER PUBLIC SCHOOL

COMMUNITIES TO UPGRADE FOR LONG-TERMSUCCESS ACT

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, todayI am introducing on behalf of my col-leagues, Senators MURRAY, MOSELEY-BRAUN, KENNEDY, DODD, BOXER,BREAUX, ROBB, LEVIN, LAUTENBERG,GLENN, KERRY, FEINSTEIN, REID, REED,BRYAN and myself, legislation thatputs the spotlight directly on our ef-forts to strengthen and modernize ournation’s public schools.

We recognize that a strong publiceducation system is the key to Ameri-ca’s future. Our economic prosperity,our position as a world leader, our sys-tem of law, and our very democracy re-quire that all of our children have ac-cess to the best possible education.

We have heard a lot over the last 20years about the things that are wrongwith education in this country, andthere’s no question that we need to dosome things better. We just learned theother day, for example, that our 12thgraders are behind the rest of the worldin math and science achievement. Thatis unacceptable and must be corrected.But there are signs that we have beenable to make some progress. Ourfourth-graders are well above the aver-age in mathematics and near the top inscience. And there are innovative pro-grams springing up around the countrythat are taking advantage of federalfunds to make remarkable changes inthe way public schools are run. TheCity of Chicago, for example, has takendramatic steps including ending socialpromotions, raising their standards,and providing extra help to make surethat children can achieve those stand-ards. Parents and community membersare more involved , and, while it’s tooearly to see results in terms of testscores, there are dramatic improve-ments in attendance. Those who are in-volved are amazed at their progress.

Despite many local improvements,our schools still face many challenges.Student enrollments are at record highlevels and are expected to increase over

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1344 March 4, 1998the next decade. This growth, com-bined with aging buildings and the de-mand of technology, is straining manyschool facilities. Growing enrollmentsand teacher retirements also meanthat more than 2 million new teacherswill be needed over the next decade.The quality of those teachers will havea significant impact on studentachievement levels. Recent advance-ments require better integration oftechnology in our public schools andbetter training for instructors in usingtechnology effectively in the class-room. While many schools have imple-mented reforms and student perform-ance is improving in some commu-nities, too many children, particularlythose from low-income families, arestill not learning up to their potential.

The legislation we are introducingtoday—the RESULTS Act—will ad-dresses these issues in 5 ways:

(1) We create a new tax credit to helpcommunities offset the cost of schoolconstruction and modernization;

(2) We provide funds to help commu-nities reduce class sizes in grades 1through 3 by hiring and training 100,000new teachers;

(3) We help communities establishadditional after-school programs forschool-aged children;

(4) We advance the federal commit-ment to integrate technology into theclassroom and provide resources totrain teachers to use that technologyeffectively; and

(5) We include the President’s initia-tive to provide grants to high-povertyurban and rural school districts thatare serious about carrying out stand-ards-based reforms, such as those oc-curring in Chicago, to improve studentachievement.

Mr. President, Democrats recognizethat the federal government has an im-portant role to play in encouraging allAmericans—including parents, teach-ers, business and community leaders,and elected officials at all levels ofgovernment—to work in partnership tostrengthen and revitalize our publicschools. Our nation’s commitment to astrong system of public education hasmade our country great. We renew thatcommitment today with this plan toprepare our students to lead this coun-try into the 21st Century. I thank mycolleagues who have worked with me todemonstrate our resolve to modernizeand strengthen our public schools andinvite our colleagues across the aisle tomake the same commitment and joinus to enact the important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that a title-by-title explanation of the bill, beprinted in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the sum-mary was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

S. 1708—SUMMARY

TITLE I—HELPING COMMUNITIESRENOVATE AMERICA’S SCHOOLS

The General Accounting Office has foundsevere school disrepair in all areas of theUnited States. More than 14 million childrenattend schools in need of extensive repair or

replacement. The repair backlog totals atleast $112 billion, and this does not includeexpansions needed to accommodate enroll-ment increases, class size reductions, and in-tegration of technology in the classroom.The problem transcends demographic and ge-ographic boundaries. For 38 percent of urbanschools, 30 percent of rural schools, and 29percent of suburban schools, at least 1 build-ing is in need of extensive repair or should becompletely replaced.

The condition of school facilities has a di-rect effect on the safety of students andteachers, and on the ability of students tolearn. Researchers at Georgetown Universityfound the performance of students assignedto schools in poor condition falls 10.9 per-centage points below those attending classesin buildings in excellent condition. Otherstudies have demonstrated up to a 20 percentimprovement in test scores when studentswere moved from a dilapidated facility to anew facility.

This Title includes 2 initiatives to expandtax incentives to help states and school dis-tricts address the school construction back-log.

QUALIFIED SCHOOL MODERNIZATION BONDS

State and local governments will issuequalified school modernization bonds to fundthe construction, modernization, and reha-bilitation of public schools. Bondholders willreceive annual Federal income tax credits inlieu of interest. The maximum term of thebonds will be 15 years.

A total of $9.7 billion of authority to issuequalified school modernization bonds is allo-cated in 1999 and 2000—50 percent to statesand 50 percent to the 100 largest school dis-tricts. The authority allocated to the 100largest districts will be based on theamounts of Federal assistance receivedunder Title I, Basic Grants. In addition, theSecretary of Education will have the author-ity to designate 25 additional districts to re-ceive bond authority directly from the Fed-eral government. The authority allocated toStates will also be based on the State’s shareof Title I, Basic Grants, excluding the 100large districts and any others designated bythe Secretary to receive bond authority di-rectly from the Federal government.

I should note that I would prefer to providemore funds to the states to make sure thatrural areas, many of which are severely lim-ited financially, have access to the fundsthey need to modernize their schools as well.However, this bill reflects a joint House andSenate Democrats and White House initia-tive, so I have not made that change in thisbill.

To be treated as a qualified school mod-ernization bond program, 3 requirementsmust be met. First, the Department of Edu-cation must approve a school constructionplan of the state, territory, or school districtthat: (1) demonstrates a survey of the con-struction and renovation needs in the juris-diction has been undertaken; (2) describeshow the jurisdiction will assure that bondproceeds are used for the purposes of thisproposal; and (3) explains how it will use itsallocation to assist localities that lack thefiscal capacity to issue bonds on their own.Second, the issuing government must receivean allocation for the bond from the State,territory, or eligible district. Third, 95 per-cent or more of the bond proceeds must beused to construct or rehabilitate publicschool facilities.

QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS

The bill makes 3 changes to the existingqualified zone academy bonds (created in theTaxpayer Relief Act of 1997). First, the billincreases the 1999 bond cap from $400 millionto $1.4 billion and adds an additional $1.4 bil-lion of bond cap in 2000. Second, the bill ex-

pands the list of permissible uses of proceedsto include new school construction. Third,the bill sets the maximum term of qualifiedzone academy bonds at 15 years. The subsidymechanism is the same as with the newschool modernization bonds—Federal taxcredits to bondholders in lieu of interest—but there are several requirements associ-ated with zone academy bonds. First, schoolsmust secure 10 percent of the funding for theschool improvement project from the privatesector before issuing the zone academybonds. Second, the school must work withthe private sector to enhance the curriculumand increase graduation and employmentrates. Finally, in order to be eligible, theschool must either have 35 percent of stu-dents eligible for the free- and reduced-pricelunch program, or be located in an Empower-ment zone or enterprise community.

TITLE II—REDUCING CLASS-SIZE

Qualified teachers in small classes can pro-vide students with more individualized at-tention, spend more time on instruction andless on other administrative tasks, covermore material more effectively, and workmore closely with parents. Research hasshown that students attending small classesin the early grades make better progressthan students in larger classes, and thatthose achievement gains persist through atleast the eighth grade. The benefits aregreatest for low-achieving, minority, poor,and inner-city children. Smaller classes alsoallow teachers to identify and work earlierwith students who have learning disabilities,potentially reducing those students’ need forspecial education in later grades.

Efforts to reduce class sizes are likely tobe successful only if well-qualified teachersare hired to fill additional classroom posi-tions, and if teachers receive intensive, on-going training in teaching effectively insmaller classroom settings. Currently, 1 in 4high school teachers do not have a major orminor in the main subject they teach. This istrue for more than 30 percent of math teach-ers. In schools with the highest minority en-rollments, students have less than a 50 per-cent chance of getting a science or mathteacher who holds a degree in that field.

Over the next decade, we will need to hireover 2 million teachers to meet increasingstudent enrollments and teacher retire-ments. Comprehensive improvements inteacher preparation and development areneeded to ensure students’ academic success.Too many teachers graduating today haveinsufficient experience in the classroom orare unprepared to integrate technology intotheir lessons. The federal government can as-sist in this effort by providing resources tohelp communities reduce class sizes and im-prove the quality of teacher training.

This program is designed to help states andlocal educational agencies recruit, train, andhire 100,000 additional qualified teachers inorder to reduce class sizes nationally, ingrades 1 to 3 to an average of 18 students perclassroom. In addition, the program providesresources to improve small classroom teach-ing in the early grades so that all studentscan learn to read well and independently bythe end of the third grade. Funding of $1.1billion will be appropriated in the first yearand $7.3 billion over 5 years.

I want to emphasize that our proposal isaimed at improving the quality of teaching,not just the quantity of teachers. This iscritical if we expect to see improvements instudent achievement.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1345March 4, 1998TITLE III—EXPANDING AFTER-SCHOOL

CAREMany children spend more of their waking

hours without supervision and constructiveactivity than they do in school. As many as5 million children are home alone afterschool each week. Too many of these chil-dren are tempted during this time to trycigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and engage inother dangerous activities. The law enforce-ment community, which has been very ac-tive in their efforts to focus our attention onthis problem, reports that most juvenile in-volvement in crime—either committingthem or becoming victims themselves—oc-curs between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. Children whoattend quality after-school programs, on theother hand, tend to do better in school, getalong better with their peers, and are lesslikely to engage in delinquent behaviors. Un-fortunately, only one-third of the schools inlow-income neighborhoods and half of theschools in affluent areas currently offerafter-school programs. Expansion of bothschool-based and community-based after-school programs is key to providing safe,constructive environments for children andhelping communities reduce the incidence ofjuvenile delinquency and crime.

This bill expands the 21st Century Learn-ing Centers Act and provides $200 millioneach fiscal year to help communities developafter-school care programs. Grantees will berequired to offer expanded learning opportu-nities for children and youth in the commu-nity. Funds could be used to provide:

(1) literacy programs;(2) integrated education, health, social

service, recreational or cultural programs;(3) summer and weekend school programs;(4) nutrition and health programs;(5) expanded library services;(6) telecommunications and technology

education programs;(7) services for individuals with disabil-

ities;(8) job skills assistance;(9) mentoring;(10) academic assistance; and(11) drug, alcohol, and gang prevention ac-

tivities.While expanding after-school programs in

public schools will help hundreds of thou-sands of children. It is important to notethat many other community-based organiza-tions, including YMCAs, and Campfire Boysand Girls, provide high quality programs forchildren as well. These programs also needand deserve federal assistance, since it is un-likely that schools will be able to meet theneeds of all children. While school-based careis the focus of this legislation, many Demo-cratic senators and I also strongly supportproviding additional resources for after-school care through other programs, and wewould also like to see greater coordinationamong all federal, state, and local programsin order to maximize the effective use ofpublic resources and encourage more col-laborative efforts at the local level.TITLE IV—PROMOTING EFFECTIVE USEOF TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOMAmericans agree that integrating tech-

nology effectively in the classroom must bea central component of preparing studentsfor the 21st Century. Fully 74 percent ofAmericans believe that computers improvethe quality of education and half believetheir public schools offer too little access toadequate computers.

The importance of strengthening students’technology skills cannot be underestimated.Nearly one quarter of the jobs added to oureconomy in the past year were in tech-nology-based occupations. By the year 2000,60 percent of all jobs in the nation will re-quire skills in computer and network use.

Just 22 percent of all workers have thoseskills today.

Incorporating technology effectively in theclassroom has been proven to improve stu-dents’ mastery of basic skills, test scores,writing, and engagement in school. Withthese gains comes a decrease in dropoutrates, as well as fewer attendance and dis-cipline problems.

We are making progress. While only 35 per-cent of schools had access to the internet in1996, now 78 percent are on-line. The Schoolsand Libraries Universal Service Fund, or ‘‘E-rate,’’ will provide up to $2.25 billion annu-ally in discounts to assure every Americanschool and library access to telecommuni-cations services, internal connection, andInternet access. More than 20,000 schools andlibraries have already applied to participatein this program. The National Governors’Association has urged Congress to maintainthe integrity of the E-rate, and provide ade-quate funding for this important programnow.

Many states and localities are taking goodadvantage of other Federal programs such asthe Technology Literacy Challenge Fund,Technology Innovation Challenge Grants,Star Schools and other programs to obtainequipment and wire schools. Additional re-sources are needed to continue this effort aswell as help train teachers in the effectiveuse of technology in the classroom.

This legislation states that it is in the Na-tion’s interest to invest at least $4 billion infunding for Department of Education tech-nology programs between fiscal years 1999and 2003.

We also require schools and libraries par-ticipating in the E-rate to establish policiesto limit access to inappropriate material.Our bill also includes several measures to in-crease Federal resources to improve profes-sional development and help teachers inte-grate technology into the classroom. Underour proposal, 30 percent of National Chal-lenge Grant for Technology grants will be di-rected to partnerships that are focused ondeveloping effective teaching strategies. Toimprove training and preparation of teachingcandidates and new teachers, the Secretarywill be authorized to award grants to part-nerships that train candidates and educationschool faculty in the effective use and inte-gration of technology in teaching academicsubjects.

The bill establishes $75 million in grants tobe managed jointly by the Office of Edu-cation Research and Innovation and the Na-tional Science Foundation to support inno-vative research in education technology, de-velopment of research results in partnershipswith the private sector, and evaluation thatidentifies the most effective approaches toimplementing education technology.

TITLE V—EDUCATION OPPORTUNITYZONES

Students in schools where a high propor-tion of children come from lower-incomefamilies begin school behind their peers aca-demically and, too often, never catch upwith their peers. Later on, they are less like-ly to go to college and more likely to experi-ence unemployment. High levels of povertyand the lack of resources has resulted in wa-tered down curricula, lowered expectationsfor their students, and fewer qualified teach-ers. These challenges are compounded inhigh-poverty rural schools because of theirisolation and small size.

Some high-poverty schools have shown,however, that students can achieve more ifthe schools adopt high standards for stu-dents, teachers and administrators, provideextra help to students, adopt proven sys-temic reforms, and hold schools, staff, andstudents accountable for the results.

This program will provide $200 million inFY1999 and $1.5 billion over 5 years to high-poverty urban and rural school districts thatare serious about carrying out standards-based reform plans to improve the academicachievement. Grants will be awarded to ap-proximately 50 districts that:

(1) agree to adopt high standards, test stu-dent achievement, and provide help to stu-dents, teachers and schools who need it;

(2) ensure quality teaching, challengingcurricula, and extended learning time; and

(3) end social promotion and take steps toturn around failing schools.

Lessons learned from these districts will beshared with schools across the country.Schools will be encouraged to provide stu-dents and parents with school report cardsand expanded choices with public education.

Awards will be made according to a com-petitive, peer review process. Consortia oflarge and small urban areas, and rural schooldistricts will be selected to participate.

Schools run by the Bureau of Indian Af-fairs are also eligible.

Successful applicants will have broad-based partnerships to support their reforms,including parents, teachers, local govern-ment, business, civic groups, institutions ofhigher education and other members of thecommunity.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Presi-dent Clinton and Democrats in Con-gress have made it a top priority to seethat America has the best publicschools in the world—and we intend todo all we can to see that we reach thatgoal.

The nation’s students deserve mod-ern schools with world-class teachers.But too many students in too manyschools in too many communitiesacross the country fail to achieve thatstandard. The latest international sur-vey of math and science achievementconfirms the urgent need to raisestandards of performance for schools,teachers, and students alike. It isshameful that America’s twelfth grad-ers ranked among the lowest of the 22nations participating in this inter-national survey of math and science.

The challenge is clear. We must doall we can to improve teaching andlearning for all students across the na-tion. That means:

We must continue to support effortsto raise academic standards.

We must test students early, so thatwe know where they need help in timeto make that help effective.

We must provide better training forcurrent and new teachers, so that theyare well-prepared to teach to highstandards.

We must reduce class size, to helpstudents obtain the individual atten-tion they need.

We must provide after-school pro-grams to make constructive alter-natives available to students and keepthem off the streets, away from drugs,and out of trouble.

We must provide greater resources tomodernize and expand the nation’sschool buildings to meet the urgentneeds of schools for up-to-date facili-ties.

I will do all I can to see that the‘‘RESULTS! Act’’—‘‘An Act to Revital-ize and Empower Schools to Upgrade

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1346 March 4, 1998for Long-Term Success’’—is approvedby Congress. The bill will help modern-ize and expand the nation’s schools, re-duce class size, expand after-schoolcare, improve education technology inschools, and create education oppor-tunity zones in communities across thecountry.

A necessary foundation for a success-ful school is a qualified teacher inevery classroom to make sure youngchildren receive the individual atten-tion they need. That’s why a pillar ofthe Democratic agenda is to help bring100,000 new teachers to schools and re-duce class size in the elementarygrades.

Research has shown that students at-tending small classes in the earlygrades make more rapid progress thanstudents in larger classes. The benefitsare greatest for low-achieving, minor-ity, and low-income children. Smallerclasses also enable teachers to identifyand work effectively with students whohave learning disabilities, and reducethe need for special education in latergrades.

Many states are also considering pro-posals to reduce class size—but youcan’t reduce class size without the abil-ity to hire additional qualified teach-ers to fill the additional classrooms.

Too many schools are already under-staffed. During the next decade, risingstudent enrollments and massiveteacher retirements mean that the na-tion will need to hire 2 million newteachers. Between 1995 and 1997, stu-dent enrollment in Massachusetts roseby 28,000 students, causing a shortageof 1,600 teachers—without includingteacher retirements.

The teacher shortage has forcedmany school districts to hireuncertified teachers, and ask certifiedteachers to teach outside their area ofexpertise. Each year, more than 50,000under-prepared teachers enter theclassroom. One in four new teachersdoes not fully meet state certificationrequirements. Twelve percent of newteachers have had no teacher trainingat all. Students in inner-city schoolshave only a 50% chance of being taughtby a qualified science or math teacher.In Massachusetts, 30% of teachers inhigh-poverty schools do not even havea minor degree in their field.

Our proposal will reduce class size ingrades K–3 to a nationwide average of18 by hiring more teachers. Under ourproposal, states and school districtswill be able to recruit, train and hire100,000 additional qualified teachers inorder to reduce class size and improveteaching and learning in these earlygrades. In the first year, Massachusettswill receive $22 million to supportthese efforts. We will also be workingthrough the Higher Education Act toimprove teacher training at collegesand universities.

Our proposal will also help schoolsmeet their urgent needs for construc-tion, modernization, and renovation.Schools across the nation face seriousproblems. Many are overcrowded. Many

others have antiquated facilities suf-fering from physical decay, with noability to handle the needs of moderneducation. Across the country, 14 mil-lion children in a third of the nation’sschools are learning in substandardbuildings. Half the schools have atleast one unsatisfactory environmentalcondition.

Massachusetts is no exception. 41% ofour schools across the state report thatat least one building needs extensiverepair or should be replaced. Three-quarters report serious problems inbuildings, such as plumbing or heatingdefects. Eighty percent have at leastone unsatisfactory environmental fac-tor.

It is difficult enough to teach orlearn in dilapidated classrooms. Butnow, because of escalating enroll-ments, those classrooms are increas-ingly overcrowded. The nation willneed 6,000 new schools in the next fewyears, just to maintain current classsizes.

It will take over $100 billion just torepair existing facilities. Obviously,the federal government cannot do thewhole job. But states and communitiesacross the country are working hard tomeet these needs, and the federal gov-ernment should do more to help.

This year, Revere, Massachusettspassed a $2.2 million bond issue to ren-ovate the roofs on three of its sevenschools. After these renovations werecompleted, a fourth school’s roof start-ed to leak. The leak is so serious thatthe school’s new fire system is threat-ened. School Committee members esti-mate that fixing the roof will cost anadditional $1 million, and they don’tknow where to get the money.

Last year, half of Worcester’s schoolswere not equipped with the wiring andinfrastructure to handle modern tech-nology.

Enrollment in Springfield schools hasincreased by over 1,500 students, or 6percent, in the last two years, forcingteachers to hold classes in storagerooms, large closets, and in basements.

Our proposal will authorize statesand local governments to issue $22 bil-lion in bonds for school repairs andconstruction. Part of the amount willgo to state governments and part willgo to the 100 cities across the nationwith the largest numbers of low-in-come children, including Boston andSpringfield. The bonds will be interest-free for the states and cities—UncleSam will pay the interest.

Our legislation also addresses the ur-gent need to provide effective activi-ties for children of all ages during themany hours each week when they arenot in school.

Each day, 5 million children, many asyoung as 8 or 9 years old, are left homealone after school. Juvenile delinquentcrime peaks in the hours between 3p.m. and 8 p.m. Children unsupervisedare more likely to be involved in anti-social activities and destructive pat-terns of behavior.

Our goal in this legislation is to en-courage communities to develop activi-

ties that will engage children and keepthem out of trouble. Crime survivors,law enforcement representatives, pros-ecutors, and educators have all joinedtogether in calling for a substantialfederal investment in after-school pro-grams.

Clearly, such financial assistance isneeded in states across the country.Too often, parents cannot afford thethousands of dollars a year required topay for after-school care, if it exists atall. In Massachusetts, 4,000 eligiblechildren are on waiting lists for after-school care, and tens of thousandsmore have parents who have given upon getting help. Nationwide, half a mil-lion eligible children are on waitinglists for federal child care subsidies.The need for increased opportunities isobvious and this legislation attemptsto meet it.

Our bill will provide $1 billion overthe next 5 years for after-school pro-grams, to enable public school districtsin partnership with community-basedorganizations to bring millions morechildren, including disabled children,into such programs, and make schoolsinto community learning centers aswell.

This proposal will help communitiesto increase the availability of after-school programs. It will support effortsin Boston to make after-school servicesavailable to as many children as pos-sible. Boston’s 2-to-6 Initiative willserve an additional 3,000 young peopleover the next four years, keep schoolbuildings open for city programs andnon-profit programs, and challenge pri-vate sector leaders to double the num-ber of available after-school jobs to1,000 over the next two years.

The proposed expansion of the 21stCentury Community Learning Centerprogram will enable schools and com-munities to create programs that meettheir after-school needs—and obtainthe extra resources required to make ithappen.

Our bill also proposes to help failingschools implement the reforms thatthey know will turn them around. Toomany schools now struggle with wa-tered-down curricula, low expectations,fewer qualified teachers, and fewer re-sources than other schools.

Under the Education OpportunityZones proposal, these school districtswill get the extra resources they needin order to increase achievement, raisestandards, end social promotion, up-grade teacher skills, and strengthenties between the schools, the parents,and the community as a whole.

The bill also calls for continued in-vestment in education technology, sothat cutting-edge technology will beavailable to as many students as pos-sible. That means we must continue toinvest more in computers, software,and high-tech training for teachers, sothat every child has the opportunity touse technology as an effective learningtool.

Investing in students and teachersand schools is one of the best invest-ments America can make. For schools

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1347March 4, 1998across America, help can’t come aminute too soon, and I urge Congressto enact this legislation as expedi-tiously as possible. The message toschools across the country today isclear—help is finally on the way.

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. Presi-dent, I want to commend the Demo-cratic leader, Senator DASCHLE, for as-sembling this important legislation,and I want to thank President Clintonfor articulating a vision for Americathat includes a significant federal com-mitment toward improving the qualityand accessibility of education for allAmericans. The RESULTS Act is de-signed to help fulfill that commitment,and represents the type of action thisCongress should take to prepare Amer-ica for the 21st century.

I visited a number of schools in Illi-nois over the past several months, andtalked with parents, teachers, children,and school officials at the elementary,secondary, and postsecondary levels. Ifound that without exception, edu-cation is at the top of their minds. Illi-noisans, like most Americans, supportpolicies designed to help ensure thatAmerica remains preeminent in the in-tensely competitive, global economy ofthe 21st century.

Last year, this Congress took his-toric measures to improve the acces-sibility of quality higher education,with the enactment of President Clin-ton’s HOPE Scholarship and LifetimeLearning tax credits. We also restoredthe student loan interest deduction, sothat graduates now receive a Federalincome tax deduction when they makeinterest payments on their studentloans. I intend to work this year tobroaden the deduction we created lastyear, so that more former students,struggling under a burden of debt thathas grown enormously in recent years,can make ends meet.

Now, this Congress must act to im-prove the quality of elementary andsecondary education available to ourchildren. We must act to ensure that aswe approach the 21st century, no childis left behind. We must act to ensurethat no child is forced to try to learnin an overcrowded classroom or acrumbling school, and that every childhas access to the kinds of technologieshe or she will need to understand tocompete in the next millennium.

The RESULTS Act will help Statesand school districts improve theirschools for the 21st century, and in-cludes a number of very important pro-visions, including a plan to create anew partnership between the Federalgovernment and State and local gov-ernments to rebuild and modernize ourschool buildings. Under this new pro-posal, States and school districts wouldbe able to issue new, zero-interestbonds to modernize and build schools.Bondholders would receive Federal in-come tax credits in lieu of interest pay-ments. Using this mechanism, the Fed-eral government can leverage almost$22 billion worth of school improve-ments, at a cost of only $3.3 billion

over the next five years, according tothe Joint Committee on Taxation.

According to the U.S. General Ac-counting Office, it will cost $112 billionto bring existing school buildings up tocode—to patch the leaky roofs, replacethe broken windows, fix the plumbing,and make other needed repairs. Thatprice tag, as enormous as it sounds,does not include the cost of buildingnew schools to accommodate therecord numbers of children who arecrowding our schools, nor the cost ofupgrading classrooms for modern com-puters.

This problem has overwhelmed thefiscal capacities of state and local au-thorities. It is a problem affecting allareas of the country, because it is a di-rect result of the antiquated way wepay for public education in this coun-try. The local property tax, whichmade sense as a funding mechanismwhen wealth was accumulated in theform of land, no longer works as ameans of funding major capital invest-ments. In urban, rural, and suburbanschools all across the country, themagnitude of the crumbling schoolsproblem has dwarfed local financingcapabilities. It is a problem that di-rectly affects the ability of students tolearn, teachers to teach, and schools toimplement the kinds of educational re-form efforts that parents are demand-ing to improve the quality of educationin this country.

According to academic data correlat-ing building conditions and studentachievement, children in these decrepitclassrooms have less of a chance. Theireducation is at risk. They will be lessable to compete in the 21st century jobmarket. Ultimately, we will all comeout on the losing end. America can’tcompete if its students can’t learn, andour students can’t learn if their schoolsare falling down.

The legislation being introducedtoday gives Congress a historic oppor-tunity to jump start the process of re-building, renovating, modernizing, andconstructing new schools to meet theneeds of all our children into the 21stcentury. The RESULTS Act engagesthe federal government in the supportof elementary and secondary educationin a way that preserves local control ofeducation. In the same way the federalgovernment helps finance highways,but the state and local governmentsdecide where the roads go, the federalgovernment can help state and localauthorities rebuild our schools. Amer-ica has a $112 billion infrastructureproblem that makes it increasingly dif-ficult for our students to learn theskills they will need to keep Americacompetitive in the 21st century. Now isthe time for Congress to act.

I want to congratulate the Demo-cratic leader again for his work on thisbill, as well as President Clinton andSecretary Riley, who helped shapemany of its provisions. I hope the 105thCongress will approve this legislationquickly, and renew the promise em-bodied in the words of the 19th century

American poet James Russell Lowell,who wrote: ‘‘. . . [I]t was in makingeducation not only common to all, butin some sense compulsory on all, thatthe destiny of the free republics ofAmerica was practically settled.’’

By Mr. SPECTER:S. 1709. A bill to authorize the Sec-

retary of Labor to provide assistanceto States for the implementation of en-hanced pre-vocational training pro-grams, in order to improve the likeli-hood of enabling welfare recipients tomake transitions from public assist-ance to employment, and for other pur-poses; to the Committee on Labor andHuman Resources.

THE JOB PREPARATION AND RETENTIONTRAINING ACT OF 1998

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I havesought recognition to introduce voca-tional training legislation, entitled the‘‘Job Preparation and Retention Train-ing Act of 1998,’’ which is designed torespond to the need for pre-vocationaltraining assistance to enable welfarerecipients to make the transition frompublic assistance to work.

I believe that the historic 1996 wel-fare reform law will serve the Amer-ican people well by ending systemic de-pendence and creating a program thatemphasizes employment—gainful andpermanent employment—by giving theStates greater flexibility in admin-istering their programs. We are alreadyhearing about the rise in employmentrates and the substantial drops inState welfare rolls.

While many Americans have effec-tively made the transition from wel-fare to work, a need exists for skillstraining to enable many of the individ-uals who have been long-term welfarerecipients to make transitions into un-subsidized employment that providescareer potential and enables the indi-viduals to achieve economic self-suffi-ciency.

Mr. President, as Chairman of theSenate Labor, Health and Human Serv-ices and Education AppropriationsSubcommittee, I believe that it wouldbe worthwhile to recognize the need forpre-vocational training, a type oftraining that is not formally offered bythe U.S. Department of Labor.

Current Federal law does not ade-quately address the tremendously neg-ative effect of unfavorable environ-mental and cultural factors on theability of such individuals to obtainand retain gainful employment.

I believe that a Federal commitmentto the development of pre-vocationaltraining programs should focus on: im-proving the job readiness of individualswho are welfare recipients and prepar-ing the individual psychologically andattitudinally for employment.

The bill I am introducing todaywould authorize funding for States toenroll chronic welfare dependents intoa training program which would pro-vide the necessary skills to locate andmaintain employment. The Secretaryof Labor would award States grants on

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1348 March 4, 1998a competitive basis for use in teachingindividuals to fulfill workplace respon-sibilities such as punctuality, literacy,communication, and other survivalskills. Once an adult has completedthis short period of training, he or shewould be prepared to get the most outof their job training and unsubsidizedemployment opportunities. The $50million authorization would be pro-vided for each of the next two years.The sunset will provide a chance to de-termine the program’s efficacy. Fur-ther, training funds would be limitedto no more than $1,200 per individual,which I am advised is a realistic cost ofskills training and job placement pro-grams.

Many community-based organiza-tions across the country have alreadyrecognized this need and are providingpre-vocational training. In this limitedcontext, we have found thatprevocational trainees have fared muchbetter in the economy. I am advisedthat one such community-based orga-nization, the Opportunities Industrial-ization Centers of America, Inc., hasfound that the average hourly wage oftrainees prior to pre-vocational train-ing was $3.70, not even a minimumwage. After receiving pre-vocationaltraining, these same participants start-ed earning an average of $8.00 an hour.Further, pre-vocational training re-sulted in an 85% placement rate intobetter-paying jobs.

I encourage my colleagues to join mein sponsoring this legislation. This billis intended to enhance welfare reformand it does not tamper with the posi-tive changes in existing law, such asthe five-year time limit. Simply, I amasking for continued federal involve-ment in ending generational welfare.

By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself,Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. STE-VENS, Mr. ROBB, Mr. WARNER,Mr. SARBANES, and Ms. MIKUL-SKI) (by request):

S. 1710. A bill to provide for the cor-rection of retirement coverage errorsunder chapters 83 and 84 of title 5,United States Code; to the Committeeon Governmental Affairs.THE RETIREMENT COVERAGE ERROR CORRECTION

ACT OF 1998

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, todayI am introducing, at the request of theAdministration, a bill to provide forthe correction of retirement coverageerrors under chapters 83 and 84 of title5, United States Code—specifically,current and former federal employeeswho should have been placed in theFederal Employee Retirement System(FERS), but were misclassified as CivilService Retirement System (CSRS) orCSRS Offset.

The federal government’s transitionfrom CSRS to FERS began in 1984. Asgovernment agencies carried out thecomplex job of applying two sets oftransition rules, mistakes were made,and thousands of employees wereplaced in the wrong retirement sys-tem—many learning that their pen-

sions would be less than expected. TheAdministration’s proposal, ‘‘The Fed-eral Retirement Coverage CorrectionsAct,’’ would provide employees with achoice between corrected retirementcoverage and the coverage the em-ployee expected to receive, without dis-turbing Social Security coverage law.

I think this bill deserves the carefulconsideration of the Senate. As Chair-man of the Governmental Affairs Sub-committee with jurisdiction over thesubject, I will try to ensure a thoroughreview of all the options for dealingwith this issue.

Among the provisions of the bill, arethe following:

(1) Generally, errors of less than 3years would not be eligible for correc-tive action.

(2) Social Security-covered employ-ees who were erroneously CSRS cov-ered or CSRS Offset covered, may electto be retroactively under either CSRSOffset or Social Security-only cov-erage.

(3) CSRS covered, CSRS Offset cov-ered or Social Security-only coveredemployees who were erroneously FERScovered will be deemed to have electedFERS coverage and will remain cov-ered by FERS, unless the employee de-clines it.

(3) Generally, FERS covered employ-ees, former employees, and annuitantswho were erroneously CSRS covered orCSRS Offset covered, may elect retro-active coverage under either CSRS Off-set or FERS coverage. However, thiselection may not be available or maybe subject to adjustment under certainvery limited circumstances.

(5) A Thrift Plan make-whole provi-sion to provide the earnings that arenow disallowed on the employee’smake-up contributions.

(6) Provisions are included to dealwith the retroactive application of So-cial Security upon the correction of aretirement coverage error in which anemployee was erroneously covered byCSRS.

(7) The Director of OPM is given dis-cretionary authority to waive timelimits, reimburse necessary and rea-sonable expenses and compensatelosses, and waive specified repayments;and finally

(8) Costs of the ‘‘Retirement Cov-erage Error Correction Act’’ would bepaid from the Civil Service RetirementFund, and OPM would be authorized tospend money from that Fund to admin-ister the Act.

I invite Senators to join in this effortto address a serious problem affectingmany federal employees.

I ask unanimous consent that a copyof the bill and a section by sectionanalysis be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

S. 1710Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-

resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled, That this Act may becited as the ‘‘Retirement Coverage ErrorCorrection Act of 1998’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.The Congress finds that a number of Gov-

ernment employees have been placed undererroneous retirement coverage during thetransition from the Civil Service RetirementSystem to the Federal Employees Retire-ment System. When these errors are of sig-nificant duration, they adversely affect anemployee’s ability to plan for retirement. Itis the purpose of this Act to provide a rem-edy that treats all such individuals fairlyand reasonably, and demonstrates the Gov-ernment’s concern for its employees whohave been disadvantaged by a Governmenterror in their retirement coverage. Affectedemployees should have a choice between cor-rected retirement coverage and the benefitthe employee would have received under theerroneous coverage, without disturbing So-cial Security coverage law.SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this Act—(1) ‘‘Annuitant’’ means an individual de-

scribed by section 8331(9) or 8401(2) of title 5,United States Code;

(2) ‘‘CSRS’’ means the Civil Service Retire-ment System established under subchapterIII of chapter 83 of title 5, United StatesCode;

(3) ‘‘CSRS covered’’ means subject to theprovisions of subchapter III of chapter 83 oftitle 5, United States Code, including fullCSRS employee deductions;

(4) ‘‘CSRS Offset covered’’ means subjectto the provisions of subchapter III of chapter83 of title 5, United States Code, includingreduced CSRS employee deductions;

(5) ‘‘Director’’ means the Director of Officeof Personnel Management;

(6) ‘‘FERS’’ means the Federal EmployeesRetirement System established under chap-ter 84 of title 5, United States Code;

(7) ‘‘FERS covered’’ means subject to theprovisions of chapter 84 of title 5, UnitedStates Code;

(8) ‘‘OASDI employee tax’’ means the OldAge, Survivors and Disability Insurance taximposed on wages under section 3101(a) of theInternal Revenue Code of 1986;

(9) ‘‘OASDI employer tax’’ means the OldAge, Survivors and Disability Insurance taximposed on wages under section 3111(a) of theInternal Revenue Code of 1986;

(10) ‘‘OASDI taxes’’ means the sum of theOASDI employee tax and OASDI employertax;

(11) ‘‘former employee’’ means an individ-ual who formerly was a Government em-ployee, but who is not an annuitant;

(12) ‘‘Office’’ means the Office of PersonnelManagement;

(13) ‘‘Retirement coverage determination’’means the determination by an agencywhether employment is CSRS covered, CSRSOffset covered, FERS covered, or Social Se-curity only covered;

(14) ‘‘Retirement coverage error’’ means anerroneous retirement coverage determina-tion that was in effect for a minimum periodof 3 years of service after December 31, 1986;

(15) ‘‘Service’’ means a period of civilianservice that is creditable under section 8332or 8411 of title 5, United States Code;

(16) ‘‘Social Security-only covered’’ meansemployment under section 3121(b) of the In-ternal Revenue Code of 1986, subject toOASDI taxes, but not CSRS covered, CSRSOffset covered, or FERS covered; and

(17) ‘‘Survivor’’ means an individual de-scribed by section 8331(10) or 8401(28) of title5, United States Code.SEC. 4. ERRORS OF LESS THAN 3 YEARS EX-

CLUDED.Except as otherwise provided in this Act,

an erroneous retirement coverage deter-mination that was in effect for a period ofless than 3 years of service after December31, 1986, is not covered by this Act.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1349March 4, 1998SEC. 5. SOCIAL SECURITY-ONLY COVERED EM-

PLOYEES WHO WERE ERRONEOUSLYCSRS COVERED OR CSRS OFFSETCOVERED.

(a) This section applies in the case of a re-tirement coverage error in which a SocialSecurity-only covered employee was erro-neously CSRS covered or CSRS Offset cov-ered.

(b)(1) This subsection applies if the retire-ment coverage error has not been correctedprior to the effective date of the regulationsdescribed in paragraph (3).

(2) In the case of an individual who is erro-neously CSRS covered, as soon as practicableafter discovery of the error, and subject tothe right of an election under paragraph (3),such a individual shall be CSRS Offset cov-ered, retroactive to the date of the retire-ment coverage error.

(3) Upon written notice of a retirementcoverage error, an individual shall have 6months to make an election, under regula-tions promulgated by the Office, to be CSRSOffset covered or Social Security-only cov-ered, retroactive to the date of the retire-ment coverage error. If the individual doesnot make an election prior to the deadline,the individual shall remain CSRS Offset cov-ered.

(c)(1) This subsection applies if the retire-ment coverage error was corrected prior tothe effective date of the regulations de-scribed in subsection (b)(3).

(2) Within 6 months after the date of enact-ment of this Act, the Office shall promulgateregulations authorizing individuals to elect,during the 18-month period immediately fol-lowing the effective date of the regulations,to be CSRS Offset covered or Social Secu-rity-only covered, retroactive to the date ofthe retirement coverage error.

(3) If an eligible individual does not makean election under paragraph (2) prior to thedeadline, the corrective action previouslytaken shall remain in effect.

SEC. 6. SOCIAL SECURITY-ONLY COVERED EM-PLOYEES NOT ELIGIBLE TO ELECTFERS WHO WERE ERRONEOUSLYFERS COVERED.

(a) This section applies in the case of a re-tirement coverage error in which a SocialSecurity-only covered employee not eligibleto elect FERS coverage under authority ofsection 8402(c) of title 5, United States Code,was erroneously FERS covered.

(b)(1) This subsection applies if the retire-ment coverage error has not been correctedprior to the effective date of the regulationsdescribed in paragraph (2).

(2) Upon written notice of a retirementcoverage error, an individual shall have 6months to make an election, under regula-tions promulgated by the Office, to be FERScovered or Social Security-only covered, ret-roactive to the date of the retirement cov-erage error. If the individual does not makean election prior to the deadline, the individ-ual shall remain FERS covered, retroactiveto the date of the retirement coverage error.

(c)(1) This subsection applies if the retire-ment coverage error was corrected prior tothe effective date of the regulations de-scribed in subsection (b)(2).

(2) Within 6 months after the date of enact-ment of this Act, the Office shall promulgateregulations authorizing individuals to elect,during the 18-month period immediately fol-lowing the effective date of the regulationsto be FERS covered or Social Security-onlycovered, retroactive to the date of the retire-ment coverage error.

(3) If an eligible individual does not makean election under paragraph (2) prior to thedeadline, the corrective action previouslytaken shall remain in effect.

SEC. 7. CSRS COVERED, CSRS OFFSET COVERED,AND FERS-ELIGIBLE SOCIAL SECU-RITY-ONLY COVERED EMPLOYEESWHO WERE ERRONEOUSLY FERSCOVERED WITHOUT AN ELECTION.

(a) If an individual was prevented fromelecting FERS because the individual was er-roneously FERS covered during the periodwhen the individual was eligible to electFERS under title III of the Federal Employ-ees Retirement System Act of 1986, the indi-vidual is deemed to have elected FERS cov-erage and will remain covered by FERS, un-less the individual declines, under regula-tions promulgated by the Office, to be FERScovered, in which case the individual will beCSRS covered, CSRS Offset covered, or So-cial Security-only covered; as would apply inthe absence of a FERS election, retroactiveto the date of the erroneous retirement cov-erage determination.

(b) In the case of an individual to whomsubsection (a) applies, who dies prior to dis-covery of the coverage error, or who diesduring the election period prescribed in sub-section (a) prior to making an election tocorrect the error, without having the rightto decline FERS coverage, the individual’ssurvivors shall have the right to make theelection under regulations promulgated bythe Office that provide for such election in amanner consistent with the election rightsof the individual.

(c) This section shall be effective retro-active to January 1, 1987, except that thissection shall not affect individuals who madeor were deemed to have made elections simi-lar to those provided in this section underregulations promulgated by the Office priorto the effective date of this Act.SEC. 8. FERS COVERED CURRENT AND FORMER

EMPLOYEES WHO WERE ERRO-NEOUSLY CSRS COVERED OR CSRSOFFSET COVERED.

(a) This section applies to a FERS coveredemployee or former employee who was erro-neously CSRS covered or CSRS Offset cov-ered as a result of a retirement coverageerror.

(b)(1) This subsection applies if the retire-ment coverage error has not been correctedprior to the effective date of the regulationsdescribed in paragraph (2). As soon as prac-ticable after discovery of the error, and sub-ject to the right of an election under para-graph (2), if CSRS covered or CSRS Offsetcovered, such individual shall be treated asCSRS Offset covered, retroactive to the dateof the retirement coverage error.

(2) Upon written notice of a retirementcoverage error, an individual shall have 6months to make an election, under regula-tions promulgated by the Office, to be CSRSOffset covered or FERS covered, retroactiveto the date of the retirement coverage error.If the individual does not make an electionby the deadline, a CSRS Offset covered indi-vidual shall remain CSRS Offset covered anda CSRS covered individual shall be treatedas CSRS Offset covered.

(c)(1) This subsection applies if the retire-ment coverage error was corrected prior tothe effective date of the regulations de-scribed in subsection (b)(2).

(2)(A) Within 6 months after the date of en-actment of this Act, the Office shall promul-gate regulations authorizing individuals toelect, during the 18-month period imme-diately following the effective date of theregulations, to be CSRS Offset covered, ret-roactive to the date of the retirement cov-erage error.

(B) An individual who previously receiveda payment ordered by a Court or provided asa settlement of claim for losses resultingfrom a retirement coverage error shall notbe entitled to make an election under thissubsection unless that amount is waived in

whole or in part under section 12, and anyamount not waived is repaid.

(C) An individual who, subsequent to cor-rection of the retirement coverage error, re-ceived a refund of retirement deductionsunder section 8424, or a distribution undersection 8433, of title 5, United States Code,shall not be entitled to make an electionunder this subsection.

(3) If an individual is ineligible to make anelection or does not make an election underparagraph (2) prior to the deadline, the cor-rective action previously taken shall remainin effect.SEC. 9. ANNUITANTS AND SURVIVORS IN CASES

WHERE FERS COVERED EMPLOYEESWERE ERRONEOUSLY CSRS COV-ERED OR CSRS OFFSET COVERED.

(a) This section applies to an individualwho is an annuitant or a survivor of a FERScovered employee who was erroneously CSRScovered or CSRS Offset covered as a result ofa retirement coverage error.

(b)(1) Within 6 months after the date of en-actment of this Act, the Office shall promul-gate regulations authorizing an individualdescribed in subsection (a) to elect CSRS Off-set coverage or FERS coverage, retroactiveto the date of the retirement coverage error.

(2) An election under this subsection shallbe made within 18 months after the effectivedate of the regulations.

(3) If the individual elects CSRS Offset cov-erage, the amount in the employee’s ThriftSavings Plan account under subchapter III ofchapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, atthe time of retirement that represents theGovernment’s contributions and earnings onthose contributions (whether or not thisamount was subsequently distributed fromthe Thrift Savings Plan) will form the basisfor a reduction in the individual’s annuity,under regulations promulgated by the Office.The reduced annuity to which the individualis entitled shall be equal to an amountwhich, when taken together with the amountreferred to in the preceding sentence, wouldresult in the present value of the total beingactuarially equivalent to the present valueof an unreduced CSRS Offset annuity thatwould have been provided the individual.

(4) If—(A) a surviving spouse elects CSRS Offset

benefits; and(B) a FERS basic employee death benefit

under section 8442(b) of title 5, United StatesCode, was previously paid;

then the survivor’s CSRS Offset benefit shallbe subject to a reduction, under regulationspromulgated by the Office. The reduced an-nuity to which the individual is entitledshall be equal to an amount which, whentaken together with the amount of the pay-ment referred to subparagraph (B) would re-sult in the present value of the total beingactuarially equivalent to the present valueof an unreduced CSRS Offset annuity thatwould have been provided the individual.

(5) An individual who previously received apayment ordered by a Court or provided as asettlement of claim for losses resulting froma retirement coverage error shall not be en-titled to make an election under this sub-section unless repayment of that amount iswaived in whole or in part under section 12,and any amount not waived is repaid.

(c) If the individual does not make an elec-tion under subsection (b) prior to the dead-line, the retirement coverage shall be sub-ject to the following rules—

(1) If corrective action was previouslytaken, that corrective action shall remain ineffect; and

(2) If corrective action was not previouslytaken, the employee shall be CSRS Offsetcovered, retroactive to the date of the retire-ment coverage error.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1350 March 4, 1998SEC. 10. PROVISIONS RELATED TO SOCIAL SECU-

RITY COVERAGE OF MISCLASSIFIEDEMPLOYEES.

(a) REPORTS TO COMMISSIONER OF SOCIALSECURITY.—In order to carry out the Com-missioner of Social Security’s responsibil-ities under title II of the Social SecurityAct, the Commissioner may request the headof each agency that employs or employed anindividual erroneously subject to CSRS cov-erage as a result of a retirement coverageerror and retroactively converted to CSRSOffset coverage, FERS coverage, or SocialSecurity-only coverage to report in coordi-nation with the Office of Personnel Manage-ment, and in such form and within such timeframe as the Commissioner may specify, anyor all of the following—

(1) the total wages (as defined in section3121(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)paid to such individual during each year ofthe entire period of the erroneous CSRS cov-erage;

(2) the excess CSRS deduction amount forthe individual; and

(3) such additional information as theCommissioner may require for the purpose ofcarrying out the Commissioner’s responsibil-ities under title II of the Social SecurityAct.The head of an agency or the Office shallcomply with such a request from the Com-missioner. For purposes of section 201 of theSocial Security Act, wages reported pursu-ant to this subsection shall be deemed to bewages reported to the Secretary of theTreasury or the Secretary’s delegates pursu-ant to subtitle F of the Internal RevenueCode of 1954. For purposes of this section, the‘‘excess CSRS deduction amount’’ for an in-dividual shall be an amount equal to the dif-ference between the CSRS deductions with-held and the CSRS Offset or FERS deduc-tions, if any, due with respect to the individ-ual during the entire period the individualwas erroneously subject to CSRS coverage asa result of a retirement coverage error.

(b) ADJUSTMENT TO TRANSFERS UNDER SEC-TION 201 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.—Anyamount transferred from the General Fundto the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insur-ance Trust Fund and the Federal DisabilityInsurance Trust Fund under section 201 ofthe Social Security Act on the basis of re-ports under this section shall be adjusted byamounts previously transferred as a result ofcorrections made (including correctionsmade before the date of enactment of thisAct), and shall be reduced by any excessCSRS deduction amounts determined by theDirector of the Office of Personnel Manage-ment to be remaining to the credit of indi-viduals in the Civil Service Retirement andDisability Fund or in accounts maintainedby the employing agencies. Such amountsdetermined by the Director in the precedingsentence shall be transferred to the FederalOld Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fundand the Federal Disability Insurance TrustFund in the proportions indicated in sections201 (a) and (b) of the Social Security Act.

(c) APPLICATION OF OASDI TAX PROVISIONSOF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 TOAFFECTED INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYING AGEN-CIES.—An individual described in subsection(a) and the individual’s employing agencyshall be deemed to have fully satisfied in atimely manner their responsibilities with re-spect to the taxes imposed by sections3101(a), 3102(a), and 3111(a) of the InternalRevenue Code of 1986 on the wages paid bythe employing agency to such individual dur-ing the entire period he or she was erro-neously subject to CSRS coverage as a resultof a retirement coverage error. No credit orrefund of taxes on such wages shall be al-lowed as result of the operation of this sub-section.

SEC. 11. FUTURE CSRS COVERAGE DETERMINA-TIONS.

No agency shall place an individual underCSRS coverage unless—

(1) the individual has been employed withCSRS coverage within the preceding 365days; or

(2) the Office has agreed in writing that theagency’s coverage determination is correct.SEC. 12. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS BY DIRECTOR.

(a) The Director is authorized to take anyof the following actions—

(1) extend the deadlines for making elec-tions under this Act in circumstances involv-ing an individual’s inability to make a time-ly election due to cause beyond the individ-ual’s control;

(2) provide for the reimbursement of nec-essary and reasonable expenses incurred byan individual with respect to settlement of aclaim for losses resulting from a retirementcoverage error, including attorney’s fees,court costs, and other actual expenses;

(3) compensate an individual for monetarylosses that are a direct and proximate resultof a retirement coverage error, excludingclaimed losses relating to forgone contribu-tions and earnings under the Thrift SavingsPlan under subchapter III of chapter 84 oftitle 5, United States Code, and all other in-vestment opportunities; and

(4) waive repayments otherwise requiredunder this Act.

(b) In exercising the authority under thissection, the Director shall, to the extentpracticable, provide for similar actions insituations involving similar circumstances.

(c) Actions taken under this section arefinal and conclusive, and are not subject toadministrative or judicial review on anybasis.

(d) The Office of Personnel Managementshall prescribe regulations regarding theprocess and criteria used in exercising theauthority under this section.

(e) The Office of Personnel Managementshall, within six months after the date of en-actment of this Act, and annually thereafterfor each year in which the authority pro-vided in this section is used, submit a reportto each House of Congress on the operationof this section.SEC. 13. THRIFT PLAN TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN

INDIVIDUALS.(a) This section applies to an individual

who—(1) is eligible to make an election of cov-

erage under section 8 or section 9, and onlyif FERS coverage is elected (or remains ineffect) for the employee involved; or

(2) is an employee (or former employee, an-nuitant, or survivor, subject to conditionssimilar to those in section 8 and 9) in thecase of a retirement coverage error in whicha FERS covered employee was erroneouslySocial Security-only covered and is cor-rected to FERS coverage.

(b)(1) With respect to an individual whowhom this section applies, the Director shallpay to the Thrift Savings Fund under sub-chapter III of chapter 84 of title 5, UnitedStates Code, for credit to the account of theemployee involved, an amount equal to theearnings which are disallowed under section8432a of such title 5 on the employee’s retro-active contributions to such Fund. Suchamount shall represent earnings, on suchretroactive contributions, during the periodof the retirement coverage error and con-tinuing up to the date on which the amountis paid by the Director (and based on dis-tributions from the employee’s Thrift Sav-ings Plan account). Such earnings shall becomputed in accordance with the proceduresfor computing lost earnings under such sec-tion 8432a. The amount paid by the Directorshall be treated for all purposes as if that

amount had actually been earned on thebasis of the employee’s contributions.

(2) In cases in which the retirement cov-erage error was corrected prior to the effec-tive date of the regulations under section8(c) or section 9(b), the employee involved(including an employee described in sub-section (a)(2)) shall have an additional oppor-tunity to make retroactive contributions forthe period of the retirement coverage error(subject to applicable limits), and such con-tributions shall be treated in accordancewith the provisions of paragraph (1).

