Congressional RecordUNUM

E PLURIBUS

United Statesof America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106th

CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

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

.

S727

Vol. 145 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1999 No. 9

House of RepresentativesThe House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 2, 1999, at 12:30 p.m.

SenateWEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1999

The Senate met at 11:01 a.m. and wascalled to order by the President protempore [Mr. THURMOND].

PRAYER

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

Gracious Father, our hearts are filledwith praise. You have chosen to be ourGod and chosen each of us to knowYou. The most important election oflife is Your divine election of each ofus to know You and serve You. ThankYou that we live in a land in which wehave the freedom to enjoy living outthis awesome calling. We are gratefulfor our heritage as ‘‘one Nation underGod.’’

We praise You for Your love that em-braces us and gives us security, Yourjoy that uplifts us and gives us resil-iency, Your peace that floods ourhearts and gives us serenity, YourSpirit that fills us and gives usstrength and endurance.

Help us to realize that it is by Yourpermission that we breathe our nextbreath and by Your grace that we areprivileged to use all the gifts of intel-lect and judgment that You provide.Give the Senators a perfect blend ofhumility and hope so that they willknow that You have given them allthat they have and are and have chosento bless them this day. May their serv-ice be an expression of their gratitude.Through our Lord and Savior. Amen.f

RECOGNITION OF THE ACTINGMAJORITY LEADER

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Theacting majority leader is recognized.

SCHEDULE

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, thismorning the Senate will begin a periodof morning business until 1 p.m. Fol-lowing morning business, the Senatewill resume consideration of the arti-cles of impeachment. It is the majorityleader’s hope that today’s presentationby the White House can be concludedby early evening so that Members mayattend the lecture series which beginsat 6 p.m. That lecture series will be inthe Old Senate Chamber. The guestspeaker this evening will be formerPresident George Bush. I remind allSenators that upon recessing thisevening, the Senate will reconvene onThursday at 1 p.m. to resume consider-ation of the articles.

I thank my colleagues for their at-tention.

f

MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Underthe previous order, there will now be aperiod for the transaction of morningbusiness until the hour of 1 p.m., with60 minutes under the control of theDemocratic leader and 60 minutesunder the control of the Senator fromGeorgia, Mr. COVERDELL, or his des-ignee.

f

MEASURES PLACED ON THE CAL-ENDAR—S. 40, S. 41, S. 42, S. 43, S.44, S. 45, and S. 46.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, Sen-ator HELMS has seven bills at the deskthat are due for their second reading,and I now ask unanimous consent that

they be considered as read a secondtime and placed on the calendar enbloc.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-out objection, it is so ordered.f

MEASURE READ FOR THE FIRSTTIME—S. 254

Mr. VOINOVICH. I understand thatS. 254, introduced by Senator HATCHand others, is at the desk, and I askthat it be read for the first time.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Theclerk will read.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:

A bill (S. 254) to reduce violent juvenilecrime, promote accountability by and reha-bilitation of juvenile criminals, punish anddeter violent gang crime, and for other pur-poses.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I would now ask forits second reading.

Mr. NICKLES. I object.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objec-

tion is heard.f

PROVIDING FOR AN ADJOURN-MENT OF THE HOUSE OF REP-RESENTATIVES

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimousconsent that the Senate proceed to theimmediate consideration of House Con-current Resolution 11 which was re-ceived from the House.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Theclerk will read.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:.

A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 11)providing for an adjournment of the House.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES728 January 20, 1999There being no objection, the Senate

proceeded to consider the concurrentresolution.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimousconsent that the concurrent resolutionbe agreed to and the motion to recon-sider be laid upon the table.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-out objection, it is so ordered.

The concurrent resolution (H. Con.Res. 11) was agreed to.

Mr. WELLSTONE addressed theChair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Thedistinguished Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.Mr. President, I defer to my col-

league from Illinois, Senator DURBIN,but I ask unanimous consent that Sen-ator HARKIN and I be allowed to followSenator DURBIN in speaking order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-out objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Illinois.f

RETIREMENT OF MICHAELJORDAN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Senateproceed to the immediate consider-ation of S. Res. 23 now at the desk.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Theclerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 23) congratulatingMichael Jordan on the announcement of hisretirement from the Chicago Bulls and theNational Basketball Association.

There being no objection, the Senateproceeded to consider the resolution.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is, in-deed, fitting that Senate Resolution 23in this 106th Congress be dedicated to aman who immortalized the No. 23 as aplayer for the Chicago Bulls.

I rise today to pay tribute to a manwho is a true legend both on and off thehardwood. Michael Jordan may haveretired last week from the ChicagoBulls and professional basketball, buthe is anything but retired. He may wellbe remembered as the greatest basket-ball player of all time, but as long asboys and girls and men and womenplay this uniquely American game,they can also remember a great legacybeyond sports. We all owe Michael Jor-dan a special tribute, not only for hisexcellence at the game and his prac-ticed skills on the basketball court butas a decent human being. Michael Jor-dan is an outstanding citizen of hiscommunity, the city of Chicago, theState of Illinois, his native North Caro-lina, but also of America and theworld.

It is often asked in many polls acrossthe Earth: Who is the most popularman, the most well-known man? And itseems, now that the results are in—andnot surprising—it is a basketball play-er from Chicago, No. 23, Michael Jor-dan.

Those who have not traveled aroundthe world may find that hard to be-lieve, but my own limited personal ex-

perience can tell you it is the case. Ican recall in the streets of Shanghai, inChina, when my wife and I were walk-ing along and saw a little boy with aChicago Bulls baseball cap on, and wewent up to this little boy, who did notspeak English, and I leaned over to him—he was about 9 years old—and I said,‘‘Michael Jordan,’’ he looked back atme and he said, ‘‘Scottie ‘Peepin’.’’

A friend of mine was traveling on theTrans-Siberian Railroad across Mongo-lia. He was seated there for a while,and two native Mongolians came in andsat down, and after they had been onthe train several hours, one of themlooked at him and said, ‘‘Michael Jor-dan.’’

When I visited Portugal a few yearsago, in the streets of Lisbon the kidswere wearing Chicago Bulls gear andtalking about Michael Jordan. In Buda-pest, in Hungary, at the little flea mar-kets on the square you will find thesenestling dolls—the wooden dolls thatwe traditionally associate with Rus-sian culture—are now being made withMichael Jordan on the outside and theentire Chicago Bulls teams on the in-side. Isn’t it amazing that this one manhas now become so well known and sopopular around the world.

Well, he is a gifted man, gifted as fewindividuals have ever been, and moresignificantly, he has not squanderedthose gifts. He continues to contributeto our communities through his sup-port for the James R. Jordan Boys andGirls Club, named after his father, theJordan Institute for Families at theUniversity of North Carolina at ChapelHill, and the Ronald McDonald Housesof Greenville, Chapel Hill, Durham andWinston-Salem. For the families of se-riously ill children who are being treat-ed at nearby hospitals, Michael Jor-dan’s charity makes a real difference.

To have seen him perform on a bas-ketball court is to have witnessed atalent that has been fashioned out ofyears of dedication, planning, practice,conditioning, mental discipline, willand spirit. As the greatest individualbasketball player, he leaves his sportas the supreme team player. MichaelJordan defined the 1990s. He gainedeternal fame as the greatest leader andultimate team player in a team sport:six NBA championships in 8 years. Hewas so magnificent he continued to topthe statistical lists, yet made everyonearound him better, as individuals andcomponents of a team.

I can recall that when my son was incollege and we went to our first Bullsgame, you had the feeling, years ago,that at any moment in that game Mi-chael Jordan would take control; nomatter what the score was, he would bein control. The Bulls won their firstNBA title in 1991, added two more in arow before Michael Jordan’s prematureretirement to follow another dream.

He tried baseball but returned 2 yearslater. I was at his first comeback game.He was still good, but rusty, and a lotof men might have been discouraged bythat and decide to walk away. He did

not. He rededicated himself to hisskills, honed them, developed a newfade-away shot, and led the NBA in sta-tistics as well as MVP, taking theBulls to the championship again. Defy-ing conventional wisdom, Jordan andthe Bulls picked up where they left offin 1993. With a new set of teammates,including the remarkable ScottiePippen, whom we will miss in Chicago,a rejuvenated Jordan played the bestbasketball of his life, and the Bulls reg-istered the best league record in his-tory with 72 regular season games anda world championship in 1996. Theyadded another title in 1997, and com-pleted the double three-peat last June,1998—six titles in 8 years in two clus-ters of three. The unifying link? Mi-chael Jordan.

Time was running out and the Bullswere trailing the Utah Jazz by a pointwhen Jordan stole the ball from KarlMalone, dribbled up court, and with ev-eryone in the world knowing what hewas going to do, answered with a per-fect swish—all net—on the last shot ofthe last game of his career to win theBulls’ sixth NBA title. Jordan wasnamed the most valuable player in theplayoffs again. In all six Bulls’ cham-pionships the most valuable playereach time was Michael Jordan. He hasdone his work well, always with dig-nity, always with class, and alwayswith dedication.

He takes care of his own family. Hehas now said that he is going to dedi-cate his life to carpooling—I have tosee that. He has dedicated himself tohis teammates and friends and to thecommunities that he lives in.

Mr. President, on behalf of the citi-zens of my home State of Illinois andon behalf of my colleague in the U.S.Senate, Senator PETER FITZGERALD—who truly makes this a bipartisan ef-fort—and for fans throughout Americaand the world, I am proud to offer S.Res. 23, honoring Michael Jordan forhis incredible accomplishments bothon and off the court.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, Irise today to join with Senator DICKDURBIN, my distinguished colleaguefrom Illinois, in introducing S. Res. 23,commending Michael Jordan on his re-tirement from the Chicago Bulls andthe National Basketball Association.

For thirteen years, Michael Jordanhas entertained the people of Chicagowith his performance on the basketballcourt. The six championships hebrought to Chicago have been a greatsource of pride and unity for the citi-zens of Illinois. His accomplishmentsare many, including ten scoring titles,five Most Valuable Player awards, andtwelve All-Star Game appearances. Hewas also the first player to win theMVP and Defensive Player of the Yearawards in the same year, which he didin 1988. In addition, he was named theNBA’s Rookie of the Year in the 1984–85 season.

I offer my congratulations to MichaelJordan on all of his accomplishments,and wish him the best of luck in his fu-ture endeavors.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S729January 20, 1999I thank the Senate for its swift pas-

sage of this resolution.Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the resolutionand preamble be agreed to en bloc andthe motion to reconsider be laid uponthe table without intervening action.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.VOINOVICH). Without objection, it is soordered.

The resolution (S. Res. 23) was agreedto.

The preamble was agreed to.The resolution, with its preamble,

reads as follows:S. RES. 23

Whereas Michael Jeffrey Jordan has an-nounced his retirement from basketball after13 seasons with the Chicago Bulls;

Whereas Michael Jordan helped make thelong, hard winters bearable for millions ofChicagoans by leading the Chicago Bulls to 6National Basketball Association Champion-ships during the past 8 years, earning 5 NBAMost Valuable Player awards, and winning 10NBA scoring titles;

Whereas Michael Jordan and his Olympicteammates thrilled basketball fans aroundthe world by winning gold medals at the 1984and 1992 Olympic Games;

Whereas Michael Jordan has demonstratedan unsurpassed level of professionalism dur-ing his athletic career and has served as arole model to millions of American childrenby demonstrating the qualities that mark atrue champion: hard work, grace, determina-tion, and commitment to excellence;

Whereas Michael Jordan taught us to havethe courage to follow our dreams by strivingto play baseball for the Chicago White Sox;

Whereas Michael Jordan demonstrated theimportance of pursuing an education byearning a bachelor of arts degree from theUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill;

Whereas Michael Jordan continues to con-tribute to our communities through his sup-port for the James R. Jordan Boys & GirlsClub and Family Life Center in Chicago, theJordan Institute for Families at his almamater, and the Ronald McDonald Houses ofGreenville, Chapel Hill, Durham, and Win-ston-Salem, North Carolina, for families ofseriously ill children who are being treatedat nearby hospitals; and

Whereas Michael Jordan will take on newchallenges in his life with the same passionand determination that made him the great-est basketball player ever to have lived:Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate—(1) congratulates Michael Jordan on his re-

tirement from the Chicago Bulls and profes-sional basketball; and

(2) expresses its wishes that Michael Jor-dan enjoy his life after basketball with hiswife, Juanita, and their 3 children, Jeffrey,Marcus, and Jasmine.

f

THE PRESIDENT’S STATE OF THEUNION ADDRESS

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let mespeak briefly, because I see the Sen-ators from Iowa and Minnesota arehere. Let me say, about the President’sState of the Union Address last night,we are very proud of the fact that theDemocratic leadership in the Houseand the Senate offered a battery of leg-islation supporting the President’sgoals. I was heartened by the fact thatthe President lifted our eyes from thedrudgery of our Senate trial and spoke

again to the many issues which reallyhave brought us to Congress in an ef-fort to try to improve the lives ofAmericans and American families.

The President has taken a fiscally re-sponsible approach by suggesting, forexample, that as we stabilize Social Se-curity we do not run up greater defi-cits. He is pledging a percentage of thefuture surpluses to stabilize and pro-tect Social Security. That is a respon-sible approach and one which futuregenerations will certainly applaud. Hehas made a similar commitment to theMedicare system, saying that some 15or 16 percent of the surplus will bededicated to make certain that it issolvent through the year 2020.

I was heartened by two other thingsthat the President suggested. At theturn of this century, as we embarkedupon the 20th century, America distin-guished itself and the world as a nationdedicated to public education. We be-came a nation of high school students,and during a span of some 20 years onaverage a new high school was builtonce every day in America. We democ-ratized education, we created oppor-tunity, and we created the Americancentury.

Will we do it again for the 21st cen-tury? President Clinton challenged uslast night as a Congress to come to-gether, Republicans and Democrats,dedicated to public education. I thinkwe could and should do that. I amhappy that he has shown leadershipagain in this important field.

And finally, and this is on a personalnote, for more than 10 years in Con-gress I have joined with many of mycolleagues, including the Senator fromIowa, Senator HARKIN, and SenatorWELLSTONE from Minnesota, SenatorLAUTENBERG from New Jersey, and somany others in our battle against thetobacco industry. We believe it is noth-ing short of disgraceful that we con-tinue to have more and more of ouradolescents in America addicted to thisdeadly product. The Senate droppedthe ball last year. We had a chance topass meaningful legislation to protectour kids, but a partisan minoritystopped the debate. The tobacco lobbywon.

Now I hope that we can reverse thaton the floor of the Senate and the floorof the House of Representatives. But ifwe cannot, President Clinton said lastnight we will join, as some 42 otherStates have, in court, suing the to-bacco companies as a Federal Govern-ment for the costs that American tax-payers have incurred because of theirdeadly product.

I salute the President for doing that.I applaud him for his leadership, again,in this field of issues that is fraughtwith political danger. I believe that hisspeech last night gave us some hopethat we can move forward, even if Con-gress fails to do the right thing andprotect our children.

We stand at an important crossroads.There is no inherent reason why thechange in calendar from 1999 to 2000

should matter. Some say it is just an-other year. But we humans find signifi-cance in that event, and the question iswhether the 106th Congress, which willbridge the centuries, will be a Congressthat will be remembered as a produc-tive Congress that came together on abipartisan basis to help Americans, notonly today, but in generations to come.

We have to continue to ask ourselveswhy we are here, how we can makeAmerica a better place, and the Presi-dent’s State of the Union Address gaveus the direction.

I yield the remainder of my time.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Iowa.f

OPEN SENATE DELIBERATIONS

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I takethe floor today with my colleague andfriend from Minnesota, SenatorWELLSTONE, to speak about an issuethat is going to be coming up here inthe next several days that is going tohave an importance to all of the Amer-ican people and, indeed, to future gen-erations. That is the issue of whetheror not the Senate, in its deliberationson the impeachment of President Clin-ton, will do it in secret or will do it inpublic; will do it behind closed doors,behind a curtain of secrecy, or do itopenly so that the American peopleknow what we are doing. I want to takejust a few minutes to lay out the casefor why I believe it should be open.

Last week, Mr. President, I raised anobjection during the trial to the con-tinued use of the word ‘‘jurors,’’ as itpertains to Senators sitting in a Courtof Impeachment. I did that for a num-ber of reasons, because we are not ju-rors. We are more than that. We arenot just simply triers of fact. We arenot just simply finders of law. But sit-ting as a Court of Impeachment, wehave a broad mandate, an expansiverole to play. We have to take every-thing into account, everything fromfacts—yes, we have to take facts intoaccount—we have to take law into ac-count, but we also have to take intoaccount a broad variety of things: howthe case got here; what it is about; howimportant it is; how important is thispiece of evidence weighed against that;what is the public will; how do the peo-ple feel about this; what will happen tothe public good if one course of actionis taken over another. These are allthings we have to weigh, and that iswhy I felt strongly that Senators, inour own minds and in the public minds,should not be put in the box of simplybeing a juror.

One other aspect of that is if, in fact,we are jurors, the argument went, thenjuries deliberate in secret and, there-fore, if we are a jury, we should delib-erate in secret. Now that we know weare not jurors, I believe that argumenthas gone away. I believe that we are, infact, mandated by the Constitution tobe more than that.

I quote from an article that appearedin the Chicago Tribune by Professor

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES730 January 20, 1999Steven Lubet—he is a professor of lawat Northwestern University—in whichhe pointed out that the Constitutiondoes not allow us the luxury of beingsimply jurors. We have to decide; wehave to judge.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that Mr. Lubet’s article be printedin the RECORD.

There being no objection, the articlewas ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

[From the Chicago Tribune, Jan. 13, 1999]STOP CALLING THEM JURORS

(By Steven Lubet)Some day soon, the actual impeachment

trial of William Jefferson Clinton will begin,with 100 United States senators sitting injudgment. The senators, in anticipation ofthe event, keep referring to themselves as ajury. On a recent edition of ‘‘Larry KingLive,’’ for example, no fewer than six ofthem (three Republicans and three Demo-crats) virtually chanted the mantra that itwas their duty to act as ‘‘impartial jurors.’’It is tempting to agree.

After all, they have been sworn to do jus-tice, they are going to consider evidence andthe resulting verdict must be either convic-tion or acquittal.

But in fact, the senators are not jurors,and the repeated use of that term is dan-gerously misleading.

In an ordinarily trial, the decision-makingresponsibility is divided between judge andjury. The judge makes rulings of law, whilethe jury’s function is severely limited to de-termination of facts. In other words, the juryonly decides ‘‘what happened’’ while thejudge decides almost everything else. That isnot the case with impeachment. Article I ofthe Constitution confers on the Senate the‘‘sole power to try all impeachments.’’ Thatpower is comprehensive—including law, factsand procedure—and it is to be exercised inits entirety by the Senate itself.

(It is true that the chief justice is calledupon to ‘‘preside’’ over presidential impeach-ments, but only because the vice president—who is ordinarily the Senate’s presiding offi-cer—is disqualified by an obvious conflict ofinterest. The chief justice does not sit as ajudge in any ordinary sense, but more as amoderator or chair. He holds no bindinglegal or decisional power.)

And if there were any doubt, Article III ofthe Constitution actually makes this ex-plicit, providing that ‘‘the trial of all crimes,except in cases of impeachment, shall be byjury.’’ So, what are the senators, if not ju-rors? In fact, they are all judges, or if youprefer, members of the court of impeach-ment, each one delegated full power to de-cide every issue involved in the case.

This distinction is crucial. President Clin-ton’s most fervent detractors have arguedthat the House of Representatives, in exer-cise of its own constitutional power, has con-clusively determined the ‘‘impeachability’’of the alleged offenses, leaving the senatorialjury the limited task of deciding whether thecharges are true. But that is wrong. The Sen-ate’s role is not at all confined to the ascer-tainment of facts. Under the Constitution,the senators need not—they may not—deferto the House of Representatives on the criti-cal question of ‘‘impeachability.’’

Thus, the Senators must decide not onlywhether Clinton lied to the grand jury, butalso whether so-called ‘‘perjury about sex’’constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor ofsufficient gravity to justify removing thispresident from office.

It is easy to understand why a senatorwould want to be a juror. The persona is so

engaging: modest, contemplative, nearlyanonymous—the humble citizen called tocivic duty. But the constant references tosenators-as-jurors can only serve to diminishtheir role and distract them from the expan-sive nature of their duty. It is not their job,as it would be a jury’s, simply to decide somefacts and then move on. The Constitutiondoes not allow them that luxury.

The senators are not determining just onecase; their concern must be far greater thanthe fate of a single man. Rather, they aresetting a legal and political precedent thatmay well guide our Republic for the next 130years. Future generations will look backupon this Senate for direction whenever po-tential impeachments arise. Our descendantswill not want to know only what happened,but also what principles govern the removalof the president. And so, the senators cannotmerely decide—they have to judge.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, a coupleof other things regarding openness. Thehallmark of our Republic and of oursystem of government is openness andtransparency. The history of this Sen-ate has been one of opening the doors.The first three sessions of the U.S. Sen-ate were held in secret behind closeddoors, the whole sessions. Up until 1929,all nominations and treaties were de-bated behind closed doors. In 1972, 40percent of all the committee meetingswere done behind closed doors. In fact,up until 1975, many conference commit-tees, and still committee meetings,were held behind closed doors.

We have washed all that away. Wehave found through the years that thebest political disinfectant is sunshine. Ibelieve we are a better Senate, a betterCongress and a better country for open-ing the doors and letting people seewhat we do and how we reach the deci-sions we reach.

Mr. President, there has been a spateof editorials recently regarding open-ing up the trial. I quote from one fromthe Washington Post dated January 14.It says:

It seems only right . . . that the Senateshould be expected to debate in public anycharge for which it is demanding of thepresident a public accounting.

This is not to prevent senators from cau-cusing in private or even meeting unoffi-cially, as senators did last week in craftingthe procedural compromise that will governthe trial. Confidential contacts of this sortcan certainly be constructive. But when theSenate meets as the Senate and considers ar-guments in its official trial proceedings, itshould not do so behind closed doors. Absentthe most unusual of circumstances, it shouldconduct its deliberations openly, thereby en-suring that the final adjudication of Mr.Clinton’s case is as transparently account-able as possible.

The New York Times basically saidthe same thing. The Los AngelesTimes, the Des Moines Register andRoll Call. I think Roll Call basicallysaid it best, Mr. President, when theysaid:

. . . this is not a court trial . . . It is inher-ently a political proceeding . . . Their con-stituents [our constituents], the citizens ofAmerica, have a right to see how they per-form and to fully understand why they de-cided to retain or remove their elected Presi-dent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that all of these editorials beprinted in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

[From The Washington Post, January 14,1999]

AN OPEN TRIAL

Sens. Tom Harkin (D–Iowa) and PaulWellstone (D–Minn.) have announced thatthey will move to suspend certain portions ofthe Senate’s impeachment rules to permitthe full Senate trial of President Clinton tobe conducted in the public’s view. As themore than 100-year-old rules stand now, tes-timony can be taken with the cameras onand the doors open unless a majority votesto close the session, but any time the sen-ators debate a motion and, for that matter,when they consider the final articles, theywill do so in secret. This is exactly thewrong way to conduct a trial whose purposeis to pass public judgment on the conduct ofthe president. The Harkin-Wellstone pro-posal to do the whole trial in public offers afar better approach.

The desire to avoid public argument is un-derstandable, particularly in a case as filledwith salacious material as the Clinton trialmust necessarily be. But it is not the job ofthe Senate to protect citizens from the ra-tionale for the Senate’s actions, nor are sen-ators entitled to be shielded from the embar-rassment of discussing out loud the tawdryevidence at issue in this case.

The often drawn analogy between senatorsand jurors, whose deliberations are kept se-cret, also fails to offer a persuasive reason toconduct secret debates. Jurors, after all, didnot seek public office and are not permitted,as their trials are progressing, to go on talkshows to discuss their own consideration ofthe evidence. The senators are, in this pro-ceeding, acting as far more than simple ju-rors, and it makes little sense for this mostsolemn obligation of the Senate to face lesssunshine than does a routine legislative mat-ter. It seems only right, rather, that the Sen-ate should be expected to debate in publicany charge for which it is demanding of thepresident a public accounting.

This is not to prevent senators from cau-cusing in private or even from meeting unof-ficially, as senators did last week in craftingthe procedural compromise that will governthe trial. Confidential contacts of this sortcan certainly be constructive. But when theSenate meets as the Senate and considers ar-guments in its official trial proceedings, itshould not do so behind closed doors. Absentthe most unusual of circumstances, it shouldconduct its deliberations openly, thereby en-suring that the final adjudication of Mr.Clinton’s case is as transparently account-able as possible.

[From the New York Times, January 13, 1999]OPEN THE SENATE

Since the trial of President Andrew John-son in 1868, the Senate has conducted its de-bates on procedures and even the final ver-dict of impeachments in closed session. Thetime has come for that tradition to be al-tered, at least for the trial of President Clin-ton. Two Democratic Senators, Tom Harkinand Paul Wellstone, have announced thatthey will seek to change the rule on closeddebates after the opening presentationsbegin tomorrow. Whatever would be gainedby allowing senators to deliberate privately,the overriding requirements is for the Amer-ican public to see and judge firsthand wheth-er justice is being done.

Some senators argue that the closed ses-sion last Friday, at which Democrats andRepublicans worked out a compromise ontrial procedures, showed that privacy canserve a constructive purpose. But the Har-kin-Wellstone proposal would not preclude

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S731January 20, 1999the Senate’s adjourning and meeting outsidethe chamber at caucuses like the one lastweek. The principle that should prevail issimply that proceedings that could lead tothe removal of a President should be con-ducted in open session, especially sincemany Americans have questions about thefairness of the House impeachment proceed-ings. Closing the Senate’s deliberations on sograve a matter would undermine public con-fidence and be an affront to citizens’ rightsto observe the operations of government.

Senators love their customs and cere-monies, but their institution’s commandingtrend has been toward openness. At the timeof the nation’s founding, all Senate sessionswere closed. Until 1929, the Senate debatednominations and treaties in closed sessions.Until the reforms of the 1970’s, many Con-gressional hearings and meetings were inclosed session. No one would seriously arguethat these old practices should have beenpreserved. As for impeachment trials, it isworth noting that they were open most ofthe 19th century. Privacy was adopted onlyfor the trial of President Johnson.

Some senators seem to believe that theyshould be regarded as jurors in a trial, andtherefore allowed a measure of confidential-ity. But the senators have privileges notavailable to regular juries. They may askquestions, speak publicly about the processand make motions. It is within their powerto change the rules on closing the session,which would take a two-thirds majority tobe adopted. If openness drives senators to-ward partisanship or prolixity, as some fear,let public scrutiny serve as the governor ontheir excesses.

[From the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 13, 1999]KEEP TRIAL FULLY OPEN

Unless the Senate changes one of its rulesfor conducting President Clinton’s impeach-ment trial, the public will not be allowed towitness crucial parts, including a possibleclimactic debate on whether to convict Clin-ton on charges of perjury and obstruction ofjustice. The Senate should change this ar-chaic rule; the trial’s inestimable nationalimportance demands that the proceedings becompletely open.

For guidance in the trial, which opensThursday, the Senate is relying on rulesadopted in 1868, when Andrew Johnson be-came the first and until now the only presi-dent to be tried for alleged high crimes andmisdemeanors. One of those rules compels‘‘the doors to be closed’’ whenever senatorsdebate among themselves, something theyare allowed to do only when deciding proce-dural issues—such as whether witnessesshould be called—or when they reach a ver-dict. Otherwise, by the rules of 1868, the sen-ators must sit in silence as House prosecu-tors present the case against Clinton andWhite House lawyers defend him. Any ques-tions the senators have must be submitted inwriting to the chief justice, who may or maynot choose to ask them.

The precedents embedded in the Johnsontrial rules should not be put aside lightly.Without them the Senate could find itselfmired in prolonged and divisive argumentsover how to proceed. But no precedent is sa-cred. Times change and rules must changewith them. Congress has many times dis-carded procedures and traditions that cameto be seen as inimical to the need for freediscussion in an open society. for example, asSens. TOM HARKIN (D–Iowa) and PAULWELLSTONE (D–Minn.) note, in the earliestdays of the republic all of Congress’ proceed-ings were secret. Until 1929 nomination hear-ings were conducted behind closed doors.Until 1975 many committee sessions simi-larly took place outside public scrutiny.

The Senate of Andrew Johnson’s day was afar different place from the Senate of today.Its members were not chosen by the elector-ate—that did not come until 1913—but ratherwere appointed by state legislatures and sowere not directly answerable to the popularwill. And much of the Senate’s business wasroutinely conducted in secret.

Today, except when matters of national se-curity are being discussed, Congress’ sessionsare open—in the sunshine, as they say in theCapital. If ever there was an occasion whenthe sun should be allowed fully to shine in,it is in the Clinton impeachment trial.

A two-thirds vote is needed to change Sen-ate rules. HARKIN and WELLSTONE, the majorproponents of full openness, know the dif-ficulty of getting 65 colleagues to agree withthem. But they are leading a fair and justcause. Put simply, Americans have a right towitness this process in all its facets. Thepeople’s representatives in the Senate nowhave the responsibility to assure that right.

[From the Roll Call, January 14, 1999]NO SECRET TRIAL

Imagine the spectacle. On, say, March 5,cameras are turned on in the Senate and theroll is called on the articles of impeachmentagainst President Clinton. The votes aretaken, the decision is made—and then thereis a mad rush for Senators to explain whythey voted as they did. But their actual de-liberations prior to the voting remain secret.

There is not even an official record kept,so reconstructing one of the most portentousdebates in American history depends on thememories and notes of Senators and staffers.

This secrecy scenario is exactly what’s instore unless the Senate changes its rules, asproposed by Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) andPaul Wellstone (D-Minn.), to open the im-peachment trial to the media and the public.

In fact, it will take strong action fromSenate leaders to open the trial, since chang-ing Senate rules requires a two-thirds vote.We urge Democratic and Republican leadersto exercise their influence to prevent theirinstitution from being accused of conductinga ‘‘secret trial.’’

The allegation could turn out to be true.Senate rules call not only for final delibera-tions on impeachment to be conducted in se-cret, but any deliberations. This means thatmotions to dismiss the case and consider-ation of whether to call witnesses might bedone in secret and with no subsequent print-ing of the proceedings in the CongressionalRecord. All but arguments by House man-agers and the President’s lawyers, witnesstestimony, if any, and the actual vote couldtake place behind a shroud.

Some Senators say they would not havebeen able to reach their bipartisan agree-ment on procedure last Friday if the sessionhad been open. If statesmanship requires se-crecy—which we doubt—then arrangementscan be made for informal closed discussions.But all substantive discussions should beopen. We have some sympathy for the viewthat some subject matter conceivably couldbe so sexually explicit that Senators will beashamed to be seen discussing it in public.But it’s not worth closing off almost the en-tire Clinton trial over this possibility.

Conceivably—if this is what it takes tosway skittish Senators—the rules could bealtered to permit some discussion to be heldin closed session with a record kept. But theHouse debate on impeachment could havebeen rated PG–13, and let’s face it: The Clin-ton case record is already so raunchy thatthere’s little that schoolchildren haven’t al-ready heard. So the proceedings ought to beopen.

It will be argued: In court trials, jury de-liberations are conducted in secret. But this

is not a court trial. It is inherently a politi-cal proceeding. The ‘‘jurors’’ are not ordi-nary citizens unused to the glare of public-ity. They will be up for reelection and judgedpartly on the basis of how they handle thiscase. Their constituents, the citizens ofAmerica, have a right to see how they per-form and to fully understand why they de-cided to retain or remove their elected Presi-dent.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let metake off a little bit on one aspect ofthis. Some people say, ‘‘Well, there is abenefit to Senators meeting quietly,privately to discuss these.’’ I believethat, and I would not, in any way, wantto close, for example, some of the cau-cuses that we have—the occupant ofthe Chair remembers we had the closedcaucus between the two parties toreach an agreement under which we areoperating. I think there is a benefit tothat, as the Washington Post articlepointed out. That is fine, as we meetunofficially off the floor amongst our-selves to discuss things. But when theSenate meets as the Senate, as soon asthat opening prayer is given by theChaplain, this place should be open,and the trial should be open.

Next, I believe that unless we openthis trial up, we are going to sow theseeds of confusion, misinformation,suspicion and unnecessary conflict.Here is why I say that. As some wagonce said, there is nothing secret aboutany secret meeting held here in Wash-ington.

Think, if you will, of a closed sessionof the Senate. The galleries arecleared, the cameras are shut off, re-porters are gone, and we engage in de-bate on whatever issue we are going todebate. The debate is over. We open thegalleries again, and 100 Senators rushout of here and they see all the report-ers standing out here.

What happens? ‘‘Well, what hap-pened, Senator?’’

‘‘Well, don’t quote me, not for attri-bution, but guess what this Senatorsaid; guess what that Senator said?’’

And so you get 100 different versionsof what happened here on the Senatefloor.

I believe that will sow a lot of confu-sion, misinformation and unnecessaryconflict. If the doors are open and if wedebate in the open, there is no filter, itis unfiltered, and the public can seehow and why we reached the decisionswe reached.

The press, quite frankly, obviously,as perhaps is their nature, is quick topick up on conflict and rumor. I believeif we follow the rules to close the doorsof this trial it will turn it more into acircus than anything else. If we openthe debate, I don’t believe we will haveany problems.

I was interested in an op-ed piecethat was in the New York Times byformer Senator Dale Bumpers. I readit, and there is a part in there I thinkreally hits home. Former SenatorBumpers said:

In a visit with Harry Truman in his homein Missouri in 1971, he admonished me to al-ways put my trust in the people. ‘‘They canhandle it,’’ he said.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES732 January 20, 1999‘‘They can handle it.’’ I believe the

American people can handle it, too. Ibelieve they can handle any debate,any discussion, any deliberation thatwe have on the Senate floor. Not onlycan they handle it, I believe they havea right to it.

So Senator WELLSTONE and I will, atthe first opportunity, when the firstmotion is made to dismiss the case, ifthat motion is made—obviously the de-bate about that under the rules wouldbe held in secret—we intend at thatpoint to offer a preferential motionthat the debate, the discussion in theSenate on the motion to dismiss beheld openly, to suspend the rules.

Obviously, that is a hurdle. To sus-pend the rules requires a two-thirdsvote. It means that two-thirds of theSenate would have to vote to suspendthe rules. As a further kind of anom-aly, Mr. President, the motion to openup the Senate, to open up our debateand deliberation, the debate on thathas to be held in private under therules, strange as it may seem. And sowe will at that point ask unanimousconsent that the debate and discussionon whether we will open up the debateon the motion to dismiss be held open-ly. Of course, one Senator can object,and then we would have to go into a se-cret debate on our motion to open upthe deliberation and the debate. And sothat will happen sometime soon.

Another issue has been raised, Mr.President—I would just like to cover itand then I am going to yield the floorto Senator WELLSTONE. The point hasbeen raised, well, you know, if Sen-ators start debating this and it gets inthe open, then they get in front of thecameras, and, why, then this thing cango on and on and on because Senators—you know, we Senators like to talk, wecan talk forever. Under the rules of theSenate, when we go into debate and de-liberation on any motion, each Senatorcan be recognized only for 10 minutes—only for 10 minutes. And I think a lotof people are forgetting about that.

Lastly, Mr. President, I remember inJanuary of 1991 when I sat at the deskon that side over there and Senatorshad just been sworn in; housekeepingmotions were being made. One motionwas being made by the majority leaderat that time that the Senate recess oradjourn—I forget—adjourn to a datecertain—I think it was for the State ofthe Union—but during that period oftime, that we would not have been insession, and the time would have runout on whether or not we would useforce to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait,the gulf war.

I stood at that time and raised an ob-jection to the Senate recessing or ad-journing over to that point. And Iraised an objection that enabled us tohave an open and public debate onwhether or not we would authorize thePresident of the United States to con-duct military operations in the gulf.We had that debate. And I think it wasone of the Senate’s finest hours. Eventhose with whom I disagreed I thought

were eloquent and forceful in their ar-guments. We had the debate, we hadthe vote, and then we moved on. And Ithink the American people were betterfor that debate because it was held inthe open.

Mr. President, if we in the Senatecan debate whether or not to send oursons and daughters off to distant landsto fight and die in a war—somethingthat touches every single Americancitizen—if we can debate that in openand in public, then in the name of allthat is right about our Republic andour country and our openness and oursystem of government, why can we notdebate and deliberate in the opensomething else that touches everyAmerican citizen? And that is, why orif the President of the United Statesshould or should not be removed fromoffice. If we can debate it openly, theissue of war, then certainly we can de-bate an issue in the open, the issue ofwhether or not the President would beremoved from office.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the

Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Minnesota.Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.Mr. President, let me, first of all,

thank my colleague, Senator HARKIN.We have been working very hard onthis. There are other Senators who sup-port this motion—Senator LEAHY, Sen-ator FEINGOLD, Senator BOXER, andSenator LIEBERMAN. And I know Sen-ator HUTCHISON has indicated interestin this question. This will be a very im-portant vote coming up next week.

First, let me just, if I could, Mr.President, say that I feel very honoredto be speaking from Dale Bumpers’desk. I don’t think there is anybodywho could match his oratory, but I amsure lucky to have this desk and thislong cord. And Dale Bumpers, whereveryou are, I will do my very best to tryto carry on in your tradition, or atleast give it everything that I have.

Mr. President, next week before theSenate goes into its own deliberationson this question of whether to dismisscharges, we will take this one step at atime. We most definitely will try tomove forward with a motion to suspendthe rules so that the Senate delibera-tions will not be in closed session. Wealso would like to make sure that thevery debate as to whether our delibera-tions are in closed session or secret ses-sion be open to the public. And we will,on the floor of the Senate, make everyeffort possible to keep that debate inthe open.

I am going to be very brief and justmake the following arguments becausethere are some very, very good peoplewho do a lot of work when it comes tointerpretation of the rules. I will say,since the Parliamentarian is here, thatBob Dove has been eminently fair. Hehas treated all of us from both politicalparties with the utmost respect.

My own feeling about this is thatthis trial has been momentous. I per-

sonally wish that it had not come overfrom the House. I have always mademy point that I believe the House over-reached on the impeachment charges.But, Mr. President, they are here inthe Senate.

I think here are the following ques-tions: If in fact we as a Senate aregoing to go into deliberations overwhether to dismiss the charges againstthe President, or later on whether wewill have witnesses, or later on wheth-er the President shall be removed, Icannot imagine that the U.S. Senatewould go into closed session. I cannotimagine that our deliberations and ourdebate and the arguments we makewould not be open to the public.

The public isn’t going to believe inthis political process if we go into se-cret or closed session. The public is notgoing to have trust in what we aredoing if they don’t get a chance toevaluate our debate and what we aresaying and why we reached the conclu-sions we reached.

Mr. President, I really do believethat if there is to be healing in ourcountry—and I certainly pray thatthere will be—it would be a terriblemistake for the U.S. Senators, Demo-crats or Republicans, to cut the publicout. The part of the public that is look-ing at the proceedings right now, thatis evaluating the arguments that arebeing made—and there are people whohave made very good arguments onboth sides of the question—to then sayto them, ‘‘Listen, when it comes tonow the Senate, the U.S. Senate, goinginto our own deliberations and makingour own decisions, you, the public,you’re cut out of it,’’ this goes againstthe very essence of accountability. Itgoes against the very essence of what arepresentative democracy is about.

Mr. President, some of these rules goback to 1868. That was a time when theU.S. Senators were not even directlyelected. They were elected by Statelegislatures. The 17th amendmentchanged all that in 1913 as part of theProgressive movement and the progres-sive change in the country. The ideawas that the U.S. Senators would be apart of representative democracy, di-rectly elected by the people, account-able to the people.

This is a huge decision we are goingto be making in the U.S. Senate. And Ithink it will be a terrible mistake forthe U.S. Senate to go into closed ses-sion, to cut the public out, to not letpeople have the opportunity to hearwhat we are saying in the debate.

Mr. President, it is really quiteamazing, if you think about it. Peoplewill know what our votes are—dismis-sal of charges, witnesses, whether thePresident should be removed from of-fice—and somewhere there will be atranscript of the proceedings, but Idon’t think they will even be pub-lished. There will not even be a publicrecord of what U.S. Senators—the Sen-ator from Arkansas or the Senatorfrom Minnesota or the Senator fromIowa—had to say in this debate.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S733January 20, 1999I just say to all of my colleagues, I

hope that, No. 1, you will agree to aunanimous-consent agreement that inour discussion or our debate whether ornot we go into closed session, that it beopen to the public. What an irony itwould be if, in the very debate aboutwhether or not our deliberations willbe open or closed, our deliberationswere closed. It seems to me that debateought to be open to the public.

Second, I certainly hope that we willhave the two-thirds vote that it willtake to suspend the current rule thatsays we must be in closed session.

Mr. President, I think it is importantfor the public right now to be engagedin this process. I hope people will becalling their Senators, because I reallydo believe that part of our delibera-tions, part of our modus operandi asSenators, whatever States we rep-resent, should be to stay in touch withpeople. Of course, we reach our ownindependent judgment. We reach ourown independent judgment about thefacts, about the charges.

Then there is another question, thethreshold question, about whether ornot these charges rise to the level ofremoving a President from office.

I think part of what we are about asSenators is to try to stay in closetouch with the public, with people inour States, whatever decision we make.It can be a matter of individual con-science, but I think it is terribly im-portant that we operate as a represent-ative body, as the U.S. Senate, as apart of representative democracy of theUnited States of America. We can’t onthis question, we can’t on these ques-tions, if we go into closed session.f

THE PRESIDENT’S STATE OF THEUNION ADDRESS

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, re-garding the President’s speech lastnight, I will start out with his style. Ithought it was rather amazing that,given all that has happened—like ourtrial here—that the President came be-fore the Congress and delivered a verygood speech. He certainly had con-fidence and he outlined some impor-tant proposals.

I think his proposal dealing with So-cial Security was extremely important.I think it is a solid proposal. And itdoes not go in the direction of some ofthe privatization schemes which Ithink would have taken the ‘‘security’’out of Social Security. But it also rec-ognizes we need to make some changesand we need to make sure that we sup-port or save the Social Security sys-tem. But we keep it as a social insur-ance program. It is a contract. It is forall the people in the country.

The emphasis on the COPS Program,community policing, is right on themark. The law enforcement commu-nity in Minnesota has done some greatwork with this community policingprogram, including dealing with all ofthe issues having to do with domesticviolence. Every 13 seconds a woman is

battered in the United States of Amer-ica in her home—a home should be asafe place—and many children see this,as well. God knows what the effect ison the children.

Mr. President, I also want to just bevery honest about my disappointmentin this speech. Here we are, going intothe next century, the next millennium.Here we have this great economy,booming along. We hear about it allthe time. This is our opportunity nowto take bold initiatives, to put forthbold proposals that really respond tochildren in America.

The President talked about low-in-come, elderly citizens, many of themwomen. I think it is terribly importantto address that reality. Mr. President,what about the reality of close to 1 outof 4 children under the age of 3 growingup poor in our country? What about thereality of 1 out of every 2 children ofcolor under the age of 3 growing uppoor in our country?

We have heard from the experts. Wehave had the conferences. We have seenthe studies. We know about the in-volvement of the brain. We know wehave to get it right for these childrenby age 3 or many of them will never beable to do well in school and never beable to do well in life.

I see a real disconnect between someof the words uttered by our Presidentand his proposals that don’t meet thechallenge. The commitment of re-sources to affordable child care for somany families in our country doesn’teven come close to meeting the need. Ithought we were going to make a com-mitment to affordable child care foreveryone, not just for welfare mothersand their children. Not that we’ve doneenough for those on welfare. That, inand of itself, is important, and we arenot doing nearly as well as we should.But we need to help not just low in-come, but working income, moderateincome, even middle-income families,for whom good child care is a huge ex-pense, so that their children can getthe best of nurturing and intellectualstimulation. But this is not in thisbudget. It is not in this budget. There’smoney, but the President’s solutionsare not in the same scope as the prob-lems themselves.

The President has a proposal that fo-cuses on afterschool care. I am all forthat. But when I think about the pov-erty of children in our country, when Ithink about a set of social arrange-ments that allow children to be themost poverty-stricken group in ourcountry, when I think about what a na-tional disgrace that is, and when Ithink about all we should be doing tomake sure that every child in ourcountry has the same opportunity toreach his and her full potential, andwhen I think about what we are goingto be asking our children to carry ontheir shoulders in the next century, Idon’t see in the President’s State ofthe Union Address a bold agenda thatwould lead to the dramatic improve-ment of the lives of so many children

in our country. Why the timidity? Withthis economy booming along, in thewords of Rabbi Hillel, ‘‘If not now,when?’’ If we are not going to speak forour children now, when will we? If weare not going to move forward withbold proposals, start with affordablechild care, when will we?

Finally, Mr. President, on the healthcare front, some important proposals:

Give credit where credit should begiven. I meet with people in the dis-abilities community and this is a hugeproblem. You want to work and thenwhen you get a job you lose your medi-cal assistance and you are worse off. Tobe able to carry health care coveragefor people in the disabilities commu-nity so more people can work—yes.

A tax credit proposal that says if youhave a problem of catastrophic ex-penses—I know what this is about; Ihad two parents with Parkinson’s dis-ease—as a family, you can get up to a$1,000 tax credit per year. But thiscredit is not refundable. Why in theworld do we have a tax credit that isnot refundable, in which case familieswith incomes under $30,000 a year getno help whatever? Are we worriedabout providing assistance to low-in-come people, poor people, as if theyhave it made in America?

Second of all, catastrophic expensesgo way beyond $1,000 a year.

And here is what I don’t understandabout the President’s downsized agen-da. Whatever happened to universalhealth care coverage? Now we have 44million people with no health insur-ance, more than when we started thedebate several years ago. Now we haveanother 44 million people who areunderinsured. We have people fallingbetween the cracks. They are not oldenough for Medicare, prescription drugcosts are not covered, they can’t affordcatastrophic expenses, they are notpoor enough for medical assistance,they are getting dropped for coverageby their employers, and copay anddeductibles are going up and are waytoo high a percentage of family in-come.

Several years ago, the health insur-ance industry took universal healthcare coverage off the table. We oughtto put it back on the table. I don’t un-derstand the timidity of the Presi-dent’s State of the Union Address whenit comes to making sure that we canprovide good health care coverage forall of our citizens. Our economy isbooming, we are going into the nextcentury, this is the time for bold ini-tiatives. This is not the time for timid-ity. This is a time to make a connec-tion between the words we speak andthe problems we identify and the chal-lenges we say we have as a Nation andthe investment.

Where is the investment in thehealth, skills, intellect and characterof our children in America? Where isthe investment to make sure thatevery citizen has health coverage thathe and she can afford for themselvesand their families? I didn’t see it in the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES734 January 20, 1999President’s State of the Union Address.For that reason, I am disappointed. Ibelieve our country can do better. I be-lieve our country can do better. I be-lieve the U.S. Congress can do better,and I hope that we will.f

THE PRIVATE PROPERTYFAIRNESS ACT OF 1999

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I have in-troduced S. 246, the Private PropertyFairness Act of 1999. This bill will helpensure that when the Governmentissues regulations for the benefit of thepublic as a whole, it does not saddlejust a few landowners with the wholecost of compliance. This bill will helpenforce the U.S. Constitution’s guaran-tee that the Federal Government can-not take private property without pay-ing just compensation to the owner.

Recent record low prices received byAmerican agricultural producers hasprompted great concern about the fu-ture of family farmers and ranchers.What we must remember is that gov-ernment regulations are unfairly bur-dening this vital sector—hitting familyfarmers the hardest.

The dramatic growth in Federal reg-ulation in recent decades has focusedattention on a very murky area ofproperty law, a regulatory area inwhich the law of takings is not yet set-tled to the satisfaction of most Ameri-cans.

The bottom line is that the law inthis area is unfair. For example, if theGovernment condemns part of a farmto build a highway, it has to pay thefarmer for the value of his land. But ifthe Government requires that samefarmer stop growing crops on thatsame land in order to protect endan-gered species or conserve wetlands, thefarmer gets no compensation. In bothsituations the Government has actedto benefit the general public and, inthe process, has imposed a cost on thefarmer. In both cases, the land is takenout of production and the farmer losesincome. But only in the highway exam-ple is the farmer compensated for hisloss. In the regulatory example, thefarmer, or any other landowner, has toabsorb all of the cost himself. This isnot fair.

The legislation I am introducingtoday is an important step toward pro-viding relief from these so-called regu-latory takings. My bill is a narrowlytailored approach that will make a realdifference for property owners acrossAmerica. It protects private propertyrights in two ways. First, it puts inplace procedures that will stop or mini-mize takings by the Federal Govern-ment before they occur. The Govern-ment would have to jump a much high-er hurdle before it can restrict the useof someone’s privately owned property.For the first time, the Federal Govern-ment will have to determine in ad-vance how its actions will impact theproperty owner, not just the wetland orthe endangered species. This bill alsowould require the Federal Government

to look for options other than restrict-ing the use of private property toachieve its goal.

Second, if heavy Government regula-tions diminish the value of privateproperty, this bill would allow thelandowners to plead their case in aFederal district court, instead of forc-ing them to seek relief. This bill makesthe process easier, less costly, andmore accessible and accountable so allcitizens can fully protect their prop-erty rights.

For too long, Federal regulators havemade private property owners bear theburdens and the costs of Governmentland use decisions. The result has beenthat real people suffer.

Joe Jeffrey is a farmer in Lexington,NE. Like most Americans, he is proudof his land. He believed his propertywas his to use and control as he saw fit.So, after 12 years of regulatory strug-gles, Mr. Jeffrey got fed up and decidedto lease out his land. The Central Ne-braska Public Power and IrrigationDistrict now has use of the property forthe next 17 years. The Government’sregulatory intrusion left Mr. Jeffreyfew other options.

Joe Jeffrey first met the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service and the ArmyCorps of Engineers in 1987. Mr. Jef-frey’s introduction to the long arm ofthe Federal bureaucracy was in theform of wetlands regulations. Mr. Jef-frey was notified that he had to de-stroy two dikes on his land becausethey were constructed without theproper permits. Nearly 2 years later,the corps partially changed its mindand allowed Mr. Jeffrey to reconstructone of the dikes because the corpslacked authority to make him destroyit in the first place.

Then floods damaged part of Mr. Jef-frey’s irrigated pastureland andchanged the normal water channel. Mr.Jeffrey set out to return the channel toits original course by moving sand thatthe flood had shifted. But the Govern-ment said ‘‘no.’’ The corps told him hehad to give public notice before hecould repair his own property.

Then came the Endangered SpeciesAct.

Neither least terns nor piping plov-ers—both federally protected endan-gered species—have ever nested on Mr.Jeffrey’s property. But that didn’t stopthe regulators. The U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service wanted to designate Mr.Jeffrey’s property as ‘‘critical habitat’’for these protected species.

The bureaucrats could not even agreeamong themselves on what they want-ed done. The Nebraska Department ofEnvironmental Control wanted thearea re-vegetated. But the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service wanted the areakept free of vegetation. Mr. Jeffrey wascaught in the middle.

This is a real regulatory horrorstory. And there’s more.

Today—12 years after his regulatorystruggle began—Mr. Jeffrey is facedwith eroded pastureland that cannot beirrigated and cannot be repaired with-

out significant personal expense. Thevalue of Mr. Jeffrey’s land has been di-minished by the Government’s regu-latory intrusion—but he has not beencompensated. In fact, he has had tospend money from his own pocket tocomply with the regulations. The Fishand Wildlife Service asked Mr. Jeffreyto modify his center pivot irrigationsystem to negotiate around the erodedarea—at a personal cost of $20,000. Andthe issue is still not resolved.

Mr. President, we do not need morestories like Joe Jeffrey’s in America.Our Constitution guarantees our peo-ple’s rights. Congress must act to up-hold those rights and guarantee themin practice, not just in theory. Govern-ment regulation has gone too far. Wemust make it accountable to the peo-ple. Government should be accountableto the people, not the people account-able to the Government.

What this issue comes down to isfairness. It is simply not fair and it isnot right for the Federal Governmentto have the ability to restrict the useof privately owned property withoutcompensating the owner. It violatesthe principles this country was foundedon. This legislation puts some justiceback into the system. It reins in regu-latory agencies and gives the privateproperty owner a voice in the process.It makes it easier for citizens to appealany restrictions imposed on their landor property. It is the right thing to do.It is the just and fair thing to do.f

THE SAFE SCHOOLS, SAFESTREETS AND SECURE BORDERSACT OF 1999Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am

pleased to join Senator LEAHY and sev-eral other Democratic Senators in in-troducing the Safe Schools, SafeStreets and Secure Borders Act of 1999.Thanks in large part to the legacy ofsuccess that Senate Democrats havehad in the area of anti-crime legisla-tion, the crime rate in this country hasbeen going down for six consecutiveyears. This is the longest such periodof decline in 25 years, and the com-prehensive crime bill that we are intro-ducing will build on this success andreduce crime even further.

Despite the decrease in crimethroughout the last six years, juvenilecrime and drug abuse continue to beproblems that weigh heavily on theminds of the American people. In myhome state of South Dakota, there hasbeen a particularly alarming increasein juvenile crime, and I have beenworking extensively with communityleaders and concerned parents to focuspublic attention on this issue. Now isthe time when we must target the realneeds of American families and com-munities, and I believe that the SafeSchools, Safe Streets and Secure Bor-ders Act of 1999 will do just that. Thisbill will reduce crime by targeting vio-lent crime in our schools, reformingthe juvenile justice system, combatinggang violence, cracking down on the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S735January 20, 1999sale and use of illegal drugs, strength-ening the rights of crime victims, andgiving police and prosecutors moretools and resources to fight crime. Inaddition, this bill would build on one ofthe most successful initiatives of the1994 Crime Act by extending the au-thorization for the COPS program sothat an additional 25,000 police officerscan be deployed on our streets in thecoming years. We will soon meet thecommitment that we made in the 1994Crime Act to put 100,000 new police of-ficers on the beat across America—under budget and ahead of schedule—and we should build on that success.Putting more police officers on thestreets, however, is not enough.

Unfortunately, in the last few years,our schools have been plagued by trag-ic shootings far too many times. Thesesenseless tragedies must be stopped,and the Safe Schools, Safe Streets andSecure Borders Act of 1999 targets vio-lent crime in schools by providingtechnical assistance in schools, reform-ing the juvenile justice system, assist-ing states in prosecuting and punishingjuvenile offenders and reducing juve-nile crime, while also protecting chil-dren from violence.

Moreover, we must stop street gangsfrom spreading fear in our neighbor-hoods and interfering with our liveli-hoods. A recent report by the Depart-ment of Justice indicates that morethan 846,000 gang members belong to31,000 youth gangs in the UnitedStates, and the numbers appear to begrowing. The ramifications of thistrend could be disastrous. For this rea-son, an important provision of the SafeSchools, Safe Streets and Secure Bor-ders Act of 1999 would crack down ongangs by making the interstate ‘‘fran-chising’’ of street gangs a crime. It willalso double the criminal penalties forusing or threatening physical violenceagainst witnesses and contains otherprovisions designed to facilitate theuse and protection of witnesses to helpprosecute gangs and other violentcriminals. The Act also provides fund-ing for law enforcement agencies incommunities designated by the Attor-ney General as areas with a high levelof interstate gang activity.

We can also do more to keep our chil-dren off the street and out of trouble.The Safe Schools, Safe Streets and Se-cure Borders Act of 1999 will do justthat by providing additional fundingfor proven prevention programs incrime-prone areas and creating afterschool ‘‘safe havens’’ where childrenare protected from drugs, gangs andcrime with activities including drugprevention education, academic tutor-ing, mentoring, and abstinence train-ing. In this way, we can provide kidswith coaches and mentors now, so thatthey will not need judges and wardenslater. This makes sense for our chil-dren, this makes sense for our commu-nities, and this makes sense for our fu-ture.

There are many other provisions inthe Safe Schools, Safe Streets and Se-

cure Borders Act of 1999 that will makea real difference—a positive dif-ference—in the lives of the people ofthis country. This comprehensive billis a vital part of our ongoing effort tosecure the safety of our schools, streetsand citizens, and I encourage my col-leagues on both sides of the aisle togive it their full support.

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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.f

SERIOUS SITUATION IN KOSOVO

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wouldlike to address the Senate for a fewminutes about this very serious situa-tion unfolding in Kosovo.

Last fall I gave a series of remarksregarding the increasing problems re-lating to Kosovo. On September 3, 1998,having just returned from Kosovo atthat time, and subsequently on October2, October 8 and October 20, I stood atthis very desk and said it was my beliefthat the types of atrocities that theworld has witnessed in the past fewdays would quickly unfold, unlessNATO placed in the Pristina region aground force to serve as a deterrent.That may not be a popular position,but it is a realistic one, and I expressedit to the Supreme Allied Commander ofNATO, General Clark, just a few daysago. I reiterated the fact that we sim-ply had to put in place a deterrentforce.

Now, there is the complexity thatKosovo is a sovereign part of Yugo-slavia—a sovereign nation. However, ifwe are using the threat of air oper-ations against that sovereign country,it seems to me that short of takingthat step, we could make it very clearto Milosevic, who unquestionably is re-sponsible for these atrocities, that it isabsolutely essential to have thisground force in place. Currently, over800 individuals—unarmed verifiers—arein Kosovo, trying to help the people ofthis tragic region sort out their livesand receive the basics of food and shel-ter. Now, those people are at risk.

Mr. President, I also say that if thatNATO force were to be placed in thePristina region, as I so recommend, apart of that force would have to be aU.S. component. General Clark, Su-preme Allied Commander of NATO, isan American officer. In my judgment,we could not in clear conscience have aNATO force in place without some rep-resentation of American servicemenand women. I recognize the risks, butthere is a direct parallel, Mr. Presi-dent, between the disintegration inKosovo, the threat of atrocities and,indeed, conflict between the KLA andthe Serbian forces. Conflict, which inthe estimate of those on the scene, is

looming just weeks ahead. There is adirect correlation between Kosovo andBosnia. Although I personally was ini-tially opposed to the deployment ofU.S. ground troops in Bosnia, oncedone, I have been a strong supporter ofgetting it done correctly. This Nationhas contributed a very significant in-vestment, first, of men and women inthe Armed Forces serving as an inte-gral part of the NATO forces in Bosnia,and second, with respect to billions ofdollars of the taxpayers’ money.

In my judgment, there has been verylittle progress of late in Bosnia becauseof the political factions still tena-ciously holding on to their fractious re-lationships between Serbs and Croats,Muslims and Croats, and Muslims andSerbs—all of the ethnic, deep-rootedproblems which brought about thisconflict many years ago. But we couldlose that investment; what little gainhas been achieved in Bosnia could belost and, indeed, in all probability, anyability to advance toward an independ-ent nation—one that is militarily andeconomically able to stand on its ownfeet so that we can get our forces out,together with other allies involved.That is in jeopardy with this instabil-ity in Kosovo because those variousfactions are going to watch Kosovo andsay, ‘‘NATO is not going to do any-thing there, so let’s just wait it out inBosnia. Wait it out, and we will havethat opportunity some day to go backand fight amongst ourselves to achieveour respective goals.’’

So, Mr. President, I so recommend toour President and other leaders inNATO today, other nations, examinevery carefully, indeed, the suggestionto place a ground force as a deterrentforce in the Pristina region as quicklyas possible.

I yield the floor.Mr. COVERDELL addressed the

Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Georgia is recognized.Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President,

parliamentary inquiry. It is my under-standing that from 12 o’clock to 1o’clock there is 1 hour on our sideunder the control of myself or a des-ignee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator is correct.f

THE REPUBLICAN AGENDA FORTHE 106TH CONGRESS

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, daybefore yesterday, our conference intro-duced our agenda for the 106th Con-gress. We all know that the Senate isin a very stressful period. But we havesaid time and time again that the peo-ple’s business is going to continue. Ifanything, the presence of all Membersof the Senate has accelerated our at-tention—the Presiding Officer and Italked about that earlier today—accel-erated the work of the people’s busi-ness. But the outlining of this agendais extremely important and says vol-umes about our view of what is good

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES736 January 20, 1999for America and what this Congress,the 106th, will be highly focused upon.

There are five core areas that weredefined by Majority Leader LOTT, othermembers of leadership, and our con-ference:

No. 1: Saving and strengthening ofSocial Security to create a more secureretirement system for all generations—not just some.

No. 2: Improving education opportu-nities for every American child, re-gardless of circumstances. We allknow—and last night the President ac-knowledged—that we have an enor-mous problem in kindergarten throughhigh school. In the last Congress, the105th, our conference put education No.1. I predicted then that we were goingto stay with it. And we are. Nothingcould be more important.

No. 3: Providing tax relief and eco-nomic opportunity for working fami-lies.

When I first came to Washington notall too long ago, a working family inGeorgia was only keeping 45 cents onthe dollar after taxes—State, local, andFederal—and their cost of regulation.In this Congress, our majority has got-ten it to where they now keep 52 centson the dollar. We are up 7 cents. Butuntil we get two-thirds of their pay-checks staying in their checking ac-count—not coming up here—our workisn’t anywhere near finished.

Many in our leadership have alreadyoutlined dramatic proposals to reduceall taxes anywhere from 4 to 10 percentand 15 percent over 10 years. I mightadd that if we can achieve that, we willindeed be restoring to American fami-lies the right to keep two-thirds oftheir paycheck. What a wonderful cele-bration we ought to have when that isachieved.

No. 4: Increasing personal and com-munity security by fighting drugs andcrime.

Drugs are the axle of crime in Amer-ica today, Mr. President. In any prisonin America, 80 percent of the prisonersin it—a jail, a Federal prison—arethere for direct or indirect drug-relatedproblems. To break the back of crimein America, you have to break the backof the narcotic Mafia.

No. 5: Strengthen our national secu-rity.

We just heard from Senator WARNER,the world is a very, very dangerousplace. We have undermined our mili-tary. We have not given them suffi-cient resources, and therefore theycannot be as trained and ready as theyneed to be—No. 1. No. 2, the Presidentalluded to last night—we are behindthe curve in understanding that terror-ism is a component of strategic warfaretoday. No. 3: As the Rumsfeld Commis-sion has acknowledged, we cannot de-fend ourselves against ballistic mis-siles in the hands of rogues.

Saving Social Security, improvingeducation, tax relief, personal securityat home and in school and in the work-place, and strengthening our ability todefend ourselves from world rogues—

Mr. President, these are not episodicissues that somebody dragged out of ahole; these issues are an acknowledg-ment that America is great because herpeople have been free, and an under-standing that the core principles ofAmerican freedom are economic oppor-tunity, the right to work and save andpursue your dreams. That is what hasmade Americans so independent andbold—and an understanding that a freesociety cannot function if its citizensare not safe, either from a world rogueor a narcotic dealer, or that their prop-erty is not secure. To the extent a citi-zen of America is not fully educated,they cannot enjoy the full benefits ofAmerican citizenship, and indeed nouneducated people will remain free.

This agenda is designed to strengthenthe components that have kept Amer-ica great: Our freedom—keep Ameri-cans free economically, let them keeptheir paycheck, keep them secure andsafe in their workplace and home andschool, and that their property is pro-tected, and keep them educated. Mr.President, they will take it from thereno matter who the policymakers are;the American citizens will build thatnew American century that the Presi-dent alluded to last night.

Mr. President, I now yield up to 5minutes to my distinguished colleague,Senator ABRAHAM from Michigan, whowill continue addressing the key com-ponents of this agenda for freedom.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Michigan is recognized.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr.President. I thank the Senator fromGeorgia for organizing today’s presen-tation.

As he has already outlined, yesterdaywe on the Republican side offered anagenda which we think includes thekey cornerstones for strengthening ourNation and moving forward into the21st century. I am not going to talkabout every one of those. I would liketo address a couple of them, though,briefly, because I think it is very im-portant for the public to understandexactly why these are at the top of ourlist.

First, I want to talk about tax relief.As we learned last night from the Stateof the Union—and the Budget Commit-tee hearing in the Senate has recentlyindicated—not only did last year markthe first time since 1969 that we ran abudget surplus, but it now appears as ifwe will run budget surpluses for thenext 25 years, and potentially beyond.

That is great news for our country. Ithink—I hope, at least—that it will ad-dress some of the cynicism that has ex-isted in America towards the U.S. Con-gress because for so many years, nomatter what we were claiming in ourcampaigns, we would come to the Sen-ate and the House and not get the jobdone. But we have gotten the job done.

Today, Americans are sending suffi-cient revenues so we have a surplus.That is going to be a very big surplus.In fact, it may be as much as multitril-lion dollars of surplus over the next 10,

20, 25 years and beyond. The reason wehave the surplus is in large measure—in fact, almost exclusively—because oftwo things: No. 1, our ability here inWashington to tighten belts with re-spect to some spending programs in re-cent years; and, much more impor-tantly, the fact that American tax-payers are sending more money toWashington in tax revenue than we an-ticipated when we put in place thebudget that we are working withtoday.

Mr. President, obviously part of thatis the result of the economy’s strength,and it is thriving. But if the Americantaxpayers are sending more money toWashington than we even expected,than we even asked them for, and thatthey should be spending, it seems tome obvious that the time is here to letthem keep some of those dollars thatwe didn’t even ask for in the firstplace.

So for that reason, the Republicanagenda includes in every one of its keycomponents an across-the-board taxcut for hard-working American fami-lies.

We heard people say, ‘‘Well, weshouldn’t do a tax cut; we have somany other things to get done first.’’When we had a budget deficit, we weretold we couldn’t cut taxes now, that wehave a deficit. Now we have a budgetsurplus and it is projected to go for 25years.

I would suggest that no matter whattoday’s agenda items are that deservepriority over tax cuts, there will al-ways be more. There will always be anew program, there will always be anold program, there will always be somerainy day down the road we are worriedabout, and the taxpayers consistentlyare told no, no, no, the time is not ripeyet for a tax cut. Well, I say it is. Ithink the families who are sending usthe largest percentage of the GDP thatwe have ever seen sent to Washingtonin history deserve to keep some ofthose dollars and set their own prior-ities. And for that reason, we proposean across-the-board tax cut.

We also believe that the families ofAmerica deserve protection in anothersense. Here in this Chamber we oughtto talk about children and the prob-lems and the challenges that confrontthem and our desire to have policiesthat will protect the young people ofAmerica.

The one thing we have to protectthem against, in my judgment, andcontinue protecting them against, isthe scourge of illegal drugs that con-tinues to take an unhealthy and an in-creasing toll on young people.

Over the last few years, the drug sta-tistics have suggested that there hasbeen a leveling out of the drug use inthis country, that we may have at leastpeaked, and it may be even getting bet-ter a little bit. But the one area wherewe are not seeing improvement is withrespect to the use of drugs by kids,kids as young as eighth grade, someeven younger than that.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S737January 20, 1999Now, our drug plan, which is the sec-

ond cornerstone of this agenda, willhelp us to achieve the goal of protect-ing our kids from these illegal drugs. Itwill include a wide array, a wide focusof programs, from interdiction on theone hand to treatment and preventionon the other.

But a centerpiece that I want tobriefly discuss before my time expiresis that this proposal of ours providestough sentences for the people whopeddle drugs to our kids. The messagewe have to send to drug dealers and thesymbol we have to set for kids inAmerica is that the price of doing busi-ness in drugs is going up, not down.Now, this is an area where there issome disagreement between our legis-lation and the administration.

I ask for an additional minute.Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the

Senator may please feel free. The nextpresenter has not arrived, so the Sen-ator might as well continue with hisremarks until they do.

Mr. ABRAHAM. In the last Congress,the U.S. Sentencing Commission putforth a proposal, embraced by the ad-ministration and the Department ofJustice and the President, that wouldaddress this issue in what I consider tobe the wrong fashion. That proposalsuggests that because there is a widedifference between the drug sentencesthat powder cocaine dealers receiveand the sentence that crack cocainedealers receive, we ought to bring themmore in line with each other by mak-ing the sentences on crack cocainedealers more lenient.

That is the wrong way to proceed,Mr. President. And our legislation goesat it the right way, by making the sen-tences meted out to people who sellpowder cocaine tougher. That is an im-portant part of this legislation, notonly because we need to make thosesentences tougher, because we don’twant people at the top of the drugchain to be getting lighter sentencesthan those at the bottom. But it is alsoimportant because it is critical that wesend a signal that we are not going tomake anybody’s drug sentences, if theyare peddling crack cocaine to our kids,any lighter.

This is important for a variety ofreasons that I have spoken about herebefore, but I think it demonstrates theseriousness of the Republican proposal.And taken as a whole, that proposal, Ibelieve, will have a tremendous impacton reducing the use of illegal drugs inthis country and, most specifically, re-ducing the use of illegal drugs byyoung people.

So for these reasons, I am very proudto endorse this agenda, and I will beworking as a cosponsor on a number ofthese bills. I believe we can pass themin this Congress. I think we saw yester-day in the introduction of these billsthe makings of the kind of solid foun-dation, as I said, the cornerstone forsuccess, as we move our country to the21st century.

So I want to thank Senator COVER-DELL again for having put together to-

day’s special order. I look forward toworking with him and under his leader-ship on a number of these issues, and Ithank the Chair for allowing me achance to proceed here today.

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, Ithank my colleague from Michigan. Idon’t think you can say enough aboutthe fact that the new target of the drugcartels, the drug infrastructure, whichis in many ways better than a lot ofthe soft drink distributors’, is focusedon children 8 to 14—8 to 14. And theconsequences of attacking that vulner-able segment of our society live withus an extended period of time.

Mr. President, I now yield up to 5minutes to my distinguished colleague,Senator GRAMS of Minnesota.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Minnesota.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. Ithank the Senator from Georgia for or-ganizing this time and giving us an op-portunity to speak on some of the sub-jects that I think are very importantto this Congress.

Mr. President, I join my colleaguestoday in offering our perspective on theState of the Union—on both lastnight’s speech by the President, andalso the direction I believe we areheaded as a nation.

Let me begin with the speech.What we heard from the President

last night was vintage Bill Clinton.And that is lots of promises, lots ofpoll-tested proposals, lots of talk, butthat all adds up to more spending andmore Washington control. In fact, inabout 77 minutes he made about 77 newpromises of spending for Washington.

Each of us want good schools for ourchildren, security for our retirementyears, a tax system that lets us meetimportant family obligations, andmore opportunities for Americans tosell their products around the world.But empty promises from Washingtonare not going to help.

The President believes the answer inpart lies in targeted tax cuts that tryto regulate behavior. It is a way tobribe the taxpayers with their ownmoney by saying, ‘‘If you do this forme, I will cut your taxes in return.’’

That is the wrong approach. It isaimed at a certain political segment,and because of that, 90 percent of thepeople in this country will not benefit.The tax cuts proposed by the Presidentadd up to too few dollars that only afew people would benefit from.

If we are truly going to pursue eco-nomic freedom for all, the real answeris to reduce the roadblocks to success.That, I believe, begins with our con-tinuing efforts on cutting taxes for ev-eryone.

Yesterday, I joined Chairman ROTHin introducing S. 3, the Tax Cuts forAll Americans Act. Our legislation, oneof the top five priorities of Republicansin the 106th Congress, would offer a tenpercent across-the-board tax cut forevery American, instead of the Presi-dent’s targeted tax scheme that ig-nores most working families. A ten-

percent cut is meaningful tax relief forall, not token tax relief for just a few.

Mr. President, in one word, the stateof the union is ‘‘overtaxed.’’

American families are taxed at thehighest levels in our history, evenhigher than during World War II, withnearly 40 percent of a typical family’sbudget going to pay taxes on the fed-eral, state and local levels. Over $1.8trillion of their income will be si-phoned off to Washington this year.

Certainly, the taxpayers are in des-perate need of relief.

Freedom for families means givingfamilies the freedom to spend more oftheir own dollars as they choose.

Our bill will cut the personal tax ratefor each American by 10 percent acrossthe board. It will increase incentives towork. It will increase incentives tosave and invest. It will help to improvethe standard of living for all Ameri-cans.

The 10 percent across-the-board taxcut will not only benefit families, butit will also have a substantial, positiveimpact on the economy as a whole. Itwill increase the financial rewards ofhard work, entrepreneurship, innova-tion, and productivity—the very foun-dations upon which this nation hasthrived.

If the state of the union is overtaxed,the President did not help much withthe laundry list of new initiatives heproposed last night that would expandthe size and scope of the already enor-mous federal government.

It was about 2 years ago that weheard the era of big government wasover. Well, the era of big government isnow alive and well. In fact, it is amammoth new government under theproposals of President Clinton lastnight. Many of these programs soundgood, but what the President did notspell out is exactly who is going to payfor it—and, of course, we all know thatits the taxpayers. In other words, I sayhe led Americans into the candy storelast night and said, ‘‘you can have any-thing you want.’’ The only problem ishe didn’t tell you who is going to haveto pay for it. The White House‘‘spinmeisters’’ suggested the Presi-dent’s proposals would, ‘‘knock yoursocks off.’’ Instead, those proposalswill pick your pockets.

Mr. President, let me say this asclearly as I can: I will strongly opposeany proposals that are designed tobuild the President’s popularity at theexpense of the American taxpayers.

I am also disappointed by the com-ments made by the President last nightabout the ailing Social Security sys-tem.

We heard a lot of vague promisesthat ultimately leave the governmentin control of your retirement dollarsand do nothing to save Social Securityfrom bankruptcy or create a better re-tirement system for the next genera-tion. The President is worried aboutsaving a failed retirement system thatpromises small benefits when he shouldbe working to create a system that

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES738 January 20, 1999provides larger benefits and more secu-rity for everybody. Let us worry aboutpeople, and not expend precious timeand resources trying to save a dyinggovernment program. If we are trulyserious about offering Americans theopportunity to achieve wealth and se-curity in their retirement years, legis-lation I have introduced that wouldallow workers to set up personal retire-ment accounts is a far better approach.Mr. President, the American peoplenow have a choice: empty words andpoll-tested promises on one hand, and areal taxpayers’ agenda of freedom andopportunity on the other. The state ofthe union can be improved, as my col-leagues and I have so vigorously sug-gested today. And the people are de-pending on us to lead the way. I thankthe Chair.

I yield the floor.Mr. COVERDELL. I thank my col-

league from Minnesota for his remarks.I am going to yield to the Senator fromMississippi for the purpose of a unani-mous consent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Mississippi is recognized.

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair.(The remarks of Mr. COCHRAN and Mr.

HAGEL pertaining to the introductionof S. 257 are located in today’s RECORDunder ‘‘Statements on Introduced Billsand Joint Resolutions.’’)

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise thisafternoon to make a brief observationand reflect on one of the points thePresident made last night during hisState of the Union Message. The Presi-dent suggested—recommended thatAmerica pause for a moment and un-derstand and absorb this dynamic, ex-citing time that we live in. And, in-deed, it is exciting, dynamic, and fullof hope and opportunity. But, as I lis-tened to the President last night—andI listened to the 20 specific mentions ofmore government spending for moreand new programs, and as I listened tothe 24 specific mentions of more Fed-eral Government regulation—I failed tohear any reference to tax cuts, to turn-ing back authority, turning back regu-lation, turning back government to thepeople.

I connected with what he said in hisobservation about the times we live in.And isn’t it amazing, especially whenyou look at the report that FreedomHouse issued a month ago about wherethe world is going today. In that re-port, Freedom House pointed out thatfor the first time since Freedom Househas been calculating personal liberty inthe world, more peoples are free, withmore personal liberties, today than atany time in the history of their meas-urement; in fact, they went so far as tosay maybe in the history, proportion-ally, of mankind. There is a long wayto go, but in their calculations theysaid almost half of the 5.6 billion peo-ple on Earth are free today. I find thatrather interesting, in that most of theworld is moving this way—less govern-ment, less regulation, more personalliberty—and here the greatest Republic

in the history of mankind, if you listento the President, is going back theother way: more restrictions, moregovernment, more regulation, and lessindividual freedom.

On Sunday and Monday of this weekI was back in Nebraska and met withteachers, students, parents. One of thethings that came out of that meetingfrom the teachers was this observation,and I say this in light of what thePresident proposed last night with hisadvocacy of more Federal Governmentinvolvement in education. As a matterof fact, he went beyond that. He said,unless local school districts compliedwith what Washington said—with ourmoney, the taxpayers’ money; evenmore interesting—then we would cutthem off. What the schoolteachers toldme, those we have charged to educateour children, those who have maybethe heaviest burden except for the par-ents, in this debate—they tell me wedon’t want any more Government. Butthey also said this, and this is wherewe are missing the point: We are glid-ing over this gap of children from 1 to5 or 6. When the teacher gets that childat 5 or 6, that is a molded product.That is a molded product we can workand develop, but where is the emphasison the parental responsibility? Accord-ing to the President, we are going to,in fact, do more for day care, and nowsummer programs, more education—the Federal Government, essentially, isgoing to really dictate the dynamics ofour foundation.

The foundation of our country is notgovernment. The foundation of thiscountry rests on a value system, andmorals and honesty and respect for oneanother. That is what we build from.That is what we have always builtfrom. Not more government programs;not more money. And, when we glideover that and act like that is not thereor that is not important, or even em-phasize the responsibility of parentsand the responsibility of all society, weare in some trouble.

I find it interesting, in reading Gov-ernor George Bush’s comments yester-day, what he said: Too much hope ineconomics, just as we once put toomuch hope in Government, may be ourgreater challenge. He is right. We mustgo beyond Government, beyond eco-nomics, and go back and emphasize pa-rental responsibility and truth and val-ues. That is what we build from.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.Mr. COVERDELL. I thank my good

colleague from Nebraska for his re-marks and insight, and now turn toyield up to 5 minutes to the distin-guished Senator from Idaho.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.BURNS). Senator CRAIG is recognizedfor 5 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me as-sociate myself with the remarks of mycolleague from Nebraska and thank mycolleague from Georgia for bringing usthis special order as we attempt toanalyze the President’s State of theUnion Message of last evening.

America tuned in, and so did we, tohear what our President would sayabout the State of the Union. And hesaid what we expected him to say, thatthe State of the Union itself at thismoment in time is very, very good.But, what would a Presidency in crisistry to do at a time that the State ofthe Union is in excellent shape? Myguess is that Presidency would attemptto appeal to his base in a very aggres-sive way, and to divert attention fromthe real issue at hand that will tran-spire once again on the floor of thisSenate in less than an hour, and that isan impeachment trial of this President,this Presidency in crisis.

But, for a moment, let me talk aboutthe speech and his effort to divert at-tention. The polls show he did justthat. He got excellent ratings in thepolls this morning in that snapshot ofAmerican opinion about what thisPresident said. The problem in thesnapshot is that there were nocomparatives. The Senator from Ne-braska offered comparatives, the Sen-ator from Georgia has offeredcomparatives this morning, as to whatthis President has said in the past anddone in the past versus what he saidlast night. About a year ago now, thisPresident said the era of big govern-ment is over. We all cheered that. Mostconservatives like myself for a longtime have dedicated their energies toreducing the size of government and itsimpact on our daily lives as citizensand taxpayers of this country. And wehave come a long way in doing that inthe last several decades. So the Presi-dent, once again appealing to his rat-ings in the polls, said the era of biggovernment is over. That was 12months ago.

As we all know, in the last 12 monthsa great deal has transpired as it relatesto this President and his Presidency.Last night this President proclaimed agrand new great society. In fact, heprobably proposed more new Govern-ment initiatives—75 or 80 new initia-tives—more so than Lyndon Johnsondid with his proposal for a great newsociety. He literally reached out andattempted to touch every Americancitizen to make them feel good. He isgoing to correct the schools and changethe character of the schools, as towhich the Senator from Nebraska re-ferred. Obviously, he is going to attackus on our second amendment rights toprotect our citizens, so he says, and itwent on and on and on.

But the one thing he did not mentionwas what was he going to do to the tax-payer; more importantly, what was hegoing to do for the taxpayer. He pro-posed to do nothing for them but do aheck of a lot to them.

Three times or four or five times lastnight he talked about his balancedbudget. I say, ‘‘Mr. President, how dareyou.’’ I say it with a bit of a smile onmy face because this President has nocredibility in that area. But he is bask-ing in the popularity of it now, madepopular by a conservative Republican

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S739January 20, 1999Congress that said, ‘‘No more deficits,and we’ll fight to get a balanced budg-et.’’ And we did that, even though thePresident opposed us every step of theway and then takes credit for it.

The reason I bring that up in the con-text of what did he do to or for the tax-payers is that several news reporterssaid, ‘‘What did you think of thespeech?’’ My reaction was, Well, for 15years, I fought for a balanced budget. Iand others, collectively this Congress,was successful in getting it, and webuilt this sizable growing surplus. Webuilt that surplus, or at least we hopedwe could build a surplus when we cre-ated a balanced budget to do a coupleof things: to stimulate the economy byreturning to the taxpayers excessivetaxes which we had taken from them.Surpluses are not free moneys tospend, they are representative of thefact that we are overtaxing our citi-zenry, and we ought to return some ofthe money to them.

I won’t argue with the Presidentabout Social Security reform and thevalue of that reform and using the sur-plus for those purposes. But, Mr. Presi-dent, over $4 trillion worth of surplusin the next 15 years and you don’t wantto give one dime back to the taxpayer?

I think I was right in my initial anal-ysis, this President slipped back lastnight, because of the pressure and thecrisis he is in, to his old base of tryingto give something to everybody. It wasa feel-good State of the Union speechthat did nothing for the taxpayer,nothing for the economy and a heck ofa lot to grow big government and, onceagain, put shackles on the freedom ofour citizens to perform independent oftheir Government. I yield the floor.

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, Ithank my distinguished colleague fromIdaho. I heard this morning, just as anaside, that the speech was 77 minuteslong and there were 77 new programs.

Mr. CRAIG. That is about right.Mr. COVERDELL. A program a

minute. I now yield to my distin-guished colleague from Wyoming for upto 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The dis-tinguished Senator from Wyoming isrecognized for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thankthe Senator for arranging to have thisdiscussion and talk about where we aregoing. That is, after all, what it isabout.

I listened to my colleagues statetheir impression, their interpretationof last night’s State of the Union Ad-dress, and it is right on target. Whatwe really are faced with—all of us—is avision of where we are going in thiscountry, a broad vision in the long runof where we want to go and what wewant to achieve and what it takes tocause that to happen. That is reallythe challenge that we have; the long-term goal in a broad sense of thingslike freedom and opportunity and secu-rity, job security, business; smallergovernment rather than more, movinggovernment back to people in commu-nities.

Those are the long-term goals thatwe ought to have so that as we thenput our agenda together, we have toask how do these things fit.

When you talk about the things thePresident mentioned last night, 45 orwhatever it was, how do they fit in thisbusiness of freedom, how do they fit inmaking Government smaller? So each,then, has a challenge to transfer ourgoals into the specifics that we talkabout.

Collectively, we need an agenda forourselves narrowed down to thosethings with which we really need todeal. Of course, we all have otherissues, but there ought to be some pri-orities, and that is what we are doingand that is what the Senator is doingin setting an agenda.

We need to talk about Social Secu-rity and make it work. We need tomake it work just as much for thosewho are now getting benefits as forthose who are just beginning to pay in.That is one of the things we need to do.

Everyone knows we need to strength-en the military, and we must do that.This administration has not. We can dothat.

Of course, we need to strengthenhealth care, but we don’t need a na-tional health care program. We alreadytried that. We already talked aboutthat. We don’t need to do that. We needto take pieces and strengthen the pri-vate sector.

Tax reform—I don’t think there is asoul in this country who doesn’t be-lieve we need tax reform to make itmore simple, but we are moving theother way. Every time we want to ef-fect some behavior, as in the Presi-dent’s message last night, we givethem a tax break—a tax break here,tax break there. We need to look at theoverall reduction for all taxpayers andearners in this country.

Mr. President, it seems to me, ratherthan comment particularly on theState of the Union last night, I just amsaying to myself and to you, let’s takea look at our long-term goals of wherewe want to be over a period of time,measure those things that need to bedone then immediately so that we canreach those goals, put some emphasisand priorities on a small number ofitems so that we can accomplish it andnot have the same result the Presidentdid a year ago, when he listed almostthe same number of events and, accord-ing to Broder in the Washington Post,was successful in one.

We have a chance to be successfulwithin an agenda—Social Security,health care, strengthen the military,do something on crime, and simplifyand reduce taxes. I hope that is ouragenda. It is our agenda. I hope it isthe President’s agenda as well. That iswhat we ought to do this year. I yieldthe floor.

Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Sen-ator from Wyoming and return to theSenator from Idaho and extend another2 minutes to him. I know, with a num-ber of Senators coming to the floor, he

wasn’t able to complete his remarks.So I yield 2 minutes to the Senatorfrom Idaho.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Idaho.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thankthe Senator from Georgia. I appreciatethat. I wanted to add for the RECORDsome of the analysis we are now doingabout what the President said lastnight and, more importantly, how heproposes to spend the taxpayers’money.

The surplus that he projects, andthat I think we generally agree with,based on the vibrancy of our economytoday, is about $4.35 trillion over thenext 15 years. That is rough, give ortake 1 percent, depending on who isdoing the calculation.

In that context, here is what thePresident proposes to do: He proposesto spend 62 percent of it for Social Se-curity, about $2.7 trillion. Probably wewould not want to disagree with that,because about 60 percent of the surplusis generated by Social Security taxes,and it ought to go into Social Securityand it ought to go into strengthening itand saving it and, hopefully, reformingit.

The President laid out a plan lastnight that we are looking at now, butat least he opened the door for re-form—and I am glad he has—and willcreate some flexibility, because we aregoing to guarantee that the current re-cipients and immediate future recipi-ents of Social Security are going tohave their Social Security. What I amworried about are the young peoplewho are entering the workforce todayand beginning to invest in Social Secu-rity and finding that the worst invest-ment they have ever made. That iswrong, and we know how to correct it.We have an opportunity to so.

He has done something else that isvery interesting. He is saying thatabout 15 percent ought to go into Medi-care. That would be the first time thatgeneral fund taxes would ever go toMedicare. That represents about a 20-percent increase in the current payrolltax that is going into Medicare—gen-eral fund dollars into Medicare, firsttime in history that would happen.That is a rather bold new break in hisapproach.

USA retirement accounts, 11 percent;new spending, about 11 percent, $479billion. He also includes a substantialtax increase to get there.

That is a little bit of the economicanalysis. Here is a President who sayswe have a balanced budget, and heslides into major new tax increases andcreates a huge new approach towardFederal spending. We are going to workwith him, but we are not going tospend that kind of money, that is forsure.

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President,again, I thank my colleague fromIdaho.

I now yield up to 5 minutes to thedistinguished Senator from Oklahoma.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Oklahoma is recognized for 5minutes.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES740 January 20, 1999Mr. INHOFE. I thank the distin-

guished Senator from Georgia for thetime. I know it is very scarce, but I feltcompelled, Mr. President, to make acouple of comments about what wasnot in the State of the Union Messagelast night.

One of the most disturbing thingswas that out of 1 hour and 20 minutes,only about less than 90 seconds weredevoted to our Nation’s defense. We arefacing a crisis, and it is on two fronts.And I, just briefly, would like to sub-mit a couple things for the Record anddiscuss those two things.

First of all, not many Americans re-alize that we do not have a nationalmissile defense system. And that is tosay, Mr. President, that if a missile isfired from anyplace in China at Wash-ington, DC, it takes approximately 35minutes to get over here. Now, the av-erage person would think, well, if ittakes 35 minutes to get over here—andwe can remember the Persian Gulfwar—we know you can knock downmissiles with missiles, therefore, wehave a defense. But, in fact, we havezero defense.

We don’t have any defense at all. Andthe reason is that when you have a tra-jectory, where a missile is fired in onearea, it goes up, it is out of the atmos-phere, and by the time it comes backin, it is coming at a velocity that isfaster than anything we have in our ar-senal; and, consequently, we have nodefense.

