Congressional RecordUNUM

E PLURIBUS

United Statesof America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106th

CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

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

.

H7251

Vol. 145 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 1999 No. 114

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

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

DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKERPRO TEMPORE

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

WASHINGTON, DC,August 5, 1999.

I hereby appoint the Honorable JIM KOLBEto act as Speaker pro tempore on this day.

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

f

PRAYER

The Chaplain, the Reverend JamesDavid Ford, D.D., offered the followingprayer:

We are grateful, O God, that Youhave created us with opportunities tobe the people You would have us be. Weknow that we have been given thechoices of life to take the paths of serv-ice to others, to express our love tofamily and friends, to do the works ofjustice. Impress upon us, O graciousGod, how our small acts of goodnessand kindness, combined in unity withothers, can make our communities andour world places of understanding andof peace.

In Your name we pray. Amen.f

THE JOURNAL

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

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, pursu-ant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a voteon agreeing to the Speaker protempore’s approval of the Journal.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Thequestion is on the Chair’s approval ofthe Journal.

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I objectto the vote on the ground that aquorum is not present and make thepoint of order that a quorum is notpresent.

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

The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-sent Members.

The vote was taken by electronic de-vice, and there were—yeas 356, nays 50,answered ‘‘present’’ 1, not voting 27, asfollows:

[Roll No. 376]

YEAS—356

AbercrombieAckermanAderholtAllenAndrewsArcherArmeyBachusBakerBaldacciBaldwinBallengerBarciaBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBassBatemanBecerraBentsenBereuterBerkleyBermanBerryBiggertBilirakisBishopBlagojevichBlileyBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBoniorBonoBoswellBoucherBoydBrady (PA)

Brady (TX)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCappsCapuanoCardinCarsonCastleChabotChamblissClaytonClementCobleCoburnCollinsCombestConyersCookCookseyCoyneCramerCrowleyCubinCummingsCunninghamDannerDavis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis (VA)DealDeGetteDelahuntDeLauro

DeLayDeMintDeutschDiaz-BalartDickeyDicksDingellDooleyDoolittleDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEshooEtheridgeEverettEwingFarrFletcherFoleyForbesFordFossellaFowlerFrank (MA)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrostGalleglyGejdensonGekasGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodeGoodlatteGoodling

GordonGossGrahamGrangerGreen (TX)Green (WI)GreenwoodHall (OH)Hall (TX)HansenHastertHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayesHayworthHergerHill (IN)Hill (MT)HillearyHinojosaHobsonHoeffelHoekstraHoldenHornHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHunterHydeInsleeIsaksonIstookJackson (IL)JeffersonJenkinsJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson, E. B.Johnson, SamJones (NC)Jones (OH)KanjorskiKapturKasichKellyKennedyKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)King (NY)KingstonKleczkaKlinkKnollenbergKolbeKuykendallLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLargentLarsonLathamLaTouretteLazio

LeachLeeLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLofgrenLoweyLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)ManzulloMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcCreryMcGovernMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinneyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMingeMinkMoakleyMooreMoran (VA)MorellaMyrickNadlerNapolitanoNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleObeyOrtizOseOwensOxleyPackardPascrellPastorPaulPeasePelosi

PetriPhelpsPickeringPittsPomboPomeroyPorterPortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRahallRangelRegulaReynoldsRileyRiversRodriguezRoemerRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRushRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SalmonSanchezSandlinSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchakowskySensenbrennerSerranoSessionsShadeggShawShaysShermanSherwoodShimkusShowsShusterSimpsonSisiskySkeenSkeltonSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SnyderSouderSpenceStabenowStarkStearnsStenholmStricklandStumpSununu

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7252 August 5, 1999TalentTannerTauscherTaylor (NC)TerryThomasThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrtTierneyToomeyTowns

TraficantTurnerUdall (CO)UptonVelazquezVitterWaldenWalshWampWatkinsWatt (NC)Watts (OK)Waxman

WeinerWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WeygandWhitfieldWickerWilsonWiseWolfWoolseyWuWynnYoung (FL)

NAYS—50

BairdBorskiClayClyburnConditCostelloDeFazioDoggettEnglishEvansFattahFilnerGephardtGibbonsGonzalezGutierrezGutknecht

HefleyHilliardHincheyHoltHooleyHulshofHutchinsonJackson-Lee

(TX)KucinichLoBiondoMoran (KS)NealOberstarPallonePeterson (MN)Pickett

RamstadRoganSaboSanfordSchafferScottSprattStupakSweeneyTaylor (MS)Thompson (CA)Thompson (MS)Udall (NM)VentoViscloskyWatersWeller

ANSWERED ‘‘PRESENT’’—1

Tancredo

NOT VOTING—27

BartonBilbrayCanadyCannonChenowethCoxCraneDixonEngel

GanskeLantosMcDermottMcNultyMetcalfMiller, GeorgeMollohanMurthaOlver

PaynePeterson (PA)RadanovichReyesSandersSlaughterTauzinWexlerYoung (AK)

b 1020

So the Journal was approved.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.f

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.KOLBE). Will the gentleman from Min-nesota (Mr. LUTHER) come forward andlead the House in the Pledge of Alle-giance.

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

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

f

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by Mr.Lundregan, one of its clerks, an-nounced that the Senate had passedwith an amendment in which the con-currence of the House is requested, abill of the House of the following title:

H.R. 2606. An act making appropriationsfor foreign operations, export financing, andrelated programs for the fiscal year endingSeptember 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

The message also announced that theSenate insists upon its amendment tothe bill (H.R. 2606) ‘‘An Act making ap-propriations for foreign operations, ex-port financing, and related programsfor the fiscal year ending September 30,2000, and for other purposes,’’ requestsa conference with the House on the dis-agreeing votes of the two Houses there-on, and appoints Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr.

SPECTER, Mr. GREGG, Mr. SHELBY, Mr.BENNETT, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. BOND, Mr.STEVENS, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. INOUYE, Mr.LAUTENBERG, Mr. HARKIN, Ms. MIKUL-SKI, Mrs. MURRAY, and Mr. BYRD, to bethe conferees on the part of the Senate.

The message also announced that theSenate agrees to the amendment of theHouse to the bill (S. 606) ‘‘An Act forthe relief of Global Exploration andDevelopment Corporation, Kerr-McGeeCorporation, and Kerr-McGee Chem-ical, LLC (successor to Kerr-McgeeChemical Corporation), and for otherpurposes.’’

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

S. 695. An act to require the Secretary ofVeterans Affairs to establish a national cem-etery for veterans in various locations in theUnited States, and for other purposes.

f

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKERPRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. TheChair will entertain 1-minute requestsat the end of the day.f

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2488,TAXPAYER REFUND AND RELIEFACT OF 1999

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direc-tion of the Committee on Rules, I callup House Resolution 274 and ask for itsimmediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-lows:

H. RES. 274

Resolved, That upon adoption of this reso-lution it shall be in order to consider theconference report to accompany the bill(H.R. 2488) to amend the Internal RevenueCode of 1986 to reduce individual income taxrates, to provide marriage penalty relief, toreduce taxes on savings and investments, toprovide estate and gift tax relief, to provideincentives for education savings and healthcare, and for other purposes. All points oforder against the conference report andagainst its consideration are waived. Theconference report shall be considered asread. The yeas and nays shall be consideredas ordered on the question of adoption of theconference report and on any subsequentconference report or on any motion to dis-pose of an amendment between the houses onH.R. 2488. Clause 5(b) of rule XXI shall notapply to the question of adoption of the con-ference report and to any subsequent con-ference report or to any motion to dispose ofan amendment between the houses on H.R.2488.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-tleman from Georgia (Mr. LINDER) isrecognized for 1 hour.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for pur-poses of debate only, I yield the cus-tomary 30 minutes to the gentlemanfrom Massachusetts (Mr. MOAKLEY),pending which I yield myself such timeas I may consume.

During consideration of this resolu-tion, all time yielded is for purposes ofdebate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 274provides for the consideration of the

conference report for H.R. 2488, theTaxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999.House Resolution 274 waives all pointsof order against the conference reportand against its consideration, and pro-vides that the conference report shallbe considered as read.

The rule provides for 1 hour of gen-eral debate, divided equally betweenthe chairman and ranking minoritymember of the Committee on Ways andMeans.

Finally, the rule provides that clause5(b) of rule XXI, which requires athree-fifths vote on any amendment ormeasure containing a Federal incometax increase, shall not apply to thequestion of adoption of the conferencereport and to any subsequent con-ference report or to any motion to dis-pose of an amendment between thehouses on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the growth in Federaltax revenue has consistently outpacedthe growth in income of the Americanpeople paying those taxes. For the firsttime in American history, taxes havereached war era levels during peace-time. Budget projections show taxes atabove 20 percent of the gross domesticproduct for the next 10 years. Lastyear, and at least for the next few, thisratio exceeds the levels of taxationduring 1945, when America was in-volved in every corner of the world dur-ing and after World War II.

In short, the American people arepaying too much taxes. The Americanpeople have given the Federal Govern-ment too much of their money, and wehave to decide what to do with it. Wecommitted ourselves to a certain costof government in the 1997 balancedbudget agreement. Since then, theAmerican people have grown the econ-omy so much they have paid too muchfor their government, and it is time togive it back.

That is exactly what the TaxpayerRefund and Relief Act proposes to do,make change for the American peopleon their tax bill.

On every other bill we get in themail, for credit cards, the power bill,the phone bill, if we overpay, the com-pany notes a little CR credit on thebill, crediting that amount for the nextmonth. What would we think if busi-nesses one day decided they couldspend that overpayment better than wecould, and just added it to their incomestatement at the end of the year? Whywould we let the Federal Governmentdo this to us?

That is what many of our colleaguesin the House and the President are try-ing to do. Just a few months ago Presi-dent Clinton said, we could give it allback to you, and hope you spend itright, but. But of course he believesthat he knows how to spend our moneybetter than we do, and he would ratherlet the Federal Government decide howto use our overpayment.

We in the majority believe our con-stituents have overpaid enough and areburdened every day by oppressivetaxes. Let us think about what Ameri-cans must pay. First we are taxed on

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7253August 5, 1999our income, then we are taxed on oursavings and investments. Then we aretaxed on our business, and irrationally,if we get married, we get a marriagepenalty tax.

If that is not enough, there are deathtaxes levied on us after we have died.Our tax relief bill begins to change thispattern. This bill entirely eliminatesthe death tax, which has preventedthousands of Americans from keepingtheir family-owned businesses or fam-ily farms. It provides a 1 percent reduc-tion in every American’s tax rate, en-suring that every American who hasbeen overcharged for their governmentwill receive a refund. The bill seeks toexpand on the investment that hashelped to give us this surplus by cut-ting capital gains.

The Taxpayer Refund and Relief Actalso provides $100 billion in relief fromthe marriage tax penalty, a tangledweb of tax provisions that have pun-ished Americans for marrying for fartoo long.

H.R. 2488 expands opportunities forfamilies to save for their children’seducation or their retirement, and itallows the self-employed to deduct thefull cost of their health care.

In total, this bill provides $792 billionin well-deserved tax relief for theAmerican people. Tax relief is aboutfreedom, freedom to save, spend, or in-vest, as we see fit. It is about returningdollars and decisions back home to theAmerican people and American fami-lies.

With this bill, hard-working Ameri-cans will not have to work as long topay the IRS. That means parents willhave more time to spend with theirkids or take care of an elderly parents.They will also have the financial free-dom to do the things they want to do.I trust the American people to makethese decisions for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear alot today about how we are supposedlyslashing funds for education, social se-curity, Medicare, and every other pro-gram in the Federal budget. Frankly,though, if Congress wants to reducerevenues to the Federal Treasury, cut-ting taxes is one of the worst ways todo it, because every responsible tax cutin the past has increased revenue, notreduced it. The tax cuts passed in 1981doubled the revenues to the Treasurybecause they doubled the size of theeconomy.

We are not cutting taxes to reducethe size of government, we are doing itbecause it is the right thing to do, thehonest thing to do, and the best way tomanage the people’s trust and theirhard-earned money.

Let us be clear from the start, we arenot talking about debt reduction be-cause the Republican budget, calls for$2.2 trillion in debt reduction over thenext 10 years. We are not talking aboutsocial security, either, because the Re-publican budget, enforced by thelockbox legislation passed this year,protects every dollar of the social secu-rity surplus.

What we are talking about here istaxing and spending. This bill cutstaxes by $792 billion over 10 years, andthe Clinton budget hikes spending by$937 billion over the same period. It isregrettable that the President has cho-sen to turn this opportunity to refundAmericans’ tax overcharge into a polit-ical game, but I feel confident that theAmerican people agree that theirmoney is safer in their pocketbooksthan in Washington.

I congratulate the gentleman fromTexas (Chairman ARCHER) and the con-ferees for their hard work on this his-toric legislation. I urge my colleaguesto support the rule so we may proceedwith the general debate and consider-ation of the merits of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance ofmy time.

b 1030

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman from Georgia (Mr. LIN-DER) for yielding me the customaryhalf hour, and I yield myself such timeas I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that Congressis nearing the end of a session. I realizethat people have been working verylate. But this bill is so convoluted I amsurprised my colleagues, my Repub-lican colleagues, can keep a straightface.

They say they want the so-called taxbill to become law, but everyone knowsit is dead on arrival at the WhiteHouse. For that reason, my Republicancolleagues do not want to send it overthere until after the August break.

But for some reason, Mr. Speaker,this so-called tax bill is being rushedthrough the House at breakneck pace.It was handed to the Committee onRules after midnight last night. Now 9hours later, it is here on the Housefloor. Meanwhile, my Republican col-leagues are not planning on showing itto President Clinton for anothermonth.

If I did not know any better, Mr.Speaker, I would say that my Repub-lican colleagues are embarrassed bythis bill. They do not want Members ofCongress to know what is in it. They donot want members of the press to knowwhat is in it. They do not want theAmerican people to know what is in iteither. I cannot say I blame them.

Republicans want to raid the SocialSecurity and Medicare Trust Fundsand give a huge tax break back tothose fat cats.

Democrats, on the other hand, wantto save the surplus. They want to pro-tect Social Security and want to pro-tect Medicare.

Because, Mr. Speaker, while my Re-publican colleagues say they do notwant to hand out enormous tax breaksto the rich Americans, the babyboomers are getting closer and closerto retirement which will cause SocialSecurity and Medicare to buckle start-ing the year 2015.

My Republican colleagues’ so-calledtax break for the rich is not even much

of a tax break after all. It is more of ahoax.

Any tax breaks people would getunder this bill are taken away in 8 or 9years. That is right, Mr. Speaker, theseso-called tax breaks vanish into thinair after 8 or 9 years, and they are backwhere they started.

For the first few years, it will looklike individual income tax are being re-duced. Then in the year 2008, suddenlythey shoot right back to where theywere before. Long-term capital gainswill start to go down, and then, in theyear 2008, they will suddenly shootback up.

Even the marriage penalty, listen tothis, Mr. Speaker, even the marriagepenalty will be back before it is fullyrepealed. So I do not know what it isgoing to do to the divorce courts.

Mr. Speaker, if my Republican col-leagues are so hell bent on giving taxbreaks to the very rich, why do theynot go ahead and do it. Why do theynot go ahead as their plan would indi-cate and cut taxes for the very richwhile Medicare and Social Security fol-low path.

The reason is very simple, Mr. Speak-er, it costs too much. This all-you-can-eat tax break smorgasbord is unbeliev-ably expensive. So my Republican col-leagues decided to do away with itafter the year 2009. That is right, Mr.Speaker. After the year 2009, the taxbreak buffet is over. Income tax ratesshoot back up, debt taxes are reim-posed, and the marriage penalty isback where it started.

Mr. Speaker, if any of my colleaguesdoubt that this bill raises rates in theyears 2008 to 2009, I would tell them tolook at the rule. This rule, once again,waives the required three-fifths votefor tax increases. This is the sameparty, Mr. Speaker, that wanted to putthis in the Constitution, and here theyare again waiving the three-fifths need-ed for the tax increase.

So the tax breaks worth thousands ofdollars that my Republican colleagueswant to give to the richest taxpayerswill fade just as quickly as the hundreddollar tax break nearly everyone elsewill get.

Mr. Speaker, everybody agrees thathard-working Americans deserve taxrelief. Democrats have consistentlystood for targeted tax cuts that benefitthe middle class. Democrats believethat we shore up Social Security andMedicare and pay down the nationaldebt while providing targeted tax cutsto the middle class.

The Republican tax breaks for therich will disappear after 10 years; butat that point, Mr. Speaker, after 10years, Mr. Speaker, the damage to So-cial Security and Medicare will alreadyhave been done.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues tooppose this rule and this conference re-port.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance ofmy time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I ampleased to yield 4 minutes to the gen-tleman from Staten Island, New York(Mr. FOSSELLA).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7254 August 5, 1999(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, Ithank very much the gentleman fromGeorgia for yielding me this time andalso for his steadfast commitment tofight on behalf of the American tax-payer.

I think it was the comment of thegentleman from Georgia (Mr. LINDER)that this is about freedom, this debate.

I think what we are going to have be-fore us, first the rule, and then the un-derlying legislation, are two argu-ments. One that wants to strengthenpersonal freedom, one that recognizesthat government has a responsibilityto all of the folks that we representthroughout our great Nation. Theother side of the argument is we havea responsibility and we also want totake as much of one’s money as pos-sible to spend it here in Washington.

First, let us say what we are doing.We are protecting and strengtheningand preserving Social Security andMedicare. There are those who aregoing to scare seniors, scare women,scare anybody within earshot if theycan do it, and that is sad.

I think the American people are wiseenough to understand that the Repub-lican Congress has set aside the SocialSecurity taxes for Social Security. Weare strengthening our national defense.We are funding education. We are pro-tecting our environment. That is whatwe are doing.

Then the question becomes, what dowe do with this projected surplus? Oureconomy over the next 10 years is pro-jected to grow to about $100 trillion.We are talking about tax relief of lessthan a trillion, which is less than 1 per-cent of our Nation’s economy, to sendback to the people who generated it.

So if we are committed to continuingeconomic growth, if we are committedto preserving personal freedom for thepeople who are working hard every sin-gle day, then the question becomes, dowe take that projected surplus andleave it here in Washington like leav-ing candy on a table with little kidsaround, or do we send it back to thefolks who earned it?

The question becomes, again, whobenefits? Well, under this bill, everyAmerican who pays taxes benefits. Ifone is a small business owner, 30, 40years or two or three generations, onehas been building up one’s small busi-ness and one goes to sell it, and one hasUncle Sam there waiting for his part ofthe pie, this eliminates the death taxso one can pass that business on toone’s family so they can make thatsmall business become a big business.

If one sets money aside every pay-check to buy a few shares of GeneralMotors or Ford or Coca-Cola or what-ever, and then one goes to sell thatstock so one can pay for one’s child’seducation, if one has two or three kidsthese days in college, $100,000 a yearpractically, and one sets that moneyaside for 20 or 30 years, and one says,

‘‘Do you know what? When Johnnygoes to college, I am going to sell thatto pay his tuition,’’ capital gains re-duction helps that person.

Frankly, I think we can find a com-mon ground here. The common groundis very simple. With this money thatthe people from Staten Island andBrooklyn generated, the people fromGeorgia, the people from Californiawho work hard every single day tokeep our engine humming, to keep thiseconomy moving, whether one is atruck driver or worker behind thecounter at Dunkin Doughnuts, the factis, when we give one more of one’smoney back, the American people ben-efit.

Yes, there are those who want tospend all of one’s money. Do not be-lieve them. We believe in the Americanpeople. We have faith in the Americanpeople. We trust the American peopleto spend their money as they see fit.

I urge my colleagues to support thisrule and stand up for the Americantaxpayer.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman fromNew York trusts the American peopleto spend their money only for 10 years,though. Then they want to pull it back.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to thegentleman from New York (Mr. RAN-GEL), the ranking member of the Com-mittee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I havebeen in this House and privileged toserve for a long time. I have seen a lotof political things, but I have neverseen a sham like the one that we aretrying to pull on the American peopletoday.

There is not a Republican in thisHouse of Representatives that can looktheir constituent in the eye and saythat this bill is going to become law.There is not a Republican in this Houseor in the other House on the other sidethat would be able to say that there isan economist that they can find anyplace in the United States that says wecan spend the same money four dif-ferent ways.

If we were talking about a $4 trilliontax cut and an $800 billion tax cut to gointo effect in the next decade, onewould think, with a five-vote margin,one would reach out to some of theDemocrats, some of the Democraticleaders. Maybe one might even talk toa Democrat or two on the tax writingcommittee.

But this has nothing to do with taxwriting. That is why my colleagues hadthe Majority Whip there, not the taxwriting people. I feel sorry for a lot ofRepublicans who were not able to getinvolved in it. But fear not, because,instead of their involvement, the lob-byists did the job for them.

What this is, really, is a rule to haveChristmas in August. It is a wish list sothat every contributor that one can

find listed in the FEC will get a prom-ise that maybe one day if they keep themajority they can keep these thingsaway.

Because my colleagues know in theirheart of hearts that the President andthe American people are too respon-sible to let this happen. So they have afreebie. They got your Christmas list,and they know it never, never, neverwill become law.

But it would seem to me that now isthe time to be bipartisan. Once my col-leagues know this thing is going to bevetoed, at least have a small tax billthat they think that they would beable to work with.

But just listen to this, because I wantto listen to the distinguished gen-tleman from California (Mr. DREIER)from the Committee on Rules, late intothe night, the Republicans give awayas much as they can to the other bodyto see that they can get 51 votes sothat they can at least pass it.

With all of this rush, one would be-lieve that they are rushing the bill tothe White House. That is the process:House, Senate, conference, WhiteHouse. Oh, no. They want this bill toturn slowly in the wind at every Re-publican fund-raiser around the coun-try and to be able to say, ‘‘You see, weeven turn chicken manure into elec-tricity. It only costs $500 million. Butin our bill, we are the only party totake care of chicken manure for thechicken farmers so that we can get agreat charge out of it.’’ I tell my col-leagues this.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. RANGEL).

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

Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gen-tleman from California.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I wouldlike to say that, as we look at the pros-pect of some kind of tax increase, Godforbid, I am convinced that there is nobetter expert at putting together a taxincrease bill than the gentleman fromNew York standing in the well. I wanthim to know that, Mr. Speaker, if weever, ever on this side were to considerany kind of tax increase, the gen-tleman from New York is the first per-son to whom I would look for directionand advice and counsel on doing justthat because he is so expert in it.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the gen-tleman from California can tell thepeople that he works with, those shel-ters, that ‘‘Rangel is coming for you.’’

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, they areready for the gentleman from NewYork.

Mr. RANGEL. Everybody wants a taxcut.

Mr. DREIER. They are ready for thegentleman from New York.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, every-body wants a tax cut. But some of usbelieve that we are paying off our debtsfirst.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, that iswhat we are in the next five years by asix to one ratio.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7255August 5, 1999Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we can-

not pay off our debts, take care ofMedicare, take care of Social Security.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I tell thegentleman from New York, keep fight-ing for those tax increases.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reservethe balance of my time.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield2 minutes to the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. STARK) a member of theCommittee on Ways and Means.

b 1045Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank

the distinguished ranking member foryielding me the time, and want to re-mind one of the previous speakers, whosuggested that, I suppose he meansDemocrats who are working for wages,could buy a couple of shares of Kodak.That would cost them about $160 amonth out of their paycheck. Or Coca-Cola, I guess he said. Now, the tax billis going to give this worker $136 a year.The worker already is not able to payhis or her bills, buy long-term care in-surance, pay the house mortgage andget the kids to college. So I suggestthat it is very disingenuous to gratu-itously say to that worker, go aheadand save 160 bucks a month, we willgive you $136 a year towards it.

As a matter of fact, this bill was real-ly designed to help Dr. Kevorkian andthe undertakers. Several of my col-leagues have already heard from theiradult children wondering how we in-tend to commit suicide so we can es-cape the inheritance tax.

Everybody has been bleeding on theRepublican side for these poor multi-millionaires who are going to have topay an inheritance tax. Talk aboutterm limits. They have said to theowners of small businesses and theowners of family farms, ‘‘Die baby. Diein the next 10 years, and you can givethe farm away to your kids tax free.But if you live, it goes right back up,and we sock you for a big inheritancetax.’’

They change the rules to make funnyspeeches. We argued here sometime agoabout a 60 percent rule, screaming thatonly the irresponsible people in thisHouse would vote to raise taxes andthey needed a supermajority. Well,with this bill they are going to raisetaxes, and they have had to waive theirown rules.

One of the more serious issues is thatthey have really decided to turn theirback on Medicare, and they are goingto let Medicare destruct. They voted incommittee against their own bills.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume torespond to the Member in the Repub-lican Party who said that these peopleshould take the money and invest it inCoca-Cola. With the money the peopleon the bottom part of that chain willget, they will only be able to invest ina six pack of Coca-Cola.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to thegentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN).

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, one wordthree times, reckless, reckless, reck-less. That is what the Republicans aredoing. Fiscal discipline guards ourprosperity here, and they are turningtheir backs on it.

The choice this year is clear. AsChairman Greenspan said, let the sur-pluses run, pay down the debt, or letthe deficits grow again. The Repub-licans are back at it, letting the defi-cits grow again.

And even if the budget assumptionsare correct, and those assumptions arewrong, there would be no money left tostrengthen Social Security and Medi-care. The chairman of the Committeeon Ways and Means has a Social Secu-rity plan that would use the same tril-lion dollars that he is using for the taxcut.

Look, the choice in 8 or 9 or 10 yearswould be this. Continue the tax cutsthat are in this bill and explode thedeficit or let the tax cuts expire andthat would be the biggest tax increasein American history, $175 billion ayear, if we let this bill be sunsetted.

The Republicans like to talk aboutthe biggest American tax increase inhistory in 1993, $275 billion over 5 years.This would be, under their plan, ifthere is a sunset, a $175 billion tax in-crease in a year.

Lastly, this bill is grossly unfair. Ifthe Republicans shed any tears here,they are crocodile tears for middle andlow-income taxpayers. Here is whatDeloitte & Touche says: A couple withan annual income of $50,000 with 2 chil-dren would get a tax cut of $265; a cou-ple with $200,000 would get a tax cut of$2,720; and, look, the millionaire wouldreceive a tax cut of $9,861 compared tothe family of $50,000, $265.

It is not only excessive it is grosslyunfair. Let us turn it down.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume torespond to that silliness.

The top 1 percent of all the incomeearners in this country earn 17 percentof all the income and pay 32 percent allthe taxes. The bottom 50 percent of theincome earners pay 4.8 percent of allthe taxes.

We now have 40 million Americanfamilies that pay no income taxes, andthat is who the Democrats want tohelp. They want to turn this into wel-fare.

If we are going to cut taxes becausewe have overtaxed in this country, thepeople who pay taxes are going to getthe tax relief. The top 10 percent of theincome earners in this country earn 42percent of all the income and pay 63percent of all the taxes. If we are goingto cut taxes because it is hurting theeconomy by taking too much intoWashington, the people who pay taxesare going to get the tax relief.

That is what the Democrats cannotstand, because they want this moneyto stay in Washington so they can doleit out to folks who do not pay taxes.

My biggest fear, my biggest fear isthat one day they will be back in

charge of this House and pass their taxrelief that will take 60 percent ofAmerica off the tax roles entirely, andwe will have a huge bias in favor ofmore government, more spending and,ultimately, more taxes because most ofAmerica is not paying taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to thegentleman from California (Mr. OSE).

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I stood in theback of the chamber here listening tothe debate, and it is somewhat per-plexing. I am trying to figure out whatit is the gentlemen and the gentle-women on the other side object to.

Is it the reduction in the rates on or-dinary income? Is it the provision forthe deductibility of health insurance?Is it the credits given for adoptions forspecial needs children? Are they ob-jecting to these things? Is it the provi-sion allowing for increased savings forthe education of our children andgrandchildren? Is it the marriage taxpenalty relief that the Democrats ob-ject to? Is it the increase in the privatesavings that is so greatly encouragedby the revisions to the IRA and otherretirement programs? Is it the factthat the President wants to save 62 per-cent of the Social Security revenue,and we want to save 100 percent?

Exactly what is it the other side ob-jects to here? If it is, in fact, an objec-tive of the other side to defeat this bill,then they should vote against it. Theyshould just tell the people of Americathat they are in opposition to all thesethings. I encourage my colleagues to doso.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas(Mr. DOGGETT).

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I willtell my colleague exactly what we ob-ject to. We object to funding tax breaksfor special interests by jeopardizingSocial Security and Medicare. That iswhat this bill is all about.

They call it the Financial FreedomAct. Well, it provides a little morefreedom for some folks than for others.In the words of Dr. King, some peopleare ‘‘free, free, God Almighty, free atlast.’’ And at the top of the list are thechicken manure producers. Hundreds ofmillions of dollars of tax subsidies forchicken manure producers in this coun-try. Down in Texas we haveWhataburger. Well, ‘‘What a chicken’’this is. They have given new meaningto ‘‘chicken deluxe,’’ to ‘‘chicken spe-cial’’ in this bill by giving hundreds ofmillions of dollars of tax relief tochicken manure producers.

And who do my colleagues think paysfor that? I think it is best summed upin this copy of a painting that hangshere in Washington. It is entitled‘‘Plucked Clean.’’ And that is exactlywhat happens to Social Security andMedicare. They get plucked clean. So-cial Security and Medicare do notenjoy the benefits of the chicken ma-nure producers. They get pluckedclean.

This $2 trillion figure that they keeptalking about, it is not a surplus, it is

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7256 August 5, 1999the money that hard working men andwomen across this country are ex-pected to pay into the Social SecuritySystem. It is their money; it is therefor Social Security. In this bill, Repub-licans do not add one additional dollarfor Social Security. And we know themoney, that $2 trillion, is not by itselfenough to fund Social Security forever.

Likewise, with reference to Medicare,Republicans do not add an additionaldollar for Medicare. They are not fund-ing the long-term solvency of Medicareor covering the much-needed prescrip-tion drugs.

Why is it that every time that thereis some tax cut, it goes to the specialinterests? And if my colleagues needfurther verification of the fact that So-cial Security and Medicare are beingplucked clean in order to provide taxbreaks for the special interests, exam-ine the phony ‘‘trigger’’ mechanism inthis bill. It will supposedly cut off, incertain circumstances, some of the fu-ture tax relief provided by this bill.But the ‘‘trigger’’ does not apply to thechicken manure producers; it only ap-plies to the section of the bill address-ing tax cuts for individuals. Special in-terests get the special treatment; indi-vidual taxpayers get left out.

This is wrong. Do not pluck SocialSecurity and Medicare clean to helpthe chicken manure producers andmost every other special interest whichhas a lobbyist and a political actioncommittee.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I might consumeto respond to a couple of things.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pointout that what we are proposing to sendback to the American people, $792 bil-lion, the President’s budget proposes tospend, not on chickens and not on ma-nure and not on Medicare but on 80-some new Federal programs.

The question is do we give it back tothe American people or does Wash-ington spend it with new bureauc-racies?

Having said that, I would also like tofinish Mr. Greenspan’s quote. He hasbeen quoted here as saying that hisfirst priority would be to let the sur-pluses run. He then went on to say this.‘‘As I have said before, my second pri-ority is, if you find that as a con-sequence of those surpluses they tendto be spent, then I would be more inthe camp of cutting taxes, because theleast desirable is using those surplusesfor expending outlays.’’

Read the President’s budget. Hewants to spend that money.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to thegentleman from Florida (Mr. WELDON).

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speak-er, I thank the gentleman for yieldingme this time, and I rise in strong sup-port of this rule and the underlying billproviding tax relief for working Ameri-cans.

For years, I, as a private citizen, sawthe politicians in Washington not onlyspending all of the money that comesin, in terms of the Federal withholding,

but as well spending the Social Secu-rity surplus, and additionally thenspending even more than that. And aswe all know, we ran huge deficits.

All the years that I was working inmy medical practice in Florida, I keptseeing the reports coming back fromWashington, $100 billion, $200 billion,$300 billion of red ink. Now, I have beenin this Congress for 5 years, and I havebeen very proud to be part of turningthings around. We have been able tosuccessfully stop the business of spend-ing more money than what comes inevery year and have been able toproduce balanced books for the firsttime in 25 years.

And then we were finally able thisyear to do something that I have beenasking for and fighting for since theday I arrived, which is to set the SocialSecurity funds aside and to not spendthose monies as has been done yearafter year. Unfortunately, our SocialSecurity lockbox is still being playedwith by the minority in the other body,but, hopefully, we will ultimately getthat enacted into law.

And, yes, we are beginning the proc-ess today of taking some of the moneyand saying, no, we do not want to keepit in this city but we want to return itback to working Americans. Because,after all, it is their money.

And what are some of the things wehave in this bill? Well, tuition taxcredits, so that it will be easier for par-ents to send their kids to college. Wehave adoption tax credits for specialneeds kids. In my State in Florida andevery State of this country, there arekids with special needs sitting in thesocial systems waiting to be adopted.

b 1100

We also have a provision in this billthat would make it possible for peopleto deduct the cost of having their el-derly parents living in the home ratherthan sending them into nursing homes.And, yes, we have capital gains relief.

I happen to believe that is the bestthing to help perpetuate this robusteconomy and creating new jobs. Be-cause when we cut capital gains, it isthe best thing to cause people to investmoney in the economy.

And, yes, we have a reduction or anelimination of the death tax or the in-heritance tax. In my district, it iscausing the break-up of family farms,of orange groves, of cattle ranches.These things are being sold off for de-velopment or being sold off for agri-business. And by doing this, we canallow it to stay in the family.

This is a good tax bill, and everybodyshould be supporting it.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield10 seconds to the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. STARK) from the Committeeon Ways and Means.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I justwanted to ask any of my Republicancolleagues if they know how much theyare really helping poor Americans? Itis only the Republicans who can take abill full of chicken manure and turn it

into a turkey. As soon as the publicfinds out how to do that, we will solvethe homeless-and-the-hungry problem.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield2 minutes to the gentlewoman fromOhio (Mrs. JONES).

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendher remarks.)

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Irise in opposition to the rule.

In 1998 when I ran for Congress, Ipromised the people of the 11th Con-gressional District that I would cometo Washington to fight to save SocialSecurity and Medicare, fight for thePatients’ Bill of Rights, fight to im-prove educational opportunity, andfight to continue debt reduction.

This is my first opportunity to de-bate a tax conference report. I wouldnot fulfill my commitment to the peo-ple of my district if I did not stand infervent opposition to this report.

My father, a skycap for United Air-lines for 40 years, always said, ‘‘Steph-anie, never count your chickens beforethey hatch.’’

This conference report does just that.It spends a surplus we do not evenhave. Domestic priorities are crushed.The seniors in my district want to havea prescription provision in Medicare,not a tax cut. The children in my dis-trict want to and deserve to go toschools where the roofs are not leak-ing, the classes are smaller, where theycan be linked to the Internet and pre-pare for the new millennium. They donot want a tax cut.

The working men and women in mydistrict want assurance of health carecoverage, not a tax cut. They want anincrease in minimum wage that will befueled by economy that continues togrow wherein there is no tax cut. Vet-erans in my district want greater as-sistance, not a tax cut.

The proponents of this bill suggestthat this cut will put money in thepockets of American people. Workingmen and women will get no money intheir pockets. They are not telling thepeople that. They are only telling thepeople that someone will get a tax cut,but they are not telling whom. Whatthey are not telling the people is thatthe money will come at the expense ofSocial Security, Medicare, educationalopportunities, health care, and thatthe 10 cents that is put in their pocketswill never buy them health care, willnever buy educational opportunities,will never give them a tuition credit.

I urge my colleagues in this House tovote against this rule, to vote againstthis irresponsible tax cut, and to voteto protect the people of America.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume torespond to the gentlewoman from Ohio(Mrs. JONES) who could not have mademy case more clearly.

She wants to spend money. TheDemocrats want to spend it on moregovernment. We want to give it back tothe American people. In their entirepresentation, she had 10 or 15 new

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7257August 5, 1999spending programs that she wants itused on. We want to give it to theAmerican people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to thegentlewoman from North Carolina(Mrs. MYRICK) my colleague on theCommittee on Rules.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I risetoday in strong support of this rule andalso the tax relief bill because I am ex-cited about the fact that we are doingsomething responsible to help theAmerican people.

This bill is something that peoplehave been waiting for for a long time,to be able to keep more of their moneyin their own pockets. And it really ispossible to do that today through thesurpluses that we are going to be look-ing at. Over the next 10 years, it is pro-jected there will be $3.3 trillion in sur-pluses.

Now, we are not going out on a limband saying we are going to spend all ofthat this year. This is a very respon-sible bill. It is going to be phased inover a period of time. As the money be-comes available, then it will be givenback to the people.

But the most important thing weneed to remember is 75 cents out ofevery dollar in this surplus that we aregoing to be using, this $3.3 trillion, isgoing to be going back into saving So-cial Security and preserving Medicareand improving education and our na-tional defense. Only 25 cents of everydollar is going to be given back to theAmerican people.

Now, this 25 cents is income tax sur-plus they are going to be paying,money that is more than we need torun the government. So why should itstay here in Washington and be spent?Why should it not go back to the peo-ple? They deserve to have that moneyto use.

This tax bill is going to provide somemarriage penalty relief in the form ofpeople who are married to be able todeduct twice as much money as the in-dividual is so they can be treated fairlyand we do not penalize marriage any-more.

We are going to be putting moneyinto extending the research and devel-opment tax credits. That also spurs theeconomy. It develops new technologies.It provides capital for our businesses inthis country. That also helps to pro-vide new jobs for people, which, ofcourse, we are always interested indoing.

The death tax repeal is somethingthat is crucial. I hear all the time inmy district, I am really concernedabout how I can leave the farm or howI can leave my small business to mykids because everything is going to beeaten up in taxes.

It is like we penalize people. TheAmerican way is to do well for our-selves, save, try to put a little away forour kids, for the future. And then wecome along and say, Oh, no, they havegot to pay it to Uncle Sam so they candie.

The same with capital gains relief.We are going to provide capital gains

relief again for the second time. Thisalso spurs the economy and it helpsmiddle-class Americans. It is not therich that it helps. It helps all of uswhen we sell our homes and to be ableto save some of that money.

The same with education savings ac-counts. It helps us send our kids toschool and college and put that moneyaway tax free.

So these are good things that thepeople at home have been asking for. Iam proud to stand here today and sup-port the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I constantly hear fromthe other side that unless we give thesurplus away in tax breaks, the richright now, the politicians, will spendit.

Well, is the gentleman so afraid ofhis own party? Has the gentleman for-gotten that the Republicans controlthis House, they control the Senate,and no money can be drawn exceptthrough the appropriations process,which they also control?

I would think they should have moreconfidence in their party and knowthat they could use the money wellhere.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to thegentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.TIERNEY).

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

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe soon-to-be chairman of the Com-mittee on Rules for yielding me thetime.

Mr. Speaker, I recommend a ‘‘no’’vote on this rule and, obviously, objectto the entire Republican risky bill. Itis risky because the Republicans whoare putting forth this program are en-dangering our families, our businesses,and our seniors.

This scenario that they are going tohave $3 trillion in 10 years is by nomeans assured by anyone. Two-thirdsof that is entirely Social Security mon-ies that should go to protect Social Se-curity.

Nothing in the Republican plan ex-tends Social Security for even one day.Nothing in their plan even addressesMedicare’s needs, in particular, pre-scription drug needs.

The only way they would get theother third to be able to put for anytax breaks at all is if they design tocut education, cut veterans’ needs, cutresearch and development, cut a myr-iad of other programs that Americansdepend on every day. That is the onlyway they get the kind of surplus theyare talking about. And already theyhave shown that they have no inten-tion of doing that.

It is going to be the Ronald Reaganplan again, borrow and spend, borrowand spend until we have trillions ofdollars in debt to pay off. And afterthey have put all of this at risk, whoare they putting it at risk for? Thewealthy.

One of the gentlemen from the otherside said that we object to certain taxbreaks and listed off things that he didnot find objectionable if they are put inat the right time and if they are in factthe tax breaks that people are getting.

What we object to is the $80 billion ofcorporate welfare, including by nowthe well-known chicken manure credit,but also breaks for three-martinilunches.

As the Washington Post said, the de-tails in this tax ban highlight the Re-publican predilection for constantbreaks for multinational corporations,real estate ventures, and other specialinterests.

They spend nearly a tenth of theirbreaks to favorite corporate America.$24 billion over 10 years would benefitmultinational corporations. It is abreak for foreign oil and gas incomethat would cost the Treasury morethan $4 billion.

This is in fact a plan, as the Presi-dent rightly said, that is risky andplainly wrong. Even Mr. Greenspansays that this is not appropriate intiming and in substance on this par-ticular deal. They are going to raise in-terest rates over the roof. The Amer-ican businesses and families, when theypay their mortgages, are going to suf-fer.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman fromOhio (Mr. KASICH), the chairman of theCommittee on the Budget, reversed thePresident’s 1993 budget to bring us thesurpluses.

If we will recall, by 2001 and 2002, thePresident’s 1993 budget agreement pre-dicted a $300 billion and $400 billion an-nual deficit. The gentleman from Ohio(Mr. KASICH) has turned that around.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3minutes to the gentleman from Ohio(Mr. KASICH).

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I think weshould not miss the big picture in thisdebate. The debate in America today isabout where power ought to be. Shouldpower lie with the government andwith big institutions in this society;or, conversely, should we attempt tostrengthen the individual in America,the family in America, and the commu-nity in America.

That is the debate here today. Thesingle biggest manifestation of empow-ering individuals and families in Amer-ica is to give them a tax cut. Well, weought to also give them school choiceand individual retirement accounts,the opportunity to have more controlof health care.

But fundamentally, the single great-est manifestation of the transfer ofpower and the building of the indi-vidual is when the individual has moremoney in their pocket and that indi-vidual could then share it with those intheir communities or with their familymembers.

The fact is the next model is notabout running America from the topdown with big bureaucracies, whether

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7258 August 5, 1999it is big government or big business orbig labor or big media, trying to tell ushow to live our lives.

The model that I believe we ought tooperate with into the 21st century isthe fact that power should flow fromour families and our communities andfrom the individuals who make upthose families. They ought to bestrengthened in America. Because oncethey are strengthened, then they mustassume responsibility.

But in America today, we are all wor-ried about Littleton, we are all worriedabout being islands unto ourselves, weare all worried about the fact that wetend to have to go it alone today inAmerica.

We must break that model. We havegot to recover what has made thiscountry so great, and that is a virtuesystem that says to individual Ameri-cans that they have a responsibilitynot just to themselves and not just totheir families but to people who live intheir neighborhoods. Because we are allconnected.

The reason why we must transferpower to people is because with thatpower and with that freedom comes aset of responsibilities. The fact is thatif they can have more money in theirpockets as a family, then they can as-sume more responsibility for thosearound them.

Maybe we can begin to end the frus-tration and the cynicism that so manyAmericans have today. Because thechoice in the 21st century is really arewe going to eat the last piece of pizzaor are we going to look out for thosewho live near us and around us andthose who are in our families.

My colleagues, do not mix the issuehere. Power is a zero-sum gain. If gov-ernment has more, the individual hasless. If government has more, the indi-vidual will be frustrated, more cynical,more road-blocked.

What we need to do is to set Ameri-cans free, more freedom, more power,more responsibility to connect our-selves again to one another, to connectour hearts and our souls together so wecan shine up America and restore itsvigor.

Support the tax bill.Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield

2 minutes to the gentlewoman fromTexas (Ms. JACKSON-LEE).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas askedand was given permission to revise andextend her remarks.)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr.Speaker, I just had the opportunity tovisit with a number of seniors who arevisiting the United States Congresstoday. I came back to the floor becauseI thought this was an important debateon their behalf. And even as I listenedto my good friend who chaired theCommittee on the Budget talk aboutpower and its distribution, I was dis-appointed that he did not give us thefacts about a tax bill that I plan to en-thusiastically oppose.

b 1115The corporate welfare in this pack-

age is enormous. The power is being

transferred from the people who workfor a living to the large corporationswho take their money for a living.

One lobbyist was quoted as stating,‘‘We got the sun, the moon and thestars in this tax bill.’’ Another lobbyistwas joking and said, ‘‘We’ve been try-ing to get these cuts since the begin-ning of dawn.’’

It made me reflect upon who really isin charge in this country. If I have tocast my lot anywhere in the UnitedStates, it will be with the working peo-ple, the senior citizens who understoodwhat the Depression was all about, un-derstood what making ends meet is allabout, and they realize that when thistax bill is passed, the mortgage rateson their children will go up $100, the in-terest rates will go up $100, the abilityto secure a loan, to do things like sendtheir children to school and college andremodel their home will be enormous.They understand in 1981 when theReagan tax cut came in, there wasnothing but devastating financial days.We in Houston, Texas collapsed, bank-ruptcies were at their highest amount,homes were foreclosed on.

I beg my colleagues on the Repub-lican side, stand with the working menand women, the senior citizens who un-derstand, the people who want to edu-cate their children, good health care,good environment. This is not takingyour money. This is bringing down thedeficit. This is bringing down the debt.This is what Chairman Greenspan said.Let the surplus increase so that whenyou move into the 21st century, youwill be able to have a quality of life.Save Social Security and Medicare. Letme tell my colleagues where the poweris. It is not with the working people ofAmerica. It is with the power-hungrypeople of America, and I am going tovote against this tax bill.

Mr. LINDER. At the risk of soundingremedial, Mr. Speaker, I would like topoint out to the gentlewoman fromTexas that there were more bank-ruptcies last year than any other yearin history.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance ofmy time.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may Iinquire as to the remaining time formy friend from Georgia (Mr. LINDER)and myself?

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.HEFLEY). The gentleman from Massa-chusetts has 91⁄4 minutes and the gen-tleman from Georgia has 5 minutes.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield2 minutes to the gentleman from Indi-ana (Mr. ROEMER).

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

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, ThomasJefferson explained to his TreasurySecretary, and I quote, ‘‘I consider thefortunes of our republic as depending inan eminent degree on the extinguish-ment of the public debt.’’ He later ex-plained to that same Secretary of theTreasury that retiring the nationaldebt would be his highest priority.

The Democratic proposal puts moremoney into debt reduction and debt re-lief than the Republicans do. Why isthat important for us? They have a $1trillion tax cut, we have a targeted $250billion tax cut, but we put more em-phasis on Social Security and debt re-lief. Why? Because if you are a smallfarmer in Indiana and you are trying tobuy a $150,000 combine, that debt re-duction can save you $10,000, for allfarmers, not just for the wealthy. Wealso target the small businesses whoare trying to buy and update the tech-nology and capital equipment. Thatdebt reduction that we put moremoney into helps them with tens ofthousands of dollars in reductions formillion-dollar capital equipment. Wehave targeted estate tax relief in ourNew Democrat proposal, targeted atsmall businesses and small farmers andAmerican families that have someonesick with Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’sdisease.

This is not a question of whetherDemocrats support tax cuts or not. Wedo. But we pay for them. According toone economic analysis, some 50 percentof the tax cuts would benefit, in theRepublican plan, those earning $300,000or more. How many of you watchingtoday are in that category in America?

We have two choices: A Republicanplan on prayed-for projections that an-swers the plans of the wealthy and theprayers of the wealthy. We have aDemocratic plan that gives a tax cutand debt relief to every single Amer-ican. The choice is easy.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, again atthe risk of sounding remedial, I wouldlike to point out that our budget re-duces the debt $200 billion more thanthe Clinton-Gore budget.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance ofmy time.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield2 minutes to the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. SMITH).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr.Speaker, I support tax cuts, but I alsosupport fiscal responsibility. This billonly does the former. We will hear andhave heard ad nauseam from the oppo-sition about how this bill protects So-cial Security and reduces the debt. Iguess if you say something oftenenough, you figure you will make ittrue, the facts be damned.

This bill cuts taxes by nearly $1 tril-lion, period. It does not do anything toprotect Social Security. And it doesnot do anything for debt reduction. Allit is is a $1 trillion tax cut over 10years.

Let us look at those numbers thatthey use to assume how they are goingto cover all of these promises that theyhave made. We hear of a $3 trillion sur-plus over 10 years. Right off the top, $2trillion of that is in the Social Secu-rity surplus. Then we hear that thefolks on the majority side are kindlysetting aside this $2 trillion for SocialSecurity. They do not have to. It is al-ready there. It is in the Social Securitytrust fund. Furthermore, that $2 tril-lion regrettably does not do anything

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7259August 5, 1999to help us with the coming shortfalls inSocial Security. That is the currentsystem. That is not doing anything forSocial Security. That is just coveringthe existing debts. It does not do any-thing to help with the coming problem.

So to say that you are setting that $2trillion aside for Social Security ismeaningless. Yet that is what we con-tinue to hear. So we are left with $1trillion. Well, that is all gone in taxcuts. Where is the debt reduction?

We hear from them that they haveall this debt reduction, which is not inthe bill and the numbers are clear: $3trillion over 10 years, $2 trillion is gonefor Social Security, $1 trillion is leftand it is done in tax cuts. Yet we hearthis constant rhetoric, we are doing allof these things, debt reduction, SocialSecurity, occasionally they throw inMedicare. It does not add up. It is over-promising. It is based on projections,furthermore. And those projections in-clude two key projections: One, it al-ready locks in 20 percent cuts in exist-ing spending over those 10 years to getto that number. We have not evenbegun to do those cuts. In fact we justdeclared the census an emergency yes-terday to get around them this year,much less 10 years from now. Further-more, these projections count on con-tinued growth, no recession. So if anyof this does not come to pass, we do noteven have that $1 trillion that is al-ready to be done in tax cuts.

Lastly, we hear that this is all aboutgiving money back to the people andletting them make their decisions.Medicare and Social Security are twothings the government does. Should weget rid of those programs to give themoney back? Some programs need tobe funded. The government does needto do some things.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas(Mr. TURNER).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the chartto my right compares the Republicantax cut plan with the tax cut plan ofthe Democrats. It is really very simple.We take the $1 trillion general oper-ating budget surplus and we apply it tosome very legitimate problems that weare facing in the Federal Government.We apply 25 percent to tax cuts, weapply 25 percent to save Social Secu-rity and Medicare, we apply 50 percentto debt reduction. Under the Repub-lican plan, all of it is devoted to taxcuts.

This is a very risky plan for us to fol-low. First of all, the Republican taxcuts are aimed at Wall Street, not atMain Street where our plan aims them.Secondly, we save Social Security andMedicare by applying 25 percent of theon-budget surplus to those purposes.The Republicans like to claim thatthey have saved Social Security intheir plan. Well, frankly, we have al-ready done what they say they aredoing in their tax cut. We have lock-boxed Social Security, we all voted forit, Democrats and Republicans. Wehave taken care of that and it is impor-tant that we do that.

Finally, we apply 50 percent of theon-budget surplus to debt reduction.After 29 years of running up $5.5 tril-lion in national debt, do you not thinkthat we could at least wait 1 year untilwe have a true on-budget surplus? Ap-parently the Republicans do not thinkso. Democrats do. We think we oughtto lock-box 25 percent for tax cuts,lock-box 25 percent to save Social Se-curity and Medicare, and let us lock-box 50 percent of the on-budget surplusto reduce the national debt so we willnot be passing that on to our childrenand grandchildren. That is what makessense for American families. That iswhat makes sense for America.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I hope thegentleman will be as enthusiastic inconvincing the Democrats in the otherbody about the lockboxes as he is inthis Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to thegentleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW), amember of the Committee on Ways andMeans.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank thegentleman from Georgia for yieldingme this time.

In looking at the figures that theprevious speaker had up, holding 25percent of the surplus out to save So-cial Security, 25 percent for Medicare,as chairman of the Subcommittee onSocial Security, that interests megreatly because I want to know wherethe Democrat plan is. I want to knowwhere that 25 percent figure camefrom. I think that could be very, veryinteresting.

But there is another thing that Iwant to know for those who have spo-ken before and those to come later.What is it that you do not like abouteliminating the limitation on the de-duction for the interest on studentloans? What is it that you do not likeabout eliminating and phasing out thedeath tax where you have to see theundertaker and the Internal RevenueService on the same day? What is ityou do not like about an across-the-board tax deduction for all Americantaxpayers? What is it you do not likeabout reducing the cap on capitalgains? What is it about the marriagepenalty that you like that you want tohold on to? Why not eliminate it? Whynot join with the Republicans? What isit you do not like about deductinghealth insurance costs? What is it youdo not like about increasing theamount you can put into educationalsavings accounts? Last of all, what is ityou do not like about getting a deduc-tion for taking care of your elderlyparents?

This bill has been drafted very, verycarefully. This bill is a wonderful bill.This bill just uses a small portion ofthe surplus and leaves plenty, believeme, plenty. By the passage of the Ar-cher-Shaw Social Security plan, Mem-bers will see that we are going to saveSocial Security and they will also seethat we are going to get many Demo-crats that are going to join with us.This is the plan that we have and we

are going to do it. We are also going toreduce the accumulated debt that isgoing to pester our descendants somuch unless we do something about it.

Let us get together. Let us in a bipar-tisan way do these things that theAmerican people want us to do. Let uspass this rule and pass this very fairand very good tax plan.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yieldthe balance of my time to the gen-tleman from Massachusetts (Mr.OLVER).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thistime. I rise to oppose this rule and thebill that underlies the rule.

Mr. Speaker, like the instinctivemarch of lemmings over a cliff, it is in-stinctive for the Republican leadershipto give huge tax breaks to the richestindividuals and special interests. Intheir bill, the 1 million wealthiest fam-ilies whose income is greater than$300,000 per year will get about $1,000 aweek of tax breaks. But for the 120 mil-lion American families whose incomeis under $125,000 a year, and that, bythe way, includes everybody virtuallywhose income is under that of Membersof the Congress, for those 120 millionfamilies, they are going to get enoughto buy a cup or two of coffee a week, sothat they can stay awake while theyare working their double jobs. That isnot the tax relief that the middle classneeds and deserves. But they simplycannot help themselves. It is in theirgenes. It is their genetic defect. Theydeliberately, deliberately crafted a billthat makes the richest 1 percent ofAmericans a very great deal richer, abill that gives away the projected sur-plus, not one dime of which has yetbeen produced. But they give awaythat projected surplus in order toproduce that kind of tax break, dis-tribution of tax breaks. They delib-erately have not extended the life ofSocial Security by so much as a singleday so that in the year 2030 when theyopen the lockbox, which all of us havevoted for, they are going to find thatthe lockbox is empty.

b 1130They have deliberately left not a sin-

gle dollar to extend the life of Medi-care, which provides healthcare for allof our senior citizens and our disabledcitizens, so in the year 2014, Medicareis going to be bankrupt too.

This plan is not just risky, it is reck-less. This bill should be rejected.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yieldback the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield thebalance of my time to the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. DREIER), theChairman of the Committee on Rules.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.HEFLEY). The gentleman from Cali-fornia is recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong supportof the resolution. It is really sad to lis-ten to the tried, age-old, and failed ar-gument of class warfare. The previous

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7260 August 5, 1999speaker was just once again gettinginto that ‘‘us’’ versus ‘‘them’’ argu-ment. The fact of the matter is we areall in this together, and I think that weneed to recognize that, yes, there aresome people in this country who havebeen successful.

One of the greatest things about thisNation is that we provide opportunity.We provide opportunity for people tosucceed, and we also in this countryhave an opportunity that some peopleare not all that successful. But I findthat virtually everyone wants to havethe opportunity to succeed, and that iswhat this tax bill is all about. We wantto make sure that we maintain thekind of economic growth and expansionwhich this Nation has seen for the pastseveral years.

We have today the highest tax rate in50 years. The American people are pay-ing more in taxes than they have in 50years. We have been able to see thegreat benefits of surpluses that havebeen building, and what we are sayingis that to maintain economic growth,we think it is important for people tobe able to keep some of their own hard-earned dollars.

Guess what? That, in fact, is what weare going to do, and I hope very muchthat the President of the United Statessees the way, as he has on the Y2K bill,welfare reform, on the National Bal-listic Missile Defense bill, on the Edu-cation Flexibility Act, to come aroundto what is the right position, and thatis to sign the bill.

I know that there are public opinionpolls out there that are saying, gosh,we do not overwhelmingly, as theAmerican people, support a tax cut.But we are proceeding with it. Why? Itmay not right now be the single mostpopular thing, but we know it is theright thing to do. That is why we arestepping up to the plate and doing justthat.

As we look at the fact that 100 mil-lion-plus Americans are investing inthe market, they are people who areoften called ‘‘rich’’ by our friends onthe other side of the aisle, but theyconsist of people who have maybe a fewthousand dollars they are investing.What is it we are doing? We are goingto allow them to keep more of that sothey can choose to save or invest it byreducing that top rate on capital gainsfrom 20 percent to 18 percent, and thevery important provision in 2003 whichallows us to see indexation of capitalgains.

Then, extending for 5 years the re-search and development tax credit,that is very, very important. Forty-five percent of our Nation’s gross do-mestic product growth in the past 4years has come in the high-tech indus-try. Not only have hundreds of thou-sands of jobs been created by those in-vestors, by new technologies, but wehave also dramatically improved thequality of life for people here in theUnited States and around the world.We must do everything that we can tocontinue that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues onboth sides of the aisle to support thisrule and to support a very, very goodbill, and then, Mr. President, pleasesign it.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have nofurther requests for time, I yield backthe balance of my time, and I move theprevious question on the resolution.

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

question is on the resolution.The question was taken; and the

Speaker pro tempore announced thatthe ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I objectto the vote on the ground that aquorum is not present and make thepoint of order that a quorum is notpresent.

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

The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-sent Members.

The vote was taken by electronic de-vice, and there were—yeas 224, nays203, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 377]

YEAS—224

AderholtArcherArmeyBachusBakerBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBereuterBiggertBilirakisBlileyBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBonoBrady (TX)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCanadyCannonCastleChabotChamblissChenowethCobleCoburnCollinsCombestConditCookCookseyCoxCraneCubinCunninghamDavis (VA)DealDeLayDeMintDiaz-BalartDickeyDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglish

EverettEwingFletcherFoleyFossellaFowlerFranks (NJ)FrelinghuysenGalleglyGanskeGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGrangerGreen (WI)GreenwoodGutknechtHansenHastertHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHill (MT)HillearyHobsonHoekstraHornHostettlerHoughtonHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeIsaksonIstookJenkinsJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJones (NC)KasichKellyKing (NY)KingstonKnollenbergKolbeKuykendallLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLazioLeach

Lewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLoBiondoLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)ManzulloMcCollumMcCreryMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMetcalfMicaMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMoran (KS)MorellaMyrickNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOseOxleyPackardPaulPeasePetriPickeringPittsPomboPorterPortmanPryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRamstadRegulaReynoldsRileyRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoukemaRoyceRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SalmonSanfordSaxtonScarboroughSchafferSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawShays

SherwoodShimkusShusterSimpsonSkeenSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)SouderSpenceStearnsStumpSununuSweeney

TalentTancredoTauzinTaylor (NC)TerryThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtToomeyTraficantUptonVitterWalden

WalshWampWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NAYS—203

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBairdBaldacciBaldwinBarciaBarrett (WI)BecerraBentsenBerkleyBermanBerryBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CappsCapuanoCardinCarsonClayClaytonClementClyburnConyersCostelloCoyneCramerCrowleyCummingsDannerDavis (FL)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleEdwardsEngelEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFilnerForbesFordFrank (MA)FrostGejdensonGephardtGonzalezGordon

Green (TX)GutierrezHall (OH)Hall (TX)Hastings (FL)Hill (IN)HilliardHincheyHinojosaHoeffelHoldenHoltHooleyHoyerInsleeJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJohnJohnson, E. B.Jones (OH)KanjorskiKapturKennedyKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)KleczkaKlinkKucinichLaFalceLampsonLarsonLeeLevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLofgrenLoweyLutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McGovernMcIntyreMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMillender-

McDonaldMiller, GeorgeMingeMinkMoakleyMooreMoran (VA)MurthaNadlerNapolitanoNeal

OberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensPallonePascrellPastorPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PhelpsPickettPomeroyPrice (NC)RahallRangelRiversRoemerRothmanRoybal-AllardRushSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSchakowskyScottSerranoShermanShowsSisiskySkeltonSlaughterSmith (WA)SnyderSprattStabenowStarkStenholmStricklandStupakTannerTauscherTaylor (MS)Thompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThurmanTierneyTownsTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)VelazquezVentoViscloskyWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWeinerWexlerWeygandWiseWoolseyWuWynn

NOT VOTING—7

BilbrayLantosMcDermott

MollohanPeterson (PA)Reyes

Rodriguez

b 1154Mr. MOORE and Mr. MALONEY of

Connecticut changed their vote from‘‘yea’’ to ‘‘nay.’’