(c) The Office, in consultation with theFederal Retirement Thrift InvestmentBoard, shall prescribe regulations appro-priate to carry out this section.SEC. 14. AUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATION.

All payments permitted or required by thisAct to be paid from the Civil Service Retire-ment and Disability Fund, together with ad-ministrative expenses incurred by the Officein administering this Act, shall be deemed tohave been authorized to be paid from thatFund, which is appropriated for the paymentthereof.SEC. 15. SERVICE CREDIT DEPOSITS.

(a) In the case of a retirement coverageerror in which—

(1) a FERS covered employee was erro-neously CSRS covered or CSRS Offset cov-ered;

(2) the employee made a service credit de-posit under the CSRS rules; and

(3) there is a subsequent retroactivechange to FERS coverage;the excess of the amount of the CSRS civil-ian or military service credit deposit overthe FERS civilian or military service creditdeposit, together with interest computed inaccordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) of sec-tion 8334(e) of title 5, United States Code andregulations prescribed by the Office, shall bea paid to the annuitant or, in the case of adeceased employee, to the individual entitledto lump-sum benefits under section 8342(c) or8424(d) of title 5, United States Code, as ap-plicable.

(b)(1) This subsection applies in the case ofan erroneous retirement coverage deter-mination in which—

(A) the employee made a service credit de-posit under the FERS rules; and

(B) there is a subsequent retroactivechange to CSRS or CSRS Offset coverage.

(2) If at the time of commencement of anannuity there is remaining unpaid any ex-cess of the CSRS civilian or military servicecredit deposit over the FERS civilian ormilitary service credit deposit, the annuityshall be reduced based upon the amount un-paid together with interest computed in ac-cordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) of sec-tion 8334(e) of title 5, United States Code andregulations prescribed by the Office. The re-duced annuity to which the individual is en-titled shall be equal to an amount that,when taken together with the amount re-ferred to in the preceding sentence, would re-sult in the present value of the total beingactuarially equivalent to the present valueof an unreduced CSRS Offset annuity thatwould have been provided the individual.

(3) If at the time of commencement of asurvivor annuity, there is remaining unpaidany excess of the CSRS service credit depositover the FERS service credit deposit, andthere has been no actuarial reduction in anannuity under the preceding paragraph, thesurvivor annuity shall be reduced based uponthe amount unpaid together with interestcomputed in accordance with paragraphs (2)and (3) of section 8334(e) of title 5, UnitedStates Code and regulations prescribed bythe Office. The reduced survivor annuity towhich the individual is entitled shall beequal to an amount that, when taken to-gether with the amount referred to in the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1351March 4, 1998preceding sentence, would result in thepresent value of the total being actuariallyequivalent to the present value of an unre-duced CSRS Offset survivor annuity thatwould have been provided the individual.SEC. 16. REGULATIONS.

(a) In addition to the regulations specifi-cally authorized in this Act, the Office mayprescribe such other regulations as are nec-essary for the administration of this Act.

(b) The regulations issued under this Actshall provide for protection of the rights of aformer spouse with entitlement to an appor-tionment of benefits or to survivor benefitsbased on the service of the employee.SEC. 17. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as otherwise provided herein, thisAct shall be effective on the date of enact-ment.

RETIREMENT COVERAGE ERROR CORRECTIONACT OF 1998—SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

The first section provides a title for thebill, the ‘‘Retirement Coverage Error Correc-tion Act of 1998’’.

Section 2 explains the Congressional find-ings and purpose of the Act.

Section 3 defines the terms used in theAct. Among the definitions, ‘‘retirement cov-erage error’’ means erroneous coverage thatwas in effect for at least 3 years of serviceafter December 31, 1986.

Section 4 provides that, except as other-wise provided in this Act, errors of less than3 years are excluded from eligibility for cor-rective action under the Act. The primaryexception to the three-year rule is in Section7, concerning FERS covered employees whoshould have been, but were not, given the op-portunity to elect whether to be covered byFERS.

Section 5 deals with cases of retirementcoverage errors in which a Social Security-only covered employee was erroneouslyCSRS covered or CSRS Offset covered. Underthis provision, OPM will promulgate regula-tions giving such individuals the option toelect to be retroactively under either CSRSOffset or Social Security-only coverage. Iferroneously under CSRS coverage, the em-ployee will be placed under interim CSRSOffset coverage as soon as practicable, andwill have the right to make the coverageelection under the regulations.

There will be an 18-month election periodapplicable to cases where there was a correc-tion of the coverage error prior to the effec-tive date of the regulations. In such cases, ifthe individual does not make a timely elec-tion, then the corrective action previouslytaken shall remain in effect.

In cases where the coverage error was notcorrected prior to the effective date of theregulations (other than interim conversionfrom CSRS to CSRS Offset), the individualwill have 6 months after notification of theerror in which to make an election. In suchcases, if the individual does not make atimely election, then the individual will re-main under CSRS Offset.

Section 6 deals with cases of retirementcoverage errors in which a Social Security-only covered employee who was not entitledto elect FERS was erroneously FERS cov-ered. Under this provision, OPM will promul-gate regulations giving such individuals theoption to elect to be retroactively under ei-ther FERS coverage or Social Security-onlycoverage.

There will be an 18-month election periodapplicable to cases where there was a correc-tion of the coverage error prior to the effec-tive date of the regulations. In such cases, ifthe individual does not make a timely elec-tion, then the corrective action previouslytaken shall remain in effect.

In cases where the coverage error was notcorrected prior to the regulations, the indi-

vidual will have 6 months after notificationof the error in which to make an election. Insuch cases, if the individual does not make atimely election, then the individual will re-main under FERS coverage.

Section 7 provides that in the case of an er-roneous retirement coverage determinationin which a CSRS covered, CSRS Offset cov-ered or FERS-eligible Social Security-onlycovered employee was erroneously FERScovered, the employee is deemed to haveelected FERS coverage and will remain cov-ered by FERS, unless the employee declines,under regulations promulgated by OPM, tobe FERS covered. This form of corrective ac-tion is appropriate, regardless of whether theerror lasted 3 years, when the individual wasprevented from electing FERS during thestatutory election period provided by titleIII of the FERS Act of 1986. Individuals whopreviously had the right to make such anelection under OPM regulations will not begiven an additional opportunity to make anelection. This section ratifies OPM’s author-ity to issue regulatory provisions to provideappropriate treatment in this situation, inaccordance with court decisions. This sec-tion will be effective retroactive to January1, 1987.

Section 8 applies to employees and formeremployees (but not annuitants) in cases inwhich a FERS covered employee was erro-neously CSRS covered or CSRS Offset cov-ered. Under this provision, OPM will promul-gate regulations giving such individuals theoption to elect to be retroactively under ei-ther CSRS Offset or FERS coverage. CSRScovered employees will be immediately andretroactively converted to CSRS Offset cov-erage, since Social Security coverage isautomatic by action of law, with the right tomake the coverage election under the regu-lations.

There will be an 18-month election periodapplicable to cases where there was a correc-tion of the coverage error prior to the effec-tive date of the regulations. In such cases, ifthe individual does not make a timely elec-tion, then the corrective action previouslytaken shall remain in effect.

In cases where the coverage error has notbeen corrected prior to the effective date ofthe regulations (other than interim conver-sion from CSRS to CSRS Offset), the individ-ual will have 6 months after notification ofthe error in which to make an election. Insuch cases, if the individual does not make atimely election, then the individual will re-main under CSRS Offset.

In two situation, individuals will not bepermitted to make an election. When an in-dividual elects to receive a refund of FERSemployee contributions or a Thrift SavingsPlan payout, the individual waives the rightto benefits based on the service. Accordingly,if, subsequent to correction of the error andplacement under FERS, the individual takeseither of those actions, there is no justifica-tion to reinstate the rights to retirementbenefits which were given up knowingly andvoluntarily.

In addition, individuals who previously re-ceived a payment ordered by a Court or pro-vided as a settlement of claim for losses re-sulting from a retirement coverage error willnot be entitled to make an election unlessrepayment is made, or is waived by the Di-rector of OPM.

Section 9 deals with the same types of er-rors as section 8, but in cases where the em-ployee has retired or died. The basic provi-sions are essentially the same, but there areprovisions for actuarial adjustments to pro-spective annuity payments when a retro-active election divests the right to paymentswhich have already been made.

Section 10 deals with the retroactive appli-cation of Social Security upon the correction

of a retirement coverage error in which anemployee was erroneously covered by CSRS.Subsection (a) provides discretionary au-thority for the Commissioner of Social Secu-rity to request wage and other relevant in-formation directly from the employing agen-cies, in a form and manner prescribed by theCommissioner. Such information is nec-essary to correctly compute the employee’sSocial Security benefit as if the employeehad not been erroneously classified. Exerciseof this authority would provide for a moreefficient provision of such information thancurrent law and procedures, particularly foryears prior to the 3-year limitation on as-sessment of taxes. Information for yearsprior to the 3-year period open to assessmentof taxes would otherwise have to be providedby each individual employee or be providedat the discretion of the employing agency.The authority contained in this subsectionwould enable the Commissioner of Social Se-curity to prescribe specific procedures, ifthose procedures are determined to be nec-essary, to receive directly the informationfor these employees to ensure that theirwage records properly reflect their earningshistory.

Subsection (b) provides that any amountswhich may be transferred to the Social Secu-rity Trust Funds as a result of the reportswhich may be required under subsection (a)shall be reduced by certain amounts pre-viously and erroneously deducted for CSRS,and that these amounts shall be transferredfrom the Civil Service Retirement and Dis-ability Fund to the Social Security TrustFunds in order to correct the retirement andSocial Security coverage error. Subsection(c) provides that the OASDI employee taxand OASDI employer tax are deemed to havebeen paid for the entire period of the erro-neous CSRS coverage.

Section 11 requires agencies, before placingany employee in CSRS coverage, to obtainwritten agreement from OPM that CSRScoverage is correct, unless the individual hasbeen employed with CSRS coverage withinthe preceding 365 days, the generally applica-ble statutory period for exclusion from So-cial Security. It is intended to prevent fu-ture coverage errors.

Section 12 gives the Director of OPM spe-cific discretionary authority to waive timelimits, reimburse necessary and reasonableexpenses and compensate losses, and waivespecified repayments. The authority to com-pensate an individual for losses does not ex-tend to claims relating to forgone ThriftSavings Plan contributions and earnings orother investment opportunities. In view ofthe judgmental nature of such relief, the pro-vision bars administrative or judicial reviewof these actions. The provisions requiresOPM to report to Congress on the use of theauthority under this section within sixmonths after enactment, and annually there-after, if the authority is used.

Section 13 provides for costs of the Act tobe paid from the Civil Service RetirementFund. It also authorizes OPM to spendmoney from that Fund to administer theAct.

Section 14 deals with service credit depos-its which can be affected by actions underthe Act. Subsection (a) provides for paymentof interest on partial refunds of service cred-it deposits required as a result of correctiveactions. Subsection (b) provides for collec-tion by actuarial annuity reduction of cer-tain additional service credit deposits re-quired as a result of corrective actions.

Section 15 provides that the Office mayprescribe regulations necessary for the ad-ministration of the Act. In addition, it re-quires that OPM’s regulations protect therights of a former spouse with entitlement toan apportionment of benefits or to survivor

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1352 March 4, 1998benefits based on the service of the em-ployee.

Section 16 provides that except as other-wise provided, the Act shall be effective uponenactment.

f

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 1021

At the request of Mr. HAGEL, thename of the Senator from Virginia (Mr.WARNER) was added as a cosponsor of S.1021, a bill to amend title 5, UnitedStates Code, to provide that consider-ation may not be denied to preferenceeligibles applying for certain positionsin the competitive service, and forother purposes.

S. 1220

At the request of Mr. DODD, the nameof the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.LAUTENBERG) was added as a cosponsorof S. 1220, a bill to provide a process fordeclassifying on an expedited basis cer-tain documents relating to humanrights abuses in Guatemala and Hon-duras.

S. 1260

At the request of Mr. GRAMM, thename of the Senator from Washington(Mr. GORTON) was added as a cosponsorof S. 1260, a bill to amend the Securi-ties Act of 1993 and the Securities Ex-change Act of 1934 to limit the conductof securities class actions under Statelaw, and for other purposes.

S. 1334

At the request of Mr. BOND, the nameof the Senator from North Carolina(Mr. HELMS), the Senator from NewYork (Mr. D’AMATO), and the Senatorfrom New Hampshire (Mr. GREGG) wereadded as cosponsors of S. 1334, a bill toamend title 10, United States Code, toestablish a demonstration project toevaluate the feasibility of using theFederal Employees Health Benefitsprogram to ensure the availability ofadequate health care for Medicare-eli-gible beneficiaries under the militaryhealth care system.

S. 1365

At the request of Mr. MIKULSKI, thename of the Senator from Maine (Mr.SNOWE) was added as a cosponsor of S.1365, a bill to amend title II of the So-cial Security Act to provide that thereductions in social security benefitswhich are required in the case ofspouses and surviving spouses who arealso receiving certain Government pen-sions shall be equal to the amount bywhich two-thirds of the total amountof the combined monthly benefit (be-fore reduction) and monthly pensionexceeds $1,200, adjusted for inflation.

S. 1391

At the request of Mr. DODD, the nameof the Senator from Oregon (Mr.WYDEN) was added as a cosponsor of S.1391, a bill to authorize the Presidentto permit the sale and export of food,medicines, and medical equipment toCuba.

S. 1600

At the request of Mrs. BOXER, thename of the Senator from New York

(Mr. D’AMATO) was added as a cospon-sor of S. 1600, a bill to amend the Inter-nal Revenue Code of 1986 to waive inthe case of multiemployer plans thesection 415 limit on benefits to the par-ticipant’s average compensation for hishigh 3 years.

S. 1605

At the request of Mr. CAMPBELL, thename of the Senator from South Da-kota (Mr. DASCHLE) was added as a co-sponsor of S. 1605, a bill to establish amatching grant program to helpStates, units of local government, andIndian tribes to purchase armor vestsfor use by law enforcement officers.

S. 1606

At the request of Mr. WELLSTONE, thename of the Senator from North Da-kota (Mr. DORGAN) was added as a co-sponsor of S. 1606, a bill to fully imple-ment the Convention Against Tortureand Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrad-ing Treatment or Punishment and toprovide a comprehensive program ofsupport for victims of torture.

S. 1608

At the request of Mr. ALLARD, thename of the Senator from Oklahoma(Mr. INHOFE) was added as a cosponsorof S. 1608, a bill to provide for budg-etary reform by requiring the reduc-tion of the deficit, a balanced Federalbudget, and the repayment of the na-tional debt.

S. 1671

At the request of Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, her name was added as a co-sponsor of S. 1671, a bill to address theYear 2000 computer problems with re-gard to financial institutions, to ex-tend examination parity to the Direc-tor of the Office of Thrift Supervisionand the National Credit Union Admin-istration, and for other purposes.

S. 1673

At the request of Mr. HUTCHINSON,the name of the Senator from Ken-tucky (Mr. MCCONNELL) was added as acosponsor of S. 1673, a bill to terminatethe Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 9

At the request of Mr. KYL, the namesof the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.FRIST) and the Senator from Missouri(Mr. ASHCROFT) were added as a cospon-sors of Senate Joint Resolution 9, ajoint resolution proposing an amend-ment to the Constitution of the UnitedStates to require two-thirds majoritiesfor increasing taxes.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 65

At the request of Mr. SNOWE, thename of the Senator from Maryland(Mr. SARBANES) was added as a cospon-sor of Concurrent Resolution 65, a con-current resolution calling for a UnitedStates effort to end restriction on thefreedoms and human rights of theenclaved people in the occupied area ofCyprus.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 77

At the request of Mr. SESSIONS, thenames of the Senator from Wyoming(Mr. ENZI), the Senator from NorthCarolina (Mr. FAIRCLOTH), the Senator

from North Carolina (Mr. HELMS), theSenator from Oklahoma (Mr. NICKLES),the Senator from Minnesota (Mr.GRAMS), the Senator from Kentucky(Mr. MCCONNELL), the Senator fromKansas (Mr. BROWNBACK), the Senatorfrom Oklahoma (Mr. INHOFE), the Sen-ator from Idaho (Mr. CRAIG), the Sen-ator from Arkansas (Mr. HUTCHINSON),the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.FRIST), the Senator from Georgia (Mr.COVERDELL), the Senator from Missouri(Mr. ASHCROFT), the Senator Michigan(Mr. ABRAHAM), the Senator from Flor-ida (Mr. MACK), the Senator from Ohio(Mr. DEWINE), and the Senator from In-diana (Mr. COATS) were added as co-sponsors of Senate Concurrent Resolu-tion 77, a concurrent resolution ex-pressing the sense of the Congress thatthe Federal government should ac-knowledge the importance of at-homeparents and should not discriminateagainst families who forego a secondincome in order for a mother or fatherto be at home with their children.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 78

At the request of Mr. DORGAN, hisname was added as a cosponsor of Sen-ate Concurrent Resolution 78, a concur-rent resolution relating to the indict-ment and prosecution of Saddam Hus-sein for war crimes and other crimesagainst humanity.

SENATE RESOLUTION 155

At the request of Mr. LOTT, the nameof the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.INOUYE) was added as a cosponsor ofSenate Resolution 155, a resolution des-ignating April 6 of each year as ‘‘Na-tional Tartan Day’’ to recognize theoutstanding achievements and con-tributions made by Scottish Americansto the United States.

At the request of Mrs. MURRAY, hername was added as a cosponsor of Sen-ate Resolution 155, supra.

SENATE RESOLUTION 176

At the request of Mr. DOMENICI, thenames of the Senator from Maryland(Mr. SARBANES), the Senator from Mon-tana (Mr. BAUCUS), the Senator fromCalifornia (Mrs. BOXER), and the Sen-ator from North Carolina (Mr. FAIR-CLOTH), were added as cosponsors ofSenate Resolution 176, a resolutionproclaiming the week of October 18through October 24, 1998, as ‘‘NationalCharacter Counts Week.’’

AMENDMENT NO. 1682

At the request of Mr. LAUTENBERG,the name of the Senator from SouthCarolina (Mr. HOLLINGS) was added as acosponsor of Amendment No. 1682 pro-posed to S. 1173, a bill to authorizefunds for construction of highways, forhighway safety programs, and for masstransit programs, and for other pur-poses.

At the request of Mr. THURMOND, hisname was withdrawn as a cosponsor ofamendment No. 1682 proposed to S.1173, supra.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1353March 4, 1998SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLU-

TION 79—COMMEMORATING THEPEOPLE OF REMY, FRANCE ANDFORMER MEMBERS OF THE 364THFIGHTER GROUPMrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs.

BOXER, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. DURBIN,and Mr. SANTORUM) submitted the fol-lowing concurrent resolution; whichwas referred to the Committee on theJudiciary:

S. CON. RES. 79

Whereas on August 2, 1944, a squadron of P–51s from the United States 364th FighterGroup strafed a German munitions train inRemy, France;

Whereas the resulting explosion killedLieutenant Houston Braly, one of the at-tacking pilots, and destroyed much of thevillage of Remy, including 7 stained glasswindows in the 13th century church;

Whereas, despite threats of reprisals fromthe occupying German authorities, the citi-zens of Remy recovered Lieutenant Braly’sbody from the wreckage, buried his bodywith dignity and honor in the church’s ceme-tery, and decorated the grave site daily withfresh flowers;

Whereas on Armistice Day, 1995, the vil-lage of Remy renamed the crossroads nearthe site of Lieutenant Braly’s death in hishonor;

Whereas the surviving members of the364th Fighter Group desire to express theirgratitude to the brave citizens of Remy; and

Whereas, to express their gratitude, thesurviving members of the 364th FighterGroup have organized a nonprofit corpora-tion to raise funds, through its project ‘‘Win-dows for Remy’’, to restore the church’sstained glass windows: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep-resentatives concurring), That Congress—

(1) commends the bravery and honor of thecitizens of Remy, France, for their actionswith respect to the American fighter pilotLieutenant Houston Braly during and afterAugust 1944; and

(2) recognizes the efforts of the survivingmembers of the United States 364th FighterGroup to raise funds to restore the stainedglass windows of Remy’s 13th centurychurch.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Irise today to submit a resolution on be-half of myself, Senator BOXER, SenatorHUTCHISON, Senator DURBIN, and Sen-ator SANTORUM, to commemorate theacts of kindness of the residents ofRemy, France afforded World War IIArmy Air Corps pilot Lieutenant Hous-ton Braly. While these deeds occurredmore than fifty years ago, the story ofthis young pilot is carried on in thehearts and minds of the people ofRemy. Now the friends and comrades ofLt. Braly have joined together to showtheir appreciation in a most sinceregesture of goodwill.

On August 2, 1944, Lt. Braly’s squad-ron of P–51 fighters on patrol in north-ern France encountered a German mu-nitions train. The squadron made threeunsuccessful attack runs at the train,which was almost impossible to see be-cause of camouflage. On the fourth run,however, Lt. Braly’s fire hit a car car-rying explosives, causing a tremendousexplosion.

Airplanes circling 13,000 feet over thebattle were hit by shrapnel from the

train. Haystacks in fields some dis-tance away were seen burning, andnearly all buildings in the smallFrench town were demolished. The 13thcentury church in the town of Remybarely escaped destruction, but the his-toric stained-glass windows were de-stroyed.

The explosion also claimed the life ofLt. Braly, who was only twenty-twoyears old on that tragic day.

Despite the near total destruction ofthe small town, the residents of Remyregarded that young American as ahero. A young woman pulled Braly’sbody from the burning wreck of theplane, wrapped him in the nylon of hisparachute, and placed him in thetown’s courtyard. Hundreds of villagersshowered the site with flowers, stun-ning the German authorities. Threatsof reprisals were made if the tributescontinued, but eventually the authori-ties agreed that a small, private burialcould be performed in the church’scemetery.

The next morning it was discoveredthat despite the potentially severe con-sequences, villagers had once againpaid tribute to the young pilot. Thecovert placement of flowers on Lt.Braly’s grave continued until Amer-ican forces liberated Remy to thecheers of the townspeople. Americansoldiers were led to Lt. Braly’s grave,which was marked by the bent propel-ler of his P–51 fighter.

Nearly 50 years later, Steven LeaVell of Danville, California, cameacross this story during the course ofresearch he was doing at the Air ForceArchives in Alabama. Mr. Lea Vell wasso moved by the story that he visitedRemy, France, only to find that thestained glass windows of the magnifi-cent 13th century church which weredestroyed in the explosion had not beenreplaced. Mr. Lea Vell contacted var-ious members of the 364th FighterGroup, under which Lt. Braly hadserved. These veterans had heard thestories of how the residents of Remyhad honored their fallen friend. Theyjoined together to form Windows forRemy, a non-profit organization work-ing to raise $200,000 to replace thestained glass windows to repay thetown for their distinguished actions to-ward Lt. Braly.

Mr. President, the residents of Remyhave not forgotten the story of thatyoung American pilot. On ArmisticeDay, November 11, 1995, fifty yearsafter the war ended, the town of Remypaid tribute once more to Lt. Braly. Onthat day they renamed the crossroadswhere he perished to ‘‘Rue de HoustonL. Braly, Jr.’’

I am confident that my fellow sen-ators will join me in commending thepeople of Remy, France for their kind-ness and recognize the friends andformer comrades of Lt. Braly for theirefforts to pay back this debt of honor.

SENATE RESOLUTION—191—MAK-ING MAJORITY PARTY APPOINT-MENTS

Mr. CHAFEE (for Mr. LOTT) submit-ted the following resolution; which wasconsidered and agreed to:

S. RES. 191

Resolved,SEC. 1. That the following be the majority

membership on the Committee on Govern-mental Affairs for the remainder of the 105thCongress, or until their successors are ap-pointed, pursuant to section 2 of this resolu-tion:

Governmental Affairs: Mr. Thompson(Chairman), Mr. Roth, Mr. Stevens, Ms. Col-lins, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Domenici, Mr.Cochran, Mr. Nickles, and Mr. Specter.

SEC. 2. That section 1 of this resolutionshall take effect immediately upon the filingof the report by the Committee on Govern-mental Affairs as required by Senate Resolu-tion 39, agreed to March 11, 1997.

f

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

THE INTERMODAL SURFACETRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCYACT OF 1998

CHAFEE (AND OTHERS)AMENDMENT NO. 1682

Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. LOTT,Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. BYRD, Mr. GRAMM,Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. WARNER, Mr. SMITH ofNew Hampshire, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr.THOMAS, Mr. BOND, Mr. HUTCHINSON,Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr.REID, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. WYDEN, Mr.SESSIONS, Mr. DOMENICI, and Ms.MOSELEY-BRAUN) proposed an amend-ment to amendment No. 1676 proposedby Mr. CHAFEE to the bill (S. 1173) toauthorize funds for construction ofhighways, for highway safety pro-grams, and for mass transit programs,and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 136, after line 22, add the follow-ing:SEC. 11ll. ADDITIONAL FUNDING.

(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) APPORTIONMENT.—On October 1, or as

soon as practicable thereafter, of each fiscalyear, after making apportionments and allo-cations under sections 104 and 105(a) of title23, United States Code, and section 1102(c) ofthis Act, the Secretary shall apportion, inaccordance with paragraph (2), the fundsmade available by paragraph (3) among theStates in the ratio that—

(A) the total of the apportionments to eachState under section 104 of title 23, UnitedStates Code, and section 1102(c) of this Actand the allocations to each State under sec-tion 105(a) of that title (excluding amountsmade available under this section); bears to

(B) the total of all apportionments to allStates under section 104 of that title and sec-tion 1102(c) of this Act and all allocations toall States under section 105(a) of that title(excluding amounts made available underthis section).

(2) DISTRIBUTION AMONG CATEGORIES.—(A) LIMITED FLEXIBLE FUNDING FOR CERTAIN

STATES.—For each fiscal year, in the case ofeach State that does not receive fundingunder subsection (c) or an allocation undersubsection (d), an amount equal to 22 percentof the funds apportioned to the State under

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1354 March 4, 1998paragraph (1) shall be set aside for use by theState for any purpose eligible for fundingunder title 23, United States Code, or thisAct.

(B) DISTRIBUTION OF REMAINING FUNDS.—(i) IN GENERAL.—For each fiscal year, after

application of subparagraph (A), the remain-ing funds apportioned to each State underparagraph (1) shall be apportioned in accord-ance with clause (ii) among the followingcategories:

(I) The Interstate maintenance componentof the Interstate and National Highway Sys-tem program under section 104(b)(1)(A) oftitle 23, United States Code.

(II) The Interstate bridge component of theInterstate and National Highway Systemprogram under section 104(b)(1)(B) of thattitle.

(III) The National Highway System compo-nent of the Interstate and National HighwaySystem program under section 104(b)(1)(C) ofthat title.

(IV) The congestion mitigation and airquality improvement program under section104(b)(2) of that title.

(V) The surface transportation programunder section 104(b)(3) of that title.

(VI) Metropolitan planning under section104(f) of that title.

(VII) Minimum guarantee under section 105of that title.

(VIII) ISTEA transition under section1102(c) of this Act.

(ii) DISTRIBUTION FORMULA.—For eachState and each fiscal year, the amount offunds apportioned for each category underclause (i) shall be equal to the product ob-tained by multiplying—

(I) the amount of funds apportioned to theState for the fiscal year under paragraph (1);by

(II) the ratio that—(aa) the amount of funds apportioned to

the State for the category for the fiscal yearunder the other sections of this Act and theamendments made by this Act; bears to

(bb) the total amount of funds apportionedto the State for all of the categories for thefiscal year under the other sections of thisAct and the amendments made by this Act.

(3) AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACT AUTHOR-ITY.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—There shall be availablefrom the Highway Trust Fund (other thanthe Mass Transit Account) to carry out thissubsection $640,000,000 for fiscal year 1998,$3,346,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $3,634,000,000for fiscal year 2000, $3,881,000,000 for fiscalyear 2001, $3,831,000,000 for fiscal year 2002,and $3,587,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.

(B) CONTRACT AUTHORITY.—Funds author-ized under this paragraph shall be availablefor obligation in the same manner as if thefunds were apportioned under chapter 1 oftitle 23, United States Code.

(b) OTHER ADJUSTMENTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sections

1116, 1117, and 1118, and the amendmentsmade by those sections—

(A) in addition to the amounts authorizedto be appropriated under section 1116(d)(5),there shall be available from the HighwayTrust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Ac-count) to carry out section 1116(d) $90,000,000for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003; and

(B) in addition to the funds made availableunder the amendment made by section1117(d), there shall be available from theHighway Trust Fund (other than the MassTransit Account) in the manner described in,and to carry out the purposes specified in,that amendment $378,000,000 for each of fiscalyears 1999 through 2003, except that the fundsmade available under this subparagraph, not-withstanding section 118(e)(1)(C)(v) of title23, United States Code, and section201(g)(1)(B) of the Appalachian Regional De-

velopment Act of 1965 (40 U.S.C. App.), shallbe subject to subparagraphs (A) and (B) ofsection 118(e)(1) of that title.

(2) CONTRACT AUTHORITY.—Funds author-ized under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of para-graph (1) shall be available for obligation inthe same manner as if the funds were appor-tioned under chapter 1 of title 23, UnitedStates Code.

(3) LIMITATION.—No obligation authorityshall be made available for any amounts au-thorized under this subsection for any fiscalyear for which any obligation limitation es-tablished for Federal-aid highways is equalto or less than the obligation limitation es-tablished for fiscal year 1998.

(c) HIGH DENSITY TRANSPORTATION PRO-GRAM.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—There is established thehigh density transportation program (re-ferred to in this subsection as the ‘‘pro-gram’’) to provide funding to States thathave higher-than-average population den-sity.

(2) DETERMINATIONS.—(A) IN GENERAL.—On October 1, or as soon

as practicable thereafter, of each of fiscalyears 1999 through 2003, the Secretary shalldetermine for each State and the fiscalyear—

(i) the population density of the State;(ii) the total vehicle miles traveled on

lanes on Federal-aid highways in the Stateduring the latest year for which data areavailable;

(iii) the ratio that—(I) the total lane miles on Federal-aid

highways in urban areas in the State; bearsto

(II) the total lane miles on all Federal-aidhighways in the State; and

(iv) the quotient obtained by dividing—(I) the sum of—(aa) the amounts apportioned to the State

under section 104 of title 23, United StatesCode, for the Interstate and National High-way System program, the surface transpor-tation program, and the congestion mitiga-tion and air quality improvement program;

(bb) the amounts allocated to the Stateunder the minimum guarantee programunder section 105 of that title; and

(cc) the amounts apportioned to the Stateunder section 1102(c) of this Act for ISTEAtransition; by

(II) the population of the State (as deter-mined based on the latest available annualestimates prepared by the Secretary of Com-merce).

(B) NATIONAL AVERAGE.—Using the data de-termined under subparagraph (A), the Sec-retary shall determine the national averagewith respect to each of the factors describedin clauses (i) through (iv) of subparagraph(A).

(3) ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA.—A State shall beeligible to receive funding under the pro-gram if—

(A) the amount determined for the Stateunder paragraph (2)(A) with respect to eachfactor described in clauses (i) through (iii) ofparagraph (2)(A) is greater than the nationalaverage with respect to the factor deter-mined under paragraph (2)(B); and

(B) the amount determined for the Statewith respect to the factor described in para-graph (2)(A)(iv) is less than 85 percent of thenational average with respect to the factordetermined under paragraph (2)(B).

(4) DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.—(A) AVAILABILITY TO STATES.—For each fis-

cal year, except as provided in subparagraph(D), each State that meets the eligibility cri-teria under paragraph (3) shall receive a por-tion of the funds made available to carry outthe program that is—

(i) not less than $36,000,000; but(ii) not more than 15 percent of the funds.

(B) STATE NOTIFICATION.—On October 1, oras soon as practicable thereafter, of each fis-cal year, the Secretary shall notify eachState that meets the eligibility criteriaunder paragraph (3) that the State is eligibleto apply for funding under the program.

(C) PROJECT PROPOSALS.—(i) SUBMISSION.—(I) IN GENERAL.—After receipt of a notifica-

tion of eligibility under subparagraph (B), toreceive funds under the program, a State, inconsultation with the appropriate metropoli-tan planning organizations, shall submit tothe Secretary proposals for projects aimed atimproving mobility in densely populatedareas where traffic loads and highway main-tenance costs are high.

(II) TOTAL COST OF PROJECTS.—The esti-mated total cost of the projects proposed byeach State shall be equal to at least 3 timesthe amount that the State is eligible to re-ceive under subparagraph (A).

(ii) SELECTION.—The Secretary shall selectprojects for funding under the program basedon factors determined by the Secretary toreflect the degree to which a project will im-prove mobility in densely populated areaswhere traffic loads and highway mainte-nance costs are high.

(iii) DEADLINES.—The Secretary may estab-lish deadlines for States to submit projectproposals, except that in the case of fiscalyear 1998 the deadline may not be earlierthan July 1, 1998.

(D) REDISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.—For eachfiscal year, if a State does not have pending,by the deadline established under subpara-graph (C)(iii), applications for projects withan estimated total cost equal to at least 3times the amount that the State is eligibleto receive under subparagraph (A), the Sec-retary may redistribute, to 1 or more otherStates, at the Secretary’s discretion, 1⁄3 ofthe amount by which the estimated cost ofthe State’s applications is less than 3 timesthe amount that the State is eligible to re-ceive.

(5) OTHER ELIGIBLE STATES.—In addition toStates that meet the eligibility criteriaunder paragraph (3), a State with respect towhich the following conditions are met shallalso be eligible for the funds made availableto carry out the program that remain aftereach State that meets the eligibility criteriaunder paragraph (3) has received the mini-mum amount of funds specified in paragraph(4)(A)(i):

(A) POPULATION DENSITY.—The populationdensity of the State is greater than the pop-ulation density of the United States.

(B) THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC.—The quotientobtained by dividing—

(i) the annual quantity of through truckton-miles in the State (as determined basedon the latest available estimates publishedby the Secretary); by

(ii) the annual quantity of total truck ton-miles in the State (as determined based onthe latest available estimates published bythe Secretary);

is greater than 0.60.(6) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—Funds made avail-

able to carry out the program may be usedfor any project eligible for funding undertitle 23, United States Code, or this Act.

(7) AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACT AUTHOR-ITY.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—There shall be availablefrom the Highway Trust Fund (other thanthe Mass Transit Account) to carry out thissubsection $360,000,000 for each of fiscal years1999 through 2003.

(B) CONTRACT AUTHORITY.—Funds author-ized under this paragraph shall be availablefor obligation in the same manner as if thefunds were apportioned under chapter 1 oftitle 23, United States Code.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1355March 4, 1998(8) LIMITATIONS.—(A) APPLICABILITY OF OBLIGATION LIMITA-

TIONS.—Funds made available under this sub-section shall be subject to subparagraphs (A)and (B) of section 118(e)(1) of that title.

(B) LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY.—No obli-gation authority shall be made available forany amounts authorized under this sub-

section for any fiscal year for which any ob-ligation limitation established for Federal-aid highways is equal to or less than the ob-ligation limitation established for fiscal year1998.

(d) BONUS PROGRAM.—(1) IN GENERAL.—For each of fiscal years

1998 through 2003, after making apportion-

ments and allocations under section 1102 andthe amendments made by that section, theSecretary shall allocate to each of the Stateslisted in the following table the amountspecified for the State in the following table:

StateFiscal Year (amounts in thousands of dollars)

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Alabama $4,969 $11,021 $11,093 $11,169 $11,253 $11,352

Arizona $3,864 $14,418 $14,474 $14,533 $14,598 $14,676

California $10,353 $47,050 $48,691 $48,094 $39,345 $35,119

Florida $11,457 $30,175 $30,342 $30,518 $30,710 $30,940

Georgia $8,723 $19,347 $19,474 $19,608 $19,754 $19,930

Illinois $8,277 $21,800 $21,921 $22,048 $22,187 $22,353

Indiana $6,052 $22,580 $22,668 $22,761 $22,862 $22,984

Kentucky $4,316 $9,573 $9,636 $9,703 $9,775 $9,862

Maryland $3,749 $4,202 $4,257 $4,314 $4,377 $4,452

Michigan $7,849 $29,286 $29,400 $29,521 $29,652 $29,810

North Carolina $7,032 $15,597 $15,700 $15,808 $15,925 $16,067

Ohio $8,567 $9,601 $9,726 $9,858 $10,001 $10,173

Pennsylvania $5,409 $4,174 $60 $0 $0 $0

South Carolina $3,953 $12,966 $13,023 $13,084 $13,150 $13,230

Tennessee $5,631 $12,490 $12,572 $12,658 $12,752 $12,866

Texas $17,129 $63,908 $64,157 $64,421 $64,707 $65,052

Virginia $6,368 $14,124 $14,217 $14,315 $14,421 $14,549

Wisconsin $4,520 $16,864 $16,929 $16,999 $17,075 $17,165

(2) ELIGIBLE PURPOSES.—Amounts allocatedunder paragraph (1) shall be available for anypurpose eligible for funding under title 23,United States Code, or this Act.

(3) AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACT AUTHOR-ITY.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—There shall be availablefrom the Highway Trust Fund (other thanthe Mass Transit Account) such sums as arenecessary to carry out this subsection.

(B) CONTRACT AUTHORITY.—Funds author-ized under this paragraph shall be availablefor obligation in the same manner as if thefunds were apportioned under chapter 1 oftitle 23, United States Code.

(4) LIMITATIONS.—(A) APPLICABILITY OF OBLIGATION LIMITA-

TIONS.—Funds made available under this sub-section shall be subject to subparagraphs (A)and (B) of section 118(e)(1) of that title.

(B) LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY.—No obli-gation authority shall be made available forany amounts authorized under this sub-section for any fiscal year for which any ob-ligation limitation established for Federal-aid highways is equal to or less than the ob-ligation limitation established for fiscal year1998.

(e) FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAYS PROGRAM.—(1) IN GENERAL.—In addition to the

amounts made available under section1101(4), there shall be available from theHighway Trust Fund (other than the MassTransit Account)—

(A) for Indian reservation roads under sec-tion 204 of title 23, United States Code,$50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999through 2003;

(B) for parkways and park roads under sec-tion 204 of title 23, United States Code,$70,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999through 2003, of which $20,000,000 for each fis-cal year shall be available to maintain and

improve public roads that provide access toor within units of the National Wildlife Ref-uge System; and

(C) for public lands highways under section204 of title 23, United States Code, $50,000,000for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003.

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACT AUTHOR-ITY.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—There shall be availablefrom the Highway Trust Fund (other thanthe Mass Transit Account) such sums as arenecessary to carry out this subsection.

(B) CONTRACT AUTHORITY.—Funds author-ized under this paragraph shall be availablefor obligation in the same manner as if thefunds were apportioned under chapter 1 oftitle 23, United States Code.

(3) LIMITATIONS.—(A) APPLICABILITY OF OBLIGATION LIMITA-

TIONS.—Funds made available under this sub-section shall be subject to subparagraphs (A)and (B) of section 118(e)(1) of that title.

(B) LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY.—No obli-gation authority shall be made available forany amounts authorized under this sub-section for any fiscal year for which any ob-ligation limitation established for Federal-aid highways is equal to or less than the ob-ligation limitation established for fiscal year1998.

(f) PREFERENCE IN INTERSTATE 4R ANDBRIDGE DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM ALLOCA-TIONS.—In allocating funds under section104(k) of title 23, United States Code, theSecretary shall give preference to States—

(1) with respect to which at least 45 per-cent of the bridges in the State are function-ally obsolete and structurally deficient; and

(2) that do not receive assistance madeavailable under subsection (b)(1)(B) or fund-ing under subsection (c).

On page 97, line 22, strike ‘‘and’’.

On page 97, strike line 25 and insert the fol-lowing:

project;(C) provides for the safe and efficient

movement of goods along and within inter-national or interstate trade corridors; and

(D) provides for the continued planningand development of trade corridors.

On page 98, between lines 21 and 22, insertthe following:

(D) the extent to which truck-borne com-modities move through each State and inter-nationally;

On page 98, line 22, strike ‘‘(D)’’ and insert‘‘(E)’’.

On page 99, line 1, strike ‘‘(E)’’ and insert‘‘(F)’’.

On page 98, line 10, strike ‘‘(F)’’ and insert‘‘(G)’’.

On page 98, line 13, strike ‘‘(G)’’ and insert‘‘(H)’’.

On page 98, line 15, strike ‘‘(H)’’ and insert‘‘(I)’’.

On page 98, line 19, strike ‘‘(I)’’ and insert‘‘(J)’’.

On page 98, line 23, strike ‘‘(J)’’ and insert‘‘(K)’’.

On page 99, line 24, insert ‘‘, trade corridordevelopment,’’ before ‘‘and’’.

BENNETT (AND HATCH)AMENDMENTS NOS. 1685–1686

(Ordered to lie on the table.)Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mr.

HATCH) submitted two amendments in-tended to be proposed by them toamendment No. 1676 proposed by Mr.CHAFEE to the bill, S. 1173, supra; asfollows:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1356 March 4, 1998AMENDMENT NO. 1685

At the appropriate place, insert the follow-ing:SEC. ll. TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FOR

OLYMPIC CITIES.(a) PURPOSE; DEFINITIONS.—(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section

is to provide assistance and support to Stateand local efforts on surface and aviation-re-lated transportation issues necessary to ob-tain the national recognition and economicbenefits of participation in the InternationalOlympic movement and the InternationalParalympic movement by hosting inter-national quadrennial Olympic andParalympic events in the United States.

(2) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Trans-portation.

(b) PRIORITY FOR TRANSPORTATIONPROJECTS RELATED TO OLYMPIC ANDPARALYMPIC EVENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding anyother provision of law, the Secretary shallgive priority to funding for a mass transpor-tation project related to an internationalquadrennial Olympic or Paralympic event tocarry out 1 or more of sections 5303, 5307, and5309 of title 49, United States Code, if theproject—

(A) in the determination of the Secretary,will meet extraordinary transportationneeds associated with an international quad-rennial Olympic or Paralympic event; and

(B) is otherwise eligible for assistanceunder the section at issue.

(2) CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION.—A grant or acontract for a project described in paragraph(1), approved by the Secretary and fundedwith amounts made available under this sub-section, is a contractual obligation to paythe Government’s share of the cost of theproject.

(3) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—For purposes ofdetermining the non-Federal share of aproject funded under this subsection, high-way and transit projects shall be consideredto be a program of projects.

(4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated fromthe Mass Transit Account of the HighwayTrust Fund such sums as may be necessaryto carry out this subsection.

(c) TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ACTIVI-TIES.—Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, the Secretary may participate in—

(1) planning activities of State and metro-politan planning organizations, and projectsponsors, for a transportation project relatedto an international quadrennial Olympic orParalympic event under sections 5303 and5305a of title 49, United States Code; and

(2) developing intermodal transportationplans necessary for transportation projectsdescribed in paragraph (1), in coordinationwith State and local transportation agen-cies.

(d) USE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—From amounts deducted under section 104(a)of title 23, United States Code, the Secretarymay provide assistance in the developmentof an Olympic and a Paralympic transpor-tation management plan, in cooperationwith—

(1) an Olympic Organizing Committee re-sponsible for hosting an international quad-rennial Olympic or Paralympic event; and

(2) State and local governments affected bythe international quadrennial Olympic orParalympic event.

(e) TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS RELATED TOOLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC EVENTS.—

(1) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—The Secretarymay provide assistance to State and localgovernments in carrying out transportationprojects related to an international quadren-nial Olympic or Paralympic event. Such as-

sistance may include planning, capital, andoperating assistance.

(2) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federalshare of the costs of any transportationproject assisted under this subsection shallnot exceed 80 percent. For purposes of deter-mining the non-Federal share of a project as-sisted under this subsection, highway andtransit projects shall be considered to be aprogram of projects.

(f) ELIGIBLE GOVERNMENTS.—A State orlocal government is eligible to receive assist-ance under this section only if it is hostinga venue that is part of an internationalquadrennial Olympics that is officially se-lected by the International Olympic Com-mittee.

(g) AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.—(1) AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT DEFINED.—Sec-

tion 47102(3) of title 49, United States Code,is amended by adding at the end the follow-ing:

‘‘(H) Developing, in coordination withState and local transportation agencies,intermodal transportation plans necessaryfor Olympic-related projects at an airport.’’.

(2) DISCRETIONARY GRANTS.—Section47115(d) of title 49, United States Code, isamended—

(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of para-graph (5);

(B) by striking the period at the end ofparagraph (6) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(7) the need for the project in order to

meet the unique demands of hosting inter-national quadrennial Olympic or Paralympicevents.’’.

(h) GRANT OR CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDI-TIONS.—Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, a grant or contract funded under thissection shall be subject to such terms andconditions as the Secretary may determine,including the waiver of planning and pro-curement requirements.

(i) USE OF FUNDS BEFORE APPORTIONMENTSAND ALLOCATIONS.—Notwithstanding anyother provision of law, funds made availableunder section 5307 of title 49, United StatesCode, may be used by the Secretary forprojects funded under this section before ap-portioning or allocating funds to States,metropolitan planning organizations, ortransit agencies.

(j) USE OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Fromamounts made available to carry out sec-tions 5303, 5307, and 5309 of title 49, UnitedStates Code, in each of fiscal years 1998through 2003, the Secretary may use suchamounts as may be necessary to carry outthis section.

AMENDMENT NO. 1686At the end of subtitle A of title I, add the

following:SEC. 11ll. TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FOR

OLYMPIC CITIES.(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section

is to authorize the provision of assistancefor, and support of, State and local effortsconcerning surface transportation issuesnecessary to obtain the national recognitionand economic benefits of participation in theInternational Olympic movement and theInternational Paralympic movement byhosting international quadrennial Olympicand Paralympic events in the United States.

(b) PRIORITY FOR TRANSPORTATIONPROJECTS RELATING TO OLYMPIC ANDPARALYMPIC EVENTS.—Notwithstanding anyother provision of law, from funds availableto carry out section 104(k) of title 23, UnitedStates Code, the Secretary may give priorityto funding for a transportation project relat-ing to an international quadrennial Olympicor Paralympic event if—

(1) the project meets the extraordinaryneeds associated with an international quad-rennial Olympic or Paralympic event; and

(2) the project is otherwise eligible for as-sistance under section 104(k) of that title.

(c) TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ACTIVI-TIES.—The Secretary may participate in—

(1) planning activities of States and metro-politan planning organizations and transpor-tation projects relating to an internationalquadrennial Olympic or Paralympic eventunder sections 134 and 135 of title 23, UnitedStates Code; and

(2) developing intermodal transportationplans necessary for the projects in coordina-tion with State and local transportationagencies.

(d) USE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—From funds deducted under section 104(a) oftitle 23, United States Code, the Secretarymay provide assistance for the developmentof an Olympic and a Paralympic transpor-tation management plan in cooperation withan Olympic Organizing Committee respon-sible for hosting, and State and local com-munities affected by, an international quad-rennial Olympic or Paralympic event.

(e) TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS RELATING TOOLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC EVENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may pro-vide assistance, including planning, capital,and operating assistance, to States and localgovernments in carrying out transportationprojects relating to an international quad-rennial Olympic or Paralympic event.

(2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share ofthe cost of a project assisted under this sub-section shall not exceed 80 percent.

(f) ELIGIBLE GOVERNMENTS.—A State orlocal government shall be eligible to receiveassistance under this section only if the gov-ernment is hosting a venue that is part of aninternational quadrennial Olympics that isofficially selected by the InternationalOlympic Committee.

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated fromthe Highway Trust Fund (other than theMass Transit Account) to carry out this sec-tion such sums as are necessary for each offiscal years 1998 through 2003.

INHOFE (AND OTHERS)AMENDMENT NO. 1687

Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr.BREAUX, Mr. SESSIONS), and Mr. BYRDproposed an amendment to amendmentNo. 1676 proposed by Mr. CHAFEE to thebill, S. 1173, supra; as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:TITLE .—OZONE AND PARTICULATE

MATTER STANDARDSFINDINGS AND PURPOSES

SECTION 1. (a) The Congress finds that—(1) There is a lack of air quality monitor-

ing data for fine particle levels, measured asPM2.5, in the United States and States shouldreceive full funding for the monitoring ef-forts;

(2) Such data would provide a basis for des-ignating areas as attainment or nonattain-ment for any PM2.5 national ambient airquality standards pursuant to the standardspromulgated in July 1997;

(3) The President of the United States di-rected the Administrator in a memorandumdated July 16, 1997, to complete the nextperiodic review of the particulate matter na-tional ambient air quality standards by July2002 in order to determine ‘‘whether to reviseor maintain the standards;’’

(4) The Administrator has stated thatthree years of air quality monitoring datafor fine particle levels, measured as PM2.5

and performed in accordance with any appli-cable federal reference methods, is appro-priate for designating areas as attainment ornonattainment pursuant to the July 1997promulgated standards; and

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1357March 4, 1998(5) The Administrator has acknowledged

that in drawing boundaries for attainmentand nonattainment areas for the July 1997ozone national air quality standards, Gov-ernors would benefit from considering imple-mentation guidance from EPA on drawingarea boundaries;

(b) The purposes of this title are—(1) To ensure that three years of air qual-

ity monitoring data regarding fine particlelevels are gathered for use in the determina-tion of area attainment or nonattainmentdesignations respecting any PM2.5 nationalambient air quality standards;

(2) To ensure that the Governors have ade-quate time to consider implementation guid-ance from EPA on drawing area boundariesprior to submitting area designations re-specting the July 1997 ozone national ambi-ent air quality standards;

(3) To ensure that implementation of theJuly 1997 revisions of the ambient air qualitystandards are consistent with the purposes ofthe President’s Implementation Memoran-dum dated July 16, 1997.

PARTICULATE MATTER MONITORING PROGRAM

SEC. 2. (a) Through grants under section103 of the Clean Air Act the Administrator ofthe Environmental Protection Agency shalluse appropriated funds no later than fiscal2000 to fund one hundred percent of the costof he establishment, purchase, operation andmaintenance of a PM2.5 monitoring networknecessary to implement the national ambi-ent air quality standards for PM2.5 under sec-tion 109 of the Clean Air Act. This implemen-tation shall not result in a diversion or re-programming of funds from other Federal,State or local Clean Air Act activities. Anyfunds previously diverted or reprogrammedfrom section 105 Clean Air Act grants forPM2.5 monitors must be restored to State orlocal air programs in fiscal year 1999.

(b) EPA and the State shall ensure that thenational network (designated in section 2(a))which consists of the PM2.5 monitors nec-essary to implement the national ambientair quality standards is established by De-cember 31, 1999.

(c) The Governors shall be required to sub-mit designations for each areas followingpromulgation of the July 1997 PM2.5 nationalambient air quality standard within one yearafter receipt of three years of air qualitymonitoring data performed in accordancewith any applicable federal reference meth-ods for the relevant areas. Only data fromthe monitoring network designated in sec-tion 2(a) and other federal reference methodPM2.5 monitors shall be considered for suchdesignations. In review in the State Imple-mentation Plans the Administration shallconsider all relevant monitoring data re-garding transport of PM2.5.

(d) The Administrator shall promulgatedesignations of nonattainment areas no laterthan one year after the initial designationsrequired under paragraph 2(c) are required tobe submitted. Not withstanding the previoussentence, the Administrator shall promul-gate such designations not later than Dec.31, 2005.

(e) The Administrator shall conduct a fieldstudy of the ability of the PM2.5 Federal Ref-erence Method to differentiate those par-ticles that are larger than 2.5 micrograms indiameter. This study shall be completed andprovided to Congress no later than two yearsfrom the date of enactment of this legisla-tion.

OZONE DESIGNATION REQUIREMENTS

SEC. 3. (a) The Governors shall be requiredto submit designations of nonattainmentareas within two years following the promul-gation of the July 1997 ozone national ambi-ent air quality standards.

(b) The Administrator shall promulgatefinal designations no later than one year

after the designations required under para-graph 3(a) are required to be submitted.

ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 4. Nothing in sections 1–3 above shallbe construed by the Administrator of Envi-ronmental Protection Agency or any court,State, or person to affect any pending litiga-tion or to be a ratification of the ozone orPM2.5 standards.

REID (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENTNO. 1688

Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. BRYAN,Mrs. BOXER, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) pro-posed an amendment to amendmentNo. 1676 proposed by Mr. CHAFEE to thebill, S. 1173, supra; as follows:

On page 253, between lines 15 and 16, insertthe following:

‘‘(3) LAKE TAHOE REGION.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall—‘‘(i) establish with the Federal land man-

agement agencies that have jurisdiction overland in the Lake Tahoe region (as defined inthe Lake Tahoe Regional Planning Compact)a transportation planning process for the re-gion; and

‘‘(ii) coordinate the transportation plan-ning process with the planning process re-quired of State and local governments underthis section, section 135, and chapter 53 oftitle 49.