So you might ask the question, well,is there really a threat out there thatis facing us that is imminent today?And I have to say that there is. I knowthat it sounds extreme to say this, butI have often said—and others are nowagreeing—that I look back wistfully onthe days of the cold war where thereare two superpowers, the U.S.S.R. andthe United States of America; and weknew what they had, they knew whatwe had. And we had this great agree-ment that was put together, not byDemocrats but by Republicans, calledthe ABM agreement of 1972 that said:‘‘I will make you a deal. If you agreenot to defend yourself, we’ll agree notto defend ourselves, therefore, if youshoot us, we’ll shoot you, and everyonedies and everyone’s happy.’’ That wassomething I didn’t agree with at thattime, but, however, today it makes ab-solutely no sense at all.

I would like to repeat something thatwas said recently by Henry Kissinger,who was one of the architects of thatABM Treaty of 1972, when he said it nolonger has any application today.Today, when you are looking at theproliferation of weapons of mass de-struction, when you see countries likeRussia and China that have missilesthat will reach any city in the UnitedStates of America from anyplace in theworld, that is a very, very seriousthing. And that means that there is notjust one entity out there from whichwe must defend ourselves.

I can remember—I am old enough toremember—the 1962 Cuban missile cri-

sis when all of a sudden hysteria setout in the United States of America.We discovered that there were 40 me-dium-range intercontinental ballisticmissiles, that were Soviet missiles, onthe little island of Cuba, 90 miles off ofour shore, and they could reach anycity outside of the States of Washing-ton, Alaska and Hawaii. And I wouldsay now the crisis is even worse be-cause they can reach anywhere. And westill have no defense at all.

I want to submit for the Record—toevaluate this, we on the Armed Serv-ices Committee have the nine mostprofessional people, most knowledge-able people on missiles anywhere in theworld—and it was chaired by DonRumsfeld—and they put together anassessment of what our threat reallyis.

A lot of times people say the threatis not imminent when they talk aboutindigenous capabilities. In other words,if Iran were trying to develop a missileto reach us, it would take them 5 or 6years to do it. On the other hand, weknow that Iran is trading, as we speak,with China, trading technology, trad-ing systems. And they have one thatcould hit us today. So I only read theExecutive Summary concluding para-graph:

Therefore, we unanimously recommendthat U.S. analyses, practices and policiesthat depend on expectations of extendedwarning of deployment be reviewed and, asappropriate, revised to reflect the reality ofan environment in which there may be littleor no warning.

I ask unanimous consent to havethat material printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE REPORT OF THE

COMMISSION TO ASSESS THE BALLISTIC MIS-SILE THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES

July 15, 1998II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. Conclusions of the Commissioners

The nine Commissioners are unanimous inconcluding that:

Concerted efforts by a number of overtly orpotentially hostile nations to acquire ballis-tic missiles with biological or nuclear pay-loads pose a growing threat to the UnitedStates, its deployed forces and its friendsand allies. These newer, developing threatsin North Korea, Iran and Iraq are in additionto those still posed by the existing ballisticmissile arsenals of Russia and China, nationswith which we are not now in conflict butwhich remain in uncertain transitions. Thenewer ballistic missile-equipped nations’ ca-pabilities will not match those of U.S. sys-tems for accuracy or reliability. However,they would be able to inflict major destruc-tion on the U.S. within about five years of adecision to acquire such a capability (10years in the case of Iraq). During several ofthose years, the U.S. might not be awarethat such a decision had been made.

The threat to the U.S. posed by theseemerging capabilities is broader, more ma-ture and evolving more rapidly than hasbeen reported in estimates and reports bythe Intelligence Community.

The Intelligence Community’s ability toprovide timely and accurate estimates ofballistic missile threats to the U.S. is erod-

ing. This erosion has roots both within andbeyond the intelligence process itself. TheCommunity’s capabilities in this area needto be strengthened in terms of both re-sources and methodology.

The warning times the U.S. can expect ofnew, threatening ballistic missile deploy-ments are being reduced. Under some plau-sible scenarios—including re-basing or trans-fer of operational missiles, sea- and air-launch options, shortened development pro-grams that might include testing in a thirdcountry, or some combination of these—theU.S. might well have little or no warning be-fore operational deployment.

Therefore, we unanimously recommendthat U.S. analyses, practices and policiesthat depend on expectations of extendedwarning of deployment be reviewed and, asappropriate, revised to reflect the reality ofan environment in which there may be littleor no warning.

RESUMES OF COMMISSION MEMBERS

The Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, chair-man of the Board of Directors of GileadSciences, Inc., naval aviator (1954–1957),Member of Congress (1963–1969), U.S. Ambas-sador to NATO (1972–1974), White House Chiefof Staff (1974–1975), Secretary of Defense(1975–1977), Presidential envoy to the MiddleEast (1983–1984), chairman of Rand Corpora-tion (1981–1986; 1995–1996), chairman and CEOof G.D. Searle & Co. (1977–1985), chairmanand CEO of General Instruments Corporation(1990–1993); received the Presidential Medalof Freedom in 1977.

Dr. Barry M. Belchman, PhD., Inter-national Relations, president and founder ofDFI International (1984), chairman and co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center(1989), Assistant Director of the U.S. ArmsControl and Disarmament Agency (1977–1980);Affiliated with: a. U.S. Army (1964–1966), b.Center for Naval Analyses (1966–1971), c.Brookings Institute (1971–1977), d. CarnegieEndowment (1980–1982), e. Center for Strate-gic and International Studies (1982–1984); Au-thor: ‘‘Face Without War’’ and ‘‘The Politicsof National Security’’.

General Lee Butler, USAF (Ret.), Com-mander-in-Chief of the U.S. Strategic Com-mand and Strategic Air Command (1992–1994), Director of Strategic Plans and Policyon the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989–1991), Direc-tor of Operations at USAF Headquarters(1984–1986), Inspector General of the Strate-gic Air Command (1984–1986), Commander ofthe 96th and 320th Bomb Wings (1982–1984);Olmstead scholar.

Dr. Richard L. Garwin, PhD., Physics, Sen-ior fellow for Sciences and Technology withthe Council on Foreign Relations, IBM fellowemeritus at the Thomas J. Watson ResearchCenter since 1993; fellow (1952–1993), mem-ber—President’s Science Advisory Commit-tee (1962–1969); 1969–1972), served on DefenseScience Board (1966–1969); Awards: a. U.S.foreign intelligence community awarded himthe R.V. Jones Award for Scientific Intel-ligence; b. Department of Energy awardedhim the Enrico Fermi award.

Dr. William R. Graham, PhD. in ElectricalEngineering, chairman of the board andpresident of National Security Research(1996–Present), Director of White House Of-fice of Science & Technology Policy (1986–1989), Deputy Administrator of NASA (1985–1986).

Dr. William Schneider, Jr., PhD. in Eco-nomics, president of International PlanningServices, Inc. (1986–Present), served as UnderSecretary of State for Security Assistance(1982–1986), chairman of the President’s Gen-eral Advisory Committee on Arms Controland Disarmament (1987–1993).

General Larry D. Welch, USAF (Ret.),president and CEO of the Institute for De-fense Analyses (1990–Present), Chief of Staff

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S741January 20, 1999of the U.S. Air Force (1986–1990), Com-mander-in-Chief of the U.S. Strategic AirCommand (1985–1986).

Dr. Paul Wolfowitz PhD., PoliticalScience, dean of the Paul H. Nitze School ofAdvanced International Studies at JohnsHopkins University (1994–Present), UnderSecretary of Defense Policy (1989–1993), U.S.Ambassador to Indonesia (1986–1989), Assist-ant Secretary of State for East Asian andPacific Affairs (1982–1986), Director of StateDepartment Planning Staff (1981–1982), mem-ber of the Commission on the Roles and Ca-pabilities of the United States IntelligenceCommunity (1995).

The Honorable R. James Woolsey, partnerin the law firm Shae & Gardner (1995–present; 1991–1993; 1979–1989), Director of Cen-tral Intelligence Agency (1993–1995), Ambas-sador and U.S. Representative to the Nego-tiations on Conventional Armed Forces inEurope (1989–1991), Under Secretary of theNavy (1977–1979), Delegate-at-Large to theU.S. Soviet START and Nuclear Space ArmsTalks (1983–1985), member of Snowcroft Com-mission (Presidential Commission on Strate-gic Forces, 1983), member of the PackardCommission (Presidential Blue Ribbon Com-mission on Defense Management, 1985–1986).

Mr. INHOFE. Recognizing my time isabout up, I would only like to say thatis only part of the problem. The otherproblem is—and I say this with someknowledge as chairman of the Readi-ness Subcommittee in the SenateArmed Services Committee—that wehave roughly 60 percent of the capabil-ity that we had, in terms of forcestrength, that we had during the Per-sian Gulf war in 1991. And when I saythat, I can quantify. Talking about 60percent of the Army division, 60 per-cent of the tactical air wing, 60 percentof the ships floating around there; andyet we are in a more threatened worldtoday.

So I believe that little pittance thatthe President is talking about of $110billion over 6 years, of which only $2billion of new money would be in thecoming fiscal year, does not meet theexpectations of the American people. Ithas not fulfilled the requirements ofhis own Secretary of Defense, his ownChairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,and the four chiefs who said: We aregoing to have to put a minimum of $25billion of new money in each year forthe next 6 years in order to get to apoint where we can defend America ontwo regional fronts.

With that, I thank the Senator fromGeorgia for this very scarce time thathe has given me.

Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Sen-ator from Oklahoma and associate my-self with his grave concern on thisissue. Now I turn to the distinguishedSenator from Texas. I yield up to 5minutes to her.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Texas is recognized for 5minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr.President.

I want to thank the distinguishedSenator from Georgia for talking aboutour very important congressional agen-da. I was very pleased to hear the clos-ing remarks from my colleague fromOklahoma, because I think one of the

priorities of Congress has been laidright at our feet by the Senator fromOklahoma. And according to the Con-stitution it is the one major respon-sibility that Congress must perform—to provide a national defense for theUnited States and all of its citizens.That core responsibility has been jeop-ardized in the last 5 years because wehave not kept up the investments need-ed to ensure that we keep and recruitthe best people for our military. Equip-ment is deteriorating, and the big stra-tegic defenses that are vital to our na-tional security have not been deployed.Again, I am very pleased that the Sen-ator from Oklahoma talked about de-fense, and I am going to add somethings that I believe are necessary toregain and maintain a strong nationalin defense.

What we have seen with the Presi-dent’s State of the Union, and the con-gressional statement of priorities, aresome places where we will be able towork together. While we can agree onsome goals, I also believe there aresome profound differences in how weget there.

The Republican plan is very simplewhile the President’s plan is very com-plicated. It seemed like it was a newidea a minute. It was a shotgun ap-proach to all of the major issues weface. I would like to take each one ofthose and show how we will be differentand hopefully how we can come to-gether.

Let us say, first and foremost, thatour No. 1 priority is Social Security re-form. I think that is also the Presi-dent’s first priority. How we achievereform is going to be very different, be-cause the President has opted for a bigfederalized plan whereas the Repub-licans in Congress are trying to say:We want people to be able to have theirown retirement accounts. We wantthem to be able to make some of thechoices in investing their Social Secu-rity taxes. And, most of all, we wantpeople to be able to pass their retire-ment accounts onto their children.

This is a very important differencefrom the President’s plan, which is totake 60 percent of the surplus and havethe Government invest it in the stockmarket. While it might make SocialSecurity more secure, I think it couldhave a disastrous impact on the stockmarket. The federal government coulduse its investments to micro-managecertain industries and markets. Freeenterprise is the hallmark of our econ-omy and having the government enterthe stock market could pose a signifi-cant risk to the nature of our economy.

Tax relief. I think it is very impor-tant that we have simple, straight-for-ward tax relief for every workingAmerican family. Every workingAmerican in the Republican plan willget a 10 percent across-the-board taxcut. In order to determine how thisplan will benefit you, while you are fig-uring your taxes in preparation for theApril 15th filing deadline, take 10 per-cent off of your tax liability; and that

is what our tax cut will give you. Now,compare our tax cut plan to the Presi-dent’s very complex tax cutting pro-posals. His plan will add thousands ofpages of new rules and regulations toan already burdensome and complextax code. Only if you spend your moneyon his priorities will you get any taxrelief. With our plan everybody wins.Our plan puts more of the money in thepockets of the people who earn it, rath-er than giving it to ‘‘Big Brother’’ Gov-ernment to decide how to spend themoney you earn and you worked for.

Education: The primary differencebetween our education proposal andthe President’s proposal has to do withwho is in control of the resources. Bothplans seek to achieve the same goals,but ours would keep control with thosewho directly educate children—localschool officials, principals, teachers,and parents. We have the same goals,but we will reach them in differentways.

The congressional plan is the rightone for America. We are going to pushahead and hope that the President willwork with us to reform Social Securityand make it secure, to give tax cuts tohard-working Americans, and increaseeducational opportunity so that everychild in America can get a good publiceducation and reach his or her full po-tential.

ORDER FOR RECESS

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, Iask unanimous consent that the Sen-ate stand in recess at 12:55.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. COVERDELL. I yield to the dis-tinguished Senator from New Mexico,the chairman of the Budget Commit-tee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from New Mexico.

Mr. DOMENICI. Let me start by say-ing in the past the President has saidthe era of big government is over, andlast night what he meant was that hewas proposing an era of really big gov-ernment and no tax cuts for the Amer-ican people for 15 years. Frankly, Idon’t believe that will sell. I thinkwhen the American people understandwhat the President recommended lastnight, they will ask: What happened tothe surplus that is not needed for So-cial Security, that we paid to the Gov-ernment in taxes? Why don’t we getsome of it back?

That is the issue. They should getsome of it back. We have underesti-mated the tax take of this country;thus, we have an excess of taxes in thecoffers of the United States. Who paidthat money to us? The taxpayers. Theyshould get some or all of it back. I be-lieve the best way to do that is anacross-the-board tax cut. I don’t writetax laws here, but obviously what weare talking about is equity and fair-ness; but, in addition, something thatis very good for the American econ-omy.

The world is in some kind of strangerecessionary mood, with whole pieces

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES742 January 20, 1999of it not working. The United Stateshas been immune from that. Now is thetime to have a tax cut, and the bestkind is across-the-board to make surethat we are adding to the Americaneconomy an ingredient that is apt tokeep us going at this formidable rate ofsustained growth and jobs and prosper-ity. That means a tax cut now for theAmerican people and for the futureprosperity of our country.

In addition, I suggest that peopleought to look at what the Presidentproposed to do with this surplus. I amamazed. This surplus—which is tax-payers’ money, that is in excess of So-cial Security—the President has nowdecided he knows precisely how to useit. Every bit of it is spent, I say to myfriend, Senator THURMOND: New pro-grams, new ideas, new needs, evensome money for Medicare. And we havenever heretofore put general taxpayers’money in Medicare. So he wants tospend it all and the taxpayers will getnone of it back.

It seems to this Senator that that isa good issue to take to the public, totake to the people of this land. What doyou want to do with this surplus? Doyou want a bigger Government andspend more of it? Or spend all of it? Ordo you want to give some of it back tothe taxpayers who work hard in thisland to make ends meet and truly,truly are the engines of this growth pe-riod we have had? Hard-working Amer-icans caused this to happen. There ishigher productivity because they aremore skilled and their employers areusing new equipment and new tech-nology—higher productivity, morejobs.

Surplus means to me that taxpayersshould get some benefit. We are goingto work very hard to see to it that thepeople understand it and we have a realopportunity to help them if they willhelp us.

I yield the floor.Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I

thank the distinguished Senator fromNew Mexico.f

PROVIDING FOR THE INTRODUC-TION OF LEGISLATION AND SUB-MISSION OF STATEMENTS

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unan-imous consent that on Thursday andFriday it be in order for Senators to in-troduce legislation and to submitstatements at the desk during the Sen-ate’s consideration of the articles ofimpeachment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.f

APPOINTMENTS BY THEMAJORITY LEADER

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair, on behalf of the Majority Lead-er, pursuant to Public Law 104–293, asamended by Public Law 105–277, an-nounces the appointment of the follow-ing individuals to serve as members ofthe Commission to Assess the Organi-

zation of the Federal Government toCombat the Proliferation of Weaponsof Mass Destruction: M. D. B. Carlisle,of Washington, D.C. and Henry D.Sokolski, of Virginia.

The Chair, on behalf of the MajorityLeader, pursuant to Public Law 105–255,announces the appointment of the fol-lowing individuals to serve as membersof the Commission on the Advance-ment of Women and Minorities inScience, Engineering and TechnologyDevelopment: Judy L. Johnson, of Mis-sissippi and Elaine M. Mendoza, ofTexas.

The Chair, on behalf of the MajorityLeader, pursuant to Public Law 105–277,announces the appointment of the fol-lowing individuals to serve as membersof the International Financial Institu-tion Advisory Commission: Charles W.Calomiris, of New York and Edwin J.Feulner, Jr., of Virginia.

The Chair, on behalf of the MajorityLeader, pursuant to Public Law 105–277,announces the appointment of the fol-lowing individuals to serve as membersof the National Commission on Terror-ism: Wayne A. Downing, of Colorado,Fred Ikle, of Maryland, and John F.Lewis, of New York.

The Chair, on behalf of the MajorityLeader, after consultation with theDemocratic Leader, pursuant to PublicLaw 93–415, as amended by Public Law102–586, announces the appointment ofWilliam Keith Oubre, of Mississippi, toserve as a member of the CoordinatingCouncil on Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention, vice Robert H.Maxwell, of Mississippi.

f

APPOINTMENT BY THEDEMOCRATIC LEADER

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair, on behalf of the DemocraticLeader, pursuant to Public Law 105–83,announces the appointment of the Sen-ator from Illinois (Mr. DURBIN) as amember of the National Council on theArts.

f

FEDERAL NINTH CIRCUIT REORGA-NIZATION ACT OF 1999—S. 253

Statements on the bill, S. 2616, intro-duced on October 9, 1998, did not appearin the RECORD. The material follows:

By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himselfand Mr. GORTON):

S. 253. A bill to provide for the reor-ganization of the Ninth Circuit Courtof Appeals, and for other purposes.FEDERAL NINTH CIRCUIT REORGANIZATION ACT

OF 1999

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Iam pleased to be joined by my distin-guished colleague from Washington,Senator SLADE GORTON, in introducinglegislation that will go far in improv-ing the consistency, predictability andcoherency of case law in the Ninth Cir-cuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Our bill, The Federal Ninth CircuitReorganization Act of 1999, adopts therecommendations of a Congressionally-

mandated Commission that studied thealignment of the U.S. Court of Appeals.Retired Supreme Court Justice ByronR. White, chaired the scholarly Com-mission.

The Commission’s Report, releasedlast December, calls for a division ofthe Ninth Circuit into three regionallybased adjudicative divisions—theNorthern, Middle, and Southern. Eachof these regional divisions would main-tain a majority of its judges within itsregion. Each division would have exclu-sive jurisdiction over appeals from thejudicial districts within its region.Further, each division would functionas a semi-autonomous decisional unit.To resolve conflicts that may developbetween regions, a Circuit Division forConflict Correction would replace thecurrent limited and ineffective en bancsystem. Lastly, the Circuit would re-main intact as an administrative unit,functioning as it now does.

It is important to note that the Com-mission adopted the arguments that Iand several other Senators have putforth to justify a complete division ofthe Ninth Circuit—Circuit population,record caseloads, and inconsistency injudicial decisions. However, the Com-mission rejected an administrative di-vision because it believed it would ‘‘de-prive the courts now in the Ninth Cir-cuit of the administrative advantagesafforded by the present circuit configu-ration and deprive the West and thePacific seaboard of a means for main-taining uniform federal law in thatarea.’’

While I don’t necessarily reach thesame conclusion as the Commission(that an administrative division of theNinth Circuit is not warranted), Istrongly agree with the Committee’sconclusion that the restructuring ofthe Ninth Circuit as proposed in theCommission’s Report will ‘‘increase theconsistency and coherence of the law,maximize the likelihood of genuinecollegiality, establish an effective pro-cedure for maintaining uniformdecisional law within the circuit, andrelate the appellate forum more closelyto the region it serves.’’

Mr. President, swift Congressionalaction is needed. One need only look atthe contours of the Ninth Circuit to seethe need for this reorganization.Stretching from the Arctic Circle tothe Mexican border, past the tropics ofHawaii and across the InternationalDateline to Guam and the Mariana Is-lands, by any means of measurement,the Ninth Circuit is the largest of allU.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.

The Ninth Circuit serves a popu-lation of more than 49 million people,well over a third more than the nextlargest Circuit. By 2010, the Census Bu-reau estimates that the Ninth Circuit’spopulation will be more than 63 mil-lion—a 40 percent increase in just 13years, which inevitably will create aneven more daunting caseload.

Because of its massive size, thereoften results a decrease in the abilityof judges to keep abreast of legal devel-opments within the Ninth Circuit. This

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S743January 20, 1999unwieldy caseload creates an inconsist-ency in Constitutional interpretation.In fact, Ninth Circuit cases have an ex-traordinarily high reversal rate by theSupreme Court. (During the SupremeCourt’s 1996–97 session, the SupremeCourt overturned 95% of the Ninth Cir-cuit cases heard by the Court.) Thislack of Constitutional consistency dis-courages settlements and leads to un-necessary litigation.

Ninth Circuit Judge DiramuidO’Scannlain described the problem asfollows:

An appellate court must function as a uni-fied body, and it must speak with a unifiedvoice. It must maintain and shape a coherentbody of law * * *. As the number of opinionsincrease, we judges risk losing the ability tokeep track of precedents and the ability toknow what our circuit’s law is. In short, big-ger is not better.

The legislation that Senator GORTONand I introduce today is a sensible re-organization of the Ninth Circuit. TheNorthern Division of the Ninth Circuitwould join Alaska, Washington, Or-egon, Montana, and Idaho. This pro-posal reflects legislation I introducedin the last Congress which created anew Twelfth Circuit consisting of theStates of the Northwest. Like my pre-vious legislation, the Commission’s re-port will go far in creating regionalcommonality and greater consistencyand dependency in legal decisions.

However, it is my strong suggestionthat when the Senate Judiciary Com-mittee conducts hearings on this legis-lation, certain modifications be closelyexamined:

1. Elimination of the requirementthat judges within a region are re-quired to rotate to other regions of theCircuit;

2. Adjustment of the regional align-ments to include Hawaii, the MarianaIslands and the Territory of Guam inthe Northern Region; and

3. Shortening the period in which theFederal Judicial Center conducts astudy of the effectiveness and effi-ciency of the Ninth Circuit divisionsfrom eight years to three years.

Mr. President, Congress has waitedlong enough to correct the problems ofthe Ninth Circuit. The 49 million resi-dents of the Ninth Circuit are the per-sons that suffer. Many wait years be-fore cases are heard and decided,prompting many to forego the entireappellate process. The Ninth Circuithas become a circuit where justice isnot swift and not always served.

Mr. President, we have known theproblem of the Ninth Circuit for a longtime. It’s time to solve the problem.The Commission’s recommendations,as reflected in our legislation, is a goodfirst start. I hope we can resolve thisissue this year.

I ask unanimous consent that thetext of our legislation be printed in theRECORD.

There being no objection, the bill wasordered to be printed in the RECORD, asfollows:

S. 253Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of Americain Congress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FederalNinth Circuit Reorganization Act of 1999’’.SEC. 2. DIVISIONAL ORGANIZATION OF THE

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTHCIRCUIT.

(a) REGIONAL DIVISIONS.—Effective 180 daysafter the date of enactment of this Act, theUnited States Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit shall be organized into 3 regional di-visions designated as the Northern Division,the Middle Division, and the Southern Divi-sion, and a nonregional division designatedas the Circuit Division.

(b) REVIEW OF DECISIONS.—(1) NONAPPLICATION OF SECTION 1294.—Sec-

tion 1294 of title 28, United States Code, shallnot apply to the Ninth Circuit Court of Ap-peals. The review of district court decisionsshall be governed as provided in this sub-section.

(2) REVIEW.—Except as provided in sections1292(c), 1292(d), and 1295 of title 28, UnitedStates Code, once the court is organized intodivisions, appeals from reviewable decisionsof the district and territorial courts locatedwithin the Ninth Circuit shall be taken tothe regional divisions of the Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals as follows:

(A) Appeals from the districts of Alaska,Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, the North-ern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Eastern Wash-ington, and Western Washington shall betaken to the Northern Division.

(B) Appeals from the districts of EasternCalifornia, Northern California, and Nevadashall be taken to the Middle Division.

(C) Appeals from the districts of Arizona,Central California, and Southern Californiashall be taken to the Southern Division.

(D) Appeals from the Tax Court, petitionsto enforce the orders of administrative agen-cies, and other proceedings within the courtof appeals’ jurisdiction that do not involvereview of district court actions shall be filedin the court of appeals and assigned to thedivision that would have jurisdiction overthe matter if the division were a separatecourt of appeals.

(3) ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES.—Each regionaldivision shall include from 7 to 11 judges ofthe court of appeals in active status. A ma-jority of the judges assigned to each divisionshall reside within the judicial districts thatare within the division’s jurisdiction as spec-ified in paragraph (2). Judges in senior statusmay be assigned to regional divisions in ac-cordance with policies adopted by the courtof appeals. Any judge assigned to 1 divisionmay be assigned by the chief judge of the cir-cuit for temporary duty in another divisionas necessary to enable the divisions to func-tion effectively.

(4) PRESIDING JUDGES.—Section 45 of title28, United States Code, shall govern the des-ignation of the presiding judge of each re-gional division as though the division were acourt of appeals, except that the judge serv-ing as chief judge of the circuit may not atthe same time serve as presiding judge of aregional division, and that only judges resi-dent within, and assigned to, the divisionshall be eligible to serve as presiding judgeof that division.

(5) PANELS.—Panels of a division may sitto hear and decide cases at any place withinthe judicial districts of the division, as speci-fied by a majority of the judges of the divi-sion. The divisions shall be governed by theFederal Rules of Appellate Procedure and bylocal rules and internal operating proceduresadopted by the court of appeals. The divi-sions may not adopt their own local rules or

internal operating procedures. The decisionsof 1 regional division shall not be regarded asbinding precedents in the other regional di-visions.

(c) CIRCUIT DIVISION.—(1) IN GENERAL.—In addition to the 3 re-

gional divisions specified under subsection(a), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals shallestablish a Circuit Division composed of thechief judge of the circuit and 12 other circuitjudges in active status, chosen by lot inequal numbers from each regional division.Except for the chief judge of the circuit, whoshall serve ex officio, judges on the CircuitDivision shall serve nonrenewable, staggeredterms of 3 years each. One-third of the judgesinitially selected by lot shall serve terms of1 year each, one-third shall serve terms of 2years each, and one-third shall serve termsof 3 years each. Thereafter all judges shallserve terms of 3 years each. If a judge on theCircuit Division is disqualified or otherwiseunable to serve in a particular case, the pre-siding judge of the regional division to whichthat judge is assigned shall randomly selecta judge from the division to serve in theplace of the unavailable judge.

(2) JURISDICTION.—The Circuit Divisionshall have jurisdiction to review, and to af-firm, reverse, or modify any final decisionrendered in any of the court’s divisions thatconflicts on an issue of law with a decision inanother division of the court. The exercise ofsuch jurisdiction shall be within the discre-tion of the Circuit Division and may be in-voked by application for review by a party tothe case, setting forth succinctly the issue oflaw as to which there is a conflict in the de-cisions of 2 or more divisions. The Circuit Di-vision may review the decision of a panelwithin a division only if en banc review ofthe decision has been sought and denied bythe division.

(3) PROCEDURES.—The Circuit Divisionshall consider and decide cases through pro-cedures adopted by the court of appeals forthe expeditious and inexpensive conduct ofthe division’s business. The Circuit Divisionshall not function through panels. The Cir-cuit Division shall decide issues of law onthe basis of the opinions, briefs, and recordsin the conflicting decisions under review, un-less the Circuit Division determines thatspecial circumstances make additional brief-ing or oral argument necessary.

(4) EN BANC PROCEEDINGS.—Section 46 oftitle 28, United States Code, shall apply toeach regional division of the Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals as though the division werethe court of appeals. Section 46(c) of title 28,United States Code, authorizing hearings orrehearings en banc, shall be applicable onlyto the regional divisions of the court and notto the court of appeals as a whole. After a di-visional plan is in effect, the court of appealsshall not order any hearing or rehearing enbanc, and the authorization for a limited enbanc procedure under section 6 of Public Law95–486 (92 Stat. 1633), shall not apply to theNinth Circuit. An en banc proceeding orderedbefore the divisional plan is in effect may beheard and determined in accordance with ap-plicable rules of appellate procedure.

(d) CLERKS AND EMPLOYEES.—Section 711 oftitle 28, United States Code, shall apply tothe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, exceptthe clerk of the Ninth Circuit Court of Ap-peals may maintain an office or offices ineach regional division of the court to provideservices of the clerk’s office for that divi-sion.

(e) STUDY OF EFFECTIVENESS.—The FederalJudicial Center shall conduct a study of theeffectiveness and efficiency of the divisionsin the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Nolater than 3 years after the effective date ofthis Act, the Federal Judicial Center shallsubmit to the Judicial Conference of the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES744 January 20, 1999United States a report summarizing the ac-tivities of the divisions, including the Cir-cuit Division, and evaluating the effective-ness and efficiency of the divisional struc-ture. The Judicial Conference shall submitrecommendations to Congress concerningthe divisional structure and whether thestructure should be continued with or with-out modification.SEC. 2. ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES; PANELS; EN

BANC PROCEEDINGS; DIVISIONS;QUORUM.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 46 of title 28,United States Code, is amended to read asfollows:‘‘§ 46. Assignment of judges; panels; en banc

proceedings; divisions; quorum‘‘(a) Circuit judges shall sit on the court of

appeals and its panels in such order and atsuch times as the court directs.

‘‘(b) Unless otherwise provided by rule ofcourt, a court of appeals or any regional di-vision thereof shall consider and decide casesand controversies through panels of 3 judges,at least 2 of whom shall be judges of thecourt, unless such judges cannot sit becauserecused or disqualified, or unless the chiefjudge of that court certifies that there is anemergency including, but not limited to, theunavailability of a judge of the court becauseof illness. A court may provide by rule forthe disposition of appeals through panelsconsisting of 2 judges, both of whom shall bejudges of the court. Panels of the court shallsit at times and places and hear the casesand controversies assigned as the court di-rects. The United States Court of Appeals forthe Federal Circuit shall determine by rule aprocedure for the rotation of judges frompanel-to-panel to ensure that all of thejudges sit on a representative cross sectionof the cases heard and, notwithstanding thefirst sentence of this subsection, may deter-mine by rule the number of judges, not lessthan 2, who constitute a panel.

‘‘(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), a ma-jority of the judges of a court of appeals notorganized into divisions as provided in sub-section (d) who are in regular active servicemay order a hearing or rehearing before thecourt en banc. A court en banc shall consistof all circuit judges in regular active service,except that any senior circuit judge of thecircuit shall be eligible to participate, atthat judge’s election and upon designationand assignment pursuant to section 294(c)and the rules of the circuit, as a member ofan en banc court reviewing a decision of apanel of which such judge was a member.

‘‘(d)(1) A court of appeals having more than15 authorized judgeships may organize itselfinto 2 or more adjudicative divisions, witheach judge of the court assigned to a specificdivision, either for a specified term of yearsor indefinitely. The court’s docket shall beallocated among the divisions in accordancewith a plan adopted by the court, and eachdivision shall have exclusive appellate juris-diction over the appeals assigned to it. Thepresiding judge of each division shall be de-termined from among the judges of the divi-sion in active status as though the divisionwere the court of appeals, except the chiefjudge of the circuit shall not serve at thesame time as the presiding judge of a divi-sion.

‘‘(2) When organizing itself into divisions, acourt of appeals shall establish a circuit di-vision, consisting of the chief judge and addi-tional circuit judges in active status, se-lected in accordance with rules adopted bythe court, so as to make an odd number ofjudges but not more than 13.

‘‘(3) The circuit division shall have juris-diction to review, and to affirm, reverse, ormodify any final decision rendered in any ofthe court’s divisions that conflicts on an

issue of law with a decision in another divi-sion of the court. The exercise of such juris-diction shall be within the discretion of thecircuit division and may be invoked by appli-cation for review by a party to the case, set-ting forth succinctly the issue of law as towhich there is a conflict in the decisions of2 or more divisions. The circuit division mayreview the decision of a panel within a divi-sion only if en banc review of the decisionhas been sought and denied by the division.

‘‘(4) The circuit division shall consider anddecide cases through procedures adopted bythe court of appeals for the expeditious andinexpensive conduct of the circuit division’sbusiness. The circuit division shall not func-tion through panels. The circuit divisionshall decide issues of law on the basis of theopinions, briefs, and records in the conflict-ing decisions under review, unless the divi-sion determines that special circumstancesmake additional briefing or oral argumentnecessary.

‘‘(e) This section shall apply to each divi-sion of a court that is organized into divi-sions as though the division were the courtof appeals. Subsection (c), authorizing hear-ings or rehearings en banc, shall be applica-ble only to the divisions of the court and notto the court of appeals as a whole, and theauthorization for a limited en banc proce-dure under section 6 of Public Law 95–486 (92Stat. 1633), shall not apply in that court.After a divisional plan is in effect, the courtof appeals shall not order any hearing or re-hearing en banc, but an en banc proceedingalready ordered may be heard and deter-mined in accordance with applicable rules ofappellate procedure.

‘‘(f) A majority of the number of judges au-thorized to constitute a court, a division, ora panel thereof shall constitute a quorum.’’.

(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMEND-MENT.—The table of sections for chapter 3 oftitle 28, United States Code, is amended byamending the item relating to section 46 toread as follows:‘‘46. Assignment of judges; panels; en banc

proceedings; divisions;quorum.’’.

(c) MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION.—TheFederal Judicial Center shall monitor theimplementation of section 46 of title 28,United States Code (as amended by this sec-tion) for 3 years following the date of enact-ment of this Act and report to the JudicialConference such information as the Centerdetermines relevant or that the Conferencerequests to enable the Judicial Conference toassess the effectiveness and efficiency of thissection.SEC. 3. DISTRICT COURT APPELLATE PANELS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 5 of title 28,United States Code, is amended by addingafter section 144 the following:‘‘§ 145. District Court Appellate Panels

‘‘(a) The judicial council of each circuitmay establish a district court appellatepanel service composed of district judges ofthe circuit, in either active or senior status,who are assigned by the judicial council tohear and determine appeals in accordancewith subsection (b). Judges assigned to thedistrict court appellate panel service maycontinue to perform other judicial duties.

‘‘(b) An appeal heard under this sectionshall be heard by a panel composed of 2 dis-trict judges assigned to the district court ap-pellate panel service, and 1 circuit judge asdesignated by the chief judge of the circuit.The circuit judge shall preside. A districtjudge serving on an appellate panel shall notparticipate in the review of decisions of thedistrict court to which the judge has beenappointed. The clerk of the court of appealsshall serve as the clerk of the district courtappellate panels. A district court appellate

panel may sit at any place within the cir-cuit, pursuant to rules promulgated by thejudicial council, to hear and decide cases, forthe convenience of parties and counsel.

‘‘(c) In establishing a district court appel-late panel service, the judicial council shallspecify the categories or types of cases overwhich district court appellate panels shallhave appellate jurisdiction. In such casesspecified by the judicial council as appro-priate for assignment to district court appel-late panels, and notwithstanding sections1291 and 1292, the appellate panel shall haveexclusive jurisdiction over district court de-cisions and may exercise all of the authorityotherwise vested in the court of appealsunder sections 1291, 1292, 1651, and 2106. A dis-trict court appellate panel may transfer acase within its jurisdiction to the court ofappeals if the panel determines that disposi-tion of the case involves a question of lawthat should be determined by the court ofappeals. The court of appeals shall thereuponassume jurisdiction over the case for all pur-poses.

‘‘(d) Final decisions of district court appel-late panels may be reviewed by the court ofappeals, in its discretion. A party seeking re-view shall file a petition for leave to appealin the court of appeals, which that courtmay grant or deny in its discretion. If acourt of appeals is organized into adjudica-tive divisions, review of a district court ap-pellate panel decision shall be in the divisionto which an appeal would have been takenfrom the district court had there been no dis-trict court appellate panel.

‘‘(e) Procedures governing review in dis-trict court appellate panels and the discre-tionary review of such panels in the court ofappeals shall be in accordance with rulespromulgated by the court of appeals.

‘‘(f) After a judicial council of a circuitmakes an order establishing a district courtappellate panel service, the chief judge of thecircuit may request the Chief Justice of theUnited States to assign 1 or more districtjudges from another circuit to serve on a dis-trict court appellate panel, if the chief judgedetermines there is a need for such judges.The Chief Justice may thereupon designateand assign such judges for this purpose.’’.

(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMEND-MENT.—The table of sections for chapter 5 oftitle 28, United States Code, is amended byadding after the item relating to section 144the following:

‘‘145. District court appellate panels.’’.(c) MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION.—The

Federal Judicial Center shall monitor theimplementation of section 145 of title 28,United States Code (as added by this section)for 3 years following the date of enactmentof this Act and report to the Judicial Con-ference such information as the Center de-termines relevant or that the Conference re-quests to enable the Conference to assess theeffectiveness and efficiency of this section.

f

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSERECEIVED DURING ADJOURNMENT

Under the authority of the order ofthe Senate of January 6, 1999, the Sec-retary of the Senate, on January 20,during the adjournment of the Senate,received a message from the House ofRepresentatives announcing that theHouse has agreed to the following con-current resolution, in which it requeststhe concurrence of the Senate:

H. Con. Res. 11. Concurrent resolution pro-viding for an adjournment of the House.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S745January 20, 1999MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

At 11:52 a.m., a message from theHouse of Representatives, delivered byMr. Hays, one of its reading clerks, an-nounced that pursuant to the provi-sions of sections 5580 and 5581 of theRevised Statues (20 U.S.C. 42–43), theSpeaker appoints the following Mem-bers of the House to the Board of Re-gents of the Smithsonian Institution:Mr. REGULA of Ohio and Mr. SAM JOHN-SON of Texas.

The message also announced thatpursuant to the provisions of section161(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.221), the Speaker appoints the follow-ing Members of the House to be accred-ited by the President as official advis-ers to the United States delegations tointernational conferences, meetings,and negotiation sessions relating totrade agreements during the first ses-sion of the One Hundred Sixth Con-gress: Mr. ARCHER of Texas, Mr. CRANEof Illinois, Mr. THOMAS of California,Mr. RANGEL of New York, and Mr.LEVIN of Michigan.f

MEASURES PLACED ON THECALENDAR

The following bills were read the sec-ond time and placed on the calendar:

S. 40. A bill to protect the lives of unbornhuman beings.

S. 41. A bill to make it a violation of aright secured by the Constitution and laws ofthe United States to perform an abortionwith the knowledge that the abortion isbeing performed solely because of the genderof the fetus.

S. 42. A bill to amend title X of the PublicHealth Service Act to permit family plan-ning projects to offer adoption services.

S. 43. A bill to prohibit the provision ofFederal funds to any State or local edu-cational agency that denies or prevents par-ticipation in constitutional prayer inschools.

S. 44. A bill to amend the Gun-FreeSchools Act of 1994 to require a local edu-cational agency that receives funds underthe Elementary and Secondary EducationAct of 1965 to expel a student determined tobe in possession of an illegal drug, or illegaldrug paraphernalia, on school property, inaddition to expelling a student determinedto be in possession of a gun, and for otherpurposes.

S. 45. A bill to prohibit the executivebranch of the Federal Government from es-tablishing an additional class of individualsthat is protected against discrimination inFederal employment, and for other purposes.

S. 46. A bill to amend the Civil Rights Actof 1954 to make preferential treatment anunlawful employment practice, and for otherpurposes.

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–783. A communication from the Direc-tor of the Office of Regulatory Managementand Information, Environmental ProtectionAgency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the

report of a rule entitled ‘‘Approval and Pro-mulgation of Air Quality ImplementationPlans; State of New Hampshire; InterimFinal Determination that New Hampshirehas Avoided the Deficiencies of its I/M SIPRevision’’ (FRL 6203-5) received on December15, 1998; to the Committee on Environmentand Public Works.

EC–784. A communication from the Direc-tor of the Office of Regulatory Managementand Information, Environmental ProtectionAgency, transmitting, pursuant to law, thereport of a rule entitled ‘‘Approval and Pro-mulgation of Implementation Plans; SouthCarolina’’ (FRL 6204-1) received on December15, 1998; to the Committee on Environmentand Public Works.

EC–785. A communication from the Direc-tor of the Office of Regulatory Managementand Information, Environmental ProtectionAgency, transmitting, pursuant to law, thereport of a rule entitled ‘‘Approval and Pro-mulgation of State Plans for Designated Fa-cilities and Pollutants: Tennessee’’ (FRL6204-4) received on December 15, 1998; to theCommittee on Environment and PublicWorks.

EC–786. A communication from the Direc-tor of the Office of Regulatory Managementand Information, Environmental ProtectionAgency, transmitting, pursuant to law, thereport of a rule entitled ‘‘Harpin; Temporary/Time-Limited Pesticide Tolerance’’ (FRL6040-5) received on December 15, 1998; to theCommittee on Environment and PublicWorks.

EC–787. A communication from the Direc-tor of the Office of Regulatory Managementand Information, Environmental ProtectionAgency, transmitting, pursuant to law, thereport of a rule entitled ‘‘Tebufenozide; Pes-ticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemp-tions’’ (FRL 6049-4) received on December 15,1998; to the Committee on Environment andPublic Works.

EC–788. A communication from the Direc-tor of the Office of Regulatory Managementand Information, Environmental ProtectionAgency, transmitting, pursuant to law, thereport of a rule entitled ‘‘Triazamate; Time-Limited Pesticide Tolerance’’ (FRL 6024-5)received on December 15, 1998; to the Com-mittee on Environment and Public Works.

EC–789. A communication from the Direc-tor of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Depart-ment of the Interior, transmitting, pursuantto law, the report of a rule entitled ‘‘Endan-gered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;Determination of Endangered Status for theSt. Andrew Beach Mouse’’ (RIN1018-AE41) re-ceived on December 15, 1998; to the Commit-tee on Environment and Public Works.

EC–790. A communication from the Sec-retary of Health and Human Services, trans-mitting, pursuant to law, the report of a ruleentitled ‘‘Medicaid Program; Inpatient Psy-chiatric Services Benefit for IndividualsUnder Age 21’’ (RIN0938-AJ05) received onDecember 16, 1998; to the Committee on Fi-nance.

EC–791. A communication from the Assist-ant Commissioner for Examination, InternalRevenue Service, Department of the Treas-ury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Coordinated Issue;Construction/Real Estate Industry; Retainage Payable’’ (UIL460.03-10) received on De-cember 17, 1998; to the Committee on Fi-nance.

EC–792. A communication from the Chief ofthe Regulations Unit, Internal RevenueService, Department of the Treasury, trans-mitting, pursuant to law, the report of a ruleentitled ‘‘Part IV - Items of General Inter-est’’ (Notice 98-62) received on December 15,1998; to the Committee on Finance.

EC–793. A communication from the Chief ofthe Regulations Unit, Internal Revenue

Service, Department of the Treasury, trans-mitting, pursuant to law, the report of a ruleentitled ‘‘Payment by Credit Card and DebitCard’’ (RIN1545-AW38) received on December15, 1998; to the Committee on Finance.

EC–794. A communication from the Chief ofthe Regulations Unit, Internal RevenueService, Department of the Treasury, trans-mitting, pursuant to law, the report of a ruleentitled ‘‘Tax Forms and Instructions’’ (Rev.Proc. 98-61) received on December 16, 1998; tothe Committee on Finance.

EC–795. A communication from the Chief ofthe Regulations Unit, Internal RevenueService, Department of the Treasury, trans-mitting, pursuant to law, the report of a ruleentitled ‘‘Weighted Average Interest RateUpdate’’ (Notice 98-56) received on December16, 1998; to the Committee on Finance.

EC–796. A communication from the Chief ofthe Regulations Unit, Internal RevenueService, Department of the Treasury, trans-mitting, pursuant to law, the report of a ruleentitled ‘‘Examination of Returns andClaims for Refund, Credit, or Abatement; De-termination of Correct Tax Liability’’ (Rev.Proc. 98–63) received on December 16, 1998; tothe Committee on Finance.

EC–797. A communication from the Chief ofthe Regulations Unit, Internal RevenueService, Department of the Treasury, trans-mitting, pursuant to law, the report of a ruleentitled ‘‘Certain Investment Income Underthe Qualifying Income Provisions of Section7704 and the Application of the Passive Ac-tivity Loss Rules to Publicly Traded Part-nerships’’ (RIN1545–AV15) received on De-cember 16, 1998; to the Committee on Fi-nance.

EC–798. A communication from the Chief ofthe Regulations Unit, Internal RevenueService, Department of the Treasury, trans-mitting, pursuant to law, the report of a ruleentitled ‘‘Election to Amortize Start-Up Ex-penditures for Active Trades or Businesses’’(RIN1545–AT71) received on December 16,1998; to the Committee on Finance.

EC–799. A communication from the Chief ofthe Regulations Unit, Internal RevenueService, Department of the Treasury, trans-mitting, pursuant to law, the report of a ruleentitled ‘‘Abatement of Interest for Individ-ual Taxpayers in Presidentially DeclaredDisaster Areas’’ (Notice 99–2) received on De-cember 16, 1998; to the Committee on Fi-nance.

EC–800. A communication from the Chief ofthe Regulations Unit, Internal RevenueService, Department of the Treasury, trans-mitting, pursuant to law, the report of a ruleentitled ‘‘New Technologies in RetirementPlan Administration’’ (Notice 99–1) receivedon December 17, 1998; to the Committee onFinance.

EC–801. A communication from the Chief ofthe Regulations Unit, Internal RevenueService, Department of the Treasury, trans-mitting, pursuant to law, the report of a ruleentitled ‘‘Notice, Consent and Election Re-quirements of Sections 411(a)(11) and 417 forQualified Retirement Plans’’ (RIN1545–AU05)received on December 17, 1998; to the Com-mittee on Finance.

EC–802. A communication from the Chief ofthe Regulations Unit, Internal RevenueService. Department of the Treasury, trans-mitting, pursuant to law, the report of a ruleentitled ‘‘Treatment of Certain PaymentsReceived as Temporary Assistance for NeedyFamilies (TANF)’’ (Notice 99–3) received onDecember 17, 1998; to the Committee on Fi-nance.

EC–803. A communication from the Chief ofthe Regulations Unit, Internal RevenueService. Department of the Treasury, trans-mitting, pursuant to law, the report of a ruleentitled ‘‘Filing Procedure for Early Closingof Courier’s Desk’’ (Notice 98–67) received on

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES746 January 20, 1999December 17, 1998; to the Committee on Fi-nance.

EC–804. A communication from the Chief ofthe Regulations Unit, Internal RevenueService. Department of the Treasury, trans-mitting, pursuant to law, the report of a ruleentitled ‘‘Abatement of Interest’’ (RIN1545–AV32) received on December 17, 1998; to theCommittee on Finance.

EC–805. A communication from the Sec-retary of Transportation, transmitting, pur-suant to law, the Department’s annual re-port on transportation security for calendaryear 1996; to the Committee on Commerce,Science, and Transportation.

EC–806. A communication from the Chair-man of the National Transportation SafetyBoard, transmitting, pursuant to law, noticeof the Board’s appeal to the Office of Man-agement and Budget regarding the initial de-termination of their fiscal year 2000 budgetrequest; to the Committee on Commerce,Science, and Transportation.

EC–807. A communication from the Admin-istrator of the Federal Aviation Administra-tion, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Ad-ministrator’s report on services provided toforeign aviation services in fiscal year 1998;to the Committee on Commerce, Science,and Transportation.

EC–808. A communication from the Associ-ate Managing Director for PerformanceEvaluation and Records Management, Fed-eral Communications Commission, transmit-ting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule en-titled ‘‘Allocation of Spectrum Below 5 GHzTransferred from Federal Government Use’’(Docket 94–32) received on December 17, 1998;to the Committee on Commerce, Science,and Transportation.

EC–809. A communication from the ActingAssistant Administrator for Fisheries, Na-tional Marine Fisheries Service, Departmentof Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law,the report of a rule entitled ‘‘Fisheries of theExclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Exten-sion of the Interim Groundfish Observer Pro-gram Through 2000’’ (I.D. 081498C) receivedon December 14, 1998; to the Committee onCommerce, Science, and Transportation.

EC–810. A communication from the ActingDirector of the Office of Sustainable Fish-eries, National Marine Fisheries Service, De-partment of Commerce, transmitting, pursu-ant to law, the report of a rule entitled‘‘Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic ZoneOff Alaska; Atka Mackerel in the EasternAleutian District and Bering Sea Subarea ofthe Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands’’ (I.D.111698B) received on December 16, 1998; to theCommittee on Commerce, Science, andTransportation.

EC–811. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Drawbridge Oper-ation Regulation; Lake Pontchartrain, LA’’(RIN2115–AE47) received on December 15,1998; to the Committee on Commerce,Science, and Transportation.

EC–812. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Airworthiness Direc-tives; British Aerospace BAe Model ATP Air-planes’’ (Docket 98–NM–216–AD) received onDecember 15, 1998; to the Committee on Com-merce, Science, and Transportation.

EC–813. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Airworthiness Direc-tives; Bombardier Model DHC–7 and DHC–8Series Airplanes’’ (Docket 98–NM–237–AD) re-ceived on December 15, 1998; to the Commit-tee on Commerce, Science, and Transpor-tation.

EC–814. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-

tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Airworthiness Direc-tives; Airbus Model A300–600 Series Air-planes’’ (Docket 97–NM–153–AD) received onDecember 15, 1998; to the Committee on Com-merce, Science, and Transportation.

EC–815. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Airworthiness Direc-tives; Boeing Model 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777Series Airplanes’’ (Docket 98–NM–263–AD) re-ceived on December 15, 1998; to the Commit-tee on Commerce, Science, and Transpor-tation.

EC–816. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Pilot Schools’’(RIN2120–ZZ15) received on December 15,1998; to the Committee on Commerce,Science, and Transportation.

EC–817. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Pilot Schools’’(RIN2120–ZZ14) received on December 15,1998; to the Committee on Commerce,Science, and Transportation.

EC–818. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Airworthiness Direc-tives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD–11 Se-ries Airplanes’’ (Docket 98–NM–348–AD) re-ceived on December 15, 1998; to the Commit-tee on Commerce, Science, and Transpor-tation.

EC–819. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Establishment ofClass E2 Airspace; Atlanta Dekalb-PeachtreeAirport, GA’’ (Docket 98–ASO–17) received onDecember 15, 1998; to the Committee on Com-merce, Science, and Transportation.

EC–820. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Airworthiness Direc-tives; Airbus Model A321’’ (Docket 98–NM–302–AD) received on December 17, 1998; to theCommittee on Commerce, Science, andTransportation.

EC–821. A communication from the ActingDirector of the Office of Sustainable Fish-eries, National Marine Fisheries Service, De-partment of Commerce, transmitting, pursu-ant to law, the report of a rule entitled ‘‘At-lantic Swordfish Fishery; Quota Adjust-ment’’ (I.D. 111698C) received on December14, 1998; to the Committee on Commerce,Science, and Transportation.

EC–822. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Airworthiness Direc-tives; Boeing Model 757 Series Airplanes’’(Docket 98–NM–336–AD) received on Decem-ber 17, 1998; to the Committee on Commerce,Science, and Transportation.

EC–823. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Airworthiness Direc-tives; Rolls-Royce Limited, Bristol EnginesDivision and Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited,Bristol Engines Division Viper Series Turbo-jet Engines’’ (Docket 98–ANE–06–AD) re-ceived on December 17, 1998; to the Commit-tee on Commerce, Science, and Transpor-tation.

EC–824. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Airworthiness Direc-tives; McDonnell Douglass Model MD–11 Se-ries Airplanes’’ (Docket 96–NM–227–AD) re-

ceived on December 17, 1998; to the Commit-tee on Commerce, Science, and Transpor-tation.

EC–825. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Airworthiness Direc-tives; Boeing Model 757–200 Series AirplanesPowered by Rolls-Royce RB211–535E4/E4BEngines’’ (Docket 97–NM–311–AD) received onDecember 17, 1998; to the Committee on Com-merce, Science, and Transportation.

EC–826. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Proposed Establish-ment of Class E Airspace; Bolivar, MO’’(Docket 98–ACE–33) received on December 17,1998; to the Committee on Commerce,Science, and Transportation.

EC–827. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Amendment to ClassE Airspace; West Plains, MO’’ (Docket 98–ACE–37) received on December 17, 1998; to theCommittee on Commerce, Science, andTransportation.

EC–828. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Special Local Regu-lations; Eight Coast Guard District AnnualMarine Events’’ (Docket 08–98–018) receivedon December 17, 1998; to the Committee onCommerce, Science, and Transportation.

EC–829. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Airworthiness Direc-tives; Airbus Model A310 Series Airplanes’’(Docket 95–NM–275–AD) received on Decem-ber 17, 1998; to the Committee on Commerce,Science, and Transportation.

EC–830. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Airworthiness Direc-tives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation ModelS–61A, D, E, L, N, NM, R, and V Helicopters’’(Docket 96–SW–29–AD) received on December17, 1998; to the Committee on Commerce,Science, and Transportation.

EC–831. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Modification of ClassE Airspace; Valparaiso, IN’’ (Docket 98–AGL–53) received on December 17, 1998; to theCommittee on Commerce, Science, andTransportation.

EC–832. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Modification of VORFederal Airway V–485; San Jose, CA’’ (Dock-et 95–AWP–6) received on December 17, 1998;to the Committee on Commerce, Science,and Transportation.

EC–833. A communication from the GeneralCounsel of the Department of Transpor-tation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re-port of a rule entitled ‘‘Drawbridge Oper-ation Regulations: Taunton River, MA’’(Docket 01–97–098) received on December 17,1998; to the Committee on Commerce,Science, and Transportation.

f

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS

The following petitions and memori-als were laid before the Senate andwere referred or ordered to lie on thetable as indicated:

POM–1. A resolution adopted by the Legis-lature of Suffolk County, New York, relative

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S747January 20, 1999to veterans’ rights; to the Committee onVeterans Affairs.

POM–2. A resolution adopted by the Coun-cil of the City of Cincinnati, Ohio, relative tothe year 2000 census; to the Committee onGovernmental Affairs.

POM–3. A resolution adopted by the Coun-cil of Cincinnati, Ohio, relative to the Cin-cinnati Postal Service Processing and Dis-tribution Center; to the Committee on Gov-ernmental Affairs.

POM–4. A resolution adopted by the Senateof the Legislature of Puerto Rico; Ordered tolie on the table.

SENATE RESOLUTION 1840STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The People of Puerto Rico suffered enor-mous material damages during September 21and 22, 1998, as the result of the landfall ofHurricane ‘‘Georges’’ over all the territory ofPuerto Rico. The path of destruction thatthis atmospheric phenomenon left in the cit-ies and rural areas is unprecedented in ourrecent history. The damages to the infra-structure, housing and economic develop-ment have only begun to be calculated andalready surpass billions of dollars. Undoubt-edly, it will take months to replace the ma-terial damages caused by this traumaticevent.

However, on this difficult moment forPuerto Rico, its has been a source of hopeand inspiration for everybody that the Fed-eral Government, by orders and the directand decisive intervention of Honorable Wil-liam J. Clinton, President of the UnitedStates of America, has responded with com-passion, quickness, promptitude and praise-worthy efficiency to the petition for aidmade by Governor Pedro J. Rossello on be-half of the People of Puerto Rico. The effectsof ‘‘Georges’’ had barely stopped being feltover the territory of Puerto Rico, whenPresident Clinton had already declared theIsland a major disaster area. Due to the factthat we Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, theIsland is eligible to receive millions of dol-lars in immediate aid from the Federal Gov-ernment. This aid has been initially chan-neled through the Federal Emergency Man-agement Agency (FEMA), agency which im-mediately sent dozens of its employees andofficials to promptly begin evaluating thedamages and the distribution of aid.

The presidential declaration of disasterarea, effective on September 24, 1998, was fol-lowed by visible manifestations and mes-sages of concern and support to the residentsof Puerto Rico, as well as the immediateenvoy to Puerto Rico of Secretary of Hous-ing and Urban Development (HUD), AndrewCuomo, and of the administrator of theSmall Business Administration (SBA), AidaAlvarez, in order to prepare and submit tothe President a detailed report of the dam-ages. In addition, he designated a Presi-dential Commission composed of such federalofficials and by the White House aide forPuerto Rico affairs and co-chair of the Inter-agency Working Group on Puerto Rico, Jef-frey Farrow, led by the First Lady of theUnited States of America, Hillary RodhamClinton. This Commission traveled to PuertoRico and its members were able to person-ally examine on September 29, the damagescaused by the hurricane when they flew overand visited many affected localities includ-ing the municipalities of Luquillo and Gua-yama.

Among the aid authorized by PresidentClinton for Puerto Rico as the result of thevisit of the First Lady, in addition to otheraid authorized by law, came: the shipment oftwo hundred thousand (200,000) gallons ofwater and one hundred thousand (100,000)pounds of ice daily to Puerto Rico; the allo-cation of thirty million dollars

($30,000,000.00) to create temporary jobs fordisplaced workers as a result of the hurri-cane; the allocation of thirty nine milliondollars ($39,000,000.00) for the reconstructionof public housing units; five million dollars($5,000,000.00) for cleaning up roads and re-building bridges that give access to remoteareas; and a special program of one hundredpercent (100%) financing for owners who losttheir homes, sponsored by the Federal Hous-ing Agency.

The personal interest taken by PresidentClinton regarding the emergency caused byHurricane ‘‘Georges’’ in Puerto Rico and therapid, agile and efficient response given bythe Federal Government to this situation,evidenced by the mobilization of personneland resources of the federal agencies, by thepresence in the island of important federalofficials and members of Congress, and themassive allocation of funds and resources tohelp the victims of the hurricane, have visi-bly helped the People of Puerto Rico to re-cover their courage and hope after their sen-sible losses suffered.

The Senate of Puerto Rico recognizes andthanks the Honorable William J. Clinton,President of the United States of America,for his work on behalf of the People of Puer-to Rico on this difficult moment.

Be it resolved by the Senate of PuertoRico:

Section 1.—Express to the Honorable Wil-liam J. Clinton, President of the UnitedStates of America, its recognition for theagile, prompt and efficient manner in whichhe responded to the petition for federal aidmade by the Government of Puerto Rico asthe result of the emergency caused by Hurri-cane ‘‘Georges’’, that hit the island on Sep-tember 21 and 22, 1998 and for the rapid dec-laration and mobilization of Federal Govern-ment resources and officials to attend to thedamages caused by the Hurricane in PuertoRico.

Section 2.—This Resolution shall be sentto the Honorable William J. Clinton, Presi-dent of the United States of America.

Section 3.—The Office of the Clerk is in-structed to remit a copy of this Resolutionto the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representa-tives and to the Secretary of the U.S. Senatefor distribution to the members of their re-spective bodies.

Section 4.—This Resolution shall take ef-fect immediately after its approval.

POM–5. A resolution adopted by the Houseof the Legislature of the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania; to the Committee on Appro-priations.

HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 513Whereas, The Delaware River represents

one of Pennsylvania’s and one of the nation’smost important water resources, serving as awater supply for 17 million persons in thestates of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jer-sey and Delaware; and

Whereas, The Delaware River is an inter-state stream forming the boundary betweenstates for its entire length of 330 miles; and

Whereas, Two major sections of the Dela-ware River have been designated under theWild and Scenic Rivers Act; and

Whereas, The remaining section of theDelaware River has been studied and is nowin the process of being designated under theWild and Scenic Rivers Act; and

Whereas, The Delaware River and thePennsylvania tributaries serve as a majorrecreational facility for the large populationof the New York/Philadelphia MetropolianAreas; and

Whereas, The Congress of the UnitedStates created the Delaware River BasinCompact (Compact) in recognition of theneed to coordinate the efforts of the four

states and Federal agencies and to establisha management system to oversee the use ofwater and related natural resources of theDelaware River Basin; and

Whereas, The Compact was enacted by thelegislatures of New York, Pennsylvania, NewJersey and Delaware and by Congress andwas signed into law on September 27, 1961, toprovide a mechanism to guide the conserva-tion, development and administration ofwater resources of the river basin; and

Whereas, The Compact established theDelaware River Basin Commission (Commis-sion) as the agency to coordinate the waterresources efforts of the four states and theFederal Government and provided the Com-mission with authority for management andprotection of flood plains, water supplies,water quality, watersheds, recreation, fishand wildlife and cultural, visual and otheramenities; and

Whereas, The Commission has provided forequitable treatment of all parties withoutregards to political boundary; and

Whereas, The Commission includes boththe Delaware River and Delaware Bay, whichserve the port of Philadelphia, a port thathandles the largest volume of petroleum ofall United States ports; and

Whereas, Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the Com-pact specifically provide for the Commission,with the consent of the parties in the matterof state of New Jersey v. state of New Yorket al. 347 U.S. 995 (1954) to apportion thewater to and among the states; and

Whereas, The Commission has successfullynegotiated all disputes or conflicts betweenparties without any appeal to the UnitedStates Supreme Court; and

Whereas, Section 13.3 of the Compact callsfor the adoption and apportionment of theCommission’s annual expense budget amongthe signatory parties to the Compact; and

Whereas, The United States is a duly con-stituted signatory party to the Compact; and

Whereas, In fiscal years 1996, 1997 and 1998,the Commission duly submitted its approvedbudgets to the President’s Office of Manage-ment and Budget (OMB) and Congress; and

Whereas, The Federal Government failedto provide full funding in fiscal year 1996 andfailed to provide any funding in fiscal years1997 and 1998 for the Commission’s currentexpense budget and has, therefore, not metthe funding requirement of section 13.3 of theCompact; and

Whereas, The Commission also has adoptedand duly submitted to OMB a current ex-pense budget for fiscal year 1999 that in-cludes an apportionment for the FederalGovernment in the amount of no dollars; and

Whereas, The fair share apportionment ofthe Commission’s annual expense budget forthe Federal Government for fiscal year 1999is $628,000; and

Whereas, The cumulative shortfall of Fed-eral funding for the Commission since fiscalyear 1996 is $1.716 million; and

Whereas, The Commission pays the FederalGovernment approximately $1.3 million peryear to purchase storage in the Blue Marshand Beltzville multipurpose reservoirs; and

Whereas, The Commission is the agent ofCongress in the allocation of the waters ofthe basin among the signatory states; and

Whereas, The Commission, through its reg-ulations and programs, protects interstatewaters and the Delaware Bay and provides aforum for the prevention and settlement ofinterstate disputes that arise over the use ofinterstate waters; and

Whereas, Through these interstate func-tions and many other programs and activi-ties, such as the coordination of the basinflood and drought forecasting and warningsystem, the Commission saves the FederalGovernment time, resources and money,thus advancing the welfare of the nation;therefore be it

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES748 January 20, 1999Resolved, That the House of Representa-

tives of Pennsylvania memorialize the Presi-dent of the United States and Congress toprovide the Commission with funding in anamount equal to what is owed for the Fed-eral Government’s share of the Commission’soperating budgets for fiscal years 1996, 1997,1998 and 1999; and be it further

Resolved, That the House of Representa-tives of Pennsylvania memorialize the Presi-dent of the United States and Congress tofulfill the Federal Government’s obligationunder the Delaware River Basin Compact toannually contribute the apportioned share ofthe Commission’s future operating budgets;and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution betransmitted to the President of the UnitedStates, to the presiding officers of eachhouse of Congress and to each member ofCongress from Pennsylvania.

POM–6. A resolution adopted by the Houseof the Legislature of the State of Michigan;to the Committee on Health, Education,Labor and Pensions.

HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 361Whereas, In 1996, Congress enacted a provi-

sion that requires the United States Depart-ment of Health and Human Services to de-velop a computerized system of keepingtrack of the health history of every Amer-ican. This electronic code represents thefirst national identification system since So-cial Security was initiated more than sixtyyears ago; and

Whereas, The national health identifier isdesigned to increase the information avail-able to medical care professionals, publichealth officials and the scientific communityfor research purposes. One of the proposedideas to implement this is to use Social Se-curity numbers. Proponents of the nationalhealth identifier believe that the informa-tion will benefit billing systems, streamlinetreatment, and generally assist in the devel-opment of national disease data bases, whichcould help research efforts. While many ofthese worthy goals may result from an elec-tronic file on each person, there are graveconcerns for abuse resulting from the infor-mation; and

Whereas, Most people find little consola-tion in assurances that information compiledthrough the national health identifier wouldremain confidential. New reports of hackersbreaking into various computer systems—even top security computers at the Penta-gon—provide ample justification for skep-ticism. Every person’s personal health his-tory must remain private, Insurers, employ-ers, and any number of groups could abusethe information in many ways; and

Whereas, It is significant to note that,when this provision was added to omnibuslegislation in 1996, few people understood theramifications of the policy and its potentialthreat to personal privacy. Many members ofCongress acknowledge that they had noawareness that the measure included thismandate; and

Whereas, The Michigan House of Rep-resentatives has requested that Congress re-scind the requirement for Social Securitynumbers to be included on applications forvarious state licenses; and

Whereas, Clearly, the potential for damageto people far outweights the advantages toresearch or the convenience to insurancecompanies, now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives,That we memorialize the Congress of theUnited States to rescind its mandate thatthe United State Department of Health andHuman Services develop a national healthidentifier to track the health history ofevery American. We also urge Congress to re-

strict the use of Social Security numbers tothe purposes of Social Security and uses per-mitted by law; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution betransmitted to the President of the UnitedStates Senate, the Speaker of the UnitedStates House of Representatives, and themembers of the Michigan congressional dele-gation.

POM–7. A joint resolution adopted by theLegislature of the State of California; to theCommittee on Health, Education, Labor, andPensions.

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 43Whereas, According to the American Heart

Association, the following facts apply to car-diovascular diseases:

(a) Cardiovascular diseases, includingheart attack, stroke, and high blood pres-sure, are the number one killer of women inthe United States.

(b) One in five females has some form ofmajor cardiovascular disease.

(c) Over 479,000 women die from cardio-vascular diseases each year compared to246,000 women who die from all cancer deathscombined; in addition five times as many fe-males die from heart attacks as breast can-cer.

(d) African American women in the rangeof 35 to 74 years of age are more than twiceas likely to die from a heart attack as whitewomen.

(e) In 1992, cardiovascular diseases resultedin the death of more than 43,800 women inCalifornia; and

Whereas, The American Heart Associationis dedicated to reducing disability and deathfrom cardiovascular disease and stroke; and

Whereas, The American Heart Associationfunds biomedical research and conducts a va-riety of preventive education programs incommunities throughout California; and

Whereas, The American Heart Associationapplauds the efforts of members of Congressin introducing legislation, the Women’s Car-diovascular Diseases Research and Preven-tion Act and related measures, in order toprovide funding to expand and intensify re-search, education, and outreach programs forheart disease; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of theState of California, jointly, That the Legisla-ture of the State of California respectfullymemorializes the President and Congress tosupport the Women’s Cardiovascular Dis-eases Research and Prevention Act beforethe Congress in order to provide funding toexpand and intensify research, education,and outreach programs for heart disease; andbe it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the As-sembly transmit copies of this resolution tothe President and Vice President of theUnited States, to the Speaker of the Houseof Representatives, and to each Senator andRepresentative from California in the Con-gress of the United States.

POM–8. A joint resolution adopted by theLegislature of the State of California; to theCommittee on Health, Education, Labor, andPensions.

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 48Whereas, The federal Health Insurance

Portability and Accountability Act of 1996(P.L. 104–191) authorized eligible individualsto claim a deduction from gross income sub-ject to federal income taxes for amounts de-posited during the taxable year to a medicalsavings account; and

Whereas, The Legislature provided con-formity to that law under the Personal In-come Tax Law by approving Chapter 954 ofthe Statutes of 1996; and

Whereas, The federal law contains a ‘‘cut-off year’’ which prohibits the deduction of

contributions by otherwise eligible individ-uals after that cut-off year unless the indi-vidual had already established a medical sav-ings account or became covered under a highdeductible health plan as an employee of amedical savings account participating em-ployer; and

Whereas, The cut-off year is calendar year2000, or sooner if the number of participantsin medical savings accounts exceeds a cer-tain number determined by a formula underthe federal law; and

Whereas, Health insurance, generally, maynot be purchased with amounts deposited ina medical savings account; and

Whereas, Health insurance premiums arenot otherwise deductible by individuals; now,therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly, and Senate of theState of California, jointly, That the Legisla-ture of the State of California respectfullymemorializes the President and the Congressof the United States to remove the limita-tion on the number of persons who may havea medical savings account, to permit fundsin a medical savings account to be used topay premiums on any employee’s health caremedical plan or provide that those healthcare plan premiums be otherwise deductible,and to make the medical saving account provi-sions permanent; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the As-sembly transmit copies of this resolution tothe President and Vice President of theUnited States, the Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives, the President pro Temporeof the Senate, and each Senator and Rep-resentative from California in the Congressof the United States.

POM–9. A resolution adopted by the Houseof the Legislature of the State of Michigan;to the Committee on Energy and Natural Re-sources.

HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 322Whereas, Much of our country’s manufac-

turing strength can be traced to the activi-ties of the automobile industry in Michigan.Over the past century, the growth of this keyindustry has constituted a remarkable chap-ter in our history and our heritage. From theinfancy of automobiles in Michigan to theindustry’s role during war, the process ofmanufacturing automobiles has meant moreto our country than can be measured by eco-nomic statistics alone; and

Whereas, In an effort to recognize and pre-serve the cultural heritage of the automobileindustry, interested citizens and organiza-tions are working with members of Congressto establish a program to establish an auto-mobile heritage area. The automobile herit-age area would join the heritage areas al-ready established in our country and main-tained in conjunction with the NationalPark Service; and

Whereas, Two bills have been introduced inCongress to provide for the Automobile Na-tional Heritage Area. These measures, H.R.3910 and S. 2104, would extend the program tocorridors in the state with unique roles inMichigan’s automobile history, includingnot only the metropolitan Detroit region,but also locations in Flint and Lansing; and

Whereas, There are presently sixteen herit-age areas throughout the country. Thesehelp to preserve the history of the textile in-dustry in Massachusetts, the role of the ca-nals and other waterways in our nation’s de-velopment, and several other unique compo-nents of America’s past. The automobile in-dustry certainly is an appropriate additionto this effort to save our cultural heritage;now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives,That we memorialize the Congress of theUnited States to enact the Automobile Na-tional Heritage Area Act; and be it further

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S749January 20, 1999Resolved, That copies of this resolution be

transmitted to the President of the UnitedStates Senate, the Speaker of the UnitedStates House of Representatives, and themembers of the Michigan congressional dele-gation.

POM–10. A resolution adopted by the Sen-ate of the Legislature of the State of Michi-gan; to the Committee on Finance.

SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 182Whereas, Because of changes in tech-

nology, society, and the way our economyfunctions, the notion of the workplace is fardifferent today than it was only a few yearsago. More and more citizens work out oftheir homes. In addition to the obvious influ-ence of computers, people are choosing towork at home to care for children and agingparents as well; and

Whereas, Under current law, expenses ofmaintaining a home office can be deductedfrom income for federal tax purposes only ifan office is used exclusively for business.There are also stringent record-keeping re-quirements. These restrictions can placepeople working at home at a severe dis-advantage in the marketplace. The currentstatus also likely stifles the initiative ofsome entrepreneurs; and

Whereas, Government policies should en-courage citizens to be responsible to theirfamilies and should not hinder efforts to in-crease productivity. Public policy must keeppace with the changes that are taking placein how Americans live and work. The modelsupon which the tax status of the home officewas based do not reflect today’s workingworld; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate, That we memorial-ize the Congress of the United States toamend the Internal Revenue Code to removethe requirement that a home office must beused exclusively for business in order to beeligible for any tax deduction; and be if fur-ther

Resolved, That copies of this resolution betransmitted to the President of the UnitedStates Senate, the Speaker of the UnitedStates House of Representatives, and themembers of the Michigan congressional dele-gation.

POM–11. A joint resolution adopted by theLegislature of the State of California; to theCommittee on Finance.

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 59Whereas, Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy

Syndrome (RSDS) is a heinous autonomicneurological disease that causes severe burn-ing pain, extreme sensitivity to touch, swell-ing, excessive sweating, and deterioration ofthe skin, tissue, muscles, and bones; and

Whereas, RSDS usually affects the armsand legs, but can affect any part of the body;and

Whereas, There are an estimated 6,000,000people in the United States with this diseaseand, thus, it is not a rare disease; and

Whereas, The unremitting pain of RSDShas caused many people much physical andemotional misery; and

Whereas, There is no reason for these peo-ple to also suffer financial devastation andadditional misery; and

Whereas, Under federal law, each personwith RSDS who applies for Social Securitydisability insurance is considered on an indi-vidual basis and by the time benefits areawarded, it may take as long as three years;and

Whereas, In the interim, savings, belong-ings, and homes are lost and the stress fromthis financial devastation, along with theterrible pain, often results in the individualbecoming severely depressed; and

Whereas, This financial misery could belessened or averted if victims of RSDS quali-fied immediately for Social Security disabil-

ity insurance benefits upon proper diagnosisand progression to a state of disability; now,therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of theState of California, jointly, That the CaliforniaLegislature urges the Congress of the UnitedStates to enact legislation to qualify auto-matically persons with Reflex SympatheticDystrophy Syndrome (RSDS) for Social Se-curity disability insurance benefits uponproper diagnosis and progression to a stateof disability; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the As-sembly transmit copies of this resolution tothe President and Vice President of theUnited States, the Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives, and to each Senator andRepresentative from California in the Con-gress of the United States.

POM–12. A joint resolution adopted by theLegislature of the State of California; to theCommittee on Finance.

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 58Whereas, The federal research and develop-

ment tax credit expires on June 30, 1998; andWhereas, The research and development

tax credit enjoys broad, bipartisan supportand provides a critical, effective, and provenincentive for companies to increase their in-vestment in United States-based research;and

Whereas, Since Congress first enacted theresearch and development tax credit in 1981,two industries important to California’seconomy, the pharmaceutical and electronicindustries, increased their research spendingfrom $10.5 billion to more than $64.2 billion;and

Whereas, The research conducted by theseindustries alone has led to the developmentof many new drugs and medicines and hashelped propel us into the Information Age;and

Whereas, While other countries continue tooffer tax incentives and subsidies to busi-nesses competing with United States compa-nies, it is important that Congress continueto encourage investment in innovative tech-nologies; and

Whereas, The structure of the research anddevelopment tax credit ensures that compa-nies that benefit from the credit will con-tinue to increase their research and develop-ment spending from year to year and alsocontinue to add high-paying American jobs;now therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of theState of California, jointly, That the Legisla-ture of the State of California respectfullymemorializes the President and the Congressof the United States to enact legislation topermanently extend the research and taxcredit, as proposed in H.R. 2819; and be it fur-ther

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the As-sembly transmit copies of this resolution tothe President and Vice President of theUnited States, to the Speaker of the Houseof representatives, and to each Senator andRepresentative from California in the Con-gress of the United States.

POM–13. A joint resolution adopted by theLegislature of the State of California; to theCommittee on Foreign Relations.

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 76Whereas, The Republic of Cyprus has been

illegally divided and occupied by Turkishforces since 1974 in violation of United Na-tions resolutions; and

Whereas, The international communityand the United States government have re-peatedly called for the speedy withdrawal ofall foreign troops from the territory of Cy-prus; and

Whereas, There are internationally accept-able means to resolve the situation in Cy-prus, including the proposal for the demili-

tarization of Cyprus and the establishmentof a multinational force to ensure the secu-rity of both the Greek and Turkish commu-nities in Cyprus, which has been endorsed bythe international community including theUnited States government; and

Whereas, It is recognized that the prospectof Cyprus accession to the European Unionwill serve as a catalyst for resolving the sit-uation in Cyprus; and

Whereas, A peaceful, just, and lasting solu-tion to the Cyprus problem would greatlybenefit the security and the political, eco-nomic, and social well-being of all Cypriots,as well as contribute to improved relationsbetween Greece and Turkey; and

Whereas, The United Nations has repeat-edly stated the parameters for such a solu-tion, most recently in United Nations Secu-rity Council Resolution 1092, adopted on De-cember 23, 1996, with United States support;and

Whereas, In spite of unsuccessful high levelmeetings in 1997 and the United States ledmediation efforts in May 1998, the situationhas led to a stalemate in the efforts of theinternational community to reach a Cyprussettlement; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of theState of California, jointly, That the solutionof the situation in Cyprus must be based onthe parameters and principles set forth inHouse Concurrent Resolution No. 81 and Sen-ate Concurrent Resolution No. 41 both of the105th Congress and the aforementionedUnited Nations Security Council Resolution1092, regarding the situation in Cyprus; andbe it further

Resolved, That the Assembly and Senate ofthe State of California, jointly, call theUnited States to continue their active sup-port in finding a just, viable, and lasting so-lution to the Cyprus problem within theUnited Nations framework and according tothe said parameters; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the As-sembly transmit copies of this resolution tothe President and Vice President of theUnited States, to the Speaker of the UnitedStates House of Representatives, and to eachSenator and Representative from Californiain the Congress of the United States.

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. HATCH (for himself, Mr. SES-SIONS, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. ABRAHAM,Mr. DEWINE, and Mr. ASHCROFT):

S. 254. A bill to reduce violent juvenilecrime, promote accountability by rehabilita-tion of juvenile criminals, punish and deterviolent gang crime, and for other purposes;read the first time.

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself andMr. BREAUX):

S. 255. A bill to combat waste, fraud, andabuse in payments for home health servicesprovided under the medicare program, and toimprove the quality of those home healthservices; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr.BREAUX, and Mr. CONRAD):

S. 256. A bill to amend title XVIII of theSocial Security Act to promote the use ofuniversal product numbers on claims formssubmitted for reimbursement under themedicare program; to the Committee on Fi-nance.

By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself, Mr.INOUYE, and Mr. HAGEL):

S. 257. A bill to state the policy of theUnited States regarding the deployment of a

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES750 January 20, 1999missile defense capable of defending the ter-ritory of the United States against limitedballistic missile attack; to the Committee onArmed Services.

By Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr.LEVIN, and Mr. ROBB):

S. 258. A bill to authorize additional roundsof base closures and realignments under theDefense Base Closure and Realignment Actof 1990 in 2001 and 2003, and for other pur-poses; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. INOUYE:S. 259. A bill to increase the role of the

Secretary of Transportation in administer-ing section 901 of the Merchant Marine Act,1936, and for other purposes; to the Commit-tee on Commerce, Science, and Transpor-tation.

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr.DASCHLE, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. BROWNBACK,Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mr.KOHL, and Mr. BURNS):

S. 260. A bill to make chapter 12 of title 11,United States Code, permanent, and forother purposes; to the Committee on the Ju-diciary.

By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr.ROCKEFELLER, Mr. BYRD, Mr.DEWINE, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr.SANTORUM, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. SAR-BANES, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. DURBIN,Mr. KOHL, Mr. SESSIONS, and Mr.MOYNIHAN):

S. 261. A bill to amend the Trade Act of1974, and for other purposes; to the Commit-tee on Finance.

By Mr. ROTH (for himself and Mr.MOYNIHAN):

S. 262. A bill to make miscellaneous andtechnical changes to various trade laws, andfor other purposes; to the Committee on Fi-nance.

By Mr. ROTH:S. 263. A bill to amend the Social Security

Act to establish the Personal Retirement Ac-counts Program; to the Committee on Fi-nance.

By Mr. AKAKA:S. 264. A bill to increase the Federal medi-

cal assistance percentage for Hawaii to 59.8percent; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself andMs. SNOWE):

S. 265. A bill entitled ‘‘Hospital Length ofStay Act of 1999’’; to the Committee on Fi-nance.

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:S. 266. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to

permit the exclusive application of Califor-nia State regulations regarding reformulatedgasoline in certain areas within the State; tothe Committee on Environment and PublicWorks.

S. 267. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Dis-posal Act to direct the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency to givehighest priority to petroleum contaminantsin drinking water in issuing corrective ac-tion orders under the response program forpetroleum; to the Committee on Environ-ment and Public Works.

S. 268. A bill to specify the effective date ofand require an amendment to the final ruleof the Environmental Protection Agencyregulating exhaust emissions from newspark-ignition gasoline marine engines; tothe Committee on Environment and PublicWorks.

f

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT ANDSENATE RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr.TORRICELLI, Mr. HELMS, Mr. THOMAS,Mr. MACK, and Mr. SMITH of Oregon):

S. Res. 26. A resolution relating to Tai-wan’s Participation in the World Health Or-ganization; to the Committee on Foreign Re-lations.

By Mr. WELLSTONE:S. Res. 27. A resolution expressing the

sense of the Senate regarding the humanrights situation in the People’s Republic ofChina; to the Committee on Foreign Rela-tions.

By Mr. DURBIN:S. Con. Res. 2. A concurrent resolution rec-

ommending the integration of Lithuania,Latvia, and Estonia into the North AtlanticTreaty Organization (NATO); to the Commit-tee on Foreign Relations.

f

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCEDBILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr.SESSIONS, Mr. THURMOND, Mr.ABRAHAM, Mr. DEWINE, Mr.ASHCROFT):

S. 254. A bill to reduce violent juve-nile crime, promote accountability byrehabilitation of juvenile criminals,punish and deter violent gang crime,and for other purposes; read the firsttime.VIOLENT AND REPEAT JUVENILE OFFENDER AC-

COUNTABILITY AND REHABILITATION ACT OF1999

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I amproud today to introduce the Violentand Repeat Juvenile Offender Account-ability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999. Iam pleased to be joined by SenatorSESSIONS, the distinguished chairmanof the Youth Violence Subcommittee,as well as Senator DEWINE.

There are few issues that will comebefore the Senate this year that touchthe lives of more of our fellow Ameri-cans than our national response to ju-venile crime. Crime and delinquencyamong juveniles is a problem thattroubles us in our neighborhoods,schools and parks. It is the subjectacross the dinner table, and in thoselate night, worried conversations allparents have had at one time or an-other. The subject is familiar—how canwe prevent our children from fallingvictim—either to crime committed byanother juvenile, or to the lure ofdrugs, crime, and gangs.

Their concerns should be our con-cerns. The sad reality is that we can nolonger sit silently by as children killchildren, as teenagers commit trulyheinous offenses, as our juvenile drugabuse rate continues to climb. In 1997,juveniles accounted for nearly onefifth—18.7 percent—of all criminal ar-rests in the United States. Personsunder 18 committed 13.5 percent of allmurders, over 17 percent of all rapes,nearly 30 percent of all robberies, and50 percent of all arsons.

In 1997, 183 juveniles under 15 were ar-rested for murder. Juveniles under 15were responsible for 6.5 percent of allrapes, 14 percent of all burglaries, andone third of all arsons. And, unbeliev-ably, juveniles under 15—who are notold enough to legally drive in anystate—in 1997 were responsible for 10.3percent of all auto thefts.

To put this in some context, considerthis: in 1997, youngsters age 15 to 19,

who are only 7 percent of the popu-lation, committed 22.2 percent of allcrimes, 21.4 percent of violent crimes,and 32 percent of property crimes.

And although there are endless sta-tistics on our growing juvenile crimeproblem, one particularly sobering factis that, between 1985 and 1993, the num-ber of murder cases involving 15-yearolds increased 207 percent. We havekids involved in murder before theycan even drive.

Even my state of Utah has not beenimmune from these trends. Indeed, a1997 study by Brigham Young Univer-sity Professor Richard Johnson foundthat Utah’s juvenile arrest rate is thehighest in the nation. Additionally, asan indication of the increasingly seri-ous nature of juvenile offenses in Utah,between 1990 and 1996 the number of ju-veniles sentenced to youth correctionsincreased 142 percent, and the numberof juveniles requiring detention in a se-cure facility more than doubled. And in1995, the average Utah juvenile offenderhad accumulated an astonishing aver-age of 23 misdemeanors, 8 felony con-victions, and 2.4 status offense convic-tions before being sentenced to a se-cure youth facility.

In short, our juvenile crime problemhas taken a new and sinister direction.But cold statistics alone cannot tellthe whole story. Crime has real effectson the lives of real people. Last fall, Iread an article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch by my good friend, crime nov-elist Patricia Cornwell. It is one of thefinest pieces I have read on the effectsof and solutions to our juvenile crimeproblem.

Let me share with my colleaguessome of what Ms. Cornwell, who hasspent the better part of her adult lifestudying and observing crime and itseffects, has to say. She says ‘‘when aperson is touched by violence, the fab-ric of civility is forever rent, or ripped,or breached . . .’’ This is a graphic butaccurate description. Countless livescan be ruined by a single violent crime.There is, of course, the victim, whomay be dead, or scarred for life. Thereare the family and friends of the vic-tim, who are traumatized as well, andwho must live with the loss of a lovedone. Society itself is harmed, wheneach of us is a little more frightened towalk on our streets at night, to use anATM, or to jog or bike in our parks.And, yes, there is the offender who haschosen to throw his or her life away.Particularly when the offender is a ju-venile, family, friends, and society aremade poorer for the waste of potentialin every human being. One crime, butpermanent effects when ‘‘the fabric ofcivility is rent.’’

This is the reality that has driven meto work for the last three years to ad-dress this issue. In this effort, I havebeen joined by a bipartisan majority ofthe Senate Judiciary Committee,which last Congress reported com-prehensive legislation on a bipartisan,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S751January 20, 1999two to one vote. Indeed, among mem-bers of the Youth Violence Subcommit-tee, the vote was seven to two in favorof the bill.

The Judiciary Committee’s legisla-tion last Congress would have fun-damentally reformed the role playedby the federal government in address-ing juvenile crime in our Nation. It wassupported by law enforcement organi-zations such as the Fraternal Order ofPolice, the National Sheriffs Associa-tion, and the National Troopers Coali-tion, as well as the support of juvenilejustice practitioners such as the Na-tional Council of Juvenile and FamilyCourt Judges, and victim’s groups in-cluding the National Victims Centerand the National Organization for Vic-tims Assistance.

The bill we introduce today builds onthose efforts. Our reform proposal in-cludes the best of what we know works.It combines tough measures to protectthe public from the worst juvenilecriminals, smart measures to provideintervention and correction at the ear-liest acts of delinquency, and compas-sionate measures to rehabilitate juve-nile offenders and to supplement andenhance extensive existing preventionprograms to keep juveniles out of thecycle of crime, violence, drugs, andgangs.

Mr. President, let me spell out ingreat detail the provisions of this bill,and how it will help reform the juve-nile justice system that is failing thevictims of juvenile crime, failing toomany of our young people, and ulti-mately, failing to protect the public.

First, this bill reforms and stream-lines the federal juvenile code, to re-sponsibly address the handful of caseseach year involving juveniles who com-mit crimes under federal jurisdiction.Our bill sets a uniform age of 14 for thepermissive transfer of juvenile defend-ants to adult court, permits prosecu-tors and the Attorney General to makethe decision whether to charge a juve-nile offender as an adult, and permitsin certain circumstances juvenilescharged as an adult to petition thecourt to be returned to juvenile status.

It also provides that when prosecutedas adults, juveniles in Federal criminalcases will be subject to the same proce-dures and penalties as adults, exceptfor the application of mandatory mini-mums in most cases. Of course, thedeath penalty would not be available aspunishment for any offense committedbefore the juvenile was 18.

The bill similarly provides that juve-niles tried as adults and sentenced toprison must serve their entire sen-tences, and may not be released on thebasis of attaining their majority, andapplies to juveniles convicted as adultsthe same provisions of victim restitu-tion, including mandatory restitution,that apply to adults.

Finally, in reforming the federal sys-tem, I believe that we must lead by ex-ample. So our bill provides that thefederal criminal records of juvenilestried as adults, and the federal delin-

quency records of juveniles adjudicateddelinquent for certain serious offensessuch as murder, rape, armed robbery,and sexual abuse or assault, will betreated for all purposes in the samemanner as the records of adults for thesame offenses. Other federal felony ju-venile criminal or delinquency recordswould be treated the same as adultrecords for criminal justice or nationalsecurity background check purposes.