Mrs. KELLY changed her vote from‘‘nay’’ to ‘‘yea.’’

So the resolution was agreed to.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7261August 5, 1999The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant

to House Resolution 274, I call up theconference report on the bill (H.R. 2488)to provide for reconciliation pursuantto sections 105 and 211 of the concur-rent resolution on the budget for fiscalyear 2000, and ask for its immediateconsideration in the House.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

KOLBE). Pursuant to House Resolution274, the conference report is consideredas having been read.

(For conference report and state-ment, see proceedings of the House ofWednesday, August 4, 1999, at pageH7027.)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-tleman from Texas (Mr. ARCHER) andthe gentleman from New York (Mr.RANGEL) each will control 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Texas (Mr. ARCHER).

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that all Membersmay have 5 legislative days withinwhich to revise and extend their re-marks and to include extraneous mat-ter on the conference report on H.R.2488.

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

There was no objection.Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.Mr. Speaker, this conference report

keeps our commitment to protect thetaxpayers and not the tax takers. ThisCongress has already secured social se-curity, Medicare, paying down thedebt. Now we are ready to provide realtax relief.

b 1200

Mr. Speaker, the American workershave known for a long time that theyare caught in a tax trap. The harderthey work, the longer they work, themore they pay; and that is not right.

It is their hard work and success thathas provided the resources to giveWashington a windfall surplus. That isan amount over and above what thegovernment needs to operate. Theamount is projected in the next 10years to be $3.3 trillion.

The question is, Mr. Speaker, whatdo we do with that surplus? Repub-licans said strengthening Social Secu-rity and Medicare should happen first.We have already done that with thelockbox to ensure that every pennythat goes into Social Security andMedicare cannot be spent on any othergovernment programs. We have setaside 100 percent of the Social Securityand Medicare surplus to be used onlyfor Social Security and Medicare.

The Archer-Shaw Social Securityplan available and publicized in detailhas been certified by the Social Secu-rity Administration to save Social Se-

curity for all time at a cost of only halfof that set-aside surplus. So there isplenty of money still there for Medi-care.

Out of the surplus, surely we shouldbe able to leave in the pockets of thepeople who have earned it and providedit one-quarter of the surplus. Twenty-five cents out of every dollar should beleft in their pockets. In the meantime,we are paying down the Federal debt.

As has been mentioned earlier, theCongressional Budget Office non-partisan body has said that the Repub-lican budget pays off $200 billion moreof the debt than the President’s budg-et. The Democrats’ statements thathave been made over and over againare just flat wrong, and they know it.But it serves their political purposes tocontinue to state it over and overagain because it employs fear. Theyknow fear is a very, very powerful mo-tivation with many Americans.

They have put every hurdle in theway of tax relief ever since we cameinto the majority in 1995. They revelledin their largest tax increase in the his-tory of the United States which theypassed on a straight party-line vote in1993. They fight ferociously to keepmoney in Washington.

It expresses, I believe, Mr. Speaker,the genuine difference between our par-ties, generally held, that the Demo-crats believe Washington knows how tospend the people’s money better thanthe people do themselves.

The President said this in Buffalo,New York, the day after his State ofthe Union Address when he said, ‘‘Wehave a surplus. What should we do withit? We might be able to give some of itback to you, but then who would knowthat you would spend it right.’’

So the Democrats say keep it inWashington, and we will spend it. Weknow better than the people who haveearned it. We disagree. We do not thinkit is Washington’s money. We think itbelongs to the people who earned it.

After we have done all of thesethings, of saving Social Security, Medi-care, paying down the debt, yes, we canuse a part of the non-Social Securitysurplus for tax relief. If we do not getthat money out of Washington, politi-cians will most surely spend it. Theyalways have.

So I ask the President and my Demo-cratic colleagues to reconsider theirstaunch opposition to this breath of re-lief to hard-pressed American familiesand individuals. Do not mock broad-based tax relief to every income tax-payer in this country, I say to myDemocrat colleagues.

Do not discourage marriage by block-ing marriage penalty relief. Let us helppeople caring for elderly relatives athome. Do not stop that. Do not blockhealth and long-term care insurancetax deductibility. Do not stand in theway of pension incentives that willhelp more men and women enjoy re-tirement security. Do not block edu-cation incentives to make college moreaffordable and to give parents the abil-

ity to save for their children’s edu-cation beginning in kindergartenthrough high school and college.

Now, many Democrats say they arefor tax relief. In fact, some of themhave cosponsored bills to end the mar-riage penalty. Some of them have co-sponsored bills to end the punitivedeath penalty tax. Some have cospon-sored bills to help the pension provi-sions that are in this bill and to expandIRAs.

I would say to my Democrat col-leagues, now is their chance. Do notfollow the political path of fear thathas been put in their hands by theirleaders and which has been articulatedover and over again in this debate.Stand with married couples ratherthan more Washington spending. Standwith the family farms and businesses,and defend the death tax instead ofmore Washington spending.

In summary, help us protect the tax-payer, not big government and morespending. Because, Mr. Speaker, whatthis debate is really all about isdownsizing the power of Washingtonand upsizing the power of people.

This is a great bill. I urge its passage.Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of

my time.Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.Mr. Speaker, I was really moved by

the chairman’s speech, almost to theextent that I would think that hewould think this is on the level here.The theme of this is let us get thismoney out of Washington before thepoliticians in Washington spend thetaxpayers’ money. This is like thetheme, ‘‘Stop me before I kill again.’’

Mr. Speaker, at the last count, eventhough it is dwindling, the Republicansare in charge. We cannot stop them.They may kill again. We watch themevery day. So we know they are out ofcontrol. But do not just say spend themoney. Send the money back that theyhave not got.

Now, first of all, the gentleman fromTexas (Chairman ARCHER) said, whenthe Republicans came into office, theyhad great ideas. They have been in of-fice and the leadership for 51⁄2 years at-tempting to pull the tax code up by theroots. Now, the last we saw of the taxcode, we cannot get a truck to bringthat bill over from the Senate over tothe Committee on Rules. It is loadedwith fertilizer. So what are they pull-ing up by the roots?

This is something that they reallyshould not want to go home and cam-paign on, except if they know it is noton the level, and except if they know itis going to be vetoed, and except ifthey know that, after they finish allthis work, they are not going to take itto the President.

Why would they not put this bill onthe President’s desk until after LaborDay? Answer: it is not a bill. It is apiece of campaign literature. It is alobbyist’s wish list. It is Christmas inJuly, and the President is supposed tobe the scrooge and veto it and deny the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7262 August 5, 1999Republican contributors the thingsthat they wanted to give them.

Give us a break. If my colleaguesreally wanted a tax bill, they wouldhave found at least one Democrat inthe House they could have trusted, oneDemocrat in the Senate that theycould have trusted. They could havebrought in the administration for atrillion dollars.

It is not a Republican thing; it issomething that we should work with ina bipartisan way. So I am suggestingthat my colleagues have taken one bigpolitical crapshoot in what they havedone, and it is my belief that they aregoing to pay for this with their cam-paign bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance ofmy time.

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Penn-sylvania (Mr. GOODLING), chairman ofthe Committee on Education and theWorkforce.

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the gentleman for yielding methis time.

Mr. Speaker, improving retirementsecurity is one of the top prioritiesthat Congress has this year. Just im-proving the retirement security by fix-ing Social Security will not do it.

In this legislation, fortunately, wehave 15 provisions from H.R. 1102,which is the Comprehensive Retire-ment Security and Pension Reform Actthat was reported out of our committeein a bipartisan fashion. These reformswill directly improve the retirementsecurity of millions of American work-ers, particularly low and middle-in-come American workers.

So I am very pleased that the 60 Re-publicans and 60 Democrats that co-signed this legislation for pension re-form finds that it is part of this veryimportant piece of legislation that weare going to enact today.

I would hope that the President looksthoroughly at the entire bill and un-derstands that there is an awful lothere that will help families in the fu-ture to save and to have a decent re-tirement in their golden years.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Mary-land (Mr. CARDIN), a member of thecommittee.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want tothank the ranking member for yieldingme this time.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, if onelooks at this conference report and onesupports it, one is going back to thedays of large deficits for our country.That is why the Democrats want aneconomic program that will continueour economic prosperity into the fu-ture.

We think, and I think the Americanpublic will agree, that the approval ofthis conference report is reckless, andit is an unreasonable risk for our fu-ture.

Let me explain why. The gentlemanfrom Texas (Mr. ARCHER), the chair-man of the Committee on Ways and

Means, explains that we are projectinga $3 trillion, projecting a $3 trillionsurplus over the next 10 years. Nowtwo-thirds of that, approximately $2trillion is generated because of SocialSecurity. Now we have all agreed weshould not touch that money. We can-not use that. We have got to protect itfor Social Security, and I agree.

But that gives us a $1 trillion surplusto work with. We have not gotten onedime of it yet. Yet this conference re-port would spend just about all of thatprojected surplus. Not a dime would beavailable for Medicare. No moneywould be available for the programsthat already are being spent by callingthem emergency spending.

That is why we believe this is reck-less and wrong. We think prioritiesshould be set. The surplus should firstbe used to preserve Social Security andMedicare. Then we should pay downthe debt.

The conference report is estimated toprovide the average family in this Na-tion 10 years from now when it is fullyimplemented a little over $200 a year intax relief. But, yet, what the pro-ponents are not telling us, is that be-cause of the recklessness of the bill, in-terest rates were likely to go up, andwe are going to take away more in in-creased interest costs to the averagetaxpayer.

I urge my colleagues to reject theconference report.

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. THOMAS), chairman ofthe Subcommittee on Health of theCommittee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. THOMAS asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks, and include extraneous mate-rial.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I do findit rather curious that this line of argu-ment now comes from the Democrats.In fact, the gentleman from Maryland(Mr. CARDIN), who just spoke, voted forthe 1997 tax bill, which clearly we werein a much more serious budget situa-tion.

I think perhaps the situational eth-ics, that the politics of the situationdictates their rhetoric, their concernabout our trying to put a budget to-gether for 10 years and how recklessthat is.

Let me go back to January 19 whenthe President was in this Chamber andsaid, ‘‘Now we are on course for budgetsurpluses for the next 25 years.’’ Noconcern from them about looking adecade and a half beyond where we are.

The President went on to say that heis going to dedicate 60 percent of thebudget surplus for the next 15 years toSocial Security. How reckless is that?We do not know what the next 15 yearsis going to look like. Republicans put100 percent away.

b 1215

We have a plan that will save SocialSecurity forever. The President goes onto talk about Medicare. He has a pro-

gram to ensure it for the next 15 years.We have a program that does betterthan that.

The Democrats are now the party of‘‘I can’t.’’ Republicans are ‘‘we can.’’We can do this.

Something else is interesting. Thelast time the Democrats were in themajority, they passed a tax bill thatthe low rate was 15 and the high ratefor the rich folks they are talkingabout was 28 percent. This bill lowersthat bracket on the lower end to 14 andit is 38 percent for the rich people.

When we listen to them, they are ar-guing politics, not policy.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Missouri (Mr. CLAY).

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

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in op-position to this conference report.

I rise in opposition to the conference agree-ment on H.R. 2488, the Financial FreedomAct.

This bill is the Republican’s risky scheme forhow they want to help the rich. The majorityknows that their only bread and butter issue istax cuts, whether or not the American peopleask for them, whether there is a budget sur-plus or a deficit, and whether other importanttax cuts instead or priorities get squeezed out,such as protecting Social Security, savingMedicare, strengthening education, and payingdown the national debt.

The American people won’t be fooled. Thisbill provides very little for the average workingfamily. The bottom sixty percent of Americansby income will only see about 8% of the taxcuts in this bill. Approximately $10 a month.Whereas, the top 10% of Americans will re-ceive almost 70% of the benefits under thisbill.

Plain and simple, this bill is one big tax cutfor those who need it the least.

I would also like to mention that there are anumber of pension provisions included in thisbill, some of which are good policy and somewhich are not. Overall, however, this bill doeslittle to significantly improve the retirement se-curity of working Americans. Our current pen-sion and tax system already favors the well-off. Over 80% of individuals earning over$75,000 a year have tax deferred pension in-come whereas only 8% of those earning under$10,000 and 27% earning between $10,000and $15,000 have pension coverage.

I oppose this irresponsible raid on our Fed-eral budget to benefit the wealthy and specialinterest at the expense of the average workingfamily.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Massa-chusetts (Mr. NEAL).

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts askedand was given permission to revise andextend his remarks.)

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr.Speaker, there are so many reasons tooppose this tax bill it is hard to knowwhere to start.

I have spoken on the floor about theneed to save the surplus for Social Se-curity and Medicare. I have spokenabout their importance as the premiergovernment programs that keep mil-lions of elderly Americans out of pov-erty. I have discussed the importance

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7263August 5, 1999of deficit reduction and the need tomaintain on-budget surpluses in theface of unrealistic budget assumptions.

Every day that goes by, it is moreand more clear just how unrealisticthese budget assumptions currentlyare. If we hold this bill until Sep-tember, it will be as clear as a pie inthe face.

The Washington Post this morninghas a long article about how Repub-licans have already spent the on-budg-et surplus for next year. If we cannotmaintain discipline for 1 year, how onearth will we guarantee that surplusfor the next 10 years. We cannot.

The Democratic approach here is en-tirely reasonable. We want to go slow.Let us not repeat the errors of the last18 years and pass a massive tax bill.Let us be for modest, reasonable taxcuts that become clear when the budg-et surplus really arrives.

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Ohio(Mr. BOEHNER), another member of theconference committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I standin strong support of this historic taxcut, one that will protect Social Secu-rity and Medicare and still put some$800 billion back in the pockets of theAmerican people.

Mr. Speaker, while others dwell onthe past, Americans look to the future.We strive, we dream, and we sacrificeso that we and our children can have abetter future. Our work, our dreams,and our sacrifices have more to do withrealizing that than any program that ishatched here in Washington.

That is what this tax bill is really allabout, letting the American peoplekeep more of what they earn so thatthey can make the plans and do thework that will lead to a better futurefor them and their children. That iswhy we are lowering marginal taxrates, cutting the capital gains rate,fixing the marriage penalty, and in-creasing deductibility for retirementsavings and health care. It is so ourconstituents can have the future thatthey deserve.

I want to commend the gentlemanfrom Texas (Mr. ARCHER) for workingwith the gentleman from Pennsylvania(Mr. GOODLING) and myself to includeimportant pension reforms introducedin the House by the gentleman fromOhio (Mr. PORTMAN) and the gentlemanfrom Maryland (Mr. CARDIN).

These reforms will directly improve the re-tirement security of American workers by ex-panding small business retirement plans, al-lowing workers to save more, making pen-sions more secure, and cutting the red tapethat has hamstrung employers who want toestablish pension plans for their employees.They are important, bipartisan proposals andthey will benefit every American worker who istrying to save for retirement.

But I also want to commend him for themuch larger package. It returns money thatour constituents have earned and that Wash-ington hasn’t. That’s why we owe it to our con-stituents to vote for the conference report.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from New

York (Mr. MCNULTY), a member of thecommittee and my colleague from NewYork.

Mr. MCNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I thankmy leader for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, we will hear a lot ofspeeches today, and a lot of them aregoing to sound the same. Mine will bedifferent in one minor respect. I am notgoing to attack the other side of theaisle. I am just going to ask what Ithink is a very salient question. Do wenot learn anything from history?

In the 1980s, the leaders of this coun-try, in a bipartisan fashion, decided toattack the national budget deficits,and a Republican president proposedand this Democratic House of Rep-resentatives adopted a plan whichcalled for a massive tax cut. It was bi-partisan. So if there is any blame to goaround, there is plenty for everyone.

But I hearken back to the words ofPresident Harry Truman again. Let uslook at the record. What happenedwhen we did that? We had the largestbudget deficits in the history of theUnited States of America. In the ensu-ing 12 years we quadrupled the nationaldebt. All of the debt accumulated inthis country from George Washingtonto Jimmy Carter was quadrupled in aperiod of 12 years.

So I do not attack the other sidetoday. I just make a very simple plea.Let us not make the same mistake. Letus not do it all over again. Let us paydown the national debt and stop steal-ing our children’s money.

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. HERGER), a respectedmember of the Committee on Ways andMeans.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I wouldlike to respond to my good friend fromNew York, his comment on the 1980s,during the Reagan administration, re-garding the tax cut. I would like tostate the facts during that time. Dur-ing that time, the tax rates were cut inhalf and revenues during the 1980s ac-tually doubled. But the then DemocratCongress tripled the spending, so weended up spending more.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in supportof the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act.The time has come to allow hard-work-ing Americans to keep more of theirmoney. Mr. Speaker, our plan setsaside three-fourths of the anticipatedsurplus, 75 cents out of every dollar forSocial Security and Medicare.

Now we must take the next step. Thelegislation before us today provides alltaxpayers with broad-based tax reliefby reducing tax rates for all incometaxpayers, allows parents to save morefor educational expenses, and phasesout both the destructive marriage pen-alty and death tax.

Mr. Speaker, let us side with hard-working Americans over Washingtonbureaucracy. I urge all my colleaguesto support the Taxpayer Refund andRelief Act.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from

Michigan (Mr. LEVIN), a member of thecommittee.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the truthsquad needs to work overtime here.The chairman of the committee hassaid this bill secures Social Securityand Medicare, and a subcommitteechairman said it saves Social Securityforever. That is eternally untrue.

Mr. SHAW. Will the gentleman yield?Mr. LEVIN. No, I will finish, and

then I will yield.Mr. SHAW. That is not true what the

gentleman is saying.MR. LEVIN. It is.Mr. SHAW. The chairman did not say

that.The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

KOLBE). The time is controlled by thegentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN).

Mr. LEVIN. It is untrue. The lockboxsaves what is already coming in. Itdoes nothing for the future.

What the Republican bill does is takemoney from the future to apply it now.Medicare is in jeopardy. It will run outof money in 2015.

The Republicans say give back someof the money. We Democrats are inlower interest rates. The Democraticprogram is also trying to save somemoney to assure Social Security andMedicare.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. AR-CHER) said his bill is a breath of relief.What it is in the future is a hurricaneof red ink. The Republicans were wrongin 1981, they were wrong in 1993, andthey are wrong today. Reject this reck-less bill.

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman fromMichigan (Mr. CAMP), another re-spected member of the Committee onWays and Means.

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

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank thegentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I think the challengehere today is to listen and not tomischaracterize. We are talking abouttax relief after we have set aside $2trillion of our budget surplus for SocialSecurity and Medicare. Locked itaway. And by doing so, we begin to paydown our national debt.

Today, the question is should we re-turn what is left to the taxpayer orshould it stay here and be spent on biggovernment? This bill is tax relief forthe American family. Close to 90 per-cent of the tax relief in this bill goes tofamilies. The average American familypays double in taxes today what theypaid in 1985, and that is just too much.

Let me give my colleagues a few ex-amples of how this bill helps families.This bill cuts taxes for every taxpayer.It provides tax relief from the marriagepenalty, so couples do not have to payhigher taxes just because they are mar-ried. And we kill the death tax. We alsoincrease the adoption credit for parents

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7264 August 5, 1999with special needs children. We give anextra personal exemption to familiescaring for an elderly relative in theirhome. And people can provide more fortheir retirements in this legislation bysaving more in their IRAs and payingless in investment taxes.

This legislation will help Americanfamilies. Vote for the Tax Refund andRelief Act.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Ten-nessee (Mr. TANNER), a member of thecommittee.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I want tothank the gentleman for yielding methis time and simply say this. I thinkthe American people are ahead of theCongress on this. I think they know in-stinctively that we cannot have debtreduction, save Social Security, saveMedicare, take 80 percent of a projec-tion over the next 10 years and cuttaxes today. It is called a free lunch, abridge in Brooklyn, or any way wewant to paint it. The American peopleknow we cannot do all that and theyare ahead of us on that.

The comment was made earlier in thedebate about this, that if we keep themoney, any of it, the bureaucrats willspend it. The last time I looked, a bu-reaucrat cannot spend any money un-less we have 218 votes on that board.All my colleagues can well rememberthe government shutdown. Nobodyhere can spend money or authorizemoney but us. So what do my col-leagues mean when they say if we keepthe money the bureaucrats will spendit? That is patently untrue.

The other thing I would like to do isquote one of the leaders of this tax billtoday regarding a comment made in1996. ‘‘It is about our Nation’s debt. Ourdebt stands at over $4.9 trillion then,now it is $5.6 and growing. For a familyof four, their share is $72,000, increas-ing each week by $89, each month by$383, and each year by $4,594. Some-time, some day, someone has to paythat debt, and that someone is today’syounger workers, their children andtheir children’s children.’’

Now, I asked in a motion to recom-mit last week just to take half of thisprojected $1 trillion on-budget surplusand give it to the children. That wasrejected. So when we say give it to thepeople, are kids, nonadults, are theynot people too? They are the ones thathave to pay this, not us.

Everybody within the sound of myvoice under 35 years old ought to insistthat we take at least half of it andsplit it with them. It is the honorablething to do.

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman fromIowa (Mr. NUSSLE), another respectedmember of the Committee on Ways andMeans. We have tremendous talent onour committee.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I appre-ciate the gentleman yielding me thistime.

It is interesting that today we hearlots of slogans on the other side but

not one debate point on any provisionof this bill. Think about it. They arenot against any of the provisions. Infact, they cosponsored half the provi-sions in this bill.

b 1230

But not one debate on any provision.Let us just bring up one, the farm ac-

counts, that came back in the con-ference report that has not gottenmuch attention just yet.

What that does, and I appreciate theassistance of the chairman in gettingthis into the conference report, whatthat says to farmers who are strugglingright now is we want to be able tocarry forward some income so thatthey can spread out the peaks and thevalleys of what is happening in farmcountry right now.

That combined with the death tax re-lief, the capital gains relief gives a realshot in the arm to American agri-culture, who needs it right now.

Now, I understand there are somequotes on the other side about whatthe leadership said. Let me remind mycolleagues of a quote from the Demo-cratic leadership: ‘‘I think we willwrite off rural America.’’

Well, with their vote today they arewriting off rural America. If they sayno to death tax relief, if they say no tocapital gains relief, if they say no tothe farm accounts, they are saying tothose farmers that are struggling rightnow that we can spend their moneymore wisely than they can.

Well, go right ahead. Because, mycolleagues, it is not our money. Wehave not even gotten the check yetfrom the American people, and theyare already claiming it, saying whatthey do with it. Well, for the last 30years they spent the Social Securitysurplus. We do not want them to spendthis surplus.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlemanhas said it all, we have not gotten thecheck yet and he is putting out the taxcut.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to thegentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT).

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I wouldsay to the gentleman that we say ‘‘No’’to their chicken manure subsidy, andwe say ‘‘No’’ to a bill that jeopardizesSocial Security and Medicare in orderto provide tax breaks to chicken ma-nure producers and many other specialinterests in this country.

This so-called $3 trillion surplus isnothing but a figment of a Republicanpolitical imagination. $2 trillion of thisamount simply represents the moneythat hard-working Americans will bepaying into Social Security, and that$2 trillion, as large as it sounds, is notenough to ensure Social Security willbe there for future generations ofAmericans.

Republicans do not provide one newdollar to help Social Security or tohelp Medicare in this bill. The othertrillion dollars is funny money.

The Republicans have already con-sumed all of this funny money, thisprojected surplus for next year withthe bills that they have under consider-ation in this Congress. That $1 trillionis as unreliable as a 10-year weatherforecast.

But what I really object to is pluck-ing Social Security and Medicare cleanin order to provide tax breaks for mostevery special interest with a PAC and alobbyist. This is wrong. Reject thisbill.

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield11⁄2 minutes to the gentlewoman fromWashington (Ms. DUNN), another re-spected member of the Committee onWays and Means.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank thechairman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, over the next 10 years,Americans on average, each American,will pay $5,300 to the Federal Govern-ment in income taxes, more than itcosts to run the government. This isabove and beyond the Social Securitysurplus which we save in a lockbox.

This is a fair tax bill. This bill re-verses the Clinton tax increase of 1993by reducing income tax rates for everysingle person who pays them and by re-ducing taxes for lower-income Ameri-cans by expanding the 15-percentbracket.

It also will save married couples anaverage of $1,400 a year by doubling thestandard deduction and keeping cou-ples whose combined earnings are up to$5,100 in the 15-percent tax bracket.

Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, iteliminates the death tax. This unfairtax has caused often tragic hardshipfor families who are trying to build alegacy to pass on to future generations.We should honor the values of the hardwork, not tax them.

I call upon the President to help usroll back the 1993 tax increase, whichhe himself admitted was too much.Join us, Mr. President. Let us do thisbill together. Give something back tothe American people. It is their money.Give it back.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentlewoman fromFlorida (Mrs. THURMAN), a respectedmember of the Committee on Ways andMeans.

Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the gentleman for yielding methe time.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, to answerthe questions, we have not written offrural America. For some reason wequit remembering that we gave $275billion in 1997. We gave capital gains.We gave death taxes. We did education.And we did the family tax relief. It isnow time to pay down the debt.

However, what I do not understandand what I am having a hard timetoday is we could have been having adebate where we would have been onthe verge of fixing Social Security. Wecould have been strengthening Medi-care. We could have possibly been pro-viding a drug benefit. But if we were topass this tax cut and if it was not ve-toed, we would be able to do either ofthese.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7265August 5, 1999While I may disagree with the dif-

ferent Republican Social Security pro-posals, I applaud them for having thecourage to suggest a politically dif-ficult proposal. But today I now knowmore than ever that they just are notserious about finding a solution.

The reality is that with this tax cutbill they have abandoned any hopes ofenacting even their own ideas of how tosolve Social Security.

Here is why: the risky tax cut beforeus today will cost nearly $1 trillion.The Republican Social Security planrequires roughly $1 trillion to fund newprivate accounts. They will say theyhave done that. However, this is moneyalready going into Social Security, notnew money.

Mr. Speaker, they can do both. Thetax cut would use up nearly all of the$1 trillion in projected non-Social Se-curity budget surpluses. Once thismoney flows out in tax cuts, once ithas gone and spent, the only, and I re-peat ‘‘only’’ surplus left are in the So-cial Security Trust Fund. The onlyway to fix Social Security, fix Medi-care is by using the non-Social Secu-rity surplus.

So today, my colleagues, the Repub-lican leadership has made a choice. Itis clear and simple. This is short-sight-ed and irresponsible.

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman fromGeorgia (Mr. COLLINS), another re-spected member of the Committee onWays and Means.

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thetime.

Mr. Speaker, opportunity knocksonly once, while temptation will beatthe door down.

In 1995, the President and I were atWarm Springs, Georgia, the Georgiahome of F.D.R., friend of the littleman.

As the President and I were depart-ing company that day, I looked at himand I told him, ‘‘Mr. President, I wantto leave you with one particularthought. That is, we must look afterthe little man. Because the big mancan take care of himself. But everynow and then, you have to give the bigman just a little something so he willhelp the little man.’’

He was nodding his head in agree-ment. I said, ‘‘Mr. President, that isour tax bill.’’

That was the 1995 tax bill. He vetoedthat tax bill. He missed his oppor-tunity, because that veto ended thattax bill.

This tax bill today that we are deal-ing with targets American workers,American families, and American busi-ness, American business that providesthe jobs for American workers andAmerican families.

I ask my colleagues to resist thetemptation of a Clinton-Gore vetolooking for another day. Do not missthe opportunity to give tax relief tothe American worker and the Amer-ican family and the American business.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentlewoman from Con-necticut (Ms. DELAURO).

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thetime.

This is an irresponsible special-inter-est tax giveaway. It is a tax cut for thewealthiest corporations and Americansthat is paid for by the middle class. Itreflects the upside down values of thisRepublican-led Congress and does notreflect the values of American families.It is risky. It threatens our economicprogress. And it does not pay down thenational debt.

Tax cuts are a priority for those thatsupport middle-class families who needa tax break. If we take a look at thischart, the family that makes under$30,000 a year gets $278 in the tax breakand the family that makes $837,000 ayear gets a $46,000 tax break. Where isthe equity in that?

This plan jeopardizes Social Securityand Medicare to pay for special-inter-est tax breaks. Corporations can writeoff a three-martini lunch. And there iseven a tax credit for burning chickenmanure. A chicken manure tax break.

Where are our priorities, Mr. Speak-er? Hundreds of millions of dollars tochicken manure farmers but chickenfeed for the rest of us.

Vote ‘‘no’’ on this conference report.Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield

11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman fromPennsylvania (Mr. ENGLISH), anotherrespected member of the Committee onWays and Means.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe chairman for the opportunity torise in strong support of the taxpayerrefund and relief act.

Let me say, I have trouble believingsome of the arguments I am hearing onthe other side. Tax cuts for thewealthy, special-interest legislation.This is much-needed tax relief thatprovides tax relief for virtually everyAmerican household and in many waysand especially for the middle class.

For example, it makes the dream ofhigher education more accessible formillions of students in the strugglingmiddle class. This legislation makescollege more affordable by extendingtax breaks on student loans, by permit-ting private universities to offer tax-deferred, prepaid tuition plans, and byexempting the earnings of all tuitionplans from taxation.

It also eliminates the 60-month limi-tation on student loan interest deduc-tions. This is critical to college grad-uates struggling to pay off studentloans as they begin their careers, andit extends the tax exclusion for em-ployer-provided tuition assistance.

This is important legislation to makeeducation more affordable; yet we haveheard the demagoguery on the otherside.

I hope that my colleagues are per-suaded that this is legislation that pro-vides middle-class tax relief where andwhen it is needed at a time when weare clearly running a surplus, yet set-

ting aside the needed resources to putSocial Security on a sound footing andsave Medicare.

We have done it. It is time for a taxbreak for the middle class.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentlewoman from Mis-souri (Ms. MCCARTHY).

(Ms. MCCARTHY of Missouri askedand was given permission to revise andextend her remarks.)

Ms. MCCARTHY of Missouri. Mr.Speaker, I thank the gentleman foryielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote fora tax bill, but I cannot vote for thisone. It is too risky. It is fiscally irre-sponsible. It does not help the familieswho really need tax relief. They willend up with less money in their pock-ets and pay higher interest rates.

Our priority should be to retire thedebt so we do not put America’s econ-omy at risk. Who does it help? The spe-cial interests, like foreign oil. Foreignoil and gas interests get a tax credit inthis bill that will cost the Americantaxpayers more than $4 billion. That isright, $4 billion.

A family of four earning $50,000 getsa $265 tax cut. That is just about $20 amonth in their pockets.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a grab bagfor special interests. I am for tax relief,but we need to do it right. Vote againstthis report. Go back to the conferencetable and produce a prudent measurethat will put money in the pockets ofworking families, not foreign oil inter-ests.

Never mind we have spent two decades try-ing to reduce our dependency on foreign oil sowe will never again experience those highprices and long gas lines at the pump like wedid in the 1970s.

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from Ari-zona (Mr. HAYWORTH), another re-spected member of the Committee onWays and Means.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, Ithank my good friend from Texas foryielding me the time and for his lead-ership on the Committee on Ways andMeans.

Well, despite the pledge not to en-gage in name-calling, we have heard itagain from my dear colleague fromMissouri. We even heard claims aboutchicken manure from my friend fromConnecticut and my other friend fromTexas. It is interesting where thechicken manure really resides here onthe floor of the Congress.

I just think there is a simple fact weneed to point out. The $3.3 trillion inthe surplus, for every one of those dol-lars, this is what we are prepared to do:take 75 cents of that dollar and lock itaway to save and strengthen Social Se-curity and Medicare and pay down the$5-trillion debt hanging over the headsof our children. It leaves a quarter.Nothing risky, nothing irresponsibleabout giving the American people backtheir hard-earned money.

For my friends on the left who fancythemselves champions of the working

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7266 August 5, 1999people, here is the challenge: join uswith this bill. Because included in it ismuch needed tax relief for the innercities, for Indian reservations, to in-spire savings, to offer help for businessstart-ups, to help those families whofeel the brunt of economic pain.

I challenge my friends on the left tojoin with us, adopt the conference re-port, real tax relief.

b 1245Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from Wis-consin (Mr. KLECZKA) a respected mem-ber of the Committee on Ways andMeans who, too, was excluded from theconference. I might add that all re-spected Democrats were excluded.

(Pursuant to a subsequent order ofthe House by unanimous consent of Mr.KLECZKA, the remarks of Mr. KLECZKAhave been deleted.)

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from Illi-nois (Mr. WELLER) another respectedmember of the Committee on Ways andMeans.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today weare taking another step in our effort tobalance the budget for the third timein 3 years. We are taking the stepwhere, of course, earlier this year weset aside $2 trillion of the projectedsurplus for saving Social Security andMedicare. I would point out in our bal-anced budget that for every $6 in debtretirement over the next 5 years, weprovide $1 in tax relief and that overthe next 10 years that pays down $2.2trillion of the national debt, which is10 percent more than the Democratproposal to retire the debt.

I rise in support of this legislationfor a particular reason. I have oftenasked the question over the last sev-eral years and, that is, is it right, is itfair that under our tax code a marriedworking couple pays more in taxes justbecause they are married? Is it right, isit fair that 28 million married workingcouples pay more in taxes just becausethey are married than an identical cou-ple living together outside of mar-riage?

Let me introduce Shad and MichelleHallahan, two public school teachers inJoliet, Illinois. When they chose to getmarried in the last couple of years,they discovered something. They nowpay higher taxes just because they gotmarried, similar to 28 million marriedworking couples throughout America.Michelle, by the way, is due any day tohave a baby. She notes that their mar-riage tax penalty, which is just over$1,000, will provide 3,000 diapers for theHallahan family. Those who oppose ourefforts to eliminate the marriage taxpenalty would much rather spend thosedollars here in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, this deserves bipartisansupport. I ask for bipartisan support.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Texas (Mr. EDWARDS).

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on be-half of my children and all children inAmerica, I rise against the risky, budg-et-busting, trillion-dollar tax cut.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Tennessee (Mr. CLEM-ENT).

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

Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, let ussustain economic growth. Vote ‘‘no’’ onthe Republican tax package.

Mr. Speaker, this tax cut is simply too large.It spends almost all of the projected on-budgetsurplus for the next 10 years.

My colleagues on the other side of the aislehave locked on to the quote by Senator KERRYin which he said that in an era when we havea budget surplus of $3 trillion, it is not unrea-sonable to pass a tax cut of $1 trillion. Whatthey don’t tell you is that $2 trillion of that sup-posed surplus is Social Security money, whichboth sides have agreed should be set asidesolely for Social Security. That means thatmoney is off the table. So, if you set aside $2trillion for Social Security and pass a tax cutof $1 trillion, how much does that leave forMedicare, debt reduction, veterans healthcare, the National Institutes of Health, andother important domestic programs? It’s sim-ple math: 3–2–1=0.

The leadership in this body is in a big hurryto pass this conference report on a taxscheme they know has no chance of goinganywhere so they can go home for a monthand tell their constituents what they accom-plished for them. Of course, they’re not inquite as big a hurry to send it to the president.They don’t want the president to rain on theirparade by vetoing their wonderful bill beforethey have a chance to convince people howwonderful it is. What they don’t realize is thatthe American people already know that this ir-responsible tax cut is a bad deal. When askedwhat we in Congress should do with this sur-plus, the American people have consistentlysaid ‘‘save Social Security, save Medicare,and pay down the national debt.’’

Let’s defeat this ill-conceived, irresponsibletax scheme and get to work on a real tax reliefpackage that will provide relief to those whoneed it while still allowing us to fulfill our obli-gations to pay down the national debt, saveMedicare and Social Security, and adequatelyfund important domestic programs that millionsof Americans rely on.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Texas (Mr. GREEN).

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Irise in opposition to H.R. 2488, the so-called Financial Freedom bill. I onlywish it were so.

In reality, this bill should be called the Medi-care and Social Security elimination act—be-cause it irresponsibly spends the projectedbudget surplus without committing a singlepenny to the future of those programs.

The decisions the majority have made willultimately hurt the very people they say theywant to help—the American people—by forc-ing through a tax scheme that place our na-tions economy at risk in the future.

The fundamental problem with this bill isthat it bets the future of Medicare and SocialSecurity on economic projections ten yearsaway. If we spend the money today, almost80% of the projected surplus, on this risky taxscheme, what will happen if the projections fallshort?

Ten years ago, not a single economist couldhave predicted how strong our economy istoday and has been over the last five years.As best they try, it is a very inexact science.

In fact the Congressional Budget Office,whose numbers the majority is relying on, hasbeen off by billions of dollars on even oneyear projections. Now they want to bet thefarm on projections over ten years.

If this bill becomes law, there will be an in-sufficient amount of money left over to ensurethe long term stability of Social Security, Medi-care, other programs such as veteran’s health.

Now don’t get me wrong, there will beenough there to take care of today’s bene-ficiaries.

But without dedicating portions of the sur-plus to Medicare and Social Security today,we will force our children and grandchildren toeither pay higher taxes or receive significantlylower benefits tomorrow.

You just can’t have it both ways—as muchas everyone here would love to eliminatetaxes completely, and believe me I would, itjust isn’t the responsible thing to do.

Antoher major problem with the Republicanscheme is that it fails to provide any money topay down our national debt. If this bill be-comes law, interest rates on car loans, mort-gages, and credit cards could rise.

Our nation’s debt is finally going down—butif we follow the plan of the republicans, it willgo right back up and fall squarely on theshoulders of our children and grandchildren.

We need to reject the Republican’s riskyscheme, because it could balloon the debt,send us back to huge deficit spending.

We need to do the right thing and wait forthe money to become real, see how much isthere, and then decide where it needs to go—and at that time, tax cuts should and would beincluded in that formula.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. KIND).

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in op-position to this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to theconference report on H.R. 2488. This is a veryserious debate about a serious piece of legis-lation. If this tax cut were to pass and actuallybe signed into law, it would set the course offiscal policy for the next several decades inthis country.

And I don’t get it. When a family in westernWisconsin enjoys good times, they see it asan opportunity to take care of existing obliga-tions first. For the Federal Government, thisshould mean paying down the $5.7 trillion na-tional debt and shoring up Social Security andMedicare for future generations.

What this legislation proposes, however, isthe equivalent of my wife Tawni and I goinginto our local bank and telling our bank officer,‘‘Yes, we know we have a mortgage and a carloan and credit card payments. But we wouldlike to restructure those debts so we can enjoysome additional money now and shift these

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7267August 5, 1999debt obligations onto Johnny and Matthew,our 3-year and 1-year-old sons.’’ We wouldget laughed out of the bank if we said that. Ididn’t come to Congress to leave a legacy ofdebt to my children and mortgage their futurewith an act of such irresponsibility. That’s whyI oppose this riverboat gamble of a tax cut.

A short time ago, before former TreasurySecretary Robert Rubin retired, I had the op-portunity to ask him what he felt we, as policy-makers, should do to ensure the prosperity ofour nation in the next century. His responsewas two-fold—first, we should pay down the$5.7 trillion national debt, and second, weshould not shortchange our investments ineducation. This legislation fails both of thesegoals. This tax cut proposal also ignores thewords of Federal Reserve Chairman AlanGreenspan, who has repeatedly testified be-fore us in Congress that the first, best use ofany budget surplus is to reduce the debt.

An emphasis on debt reduction would pro-vide real tax relief to all American families, notjust the top 1 percent who receive the bulk ofthe benefits of this proposal. A lower nationaldebt would benefit everyone by lowering inter-est rates. Families who make mortgage, car,credit card, and other loan payments would re-alize tremendous cost savings, and busi-nesses would be able to invest at lower cost,create jobs and increase productivity. Finally,lowering our national debt would be fair to fu-ture generations who would otherwise have torepay an obligation they did not create.

A vote today against this legislation is avote for fiscal responsibility and fiscal sanity. Itis a vote for our children’s future, and for con-tinued economic growth and the promise ofprosperity for our kids. I urge my colleagues tovote against this bill.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Texas(Mr. FROST), chairman of the Demo-cratic Caucus.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, as we areall aware, the chief complaint of theright wing of the Republican Partyover the past few years has been thattheir leadership lacked real commit-ment to the core right-wing principlesof their conference.

Well, today, Mr. Speaker, the Repub-lican right wing should be pleased, be-cause the true believers have assertedtheir control over this Republican Con-gress. Today, the Republican Congressmakes its priorities crystal clear.Today, the Republican Party plainlystates its commitment to risking So-cial Security, Medicare and our econ-omy on fiscally irresponsible, budget-busting tax breaks for the wealthiestthat could cost us $1 trillion over thenext 10 years.

Why, Mr. Speaker, would Repub-licans risk exploding the deficit onceagain, driving up interest rates andhurting an economy that is the envy ofthe world? Do Republicans believe thatAmericans want their mortgage pay-ments to go up? Do Republicans believethat Americans want their credit cardbills to go up?

Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out be-fore that the record of the RepublicanCongress makes clear their belief thatCongress’ only job is providing redmeat for the right-wing extremists

controlling their party. Why else wouldthey insist on squandering the surpluson tax breaks for the wealthiest andrefuse to devote even a few dollars tosaving Medicare?

Nothing speaks more clearly to thepriorities of this Congress. Just 16years from now, Medicare faces a deathsentence, but Republicans refuse to usea dime of the surplus to delay that exe-cution by even a day.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats support fis-cally responsible tax cuts, targeted tothe middle class, but we cannot sup-port risking Social Security, Medicareand the economy. I urge defeat of thisbill.

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman fromOhio (Mr. PORTMAN), another respectedmember of the Committee on Ways andMeans.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thistime. I want to start by commendinghim for his determination and vision inmoving this tax relief proposal to thispoint.

There are a lot of great provisions inthe bill before us today. They havebeen focused on by others, eliminatingthe marriage penalty, expandingeverybody’s opportunities to achieve agood education for themselves andtheir children, helping Americans af-ford health care for themselves and fortheir elderly family members.

I want to focus for a moment on theretirement security provisions. The Fi-nancial Freedom Act before us todaycontains the most comprehensive re-forms of our pension laws since ERISAwas passed 25 years ago.

By strengthening 401(k)s for allAmericans, by strengthening definedbenefit plans, the traditional plans andother plans, by allowing workers tosave more in their pensions, save morein their IRAs, by making pensionsportable so workers can take themfrom job to job, by providing a catchupfor workers over 50 years old, by modi-fying section 415 to help union workersto be able to have a better multi-em-ployer plan, by doing all these things,we allow all Americans to save morefor their own retirement, to have morepeace of mind in their own retirement,and we are going to allow millions ofAmerican workers who do not cur-rently have any kind of a pension atall, that is half of our workforce, to beable to come into a system where theyhave a pension, to be able to provide intheir retirement years for their own re-tirement security.

This, Mr. Speaker, is why this billmakes sense for the American people,why this bill is going to be supportedtoday. I urge the President to sign it.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30seconds to the gentleman from Arkan-sas (Mr. BERRY).

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

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, we allwant tax cuts. Let us not spend money

that does not exist. When we havesome surplus, let us reduce the debt,save Social Security and Medicare, getour priorities straight. Let us not cre-ate another $5 trillion debt to burdenour children and grandchildren.

I urge my colleagues to vote againstthis conference report.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Mary-land (Mr. HOYER).

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlemanfor yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I was here in 1981 whenwe cut $749 billion in revenues. Thoseon this floor represented that thiswould be a great step forward. HowardBaker, the then majority leader of theUnited States Senate, said, no, that itwas a riverboat gamble. It was, Mr.Speaker, a riverboat gamble that welost. We quadrupled the national debt.Now, that is a nice phrase, but whatdoes it mean? It means we plunged thechildren of America deeply into debt,because we did not provide for thespending that our generation votes for.

Let us not take this risky step again.Let us not put at risk the solvency ofSocial Security. Let us not put at riskthe vitality of Medicare. Let us not putat risk the defense of this Nation. MyRepublican colleagues talk about justtaking $1 trillion of $3 trillion. $2 tril-lion is in a lockbox for Social Security,they say. But the appropriation billswe have been passing belie thatlockbox theory because we are about tospend that Social Security revenue.

My friends, reject this risky, river-boat gamble. Ensure that our chil-dren’s security is safe. Do not again goon the path of quadrupling the nationaldebt. Rather, let us be fiscally respon-sible, target tax cuts, give relief toAmericans who are most in need, work-ing Americans, Americans with chil-dren who need care, Americans who aresending children to school. Do not takethis risky road to further debt andunsureness.

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentlewoman from Texas(Ms. GRANGER).

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I risetoday in support of the Taxpayer Re-fund and Relief Act of 1999. I want tocommend the gentleman from Texasfor leading the way to the future bylowering the taxes on our people. Thegentleman from Texas will be dearlymissed if he leaves us after this Con-gress.

This bill represents tax relief of $792billion over the next 10 years, includingthe elimination of the marriage pen-alty, 100 percent deductibility for thehealth insurance of the self-employed,and lowering the capital gains tax.

But this bill is not really about num-bers and figures or phase-ins and cred-its. This bill is about the Americanpeople, their hopes for the future andtheir dreams for their children.

To that end, I want to thank the gen-tleman from Texas for including in thispackage my legislation to encourageboth public and private colleges to es-tablish prepaid college tuition plans.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7268 August 5, 1999These plans allow parents to begin pay-ing for tomorrow’s college education attoday’s tuition prices.

This legislation will allow middle-class families to pay for college out ofsavings instead of paying for it out ofdebt. This will make a college edu-cation more affordable for more people.I thank the gentleman from Texas forincluding this in his legislation.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Michi-gan (Mr. BONIOR), our distinguishedDemocratic whip.

b 1300

Mr. BONIOR. Risky. Dangerous. De-ceptive. That is what this Republicanbill is. Instead of building on thestrongest economy in a generation,they would roll the dice. They wouldtake $1 trillion. They would slap itdown on the table, they would spin thewheel, and hope for the best.

What they are doing is playing Rus-sian roulette with the whole U.S. econ-omy. And it is our money they aregambling, our Social Security, ourMedicare, our education, our future.

The Republicans say their tax planwill benefit the average American, thatit will put money back into their pock-ets. But if you look at the numbers,the truth comes out.

Under their plan, a family thatmakes $52,000 a year gets a tax cut ofabout $11 a week. The super-rich, thepeople who pull in more than $300,000 ayear or more, the Republican plangives them $127 a day, $900 a week, $46thousand a year. So when you comparethe numbers, those who really need taxrelief, they get chump-change, andthose, of course, who do not, get abrand new Cadillac.

After the party is over, what then?What is the long-term cost to theAmerican family? Higher interest rateson our credit cards, on our mortgagepayments, on our car loans; higher in-terest rates and payments on the na-tional debt, which already cost the av-erage American family $2,000 a year;and a higher probability that SocialSecurity and Medicare will not bethere when Americans need them.

This Republican plan is risky, it isdangerous, and it is deceptive. We needto pay down the national debt, not todrive it up. We need to take care offirst things first, Social Security,Medicare, education. Let us addressthese national priorities first, and thencut taxes; and, when we do, let us getit to the middle-income people in thiscountry, and not the super-rich.

We need to invest in the future, notgamble it away. This Republican planis risky, it is wrong, and it will wreckthe economy.

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30seconds to the gentleman from Lou-isiana (Mr. MCCRERY), a respectedmember of the Committee on Ways andMeans.

Mr. MCCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I wasnot going to talk on the conference re-port today, I spoke on the bill when it

was on the floor earlier, but I got tiredof hearing some Democrats say that wewere jeopardizing Social Security andMedicare by giving a tax cut to theAmerican people. That is just not true.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. AR-CHER) and the gentleman from Florida(Mr. SHAW) had a Social Security planthat is fleshed out and demonstratesclearly that we only need $1.2 trillionof the almost $2 trillion Social Secu-rity surplus to solve the Social Secu-rity problem. That leaves $700 billionwith which to pay down the debt, tohelp fix Medicare. Speaking of Medi-care, what we do not need is to throwmore money at it. We need funda-mental reform. We also have a plan forthat.

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Minnesota (Mr.RAMSTAD).

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

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise instrong support of this important taxrelief bill for America’s families.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Ways andMeans Committee, I have seen firsthand theexcellent leadership of Chairman ARCHER inputting together this package that will bringmeaningful relief to millions of over-burdenedtaxpayers who deserve to keep more of whatthey earn.

This is broad-based tax relief that makessense. This conference agreement promotesissues that people care about most—fairnessfor families, education, health care, retirementsavings, growing jobs and being able to passfarms and businesses on to the next genera-tion.

I want to highlight two provisions of this leg-islation I authored. Although these items willcost very little in terms of federal revenue,they send a powerful statement about thelevel of fairness in this bill.

The first provision is based on legislation Iintroduced to provide relief to volunteer driversfor charities. This common sense change willdramatically improve the ability of charities toattract volunteer drivers to serve vulnerablepeople.

As many charities in my home state havetold me, a volunteer reimbursed for mileageexpenses has taxable income if the reimburse-ment exceeds 14 cents per mile, even thoughan employee performing the same functioncould be reimbursed at 31 cents per mile.

This creates a significant disincentive forpeople considering volunteering for food deliv-ery programs, patient transportation, and otherservices which rely on volunteer drivers. Therehave been examples of volunteer driversbeing audited and subjected to back taxes,penalties and interest because of unreportedvolunteer mileage reimbursement, eventhough the reimbursement did not exceed theallowable business rate and the dollaramounts are quite small.

This bill will codify relief to reimbursed vol-unteer drivers if the amount of their reimburse-ment is less than the business mileage rate.This solution will allow America’s charities toattract the volunteers they need to for criticalservices like transporting elderly patients tothe doctor and food to the hungry.

The second provision I offered as anamendment in committee. It ensures con-sistent tax treatment of survivor benefits re-ceived by families of public safety officerskilled in the line of duty.

Survivor benefits of public safety officersslain in the line of duty are currently tax-freefor the wives, husbands and children who areleft behind, but only if the officer died after De-cember 31, 1996. This means that the survivorbenefits of families who lost a loved one be-fore January 1, 1997, are still subject to tax.I see no sound tax policy reason for this dis-crimination. This bill corrects this inequity andwill allow all families of slain public safety offi-cers to enjoy the same tax relief.

Nothing can compensate for the loss ofthose who pay the ultimate price by givingtheir lives for their communities. However, thisbill will provide tangible help to the families ofour slain heroes.

These are only two examples of the manyprovisions in this package that will improve thelives of Americans in very real ways.

I urge my colleagues to support this tax re-lief package for American families. We havealready set aside the portion of the surplusneeded to save Social Security and Medicare.Now, we need to return a portion of the taxoverpayment to the families who earned it. Ifwe don’t, Washington will surely find a way tospend it.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is mydistinct honor to yield the balance ofmy time to the gentleman from Mis-souri (Mr. GEPHARDT), the minorityleader.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.KOLBE). The gentleman from Missouriis recognized for 5 minutes.

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I wantto address my comments to Americancitizens all over the country and to askthem a simple question, and that is, dothey do better with the Republicanplan that is on the floor today, orwould they do better our Democraticplan, which is much less revenue cost,but a tax cut that is more targeted tomiddle-income families?

If one looks at the Republican plan,it offers a family of four earning $50,000a year about a $278 a year tax cut. Inother words, their taxes would be re-duced by about, to make it rough, $280a year. That comes out to about 76cents a day. That would not even buy acup of coffee in most of our moderncoffee houses.

On the other hand, the Democratictax cut would have had an impact onthe real budgets of middle-income fam-ilies. We wanted to provide a $1,000credit for a family trying to take careof a disabled parent who they were try-ing to keep at home or a $500 credit forparents who care for an infant at home.In other words, for ordinary families,we could have done a tax cut todaythat would really have an impact ontheir lives, not just 76 cents a day.

But it is also worth noting that thereal expense cut that we ought to betalking about today is what getting ridof the deficit would do for ordinary

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7269August 5, 1999American families. The Research Di-rector for the Concord Coalition put itwell. He said debt reduction is a taxcut for future generations.

We now pay $218 billion a year at theFederal level on interest on the na-tional debt every year. That is $900 forevery man, woman, and child who livesin the United States. Eliminating thatdebt could put that money back intheir pockets or certainly allow us todo some things with Medicare and So-cial Security that would put moneyinto their pockets in the future. This isa fundamental decision we are havingto make. If we could get that debtdown, it would hold interest ratesdown.

Let us talk about the family outthere that has maybe a $100,000 mort-gage on their house right now. If wecould lower interest rates by 1 percentor, maybe to put it another way, holdthem where they are and not let themgo up from where they are now, thatcould be $1,200 a year that goes rightinto that family’s pocket because wehave not gone with this risky tax cutthat puts in jeopardy the financialwherewithal of that family of four thatis trying to pay off that mortgage. Thisis not even talking about credit carddebt and auto loan debt that they haveto pay.

The big tax cut that we ought to betalking about is holding interest ratesdown so that family out there does notface higher interest rates.

Let me end with a story. When I wasa young kid, my mom and dad told methat if I do chores around the house,they would give me an allowance. Usu-ally a quarter or two is what I wouldearn, carrying out the trash, doing thedishes, cooking dinner, sometimes evencleaning up the basement.

My mother used to always say to me,because she would give me the quar-ters, usually two quarters, 50 cents, shewould always say, ‘‘Dick, those quar-ters are burning a hole in your pock-et.’’ Because what I loved to do withthose quarters was go up to the cornerconfectionery and buy a Mars Bar. Iloved Mars Bars, it had that softmarshmallow center, chocolate; and Iloved to buy baseball flip cards. That iswhat I really wanted to do. Sureenough, whenever I would get thosequarters, I would run up to the cornerconfectionery and blow all my moneyand get that Mars Bar that had thatsoft marshmallow center and buy thoseflip cards. Instant gratification is whatI was looking for.

She used to always say to me, ‘‘If youwould save those quarters, maybe youcould buy that ball glove you havebeen talking about or that bicycle youwanted to buy, and that would even bebetter, if you would save for the futureso you could really do something im-portant.’’

This is the very same decision weface today as a country. Do we want in-stant gratification, do we want to handout candy bars, make people feel goodright now with, again, 76 cents a day

for that average family, or do we wantto save money, pay down the debt,keep interest rates down, give a tar-geted tax cut that would really meansomething to hard-pressed middle-in-come families? That is the choice wehave today.

I urge Members to reject instantgratification and to save this moneyfor the future, pay down the back debtof this country, save Social Securityand Medicare, give a targeted tax cutthat will really help middle-incomefamilies, and do the right thing for thefuture and future generations of thiscountry.

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yieldthe balance of my time to the very re-spected and distinguished gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. SHAW), the chairmanof the Subcommittee on Social Secu-rity of the Committee on Ways andMeans.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-tleman from Florida is recognized for41⁄2 minutes.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank thegentleman for yielding me this time,and I want to compliment him andthose on the staff and members of theCommittee on Ways and Means and theother committees for crafting as near aperfect tax bill as I have seen in theyears I have been in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the minority leader justspoke of targeted tax cuts for peoplewho really need it. Let us talk for justa moment about who really needs thetax cuts in this country. Let us see whowe should exclude from that category.

Americans who care for their elderlyfamily members at home, with an addi-tional exemption in this bill of $2,750.What is wrong with that?

We allow parents to save up to $2,000,rather than only $500, in EducationSavings Accounts. What is wrong withthat?

We eliminate the 25 percent contribu-tion limit on pre-tax salary to 401(k)s.Saving for one’s retirement, what doyou have against that?

Reducing the capital gains rate by asmall percentage, but saving it so thatAmericans can invest for their future,why are you against that?

Allowing Americans who purchasetheir own health insurance to deduct100 percent of the premium, who can beagainst that?

Cutting the marriage penalty. Wenow penalize people when they getmarried where you have got two earn-ers in the family. What in the worldcan somebody be against in cuttingthat back, cutting that penalty back?

Permitting private colleges and uni-versities to establish prepaid tuitionprograms for parents of prospectivestudents. Currently only public univer-sities are allowed to do this. We extendthat to private universities. Who couldbe against that?

Reducing the individual income taxrates for all American taxpayers. Thatis something we should all be for.

Allowing Americans who purchaselong-term care insurance, we allow

them to deduct the full amount of theirpremiums from their taxes. That issomething we should encourage, andwe encourage it by allowing the deduc-tion.

Phasing out the death tax. The deathtax is the biggest destroyer of Amer-ican farms and American businesses inthis country today. It is an evil taxthat should be eliminated, and this billwould phase it out over a period oftime.

Student loans. Right now when youget a student loan, you can only deductthe interest that you pay for 5 years.After that it is not deductible. I cantell you from the young people whowork in my office that I have talkedto, this is a very important part oftheir income, and they should be ableto at least deduct it. This is important.

Mr. Speaker, during this debate wehave heard a lot about Social Security.Interestingly enough, and I have keptscore, I do not believe that one personwho stood up here and said that we aregoing to do nothing about Social Secu-rity has any inkling how to solve theproblem, and, if they do, they have notcome out and put that down.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. AR-CHER) and I and the Committee onWays and Means and many of us areworking together and reaching out toDemocrats in order to be able to doprecisely that. We have come up with aplan that does precisely that, and itsaves Social Security for all time. Veryshortly, that plan will be going to sometype of a markup, and I look forward tothat. We will continue to reach outacross the aisle to the Democrats.

But I can tell you right now, and Ithink the American people should holdall of us to this standard: Do not talkabout saving Social Security on thefloor of this House unless you are readyto step forward to do it.

b 1315

Sitting back and doing nothing willdo nothing to save social security forour seniors and for our kids and for ourgrandkids. It is time that we stop thisrhetoric, and we go forward and worktogether in a powerful way to save so-cial security.

The Republicans now are reachingout to the Democrats. Join with us.Let us do this before the end of theyear, and before this Congress goes outfor our November-December break. Letus come back and work together andsave social security.

Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposi-tion to this misguided legislation. This legisla-tion has many serious shortcomings, but givenmy limited time, I will mention just three.