‘‘(B) INTERSTATE COMPACT.—‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii),

notwithstanding subsection (b), to carry outthe transportation planning process requiredby this section, the consent of Congress isgranted to the States of California and Ne-vada to designate a metropolitan planningorganization for the Lake Tahoe region, byagreement between the Governors of theStates of California and Nevada and units ofgeneral purpose local government that to-gether represent at least 75 percent of the af-fected population (including the central cityor cities (as defined by the Bureau of theCensus)), or in accordance with proceduresestablished by applicable State or local law.

‘‘(ii) INVOLVEMENT OF FEDERAL LAND MAN-AGEMENT AGENCIES.—

‘‘(I) REPRESENTATION.—The policy board ofa metropolitan planning organization des-ignated under subparagraph (A) shall includea representative of each Federal land man-agement agency that has jurisdiction overland in the Lake Tahoe region.

‘‘(II) FUNDING.—In addition to funds madeavailable to the metropolitan planning orga-nization under other provisions of this titleand under chapter 53 of title 49, not morethan 1 percent of the funds allocated undersection 202 may be used to carry out thetransportation planning process for the LakeTahoe region under this subparagraph.

‘‘(C) ACTIVITIES.—‘‘(i) HIGHWAY PROJECTS.—Highway projects

included in transportation plans developedunder this paragraph—

‘‘(I) shall be selected for funding in a man-ner that facilitates the participation of theFederal land management agencies thathave jurisdiction over land in the LakeTahoe region; and

‘‘(II) may, in accordance with chapter 2, befunded using funds allocated under section202.

‘‘(ii) TRANSIT PROJECTS.—Transit projectsincluded in transportation plans developedunder this paragraph may, in accordancewith chapter 53 of title 49, be funded usingamounts apportioned under that title for—

‘‘(I) capital project funding, in order to ac-celerate completion of the transit projects;and

‘‘(II) operating assistance, in order to paythe operating costs of the transit projects,

including operating costs associated withunique circumstances in the Lake Tahoe re-gion, such as seasonal fluctuations in pas-senger loadings, adverse weather conditions,and increasing intermodal needs.

f

THE OCEAN SHIPPING ACT OF 1998

HUTCHISON (AND OTHERS)AMENDMENT NO. 1689

(Ordered to lie on the table.)Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr.

LOTT, and Mr. BREAUX) submitted anamendment intended to be proposed bythem to the bill (S. 414) to amend theShipping Act of 1984 to encourage com-petition in international shipping andgrowth of United States imports andexports, and for other purposes; as fol-lows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause andinsert the following:SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ocean Ship-ping Reform Act of 1998’’.SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as otherwise expressly provided inthis Act, this Act and the amendments madeby this Act take effect May 1, 1999.TITLE I—AMENDMENTS TO THE SHIPPING

ACT OF 1984SEC. 101. PURPOSE.

Section 2 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46U.S.C. App. 1701) is amended by—

(1) striking ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon inparagraph (2);

(2) striking ‘‘needs.’’ in paragraph (3) andinserting ‘‘needs; and’’;

(3) adding at the end thereof the following:‘‘(4) to promote the growth and develop-

ment of United States exports through com-petitive and efficient ocean transportationand by placing a greater reliance on the mar-ketplace.’’.SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

Section 3 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46U.S.C. App. 1702) is amended by—

(1) striking ‘‘the government under whoseregistry the vessels of the carrier operate;’’in paragraph (8) and inserting ‘‘a govern-ment;’’;

(2) striking paragraph (9) and inserting thefollowing:

‘‘(9) ‘deferred rebate’ means a return by acommon carrier of any portion of freightmoney to a shipper as a consideration forthat shipper giving all, or any portion, of itsshipments to that or any other common car-rier over a fixed period of time, the paymentof which is deferred beyond the completionof service for which it is paid, and is madeonly if the shipper has agreed to make a fur-ther shipment or shipments with that or anyother common carrier.’’;

(3) striking paragraph (10) and redesignat-ing paragraphs (11) through (27) as para-graphs (10) through (26);

(4) striking ‘‘in an unfinished or semi-finished state that require special handlingmoving in lot sizes too large for a con-tainer,’’ in paragraph (10), as redesignated;

(5) striking ‘‘paper board in rolls, andpaper in rolls.’’ in paragraph (10) as redesig-nated and inserting ‘‘paper and paper boardin rolls or in pallet or skid-sized sheets.’’;

(6) striking ‘‘conference, other than a serv-ice contract or contract based upon time-volume rates,’’ in paragraph (13) as redesig-nated and inserting ‘‘agreement’’;

(7) striking ‘‘conference.’’ in paragraph (13)as redesignated and inserting ‘‘agreementand the contract provides for a deferred re-bate arrangement.’’;

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1358 March 4, 1998(8) by striking ‘‘carrier.’’ in paragraph (14)

as redesignated and inserting ‘‘carrier, or inconnection with a common carrier and awater carrier subject to subchapter II ofchapter 135 of title 49, United States Code.’’;

(9) striking paragraph (16) as redesignatedand redesignating paragraphs (17) through(26) as redesignated as paragraphs (16)through (25), respectively;

(10) striking paragraph (17), as redesig-nated, and inserting the following:

‘‘(17) ‘ocean transportation intermediary’means an ocean freight forwarder or a non-vessel-operating common carrier. For pur-poses of this paragraph, the term

‘‘(A) ‘ocean freight forwarder’ means a per-son that—

‘‘(i) in the United States, dispatches ship-ments from the United States via a commoncarrier and books or otherwise arrangesspace for those shipments on behalf of ship-pers; and

‘‘(ii) processes the documentation or per-forms related activities incident to thoseshipments; and

‘‘(B) ‘non-vessel-operating common carrier’means a common carrier that does not oper-ate the vessels by which the ocean transpor-tation is provided, and is a shipper in its re-lationship with an ocean common carrier.’’;

(11) striking paragraph (19), as redesig-nated and inserting the following:

‘‘(19) ‘service contract’ means a writtencontract, other than a bill of lading or a re-ceipt, between one or more shippers and anindividual ocean common carrier or anagreement between or among ocean commoncarriers in which the shipper or shippersmakes a commitment to provide a certainvolume or portion of cargo over a fixed timeperiod, and the ocean common carrier or theagreement commits to a certain rate or rateschedule and a defined service level, such asassured space, transit time, port rotation, orsimilar service features. The contract mayalso specify provisions in the event of non-performance on the part of any party.’’; and

(12) striking paragraph (21), as redesig-nated, and inserting the following:

‘‘(21) ‘shipper’ means—‘‘(A) a cargo owner;‘‘(B) the person for whose account the

ocean transportation is provided;‘‘(C) the person to whom delivery is to be

made;‘‘(D) a shippers’ association; or‘‘(E) an ocean transportation intermediary,

as defined in paragraph (17)(B) of this sec-tion, that accepts responsibility for paymentof all charges applicable under the tariff orservice contract.’’.SEC. 103. AGREEMENTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF

THE ACT.(a) OCEAN COMMON CARRIERS.—Section 4(a)

of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App.1703(a)) is amended by—

(1) striking ‘‘operators or non-vessel-oper-ating common carriers;’’ in paragraph (5) andinserting ‘‘operators;’’;

(2) striking ‘‘and’’ in paragraph (6) and in-serting ‘‘or’’; and

(3) striking paragraph (7) and inserting thefollowing:

‘‘(7) discuss and agree on any matter relat-ed to service contracts.’’.

(b) MARINE TERMINAL OPERATORS.—Section4(b) of that Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1703(b)) isamended by—

(1) striking ‘‘(to the extent the agreementsinvolve ocean transportation in the foreigncommerce of the United States)’’;

(2) striking ‘‘and’’ in paragraph (1) and in-serting ‘‘or’’; and

(3) striking ‘‘arrangements.’’ in paragraph(2) and inserting ‘‘arrangements, to the ex-tent that such agreements involve oceantransportation in the foreign commerce ofthe United States.’’.

SEC. 104. AGREEMENTS.(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5 of the Shipping

Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 1704) is amendedby—

(1) striking subsection (b)(8) and insertingthe following:

‘‘(8) provide that any member of the con-ference may take independent action on anyrate or service item upon not more than 5calendar days’ notice to the conference andthat, except for exempt commodities notpublished in the conference tariff, the con-ference will include the new rate or serviceitem in its tariff for use by that member, ef-fective no later than 5 calendar days after re-ceipt of the notice, and by any other memberthat notifies the conference that it elects toadopt the independent rate or service itemon or after its effective date, in lieu of theexisting conference tariff provision for thatrate or service item’’;

(2) redesignating subsections (c) through(e) as subsections (d) through (f); and

(3) inserting after subsection (b) the fol-lowing:

‘‘(c) OCEAN COMMON CARRIER AGREE-MENTS.—An ocean common carrier agree-ment may not—

‘‘(1) prohibit or restrict a member or mem-bers of the agreement from engaging in nego-tiations for service contracts with 1 or moreshippers;

‘‘(2) require a member or members of theagreement to disclose a negotiation on aservice contract, or the terms and conditionsof a service contract, other than those termsor conditions required to be published undersection 8(c)(3) of this Act; or

‘‘(3) adopt mandatory rules or require-ments affecting the right of an agreementmember or agreement members to negotiateand enter into service contracts.An agreement may provide authority toadopt voluntary guidelines relating to theterms and procedures of an agreement mem-ber’s or agreement members’ service con-tracts if the guidelines explicitly state theright of members of the agreement not tofollow the guidelines. These guidelines shallbe confidentially submitted to the Commis-sion.’’.

(b) APPLICATION.—(1) Subsection (e) of section 5 of that Act,

as redesignated, is amended by striking ‘‘thisAct, the Shipping Act, 1916, and the Inter-coastal Shipping Act, 1933, do’’ and inserting‘‘this Act does’’; and

(2) Subsection (f) of section 5 of that Act,as redesignated, is amended by—

(A) striking ‘‘and the Shipping Act, 1916,do’’ and inserting ‘‘does’’;

(B) striking ‘‘or the Shipping Act, 1916,’’;and

(C) inserting ‘‘or are essential terms of aservice contract’’ after ‘‘tariff’’.SEC. 105. EXEMPTION FROM ANTITRUST LAWS.

Section 7 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46U.S.C. App. 1706) is amended by—

(1) inserting ‘‘or publication’’ in paragraph(2) of subsection (a) after ‘‘filing’’;

(2) striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subsection(b)(2);

(3) striking ‘‘States.’’ at the end of sub-section (b)(3) and inserting ‘‘States; or’’; and

(4) adding at the end of subsection (b) thefollowing:

‘‘(4) to any loyalty contract.’’.SEC. 106. TARIFFS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 8(a) of the Ship-ping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 1707(a)) isamended by—

(1) inserting ‘‘new assembled motor vehi-cles,’’ after ‘‘scrap,’’ in paragraph (1);

(2) striking ‘‘file with the Commission,and’’ in paragraph (1);

(3) striking ‘‘inspection,’’ in paragraph (1)and inserting ‘‘inspection in an automatedtariff system,’’;

(4) striking ‘‘tariff filings’’ in paragraph (1)and inserting ‘‘tariffs’’;

(5) striking ‘‘freight forwarder’’ in para-graph (1)(C) and inserting ‘‘transportationintermediary, as defined in section3(17)(A),’’;

(6) striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph(1)(D);

(7) striking ‘‘loyalty contract,’’ in para-graph (1)(E);

(8) striking ‘‘agreement.’’ in paragraph(1)(E) and inserting ‘‘agreement; and’’;

(9) adding at the end of paragraph (1) thefollowing:

‘‘(F) include copies of any loyalty contract,omitting the shipper’s name.’’; and

(10) striking paragraph (2) and insertingthe following:

‘‘(2) Tariffs shall be made available elec-tronically to any person, without time,quantity, or other limitation, through appro-priate access from remote locations, and areasonable charge may be assessed for suchaccess. No charge may be assessed a Federalagency for such access.’’.

(b) SERVICE CONTRACTS.—Subsection (c) ofthat section is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(c) SERVICE CONTRACTS.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—An individual ocean

common carrier or an agreement between oramong ocean common carriers may enterinto a service contract with one or moreshippers subject to the requirements of thisAct. The exclusive remedy for a breach of acontract entered into under this subsectionshall be an action in an appropriate court,unless the parties otherwise agree. In no casemay the contract dispute resolution forumbe controlled by or in any way affiliatedwith a controlled carrier as defined in sec-tion 3(8) of this Act, or by the governmentwhich owns or controls the carrier.

‘‘(2) FILING REQUIREMENTS.—Except forservice contracts dealing with bulk cargo,forest products, recycled metal scrap, newassembled motor vehicles, waste paper, orpaper waste, each contract entered intounder this subsection by an individual oceancommon carrier or an agreement shall befiled confidentially with the Commission.Each service contract shall include the fol-lowing essential terms—

‘‘(A) the origin and destination portranges;

‘‘(B) the origin and destination geographicareas in the case of through intermodalmovements;

‘‘(C) the commodity or commodities in-volved;

‘‘(D) the minimum volume or portion;‘‘(E) the line-haul rate;‘‘(F) the duration;‘‘(G) service commitments; and‘‘(H) the liquidated damages for non-

performance, if any.‘‘(3) PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN TERMS.—When

a service contract is filed confidentially withthe Commission, a concise statement of theessential terms described in paragraphs 2(A),(C), (D), and (F) shall be published and madeavailable to the general public in tariff for-mat.

‘‘(4) DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN TERMS.—‘‘(A) An ocean common carrier, which is a

party to or is subject to the provisions of acollective bargaining agreement with a labororganization, shall, in response to a writtenrequest by such labor organization, statewhether it is responsible for the followingwork at dock areas and within port areas inthe United States with respect to cargotransportation under a service contract de-scribed in paragraph (1) of this subsection—

‘‘(i) the movement of the shipper’s cargoon a dock area or within the port area or toor from railroad cars on a dock area or with-in the port area;

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1359March 4, 1998‘‘(ii) the assignment of intraport carriage

of the shipper’s cargo between areas on adock or within the port area;

‘‘(iii) the assignment of the carriage of theshipper’s cargo between a container yard ona dock area or within the port area and a railyard adjacent to such container yard; and

‘‘(iv) the assignment of container freightstation work and container maintenance andrepair work performed at a dock area orwithin the port area.

‘‘(B) The common carrier shall provide theinformation described in subparagraph (A) ofthis paragraph to the requesting labor orga-nization within a reasonable period of time.

‘‘(C) This paragraph requires the disclosureof information by an ocean common carrieronly if there exists an applicable and other-wise lawful collective bargaining agreementwhich pertains to that carrier. No disclosuremade by an ocean common carrier shall bedeemed to be an admission or agreementthat any work is covered by a collective bar-gaining agreement. Any dispute regardingwhether any work is covered by a collectivebargaining agreement and the responsibilityof the ocean common carrier under suchagreement shall be resolved solely in accord-ance with the dispute resolution procedurescontained in the collective bargaining agree-ment and the National Labor Relations Act,and without reference to this paragraph.

‘‘(D) Nothing in this paragraph shall haveany effect on the lawfulness or unlawfulnessunder this Act, the National Labor RelationsAct, the Taft-Hartley Act, the Federal TradeCommission Act, the antitrust laws, or anyother Federal or State law, or any revisionsor amendments thereto, of any collective-bargaining agreement or element thereof, in-cluding any element that constitutes an es-sential term of a service contract under thissubsection.

‘‘(E) For purposes of this paragraph theterms ‘dock area’ and ‘within the port area’shall have the same meaning and scope as inthe applicable collective bargaining agree-ment between the requesting labor organiza-tion and the carrier.’’.

(c) RATES.—Subsection (d) of that sectionis amended by—

(1) striking the subsection caption and in-serting ‘‘(d) TARIFF RATES.—’’;

(2) striking ‘‘30 days after filing with theCommission.’’ in the first sentence and in-serting ‘‘30 calendar days after publication.’’;

(3) inserting ‘‘calendar’’ after ‘‘30’’ in thenext sentence; and

(4) striking ‘‘publication and filing withthe Commission.’’ in the last sentence andinserting ‘‘publication.’’.

(d) REFUNDS.—Subsection (e) of that sec-tion is amended by—

(1) striking ‘‘tariff of a clerical or adminis-trative nature or an error due to inadvert-ence’’ in paragraph (1) and inserting acomma; and

(2) striking ‘‘file a new tariff,’’ in para-graph (1) and inserting ‘‘publish a new tariff,or an error in quoting a tariff,’’;

(3) striking ‘‘refund, filed a new tariff withthe Commission’’ in paragraph (2) and insert-ing ‘‘refund for an error in a tariff or a fail-ure to publish a tariff, published a new tar-iff’’;

(4) inserting ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph(2); and

(5) striking paragraph (3) and redesignatingparagraph (4) as paragraph (3).

(e) MARINE TERMINAL OPERATOR SCHED-ULES.—Subsection (f) of that section isamended to read as follows:

‘‘(f) MARINE TERMINAL OPERATOR SCHED-ULES.—A marine terminal operator maymake available to the public, subject to sec-tion 10(d) of this Act, a schedule of rates,regulations, and practices pertaining to re-ceiving, delivering, handling, or storing

property at its marine terminal. Any suchschedule made available to the public shallbe enforceable by an appropriate court as animplied contract without proof of actualknowledge of its provisions.’’.

(f) AUTOMATED TARIFF SYSTEM REQUIRE-MENTS; FORM.—Section 8 of that Act isamended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(g) REGULATIONS.—The Commission shallby regulation prescribe the requirements forthe accessibility and accuracy of automatedtariff systems established under this section.The Commission may, after periodic review,prohibit the use of any automated tariff sys-tem that fails to meet the requirements es-tablished under this section. The Commis-sion may not require a common carrier toprovide a remote terminal for access undersubsection (a)(2). The Commission shall byregulation prescribe the form and manner inwhich marine terminal operator schedulesauthorized by this section shall be pub-lished.’’.SEC. 107. AUTOMATED TARIFF FILING AND IN-

FORMATION SYSTEM.Section 502 of the High Seas Driftnet Fish-

eries Enforcement Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1707a)is repealed.SEC. 108. CONTROLLED CARRIERS.

Section 9 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46U.S.C. App. 1708) is amended by—

(1) striking ‘‘service contracts filed withthe Commission’’ in the first sentence of sub-section (a) and inserting ‘‘service contracts,or charge or assess rates,’’;

(2) striking ‘‘or maintain’’ in the first sen-tence of subsection (a) and inserting ‘‘main-tain, or enforce’’;

(3) striking ‘‘disapprove’’ in the third sen-tence of subsection (a) and inserting ‘‘pro-hibit the publication or use of’’; and

(4) striking ‘‘filed by a controlled carrierthat have been rejected, suspended, or dis-approved by the Commission’’ in the lastsentence of subsection (a) and inserting‘‘that have been suspended or prohibited bythe Commission’’;

(5) striking ‘‘may take into account appro-priate factors including, but not limited to,whether—’’ in subsection (b) and inserting‘‘shall take into account whether the ratesor charges which have been published or as-sessed or which would result from the perti-nent classifications, rules, or regulations arebelow a level which is fully compensatory tothe controlled carrier based upon that car-rier’s actual costs or upon its constructivecosts. For purposes of the preceding sen-tence, the term ‘constructive costs’ meansthe costs of another carrier, other than acontrolled carrier, operating similar vesselsand equipment in the same or a similartrade. The Commission may also take intoaccount other appropriate factors, includingbut not limited to, whether—’’;

(6) striking paragraph (1) of subsection (b)and redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively;

(7) striking ‘‘filed’’ in paragraph (1) as re-designated and inserting ‘‘published or as-sessed’’;

(8) striking ‘‘filing with the Commission.’’in subsection (c) and inserting ‘‘publica-tion.’’;

(9) striking ‘‘DISAPPROVAL OF RATES.—’’ insubsection (d) and inserting ‘‘PROHIBITION OFRATES.—Within 120 days after the receipt ofinformation requested by the Commissionunder this section, the Commission shall de-termine whether the rates, charges, classi-fications, rules, or regulations of a con-trolled carrier may be unjust and unreason-able.’’;

(10) striking ‘‘filed’’ in subsection (d) andinserting ‘‘published or assessed’’;

(11) striking ‘‘may issue’’ in subsection (d)and inserting ‘‘shall issue’’;

(12) striking ‘‘disapproved.’’ in subsection(d) and inserting ‘‘prohibited.’’;

(15) striking ‘‘60’’ in subsection (d) and in-serting ‘‘30’’;

(16) inserting ‘‘controlled’’ after ‘‘affected’’in subsection (d);

(17) striking ‘‘file’’ in subsection (d) and in-serting ‘‘publish’’.

(18) striking ‘‘disapproval’’ in subsection(e) and inserting ‘‘prohibition’’;

(19) inserting ‘‘or’’ after the semicolon insubsection (f)(1);

(20) striking paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) ofsubsection (f); and

(21) redesignating paragraph (5) of sub-section (f) as paragraph (2).SEC. 109. PROHIBITED ACTS.

(a) Section 10(b) of the Shipping Act of 1984(46 U.S.C. App. 1709(b)) is amended by—

(1) striking paragraphs (1) through (3);(2) redesignating paragraph (4) as para-

graph (1);(3) inserting after paragraph (1), as redesig-

nated, the following:‘‘(2) provide service in the liner trade

that—‘‘(A) is not in accordance with the rates,

charges, classifications, rules, and practicescontained in a tariff published or a servicecontract entered into under section 8 of thisAct unless excepted or exempted under sec-tion 8(a)(1) or 16 of this Act; or

‘‘(B) is under a tariff or service contractwhich has been suspended or prohibited bythe Commission under section 9 of this Actor the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988(46 U.S.C. App. 1710a);’’;

(4) redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) asparagraphs (3) and (4), respectively;

(5) striking ‘‘except for service contracts,’’in paragraph (4), as redesignated, and insert-ing ‘‘for service pursuant to a tariff,’’;

(6) striking ‘‘rates;’’ in paragraph (4)(A), asredesignated, and inserting ‘‘rates orcharges;’’;

(7) inserting after paragraph (4), as redesig-nated, the following:

‘‘(5) for service pursuant to a service con-tract, engage in any unfair or unjustly dis-criminatory practice in the matter of ratesor charges with respect to any port;’’;

(8) redesignating paragraphs (7) and (8) asparagraphs (6) and (7), respectively;

(9) striking paragraph (6) as redesignatedand inserting the following:

‘‘(6) use a vessel or vessels in a particulartrade for the purpose of excluding, prevent-ing, or reducing competition by driving an-other ocean common carrier out of thattrade;’’;

(10) striking paragraphs (9) through (13)and inserting the following:

‘‘(8) for service pursuant to a tariff, giveany undue or unreasonable preference or ad-vantage or impose any undue or unreason-able prejudice or disadvantage;

‘‘(9) for service pursuant to a service con-tract, give any undue or unreasonable pref-erence or advantage or impose any undue orunreasonable prejudice or disadvantage withrespect to any port;

‘‘(10) unreasonably refuse to deal or nego-tiate;’’;

(10) redesignating paragraphs (14), (15), and(16) as paragraphs (11), (12), and (13), respec-tively;

(11) striking ‘‘a non-vessel-operating com-mon carrier’’ in paragraphs (11) and (12) asredesignated and inserting ‘‘an ocean trans-portation intermediary’’;

(12) striking ‘‘sections 8 and 23’’ in para-graphs (11) and (12) as redesignated and in-serting ‘‘sections 8 and 19’’;

(13) striking ‘‘or in which an ocean trans-portation intermediary is listed as an affili-ate’’ in paragraph (12), as redesignated;

(14) striking ‘‘Act;’’ in paragraph (12), asredesignated, and inserting ‘‘Act, or with an

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1360 March 4, 1998affiliate of such ocean transportation inter-mediary;’’

(15) striking ‘‘paragraph (16)’’ in the mat-ter appearing after paragraph (13), as redes-ignated, and inserting ‘‘paragraph (13)’’; and

(16) inserting ‘‘the Commission,’’ after‘‘United States,’’ in such matter.

(b) Section 10(c) of the Shipping Act of 1984(46 U.S.C. App. 1709(c)) is amended by—

(1) striking ‘‘non-ocean carriers’’ in para-graph (4) and inserting ‘‘non-ocean carriers,unless such negotiations and any resultingagreements are not in violation of the anti-trust laws and are consistent with the pur-poses of this Act’’;

(2) striking ‘‘freight forwarder’’ in para-graph (5) and inserting ‘‘transportationintermediary, as defined by section 3(17)(A)of this Act,’’;

(3) striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph(5);

(4) striking ‘‘contract.’’ in paragraph (6)and inserting ‘‘contract;’’; and

(5) adding at the end the following:‘‘(7) for service pursuant to a service con-

tract, engage in any unjustly discriminatorypractice in the matter of rates or chargeswith respect to any locality, port, or personsdue to those persons’ status as shippers’ as-sociations or ocean transportation inter-mediaries; or

‘‘(8) for service pursuant to a service con-tract, give any undue or unreasonable pref-erence or advantage or impose any undue orunreasonable prejudice or disadvantage withrespect to any locality, port, or persons dueto those persons’ status as shippers’ associa-tions or ocean transportation inter-mediaries;’’.

(c) Section 10(d) of the Shipping Act of 1984(46 U.S.C. App. 1709(d)) is amended by—

(1) striking ‘‘freight forwarders,’’ and in-serting ‘‘transportation intermediaries,’’;

(2) striking ‘‘freight forwarder,’’ in para-graph (1) and inserting ‘‘transportationintermediary,’’;

(3) striking ‘‘subsection (b)(11), (12), and(16)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (b)(10) and(13)’’; and

(4) adding at the end thereof the following:‘‘(4) No marine terminal operator may give

any undue or unreasonable preference or ad-vantage or impose any undue or unreason-able prejudice or disadvantage with respectto any person.

‘‘(5) The prohibition in subsection (b)(13) ofthis section applies to ocean transportationintermediaries, as defined by section 3(17)(A)of this Act.’’.SEC. 110. COMPLAINTS, INVESTIGATIONS, RE-

PORTS, AND REPARATIONS.Section 11(g) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46

U.S.C. App. 1710(g)) is amended by—(1) striking ‘‘section 10(b)(5) or (7)’’ and in-

serting ‘‘section 10(b)(3) or (6)’’; and(2) striking ‘‘section 10(b)(6)(A) or (B)’’ and

inserting ‘‘section 10(b)(4)(A) or (B).’’.SEC. 111. FOREIGN SHIPPING PRACTICES ACT OF

1988.Section 10002 of the Foreign Shipping Prac-

tices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. App. 1710a) isamended by—

(1) striking ‘‘ ‘non-vessel-operating com-mon carrier’, ’’ in subsection (a)(1) and in-serting ‘‘ ‘ocean transportation inter-mediary’, ’’;

(2) striking ‘‘forwarding and’’ in subsection(a)(4);

(3) striking ‘‘non-vessel-operating commoncarrier’’ in subsection (a)(4) and inserting‘‘ocean transportation intermediary servicesand’’;

(4) striking ‘‘freight forwarder,’’ in sub-sections (c)(1) and (d)(1) and inserting‘‘transportation intermediary,’’;

(5) striking ‘‘filed with the Commission,’’in subsection (e)(1)(B) and inserting ‘‘andservice contracts,’’;

(6) inserting ‘‘and service contracts’’ after‘‘tariffs’’ the second place it appears in sub-section (e)(1)(B); and

(7) striking ‘‘(b)(5)’’ each place it appearsin subsection (h) and inserting ‘‘(b)(6)’’.SEC. 112. PENALTIES.

(a) Section 13(a) of the Shipping Act of 1984(46 U.S.C. App. 1712(a)) is amended by addingat the end thereof the following: ‘‘Theamount of any penalty imposed upon a com-mon carrier under this subsection shall con-stitute a lien upon the vessels operated bythat common carrier and any such vesselmay be libeled therefore in the district courtof the United States for the district in whichit may be found.’’.

(b) Section 13(b) of the Shipping Act of 1984(46 U.S.C. App. 1712(b)) is amended by—

(1) striking ‘‘section 10(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), or(8)’’ in paragraph (1) and inserting ‘‘section10(b)(1), (2), or (7)’’;

(2) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and(6) as paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respec-tively;

(3) inserting before paragraph (5), as redes-ignated, the following:

‘‘(4) If the Commission finds, after noticeand an opportunity for a hearing, that acommon carrier has failed to supply infor-mation ordered to be produced or compelledby subpoena under section 12 of this Act, theCommission may request that the Secretaryof the Treasury refuse or revoke any clear-ance required for a vessel operated by thatcommon carrier. Upon request by the Com-mission, the Secretary of the Treasury shall,with respect to the vessel concerned, refuseor revoke any clearance required by section4197 of the Revised Statutes of the UnitedStates (46 U.S.C. App. 91).’’; and

(4) striking ‘‘paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)’’ inparagraph (6), as redesignated, and inserting‘‘paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4)’’.

(c) Section 13(f)(1) of the Shipping Act of1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 1712(f)(1)) is amendedby—

(1) striking ‘‘or (b)(4)’’ and inserting ‘‘or(b)(2)’’;

(2) striking ‘‘(b)(1), (4)’’ and inserting‘‘(b)(1), (2)’’; and

(3) adding at the end thereof the following‘‘Neither the Commission nor any court shallorder any person to pay the difference be-tween the amount billed and agreed upon inwriting with a common carrier or its agentand the amount set fourth in any tariff orservice contract by that common carrier forthe transportation service provided.’’.SEC. 113. REPORTS AND CERTIFICATES.

Section 15 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46U.S.C. App. 1714) is amended by—

(1) striking ‘‘and certificates’’ in the sec-tion heading;

(2) striking ‘‘(a) REPORTS.—’’ in the sub-section heading for subsection (a); and

(3) striking subsection (b).SEC. 114. EXEMPTIONS.

Section 16 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46U.S.C. App. 1715) is amended by striking‘‘substantially impair effective regulation bythe Commission, be unjustly discriminatory,result in a substantial reduction in competi-tion, or be detrimental to commerce.’’ andinserting ‘‘result in substantial reduction incompetition or be detrimental to com-merce.’’.SEC. 115. AGENCY REPORTS AND ADVISORY COM-

MISSION.Section 18 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46

U.S.C. App. 1717) is repealed.SEC. 116. OCEAN FREIGHT FORWARDERS.

Section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46U.S.C. App. 1718) is amended by—

(1) striking ‘‘freight forwarders’’ in the sec-tion caption and inserting ‘‘transportationintermediaries’’;

(2) striking subsection (a) and inserting thefollowing:

‘‘(a) LICENSE.—No person in the UnitedStates may act as an ocean transportationintermediary unless that person holds a li-cense issued by the Commission. The Com-mission shall issue an intermediary’s licenseto any person that the Commission deter-mines to be qualified by experience and char-acter to act as an ocean transportationintermediary.’’;

(3) redesignating subsections (b), (c), and(d) as subsections (c), (d), and (e), respec-tively;

(4) inserting after subsection (a) the fol-lowing:

‘‘(b) FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.—‘‘(1) No person may act as an ocean trans-

portation intermediary unless that personfurnishes a bond, proof of insurance, or othersurety in a form and amount determined bythe Commission to insure financial respon-sibility that is issued by a surety companyfound acceptable by the Secretary of theTreasury.

‘‘(2) A bond, insurance, or other surety ob-tained pursuant to this section—

‘‘(A) shall be available to pay any order forreparation issued pursuant to section 11 or 14of this Act, or any penalty assessed pursuantto section 13 of this Act;

‘‘(B) may be available to pay any claimagainst an ocean transportation inter-mediary arising from its transportation-re-lated activities described in section 3(17) ofthis Act with the consent of the insuredocean transportation intermediary and sub-ject to review by the surety company, orwhen the claim is deemed valid by the suretycompany after the ocean transportationintermediary has failed to respond to ade-quate notice to address the validity of theclaim; and

‘‘(C) shall be available to pay any judg-ment for damages against an ocean transpor-tation intermediary arising from its trans-portation-related activities under section3(17) of this Act, provided the claimant hasfirst attempted to resolve the claim pursu-ant to subparagraph (B) of this paragraphand the claim has not been resolved within areasonable period of time.

‘‘(3) The Commission shall prescribe regu-lations for the purpose of protecting the in-terests of claimants, ocean transportationintermediaries, and surety companies withrespect to the process of pursuing claimsagainst ocean transportation intermediarybonds, insurance, or sureties through courtjudgments. The regulations shall providethat a judgment for monetary damages maynot be enforced except to the extent that thedamages claimed arise from the transpor-tation-related activities of the insured oceantransportation intermediary, as defined bythe Commission.

‘‘(4) An ocean transportation intermediarynot domiciled in the United States shall des-ignate a resident agent in the United Statesfor receipt of service of judicial and adminis-trative process, including subpoenas.’’;

(5) striking, each place such term ap-pears—

(A) ‘‘freight forwarder’’ and inserting‘‘transportation intermediary’’;

(B) ‘‘a forwarder’s’’ and inserting ‘‘anintermediary’s’’;

(C) ‘‘forwarder’’ and inserting ‘‘inter-mediary’’; and

(D) ‘‘forwarding’’ and inserting ‘‘inter-mediary’’;

(6) striking ‘‘a bond in accordance withsubsection (a)(2).’’ in subsection (c), as redes-ignated, and inserting ‘‘a bond, proof of in-surance, or other surety in accordance withsubsection (b)(1).’’;

(7) striking ‘‘FORWARDERS.—’’ in the cap-tion of subsection (e), as redesignated, andinserting ‘‘INTERMEDIARIES.—’’;

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1361March 4, 1998(8) striking ‘‘intermediary’’ the first place

it appears in subsection (e)(1), as redesig-nated and as amended by paragraph (5)(A),and inserting ‘‘intermediary, as defined insection 3(17)(A) of this Act,’’;

(9) striking ‘‘license’’ in paragraph (1) ofsubsection (e), as redesignated, and inserting‘‘license, if required by subsection (a),’’;

(10) striking paragraph (3) of subsection (e),as redesignated, and redesignating paragraph(4) as paragraph (3); and

(11) adding at the end of subsection (e), asredesignated, the following:

‘‘(4) No conference or group of 2 or moreocean common carriers in the foreign com-merce of the United States that is author-ized to agree upon the level of compensationpaid to an ocean transportation inter-mediary, as defined in section 3(17)(A) of thisAct, may—

‘‘(A) deny to any member of the conferenceor group the right, upon notice of not morethan 5 calendar days, to take independentaction on any level of compensation paid toan ocean transportation intermediary, as sodefined; or

‘‘(B) agree to limit the payment of com-pensation to an ocean transportation inter-mediary, as so defined, to less than 1.25 per-cent of the aggregate of all rates and chargeswhich are applicable under a tariff and whichare assessed against the cargo on which theintermediary services are provided.’’.SEC. 117. CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS, AND LI-

CENSES UNDER PRIOR SHIPPINGLEGISLATION.

Section 20 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46U.S.C. App. 1719) is amended by—

(1) striking subsection (d) and inserting thefollowing:

‘‘(d) EFFECTS ON CERTAIN AGREEMENTS ANDCONTRACTS.—All agreements, contracts,modifications, licenses, and exemptions pre-viously issued, approved, or effective underthe Shipping Act, 1916, or the Shipping Actof 1984, shall continue in force and effect asif issued or effective under this Act, asamended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Actof 1998, and all new agreements, contracts,and modifications to existing, pending, ornew contracts or agreements shall be consid-ered under this Act, as amended by theOcean Shipping Reform Act of 1998.’’;

(2) inserting the following at the end ofsubsection (e):

‘‘(3) The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998shall not affect any suit—

‘‘(A) filed before the effective date of thatAct; or

‘‘(B) with respect to claims arising out ofconduct engaged in before the effective dateof that Act filed within 1 year after the effec-tive date of that Act.

‘‘(4) Regulations issued by the FederalMaritime Commission shall remain in forceand effect where not inconsistent with thisAct, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Re-form Act of 1998.’’.SEC. 118. SURETY FOR NON-VESSEL-OPERATING

COMMON CARRIERS.Section 23 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46

U.S.C. App. 1721) is repealed.TITLE II—AUTHORIZATION OF APPRO-

PRIATIONS FOR THE FEDERAL MARI-TIME COMMISSION

SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONSFOR FISCAL YEAR 1998.

There are authorized to be appropriated tothe Federal Maritime Commission, $15,000,000for fiscal year 1998.SEC. 202. FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION OR-

GANIZATION.Section 102(d) of Reorganization Plan No. 7

of 1961 (75 Stat. 840) is amended to read asfollows:

‘‘(d) A vacancy or vacancies in the mem-bership of Commission shall not impair the

power of the Commission to execute its func-tions. The affirmative vote of a majority ofthe members serving on the Commission isrequired to dispose of any matter before theCommission.’’.SEC. 203. REGULATIONS.

Not later than March 1, 1999, the FederalMaritime Commission shall prescribe finalregulations to implement the changes madeby this Act.

TITLE III—AMENDMENTS TO OTHERSHIPPING AND MARITIME LAWS

SEC. 301. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 19 OF THEMERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1920.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 19 of the Mer-chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 876) isamended by—

(1) striking ‘‘forwarding and’’ in subsection(1)(b);

(2) striking ‘‘non-vessel-operating commoncarrier operations,’’ in subsection (1)(b) andinserting ‘‘ocean transportation inter-mediary services and operations,’’;

(3) striking ‘‘methods or practices’’ and in-serting ‘‘methods, pricing practices, or otherpractices’’ in subsection (1)(b);

(4) striking ‘‘tariffs of a common carrier’’in subsection 7(d) and inserting ‘‘tariffs andservice contracts of a common carrier’’;

(5) striking ‘‘use the tariffs of conferences’’in subsections (7)(d) and (9)(b) and inserting‘‘use tariffs of conferences and service con-tracts of agreements’’;

(6) striking ‘‘tariffs filed with the Commis-sion’’ in subsection (9)(b) and inserting ‘‘tar-iffs and service contracts’’;

(7) striking ‘‘freight forwarder,’’ each placeit appears and inserting ‘‘transportationintermediary,’’; and

(8) striking ‘‘tariff’’ each place it appearsin subsection (11) and inserting ‘‘tariff orservice contract’’.

(b) STYLISTIC CONFORMITY.—Section 19 ofthe Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C.App. 876), as amended by subsection (a), isfurther amended by—

(1) redesignating subdivisions (1) through(12) as subsections (a) through (l), respec-tively;

(2) redesignating subdivisions (a), (b), and(c) of subsection (a), as redesignated, as para-graphs (1), (2), and (3);

(3) redesignating subdivisions (a) through(d) of subsection (f), as redesignated, as para-graphs (1) through (4), respectively;

(4) redesignating subdivisions (a) through(e) of subsection (g), as redesignated, as para-graphs (1) through (5), respectively;

(5) redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (g)(4), as redesignated, as subpara-graphs (A) and (B), respectively;

(6) redesignating subdivisions (a) through(e) of subsection (i), as redesignated, as para-graphs (1) through (5), respectively;

(7) redesignating subdivisions (a) and (b) ofsubsection (j), as redesignated, as paragraphs(1) and (2), respectively;

(8) striking ‘‘subdivision (c) of paragraph(1)’’ in subsection (c), as redesignated, andinserting ‘‘subsection (a)(3)’’;

(9) striking ‘‘paragraph (2)’’ in subsection(c), as redesignated, and inserting ‘‘sub-section (b)’’;

striking ‘‘paragraph (1)(b)’’ each place itappears and inserting ‘‘subsection (a)(2)’’;

(10) striking ‘‘subdivision (b),’’ in sub-section (g)(4), as redesignated, and inserting‘‘paragraph (2),’’;

(11) striking ‘‘paragraph (9)(d)’’ in sub-section (j)(1), as redesignated, and inserting‘‘subsection (i)(4)’’; and

(12) striking ‘‘paragraph (7)(d) or (9)(b)’’ insubsection (k), as redesignated, and inserting‘‘subsection (g)(4) or (i)(2)’’.SEC. 302. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

(a) PUBLIC LAW 89-777.—Sections 2 and 3 ofthe Act of November 6, 1966, (46 U.S.C. App.

817d and 817e) are amended by striking ‘‘theyin their discretion’’ each place it appears andinserting ‘‘it in its discretion’’.

(b) TARIFF ACT OF 1930.—Section 641(i) ofthe Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1641) is re-pealed.

TITLE IV—MERCHANT MARINERBENEFITS.

SEC. 401. MERCHANT MARINER BENEFITS.(a) BENEFITS.—Part G of subtitle II, title

46, United States Code, is amended by addingat the end the following new chapter:‘‘CHAPTER 112—MERCHANT MARINER

BENEFITS‘‘Sec.‘‘11201. Qualified service.‘‘11202. Documentation of qualified service.‘‘11203. Eligibility for certain veterans’ bene-

fits.‘‘11204. Processing fees.‘‘§ 11201. Qualified service

‘‘For purposes of this chapter, a person en-gaged in qualified service if, between August16, 1945, and December 31, 1946, the person—

‘‘(1) was a member of the United Statesmerchant marine (including the ArmyTransport Service and the Naval Transpor-tation Service) serving as a crewmember of avessel that was—

‘‘(A) operated by the War Shipping Admin-istration or the Office of Defense Transpor-tation (or an agent of the Administration orOffice);

‘‘(B) operated in waters other than inlandwaters, the Great Lakes, other lakes, bays,and harbors of the United States;

‘‘(C) under contract or charter to, or prop-erty of, the Government of the UnitedStates; and

‘‘(D) serving the Armed Forces; and‘‘(2) while so serving, was licensed or other-

wise documented for service as a crew-member of such a vessel by an officer or em-ployee of the United States authorized to li-cense or document the person for such serv-ice.‘‘§ 11202. Documentation of qualified service

‘‘(a) RECORD OF SERVICE.—The Secretary,or in the case of personnel of the ArmyTransport Service or the Naval TransportService, the Secretary of Defense, shall,upon application—

‘‘(1) issue a certificate of honorable dis-charge to a person who, as determined by therespective Secretary, engaged in qualifiedservice of a nature and duration that war-rants issuance of the certificate; and

‘‘(2) correct, or request the appropriate of-ficial of the Federal government to correct,the service records of the person to the ex-tent necessary to reflect the qualified serv-ice and the issuance of the certificate of hon-orable discharge.

‘‘(b) TIMING OF DOCUMENTATION.—The re-spective Secretary shall take action on anapplication under subsection (a) not laterthan one year after the respective Secretaryreceives the application.

‘‘(c) STANDARDS RELATING TO SERVICE.—Inmaking a determination under subsection(a)(1), the respective Secretary shall applythe same standards relating to the natureand duration of service that apply to theissuance of honorable discharges under sec-tion 401(a)(1)(b) of the GI Bill ImprovementAct of 1977 (38 U.S.C. 106 note).

‘‘(d) CORRECTION OF RECORDS.—An officialof the Federal government who is requestedto correct service records under subsection(a)(2) shall do so.‘‘§ 11203. Eligibility for certain veterans’ ben-

efits‘‘(a) ELIGIBILITY.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The qualified service of

an individual referred to in paragraph (2) is

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1362 March 4, 1998deemed to be active duty in the armed forcesduring a period of war for purposes of eligi-bility for benefits under chapters 23 and 24 oftitle 38.

‘‘(2) COVERED INDIVIDUALS.—Paragraph (1)applies to an individual who—

‘‘(A) receives an honorable discharge cer-tificate under section 11202 of this title; and

‘‘(B) is not eligible under any other provi-sion of law for benefits under laws adminis-tered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

‘‘(b) REIMBURSEMENT FOR BENEFITS PRO-VIDED.—The Secretary shall reimburse theSecretary of Veterans Affairs for the value ofbenefits that the Secretary of Veterans Af-fairs provides for an individual by reason ofeligibility under this section.

‘‘(c) PROSPECTIVE APPLICABILITY.—An indi-vidual is not entitled to receive, and may notreceive, benefits under this chapter for anyperiod before the date of enactment of thischapter.

‘‘§ 11204. Processing fees‘‘(a) COLLECTION OF FEES.—The Secretary,

or in the case of personnel of the ArmyTransport Service or the Naval TransportService, the Secretary of Defense, shall col-lect a fee of $30 from each applicant for proc-essing an application submitted under sec-tion 11202(a) of this title.

‘‘(b) TREATMENT OF FEES COLLECTED.—Amounts received by the respective Sec-retary under this section shall be depositedin the general fund of the Treasury as offset-ting receipts of the department in which theCoast Guard is operating and ascribed toCoast Guard activities, or in the case of feescollected for processing discharges from theArmy Transport Service or the Naval Trans-port Service, deposited in the general fund ofthe Treasury as offsetting receipts of the De-partment of Defense, and shall be availablesubject to appropriation for the administra-tive costs for processing such applications.’’.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table ofchapters at the beginning of subtitle II oftitle 46, United States Code, is amended byinserting after the item relating to chapter111 the following:

‘‘112. Merchant mariner bene-fits.............11201’’.

TITLE V—CERTAIN LOAN GUARANTEESAND COMMITMENTS

SEC. 501. CERTAIN LOAN GUARANTEES AND COM-MITMENTS.

(a) The Secretary of Transportation maynot issue a guarantee or commitment toguarantee a loan for the construction, recon-struction, or reconditioning of a liner vesselunder the authority of title XI of the Mer-chant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 1271 etseq.) after the date of enactment of this Actunless the Chairman of the Federal MaritimeCommission certifies that the operator ofsuch vessel—

(1) has not been found by the Commissionto have violated section 19 of the MerchantMarine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 876), or theForeign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46U.S.C. App. 1701a), within the previous 5years; and

(2) has not been found by the Commissionto have committed a violation of the Ship-ping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 1701 et seq.),which involves unjust or unfair discrimina-tory treatment or undue or unreasonableprejudice or disadvantage with respect to aUnited States shipper, ocean transportationintermediary, ocean common carrier, or portwithin the previous 5 years.

(b) The Secretary of Commerce may notissue a guarantee or a commitment to guar-antee a loan for the construction, recon-struction, or reconditioning of a fishing ves-sel under the authority of title XI of theMerchant Marine Act, 1936, (46 U.S.C. App.

1271 et seq.) if the fishing vessel operator hasbeen—

(1) held liable or liable in rem for a civilpenalty pursuant to section 308 of the Mag-nuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation andManagement Act (16 U.S.C. 1858) and notpaid the penalty;

(2) found guilty of an offense pursuant tosection 309 of the Magnuson-Stevens FisheryConservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.1859) and not paid the assessed fine or servedthe assessed sentence;

(3) held liable for a civil or criminal pen-alty pursuant to section 105 of the MarineMammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.1375) and not paid the assessed fine or servedthe assessed sentence; or

(4) held liable for a civil penalty by theCoast Guard pursuant to titles 33 or 46,United States Code, and not paid the as-sessed fine.’’

Amend the title so as to read ‘‘A Bill toamend the Shipping Act of 1984 to encouragecompetition in international shipping andgrowth of United States exports, and forother purposes.

f

THE INTERMODAL SURFACETRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCYACT OF 1998

MURKOWSKI AMENDMENT NO. 1690

Mr. CHAFEE (for Mr. MURKOWSKI)proposed an amendment to amendmentNo. 1676 proposed by Mr. CHAFEE to thebill, S. 1173, supra; as follows:

On page 191, line 12, strike the semicolonat the end and insert ‘‘, except that if theState has a higher Federal share payableunder section 120(b) of title 23, United StatesCode, the State shall be required to contrib-ute only an amount commensurate with thehigher Federal share;’’.

DOMENICI (AND HARKIN)AMENDMENT NO. 1691

Mr. CHAFEE (for Mr. DOMENICI, forhimself and Mr. HARKIN) proposed anamendment to amendment No. 1676proposed by Mr. CHAFEE to the bill, S.1173, supra; as follows:

On page 371, line 6, strike ‘‘and’’ after thesemicolon.

On page 371, line 10, strike the period andinsert ‘‘; and’’.

On page 371, between lines 10 and 11, insertthe following:

‘‘(6) the development of new non-destructive bridge evaluation technologiesand techniques.

MOYNIHAN AMENDMENT NO. 1692

Mr. BAUCUS (for Mr. MOYNIHAN) pro-posed an amendment to amendmentNo. 1676 proposed by Mr. CHAFEE to thebill, S. 1173, supra; as follows:

On page 98, line 7, amend subparagraph1116(d)(2)(A) by striking ‘‘of commercial ve-hicle traffic’’ each place it appears and sub-stituting ‘‘and value of commercial traffic’’.

MOSELEY-BRAUN (AND DURBIN)AMENDMENT NO. 1693

Mr. BAUCUS (for Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, for herself and Mr. DURBIN) pro-posed an amendment to amendmentNo. 1676 proposed by Mr. CHAFEE to thebill, S. 1173, supra; as follows:

On page 249, strike lines 5 through 11 andinsert the following:

‘‘(2) REDESIGNATION.—‘‘(A) PROCEDURES.—A metropolitan plan-

ning organization may be redesignated byagreement between the Governor and unitsof general purpose local government that to-gether represent at least 75 percent of the af-fected population (including the central cityor cities as defined by the Bureau of the Cen-sus) as appropriate to carry out this section.

‘‘(B) CERTAIN REQUESTS TO REDESIGNATE.—A metropolitan planning organization shallbe redesignated upon request of a unit orunits of general purpose local governmentrepresenting at least 25 percent of the af-fected population (including the central cityor cities as defined by the Bureau of the Cen-sus) in any urbanized area—

‘‘(I) whose population is more than 5,000,000but less than 10,000,000, or

‘‘(ii) which is an extreme nonattainmentarea for ozone or carbon monoxide as definedunder the Clean Air Act.Such redesignation shall be accomplishedusing procedures established by subpara-graph (A).

BOXER (AND WELLSTONE)AMENDMENT NO. 1694

Mr. BAUCUS (for Mrs. BOXER, forherself and Mr. WELLSTONE) proposedan amendment to amendment No. 1676proposed by Mr. CHAFEE to the bill, S.1173, supra; as follows:

On page 345, line 6, strike ‘‘and’’.On page 345, line 9, strike the period and

insert ‘‘; and’’.On page 345, between lines 9 and 10, insert

the following:‘‘(H) research on telecommuting, research

on the linkages between transportation, in-formation technology, and community devel-opment, and research on the impacts of tech-nological change and economic restructuringon travel demand.

BROWNBACK AMENDMENT NO. 1695

(Ordered to lie on the table.)Mr. BROWNBACK submitted an

amendment intended to be proposed byhim to amendment No. 1676 proposedby Mr. CHAFEE to the bill, S. 1173,supra; as follows:

On page 309, between lines 3 and 4, insertthe following:SEC. 18 . DESIGNATIONS OF ABANDONED RAIL-

ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY.Section 8(d) of the National Trails System

Act (16 U.S.C. 1247(d)) is amended—(1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and insert-

ing the following:‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary’’; and(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(2) LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPROVAL.—A rail-

road right-of-way may be designated for in-terim use as a trail under this subsection orany other provision of law only if the des-ignation first is approved by the appropriatelocal government entity, as identified by theState in which the right-of-way is located.’’.

f

NOTICES OF HEARINGS

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish toannounce that the Committee on SmallBusiness will hold a hearing entitled‘‘The President’s Fiscal Year 1999Budget Request for the Small BusinessAdministration.’’ The hearing will beheld on March 18, 1998, beginning at 9:30a.m. in room 428A of the Russell SenateOffice Building.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1363March 4, 1998For further information, please con-

tact Paul Cooksey at 224–5175.SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would liketo announce for the public that a hear-ing has been scheduled before the Sub-committee on Water and Power, of theEnergy and Natural Resources Com-mittee, to consider S. 1515, a bill ‘‘Toamend Public Law 89–108 to increaseauthorization levels for State and In-dian tribal, municipal, rural, and in-dustrial water supplies, to meet cur-rent and future water quantity andquality needs of the Red River Valley,to deauthorize certain project featuresand irrigation service areas, to enhancenatural resources and fish and wildlifehabitat, and for other purposes.’’

The hearing will take place on Tues-day, March 31, 1998, at 2:30 p.m. in roomSD–366 of the Dirksen Senate OfficeBuilding.