The bill also permits juvenile federalfelony criminal and delinquencyrecords to be provided to schools andcolleges under rules issued by the At-torney General, provided that recipi-ents of the records are held to privacystandards and that the records not beused to determine admission.

Let me assure any who may be con-cerned that it is not our intent in re-forming the federal juvenile code tofederalize juvenile crime—indeed, noconduct that is not a federal crime nowwill be if this reform is enacted. I donot intend or expect a substantial in-crease in the number of juvenile casesadjudicated or prosecuted in federalcourt. It is our intent, rather, to ensurethat when there is a federal crime war-ranting the federal prosecution of a ju-venile, the federal government assumesits responsibility to deal with it, ratherthan saddling the states with that bur-den.

Second, at the heart of this bill is anhistoric reform and reauthorization ofthe Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention Act of 1974, the most com-prehensive review of that legislation in25 years. The States for several yearshave been far ahead of the Federal Gov-ernment in implementing innovativereforms of their juvenile justice sys-tems. For example, between 1992 and1996, of the 50 States and the District ofColumbia, 48 made substantive changesto their juvenile justice systems.Among the trends in State law changesare the removal of more serious andviolent offenders from the juvenile jus-tice system, in favor of criminal courtprosecution; new and innovative dis-position/sentencing options for juve-niles; and the revision, in favor ofopenness, of traditional confidentialityprovisions relating to juvenile proceed-ings and records.

While the States have been makingfundamental changes in their ap-proaches to juvenile justice, however,the Federal Government has made nosignificant change to its approach andhas done little to encourage State andlocal reform. Thus, the juvenile justiceterrain has shifted beneath the FederalGovernment, leaving its programs andpolicies out of step and largely irrele-vant to the needs of State and localgovernments. This bill corrects thisimbalance between State and Federaljuvenile justice policy, and will helpensure that federal programs supportthe needs of State and local govern-ments.

First, our bill reforms and strength-ens the Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention (OJJDP) of

the Department of Justice. The effec-tiveness of the OJJDP will be enhancedby requiring its Administrator topresent to Congress annual plans, withmeasurable goals, to control and pre-vent youth crime, coordinate all Fed-eral programs relating to controllingand preventing youth crime, and dis-seminate to States and local govern-ments data on the prevention, correc-tion and control of juvenile crime anddelinquency, and report on successfulprograms and methods.

And, most important to state andlocal governments, in the future,OJJDP will serve as a single point ofcontact for States, localities, and pri-vate entities to apply for and coordi-nate all federal assistance and pro-grams related to juvenile crime controland delinquency prevention. This one-stop-shopping for federal programs andassistance will help state and localgovernments focus on the problem, in-stead of on how to navigate the federalbureaucracy.

Second, our reform bill consolidatesnumerous JJDPA programs, includingPart C Special Emphasis grants, Statechallenge grants, boot camps, andJJDPA Title V incentive grants, underan enhanced $200 million per year pre-vention challenge block grant to theStates. The bill also reauthorizes theJJDPA Title II Part B State formulagrants. In doing so, it also reforms thecurrent core mandates on the Statesrelating to the incarceration of juve-niles to ensure the protection of juve-niles in custody while providing stateand local governments with neededflexibility.

This flexibility is particularly impor-tant to rural states, where immediateaccess to a juvenile detention facilitymight be difficult. Since many commu-nities cannot afford separate juvenileand adult facilities, law enforcementofficers must drive hours to transportjuvenile offenders to the nearest facil-ity, instead of patrolling the streets.Another unintended consequence ofJJDPA is the release of juvenile of-fenders because no beds are availablein juvenile facilities or because law en-forcement officials cannot afford totransport youths to juvenile facilities.Juvenile criminals are released eventhough space is available to detainthem in adult facilities. Our reformwill provide the states with a degree offlexibility which currently does notexist.

However, this flexibility is not pro-vided at the expense of juvenile inmatesafety. The bill strictly prohibits plac-ing juvenile offenders in jail cells withadults. No one supports the placing ofchildren in cells with adult offenders.To be clear—nothing in the bill will ex-pose juveniles to any physical contactby adult offenders. Indeed, the legisla-tion is explicit that, if states are toqualify for federal funds, they may notplace juvenile delinquents in detentionunder conditions in which the juvenilecan have physical contact, much lessbe physically harmed by, an adult in-mate.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES752 January 20, 1999These provisions are largely based on

H.R. 1818 from the 105th Congress, butare improved to ensure that abuse ofjuvenile delinquent inmates is not per-mitted by incorporating definitions ofwhat constitutes unacceptable contactbetween juvenile delinquents and adultinmates.

Third, and finally, our reform of theJJDPA reauthorizes and strengthensthose other parts of the JJDPA thathave proven effective. For example, theNational Center for Missing and Ex-ploited Children and the Runaway andHomeless Youth Act are reauthorizedand funded. Gang prevention programsare reauthorized. And important, suc-cessful programs to provide mentoringfor young people in trouble with thelaw or at risk of getting into troublewith the law are reauthorized and ex-panded. Operating through the Cooper-ative Extension Service program spon-sored by the Department of Agri-culture, the University of Utah has de-veloped a ground-breaking and highlysuccessful program that mentors to en-tire families—pairing college age men-tors with juveniles in trouble or at riskof getting in trouble with the law, andpairing senior citizen couples with thejuvenile’s parents and siblings. Thisprogram gets great bang for the buck.So our bill provides demonstrationfunds to expand this program and rep-licate its success in other states.

Finally, our bill provides an impor-tant new program to encourage stateprograms that provide accountabilityin their juvenile justice systems. All ornearly all of our states have takengreat strides in reforming their sys-tems, and it is time for the federal gov-ernment’s programs to catch up andprovide needed assistance.

Despite reforms in recent years, alltoo often, the juvenile justice systemignores the minor crimes that lead tothe increasingly frequent serious andtragic juvenile crimes capturing head-lines. Unfortunately, many of thesecrimes might have been prevented hadthe warning signs of early acts of delin-quency or antisocial behavior beenheeded. A delinquent juvenile’s criticalfirst brush with the law is a vital as-pect of preventing future crimes, be-cause it teaches an important lesson—what behavior will be tolerated. Ac-countability is not just about punish-ment—although punishment is fre-quently needed. It is about teachingconsequences and providing rehabilita-tion to youth offenders.

According to a recent Department ofJustice study, juveniles adjudicated forso-called index crimes—such as mur-der, rape, robbery, assault, burglary,and auto theft—began their criminalcareers at an early age. The averageage for a juvenile committing an indexoffense is 14.5 years, and typically, byage 7, the future criminal is alreadyshowing minor behavior problems. Ifwe can intervene early enough, how-ever, we might avert future tragedies.Our bill provides a new Juvenile Ac-countability Block Grant to reform

federal policy that has been complicitin the system’s failure, and providestates with much needed funding for asystem of graduated sanctions, includ-ing community service for minorcrimes, electronically monitored homedetention, boot camps, and traditionaldetention for more serious offenses.

And let there be no mistake—deten-tion is needed as well. Our first prior-ity should be to keep our communitiessafe. We simply have to ensure thatviolent people are removed from ourmidst, no matter their age. When a ju-venile commits an act as heinous asthe worst adult crime, he or she is nota kid anymore, and we shouldn’t treatthem as kids.

State receipt of the incentive grantswould be conditioned on the adoptionof three core accountability policies:the establishment of graduated sanc-tions to ensure appropriate correctionof juvenile offenders, drug testing juve-nile offenders upon arrest in appro-priate cases; and recognition of victimsrights and needs in the juvenile justicesystem.

Meaningful reform also requires thata juvenile’s criminal record ought to beaccessible to police, courts, and pros-ecution, so that we can know who is arepeat or serious offender. Right now,these records simply are not generallyavailable in NCIC, the national systemthat tracks adult criminal records.Thus, if a juvenile commits a string offelony offenses, and no record is kept,the police, prosecutors, judges or jurieswill never know what he did. Maybe forhis next offense, he’ll get a light sen-tence or even probation, since it ap-pears he’s committed only one felonyin his life instead 10 or 15. Such a sys-tem makes no sense, and it doesn’t pro-tect the public.

So the reform we offer in this billalso provides the first federal incen-tives for the integration of serious ju-venile criminal records into the na-tional criminal history database, to-gether with federal funding for the sys-tem.

Finally, we all recognize the value ofeducation in preventing juvenile crimeand rehabilitating juvenile offenders.When trouble-causing juveniles remainin regular classrooms, they frequentlymake it difficult for all other studentsto learn. Yet, removing such juvenilesfrom the classroom without addressingtheir educational needs virtually guar-antees that they will fall further intothe vortex of crime and delinquency.The costs are high—to the juvenile, butalso to victims and to society. Thesejuveniles too frequently become crimecommitting adults, with all the coststhat implies—costs to victims, and thecost of incarcerating the offenders toprotect the public. So our bill tries tobreak this cycle, by providing a three-year $45 million demonstration projectto provide alternative education to ju-veniles in trouble with or at risk ofgetting in trouble with the law.

The bill we introduce today author-izes significant funding for the pro-

grams I have described. In all, our billauthorizes $1 billion per year for 5years, in the following categories: $450million per year for Juvenile Account-ability Block Grants; $435 million peryear for prevention programs under theJJDPA, including $200 million for Ju-venile Delinquency Prevention BlockGrants, $200 million for Part B For-mula grant prevention programs, and$35 million for Gangs, Mentoring andDiscretionary grant programs; $75 mil-lion per year for grants to states to up-grade and enhance juvenile felonycriminal record histories and to makesuch records available within NCIC, thenational criminal history databaseused by law enforcement, the courts,and prosecutors; and $40 million peryear for NIJ research and evaluation ofthe effectiveness of juvenile delin-quency prevention programs.

Additionally, the bill authorizes $100million per year for joint Federal-State-local law enforcement taskforces to address gang crime in areaswith high concentrations of gang activ-ity. $75 million per year of this fundingis authorized for establishment and op-eration of High Intensity InterstateGang Activity Areas, and the remain-ing $25 million per year is authorizedfor community-based prevention andintervention for gang members and at-risk youth in gang areas.

And, finally, as I have already noted,the bill authorizes $45 million over 3years for innovative alternative edu-cation programs to make our schoolssafer places of learning while helpingensure that the youth most at risk donot get left behind.

Lastly, Mr. President, let me addressa provision in the bill which will pro-hibit firearms possession by violent ju-venile offenders. This section extendsthe ban in current law on firearm own-ership by certain felons to certain juve-nile offenders. Juveniles who are adju-dicated delinquent for an offense whichwould be a serious violent felony as de-fined in 18 U.S.C. 3559(C)(2)(f)(i)—thefederal three strikes statute—were theoffense committed by an adult will nolonger be able to legally own firearms.This is common sense. If tried and con-victed as adults, these criminals wouldautomatically forfeit their right toown a gun.

However, we should learn our lessonas well from the so-called domestic vio-lence gun ban enacted several yearsago. If the offense records that allow usto know who is covered by the ban arenot available, the law is hollow, orworse—it will be enforced only in arbi-trary cases. For this reason, the ban wepropose is prospective only, applyingonly to delinquent acts committedafter records of such offenses are rou-tinely available within the National In-stant Check System instituted pursu-ant to the Brady Law.

We should also resist seeing this pro-vision as any sort of panacea. Lawsbanning criminals from owning fire-arms have not stopped them fromdoing so, for a simple reason—crimi-nals do not respect or obey the law. So

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S753January 20, 1999while this provision is an appropriatestep, we should be under no illusionthat it is the answer to our juvenilecrime problem.

Mr. President, I believe that we allagree that it is far better to preventthe fabric of civility from being rentthan to deal with the aftermath of ju-venile crime. In the face of a confound-ing problem like juvenile crime, it istempting to look for easy answers. I donot believe that we should succumb tothis temptation. We are faced, I be-lieve, with a problem which cannot besolved solely by the enactment of newcriminal prohibitions. It is at its core amoral problem. Somehow, too fre-quently we have failed as a society topass along to the next generation themoral compass that differentiates rightfrom wrong. This cannot be legislated.It will not be restored by the enact-ment of a new law or the implementa-tion of a new program. But it can beachieved by communities working to-gether to teach accountability by ex-ample and by early intervention whenthe signs clearly point to violent andantisocial behavior.

Mr. President, that is what the billwe introduce is all about. It is a com-prehensive approach to this nationalproblem. I believe that it now is timefor the Senate to act. I urge my col-leagues to review this legislation, tosupport it, and to support its early de-bate and passage by the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that a bill summary prepared bythe Judiciary Committee staff and anarticle by Patricia Cornwell be printedin the RECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:THE VIOLENT AND REPEAT JUVENILE OF-

FENDER ACCOUNTABILITY AND REHABILITA-TION ACT OF 1999—SECTION-BY-SECTIONANALYSIS

Attached is a summary of the major provi-sions of S. , the Hatch-Sessions Violent andRepeat Juvenile Offender Accountability andRehabilitation Act of 1999, as introducedJanuary 19, 1999.

Should you have any questions about thebill not answered by this summary or theCommittee Report, please call Mike Kennedyor Rhett DeHart of the Senate JudiciaryCommittee staff at (202) 224–5225.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 1 Short Title, Table of Contents. Thissection entitles the bill as the ‘‘Violent andRepeat Juvenile Offender Act of 1999’’, andprovides a table of contents for the bill.

SEC. 2 Findings and Purpose. This sectionprovides Congressional findings related tojuvenile crime, the juvenile justice system,and the changes needed to reform the juve-nile justice system to curb youth violence,ensure accountability by youthful criminals,improve federal juvenile delinquency preven-tion efforts, and recognize the needs of crimevictims.

SEC. 3 Severability. This section providesseverability for the provisions of the Act.

TITLE I—JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM

This title reforms the procedures by whichjuveniles who commit Federal crimes areprosecuted and punished.

SEC. 101 Repeal of General Provision. Thissection repeals the provision establishing the

general practice of surrendering to State au-thorities juveniles arrested for the commis-sion of Federal offenses.

SEC. 102 Treatment of Federal Juvenile Of-fenders. General Provisions: This section givesthe U.S. Attorney the discretion to pros-ecute juveniles age 14 years or older asadults for violations of Federal law whichare serious violent felonies or serious drugoffenses (as these terms are defined in 18U.S.C. 3559, the Federal 3-strike statute). Ju-veniles 14 and older may be prosecuted asadults for any other felony violation of Fed-eral law only with the approval of the Attor-ney General. If approval is not given, or, forall misdemeanor violations of Federal law,juveniles would be proceeded against as juve-niles, or referred to State or tribal authori-ties. Referral to state or tribal authoritieswould be presumed in all cases of concurrentstate and federal jurisdiction, unless a staterefused the case, or an overriding federal in-terest existed. In the special case of juve-niles alleged to have committed a federal of-fense and who have a prior occasion beentried and convicted as an adult in federalcourt, waiver to adult status would be auto-matic.

Reverse Waiver Provision: Juveniles 15 andyounger charged as an adult for serious vio-lent felonies or serious drug offenses, and ju-veniles of any age charged as an adult forother felonies, may appeal their waiver toadult status. The juvenile would have 20 daysto seek a judicial order returning the juve-nile to juvenile status. The prosecutor wouldbe permitted in interlocutory appeal from anadverse ruling, but a juvenile’s appeal wouldbe consolidated at the end of the case.

Application to Indian Tribes: This sectionalso includes a limited tribal opt-in for Na-tive American juveniles 15 and under whenfederal jurisdiction is based solely on thecommission of the offense on tribal land. Atribal opt-in to federal procedures would berequired to prosecute these juveniles asadults, although they could still be adju-dicated in federal delinquency proceedings,even in the absence of a tribal opt-in.

Procedures: When prosecuted as adults, ju-veniles in Federal criminal cases would besubject to the same procedures and penaltiesas adults, including availability of records,open proceedings, and sentencing procedures.Exceptions are provided waiving the applica-tion of mandatory minimums to juvenilesunder age 16 who have no previous seriousviolent felony or serious drug offense convic-tions, and barring the availability of thedeath penalty in any offense committed be-fore the juvenile was 18.

This section also provides that juvenilestried as adults and sentenced to prison mustserve their entire sentences, and may not bereleased on the basis of attaining their ma-jority, and applies to juveniles convicted asadults the same provisions of victim restitu-tion, including mandatory restitution, thatapply to adults.

SEC. 103 Definitions. This section providesdefinitions for terms used, including newdefinitions to ensure that juveniles accusedor convicted of Federal offenses are sepa-rated from adults and to conform the defini-tion of the term ‘‘juvenile’’ with the proce-dural changes made by this title.

SEC. 104 Notification after Arrest. This sec-tion conforms the requirement, in 18 U.S.C.5033, that certain persons be notified of thearrest of a juvenile for a Federal crime, withthe procedural changes in section 102 of thissubtitle, which vests discretion to prosecutejuveniles as adults with the U.S. Attorneyfor the district in the appropriate jurisdic-tion. This section also provides for the noti-fication of the juveniles’ parents or guard-ians, and prohibits the post-arrest housing ofjuveniles with adults.

SEC. 105 Release and Detention Prior to Dis-position. This section provides for pretrial de-tention juveniles tried as adults on the samebasis as adults, and prohibits the pretrial orpre-disposition detention of juveniles withadults.

SEC. 106 Speedy Trial. This section ex-tends, from 30 to 70 days, the time in whichthe trial of a juvenile in detention must becommenced, and applies in juvenile cases thesame tolling provisions for such time periodthat apply in adult prosecutions.

SEC. 107 Dispositional Hearings. This sec-tion provides for the sentencing of that juve-niles found to be delinquent, but not tried asadults. It provides for a hearing on the mat-ter within 40 days of an adjudication of de-linquency, and provides for victim allocutionat the hearing. The section provides a rangeof sentencing options to the court, includingprobation, fines, restitution, and/or impris-onment, and provides that terms of impris-onment may be imposed upon them for thesame term as adults, except that such im-prisonment must be terminated on the juve-nile’s 26th birthday. Juveniles sentenced toimprisonment may not be released solely onthe basis of attaining their majority.

SEC. 108 Use of Juvenile Records. This sec-tion provides that the federal criminalrecords of juveniles tried as adults, and thefederal delinquency records of juveniles adju-dicated delinquent for certain serious of-fenses such as murder, rape, armed robbery,and sexual abuse or assault, are to be treatedfor all purposes in the same manner as therecords of adults for the same offenses. Otherfederal felony juvenile criminal or delin-quency records would be treated the same asadult records for criminal justice or nationalsecurity background check purposes.

This section also permits juvenile federalfelony juvenile criminal and delinquencyrecords to be provided to schools and col-leges under rules issued by the AttorneyGeneral, provided that recipients of therecords are held to privacy standards andthat the records not be used to determine ad-mission.

SEC. 109 Implementation of a Sentence forJuvenile Offenders. This section provides forthe implementation of a sentence on a delin-quent or criminal juvenile and directs theBureau of Prisons to not confine juveniles inany institution where the juvenile would notbe separated from adult inmates.

SEC. 110 Magistrate Judge Authority Re-garding Juvenile Defendants. This section ex-tends the jurisdiction of Federal magistratejudges to class A misdemeanors involving ju-veniles; permits magistrate judges to imposeterms of imprisonment on juveniles, and con-forms the section conferring authority onmagistrate judges with the proceduralchanges made by section 102.

SEC. 111 Federal Sentencing Guidelines.This section conforms the Sentencing Re-form Act to ensure that the Federal Sentenc-ing Guidelines relating to maximum pen-alties for violent crimes and serious drugcrimes apply to juveniles tried as adults.

This section also amends the SentencingReform Act to direct the Sentencing Com-mission to promulgate sentencing guidelinesfor sentencing juveniles tried as adults inFederal court, and for dispositional hearings(the equivalent of sentencing) for juvenilesadjudicated delinquent in the Federal sys-tem.

SEC. 112 Study and Report on Indian TribalJurisdiction. This section requires the Attor-ney General to study and report to the Con-gress on the capabilities of tribal courts andcriminal justice systems relating to theprosecution of juvenile criminals under trib-al jurisdiction, and requires the AttorneyGeneral to evaluate an expansion of tribalcourt criminal jurisdiction.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES754 January 20, 1999TITLE II—JUVENILE GANGS

SEC. 201 Solicitation or Recruitment of Per-sons in Criminal Gang Activity. This sectionmakes the recruitment or solicitation of per-sons to participate in gang activity subjectto a one-year minimum and 10-year maxi-mum penalty, or a fine of up to $250,000. If aminor is recruited or solicited, the minimumpenalty is increased to four years. In addi-tion, a person convicted of this crime wouldhave to pay the costs of housing, maintain-ing, and treating the juvenile until the juve-nile reaches the age of 18 years.

SEC. 202 Increased Penalties for Using Mi-nors to Distribute Drugs. This section in-creases the penalties for using minors to dis-tribute controlled substances.

SEC. 203 Penalties for Use of Minors inCrimes of Violence. This section increasestwofold, and for a second or subsequent of-fense threefold, the penalties for using mi-nors in the commission of a crime of vio-lence.

SEC. 204 Amendment of Sentencing Guide-lines With Respect to Body Armor. This sectiondirects the United States Sentencing Com-mission to provide a minimum two level sen-tencing enhancement for any defendant com-mitting a Federal crime while wearing bodyarmor.

SEC. 205 High Intensity Interstate Gang Ac-tivity Areas. This section authorizes the At-torney General to establish joint agencytask forces to address gang crime in areaswith high concentrations of gang activity.This provision authorizes $100 million peryear for this program; $75 million per year isauthorized for establishment and operationof High Intensity Interstate Gang ActivityAreas, and $25 million per year is authorizedfor community-based gang prevention andintervention for gang members and at-riskyouth in gang areas.

SEC. 206 Increasing the Penalty for UsingPhysical Force to Tamper With Witnesses, Vic-tims, or Informants. This section increases thepenalty from a maximum of 10 years’ impris-onment to a maximum of 20 years’ imprison-ment for using or threatening physical forceagainst any person with intent to tamperwith a witness, victim, or informant. Thissection also adds a conspiracy penalty forobstruction of justice offenses involving vic-tims, witnesses, and informants. In addition,this section makes traveling in interstate orforeign commerce to bribe, threaten or in-timidate a witness to delay or influence tes-timony in a State criminal proceeding a vio-lation of the Federal Travel Act, 18 U.S.C.Section 1952.TITLE III—JUVENILE CRIME CONTROL, ACCOUNT-

ABILITY, AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

This title reforms and enhances federal as-sistance to State and local juvenile crimecontrol and delinquency prevention pro-grams. Subtitle A amends and reauthorizesthe Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre-vention Act of 1974 (JJDPA), to provide as-sistance to States for effective youth crimecontrol and accountability.

SEC. 301 Findings; Declaration of Purpose;Definitions. This section rewrites Title I ofthe JJDPA. It updates and revises the Con-gressional findings and declaration of pur-pose contained in the JJDPA to reflect thereality of violent juvenile crime, promotethe primacy of accountability in the juvenilejustice system, and recognize the rights andneeds of victims of juvenile crime. This sec-tion also revises and updates the definitionsgoverning the JJDPA.

SEC. 302 Juvenile Crime Control and Delin-quency Prevention. This section rewrites TitleII of the JJDPA. It reforms and renames thecurrent Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention within the Department ofJustice, improves services to State and local

governments, and reforms and streamlinesexisting JJDPA grant programs. Among thespecific provisions of the rewritten JJDPATitle II:

Reforms JJDPA Title II Part A—the Officeof Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-tion (OJJDP) of the Department of Justice,is renamed the Office of Juvenile Crime Con-trol and Prevention (OJCCP), with an Ad-ministrator appointed by the President andconfirmed by the Senate. This section alsoenhances the effectiveness of the OJCCP byrequiring the OJCCP Administrator to:present to Congress annual plans, with meas-urable goals, to control and prevent youthcrime; coordinate all Federal programs re-lating to controlling and preventing youthcrime; disseminate to States and local gov-ernments data on the prevention, correctionand control of juvenile crime and delin-quency, and report on successful programsand methods; and serve as a single point ofcontact for States, localities, and private en-tities to apply for and coordinate all federalassistance and programs related to juvenilecrime control and delinquency prevention.

Consolidates numerous JJDPA programs,including Part C Special Emphasis grants,State challenge grants, boot camps, andJJDPA Title V incentive grants, under anenhanced prevention challenge block grantto the States.

Reauthorizes the State formula grantsunder Part B of Title II of the JJDPA:

Reforms the 3 current ‘‘core mandates’’ onthe States relating to the incarceration ofjuveniles (known as sight and sound separa-tion, jail removal, and status offender man-dates,) to ensure the protection of juvenilesin custody while providing state and localgovernments with needed flexibility; provi-sions are based on H.R. 1818 from the 105thCongress, but to ensure that abuse of juve-nile delinquent inmates is not permitted, in-cludes modified definitions from the 105thCongress S. 10 regarding what constitutescontact between juveniles and adults—noprohibited physical contact or sustained oralcommunication would permitted between ju-veniles delinquents in detention and adultinmates;

Modifies the current ‘‘core mandate’’ re-quiring states to address efforts to reducethe disproportionate number of minorities injuvenile detention in comparison with theirproportion to the population at large, tomake the language race-neutral and con-stitutional;

The four ‘‘core mandates’’ retained inmodified form are each enforceable by a 12.5percent reduction in a State’s Part B fundingfor non-compliance. The Administrator maywaive the penalty.

Revises JJDPA Title II Part C, to enhancefederal research efforts into successful juve-nile crime control and delinquency preven-tion programs; reauthorizes JJDPA Title IIPart D Gang prevention programs, and re-forms the program to provide an emphasis onthe disruption and prosecution of gangs; in-cludes a discretionary prevention grant pro-gram designated as Part E of Title II of theJJDPA; retains the current Part G Mentor-ing program under Title II of the JJDPA, re-designating it as Part F, and adding a pilotprogram to encourage and develop mentoringprograms that focus on the entire family in-stead of simply the juvenile and which uti-lize the existing resources and infrastructureof the Cooperative Extension Services ofLand Grant Universities; and designatesJJDPA Title II Part G for administrativeprovisions, including: providing rules againstuse of federal funds for behavior control ex-perimentation, lobbying, or litigation; sub-jecting JJDPA and Juvenile AccountabilityBlock Grants (in Title III, Subtitle B of thisbill) to a religious and charitable non-dis-

crimination provision cross-referenced fromthe welfare reform law; providing significantfunding directly from the Department ofJustice for juvenile delinquency preventionand juvenile accountability programs in In-dian country; and providing authorizationsof appropriations for the JJDPA and the Ju-venile Accountability Block Grants, as fol-lows:

Authorizes $1 billion per year for fiveyears, under the following formula: $450 mil-lion (45%) for Juvenile Accountability BlockGrants; $435 million (43.5%) for preventionprograms under the JJDPA, including $200million for Juvenile Delinquency PreventionBlock Grants, $200 million for Part B For-mula grant prevention programs, and $35million for Gangs, Mentoring and Discre-tionary grant programs; $75 million (7.5%)for grants to states to upgrade and enhancejuvenile felony criminal record histories andto make such records available within NCIC,the national criminal history database usedby law enforcement, the courts, and prosecu-tors; and $40 million (4%) for NIJ researchand evaluation of the effectiveness of juve-nile delinquency prevention programs.

SEC. 303 Runaway and Homeless Youth.This section reforms the Runaway andHomeless Youth program, and reauthorizesit through FY 2004. The reforms steamlinethe program, provide for targeting federalassistance to areas with the greatest need,and make numerous technical changes.

SEC. 304 National Center for Missing andExploited Children. This section improves andreauthorizes the Missing and Exploited Chil-dren program through FY 2004, providing on-going authorization for grants to the Na-tional Center for Missing and Exploited Chil-dren.

SEC 305. Transfer of Functions and SavingsProvisions. This section provides technicaland administrative rules to transfer func-tions, and to govern the transition from theOffice of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention to the Office of Juvenile CrimeControl and Prevention.Subtitle B Accountability for Juvenile Offend-

ers and Public Protection Incentive GrantsSEC. 321 Block Grant Program. Accountabil-

ity Block Grant: This section establishes anincentive block grant program for States,authorized at $450 million for each of thenext five fiscal years, as well as a separate$50 million per year grant program for theupgrade and enhancement of juvenile crimi-nal records. The incentive block grantswould fund a variety of programs, such asconstructing juvenile offender detention fa-cilities, implementing graduated sanctionsprograms; fingerprinting or conducting DNAtests on juvenile offenders; establishingrecord-keeping ability; establishing SHOCAPprograms; enforcing truancy laws; and var-ious prevention programs including after-school youth activities, antigang initiatives,literacy programs, and job training pro-grams. Indian tribes receive separate grantsunder this section.

State receipt of the incentive grants wouldbe conditioned on the adoption of three coreaccountability policies: the establishment ofgraduated sanctions to ensure appropriatecorrection of juvenile offenders, drug testingjuvenile offenders upon arrest in appropriatecases; and recognition of victims rights andneeds in the juvenile justice system.

Fifty percent of the funds under the grantprogram are designated for implementinggraduated sanctions or increasing juveniledetention space if needed by the State. Fed-eral the remaining fifty percent can be usedfor any authorized grant purpose. Detentionspace construction projects must be fundedby not less than fifty percent State or local(i.e., nonfederal grant) money.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S755January 20, 1999The block grant includes a pass-through

requirement intended to provide a formulafor local funding that reflects the needs andresponsibilities of state and local levels ofgovernment. Seventy percent of the funds re-ceived by the State under this block grantmust be passed through to the local level,unless the state organizes its juvenile justicesystem exclusively on the State level.

Juvenile Records Grants: Criminal and juve-nile record improvement grants for theStates are authorized to encourage states totreat the records of juveniles who commitand are adjudicated delinquent for the felo-nies of murder, armed robbery, and sexualassault be treated the same as adult criminalrecords for the same offenses in the state,and to treat records of juveniles who commitany other felony be treated, for criminal jus-tice purposes only, the same as adult crimi-nal records for the same offenses. Suchrecords would be available interstate withinthe NCIC system.

SEC. 322 Pilot Program to Promote Replica-tion of Recent Successful Juvenile Crime Reduc-tion Strategies. This section authorizes theAttorney General to fund pilot programs toreplicate the successful juvenile crime reduc-tion program utilized by Boston, Massachu-setts. Pilot program grant recipients wouldadopt a juvenile crime reduction strategy in-volving close collaboration among Federal,State, and local law enforcement authori-ties, and including religious affiliated or fra-ternal organizations, school officials, socialservice agencies, and parent or local grassroots organizations. Emphasis would beplaced on initiating effective crime preven-tion programs and tracing firearms seizedfrom crime scenes or offenders in an effort toidentify illegal gun traffickers who are sup-plying weapons to gangs and other criminalenterprises

SEC. 323 Repeal of Unnecessary and Dupli-cative Programs. This section repeals duplica-tive and wasteful programs enacted as a partof the 1994 crime law, including the Ounce ofPrevention Council, the Model IntensiveGrant program, the Local Partnership Act,the National Community Economic Partner-ship, the Urban Recreation and At-RiskYouth Program, and the Family Unity Dem-onstration Project.

SEC. 324 Extension of Violent Crime Reduc-tion Trust Fund. This section extends theViolent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, estab-lished in the 1994 omnibus crime law, to fundprograms authorized by this act.

SEC. 325 Reimbursement of States for theCosts of Incarcerating Juvenile Aliens. Thissection adds juvenile aliens to the StateCriminal Alien Assistance Program, whichprovides reimbursement to the States for thecosts of incarcerating criminal aliens.

SEC. 326 Sense of Congress. This sectionprovides the sense of Congress that Statesshould enact legislation to provide that if anoffense that would be a capital offense ifcommitted by an adult is committed by a ju-venile between the ages of 10 and 14, the ju-venile could, with judicial approval, be triedand punished as an adult, provided the deathpenalty would not be available in such cases.

Subtitle C—Alternative Education andDelinquency Prevention

SEC. 331 Alternative Education. This sec-tion amends the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act (ESEA) to provide demonstra-tion grants to state and local educationagencies for alternative education in appro-priate settings for disruptive or delinquentstudents, to improve the academic and socialperformance of these students and to im-prove the safety and learning environment ofregular classrooms. Certain matchingamounts required under this program couldbe made from amounts available to the State

or local governments under the JJDPA. Ap-propriations under the ESEA of $15 millionper year for four years are authorized.

TITLE IV—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Subtitle A—General ProvisionsSEC. 401 Prohibition on Firearms Possession

by Violent Juvenile Offenders. This section ex-tends the ban on firearm ownership by cer-tain felons to persons who, as juveniles, areadjudicated delinquent for an offense whichwould be a serious violent felony as definedin 18 U.S.C. 3559(c)(2)(F)(i) (the federal threestrikes statute), were the offense committedby an adult. The ban is prospective, applyingonly to delinquent acts committed afterrecords of such offenses are routinely avail-able within the National Instant Check Sys-tem instituted pursuant to the Brady Law.

Subtitle B—Jail-Based Substance AbuseSEC. 421 Jail-Based Substance Abuse Treat-

ment Program. This section provides that 10percent of grants to States for drug treat-ment in prisons (RSAT grants) should be di-rected to qualified treatment programs injails; under current law, these funds are lim-ited to prison treatment. This section alsoallows RSAT grants to be used to providepost-incarceration substance abuse treat-ment for former inmates if the Governor cer-tifies to the U.S. Attorney General that theState is providing, and will continue to pro-vide, an adequate level of treatment servicesto incarcerated inmates.

WHEN THE FABRIC IS RENT

(By Patricia Cornwell)There was a saying in the morgue during

those long six years I worked there. When aperson is touched by violence, the fabric ofcivility is forever rent, or ripped or breached,whatever word is most graphic to you.

Our country is the most violent one in thefree world, and as far as I’m concerned, weare becoming increasingly incompetent inpreventing and prosecuting cruel crimes thatwe foolishly think happen only to others.There was another saying in the morgue.The one thing every dead person had in com-mon in that place was he never thought he’dend up there. He never imagined his namewould be penned in black ink in the bigblack book that is ominously omnipresenton a counter top in the autopsy suite.

I have seen hundreds, maybe close to athousand dead bodies by now, many of themruined by another person’s hands. I return tothe morgue at least two or three times ayear to painfully remind myself that whatI’m writing about is awful and final and real.

I suffer from nightmares and don’t remem-ber the last time I had a pleasant dream. Ihave very strong emotional responses tocrimes that have nothing to do with me,such as Versace’s murder, and more recently,the random shooting deaths of Capitol PoliceAgent John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chest-nut. I can’t read sad, scary or violent books.I watched only half of ‘‘Titanic’’ because Icould not bear its sadness. I stormed out ofAnn Rice’s ‘‘Interview With A Vampire,’’ sofurious my hands were shaking because themovie is such an outrageous trivializationand celebration of sexual violence. For methe suffering, the blood, the deaths are real.

I’d like to confront Ann Rice withbitemarks and other sadistic wounds thatare not special effects. I’d like to sentenceOliver Stone to a month in the morgue,make him sit in the cooler for a while andsee what an audience of victims has to sayabout his films. I’d like O.J. Simpson to havetotal recall and suffer, go broke, be ostra-cized, never be allowed on a golf courseagain. I was in a pub in London when thatverdict was read. I’ll never forget the amazedfaces of a suddenly mute group of beer-drink-

ing Brits, or the shame my friends and I feltbecause in America it is absolutely true.Justice is blind.

Justice has stumbled off the road of truthand fallen headlong into a thicket of subjec-tive verdicts where evidence doesn’t countand plea bargains that are such a bargainthey are fire sales. I’ve begun to fear thatthe consequences and punishment of violentcrime have become some sort of mindlessmultiple choice, a ‘‘Let’s Make A Deal,’’ a‘‘Let’s microwave the popcorn and watchCourt TV.’’

I have been asked to tell you what my fic-tional character Dr. Scarpetta would do ifshe were the crime czar or Virginia, of Amer-ica. Since she and I share the same opinionsand views, I am stepping out from behind mycurtain of imagined deeds and characters andtelling you what I feel and think.

It startles me to realize that at age 42, Ihave spent almost half my life studyingcrime, of living and working in it’s pitifullycold, smelly, ugly environment. I am oftenasked why people cheat, rob, stalk, slander,maim and murder. How can anybody enjoycausing another human being or any livingcreature destruction and pain? I will tell youin three words: Abuse of power. Everythingin life is about the power we appropriate forgood or destruction, and the ultimate over-powering of a life is to make it suffer andend.

This includes children who put on camou-flage and get into the family guns. We don’twant to believe that 12, 13, 16 year old youthsare unredeemable. Most of them aren’t. Butit’s time we face that some of them havetransgressed beyond forgiveness, certainlybeyond trust. Not all victims I have seenpass through the morgue were savaged byadults. The creative cruelty of some youngkillers is the worst of the worst, images ofwhat they did to their victims ones I wish Icould delete.

About a year ago, I began researching juve-nile crime for the follow-up of ‘‘Hornet’sNext’’ (Southern Cross, January, ’99) and mytenth Scarpetta book (unfinished and unti-tled yet). This was a territory I had yet toexplore. I was inspired by the depressing factthat in the last ten years, shootings, hold-ups at ATM’s, and premeditated murderscommitted by juveniles have risen 160 per-cent. As I ventured into my eleventh andtwelfth novels, I wondered what my crusad-ing characters would do with violent chil-dren.

So I spent months in Raleigh watchingmembers of the Governor’s Commission onJuvenile Crime and Justice debate and re-write their juvenile crime laws, as Virginiadid in 1995 under the leadership of Jim Gil-more. I quizzed Senator Orrin Hatch abouthis youth violence bill, S. 10, a federal ap-proach to reforming a juvenile justice sys-tem that is failing our society. I toured de-tention homes in Richmond and elsewhere. Isat in on juvenile court cases and talked toinmates who were juveniles when they begantheir lives of crime.

While it is true that many violent juve-niles have abuse, neglect, and the absence ofvalues in their homes, I maintain my beliefthat all people should be held accountablefor their actions. Our first priority should beto keep our communities safe. We must re-move violent people from our midst, no mat-ter their age. As Marcia Morey, executive di-rector of North Carolina’s juvenile crimecommission, constantly preaches, ‘‘We muststop the hemorrhage first.’’

When the trigger is pulled, when the knifeis plunged, kids aren’t kids anymore. Weshould not shield and give excuses and proba-tion to violent juveniles who, odds are, willharm or kill again if they are returned toour neighborhoods and schools. We should

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES756 January 20, 1999not treat young violent offenders with sealedlips and exclusive proceedings.

‘‘The secrecy and confidentiality of oursystem have hurt us,’’ says Richmond Juve-nile and Domestic Relations District CourtJudge Kimberly O’Donnell. ‘‘What peoplecan’t see and hear is often difficult for themto understand.’’

Virginia has opened its courtrooms to thepublic, and Judge O’Donnell encourages peo-ple to sit in hers and see for themselvesthose juveniles who are remorseless andthose who can be saved. Most juveniles whoend up in court are not repeat offenders. Butfor that small number who threaten us most,I advocate hard, non-negotiable judgment.Most of what I would like to see is alreadybeing done in Virginia. But we need juvenilejustice reform nationally, a system that issensible and consistent from state to state.

As it is now, if a juvenile commits a felonyin Virginia, when he turns 18 his record isnot expunged and will follow him for the restof his days. But were he to commit the samefelony in North Carolina, at 16 he’ll be re-leased from a correctional facility with norecord of any crime he committed in thatstate. Let’s say he’s back on the street andreturns to Virginia. Now he’s a juvenileagain, and police, prosecutors, judges or ju-ries will never know what he did in NorthCarolina.

If he moves to yet another state where thelegal age is 21, he can commit felonies forthree or four more years and have no recordof them, either. Maybe by then he’s commit-ted fifteen felonies but is only credited withthe one he committed in Virginia. Maybewhen he becomes an adult and is violentagain, he gets a light sentence or even proba-tion, since it appears he’s committed onlyone felony in his life instead of fifteen. He’llbe back among us soon enough. Maybe hisnext victim will be you.

If national juvenile justice reform were upto me, I’d be strict. I would not be popularwith extreme child advocates. If I had myway, it would be routine that when any juve-nile commits a violent crime, his name andpersonal life are publicized. Records of juve-niles who commit felonies should not be ex-punged when the individual becomes anadult. Mug shots, fingerprints and the DNAof violent juveniles should, at the very least,be available to police, prosecutors, andschools, and if they young violent offenderhas an extensive record and commits anothercrime, plea bargaining should be limited orat least informed.

Juveniles who rape, murder or commitother heinous acts should be tried as adults,but judges should have the discretionarypower to decide when this is merited. I wantto see more court-ordered restitution andmediation. Let’s turn off the TV’s in correc-tional centers and force assailants, robbers,thieves to work to pay back what they’ve de-stroyed and taken, as much as that is pos-sible. Confront them with their victims, faceto face. Perhaps a juvenile might realize theawful deed he’s done if his victim is suddenlya person with feelings, loved ones, scars, aname.

Prevention is a more popular word thanpunishment. But the solution to what’s hap-pening in our society, particularly to ouryouths, is simpler and infinitely harder thanany federally or privately funded program.All of us live in neighborhoods. Unless youare in solitary confinement or a coma, youare aware of others around you. Quite likelyyou are exposed to children who are sad,lost, ignored, neglected or abused. Try tohelp. Do it in person.

I remember my first few years in Rich-mond when I was living at Union TheologicalSeminary, where my former husband was astudent and I was a struggling, somewhat

failed writer. Charlie and I spent five yearsin a seminary apartment complex wherethere was a little boy who enjoyed throwinga tennis ball against the building in a stac-cato that was torture to me.

I was working on novels nobody wantedand every time that ball thunked againstbrick, I lost my train of thought. I’d poppedout of my chair and fly outside to order thekid to stop, but somehow he was always gonewithout a trace, silence restored for an houror two. One day I caught him. I was about toreprimand him when I saw the fear and lone-liness in his eyes.

‘‘What’s your name?’’ I asked.‘‘Eddie,’’ he said.‘‘How old are you?’’‘‘Ten.’’‘‘It’s not a good idea to throw a ball

against the building. It makes it hard forsome of us to work.’’

‘‘I know.’’ He shrugged.‘‘If you know, then why do you do it?’’‘‘Because I have no one to play catch with

me,’’ he replied.My memory lit up with acts of kindness

when I was a lonely child living in the smalltown of Montreat, North Carolina. Adultneighbors had taken time to play tennis withme. They had invited me, the only girl intown, to play baseball or touch football withthe boys.

Billy Graham’s wife, Ruth, used to stop hercar to see how I was or if I needed a ridesomewhere. Years later, she befriended mewhen I was a very confused teenager who feltrather worthless. Were it not for her kind-ness and encouragement, I doubt I would bewriting this editorial. Maybe I wouldn’t haveamounted to much. Maybe I would have got-ten into serious trouble. Maybe I’d be dead.

Eddie and I started playing catch. I gavehim tennis lessons and probably ruined hisbackhand for life. He told me all about him-self and amused me with his stories. We be-came pals. He never threw a tennis ballagainst the building again.

We must protect ourselves from all peoplewho have proven to be dangerous. But weshould never abandon those who can behelped or are at least are worthy of the ef-fort. If you save or change one life, you haveadded something priceless to this world. Youhave left it better than you found it.

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himselfand Mr. BREAUX):

S. 255. A bill to combat waste, fraud,and abuse in payments for home healthservices provided under the Medicareprogram, and to improve the quality ofthose home health services; read twice.

HOME HEALTH INTEGRITY PRESERVATION ACTOF 1999

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, ear-lier today, I introduced the HomeHealth Integrity Preservation Act of1999. I am pleased that Senator BREAUXcosponsored this bill, as he did when weintroduced it in the 105th Congress.This legislation will be an importanttool in combating the waste, fraud andabuse that has threatened the integrityof the Medicare home health benefit.

Although the majority of homehealth agencies are honest, legitimate,businesses, it is clear that there havebeen unscrupulous providers. In July1997, the Senate Special Committee onAging, which I chair, held a hearing onthis topic. The hearing exposed seriousrip-offs of the Medicare trust fund, andhighlighted areas that need more strin-gent oversight.

In response to the hearing, SenatorBREAUX and I followed up with a round-table discussion on home health fraud.The roundtable brought together keyplayers with a variety of perspectives.Participants included law enforcement,the Administration, and the homehealth industry.

The roundtable yielded a number ofproposals which were shaped into draftlegislation and circulated to a wide va-riety of stakeholders. In response tocomments, the draft was changed toaddress legitimate concerns that wereraised. The result is a balanced piece oflegislation that includes importantsafeguards against fraud and abuse ofthe system, but does not stifle thegrowth of legitimate providers.

The Home Health Integrity Preserva-tion Act of 1999 would do the following:

It would heighten scrutiny of newhome health agencies before they enterthe Medicare program, and during theirearly years of Medicare participation.

It would improve standards andscreening for home health agencies, ad-ministrators and employees.

It would require audits of homehealth agencies whose claims exhibitunusual features that may indicateproblems, and improve HCFA’s abilityto identify such features.

It would require agencies to adoptand implement fraud and abuse compli-ance programs.

It would increase scrutiny of branchoffices, business entities related tohome health agencies, and changes inoperations.

It would make more information onparticular home health agencies avail-able to beneficiaries.

It would create an interagency HomeHealth Integrity Task Force, led by theOffice of the Inspector General ofHealth and Human Services.

It would reform bankruptcy rules tomake it harder for all Medicare provid-ers, not just home health agencies, toavoid penalties and repayment obliga-tions by declaring bankruptcy.

This legislation is an important stepin ensuring that seniors maintain ac-cess to high quality home care servicesrendered by reputable providers. I urgemy colleagues to join me in this effortby cosponsoring this important legisla-tion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that the text of the bill be printedin the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill wasordered to be printed in the RECORD, asfollows:

S. 255Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of Americain Congress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited asthe ‘‘Home Health Integrity PreservationAct of 1999’’.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of con-tents of this Act is as follows:Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.Sec. 2. Additional conditions of participa-

tion for home health agencies.Sec. 3. Surveyor training in reimbursement

and coverage policies.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S757January 20, 1999Sec. 4. Surveys and reviews.Sec. 5. Prior patient load.Sec. 6. Establishment of standards and pro-

cedures to improve quality ofservices.

Sec. 7. Notification of availability of a homehealth agency’s most recentsurvey as part of dischargeplanning process.

Sec. 8. Home health integrity task force.Sec. 9. Application of certain provisions of

the bankruptcy code.Sec. 10. Study and report to Congress.Sec. 11. Effective date.SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPA-

TION FOR HOME HEALTH AGENCIES.(a) QUALIFICATIONS OF MANAGING EMPLOY-

EES.—Section 1891(a) of the Social SecurityAct (42 U.S.C. 1395bbb(a)) is amended by add-ing at the end the following:

‘‘(7) The agency shall have—‘‘(A) sufficient knowledge, as attested by

the managing employees (as defined in sec-tion 1126(b)) of the agency (pursuant to sub-section (c)(2)(C)(iv)(II)) using standards es-tablished by the Secretary, of the require-ments for reimbursement under this title,coverage criteria and claims procedures, andthe civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance with such requirements; and

‘‘(B) managing employees with sufficientprior education or work experience, accord-ing to standards determined by the Sec-retary, in the delivery of health care.’’.

(b) COMPLIANCE PROGRAM.—Section 1891(a)of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.1395bbb(a)) (as amended by subsection (a)) isamended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(8) The agency has developed and imple-mented a fraud and abuse compliance pro-gram.’’.

(c) AVAILABILITY OF SURVEY.—Section1891(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.1395bbb(a)) (as amended by subsection (b)) isamended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(9) The agency, before the agency pro-vides any home health services to a bene-ficiary, makes available to the beneficiary orthe representative of the beneficiary a sum-mary of the pertinent findings (including alist of any deficiencies) of the most recentsurvey of the agency relating to the compli-ance of such agency. Such summary shall beprovided in a standardized format and may,at the discretion of the Secretary, also in-clude other information regarding the agen-cy’s operations that are of potential interestto beneficiaries, such as the number of pa-tients served by the agency.’’.

(d) NOTICE OF NEW HOME HEALTH SERVICE,NEW BRANCH OFFICE, AND NEW JOINT VEN-TURE.—Section 1891(a)(2) of the Social Secu-rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395bbb(a)(2)) is amendedto read as follows:

‘‘(2)(A) The agency notifies the agency’sfiscal intermediary and the State entity re-sponsible for the licensing or certification ofthe agency—

‘‘(i) of a change in the persons with anownership or control interest (as defined insection 1124(a)(3)) in the agency,

‘‘(ii) of a change in the persons who are of-ficers, directors, agents, or managing em-ployees (as defined in section 1126(b)) of theagency,

‘‘(iii) of a change in the corporation, asso-ciation, or other company responsible for themanagement of the agency,

‘‘(iv) that the agency is providing a cat-egory of skilled service that it was not pro-viding at the time of the agency’s most re-cent standard survey,

‘‘(v) that the agency is operating a newbranch office that was not in operation atthe time of the agency’s most recent stand-ard survey, and

‘‘(vi) that the agency is involved in a newjoint venture with other health care provid-ers or other business entities.

‘‘(B) The notice required under subpara-graph (A) shall be provided—

‘‘(i) for a change described in clauses (i),(ii), and (iii) of such subparagraph, within 30calendar days of the time of the change andshall include the identity of each new personor company described in the previous sen-tence,

‘‘(ii) for a change described in clause (iv) ofsuch subparagraph, within 30 calendar daysof the time the agency begins providing thenew service and shall include a description ofthe service,

‘‘(iii) for a change described in clause (v) ofsuch subparagraph, within 30 calendar daysof the time the new branch office begins op-erations and shall include the location of theoffice and a description of the services thatare being provided at the office, and

‘‘(iv) for a change described in clause (vi)of such subparagraph, within 30 calendardays of the time the agency enters into thejoint venture agreement and shall include adescription of the joint venture and the par-ticipants in the joint venture.’’.SEC. 3. SURVEYOR TRAINING IN REIMBURSE-

MENT AND COVERAGE POLICIES.Section 1891(d)(3) of the Social Security

Act (42 U.S.C. 1395bbb(d)(3)) is amended—(1) by striking ‘‘relating to the perform-

ance’’ and inserting ‘‘relating to—‘‘(A) the performance’’;(2) by striking the period at the end and in-

serting ‘‘; and’’; and(3) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(B) requirements for reimbursement and

coverage of services under this title.’’.SEC. 4. SURVEYS AND REVIEWS.

(a) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SUR-VEY.—Section 1891(c)(2)(C) of the Social Se-curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395bbb(c)(2)(C)) isamended—

(1) in clause (i)(I)—(A) by striking ‘‘purpose of evaluating’’

and inserting ‘‘purpose of—‘‘(aa) evaluating’’; and(B) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(bb) evaluating whether the individuals

are homebound for purposes of qualifying forreceipt of benefits for home health servicesunder this title; and’’;

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

(3) in clause (iii), by striking the period atthe end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(iv) shall include—‘‘(I) an assessment of whether the agency

is in compliance with all of the conditions ofparticipation and requirements specified inor pursuant to section 1861(o), this section,and this title;

‘‘(II) an assessment that the managing em-ployees (as defined in section 1126(b)) of theagency have attested in writing to havingsufficient knowledge, as determined by theSecretary, of the requirements for reim-bursement under this title, coverage criteriaand claims procedures, and the civil andcriminal penalties for noncompliance withsuch requirements; and

‘‘(III) a review of the services provided bysubcontractors of the agency to ensure thatsuch services are being provided in a mannerconsistent with the requirements of thistitle.’’.

(b) ADDITIONAL EVENTS TRIGGERING A SUR-VEY.—Section 1891(c)(2)(B) of the Social Se-curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395bbb(c)(2)(B)) isamended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause(i);

(2) by striking the period at the end ofclause (ii) and inserting a comma; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(iii) shall be conducted not less than an-

nually for the first 2 years after the initialstandard survey of the agency,

‘‘(iv) after the agency’s first 2 years of par-ticipation under this title, shall be con-ducted within 90 calendar days of the datethat the agency notifies the Secretary thatit is providing a category of skilled servicethat the agency was not providing at thetime of the agency’s most recent standardsurvey,

‘‘(v) if the agency is operating a newbranch office that was not in operation atthe time of the agency’s most recent stand-ard survey, shall be conducted within the 12-month period following the date that thenew branch office began operations to ensurethat such office is providing quality care andthat it is appropriately classified as a branchoffice, and shall include direct scrutiny ofthe operations of the branch office, and

‘‘(vi) shall be conducted on randomly se-lected agencies on an occasional basis, withthe number of such surveys to be determinedby the Secretary.’’.

(c) REVIEW BY FISCAL INTERMEDIARY.—Sec-tion 1816 of the Social Security Act (42U.S.C. 1395h) is amended by adding at theend the following:

‘‘(m) An agreement with an agency or or-ganization under this section shall requirethat the agency or organization conduct areview of the overall business structure of ahome health agency submitting a claim forreimbursement for home health services, in-cluding any related organizations of thehome health agency.’’.SEC. 5. PRIOR PATIENT LOAD.

Section 1891 of the Social Security Act (42U.S.C. 1395bbb) is amended by adding at theend the following:

‘‘(h) PRIOR PATIENT LOAD.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall not

enter into an agreement for the first timewith a home health agency to provide itemsand services under this title unless the Sec-retary determines that, before the date theagreement is entered into, the agency—

‘‘(A) had been in operation for at least 60calendar days; and

‘‘(B) had at least 10 patients during thatperiod of prior operation.

‘‘(2) EXCEPTIONS.—‘‘(A) BENEFICIARY ACCESS.—If the Secretary

determines appropriate, the Secretary maywaive the requirements of paragraph (1) inorder to establish or maintain beneficiaryaccess to home health services in an area.

‘‘(B) CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP.—The require-ments of paragraph (1) shall not apply to ahome health agency at the time of a changein ownership of such agency.’’.SEC. 6. ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS AND

PROCEDURES TO IMPROVE QUALITYOF SERVICES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1891 of the SocialSecurity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395bbb) (as amendedby section 5) is amended by adding at the endthe following:

‘‘(i) ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS ANDPROCEDURES.—

‘‘(1) SCREENING OF EMPLOYEES.—The Sec-retary shall establish procedures to improvethe background screening performed by ahome health agency on individuals that theagency is considering hiring as home healthaides (as defined in subsection (a)(3)(E)) andlicensed health professionals (as defined insubsection (a)(3)(F)).

‘‘(2) COST REPORTS.—The Secretary shallestablish additional procedures regardingthe requirement for attestation of cost re-ports to ensure greater accountability on thepart of a home health agency and its manag-ing employees (as defined in section 1126(b))for the accuracy of the information providedto the Secretary in any such cost reports.

‘‘(3) MONITORING AGENCY AFTER EXTENDEDSURVEY.—The Secretary shall establish pro-cedures to ensure that a home health agency

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES758 January 20, 1999that is subject to an extended (or partial ex-tended) survey is closely monitored from theperiod immediately following the extendedsurvey through the agency’s subsequentstandard survey to ensure that the agency isin compliance with all the conditions of par-ticipation and requirements specified in orpursuant to section 1861(o), this section, andthis title.

‘‘(4) ADDITIONAL AUDITS.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—‘‘(i) STANDARDS.—The Secretary shall es-

tablish objective standards regarding the de-termination of—

‘‘(I) whether an agency is a home healthagency described in subparagraph (B); and

‘‘(II) the circumstances that trigger anaudit for a home health agency described insubparagraph (B), and the content of such anaudit.

‘‘(ii) INFORMATION.—In establishing stand-ards under clause (i), the Secretary shall en-sure that the individuals performing the au-dits under this section are provided with thenecessary information, including informa-tion from intermediaries, carriers, and lawenforcement sources, in order to determine ifa particular home health agency is an agen-cy described in subparagraph (B) and wheth-er the circumstances triggering an audit forsuch an agency has occurred.

‘‘(B) AGENCY DESCRIBED.—A home healthagency is described in this subparagraph if itis an agency that has—

‘‘(i) experienced unusually rapid growth ascompared to other home health agencies inthe area and in the country;

‘‘(ii) had unusually high utilization pat-terns as compared to other home healthagencies in the area and in the country;

‘‘(iii) unusually high costs per patient ascompared to other home health agencies inthe area and in the country;

‘‘(iv) unusually high levels of overpaymentor coverage denials as compared to otherhome health agencies in the area and in thecountry; or

‘‘(v) operations that otherwise raise con-cerns such that the Secretary determinesthat an audit is appropriate.

‘‘(5) BRANCH OFFICES.—‘‘(A) SURVEYS.—The Secretary shall estab-

lish standards for periodic surveys of branchoffices of a home health agency in order toassess whether the branch offices meet theSecretary’s national criteria for branch of-fice designation and for quality of care. Suchsurveys shall include home visits to bene-ficiaries served by the branch office (butonly with the consent of the beneficiary).

‘‘(B) UNIFORM NATIONAL DEFINITION.—TheSecretary shall establish a uniform nationaldefinition of a branch office of a home healthagency.

‘‘(6) CERTAIN QUALIFICATIONS OF MANAGINGEMPLOYEES.—The Secretary shall establishstandards regarding the knowledge and prioreducation or work experience that a manag-ing employee (as defined in section 1126(b)) ofan agency must possess in order to complywith the requirements described in sub-section (a)(7).

‘‘(7) CLAIMS PROCESSING.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall es-

tablish standards to improve and strengthenthe procedures by which claims for reim-bursement by home health agencies are iden-tified as being fraudulent, wasteful, or abu-sive.

‘‘(B) PROCEDURES.—The standards estab-lished by the Secretary pursuant to subpara-graph (A) shall include, to the extent prac-ticable, standards for a minimum numberof—

‘‘(i) intensive focused medical reviews ofthe services provided to beneficiaries by anagency;

‘‘(ii) interviews with beneficiaries, employ-ees of the agency, and other individuals pro-viding services on behalf of the agency; and

‘‘(iii) random spot checks of visits to abeneficiary’s home by employees of the agen-cy (but only with the consent of the bene-ficiary).

‘‘(C) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than90 days after the date of enactment of theHome Health Integrity Preservation Act of1999, the Secretary shall submit a report toCongress containing a detailed descriptionof—

‘‘(i) the current levels of activity by theSecretary with regard to the reviews, inter-views, and spot checks described in subpara-graph (B); and

‘‘(ii) the Secretary’s plans to increasethose levels pursuant to the procedures de-scribed in subparagraphs (A) and (B).

‘‘(8) EXPANSION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT.—The Secretary shall establish procedures toexpand the financial statement audit processto include compliance and integrity re-views.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—By not later than 180calendar days after the date of enactment ofthis Act, the Secretary shall establish thestandards and procedures described in para-graphs (1) through (8) of section 1891(i) of theSocial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395bbb(i)) (asadded by subsection (a)) by regulation orother sufficient means.SEC. 7. NOTIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF A

HOME HEALTH AGENCY’S MOST RE-CENT SURVEY AS PART OF DIS-CHARGE PLANNING PROCESS.

Section 1861(ee)(2)(D) of the Social Secu-rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(ee)(2)(D)) (as amend-ed by section 4321(a) of the Balanced BudgetAct of 1997) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘including the availability’’and inserting ‘‘including—

‘‘(i) the availability’’; and(2) by inserting before the period the fol-

lowing: ‘‘; and‘‘(ii) the availability of (and procedures for

obtaining from a home health agency) asummary document described in section1891(a)(9)’’.SEC. 8. HOME HEALTH INTEGRITY TASK FORCE.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary ofHealth and Human Services (in this sectionreferred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall estab-lish within the Office of the Inspector Gen-eral of the Department of Health and HumanServices a home health integrity task force(in this section referred to as the ‘‘TaskForce’’).

(b) DIRECTOR.—The Inspector General ofthe Department of Health and Human Serv-ices shall appoint the Director of the TaskForce.

(c) DUTIES.—The Task Force shall target,investigate, and pursue any available civil orcriminal actions against individuals who or-ganize, direct, finance, or are otherwise en-gaged in fraud in the provision of homehealth services (as defined in section 1861(m)of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.1395x(m))) under the medicare program undersuch Act.

(d) OUTSIDE AGENCIES AND ENTITIES.—Incarrying out the duties described in sub-section (c), the Task Force shall work in co-ordination with other Federal, State, andlocal agencies, including the Health Care Fi-nancing Administration, and with privateentities. All Federal, State, and local em-ployees and all private entities are encour-aged to provide maximum cooperation to theTask Force.SEC. 9. APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS

OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE.(a) RESTRICTED APPLICABILITY OF BANK-

RUPTCY STAY, DISCHARGE, AND PREFERENTIALTRANSFER PROVISIONS TO CERTAIN MEDICARE

DEBTS.—Title XI of the Social Security Act(42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) is amended by insert-ing after section 1143 the following:‘‘APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE

BANKRUPTCY CODE

‘‘SEC. 1144. (a) CERTAIN MEDICARE ACTIONSNOT STAYED BY BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.—The commencement or continuation of anyaction against a debtor (as defined in sub-section (d)) under this title or title XVIII, in-cluding any action or proceeding to excludeor suspend such debtor from program partici-pation, assess civil monetary penalties, re-coup or set off overpayments, or deny or sus-pend payment of claims shall not be subjectto a stay under section 362(a) of title 11,United States Code.

‘‘(b) CERTAIN MEDICARE DEBT NOT DIS-CHARGEABLE IN BANKRUPTCY.—A debt owed tothe United States or to a State by a debtorfor an overpayment under title XVIII, or fora penalty, fine, or assessment under thistitle or title XVIII, shall not be discharge-able under any provision of title 11, UnitedStates Code.

‘‘(c) REPAYMENT OF CERTAIN DEBTS CONSID-ERED FINAL.—Payments made to repay adebt to the United States or to a State by adebtor with respect to items and servicesprovided, or claims for payment made forsuch items and services, under title XVIII(including repayment of an overpayment), orto pay a penalty, fine, or assessment underthis title or title XVIII, shall be consideredfinal and not avoidable transfers under sec-tion 547 of title 11, United States Code.

‘‘(d) DEBTOR DEFINED.—In this section, theterm ‘debtor’ means a provider of services(as defined in section 1861(u)) that has com-menced a case under title 11, United StatesCode.’’.

(b) MEDICARE RULES APPLICABLE TO BANK-RUPTCY PROCEEDINGS OF A MEDICARE PRO-VIDER OF SERVICES.—Title XVIII of the So-cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) isamended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF THEBANKRUPTCY CODE

‘‘SEC. 1897. (a) USE OF MEDICARE STAND-ARDS AND PROCEDURES.—Notwithstandingany provision of title 11, United States Code,or any other provision of law, in the case ofclaims by a debtor (as defined in section1144(d)) for payment under this title, the de-termination of whether the claim is allow-able, and of the amount payable, shall bemade in accordance with the provisions ofthis title, title XI, and implementing regula-tions.

‘‘(b) NOTICE TO CREDITOR OF BANKRUPTCYPETITIONER.—In the case of a debt owed by adebtor (as so defined) to the United Stateswith respect to items and services provided,or claims for payment made, under this title(including a debt arising from an overpay-ment or a penalty, fine, or assessment undertitle XI or this title), the notices to the cred-itor of bankruptcy petitions, proceedings,and relief required under title 11, UnitedStates Code (including under section 342 ofthat title and rule 2002(j) of the FederalRules of Bankruptcy Procedure), shall begiven to the Secretary. Provision of such no-tice to a fiscal agent of the Secretary shallnot be considered to satisfy this require-ment.

‘‘(c) TURNOVER OF PROPERTY TO THE BANK-RUPTCY ESTATE.—For purposes of section542(b) of title 11, United States Code, a claimfor payment under this title shall not be con-sidered to be a matured debt payable to theestate of a debtor (as so defined) until suchclaim has been allowed by the Secretary inaccordance with procedures establishedunder this title.’’.SEC. 10. STUDY AND REPORT TO CONGRESS.

(a) STUDY.—

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S759January 20, 1999(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health

and Human Services (in this section referredto as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall conduct a studyon all matters relating to the appropriatehome health services to be provided underthe medicare program under title XVIII ofthe Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 etseq.) to individuals with chronic conditions.

(2) MATTERS STUDIED.—The matters studiedby the Secretary shall include—

(A) methods to strengthen the role of aphysician in developing a plan of care for abeneficiary receiving home health benefitsunder this title; and

(B) the need for an individual or entity(other than the home health agency or thebeneficiary’s physician) to have responsibil-ity for approving the type and quantity ofhome health services provided to the bene-ficiary.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year afterthe date of enactment of this Act, the Sec-retary shall submit a report to Congress onthe study conducted under subsection (a).The Secretary shall include in the reportsuch recommendations regarding the utiliza-tion of home health services under the medi-care program as the Secretary determines tobe appropriate.SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as otherwise provided in this Act,the amendments made by this Act shall takeeffect on the expiration of the date that is180 calendar days after the date of enactmentof this Act.

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself,Mr. BREAUX, and Mr. CONRAD):

S. 256. A bill to amend title XVIII ofthe Social Security Act to promote theuse of universal product numbers onclaims forms submitted for reimburse-ment under the Medicare program;read twice.MEDICARE UNIVERSAL PRODUCT NUMBER ACT OF

1999

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, onbehalf of Senator BREAUX and myself, Iam introducing legislation today to re-quire the use of universal product num-bers (UPNs) for all durable medicalequipment (DME) Medicare purchases.A similar bipartisan bill was intro-duced in the House of Representativesby Representatives AMO HOUGHTON andLOUISE SLAUGHTER. The purpose of thislegislation is to improve the HealthCare Financing Administration’s(HCFA) ability to track and to appro-priately assess the value of the durablemedical equipment it pays for underthe Medicare program. Very simply,our bill will ensure Medicare gets whatit pays for.

According to a report by the GeneralAccounting Office (GAO) and the Officeof Inspector General’s review of billingpractices for specific medical supplies,the Medicare program is often payinggreater than the market price for dura-ble medical equipment and Medicarebeneficiaries are not receiving thequality of care they should. HCFA cur-rently does not require DME suppliersto identify specific products on theirMedicare claims. Therefore it does notknow for which products it is paying.HCFA’s billing codes often cover abroad range of products of varioustypes, qualities and market prices. Forexample, the GAO found that one Medi-care billing code is used by the indus-

try for more than 200 differenturological catheters, with many ofthese products varying significantly inprice, use, and quality.

Medicare’s inability to accuratelytrack and price medical equipment andsupplies it purchases could be remediedwith the use of product specific codesknown as ‘‘bar codes’’ or ‘‘universalproduct numbers’’ (UPNs). These codesare similar to the codes you see onproducts you purchase at the grocerystore. Use of such bar codes is alreadybeing required by the Department ofDefense and several large private sec-tor purchasing groups. The industrystrongly supports such an initiative aswell. I am submitting several letters ofendorsement for the record on behalf ofthe National Association for MedicalEquipment Services, the Health Indus-try Distributors Association, PremierInc., and a joint letter from industrygroups such as the Health IndustryBusiness Communications Council,Healthcare EDI Coalition, Health In-dustry Purchasing Association, andInvacare Corporation.

This bill represents a common senseapproach. It will improve the wayMedicare monitors and reimburses sup-pliers for medical equipment and sup-plies. Patients will receive better care.And the Federal Government will savemoney. I ask that my colleagues onboth sides of the aisle support this leg-islation which I am introducing todaywith my friend and colleague, SenatorBREAUX.

I ask unanimous consent that a copyof the bill and the letters of endorse-ment be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

S. 256Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of Americain Congress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘MedicareUniversal Product Number Act of 1999’’.SEC. 2. UNIVERSAL PRODUCT NUMBERS ON

CLAIMS FORMS FOR REIMBURSE-MENT UNDER THE MEDICARE PRO-GRAM.

(a) ACCOMMODATION OF UPNS ON MEDICARECLAIMS FORMS.—Not later than February 1,2001, all claims forms developed or used bythe Secretary of Health and Human Servicesfor reimbursement under the medicare pro-gram under title XVIII of the Social Secu-rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) shall accom-modate the use of universal product numbersfor a UPN covered item.

(b) REQUIREMENT FOR PAYMENT OFCLAIMS.—Title XVIII of the Social SecurityAct (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) is amended byadding at the end the following:

‘‘USE OF UNIVERSAL PRODUCT NUMBERS

‘‘SEC. 1897. (a) IN GENERAL.—No paymentshall be made under this title for any claimfor reimbursement for any UPN covered itemunless the claim contains the universal prod-uct number of the UPN covered item.

‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:‘‘(1) UPN COVERED ITEM.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in

subparagraph (B), the term ‘UPN covereditem’ means—

‘‘(i) a covered item as that term is definedin section 1834(a)(13);

‘‘(ii) an item described in paragraph (8) or(9) of section 1861(s);

‘‘(iii) an item described in paragraph (5) ofsection 1861(s); and

‘‘(iv) any other item for which payment ismade under this title that the Secretary de-termines to be appropriate.

‘‘(B) EXCLUSION.—The term ‘UPN covereditem’ does not include a customized item forwhich payment is made under this title.

‘‘(2) UNIVERSAL PRODUCT NUMBER.—Theterm ‘universal product number’ means anumber that is—

‘‘(A) affixed by the manufacturer to eachindividual UPN covered item that uniquelyidentifies the item at each packaging level;and

‘‘(B) based on commercially acceptableidentification standards such as, but not lim-ited to, standards established by the UniformCode Council–International Article Number-ing System or the Health Industry BusinessCommunication Council.’’.

(c) DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OFPROCEDURES.—

(1) INFORMATION INCLUDED IN UPN.—TheSecretary of Health and Human Services, inconsultation with manufacturers and enti-ties with appropriate expertise, shall deter-mine the relevant descriptive informationappropriate for inclusion in a universal prod-uct number for a UPN covered item.

(2) REVIEW OF PROCEDURE.—From the infor-mation obtained by the use of universalproduct numbers on claims for reimburse-ment under the medicare program, the Sec-retary of Health and Human Services, in con-sultation with interested parties, shall peri-odically review the UPN covered items billedunder the Health Care Financing Adminis-tration Common Procedure Coding Systemand adjust such coding system to ensure thatfunctionally equivalent UPN covered itemsare billed and reimbursed under the samecodes.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentmade by subsection (b) shall apply to claimsfor reimbursement submitted on and afterFebruary 1, 2002.SEC. 3. STUDY AND REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) STUDY.—The Secretary of Health andHuman Services shall conduct a study on theresults of the implementation of the provi-sions in subsections (a) and (c) of section 2and the amendment to the Social SecurityAct in subsection (b) of that section.

(b) REPORTS.—(1) PROGRESS REPORT.—Not later than 6

months after the date of enactment of thisAct, the Secretary of Health and HumanServices shall submit a report to Congressthat contains a detailed description of theprogress of the matters studied pursuant tosubsection (a).

(2) IMPLEMENTATION.—Not later than 18months after the date of enactment of thisAct, and annually thereafter for 3 years, theSecretary of Health and Human Servicesshall submit a report to Congress that con-tains a detailed description of the results ofthe study conducted pursuant to subsection(a), together with the Secretary’s rec-ommendations regarding the use of universalproduct numbers and the use of data ob-tained from the use of such numbers.SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:(1) UPN COVERED ITEM.—The term ‘‘UPN

covered item’’ has the meaning given suchterm in section 1897(b)(1) of the Social Secu-rity Act (as added by section 2(b)).

(2) UNIVERSAL PRODUCT NUMBER.—The term‘‘universal product number’’ has the mean-ing given such term in section 1897(b)(2) ofthe Social Security Act (as added by section2(b)).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES760 January 20, 1999SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

The are authorized to be appropriated suchsums as may be necessary for the purpose ofcarrying out the provisions in subsections (a)and (c) of section 2, section 3, and section1897 of the Social Security Act (as added bysection 2(b)).

JANUARY 19, 1999.Hon. CHARLES GRASSLEY,Chairman, Special Committee on Aging,U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. JOHN BREAUX,Ranking Minority Member, Special Committee

on Aging, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.DEAR SENATORS GRASSLEY AND BREAUX: We

applaud you for introducing the MedicareUniversal Product Number Act, which willrequire the inclusion of universal productnumbers (UPNs) on Medicare Part B billingsfor medical equipment and supplies that arenot customized. UPNs are codes that unique-ly identify an individual medical product;they are often associated with the bar codesthat allow scanners to process them. Thesecodes are a major enabling factor in our ef-forts to minimize fraudulent billings and toautomate the distribution process.

The Department of Defense (DoD) and theVeterans Administration have already takena leadership position in promoting the im-plementation of the industry standard ofUPNs. As a part of the decision to use com-mercial medical product distributors, theDoD has mandated the use of UPNs for allmedical/surgical products delivered to DoDfacilities. The VA is prepared to implementa similar requirement this year. Most pri-vate sector group purchasing organizationsalso require the use of UPNs.

We believe that the Medicare Programwould also benefit greatly from the use ofUPNs. By cross-referencing each UPN withthe current HCFA Common Procedure Cod-ing System (HCPCS) and requiring the inclu-sion of the UPN on each Medicare Part Bclaim for medical equipment and supplies,Medicare’s ability to track utilization andcombat fraud and abuse would be greatly en-hanced. As UPNs provide a unique, unambig-uous means of identifying medical products,Medicare would have an exact record of thespecific product used by the beneficiary. Forthe first time, the Medicare Program couldidentify precisely what items are beingbilled. Unusual trends in product utilizationand claims for ‘‘suspicious’’ items would beeasily identifiable. HCPCS alone cannot pro-vide this information, as many products ofvarying quality and cost are included in asingle code.

In addition, problems with ‘‘upcoding’’ andmiscoding could be greatly reduced throughthe implementation of UPNs. Upcoding oc-curs when Medicare is intentionally billedunder a code that provides a higher reim-bursement than the code corresponding tothe item that was furnished to the bene-ficiary. Currently, upcoding is difficult todetect because HCPCS are so inexact. UPNswould correctly identify the specific medicalproduct, thereby making it harder to mis-represent the cost and quality of the prod-uct. In addition, by cross-referencing eachUPN to the appropriate HCPCS, legitimateconfusion about HCFA’s current coding sys-tem would be alleviated. As the General Ac-counting Office has reported (GAO/HEHS–98–102), the HCPCS system is needlessly ambig-uous.

We believe that the Medicare Program andmedical products industry would benefitgreatly from the use of UPNs. This standardwould not only increase Medicare’s under-standing of what it pays for, but also assistin the effective administration of the Pro-gram.

Again, thank you for introducing the Medi-care Universal Product Number Act.

Sincerely,Health Industry Business Communications

Council.Healthcare EDI Coalition.Health Industry Distributors Association.Health Industry Group Purchasing Asso-

ciation.National Association for Medical Equip-

ment Services.Invacare Corp.Premier Inc.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FORMEDICAL EQUIPMENT SERVICES,

Alexandria, VA, January 12, 1999.Hon. CHARLES GRASSLEY,Hon. JOHN BREAUX,U.S. Senate,Special Committee on Aging.

DEAR SENATORS GRASSLEY AND BREAUX: Asyou know, the National Association for Med-ical Equipment Services (NAMES) waspleased to endorse your bill, The MedicareUniversal Product Number Act of 1997, S.1362 in the 105th Congress. We understandyou will re-introduce this bill in substan-tially the same form in the 106th Congress,and so, in concept, support that legislation.

Requiring universal product numbers onhome medical equipment for product label-ing and billing purposes would accomplishtwo key objectives. First, it would improvehome medical equipment inventory controlby creating a unique numbering system thateasily permits computerized optical scan-ning of product information. Second, itwould provide third-party payers with moreinformation on equipment characteristicsthan does the current HCPCS coding system,thus allowing reimbursement rates to be setmore appropriately.

While equipment manufacturers and retail-ers would need time to comply with the bill,we note that S. 1362 provided more than twoyears for compliance to be attained. We lookforward to working with you as this bill pro-ceeds through the legislative process.

Sincerely,WILLIAM D. COUGHLAN, CAE,

President andChief Executive Officer.

HEALTH INDUSTRYDISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION,

Alexandria, VA, January 11, 1999.Hon. CHARLES GRASSLEY,Chairman, Special Committee on Aging,U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. JOHN BREAUX,Ranking Minority Member, Special Committee

on Aging, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.DEAR SENATORS GRASSLEY AND BREAUX: On

behalf of the Health Industry DistributorsAssociation (HIDA), I applaud you for intro-ducing the Medicare Universal Product Num-ber Act. HIDA is the national trade associa-tion of home care companies and medicalproducts distribution firms. Created in 1902,HIDA represents over 700 companies with ap-proximately 2500 locations nationwide. HIDAMembers provide value-added distributionservices to virtually every hospital, physi-cian’s office, nursing facility, clinic, andother health care sites across the country, aswell as to a growing number of home care pa-tients.

HIDA has long supported the use of UPNsfor medical equipment and supplies. By pro-viding a standard, unique identifier for eachproduct, UPNs supply the information need-ed to minimize fraudulent billings andstreamline the health care product distribu-tion process. The Department of Defense(DoD) has already recognized the many bene-fits resulting from the implementation of

the industry standard of UPNs. As a part oftheir decisions to use commercial medicalproduct distributors, DoD has mandated theuse of UPNs for all medical/surgical productsdelivered to DoD facilities.

The Medicare Program could also benefitgreatly from the use of UPNs. By usingUPNs, the Medicare system would be able tocorrectly identify the specific items they arepaying for, a crucial piece of informationthat the agency is now missing. As UPNsprovide a unique, unambiguous means ofidentifying each product on the market,Medicare would have an exact record of thespecific product used by each beneficiary.Unusual trends in product utilization andclaims for ‘‘suspicious’’ items would be eas-ily identifiable. The HCFA Common Proce-dure Coding System (HCPCS) can not pro-vide this information, because many prod-ucts of varying quality and cost are includedin a single code.

In addition, problems with ‘‘upcoding’’ andmiscoding could be greatly reduced throughthe implementation of UPNs. Upcoding oc-curs when Medicare is intentionally billedunder a code that provides a higher reim-bursement than the code corresponding tothe item that was actually furnished to thebeneficiary. Currently, upcoding is difficultto detect because HCPCS are so inexact.UPNs would correctly identify the specificmedical product, thereby making it harderto misrepresent the cost and quality of theproduct. In addition, by cross-referencingeach UPN to the appropriate HCPCS, legiti-mate confusion about HCFA’s current codingsystem would be alleviated. As the GeneralAccounting Office has reported (GAO/HEHS–98–102), the HCPCS system is needlessly am-biguous.

HIDA firmly believes that the MedicareProgram and the medical equipment indus-try would benefit greatly from the use ofUPNs. This standard would not only increaseMedicare’s understanding of what it pays for,but also assist in the effective administra-tion of the Program.

Again, thank you for introducing the Medi-cal Universal Product Number Act.

Sincerely,S. WAYNE KAY.

PREMIER,Washington, DC, January 20, 1999.

Hon. CHARLES GRASSLEY,Hon. JOHN BREAUX,U.S. Senate, Special Committee on Aging,Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATORS GRASSLEY AND BREAUX: Onbehalf of Premier, Inc., the nation’s largesthealthcare alliance, I am pleased to supportthe ‘‘Medicare Universal Product NumberAct.’’ The bill requires the use of universalproduct numbers (UPNs) for all durable med-ical equipment Medicare purchases by 2002.

Premier represents more than 200 ownerhospitals and hospital systems that own oroperate 800 healthcare institutions and havepurchasing affiliations with another 1,100.Premier owners operate hospitals, HMOs andPPOs, skilled nursing facilities, rehabilita-tion facilities, home health agencies, andphysician practices. Through participationin Premier, healthcare leaders can accesscost reduction avenues, delivery system de-velopment and enhancement strategies,technology management, decision supporttools, and a variety of opportunities for net-working and knowledge transfer.

Premier welcomes federal governmentleadership in requiring manufacturers tolabel their products at each unit of inven-tory with a universal product number by theyear 2002. The U.S. General Accounting Of-fice (GAO) recommended in a May 1998 reportto Congress that HCFA require suppliers in-clude UPNs on their Medicare claims. This

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S761January 20, 1999requirement will not only aid the Medicareprogram, but also will help the private sec-tor reduce healthcare costs. A recent studyconducted by Efficient Healthcare ConsumerResponse on improving the efficiency of thehealthcare supply chain concluded that $11.6billion could be saved through automationand integration of the product informationstream from point of manufacture to point ofuse across the industry. UPN is a major com-ponent within that potential remarkablesavings stream. Therefore, we believe thatUPN will become as important to the medi-cal industry as other bar code standardshave become to grocery and other retail in-dustries for many years.

This bill represents a common sense ap-proach to reducing healhcare costs in theUnited States. Thank you Senators GRASS-LEY and BREAUX for your leadership on thisissue and we look forward to assisting youwith your efforts to enact this legislationinto law.

Sincerely,JAMES L. SCOTT,

President.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise tocommend Senator GRASSLEY for hisleadership on the important issue ofcutting waste, fraud and abuse in theMedicare program. As chairman of theNational Bipartisan Commission on theFuture of Medicare, I strongly supportour legislation that will save federaldollars by modernizing an outdated andconfusing billing system. The MedicareUniversal Product Number Act of 1999is a practical solution which will en-sure that the Health Care FinancingAdministration (HCFA) knows what itis paying for when reimbursing for du-rable medical equipment (DME) underthe Medicare program.

Currently, HCFA’s billing systemuses overly broad and sometimes out-dated codes. These codes can cover awide range of products which vary inprice and quality, making it difficultfor HCFA to track and price medicalequipment accurately. By using Uni-versal Product Numbers (UPNs), whichprovide a unique, unambiguous meansof identifying each product on the mar-ket, HCFA will be able to track utiliza-tion more efficiently.

Because UPNs are unique identifiers,HCFA will be better equipped in com-bating fraud against the Medicare pro-gram. Currently the system is vulner-able to a type of fraud called‘‘upcoding.’’ This occurs when Medi-care is billed for a product under animproper code. Perpetrators of fraudcan use improper codes to receive high-er reimbursement rates then thosegiven for the products which they actu-ally provide. By tracking utilization,made possible by UPNs, HCFA willknow what product is provided to thebeneficiary and how much that productcosts.

There is widespread support for theuse of UPNs in the Medicare program.A recent GAO report addresses theneed to reform Medicare’s billing sys-tem. The report found that HCFA‘‘does not know specifically what Medi-care is paying for when its contractorsprocess claims for’’ medical equipmentand supplies. The Department of De-

fense and the Veterans’ Administrationhave already begun to require UPNs, asdo many private sector purchasinggroups. Moreover, the medical productsindustry recognizes the value of UPNsand strongly supports this legislation.

Medicare’s current billing system isvulnerable to abuse. This legislation isa practical approach to help ensurethat taxpayer dollars are protected andspent wisely. I thank Senator GRASS-LEY for his leadership, and I encouragemy colleagues to support this impor-tant legislation.

By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself,Mr. INOUYE, and Mr. HAGEL):

S. 257. A bill to state the policy ofthe United States regarding the de-ployment of a missile defense capableof defending the territory of the UnitedStates against limited ballistic missileattack; to the Committee on ArmedServices.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE ACT OF 1999

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ampleased to announce today we are in-troducing, again, the National MissileDefense Act of 1999, a bill to make itthe policy of the United States to de-ploy, as soon as technologically pos-sible, a system to defend the UnitedStates against limited ballistic missileattack. I am happy to be joined by myfriend, the distinguished Senator fromHawaii, Mr. INOUYE, in introducing thisbill. And I am pleased that we havejust heard that the Secretary of De-fense has announced that funds will beincluded in this year’s budget to payfor deployment of the National MissileDefense System, acknowledging thatthe threat does exist, or soon will. Sothe administration is changing its pol-icy now, faced with this push that wasbegun in the last Congress and is cul-minating now in the reintroduction ofthis legislation.

Ballistic missiles are being developedand tested by a growing number of na-tions, some of which are hostile to theUnited States.

Iran has declared itself self-sufficientin missile technology and expertise. Itis building a missile system capable ofstriking Central Europe.

Last year, North Korea surprised ex-perts with its test of the Taepo Dong-1, a three-stage missile which, accord-ing to published reports, may be capa-ble of reaching Alaska. Last July, theRumsfeld Commission concluded thatthe United States may have ‘‘little orno warning’’ of the development ofintercontinental ballistic missile capa-bility by a rogue state.

The United States has no defenseagainst long-range ballistic missiles,and administration policy had beenlimited to development of a missile de-fense system and deployment only if athreat developed. Now the threat hasbecome obvious to the administration.

I welcome the announcement thismorning by the Secretary of Defensethat the administration is acknowledg-ing the need to proceed with a programto develop a missile defense system to

meet this threat and to deploy it. Thetime has come to remove all doubtsabout the resolve of the United Stateson this issue. The National Missile De-fense Act of 1999 confirms this resolveas national policy.

Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Sen-ator from Mississippi and now turn tothe Senator from Nebraska and yieldup to 5 minutes to the distinguishedSenator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Nebraska is recognized.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I wish toassociate myself with the remarks ofmy colleagues here this morning. I alsowish to commend my friend, the seniorSenator from Mississippi, for reintro-ducing his defense initiative. Missiledefense is as critical a challenge as thiscountry faces, not just for the shortterm, but for the long term, and I havebeen a strong proponent of what Sen-ator COCHRAN is proposing. I wish,again, to be a cosponsor of that meas-ure.

By Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr.LEVIN, and Mr. ROBB):

S. 258. A bill to authorize additionalrounds of base closures and realign-ments under the Defense Base Closureand Realignment Act of 1990 in 2001 and2003, and for other purposes; to theCommittee on Armed Services.LEGISLATION TO AUTHORIZE TWO BASE RE-

ALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ROUNDS TO OCCURIN 2001 AND 2003Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I rise

today to introduce legislation that au-thorizes two rounds of U.S. military in-stallation realignment and closures tooccur in 2001 and 2003. I am pleased tohave Senator LEVIN and Senator ROBBas cosponsors of this bill.

Mr. President, we have heard overthe last 4 months of the dire situationof our military forces. We have heardtestimony of plunging readiness, mod-ernization programs that are decadesbehind schedule, and quality of life de-ficiencies that are so great we cannotretain or recruit the personnel we need.As a result of this realization, therehas been a groundswell of support inCongress for the Armed Forces, includ-ing a number of pay and retirementinitiatives and the promise of a signifi-cant increase in defense spending.

All of these proposals are excellentstarting points to help re-forge ourmilitary, but we must not forget thatmuch of it will be in vain if the Depart-ment of Defense is obligated to main-tain 23 percent excess capacity in infra-structure. When we actually look forthe dollars to pay for these initiatives,it is unconscionable that some wouldnot look to the billions of dollars to besaved by base realignment and closure.Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefsof Staff have stated repeatedly thatthey desire more opportunities tostreamline the military’s infrastruc-ture. We cannot sit idly by and throwmoney and ideas at the problem whenpart of the solution is staring us in theface.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES762 January 20, 1999This proposed legislation offers two

significant changes to present law.First, the process for the first round in2001 is moved back two months to en-sure there is no conflict of interestwith a commission nominated underone administration but effectivelyworking under the direction of the fol-low-on administration. Second, underthis legislation, privatization in-placewould be permitted only when explic-itly recommended by the Commission.Additionally, the Secretary of Defensemust consider local government inputin preparing his list of desired base clo-sures.

Total BRAC savings realized fromthe four previous rounds exceed totalcosts to date. The annual net savingsfor previous rounds will grow from al-most $3 billion last year to $5.6–7.0 bil-lion per year by 2001. These savings arereal, they are coming sooner, and theyare estimated to be greater than an-ticipated.

Mr. President, we can continue tomaintain a military infrastructurethat we do not need, or we can providethe necessary funds to ensure our mili-tary can fight and win future wars.Every dollar we spend on bases we donot need is a dollar we cannot spend ontraining our troops, keeping personnelquality of life at an appropriate level,maintaining force structure, replacingold weapons systems, and advancingour military technology.

We must finish the job we started byauthorizing these two final rounds ofbase realignment and closure. I urgemy colleagues to join us in support ofthis critical bill and to work diligentlythroughout the year to put aside localpolitics for what is clearly in the bestinterest of our military forces.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that the text of the bill be printedin the RECORD.