This bill is paid for with a surplus thatdoesn’t yet exist and which is based uponeconomic projections that have proven wrongin the past.

This bill would disproportionately benefit therichest people in this country—instead of theworking- and middle-class families who de-serve relief the most.

And this bill would cut taxes before we’vereduced our massive national debt or ensured

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7270 August 5, 1999the future stability of Social Security and Medi-care.

Enactment of this tax bill would put us rightback where we were six years ago, with pro-jected deficits as far as the eye can see—andwith a national debt that is growing rather thanshrinking.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposingthis unwise legislation.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I have heardmy friends on the Republican side talk abouthow their budget sets aside $2 trillion of the$3 trillion projected surplus for debt reduction.While this certainly sounds appealing to thoseof us who have been talking about the impor-tance of paying off the national debt, the factsjust don’t match the rhetoric.

My Republican friends neglect to point outthat they are double-counting the Social Secu-rity surplus in order to claim that they are re-ducing the debt. This body has overwhelm-ingly voted to exclude Social Security sur-pluses from budget calculations. These sur-pluses are essential to meet future obligationsto Social Security. Evey Member of this body,Republican and Democrat alike, have said thatSocial Security surpluses should only be usedfor Social Security, and should not be countedfor any other purposes. But despite all of therhetoric about Social Security lockboxes andtaking Social Security off-budget, some folkson the other side of the aisle keep countingthe Social Security surpluses when it suitstheir purposes.

Using the Social Security surplus to reducedebt held by the public simply offsets the in-creased debt held by the Social Security trustfund. If all we do is save the Social Securitysurplus, we won’t reduce the total nationaldebt by one dime, and we will have donenothing to reduce the burden we leave to ourchildren and grandchildren. In fact, despite allof the rhetoric from the other side of the aisleabout saving money for debt reduction, thetotal national debt will increase by $200 billionover the next five years under the Republicanbudget.

The truth is, they don’t want the Americanpeople to know the consequences of theirmassive tax cuts. They don’t want them to findout that, if we want to be fiscally responsibleand stay within the spending caps we agreedto in the 1997 budget, passing their tax cut willrequire a 38% reduction in spending on impor-tant programs—programs like FEMA, classsize reduction, and law enforcement. Both par-ties agree that defense spending needs to in-crease if we want to preserve military readi-ness, but if the Republicans pass their taxcuts, our military will suffer as well. Whilethese important programs that benefit ALLAmericans will have to be cut, TWO-THIRDSof the tax cut will benefit only those peoplewho fall in the top income tax bracket.

The fiscal irresponsibility does not stopthere. The new trick in Republican accountingbooks is the ‘‘emergency’’ spending designa-tion being used to bypass the spending caps.They have even resorted to calling the 2000census an ‘‘emergency’’—an outrageous claimconsidering that the Constitution requires acensus every ten years! This ‘‘emergency’’spending comes straight out of the ‘‘projected’’surplus Republicans want to use to financetheir tax cut.

This creative accounting is unacceptable. Iam a strong advocate of a sound budget andfiscally responsible tax cuts, but the best tax

cut we can give the American people is apromise we will first pay down the nationaldebt by setting aside some of the true sur-plus—the non-Social Security surplus. TheBlue Dogs have put forward a proposal thatwould lock up half of the true budget surplusto pay down the national debt. This approachwill truly reduce the burden on future genera-tions.

I am proud to be an original co-sponsor ofthis legislation. The Blue Dog’s Debt Reduc-tion Lockbox bill would save 100% of the So-cial Security surplus by requiring that thebudget be balanced EXCLUDING the SocialSecurity surplus. It also helps ensure a fiscallyresponsible budget by establishing a point oforder against any budget resolution that con-tains a on-budget deficit or any legislation thatwould result in an on-budget deficit and wouldprohibit OMB, CBO and other federal govern-ment entities from including the Social Secu-rity trust fund as part of budget surplus or def-icit calculations.

While the Republican tax cut bill’s debt re-duction provisions are merely a rhetorical ges-ture at best, the Blue Dog bill delivers on debtreduction. It places 50% of the projected on-budget surplus over the next five years in aDebt Reduction Lockbox, away from thosewho would squander it on irresponsible taxcuts.

The Blue Dog bill also delivers on our prom-ise to save Social Security and Medicare byreserving the Debt Reduction Dividend—thesavings from lower interest payments on thedebt resulting from its reduction—for these twoprograms. Seventy-five percent of these sav-ings would be reserved for Social Security re-form and 25% for Medicare reform.

Mr. Speaker, the fundamental tenet of theBlue Dog proposal—debt reduction—has beenrecklessly omitted from the Republican bill.Our primary goal as we debate how to dividethe projected budget surplus should be tomaintain the strong and growing economy thathas benefited millions of Americans. Irrespon-sible tax cuts, however, are not the means toachieving this end. Using that simple objectiveas our guide, it is clear that the best courseof action this body could take is to use thebudget surpluses to start paying off the $5.6trillion national debt. Reducing the nationaldebt is clearly the best long-term strategy forthe U.S. economy.

Economists from across the political spec-trum agree that using the surplus to reducethe debt will stimulate economic growth by in-creasing national savings and boosting do-mestic investment. Paying down our debt willreduce the tremendous drain that the federalgovernment has placed on the economy byrunning up a huge national debt. Quite simply,reducing the federal government’s $5.6 trillionnational debt takes money that is currently tiedup in debt and puts it back into the privatesector where it can be invested in plants,equipment and other investments that createjobs and economic output.

Federal Reserve Board Chairman AlanGreenspan has repeatedly advised Congressthat the most important action we could taketo maintain a strong and growing economy isto pay down the national debt. Earlier thisyear, Chairman Greenspan testified before theWays and Means Committee that debt reduc-tion is a much better use of surpluses than aretax cuts, stating:

The advantages that I perceive that wouldaccrue to this economy from a significant

decline in the outstanding debt to the publicand its virtuous cycle on the total budgetprocess is a value which I think far exceedsanything else we could do with the money.

We should follow Chairman Greenspan’sadvice by making debt reduction the highestpriority for any budget surplus.

There has been a lot of discussion here inWashington about a ‘‘grand bargain’’ on thebudget that would divide the surplus betweentax cuts and higher spending. Our constituentsare giving a very different message. I wouldencourage my colleagues to ignore this insidethe beltway speculation, and listen to theAmerican public. Our constituents are tellingus to meet our obligations by paying down thenational debt.

The folks I represent understand that theconservative thing to do when you have someextra resources is to pay your debts first. Theydon’t understand how we can be talking aboutgrand plans to divide up the budget surpluswhen we have a $5.6 trillion national debt.They want us to use this opportunity to paydown our debt.

We hear a lot of talk about ‘‘giving theAmerican people their money back.’’ I wouldremind my colleagues that it is the Americanpeople who owe the $5.6 trillion national debtwe have run up. If we are truly interested ingiving the surpluses back to the Americanpeople, we should start by paying off the debtwe have run up on their credit card.

I would suggest that the best tax cut wecould provide for all Americans, and the bestthing that we can do to ensure that taxes re-main low for our children and grandchildren, isto start paying down our $5.6 trillion nationaldebt. Reducing our national debt will provide atax cut for millions of Americans by restraininginterest rates. Lower interest rates will putmoney in the pockets of working men andwomen by saving them money on variablemortgages, new mortgages, auto loans, creditcard payments, and other debts. The reduc-tion in interest rates we have had as a resultof the fiscal discipline over the last few yearshas put at least $35 billion into the hands ofhomeowners through lower mortgage pay-ments. Continuing this fiscal discipline andpaying down the debt is the best way to keepputting money into the hands of middle classAmericans.

Just as importantly, reducing the nationaldebt will protect future generations from in-creasing tax burdens to pay for the debts thatwe have incurred. Today, more than twenty-five percent of all individual income taxes goto paying interest on our national debt. Theamount of income taxes the government willhave to collect just to pay the interest on thedebt will continue to increase unless we takeaction now to pay down the national debt.

Every dollar of lower debt saves MOREthan one dollar for future generations. Thesesavings that can be used for tax cuts, coveringthe costs of the baby boomers retirement with-out tax increases or meeting other needs. Weshould give future generations the flexibility todeal with the challenges they will face, insteadof forcing them to pay higher taxes just to payfor the debt we incurred with our consumptiontoday.

I urge my colleagues to vote AGAINSTreckless spending by voting AGAINST the Re-publican tax cuts—but let’s not stop there.Join me in supporting the Blue Dog Debt Re-duction Lockbox bill and let’s eliminate ourdebt.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7271August 5, 1999Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, let me say,

first off, that a tax cut would be appropriate ifwe could afford it, if it would stimulate furthereconomic growth, and if it were fair. Our firstpriority should be to use most, if not all, of theprojected on-budget surpluses to pay downthe $3.6 trillion debt held by the public.

The tax cut considered this morning is con-tingent upon maintaining the spending caps,which we have broken, although nobody iswilling to admit this fact. It is contingent onmaintaining a reasonable level of emergencyspending, although emergency spending isnow an escape hatch to avoiding the caps.Above all, it is contingent upon projected on-budget surpluses. But, there is not on-budgetsurplus and if there ever was, it disappearedthis week. In fiscal year 2000, the Congres-sional Budget Office projects a $14 billion on-budget surplus. But, Farm relief and the $4.5billion price tag for the Census have been cat-egorized as emergency spending. Yesterday’svotes in the House and Senate ate up $12 bil-lion.

Here is a more realistic scenario. If the capsare lifted so that overall discretionary spendingremains at FY 1999 levels, adjusted only forinflation and emergency spending stays at thehistorical average of fiscal years 1991 though1998, on-budget surpluses would equal $112billion over the next 10 years. Some 89 per-cent of the projected on-budget surplus woulddisappear.

If these surpluses do not materialize, theconsequences could be severe. It took us 15years to climb out of the deficits created bythe 1980’s tax cuts and spending increases. In1981 we passed broad based tax relief. Theconsequences were catastrophic. Publicly helddebt quadrupled between 1981 and 1993. In-terest payments on the debt doubled as ashare of the federal budget form seven to 15percent. Interest on the debt is now the thirdmost expensive government program behindSocial Security and defense spending. Addingto that debt is the height of fiscal irrespon-sibility. Why would we want to repeat that sce-nario?

I know that it is unpopular for Democrats totalk about the distributional consequences oftax relief. But fairness and progressivity arecritical elements of our tax code. I believe wehave an obligation to fight for those principles.Tax relief, as the definition of relief would indi-cate, is for those who need relief. There hasbeen such little discussion in this body and inthe press on the distributional effects of thiscut. Just because we talk about the distribu-tional benefits of a tax cut does not mean thatwe are promoting class warfare. But, we oughtto tell it like it is. I understand that the wealthi-est in this country pay a large share of taxescollected. They also earn the greatest benefitsfrom the policies in place that helped createthis unparalleled prosperity. But, the middleclass does not fair as well as the upper endin the bill before Congress today. The Treas-ury Department estimates that the average taxcut for the richest one percent of Americanswould be $37,000 a year when the tax cutsare fully in effect. The average tax cut for thebottom 60 percent of the population would be$134.

What about intergenerational fairness? Letme quote Herbert Stein, a conservative econo-mist, writing on the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page yesterday.

‘‘The argument about fairness is com-plicated . . . The government’s revenue is

really the taxpayer’s money, but the govern-ment’s debt is the taxpayer’s debt too—andone can say in fairness that they should repayit. Is it fair for today’s generation to leave thedebt burden to its children?’’

No, of course it isn’t.This tax cut is another river boat gamble.

Again, our first priority should be to pay downthe $3.6 trillion debt held by the public.

Tax cuts are difficult undo. In the 1980s, thenation spent a decade undoing the across theboard tax cuts by raising taxes on everythingelse, such as airline tickets, luxury boats, andforeign cars. Deficit reduction is painful. Debtreduction is easy. If we need to stop becauseof a recession or a war to raise capital, noproblem. We can always go back to it.

As Alan Greenspan has repeatedly said,paying down the debt would create morewealth for all Americans. He favors reducingthe debt because with less debt, interest ratesdecline. That makes ti easier for Americanfamilies to buy a house . . . to buy a car . . .to start a business. Now, what Mr. Greenspandid say after that is he would prefer a tax cutto spending. But, that’s because he is aneconomist and a conservative who believes ina less activist government.

He also pointed that there is a ‘‘shadowcost’’ to not paying down the debt. A tax cutwithout offsets will add more debt, raise inter-est costs and interest rates. Our new TreasurySecretary, Larry Summers said today that forevery three one-hundredths of a percentagepoint in reduced interest rates on the totaldebt, the Government ultimately saves $1 bil-lion a year in interest costs.

Less debt means that there is less competi-tion between the private sector and the gov-ernment in the bond market. As governmentgobbles up less capital, interest rates shoulddecline. A two percent dip in interest rates,from eight to six percent, would decreasemortgage payments on a $115,000 home by$155 a month. That is a better tax break thananything Congress could put together.

With lower interest payments, governmentcan make crucial investments to improve pro-ductivity. If productivity is one percent a year,it take 70 years to double our standard of liv-ing. At two percent a year, it takes only 35years.

As any student in an introductory macro-economics course can tell you, a tax cut stim-ulates consumption. Americans are consumingat such a fast rate, there is no personal sav-ings. Why would we encourage more con-sumption, when it crowds out savings anddrives up interest rates? It is just bad fiscalpolicy!

Finally, we have a chance to shore up So-cial Security and Medicare. We finally have achance to prepare for the future and we aregoing to squander newfound resources on arisky RIVER BOAT gamble of a tax cut, thatis unnecessary, unaffordable, and unfair.Thank you.

Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, as we look atsurpluses as far as the eye can see, there isonly one thing Republicans want to say to theAmerican people today: We believe thismoney is your money. You are the ones whohave worked hard. You are the ones whohave struggled to make ends meet. You arethe ones who have sacrificed time with yourloved ones because there just isn’t enoughmoney in your wallet.

Republicans think it is shameful that thegovernment takes more money from you, than

you spend on food, clothing, shelter andhealth care combined. That’s why we offeredthis excellent tax relief package. It’s yourmoney, and you should be able to make thedecisions over how to spend it.

When Republicans took the reins of Con-gress in 1995, we made a solemn promise tothe American people to return our governmentto a government of the people, by the peopleand for the people. To me, the only way to ac-complish this is to return to the American peo-ple control over their lives and over theirmoney.

That’s why we committed to locking away100% of what Americans pay in to Social Se-curity and Medicare for only Social Securityand Medicare, to paying down $2 trillion inpublic debt, and to returning money to hard-working Americans. When you have a $3 tril-lion dollar surplus, the people have paid toomuch. Responsibly, 75 cents of each dollar ofthe surplus will go toward strengthening SocialSecurity, reforming Medicare, paying down thepublic debt, rebuilding our military, improvingpublic education and other vital programs.Fairly, the remaining 25 cents will be returnedto the people who earned it: the hard-workingAmerican taxpayer.

Instead, the Democrats and the Presidentpropose a risky scheme of $937 billion in newspending. I guess the President really didmean it when he said back in January that hedidn’t trust the American people to spend theirmoney correctly that ‘‘we could give it back toyou and hope you spend it right.’’

The Republican tax relief plan follows a fair,responsible commonsense principle: it returnsdollars and decisions home. Rather than view-ing the wallets of the American People asATM machines, the Republican tax relief planremembers whose money this really is andwho, in the end, is in charge: the hard-workingAmerican people.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I strongly sup-port tax relief for all Americans. As Governorof Delaware, I reduced income taxes threetimes. As Delaware’s representative in Con-gress, I supported the significant tax relief forfamilies and businesses in the BalancedBudget Act of 1997. I hope to have the oppor-tunity to vote for significant, broad-based taxrelief in 1999. However, in the past each timeI signed or voted for legislation to reducetaxes I worked to ensure it was as part of acomprehensive balanced budget plan. Unfortu-nately, this legislation, at a cost of $792 billionover ten years—80% of the projected budgetsurplus—does not allow for a complete plan topreserve the surplus and a balanced budget.

When this legislation was considered by theHouse, I proposed an alternative tax reliefplan that would have provided $514 billion intax relief. My proposal would preserve $482billion of the projected surplus for debt reduc-tion, emergencies and other needs. Unfortu-nately, the House was not permitted to voteon that alternative. I hope when Congress andthe President finish staking out political posi-tions on this issue, we can come together inthe fall and reach a comprehensive agreementthat provides for solid tax relief and sets asidefunds for debt reduction, potential emer-gencies and a realistic plan to fund defense,education, Medicare and other important prior-ities over the next ten years.

The size of this tax legislation is the mostserious issue. The bill would commit $792 bil-lion of a projected $996 ten-year surplus to tax

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7272 August 5, 1999reduction. It just does not make sense to com-mit 80% of a surplus we have not yetachieved to one purpose. It leaves very littlemargin for error. Federal Reserve ChairmanAlan Greenspan testified just last week thatten-year economic projections are not reliable.The surplus will grow to $996 billion only if theeconomy remains strong and if there are noother changes in tax or spending policy. If wespend more or have less revenue, interestpayments on the debt will be larger and thesurplus will be smaller. If we commit $792 bil-lion to tax reductions, virtually all of the rest ofthe $996 surplus will be needed to pay higherinterest costs on the debt. If we experience aneconomic downturn, these surpluses couldeasily turn to deficits. The CongressionalBudget Office (CBO) which made these pre-dictions stated that they could vary by asmuch as $100 billion in any year.

The assumptions necessary for a $792 bil-lion tax cut leave no room for the unplanned,but almost certain expenses like natural disas-ters and other emergencies. Over the past tenyears, emergencies have averaged at least $8billion per year. It is a fact: hurricanes, floods,droughts and military emergencies happen vir-tually every year. This year, Congress has al-ready spent $15 billion in emergency funds forKosovo. Just yesterday, the Senate passed a$7.4 billion emergency disaster relief packagefor farmers. Delaware and virtually every statein the eastern U.S. is suffering from one of theworse droughts of the century. The billions inemergency aid now in the Senate will almostcertainly be followed by the need for moredrought assistance.

Those funds will come straight from the sur-plus. There will be emergencies every yearand those likely costs must be factored intoour calculations of what size tax cut is pos-sible. Furthermore, while Medicare is currentlyfundamentally sound, there are growing prob-lems in the area of home health care, HMO’sand rural and teaching hospitals. Correctingthose problems may require additional funds.Finally, important programs like defense, edu-cation, and veterans must be adequately fund-ed. The size of this tax legislation is based oncompletely unrealistic assumptions that do-mestic programs can be drastically reduced.Congress is already avoiding those cuts thisyear. We can and should limit spending, butcuts of 10 percent or more are just not real-istic.

My second concern is the need for debt re-duction. The federal debt is $5.6 trillion andrequires 15 percent of the annual federalbudget to service. If we do not take the oppor-tunity to pay down this debt during strong eco-nomic times, then when will we? Tax relief isimportant, but it should be balanced with theneed to begin to pay down at least some ofthe $5.6 trillion federal debt. Committing 80percent of the projected surplus to tax reduc-tions, simply does not allow enough of the sur-plus for debt reduction. I was pleased to be in-volved in the negotiations that produced theamendment to condition the phase-in of thebroad-based tax relief provisions on reducingthe debt. This ‘‘tax cut trigger’’ is a positive ad-dition to the bill, but it does not go far enough.Billions in tax relief to businesses will go for-ward regardless of whether we are meetingour debt payment goals. More of the projectedsurplus should be reserved to pay down thedebt. When I talk to people in Delaware, theyalmost always tell me that should be our top

priority because they know everyone benefitsfrom lower interest rates on their own debt, in-cluding credit card and mortgage rates. In fact,a 1 percent drop in interest rates saves Ameri-cans $200–$250 billion in mortgage costs.That is real middle class financial relief.

We can and should provide tax relief to alltaxpayers, but we must balance tax relief withdebt reduction, future emergencies, nationaldefense, health care and education and theneed to protect against an economic down-turn. The tax alternatives proposed by HouseDemocrats and President Clinton are not ade-quate. We can provide more than $250–$300billion in tax relief to working Americans with-out jeopardizing other priorities. Clearly thePresident must become actively engaged toachieve a true compromise.

I cannot support his legislation today be-cause it does not balance tax relief with theneed to reduce the national debt and a real-istic cushion for the inevitable emergenciesand other budget problems that will occur overthe next ten years. When Congress returns inSeptember, I hope we can engage in seriousnegotiations with the President that utilizes thegood proposals for broad-based tax relief inthis legislation but at a more affordable level.I look forward to working with all members ofCongress and the Administration to ultimatelyproduce legislation to give every American sig-nificant tax relief.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today insupport of common sense tax relief for Amer-ican families and small businesses. I also risein support of saving Medicare and Social Se-curity, two programs critical to today’s seniorsand future generations.

Unfortunately, the tax conference report be-fore us today is fiscally irresponsible. It wouldthreaten our ability to ensure the long termsolvency of Medicare and Social Security. Itwould also restrict our ability to pay down na-tional debt and to make needed investmentsin national defense, education and environ-mental protection.

By using virtually the entire projected sur-plus for permanent tax cuts, this bill wouldleave no money for modernizing Medicare orreforming Social Security. This is simply un-conscionable. Medicare is desperately in needof modernization—specifically, the lack of pre-scription drug coverage is a gaping hole in thiscritical safety net for seniors that must befixed. And while Social Security is fiscallysound for the near future, the coming retire-ment of the baby boom generation will strainthe system beyond its limit. We owe it to fu-ture generations to act now to reform theseprograms while there is still plenty of time todo so.

I strongly support tax relief for middle in-come families, which this bill unfortunately failsto provide. For example, the across-the-boardtax cut in the measure will cost almost $300billion, but would give someone on the CentralCoast making $30,000, a tax cut of only 37cents per day! That’s not even enough to buya copy of my local newspaper.

The tax plan I voted for earlier this yearwould have fixed the marriage penalty and en-sured middle class families can take full ad-vantage of the various per-child, educationand child care tax credits. It would also haveincreased the per-child tax credit by $250 forfamilies with children under age five.

The bill I supported would have helped fami-lies by providing $25 billion in school construc-

tion bonds to modernize our overcrowded pub-lic schools and make employer-provided as-sistance tax free for undergraduate and grad-uate education. This measure would institute a$1,000 long term care credit and make healthinsurance fully deductible for the self-em-ployed beginning next year. And it wouldmake permanent the R&D tax credit, so criticalto ensuring future economic growth on theCentral Coast, as well as credits to help movepeople from welfare to work.

I have also supported cutting the estate taxfor our small business owners and familyfarmers like those on the Central Coast ofCalifornia who are imperiled by the death ofthe head of the family. We must increase theexemption for businesses like these above thecurrent $1.3 million. The high value of CentralCoast land, for example, can make even amodest sized farm or ranch impossible to passdown without being subject to high estatetaxes that can force the sale of the property.By increasing this exemption, we would keepfamily farms and businesses in the family andoff the auction block.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to expressmy profound disappointment in the partisanhandling of this tax bill. I believe there is gen-eral agreement among the vast majority ofMembers that we can and should provide taxrelief this year. But the House leadership haspursued a partisan course designed to makepolitical points and not to pass meaningful leg-islation. How sad it was that Democratic mem-bers were literally locked out of the conferencecommittee that wrote this legislation.

The leadership knows this bill will not be-come law. By seriously sitting down and nego-tiating a common sense tax bill we could eas-ily pass legislation this year and give familiesand businesses the tax relief they deserve. Ihope that we can put the partisanship asideand work together on formulating real tax re-form this year. Our constituents deserve noth-ing less.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in supportof the Conference Report of H.R. 2488, theTaxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999.

I’d like to commend our Ways and MeansCommittee Chairman BILL ARCHER and ourMajority Leader DICK ARMEY for their leader-ship, not to mention the wise counsel ofSpeaker HASTERT, who crafted this tax reliefpackage for all Americans. I was honored tobe named a conferee for the Taxpayer Refundand Relief Act and am proud of the product oflabors.

Mr. Speaker, during my long service in thisbody, I have had too few opportunities to cuttaxes for the American people. I had to wait12 years, until 1981, for the first major tax cutprovided by the leadership of PresidentReagan. It was another 16 years, in 1997, be-fore I could vote for another major tax cut.However, this Taxpayer Refund and Relief Actof 1999 is far and away my favorite. Not onlyis it the largest, providing $792 billion in taxrelief, but it does so from budget surplusesprovided by taxpayers. In effect, we’re givingtaxpayers a refund for overtaxing them. At thesame time, we will be using the remaining sur-plus to pay down the national debt—as muchas $2 trillion over the next decade—as welock away $1.9 trillion to preserve and protectSocial Security and Medicare.

However, talking about all those numbers isthe stuff of Washington policy works. Let metell the American people what this tax cutmeans for them.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7273August 5, 1999Our Republican tax plan will give all tax-

payers a cut in their income tax rates. In addi-tion, 28 million working married couples willsee a substantial reduction in their marriagepenalty. Our bill also repeals the alternativeminimum tax on individuals that will save tax-payers money while simplifying their tax re-turns. This provision is similar to legislation Iintroduced in this Congress to abolish the al-ternative minimum tax.

For farmers, small business owners andolder Americans, our bill will reduce, thenabolish, the estate tax over the next 10 years.This confiscatory tax, with rates as high as 55percent, has forced families to sell the fruits ofa lifetime of labor to pay the taxman insteadof passing it on to the next generation.

The growth of the capital markets has giveninvestors from all walks of life an opportunityto invest and save for the future. To furtherspur growth in these investments, H.R. 2488will reduce tax rates on capital gains from 20percent to 18 percent and from the lower rateof 10 percent to 8 percent. In the future, cap-ital gains will be indexed so that investorswon’t be paying taxes on artificial gains frominflation. I am also pleased that my provisionto cut capital gains taxes on the settlementfunds which pay beneficiaries of class actionlawsuits was included in the final package.

To further assist Americans saving for retire-ment, H.R. 2488 also includes $35 billion in in-centives for saving with individual retirementaccounts, or IRAs. Savers will be able to con-tribute much more—up to $5,000—to their IRAaccounts. Also included among these incen-tives is my provision to allow IRA holders torollover their funds to needy charities.

This bill has more good tax policy than Ihave time to mention. I do, however, want tosay how pleased I am that my provisions tosimplify the tax returns of affiliated groups oflife insurance companies and another to en-courage more foreign investment in U.S. mu-tual funds were also included in the final prod-uct.

I urge all my colleagues to support this taxrelief package so that we may start to returnthe tax overcharge to the American taxpayers.Furthermore, I hope the President will notstand in the way of needed tax relief byvetoing this measure.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposi-tion to the conference report on HR 2488.

Let me just highlight a few of this bill’sflaws:

The Republican tax bill would spend $792billion over the next 10 years out of a budgetsurplus that will never occur. This tax cut isbased on a false premise: without enactingspending cuts, the surplus simply won’t occur.

By spending what we don’t really have ontax cuts, this bill raids the Social Security sur-plus and endangers Medicare. It pulls a fastone today’s workers who’s payroll dollars arecreating the surplus that exists today.

The bill is a hoax even on those it portendsto help. The individual tax rate cuts are de-pendent on no increase in national debt fromnow until 2009. One slight increase in interestrates is all that it takes for the national debt toincrease. When was the last time interestrates did not increase over a ten year period?

This bill is a huge hoax because it claims tophase in all sorts of tax relief but all the taxchanges end on October 1, 2009 as sure asCinderella’s coach turned back into a pump-kin.

For example, the estate tax repeal is notfully phased in until January, 2009. By Octo-ber 1, 2009, the tax law reverts back to to-day’s rates and provisions. What kind of in-centive does a nine month tax-free window forestates create for families?

The Republican tax bill expands retirementsavings incentives at the expense of averageworkers. How many working couples can af-ford to increase their IRA contributions from$2,000 to $5,000 per spouse? The Republicanbill does nothing to help those who barelymake enough to fund IRAs at current contribu-tion levels. Rather than helpng lower andmoderate income taxpayers to save, this billhelps those who have already made the max-imum contribution under current IRAs and401(k) plans save even more.

Worse than just helping those in the upperbrackets, this bill harms lower-wage workersdepending on pensions. The Republican taxbill guts the ‘‘top heavy’’ rules enacted to as-sure that tax-favored pensions would be avail-able to all workers and not skewed to helpmainly those at the top. The ‘‘top heavy’’ rulesare gutted just as the contribution amountsand benefits are increased. This bill does notbolster pension security; it increases pensioninsecurity for rank and file workers.

There is a gesture to assist with health ex-penses but this, too, is flawed. The prescrip-tion drug benefit is what the Republicans calla ‘‘place holder’’, not a real benefit for realpeople who today are making hard choicesabout whether to fill their prescriptions or tobuy food and pay their rent and utilities. Ourseniors need prescription drug help now, not apromise to deal with drug costs in some unde-fined way at some later time.

The Republican bill is flawed in the ways itthrows money at special interests. Businesstax breaks, unlike the rate reduction for indi-viduals, will be in effect no matter how highthe national debt soars.

The Republican tax bill throws $24 billion intax breaks at the multinational corporations.These are the same folks who move Americanjobs overseas.

It throws about $650 million at the oil andgas industry which has a hand out in hardtimes but never gives credit due consumers ingood times.

There is even a tax break to produce powerfrom chicken droppings, a real turkey of a pro-vision if there ever was one.

Timber growers get over $275 in taxpayerassistance for reforestation, something timbergrowers already do.

Life insurance cmpanies get a billion dollartax break which allows them to file consoli-dated returns with their affiliates to shelter in-come from tax.

Another billion goes to nuclear power plantstockholders with the taxpayers picking up thetab for the decommissioning costs.

The Republican tax bill spends close to $4billion on raising business meal deductions butaverage workers won’t be at the table for thatperk. They don’t get to take clients out forsteak and martinis.

The Republican sponsors boast that theirbill returns money to American families butthey don’t even do that in a fair way. Sixtypercent of the taxpayers in the middle incomequintile (annual income of $23,800 to $38,200)would receive an average tax cut of $278 ayear, less than 8% of the total money to begiven back to families.

Compare that to the best off one percent oftaxpayers—those making more than$301,000—who would get an average tax re-duction of more than $46,000 a year under theRepublican bill.

The bill does nothing to shore up Social Se-curity or Medicare. It precludes paying downthe debt with any surplus that occurs.

Although the Republicans have the votes topass this turkey of a bill, they won’t have mysupport for it. I will vote NO on HR 2488.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I vehemently opposethis Republican tax bill to give money to therichest from a phantom surplus. Our surpluscomes from Social Security funds and cuts inessential programs in housing, community ori-ented policing, legal services, anti-discrimina-tion, research, environmental protection, and ahost of other programs essential to America’sfamilies.

Let’s look at the facts.Sixty percent of tax payers of middle income

and below would receive less than 8% of thetotal tax cuts. Their average tax reductionwould be only $138 a year.

The top 1⁄10th of taxpayers would receive69% of the tax reductions and get an averageannual tax cut of $7,600.

Those making more than $300,000—wouldget an average annual tax reduction of morethan $46,000 a year.

Let’s look at the other 85% of our people.Personal savings are at an all-time low and 1⁄3of the people have no assets at all.

Another 20% have negligible assets. Almosthalf of all American children live in householdswith no financial assets. More than 10 millionAmericans don’t even have a bank account.

We are leaving too many behind. The richhave indicated they don’t need the tax cut.Thank goodness they want a society with ex-cellent schools, a skilled and healthy laborforce, safe towns, all the things that the restof us want.

The Republican tax bill for the rich whodon’t want it is an awful bill and will be re-jected by the people.

Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I favor cuttingtaxes. We all do.

But the Republican tax bill offers pie-in-the-sky, campaign promises that will give mostAmericans nothing but pocket change.

By failing to attack the $6 trillion nationaldebt, Republicans will give all Americans high-er interest rates and higher prices for every-thing they buy, every day, for years to come.

We need a coherent fiscal policy, not feel-good election year across-the-board tax cuts.We can reduce taxes, but we need reasonabletax cuts and incentives that really help workingfamilies and small businesses. Cutting capitalgains and estate taxes, and the marriage pen-alty, are a good start.

But we should not squander this opportunityto put our fiscal house in order. We shoulduse budget surpluses to pay off the debt assoon as we can.

But the Republicans are merely leading usdown a road we have already traveled—aroad that leads to greater deficits, higher inter-est rates, and a higher cost of living for everyAmerican.

Mr. Speaker, we need to do the right thing,and we have the resources to do it. Save So-cial Security and Medicare, reduce the na-tional debt, and apply tax reductions wherethey will do the most good.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposi-tion to H.R. 2488, the Republican tax bill. This

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7274 August 5, 1999legislation reminds me of the favorite books ofmy youth. I enjoyed reading the Hardy Boysseries which always dealt with some mystery,usually the disappearance of something. Thislegislation would be a classic Hardy boyscase—they would call it ‘‘The Case of the Dis-appearing Tax Cut.’’

The story would unfold with the RepublicanLeadership going around the country toutingthe major tax break for working families andhow families would be able to take this taxbreak and meet all of their needs. And lo andbehold, come next year when families wereactually filing their taxes, that tax break wouldbe gone. It would have vanished into thin air.At that point, Speaker HASTERT and MajorityLeader DELAY would call in the Hardy Broth-ers to find out what happened to the taxbreaks that they had promised.

Mr. Speaker, it won’t take the Hardy Boys tosolve this mystery. There will be no generoustax break in 2000 because it was never there.Under this legislation, families with an incomeof $30,000 will receive an average $278 taxcut—that’s a cut of 76 cents a day when thebill is fully phased in. There’s not a lot that canbe done with that windfall.

As with every Republican tax bill, this legis-lation overflows with tax breaks heavilyskewed towards special interests and the veryrich while giving working families minimal as-sistance with maximum braggadocios. Whileworking families will take home less than$300, families earning more than $301,000 willget an annual $46,389 bonus from uncle Sam.That is $127 in new tax breaks per day andit is more than most of my constituents earn.

On top of that imbalance, this legislationprovides all sorts of goodies for the special in-terests. The GOP tax bill phases out the cor-porate minimum tax, gives special tax breaksto utilities to close nuclear power plants andspecial tax treatment for multinational giants.Who knows what other goodies are tuckedaway in this package? Certainly not the HouseAction Reports upon which many of us rely.The GOP Leadership and their staff gavethem less than $650 billion of the $792 billionin ten year tax breaks. Well what’s $150 billionin tax breaks between friends: ‘‘Don’t worry,be happy.’’ These facts won’t come out untilthis package has been forced through theHouse.

In their rush to reward their friends, the Re-publican majority refuses to set aside evenone dollar of the on-budget surplus to extendthe solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund orthe Social Security Trust Fund. Over $4,100 amonth in new tax breaks for taxpayers earningmore than $301,000 but not a penny for re-solving the Medicare and Social Security pro-grams. Mr. Chairman, it is time for a realitycheck. The problem in this issue is not ide-ology. We would all like a tax cut. The prob-lem is basic arithmetic. This GOP tax billdoesn’t add up.

Frankly, this fiscal tax expenditure scheme,which is based on speculative projects, risksundercutting the solid economic growth of theU.S. and the global economy. This schemethreatens to blow a hole in the budget, stack-ing up dollar after dollar in deficit red ink withno chance to pay down the U.S. $5.6 trilliondebt, while starving the defense and domesticprogram to death with commitments signifi-cantly less than in 1999. Ironically, we cannoteven meet the needs today and this taxscheme assumes more cuts over the next ten

years. This action and projection assumes noemergency spending, no military needs, nonatural disasters, no new investment in fami-lies and places the U.S. economy in a straightjacket. At its best, this measure is irrespon-sible, unneeded, unfair, unworkable and rep-resents bad judgement and politics at itsworst.

Yesterday, the House voted to fund the2000 Census categorized as a $4.5 billionemergency and the Senate added $7.4 billionas an agricultural emergency. The way thisCongress is moving on emergencies there willbe no budget surplus in FY 2000.

I believe that it is possible for Congress toget real and approve a targeted tax cut thatwill benefit working families. But first let us getthe fiscal house in order and secure SocialSecurity and Medicare, pay down the $5.4 tril-lion debt and then move to enact a fair work-ing family tax cut. Such a tax cut could includefairness in the marriage penalty and incentivesto help families to help themselves. Such a taxcut should be based on real economic projec-tions and not be viewed through the rose col-ored glasses that the Republicans wear.Above all else, these tax cuts should not beachieved at the expense of Social Securityand Medicare.

When the Members vote for this measurethey ought to use their ‘‘charge cards’’ be-cause they are voting for new deficits. Theywant to go back to the pre-Clinton 1993 budg-et when our nation faced $200 billion to $300billion deficits each year as far as the eyecould see. This ‘‘charge it’’ policy is not for menor is it for the American people who livedthrough 20 years of the Reagan inspired in-stant gratification philosophy. It is time to putaway the credit card and reject this irrespon-sible, unfair politically inspired tax and fiscalmess.

Mr. Speaker, let’s write a new ending to‘‘The Case of the Disappearing Tax Cut.’’ Let’swork together on a bipartisan tax bill that doesnot jeopardize Social Security and Medicare;that does not sentence us to new deficits; thatdoes provide real tax relief for working familiesand does simplify the current tax code.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposi-tion to the Republican Tax Bill.

As I read through the Republicans’ Tax Bill,I am reminded of the prayer in SaintAugustine’s Confessions, in which he askedGod to ‘‘Give me chastity and continence, butnot just now.’’

The Republican Leaders in Washingtonwant to genuflect on the alter of fiscal respon-sibility.

But when it comes down to using the sur-plus to strengthen education, preserve Medi-care and give seniors a prescription drug ben-efit, and pay down the debt, they say: ‘‘Giveus chastity and continence, but not just now.’’

And with this bill, we are seeing the GOPembarking on a budget-busting bender.

The top 10 percent of the taxpayers will get48 percent of the total benefits. The middleclass tax breaks are phased in slowly, andmay not happen at all depending on thestrength of the economy. In contrast, the spe-cial-interest corporate tax breaks and estatetax repeal are automatic.

This isn’t tax relief. It’s deficit debauchery.This bill will squander the surplus on taxbreaks for the rich, do nothing for Social Secu-rity, nothing for Medicare, and nothing on aprescription drug benefit. And at the same

time, it will threaten to send us back to thedays of deficits.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.KOLBE). All time for debate on the con-ference report has expired.

Without objection, the previous ques-tion is ordered on the conference re-port.

There was no objection.MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer amotion to recommit this bill to theconference, hoping that Democrats thistime might be included so we can cleanup this bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thegentleman from New York (Mr. RAN-GEL) opposed to the conference report?

Mr. RANGEL. Yes, in its presentform, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. TheClerk will report the motion to recom-mit.

The Clerk read as follows:Mr. RANGEL moves to recommit the con-

ference report on the bill, H.R. 2488, to thecommittee on conference with the followinginstructions to the managers on the part ofthe House.

1. In order—A. to preserve 100 percent of the Social Se-

curity Trust Fund surpluses for the SocialSecurity program and to preserve 50 percentof the currently projected non-Social Secu-rity surpluses for purposes of reducing thepublicly held national debt, and

B. to insure that there will be adequatebudgetary resources available to extend thesolvency of the Social Security and Medicaresystems, and to provide a Medicare prescrip-tion drug benefit,the House managers shall, to the extent per-mitted within the scope of conference, insiston limiting the net 10-year tax reductionprovided in the conference report to notmore than 25 percent of the currently pro-jected non-Social Security surpluses (or ifgreater, the smallest tax reduction per-mitted within the scope of conference).

2. The House managers shall, to the extentpermitted within the scope of conference, in-sist on not including in the conference reportany provision which would constitute a lim-ited tax benefit within the meaning of theLine Item Veto Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The mo-tion to recommit is not debatable.

Without objection, the previous ques-tion is ordered on the motion to recom-mit.

There was no objection.The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

question is on the motion to recommit.The question was taken; and the

Speaker pro tempore announced thatthe noes appeared to have it.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I objectto the vote on the ground that aquorum is not present and make thepoint of order that a quorum is notpresent.

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

The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-sent Members.

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, theChair will reduce to a minimum of 5minutes the period of time withinwhich a vote by electronic device, if or-dered, will be taken on the question ofagreeing to the conference report.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7275August 5, 1999The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were—yeas 205, nays221, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 378]

YEAS—205

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBairdBaldacciBaldwinBarciaBarrett (WI)BecerraBentsenBerkleyBermanBerryBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CappsCapuanoCardinCarsonClayClaytonClementClyburnConditConyersCostelloCoyneCramerCrowleyCummingsDavis (FL)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleEdwardsEngelEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFilnerForbesFordFrank (MA)FrostGejdensonGephardtGonzalezGordon

Green (TX)GutierrezHall (OH)Hastings (FL)Hill (IN)HilliardHincheyHinojosaHoeffelHoldenHoltHooleyHoyerInsleeJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJohnJohnson, E. B.Jones (OH)KanjorskiKapturKennedyKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)KleczkaKlinkKucinichLaFalceLampsonLarsonLeeLevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLofgrenLoweyLucas (KY)LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McGovernMcIntyreMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMillender-

McDonaldMiller, GeorgeMingeMinkMoakleyMooreMoran (VA)MurthaNadlerNapolitanoNeal

OberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensPallonePascrellPastorPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PhelpsPickettPomeroyPrice (NC)RahallRangelRiversRodriguezRoemerRothmanRoybal-AllardRushSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSchakowskyScottSerranoShermanShowsSisiskySkeltonSlaughterSmith (WA)SnyderSprattStabenowStarkStenholmStricklandStupakTannerTauscherTaylor (MS)Thompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThurmanTierneyTownsTraficantTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)VelazquezVentoViscloskyWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWeinerWexlerWeygandWiseWoolseyWuWynn

NAYS—221

AderholtArcherArmeyBachusBakerBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBereuterBiggertBilirakisBlileyBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBono

Brady (TX)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCanadyCannonCastleChabotChamblissChenowethCobleCoburnCollinsCombestCookCooksey

CoxCraneCubinCunninghamDannerDavis (VA)DealDeLayDeMintDiaz-BalartDickeyDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEverettEwing

FletcherFoleyFossellaFowlerFranks (NJ)FrelinghuysenGalleglyGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGrangerGreen (WI)GreenwoodGutknechtHall (TX)HansenHastertHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHill (MT)HillearyHobsonHoekstraHornHostettlerHoughtonHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeIsaksonIstookJenkinsJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJones (NC)KasichKellyKing (NY)KingstonKnollenbergKolbeKuykendall

LaHoodLathamLaTouretteLazioLeachLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLoBiondoLucas (OK)ManzulloMcCollumMcCreryMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMetcalfMicaMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMoran (KS)MorellaMyrickNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOseOxleyPackardPaulPeasePetriPickeringPittsPomboPorterPortmanPryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRamstadRegulaReynoldsRileyRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoukemaRoyce

Ryan (WI)Ryun (KS)SalmonSanfordSaxtonScarboroughSchafferSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawShaysSherwoodShimkusShusterSimpsonSkeenSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)SouderSpenceStearnsStumpSununuSweeneyTalentTancredoTauzinTaylor (NC)TerryThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtToomeyUptonVitterWaldenWalshWampWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NOT VOTING—8

BilbrayGanskeLantos

LargentMcDermottMollohan

Peterson (PA)Reyes

b 1336

Mr. HALL of Texas changed his votefrom ‘‘yea’’ to ‘‘nay.’’

Messrs. ANDREWS, CONYERS, RA-HALL and PAYNE changed their votefrom ‘‘nay’’ to ‘‘yea.’’

So the motion to recommit was re-jected.

The result of the vote was announcedas above recorded.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.KOLBE). The question is on the con-ference report.

Pursuant to House Resolution 274,the yeas and nays are ordered.

This will be a 5-minute vote.The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were—yeas 221, nays206, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 379]

YEAS—221

AderholtArcherArmeyBachusBakerBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBassBateman

BereuterBiggertBilirakisBlileyBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBonoBrady (TX)BryantBurr

BurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCanadyCannonChabotChamblissChenowethCoble

CoburnCollinsCombestConditCookCookseyCoxCraneCubinCunninghamDannerDavis (VA)DealDeLayDeMintDiaz-BalartDickeyDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEverettEwingFletcherFoleyFossellaFowlerFranks (NJ)FrelinghuysenGalleglyGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGrangerGreen (WI)GreenwoodGutknechtHall (TX)HansenHastertHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHill (MT)HillearyHobsonHoekstraHornHostettler

HoughtonHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeIsaksonIstookJenkinsJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJones (NC)KasichKellyKing (NY)KingstonKnollenbergKolbeKuykendallLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLazioLeachLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLoBiondoLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)ManzulloMcCollumMcCreryMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMetcalfMicaMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMoran (KS)MyrickNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOseOxleyPackardPaulPeasePetriPickeringPittsPomboPorterPortmanPryce (OH)RadanovichRamstad

RegulaReynoldsRileyRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoukemaRoyceRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SalmonSanfordSaxtonScarboroughSchafferSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawShaysSherwoodShimkusShusterSimpsonSkeenSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)SouderSpenceStearnsStumpSununuSweeneyTalentTancredoTauzinTaylor (NC)TerryThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtToomeyUptonVitterWaldenWalshWampWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NAYS—206

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBairdBaldacciBaldwinBarciaBarrett (WI)BecerraBentsenBerkleyBermanBerryBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CappsCapuanoCardinCarsonCastleClayClaytonClementClyburnConyers

CostelloCoyneCramerCrowleyCummingsDavis (FL)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleEdwardsEngelEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFilnerForbesFordFrank (MA)FrostGanskeGejdensonGephardtGonzalezGordon

Green (TX)Hall (OH)Hastings (FL)Hill (IN)HilliardHincheyHinojosaHoeffelHoldenHoltHooleyHoyerInsleeJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJohnJohnson, E. B.Jones (OH)KanjorskiKapturKennedyKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)KleczkaKlinkKucinichLaFalceLampsonLarsonLeeLevinLewis (GA)

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7276 August 5, 1999LipinskiLofgrenLoweyLutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McGovernMcIntyreMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMillender-

McDonaldMiller, GeorgeMingeMinkMoakleyMooreMoran (VA)MorellaMurthaNadlerNapolitanoNealOberstarObey

OlverOrtizOwensPallonePascrellPastorPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PhelpsPickettPomeroyPrice (NC)QuinnRahallRangelRiversRodriguezRoemerRothmanRoybal-AllardRushSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSchakowskyScottSerranoShermanShowsSisiskySkeltonSlaughter

Smith (WA)SnyderSprattStabenowStarkStenholmStricklandStupakTannerTauscherTaylor (MS)Thompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThurmanTierneyTownsTraficantTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)VelazquezVentoViscloskyWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWeinerWexlerWeygandWiseWoolseyWuWynn

NOT VOTING—7

BilbrayGutierrezLantos

McDermottMollohanPeterson (PA)

Reyes

b 1347

So the conference report was agreedto.

The result of the vote was announcedas above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid onthe table.f

CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 507,WATER RESOURCES DEVELOP-MENT ACT OF 1999

Mr. SHUSTER submitted the fol-lowing conference report and state-ment on the Senate bill (S. 507) to pro-vide for the conservation and develop-ment of water and related resources, toauthorize the Secretary of the Army toconstruct various projects for improve-ments to rivers and harbors of theUnited States, and for other purposes:

CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 298)The committee of conference on the dis-

agreeing votes of the two Houses on theamendment of the House to the bill (S. 507),to provide for the conservation and develop-ment of water and related resources, to au-thorize the Secretary of the Army to con-struct various projects for improvements torivers and harbors of the United States, andfor other purposes, having met, after full andfree conference, have agreed to recommendand do recommend to their respective Housesas follows:

That the Senate recede from its disagree-ment to the amendment of the House to thetext of the bill and agree to the same with anamendment as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be in-serted by the House amendment, insert thefollowing:SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited asthe ‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 1999’’.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of con-tents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTSSec. 101. Project authorizations.Sec. 102. Small flood control projects.Sec. 103. Small bank stabilization projects.Sec. 104. Small navigation projects.Sec. 105. Small projects for improvement of the

quality of the environment.Sec. 106. Small aquatic ecosystem restoration

projects.TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Small flood control authority.Sec. 202. Use of non-Federal funds for com-

piling and disseminating informa-tion on floods and flood damage.

Sec. 203. Contributions by States and politicalsubdivisions.

Sec. 204. Sediment decontamination technology.Sec. 205. Control of aquatic plants.Sec. 206. Use of continuing contracts for con-

struction of certain projects.Sec. 207. Water resources development studies

for the Pacific region.Sec. 208. Everglades and south Florida eco-

system restoration.Sec. 209. Beneficial uses of dredged material.Sec. 210. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.Sec. 211. Watershed management, restoration,

and development.Sec. 212. Flood mitigation and riverine restora-

tion program.Sec. 213. Shore management program.Sec. 214. Shore damage prevention or mitiga-

tion.Sec. 215. Shore protection.Sec. 216. Flood prevention coordination.Sec. 217. Disposal of dredged material on beach-

es.Sec. 218. Annual passes for recreation.Sec. 219. Nonstructural flood control projects.Sec. 220. Lakes program.Sec. 221. Enhancement of fish and wildlife re-

sources.Sec. 222. Purchase of American-made equip-

ment and products.Sec. 223. Construction of flood control projects

by non-Federal interests.Sec. 224. Environmental dredging.Sec. 225. Recreation user fees.Sec. 226. Small storm damage reduction

projects.Sec. 227. Use of private enterprises.

TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway wild-life mitigation, Alabama and Mis-sissippi.

Sec. 302. Ouzinkie Harbor, Alaska.Sec. 303. St. Paul Harbor, St. Paul, Alaska.Sec. 304. Loggy Bayou, Red River below

Denison Dam, Arkansas, Lou-isiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Sec. 305. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, Cali-fornia.

Sec. 306. San Lorenzo River, California.Sec. 307. Terminus Dam, Kaweah River, Cali-

fornia.Sec. 308. Delaware River mainstem and channel

deepening, Delaware, New Jersey,and Pennsylvania.

Sec. 309. Potomac River, Washington, Districtof Columbia.

Sec. 310. Brevard County, Florida.Sec. 311. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet,

Florida.Sec. 312. Lee County, Captiva Island segment,

Florida, periodic beach nourish-ment.

Sec. 313. Fort Pierce, Florida.Sec. 314. Nassau County, Florida.Sec. 315. Miami Harbor channel, Florida.Sec. 316. St. Augustine, St. Johns County,

Florida.Sec. 317. Milo Creek, Idaho.Sec. 318. Lake Michigan, Illinois.Sec. 319. Springfield, Illinois.Sec. 320. Ogden Dunes, Indiana.Sec. 321. Saint Joseph River, South Bend, Indi-

ana.

Sec. 322. White River, Indiana.Sec. 323. Dubuque, Iowa.Sec. 324. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.Sec. 325. Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.Sec. 326. Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee,

Louisiana.Sec. 327. Twelve-Mile Bayou, Caddo Parish,

Louisiana.Sec. 328. West bank of the Mississippi River

(east of Harvey Canal), Lou-isiana.

Sec. 329. Tolchester Channel S-Turn, Balti-more, Maryland.

Sec. 330. Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa County,Michigan.

Sec. 331. Jackson County, Mississippi.Sec. 332. Bois Brule Drainage and Levee Dis-

trict, Missouri.Sec. 333. Meramec River basin, Valley Park

Levee, Missouri.Sec. 334. Missouri River mitigation project, Mis-

souri, Kansas, Iowa, and Ne-braska.

Sec. 335. Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska.Sec. 336. Absecon Island, New Jersey.Sec. 337. New York Harbor and adjacent chan-

nels, Port Jersey, New Jersey.Sec. 338. Arthur Kill, New York and New Jer-

sey.Sec. 339. Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay chan-

nels, New York and New Jersey.Sec. 340. New York City watershed.Sec. 341. New York State canal system.Sec. 342. Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point,

New York.Sec. 343. Broken Bow Lake, Red River basin,

Oklahoma.Sec. 344. Willamette River temperature control,

McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon.Sec. 345. Curwensville Lake, Pennsylvania.Sec. 346. Delaware River, Pennsylvania and

Delaware.Sec. 347. Mussers Dam, Pennsylvania.Sec. 348. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Sec. 349. Nine Mile Run, Allegheny County,

Pennsylvania.Sec. 350. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.Sec. 351. South Central Pennsylvania.Sec. 352. Fox Point hurricane barrier, Provi-

dence, Rhode Island.Sec. 353. Cooper River, Charleston Harbor,

South Carolina.Sec. 354. Clear Creek, Texas.Sec. 355. Cypress Creek, Texas.Sec. 356. Dallas floodway extension, Dallas,

Texas.Sec. 357. Upper Jordan River, Utah.Sec. 358. Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.Sec. 359. Columbia River channel, Washington

and Oregon.Sec. 360. Greenbrier River basin, West Virginia.Sec. 361. Bluestone Lake, Ohio River basin,

West Virginia.Sec. 362. Moorefield, West Virginia.Sec. 363. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood

control.Sec. 364. Project reauthorizations.Sec. 365. Project deauthorizations.Sec. 366. American and Sacramento Rivers,

California.Sec. 367. Martin, Kentucky.Sec. 368. Southern West Virginia pilot program.Sec. 369. Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers,

Jackson, Alabama.Sec. 370. Tropicana Wash and Flamingo Wash,

Nevada.Sec. 371. Comite River, Louisiana.Sec. 372. St. Marys River, Michigan.Sec. 373. Charlevoix, Michigan.Sec. 374. White River basin, Arkansas and Mis-

souri.Sec. 375. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma, water con-

veyance facilities.

TITLE IV—STUDIES

Sec. 401. Deep draft harbor cost sharing.Sec. 402. Boydsville, Arkansas.Sec. 403. Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7277August 5, 1999Sec. 404. Del Norte County, California.Sec. 405. Frazier Creek, Tulare County, Cali-

fornia.Sec. 406. Mare Island Strait, California.Sec. 407. Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, Cali-

fornia.Sec. 408. Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego

County, California.Sec. 409. Whitewater River basin, California.Sec. 410. Destin-Noriega Point, Florida.Sec. 411. Little Econlackhatchee River basin,

Florida.Sec. 412. Port Everglades, Broward County,

Florida.Sec. 413. Lake Allatoona, Etowah River, and

Little River watershed, Georgia.Sec. 414. Boise, Idaho.Sec. 415. Goose Creek watershed, Oakley,

Idaho.Sec. 416. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho.Sec. 417. Snake River, Lewiston, Idaho.Sec. 418. Snake River and Payette River, Idaho.Sec. 419. Upper Des Plaines River and tribu-

taries, Illinois and Wisconsin.Sec. 420. Cameron Parish west of Calcasieu

River, Louisiana.Sec. 421. Coastal Louisiana.Sec. 422. Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana.Sec. 423. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway eco-

system, Chef Menteur to SabineRiver, Louisiana.

Sec. 424. Muddy River, Brookline and Boston,Massachusetts.

Sec. 425. Westport, Massachusetts.Sec. 426. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair,

Michigan.Sec. 427. St. Clair Shores, Michigan.Sec. 428. Woodtick Peninsula, Michigan, and

Toledo Harbor, Ohio.Sec. 429. Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi.Sec. 430. Tunica Lake weir, Mississippi.Sec. 431. Yellowstone River, Montana.Sec. 432. Las Vegas Valley, Nevada.Sec. 433. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New

Mexico.Sec. 434. Cayuga Creek, New York.Sec. 435. Lake Champlain, New York and

Vermont.Sec. 436. Oswego River basin, New York.Sec. 437. White Oak River, North Carolina.Sec. 438. Arcola Creek watershed, Madison,

Ohio.Sec. 439. Cleveland harbor, Cleveland, Ohio.Sec. 440. Toussaint River, Carroll Township,

Ohio.Sec. 441. Western Lake Erie basin, Ohio, Indi-

ana, and Michigan.Sec. 442. Schuylkill River, Norristown, Pennsyl-

vania.Sec. 443. South Carolina coastal areas.Sec. 444. Santee Delta focus area, South Caro-

lina.Sec. 445. Waccamaw River, South Carolina.Sec. 446. Day County, South Dakota.Sec. 447. Niobrara River and Missouri River,

South Dakota.Sec. 448. Corpus Christi, Texas.Sec. 449. Mitchell’s Cut Channel (Caney Fork

Cut), Texas.Sec. 450. Mouth of Colorado River, Texas.Sec. 451. Santa Clara River, Utah.Sec. 452. Mount St. Helens, Washington.Sec. 453. Kanawha River, Fayette County, West

Virginia.Sec. 454. West Virginia ports.Sec. 455. John Glenn Great Lakes basin pro-

gram.Sec. 456. Great Lakes navigational system.Sec. 457. Nutrient loading resulting from

dredged material disposal.Sec. 458. Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers

levees and streambanks protec-tion.

Sec. 459. Upper Mississippi River comprehensiveplan.

Sec. 460. Susquehanna River and Upper Chesa-peake Bay.

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONSSec. 501. Corps assumption of NRCS projects.

Sec. 502. Environmental infrastructure.Sec. 503. Contaminated sediment dredging tech-

nology.Sec. 504. Dam safety.Sec. 505. Great Lakes remedial action plans.Sec. 506. Projects for improvement of the envi-

ronment.Sec. 507. Maintenance of navigation channels.Sec. 508. Measurements of Lake Michigan di-

versions, Illinois.Sec. 509. Upper Mississippi River environmental

management program.Sec. 510. Atlantic Coast of New York.Sec. 511. Water control management.Sec. 512. Beneficial use of dredged material.Sec. 513. Design and construction assistance.Sec. 514. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Riv-

ers enhancement project.Sec. 515. Irrigation diversion protection and

fisheries enhancement assistance.Sec. 516. Innovative technologies for watershed

restoration.Sec. 517. Expedited consideration of certain

projects.Sec. 518. Dog River, Alabama.Sec. 519. Levees in Elba and Geneva, Alabama.Sec. 520. Navajo Reservation, Arizona, New

Mexico, and Utah.Sec. 521. Beaver Lake, Arkansas, water supply

storage reallocation.Sec. 522. Beaver Lake trout production facility,

Arkansas.Sec. 523. Chino dairy preserve, California.Sec. 524. Orange and San Diego Counties, Cali-

fornia.Sec. 525. Rush Creek, Novato, California.Sec. 526. Santa Cruz Harbor, California.Sec. 527. Lower St. Johns River Basin, Florida.Sec. 528. Mayo’s Bar Lock and Dam, Coosa

River, Rome, Georgia.Sec. 529. Comprehensive flood impact response

modeling system, Coralville Res-ervoir and Iowa River watershed,Iowa.

Sec. 530. Additional construction assistance inIllinois.