For further information, please callJames P. Beirme, Senior Counsel, (202/224–2564) or Betty Nevitt, Staff Assist-ant at (202/224–0765).f

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TOMEET

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURALRESOURCES

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Commit-tee on Energy and Natural Resourcesbe granted permission to meet duringthe session of the Senate on Wednes-day, March 4, for purposes of conduct-ing a full committee hearing which isscheduled to begin at 10 a.m. The pur-pose of this oversight hearing is to con-sider the President’s proposed budgetfor fiscal year 1999 for the Departmentof Energy.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Commit-tee on the Judiciary be authorized tomeet during the session of the Senateon Wednesday, March 4, 1998 at 10 a.m.in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Of-fice Building to hold a hearing on ‘‘AReview of the National Drug ControlStrategy.’’

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Commit-tee on Rules and Administration be au-thorized to meet during the session ofthe Senate on Wednesday, March 4, 1998beginning at 9:30 a.m. until business iscompleted, to conduct an oversighthearing on the FY99 budget and oper-ations of the Library of Congress, andto review the reauthorization of theAmerican Folklife Center.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the SelectCommittee on Intelligence be author-

ized to meet during the session of theSenate on Wednesday, March 4, 1998 at2:30 p.m. to hold an open hearing on in-telligence matters.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ACQUISITION ANDTECHNOLOGY

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Sub-committee on Acquisition and Tech-nology of the Committee on ArmedServices be authorized to meet at 2p.m. on Wednesday, March 4, 1998, inopen session, to receive testimony onthe Policies Concerning the Industrialand Technology Base Supporting Na-tional Defense in Review of the DefenseAuthorization Request for fiscal year1999 and the future years Defense pro-gram.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIRLAND FORCES

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Sub-committee on Airland Forces of theCommittee on Armed Services be au-thorized to meet on Wednesday, March4, 1998, at 10 a.m. in open session, to re-ceive testimony on Military Trans-formation Initiatives.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, BUSINESSRIGHTS, AND COMPETITION

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Sub-committee on Antitrust, BusinessRights, and Competition, of the SenateJudiciary Committee, be authorized tomeet during the session of the Senateon Tuesday, March 4, 1998 at 2 p.m. tohold a hearing in room 226, SenateDirksen Building, on: ‘‘The Tele-communications Act of 1996: MovingToward Competition Under Section271.’’

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIA AND PACIFICAFFAIRS

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Sub-committee on East Asia and Pacific Af-fairs of the Committee on Foreign Re-lations be authorized to meet duringthe session of the Senate on Wednes-day, March 4, 1998, at 2 p.m. to hold ahearing.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Sub-committee on Personnel of the Com-mittee on Armed Services be author-ized to meet on Wednesday, March 4,1998, at 2 p.m. in open session, to re-ceive testimony on Recruiting and Re-tention Policies Within the Depart-ment of Defense and the Military Serv-ices in Review of the Defense Author-ization Request for fiscal year 1999 andthe Future Years Defense Program.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the ReadinessSubcommittee of the Committee onArmed Services be authorized to meetat 10 a.m. on Wednesday, March 4, 1998,in open session, to receive testimonyon the Ongoing Competitions to Deter-mine the Dispositions of the WorkloadsCurrently Performed at Sacramentoand San Antonio Air Logistics Centers.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, TERRORISMAND GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Senate Ju-diciary Subcommittee on Technology,Terrorism and Government Informa-tion Committee on the Judiciary andthe Senate Select Committee on Intel-ligence be authorized to meet for ajoint hearing during the session of theSenate on Wednesday, March 4, 1998 at2:30 p.m. in room 216 of the Senate HartOffice Building to hold a joint hearingon: ‘‘Biological Weapons: The ThreatPosed by Terrorists.’’

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.f

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

ACCOUNTING STANDARDS FORDERIVATIVES AND THE FASB

∑ Mr. D’AMATO. Mr. President, inves-tors place their trust as well as theirfunds in our capital and financial mar-kets. It is clear that one of the reasonsfor this trust is the knowledge that fi-nancial statements are reliable, rel-evant, consistent, comparable and pre-pared according to well-understood andcarefully considered standards, knownas generally accepted accountingstandards. These financial reportingstandards are an essential componentof the attraction of our capital mar-kets—to borrowers who are looking forthe most capital at the lowest cost andto suppliers of capital who want to in-vest with confidence and earn a highreturn.

This openness and transparency isthe result of the useful and highly suc-cessful mechanism used in the UnitedStates for over 60 years to develop fi-nancial reporting and accountingstandards. Although Congress empow-ered the Securities and Exchange Com-mission (SEC) to set accounting stand-ards in 1934, for over sixty years theCommission has delegated this respon-sibility to the private sector. The Fi-nancial Accounting Standards Board(FASB) has exercised the delegated au-thority to develop accounting stand-ards, subject to SEC review, since 1972.In that year, a blue ribbon commission,created by the SEC, recommended thecreation of the FASB in order to insu-late its deliberative process from theinfluence of special interests and poli-tics. The FASB’s task is to establishand improve financial standards in aninclusive, public and deliberative man-ner.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1364 March 4, 1998Mr. President, while I have not al-

ways agreed with the FASB’s pro-nouncements and activities over theyears, I believe strongly in an inde-pendent standard setting body and I be-lieve the FASB has worked well. It hasearned praise for its evenhanded, prin-cipled and well-reasoned decisions fromprofessionals in the accounting profes-sion, from the SEC and the financialmedia, and investors.

Mr. President, at times, the FASB’sactivities have generated controversyand opposition from those affected byand opposed to its pronouncements. Atthis particular moment, the FASB isencountering stiff criticism as a resultof its attempt to require institutionswho hold derivatives to provide sometype of fair market value financial re-porting.

As my colleagues are aware, deriva-tives are highly complex financial in-struments that can and do perform animportant role in effective risk man-agement by enabling commercial cor-porations, governments and financialfirms and others, in the U.S. and world-wide, to reduce their exposure to fluc-tuations in interest rates, currency ex-change rates, and the prices of equitiesand commodities. Derivatives also en-able users to reduce funding costs andspeculate on changes in market ratesand prices. But Congress is also wellaware that the use and misuse of de-rivatives can cause severe financialshocks. Hearings held by the BankingCommittee in recent years dem-onstrated that derivatives improperlyused, and inadequately regulated, canexpose an institution or company topotential ruin with serious con-sequences for depositors, investors,taxpayers and, potentially, the stabil-ity of the financial system.

Mr. President, regulatory agenciesand Congress have studied the numer-ous regulatory, policy and disclosureissues raised by derivatives. Among themore serious findings is that deriva-tives generally do not need to be ac-counted for in financial statements. Inother words, there are billions of dol-lars worth of derivatives outstandingthat are not reflected adequately in thefinancial statements of major indus-trial companies, banks and other largederivative users.

In 1994 a GAO study, (Financial De-rivatives: Actions Needed to Protectthe Financial System), recommendedthat the FASB:

Proceed expeditiously to issue its ex-isting exposure draft on disclosures ofderivatives and fair value of financialinstruments.

Proceed expeditiously to develop andissue an exposure draft that providescomprehensive, consistent accountingrules for derivative products, includingexpanded disclosure requirements thatprovide additional needed informationabout derivatives activities.

Consider adopting a market value ac-counting model for all financial instru-ments, including derivative products.

Mr. President, the FASB is earnestlypursuing this complicated objective

with the support of the SEC, the ac-counting profession and most invest-ment professionals. The critics and op-ponents of the proposed derivative ac-counting standards are now taking theextraordinary step of asking Congressto intervene in the FASB’s standardsetting procedures. This not onlythreatens the FASB’s ability to deter-mine appropriate standards for disclo-sure of derivatives-related information,it seriously jeopardizes its independ-ence. This course of action is ex-tremely unwise and provides continu-ing justification for having an inde-pendent, professional entity to set ac-counting and financial reporting re-quirements, like the FASB, ratherthan the Congress or a governmentagency.

Mr. President, it is obvious that Con-gress lacks the technical expertise andresources to develop accounting stand-ards, as does the SEC. In addition, fed-eral bank regulators lack the impar-tiality to administer disclosure stand-ards dedicated to investor protectionand public disclosure since the bankinglaws are geared to maintaining publicconfidence in financial institutionsrather than requiring the full and com-plete disclosure of a financial institu-tion’s real financial condition.

Mr. President, Congress should resistthe suggestion of removing standardsetting from the public sector andtransferring it to a government agen-cy. If history is any guide, this stepwould create more problems than itwould solve. Every recent effort by agovernment agency, including the Con-gress, to set accounting standards hasbeen a total failure. For example, dur-ing the early days of the savings andloan crisis, the FSLIC (Federal Savingsand Loan Corporation—the former S&Lregulator) created ‘‘supervisory good-will’’ as a mechanism by which healthythrifts could acquire or invest in fledg-ling ones. Regulators permitted super-visory goodwill to qualify as regu-latory capital. Then, in 1989, Congressenacted stricter capital standardsunder the Financial Institutions Re-form, Recovery, and Enforcement Act(FIRREA) and mandated that all super-visory goodwill was to be charged-offover an accelerated period ending in1994, causing severe capital con-straints, even pushing some S&Ls toliquidate assets at a severe discount.Between the actions of the regulatorsand the Congress, the S&L crisis lastedlonger than necessary, the recoverytook longer than necessary and eventu-ally ended in a $130 billion dollar tax-payer-financed bailout. In fact, thefinal costs to the federal government ofthe S&L bailout may increase as a re-sult of the ongoing ‘‘supervisory good-will litigation.’’

Mr. President, the FASB startedworking on derivatives and hedging in1991. It has had an extensive and openprocess that has involved ample oppor-tunity for public comment, debate andparticipation by all constituents. Thisopen and deliberative process is still

ongoing and will, in the end, producethoughtful and comprehensive account-ing standards that will better informinvestors and the financial markets asa whole and contribute to their effec-tive functioning.

Mr. President, I do not want to dwellon the S&L crisis or on the benefitsand risks of derivatives. Instead, I sim-ply want to underscore that Congressshould not disrupt the FASB’s inde-pendence and professionalism in set-ting accounting standards, for deriva-tives or for any other project. The SEChas jurisdiction over the FASB and theCongress already conducts oversight ofthe SEC and the FASB. In fact, theSubcommittee on Securities has heldtwo hearings on the derivatives issue. Iwould oppose authorizing the SEC, orany other federal agency, to set ac-counting standards. We should leave tothe private sector the responsibility todevelop accounting and financial re-porting standards that are at the heartof the success of our process of capitalformation.∑f

NATIONAL SPORTSMANSHIP DAY∑ Mr. REED. Mr. President, March 3rdwas the eighth annual celebration ofNational Sportsmanship Day in over10,000 schools in all fifty states andmore than 100 countries throughout theworld.

Recognized by the President’s Coun-cil on Physical Fitness, NationalSportsmanship Day was conceived bythe Institute for International Sport,located in my home state of Rhode Is-land. As the President’s Council Co-Chairs Tom McMillen and FlorenceGriffith Joyner have stated, ‘‘thisevent will serve as a highly visible,one-day effort to stress the importanceof ethics and sportsmanship, not juston the athletic field but in all aspectsof life. . . having a powerful and posi-tive effect on the youth of the UnitedStates and the world.’’

Heeding President Clinton’s chal-lenge to begin a serious dialogue onrace relations in the United States, thecenterpiece of this year’s NationalSportsmanship Day was a seminar andtown meeting at the University ofRhode Island discussing race issues insport. This day long event includedpanels composed of athletes, coaches,and journalists who discussed themany different aspects of these issues.

In addition, the Institute has enlistedthe help of several Sports Ethics Fel-lows, including Mills Lane, a Reno, Ne-vada district judge and internationallyknown professional boxing referee,Billy Packer, CBS sports commentator,and Ken Dryden, the president and gen-eral manager of the Toronto MapleLeafs. These men and women are won-derful role models who can be admiredfor more than just their athletic prow-ess. They have consistently dem-onstrated an interest in furthering theprinciples of honesty and integrity insport and society.

These Sports Ethics Fellows are help-ing to teach the important lessons of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1365March 4, 1998National Sportsmanship Day by devel-oping programs for National Sports-manship Day. Through competition,young athletes can learn that whilewinning is a worthy goal, honor, dis-cipline, and hard work are more impor-tant. Indeed, these values will guidethem in all aspects of everyday life.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues tojoin the President’s Council on Phys-ical Fitness and Sports and the RhodeIsland Congressional delegation in rec-ognizing this day and the principles itembodies.∑f

THOM HINDLE: DOVER’S CITIZENOF THE YEAR

∑ Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr.President, I rise today to congratulateThom Hindle, a distinguished individ-ual, for being named the 1998 DoverCitizen of the Year. I commend his pas-sion for American history and his inex-haustible dedication to keeping italive.

Thom, a Dover native, became veryconcerned that the history of Doverwas not given the appreciation nor therecognition it deserved. As a result,Thom set out to remind and educatethe community about the importantfacts and contributions Dover’s historyhas to offer.

Thom became the trustee for theWoodman Institute, an organizationthat focuses on preserving and docu-menting the past. Thom felt that hewas preserving Dover’s ‘‘hidden treas-ures’’ and sought to give everyone thechance to experience them. To keep italive, he wrote a historical book onDover which included written and pic-torial information for future genera-tions.

Thom is also the president of theNortham Colonists, Dover’s historicalsociety, as well as a member of theHeritage group, a committee that ispart of the historical society. The com-mittee centers on historical areas ofthe town and also provides guidedtours during the fall, which focus onhistoric homes and other noteworthysights. He is also a trustee to Dover’soldest elderly care facility, The Went-worth Home. As a trustee, he raisesmoney for a number of city projectsthat improve the visual aesthetics ofthe community. His work not only rec-ognizes the important tributes of thepast but also those that enrich thepresent.

As a former history teacher, I appre-ciate Thom’s commitment to history.It is imperative to remember our coun-try’s past, to see where we have been asa nation, and to see where we are goingas a people. Not honoring Americanhistory is not honoring those who havefought, died, and sacrificed for thegreat nation we have today.

Therefore, we as a generation shouldcarry on the tradition our forefathersstarted: to continue to fight and striveto improve the lives of generations tocome and to never give up the aggres-sive crusade for greatness and consist-

ent drive for virtue. Like Thom, weshould continue to defend the past andaugment the future. Mr. President, Iwant to congratulate Thom for his out-standing work and I am proud to rep-resent him in the U.S. Senate.∑f

37TH ANNIVERSARY OF THEPEACE CORPS

∑ Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday,March 3, was designated by the Presi-dent as the day to pay public tribute tothe 37th anniversary of the PeaceCorps. Although the official anniver-sary technically occurred on Sunday,March 1, a day during the week forevents to be sponsored in honor of thePeace Corps’ anniversary proved to bemore practical.

It was nearly four decades ago thatPresident Kennedy signed legislationinto law to create the Peace Corps in1961 and sent the first class of volun-teers to Ghana. Since its founding,more than 150,000 Americans haveserved in the Peace Corps.

The public recognition of the PeaceCorps’ anniversary has special signifi-cance for me personally, as I was fortu-nate enough to serve as a Peace Corpsvolunteer in the Dominican Republicsome years ago. Like other Americanswho have had the honor of serving asPeace Corps volunteers, my service inthe Dominican Republic will remainone of the most important periods ofmy life.

Currently there are 6,500 volunteers,serving in 84 countries around theglobe. These people dedicate two yearsof their lives to addressing the criticaldevelopment needs of impoverishedcommunities. They help people gainaccess to clean water, grow more food,help prevent the spread of AIDS, teachEnglish, math and science, aid entre-preneurs in the development of newbusiness, and work with non-govern-mental organizations to protect the en-vironment.

The Peace Corps has been marked bymuch success thanks to current and re-turned Peace Corps volunteers. Basedon the Peace Corps’ high level ofachievement since its creation, andtaking into account the unmet needs ofthe developing world, I support the pro-posed increase in the Peace Corps Fis-cal Year 1999 budget.

The value of the Peace Corps is notlimited solely to its overseas volunteerservice. There is a ‘‘domestic dividend’’as well—the experience and value thatis brought back to the communitieswhere volunteers return once their twoyear tour is over. Experience hasshown that Returned Peace Corps vol-unteers participate in their commu-nities across the nation more thanmost other Americans.

This week, as the nation celebratesthe 37th anniversary of the PeaceCorps, more than 350,000 students in all50 states will learn more about life inthe developing world by talking withand listening to 5,000 current and re-turned volunteers, in person, via sat-

ellite and by phone. In my home stateof Connecticut, one of six states and 23cities that declared March 3 as PeaceCorps Day, students in New Londontalked to current Peace Corps Volun-teers in Panama and students at Bal-boa High School in Panama via a liveCU-SeeMe video conference. With ad-vancing technology, it is exciting tohave students in the United Stateslearn more about people in differentcorners of the world, without evenleaving their classroom.

Finally, I commend all of those vol-unteers, both past and present whohave contributed to the success of thePeace Corps. Every anniversary is animportant one. This one has been madespecial by being officially recognized asPeace Corps Day—something that willhopefully become an annual occur-rence. It serves as an opportunity forAmericans to learn about other cul-tures of the World and to pay tributeto the more than 150,000 Americanswho have dedicated part of their livesto making this a better World to livein. I am confident that we in the Sen-ate are proud of each and every one ofthem.∑f

TRIBUTE TO THE EAGLE SCOUTSOF TROOP 358

∑ Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, Irise today to recognize a very specialgroup of young men from one of theoldest African American Boy Scoutunits in the nation. On February 7,1998, eleven members of Troop 358 wereofficially honored as Eagle Scouts.

Troop 358, sponsored by Grace Bap-tist Church of Germantown, Pennsyl-vania, has a proud tradition of achieve-ment. In 45 years, Troop 358 has pro-duced a total of 33 Eagle Scouts—in-cluding this year’s class. To put this inperspective, consider that only 2.5 per-cent of the nation’s 4.5 million scoutsever become Eagle Scouts. Moreover,only about 1 percent of African Amer-ican scouts reach this goal.

Eagle Scouts learn valuable lessonsin leadership, honor, and pride in theircommunities. In fact, the communityservice projects that the Scouts com-pleted to earn their badges are as ex-traordinary as the young men them-selves. For instance, one new Scout setup a workshop for inner city kids whowanted to prepare for the ScholasticAptitude Test. Another young manwrapped up his Eagle service projectpainting a school. Still anotherploughed through months of paperworkto complete 8 of his 29 merit badges inone week.

Mr. President, these 11 new EagleScouts—Jarrett Coger, Jerece Barnes,Askia Fluellen, Bruce Frazier, AndreKydd, Jared LeVere, Sean Long, KyleMcIntosh, Robert Redding, ErnestStanton and Anwar White—are a creditto their families and to theirscoutmasters, A. Bruce Frazier andCharles M. Whiting. They are also liv-ing tributes to the late Earl Grayson,who led Troop 358 through both goodand bad times for 36 years.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1366 March 4, 1998In closing, I ask my colleagues to

join me in extending the Senate’s bestwishes for continued success to the newEagle Scouts and to all those who havesustained Troop 358 over its 45 year his-tory.∑

f

BEN MEED, THE AMERICAN GATH-ERING OF HOLOCAUST SUR-VIVORS, AND GERMAN COM-PENSATION

∑ Mr. D’AMATO. Mr. President, I risetoday to briefly comment on the pro-gram of German reparations being paidto Holocaust survivors. Over the pasttwo years, we have looked extensivelyat the role Swiss banks played duringthe Holocaust. What we found wasshocking. Clearly we discovered that inaddition to carrying out the mass mur-der of millions of people, Jews and non-Jews, the Nazis carried off the greatestrobbery in history.

After the war, the new government ofGermany began a program of restitu-tion for the survivors of the Holocaust.Over the past half-century, Germanyhas paid billions of dollars to survivors,but can we really say that this isenough? Can we say that it is fair thatsomeone who survived, for example,five months in a concentration camp,but not the six required to obtain com-pensation, is fair? Can we say that it isfair that someone who survived a Ge-stapo prison should be denied com-pensation for their suffering? The an-swer to these questions is an emphaticNO!

It is time that Germany drop theirreservations to paying compensation toall those who deserve it, regardless ofincome levels, regardless of the timespent enduring Nazi torture. All limi-tations should be dropped and each andevery survivor, everywhere, regardlessof their situation, should be providedwith compensation.

Mr. President, Ben Meed, the Presi-dent of the American Gathering ofJewish Holocaust Survivors, makesthese same points in a speech he gaveat the National Leadership Conferencein Washington on February 15, 1998. Hisspeech is poignant and succinct. Holo-caust survivors have little time leftand they need help. I could not agreemore with this wise man’s conclusions.At this time, I ask unanimous consentthat the text of his remarks be in-cluded in the RECORD.

Mr. President, I urge my colleaguesto read Ben Meed’s words and to helpease the suffering of these survivors ofmankind’s greatest inhumanity toman. I ask that they be printed in theRECORD.

The remarks follow:REMARKS BY BENJAMIN MEED AT THENATIONAL LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE

Distinguished guests, Fellow survivors, myyounger colleagues and dear friends

Though many issues of importance will beraised during the day, I want to take this op-portunity to convey the dismay and angerfelt by survivors toward the reparations pro-gram established by Germany and to express

the survivors’ goal to challenge those pro-grams.

German compensation has become an ex-tremely important—perhaps the most impor-tant—issue to survivors. Many survivorsneed the compensation. And most survivors,even those who would not accept Germanmoney before today demand rights for thepayment. But time is Germany’s ally; timeis the enemy for survivors. As nature takesits course, we learn daily of the deaths ofmore survivors. That unfortunate fact onlyserves to emphasize the urgency of this mat-ter.

We attend funerals almost daily. Let mealso add that since the reparation programstarted over forty years ago, more than 50%of survivors receiving German pensions havepassed away. Germany is not paying to thedeceased or to their heir.

After the Holocaust, we survivors were inno position to negotiate directly—also manyof us wanted nothing to do—with Germany.Though German money does go to some sur-vivors, the amounts and the conditions at-tached to the funds humiliate us personallyand collectively.

In 1951, Chancellor Adenauer announcedthat compensation for survivors was Ger-many’s moral responsibility. And, since the1950’s, the Claims Conference has negotiatedwith Germany on behalf of the survivors. Ithas served as trustee for their collective in-terest, and we survivors are grateful for anyhelp extended to us. But whatever was done,was not enough. Much more can be done andmust be done quickly.

Until recently, survivors played virtuallyno role in Holocaust-related compensationmatters. We did not negotiate with Ger-many; we did not decide how the Germanmoney would be used; and we did not distrib-ute the money. All of these things were donewithout our participation.

Yes, the Claims Conference and their lead-ers deserve our appreciation for the workthey did when we were unable to do it. Thenegotiations with Germany resulted in var-ious compensation programs for survivors.There is the Federal Indemnification Law,the Hardship Fund and the Article 2 Fund.We all know that no amount of compensa-tion can truly ‘‘pay’’ for the damage Ger-many did to our people. Yet the amount Ger-many has provided is shameful, and the con-ditions for eligibility are outrageous andhumiliating; they are unacceptable today.

First, the amount Germany has paid isbarely a start in repairing the destructionand human misery it caused. Our homes . . .our culture . . . our faith in our fellow manwere destroyed. Who will give us back ourfamilies, our youth, our health. So much ofour minds are still—and will always be—there. Any yet whenever some survivors re-ceive payments, we are told, ‘‘look, see howmuch Germany pays to the survivors!’’ Howcan anyone talk about German ‘‘generosity’’in the context of the Holocaust. It sounds bigwhen you say Germany paid more than fiftybillion dollars over forty years to Israel andto other countries in reparations. But thinkabout it, how much did Germany’s robberyamount to in four years of the Holocaust?Some historians today are estimating thatthe robbery was more than three hundredbillion dollars worth of land, homes, gold,jewelry and personal belongings—besidemurdering our six-million people.

Second, the individual payments Germanyhas made, though needed by many survivors,are typically small; they do not furnish adignified life with modest security that Ger-many has a duty to provide.

Third, only survivors who were in a campfor a minimum of six months, or a ghetto foreighteen months, are entitled to Germancompensation; and you must prove it with

documentation which is difficult if not im-possible to obtain. Can you imagine the fearand anguish which lingers from a single dayin the Warsaw or Lodz Ghetto, Auschwitz,Buchenwald, or in hiding? Can the peoplewho imposed these insensitive limitationshave any idea of what one day in thoseplaces felt like? It didn’t take a month ortwo—or certainly six months—to be abused,or to be plagued by nightmares, forever.

Finally, survivors must show virtual pov-erty—notbeduerftigt—to qualify for pay-ments. This turns the payments into welfare.Thus, the very people targeted by the Nazisfor murder are now treated as beggars or, atbest, as charity cases. This is disgraceful andinsulting to us. Compensation should be paidfor what Germany did during the Holocaust;it should have absolutely nothing to do withthe circumstances of our lives after the warstruggling to rebuild our lives.

As a general matter, the selections theprograms make—based on income, previouspayments and other restrictive rules are up-setting reminders to survivors of the infa-mous selections made during the Holocaust.This, to us, is intolerable and cannot remainthe same; it must be eliminated.

In sum, too many survivors have been ex-cluded from German payments; too manywho have gotten something have been paidtoo little; too many improper conditions—se-lections—have been imposed; and too manyin immediate need of help will not receivecompensation quickly enough to do anygood. All this, in the name of humanity andjustice, must be changed.

Germany has treated Holocaust repara-tions like any other business—get the bestdeal possible; pay as little as possible; and bedone with it. Holocaust survivors deservebetter. It may be that the claims of sur-vivors are unprecedented; but that is becausethe Holocaust was unprecedented.

But as we are in the last stages of ourlives, there are many needy and lonely sur-vivors who live in distressing circumstances.With an average age exceeding 75, they feelforsaken, afflicted by illness and, in additionto the usual complications of growing old.They still carry the nightmares of the Holo-caust.

Now we know that circumstances couldhave been very different had survivorsplayed a larger role in the compensation ne-gotiations with Germany. Germany wouldnot have dared to take the adamant nego-tiating positions it regularly took with theClaims Conference had survivors who stillbore the numbers of the camps tattooed ontheir arms been present. And if Germany hadplayed ‘‘hard-ball’’, survivors—from theUnited States and elsewhere around theworld—would or should have walked awayfrom the negotiating table, and taken theircase public, or to their own governments forsupport. For the last few years, we provedthe importance of the survivors at the nego-tiating table. Yes, without survivors, wewould not achieve these gains.

Survivors have dedicated themselves tonot permitting the world to forget the Holo-caust. They played a leading role in estab-lishing museums, memorials and other Holo-caust remembrance-related projects inIsrael, the United States and elsewhere. Wedid this not for ourselves—we know whathappened—but for the rest of the world,which had to be educated and reminded.

We now are equally determined to do whatis necessary to make certain, in the littletime we have left, that fellow survivors liveout their years in dignity; not full of fearand frustration.

Germany’s war against the Jews was morebrutal and relentless than the war it wagedeven against the Allied soldiers. To fulfill itsmoral obligation, Germany should have a

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1367March 4, 1998compensation program which gives to everyvictim, even at this late date, the fullest pos-sible coverage; enough compensation to es-tablish a foundation upon which survivorscan live out their lives in dignity, and withsecurity. Germany not only can do it; it isthe right thing for Germany to do.

The gross injustices done to Jewish Holo-caust survivors should be the concern of ev-eryone. Now it is clear what needs to bedone: We want the removal of all restrictionsin the German compensation programs; wewant German compensation to be inclusive—to cover every remaining survivor; and sur-vivors should be involved in every facet ofGerman compensation; the negotiations anddecisions about how the money is used.

My dear fellow survivors, I focus my com-ments today on Germany but we all knowtoo well that other countries participated inthe world’s greatest robbery from our Jewishpeople in Europe. We commend those whoare exposing these matters on every level.But we survivors know better that nothing,no nation could be compared to the greatestmurder machine of Germany.

We should never forget this. Let us alsonot forget that we spent a lifetime after theHolocaust educating, documenting and com-memorating the Holocaust. We must con-tinue to stand on guard of Remembrance. Weshould never be blinded with the glitter ofgold. The memory of our kedoshim shouldnever be tarnished.

Let us work together, together let us de-mand what is right.∑

f

TRIBUTE TO THE AMERICAN REDCROSS FOR ITS CONTRIBUTIONTO THE RED RIVER VALLEYFLOOD RELIEF EFFORT IN 1997

∑ Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I risetoday in honor of ‘‘American Red CrossMonth’’ to pay tribute to one of themost exemplary humanitarian organi-zations the world has ever known, andto specifically recognize how the RedCross touched the lives of thousands ofMinnesotans during the 1997 springfloods.

Each year, the Red Cross comes tothe aid of victims of 66,000 disasters na-tionally. When disaster strikes, theRed Cross responds swiftly to the callto relieve human suffering and restorea sense of comfort and normalcy in theface of tragedy—a response honed overits 135 years of service.

This surely was the case when trag-edy hit Minnesota in the form of severeflooding in the spring of 1997. When theMinnesota and Red Rivers overflowedtheir banks, it brought forth a flood ofdestruction and human misery unseenin this normally peaceful part of thecountry.

The Red Cross response to this catas-trophe was swift and effective. With op-erations in three states—Minnesota,North Dakota, and South Dakota—theRed Cross provided over 6,994 volun-teers to aid in the flood relief effort. Inaddition, the Red Cross contributed di-rect assistance to approximately 11,867families.

In Red Cross service centers, victimswere provided with basic necessitieswhich were made scarce or unattain-able due to the floods. The extensivedamage to private homes displacedthousands, prompting the Red Cross to

open 19 shelters which served 6,001 peo-ple. In all, the Red Cross served1,179,950 meals at its 43 feeding sitesand with its 64 mobile feeding units.The Red Cross was also able to providefresh water, clothing, and blankets.

After the water had returned withinits banks and it was time for people toreturn to their homes to begin to cleanup the residue left by the flood waters,the Red Cross provided 12,754 clean-upkits to aid in this long process.

In a relatively short period of time,the river took away from some what ithad taken a lifetime to build. In orderto aid people in dealing with the men-tal strain brought by such a traumaticexperience, the Red Cross made mentalhealth professionals available, who at-tended to the needs of 15,498 individ-uals.

During the many weeks of flood re-covery work, there were two instanceswhere individuals generously gave sig-nificant monetary contributions to thevictims of the flood. These anonymousdonors were properly referred to as‘‘Angels.’’ While this label is indeed ap-propriate, it seems that it should alsoaccurately be used to describe thethousands of Red Cross volunteers whocame from all over this country andgenerously gave their time and labor topeople known only to them by theirneed for assistance.

Mr. President, while this was indeeda dark time for Minnesotans in theflood areas, the uncompromising com-passion of Red Cross volunteers pro-vided a bright display of kindness, alight that shone in the hearts of themany who so generously gave theirtime and labor in the face of this greattragedy. On behalf of the people of Min-nesota, I wish to offer my sincerestthanks to the men and women of theRed Cross and commend this fine orga-nization for its relief efforts through-out the world.∑f

ORDER FOR STAR PRINT—S. CON.RES. 77

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, Iask unanimous consent that S. Con.Res. 77 be star printed with the changesthat are now at the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.f

MAKING MAJORITY PARTY AP-POINTMENTS FOR THE COMMIT-TEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AF-FAIRSMr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I

ask unanimous consent that the Sen-ate proceed to the immediate consider-ation of S. Res. 191 submitted earliertoday by Senator LOTT.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:A resolution (S. Res. 191) making majority

party appointments for the Committee onGovernmental Affairs for the 105th Congress.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection to the immediate consider-ation of the resolution?

There being no objection, the Senateproceeded to consider the resolution.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, Iask unanimous consent that the reso-lution be agreed to and the motion toreconsider be laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The resolution (S. Res. 191) wasagreed to, as follows:

S. RES. 191

Resolved,SEC. 1. That the following be the majority

membership on the Committee on Govern-mental Affairs for the remainder of the 105thCongress, or until their successors are ap-pointed, pursuant to section 2 of this resolu-tion:

Governmental Affairs: Mr. THOMPSON(Chairman), Mr. ROTH, Mr. STEVENS, Ms.COLLINS, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr.COCHRAN, Mr. NICKLES, and Mr. SPECTER.

SEC. 2. That section I of this resolutionshall take effect immediately upon the filingof the report by the Committee on Govern-mental Affairs as required by Senate Resolu-tion 39, agreed to March 11, 1997.

f

ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, MARCH5, 1998

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, Iask unanimous consent that when theSenate completes its business today, itstand in adjournment until 9 a.m. onThursday, March 5, and immediatelyfollowing the prayer, the routine re-quests through the morning hour begranted, and the Senate resume consid-eration of S. 1173, the so-called ISTEAlegislation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.f

PROGRAM

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, to-morrow, the Senate will resume consid-eration of S. 1173, the ISTEA legisla-tion. Under the consent agreement,Senator BINGAMAN will be offering anamendment on liquor drive-throughs.Following 30 minutes of debate, theSenate will then debate on the Dorganamendment on open containers for 60minutes. At 10:30 on Thursday, the Sen-ate will proceed to two consecutivevotes on the Dorgan and Bingamanamendments—Dorgan first and thenBingaman.

Following those votes, it is hopedthat the Senate will be able to adoptthe funding amendment, which is theso-called Chafee amendment, the un-derlying amendment we have beendealing with today, and then begin con-sideration of the McConnell amend-ment regarding disadvantaged busi-nesses. We hope to be able to enter intoa time agreement with respect to theMcConnell amendment immediatelyfollowing those two back-to-backvotes. The Senate will continue to con-sider amendments to the ISTEA legis-lation throughout the day on Thursdayand into the evening. As a reminder toall Members, the first rollcall votes to-morrow will occur at 10:30 a.m., backto back.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1368 March 4, 1998ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, ifthere is no further business to come be-fore the Senate, I now ask that theSenate stand in adjournment followingthe remarks of Senator LEVIN, underthe previous order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, Isuggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded tocall the roll.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, Ithank the Chair. I thank the Chair forher usual courtesy and patience.

f

RECENT DEVELOPMENTSRELATING TO IRAQ

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I wantto take a few moments to speak aboutthe important developments that havetaken place over the last several daysrelating to Iraq.

On Monday afternoon I met for aboutan hour with Unscom Executive Chair-man Richard Butler. Yesterday, Gen-eral Tony Zinni, the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Central Command, whowould lead any strike that the UnitedStates might carry out against Iraq,testified before the Armed ServicesCommittee. I believe that the remarksof Chairman Butler and the testimonyof General Zinni would be of interest tomy colleagues and to the Americanpeople.

I met with Chairman Butler in his of-fice at United Nations Headquarters inNew York. Senator WARNER and I hadtraveled to the Persian Gulf regionwith Secretary of Defense WilliamCohen, at the Secretary’s invitation,last month and, while Senator WARNERwas unable to travel to New York onMonday, a member of his staff, JudyAnsley, was able to attend my meetingwith Chairman Butler.

During the course of this meeting, wecovered a host of issues concerningUnscom inspections relating to Iraq’sweapons of mass destruction and theirmeans of delivery. I will not attempt tocover all those issues today but I didwant to recap some of the major pointsthat he made.

One of the most important pointsthat Chairman Butler made was thatpeople should not get bogged down indebating the detailed procedures thatare being worked out at UN head-quarters for Unscom to inspect the so-called presidential sites. Instead, theinternational community should focuson Iraq’s clear commitment in theMemorandum of Understanding to fi-nally implement the UN SecurityCouncil resolutions to give Unscom andthe IAEA immediate, unconditional

and unrestricted access to any site inIraq.

Chairman Butler noted a fundamen-tal historic reality that from day 1 Iraqhas sought to limit, mitigate, reduceand, in some cases, defeat the law (i.e.UN Security Council’s resolutions) by avariety of devices.

I want to just spend one more mo-ment to restate that point. The detailsare obviously important. But the moreyou focus on the details that need to beworked out, the more that let’s Sad-dam Hussein off the hook. And thehook here, which he is on and must bekept on, is his commitment and theU.N. resolution requiring thatUNSCOM and the IAEA be given imme-diate, unconditional, and unrestrictedaccess to any sites in Iraq.

That is the goal. That is the commit-ment. That is the requirement. That iswhat Iraq is bound by. That is undis-puted.

While, again, details are important,we should not be focusing on the de-tails because the more we do the moreSaddam Hussein is going to say, ‘‘Oh,all those are details subject to negotia-tion.’’ We don’t want this to get boggeddown in negotiations over details. Wewant to hold Saddam Hussein’s feet tothe fire. And the fire here is an un-qualified commitment to immediate,unconditional, and unrestricted accessto any site in Iraq, including the Presi-dential sites.

Saddam is the one who is going totry to raise and create ambiguity.

Again, while, of course, there are de-tails to be worked out, we should bethe ones who are focusing on the clear,unambiguous requirement to openthese sites to access.

Chairman Butler confirmed thatafter Unscom became aware, despiteearlier denials, that Iraq had possessed2,100 gallons of anthrax and 3.9 tons ofVX, Iraq claimed that it had destroyedthose substances. He noted first of all,that was a violation of the UN resolu-tions, since destruction of such sub-stances is to be carried out by Unscom,and second, that Unscom was unable toverify that Iraq had destroyed them.

Chairman Butler made the point thatsince 1995, Unscom had found impor-tant indicators of weapons of mass de-struction programs that Iraq hassought to conceal and about whichthey have lied to Unscom. He noted,moreover, that Unscom has evidence ofa connection of significant biologicalsubstances to Iraq’s special security or-ganization, thus demonstrating thatSaddam Hussein uses the same appara-tus to seek or manufacture weapons ofmass destruction that he uses to keephimself in power.

Chairman Butler stated that Unscomonly goes looking for things in two cir-cumstances: one, when they have evi-dence that supports a search, such asdocumentation of the possession ofgrowth media which could be used forbiological weapons; and two, when Iraqlies to Unscom. In the latter case, abroad forensic investigation has to be

undertaken. He was quick to add thatjust because a specific inspectiondoesn’t ‘‘hit pay dirt,’’ doesn’t meanthat the search is over, particularly inview of Iraq’s track record of lies anddeception.

Chairman Butler described theMemorandum of Understanding thatUN Secretary General Kofi Annan ne-gotiated with Iraq as a ‘‘high-level po-litical commitment’’ that he ‘‘hopes toheavens the Iraqis observe.’’ He notedthat he has talked to the SecretaryGeneral and has received the clarifica-tion that when a site, presidential ornot, is inspected by Unscom, it will behis decision as to when and where theinspection takes place, how it is in-spected, and who the members of theprofessional, technical part of the teamare who will actually carry out the in-spection. He also said that those deci-sions will be made by the Director Gen-eral of IAEA with respect to nuclearmatters. He added that this is consist-ent with the Secretary General’s inten-tion, that the details were being for-malized within the United Nations, andthat he would let me know if therewere any changes to those details.

Chairman Butler added that the dip-lomats who will accompany Unscom in-spectors as observers to the eight presi-dential sites will be there to ensure notonly that the Unscom inspectors com-port themselves with dignity, but alsothat the Iraqis behave properly as well.

Finally, Chairman Butler noted withconcern that there has been a threeand one-half month hiatus in some ofUnscom’s work in Iraq, but that he isvery pleased that this agreement wasworked out that should permit Unscomto resume the full spectrum of its ac-tivities and that they will shortly testthe agreement.

Madam President, Senator WARNERand I have written to the MajorityLeader and the Democratic Leader urg-ing them to invite Chairman Butler tocome to Washington to meet with allSenators. Senator WARNER and I cer-tainly hope that an invitation will beextended and that Mr. Butler would re-spond favorably to such an invitation,as we believe that all Senators shouldhave an opportunity to hear directlyfrom this dedicated international pub-lic servant.

Madam President, during his appear-ance before the Armed Services Com-mittee, General Zinni testified that ourfriends in the Persian Gulf region con-gratulated the United States when Sec-retary General Kofi Annan negotiatedthe MOU with Iraq and they felt it wasa victory for United States strengthand resolve. He added, in response tomy question, that he shared that view.He also testified that he agreed withChairman Butler that the negotiationof the MOU leaves us in a better posi-tion to obtain Iraqi compliance withSecurity Council resolutions.

I commend all of General Zinni’s tes-timony to our colleagues.

I again thank the Chair. I yield thefloor.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1369March 4, 1998ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9 A.M.

TOMORROW

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the Senate willstand adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrowmorning.

Thereupon, the Senate, at 6:39 p.m.,adjourned until Thursday, March 5,1998, at 9 a.m.

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received bythe Senate March 4, 1998:

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

DAVID M. MASON, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A MEMBER OFTHE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION FOR A TERM EX-PIRING APRIL 30, 2003, VICE TREVOR ALEXANDERMCCLURG POTTER, RESIGNED.

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEWCOMMISSION

ROBERT H. BEATTY, JR., OF WEST VIRGINIA, TO BE AMEMBER OF THE FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTHREVIEW COMMISSION FOR A TERM EXPIRING AUGUST 30,2004. (REAPPOINTMENT)

STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE

ARTHUR A. MCGIVERIN, OF IOWA, TO BE A MEMBER OFTHE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE STATE JUSTICE IN-STITUTE FOR A TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 17, 2000,VICE JANIE L. SHORES, TERM EXPIRED.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

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

Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E277March 4, 1998

TRIBUTE TO NELLIE LONGSWORTH

HON. CONSTANCE A. MORELLAOF MARYLAND

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today topay tribute to Nellie Longsworth of Bethesda,Maryland, one of the nation’s leading advo-cates for historic preservation. Nellie will retirethis week after serving as president of Preser-vation Action, for twenty-two years. During thattime, Nellie has been tireless in her efforts tosave America’s architectural and culturaltreasures, its historic sites and districts, and itsneighborhoods and communities.

For more than two decades, with enthu-siasms, perseverance, and wisdom, Nellie hashelped thousands of Americans becomeaware and involved in public policy debatesabout our nation’s cultural resources on thelocal, state, and federal levels. For Membersof Congress and their staffs, Nellie has beenthe principal contact for historic preservationissues and a resource for us all.

Largely because of Nellie’s leadership andhard work, thousands of communities acrossthe country use historic preservation tostrengthen and preserve their character. Cit-ies, towns, and rural communities use historicproperties to build pride and to foster eco-nomic development. Last year alone, 902owners of historic commercial properties tookadvantage of the federal historic rehabilitationtax credit, spending $1.73 billion and creating42,000 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, as Nellie Longsworth leavesPreservation Action, please join me in cele-brating her leadership in preserving America’sbuilt environment and its cultural and naturalresources for generations to come and inthanking her for her commitment to the rich-ness and diversity of our American heritage!f

CONGRATULATIONS ON 50 YEARSOF HEALTH CARE SERVICE

HON. FORTNEY PETE STARKOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago, Dr.Sidney Garfield with six other physiciansforged a pioneering, self-employed medicalpartnership to provide prepaid health careservices and preventive health care servicesto the residents of northern California. Thegroup ministered to its members’ health careneeds, both on and off the job.

Since those doctors began their work, thephysicians, nurses and employees affiliatedwith The Permanente Medical Group have im-proved community health by providing medialcare, conducting clinical and medical research,creating and supporting community health pro-grams, bestowing grants and donations, andproviding scholarships, education and training

for medical students and health professionals.I can attest personally to the group’s lastingcommunity involvement. For example, in mydistrict, the staff of The Permanente MedicalGroup volunteers clinical time on Saturdaymornings to remove gang-related tattoos fromat risk youth who want to make positivechanges in their lives.

The Permanente Medical Group is now thenation’s largest medical group, comprised ofmore than 3,700 physicians, as well asnurses, employees and other caregivers. InNorthern California alone, they provide healthcare services to more than 2.5 million people.The men and women affiliated with the medi-cal group have consistently demonstrated theirexcellence, creativity and care as they haveprovided quality health care to all the peopleof our communities.

Through its 50 year affiliation with the Kai-ser Permanente Medical Care Program, ThePermanente Medical Group has demonstratedthat affordable and high quality medical carecan be provided through a relationship, bothintegrated and autonomous, between a non-profit health care plan and an independent,self-governing medical group. This is a modelrelationship in which medical decision-makingand standard-setting are safeguarded andconducted by medical professionals. Mr.Speaker, I ask you to join me in celebratingthe half century of remarkable care that Cali-fornians have received and wishing ThePermanenete Medical Group another fiftyyears of excellence in the community.f

TRIBUTE TO JEDDAH TEMPLE NO.160

HON. JAMES E. CLYBURNOF SOUTH CAROLINA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today topay tribute to Jeddah Temple No. 160 ofOrangeburg County, South Carolina. Fridayevening, March 6th, I will join its members incelebration of its fiftieth anniversary.

Jeddah Temple is affiliated with the PrinceHall Free and Accepted Masons, which is theoldest existing African-American group in theUnited States. Jeddah Temple has producedmen of distinction throughout the nation, in thefields of education, law, engineering and fi-nance. Since its inception in 1947, the Templehas grown in annual membership from 29 to159 Nobles in 1982. The group has 95 mem-bers in this, its fiftieth year.

The Orangeburg Chapter of Jeddah Templehas offered tireless assistance to the Orange-burg community over the fifty years since itsestablishment. Its mission statement articu-lates an emphasis on involvement in the com-munity. Through its activities, the Temple hasendeavored to promote and enhance humanrelations in the Orangeburg area. Membersare particularly attentive to the needs of theyoung and elderly. The Temple promotes edu-

cation through scholarships and tutorial pro-grams, and it also assists the elderly andneedy through the donation of time, food,clothing and other means.

Please join me in recognizing Jeddah Tem-ple No. 160 of Orangeburg County as it cele-brates the fiftieth anniversary of its creation.f

TRIBUTE TO MARC ZALKIN OFCHICAGO, IL

HON. DANNY K. DAVISOF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I risetoday to pay tribute to Marc Zalkin an individ-ual who has been a serious advocate for thedisabled and the poor. Marc departed this lifeMonday, February 23, 1998 at the age of 49.He leaves behind a committed life of serviceto humanity and mankind. His legacy of advo-cating peace in the midst of the Vietnam War,and compassion for those who weredisenfranchised will forever be remembered.

Martin Luther King once said that if a manhas not discovered something that he will diefor, he is not fit to live in this society. I assureyou that Marc had many things for which hewas willing to lay his life down for. Althoughhe was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in1981 his drive, commitment, passion and zealto champion social causes to uplift humanitynever waned. He was a founder and the firstexecutive director of the 46th Ward Commu-nity Service Center, which opened in the mid-1970s to provide educational, legal, health andhousing services to Uptown neighborhoodresidents. Whether focusing his attention Up-town or downtown Marc was a committed ad-vocate for people with disabilities. He foundedNo Limits Inc., which he later called AbilitiesInc., a company that created products for peo-ple with disabilities, including a Braille cook-book.

Marc was truly an idealist, whose tirelesswork and commitment helped elect Chicago’sfirst African American Mayor the late HaroldWashington. The 46th Ward Community Cen-ter he conceived evolved into the UptownPeople’s Law Office and Community LearningCenter. Marc was able to help a number offamilies who suffered from Black lung diseasereceive benefits and pursue legal claims. Thisworld is a better place because of the serviceMarc rendered. To your family we say thankyou for allowing Marc to touch our lives in avery special way.f

NEW BALANCED BUDGET FIGURES

HON. RON PACKARDOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, yesterday theCongressional Budget Office announced that

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE278 March 4, 1998for the first time in almost four decades, thefederal budget is finally balanced. I applaudmy Republican colleagues in Congress as wellas the Appropriations Committee on which Iserve for the efforts they put forth to achievethis success.

The American people gave Republicans acongressional majority because we promisedto put an end to wasteful and irresponsiblegovernment spending. The AppropriationsCommittee is the only committee with a directimpact on spending and the federal budget.Every dollar that Congress decides to spendor save must come through Appropriations; ifwe do not do our job, a balanced budget cannever become a reality. Mr. Speaker, anyonecan talk about balancing the budget but thefact is, only the Appropriations Committee canmake it happen.

While I chaired the Legislative Branch Ap-propriations Subcommittee, I personally engi-neered a $262 million dollar two-year reduc-tion in how much Congress spends on its ownoperations. We succeeded in reducing wasteand improving efficiency, ultimately cutting10% from Congress’ own budget. If the entirefederal budget were cut proportionately, thebudget would have shown a $100 billion sur-plus two years ago. The message we sentduring those first years in the majority reso-nated throughout the federal government.

Under the leadership of Congressman BOBLIVINGSTON (R–LA), the Appropriations Com-mittee has fundamentally changed the wayWashington spends. Since taking control ofCongress, Republicans have eliminated a totalof 307 outdated and unneeded programs. Mr.Speaker, we have streamlined governmentand made it more accountable to the Amer-ican taxpayer. Under Chairman LIVINGSTON’sleadership, we have held the line on govern-ment spending for the past four years in arow. That effort is now paying off.f

PUBLIC SCHOOL MODERNIZATIONACT OF 1998

HON. CHARLES B. RANGELOF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today, I am in-troducing legislation, entitled the Public SchoolModernization Act of 1998, which consists oftwo education tax incentives that are con-tained in the President’s budget recommenda-tions for fiscal year 1999. I am very pleasedthat more than fifty Members have joined meas cosponsors of this needed legislation.

It is my hope to continue to work with theAdministration to introduce the President’s do-mestic initiatives that are within Ways andMeans jurisdiction. I will also continue to urgeconsideration by the Congress of these impor-tant proposals.

My bill would expand opportunities for stu-dents in kindergarten through twelfth gradeand beyond. This goal is crucial to the coun-try’s social and economic well being. It’s a wellknown fact, that without the proper educationaltools, young people lose hope for the future.We have only to look at the high levels ofcrime, drug use, juvenile delinquency, teenpregnancy, and unemployment to know thevalue of a good education. Without basic aca-demic opportunities, the future is bleak. My bill

identifies communities that shoulder a dis-proportionate share of these social problemsand offers a solution—a future of hope.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 providedadditional financial resources to assist familiesin meeting the cost of higher education. I be-lieve that assistance is vitally important but notenough. We must do more to ensure thatthose students who wish to pursue highereducation are prepared for the challenges of acollege education. We also must work harderboth to educate and train those students whochoose or need to earn a full-time living afterhigh school. In pursuit of this goal, this legisla-tion would provide assistance to public edu-cational institutions to make this a reality.Therefore, our bill expands the education zonetax incentives that were enacted last year.Those incentives are designed to enhanceacademic achievement below the college levelthrough public-private education partnerships.I believe that we must have greater private-sector involvement in our educational system,and our bill expands existing tax provisionsdesigned to encourage that involvement.

Our bill also includes tax incentives to assistlocal governments in improving and construct-ing public school facilities. This aspect of ourbill does not require a public-private partner-ship and is not limited to schools in distressedareas or with a large population of poor stu-dents. This aspect of our bill provides $19.4billion over the next two years in interest-freecapital for school infrastructure projects. Pro-viding all students with clean and safe publicschool facilities is a necessary first step in as-suring a high quality educational system.

Some have argued that the Federal govern-ment should have no role in assisting the pub-lic school system at the K through 12 level. Istrongly disagree. The Federal governmenthistorically has provided financial resources tothe public school system. It has done so inpart by providing tax-exempt bond financingthat enables State and local governments tofund capital needs through low-interest loans.The bill that we are introducing today, in manyrespects, is very similar to tax exempt bond fi-nancing. This bill does not require any addi-tional layers of bureaucracy at the Federal orState level. It provides special tax benefits toholders of certain State and local educationbonds. The procedures used to determinewhether bonds are eligible for those specialpayments are substantially the same as theprocedures currently applicable in determiningwhether a State or local bond is eligible fortax-exempt bond financing.

I also want to be very clear that this bill sup-ports our public school system. I believe thatimproving our public school system should beour highest priority. Approximately 90 percentof the students attending kindergarten throughgrade 12 attend public school. If we can findthe resources to provide additional tax incen-tives, those incentives should be focused onimproving the public school system that servessuch a large segment of our student popu-lation. I have and will continue to oppose leg-islation such as the so-called ‘‘Coverdell’’ leg-islation, that diverts scarce resources awayfrom our public school system.

Although the bill that we are introducingtoday contains only tax provisions, I recognizethat tax provisions alone cannot provide suffi-cient additional resources needed to assiststudents in obtaining a quality education.Therefore, I also support the other education

improvements included in the President’sbudget.

Currently, this Nation is enjoying one of thelongest periods of economic expansion in itshistory, with low unemployment and continuedcreation of new jobs. Much of the credit forthat rests with the deficit reduction efforts ofthe Clinton Administration and the techno-logical advantages that our industries enjoyover their competitors in other countries.