There being no objection, the text ofthe bill was ordered to be printed inthe RECORD, as follows:

S. 258Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-

resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT BASE

CLOSURE ROUNDS IN 2001 AND 2003.(a) COMMISSION MATTERS.—(1) APPOINTMENT.—Subsection (c)(1) of sec-

tion 2902 of the Defense Base Closure and Re-alignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIXof Public Law 101–510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) isamended—

(A) in subparagraph (B)—(i) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause

(ii);(ii) by striking the period at the end of

clause (iii) and inserting a semicolon; and(iii) by adding at the end the following new

clauses (iv) and (v):‘‘(iv) by no later than March 1, 2001, in the

case of members of the Commission whoseterms will expire at the end of the first ses-sion of the 107th Congress; and

‘‘(v) by no later than January 3, 2003, in thecase of members of the Commission whoseterms will expire at the end of the first ses-sion of the 108th Congress.’’; and

(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘or for1995 in clause (iii) of such subparagraph’’ andinserting ‘‘, for 1995 in clause (iii) of that

subparagraph, for 2001 in clause (iv) of thatsubparagraph, or for 2003 in clause (v) of thatsubparagraph’’.

(2) MEETINGS.—Subsection (e) of that sec-tion is amended by striking ‘‘and 1995’’ andinserting ‘‘1995, 2001, and 2003’’.

(3) STAFF.—Subsection (i)(6) of that sectionis amended in the matter preceding subpara-graph (A) by striking ‘‘and 1994’’ and insert-ing ‘‘, 1994, and 2002’’.

(4) FUNDING.—Subsection (k) of that sec-tion is amended by adding at the end the fol-lowing new paragraph (4):

‘‘(4) If no funds are appropriated to theCommission by the end of the second sessionof the 106th Congress for the activities of theCommission in 2001 or 2003, the Secretarymay transfer to the Commission for purposesof its activities under this part in either ofthose years such funds as the Commissionmay require to carry out such activities. TheSecretary may transfer funds under the pre-ceding sentence from any funds available tothe Secretary. Funds so transferred shall re-main available to the Commission for suchpurposes until expended.’’.

(5) TERMINATION.—Subsection (l) of thatsection is amended by striking ‘‘December31, 1995’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2003’’.

(b) PROCEDURES.—(1) FORCE-STRUCTURE PLAN.—Subsection

(a)(1) of section 2903 of that Act is amendedby striking ‘‘and 1996,’’ and inserting ‘‘1996,2002, and 2004,’’.

(2) SELECTION CRITERIA.—Subsection (b) ofsuch section 2903 is amended—

(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘and byno later than January 28, 2001, for purposesof activities of the Commission under thispart in 2001 and 2003,’’ after ‘‘December 31,1990,’’; and

(B) in paragraph (2)(A)—(i) in the first sentence, by inserting ‘‘and

by no later than March 15, 2001, for purposesof activities of the Commission under thispart in 2001 and 2003,’’ after ‘‘February 15,1991,’’; and

(ii) in the second sentence, by inserting ‘‘,or enacted on or before April 15, 2001, in thecase of criteria published and transmittedunder the preceding sentence in 2001’’ after‘‘March 15, 1991’’.

(3) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RECOMMENDA-TIONS.—Subsection (c) of such section 2903 isamended—

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘andMarch 1, 1995,’’ and inserting ‘‘March 1, 1995,May 1, 2001, and March 1, 2003,’’;

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5),and (6) as paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respec-tively;

(C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the fol-lowing new paragraph (4):

‘‘(4)(A) In making recommendations to theCommission under this subsection in anyyear after 1999, the Secretary shall considerany notice received from a local governmentin the vicinity of a military installation thatthe government would approve of the closureor realignment of the installation.

‘‘(B) Notwithstanding the requirement insubparagraph (A), the Secretary shall makethe recommendations referred to in that sub-paragraph based on the force-structure planand final criteria otherwise applicable tosuch recommendations under this section.

‘‘(C) The recommendations made by theSecretary under this subsection in any yearafter 1999 shall include a statement of the re-sult of the consideration of any notice de-scribed in subparagraph (A) that is receivedwith respect to an installation covered bysuch recommendations. The statement shallset forth the reasons for the result.’’; and

(D) in paragraph (7), as so redesignated—(i) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘para-

graph (5)(B)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph(6)(B)’’; and

(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘24hours’’ and inserting ‘‘48 hours’’.

(4) COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDA-TIONS.—Subsection (d) of such section 2903 isamended—

(A) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ‘‘or byno later than September 1 in the case of rec-ommendations in 2001,’’ after ‘‘pursuant tosubsection (c),’’;

(B) in paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘or afterSeptember 1 in the case of recommendationsin 2001,’’ after ‘‘under this subsection,’’; and

(C) in paragraph (5)(B), by inserting ‘‘or byno later than June 15 in the case of such rec-ommendations in 2001,’’ after ‘‘such rec-ommendations,’’.

(5) REVIEW BY PRESIDENT.—Subsection (e)of such section 2903 is amended—

(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘or by nolater than September 15 in the case of rec-ommendations in 2001,’’ after ‘‘under sub-section (d),’’;

(B) in the second sentence of paragraph (3),by inserting ‘‘or by no later than October 15in the case of 2001,’’ after ‘‘the year con-cerned,’’; and

(C) in paragraph (5), by inserting ‘‘or byNovember 1 in the case of recommendationsin 2001,’’ after ‘‘under this part,’’.

(c) CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT OF INSTAL-LATIONS.—Section 2904(a) of that Act isamended—

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4)as paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol-lowing new paragraph (3):

‘‘(3) carry out the privatization in place ofa military installation recommended for clo-sure or realignment by the Commission ineach such report after 1999 only if privatiza-tion in place is a method of closure or re-alignment of the installation specified in therecommendation of the Commission in suchreport and is determined to be the most-costeffective method of implementation of therecommendation;’’.

(d) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER BASE CLOSUREAUTHORITY.—Section 2909(a) of that Act isamended by striking ‘‘December 31, 1995,’’and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2003,’’.

(e) TECHNICAL AND CLARIFYING AMEND-MENTS.—

(1) COMMENCEMENT OF PERIOD FOR NOTICE OFINTEREST IN PROPERTY FOR HOMELESS.—Sec-tion 2905(b)(7)(D)(ii)(I) of that Act is amend-ed by striking ‘‘that date’’ and inserting‘‘the date of publication of such determina-tion in a newspaper of general circulation inthe communities in the vicinity of the in-stallation under subparagraph (B)(i)(IV)’’.

(2) OTHER CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS.—(A) That Act is further amended by insert-

ing ‘‘or realignment’’ after ‘‘closure’’ eachplace it appears in the following provisions:

(i) Section 2905(b)(3).(ii) Section 2905(b)(4)(B)(ii).(iii) Section 2905(b)(5).(iv) Section 2905(b)(7)(B)(iv).(v) Section 2905(b)(7)(N).(vi) Section 2910(10)(B).(B) That Act is further amended by insert-

ing ‘‘or realigned’’ after ‘‘closed’’ each placein appears in the following provisions:

(i) Section 2905(b)(3)(C)(ii).(ii) Section 2905(b)(3)(D).(iii) Section 2905(b)(3)(E).(iv) Section 2905(b)(4)(A).(v) Section 2905(b)(5)(A).(vi) Section 2910(9).(vii) Section 2910(10).(C) Section 2905(e)(1)(B) of that Act is

amended by inserting ‘‘, or realigned or to berealigned,’’ after ‘‘closed or to be closed’.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ampleased to once again join my col-leagues from the Armed Services Com-mittee, Senator MCCAIN and Senator

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S763January 20, 1999ROBB, in introducing this legislationauthorizing the Department of Defenseto close excess, unneeded militarybases.

For the past two years, Secretary ofDefense Cohen has asked the Congressto authorize two additional base clo-sure rounds. But Congress has notacted.

Secretary Cohen and GeneralShelton, the Chairman of the JointChiefs of Staff, have repeatedly said weneed to close more military bases, andI am confident that they will onceagain ask us to close more bases whenthe President’s budget is submittednext month.

The legislation we are introducingtoday is intended to start the debate,and I anticipate the administrationwill make a similar legislative pro-posal to the Congress.

This legislation calls for two addi-tional base closure rounds, in 2001 and2003, that would basically follow thesame procedures that were used in 1991,1993 and 1995, with two exceptions.

First, the whole process would startand finish two months later in 2001than it did in previous rounds, to givethe new President sufficient time tonominate commissioners.

Second, under our legislation privat-ization in place would not be permittedat closing installations unless the BaseClosure Commission recommends it.

In a November 1998 report, the Gen-eral Accounting Office listed five keyelements of the base closure processthat ‘‘contributed to the success ofprior rounds’’. Our legislation retainsall of those key elements. GAO alsostated that they ‘‘have not identifiedany long-term readiness problems thatwere related to domestic base realign-ments and closures, that ‘‘DOD contin-ues to retain excess capacity’’ and that‘‘substantial savings are expected’’from base closures.

Mr. President, every expert and everystudy agrees on the basic facts—theDefense Department has more basesthan its needs, and closing bases savessubstantial money in the long run.

The report the Department of De-fense provided to the Congress lastApril clearly demonstrated these facts.As the Congressional Budget Officestated in a letter to me last July, ‘‘thereport’s basic message is consistentwith CBO’s own conclusions: past andfuture BRAC round will lead to signifi-cant savings for DoD.’’

Every year we delay another baseclosure round, we deny the Defense De-partment, and the taxpayers, about $1.5billion in annual savings that we cannever recoup. And every dollar wespend on bases we do not need is a dol-lar we cannot spend on things we doneed.

Mr. President, I am not going tomake any detailed judgments on thePresident’s defense budget proposaluntil we see the details, but I am pre-pared to support an increase in defensespending if the money is spent wisely.

However, Congress should not use de-fense funding increases as an excuse to

avoid tough choices. The addition ofnew resources cannot be a substitutefor the billions of dollars of savingsthat would be generated by a newround of base closures. We cannot jus-tify spending more for national defenseunless we show our own willingness tomake the best use of defense dollars byreducing unneeded defense infrastruc-ture.

I urge my colleagues to support thislegislation.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, last year Ijoined Senators MCCAIN and LEVIN inintroducing legislation authorizing an-other base closure round. I arguedthen, as I do today, that failing toenact another BRAC round only makesthe Congress look short-sighted and in-decisive. I argued then that if we don’tbite the bullet quickly, the cost of ex-cess infrastructure will continue todrag down the readiness of our forcestoday and rob us of the resources sobadly needed to modernize our forcesfor tomorrow.

For the first time since the late1970’s, military readiness is sufferingsignificantly. Ships are undermanned,pilots are flying too many missions, re-servists are being asked to leave familyand job over and over. It doesn’t take abudget expert to realize what we coulddo for the troops with billions in sav-ings from cutting excess infrastruc-ture.

This year we in the Congress will al-most certainly add billions of dollarsto the defense budget. This is a mixedblessing. While these adds will help re-solve problems across the board, fromrecruiting to modernization to prepar-ing for the future, they will also under-mine any incentives to better managethe Department of Defense and toeliminate the wasteful assets and ad-ministrative inefficiencies that we theCongress are so determined to preserve.

BRAC failed in the past for reasonsthat have much to do with politics, butlittle to do with ensuring our every de-fense dollar is spent for maintainingand equipping our armed forces for thebattlefields of the next century. Thosepolitics are behind us now. We mustmove forward and authorize moreBRAC rounds.

Keeping excess military posts openwon’t bring more firepower to bear inthe next war. Keeping an unneededR&D lab open won’t recruit more tal-ented young men and women to serveas the foundation for the world’s finestfighting force. Keeping an underuti-lized training range open won’t buymodern equipment so badly needed toreplace systems now often older thanthe men and women using them.

Mr. President, I reemphasize a pointI’ve made time and time again in thepast—who suffers from Congressionalinaction? In the end, we only punishthose who most need the benefits of in-frastructure savings. First, we punishthe Nation’s taxpayers when we fail tomake the best use of the resources withwhich they entrust us. Second, we pun-ish today’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and

marines whose readiness depends onsufficient, reliable resources for equip-ment, training and operations throughthe year. Finally, we punish tomor-row’s force as we continue to mortgageresearch, development, and moderniza-tion of equipment necessary to keepAmerica strong into the 21st century.

The bill we’re introducing calls for abase closure round in 2001 and anotherin 2003. Like the provision we offeredlast year and the year before that, thebill should answer concerns over thepoliticization of future BRAC rounds.Language is included to allow privat-ization-in-place at a facility only if theBRAC Commission explicitly rec-ommends privatization-in-place.

The long-term savings from the firstfour base closure rounds already aregenerating substantial savings—aboutthree billion dollars a year. Each newround will save another 1.5 billion dol-lars per year. It is no surprise thatscores of studies and organizationssuch as the Quadrennial Defense Re-view, Defense Restructure Initiative,National Defense Panel, and BusinessExecutives for National Security haveall concluded that more base closuresare crucial to the future of our ArmedForces.

Mr. President, I urge my colleaguesto do what is right for our armedforces, what is right for the taxpayer,and support this legislation.

By Mr. INOUYE:S. 259. A bill to increase the role of

the Secretary of Transportation in ad-ministering section 901 of the MerchantMarine Act, 1936, and for other pur-poses; to the Committee on Commerce,Science, and Transportation.TRANSPORTATION IN AMERICAN VESSELS OF

GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AND CERTAINCARGOES

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the leg-islation I am introducing today wouldcentralize the authority to administerour nation’s cargo preference laws inthe Department of Transportation.Cargo preference statutes assure U.S.-flag ships a minimum share of cargoesproduced by U.S. government pro-grams. They play an important role inensuring our nation’s economic secu-rity and the existence of a U.S.-flagmerchant fleet to assist in national se-curity during times of national emer-gencies. This tremendous benefit isachieved at a minimal cost. Underpresent law, cargo reservation is theonly direct support a majority of theU.S. merchant fleet receives. I wouldalso like to point out that a cargo pref-erence policy is not unique. Other na-tions also provide their merchant fleetpreference in carrying cargoes theirgovernments generate.

The Maritime Administration, whichis part of the Department of Transpor-tation, has been tasked with the dif-ficult duty of monitoring the adminis-tration of and compliance with U.S.cargo preference laws and regulationsby federal agencies with regard to pro-grams generating ocean-born cargoes.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES764 January 20, 1999Major programs monitored include hu-manitarian aid shipments provided bythe U.S. Department of Agricultureand the U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment, commodities financed bythe Export-Import Bank, foreign mili-tary sales, and Department of Defensecargo shipped by commercial oceancarriers. These are cargoes generatedexclusively by our government.

In the past, compliance by federalagencies with the requirements of thecargo reservation laws has been cha-otic, uneven and varied from agency toagency. In 1962, President John F. Ken-nedy, in issuing a directive to all exec-utive branch departments and agen-cies, recognized the importance of ourcargo preference policy in fostering amodern, privately owned, merchantmarine capable of serving as a navaland military auxiliary in time of waror national emergency. At the time,President Kennedy stated that, ‘‘theachievement of this national policy iseven more essential now because of theworldwide economic and defense bur-dens facing the United States.’’ Neverhas this sentiment been more true thannow.

Mr. President, this legislation willmerely make certain that federal agen-cies adhere to existing cargo preferencelaws, and give the Maritime Adminis-tration authority to respond to viola-tions with the proper penalties or sanc-tions. I ask unanimous consent thatthe text of this bill be printed in theRECORD.

There being no objection, the bill wasordered to be printed in the RECORD, asfollows:

S. 259Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-

resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,SECTION 1. TRANSPORTATION IN AMERICAN VES-

SELS OF GOVERNMENT PERSONNELAND CERTAIN CARGOES.

Section 901(b)(2) of the Merchant MarineAct, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 2141 (b)(2)), isamended to read as follows:

‘‘(2)(A) Notwithstanding any other provi-sion of law, the Secretary of Transportationshall have the sole responsibility for deter-mining and designating the programs thatare subject to the requirements of this sub-section. Each department or agency that hasresponsibility for a program that is des-ignated by the Secretary of Transportationpursuant to the preceding sentence shall, forthe purposes of this subsection, administersuch program pursuant to regulations pro-mulgated by such Secretary.

‘‘(B) The Secretary of Transportationshall—

‘‘(i) review the administration of the pro-grams referred to in subparagraph (A);

‘‘(ii) resolve any question concerning theadministration of those programs with re-spect to this section;

‘‘(iii) provide for penalties and sanctionsfor violation of this Act; and

‘‘(iv) on an annual basis, submit a report toCongress concerning the administration ofsuch programs.’’.SEC. 2. CONFORMING CARGO PREFERENCE YEAR

TO FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR.Section 901b(c)(2) of the Merchant Marine

Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C App. 1241f(c)(2)) is amend-ed by striking ‘‘1986.’’ and inserting ‘‘1986,the 18-month period commencing April 1,

1999, and the 12-month period beginning onthe first day of October in the year 2000 andeach year thereafter.’’.

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself,Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. CRAIG, Mr.BROWNBACK, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr.ASHCROFT, and Mr. KOHL):

S. 260. A bill to make chapter 12 oftitle 1, United States Code, permanent,and for other purposes; to the Commit-tee on the Judiciary.

SAFETY 2000

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I risetoday to introduce vitally importantlegislation to promote the well-beingof America’s family farms by extendingchapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code.This bill, which is known as ‘‘safety2000,’’ will also make needed changes tochapter 12 which will make it workbetter for family farmers. I’m pleasedthat Senator DASCHLE is joining withme in this effort to save family farms.In Iowa, pork prices recently hit an alltime low. Pork producers are facing se-rious hardship, and we must make surethat those farmers who need bank-ruptcy relief to help save their farmingoperation have meaningful protections.

Last year, again with the distin-guished minority leader, I introducedlegislation to make chapter 12 perma-nent. That legislation passed the Sen-ate by unanimous consent. However,the legislation was not enacted intolaw. On April 1 of this year, chapter 12will expire. Mr. President, we cannotlet this happen.

As the only family farmer in the Sen-ate, I feel I have a unique responsibil-ity to make sure that family farmingremains a strong and vibrant part ofAmerican life. For generations, familyfarms have fed this country. But farm-ing has always had rough periods.

Allowing chapter 12 to expire will re-peat a fatal mistake of the past. Dur-ing the great depression, Congress cre-ated special bankruptcy protections forfarmers to help them ride out the se-vere economic conditions of that tragicera. However, Congress allowed theselaws to lapse in the 1950s. So, whenfarmers in Iowa confronted the farmcrisis of the mid-1980s, they were leftwithout effective bankruptcy relief. Bypassing my legislation, we can preventthe mistakes of the past from occur-ring again.

I think it’s very important to realizethat chapter 12 is not a hand out or a‘‘get out of debt free’’ card. Farmersare hard-working people who want thechance to learn their way. In fact,chapter 12 is modeled on chapter 13,where individuals set up plans to re-pay a portion of their debts.

By all accounts, chapter 12 has beenwildly successful. So many times inWashington we develop programs andlaws with the best of intentions. Butwhen these programs get to the realworld, they don’t work well. chapter 12,on the other hand, has worked exactlyas intended. According to ProfessorNeil Harl of Iowa State University, 74percent of family farmers who filed

Chapter 12 bankruptcy are still farm-ing and 61 percent of farmers who wentthrough Chapter 12 believe that Chap-ter 12 was helpful in getting them backon their feet.

But Chapter 12 can be made even bet-ter. ‘‘Safety 2000’’ will make Chapter 12better. The bill expands the definitionof family farmer so that more farmerscan use Chapter 12. Under current law,family farmers can’t use Chapter 12 tosave their farms if a farmer has morethan $1.5 million in debt. This is too re-strictive, and my bill would let farmerswho have up to $3 million in debt useChapter 12.

‘‘Safety 2000’’ also helps farmers toreorganize by keeping the tax collec-tors at bay. Under current law, farmersoften face a crushing tax liability ifthey need to sell livestock or land inorder to reorganize their business af-fairs. According to Joe Peiffer, a bank-ruptcy lawyer from Hiawatha, Iowa,who represents many family farmers,high taxes have caused farmers to losetheir farms. Under the bankruptcycode, the I.R.S. must be paid in full forany tax liabilities generated during abankruptcy reorganization. If thefarmer can’t pay the I.R.S. in full, thenhe can’t keep his farm. This isn’t soundpolicy. Why should the I.R.S. be al-lowed to veto a farmer’s reorganizationplan? ‘‘Safety 2000’’ takes this poweraway from the I.R.S. by reducing thepriority of taxes during proceedings.This will free up capital for investmentin the farm, and help farmers stay inthe business of farming.

In conclusion, Chapter 12 works welland this legislation will make it workbetter. Let’s make sure that we keepthis safety net for family farmers inplace. I urge my colleagues to think ofthis bill as a low-cost insurance policyfor an important part of America’seconomy and America’s heritage.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise tojoin Senator GRASSLEY as a cosponsorof ‘‘Safeguarding America’s Farms En-tering the Year 2000.’’ This measurewould make permanent the bankruptcycode provisions that protect familyfarmers in hard times by giving themthe ability to hold on to their farmswhile they reorganize their finances.

Without prompt action by Congress,the bankruptcy laws for family farm-ers, known as Chapter 12, will expire onApril 1, 1999. When Congress first en-acted Chapter 12 in 1986 for sevenyears, we intended to make Chapter 12permanent if it proved successful. Al-ready, Chapter 12 has been extendedtwice, in 1993 and again last year.

Family farmers need this permanentprotection because Chapter 12 works. Ittakes into consideration the uniquecircumstances faced by family farmers.It recognizes our special interest inkeeping family farms in the family,where possible. And in practice it paysoff—according to the National Bank-ruptcy Review Commission, farmers inChapter 12 are more likely to success-fully reorganize than individuals filingunder parallel chapters.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S765January 20, 1999The continued success of the tens of

thousands of family farmers in Wiscon-sin—and millions nationwide—is im-portant to our national interest. Buttheir well-being is too often jeopard-ized by elements out of their control.For example, many Wisconsin farmersnow are facing distress due to unusu-ally low prices for hogs, corn and soybeans. The opportunity to reorganizetheir business under Chapter 12 may bean important option in these difficulttimes. They deserve to know that thisprotection will always be available.Thank you.

By Mr. SPECTER (for himself,Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. BYRD,Mr. DEWINE, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr.SANTORUM, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr.SARBANES, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr.DURBIN, Mr. KOHL, Mr. SES-SIONS, and Mr. MOYNIHAN):

S. 261. A bill to amend the Trade Actof 1974, and for other purposes; to theCommittee on Finance.

THE TRADE FAIRNESS ACT OF 1999

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I havesought recognition today to introducelegislation to try to deal with a veryserious surge of steel imports into theUnited States, which is threatening todecimate the steel industry and takethousands of jobs from American steel-workers in a way which is patently un-fair and in violation of free trade prac-tices. My bill is entitled the ‘‘TradeFairness Act of 1999’’ because it wouldbring our laws in line with those estab-lished by the General Agreement onTarriffs and provide relief to the floodof foreign steel imports dumped ontothe American market.

On Monday, November 30, 1998, Sen-ator ROCKEFELLER and I convened ahearing of the Senate Steel Caucus tolook further into the continued dump-ing of foreign steel on the U.S. marketand its affect on domestic producers.At that hearing, Hank Barnette, Chair-man and CEO of Bethlehem Steel, andGeorge Becker, President of the UnitedSteelworkers of America, testified tothe magnitude of the crisis, the contin-ued loss of high-paying jobs and thealarming lack of capital investment bythe industry over the last severalmonths. They both expressed frustra-tion at the lack of activity by the Clin-ton Administration to respond to ille-gal dumping of foreign steel.

On October 7, 1998, Senator JOHN D.ROCKEFELLER, Congressman RALPHREGULA and Congressman JIM OBER-STAR, and I met with representatives ofthe Clinton Administration, specifi-cally Treasury Secretary RobertRubin, Commerce Secretary WilliamDaley, United States Trade Represent-ative Ambassador Charlene Barshefskyand National Economic Council Advi-sor Gene Sperling, to discuss the steelimport issue. At that meeting, rep-resentatives of the Clinton Administra-tion assured us that they were lookinginto actions that the Administrationcould take to respond to the illegaldumping of foreign steel on the U.S.

market but had yet to make a final de-cision on their response.

The urgency of this crisis and thefailure of the Administration to takeaction was evident from testimony pre-sented on September 10, 1998, where, asChairman of the Senate Steel Caucus, Ijoined House Chairman REGULA in con-vening a joint meeting of the Senateand House Steel Caucuses to hear frommembers of the United Steelworkers ofAmerica and executives from a numberof the nation’s largest steel manufac-turers about the current influx of im-ported steel into the United States. Atthat meeting, I expressed my profoundconcern regarding the impact on oursteel companies and steelworkers ofthe current financial crises in Asia andRussia, which have generated surges inU.S. imports of Asian and Russiansteel.

The United States has become thedumping ground for foreign steel. Rus-sia has become the world’s number onesteel exporting nation and China isnow the world’s number one steel-pro-ducing nation, while enormous sub-sidies to foreign steel producers havecontinued. In fact, the Commerce De-partment revealed that Russia, one ofthe world’s least efficient producers,was selling steel plate in the UnitedStates at more than 50 percent, or $110per ton, below the constructed cost tomake steel plate. The dumping of thischeap steel on the American marketultimately costs our steel companies inlost sales and results in fewer jobs forAmerican workers.

Specifically, the October 1998 importlevel was the second highest monthlytotal ever, with 4.1 million net tons—an increase of 56 percent over October1997 of 2.6 million net tons. Only Au-gust 1998 (4.4 million net tons) sur-passed it. The October level, ifannualized, would exceed 49 million nettons, or 48 percent of expected totalU.S. domestic steel shipments for theentire year. Total imports in Octoberwere 35 percent of apparent consump-tion, up from 23 percent a year earlier.

Imports of steel from various coun-tries have dramatically increased whenthe first six months of 1997 are com-pared to the first six months of 1998.The percent increases from four coun-tries are as follows: Japan, 141 percent;South Africa, 124 percent; South Korea,96 percent; Russia, 29 percent.

The following is an example of thelayoffs and plant slowdowns since Sep-tember, 1998:

Geneva Steel has laid off 460 workers;U.S. Steel’s Philadelphia operations

have been reduced by 70 percent;LTV Steel’s plant closure has cost

320 jobs; and,Weirton Steel has suffered 300 layoffs

with 200 additional layoffs expected byJanuary 1, 1999.

The American Iron and Steel Insti-tute estimates that 5,000 steelworkers,nationwide, have been laid off sinceSeptember, 1998. An additional 10,000U.S. steelworkers’ jobs are at risk ofimminent layoffs.

I believe that the growing coalitionof steel manufacturers, steelworkers,and Congress must work together toremedy this import crisis before it istoo late and the U.S. steel industry isforced to endure an excruciatinglypainful economic downturn. TheUnited States has many of the tools atits disposal to protect our steel indus-try from unfair and illegally dumpedsteel; therefore, I introduced SenateConcurrent Resolution 121 on Septem-ber 29, 1998, to call on the President totake all necessary measures to respondto the surge of steel imports resultingfrom the Asian and Russian financialcrises. I am pleased to state that theresolution passed both houses of Con-gress on October 19, 1998. Unfortu-nately, the President’s report to Con-gress failed to take the immediate ac-tion needed to stop the importation offoreign steel.

While this resolution was an appro-priate way for Congress to express ourconcerns and request immediate ac-tions by the Administration to respondto the steel import crisis, I think it isalso important to give the Administra-tion all the necessary tools to fight thesurges of foreign steel. After reviewingthe U.S. trade laws, I discovered thatour trade laws place the United Statesat a disadvantage in the internationaltrade arena. Our laws are more strictthan those agreements made duringthe Uruguay Round negotiations on theGeneral Agreement on Tariffs andTrade (GATT). That agreement, whichthe Senate considered and passed onDecember 1, 1994, established the WorldTrade Organization (WTO) to admin-ister these trade agreements.

The GATT established rules for theapplication of safeguard measures. Theagreement provides that a member ofthe WTO may apply a safeguard meas-ure to a product if the member has de-termined that such product is beingimported into its territory in such in-creased quantities, absolute or relativeto domestic production, and under suchconditions as to cause or threaten tocause serious injury to the domestic in-dustry that produces like or directlycompetitive products. The comparableU.S. statute, referred to as safeguardactions, or Section 201 of the 1974 TradeAct, provide a procedure whereby thePresident has the discretion to granttemporary import relief to a domesticindustry injured by increased imports.Our statute goes further than GATT byrequiring that foreign imports are thesubstantial cause of the injury. It justdoes not make sense to hinder the Ad-ministration by placing this additionalburden on it in evaluating a claim ofinjury due to surges of imports. Weneed to level the playing field so thatall countries are playing by the samerules. This oversight is one example ofthe technical corrections that must bemade to U.S. trade laws to bring themin line with WTO’s rules.

For these reasons and to provide re-lief to the domestic steel industry in-jured by these overly strict laws, I am

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES766 January 20, 1999introducing the Trade Fairness Act of1999, which seeks to: lower the thresh-old for establishing injury in safeguardactions under Section 201 of the 1974Trade Act; and, establish an importmonitoring program to monitor the in-flux of foreign steel on the U.S. mar-ket.

During the last days of the 105th Con-gress, I introduced the Trade FairnessAct of 1998 which sought to amend theTrade Act of 1974 by making technicalcorrections to our strict laws; the firstsection of the legislation I am intro-ducing today is based on that bill.First, regarding safeguard actions, thislegislation removes the requirementthat imports must be a ‘‘substantial’’cause of the serious injury by deletingthe word ‘‘substantial.’’ The WTO’sSafeguards Agreement does not requirethat increased imports by a ‘‘substan-tial’’ cause of serious injury. Thischange will lower the threshold toprove that the influx of imports werethe cause of injury to the affected in-dustry and will make U.S. law consist-ent with the WTO rules.

Second, the legislation clarifies thatthe International Trade Commission(ITC) shall not attribute to imports in-jury caused by other factors in makinga determination that imports are acause of serious injury. This provisionclarifies that there only needs to be acausal link between the imports andthe injury in order to gain relief. Thisclarification is a more faithful imple-mentation of the GATT Agreement andwill prevent circumstances such as arecession from blocking invocation ofSection 201 by the Administration.

Finally, this legislation brings thedefinition of ‘‘serious injury’’ in linewith the definition codified in theGATT Agreement. The bill strikes thedefinition of serious injury and re-places it with the WTO’s language re-garding evaluation of whether in-creased imports have caused serious in-jury to a domestic industry. Specifi-cally, it states ‘‘with respect to seriousinjury’’, the ITC should consider ‘‘therate and amount of the increase in im-ports of the product concerned in abso-lute and relative terms; the share ofthe domestic market taken by in-creased imports; changes in the levelsof sales; production; productivity; ca-pacity utilization; profits and losses;and, employment.’’ These factors areimportant guidance to the ITC in eval-uating a petition of serious injury.Again, I think it is appropriate to beconsistent with the WTO language asAmerica increasingly interacts on aglobal scale.

Next, my legislation establishes acomprehensive steel import permit andmonitoring program, which is modeledon similar systems currently in use inCanada and Mexico. The program cre-ated by this legislation requires im-porters to provide information regard-ing country of origin, quantity, valueand Harmonized Tariff Schedule num-

ber. The program also requires the Ad-ministration to release the data col-lected to the public in aggregate formon an expedited basis. The informationprovided by the licensing program willallow the Commerce Department andthe steel industry to monitor the in-flux of steel imports into the UnitedStates. Currently, unfairly traded im-ports can cause significant damage tothe U.S. market long before the data isavailable for even preliminary analy-sis. This program will allow the U.S.government to receive and analyzecritical data in a more timely mannerand, as a result, allow the industry todetermine more quickly whether un-fairly traded imports are disruptingthe market.

Specifically, the bill directs the Sec-retary of Commerce and the Secretaryof Treasury to implement a steel im-port monitoring program that requiresimporters of all products classifiedwithin Chapters 72 and 73 of the Har-monized Tariff Schedule of the UnitedStates (HTSUS) to obtain an importpermit prior to entering such productsin the United States. In order to obtainan import permit, the importer is re-quired to submit an import permit ap-plication containing specific informa-tion. An import permit is issued auto-matically upon receipt of the applica-tion and is valid for a period of thirtydays.

This legislation will enhance U.S.law to better respond to surges of for-eign imports that injure U.S. indus-tries. It is important to note that, withthe exception of the steel import li-censing provisions, this legislation ap-plies to all industries and is not lim-ited to the steel industry. As such,other U.S. industries that are facedwith an import crisis such as the steelindustry is currently confrontingwould also benefit from these improve-ments to the U.S. trade laws.

The U.S. steel industry has become aworld class industry with a very high-quality product. This has beenachieved at a great cost: $50 billion innew investment to restructure andmodernize; 40 million tons of capacitytaken out of the industry; and a workforce dramatically downsized from500,000 to 170,000. With these technicalchanges, the Administration will bearmed with ammunition to bring a self-initiated Section 201 action on behalfof the steel industry that has beenharmed not only by the onslaught ofcheap imports on a daily basis but byU.S. law that has prevented swift andimmediate action by the U.S. govern-ment. This legislation is essential toallow the President to respond prompt-ly to the current steel import crisis. Itwill allow steel companies to competein a more fair trade environment, pre-venting bankruptcies that would causethe loss of thousands of high-payingjobs in the steel industry. Too manysteelworkers have lost their jobs due tounfair cheap imports. I intend to stand

up for the steel industry and preventthe loss of any more jobs.

For these reasons, I urge my col-leagues to join me in supporting adop-tion of legislation to bring fairness toour trade laws and needed relief to thesteel industry.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I risetoday to join my colleagues in intro-ducing the ‘‘Trade Fairness Act of1999’’ and thank Senator SPECTER forhis hard work in crafting this legisla-tion which will help alleviate the eco-nomic turmoil in our domestic steel in-dustry caused by illegal dumping.

Recent trade data indicates thatsteel imports to the United States forthe first ten months of 1998, ending inOctober, have reached an all timerecord of 34,628,000 tons. In contrast,imports to the United States in for thefirst ten months of 1997, which wasitself a record year, equaled 26,708,000tons. This represents a 30 percent in-crease.

The bill I am joining in cosponsoringwith Senator SPECTER today will helpmake it easier for the President to en-force our existing trade laws in twoways; it will lower the threshold nec-essary for the President to take imme-diate action to stem the tide of illegalimports under section 201 of the TradeAct of 1974 and it will create an ‘‘Im-port Monitoring Program’’ for steel,similar to the systems in place in bothMexico and Canada, to identify thecountry of origin, value and quantityof steel imports into the United States.

These actions are in line with theGeneral Agreement on Tarriffs andTrade (GATT) and will not hinder freetrade with our international tradingpartners. The bill will provide nec-essary information, critical in deter-mining whether illegal trade practicesare occurring. This provision will en-sure the President can take immediate,decisive action when those practicesare identified.

The men and women who work in theUnited States steel business are themost efficient and hardest workingpeople in the world. Given a fair shake,our domestic steel producers have andcan continue to compete with any ofour international trading partners. Il-legal dumping has forced America’ssteel industry into jeopardy. The jobsof thousands of steel workers in myhome state of Alabama and across theNation are threatened. Our steel work-ers and companies deserve the protec-tion afforded to them by United Statestrade law and the rigorous enforcementof those laws by our President.

By Mr. ROTH (for himself andMr. MOYNIHAN):

S. 262. A bill to make miscellaneousand technical changes to various tradelaws, and for other purposes. A bill tomake miscellaneous and technicalchanges to various trade laws, and forother purposes; to the Committee onFinance.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S767January 20, 1999MISCELLANEOUS TRADE AND TECHNICAL

CORRECTIONS ACT OF 1999

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I risetoday to introduce, on behalf of Sen-ator MOYNIHAN and myself, the Mis-cellaneous Trade and Technical Correc-tions Act of 1999. This bill reflects un-finished business from the 105th Con-gress and I am hopeful that the Senatewill quickly move to approve this leg-islation this year.

On September 29, the Finance Com-mittee reported unanimously H.R. 4342,the Miscellaneous Tariff and TechnicalCorrections Act of 1998. On October 20,1998, the House passed and sent to theSenate H.R. 4856, the identical bill withthe addition of several provisions. Un-fortunately, for reasons unrelated tothe substance of the bill, the Senatewas unable to pass either piece of legis-lation.

The bill I am introducing today withSenator MOYNIHAN is substantivelyidentical to H.R. 4856, with only minortechnical changes necessary because ofthe passage of time. This bill containsover 150 provisions temporarily sus-pending or reducing the applicable tar-iffs on a wide variety of products, in-cluding chemicals used to make anti-HIV, anti-AIDS and anti-cancer drugs,pigments, paints, herbicides and insec-ticides, certain machinery used in theproduction of textiles, and rocket en-gines.

In each instance, there was either nodomestic production of the product inquestion or the domestic producerssupported the measure. By suspendingor reducing the duties, we can enableU.S. firms that use these products toproduce goods in a more cost efficientmanner, thereby helping create jobs forAmerican workers and reducing costsfor consumers.

The bill also contains a number oftechnical corrections and other minormodifications to the trade laws thatenjoyed broad support. One such meas-ure would help facilitate CustomsService clearance of athletes that par-ticipate in world athletic events, suchas the upcoming Women’s World Cup.Another measure would correct out-dated references in the trade laws.

For each of the provisions included inthis bill, the House and Senate has so-licited comments from the public andfrom the Administration to ensure thatthere was no controversy or opposition.Only those measures that were non-controversial were included in the bill.

The Finance Committee is scheduledto hold a mark-up of this bill on Fri-day, January 22nd. I hope that both theHouse and Senate will move to approvethis legislation soon.

I ask unanimous consent that the billbe printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill wasordered to be printed in the RECORD, asfollows:

S. 262

Be it enacted by the Senate and House ofRepresentatives of the United States of Americain Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as

the ‘‘Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Cor-rections Act of 1999’’.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of con-tents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.

TITLE I—MISCELLANEOUS TRADECORRECTIONS

Sec. 1001. Clerical amendments.Sec. 1002. Obsolete references to GATT.Sec. 1003. Tariff classification of 13-inch

televisions.

TITLE II—TEMPORARY DUTY SUSPEN-SIONS AND REDUCTIONS; OTHERTRADE PROVISIONS

Subtitle A—Temporary Duty Suspensionsand Reductions

CHAPTER 1—REFERENCE

Sec. 2001. Reference.

CHAPTER 2—DUTY SUSPENSIONS ANDREDUCTIONS

Sec. 2101. Diiodomethyl-p-tolylsulfone.Sec. 2102. Racemic dl-menthol.Sec. 2103. 2,4-Dichloro-5-hydrazinophenol

monohydrochloride.Sec. 2104. TAB.Sec. 2105. Certain snowboard boots.Sec. 2106. Ethofumesate singularly or in

mixture with application adju-vants.

Sec. 2107. 3-Methoxycarbonylaminophenyl-3′-methylcarbanilate(phenmedipham).

Sec. 2108. 3-Ethoxycarbonylaminophenyl-N-phenylcarbamate(desmedipham).

Sec. 2109. 2-Amino-4-(4-aminobenzoylamin-o)benzenesulfonic acid, sodiumsalt.

Sec. 2110. 5-Amino-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2,3-xylenesul- fonamide.

Sec. 2111. 3-Amino-2′-(sulfatoethylsulfonyl)ethyl benzamide.

Sec. 2112. 4-Chloro-3-nitrobenzenesulfonicacid, monopotassium salt.

Sec. 2113. 2-Amino-5-nitrothiazole.Sec. 2114. 4-Chloro-3-nitrobenzenesulfonic

acid.Sec. 2115. 6-Amino-1,3-naphthalenedisulfonic

acid.Sec. 2116. 4-Chloro-3-nitrobenzenesulfonic

acid, monosodium salt.Sec. 2117. 2-Methyl-5-nitrobenzenesulfonic

acid.Sec. 2118. 6-Amino-1,3-naphthalenedisulfonic

acid, disodium salt.Sec. 2119. 2-Amino-p-cresol.Sec. 2120. 6-Bromo-2,4-dinitroaniline.Sec. 2121. 7-Acetylamino-4-hydroxy-2-

naphthalenesulfonic acid,monosodium salt.

Sec. 2122. Tannic acid.Sec. 2123. 2-Amino-5-nitrobenzenesulfonic

acid, monosodium salt.Sec. 2124. 2-Amino-5-nitrobenzenesulfonic

acid, monoammonium salt.Sec. 2125. 2-Amino-5-nitrobenzenesulfonic

acid.Sec. 2126. 3-(4,5-Dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-

pyrazol-1-yl)benzenesulfonicacid.

Sec. 2127. 4-Benzoylamino-5-hydroxy-2,7-naphtha- lenedisulfonic acid.

Sec. 2128. 4-Benzoylamino-5-hydroxy-2,7-naphtha- lenedisulfonic acid,monosodium salt.

Sec. 2129. Pigment Yellow 151.Sec. 2130. Pigment Yellow 181.Sec. 2131. Pigment Yellow 154.Sec. 2132. Pigment Yellow 175.Sec. 2133. Pigment Yellow 180.Sec. 2134. Pigment Yellow 191.Sec. 2135. Pigment Red 187.

Sec. 2136. Pigment Red 247.Sec. 2137. Pigment Orange 72.Sec. 2138. Pigment Yellow 16.Sec. 2139. Pigment Red 185.Sec. 2140. Pigment Red 208.Sec. 2141. Pigment Red 188.Sec. 2142. 2,6-Dimethyl-m-dioxan-4-ol ace-

tate.Sec. 2143. β-Bromo-β-nitrostyrene.Sec. 2144. Textile machinery.Sec. 2145. Deltamethrin.Sec. 2146. Diclofop-methyl.Sec. 2147. Resmethrin.Sec. 2148. N-phenyl-N’-1,2,3-thiadiazol-5-

ylurea.Sec. 2149. (1R,3S)3[(1′RS)(1′,2′,2′,2′,-

Tetrabromoethyl)]-2,2-dimethylcyclopro-panecarboxylic acid, (S)-α-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl ester.

Sec. 2150. Pigment Yellow 109.Sec. 2151. Pigment Yellow 110.Sec. 2152. Pigment Red 177.Sec. 2153. Textile printing machinery.Sec. 2154. Substrates of synthetic quartz or

synthetic fused silica.Sec. 2155. 2-Methyl-4,6-

bis[(octylthio)methyl]phenol.Sec. 2156. 2-Methyl-4,6-

bis[(octylthio)methyl]phenol;epoxidized triglyceride.

Sec. 2157. 4-[[4,6-Bis(octylthio)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenol.

Sec. 2158. (2-Benzothiazolylthio)butanedioicacid.

Sec. 2159. Calcium bis[monoethyl(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxybenzyl) phos-phonate].

Sec. 2160. 4-Methyl-γ-oxo-benzenebutanoicacid compounded with 4-ethylmorpholine (2:1).

Sec. 2161. Weaving machines.Sec. 2162. Certain weaving machines.Sec. 2163. DEMT.Sec. 2164. Benzenepropanal, 4-(1,1-

dimethylethyl)-alpha-methyl-.Sec. 2165. 2H–3,1-Benzoxazin-2-one, 6-chloro-

4-(cyclopropylethynyl)-1,4-dihydro-4-(trifluoromethyl)-.

Sec. 2166. Tebufenozide.Sec. 2167. Halofenozide.Sec. 2168. Certain organic pigments and

dyes.Sec. 2169. 4-Hexylresorcinol.Sec. 2170. Certain sensitizing dyes.Sec. 2171. Skating boots for use in the manu-

facture of in-line roller skates.Sec. 2172. Dibutylnaphthalenesulfonic acid,

sodium salt.Sec. 2173. O-(6-Chloro-3-phenyl-4-

pyridazinyl)-S-octylcarbonothioate.

Sec. 2174. 4-Cyclopropyl-6-methyl-2-phenylaminopyrimidine.

Sec. 2175. O,O-Dimethyl-S-[5-methoxy-2-oxo-1,3,4-thiadiazol-3(2H)-yl-meth-yl]-dithiophosphate.

Sec. 2176. Ethyl [2-(4-phenoxyphenox-y)ethyl]carbamate.

Sec. 2177. [(2S,4R)/(2R,4S)]/[(2R,4R)/(2S,4S)]-1-[2-[4-(4-chlorophenoxy)-2-chlorophenyl]-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole.

Sec. 2178. 2,4-Dichloro-3,5-dinitrobenzotrifluoride.

Sec. 2179. 2-Chloro-N-[2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-N-ethyl-6-fluorobenzenemethanamine.

Sec. 2180. Chloroacetone.Sec. 2181. Acetic acid, [(5-chloro-8-quino-

linyl)oxy]-, 1-methylhexylester.

Sec. 2182. Propanoic acid, 2-[4-[(5-chloro-3-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]phenoxy]-, 2-propynyl ester.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES768 January 20, 1999Sec. 2183. Mucochloric acid.Sec. 2184. Certain rocket engines.Sec. 2185. Pigment Red 144.Sec. 2186. Pigment Orange 64.Sec. 2187. Pigment Yellow 95.Sec. 2188. Pigment Yellow 93.Sec. 2189. (S)-N-[[5-[2-(2-Amino-4,6,7,8-

tetrahydro-4-oxo-1H-pyrimido[5,4-b] [1,4]thiazin-6-yl)ethyl]-2-thienyl]carbonyl]-l-glutamic acid, diethyl ester.

Sec. 2190. 4-Chloropyridine hydrochloride.Sec. 2191. 4-Phenoxypyridine.Sec. 2192. (3S)-2,2-Dimethyl-3-

thiomorpholine carboxylic acid.Sec. 2193. 2-Amino-5-bromo-6-methyl-4-(1H)-

quinazolinone.Sec. 2194. 2-Amino-6-methyl-5-(4-

pyridinylthio)-4(1H)-quinazolinone.

Sec. 2195. (S)-N-[[5-[2-(2-amino-4,6,7,8-tetrahydro-4-oxo-1H-pyrimido[5,4-b][1,4]thiazin-6-yl)ethyl]-2-thienyl]carbonyl]-l-glutamic acid.

Sec. 2196. 2-Amino-6-methyl-5-(4-pyridinylthio)-4-(1H)-quinazolinone dihydrochloride.

Sec. 2197. 3-(Acetyloxy)-2-methylbenzoicacid.

Sec. 2198. [R-(R*,R*)]-1,2,3,4-butanetetrol-1,4-dimeth- anesulfonate.

Sec. 2199. 9-[2- [[Bis[ (pivaloyloxy)methoxy]phosphinyl] methoxy]ethyl]adenine (also known asAdefovir Dipivoxil).

Sec. 2200. 9-[2-(R)-[[Bis[(isopropoxycarbonyl)oxy-methoxy]-phosphinoyl]methoxy]-propyl]adenine fumarate (1:1).

Sec. 2201. (R)-9-(2-Phosphonomethoxypropy-l)adenine.

Sec. 2202. (R)-1,3-Dioxolan-2-one, 4-methyl-.Sec. 2203. 9-(2-Hydroxyethyl)adenine.Sec. 2204. (R)-9H-Purine-9-ethanol, 6-amino-

α-methyl-.Sec. 2205. Chloromethyl-2-propyl carbonate.Sec. 2206. (R)-1,2-Propanediol, 3-chloro-.Sec. 2207. Oxirane, (S)-

((triphenylmethoxy)methyl)-.Sec. 2208. Chloromethyl pivalate.Sec. 2209. Diethyl (((p-

toluenesulfony-l)oxy)methyl)phosphonate.

Sec. 2210. Beta hydroxyalkylamide.Sec. 2211. Grilamid tr90.Sec. 2212. IN–W4280.Sec. 2213. KL540.Sec. 2214. Methyl thioglycolate.Sec. 2215. DPX–E6758.Sec. 2216. Ethylene, tetrafluoro copolymer

with ethylene (ETFE).Sec. 2217. 3-Mercapto-D-valine.Sec. 2218. p-Ethylphenol.Sec. 2219. Pantera.Sec. 2220. p-Nitrobenzoic acid.Sec. 2221. p-Toluenesulfonamide.Sec. 2222. Polymers of tetrafluoroethylene,

hexafluoropropylene, and vinyl-idene fluoride.

Sec. 2223. Methyl 2-[[[[[4-(dimethylamino)-6-(2,2,2- trifluoroethoxy)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-car-bonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-3-meth-yl-benzoate (triflusulfuronmethyl).

Sec. 2224. Certain manufacturing equipment.Sec. 2225. Textured rolled glass sheets.Sec. 2226. Certain HIV drug substances.Sec. 2227. Rimsulfuron.Sec. 2228. Carbamic acid (V–9069).Sec. 2229. DPX–E9260.Sec. 2230. Ziram.Sec. 2231. Ferroboron.Sec. 2232. Acetic acid, [[2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-

[(tetrahydro-3-oxo-1H,3H-[1,3,4]thiadiazolo[3,4-a]pyridazin-1-ylidene)amino]phenyl]- thio]-,methyl ester.

Sec. 2233. Pentyl[2-chloro-5-(cyclohex-1-ene-1,2-dicarboximido)-4-fluorophenoxy]acetate.

Sec. 2234. Bentazon (3-isopropyl)-1H-2,1,3-benzo-thiadiazin-4(3H)-one-2,2-dioxide).

Sec. 2235. Certain high-performance loud-speakers not mounted in theirenclosures.

Sec. 2236. Parts for use in the manufactureof certain high-performanceloudspeakers.

Sec. 2237. 5-tert-Butyl-isophthalic acid.Sec. 2238. Certain polymer.Sec. 2239. 2-(4-Chlorophenyl)-3-ethyl-2, 5-

dihydro-5-oxo-4-pyridazine car-boxylic acid, potassium salt.

CHAPTER 3—EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 2301. Effective date.

Subtitle B—Trade Provisions

Sec. 2401. Extension of United States insularpossession program.

Sec. 2402. Tariff treatment for certain com-ponents of scientific instru-ments and apparatus.

Sec. 2403. Liquidation or reliquidation ofcertain entries.

Sec. 2404. Drawback and refund on packag-ing material.

Sec. 2405. Inclusion of commercial importa-tion data from foreign-tradezones under the National Cus-toms Automation Program.

Sec. 2406. Large yachts imported for sale atUnited States boat shows.

Sec. 2407. Review of protests against deci-sions of Customs Service.

Sec. 2408. Entries of NAFTA-origin goods.Sec. 2409. Treatment of international travel

merchandise held at customs-approved storage rooms.

Sec. 2410. Exception to 5-year reviews ofcountervailing duty or anti-dumping duty orders.

Sec. 2411. Water resistant wool trousers.Sec. 2412. Reimportation of certain goods.Sec. 2413. Treatment of personal effects of

participants in certain worldathletic events.

Sec. 2414. Reliquidation of certain entries ofthermal transfer multifunctionmachines.

Sec. 2415. Reliquidation of certain drawbackentries and refund of drawbackpayments.

Sec. 2416. Clarification of additional U.S.note 4 to chapter 91 of the Har-monized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States.

Sec. 2417. Duty-free sales enterprises.Sec. 2418. Customs user fees.Sec. 2419. Duty drawback for methyl ter-

tiary-butyl ether (‘‘MTBE’’).Sec. 2420. Substitution of finished petroleum

derivatives.Sec. 2421. Duty on certain importations of

mueslix cereals.Sec. 2422. Expansion of Foreign Trade Zone

No. 143.Sec. 2423. Marking of certain silk products

and containers.Sec. 2424. Extension of nondiscriminatory

treatment (normal trade rela-tions treatment) to the prod-ucts of Mongolia.

Sec. 2425. Enhanced cargo inspection pilotprogram.

Sec. 2426. Payment of education costs of de-pendents of certain CustomsService personnel.

TITLE III—AMENDMENTS TO INTERNALREVENUE CODE OF 1986

Sec. 3001. Property subject to a liabilitytreated in same manner as as-sumption of liability.

TITLE I—MISCELLANEOUS TRADECORRECTIONS

SEC. 1001. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.(a) TRADE ACT OF 1974.—(1) Section 233(a) of

the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2293(a)) isamended—

(A) by aligning the text of paragraph (2)that precedes subparagraph (A) with the textof paragraph (1); and

(B) by aligning the text of subparagraphs(A) and (B) of paragraph (2) with the text ofsubparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (3).

(2) Section 141(b) of the Trade Act of 1974(19 U.S.C. 2171(b)) is amended—

(A) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘LIMITA-TION ON APPOINTMENTS.—’’; and

(B) by aligning the text of paragraph (3)with the text of paragraph (2).

(3) The item relating to section 410 in thetable of contents for the Trade Act of 1974 isrepealed.

(4) Section 411 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19U.S.C. 2441), and the item relating to section411 in the table of contents for that Act, arerepealed.

(5) Section 154(b) of the Trade Act of 1974(19 U.S.C. 2194(b)) is amended by striking‘‘For purposes of’’ and all that followsthrough ‘‘90-day period’’ and inserting ‘‘Forpurposes of sections 203(c) and 407(c)(2), the90-day period’’.

(6) Section 406(e)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974(19 U.S.C. 2436(e)(2)) is amended by movingsubparagraphs (B) and (C) 2 ems to the left.

(7) Section 503(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Trade Actof 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2463(a)(2)(A)(ii)) is amendedby striking subclause (II) and inserting thefollowing:

‘‘(II) the direct costs of processing oper-ations performed in such beneficiary devel-oping country or such member countries,

is not less than 35 percent of the appraisedvalue of such article at the time it is en-tered.’’.

(8) Section 802(b)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of1974 (19 U.S.C. 2492(b)(1)(A)) is amended—

(A) by striking ‘‘481(e)’’ and inserting‘‘489’’; and

(B) by inserting ‘‘(22 U.S.C. 2291h)’’ after‘‘1961’’.

(9) Section 804 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19U.S.C. 2494) is amended by striking ‘‘481(e)(1)of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22U.S.C. 2291(e)(1))’’ and inserting ‘‘489 of theForeign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.2291h)’’.

(10) Section 805(2) of the Trade Act of 1974(19 U.S.C. 2495(2)) is amended by striking‘‘and’’ after the semicolon.

(11) The table of contents for the Trade Actof 1974 is amended by adding at the end thefollowing:‘‘TITLE VIII—TARIFF TREATMENT OF

PRODUCTS OF, AND OTHER SANCTIONSAGAINST, UNCOOPERATIVE MAJORDRUG PRODUCING OR DRUG-TRANSITCOUNTRIES

‘‘Sec. 801. Short title.‘‘Sec. 802. Tariff treatment of products of

uncooperative major drug pro-ducing or drug-transit coun-tries.

‘‘Sec. 803. Sugar quota.‘‘Sec. 804. Progress reports.‘‘Sec. 805. Definitions.’’.

(b) OTHER TRADE LAWS.—(1) Section 13031of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Rec-onciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c) isamended—

(A) in subsection (e) by aligning the text ofparagraph (1) with the text of paragraph (2);and

(B) in subsection (f)(3)—(i) in subparagraph (A)(ii) by striking ‘‘sub-

section (a)(1) through (a)(8)’’ and inserting‘‘paragraphs (1) through (8) of subsection(a)’’; and

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S769January 20, 1999(ii) in subparagraph (C)(ii)(I) by striking

‘‘paragraph (A)(i)’’ and inserting ‘‘subpara-graph (A)(i)’’.

(2) Section 3(a) of the Act of June 18, 1934(commonly referred to as the ‘‘Foreign TradeZones Act’’) (19 U.S.C. 81c(a)) is amended bystriking the second period at the end of thelast sentence.

(3) Section 9 of the Act of June 18, 1934(commonly referred to as the ‘‘Foreign TradeZones Act’’) (19 U.S.C. 81i) is amended bystriking ‘‘Post Office Department, the PublicHealth Service, the Bureau of Immigration’’and inserting ‘‘United States Postal Service,the Public Health Service, the Immigrationand Naturalization Service’’.

(4) The table of contents for the TradeAgreements Act of 1979 is amended—

(A) in the item relating to section 411 bystriking ‘‘Special Representative’’ and in-serting ‘‘Trade Representative’’; and

(B) by inserting after the items relating tosubtitle D of title IV the following:

‘‘Subtitle E—Standards and Measures Underthe North American Free Trade Agreement

‘‘CHAPTER 1—SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARYMEASURES

‘‘Sec. 461. General.‘‘Sec. 462. Inquiry point.‘‘Sec. 463. Chapter definitions.

‘‘CHAPTER 2—STANDARDS-RELATED MEASURES

‘‘Sec. 471. General.‘‘Sec. 472. Inquiry point.‘‘Sec. 473. Chapter definitions.

‘‘CHAPTER 3—SUBTITLE DEFINITIONS

‘‘Sec. 481. Definitions.

‘‘Subtitle F—International Standard-SettingActivities

‘‘Sec. 491. Notice of United States participa-tion in international standard-setting activities.

‘‘Sec. 492. Equivalence determinations.‘‘Sec. 493. Definitions.’’.

(5)(A) Section 3(a)(9) of the MiscellaneousTrade and Technical Corrections Act of 1996is amended by striking ‘‘631(a)’’ and ‘‘1631(a)’’and inserting ‘‘631’’ and ‘‘1631’’, respectively.

(B) Section 50(c)(2) of such Act is amendedby striking ‘‘applied to entry’’ and inserting‘‘applied to such entry’’.

(6) Section 8 of the Act of August 5, 1935 (19U.S.C. 1708) is repealed.

(7) Section 584(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930(19 U.S.C. 1584(a)) is amended—

(A) in the last sentence of paragraph (2), bystriking ‘‘102(17) and 102(15), respectively, ofthe Controlled Substances Act’’ and insert-ing ‘‘102(18) and 102(16), respectively, of theControlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(18)and 802(16))’’; and

(B) in paragraph (3)—(i) by striking ‘‘or which consists of any

spirits,’’ and all that follows through ‘‘be notshown,’’; and

(ii) by striking ‘‘, and, if any manifestedmerchandise’’ and all that follows throughthe end and inserting a period.

(8) Section 621(4)(A) of the North AmericanFree Trade Agreement Implementation Act,as amended by section 21(d)(12) of the Mis-cellaneous Trade and Technical AmendmentsAct of 1996, is amended by striking ‘‘disclo-sure within 30 days’’ and inserting ‘‘disclo-sure, or within 30 days’’.

(9) Section 558(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930(19 U.S.C. 1558(b)) is amended by striking‘‘(c)’’ each place it appears and inserting‘‘(h)’’.

(10) Section 441 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19U.S.C. 1441) is amended by striking para-graph (6).

(11) General note 3(a)(ii) to the HarmonizedTariff Schedule of the United States isamended by striking ‘‘general most-favored-nation (MFN)’’ and by inserting in lieu

thereof ‘‘general or normal trade relations(NTR)’’.SEC. 1002. OBSOLETE REFERENCES TO GATT.

(a) FOREST RESOURCES CONSERVATION ANDSHORTAGE RELIEF ACT OF 1990.—(1) Section488(b) of the Forest Resources Conservationand Shortage Relief Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C.620(b)) is amended—

(A) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade’’ and insert-ing ‘‘GATT 1994 (as defined in section 2(1)(B)of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act)’’ ;and

(B) in paragraph (5) by striking ‘‘GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade’’ and insert-ing ‘‘WTO Agreement and the multilateraltrade agreements (as such terms are definedin paragraphs (9) and (4), respectively, of sec-tion 2 of the Uruguay Round AgreementsAct)’’.

(2) Section 491(g) of that Act (16 U.S.C.620c(g)) is amended by striking ‘‘ContractingParties to the General Agreement on Tariffsand Trade’’ and inserting ‘‘Dispute Settle-ment Body of the World Trade Organization(as the term ‘World Trade Organization’ isdefined in section 2(8) of the Uruguay RoundAgreements Act)’’.

(b) INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONSACT.—Section 1403(b) of the International Fi-nancial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262n–2(b))is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)(A) by striking ‘‘GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade or Article10’’ and all that follows through ‘‘Trade’’ andinserting ‘‘GATT 1994 as defined in section2(1)(B) of the Uruguay Round AgreementsAct, or Article 3.1(a) of the Agreement onSubsidies and Countervailing Measures re-ferred to in section 101(d)(12) of that Act’’;and

(2) in paragraph (2)(B) by striking ‘‘Article6’’ and all that follows through ‘‘Trade’’ andinserting ‘‘Article 15 of the Agreement onSubsidies and Countervailing Measures re-ferred to in subparagraph (A)’’.

(c) BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENTS ACT.—Section 49(a)(3) of the Bretton Woods Agree-ments Act (22 U.S.C. 286gg(a)(3)) is amendedby striking ‘‘GATT Secretariat’’ and insert-ing ‘‘Secretariat of the World Trade Organi-zation (as the term ‘World Trade Organiza-tion’ is defined in section 2(8) of the UruguayRound Agreements Act)’’.

(d) FISHERMEN’S PROTECTIVE ACT OF 1967.—Section 8(a)(4) of the Fishermen’s ProtectiveAct of 1967 (22 U.S.C. 1978(a)(4)) is amendedby striking ‘‘General Agreement on Tariffsand Trade’’ and inserting ‘‘World Trade Or-ganization (as defined in section 2(8) of theUruguay Round Agreements Act) or the mul-tilateral trade agreements (as defined in sec-tion 2(4) of that Act)’’.

(e) UNITED STATES-HONG KONG POLICY ACTOF 1992.—Section 102(3) of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C.5712(3)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘contracting party to theGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade’’and inserting ‘‘WTO member country (as de-fined in section 2(10) of the Uruguay RoundAgreements Act)’’; and

(2) by striking ‘‘latter organization’’ andinserting ‘‘World Trade Organization (as de-fined in section 2(8) of that Act)’’.

(f) NOAA FLEET MODERNIZATION ACT.—Sec-tion 607(b)(8) of the NOAA Fleet Moderniza-tion Act (33 U.S.C. 891e(b)(8)) is amended bystriking ‘‘Agreement on Interpretation’’ andall that follows through ‘‘trade negotia-tions’’ and inserting ‘‘Agreement on Sub-sidies and Countervailing Measures referredto in section 101(d)(12) of the Uruguay RoundAgreements Act, or any other export subsidyprohibited by that agreement’’.

(g) ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992.—(1) Sec-tion 1011(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992(42 U.S.C. 2296b(b)) is amended—

(A) by striking ‘‘General Agreement onTariffs and Trade’’ and inserting ‘‘multilat-eral trade agreements (as defined in section2(4) of the Uruguay Round AgreementsAct)’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘United States-CanadaFree Trade Agreement’’ and inserting‘‘North American Free Trade Agreement’’.

(2) Section 1017(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C.2296b–6(c)) is amended—

(A) by striking ‘‘General Agreement onTariffs and Trade’’ and inserting ‘‘multilat-eral trade agreements (as defined in section2(4) of the Uruguay Round AgreementsAct)’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘United States-CanadaFree Trade Agreement’’ and inserting‘‘North American Free Trade Agreement’’.

(h) ENERGY POLICY CONSERVATION ACT.—Section 400AA(a)(3) of the Energy PolicyConservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6374(a)(3)) isamended in subparagraphs (F) and (G) bystriking ‘‘General Agreement on Tariffs andTrade’’ each place it appears and inserting‘‘multilateral trade agreements as defined insection 2(4) of the Uruguay Round Agree-ments Act’’.

(i) TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE.—Section50103 of title 49, United States Code, isamended in subsections (c)(2) and (e)(2) bystriking ‘‘General Agreement on Tariffs andTrade’’ and inserting ‘‘multilateral tradeagreements (as defined in section 2(4) of theUruguay Round Agreements Act)’’.

SEC. 1003. TARIFF CLASSIFICATION OF 13-INCHTELEVISIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Each of the following sub-headings of the Harmonized Tariff Scheduleof the United States is amended by striking‘‘33.02 cm’’ in the article description and in-serting ‘‘34.29 cm’’:

(1) Subheading 8528.12.12.(2) Subheading 8528.12.20.(3) Subheading 8528.12.62.(4) Subheading 8528.12.68.(5) Subheading 8528.12.76.(6) Subheading 8528.12.84.(7) Subheading 8528.21.16.(8) Subheading 8528.21.24.(9) Subheading 8528.21.55.(10) Subheading 8528.21.65.(11) Subheading 8528.21.75.(12) Subheading 8528.21.85.(13) Subheading 8528.30.62.(14) Subheading 8528.30.66.(15) Subheading 8540.11.24.(16) Subheading 8540.11.44.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by

this section apply to articles entered, orwithdrawn from warehouse for consumption,on or after the date that is 15 days after thedate of enactment of this Act.

(2) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.—Notwith-standing section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930or any other provision of law, upon properrequest filed with the Customs Service notlater than 180 days after the date of enact-ment of this Act, any entry, or withdrawalfrom warehouse for consumption, of an arti-cle described in a subheading listed in para-graphs (1) through (16) of subsection (a)—

(A) that was made on or after January 1,1995, and before the date that is 15 days afterthe date of enactment of this Act,

(B) with respect to which there would havebeen no duty or a lesser duty if the amend-ments made by subsection (a) applied to suchentry, and

(C) that is—(i) unliquidated,(ii) under protest, or(iii) otherwise not final,

shall be liquidated or reliquidated as thoughsuch amendment applied to such entry.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES770 January 20, 1999TITLE II—TEMPORARY DUTY SUSPENSIONS AND REDUCTIONS; OTHER TRADE PROVISIONS

Subtitle A—Temporary Duty Suspensions and Reductions

CHAPTER 1—REFERENCE

SEC. 2001. REFERENCE.Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this subtitle an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to,

or repeal of, a chapter, subchapter, note, additional U.S. note, heading, subheading, or other provision, the reference shall be consideredto be made to a chapter, subchapter, note, additional U.S. note, heading, subheading, or other provision of the Harmonized Tariff Scheduleof the United States (19 U.S.C. 3007).

CHAPTER 2—DUTY SUSPENSIONS AND REDUCTIONS

SEC. 2101. DIIODOMETHYL-P-TOLYLSULFONE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.90 Diiodomethyl-p-tolylsulfone(CAS No. 20018–09–1) (provided forin subheading 2930.90.10) ............. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2102. RACEMIC dl-MENTHOL.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.06 Racemic dl-menthol (intermedi-ate (E) for use in producing men-thol) (CAS No. 15356–70–4) (pro-vided for in subheading2906.11.00) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2103. 2,4-DICHLORO-5-HYDRAZINOPHENOL MONOHY- DROCHLORIDE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.28 2,4-Dichloro-5-hydrazinophenolmonohy drochloride (CAS No.189573–21–5) (provided for in sub-heading 2928.00.25) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2104. TAB.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.95 Phosphinic acid, [3-(acetyloxy)-3-cyanopropyl]methyl-, butyl ester(CAS No. 167004–78–6) (providedfor in subheading 2931.00.90) ........ Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2105. CERTAIN SNOWBOARD BOOTS.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.64.04 Snowboard boots with uppers oftextile materials (provided for insubheading 6404.11.90) .................. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2106. ETHOFUMESATE SINGULARLY OR IN MIXTURE WITH APPLICATION ADJUVANTS.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.31.12 2-Ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-di-methyl-5-benzofuranyl-methanesulfonate(ethofumesate) singularly or inmixture with application adju-vants (CAS No. 26225–79–6) (pro-vided for in subheading 2932.99.08or 3808.30.15) ................................ Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2107. 3-METHOXYCARBONYLAMINOPHENYL-3′-METHYL-CARBANILATE (PHENMEDIPHAM).Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.31.13 3-Methoxycarbonylamino-phenyl-3′-methylcarbanilate(phenmedipham) (CAS No. 13684–63–4) (provided for in subheading2924.29.47) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2108. 3-ETHOXYCARBONYLAMINOPHENYL-N-PHENYL-CARBAMATE (DESMEDIPHAM).Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.31.14 3-Ethoxycarbonylamino-phenyl-N-phenylcarbamate(desmedipham) (CAS No. 13684–56–5) (provided for in subheading2924.29.41) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2109. 2-AMINO-4-(4-AMINOBENZOYLAMINO)BENZENE-SULFONIC ACID, SODIUM SALT.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S771January 20, 1999

‘‘ 9902.30.91 2-Amino-4-(4-aminobenzoyl-amino) benzenesulfonic acid, so-dium salt (CAS No. 167614–37–1)(provided for in subheading2930.90.29) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2110. 5-AMINO-N-(2-HYDROXYETHYL)-2,3-XYLENESUL- FONAMIDE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.30.31 5-Amino-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2,3-xylenesulfonamide (CAS No.25797–78–8) (provided for in sub-heading 2935.00.95) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2111. 3-AMINO-2′-(SULFATOETHYLSULFONYL) ETHYL BENZAMIDE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.30.90 3-Amino-2′-(sulfatoethylsulfonyl)ethyl benzamide (CAS No. 121315–20–6) (provided for in subheading2930.90.29) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2112. 4-CHLORO-3-NITROBENZENESULFONIC ACID, MONOPOTASSIUM SALT.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.30.92 4-Chloro-3-nitrobenzenesulfonicacid, monopotassium salt (CASNo. 6671–49–4) (provided for insubheading 2904.90.47) .................. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2113. 2-AMINO-5-NITROTHIAZOLE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.46 2-Amino-5-nitrothiazole (CASNo. 121–66–4) (provided for in sub-heading 2934.10.90) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2114. 4-CHLORO-3-NITROBENZENESULFONIC ACID.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.30.04 4-Chloro-3-nitrobenzenesulfonicacid (CAS No. 121–18–6) (providedfor in subheading 2904.90.47) ........ Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2115. 6-AMINO-1,3-NAPHTHALENEDISULFONIC ACID.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.21 6-Amino-1,3-naphthalenedisulfonic acid (CASNo. 118–33–2) (provided for in sub-heading 2921.45.90) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2116. 4-CHLORO-3-NITROBENZENESULFONIC ACID, MONOSODIUM SALT.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.24 4-Chloro-3-nitrobenzenesulfonicacid, monosodium salt (CAS No.17691–19–9) (provided for in sub-heading 2904.90.40) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2117. 2-METHYL-5-NITROBENZENESULFONIC ACID.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.23 2-Methyl-5-nitrobenzenesulfonicacid (CAS No. 121–03–9) (providedfor in subheading 2904.90.20) ........ Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2118. 6-AMINO-1,3-NAPHTHALENEDISULFONIC ACID, DISODIUM SALT.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.45 6-Amino-1,3-naphthalenedisulfonic acid, diso-dium salt (CAS No. 50976–35–7)(provided for in subheading2921.45.90) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2119. 2-AMINO-P-CRESOL.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.20 2-Amino-p-cresol (CAS No. 95–84–1) (provided for in subheading2922.29.10) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES772 January 20, 1999SEC. 2120. 6-BROMO-2,4-DINITROANILINE.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.43 6-Bromo-2,4-dinitroaniline (CASNo. 1817–73–8) (provided for insubheading 2921.42.90) .................. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2121. 7-ACETYLAMINO-4-HYDROXY-2-NAPHTHALENE-SULFONIC ACID, MONOSODIUM SALT.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.29 7-Acetylamino-4-hydroxy-2-naphthalenesulfonic acid, mono-sodium salt (CAS No. 42360–29–2)(provided for in subheading2924.29.70) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2122. TANNIC ACID.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.01 Tannic acid (CAS No. 1401–55–4)(provided for in subheading3201.90.10) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2123. 2-AMINO-5-NITROBENZENESULFONIC ACID, MONOSODIUM SALT.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.53 2-Amino-5-nitrobenzenesulfonicacid, monosodium salt (CAS No.30693–53–9) (provided for in sub-heading 2921.42.90) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2124. 2-AMINO-5-NITROBENZENESULFONIC ACID, MONOAMMONIUM SALT.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.44 2-Amino-5-nitrobenzenesulfonicacid, monoammonium salt (CASNo. 4346–51–4) (provided for insubheading 2921.42.90) .................. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2125. 2-AMINO-5-NITROBENZENESULFONIC ACID.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.54 2-Amino-5-nitrobenzenesulfonicacid (CAS No. 96–75–3) (providedfor in subheading 2921.42.90) ........ Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2126. 3-(4,5-DIHYDRO-3-METHYL-5-OXO-1H-PYRAZOL-1-YL)BENZENESULFONIC ACID.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.33.19 3-(4,5-Dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-pyrazol-1-yl)benzenesulfonic acid(CAS No. 119–17–5) (provided forin subheading 2933.19.43) ............. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2127. 4-BENZOYLAMINO-5-HYDROXY-2,7-NAPHTHA- LENEDISULFONIC ACID.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.65 4-Benzoylamino-5-hydroxy-2,7-naphthalenedisulfonic acid (CASNo. 117–46–4) (provided for in sub-heading 2924.29.75) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2128. 4-BENZOYLAMINO-5-HYDROXY-2,7-NAPHTHA- LENEDISULFONIC ACID, MONOSODIUM SALT.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.72 4-Benzoylamino-5-hydroxy-2,7-naphthalenedisulfonic acid,monosodium salt (CAS No. 79873–39–5) (provided for in subheading2924.29.70) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2129. PIGMENT YELLOW 151.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.04 Pigment Yellow 151 (CAS No.031837–42–0) (provided for in sub-heading 3204.17.90) ....................... 6.4% No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2130. PIGMENT YELLOW 181.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.17 Pigment Yellow 181 (CAS No.074441–05–7) (provided for in sub-heading 3204.17.60) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S773January 20, 1999SEC. 2131. PIGMENT YELLOW 154.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.18 Pigment Yellow 154 (CAS No.068134–22–5) (provided for in sub-heading 3204.17.60) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2132. PIGMENT YELLOW 175.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.19 Pigment Yellow 175 (CAS No.035636–63–6) (provided for in sub-heading 3204.17.60) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2133. PIGMENT YELLOW 180.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.20 Pigment Yellow 180 (CAS No.77804–81–0) (provided for in sub-heading 3204.17.60) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2134. PIGMENT YELLOW 191.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.21 Pigment Yellow 191 (CAS No.129423–54–7) (provided for in sub-heading 3204.17.60) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2135. PIGMENT RED 187.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.22 Pigment Red 187 (CAS No. 59487–23–9) (provided for in subheading3204.17.60) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2136. PIGMENT RED 247.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.23 Pigment Red 247 (CAS No. 43035-18-3) (provided for in subheading3204.17.60) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2137. PIGMENT ORANGE 72.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.24 Pigment Orange 72 (CAS No.78245–94–0) (provided for in sub-heading 3204.17.60) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2138. PIGMENT YELLOW 16.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.25 Pigment Yellow 16 (CAS No.5979–28–2) (provided for in sub-heading 3204.17.04) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2139. PIGMENT RED 185.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.26 Pigment Red 185 (CAS No. 51920–12–8) (provided for in subheading3204.17.04) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2140. PIGMENT RED 208.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.27 Pigment Red 208 (CAS No. 31778–10–6) (provided for in subheading3204.17.04) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2141. PIGMENT RED 188.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.28 Pigment Red 188 (CAS No. 61847–48–1) (provided for in subheading3204.17.04) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2142. 2,6-DIMETHYL-M-DIOXAN-4-OL ACETATE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES774 January 20, 1999

‘‘ 9902.32.94 2,6-Dimethyl-m-dioxan-4-ol ace-tate (CAS No. 000828–00–2) (pro-vided for in subheading2932.99.90) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2143. β-BROMO-β-NITROSTYRENE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.92 β-Bromo-β-nitrostyrene (CAS No.7166–19–0) (provided for in sub-heading 2904.90.47) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2144. TEXTILE MACHINERY.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.84.43 Ink-jet textile printing machin-ery (provided for in subheading8443.51.10) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2145. DELTAMETHRIN.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.30.18 (S)-α-Cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl(1R,3R)-3-(2,2-dibromovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxyla-te (deltamethrin) in bulk or informs or packings for retail sale(CAS No. 52918–63–5) (provided forin subheading 2926.90.30 or3808.10.25) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2146. DICLOFOP-METHYL.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by striking heading 9902.30.16 and inserting the following:

‘‘ 9902.30.16 Methyl 2-[4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenoxy] pro-pionate (diclofop-methyl) in bulkor in forms or packages for retailsale containing no other pes-ticide products (CAS No. 51338–27–3) (provided for in subheading2918.90.20 or 3808.30.15) ................. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2147. RESMETHRIN.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.29 ([5-(Phenylmethyl)-3-furanyl]methyl 2,2-dimethyl-3-(2-methyl-1-propenyl)cyclopropanecarboxylate(resmethrin) (CAS No. 10453–86–8)(provided for in subheading2932.19.10) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2148. N-PHENYL-N’-1,2,3-THIADIAZOL-5-YLUREA.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by striking heading 9902.30.17 and inserting the following:

‘‘ 9902.30.17 N-phenyl-N′-1,2,3-thiadiazol-5-ylurea (thidiazuron) in bulk or informs or packages for retail sale(CAS No. 51707–55–2) (provided forin subheading 2934.90.15 or3808.30.15) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2149. (1R,3S)3[(1′RS)(1′,2′,2′,2′,-TETRABROMOETHYL)]-2,2-DIMETHYLCYCLOPROPANECARBOXYLIC ACID, (S)-ù-CYANO-3-PHENOXYBENZYL ESTER.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.30.19 (1R,3S)3[(1′RS)(1′,2′,2′,2′,-Tetrabromoethyl)]-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylicacid, (S)-α-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl ester in bulk orin forms or packages for retailsale (CAS No. 66841–25–6) (pro-vided for in subheading 2926.90.30or 3808.10.25) ................................ Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2150. PIGMENT YELLOW 109.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.00 Pigment Yellow 109 (CAS No.106276–79–3) (provided for in sub-heading 3204.17.04) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S775January 20, 1999SEC. 2151. PIGMENT YELLOW 110.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.05 Pigment Yellow 110 (CAS No.106276–80–6) (provided for in sub-heading 3204.17.04) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2152. PIGMENT RED 177.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.30.58 Pigment Red 177 (CAS No. 4051–63–2) (provided for in subheading3204.17.04) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2153. TEXTILE PRINTING MACHINERY.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.84.20 Textile printing machinery (pro-vided for in subheading 8443.59.10) Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2154. SUBSTRATES OF SYNTHETIC QUARTZ OR SYNTHETIC FUSED SILICA.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.70.06 Substrates of synthetic quartz orsynthetic fused silica imported inbulk or in forms or packages forretail sale (provided for in sub-heading 7006.00.40) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2155. 2-METHYL-4,6-BIS[(OCTYLTHIO)METHYL]PHENOL.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.14 2-Methyl-4,6- bis[(octylthio)methyl]phenol (CAS No. 110553–27–0) (provided for in subheading2930.90.29) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2156. 2-METHYL-4,6-BIS[(OCTYLTHIO)METHYL]PHENOL; EPOXIDIZED TRIGLYCERIDE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.38.12 2-Methyl-4,6- bis[(octylthio)methyl]phenol; epoxidizedtriglyceride (provided for in sub-heading 3812.30.60) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2157. 4-[[4,6-BIS(OCTYLTHIO)-1,3,5-TRIAZIN-2-YL]AMINO] -2,6-BIS(1,1-DIMETHYLETHYL)PHENOL.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.30 4-[[4,6-Bis(octylthio)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenol (CAS No.991–84–4) (provided for in sub-heading 2933.69.60) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2158. (2-BENZOTHIAZOLYLTHIO)BUTANEDIOIC ACID.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.31 (2-Benzothiazolylthio)butane-dioic acid (CAS No. 95154–01–1)(provided for in subheading2934.20.40) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2159. CALCIUM BIS[MONOETHYL(3,5-DI-TERT-BUTYL-4-HYDROXYBENZYL) PHOSPHONATE].Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.16 Calcium bis[monoethyl(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxybenzyl)phosphonate] (CAS No. 65140–91–2) (provided for in subheading2931.00.30) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2160. 4-METHYL-£-OXO-BENZENEBUTANOIC ACID COMPOUNDED WITH 4-ETHYLMORPHOLINE (2:1).Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.38.26 4-Methyl-γ-oxo-benzenebutanoicacid compounded with 4-ethylmorpholine (2:1) (CAS No.171054–89–0) (provided for in sub-heading 3824.90.28) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2161. WEAVING MACHINES.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES776 January 20, 1999

‘‘ 9902.84.46 Weaving machines (looms),shuttleless type, for weaving fab-rics of a width exceeding 30 cmbut not exceeding 4.9 m (providedfor in subheading 8446.30.50), en-tered without off-loom or largeloom take-ups, drop wires,heddles, reeds, harness frames,or beams ..................................... 3.3% No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2162. CERTAIN WEAVING MACHINES.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.84.10 Power weaving machines(looms), shuttle type, for weav-ing fabrics of a width exceeding30 cm but not exceeding 4.9m(provided for in subheading8446.21.50), if entered without off-loom or large loom take-ups,drop wires, heddles, reeds, har-ness frames or beams .................. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2163. DEMT.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by striking heading 9902.32.12 and inserting the following:

‘‘ 9902.32.12 N,N-Diethyl-m-toluidine (DEMT)(CAS No. 91–67–8) (provided for insubheading 2921.43.80) .................. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2164. BENZENEPROPANAL, 4-(1,1-DIMETHYLETHYL)-ALPHA-METHYL-.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.57 Benzenepropanal, 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-alpha-methyl-(CAS No. 80–54–6) (provided for insubheading 2912.29.60) .................. 6% No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2165. 2H–3,1-BENZOXAZIN-2-ONE, 6-CHLORO-4-(CYCLO-PROPYLETHYNYL)-1,4-DIHYDRO-4-(TRIFLUOROMETHYL)-.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.56 2H–3,1-Benzoxazin-2-one, 6-chloro-4-(cyclopropylethynyl)-1,4-dihydro-4-(trifluoromethyl)-(CAS No. 154598–52–4) (providedfor in subheading 2934.90.30) ........ Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2166. TEBUFENOZIDE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.32 N-tert-Butyl-N’-(4-ethylbenzoyl)-3,5-Dimethylbenzoylhydrazide(Tebufenozide) (CAS No. 112410-23-8) (provided for in subheading2928.00.25) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2167. HALOFENOZIDE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.36 Benzoic acid, 4-chloro-2-benzoyl-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl) hydrazide(Halofenozide) (CAS No. 112226-61-6) (provided for in subheading2928.00.25) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2168. CERTAIN ORGANIC PIGMENTS AND DYES.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.07 Organic luminescent pigmentsand dyes for security applica-tions excluding daylight fluores-cent pigments and dyes (providedfor in subheading 3204.90.00) ........ Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2169. 4-HEXYLRESORCINOL.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.07 4-Hexylresorcinol (CAS No. 136–77–6) (provided for in subheading2907.29.90) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2170. CERTAIN SENSITIZING DYES.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S777January 20, 1999

‘‘ 9902.29.37 Polymethine photo-sensitizingdyes (provided for in subheadings2933.19.30, 2933.19.90, 2933.90.24,2934.10.90, 2934.20.40, 2934.90.20,and 2934.90.90) .............................. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2171. SKATING BOOTS FOR USE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF IN-LINE ROLLER SKATES.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.64.05 Boots for use in the manufac-ture of in-line roller skates (pro-vided for in subheadings6402.19.90, 6403.19.40, 6403.19.70,and 6404.11.90) ............................. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2172. DIBUTYLNAPHTHALENESULFONIC ACID, SODIUM SALT.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.34.02 Surface active preparation con-taining 30 percent or more byweight ofdibutylnaphthalenesulfonic acid,sodium salt (CAS No. 25638–17–9)(provided for in subheading3402.90.30) ..................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2173. O-(6-CHLORO-3-PHENYL-4-PYRIDAZINYL)-S-OCTYLCARBONOTHIOATE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.38.08 O-(6-Chloro-3-phenyl-4-pyridazinyl)-S-octyl-carbonothioate (CAS No. 55512–33–9) (provided for in subheading3808.30.15) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2174. 4-CYCLOPROPYL-6-METHYL-2-PHENYLAMINOPY-RIMIDINE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.50 4-Cyclopropyl-6-methyl-2-phenylaminopyrimidine (CASNo. 121552–61–2) (provided for insubheading 2933.59.15) .................. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2175. O,O-DIMETHYL-S-[5-METHOXY-2-OXO-1,3,4-THIADI-AZOL-3(2H)-YL-METHYL]DITHIOPHOSPHATE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.51 O,O-Dimethyl-S-[5-methoxy-2-oxo-1,3,4-thiadiazol-3(2H)-yl-methyl]dithiophosphate (CASNo. 950–37–8) (provided for in sub-heading 2934.90.90) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2176. ETHYL [2-(4-PHENOXY-PHENOXY) ETHYL] CARBAMATE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.52 Ethyl [2-(4-phenoxyphenoxy)-ethyl]carbamate (CAS No. 79127–80–3) (provided for in subheading2924.10.80) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2177. [(2S,4R)/(2R,4S)]/[(2R,4R)/(2S,4S)]-1-[2-[4-(4-CHLORO-PHENOXY)-2-CHLOROPHENYL]-4-METHYL-1,3-DIOXOLAN-2-YLMETHYL]-1H-1,2,4-TRIAZOLE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.74 [(2S,4R)/(2R,4S)]/[(2R,4R)/(2S,4S)]-1-[2-[4-(4-Chloro-phenoxy)-2-chlorophenyl]-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl- meth-yl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole (CAS No.119446-68-3) (provided for in sub-heading 2934.90.12) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2178. 2,4-DICHLORO-3,5-DINITROBENZOTRIFLUORIDE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.12 2,4-Dichloro-3,5-dinitrobenzotrifluoride (CAS No.29091–09–6) (provided for in sub-heading 2910.90.20) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2179. 2-CHLORO-N-[2,6-DINITRO-4-(TRIFLUOROMETHYL) PHENYL]-N-ETHYL-6-FLUOROBENZENEMETHANAMINE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES778 January 20, 1999

‘‘ 9902.29.15 2-Chloro-N-[2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-N-ethyl-6-fluorobenzenemethanamine (CASNo. 62924–70–3) (provided for insubheading 2921.49.45) .................. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2180. CHLOROACETONE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.11 Chloroacetone (CAS No. 78–95–5)(provided for in subheading2914.19.00) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2181. ACETIC ACID, [(5-CHLORO-8-QUINOLINYL)OXY]-, 1-METHYLHEXYL ESTER.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.60 Acetic acid, [(5-chloro-8-quino-linyl)oxy]-, 1-methylhexyl ester(CAS No. 99607–70–2) (provided forin subheading 2933.40.30) ............. Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2001 ’’.

SEC. 2182. PROPANOIC ACID, 2-[4-[(5-CHLORO-3-FLUORO-2-PYRIDINYL)OXY]PHENOXY]-, 2-PROPYNYL ESTER.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.19 Propanoic acid, 2-[4-[(5-chloro-3-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]phenoxy]-,2-propynyl ester (CAS No. 105512–06–9) (provided for in subheading2933.39.25) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2183. MUCOCHLORIC ACID.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.18 Mucochloric acid (CAS No. 87–56–9) (provided for in subheading2918.30.90) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2184. CERTAIN ROCKET ENGINES.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.84.12 Dual thrust chamber rocket en-gines each having a maximumstatic sea level thrust exceeding3,550 kN and nozzle exit diameterexceeding 127 cm (provided for insubheading 8412.10.00) .................. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2185. PIGMENT RED 144.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.11 Pigment Red 144 (CAS No. 5280–78–4) (provided for in subheading3204.17.04) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2186. PIGMENT ORANGE 64.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.09 Pigment Orange 64 (CAS No.72102–84–2) (provided for in sub-heading 3204.17.60) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2187. PIGMENT YELLOW 95.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.08 Pigment Yellow 95 (CAS No.5280–80–8) (provided for in sub-heading 3204.17.04) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2188. PIGMENT YELLOW 93.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.13 Pigment Yellow 93 (CAS No.5580–57–4) (provided for in sub-heading 3204.17.04) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2189. (S)-N-[[5-[2-(2-AMINO-4,6,7,8-TETRAHYDRO-4-OXO-1H-PYRIMIDO[5,4-B] [1,4]THIAZIN-6-YL)ETHYL]-2-THIENYL]CARBONYL]-L-GLUTAMIC ACID,DIETHYL ESTER.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S779January 20, 1999

‘‘ 9902.32.33 (S)-N-[[5-[2-(2-Amino-4,6,7,8-tetrahydro-4-oxo-1H-pyrimido[5,4-b] [1,4]thiazin-6-yl)ethyl]-2-thienyl]carbonyl]-L-glutamic acid, diethyl ester(CAS No. 177575–19–8) (providedfor in subheading 2934.90.90) ........ Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2190. 4-CHLOROPYRIDINE HYDROCHLORIDE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.34 4-Chloropyridine hydrochloride(CAS No. 7379–35–3) (provided forin subheading 2933.39.61) ............. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2191. 4-PHENOXYPYRIDINE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.35 4-Phenoxypyridine (CAS No.4783–86–2) (provided for in sub-heading 2933.39.61) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2192. (3S)-2,2-DIMETHYL-3-THIOMORPHOLINE CARBOXYLIC ACID.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.36 (3S)-2,2-Dimethyl-3-thiomorpholine carboxylic acid(CAS No. 84915–43–5) (provided forin subheading 2934.90.90) ............. Free No Change No Change On or before 12/31/2001 ’’.