Sec. 531. Kanopolis Lake, Kansas.Sec. 532. Southern and Eastern Kentucky.Sec. 533. Southeast Louisiana.Sec. 534. Snug Harbor, Maryland.Sec. 535. Welch Point, Elk River, Cecil County,

and Chesapeake City, Maryland.Sec. 536. Cape Cod Canal Railroad Bridge, Buz-

zards Bay, Massachusetts.Sec. 537. St. Louis, Missouri.Sec. 538. Beaver branch of Big Timber Creek,

New Jersey.Sec. 539. Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River

water levels, New York.Sec. 540. New York-New Jersey Harbor, New

York and New Jersey.Sec. 541. Sea Gate Reach, Coney Island, New

York, New York.Sec. 542. Woodlawn, New York.Sec. 543. Floodplain mapping, New York.Sec. 544. Toussaint River, Carroll Township,

Ottawa County, Ohio.Sec. 545. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma.Sec. 546. Skinner Butte Park, Eugene, Oregon.Sec. 547. Willamette River Basin, Oregon.Sec. 548. Bradford and Sullivan Counties,

Pennsylvania.Sec. 549. Erie Harbor, Pennsylvania.Sec. 550. Point Marion Lock and Dam, Penn-

sylvania.Sec. 551. Seven Points’ Harbor, Pennsylvania.Sec. 552. Southeastern Pennsylvania.Sec. 553. Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna,

Pennsylvania, watershed manage-ment and restoration study.

Sec. 554. Aguadilla Harbor, Puerto Rico.Sec. 555. Oahe Dam to Lake Sharpe, South Da-

kota, study.Sec. 556. North Padre Island storm damage re-

duction and environmental res-toration project.

Sec. 557. Northern West Virginia.Sec. 558. Mississippi River Commission.

Sec. 559. Coastal aquatic habitat management.Sec. 560. Abandoned and inactive noncoal mine

restoration.Sec. 561. Beneficial use of waste tire rubber.Sec. 562. Site designation.Sec. 563. Land conveyances.Sec. 564. McNary Pool, Washington.Sec. 565. Namings.Sec. 566. Folsom Dam and Reservoir additional

storage and additional flood con-trol studies.

Sec. 567. Wallops Island, Virginia.Sec. 568. Detroit River, Michigan.Sec. 569. Northeastern Minnesota.Sec. 570. Alaska.Sec. 571. Central West Virginia.Sec. 572. Sacramento Metropolitan Area water-

shed restoration, California.Sec. 573. Onondaga Lake, New York.Sec. 574. East Lynn Lake, West Virginia.Sec. 575. Eel River, California.Sec. 576. North Little Rock, Arkansas.Sec. 577. Upper Mississippi River, Mississippi

Place, St. Paul, Minnesota.Sec. 578. Dredging of salt ponds in the State of

Rhode Island.Sec. 579. Upper Susquehanna River basin,

Pennsylvania and New York.Sec. 580. Cumberland, Maryland, flood project

mitigation.Sec. 581. City of Miami Beach, Florida.Sec. 582. Research and development program

for Columbia and Snake Riverssalmon survival.

Sec. 583. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California.Sec. 584. Holes Creek flood control project,

Ohio.Sec. 585. San Jacinto disposal area, Galveston,

Texas.Sec. 586. Water monitoring station.Sec. 587. Overflow management facility, Rhode

Island.Sec. 588. Lower Chena River, Alaska.Sec. 589. Numana Dam Fish passage, Nevada.Sec. 590. Embrey Dam, Virginia.Sec. 591. Environmental remediation, Front

Royal, Virginia.Sec. 592. Mississippi.Sec. 593. Central New Mexico.Sec. 594. Ohio.Sec. 595. Rural Nevada and Montana.Sec. 596. Phoenix, Arizona.Sec. 597. National Harbor, Maryland.

TITLE VI—CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE,LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE, AND STATEOF SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILD-LIFE HABITAT RESTORATION

Sec. 601. Definitions.Sec. 602. Terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration.Sec. 603. South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife

Habitat Restoration Trust Fund.Sec. 604. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Terres-trial Wildlife Habitat RestorationTrust Funds.

Sec. 605. Transfer of Federal land to State ofSouth Dakota.

Sec. 606. Transfer of Corps of Engineers landfor Indian tribes.

Sec. 607. Administration.Sec. 608. Study.Sec. 609. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTSSEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) PROJECTS WITH CHIEF’S REPORTS.—Thefollowing projects for water resources develop-ment and conservation and other purposes areauthorized to be carried out by the Secretarysubstantially in accordance with the plans, andsubject to the conditions, described in the re-spective reports designated in this subsection:

(1) NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, ALASKA.—The project for navigation, Nome Harbor im-provements, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engi-neers dated June 8, 1999, as amended by theChief of Engineers on August 2, 1999, at a totalcost of $25,651,000, with an estimated Federal

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7278 August 5, 1999cost of $20,192,000 and an estimated non-Federalcost of $5,459,000.

(2) SAND POINT HARBOR, ALASKA.—The projectfor navigation, Sand Point Harbor, Alaska: Re-port of the Chief of Engineers dated October 13,1998, at a total cost of $11,760,000, with an esti-mated Federal cost of $6,964,000 and an esti-mated non-Federal cost of $4,796,000.

(3) SEWARD HARBOR, ALASKA.—The project fornavigation, Seward Harbor, Alaska: Report ofthe Chief of Engineers dated June 8, 1999, at atotal cost of $12,240,000, with an estimated Fed-eral cost of $4,089,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,151,000.

(4) RIO SALADO (SALT RIVER), PHOENIX ANDTEMPE, ARIZONA.—The project for flood controland environmental restoration, Rio Salado (SaltRiver), Phoenix and Tempe, Arizona: Report ofthe Chief of Engineers dated August 20, 1998, ata total cost of $88,048,000, with an estimatedFederal cost of $56,355,000 and an estimatednon-Federal cost of $31,693,000.

(5) TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, ARIZONA.—Theproject for flood damage reduction, environ-mental restoration, and recreation, Tucsondrainage area, Arizona: Report of the Chief ofEngineers dated May 20, 1998, at a total cost of$29,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$16,768,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of$13,132,000.

(6) AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS, CALI-FORNIA.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Folsom Dam Modifica-tion portion of the Folsom Modification Plandescribed in the United States Army Corps ofEngineers Supplemental Information Report forthe American River Watershed Project, Cali-fornia, dated March 1996, as modified by the re-port entitled ‘‘Folsom Dam Modification Report,New Outlets Plan,’’ dated March 1998, preparedby the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency,at an estimated cost of $150,000,000, with an esti-mated Federal cost of $97,500,000 and an esti-mated non-Federal cost of $52,500,000. The Sec-retary shall coordinate with the Secretary of theInterior with respect to the design and construc-tion of modifications at Folsom Dam authorizedby this paragraph.

(B) REOPERATION MEASURES.—Upon comple-tion of the improvements to Folsom Dam author-ized by subparagraph (A), the variable space al-located to flood control within the Reservoirshall be reduced from the current operatingrange of 400,000-670,000 acre-feet to 400,000-600,000 acre-feet.

(C) MAKEUP OF WATER SHORTAGES CAUSED BYFLOOD CONTROL OPERATION.—The Secretary ofthe Interior shall enter into, or modify, suchagreements with the Sacramento Area FloodControl Agency regarding the operation of Fol-som Dam and reservoir as may be necessary inorder that, notwithstanding any prior agree-ment or provision of law, 100 percent of thewater needed to make up for any water shortagecaused by variable flood control operation dur-ing any year at Folsom Dam and resulting in asignificant impact on recreation at Folsom Res-ervoir shall be replaced, to the extent the wateris available for purchase, by the Secretary of theInterior.

(D) SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON RECREATION.—Forthe purposes of this paragraph, a significant im-pact on recreation is defined as any impact thatresults in a lake elevation at Folsom Reservoirbelow 435 feet above sea level starting on May 15and ending on September 15 of any given year.

(E) UPDATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT PLAN.—TheSecretary, in cooperation with the Secretary ofthe Interior, shall update the flood managementplan for Folsom Dam authorized by section9159(f)(2) of the Department of Defense Appro-priations Act, 1993 (106 Stat. 1946), to reflect theoperational capabilities created by the modifica-tion authorized by subparagraph (A) and im-proved weather forecasts based on the AdvancedHydrologic Prediction System of the NationalWeather Service.

(7) OAKLAND HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.—Theproject for navigation, Oakland Harbor, Cali-

fornia: Report of the Chief of Engineers datedApril 21, 1999, at a total cost of $252,290,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $128,081,000and an estimated non-Federal cost of$124,209,000.

(8) SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS,CALIFORNIA.—The project for flood control, envi-ronmental restoration and recreation, SouthSacramento County streams, California: Reportof the Chief of Engineers dated October 6, 1998,at a total cost of $65,500,000, with an estimatedFederal cost of $41,200,000 and an estimatednon-Federal cost of $24,300,000.

(9) UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—Construction of the locally preferred plan forflood damage reduction and recreation, UpperGuadalupe River, California, described as theBypass Channel Plan of the Chief of Engineersdated August 19, 1998, at a total cost of$140,328,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$44,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of$96,328,000.

(10) YUBA RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA.—Theproject for flood damage reduction, Yuba RiverBasin, California: Report of the Chief of Engi-neers dated November 25, 1998, at a total cost of$26,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$17,350,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of$9,250,000.

(11) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DELAWAREAND NEW JERSEY-BROADKILL BEACH, DELA-WARE.—The project for hurricane and stormdamage reduction, Delaware Bay coastline,Delaware and New Jersey-Broadkill Beach,Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineersdated August 17, 1998, at a total cost of$9,049,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$5,674,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of$3,375,000, and at an estimated average annualcost of $538,200 for periodic nourishment overthe 50-year life of the project, with an estimatedannual Federal cost of $349,800 and an esti-mated annual non-Federal cost of $188,400.

(12) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DELAWAREAND NEW JERSEY-PORT MAHON, DELAWARE.—Theproject for ecosystem restoration, Delaware Baycoastline, Delaware and New Jersey-PortMahon, Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engi-neers dated September 28, 1998, at a total cost of$7,644,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$4,969,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of$2,675,000, and at an estimated average annualcost of $234,000 for periodic nourishment overthe 50-year life of the project, with an estimatedannual Federal cost of $152,000 and an esti-mated annual non-Federal cost of $82,000.

(13) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DELAWAREAND NEW JERSEY-ROOSEVELT INLET-LEWES BEACH,DELAWARE.—The project for navigation mitiga-tion and hurricane and storm damage reduc-tion, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware andNew Jersey-Roosevelt Inlet-Lewes Beach, Dela-ware: Report of the Chief of Engineers datedFebruary 3, 1999, at a total cost of $3,393,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $2,620,000 andan estimated non-Federal cost of $773,000, andat an estimated average annual cost of $196,000for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life ofthe project, with an estimated annual Federalcost of $152,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $44,000.

(14) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DELAWAREAND NEW JERSEY-VILLAS AND VICINITY, NEW JER-SEY.—The project for shore protection and eco-system restoration, Delaware Bay coastline,Delaware and New Jersey-Villas and vicinity,New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineersdated April 21, 1999, at a total cost of $7,520,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $4,888,000 andan estimated non-Federal cost of $2,632,000.

(15) DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HENELOPENTO FENWICK ISLAND, BETHANY BEACH/SOUTHBETHANY BEACH, DELAWARE.—The project forhurricane and storm damage reduction, Dela-ware Coast from Cape Henelopen to Fenwick Is-land, Bethany Beach/South Bethany Beach,Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineersdated April 21, 1999, at a total cost of

$22,205,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$14,433,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of$7,772,000, and at an estimated average annualcost of $1,584,000 for periodic nourishment overthe 50-year life of the project, with an estimatedannual Federal cost of $1,030,000 and an esti-mated annual non-Federal cost of $554,000.

(16) HILLSBORO AND OKEECHOBEE AQUIFER,FLORIDA.—The project for aquifer storage andrecovery described in the Corps of EngineersCentral and Southern Florida Water SupplyStudy, Florida, dated April 1989, and in HouseDocument 369, dated July 30, 1968, at a totalcost of $27,000,000, with an estimated Federalcost of $13,500,000 and an estimated non-Federalcost of $13,500,000.

(17) JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FLORIDA.—Theproject for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor,Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers datedApril 21, 1999, at a total cost of $26,116,000, withan estimated Federal cost of $9,129,000 and anestimated non-Federal cost of $16,987,000.

(18) TAMPA HARBOR-BIG BEND CHANNEL, FLOR-IDA.—The project for navigation, Tampa Har-bor-Big Bend Channel, Florida: Report of theChief of Engineers dated October 13, 1998, at atotal cost of $12,356,000, with an estimated Fed-eral cost of $6,235,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,121,000.

(19) BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GEORGIA.—Theproject for navigation, Brunswick Harbor, Geor-gia: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated Oc-tober 6, 1998, at a total cost of $50,717,000, withan estimated Federal cost of $32,966,000 and anestimated non-Federal cost of $17,751,000.

(20) BEARGRASS CREEK, KENTUCKY.—Theproject for flood control, Beargrass Creek, Ken-tucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers datedMay 12, 1998, at a total cost of $11,171,300, withan estimated Federal cost of $7,261,500 and anestimated non-Federal cost of $3,909,800.

(21) AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, LOU-ISIANA, EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH WATERSHED.—The project for flood damage reduction andrecreation, Amite River and Tributaries, Lou-isiana, East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed:Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December23, 1996, at a total cost of $112,900,000, with anestimated Federal cost of $73,400,000 and an esti-mated non-Federal cost of $39,500,000.

(22) BALTIMORE HARBOR ANCHORAGES ANDCHANNELS, MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation,Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels,Maryland and Virginia, Report of the Chief ofEngineers dated June 8, 1998, at a total cost of$28,426,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$18,994,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of$9,432,000.

(B) CREDIT OR REIMBURSEMENT.—If a projectcooperation agreement is entered into, the non-Federal interest shall receive credit toward, orreimbursement of, the Federal share of projectcosts for construction work performed by thenon-Federal interest before execution of theproject cooperation agreement if the Secretaryfinds the work to be integral to the project.

(C) STUDY OF MODIFICATIONS.—During thepreconstruction engineering and design phase ofthe project, the Secretary shall conduct a studyto determine the feasibility of undertaking fur-ther modifications to the Dundalk Marine Ter-minal access channels, consisting of—

(i) deepening and widening the Dundalk ac-cess channels to a depth of 50 feet and a widthof 500 feet;

(ii) widening the flares of the access channels;and

(iii) providing a new flare on the west side ofthe entrance to the east access channel.

(D) REPORT.—(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than March 1, 2000,

the Secretary shall submit to Congress a reporton the study under subparagraph (C).

(ii) CONTENTS.—The report shall include a de-termination of—

(I) the feasibility of performing the projectmodifications described in subparagraph (C);and

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7279August 5, 1999(II) the appropriateness of crediting or reim-

bursing the Federal share of the cost of thework performed by the non-Federal interest onthe project modifications.

(23) RED LAKE RIVER AT CROOKSTON, MIN-NESOTA.—The project for flood control, RedLake River at Crookston, Minnesota: Report ofthe Chief of Engineers dated April 20, 1998, at atotal cost of $8,950,000, with an estimated Fed-eral cost of $5,720,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,230,000.

(24) TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MIS-SOURI, AND KANSAS CITY, KANSAS.—The projectfor flood damage reduction, Turkey CreekBasin, Kansas City, Missouri, and Kansas City,Kansas: Report of the Chief of Engineers datedApril 21, 1999, at a total cost of $42,875,000, withan estimated Federal cost of $25,596,000 and anestimated non-Federal cost of $17,279,000.

(25) LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAYPOINT, NEW JERSEY.—The project for navigationmitigation, ecosystem restoration, shore protec-tion, and hurricane and storm damage reduc-tion, Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape MayPoint, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engi-neers dated April 5, 1999, at a total cost of$15,952,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$12,118,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of$3,834,000, and at an estimated average annualcost of $1,114,000 for periodic nourishment overthe 50-year life of the project, with an estimatedannual Federal cost of $897,000 and an esti-mated annual non-Federal cost of $217,000.

(26) TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET,NEW JERSEY.—The project for hurricane andstorm damage reduction, shore protection, andecosystem restoration, Townsends Inlet to CapeMay Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief ofEngineers dated September 28, 1998, at a totalcost of $56,503,000, with an estimated Federalcost of $36,727,000 and an estimated non-Federalcost of $19,776,000, and at an estimated averageannual cost of $2,000,000 for periodic nourish-ment over the 50-year life of the project, with anestimated annual Federal cost of $1,300,000 andan estimated annual non-Federal cost of$700,000.

(27) GUANAJIBO RIVER, PUERTO RICO.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood con-

trol, Guanajibo River, Puerto Rico: Report ofthe Chief of Engineers dated February 27, 1996,at a total cost of $27,031,000, with an estimatedFederal cost of $20,273,250 and an estimatednon-Federal cost of $6,757,750.

(B) COST SHARING.—Cost sharing for theproject shall be determined in accordance withsection 103(a) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)), as in effecton October 11, 1996.

(28) RIO GRANDE DE MANATI, BARCELONETA,PUERTO RICO.—The project for flood control, RioGrande De Manati, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico:Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January22, 1999, at a total cost of $13,491,000, with anestimated Federal cost of $8,785,000 and an esti-mated non-Federal cost of $4,706,000.

(29) RIO NIGUA, SALINAS, PUERTO RICO.—Theproject for flood control, Rio Nigua, Salinas,Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of Engineersdated April 15, 1997, at a total cost of$13,702,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$7,645,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of$6,057,000.

(30) SALT CREEK, GRAHAM, TEXAS.—Theproject for flood control, environmental restora-tion, and recreation, Salt Creek, Graham,Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers datedOctober 6, 1998, at a total cost of $10,080,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $6,560,000 andan estimated non-Federal cost of $3,520,000.

(b) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO A FINAL REPORT.—The following projects for water resources devel-opment and conservation and other purposesare authorized to be carried out by the Secretarysubstantially in accordance with the plans, andsubject to the conditions, recommended in afinal report of the Chief of Engineers if a favor-able report of the Chief is completed not laterthan December 31, 1999:

(1) HERITAGE HARBOR, WRANGELL, ALASKA.—The project for navigation, Heritage Harbor,Wrangell, Alaska, at a total cost of $24,556,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $14,447,000and estimated non-Federal cost of $10,109,000.

(2) ARROYO PASAJERO, CALIFORNIA.—Theproject for flood damage reduction, ArroyoPasajero, California, at a total cost of$260,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$170,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal costof $90,600,000.

(3) HAMILTON AIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA.—Theproject for environmental restoration, HamiltonAirfield, California, at a total cost of$55,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$41,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of$13,800,000.

(4) SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER BASIN, CALI-FORNIA.—The project for flood damage reduc-tion and water supply, Success Dam, Tule Riverbasin, California, at a total cost of $17,900,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $11,635,000and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,265,000.

(5) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DELAWARE ANDNEW JERSEY: OAKWOOD BEACH, NEW JERSEY.—The project for shore protection, Delaware Baycoastline, Delaware and New Jersey: OakwoodBeach, New Jersey, at a total cost of $3,360,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $2,184,000 andan estimated non-Federal cost of $1,176,000, andat an estimated average annual cost of $81,000for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life ofthe project, with an estimated annual Federalcost of $53,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $28,000.

(6) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DELAWARE ANDNEW JERSEY: REEDS BEACH AND PIERCES POINT,NEW JERSEY.—The project for shore protectionand ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay coast-line, Delaware and New Jersey: Reeds Beachand Pierces Point, New Jersey, at a total cost of$4,057,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$2,637,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of$1,420,000.

(7) LITTLE TALBOT ISLAND, DUVAL COUNTY,FLORIDA.—The project for hurricane and stormdamage prevention and shore protection, LittleTalbot Island, Duval County, Florida, at a totalcost of $5,915,000, with an estimated Federal costof $3,839,000 and an estimated non-Federal costof $2,076,000.

(8) PONCE DE LEON INLET, FLORIDA.—Theproject for navigation and related purposes,Ponce de Leon Inlet, Volusia County, Florida,at a total cost of $5,454,000, with an estimatedFederal cost of $2,988,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,466,000.

(9) SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GEORGIA.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph

(B), the project for navigation, Savannah Har-bor expansion, Georgia, including implementa-tion of the mitigation plan, with such modifica-tions as the Secretary considers appropriate, ata total cost of $230,174,000 (of which amount aportion is authorized for implementation of themitigation plan), with an estimated Federal costof $145,160,000 and an estimated non-Federalcost of $85,014,000.

(B) CONDITIONS.—The project authorized bysubparagraph (A) may be carried out onlyafter—

(i) the Secretary, in consultation with affectedFederal, State of Georgia, State of South Caro-lina, regional, and local entities, reviews andapproves an environmental impact statement forthe project that includes—

(I) an analysis of the impacts of project depthalternatives ranging from 42 feet through 48feet; and

(II) a selected plan for navigation and an as-sociated mitigation plan as required under sec-tion 906(a) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(a)); and

(ii) the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretaryof Commerce, the Administrator of the Environ-mental Protection Agency, and the Secretaryapprove the selected plan and determine thatthe associated mitigation plan adequately ad-

dresses the potential environmental impacts ofthe project.

(C) MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.—The mitiga-tion plan shall be implemented before or concur-rently with construction of the project.

(10) DES PLAINES RIVER, ILLINOIS.—The projectfor flood control, Des Plaines River, Illinois, ata total cost of $48,800,000 with an estimated Fed-eral cost of $31,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $17,100,000.

(11) REELFOOT LAKE, KENTUCKY AND TEN-NESSEE.—The project for ecosystem restoration,Reelfoot Lake, Kentucky and Tennessee, at atotal cost of $35,287,000, with an estimated Fed-eral cost of $23,601,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,686,000.

(12) BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG HARBOR,BRIGANTINE ISLAND, NEW JERSEY.—The projectfor hurricane and storm damage reduction andshore protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great EggHarbor, Brigantine Island, New Jersey, at atotal cost of $4,970,000, with an estimated Fed-eral cost of $3,230,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,740,000, and at an estimatedaverage annual cost of $465,000 for periodicnourishment over the 50-year life of the project,with an estimated annual Federal cost of$302,000 and an estimated annual non-Federalcost of $163,000.

(13) COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL, OREGON ANDWASHINGTON.—The project for navigation, Co-lumbia River Channel, Oregon and Washington,at a total cost of $183,623,000, with an estimatedFederal cost of $106,132,000 and an estimatednon-Federal cost of $77,491,000.

(14) JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.—Theproject for flood damage reduction, environ-mental restoration, and recreation, JohnsonCreek, Arlington, Texas, at a total cost of$20,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$12,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of$8,300,000.

(15) HOWARD HANSON DAM, WASHINGTON.—Theproject for water supply and ecosystem restora-tion, Howard Hanson Dam, Washington, at atotal cost of $75,600,000, with an estimated Fed-eral cost of $36,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $38,700,000.SEC. 102. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conducta study for each of the following projects and,if the Secretary determines that a project is fea-sible, may carry out the project under section205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.701s).

(1) EYAK RIVER, CORDOVA, ALASKA.—Projectfor flood damage reduction, Eyak River, Cor-dova, Alaska.

(2) SALCHA RIVER AND PILEDRIVER SLOUGH,FAIRBANKS, ALASKA.—Project for flood damagereduction to protect against surface water flood-ing, lower Salcha River and Piledriver Sloughfrom its headwaters at the mouth of the SalchaRiver to the Chena Lakes Flood Control Project,Fairbanks, Alaska.

(3) LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA.—Project for floodcontrol, Lancaster, California, westsidestormwater retention facility.

(4) MAGPIE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—Project forflood control, Magpie Creek, California, locatedwithin the boundaries of McClellan Air ForceBase.

(5) GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA, FLORIDA.—Project for flood control, Gateway Trianglearea, Collier County, Florida.

(6) PLANT CITY, FLORIDA.—Project for floodcontrol, Plant City, Florida.

(7) STONE ISLAND, LAKE MONROE, FLORIDA.—Project for flood control, Stone Island, LakeMonroe, Florida.

(8) OHIO RIVER, ILLINOIS.—Project for floodcontrol, Ohio River, Illinois.

(9) HAMILTON DAM, MICHIGAN.—Project forflood control, Hamilton Dam, Michigan.

(10) REPAUPO CREEK AND DELAWARE RIVER,GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.—Project fortidegate and levee improvements for Repaupo

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7280 August 5, 1999Creek and the Delaware River, GloucesterCounty, New Jersey.

(11) IRONDEQUOIT CREEK, NEW YORK.—Projectfor flood control, Irondequoit Creek watershed,New York.

(12) OWASCO LAKE SEAWALL, NEW YORK.—Project for flood control, Owasco Lake seawall,New York.

(13) PORT CLINTON, OHIO.—Project for floodcontrol, Port Clinton, Ohio.

(14) ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood control, Baeder and Wana-maker Roads, Abington Township, Pennsyl-vania.

(15) PORT INDIAN, WEST NORRITON TOWNSHIP,MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Projectfor flood control, Port Indian, West NorritonTownship, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

(16) PORT PROVIDENCE, UPPER PROVIDENCETOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for floodcontrol, Port Providence, Upper ProvidenceTownship, Pennsylvania.

(17) SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP, MONTGOMERYCOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood con-trol, Springfield Township, Montgomery Coun-ty, Pennsylvania.

(18) TAWNEY RUN CREEK, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood control, Tawney Run Creek,Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

(19) WISSAHICKON WATERSHED, PENNSYL-VANIA.—Project for flood control, Wissahickonwatershed, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

(20) TIOGA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Projectfor flood control, Tioga River and CowanesqueRiver and their tributaries, Tioga County,Pennsylvania.

(21) FIRST CREEK, KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE.—Project for flood control, First Creek, Knoxville,Tennessee.

(22) METRO CENTER LEVEE, CUMBERLANDRIVER, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE.—Project for floodcontrol, Metro Center Levee, Cumberland River,Nashville, Tennessee.

(b) FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MISSOURI.—(1) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The

maximum amount of Federal funds that may beexpended for the project for flood control,Festus and Crystal City, Missouri, is $10,000,000.

(2) REVISION OF PROJECT COOPERATION AGREE-MENT.—The Secretary shall revise the project co-operation agreement for the project described inparagraph (1) to take into account the changein the Federal participation in the project underparagraph (1).SEC. 103. SMALL BANK STABILIZATION

PROJECTS.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct

a study for each of the following projects and,if the Secretary determines that a project is fea-sible, may carry out the project under section 14of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):

(1) ARCTIC OCEAN, BARROW, ALASKA.—Projectfor storm damage reduction and coastal erosion,Barrow, Alaska.

(2) SAINT JOSEPH RIVER, INDIANA.—Project forstreambank erosion control, Saint Joseph River,Indiana.

(3) SAGINAW RIVER, BAY CITY, MICHIGAN.—Project for streambank erosion control, SaginawRiver, Bay City, Michigan.

(4) BIG TIMBER CREEK, NEW JERSEY.—Projectfor streambank erosion control, Big TimberCreek, New Jersey.

(5) LAKE SHORE ROAD, ATHOL SPRINGS, NEWYORK.—Project for streambank erosion control,Lake Shore Road, Athol Springs, New York.

(6) MARIST COLLEGE, POUGHKEEPSIE, NEWYORK.—Project for streambank erosion control,Marist College, Poughkeepsie, New York.

(7) MONROE COUNTY, OHIO.—Project forstreambank erosion control, Monroe County,Ohio.

(8) GREEN VALLEY, WEST VIRGINIA.—Project forstreambank erosion control, Green Valley, WestVirginia.

(b) YELLOWSTONE RIVER, BILLINGS, MON-TANA.—The streambank protection project atCoulson Park, along the Yellowstone River, Bil-

lings, Montana, shall be eligible for assistanceunder section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946(33 U.S.C. 701r).SEC. 104. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.

The Secretary shall conduct a study for eachof the following projects and, if the Secretarydetermines that a project is feasible, may carryout the project under section 107 of the Riverand Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577).

(1) GRAND MARAIS, ARKANSAS.—Project fornavigation, Grand Marais, Arkansas.

(2) FIELDS LANDING CHANNEL, HUMBOLDT HAR-BOR, CALIFORNIA.—Project for navigation,Fields Landing Channel, Humboldt Harbor,California.

(3) SAN MATEO (PILLAR POINT HARBOR), CALI-FORNIA.—Project for navigation, San Mateo(Pillar Point Harbor), California.

(4) AGANA MARINA, GUAM.—Project for naviga-tion, Agana Marina, Guam.

(5) AGAT MARINA, GUAM.—Project for naviga-tion, Agat Marina, Guam.

(6) APRA HARBOR FUEL PIERS, GUAM.—Projectfor navigation, Apra Harbor Fuel Piers, Guam.

(7) APRA HARBOR PIER F–6, GUAM.—Project fornavigation, Apra Harbor Pier F–6, Guam.

(8) APRA HARBOR SEAWALL, GUAM.—Project fornavigation including a seawall, Apra Harbor,Guam.

(9) GUAM HARBOR, GUAM.—Project for naviga-tion, Guam Harbor, Guam.

(10) ILLINOIS RIVER NEAR CHAUTAUQUA PARK,ILLINOIS.—Project for navigation, Illinois Rivernear Chautauqua Park, Illinois.

(11) WHITING SHORELINE WATERFRONT, WHIT-ING, INDIANA.—Project for navigation, Whitingshoreline waterfront, Whiting, Indiana.

(12) UNION RIVER, ELLSWORTH, MAINE.—Project for navigation, Union River, Ellsworth,Maine.

(13) NARAGUAGUS RIVER, MACHIAS, MAINE.—Project for navigation, Naraguagus River,Machias, Maine.

(14) DETROIT RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Project fornavigation, Detroit River, Michigan, includingdredging and removal of a reef.

(15) FORTESCUE INLET, DELAWARE BAY, NEWJERSEY.—Project for navigation, Fortescue Inlet,Delaware Bay, New Jersey.

(16) BRADDOCK BAY, GREECE, NEW YORK.—Project for navigation, Braddock Bay, Greece,New York.

(17) BUFFALO AND LASALLE PARK, NEW YORK.—Project for navigation, Buffalo and LaSallePark, New York.

(18) STURGEON POINT, NEW YORK.—Project fornavigation, Sturgeon Point, New York.

(19) FAIRPORT HARBOR, OHIO.—Project fornavigation, Fairport Harbor, Ohio, including arecreation channel.SEC. 105. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT

OF THE QUALITY OF THE ENVIRON-MENT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conducta study for each of the following projects and,if the Secretary determines that a project is ap-propriate, may carry out the project under sec-tion 1135(a) of the Water Reseources Develop-ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(a):

(1) ILLINOIS RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF HAVANA,ILLINOIS.—Project for improvement of the qual-ity of the environment, Illinois River in the vi-cinity of Havana, Illinois.

(2) KNITTING MILL CREEK, VIRGINIA.—Projectfor improvement of the quality of the environ-ment, Knitting Mill Creek, Virginia.

(b) PINE FLAT DAM, KINGS RIVER, CALI-FORNIA.—Under authority of section 1135(a) ofthe Water Resources Development Act of 1986(33 U.S.C. 2309a(a)), the Secretary shall carryout a project to construct a turbine bypass atPine Flat Dam, Kings River, California, in ac-cordance with the project modification reportand environmental assessment dated September1996.SEC. 106. SMALL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORA-

TION PROJECTS.The Secretary is authorized to carry out the

following projects under section 206 of the Water

Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C.2330):

(1) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, BAY DELTA, CALI-FORNIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restora-tion, Contra Costa County, Bay Delta, Cali-fornia.

(2) INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA.—Project for aquat-ic ecosystem restoration and lagoon restoration,Indian River, Florida.

(3) LITTLE WEKIVA RIVER, FLORIDA.—Projectfor aquatic ecosystem restoration and erosioncontrol, Little Wekiva River, Florida.

(4) COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—Project foraquatic ecosystem restoration and lagoon res-toration and protection, Cook County, Illinois.

(5) GRAND BATTURE ISLAND, MISSISSIPPI.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, GrandBatture Island, Mississippi.

(6) HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUN-TIES, MISSISSIPPI.—Project for aquatic ecosystemrestoration and reef restoration along the GulfCoast, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Coun-ties, Mississippi.

(7) MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND RIVER DES PERES,ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.—Project for aquatic eco-system restoration and recreation, MississippiRiver and River Des Peres, St. Louis, Missouri.

(8) HUDSON RIVER, NEW YORK.—Project foraquatic ecosystem restoration, Hudson River,New York.

(9) ONEIDA LAKE, NEW YORK.—Project foraquatic ecosystem restoration, Oneida Lake,Oneida County, New York.

(10) OTSEGO LAKE, NEW YORK.—Project foraquatic ecosystem restoration, Otsego Lake, Ot-sego County, New York.

(11) NORTH FORK OF YELLOW CREEK, OHIO.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, NorthFork of Yellow Creek, Ohio.

(12) WHEELING CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,Wheeling Creek watershed, Ohio.

(13) SPRINGFIELD MILLRACE, OREGON.—Projectfor aquatic ecosystem restoration, SpringfieldMillrace, Oregon.

(14) UPPER AMAZON CREEK, OREGON.—Projectfor aquatic ecosystem restoration, Upper Ama-zon Creek, Oregon.

(15) LAKE ONTELAUNEE RESERVOIR, BERKSCOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for aquaticecosystem restoration and distilling pond facili-ties, Lake Ontelaunee Reservoir, Berks County,Pennsylvania.

(16) BLACKSTONE RIVER BASIN, RHODE ISLANDAND MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for aquatic eco-system restoration and fish passage facilities,Blackstone River Basin, Rhode Island and Mas-sachusetts.

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONSSEC. 201. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL AUTHORITY.

Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948(33 U.S.C. 701s) is amended—

(1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘construc-tion of small projects’’ and inserting ‘‘implemen-tation of small structural and nonstructuralprojects’’; and

(2) in the third sentence, by striking‘‘$5,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$7,000,000’’.SEC. 202. USE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS FOR COM-

PILING AND DISSEMINATING INFOR-MATION ON FLOODS AND FLOODDAMAGE.

Section 206(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1960(33 U.S.C. 709a(b)) is amended in the third sen-tence by inserting before the period at the endthe following: ‘‘, but the Secretary of the Armymay accept funds voluntarily contributed bysuch entities for the purpose of expanding thescope of the services requested by the entities’’.SEC. 203. CONTRIBUTIONS BY STATES AND POLIT-

ICAL SUBDIVISIONS.Section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C.

701h), is amended by inserting ‘‘or environ-mental restoration’’ after ‘‘flood control’’.SEC. 204. SEDIMENT DECONTAMINATION TECH-

NOLOGY.Section 405 of the Water Resources Develop-

ment Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2239 note; PublicLaw 102–580) is amended—

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7281August 5, 1999(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the

following:‘‘(4) PRACTICAL END-USE PRODUCTS.—Tech-

nologies selected for demonstration at the pilotscale shall be intended to result in practicalend-use products.

‘‘(5) ASSISTANCE BY THE SECRETARY.—The Sec-retary shall assist the project to ensure expedi-tious completion by providing sufficient quan-tities of contaminated dredged material to con-duct the full-scale demonstrations to stated ca-pacity.’’;

(2) in subsection (c), by striking the first sen-tence and inserting the following: ‘‘There is au-thorized to be appropriated to carry out this sec-tion $22,000,000 to complete technology testing,technology commercialization, and the develop-ment of full scale processing facilities within theNew York/New Jersey Harbor.’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(e) SUPPORT.—In carrying out the program

under this section, the Secretary is encouragedto use contracts, cooperative agreements, andgrants with colleges and universities and othernon-Federal entities.’’.SEC. 205. CONTROL OF AQUATIC PLANTS.

Section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of1958 (33 U.S.C. 610) is amended—

(1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), bystriking ‘‘water-hyacinth, alligatorweed, Eur-asian water milfoil, melaleuca, and other obnox-ious aquatic plant growths, from’’ and inserting‘‘noxious aquatic plant growths from’’;

(2) in the first sentence of subsection (b), bystriking ‘‘$12,000,000’’ and inserting‘‘$15,000,000.’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(c) SUPPORT.—In carrying out the program

under this section, the Secretary is encouragedto use contracts, cooperative agreements, andgrants with colleges and universities and othernon-Federal entities.’’.SEC. 206. USE OF CONTINUING CONTRACTS FOR

CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAINPROJECTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any otherprovision of law, the Secretary shall not imple-ment a fully allocated funding policy with re-spect to a water resource project if initiation ofconstruction has occurred but sufficient fundsare not available to complete the project.

(b) CONTINUING CONTRACTS.—The Secretaryshall enter into a continuing contract for aproject described in subsection (a).

(c) INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION CLARIFIED.—For the purposes of this section, initiation ofconstruction for a project occurs on the date ofenactment of an Act that appropriates funds forthe project from 1 of the following appropriationaccounts:

(1) Construction, General.(2) Operation and Maintenance, General.(3) Flood Control, Mississippi River and Trib-

utaries.SEC. 207. WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STUDIES FOR THE PACIFIC REGION.Section 444 of the Water Resources Develop-

ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3747) is amended bystriking ‘‘interest of navigation’’ and inserting‘‘interests of water resources development in-cluding navigation, flood damage reduction,and environmental restoration’’.SEC. 208. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA

ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.(a) EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.—Section

528(b)(3) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (B) (110 Stat. 3769), bystriking ‘‘1999’’ and inserting ‘‘2003’’; and

(2) in subparagraph (C)(i) (110 Stat. 3769), bystriking ‘‘1999’’ and inserting ‘‘2003’’.

(b) CREDIT AND REIMBURSEMENT OF PAST ANDFUTURE ACTIVITIES.—Section 528(b)(3) of theWater Resources Development Act of 1996 (110Stat. 3768) is amended by adding at the end thefollowing:

‘‘(D) CREDIT AND REIMBURSEMENT OF PASTAND FUTURE ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary may

provide credit to or reimburse the non-Federalproject sponsor (using funds authorized by sub-paragraph (C)) for the reasonable costs of anywork that has been performed or will be per-formed in connection with a study or activitymeeting the requirements of subparagraph (A)if—

‘‘(i) the Secretary determines that—‘‘(I) the work performed by the non-Federal

project sponsor will substantially expedite com-pletion of a critical restoration project; and

‘‘(II) the work is necessary for a critical res-toration project; and

‘‘(ii) the credit or reimbursement is grantedpursuant to a project-specific agreement thatprescribes the terms and conditions of the creditor reimbursement.’’.

(c) CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER BASIN, FLOR-IDA.—Section 528(e)(4) of the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3770) isamended in the first sentence by inserting beforethe period at the end the following: ‘‘if the Sec-retary determines that the acquisition is compat-ible with and an integral component of the Ev-erglades and South Florida ecosystem restora-tion, including potential acquisition of land orinterests in land in the Caloosahatchee Riverbasin or other areas’’.

(d) IN-KIND WORK.—Section 528(e)(4) of theWater Resources Development Act of 1996 (110Stat. 3770) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘Regardless’’ and inserting thefollowing:

‘‘(1) LAND ACQUISITION.—Regardless’’; and(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(2) IN-KIND WORK.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—During the

preconstruction, engineering, and design phaseand the construction phase of the Central andSouthern Florida Project, the Secretary shallallow credit against the non-Federal share ofthe cost of activities described in subsection (b)for work performed by non-Federal interests atthe request of the Secretary in furtherance ofthe design of features included in the com-prehensive plan under that subsection.

‘‘(B) AUDITS.—In-kind work to be creditedunder subparagraph (A) shall be subject toaudit.’’.SEC. 209. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATE-

RIAL.Section 204 of the Water Resources Develop-

ment Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended—(1) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘cooperative

agreement in accordance with the requirementsof section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970’’and inserting ‘‘binding agreement with the Sec-retary’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42U.S.C. 1962d–5b), for any project carried outunder this section, a non-Federal interest mayinclude a nonprofit entity, with the consent ofthe affected local government.’’.SEC. 210. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

Section 206 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) is amended—

(1) in subsection (b)—(A) by striking ‘‘Non-Federal’’ and inserting

the following:‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Non-Federal’’; and(B) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(2) FORM.—Before October 1, 2003, the Fed-

eral share of the cost of a project under this sec-tion may be provided in the form of reimburse-ments of project costs.’’; and

(2) in subsection (c)—(A) by striking ‘‘Construction’’ and inserting

the following:‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Construction’’; and(B) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(2) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42U.S.C. 1962d–5b), for any project carried outunder this section, a non-Federal interest mayinclude a nonprofit entity, with the consent ofthe affected local government.’’.

SEC. 211. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, RESTORA-TION, AND DEVELOPMENT.

Section 503 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3756) is amended—

(1) in subsection (d)—(A) by striking paragraph (10) and inserting

the following:‘‘(10) Regional Atlanta watershed, Atlanta,

Georgia, and Lake Lanier, Forsyth and HallCounties, Georgia.’’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(14) Clear Lake watershed, California.‘‘(15) Fresno Slough watershed, California.‘‘(16) Hayward Marsh, Southern San Fran-

cisco Bay watershed, California.‘‘(17) Kaweah River watershed, California.‘‘(18) Lake Tahoe watershed, California and

Nevada.‘‘(19) Malibu Creek watershed, California.‘‘(20) Lower St. Johns River basin, Florida.‘‘(21) Illinois River watershed, Illinois.‘‘(22) Truckee River basin, Nevada.‘‘(23) Walker River basin, Nevada.‘‘(24) Bronx River watershed, New York.‘‘(25) Catawba River watershed, North Caro-

lina.‘‘(26) Columbia Slough watershed, Oregon.‘‘(27) Cabin Creek basin, West Virginia.’’;(2) by redesignating subsection (e) as sub-

section (f); and(3) by inserting after subsection (d) the fol-

lowing:‘‘(e) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding

section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970(42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any project under-taken under this section, a non-Federal interestmay include a nonprofit entity, with the con-sent of the affected local government.’’.SEC. 212. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RES-

TORATION PROGRAM.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may under-

take a program for the purpose of conductingprojects to reduce flood hazards and restore thenatural functions and values of rivers through-out the United States.

(b) STUDIES AND PROJECTS.—(1) AUTHORITY.—In carrying out the program,

the Secretary may conduct studies to identifyappropriate flood damage reduction, conserva-tion, and restoration measures and may designand implement projects described in subsection(a).

(2) CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.—Thestudies and projects carried out under this sec-tion shall be conducted, to the maximum extentpracticable, in consultation and coordinationwith the Federal Emergency Management Agen-cy and other appropriate Federal agencies, andin consultation and coordination with appro-priate State and local agencies and tribes.

(3) NONSTRUCTURAL APPROACHES.—The stud-ies and projects shall emphasize, to the max-imum extent practicable and appropriate, non-structural approaches to preventing or reducingflood damages.

(4) PARTICIPATION.—The studies and projectsshall be conducted, to the maximum extent prac-ticable, in cooperation with State and localagencies and tribes to ensure the coordination oflocal flood damage reduction or riverine andwetland restoration studies with projects thatconserve, restore, and manage hydrologic andhydraulic regimes and restore the natural func-tions and values of floodplains.

(c) COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS.—(1) STUDIES.—Studies conducted under this

section shall be subject to cost sharing in ac-cordance with section 105 of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.2215).

(2) ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND NON-STRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal interestsshall pay 35 percent of the cost of any environ-mental restoration or nonstructural flood con-trol project carried out under this section.

(B) ITEMS PROVIDED BY NON-FEDERAL INTER-ESTS.—The non-Federal interests shall provide

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7282 August 5, 1999all land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged ma-terial disposal areas, and relocations necessaryfor such projects.

(C) CREDIT.—The value of such land, ease-ments, rights-of-way, dredged material disposalareas, and relocations shall be credited towardthe payment required under this paragraph.

(3) STRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.—Any structural flood control projects carried outunder this section shall be subject to cost shar-ing in accordance with section 103(a) of theWater Resources Development Act of 1986 (33U.S.C. 2213(a)).

(4) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal interests shall be responsible for allcosts associated with operating, maintaining, re-placing, repairing, and rehabilitating allprojects carried out under this section.

(d) PROJECT JUSTIFICATION.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other

provision of law or requirement for economicjustification established under section 209 of theFlood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962–2), theSecretary may implement a project under thissection if the Secretary determines that theproject—

(A) will significantly reduce potential flooddamages;

(B) will improve the quality of the environ-ment; and

(C) is justified considering all costs and bene-ficial outputs of the project.

(2) ESTABLISHMENT OF SELECTION AND RATINGCRITERIA AND POLICIES.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 daysafter the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec-retary, in cooperation with State and localagencies and tribes, shall—

(i) develop, and submit to the Committee onTransportation and Infrastructure of the Houseof Representatives and the Committee on Envi-ronment and Public Works of the Senate, cri-teria for selecting and rating projects to be car-ried out under this section; and

(ii) establish policies and procedures for car-rying out the studies and projects undertakenunder this section.

(B) CRITERIA.—The criteria referred to in sub-paragraph (A)(i) shall include, as a priority, theextent to which the appropriate State govern-ment supports the project.

(e) PRIORITY AREAS.—In carrying out this sec-tion, the Secretary shall examine appropriate lo-cations, including—

(1) Pima County, Arizona, at Paseo De LasIglesias and Rillito River;

(2) Coachella Valley, Riverside County, Cali-fornia;

(3) Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, Cali-fornia;

(4) Murrieta Creek, California;(5) Napa River Valley watershed, California,

at Yountville, St Helena, Calistoga, and Amer-ican Canyon;

(6) Santa Clara basin, California, at UpperGuadalupe River and Tributaries, SanFrancisquito Creek, and Upper PenitenciaCreek;

(7) Pond Creek, Kentucky;(8) Red River of the North, Minnesota, North

Dakota, and South Dakota;(9) Connecticut River, New Hampshire;(10) Pine Mount Creek, New Jersey;(11) Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New

Mexico;(12) Upper Delaware River, New York;(13) Briar Creek, North Carolina;(14) Chagrin River, Ohio;(15) Mill Creek, Cincinnati, Ohio;(16) Tillamook County, Oregon,(17) Willamette River basin, Oregon;(18) Blair County, Pennsylvania, at Altoona

and Frankstown Township;(19) Delaware River, Pennsylvania;(20) Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania;(21) Providence County, Rhode Island;(22) Shenandoah River, Virginia; and(23) Lincoln Creek, Wisconsin.

(f) PROGRAM REVIEW.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The program established

under this section shall be subject to an inde-pendent review to evaluate the efficacy of theprogram in achieving the dual goals of floodhazard mitigation and riverine restoration.

(2) REPORT.—Not later than April 15, 2003, theSecretary shall submit to the Committee onTransportation and Infrastructure of the Houseof Representatives and the Committee on Envi-ronment and Public Works of the Senate a re-port on the findings of the review conductedunder this subsection with any recommenda-tions concerning continuation of the program.

(g) MAXIMUM FEDERAL COST PER PROJECT.—Not more than $30,000,000 may be expended bythe United States on any single project underthis section.

(h) PROCEDURE.—(1) ALL PROJECTS.—The Secretary shall not

implement any project under this section until—(A) the Secretary submits to the Committee on

Environment and Public Works of the Senateand the Committee on Transportation and In-frastructure of the House of Representatives awritten notification describing the project andthe determinations made under subsection(d)(1); and

(B) 21 calendar days have elapsed after thedate on which the notification was received bythe committees.

(2) PROJECTS EXCEEDING $15,000,000.—(A) LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS.—No ap-

propriation shall be made to construct anyproject under this section the total Federal costof construction of which exceeds $15,000,000 ifthe project has not been approved by resolutionsadopted by the Committee on Transportationand Infrastructure of the House of Representa-tives and the Committee on Environment andPublic Works of the Senate.

(B) REPORT.—For the purpose of securingconsideration of approval under this paragraph,the Secretary shall submit a report on the pro-posed project, including all relevant data andinformation on all costs.

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be

appropriated to carry out this section—(A) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;(B) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and(C) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003

through 2005.(2) FULL FUNDING.—All studies and projects

carried out under this section from Army CivilWorks appropriations shall be fully fundedwithin the program funding levels provided inthis subsection.SEC. 213. SHORE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

(a) REVIEW.—The Secretary shall review theimplementation of the Corps of Engineers shoremanagement program, with particular attentionto—

(1) inconsistencies in implementation amongthe divisions and districts of the Corps of Engi-neers; and

(2) complaints by or potential inequities re-garding property owners in the Savannah Dis-trict, including an accounting of the numberand disposition of complaints in the SavannahDistrict during the 5-year period preceding thedate of enactment of this Act.

(b) REPORT.—As expeditiously as practicable,but not later than 1 year after the date of enact-ment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit tothe Committee on Transportation and Infra-structure of the House of Representatives andthe Committee on Environment and PublicWorks of the Senate a report describing the re-sults of the review under subsection (a).SEC. 214. SHORE DAMAGE PREVENTION OR MITI-

GATION.Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of

1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i) is amended—(1) in the first sentence—(A) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary’’; and

(B) by inserting after ‘‘navigation works’’ thefollowing: ‘‘and shore damage attributable tothe Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and theGulf Intracoastal Waterway’’;

(2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘Thecosts’’ and inserting the following:

‘‘(b) COST SHARING.—The costs’’;(3) in the third sentence—(A) by striking ‘‘No such’’ and inserting the

following:‘‘(c) REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIFIC AUTHORIZA-

TION.—No such’’; and(B) by striking ‘‘$2,000,000’’ and inserting

‘‘$5,000,000’’; and(4) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(d) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall—‘‘(1) coordinate the implementation of the

measures under this section with other Federaland non-Federal shore protection projects in thesame geographic area; and

‘‘(2) to the extent practicable, combine mitiga-tion projects with other shore protection projectsin the same area into a comprehensive regionalproject.’’.SEC. 215. SHORE PROTECTION.

(a) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT.—Section 103(d) ofthe Water Resources Development Act of 1986(33 U.S.C. 2213(d)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘Costs of constructing’’ and in-serting the following:

‘‘(1) CONSTRUCTION.—Costs of constructing’’;and

(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(2) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a project au-

thorized for construction after December 31,1999, or for which a feasibility study is com-pleted after that date, the non-Federal cost ofthe periodic nourishment of the project, or anymeasure for shore protection or beach erosioncontrol for the project, that is carried out—

‘‘(i) after January 1, 2001, shall be 40 percent;‘‘(ii) after January 1, 2002, shall be 45 percent;

and‘‘(iii) after January 1, 2003, shall be 50 per-

cent.‘‘(B) BENEFITS TO PRIVATELY OWNED

SHORES.—All costs assigned to benefits of peri-odic nourishment projects or measures to pri-vately owned shores (where use of such shores islimited to private interests) or to prevention oflosses of private land shall be borne by the non-Federal interest.

‘‘(C) BENEFITS TO FEDERALLY OWNEDSHORES.—All costs assigned to the protection offederally owned shores for periodic nourishmentmeasures shall be borne by the United States.’’.

(b) OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.—(1) USE OF SAND FROM OUTER CONTINENTAL

SHELF.—Section 8(k)(2)(B) of the Outer Conti-nental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(k)(2)(B))is amended in the second sentence by striking‘‘an agency of the Federal Government’’ and in-serting ‘‘a Federal, State, or local governmentagency’’.

(2) REIMBURSEMENT OF LOCAL INTERESTS.—Any amounts paid by non-Federal interests forbeach erosion control, hurricane protection,shore protection, or storm damage reductionprojects as a result of an assessment under sec-tion 8(k) of the Outer Continental Shelf LandsAct (43 U.S.C. 1337(k)) shall be fully reimbursed.

(c) REPORT ON SHORES OF THE UNITEDSTATES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years afterthe date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall report to Congress on the state of theshores of the United States.

(2) CONTENTS.—The report shall include—(A) a description of—(i) the extent of, and economic and environ-

mental effects caused by, erosion and accretionalong the shores of the United States; and

(ii) the causes of such erosion and accretion;(B) a description of resources committed by

Federal, State, and local governments to restoreand renourish shores;

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7283August 5, 1999(C) a description of the systematic movement

of sand along the shores of the United States;and

(D) recommendations regarding—(i) appropriate levels of Federal and non-Fed-

eral participation in shore protection; and(ii) use of a systems approach to sand man-

agement.(3) USE OF SPECIFIC LOCATION DATA.—In de-

veloping the report, the Secretary shall use datafrom specific locations on the coasts of the At-lantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Great Lakes, andGulf of Mexico.

(d) NATIONAL COASTAL DATA BANK.—(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF DATA BANK.—Not later

than 2 years after the date of enactment of thisAct, the Secretary shall establish a nationalcoastal data bank containing data on the geo-physical and climatological characteristics ofthe shores of the United States.

(2) CONTENT.—To the extent practicable, thenational coastal data bank shall include dataregarding current and predicted shore positions,information on federally authorized shore pro-tection projects, and data on the movement ofsand along the shores of the United States, in-cluding impediments to such movement causedby natural and manmade features.

(3) ACCESS.—The national coastal data bankshall be made readily accessible to the public.SEC. 216. FLOOD PREVENTION COORDINATION.

Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960(33 U.S.C. 709a) is amended—

(1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) assubsections (c) and (d), respectively; and

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

‘‘(b) FLOOD PREVENTION COORDINATION.—TheSecretary shall coordinate with the Director ofthe Federal Emergency Management Agencyand the heads of other Federal agencies to en-sure that flood control projects and plans arecomplementary and integrated to the extentpracticable and appropriate.’’.SEC. 217. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ON

BEACHES.(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 145 of the Water Re-

sources Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j)is amended in the first sentence by striking ‘‘50’’and inserting ‘‘35’’.

(b) GREAT LAKES BASIN.—The Secretary shallwork with the State of Ohio, other Great LakesStates, and political subdivisions of the States tofully implement and maximize beneficial reuse ofdredged material as provided under section 145of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976(33 U.S.C. 426j).

(c) BOLIVAR PENINSULA, JEFFERSON, CHAM-BERS, AND GALVESTON COUNTIES, TEXAS.—TheSecretary may design and construct a shore pro-tection project between the south jetty of theSabine Pass Channel and the north jetty of theGalveston Harbor Entrance Channel in Jeffer-son, Chambers, and Galveston Counties, Texas,including beneficial use of dredged materialfrom Federal navigation projects as providedunder section 145 of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j).

(d) GALVESTON BEACH, GALVESTON COUNTY,TEXAS.—The Secretary may design and con-struct a shore protection project between theGalveston South Jetty and San Luis Pass, Gal-veston County, Texas, using innovative nourish-ment techniques, including beneficial use ofdredged material from Federal navigationprojects as provided under section 145 of theWater Resources Development Act of 1976 (33U.S.C. 426j).

(e) ROLLOVER PASS, GALVESTON COUNTY,TEXAS.—The Secretary may place dredged mate-rial from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway on thebeaches along Rollover Pass, Galveston County,Texas, to stabilize beach erosion as providedunder section 145 of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j).SEC. 218. ANNUAL PASSES FOR RECREATION.

Section 208(c)(4) of the Water Resources De-velopment Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 460d–3 note; 110

Stat. 3681) is amended by striking ‘‘later of De-cember 31, 1999, or the date of transmittal of thereport under paragraph (3)’’ and inserting ‘‘De-cember 31, 2003’’.SEC. 219. NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROL

PROJECTS.(a) ANALYSIS OF BENEFITS.—Section 308 of the

Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33U.S.C. 2318) is amended—

(1) in the heading of subsection (a), by insert-ing ‘‘EXCLUSION OF ELEMENTS FROM’’ before‘‘BENEFIT-COST’’;

(2) by redesignating subsections (b) through(e) as subsections (c) through (f), respectively;

(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol-lowing:

‘‘(b) FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION BENEFITS.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In calculating the benefits

of a proposed project for nonstructural flooddamage reduction, the Secretary shall calculatethe benefits of the nonstructural project usingmethods similar to those used for calculating thebenefits of structural projects, including similartreatment in calculating the benefits from lossesavoided.

‘‘(2) AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE COUNTING.—Incarrying out paragraph (1), the Secretaryshould avoid double counting of benefits.’’; and

(4) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘subsection(b)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)’’.

(b) REEVALUATION OF FLOOD CONTROLPROJECTS.—At the request of a non-Federal in-terest for a flood control project, the Secretaryshall conduct a reevaluation of a project au-thorized before the date of enactment of this Actto consider nonstructural alternatives in light ofthe amendments made by subsection (a).

(c) COST SHARING.—Section 103(b) of theWater Resources Development Act of 1986 (33U.S.C. 2213(b)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘The non-Federal’’ and insert-ing the following:

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal’’; and(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(2) NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION IN EXCESS OF

35 PERCENT.—At any time during construction ofa project, if the Secretary determines that thecosts of land, easements, rights-of-way, dredgedmaterial disposal areas, and relocations for theproject, in combination with other costs contrib-uted by the non-Federal interests, will exceed 35percent, any additional costs for the project (notto exceed 65 percent of the total costs of theproject) shall be a Federal responsibility andshall be contributed during construction as partof the Federal share.’’.SEC. 220. LAKES PROGRAM.

Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758)is amended—

(1) in paragraph (14), by inserting ‘‘and nutri-ent monitoring’’ after ‘‘growth’’;

(2) in paragraph (15), by striking ‘‘and’’ atthe end;

(3) in paragraph (16), by striking the period atthe end and inserting a semicolon; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, re-

moval of silt and aquatic growth and measuresto address excessive sedimentation and high nu-trient concentration;

‘‘(18) Flints Pond, Hollis, Hillsborough Coun-ty, New Hampshire, removal of silt and aquaticgrowth and measures to address excessive sedi-mentation; and

‘‘(19) Osgood Pond, Milford, HillsboroughCounty, New Hampshire, removal of silt andaquatic growth and measures to address exces-sive sedimentation.’’.SEC. 221. ENHANCEMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

RESOURCES.Section 906(e) of the Water Resources Develop-

ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(e)) is amendedby inserting after the second sentence the fol-lowing: ‘‘Not more than 80 percent of the non-Federal share of such first costs may be satisfiedthrough in-kind contributions, including facili-

ties, supplies, and services that are necessary tocarry out the enhancement project.’’.SEC. 222. PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIP-

MENT AND PRODUCTS.(a) IN GENERAL.—It is the sense of Congress

that, to the extent practicable, all equipmentand products purchased with funds made avail-able under this Act should be American made.

(b) NOTICE TO RECIPIENTS OF ASSISTANCE.—Inproviding financial assistance under this Act,the Secretary, to the greatest extent practicable,shall provide to each recipient of the assistancea notice describing the statement made in sub-section (a).SEC. 223. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL

PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL INTER-ESTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 211(d) of the WaterResources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C.701b–13(d)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘Any non-Federal interest that has received from the Sec-retary pursuant to subsection (b) or (c)’’ and in-serting the following:

‘‘(A) STUDIES AND DESIGN ACTIVITIES UNDERSUBSECTION (b).—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—A non-Federal interest maycarry out construction for which studies and de-sign documents are prepared under subsection(b) only if the Secretary approves the project forconstruction.

‘‘(ii) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.—The Secretaryshall approve a project for construction if theSecretary determines that the project is tech-nically sound, economically justified, and envi-ronmentally acceptable and meets the require-ments for obtaining the appropriate permits re-quired under the authority of the Secretary.

‘‘(iii) NO UNREASONABLE WITHHOLDING OF AP-PROVAL.—The Secretary shall not unreasonablywithhold approval of a project for construction.

‘‘(iv) NO EFFECT ON REGULATORY AUTHOR-ITY.—Nothing in this subparagraph affects anyregulatory authority of the Secretary.

‘‘(B) STUDIES AND DESIGN ACTIVITIES UNDERSUBSECTION (c).—Any non-Federal interest thathas received from the Secretary under sub-section (c)’’; and

(2) in the first sentence of paragraph (2), byinserting ‘‘(other than paragraph (1)(A))’’ after‘‘this subsection’’.