We will not remain competitive in the worldeconomy unless we invest in our human cap-ital to maintain that technological advantage.Any available resources should be invested inhuman capital. A survey last year of econo-mists by the Wall Street Journal found that 43percent of the economists surveyed statedthat increased spending on education and re-search and development would be the onepolicy with the most positive impact on theeconomy.

Amazingly, while the concept of investing inhuman capital goes unchallenged in debate,elected leaders are still spending more of ournation’s limited budget resources on back-end,punitive programs like law enforcement andprisons, rather than front-end investments likeeducation and training that can really pay offin increased workforce productivity.

Unfortunately, these skewed priorities arepresent at the local level, too. New York Cityspends $84,000 per year to keep a youngman in Riker’s Island Prison, yet only $7,000each year to educate a child in Harlem.

We must change our priorities. Let’s investin the future of this country through our chil-dren. Let’s bring the same zeal to encouragingand educating our children that we now applyto punishment and incarceration.

The following is a brief description of theprovisions contained in our bill.

DESCRIPTION OF THE BILL

The bill would include the following twoprovisions as recommended in the Presi-dent’s budget. These tax incentives wouldcost approximately $3.6 billion over the next5 years.

1. EDUCATION ZONE ACADEMY BONDS

Section 226 of the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Actprovides a source of capital at no or nominalinterest for costs incurred by certain publicschools in connection with the establishmentof special academic programs from kinder-garten through secondary schools. To be eli-gible to participate in the program, the pub-lic school must be located in an empower-ment zone or enterprise community or atleast 35 percent of the students at the schoolmust be eligible for free or reduced-costlunches under the Federal school lunch pro-gram. In addition the school must enter intoa partnership with one or more nongovern-mental entities.

The provision provides the interest-freecapital by permitting the schools to issuespecial bonds called ‘‘Qualified Zone Acad-emy Bonds.’’ Interest on those bonds will ineffect be paid by the Federal governmentthrough a tax credit to the holder.

The bill would increase the caps on theamount of bonds that can be issued under theprogram as shown in the following table. Thebill would also permit the bonds to be usedfor new construction.

YearCurrent

law (mil-lion)

Additionsunder thebill (bil-

lion)

Totalissuance

cap

1998 ................................................ $400 .................. 1 $4001999 ................................................ 400 $1.0 2 1.42000 ................................................ 0 1.4 2 1.4

1 Million. 2 Billion.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E279March 4, 1998The bill would make several technical

modification to last year’s legislation. Itwould repeal the provision that restrictsownership of qualified zone academy bondsto financial institutions, it would require amaximum maturity of 15 years, rather thana maximum maturity determined under aformula, it would change the formula for al-locating the national limit to make it con-sistent with the formula used in allocatingthe limit on qualified school constructionbonds, and it would provide an indefinite car-ryover of any unused credit.

2. QUALIFIED SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BONDS

The bill would also permit State and localgovernments to issue qualified school con-struction bonds to fund the construction orrehabilitation of public schools. Interest onqualified school construction bonds would ineffect be paid by the Federal governmentthrough an annual tax credit. The creditwould be provided in the same manner as thecredit for qualified school academy bonds.

Under the bill, a total of $9.7 billion ofqualified school construction bonds could beissued in 1999 and in 2000. Half of the annualcap would be allocated among the States onthe basis of their population of low-incomechildren, weighted the State’s expendituresper pupil for education (the Title I basicgrant formula). The other half of the annualcap would be allocated among the hundredschool districts with the highest number oflow-income children and that allocationwould be based on each district’s Title Ishare.

The following chart shows the aggregateamount of qualified school constructionbonds that could be issued in each Stateunder the bill. The total includes amountsallocated to large school districts in theState. An additional $600 million is reservedfor allocations to other school districts notin the largest 100 districts.

[In thousands of dollars]

State Estimate allocationAlabama ...................................... $285,079Alaska ......................................... 36,902Arizona ........................................ 257,957Arkansas ...................................... 145,925California ..................................... 2,281,018Colorado ...................................... 165,781Connecticut ................................. 205,080Delaware ...................................... 36,902District of Columbia .................... 75,395Florida ......................................... 1,047,028Georgia ........................................ 476,055Hawaii ......................................... 40,984Idaho ............................................ 43,463Illinois ......................................... 911,455Indiana ........................................ 276,395Iowa ............................................. 103,120Kansas ......................................... 126,821Kentucky ..................................... 277,115Louisiana ..................................... 463,217Maine ........................................... 61,639Maryland ..................................... 306,488Massachusetts ............................. 354,978Michigan ...................................... 857,280Minnesota .................................... 220,820Mississippi ................................... 253,547Missouri ....................................... 314,131Montana ...................................... 52,274Nebraska ...................................... 78,955Nevada ......................................... 71,817New Hampshire ............................ 36,902New Jersey .................................. 414,267New Mexico .................................. 145,570New York ..................................... 2,166,015North Carolina ............................. 297,397North Dakota .............................. 36,902Ohio ............................................. 782,970Oklahoma .................................... 203,043Oregon ......................................... 155,387Pennsylvania ............................... 852,156Puerto Rico ................................. 494,937

State Estimate allocationRhode Island ................................ 72,188South Carolina ............................ 198,015South Dakota .............................. 38,002Tennessee .................................... 331,119Texas ........................................... 1,614,095Utah ............................................. 66,771Vermont ...................................... 36,196Virginia ....................................... 258,862Washington .................................. 236,595West Virginia ............................... 142,557Wisconsin ..................................... 332,401Wyoming ...................................... 33,059

f

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

HON. CARRIE P. MEEKOF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote #26 on the bill, H.R. 217, taken onMarch 3, 1998, I was erroneously recorded asvoting ‘‘yes.’’ On that vote I intended to be re-corded as voting ‘‘no.’’ I ask unanimous con-sent that this statement appear at the appro-priate place in the RECORD.f

SAINT PATRICK’S DAY 1998

HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMANOF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, the glorious andjoyous holiday of Saint Patrick’s Day for all ofthose Irish around the world, and their manyfriends, fast approaches once again.

It is especially important this year to cele-brate this great holiday honoring Ireland’s pa-tron saint, and we and the entire world hopeand pray that lasting peace and justice on theEmerald Isle will emerge from the currentpeace talks on the future of the north of Ire-land.

I recently returned from Ireland where Ihelped lead a Congressional delegation to re-invigorate the Irish American inter-parliamen-tary exchange, dormant since the mid-1980s.

We were all very grateful for the leadershipof our Speaker NEWT GINGRICH, and the workof our distinguished U.S. Ambassador JeaneKennedy Smith in Dublin, in helping to bringabout this renewed inter-parliamentary ex-change between Ireland and the U.S. Con-gress.

We saw firsthand on our visit to Ireland, thenew economic vibrancy in the Irish Republic.The ‘‘Celtic Tiger’’ is alive and well. One sta-tistic we learned paints the impressive eco-nomic picture of the new Ireland: Other thanthe U.S. today, Ireland exports more comput-ers worldwide than any other nation in theworld, including even Japan.

For the first time in many years, there aremore than enough good jobs, immigration isdown, and the Irish diaspora are returninghome to work and take these new jobs. 4,500in 1997 alone returned home from America.The long suffering of the close knit Irish familyfrom the immigration of its sons and daugh-ters, hopefully is a thing of the past.

The close links, common bonds, friendshipsand mutual understandings between the Irishpeople and our nation are long, strong and vi-

brant. Both nations have benefited from theseclose ties, common links, and deep mutual un-derstandings and fond affection.

The Irish have played a vital part in Amer-ican history. There were Irish soldiers and offi-cers who distinguished themselves in theAmerican Revolution, helping us secure ourown freedom from the British.

Many Irish paid the ultimate sacrifices in ourtragic civil war. For example, 540 Irishmendied or were wounded in less than 30 minuteson September 17th, 1862 at Antietam in fight-ing on the side of the north as part of the IrishBrigade, in the bloodiest day of our civil war.

The Irish contribution is enormous to ourpolitics, arts, sports, literature, commerce, thelabor movement, and so many other areas ofour American life. We, as a nation and a peo-ple, owe the Emerald Isle much. We have anobligation to pay attention to events in Irelandtoday.

The Irish role in U.S. politics is well known,including providing us more than a dozenAmerican Presidents. Our histories, cultures,and people are very closely linked.

It is little noted, but at one time not longago, the President of the U.S., the Speaker ofthe House, and the Majority Leader of theU.S. Senate, while serving together in ourhighest elected offices, were all Irish Catholicwith close and very deep roots in the EmeraldIsle.

Today, the future of the north of Ireland, andits relationship with the vibrant and prosperingRepublic of Ireland to the south is being de-cided across the bargaining table, not by thebomb and gun. Those engaged in the sense-less sectarian killings have not de-railed thepeace process. They shouldn’t and must notbe permitted to do so!

The U.S., both the executive branch and theCongress have played a vital and constructiverole through an evenhanded and balanced ap-proach to the Irish peace process, now mov-ing forward in Belfast, albeit at far too slow apace.

I have been particularly pleased to play asmall part in keeping the Irish question highon the U.S. foreign policy agenda. We owe allthe Irish people here and there, at least thatmuch.

I have not hesitated to provide bipartisansupport for President Clinton’s overall con-structive and very helpful efforts in helping tofind peace and lasting justice in the north ofIreland.

These historic talks in Belfast today arebeing led, we are all very proud to say, underthe table chairmanship of our former congres-sional colleague, Senator George Mitchell ofMaine who himself has some proud Irishroots.

In promoting the effort to finding lastingpeace and justice in the north through all partyinclusive talks, we in America have in somesmall way been able to help pay back Ire-land’s warm and generous people, who havegiven our nation so much.

Today, after urging by both governments inthe region, the U.S., and the millions of friendsof the Irish people all around the globe, the fu-ture of the north is being decided by the re-sponsible leadership of the people through po-litical means, and discussions and their even-tual ‘‘consent’’ to any proposed solutions. Thisis how it should be!

The Irish people both north and south, haveconsistently made clear that talks and nego-tiated political settlement were and are the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE280 March 4, 1998preferred means to the protracted problems onthat small and beautiful island.

We must all insist that substantive progressin the talks come soon. The Irish people mustbe presented with political solutions so theycan exercise their right to ‘‘consent’’ in decid-ing for themselves the political and economicfuture of their island. The referendums whichare intended to be scheduled on May 7, 1998,in both the north and south will give the peo-ple of Ireland a chance to exercise that con-sent over any proposed solutions for the futureof their small island.

We must all work even harder at this his-toric and important moment in Irish history.We must help finding meaningful efforts to fos-ter lasting peace and justice through buildinggreater understanding and respect for humanrights, and equality of esteem for both tradi-tions.

We must help build a shared economicprosperity in the north. In addition, we muststrive for greater reconciliation, especiallythrough the treatment of Irish prisoners, and ofthose on the loyalist side, as well. Far toomany on both sides have suffered long andenough in this struggle.

We now have the chance to put behindonce and for all a struggle and a divisive pastin the north of Ireland. This well clearly be forthe benefit of the future, and for all of theyouth of Ireland.

I have been proud of the long and warmfriendship I have had with our Irish-Americanshere in America, as well as the Irish on theEmerald Isle.

As we all prepare to celebrate the great hol-iday of Saint Patrick’s day, let us hope andpray that this year the terrible and destructivedivision of the Emerald Isle and its people canand will be resolved permanently, justly andpeacefully.

f

SALUTE TO KEVIN LEVEILLE

HON. ELTON GALLEGLYOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I would like topay tribute today to a young man from myhome town of Ventura, California who dedi-cated himself to making the world a betterplace to live. Kevin Leveille sacrificed for thecare and concern of creatures great andsmall. He was dedicated to helping his fellowman and to preserving the environment. Hepassionately gave of his time, his love andeventually his life for this cause.

Kevin was a Peace Corp volunteer living inthe Ivory Coast of Africa in the town of Tanda.But only two months before he was to finishhis tour of duty which started in 1996, Kevinwas tragically murdered during a robbery ofhis home. He is survived by his dear mother,Vicki Lopez, and his father, Paul Leveille.

At the age of 26, Kevin loved life—but notonly his own. Kevin was a sensitive youngman, always concerned about the vulnerable.His father, Paul, described his son as a peaceloving young man who one time attached abell to the family cat so it couldn’t kill outsidebirds. Kevin recognized the value of every liv-ing thing, no matter how small and no matterhow far away.

Kevin sojourned to Africa two years ago ona quest to share his knowledge and talentswith those abroad. An honors graduate fromVentura High School, and armed with a bach-elor’s degree in environmental engineeringand applied mathematics, Kevin set sail toapply his knowledge on a foreign shore as avolunteer. During his time in Tanda, Kevinworked to ensure the townspeople had clean-er water and a better sanitation system. Hewas also training incoming volunteers, as hewas planning to further his academic edu-cation by returning to the United States to pur-sue a masters degree.

Kevin’s mission was selfless. He took him-self out of his comfort zone and lived in a for-eign land among strangers. He took himselfout of the safety of his homeland and sub-jected himself to foreign rule. He gave of him-self receiving no pay and little recognition. Hewas simply doing what he thought should bedone without letting material interests cloudhis vision.

There is no doubt Kevin Leveille was a fineAmerican and a fine human being, setting anexample of honor and service.

This is a life that once touched people hereand around the world—but now, he is a spiritwho inspires by showing us the real meaningof love, duty, and dedication.

f

CONGRATULATIONS TO OLYMPICGOLD MEDALIST NIKKI STONE

HON. JAMES P. McGOVERNOF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, all of Amer-ica watched last month as our Olympic ath-letes competed in Nagano, Japan. I would liketo take just a moment today to applaud one ofthose athletes—Nikki Stone of Westboro, Mas-sachusetts—for her gold medal performancein Aerial Skiing.

Aerial skiing combines grace, speed andpower at dizzying heights—with twists, turns,flips and spins thrown in for good measure.Competitors race down a mountain, fly into theair, perform amazing feats of aerial artistry,and land on their feet, all with skis attached.

Nikki Stone accomplished all of thesethings, and she accomplished them with thelove of sport, love of competition and love ofcountry that comes with being a champion.

Growing up in Westboro, Nikki participatedin local gymnastics programs, and was recog-nized from an early age as an exceptional ath-lete. She quickly turned to high-level competi-tion, and despite a series of debilitating backinjuries, continued to rise to the top of hersport. Nikki’s life in aerial skiing reflects thecourage, discipline, and go-for-it attitude thatwill continue to bring her success in whateverfuture challenges she faces.

I know that America will never forget watch-ing Nikki’s final winning effort in Nagano—agravity-defying jump in snowy, foggy condi-tions. And I know the people of Central Mas-sachusetts will never forget how proud wewere when we saw her on the medal stand,her arms raised in triumph after the playing ofour National Anthem.

Mr. Speaker, on March 21 the town ofWestboro will honor Nikki Stone with a parade

worthy of an Olympic champion. On behalf ofeveryone in my district, I offer my heartfeltcongratulations to Nikki Stone for all that shehas done so well.

f

TRIBUTE TO JAMES CALISTER

HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like tocall your attention to Mr. James Calister.James was recently honored as one of NewJersey’s top two student volunteers by thePrudential Spirit of Community Awards pro-gram. By initiating and supporting programsthat promote racial harmony, James has set apositive example for his hometown of Maple-wood, and the residents of the Eighth Con-gressional District of New Jersey.

James recognized that Maplewood was un-dergoing a gradual demographic change.Once an affluent, white suburb, Maplewoodwas quickly becoming a diverse municipality,consisting of residents from different racial andsocio-economic backgrounds. James becamean instrumental figure in creating a peacefulmerging of these disparate groups by ensuringthat the dialogue remained amicable.

By attending community planning and Boardof Education meetings, James learned how toinfluence policy-makers and enlist them in hisfight against prejudice and racism. He joinedthe Racial Balance Task Force, and won elec-tion as Student Council President based onhis promise to improve relations within hisschool and community. In addition, Jamesspends much of his free time helping to co-ordinate various community and school-wideevents, such as Diversity Day and Martin Lu-ther King, Jr. Day, which help to promote ra-cial harmony.

On May 2, 1998, James will travel to Wash-ington, D.C. to attend the awards ceremonyhosted by the Prudential Insurance Companyof America in partnership with the National As-sociation of Secondary School Principles.James will come to our nation’s capitol with awell-deserved and earnest sense of pride inhis accomplishments. This year alone, morethan 11,000 students were considered for hishonor.

Prudential Insurance Company of America,in concert with the National Association ofSecondary School Principles, created the Pru-dential Spirit of Community Awards in 1995. Itwas an award created to impress upon allyouth volunteers that their contributions areboth critically important and highly valued, andto inspire others to follow their example. Dur-ing its three short years of existence, the pro-gram has blossomed into the nation’s largestyouth awards program based solely on com-munity service, with more than 30,000 young-sters participating.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me, thePrudential Insurance Company of America, theNational Association of Secondary SchoolPrinciples, and the residents of Maplewood aswe commend James Calister for his dedicationto the cause of racial reconciliation.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E281March 4, 1998FRANK HARDEN CELEBRATES 50

YEARS AT WMAL RADIO

HON. FRANK R. WOLFOF VIRGINIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, one of the nation’s

capital area’s most popular morning radio per-sonalities recently reached a milestone inbroadcasting at WMAL–AM 630. FrankHarden, now co-host of the ‘‘Harden, Brantand Parks’’ morning show, celebrated his 40thanniversary with WMAL on December 24,1997.

In announcing that momentous occasion,WMAL also said that Frank Harden has re-newed his contract for another three yearsand will continue to be heard on WMAL on alimited basis while spending some well-de-served leisure time at his homes in Swedenand Maryland. That’s good news for the thou-sands of listeners, including presidents andmembers of Congress, who have spent theirmornings with Frank Harden for several dec-ades.

Many will recall the morning team of FrankHarden and Jackson Weaver. In 1959, FrankHarden auditioned with his late partner Jack-son Weaver for the WMAL–AM morning teamposition. They won the affections of manage-ment and more importantly, Washington arealisteners, and what began as a 13-week trialcontract became the longest running two-manprogram in the history of radio.

I had the pleasure of working with Hardenand Weaver in the early 1980’s, soon after Icame to Congress. Faced with the closure ofthe popular Turkey Run Farm Park in the 10thCongressional District of Virginia because ofbudget cutbacks, people in the district mobi-lized to save Turkey Run. We went on the airwith Harden and Weaver, who helped spur thecommunity on with their daily reports on theimportance of the park to school children inthe area. And when Harden and Weaverspoke, folks listened. Needless to say, TurkeyRun Farm was saved and remains opentoday.

After the passing of Jackson Weaver in1992, Harden was paired with sportscasterTim Brant, and later former airborne reporterAndy Parks. The Harden, Brant and Parksbrand of friendly humor, helpful informationand wit has been waking up Northern Virginia,District of Columbia and Maryland listeners forover five years now.

Frank Harden, a native of Macon, Georgia,began his radio career at WSAV in Savannah.Prior to joining WMAL’s staff on December 24,1947, Harden worked in Atlanta and Denver,and as an announcer for network radio showsincluding ‘‘The Lone Ranger’’ and ‘‘The Ed-ward P. Morgan Show.’’

During his years with WMAL, Frank Hardenhas received awards such as the March ofDimes A.I.R. Lifetime Achievement Award,performed community involvement that is with-out equal, raised millions of dollars for Chil-dren’s Hospital, made thousands upon thou-sands of announcements and personal ap-pearances for community, civic, and churchevents, and sent many thoughtful, personalwishes to his faithful listeners. The ‘‘Hardenand Weaver’’ program enjoyed ratings suc-cesses like no other morning drive-time show,and ‘‘Harden, Brant and Parks’’ consistentlyranks near the top among morning listeners.

Said WMAL President and General Man-ager Tom Bresnahan, upon the occasion ofFrank Harden’s 50th anniversary at the sta-tion, ‘‘We’re thrilled to have Frank as part ofthe WMAL family. He’s a class act!’’

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Frank Harden is aclass act. We offer our congratulations to himwith our best wishes and hope that we willcontinue to hear his voice gracing the Wash-ington airwaves for many more years to come.f

IN HONOR OF JAMES FARMER

HON. MAX SANDLINOF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, six weeks ago,one of the truly great men of our times re-ceived the recognition and honor he deservesfor his lifetime of dedication to and leadershipof the civil rights movement. James Farmer,Jr., who was born and raised in my hometownof Marshall, Texas, received the PresidentialMedal of Freedom—the highest civilian honorin our country.

Mr. Farmer is one of the giants of the Amer-ican civil rights movement and a true Amer-ican hero. He founded the Congress of RacialEquality (CORE), a group that became famousfor its nonviolent sit-ins and freedom rides. Heis the last of the ‘‘Big Four’’ civil rights leadersof the 1960’s, which included Dr. Martin LutherKing, Jr., of the Southern Christian LeadershipConference, Roy Wilkins of the NAACP, andWhitney Young of the National Urban League.Mr. Farmer was one of the men PresidentLyndon Baines Johnson consulted concerningthe language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Mr. Farmer is a man who dedicated his lifeto improving America for present and futuregenerations. He fought to open the doors ofjustice and opportunity to all Americans, re-gardless of the color of their skin. Together asa nation we opened those doors, and JamesFarmer has continued to lead the fight to seethat we do not retreat.

Yes, Mr. Farmer is a fighter, but he trainedhimself and his followers in the principles ofdirect action through nonviolence. He taughtus that it is possible to work toward andachieve meaningful progress and changethrough a combination of education, fierce de-termination, and strong faith. James Farmerand Dr. Martin Luther King put their vision towork in America, and although we still haveroom to improve, we are a changed peopleand a changed nation because of their efforts.

The Presidential Medal of Freedom was de-signed for ‘‘persons the President deems tohave made especially meritorious contributionsto the security of national interests of theUnited States, to world peace, or to cultural orother significant public or private endeavors.’’I nominated Mr. Farmer for the PresidentialMedal of Freedom and recommended him tothe President because he has earned thishonor and because I believe he deserves aformal expression of our appreciation andgratitude. I am pleased the President be-stowed his highest award on Mr. Farmer, andI am honored to have played a small role inthat process.

Friends, we are better Americans thanks toJames Farmer, and we are also better humanbeings.

RECOGNIZING THE UNIVERSITY OFMEMPHIS BASKETBALL TEAM

HON. HAROLD E. FORD, JR.OF TENNESSEE

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in rec-ognition of the University of Memphis Tigersladies basketball team. The Lady Tigers,under the leadership of Joye Lee-McNelis,captured their Conference USA regular sea-son title by putting together a 14–2 conferencerecord. Last week, the Lady Tigers traveled toLouisville, Kentucky for the Conference USApost-season tournament and won three con-secutive games to capture that title as well.The Tigers put on quite a show, winning thefinal game in dramatic fashion over the hostteam in a game that was televised nationallyby ESPN. The Men Tigers also had a greatdeal of success this year as they concludedthe conference season 12–4 and also cap-tured their division title. The women will bemaking their fourth consecutive NCAA tour-nament appearance. The men’s title was theirthird regular season championship in the lastfour years.

After starting the season with a 4–4 mark,the Lady Tigers put together a long winningstreak to become one of the nation’s toughestteams the exciting play of LaTonya Johnsonand Tamika Whitmore, combined with the ter-rific coaching of Lee-McNelis, have been theformula for success for these Tigers. As thepopularity of women’s basketball begins tosoar, the commitment to success that thisteam has shown has helped to win over Mem-phis basketball fans. This was evident duringthe championship game as hundreds of fansroared in support of the Tigers after makingthe journey from Memphis to Louisville.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join mein honoring the accomplishments of the Uni-versity of Memphis Tigers. We thank them forbringing championships to the city of Memphisand wish them the best of luck in postseasoncompetition.f

CONGRATULATING BEAUSOLEIL

HON. CHRISTOPHER JOHNOF LOUISIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I would like for mycolleagues to join me in congratulatingBeauSoleil on capturing a Grammy Award forBest Traditional Folk Recording.

BeauSoleil’s talented group featuring Mi-chael Doucet, David Doucet, Jimmy Breaux,Al Tharp, Billy Ware, and Tommy Alesi havecontributed greatly to the spread of Cajunmusic not only in my state of Louisiana butthroughout the country and indeed the world.Since 1975, BeauSoleil has succeeded in pre-serving the authentic Cajun music that we areso proud of in Louisiana and in doing so,shared our rich history far beyond our famousbayous with others. I think a Los AngelesTimes article put it best by stating that ‘‘evenas BeauSoleil stretches the basic Cajun soundand pushes at musical boundaries, it neverveers far from the crucial values of family,friendship and community that have kept the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE282 March 4, 1998Cajun people and culture alive for 400 years.’’It is only fitting that they now are honored bythe Grammy’s for such a profound work like‘‘L’Amour ou la Folie (Love or Folly)’’ whichembodies a diverse cultural blend of Cajunand Creole classics, blues, South Louisianaswamp-pop, New Orleans jazz, and Afro-Car-ibbean material. This prestigious award alongwith six prior Grammy nominations recognizesbandleader Michael Doucet’s commitment tospreading the ‘‘joie de vivre’’ Louisianians findin our music while keeping the traditions of ourculture alive for everyone to cherish.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker I am proud to addthat BeauSoleil was not the only band to benominated by the Grammies from my Con-gressional District. Mr. Jo-El Sonnier and theHackberry Ramblers were among the elite mu-sicians to receive this special honor as well.Mr. Jo-El Sonnier’s ‘‘Cajun Pride’’ and theHackberry Ramblers’ ‘‘Deep Water’’ were bothnominated for the Best Traditional Folk Re-cording. I am extremely proud of these nomi-nees who have shared long, fruitful careers inthe entertainment industry and extend mydeepest appreciation for their celebrating themusical treasures indigenous to our state forso many years.

In conclusion, let me join with my fellowLouisianians in congratulating these talentedmusicians on their outstanding achievementsas we are fortunate to have such great Am-bassadors of our music and culture.f

DESIGNATE D.C. CITY-WIDE EM-POWERMENT ZONE AND GIVEMAJOR TAX CUTS TO D.C. RESI-DENTS

HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTONOF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Ms. NORTON. The economic package I in-troduce today is the missing piece for the revi-talization of the District of Columbia. The newand improved District of Columbia EconomicRecovery Act of 1998 (DCERA) proposes taxincentives for D.C. residents and businessesdesigned to stem the inexorable flight to mid-dle income residents from the District, a phe-nomenon that has resisted the presence of acontrol board, a historic rescue package, andimprovements in the city’s financial condition.

The bill has two important goals. First, theDCERA affords benefits to the only group inthe city that has received none—D.C. resi-dents. Last year, the District government got abillion dollar rescue package that grows invalue each year and D.C. businesses got bil-lions in potential tax benefits that all agree areinvaluable. D.C. residents are still waiting fortax benefits that can stem the mounting tidethat is sweeping the middle income tax basefrom this city while we look the other way.Second, the bill makes city-wide the tax bene-fit package I won for the District last year inthe Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

Let me turn first to needed remedies to cor-rect unfair advantages to some and outrightdiscrimination against others unintentionally in-corporated into the package we recently wonfor D.C. businesses. Although I pleaded withCongress to make city-wide the benefits forD.C. businesses in the Taxpayer Relief Actpassed last summer, Congress was unwilling

to absorb the small additional cost. These veryvaluable business tax benefits, including a$3,000 tax credit for every D.C. resident em-ployed and elimination of capital gains tax,were limited to certain levels of residentialpoverty. These neighborhood limitations havejustifiably stirred objections and the unin-tended consequences I warned of are all tooapparent. For example, the Willard Hotel canget $3,000 off the $15,000 it may pay to acleaner or a bell hop, but the Hay Adams andthe Washington Hilton, whose general man-ager will speak this morning, can not. Busi-nesses in one section of a struggling commer-cial strip are included, but their mirror counter-parts down the street are not, as one businessowner who will speak here today can testify.High income university students with little per-sonal income have brought Georgetown andFoggy Bottom businesses under the law, butbusinesses in struggling areas of Ward 5 donot qualify. These discriminatory effects litterthe economic landscape city-wide.

This section of my bill would correct anoma-lies that give some businesses an unearnedcompetitive advantage, forcing competitionamong our already depleted pool of busi-nesses instead of between those in and out-side of D.C. The solution is simple and fair;designate the District of Columbia an em-powerment zone. This designation is sensiblefor three reasons. It would (1) erase indefensi-ble distinctions that tear neighborhoods apartand help some D.C. businesses at the ex-pense of others; (2) draw upon the criterion ofpoverty already in the law; and (3) assure thecongressional intent of the existing package tomake the city an exemplary capital is not un-dercut by the hit-and-miss effect of the re-cently passed D.C. tax package. The presentlaw requires a 20% residential zone povertyrate for businesses to receive to receive thetax benefits and a 10% poverty rate to qualifyfor capital gains tax elimination. Since the pov-erty rate for the District is 23%, it makessense to use the city-wide poverty rate to des-ignate the entire city an empowerment zone.

I want to move to the second major sectionof the bill. This is not the first time that I haveintroduced a tax cut package for residents, butthe urgency has grown. Bills that represent adecided departure almost never pass exceptafter several introductions, lots of hard work,and the building of momentum. In introducinga tax cut this year, I mean to indicate that I donot intend to give up until D.C. residents andthose who might be attracted here are givena reason to live in this city. We need this pro-vision because we lack what has saved otherbig cities from collapse: a state to funnelmoney back from fleeing taxpayers and theability to tax commuters who work in the city.As a result of these twin deficits, the continu-ing population hemorrhage could find the re-covery now in progress countermanded by asimultaneous exodus of the city’s core middleincome tax base. We are losing three times asmany residents in the 1990s as we lost in the1980s. Ominously, in the two years since1995, even with a control board in place tostabilize the city, we lost nearly as many resi-dents as we lost in the 1980s. This uncheckedflight is virtually the worst among other citiestoday.

Yet the totals at the bottom line do not tellthe real story of what the loss means to thecity. Worse than the total loss is the incomedistribution of that loss. The people who are

leaving I call prime movers because they arein the prime income groups. They give com-munities their grassroots vitality, insist uponexcellence in education for their children, pre-vent the deterioration of neighborhoods, andpay taxes adequate to fund city services. Theprime movers are in the prime years of theirearnings, with disposable income rising eachyear. Two-thirds of the prime movers are ages25–44 and 50% of them earn $50,000 ormore. A hefty majority of the taxpayers inflight, or 63%, earn between $35,000 and$100,000. This income group are the peoplewhom demographers mean when they use thewords ‘‘middle class.’’ The greatest flight, 38%is in the taxpaying core of this group between$50,000 and $100,000. Just below them at$35,000–$50,000 is the second largest groupof prime movers. At only 3%, the least likelyto leave are the poorest residents with incomeunder $15,000, who need the most services.

The major tax breaks my bill provides resi-dents are simple. After affording sharp in-creases in the traditional standard deductionand personal exemption, a uniform rate of15% will be applied progressively up the in-come scale to reduce present tax liability—from a 79% reduction to a 34% reduction, de-pending on income. The lower the income, thegreater the tax reduction. The DCERA wouldleave 50% of D.C. residents off of the tax rollsaltogether. The uniform rate would rescue therest from bracket creep, and thus assure thatincome increases resulting from the tax cutare not then significantly taxed away.

Let me try to dispose of one canard. It istrue, of course, that people don’t leave one ju-risdiction for another because of their federalincome taxes, and they are not leaving D.C.primarily because of the onerous combinationof federal and high local D.C. taxes. It doesnot follow, however, that a substantial federaltax reduction will not be an incentive to keeppeople here or bring some back. The feed-back from residents indicates that today onlya tax break makes a significant difference toprime movers. They see a tax break as an in-centive that overcomes the many disincentivesto stay in the District today, including schools,other services, and urban conditions.

The bill has important safeguards againstartificially rapid property value increases andagainst gentrification. A list of these safe-guards, all of them in previous versions of thebill, is attached as an addendum to this state-ment. An important new safeguard againstgentrification is my recently enacted $5,000D.C. homebuyer credit. This credit already isallowing D.C. residents of modest means tobecome homeowners and to avoid exclusionas the market rises, as you will hear from oneof our speakers today.

The District has less to work with than anyAmerican city: no lifesaving state to help asMaryland helps Baltimore and Virginia helpsRichmond; no ability to tax commuters whouse costly city services, as Philadelphia andNew York do; and no clearance of state func-tions, such as welfare and mental health,among the costly functions that the President’srevitalization package did not take. Above all,the District uniquely is denied the most fun-damental of American rights—full representa-tion by a Congress that extracts the same fed-eral taxes as it does from those, who, unlikeDistrict residents, have full representation inthe Congress and full democracy where they

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E283March 4, 1998live. What the DCERA seeks today is not thefull value of the rights and remedies due usand which we will never concede. Today, weseek enough relief from taxes to give us theonly route to economic salvation for the city—a middle income tax base.

SAFEGUARDS AGAINST UNNATURAL INCREASESIN COST OF LIVING

Requires Proof of D.C. Residency For 183Days Annually

Applies Only to Wage and Salary IncomeEarned in D.C. or Metropolitan Region

Applies to Investment and Dividend In-come Earned Within D.C. Only

Capital Gains Relief on D.C. InvestmentsOnly

Old IRS Rate on Investments Outside D.C.Annual Treasury Study to Protect Against

Unintended ConsequencesStand-by Legislation ExamplesCouncil Passed Legislation Freezing Prop-

erty, Sales, and Income Taxes Effective UponEnactment of DCERA

Cap on Property Tax Rates and Growth ofAssessments (Similar to TRIM, P.G. County)

Surtax on Capital Gains Derived from Ex-cess Profits

Revolving Fund for Zero Percent InterestLoans (Or Tax Credits) to Cover Unusual In-creases in Home Prices

Maintenance of Rent Control

f

INTRODUCTION OF THE COM-PREHENSIVE ONE-CALL NOTIFI-CATION ACT OF 1998

HON. RICHARD H. BAKEROF LOUISIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today joinedby the distinguished gentleman from New Jer-sey, Mr. PALLONE, in introducing the ‘‘Com-prehensive One-Call Notification Act of 1998.’’

This is an industry initiated, self-help, pro-environment bill that places public health andhuman safety at the very top of the list of ourconcerns as this nation builds an undergroundinfrastructure that we all rely on for the move-ment of goods and services across this coun-try.

The introduction of this legislation addressesan important national public safety issue—theprevention of damage to this nation’s under-ground infrastructure. My bill is aimed at im-proving state one-call notification, or ‘‘call-be-fore-you-dig,’’ systems. Participation in one-call programs saves lives and protects the en-vironment by reducing the number of acci-dents caused by excavation near unmarkedfacilities.

These accidents are serious business—something my constituents know about first-hand. In May 1996, an underground petroleumpipeline near Grammercy, Louisiana, was hit,causing the release of 8,400 barrels of highlyflammable gasoline into a nearby swamp. Theaccident killed hundreds of fish, six alligators,snakes and at least one deer. It caused theclosure of U.S. Route 61, inconveniencingscores of re-routed drivers. It forced the shut-down of the Kansas City Southern Railroad.And finally, the bearer of the Olympic torch,who just happened to be passing through thearea on the way to the opening of the Atlantagames, was forced to detour.

This accident was caused when an un-known excavator dug into the pipe, and failed

to report the damage. Mr. Speaker, my billcould prevent such terrible accidents.

Too often, laws are only changed as a re-sult of a disaster, such as the one in Louisi-ana. In Louisiana, we learned from our experi-ence. We passed a strong state one-call law.Now it is time for the rest of the nation to fol-low suit.

One-call programs work by giving exca-vators a clearinghouse to use prior to begin-ning a project. A contractor or other excavatorcalls a central number and notifies the one-callcenter of the location of the planned exca-vation. The one-call center then notifies allpipelines, utilities and phone companies in thearea of the proposed excavation, so that allunderground facilities can be located andmarked. The excavator can then work aroundthe underground utilities, and avoid the use ofheavy equipment near such facilities.

Better communication is the answer, andbetter communication is what one-call centersare all about. But while 49 states have one-call statutes and programs, these programsvary widely in the level of required participa-tion, and in the overall effectiveness of dam-age prevention. Some states exempt certaingroups of excavators, and some states ex-empt certain underground facility operators.The result is an accident rate that is much toohigh. This is unacceptable.

We must improve the effectiveness of stateone-call programs—before another disasteroccurs. And that is precisely what this legisla-tion does.

The idea is simple: prevent accidents by es-tablishing an open line of communication. Allexcavators should call before digging. All un-derground facility operators should accuratelymark their facilities. And states should enforcetheir own laws to discourage violations.

The answer to better one-call systems is notbillions of dollars in federal money, or federalmandates on the states. The answer is na-tional leadership on improving one-call sys-tems nationwide, followed by more com-prehensive and consistent programs in all 50states.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does not try to writethe perfect one-call statute. Those decisionsneed to be made at the state level, by thoseinvolved in looking at the unique problemswithin a particular state. What this legislationdoes do is encourage states to provide for amaximum level of one-call participation by allexcavators and all underground facility opera-tors. It also encourages states to developmore effective enforcement efforts.

On the question of exemptions, the bill ad-vocates the use of a risk-based analysis to de-termine whether a party should be required toparticipate. Those entities which represent apotential risk to the public or the environmentshould be required to participate. On the otherhand, those who represent only a de minimisrisk can participate on a voluntary basis, if atall. The whole question of whether exemptionsshould be made, however, is still left to thestates. Ultimately, it is the state governmentswhich need to be examining the unique situa-tions within their borders.

My legislation is based on incentives, notmandates. If a state feels that its one-call pro-gram provides the level of coverage and en-forcement envisioned in this legislation, then itcan apply to the Department of Transportationfor a one-time grant. We are, in essence, re-warding the ‘‘A’’ students and encouraging the

others to do better. States are not compelledto apply for a grant, and they are not punishedif they chose not to participate. This legislationdoes give the advocates of stronger one-callprograms one more tool to use in their effortsat the state level.

Let me be clear. This legislation is not afederal ‘‘takeover’’ of state one-call programs.To the contrary, the goal of my legislation isto support states in their efforts to improve thequality of underground damage prevention.After this becomes law, states will continue toexercise exclusive jurisdiction over one-callprograms within their borders. I view this typeof legislation as an example of the kind of re-sponsible federalism that should be supportedby this Congress, and extended to other pro-grams as well.

Similar legislation has already passedunanimously in the other chamber. That legis-lation, S. 1115, was sponsored by MajorityLeader TRENT LOTT and Minority Leader TOMDASCHLE, as well as a host of other Repub-licans and Democrats. The bipartisan supportof the Senate bill is something I believe willhappen in the House as well.

Improving public safety is not a partisanissue. All of us want to do a better job in pre-venting life-threatening accidents. I want to en-courage my Republican and Democratic col-leagues to join me in supporting this legisla-tion.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working withmy colleagues on both sides of the aisle tomove the process forward here in the Houseand send this common sense initiative to thePresident for his signature. The Comprehen-sive One-Call Notification Act provides a pub-lic policy statement which is long overdue. Mystate of Louisiana learned its lesson the hardway. It’s time for the rest of the country to fol-low our example. Let’s not wait for another ac-cident. Let’s improve One-Call programstoday.f

THE COMPREHENSIVE ONE-CALLNOTIFICATION ACT OF 1998

HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, four years ago,I introduced H.R. 4394, the ComprehensiveOne-Call Notification Act, in response to a ter-rible pipeline accident that occurred in my dis-trict. In Edison, NJ, a rupture in a natural gaspipeline caused an explosion that demolishedeight apartment buildings and left hundreds ofpeople homeless. The explosion produced afireball so great that it could be seen in threeStates, and a fire so intense that it melted thecars parked at the apartment complex.

Four years later, I am still trying to pass aComprehensive One-Call Notification Act. Fouryears later, I am still working to improve One-Call systems. I am pleased today to join mycolleague from Louisiana, Mr. BAKER, in intro-ducing the Comprehensive One-Call Act of1998. This legislation is a modified version ofmy 1994 bill, designed to encourage the de-velopment of better One-Call programs. Thisbill does not contain any state mandates withregard to One-Call programs. It does encour-age states to adopt comprehensive programsto maximize safety assurances for all citizens.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE284 March 4, 1998To the people in my district, the safety of

pipelines is absolutely essential. My constitu-ents were witnesses to a horrible tragedy thatthey carry with them, even four years later,fears they had never before imagined. In away however, they were also witnesses to amiracle: only one person lost her life in the ac-cident, tragically suffering a heart attack, andmost residents escaped without injury. Cer-tainly, in light of the total devastation of thearea, the potential for a greater number of fa-talities is apparent.

The Edison accident, like the majority ofpipeline accidents, was caused by third partydamage. Often times, excavators do not knowwhat is buried beneath their work sites. Thisignorance can lead to fatal and expensiveconsequences. The bill we are introducingtoday proposes three simple solutions to thisproblem: before they begin digging, all exca-vators should call a central phone number tolearn whether there are any underground fa-cilities at the excavation site. All facility opera-tors should participate in One-Call programs,and, once notified, should accurately mark anyunderground facilities. Finally, states shouldstrongly enforce their One-Call laws to encour-age maximum participation in One-Call pro-grams. These simple measures can savelives, prevent property damage, and preventthe need for expensive repairs.

More than anything else, One-Call is aboutprevention. One telephone call can preventexplosions like the Edison accident. One tele-phone call can prevent the death of an exca-vator digging near a gas line. One telephonecall can prevent the contamination of the envi-ronment by a ruptured hazardous liquid orsewer line. One telephone call can prevent theneed for expensive repairs to fiber optic ca-bles. As another example, shortly after thepipeline incident in my district, a cut in anelectric line at Newark airport by a contractorresulted in closure of the Airport for nearly 24hours. One-Call programs—and this bill—would prevent this type of accident.

Today, 49 States have some kind of One-Call system, but Federal action is necessary,as demonstrated by the accidents mentionedabove. Many current state systems are inad-equate. Some provide exemptions for certaintypes of excavators. Some fail to cover all un-derground facilities. Some states have incred-ibly complex enforcement mechanisms, andsome states don’t bother to enforce One-Calllaws at all. This bill recommends a programthat will be successful. The key to this suc-cess is the concept of participation by all ex-cavators and facility operators. Excavators willbe assured that they are digging in a safeplace, and facility operators have insurancethat their lines will not be damaged.

This bill encourages States to improve theirOne-Call programs. It contains no mandatethat States adopt such a system. Instead, itprovides grants to States that choose to insti-tute the principles of this bill and develop ef-fective one-call systems. I believe that oncestates delve deeply into this issue they willconclude, as I have, that a comprehensiveOne-Call system is a life-saving device thatshould be a part of any public safety program.

With this bill, we have an opportunity to pre-vent accidents like the Edison explosion inevery community in this country. Let us takethe explosion that awoke the residents of theDurham Woods Apartment Complex in Edisonas a wake up call to us. Pass one-call.

HONORING THE BIRTH OF ABBEYDEENA TO DR. HERBERT LEPORAND DR. ELLEN SHAPIRO

HON. PETER T. KINGOF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform theHouse that on February 25, 1998, Dr. HerbertLepor and Dr. Ellen Shapiro became theproud parents of a baby daughter, AbbeyDeena. Abbey Deena was born at The NewYork Presbyterian Hospital and she weighedin at 6 pounds, 14 ounces. The best news ofall is that Abbey Deena and her mother are inperfect health.

I am proud to be able to call Dr. Lepor andDr. Shapiro my good friends. Dr. Shapiro is aninternationally renowned Pediatric Urologistand is the Director of Pediatric Urology at NewYork University Medical Center. She receivedher medical degree from the University of Ne-braska College of Medicine, was a surgical in-tern and resident at the Johns Hopkins Hos-pital and a Clinical Associate in the SurgeryBranch of the National Cancer Institute, Be-thesda, Maryland. She was a fellow in Pedi-atric Urology at the Children’s Hospital ofMichigan and was Assistant Professor of Sur-gery at the Washington University School ofMedicine and at the Medical College of Wis-consin. Prior to moving to New York City, shepracticed Pediatric Urology at the Children’sHospital of St. Louis and the Children’s Hos-pital of Wisconsin.

Dr. Lepor has been Chairman of Urology atNew York University School of Medicine since1993. During that time he has established oneof the preeminent centers of urological care,education and research in America. Dr. Leporgraduated Phi Beta Kappa and summa cumlaude from the University of California, LosAngeles (UCLA) at the age of 20. He earnedhis medical degree at the Johns Hopkins Uni-versity School of Medicine and completedUrology Residency Training at the BradyUrological Institute at Johns Hopkins. Dr.Lepor is a nationally renowned expert on pros-tate treatment and has written numerous sci-entific articles and books on that topic. He per-forms more radical prostatectomies a yearthan any other surgeon in the tri-state area.He has been recognized by American Healthmagazine and New York Magazine for his ex-pertise in prostate cancer.

At the time of their marriage, Dr. Lepor andDr. Shapiro were the only husband and wifeUrology team in America. More important thanany of their professional abilities, however,they are outstanding people who care deeplyabout their patients and give untiringly ofthemselves.

As happy as Dr. Lepor and Dr. Shapiro areover the birth of their beautiful daughter, Iknow that Abbey Deena will soon realize howfortunate she is to have such outstanding par-ents. On behalf of myself and my family I wishthem the very best of health and happiness.

HONORING HENRY STEELECOMMAGER

HON. THOMAS M. DAVISOF VIRGINIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it is with

deep sadness that I rise today to announcethe passing of a great historian and teacher,Henry Steele Commager. His contributions toour nation during the twentieth century are be-yond measure. He taught generations ofAmericans to respect the genius that lay be-hind one of the greatest documents in worldhistory, the United States Constitution. Mr.Commager died on Monday, March 2, 1998 atthe age of 95. It is difficult for me to believethat such a prolific American historian is gone.

When I was a student at Amherst College,I had the honor of having Mr. Commager asan instructor. This brilliant scholar remindedhis students about the unique circumstancesand rare, combined genius that existed whenour republic was created. In addition, heworked tirelessly to awaken a true respect forand commitment to our government institu-tions from his students. Under his tutelage, Icame to learn about the power of our Con-stitution and the importance of its structure inevery facet of our government. I believe Mr.Commager’s tireless passion led many youngpeople such as myself to public service. More-over, I firmly believe he showed many of hisstudents how to be active citizens committedto fighting apathy in the American electorate.

Mr. Commager encouraged all politiciansnot to be afraid of their moral convictions andto vote on the principles that originally electedthem to office. He was a strong-willed manwith the singular courage to pursue the heartsand minds of all Americans. His writings werenot limited to the academic world, rather heactively sought to engage all individuals androuse in them a passion for our history, ourfounding fathers, and our institutions of gov-ernment. Henry Steele Commager dedicatedhimself and his life’s work to preserving ourConstitution.

I know that Henry Steele Commager will bemissed by lawmakers in both chambers whowere influenced by his many writings, particu-larly The Growth of the American Republic.The breadth of his work and its lasting legacywill always serve as a reminder of Mr.Commager’s patriotism and the strength of hiscommitment to democratic principles. Mydeepest condolences go to HenryCommager’s family, his wife Mary Poweslandand his children. Recent articles in both TheWashington Post and The Washington Timesillustrates Mr. Commager’s contributions to ournation.

[From the Washington Post]Henry Steele Commager, 95, one of the

leading scholars of U.S. history, died March2 at his home in Amherst, Mass. The cause ofdeath was not reported.

Dr. Commager taught U.S. history at col-leges and universities for more than a half-century. Since the 1930’s, he had maintaineda torrential outpouring of writing aimed notonly at sophisticated scholars but also at un-dergraduates, high school students and thegeneral reader. He had the gift, rare in anacademic, of being able to seemingly effort-lessly translate historically complex mattersinto supremely lucid and deceptively simpleprose.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E285March 4, 1998Generations of his readers learned that

their country was truly admirable and that,if it sometimes stumbled, it always righteditself. Dr. Commager, who called himself anindependent Democrat, wrote with the faithof a Jeffersonian liberal in the aims andabilities of the American people and clearlyadmired the nation’s past.

As a champion of the U.S. Constitution,once calling it the ‘‘greatest monument topolitical science in literature,’’ he wrote ofthis country’s greatness as not unrelated tothe sweeping growth of social justice.

He lectured Americans not only in class-rooms but also in some of the best-receivedgeneral history texts of his time. He may bebest known for ‘‘The Growth of the AmericanRepublic,’’ written with Samuel Eliot Morri-son and published by the Oxford UniversityPress in 1931. Noted historian Allan Nevinshailed the book as ‘‘the most entertaining,stimulating and instructive single-volumehistory of the United States as yet written.’’

Dr. Commager and Nevins collaborated onthe work’s 10th edition, which was publishedin 1987.

In 1941, Dr. Commanger co-wrote ‘‘Our Na-tion,’’ which became a leading high schoolU.S. history text. In 1942, he and Nevins co-wrote ‘‘America: The Story of a Free Peo-ple,’’ a best-selling book for the lay readerthat covered U.S. history from the first Brit-ish settlers to the Japanese attack on PearlHarbor in December 1941.

In addition to immensely popular generalhistories, Dr. Commager also wrote on morespecialized topics. These included a 1936 bi-ography of a pre-Civil War New England the-ologian and abolitionist, and such philo-sophic offerings as ‘‘The American Mind,’’‘‘Freedom, Loyalty and Dissent,’’ ‘‘TheAmerican Character’’ and ‘‘The Empire ofReason.’’

He also was a prodigious editor, makinghistoric writing more accessible to the gen-eral reader. Works he edited included Alexisde Tocqueville’s ‘‘Democracy in America,’’Benjamin Franklin’s ‘‘Autobiography’’ andFrancis Parkman’s ‘‘The Oregon Trail.’’

He once maintained that his most signifi-cant work may have been his now-legendary‘‘Documents of American History,’’ first pub-lished in 1934. Growing to more than 600 doc-uments, its 10th edition was published in1988.

Dr. Commager was born in Pittsburgh andgrew up in Chicago. Orphaned before he was10 years old, he was raised by a grandfather,a Chicago clergyman. The future historianbegan earning his living at age 15 by workingin a local library.

He received a bachelor’s degree in philoso-phy and master’s and doctoral degrees in his-tory from the University of Chicago. He alsoreceived a master’s degree in politics fromOxford University in England and attendedthe University of Copenhagen.

During World War II, he worked for the Of-fice of War Information in Europe and alsowas an official Army historian. He taughthistory at New York University from 1926 to1938 and then at Columbia University beforejoining the faculty at Amherst College in the1950’s.

As a teacher, Dr. Commager promoted dis-cussion if not downright battles in the class-room. A champion of civil liberties, he hadtangled with Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R–Wis.)in the 1950’s over the professor’s oppositionto loyalty oaths.

Even in the 1980’s, he continued to lecturepoliticians on history and civil liberties,quoting Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wen-dell Holmes to the effect that ‘‘we should beever receptive to loathsome ideas.

George McGovern, the former South Da-kota senator and Democratic presidentialcandidate, who once taught history with one

of Dr. Commager’s popular texts, told theAssociated Press that the historian’s publicpronouncements helped sway policy makersto question the Vietnam War.

‘‘He certainly influenced me in makingcertain that I was on the right track. Myown instincts and reading and study con-vinced me of that. To have a person of thestatus of Henry Steele Commager saying thesame thing was very reinforcing,’’ McGovernsaid.

Over the years, Dr. Commager wrote forsuch publications as Current History, the At-lantic Monthly and the Nation. History,however, reported that he owned at least athousand classical record albums, which heplayed while working.

Dr. Commager also was enthusiastic aboutsports. He had written works on baseball andwas a rabid college football fan. At least oneparent of an Amherst graduate recalls Dr.Commager shouting ‘‘advice’’ from thestands, in no uncertain terms, to an embat-tled Amherst football coach.

Dr. Commager was a member of numeroushistorical societies, as well as Phi BetaKappa, and the American Scandinavian Soci-ety.

[From the Washington Times]Henry Steele Commager, a prolific Amer-

ican historian who championed the Constitu-tion as a model of political genius, died yes-terday at the age of 95.

Mr. Commager, who died at his home inAmherst, wrote a body of works spanningmuch of this nation’s history. But his best-known work was ‘‘The Growth of the Amer-ican Republic,’’ which in various revised ver-sions served as a standard college text forgenerations of students.

His impact went far beyond fellow histo-rians and students. Mr. Commager wrote asmuch for the popular press as for the schol-arly journals. In both arenas, he championedprinciples of the Constitution, which hecalled the ‘‘greatest monument to politicalscience in literature.’’

The self-described independent Democratalso did not shy at lecturing Congress andpresidents about what he viewed as theirmoral and constitutional obligations.