SEC. 2193. 2-AMINO-5-BROMO-6-METHYL-4-(1H)-QUINAZOLI-NONE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.37 2-Amino-5-bromo-6-methyl-4-(1H)-quinazolinone (CAS No.147149–89–1) (provided for in sub-heading 2933.59.70) ....................... Free No Change No Change On or before 12/31/2001 ’’.

SEC. 2194. 2-AMINO-6-METHYL-5-(4-PYRIDINYLTHIO)-4(1H)-QUINAZOLINONE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.38 2-Amino-6-methyl-5-(4-pyridinylthio)-4(1H)-quinazolinone (CAS No. 147149–76–6) (provided for in subheading2933.59.70) .................................... Free No Change No Change On or before 12/31/2001 ’’.

SEC. 2195. (S)-N-[[5-[2-(2-AMINO-4,6,7,8-TETRAHYDRO-4-OXO-1H-PYRIMIDO[5,4-B][1,4]THIAZIN-6-YL)ETHYL]-2-THIENYL]CARBONYL]-L-GLUTAMIC ACID.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.39 (S)-N-[[5-[2-(2-Amino-4,6,7,8-tetrahydro-4-oxo-1H-pyrimido[5,4-b][1,4]thiazin-6-yl)ethyl]-2-thienyl]carbonyl]-L-glutamic acid (CAS No. 177575–17–6) (provided for in subheading2934.90.90) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2196. 2-AMINO-6-METHYL-5-(4-PYRIDINYLTHIO)-4-(1H)-QUINAZOLINONE DIHYDROCHLORIDE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.40 2-Amino-6-methyl-5-(4-pyridinylthio)-4-(1H)-quinazolinone dihydrochloride(CAS No. 152946–68–4) (providedfor in subheading 2933.59.70) ........ Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2197. 3-(ACETYLOXY)-2-METHYLBENZOIC ACID.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.41 3-(Acetyloxy)-2-methylbenzoicacid (CAS No. 168899–58–9) (pro-vided for in subheading2918.29.65) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2198. [R-(R*,R*)]-1,2,3,4-BUTANETETROL-1,4-DIMETH- ANESULFONATE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.42 [R-(R*,R*)]-1,2,3,4-Butanetetrol-1,4-dimethanesulfonate (CAS No.1947–62–2) (provided for in sub-heading 2905.49.50) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2199. 9-[2- [[BIS[(PIVALOYLOXY) METHOXY]PHOS- PHINYL]METHOXY] ETHYL]ADENINE (ALSO KNOWN AS ADEFOVIR DIPIVOXIL).Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES780 January 20, 1999

‘‘ 9902.33.01 9-[2- [[Bis[(pivaloyloxy)-methoxy]phosphinyl]- methoxy]ethyl]adenine (also known asAdefovir Dipivoxil) (CAS No.142340–99–6) (provided for in sub-heading 2933.59.95) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2200. 9-[2-(R)-[[BIS[(ISOPROPOXYCARBONYL)OXY- METHOXY]-PHOSPHINOYL]METHOXY]-PROPYL]ADENINE FUMARATE (1:1).

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.33.02 9-[2-(R)-[[Bis[(isopropoxy- car-bonyl)oxymethoxy]-phosphinoyl]methoxy]-propyl]adenine fumarate (1:1)(CAS No. 202138-50-9) (providedfor in subheading 2933.59.95) ........ Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2201. (R)-9-(2-PHOSPHONOMETHOXYPROPYL)ADE- NINE.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.33.03 (R)-9-(2-Phosphono-methoxypropyl)adenine (CAS No.147127–20–6) (provided for in sub-heading 2933.59.95) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2202. (R)-1,3-DIOXOLAN-2-ONE, 4-METHYL-.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.33.04 (R)-1,3-Dioxolan-2-one, 4-methyl-(CAS No. 16606–55–6) (provided forin subheading 2920.90.50) ............. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2203. 9-(2-HYDROXYETHYL)ADENINE.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.33.05 9-(2-Hydroxyethyl)adenine (CASNo. 707–99–3) (provided for in sub-heading 2933.59.95) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2204. (R)-9H-PURINE-9-ETHANOL, 6-AMINO-α-METHYL-.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.33.06 (R)-9H-Purine-9-ethanol, 6-amino-α-methyl- (CAS No. 14047–28–0) (provided for in subheading2933.59.95) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2205. CHLOROMETHYL-2-PROPYL CARBONATE.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.33.07 Chloromethyl-2-propyl carbonate(CAS No. 35180–01–9) (provided forin subheading 2920.90.50) ............. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2206. (R)-1,2-PROPANEDIOL, 3-CHLORO-.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.33.08 (R)-1,2-Propanediol, 3-chloro-(CAS No. 57090–45–6) (provided forin subheading 2905.50.60) ............. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2207. OXIRANE, (S)-((TRIPHENYLMETHOXY)METHYL)-.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.33.09 Oxirane, (S)-((triphenylmethoxy)methyl)-(CAS No. 129940–50–7) (providedfor in subheading 2910.90.20) ........ Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2208. CHLOROMETHYL PIVALATE.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.33.10 Chloromethyl pivalate (CAS No.18997–19–8) (provided for in sub-heading 2915.90.50) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2209. DIETHYL (((P-TOLUENESULFONYL)OXY)- METHYL)PHOSPHONATE.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S781January 20, 1999

‘‘ 9902.33.11 Diethyl (((p-toluenesulfonyl)oxy)- meth-yl)phosphonate (CAS No. 31618–90–3) (provided for in subheading2931.00.30) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2210. BETA HYDROXYALKYLAMIDE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.38.25 N,N,N’,N’-Tetrakis-(2-hydroxy-ethyl)-hexane diamide (betahydroxyalkylamide) (CAS No.6334–25–4) (provided for in sub-heading 3824.90.90) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2211. GRILAMID TR90.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.39.12 Dodecanedioic acid, polymerwith 4,41-methylenebis (2-methylcyclohexanamine) (CASNo. 163800–66–6) (provided for insubheading 3908.90.70) ................. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2212. IN–W4280.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.51 2,4-Dichloro-5-hydroxy-phenylhydrazine (CAS No. 39807–21–1) (provided for in subheading2928.00.25) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2213. KL540.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.54 Methyl 4-trifluoromethoxyphenyl-N-(chlorocarbonyl) carbamate(CAS No. 173903–15–6) (providedfor in subheading 2924.29.70) ....... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2214. METHYL THIOGLYCOLATE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.55 Methyl thioglycolate (CAS No.2365–48–2) (provided for in sub-heading 2930.90.90) ...................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2215. DPX–E6758.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.33.59 Phenyl (4,6-dimethoxy-pyrimidin-2-yl) carbamate (CASNo. 89392-03-0) (provided for insubheading 2933.59.70) ................. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2216. ETHYLENE, TETRAFLUORO COPOLYMER WITH ETHYLENE (ETFE).Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.68 Ethylene-tetrafluoro ethylenecopolymer (ETFE) (provided forin subheading 3904.69.50) ............. 3.3% No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2217. 3-MERCAPTO-D-VALINE.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.66 3-Mercapto-D-valine (CAS No.52–67–5) (provided for in sub-heading 2930.90.45) ...................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001 ’’.

SEC. 2218. P-ETHYLPHENOL.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.31.21 p-Ethylphenol (CAS No. 123–07–9) (provided for in subheading2907.19.20) ................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2219. PANTERA.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES782 January 20, 1999

‘‘ 9902.29.09 (+/¥)- Tetrahydrofurfuryl (R)-2[4-(6-chloroquinoxalin-2-yloxy)phenoxy] propanoate (CASNo. 119738–06–6) (provided for insubheading 2909.30.40) and anymixtures containing such com-pound (provided for in sub-heading 3808.30) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2220. P-NITROBENZOIC ACID.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.70 p-Nitrobenzoic acid (CAS No. 62–23–7) (provided for in subheading2916.39.45) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2221. P-TOLUENESULFONAMIDE.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.95 p-Toluenesulfonamide (CAS No.70–55–3) (provided for in sub-heading 2935.00.95) ...................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2222. POLYMERS OF TETRAFLUOROETHYLENE, HEXAFLUOROPROPYLENE, AND VINYLIDENE FLUORIDE.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.39.04 Polymers of tetrafluoroethylene(provided for in subheading3904.61.00), hexafluoropropyleneand vinylidene fluoride (pro-vided for in subheading3904.69.50) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2223. METHYL 2-[[[[[4-(DIMETHYLAMINO)-6-(2,2,2- TRI- FLUOROETHOXY)-1,3,5-TRIAZIN-2-YL]AMINO]- CARBONYL]AMINO]SULFONYL]-3-METHYL- BENZO-ATE (TRIFLUSULFURON METHYL).

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.38.11 Methyl 2-[[[[[4- (dimethylamino)-6-(2,2,2- trifluoroethoxy)- 1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]carbonyl]-amino]sulfonyl]-3-methylbenzoate (triflusulfuronmethyl) in mixture with applica-tion adjuvants. (CAS No. 126535–15–7) (provided for in subheading3808.30.15) ..................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2224. CERTAIN MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new headings:

‘‘ 9902.84.79 Calendaring or other rolling ma-chines for rubber to be used inthe production of radial tires de-signed for off-the-highway useand with a rim measuring 86 cmor more in diameter (providedfor in subheading 4011.20.10 orsubheading 4011.91.50 or sub-heading 4011.99.40), numericallycontrolled, or parts thereof (pro-vided for in subheading 8420.10.90,8420.91.90 or 8420.99.90) and mate-rial holding devices or similarattachments thereto ................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

9902.84.81 Shearing machines to be used tocut metallic tissue for use in theproduction of radial tires de-signed for off-the-highway useand with a rim measuring 86 cmor more in diameter (providedfor in subheading 4011.20.10 orsubheading 4011.91.50 or sub-heading 4011.99.40), numericallycontrolled, or parts thereof (pro-vided for in subheading 8462.31.00or subheading 8466.94.85) ............. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S783January 20, 19999902.84.83 Machine tools for working wire

of iron or steel to be used in theproduction of radial tires de-signed for off-the-highway useand with a rim measuring 86 cmor more in diameter (providedfor in subheading 4011.20.10 orsubheading 4011.91.50 or sub-heading 4011.99.40), numericallycontrolled, or parts thereof (pro-vided for in subheading 8463.30.00or 8466.94.85) ................................ Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

9902.84.85 Extruders to be used in the pro-duction of radial tires designedfor off-the-highway use and witha rim measuring 86 cm or morein diameter (provided for in sub-heading 4011.20.10 or subheading4011.91.50 or subheading4011.99.40), numerically con-trolled, or parts thereof (pro-vided for in subheading 8477.20.00or 8477.90.85) ................................ Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

9902.84.87 Machinery for molding, retread-ing, or otherwise forminguncured, unvulcanized rubber tobe used in the production of ra-dial tires designed for off-the-highway use and with a rimmeasuring 86 cm or more in di-ameter (provided for in sub-heading 4011.20.10 or subheading4011.91.50 or subheading4011.99.40), numerically con-trolled, or parts thereof (pro-vided for in subheading 8477.51.00or 8477.90.85) ................................ Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

9902.84.89 Sector mold press machines tobe used in the production of ra-dial tires designed for off-the-highway use and with a rimmeasuring 86 cm or more in di-ameter (provided for in sub-heading 4011.20.10 or subheading4011.91.50 or subheading4011.99.40), numerically con-trolled, or parts thereof (pro-vided for in subheading 8477.51.00or subheading 8477.90.85) ............. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

9902.84.91 Sawing machines to be used inthe production of radial tires de-signed for off-the-highway useand with a rim measuring 86 cmor more in diameter (providedfor in subheading 4011.20.10 orsubheading 4011.91.50 or sub-heading 4011.99.40), numericallycontrolled, or parts thereof (pro-vided for in subheading 8465.91.00or subheading 8466.92.50) ............. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2225. TEXTURED ROLLED GLASS SHEETS.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by striking heading 9902.70.03 and inserting the following:

‘‘ 9902.70.03 Rolled glass in sheets, yellow-green in color, not finished oredged-worked, textured on onesurface, suitable for incorpora-tion in cooking stoves, ranges,or ovens described in subhead-ings 8516.60.40 (provided for insubheading 7003.12.00 or7003.19.00) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2226. CERTAIN HIV DRUG SUBSTANCES.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new headings:

‘‘ 9902.32.43 (S)-N-tert-Butyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-3-isoquinolinecarboxamide hydrochloride salt(CAS No. 149057–17–0)(provided forin subheading 2933.40.60) .............. Free No change No change On or before 6/30/99

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES784 January 20, 19999902.32.44 (S)-N-tert-Butyl-1,2,3,4-

tetrahydro-3-isoquinolinecarboxamide sulfate salt (CASNo. 186537–30–4)(provided for insubheading 2933.40.60) ................... Free No change No change On or before 6/30/99

9902.32.45 (3S)-1,2,3,4-Tetrahydroisoquinoline-3-car-boxylic acid (CAS No. 74163–81–8)(provided for in subheading2933.40.60) ..................................... Free No change No change On or before 6/30/99

’’.

SEC. 2227. RIMSULFURON.(a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.33.60 N-[[(4,6-Dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonyl]-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide (CAS No.122931–48–0) (provided for in sub-heading 2935.00.75) ........................ 7.3% No change No change On or before 12/31/99

’’.

(b) RATE FOR 2000.—Heading 9902.33.60, as added by subsection (a), is amended—(1) by striking ‘‘7.3%’’ and inserting ‘‘Free’’; and(2) by striking ‘‘12/31/99’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2000’’.(c) EFFECTIVE DATE FOR ADJUSTMENT.—The amendments made by subsection (b) apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse

for consumption, after December 31, 1999.SEC. 2228. CARBAMIC ACID (V–9069).

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.33.61 ((3-((Dimethylamino)carbonyl)-2-pyridinyl)sulfonyl) carbamicacid, phenyl ester (CAS No.112006–94–7) (provided for in sub-heading 2935.00.75) ....................... 8.3% No change No change On or before 12/31/99

’’.

(b) RATE ADJUSTMENT FOR 2000.—Heading 9902.33.61, as added by subsection (a), is amended—(1) by striking ‘‘8.3%’’ and inserting ‘‘7.6%’’; and(2) by striking ‘‘12/31/99’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2000’’.(c) EFFECTIVE DATE FOR ADJUSTMENT.—The amendments made by subsection (b) apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse

for consumption, after December 31, 1999.SEC. 2229. DPX–E9260.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.33.63 3-(Ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide (CAS No.117671–01–9) (provided for in sub-heading 2935.00.75) ...................... 6% No change No change On or before 12/31/99

’’.

(b) RATE ADJUSTMENT.—Heading 9902.33.63, as added by subsection (a), is amended—(1) by striking ‘‘6%’’ and inserting ‘‘5.3%’’; and(2) by striking ‘‘12/31/99’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2000’’.(c) EFFECTIVE DATES.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or

after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.(2) ADJUSTMENT.—The amendments made by subsection (b) apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, after

December 31, 1999.SEC. 2230. ZIRAM.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.38.28 Ziram (provided for in sub-heading 3808.20.28) .............. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/

2001 ’’.SEC. 2231. FERROBORON.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.72.02 Ferroboron to be used formanufacturing amorphousmetal strip (provided for insubheading 7202.99.50) ......... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/

2001 ’’.SEC. 2232. ACETIC ACID, [[2-CHLORO-4-FLUORO-5-[(TETRA- HYDRO-3-OXO-1H,3H-[1,3,4]THIADIAZOLO[3,4-a]PYRIDAZIN-1-YLIDENE)AMINO]PHENYL]- THIO]-,

METHYL ESTER.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.66 Acetic acid, [[2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-[(tetrahydro-3-oxo-1H,3H-[1,3,4]thiadiazolo- [3,4-a]pyridazin-1-ylidene)amino]phenyl]thio]-,methyl ester (CAS No. 117337–19–6) (provided for in subheading2934.90.15) ................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S785January 20, 1999SEC. 2233. PENTYL[2-CHLORO-5-(CYCLOHEX-1-ENE-1,2-DI- CARBOXIMIDO)-4-FLUOROPHENOXY]ACETATE.

Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.33.66 Pentyl[2-chloro-5-(cyclohex-1-ene-1,2-dicarboximido)-4-fluorophenoxy]acetate (CAS No.87546-18-7) (provided for in sub-heading 2925.19.40) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2234. BENTAZON (3-ISOPROPYL)-1H-2,1,3-BENZO-THIADIAZIN-4(3H)-ONE-2,2-DIOXIDE).Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.67 Bentazon (3-Isopropyl)-1H-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H)-one-2,2-di-oxide) (CAS No. 50723–80–3) (pro-vided for in subheading2934.90.11) .................................... 5.0% No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2235. CERTAIN HIGH-PERFORMANCE LOUDSPEAKERS NOT MOUNTED IN THEIR ENCLOSURES.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.85.20 Loudspeakers not mounted intheir enclosures (provided for insubheading 8518.29.80), the fore-going which meet a performancestandard of not more than 1.5 dBfor the average level of 3 or moreoctave bands, when such loud-speakers are tested in a rever-berant chamber ........................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2236. PARTS FOR USE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF CERTAIN HIGH-PERFORMANCE LOUDSPEAKERS.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.85.21 Parts for use in the manufactureof loudspeakers of a type de-scribed in subheading 9902.85.20(provided for in subheading8518.90.80) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2237. 5-TERT-BUTYL-ISOPHTHALIC ACID.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.33.12 5-tert-Butyl-iso-phthalicacid (CAS No. 2359–09–3) (pro-vided for in subheading2917.39.70) .............................. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/

2001 ’’.

SEC. 2238. CERTAIN POLYMER.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.39.07 A polymer of the followingmonomers: 1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-methyl ester (dimethylterephthalate) (CAS No. 120-61-6); 1,3-Benzenedicarboxylic acid,5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester, so-dium salt (sodium dimethylsulfoisophthalate) (CAS No. 3965-55-7); 1,2-ethanediol (ethyleneglycol) (CAS No. 107-21-1); and1,2-propanediol (propylene gly-col) (CAS No. 57-55-6); with ter-minal units from 2-(2-hydroxyethoxy) ethanesulfonicacid, sodium salt (CAS No. 53211-00-0) (provided for in subheading3907.99.00) .................................... Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

SEC. 2239. 2-(4-CHLOROPHENYL)-3-ETHYL-2, 5-DIHYDRO-5-OXO-4-PYRIDAZINE CARBOXYLIC ACID, POTASSIUM SALT.Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.33.16 2-(4-Chlorophenyl)-3-ethyl-2, 5-dihydro-5-oxo-4-pyridazine car-boxylic acid, potassium salt(CAS No. 82697–71–0) (provided forin subheading 2933.90.79) ............. Free No change No change On or before 12/31/2001

’’.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES786 January 20, 1999CHAPTER 3—EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 2301. EFFECTIVE DATE.Except as otherwise provided in this sub-

title, the amendments made by this subtitleapply to goods entered, or withdrawn fromwarehouse for consumption, after the datethat is 15 days after the date of enactment ofthis Act.

Subtitle B—Other Trade ProvisionsSEC. 2401. EXTENSION OF UNITED STATES INSU-

LAR POSSESSION PROGRAM.(a) IN GENERAL.—The additional U.S. notes

to chapter 71 of the Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States are amendedby adding at the end the following new note:

‘‘3.(a) Notwithstanding any provision inadditional U.S. note 5 to chapter 91, any arti-cle of jewelry provided for in heading 7113which is the product of the Virgin Islands,Guam, or American Samoa (including anysuch article which contains any foreign com-ponent) shall be eligible for the benefits pro-vided in paragraph (h) of additional U.S. note5 to chapter 91, subject to the provisions andlimitations of that note and of paragraphs(b), (c), and (d) of this note.

‘‘(b) Nothing in this note shall result in anincrease or a decrease in the aggregateamount referred to in paragraph (h)(iii) of, orthe quantitative limitation otherwise estab-lished pursuant to the requirements of, addi-tional U.S. note 5 to chapter 91.

‘‘(c) Nothing in this note shall be con-strued to permit a reduction in the amountavailable to watch producers under para-graph (h)(iv) of additional U.S. note 5 tochapter 91.

‘‘(d) The Secretary of Commerce and theSecretary of the Interior shall issue suchregulations, not inconsistent with the provi-sions of this note and additional U.S. note 5to chapter 91, as the Secretaries determinenecessary to carry out their respective du-ties under this note. Such regulations shallnot be inconsistent with substantial trans-formation requirements but may define thecircumstances under which articles of jew-elry shall be deemed to be ‘units’ for pur-poses of the benefits, provisions, and limita-tions of additional U.S. note 5 to chapter 91.

‘‘(e) Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, during the 2-year period beginning 45days after the date of the enactment of thisnote, any article of jewelry provided for inheading 7113 that is assembled in the VirginIslands, Guam, or American Samoa shall betreated as a product of the Virgin Islands,Guam, or American Samoa for purposes ofthis note and General Note 3(a)(iv) of thisSchedule.’’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—GeneralNote 3(a)(iv)(A) of the Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States is amended byinserting ‘‘and additional U.S. note 3(e) ofchapter 71,’’ after ‘‘Tax Reform Act of 1986,’’.

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentsmade by this section take effect 45 days afterthe date of the enactment of this Act.SEC. 2402. TARIFF TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN

COMPONENTS OF SCIENTIFIC IN-STRUMENTS AND APPARATUS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—U.S. note 6 of subchapterX of chapter 98 of the Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States is amended insubdivision (a) by adding at the end the fol-lowing new sentence: ‘‘The term ‘instru-ments and apparatus’ under subheading9810.00.60 includes separable components ofan instrument or apparatus listed in thissubdivision that are imported for assemblyin the United States in such instrument orapparatus where the instrument or appara-tus, due to its size, cannot be feasibly im-ported in its assembled state.’’.

(b) APPLICATION OF DOMESTIC EQUIVALENCYTEST TO COMPONENTS.—U.S. note 6 of sub-chapter X of chapter 98 of the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States isamended—

(1) by redesignating subdivisions (d)through (f) as subdivisions (e) through (g),respectively; and

(2) by inserting after subdivision (c) thefollowing:

‘‘(d)(i) If the Secretary of Commerce deter-mines under this U.S. note that an instru-ment or apparatus is being manufactured inthe United States that is of equivalent sci-entific value to a foreign-origin instrumentor apparatus for which application is made(but which, due to its size, cannot be feasiblyimported in its assembled state), the Sec-retary shall report the findings to the Sec-retary of the Treasury and to the applicantinstitution, and all components of such for-eign-origin instrument or apparatus shall re-main dutiable.

‘‘(ii) If the Secretary of Commerce deter-mines that the instrument or apparatus forwhich application is made is not being manu-factured in the United States, the Secretaryis authorized to determine further whetherany component of such instrument or appa-ratus of a type that may be purchased, ob-tained, or imported separately is being man-ufactured in the United States and shall re-port the findings to the Secretary of theTreasury and to the applicant institution,and any component found to be domesticallyavailable shall remain dutiable.

‘‘(iii) Any decision by the Secretary of theTreasury which allows for duty-free entry ofa component of an instrument or apparatuswhich, due to its size cannot be feasibly im-ported in its assembled state, shall be effec-tive for a specified maximum period, to bedetermined in consultation with the Sec-retary of Commerce, taking into accountboth the scientific needs of the importing in-stitution and the potential for developmentof comparable domestic manufacturing ca-pacity.’’.

(c) MODIFICATIONS OF REGULATIONS.—TheSecretary of the Treasury and the Secretaryof Commerce shall make such modificationsto their joint regulations as are necessary tocarry out the amendments made by this sec-tion.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentsmade by this section shall take effect begin-ning 120 days after the date of the enactmentof this Act.SEC. 2403. LIQUIDATION OR RELIQUIDATION OF

CERTAIN ENTRIES.(a) LIQUIDATION OR RELIQUIDATION OF EN-

TRIES.—Notwithstanding sections 514 and 520of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514 and1520), or any other provision of law, theUnited States Customs Service shall, notlater than 90 days after the date of the enact-ment of this Act, liquidate or reliquidatethose entries made at Los Angeles, Califor-nia, and New Orleans, Louisiana, which arelisted in subsection (c), in accordance withthe final decision of the International TradeAdministration of the Department of Com-merce for shipments entered between Octo-ber 1, 1984, and December 14, 1987 (case num-ber A–274–001).

(b) PAYMENT OF AMOUNTS OWED.—Anyamounts owed by the United States pursuantto the liquidation or reliquidation of anentry under subsection (a) shall be paid bythe Customs Service within 90 days aftersuch liquidation or reliquidation.

(c) ENTRY LIST.—The entries referred to insubsection (a) are the following:

Entry number Date of entry Port

322 00298563 12/11/86 Los Angeles, California

322 00300567 12/11/86 Los Angeles, California

86–2909242 9/2/86 New Orleans, Louisiana

Entry number Date of entry Port

87–05457388 1/9/87 New Orleans, Louisiana

SEC. 2404. DRAWBACK AND REFUND ON PACKAG-ING MATERIAL.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 313(q) of the Tar-iff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(q)) is furtheramended—

(1) by striking ‘‘Packaging material’’ andinserting the following:

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Packaging material’’;and

(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(2) ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY.—Packaging

material produced in the United States,which is used by the manufacturer or anyother person on or for articles which are ex-ported or destroyed under subsection (a) or(b), shall be eligible under such subsectionfor refund, as drawback, of 99 percent of anyduty, tax, or fee imposed on the importationof such material used to manufacture orproduce the packaging material.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentmade by this section applies with respect togoods entered, or withdrawn from warehousefor consumption, on or after the 15th dayafter the date of the enactment of this Act.SEC. 2405. INCLUSION OF COMMERCIAL IMPOR-

TATION DATA FROM FOREIGN-TRADE ZONES UNDER THE NA-TIONAL CUSTOMS AUTOMATIONPROGRAM.

Section 411 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19U.S.C. 1411) is amended by adding at the endthe following:

‘‘(c) FOREIGN-TRADE ZONES.—Not laterthan January 1, 2000, the Secretary shall pro-vide for the inclusion of commercial impor-tation data from foreign-trade zones underthe Program.’’.SEC. 2406. LARGE YACHTS IMPORTED FOR SALE

AT UNITED STATES BOAT SHOWS.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. 1304 et seq.) is amended by insertingafter section 484a the following:‘‘SEC. 484b. DEFERRAL OF DUTY ON LARGE

YACHTS IMPORTED FOR SALE ATUNITED STATES BOAT SHOWS.

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding anyother provision of law, any vessel meetingthe definition of a large yacht as provided insubsection (b) and which is otherwise duti-able may be imported without the paymentof duty if imported with the intention tooffer for sale at a boat show in the UnitedStates. Payment of duty shall be deferred, inaccordance with this section, until suchlarge yacht is sold.

‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—As used in this section,the term ‘large yacht’ means a vessel thatexceeds 79 feet in length, is used primarilyfor recreation or pleasure, and has been pre-viously sold by a manufacturer or dealer toa retail consumer.

‘‘(c) DEFERRAL OF DUTY.—At the time ofimportation of any large yacht, if such largeyacht is imported for sale at a boat show inthe United States and is otherwise dutiable,duties shall not be assessed and collected ifthe importer of record—

‘‘(1) certifies to the Customs Service thatthe large yacht is imported pursuant to thissection for sale at a boat show in the UnitedStates; and

‘‘(2) posts a bond, which shall have a dura-tion of 6 months after the date of importa-tion, in an amount equal to twice theamount of duty on the large yacht thatwould otherwise be imposed under sub-heading 8903.91.00 or 8903.92.00 of the Har-monized Tariff Schedule of the UnitedStates.

‘‘(d) PROCEDURES UPON SALE.—‘‘(1) DEPOSIT OF DUTY.—If any large yacht

(which has been imported for sale at a boatshow in the United States with the deferralof duties as provided in this section) is sold

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S787January 20, 1999within the 6-month period afterimportation—

‘‘(A) entry shall be completed and duty(calculated at the applicable rates providedfor under subheading 8903.91.00 or 8903.92.00 ofthe Harmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States and based upon the value ofthe large yacht at the time of importation)shall be deposited with the Customs Service;and

‘‘(B) the bond posted as required by sub-section (c)(2) shall be returned to the im-porter.

‘‘(e) PROCEDURES UPON EXPIRATION OF BOND

PERIOD.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If the large yacht en-

tered with deferral of duties is neither soldnor exported within the 6-month period afterimportation—

‘‘(A) entry shall be completed and duty(calculated at the applicable rates providedfor under subheading 8903.91.00 or 8903.92.00 ofthe Harmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States and based upon the value ofthe large yacht at the time of importation)shall be deposited with the Customs Service;and

‘‘(B) the bond posted as required by sub-section (c)(2) shall be returned to the im-porter.

‘‘(2) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.—No exten-sions of the bond period shall be allowed.Any large yacht exported in compliance withthe bond period may not be reentered forpurposes of sale at a boat show in the UnitedStates (in order to receive duty deferral ben-efits) for a period of 3 months after such ex-portation.

‘‘(f) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of theTreasury is authorized to make such rulesand regulations as may be necessary to carryout the provisions of this section.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentmade by subsection (a) shall apply with re-spect to any large yacht imported into the

United States after the date that is 15 daysafter the date of the enactment of this Act.SEC. 2407. REVIEW OF PROTESTS AGAINST DECI-

SIONS OF CUSTOMS SERVICE.Section 515(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. 1515(a)) is amended by inserting afterthe third sentence the following: ‘‘Within 30days from the date an application for furtherreview is filed, the appropriate customs offi-cer shall allow or deny the application and,if allowed, the protest shall be forwarded tothe customs officer who will be conductingthe further review.’’.SEC. 2408. ENTRIES OF NAFTA-ORIGIN GOODS.

(a) REFUND OF MERCHANDISE PROCESSING

FEES.—Section 520(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930(19 U.S.C. 1520(d)) is amended in the matterpreceding paragraph (1) by inserting ‘‘(in-cluding any merchandise processing fees)’’after ‘‘excess duties’’.

(b) PROTEST AGAINST DECISION OF CUSTOMS

SERVICE RELATING TO NAFTA CLAIMS.—Sec-tion 514(a)(7) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 1514(a)(7))is amended by striking ‘‘section 520(c)’’ andinserting ‘‘subsection (c) or (d) of section520’’.

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentsmade by this section apply with respect togoods entered, or withdrawn from warehousefor consumption, on or after the 15th dayafter the date of the enactment of this Act.SEC. 2409. TREATMENT OF INTERNATIONAL

TRAVEL MERCHANDISE HELD ATCUSTOMS-APPROVED STORAGEROOMS.

Section 557(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19U.S.C. 1557(a)(1)) is amended in the first sen-tence by inserting ‘‘(including internationaltravel merchandise)’’ after ‘‘Any merchan-dise subject to duty’’.SEC. 2410. EXCEPTION TO 5-YEAR REVIEWS OF

COUNTERVAILING DUTY OR ANTI-DUMPING DUTY ORDERS.

Section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19U.S.C. 1675(c)) is amended by adding at theend the following:

‘‘(7) EXCLUSIONS FROM COMPUTATIONS.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph

(B), there shall be excluded from the com-putation of the 5-year period described inparagraph (1) and the periods described inparagraph (6) any period during which theimportation of the subject merchandise isprohibited on account of the imposition,under the International Emergency Eco-nomic Powers Act or other provision of law,of sanctions by the United States against thecountry in which the subject merchandiseoriginates.

‘‘(B) APPLICATION OF EXCLUSION.—Subpara-graph (A) shall apply only with respect tosubject merchandise which originates in acountry that is not a WTO member.’’.

SEC. 2411. WATER RESISTANT WOOL TROUSERS.

Notwithstanding section 514 of the TariffAct of 1930 or any other provision of law,upon proper request filed with the CustomsService within 180 days after the date of en-actment of this Act, any entry or withdrawalfrom warehouse for consumption—

(1) that was made after December 31, 1988,and before January 1, 1995; and

(2) that would have been classifiable undersubheading 6203.41.05 or 6204.61.10 of the Har-monized Tariff Schedule of the United Statesand would have had a lower rate of duty, ifsuch entry or withdrawal had been made onJanuary 1, 1995,

shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if suchentry or withdrawal had been made on Janu-ary 1, 1995.

SEC. 2412. REIMPORTATION OF CERTAIN GOODS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter I of chapter98 is amended by inserting in numerical se-quence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9801.00.26 Articles, previously imported, with re-spect to which the duty was paid uponsuch previous importation, if (1) ex-ported within 3 years after the date ofsuch previous importation, (2) sold forexportation and exported to individualsfor personal use, (3) reimported withouthaving been advanced in value or im-proved in condition by any process ofmanufacture or other means whileabroad, (4) reimported as personal re-turns from those individuals, whetheror not consolidated with other personalreturns prior to reimportation, and (5)reimported by or for the account of theperson who exported them from theUnited States within 1 year of such ex-portation ............................................... Free Free ’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) applies to goods described in heading 9801.00.26 of the Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States (as added by subsection (a)) that are reimported into the United States on or after the date that is 15 daysafter the date of enactment of this Act.SEC. 2413. TREATMENT OF PERSONAL EFFECTS OF PARTICIPANTS IN CERTAIN WORLD ATHLETIC EVENTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in numericalsequence the following new heading:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES788 January 20, 1999

‘‘ 9902.98.08 Any of the following articles notintended for sale or distributionto the public: personal effects ofaliens who are participants in,officials of, or accredited mem-bers of delegations to, the 1999International Special Olympics,the 1999 Women’s World CupSoccer, the 2001 InternationalSpecial Olympics, the 2002 SaltLake City Winter Olympics, andthe 2002 Winter ParalympicGames, and of persons who areimmediate family members of orservants to any of the foregoingpersons; equipment and mate-rials imported in connectionwith the foregoing events by oron behalf of the foregoing per-sons or the organizing commit-tees of such events; articles tobe used in exhibitions depictingthe culture of a country partici-pating in any such event; and, ifconsistent with the foregoing,such other articles as the Sec-retary of Treasury may allow .... Free No change Free On or before 12/31/2002

’’.

(b) TAXES AND FEES NOT TO APPLY.—Thearticles described in heading 9902.98.08 of theHarmonized Tariff Schedule of the UnitedStates (as added by subsection (a)) shall befree of taxes and fees which may be other-wise applicable.

(c) NO EXEMPTION FROM CUSTOMS INSPEC-TIONS.—The articles described in heading9902.98.08 of the Harmonized Tariff Scheduleof the United States (as added by subsection(a)) shall not be free or otherwise exempt orexcluded from routine or other inspectionsas may be required by the Customs Service.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentmade by this section applies to articles en-tered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for con-sumption on or after the date of the enact-ment of this Act.SEC. 2414. RELIQUIDATION OF CERTAIN ENTRIES

OF THERMAL TRANSFER MULTI-FUNCTION MACHINES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) orany other provision of law and subject to theprovisions of subsection (b), the UnitedStates Customs Service shall, not later than180 days after the receipt of the request de-scribed in subsection (b), liquidate or reliq-uidate each entry described in subsection (d)containing any merchandise which, at thetime of the original liquidation, was classi-fied under subheading 8517.21.00 of the Har-monized Tariff Schedule of the United States(relating to indirect electrostatic copiers) orsubheading 9009.12.00 of such Schedule (relat-ing to indirect electrostatic copiers), at therate of duty that would have been applicableto such merchandise if the merchandise hadbeen liquidated or reliquidated under sub-heading 8471.60.65 of the Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States (relating toother automated data processing (ADP) ther-mal transfer printer units) on the date ofentry.

(b) REQUESTS.—Reliquidation may be madeunder subsection (a) with respect to an entrydescribed in subsection (d) only if a requesttherefor is filed with the Customs Servicewithin 90 days after the date of enactment ofthis Act and the request contains sufficientinformation to enable the Customs Serviceto locate the entry or reconstruct the entryif it cannot be located.

(c) PAYMENT OF AMOUNTS OWED.—Anyamounts owed by the United States pursuantto the liquidation or reliquidation of anentry under subsection (a) shall be paid notlater than 180 days after the date of such liq-uidation or reliquidation.

(d) AFFECTED ENTRIES.—The entries re-ferred to in subsection (a), filed at the portof Los Angeles, are as follows:

Date of entry Entry number Liquidation date

01/17/97 112–9638417–3 02/21/9701/10/97 112–9637684–9 03/07/9701/03/97 112–9636723–6 04/18/9701/07/97 112–9637561–9 04/25/9701/10/97 112–9637686–4 03/07/9702/21/97 112–9642157–9 09/12/9702/14/97 112–9641619–9 06/06/9702/14/97 112–9641693–4 06/06/9702/21/97 112–9642156–1 09/12/9702/28/97 112–9643326–9 09/12/9703/18/97 112–9645336–6 09/19/9703/21/97 112–9645682–3 09/19/9703/21/97 112–9645681–5 09/19/9703/21/97 112–9645698–9 09/19/9703/14/97 112–9645026–3 09/19/9703/14/97 112–9645041–2 09/19/9703/20/97 112–9646075–9 09/19/9703/14/97 112–9645026–3 09/19/9704/04/97 112–9647309–1 09/19/9704/04/97 112–9647312–5 09/19/9704/04/97 112–9647316–6 09/19/9704/11/97 112–9300151–5 10/31/9704/11/97 112–9300287–7 09/26/9704/11/97 112–9300308–1 02/20/9804/10/97 112–9300356–0 09/26/9704/16/97 112–9301387–4 09/26/9704/22/97 112–9301602–6 09/26/9704/18/97 112–9301627–3 09/26/9704/21/97 112–9301615–8 09/26/9704/25/97 112–9302445–9 10/31/9704/25/97 112–9302298–2 09/26/9704/25/97 112–9302205–7 09/26/9704/04/97 112–9302371–7 09/26/9705/26/97 112–9305730–1 09/26/9705/21/97 112–9305527–1 09/26/9705/30/97 112–9306718–5 09/26/9705/19/97 112–9304958–9 09/26/9705/16/97 112–9305030–6 09/26/9705/07/97 112–9303702–2 09/26/9705/09/97 112–9303707–1 09/26/9705/10/97 112–9304256–8 09/26/9705/31/97 112–9306470–3 09/26/9705/02/97 112–9302717–1 09/19/9706/20/97 112–9308793–6 09/26/9706/18/97 112–9308717–5 09/26/9706/16/97 112–9308538–5 09/26/9706/09/97 112–9307568–3 09/26/9706/06/97 112–9307144–3 09/26/97

SEC. 2415. RELIQUIDATION OF CERTAIN DRAW-BACK ENTRIES AND REFUND OFDRAWBACK PAYMENTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sections514 and 520 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or anyother provision of law, the Customs Serviceshall, not later than 180 days after the dateof enactment of this Act, liquidate or reliq-uidate the entries described in subsection (b)and any amounts owed by the United Statespursuant to the liquidation or reliquidationshall be refunded with interest, subject tothe provisions of Treasury Decision 86–126(M)and Customs Service Ruling No. 224697, datedNovember 17, 1994.

(b) ENTRIES DESCRIBED.—The entries de-scribed in this subsection are the following:

Entry num-ber:

Date of entry:

855218319 ..... July 18, 1985855218429 ..... August 15, 1985855218649 ..... September 13, 1985866000134 ..... October 4, 1985866000257 ..... November 14, 1985866000299 ..... December 9, 1985866000451 ..... January 14, 1986866001052 ..... February 13, 1986866001133 ..... March 7, 1986866001269 ..... April 9, 1986866001366 ..... May 9, 1986866001463 ..... June 6, 1986866001573 ..... July 7, 1986866001586 ..... July 7, 1986866001599 ..... July 7, 1986866001913 ..... August 8, 1986866002255 ..... September 10, 1986866002297 ..... September 23, 198603200000010 .. October 3, 198603200000028 .. November 13, 198603200000036 .. November 26, 1986.

SEC. 2416. CLARIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL U.S.NOTE 4 TO CHAPTER 91 OF THE HAR-MONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE OF THEUNITED STATES.

Additional U.S. note 4 of chapter 91 of theHarmonized Tariff Schedule of the UnitedStates is amended in the matter precedingsubdivision (a), by striking the comma after‘‘stamping’’ and inserting ‘‘(including bymeans of indelible ink),’’.SEC. 2417. DUTY-FREE SALES ENTERPRISES.

Section 555(b)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19U.S.C. 1555(b)(2)) is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking the pe-riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following newsubparagraph:

‘‘(C) a port of entry, as established undersection 1 of the Act of August 24, 1912 (37

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S789January 20, 1999Stat. 434), or within 25 statute miles of astaffed port of entry if reasonable assurancecan be provided that duty-free merchandisesold by the enterprise will be exported by in-dividuals departing from the customs terri-tory through an international airport lo-cated within the customs territory.’’.SEC. 2418. CUSTOMS USER FEES.

(a) ADDITIONAL PRECLEARANCE ACTIVI-TIES.—Section 13031(f)(3)(A)(iii) of the Con-solidated Omnibus Budget ReconciliationAct of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)(A)(iii)) isamended to read as follows:

‘‘(iii) to the extent funds remain availableafter making reimbursements under clause(ii), in providing salaries for up to 50 full-time equivalent inspectional positions toprovide preclearance services.’’.

(b) COLLECTION OF FEES FOR PASSENGERSABOARD COMMERCIAL VESSELS.—Section 13031of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Rec-onciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c) isamended—

(1) in subsection (a), by amending para-graph (5) to read as follows:

‘‘(5)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), for thearrival of each passenger aboard a commer-cial vessel or commercial aircraft from aplace outside the United States (other than aplace referred to in subsection (b)(1)(A)(i) ofthis section), $5.

‘‘(B) For the arrival of each passengeraboard a commercial vessel from a place re-ferred to in subsection (b)(1)(A)(i) of this sec-tion, $1.75’’; and

(2) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by striking ‘‘(A)No fee’’ and inserting ‘‘(A) Except as pro-vided in subsection (a)(5)(B) of this section,no fee’’.

(c) USE OF MERCHANDISE PROCESSING FEESFOR AUTOMATED COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS.—Sec-tion 13031(f) of the Consolidated OmnibusBudget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C.58c(f)) is amended by adding at the end thefollowing:

‘‘(6) Of the amounts collected in fiscal year1999 under paragraphs (9) and (10) of sub-section (a), $50,000,000 shall be available tothe Customs Service, subject to appropria-tions Acts, for automated commercial sys-tems. Amounts made available under thisparagraph shall remain available until ex-pended.’’.

(d) ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—Section 13031 ofthe Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconcili-ation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c) is amendedby adding at the end the following:

‘‘(k) ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—The Commis-sioner of Customs shall establish an advisorycommittee whose membership shall consistof representatives from the airline, cruiseship, and other transportation industrieswho may be subject to fees under subsection(a). The advisory committee shall not be sub-ject to termination under section 14 of theFederal Advisory Committee Act. The advi-sory committee shall meet on a periodicbasis and shall advise the Commissioner onissues related to the performance of theinspectional services of the United StatesCustoms Service. Such advice shall include,but not be limited to, such issues as the timeperiods during which such services should beperformed, the proper number and deploy-ment of inspection officers, the level of fees,and the appropriateness of any proposed fee.The Commissioner shall give considerationto the views of the advisory committee inthe exercise of his or her duties.’’.

(e) NATIONAL CUSTOMS AUTOMATION TESTREGARDING RECONCILIATION.—Section 505(c)of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1505(c)) isamended by adding at the end the following:‘‘For the period beginning on October 1, 1998,and ending on the date on which the ‘RevisedNational Customs Automation Test Regard-ing Reconciliation’ of the Customs Service is

terminated, or October 1, 2000, whichever oc-curs earlier, the Secretary may prescribe analternative mid-point interest accountingmethodology, which may be employed by theimporter, based upon aggregate data in lieuof accounting for such interest from each de-posit data provided in this subsection.’’.

(f) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentsmade by this section shall take effect 30 daysafter the date of the enactment of this Act.SEC. 2419. DUTY DRAWBACK FOR METHYL TER-

TIARY-BUTYL ETHER (‘‘MTBE’’).(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 313(p)(3)(A)(i)(I)

of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.1313(p)(3)(A)(i)(I)) is amended by striking‘‘and 2902’’ and inserting ‘‘2902, and2909.19.14’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentmade by this section shall take effect on thedate of the enactment of this Act, and shallapply to drawback claims filed on and aftersuch date.SEC. 2420. SUBSTITUTION OF FINISHED PETRO-

LEUM DERIVATIVES.(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 313(p)(1) of the

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(p)(1)) isamended in the matter following subpara-graph (C) by striking ‘‘the amount of the du-ties paid on, or attributable to, such quali-fied article shall be refunded as drawback tothe drawback claimant.’’ and inserting‘‘drawback shall be allowed as described inparagraph (4).’’.

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—Section 313(p)(2) ofsuch Act (19 U.S.C. 1313(p)(2)) is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (A)—(A) in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), by striking

‘‘the qualified article’’ each place it appearsand inserting ‘‘a qualified article’’; and

(B) in clause (iv), by striking ‘‘an im-ported’ and inserting ‘‘a’’; and

(2) in subparagraph (G), by inserting‘‘transferor,’’ after ‘‘importer,’’.

(c) QUALIFIED ARTICLE DEFINED, ETC.—Sec-tion 313(p)(3) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 1313(p)(3))is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (A)—(A) in clause (i)(II), by striking ‘‘liquids,

pastes, powders, granules, and flakes’’ andinserting ‘‘the primary forms provided underNote 6 to chapter 39 of the Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States’’; and

(B) in clause (ii)—(i) in subclause (I) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the

end;(ii) in subclause (II) by striking the period

and inserting ‘‘, or’’; and(iii) by adding after subclause (II) the fol-

lowing:‘‘(III) an article of the same kind and qual-

ity as described in subparagraph (B), or anycombination thereof, that is transferred, asso certified in a certificate of delivery or cer-tificate of manufacture and delivery in aquantity not greater than the quantity of ar-ticles purchased or exchanged.The transferred merchandise described insubclause (III), regardless of its origin, sodesignated on the certificate of delivery orcertificate of manufacture and delivery shallbe the qualified article for purposes of thissection. A party who issues a certificate ofdelivery, or certificate of manufacture anddelivery, shall also certify to the Commis-sioner of Customs that it has not, and willnot, issue such certificates for a quantitygreater than the amount eligible for draw-back and that appropriate records will bemaintained to demonstrate that fact.’’;

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘ex-ported article’’ and inserting ‘‘article, in-cluding an imported, manufactured, sub-stituted, or exported article,’’; and

(3) in the first sentence of subparagraph(C), by striking ‘‘such article.’’ and inserting‘‘either the qualified article or the exportedarticle.’’.

(d) LIMITATION ON DRAWBACK.—Section313(p)(4)(B) of such Act (19 U.S.C.1313(p)(4)(B)) is amended by inserting beforethe period at the end the following: ‘‘had theclaim qualified for drawback under sub-section (j)’’.

(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentsmade by this section shall take effect as ifincluded in the amendment made by section632(a)(6) of the North American Free TradeAgreement Implementation Act. For pur-poses of section 632(b) of that Act, the 3-yearrequirement set forth in section 313(r) of theTariff Act of 1930 shall not apply to anydrawback claim filed within 6 months afterthe date of the enactment of this Act forwhich that 3-year period would have expired.SEC. 2421. DUTY ON CERTAIN IMPORTATIONS OF

MUESLIX CEREALS.(a) BEFORE JANUARY 1, 1996.—Notwith-

standing section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930(19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law,upon proper request filed with the CustomsService before the 90th day after the date ofthe enactment of this Act, any entry orwithdrawal from warehouse for consumptionmade after December 31, 1991, and beforeJanuary 1, 1996, of mueslix cereal, which wasclassified under the special column rate ap-plicable for Canada in subheading 2008.92.10of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States—

(1) shall be liquidated or reliquidated as ifthe special column rate applicable for Can-ada in subheading 1904.10.00 of such Scheduleapplied at the time of such entry or with-drawal; and

(2) any excess duties paid as a result ofsuch liquidation or reliquidation shall be re-funded, including interest at the appropriateapplicable rate.

(b) AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1995.—Notwith-standing section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930(19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law,upon proper request filed with the CustomsService before the 90th day after the date ofthe enactment of this Act, any entry orwithdrawal from warehouse for consumptionmade after December 31, 1995, and beforeJanuary 1, 1998, of mueslix cereal, which wasclassified under the special column rate ap-plicable for Canada in subheading 1904.20.10of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States—

(1) shall be liquidated or reliquidated as ifthe special column rate applicable for Can-ada in subheading 1904.10.00 of such Scheduleapplied at the time of such entry or with-drawal; and

(2) any excess duties paid as a result ofsuch liquidation or reliquidation shall be re-funded, including interest at the appropriateapplicable rate.SEC. 2422. EXPANSION OF FOREIGN TRADE ZONE

NO. 143.(a) EXPANSION OF FOREIGN TRADE ZONE.—

The Foreign Trade Zones Board shall expandForeign Trade Zone No. 143 to include areasin the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Air-port in accordance with the application sub-mitted by the Sacramento-Yolo Port Dis-trict of Sacramento, California, to the Boardon March 11, 1997.

(b) OTHER REQUIREMENTS NOT AFFECTED.—The expansion of Foreign Trade Zone No. 143under subsection (a) shall not relieve thePort of Sacramento of any requirementunder the Foreign Trade Zones Act, or underregulations of the Foreign Trade ZonesBoard, relating to such expansion.SEC. 2423. MARKING OF CERTAIN SILK PROD-

UCTS AND CONTAINERS.(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 304 of the Tariff

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1304) is amended—(1) by redesignating subsections (h), (i), (j),

and (k) as subsections (i), (j), (k), and (l), re-spectively; and

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES790 January 20, 1999(2) by inserting after subsection (g) the fol-

lowing new subsection:‘‘(h) MARKING OF CERTAIN SILK PRODUCTS.—

The marking requirements of subsections (a)and (b) shall not apply either to—

‘‘(1) articles provided for in subheading6214.10.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Scheduleof the United States, as in effect on January1, 1997; or

‘‘(2) articles provided for in heading 5007 ofthe Harmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States as in effect on January 1,1997.’’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section304(j) of such Act, as redesignated by sub-section (a)(1) of this section, is amended bystriking ‘‘subsection (h)’’ and inserting ‘‘sub-section (i)’’.

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentsmade by this section apply to goods entered,or withdrawn from warehouse for consump-tion, on or after the date of the enactment ofthis Act.SEC. 2424. EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY

TREATMENT (NORMAL TRADE RELA-TIONS TREATMENT) TO THE PROD-UCTS OF MONGOLIA.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds thatMongolia—

(1) has received normal trade relationstreatment since 1991 and has been found tobe in full compliance with the freedom ofemigration requirements under title IV ofthe Trade Act of 1974;

(2) has emerged from nearly 70 years ofcommunism and dependence on the formerSoviet Union, approving a new constitutionin 1992 which has established a modern par-liamentary democracy charged with guaran-teeing fundamental human rights, freedomof expression, and an independent judiciary;

(3) has held 4 national elections under thenew constitution, 2 presidential and 2 par-liamentary, thereby solidifying the nation’stransition to democracy;

(4) has undertaken significant market-based economic reforms, including privatiza-tion, the reduction of government subsidies,the elimination of most price controls andvirtually all import tariffs, and the closingof insolvent banks;

(5) has concluded a bilateral trade treatywith the United States in 1991, and a bilat-eral investment treaty in 1994;

(6) has acceded to the Agreement Estab-lishing the World Trade Organization, andextension of unconditional normal trade re-lations treatment to the products of Mongo-lia would enable the United States to availitself of all rights under the World Trade Or-ganization with respect to Mongolia; and

(7) has demonstrated a strong desire tobuild friendly relationships and to cooperatefully with the United States on trade mat-ters.

(b) TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLEIV OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO MONGOLIA.—

(1) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS AND EX-TENSIONS OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREAT-MENT.—Notwithstanding any provision oftitle IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.2431 et seq.), the President may—

(A) determine that such title should nolonger apply to Mongolia; and

(B) after making a determination undersubparagraph (A) with respect to Mongolia,proclaim the extension of nondiscriminatorytreatment (normal trade relations treat-ment) to the products of that country.

(2) TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLEIV.—On or after the effective date of the ex-tension under paragraph (1)(B) of non-discriminatory treatment to the products ofMongolia, title IV of the Trade Act of 1974shall cease to apply to that country.SEC. 2425. ENHANCED CARGO INSPECTION PILOT

PROGRAM.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner of the

Customs Service is authorized to establish a

pilot program for fiscal year 1999 to provide24-hour cargo inspection service on a fee-for-service basis at an international airport de-scribed in subsection (b). The Commissionermay extend the pilot program for fiscalyears after fiscal year 1999 if the Commis-sioner determines that the extension is war-ranted.

(b) AIRPORT DESCRIBED.—The internationalairport described in this subsection is amulti-modal international airport that—

(1) is located near a seaport; and(2) serviced more than 185,000 tons of air

cargo in 1997.SEC. 2426. PAYMENT OF EDUCATION COSTS OF

DEPENDENTS OF CERTAIN CUSTOMSSERVICE PERSONNEL.

Notwithstanding section 2164 of title 10,United States Code, the Department of De-fense shall permit the dependent children ofdeceased United States Customs AviationGroup Supervisor Pedro J. Rodriquez attend-ing the Antilles Consolidated School Systemat Ford Buchanan, Puerto Rico, to completetheir primary and secondary education atthis school system without cost to such chil-dren or any parent, relative, or guardian ofsuch children. The United States CustomsService shall reimburse the Department ofDefense for reasonable education expenses tocover these costs.

TITLE III—AMENDMENTS TO INTERNALREVENUE CODE OF 1986

SEC. 3001. PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A LIABILITYTREATED IN SAME MANNER AS AS-SUMPTION OF LIABILITY.

(a) REPEAL OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A LI-ABILITY TEST.—

(1) SECTION 357.—Section 357(a)(2) of the In-ternal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to as-sumption of liability) is amended by striking‘‘, or acquires from the taxpayer propertysubject to a liability’’.

(2) SECTION 358.—Section 358(d)(1) of suchCode (relating to assumption of liability) isamended by striking ‘‘or acquired from thetaxpayer property subject to a liability’’.

(3) SECTION 368.—(A) Section 368(a)(1)(C) of such Code is

amended by striking ‘‘, or the fact that prop-erty acquired is subject to a liability,’’.

(B) The last sentence of section 368(a)(2)(B)of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘, andthe amount of any liability to which anyproperty acquired from the acquiring cor-poration is subject,’’.

(b) CLARIFICATION OF ASSUMPTION OF LI-ABILITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 357 of the InternalRevenue Code of 1986 is amended by addingat the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(d) DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF LIABIL-ITY ASSUMED.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this sec-tion, section 358(d), section 362(d), section368(a)(1)(C), and section 368(a)(2)(B), exceptas provided in regulations—

‘‘(A) a recourse liability (or portion there-of) shall be treated as having been assumedif, as determined on the basis of all facts andcircumstances, the transferee has agreed to,and is expected to, satisfy such liability (orportion), whether or not the transferor hasbeen relieved of such liability; and

‘‘(B) except to the extent provided in para-graph (2), a nonrecourse liability shall betreated as having been assumed by the trans-feree of any asset subject to such liability.

‘‘(2) EXCEPTION FOR NONRECOURSE LIABIL-ITY.—The amount of the nonrecourse liabil-ity treated as described in paragraph (1)(B)shall be reduced by the lesser of—

‘‘(A) the amount of such liability which anowner of other assets not transferred to thetransferee and also subject to such liabilityhas agreed with the transferee to, and is ex-pected to, satisfy, or

‘‘(B) the fair market value of such otherassets (determined without regard to section7701(g)).

‘‘(3) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shallprescribe such regulations as may be nec-essary to carry out the purposes of this sub-section and section 362(d). The Secretarymay also prescribe regulations which providethat the manner in which a liability is treat-ed as assumed under this subsection is ap-plied, where appropriate, elsewhere in thistitle.’’

(2) LIMITATION ON BASIS INCREASE ATTRIB-UTABLE TO ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY.—Sec-tion 362 of such Code is amended by addingat the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(d) LIMITATION ON BASIS INCREASE ATTRIB-UTABLE TO ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In no event shall thebasis of any property be increased under sub-section (a) or (b) above the fair market valueof such property (determined without regardto section 7701(g)) by reason of any gain rec-ognized to the transferor as a result of theassumption of a liability.

‘‘(2) TREATMENT OF GAIN NOT SUBJECT TOTAX.—Except as provided in regulations, if—

‘‘(A) gain is recognized to the transferor asa result of an assumption of a nonrecourse li-ability by a transferee which is also securedby assets not transferred to such transferee;and

‘‘(B) no person is subject to tax under thistitle on such gain,then, for purposes of determining basis undersubsections (a) and (b), the amount of gainrecognized by the transferor as a result ofthe assumption of the liability shall be de-termined as if the liability assumed by thetransferee equaled such transferee’s ratableportion of such liability determined on thebasis of the relative fair market values (de-termined without regard to section 7701(g))of all of the assets subject to such liability.’’.

(c) APPLICATION TO PROVISIONS OTHER THANSUBCHAPTER C.—

(1) SECTION 584.—Section 584(h)(3) of the In-ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended—

(A) by striking ‘‘, and the fact that anyproperty transferred by the common trustfund is subject to a liability,’’ in subpara-graph (A); and

(B) by striking clause (ii) of subparagraph(B) and inserting:

‘‘(ii) ASSUMED LIABILITIES.—For purposes ofclause (i), the term ‘assumed liabilities’means any liability of the common trustfund assumed by any regulated investmentcompany in connection with the transfer re-ferred to in paragraph (1)(A).

‘‘(C) ASSUMPTION.—For purposes of thisparagraph, in determining the amount of anyliability assumed, the rules of section 357(d)shall apply.’’

(2) SECTION 1031.—The last sentence of sec-tion 1031(d) of such Code is amended—

(A) by striking ‘‘assumed a liability of thetaxpayer or acquired from the taxpayer prop-erty subject to a liability’’ and inserting ‘‘as-sumed (as determined under section 357(d)) aliability of the taxpayer’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘or acquisition (in theamount of the liability)’’.

(d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Section 351(h)(1) of the Internal Reve-

nue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘, oracquires property subject to a liability,’’.

(2) Section 357 of such Code is amended bystriking ‘‘or acquisition’’ each place it ap-pears in subsection (a) or (b).

(3) Section 357(b)(1) of such Code is amend-ed by striking ‘‘or acquired’’.

(4) Section 357(c)(1) of such Code is amend-ed by striking ‘‘, plus the amount of the li-abilities to which the property is subject,’’.

(5) Section 357(c)(3) of such Code is amend-ed by striking ‘‘or to which the propertytransferred is subject’’.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S791January 20, 1999(6) Section 358(d)(1) of such Code is amend-

ed by striking ‘‘or acquisition (in theamount of the liability)’’.

(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentsmade by this section shall apply to transfersafter October 18, 1998.

By Mr. ROTH:S. 263. A bill to amend the Social Se-

curity Act to establish the PersonalRetirement Accounts Program; to theCommittee on Finance.THE PERSONAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS ACT OF

1999

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I risetoday to introduce the Personal Retire-ment Accounts Act of 1999. This legis-lation has a simple but powerful pur-pose—to establish personal retirementaccounts for working Americans. In myview, these accounts promise to giveworking Americans not only a more se-cure retirement future but a new stakein the nation’s economic growth. And,as I will describe, these accounts mayprovide the model for future Social Se-curity reform.

Just a few years ago personal retire-ment accounts were an exotic and evencontroversial concept. But no longer!Today, personal retirement accountsare a bipartisan, even mainstream,idea.

In 1997, a majority of a Clinton ad-ministration task force on Social Secu-rity endorsed the concept.

In the last Congress, two comprehen-sive Social Security reform proposals,one introduced by Senator MOYNIHAN,the ranking Democrat on the FinanceCommittee; the other by SenatorsGREGG and BREAUX, had as a centralelement personal retirement accounts.

Mr. President, let me explain why re-tirement accounts find so much sup-port—not only in Congress but amongthe American people. With even con-servative investment, such accountshave the potential to provide Ameri-cans with a substantial retirement nestegg. And an estate that can be left tochildren and grandchildren.

Creating these accounts would alsogive the majority of Americans who donot own any investment assets a newstake in America’s economic growth—because that growth will be returneddirectly to their benefit. More Ameri-cans will be the owners of capital—notjust workers.

Creating these accounts may encour-age Americans to save more. Today,Americans save less than people in al-most every other industrial country.But personal retirement accounts willdemonstrate to all Americans themagic of compound interest as evensmall savings grow significantly overtime.

Lastly, creating these accounts willhelp Americans to better prepare forretirement. According to the Congres-sional Research Service, 60 percent ofAmericans are not actively participat-ing in a retirement program other thanSocial Security. A recent survey foundthat only about 45 percent of workingAmericans have tried to calculate howmuch they will need for retirement. It

is my belief that retirement accountswill prompt Americans—particularlyBaby Boomers—to think more aboutretirement planning.

Mr. President, let me describe a fewof the features of my bill. First, theprogram would run for 5 years, from2000 to 2004, utilizing half the budgetsurplus projected by the CongressionalBudget Office.

Each year, working Americans whoearned a minimum of four quarters ofSocial Security coverage—$3,000 in2000—would receive a deposit in his orher account. About 128 million Ameri-cans would receive a deposit in 2000.

The formula for sharing the surplusamong the accounts is progressive.Each eligible individual would receivea minimum amount of $250 per year,plus an additional amount based onhow much they paid in payroll taxes.

Over the life of the program, a mini-mum wage earner—someone earning$12,400 this year—would receive about$1,850. That amount is equal to a 35-percent rebate of his or her payrolltaxes.

An average wage earner—earning$27,600—would receive about $2,590—equal to a 22-percent rebate of payrolltaxes. And an individual who paid themaximum Social Security tax wouldget $4,560, a 16-percent rebate of payrolltaxes. These figures do not include anyinvestment income—or deductions forthe costs of running the program.

Account holders would have three in-vestment choices—prudent choicesthat balance risk and return. The threechoices are a ‘‘stock index fund’’—amutual fund that reflects the overallperformance of the stock market; afund that invests in corporate bondsand other ‘‘fixed income’’ securities;and a fund that invests in U.S. Treas-ury bonds.

However, my legislation also pro-vides for a study of additional invest-ment options—of other types of invest-ment funds and investment managers.

An account holder would become eli-gible for benefits when he or she signsup for Social Security. An individualcould choose between an annuity or an-nual payments based on life expect-ancy.

The bill also provides a number offeatures to ensure the program is prop-erly run. First, the program would beneither ‘‘on’’ budget nor ‘‘off’’ budget—instead, the program would be outsidethe Federal budget. The money in theprogram could be used for no other pur-pose than retirement benefits and theprogram’s operating expenses.

Second, the program would be super-vised by a new, independent PersonalRetirement Board, with members ap-pointed by the President and Congres-sional leaders and subject to Senateconfirmation. Board officials would befiduciaries, and required by law to actonly in the best financial interests ofbeneficiaries.

Lastly, the stock funds would bemanaged by private sector investmentmanagers. To insulate companies rep-

resented in the stock funds from poli-tics, no Board official or other govern-ment employee and would be eligible tovote company proxies—only the invest-ment managers.

Mr. President, the design of this per-sonal retirement accounts plan followsa proven model—the Federal ThriftSavings Plan. Back in 1983, when I wasChairman of the Governmental AffairsCommittee, the retirement programfor Federal employees needed to be re-vamped. One of the new elements weadded was the Federal Thrift SavingsPlan—a defined contribution employeebenefit plan—that has been a great suc-cess.

Many Americans will undoubtedlyask, ‘‘What size nest egg might grow inmy personal account?’’ According to ananalysis done by Social Security’s ac-tuaries, someone earning the minimumwage would have an account worthabout $2,145 in 2004, assuming a 7.5 per-cent interest rate. For the averagewage earner, the account would beworth about $2,990, and for the individ-ual paying the maximum Social Secu-rity tax, about $5,250.

Of course, over the long-term, ac-counts can grow significantly. For theminimum wage earner after 40 years—in 2039, his or her account would beworth about $27,000. The average wageearner would have $38,000; and the per-son paying the maximum payroll tax,$66,000.

Mr. President, some might ask, ‘‘Whystart with personal retirement ac-counts, rather than comprehensive So-cial Security reform?’’ Indeed, my billwill not affect the current Social Secu-rity program. Personal retirement ac-counts are an exciting concept, butstill a big job, requiring careful workby the Finance Committee.

Personal retirement accounts alsoenjoy broad support, unlike manyother Social Security reform proposals.So let’s get these accounts up and run-ning, proven and tested, while Congressconsiders carefully protecting and pre-serving Social Security for the longterm.

Mr. President, in closing, let me addthat personal retirement accounts haveanother big promise. Such accounts—iflater made a part of Social Security oreven as a permanent supplemental pro-gram—may help restore the confidenceof the American people in this impor-tant national program. Polls show thatSocial Security is among the most pop-ular government programs, deservedlyso. But many Americans—particularlyyoung Americans—seem to have lostconfidence in Social Security. They be-lieve that there will be no benefits forthem when they retire. Personal retire-ment accounts will provide the ac-countability and assurances thatAmericans are asking for.

I encourage my colleagues to take acareful look at my bill, and I invitemembers to co-sponsor it.

By Mr. AKAKA:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES792 January 20, 1999S. 264. A bill to increase the Federal

medical assistance percentage for Ha-waii to 59.8 percent; to the Committeeon Finance.

HAWAII FEDERAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCEPERCENTAGE ADJUSTMENT ACT

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I risetoday to reintroduce legislation I au-thored during the 105th Congress thatwould adjust the Federal Medical As-sistance Percentage (FMAP) rate forHawaii to reflect more fairly thestate’s ability to bear its share of Med-icaid payments.

The federal share of Medicaid pay-ments varies depending on each state’sability to pay—wealthier states bear alarger share of the cost of the program,and thus have lower FMAP rates. Percapita income is used as the measure ofstate wealth. Because per capita in-come in Hawaii is quite high, thestate’s FMAP rate is at the lowestlevel—50 percent. Hawaii is one of onlya dozen states whose FMAP rate is atthe 50 percent level. My bill would in-crease Hawaii’s FMAP rate from 50 per-cent to 59.8 percent.

Because of our geographic locationand other factors, the cost of living inHawaii greatly exceeds the cost of liv-ing on the mainland. Per capita incomeis a poor measure of a state’s ability tobear the cost of Medicaid services. Anexcellent analysis of this issue appearsin the 21st edition of The Federal Budg-et and the States, a joint study con-ducted by the Taubman Center forState and Local Government at Har-vard University’s John F. KennedySchool of Government and the office ofU.S. Senator DANIEL PATRICK MOY-NIHAN. According to the study, if percapita income is measured in realterms, Hawaii ranks 47th at $19,755compared to the national average of$24,231. This sheds a totally differentlight on the state’s financial status.

The cost of living in Honolulu is 83percent higher than the average of themetropolitan areas tracked by the U.S.Census Bureau, based on 1995 data. Re-cent studies have shown that for thestate as a whole, the cost of living ismore than one-third higher than therest of the U.S. In fact, Hawaii’s Costof Living Index ranks it as the highestin the country. Some government pro-grams take the high cost of living inHawaii into account and funding is ad-justed accordingly. These includeMedicare prospective payment rates,food stamp allocations, school lunchprograms, housing insurance limits,and military living expenses.

These examples reflect the recogni-tion that the higher cost of living innoncontiguous states should be takeninto account in fashioning governmentpolicies. It is time for similar recogni-tion of this factor in gauging Hawaii’sability to support its health care pro-grams. My colleagues may recall thatthe Balanced Budget Act of 1997 in-cluded a provision increasing Alaska’sFMAP rate to 59.8 percent. Setting ahigher match rate would still leave Ha-waii with a lower FMAP rate than a

majority of the states, but would moreaccurately reflect Hawaii’s ability topay its fair share of the costs of theMedicaid program.

Despite the high cost of living, theHarvard-Moynihan study finds that Ha-waii also has one of the highest pov-erty rates in the nation. The State’s16.9 percent poverty rate is eighth inthe country, compared to the nationalaverage of 14.7 percent. These highercosts are reflected in state governmentexpenditures and state taxation. Thus,on a per capita basis, state revenue andexpenditures are far higher in Hawaiiand Alaska, than in the 48 mainlandstates. The higher expenditure levelsare necessary to assure an adequatelevel of public services which are morecostly to provide in these states.

Of the top ten states with the highestpoverty rates in the country, the Har-vard-Moynihan study finds that onlythree others have an FMAP rate be-tween 50–60 percent. The other sixstates have FMAP rates of 65 percentand higher. Even more astonishing isthat of the top ten states with the low-est real per capita income, only Hawaiihas a 50 percent FMAP rate.

To bring equity to this situation, Ha-waii has sought an increase in itsFMAP rate over the past several years.Just as we did for Alaska in 1997, Ha-waii deserves equitable treatment. Thischange is long warranted. The samefactors justifying an increase for Alas-ka apply to Hawaii. Recognition of thispoint was made by House and Senateconferees to the Balanced Budget Act.The conferees noted that povertyguidelines for Alaska and Hawaii aredifferent than those for the rest of thenation, yet there is no variation fromthe national calculation in the FMAP.The conferees correctly noted thatcomparable adjustments are generallymade for Alaska and Hawaii.

The case for an FMAP increase is es-pecially compelling in Hawaii, whichhas a proud history of providing essen-tial health services in an innovativeand cost-effective manner. That com-mitment is not easy to fulfill. Unlikemost states, Hawaii’s Aid to Familieswith Dependent Children/TemporaryAssistance for Needy Families (AFDC/TANF) caseloads have risen signifi-cantly in recent years. Since TANFblock grants are based on historicalspending levels, the increased demandhas placed extreme pressure on stateresources.

Hawaii has sought to maintain a so-cial safety net while striving for moreefficient delivery of government serv-ices. The most striking example is theQUEST medical assistance program,which operates under a federal waiver.QUEST has brought managed care andbroader coverage to the state’s other-wise uninsured populations. At thesame time, Hawaii is the only statewhose employers guarantee health carecoverage to every full-time employee, afurther example of Hawaii’s commit-ment to a strong social support sys-tem.

There is a particularly strong needfor a more suitable FMAP rate for Ha-waii at this time. The state has notparticipated in the robust economicgrowth that has benefitted most of therest of the nation. Hawaii’s unemploy-ment rate is above the national aver-age and state tax revenues have fallenshort of projected estimates. The needto fund 50 percent of the cost of theMedicaid program puts an increasingstrain on the state’s resources.

For all of these reasons, the FMAPrates for Hawaii should be adjusted toreflect more equitably the state’s abil-ity to support the Medicaid program.This will assure that the special prob-lem of the noncontiguous states isdealt with in a principled manner.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate tosupport an upward adjustment in Ha-waii’s Federal Medical Assistance Per-centage.

Mr. President, in closing, I ask unan-imous consent that the text of the billbe printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill wasordered to be printed in the RECORD, asfollows:

S. 264

Be it enacted by the Senate and House ofRepresentatives of the United States of Americain Congress assembled,SECTION 1. INCREASED FMAP FOR HAWAII.

(a) INCREASED FMAP.—The first sentenceof section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act(42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and (3)’’ and inserting‘‘(3)’’; and

(2) by inserting before the period at the endthe following: ‘‘, and (4) for purposes of thistitle and title XXI, the Federal medical as-sistance percentage for Hawaii shall be 59.8percent’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentsmade by subsection (a) shall apply to—

(1) items and services furnished on or afterOctober 1, 1998, under—

(A) a State plan or under a waiver of suchplan under title XIX; and

(B) a State child health plan under titleXXI of such Act;

(2) payments made on a capitation or otherrisk-basis for coverage occurring under plansunder such titles on or after such date; and

(3) payments attributable to DSH allot-ments for Hawaii determined under section1923(f) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r–4(f)) forfiscal years beginning with fiscal year 1999.

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herselfand Ms. SNOWE):

S. 265. A bill entitled ‘‘HospitalLength of Stay Act of 1999’’; to theCommittee on Finance.

HOSPITAL LENGTH OF STAY ACT OF 1999

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President,today, Senator OLYMPIA SNOWE and Iare introducing a bill to guarantee thatthe decision of how long a patient re-ceives care in the hospital is left to theattending physician. Our legislationwould require health insurance plansto cover the length of hospital stay forany procedure or illness as determinedby the attending physician, in con-sultation with the patient, to be medi-cally appropriate.

The bill is endorsed by the AmericanMedical Association, the American

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S793January 20, 1999College of Surgeons, the American Col-lege of Obstetricians and Gyne-cologists, the American Academy ofNeurology, and the American Psycho-logical Association.

Only a physician taking care of thepatient, who understands the patient’shistory, medical condition and needs,should make the decision as to howmuch hospital care a person needs.Physicians are trained to evaluate allthe unique needs and problems of eachindividual patient. Every patient’s con-dition varies and the course of their ill-ness also varies. Some patients arefragile or weak. Others do not respondwell to general anesthesia. Complica-tions arise. Each patient is a unique in-dividual with varying degrees ofhealth.

The American Medical Association,concerned that pre-determined lengthof stay criteria are ‘‘moving away fromscientific, patient-focused principles ofcare,’’ resulting in ‘‘quicker and sick-er’’ discharges and poor patient out-comes, has developed patient-based dis-charge criteria. These criteria includeconsiderations such as the patient’sphysiological, psychological, social andfunctional needs. The AMA criteriasay: ‘‘Patients should not be dis-charged from the hospital when theirdisease or symptoms cannot be ade-quately treated or monitored in thedischarge setting.’’

Lengths of stay should not be deter-mined by insurance company clerks,actuaries or non-medical personnel. Itis the attending physician, not a physi-cian or other representative of an in-surance company, that should decidewhen to admit and discharge someone.

A number of physicians and otherhealth care providers have expressed tome their great frustration with thecurrent health care climate, in whichthey feel they spend too much of theirtime trying to justify their decisionson medical necessity to insurance com-panies.

For example, Donna Damico, a nursein a Maryland psychiatric unit of ahospital, told National Public Radio onOctober 1, 1997: ‘‘I spend my dayswatching the care on my unit be di-rected by faceless people from insur-ance companies on the other end of thephone. My hospital employs a full-timenurse whose entire job is to talk to in-surance reviewers * * * The reviewer’sbackground can range anywhere fromhigh school graduate to nurse, socialworker or even actual physicians.’’

In 1996, we addressed the problem of‘‘drive-through’’ baby deliveries be-cause insurance plans would only payfor one day of hospital car for child-birth. This was fraught with problemslike jaundiced babies that had to be re-hospitalized and mothers who devel-oped problems which only worsened be-cause they were sent home despite phy-sicians’ view that a mother’s andbaby’s stability are not usuallyreached until the third post-partumday.

We have also been told of so-called‘‘drive-through’’ mastectomies. Some

HMO’s have made mastectomy an out-patient procedure. Women who havehad a radical mastectomy at 7:30 a.m.have been out on the street at 4:30 thatafternoon, dizzy and weak, unable tocope with drainage tubes and disfigure-ment. Senator SNOWE and I are intro-ducing a separate bill to address this.

A California pediatrician told me of achild with very bad asthma. The insur-ance plan authorized 3 days in the hos-pital; the doctor wanted 4–5 days. Hetold us about a baby with infant botu-lism (poisoning), a baby with a toxinthat had spread from the intestine tothe nervous system so that the childcould not breathe. The doctor thoughta 10–14 day hospital stay was medicallynecessary for the baby; the insuranceplan insisted on one week.

A California neurologist told usabout a seven-year-old girl with an earinfection who went to the doctor fever-ish. When her illness developed intopneumonia, she was admitted to thehospital. After two days she was senthome, but she then returned to the hos-pital three times because her insuranceplan only covered a certain number ofdays. The third time she returned shehad meningitis, which can be lifethreatening. The doctor said that ifthis girl had stayed in the hospital thefirst time for five to seven days, theantibiotics would have killed the infec-tion, and the meningitis would neverhave developed.

A 27-year-old man from central Cali-fornia had a heart transplant and wasforced out of the hospital after 4 daysbecause his HMO would not pay formore days. He died.

Nurses in St. Luke’s Hospital, SanFrancisco, say that women are beingsent home after only two nights after ahysterectomy and two nights for a Cae-sarean section delivery, both of whichare major abdominal surgeries, eventhough physicians think the womenare not ready to go home.

Lisa Breakey, a San Jose speech pa-thologist, came to my office and toldus that she is providing home healthfor stroke patients she used to see inthe hospital. She sees patients in theirhomes who have tubes in their stomachfor feeding and tracheotomy tubes intheir throats for breathing. Thesetrach tubes have an inflated balloon orcuff which a family member must de-flate and inflate by using a needle.Family members are supposed to suc-tion the patient’s mouth and throat be-fore they deflate the cuff. Families, shestressed, are providing intensive care,for which they are unprepared and un-trained. Bedrooms have become hos-pital rooms.

Another California physician told usabout a patient who needed total hipreplacement because her hip had failed.The doctor believed a seven-day staywas warranted; the plan would only au-thorize five.

Rep. GREG GANSKE, a physician serv-ing in the House, told the story of asix-year-old child who nearly drowned.The child was put on a ventilator and

it appeared that he would not live. Thehospital got a call from the insurancecompany, asking if the doctor had con-sidered sending the boy home becausehome ventilation is cheaper.

These cases can be summarized in thecomments of a Chico, California, ma-ternity ward nurse: ‘‘People’s treat-ment depends on the type of insurancethey have rather than what’s best forthem.’’

As I have mentioned, premature dis-charges can increase readmissions andmedical complications.

On March 23, 1998, American MedicalNews (according to Dr. David Phillips)reported that the ‘‘shift toward out-patient treatment actually has come atquite a high price * * * an increasedloss of lives.’’ This University of Cali-fornia study found that medication er-rors are 3 times higher among out-patients than inpatients and medicalpersonnel in outpatient care providelimited oversight of medications’ sideeffects.

Ms. Damico, the nurse interviewed onNPR, said, ‘‘Patients return to us inacute states because their insurancewill no longer pay the same amount fortheir outpatient treatment * * * [They]deteriorate to the point of suicidalthoughts or attempts and need to re-turn to the hospital.’’ She cited the ex-ample of a suicidal woman whose plandenied a hospital admission requestedby her physician. After the doctor toldher of the denial, she took twenty 50-milligram tabs of Benadryl, was thenadmitted, and the plan then had to payfor hospital care, an ambulance andemergency room fees.

So not only do premature dischargescompromise health, they also ulti-mately cost the insurer more.

Physicians say they have to fight al-most daily with insurance companiesto give patients the hospital care theyneed and to justify their decisionsabout patient care.

An American Medical Association re-view of a managed care contract(Aetna US Healthcare) found that thecontract gives ‘‘the company the uni-lateral authority to change materialterms of the contract and to make de-terminations of medical necessity * * *without regard to physician determina-tions or scientific or clinical protocols.* * *,’’ according to the January 19,1998 American Medical News.

A study by the American Academy ofNeurology found that the guidelines(Milliman and Robertson) used bymany insurance companies on length ofstay are ‘‘extraordinarily short in com-parison to a large National Library ofMedicine database * * * And that [theguidelines] do not relate to anythingresembling the average hospital pa-tient or attending physician * * *.’’The neurologists found that theseguidelines were ‘‘statistically devel-oped,’’ and not scientifically sound orclinically relevant.

A study in the April 1997 Bulletin ofthe American College of Surgeons

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES794 January 20, 1999found that surgeons stated that the ap-propriate length of stay for an appen-dectomy is zero to five days, while in-surance industry guidelines set a spe-cific coverage limit of one day.

The arbitrary limits set by HMO’sand insurance plans are resulting inunintended consequences. Some 7 in 10physicians said that in dealing withmanaged care plans, they have exag-gerated the severity of a patient’s con-dition to ‘‘prevent him or her frombeing sent home from a hospital pre-maturely.’’ Dr. David Schriger, atUCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles,said that he routinely has patientssuch as a frail, elderly woman with theflu, who is not in imminent danger butcould encounter serious problems if sheis sent home during the night. He toldthe Washington Post, ‘‘At this point Ihave to figure out a way to put her inthe hospital. . . . And typically, I’llcome up with a reason acceptable tothe insurer,’’ and orders a blood testand chest x-ray to justify admission.

The Post article also cited KaiserPermanente’s Texas division, which‘‘warned doctors in urgent care centersnot to tell patients they required hos-pitalization,’’ as one Kaiser adminis-trator recalled. ‘‘We basically said [to]the UCC doctors, ‘If you value your job,you won’t say anything about hos-pitalization. All you’ll say is, I thinkyou need further evaluation. . . .’ ’’

Ms. Damico, the psychiatric nurseinterviewed on NPR said, ‘‘Our utiliza-tion review nurse gives all of us, in-cluding the doctors, good advice onhow to chart so that our patients’ carewill be covered. . . . We all conspirequietly to make certain the chartslook and sound bad enough.’’

On August 2, 1998, calling it the‘‘brave new world of managed care,’’the San Jose Mercury News reported,‘‘to cut costs HMOs are shifting theburden of caring for the sick from theirstaff and provider networks to patientsthemselves and their often ill-preparedfamily members,’’ by reducing hospitalstays. ‘‘Patients who used to be in thehospital for a week after a hip replace-ment now stay only three days; pa-tients who had coronary artery bypassgraft surgery are pushed out after fouror five. Doctors are routinely perform-ing operations in outpatient surgerycenters, clinics or their offices, whichwere once done in the hospital.’’ Thisarticle cited, as examples,mastectomies, knee surgery, parts ofbone marrow transplants, and cancerchemotherapies.

The American College of Surgeonssaid it all when this prestigious organi-zation wrote: ‘‘We believe very strong-ly that any health care system or planthat removes the surgeon and the pa-tient from the medical decision-mak-ing process only undermines the qual-ity of that patient’s care and his or herhealth and well-being. . . . specific,single numbers [of days] cannot andshould not be used to represent alength of stay for a given procedure.’’(April 24, 1997) ACS on March 5 wrote,

‘‘We believe very strongly that anyhealth care system or plan that re-moves the surgeon and the patientfrom the medical decision makingprocess only undermines the quality ofthat patient’s care and his or herhealth and well being.’’

The American Medical Associationwrote on May 20, 1998, ‘‘We are grati-fied that this bill would promote thefundamental concept, which the AMAhas always endorsed, that medical deci-sions should be made by patients andtheir physicians, rather than by insur-ers or legislators. . . . We appreciateyour initiative and ongoing efforts toprotect patients by ensuring that phy-sicians may identify medically appro-priate lengths of stay, unfettered bythird party payers.’’

The American Psychological Associa-tion, on March 4, 1998 wrote me, ‘‘Weare pleased to support this legislation,which will require all health plans tofollow the best judgment of the patientand attending provider when determin-ing length of stay for inpatient treat-ment.’’

New treatments, particularly lessinvasive treatments, have shortenedmany hospital stays, but so also haspressure from insurers. Business andHealth magazine reported in ‘‘TheState of Health Care in America 1998’’that ‘‘HMOs and capitated point-of-service plans’’ were associated with thelowest inpatient stays. Other studiesreveal that in areas with high HMOcompetition, health care utilization islower for the entire population.’’ Thisstudy shows that for patients with tra-ditional fee-for-service insurance, theaverage length of stay in 1995 was 4.9days. For HMOs, it was 4.2 days. Cali-fornia Health Care Association datashow that in my state, the averagelength of stay has declined from 5.70days in 1986 to 4.45 in 1995. A study inthe spring 1996 issue of Health Affairsconcluded that the number of inpatientdays per thousand residents is lowerand has declined faster in Californiathan the national average. The averagelength of stay in California in 1996 was5.3 days, while nationally it was 6.4days. For example, a woman getting amastectomy in New York will stay inthe hospital an average of 5.78 days,but a mastectomy patient in Californiais likely to stay 2.98 days. (Inquiry,winter 1997–1998).

Americans are disenchanted with thehealth insurance system in this coun-try, as HMO hassles mount and physi-cians get effectively overruled by in-surance companies. Arbitrary insur-ance company rules cannot address thesubtleties of medical care. Three out ofevery four Americans are worriedabout their health care coverage andhalf say they are worried that doctorsare basing treatment decisions strictlyon what insurance plans will pay for.

This bill is one step toward returningmedical decision-making to those med-ical professionals trained to make med-ical decisions.

SUMMARY OF THE HOSPITAL LENGTH OF STAYACT OF 1998

Requires plans to cover hospitallengths of stay for all illnesses andconditions as determined by the physi-cian, in consultation with the patient,to be medically appropriate.

Prohibits plans from requiring pro-viders (physicians) to obtain a plan’sprior authorization for a hospitallength of stay.

Prohibits plans from denying eligi-bility or renewal for the purpose ofavoiding these requirements.

Prohibits plans from penalizing orotherwise reducing or limiting reim-bursement of the attending physicianbecause the physician provided care inaccordance with the requirements ofthe bill.

Prohibits plans from providing mone-tary or other incentives to induce aphysician to provide care inconsistentwith these requirements.

Includes language clarifying that—Nothing in the bill requires individ-

uals to stay in the hospital for a fixedperiod of time for any procedure;

Plans may require copayments butcopayments for a hospital stay deter-mined by the physician cannot exceedcopayments for any preceding portionof the stay.

Does not pre-empt state laws thatprovide greater protection.

Applies to private insurance plans,Medicare, Medicaid, Medigap, federalemployees’ plans, Children’s Health In-surance Plan, the Indian Health Serv-ice

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that the text of the bill be printedin the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill wasordered to be printed in the RECORD, asfollows:

S. 265Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of Americain Congress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘HospitalLength of Stay Act of 1999’’.SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF HOSPITAL LENGTH OF

STAY.(a) GROUP HEALTH PLANS.—(1) PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT AMEND-

MENTS.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Subpart 2 of part A of

title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act(42 U.S.C. 300gg–4 et seq.) is amended by add-ing at the end the following new section:‘‘SEC. 2707. STANDARDS RELATING TO COVERAGE

OF HOSPITAL LENGTHS OF STAY.‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT.—A group health plan

and a health insurance issuer offering grouphealth insurance coverage in connectionwith a group health plan (including a self-in-sured issuer) that provides coverage for inpa-tient hospital services—

‘‘(1) shall provide coverage for the lengthof an inpatient hospital stay as determinedby the attending physician (or other attend-ing health care provider to the extent per-mitted under State law) in consultation withthe patient to be medically appropriate; and

‘‘(2) may not require that a provider obtainauthorization from the plan or the issuer forprescribing any length of stay required underparagraph (1).