(b) REIMBURSEMENT.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 211(e)(1) of the

Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33U.S.C. 701b–13(e)(1)) is amended—

(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A),by inserting after ‘‘constructed pursuant to thissection’’ the following: ‘‘and provide credit forthe non-Federal share of the project’’;

(B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and’’ atthe end;

(C) in subparagraph (B), by striking the pe-riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(D) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(C) if the construction work is substantially

in accordance with plans prepared under sub-section (b).’’.

(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Section 211(e)(2)(A) of theWater Resources Development Act of 1996 (33U.S.C. 701b–13(e)(2)(A)) is amended—

(A) in the subparagraph heading, by inserting‘‘OR CREDIT’’ after ‘‘REIMBURSEMENT’’;

(B) by striking ‘‘subject to amounts beingmade available in advance in appropriationsActs’’ and inserting ‘‘subject to the availabilityof appropriations’’; and

(C) by inserting after ‘‘the cost of such work’’the following: ‘‘, or provide credit (depending onthe request of the non-Federal interest) for thenon-Federal share of such work,’’.

(3) SCHEDULE AND MANNER OF REIMBURSE-MENTS.—Section 211(e) of the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b–13(e)) isamended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(6) SCHEDULE AND MANNER OF REIMBURSE-MENT.—

‘‘(A) BUDGETING.—The Secretary shall budgetand request appropriations for reimbursements

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7284 August 5, 1999under this section on a schedule that is con-sistent with a Federal construction schedule.

‘‘(B) COMMENCEMENT OF REIMBURSEMENTS.—Reimbursements under this section may com-mence on approval of a project by the Secretary.

‘‘(C) CREDIT.—At the request of a non-Federalinterest, the Secretary may reimburse the non-Federal interest by providing credit toward fu-ture non-Federal costs of the project.

‘‘(D) SCHEDULING.—Nothing in this paragraphaffects the discretion of the President to sched-ule new construction starts.’’.SEC. 224. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.

Section 312 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1272) is amended—

(1) in subsection (b)—(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘50’’ and in-

serting ‘‘35’’; and(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘$20,000,000’’

and inserting ‘‘$50,000,000’’;(2) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘non-Federal

responsibility’’ and inserting ‘‘shared as a costof construction’’; and

(3) in subsection (f), by adding at the end thefollowing:

‘‘(6) Passaic River and Newark Bay, New Jer-sey.

‘‘(7) Snake Creek, Bixby, Oklahoma.‘‘(8) Willamette River, Oregon.’’.

SEC. 225. RECREATION USER FEES.(a) WITHHOLDING OF AMOUNTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—During fiscal years 1999

through 2002, the Secretary may withhold fromthe special account established under section4(i)(1)(A) of the Land and Water ConservationFund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l–6a(i)(1)(A)) 100percent of the amount of receipts above a base-line of $34,000,000 per each fiscal year receivedfrom fees imposed at recreation sites under theadministrative jurisdiction of the Department ofthe Army under section 4(b) of that Act (16U.S.C. 460l–6a(b)).

(2) USE.—The amounts withheld shall be re-tained by the Secretary and shall be available,without further Act of appropriation, for ex-penditure by the Secretary in accordance withsubsection (b).

(3) AVAILABILITY.—The amounts withheldshall remain available until September 30, 2005.

(b) USE OF AMOUNTS WITHHELD.—In order toincrease the quality of the visitor experience atpublic recreational areas and to enhance theprotection of resources, the amounts withheldunder subsection (a) may be used only for—

(1) repair and maintenance projects (includingprojects relating to health and safety);

(2) interpretation;(3) signage;(4) habitat or facility enhancement;(5) resource preservation;(6) annual operation (including fee collec-

tion);(7) maintenance; and(8) law enforcement related to public use.(c) AVAILABILITY.—Each amount withheld by

the Secretary shall be available for expenditure,without further Act of appropriation, at the spe-cific project from which the amount, above base-line, is collected.SEC. 226. SMALL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION

PROJECTS.Section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33

U.S.C. 426g), is amended by striking‘‘$2,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$3,000,000’’.SEC. 227. USE OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall complywith the requirements of the Federal ActivitiesInventory Reform Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 501note; Public Law 105–270).

(b) COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAW.—(1) INVENTORY AND REVIEW.—In carrying out

this section, the Secretary shall inventory andreview all activities that are not inherently gov-ernmental in nature in accordance with theFederal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998.

(2) ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SERV-ICES.—Any review and conversion by the Sec-

retary to performance by private enterprise ofan architectural or engineering service (includ-ing a surveying or mapping service) shall be car-ried out in accordance with title IX of the Fed-eral Property and Administrative Services Act of1949 (40 U.S.C. 541 et seq.).

TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATEDPROVISIONS

SEC. 301. TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAYWILDLIFE MITIGATION, ALABAMAAND MISSISSIPPI.

The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway WildlifeMitigation Project, Alabama and Mississippi,authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4138),is modified to authorize the Secretary to com-plete the project at a cost of $93,530,000, in ac-cordance with the post authorization change re-port dated August 17, 1998.SEC. 302. OUZINKIE HARBOR, ALASKA.

(a) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—Themaximum amount of Federal funds that may beexpended for the project for navigation,Ouzinkie Harbor, Alaska, shall be $8,500,000.

(b) REVISION OF PROJECT COOPERATIONAGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall revise theproject cooperation agreement for the project re-ferred to in subsection (a) to take into accountthe change in the Federal participation in theproject under subsection (a).SEC. 303. ST. PAUL HARBOR, ST. PAUL, ALASKA.

The project for navigation, St. Paul Harbor,St. Paul, Alaska, authorized by section 101(b)(3)of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996(110 Stat. 3667), is modified to include the con-struction of additional features for a small boatharbor with an entrance channel and maneu-vering area dredged to a 20-foot depth and ap-propriate wave protection features at an addi-tional estimated total cost of $12,700,000, withan estimated Federal cost of $5,000,000 and anestimated non-Federal cost of $7,700,000.SEC. 304. LOGGY BAYOU, RED RIVER BELOW

DENISON DAM, ARKANSAS, LOU-ISIANA, OKLAHOMA, AND TEXAS.

The project for flood control on the Red Riverbelow Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana,Oklahoma, and Texas, authorized by section 10of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 647),is modified to direct the Secretary to conduct astudy to determine the feasibility of expandingthe project to include mile 0.0 to mile 7.8 ofLoggy Bayou between the Red River and FlatRiver.SEC. 305. SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA,

CALIFORNIA.(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood con-

trol, Sacramento River, California, authorizedby section 2 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to pro-vide for the control of the floods of the Mis-sissippi River and of the Sacramento River,California, and for other purposes’’, approvedMarch 1, 1917 (39 Stat. 949), and modified bysection 102 of the Energy and Water Develop-ment Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 649),section 301(b)(3) of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3110), and title I ofthe Energy and Water Development Appropria-tions Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 1841), is further modi-fied to authorize the Secretary—

(1) to carry out the portion of the project atGlenn-Colusa, California, at a total cost of$26,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$20,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of$6,000,000; and

(2) to carry out bank stabilization work in theriverbed gradient facility, particularly in the vi-cinity of River Mile 208, if the Secretary deter-mines that such work is necessary to protect theoverall integrity of the project, on the conditionthat additional environmental review of theproject is conducted.SEC. 306. SAN LORENZO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

The project for flood control, San LorenzoRiver, California, authorized by section101(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development

Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3663), is modified to au-thorize the Secretary to include as a part of theproject streambank erosion control measures tobe undertaken substantially in accordance withthe report entitled ‘‘Bank Stabilization Concept,Laurel Street Extension’’, dated April 23, 1998,at a total cost of $4,800,000, with an estimatedFederal cost of $3,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,700,000.SEC. 307. TERMINUS DAM, KAWEAH RIVER, CALI-

FORNIA.(a) TRANSFER OF TITLE TO ADDITIONAL

LAND.—If the non-Federal interests for theproject for flood control and water supply, Ter-minus Dam, Kaweah River, California, author-ized by section 101(b)(5) of the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667), trans-fer to the Secretary without consideration titleto perimeter lands acquired for the project bythe non-Federal interests, the Secretary may ac-cept the transfer of that title.

(b) LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—Nothing in this section changes, modifies, orotherwise affects the responsibility of the non-Federal interests to provide land, easements,rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged materialdisposal areas necessary for the Terminus Damproject and to perform operation and mainte-nance for the project.

(c) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—On re-quest by the non-Federal interests, the Secretaryshall carry out operation, maintenance, repair,replacement, and rehabilitation of the project ifthe non-Federal interests enter into a bindingagreement with the Secretary to reimburse theSecretary for 100 percent of the costs of such op-eration, maintenance, repair, replacement, andrehabilitation, and any other expenses incurredby the Corps of Engineers under this section.

(d) HOLD HARMLESS.—The non-Federal inter-ests shall hold the United States harmless forownership, operation, and maintenance of landsand facilities of the Terminus Dam project titleto which is transferred to the Secretary underthis section.SEC. 308. DELAWARE RIVER MAINSTEM AND

CHANNEL DEEPENING, DELAWARE,NEW JERSEY, AND PENNSYLVANIA.

The project for navigation, Delaware RiverMainstem and Channel Deepening, Delaware,New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, authorized bysection 101(6) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802), is modified asfollows:

(1) CREDIT FOR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN ANDCONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT WORK.—The Sec-retary may provide the non-Federal interestscredit, toward cash contributions required forconstruction and subsequent to construction, forthe costs of engineering and design and con-struction management work that is performed bythe non-Federal interests and that the Secretarydetermines is necessary to implement the project.Any such credit shall reduce the PhiladelphiaDistrict’s private sector performance goals forengineering work by the amount of the credit.

(2) CREDIT FOR COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION.—TheSecretary may provide the non-Federal interestscredit, toward cash contributions required dur-ing construction and subsequent to construc-tion, for the costs of construction performed bythe non-Federal interests on behalf of the Sec-retary and that the Secretary determines is nec-essary to implement the project.

(3) PAYMENT OF DISPOSAL OR TIPPING FEES.—The Secretary may enter into an agreement witha non-Federal interest for the payment of dis-posal or tipping fees for dredged material from aFederal project, other than for the constructionor operation and maintenance of the new deep-ening project as described in the Limited Re-evaluation Report dated May 1997, if the non-Federal interest has supplied the correspondingdisposal capacity.

(4) DISPOSAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN.—TheSecretary may enter into an agreement with anon-Federal interest under which—

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7285August 5, 1999(A) the non-Federal interest may carry out or

cause to have carried out on behalf of the Sec-retary a disposal area management program fordredged material disposal areas necessary toconstruct, operate, and maintain the project;and

(B) the Secretary shall reimburse the non-Fed-eral interest for the costs of carrying out theprogram.SEC. 309. POTOMAC RIVER, WASHINGTON, DIS-

TRICT OF COLUMBIA.The project for flood control, Potomac River,

Washington, District of Columbia, authorized bysection 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat.1574, chapter 688), and modified by section301(a)(4) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (110 Stat. 3707), is modified to au-thorize the Secretary to construct the project ata Federal cost of $5,965,000, in accordance withthe post authorization change report dated June29, 1998.SEC. 310. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.

(a) STUDY.—Not later than 120 days after thedate of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, incooperation with the non-Federal interest, shallcomplete a study of any damage to the projectfor shore protection, Brevard County, Florida,authorized by section 101(b)(7) of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667),to determine whether the damage is the result ofa Federal navigation project.

(b) CONDITIONS.—In conducting the study, theSecretary shall use the services of an inde-pendent coastal expert, who shall consider allrelevant studies completed by the Corps of Engi-neers and the local sponsor of the project.

(c) MITIGATION OF DAMAGE.—After completionof the study, the Secretary shall mitigate anydamage to the shore protection project that isthe result of a Federal navigation project. Thecosts of the mitigation shall be allocated to theFederal navigation project as operation andmaintenance costs.SEC. 311. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBORO

INLET, FLORIDA.The project for shore protection, Broward

County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida, authorizedby section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of1965 (79 Stat. 1090), is modified to authorize theSecretary, on execution of a contract to con-struct the project, to reimburse the non-Federalinterest for the Federal share of the cost ofpreconstruction planning and design for theproject, if the Secretary determines that thework is compatible with and integral to theproject.SEC. 312. LEE COUNTY, CAPTIVA ISLAND SEG-

MENT, FLORIDA, PERIODIC BEACHNOURISHMENT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for shore protec-tion, Lee County, Captiva Island segment, Flor-ida, authorized by section 506(b)(3)(A) of theWater Resources Development Act of 1996 (110Stat. 3758), is modified to direct the Secretary toenter into an agreement with the non-Federalinterest to carry out the project in accordancewith section 206 of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 426i–1).

(b) DECISION DOCUMENT.—The design memo-randum approved in 1996 shall be the decisiondocument supporting continued Federal partici-pation in cost sharing of the project.SEC. 313. FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for shore protec-tion and harbor mitigation, Fort Pierce, Florida,authorized by section 301 of the River and Har-bor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1092) and section506(a)(2) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757), is modified to incor-porate 1 additional mile into the project in ac-cordance with a final approved general reevalu-ation report, at a total cost for initial nourish-ment for the entire project of $9,128,000, with anestimated Federal cost of $7,073,500 and an esti-mated non-Federal cost of $2,054,500, at an aver-age annual cost of $556,000 for periodic nourish-ment over the 50-year life of the project, with an

estimated annual Federal cost of $431,000 andan estimated annual non-Federal cost of$125,000.

(b) PERIODIC BEACH NOURISHMENT.—Periodicbeach nourishment is authorized for the projectin accordance with section 506(a)(2) of WaterResources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.3757).SEC. 314. NASSAU COUNTY, FLORIDA.

The project for beach erosion control, NassauCounty (Amelia Island), Florida, authorized bysection 3(a)(3) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013), is modified toauthorize the Secretary to construct the projectat a total cost of $17,000,000, with an estimatedFederal cost of $13,300,000 and an estimatednon-Federal cost of $3,700,000, at an average an-nual cost of $1,177,000 for periodic nourishmentover the 50-year life of the project, with an esti-mated annual Federal cost of $807,000 and anestimated annual non-Federal cost of $370,000.SEC. 315. MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FLORIDA.

The project for navigation, Miami HarborChannel, Florida, authorized by section101(a)(9) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606), is modified to in-clude construction of artificial reefs and relatedenvironmental mitigation required by Federal,State, and local environmental permitting agen-cies for the project, if the Secretary determinesthat the project as modified is technicallysound, environmentally acceptable, and eco-nomically justified.SEC. 316. ST. AUGUSTINE, ST. JOHNS COUNTY,

FLORIDA.The project for shore protection and storm

damage reduction, St. Augustine, St. JohnsCounty, Florida, authorized by section 501(a) ofthe Water Resources Development Act of 1986(100 Stat. 4133) is modified to include navigationmitigation as a project purpose and to be carriedby the Secretary substantially in accordancewith the general reevaluation report dated No-vember 18, 1998, at a total cost of $17,208,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $13,852,000and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,356,000,and at an estimated average annual cost of$1,360,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated an-nual Federal cost of $1,095,000 and an estimatedannual non-Federal cost of $265,000.SEC. 317. MILO CREEK, IDAHO.

The Secretary shall reimburse the non-Federalinterests for 65 percent of the reasonable costs offlood control for the South Division Street Seg-ment, Milo Creek Flood Control Project, Idaho,to be constructed by the State of Idaho as de-scribed in the provision entitled ‘‘Add Alter-native I’’ in the Milo Creek Phase II plans andspecifications dated April 1999.SEC. 318. LAKE MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for storm dam-age reduction and shore protection, Lake Michi-gan, Illinois, from Wilmette, Illinois, to the Illi-nois-Indiana State line, authorized by section101(a)(12) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664), is modified to pro-vide for reimbursement for additional projectwork undertaken by the non-Federal interest.

(b) CREDIT OR REIMBURSEMENT.—The Sec-retary shall credit or reimburse the non-Federalinterest for the Federal share of project costs in-curred by the non-Federal interest in designing,constructing, or reconstructing reach 2F (700feet south of Fullerton Avenue and 500 feetnorth of Fullerton Avenue), reach 3M (MeigsField), and segments 7 and 8 of reach 4 (43rdStreet to 57th Street), if the non-Federal interestcarries out the work in accordance with plansapproved by the Secretary, at an estimated totalcost of $83,300,000.

(c) REIMBURSEMENT.—The Secretary shall re-imburse the non-Federal interest for the Federalshare of project costs incurred by the non-Fed-eral interest in reconstructing the revetmentstructures protecting Solidarity Drive in Chi-cago, Illinois, before the signing of the project

cooperation agreement, at an estimated totalcost of $7,600,000.SEC. 319. SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS.

Section 417 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3743) is amended—

(1) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before‘‘The Secretary’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(b) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share

of assistance provided under this section before,on, or after the date of enactment of this sub-section shall be 50 percent.’’.SEC. 320. OGDEN DUNES, INDIANA.

(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct astudy of beach erosion in and around the townof Ogden Dunes, Indiana, to determine whetherthe damage is the result of a Federal navigationproject.

(b) MITIGATION OF DAMAGE.—If the Secretarydetermines that the damage described in sub-section (a) is the result of a Federal navigationproject, the Secretary shall take appropriatemeasures to mitigate the damage.

(c) COST.—The cost of the mitigation shall beallocated to the Federal navigation project asan operation and maintenance cost.SEC. 321. SAINT JOSEPH RIVER, SOUTH BEND, IN-

DIANA.(a) MAXIMUM TOTAL EXPENDITURE.—The

maximum total expenditure for the project forstreambank erosion, recreation, and pedestrianaccess features, Saint Joseph River, South Bend,Indiana, shall be $7,800,000.

(b) REVISION OF PROJECT COOPERATIONAGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall revise theproject cooperation agreement for the project re-ferred to in subsection (a) to take into accountthe change in the Federal participation in theproject under subsection (a).SEC. 322. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA.

The project for flood control, Indianapolis onWest Fork of the White River, Indiana, author-ized by section 5 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act au-thorizing the construction of certain publicworks on rivers and harbors for flood control,and other purposes’’, approved June 22, 1936 (49Stat. 1586, chapter 688), as modified by section323 of the Water Resources Development Act of1996 (110 Stat. 3716), is modified to authorize theSecretary to undertake the riverfront alterationsdescribed in the Central Indianapolis Water-front Concept Plan, dated February 1994, forthe Canal Development (Upper Canal feature)and the Beveridge Paper feature, at a total costnot to exceed $25,000,000, of which $12,500,000 isthe estimated Federal cost and $12,500,000 is theestimated non-Federal cost, except that no suchalterations may be undertaken unless the Sec-retary determines that the alterations author-ized by this section, in combination with the al-terations undertaken under section 323 of theWater Resources Development Act of 1996 (110Stat. 3716), are economically justified.SEC. 323. DUBUQUE, IOWA.

The project for navigation, Dubuque, Iowa,authorized by section 101 of the River and Har-bor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482), is modified to au-thorize the development of a wetland dem-onstration area of approximately 1.5 acres to bedeveloped and operated by the Dubuque CountyHistorical Society or a successor nonprofit orga-nization.SEC. 324. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LOUISIANA.

The project for hurricane-flood protection,Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, authorized bysection 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79Stat. 1077), is modified—

(1) to direct the Secretary to conduct a studyto determine the feasibility of constructing apump adjacent to each of the 4 proposed drain-age structures for the Saint Charles Parish fea-ture of the project; and

(2) to authorize the Secretary to construct thepumps, with a Federal cost of 65 percent, if theSecretary determines that the project as modi-fied is technically sound, environmentally ac-ceptable, and economically justified.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7286 August 5, 1999SEC. 325. LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LOU-

ISIANA.The project for hurricane protection Larose to

Golden Meadow, Louisiana, authorized by sec-tion 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79Stat. 1077), is modified to authorize the Sec-retary to convert the Golden Meadow floodgateinto a navigation lock if the Secretary deter-mines that the conversion is technically feasible,environmentally acceptable, and economicallyjustified.SEC. 326. LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY

LEVEE, LOUISIANA.The Secretary may credit against the non-

Federal share work performed in the projectarea of the Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee,Mississippi River, Louisiana, authorized by sec-tion 401(a) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (100 Stat. 4117).SEC. 327. TWELVE-MILE BAYOU, CADDO PARISH,

LOUISIANA.The Red River Below Denison Dam project,

authorized by section 10 of the Flood ControlAct of 1946 (60 Stat. 647), is modified to incor-porate the Twelve-Mile Bayou and levee from itsconfluence with the Red River and levee ap-proximately 26 miles upstream to the vicinity ofBlack Bayou, Caddo Parish, Louisiana.SEC. 328. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER

(EAST OF HARVEY CANAL), LOU-ISIANA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project to prevent flooddamage and for hurricane damage reduction,west bank of the Mississippi River (east of Har-vey Canal), Louisiana, authorized by section401(b) of the Water Resources Development Actof 1986 (100 Stat. 4128) and section 101(a)(17) ofthe Water Resources Development Act of 1996(110 Stat. 3665), is modified to direct the Sec-retary to continue Federal operation and main-tenance of the portion of the project included inthe report of the Chief of Engineers dated May1, 1995, referred to as ‘‘Algiers Channel’’.

(b) COMBINATION OF PROJECTS.—The Sec-retary shall carry out work authorized as partof the Westwego to Harvey Canal project, theEast of Harvey Canal project, and the LakeCataouatche modifications as a single project, tobe known as the ‘‘West Bank and Vicinity, NewOrleans, Louisiana, Hurricane ProtectionProject’’, with a combined total cost of$280,300,000.SEC. 329. TOLCHESTER CHANNEL S-TURN, BALTI-

MORE, MARYLAND.The project for navigation, Baltimore Harbor

and Channels, Maryland, authorized by section101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat.297), is modified to direct the Secretary tostraighten the Tolchester Channel S-turn aspart of project maintenance.SEC. 330. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, CHIPPEWA COUN-

TY, MICHIGAN.The project for navigation Sault Sainte Marie,

Chippewa County, Michigan, authorized by sec-tion 1149 of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254) and modified by sec-tion 330 of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (110 Stat. 3717), is further modifiedto provide that the amount to be paid by non-Federal interests under section 101(a) of theWater Resources Development Act of 1986 (33U.S.C. 2211(a)) and section 330(a) of the WaterResources Development Act of 1996 shall not in-clude any interest payments.SEC. 331. JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.

The project for environmental infrastructure,Jackson County, Mississippi, authorized by sec-tion 219(c)(5) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835) and modified bysection 504 of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757), is further modifiedto direct the Secretary to provide a credit, not toexceed $5,000,000, toward the non-Federal shareof the cost of the project for the costs incurredby the Jackson County Board of Supervisorssince February 8, 1994, in constructing theproject, if the Secretary determines that the

work is compatible with and integral to theproject.SEC. 332. BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DIS-

TRICT, MISSOURI.(a) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The

maximum amount of Federal funds that may beallocated for the project for flood control, BoisBrule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri,authorized under section 205 of the Flood Con-trol Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is $15,000,000.

(b) REVISION OF PROJECT COOPERATIONAGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall revise theproject cooperation agreement for the project re-ferred to in subsection (a) to take into accountthe change in Federal participation in theproject under subsection (a).

(c) COST SHARING.—Nothing in this section af-fects any cost-sharing requirement applicable tothe project referred to in subsection (a) undertitle I of the Water Resources Development Actof 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 et seq.).SEC. 333. MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK

LEVEE, MISSOURI.The project for flood control, Meramec River

Basin, Valley Park Levee, Missouri, authorizedby section 2(h) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act todeauthorize several projects within the jurisdic-tion of the Army Corps of Engineers’’ (PublicLaw 97–128; 95 Stat. 1682) and modified by sec-tion 1128 of the Water Resources DevelopomentAct of 1986 (100 Stat. 4246), is further modifiedto authorize the Secretary to construct theproject at a maximum Federal expenditure of$35,000,000, if the Secretary determines that theproject as modified is technically sound, envi-ronmentally acceptable, and economically justi-fied.SEC. 334. MISSOURI RIVER MITIGATION PROJECT,

MISSOURI, KANSAS, IOWA, AND NE-BRASKA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for mitigation offish and wildlife losses, Missouri River BankStabilization and Navigation Project, Missouri,Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska, authorized by sec-tion 601(a) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143) is modified to in-crease by 118,650 acres the amount of land andinterests in land to be acquired for the project.

(b) STUDY.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in conjunc-

tion with the States of Missouri, Kansas, Iowa,and Nebraska, shall conduct a study to deter-mine the cost of restoring, under the authorityof the Missouri River fish and wildlife mitiga-tion project, a total of 118,650 acres of lost Mis-souri River fish and wildlife habitat.

(2) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after thedate of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall report to Congress on the results of thestudy.SEC. 335. WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE-

BRASKA.The project for flood control, Wood River,

Grand Island, Nebraska, authorized by section101(a)(19) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is modified to au-thorize the Secretary to construct the projectsubstantially in accordance with the report ofthe Corps of Engineers dated June 29, 1998, at atotal cost of $17,039,000, with an estimated Fed-eral cost of $9,730,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,309,000.SEC. 336. ABSECON ISLAND, NEW JERSEY.

The project for storm damage reduction andshore protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great EggHarbor Inlet, Absecon Island, New Jersey, au-thorized by section 101(b)(13) of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3668),is modified to provide that if, after October 12,1996, the non-Federal interests carry out anywork associated with the project that is laterrecommended by the Chief of Engineers and ap-proved by the Secretary, the Secretary may pro-vide the non-Federal interests credit toward thenon-Federal share of the cost of the project inan amount equal to the Federal share of thecost of the work, without interest.

SEC. 337. NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENTCHANNELS, PORT JERSEY, NEW JER-SEY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation,New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, NewYork and New Jersey, authorized by section202(b) of the Water Resources Development Actof 1986 (100 Stat. 4098), is further modified toauthorize the Secretary to construct the portionof the project that is located between MilitaryOcean Terminal Bayonne and Global Terminalin Bayonne, New Jersey, at a total cost of$103,267,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$76,909,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of$26,358,000.

(b) LIMITATION.—No funds may be obligatedto carry out work under the modification undersubsection (a) until completion of a final reportby the Chief of Engineers finding that the workis technically sound, environmentally accept-able, and economically justified.SEC. 338. ARTHUR KILL, NEW YORK AND NEW JER-

SEY.(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation,

Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey, author-ized by section 202(b) of the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098) andmodified by section 301(b)(11) of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711),is further modified to authorize the Secretary toconstruct the project substantially in accord-ance with the report of the Corps of Engineersdated July 23, 1999, at a total cost of$315,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$183,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal costof $132,500,000.

(b) CREDIT.—The Secretary may provide non-Federal interests—

(1) credit toward cash contributions requiredprior to and during construction and subsequentto construction for planning, engineering, anddesign and construction management work thatis performed by non-Federal interests and thatthe Secretary determines is necessary to imple-ment the project; and

(2) credit toward cash contributions requiredduring construction and subsequent to construc-tion for the costs of construction carried out bythe non-Federal interest on behalf of the Sec-retary and that the Secretary determines is nec-essary to implement the project.SEC. 339. KILL VAN KULL AND NEWARK BAY

CHANNELS, NEW YORK AND NEWJERSEY.

The project for navigation, Kill Van Kull andNewark Bay Channels, New York and New Jer-sey, authorized by chapter IV of title I of theSupplemental Appropriations Act, 1985 (99 Stat.313), section 202(a) of the Water Resources De-velopment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4095), and sec-tion 301(b)(12) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711), is further modi-fied to authorize the Secretary to provide thenon-Federal interests credit toward cash con-tributions required—

(1) before, during, and after construction forplanning, engineering and design, and con-struction management work that is performed bythe non-Federal interests and that the Secretarydetermines is necessary to implement the project;and

(2) during and after construction for the costsof the construction that the non-Federal inter-ests carry out on behalf of the Secretary andthat the Secretary determines is necessary to im-plement the project.SEC. 340. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED.

Section 552 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3779) is amended—

(1) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘for theproject to be carried out with such assistance’’and inserting ‘‘, or a public entity designated bythe State director, to carry out the project withthe assistance, subject to the project’s meetingthe certification requirement of subsection(c)(1)’’; and

(2) in subsection (i), by striking ‘‘$22,500,000’’and inserting ‘‘$42,500,000’’.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7287August 5, 1999SEC. 341. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM.

Section 553(e) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781) is amended bystriking ‘‘$8,000,000’’ and inserting‘‘$18,000,000’’.SEC. 342. FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK

POINT, NEW YORK.The project for combined beach erosion con-

trol and hurricane protection, Fire Island Inletto Montauk Point, Long Island, New York, au-thorized by section 101(a) of the River and Har-bor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 483) and modified by theRiver and Harbor Act of 1962, the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1974, and the WaterResources Development Act of 1986, is furthermodified to direct the Secretary, in coordinationwith the heads of other Federal departmentsand agencies, to complete all procedures and re-views expeditiously and to adopt and submit toCongress, not later than 120 days after the dateof enactment of this Act, a mutually acceptableshore erosion plan for the Fire Island Inlet toMoriches Inlet reach of the project.SEC. 343. BROKEN BOW LAKE, RED RIVER BASIN,

OKLAHOMA.The project for flood control and water sup-

ply, Broken Bow Lake, Red River Basin, Okla-homa, authorized by section 203 of the FloodControl Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 309) and modifiedby section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962(76 Stat. 1187), section 102(v) of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4808),and section 338 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3720), is further modi-fied to require the Secretary to make seasonaladjustments to the top of the conservation poolat the project, if the Secretary determines thatthe adjustments will be undertaken at no cost tothe United States and will adequately protectaffected water and related resources, as follows:

(1) Maintain an elevation of 599.5 from No-vember 1 through March 31.

(2) Increase elevation gradually from 599.5 to602.5 during April and May.

(3) Maintain an elevation of 602.5 from June 1to September 30.

(4) Decrease elevation gradually from 602.5 to599.5 during October.SEC. 344. WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE

CONTROL, MCKENZIE SUBBASIN, OR-EGON.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for environ-mental restoration, Willamette River Tempera-ture Control, McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon, au-thorized by section 101(a)(25) of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665),is modified to authorize the Secretary to con-struct the project substantially in accordancewith the Feature Memorandum dated July 31,1998, at a total cost of $64,741,000, if the Sec-retary determines that the project as modified istechnically sound and environmentally accept-able.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 90 days after thedate of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall submit to Congress a report that—

(1) states the reasons for the increase in thecost of the project;

(2) outlines the steps that the Corps of Engi-neers is taking to control project costs, includingthe application of value engineering and otherappropriate measures; and

(3) includes a cost estimate for, and rec-ommendations on the advisability of, addingfish screens to the project.SEC. 345. CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.

Section 562 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3784) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and insertingthe following:

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary’’; and(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(b) RECREATION FACILITIES.—The

Secretary—‘‘(1) may provide design and construction as-

sistance for recreational facilities atCurwensville Lake; and

‘‘(2) may require the non-Federal interest toprovide not more than 25 percent of the cost ofdesigning and constructing the recreational fa-cilities.’’.SEC. 346. DELAWARE RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND

DELAWARE.The project for navigation, Delaware River,

Philadelphia to Wilmington, Pennsylvania andDelaware, authorized by section 3(a)(12) of theWater Resources Development Act of 1988 (102Stat. 4014), is modified to authorize the Sec-retary to extend the channel of the DelawareRiver at Camden, New Jersey, to within 150 feetof the existing bulkhead and to relocate the 40-foot deep Federal navigation channel, eastwardwithin Philadelphia Harbor, from the BenFranklin Bridge to the Walt Whitman Bridge,into deep water, if the Secretary determines thatthe project as modified is technically sound, eco-nomically acceptable, and economically justi-fied.SEC. 347. MUSSERS DAM, PENNSYLVANIA.

Section 209 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4830) is amended—

(1) by striking subsection (e); and(2) by redesignating subsection (f) as sub-

section (e).SEC. 348. PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.

Section 564(c)(2) of the Water Resources De-velopment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3785) is amendedby striking ‘‘$2,700,000’’ and inserting‘‘$4,000,000’’.SEC. 349. NINE MILE RUN, ALLEGHENY COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA.If the Secretary determines that the docu-

mentation is integral to the project, the Sec-retary shall credit against the non-Federalshare such costs, not to exceed $1,000,000, as areincurred by the non-Federal interests in pre-paring the environmental restoration report,planning and design-phase scientific and engi-neering technical services documentation, andother preconstruction documentation for thehabitat restoration project, Nine Mile Run,Pennsylvania.SEC. 350. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.

(a) RECREATION PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE.—Section 519(b) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2328 note; 110 Stat.3765) is amended—

(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para-graph (4); and

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

‘‘(3) ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES.—TheSecretary may perform engineering and designservices for project infrastructure expected to beassociated with the development of the site atRaystown Lake, Hesston, Pennsylvania.’’.

(b) CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Consistent with the master

plan described in section 318 of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4848),the Secretary may provide a grant to JuniataCollege for the construction of facilities andstructures at Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania, tointerpret and understand environmental condi-tions and trends. As a condition of the receipt offinancial assistance, officials at Juniata Collegeshall coordinate the construction with the Balti-more District of the Army Corps of Engineers.

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this subsection $5,000,000.SEC. 351. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Sec-tion 313(g)(1) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4846; 110 Stat. 3723)is amended by striking ‘‘$80,000,000’’ and insert-ing ‘‘$180,000,000’’.

(b) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Section313(g) of the Water Resources Development Actof 1992 (106 Stat. 4846) is amended by adding atthe end the following:

‘‘(4) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—10 per-cent of the amounts appropriated to carry out

this section for each of fiscal years 2000 through2002 may be used by the Corps of Engineers dis-trict offices to administer and implementprojects under this section at 100 percent Fed-eral expense.’’.SEC. 352. FOX POINT HURRICANE BARRIER, PROV-

IDENCE, RHODE ISLAND.The project for hurricane-flood protection,

Fox Point, Providence, Rhode Island, author-ized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of1958 (72 Stat. 306), is modified to direct the Sec-retary to undertake the necessary repairs to thebarrier, as identified in the Condition Surveyand Technical Assessment dated April 1998, withSupplement dated August 1998, at a total cost of$3,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$1,950,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of$1,050,000.SEC. 353. COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR,

SOUTH CAROLINA.(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for rediversion,

Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, South Caro-lina, authorized by section 101 of the River andHarbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731) and modified bytitle I of the Energy and Water DevelopmentAppropriations Act, 1992 (105 Stat. 517), is fur-ther modified to authorize the Secretary to payto the State of South Carolina not more than$3,750,000 if the Secretary and the State enterinto a binding agreement for the State to per-form all future operation of the fish lift at St.Stephen, South Carolina, including performanceof studies to assess the efficacy of the fish lift.

(b) CONTENTS OF AGREEMENT.—The agreementunder subsection (a) shall specify—

(1) the terms and conditions under which pay-ment will be made; and

(2) the rights of, and remedies available to,the Federal Government to recover all or a por-tion of the payment if the State suspends or ter-minates operation of the fish lift or fails to oper-ate the fish lift in a manner satisfactory to theSecretary.

(c) MAINTENANCE.—Maintenance of the fishlift shall remain a Federal responsibility.SEC. 354. CLEAR CREEK, TEXAS.

Section 575 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3789) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—(A) by inserting ‘‘or nonstructural actions’’

after ‘‘flood control works constructed’’; and(B) by inserting ‘‘or nonstructural actions’’

after ‘‘construction of the project’’; and(2) in subsection (b)—(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the

end;(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at

the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and(C) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(4) the project for flood control, Clear Creek,

Texas, authorized by section 203 of the FloodControl Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742).’’.SEC. 355. CYPRESS CREEK, TEXAS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood con-trol, Cypress Creek, Texas, authorized by sec-tion 3(a)(13) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014), is modified toauthorize the Secretary to carry out a non-structural flood control project at a total cost of$5,000,000.

(b) REIMBURSEMENT FOR WORK.—The Sec-retary may reimburse the non-Federal interestfor the Cypress Creek project for work done bythe non-Federal interest on the nonstructuralflood control project in an amount equal to theestimate of the Federal share, without interest,of the cost of the work—

(1) if, after authorization and before initiationof construction of the nonstructural project, theSecretary approves the plans for construction ofthe nonstructural project by the non-Federal in-terest; and

(2) if the Secretary finds, after a review ofstudies and design documents prepared to carryout the nonstructural project, that constructionof the nonstructural project is economically jus-tified and environmentally acceptable.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7288 August 5, 1999SEC. 356. DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, DAL-

LAS, TEXAS.The project for flood control, Dallas Floodway

Extension, Dallas, Texas, authorized by section301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat.1091) and modified by section 351 of the WaterResources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.3724), is further modified to add environmentalrestoration and recreation as project purposes.SEC. 357. UPPER JORDAN RIVER, UTAH.

The project for flood control, Upper JordanRiver, Utah, authorized by section 101(a)(23) ofthe Water Resources Development Act of 1990(104 Stat. 4610) and modified by section301(a)(14) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (110 Stat. 3709), is further modifiedto direct the Secretary to carry out the locallypreferred project, entitled ‘‘Upper Jordan RiverFlood Control Project, Salt Lake County,Utah—Supplemental Information’’ and identi-fied in the document of Salt Lake County, Utah,dated July 30, 1998, at a total cost of $12,870,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $8,580,000 andan estimated non-Federal cost of $4,290,000, ifthe Secretary determines that the project asmodified is technically sound, environmentallyacceptable, and economically justified.SEC. 358. ELIZABETH RIVER, CHESAPEAKE, VIR-

GINIA.Notwithstanding any other provision of law,

after September 30, 1999, the city of Chesapeake,Virginia, shall not be obligated to make the an-nual cash contribution required under para-graph 1(9) of the Local Cooperation Agreementdated December 12, 1978, between the Govern-ment and the city for the project for navigation,southern branch of the Elizabeth River, Chesa-peake, Virginia.SEC. 359. COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL, WASH-

INGTON AND OREGON.(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation,

Columbia River between Vancouver, Wash-ington, and The Dalles, Oregon, authorized bythe first section of the Act of July 24, 1946 (60Stat. 637, chapter 595), is modified to authorizethe Secretary to construct an alternate bargechannel to traverse the high span of the Inter-state Route 5 bridge between Portland, Oregon,and Vancouver, Washington, to a depth of 17feet, with a width of approximately 200 feetthrough the high span of the bridge and a widthof approximately 300 feet upstream of the bridge.

(b) DISTANCE UPSTREAM.—The channel shallcontinue upstream of the bridge approximately2,500 feet to about river mile 107, then to a pointof convergence with the main barge channel atabout river mile 108.

(c) DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM.—(1) SOUTHERN EDGE.—The southern edge of

the channel shall continue downstream of thebridge approximately 1,500 feet to river mile106+10, then turn northwest to tie into the edgeof the Upper Vancouver Turning Basin.

(2) NORTHERN EDGE.—The northern edge ofthe channel shall continue downstream of thebridge to the Upper Vancouver Turning Basin.SEC. 360. GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WEST VIR-

GINIA.Section 579(c) of the Water Resources Develop-

ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790) is amended bystriking ‘‘$12,000,000’’ and inserting‘‘$47,000,000’’.SEC. 361. BLUESTONE LAKE, OHIO RIVER BASIN,

WEST VIRGINIA.Section 102(ff) of the Water Resources Devel-

opment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4810) is amendedby striking ‘‘take such measures as are techno-logically feasible’’ and inserting ‘‘implementPlan C/G, as defined in the Evaluation Reportof the District Engineer dated December 1996,’’.SEC. 362. MOOREFIELD, WEST VIRGINIA.

Effective October 1, 1999, the project for floodcontrol, Moorefield, West Virginia, authorizedby section 101(a)(25) of the Water Resources De-velopment Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610), is modi-fied to provide that the non-Federal interestshall not be required to pay the unpaid balance,

including interest, of the non-Federal share ofthe cost of the project.SEC. 363. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA

FLOOD CONTROL.Section 581 of the Water Resources Develop-

ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790) is amended bystriking subsection (a) and inserting the fol-lowing:

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may designand construct—

‘‘(1) flood control measures in the Cheat andTygart River basins, West Virginia, at a level ofprotection that is sufficient to prevent any fu-ture losses to communities in the basins fromflooding such as occurred in January 1996, butnot less than a 100-year level of protection; and

‘‘(2) structural and nonstructural flood con-trol, streambank protection, stormwater man-agement, and channel clearing and modificationmeasures in the lower Allegheny, lowerMonongahela, West Branch Susquehanna, andJuniata River basins, Pennsylvania, at a levelof protection that is sufficient to prevent anyfuture losses to communities in the basins fromflooding such as occurred in January 1996, butnot less than a 100-year level of flood protectionwith respect to measures that incorporate leveesor floodwalls.’’.SEC. 364. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.

Each of the following projects is authorized tobe carried out by the Secretary, if the Secretarydetermines that the project is technically sound,environmentally acceptable, and economicallyjustified, as appropriate:

(1) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Theproject for shore protection, Indian River Coun-ty, Florida, authorized by section 501(a) of theWater Resources Development Act of 1986 (100Stat. 4134) and deauthorized under section1001(b)(1) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(1)).

(2) LIDO KEY BEACH, SARASOTA, FLORIDA.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for shore protec-

tion, Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida, au-thorized by section 101 of the River and HarborAct of 1970 (84 Stat. 1819) and deauthorizedunder section 1001(b) of the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)), ata total cost of $5,200,000, with an estimated Fed-eral cost of $3,380,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,820,000.

(B) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT.—The Secretarymay carry out periodic nourishment for theproject for a 50-year period at an estimated av-erage annual cost of $602,000, with an estimatedannual Federal cost of $391,000 and an esti-mated annual non-Federal cost of $211,000.

(3) CASS RIVER, MICHIGAN (VASSAR).—Theproject for flood protection, Cass River, Michi-gan (Vassar), authorized by section 203 of theFlood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 311) and de-authorized under section 1001(b)(2) of the WaterResources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.579a(b)(2)).

(4) SAGINAW RIVER, MICHIGAN (SHIAWASSEEFLATS).—The project for flood control, SaginawRiver, Michigan (Shiawassee Flats), authorizedby section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958(72 Stat. 311) and deauthorized under section1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)).

(5) PARK RIVER, GRAFTON, NORTH DAKOTA.—The project for flood control, Park River, Graf-ton, North Dakota, authorized by section 401(a)of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986(100 Stat. 4121) and deauthorized under section1001(a) of that Act (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)), at a totalcost of $28,100,000, with an estimated Federalcost of $18,265,000 and an estimated non-Federalcost of $9,835,000.

(6) MEMPHIS HARBOR, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE.—The project for navigation, Memphis Harbor,Memphis, Tennessee, authorized by section601(a) of the Water Resources Development Actof 1986 (100 Stat. 4145) and deauthorized pursu-ant to section 1001(a) of that Act (33 U.S.C579a(a)), is authorized to be carried out by theSecretary.

SEC. 365. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.(a) IN GENERAL.—The following projects or

portions of projects are not authorized after thedate of enactment of this Act:

(1) BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.—Theportion of the project for navigation, BridgeportHarbor, Connecticut, authorized by section 101of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat.297), consisting of a 2.4-acre anchorage area, 9feet deep, and an adjacent 0.6-acre anchorage, 6feet deep, located on the west side of JohnsonsRiver.

(2) CLINTON HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.—The por-tion of the project for navigation, Clinton Har-bor, Connecticut, authorized by section 2 of theAct of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 13, chapter 19),and House Document 240, 76th Congress, 1stSession, lying upstream of a line designated bythe points N158,592.12, E660,193.92 andN158,444.58, E660,220.95.

(3) BASS HARBOR, MAINE.—The following por-tions of the project for navigation, Bass Harbor,Maine, authorized on May 7, 1962, under section107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33U.S.C. 577):

(A) Beginning at a bend in the project,N149040.00, E538505.00, thence running easterlyabout 50.00 feet along the northern limit of theproject to a point N149061.55, E538550.11, thencerunning southerly about 642.08 feet to a point,N14877.64, E538817.18, thence running south-westerly about 156.27 feet to a point on the west-erly limit of the project, N148348.50, E538737.02,thence running northerly about 149.00 feetalong the westerly limit of the project to a bendin the project, N148489.22, E538768.09, thencerunning northwesterly about 610.39 feet alongthe westerly limit of the project to the point oforigin.

(B) Beginning at a point on the westerly limitof the project, N148118.55, E538689.05, thencerunning southeasterly about 91.92 feet to apoint, N148041.43, E538739.07, thence runningsoutherly about 65.00 feet to a point, N147977.86,E538725.51, thence running southwesterly about91.92 feet to a point on the westerly limit of theproject, N147927.84, E538648.39, thence runningnortherly about 195.00 feet along the westerlylimit of the project to the point of origin.

(4) BOOTHBAY HARBOR, MAINE.—The projectfor navigation, Boothbay Harbor, Maine, au-thorized by the Act of July 25, 1912 (37 Stat. 201,chapter 253).

(5) BUCKSPORT HARBOR, MAINE.—The portionof the project for navigation, Bucksport Harbor,Maine, authorized by the first section of the Actof June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 331, chapter 1079), con-sisting of a 16-foot deep channel beginning at apoint N268.748.16, E423.390.76, thence runningnorth 47 degrees 02 minutes 23 seconds east 51.76feet to a point N268.783.44, E423.428.64, thencerunning north 67 degrees 54 minutes 32 secondswest 1513.94 feet to a point N269.352.81,E422.025.84, thence running south 47 degrees 02minutes 23 seconds west 126.15 feet to a pointN269.266.84, E421.933.52, thence running south70 degrees 24 minutes 28 seconds east 1546.79 feetto the point of origin.

(6) CARVERS HARBOR, VINALHAVEN, MAINE.—The portion of the project for navigation,Carvers Harbor, Vinalhaven, Maine, authorizedby the Act of June 3, 1896 (commonly known asthe ‘‘River and Harbor Appropriations Act of1896’’) (29 Stat. 202, chapter 314), consisting ofthe 16-foot anchorage beginning at a point withcoordinates N137,502.04, E895,156.83, thence run-ning south 6 degrees 34 minutes 57.6 secondswest 277.660 feet to a point N137,226.21,E895,125.00, thence running north 53 degrees, 5minutes 42.4 seconds west 127.746 feet to a pointN137,302.92, E895022.85, thence running north 33degrees 56 minutes 9.8 seconds east 239.999 feetto the point of origin.

(7) EAST BOOTHBAY HARBOR, MAINE.—Section364 of the Water Resources Development Act of1996 is amended by striking paragraph (9) (110Stat. 3734) and inserting the following:

‘‘(9) EAST BOOTHBAY HARBOR, MAINE.—Theproject for navigation, East Boothbay Harbor,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7289August 5, 1999Maine, authorized by the first section of the Actentitled ‘An Act making appropriations for theconstruction, repair, and preservation of certainpublic works on rivers and harbors, and forother purposes’, approved June 25, 1910 (36 Stat.631, chapter 382).’’.

(8) SEARSPORT HARBOR, SEARSPORT, MAINE.—The portion of the project for navigation,Searsport Harbor, Searsport, Maine, authorizedby section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of1962 (76 Stat. 1173), consisting of the 35-footturning basin beginning at a point with coordi-nates N225,008.38, E395,464.26, thence runningnorth 43 degrees 49 minutes 53.4 seconds east362.001 feet to a point N225,269.52, E395,714.96,thence running south 71 degrees 27 minutes 33.0seconds east 1,309.201 feet to a point N224,853.22,E396,956.21, thence running north 84 degrees 3minutes 45.7 seconds west 1,499.997 feet to thepoint of origin.

(9) WELLS HARBOR, MAINE.—The followingportions of the project for navigation, WellsHarbor, Maine, authorized by section 101 of theRiver and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 480):

(A) The portion of the 6-foot channel theboundaries of which begin at a point with co-ordinates N177,992.00, E394,831.00, thence run-ning south 83 degrees 58 minutes 14.8 secondswest 10.38 feet to a point N177,990.91,E394,820.68, thence running south 11 degrees 46minutes 47.7 seconds west 991.76 feet to a pointN177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence running south78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 10.00 feetto a point N177,018.00, E394,628.00, thence run-ning north 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.8 secondseast 994.93 feet to the point of origin.

(B) The portion of the 6-foot anchorage theboundaries of which begin at a point with co-ordinates N177,778.07, E394,336.96, thence run-ning south 51 degrees 58 minutes 32.7 secondswest 15.49 feet to a point N177,768.53,E394,324.76, thence running south 11 degrees 46minutes 26.5 seconds west 672.87 feet to a pointN177,109.82, E394,187.46, thence running south78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 10.00 feetto a point N177,107.78, E394,197.25, thence run-ning north 11 degrees 46 minutes 25.4 secondseast 684.70 feet to the point of origin.

(C) The portion of the 10-foot settling basinthe boundaries of which begin at a point withcoordinates N177,107.78, E394,197.25, thence run-ning north 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 secondswest 10.00 feet to a point N177,109.82,E394,187.46, thence running south 11 degrees 46minutes 15.7 seconds west 300.00 feet to a pointN176,816.13, E394,126.26, thence running south78 degrees 12 minutes 21.4 seconds east 9.98 feetto a point N176,814.09, E394,136.03, thence run-ning north 11 degrees 46 minutes 29.1 secondseast 300.00 feet to the point of origin.

(D) The portion of the 10-foot settling basinthe boundaries of which begin at a point withcoordinates N177,018.00, E394,628.00, thence run-ning north 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 secondswest 10.00 feet to a point N177,020.04,E394,618.21, thence running south 11 degrees 46minutes 44.0 seconds west 300.00 feet to a pointN176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running south78 degrees 12 minutes 30.3 seconds east 10.03 feetto a point N176,724.31, E394,566.79, thence run-ning north 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.4 secondseast 300.00 feet to the point of origin.

(10) FALMOUTH HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS.—The portion of the project for navigation, Fal-mouth Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized bysection 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1948(62 Stat. 1172) lying southeasterly of a line com-mencing at a point N199,286.41, E844,394.91,thence running north 66 degrees 52 minutes 3.31seconds east 472.95 feet to a point N199,472.21,E844,829.83, thence running north 43 degrees 9minutes 28.3 seconds east 262.64 feet to a pointN199,633.80, E845,009.48, thence running north21 degrees 40 minutes 11.26 seconds east 808.38feet to a point N200,415.05, E845,307.98, thencerunning north 32 degrees 25 minutes 29.01 sec-onds east 160.76 feet to a point N200,550.75,E845,394.18, thence running north 24 degrees 56

minutes 42.29 seconds east 1,410.29 feet to apoint N201,829.48, E845,988.97.

(11) GREEN HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS.—Theportion of the project for navigation, Green Har-bor, Massachusetts, undertaken pursuant tosection 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960(33 U.S.C. 577), consisting of the 6-foot deepchannel beginning at a point along the westlimit of the existing project, north 395990.43, east831079.16, thence running northwesterly about752.85 feet to a point, north 396722.80, east830904.76, thence running northwesterly about222.79 feet to a point along the west limit of theexisting project, north 396844.34, east 830718.04,thence running southwesterly about 33.72 feetalong the west limit of the existing project to apoint, north 396810.80, east 830714.57, thencerunning southeasterly about 195.42 feet alongthe west limit of the existing project to a point,north 396704.19, east 830878.35, thence runningabout 544.66 feet along the west limit of the ex-isting project to a point, north 396174.35, east831004.52, thence running southeasterly about198.49 feet along the west limit of the existingproject to the point of beginning.

(12) NEW BEDFORD AND FAIRHAVEN HARBOR,MASSACHUSETTS.—The following portions of theproject for navigation, New Bedford andFairhaven Harbor, Massachusetts:

(A) A portion of the 25-foot spur channel lead-ing to the west of Fish Island, authorized bysection 3 of the Act of March 3, 1909 (35 Stat.816, chapter 264), beginning at a point with co-ordinates N232,173.77, E758,791.32, thence run-ning south 27 degrees 36 minutes 52.8 secondswest 38.2 feet to a point N232,139.91, E758,773.61,thence running south 87 degrees 35 minutes 31.6seconds west 196.84 feet to a point N232,131.64,E758,576.94, thence running north 47 degrees 47minutes 48.4 seconds west 502.72 feet to a pointN232,469.35, E758,204.54, thence running north10 degrees 10 minutes 20.3 seconds west 438.88feet to a point N232,901.33, E758,127.03, thencerunning north 79 degrees 49 minutes 43.1 sec-onds east 121.69 feet to a point N232,922.82,E758,246.81, thence running south 04 degrees 29minutes 17.6 seconds east 52.52 feet to a pointN232,870.46, E758,250.92, thence running south23 degrees 56 minutes 11.2 seconds east 49.15 feetto a point N323,825.54, E758,270.86, thence run-ning south 79 degrees 49 minutes 27.0 secondswest 88.19 feet to a point N232,809.96,E758,184.06, thence running south 10 degrees 10minutes 25.7 seconds east 314.83 feet to a pointN232,500.08, E758,239.67, thence running south56 degrees 33 minutes 56.1 seconds east 583.07feet to a point N232,178.82, E758,726.25, thencerunning south 85 degrees 33 minutes 16.0 sec-onds east to the point of origin.

(B) A portion of the 30-foot west maneuveringbasin, authorized by the first section of the Actof July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 918, chapter 847), begin-ning at a point with coordinates N232,139.91,E758,773.61, thence running north 81 degrees 49minutes 30.1 seconds east 160.76 feet to a pointN232,162.77, E758.932.74, thence running north85 degrees 33 minutes 16.0 seconds west 141.85feet to a point N232,173.77, E758,791.32, thencerunning south 27 degrees 36 minutes 52.8 sec-onds west to the point of origin.

(b) ANCHORAGE AREA, CLINTON HARBOR, CON-NECTICUT.—The portion of the Clinton Harbor,Connecticut, navigation project referred to insubsection (a)(2) beginning at a point with co-ordinates N158,444.58, E660,220.95, thence run-ning north 79 degrees 37 minutes 14 seconds east833.31 feet to a point N158,594.72, E661,040.67,thence running south 80 degrees 51 minutes 53seconds east 181.21 feet to a point N158,565.95,E661,219.58, thence running north 57 degrees 38minutes 04 seconds west 126.02 feet to a pointN158,633.41, E660,113.14, thence running south79 degrees 37 minutes 14 seconds west 911.61 feetto a point N158,469.17, E660,216.44, thence run-ning south 10 degrees 22 minutes 46 seconds east25 feet returning to a point N158,444.58,E660,220.95, is redesignated as an anchoragearea.

(c) WELLS HARBOR, MAINE.—(1) PROJECT MODIFICATION.—The Wells Har-

bor, Maine, navigation project referred to insubsection (a)(9) is modified to authorize theSecretary to realign the channel and anchorageareas based on a harbor design capacity of 150craft.

(2) REDESIGNATIONS.—(A) 6-FOOT ANCHORAGE.—The following por-

tions of the Wells Harbor, Maine, navigationproject referred to in subsection (a)(9) shall beredesignated as part of the 6-foot anchorage:

(i) The portion of the 6-foot channel theboundaries of which begin at a point with co-ordinates N177,990.91, E394,820.68, thence run-ning south 83 degrees 58 minutes 40.8 secondswest 94.65 feet to a point N177,980.98,E394,726.55, thence running south 11 degrees 46minutes 22.4 seconds west 962.83 feet to a pointN177,038.40, E394,530.10, thence running south78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 90.00 feetto a point N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence run-ning north 11 degrees 46 minutes 47.7 secondseast 991.76 feet to the point of origin.

(ii) The portion of the 10-foot inner harborsettling basin the boundaries of which begin ata point with coordinates N177,020.04,E394,618.21, thence running north 78 degrees 13minutes 30.5 seconds west 160.00 feet to a pointN177,052.69, E394,461.58, thence running south11 degrees 46 minutes 45.4 seconds west 299.99feet to a point N176,759.02, E394,400.34, thencerunning south 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 sec-onds east 160 feet to a point N176,726.36,E394,556.97, thence running north 11 degrees 46minutes 44.0 seconds east 300.00 feet to the pointof origin.

(B) 6-FOOT CHANNEL.—The following portionof the Wells Harbor, Maine, navigation projectreferred to in subsection (a)(9) shall be redesig-nated as part of the 6-foot channel: the portionof the 6-foot anchorage the boundaries of whichbegin at a point with coordinates N178,102.26,E394,751.83, thence running south 51 degrees 59minutes 42.1 seconds west 526.51 feet to a pointN177,778.07, E394,336.96, thence running south11 degrees 46 minutes 26.6 seconds west 511.83feet to a point N177,277.01, E394,232.52, thencerunning south 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 sec-onds east 80.00 feet to a point N177,260.68,E394,310.84, thence running north 11 degrees 46minutes 24.8 seconds east 482.54 feet to a pointN177,733.07, E394,409.30, thence running north51 degrees 59 minutes 41.0 seconds east 402.63feet to a point N177,980.98, E394,726.55, thencerunning north 11 degrees 46 minutes 27.6 sec-onds east 123.89 feet to the point of origin.

(3) REALIGNMENT.—The 6-foot anchorage areadescribed in paragraph (2)(B) shall be realignedto include the area located south of the innerharbor settling basin in existence on the date ofenactment of this Act beginning at a point withcoordinates N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence run-ning north 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 secondswest 160.00 feet to a point N176,759.02,E394,400.34, thence running south 11 degrees 47minutes 03.8 seconds west 45 feet to a pointN176,714.97, E394,391.15, thence running south78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds 160.00 feet toa point N176,682.31, E394,547.78, thence runningnorth 11 degrees 47 minutes 03.8 seconds east 45feet to the point of origin.

(4) RELOCATION.—The Secretary may relocatethe settling basin feature of the Wells Harbor,Maine, navigation project referred to in sub-section (a)(9) to the outer harbor between thejetties.

(5) ADDITIONAL ACTIONS.—In carrying out theoperation and the maintenance of the WellsHarbor, Maine, navigation project referred to insubsection (a)(9), the Secretary shall undertakeeach of the actions of the Corps of Engineersspecified in section IV(B) of the memorandum ofagreement relating to the project dated January20, 1998, including the actions specified in sec-tion IV(B) that the parties agreed to ask theCorps of Engineers to undertake.

(6) CONSERVATION EASEMENT.—The Secretaryof the Interior, acting through the Director of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7290 August 5, 1999the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, mayaccept a conveyance of the right, but not the ob-ligation, to enforce a conservation easement tobe held by the State of Maine over certain landowned by the town of Wells, Maine, that is ad-jacent to the Rachel Carson National WildlifeRefuge.

(d) ANCHORAGE AREA, GREEN HARBOR, MASSA-CHUSETTS.—The portion of the Green Harbor,Massachusetts, navigation project referred to insubsection (a)(11) consisting of a 6-foot deepchannel that lies northerly of a line the coordi-nates of which are North 394825.00, East831660.00 and North 394779.28, East 831570.64 isredesignated as an anchorage area.SEC. 366. AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS,

CALIFORNIA.(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood dam-

age reduction, American and Sacramento Riv-ers, California, authorized by section 101(a)(1)of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996(110 Stat. 3662–3663), is modified to direct theSecretary to include the following improvementsas part of the overall project:

(1) Raising the left bank of the non-Federallevee upstream of the Mayhew Drain for a dis-tance of 4,500 feet by an average of 2.5 feet.