Mr. Commager was John Woodruff Simp-son lecturer at Amherst College—a post pre-viously held by poets Robert Frost and Ar-chibald McLeish. Before coming to Amherstin 1956, he was on the faculty of New YorkUniversity and Columbia University.

He also held chairs in American history atCambridge University and Oxford University.He lectured at universities in Latin America,Japan, Israel and most of the countries ofWestern Europe.

Mr. Commager, who earned his doctoratefrom the University of Chicago in 1928, alsowrote ‘‘Theodore Parker,’’ 1936; ‘‘MajorityRule and Minority Rights,’’ 1943; ‘‘The Storyof the Second World War,’’ 1945; ‘‘The Amer-ican Mind,’’ 1951; ‘‘The Commonwealth ofLearning,’’ 1968; ‘‘Jefferson, Nationalism andEnlightenment,’’ 1975; ‘‘The Empire of Rea-son,’’ 1977; and ‘‘This Day and Generation,’’with Edward Kennedy, 1979.

In 1934, he edited ‘‘Documents of AmericanHistory,’’ a compilation of nearly 500writings. The 10th edition was published in1988.

‘‘The Growth of the American Republic’’was written with Samuel Eliot Morison in1931. Mr. Commager collaborated with AlanNevins on the 10th edition published in 1987.

Born in Pittsburgh and orphaned before his10th birthday, Mr. Commager was raised byhis grandfather, a Chicago clergyman. Hesaid he began earning his living at the age of15 by working in a library.

Mr. Commager married Evan Carroll in1928, and they had three children. He marriedMary Powlesland in 1979.

She survives him. His other survivors in-clude two daughters.

f

TRIBUTE TO THE QUARTER BACK-ERS OF THE SOUTHAMPTON HOS-PITAL

HON. MICHAEL P. FORBESOF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today topay tribute to the members of the QuarterBackers Club of Southampton Hospital, whofor 20 years have poured their hearts and val-uable time into helping the hospital acquire themost technologically advanced, life savingmedical equipment and services for the EastEnd, Long Island community.

As a lifelong resident of the Long IslandTown of Southampton, I am very proud tocount the Quarter Backers as my personalfriends and neighbors, men and womenwhose commitment to our home town knowsno bounds. Motivated solely by the selflessdesire to help Southampton Hospital providethe best medical care available, the QuarterBackers have raised and donated more than$100,000 annually for the purchase of the bestdiagnostic, therapeutic and emergency medi-cal equipment in the industry. Their laborshave produced the greatest fruit imaginable,for they have saved the lives and eased thesuffering of countless numbers of their neigh-bors.

The brainchild of John Grattan, a member ofthe Hospital’s Board of Directors who came upwith the idea while he was a patient at thehospital, the group was christened the QuarterBackers because members offer quarterlycontributions to Southampton Hospital. Withthe help of Richard J. Micallef, the currentchairman of the Quarter Backers SteeringCommittee and a member from the beginning,John Grattan organized the many East Endbusiness men and women, community leadersand others who were committed to supportingthe hospital. Born at Southampton Hospital 21years ago, the Quarter Backers Club hasgrown into one of the most vital and activemembers of the hospital family.

Today, the Quarter Backers number morethan 200, men and women from every walk oflife who have helped Southampton Hospitaladjust to rapid advancements in medical tech-nology. They have raised funds to acquire car-diac diagnostic machines, expand the ortho-pedic sports medicine facilities and supplymammography equipment that formed South-ampton Hospital’s Breast Health Center. Col-lectively, the Quarter Backers are as integralto Southampton Hospital as the 120 staff phy-sicians, sixty consulting doctors, nurses andother staff members in building a healthierEast End.

More than just fundraisers, the QuarterBackers are the hospital’s ambassadors to theEast End, reaching out to their neighbors,business groups, local media and schools,building and cementing relationships with thecommunity. Their devotion to SouthamptonHospital and their commitment to saving livesand improving community health is all that mo-tivates the members of the Quarter Backers.This is the reason why they have flourishedand grown during two decades of service.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE286 March 4, 1998That is why, Mr. Speaker, I ask my col-

leagues in the U.S. House of Representativesto join in me in proudly saluting the Southamp-ton Hospital Quarter Backers as the group en-ters its 21st year of proud service to the hos-pital and the East End of Long Island.f

EXCHANGE CLUB OF LONGBRANCH HONORS POLICEMEN OFTHE YEAR

HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening,

Wednesday, March 4, 1998, the ExchangeClub of Long Branch, NJ, will honor two offi-cers as Policemen of the Year as part of itsannual crime prevention week.

Cpl. Howard Townsend and rookie officerMichael Ahart are being honored for prevent-ing a possible case of arson. On May 7, 1997,the police received a call to respond to a per-son possibly attempting to burn down a house.Cpl. Townsend and Officer Ahart responded tothe scene and confronted an individual at theback door of the residence. The subject lit acigarette lighter and instructed the officers notto come any closer or he would set fire to thehouse. The two officers responded to theemergency like the well-trained professionalsthat they are. Cpl. Townsend called for fire en-gines, paramedics, ambulances and a nego-tiator. He prudently advised the emergencyvehicles not to use their lights or sirens toavoid further alarming the individual in thehouse. Officer Ahart remained with the sub-ject, talking until he was able to get closeenough to take a lighter and a gasoline-soaked rag away from him. It was subse-quently discovered that the downstairs apart-ment—where an 85-year-old man and his dis-abled 83-year-old wife lived—had been com-pletely soaked with gasoline.

Mr. Speaker, the actions of these two policeofficers are a source of pride to the LongBranch community. While I’m sure that Cpl.Howard and Officer Ahart would object tobeing described as heroes, and would insistthat they were just doing their jobs, their deci-sive action under severe pressure reminds allof us of the great contributions that police offi-cers around our country make to our security,often at serious personal risk.

The Long Branch Exchange Club is part ofa national organization of civic clubs devotedto allegiance to the flag and programs to ben-efit and educate children. They also stage fes-tival events and other community programsthroughout the year.f

TRIBUTE TO ANNIE SMITH OFCHICAGO, ILLINOIS

HON. DANNY K. DAVISOF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, today I

pay tribute to a citizen of this country who rep-resents the best of what America has been, isand can become.

Mrs. Annie Smith was born in Mississippi in1906, moved to Arkansas with her family andultimately settled in Chicago, Illinois.

God blessed her with the gift of creativity.She learned cosmetology and millinery, estab-lished her own shop and was an outstandingbusiness woman for many years. She was agraduate of Madam C.J. Walker’s Beauty Col-lege and was an Eastern Star.

Mrs. Smith was a member of the St. Luke’sBaptist Church for many years before joiningthe Carey Tercentenary A.M.E. Church, untilher death, under the leadership of Rev. K.K.Owens. She was preceded in death by herhusband, Joseph Smith and son Charles Gor-don.

Best wishes are extended to her son, Mr.Eugene Ireland, and grandchildren, CharlotteWillis, Vernetia Johnson, Jeffrey Johnson,Kevin Johnson, Ann Hill, Rosalynn Hill and herother grandchildren, nieces, nephews, andother family members and friends.f

TRIBUTE TO DENT MIDDLESCHOOL

HON. JAMES E. CLYBURNOF SOUTH CAROLINA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today topay tribute to Dent Middle School for beinghonored with the Palmetto’s Finest award.This award is giving annually to four schoolsin my home State of South Carolina for excel-lence in an educational facility. It is sponsoredby the Carolina First bank and the S.C. Asso-ciation of School Administrators.

As a former high school history teacher, Icongratulate them with heartfelt pride for thework that is being done at Dent MiddleSchool. Under the leadership of principalCheryl Washington, a personal friend, Dentwas chosen based on factors including howthey teach, what classes they offer and howwell the school interacts with parents and thelocal community. Site visits are also made bythe judges, who comprise a team of educatorsrepresenting schools that have won the awardpreviously. Schools may win this prestigiousaward only once.

Dent Middle School, located in the Midlandsarea of the Sixth Congress District, is a uniqueschool that represents the diverse populationof my district very well. Dent has not only aneconomically, but also racially, diverse studentbody of 1,200. Students come from affluentsuburban areas, lower-income apartment com-munities and nearby Fort Jackson. Studentsalso come from across Richland District 2 fora magnet program housed at Dent. The mag-net program, The Learning Cooperative, offersa longer school day, smaller teacher to stu-dent ratios, and challenging subjects for ap-proximately 240 students from across theschool district.

Aside from the magnet program, Dent offersan after-school tutoring program, study ses-sions and help with homework for studentswho need extra assistance. They also offer aprogram called ALERTS who offer specialchallenges for academically talented students.

Aside from being chosen as one of the Pal-metto’s Finest, Dent Middle School is a finalistfor the Blue Ribbon School award given by theU.S. Department of Education. The otherschools in South Carolina chosen as Palmet-to’s Finest are Riverside High in GreenvilleCounty, Reidville Elementary in Spartanburg

County and Shell Point Elementary in BeaufortCounty. All four of the Palmetto’s Finestschools will be honored by Governor DavidBeasley and state Superintendent of Edu-cation Barbara Nielsen at a March 10 gala inColumbia.

Principal Washington says the awards be-stowed on Dent aren’t won easily and it takesthe ‘‘commitment of everyone here, the col-laboration of everyone working together.’’ It isobvious that Dent Middle School is indeedvery committed to meeting the needs of an ex-tremely diverse student body and has pro-ficiently collaborated their efforts so that eachstudent gets the educational attention they de-serve. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join with mein paying tribute to Dent Middle School, withcongratulations to Ms. Cheryl Washington; twoof the Palmetto State’s Finest.f

HONORING THE HOUSTON FOODBANK ON ITS 15TH ANNIVERSARY

HON. KEN BENTSENOF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to con-gratulate the Houston Food Bank on 15 yearsof service to the community. The Food Bankwill celebrate its anniversary with a gala birth-day luncheon on March 12, 1998. In keepingwith its tradition of seeking ever new ways toserve, funds raised at the luncheon will beused to expand delivery of fresh fruit andvegetables and provide nutrition education tothousands more needy families.

There is much to celebrate. Since it openedits doors in March 1982, the Houston FoodBank has steadily grown into the nation’sfourth-largest food bank, serving 36 countiesin southeast Texas and feeding 200,000 peo-ple each month.

When it began, the Houston Food Bankconsisted of volunteers picking up food in apsychedelic Volkswagen bus and icing it downin picnic baskets. Today, the Food Bank oper-ates from a 73,000-square-foot warehousefeaturing 160,000 cubic feet of freezer and re-frigerated space. It operates three bobtailtrucks, two tractors, and eight trailers for pick-up of donated food provided through a part-nership with 300 food companies.

Since its inception, the Food Bank has pro-vided 160 million pounds of food to people inneed. Last year alone, the Food Bank pro-vided 20 million pounds of food and other es-sentials to 400 member charities, includingfood pantry programs, shelters for the home-less, nutrition programs for the elderly, andgroup foster homes.

These accomplishments are reason enoughto celebrate, but the Houston Food Bank re-cently received more good news when it washonored with the Congressional Hunger Cen-ter’s 1997 ‘‘Victory Against Hunger Award.’’The Center praised the Food Bank as ‘‘a na-tional model for innovation and efficiency infeeding the hungry,’’ specifically citing pro-grams that ‘‘engage all facets of the commu-nity in the fight against hunger.

This is but one of many well-deserved hon-ors the Houston Food Bank has received. In1984, the Houston Food Bank became a cer-tified member of Second Harvest, a networkassociation of 185 food banks across the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E287March 4, 1998United States. The Food Bank’s honors in-clude Second Harvest’s Food Bank Award forExcellence in 1990, the Nabisco Model FoodBank Award in 1993, and the Hunger’s HopeAward for Innovation in 1996.

The Houston Food Bank’s fresh produce op-eration, the Produce People Care Center,serves as a model food bank program nation-ally, handling six million pounds of nutritiousfruits and vegetables each year. In another ini-tiative that is being copied elsewhere, theFood Bank has formed a partnership with theTexas Department of Criminal Justice wherebyTexas prison inmates are growing millions ofpounds of fresh fruits and vegetables on sur-plus prison farmland.

Perhaps the most important ingredient of allin the Houston Food Bank’s success is com-munity involvement. As a private, non-profit or-ganization, the Food Bank depends on thesupport of concerned businesses, foundations,individuals, and the religious community for fi-nancial support to meet its annual budget. Inaddition, about 4,500 hours are donated byvolunteers each month. Because of the strongsupport of the food industry and its low operat-ing cost, the Food Bank is able to provide $20in food for each dollar donated.

As the Houston Food Bank celebrates its15th anniversary, it will honor two visionarycouples who put a roof over the Food Bank’shead and a foundation under its dreams.When the Food Bank was just an idea, philan-thropists Joan and Stanford Alexander ofWeingarten Realty Investors stepped forwardwith an offer of donated warehouse space,which gave the Food Bank both a home andcredibility in the community. Then, in 1988, thelate Albert and Ethel Herzstein donated theFood Bank’s permanent home, the 70,000-foot-warehouse that is in use today.

Joan and Stanford Alexander’s support ofthe Houston Food Bank from the beginninggave the organization public credibility when itneeded it most. They have been valuablemembers of the Food Bank’s Advisory Board,offered wise counsel, and advocated on behalfof the Food Bank. The Alexander’s support ofthe Food Bank is just one expression of theirconcern for the disadvantaged and suffering,which has also led to their involvement withCrisis Intervention, SEARCH, and InterfaithMinistries of Greater Houston among manyother organizations. Their help in the FoodBank’s beginning stages is truly commendableand their continuing commitment has made it

possible for the Houston Food Bank to fulfillthe potential they foresaw.

The Food Bank lost one of its truest friendswhen Albert Herzstein passed away in March1997. The son of Russian emigres, AlbertHerzstein rose from truck driver and deliveryboy to president of Big Three Industries. Afterhis retirement, Mr. Herzstein began to buildand lease warehouses. Through the Albertand Ethel Herzstein Charitable Foundation setup by him and his late wife, Mr. Herzsteinhelped local charities, including the HoustonFood Bank, that provide food, shelter, andeducation, focusing on the construction ofbuildings to house their work. His gift to pur-chase the Food Bank’s current facility endedits four-and-a-half year quest for a permanenthome and made possible a phenomenalgrowth in the numbers of people fed. Everycan and box of food that moves through theHerzstein Center is a tribute to this generouscouple.

As the Houston Food Bank celebrates its fif-teenth anniversary, its dedicated staff, volun-teers, and supporters are looking as much tothe future as to the past. In the words ofBoard President Jerome Pesek, ‘‘As we blowout the candles on the cake, our wish is stillfor a city without hunger.’’ Mr. Speaker, I jointhe Houston Food Bank in rededicating ourcommunity to this goal, and I congratulate allinvolved for making so much progress towardachieving it.f

MANAGED CARE CONSUMER PRO-TECTIONS: WHY COSTS WILL BELIMITED

HON. FORTNEY PETE STARKOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the opponents of

managed care consumer protections con-stantly say that the cost of the reforms willsubstantially drive up costs, and thereforecause employers to drop insurance coveragefor their workers.

Some of their cost estimates are laughable.Remember the old Western, ‘‘Have Gun, WillTravel?’’ There is a whole industry in Wash-ington of Ph’Ds who serve the same bountyhunter role. ‘‘Have Ph’D; Will Produce theStudy Results YOU Want.’’ Or as the oldvaudeville joke goes, ‘‘If the man wants agreen suit, turn on the green light.’’

One reason the studies are silly is that theStates are already requiring, for the roughly50% of plans that they can regulate, that man-aged care plans comply with the type of re-forms we are proposing. Another reason isthat the managed care trade association,AAHP, already requires as a condition ofmembership that a plan comply with many ofthese standards. The question arises, whyshould there be much extra cost if the plansare already complying with their trade associa-tion’s quality standards?

Using data from Blue Cross Blue Shield, mystaff has compiled the following matrix of Stateactions. Clearly, the passage of Federal legis-lation will not be asking the managed careplans to deal with issues they are not alreadydealing with on a wide scale.

STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

Attached is a preliminary summary ofStates’ consumer protection laws. This infor-mation, taken from the Blue Cross/BlueShield Association’s 1997 Survey of HealthPlans, indicates that all but four states haveenacted at least one of the managed carequality protections listed in the President’sConsumer Bill of Rights. In addition:

Thirty-nine (39) states have enacted lawsprohibiting ‘‘gag clauses’’ in provider con-tracts.

Twenty-nine (29) states have enacted lawsallowing direct access to specialists withoutprior approval from the plan’s primary carephysician. These laws apply primarily to OB–GYN’s, but a few also refer to chiropractors,dermatologists, and other specialists. An-other five (5) states are expected to proposedirect access to specialists in 1998.

Twenty-six (26) states have enacted lawsrequiring payment for certain care deliveredin an emergency room. Almost half (12) ofthese states also impose a ‘‘prudentlayperson’’ standard. Another nine (9) statesare expected to introduce legislation withthe ‘‘prudent layperson’’ standard in 1998.

Twelve (12) states have external grievancereview laws that require health plans toallow enrollees to appeal coverage or claimsdenials to an outside medical expert ofpanel, if dissatisfied with the outcome of theplan’s internal appeals process. Another 12states are expected to enact mandatory ex-ternal grievance review laws in 1998.

Sixteen (16) states (CA, DE, FL, HI, IA, ID,IL, IN, KY, MD, ND, OK, PA, SC, TN, andWA) are expected to propose a framework ofquality standards for managed care plans in1998.

STATES’ CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS (AS OF 1997)

State Info disclo-sure

Choice ofplans andproviders*

Access toER serv-

ices1

Prohibitionon gagclauses

Respect andnondiscrimination#

Confiden-tiality

Complaintsappeals**

Alabama ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X ................... ................... ............................... ................... ...................Alaska ................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... ................... ................... ................... ............................... ................... ...................Arizona .................................................................................................................................................................................................. X ................... X X ............................... ................... XArkansas ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X X ................... ............................... ................... ...................California .............................................................................................................................................................................................. X X* X X ............................... ................... XColorado ................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................... X* X X ............................... ................... ...................Connecticut ........................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X X X ............................... ................... XDelaware ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X X∧ X ............................... ................... X**District of Columbia ............................................................................................................................................................................. ................... ................... X∧ X ............................... ................... X**Florida ................................................................................................................................................................................................... X X X X ............................... ................... XGeorgia ................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................... X X X ............................... ................... X**Hawaii ................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... ................... ................... ................... ............................... ................... X**Idaho ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... X X X X ............................... ................... ...................Illinois ................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X X∧ ................... ............................... ................... ...................Indiana ................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................... X X∧ X ............................... ................... ...................Iowa ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... ................... ................... ................... ............................... ................... ...................Kansas .................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................... X X X ............................... ................... ...................Kentucky ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X X∧ ................... ............................... ................... ...................Louisiana .............................................................................................................................................................................................. ................... X X X ............................... ................... ...................Maine .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X ................... X ............................... ................... ...................Maryland ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X X X ............................... ................... X**Massachusetts ...................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X ................... X ............................... ................... ...................Michigan ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... ................... X X ............................... ................... ...................Minnesota ............................................................................................................................................................................................. ................... X ................... X ............................... ................... ...................Mississippi ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ................... X X∧ ................... ............................... ................... X**

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE288 March 4, 1998STATES’ CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS (AS OF 1997)—Continued

State Info disclo-sure

Choice ofplans andproviders*

Access toER serv-

ices1

Prohibitionon gagclauses

Respect andnondiscrimination#

Confiden-tiality

Complaintsappeals**

Missouri ................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................... X X X ............................... ................... XMontana ................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................... X ................... X X ................... ...................Nebraska ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X* X X ............................... ................... ...................Nevada .................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................... X X X ............................... ................... ...................New Hampshire .................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X X X ............................... ................... X**New Jersey ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ................... X X X ............................... ................... XNew Mexico ........................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X ................... X X ................... ...................New York ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X X X ............................... ................... X**North Carolina ...................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X X X ............................... ................... XNorth Dakota ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ................... ................... ................... X ............................... ................... X**Ohio ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... ................... X X ............................... ................... XOklahoma .............................................................................................................................................................................................. ................... X* X X ............................... ................... X**Oregon .................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................... X X X ............................... ................... ...................Pennsylvania ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X X∧ X ............................... ................... X**Rhode Island ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ................... X X∧ X X ................... XSouth Carolina ...................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X X∧ ................... ............................... ................... ...................South Dakota ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ................... ................... ................... ................... ............................... ................... ...................Tennessee ............................................................................................................................................................................................. ................... X* X X ............................... ................... XTexas ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X X X ............................... ................... XUtah ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X ................... X X ................... ...................Vermont ................................................................................................................................................................................................ X X* ................... X ............................... ................... XVirginia ................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................... X X X ............................... ................... ...................Washington ........................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... X X X ............................... ................... X**West Virginia ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ................... ................... ................... ................... X ................... ...................Wisconsin .............................................................................................................................................................................................. ................... ................... ................... ................... ............................... ................... ...................

Wyoming ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... ................... ................... X ............................... ................... ...................Total ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 34 35 39 5 0 24

*Twenty-nine (29) states have laws that allow direct access to a specialist without prior referral from the primary care physician. These apply primarily to OB-GYNs, but also can refer to chiropractors and dermatologists. Another 5states (*) are expected to propose self-referral to specialists in 1998.

∧Twenty-six (26) states have enacted laws requiring payment for certain care delivered in the emergency room. Twelve (12) of these states also impose a ‘‘prudent layperson’’ standard. Another nine (9) states (∧) are expected to intro-duce this legislation in 1998.

#Five states prohibit discriminatory practices (e.g., denying/canceling coverage, higher premium) against victims of domestic abuse.**Twelve (12) states have external grievance review laws that require health plans to allow enrollees to appeal coverage or claims denials to outside medical expert or panel, if dissatisfied with outcome of plan’s internal appeals proc-

ess. Another 12 states (**) are expected to enact mandatory external grievance review laws in 1998.Source: Blue Cross Blue Shield Association 1997 Survey of Plans.

GROWING UP BLACK INSHEPHERDSTOWN

HON. ROBERT E. WISE, JR.OF WEST VIRGINIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to intro-duce for the record an article by Mary Cor-coran Lehman for the Shepherdstown Chron-icle of Shepherdstown, West Virginia. This ar-ticle was written in commemoration of BlackHistory Month a few years ago. It is about thelife of Mr. Charles Branson, a local city coun-cilman, who has lived through an extraordinaryperiod of American history and provides a fas-cinating perspective of this time.

While February, designated as Black HistoryMonth, has come to a close, I wanted to placethis article in the Congressional Record today.The contributions of a person or culture to oursociety should not be limited to a specificmonth, but should be celebrated year round.Mr. Branson’s story and others like it remindus that throughout one’s life many people givesignificantly to the legacy of America every-day.

GROWING UP BLACK IN SHEPHERDSTOWN

(By Mary Corcoran Lehman)Childhood for Charles Branson was enjoy-

able. He was born in 1921 at his home onAngel Hill on Shepherdstown’s East End. Atthat time, he says, every black was born athome even though there were two hospitalsin Martinsburg. Transportation was a prob-lem, he remembers. Very few, if any, blackshad an auto in the 1920s. Charles’ own fam-ily, for instance, got their first car in 1934 or35.

The families in the East End were veryclose. Charles’ maternal grandparents livedjust 20 feet away. The grandparents ownedboth their home and the home whereCharles, his parents, and his two siblingslived and grew up.

His parents, Charles says, worked veryhard. His mother, who died when she wasjust 38 from complications from diabetes,

never saw a washing machine. She scrubbedthe family’s laundry on an old wash board.‘‘Later in life I felt rather badly about thatwash board,’’ Charles says. She also workedas a domestic. His father worked variousjobs. He was a laborer at Shepherd College,worked at the Blairton stone quarry and, inthe early 30s when the Depression was stillhitting hard all over, he worked for theWPA.

During the 20s and 30s Angel Hill was amixed neighborhood, Charles remembers.‘‘We all played together, black and white, inthe street,’’ he says. ‘‘There were no play-grounds. We’d shoot marbles, set up horseshoe pits and we played ball.’’ Angel Hillchildren also played in the area where theShepherdstown Day Care Center now is, hesays, in a big field that extended back towhere Porky May now lives.

Nathan Manuel, who is now a dentist, wasCharles’ closest friend back them. ‘‘We had anice group then’’ he says. ‘‘We’d race up anddown the street rolling tires.’’ He remembersdoing this with Robert Washington, Gene-vieve Monroe’s younger brother. ‘‘And I alsoplayed with her sisters.’’ he says.

Black and white adults, who lived on AngelHill, also socialized, he says. ‘‘Society wasnot integrated then’’ Charles adds, ‘‘but asfar as the activities of the people in the areait was integrated.’’

When Charles Branson was 8-years old hestarted school. He didn’t begin school at theusual age of six because his legs were badlyscalded with boiling water which tipped off acoal stove when he was six or seven. ‘‘I re-member taking those bandages off,’’ he says.

When he did start school he realized for thefirst time that there was a difference be-tween blacks and whites. Charles had towalk all the way from Angel Hill to the farWest End of Shepherdstown to attend theblack Shadyside School. To get there hewalked right past the white school on thecorner of King and High Streets. It wasabout three blocks closer to his home thanShadyside and he says he used to wonderwhy he couldn’t go there. The only timeblack kids went near the white school wasafter hours when they played on the fire es-cape tubes, he remembers now.

The great black educator Dr. John WesleyHarris was principal of Shadyside during the

years Charles was there. He succeededCharles’ grandfather John W. Branson. Har-ris was the senior Branson’s pupil at onetime. Branson’s grandfather went to PageCounty, Virginia and taught in Luray. Sev-eral decades later grandson Charles wouldfollow in his footsteps.

Charles graduated from Shadyside in 1937without ever going through the eighth grade.The fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth gradeswere all in one class and by the time Charleswas in the seventh grade he had heard andlearned it all. When it came time for theeighth graders to take the state test, sev-enth grader Charles took it too and passed.The three others who took the test with himat the Eagle Avenue School in Charles Townpassed also. Charles had the highest score sohe was named valedictorian of his class andClarence Holmes was salutatorian.

The only black high school in JeffersonCounty at the time was at Storer College inHarpers Ferry. It was a boarding school. Dr.Harris, whose son attended Storer also, tookCharles to school in the fall. He came homefor holidays. Board at the school in 1937 was$16 a month. ‘‘Even that was hard for myparents to raise,’’ Charles says.

Charles was at Storer for four years. In hisjunior year his mother died. Life became in-creasingly more difficult then. He couldn’tstay on campus because his family could nolonger afford the board so he went to work ata white tourist home in Harpers Ferry. The$2 a month he earned enabled him to con-tinue his schooling.

The tourist home, Laurel Lodge, wasowned by the sister of Storer’s RegistrarPansy Cook. ‘‘I wrung the necks of chickensand plucked them on Saturdays,’’ Charles re-members. ‘‘They had big chicken dinners onSundays and for the work they gave me lodg-ing in the furnace room of their basement.’’Part of the job, he says, was to attend thefurnace at night. The basement was so per-meated with coal dust, he says, that eventhough he changed the sheets once a week bythe middle of the week ‘‘they were as blackas anything.’’

Charles had meals on campus and becausehe had so many friends there he always hada place to keep his clothes and take a bath.‘‘It worked out very well,’’ he says.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E289March 4, 1998On weekends he would hitch a ride to

Shepherdstown with Charles ‘‘Cop’’ Shipley,who lived in the yellow house next to Trail’sChevron where David Malakoff and AmyYoung now live. Shipley’s father Bob was thefirst state trooper in Shepherdstown. Hisbrother Kenneth was fire chief inShepherdstown for many, many years andlived in the old King Street fire hall.

In 1941 Charles completed high school. Heremembers that Jennings Randolph, then acongressman, was the commencement speak-er. After graduation Charles came back toShepherdstown. But at that timeShepherdstown didn’t have many opportuni-ties for a black man to make money, Charlessays. You could maybe work in the apple or-chard for Goldsborough and Skinner at 20an hour or see if Shepherd had a laborer’s jobbut that was about it.

Instead Charles decided to go to New YorkCity with his friend C.J. Jackson. Jacksonhad New York relatives; he had an aunt wholived out in Mount Vernon, New York.Charles found a job in downtown Manhattanat 125th Street and Seventh Avenue. Hestarted out as a dishwasher in a little res-taurant. In six months he had decided it wasnot the job for him. He went to New Haven,Connecticut where he hoped to work for theWinchester Rifle Works. One of his formerclassmates worked there.

When that didn’t transpire, Charles got ajob in Ansonia at a big old country clubwhere he would up in the kitchen. ‘‘I neverboned so many turkeys in my life,’’ he saysruefully. ‘‘Time to get on back home.’’ Backhome to the orchards and Shepherd College.

He was working at Shepherd for a regularsalary of $40 a month and board when hemarried his wife Ruby in May of 1942. It wasduring World War II and every able bodiedman, black or white, was joining or beingdrafted to join the armed forces. ‘‘I wasworking at Shepherd when I got inducted atFort Hayes in Columbus in December,’’ hesays. After induction Charles immediatelyleft for Fort Hood, Texas where he wasplaced in Tank Destroyer Training.

During the Second World War the armywas segregated. Entire divisions of black sol-diers were commanded by white officers.Charles became part of the 827th Tank De-stroyer Battalion, Company C, Third Pla-toon. But being commanded by white officershardly mattered Charles remembers, becausehe had to answer to non-coms, who wereblack.

Charles was a private first class and the as-sistant gunner in a M–18 Tank Destroyer. Heoriginally received training for tank warfarein Africa but in 1944 after the Allied invasionof Europe tank training changed.

The 827th was sent to Europe. Charles land-ed at Marseilles and he and his battaliontook part in the invasion of SouthernFrance. ‘‘In November, a couple of days aftermy birthday, I knew something was happen-ing. Whole battalions of various companiesformed. A communion service was held. Forthe first and only time I had communion inthe army,’’ he says.

The next couple of days they began movingnorth towards the front. Then the snowscame. They were especially deep in Europethat year, he remembers. ‘‘They came up toyour waist in some places,’’ he says. Finallythey reached Strasbourg, almost to theSigfreid Line and headed towards Luxem-bourg.

On December 16, 1944 in the early morningCharles saw balls of fire and heard a roaring.It was a hot shell and he was in active com-bat for the first time. He admits he wasscared, ‘‘You’d have to be a fool not to be,’’he says. He was right on the edge of the Bat-tle of the Bulge.

His platoon moved into an area supportingthe 79th Infantry and the all-white 42nd

Rainbow Division, MacArthur’s old division.During a lull in the battle he and the otherscrawled out of their tank and black soldiersand white soldiers freely mingled. ‘‘Youcouldn’t get more integrated than that,’’ hesays.

Charles observed one instance of death atclose hand. He was just 25 yards from a Com-pany B tank that was hit. He saw a soldiertrying to come out over the gun turret (snowprevented escape from the bottom). He foundout later the man died from injuries.

In early January the tide turned when thesun came out and U.S. ground forces receivedair support. Charles saw his first jet plane, aGerman one, at that time. It dropped onebomb, he says and was gone so fast he won-dered what it was.

The war ended for Charles on October 3,1945 at Fort Mead, Maryland where he wasmustered out of the army with a good con-duct medal and a honorable discharge.

Before his discharge, in August, he wouldnot have believed he would return to civilianlife so soon. He was on a ship enroute to thePacific Theater when a voice over the PAsystem announced the end of the war and theship turned around to dock in Boston harborinstead.

When he came back home toShepherdstown, he and Ruby brought thehouse at 308 West German Street where theystill live. He bought it for $600. It was a du-plex then but later the and Ruby convertedit to a single family home. He worked in theorchards until 1946. All the time his wifekept urging him to go back to school on theG.I. Bill. There were no decent jobs to befound, he says.

In 1946 he was called to work as a janitorat the Army Hospital in Martinsburg. The 65cents an hour he earned there was threetimes the 20 an hour he was making in theorchards and by now he and Ruby had fourchildren. The Army Hospital was convertedto the Newton D. Baker Veteran’s Adminis-tration Hospital shortly after he began workand he put in an application to work for thefederal government. Still Ruby was urginghim to go back to school.

So in August of 1946 Charles registered forclasses in business administration at StorerCollege. He selected a business administra-tion major because his college advisor toldhim he would be eligible for a G.I. loan to setup his own business when he graduated. ‘‘ButI had no particular business I was interestedin,’’ he says. ‘‘When I got out of school I hadto get a job.’’ So he switched to educationand social studies.

The commencement speaker at his 1950graduation was W.E.B. Du Bois, who hadfirst come to Storer College in 1908, for ameeting of the Niagara Movement, the pre-cursor of the N.A.A.C.P. That 1950 Storerclass was the largest class ever graduatedfrom Storer, Charles remembers.

In the second semester of 1951 Charles wentback to school. Although he graduated witha Bachelor in Social Studies. Charles had notcompleted his professional studies. By theend of the summer session he had minors inbusiness administration and physical edu-cation. During one summer school session heattended a class with a teacher at the blackhigh school in Luray, Virginia, AndrewJackson High School. The man’s wife wasprincipal of the school. Charles was offered ajob as a teacher and football coach.

He had no car and no idea how he wasgoing to get to Luray but the $2,400 yearlysalary was more than he had ever made. ‘‘Ijust knew I would get there,’’ he says. Atfirst he left his family behind and lived in arented room but by November Charles hadfound a house for $15 a month.

However, in 1952 Ruby became sick and sheand the children went back to

Shepherdstown. Charles would come home onweekends by train getting in around mid-night on Friday and leaving very early Mon-day mornings. It wasn’t a very satisfactoryarrangement and in 1956 he came back toShepherdstown. He worked once again at theVA Center where he stayed until he retiredin 1985 after sustaining his fourth heart at-tack.

Charles has never retired from public serv-ice though. He has served a total of eighteenyears on the Shepherdstown Council. He firstbecame a councilman in 1974 but took twoyears off between 1980 and 1982. He spear-headed the cleaning up of Back Alley afterthe alley became a dumping ground follow-ing the closing of the Town Dump on RockyStreet. And he was one of the founding mem-bers of the Shepherdstown Community Clubwhich was active in the present youth centerbuilding until the mid 1980s.

The Shadyside School that Charles at-tended was closed in 1946. Shepherdstownblacks then went to the East Side School.That building now houses the ShepherdstownDay Care Center. Although the Brown vs. theBoard of Education decision against segrega-tion in public schools was handed down bythe United States Supreme Court in 1954Charles says schools in Shepherdstown werenot integrated until the late 50s or early 60s.

Three of his six children attended seg-regated schools. The three older children,Rose, Barbara and Charles, attended Jeffer-son County’s black high school, Page Jack-son in Charles Town.

Only the three younger children, Leon,Rodney and Brenda, attended integratedschools in Shepherdstown. All three grad-uated from Shepherdstown High School.

f

TRIBUTE TO THE JULIA WESTHAMILTON LEAGUE, INC.

HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTONOF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to paytribute to The Julia West Hamilton League,Inc., which was formed in 1938, the outgrowthof 10 women who dared to dream. Mrs. EllenV. Johns Britain, the organizer, believed thatwomen joining together as a dedicated unitmight accomplish some of the things thatseemed impossible at that time, but could behelpful to the betterment of the community,education, youth and self.

Mr. Speaker the League was named tohonor a great woman who gave unsparingly ofher time, devotion and love to the causes ofhumanity, Mrs. Julia West Hamilton, who wasa participating member of the League until herdeath. The League was incorporated in 1971.The first president was Mary EC Gregory. TheLeague is currently led by Mary J. Thompson.

Mr. Speaker, The purpose of the League is(1) to promote benevolence, cultural and edu-cational interests in the community; (2) tostrive to gain new knowledge and skills ofachieving better self-understanding, learning tointeract more sensitively and honestly withothers; (3) to encourage young people to aimearly in life toward education, develop goodcharacter and find a useful place in society;and (4) to establish a monetary award knownas the Julia West Hamilton Award. This awardis presented to a student in each of the 14senior high schools in Washington, DC and afour-year Julia West Hamilton Scholarship is

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE290 March 4, 1998awarded to a recipient from one of the seniorhigh schools every four years. To date, theLeague has provided over $68,000 in studentawards and scholarships.

Over the past 21 years the League has do-nated approximately $73,500 to the Hospitalfor Sick Children and has supported HowardUniversity’s Sickle Cell Anemia Program. TheLeague has also contributed to the BrigadierGeneral West A. Hamilton Scholarship Fundof the Washington Club of Frontiers Inter-national, the United Negro College Fund, theCardozo and Eastern High School bands andthe Eastern High School Choir for travelabroad. Assistance is also provided to needyfamilies at Thanksgiving and Christmas. TheLeague holds lifetime memberships with theNational Council of Negro Women and thePhyllis Wheatley YWCA. In 1980, the Ellen V.Johns Britain Award was established in honorof the founder of the Julia West HamiltonLeague, Inc. This award is presented for out-standing and dedicated services to a memberof longstanding.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this August body joinme in special tribute to the gentle ladies ofThe Julia West Hamilton League, Inc. whosemotto, ‘‘THE ONLY GIFT IS A PORTION OFTHYSELF’’ and good works, on the occasionof their 60th anniversary, are worthy to bepraised.f

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

HON. TODD TIAHRTOF KANSAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, earlier today Imissed one vote on H.R. 856, The UnitedStates-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, be-cause I was attending the funeral of formerCongressman Garner Shriver in Wichita Kan-sas. Had I been present I would have votedyes on rollcall No. 27.

I would request that my statement be placedin the appropriate location in the CONGRES-SIONAL RECORD.f

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

HON. MARTIN FROSTOF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I discovered thatwithout explanation, my vote was not recordedon Roll Call vote number 22, the FederalAgency Compliance/Civil Rights amendment. Iwas present for this vote and voted Yea.f

IN HONOR OF THE RETIREMENTOF FRANK STRONA FROM THENEW HAVEN POLICE DEPART-MENT, MARCH 4, 1998

HON. ROSA L. DeLAUROOF CONNECTICUT

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to paytribute to Frank Strona, a devoted member of

the New Haven Police Department, who re-tired Saturday, February 28, 1998.

Providing for the protection and safety ofour citizens from acts of violence is one of thefundamental duties of government. But gov-ernment carries out this responsibility onlythrough the work and dedication of people likeFrank Strona. His extraordinary bravery andpride in carrying out his duties will serve as anexample for police departments throughoutConnecticut to strive towards.

Mr. Strona served in the New Haven PoliceDepartment for over thirty-five years. He ischerished as a friend and mentor to many jun-ior officers, and many members of the com-munity, including myself. His career began asa rookie cop. In a short time he became a mo-torcycle policeman, graduating from cruiserpatrolman. He spent almost twenty of his thir-ty-five years as Dog Warden and Manager ofthe Mounted Police Regiment of the NewHaven Police Department—keeping the regi-ment strong.

Second only to his loving family, Strona’sdistinguished career in public service hasbeen the greatest source of pride in his life.This devotion and pride will be his lasting leg-acy. The members of the New Haven PoliceDepartment and the community of New Havenhave all benefited from his unwavering com-mitment to the safety and security of our com-munity. For this, we offer him our lasting grati-tude and congratulations on his retirement.f

TRIBUTE TO JOSEPH MEYER

HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKYOF INDIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today

to pay tribute to a Northwest Indiana businesspioneer and the founder of Bank Calumet, Jo-seph Meyer. Joseph was born in Wisconsin in1878. As a youth, whenever he could, he trav-eled with his father who was a professionalphotographer. His father was particularly inter-ested in photographing various aspects of na-ture and often took his son into fields and for-ests. The young Joseph soon learned a greatdeal about plants and nature in general. Butthis happy arrangement lasted only a fewyears because the father died when his sonwas not yet a teenager. As a result of the fam-ily’s financial difficulties, Joseph was sent toan orphanage, where he received a technical-vocational education.

Upon graduation from high school, Josephhad to leave the orphanage. He went to Mil-waukee where he lived with a grandmother,who provided room and board which enabledyoung Joseph to take a low paying job in theprinting industry. he recognized that he need-ed practical experience before he could go outon his own.

Eventually, he felt he had enough experi-ence, so with a small loan from his grand-mother, he set up his own print shop in herbasement. Slowly he accumulated enoughsavings to open his own print shop on EastWater Street. He was a good printer, but notyet a good financial manager and he did notknow how to locate a financial advisor. More-over, Milwaukee was suffering from a reces-sion at that time. Finally, he was out of moneyand had to close his shop. His first businessventure, therefore, was a failure.

Joseph Meyer then moved to Chicago,where printers were in demand, and obtaineda job with a large industrial printer until it wasshut down by a long and violent strike. Nexthe took a job in the print department of TheHammond Times.

But the desire to have his own businesswas strong. By saving everything he couldfrom his job at the paper and with a smallbank loan, he was able to afford an old print-ing press which had to share space in hismodest home with his wife and young family.Joseph soon heard about crooked gaming de-vices and learned how these machines weretampered with to cheat the public. So in 1908,he wrote a short book exposing this schemeand printed it himself—two pages at a time.

This literary effort was well received andvery profitable. His initial thought was to ex-pand his printing business, but he remem-bered his failed print shop back in Milwaukee.He realized that his next business would haveto be guided by a plan and that he wouldneed help with the financial side.

In thinking about his skills, he knew he hadtwo strengths. He knew a lot about printing;after all, that’s what he had been doing forseveral years. But he also knew a great dealabout nature and plants. Over the years, hehad built on the basic knowledge he hadgained from those early field trips with his fa-ther. He became interested in the curativepower of native plants and the advantages ofnatural substances as dietary supplements.For his life’s work, he decided it made senseto combine both these talents—his knowledgeof printing and his love of nature.

He grew and harvested plants in the vacantland around his Hammond house, on land thatno one seemed to care about at the time.Marketing of these health foods and medicalitems would be through a catalog. Since hewould print the catalog himself, his profitwould be enhanced. He mobilized his eightchildren and taught them to distinguish thevaluable plants from ordinary weeds and hadthem help in the harvesting.

His children were also put to work in thefamily dining room, assembly-line fashion, tofold and bind the catalog. Eventually, he wasable to purchase fertile land to grow the plantshe needed and in 1925 construct a handsomeTudor style building to process and manufac-ture his products. That building still standsamong the Borman Expressway near CalumetAvenue. In a few years, this business, thenand now known as the Indiana Botanic Gar-dens, grew larger and his catalog was sentfirst throughout the Midwest and later all overthe country. Today, Indiana Botanic Gardens,which is now located in Hobart, continues tothrive under the direction of a Joseph Meyerdescendant.

By the late 1920s and early 1930s, thecountry had slipped into a very severe eco-nomic downturn. Many businesses closed. Butthis time, Joe Meyer’s business did not fail. Infact, the Botanic Gardens continued to ex-pand. It turned out that the herb and healthfood business was largely recession proof. Hisdirect-from-the-manufacturer mail order busi-ness provided products at a lower price thanhis competitors, and his home remedies werecheaper and more readily available than regu-lar medical doctors.

But he did have one serious problem. Theeconomic downturn was so severe that hecouldn’t find a sound yet convenient financial

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E291March 4, 1998institution to hold his deposits. In fact, in theyear 1933, Joseph Meyer was faced particulardilemma in that all of Hammond’s banks hadfailed. He had no local place to deposit thedimes and quarters and dollars that were ar-riving in cash every day at his plant.

A group of Hammond community leaderswith a financial background approached Jo-seph Meyer about starting his own bank, butthis was a big step. He would have to risk ev-erything he had achieved and he did not knowanything about banking. However, over theyears he had learned a lot about running abusiness, the need for expert assistance andhow to find that talent, the vital necessity ofhaving a business plan, focusing on your ob-jective, assembling the right team, and makingsure that new income grew when sales grew.This time, he had the capital, but he had todecide whether all the other things could beput in place.

With careful reflection, and attention to de-tail, he assembled his team and opened theCalumet State Bank on March 4, 1933. Therest, as they say, is history. Today, Bank Cal-umet is still largely owned by Joseph Meyer’sfamily. It is the largest locally owned bank inLake County, with 16 offices and nearly$800,000,000 in assets, a book value of over$78,000,000, and a multi-year string of recordprofits.

From the very beginning, Joseph Meyer in-fused his personality into the new bank. If youlook at the early ledger book, you will see thatthe first day deposits totaled around $73,000.Almost that entire amount came from Jo-seph—either from his personal funds or frombusinesses he owned.

But Joseph Meyer wanted to reach out tothe broader Hammond community. He knewpeople had lost much of their savings whenHammond’s banks failed. That loss had pro-duced a deep distrust of banking, yet he alsoknew people’s money really would be safer inhis well-run bank than at home in a jar orunder the mattress. So he hit on an idea thatwould reassure the general public. He tooksome of his own government bonds and putthem up as collateral to back the bank’s de-posits. Now people could be certain that evenif the bank failed, there would be something tostand behind and guarantee their deposits.

Calvin Bellamy, current President and ChiefExecutive Officer, tells me that the same com-mitment to customers and community guidesthe present management of Bank Calumet.Before returning to that subject, let me firstsay something about the Bank’s Main Office,which at nine stories is still the tallest buildingin Hammond.

The 100,000 square foot structure at 5231Hohman Avenue was begun in 1924 to housethe First Trust and Savings Bank which failedin the Great Depression. The building’s steelframe is covered by Indiana limestone and atthe base by polished Minnesota granite. Themain lobby has its same original and magnifi-cent chandeliers. The American walnut ceil-ing—at least 35 feet from floor level—is deco-rated with painted and inlaid designs. Theoriginal marble floors and columns still gracethe lobby.

In 1934, the bank moved from its original lo-cation at 5444 Calumet Avenue to the presentHohman location. The transfer of the bank’sassets and cash required a heavily armoredmotorcade. Fayette Street was guarded everyfew feet by machine gun toting marksmen

perched on roof tops along the route.$650,000 traveled down the street that day, avery attractive target in those Depressionplagued times. Fortunately, all went well.

Today, the bank continues to serve as anoutstanding corporate citizen and partner withthe people of Hammond. I want to briefly high-light the bank’s particular commitment to Ham-mond’s neighborhoods and the education ofthe city’s children.

Hammond is a city of neighborhoods. Andits future will be determined by the strength ofthose neighborhoods. In 1989, the bank’smanagement began wondering what theyshould be doing to strengthen Hammond’sneighborhoods. They began with five separatefocus groups, each drawn from a different partof the city. As they dialogued, it became clearthat Hammond’s housing stock, though stillmostly in moderate to good condition, neededattention.

So beginning later that year, the bank an-nounced its Neighborhood Investment Pro-gram (NIP). Through NIP, the bank began of-fering home improvement financing to resi-dents of Hammond at one percent below itsnormal rate and on terms more flexible thanits usual underwriting standards.

This program has been offered every yearsince 1989. Each year the bank sends a bro-chure to all homeowners in Hammond. Now inits eighth year, the bank has made over 800NIP loans. From antidotal evidence, bank offi-cials have strong reason to believe that with-out this extra effort, much of the home im-provements financed by NIP loans would nothave occurred. They can say for certain what-ever home improvement financing that wouldhave occurred anyway would have been athigher cost to the homeowner. If nothing else,the NIP discount has made rehabilitation ofHammond homes a more affordable propo-sition.

Besides the Bank’s commitment to rehabili-tation and remodeling Hammond homesthrough its Neighborhood Investment Programand various credit counseling activities, theyalso give a great deal of attention to the Ham-mond public schools. For about a decade thebank has had a formal partnership with Wal-lace Elementary School. Some of the partner-ship’s key elements include an active Studentof the Month Program, banking curriculumtaught at the school, and student tours and jobshadowing at the bank. Aside from these spe-cific details, the partnership boils down to this:several bank officers have a great deal of per-sonal contact with these students, providing amentoring experience for these eager younglearners from a diverse, moderate incomeneighborhood.

In 1997, Calumet Bank felt the need to ex-pand its involvement with the Hammondschools. More and more, its loan officers areseeing credit reports on young people only outof high school a few years already developingcredit problems. Excess use of credit cardsslow payment of bills and careless manage-ment of their checking accounts, these andother problems are causing people in theirtwenties and thirties to have difficulties obtain-ing affordable home, auto and other financing.

Given these challenges, the bank wanted tobe part of the solution. So in the spring of1997, they proposed to Hammond School Su-perintendent Dr. David Dickson a programthey call MONEY MATTER$. What they areoffering to do is go to all four Hammond high

schools and have contact with every senior.MONEY MATTER$ would consist of a threepart series—first on the history of money andthe role of banks in the economy, next on theproper use of credit and understanding therole played by each individual’s personal creditreport, and finally a session on how to man-age a checking account, including the properuse of ATM cards.

Calumet Bank has also formed a Presi-dent’s Council whereby four students fromeach high school meet with senior bank offi-cers over lunch for more in-depth discussionof banking issues and also career opportuni-ties in banking. This group will meet for thethird time on March 5, 1998. The bank’s goalis to stimulate dialog since they recognize thatbusinesses also need to learn more aboutwhat youth are thinking.

As you can imagine, these school-based ac-tivities represent a very significant time com-mitment. There are also some dollars in-volved, but the bank feels this extra effort andexpense are important to the future of Ham-mond and Northwest Indiana. As a communitybank, Bank Calumet’s leaders realize their fu-ture depends on the community’s future.

Since Joseph Meyer founded his bank 65years ago it has undergone several namechanges. But whatever the name, its commit-ment remains true to Joseph Meyer’s originalphilosophy of service to their customers andtheir community.

As bank President Bellamy expresses it, ‘‘Ifthe people of Hammond—individuals, govern-ment, and businesses—continue to work to-gether as partners, our city’s future will be atleast as exciting as our past. Those of us inleadership positions today have benefittedfrom the experiences of our predecessors andit is no less our duty to continue the work ofbuilding for an even better future.’’

Mr. Speaker, Joseph Meyer was not in-stantly successful. In fact, he suffered a busi-ness failure before he found his stride. Yet,despite personal and business setbacks, heeventually made a success of himself, andprovided an invaluable asset to the people ofHammond as well as the rest of Northwest In-diana.f

150th ANNIVERSARY OF THEHUNGARIAN REVOLUTION OF 1848

HON. JOHN D. DINGELLOF MICHIGAN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

join the state of Hungary and Hungarian-Americans everywhere in commemorating the150th anniversary of the 1848 Hungarian revo-lution.

In 1848 revolution swept through the Euro-pean continent. By March of that year, the rev-olutionary sentiments had spread to Hungary,which was ruled by the Austrian Habsburgempire. On March 3 legendary Hungarian pa-triot Louis Kossuth made a monumentalspeech, dubbed the ‘‘inaugural address of therevolution’’. Kossuth’s speech enumerated 12sweeping reforms that reflected some of themost progressive ideas of the age, such as areduction of feudal rights and the emanci-pation of the peasants. This declaration struckan immediate chord with the Hungarian peo-ple. The reforms immediately spurred the Aus-trian people to demand similar rights, and on

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE292 March 4, 1998March 13 a full-fledged revolution broke out inVienna.

On March 15, while Kossuth was in Viennapresenting his 12 points to the Habsburg mon-archy, students in Budapest armed only withKossuth’s reforms seized control in what hascome to be known as the bloodless revolution.The following day the Hungarian delegation,led by Kossuth, submitted Hungary’s demandsbefore Emperor-King Ferdinand. The Austrianmonarch quickly agreed to the points, prompt-ing the Hungarian Diet to put the revolutionaryreforms into effect. Thus, Hungary’s futurewas forever influenced as the result of apeaceful, lawful revolution.

The Hungarian Diet immediately began towork nonstop to pass new laws. By April theDiet had passed 31 progressive measures,which essentially amounted to a new constitu-tion. These ‘‘April laws’’ attempted to providefor the needs of a nation moving towardsmodernization.

Unfortunately, Hungarians did not have longto experience * * * government were intent onsquashing any semblance of Hungarian inde-pendence. On September 10, Baron Jelacic,with encouragement from the Habsburgs, led40,000 Croatian troops across the Hungarianfrontier. Hungary, led by Kossuth, was in theprocess of building up its army, and initiallylost several battles to the invaders. Finally,General Arthur-Gorgey, who was to becomeone of Hungary’s greatest generals, was givencontrol of the Hungarian army. By April 1849Gorgey’s military brilliance and the tremen-dous bravery of the elite Hungarian Honvedtroops had driven all of the invaders out ofHungary, and Hungary had officially declaredits independence from Austria.