‘‘(b) PROHIBITIONS.—A group health planand a health insurance issuer offering group

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S795January 20, 1999health insurance coverage in connectionwith a group health plan (including a self-in-sured issuer) may not—

‘‘(1) deny to an individual eligibility, orcontinued eligibility, to enroll or to renewcoverage under the terms of the plan, solelyfor the purpose of avoiding the requirementsof this section;

‘‘(2) provide monetary payments or rebatesto an individual to encourage the individualto accept less than the minimum protectionsavailable under this section;

‘‘(3) penalize or otherwise reduce or limitthe reimbursement of an attending providerbecause such provider provided care to an in-dividual participant or beneficiary in accord-ance with this section;

‘‘(4) provide incentives (monetary or other-wise) to an attending provider to induce suchprovider to provide care to an individual par-ticipant or beneficiary in a manner incon-sistent with this section; or

‘‘(5) subject to subsection (c)(4), restrictbenefits for any portion of a period within ahospital length of stay required under sub-section (a) in a manner which is less favor-able than the benefits provided for any pre-ceding portion of such stay.

‘‘(c) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—‘‘(1) NO REQUIREMENT TO STAY.—Nothing in

this section shall be construed to require anindividual who is a participant or bene-ficiary to stay in the hospital for a fixed pe-riod of time for any procedure.

‘‘(2) NO EFFECT ON REQUIREMENTS FOR MINI-MUM HOSPITAL STAY FOLLOWING BIRTH.—Noth-ing in this section shall be construed asmodifying the requirements of section 2704.

‘‘(3) NONAPPLICABILITY.—This section shallnot apply with respect to any group healthplan, or any group health insurance coverageoffered by a health insurance issuer (includ-ing a self-insured issuer), which does not pro-vide benefits for hospital lengths of stay.

‘‘(4) COST-SHARING.—Nothing in this sec-tion shall be construed as preventing a grouphealth plan, or a health insurance issuer of-fering group health insurance coverage inconnection with a group health plan (includ-ing a self-insured issuer), from imposingdeductibles, coinsurance, or other cost-shar-ing in relation to benefits for hospitallengths of stay under the plan, health insur-ance coverage offered in connection with agroup health plan, or the supplemental pol-icy, except that such coinsurance or othercost-sharing for any portion of a period with-in a hospital length of stay required undersubsection (a) may not be greater than suchcoinsurance or cost-sharing for any preced-ing portion of such stay.

‘‘(d) NOTICE.—A group health plan underthis part shall comply with the notice re-quirement under section 714(d) of the Em-ployee Retirement Income Security Act of1974 with respect to the requirements of thissection as if such section applied to suchplan.

‘‘(e) LEVEL AND TYPE OF REIMBURSE-MENTS.—Nothing in this section shall be con-strued to prevent a group health plan or ahealth insurance issuer offering group healthinsurance coverage in connection with agroup health plan (including a self-insuredissuer) from negotiating the level and type ofreimbursement with a provider for care pro-vided in accordance with this section.

‘‘(f) PREEMPTION; EXCEPTION FOR HEALTHINSURANCE COVERAGE IN CERTAIN STATES.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The requirements of thissection shall not apply with respect tohealth insurance coverage if there is a Statelaw (as defined in section 2723(d)(1)) for aState that regulates such coverage and pro-vides greater protections to patients thanthose provided under this section.

‘‘(2) CONSTRUCTION.—Section 2723(a)(1) shallnot be construed as superseding a State lawdescribed in paragraph (1).’’.

(B) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section2723(c) of the Public Health Service Act (42U.S.C. 300gg–23(c)) is amended by striking‘‘section 2704’’ and inserting ‘‘sections 2704and 2707’’.

(2) ERISA AMENDMENTS.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Subpart B of part 7 of

subtitle B of title I of the Employee Retire-ment Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.1185 et seq.) is amended by adding at the endthe following new section:‘‘SEC. 714. STANDARDS RELATING TO COVERAGE

OF HOSPITAL LENGTHS OF STAY.‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT.—A group health plan

and a health insurance issuer offering grouphealth insurance coverage in connectionwith a group health plan (including a self-in-sured issuer), that provides coverage for in-patient hospital services—

‘‘(1) shall provide coverage for the lengthof an inpatient hospital stay as determinedby the attending physician (or other attend-ing health care provider to the extent per-mitted under State law) in consultation withthe patient to be medically appropriate; and

‘‘(2) may not require that a provider obtainauthorization from the plan or the issuer forprescribing any length of stay required underparagraph (1).

‘‘(b) PROHIBITIONS.—A group health planand a health insurance issuer offering grouphealth insurance coverage in connectionwith a group health plan (including a self-in-sured issuer), may not—

‘‘(1) deny to an individual eligibility, orcontinued eligibility, to enroll or to renewcoverage under the terms of the plan, solelyfor the purpose of avoiding the requirementsof this section;

‘‘(2) provide monetary payments or rebatesto an individual to encourage the individualto accept less than the minimum protectionsavailable under this section;

‘‘(3) penalize or otherwise reduce or limitthe reimbursement of an attending providerbecause such provider provided care to an in-dividual participant or beneficiary in accord-ance with this section;

‘‘(4) provide incentives (monetary or other-wise) to an attending provider to induce suchprovider to provide care to an individual par-ticipant or beneficiary in a manner incon-sistent with this section; or

‘‘(5) subject to subsection (c)(4), restrictbenefits for any portion of a period within ahospital length of stay required under sub-section (a) in a manner which is less favor-able than the benefits provided for any pre-ceding portion of such stay.

‘‘(c) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—‘‘(1) NO REQUIREMENT TO STAY.—Nothing in

this section shall be construed to require anindividual who is a participant or bene-ficiary to stay in the hospital for a fixed pe-riod of time for any procedure.

‘‘(2) NO EFFECT ON REQUIREMENTS FOR MINI-MUM HOSPITAL STAY FOLLOWING BIRTH.—Noth-ing in this section shall be construed asmodifying the requirements of section 711.

‘‘(3) NONAPPLICABILITY.—This section shallnot apply with respect to any group healthplan or any group health insurance coverageoffered by a health insurance issuer (includ-ing a self-insured issuer), which does not pro-vide benefits for hospital lengths of stay.

‘‘(4) COST-SHARING.—Nothing in this sec-tion shall be construed as preventing a grouphealth plan or a health insurance issuer of-fering group health insurance coverage inconnection with a group health plan (includ-ing a self-insured issuer), from imposingdeductibles, coinsurance, or other cost-shar-ing in relation to benefits for hospitallengths of stay under the plan or health in-surance coverage offered in connection with

a group health plan, except that such coin-surance or other cost-sharing for any portionof a period within a hospital length of stayrequired under subsection (a) may not begreater than such coinsurance or cost-shar-ing for any preceding portion of such stay.

‘‘(d) NOTICE UNDER GROUP HEALTH PLAN.—The imposition of the requirements of thissection shall be treated as a material modi-fication in the terms of the plan described insection 102(a)(1), for purposes of assuring no-tice of such requirements under the plan; ex-cept that the summary description requiredto be provided under the last sentence of sec-tion 104(b)(1) with respect to such modifica-tion shall be provided by not later than 60days after the first day of the first plan yearin which such requirements apply.

‘‘(e) LEVEL AND TYPE OF REIMBURSE-MENTS.—Nothing in this section shall be con-strued to prevent a group health plan or ahealth insurance issuer offering group healthinsurance coverage in connection with agroup health plan (including a self-insuredissuer), from negotiating the level and typeof reimbursement with a provider for careprovided in accordance with this section.

‘‘(f) PREEMPTION; EXCEPTION FOR HEALTHINSURANCE COVERAGE IN CERTAIN STATES.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The requirements of thissection shall not apply with respect tohealth insurance coverage if there is a Statelaw (as defined in section 731(d)(1)) for aState that regulates such coverage and pro-vides greater protections to patients thanthose provided under this section.

‘‘(2) CONSTRUCTION.—Section 731(a)(1) shallnot be construed as superseding a State lawdescribed in paragraph (1).’’.

(B) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(i) Section 731(c) of the Employee Retire-

ment Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.1191(c)) is amended by striking ‘‘section 711’’and inserting ‘‘sections 711 and 714’’.

(ii) Section 732(a) of the Employee Retire-ment Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.1191a(a)), as amended by section 603(b)(2) ofPublic Law 104–204, is amended by striking‘‘section 711’’ and inserting ‘‘sections 711 and714’’.

(iii) The table of contents in section 1 ofthe Employee Retirement Income SecurityAct of 1974 is amended by inserting after theitem relating to section 713 the followingnew item:‘‘Sec. 714. Standards relating to coverage of

hospital lengths of stay.’’.(b) INDIVIDUAL MARKET.—Subpart 3 of part

B of title XXVII of the Public Health ServiceAct (42 U.S.C. 300gg–51 et seq.) is amended byadding at the end the following new section:‘‘SEC. 2753. STANDARDS RELATING TO COVERAGE

OF HOSPITAL LENGTHS OF STAY.‘‘The provisions of section 2707 shall apply

to health insurance coverage offered by ahealth insurance issuer in the individualmarket in the same manner as they apply tohealth insurance coverage offered by ahealth insurance issuer in connection with agroup health plan in the small or large groupmarket.’’.

(c) EFFECTIVE DATES.—(1) GROUP HEALTH PLANS.—Subject to para-

graph (3), the amendments made by sub-section (a) shall apply with respect to grouphealth plans for plan years beginning on orafter January 1, 2000.

(2) HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.—Theamendment made by subsection (b) shallapply with respect to health insurance cov-erage offered, sold, issued, renewed, in effect,or operated in the individual market on orafter such date.

(3) COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.—In the case of a group health plan main-tained pursuant to 1 or more collective bar-gaining agreements between employee rep-resentatives and 1 or more employers rati-fied before the date of enactment of this Act,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES796 January 20, 1999the amendments made subsection (a) shallnot apply to plan years beginning before thelater of—

(A) the date on which the last collectivebargaining agreements relating to the planterminates (determined without regard toany extension thereof agreed to after thedate of enactment of this Act), or

(B) January 1, 2000.

For purposes of subparagraph (A), any planamendment made pursuant to a collectivebargaining agreement relating to the planwhich amends the plan solely to conform toany requirement added by subsection (a)shall not be treated as a termination of suchcollective bargaining agreement.SEC. 3. APPLICATION TO MEDICARE AND MEDIC-

AID BENEFICIARIES.(a) MEDICARE.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Title XVIII of the Social

Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) isamended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘STANDARDS RELATING TO COVERAGE OFHOSPITAL LENGTHS OF STAY

‘‘SEC. 1897. (a) APPLICATION TO MEDICARE.—Notwithstanding the limitation on benefitsdescribed in section 1812, or any other limi-tation on benefits imposed under this title,the provisions of section 2707 of the PublicHealth Service Act shall apply to the provi-sion of items and services under this title.

‘‘(b) MEDICARE+CHOICE AND ELIGIBLE ORGA-NIZATIONS.—The Secretary may not enterinto a contract with a Medicare+Choice or-ganization under part C, or with an eligibleorganization with a risk-sharing contractunder section 1876, unless the organizationmeets the requirements of section 2707 of thePublic Health Service Act with respect to in-dividuals enrolled with the organization.’’.

(2) MEDICARE SUPPLEMENTAL POLICIES.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Section 1882(c) of the So-

cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ss(c)) isamended—

(i) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ atthe end;

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

(iii) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(6) meets the requirements of section 2707

of the Public Health Service Act with re-spect to individuals enrolled under the pol-icy.’’.

(B) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section1882(b)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42U.S.C. 1395ss(b)(1)(B)) is amended by striking‘‘(5)’’ and inserting ‘‘(6)’’.

(3) COST SHARING.—Nothing in this sub-section or section 2707(c) of the PublicHealth Service Act shall be construed as au-thorizing the imposition of cost sharing withrespect to the coverage or benefits requiredto be provided under the amendments to theSocial Security Act made by paragraphs (1)and (2) that is inconsistent with the costsharing that is otherwise permitted undertitle XVIII of the Social Security Act.

(b) MEDICAID.—Title XIX of the Social Se-curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) is amendedby redesignating section 1935 as section 1936and by inserting after section 1934 the fol-lowing:

‘‘STANDARDS RELATING TO COVERAGE OFHOSPITAL LENGTHS OF STAY

‘‘SEC. 1935. (a) IN GENERAL.—A State planmay not be approved under this title unlessthe plan requires each health insuranceissuer or other entity with a contract withsuch plan to provide coverage or benefits toindividuals eligible for medical assistanceunder the plan, including a managed care en-tity, as defined in section 1932(a)(1)(B), tocomply with the provisions of section 2707 ofthe Public Health Service Act with respectto such coverage or benefits.

‘‘(b) COST SHARING.—Nothing in this sec-tion or section 2707(c) of the Public Health

Service Act shall be construed as authorizinga health insurance issuer or entity to imposecost sharing with respect to the coverage orbenefits required to be provided under sec-tion 2707 of the Public Health Service Actthat is inconsistent with the cost sharingthat is otherwise permitted under this title.

‘‘(c) WAIVERS PROHIBITED.—The require-ment of subsection (a) may not be waivedunder section 1115 or section 1915(b) of theSocial Security Act.’’.

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentsmade by this section apply to contract yearsunder titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Se-curity Act beginning on or after January 1,2000.

(d) MEDIGAP TRANSITION PROVISIONS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary of Health

and Human Services identifies a State as re-quiring a change to its statutes or regula-tions to conform its regulatory program tothe changes made by subsection (a)(2), theState regulatory program shall not be con-sidered to be out of compliance with the re-quirements of section 1882 of the Social Se-curity Act due solely to failure to make suchchange until the date specified in paragraph(4).

(2) NAIC STANDARDS.—If, within 9 monthsafter the date of the enactment of this Act,the National Association of Insurance Com-missioners (in this subsection referred to asthe ‘‘NAIC’’) modifies its NAIC Model Regu-lation relating to section 1882 of the SocialSecurity Act (referred to in such section asthe 1991 NAIC Model Regulation, as modifiedpursuant to section 171(m)(2) of the SocialSecurity Act Amendments of 1994 (PublicLaw 103–432) and as modified pursuant to sec-tion 1882(d)(3)(A)(vi)(IV) of the Social Secu-rity Act, as added by section 271(a) of theHealth Insurance Portability and Account-ability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–191) toconform to the amendments made by thissection, such revised regulation incorporat-ing the modifications shall be considered tobe the applicable NAIC model regulation (in-cluding the revised NAIC model regulationand the 1991 NAIC Model Regulation) for thepurposes of such section.

(3) SECRETARY STANDARDS.—If the NAICdoes not make the modifications described inparagraph (2) within the period specified insuch paragraph, the Secretary of Health andHuman Services shall make the modifica-tions described in such paragraph and suchrevised regulation incorporating the modi-fications shall be considered to be the appro-priate Regulation for the purposes of suchsection.

(4) DATE SPECIFIED.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph

(B), the date specified in this paragraph for aState is the earlier of—

(i) the date the State changes its statutesor regulations to conform its regulatory pro-gram to the changes made by this section, or

(ii) 1 year after the date the NAIC or theSecretary first makes the modificationsunder paragraph (2) or (3), respectively.

(B) ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE ACTION RE-QUIRED.—In the case of a State which theSecretary identifies as—

(i) requiring State legislation (other thanlegislation appropriating funds) to conformits regulatory program to the changes madein this section, but

(ii) having a legislature which is not sched-uled to meet in 2000 in a legislative sessionin which such legislation may be considered,

the date specified in this paragraph is thefirst day of the first calendar quarter begin-ning after the close of the first legislativesession of the State legislature that beginson or after July 1, 2000. For purposes of theprevious sentence, in the case of a State thathas a 2-year legislative session, each year of

such session shall be deemed to be a separateregular session of the State legislature.SEC. 4. APPLICATION TO OTHER HEALTH CARE

COVERAGE.(a) FEHBP.—Chapter 89 of title 5, United

States Code, is amended by adding at the endthe following:‘‘§ 8915. Standards relating to coverage of

hospital lengths of stay‘‘(a) The provisions of section 2707 of the

Public Health Service Act shall apply to theprovision of items and services under thischapter.

‘‘(b) Nothing in this section or section2707(c) of the Public Health Service Act shallbe construed as authorizing a health insur-ance issuer or entity to impose cost sharingwith respect to the coverage or benefits re-quired to be provided under section 2707 ofthe Public Health Service Act that is incon-sistent with the cost sharing that is other-wise permitted under this chapter.’’.

(b) MEDICAL CARE FOR MEMBERS AND CER-TAIN FORMER MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMEDSERVICES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS.—Chapter55 of title 10, United States Code, is amendedby adding at the end the following:‘‘§ 1110. Standards relating to coverage of

hospital lengths of stay‘‘(a) APPLICATION OF STANDARDS.—The pro-

visions of section 2707 of the Public HealthService Act shall apply to the provision ofitems and services under this chapter.

‘‘(b) COST-SHARING.—Nothing in this sec-tion or section 2707(c) of the Public HealthService Act shall be construed as authorizingthe imposition of cost sharing with respectto the coverage or benefits required to beprovided under section 2707 of the PublicHealth Service Act that is inconsistent withthe cost sharing that is otherwise permittedunder this chapter.’’.

(c) VETERANS.—Subchapter II of chapter 17of title 38, United States Code, is amended byadding at the end the following:‘‘§ 1720E. Standards relating to coverage of

hospital lengths of stay‘‘(a) The provisions of section 2707 of the

Public Health Service Act shall apply to theprovision of items and services under thischapter.

‘‘(b) Nothing in this section or section2707(c) of the Public Health Service Act shallbe construed as authorizing the impositionof cost sharing with respect to the coverageor benefits required to be provided under sec-tion 2706 of the Public Health Service Actthat is inconsistent with the cost sharingthat is otherwise permitted under this chap-ter.’’.

(d) STATE CHILDREN’S HEALTH INSURANCEPROGRAM.—Section 2109 of the Social Secu-rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ii) is amended by add-ing at the end the following:

‘‘(b) APPLICATION OF STANDARDS RELATINGTO COVERAGE OF HOSPITAL LENGTHS OFSTAY.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The provisions of section2707 of the Public Health Service Act shallapply to the provision of items and servicesunder this title.

‘‘(2) COST-SHARING.—Nothing in this sec-tion or section 2707(c) of the Public HealthService Act shall be construed as authorizinga health insurance issuer or entity to imposecost sharing with respect to the coverage orbenefits required to be provided under sec-tion 2707 of the Public Health Service Actthat is inconsistent with the cost sharingthat is otherwise permitted under thistitle.’’.

(e) INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE AND HEALTHCARE PROVIDED BY TRIBAL ORGANIZATIONS.—Title VIII of the Indian Health Care Improve-ment Act (25 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.) is amendedby adding at the end the following:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S797January 20, 1999‘‘STANDARDS RELATING TO COVERAGE OF

HOSPITAL LENGTHS OF STAY

‘‘SEC. 826. (a) The provisions of section 2707of the Public Health Service Act shall applyto the provision of items and services underthis Act by the Service or a tribal organiza-tion.

‘‘(b) Nothing in this section or section2707(c) of the Public Health Service Act shallbe construed as authorizing the impositionof cost sharing with respect to the coverageor benefits required to be provided under sec-tion 2707 of the Public Health Service Actthat is inconsistent with the cost sharingthat is otherwise permitted under this Act.’’.

(f) HEALTH CARE PROVIDED TO PEACE CORPSVOLUNTEERS.—Section 5(e) of the PeaceCorps Act (22 U.S.C. 2504(e)) is amended byadding at the end the following: ‘‘The provi-sions of section 2707 of the Public HealthService Act shall apply to the provision ofitems and services under this section. Noth-ing in this section or section 2707(c) of thePublic Health Service Act shall be construedas authorizing the imposition of cost sharingwith respect to the coverage or benefits re-quired to be provided under section 2707 ofthe Public Health Service Act that is incon-sistent with the cost sharing that is other-wise permitted under this section.’’.

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:S. 266. A bill to amend the Clean Air

Act to permit the exclusive applicationof California State regulations regard-ing reformulated gasoline in certainareas within the State; to the Commit-tee on Environment and Public Works.

S. 267. A bill to amend the SolidWaste Disposal Act to direct Adminis-trator of Environmental ProtectionAgency to give highest priority to pe-troleum contaminants in drinkingwater in issuing corrective action or-ders under the response program for pe-troleum; to the Committee on Environ-ment and Public Works.

S. 268. A bill to specify the effectivedate of and require an amendment tothe final rule of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency regulating exhaustemissions from new spark-ignition gas-oline marine engines; to the Commit-tee on Environment and Public Works.ELIMINATE MTBE FROM CALIFORNIA’S DRINKING

WATER

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President,today I am introducing three bills tostop the contamination of California’sdrinking water by the gasoline additiveMTBE.

First, I am introducing a bill to allowCalifornia to apply its own clean or re-formulated gasoline rules as long asemissions reductions are equivalent orgreater. California’s rules are stricterthan the federal rules and thus meetthe air quality requirements of the fed-eral Clean Air Act. This bill is the com-panion to H.R. 11 introduced by Rep-resentative BILBRAY on January 6, 1998.

MTBE or methyl tertiary butyl ei-ther is added to gasoline by some refin-ers in response to federal requirementsthat areas with the most serious airpollution problems use what is called‘‘reformulated gasoline,’’ a type ofcleaner-burning gasoline. The federallaw requires that this gasoline contain2 percent by weight oxygenate. MTBEhas been the oxygenate of choice bysome refiners.

The major source of MTBE ingroundwater appears to be leaking un-derground storage tanks. In surfacewater, it is recreational gasoline-pow-ered boating and personal watercraft,according to the California Environ-mental Protection Agency.

The second bill requires the U.S. En-vironmental Protection Agency tomake petroleum releases into drinkingwater the highest priority in the fed-eral underground storage tank cleanupprogram. This bill is needed becauseunderground storage tanks are themajor source of MTBE into drinkingwater and federal law does not giveEPA specific guidance on cleanup pri-orities.

The third bill will move from 2006 to2001 full implementation of EPA’s cur-rent watercraft engine exhaust emis-sions requirements. The California AirResources Board on December 10, 1998,adopted watercraft engine regulationsin effect making the federal EPA ruleseffective in 2001, so this bill will makethe deadline in the federal require-ments consistent with California’sdeadlines. In addition, the bill will re-quire an emissions label on these en-gines consistent with California’s re-quirements so the consumer can makean informed purchasing choice. Thisbill is needed because watercraft en-gines have remained essentially un-changed since the 1930s and up to 30percent of the gas that goes into themotor goes into water unburned.

These three bills represent threesteps toward getting MRBE out of Cali-fornia’s drinking water.

BILL 1: THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN GAS FORMULA

The Feinstein-Bilbray bill would pro-vide that if a state’s reformulated gas-oline rules achieve equal or greateremissions reductions than federal regu-lations, a state’s rules will take prece-dence. The bill would apply only tostates which have received waiversunder Section 209(b)(1) of the Clean AirAct. California is the only state cur-rently eligible for this waiver, a waiverallowing California to set its own fuelstandards. The other 49 states do notset their own fuel specifications.

This bill would exempt Californiafrom overlapping federal oxygenate re-quirements and give gasoline manufac-turers the flexibility to reduce or eveneliminate the use of MTBE, while notreducing our air quality.

In 1994, the CARB adopted a ‘‘pre-dictive model,’’ which is a performancebased program that allows refiners touse innovative fuel formulations tomeet clean air requirements. The pre-dictive model provides twice the cleanair benefits required by the federalgovernment. With this model, refinerscan make cleaner burning gasolinewith one percent oxygen or even no ox-ygen at all. The federal two percent ox-ygenate requirement limits this kindof innovation. In fact, Tosco and Shellare already making MTBE-free gaso-line.

In addition, Chevron has said:MTBE is the best oxygenate of choice for

blending CBG (clean burning gasoline) in

California refineries. . . . However, consist-ent with our desire to reduce or eliminateMTBE from cleaner burning gas (CBG), wewant the flexibility to be able to make pru-dent use of any oxygenate—MTBE, ethanol,or the use of no oxygenate—while meetingthe emissions performance standards of re-formulated gasolines. If the government al-lows this flexibility, Chevron would likelyuse more ethanol than now to efficientlyprovide cleaning burning gasoline.

The legislation allows that compa-nies who serve California’s gasolineneeds to continue to adopt innovativeformulas for cleaner burning gasolinewithout contaminating the water.

The University of California study,released in November, recommendedphasing our MTBE and concluded thatoil companies can make cleaner-burn-ing gasoline that meets federal airstandards without MTBE.

THE PROBLEM: DRINKING WATERCONTAMINATION

Contamination of California’s drink-ing water by MTBE is growing almostdaily. A December 14, 1998 San Fran-cisco Chronicle headline calls MTBE a‘‘Ticking Bomb.’’ The University ofCalifornia study says, ‘‘If MTBE con-tinues to be used at current levels andmore sources become contaminated,the potential for regional degradationof water resources, especially ground-water basins, will increase. Severity ofwater shortages during drought yearswill be exacerbated.’’

In higher concentrations, MTBEsmells like turpentine and it tasteslike paint thinner. Relatively low lev-els of MTBE can simply make drinkingwater simply undrinkable.

MTBE is a highly soluble organiccompound which moves quicklythrough soil and gravel. It thereforeposes a more rapid threat to water sup-plies than other constituents of gaso-line when leaks occur. MTBE is easilytraced, but is very difficult and expen-sive to cleanup. The Association ofCalifornia Water Agencies estimatesthat it would cost as much as $1 mil-lion per well to install treatment tech-nology to remove MTBE from drinkingwater. Without these funds, the onlyoption is to shut down wells.

MTBE use has escalated from 12,000barrels a day in 1980 to about 100,000barrels today, according to CARB. EPAsays that about 30 percent of the na-tion’s gasoline is reformulated gas andMTBE is used in about 84 percent of re-formulated gasoline. Two-thirds ofCalifornia’s gasoline is subject to thefederal oxygenate requirement. Thisgrowth in use of MTBE is directly at-tributable to the requirements of theFederal Clean Air Act.

CONTAMINATION WIDESPREAD

A June 12, 1998 Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory study concludedthat MTBE is a ‘‘frequent and wide-spread contaminant’’ in groundwaterthroughout California and does not de-grade significantly once it is there.This study found that groundwater hasbeen contaminated at over 10,000 shal-low monitoring sites. The Livermore

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES798 January 20, 1999study says that ‘‘MTBE has the poten-tial to impact regional groundwater re-sources and may present a cumulativecontamination hazard.’’

Californians are more dependent ongroundwater as a source of drinkingwater than most Americans. Accordingto the U.S. Geological Survey, 69 per-cent of California’s population relieson groundwater as their source ofdrinking water, while for the U.S. pop-ulation at large, 53 percent of the popu-lation relies on groundwater.

Similarly, the Association of Califor-nia Water Agencies reports that MTBEhas impacted over 10,000 sites.

MTBE has been detected in drinkingwater supplies in a number of cities, in-cluding Santa Monica, Riverside, Ana-heim, Los Angeles, San Francisco,Sebastopol, Manteca, and San Diego.MTBE has also been detected in numer-ous California reservoirs, includingLake Shasta in Redding, San Pablo andCherry reservoirs in the Bay Area, andCoyote and Anderson reservoirs inSanta Clara.

Santa Monica lost 75 percent of itsgroundwater supply; the South LakeTahoe Public Utility District has lostover one-third of drinking water wells.Drinking water wells in Santa ClaraValley (Great Oaks Water Company)and Sacramento (Fruitridge VistaWater Company) have been shut downbecause of MTBE contamination.

In addition, MTBE has been detectedin the following surface water res-ervoirs: Lake Perris (MetropolitanWater District of Southern California),Anderson Reservoir (Santa Clara Val-ley Water District), Canyon Lake(Elsinore Valley Municipal Water Dis-trict), Pardee Reservoir and San PabloReservoir (East Bay Municipal UtilityDistrict), Lake Berryessa (SolanoCounty Water Agency).

The largest contamination occurredin the city of Santa Monica, which lost75% of its groundwater supply as a re-sult of MTBE leaking out of shallowgas tanks beneath the surface; MTBEhas been discovered in publicly ownedwells approximately 100 feet from CityCouncil Chamber in South Lake Tahoe;In Glennvile, California, near Bakers-field, MTBE levels have been detectedin groundwater as high as 190,000 partsper billion—dramatically exceeding theCalifornia Department of Health advi-sory of 35 parts per billion; and

DANGERS OF MTBE

The United States EPA has indicatedthat ‘‘MTBE is an animal carcinogenand has a human carcinogenic hazardpotential.’’

Studies to assess hazards to animalshave found that MTBE is carcinogenicin rodents in high doses. MTBE hasbeen linked to leukemia andlymphomas in female rats and an in-crease in benign testicular tumors inmale rats. Studies of inhalation expo-sure in rats have also shown increasedincidence of kidney, testicular, andliver tumors. Inhalation exposure hasalso resulted in adverse effect on devel-oping mouse fetuses.

The Alaska Department of Healthand Social Services and the Centers forDisease Control monitored concentra-tions of MTBE in the air and in theblood of humans in 1992 and 1993. Bloodlevels of MTBE were analyzed in gaso-line station and car-repair workers andcommuters. People with higher bloodlevels of MTBE were significantly morelikely to report more headaches, eyeirritation, nausea, dizziness, burning ofthe nose and throat, coughing, dis-orientation and vomiting, comparedwith those who had lower blood levels.From these studies, EPA concluded,‘‘MTBE can pose a hazard of non-can-cer effects to humans at high doses.The data do not support confidentquantitative estimations or risk at lowexposure.’’CALIFORNIA’S REGULATIONS CAN ACHIEVE WHAT

FEDERAL LAW INTENDS

The federal gasoline oxygenate re-quirement went into effect in Decem-ber 1994, affecting areas where the airquality is the worst. Today, reformu-lated gasoline is required by federallaw in the following areas of Califor-nia:

Year-round: Oxygenates are requiredto be used in the South Coast Air Basin(the counties of Los Angeles, Riverside,San Bernadino, Orange, Ventura) andthe Sacramento metropolitan area(which includes all of SacramentoCounty and portions of Yolo, Placerand Eldorado County).

Wintertime: Oxygenates are requiredto be added to gasoline in the SouthernCalifornia Air Basin (the entire coun-ties of Los Angeles, Riverside, SanBernardino, Orange, and Ventura), Im-perial County, Fresno and Lake Tahoe.

While federal Clean Air Act regula-tions were being promulgated, the Cali-fornia Air Resources Board developedmore stringent air standards, using a‘‘predictive model.’’

The Clean Air Act has no doubthelped reduce emissions throughoutthe United States, but the federal re-quirements have imposed limitationson the level of flexibility that U.S.EPA can grant to California. The over-lapping applicability of both the fed-eral and state reformulated gasolinerules has actually prohibited gasolinemanufacturers from responding as ef-fectively as possible to unforseen prob-lems with their product. This bill ad-dresses exactly this type of situation.

This legislation rewards Californiafor its unique and effective approach insolving its own air quality problems bypermitting it an exemption from fed-eral oxygenate requirements as long astough environmental standards are en-forced. This bill does not weaken theClean Air Act, but instead is a step inthe right direction, towards sound en-vironmental policy. It is a narrowly-targeted bill designed to make ourdrinking water clean to drink. Withthis bill, California is once again tak-ing the initiative to lead the way in en-suring the protection of the air webreath, and the water we drink.

By allowing the companies that sup-ply our state’s gasoline to use good

science and sound environmental pol-icy, we can achieve the goals set forthby the Clean Air Act, without sacrific-ing California’s clean water.

CALIFORNIA, A LEADER IN AIR CLEANUP

California’s efforts to improve airquality predate similar federal effortsand have achieved marked success inreducing emissions, resulting in thecleanest air Californians have seen indecades.

Since the introduction of CaliforniaCleaner Burning Gasoline program,there has been a 300 ton per day de-crease in ozone forming ingredientsfound in the air. This is the emissionreduction equivalent of taking 3.5 mil-lion automobiles off the road. Califor-nia reformulated gasoline reducessmog forming emissions from vehiclesby 15 percent.

The state has also seen a marked de-crease in first stage smog alerts, dur-ing which residents with respiratoryailments are encouraged to stay in-doors.

John Dunlap, former Chairman ofCalifornia’s Air Board, who supportsthis legislation, has said:

. . . our program has proven (to have) asignificant effect on California’s air quality.Following the introduction of California’sgasoline program in the spring of 1996, mon-itored levels of ozone . . . were reduced by 10percent in Northern California, and by 18percent in the Los Angeles area. Benzene lev-els (have decreased) by more than 50 percent.

THIS BILL SHOULD BE ENACTED

There are several reasons to enactthis bill:

1. Studies confirm need to eliminateMTBE.

The June 11, 1998 Lawrence Liver-more study found MTBE at 10,000 sitesand said it is ‘‘a frequent and wide-spread contaminant in shallow ground-water throughout California.’’

A five-volume University of Califor-nia November 12, 1998 study concludedthat MTBE provides ‘‘no significant airquality benefit’’ and that if its use iscontinued, ‘‘the potential for regionaldegradation of water resources, espe-cially groundwater, will increase.’’ Thelandmark UC study recommended thatMTBE use be phased out and that re-finers be given the flexibility of thestate’s clean gas regulations.

2. MTBE is not needed. California canmeet federal clean air standards byusing our own state clean gas regula-tions.

The California Air Resources Boardhas testified that we can have equiva-lent or greater reductions in emissionsand improve air quality using Califor-nia’s regulations. These standards aremore stringent than the federal re-quirements, but offer gasoline refinersmore flexibility.

3. MTBE in drinking water poseshealth risks.

MTBE is an animal carcinogen and apotential human carcinogen. It tastesbad. It smells bad. It may have otherharmful human health effects.

4. The dangers of MTBE were notconsidered when Congress last amendedthe Clear Air Act in 1990.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S799January 20, 1999According to the Congressional Re-

search Service, during Congress’s con-sideration of the Clean Air Act Amend-ments, which became law in 1990, therewas no discussion of the possible ad-verse impacts of MTBE as a gasolineadditive. Likewise, CARB has said thatwhen they were considering our state’sreformulated gasoline regulations,‘‘the concern over the use ofoxygenates was not raised as an issue.’’

5. California needs water.California cannot afford to lose any

more of its drinking water. Accordingto the Association of California WaterAgencies, by the year 2020, Californiawill be 4 million to 6 million acre-feetshort of water each year without addi-tional facilities and water managementstrategies.

5. Congress has long recognized thatCalifornia is a unique case.

California’s efforts to improve airquality predate similar federal efforts.We have our own clean gas programand U.S. EPA has given the state awaiver under section 209(b)(1) of theClean Air Act to develop our own pro-gram.

WIDESPREAD SUPPORT

I am appending at the end of mystatement a list of California local gov-ernments, water districts, air districts,statewide and other organizations thatsupport my MTBE bill.

BILL 2: STOPPING UNDERGROUND TANK LEAKS

My second bill will make threats todrinking water the highest priority inthe federal underground tank cleanupprogram at EPA.

In 1986, Congress created a LeakingUnderground Storage Tank (LUST)Trust Fund, funded by a one-tenth ofone cent tax on all petroleum products.These funds are available to enforcecleanup requirements; to conductcleanups where there is no financiallyviable responsible party or where a re-sponsible party fails to correct; to takecorrective action in emergencies; andto bring actions against parties whofail to comply. There is approximately$1.5 billion currently in the fund.

Under current law, section 9003(h)(3)of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, EPA isrequired to give priority in correctiveactions to petroleum releases fromtanks which pose ‘‘the greatest threatto human health and the environ-ment,’’ a provision that I support. Mybill would add simple clarifying lan-guage that in essence says that threatsto drinking water are the most seriousthreats and should receive priority at-tention.

Leaking underground gasoline stor-age tank systems are the major sourceof MTBE into drinking water. TheJune 11, 1998 Lawrence Livermore Lab-oratory study that examined 236 tanksin 24 California counties found MTBEat 78 percent of these sites. These sci-entists said that a minimum estimateof the number of MTBE-impacted tanksites in my state is over 10,000. Federallaw requires tanks to have protectionsagainst spills, overfills, and tank corro-sion by December 22, 1998. Tank owners

have had ten years to do this. EPA hasestimated that half the nation’s 600,000tanks and 52 percent of California’s61,000 complied by the December 22deadline.

Clearly, stopping these leaks is a bigpart of the solution of stopping the re-lease of MTBE. Making threats todrinking water a top cleanup prioritymakes sense since clean drinking wateris fundamental to human health.

BILL 3: MOTORCRAFT ENGINES

My third bill addresses a third sourceof MTBE into drinking water—watercraft engines. The Association ofCalifornia Water Agencies says thatMTBE in surface water reservoirscomes largely from recreationalwatercraft.

In October 1996, U.S. EPA publishedregulations, starting in model year1998, requiring stricter emissions con-trols on personal watercraft engines tobe fully implemented by 2006. On De-cember 10, 1998, the California Air Re-sources Board adopted regulations verysimilar to EPA’s in substance, but ac-celerating their effective date to 2001,five years earlier. In addition, Califor-nia added two more ‘‘tiers’’ of emis-sions reductions that go beyond U.S.EPA’s, reducing emissions by 20 per-cent more in 2004 and 65 percent morein 2008. Under the federal requirements,there would be a complete fleet turn-over by 2050; in California, there wouldbe a complete fleet turnover in 2024, 26years earlier.

The federal and the California rulesapply to (1) spark-ignition outboardmarine and (2) personal watercraft en-gines, such as motorboats, jet skis andwave runners, beginning in model year2001.

Outboard engines: In 1990, there were373,200 gasoline-powered outboard en-gines in California. California sales ofoutboard engines represented ten per-cent of the U.S. market in 1997.

Personal watercraft: California salesof these engines were 12 percent of the176,000 sales in the U.S. in 1995, num-bers which have no doubt grown sig-nificantly. Personal watercraft like jetskis have increased by 240 percent since1990 and these numbers are expected todouble by 2020.

We need to curb emissions from thesemarine engines because (1) unlike auto-mobiles which exhaust into the air, allmarine engines exhaust directly intothe water, and (2) 20 to 30 percent ofthe gas that goes in, comes out un-burned. According to CARB, these en-gines ‘‘discharge an unburned fuel/oilmixture at levels approaching 20 to 30percent of the fuel/oil mixture con-sumed. This unregulated discharge offuel and oil threatens degradation ofhigh quality waters . . .’’ CARB saysthat two hours of exhaust emissionsfrom a jet ski is equivalent to theemission created by driving a 1998automobile 130,000 miles. Some areasare considering banning jet skis andgas-powered boats.

My bill does two things: (1) It wouldmake the EPA’s existing regulations

effective in 2001, instead of 2006, con-sistent with California’s regulations.(2) It would direct EPA to make oneaddition to their current regulation, anengine labeling requirement, consist-ent with California’s labeling require-ment, designed to inform consumers ofthe relative emissions level of new en-gines.

Because these engines put MTBE andother constituents of gasoline into sur-face waters, I believe we need to accel-erate the national rules to discouragepeople from ‘‘engine shopping’’ fromstate to state and bringing ‘‘dirty’’ en-gines into California. Because mystate’s relatively mild weather encour-ages boating, our air board concludedthat we need more stringent standardsthan the national standards. Up to 30percent of gasoline in these enginescomes out unburned. In other words, of10 gallons per hour used, about two andone half gallons of fuel goes into thewater unburned in one hour. This hasto stop.

The November 1998 University ofCalifornia study recognizes the emis-sions of MTBE into surface watersfrom watercraft and says that tech-nologies are available that will ‘‘sig-nificantly reduce MTBE loading,’’ thatthe older carbureted two-stroke en-gines release much larger amounts ofMTBE and other gasoline constituentsthan the fuel-injected engines or thefour-stroke engines.

Millions of Californians should nothave to drink water contaminated withMTBE. I believe we must take strongsteps to end this contamination.f

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORSS. 3

At the request of Mr. GRAMS, thename of the Senator from Montana(Mr. BURNS) was added as a cosponsorof S. 3, a bill to amend the InternalRevenue Code of 1986 to reduce individ-ual income tax rates by 10 percent.

S. 11

At the request of Mr. ABRAHAM, thenames of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.DEWINE), the Senator from North Caro-lina (Mr. HELMS), the Senator fromColorado (Mr. ALLARD), the Senatorfrom Wisconsin (Mr. FEINGOLD), andthe Senator from Minnesota (Mr.WELLSTONE) were added as cosponsorsof S. 11, a bill for the relief of WeiJingsheng.

S. 35

At the request of Mr. GRASSLEY, thename of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.DEWINE) was added as a cosponsor of S.35, a bill to amend the Internal Reve-nue Code of 1986 to allow a deductionfor the long-term care insurance costsof all individuals who are not eligibleto participate in employer-subsidizedlong-term care health plans.

At the request of Mr. GRASSLEY, thename of the Senator from Louisiana(Mr. BREAUX) was withdrawn as a co-sponsor of S. 35, supra.

S. 36

At the request of Mr. GRASSLEY, thename of the Senator from Louisiana

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES800 January 20, 1999(Mr. BREAUX) was added as a cosponsorof S. 36, a bill to amend title 5, UnitedStates Code, to provide for the estab-lishment of a program under whichlong-term care insurance may be ob-tained by Federal employees and annu-itants.

S. 52

At the request of Mr. BOND, the nameof the Senator from Utah (Mr. HATCH)was added as a cosponsor of S. 52, a billto provide a direct check for education.

S. 59

At the request of Mr. THOMPSON, thename of the Senator from Alaska (Mr.STEVENS) was added as a cosponsor ofS. 59, a bill to provide Government-wide accounting of regulatory costsand benefits, and for other purposes.

S. 96

At the request of Mr. MCCAIN, thename of the Senator from Tennessee(Mr. FRIST) was added as a cosponsor ofS. 96, a bill to regulate commerce be-tween and among the several States byproviding for the orderly resolution ofdisputes arising out of computer-basedproblems related to processing datathat includes a 2-digit expression ofthat year’s date.

S. 101

At the request of Mr. LUGAR, thename of the Senator from Pennsyl-vania (Mr. SANTORUM) was added as acosponsor of S. 101, a bill to promotetrade in United States agriculturalcommodities, livestock, and value-added products, and to prepare for fu-ture bilateral and multilateral tradenegotiations.

S. 113

At the request of Mr. SMITH, thename of the Senator from Nebraska(Mr. HAGEL) was added as a cosponsorof S. 113, a bill to increase the criminalpenalties for assaulting or threateningFederal judges, their family members,and other public servants, and forother purposes.

S. 135

At the request of Mr. DURBIN, thenames of the Senator from Nebraska(Mr. HAGEL) and the Senator from Wis-consin (Mr. KOHL) were added as co-sponsors of S. 135, a bill to amend theInternal Revenue Code of 1986 to in-crease the deduction for the health in-surance costs of self-employed individ-uals, and for other purposes.

S. 149

At the request of Mr. KOHL, thenames of the Senator from Rhode Is-land (Mr. CHAFEE), the Senator fromCalifornia (Mrs. FEINSTEIN), the Sen-ator from California (Mrs. BOXER), andthe Senator from Illinois (Mr. DURBIN)were added as cosponsors of S. 149, abill to amend chapter 44 of title 18,United States Code, to require the pro-vision of a child safety lock in connec-tion with the transfer of a handgun.

S. 172

At the request of Mr. MOYNIHAN, thename of the Senator from Vermont(Mr. JEFFORDS) was added as a cospon-sor of S. 172, a bill to reduce acid depo-

sition under the Clean Air Act, and forother purposes.

S. 193

At the request of Mrs. BOXER, thenames of the Senator from Rhode Is-land (Mr. REED) and the Senator fromIllinois (Mr. DURBIN) were added as co-sponsors of S. 193, a bill to apply thesame quality and safety standards todomestically manufactured handgunsthat are currently applied to importedhandguns.

S. 213

At the request of Mr. MOYNIHAN, thename of the Senator from North Da-kota (Mr. CONRAD) was added as a co-sponsor of S. 213, a bill to amend theInternal Revenue Code of 1986 to repealthe limitation of the cover over of taxon distilled spirits, and for other pur-poses.

S. 215

At the request of Mr. MOYNIHAN, thename of the Senator from Florida (Mr.GRAHAM) was added as a cosponsor of S.215, a bill to amend title XXI of the So-cial Security Act to increase the allot-ments for territories under the StateChildren’s Health Insurance Program.

S. 248

At the request of Mr. HATCH, thename of the Senator from Michigan(Mr. ABRAHAM) was added as a cospon-sor of S. 248, a bill to modify the proce-dures of the Federal courts in certainmatters, to reform prisoner litigation,and for other purposes.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 3

At the request of Mr. KYL, the nameof the Senator from New Hampshire(Mr. GREGG) was added as a cosponsorof Senate Joint Resolution 3, a jointresolution proposing an amendment tothe Constitution of the United Statesto protect the rights of crime victims.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 6

At the request of Mr. HOLLINGS, thename of the Senator from Georgia (Mr.CLELAND) was added as a cosponsor ofSenate Joint Resolution 6, a joint reso-lution proposing an amendment to theConstitution of the United States re-lating to contributions and expendi-tures intended to affect elections.

SENATE RESOLUTION 22

At the request of Mr. CAMPBELL, thenames of the Senator from New Hamp-shire (Mr. GREGG) and the Senatorfrom Arkansas (Mr. HUTCHINSON) wereadded as cosponsors of Senate Resolu-tion 22, a resolution commemoratingand acknowledging the dedication andsacrifice made by the men and womenwho have lost their lives serving as lawenforcement officers.f

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLU-TION 2—RECOMMENDING THE IN-TEGRATION OF LITHUANIA, LAT-VIA, AND ESTONIA IN THENORTH ATLANTIC TREATY OR-GANIZATION (NATO)

Mr. DURBIN submitted the followingresolution; which was referred to theCommittee on Foreign Relations:

S. CON. RES. 2

Whereas the Baltic states of Lithuania,Latvia, and Estonia are undergoing an his-toric process of democratic and free markettransformation after emerging from decadesof brutal Soviet occupation;

Whereas each of the Baltic states has con-ducted peaceful transfers of political power—in Lithuania since 1990 and in Latvia and Es-tonia since 1991;

Whereas each of the Baltic states has beenexemplary and consistent in its respect forhuman rights and civil liberties;

Whereas the governments of the Balticstates have made consistent progress towardestablishing civilian control of their mili-taries through active participation in thePartnership for Peace program and NorthAtlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) peacesupport operations;

Whereas Lithuania is participating in theNATO-led multinational military force inthe Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina(commonly referred to as ‘‘SFOR’’) and isconsistently increasing its defense budget al-locations with the goal of allocating at least2 percent of its GDP for defense by 2001;

Whereas each of the Baltic states hasclearly demonstrated its ability to operatewith the military forces of NATO nationsand under NATO standards;

Whereas former Secretary of Defense Perrystipulated five generalized standards for en-trance into NATO: support for democracy,including toleration of ethnic diversity andrespect for human rights; building a freemarket economy; civilian control of themilitary; promotion of good neighborly rela-tions; and development of military inter-operability with NATO; and

Whereas each of the Baltic states has satis-fied these standards for entrance into NATO:Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep-resentatives concurring), That it is the senseof Congress that—

(1) Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are tobe commended for their progress toward po-litical and economic liberty and meeting theguidelines for prospective members of theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)set out in chapter 5 of the September 1995Study on NATO Enlargement;

(2) Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia wouldmake an outstanding contribution towardfurthering the goals of NATO should they be-come members;

(3) extension of full NATO membership tothe Baltic states would contribute to stabil-ity, freedom, and peace in the Baltic regionand Europe as a whole; and

(4) with complete satisfaction of NATOguidelines and criteria for membership, Lith-uania, Latvia, and Estonia should be invitedto become full members of NATO.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this pastSaturday, January 16th, marked theone-year anniversary of the signing ofthe Baltic Charter.

I attended that historic ceremony atthe White House and our efforts thatday were important not only to Lith-uania, Latvia, and Estonia but to theU.S. as well. This is an issue dear tome; my mother came to this countryfrom Lithuania in 1911 and I’ve visitedthis country and the Baltic region sev-eral times.

Now Mr. President, the Baltic Char-ter solidified the international rela-tionship between the U.S. and the Bal-tic nations by defining the political,economic, and security relations be-tween our countries. It affirmed a

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S801January 20, 1999shared commitment to promoting har-monious and equitable relations amongindividuals belonging to diverse ethnicand religious groups. It also stressedthe promotion of close cooperative re-lationships throughout the Baltic re-gion, on such issues as economics,trade, the environment, andtransnational problems like the bilat-eral relations between the Baltics andits neighboring states.

President Clinton welcomed the Bal-tic nations’ efforts to improve rela-tions with Russia. The four presidentsinvolved discussed developments inNortheastern Europe, and PresidentClinton pledged more U.S. involvementin that region’s development and co-operation with its neighbors.

The Baltic Charter does not committhe Baltic states to NATO membership.I believe these nations would be in-cluded in NATO, but they will have tomeet the same criteria and standardsexpected of other states that wish tojoin NATO.

A year ago I noted that this charterwould bring the U.S. and the Baltic na-tions closer than ever before. And, Mr.President, I’m happy to report that theUnited States has made good on itspromise to these nations and I hopewe’ll do everything we can to strength-en these great new democracies and re-affirm their desire to become full mem-bers of the European Union and NATO.

For over 50 years, we have recognizedthe sovereignty of the republics ofLithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Thesegreat nations are now at the thresholdof realizing their important role in thepeace and security of Eastern Europe.Therefore, I am proud to submit S.Con. Res. 2 and hope that all memberswill seize this opportunity to supportthe Baltic states and their endeavorsto further democracy and peace in theregion.

f

SENATE RESOLUTION 26—RELAT-ING TO TAIWAN’S PARTICIPA-TION IN THE WORLD HEALTHORGANIZATION

Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr.TORRICELLI, Mr. HELMS, Mr. THOMAS,Mr. MACK and Mr. SMITH of Oregon)submitted the following resolution;which was referred to the Committeeon Foreign Relations:

S. RES. 26

Whereas good health is a basic right forevery citizen of the world and access to thehighest standards of health information andservices is necessary to help guarantee thisright;

Whereas direct and unobstructed participa-tion in international health cooperation fo-rums and programs is therefore crucial, espe-cially with today’s greater potential for thecross-border spread of various infectious dis-eases such as AIDS and Hong Kong bird fluthrough increase trade and travel;

Whereas the World Health Organization(WHO) set forth in the first chapter of itscharter the objective of attaining the high-est possible level of health for all people;

Whereas in 1977 the World Health Organiza-tion established ‘‘Health for all by the year

2000’’ as its overriding priority and re-affirmed that central vision with the initi-ation of its ‘‘Health For All’’ renewal processin 1995;

Whereas Taiwan’s population of 21,000,000people is larger than that of 3⁄4 of the mem-ber states already in the World Health Orga-nization and shares the noble goals of the or-ganization;

Whereas Taiwan’s achievements in thefield of health are substantial, including oneof the highest life expectancy levels in Asia,maternal and infant mortality rates com-parable to those of western countries, theeradication of such infectious diseases ascholera, smallpox, and the plague, the firstAsian nation to be rid of polio, and the firstcountry in the world to provide childrenwith free hepatitis B vaccinations;

Whereas prior to 1972 and its loss of mem-bership in the World Health Organization,Taiwan sent specialists to serve in othermember countries on countless healthprojects and its health experts held key posi-tions in the organization, all to the benefitof the entire Pacific region;

Whereas the World Health Organizationwas unable to assist Taiwan with an out-break of enterovirus 71 which killed 70 Tai-wanese children and infected more than 1,100Taiwanese children in 1998;

Whereas Taiwan is not allowed to partici-pate in any WHO-organized forums andworkshops concerning the latest tech-nologies in the diagnosis, monitoring, andcontrol of diseases;

Whereas in recent years both the Republicof China on Taiwan’s Government and indi-vidual Taiwanese experts have expressed awillingness to assist financially or tech-nically in WHO-supported international aidand health activities, but have ultimatelybeen unable to render such assistance;

Whereas the World Health Organization al-lows observers to participate in the activi-ties of the organization;

Whereas the United States, in 1994 TaiwanPolicy Review, declared its intention to sup-port Taiwan’s participation in appropriateinternational organizations; and

Whereas in light of all of the benefits thatTaiwan’s participation in the World HealthOrganization could bring to the state ofhealth not only in Taiwan, but also region-ally and globally: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate, That it is the senseof the Senate that—

(1) Taiwan and its 21,000,000 people shouldhave appropriate and meaningful participa-tion in the World Health Organization;

(2) the Secretary of State should report tothe Senate Foreign Relations Committee byApril 1, 1999 on the efforts of the Secretaryto fulfill the commitment made in the 1994Taiwan Policy Review to more actively sup-port Taiwan’s membership in internationalorganizations that accept non-states asmembers, and to look for ways to have Tai-wan’s voice heard in international organiza-tions; and

(3) the Secretary of State shall report tothe Senate Foreign Relations Committee byApril 1, 1999 on what action the UnitedStates will take at the May 1999 WorldHealth Organization meeting in Geneva tosupport Taiwan’s meaningful participation.

f

SENATE RESOLUTION 27—EX-PRESSING THE SENSE OF THESENATE REGARDING THEHUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION INTHE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OFCHINA

Mr. WELLSTONE submitted the fol-lowing resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Foreign Rela-tions:

S. RES. 27Whereas the annual meeting of the United

Nations Commission on Human Rights in Ge-neva, Switzerland, provides a forum for dis-cussing human rights and expressing inter-national support for improved human rightsperformance;

Whereas according to the United StatesDepartment of State and internationalhuman rights organizations, the Governmentof the People’s Republic of China continuesto commit widespread and well-documentedhuman rights abuses, in violation of inter-nationally-accepted norms, stemming fromthe authorities’ intolerance of dissent, fearof unrest, and the absence or inadequacy oflaws protecting basic freedoms;

Whereas China is bound by the UniversalDeclaration of the Human Rights and re-cently signed the International Covenant onCivil and Political Rights, but has yet totake the necessary steps to make the cov-enant legally binding;

Whereas the Administration decided not tosponsor a resolution criticizing China at theU.N. Human Rights Commission in 1998 inconsideration of Chinese commitments tosign the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights and based on a belief thatprogress on human rights in China could beachieved through other means;

Whereas the Chinese authorities have re-cently escalated efforts to extinguish expres-sions of protest or criticism, and detainedscores of citizens associated with attemptsto organize a legal democratic opposition, aswell as religious leaders, writers, and otherswho petitioned the authorities to releasethose arbitrarily arrested; and

Whereas these recent crackdowns under-score that the Chinese government has notretreated from its longstanding pattern ofhuman rights abuses, despite expectationsfrom two summit meetings between Presi-dent Clinton and President Jiang, in whichassurances of improvements in China’shuman rights record were made: Now, there-fore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senatethat at the 54th Session of the United Na-tions Human Rights Commission in Geneva,the United States should introduce andmake all efforts necessary to pass a resolu-tion criticizing the People’s Republic ofChina for its human rights abuses in Chinaand Tibet.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President,today, I am submitting legislation tourge the President to sponsor a resolu-tion condemning China’s human rightsrecord at the next session of the U.N.Commission on Human Rights thisMarch and to begin immediately con-tacting other governments to urgethem to cosponsor such a resolution.

When President Clinton formallydelinked trade and human rights in1994, he pledged, on the record, that theU.S. would ‘‘step up its efforts, in co-operation with other states, to insistthat the United Nations Human RightsCommission pass a resolution dealingwith the serious human rights abusesin China.’’ While the U.S. has claimedan intention at least to speak out onhuman rights, the substance of U.S.-China relations—trade, military con-tacts, high level summits—go forwardwhile Chinese leaders continue tocrackdown on every last dissident in acountry of over one billion people.

The Chinese government continues tocommit widespread abuses, and since

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES802 January 20, 1999the President’s visit in June, has takenactions that flagrantly violate thecommitments it has made to respectinternationally recognized humanrights. Recently, it sentenced three ofChina’s most prominent pro-democracyadvocates, Xu Wenli, Wang Youcai, andChin Yougmin, to a combined prisonterm of thirty-five years. These dis-graceful arrests were part of a crack-down by the government on efforts toform the country’s first opposition po-litical party. Further, a businessmanin Shanghai, Lin Hai, is now beingtried for providing E-mail addresses toa prodemocracy internet magazine inthe United States. Another democracyactivist, Zhang Shanguang, was con-victed and sentenced to ten years inprison for giving Radio Free Asia infor-mation about protests by farmers inHunan province. These events are oc-curring against a backdrop of growingrepression, such as the adoption ofstrict new regulations on the forma-tion of non-governmental political andsocial organizations, and the imposi-tion of tough new regulations on filmdirectors, computer software devel-opers, artists and the press if they ‘‘en-danger social order’’ or attempt to‘‘overthrow state power’’.

The arrested dissidents and theircourageous supporters deserve our fullbacking, and the Administration’s, intheir historic struggle to bring democ-racy to China. At the June summit inBeijing, President Clinton engaged in aspirited debate on human rights withPresident Jiang Zemin. In light of thisbrutal, recent crackdown, I urge theAdministration to bring a resolution atGeneva in March and to register itscontinuing deep concern on two issuesPresident Clinton raised with Presi-dent Jiang at the summit—the absenceof freedom of expression and associa-tion, and the use of arbitrary detentionin China. Past experience has dem-onstrated that, when the United Stateshas applied sustained pressure, the Chi-nese authorities have responded inways that signal their willingness toengage on the issue of human rights.This pressure needs to be exercisednow. By sponsoring a resolution at theU.N. Human Rights Commission, theUnited States will demonstrate itscommitment to securing China’s adher-ence to international human rightsstandards..

On October 5, 1998, China signed theInternational Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights, but it has yet to takethe necessary steps to make it legallybinding. The Administration agreedearly in 1998 not to sponsor a resolu-tion criticizing China at the U.N.Human Rights Commission in consider-ation of Chinese commitments onhuman rights, including the signing ofthis important covenant. Yet, the re-cent acts of intimidation and detentionunderscore that the Chinese govern-ment has not retreated from its long-standing pattern of serious humanrights abuses.

It is time for the United States toprovide the leadership which the people

of China depend on. We must take ac-tion to submit a resolution on China inGeneva and build international supportfor its passage. The U.N. Human RightsCommission is the only internationalbody which oversees the human rightsconditions of all states. Even thoughthe resolution may not pass, simplythe debate of human rights in Chinaand Tibet at the Commission will makean important difference.

I have had the great honor of know-ing and becoming friends with WeiJingsheng this past year. Mr. Wei is aChinese dissident who has spent mostof his life in Chinese prisons for hispro-democratic political writings. Inan article published shortly after hisrelease, Mr. Wei stated, ‘‘Democracyand freedom are among the loftiestideals of humanity, and they are themost sacred rights of mankind. Thosewho already enjoy democracy, libertyand human rights, in particular, shouldnot allow their own personal happinessto numb them into forgetting thatmany others who are still strugglingagainst tyranny, slavery, and poverty,and all of those who are suffering fromunimaginable forms of oppression, ex-ploitation and massacres.’’

Mr. President, the United Statesmust not take its freedom for granted.As Americans, we must take actionand sponsor and lead the internationaleffort to condemn the human rightssituation in China and Tibet. I hopethat my colleagues will join me inpassing this resolution.f

NOTICES OF HEARINGSCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL

RESOURCES

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Iwould like to announce for the publicthat an oversight hearing has beenscheduled before the Committee on En-ergy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will take place onWednesday, January 27, 1999 at 9:30a.m. in room SH–216 of the Hart SenateOffice Building in Washington, D.C.

The purpose of this hearing is to re-ceive testimony on the impacts oncoastal states communities of off-shoreactivity.

Those wishing to testify or who wishto submit written statements shouldwrite to the Committee on Energy andNatural Resources, U.S. Senate, Wash-ington, D.C. 20510. For further informa-tion, please call Kelly Johnson at (202)224–4971.

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURALRESOURCES

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Iwould like to announce that an over-sight hearing has been scheduled beforethe Committee on Energy and NaturalResources. The purpose of this hearingis to receive testimony on the state ofthe petroleum industry.

The hearing will take place on Thurs-day, January 28, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. inroom 216 of the Hart Senate OfficeBuilding in Washington, D.C.

Those who wish to testify or submita written statement should write to

the Committee on Energy and NaturalResources, U.S. Senate, Washington,D.C. 20510. For further information,please call Julia McCaul or HowardUseem at (202) 224–8115 or Daniel Kishat (202) 224–8276.f

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

TAX CUTS FOR ALL AMERICANSACT

∑ Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ampleased to sponsor the Tax Cuts for AllAmericans Act with Senator RODGRAMS, Senator LOTT, the distin-guished Majority Leader, and otherMembers.

Let me begin by saying that thisCongress holds the promise of being themost productive in recent memory be-cause we have the opportunity to buildon some notable successes. In just thepast few years we reformed the IRS,provided tax relief, voted to ratifyNATO enlargement, expanded healthcare for children, and created new op-portunities for Americans to save—allwhile balancing the budget andstrengthening Medicare.

Our agenda for the next two yearsmust be to build on these successes.Accomplishing this will include tax re-form, shoring up Social Security, andpromoting economic opportunity forindividuals and families.

It is wrong that in an era of every-in-creasing budget surpluses Americansare being taxed more than ever before.It is wrong that 20.5% of our GDP isgoing into federal coffers—the highestsince World War II—that our familiesare finding it increasingly difficult tosend their children to school, and tobecome self-reliant in retirement.

This Congress can do somethingabout that. We will do something aboutit. With this legislation we offer Amer-icans a ten percent across-the-boardtax cut—a broad-based tax cut—onethat will put money where it belongs,in the hands of those who earn it. Thebudget surplus will allow this. It allowsus to do this and to shore up Social Se-curity at the same time. Washingtondemonstrated last year that unless thesurplus is given back to the taxpayerthe government will spend it.

The Tax Cuts for All Americans Actis the right and necessary thing to do.The broad-based tax cut in this pack-age is the simplest, fairest, and—I be-lieve—most productive way to give themoney back to the taxpayer and to seethat the economic growth our nation isenjoying continues well into the fu-ture. Broad-based tax cuts will also bethe best way to return hard-earnedmoney to the taxpayer without in-creasing IRS intrusion into the lives ofAmericans.

Beyond this legislation, in this Con-gress we will also address the Alter-native Minimum Tax—a set of rules inthe code that has grown out of control.The AMT was originally intended toensure that wealthy taxpayers were

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S803January 20, 1999not able to use loopholes and sheltersto arrive at a zero tax liability. Unfor-tunately, due to the fact that the AMTwas not indexed it has turned into a de-bilitating liability with the code af-fecting millions of middle-income tax-payers. Something must be done.

These proposals are all about onething: increasing personal and familyfinancial security—helping Americansmeet their needs today and prepare fortheir needs tomorrow. I intend to pushthis agenda by going beyond a broad-based tax cut and creating incentivesto promote and strengthen pensionsand personal retirement accounts. Ihave proposed a plan to increase IRAcontributions to $5,000 a year, and toallow up to $2,000 a year to be placedinto education savings accounts.

I will also introduce legislation todedicate a portion of the ever-increas-ing budget surplus to creating PersonalRetirement Accounts for every work-er—giving individuals at all incomelevels an opportunity to own a piece ofAmerica’s economic future.

This is the most important agendawe can have as we look to a new mil-lennium—a millennium that I believewill be bright and prosperous, one thatwill hold great promise for all Ameri-cans if we stay focused, work coopera-tively, and put the interests of hard-working taxpaying families before theinterests of a big-spending, over-bear-ing government.∑f

TRIBUTE TO BENJAMIN H. HARDY,JR.

∑ Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I risetoday to pay tribute to Benjamin H.Hardy, Jr., an outstanding Georgianwhose insight and courage helped shapethe course for U.S. foreign policy fordecades and paved the way for the peo-ple of many nations to improve theirlives.

On January 20th, 1949, precisely fiftyyears ago today, President Harry Tru-man gave his inaugural address to thenation and, in doing so, spelled out hisfour point plan for U.S. foreign policy.The first three points of the plan wereconsistent with President Truman’sprevious policies in support of theUnited Nations, the Marshall Plan andour NATO allies. The fourth point ofthe plan, however, was a ‘‘bold newprogram’’ to provide technical assist-ance to developing nations which sub-sequently became known as ‘‘PointFour.’’ The idea for the new assistanceprogram was developed by Mr. Hardy,who, at the time, was serving as a pub-lic affairs officer in the Department ofState. Mr. Hardy had seen the rewardsof technical assistance while workingin Brazil and knew that this type of as-sistance was the key to unleashing thepotential of so many developing coun-tries.

According to various accounts, Mr.Hardy risked his career to bring hisbrilliant proposal to light and, ulti-mately, assisted in drafting the foreignpolicy portion of President Truman’s

address. Responding to a White Houserequest for new initiatives in foreignaffairs, Mr. Hardy produced his plan.However, his plan was not received fa-vorably by the upper levels of the StateDepartment and was sent back for‘‘further review’’—virtually killing theidea. Refusing to give up, Mr. Hardybypassed the normal channels of bu-reaucratic red tape and policy reviewand went directly to a contact insidethe White House. There, Mr. Hardy’sdevelopment plan was greeted muchmore favorably and soon made its wayto President Truman’s desk and, later,into the President’s State of the Unionaddress.

Point Four received widespread ac-claim and, soon after Truman’s ad-dress, Congress created the TechnicalCooperation Administration within theDepartment of State. Mr. Hardy wenton to serve as chief of public affairsand chairman of the Administration’spolicy planning committee. On Decem-ber 23rd of 1951 Mr. Hardy was killed ina plane crash along with the director ofthe Technical Cooperation Administra-tion, Dr. Henry Bennet. Soon, theTechnical Cooperation Administrationwas transformed into the agencies re-sponsible for foreign aid but the PointFour idea, remains vibrant today. Itsurvives in the U.S. Agency for Inter-national Development, the agencywhich works to develop, train, educate,and strengthen democracy in the mostneedy countries across the globe.

Were it not for the determination ofMr. Benjamin Hardy, these agencies,and their successes, may never havebeen realized. Benjamin Hardy is awonderful example of one person mak-ing a difference in the world and I amhonored today to recognize the indel-ible mark this distinguished Georgianhas left upon the history of this nationand the people of the world.∑f

AIR TRANSPORTATIONIMPROVEMENT ACT

∑ Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise insupport of the Air Transportation Im-provement Act. This bill would providea two-year authorization for the pro-grams of the Federal Aviation Admin-istration (FAA), including the AirportImprovement Program (AIP). As Sen-ator MCCAIN has noted, this bill is al-most exactly the same as S. 2279, whichthe Senate passed last September by avote of 92 to one. The only differencesare technical in nature.

I would like to commend SenatorMCCAIN for moving quickly to dealwith FAA reauthorization in a timelymanner. If no action is taken, the AIPwill expire on March 31, 1999, and air-ports will not receive much needed fed-eral grants that would allow them tocontinue to operate both safely and ef-ficiently. The Air Transportation Im-provement Act would establish con-tract authority for the program. With-out this authority in place, the FAAcannot distribute airport grants, re-gardless of whether an AIP appropria-

tion is in place. A lapse in the AIP isunacceptable, and I will work tirelesslyto ensure that this does not occur.

Mr. President, this bill reaffirms ourcommitment that the United Statesshould continue to have the safest andmost efficient air transportation sys-tem in the world. Although the role ofCongress is vital, the FAA has the im-mediate responsibility for managingthe national air transportation system.In very broad terms, the FAA is di-rectly responsible for ensuring thesafety, security, and efficiency of civilaviation, and for overseeing the devel-opment of a national airports system.

One critical activity being performedby the FAA is modernization of the airtraffic control (ATC) system. Thisprocess has been ongoing for 15 years,and will continue for many years intothe future. During my tenure as Chair-man of the Aviation Subcommittee, Ihave learned that the modernizationprogram is at a critical juncture. Wecan no longer allow the program tocontinue the ‘‘stops and starts’’ of thepast. Improvements must get on track,or the growing demand for air servicescombined with outdated equipmentwill soon bring gridlock and seriousconcerns about safety.

I am encouraged that the FAA isworking with industry to put the ATCmodernization program on track anddevelop a plan to deliver equipment, ontime and on budget, that will ensureincreased safety and efficiency for allAmericans. This bill will help ensurethat these very important efforts con-tinue. The FAA must spare no effortover the next few years to modernizethe ATC system, as airlines will also bespending a great deal of money to pur-chase and install the components need-ed in their aircraft to use these newsystems. All of this needs to be doneright, and done now, to ensure contin-ued safety and efficiency in the avia-tion industry.

Another matter requiring immediateattention is the FAA’s progress in deal-ing with the Year 2000 problem. Thisissue has far reaching safety and eco-nomic implications, and has alreadybeen the subject of many hearings inCongress. It is imperative that theFAA makes the most out of limitedtime and resources, and Congress mustensure that this is a top priority. Thepublic is aware of the Year 2000 prob-lem and must be reassured beyond anydoubt that it will be possible to flyand, most importantly, to fly in com-plete safety, on January 1, 2000.

As I already mentioned, this bill con-tains numerous provisions designed toimprove competition and service in theairline industry. The inclusion of thesemeasures in the bill does not in anyway mean that airline deregulation hasbeen unsuccessful. The overall benefitsof airline deregulation are clear: faresare down significantly and service op-tions have increased.

Many of the benefits of deregulationcan be attributed to the entry of newairlines into the marketplace. The low

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES804 January 20, 1999fare carriers have increased competi-tion, and have enabled more people tofly than ever before. Air traffic hasgrown as a result, and all predictionsare that it will continue to grow stead-ily over the next several years.

In spite of the success of deregula-tion, many believe that competitioncan be improved. The competition pro-visions in the Air Transportation Im-provement Act would ease some of thefederally-imposed barriers that remainin the deregulated environment. Thesebarriers include the slot controls atfour major airports and the perimeterrule at Reagan National Airport.

Although this legislation is a posi-tive step forward for our national avia-tion system, one of my main priorities,which is not included in the Air Trans-portation Improvement Act, will be topush for an increase in the PassengerFacility Charge (PFC) cap. We mustaddress the widening infrastructuregap that threatens to hamstring ournational aviation system. The inde-pendent National Civil Aviation Re-view Commission and the GAO also es-timate that there is a backlog in air-port improvements of approximately $3billion per year. To ensure that our in-frastructure deficit can be met, wemust look for innovative solutionssuch as a PFC increase which allowlocal control and responsibly for im-proving our national aviation system.

I look forward to working with Sen-ators MCCAIN, HOLLINGS, and ROCKE-FELLER to ensure that our commongoals of providing a safe and secureaviation system for both commercialairlines and the general aviation com-munity as well as providing adequateresources for the FAA to carry out thistask are met.∑f

RECOGNITION OF BERNICEBARLOW

∑ Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I risetoday to pay tribute to a remarkableperson from Saginaw, Michigan, Mrs.Bernice Barlow. Mrs. Barlow is leavingher position as president of the Sagi-naw branch of the NAACP after thirtyyears.

As president of the Saginaw NAACP,Bernice Barlow has been a powerful ad-vocate for equality and civil rights. Al-though her tireless efforts on behalf ofthe NAACP are admirable in their ownright, Mrs. Barlow has not confined hercommunity service to the NAACP. Shehas also served with distinction inleadership roles with organizations likethe Saginaw Education Association,the Tri-County Fair Housing Associa-tion and the Saginaw County MentalHealth Board.

Despite her retirement from the pres-idency of the Saginaw NAACP, BerniceBarlow will continue her service to thepeople of Saginaw. Her husband,Charles, and her four children willsurely be pleased to have more of hertime, but I have no doubt that theywill support her continuing efforts toensure that equality and justice are

recognized as the birthrights of everycitizen.

Mr. President, I am confident thatmy colleagues will join me in con-gratulating Bernice Barlow as shesteps down from her position as presi-dent of the Saginaw NAACP, and inthanking her for her longstanding com-mitment to the people of the city ofSaginaw.∑

f

FOREIGN TRAVEL OF SENATORARLEN SPECTER

∑ Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, duringthe winter recess, I had the oppor-tunity to travel from Dec. 12 throughDec. 31, 1998, to 13 countries in Europe,the Mideast and the Gulf. I flew overwith President Clinton on Air ForceOne, spent the first several days inIsrael essentially working with thePresident’s schedule, and then pursuedmy own agenda when he returned toWashington. I believe it is worthwhileto share with my colleagues some ofmy impressions from that trip, which Iam placing in the CONGRESSIONALRECORD on Jan. 19, 1999, the first dayfor statements in the 106th Congress.

ISRAEL

From December 12 through December15, I traveled with President Clinton tothe Middle East to encourage the ad-vancement of the Israeli-Palestinianpeace process in the wake of the ac-cords reached in October at Wye Plan-tation. Although somewhat over-shadowed by the pending impeachmentprocess, the President’s trip was useful,I believe, in applying pressure to bothsides to abide by their commitmentstoward further progress.

SYRIA

When President Clinton returned toWashington, I proceeded to Damascus,Syria, where I met with Syrian Presi-dent Hafez al-Assad, to examine thepossibility of progress on the Israeli-Syrian track of the Mideast peace proc-ess. While I believe that progress be-tween Israel and the Palestinians couldbe made with the resumption of a dia-logue between Israel and Syria, thepending Israeli elections have renderedthe prospect for that dialogue unlikelyin the short run.

The big news while I talked withPresident Assad was the increasingtension between the United States andIraq over the U.N. inspection of Iraq’sweapons program. Because Syriashares a long border and cultural herit-age—though certainly no great friend-ship—with Iraq, even the threat ofmilitary conflict between the U.S. andBaghdad produces immediate and tan-gible emotions among many Syrians.

That afternoon in December, the sit-uation in Iraq seemed grave: the U.N.team had evacuated the country, andchief inspector Richard Butler was pre-paring to address the U.N. SecurityCouncil in an emergency session. I didnot know that a strike was imminent,but President Assad and I speculatedduring our meeting on news reports

concerning what the immediate futuremight hold.

Past midnight in Damascus, CNNcarried live footage of anti-aircraft fireand air-raid sirens in Baghdad, only afew hundred miles away. The Presi-dent’s remarks from the Oval Officefollowed shortly thereafter, and, aftera short night’s rest, I was asked tocomment on the bombing to an expect-ant Syrian press corps.

I told the press the same thing that Itold President Assad in the previousday’s meeting: I had written the Presi-dent on November 12 urging him not toorder the use of U.S. force against Iraqwithout first obtaining Congressionalauthorization as required by theUnited States Constitution. I believethat a missile strike is an act of war,and only the Congress of the UnitedStates under our Constitution has theauthority to declare war.

Had the President taken the matterto the Congress, as President Bush didin 1991, I would have supported it. I be-lieve that Saddam Hussein is a menaceto the region and to the world. I be-lieve it is true that he is developingweapons of mass destruction, and thathe has demonstrated a willingness toemploy chemical weapons for the mostdestructive and terrible purposes.Clearly, some forceful international ac-tion has to be taken.

I said I did not believe the Presidentacted because of the pending impeach-ment vote. I indicated that, in myopinion, the President acted because hehad put Saddam Hussein on notice inthe past, and Ramadan was coming, asthe President explained the previousevening. I said that I believe the Houseof Representatives was right in delay-ing the vote for a couple of days whilewe commenced a military strike onIraq.

Constitutional requirements aside,there is a practical benefit to seekingCongressional approval for acts of war.When a President has the backing ofCongress confirmed by way of a re-corded vote, his hand is immediatelystrengthened in the eyes of the world.Absent that imprimatur of support,America’s enemies or would-be enemiesare left to poke and carp at the propri-ety and the purpose of the military ac-tion. And the attendant Congressionaldebate helps to sharpen the aims andfollow-on goals of any action. WinningCongress’ approval requires a Presidentto spell out exactly what he hopes toaccomplish through military force, andit forces him to keep those goals with-in the bounds of reality.

A recorded vote on military author-ization is healthy for the Congress, aswell. It puts Senators and Congressmenon the spot, up-or-down, on a matter ofpivotal importance in national policy:deciding whether the goals of a mili-tary action justify the price in theblood and sweat of our troops. It issimply too easy for Congressional crit-ics to bob and weave around taking aposition on a given military action. Ifa particular campaign takes a difficult

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S805January 20, 1999turn, critics emerge from the wood-work. If, on the other hand, our troopsachieve dramatic, unforseen successes,prior Congressional critics of the ac-tion take to the floor in lavish praise.

Insisting on proper Congressional de-bate and authorization on future mili-tary acts would end this charade, whilefulfilling a fundamental tenet of ourConstitution: ‘‘The Congress . . . shallhave power to declare war . . .’’

EGYPT

Following the press conference, I de-parted Syria for Cairo, Egypt, to meetwith President Hosni Mubarak. Presi-dent Mubarak and I have met numer-ous times since his ascent to power fol-lowing the assassination of PresidentAnwar Sadat in 1981. Needless to say,our discussion this time centeredaround the U.S. military strike onIraq. I made the same points aboutCongressional authorization for the useof force, and it was clear from the ini-tial Egyptian reaction to the strikethat our motives would have beenclarified, and our hand strengthened,had the President sought and receivedthe backing of Congress before attack-ing. Following my hour-long discussionwith President Mubarak, I addressedthe Egyptian press corps on the samepoints at the Presidential palace.

MACEDONIA

I then departed Egypt for Skopje,Macedonia. Upon arrival, I met withAmbassador Christopher R. Hill to dis-cuss the situation in Kosovo and otherissues affecting Bosnian regional sta-bility.

Skopje is a beautiful, small city sur-rounded on all sides by mountains. Thecity was leveled almost completely bya post-WWII earthquake, as a result ofwhich very little of the original Mac-edonian architecture remains. In placeof the earlier buildings stand poured-concrete, Soviet-style structures thatfail to reflect the rich heritage of theMacedonian people.

Formerly a sub-entity of Yugoslavia,Macedonia won its independence in thebreakup of the former Soviet-bloccountry that followed the end of thecold war. Macedonians are clearlyhardworking people, and it is probablyno surprise that the tiny republic’seconomy reportedly is doing betterthan that of most other Yugoslavianrepublics save Slovenia.

Ambassador Hill and I met thatafternoon with the country’s newly-in-stalled 33-year-old Prime Minister,Ljubco Giorgievski. The youthful Mr.Giorgievski is obviously proud of theemergence of Macedonia as a stable en-tity in a clearly unstable region. Mind-ful of the threat that Serbia has posedto Bosnia and Kosovo, he is particu-larly anxious for his country to developfriendly, close alliances with NATO,the European Community, and theUnited States.

That evening, I met with AmbassadorWilliam Walker, the U.N. head of theOSCE Kosovo Verification Mission.Ambassador Walker described in detailthe instability of the region, and his

unease about the lack of a protectivedetail or even airlift assets for his U.N.mission there. He described the situa-tion in Kosovo as very different fromBosnia: Kosovo is a small-scale guerillawar, with no front lines, and with bothSerbs and Albanians fighting for publicopinion in the region. AmbassadorWalker said his chief frustration is theabsence of a political settlement forthe U.N. to implement in Kosovo, suchas the one that was forged in Bosnia.Without such an agreement, he said,providing real stability to the regionwill remain extremely problematic, asthe U.N. will not be able to move for-ward on training local authorities andlocal police forces to provide securityto the region.

NETHERLANDS

The next morning, I proceeded to theNetherlands, where I held a workinglunch with Ambassador Cynthia P.Schneider and three members of theDutch Parliament who served as ex-perts in their different parties on Mid-dle East issues. A consensus emergedthat the international communityneeds to work to replace Saddam Hus-sein as the leader of Iraq, but no onecould point to a realistic way for theinternational community to get thatdone.

We also discussed the benefits to theUnited States’ opening up a dialoguewith Iran in the future. Interestingly,one of the Members of Parliamentpresent, Geert Wilders, had traveled toIran, and expressed frustration thatthe absence of a real dialogue betweenthe United States and Iran meant thatRussia is having a disproportionate in-fluence on the government, especiallyby way of providing technological ex-pertise for the development of weaponsof mass destruction. That said, Mr.Wilders expressed the clear difficultyin developing a productive dialoguewith a government that hold such irre-sponsible positions on regional andinternational security.

I then proceeded to the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for the FormerYugoslavia, where I met with ChiefProsecutor Louise Arbour and Presi-dent Judge Gabrielle McDonald. In con-trast to my previous visits to the tri-bunal, Justice Arbour expressed a rea-sonable degree of satisfaction with theTribunal’s U.N. funding, up by $23 mil-lion from last year’s level of $70 mil-lion. Not surprisingly, Justice Arbourviews this manifold increase as a realendorsement of the Tribunal’s work inbringing justice to the victims ofatrocities in Bosnia. In particular, shedescribed the success of the prosecu-tors’ exhumation of mass grave sites inBosnia as part of their search for evi-dence to support present trials and fur-ther indictments. Justice Arbour ex-pressed her aim of indicting and pros-ecuting a handful of ‘‘top’’ officials inthe Bosnian conflict through the pros-ecution of lower-level criminals atpresent.

Judge Gabrielle McDonald, a formerU.S. District Court Judge in Houston,

indicated a similar satisfaction withthe work of the tribunal, but, for herpart, feels somewhat understaffed inher chambers, particularly as the pros-ecutors and bring more cases to trial.Also, Judge McDonald, as the Tribu-nal’s Chief Judge, would like to pub-licize the court’s work as a way both ofletting victims know justice is beingserved, and of assuring those under in-dictment that they will receive a trulyfair trial in The Hague, should theysurrender themselves to the court.

As I left the Tribunal, the U.S. Em-bassy in The Hague was overrun byanti-war activists protesting the U.S.military strike against Iraq.

ENGLAND

During a stopover in London, I metwith the country team headed by Dep-uty Chief of Mission Robert Bradtke,to discuss further fallout from thebombing. The evening of my arrival,the House of Representatives voted outtwo Articles of Impeachment on Presi-dent Clinton. The next evening, I ap-peared on a live broadcast of CBS’sFace the Nation from the network’sLondon studio. The show came the dayafter the House voted to impeachPresident Clinton, and I discussed pro-cedures and context for the impendingSenate trial.

BELGIUM/NORTH ATLANTIC ASSEMBLY

Operation Desert Fox, the US andBritish missile strikes on Iraq whichran four days during my travels,spurred anti-American demonstrations,attacks on US embassies and flag-burn-ings throughout Europe and the Mid-east, including many of the nations towhich I traveled. We had to switch ho-tels in Brussels upon arrival on Sun-day, Dec. 20, because the American-owned Sheraton hotel where we hadplanned to stay was the site of a dem-onstration by some 200 Arabs, whoseized and burned the hotel’s Americanflag, and a bomb threat that forced theevacuation of the entire hotel. Therehad also been a demonstration duringthe day at the hotel where we did stay,but there was no more trouble thatnight.

Upon arrival Sunday evening Dec. 20in Brussels, I met with U.S. Ambas-sador to NATO Alexander Vershbow foran informal briefing. On Monday morn-ing at NATO headquarters, I met for-mally with the ambassador and 11members of the U.S. team. We dis-cussed ways of activating NATOagainst Iraq, and I expressed my con-cern that the recent bombings of Iraqwere a strictly US-British operation,with no help from any of our other al-lies. Our team suggested that it takestoo long to line up other nations andgives too much warning to Saddam. Irejected that proposition, given thatwe had signaled our intentions againstIraq after our near-strike in November.

We also discussed the Russian threatto Western Europe, stemming fromRussian instability, and our efforts inBosnia and Kosovo. As for NATO andUnited Nations missions, I commentedthat many Americans abhor the idea of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES806 January 20, 1999putting US troops under a foreign com-mander. I told our team about the pro-tests I hear on the subject regularly atmy open-house town meetings through-out Pennsylvania. Some of our teamargued that, ultimately, all NATOtroops are under an American supremecommander, even if they happen toalso be under a European divisionalcommander.

I met next with the German Ambas-sador to NATO, Joachim Bitterlich,who had served previously as formerGerman Chancellor Helmut Kohl’s na-tional security adviser. AmbassadorBitterlich began by assuring me thatthe US-British strike against Iraq wasthe right thing to do. I took up thequestions of Iraq, Iran and the MiddleEast with Ambassador Bitterlich, andwe agreed that expanded dialog shouldbe part of any strategy. Like manyother policy setters, AmbassadorBitterlich said he struggling to findany leverage over Saddam Hussein.

I met next with Gen. Klaus Nauman,Chairman of the NATO Military Com-mittee. Gen. Nauman likened SaddamHussein and his oppressive regime tothe Nazis, under whom Gen. Naumanhad spent his early childhood. Such arepressive terrorist regime makes itvery difficult to foster oppositionforces from within, the Generalwarned. As for Russia, Gen. Naumanagreed that western nations would bewell advised to spend money to destroyRussia’s nuclear and chemical weaponsstockpile, as the United States andGermany have. But he cautioned thatwe must make sure the money goes forthe purpose intended, and is not di-verted, as past funds have been.

GREECE

We left Brussels early Monday morn-ing and traveled most of the day, arriv-ing in Athens late in the afternoon. Imet with Ambassador R. NicholasBurns. We discussed a variety of sub-jects, ranging from Greek-Turkish ten-sion to the situations in Crete and Cy-prus to local reaction to the Iraq bomb-ings.

BAHRAIN

We left Athens early Tuesday morn-ing, Dec. 22, and traveled to Bahrain.At a refueling stop at the Cairo air-port, I met with two members of ourcountry team to discuss recent intel-ligence about anti-American attacks inthe region stemming from OperationDesert Fox. They briefed me on a mobattack on the U.S. ambassador’s resi-dence in Damascus, in which the resi-dence was destroyed and our ambas-sador’s wife was holed up in a steel-walled safe haven closet until Marinesarrived to rescue her. Arriving late inthe afternoon in Manama, Bahrain, Iwas met at the airport by AmbassadorJohnny Young and Vice AdmiralCharles ‘‘William’’ Moore and membersof their teams. Admiral Moore, Com-mander of the Fifth Fleet, was incharge of much of the U.S. effort in Op-eration Desert Fox.

At the US Embassy, Admiral Mooreand several of his senior officers

briefed me on details of OperationDesert Fox. The operation, as AdmiralMoore summarized it, was a success inthat our forces executed their objec-tives with zero allied casualties.

I met next with 13 area chiefs ofUNSCOM, the United Nations programto check Iraq’s weapons of mass de-struction through inspections and de-struction of materiel. The UNSCOMchiefs, mostly in their 30s, came pri-marily from the United States, Aus-tralia, New Zealand and Britain. Theylooked shell-shocked, and as thoughthey had not slept in weeks. As I toldthem at the outset, the world owesthem a debt of gratitude for the jobthey have done and for the risks theyhave taken.

UNSCOM’s numbers have dwindledfrom a high of 186 inspectors to 112.Forty-seven of the inspectors hadmoved their base to Bahrain after evac-uating from Iraq hours before thebombing. We discussed their assess-ments of Iraq’s biological, chemicaland nuclear weapons programs, thevarious delivery systems Iraq was de-veloping or had built, and the difficul-ties in conducting inspections and intracking weapons components andchemical precursors. They told me, forexample, that they had found biologi-cal agents in far greater quantitiesthan could be justified by legitimateuses. The UNSCOM chiefs all said theywere ‘‘keen’’ to return to Iraq and con-tinue their work, though that prospectremains in doubt.

OMAN

Early Wednesday morning, Dec. 23,we flew to Oman. Upon arrival in thecapital city of Muscat, we drove for ameeting with Sheik Abdullah bin AliAl-Qatabi, President of the Majlis As-Shura, or elected lower house of thenational council. For the first 40 min-utes, the Sheikh deflected my ques-tions about threats to the region andthe world by Iraq and Iran, reducingthe meeting to small talk and an ex-change of views on civics and bi-cameral legislatures. Then, when wetook photographs and stood to leave,the Sheik could contain himself nolonger and told me what was really onhis mind, for nearly an hour as westood at the center of his office.

The Sheik said Iraq did not pose thegrave threat I suggested, arguing thatSaddam Hussein had not used weaponsof mass destruction during the PersianGulf War and probably would notagain. Further, he argued, our oper-ations would not eliminate SaddamHussein, but would only hurt the Iraqipeople, who depend on the infrastruc-ture we destroy, and inflame passionsthroughout the region against theUnited States.