(2) Raising the right bank of the AmericanRiver levee from 1,500 feet upstream to 4,000 feetdownstream of the Howe Avenue bridge by anaverage of 1 foot.

(3) Modifying the south levee of the NatomasCross Canal for a distance of 5 miles to ensurethat the south levee is consistent with the levelof protection provided by the authorized leveealong the east bank of the Sacramento River.

(4) Modifying the north levee of the NatomasCross Canal for a distance of 5 miles to ensurethat the height of the levee is equivalent to theheight of the south levee as authorized by para-graph (3).

(5) Installing gates to the existing MayhewDrain culvert and pumps to prevent backup offloodwater on the Folsom Boulevard side of thegates.

(6) Installing a slurry wall in the north leveeof the American River from the east levee of theNatomas east Main Drain upstream for a dis-tance of approximately 1.2 miles.

(7) Installing a slurry wall in the north leveeof the American River from 300 feet west ofJacob Lane north for a distance of approxi-mately 1 mile to the end of the existing levee.

(b) COST LIMITATIONS.—Section 101(a)(1)(A) ofthe Water Resources Development Act of 1996(110 Stat. 3662) is amended by striking ‘‘at atotal cost of’’ and all that follows through‘‘$14,225,000,’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘at atotal cost of $91,900,000, with an estimated Fed-eral cost of $68,925,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $22,975,000,’’.

(c) COST SHARING.—For the purposes of sec-tion 103 of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213), the modificationsauthorized by this section shall be subject to thesame cost sharing in effect for the project forflood damage reduction, American and Sac-ramento Rivers, California, authorized by sec-tion 101(a)(1) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3662).SEC. 367. MARTIN, KENTUCKY.

The project for flood control, Martin, Ken-tucky, authorized by section 202(a) of the En-ergy and Water Development AppropriationsAct, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339), is modified to authorizethe Secretary to take all necessary measures toprevent future losses that would occur as a re-sult of a flood equal in magnitude to a 100-yearfrequency event.SEC. 368. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA PILOT PRO-

GRAM.Section 340(g) of the Water Resources Devel-

opment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is amended toread as follows:

‘‘(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout the pilot program under this section

$40,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after Sep-tember 30, 1992. Such sums shall remain avail-able until expended.’’.SEC. 369. BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIV-

ERS, JACKSON, ALABAMA.(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation,

Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, vicinity ofJackson, Alabama, authorized by section 106 ofthe Energy and Water Development Appropria-tions Act, 1987 (100 Stat. 3341–199), is modified toauthorize the Secretary to acquire land for miti-gation of the habitat losses attributable to theproject, including the navigation channel,dredged material disposal areas, and other areasdirectly affected by construction of the project.

(b) CONSTRUCTION BEFORE ACQUISITION OFMITIGATION LAND.—Notwithstanding section 906of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986(33 U.S.C. 2283), the Secretary may constructthe project before acquisition of the mitigationland if the Secretary takes such actions as arenecessary to ensure that any required mitigationland will be acquired not later than 2 yearsafter initiation of construction of the new chan-nel and that the acquisition will fully mitigateany adverse environmental impacts resultingfrom the project.SEC. 370. TROPICANA WASH AND FLAMINGO

WASH, NEVADA.Any Federal costs associated with the

Tropicana Wash and Flamingo Wash, Nevada,authorized by section 101(13) of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4803),incurred by the non-Federal interest to accel-erate or modify construction of the project, incooperation with the Corps of Engineers, shallbe eligible for reimbursement by the Secretary.SEC. 371. COMITE RIVER, LOUISIANA.

The Comite River Diversion Project for floodcontrol, authorized as part of the project forflood control, Amite River and Tributaries, Lou-isiana, by section 101(11) of the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802) andmodified by section 301(b)(5) of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3709),is further modified to authorize the Secretary toinclude the costs of highway relocations to becost shared as a project construction feature.SEC. 372. ST. MARYS RIVER, MICHIGAN.

The project for navigation, St. Marys River,Michigan, is modified to direct the Secretary toprovide an additional foot of overdraft betweenPoint Louise Turn and the Locks, Sault SainteMarie, Michigan, consistent with the channelsupstream of Point Louise Turn. The modifica-tion shall be carried out as operation and main-tenance to improve navigation safety.SEC. 373. CHARLEVOIX, MICHIGAN.

The Secretary shall review and, if consistentwith authorized project purposes, reimburse thecity of Charlevoix, Michigan, for the Federalshare of costs associated with construction ofthe new revetment connection to the Federalnavigation project at Charlevoix Harbor, Michi-gan.SEC. 374. WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND

MISSOURI.(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b),

the project for flood control, power generation,and other purposes at the White River Basin,Arkansas and Missouri, authorized by section 4of the Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218, chapter795), and modified by House Document 917, 76thCongress, 3d Session, and House Document 290,77th Congress, 1st Session, approved August 18,1941, and House Document 499, 83d Congress, 2dSession, approved September 3, 1954, and by sec-tion 304 of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711) is further modified toauthorize the Secretary to provide minimumflows necessary to sustain tail water trout fish-eries by reallocating the following amounts ofproject storage: Beaver Lake, 1.5 feet; TableRock, 2 feet; Bull Shoals Lake, 5 feet; NorforkLake, 3.5 feet; and Greers Ferry Lake, 3 feet.

(b) REPORT.—(1) IN GENERAL.—No funds may be obligated to

carry out work on the modification under sub-

section (a) until completion of a final report bythe Chief of Engineers finding that the work istechnically sound, environmentally acceptable,and economically justified.

(2) TIMING.—The Secretary shall submit thereport to Congress not later than July 30, 2000.

(3) CONTENTS.—The report shall include deter-minations concerning whether—

(A) the modification under subsection (a) ad-versely affects other authorized project pur-poses; and

(B) Federal costs will be incurred in connec-tion with the modification.SEC. 375. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA, WATER

CONVEYANCE FACILITIES.For the project for construction of the water

conveyances authorized by the first section ofPublic Law 88–253 (77 Stat. 841), the require-ments for the Waurika Project Master Conser-vancy District to repay the $2,900,000 in costs(including interest) resulting from the October1991 settlement of the claim before the UnitedStates Claims Court, and to make a payment of$595,000 of the final cost representing a portionof the difference between the 1978 estimate ofcost and the actual cost determined after com-pletion of the project in 1991, are waived.

TITLE IV—STUDIESSEC. 401. DEEP DRAFT HARBOR COST SHARING.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall under-take a study of non-Federal cost-sharing re-quirements for the construction and operationand maintenance of deep draft harbor projectsto determine whether—

(1) cost sharing adversely affects UnitedStates port development or domestic and inter-national trade; and

(2) any revision of the cost-sharing require-ments would benefit United States domestic andinternational trade.

(b) RECOMMENDATIONS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than May 30, 2001,

the Secretary shall submit to the Committee onEnvironment and Public Works of the Senateand the Committee on Transportation and In-frastructure of the House of Representatives anyrecommendations that the Secretary may havein light of the study under subsection (a).

(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In making recommenda-tions, the Secretary shall consider—

(A) the potential economic, environmental,and budgetary impacts of any proposed revisionof the cost-sharing requirements; and

(B) the effect that any such revision wouldhave on regional port competition.SEC. 402. BOYDSVILLE, ARKANSAS.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine the feasibility of the reservoir and associ-ated improvements to provide for flood control,recreation, water quality, and fish and wildlifepurposes in the vicinity of Boydsville, Arkansas.SEC. 403. GREERS FERRY LAKE, ARKANSAS.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine the feasibility of constructing water intakefacilities at Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas.SEC. 404. DEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine the feasibility of designating a permanentdisposal site for dredged material from Federalnavigation projects in Del Norte County, Cali-fornia.SEC. 405. FRAZIER CREEK, TULARE COUNTY, CALI-

FORNIA.The Secretary shall conduct a study to

determine—(1) the feasibility of restoring Frazier Creek,

Tulare County, California; and(2) the Federal interest in flood control, envi-

ronmental restoration, conservation of fish andwildlife resources, recreation, and water qualityof the creek.SEC. 406. MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CALIFORNIA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conducta general reevaluation to determine the Federalinterest in reconfiguring the Mare Island Straitchannel.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7291August 5, 1999(b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In determining the Fed-

eral interest, the Secretary shall consider thebenefits of economic activity associated with po-tential future uses of the channel and any otherbenefits that could be realized by increasing thewidth and depth of the channel to accommodateboth current and potential future uses of thechannel.SEC. 407. STRAWBERRY CREEK, BERKELEY, CALI-

FORNIA.The Secretary shall conduct a study to

determine—(1) the feasibility of restoring Strawberry

Creek, Berkeley, California; and(2) the Federal interest in environmental res-

toration, conservation of fish and wildlife re-sources, recreation, and water quality of thecreek.SEC. 408. SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, SAN DIEGO

COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.The Secretary shall conduct a study of the po-

tential water quality problems and pollutionabatement measures in the watershed in andaround Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego Coun-ty, California.SEC. 409. WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, CALI-

FORNIA.The Secretary shall complete a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of a flood damage reductionproject in the Whitewater River basin (alsoknown as ‘‘Thousand Palms’’), California.SEC. 410. DESTIN-NORIEGA POINT, FLORIDA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine the feasibility of—

(1) restoring Noriega Point, Florida, to serveas a breakwater for Destin Harbor; and

(2) including Noriega Point as part of the EastPass, Florida, navigation project.SEC. 411. LITTLE ECONLACKHATCHEE RIVER

BASIN, FLORIDA.The Secretary shall conduct a study of pollu-

tion abatement measures in the LittleEconlackhatchee River basin, Florida.SEC. 412. PORT EVERGLADES, BROWARD COUNTY,

FLORIDA.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of constructing a sand by-passing project at the Port Everglades Inlet,Florida.SEC. 413. LAKE ALLATOONA, ETOWAH RIVER, AND

LITTLE RIVER WATERSHED, GEOR-GIA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coopera-tion with the Administrator of the Environ-mental Protection Agency, may carry out thefollowing water-related environmental restora-tion and resource protection investigations intorestoring Lake Allatoona, the Etowah River,and the Little River watershed, Georgia:

(1) LAKE ALLATOONA/ETOWAH RIVER SHORELINERESTORATION INVESTIGATION.—Feasibility phaseinvestigation to identify and recommend to Con-gress structural and nonstructural measures toalleviate shore erosion and sedimentation prob-lems along the shores of Lake Allatoona and theEtowah River.

(2) LITTLE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORA-TION INVESTIGATION.—Feasibility phase inves-tigation to evaluate environmental problems andrecommend environmental restoration measures(including appropriate environmental structuraland nonstructural measures) for the Little Riverwatershed, Georgia.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated for theperiod beginning with fiscal year 2000—

(1) $850,000 to carry out subsection (a)(1); and(2) $500,000 to carry out subsection (a)(2).

SEC. 414. BOISE, IDAHO.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of undertaking flood controlon the Boise River in Boise, Idaho.SEC. 415. GOOSE CREEK WATERSHED, OAKLEY,

IDAHO.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of undertaking flood damage

reduction, water conservation, ground water re-charge, ecosystem restoration, and related ac-tivities along the Goose Creek watershed nearOakley, Idaho.SEC. 416. LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, IDAHO.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine the feasibility of restoring and repairingthe Lava Rock Little Wood River ContainmentSystem to prevent flooding in the city ofGooding, Idaho.SEC. 417. SNAKE RIVER, LEWISTON, IDAHO.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine the feasibility of undertaking bank sta-bilization and flood control on the Snake Riverat Lewiston, Idaho.SEC. 418. SNAKE RIVER AND PAYETTE RIVER,

IDAHO.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of undertaking a flood con-trol project along the Snake River and PayetteRiver, in the vicinity of Payette, Idaho.SEC. 419. UPPER DES PLAINES RIVER AND TRIBU-

TARIES, ILLINOIS AND WISCONSIN.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct

a study of the upper Des Plaines River and trib-utaries, Illinois and Wisconsin, upstream of theconfluence with Salt Creek at Riverside, Illinois,to determine the feasibility of improvements inthe interests of flood damage reduction, environ-mental restoration and protection, water qual-ity, recreation, and related purposes.

(b) SPECIAL RULE.—In conducting the study,the Secretary may not exclude from consider-ation and evaluation flood damage reductionmeasures based on restrictive policies regardingthe frequency of flooding, the drainage area,and the amount of runoff.

(c) CONSULTATION AND USE OF EXISTINGDATA.—In carrying out this section, the Sec-retary shall—

(1) consult with appropriate Federal and Stateagencies; and

(2) make maximum use of data in existence onthe date of enactment of this Act and ongoingprograms and efforts of Federal agencies andStates.SEC. 420. CAMERON PARISH WEST OF CALCASIEU

RIVER, LOUISIANA.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of undertaking a storm dam-age reduction and ecosystem restoration projectfor Cameron Parish west of Calcasieu River,Louisiana.SEC. 421. COASTAL LOUISIANA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine the feasibility of using dredged materialfrom maintenance activities at Federal naviga-tion projects in coastal Louisiana to benefitcoastal areas in the State.SEC. 422. GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LOUISIANA.

In carrying out a study of the storm damagereduction benefits to Grand Isle and vicinity,Louisiana, the Secretary shall include benefitsthat a storm damage reduction project for GrandIsle and vicinity, Louisiana, may have on themainland coast of Louisiana as project benefitsattributable to the Grand Isle project.SEC. 423. GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY ECO-

SYSTEM, CHEF MENTEUR TO SABINERIVER, LOUISIANA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conducta study to determine the feasibility of under-taking ecosystem restoration and protectionmeasures along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterwayfrom Chef Menteur to Sabine River, Louisiana.

(b) MATTERS TO BE ADDRESSED.—The studyshall address saltwater intrusion, tidal scour,erosion, compaction, subsidence, wind and waveaction, bank failure, and other problems relat-ing to ecosystem restoration and protection.SEC. 424. MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND BOS-

TON, MASSACHUSETTS.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall evaluate

the January 1999 study commissioned by theBoston Parks and Recreation Department, Bos-ton, Massachusetts, and entitled ‘‘The Emerald

Necklace Environmental Improvement MasterPlan, Phase I Muddy River Flood Control,Water Quality and Habitat Enhancement’’, todetermine whether the plans outlined in thestudy for flood control, water quality, habitatenhancements, and other improvements to theMuddy River in Brookline and Boston, Massa-chusetts, are cost-effective, technically sound,environmentally acceptable, and in the Federalinterest.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than June 30, 2000, theSecretary shall submit to Congress a report onthe results of the evaluation.SEC. 425. WESTPORT, MASSACHUSETTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conducta study to determine the feasibility of under-taking a navigation project for the town ofWestport, Massachusetts.

(b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In determining the ben-efits of the project, the Secretary shall includethe benefits derived from using dredged materialfor shore protection and storm damage reduc-tion.SEC. 426. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR,

MICHIGAN.(a) PLAN.—The Secretary, in coordination

with State and local governments and appro-priate Federal and provincial authorities ofCanada, shall develop a comprehensive manage-ment plan for St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair.

(b) ELEMENTS.—The plan shall include thefollowing elements:

(1) Identification of the causes and sources ofenvironmental degradation.

(2) Continuous monitoring of organic, biologi-cal, metallic, and chemical contamination levels.

(3) Timely dissemination of information ofcontamination levels to public authorities, otherinterested parties, and the public.

(c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after thedate of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall submit to Congress a report that includesthe plan developed under subsection (a) andrecommendations for potential restoration meas-ures.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $400,000.SEC. 427. ST. CLAIR SHORES, MICHIGAN.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine the feasibility of constructing a flood con-trol project at St. Clair Shores, Michigan.SEC. 428. WOODTICK PENINSULA, MICHIGAN, AND

TOLEDO HARBOR, OHIO.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of using dredged materialfrom Toledo Harbor, Ohio, to provide erosion re-duction, navigation, and ecosystem restorationat Woodtick Peninsula, Michigan.SEC. 429. PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MISSISSIPPI.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conducta study to determine an alternative plan fordredged material management for thePascagoula River portion of the project fornavigation, Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi, au-thorized by section 202(a) of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4094).

(b) CONTENTS.—The study under subsection(a) shall—

(1) include an analysis of the feasibility of ex-panding the Singing River Island Disposal Areaor constructing a new dredged material disposalfacility; and

(2) identify methods of managing and reduc-ing sediment transport into the Federal naviga-tion channel.SEC. 430. TUNICA LAKE WEIR, MISSISSIPPI.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conducta study to determine the feasibility of con-structing an outlet weir at Tunica Lake, TunicaCounty, Mississippi, and Lee County, Arkansas,for the purpose of stabilizing water levels in thelake.

(b) ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.—In carrying out thestudy, the Secretary shall include as part of theeconomic analysis the benefits derived from

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7292 August 5, 1999recreation uses at Tunica Lake and economicbenefits associated with restoration of fish andwildlife habitat.SEC. 431. YELLOWSTONE RIVER, MONTANA.

(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct acomprehensive study of the Yellowstone Riverfrom Gardiner, Montana, to the confluence ofthe Missouri River to determine the hydrologic,biological, and socioeconomic cumulative im-pacts on the river.

(b) CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.—TheSecretary shall conduct the study in consulta-tion with the United States Fish and WildlifeService, the United States Geological Survey,and the Natural Resources Conservation Serviceand with the full participation of the State ofMontana and tribal and local entities, and pro-vide for public participation.

(c) REPORT.—Not later than 5 years after thedate of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall submit to Congress a report on the resultsof the study.SEC. 432. LAS VEGAS VALLEY, NEVADA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conducta comprehensive study of water resources in theLas Vegas Valley, Nevada.

(b) OBJECTIVES.—The study shall identifyproblems and opportunities related to ecosystemrestoration, water quality (particularly thequality of surface runoff), and flood control.SEC. 433. SOUTHWEST VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE,

NEW MEXICO.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of undertaking a project forflood damage reduction in the Southwest Val-ley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.SEC. 434. CAYUGA CREEK, NEW YORK.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine the feasibility of undertaking a project forflood control for Cayuga Creek, New York.SEC. 435. LAKE CHAMPLAIN, NEW YORK AND

VERMONT.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of restoring Lake Cham-plain, New York and Vermont, to improve waterquality, fish and wildlife habitat, and naviga-tion.SEC. 436. OSWEGO RIVER BASIN, NEW YORK.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine the feasibility of establishing a flood fore-casting system in the Oswego River basin, NewYork.SEC. 437. WHITE OAK RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine whether there is a Federal interest in aproject for water quality, environmental restora-tion and protection, and related purposes on theWhite Oak River, North Carolina.SEC. 438. ARCOLA CREEK WATERSHED, MADISON,

OHIO.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of undertaking a project toprovide environmental restoration and protec-tion for the Arcola Creek watershed, Madison,Ohio.SEC. 439. CLEVELAND HARBOR, CLEVELAND,

OHIO.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of undertaking repairs andrelated navigation improvements at Dike 14,Cleveland, Ohio.SEC. 440. TOUSSAINT RIVER, CARROLL TOWN-

SHIP, OHIO.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of undertaking navigationimprovements on the Toussaint River, CarrollTownship, Ohio.SEC. 441. WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OHIO, INDI-

ANA, AND MICHIGAN.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct

a study to develop measures to improve floodcontrol, navigation, water quality, recreation,and fish and wildlife habitat in a comprehensivemanner in the western Lake Erie basin, Ohio,Indiana, and Michigan, including watersheds ofthe Maumee, Ottawa, and Portage Rivers.

(b) COOPERATION.—In carrying out the study,the Secretary shall—

(1) cooperate with interested Federal, State,and local agencies and nongovernmental orga-nizations; and

(2) consider all relevant programs of the agen-cies.

(c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after thedate of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall submit to Congress a report on the resultsof the study, including findings and rec-ommendations.SEC. 442. SCHUYLKILL RIVER, NORRISTOWN,

PENNSYLVANIA.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of undertaking a project forflood control for the Schuylkill River, Norris-town, Pennsylvania.SEC. 443. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL AREAS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall reviewpertinent reports and conduct other studies andfield investigations to determine the best avail-able science and methods for management ofcontaminated dredged material and sediments inthe coastal areas of South Carolina.

(b) FOCUS.—In carrying out subsection (a),the Secretary shall place particular focus onareas where the Corps of Engineers maintainsdeep draft navigation projects, such as Charles-ton Harbor, Georgetown Harbor, and PortRoyal, South Carolina.

(c) COOPERATION.—The studies shall be con-ducted in cooperation with the appropriate Fed-eral and State environmental agencies.SEC. 444. SANTEE DELTA FOCUS AREA, SOUTH

CAROLINA.Not later than 18 months after the date of en-

actment of this Act, the Secretary shall completea comprehensive study of the ecosystem in theSantee Delta focus area, South Carolina, to de-termine the feasibility of undertaking a projectto enhance wetland habitat and public rec-reational opportunities in the area.SEC. 445. WACCAMAW RIVER, SOUTH CAROLINA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine the feasibility of undertaking a flood con-trol project for the Waccamaw River in HorryCounty, South Carolina.SEC. 446. DAY COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA.

The Secretary shall conduct—(1) an investigation of flooding and other

water resources problems between the JamesRiver and Big Sioux watersheds, South Dakota;and

(2) an assessment of flood damage reductionneeds of the area.SEC. 447. NIOBRARA RIVER AND MISSOURI RIVER,

SOUTH DAKOTA.The Secretary shall conduct a study of the

Niobrara River watershed and the operations ofFort Randall Dam and Gavins Point Dam onthe Missouri River, South Dakota, to determinethe feasibility of alleviating the bank erosion,sedimentation, and related problems in thelower Niobrara River and the Missouri Riverbelow Fort Randall Dam.SEC. 448. CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.

The Secretary shall include, as part of thestudy authorized by a resolution of the Com-mittee on Public Works and Transportation ofthe House of Representatives dated August 1,1990, a review of two 175-foot-wide barge shelveson either side of the navigation channel at thePort of Corpus Christi, Texas.SEC. 449. MITCHELL’S CUT CHANNEL (CANEY

FORK CUT), TEXAS.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of undertaking a project fornavigation, Mitchell’s Cut Channel (Caney ForkCut), Texas.SEC. 450. MOUTH OF COLORADO RIVER, TEXAS.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine the feasibility of undertaking a project fornavigation at the mouth of the Colorado River,Texas, to provide a minimum draft navigationchannel extending from the Colorado River

through Parkers Cut (also known as ‘‘Tiger Is-land Cut’’), or an acceptable alternative, toMatagorda Bay.SEC. 451. SANTA CLARA RIVER, UTAH.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conducta study to determine the feasibility of under-taking measures to alleviate damage caused byflooding, bank erosion, and sedimentation alongthe watershed of the Santa Clara River, Utah,above the Gunlock Reservoir.

(b) CONTENTS.—The study shall include ananalysis of watershed conditions and waterquality, as related to flooding and bank erosion,along the Santa Clara River in the vicinity ofGunlock, Utah.SEC. 452. MOUNT ST. HELENS, WASHINGTON.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conducta study to determine the feasibility of under-taking ecosystem restoration improvementsthroughout the Cowlitz and Toutle River basins,Washington, including the 6,000 acres of wet-land, riverine, riparian, and upland habitatslost or altered due to the eruption of Mount St.Helens in 1980 and subsequent emergency ac-tions.

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out thestudy, the Secretary shall—

(1) work in close coordination with local gov-ernments, watershed entities, the State of Wash-ington, and other Federal agencies; and

(2) place special emphasis on—(A) conservation and restoration strategies to

benefit species that are listed or proposed forlisting as threatened or endangered speciesunder the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and

(B) other watershed restoration objectives.SEC. 453. KANAWHA RIVER, FAYETTE COUNTY,

WEST VIRGINIA.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of developing a public portalong the Kanawha River in Fayette County,West Virginia, at a site known as ‘‘Longacre’’.SEC. 454. WEST VIRGINIA PORTS.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine the feasibility of expanding public port de-velopment in West Virginia along the OhioRiver and the navigable portion of theKanawha River from its mouth to river mile91.0.SEC. 455. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PRO-

GRAM.(a) STRATEGIC PLANS.—(1) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a

comprehensive study of the Great Lakes regionto ensure the future use, management, and pro-tection of water resources and related resourcesof the Great Lakes basin.

(2) REPORT.—(A) IN GENERAL.—As expeditiously as possible,

but not later than 3 years after the date of en-actment of this Act, and every 2 years there-after, the Secretary shall submit to the Com-mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure ofthe House of Representatives and the Committeeon Environment and Public Works of the Senatea report outlining a strategic plan for Corps ofEngineers programs and proposed Corps of En-gineers projects in the Great Lakes basin.

(B) CONTENTS.—The plan shall include—(i) details of projects in the Great Lakes re-

gion relating to—(I) navigation improvements, maintenance,

and operations for commercial and recreationalvessels;

(II) environmental restoration activities;(III) water level maintenance activities;(IV) technical and planning assistance to

States and remedial action planning committees;(V) sediment transport analysis, sediment

management planning, and activities to supportprevention of excess sediment loadings;

(VI) flood damage reduction and shorelineerosion prevention; and

(VII) all other relevant activities of the Corpsof Engineers; and

(ii) an analysis of factors limiting use of pro-grams and authorities of the Corps of Engineers

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7293August 5, 1999in existence on the date of enactment of this Actin the Great Lakes basin, including the need fornew or modified authorities.

(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $1,000,000 for the period of fiscalyears 2000 through 2003.

(b) GREAT LAKES BIOHYDROLOGICAL INFORMA-TION.—

(1) INVENTORY.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after

the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall request each Federal agency that may pos-sess information relevant to the Great Lakesbiohydrological system to provide an inventoryof all such information in the possession of theagency.

(B) RELEVANT INFORMATION.—For the purposeof subparagraph (A), relevant information in-cludes information on—

(i) ground and surface water hydrology;(ii) natural and altered tributary dynamics;(iii) biological aspects of the system influenced

by and influencing water quantity and watermovement;

(iv) meteorological projections and the impactsof weather conditions on Great Lakes water lev-els; and

(v) other Great Lakes biohydrological systemdata relevant to sustainable water use manage-ment.

(2) REPORT.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months

after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec-retary, in consultation with the States, Indiantribes, and Federal agencies, and after request-ing information from the provinces and the fed-eral government of Canada, shall—

(i) compile the inventories of information;(ii) analyze the information for consistency

and gaps; and(iii) submit to Congress, the International

Joint Commission, and the Great Lakes States areport that includes recommendations on waysto improve the information base on thebiohydrological dynamics of the Great Lakesecosystem as a whole, so as to support environ-mentally sound decisions regarding diversionsand consumptive uses of Great Lakes water.

(B) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The recommenda-tions in the report under subparagraph (A) shallinclude recommendations relating to the re-sources and funds necessary for implementingimprovement of the information base.

(C) CONSIDERATIONS.—In developing the re-port under subparagraph (A), the Secretary, incooperation with the Secretary of State, the Sec-retary of Transportation, and the heads of otheragencies as appropriate, shall consider and re-port on the status of the issues described andrecommendations made in—

(i) the Report of the International Joint Com-mission to the Governments of the United Statesand Canada under the 1977 reference issued in1985; and

(ii) the 1993 Report of the International JointCommission to the Governments of Canada andthe United States on Methods of Alleviating Ad-verse Consequences of Fluctuating Water Levelsin the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Basin.

(c) GREAT LAKES RECREATIONAL BOATING.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enact-ment of this Act, the Secretary, using informa-tion and studies in existence on the date of en-actment of this Act to the extent practicable,and in cooperation with the Great Lakes States,shall submit to Congress a report detailing theeconomic benefits of recreational boating in theGreat Lakes basin, particularly at harbors bene-fiting from operation and maintenance projectsof the Corps of Engineers.

(d) COOPERATION.—In undertaking activitiesunder this section, the Secretary shall—

(1) encourage public participation; and(2) cooperate, and, as appropriate, collabo-

rate, with Great Lakes States, tribal govern-ments, and Canadian federal, provincial, andtribal governments.

(e) WATER USE ACTIVITIES AND POLICIES.—The Secretary may provide technical assistanceto the Great Lakes States to develop interstateguidelines to improve the consistency and effi-ciency of State-level water use activities andpolicies in the Great Lakes basin.

(f) COST SHARING.—The Secretary may seekand accept funds from non-Federal entities to beused to pay up to 25 percent of the cost of car-rying out subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e).SEC. 456. GREAT LAKES NAVIGATIONAL SYSTEM.

In consultation with the St. Lawrence SeawayDevelopment Corporation, the Secretary shallreview the Great Lakes Connecting Channeland Harbors Report dated March 1985 to deter-mine the feasibility of undertaking any modi-fication of the recommendations made in the re-port to improve commercial navigation on theGreat Lakes navigation system, including locks,dams, harbors, ports, channels, and other re-lated features.SEC. 457. NUTRIENT LOADING RESULTING FROM

DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL.(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a

study of nutrient loading that occurs as a resultof discharges of dredged material into open-water sites in the Chesapeake Bay.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months afterthe date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall submit to Congress a report on the resultsof the study.SEC. 458. UPPER MISSISSIPPI AND ILLINOIS RIV-

ERS LEVEES AND STREAMBANKSPROTECTION.

The Secretary shall conduct a study of erosiondamage to levees and other flood control struc-tures on the upper Mississippi and Illinois Riv-ers and the impact of increased barge and pleas-ure craft traffic on deterioration of the leveesand other flood control structures.SEC. 459. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COM-

PREHENSIVE PLAN.(a) DEVELOPMENT.—The Secretary shall de-

velop a plan to address water resource and re-lated land resource problems and opportunitiesin the upper Mississippi and Illinois River ba-sins, from Cairo, Illinois, to the headwaters ofthe Mississippi River, in the interest of systemicflood damage reduction by means of—

(1) structural and nonstructural flood controland floodplain management strategies;

(2) continued maintenance of the navigationproject;

(3) management of bank caving and erosion;(4) watershed nutrient and sediment manage-

ment;(5) habitat management;(6) recreation needs; and(7) other related purposes.(b) CONTENTS.—The plan under subsection (a)

shall—(1) contain recommendations on management

plans and actions to be carried out by the re-sponsible Federal and non-Federal entities;

(2) specifically address recommendations toauthorize construction of a systemic flood con-trol project for the upper Mississippi River; and

(3) include recommendations for Federal ac-tion where appropriate and recommendationsfor follow-on studies for problem areas forwhich data or current technology does not allowimmediate solutions.

(c) CONSULTATION AND USE OF EXISTINGDATA.—In carrying out this section, the Sec-retary shall—

(1) consult with appropriate Federal and Stateagencies; and

(2) make maximum use of data in existence onthe date of enactment of this Act and ongoingprograms and efforts of Federal agencies andStates in developing the plan under subsection(a).

(d) COST SHARING.—(1) DEVELOPMENT.—Development of the plan

under subsection (a) shall be at Federal ex-pense.

(2) FEASIBILITY STUDIES.—Feasibility studiesresulting from development of the plan shall be

subject to cost sharing under section 105 of theWater Resources Development Act of 1986 (33U.S.C. 2215).

(e) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after thedate of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall submit to the Committee on Transportationand Infrastructure of the House of Representa-tives and the Committee on Environment andPublic Works of the Senate a report that in-cludes the plan under subsection (a).SEC. 460. SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AND UPPER

CHESAPEAKE BAY.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct

a study of controlling and managing waterbornedebris in the interest of navigation, flood con-trol, environmental restoration, and other pur-poses in the Susquehanna River Basin, NewYork, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, and theupper Chesapeake Bay, Maryland.

(b) EVALUATION OF TECHNOLOGIES AND PRAC-TICES.—The study shall include an evaluationof technologies and practices currently avail-able, in use, or in development in the UnitedStates for debris removal programs at variousdams and harbors and recommendations for ap-plying those techniques and practices in theSusquehanna River and the upper ChesapeakeBay.

(c) COOPERATION.—The study shall be con-ducted in cooperation with State agencies andother Federal agencies, the Susquehanna RiverBasin Commission, and owners of major dams.

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONSSEC. 501. CORPS ASSUMPTION OF NRCS

PROJECTS.(a) LLAGAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—The Sec-

retary may complete the remaining reaches ofthe Natural Resources Conservation Serviceflood control project at Llagas Creek, Cali-fornia, undertaken pursuant to section 5 of theWatershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act(16 U.S.C. 1005), substantially in accordancewith the Natural Resources Conservation Serv-ice watershed plan for Llagas Creek, Depart-ment of Agriculture, and in accordance with therequirements of local cooperation as specified insection 4 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 1004), at a totalcost of $45,000,000, with an estimated Federalcost of $21,800,000 and an estimated non-Federalcost of $23,200,000.

(b) THORNTON RESERVOIR, COOK COUNTY, IL-LINOIS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Thornton Reservoirproject, an element of the project for flood con-trol, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, Illinois, au-thorized by section 3(a)(5) of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013),is modified to authorize the Secretary to includeadditional permanent flood control storage at-tributable to the Natural Resources Conserva-tion Service Thornton Reservoir (Structure 84),Little Calumet River Watershed, Illinois, ap-proved under the Watershed Protection andFlood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).

(2) LIMITATION.—No funds may be obligated tocarry out work under the modification underparagraph (1) until completion and approval bythe Secretary of a final report by the Chief ofEngineers finding that the work is technicallysound, environmentally acceptable, and eco-nomically justified.

(3) COST SHARING.—Costs for the ThorntonReservoir project shall be shared in accordancewith section 103 of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).

(4) TRANSITIONAL STORAGE.—The Secretary ofAgriculture may cooperate with non-Federal in-terests to provide, on a transitional basis, floodcontrol storage for the Natural Resources Con-servation Service Thornton Reservoir (Structure84) project in the west lobe of the Thorntonquarry.

(5) CREDIT TOWARD NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—TheSecretary may credit toward the non-Federalshare of the costs of the Thornton Reservoirproject all design and construction costs in-curred by the non-Federal interests before the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7294 August 5, 1999date of signing of the project cooperation agree-ment.

(6) REEVALUATION REPORT.—The Secretaryshall determine the credits authorized by para-graph (5) that are integral to the Thornton Res-ervoir project and the current total project costsbased on a limited reevaluation report.SEC. 502. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 219(e) of the WaterResources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.4835; 110 Stat. 3757) is amended by striking para-graphs (5) and (6) and inserting the following:

‘‘(5) $25,000,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(2);

‘‘(6) $20,000,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(9);

‘‘(7) $30,000,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(16); and

‘‘(8) $30,000,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(17).’’.

(b) ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE.—Section 219 ofthe Water Resources Development Act of 1992 isamended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(f) ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretarymay provide assistance under subsection (a) andassistance for construction for the following:

‘‘(1) ATLANTA, GEORGIA.—The project de-scribed in subsection (c)(2), modified to include$25,000,000 for watershed restoration and devel-opment in the regional Atlanta watershed, in-cluding Big Creek and Rock Creek.

‘‘(2) PATERSON, PASSAIC COUNTY, AND PASSAICVALLEY, NEW JERSEY.—The project described insubsection (c)(9), modified to include $20,000,000for drainage facilities to alleviate flooding prob-lems on Getty Avenue in the vicinity of St. Jo-seph’s Hospital for the city of Paterson, NewJersey, and Passaic County, New Jersey, and in-novative facilities to manage and treat addi-tional flows in the Passaic Valley, Passaic Riverbasin, New Jersey.

‘‘(3) NASHUA, NEW HAMPSHIRE.—$20,000,000 fora project to eliminate or control combined seweroverflows in the city of Nashua, New Hamp-shire.

‘‘(4) FALL RIVER AND NEW BEDFORD, MASSA-CHUSETTS.—$15,000,000 for a project to eliminateor control combined sewer overflows in the citiesof Fall River and New Bedford, Massachusetts.

‘‘(5) FINDLAY TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—$11,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-ture in Findlay Township, Allegheny County,Pennsylvania.

‘‘(6) DILLSBURG BOROUGH AUTHORITY, PENN-SYLVANIA.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewaterinfrastructure in Franklin Township, YorkCounty, Pennsylvania.

‘‘(7) HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—$3,000,000 for water, sewer, and storm sewer im-provements in Hampden Township, Pennsyl-vania.

‘‘(8) TOWAMENCIN TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—$1,500,000 for sanitary sewer and water andwastewater infrastructure in TowamencinTownship, Pennsylvania.

‘‘(9) DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—$2,000,000 for a project to eliminate or controlcombined sewer overflows and water system re-habilitation for the city of Harrisburg, DauphinCounty, Pennsylvania.

‘‘(10) EASTERN SHORE AND SOUTHWEST VIR-GINIA.—$20,000,000 for water supply and waste-water infrastructure projects in the counties ofAccomac, Northampton, Lee, Norton, Wise,Scott, Russell, Dickenson, Buchanan, and Taze-well, Virginia.

‘‘(11) NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA.—$20,000,000for water related infrastructure in the countiesof Lackawanna, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyo-ming, Pike, Wayne, Sullivan, Bradford, andMonroe, Pennsylvania, including assistance forthe Mountoursville Regional Sewer Authority,Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.

‘‘(12) CALUMET REGION, INDIANA.—$10,000,000for water related infrastructure projects in thecounties of Lake and Porter, Indiana.

‘‘(13) CLINTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—$1,000,000 for water related infrastructure inClinton County, Pennsylvania.

‘‘(14) PATTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—$1,400,000 for water related infrastructure inPatton Township, Pennsylvania.

‘‘(15) NORTH FAYETTE TOWNSHIP, ALLEGHENYCOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—$500,000 for water re-lated infrastructure in North Fayette Township,Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

‘‘(16) SPRINGDALE BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA.—$500,000 for water related infrastructure inSpringdale Borough, Pennsylvania.

‘‘(17) ROBINSON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—$1,200,000 for water related infrastructure inRobinson Township, Pennsylvania.

‘‘(18) UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, PENNSYL-VANIA.—$3,400,000 for water related infrastruc-ture in Upper Allen Township, Pennsylvania.

‘‘(19) JEFFERSON TOWNSHIP, GREENE COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA.—$1,000,000 for water-related in-frastructure in Jefferson Township, GreeneCounty, Pennsylvania.

‘‘(20) LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINA.—$1,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-ture projects in Lumberton, North Carolina.

‘‘(21) BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA.—$10,000,000for water related infrastructure for the parishesof East Baton Rouge, Ascension, and Living-ston, Louisiana.

‘‘(22) EAST SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALI-FORNIA.—$25,000,000 for ground water rechargeand conjunctive use projects in Stockton EastWater District, California.

‘‘(23) SACRAMENTO AREA, CALIFORNIA.—$25,000,000 for regional water conservation andrecycling projects in Placer and El DoradoCounties and the San Juan Suburban WaterDistrict, California.

‘‘(24) CUMBERLAND COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—$5,000,000 for water supply projects in Cum-berland County, Tennessee.

‘‘(25) LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTHCAROLINA.—$5,000,000 for water supply treat-ment and distribution projects in the counties ofCalhoun, Clarendon, Colleton, Dorchester,Orangeberg, and Sumter, South Carolina.

‘‘(26) BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT.—$10,000,000for a project to eliminate or control combinedsewer overflows in the city of Bridgeport, Con-necticut.

‘‘(27) HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT.—$10,000,000for a project to eliminate or control combinedsewer overflows in the city of Hartford, Con-necticut.

‘‘(28) NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT.—$10,000,000for a project to eliminate or control combinedsewer overflows in the city of New Haven, Con-necticut.

‘‘(29) OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN.—$20,000,000 for a project to eliminate or controlcombined sewer overflows in the cities of Berk-ley, Ferndale, Madison Heights, Royal Oak,Birmingham, Hazel Park, Oak Park, Southfield,Clawson, Huntington Woods, Pleasant Ridge,and Troy, and the village of Beverly Hills, andthe Charter Township of Royal Oak, Michigan.

‘‘(30) DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—$10,000,000 for a wastewater treatment project inthe county of DeSoto, Mississippi.

‘‘(31) KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.—$15,000,000 fora project to eliminate or control combined seweroverflows in the city of Kansas City, Missouri.

‘‘(32) ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.—$15,000,000 for aproject to eliminate or control combined seweroverflows in the city of St. Louis, Missouri.

‘‘(33) ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY.—$20,000,000 fora project to eliminate or control combined seweroverflows in the city of Elizabeth, New Jersey.

‘‘(34) NORTH HUDSON, NEW JERSEY.—$10,000,000 for a project to eliminate or controlcombined sewer overflows in the city of NorthHudson, New Jersey.

‘‘(35) INNER HARBOR PROJECT, NEW YORK, NEWYORK.—$15,000,000 for a project to eliminate orcontrol combined sewer overflows for the innerharbor project, New York, New York.

‘‘(36) OUTER HARBOR PROJECT, NEW YORK, NEWYORK.—$15,000,000 for a project to eliminate orcontrol combined sewer overflows for the outerharbor project, New York, New York.

‘‘(37) LEBANON, NEW HAMPSHIRE.—$8,000,000for a project to eliminate or control combinedsewer overflows in the city of Lebanon, NewHampshire.

‘‘(38) ASTORIA, OREGON.—$5,000,000 for aproject to eliminate or control combined seweroverflows in the city of Astoria, Oregon.

‘‘(39) CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.—$5,000,000 for awastewater infrastructure project for CacheCounty, Utah.

‘‘(40) LAWTON, OKLAHOMA.—$5,000,000 for awastewater infrastructure project for the city ofLawton, Oklahoma.

‘‘(41) LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA.—$1,500,000 fora project to provide water facilities for the FoxField Industrial Corridor, Lancaster, California.

‘‘(42) SAN RAMON VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.—$15,000,000 for a project for recycled water forSan Ramon Valley, California.

‘‘(43) HARBOR/SOUTH BAY, CALIFORNIA.—$15,000,000 for an industrial water reuse projectfor the Harbor/South Bay area, California.’’.SEC. 503. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT DREDGING

TECHNOLOGY.(a) REVIEW OF INNOVATIVE DREDGING TECH-

NOLOGIES.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than June 1, 2001,

the Secretary shall complete a review of innova-tive dredging technologies designed to minimizeor eliminate contamination of a water columnupon removal of contaminated sediments.

(2) TESTING.—(A) SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGY.—After com-

pletion of the review under paragraph (1), theSecretary shall select, from among the tech-nologies reviewed, the technology that the Sec-retary determines will best increase the effec-tiveness of removing contaminated sedimentsand significantly reduce contamination of thewater column.

(B) AGREEMENT.—Not later than December 31,2001, the Secretary shall enter into an agreementwith a public or private entity to test the se-lected technology in the vicinity of PeoriaLakes, Illinois.

(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this subsection $2,000,000.

(b) ACCELERATED ADOPTION OF INNOVATIVETECHNOLOGIES.—Section 8 of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1988 (33 U.S.C. 2314)is amended—

(1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) assubsections (c) and (d), respectively; and

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

‘‘(b) ACCELERATED ADOPTION OF INNOVATIVETECHNOLOGIES FOR MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMI-NATED SEDIMENTS.—

‘‘(1) TEST PROJECTS.—The Secretary shall ap-prove an appropriate number of projects to test,under actual field conditions, innovative tech-nologies for environmentally sound managementof contaminated sediments.

‘‘(2) DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.—The Sec-retary may approve an appropriate number ofprojects to demonstrate innovative technologiesthat have been pilot tested under paragraph (1).

‘‘(3) CONDUCT OF PROJECTS.—Each pilotproject under paragraph (1) and demonstrationproject under paragraph (2) shall be conductedby a university with proven expertise in the re-search and development of contaminated sedi-ment treatment technologies and innovative ap-plications using waste materials.

‘‘(4) LOCATION.—At least 1 of the projectsunder this subsection shall be conducted in NewEngland by the University of New Hampshire.’’.SEC. 504. DAM SAFETY.

(a) ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may provideassistance to enhance dam safety at the fol-lowing locations:

(1) Healdsburg Veteran’s Memorial Dam, Cali-fornia.

(2) Kehly Run Dam, Pennsylvania.(3) Sweet Arrow Lake Dam, Pennsylvania.(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $6,000,000.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7295August 5, 1999SEC. 505. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION

PLANS.Section 401(a)(2) of the Water Resources De-

velopment Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1268 note; 104Stat. 4644; 110 Stat. 3763) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘Non-Federal’’ and insertingthe following:

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Non-Federal’’; and(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(B) CONTRIBUTIONS BY ENTITIES.—Nonprofit

public or private entities may contribute all or aportion of the non-Federal share.’’.SEC. 506. PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE

ENVIRONMENT.Section 1135(c) of the Water Resources Devel-

opment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(c)) isamended—

(1) by striking ‘‘If the Secretary’’ and insert-ing the following:

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary’’; and(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(2) CONTROL OF SEA LAMPREY.—Congress

finds that—‘‘(A) the Great Lakes navigation system has

been instrumental in the spread of sea lampreyand the associated impacts on its fishery; and

‘‘(B) the use of the authority under this sub-section for control of sea lamprey at any GreatLakes basin location is appropriate.’’.SEC. 507. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHAN-

NELS.Section 509(a) of the Water Resources Devel-

opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759) is amendedby adding at the end the following:

‘‘(12) Acadiana Navigation Channel, Lou-isiana.

‘‘(13) Contraband Bayou, Louisiana, as partof the Calcasieu River and Pass Ship Channel.

‘‘(14) Lake Wallula Navigation Channel,Washington.

‘‘(15) Wadley Pass (also known as ‘McGriffPass’), Suwanee River, Florida.’’.SEC. 508. MEASUREMENTS OF LAKE MICHIGAN DI-

VERSIONS, ILLINOIS.Section 1142(b) of the Water Resources Devel-

opment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4253) is amendedby striking ‘‘$250,000 per fiscal year for each fis-cal year beginning after September 30, 1986,’’and inserting ‘‘$1,250,000 for each of fiscal years1999 through 2003’’.SEC. 509. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRON-

MENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.(a) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—Section 1103(e)

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986(33 U.S.C. 652(e)) is amended by striking‘‘(e)(1)’’ and all that follows through the end ofparagraph (1) and inserting the following:

‘‘(e) PROGRAM AUTHORITY.—‘‘(1) AUTHORITY.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consulta-

tion with the Secretary of the Interior and theStates of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri,and Wisconsin, may undertake, as identified inthe master plan—

‘‘(i) a program for the planning, construction,and evaluation of measures for fish and wildlifehabitat rehabilitation and enhancement; and

‘‘(ii) implementation of a long-term resourcemonitoring, computerized data inventory andanalysis, and applied research program.

‘‘(B) ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—In carrying outsubparagraph (A)(i), the Secretary shall estab-lish an independent technical advisory com-mittee to review projects, monitoring plans, andhabitat and natural resource needs assess-ments.’’.

(b) REPORTS.—Section 1103(e) of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.652(e)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) andinserting the following:

‘‘(2) REPORTS.—Not later than December 31,2004, and not later than December 31 of everysixth year thereafter, the Secretary, in consulta-tion with the Secretary of the Interior and theStates of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri,and Wisconsin, shall submit to Congress a re-port that—

‘‘(A) contains an evaluation of the programsdescribed in paragraph (1);

‘‘(B) describes the accomplishments of each ofthe programs;

‘‘(C) provides updates of a systemic habitatneeds assessment; and

‘‘(D) identifies any needed adjustments in theauthorization of the programs.’’.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Sec-tion 1103(e) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (3)—(A) by striking ‘‘(1)(A)’’ and inserting

‘‘(1)(A)(i)’’; and(B) by striking ‘‘Secretary not to exceed’’ and

all that follows before the period at the end andinserting ‘‘Secretary $22,750,000 for fiscal year1999 and each fiscal year thereafter’’;

(2) in paragraph (4)—(A) by striking ‘‘(1)(B)’’ and inserting

‘‘(1)(A)(ii)’’; and(B) by striking ‘‘Secretary not to exceed’’ and

all that follows before the period at the end andinserting ‘‘Secretary $10,420,000 for fiscal year1999 and each fiscal year thereafter’’; and

(3) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting thefollowing:

‘‘(5) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout paragraph (1)(A)(i) $350,000 for each of fis-cal years 1999 through 2009.’’.

(d) TRANSFER OF AMOUNTS.—Section 1103(e) ofthe Water Resources Development Act of 1986(33 U.S.C. 652(e)) is amended by striking para-graph (6) and inserting the following:

‘‘(6) TRANSFER OF AMOUNTS.—For fiscal year1999 and each fiscal year thereafter, the Sec-retary, in consultation with the Secretary of theInterior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Min-nesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, may transfernot to exceed 20 percent of the amounts appro-priated to carry out clause (i) or (ii) of para-graph (1)(A) to the amounts appropriated tocarry out the other of those clauses.’’.

(e) COST SHARING.—Section 1103(e)(7)(A) ofthe Water Resources Development Act of 1986(33 U.S.C. 652(e)(7)(A)) is amended by insertingbefore the period at the end the following: ‘‘and,in the case of any project requiring non-Federalcost sharing, the non-Federal share of the costof the project shall be 35 percent’’.

(f) HABITAT NEEDS ASSESSMENT.—Section1103(h)(2) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(h)(2)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘(2) The Secretary’’ and insert-ing the following:

‘‘(2) DETERMINATION.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary’’; and(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(B) REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall—‘‘(i) complete the ongoing habitat needs as-

sessment conducted under this paragraph notlater than September 30, 2000; and

‘‘(ii) include in each report under subsection(e)(2) the most recent habitat needs assessmentconducted under this paragraph.’’.

(g) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 1103of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986(33 U.S.C. 652) is amended—

(1) in subsection (e)(7)—(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘(1)(A)’’

and inserting ‘‘(1)(A)(i)’’; and(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘para-

graphs (1)(B) and (1)(C)’’ and inserting ‘‘para-graph (1)(A)(ii)’’; and

(2) in subsection (f)(2)—(A) by striking ‘‘(2)(A)’’ and inserting ‘‘(2)’’;

and(B) by striking subparagraph (B).

SEC. 510. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK.Section 404(c) of the Water Resources Develop-

ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended inthe first sentence—

(1) by striking ‘‘is’’ and inserting ‘‘are’’; and(2) by inserting after ‘‘1997’’ the following: ‘‘,

and an additional total of $2,500,000 for fiscalyears thereafter’’.

SEC. 511. WATER CONTROL MANAGEMENT.(a) IN GENERAL.—In evaluating potential im-

provements for water control management ac-tivities and consolidation of water control man-agement centers, the Secretary may consider aregionalized water control management plan butmay not implement such a plan until the dateon which a report is submitted under subsection(b).

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after thedate of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall submit to the Committee on Transportationand Infrastructure and the Committee on Ap-propriations of the House of Representativesand the Committee on Environment and PublicWorks and the Committee on Appropriations ofthe Senate a report containing—

(1) a description of the primary objectives ofstreamlining water control management activi-ties;

(2) a description of the benefits provided bystreamlining water control management activi-ties through consolidation of centers for thoseactivities;

(3) a determination whether the benefits tousers of establishing regional water controlmanagement centers will be retained in each dis-trict office of the Corps of Engineers that doesnot have a regional center;

(4) a determination whether users of regionalcenters will receive a higher level of benefitsfrom streamlining water control management ac-tivities; and

(5) a list of the members of Congress who rep-resent a district that includes a water controlmanagement center that is to be eliminatedunder a proposed regionalized plan.SEC. 512. BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATE-

RIAL.The Secretary may carry out the following

projects under section 204 of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C.2326):

(1) BODEGA BAY, CALIFORNIA.—A project tomake beneficial use of dredged material from aFederal navigation project in Bodega Bay, Cali-fornia.

(2) SABINE REFUGE, LOUISIANA.—A project tomake beneficial use of dredged material fromFederal navigation projects in the vicinity ofSabine Refuge, Louisiana.

(3) HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUN-TIES, MISSISSIPPI.—A project to make beneficialuse of dredged material from a Federal naviga-tion project in Hancock, Harrison, and JacksonCounties, Mississippi.

(4) ROSE CITY MARSH, ORANGE COUNTY,TEXAS.—A project to make beneficial use ofdredged material from a Federal navigationproject in Rose City Marsh, Orange County,Texas.

(5) BESSIE HEIGHTS MARSH, ORANGE COUNTY,TEXAS.—A project to make beneficial use ofdredged material from a Federal navigationproject in Bessie Heights Marsh, Orange Coun-ty, Texas.SEC. 513. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASSIST-

ANCE.Section 507 of the Water Resources Develop-

ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3758) is amended bystriking paragraph (2) and inserting the fol-lowing:

‘‘(2) Expansion and improvement of Long PineRun Dam, Pennsylvania, and associated waterinfrastructure, in accordance with subsections(b) through (e) of section 313 of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4845),at a total cost of $20,000,000.’’.SEC. 514. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI

RIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:(1) MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.—The term

‘‘middle Mississippi River’’ means the reach ofthe Mississippi River from the mouth of theOhio River (river mile 0, upper MississippiRiver) to the mouth of the Missouri River (rivermile 195).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7296 August 5, 1999(2) MISSOURI RIVER.—The term ‘‘Missouri

River’’ means the main stem and floodplain ofthe Missouri River (including reservoirs) from itsconfluence with the Mississippi River at St.Louis, Missouri, to its headwaters near ThreeForks, Montana.

(3) PROJECT.—The term ‘‘project’’ means theproject authorized by this section.

(b) PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT ACTIVI-TIES.—

(1) PLAN.—(A) DEVELOPMENT.—Not later than 180 days

after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec-retary shall develop a plan for a project to pro-tect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat of theMissouri River and the middle Mississippi River.

(B) ACTIVITIES.—(i) IN GENERAL.—The plan shall provide for

such activities as are necessary to protect andenhance fish and wildlife habitat without ad-versely affecting—

(I) the water-related needs of the region sur-rounding the Missouri River and the middleMississippi River, including flood control, navi-gation, recreation, and enhancement of watersupply; and

(II) private property rights.(ii) REQUIRED ACTIVITIES.—The plan shall

include—(I) modification and improvement of naviga-

tion training structures to protect and enhancefish and wildlife habitat;

(II) modification and creation of side channelsto protect and enhance fish and wildlife habi-tat;

(III) restoration and creation of island fishand wildlife habitat;

(IV) creation of riverine fish and wildlifehabitat;

(V) establishment of criteria for prioritizingthe type and sequencing of activities based oncost-effectiveness and likelihood of success; and

(VI) physical and biological monitoring forevaluating the success of the project, to be per-formed by the River Studies Center of theUnited States Geological Survey in Columbia,Missouri.

(2) IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Using funds made available

to carry out this section, the Secretary shallcarry out the activities described in the plan.

(B) USE OF EXISTING AUTHORITY FORUNCONSTRUCTED FEATURES OF THE PROJECT.—Using funds made available to the Secretaryunder other law, the Secretary shall design andconstruct any feature of the project that may becarried out using the authority of the Secretaryto modify an authorized project, if the Secretarydetermines that the design and constructionwill—

(i) accelerate the completion of activities toprotect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat ofthe Missouri River or the middle MississippiRiver; and

(ii) be compatible with the project purposesdescribed in this section.

(c) INTEGRATION OF OTHER ACTIVITIES.—(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the activities

described in subsection (b), the Secretary shallintegrate the activities with other Federal,State, and tribal activities.

(2) NEW AUTHORITY.—Nothing in this sectionconfers any new regulatory authority on anyFederal or non-Federal entity that carries outany activity authorized by this section.

(d) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—In developingand carrying out the plan and the activities de-scribed in subsection (b), the Secretary shallprovide for public review and comment in ac-cordance with applicable Federal law,including—

(1) providing advance notice of meetings;(2) providing adequate opportunity for public

input and comment;(3) maintaining appropriate records; and(4) compiling a record of the proceedings of

meetings.(e) COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW.—In

carrying out the plan and the activities de-

scribed in subsections (b) and (c), the Secretaryshall comply with any applicable Federal law,including the National Environmental PolicyAct of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

(f) COST SHARING.—(1) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal

share of the cost of the project shall be 35 per-cent.

(2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of thecost of any 1 activity described in subsection (b)shall not exceed $5,000,000.

(3) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The oper-ation and maintenance of the project shall be anon-Federal responsibility.

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to paythe Federal share of the cost of carrying out thissection $30,000,000 for the period of fiscal years2000 and 2001.SEC. 515. IRRIGATION DIVERSION PROTECTION

AND FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT AS-SISTANCE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may providetechnical planning and design assistance tonon-Federal interests and may conduct othersite-specific studies to formulate and evaluatefish screens, fish passages devices, and othermeasures to decrease the incidence of juvenileand adult fish inadvertently entering irrigationsystems.

(b) COOPERATION.—Measures under subsection(a)—

(1) shall be developed in cooperation withFederal and State resource agencies; and

(2) shall not impair the continued withdrawalof water for irrigation purposes.

(c) PRIORITY.—In providing assistance undersubsection (a), the Secretary shall give prioritybased on—

(1) the objectives of the Endangered SpeciesAct of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);

(2) cost-effectiveness; and(3) the potential for reducing fish mortality.(d) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal share of

the cost of measures under subsection (a) shallbe 50 percent.

(2) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.—Not more than 50percent of the non-Federal contribution may bemade through the provision of services, mate-rials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions.

(e) NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.—This sectiondoes not authorize any construction activity.

(f) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after thedate of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall submit to Congress a report on—

(1) fish mortality caused by irrigation waterintake devices;

(2) appropriate measures to reduce fish mor-tality;

(3) the extent to which those measures arecurrently being employed in arid States;

(4) the construction costs associated withthose measures; and

(5) the appropriate Federal role, if any, to en-courage the use of those measures.SEC. 516. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR WA-

TERSHED RESTORATION.The Secretary shall examine using, and, if ap-

propriate, encourage the use of, innovativetreatment technologies, including membranetechnologies, for watershed and environmentalrestoration and protection projects involvingwater quality.SEC. 517. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CER-

TAIN PROJECTS.The Secretary shall expedite completion of the

reports for the following projects and, if justi-fied, proceed directly to project preconstruction,engineering, and design:

(1) Sluice Creek, Guilford, Connecticut, andLighthouse Point Park, New Haven, Con-necticut.

(2) Alafia Channel, Tampa Harbor, Florida,project for navigation.

(3) Little Calumet River, Indiana.(4) Ohio River Greenway, Indiana, project for

environmental restoration and recreation.

(5) Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Par-ish, Louisiana, project for waterfront andriverine preservation, restoration, and enhance-ment modifications.

(6) Extension of locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 onthe upper Mississippi River and the La Grangeand Peoria locks on the Illinois River, project toprovide lock chambers 110 feet in width and1,200 feet in length.SEC. 518. DOG RIVER, ALABAMA.

The Secretary shall provide $1,500,000 for en-vironmental restoration for a pilot project, in co-operation with non-Federal interests, to restorenatural water depths in the Dog River, Ala-bama.SEC. 519. LEVEES IN ELBA AND GENEVA, ALA-

BAMA.(a) ELBA, ALABAMA.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may repair

and rehabilitate a levee in the city of Elba, Ala-bama, at a total cost of $12,900,000.

(2) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share ofthe cost of repair and rehabilitation under para-graph (1) shall be 35 percent.