The Habsburg’s were humiliated and forcedto call on Russian Czar Nicholas I for assist-ance in bringing the now independent Hungaryback under Austrian control. As a result, Hun-gary’s independence was short-lived becausein June, 1849, a joint Austrian-Russian offen-sive overwhelmed the valiant Hungarian de-fenders. On August 13, Gorgey’s forces laiddown their arms before the Russians atVilagos. Kossuth was forced to flee his be-loved homeland and would live the rest of hislife travelling the world to gain support forHungary’s cause. In a speech made prior tohis departure, Kossuth said, ‘‘My principleswere those of George Washington. I love you,Europe’s most loyal nation.’’

Although, the Hungarian revolution of 1848did not end in prolonged independence forHungary, it did result in at least one verynoble achievement. The revolution preventedthe Austrian government from revoking theemancipation of the peasants and all otherunfree persons in the Habsburg’s empire. Forthis historic accomplishment and for strivingtowards the ideal of the American Revolution,Hungarians and Americans of Hungarian de-cent should always be proud. I join with thestrong Hungarian-American population in thedownriver communities to celebrate the Hun-garian revolution of 1848, truly an importantturning point in the history of the Hungariannation.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

HON. RON KINDOF WISCONSIN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, The headline of anarticle in today’s The Hill says it all: ‘‘SoftMoney Soars as Campaign Reform Falters.’’

As an unyielding supporter of campaign fi-nance reform, I am sickened by what the arti-cle goes on to discuss, ‘‘The soft money ex-plosion is a result of campaign officials find-ings innovative ways to channel the sup-posedly non-federal money into congressionalcampaigns. Campaign officials are boasting oftheir fundraising prowess: But this has reform-ers fearing that the growing stream of softmoney into Democratic and Republican con-gressional committees has turned into amighty river that threatens to flood the politicalsystem’s banks.’’

Soft money contributions are unlimited andthe congressional campaign committees in1997 set a soft money raising record of morethan $30 million. As campaign finance reformhas once again died in the Senate, and gaspsfor life in the House of Representatives, thefundraising machine gets more and more outof control.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is clear, there istoo much money involved in the campaigns.The influence of money has created the ap-pearance that special interests rule the demo-cratic process. People no longer believe theyhave a voice in their government. I urge youto schedule a vote on campaign finance re-form on the floor of the House of Representa-tives. We must act soon. The people of west-ern Wisconsin have told me to continue thefight until you agree to allow a vote. The peo-ple refuse to take ‘‘no’’ for an answer.f

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUTCONGRESS

HON. LEE H. HAMILTONOF INDIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like toinsert my Washington Report for Wednesday,March 4, 1998 into the CONGRESSIONALRECORD.

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT CONGRESS

One thing I have found over the years isthat people aren’t hesitant to tell me whatthey think about Congress. Many of thepublic’s comments and complaints are veryperceptive and right on the mark. People arequite right, for example, that Congress hasdifficulty thinking long-term and that ourcampaign financing system is a mess. Butoften what I hear shows an inadequate graspof what Congress does and how it works. Mis-conceptions about Congress can erode con-fidence in government and weaken civic in-volvement.

Some Examples: The criticisms of Con-gress are numerous.

Ethics standards: People will often saythat Congress’ ethics standards have de-clined and that large numbers of Membersare dishonest and corrupt. Certainly someMembers engage in improper conduct, yetmost experts on congress would say thatcongressional ethics has improved consider-

ably over the years. When I came to Con-gress, there was no House ethics committee,no written code of conduct, and no financialdisclosure requirements. Members could ac-cept lavish gifts form special interests andconvert campaign contributions to personaluse, and were rarely punished for personalcorruption. None of that would be toleratedtoday.

Special interest money. Americans hear allthe stories about the enormous amount offundraising Members must do today and be-lieve that Congress is a ‘‘bought’’ institu-tion. It is clear that the ‘‘money chase’’ hasgotten out of hand, and that we ignore thisproblem at our own peril. I would be the lastto say that contributions have no impact ona Member’s voting record. But there aremany influences that shape Members’ votingdecisions—including their assessment of thearguments, the opinions of experts, theirparty’s position, and, most importantly,what their constituents want. Membersknow that if they don’t vote the way theirconstituents want, they simply won’t be re-elected.

Impact of Congress: People will often saythat Congress’ actions have little or no im-pact on their daily lives, even as they receivetheir Social Security checks, drink safewater, drive on the interstates, attend col-lege through student loans, or use the Inter-net. Many aren’t aware of the overall spend-ing priorities of Congress, thinking thatmost federal spending goes to welfare, for-eign aid, or defense, when in fact the biggestchunk, by far, goes to programs for olderAmericans like Social Security and Medi-care. Such misconceptions can make na-tional policy debates all the more difficult.

Members out of touch: Most Americansfeel that Members don’t pay much attentionto what their constituents want. My experi-ence is that most Members are acutely awareof their constituents’ views. They are in con-stant contact with constituents and go togreat lengths to solicit their views. They re-turn home most weekends, and closely followlocal opinion through staff reports, pollingresults, and local news reporting. Indeed, thereverse contention may be closer to themark, that Members today pay almost toomuch time noticing every ‘‘blip’’ in the pub-lic opinion polls and thinking about whatwill play well in the next election ratherthan what would be good for the country.

Perks and pay: Many people complainabout Members always looking out for theirown perks and pay, enriching themselves atthe taxpayer’s expense. Almost daily some-one will contact my office upset that Mem-bers receive free medical care or don’t payincome taxes or contribute to Social Secu-rity—none of which is true. Suffice it to saythat Members are acutely aware that theirpay and benefits are highly sensitive politi-cally. Over the years Congress has elimi-nated many special benefits, and it shouldcontinue to do so. People are surprised tohear that since I’ve been in Congress, Mem-ber pay has not even kept up with inflation.My current pay is $20,000 less than if my 1965pay had been adjusted to inflation.

Slow, messy processes: People don’t likeCongress’ slow, messy, ponderous processes,which allow bills to be buried in committeeor stalled through lengthy floor debates. Wecertainly need to streamline the operationsof Congress, but we misunderstand the roleof Congress if we think it should be a modelof efficiency and quick action. The foundingfathers never intended it to be. They clearlyunderstood that one of the key roles of Con-gress is to slow down the process—to allowtempers to cool and to encourage delibera-tion, so that unwise or damaging laws arenot enacted in the heat of the moment.

Constant bickering: One of the most fre-quent complaints I hear about Congress is

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E293March 4, 1998that Members spend too much time arguingand bickering. There clearly has been toomuch partisan wrangling in recent years, butpeople often don’t understand that Congressis designed to allow contentious debates onthe major policy issues of the day. In a coun-try as large and remarkably diverse as ours,one of the key roles of Congress is to act asa sounding board for all the diverse groups inour society. Allowing all sides a chance to beheard as we try to reach a consensus on along list of difficult issues means that thedebate may at times be contentious, but italso helps to keep our country from comingapart at the seams.

Conclusion: Public misconceptions aboutCongress aren’t simply of interest to aca-demics. In our representative democracythey have a major impact on how well oursystem of government works. They lead topublic feelings of mistrust and alienation,and give rise to cynicism about governmentin general and Congress in particular. Re-storing confidence in government requiresboth improved performance by governmentand improved understanding of its role.

Congress is a complex, important, and fas-cinating institution, with both strengths andweaknesses. I am impressed almost dailywith the way it tackles difficult problemsand acts as a national forum in developing aconsensus. I am particularly impressed withthe role it has played in creating and main-taining a nation more free than any other.Ensuring that the American people have anaccurate understanding of Congress’ role innational governance and its strengths andweaknesses is one of our most importantchallenges in the years ahead. We need to getAmericans to think twice about the role ofCongress and its impact on their lives.

f

FOREST HEALTH IN COLORADO

HON. BOB SCHAFFEROF COLORADO

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr.Speaker, the health of the national forests inColorado and the economies of rural commu-nities are at risk from current national forestmanagement practices. Severe threats fromfire, insects and disease endanger the forestsand the health, happiness and well-being ofthe citizens of Colorado. While properly uti-lized timber harvests can effectively contributeto restoring the health of forests, timber pro-grams on the national forests have been al-most completely eliminated in Colorado.

Many scientists believe that Colorado hasmore, and older, trees now than at any timein recorded history. The health and capacity ofColorado’s forests is directly related to the vol-ume of timber harvested. Without proper man-agement, thinning or prescribed burns, timberinventory accumulates to the point wheregrowth is impeded, and stands become sus-ceptible to wildfires, beetle infestations anddisease. The proper harvests add valuableand essential resources to the economy whilereducing the potential for catastrophic fires byeliminating dangerously high levels of fuels.

Mr. Speaker, the motivation of the ForestService these days seems to be driven not bywhat is best for the forest, but by what groupprotests the loudest. Meanwhile, timber budg-ets and timber sales decline and administra-tive costs escalate. Directing funds away fromtimber budgets negates forest management

plans, undermines public input into the proc-ess, and harms the forest ecosystem. Suchimpediments to the Forest Service missionhave resulted in a de facto policy of reduceduse, increased risk of wildfires, and deteriorat-ing forest health.

Better national forest timber managementprograms are essential to the proper steward-ship of the National forests in Colorado and tothe health, condition and structure of the envi-ronment. Accordingly, I have urged my col-leagues in the Colorado delegation and theChief of the U.S. Forest Service to supportproper timber management tools to ensurebetter forest health in Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, the Colorado State Senate hasspent considerable time evaluating the impactof our National forests on the Colorado econ-omy. I hereby submit for the record the follow-ing Resolution adopted by the Colorado StateLegislature.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 97–26—,ADOPTEDBY THE COLORADO LEGISLATURE, 1997

CONCERNING THE SUPPORT OF PROPER TIMBERHARVESTING AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL TO EN-SURE BETTER FOREST HEALTH IN COLORADO.WHEREAS, The health of the national for-

ests in Colorado and the economies of ruralcommunities are at risk of current nationalforest management practices; and

WHEREAS, The threat of fire, insects, anddisease endangers the health, happiness, andwell-being of the citizens of Colorado; and

WHEREAS, Timber programs on nationalforests have been almost completely elimi-nated in Colorado; and

WHEREAS, The proper uses of timber har-vest as a management tool can effectivelycontribute to restoring the health of forests;and

WHEREAS, The proper use of timber har-vest as a management tool can help reducedangerously high levels of fuels resulting inthe potential of catastrophic fires; and

WHEREAS, Prescribed fires, used withoutthe complement of timber harvest, often de-stroy economically viable, renewable re-sources and violate air quality and visibilitystandards; and

WHEREAS, Better national forest timberprograms are essential for proper steward-ship of Colorado’s forests and improvementof the health, condition, and structure of thenatural environment; now, therefore.

Be it Resolved by the Senate of the Sixty-firstGeneral Assembly of the State of Colorado, theHouse of Representatives concurring herein;That we, the members of the General Assem-bly, respectfully urge that:

(1) The United States Forest Service Chiefand the Colorado Congressional delegationsupport proper timber harvesting as a man-agement tool to ensure better forest healthin Colorado;

(2) The Colorado Congressional delegationsupport the Rocky Mountain Regional For-ester’s strategy to reverse the decline of for-est management programs and to reach amore effective program level by the year2000; and

(3) The Colorado Congressional delegationsupport Congressional efforts to improve ef-ficiency, effectiveness, and accountability ofnational forest management,

Be it further resolved, That copies of thisresolution be transmitted to each member ofColorado’s Congressional delegation, theChief of the United States Forest Service,and the Rocky Mountain Regional Forester.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Colorado Sen-ate for adopting Senate Joint Resolution 97–26 in support of proper timber management toensure better forest health in our state. State

and local input into the management of ourpublic lands is essential to maintain a healthyforest and thriving economy. I fully supporttheir recommendations for better state andlocal involvement in the planning and imple-mentation of forest policies. This resolution,sponsored by Colorado State Senator DonAment, enjoys very strong support in Colo-rado. I thank Senator Ament, and his col-leagues for their efforts and dedication to thestate. I assure my former colleagues in theColorado General Assembly that I will do ev-erything in my power to improve efficiency, ef-fectiveness, and accountability in the manage-ment of our national forests.

In Congress my colleagues and I on theHouse Resources Committee and the Sub-committee on Forests and Forests Health areworking to ensure that the Forest Service andthe Administration hear Colorado’s messageloud and clear. On February 25th, the sub-committee held oversight hearings on the Ad-ministration’s roadless area moratorium.There, county commissioners, forestry expertsand Forest Service officials testified on theissue of access to our public lands for man-agement, resources and recreation. The For-est Service’s new ‘‘no access’’ policy, by con-servative estimates, will lock up at least 34million acres of public lands. Once again, thefederal government has proposed a one-size-fits-all solution in contravention of forest plan-ning practices that formerly relied on local par-ticipation and public input.

On March 26th, we will hold an extensivehearing before the House Resources, Budgetand Appropriations Committees into the oper-ations, budgeting and management of the For-est Service. There, with my colleagues, I in-tend to examine better management alter-natives and push for positive change. Propermanagement of our forests can provide habitatfor our wildlife as well as recreational and eco-nomic resources for our people.

Colorado Senate Joint Resolution 97–26serves as a proper basis for congressionaloversight. I commend the document to my col-leagues and urge their full attention to themeasure.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognizeColorado State Senators, Ken Arnold, JimCongrove, Dick Mutzebaugh, MaryanneTebedo, and Dave Wattenberg, who joinedSenator Don Ament in sponsoring and promot-ing Colorado Senate Joint Resolution 98–26.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.f

TRIBUTE TO JUDY MELLO

HON. NITA M. LOWEYOF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, we have allcome to accept that we now live in a globalsociety. One remarkable woman who recog-nized this fact long ago is Judy Mello. I wishto pay tribute to her today.

Since 1994, Judy has served as Presidentand CEO of World Learning, an organizationcommitted to helping develop the knowledge,skills, and attitudes needed to contribute effec-tively to international understanding and globaldevelopment. World Learning currently runsover 220 programs in 120 countries, providingdirect program services to more than 300,000

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE294 March 4, 1998individuals. World Learning runs a School forInternational Training and important culturalexchange programs.

Prior to her appointment at World Learning,Judy made her mark in the world of inter-national banking. She ran her own firm, J.H.Mello Company, which provided financial advi-sory services to clients, and subsequentlyserved as Managing Director of CambridgeInternational Partners, an investment bankingfirm in New York City. Formerly, she polishedher international credentials and leadershipskills at the International Division of Citibank,Marine Midland Bank, First Women’s Bank,New York, Lehman Brothers, and AmericanExpress.

Throughout her career, Judy has worked tohelp prepare America to compete in the globalmarketplace. The list of her commitments islong and distinguished: she served on theBoard of World Education; the Board of Direc-tors of the New York Business DevelopmentCorporation; the advisory board of the NitzeSchool of Advanced International Studies; theJohns Hopkins University Bologna Center; andthe Board of Overseers of the NYU GraduateSchool of Business Administration.

I am also extremely grateful for her effortsto foster the careers of aspiring women. Sheis a founding member and past director of theCommittee of 200, an organization of womenCEOs, and a founding member and co-chairof the Capital Circle, which mobilizes capitalfor women-run businesses. She is a memberof the Women’s Forum, and a past member ofthe Women’s Economic Round Table. Herdedication to the advancement of women inthe corporate world is paving the way for thewomen CEOs of today and tomorrow.

I am delighted that the National Associationof Breast Cancer Organizations will honorJudy Mello next week with their distinguished‘‘Celebrate Life Award’’ for exhibiting the will-ingness to take control of her life, and thecourage to determine her own destiny. I am soproud of her and I am hopeful her exampleserves as inspiration to all women—and allAmericans.f

SIXTH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHCELEBRATES 145TH ANNIVERSARY

HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTONOF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to paytribute to the Sixth Presbyterian Church on theoccasion of its 145th Anniversary of splendidspiritual and civic guidance.

Dr. Mason Noble came to the District of Co-lumbia from New York City in 1852. He can-vassed a neighborhood in southwest Washing-ton with the hope of starting a Presbyteriancongregation. The first few months, the groupmet in the home of William and AmandaThompson. On January 23, 1853 at a meetingin Island Hall Dr. Noble, with 32 people, votedto organize Sixth Presbyterian Church.

Land and a building were purchased atSixth and C Streets, SW and the congregationcelebrated its first Eucharist on February 14,1853. Dr. Noble served as pastor to the grow-ing congregation for twenty years which islonger than any of the eighteen pastors whofollowed in his foot steps. The congregation

worshiped in its first building for more than 65years. As the city expanded to the northwest,the members voted to move to Sixteenth andKennedy Streets, NW. The Chapel, now theChoir, Primary and Nursery rooms, was dedi-cated on Sunday, September 23, 1917. Theseventh pastor, Reverend Douglas P. Birnie,with the tireless efforts of the elders and trust-ees, guided the Church through the difficultperiod of World War I. Ground was broken forthe present sanctuary on January 2, 1929 dur-ing the Great Depression. The first worshipservice was held in the new sanctuary onThanksgiving Day, November 28, 1929. Thebuilding was dedicated on Sunday, March 9,1930. The eleventh pastor, The ReverendGodfrey Chobot, D.D. guided the membersthrough this building phase. Shortly after thededication, the Washington Board of Trade’sCommittee on Municipal Art awarded the con-gregation its Award in Architecture and ac-claimed the sanctuary as the finest example ofFrench Norman Architecture in the city. Thecarillonic bells were dedicated as Ground wasbroken for the third phase of the present edi-fice on February 8, 1952. The Earl FranklinFowler Memorial Hall or Fellowship Hall withchurch offices, classrooms and the ChurchParlor on the lower level was dedicated onJanuary 23, 1953—exactly one hundred yearsafter the church was organized. On November12, 1951, Dr. Fowler, the thirteenth pastor,died in the pulpit just before the realization ofhis and the congregation’s dream for the newbuilding.

Twenty-four years ago Pastor Donald D.M.Jones and a group of elders decided to openthe doors of this Church to all who wouldcome. The Church continues to grow as amulti-cultural congregation, with members fromthirteen countries, and celebrates this 145thAnniversary as a beacon of light in the na-tion’s capital.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this body join me incongratulating this remarkable institution onthe occasion of this anniversary knowing thatits future will be as bright as its past.f

CELEBRATING THE 100TH ANNI-VERSARY OF THE MEDICAL LI-BRARY ASSOCIATION

HON. JOHN EDWARD PORTEROF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I am verypleased to recognize the 100th anniversary ofthe Medical Library Association (MLA).Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, MLA wasfounded on May 2nd, 1898 by four librariansand four physicians to ‘‘encourage the im-provement and increase of public medical li-braries.’’

A century later, MLA has grown into a pro-fessional organization which represents morethan 1,200 institutions and 3,800 individualsinvolved in the management and dissemina-tion of biomedical information to support pa-tient care, education and research. Whetherworking in hospitals, academic health centers,or libraries, MLA members play a vital role inimproving the quality of health care throughoutthe nation.

Physicians have consistently reported posi-tive changes in their diagnosis, choice of tests

and drugs, length of hospital stays and advicegiven to patients as a result of information pro-vided by medical librarians. The ability of med-ical librarians to quickly maneuver through thewealth of health care information on the Inter-net, and to identify the most credible, relevantand appropriate sources of information foreach request has become a critical competentof today’s health care system.

In keeping with its commitment to improveand expand the health information profes-sions, MLA assists librarians in the exchangeof health sciences publications, offers continu-ing education seminars and scholarships, andcontinuously develops leadership programsdesigned to meet the needs of the medical li-brary community. In addition, MLA places ahigh priority on keeping its members up-to-date with respect to the latest breakthroughsin health care information technology.

As we celebrate MLA’s centennial anniver-sary, I believe it is also important to recognizethe longstanding partnership between MLAand the National Library of Medicine (NLM) atthe National Institutes of Health. As chairmanof the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor,Health and Human Services, and Education, Iam very familiar with the extraordinary workbeing done at the NLM to improve access tohealth care information. By using NLM’s state-of-the-art medical data bases and telemedi-cine project sites, medical librarians are ableto provide doctors and patients, often in un-derserved rural and urban areas, with themost current and accurate health-related infor-mation.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 21st Cen-tury, it is clear that the telecommunications ad-vances of the Information Age will continue torevolutionize the role that medical librariansplay in the delivery of health care in America.It is with an eye to the future, that I invite allMembers to join me in celebrating the past100 years of the Medical Library Associationduring their 1998 Centennial Celebration.f

CALEA IMPLEMENTATIONAMENDMENTS OF 1998

HON. BOB BARROF GEORGIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, today I am intro-

ducing a bill to amend and clarify portions ofthe Communications Assistance for Law En-forcement Act (CALEA), enacted into law onOctober 25, 1994 (PL 103–414). The imple-mentation of this legislation—intended by Con-gress to preserve the status quo of law en-forcement’s electronic surveillance authorityand to define the telecommunications indus-try’s duty to assist law enforcement in the digi-tal age—is seriously behind schedule.CALEA’s effective date is October 25, 1998and the assistance capability and capacity re-quirements set forth in the law will not beavailable.

The purpose of CALEA is to preserve thegovernment’s ability to conduct electronic sur-veillance in the face of changing communica-tions technology, to protect the privacy of cus-tomer communications, and to avoid impedingthe development of new telecommunicationsservices and technology. In CALEA, Congressplaced an affirmative requirement on tele-communications carriers to modify and design

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E295March 4, 1998their network equipment, facilities, and serv-ices to continue to permit law enforcement toconduct electronic surveillance in the face ofchanging network technology. This require-ment, however, is subject to certain specifiedconditions such as the reimbursement of theindustry’s cost of implementation of CALEAand the reasonable achievability of the pro-posed changes to carrier networks.

Congress intended that the FBI, which hasbeen delegated the responsibility of imple-menting CALEA on behalf of the AttorneyGeneral, have only a consultative role in theimplementation of CALEA. Congress also in-tended that the telecommunications industrydevelop the technical standards necessary topermit carriers to implement the neededchanges in their networks. The carriers are re-quired to permit law enforcement to continueto receive call content or call identifying infor-mation, pursuant to an appropriate court orderor other lawful authorization.

The FBI, however, has gone far beyond itsconsultative role in the implementation ofCALEA. The FBI has insisted that the indus-try’s technical standards include requirementsfor capabilities that go beyond the scope or in-tent of CALEA. The capabilities proposed tobe included by the FBI are costly, technicallydifficult to deploy or technically infeasible, andraise significant legal and privacy concerns.

The FBI is now threatening enforcement ac-tions and the denial of appropriate cost reim-bursement to the industry if its proposed capa-bilities are not deployed by the industry. Insum, these actions—the delays in theissuance of technical standards and the re-quired government notice of electronic surveil-lance capacity—have caused the implementa-tion of CALEA to be seriously behind sched-ule.

The bill I am introducing will merely clarifythe intent of Congress when it enacted CALEAalmost four years ago. It provides for defini-tions of terms necessary to clarify that Con-gress intended that the telecommunicationscarriers’ existing network technology be‘‘grandfathered’’ or deemed in compliance withCALEA, unless the costs of retrofitting suchtechnology are borne by the government. Fur-ther, my bill provides for the extension ofdates of compliance for the telecommuni-cations industry which recognize the reality ofthe delays that the industry has faced in itsimplementation of CALEA. My bill will not addany additional costs to the government overand above the $500 million originally author-ized in CALEA. However, the delays occa-sioned by the FBI could very well add to thegovernment’s costs of this important legislationin the future. I urge my colleagues to supportthis important legislation.f

THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERA-TION POLICY ACT OF 1998

HON. FORTNEY PETE STARKOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, with the end ofthe cold war and the break-up of the SovietUnion, nuclear nonproliferation efforts continueto be a priority for United States. Many eventshave taken place which have strengthened nu-clear nonproliferation efforts. The cornerstone

of international nuclear nonproliferation, theNuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), com-pleted its 25-year lifespan in 1995 and wasmade permanent. The former Soviet states,Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus have joinedthe NPT as non-weapons states and agreedto remove all nuclear materials from their terri-tories.

Although the international community hastaken positive steps toward nonproliferationgoals, new developments require scrutiny ofcurrent U.S. nonproliferation policy. Safety andsecurity of nuclear weapons and materials inthe former Soviet Union, the India-Pakistanarms race, North Korea’s violations of theNPT, continuing suspicions about Iran’s nu-clear activities, and the availability of weap-ons-usable materials and technologies areleading reasons for concern.

The breakup of the Soviet Union left an un-determined amount of nuclear materials scat-tered throughout the former Soviet territories.Large quantities of nuclear weapons, weaponsmaterials, and technology in the former SovietUnion are all potential proliferation problems.There are terrifying reports that nuclear mate-rials have been illegally stolen and transferredfrom Russia to rogue states. The sluggisheconomic conditions in Russia have provokedRussian nuclear and missile experts in accept-ing employment offers in rogue nations. AndRussia isn’t the only region of concern for theUnited States.

Since the end of the cold war, North Koreahas diverted plutonium to a secret bomb pro-gram, threatened to withdraw from the NPTand blocked inspections. North Korea currentlyhas enough plutonium to build one or twobombs, but refuses to disclose the extent of itsnuclear activities. Neither India nor Pakistanare a party to the Nuclear NonproliferationTreaty—nor have they signed the Comprehen-sive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Pakistan hasacknowledged the capability to build at leastone nuclear reactor while some experts be-lieve it has enough enriched uranium for 10–15 weapons. Both India and Pakistan havecombat aircraft that, with modifications, wouldbe capable of delivering nuclear weapons. TheU.S. continues to suspect Iran of using its ci-vilian nuclear program as a pretense to estab-lish the technical basis for a nuclear weaponsoption.

Today, I am introducing legislation that willset forth a blueprint for accomplishing criticalnonproliferation objectives. The bill, the Nu-clear Non-Proliferation Policy Act of 1998, es-tablishes fourteen policy goals for the UnitedStates to pursue on nuclear arms control andnonproliferation. The arms control objectivesare less important now for their own sake thanfor preventing nonproliferation. A comprehen-sive test ban, a global ban on the productionof fissile material, verified dismantlement ofUnited States and Russian nuclear weaponsare measures that will help build internationalsupport for tough nonproliferation agreements,could cap the nuclear weapons programs ofthe threshold nuclear weapons states, andcould reduce the chances of future theft or di-version of nuclear material from the formerSoviet Union.

Additionally, the United States must con-tinue to support the International Atomic En-ergy Agency (IAEA) nonproliferation safe-guards, tighten nuclear export controls in theUnited States and elsewhere, and increasethe role of the U.N. Security council in enforc-

ing international nonproliferation agreements.As we have recently experienced, thesemeasures will help prevent terrorist leaderslike Saddam Hussein from building a secretnuclear weapons program.

Finally, the United States must make it clearthat it will make no first use of nuclear weap-ons, that our nuclear weapons will only beused to deter nuclear attack. We should seekto have the other permanent members of theUN Security Council—who are also the othernuclear weapons states—adopt such a ‘nofirst use‘ policy and to pledge to assist anycountry which is party to the NPT and againstwhich first-use of nuclear weapons is made.These positive and negative security assur-ances can help build crucial support amongdeveloping nations to sign onto the NPT. Onethe other hand, if the United States begins tar-geting third world countries with nuclear weap-ons, as some in the Pentagon might propose,it would give added rationale for those coun-tries to build their own nuclear deterrents.

Now, more than ever, the United Statesmust set a firm standard in the nonproliferationarena. U.S. credibility and leadership in non-proliferation suffers when Washington subordi-nates nonproliferation to economic or otherpolitical considerations. None of the objectivesin this bill will, on its own, stop proliferation.But by adopting a comprehensive nonprolifera-tion policy, the United States can accomplishits overall goal of ending the further spread ofnuclear weapons capability, rolling back pro-liferation where it has occurred, and prevent-ing the use of nuclear weapons anywhere inthe world.f

U.S. FOREIGN MILITARY SALESDURING FISCAL YEAR 1997

HON. LEE H. HAMILTONOF INDIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like tobring to my colleagues’ attention informationsubmitted pursuant to the Arms Export ControlAct with respect to U.S. foreign military salesduring Fiscal Year 1997.

The first table details worldwide govern-ment-to-government foreign military sales[FMS] during fiscal year 1997 for defense arti-cles and services and for construction sales.Total FMS sales for fiscal year 1997 totaled$8.809 billion. This is a decrease from$10.469 billion in fiscal year 1996.

The second table details licenses/approvalsfor the export of commercially sold defense ar-ticles and services for fiscal year 1997. Li-censes/approvals totaled $11.013 billion, a de-crease from $14.558 billion in fiscal year 1996.

The tables follow:

TOTAL VALUE OF DEFENSE ARTICLES AND SERVICES SOLDTO EACH COUNTRY/PURCHASER AS OF SEPTEMBER 30,1997 UNDER FOREIGN MILITARY SALES

[Dollars in thousands] 1

Countries Accepted—Fy 1997

Foreign military salesAlbania ....................................................................................... $759Antigua & Barbuda .................................................................... 262Argentina .................................................................................... 18,981Australia ..................................................................................... 287,524Austria ........................................................................................ 27,187Bahamas .................................................................................... 51

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE296 March 4, 1998TOTAL VALUE OF DEFENSE ARTICLES AND SERVICES SOLD

TO EACH COUNTRY/PURCHASER AS OF SEPTEMBER 30,1997 UNDER FOREIGN MILITARY SALES—Continued

[Dollars in thousands] 1

Countries Accepted—Fy 1997

Bahrain ....................................................................................... 54,049Bangladesh ................................................................................ 1,592Barbados .................................................................................... 139Belgium ...................................................................................... 122,049Belize .......................................................................................... 327Bolivia ........................................................................................ 3Bolivia—Intl Narc ...................................................................... 8,638Bosnia-Hercegovina .................................................................... 2,103Botswana .................................................................................... 439Brazil .......................................................................................... 24,962Brunei ......................................................................................... 69Bulgaria ...................................................................................... 4,332Cambodia ................................................................................... 1,246Canada ....................................................................................... 103,253Chad ........................................................................................... 36Chile ........................................................................................... 2,322Colombia .................................................................................... 74,487Costa Rica .................................................................................. 175Czech Republic ........................................................................... 2,268Denmark ..................................................................................... 32,558Dominican Republic ................................................................... 187Ecuador ...................................................................................... 4,158Eduador—Intl Narc .................................................................... 1,812Egypt .......................................................................................... 1,065,593El Salvador ................................................................................. 4,869Eriterea ....................................................................................... 1,934Estonia ....................................................................................... 999Ethiopia ...................................................................................... 1,120Finland ....................................................................................... 291France ......................................................................................... 102,163Germany ..................................................................................... 325,754Greece ......................................................................................... 224,467Grenada ...................................................................................... 353Guinea-Bissau ............................................................................ 121Guyana ....................................................................................... 70Haiti ............................................................................................ 877Honduras .................................................................................... 910Hungary ...................................................................................... 6,905India ........................................................................................... 299Indonesia .................................................................................... 793Israel .......................................................................................... 524,988Italy ............................................................................................ 41,194Ivory Coast ................................................................................. 187Jamaica ...................................................................................... 50Japan .......................................................................................... 346,758Jordan ......................................................................................... 18,253Kenya .......................................................................................... 779Korea (Seoul) .............................................................................. 853,987Kuwait ........................................................................................ 48,116Laos ............................................................................................ 1,070Latvia ......................................................................................... 1,417Lebanon ...................................................................................... 21,960Lithuania .................................................................................... 1,175Luxembourg ................................................................................ 4,326Macedonia (Fyrom) ..................................................................... 2,057Malaysia ..................................................................................... 11,481Mexico ......................................................................................... 27,663Morocco ...................................................................................... 3,466Nacisa ........................................................................................ 602Namibia ...................................................................................... 286Namsa-General + Nike .............................................................. 7,358Namsa-Hawk .............................................................................. 1,956Namsa-Weapons ......................................................................... 4,438Napmo ........................................................................................ 2,184Nato ............................................................................................ 1,839Nato AEW+C (O+S) .................................................................... 38,299Nato EFA (NEFMA) ...................................................................... 1,505Netherlands ................................................................................ 225,314New Zealand .............................................................................. 24,271NHPLO ......................................................................................... 200Norway ........................................................................................ 64,494OAS HQ ....................................................................................... 601Oman .......................................................................................... 11,541Org of African Unity ................................................................... 250Pakistan ..................................................................................... 101Paraguay .................................................................................... 31Peru ............................................................................................ 285Peru—Intl Narc .......................................................................... 100Poland ........................................................................................ 4,893Portugal ...................................................................................... 19,241Rep of Philippines ...................................................................... 20,055Romania ..................................................................................... 331Saudi Arabia .............................................................................. 742,372Senegal ....................................................................................... 1,965Seychelles ................................................................................... 62Shape ......................................................................................... 2,100Singapore ................................................................................... 192,230Slovakia ...................................................................................... 2,003Slovenia ...................................................................................... 216South Africa ............................................................................... 154Spain .......................................................................................... 828,768Sri Lanka .................................................................................... 74St. Kitts and Nevis ..................................................................... 187St. Vincent + Gren. .................................................................... 66Sweden ....................................................................................... 6,194Switzerland ................................................................................. 13,413Taiwan ........................................................................................ 353,737Thailand ..................................................................................... 187,413Trinidad—Tobago ...................................................................... 185Tunisia ........................................................................................ 15,235Turkey ......................................................................................... 339,597Uganda ....................................................................................... 3,872UNDHA ........................................................................................ 945

TOTAL VALUE OF DEFENSE ARTICLES AND SERVICES SOLDTO EACH COUNTRY/PURCHASER AS OF SEPTEMBER 30,1997 UNDER FOREIGN MILITARY SALES—Continued

[Dollars in thousands] 1

Countries Accepted—Fy 1997

United Arab Emirates ................................................................. 5,586United Kingdom .......................................................................... 558,949Uruguay ...................................................................................... 1,078Venezuela ................................................................................... 59,421Zimbabwe ................................................................................... 91

Classified totals2 .............................................................. 609,749Subtotal ........................................................................ 8,778,248

Construction salesBolivia—Intl Narc ...................................................................... $485Cambodia ................................................................................... 49Colombia .................................................................................... 500Egypt .......................................................................................... 21,356El Salvador ................................................................................. 1,834Eritrea ......................................................................................... 544Ethiopia ...................................................................................... 388Germany ..................................................................................... 1,405Morocco ...................................................................................... 3,476

Singapore ................................................................................... 266

Subtotal ........................................................................ 30,303Total ......................................................................... 8,808,551

1 Totals may not add due to rounding.2 See the classified annex to the CPD.

LICENSES/APPROVALS FOR THE EXPORT OF COMMER-CIALLY SOLD DEFENSE ARTICLES/SERVICES SEPTEMBER30, 1997

[Dollars in thousands]

Countries Cumulative

Algeria ........................................................................................ $57,938Andorra ....................................................................................... 39Angola ........................................................................................ 11,618Antigua ....................................................................................... 1Argentina .................................................................................... 198,780Aruba .......................................................................................... 62Australia ..................................................................................... 416,030Austria ........................................................................................ 36,413Azerbaijan ................................................................................... 6The Bahamas ............................................................................. 9Bahrain ....................................................................................... 8,917Bangladesh ................................................................................ 2,568Barbados .................................................................................... 96Belarus ....................................................................................... 12Belgium ...................................................................................... 131,132Belize .......................................................................................... 95Bermuda ..................................................................................... 68Bolivia ........................................................................................ 1,666Bosnia Herzegovina .................................................................... 32,714Botswana .................................................................................... 3,013Brazil .......................................................................................... 191,334British Virgin Islands ................................................................. 4Brunei ......................................................................................... 21,076Bulgaria ...................................................................................... 459Burkina Faso .............................................................................. 2Cambodia ................................................................................... 29Canada ....................................................................................... 8,649Cayman Islands ......................................................................... 7Chad ........................................................................................... 2Chile ........................................................................................... 32,564China .......................................................................................... 2,068Colombia .................................................................................... 39,077Costa Rica .................................................................................. 1,653Cote D’Ivoire ............................................................................... 67Croatia ........................................................................................ 121Cyprus ........................................................................................ 5Czech Republic ........................................................................... 6,378Denmark ..................................................................................... 83,987Dominican Republic ................................................................... 7,319Ecuador ...................................................................................... 7,540Egypt .......................................................................................... 82,210El Salvador ................................................................................. 8,244Eritrea ......................................................................................... 900Estonia ....................................................................................... 15Finland ....................................................................................... 106,389France ......................................................................................... 180,906French Guiana ............................................................................ 5,538French Polynesia ........................................................................ 2Gabon ......................................................................................... 23Georgia ....................................................................................... 3Germany ..................................................................................... 511,772Ghana ......................................................................................... 4,383Greece ......................................................................................... 36,270Greenland ................................................................................... 23Grenada ...................................................................................... 68Guatemala .................................................................................. 2,211Guinea-Bissau ............................................................................ 2Guyana ....................................................................................... 108Haiti ............................................................................................ 61Honduras .................................................................................... 3,696Hong Kong .................................................................................. 2,147Hungary ...................................................................................... 474Iceland ........................................................................................ 4,788

LICENSES/APPROVALS FOR THE EXPORT OF COMMER-CIALLY SOLD DEFENSE ARTICLES/SERVICES SEPTEMBER30, 1997—Continued

[Dollars in thousands]

Countries Cumulative

India ........................................................................................... 29,867Indonesia .................................................................................... 66,190Ireland ........................................................................................ 9,163Israel .......................................................................................... 714,187Italy ............................................................................................ 172,344Jamaica ...................................................................................... 335Japan .......................................................................................... 2,121,893Jordan ......................................................................................... 4,293Kazakhstan ................................................................................. 3,286Kenya .......................................................................................... 617Kiribati ........................................................................................ 1,516Republic of Korea ....................................................................... 423,749Kuwait ........................................................................................ 14,972Kyrgyzstan .................................................................................. 9Laos ............................................................................................ 650Latvia ......................................................................................... 9Lebanon ...................................................................................... 825Liechtenstein .............................................................................. 2Lithuania .................................................................................... 400Luxembourg ................................................................................ 5,190Macau ......................................................................................... 77Macedonia .................................................................................. 263Malaysia ..................................................................................... 90,922Mali ............................................................................................ 1Malta .......................................................................................... 1Mauritius .................................................................................... 59Mexico ......................................................................................... 22,153Monaco ....................................................................................... 21Mongolia ..................................................................................... 6Montserrat .................................................................................. 3Morocco ...................................................................................... 15,798Namibia ...................................................................................... 298Nepal .......................................................................................... 4,140Netherlands ................................................................................ 350,197Netherlands Antilles ................................................................... 136New Caledonia ........................................................................... 93,528New Zealand .............................................................................. 107,675Nicaragua ................................................................................... 80Niger ........................................................................................... 1Norway ........................................................................................ 141,653Oman .......................................................................................... 2,528Pakistan ..................................................................................... 53,046Panama ...................................................................................... 11,941Papua New Guinea ..................................................................... 421Paraguay .................................................................................... 42Peru ............................................................................................ 5,367Philippines .................................................................................. 72,219Poland ........................................................................................ 2,188Portugal ...................................................................................... 47,569Qatar .......................................................................................... 3,081Reunion ...................................................................................... 20Romania ..................................................................................... 43,125Russia ........................................................................................ 23,809Saudi Arabia .............................................................................. 115,583Seychelles ................................................................................... 11Singapore ................................................................................... 163,713Slovakia ...................................................................................... 2,149Slovenia ...................................................................................... 2,603Solomon Islands ......................................................................... 760South Africa ............................................................................... 10,865Spain .......................................................................................... 202,297Sri Lanka .................................................................................... 2,210St. Kitts & Nevis-Angu ............................................................... 5St. Lucia ..................................................................................... 44St. Vincent & Genadines ............................................................ 4Suriname .................................................................................... 139Sweden ....................................................................................... 396,139Switzerland ................................................................................. 173,103Taiwan 1 ...................................................................................... 261,098Tanzania, United Republic ......................................................... 597Thailand ..................................................................................... 122,172Trinidad & Tobago ..................................................................... 809Tunisia ........................................................................................ 2,038Turkey ......................................................................................... 257,150Turks & Caicos Islands .............................................................. 1Uganda ....................................................................................... 4Ukraine ....................................................................................... 77United Arab Emirates ................................................................. 17,409United Kingdom .......................................................................... 1,193,778United Nations ........................................................................... 82Uruguay ...................................................................................... 14,723Uzbekistan .................................................................................. 6Various Countries ....................................................................... 72,368Venezuela ................................................................................... 342,929Vietnam ...................................................................................... 5Yemen ......................................................................................... 5,159Zambia ....................................................................................... 808

Zimbabwe ................................................................................... 122

Classified totals 2 ......................................................... 736,042Worldwide total ........................................................ 11,012,618

1 Taiwan first quarter modified due to error found in calculations used togenerate data.

2 See classified annex to CPD.Note.—Details may not add due to rounding. This information was pre-

pared and submitted by the Office of Defense Trade Controls, State Depart-ment.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E297March 4, 1998SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Title IV of Senate Resolution 4,agreed to by the Senate on February 4,1977, calls for establishment of a sys-tem for a computerized schedule of allmeetings and hearings of Senate com-mittees, subcommittees, joint commit-tees, and committees of conference.This title requires all such committeesto notify the Office of the Senate DailyDigest—designated by the Rules Com-mittee—of the time, place, and purposeof the meetings, when scheduled, andany cancellations or changes in themeetings as they occur.

As an additional procedure alongwith the computerization of this infor-mation, the Office of the Senate DailyDigest will prepare this information forprinting in the Extensions of Remarkssection of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORDon Monday and Wednesday of eachweek.

Meetings scheduled for Thursday,March 5, 1998, may be found in theDaily Digest of today’s RECORD.

MEETINGS SCHEDULED

MARCH 6

9:30 a.m.Appropriations

To hold hearings on proposed legislationmaking supplemental appropriationsfor Bosnia and Iraq.

SD–106Judiciary

To hold hearings on civil liability provi-sions of S. 1530, to resolve ongoing to-bacco litigation, to reform the civiljustice system responsible for adju-dicating tort claims against companiesthat manufacture tobacco products,and establish a national tobacco policyfor the United States that will decreaseyouth tobacco use and reduce the mar-keting of tobacco products to youngAmericans (pending on Senate cal-endar).

SD–226

MARCH 9

1:00 p.m.Governmental AffairsOversight of Government Management, Re-

structuring and the District of Colum-bia Subcommittee

To hold hearings to examine the currentoperation of the District of Columbiapublic school system.

SD–342Special on Aging

To hold hearings to examine how retire-ment of the baby boomer generationwill impact the demand for long-termcare, the ability of public budgets toprovide those services, and the pro-jected retirement income of babyboomers.

SD–5622:00 p.m.

JudiciaryYouth Violence Subcommittee

To hold hearings to examine the pro-posed effectiveness of the provisions ofS. 10, to reduce violent juvenile crime,promote accountability by juvenilecriminals, and punish and deter violentgang crime (pending on Senate cal-endar).

SD–226

MARCH 10

9:00 a.m.Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

To hold hearings to examine the currentFederal crop insurance program andproposals to improve the system.

SR–332AppropriationsMilitary Construction Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for militaryconstruction programs, focusing on AirForce and Navy projects.

SD–1249:30 a.m.

Commerce, Science, and TransportationTo hold hearings on the nominations of

Orson Swindle, of Hawaii, and MozelleWillmont Thompson, of New York,each to be a Federal Trade Commis-sioner, Robert J. Shapiro, of the Dis-trict of Columbia, to be Under Sec-retary of Commerce for Economic Af-fairs, John Charles Horsley, of Wash-ington, to be Associate Deputy Sec-retary of Transportation, and ChristyCarpenter, of California, to be a Mem-ber of the Board of Directors of theCorporation for Public Broadcasting.

SR–25310:00 a.m.

AppropriationsAgriculture, Rural Development, and Re-

lated Agencies SubcommitteeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for the Foodand Nutrition Service, Department ofAgriculture.

SD–138AppropriationsCommerce, Justice, State, and the Judici-

ary SubcommitteeTo hold hearings to examine proposals to

prevent child exploitation.SD–192

Armed ServicesSeaPower Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed legislationauthorizing funds for fiscal year 1999for the Department of Defense and thefuture years defense program, focusingon littoral warfare missions in the 21stcentury.

SR–222Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

To resume hearings on S. 1405, to providefor improved monetary policy and reg-ulatory reform in financial institutionmanagement and activities, to stream-line financial regulatory agency ac-tion, and to provide for improved con-sumer credit disclosure.

SD–538Foreign Relations

To hold hearings to examine the plight ofthe Montagnards.

SD–419Governmental Affairs

Business meeting, to mark up S. 981, toprovide for analysis of major rules, andS. 1364, to eliminate unnecessary andwasteful Federal reports.

SD–342Judiciary

To hold hearings on the United StatesMarshals Service, focusing on the se-lection process for the 21st century.

SD–226Labor and Human Resources

Business meeting, to mark up S. 1648, toprovide for reductions in youth smok-ing, for advancements in tobacco-relat-ed research, and the development ofsafer tobacco products, and to considerpending nominations.

SD–430

2:00 p.m.AppropriationsEnergy and Water Development Sub-

committeeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for the De-partment of Energy, focusing on re-search and efficiency programs.

SD–116

MARCH 119:00 a.m.

Armed ServicesReadiness Subcommittee

To resume hearings on proposed legisla-tion authorizing funds for fiscal year1999 for the Department of Defense andthe future years defense program, fo-cusing on environmental and militarycontruction programs.

SR–232A9:30 a.m.

Energy and Natural ResourcesBusiness meeting, to consider pending

calendar business.SD–366

Indian AffairsBusiness meeting, to mark up those pro-

visions which fall within the commit-tee’s jurisdiction as contained in thePresident’s proposed budget for fiscalyear 1999 with a view towards makingits recommendations to the Committeeon the Budget; to be followed by anoversight hearing on sovereign immu-nity, focusing on contracts involvingIndian tribes and alleged difficulties incollecting State retail taxes.

SH–21610:00 a.m.

AppropriationsDefense Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for the De-partment of Defense, focusing on Navyand Marine Corps programs.

SD–192Judiciary

To hold an additional hearing on thenomination of Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson, to be United States DisrictJudge for the Eastern District of Penn-sylvania (reported by Committee).

SD–2262:00 p.m.

Armed ServicesPersonnel Subcommittee

To resume hearings on proposed legisla-tion authorizing funds for fiscal year1999 for the Department of Defense andthe future years defense program, fo-cusing on the defense health program.

SR–222JudiciaryAdministrative Oversight and the Courts

SubcommitteeTo hold hearings on S. 1301, to provide

for consumer bankruptcy protection.SD–226

2:30 p.m.Armed ServicesStrategic Forces Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed legislationauthorizing funds for fiscal year 1999for the Department of Defense and thefuture years defense program, focusingon U.S. national security space pro-grams and policies.

SR–232A

MARCH 12

9:00 a.m.Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

To hold hearings on proposed legislationauthorizing funds for child nutritionprograms.

SR–332

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE298 March 4, 19989:30 a.m.

AppropriationsVA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Sub-

committeeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for the De-partment of Housing and Urban Devel-opment, and the Community Develop-ment Financial Institute.

SD–138AppropriationsLegislative Branch Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for theJoint Committee on Printing, theJoint Economic Committee, the JointCommittee on Taxation, the Sergeantat Arms, the Library of Congress andthe Congressional Research Service,and the Office of Compliance.

SD–116AppropriationsTreasury, Postal Service, and General Gov-

ernment SubcommitteeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for theTreasury Department.

SD–192Armed ServicesAcquisition and Technology Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed legislationauthorizing funds for fiscal year 1999for the Department of Defense and thefuture years defense program, focusingon science and technology programs.

SR–222Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Business meeting, to mark up proposedlegislation relating to the proposed set-tlement between State Attorneys Gen-eral and tobacco companies to mandatea total reformation and restructuringof how tobacco products are manufac-tured, marketed, and distributed inAmerica, and to consider other pendingcalendar business.

SR–253Labor and Human ResourcesPublic Health and Safety Subcommittee

To hold hearings to assess the qualityand technology of the Agency forHealth Care Policy and Research.

SD–43010:00 a.m.

AppropriationsCommerce, Justice, State, and the Judici-

ary SubcommitteeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for the Su-preme Court, and the Judiciary.

S–146, CapitolJudiciary

Business meeting, to consider pendingcalendar business.

SD–2262:00 p.m.

JudiciaryTo resume hearings on provisions of S.

1530, to resolve ongoing tobacco litiga-tion, to reform the civil justice systemresponsible for adjudicating tortclaims against companies that manu-facture tobacco products, and establisha national tobacco policy for theUnited States that will decrease youthtobacco use and reduce the marketingof tobacco products to young Ameri-cans, focusing on children’s health andstopping children from smoking (pend-ing on Senate calendar).

SD–2262:30 p.m.

Commerce, Science, and TransportationOceans and Fisheries Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed legislationauthorizing funds for fiscal year 1999for programs of the U.S. Coast Guard.

SR–253

MARCH 16

1:00 p.m.Special on Aging

To hold hearings to examine the lendingpractices of the subprime lending mar-ket, focusing on how senior citizens aretargeted by unscrupulous lenders.

SD–628

MARCH 17

9:00 a.m.Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

To resume hearings on proposed legisla-tion authorizing funds for child nutri-tion programs, focusing on the Women,Infants, and Children (WIC) program.

SR–3329:30 a.m.

AppropriationsEnergy and Water Development Sub-

committeeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for the De-partment of Energy’s enivronmentalmanagement program.

SD–11610:00 a.m.

AppropriationsAgriculture, Rural Development, and Re-

lated Agencies SubcommitteeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for the FoodSafety and Inspection Service, Animaland Plant Health Inspection Service,Agriculture Marketing Service, and theGrain Inspection, Packers and Stock-yards Administration, all of the De-partment of Agriculture.

SD–138AppropriationsCommerce, Justice, State, and the Judici-

ary SubcommitteeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for theUnited Nations.

S–146, CapitolJudiciaryAdministrative Oversight and the Courts

SubcommitteeTo hold hearings to examine privacy

issues in the digital age, focusing onencryption and mandatory access.

SD–226Labor and Human Resources

To hold hearings to examine retirementsecurity issues.

SD–43010:30 a.m.

AppropriationsForeign Operations Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for foreignassistance programs, focusing on inter-national narcotics.

SD–1242:30 p.m.

Armed ServicesSeaPower Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed legislationauthorizing funds for fiscal year 1999for the Department of Defense and thefuture years defense program, focusingon ship acquisition.

SR–222JudiciaryTechnology, Terrorism, and Government

Information SubcommitteeTo hold hearings to review policy direc-

tives for protecting America’s criticalinfrastructures.

SD–226

MARCH 18

9:30 a.m.AppropriationsLabor, Health and Human Services, and

Education SubcommitteeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for the De-partment of Labor.

SD–138Labor and Human Resources

Business meeting, to consider pendingcalendar business.

SD–430Small Business

To hold hearings on the President’s pro-posed budget request for fiscal year1999 for the Small Business Adminis-tration.

SR–428AVeterans’ Affairs

To hold joint hearings with the HouseCommittee on Veterans Affairs to re-view the legislative recommendationsof the Disabled American Veterans.

345 Cannon BuildingIndian Affairs

Business meeting, to mark up proposedlegislation with regard to Indians inthe proposed tobacco settlement; to befollowed by an oversight hearing on theimplementation of the Indian Arts andCrafts Act (P.L. 101-644), focusing onthe Arts and Board activities, resourceneeds, and mission.

SR–48510:00 a.m.

AppropriationsDefense Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for the De-partment of Defense, focusing on Na-tional Guard programs.

SD–1922:00 p.m.

Governmental AffairsInternational Security, Proliferation and

Federal Services SubcommitteeTo hold hearings to examine nuclear

nonproliferation and the Comprehen-sive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (TreatyDoc. 105-28).

SD–342

MARCH 19

9:30 a.m.AppropriationsVA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Sub-

committeeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for the De-partment of Veterans Affairs, andcemeterial expenses for the Army.

SD–138AppropriationsLegislative Branch Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for the Ar-chitect of the Capitol, the General Ac-counting Office, and the GovernmentPrinting Office.

S–128, Capitol10:00 a.m.

AppropriationsCommerce, Justice, State, and the Judici-

ary SubcommitteeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for the Federal Communica-tions Commission, and the Securitiesand Exchange Commission.

S–146, CapitolAppropriationsTransportation Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for the De-partment of Transportation.

SD–124

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E299March 4, 1998Labor and Human Resources

To hold oversight hearings on the imple-mentation of the Health InsurancePortability and Accountability Act.

SD–4302:00 p.m.

JudiciaryAntitrust, Business Rights, and Competi-

tion SubcommitteeTo hold hearings to examine inter-

national aviation agreements and anti-trust immunity implications.