The Sheik was concerned that we hadembarrassed the Sultan and the gov-ernment of Oman through publicityabout the use of Omani bases by U.S.aircraft during Operation Desert Fox.He used the word ‘‘embarrassment’’four times, noting that such embar-rassment made it more difficult for

Omani leaders to pursue their genuinedesires to continue warm relationswith the United States. Oman was notembarrassed about the use of its basesfor allied planes during OperationDesert Storm in 1991 because of Iraq’saggression against Kuwait, he said.

The Sheikh told me that he wasbeing unusually frank out of friend-ship, and I assured him I appreciatedhis candor. I addressed his concerns,telling him that collateral damage tocivilians is inevitable in any militarystrike, and that we minimized civiliancasualties during Operation Desert Foxand very much regretted any losses.

I met next with U.S. AmbassadorFrances Cook and members of herteam. Ambassador Cook warned thatanti-American opinion had been grow-ing in Oman. Two demonstrations wereheld at the university, she noted; theonly two in the school’s 10-year his-tory. From this visit and previous con-tacts, I believe Ambassador Cook hasdone an outstanding job.

I then met with Oman’s Minister ofInformation, Abdulaziz Al-Rawwas, forwhat would prove another long and di-rect conversation. Minister Al-Rawwasalso did not consider Iraq or Iranthreats to the region, and also criti-cized our military efforts against Iraqas ineffective. He pressed me to con-sider an overture to Iran to warm USrelations with that nation, such asdropping embargoes or allowing aplanned Caspian oil pipeline to passthrough Iran on a southern route tothe Persian Gulf, rather than through awestern route through southern Europeto the Black Sea, which the U.S. cur-rently favors. I assured him I wouldstudy the matter.

Our party arrived at the Muscat air-port shortly after 6 am the next morn-ing, Thursday, to fly to Islamabad for ascheduled meeting with Pakistan’sPrime Minister and for other meetingsin Pakistan and India. I had wanted todiscuss the nuclear stand-off in the re-gion, and disarmament measures. Butfog and smoke over most of the sub-continent made air travel impossible,for us and for all other commercial andofficial traffic into and out of the sub-continent. We had no better luck onFriday morning. We then tried to ad-just our schedule, but were unable toget necessary clearances and makeflight and meeting arrangements onFriday, Dec. 25, which was both Christ-mas Day and the first Friday of the Is-lamic holy month of Ramadan. Wewound up staying in Oman until Satur-day morning, Dec. 26, at which pointwe departed for Amman, Jordan.

JORDAN

Days before I arrived in Amman, Jor-danian Parliamentarians, in a highlyunusual move, surprised the Monarchyby convening a conference of Arab Par-liamentarians on six days notice, todiscuss the US-British missile strikeson Iraq. Parliamentarians from 15 ofthe 16 countries in the Arab Leaguedispatched representatives to Amman.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S807January 20, 1999Only Kuwait declined to attend. Presi-dent Assad reportedly ordered the Syr-ian Speaker to attend personally.

After arriving in Amman, I met withJordan’s Foreign Minister, Abdul IllahAl Khatib, for an hour. MinisterKhatib, whom I had met several timesover the years both in Washington andJordan, lamented the failure so far toimplement the Wye River peace accordbetween Israel and the Palestinian Au-thority. Both sides, we agreed, weretorn by factionalism. On the Israeliside, Prime Minister Netanyahu wasmired in struggles with hard-liners andfighting to keep his job, while on thePalestinian side, Abu Mazen, the sec-ond-ranking official, had his housestoned for his efforts to effect thepeace accord, leaving him reportedly soshaken that he wanted nothing more todo with the peace process. In the faceof such factionalism, Al Khatib said,the parties and the process neededleadership from the United States.

Jordan’s other pressing foreign pol-icy problem, Al Khatib said, was Iraq.He noted that the Iraqi invasion of Ku-wait, which sparked the Persian GulfWar, sent 400,000 Kuwaiti refugees toJordan, swelling Jordan’s populationby 10 percent and buffeting Jordan’seconomy as it tries to house and absorbthe new residents. The foreign ministersaid we should have a permanent mon-itoring system for Iraq’s weapons ef-forts. In the evening, we met withCrown Prince El Hassan bin Talal, heirto the throne and brother of King Hus-sein, who was at the Mayo Clinic inMinnesota undergoing cancer therapy,and several of his ministers. The CrownPrince had been briefed on my meetingwith the Foreign Minister, and we pro-ceeded directly to discussing policy.

The next morning, Sunday, Dec. 27, Imet with our embassy team for a brief-ing. Based on what they told me, I greweven more concerned that we had sobadly misread regional public opinionin launching our strikes against Iraq.

Before leaving Washington, I hadraised that specific question with anAdministration Cabinet officer. He hadreplied the administration had no day-after plan; but that was not a reasonnot to launch the strikes. Disagreeingsharply, I said it was.

Our policy makers apparently basedtheir assurances to the American pub-lic of Arab support on regional leaderswho, eager for US aid, told them whatthey thought the Americans wanted tohear. No longer can the United Statestalk only to government officials togauge their nation’s reaction. Nor canwe count on Arab national leaders tosuppress public reaction against ourill-planned acts.

In Amman, our experts told me thatdespite general ennui with SaddamHussein, Jordanian public opinionabout our missile strikes was verystrongly pro-Saddam, a feeling exacer-bated by the US failure to articulate apost-strike plan. After my discussionwith our embassy team, I met Sundaymorning with Jordanian Prime Min-

ister Fayez Tarawneh, who expressedthe same criticisms of our recentstrikes against Iraq. ‘‘We don’t knowwhat the military strike did,’’ thePrime Minister said. ‘‘It seems he isbetter off.’’ Our timing was poor, hesaid, just before the Islamic holymonth of Ramadan and following whathe perceived as Israel putting the WyeRiver accord ‘‘in the deep freeze.’’

As for Iraqi opposition to Saddam,the Prime Minister said, it is there, butit is fictionalized and lacks any accept-able leader. ‘‘It is a complicated mat-ter, and every military strike makes itmore complicated,’’ he said.

When the Jordanian Prime Ministerapologized for the Amman Parliamen-tarians’ conference, I surprised him byexpressing my view that it was ahealthy sign to see Jordan’s Parlia-mentarians expressing an independentview from the Jordanian government,even if it conflicted with US policy.

‘‘We have to do a much better job inthe United States of taking into ac-count what the public reaction willbe,’’ I conceded.

When I asked the Prime Minister toexplain the Jordanian people’s supportfor Iraq and Saddam, he said, ‘‘The peo-ple here do support Saddam. Jor-danians do not believe in dictatorship.They are aware of the fact that this isa brutal regime. But this does not ne-gate the fact that the Iraqis are ourbrothers.’’

IZMIR, TURKEY

From Amman, we flew to Izmir, Tur-key, a city of 4 million that serves asheadquarters for a NATO charged withensuring the security and territory ofNATO’s southern and eastern flank. Ispent much of the day Sunday withMaj. Gen. Reginal Clemmons, Com-manding General of the U.S. Army Ele-ment of the Allied Land Forces-South-eastern Europe, members of Gen.Clemmons’s staff, and U.S. Air Forceofficers from the 425th Air Base Squad-ron, based in downtown Izmir.

Over the course of several hours, wediscussed Greek-Turkish tension, re-cently inflamed by plans to bring Rus-sian-made S–300 missiles to the Greekisland of Crete, and still hot over jointcontrol of Cyprus; plans to create aKurdish state in northern Iraq; a po-tential Caspian oil pipeline throughTurkey; and realities of working withforeign military officers. Gen.Clemmons serves as deputy commanderof the Izmir-based NATO post, under afour-star Turkish general.

GEORGIA

Before dawn Tuesday morning, wetook off for Tbilisi, the capital of Geor-gia, one of the 15 former Soviet Repub-lics. Rugged, mountainous and histori-cally worn-torn, Georgia is famous asthe home of former Soviet leader Jo-seph Stalin. Georgia endured severalyears of civil war recently, from theSoviet breakup until 1995. PresidentEduard Shevardnadze, the former So-viet Foreign Minister, survived two as-sassination attempts, and has led theeffort to ally Georgia with the West

and to foster democracy and a marketeconomy. Georgia has been looking pri-marily to the United States for help.

I met first with U.S. AmbassadorKenneth Yalowitz and his team at theembassy for a full briefing on the na-tion of 5 million. We discussed Geor-gia’s struggle toward democracy and amarket economy, frustrated by corrup-tion, civil war, and failure to collecttaxes; Georgia’s struggle with Russia,which seeks to control its former re-public and thwart its efforts towardindependence; Georgia’s reliance onU.S. aid, which was $85 million thisyear, compared to the nation’s $100million budget; and advantages anddisadvantages of running the Caspianoil pipeline through Georgia to theBlack Sea.

I then met for an hour with PresidentShevardnadze. The President lookedmore somber than he had when I lastsaw him in Washington, but he stillseemed vigorous and intense at notquite 71. Mr. Shevardnadze is largelyresponsible for the progress Georgiahas made toward democratization anda market economy since the SovietUnion crumbled in 1991, but he was thefirst to say much more work remainsto be done. Nation building was put offuntil 1995, after Georgia’s post-Sovietcivil war ended, he noted.

Russian instability poses perhaps thegreatest threat to the region,Shevardnadze said. He brushed off myconcern that an expanded NATO wouldgive Russian hard-liners an excuse toseize control, saying extremists did nothave an adequate base from which totake over. But President Shevardnadzesaid he did have a major concern: ‘‘TheWest failed to notice the SovietUnion’s disintegration; the West wascaught unaware,’’ he said. ‘‘Make surethe formation of a new Soviet Uniondoes not catch you similarly unaware.’’

In Russia, Shevardnadze warned, peo-ple of all political stripes support re-storing the Soviet Union. He did notsee a reunited Soviet Union as a benignforce. ‘‘Gorbachev had a different vi-sion; a vision of a democratic SovietUnion,’’ Shevardnadze said. ‘‘But thatwas an illusion—or a delusion.’’ If de-mocracy were an option, he said, theformer Soviet republics would opt forindependence.

On the question of terrorism,Shevardnadze said the United Statesshould pressure Russia to stop sellingarms to rogue nations such as Iran,saying we should have leverage overRussia, considering the $18 billion wegive them. Shevardnadze, not surpris-ingly, argued that the Caspian oil pipe-line should run through Georgia andTurkey. The pipeline, by all accounts,offers a major strategic and economicplum for any nation through which itruns.

We met next with Georgia’s Ministerof State, the equivalent of the PrimeMinister, Vazha Lordkipanidze. We dis-cussed Georgia’s economic reform ef-forts, including privatization, banking,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES808 January 20, 1999liberalization of prices, decentraliza-tion of management; and the smug-gling, shoddy tax collection and Rus-sian meddling that have frustratedthese economic reforms. Lordkipanidzealso did not believe NATO expansionwould provoke and strengthen Russianhard-liners, saying extremists wouldfind another pretext if NATO did notexpand. The West must foster democ-racy in Russia and in other former So-viet republics, he urged.

Our final meeting in Tbilisi was withParliamentary Chairman, or Speaker,Zhurab Zhvania, who had just turned35, and a 31-year-old Parliamentarianwho had studied law at Columbia Uni-versity. The Parliamentarians’ Englishwas fluent, and they were both veryimpressive, and encouraging for theirnation’s long-term prospects. We cov-ered the same sweep of issues that Ihad discussed with PresidentShevardnadze and with the Prime Min-ister, and they offered similar views.They spoke passionately about Geor-gia’s Constitution, the only Easternnational charter patterned on the U.S.Constitution; and about the nation’sjudicial reform, including competitiveexams monitored by California Bar ex-aminers that cleared out nearly all theprevious political appointees. We dif-fered on the death penalty, which I be-lieve is a deterrent to crime, but whichGeorgia has abolished, the Speakersaid, as a matter of moral philosophy.

ANKARA, TURKEY

From Tbilisi we flew to Ankara, thecapital of Turkey, arriving Tuesdayevening, Dec. 29. We met the nextmorning with U.S. Ambassador MarkParris, a former foreign affairs adviserto President Clinton, and his team foran hour briefing on the political land-scape. Turkey’s government is frac-tionalized, and the Turkish militarycommands the most popular support,which Parris considered a mixed bless-ing. The military is honest and con-servative, cracking down on threats tothe secular state, Parris said, but themilitary also cracks down on freespeech that advocates proscribed posi-tions. National elections and electionsin Turkey’s three major cities,Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir, are allscheduled for April 1999.

I was particularly impressed thatTurkey had succeeded in getting Syriato evict terrorist camps based nearSyria’s Turkish border that preyed onTurks. The Kurdish PKK movement,seeking a separate Kurdish state, haskilled an estimated 30,000 Turks sincethe Soviet grip began to loosen around1989. PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan wasspecifically evicted from Syria.

In my discussions with Parris and histeam, we focused on the Caspian oilpipeline, beginning with the propo-sition that the Turks have comearound to the American way of think-ing: That the pipeline ought to runeast-west to the Black Sea, throughTurkey and Georgia, not south to thePersian Gulf through unstable and po-tentially hostile areas such as Iran. An

east-west pipeline would tie centralAsia to the West, and avoid giving Iranstrategic leverage, the strategy holds.

I also remained impressed by Tur-key’s strong ties to Israel. The two na-tions conduct joint military exercises,trade and joint ventures on such itemsas insurance, leather goods and soft-ware. The collaboration began as aTurkish effort to win points with theUnited States, which was being pressedby Greek and other anti-Turkish lob-bies. But the Turkish-Israeli collabora-tion soon warmed into a genuine sym-biotic relationship apart from US poli-tics, Parris said.

We met next with Ambassador FarukLogoglu of the Turkish Ministry ofForeign Affairs. Logoglu had spent 13years in the United States, attendingcollege at Brandeis and graduateschool at Princeton, teaching atMiddlebury and serving at the UnitedNations before taking his post at theTurkish Foreign Ministry in 1971.Pressing for the east-west pipeline,Logoglu said, ‘‘The pipeline is an um-bilical cord tying countries to theWest.’’

My final meeting in Turkey was withPresident Suleyman Demirel. ThePresident received us in a grand, wood-trimmed chamber in the Presidentialpalace, finished with red carpet andchandeliers. President Demirel spokesoftly in perfect English.

I complimented the President on hiswarm relations with Israel, despite itsrisks of angering nations hostile toIsrael. He replied that the Turkish-Israeli friendship had indeed angeredsome nations at Turkey. At an Islamicconference in Iran, the President said,he stood and said Turkey was a sov-ereign nation and could do whateverwas necessary to pursue its interests.There was no response from representa-tives of the 55 nations present, he said.

As to Saddam Hussein, PresidentDemirel said he had known him forabout 24 years, but it was a ‘‘puzzle’’ asto how to deal with him. The UnitedStates should enlist allies in its effortsto influence Saddam, he urged.

I asked the President if he would ac-cept an invitation to meet at the OvalOffice with his Greek counterpart, withwhom he does not talk, just as Presi-dent Clinton had brought together Pal-estinian Chairman Yasser Arafat andIsraeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Ihad no authority to call such a meet-ing, I noted, but stressed the power ofthe U.S. Presidency. The President re-plied that Cypriots, both Greek andTurkish, should come to an agreementfirst, but he did not discount the possi-bility of an Oval Office meeting.

NAPLES, ITALY

From Ankara we flew to Naples,where I met with Lt. Gen. Jack Nix, incharge of the Army NATO troops,while we refueled. We spent most of ourhalf hour discussing Bosnia. Gen. Nixcautioned that we can only reduce ourtroops so far; that we must maintain abaseline to allow both mobility and theability to rescue other troops.

From Naples we flew to London,where we arrived in the evening, stayedovernight at an airport hotel, and flewback to the United States the next day.Our visits were facilitated and gen-erally made pleasant by the assistanceand cooperation of U.S. embassies inthe various countries.∑

f

RECOGNITION OF DR. NICK HALL,JR.

∑ Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I risetoday to pay tribute to an outstandingcommunity leader in the City of Sagi-naw, Michigan, Dr. Nick Hall, Jr. Dr.Hall is being recognized at the 17th An-nual ‘‘O Give Thanks’’ Banquet, hostedby The New Valley Mass Choir.

Dr. Hall has served as Pastor of Be-thesda Missionary Baptist Churchsince 1952, and has earned a reputationas one of Saginaw’s most respected re-ligious leaders. Throughout his 46years of service at Bethesda MissionaryBaptist Church, Dr. Hall has consist-ently demonstrated a deep devotion tothe spiritual well being of his con-gregation and of the people of Saginaw.

Dr. Hall’s leadership has not beenconfined to his congregation. He servedas a County Commissioner from 1992 to1996, and has been a prominent memberof civic organizations like Habitat forHumanity, the AIDS Committee ofSaginaw, the Clergy Coalition AgainstCrack Cocaine, and the Saginaw Sub-stance Abuse Advisory Board. Throughhis ministry and his community in-volvement, Dr. Hall has touched thelives of thousands of people.

Mr. President, Dr. Nick Hall, Jr., hasdemonstrated a laudable commitmentto making Saginaw a better place tolive for all of its residents. It is trulyfitting that he is being recognized forhis achievements at this year’s ‘‘O GiveThanks’’ Banquet. I know my col-leagues will join me in commendingDr. Hall for his leadership and his dedi-cation to the people of Saginaw, Michi-gan.∑

f

RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ONENVIRONMENT AND PUBLICWORKS

∑ Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in ac-cordance with the rules of the Senate,I ask that the rules of the Committeeon Environment and Public Works,adopted by the committee January 20,1999, be printed in the RECORD.

The rules follow:RULES OF PROCEDURE

RULE 1. COMMITTEE MEETINGS IN GENERAL

(a) REGULAR MEETING DAYS: For purposesof complying with paragraph 3 of SenateRule XXVI, the regular meeting day of thecommittee is the first and third Thursday ofeach month at 10:00 A.M. If there is no busi-ness before the committee, the regular meet-ing shall be omitted.

(b) ADDITIONAL MEETINGS: The chairmanmay call additional meetings, after consult-ing with the ranking minority member. Sub-committee chairmen may call meetings,with the concurrence of the chairman of the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S809January 20, 1999committee, after consulting with the rank-ing minority members of the subcommitteeand the committee.

(c) PRESIDING OFFICER:(1) The chairman shall preside at all meet-

ings of the committee. If the chairman is notpresent, the ranking majority member whois present shall preside.

(2) Subcommittee chairmen shall presideat all meetings of their subcommittees. Ifthe subcommittee chairman is not present,the Ranking Majority Member of the sub-committee who is present shall preside.

(3) Notwithstanding the rule prescribed byparagraphs (1) and (2), any member of thecommittee may preside at a hearing.

(d) OPEN MEETINGS: Meetings of the com-mittee and subcommittees, including hear-ings and business meetings, are open to thepublic. A portion of a meeting may be closedto the public if the committee determines byrollcall vote of a majority of the memberspresent that the matters to be discussed orthe testimony to be taken—

(1) will disclose matters necessary to bekept secret in the interests of national de-fense or the confidential conduct of the for-eign relations of the United States;

(2) relate solely to matters of committeestaff personnel or internal staff managementor procedure; or

(3) constitute any other grounds for clo-sure under paragraph 5(b) of Senate RuleXXVI.

(e) BROADCASTING:(1) Public meetings of the committee or a

subcommittee may be televised, broadcast,or recorded by a member of the Senate pressgallery or an employee of the Senate.

(2) Any member of the Senate Press Gal-lery or employee of the Senate wishing totelevise, broadcast, or record a committeemeeting must notify the staff director or thestaff director’s designee by 5:00 p.m. the daybefore the meeting.

(3) During public meetings, any personusing a camera, microphone, or other elec-tronic equipment may not position or usethe equipment in a way that interferes withthe seating, vision, or hearing of committeemembers or staff on the dais, or with the or-derly process of the meeting.

RULE 2. QUORUMS

(a) BUSINESS MEETINGS: At committeebusiness meetings, six members, at least twoof whom are members of the minority party,constitute a quorum, except as provided insubsection (d).

(b) SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS: At sub-committee business meetings, a majority ofthe subcommittee members, at least one ofwhom is a member of the minority party,constitutes a quorum for conducting busi-ness.

(c) CONTINUING QUORUM: Once a quorum asprescribed in subsections (a) and (b) has beenestablished, the committee or subcommitteemay continue to conduct business.

(d) REPORTING: No measure or matter maybe reported by the committee unless a ma-jority of committee members cast votes inperson.

(e) HEARINGS: One member constitutes aquorum for conducting a hearing.

RULE 3. HEARINGS

(a) ANNOUNCEMENTS: Before the committeeor a subcommittee holds a hearing, thechairman of the committee or subcommitteeshall make a public announcement and pro-vide notice to members of the date, place,time, and subject matter of the hearing. Theannouncement and notice shall be issued atleast one week in advance of the hearing, un-less the chairman of the committee or sub-committee, with the concurrence of theranking minority member of the committeeor subcommittee, determines that there is

good cause to provide a shorter period, inwhich event the announcement and noticeshall be issued at least twenty-four hours inadvance of the hearing.

(b) STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES:(1) A witness who is scheduled to testify at

a hearing of the committee or a subcommit-tee shall file 100 copies of the written testi-mony at least 48 hours before the hearing. Ifa witness fails to comply with this require-ment, the presiding officer may preclude thewitness’ testimony. This rule may be waivedfor field hearings, except for witnesses fromthe Federal Government.

(2) Any witness planning to use at a hear-ing any exhibit such as a chart, graph, dia-gram, photo, map, slide, or model must sub-mit one identical copy of the exhibit (or rep-resentation of the exhibit in the case of amodel) and 100 copies reduced to letter orlegal paper size at least 48 hours before thehearing. Any exhibit described above that isnot provided to the committee at least 48hours prior to the hearing cannot be used forthe purpose of presenting testimony to thecommittee and will not be included in thehearing record.

(3) The presiding officer at a hearing mayhave a witness confine the oral presentationto a summary of the written testimony.

RULE 4. BUSINESS MEETINGS: NOTICE ANDFILING REQUIREMENTS

(a) NOTICE: The chairman of the committeeor the subcommittee shall provide notice,the agenda of business to be discussed, andthe text of agenda items to members of thecommittee or subcommittee at least 72 hoursbefore a business meeting.

(b) AMENDMENTS: First-degree amendmentsmust be filed with the chairman of the com-mittee or the subcommittee at least 24 hoursbefore a business meeting. After the filingdeadline, the chairman shall promptly dis-tribute all filed amendments to the membersof the committee or subcommittee.

(c) MODIFICATIONS: The chairman of thecommittee or the subcommittee may modifythe notice and filing requirements to meetspecial circumstances, with the concurrenceof the ranking member of the committee orsubcommittee.

RULE 5. BUSINESS MEETINGS: VOTING

(a) PROXY VOTING:(1) Proxy voting is allowed on all meas-

ures, amendments, resolutions, or other mat-ters before the committee or a subcommit-tee.

(2) A member who is unable to attend abusiness meeting may submit a proxy voteon any matter, in writing, orally, or throughpersonal instructions.

(3) A proxy given in writing is valid untilrevoked. A proxy given orally or by personalinstructions is valid only on the day given.

(b) SUBSEQUENT VOTING: Members who werenot present at a business meeting and wereunable to cast their votes by proxy mayrecord their votes later, so long as they do sothat same business day and their vote doesnot change the outcome.

(c) PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT:(1) Whenever the committee conducts a

rollcall vote, the chairman shall announcethe results of the vote, including a tabula-tion of the votes cast in favor and the votescast against the proposition by each memberof the committee.

(2) Whenever the committee reports anymeasure or matter by rollcall vote, the re-port shall include a tabulation of the votescast in favor of and the votes cast in opposi-tion to the measure or matter by each mem-ber of the committee.

RULE 6. SUBCOMMITTEES

(a) REGULARLY ESTABLISHED SUBCOMMIT-TEES: The committee has four subcommit-

tees: Transportation and Infrastructure;Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, andNuclear Safety; Superfund, Waste Control,and Risk Assessment; and Fisheries, Wild-life, and Drinking Water.

(b) MEMBERSHIP: The committee chairmanshall select members of the subcommittees,after consulting with the ranking minoritymember.

RULE 7. STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES ANDOTHER MATTERS

(a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS:No project or legislation proposed by any ex-ecutive branch agency may be approved orotherwise acted upon unless the committeehas received a final environmental impactstatement relative to it, in accordance withsection 102(2)(C) of the National Environ-mental Policy Act, and the written com-ments of the Administrator of the Environ-mental Protection Agency, in accordancewith section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Thisrule is not intended to broaden, narrow, orotherwise modify the class of projects or leg-islative proposals for which environmentalimpact statements are required under sec-tion 102(2)(C).

(b) PROJECT APPROVALS:(1) Whenever the committee authorizes a

project under Public Law 89–298, the Riversand Harbors Act of 1965; Public Law 83–566,the Watershed Protection and Flood Preven-tion Act; or Public Law 86–249, the PublicBuildings Act of 1959, as amended; the chair-man shall submit for printing in the Con-gressional Record, and the committee shallpublish periodically as a committee print, areport that describes the project and the rea-sons for its approval, together with any dis-senting or individual views.

(2) Proponents of a committee resolutionshall submit appropriate evidence in favor ofthe resolution.

(c) BUILDING PROSPECTUSES:(1) When the General Services Administra-

tion submits a prospectus, pursuant to sec-tion 7(a) of the Public Buildings Act of 1959,as amended, for construction (including con-struction of buildings for lease by the gov-ernment), alteration and repair, or acquisi-tion, the committee shall act with respect tothe prospectus during the same session inwhich the prospectus is submitted. A pro-spectus rejected by majority vote of thecommittee or not reported to the Senateduring the session in which it was submittedshall be returned to the GSA and must thenbe resubmitted in order to be considered bythe committee during the next session of theCongress.

(2) A report of a building project surveysubmitted by the General Services Adminis-tration to the committee under section 11(b)of the Public Buildings Act of 1959, asamended, may not be considered by the com-mittee as being a prospectus subject to ap-proval by committee resolution in accord-ance with section 7(a) of that Act. A projectdescribed in the report may be considered forcommittee action only if it is submitted as aprospectus in accordance with section 7(a)and is subject to the provisions of paragraph(1) of this rule.

(d) NAMING PUBLIC FACILITIES: The com-mittee may not name a building, structureor facility for any living person, exceptformer Presidents or former Vice Presidentsof the United States, former Members ofCongress over 70 years of age, or former Jus-tices of the United States Supreme Courtover 70 years of age.

RULE 8. AMENDING THE RULES

The rules may be added to, modified,amended, or suspended by vote of a majorityof committee members at a business meetingif a quorum is present.∑

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES810 January 20, 1999RECESS

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, ifthere is no further business to come be-fore the Senate, I now ask unanimousconsent that the Senate stand in recessunder the previous order.

There being no objection, at 12:55p.m., the Senate, in legislative session,recessed until 1:05 p.m.; whereupon, theSenate, sitting as a Court of Impeach-ment, reassembled when called to orderby the Chief Justice.f

TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSONCLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THEUNITED STATESThe CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate

will convene as a Court of Impeach-ment. The Senators may be seated, andthe Deputy Sergeant at Arms willmake the proclamation.

The Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Loret-ta Symms, made proclamation as fol-lows:

Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons arecommanded to keep silent, on pain of impris-onment, while the Senate of the UnitedStates is sitting for the trial of the articlesof impeachment exhibited by the House ofRepresentatives against William JeffersonClinton, President of the United States.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majorityleader is recognized.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, it is myunderstanding that the White Housecounsel presentation today will lastuntil sometime between 5 and 6o’clock.

I have been informed that Mr. GregCraig and Ms. Cheryl Mills will bemaking today’s presentations. As wehave done over the past week, we willtake a couple of short breaks duringthe proceedings. I am not exactly surehow we will do that. We will keep aneye on everybody, the Chief Justice,and counsel. I assume that after aboutan hour, hour and 15 minutes, we willtake a break; then we will take an-other one in the afternoon at somepoint so we will have an opportunity tostretch.

I remind all Senators, again, to re-main standing at your desks each timethe Chief Justice enters and departsthe Chamber.

As a further reminder, on a differentsubject, the leader lecture series con-tinues tonight, to be held at 6 p.m. inthe Old Senate Chamber. Former Presi-dent George Bush will be our guestspeaker.

I yield the floor, and I understandthat Counsel Greg Craig is going to bethe first presenter.

THE JOURNAL

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Journal ofthe proceedings of the trial are ap-proved to date.

Pursuant to the provisions of SenateResolution 16, counsel for the Presi-dent have 21 hours 45 minutes remain-ing to make the presentation of theircase. The Senate will now hear you.

The Chair recognizes Mr. CounselCraig.

Mr. Counsel CRAIG. Mr. Chief Jus-tice, ladies and gentlemen of the Sen-

ate, distinguished managers from theHouse, good afternoon. My name isGreg Craig and I am special counsel tothe President. I am here today on be-half of President Clinton. I am here toargue that he is not guilty of the alle-gations of grand jury perjury set forthin article I.

I welcome this opportunity to speakfor President Clinton. He has a strongand compelling case, one that is basedon the facts in the record, on the law,and on the Constitution. But first andforemost, the President’s defense isbased on the grand jury transcriptitself. I urge you to read that tran-script and watch the videotape. Youwill see this President make painful,difficult admissions, beginning with hisacknowledgment of an improper andwrongful relationship with MonicaLewinsky.

You will see that the President wastruthful. And after reading, seeing,hearing, and studying the evidence foryourselves, not relying on what some-one else says it is, not relying on some-one else’s description, characteriza-tion, or paraphrase of the President’stestimony, we believe that you willconclude that what the President didand said in the grand jury was not un-lawful, and that you must not removehim from office.

I plan to divide my presentation intothree parts:

First, to tell you how really bad thisarticle is, legally, structurally, andconstitutionally, and to argue that itfalls well below the most basic, mini-mal standards and should not be usedto impeach and remove this Presidentor any President from office; second, toaddress the various allegations di-rectly; and third, to give you a fewlarger thoughts in response to some ofthe arguments from last week.

At the conclusion you will have hadmuch more than 100 percent of yourminimum daily requirements forlawyering, for which I apologize.

Article I accuses the President ofhaving given perjurious, false, and mis-leading testimony to the grand juryconcerning one or more of four dif-ferent subject areas:

First, when he testified about the na-ture and details of the relationshipwith Ms. Lewinsky;

Second, when he testified about histestimony in the Jones deposition;

Third, when he testified about whathappened during the Jones depositionwhen the President’s lawyer, RobertBennett, made certain representationsabout Monica Lewinsky’s affidavit;

And, fourth, when he testified aboutalleged efforts to influence the testi-mony of witnesses and impede the dis-covery of evidence.

It is noteworthy that the second andthird subject areas are attempts to re-visit the President’s deposition testi-mony in the Jones case. There was anarticle that was proposed alleging thatthe President also committed perjuryin the Jones case in the Jones deposi-tion. That article was rejected by the

House of Representatives, and therewere very many good reasons for theHouse to take that action. Those alle-gations have been dismissed, and youmust not allow the managers to revivethem. Last week they tried to do that.The managers mixed up and mergedtwo sets of issues—allegations of per-jury in the grand jury and allegationsof perjury in the Jones case. These arevery different matters. And I think theresult was confusing and also unfair tothe President.

You will notice that the third andthe fourth subject areas correspond to,coincide, and overlap with many of theallegations of obstruction of justice inarticle II. This represents a kind ofdouble charging that you might be fa-miliar with if you have either been aprosecutor or a defense lawyer. One is,the defendant is charged with the coreoffense; second, the defendant ischarged with denying the core offenseunder oath. This gives the managerstwo bites at the apple, and it is a dubi-ous prosecutorial practice that isfrowned upon by most courts.

The upshot, though, of this with re-spect to subparts 3 and 4 of this firstarticle is that if you conclude, as Itrust you will, that the evidence thatthe President engaged in obstruction ofjustice is insufficient to support thatcharge, it would follow logically thatthe President’s denial that he engagedin any such activity would be re-spected, and he would be acquitted onthe perjury charge. Simply put, if thePresident didn’t obstruct justice, hedidn’t commit perjury when he deniedit.

But the most striking thing about ar-ticle I is what it does not say. It al-leges the perjury generally. But it doesnot allege a single perjurious state-ment specifically. The majority draftedthe article in this way despite pleasfrom other members of the committeeand from counsel for the President thatthe article take care to be precise whenit makes its allegations. Such specific-ity, as many of you know, is the stand-ard practice of Federal prosecutors allacross America. And that is the prac-tice recommended by the Departmentof Justice in the manual distributed tothe U.S. attorneys who enforce thecriminal code in Federal courtsthroughout the Nation.

Take a look at the standard form. Itis exhibit 5 in the exhibits that wehanded to you. This is given to Federalprosecutors. This is the model thatthey are told to use to allege perjury ina criminal indictment in Federal court.There is a very simple reason why pros-ecutors identify the specific quotationthat is alleged to be perjury, and whyit is included in a perjury indictment.If they don’t quote the specific state-ment that is alleged to be perjurious,courts will dismiss the indictment,concluding that the charge of perjuryis too vague and that the defendant isnot able to determine what preciselyhe is being charged with.

The requirement that a defendant begiven adequate notice of what he is

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S811January 20, 1999charged with carries constitutional di-mensions, and the failure to providethat notice violates due process of law.This is something that applies to allcriminal defendant offenses when theyare charged. And you can understandwhy that kind of notice is required.Imagine a robbery indictment thatfailed to indicate who or what wasrobbed and what property was stolen.How could you possibly defend againstthe charge that you just stole some-thing but you don’t know what it isand it is nothing specific? Imagine amurder indictment without identifyinga victim.

But this requirement is even morestringent for perjury prosecution. De-scription, paraphrase, or summary oftestimony that is alleged to be perjuri-ous are not acceptable. The quotationmust be there, or the definition shouldbe so close that there can be no doubtas to what is intended. In the past,when the House returned articles ofimpeachment alleging perjury with re-spect to Federal judges, you will seethat the House has followed this prac-tice. And if you go back to Americanhistory and review the articles that al-lege perjury and that have been provedby the House and the Senate, you willfind that the statements that are al-leged to be perjurious are specificallyidentified in the article.

Let me read from article I from theresolution of impeachment againstJudge Walter Nixon. ‘‘The false or mis-leading statement was in substancethat the Forest County District Attor-ney never discussed this case withJudge Nixon.’’ There is no doubt aboutthat. That is very clear. From theAlcee Hastings articles of impeach-ment, the false statement was, in sub-stance, that Judge Hastings and Wil-liam Borders never made any agree-ment to solicit a bribe from defendantsin United States v. Romano, a casetried before Judge Hastings.

Why is it that in this case—surelythe most serious perjury trial in Amer-ican history—the House decided thatspecific allegations just aren’t nec-essary? The failure of the House to bespecific in its charge of perjury in factviolated the President’s right to dueprocess and fundamental fairness. And,as you will see as I go through the pro-cedural history of these allegations, itputs us and the President at a signifi-cant disadvantage when we try to re-spond to the allegations that are nowset forth in this article.

But there is yet another reason whythis vagueness and lack of specificityis so very dangerous, and it raises aconstitutional question that only thisbody can resolve.

Article I, section 2, clause 5, of theConstitution states, ‘‘The House ofRepresentatives shall have the solepower of impeachment’’—‘‘the solepower of impeachment.’’

By failing to be specific in this arti-cle as to what it is precisely that thePresident said that should cause himto be removed from office, the House

has effectively and unconstitutionallyceded its authority under this provi-sion of the Constitution to the man-agers, who are not authorized to exer-cise that authority. By bringing gen-eral charges in this article, the HouseJudiciary Committee, and then theHouse of Representatives generally,gave enormous discretion, power, andauthority to the floor managers andtheir lawyers to decide what preciselythe President was going to be chargedwith. They didn’t have that authorityunder the Constitution. Only the Houseof Representatives has that authority.They have been allowed to pick and tochoose what allegations will be leveledagainst the President of the UnitedStates.

It would be extremely dangerous tothe integrity of the process if theHouse leveled such general chargesagainst the President, creating ‘‘emptyvessels,’’ to use Mr. Ruff’s term, to befilled by lawyers and floor managers.And this article, I think, will take onmore importance as we take a closerlook at the charges themselves and wesee what kind of ‘‘witches’ brew’’—touse Mr. Ruff again—what kind of con-tent was poured into these vessels, andfind out where they came from andwhy and when.

I would like to talk about how thesecharges have been a moving target forus throughout this entire process. OnSeptember 9, when Kenneth Starr sub-mitted his referral to the House of Rep-resentatives, he claimed that there wassubstantial and credible information tosuggest that the President committedperjury in the grand jury on three sep-arate occasions. To his credit, theStarr referral was moderately specific.We could understand what they weretalking about in those allegations.

On October 5, when House majoritycounsel David Schippers first made hisrepresentation to the House JudiciaryCommittee, he discarded two of Mr.Starr’s theories and invented a new oneof his own. And he included only twocounts in his presentation alleging per-jury in the grand jury. Those twocounts were unbelievably broad and in-cluded no specifics whatsoever.

On November 19, Mr. Starr appearedbefore the House Judiciary Committeeand gave a 2-hour opening statement.In that statement he delivered one ortwo sentences on the subject of grandjury perjury.

Then, on December 9, when the com-mittee majority released its four pro-posed articles of impeachment, the ar-ticle that alleged perjury in the grandjury, which is the one we have beforeus today, failed to tell us or the Amer-ican people what words the Presidentactually used that should cause theCongress to remove him from office.

As you know, these proposed articleswere released just as Mr. Ruff and thePresident’s defense were being com-pleted. In fact, it may have been 2 or 3minutes before he completed his finalargument before the committee. So wehad no advance notice and no chance to

discuss these articles, to respond tothem, or in any way to react. In truth,I must say that because of the vague-ness of the articles that were ulti-mately returned, had we been givensuch advance notice, it would not havemade much difference because, simplyput, there is a stunning lack of speci-ficity in article I.

So where do we look for guidance?How do we know what to defendagainst in this case? After the Judici-ary Committee had completed its de-liberations, after the Members hadvoted to send four articles of impeach-ment to the full House, the majorityissued its report on December 16th,only 3 days before the House took itsfinal vote. It was never debated by, letalone approved by, the House of Rep-resentatives, and thus this report hasno formal standing in these proceed-ings. But until the managers filed theirtrial brief and made their presen-tations just last week, the majority re-port, written by Mr. Schippers and hisstaff, was our only place to go to lookfor guidance as to what those four sub-parts of this first article really meant.

Now, when it comes to perjury beforethe grand jury, the majority report ar-gued that the President had not madetwo, not three, but a whole host of per-jurious statements before the grandjury, some statements that were notcontained in the Starr referral and hadnever been identified, charged, dis-cussed, or debated by the Members dur-ing the impeachment inquiry.

For example, the majority report al-leged that the prepared statement thatthe President made and delivered tothe grand jury at the start of his testi-mony admitting his relationship withMs. Lewinsky was ‘‘perjurious, false,and misleading,’’ an astonishing allega-tion that went far beyond anythingthat Kenneth Starr had claimed, and aclaim that no member of the JudiciaryCommittee had ever made in thecourse of the committee’s delibera-tions.

Obviously, we had no opportunitywhatsoever to respond to this allega-tion before the committee or before theHouse; the allegation was never de-bated or discussed by members of thecommittee, nor was it discussed duringthe debate in the Chamber of theHouse.

The majority report also alleged thatthe President committed perjury in thegrand jury when he testified that his‘‘goal in the [Jones] deposition was tobe truthful,’’ and when he said that hebelieved he had managed to completehis testimony in that deposition ‘‘with-out violating the law.’’

Again, this allegation was brand newto us, never before made by Starr, notincluded in the Schippers closing argu-ment, never mentioned by ChairmanHyde or by anyone else in the commit-tee, never addressed by the President’scounsel, never debated by members ofthe committee, never discussed on thefloor.

The majority report made manyother new allegations of the same kind

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES812 January 20, 1999and pedigree—all new, undiscussed, un-tested. They had not come, ladies andgentlemen of the Senate, these allega-tions did not come from Starr’s refer-ral, nor did they come from any evi-dence that had been gathered in thecourse of the impeachment inquiry, norhad they ever been unveiled during theimpeachment inquiry to allow thePresident’s counsel to respond, or themembers of the Judiciary Committeeto debate them. To our knowledge,many of these allegations were neverdiscussed or debated by the members ofthe committee. And if you read theclosing arguments of the members ofthe House Judiciary Committee, youwill search in vain for any specific ref-erence to any of these new allegations,the terms of which are the subject ofarticle I.

Then we found ourselves in the Sen-ate, our only guide being the articlesthemselves, which, as you know, aregeneral, and the majority report, whichhas no formal standing but which wasfilled with allegations and theories,had never been discussed much lessadopted.

As the trial in the Senate began—just 3 days before the managers werescheduled to open their case, on Janu-ary 11th—the House managers filedtheir trial brief. We discovered that theallegations of grand jury perjuryagainst the President were still chang-ing, still expanding, still increasing innumber.

The trial brief made eight proffers,incredibly presented ‘‘merely as exam-ples’’ that still in general terms de-scribe instances where the Presidentallegedly provided ‘‘perjurious, false,and misleading testimony’’ to thegrand jury.

But, we were warned, these profferswere only ‘‘salient examples’’ of grandjury perjury. The House managers said,‘‘The [examples set forth in the trialbrief] are merely highlights of thegrand jury perjury. There are numer-ous additional examples.’’ And when weheard Mr. Manager ROGAN’S presen-tation, we realized that the trial briefwas absolutely right; Mr. ROGAN un-veiled allegations that had not been in-cluded even in the trial brief.

The uncertainty, fluidity, the vague-ness of the charges in this case and theunwillingness of the prosecutors everto specify and be bound by the state-ments that are at issue has been an as-pect of this process that, I submit, hasbeen profoundly unfair to this Presi-dent. It is also unconstitutional, fromthe arguments I gave you.

The articles had come to include spe-cific allegations of grand jury perjurythat did not come from the Starr refer-ral and that never would have been ap-proved by the House had the Housebeen required to review them.

There is one other element of unfair-ness that Mr. Ruff referred to. Even asthe House managers have consistentlytried to stretch the scope of article I tocover allegations never considered bythe House, they have tried to twist the

scope of article I to cover allegationsspecifically rejected by the House.

Now, let me be clear here. I am notcharging the managers with going be-yond the record of the case. These newallegations come from the record inthe case. They are not beyond therecord. They are in the record. But theStarr referral did not find it suitable tomake these allegations, and they werenot made in a timely way before theHouse Judiciary Committee and, Iwould submit, in a timely way beforethe House of Representatives.

I go back to this second element ofunfairness that has to do with theJones article. When that Jones articlewas rejected, we would argue that re-jection should have been recognized forwhat it was, a clear instruction fromthe House of Representatives not toargue that the President should be im-peached and removed because of histestimony in the Jones deposition. Butthe managers have sought to merge theJones testimony with the grand jurytestimony, to confuse these two events,to blend and blur them together.

The Senate must understand thatthese two events were different inevery way. In the President’s testi-mony in the Jones case, the Presidentwas evasive, misleading, incomplete inhis answers, and, as I said to the HouseJudiciary Committee, maddening. Butin the Federal grand jury, PresidentClinton was forthright and forthcom-ing. He told the truth, the whole truthand nothing but the truth for 4 longhours, and the American people sawthat testimony and they know thatPresident Clinton, when he appearedbefore the grand jury, did not deny asexual relationship with Ms.Lewinsky—he admitted to one.

They know that he did not deny thathe was alone with Ms. Lewinsky; he re-peatedly acknowledged that he hadbeen alone with her on many occasions.

The managers argued that the Jonestestimony is relevant because, theysay, the President perjured himselfwhen he told the grand jury that histestimony in the Jones case was truth-ful, and it wasn’t, say the managers.That characterization of the Presi-dent’s testimony, they say, is simplynot accurate. What he said was, ‘‘Mygoal in this deposition was to be truth-ful but not particularly helpful . . . Iwas determined to walk through theminefield of this deposition withoutviolating the law, and I believe I did.’’These are opinions. He is characteriz-ing his state of mind.

The House managers, on the basis ofthis testimony, must not be allowed todo what the House of Representativestold them they could not do, which isto argue about the President’s testi-mony in the Jones case. Even if you be-lieve that the President crossed theline in his Jones deposition, you can-not conclude that he should be re-moved for it.

He was not impeached for it. Thiscase is about the grand jury and thegrand jury alone.

Now, in fact, the vagueness and un-certainty as to the specific allegationsof perjury, whether in the grand jury orin the Paula Jones deposition, havecreated enormous confusion in the pub-lic about the President’s conduct andabout his testimony. This confusion, Ithink, has done enormous damage tothe President, because out of this con-fusion has emerged a wholly inaccurateconventional wisdom about what Presi-dent Clinton said when he testified inthe grand jury. And that conventionalwisdom is based on certain commonmischaracterizations of the President’stestimony.

Last December 8, I gave an openingstatement in the President’s defensebefore the committee. And when itcame time for me to talk about thecharges of perjury, I urged the mem-bers of the committee to open theirminds, and because of widespread mis-information about the facts, to focuson the record. I make the same plea toyou again today. Keep an open mindand look at the real record. Read thetranscript. Watch the videotape. Donot rely upon anyone else’s version.

We speak from some disappointingexperience on this issue. Over and overagain, inaccurate descriptions of thePresident’s grand jury testimony havebeen launched into the public debate—sometimes innocently, sometimes neg-ligently. But the result has been thesame. The President’s critics have cre-ated a conventional wisdom about thePresident’s grand jury that is based onmyth and not reality. There has been amerging of the President’s testimonyin the Jones deposition with that of histestimony in the grand jury, and thisdynamic has been unfair to the Presi-dent.

We are at No. 6 with the exhibits. Letme just cite a few examples. There aremany more available, but they arefrom people and sources that are famil-iar with the case and close to the evi-dence, and some coming from the pres-entations of just last week.

At the conclusion of the impeach-ment inquiry conducted by the Judici-ary Committee, the final argumentsbefore the votes were taken in front ofthe committee, Congressman MCCOL-LUM stated:

The President gave sworn testimony in theJones case in which he swore he could not re-call being alone with Monica Lewinsky andthat he had not had sexual relations withher.

He repeated those assertions a few monthslater to the grand jury, and the evidenceshows he lied about both.

That is not an accurate characteriza-tion of the President’s testimony be-fore the grand jury. In the majority re-port, written by the majority counsel,the author stated repeatedly thatPresident Clinton testified before thegrand jury that he did not have sexualrelations with Ms. Lewinsky. Membersof the Senate, those descriptions of thePresident’s grand jury testimony are

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S813January 20, 1999absolutely false. When he appeared be-fore the grand jury, the President ad-mitted—he did not deny—an inappro-priate, intimate, wrongful, personal re-lationship with Ms. Lewinsky. When hemade this admission there was nodoubt in anyone’s mind what he meant.It meant, and the whole world knewthat it meant that the President of theUnited States had engaged in someform of sexual activity or sexual con-tact with Ms. Lewinsky.

In his appearance on a national newsprogram on CNN television, this is an-other example: Over the New Year’sweekend Mr. Manager GRAHAM wasasked for the most glaring example ofthe President’s alleged perjury beforethe grand jury. And he said:

I think when the President said he wasn’talone with her, he lied.

That characterization of the Presi-dent’s grand jury testimony is nottrue. There can be absolutely no doubtthat during his grand jury testimony,the President acknowledged—he didnot deny, he repeatedly acknowl-edged—that he had been, on certain oc-casions, alone with Ms. Lewinsky. Heacknowledged that fact in the openingsentence of his prepared statement tothe grand jury. Let me read it. Let meread you the first words in the Presi-dent’s opening statement to the grandjury:

When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky oncertain occasions in early 1996, and once inearly 1997, I engaged in conduct that waswrong.

‘‘When I was alone with Ms.Lewinsky,’’ that is what the Presidentof the United States said. That is whatthe transcript says. And no amount ofeloquence or lawyerly skill from themanagers can change that fact. Factsare stubborn.

He also engaged in a lengthy col-loquy with the prosecutors about howmany times he thought he had beenalone with Ms. Lewinsky. And therecan be no doubt in anyone’s mind thathe answered that he had been alonewith Ms. Lewinsky on frequent occa-sions. He was asked, and he answered,and he said yes, and he made clearwhat he meant. He went on to say:

I did what people do when they do thewrong thing. I tried to do it where nobodyelse was looking at it. I’d have to be an exhi-bitionist, not to have tried to exclude every-one else.

These are not the words of someonewho is trying to hide the fact of his re-lationship with Ms. Lewinsky. And it isdifficult to understand how readingthese words, as well as the long and de-tailed testimony in front of the grandjury, how one can think or contendthat the President repeated or ratifiedin his deposition before the grand juryabout not ever being alone.

In the managers’ trial brief issuedjust 3 days before they made their pres-entation to the statement, the briefmakes the following statement. This ismischaracterization No. 4.

[The President] falsely testified that heanswered questions truthfully at his deposi-

tion concerning, among other subjects,whether he had been alone with Ms.Lewinsky.

Members of the Senate, as I just out-lined in connection with ManagerGRAHAM’s statement, this characteriza-tion of the President’s grand jury testi-mony is misleading. The lawyers forthe Office of the Independent Counselasked many questions and engaged inextensive colloquy with the Presidentabout being alone with Ms. Lewinsky.But they never asked him to explain,affirm, defend, or justify his testimonyabout that same topic in the Jones dep-osition. And he did not do so.

Members of the Senate, if justice isto be done, these misstatements andmischaracterizations must not be al-lowed to stand and must not be allowedto influence your judgment as you lookat the evidence. So, please look at thereal record. It is the record of thePresident’s testimony, not the Jonesdeposition—his testimony before thegrand jury that should be the Senate’ssole concern.

Now, it is timely, I think, to talk alittle bit about legalisms and tech-nicalities and hairsplitting becausethose who have engaged in this processover the past months in this enterpriseof defending the President have alsobeen the subject of much criticism. Themajority counsel accused us of ‘‘legalhairsplitting, prevarication and dis-sembling,’’ and urged the Members ofthe Senate and the House to pay no at-tention to the ‘‘obfuscations and legal-istic pyrotechnics of the President’sdefenders.’’ And during his presen-tation just last week on January 15,Congressman MCCOLLUM implored you‘‘not to get hung up on some of the ab-surd and contorted explanations of thePresident and his attorneys.’’

To the extent that we have relied onoverly legal or technical arguments todefend the President from hisattackers, we apologize to him, to you,and to the American public. We do thePresident no earthly good if, in thecourse of defending him, we offend boththe judges, the jurors, and the Amer-ican public. And Mr. Ruff had it justright when he expressed his concern tothe members of the Judiciary Commit-tee that our irresistible urge to prac-tice our profession should not get inthe way of securing a just result in thisvery grave proceeding for this very spe-cific client.

But, when an individual—any indi-vidual—is accused of committing acrime such as perjury, the prosecutorsmust be put to their full proof. Everyelement of the crime must be proven.And if a criminal standard is going tobe used here it must be proven beyonda reasonable doubt.

Now, the managers have taken itupon themselves directly and aggres-sively to accuse this President ofcriminal activity. They say that thiscriminal activity is at the heart of theeffort to remove him from office. AsCongressman MCCOLLUM said to youlast week:

The first thing you have to determine iswhether or not the President committedcrimes. If he didn’t obstruct justice or wit-ness tamper or commit perjury, no one be-lieves [no one believes] he should be removedfrom office.

Allegations of legal crimes invite, in-deed they call out for legal defenses.And you will not be surprised to learnthat in defending the President of theUnited States, we intend and we willuse all the legal defenses that areavailable to us, as they would be avail-able to any other citizen of this coun-try.

Teddy Roosevelt, quoted earlier inthis proceeding, said it best: ‘‘No manis above the law and no man is belowthe law either.’’ In fact, the mere act ofalleging perjury, as those of you in thisbody know who have tried perjurycases, the mere act of alleging perjuryinvites precisely the kind of hair-splitting everyone seems to deplore. Ifit is the will of the Congress to changethe crime of perjury, to modify it, toeliminate certain judicially created de-fenses to that offense, so be it. But thecrime of perjury has developed the wayit has for some very good reasons, andit has a long and distinguished pedi-gree.

Its essential elements are well andclearly established, and ManagerCHABOT’S presentation was clear onthose points, although you will not besurprised to learn that I disagree withhis conclusions. Courts have concludedthat no one should be convicted of per-jury without demonstrating that thetestimony in question was, in fact,false; that the person testifying knewit to be false; and that the testimonyinvolved an issue that is material tothe case, one that could influence theoutcome of the matter one way or an-other.

In addition, courts and prosecutorsare in general agreement that prosecu-tions for perjury should not be broughton the basis of an oath against an oath.The Supreme Court has spoken on thisissue, holding that a conviction for per-jury ‘‘ought not to rest entirely uponan oath against an oath.’’

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate,when we presented our case to the Ju-diciary Committee last December, weinvited five experienced prosecutors toexamine the record of this case and togive us their views as to whether theywould bring charges of perjury and ob-struction of justice against the Presi-dent based on that record. These fiveattorneys are five of the best, the mostexperienced, the most tested prosecu-tors the country has ever seen. Threeserved as high officials in RepublicanDepartments of Justice; two servedduring Democratic administrations.All were in agreement that no respon-sible prosecutor would bring this caseagainst President Clinton.

I would like to run the tape record-ings of testimony from two of the indi-viduals who testified, Tom Sullivan,former U.S. attorney from the North-ern District of Illinois, as he describes

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES814 January 20, 1999the law of perjury, and Richard Davis,an experienced trial lawyer with pros-ecutorial experience in the Departmentof Justice and the Department of theTreasury.

(Text of videotape presentation:)Mr. SULLIVAN. . . . The law of perjury can

be particularly arcane, including the re-quirements that the government prove be-yond a reasonable doubt that the defendantknew his testimony to be false at the timehe or she testified, that the alleged false tes-timony was material, and that any ambigu-ity or uncertainty about what the questionor answer meant must be construed in favorof the defendant.

Both perjury and obstruction of justice arewhat are known as specific intent crimes,putting a heavy burden on the prosecutor toestablish the defendant’s state of mind. Fur-thermore, because perjury and obstructioncharges often arise from private dealingswith few observers, the courts have requiredeither two witnesses who testified directly tothe facts establishing the crime, or, if onlyone witness testifies to the facts constitut-ing the alleged perjury, that there be sub-stantial corroborating proof to establishguilt. Responsible prosecutors do not bringthese charges lightly.

The next testimony you will hear isfrom Richard Davis, who is Acting Dep-uty Attorney General—excuse me, hewas assistant from the Southern Dis-trict of New York, task force leader fora Watergate special prosecution forceand Assistant Secretary of Treasuryfor Enforcement and Operations from1977 to 1981.

(Text of videotape presentation:)Mr. DAVIS. . . . In the context of perjury

prosecutions, there are some specific consid-erations which are present when decidingwhether such a case can be won. First, it isvirtually unheard of to bring a perjury pros-ecution based solely on the conflicting testi-mony of two people. The inherent problemsin bringing such a case are compounded tothe extent that any credibility issues existas to the government’s sole witness.

Second, questions and answers are oftenimprecise. Questions sometimes are vague,or used too narrowly to define terms, and in-terrogators frequently ask compound or in-articulate questions, and fail to follow upimprecise answerers. Witnesses often mean-der through an answer, wandering around aquestion, but never really answering it. In aperjury case, where the precise language of aquestion and answer are so relevant, thismakes perjury prosecutions difficult, be-cause the prosecutor must establish that thewitness understood the question, intended togive a false, not simply an evasive answer,and in fact did so. The problem of establish-ing such intentional falsity is compounded,in civil cases, by the reality that lawyersroutinely counsel their clients to answeronly the question asked, not to volunteer,and not to help out an inarticulate ques-tioner.

Legalistic though some of these legaldefenses may be, these are the respect-able and respected, acceptable and ex-pected defenses available to anyonecharged with this kind of a crime. Soto accuse us of using legalisms to de-fend the President when he is being ac-cused of perjury is only to accuse us ofdefending the President. We pleadguilty to that charge, and the truth isthat an attorney who failed to raisethese defenses might well be guilty ofmalpractice.

But putting the legal defenses aside,it is not a legalistic issue to point outthat the President did not say much ofwhat he is accused of having said. It isnot legalistic to point out that a wit-ness did not say what some rely on hertestimony to establish. And it is nottoo legalistic to point out that a Presi-dent of the United States should not beconvicted of perjury and removed fromoffice over an argument, a disputeabout what is and what is not the com-monly accepted meaning of words inhis testimony.

I would like to make one additionalpoint about the Office of the Independ-ent Counsel and the Starr prosecutors.They, as you know, have had a longand difficult relationship with theWhite House. It has been intense, ad-verse, frequently hostile. They werethe ones who conducted the interroga-tion of the President before the grandjury. These attorneys from the Officeof Independent Counsel were identifiedby Mr. Starr as being experienced andseasoned and professional.

In the referral that they sent over tothe House of Representatives, theymake three allegations of grand juryperjury, and the managers, based onmy analysis of Mr. ROGAN’s speech, ap-pear to have adopted two of those alle-gations.

What is most remarkable is the factthat the managers make many, manyallegations of grand jury perjury thatthe Independent Counsel declined tomake, that were not included in the re-ferral.

Think about it for a moment. Thelawyers working for the Office of theIndependent Counsel, they were incharge of this investigation. They werethe ones who called the President.They were the ones running the grandjury. It was their grand jury. They con-ducted the questioning of the Presi-dent. They picked the topics. Theyasked the follow-up questions.

You should remember one additionalfact. Their standard for making a refer-ral is presumably much lower than thestandard you would expect from themanagers in making a case for the re-moval of the President in an article ofimpeachment. The Independent Coun-sel Act calls upon the IndependentCounsel to make a referral when thereis credible and substantial informationof potential impeachable offenses.

They looked at the record, the samerecord that the managers had, and theydid make a referral and they did sendrecommendations to the House of Rep-resentatives.

But these lawyers, Mr. Starr and hisfellow prosecutors, did not see fit to al-lege most of the charges that we arediscussing today. It is fair for us to as-sume that the Office of IndependentCounsel considered and declined tomake the very allegations of perjurythat the House managers presented toyou last week. Apparently, the man-agers believe that Ken Starr and hisprosecutors have been simply too softon the President.

This should cause the Members of theSenate some concern and some addi-tional reason to give very careful scru-tiny to these charges. When you do,you will find the following: The allega-tions are frequently trivial, almost al-ways technical, often immaterial andalways insubstantial. Certainly not agood or justifiable basis for removingany President from office.

Finally, as we go through the allega-tions and the evidence that I will bediscussing, please ask yourself, Whatwitness do I want to hear about thisissue? Will live witnesses really make adifference in the way that I thinkabout this? Are they necessary for thiscase and this article to be understoodand resolved?

Subpart 1 has to do with testimonyabout the nature and details of the re-lationship with Monica Lewinsky. And,once again, because article I does notidentify with any specificity what thePresident said in the grand jury that isallegedly perjurious, the House man-agers have been free to include what-ever specific allegations they—not theHouse of Representatives—have seenfit to level against the President.

And we have been left to guess—sothis is my guesswork—we have beenleft to guess what the specific allega-tions are. And we have done so. And wehave tried to identify the precise testi-mony at issue based on the managers’trial brief and on Mr. Manager ROGAN’spresentation.

Now, as you will see in these allega-tions of subpart 1, it is the managerswho resort to legalisms, who use con-voluted definitions and word games toattack the President. It is the man-agers who employ technicalities andlegal mumbo jumbo, who distort thetrue meaning of words and phrases inan effort to convict the President. Andwe are the ones who must cry ‘‘Foul.’’We are the ones who must point outwhat the managers are trying to dohere. They seek to convict the Presi-dent and remove him from office forperjury before a grand jury by trans-forming wholly innocent statementsabout immaterial issues into what arealleged to be ‘‘perjurious, false andmisleading’’ testimony.

I begin with what is identified in themajority report as ‘‘direct lies.’’ First,the managers claim that the Presidentperjured himself before the grand jury,that he told a direct lie and should beremoved from office because in his pre-pared statement he acknowledged hav-ing inappropriate contact with Ms.Lewinsky on ‘‘certain occasions.’’ Thiswas a ‘‘direct lie,’’ say the managers,because, according to Ms. Lewinsky,between November 15, 1995, and Decem-ber 28, 1997, they were alone at least 20times and had, she says, 11 sexual en-counters. To use the words ‘‘on certainoccasions’’ in this context is, accordingto the managers, ‘‘perjurious, false andmisleading.’’

Now, this particular chart was notincluded in Mr. Starr’s referral, and itwas not debated by the members of the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S815January 20, 1999Judiciary Committee in the House ofRepresentatives.

The managers also say that thePresident lied to the grand jury andshould be removed from office becausethe President acknowledged that ‘‘onoccasion’’ he had telephone conversa-tions that included sexual banter—thisis also in the prepared statement—when the managers say the Presidentand Ms. Lewinsky had 17 such tele-phone conversations over a 2-year pe-riod of time. To use the words ‘‘on oc-casion’’ in this context, it is, accordingto the managers, a ‘‘direct lie’’ to thegrand jury for which the Presidentshould be removed from office. Now,this charge was not included in Mr.Starr’s referral. It was not debated bythe members of the House JudiciaryCommittee. And it was not debated onthe floor of the House.

In responding to these two charges, itmay make some sense to begin withthe dictionary definition of ‘‘occa-sional’’ to satisfy ourselves that thePresident’s statement is, in fact, amore than reasonable and actually anaccurate use of that word under thecircumstances.

Now, there are 774 days in the timespan between November 1995 and De-cember 1997. I submit that it is not adistortion, it is not dishonest to de-scribe their activity, which Ms.Lewinsky claims occurred on 11 dif-ferent days—from our examination ofher testimony, we can only locate 10,but she says 11—as having occurred ‘‘oncertain occasions.’’ Look at the cal-endar.

Now, that phrase, ‘‘on certain occa-sions,’’ carries no inference of fre-quency or numerosity. Sort of means ithappened every now and then. And thesame could be said for the use of thewords ‘‘on occasion’’ when they weretalking about telephone conversationsto describe 17 telephone conversationsthat included explicit sexual language.

Now, as you consider the second alle-gation having to do with the phonecalls, you might also read the grandjury testimony of Ms. Lewinsky herselfon August 20, 1998, at page 1111. Therea grand juror asks her, how much ofthe time, and how often—when she wason the phone with the President—didthey engage in these kinds of graphicconversations. Ms. Lewinsky answered,‘‘Not always. On a few occasions.’’ Themanagers are trying to remove thePresident from office when he used thewords ‘‘on occasions,’’ when Ms.Lewinsky described that frequency orthat event precisely the same way.

There is simply no way that thePresident’s use of the words ‘‘on cer-tain occasions’’ or ‘‘on occasion’’ canbe used as an effort to mislead or de-ceive the members of the grand jury orto conceal anything. There is simplyno way that a reasonable person canlook at this testimony and conclude—or agree with the managers—that it isa ‘‘direct lie.’’ What message do themanagers send to America and to therest of the world when they include

these kinds of allegations as reasons toremove this President from office?

It is hard to take the charges seri-ously when in each case they boil downto arguments of semantics. Does any-one here really believe that Membersof the House of Representatives wouldhave voted to approve these allegationsas the basis for impeaching and remov-ing this President if they had beengiven the chance with specific, identi-fied perjurious testimony in a proposedarticle of impeachment? But here weare in the well of the Senate defendingthe President of the United Statesagainst allegations that the managersbelieve and have seriously arguedshould cause the President to be re-moved from office and even prosecutedand convicted in a criminal court.

The President is also accused of lyingbefore the grand jury—and the man-agers have asked you to convict himand remove him from office—because,in the prepared statement that he readto the grand jury in August, he ac-knowledged that he engaged in inap-propriate conduct with Ms. Lewinsky‘‘on certain occasions in early 1996 andonce in 1997.’’ The managers call this a‘‘direct lie’’ because the President didnot mention 1995. And in their TrialMemorandum they write: ‘‘Notice [thePresident] did not mention 1995. Therewas a reason: On three ‘occasions’ in1995, Ms. Lewinsky said she engaged insexual contact with the President.’’

Now, this was one allegation that theOffice of the Independent Counsel didinclude in its referral to the House.And this charge was, in fact, discussedand debated by the members of the Ju-diciary Committee when they con-ducted their impeachment inquiry. Letme show you what two members ofthat committee—now managers for theHouse in this trial—thought about thisparticular charge of perjury when Con-gressman BARNEY FRANK ridiculed itduring the debate.

The chairman of the Judiciary Com-mittee, Mr. HYDE—we are missing anexhibit here; I think it is No. 10—said,‘‘It doesn’t strike me as a—as a ter-ribly serious count.’’ CongressmanCANADY, in his closing argument in thefinal stage of that proceeding, said, ‘‘Ifreely acknowledge that reasonablepeople can disagree about the weight ofthe evidence on certain of the charges.For example, I think there is doubtabout the allegations that the Presi-dent willfully lied concerning the datehis relationship with Ms. Lewinskybegan.’’

This allegation involves an utterlymeaningless disparity in testimonyabout dates that are of absolutely noconsequence whatsoever. The mostlikely explanation here is that therewas an honest difference in recollec-tion. There is no dispute about thecritical facts that Ms. Lewinsky wasyoung, very young, too young, whenshe got involved with President Clin-ton. But her age didn’t change betweenNovember 1995 and January 1996. Herbirthday is in July. She was 22 years

old in November and 22 years old inJanuary, despite the fact that everymanager persists in stating, erro-neously—not perjuriously, erro-neously—that she was 21 years oldwhen she first became involved withthe President. Nothing of any impor-tance in the case took place betweenDecember 1995 and January 1996. Shewas an intern in the early stage of thatperiod, and she became a Governmentemployee. So it did not change the re-lationship that she had with the Presi-dent. It modified her title. Any disputeover this immaterial issue is silly.

It is unreasonable to argue, as weheard from the House managers lastweek, that if you believe Ms. Lewinskyand disbelieve the President on thisissue as to which date was the datethat they began the relationship andhad the inappropriate contact, thatyou must convict the President and re-move him from office.

I confess, I find myself in agreementwith Congressman HYDE when he saysthis allegation is not serious, not ‘‘ter-ribly serious.’’ And I agree with Con-gressman CANADY when he suggests‘‘there is’’ room for ‘‘doubt’’ as towhether the President had any realreason or motive to lie about thesethings.

I truly wonder if the House of Rep-resentatives, had it been identified as aspecific statement for them to con-sider, would have made and includedthis allegation in the articles of im-peachment aimed at removing Presi-dent Clinton from office.

Is this conflict in testimony reallysuch a serious issue that, if you findthe President is mistaken, he should beremoved from office? And is it impor-tant enough to require the testimonyof live witnesses? Is it material of any-thing of interest to the grand jury atthe time this testimony was given? Idon’t think so.

Now, between the time of the vote inthe House and the time that the man-agers filed their trial brief, the man-agers came up with another allegationof perjury and put it into the mix.They argue that this element of thePresident’s grand jury testimonyshould also cause him to be removedfrom office. This allegation involvesthe President’s statement that therewas some period of friendship with Ms.Lewinsky that led to inappropriatecontact. But it is immaterial, unimpor-tant, and fundamentally frivolous asan allegation. And it was not, needlessto say, included in the Starr referral. Iam sure the attorneys in the Office ofIndependent Counsel knew about thisstatement and chose not to include it.It was never discussed by the membersof the Judiciary Committee during theimpeachment inquiry. We never heardabout it, never saw it, never had achance to deal with it. It was nevermentioned on the floor of the House ofRepresentatives.

According to my examination—whichmay be flawed—my thinking is that itmade its first appearance in the matter

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES816 January 20, 1999only after the House of Representativesvoted on the articles of impeachmentwhen the managers filed their trialbrief. Does anyone really believe thatthe House of Representatives wouldhave voted to approve this allegationas a basis for convicting and removingthis President from office?

Then the managers turn to what, inthe majority report, they call ‘‘theheart of the perjury’’; that is, thePresident’s grand jury testimony thathis encounters with Ms. Lewinsky didnot constitute ‘‘sexual relations’’ asdefined by the Jones lawyers in theJones deposition.

Before dealing with this allegation,however, it is important to understandthat in the course of his testimony thePresident was required to deploy twodifferent definitions of ‘‘sexual rela-tions.’’ One was his own and the otherwas the definition supplied to him bythe Jones lawyers and modified byJudge Susan Webber Wright during hisdeposition.

First, if you turn to exhibit No. 11,you will find the President’s definition,his own personal definition, as reportedto the grand jury.

Next, let me direct your attention tothe transcript of the telephone con-versation between Monica Lewinsky—Iam talking here about exhibit 12—Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp,where Ms. Lewinsky explained her defi-nition of ‘‘sexual relations.’’ This con-versation occurred, incidentally, manyweeks before Ms. Lewinsky executedher affidavit for the Jones case.

Finally, look at the dictionaries andread their definitions. You can see thatin exhibit 13.

By the way, exhibit 12, which in-cludes Ms. Lewinsky’s definition, isconfirmed by other parts of the recordwhere she talks to other individuals,FBI agents. She refers to this under-standing and this definition in herproffer. So it is not just the one tele-phone conversation to establish whatMonica Lewinsky says she thought atthat time the definition was.

Although some might think that thePresident’s definition is unduly limitedand that both of them are splittinghairs, there is some reasonable basisand there is reputable authority tosupport their view. It seems clear thatMs. Lewinsky could think, and prob-ably did think and reassure herself atthe time she wrote and executed her af-fidavit, that the affidavit she submit-ted in the Jones case was, in fact, accu-rate. And thus, knowing Ms.Lewinsky’s view of that situation andsharing her definition, the Presidentcould reasonably say, ‘‘Absolutely,yes,’’ when Mr. Bennett asked thePresident if Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavitstating she had never had sexual rela-tions with the President was true.

How can you accept the argument ofthe House managers that the Presidentshould be removed from office becausehis definition, which is the dictionarydefinition, does not comport withtheirs?

We are going to play the videotape.We are going to talk about the defini-tion that was the second definitionthat was given to the President in theJones deposition, which is also the sub-ject of grand jury testimony, and weare going to play 14 minutes of thatvideotape at the beginning of the Presi-dent’s appearance, or at the time hewas first handed the definition and sitsat the table.

This may be a good time to take abreak because it will be a 14-minutespan of time.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec-ognizes the majority leader.

RECESS

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I askunanimous consent that we take a 10-minute recess at this time. I urge theSenators to relax a moment but comeright back to the Chamber so we canproceed.

There being no objection, at 2:06p.m., the Senate recessed until 2:24p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassem-bled when called to order by the ChiefJustice.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senatewill come to order.

The Chair recognizes the majorityleader.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I be-lieve we will be proceeding with Mr.Counsel Craig’s video perhaps, or doyou have something before that?

Mr. Counsel CRAIG. I have a littlebit of production.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec-ognizes Mr. Counsel Craig.

Mr. Counsel CRAIG. Thank you, Mr.Chief Justice.

Exhibit No. 14 in your collection ofexhibits is the definition that thePresident was handed when he wentinto his deposition testimony—to givehis deposition testimony. There aretwo or three things I would like to sayabout this exhibit before we go to thevideotape.

The first is this: Many of the Presi-dent’s critics have accused the Presi-dent of himself coming up with thistortured and convoluted definition sothat he could get away with denyinghaving sex with Ms. Lewinsky; that hewas the one that came up with a bi-zarre and surreal definition that wouldgive him some plausible deniabilityand allow him to conceal his relation-ship with Ms. Lewinsky from the Joneslawyers. But in truth this definitionwas not his idea, not his work product,not his own definition. And it is unfairand inaccurate to saddle him with in-venting such a silly and truncated defi-nition, and the event that flows fromthat.

My second point is this: The merefact that the lawyers in Jones felt theneed to use a definition for sexual rela-tions is, by itself, standing alone, evi-dence to support the notion that atleast they recognized that the precisemeaning of the term can and does dif-fer from person to person. It is pre-cisely then, when there is some uncer-tainty or ambiguity about the meaning

and common usage of words, that law-yers turn to create a definition in aneffort to have clarity, uniformity andcommon understanding. And the veryfact that the lawyers in Jones seem tothink that a definition was neededmeans that without such a definitionthere is no commonly accepted, no uni-versally agreed upon meaning of thisphrase. And what is or is not includedwithin the ambit of that definition be-comes an argument and nothingmore—certainly not perjury.

The third point to remember beforewe watch the President as he first seesthis piece of paper is this:

To understand what is going on inthe President’s mind at the time hetestified about this definition duringthe Jones deposition, you must look atwhat was deleted as well as looking atthat part of the definition that was leftbehind.

You will see that in the third para-graph of the definition there is the de-scription which, in fact, more closelyapproximates what went on betweenMs. Lewinsky and the President withinthe first paragraph. And this part ofthe definition was deleted by the judge.

There is an additional point. On thetape you will hear the President’s law-yer, Mr. Bennett—and Mr. Ruff re-ferred to this yesterday—urging theJones lawyers to abandon this defini-tion, to leave it behind, and ask directquestions of the President as to whathe did. The record would certainly havebeen clearer for all of us if he had fol-lowed Mr. Bennett’s advice. And thereis another voice that you will hear inaddition to Mr. Bennett—Mr. Fisher,who was the Jones lawyer, the judge,Judge Wright, and the voice of the law-yer of the President’s codefendant inthe case of Danny Ferguson.

Let me just briefly tell you what tolook for. The President first saw thisdefinition when he entered the roomand sat down to testify—not before.You will see him as he sits there and heis handed a piece of paper with the defi-nition typed on it. Neither he nor hislawyer had ever seen that definitionbefore. He was then required to sitdown to study it, and to understand it.

And if you look at the next exhibit,this is what he says about what hethought and did later in the grand jury.I think this is the definition, exhibitNo. 15. You will watch him as he saysthis.

I might also note that when I was giventhis and began to ask questions about it, Iactually circled number one. This is my cir-cle here. I remember doing that so I couldfocus only on those two lines, which is whatI did.

This was the actual deposition ex-hibit with his circle around No. 1.

Let us remember finally what his tes-timony is about his intentions in thisdeposition. ‘‘My goal is to be truthful,but I didn’t want to help them.’’

Let’s watch what happened.[Text of videotape presentation:]A. Good morning.Q. My name is Jim Fisher, sir, and I’m an

attorney from Dallas, Texas, and I represent

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S817January 20, 1999the Plaintiff, Paula Jones, in this case. Doyou understand who I am and who I’m rep-resenting today?

A. Yes.Q. And do you understand, sir, that your

answers to my questions today are testi-mony that is being given under oath?

A. Yes.Q. And your testimony is subject to the

penalty of perjury; do you understand that,sir?

A. I do.Q. Sir, I’d like to hand you what has been

marked Deposition Exhibit 1. So that therecord is clear today, and that we know thatwe are communicating, this is a definition ofa term that will be used in the course of myquestioning, and the term is ‘‘sexual rela-tions.’’ I will inform the Cour that the word-ing of this definition is patterned after Fed-eral Rule of Evidence 413. Would you pleasetake whatever time you need to read thisdefinition because when I use the term ‘‘sex-ual relations,’’ this is what I mean today.

Mr. BENNETT. Is there a copy for the Court?Mr. FISHER. Would you pass that, please?Mr. BENNETT. Your Honor, as an introduc-

tory matter, I think this could really lead toconfusion, and I think it’s important thatthe record be clear. For example, it says, thelast line, ‘‘contact means intentional touch-ing, directly or through clothing,’’ I meanjust for example, one could have a com-pletely innocent shake of the hand, and Idon’t want this record to reflect—I thinkwe’re here today for Counsel for the Plaintiffto ask the President what he knows aboutvarious things, what he did, what he didn’tdo, but I, I have a real problem with this def-inition which means all things to all peoplein this particular context, Your Honor.

Mr. BRISTOW. Your Honor, I think thewording of that is extremely erroneous.What this, what the deposing attorneyshould be looking at is exactly what oc-curred, and he can ask the witness to de-scribe as exactly as possible what occurred,but to use this as an antecedent to his ques-tions, it would put him in a position, if thePresident admitted shaking hands withsomeone, then under this truncate deposi-tion—or definition, he could say or somehowconstrue that to mean that that involvessome sort of sexual relations, and I think it’svery unfair. Frankly I think it’s a politicaltrick, and I’ve told you before how I feelabout the political character of what thislawsuit is about.

Mr. FISHER. Your Honor, may I respond?Judge WRIGHT. You may.Mr. FISHER. The purpose of this is to avoid

everything that they have expressed concernabout. It is to allow us to be discreet and tomake the record crystal clear. There is abso-lutely no way that this could ever be con-strued to include a shaking of the hand.

Mr. BENNETT. Well, Mr. Fisher, let me referyou to paragraph two. It says ‘‘contact be-tween any part of the person’s body or an ob-ject and the genitals or anus of another per-son.’’

What if the President patted me and said Ihad to lose ten pounds off my bottom? I—youcould be arguing that I had sexual relationswith him. Your Honor, this is going to leadto confusion. Why don’t they ask the Presi-dent what he did, what he didn’t do, and thenwe can argue in Court later about what itmeans.

Judge WRIGHT. All right, let me make aruling on this. It appears that this really isnot the definition of contact under Rule 413because Rule 413 deals with nonconsensualcontact. This definition would encompasscontact that is consensual, and of course theCourt has ruled that some consensual con-tact is relevant in this case, and so let therecord reflect that the Court disagrees with

counsel that this is not, about it being thedefinition under Rule 413. It’s not. It is morein keeping with, however, the Court’s pre-vious rules, but I certainly agree with thePresident’s Counsel that this, the definitionnumber two is too encompassing, it’s toobroad, and so is definition number three.Definition number one encompasses intent,and so that would be, but numbers two andthree is just, are just too broad.

Mr. FISHER. All right, Your Honor.Judge WRIGHT. And number one is not too

broad, however, so I’ll let you use that defi-nition as long as we understand that that’snot Rule 413, it’s just the rule that wouldapply in this case to intentional sexual con-tact.

Mr. FISHER. Yes, Your Honor, and had Ibeen allowed to develop this further, every-one would have seen that Deposition Exhibit2 is actually the definition of sexual assaultor offensive sexual assault, which is the termin Rule 413.

Mr. BENNETT. Your Honor, I object to thisrecord being filled with these kinds ofthings. This is going to leak. Why don’t theyask—they have got the President of theUnited States in this room for several hours.Why don’t they ask him questions aboutwhat happened or didn’t happen?

Judge WRIGHT. I will permit him to refer todefinition number one, which encompassesknowing and intentional sexual contact forthe purpose of arousing or gratifying sexualdesire. I’ll permit that. Go ahead.

Q. All right, Mr. President, in light of theCourt’s ruling, you may consider subpartstwo and three of Deposition Exhibit 1 to bestricken, and so when in my questions I usethe term ‘‘sexual relations,’’ sir, I’m talkingonly about part one in the definition of thebody. Do you understand that, sir?

A. I do.Q. I’m now handing you what has been

marked Deposition Exhibit 2. Please takewhatever time you need to read DepositionExhibit 2.

Mr. BENNETT. Your Honor, again, what Iam very worried about, Your Honor, is firstof all, this, this, this appears to be a—I meanwhat I don’t want to do is have him beingasked questions and then we don’t, we’re allships passing in the night. They’re thinkingof one thing, he’s thinking of another. Arewe talking criminal assault? I mean this isnot what a deposition is for, Your Honor. Hecan ask the President, what did you do? Hecan ask him specifically in certain instanceswhat he did, and isn’t that what this deposi-tion is for? It’s not to sort of lay a trap forhim, and I’m going to object, to the Presi-dent answering and having to rememberwhat’s on this whole sheet of paper, and Ijust don’t think it’s fair. It’s going to lend toconfusion.

Judge WRIGHT. All right, do you agree withMr. Bennett?

Mr. BRISTOW. I had one other point to addYour Honor.

Judge WRIGHT. All right.Mr. BRISTOW. This is almost like in a typi-

cal automobile accident where the plaintiff’scounsel wants to ask the defendant were younegligent. That’s not factual.

Judge WRIGHT. Mr. Fisher, do you havea——

Mr. FISHER. Yes, Your Honor. What I’mtrying to do is avoid having to ask the Presi-dent a number of very salacious questionsand to make this as discreet as possible. Thisdefinition, I think the Court will find, istaken directly from Rule 413 which I believePresident Clinton signed into law, with theexception that I have narrowed subpart oneto a particular section, which would be cov-ered by Rule 413, and I have that section hereto give the President so that there is noquestion what is intended. This will elimi-nate confusion, not cause it.

Mr. BENNETT. Your honor, I have no objec-tion where the appropriate predicates aremade for them to ask the President , did youknow X, yes or no, what happened, what didyou do, what didn’t you do. We are—ac-knowledge that some embarrassing questionswill be asked, but then we will know whatwe’re talking about, but I do not want myclient answering questions not understand-ing exactly what these folks are talkingabout.

Now, Your Honor, I told you that thePresident has a meeting at four o’clock, andwe’ve already wasted twenty minutes, andMr. Fisher has yet to ask his first factualquestion.

Judge WRIGHT. Well, I’m prepared to rule,and I will not permit this definition to be un-derstood. Quite frankly there’s several rea-sons. One is that the Court heretofore hasnot proceeded using these definitions. Wehave used, we’ve made numerous rulings orthe Court has made numerous rulings in thiscase without specific reference to these defi-nitions, and so if you want to know thetruth, I don’t know them very well. I wouldfind it difficult to make rulings, and Mr.Bennett has made clear that he acknowl-edges that embarrassing questions will beasked, and if this is in fact an effort on, onthe part of Plaintiff’s Counsel to avoid usingsexual terms and avoid going into great de-tail about what might or might not have oc-curred, then there’s no need to worry aboutthat, you may go into the detail.

Mr. BENNETT. If the predicates are met,have no objection to the detail.

Mr. FISHER. Thank you, Your Honor.Judge WRIGHT. It’s just going to make it

very difficult for me to rule, if you want toknow the truth, and I’m not sure Mr. Clintonknows all these definitions, anyway.

Did you hear that last statementfrom the judge? ‘‘I’m not sure Mr. Clin-ton knows all these definitions, any-way.’’

Now, before the grand jury the Presi-dent discussed at some length and ingreat detail his interpretation of thedefinition that he was asked to applyduring that deposition—the definitionthat he was asked to apply. And hegave lengthy and sustained answers.And when you read the grand jury tes-timony, as I urge you to do, you willsee that they are consistent and theyare logical and there is reason behindhis conclusion that his activities withMs. Lewinsky simply did not fall with-in that definition.

There is no mystery, no deception, nolying, no effort to conceal his view. Hisview is there for all to see. It is also re-ported from these limited excerptsfrom the grand jury testimony. It is aplain statement of his understanding.And to argue that the President, whenhe conveyed his understanding of thatdefinition, doesn’t really believe his ar-gument, and to contend that he is com-mitting perjury when he told the grandjury that he genuinely believed his in-terpretation of the definition—that isjust speculation about what is in hismind and it is not the stuff or fuel of aperjury prosecution.

Now, I would like to return verybriefly to the group of experiencedprosecutors who gave their opinionabout the President’s testimony beforethe grand jury on this issue. They saidthat the President’s interpretation wasa reasonable one under the cir-cumstances, but the managers claim

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES818 January 20, 1999that the President’s explanation of theJones definition, his interpretation, hisunderstanding, and his argument withthe lawyers from the Office of Inde-pendent Counsel, are the heart of theperjury.

Let’s hear what the prosecutors saidabout this and read the transcript oftheir testimony when they testified be-fore the House Judiciary Committee.And first we will listen to Tom Sulli-van.

(Text of videotape presentation:)Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you very much, Mr.

Hyde. It’s clear to me that the president’s in-terpretation is a reasonable one, especiallybecause the words which seem to describeoral sex—the words which seem to describedirectly oral sex were stricken from the defi-nition by the judge. In a perjury prosecution,the government must prove beyond a reason-able doubt, that the defendant knew when hegave the testimony, he was telling a false-hood. The lying must be knowing and delib-erate. It is not perjury for a witness to evadeor obfuscate or answer nonresponsively. Theevidence simply does not support the conclu-sion that the president knowingly commit-ted perjury, and the case is so doubtful andweak that a responsible prosecutor wouldnot present it to the grand jury.

We have one more excerpt from histestimony.

(Text of videotape presentation:)Mr. SULLIVAN. . . . In perjury cases, you

must prove that the person who made thestatement made a knowingly false state-ment. Now, where I think the defect in thisprosecution is, among others—and I don’tthink it would be brought, because it’s ancil-lary to a civil deposition—is to establishthat the president knew what he said wasfalse. When he testified in his grand jury tes-timony, he explained what his mental proc-ess was in the Jones deposition, and he saidthe two definitions that would describe oralsex had been deleted by the trial judge fromthe definition of sexual relations and I un-derstood the definition to mean sleepingwith somebody. I don’t want to get to par-ticular here.

Rep. LOFGREN. Thank you.Mr. SULLIVAN. But that is where this case,

in my opinion, wouldn’t go forward even ifyou found an errant prosecutor who wouldwant to prosecute somebody for being a pe-ripheral witness in a civil case that had beensettled. That’s my answer to that.

The managers place great emphasisand weight on the conflict in the testi-mony between President Clinton andMs. Lewinsky over some specific inti-mate details related to their activity.There is a variance between the Presi-dent’s testimony and Ms. Lewinsky’stestimony about the details of whatthey did. What do they disagree about?Not about whether the President andMs. Lewinsky had a wrongful relation-ship—the President admitted that be-fore the grand jury. Not about whetherthe President and Ms. Lewinsky werealone together—the President admittedthat before the grand jury. Not aboutwhether, when they were alone to-gether, their relationship included in-appropriate, intimate contact—thePresident admitted that before thegrand jury. Not about whether they en-gaged in telephone conversations thatincluded sexual banter—the Presidentadmitted that before the grand jury.

Not about whether the President andMs. Lewinsky wanted to keep theirwrongful relationship a secret—thePresident admitted that before thegrand jury.

The difference in their testimonyabout their relationship is limited tosome very specific, very intimate de-tails. And this is the heart of the entirematter, this disparity in their testi-mony. The true nub of the managers’allegation that the President commit-ted perjury is that he described some ofthe contact one way and she describesit another.

Not surprisingly, the managerschoose to believe Ms. Lewinsky’s de-scription of these events. And so, evenin the absence of any evidence to thecontrary, other than Ms. Lewinsky’sown recollection of these events, themanagers have concluded that thePresident lied under oath about the de-tails of his sexual activity, that hesomehow shortchanged the grand jury,and should be removed from office.

The possibility that the question ofwhether the President of the UnitedStates should be removed from his of-fice—the fact that that might hinge onwhether you believe him or her on thisissue is a staggering thought. Ordi-narily when dealing with disparity intestimony such as this, prosecutorswill have nothing to do with it. Onlytwo people were there. And, in truth,the real importance of the disparity intheir testimony is questionable. Not alldisparities or discrepancies in testi-mony are necessarily appropriate sub-jects for perjury prosecutions.

According to those experienced pros-ecutors who testified before the Judici-ary Committee, there are two morepoints to be made about this. First,this is a classic oath on oath—he says,she says—swearing match, that, underordinary custom and practice at theDepartment of Justice, never would beprosecuted without substantial cor-roborative proof. Such proof, say theseexperienced prosecutors, does not con-sist of testimony of friends and associ-ates of Ms. Lewinsky who tell the FBIthat Ms. Lewinsky contemporaneouslytold them about the activity, if it wasgoing on. But the managers claim thatthese contemporaneous statementscorroborate Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony.

That claim is specious. Statementsthat Ms. Lewinsky makes to other peo-ple are not viewed as independent cor-roborative evidence. They come fromthe same source. They come from Ms.Lewinsky, as the source that gave thattestimony to the grand jury. And nocourt and no prosecutor would acceptthe notion that such statements,standing alone, satisfy the requirementof substantial corroborative proof whenthere is a swearing match.

Now, let’s see what the experiencedprosecutors have to say about thisissue and that claim.