(b) GENEVA, ALABAMA.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may repair

and rehabilitate a levee in the city of Geneva,Alabama, at a total cost of $16,600,000.

(2) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share ofthe cost of repair and rehabilitation under para-graph (1) shall be 35 percent.SEC. 520. NAVAJO RESERVATION, ARIZONA, NEW

MEXICO, AND UTAH.(a) IN GENERAL.—In cooperation with other

appropriate Federal and local agencies, the Sec-retary shall undertake a survey of, and providetechnical, planning, and design assistance for,watershed management, restoration, and devel-opment on the Navajo Indian Reservation, Ari-zona, New Mexico, and Utah.

(b) COST SHARING.—The Federal share of thecost of activities carried out under this sectionshall be 75 percent. Funds made available underthe Indian Self-Determination and EducationAssistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) may beused by the Navajo Nation in meeting the non-Federal share of the cost of the activities.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $12,000,000 for the period begin-ning with fiscal year 2000.SEC. 521. BEAVER LAKE, ARKANSAS, WATER SUP-

PLY STORAGE REALLOCATION.The Secretary shall reallocate approximately

31,000 additional acre-feet at Beaver Lake, Ar-kansas, to water supply storage at no cost to theBeaver Water District or the Carroll-BooneWater District, except that at no time shall thebottom of the conservation pool be at an ele-vation that is less than 1,076 feet, NGVD.SEC. 522. BEAVER LAKE TROUT PRODUCTION FA-

CILITY, ARKANSAS.Not later than 2 years after the date of enact-

ment of this Act, the Secretary, in conjunctionwith the State of Arkansas, shall prepare a planfor the mitigation of effects of the Beaver Damproject on Beaver Lake, including the benefitsof and schedule for construction of the BeaverLake trout production facility and related facili-ties.SEC. 523. CHINO DAIRY PRESERVE, CALIFORNIA.

(a) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary, incoordination with the heads of other Federalagencies, shall provide technical assistance toState and local agencies in the study, design,and implementation of measures for flood dam-age reduction and environmental restorationand protection in the Santa Ana River water-shed, California, with particular emphasis onstructural and nonstructural measures in the vi-cinity of the Chino Dairy Preserve.

(b) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share ofthe cost of activities assisted under subsection(a) shall be 50 percent.

(c) COMPREHENSIVE STUDY.—The Secretaryshall conduct a feasibility study to determine

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7297August 5, 1999the most cost-effective plan for flood damage re-duction and environmental restoration and pro-tection in the vicinity of the Chino Dairy Pre-serve, Santa Ana River watershed, OrangeCounty and San Bernardino County, Cali-fornia.SEC. 524. ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES,

CALIFORNIA.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coopera-

tion with local governments, may prepare spe-cial area management plans for Orange and SanDiego Counties, California, to demonstrate theeffectiveness of using the plans to provide infor-mation regarding aquatic resources.

(b) USE OF PLANS.—The Secretary may—(1) use plans described in subsection (a) in

making regulatory decisions; and(2) issue permits consistent with the plans.

SEC. 525. RUSH CREEK, NOVATO, CALIFORNIA.The Secretary shall carry out a project for

flood control under section 205 of the FloodControl Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) at RushCreek, Novato, California, if the Secretary de-termines that the project is technically sound,environmentally acceptable, and economicallyjustified.SEC. 526. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary may—(1) modify the cooperative agreement with the

Santa Cruz Port District, California, to reflectunanticipated additional dredging effort; and

(2) extend the agreement for 10 years.SEC. 527. LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN, FLOR-

IDA.(a) COMPUTER MODEL.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may apply the

computer model developed under the St. JohnsRiver basin feasibility study to assist non-Fed-eral interests in developing strategies for im-proving water quality in the Lower St. JohnsRiver basin, Florida.

(2) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share ofthe cost of activities assisted under paragraph(1) shall be 50 percent.

(b) TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.—The Secretarymay provide 1-foot contour topographic surveymaps of the Lower St. Johns River basin, Flor-ida, to non-Federal interests for analyzing envi-ronmental data and establishing benchmarks forsubbasins.SEC. 528. MAYO’S BAR LOCK AND DAM, COOSA

RIVER, ROME, GEORGIA.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may provide

technical assistance (including planning, engi-neering, and design assistance) for the recon-struction of the Mayo’s Bar Lock and Dam,Coosa River, Rome, Georgia.

(b) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federalshare of the cost of activities assisted under sub-section (a) shall be 50 percent.SEC. 529. COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD IMPACT RE-

SPONSE MODELING SYSTEM,CORALVILLE RESERVOIR AND IOWARIVER WATERSHED, IOWA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coopera-tion with the University of Iowa, shall conducta study and develop a comprehensive flood im-pact response modeling system for CoralvilleReservoir and the Iowa River watershed, Iowa.

(b) STUDY.—The study shall include—(1) an evaluation of the combined hydrologic,

geomorphic, environmental, economic, social,and recreational impacts of operating strategieswithin the watershed;

(2) creation of an integrated, dynamic floodimpact model; and

(3) the development of a rapid response systemto be used during flood and emergency situa-tions.

(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 5years after the date of enactment of this Act,the Secretary shall submit a report to Congresson the results of the study and modeling systemand such recommendations as the Secretary de-termines to be appropriate.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $3,000,000.

SEC. 530. ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION ASSIST-ANCE IN ILLINOIS.

The Secretary may carry out the project forGeorgetown, Illinois, and the project for Olney,Illinois, referred to in House Report Number104–741, accompanying the Safe Drinking WaterAct Amendments of 1996 (Public Law 104–182).SEC. 531. KANOPOLIS LAKE, KANSAS.

(a) WATER STORAGE.—The Secretary shalloffer to the State of Kansas the right to pur-chase water storage in Kanapolis Lake, Kansas,at the average of—

(1) the cost calculated in accordance with theterms of the memorandum of understanding en-titled ‘‘Memorandum of Understanding Betweenthe State of Kansas and the U.S. Department ofthe Army Concerning the Purchase of Munic-ipal and Industrial Water Supply Storage’’,dated December 11, 1985; and

(2) the cost calculated in accordance with pro-cedures established as of the date of enactmentof this Act by the Secretary to determine thecost of water storage at other projects under theSecretary’s jurisdiction.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—For the purposes of thissection, the effective date of the memorandum ofunderstanding referred to in subsection (a)(1)shall be deemed to be the date of enactment ofthis Act.SEC. 532. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.

Section 531 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3773) is amended—

(1) in subsection (b)—(A) by striking ‘‘and surface’’ and inserting

‘‘surface’’; and(B) by striking ‘‘development.’’ and inserting

‘‘development, and small stream flooding, localstorm water drainage, and related problems.’’;

(2) in subsection (d)(1), by adding at the endthe following: ‘‘Notwithstanding section 221(b)of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.1962d–5b(b)), for any project undertaken underthis section, with the consent of the affectedlocal government, a non-Federal interest mayinclude a nonprofit entity.’’; and

(3) in subsection (h), by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’and inserting ‘‘$25,000,000’’.SEC. 533. SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA.

Section 533(c) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3775) is amended bystriking ‘‘$100,000,000’’ and inserting‘‘$250,000,000’’.SEC. 534. SNUG HARBOR, MARYLAND.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coordina-tion with the Director of the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, may—

(1) provide technical assistance to the resi-dents of Snug Harbor, in the vicinity of Berlin,Maryland, for the purpose of flood damage re-duction;

(2) conduct a study of a project consisting ofnonstructural measures for flood damage reduc-tion in the vicinity of Snug Harbor, Maryland,taking into account the relationship of both theOcean City Inlet and Assateague Island to theflooding; and

(3) after completion of the study, carry out theproject under section 205 of the Flood ControlAct of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

(b) FEMA ASSISTANCE.—The Director, in co-ordination with the Secretary and under the au-thorities of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Re-lief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.5121 et seq.), may provide technical assistanceand nonstructural measures for flood damagemitigation in the vicinity of Snug Harbor, Mary-land.

(c) COST SHARING.—(1) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the

cost of assistance under this section shall notexceed $3,000,000.

(2) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federalshare of the cost of assistance under this sectionshall be determined in accordance with title I ofthe Water Resources Development Act of 1986(33 U.S.C. 2211 et seq.) or the Robert T. StaffordDisaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act(42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), as appropriate.

SEC. 535. WELCH POINT, ELK RIVER, CECIL COUN-TY, AND CHESAPEAKE CITY, MARY-LAND.

(a) SPILLAGE OF DREDGED MATERIALS.—TheSecretary shall carry out a study to determinewhether the spillage of dredged materials thatwere removed as part of the project for naviga-tion, Inland Waterway from Delaware River toChesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland, au-thorized by the first section of the Act of August30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1030, chapter 831), is a signifi-cant impediment to vessels transiting the ElkRiver near Welch Point, Maryland. If the Sec-retary determines that the spillage is an impedi-ment to navigation, the Secretary may conductsuch dredging as may be required to permitnavigation on the river.

(b) DAMAGE TO WATER SUPPLY.—The Sec-retary shall carry out a study to determinewhether additional compensation is required tofully compensate the city of Chesapeake, Mary-land, for damage to the city’s water supply re-sulting from dredging of the Chesapeake andDelaware Canal project. If the Secretary deter-mines that such additional compensation is re-quired, the Secretary may provide the com-pensation to the city of Chesapeake.SEC. 536. CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE,

BUZZARDS BAY, MASSACHUSETTS.(a) ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION.—The Sec-

retary may provide up to $300,000 for meetingthe need for alternative transportation that mayarise as a result of the operation, maintenance,repair, and rehabilitation of the Cape CodCanal Railroad Bridge.

(b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CONTRACTRENEGOTIATION.—Not later than 60 days afterthe date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall enter into negotiation with the owner ofthe railroad right-of-way for the Cape CodCanal Railroad Bridge for the purpose of estab-lishing the rights and responsibilities for the op-eration and maintenance of the Bridge. The Sec-retary may include in any new contract the ter-mination of the prior contract numbered ER–W175–ENG–1.SEC. 537. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.

(a) DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.—The Secretary,in consultation with local officials, shall con-duct a demonstration project to improve waterquality in the vicinity of St. Louis, Missouri.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated $1,700,000to carry out this section.SEC. 538. BEAVER BRANCH OF BIG TIMBER

CREEK, NEW JERSEY.At the request of the State of New Jersey or a

political subdivision of the State, using author-ity under law in effect on the date of enactmentof this Act, the Secretary may—

(1) compile and disseminate information onfloods and flood damage, including identifica-tion of areas subject to inundation by floods;and

(2) provide technical assistance regardingfloodplain management for the Beaver Branchof Big Timber Creek, New Jersey.SEC. 539. LAKE ONTARIO AND ST. LAWRENCE

RIVER WATER LEVELS, NEW YORK.On request, the Secretary may provide tech-

nical assistance to the International Joint Com-mission and the St. Lawrence River Board ofControl in undertaking studies on the effects offluctuating water levels on the natural environ-ment, recreational boating, property flooding,and erosion along the shorelines of Lake On-tario and the St. Lawrence River in New York.The Commission and the Board are encouragedto conduct such studies in a comprehensive andthorough manner before implementing anychange to Water Regulation Plan 1958–D.SEC. 540. NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NEW

YORK AND NEW JERSEY.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct

a study to analyze the economic and environ-mental benefits and costs of potential sedimentmanagement and contaminant reduction meas-ures.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7298 August 5, 1999(b) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In con-

ducting the study, the Secretary may enter intocooperative agreements with non-Federal inter-ests to investigate, develop, and support meas-ures for sediment management and reduction ofsources of contaminant that affect navigation inthe Port of New York-New Jersey and the envi-ronmental conditions of the New York-New Jer-sey Harbor estuary.SEC. 541. SEA GATE REACH, CONEY ISLAND, NEW

YORK, NEW YORK.The Secretary may construct a project for

shoreline protection that includes a beachfillwith revetment and T-groin for the Sea GateReach on Coney Island, New York, as identifiedin the March 1998 report prepared for the Corpsof Engineers, New York District, entitled ‘‘FieldData Gathering, Project Performance Analysisand Design Alternative Solutions to ImproveSandfill Retention’’, at a total cost of $9,000,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $5,850,000 andan estimated non-Federal cost of $3,150,000.SEC. 542. WOODLAWN, NEW YORK.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provideplanning, design, and other technical assistanceto non-Federal interests for identifying andmitigating sources of contamination atWoodlawn Beach in Woodlawn, New York.

(b) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share ofthe cost of assistance provided under subsection(a) shall be 50 percent.SEC. 543. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, NEW YORK.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provideassistance for a project to develop maps identi-fying 100- and 500-year flood inundation areasin the State of New York.

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—Maps developed underthe project shall include hydrologic and hy-draulic information and shall accurately showthe flood inundation of each property by floodrisk in the floodplain. The maps shall be pro-duced in a high resolution format and shall bemade available to all flood prone areas in theState of New York in an electronic format.

(c) PARTICIPATION OF FEMA.—The Secretaryand the non-Federal interests for the projectshall work with the Director of the FederalEmergency Management Agency to ensure thevalidity of the maps developed under the projectfor flood insurance purposes.

(d) FORMS OF ASSISTANCE.—In carrying outthe project, the Secretary may enter into con-tracts or cooperative agreements with the non-Federal interests or provide reimbursements ofproject costs.

(e) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of thecost of the project shall be 50 percent.

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $10,000,000 for the period begin-ning with fiscal year 2000.SEC. 544. TOUSSAINT RIVER, CARROLL TOWN-

SHIP, OTTAWA COUNTY, OHIO.The Secretary may provide technical assist-

ance for the removal of military ordnance fromthe Toussaint River, Carroll Township, OttawaCounty, Ohio.SEC. 545. SARDIS RESERVOIR, OKLAHOMA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall acceptfrom the State of Oklahoma or an agent of theState an amount, determined under subsection(b), as prepayment of 100 percent of the watersupply cost obligation of the State under Con-tract No. DACW56–74–JC–0314 for water supplystorage at Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma.

(b) DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT.—The amountto be paid by the State of Oklahoma under sub-section (a) shall be subject to adjustment in ac-cordance with accepted discount purchase meth-ods for Federal Government properties as deter-mined by an independent accounting firm des-ignated by the Director of the Office of Manage-ment and Budget. The cost of the determinationshall be paid for by the State of Oklahoma or anagent of the State.

(c) EFFECT.—Nothing in this section affectsany of the rights or obligations of the parties tothe contract referred to in subsection (a).

SEC. 546. SKINNER BUTTE PARK, EUGENE, OR-EGON.

(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct astudy of the south bank of the Willamette River,in the area of Skinner Butte Park from FerryStreet Bridge to the Valley River footbridge, todetermine the feasibility of carrying out aproject to stabilize the river bank, and to restoreand enhance riverine habitat, using a combina-tion of structural and bioengineering tech-niques.

(b) FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.—If, on comple-tion of the study, the Secretary determines thatthe project is technically sound, environ-mentally acceptable, and economically justified,the Secretary may participate with non-Federalinterests in the project.

(c) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share ofthe cost of the project shall be 35 percent.

(d) LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal interest

shall provide land, easements, rights-of-way, re-locations, and dredged material disposal areasnecessary for construction of the project.

(2) CREDIT TOWARD NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—Thevalue of the land, easements, rights-of-way, re-locations, and dredged material disposal areasprovided by the non-Federal interests shall becredited toward the non-Federal share.

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $1,000,000 for the period begin-ning with fiscal year 2000.SEC. 547. WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN, OREGON.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, the Directorof the Federal Emergency Management Agency,the Administrator of the Environmental Protec-tion Agency, and the heads of other appropriateFederal agencies shall, using authorities underlaw in effect on the date of enactment of thisAct, assist the State of Oregon in developingand implementing a comprehensive basin-widestrategy in the Willamette River basin, Oregon,for coordinated and integrated management ofland and water resources to improve water qual-ity, reduce flood hazards, ensure sustainableeconomic activity, and restore habitat for nativefish and wildlife.

(b) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, STAFF, AND FINAN-CIAL SUPPORT.—The heads of the Federal agen-cies may provide technical assistance, staff, andfinancial support for development of the basin-wide management strategy.

(c) FLEXIBILITY.—The heads of the Federalagencies shall exercise flexibility to reduce bar-riers to efficient and effective implementation ofthe basin-wide management strategy.SEC. 548. BRADFORD AND SULLIVAN COUNTIES,

PENNSYLVANIA.The Secretary may provide assistance for

water-related environmental infrastructure andresource protection and development projects inBradford and Sullivan Counties, Pennsylvania,using the funds and authorities provided in titleI of the Energy and Water Development Appro-priations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105–245), underthe heading ‘‘CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL’’ (112Stat. 1840) for similar projects in Lackawanna,Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, andMonroe Counties, Pennsylvania.SEC. 549. ERIE HARBOR, PENNSYLVANIA.

The Secretary may reimburse the appropriatenon-Federal interest not more than $78,366 forarchitectural and engineering costs incurred inconnection with the Erie Harbor basin naviga-tion project, Pennsylvania.SEC. 550. POINT MARION LOCK AND DAM, PENN-

SYLVANIA.(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation,

Point Marion Lock and Dam, borough of PointMarion, Pennsylvania, authorized by section301(a) of the Water Resources Development Actof 1986 (100 Stat. 4110), is modified to direct theSecretary, in the operation and maintenance ofthe project, to mitigate damages to the shoreline,at a total cost of $2,000,000.

(b) ALLOCATION.—The cost of the mitigationshall be allocated as an operation and mainte-nance cost of a Federal navigation project.

SEC. 551. SEVEN POINTS’ HARBOR, PENNSYL-VANIA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may, at fullFederal expense, construct a breakwater at theentrance to Seven Points’ Harbor, Pennsyl-vania.

(b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS.—Alloperation and maintenance costs associatedwith the facility constructed under this sectionshall be the responsibility of the lessee of themarina complex at Seven Points’ Harbor.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $850,000.SEC. 552. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA.

Section 566(b) of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3786) is amendedby inserting ‘‘environmental restoration,’’ after‘‘water supply and related facilities,’’.SEC. 553. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA-LACKAWANNA,

PENNSYLVANIA, WATERSHED MAN-AGEMENT AND RESTORATIONSTUDY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conducta study to determine the feasibility of a com-prehensive floodplain management and water-shed restoration project for the Upper Susque-hanna-Lackawanna Watershed, Pennsylvania.

(b) GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM.—Inconducting the study, the Secretary shall use ageographic information system.

(c) PLANS.—The study shall formulate plansfor comprehensive floodplain management andenvironmental restoration.

(d) CREDIT TOWARD NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—Non-Federal interests may receive credit towardthe non-Federal share for in-kind services andmaterials that contribute to the study. The Sec-retary may credit non-Corps Federal assistanceprovided to the non-Federal interest toward thenon-Federal share of the costs of the study tothe maximum extent authorized by law.SEC. 554. AGUADILLA HARBOR, PUERTO RICO.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine whether erosion and additional storm dam-age risks that exist in the vicinity of AguadillaHarbor, Puerto Rico, are the result of a Federalnavigation project. If the Secretary determinesthat such erosion and additional storm damagerisks are the result of the project, the Secretaryshall take appropriate measures to mitigate theerosion and storm damage.SEC. 555. OAHE DAM TO LAKE SHARPE, SOUTH

DAKOTA, STUDY.Section 441 of the Water Resources Develop-

ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3747) is amended—(1) by inserting ‘‘(a) INVESTIGATION.—’’ before

‘‘The Secretary’’; and(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(b) REPORT.—Not later than September 30,

1999, the Secretary shall submit to Congress areport on the results of the investigation underthis section. The report shall include the exam-ination of financing options for regular mainte-nance and preservation of the lake. The reportshall be prepared in coordination and coopera-tion with the Natural Resources ConservationService, other Federal agencies, and State andlocal officials.’’.SEC. 556. NORTH PADRE ISLAND STORM DAMAGE

REDUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTALRESTORATION PROJECT.

The Secretary is directed to carry out aproject for ecosystem restoration and storm dam-age reduction at North Padre Island, CorpusChristi Bay, Texas, at a total estimated cost of$30,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$19,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of$10,500,000, if the Secretary determines that thework is technically sound and environmentallyacceptable. The Secretary shall make such a de-termination not later than 270 days after thedate of enactment of this Act.SEC. 557. NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

The projects described in the following reportsare authorized to be carried out by the Secretarysubstantially in accordance with the plans, and

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7299August 5, 1999subject to the conditions, recommended in thereports, and subject to a favorable report of theChief of Engineers:

(1) PARKERSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA.—Report ofthe Corps of Engineers entitled ‘‘Parkersburg/Vienna Riverfront Park Feasibility Study’’,dated June 1998, at a total cost of $8,400,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $4,200,000, andan estimated non-Federal cost of $4,200,000.

(2) WEIRTON, WEST VIRGINIA.—Report of theCorps of Engineers entitled ‘‘Feasibility MasterPlan for Weirton Port and Industrial Center,West Virginia Public Port Authority’’, dated De-cember 1997, at a total cost of $18,000,000, withan estimated Federal cost of $9,000,000, and anestimated non-Federal cost of $9,000,000.

(3) ERICKSON/WOOD COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.—Report of the Corps of Engineers entitled ‘‘Fea-sibility Master Plan for Erickson/Wood CountyPort District, West Virginia Public Port Author-ity’’, dated July 7, 1997, at a total cost of$28,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of$14,000,000, and an estimated non-Federal costof $14,000,000.SEC. 558. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION.

Section 8 of the Act of May 15, 1928 (33 U.S.C.702h; 45 Stat. 537, chapter 569) (commonlyknown as the ‘‘Flood Control Act of 1928)’’), isamended by striking ‘‘$7,500’’ and inserting‘‘$21,500’’.SEC. 559. COASTAL AQUATIC HABITAT MANAGE-

MENT.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may cooper-

ate with the Secretaries of Agriculture and theInterior, the Administrators of the Environ-mental Protection Agency and the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration, otherappropriate Federal, State, and local agencies,and affected private entities, in the developmentof a management strategy to address problemsassociated with toxic microorganisms and the re-sulting degradation of ecosystems in the tidaland nontidal wetlands and waters of the UnitedStates.

(b) ASSISTANCE.—As part of the managementstrategy, the Secretary may provide planning,design, and other technical assistance to eachparticipating State in the development and im-plementation of nonregulatory measures to miti-gate environmental problems and restore aquaticresources.

(c) COST SHARING.—The Federal share of thecost of measures undertaken under this sectionshall not exceed 65 percent.

(d) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of operation and maintenancecosts for projects constructed with assistanceprovided under this section shall be 100 percent.

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $7,000,000 for the period begin-ning with fiscal year 2000.SEC. 560. ABANDONED AND INACTIVE NONCOAL

MINE RESTORATION.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may provide

technical, planning, and design assistance toFederal and non-Federal interests for carryingout projects to address water quality problemscaused by drainage and related activities fromabandoned and inactive noncoal mines.

(b) SPECIFIC MEASURES.—Assistance providedunder subsection (a) may be in support ofprojects for the purposes of—

(1) managing drainage from abandoned andinactive noncoal mines;

(2) restoring and protecting streams, rivers,wetlands, other waterbodies, and riparian areasdegraded by drainage from abandoned and in-active noncoal mines; and

(3) demonstrating management practices andinnovative and alternative treatment tech-nologies to minimize or eliminate adverse envi-ronmental effects associated with drainage fromabandoned and inactive noncoal mines.

(c) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federalshare of the cost of assistance under subsection(a) shall be 50 percent, except that the Federal

share with respect to projects located on landowned by the United States shall be 100 percent.

(d) EFFECT ON AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OFTHE INTERIOR.—Nothing in this section affectsthe authority of the Secretary of the Interiorunder title IV of the Surface Mining Controland Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1231 etseq.).

(e) TECHNOLOGY DATABASE FOR RECLAMATIONOF ABANDONED MINES.—The Secretary may pro-vide assistance to non-Federal and nonprofitentities to develop, manage, and maintain adatabase of conventional and innovative, cost-effective technologies for reclamation of aban-doned and inactive noncoal mine sites. Such as-sistance shall be provided through the Rehabili-tation of Abandoned Mine Sites Program man-aged by the Sacramento District Office of theCorps of Engineers.

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $5,000,000.SEC. 561. BENEFICIAL USE OF WASTE TIRE RUB-

BER.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, when

appropriate, encourage the beneficial use ofwaste tire rubber (including crumb rubber andbaled tire products) recycled from tires.

(b) INCLUDED BENEFICIAL USES.—Beneficialuses under subsection (a) may include marinepilings, underwater framing, floating docks withbuilt-in flotation, utility poles, and other usesassociated with transportation and infrastruc-ture projects receiving Federal funds.

(c) USE OF WASTE TIRE RUBBER.—The Sec-retary shall encourage the use, when appro-priate, of waste tire rubber (including crumbrubber) in projects described in subsection (b).SEC. 562. SITE DESIGNATION.

Section 102(c)(4) of the Marine Protection, Re-search, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C.1412(c)(4)) is amended in the third sentence bystriking ‘‘January 1, 2000’’ and inserting ‘‘Janu-ary 1, 2003’’.SEC. 563. LAND CONVEYANCES.

(a) TORONTO LAKE AND EL DORADO LAKE,KANSAS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conveyto the State of Kansas, by quitclaim deed andwithout consideration, all right, title, and inter-est of the United States in and to the 2 parcelsof land described in paragraph (2) on which cor-rectional facilities operated by the Kansas De-partment of Corrections are situated.

(2) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The parcels of landreferred to in paragraph (1) are—

(A) the parcel located in Butler County, Kan-sas, adjacent to the El Dorado Lake Project,consisting of approximately 32.98 acres; and

(B) the parcel located in Woodson County,Kansas, adjacent to the Toronto Lake Project,consisting of approximately 51.98 acres.

(3) CONDITIONS.—(A) USE OF LAND.—A conveyance of a parcel

under paragraph (1) shall be subject to the con-dition that all right, title, and interest in and tothe parcel shall revert to the United States if theparcel is used for a purpose other than that ofa correctional facility.

(B) COSTS.—The Secretary may require suchadditional terms, conditions, reservations, andrestrictions in connection with the conveyanceas the Secretary determines are necessary toprotect the interests of the United States, in-cluding a requirement that the State pay allreasonable administrative costs associated withthe conveyance.

(b) PIKE COUNTY, MISSOURI.—(1) LAND EXCHANGE.—Subject to paragraphs

(3) and (4), at such time as Holnam Inc. conveysall right, title, and interest in and to the parcelof land described in paragraph (2)(A) to theUnited States, the Secretary shall convey allright, title, and interest in the parcel of land de-scribed in paragraph (2)(B) to Holnam Inc.

(2) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The parcels of landreferred to in paragraph (1) are the following:

(A) NON-FEDERAL LAND.—152.45 acres with ex-isting flowage easements situated in Pike Coun-ty, Missouri, described as a portion of Govern-ment Tract Number FM–9 and all of GovernmentTract Numbers FM–11, FM–10, FM–12, FM–13,and FM–16, owned and administered by HolnamInc.

(B) FEDERAL LAND.—152.61 acres situated inPike County, Missouri, known as GovernmentTract Numbers FM–17 and a portion of FM–18,administered by the Corps of Engineers.

(3) CONDITIONS.—The exchange of land underparagraph (1) shall be subject to the followingconditions:

(A) DEEDS.—(i) NON-FEDERAL LAND.—The conveyance of

the land described in paragraph (2)(A) to theSecretary shall be by a warranty deed accept-able to the Secretary.

(ii) FEDERAL LAND.—The instrument of con-veyance used to convey the land described inparagraph (2)(B) to Holnam Inc. shall containsuch reservations, terms, and conditions as theSecretary considers necessary to allow theUnited States to operate and maintain the Mis-sissippi River 9-Foot Navigation Project.

(B) REMOVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS.—HolnamInc. may remove any improvements on the landdescribed in paragraph (2)(A). The Secretarymay require Holnam Inc. to remove any im-provements on the land described in paragraph(2)(A). In either case, Holnam Inc. shall holdthe United States harmless from liability, andthe United States shall not incur cost associatedwith the removal or relocation of any of the im-provements.

(C) TIME LIMIT FOR EXCHANGE.—The land ex-change under paragraph (1) shall be completednot later than 2 years after the date of enact-ment of this Act.

(D) LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—The Secretary shallprovide the legal description of the land de-scribed in paragraph (2). The legal descriptionshall be used in the instruments of conveyanceof the land.

(E) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—The Secretaryshall require Holnam Inc. to pay reasonable ad-ministrative costs associated with the exchange.

(4) VALUE OF PROPERTIES.—If the appraisedfair market value, as determined by the Sec-retary, of the land conveyed to Holnam Inc. bythe Secretary under paragraph (1) exceeds theappraised fair market value, as determined bythe Secretary, of the land conveyed to theUnited States by Holnam Inc. under paragraph(1), Holnam Inc. shall make a payment equal tothe excess in cash or a cash equivalent to theUnited States.

(c) CANDY LAKE PROJECT, OSAGE COUNTY,OKLAHOMA.—

(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection:(A) FAIR MARKET VALUE.—The term ‘‘fair mar-

ket value’’ means the amount for which a will-ing buyer would purchase and a willing sellerwould sell a parcel of land, as determined by aqualified, independent land appraiser.

(B) PREVIOUS OWNER OF LAND.—The term‘‘previous owner of land’’ means a person (in-cluding a corporation) that conveyed, or a de-scendant of a deceased individual who con-veyed, land to the Corps of Engineers for use inthe Candy Lake project in Osage County, Okla-homa.

(2) CONVEYANCES.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall convey

all right, title, and interest of the United Statesin and to the land acquired by the United Statesfor the Candy Lake project in Osage County,Oklahoma.

(B) PREVIOUS OWNERS OF LAND.—(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall give a

previous owner of land the first option to pur-chase the land described in subparagraph (A).

(ii) APPLICATION.—(I) IN GENERAL.—A previous owner of land

that desires to purchase the land described inparagraph (1) that was owned by the previousowner of land, or by the individual from whom

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7300 August 5, 1999the previous owner of land is descended, shallfile an application to purchase the land withthe Secretary not later than 180 days after theofficial date of notice to the previous owner ofland under paragraph (3).

(II) FIRST TO FILE HAS FIRST OPTION.—If morethan 1 application is filed to purchase a parcelof land described in subparagraph (A), the firstoption to purchase the parcel of land shall bedetermined in the order in which applicationsfor the parcel of land were filed.

(iii) IDENTIFICATION OF PREVIOUS OWNERS OFLAND.—As soon as practicable after the date ofenactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, to theextent practicable, identify each previous ownerof land.

(iv) CONSIDERATION.—Consideration for landconveyed under this subsection shall be the fairmarket value of the land.

(C) DISPOSAL.—Any land described in sub-paragraph (A) for which an application to pur-chase the land has not been filed under sub-paragraph (B)(ii) within the applicable time pe-riod shall be disposed of in accordance with law.

(D) EXTINGUISHMENT OF EASEMENTS.—Allflowage easements acquired by the United Statesfor use in the Candy Lake project in OsageCounty, Oklahoma, are extinguished.

(3) NOTICE.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall notify—(i) each person identified as a previous owner

of land under paragraph (2)(B)(iii), not laterthan 90 days after identification, by UnitedStates mail; and

(ii) the general public, not later than 90 daysafter the date of enactment of this Act, by publi-cation in the Federal Register.

(B) CONTENTS OF NOTICE.—Notice under thisparagraph shall include—

(i) a copy of this subsection;(ii) information sufficient to separately iden-

tify each parcel of land subject to this sub-section; and

(iii) specification of the fair market value ofeach parcel of land subject to this subsection.

(C) OFFICIAL DATE OF NOTICE.—The officialdate of notice under this subsection shall be thelater of—

(i) the date on which actual notice is mailed;or

(ii) the date of publication of the notice in theFederal Register.

(d) LAKE HUGO, OKLAHOMA, AREA LAND CON-VEYANCE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable afterthe date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall convey at fair market value to ChoctawCounty Industrial Authority, Oklahoma, theparcels of land described in paragraph (2).

(2) LAND DESCRIPTION.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The parcel of land to be

conveyed under paragraph (1) is the parcellying above elevation 445.2 feet (NGVD) locatedin the S1⁄2N1⁄2SE1⁄4 and the S1⁄2SW1⁄4 of Section 13and the N1⁄2NW1⁄4 of Section 24, T 6 S, R 18 E,of the Indian Meridian, in Choctaw County,Oklahoma, the parcel also being part of theSawyer Bluff Public Use Area and includingparts of Hugo Lake Tracts 134 and 139, andmore particularly described as follows: Begin-ning at a point on the east line of Section 13,the point being 100.00 feet north of the southeastcorner of S1⁄2N1⁄2SE1⁄4 of Section 13; thence S 01°36′ 24″ 100.00 to a Corps of Engineers brass-capped monument at the southeast corner ofS1⁄2N1⁄2SE1⁄4 of Section 13; thence S 88° 16′ 57″ W,along the south line of the S1⁄2N1⁄2SE1⁄4 of Sec-tion 13, 2649.493 feet, more or less, to a Corps ofEngineers brass-capped monument on the cen-terline of Section 13; thence S 01° 20′ 53″ E,along the centerline of Section 13, 1316.632 feetto a Corps of Engineers brass-capped monument;thence S 00° 41′ 35″ E, along the centerline ofSection 24, 1000.00 feet, more or a less, to a pointlying 50.00 feet north and 300.00 feet, more orless, east of Road B of the Sawyer Bluff PublicUse Area; thence westerly and northwesterly,parallel to Road B, to the approximate location

of the 445.2-foot contour; thence meanderingnortherly along the 445.2-foot contour to a pointapproximately 100.00 feet west and 100.00 feetnorth of the southwest corner of the S1⁄2N1⁄2SE1⁄4of Section 13; thence east, paralleling the southline of the S1⁄2N1⁄2SE1⁄4 of Section 13, 2649.493feet, more or less, to the point of beginning.

(B) SURVEY.—The exact description and acre-age of the parcel shall be determined by a metesand bounds survey provided by the ChoctawCounty Industrial Authority.

(e) CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY IN MARSHALLCOUNTY, OKLAHOMA.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conveyto the State of Oklahoma all right, title, and in-terest of the United States in and to real prop-erty located in Marshall County, Oklahoma,and included in the Lake Texoma (DenisonDam), Oklahoma and Texas, project, consistingof approximately 1,580 acres and leased to theState of Oklahoma for public park and recre-ation purposes.

(2) CONSIDERATION.—Consideration for theconveyance under paragraph (1) shall be thefair market value of the real property, as deter-mined by the Secretary. All costs associatedwith the conveyance under paragraph (1) shallbe paid by the State of Oklahoma.

(3) DESCRIPTION.—The exact acreage and legaldescription of the real property to be conveyedunder paragraph (1) shall be determined by asurvey satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost ofthe survey shall be paid by the State of Okla-homa.

(4) ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE.—Beforemaking the conveyance under paragraph (1),the Secretary shall—

(A) conduct an environmental baseline surveyto determine whether there are levels of con-tamination for which the United States wouldbe responsible under the Comprehensive Envi-ronmental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-ity Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.); and

(B) ensure that the conveyance complies withthe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

(5) OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The con-veyance under paragraph (1) shall be subject tosuch other terms and conditions as the Sec-retary considers appropriate to protect the inter-ests of the United States, including reservationby the United States of a flowage easement overall portions of the real property to be conveyedthat are at or below elevation 645.0 NGVD.

(f) SUMMERFIELD CEMETERY ASSOCIATION,OKLAHOMA.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable afterthe date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall transfer to the Summerfield Cemetery As-sociation, Oklahoma, all right, title, and inter-est of the United States in and to the land de-scribed in paragraph (3) for use as a cemetery.

(2) REVERSION.—If the land to be transferredunder this subsection ever ceases to be used asa not-for-profit cemetery or for another publicpurpose, the land shall revert to the UnitedStates.

(3) DESCRIPTION.—The land to be conveyedunder this subsection is the approximately 10acres of land located in Leflore County, Okla-homa, and described as follows:

INDIAN BASIN MERIDIAN

SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 23 EAST

SW SE SW NWNW NE NW SWN1⁄2 SW SW NW.(4) CONSIDERATION.—The conveyance under

this subsection shall be without consideration.All costs associated with the conveyance shallbe paid by the Summerfield Cemetery Associa-tion, Oklahoma.

(5) OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The con-veyance under this subsection shall be subject tosuch other terms and conditions as the Sec-retary considers necessary to protect the inter-ests of the United States.

(g) DEXTER, OREGON.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conveyto the Dexter Sanitary District all right, title,and interest of the United States in and to aparcel of land consisting of approximately 5acres located at Dexter Lake, Oregon, underlease to the Dexter Sanitary District.

(2) CONSIDERATION.—Land to be conveyedunder this subsection shall be conveyed withoutconsideration. If the land is no longer held inpublic ownership or no longer used for waste-water treatment purposes, title to the land shallrevert to the Secretary.

(3) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The conveyanceby the United States shall be subject to suchterms and conditions as the Secretary considersappropriate to protect the interests of the UnitedStates.

(4) SURVEYS.—The exact acreage and descrip-tion of the land to be conveyed under paragraph(1) shall be determined by such surveys as theSecretary considers necessary. The cost of thesurveys shall be borne by the Dexter SanitaryDistrict.

(h) CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.—The Sec-retary may convey the property of the Corps ofEngineers known as the ‘‘Equipment and Stor-age Yard’’, located on Meeting Street inCharleston, South Carolina, in as-is conditionfor fair market value, with all proceeds from theconveyance to be applied by the Corps of Engi-neers, Charleston District, to offset a portion ofthe costs of moving or leasing an office facilityin the city of Charleston, South Carolina.

(i) RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE,SOUTH CAROLINA.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise providedin this subsection, the Secretary shall convey tothe State of South Carolina all right, title, andinterest of the United States in and to the par-cels of land described in paragraph (2)(A) thatare being managed, as of the date of enactmentof this Act, by the South Carolina Departmentof Natural Resources for fish and wildlife miti-gation purposes for the Richard B. Russell Damand Lake, South Carolina, project authorizedby section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966(80 Stat. 1420) and modified by section 601(a) ofthe Water Resources Development Act of 1986(100 Stat. 4140).

(2) LAND DESCRIPTION.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The parcels of land to be

conveyed are described in Exhibits A, F, and Hof Army Lease No. DACW21–1–93–0910 and asso-ciated supplemental agreements or are des-ignated in red in Exhibit A of Army License No.DACW21–3–85–1904, excluding all designatedparcels in the license that are below elevation346 feet mean sea level or that are less than 300feet measured horizontally from the top of thepower pool.

(B) MANAGEMENT OF EXCLUDED PARCELS.—Management of the excluded parcels shall con-tinue in accordance with the terms of Army Li-cense No. DACW21–3–85–1904 until the Secretaryand the State enter into an agreement underparagraph (6).

(C) SURVEY.—The exact acreage and legal de-scription of the land shall be determined by asurvey satisfactory to the Secretary, with thecost of the survey borne by the State.

(3) COSTS OF CONVEYANCE.—The State shall beresponsible for all costs, including real estatetransaction and environmental compliancecosts, associated with the conveyance.

(4) PERPETUAL STATUS.—(A) IN GENERAL.—All land conveyed under

this subsection shall be retained in public own-ership and shall be managed in perpetuity forfish and wildlife mitigation purposes in accord-ance with a plan approved by the Secretary.

(B) REVERSION.—If any parcel of land is notmanaged for fish and wildlife mitigation pur-poses in accordance with the plan, title to theparcel shall revert to the United States.

(5) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—TheSecretary may require such additional terms

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7301August 5, 1999and conditions in connection with the convey-ance under this subsection as the Secretary con-siders appropriate to protect the interests of theUnited States.

(6) FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION AGREE-MENT.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may pay theState of South Carolina not more than$4,850,000, subject to the Secretary and the Stateentering into a binding agreement for the Stateto manage for fish and wildlife mitigation pur-poses in perpetuity the parcels of land conveyedunder this subsection and excluded parcels des-ignated in Exhibit A of Army License No.DACW21–3–85–1904.

(B) FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE.—The agree-ment shall specify the terms and conditionsunder which payment will be made and therights of, and remedies available to, the FederalGovernment to recover all or a portion of thepayment if the State fails to manage any parcelin a manner satisfactory to the Secretary.

(j) CLARKSTON, WASHINGTON.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall convey

to the Port of Clarkston, Washington, all right,title, and interest of the United States in and toa portion of the land described in the Depart-ment of the Army lease No. DACW68–1–97–22,consisting of approximately 31 acres, the exactboundaries of which shall be determined by theSecretary and the Port of Clarkston.

(2) ADDITIONAL LAND.—The Secretary mayconvey to the Port of Clarkston, Washington,such additional land located in the vicinity ofClarkston, Washington, as the Secretary deter-mines to be excess to the needs of the ColumbiaRiver Project and appropriate for conveyance.

(3) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The conveyancesmade under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be sub-ject to such terms and conditions as the Sec-retary considers necessary to protect the inter-ests of the United States, including a require-ment that the Port of Clarkston pay all adminis-trative costs associated with the conveyances,including the cost of land surveys and apprais-als and costs associated with compliance withapplicable environmental laws (including regu-lations).

(4) USE OF LAND.—The Port of Clarkston shallbe required to pay the fair market value, as de-termined by the Secretary, of any land conveyedunder paragraphs (1) and (2) that is not re-tained in public ownership and used for publicpark or recreation purposes, except that the Sec-retary shall have a right of reverter to reclaimpossession and title to any such land.

(k) MATEWAN, WEST VIRGINIA.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The United States shall con-

vey by quitclaim deed to the town of Matewan,West Virginia, all right, title, and interest of theUnited States in and to 4 parcels of land thatthe Secretary determines to be excess to thestructural project for flood control constructedby the Corps of Engineers along the Tug ForkRiver under section 202 of the Energy and WaterDevelopment Appropriation Act, 1981 (94 Stat.1339).

(2) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION.—The parcels ofland referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows:

(A) A certain parcel of land in the State ofWest Virginia, Mingo County, town ofMatewan, being more particularly bounded anddescribed as follows:

Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of a 40-foot-wide street right-of-way(known as McCoy Alley), having an approxi-mate coordinate value of N228,695, E1,662,397, inthe line common to the land designated asU.S.A. Tract No. 834, and the land designatedas U.S.A. Tract No. 837, said point being South51°52′ East 81.8 feet from an iron pin and capmarked M–12 on the boundary of the MatewanArea Structural Project, on the north right-of-way line of said street, at a corner common todesignated U.S.A. Tracts Nos. 834 and 836;thence, leaving the right-of-way of said street,with the line common to the land of said TractNo. 834, and the land of said Tract No. 837.

South 14°37′ West 46 feet to the corner commonto the land of said Tract No. 834, and the landof said Tract No. 837; thence, leaving the landof said Tract No. 837, severing the lands of saidProject.

South 14°37′ West 46 feet.South 68°07′ East 239 feet.North 26°05′ East 95 feet to a point on the

southerly right-of-way line of said street;thence, with the right-of-way of said street, con-tinuing to sever the lands of said Project.

South 63°55′ East 206 feet; thence, leaving theright-of-way of said street, continuing to severthe lands of said Project.

South 26°16′ West 63 feet; thence, with a curveto the left having a radius of 70 feet, a delta of33°58′, an arc length of 41 feet, the chord bear-ing.

South 09°17′ West 41 feet; thence, leaving saidcurve, continuing to sever the lands of saidProject.

South 07°42′ East 31 feet to a point on theright-of-way line of the floodwall; thence, withthe right-of-way of said floodwall, continuing tosever the lands of said Project.

South 77°04′ West 71 feet.North 77°10′ West 46 feet.North 67°07′ West 254 feet.North 67°54′ West 507 feet.North 57°49′ West 66 feet to the intersection of

the right-of-way line of said floodwall with thesoutherly right-of-way line of said street;thence, leaving the right-of-way of saidfloodwall and with the southerly right-of-wayof said street, continuing to sever the lands ofsaid Project.

North 83°01′ East 171 feet.North 89°42′ East 74 feet.South 83°39′ East 168 feet.South 83°38′ East 41 feet.South 77°26′ East 28 feet to the point of begin-

ning, containing 2.59 acres, more or less.The bearings and coordinate used in this sub-paragraph are referenced to the West VirginiaState Plane Coordinate System, South Zone.

(B) A certain parcel of land in the State ofWest Virginia, Mingo County, town ofMatewan, being more particularly bounded anddescribed as follows:

Beginning at an iron pin and cap designatedCorner No. M2–2 on the southerly right-of-wayline of the Norfolk and Western Railroad, hav-ing an approximate coordinate value of N228,755E1,661,242, and being at the intersection of theright-of-way line of the floodwall with theboundary of the Matewan Area StructuralProject; thence, leaving the right-of-way of saidfloodwall and with said Project boundary, andthe southerly right-of-way of said Railroad.

North 59°45′ East 34 feet.North 69°50′ East 44 feet.North 58°11′ East 79 feet.North 66°13′ East 102 feet.North 69°43′ East 98 feet.North 77°39′ East 18 feet.North 72°39′ East 13 feet to a point at the

intersection of said Project boundary, and thesoutherly right-of-way of said Railroad, withthe westerly right-of-way line of State Route 49/10; thence, leaving said Project boundary, andthe southerly right-of-way of said Railroad, andwith the westerly right-of-way of said road.

South 03°21′ East 100 feet to a point at theintersection of the westerly right-of-way of saidroad with the right-of-way of said floodwall;thence, leaving the right-of-way of said road,and with the right-of-way line of said floodwall.

South 79°30′ West 69 feet.South 78°28′ West 222 feet.South 80°11′ West 65 feet.North 38°40′ West 14 feet to the point of begin-

ning, containing 0.53 acre, more or less.The bearings and coordinate used in this sub-paragraph are referenced to the West VirginiaState Plane Coordinate System, South Zone.

(C) A certain parcel of land in the State ofWest Virginia, Mingo County, town ofMatewan, being more particularly bounded anddescribed as follows:

Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of the Norfolk and Western Rail-road, having an approximate coordinate valueof N228,936 E1,661,672, and being at the intersec-tion of the easterly right-of-way line of StateRoute 49/10 with the boundary of the MatewanArea Structural Project; thence, leaving theright-of-way of said road, and with said Projectboundary, and the southerly right-of-way ofsaid Railroad.

North 77°49′ East 89 feet to an iron pin andcap designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M–4.

North 79°30′ East 74 feet to an iron pin andcap designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M–5–1;thence, leaving the southerly right-of-way ofsaid Railroad, and continuing with the bound-ary of said Project.

South 06°33′ East 102 to an iron pipe and capdesignated U.S.A. Corner No. M–6–1 on thenortherly right-of-way line of State Route 49/28;thence, leaving the boundary of said Project,and with the right-of-way of said road, severingthe lands of said Project.

North 80°59′ West 171 feet to a point at theintersection of the Northerly right-of-way line ofsaid State Route 49/28 with the easterly right-of-way line of said State Route 49/10; thence, leav-ing the right-of-way of said State Route 49/28and with the right-of-way of said State Route49/10.

North 03°21′ West 42 feet to the point of begin-ning, containing 0.27 acre, more or less.The bearings and coordinate used in this sub-paragraph are referenced to the West VirginiaState Plane Coordinate System, South Zone.

(D) A certain parcel of land in the State ofWest Virginia, Mingo County, town ofMatewan, being more particularly bounded anddescribed as follows:

Beginning at a point at the intersection of theeasterly right-of-way line of State Route 49/10with the right-of-way line of the floodwall, hav-ing an approximate coordinate value of N228,826E1,661,679; thence, leaving the right-of-way ofsaid floodwall, and with the right-of-way ofsaid State Route 49/10.

North 03°21′ West 23 feet to a point at theintersection of the easterly right-of-way line ofsaid State Route 49/10 with the southerly right-of-way line of State Route 49/28; thence, leavingthe right-of-way of said State Route 49/10 andwith the right-of-way of said State Route 49/28.

South 80°59′ East 168 feet.North 82°28′ East 45 feet to an iron pin and

cap designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M–8–1 onthe boundary of the Western Area StructuralProject; thence, leaving the right-of-way of saidState Route 49/28, and with said Project bound-ary.

South 08°28′ East 88 feet to an iron pin andcap designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M–9–1point on the northerly right-of-way line of astreet (known as McCoy Alley); thence, leavingsaid Project boundary and with the northerlyright-of-way of said street.

South 83°01′ West 38 feet to a point on theright-of-way line of said floodwall; thence, leav-ing the right-of-way of said street, and with theright-of-way of said floodwall.

North 57°49′ West 180 feet.South 79°30′ West 34 feet to a point of begin-

ning, containing 0.24 acre, more or less.The bearings and coordinate used in this sub-paragraph are referenced to the West VirginiaState Plane Coordinate System, South Zone.

(l) MCNARY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.—(1) TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDIC-

TION.—Administrative jurisdiction over theMcNary National Wildlife Refuge is transferredfrom the Secretary to the Secretary of the Inte-rior.

(2) LAND EXCHANGE WITH THE PORT OF WALLAWALLA, WASHINGTON.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year afterthe date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryof the Interior may exchange approximately 188acres of land located south of Highway 12 andcomprising a portion of the McNary National

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7302 August 5, 1999Wildlife Refuge for approximately 122 acres ofland owned by the Port of Walla Walla, Wash-ington, and located at the confluence of theSnake River and the Columbia River.

(B) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The land ex-change under subparagraph (A) shall be carriedout in accordance with such terms and condi-tions as the Secretary of the Interior determinesto be necessary to protect the interests of theUnited States, including a requirement that thePort pay—

(i) reasonable administrative costs (not to ex-ceed $50,000) associated with the exchange; and

(ii) any excess (as determined by the Secretaryof the Interior) of the fair market value of theparcel conveyed by the Secretary of the Interiorover the fair market value of the parcel con-veyed by the Port.

(C) USE OF FUNDS.—The Secretary of the Inte-rior may retain any funds received under sub-paragraph (B)(ii) and, without further Act ofappropriation, may use the funds to acquire re-placement habitat for the Mid-Columbia RiverNational Wildlife Refuge Complex.

(3) MANAGEMENT.—The McNary NationalWildlife Refuge and land conveyed by the Portof Walla Walla, Washington, under paragraph(2) shall be managed in accordance with appli-cable laws, including section 120(h) of the Com-prehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-tion, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.9620(h)) and the National Environmental PolicyAct of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).SEC. 564. MCNARY POOL, WASHINGTON.

(a) EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTER-ESTS AND USE RESTRICTIONS.—With respect toeach deed listed in subsection (b)—

(1) the reversionary interests and the use re-strictions relating to port or industrial purposesare extinguished;

(2) the human habitation or other buildingstructure use restriction is extinguished in eacharea where the elevation is above the standardproject flood elevation; and

(3) the use of fill material to raise low areasabove the standard project flood elevation is au-thorized, except in any low area constitutingwetland for which a permit under section 404 ofthe Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33U.S.C. 1344) would be required.

(b) AFFECTED DEEDS.—The deeds with the fol-lowing county auditor’s file numbers are re-ferred to in subsection (a):

(1) Auditor’s File Numbers 521608 and 529071of Benton County, Washington.

(2) Auditor’s File Numbers 262980, 263334,318437, and 404398 of Franklin County, Wash-ington.

(3) Auditor’s File Numbers 411133, 447417,447418, 462156, 563333, and 569593 of Walla WallaCounty, Washington.

(4) Auditor’s File Number 285215 of UmatillaCounty, Oregon, executed by the United States.

(c) NO EFFECT ON OTHER RIGHTS.—Nothing inthis section affects the remaining rights and in-terests of the Corps of Engineers for authorizedproject purposes.SEC. 565. NAMINGS.

(a) FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH, ARKAN-SAS.—

(1) DESIGNATION.—8-Mile Creek in Paragould,Arkansas, shall be known and designated as the‘‘Francis Bland Floodway Ditch’’.

(2) LEGAL REFERENCE.—Any reference in alaw, map, regulation, document, paper, or otherrecord of the United States to the creek referredto in paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be a ref-erence to the ‘‘Francis Bland Floodway Ditch’’.

(b) LAWRENCE BLACKWELL MEMORIAL BRIDGE,ARKANSAS.—

(1) DESIGNATION.—The bridge over lock anddam numbered 4 on the Arkansas River, Arkan-sas, constructed as part of the project for navi-gation on the Arkansas River and tributaries,shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Law-rence Blackwell Memorial Bridge’’.

(2) LEGAL REFERENCE.—Any reference in alaw, map, regulation, document, paper, or other

record of the United States to the bridge referredto in paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be a ref-erence to the ‘‘Lawrence Blackwell MemorialBridge’’.

(c) JOHN H. CHAFEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REF-UGE.—Title II of Public Law 100–610 (16 U.S.C.668dd note; 102 Stat. 3176) is amended—

(1) in the title heading, by striking‘‘PETTAQUAMSCUTT COVE’’ and inserting‘‘JOHN H. CHAFEE’’;

(2) in section 201—(A) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the

end;(B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at

the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and(C) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(5) John H. Chafee has been a steadfast

champion for the conservation of fish, wildlife,and natural resources throughout a distin-guished career of public service to the people ofRhode Island and the United States.’’;

(3) in section 202, by striking ‘‘PettaquamscuttCove’’ and inserting ‘‘John H. Chafee’’; and

(4) in section 203(1), by striking‘‘Pettaquamscutt Cove’’ and inserting ‘‘John H.Chafee’’.SEC. 566. FOLSOM DAM AND RESERVOIR ADDI-

TIONAL STORAGE AND ADDITIONALFLOOD CONTROL STUDIES.

(a) FOLSOM FLOOD CONTROL STUDIES.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consulta-

tion with the State of California and local waterresources agencies, shall undertake a study ofincreasing surcharge flood control storage at theFolsom Dam and Reservoir.

(2) LIMITATIONS.—The study of the FolsomDam and Reservoir undertaken under para-graph (1) shall assume that there is to be no in-crease in conservation storage at the FolsomReservoir.

(3) REPORT.—Not later than March 1, 2000,the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a reporton the results of the study under this sub-section.

(b) AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERSFLOOD CONTROL STUDY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall under-take a study of all levees on the American Riverand on the Sacramento River downstream andimmediately upstream of the confluence of suchRivers to access opportunities to increase poten-tial flood protection through levee modifica-tions.

(2) DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION.—Not laterthan March 1, 2000, the Secretary shall transmitto Congress a report on the results of the studyundertaken under this subsection.SEC. 567. WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA.

(a) EMERGENCY ACTION.—The Secretary shalltake emergency action to protect Wallops Is-land, Virginia, from damaging coastal storms,by improving and extending the existing sea-wall, replenishing and renourishing the beach,and constructing protective dunes.

(b) REIMBURSEMENT.—The Secretary may seekreimbursement from other Federal agencieswhose resources are protected by the emergencyaction taken under subsection (a).

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $8,000,000.SEC. 568. DETROIT RIVER, MICHIGAN.

(a) GREENWAY CORRIDOR STUDY.—The Sec-retary shall conduct a study to determine thefeasibility of a project for shoreline protection,frontal erosion, and associated purposes in theDetroit River shoreline area from the Belle IsleBridge to the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit,Michigan.

(b) POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS.—As part ofthe study, the Secretary shall review potentialproject modifications to any Corps of Engineersproject within the Detroit River shoreline area.

(c) REPAIR AND REHABILITATION.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may repair

and rehabilitate the seawalls on the DetroitRiver in Detroit, Michigan, if the Secretary de-

termines that such work is technically sound,environmentally acceptable, and economicallyjustified.

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout paragraph (1) $1,000,000 for the period be-ginning with fiscal year 2000.SEC. 569. NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA.

(a) DEFINITION OF NORTHEASTERN MIN-NESOTA.—In this section, the term ‘‘northeasternMinnesota’’ means the counties of Cook, Lake,St. Louis, Koochiching, Itasca, Cass, CrowWing, Aitkin, Carlton, Pine, Kanabec, MilleLacs, Morrison, Benton, Sherburne, Isanti, andChisago, Minnesota.

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Sec-retary may establish a pilot program to provideenvironmental assistance to non-Federal inter-ests in northeastern Minnesota.

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance underthis section may be in the form of design andconstruction assistance for water-related envi-ronmental infrastructure and resource protec-tion and development projects in northeasternMinnesota, including projects for wastewatertreatment and related facilities, water supplyand related facilities, environmental restoration,and surface water resource protection and de-velopment.

(d) PUBLIC OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—TheSecretary may provide assistance for a projectunder this section only if the project is publiclyowned.

(e) LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance

under this section, the Secretary shall enter intoa local cooperation agreement with a non-Fed-eral interest to provide for design and construc-tion of the project to be carried out with the as-sistance.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each local cooperationagreement entered into under this subsectionshall provide for the following:

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, inconsultation with appropriate Federal and Stateofficials, of a facilities or resource protectionand development plan, including appropriateengineering plans and specifications.

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutionalstructures as are necessary to ensure the effec-tive long-term operation of the project by thenon-Federal interest.

(3) COST SHARING.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of project

costs under each local cooperation agreemententered into under this subsection shall be 75percent. The Federal share may be in the formof grants or reimbursements of project costs.

(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN WORK.—The non-Fed-eral interest shall receive credit for the reason-able costs of design work completed by the non-Federal interest before entering into a local co-operation agreement with the Secretary for aproject. The credit for the design work shall notexceed 6 percent of the total construction costsof the project.

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delayin the funding of the non-Federal share of thecosts of a project that is the subject of an agree-ment under this section, the non-Federal inter-est shall receive credit for reasonable interest in-curred in providing the non-Federal share of theproject’s costs.

(D) LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAYCREDIT.—The non-Federal interest shall receivecredit for land, easements, rights-of-way, andrelocations toward the non-Federal share ofproject costs (including all reasonable costs as-sociated with obtaining permits necessary forthe construction, operation, and maintenance ofthe project on publicly owned or controlledland), but not to exceed 25 percent of totalproject costs.

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of operation and maintenancecosts for projects constructed with assistanceprovided under this section shall be 100 percent.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7303August 5, 1999(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND

STATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section waives,limits, or otherwise affects the applicability ofany provision of Federal or State law thatwould otherwise apply to a project to be carriedout with assistance provided under this section.

(g) REPORT.—Not later than December 31,2001, the Secretary shall submit to Congress areport on the results of the pilot program carriedout under this section, including recommenda-tions concerning whether the program should beimplemented on a national basis.

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $40,000,000 for the period begin-ning with fiscal year 2000, to remain availableuntil expended.SEC. 570. ALASKA.

(a) DEFINITION OF NATIVE CORPORATION.—Inthis section, the term ‘‘Native Corporation’’ hasthe meaning given the term in section 3 of theAlaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C.1602).

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Sec-retary may establish a pilot program to provideenvironmental assistance to non-Federal inter-ests in Alaska.

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance underthis section may be in the form of design andconstruction assistance for water-related envi-ronmental infrastructure and resource protec-tion and development projects in Alaska, includ-ing projects for wastewater treatment and re-lated facilities, water supply and related facili-ties, and surface water resource protection anddevelopment.

(d) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENTS.—The Sec-retary may provide assistance for a projectunder this section only if the project is publiclyowned or is owned by a Native Corporation.