SD–226

MARCH 24

9:30 a.m.AppropriationsEnergy and Water Development Sub-

committeeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for the Corpof Engineers, and the Bureau of Rec-lamation, Department of the Interior.

SD–11610:00 a.m.

AppropriationsAgriculture, Rural Development, and Re-

lated Agencies SubcommitteeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for theFarm Service Agency, Foreign Agricul-tural Service, and the Risk Manage-ment Agency, all of the Department ofAgriculture.

SD–138AppropriationsTransportation Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for AM-TRAK, focusing on the future of AM-TRAK.

SD–192Labor and Human Resources

To hold hearings to examine health carequality issues.

SD–43010:30 a.m.

AppropriationsForeign Operations Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for foreignassistance programs, focusing on infec-tious diseases.

SD–124

MARCH 25

9:30 a.m.Veterans’ Affairs

To hold joint hearings with the HouseCommittee on Veterans Affairs to re-view the legislative recommendationsof AMVETS, the American Ex-Pris-oners of War, the Vietnam Veterans ofAmerica, and the Retired Officers Asso-ciation.

345 Cannon BuildingIndian Affairs

To hold hearings to examine Indian gam-ing issues.

SH–21610:00 a.m.

AppropriationsDefense Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for the De-partment of Defense, focusing on Armyprograms.

SD–192

MARCH 26

9:30 a.m.AppropriationsLabor, Health and Human Services, and

Education SubcommitteeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for the De-

partment of Health and Human Serv-ices.

SD–138AppropriationsTreasury, Postal Service, and General Gov-

ernment SubcommitteeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for the Of-fice of National Drug Control Policy.

SD–192Labor and Human ResourcesChildren and Families Subcommittee

To hold hearings on the Head Start edu-cation program.

SD–430

MARCH 31

9:30 a.m.Energy and Natural Resources

To hold hearings on S. 1100, to amend theCovenant to Establish a Common-wealth of the Northern Mariana Islandsin Political Union with the UnitedStates of America, the legislation ap-proving such covenant, and S. 1275, toimplement further the Act (Public Law94-241) approving the Covenant to Es-tablish a Commonwealth of the North-ern Mariana Islands in Political Unionwith the United States of America.

SD–36610:00 a.m.

AppropriationsAgriculture, Rural Development, and Re-

lated Agencies SubcommitteeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for theCommodity Futures Trading Commis-sion and the Food and Drug Adminis-tration.

SD–138AppropriationsCommerce, Justice, State, and the Judici-

ary SubcommitteeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for the De-partment of Justice’s counterterrorismprograms.

SD–192Labor and Human Resources

To hold hearings to examine issues relat-ing to charter schools.

SD–43010:30 a.m.

AppropriationsForeign Operations Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for foreignassistance programs, focusing on theCaspian energy program.

SD–1242:30 p.m.

Energy and Natural ResourcesWater and Power Subcommittee

To hold hearings on S. 1515, to amendPublic Law 89-108 to increase author-ization levels for State and Indian trib-al, municipal, rural, and industrialwater supplies, to meet current and fu-ture water quantity and quality needsof the Red River Valley, to deauthorizecertain project features and irrigationservice areas, and to enhance naturalresources and fish and wildlife habitat.

SD–366

APRIL 1

9:30 a.m.Indian Affairs

To hold oversight hearings on barriers tocredit and lending in Indian country.

SR–485

10:00 a.m.AppropriationsDefense Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for Depart-ment of Defense medical programs.

SD–192JudiciaryAntitrust, Business Rights, and Competi-

tion SubcommitteeTo hold hearings to examine competition

and concentration in the cable andvideo markets.

SD–2262:30 p.m.

JudiciaryImmigration Subcommittee

Business meeting, to consider pendingcalendar business.

SD–226

APRIL 2

9:00 a.m.Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

To hold hearings on S. 1323, to regulateconcentrated animal feeding oper-ations for the protection of the envi-ronment and public health.

SR–3329:30 a.m.

AppropriationsLabor, Health and Human Services, and

Education SubcommitteeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for the Na-tional Institutes of Health, Depart-ment of Health and Human Services.

SD–13810:00 a.m.

AppropriationsTransportation Subcommittee

To hold hearings to examine airlineticketing practices.

SD–124

APRIL 21

10:30 a.m.AppropriationsForeign Operations Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for foreignassistance, focusing on crime pro-grams.

Room to be announced

APRIL 22

9:30 a.m.Indian Affairs

To hold oversight hearings on Title Vamendments to the Indian Self-Deter-mination and Education AssistanceAct of 1975.

SR–48510:00 a.m.

AppropriationsDefense Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for the De-partment of Defense, focusing on theBallistic Missile Defense program.

SD–192

APRIL 23

9:30 a.m.AppropriationsEnergy and Water Development Sub-

committeeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for the Na-tional Aeronautics and Space Adminis-tration.

SD–138

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE300 March 4, 1998APRIL 28

10:30 a.m.AppropriationsForeign Operations Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for foreign assistance pro-grams, focusing on Bosnia.

Room to be announced

APRIL 29

9:30 a.m.Indian Affairs

To resume hearings to examine Indiangaming issues.

Room to be announced10:00 a.m.

AppropriationsDefense Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for the De-partment of Defense, focusing on Bos-nian assistance.

SD–192

APRIL 30

9:30 a.m.AppropriationsVA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Sub-

committeeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for theEnvrionmental Protection Agency, andthe Council on Environmental Quality.

SD–138

MAY 5

10:30 a.m.AppropriationsForeign Operations Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for foreignassistance programs.

Room to be announced

MAY 6

10:00 a.m.AppropriationsDefense Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for the De-partment of Defense, focusing on theU.S. Pacific Command.

SD–192

MAY 7

9:30 a.m.AppropriationsEnergy and Water Development Sub-

committeeTo hold hearings on proposed budget es-

timates for fiscal year 1999 for the Na-tional Science Foundation, and the Of-fice of Science and Technology.

SD–138

MAY 11

2:00 p.m.AppropriationsDefense Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for the De-partment of Defense.

SD–192

MAY 13

10:00 a.m.AppropriationsDefense Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget es-timates for fiscal year 1999 for the De-partment of Defense.

SD–192

OCTOBER 6

9:30 a.m.Veterans’ Affairs

To hold joint hearings with the HouseCommittee on Veterans Affairs on thelegislative recommendations of theAmerican Legion.

345 Cannon Building

CANCELLATIONS

MARCH 5

9:30 a.m.Commerce, Science, and Transportation

To resume hearings to examine the scopeand depth of the proposed settlementbetween State Attorneys General andtobacco companies to mandate a totalreformation and restructuring of howtobacco products are manufactured,marketed, and distributed in America.

SR–2532:00 p.m.

Foreign RelationsEuropean Affairs SubcommitteeNear Eastern and South Asian Affairs Sub-

committeeTo hold hearings to examine the conflict

in the Caucasus.SD–419

D164

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Daily DigestHIGHLIGHTS

The House passed H.R. 856, United States-Puerto Rico Political StatusAct.

House Committees ordered reported seven sundry measures.

SenateChamber ActionRoutine Proceedings, pages S1297–S1369Measures Introduced: Seven bills and two resolu-tions were introduced, as follows: S. 1704–1710, S.Con. Res. 79, and S. Res. 191. Page S1336

Measures Passed:Majority Party Committee Appointments: Senate

agreed to S. Res. 191, making majority party ap-pointments for the Committee on Governmental Af-fairs for the 105th Congress. Page S1367

ISTEA Authorization: Senate resumed consider-ation of S. 1173, to authorize funds for constructionof highways, for highway safety programs, and formass transit programs, with a modified committeeamendment in the nature of a substitute (Amend-ment No. 1676), taking action on amendments pro-posed thereto, as follows: Pages S1298–S1333

Adopted:By 62 yeas to 32 nays, one responding present

(Vote No. 20), Lautenberg Amendment No. 1682(to Amendment No. 1676), to prohibit the posses-sion of any open alcoholic beverage container, or theconsumption of any alcoholic beverage, in the pas-senger area of a vehicle on a public highway. Pages S1298–S1306

Inhofe/Breaux Amendment No. 1687 (to Amend-ment No. 1676), to ensure that the States have thenecessary flexibility to implement the new standardsfor ozone and particulate matter. Pages S1322–26, S1329–30

Reid Amendment No. 1688 (to Amendment No.1676), to provide support for Federal, State, andlocal efforts to carry out transportation planning forthe Tahoe National Forest, the Toiyabe NationalForest, the Eldorado National Forest, and the areasowned by States and local governments that sur-

round Lake Tahoe and protect the environment andserve transportation. Page S1326

Chafee (for Murkowski) Amendment No. 1690 (toAmendment No. 1676), to modify State infrastruc-ture bank matching requirements. Page S1331

Chafee (for Domenici) Amendment No. 1691 (toAmendment No. 1676), to include as a goal of theinnovative bridge research and construction programthe development of new nondestructive bridge eval-uation technologies and techniques. Page S1331

Baucus (for Moynihan) Amendment No. 1692 (toAmendment No. 1676), to refine the criteria of se-lection for Federal assistance for Trade Corridor andBorder Infrastructure, Safety, and Congestion Reliefprojects. Page S1332

Baucus (for Moseley-Braun) Amendment No.1693 (to Amendment No. 1676), to clarify the plan-ning provisions of the bill. Page S1332

Baucus (for Boxer) Amendment No. 1694 (toAmendment No. 1676), to provide for research intothe interactions between information technology andfuture travel demand. Page S1332

Pending:Chafee Amendment No. 1684 (to Amendment

No. 1676), to provide for the distribution of addi-tional funds for the Federal-aid highway program. Pages S1306–22

A unanimous-consent agreement was reached pro-viding for further consideration of the bill and cer-tain amendments to be proposed thereto, on Thurs-day, March 5, 1998. Page S1333

Senate will resume consideration of the bill onThursday, March 5, 1998.

Messages From the President: Senate received thefollowing messages from the President of the UnitedStates:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST D165March 4, 1998

Transmitting a report concerning national securityinterests with respect to Bosnia and Herzegovina; re-ferred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.(PM–105). Page S1334

Transmitting a report on telecommunications pay-ments to the Government of Cuba from UnitedStates persons for the period July 1 through Decem-ber 31, 1997; referred to the Committee on ForeignRelations. (PM–106). Pages S1334–35

Transmitting the report of the notice of the con-tinuation of the Iran emergency; referred to theCommittee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.(PM–107). Page S1335

Nominations Received: Senate received the follow-ing nominations:

David M. Mason, of Virginia, to be a Member ofthe Federal Election Commission for a term expiringApril 30, 2003.

Robert H. Beatty, Jr., of West Virginia, to be aMember of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Re-view Commission for a term expiring August 30,2004.

Arthur A. McGiverin, of Iowa, to be a Memberof the Board of Directors of the State Justice Insti-tute for a term expiring September 17, 2000. Page S1369

Messages From the President: Pages S1334–35

Messages From the House: Pages S1335–36

Measures Referred: Page S1336

Communications: Page S1336

Statements on Introduced Bills: Pages S1336–52

Additional Cosponsors: Page S1352

Amendments Submitted: Pages S1353–62

Notices of Hearings: Pages S1362–63

Authority for Committees: Page S1363

Additional Statements: Pages S1363–67

Record Votes: One record vote was taken today.(Total—20) Page S1305

Adjournment: Senate convened at 9:30 a.m., andadjourned at 6:39 p.m., until 9 a.m., on Thursday,March 5, 1998. (For Senate’s program, see the re-marks of the Acting Majority Leader in today’sRecord, on page S1367.)

Committee Meetings(Committees not listed did not meet)

APPROPRIATIONS—COMMERCECommittee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Com-merce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary, and RelatedAgencies held hearings on proposed budget estimates

for fiscal year 1999 for the Department of Com-merce, receiving testimony from William M. Daley,Secretary, W. Scott Gould, Chief Financial Officerand Assistant Secretary for Administration, and MarkBrown, Director, Office of Budget, all of the Depart-ment of Commerce.

Subcommittee will meet again tomorrow.

APPROPRIATIONS—DEFENSECommittee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Defenseheld hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscalyear 1999 for the Department of Defense, focusingon Air Force programs, receiving testimony from F.Whitten Peters, Under Secretary, and Gen. MichaelE. Ryan, Chief of Staff, both of the United StatesAir Force.

Subcommittee will meet again on Wednesday,March 11.

AUTHORIZATION—DEFENSECommittee on Armed Services: Subcommittee on Acqui-sition and Technology held hearings on proposedbudget estimates for fiscal year 1999 for the Depart-ment of Defense and the future years defense pro-gram, focusing on policies of the industrial and tech-nology base supporting national defense, receivingtestimony from John B. Goodman, Deputy UnderSecretary of Defense (Industrial Affairs and Installa-tions); Lance A. Davis, Deputy Director (TechnologyTransfer and Lab Management), Department of De-fense; and David E. Cooper, Associate Director forDefense Acquisition Issues, General Accounting Of-fice.

Subcommittee will meet again on Thursday,March 12.

MILITARY TRANSFORMATIONCommittee on Armed Services: Subcommittee on AirlandForces held hearings to examine certain militarytransformation initiatives, focusing on the JointStaff’s implementation plan (Joint Vision 2010) topromote innovation and change in the Departmentof Defense, including developing information superi-ority, receiving testimony from Lt. Gen. Frank B.Campbell, Director for Force Structure, Resources,and Assessment; Lt. Gen. Douglas D. Buchholz, Di-rector for Command, Control, Communications, andComputer Systems, Joint Staff; Maj. Gen. George F.Close, Director for Operational Plans and Interoper-ability; Gen. John J. Sheehan, USMC (Ret.), formerCommander, United States Atlantic Command; andGen. Robert W. RisCassi, USA (Ret.), Member, Na-tional Defense Panel.

Hearings were recessed subject to call.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGESTD166 March 4, 1998

AUTHORIZATION—DEFENSECommittee on Armed Services: Subcommittee on Person-nel held hearings on proposed legislation authorizingfunds for fiscal year 1999 for the Department of De-fense and the future years defense program, focusingon recruiting and retention policies within the De-partment of Defense and the military services, receiv-ing testimony from Mark Gebicke, Director, Mili-tary Operations and Capabilities Issues, General Ac-counting Office; Frank M. Rush, Jr., Acting Assist-ant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Pol-icy; Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath, USA, DeputyChief of Staff for Personnel; Vice Adm. Daniel T.Oliver, USN, Chief of Naval Personnel; Lt. Gen.Carol A. Mutter, USMC, Deputy Chief of Staff forManpower and Reserve Affairs; Lt. Gen. Michael D.McGinty, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Person-nel; Maj. Gen. Mark R. Hamilton, USA, Command-ing General, United States Army Recruiting Com-mand; Rear Adm. Barbara E. McGann, USN, Com-mander, Navy Recruiting Command; Maj. Gen. JackW. Klimp, USMC, Commanding General, MarineCorps Recruiting Command; Col. Peter U. Sutton,USAF, Commander, Air Force Recruiting Service;Beverly Schladt and David Moser, both Senior Eval-uators, General Accounting Office; Sgt. First ClassGregory W. Seibert, United States Army; AviationAdministrator Second Class Jack D. Layne, and Sig-nalman Second Class Deanna M. Luna, both of theUnited States Navy; Technical Sgt. Timothy C. Bar-ber, United States Air Force; and Gunnery Sgt. PaulA. Jornet, United States Marine Corps.

Subcommittee will meet again on Wednesday,March 11.

DEFENSE DEPOT MAINTENANCECommittee on Armed Services: Subcommittee on Readi-ness concluded hearings to examine the status of thebidding process between public and private competi-tors over the disposition of the workloads currentlyperformed at Sacramento and San Antonio Air Logis-tics Centers identified for closure during the 1995base realignment and closure process, after receivingtestimony from Henry L. Hinton, Jr., AssistantComptroller General, National Security and Inter-national Affairs Division, Robert Murphy, GeneralCounsel, and Julia Denman, Assistant Director, De-fense Management Issues, all of the General Ac-counting Office; Jacques S. Gansler, Under Secretaryof Defense for Acquisition and Technology; Gen.George T. Babbitt, Jr., USN, Commander, Air ForceMateriel Command; Darleen A. Druyun, PrincipalDeputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisi-tion and Management); Maj. Gen. Eugene L. Tattini,USAF, Commander, Sacramento Air Logistics Cen-ter; Maj. Gen. Richard H. Roellig, USAF, Com-

mander, Ogden Air Logistics Center; Maj. Gen.Charles H. Perez, USAF, Commander, OklahomaCity Air Logistics Center; Maj. Gen. James S.Childress, USAF, Commander, San Antonio LogisticsCenter; and Maj. Gen. Richard N. Goddard, USAF,Commander, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center.

DOE BUDGETCommittee on Energy and Natural Resources: Committeeconcluded hearings on the President’s proposedbudget request for fiscal year 1999 for the Depart-ment of Energy, after receiving testimony fromFederico Pena, Secretary of Energy.

U.S.-JAPAN RELATIONSCommittee on Foreign Relations: Subcommittee on EastAsian and Pacific Affairs concluded hearings to ex-amine the recent World Trade Organization decisionin the Eastman Kodak v. Fuji Photo Film dispute andits implications for United States-Japan relations,after receiving testimony from Susan G. Esserman,General Counsel, Office of the United States TradeRepresentative; Ira Wolf, Kodak Japan Limited,Tokyo, on behalf of the Eastman Kodak Company;and William H. Barringer, Willkie Farr & Galla-gher, on behalf of the Fuji Photo Film, Inc., ClydeV. Prestowitz, Economic Strategy Institute, and Ed-ward J. Lincoln, Brookings Institution, all of Wash-ington, D.C.

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGYCommittee on the Judiciary: Committee concludedhearings to examine the effectiveness of nationaldrug control policies, after receiving testimony fromBarry R. McCaffrey, Director, Office of NationalDrug Control Policy.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITIONCommittee on the Judiciary: Subcommittee on Anti-trust, Business Rights, and Competition held hear-ings on the implementation of the Telecommuni-cations Act of 1996 and its goal to provide increasedcompetition to the telecommunications industry, fo-cusing on Federal and State coordination efforts withregard to the entry of the Regional Bell Companiesinto interLATA long distance service, receiving testi-mony from William E. Kennard, Chairman, FederalCommunications Commission; Joel I. Klein, Assist-ant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Depart-ment of Justice; Jolynn Barry Butler, Public UtilitiesCommission of Ohio, Columbus; Bert Roberts, MCICommunications Corporation, Washington, D.C.;Royce Caldwell, SBC Communications, Inc., San An-tonio, Texas; Jim Robbins, Cox Communications,Inc., Atlanta, Georgia; and William J. Rouhana, Jr.,WinStar Communications, Inc., New York, New

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST D167March 4, 1998

York, on behalf of the Association for Local Tele-communications Services.

Hearings were recessed subject to call.

BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS THREATCommittee on the Judiciary: Subcommittee on Tech-nology, Terrorism and Government Information heldjoint hearings with the Select Committee on Intel-ligence to examine the threat posed by the use of bi-ological weapons by terrorists, receiving testimonyfrom Stephen M. Ostroff, Associate Director for Epi-demiologic Science, National Center for InfectiousDiseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Department of Health and Human Services; Col.David R. Franz, Deputy Commander, U.S. ArmyMedical Research and Materiel Command, Ft.Detrick, Maryland; and W. Seth Carus, Center forCounter Proliferation Research/National DefenseUniversity, Washington, D.C.

Hearings were recessed subject to call.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS OPERATIONSCommittee on Rules and Administration: Committeeheld hearings on S. 1578, to require the Director ofthe Congressional Research Service to make acces-sible to the public via the Internet all informationavailable through the CRS web site that is not con-fidential, including CRS issue briefs, reports, and au-thorization or appropriations products, the proposedbudget request for fiscal year 1999 for the Libraryof Congress, to review the Library’s management op-erations, and its plans for the Bicentennial observ-ance in the year 2000, and proposed legislation au-thorizing funds for the American Folklife Center ofthe Library of Congress, receiving testimony fromSenator McCain; James H. Billington, Librarian ofCongress; Donald L. Scott, Deputy Librarian of Con-gress; William L. Kinney Jr., Chairman, AmericanFolklife Center Board of Trustees; and Alan Jabbour,Director, American Folklife Center.

Hearings were recessed subject to call.

h

House of RepresentativesChamber ActionBills Introduced: 20 public bills, H.R. 3317–3336;and 4 resolutions, H.J. Res. 113–114, H. Con. Res.233–234, were introduced. Page H850

Reports Filed: Reports were filed as follows:H. Res. 377, providing for consideration of the

bill (H.R. 2369) to amend the Communications Actof 1934 to strengthen and clarify prohibitions onelectronic eavesdropping (H. Rept. 105–427); and

H. Res. 378, providing for consideration of H.R.3130, to provide for an alternative penalty procedurefor States that fail to meet Federal child support dataprocessing requirements, to reform Federal incentivepayments for effective child support performance,and to provide for a more flexible penalty procedurefor States that violate interjurisdictional adoption re-quirements (H. Rept. 105–428). Page H850

Speaker Pro Tempore: Read a letter from theSpeaker wherein he designated Representative Peaseto act as Speaker pro tempore for today. Page H759

United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act:The House passed H.R. 856, to provide a processleading to full self-government for Puerto Rico, bya recorded vote of 209 ayes to 208 noes, Roll No.37. Pages H772–H837

On demand for a separate vote, agreed to the Sol-omon amendment, as amended by the Burton

amendment in the nature of a substitute, that ap-plies the official English language requirements toPuerto Rico upon accession to Statehood and pro-motes the teaching and use of English in PuertoRico by a recorded vote of 240 ayes to 177 noes,Roll No. 36. Pages H836–37

Agreed To:The Burton substitute amendment to the Solomon

amendment that applies the official English languagerequirements to Puerto Rico upon accession to State-hood and promotes the teaching and use of Englishin Puerto Rico (agreed to by a recorded vote of 238ayes to 182 noes, Roll No. 29); Pages H804–12

The Solomon amendment, as amended, that ap-plies the official English language requirements toPuerto Rico upon accession to Statehood and pro-motes the teaching and use of English in PuertoRico (agreed to by a recorded vote of 265 ayes to153 noes, Roll No. 30); Pages H802–12

Rejected:The Gutierrez substitute amendment to the Solo-

mon amendment that sought to stipulate that Span-ish, as an official language of Puerto Rico, is the of-ficial language in the State government and Federalcourts and agencies under certain circumstances (re-jected by a recorded vote of 13 ayes to 406 noeswith 1 voting ‘‘present’’, Roll No. 28); Pages H802–11

The Gutierrez substitute amendment to theSerrano amendment that sought to establish voting

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGESTD168 March 4, 1998

eligibility in the referenda for individuals residingoutside of Puerto Rico including those who have atleast one parent who was born in Puerto Rico; Pages H817–19

The Serrano amendment that sought to allow U.S.citizens born in Puerto Rico but residing outside ofPuerto Rico to vote in the referenda (rejected by arecorded vote of 57 ayes to 356 noes, Roll No. 32); Pages H817–20

The Gutierrez amendment that sought to establishthat Puerto Rico is sociologically and culturally aCaribbean and Latin American nation; Pages H821–23

The Stearns amendment that sought to require arun-off referendum, not later than 90 days after thefirst, between the 2 options which received the mostvotes (rejected by a recorded vote of 28 ayes to 384noes, Roll No. 33); Pages H823–24, H833–34

The Gutierrez amendment that sought to strikelanguage dealing with the establishment of UnitedStates nationality for inhabitants of Puerto Ricounder the Treaty of Paris; Pages H824–25

The Barr amendment that sought to require theapproval of the statehood option by a super-majorityof 75 percent of the valid votes cast (rejected by arecorded vote of 131 ayes to 282 noes, Roll No. 34); Pages H825–28, H834–35

The Velazquez amendment that sought to specifythat persons born in Puerto Rico who are PuertoRican citizens may not be denied the right to votein Puerto Rico even if they are not United Statescitizens; Pages H828–29

The Gutierrez amendment that sought to strikesection 2, Congressional findings; Page H829

The Gutierrez amendment that sought to allowPuerto Rico to retain its separate Olympic Commit-tee and ability to compete under its own flag andnational anthem (rejected by a recorded vote of 2ayes to 413 noes with 1 voting ‘‘present’’, Roll No.35); and Pages H829–30, H835

The Gutierrez amendment that sought to retaincorporate tax provisions for twenty years after state-hood and to exempt Puerto Ricans from U.S. inter-nal revenue laws until such time as the State ofPuerto Rico achieves the same per capita income asthe State with the next lowest per capita income. Pages H831–33

The Clerk was authorized in the engrossment ofH.R. 856 to make technical and conforming changesas may be necessary to reflect the action of theHouse. Page H839

H. Res. 376, the rule that provided for consider-ation of the bill, was agreed to earlier by a yea andnay vote of 370 yeas to 41 nays, Roll No. 27. Pursu-ant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of asubstitute printed in the Congressional Record and

numbered 1 was considered as an original bill forthe purpose of amendment. Pages H763–72

Presidential Messages: Read the following mes-sages from the President:

Payments Made to Cuba: Message wherein hetransmitted his report concerning payments made toCuba by any United States person as a result of tele-communications services—referred to the Committeein International Relations and ordered printed (H.Doc. 105–221); Pages H837–38

National Emergency Re Iran: Message whereinhe transmitted his report concerning the nationalemergency with respect to Iran—referred to theCommittee on International Relations and orderedprinted (H. Doc. 105–222); and Page H838

U.S. Armed Forces Presence In Bosnia andHerzegovina: Message wherein he transmitted his re-port concerning the continued presence of U.S.armed forces, after June 30, 1998, in Bosnia andHerzegovina—referred to the Committees on Inter-national Relations and Appropriations and orderedprinted (H. Doc. 105–223). Pages H838–39

Import Produce Labeling Act: Agreed that Rep-resentative Condit be considered as the first sponsorof H.R. 1232, a bill originally introduced by thelate Representative Bono of California, for the pur-poses of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintspursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII. Page H839

Amtrak Reform Council: The Chair announced theSpeaker’s appointment of the following individualson the part of the House to the Amtrak ReformCouncil: Mrs. Christine Todd Whitman of New Jer-sey, Mr. Bruce Chapman of Washington, and Mr.Christopher Gleason of Pennsylvania. Page H839

Amendments: Amendments ordered printed pursu-ant to the rule appear on pages H851–52.Quorum Calls—Votes: One quorum call (Roll No.31), one yea-and-nay vote, and nine recorded votesdeveloped during the proceedings of the Housetoday and appear on pages H771–72, H810–11,H811–12, H812, H819–20, H820, H833–34,H834–35, H835, H836–37, and H837.Adjournment: Met at 10:00 a.m. and adjourned at11:30 p.m.

Committee MeetingsFOREST RECOVERY AND PROTECTION ACTCommittee on Agriculture: Ordered reported amendedH.R. 2515, Forest Recovery and Protection Act of1997.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST D169March 4, 1998

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT,FDA, AND RELATED AGENCIESAPPROPRIATIONSCommittee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Agri-culture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Admin-istration, and Related Agencies held a hearing Food,Nutrition and Consumer Services. Testimony washeard from Shirley Watkins, Under Secretary, Food,Nutrition and Consumer Services, USDA.

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE, ANDJUDICIARY APPROPRIATIONSCommittee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Com-merce, Justice, State and Judiciary held a hearing onthe Federal Judiciary and the SBA. Testimony washeard from: Judge John G. Heyburn, II, U.S. Dis-trict Court, Western District of Kentucky andChairman and Judge Robert C. Broomfield, U.S.District Court, Western District of Arizona andmember, both with the Committee on the Budget,Judicial Conference of the United States; LeonidasRalph Mecham, Director, Administrative Office ofthe U.S. Courts; Judge Rya W. Zobel, U.S. DistrictCourt, District of Massachusetts and Director, Fed-eral Judiciary Center; and Aida Alvarez, Adminis-trator, SBA.

FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORTFINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMSAPPROPRIATIONSCommittee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on ForeignOperations, Export Financing, and Related Programsheld a hearing on the Secretary of State. Testimonywas heard from Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary ofState.

INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONSCommittee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Interiorcontinued appropriation hearings, with emphasis onEnergy Programs. Testimony was heard from publicwitnesses.

LABOR-HHS-EDUCATIONAPPROPRIATIONSCommittee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Labor,Health and Human Services, and Education held ahearing on Health Resources and Services Adminis-tration, on the Health Care Financing Administra-tion and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Re-search. Testimony was heard from the following offi-cials from the Department of Health and HumanServices: Claude E. Fox, M.D., Acting Adminis-trator, Health Resources and Service Administration;John M. Eisneberg, M.D., Administrator, Agency forHealth Care Policy and Research, and Nancy-Ann-Min-DeParle, Administrator, Health Care FinancingAdministration.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTIONAPPROPRIATIONSCommittee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Mili-tary Construction held a hearing on the Air Force.Testimony was heard from Rodney A. Coleman, As-sistant Secretary, Department of the Air Force.

NATIONAL SECURITY APPROPRIATIONSCommittee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Na-tional Security held a hearing on Ballistic MissileDefense. Testimony was heard from Lt. Gen. LesterL. Lyles, USAF, Director, Ballistic Missile Defense,Department of Defense.

The Subcommittee also met in executive sessionto hold a hearing on the U.S. Pacific Command/U.S.Forces Korea. Testimony was heard from Adm. Jo-seph W. Prueher, USN, Commander in Chief, U.S.Pacific Command; and Gen. John H. Tilelli, Jr.,USA, Commander in Chief, U.S. Forces Korea.

TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONSCommittee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Trans-portation held a hearing on the Federal HighwayAdministration and the National Highway TrafficSafety Administration. Testimony was heard fromthe following officials of the Department of Trans-portation: Ricardo Martinez, Administrator, NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration; and KennethWykle, Administrator, Federal Highway Administra-tion.

MISCELLANEOUS MEASURESCommittee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Treas-ury, Postal Service, and General Government held ahearing on Departmental Offices; and the TreasuryInspector General. Testimony was heard from thefollowing officials from the Department of Treasury:Robert E. Rubin, Secretary; Richard B. Calahan,Deputy Inspector General; Raisa Otero-Cesario, As-sistant Inspector General, Investigations; Gary L.Whittington, Assistant Inspector General, Resources;Dennis S. Schindel, Assistant Inspector General,Audit; William Pugh, Deputy Assistant InspectorGeneral, Audit; John Balakos, Associate InspectorGeneral, Program Audits; Charles Little, Acting Di-rector, Office of Information Technology; EmilieBebel, Director, Office of Evaluations; and Lori Vas-sar, Counsel to the Inspector General.

NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICECommittee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on VA,HUD, and Independent Agencies held a hearing onthe Corporation for National and Community Serv-ice. Testimony was heard from Harris Wofford,CEO, Corporation for National Community Service.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGESTD170 March 4, 1998

MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL AGENCYPAYMENTSCommittee on Banking and Financial Services: Sub-committee on Financial Institutions and ConsumerCredit held a hearing to Review the Proposed RulesRegarding the Management of Federal Agency Pay-ments through the Use of Electronic Funds Transfers(EFT). Testimony was heard from Senator Faircloth;Representatives Franks of New Jersey and Kanjorski;John D. Hawke, Jr., Under Secretary, Domestic Fi-nance, Department of the Treasury; John Dyer, Prin-cipal Deputy, SSA; Robert Gardner, Chief FinancialOfficer, Veterans Benefits Administration, Depart-ment of Veterans Affairs; and public witnesses.

STATE OF THE ECONOMYCommittee on the Budget: Held a hearing on the Stateof the Economy. Testimony was heard from AlanGreenspan, Chairman, Board of Governors, FederalReserve System.

KYOTO PROTOCOLCommittee on Commerce: Subcommittee on Energy andPower held a hearing on the Kyoto Protocol and ItsEconomic Implications. Testimony was heard fromStuart E. Eizenstat, Under Secretary, Economic Busi-ness and Agricultural Affairs, Department of State;and Janet Yellen, Chair, Council of Economic Advi-sors.

COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITECOMPETITIONS AND PRIVATIZATION ACTCommittee on Commerce: Subcommittee on Tele-communications, Trade, and Consumer Protectionbegan markup of H.R. 1872, Communications Sat-ellite Competition and Privatization Act of 1997.

Will continue March 11.

HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTSCommittee on Education and the Workforce: Subcommit-tee on Postsecondary Education, Training, and Life-Long Learning approved for full Committee actionamended H.R. 6, Higher Education Amendments of1998.

ELECTIONS AND POLICIES—FOREIGNINFLUENCECommittee on Government Reform and Oversight: Met inexecutive session to hold a hearing on the activitiesof China and other countries to influence U.S. poli-cies and elections. Testimony was heard from the fol-lowing officials of the Department of Justice: JanetReno, Attorney General and Louis J. Freeh, Director,FBI; George J. Tenet, Director, CIA; and Lt. Gen-eral Kenneth A. Minihan, Director, National Secu-rity Agency, Department of Defense.

GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE RESULTSACT—TECHNICAL AMENDMENTSCommittee on Government Reform and Oversight: Sub-committee on Government Management, Informa-tion and Technology approved for full Committeeaction amended H.R. 2883, Government Perform-ance and Results Act Technical Amendments of1997.

TROPICAL FOREST PROTECTION ACTCommittee on International Relations: Held a hearing onH.R. 2870, Tropical Forest Protection Act. Testi-mony was heard from Representative Portman;Thomas Fox, Assistant Administrator, Policy andPlanning Bureau, AID, U.S. International Develop-ment Cooperation Agency; Mary Chavez, Director,International Debt Policy, Department of the Treas-ury; and public witnesses.

MISCELLANEOUS MEASURESCommittee on International Relations: Subcommittee onAfrica approved for full Committee action the fol-lowing resolutions: H. Res. 373, commending de-mocracy in Botswana; and H. Res. 374, amended,expressing the sense of the House of Representativesregarding the ongoing violence in Algeria.

MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES; CUBANRELIGIOUS FREEDOMCommittee on International Relations: Subcommittee onthe Western Hemisphere approved for full Commit-tee action the following resolutions: H. Con. Res.222, expressing the sense of Congress, congratulatingthe former International Support and VerificationCommission of the Organization of American States(OAS–CIAV) for successfully aiding in the transitionof Nicaragua from a war-ridden state into a newlyformed democracy and providing continued supportthrough the recently created Technical CooperationMission (OAS–TCM) which is responsible for help-ing to stabilize Nicaraguan democracy bysupplementing institution building; H. Con. Res.215, amended, congratulating the people of Co-oper-ative Republic of Guyana for holding multipartyelections; and H. Res. 362, amended, commendingthe visit of His Holiness Pope John Paul II to Cuba.

Prior to this action, the Subcommittee held ahearing on the visit of His Holiness Pope John PaulII to Cuba: An Assessment of its Impact on Reli-gious Freedom in Cuba. Testimony was heard frompublic witnesses.

MISCELLANEOUS MEASURESCommittee on the Judiciary: Ordered reported the fol-lowing measures: H.R. 1704, amended, Congres-sional Office of Regulatory Analysis Creation Act;H.J. Res. 78, amended, proposing an amendment to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST D171March 4, 1998

the Constitution of the United States regarding reli-gious freedom; H.R. 3117, amended, Civil RightsCommission Act of 1998; H.R. 2589, amended,Copyright Term Extension Act; H. Res. 372, ex-pressing the sense of the House of Representativesthat marijuana is a dangerous and addictive drugand should not be legalized for medicinal use; andH.R. 118, amended, Traffic Stops Statistics Act of1997.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONBUDGET REQUESTCommittee on National Security: Held a hearing on thefiscal year 1999 National Defense authorizationbudget request. Testimony was heard from the fol-lowing officials of the Department of Defense: Adm.Joseph W. Prueher, USN, Commander in Chief,U.S. Pacific Command; Gen. John H. Tilelli, USA,Commander in Chief, U.S. Forces Korea; and Adm.Harold W. Gehman, Jr., USN, Commander inChief, U.S. Atlantic Command.

Hearings continue tomorrow.

FY 1999 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NAVYAND MARINE CORPS MODERNIZATIONCommittee on National Security: Subcommittee on Mili-tary Procurement and Subcommittee on Military Re-search and Development held a joint hearing on FY1999 Department of Defense, emphasis on Navy andMarine Corps modernization programs. Testimonywas heard from the following officials of the Depart-ment of the Navy: John W. Douglas, Assistant Sec-retary, Navy (Research, Development and Acquisi-tion); Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, USN,Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Resources, War-fare Requirements and Assessments; and Lt. Gen.Jeffrey W. Oster, USMC, Deputy Chief of Staff, Pro-grams and Resources.

Hearings continue tomorrow.

CHILD SUPPORT PERFORMANCE ANDINCENTIVE ACTCommittee on Rules: Granted, by voice vote, a modi-fied open rule providing 1 hour of debate on H.R.3130, Child Support Performance and Incentive Actof 1998. The rule waives points of order against con-sideration of the bill for failure to comply with sec-tion 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act (Pro-hibiting consideration of legislation, as reported,providing new budget authority, changes in reve-nues, or changes in the public debt for a fiscal yearuntil the budget resolution for that year has beenagreed to).

The rule makes in order the Ways and MeansCommittee amendment in the nature of a substitutenow printed in the bill as an original bill for thepurpose of amendment and provides that it shall be

considered as read. The rule waives points of orderagainst the committee amendment in the nature ofa substitute for failure to comply with section 303(a)of the Congressional Budget Act.

The rule provides that no amendment shall be inorder unless printed in the Congressional Record.The rule waives points of order against the amend-ment by Mr. Cardin printed in the CongressionalRecord and numbered 2 for failure to comply withclause 7 of rule XVI (prohibiting nongermaneamendments). The rule allows for the Chairman ofthe Committee of the Whole to postpone votes dur-ing consideration of the bill, and reduce voting timeto five minutes on a postponed question if the votefollows a fifteen minute vote. Finally, the rule pro-vides one motion to recommit with or without in-structions. Testimony was heard from Representa-tives Shaw, Levin and Cardin.

WIRELESS PRIVACY ENHANCEMENT ACTCommittee on Rules: Granted, by voice vote, an openrule providing 1 hour of debate on H.R. 2369,Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act of 1997. Therule waives points of order against consideration ofthe bill for failure to comply with clause 2(I)(6) ofrule XI(3 day availability of committee reports).

The rule makes in order the Committee on Com-merce amendment in the nature of a substitute nowprinted in the bill as an original bill for the purposeof amendment and provides that it shall be consid-ered as read. The rule authorizes the Chair to accordpriority in recognition to Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the CongressionalRecord. The rule allows for the Chairman of theCommittee on the Whole to postpone votes duringconsideration of the bill, and to reduce voting timeto five minutes on a postponed question if the votefollows a fifteen minute vote. Finally, the rule pro-vides one motion to recommit with or without in-structions. Testimony was heard from Chairman Bli-ley and Representatives Tauzin and Markey.

MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATIONCommittee on Science: Held an oversight hearing onMath and Science Education I; Maintaining the In-terest of Young Kids in Science. Testimony washeard from public witnesses.

NOAA—BUDGET AUTHORIZATIONCommittee on Science: Subcommittee on Energy andEnvironment held an oversight hearing on FY 1999Budget Authorization Request: NOAA. Testimonywas heard from D. James Baker, Under Secretary,Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator, NOAA,Department of Commerce; and Joel Willemsson, Di-rector, Accounting and Information Management Di-vision, GAO.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGESTD172 March 4, 1998

MISCELLANEOUS MEASURESCommittee on Small Business: Subcommittee on Regu-latory Reform and Paperwork Reduction, hearing onthe Regulatory Fairness Program and the first annualReport to Congress submitted by the national SmallBusiness Ombudsman. Testimony was heard fromPeter Barca, National Ombudsman, SBA; and pubicwitnesses.

FY 1999 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE U.S.COAST GUARDCommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Sub-committee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transpor-tation held a hearing on the Administration’s FY1999 budget request for the U.S. Coast Guard. Tes-timony was heard from the following officials of U.S.Coast Guard, Department of Transportation; Adm.Robert E. Kramek, USCG, Commandant; Eric A.Trent, USCG, Master Chief Petty Officer; andEverette L. Tucker, Jr., USCG, National Com-modore; and public witnesses.

SUPERFUND ACCELERATION, FAIRNESSEFFICIENCY ACTCommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Sub-committee on Water Resources and Environmentbegan markup of H.R. 2727, Superfund Accelera-tion, Fairness, and Efficiency Act.

Subcommittee recessed subject to call.f

COMMITTEE MEETINGS FOR THURSDAY,MARCH 5, 1998

(Committee meetings are open unless otherwise indicated)

SenateCommittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, to hold

hearings to examine the global warming agreement re-cently reached in Kyoto, Japan and its effect on the agri-cultural economy, 9 a.m., SR–332.

Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on VA,HUD, and Independent Agencies, to hold hearings onproposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1999 for theCorporation for National and Community Service, andthe Federal Emergency Management Agency, 9:30 a.m.,SD–138.

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and theJudiciary, to hold hearings on proposed budget estimatesfor fiscal year 1999 for the National Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration, Department of Commerce, andthe Small Business Administration, 10 a.m., S–146, Cap-itol.

Subcommittee on Transportation, to hold hearings toexamine barriers to airline competition, 10 a.m., SD–124.

Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and GeneralGovernment, to hold hearings on proposed budget esti-mates for fiscal year 1999 for the Internal Revenue Serv-ice, Treasury Department, 1:30 p.m., SD–124.

Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,and Education, to hold hearings on proposed budget esti-mates for fiscal year 1999 for the Department of Edu-cation, 2 p.m., SD–192.

Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,and Education, to continue hearings on proposed budgetestimates for fiscal year 1999 for the Department of Edu-cation, focusing on security on campus, 3 p.m., SD–192.

Committee on Armed Services, to hold open and closed(SR–222) hearings on the role of the Department of De-fense in countering the transnational threats of the 21stcentury, including terrorism, narco-trafficking, and weap-ons of mass destruction, 10 a.m., SH–216.

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Sub-committee on Science, Technology, and Space, to holdhearings to examine the commercialization of space, 2p.m., SR–253.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to hold hear-ings on the President’s proposed budget request for fiscalyear 1999 for the Department of the Interior, 9:30 a.m.,SD–366.

Committee on Governmental Affairs, business meeting, toconsider a committee report on special investigation of il-legal and improper activities in connection with 1996Federal election campaigns, 4 p.m., SD–342.

Committee on the Judiciary, business meeting, to considerpending calendar business, 10 a.m., SD–226.

Subcommittee on Immigration, to hold oversight hear-ings on the Immigration and Naturalization Service, fo-cusing on proposals to reform the naturalization process,2 p.m., SD–226.

Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Subcommitteeon Children and Families, to hold hearings to examineafter school child care options, 10 a.m., SD–430.

NOTICE

For a listing of Senate Committee meetings sched-uled ahead, see pages E297–E300 in today’s Record.

HouseCommittee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Forestry, Re-

source Conservation, and Research, hearing to review theimplementation of the Environmental Quality IncentivesProgram, 9:30 a.m., 1300 Longworth.

Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agri-culture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administra-tion, and Related Agencies, on Departmental Administra-tion, the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief Informa-tion Officer, 1 p.m., 2362–A Rayburn.

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judici-ary, on the FBI, 10:30 a.m., and on the Secretary ofCommerce, 2 p.m., 2226 Rayburn.

Subcommittee on Interior, on Public Witnesses (IndianPrograms), 10 a.m., and 1:30 p.m., B–308 Rayburn.

Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,and Education, on Centers for Disease Control and Pre-vention, 10 a.m., and on the Administration for Childrenand Families and the Administration on Aging, 2 p.m.,2358 Rayburn.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST D173March 4, 1998

Subcommittee on Military Construction, on the Qual-ity of Life and Senior Enlisted from each Service, 9:30a.m., B–300 Rayburn.

Subcommittee on National Security, on FY 1999 AirForce Budget Overview, 10 a.m., 2212 Rayburn, and, ex-ecutive, on FY 1999 Air Force Acquisition Program, 1:30p.m., H–140 Capitol.

Subcommittee on Transportation, on the Coast Guard,10 a.m., 2358 Rayburn.

Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and GeneralGovernment, on Financial Management Services, the Bu-reau of Engraving and Printing and the Mint, 10 a.m.,2359 Rayburn.

Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agen-cies, on Community Development Financial Institutions,9 a.m., H–143 Capitol.

Committee on Banking and Financial Services, to mark upH.R. 3114, International Monetary Fund Reform andAuthorization Act of 1998, 10 a.m., 2128 Rayburn.

Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Finance andHazardous Materials, hearing on H.R. 3000, SuperfundReform Act, 10 a.m., 2322 Rayburn.

Subcommittee on Health and Environment, hearing onthe Tobacco Settlement, 10 a.m., 2123 Rayburn.

Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommitteeon Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-LongLearning, hearing on Developing a Consensus on StudentLoan Interest Rates, 11 a.m., 2175 Rayburn.

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, to mark upthe following bills: H.R. 2888, Sales Incentive Com-pensation Act; and H.R. 2327, Drive for Teen Employ-ment Act, 9:30 a.m, 2261 Rayburn.

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, to markup the following bills: H.R. 3249, Federal RetirementCoverage Corrections Act; and H.R. 2883, GovernmentPerformance and Results Act Technical Amendments of1997, 9:30 a.m., 2154 Rayburn.

Subcommittee on Government Management, Informa-tion and Technology, hearing on Oversight of the FederalElection Commission, 10 a.m., 2247 Rayburn.

Subcommittee on Human Resources, oversight hearingon Public Health 2000: Hepatitis C, the Silent Epidemic,10:30 2154 Rayburn.

Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, NaturalResources, and Regulatory Affairs, hearing on Small Busi-ness Paperwork Reduction Act of 1998, 2 p.m., 311 Can-non.

Committee on House Oversight, to continue hearings onCampaign Reform, 10 a.m., 1310 Longworth.

Committee on International Relations, hearing on the Ad-ministration’s Foreign Assistance Budget request for FY1999, 10 a.m., 2172 Rayburn.

Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, to mark up thefollowing measures: H. Res. 364, urging the introductionand passage of a resolution on the human rights situationin the People’s Republic of China at the 54th Session of

the United Nations Commission on Human Rights; H.Res. 361, calling for free and impartial elections in Cam-bodia; and H. Con. Res. 218, concerning the urgent needto establish a cease fire in Afghanistan and begin thetransition toward a broad-based multiethnic governmentthat observes international norms of behavior, 2 p.m.,2255 Rayburn.

Subcommittee on International Economic Policy andTrade, hearing on Multilateral Agreement on Investment:Win, Lose or Draw for the U.S.? 1 p.m., 2200 Rayburn.

Subcommittee on International Operations and theSubcommittee on Africa, joint hearing on the OngoingCrisis in the Great Lakes, 1 p.m., 2172 Rayburn.

Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts andIntellectual Property, oversight hearing regarding masstorts and class action lawsuits, 10 a.m., 2141 Rayburn.

Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, hearing onH.R. 2837, Naturalization Reform Act of 1998, 9:30a.m., 2237 Rayburn.

Committee on National Security, to continue hearings onthe fiscal year 1999 National Defense authorization budg-et request, 9:30 a.m., 2118 Rayburn.

Subcommittee on Military Procurement and Sub-committee on Military Research and Development, tocontinue joint hearings on FY 1999 Department of De-fense, emphasis on Army modernization, 2 p.m., 2118Rayburn.

Committee on Resources, oversight hearing on EndangeredSpecies Act, 11 a.m., 1324 Longworth.

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, to markup H.R. 2458, Community Protection and HazardousFuels Reduction Act of 1997, 3 p.m., 1334 Longworth.

Committee on Science, to consider pending Committeebusiness; to be followed by continuation of oversighthearings on the Road From Kyoto—Part 3: State Depart-ment Overview, 12 p.m., 2318 Rayburn.

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Sub-committee on Aviation, to mark up H.R. 2843, AviationMedical Assistance Act of 1997; followed by a hearing onFAA’s modernization programs, 9 a.m., 2167 Rayburn.

Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic De-velopment, hearing on the GSA’s FY 1999 budget andrelated issues, 9 a.m., 2253 Rayburn.

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Subcommittee on Bene-fits, to mark up the following bills: H.R. 3039, Veterans’Transitional Housing Opportunities Act of 1997; andH.R. 3211, to amend title 38, United States Code, toenact into law eligibility requirements for burial at Ar-lington National Cemetery, H.R. 3213, to amend title38, United States Code, to clarify enforcement of veter-ans’ employment rights with respect to a State as an em-ployer or a private employer, to extend veterans’ employ-ment and reemployment rights to members of the uni-formed services employed abroad by United States compa-nies, 10 a.m., 334 Cannon.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST

Congressional Record The public proceedings of each House of Congress, as reported bythe Official Reporters thereof, are printed pursuant to directionsof the Joint Committee on Printing as authorized by appropriate

provisions of Title 44, United States Code, and published for each day that one or both Houses are in session, excepting veryinfrequent instances when two or more unusually small consecutive issues are printed at one time. ¶ Public access to

the Congressional Record is available online through GPO Access, a service of the Government Printing Office, free of charge to the user.The online database is updated each day the Congressional Record is published. The database includes both text and graphics from thebeginning of the 103d Congress, 2d session (January 1994) forward. It is available on the Wide Area Information Server (WAIS) through theInternet and via asynchronous dial-in. Internet users can access the database by using the World Wide Web; the Superintendent ofDocuments home page address is http://www.access.gpo.gov/suldocs, by using local WAIS client software or by telnet toswais.access.gpo.gov, then login as guest (no password required). Dial-in users should use communications software and modem to call (202)512–1661; type swais, then login as guest (no password required). For general information about GPO Access, contact the GPO Access UserSupport Team by sending Internet e-mail to gpoaccess@gpo.gov, or a fax to (202) 512–1262; or by calling Toll Free 1–888–293–6498 or (202)512–1530 between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. ¶ The Congressional Record paper and24x microfiche will be furnished by mail to subscribers, free of postage, at the following prices: paper edition, $150.00 for six months, $295.00per year, or purchased for $2.50 per issue, payable in advance; microfiche edition, $141.00 per year, or purchased for $1.50 per issue payable inadvance. The semimonthly Congressional Record Index may be purchased for the same per issue prices. Remit check or money order, madepayable to the Superintendent of Documents, directly to the Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. ¶ Following each sessionof Congress, the daily Congressional Record is revised, printed, permanently bound and sold by the Superintendent of Documents inindividual parts or by sets. ¶With the exception of copyrighted articles, there are no restrictions on the republication of material from theCongressional Record.

UNUME PLURIBUS

D174 March 4, 1998

Next Meeting of the SENATE

9 a.m., Thursday, March 5

Senate Chamber

Program for Thursday: Senate will resume considerationof S. 1173, ISTEA Authorization.

Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

10 a.m., Thursday, March 5

House Chamber

Program for Thursday: Consideration of H.R. 2369,Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act of 1997 (Open Rule,One Hour General Debate); and

Consideration of H.R. 3130, Child Support Perform-ance and Incentive Act of 1998 (Modified Open Rule,One Hour General Debate).

Extensions of Remarks, as inserted in this issueHOUSE

Baker, Richard H., La., E283Barr, Bob, Ga., E294Bentsen, Ken, Tex., E286Clyburn, James E., S.C., E277, E286Davis, Danny K., Ill., E277, E286Davis, Thomas M., Va., E284DeLauro, Rosa L., Conn., E290Dingell, John D., Mich., E291Forbes, Michael P., N.Y., E285Ford, Harold E., Jr., Tenn., E281

Frost, Martin, Tex., E290Gallegly, Elton, Calif., E280Gilman, Benjamin A., N.Y., E279Hamilton, Lee H., Ind., E292, E295John, Christopher, La., E281Kind, Ron, Wisc., E292King, Peter T., N.Y., E284Lowey, Nita M., N.Y., E293McGovern, James P., Mass., E280Meek, Carrie P., Fla., E279Morella, Constance A., Md., E277Norton, Eleanor Holmes, D.C., E282, E289, E294

Packard, Ron, Calif., E277Pallone, Frank, Jr., N.J., E283, E286Pascrell, Bill, Jr., N.J., E280Porter, John Edward, Ill., E294Rangel, Charles B., N.Y., E278Sandlin, Max, Tex., E281Schaffer, Bob, Colo., E293Stark, Fortney Pete, Calif., E277, E287, E295Tiahrt, Todd, Kans., E290Visclosky, Peter J., Ind., E290Wise, Robert E., Jr., West Va., E288Wolf, Frank R., Va., E281