(Text of videotape presentation:)Rep. WEXLER. . . . What is the false state-

ment?Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, if you—it could be one

of two. It could be when he denied having

sexual relations and I’ve already addressedthat, because he said, ‘‘I was defining theterm as the judge told me to define it and asI understood it,’’ which I think is a reason-able explanation. The other is whether ornot he touched her—touched her breast orsome other part of her body, not through herclothing, but directly. And he says, ‘‘Ididn’t,’’ and she said, ‘‘I (sic) did,’’ so it’swho-shot-John. It’s, it’s, you know, it’s a oneon one. The corroborative evidence that theprosecutor would have to have there, whichis required in a perjury case—you can’t do itone on one, and no good prosecutor wouldbring a case with, you know, I say black, yousay white—would be the fact that they weretogether alone and she performed oral sex onhim. I think that is not sufficient under thecircumstances of this case to demonstratethat there was any other touching by thepresident and therefore he committed this—you know, he violated this—and committedperjury.

Now the testimony from RichardDavis on this same point, and then wewill move to subpart 2.

(The text of videotape presentation:)Mr. DAVIS. * * * I will now turn to the

issue of whether, from the perspective of aprosecutor, there exists a prosecutable casefor perjury in front of the grand jury. Theanswer to me is clearly no. The president ac-knowledged to the grand jury the existenceof an improper intimate relationship withMonica Lewinsky, but argued with the pros-ecutors questioning him, that his acknowl-edged conduct was not a sexual relationshipas he understood the definition of that termbeing used in the Jones deposition. Engagingin such a debate, whether wise or unwise po-litically, simply does not form the basis fora perjury prosecution. Indeed, in the end, theentire basis for a grand jury perjury prosecu-tion comes down to Monica Lewinsky’s as-sertion that there was a reciprocal nature totheir relationship, and that the presidenttouched her private parts with the intent toarouse or gratify her, and the president’s de-nial that he did so. Putting aside whetherthis is the type of difference of testimonywhich should justify an impeachment of apresident, I do not believe that a case involv-ing this kind of conflict between two wit-nesses would be brought by a prosecutor,since it would not be won at trial.

A prosecutor would understand the prob-lem created by the fact that both individualshad an incentive to lie—the president toavoid acknowledging a false statement at hiscivil deposition, and Miss Lewinsky to avoidthe demeaning nature of providing whollyunreciprocated sex. Indeed, this incentive ex-isted when Miss Lewinsky described the rela-tionship to the confidantes described in theindependent counsel’s referral. Equally asimportant, however, Mr. Starr has himselfquestioned the veracity of one witness, MissLewinsky, by questioning her testimonythat his office suggested she tape record Ms.Currie, Mr. Jordan, and potentially thepresident. And in any trial, the independentcounsel would also be arguing that other keypoints in Miss Lewinsky’s testimony arefalse, including where she explicitly rejectsthe notion that she was asked to lie and thatassistance in her job search was an induce-ment for her to do so.

The conclusion is clear: To make thiscase in any courtroom would be verydifficult for a prosecutor. They pointout that it is difficult, if not impos-sible, to put on a successful prosecu-tion if the chief witness is deemed bythe prosecutors to be unreliable onsome issues, but presented as totallytruthful on others.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S819January 20, 1999Now let’s move to subpart 2, and it is

exhibit No. 18. The allegations of per-jury here have to do with testimonythat he gave at the grand jury abouthis deposition in the Jones case. And Ibegin by repeating a point that I madea little earlier, that the House of Rep-resentatives did not vote to approvethe article that alleged that PresidentClinton committed perjury during hisdeposition in the Jones case. As I saidbefore, there was good reason for that.

What are the reasons? There aremany reasons. The President’s testi-mony in the Jones deposition involvedhis relationship with a witness whowas ancillary to the core issues of theJones case. She was a witness in thecase. She wasn’t the plaintiff in thecase, and she was ancillary to the coreissues in the case, someone whose tes-timony was thereafter held to be un-necessary and perhaps inadmissible byJudge Susan Webber Wright, someonewhose truthful testimony would havebeen, in any event, of marginal rel-evance since her relationship with thePresident was entirely consensual.And, as you know, this was a case thatultimately was found to have no legalor factual merit. It was dismissed bythe judge, and it is now being settledby the parties.

Moreover, the President was caughtby surprise in that deposition andasked questions about matters that theJones lawyers already knew the an-swers to. As you heard yesterday, theJones lawyers had been briefed thenight before by Linda Tripp. So theywere asking questions of PresidentClinton in the course of this depositionabout the relationship to which theyalready had the answers. That kind ofambush is profoundly unfair, and it isone reason that Congressman GRAHAMsaid that he voted against this articlein committee—the surprise. He was theonly Republican to do so. He was theonly Republican to vote against anyarticle, and the decision of the Houseto follow Congressman GRAHAM’s lead-ership and to reject this article showedgreat wisdom and judgment.

But apparently that is not to be theend of the matter when it comes to al-legations of perjury in the Jones depo-sition. In subpart 2 of article I, themanagers seek to reintroduce the issueof the President’s testimony in thecase by alleging that when the Presi-dent testified before the grand jury, hetestified falsely when he said that hetried to testify truthfully in the Jonesdeposition. Congressman ROGAN, Mr.Manager ROGAN has claimed that thePresident’s answers ratified and re-affirmed and put into issue all of hisanswers in the Jones deposition whenhe testified that he believed he did notviolate the law in the Jones deposition.

‘‘This is perjurious testimony,’’ saidManager ROGAN, ‘‘because the record isclear’’—I am quoting—that he did nottestify truthfully in the deposition,and by that bootstrapping mechanism,we are now in a litigation about wheth-er every single statement that the

President made in the Jones depositionwas or was not truthful to determinewhether or not the President’s testi-mony that he was truthful is or is nottruthful.

But, in fact, President Clinton didnot ratify, he did not reaffirm hisJones testimony when he testified be-fore the grand jury, and you will seethat when you read the transcript ofhis testimony. Quite the contrary istrue. If you look at that transcriptcarefully, you will find that withoutadmitting wrongdoing, the Presidentelaborated, he modified, he amendedand he clarified his testimony in Jones.And when Mr. Schippers made his clos-ing argument to the House JudiciaryCommittee, I think he used the truth-fulness, on one occasion, of the Presi-dent’s testimony before the grand juryto support his argument that the Presi-dent lied in Jones.

But actually the specific wording ofsubpart 2 gives us no specific informa-tion and is not illuminating, and weturn to the managers’ trial brief to as-certain precisely what the argument is.There the managers allege that thePresident falsely testified that he an-swered questions truthfully at his dep-osition concerning, among otherthings, whether he had been alone withMs. Lewinsky. I begin by saying, again,this allegation was not included in theStarr referral. Why? Because it is basedon a total misconception of the Presi-dent’s grand jury testimony.

As I referred to earlier, this is exhibitNo. 7, I believe, and it shows you someevidence—this is not the complete evi-dence of his testimony about beingalone. The prosecutors asked the Presi-dent many questions about being alonewith Ms. Lewinsky, but they neverasked him about the Jones testimony.They asked him about whether he wasalone; he never was asked about theJones testimony:

‘‘When I was alone with Ms.Lewinsky on certain occasions,’’ itsays right there—‘‘When I wasalone. . .’’

Let me ask you, Mr. President, you indi-cate in your statement that you were alonewith Ms. Lewinsky. Is that right?

Yes, sir.How many times were you alone with Ms.

Lewinsky?Let me begin with the correct answer. I

don’t know for sure. But if you would likeme to give an educated guess, I will dothat. . . .

And then you will see over two orthree pages of testimony he tries to re-call times and incidents when he wasalone with Ms. Lewinsky.

And so the prosecutor says, ‘‘So if Icould summarize your testimony, ap-proximately 5 times you saw her beforeshe left the White House, approxi-mately 9 times after she left the em-ployment?’’ ‘‘I know there were severaltimes in ’97,’’ the President said. ‘‘Iwould think that would sound aboutright.’’

This is not a man denying that hewas alone with Ms. Lewinsky, but hewas not asked about his testimony on

that topic when he testified in theJones case.

Now, the managers further allegethat the President’s testimony beforethe grand jury that he testified truth-fully at his deposition was a lie. Infact, his testimony there that theyquote as being false was this: ‘‘My goalin this deposition was to be truthfulbut not particularly helpful.’’ ‘‘My goalin this deposition to be truthful,’’ theysay, is false. ‘‘I was determined to walkthrough the minefield of this deposi-tion without violating the law, and Ibelieve I did.’’ His statement that ‘‘Ibelieve I did,’’ they say, means that ev-erything that he said in the Jones dep-osition was true. The President’s state-ment that he set a goal and believes—believes—he has met it is, according tothe managers, perjurious for which heshould be removed from office.

And it is through this device that themanagers seek to achieve, by indirec-tion, what they were specifically for-bidden to do by the direct vote of theHouse of Representatives, by claimingthat the President’s assertions in thegrand jury were false when he de-scribed his state of mind—‘‘I believed,’’‘‘I tried,’’ ‘‘I was determined,’’ ‘‘mygoal was’’—that he believed the man-agers seek to put out all of the Presi-dent’s evasive and misleading testi-mony in the Jones deposition in issue.That effort, I submit, should be re-jected.

Let me cite one rather painful exam-ple in support of the President’s testi-mony that he, in fact, tried to answeraccurately when he testified in thegrand jury. He was asked whether ornot he ever had sexual relations withGennifer Flowers, and he answered,‘‘Yes,’’ that he had, under the defini-tion of sexual relations being used inthe Jones case. He later said that hewould rather have taken a whipping inpublic than to acknowledge that rela-tion because he knew it would beleaked to the public, which it was.

Now, if he didn’t care about tellingthe truth in that deposition, if he wentinto that deposition with the intentionof denying anything and everythingthat was embarrassing, if he really haddecided in his own mind that whateverthe Jones lawyers asked him, he wasnot going to be truthful about it, henever would have testified the way hedid about Gennifer Flowers.

Now, ladies and gentlemen of theSenate, the President does not claim—and he never was asked in front of thegrand jury, and he never asserts infront of the grand jury—that all histestimony in the Jones deposition wastruthful. His statement was that hetried to be accurate, that his goal wasto be truthful, but that statement isnot a broad reaffirmation of the accu-racy of all his testimony, despite theHouse managers’ desire to characterizeit as such. Those were accurate de-scriptions of the President’s state ofmind at the time he testified.

The real issue here is not the truth ofthe underlying statements made by the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES820 January 20, 1999President in the Jones deposition butthe President’s explanation of thosestatements, whether his description ofhis efforts to walk this fine line that hegave to the grand jury was accurate.Whether you agree or disagree with thePresident’s view that he was or was notsuccessful in his undertaking not tobreak the law and to be lawful, that ar-gument is an argument. And it is not asecret argument. He has that out thereopen for everybody to see. That argu-ment is hardly a proper subject for aperjury claim. And his simple restate-ment of his legal position to the mem-bers of the grand jury is hardly thestuff of a perjury prosecution.

Actually, if you look at the Presi-dent’s grand jury testimony, you willsee that he provided much more com-plete, much more accurate, much morereliable testimony about many of thetopics covered in Jones. And the notionthat he reaffirmed, confirmed, or rati-fied his Jones testimony is just unsup-ported by the evidence.

It would be astonishing to think thatthe Senate would conclude that thePresident should be removed from of-fice because in the grand jury he gavevoice to a legal opinion and stated hisown personal belief that his testimonyin the Jones deposition did not breakthe law.

I submit to you that if that was thecase, the Office of the IndependentCounsel would have included that inthe referral, and they did not. In fact,let me just say right now none of therest of the allegations that we aregoing to be discussing in the articlethat we are talking about today are in-cluded in the Starr referral. The restare entirely the product of the man-agers.

Subpart 3, which is the exhibit No. 19.This has to do with the President’s tes-timony about statements he allowedhis attorney to make to a Federaljudge in the Jones case. And you sawthe tape of that testimony last week.

According to the trial memorandum,the President remained silent duringthe Jones deposition at a time whenhis counsel, Mr. Bennett, made falseand misleading representations to thecourt about Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit.Pointing to the Lewinsky affidavit,Bennett stated that Ms. Lewinsky hadfiled an affidavit ‘‘saying that there isabsolutely no sex of any kind in anymanner, shape or form with PresidentClinton.’’ And when asked by the Inde-pendent Counsel about this momentsbefore the grand jury, the Presidenttestified that he hadn’t paid much at-tention, that he was thinking about histestimony. And he says this four orfive times. This is not just once; hesays this four or five times. He is em-phatic that he didn’t pay attention andthe words went by him.

Now, in support of their claim thatthe President lied when he said he wasnot paying attention, the House man-agers point to the videotape record ofthe President’s testimony which shows,they argue, that the President was

‘‘looking directly at Mr. Bennett, [and]paying close attention to his argumentto Judge Wright.’’

This allegation, not included in theStarr Report, is even more curiousthan the previous one because it isbased on a novel legal theory whichjeopardizes all lawyers in this building,which is that a client has an enforce-able obligation to correct his attor-ney’s alleged misstatements. And if hedoesn’t make those corrections, he—the client—will be held liable tocharges of perjury and obstruction ofjustice.

The charge is that the President mis-led the grand jury when he said that hewas not paying attention. While thevideotape shows that the President waslooking in Bennett’s direction, there isnothing that can be read in his face orin his body language to show that he islistening to, understanding, or affirm-ing Mr. Bennett’s statement—no nod ofthe head, no movement at all, no com-ment, nothing.

What happens is this: Mr. Bennettmakes his comment and is interruptedby the judge. She says, ‘‘No, just aminute, let me make my ruling,’’ be-fore Mr. Bennett has a chance to com-plete his argument. And after inter-rupting Mr. Bennett, the judge makes alengthy observation, followed by an in-tensive exchange between all counseland the judge. The moment is fleeting.It goes by very, very quickly.

The moment occurs not at the begin-ning of the deposition, but well into it,after President Clinton has in fact beensubjected to questions about MonicaLewinsky. Mr. Clinton, as you know,has been surprised by the direction thecase has taken and the fact that theexclusive focus of these questions is onLewinsky. He did not know this wascoming. He did not expect it. As he putit in his grand jury testimony, ‘‘I hadno way of knowing that they would askme all these detailed questions. I didthe best I could to answer them.’’

At that moment, because the ques-tions had focused on Ms. Lewinsky—tothe exclusion of everything and every-body else, including the Jones case—questions about the Jones case didn’toccur until much, much later and nearthe end of the deposition. The Presi-dent must have realized that the Jonesattorneys probably knew about his re-lationship with Monica Lewinsky. Heobviously had not taken any steps toprepare to answer questions about thatrelationship and he was clearly caughtoff guard.

It is not farfetched to think at thatmoment his mind was flooded withthoughts about how to get through thedeposition. It is not implausible tothink at that moment the Presidentwas preoccupied, watching his lawyerdo his job, and not listening carefullyand not tracking word by word the sub-stance of the exchange.

Those of you who have practiced lawand have represented individuals understress at depositions know that thiscan happen. Is it really reasonable to

think that you can tell beyond a rea-sonable doubt what is going on in thePresident’s mind by looking at the vid-eotape? And if you can and you areconvinced he has heard, does he haveany obligation to say anything? If hedoesn’t, then this case, this allegation,amounts to nothing.

It is hard to believe that the Housemanagers—if it did, I think the Starrpeople would have brought it—it ishard to believe that the House man-agers believe that the Senate shouldconclude that the President committedperjury and should be removed from hisoffice on the basis of his silence, hisfailure to speak.

Now, there is a second allegation as-sociated with this incident, one thatCongressman ROGAN asserted in hispresentation, but is not discussed inthe trial memorandum. This has to dowith the President’s now famous testi-mony about Mr. Bennett’s statementabout Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit. It de-pends upon what the meaning of ‘‘is’’is. Let’s talk about that just a minute.

While raising questions about thegood faith of the Jones attorney inasking questions about Ms. Lewinsky—this is in the Jones deposition—whileraising questions about the good faithof the Jones attorneys and askingquestions about Ms. Lewinsky and notknowing if these same lawyers actuallyknow the answers to the questions, Mr.Bennett said, referring to the Joneslawyers, ‘‘Counsel is fully aware that[Ms. Lewinsky] has filed an affidavit. . . saying that there is absolutely nosex.’’ ‘‘There is absolutely no sex ofany kind in any manner, shape or formwith President Clinton.’’

Now, during his grand jury testi-mony, the independent counsel readsthat statement to the President. Hegets President Clinton to agree thatthe statement was made by the Presi-dent’s attorney in front of JudgeWright. And here is what the independ-ent counsel says to President Clintonin the grand jury after reading Mr.Bennett’s words:

That statement is a completely false state-ment. Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew ofyour relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, thestatement that there is ‘‘no sex of any kind,manner shape or form with President Clin-ton’’ was an utterly false statement.

And he asks the President, ‘‘Is thatcorrect?’’ At that point, pausing just amoment for reflection, President Clin-ton gives his opinion and explains thatopinion.

To understand the President’s argu-ment, you must know first that therehas been no inappropriate contact withMs. Lewinsky at the time of that depo-sition for, according to his recollec-tion, almost a year; according to hers,10 months. So it is not in dispute atthat moment in time and for previousmonths there has been. And there is nosexual relationship currently, eventhough there had been one in 1995, 1996,and in the early part of 1997, somemonths back.

Now, the President makes a politicalmistake here and gives in to his in-stinct to play his own lawyer, to be his

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S821January 20, 1999own advocate. You may find it frus-trating, you may find it irritating,when you watch him do this, but he isnot committing perjury; he is commit-ting the offense of nit-picking and ar-guing with the prosecutors. He is argu-ing a point, and so he says that wheth-er Mr. Bennett’s statement is false de-pends on what the meaning of ‘‘is’’ is.Mr. Bennett’s statement is true if ‘‘is″means an ongoing relationship, but Mr.Bennett’s statement is false if ‘‘is’’means at any time ever in time.

Now the President’s answer to Mr.Bennett’s question and the statementsthat follow it amount to an annoyingargument over the interpretation ofwhat Mr. Bennett said, focused on thetense of the verb. And the President isbeing his own lawyer. The grounds hehas argued are fully stated, fully ex-plained. There is no mystery. He is notconcealing anything. Making this argu-ment is not perjury.

There is one final point to makeabout this incident because, again, Ithink there was a mischaracterizationof what the President actually said inthe grand jury. He didn’t say that atthe time Mr. Bennett made that state-ment in the Jones deposition, hecaught the word ‘‘is’’ and recognized,‘‘Ah-ha, I’ve got an exit. That makes itaccurate.’’ Quite to the contrary. He isclear in front of the grand jury when hesays that he didn’t even notice thisissue until he was reviewing the tran-script in preparation for his grand jurytestimony. He is clear in pointing outthe argument that he is making is onethat he just discovered.

Let me quote from that portion of histestimony which appears on pages 512and 513 which make it clear that hewasn’t ever claiming that he spottedthat verb tense at the time in theJones deposition and his silence or hisanswer was based on spotting the verbtense then. This is something he dis-covered, noticed, and, as a lawyer, ar-gued in the grand jury. ‘‘I never evenfocused on that’’—meaning that issueof a verb tense—‘‘until I read it in thistranscript in preparation for this testi-mony * * * ’’ ‘‘I wasn’t trying to giveyou a cute answer that I obviouslywasn’t involved in anything improperin the deposition. I was trying to tellyou generally speaking in the presenttense if someone said that, that wouldbe true. But I don’t know what Mr.Bennett had in mind. I don’t know.’’

Now, the President was open andhonest and obvious in what he was ar-guing, and that is precisely what hewas doing on this occasion. He was ar-guing a point that, as a technical mat-ter, Bennett’s statement could be readas being accurate.

I point out again that this particularallegation was not included in Mr.Starr’s referral. An argument that isidentified as an argument, the groundsof which are clear to all, is not thebasis for a perjury prosecution.

Subpart 4 of this article has to dowith false and misleading testimonyabout the President’s efforts, allegedly,

to influence witnesses and to impedediscovery in Jones. Now, as I have saidbefore, at the beginning of my presen-tation, the fourth category of allegedlyperjurious, false, and misleading grandjury testimony overlaps with article IIof allegations of obstruction of justice.

I will say right now that Cheryl Millswill be appearing here when I havecompleted and David Kendall tomorrowto present the arguments on article II,why the President should not be foundguilty and is not guilty of the allega-tions of obstruction of justice in articleII.

According to the managers’ trialbrief, making this argument that healso perjured himself about these mat-ters, they claim these lies are the mosttroubling as the President used themin an attempt to conceal his criminalactions. One begins with a self-evidentproposition—at least, to us—that thePresident did not obstruct justice, andwe hope you agree with us by the endof the day tomorrow when we explainthe evidence. But his explanation, ifthat is so, of what he did or didn’t doto the grand jury were always truthful.Put another way, if the Presidentdidn’t obstruct justice, he also didn’tcommit perjury when he denied it.

According to the managers, the gen-eral language of this provision of sub-part 4 is supposed to include a widerange of allegations, so we have somesubparts of the subpart. But none ofthese allegations, let me say, ladiesand gentlemen of the Senate, none ofthese was included or thought suffi-ciently credible to be included in theOIC referral, nor were these allegationsincluded in Mr. Schippers’ initial pres-entation to the Judiciary Committee.They are nothing more than an effortto inflate the number of perjury allega-tions by converting every answer thatthe President gave to the grand juryabout the subject matter of article IIinto a new count of perjury, the doublebilling, if you will. All of these allega-tions are more properly part of our de-fense on the obstruction of justice alle-gation. But I will try to respond brieflyto the allegation of perjury, his testi-mony about Monica Lewinsky’s falseaffidavit. This grows out of the Presi-dent’s conversation with Ms.Lewinsky, allegedly, on December 17,in which he is said to have corruptlyencouraged Ms. Lewinsky to execute asworn affidavit that he knew to be per-jurious, false, and misleading.

In that famous late-night telephoneconversation, Ms. Lewinsky asked thePresident what she could do if she weresubpoenaed in the Jones case. Accord-ing to Ms. Lewinsky, the President re-sponded, ‘‘Well, maybe you can sign anaffidavit.’’ That is what Ms.Lewinsky’s recollection is.

Now, in the grand jury, the Presidentwas repeatedly questioned about thisconversation and he repeatedly an-swered emphatically. This is anotherexample where it is not once or twice,it is three or four times. He trulythought he said that she could have

sworn out an honest affidavit. Themanagers claim that when he saidthat—that he thought that she couldswear out an honest affidavit—thePresident perjured himself.

Now, the President’s testimony inthe grand jury on this point is not inany way cautious or qualified. Hemakes similar statements on four dif-ferent occasions during that testi-mony, concluding with this tape:

I have already told you that I felt stronglythat she could issue—that she could executean affidavit that would be factually truthful,that might get her out of having to testify.And did I hope she would be able to get outof testifying on the affidavit? Absolutely.Did I want her to execute a false affidavit?No, I did not.

Now, the heart of the managers’ ar-gument is that there was no way thatan honest affidavit can achieve whatthe President and Ms. Lewinsky bothwanted to have achieved, which was toavoid her having to testify. And so themanagers claim the President’s state-ment that he thought she could makeout an honest affidavit and avoid testi-fying in the Jones case about her rela-tionship with the President is perjury.

Once again, the managers claim thatthe President is guilty of perjury be-cause he is testifying falsely about hisstate of mind. It wasn’t true, they ar-gued, that he really thought she couldmake out and sign and execute an hon-est affidavit; he could not have thoughtthat; he wanted and expected her to liein that affidavit, and that is why hesuggested, ‘‘Well, you can always filean affidavit.’’

Now, Ms. Lewinsky’s inappropriatecontact with the President was consen-sual. An affidavit being sought in acase involving allegations of sexualharassment that says there was no har-assment, no effort to impose unwantedsexual overtures, would have been anaffidavit that Ms. Lewinsky could hon-estly execute—an affidavit stating thatshe had never been on the receiving endof any unwanted sexual overtures fromthe President and that she had neverbeen harassed.

Second, both Ms. Lewinsky and thePresident had a definition of ‘‘sexualrelations’’ that would have allowed Ms.Lewinsky, in her own mind, honestlyand accurately, in their view, to swearan affidavit that she had never had sex-ual relations—meaning what she meantin the exhibits we distributed—withthe President. She would have thoughtthat was a factual and accurate affida-vit, and so would the President at thattime.

Third, it is clear that Ms. Lewinskyunderstood that it was not necessary tovolunteer information in an affidavit,but, on the contrary, she would try togive only that small but true portion ofthe whole story. She talks about thisat some length in her telephone con-versation with Linda Tripp. In herwords, the goal of an affidavit is to beas benign as possible, to avoid being de-posed. She is her own operator; sheknows what she is doing.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES822 January 20, 1999Please recognize what the managers

are trying to do here. In article II, theyaccuse the President of obstructingjustice by suggesting that Ms.Lewinsky should file an affidavit,knowing full well that the affidavitwould have to be false. And when thePresident, under oath in the grandjury, denies that he believed that theaffidavit would have to be false, theyaccuse him of perjury.

The two allegations are inextricablyintermingled, and if you conclude, asyou should, that there is no evidence tosupport the underlying allegation, thatthe underlying offense is based onnothing but pure conjecture, you willconclude that the perjury charge isnothing more than an attempt to gettwo bites at the same apple.

The second element is the President’stestimony about the gifts. The man-agers’ trial brief says that the Presi-dent committed perjury when he testi-fied that he told Ms. Lewinsky that ifthe Jones lawyers requested the giftsthat he had given to her, she shouldprovide them. Atypically, the briefquotes the President’s precise languagewhich is at issue in this particular alle-gation:

And I told her that if they asked her forgifts, she would have to give them whatevershe had. That’s what the law was.

This testimony, the managers claim,is false. They say he never said that,and that when he said it in the grandjury, he is guilty of perjury.

Now, the only evidence offered tosupport the allegation that the Presi-dent testified falsely before the grandjury on this topic is, A, that Ms.Lewinsky raised a question with thePresident as to what she should dowith the gifts. You have heard a lot oftestimony about that, which only es-tablishes one thing—that the topiccame up. That is totally consistentwith the President’s testimony and hasno bearing whatsoever on whether thePresident did or did not say what heclaims to have said.

The second piece of evidence is thatMs. Currie ended up picking up thegifts and taking them home with her,which, no matter how you might try tospin that, simply cannot be construedas evidence showing that the Presidentperjured himself when he told thegrand jury that he had given this ad-vice to Ms. Lewinsky. ‘‘Tinkers toEvers to Chance.’’

This allegation is all conjecture andthere is no evidence. It is really aston-ishing that the managers would seri-ously include it in their case. KennethStarr did not, and it was not discussedor debated by the House JudiciaryCommittee.

The majority’s report makes anotherentirely different allegation about thismatter. There, the House Republicanscite the President’s denial—this is adenial, not an affirmation. The firsthas to do with testimony in front ofthe grand jury that he said somethingto Monica Lewinsky. The second has todo with a denial that he ever in-

structed Ms. Currie to pick up thegifts. From the transcript of the Presi-dent’s grand jury testimony, I quote:

Question: After you gave Monica Lewinskythe gifts on December 28, did you speak withyour secretary, Ms. Currie, and ask her topick up a box of gifts that were some com-pilation of gifts that Ms. Lewinsky wouldhave——

Answer: No, sir, I didn’t do that.Question: —to give to Ms. Currie?Answer: I did not do that.

According to the majority’s report,this testimony was perjurious, false,and misleading. The problem is, this al-legation is similar to the problem withthe previous one, only greater. In thefirst allegation, there is no one whotestified that the President did not saywhat he testified under oath he said,and in this allegation there is no onewho testified that the President saidwhat he testified under oath he did notsay.

In other words, the House managersoffer you this argument: Nobody saysthe President made this statement; wejust think he did; so we are charginghim with perjury for denying it, andyou should remove him from office, de-spite the absence of evidence.

Again, this was not included in theStarr referral, and we wonder how thiskind of an allegation can seriously bebrought against the President of theUnited States.

The President’s testimony about hisJanuary 18 conversation with Ms.Currie. The President’s meeting andconversation with Betty Currie on Sun-day, January 18, is an essential ele-ment in the allegation of obstructionas set forth in article II, and you willlearn more about that from CherylMills today. Because the Office of Inde-pendent Counsel spent so much time onthis matter during President Clinton’sgrand jury testimony, they examinedthe President on this topic on four sep-arate occasions during that 4-hour ses-sion—it was inevitable that the Man-agers would find some way, some howto include his testimony about thismatter in Article I. Just parentheti-cally, this too is an allegation that theOffice of Independent Counsel did notsee fit to make in its Referral to theHouse.

And so, once again, we begin with aquestion: What is it precisely that thePresident said that is at the heart ofthis allegation of perjury. In his pres-entation last Thursday, CongressmanROGAN quoted lengthy passages from anumber of President Clinton’s answerson the subject but failed to identifyanything specific. Finally Congress-man ROGAN said this:

When [the President] testified he was onlymaking statements to Ms. Currie to ascer-tain what the facts were, trying to ascertainwhat Betty’s perception was, this statementwas false, and it was perjurious. We know itwas perjury because the president called Ms.Currie into the White House the day after hisdeposition to tell her—not to ask her, to tellher—that he was never alone with MonicaLewinsky. To tell her that Ms. Currie couldalways hear or see them, and to tell her thathe never touched Monica Lewinsky. These

were false statements, and he knew that thestatements were false at the time he madethem to Betty Currie.

But that is not true; the Presidentclearly asked her questions as well asmade declarative statements.

I confess to some confusion aboutwhat perjury Congressman ROGAN isreally alleging here.

It seems to me that he has movedfrom the world of perjury in article I tothe world of obstruction, which isCheryl and David’s article two.

The trial brief is more specific. Theyclaim that the testimony was falsewhen the President went in and saidthat he was ‘‘trying to refresh [his]memory about what the facts were;’’when he said that he wanted to ‘‘knowwhat Betty’s memory was about whatshe heard;’’ and when he said he was‘‘trying to get as much information ashe could.’’ The purpose of the meetingand the conversation, according to theTrial Brief, was to influence Betty Cur-rie’s testimony, not to gather informa-tion.

In truth, the President gave a num-ber of different reasons to the grandjury for seeking out Betty Currie andtalking to her about Monica Lewinsky,and it is totally plausible to concludethat the last thing on the President’smind at that particular moment wasBetty Currie’s potential role as a wit-ness in a federal court.

More simply, the facts are that inmaking this particular allegation, themanagers have come up with two,three, or four different statements bythe President that they claim are per-jurious which makes it a total distor-tion of the President’s answer. Therewere many questions, and many an-swers, and then the reasons he gave forseeking out Betty Currie. KennethStarr made no such claim in his refer-ral.

Finally, the President’s testimonyabout allegations that he influencedhis aides; to influence; that he lied tohis aide—let me get it right. The alle-gation is that when the President testi-fied in front of the grand jury and de-nied that he misled his aides or toldthem false things, that it was ‘‘perjuri-ous, false and misleading testimony’’because he was really trying to usethem to obstruct justice and influencethe grand jury. The President testifiedin much greater detail on this topicabout the details about his conversa-tion with his aides than the managerssuggest. And he never said that he onlytold them ‘‘true things.’’

In fact, if you look at that testi-mony—and I urge you to do so; it is an-other topic that will take up sometime—the President acknowledged thathe misled an aide and he apologized forit. And he testified that actually hecouldn’t remember much of what hetold his aide. He never challenged ordenied what John Podesta said that hetold him. He told the grand jury. Hetold them. And he never challengedSidney Blumenthal’s version of whathe said to Mr. Blumenthal. There is ab-solutely no evidence to suggest that

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S823January 20, 1999the President intended to deceive thegrand jury on this matter because henever denied saying what they said hetold them about his relationship. Andthat is what he told them. It was notjust true things. He told them inac-curate things. He did not give the testi-mony that Congressman ROGAN claimsthat he gave. He did not say that he didnot mislead his aides. He said that hehad, in fact, misled his aide. He doessay that he tried to tell true things,but he does not conceal the nature ofthe true things he is talking about.

So you can make up your own mindwhether you agree with his character-ization that there are true things. Hedescribed them for all to see and under-stand. For example, he says that hetold his aides, ‘‘I never had sex withher,’’ as it was defined in his mind. Youmay disagree with his characterizationof what he told them as being a truething, but he certainly doesn’t concealthe basis of his belief that it is true. Healso said that he was not involved withMs. Lewinsky in any sexual way. Andhe explains by use of the present tensehe thought that was a true thing.

But the materiality of this allegedperjury is really a mystery. That thePresident misled his aide is not anissue. That his aides became witnessesbefore the grand jury and that thePresident knew they would probably becalled, it is simply not in dispute. Nordoes the President dispute the testi-mony of Podesta and Blumenthal. Theonly issue here is whether the Presi-dent, when he discussed MonicaLewinsky with these aides, was seekingto influence the grand jury’s proceed-ings by giving his aides false informa-tion. This is not a perjury challenge.This is a subject to be dealt with in thecontext of article II and obstruction ofjustice.

What does it all add up to? Mr. Ruffhad it right. Beneath the surface ofthis article, this first article, there isreally a witches’ brew of allegationspulled from all corners of Bill Clinton’sgrand jury testimony. He has allegedto have lied to the grand jury when heused innocent words to tell about hisimproper contacts with Ms. Lewinsky.Truly, these are frivolous allegations.He has alleged to have lied about thedate his improper activity with Ms.Lewinsky began, and whether it waspreceded by any period of friendship.These, too, are frivolous allegations.The President didn’t claim he said, buteven if he did, the allegations are of noimport. He has alleged to have liedwhen he explained his understanding ofthe Jones definition and testified thathis genuine belief was that the defini-tion did not include the activity thathe and Ms. Lewinsky had engaged in.

Experienced prosecutors say that hisinterpretation was reasonable. He hasalleged to have lied about the intimatedetails of his activity with Ms.Lewinsky. She says one thing; he saysanother. This is precisely the kind ofoath against oath swearing match thatis never prosecuted in the real world.

Given the President’s overall testi-mony before the grand jury, of whatreal significance is this disagreement?He is accused of ratifying his everysentence in the Jones deposition. Andby saying that his goal was to be truth-ful, he is said to have lied. But no oneshould be charged with perjury for as-serting innocence or proclaiming thathe was trying to be truthful, particu-larly when all the evidence supportshis claim.

And finally, he is accused of lyingabout a variety of actions aimed atconcealing his improper and embar-rassing relationship with Ms. Lewinskywhen each one of those actions was mo-tivated by nothing more than his de-sire to protect himself and his familyfrom embarrassment, if not destruc-tion.

Think just for a moment and askyourself whether these allegationsabout this testimony is really an effortto vindicate the rule of law, or is itsomething else? Ask yourself whatcoming generations will think aboutthese charges. If you convict and re-move President Clinton on the basis ofthese allegations, no President of theUnited States will ever be safe fromimpeachment again—and it will hap-pen—and people will look back at us,and they will say we should havestopped it then before it was too late.Don’t let this happen to our country.

Before I conclude, I would like to re-spond to one specific argument that weheard last week. One of the argumentsmost frequently employed to urge thePresident’s removal is that in theUnited States of America no one isabove the law; that if the Senate doesnot take action against the Presidentand convict him and remove him fromoffice, we will not be keeping faithwith that principle.

Members of the Senate, I could notdisagree more with that formulation ofthis issue. The principle that ‘‘No oneis above the law’’ is sacred. The ideathat the wealthy or the powerful or thefamous should receive preferentialtreatment under the law—treatmentthat is different from that accorded tothe poor and the weak—is anathema toeverything that is great and good andspecial about the United States. It isanathema to our values and to our na-tional ideals.

I agree with Mr. HYDE. Our fathersand grandfathers—going back to theAmerican Revolution—fought and diedto defend the principle of ‘‘equal jus-tice under law.’’ This principle is notonly at the core of Anglo-Saxon juris-prudence, it is part of the very founda-tion of our civic society.

But the framers, in their genius, didnot design or intend the awesomepower of impeachment and removal forthe purpose of vindicating the rule oflaw. They believed that the power ofimpeachment and removal should beused for a different purpose—to protectthe body politic, to protect the Govern-ment itself from a President whoseconduct was so abusive as to constitute

an assault on, a threat to the entiresystem.

We are all rereading the Constitu-tion. We are all looking at the Federal-ist Papers again. And when we do that,we realize that the framers of the Con-stitution considered the question ofwhat to do when the highest officials ofGovernment, the President or the VicePresident, are charged with mis-conduct. And back then they made animportant distinction that we shouldrecognize and respect today betweenconduct in official capacity and con-duct in private capacity. They createdtwo different ways of dealing withthese two very different kinds of con-duct. Impeachment was to protect thecountry from abuse of official power byan out-of-control President or by some-one who was so abusive and assaultiveon the system of Government that hehad to be removed to protect the Gov-ernment.

The criminal justice system was tovindicate the rule of law, and the clear-est indication that one is not meant tobe a substitute for the other can befound in article I, section 3, clause 7 ofthe Constitution:

Judgment in cases of impeachment shallnot extend further than to removal from of-fice, and disqualification to hold and enjoyany office of honor, trust, or profit under theUnited States: but the party convicted shallnevertheless be liable and subject to indict-ment, trial, judgment, and punishment, ac-cording to Law.

If the President’s conduct in his offi-cial capacity is so grave as to be a seri-ous assault upon the system of Govern-ment, so serious as to subvert our con-stitutional order, so serious as to re-quire the Nation to be protected fromthe damage that he would do if he wereto continue in office, the remedy is im-peachment and removal by a politicalprocess.

If, however, the President’s conductdoes not implicate the office or thepowers of the Presidency, the remedyis a legal process involving prosecu-tion, conviction, and punishment inthe courts. In this fashion the principleis vindicated that ‘‘no man is above thelaw,’’ for in the criminal justice systemthe President will be treated like anyother citizen and accountable to therule of law.

The great scholar and justice, JamesWilson, said it best when he wrote:

Far from being above the laws, [the Presi-dent] is amenable to them in his privatecharacter as a citizen, and in his public char-acter by impeachment.

And more recently, just last Novem-ber, Senator SPECTER made the samepoint with equal eloquence when heproposed:

. . . abandoning Impeachment and, afterthe President leaves office, holding him ac-countable in the same way any other personwould be; through indictment and prosecu-tion for any Federal crimes established bythe evidence.

President Clinton should not beabove the law, he is not above the law,and he will not be above the law. AsSenator SPECTER rightly stated, the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES824 January 20, 1999criminal justice system stands ready toperform that function and to hold thePresident accountable at some laterdate. And like any other citizen, Wil-liam Jefferson Clinton can be pros-ecuted for any crimes he is alleged tohave committed throughout his termof office.

It would be a profound mistake withlasting consequences for the Membersof this body, in the throes of a highlycharged impeachment trial, to con-clude that only the Senate rather thanthe criminal justice system should bethe chosen instrument of the Constitu-tion to fulfill that principle. It is notup to the Senate to remove the Presi-dent from office for private conductthat does not involve abuse of Presi-dential power and does not seriouslydisrupt the President’s capacity tofunction as Chief Executive of theUnited States. And it would be folly tothink that to vindicate the rule of lawin the United States the Senate isobliged to reverse a national electionand remove a President from office be-fore the completion of his term. Ifthere is sufficient evidence to warranta criminal prosecution, this President,when he returns to private life, can beindicted, prosecuted, and tried and, ifconvicted, punished like any other citi-zen.

I end by making a point that shouldnever be far from our thoughts as wecontinue through this trial. There is nomoment in our national public lifemore sacred than the ritual of castingone’s vote in a Presidential election. Itis amazing, almost miraculous, that sopowerful and transforming an eventcan occur so quietly in a great and pop-ulous nation. The act is invisible tooutside eyes. On one designated day,millions of Americans go to their localpolling places—to schools, firehouses,police stations, and municipal build-ings throughout the Nation—to casttheir vote for President. It is a momentof high purpose, the only political actthat we perform together as a nation.

And so it is that we believe, short ofa declaration of war, there is nothingmore serious for our elected represent-atives to contemplate than, throughthe process of impeachment, to undothe results of a national election andto remove the man chosen by theAmerican people to be their President.

Over the past week, we have heardmany speeches about the Constitutionand the rule of law and the many sac-rifices that the American people havemade throughout their history to de-fend their rights and their freedoms.Surely, among the most important ofthose rights and freedoms is the right—freely, fairly, and openly—to cast one’svote in a Presidential election andhave the results of that election re-spected and obeyed.

Can anyone imagine anything moredamaging to the Constitution of theUnited States than for a Presidentialelection to be reversed for conduct thatthe vast majority of the American peo-ple does not believe warrants the Presi-dent’s removal from office?

In the entire history of the UnitedStates, we have never been at thisjuncture before. We have never come soclose to the final act of removing anelected President than we are at thismoment in time.

William Jefferson Clinton was elect-ed freely, fairly, and openly by theAmerican people to be President. Wedare not reverse that decision withoutgood and just cause. And we dare nottake that step unless the people whospoke agree that such drastic action isjustified. The damage to our politicaldiscourse for years, decades, would beterrible to contemplate.

In the course of this impeachmentprocess, we have also devoted a gooddeal of time and attention to a discus-sion of precedents that involve the im-peachment and removal of Federaljudges. For the President, we have ar-gued that when it comes to applyingconstitutional standards for impeach-ment, judges are different. We thinkthat the Constitution implicitly recog-nizes that distinction.

I would like to change the focus for amoment and look at the way we thinkthe legislative branch of our Govern-ment also recognizes that distinction.History shows, I think, that it has beeneasier for Congress to impeach and re-move a Federal judge from office thanto discharge a Member of the House orSenate, and maybe that is as it shouldbe. When confronted with misconductby one of its Members, Congress hasrarely been willing to negate the popu-lar will as expressed in congressionalelections. In truth, the Congress has,for the most part, simply declined totake that step.

Perhaps rightly so, because of thegreater deference paid to elected, asopposed to appointed, officials orjudges. Perhaps because Presidents andSenators and Representatives are peri-odically elected to defined terms, asopposed to life terms, the Congress haschosen to rely upon the public to workits will through the electoral system.That deference is warranted, I submit,and it should be a factor in your delib-erations.

In 210 years of history and through-out 105 Congresses, only 4 Members ofthe House have ever been expelled bythat body. As for the Senate, 15 Sen-ators—the first in 1797, the remaining14 during the Civil War.

My point is a simple one. Because ofthe sanctity of elections and the regu-larity of elections, and because of theheavy burden that must be carried be-fore reversing the will of the people,decisions to remove elected office-holders have been and should be, atleast in some degree, based on factorsthat are different than the ones usedfor judges appointed for life and whoserve for good behavior. By its ownconduct throughout its own history,Congress seems to agree with thispoint.

I come from the State of Vermont,and if you have been to Vermont, youknow that wherever you go across that

State, from the smallest squares in thesmallest towns to the larger parks, andwhat we like to think of as our cities,you come across monuments celebrat-ing the American Union. One of thethings that Vermont children learnfirst is that we were and are the 14thState of the Union and that our fore-bears fought to create this Nation andto preserve it.

So we in our history have shown thatthere are two things that we careabout: We care about our AmericanUnion and we care about equal rightsfor all citizens under the law. And oneof the rights that is most precious toevery American is the right to chooseour leaders in free elections. Thatright, the equal right to vote with con-fidence that the outcome will be re-spected, is fundamental to our values,to our national unity and identity.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate,you must do your duty as you see it, asyou see the law and facts and the evi-dence. But, truly, these articles do notjustify the nullification of the Amer-ican people’s free choice in a nationalelection. I appeal to you, do not turnyour back on those millions of Ameri-cans who cast their votes in the beliefthat they, and they alone, decide whowill lead this country as President. Donot throw our politics into the dark-ness of endless recrimination. Do notinject a poison of bitter partisanshipinto the body politic which, like avirus, can move through our nationalbloodstream for years to come with re-sults none can know or calculate.

Do not let this case and thesecharges, as flawed and as unfair as theyare, destroy a fundamental underpin-ning of American democracy, the rightof the people, and no one else, to selectthe President of the United States.

William Jefferson Clinton is notguilty of obstruction of justice. He isnot guilty of perjury. He must not beremoved.

Thank you very much.The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec-

ognizes the majority leader.RECESS

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I askunanimous consent that we recess theproceedings now. We will beginpromptly at 5 minutes after 4.

There being no objection, the Senate,at 3:53 p.m., recessed until 4:07 p.m.;whereupon, the Senate reassembledwhen called to order by the Chief Jus-tice.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec-ognizes the majority leader.

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Jus-tice. I believe we are ready to resumewith the presentation of CounselCheryl Mills.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec-ognizes Ms. Counsel Mills.

Ms. Counsel MILLS. Mr. Chief Jus-tice, managers from the House of Rep-resentatives, Members of the Senate,good afternoon. My name is CherylMills, and I am deputy counsel to thePresident. I am honored to be heretoday on behalf of the President to ad-dress you.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S825January 20, 1999Today, incidentally, marks my 6-year

anniversary in the White House. I amvery proud to have had the opportunityto serve our country and this Presi-dent.

It is a particular honor for me tostand on the Senate floor today. I aman Army brat. My father served in theArmy for 27 years. I grew up in themilitary world, where opportunity wasa reality and not just a slogan. Thevery fact that the daughter of an Armyofficer from Richmond, VA, the veryfact that I can represent the Presidentof the United States on the floor of theSenate of the United States, is power-ful proof that the American dreamlives.

I am going to take some time to ad-dress two of the allegations of obstruc-tion of justice against President Clin-ton in article II: First, the allegationrelated to the box of gifts that Ms.Lewinsky asked Ms. Currie to hold forher; second, the allegation related tothe President’s conversation with Ms.Currie after his deposition in the Jonescase. Tomorrow my colleague, Mr. Ken-dall, will address the remaining allega-tions of obstruction of justice.

Over the course of the House man-agers’ presentation last week, I confessI was struck by how often they referredto the significance of the rule of law.House Manager SENSENBRENNER, for ex-ample, quoted President Theodore Roo-sevelt stating, ‘‘No man is above thelaw and no man is below it . . . .’’ As alawyer, as an American, and as an Afri-can American, it is a principle in whichI believe to the very core of my being.It is what many have struggled anddied for, the right to be equal beforethe law without regard to race or gen-der or ethnicity, disability, privilege,or station in life. The rule of law ap-plies to the weak and the strong, therich and the poor, the powerful and thepowerless.

If you love the rule of law, you mustlove it in all of its applications. Youcannot only love it when it providesthe verdict you seek. You must love itwhen the verdict goes against you aswell. We cannot uphold the rule of lawonly when it is consistent with our be-liefs. We must uphold it even when itprotects behavior that we don’t like oris unattractive or is not admirable orthat might even be hurtful. And wecannot say we love the rule of law butdismiss arguments that appeal to therule of law as legalisms or legal hair-splitting.

I say all of this because not only thefacts but the law of obstruction of jus-tice protects the President. It does notcondemn him. And the managers can-not deny the President the protectionthat is provided by the law and still in-sist that they are acting to uphold thelaw. His conduct, while clearly not at-tractive, or admirable, is not criminal.That is the rule of law in this case.

So as my colleagues and I discuss ob-struction of justice against the Presi-dent, we ask only that the rule of lawbe applied equally, neutrally, fairly,

not emotionally or personally or politi-cally. If it is applied equally, the ruleof law exonerates Bill Clinton.

That said, I want to begin whereManager HUTCHINSON left off this week-end during a television program. Theevidence does not support conviction ofthe President on any of the allegationsof obstruction of justice. On the recordnow before the Senate, and that whichwas before the House, Manager HUTCH-INSON said, ‘‘I don’t think you could ob-tain a conviction or that I could fairlyask for a conviction.’’ We agree. Weagree. There are good reasons for Man-ager HUTCHINSON’s judgment. And themost important, the evidence in therecord and the law on the books, doesnot support the conclusion that thePresident obstructed justice.

Now, I know that Manager MCCOL-LUM begged you in his presentation tonot pay attention to details when thePresident’s case was put forward. Hewent so far as to implore you not toget hung up on some of the detailswhen the President and his attorneystry to explain this stuff—‘‘The big pic-ture is what you need to keep in mind,not the compartmentalization.’’ Man-ager MCCOLLUM was telling you, in ef-fect, not to pay attention to the evi-dence that exonerates the President—‘‘Don’t pay attention to the detailsthat take this case out of the realm ofactivities that are prohibited by thelaw.’’

But the rule of law depends upon thedetails because it depends upon thefacts and it depends upon the fairnessof the persons called to judge the facts.I want to walk through the big pictureand I want to walk through the facts.

I first want to discuss the real story,and then I want to focus on all thoseinconvenient details, or what ManagerBUYER called those stubborn facts thatdidn’t fit the big picture that theHouse managers want you to see.

Manager BARR suggested the fit be-tween the facts and the law against thePresident in this case is as precise asthe finely tuned mechanism of a Swisswatch. But when you put the facts to-gether, they don’t quite make out aSwiss watch; in fact, they might noteven make good sausage.

So what is the big picture? The bigpicture is this: The President had a re-lationship with a young woman. Hisconduct was inappropriate. But it wasnot obstruction of justice. During thecourse of their relationship, the Presi-dent and the young woman pledged notto talk about it with others. That isnot obstruction of justice. The Presi-dent ended their relationship beforeanyone knew about it. He ended it notbecause he thought it would place himin legal jeopardy; he ended it becausehe knew it was wrong. That is not ob-struction of justice.

The President hoped that no onewould find out about his indiscretion,about his lapse in judgment. That isnot obstruction of justice, either. Oneday, however, long after he had endedthe relationship, he was asked about it

in an unrelated lawsuit, a lawsuitwhose intent, at least as proclaimed bythose who were pursuing it, was to po-litically damage him. That was theirpublicly announced goal. So he knew,the President knew that his secretwould soon be exposed. And he wasright.

It was revealed for public consump-tion, written large all over the worldagainst his best efforts to have endedthe relationship and to have put rightwhat he had done wrong. That is thereal big picture. That is the truth. Andthat is not obstruction of justice.

So let’s talk about the allegation ofobstruction of justice, about the box ofgifts that Ms. Currie received from Ms.Lewinsky. I want to begin by tellingyou another true story, the real storyof the now famous gifts.

It takes place on December 28, 1997.On that day the President gave Ms.Lewinsky holiday gifts. During hervisit with the President, Ms. Lewinskyhas said that she raised the subpoenathat she had received from the Joneslawyers on the 19th and asked him,what should she do about the gifts. ThePresident has said he told her, when-ever it was that they discussed it, thatshe would have to give over whatevershe had. He was not concerned aboutthe gifts because he gives so many giftsto so many people. Unbeknownst to thePresident, however, Ms. Lewinsky hadbeen worrying about what to do withthe gifts ever since she got the sub-poena. She was concerned that theJones lawyers might even search herapartment so she wanted to get thegifts out of her home.

After Ms. Lewinsky’s visit with thePresident, Ms. Currie walked her fromthe building. Then or later, either inperson or on the phone, Ms. Lewinskytold Ms. Currie that she had a box ofgifts that the President had given herthat she wanted Ms. Currie to hold be-cause people were asking questions. Inthe course of that conversation, theydiscussed other things as well. Ms.Currie agreed to hold the box of gifts.After their discussion, Ms. Lewinskypacked up some but not all of the giftsthat the President had given her overtime. She kept out presents of particu-lar sentimental value as well as vir-tually all of the gifts he had given herthat very day on the 28th.

Ms. Currie went by Ms. Lewinsky’shome after leaving work, picked up thebox that had a note on it that said, ‘‘Donot throw away,’’ and she took ithome. Ms. Currie did not raise Ms.Lewinsky’s request with the Presidentbecause she saw herself as doing afavor for a friend. Ms. Currie had noidea the gifts were under subpoena.

So Ms. Lewinsky’s request hardlystruck her as criminal.

This story that I just told you is ob-viously very different from the storypresented by the House managers. Howcan I tell such a story that is so at oddswith that which has been presented bythe House managers? The answer liesin the selective reading of the record

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES826 January 20, 1999by the House managers. But theirs isnot the only version of the facts thatneeds to be told. So what details didthey downplay or discard or disregardin their presentation to create allega-tions of obstruction of justice?

To be fair, the House managers ac-knowledged up front that their case islargely circumstantial. They are right.Let’s walk through the House man-agers’ presentation of the key eventswhich they gave to you last week.Let’s look at exhibit 1 which is in thepacket that has been handed out toyou.

First key fact: On December 19,Monica Lewinsky was served with asubpoena in the Paula Jones case. Thesubpoena required that she testify atthat deposition in January 1998 andalso to produce each and every giftgiven to her by President Clinton.

Second event: On December 28, Ms.Lewinsky and the President met in theOval Office to exchange Christmasgifts, at which time they discussed thefact that the lawyers in the Jones casehad subpoenaed all of the President’sgifts.

Third key fact: During the conversa-tion on the 28th, Ms. Lewinsky askedthe question whether she should putaway outside her home or give to some-one—maybe Betty—the gifts. At thattime, according to Ms. Lewinsky, thePresident responded, ‘‘Let me thinkabout it.’’

Fourth fact they presented to you.That answer led to action. Later thatday, Ms. Lewinsky got a call at 3:32p.m. from Ms. Currie who said, ‘‘I un-derstand you have something to giveme or that the President has said youhave something for me.’’ It was thePresident who initiated the retrieval ofthe gifts and the concealment of theevidence.

Fifth event they presented: Withoutasking any questions, Ms. Curriepicked up the box of gifts from Ms.Lewinsky, drove to her home, andplaced the box under her bed.

That is what the House managerstold you last week. Now, let’s gothrough their story piece by piece. OnDecember 19, Monica Lewinsky wasserved with a subpoena in the Jonescase. The subpoena required her to tes-tify at a deposition in January 1998,and also to produce each and every giftgiven to her by the President. Thisstatement is factually accurate. It doesnot, however, convey the entire stateof affairs. Ms. Lewinsky told the FBIthat when she got the subpoena shewanted the gifts out of her apartment.Why? Because she suspected that law-yers for Jones would break into herapartment looking for gifts. She wasalso concerned that the Jones peoplemight tap her phone. Therefore, shewanted to put the gifts out of reach ofthe Jones lawyers, out of harms way.The managers entirely disregarded Ms.Lewinsky’s own independent motiva-tions for wanting to move the gifts.

Let’s continue. On December 28, 1997,Ms. Lewinsky and the President met in

the Oval Office to exchange Christmasgifts, at which time they discussed thefact that the lawyers in the Jones casehad subpoenaed all of the gifts fromthe President to Ms. Lewinsky. Duringconversation on December 28, Ms.Lewinsky asked the President whethershe should put away the gifts out of herhouse some place, or give them tosomeone, maybe Betty. At that time,according to Ms. Lewinsky, the Presi-dent said, ‘‘Let me think about it.’’

The House managers have consist-ently described the December 28 meet-ing exactly this way, as did the major-ity counsel for the House Judiciary, asdid the Office of Independent Counsel.It has been said so often that it has be-come conventional wisdom. But it isnot the whole truth. It is not the fullrecord. Ms. Lewinsky actually gave 10renditions of her conversation with thePresident. All of them have been out-lined in our chart. Invariably, the onemost cited is the one least favorable tothe President. But even in that ver-sion, the one that is least favorable tothe President, no one claims he or-dered, suggested, or even hinted thatanyone obstruct justice. At most, thePresident says, ‘‘Let me think aboutit.’’ That is not obstruction of justice.

But what about the nine other ver-sions? Some of the other versionswhich I have never heard offered by theHouse managers, versions that maybeyou, too, have never heard, are theones that put the lie to the obstructionof justice elevation.

Let’s look at exhibit 2 which is inyour material. You may have neverheard, for example, this version oftheir conversation. This is Ms.Lewinsky speaking.

It was December 28th and I was there toget my Christmas gifts from him . . . and wespent maybe about 5 minutes or so, not verylong, talking about the case. And I said tohim, ‘‘Well, do you think’’ . . . and I don’tthink I said get rid of, but I said, ‘‘Do youthink I should put away or maybe give toBetty or give someone the gifts?’’ And he—Idon’t remember his response. It was some-thing like, ‘‘I don’t know,’’ or ‘‘hmm’’ orthere was really no response.

You also may not have heard thisversion. This is a juror speaking, agrand juror speaking to Ms. Lewinsky.

The JUROR: Now, did you bring up Betty’sname or did the President bring up Betty’sname?

And this is at the meeting on the28th.

Ms. LEWINSKY: I think I brought it up. ThePresident wouldn’t have brought up Betty’sname because he really didn’t—he reallydidn’t discuss it . . . .

And you probably have not heard thisversion.

Lewinsky advised that Clinton was sittingin a rocking chair in the study. Lewinskyasked Clinton what she should do with thegifts Clinton had given her and he either didnot respond or responded ‘‘I don’t know’’.Lewinsky is not sure exactly what was said,but she is certain that whatever Clintonsaid, she had no clear image in her mind ofwhat to do next.

Why haven’t we heard these versions?Because they weaken an already fragile

circumstantial case. If Ms. Lewinskysays that the President doesn’t respondat all, then there is absolutely no evi-dence for the House managers’ obstruc-tion of justice theory, even under theirversion of events. So these versions getdisregarded to ensure that the Housemanagers’ big picture doesn’t get clut-tered by all those details. It is thosefacts, those stubborn facts, that justdon’t fit.

But the most significant detail themanagers disregard because it doesn’tfit is the President’s testimony. ThePresident testified that he told Ms.Lewinsky that she had to give theJones lawyers whatever gifts she had.Why? As the House managers predictedwe would ask, because it is a questionthat begs to be asked, why would thePresident give Ms. Lewinsky gifts if hewanted her to give them right back?The only real explanation is he trulywas, as he testified, unconcerned aboutthe gifts. The House managers wantyou to believe that this gift giving wasa show of confidence; that he knew Ms.Lewinsky would conceal them. Butthen why, under their theory, ask Ms.Currie to go pick them up? Why notknow that Ms. Lewinsky is just goingto conceal them? Better still, why notjust show her the gifts and tell her tocome by after the subpoena date haspassed?

It simply doesn’t make sense. ThePresident’s actions entirely underminethe House managers’ theory of obstruc-tion of justice.

But let’s continue with their versionof events. That answer, the ‘‘Let-me-think-about-it’’ answer, that answerled to action. Later that day, Ms.Lewinsky got a call at 3:32 p.m. fromMs. Currie who said, ‘‘I understand youhave something to give me or thePresident said you have something togive me.’’ It was the President who ini-tiated the retrieval of the gifts and theconcealment of the evidence.

Here is where the House managershave dramatically shortchanged thetruth because the whole truth demandsthat Ms. Currie’s testimony be pre-sented fairly.

In telling their story, the managersdo concede that there is a conflict inthe testimony between Ms. Lewinskyand Ms. Currie, but they strive might-ily to get you to disregard Ms. Currie’stestimony by telling you that hermemory on the issue of how she cameto pick up the gifts was ‘‘fuzzy’’—fuzzy.In particular, Manager HUTCHINSONtold you:

I will concede there is a conflict in the tes-timony on this point with Ms. Currie. Ms.Currie, in her grand jury testimony, had afuzzy memory, a little different recollection.She testified that, the best she can remem-ber, Ms. Lewinsky called her, but when shewas asked further, she said that maybe Ms.Lewinsky’s memory is better than hers onthat issue. That is what the House managerswant to you believe about Ms. Currie. Thatis not playing fair by Ms. Currie. It is notplaying fair by the facts. Why? Because Ms.Currie was asked about who initiated thegift pick-up five times. Her answer each time

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S827January 20, 1999was unequivocal—5 times. From the firstFBI interview just days after the story brokein the media, to her last grand jury appear-ance, Ms. Currie repeatedly andunwaveringly testified that it was Ms.Lewinsky who contacted her about the gifts.

Her memory on this issue is clear.What does she say? Let’s look at ex-hibit 3, the first time she is asked:

Lewinsky called Currie and advised shehad returned all gifts Clinton had given toLewinsky, as there was talk going aroundabout the gifts.

The second time:Monica said she was getting concerned and

she wanted to give me the stuff the Presi-dent had given her, or give me a box of stuff.It was a box stuff.

Third time, and this was a prosecutorasking Ms. Currie the question:

Just tell us for a moment how this issuefirst arose, and what you did about it, andwhat Ms. Lewinsky told you.

Ms. CURRIE: The best I remember, it firstarose with conversation. I don’t know if itwas over the phone or in person; I don’tknow. She asked me if I would pick up a box.She said Isikoff had been inquiring about thegifts.

The fourth time:The best I remember, she said she wanted

me to hold these gifts—hold this—I’m sureshe said gifts, a box of gifts—I don’t remem-ber—because people were asking questions,and I said fine.

The fifth time:The best I remember is, Monica called me

and asked me if she can give me some gifts,if I would pick up some gifts for her.

The last time, the fifth time, when agrand juror completely misstated Ms.Currie’s testimony regarding how thegift exchange was initiated by suggest-ing that the President had directed herto pick up the gifts, Ms. Currie wasquick to correct the juror:

Question. Ms. Currie, I want to come backfor a second to the box of gifts and how theycame to be in your possession. As I recallyour earlier testimony the other day, youtestified that the President asked you totelephone Ms. Lewinsky, is that correct?

Answer. Pardon? The President asked meto telephone Ms. Lewinsky?

JUROR. Is that correct?Ms. CURRIE. About?JUROR. About the box of gifts. I am trying

to recall and understand exactly how the boxof gifts came to be in your possession.

Ms. CURRIE. I don’t recall the Presidentasking me to call about a box of gifts.

JUROR. How did you come to be in posses-sion of the box of gifts?

Ms. CURRIE. The best I remember, Ms.Lewinsky called me and asked me if she cangive me the gifts—if I would pick up somegifts for her.

The record reflects that Ms. Currie’stestimony on this issue was clear—fivetimes—every time she was asked.

What, then, are the managers talkingabout when they say that Ms. Currieconcedes that Ms. Lewinsky mighthave a better memory than herself onthis issue? They are talking aboutsomething a little different; that waswhether she, Ms. Currie, had told thePresident that she had picked up thebox of gifts from Ms. Lewinsky. Let’sput it in context. After being asked thesame question for the fourth time and

reiterating for the fourth time that Ms.Lewinsky contacted her about thegifts, the prosecutor asked Ms. Currie:

Well, what if Ms. Lewinsky said that Ms.Currie spoke to the President about receiv-ing the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky?

Ms. Currie responds:Then she may remember better than I. I

don’t remember.

Not once did Ms. Currie equivocateon the central fact Ms. Lewinsky askedher to retrieve the gifts. The Presidenttestified, consistent with Ms. Currie’stestimony, that he never asked Ms.Currie to retrieve the gifts from Ms.Lewinsky. So why is Ms. Currie’s testi-mony distorted and discounted by theHouse managers?

They are asking you to make one ofthe most awesome decisions the Con-stitution contemplates. They owe you,they owe the President, they owe theConstitution, and they owe BettyCurrie an accurate presentation of thefacts.

But what about that supposedly cor-roborating cell phone call from BettyCurrie to Monica Lewinsky on Decem-ber 28? The managers highlighted thiscall, which they claim is the call inwhich Ms. Currie told Ms. Lewinskythat she understood she had somethingfor her, the gifts. This, they say, is thelinchpin that closes the deal on theirversion of the facts.

What the managers downplay, as Mr.Ruff discussed yesterday, is the factthat this call to arrange the pickup ofthe gifts comes after the time Ms.Lewinsky repeatedly testified that thegifts were picked up by Ms. Currie. Inciting the cell phone record as corrobo-ration, they also disregard Ms. Currie’stestimony that she picked up the giftsleaving from work on her way home;that would have been from Washingtonto Arlington. That is inconsistent withthe call from Arlington.

Most significantly, the managerspurposely avoided telling you aboutthe length of the call. As Mr. Ruffpointed out yesterday, the call is for 1minute, or less. According to Ms.Lewinsky’s own testimony, when shespoke to Ms. Currie to arrange the giftpickup, they talked about other mat-ters, as well as the box. They had aconversation. That is a lot of talk: Ihave a box. When can you come pick itup? Where do you want me to meetyou? And other chitchat. That is a lotof talk for a call that lasts 1 minute, orless. It is all but inconceivable that allthis took place in the call. Since Ms.Currie placed a call to Ms. Lewinsky,though, the House managers want youto believe that.

What next? The House managers toldyou, without asking any questions, Ms.Currie picked up the box of gifts fromMs. Lewinsky, drove to her home,which, incidentally, is inconsistentwith their theory because she is goingin the wrong direction. She is supposedto be going to the hospital—if shepicked up the gifts, on their theory—and she placed the box under her bed.Then they posit this question: Why

would Ms. Currie pick up the gifts fromMs. Lewinsky? Why on earth would shedo such a thing? Their answer: Shemust have been ordered to pick up thegifts by the President. They conclude,without any testimonial report, thatthere would be no reason for BettyCurrie, out of the blue, to retrieve thegifts, unless instructed to do so by thePresident. Why else would she do it?

Well, the record before you offers theanswer. As Ms. Currie told the FBI dur-ing her first interview in January of1998, Ms. Lewinsky was a friend. Shehad been helpful and supportive whenshe was dealing with some very painfulpersonal tragedies. Ms. Currie enjoyedwhat she saw as a motherly relation-ship with Ms. Lewinsky. They wouldoften talk about each other’s families,about their own activities, and otherchitchat. Why does she agree to holdthe box of gifts for Ms. Lewinsky? Be-cause she is a friend. And that is notobstruction of justice.

Now, think about the story as I toldit to you, and about the different storythe managers presented. Ms. Lewinskywas concerned about the gifts after re-ceiving a subpoena from the Jones law-yers. She was worried they mightsearch her apartment and she wantedto get the gifts out of her home. Shemet with the President, and what doeshe do? He gives her more gifts—moregifts.

When she asked what to do about thegifts, at most she says, ‘‘Let me thinkabout it.’’ Those are the words thatLewinsky has acknowledged on severaloccasions, that he may have said noth-ing.

Ms. Lewinsky is still concernedabout the gifts. She decides to putthem away, keeping the gifts that havesentimental value, and giving to herlawyer the gifts she thinks the Joneslawyers are looking for, and giving toMs. Currie those items that she reallywould like back but that she can livewithout. She tells Ms. Currie that shehas some gifts from the President thatshe wants her to hold because there istalk going around about the gifts. Ms.Currie picks them up after work on herway home.

This story is consistent with thePresident’s lack of concern about thegifts. The managers have tried to de-flect the inexplicable contradictioncreated by their own theory. Theywant you to believe the Presidentwould really give Ms. Lewinsky giftsonly to take them back on the verysame day. Of course he wouldn’t. Noone would.

The only explanation they can con-jure is torture: The President gave hergifts which he intended to take backthat same afternoon to show his con-fidence that she would conceal the re-lationship. The facts clearly do notsupport their version of events. To be-lieve the managers’ version of events,you must not only disbelieve the Presi-dent, you must also disbelieve Ms.Currie.

Ms. Currie has said that the Presi-dent did not ask her to pick up the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES828 January 20, 1999gifts. Ms. Currie has said that Ms.Lewinsky asked her to pick up thegifts. The managers have downplayedMs. Currie’s credibility in this inci-dent. They have urged you to think ofher as acting as ‘‘a loyal secretary tothe President.’’

Of course she is loyal. But it is, mayI say, an insult to Betty Currie and tomillions of other loyal Americans tosuggest that loyalty breeds despond-ency. If Ms. Currie was despondent,why would she have told the counselabout the conversation between thePresident and her that the managershave recounted as being so damaging?Why would she have said anything atall about that conversation? Why? Be-cause she is honest. And loyalty andhonesty are not mutually exclusive.Betty Currie is a loyal person, andBetty Currie is an honest person.

These are the facts. That is not ob-struction of justice.

I believe I can best sum up by usingthe words of Manager BUYER whoquoted President John Adams. ‘‘Factsare stubborn things. Whatever may beour issues, or inclinations, or the dic-tates of our passions, they cannot alterthe state of the facts and the evi-dence.’’

Those stubborn facts. ManagerBUYER went on to say, ‘‘I believe JohnAdams was right.’’ Facts and evidence.Facts are stubborn things. You cancolor the facts, like calling Ms. Cur-rie’s memory fuzzy. You can shade thefacts by not telling you the length ofthat supposed corroborating phonecall. You can misrepresent the facts bygiving only 1 of 10 versions of Ms.Lewinsky’s testimony about the Presi-dent’s response to her question aboutthe gifts. You can hide the facts, likenot telling you of Ms. Lewinsky’s per-sonal motivation for wanting the gifts.But the truthful facts are stubborn;they won’t go away. Like the telltaleheart, they keep pounding. And theykeep coming. They won’t go away.Those stubborn, stubborn facts. Theyshow that this was not obstruction ofjustice.

I now will talk about the President’sconversation with Ms. Currie on Janu-ary 18. It is not difficult to understandthese events if you have lived a life inwhich you are the subject of extraor-dinary media attention and extraor-dinary media scrutiny. Most Americanlives are not like that. Our jobs andour personal lives are not usually thesubject for daily media consumption.As Senators, you obviously know wellwhat that life is like.

On January 18, the President talkedto Ms. Currie about the Jones deposi-tion and in particular about his sur-prise at some of the questions theJones lawyers had asked about Ms.Lewinsky. In the course of their con-versation, the President asked Ms.Currie a series of questions and madesome statements about his relationshipwith Ms. Lewinsky, all of whichseemed to seek her concurrence, or re-action, or her input.

The managers’ theory is that thePresident, by his comments, corruptlytried to influence Ms. Currie’s poten-tial testimony in the Jones case in vio-lation of the obstruction of justice law.They acknowledge that the Presidentknew nothing about the independentcounsel’s investigation. So they havefocused on the Jones case as the placeto lodge their obstruction of justice al-legation. Ms. Currie was not scheduledto be a witness in that case. And, asyou will see, the President had otherthings on his mind.

Before I go into the facts surroundingthese conversations, I want to firstfocus briefly on the law, as the man-agers did in their presentation. Thereare two relevant obstruction of justicestatutes: 18 U.S.C., 1503, which is thegeneral obstruction of justice statute;and 18 U.S.C. 1512, the more specificstatute which prohibits witness tam-pering.

There are differences between thesetwo statutes, but for our purpose theiressential elements are similar. Both re-quire the Government to prove thatthe person being accused, one, actedknowingly; two, with specific intent;three, to corruptly affect and influ-ence, in 1503, and corruptly persuade,in 1512, either the due administrationof justice, under 1503, or the testimonyof a person in an official proceeding,under 1512, to try to persuade the testi-mony of a person in an official proceed-ing. For conviction, each and every ele-ment must be proven beyond a reason-able doubt. If the prosecution fails toprove even one element, the jury isobliged to acquit. In this case, none ofthe elements is present.

First, a little more about the law.You have to do more than make falsestatements to someone who might ormight not testify in a judicial proceed-ing to obstruct justice. In UnitedStates v. Aguilar, an opinion by ChiefJustice Rehnquist and quoted by theHouse managers, the Supreme Courtaddressed the Government’s require-ment and showed that the defendantknew his actions were likely to affect ajudicial proceeding. There, the U.S.district court judge was accused andconvicted of lying to an FBI agentabout a conversation with anotherjudge and about what he said about hisknowledge of some wiretapping. TheSupreme Court reversed the convictionunder 1502, the general obstruction ofjustice statute, holding that the factswere insufficient to make the case.They said in this material:

We do not believe that uttering false state-ments to an investigative agent—and thatseems to be all that was proved here—whomight or might not testify before a grandjury is sufficient to make out a violation ofthe catch-all provision of 1503. . . . Butwhat use will be made of false testimonygiven to an investigative agent who has notbeen subpoenaed or otherwise directed to ap-pear before the grand jury is far more specu-lative. We think it cannot be said to havethe ‘‘natural and probable effect’’ of interfer-ing with the due administration of justice.

In responding to the defendant’s crit-icism of the Court’s holding, Mr. Chief

Justice Rehnquist wrote, under the de-fense theory:

A man could be found guilty of violating1503 if he knew of a pending investigationand lied to his wife about his whereabouts atthe time of the crime, thinking that an FBIagent might interview her and that shemight in turn be influencing her statementsto that agent about her husband’s false ac-counts of where he was.

The intent to obstruct justice is in-deed present, but the man’s culpabilityis a good deal less clear from the stat-ute than we would usually require inorder to impose criminal liability.

So I want to begin by focusing on the‘‘corruptly persuade’’ elements of wit-ness tampering. What does it mean tocorruptly persuade? The term is vague,and the legislative history on the spe-cific point is not very clear. We doknow it means more than harassing,which is described as badgering or pes-tering conduct, since 1512 makes inten-tional harassment a misdemeanor alesser offense of ‘‘corruptly persuade,’’which is a felony. The U.S. Attorneys’Manual gives some guidance. A pros-ecution under 1512 would require theGovernment to prove beyond a reason-able doubt, one, an effort to threaten,force or intimidate another person and;two, an intent to influence the person’stestimony. Thus, ‘‘corruptly persuade’’for career prosecutors requires someelement of threat or intimidation orpressure.

Keeping that overview in mind, let’slook at the facts. On January 17, 1998,the President called Ms. Currie afterhis deposition and asked her to meetwith him the following day. On Janu-ary 18, the President and Ms. Curriemet, and the President told her aboutsome of those surprising questions hehad been asked in his deposition aboutMs. Lewinsky. In the course of theirconversation, according to Ms. Currie,the President posed a series of ques-tions and made statements including:You were always there when she wasthere, right? We were never reallyalone. You could see and hear every-thing. Monica came on to me, and Inever touched her, right? And shewanted to have sex with me, and Ican’t do that.

Our analysis of this issue could stophere. There is no case for obstructionof justice. Why? There is no evidencewhatsoever of any kind of threat or in-timidation. And as we discussed, theU.S. Attorneys’ Manual indicates thatwithout a threat or intimidation, thereis no corrupt influence. Without cor-rupt influence, there is no obstructionof justice. But the evidence revealsmuch more. Not only does the recordlack any evidence of threat or intimi-dation, the record specifically containsMs. Currie’s undisputed testimonywhich exonerates the President of thischarge. This is Ms. Currie’s testimonyand is the fourth exhibit in the mate-rials.

Question to Ms. Currie:Now, back again to the four statements

that you testified the President made to you

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S829January 20, 1999that were presented as statements, did youfeel you were pressured when he told youthose statements?

None whatsoever.Question: What did you think, or what was

going through your mind about what he wasdoing?

Ms. Currie:At the time I felt that he was—I want to

use the word shocked or surprised that thiswas an issue, and he was just talking.

Question: That was your impression, thathe wanted you to say—because he would endeach of the statements with ‘‘Right?,’’ with aquestion.

Ms. Currie:I do not remember that he wanted me to

say ‘‘Right.’’ He would say, ‘‘Right?’’ and Icould have said, ‘‘Wrong.’’

Question: But he would end each of thesequestions with a ‘‘Right?’’ and you could ei-ther say whether it was true or not true.

Correct.Did you feel any pressure to agree with

your boss?None.

The evidence on this issue is clear.There was no effort to intimidate orpressure Ms. Currie, and she testifiedthat she did not feel pressured. BettyCurrie’s testimony unequivocally es-tablishes that the managers’ case lacksany element of threat or intimidation.There is no evidence, direct or cir-cumstantial, that refutes this testi-mony. This is not obstruction of jus-tice.

But let’s not stop there. Let’s look atthe intent element of the obstructionof justice laws—in other words, wheth-er the President had the intent to in-fluence Ms. Currie’s supposed testi-mony, or potential testimony.

In an attempt to satisfy this elementof the law, the managers overreachedin their presentation to create the ap-pearance that the President had thenecessary specific intent. They arguethat, based upon the way he answeredthe questions in the Jones deposition,he purposely referred to Ms. Currie inthe hopes that the Jones lawyers wouldcall her as a corroborating witness.Therefore, according to their theory,he had the specific intent.

The facts belie their overreaching.The House managers suggested to youthat the President increased the likeli-hood that Ms. Currie would be called asa witness by challenging the plaintiff’sattorney to question Ms. Currie. A re-view of the transcript, however, showsthat the President’s few references toMs. Currie were neither forced norneedlessly interposed. They were natu-ral, appropriate; they were responsive.Indeed, the only occasion when he sug-gested the Jones lawyers speak to Ms.Currie is when they asked if it was typ-ical for Ms. Currie to be in the WhiteHouse after midnight. He understand-ably said, ‘‘You have to ask her.’’ Hard-ly a challenge. It is a reasonable re-sponse to an inquiry about someoneelse’s activities.

The managers’ conjecture about thePresident’s state of mind, however,fails on an even more basic level. If youbelieve the managers’ theory, if you be-lieve that the President went to great

lengths to hide his relationship withMs. Lewinsky, then why on Earthwould he want Ms. Currie to be a wit-ness in the Jones case? If there was oneperson who knew the extent of his con-tact with Ms. Lewinsky, it was Ms.Currie. While she did not know the na-ture of his relationship with Ms.Lewinsky, Ms. Currie did know andwould have testified to Ms. Lewinsky’svisits in 1997, the notes and messagesthat Ms. Lewinsky sent the President,the gifts that Ms. Lewinsky sent thePresident, and the President’s supportof the efforts to get Ms. Lewinsky ajob. With just that information, itwould have only been a matter of timebefore the Jones lawyers discovered therelationship—not that they needed Ms.Currie’s testimony; they didn’t need itfor any of this. Ms. Tripp was alreadyon the December 5, 1997, witness list,and she was already scheduled for adeposition.

So why would the President want herto testify? The answer is simple. Hedidn’t. The President was not thinkingabout Ms. Currie becoming a witness inthe Jones case. Indeed, she is the lastperson the President would have want-ed the Jones lawyers to question. Andeven if the Jones lawyers had wantedto question Ms. Currie, it is highly un-likely they would have been allowed todo so, given the posture of the case atthat time.

Judge Wright ordered the parties inAugust of 1997 to exchange names andaddresses of all witnesses no later thanDecember 5, 1997. Ms. Currie was not ontheir final witness list. Moreover, thecutoff date for all discovery was Janu-ary 30. By the time the President’s dep-osition was over, it was really too lateto call Ms. Currie as a witness.

Finally, you need to remember thatin the context of the Jones case Ms.Currie was, at best, a peripheral wit-ness on a collateral matter that thecourt ultimately determined was notessential to the core issues in the case.She had only knowledge of a small as-pect of a much larger case—all themore reason not to view her as a poten-tial witness.

The President was not thinkingabout Ms. Currie becoming a witness inthe Jones case. So what was the Presi-dent thinking? The President explainedto the grand jury why he spoke to Ms.Currie after the deposition. It hadnothing to do with Ms. Currie being apotential witness. That was not hisconcern. The President was concernedthat his secret was going to be exposedand the media would relentlessly in-quire until the entire story and everyshameful detail was public. The Presi-dent’s concern was heightened by anInternet report that morning that hespoke to Betty which alluded to Ms.Lewinsky and to Ms. Currie and toissues that the Jones lawyers hadraised. The President was understand-ably concerned about media inquiries,a concern everyone who lives andserves in the public eye likely can un-derstand.

In trying to prepare for what he sawas the inevitable media attention, hetalked to Ms. Currie to see what herperceptions were and what she recalled.He talked to her to see what she knew.

Remember, some of the questionsthat the Jones lawyer asked the Presi-dent were so off base. For example,they asked him about visits from Ms.Lewinsky between midnight and 6 a.m.where Ms. Currie supposedly clearedher in. The President wanted to knowwhether or not Ms. Currie agreed withthis perception or whether she had adifferent view, whether she agreed thatMs. Lewinsky was cleared in when hewas present or had there been other oc-casions that he didn’t know about. Healso wanted to assess Ms. Currie’s per-ception of the relationship. He knewthe first person who would be ques-tioned about media accounts, particu-larly given that she was in the Internetreport, was going to be Ms. Currie.

The House managers did the Presi-dent a disservice in suggesting in theend that his five pages of testimonyabout why he spoke to Ms. Currie ulti-mately amounts to a four-word soundbite to refresh his recollection. He ob-viously said a lot more.

Why did they say that? Because theyneeded to establish intent, and the tes-timony and the facts do not show in-tent. That is the truth. That is all ofthe facts.

The President’s intent was never toobstruct justice in the Jones case. Itwas to manage a looming mediafirestorm, which he correctly foresaw.As the President told the grand jury, ‘‘Iwas trying to get the facts and tryingto think of the best defense we couldconstruct in the face of what I thoughtwas going to be a media onslaught.’’

He was thinking about the media.That is the big picture. That is not ob-struction of justice.

In the end, of course, you must makeyour own judgments about whether themanagers have made a case for con-victing the President of obstructingjustice on either of these allegations.We believe they have not, because thefacts, those stubborn facts, don’t sup-port the allegations. Neither does therule of law. We are not alone in thatconclusion.

We want to share with you some ofthe remarks from a bipartisan panel ofprosecutors who spoke to the HouseJudiciary panel, some of which you sawearlier with Mr. Craig. I have taken avery brief clip of their testimony thatdealt with allegations of obstruction ofjustice against the President for, asyou will see, then Representative andnow Senator SCHUMER focused in onone of the two allegations that I ad-dress today.

(Text of videotape presentation:)Mr. SULLIVAN. Mrs. Currie testified that

she did not feel that the president came andasked her some questions in a leading fash-ion—‘‘Was this right? Is this right? Is thisright?’’—after his deposition was taken inthe Jones case. And she testified that she didnot feel pressured to agree with him and thatshe believed his statements were correct——

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES830 January 20, 1999Rep. SCHUMER. Correct, right.Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. And agreed

with him. He—the quote is, ‘‘He would say,‘Right,’ and I could have said, ‘Wrong,’ ’’ Nowthat is not a case for obstruction of justice.It is very common for lawyers, before thewitness gets on the stand, to say, ‘‘Nowyou’re going to say this, you’re going to saythis, you’re going to say this.’’

Rep. SCHUMER. Right.Mr. SULLIVAN. Now it doesn’t make a dif-

ference if you’ve got two participants to anevent and you try to nail it down, so to say.

Rep. SCHUMER. Do all of you agree withthat, with the Currie—the Currie——

Mr. WELD. Yeah.Rep. SCHUMER. And on the other two, the

Lewinsky parts of this, is there——Mr. DAVIS. I think to some——Rep. SCHUMER. I mean, I don’t even under-

stand how they could—how Starr could thinkthat he would have a case, not with thepresident of the United States, but with any-body here, when it seems so natural and soobvious that there would be an overridingdesire not to have this public and to have ev-erybody—have the two of them coordinatetheir stories—that is, the president and MissLewinsky—if there were not the faintestscintilla of any legal proceeding comingabout. It just strikes me as an overwhelmingstretch. Am I wrong to characterize it thatway? You gentlemen all have greater experi-ence than I do.

Mr. DAVIS. I think you’re right. And also,the problem a prosecutor would face wouldbe that in these cases, there is relationshipbetween these people unrelated to the exist-ence of the Paula Jones case—the relation-ship. And that’s the motivation——

Rep. SCHUMER. Correct.And Mr. Weld, do you disagree with—do

you agree with that?Rep. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s

time—the gentleman’s time——Rep. SCHUMER. Could I just ask Mr. Weld

for a yes or no——Rep. SENSENBRENNER. I’m sorry, Mr. Schu-

mer. Mr. Schumer——Rep. SCHUMER [continuing]. For a yes or no

answer to that?Can you answer that yes or no, Governor?Mr. WELD. I think it’s a little thin, Mr.

Congressman.Rep. SCHUMER. Thank you.Mr. NOBLE. Again, it’s a specific-intent

crime, and the question is, what was thePresident thinking when he said this? Wecan look at his words and try and analyze hiswords. But Ms. Currie says that she didn’tbelieve he was trying to influence her andthat if she’d said something different fromhim, if she believed something different fromhim, she would have felt free to say it. So forthat reason, I believe, you just don’t havethe specific intent necessary to prove ob-struction of justice with regard to the com-ment that you just asked me.

Manager HUTCHINSON is keeping verygood company. He, like the other pros-ecutors, does not believe the record be-fore you establishes obstruction of jus-tice. We agree.

Before I close, I do want to take amoment to address a theme that theHouse managers sounded throughouttheir presentation last week—civilrights. They suggested that by not re-moving the President from office, theentire house of civil rights might well

fall. While acknowledging that thePresident is a good advocate for civilrights, they suggested that they hadgrave concerns because of the Presi-dent’s conduct in the Paula Jones case.

Some managers suggested that we allshould be concerned should the Senatefail to convict the President, because itwould send a message that our civilrights laws and our sexual harassmentlaws are unimportant.

I can’t let their comments go unchal-lenged. I speak as but one woman, butI know I speak for others as well. Iknow I speak for the President.

Bill Clinton’s grandfather owned astore. His store catered primarily toAfrican Americans. Apparently, hisgrandfather was one of only four whitepeople in town who would do businesswith African Americans. He taught hisgrandson that the African Americanswho came into his store were good peo-ple and they worked hard and they de-served a better deal in life.

The President has taken his grand-father’s teachings to heart, and he hasworked every day to give all of us abetter deal, an equal deal.

I am not worried about the future ofcivil rights. I am not worried becauseMs. Jones had her day in court andJudge Wright determined that all ofthe matters we are discussing heretoday were not material to her caseand ultimately decided that Ms. Jones,based on the facts and the law in thatcase, did not have a case against thePresident.

I am not worried, because we havehad imperfect leaders in the past andwill have imperfect leaders in the fu-ture, but their imperfections did notroll back, nor did they stop, the marchfor civil rights and equal opportunityfor all of our citizens.

Thomas Jefferson, Frederick Doug-lass, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Ken-nedy, Martin Luther King, Jr.—we re-vere these men. We should. But theywere not perfect men. They madehuman errors, but they struggled to dohumanity good. I am not worried aboutcivil rights because this President’srecord on civil rights, on women’srights, on all of our rights is unim-peachable.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate,you have an enormous decision tomake. And in truth, there is littlemore I can do to lighten that burden.But I can do this: I can assure you thatyour decision to follow the facts andthe law and the Constitution and ac-quit this President will not shake thefoundation of the house of civil rights.The house of civil rights is strong be-cause its foundation is strong.

And with all due respect, the founda-tion of the house of civil rights wasnever at the core of the Jones case. Itwas never at the heart of the Jonescase. The foundation of the house of

civil rights is in the voices of all thegreat civil rights leaders and the soulof every person who heard them. It isin the hands of every person who foldeda leaflet for change. And it is in thecourage of every person who changed.It is here in the Senate where men andwomen of courage and conviction stoodfor progress, where Senators—some ofthem still in this chamber; some ofthem who lost their careers—looked tothe Constitution, listened to their con-science, and then did the right thing.

The foundation of the house of civilrights is in all of us who gathered upour will to raise it up and keep onbuilding. I stand here before you todaybecause others before me decided totake a stand, or as one of my law pro-fessors so eloquently says, ‘‘becausesomeone claimed my opportunities forme, by fighting for my right to havethe education I have, by fighting formy right to seek the employment Ichoose, by fighting for my right to bea lawyer,’’ by sitting in and carryingsigns and walking on long marches,riding freedom rides and putting theirbodies on the line for civil rights.

I stand here before you today becauseAmerica decided that the way thingswere was not how they were going tobe. We, the people, decided that we alldeserved a better deal. I stand here be-fore you today because President BillClinton believed I could stand here forhim.

Your decision whether to removePresident Clinton from office, based onthe articles of impeachment, I know,will be based on the law and the factsand the Constitution. It would bewrong to convict him on this record.You should acquit him on this record.And you must not let imagined harmsto the house of civil rights persuadeyou otherwise. The President did notobstruct justice. The President did notcommit perjury. The President mustnot be removed from office.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec-ognizes the majority leader.

LEADER LECTURE SERIES

Mr. LOTT. Once again, I invite allSenators to attend the leader lectureseries this evening at 6 p.m. in the OldSenate Chamber. I have already an-nounced former President George Bushwill be the speaker.

f

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 1 P.M.TOMORROW

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I askunanimous consent that the Senatenow stand in adjournment under theprevious order.

There being no objection, the Senate,at 5:14 p.m., sitting as a Court of Im-peachment, adjourned until Thursday,January 21, 1999, at 1 p.m.