(e) LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance

under this section, the Secretary shall enter intoa local cooperation agreement with a non-Fed-eral interest to provide for design and construc-tion of the project to be carried out with the as-sistance.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each local cooperationagreement entered into under this subsectionshall provide for the following:

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, inconsultation with appropriate Federal and Stateofficials, of a facilities or resource protectionand development plan, including appropriateengineering plans and specifications.

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutionalstructures as are necessary to ensure the effec-tive long-term operation of the project by thenon-Federal interest.

(3) COST SHARING.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the

project costs under each local cooperation agree-ment entered into under this subsection shall be75 percent. The Federal share may be in theform of grants or reimbursements of projectcosts.

(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN WORK.—The non-Fed-eral interest shall receive credit for the reason-able costs of design work completed by the non-Federal interest before entering into a local co-operation agreement with the Secretary for aproject. The credit for the design work shall notexceed 6 percent of the total construction costsof the project.

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delayin the funding of the non-Federal share of aproject that is the subject of an agreement underthis section, the non-Federal interest shall re-ceive credit for reasonable interest incurred inproviding the non-Federal share of the project’scosts.

(D) LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAYCREDIT.—The non-Federal interest shall receivecredit for land, easements, rights-of-way, andrelocations toward the non-Federal share ofproject costs (including all reasonable costs as-

sociated with obtaining permits necessary forthe construction, operation, and maintenance ofthe project on publicly owned or controlledland), but not to exceed 25 percent of totalproject costs.

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of operation and maintenancecosts for projects constructed with assistanceprovided under this section shall be 100 percent.

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL ANDSTATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section waives,limits, or otherwise affects the applicability ofany provision of Federal or State law thatwould otherwise apply to a project to be carriedout with assistance provided under this section.

(g) REPORT.—Not later than December 31,2001, the Secretary shall submit to Congress areport on the results of the pilot program carriedout under this section, including a recommenda-tion concerning whether the program should beimplemented on a national basis.

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $25,000,000 for the period begin-ning with fiscal year 2000, to remain availableuntil expended.SEC. 571. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA.

(a) DEFINITION OF CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA.—In this section, the term ‘‘central West Virginia’’means the counties of Mason, Jackson, Putnam,Kanawha, Roane, Wirt, Calhoun, Clay, Nich-olas, Braxton, Gilmer, Lewis, Upshur, Ran-dolph, Pendleton, Hardy, Hampshire, Morgan,Berkeley, and Jefferson, West Virginia.

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Sec-retary may establish a pilot program to provideenvironmental assistance to non-Federal inter-ests in central West Virginia.

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance underthis section may be in the form of design andconstruction assistance for water-related envi-ronmental infrastructure and resource protec-tion and development projects in central WestVirginia, including projects for wastewatertreatment and related facilities, water supplyand related facilities, and surface water re-source protection and development.

(d) PUBLIC OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—TheSecretary may provide assistance for a projectunder this section only if the project is publiclyowned.

(e) LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance

under this section, the Secretary shall enter intoa local cooperation agreement with a non-Fed-eral interest to provide for design and construc-tion of the project to be carried out with the as-sistance.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each local cooperationagreement entered into under this subsectionshall provide for the following:

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, inconsultation with appropriate Federal and Stateofficials, of a facilities or resource protectionand development plan, including appropriateengineering plans and specifications.

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutionalstructures as are necessary to ensure the effec-tive long-term operation of the project by thenon-Federal interest.

(3) COST SHARING.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the

project costs under each local cooperation agree-ment entered into under this subsection shall be75 percent. The Federal share may be in theform of grants or reimbursements of projectcosts.

(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN WORK.—The non-Fed-eral interest shall receive credit for the reason-able costs of design work completed by the non-Federal interest before entering into a local co-operation agreement with the Secretary for aproject. The credit for the design work shall notexceed 6 percent of the total construction costsof the project.

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delayin the funding of the non-Federal share of a

project that is the subject of an agreement underthis section, the non-Federal interest shall re-ceive credit for reasonable interest incurred inproviding the non-Federal share of the project’scosts.

(D) LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAYCREDIT.—The non-Federal interest shall receivecredit for land, easements, rights-of-way, andrelocations toward the non-Federal share ofproject costs (including all reasonable costs as-sociated with obtaining permits necessary forthe construction, operation, and maintenance ofthe project on publicly owned or controlledland), but not to exceed 25 percent of totalproject costs.

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of operation and maintenancecosts for projects constructed with assistanceprovided under this section shall be 100 percent.

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL ANDSTATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section waives,limits, or otherwise affects the applicability ofany provision of Federal or State law thatwould otherwise apply to a project to be carriedout with assistance provided under this section.

(g) REPORT.—Not later than December 31,2001, the Secretary shall submit to Congress areport on the results of the pilot program carriedout under this section, including a recommenda-tion concerning whether the program should beimplemented on a national basis.

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $10,000,000 for the period begin-ning with fiscal year 2000, to remain availableuntil expended.SEC. 572. SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AREA

WATERSHED RESTORATION, CALI-FORNIA.

(a) LIMITATION.—The Secretary may under-take studies to determine the extent of groundwater contamination and the feasibility of pre-vention and cleanup of such contamination re-sulting from the acts of a Federal department oragency—

(1) at or in the vicinity of McClellan Air ForceBase, Mather Air Force Base, or SacramentoArmy Depot, California; or

(2) at any place in the Sacramento metropoli-tan area watershed where the Federal Govern-ment would be a responsible party under anyFederal environmental law.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $1,000,000 for the period begin-ning with fiscal year 2000.SEC. 573. ONONDAGA LAKE, NEW YORK.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall—(1) plan, design, and construct projects that

are consistent with the Onondaga Lake Man-agement Plan and comply with the amendedconsent judgment and the project labor agree-ment for the environmental restoration, con-servation, and management of Onondaga Lake,New York; and

(2) provide, in coordination with the Adminis-trator of the Environmental Protection Agency,financial assistance, including grants to theState of New York and political subdivisions ofthe State, for the development and implementa-tion of projects to restore, conserve, and managethe lake.

(b) PARTNERSHIP.—(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out this section,

the Secretary shall establish and lead a partner-ship with appropriate Federal agencies (includ-ing the Environmental Protection Agency) andthe State of New York and political subdivisionsof the State for the purpose of development andimplementation of the projects.

(2) COORDINATION WITH ACTIONS UNDER OTHERLAW.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The partnership shall co-ordinate the actions taken under this sectionwith actions to restore and conserve OnondagaLake taken under other provisions of Federal orState law.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7304 August 5, 1999(B) NO EFFECT ON OTHER LAW.—Except as pro-

vided in subsection (g), this section does notalter, modify, or affect any other provision ofFederal or State law.

(3) TERMINATION.—Unless the Secretary andthe Governor of the State of New York agreeotherwise, the partnership established underthis subsection shall terminate not later thanthe date that is 15 years after the date of enact-ment of this Act.

(c) REVISIONS TO THE ONONDAGA LAKE MAN-AGEMENT PLAN.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In consultation with thepartnership established under subsection (b)and after providing for public review and com-ment, the Secretary and the Administrator ofthe Environmental Protection Agency shall ap-prove revisions to the Onondaga Lake Manage-ment Plan if the Governor of the State of NewYork concurs in the approval.

(2) NO EFFECT ON MODIFICATION OF AMENDEDCONSENT JUDGMENT.—Paragraph (1) has no ef-fect on the conditions under which the amendedconsent judgment referred to in subsection (a)(1)may be modified.

(d) COST SHARING.—(1) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal

share of the cost of a project constructed undersubsection (a) shall be not less than 30 percentof the total cost of the project and may be pro-vided through the provision of in-kind services.

(2) ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT.—TheSecretary’s administration and management ofthe project shall be at full Federal expense.

(e) NO EFFECT ON LIABILITY.—The provisionof financial assistance under this section shallnot relieve from liability any person that wouldotherwise be liable under Federal or State lawfor damages, response costs, natural resourcedamages, restitution, equitable relief, or anyother relief.

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $10,000,000.

(g) REPEAL.—Title IV of the Great Lakes Crit-ical Programs Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 3010) andsection 411 of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1990 (104 Stat. 4648) are repealed effectiveon the date that is 1 year after the date of en-actment of this Act.SEC. 574. EAST LYNN LAKE, WEST VIRGINIA.

The Secretary shall defer any decision relat-ing to the leasing of mineral resources under-lying East Lynn Lake, West Virginia, projectlands to the Federal entity vested with suchleasing authority.SEC. 575. EEL RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conducta study to determine whether flooding in thecity of Ferndale, California, is the result of theFederal flood control project on the Eel River.

(b) MITIGATION MEASURES.—If the Secretarydetermines that the flooding is the result of theproject, the Secretary shall take appropriatemeasures (including dredging of the Salt Riverand construction of sediment ponds at the con-fluence of Francis, Reas, and Williams Creeks)to mitigate the flooding.SEC. 576. NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.

The Secretary—(1) shall review a report prepared by the non-

Federal interest concerning flood protection forthe Dark Hollow area of North Little Rock, Ar-kansas; and

(2) if the Secretary determines that the reportmeets the evaluation and design standards ofthe Corps of Engineers and that the project iseconomically justified, technically sound, andenvironmentally acceptable, may carry out theproject.SEC. 577. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSISSIPPI

PLACE, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may enter

into a cooperative agreement to participate in aproject for the planning, design, and construc-tion of infrastructure and other improvements atMississippi Place, St. Paul, Minnesota.

(b) COST SHARING.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost

of the project shall be 50 percent. The Federalshare may be provided in the form of grants orreimbursements of project costs.

(2) CREDIT FOR NON-FEDERAL WORK.—Thenon-Federal interest shall receive credit towardthe non-Federal share of the cost of the projectfor reasonable costs incurred by the non-Federalinterest as a result of participation in the plan-ning, design, and construction of the project.

(3) LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAYCREDIT.—The non-Federal interest shall receivecredit toward the non-Federal share of the costof the project for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations provided by the non-Fed-eral interest with respect to the project.

(4) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of operation and maintenancecosts for the project shall be 100 percent.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated $3,000,000to carry out this section.SEC. 578. DREDGING OF SALT PONDS IN THE

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND.The Secretary may acquire for the State of

Rhode Island a dredge and associated equip-ment with the capacity to dredge approximately100 cubic yards per hour for use by the State indredging salt ponds in the State.SEC. 579. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN,

PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK.Section 567(a) of the Water Resources Devel-

opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3787) is amendedby adding at the end the following:

‘‘(3) The Chemung River watershed, NewYork, at an estimated Federal cost of$5,000,000.’’.SEC. 580. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND, FLOOD

PROJECT MITIGATION.(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control

and other purposes, Cumberland, Maryland, au-thorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936(commonly known as the ‘‘Flood Control Act of1936’’) (49 Stat. 1574, chapter 688), is modified toauthorize the Secretary to undertake, as a sepa-rate part of the project, restoration of the his-toric Chesapeake and Ohio Canal substantiallyin accordance with the Chesapeake and OhioCanal National Historic Park, Cumberland,Maryland, Rewatering Design Analysis, datedFebruary 1998, at a total cost of $15,000,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $9,750,000 andan estimated non-Federal cost of $5,250,000.

(b) IN-KIND SERVICES.—The non-Federal in-terest for the restoration project under sub-section (a)—

(1) may provide all or a portion of the non-Federal share of project costs in the form of in-kind services; and

(2) shall receive credit toward the non-Federalshare of project costs for design and construc-tion work performed by the non-Federal interestbefore execution of a project cooperation agree-ment and for land, easements, and rights-of-way required for the restoration and acquiredby the non-Federal interest before execution ofsuch an agreement.

(c) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The oper-ation and maintenance of the restoration projectunder subsection (a) shall be the full responsi-bility of the National Park Service.SEC. 581. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA.

Section 5(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act of August 13,1946 (33 U.S.C. 426h), is amended by insertingbefore the semicolon the following: ‘‘, includingthe city of Miami Beach, Florida’’.SEC. 582. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRO-

GRAM FOR COLUMBIA AND SNAKERIVERS SALMON SURVIVAL.

Section 511 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 3301 note; PublicLaw 104–303) is amended by striking subsection(a) and all that follows and inserting the fol-lowing:

‘‘(a) SALMON SURVIVAL ACTIVITIES.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In conjunction with the

Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of the In-

terior, the Secretary shall accelerate ongoing re-search and development activities, and maycarry out or participate in additional researchand development activities, for the purpose ofdeveloping innovative methods and technologiesfor improving the survival of salmon, especiallysalmon in the Columbia/Snake River Basin.

‘‘(2) ACCELERATED ACTIVITIES.—Acceleratedresearch and development activities referred toin paragraph (1) may include research and de-velopment related to—

‘‘(A) impacts from water resources projectsand other impacts on salmon life cycles;

‘‘(B) juvenile and adult salmon passage;‘‘(C) light and sound guidance systems;‘‘(D) surface-oriented collector systems;‘‘(E) transportation mechanisms; and‘‘(F) dissolved gas monitoring and abatement.‘‘(3) ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES.—Additional re-

search and development activities referred to inparagraph (1) may include research and devel-opment related to—

‘‘(A) studies of juvenile salmon survival inspawning and rearing areas;

‘‘(B) estuary and near-ocean juvenile andadult salmon survival;

‘‘(C) impacts on salmon life cycles fromsources other than water resources projects;

‘‘(D) cryopreservation of fish gametes and for-mation of a germ plasma repository for threat-ened and endangered populations of native fish;and

‘‘(E) other innovative technologies and ac-tions intended to improve fish survival, includ-ing the survival of resident fish.

‘‘(4) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall co-ordinate any activities carried out under thissubsection with appropriate Federal, State, andlocal agencies, affected Indian tribes, and theNorthwest Power Planning Council.

‘‘(5) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after thedate of enactment of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1999, the Secretary shall submit toCongress a report on the research and develop-ment activities carried out under this sub-section, including any recommendations of theSecretary concerning the research and develop-ment activities.

‘‘(6) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated$10,000,000 to carry out research and develop-ment activities under paragraph (3).

‘‘(b) ADVANCED TURBINE DEVELOPMENT.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In conjunction with the

Secretary of Energy, the Secretary shall accel-erate efforts toward developing and installing inCorps of Engineers-operated dams innovative,efficient, and environmentally safe hydropowerturbines, including design of fish-friendly tur-bines, for use on the Columbia/Snake Riverhydrosystem.

‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated$35,000,000 to carry out this subsection.

‘‘(c) MANAGEMENT OF PREDATION ON COLUM-BIA/SNAKE RIVER SYSTEM NATIVE FISHES.—

‘‘(1) NESTING AVIAN PREDATORS.—In conjunc-tion with the Secretary of Commerce and theSecretary of the Interior, and consistent with amanagement plan to be developed by the UnitedStates Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretaryshall carry out methods to reduce nesting popu-lations of avian predators on dredge spoil is-lands in the Columbia River under the jurisdic-tion of the Secretary.

‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000to carry out research and development activitiesunder this subsection.

‘‘(d) IMPLEMENTATION.—Nothing in this sec-tion affects the authority of the Secretary to im-plement the results of the research and develop-ment carried out under this section or any otherlaw.’’.SEC. 583. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, CALI-

FORNIA.The Secretary shall work with the Secretary

of Transportation on a proposed solution to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7305August 5, 1999carry out the project to maintain the LarkspurFerry Channel, Larkspur, California, author-ized by section 601(d) of the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148).SEC. 584. HOLES CREEK FLOOD CONTROL

PROJECT, OHIO.(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other

provision of law, the non-Federal share ofproject costs for the project for flood control,Holes Creek, Ohio, shall not exceed the sum of—

(1) the total amount projected as the non-Fed-eral share as of September 30, 1996, in theProject Cooperation Agreement executed on thatdate; and

(2) 100 percent of the amount of any increasesin the cost of the locally preferred plan over thecost estimated in the Project Cooperation Agree-ment.

(b) REIMBURSEMENT.—The Secretary shall re-imburse the non-Federal interest any amountpaid by the non-Federal interest in excess of thenon-Federal share.SEC. 585. SAN JACINTO DISPOSAL AREA, GAL-

VESTON, TEXAS.Section 108 of the Energy and Water Develop-

ment Appropriations Act, 1994 (107 Stat. 1320), isamended—

(1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), byinserting ‘‘all or any part of’’ after ‘‘absolutetitle to’’;

(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting thefollowing:

‘‘(b) COMPENSATION FOR CONVEYANCE.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Upon receipt of compensa-

tion from the City of Galveston, the Secretaryshall convey the parcel, or any part of the par-cel, as described in subsection (a).

‘‘(2) FULL PARCEL.—If the full 605-acre parcelis conveyed, the compensation shall be—

‘‘(A) conveyance to the Department of theArmy of fee simple absolute title to a parcel ofland containing approximately 564 acres on Pel-ican Island, Texas, in the Eneas Smith Survey,A–190, Pelican Island, city of Galveston, Gal-veston County, Texas, adjacent to property cur-rently owned by the United States, with the fairmarket value of the parcel being determined inaccordance with subsection (d); and

‘‘(B) payment to the United States of anamount equal to the difference between the fairmarket value of the parcel to be conveyed undersubsection (a) and the fair market value of theparcel to be conveyed under subparagraph (A).

‘‘(3) PARTIAL PARCEL.—If the conveyance is125 acres or less, compensation shall be anamount equal to the fair market value of theparcel to be conveyed, with the fair marketvalue of the parcel being determined in accord-ance with subsection (d).’’; and

(3) in the second sentence of subsection (c)—(A) by inserting ‘‘, or any part of the parcel,’’

after ‘‘parcel’’; and(B) by inserting ‘‘, if any,’’ after ‘‘LCA’’.

SEC. 586. WATER MONITORING STATION.Section 584(b) of the Water Resources Devel-

opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is amendedby striking ‘‘$50,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000’’.SEC. 587. OVERFLOW MANAGEMENT FACILITY,

RHODE ISLAND.Section 585 of the Water Resources Develop-

ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is amended—(1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘river’’ and

inserting ‘‘sewer’’; and(2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘$30,000,000’’

and inserting ‘‘$60,000,000’’.SEC. 588. LOWER CHENA RIVER, ALASKA.

The Secretary may expend up to $500,000 infiscal year 2000 to complete the dredging projectinitiated on the Lower Chena River, Alaska.SEC. 589. NUMANA DAM FISH PASSAGE, NEVADA.

After the date of enactment of this Act, theSecretary shall complete planning, design, andconstruction of the Numana Dam Fish PassageProject, currently being evaluated under section1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), under section 906(b) ofthat Act (33 U.S.C. 2283(b)).

SEC. 590. EMBREY DAM, VIRGINIA.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall remove

the Embrey Dam on the Rappahannock River atFredericksburg, Virginia, at full Federal ex-pense.

(b) USE OF EXISTING STUDIES.—The Secretaryshall expedite the feasibility study andpreconstruction, engineering, and design of theproject by using, to the maximum extent prac-ticable, existing studies prepared by the Stateand non-Federal interests.

(c) AUTHORIZATION.—There is authorized to beappropriated to carry out this section$10,000,000.SEC. 591. ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION,

FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA.(a) PARTICIPATION OF SECRETARY.—(1) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary shall par-

ticipate with other Federal departments andagencies in environmental restoration and reme-diation activities (including the demolition ofcontaminated buildings) at the Avtex Fibers fa-cility in Front Royal, Virginia, at full Federalexpense.

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $12,000,000.

(b) PARTICIPATION OF SECRETARY OF DE-FENSE.—

(1) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary of Defenseshall make available $5,000,000 for environ-mental restoration and remediation activities(including the demolition of contaminated build-ings) at the Avtex Fibers facility in Front Royal,Virginia.

(2) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—The amount madeavailable under paragraph (1) shall be derivedfrom amounts in the Environmental RestorationAccount, Formerly Used Defense Sites, estab-lished by section 2703 of title 10, United StatesCode.SEC. 592. MISSISSIPPI.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Sec-retary may establish a pilot program to provideenvironmental assistance to non-Federal inter-ests in Mississippi.

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance underthis section may be in the form of design andconstruction assistance for water-related envi-ronmental infrastructure and resource protec-tion and development projects in Mississippi, in-cluding projects for wastewater treatment andrelated facilities, elimination or control of com-bined sewer overflows, water supply and relatedfacilities, environmental restoration, and sur-face water resource protection and development.

(d) PUBLIC OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—TheSecretary may provide assistance for a projectunder this section only if the project is publiclyowned.

(e) LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance

under this section, the Secretary shall enter intoa local cooperation agreement with a non-Fed-eral interest to provide for design and construc-tion of the project to be carried out with the as-sistance.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each local cooperationagreement entered into under this subsectionshall provide for the following:

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, inconsultation with appropriate Federal and Stateofficials, of a facilities or resource protectionand development plan, including appropriateengineering plans and specifications.

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutionalstructures as are necessary to ensure the effec-tive long-term operation of the project by thenon-Federal interest.

(3) COST SHARING.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of project

costs under each local cooperation agreemententered into under this subsection shall be 75percent. The Federal share may be in the formof grants or reimbursements of project costs.

(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN WORK.—The non-Fed-eral interest shall receive credit for the reason-

able costs of design work completed by the non-Federal interest before entering into a local co-operation agreement with the Secretary for aproject. The credit for the design work shall notexceed 6 percent of the total construction costsof the project.

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delayin the funding of the non-Federal share of thecosts of a project that is the subject of an agree-ment under this section, the non-Federal inter-est shall receive credit for reasonable interest in-curred in providing the non-Federal share of theproject’s costs.

(D) LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAYCREDIT.—The non-Federal interest shall receivecredit for land, easements, rights-of-way, andrelocations toward the non-Federal share ofproject costs (including all reasonable costs as-sociated with obtaining permits necessary forthe construction, operation, and maintenance ofthe project on publicly owned or controlledland), but not to exceed 25 percent of totalproject costs.

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of operation and maintenancecosts for projects constructed with assistanceprovided under this section shall be 100 percent.

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL ANDSTATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section waives,limits, or otherwise affects the applicability ofany provision of Federal or State law thatwould otherwise apply to a project to be carriedout with assistance provided under this section.

(g) REPORT.—Not later than December 31,2001, the Secretary shall submit to Congress areport on the results of the pilot program carriedout under this section, including recommenda-tions concerning whether the program should beimplemented on a national basis.

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $25,000,000 for the period begin-ning with fiscal year 2000, to remain availableuntil expended.SEC. 593. CENTRAL NEW MEXICO.

(a) DEFINITION OF CENTRAL NEW MEXICO.—Inthis section, the term ‘‘central New Mexico’’means the counties of Bernalillo, Sandoval, andValencia, New Mexico.

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Sec-retary may establish a pilot program to provideenvironmental assistance to non-Federal inter-ests in central New Mexico.

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance underthis section may be in the form of design andconstruction assistance for water-related envi-ronmental infrastructure and resource protec-tion and development projects in central NewMexico, including projects for wastewater treat-ment and related facilities, water supply, con-servation, and related facilities, stormwater re-tention and remediation, environmental restora-tion, and surface water resource protection anddevelopment.

(d) PUBLIC OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—TheSecretary may provide assistance for a projectunder this section only if the project is publiclyowned.

(e) LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance

under this section, the Secretary shall enter intoa local cooperation agreement with a non-Fed-eral interest to provide for design and construc-tion of the project to be carried out with the as-sistance.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each local cooperationagreement entered into under this subsectionshall provide for the following:

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, inconsultation with appropriate Federal and Stateofficials, of a facilities or resource protectionand development plan, including appropriateengineering plans and specifications.

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutionalstructures as are necessary to ensure the effec-tive long-term operation of the project by thenon-Federal interest.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7306 August 5, 1999(3) COST SHARING.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of project

costs under each local cooperation agreemententered into under this subsection shall be 75percent. The Federal share may be in the formof grants or reimbursements of project costs.

(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN WORK.—The non-Fed-eral interest shall receive credit for the reason-able costs of design work completed by the non-Federal interest before entering into a local co-operation agreement with the Secretary for aproject. The credit for the design work shall notexceed 6 percent of the total construction costsof the project.

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delayin the funding of the non-Federal share of thecosts of a project that is the subject of an agree-ment under this section, the non-Federal inter-est shall receive credit for reasonable interest in-curred in providing the non-Federal share of theproject’s costs.

(D) LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAYCREDIT.—The non-Federal interest shall receivecredit for land, easements, rights-of-way, andrelocations toward the non-Federal share ofproject costs (including all reasonable costs as-sociated with obtaining permits necessary forthe construction, operation, and maintenance ofthe project on publicly owned or controlledland), but not to exceed 25 percent of totalproject costs.

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of operation and maintenancecosts for projects constructed with assistanceprovided under this section shall be 100 percent.

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL ANDSTATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section waives,limits, or otherwise affects the applicability ofany provision of Federal or State law thatwould otherwise apply to a project to be carriedout with assistance provided under this section.

(g) REPORT.—Not later than December 31,2001, the Secretary shall submit to Congress areport on the results of the pilot program carriedout under this section, including recommenda-tions concerning whether the program should beimplemented on a national basis.

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $25,000,000 for the period begin-ning with fiscal year 2000, to remain availableuntil expended.SEC. 594. OHIO.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Sec-retary shall establish a program to provide envi-ronmental assistance to non-Federal interests inOhio.

(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance underthis section may be in the form of design andconstruction assistance for water-related envi-ronmental infrastructure and resource protec-tion and development projects in Ohio, includ-ing projects for—

(1) wastewater treatment and related facili-ties;

(2) combined sewer overflow, water supply,storage, treatment, and related facilities;

(3) mine drainage;(4) environmental restoration; and(5) surface water resource protection and de-

velopment.(c) PUBLIC OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The

Secretary may provide assistance for a projectunder this section only if the project is publiclyowned.

(d) PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance

under this section, the Secretary shall enter intoa project cooperation agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and con-struction of the project to be carried out withthe assistance.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each project cooperationagreement entered into under this subsectionshall provide for the following:

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, inconsultation with appropriate Federal and State

officials, of a facilities development plan or re-source protection plan, including appropriateplans and specifications.

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutionalstructures as are necessary to ensure the effec-tive long-term operation of the project by thenon-Federal interest.

(3) COST SHARING.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of project

costs under each project cooperation agreemententered into under this subsection shall be 75percent. The Federal share may be in the formof grants or reimbursements of project costs.

(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN WORK.—The non-Fed-eral interest shall receive credit for the reason-able costs of design work completed by the non-Federal interest before entering into a projectcooperation agreement with the Secretary.

(C) CREDIT FOR CERTAIN FINANCING COSTS.—Incase of a delay in the reimbursement of the non-Federal share of the costs of a project, the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reason-able interest and other associated financingcosts necessary for the non-Federal interest toprovide the non-Federal share of the projectcosts.

(D) LAND, EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, ANDRELOCATIONS.—The non-Federal interest shallreceive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way,and relocations provided by the non-Federal in-terest toward the non-Federal share of projectcosts (including costs associated with obtainingpermits necessary for the placement of theproject on publicly owned or controlled land),but not to exceed 25 percent of total projectcosts.

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of operation and maintenancecosts for projects constructed under an agree-ment entered into under this subsection shall be100 percent.

(e) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL ANDSTATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section waives,limits, or otherwise affects the applicability ofany provision of Federal or State law thatwould otherwise apply to a project to be carriedout with assistance provided under this section.

(f) REPORT.—Not later than December 31,2001, the Secretary shall submit to Congress areport on the results of the program carried outunder this section, including recommendationsconcerning whether the program should be im-plemented on a national basis.

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $60,000,000.SEC. 595. RURAL NEVADA AND MONTANA.

(a) DEFINITION OF RURAL NEVADA.—In thissection, the term ‘‘rural Nevada’’ means—

(1) the counties of Lincoln, White Pine, Nye,Eureka, Elko, Humbardt, Pershing, Churchill,Storey, Lyon, Carson, Douglas, Mineral,Esmeralda, and Lander, Nevada;

(2) the portions of Washoe County, Nevada,that are located outside the cities of Reno andSparks; and

(3) the portions of Clark County, Nevada, thatare located outside the cities of Las Vegas,North Las Vegas, and Henderson and the unin-corporated portion of the county in the LasVegas Valley.

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Sec-retary may establish a program for providingenvironmental assistance to non-Federal inter-ests in rural Nevada and Montana.

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance underthis section may be in the form of design andconstruction assistance for water-related envi-ronmental infrastructure and resource protec-tion and development projects in rural Nevadaand Montana, including projects for—

(1) wastewater treatment and related facili-ties;

(2) water supply and related facilities;(3) environmental restoration; and(4) surface water resource protection and de-

velopment.

(d) PUBLIC OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—TheSecretary may provide assistance for a projectunder this section only if the project is publiclyowned.

(e) LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance

under this section, the Secretary shall enter intoa local cooperation agreement with a non-Fed-eral interest to provide for design and construc-tion of the project to be carried out with the as-sistance.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each local cooperationagreement entered into under this subsectionshall provide for the following:

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, inconsultation with appropriate Federal and Stateofficials, of a facilities or resource protectionand development plan, including appropriateengineering plans and specifications.

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutionalstructures as are necessary to ensure the effec-tive long-term operation of the project by thenon-Federal interest.

(3) COST SHARING.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of project

costs under each local cooperation agreemententered into under this subsection shall be 75percent. The Federal share may be in the formof grants or reimbursements of project costs.

(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN WORK.—The non-Fed-eral interest shall receive credit for the reason-able costs of design work completed by the non-Federal interest before entering into a local co-operation agreement with the Secretary for aproject.

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delayin the funding of the non-Federal share of thecosts of a project that is the subject of an agree-ment under this section, the non-Federal inter-est shall receive credit for reasonable interest in-curred in providing the non-Federal share of theproject costs.

(D) LAND, EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, ANDRELOCATIONS.—The non-Federal interest shallreceive credit for land, easements, rights-of way,and relocations provided by the non-Federal in-terest toward the non-Federal share of projectcosts (including all reasonable costs associatedwith obtaining permits necessary for the con-struction, operation, and maintenance of theproject on publicly owned or controlled land),but not to exceed 25 percent of total projectcosts.

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of operation and maintenancecosts for projects constructed with assistanceprovided under this section shall be 100 percent.

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL ANDSTATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section waives,limits, or otherwise affects the applicability ofany provision of Federal or State law thatwould otherwise apply to a project to be carriedout with assistance provided under this section.

(g) REPORT.—Not later than December 31,2001, the Secretary shall submit to Congress areport on the results of the program carried outunder this section, including recommendationsconcerning whether the program should be im-plemented on a national basis.

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section for the period beginning withfiscal year 2001—

(1) $25,000,00 for rural Nevada; and(2) $25,000,000 for Montana;

to remain available until expended.SEC. 596. PHOENIX, ARIZONA.

Section 1608 of the Reclamation Wastewaterand Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43U.S.C. 390h–6) is amended—

(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting thefollowing:

‘‘(a) The Secretary, in cooperation with thecity of Phoenix, Arizona, shall participate inthe planning, design, and construction of thePhoenix Metropolitan Water Reclamation and

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7307August 5, 1999Reuse Project to utilize fully wastewater fromthe regional wastewater treatment plant for di-rect municipal, industrial, agricultural and en-vironmental purposes, groundwater rechargeand indirect potable reuse in the Phoenix metro-politan area.’’;

(2) in subsection (b), by striking the first sen-tence; and

(3) by striking subsection (c).SEC. 597. NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The first section of PublicLaw 99–215 (99 Stat. 1724) is amended in the firstsentence of subsection (a)(2) by striking ‘‘solely’’and inserting ‘‘for transportation or’’.

(b) REVISION OF QUITCLAIM DEED.—Not laterthan 30 days after the date of enactment of thisAct, the Secretary of the Interior shall—

(1) with the consent of the grantee, withdrawand revise any terms or conditions in the quit-claim deed of December 16, 1986, between theUnited States and the Maryland-National Cap-ital Park and Planning Commission that limitthe authority of the Maryland-National CapitalPark and Planning Commission to use the prop-erty for transportation purposes; and

(2) prepare, execute, and record a deed that isconsistent with this section and the amendmentmade by subsection (a).

(c) EFFECT ON ENVIRONMENTAL LAW.—Noth-ing in this section abrogates any requirement ofany environmental law.TITLE VI—CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE,

LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE, AND STATEOF SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILD-LIFE HABITAT RESTORATION

SEC. 601. DEFINITIONS.In this title, the following definitions apply:(1) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’

means the South Dakota Cultural Resources Ad-visory Commission established by section 605(j).

(2) RESTORATION.—The term ‘‘restoration’’means mitigation of the habitat of wildlife.

(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ meansthe Secretary of the Army.

(4) TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT.—The term‘‘terrestrial wildlife habitat’’ means a habitatfor a wildlife species (including game andnongame species) that existed or exists on anupland habitat (including a prairie grassland,woodland, bottom land forest, scrub, or shrub)or an emergent wetland habitat.

(5) WILDLIFE.—The term ‘‘wildlife’’ has themeaning given the term in section 8 of the Fishand Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 666b).SEC. 602. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RES-

TORATION.(a) TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORA-

TION PLANS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with this sub-

section and in consultation with the Secretaryand the Secretary of the Interior, the State ofSouth Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe,and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe shall, as acondition of the receipt of funds under this title,each develop a plan for the restoration of terres-trial wildlife habitat loss that occurred as a re-sult of flooding related to the Big Bend andOahe projects carried out as part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program.

(2) SUBMISSION OF PLAN TO SECRETARY.—Oncompletion of a plan for terrestrial wildlife habi-tat restoration, the State of South Dakota, theCheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the LowerBrule Sioux Tribe shall submit the plan to theSecretary.

(3) REVIEW BY SECRETARY AND SUBMISSION TOCOMMITTEES.—The Secretary shall review theplan and submit the plan, with any comments,to the appropriate committees of the Senate andthe House of Representatives.

(4) FUNDING FOR CARRYING OUT PLANS.—(A) STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA.—(i) NOTIFICATION.—On receipt of the plan for

terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submittedby the State of South Dakota, each of the Com-mittees referred to in paragraph (3) shall notifythe Secretary of the receipt of the plan.

(ii) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—On notificationin accordance with clause (i), the Secretaryshall make available to the State of South Da-kota funds from the South Dakota TerrestrialWildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund estab-lished under section 603, to be used to carry outthe plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat restora-tion submitted by the State and only after theTrust Fund is fully capitalized.

(B) CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE AND LOWERBRULE SIOUX TRIBE.—

(i) NOTIFICATION.—On receipt of the plan forterrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submittedby the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and theLower Brule Sioux Tribe, each of the Commit-tees referred to in paragraph (3) shall notify theSecretary of the Treasury of the receipt of eachof the plans.

(ii) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—On notificationin accordance with clause (i), the Secretary ofthe Treasury shall make available to the Chey-enne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower BruleSioux Tribe funds from the Cheyenne RiverSioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restora-tion Trust Fund and the Lower Brule SiouxTribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat RestorationTrust Fund, respectively, established under sec-tion 604, to be used to carry out the plan for ter-restrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted bythe Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the LowerBrule Sioux Tribe, respectively, and only afterthe Trust Fund is fully capitalized.

(C) TRANSITION PERIOD.—(i) IN GENERAL.—During the period described

in clause (ii), the Secretary shall—(I) fund the terrestrial wildlife habitat res-

toration programs being carried out on the dateof enactment of this Act on Oahe and Big Bendproject land and the plans established underthis section at a level that does not exceed thehighest amount of funding that was providedfor the programs during a previous fiscal year;and

(II) fund the activities described in sections603(d)(3) and 604(d)(3).

(ii) PERIOD.—Clause (i) shall apply during theperiod—

(I) beginning on the date of enactment of thisAct; and

(II) ending on the date on which funds aremade available for use from the South DakotaTerrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration TrustFund under section 603(d)(3)(A)(i) and theCheyenne River Sioux Tribe Terrestrial WildlifeHabitat Restoration Trust Fund and the LowerBrule Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife HabitatRestoration Trust Fund under section604(d)(3)(A)(i).

(b) PROGRAMS FOR THE PURCHASE OF WILD-LIFE HABITAT LEASES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The State of South Dakotamay use funds made available under section603(d)(3)(A)(iii) to develop a program for thepurchase of wildlife habitat leases that meetsthe requirements of this subsection.

(2) DEVELOPMENT OF A PLAN.—(A) IN GENERAL.—If the State of South Da-

kota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, or theLower Brule Sioux Tribe elects to conduct a pro-gram under this subsection, the State of SouthDakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, or theLower Brule Sioux Tribe (in consultation withthe United States Fish and Wildlife Service andthe Secretary and with an opportunity for pub-lic comment) shall develop a plan to lease landfor the protection and development of wildlifehabitat, including habitat for threatened andendangered species, associated with the Mis-souri River ecosystem.

(B) USE FOR PROGRAM.—The plan shall beused by the State of South Dakota, the Chey-enne River Sioux Tribe, or the Lower BruleSioux Tribe in carrying out the program carriedout under paragraph (1).

(3) CONDITIONS OF LEASES.—Each lease cov-ered under a program carried out under para-graph (1) shall specify that the owner of theproperty that is subject to the lease shallprovide—

(A) public access for sportsmen during hunt-ing season; and

(B) public access for other outdoor uses cov-ered under the lease, as negotiated by the land-owner and the State of South Dakota, the Chey-enne River Sioux Tribe, or the Lower BruleSioux Tribe.

(4) USE OF ASSISTANCE.—(A) STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA.—If the State of

South Dakota conducts a program under thissubsection, the State may use funds made avail-able under section 603(d)(3)(A)(iii) to—

(i) acquire easements, rights-of-way, or leasesfor management and protection of wildlife habi-tat, including habitat for threatened and en-dangered species, and public access to wildlifeon private property in the State of South Da-kota;

(ii) create public access to Federal or Stateland through the purchase of easements orrights-of-way that traverse such private prop-erty; or

(iii) lease land for the creation or restorationof a wetland on such private property.

(B) CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE AND LOWERBRULE SIOUX TRIBE.—If the Cheyenne RiverSioux Tribe or the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe con-ducts a program under this subsection, the Tribemay use funds made available under section604(d)(3)(A)(iii) for the purposes described insubparagraph (A).

(c) FEDERAL OBLIGATION FOR TERRESTRIALWILDLIFE HABITAT MITIGATION FOR THE BIGBEND AND OAHE PROJECTS IN SOUTH DAKOTA.—The establishment of the trust funds under sec-tions 603 and 604 and the development and im-plementation of plans for terrestrial wildlifehabitat restoration developed by the State ofSouth Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe,and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe in accordancewith this section shall be considered to satisfythe Federal obligation under the Fish and Wild-life Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) forterrestrial wildlife habitat mitigation for theState of South Dakota, the Cheyenne RiverSioux Tribe, and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribefor the Big Bend and Oahe projects carried outas part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basinprogram.SEC. 603. SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILD-

LIFE HABITAT RESTORATION TRUSTFUND.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established inthe Treasury of the United States a fund to beknown as the ‘‘South Dakota Terrestrial Wild-life Habitat Restoration Trust Fund’’ (referredto in this section as the ‘‘Fund’’).

(b) FUNDING.—For the fiscal year duringwhich this Act is enacted and each fiscal yearthereafter until the aggregate amount depositedin the Fund under this subsection is equal to atleast $108,000,000, the Secretary of the Treasuryshall transfer $10,000,000 from the general fundof the Treasury to the Fund.

(c) INVESTMENTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—At the request of the Sec-

retary, the Secretary of the Treasury shall in-vest the amounts deposited under subsection (b)only in interest-bearing obligations of theUnited States or in obligations guaranteed bythe United States as to both principal and inter-est.

(2) INTEREST RATE.—The Secretary of theTreasury shall invest amounts in the fund inobligations that carry the highest rate of inter-est among available obligations of the requiredmaturity.

(d) PAYMENTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—All amounts credited as in-

terest under subsection (c) shall be available,without fiscal year limitation, to the State ofSouth Dakota for use in accordance with para-graph (3) after the Fund has been fully capital-ized.

(2) WITHDRAWAL AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS.—Subject to section 602(a)(4)(A), the Secretaryshall withdraw amounts credited as interestunder paragraph (1) and transfer the amounts

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7308 August 5, 1999to the State of South Dakota for use as Statefunds in accordance with paragraph (3) afterthe Fund has been fully capitalized.

(3) USE OF TRANSFERRED FUNDS.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph

(B), the State of South Dakota shall use theamounts transferred under paragraph (2) onlyto—

(i) fully fund the annually scheduled work de-scribed in the terrestrial wildlife habitat restora-tion plan of the State developed under section602(a); and

(ii) with any remaining funds—(I) protect archaeological, historical, and cul-

tural sites located along the Missouri River onland transferred to the State;

(II) fund all costs associated with the owner-ship, management, operation, administration,maintenance, and development of recreationareas and other lands that are transferred tothe State of South Dakota by the Secretary;

(III) purchase and administer wildlife habitatleases under section 602(b);

(IV) carry out other activities described in sec-tion 602; and

(V) develop and maintain public access to,and protect, wildlife habitat and recreationareas along the Missouri River.

(B) PROHIBITION.—The amounts transferredunder paragraph (2) shall not be used for thepurchase of land in fee title.

(e) TRANSFERS AND WITHDRAWALS.—Except asprovided in subsection (d), the Secretary maynot transfer or withdraw any amount depositedunder subsection (b).

(f) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—There are au-thorized to be appropriated to the Secretary ofthe Treasury such sums as are necessary to paythe administrative expenses of the Fund.SEC. 604. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE AND

LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE TERRES-TRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORA-TION TRUST FUNDS.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There are established inthe Treasury of the United States 2 funds to beknown as the ‘‘Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Ter-restrial Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund’’ andthe ‘‘Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wild-life Habitat Restoration Trust Fund’’ (each ofwhich is referred to in this section as a‘‘Fund’’).

(b) FUNDING.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), for

the fiscal year during which this Act is enactedand each fiscal year thereafter until the aggre-gate amount deposited in the Funds under thissubsection is equal to at least $57,400,000, theSecretary of the Treasury shall transfer$5,000,000 from the general fund of the Treasuryto the Funds.

(2) ALLOCATION.—Of the total amount offunds deposited in the Funds for a fiscal year,the Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit—

(A) 74 percent of the funds into the CheyenneRiver Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Restora-tion Trust Fund; and

(B) 26 percent of the funds into the LowerBrule Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife HabitatRestoration Trust Fund.

(c) INVESTMENTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treas-

ury shall invest the amounts deposited undersubsection (b) only in interest-bearing obliga-tions of the United States or in obligations guar-anteed as to both principal and interest by theUnited States.

(2) INTEREST RATE.—The Secretary of theTreasury shall invest amounts in the Funds inobligations that carry the highest rate of inter-est among available obligations of the requiredmaturity.

(d) PAYMENTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—All amounts credited as in-

terest under subsection (c) shall be availableafter the Trust Funds are fully capitalized,without fiscal year limitation, to the CheyenneRiver Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule SiouxTribe for their use in accordance with para-graph (3).

(2) WITHDRAWAL AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS.—Subject to section 602(a)(4)(B), the Secretary ofthe Treasury shall withdraw amounts creditedas interest under paragraph (1) and transfer theamounts to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe andthe Lower Brule Sioux Tribe for use in accord-ance with paragraph (3).

(3) USE OF TRANSFERRED FUNDS.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph

(B), the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and theLower Brule Sioux Tribe shall use the amountstransferred under paragraph (2) only to—

(i) fully fund the annually scheduled work de-scribed in the terrestrial wildlife habitat restora-tion plan of the respective Tribe developedunder section 602(a); and

(ii) with any remaining funds—(I) protect archaeological, historical, and cul-

tural sites located along the Missouri River onland transferred to the respective Tribe;

(II) fund all costs associated with the owner-ship, management, operation, administration,maintenance, and development of recreationareas and other lands that are transferred tothe respective Tribe by the Secretary;

(III) purchase and administer wildlife habitatleases under section 602(b);

(IV) carry out other activities described in sec-tion 602; and

(V) develop and maintain public access to,and protect, wildlife habitat and recreationareas along the Missouri River.

(B) PROHIBITION.—The amounts transferredunder paragraph (2) shall not be used for thepurchase of land in fee title.

(e) TRANSFERS AND WITHDRAWALS.—Except asprovided in subsection (d), the Secretary of theTreasury may not transfer or withdraw anyamount deposited under subsection (b).

(f) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—There are au-thorized to be appropriated to the Secretary ofthe Treasury such sums as are necessary to paythe administrative expenses of the Fund.SEC. 605. TRANSFER OF FEDERAL LAND TO STATE

OF SOUTH DAKOTA.(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) TRANSFER.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall transfer

to the Department of Game, Fish and Parks ofthe State of South Dakota (referred to in thissection as the ‘‘Department’’) the land andrecreation areas described in subsections (b) and(c) for fish and wildlife purposes, or publicrecreation uses, in perpetuity.

(B) PERMITS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND EASE-MENTS.—All permits, rights-of-way, and ease-ments granted by the Secretary to the OglalaSioux Tribe for land on the west side of the Mis-souri River between the Oahe Dam and High-way 14, and all permits, rights-of-way, andeasements on any other land administered bythe Secretary and used by the Oglala SiouxRural Water Supply System, are granted to theOglala Sioux Tribe in perpetuity to be held intrust under section 3(e) of the Mni WiconiProject Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 2568).

(2) USES.—The Department shall maintainand develop the land outside the recreationareas for fish and wildlife purposes in accord-ance with—

(A) fish and wildlife purposes in effect on thedate of enactment of this Act; or

(B) a plan developed under section 602.(3) CORPS OF ENGINEERS.—The transfer shall

not interfere with the Corps of Engineers oper-ation of a project under this section for an au-thorized purpose of the project under the Act ofDecember 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, chapter 665; 33U.S.C. 701–1 et seq.), or other applicable law.

(4) SECRETARY.—The Secretary shall retainthe right to inundate with water the land trans-ferred to the Department under this section ordraw down a project reservoir, as necessary tocarry out an authorized purpose of a project.

(b) LAND TRANSFERRED.—The land describedin this subsection is land that—

(1) is located above the top of the exclusiveflood pool of the Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall,

and Gavin’s Point projects of the Pick-SloanMissouri River Basin program;

(2) was acquired by the Secretary for the im-plementation of the Pick-Sloan Missouri RiverBasin program;

(3) is located outside the external boundariesof a reservation of an Indian Tribe; and

(4) is located within the State of South Da-kota.

(c) RECREATION AREAS TRANSFERRED.—Arecreation area described in this section includesthe land and facilities within a recreation areathat—

(1) the Secretary determines, at the time of thetransfer, is a recreation area classified for recre-ation use by the Corps of Engineers on the dateof enactment of this Act;

(2) is located outside the external boundariesof a reservation of an Indian Tribe;

(3) is located within the State of South Da-kota;

(4) is not the recreation area known as ‘‘Cot-tonwood’’, ‘‘Training Dike’’, or ‘‘Tailwaters’’;and

(5) is located below Gavin’s Point Dam in theState of South Dakota in accordance withboundary agreements and reciprocal fishingagreements between the State of South Dakotaand the State of Nebraska in effect on the dateof enactment of this Act, which agreements shallcontinue to be honored by the State of SouthDakota as the agreements apply to any land orrecreation areas transferred under this title tothe State of South Dakota below Gavin’s PointDam and on the waters of the Missouri River.

(d) MAP.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consulta-

tion with the Department, shall prepare a mapof the land and recreation areas transferredunder this section.

(2) LAND.—The map shall identify—(A) land reasonably expected to be required

for project purposes during the 20-year periodbeginning on the date of enactment of this Act;and

(B) dams and related structures;which shall be retained by the Secretary.

(3) AVAILABILITY.—The map shall be on file inthe appropriate offices of the Secretary.

(e) SCHEDULE FOR TRANSFER.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after

the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryof the Army and the Secretary of the Depart-ment shall jointly develop a schedule for trans-ferring the land and recreation areas under thissection.

(2) TRANSFER DEADLINE.—All land and recre-ation areas shall be transferred not later than 1year after the full capitalization of the TrustFund described in section 603.

(f) TRANSFER CONDITIONS.—The land andrecreation areas described in subsections (b) and(c) shall be transferred in fee title to the Depart-ment on the following conditions:

(1) RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGE.—The Sec-retary shall not be responsible for any damageto the land caused by flooding, sloughing, ero-sion, or other changes to the land caused by theoperation of any project of the Pick-Sloan Mis-souri River Basin program (except as otherwiseprovided by Federal law).

(2) EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, LEASES, ANDCOST-SHARING AGREEMENTS.—The Departmentshall maintain all easements, rights-of-way,leases, and cost-sharing agreements that are ineffect as of the date of the transfer.

(g) HUNTING AND FISHING.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this

section, nothing in this title affects jurisdictionover the waters of the Missouri River below thewater’s edge and outside the exterior boundariesof an Indian reservation in South Dakota.

(2) JURISDICTION.—(A) TRANSFERRED LAND.—On transfer of the

land under this section to the State of SouthDakota, jurisdiction over the land shall be thesame as that over other land owned by the Stateof South Dakota.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7309August 5, 1999(B) LAND BETWEEN THE MISSOURI RIVER WA-

TER’S EDGE AND THE LEVEL OF THE EXCLUSIVEFLOOD POOL.—Jurisdiction over land betweenthe Missouri River water’s edge and the level ofthe exclusive flood pool outside Indian reserva-tions in the State of South Dakota shall be thesame as that exercised by the State on otherland owned by the State, and that jurisdictionshall follow the fluctuations of the water’s edge.

(C) FEDERAL LAND.—Jurisdiction over landand water owned by the Federal Governmentwithin the boundaries of the State of South Da-kota that are not affected by this title shall re-main unchanged.

(3) EASEMENTS AND ACCESS.—The Secretaryshall provide the State of South Dakota witheasements and access on land and water belowthe level of the exclusive flood pool outside In-dian reservations in the State of South Dakotafor recreational and other purposes (includingfor boat docks, boat ramps, and related struc-tures), so long as the easements would not pre-vent the Corps of Engineers from carrying outits mission under the Act entitled ‘‘An Act au-thorizing the construction of certain publicworks on rivers and harbors for flood control,and for other purposes’’, approved December 22,1944 (commonly known as the ‘‘Flood ControlAct of 1944’’) (58 Stat. 887)).

(h) APPLICABILITY OF LAW.—Notwithstandingany other provision of this Act, the followingprovisions of law shall apply to land transferredunder this section:

(1) The National Historic Preservation Act (16U.S.C. 470 et seq.), including sections 106 and304 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 470f, 470w–3).

(2) The Archaeological Resources ProtectionAct of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.), includingsections 4, 6, 7, and 9 of that Act (16 U.S.C.470cc, 470ee, 470ff, 470hh).

(3) The Native American Graves ProtectionAct and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 etseq.), including subsections (a) and (d) of sec-tion 3 of that Act (25 U.S.C. 3003).

(i) IMPACT AID.—The land transferred undersubsection (a) shall be deemed to continue to beowned by the United States for purposes of sec-tion 8002 of the Elementary and Secondary Edu-cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7702).SEC. 606. TRANSFER OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS

LAND FOR INDIAN TRIBES.(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) TRANSFER.—The Secretary of the Army

shall transfer to the Secretary of the Interior theland and recreation areas described in sub-sections (b) and (c) for the use of the IndianTribes in perpetuity.

(2) CORPS OF ENGINEERS.—The transfer shallnot interfere with the Corps of Engineers oper-ation of a project under this section for an au-thorized purpose of the project under the Act ofDecember 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, chapter 665; 33U.S.C. 701–1 et seq.), or other applicable law.

(3) SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.—The Secretaryof the Army shall retain the right to inundatewith water the land transferred to the Secretaryof the Interior under this section or draw downa project reservoir, as necessary to carry out anauthorized purpose of a project.

(4) TRUST.—The Secretary of the Interior shallhold in trust for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribeand the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe the land trans-ferred under this section that is located withinthe external boundaries of the reservation of theIndian Tribes.

(b) LAND TRANSFERRED.—The land describedin this subsection is land that—

(1) is located above the top of the exclusiveflood pool of the Big Bend and Oahe projects ofthe Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program;

(2) was acquired by the Secretary of the Armyfor the implementation of the Pick-Sloan Mis-souri River Basin program; and

(3) is located within the external boundariesof the reservation of the Cheyenne River SiouxTribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.

(c) RECREATION AREAS TRANSFERRED.—Arecreation area described in this section includes

the land and facilities within a recreation areathat—

(1) the Secretary determines, at the time of thetransfer, is a recreation area classified for recre-ation use by the Corps of Engineers on the dateof enactment of this Act;

(2) is located within the external boundariesof a reservation of an Indian Tribe; and

(3) is located within the State of South Da-kota.

(d) MAP.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consulta-

tion with the governing bodies of the CheyenneRiver Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule SiouxTribe, shall prepare a map of the land trans-ferred under this section.

(2) LAND.—The map shall identify—(A) land reasonably expected to be required

for project purposes during the 20-year periodbeginning on the date of enactment of this Act;and

(B) dams and related structures;which shall be retained by the Secretary.

(3) AVAILABILITY.—The map shall be on file inthe appropriate offices of the Secretary.

(e) SCHEDULE FOR TRANSFER.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after

the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryand the Chairmen of the Cheyenne River SiouxTribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe shalljointly develop a schedule for transferring theland and recreation areas under this section.

(2) TRANSFER DEADLINE.—All land and recre-ation areas shall be transferred not later than 1year after the full capitalization of the Stateand tribal Trust Fund described in section 604.

(f) TRANSFER CONDITIONS.—The land andrecreation areas described in subsections (b) and(c) shall be transferred to, and held in trust by,the Secretary of the Interior on the followingconditions:

(1) RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGE.—The Sec-retary shall not be responsible for any damageto the land caused by flooding, sloughing, ero-sion, or other changes to the land caused by theoperation of any project of the Pick-Sloan Mis-souri River Basin program (except as otherwiseprovided by Federal law).

(2) HUNTING AND FISHING.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this

section, nothing in this title affects jurisdictionover the waters of the Missouri River below thewater’s edge and within the exterior boundariesof the Cheyenne River Sioux and Lower BruleSioux Tribe reservations.

(B) JURISDICTION.—(i) IN GENERAL.—On transfer of the land to

the respective tribes under this section, jurisdic-tion over the land and on land between the wa-ter’s edge and the level of the exclusive floodpool within the respective Tribe’s reservationboundaries shall be the same as that over landheld in trust by the Secretary of the Interior onthe Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation and theLower Brule Sioux Reservation, and that juris-diction shall follow the fluctuations of the wa-ter’s edge.

(ii) JURISDICTION UNAFFECTED.—Jurisdictionover land and water owned by the Federal Gov-ernment and held in trust for the CheyenneRiver Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribethat is not affected by this title shall remain un-changed.

(C) EASEMENTS AND ACCESS.—The Secretaryshall provide the Tribes with such easementsand access on land and water below the level ofthe exclusive flood pool inside the respective In-dian reservations for recreational and otherpurposes (including for boat docks, boat ramps,and related structures), so long as the easementswould not prevent the Corps of Engineers fromcarrying out its mission under the Act entitled‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of certainpublic works on rivers and harbors for floodcontrol, and for other purposes’’, approved De-cember 22, 1944 (commonly known as the ‘‘FloodControl Act of 1944’’) (58 Stat. 887)).

(3) EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, LEASES, ANDCOST-SHARING AGREEMENTS.—

(A) MAINTENANCE.—The Secretary of the Inte-rior shall maintain all easements, rights-of-way,leases, and cost-sharing agreements that are ineffect as of the date of the transfer.

(B) PAYMENTS TO COUNTY.—The Secretary ofthe Interior shall pay any affected county 100percent of the receipts from the easements,rights-of-way, leases, and cost-sharing agree-ments described in subparagraph (A).

(g) EXTERIOR INDIAN RESERVATION BOUND-ARIES.—Nothing in this section diminishes,changes, or otherwise affects the exterior bound-aries of a reservation of an Indian Tribe.SEC. 607. ADMINISTRATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this title dimin-ishes or affects—

(1) any water right of an Indian Tribe;(2) any other right of an Indian Tribe, except

as specifically provided in another provision ofthis title;

(3) any treaty right that is in effect on thedate of enactment of this Act;

(4) any external boundary of an Indian res-ervation of an Indian Tribe;

(5) any authority of the State of South Da-kota that relates to the protection, regulation,or management of fish, terrestrial wildlife, andcultural and archaeological resources, except asspecifically provided in this title; or

(6) any authority of the Secretary, the Sec-retary of the Interior, or the head of any otherFederal agency under a law in effect on thedate of enactment of this Act, including—

(A) the National Historic Preservation Act (16U.S.C. 470 et seq.);

(B) the Archaeological Resources ProtectionAct of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.);

(C) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16U.S.C. 661 et seq.);

(D) the Act entitled ‘‘An Act for the protectionof the bald eagle’’, approved June 8, 1940 (16U.S.C. 668 et seq.);

(E) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C.703 et seq.);

(F) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);

(G) the Native American Graves Protectionand Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);

(H) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act(commonly known as the ‘‘Clean Water Act’’)(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.);

(I) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C.300f et seq.); and

(J) the National Environmental Policy Act of1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

(b) FEDERAL LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE.—Noth-ing in this title relieves the Federal Governmentof liability for damage to private propertycaused by the operation of the Pick-Sloan Mis-souri River Basin program.

(c) FLOOD CONTROL.—Notwithstanding anyother provision of this title, the Secretary shallretain the authority to operate the Pick-SloanMissouri River Basin program for purposes ofmeeting the requirements of the Act of December22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, chapter 665; 33 U.S.C. 701–1 et seq.).SEC. 608. STUDY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall arrangefor the United States Geological Survey, in con-sultation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs andother appropriate Federal agencies, to complete,not later than October 31, 1999, a comprehensivestudy of the potential impacts of the transfer ofland under sections 605(b) and 606(b), includingpotential impacts on South Dakota Sioux Tribeshaving water claims within the Missouri RiverBasin, on water flows in the Missouri River.

(b) NO TRANSFER PENDING DETERMINATION.—No transfer of land under section 605(b) or606(b) shall occur until the Secretary deter-mines, based on the study, that the transfer ofland under either section will not significantlyreduce the amount of water flow to the down-stream States of the Missouri River.

(c) STATE WATER RIGHTS.—The results of thestudy shall not affect, and shall not be taken

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7310 August 5, 1999into consideration in, any proceeding to quan-tify the water rights of any State.

(d) INDIAN WATER RIGHTS.—The results of thestudy shall not affect, and shall not be takeninto consideration in, any proceeding to quan-tify the water rights of any Indian Tribe or trib-al nation.SEC. 609. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) SECRETARY.—There are authorized to beappropriated to the Secretary such sums as arenecessary—

(1) to pay the administrative expenses in-curred by the Secretary in carrying out thistitle;

(2) to fund the implementation of terrestrialwildlife habitat restoration plans under section602(a) and other activities under sections603(d)(3) and 604(d)(3); and

(3) to fund the annual expenses (not to exceedthe Federal cost as of the date of enactment ofthis Act) of operating recreation areas to betransferred under sections 605(c) and 606(c) orleased by the State of South Dakota or IndianTribes, until such time as the trust funds undersections 603 and 604 are fully capitalized.

(b) SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.—There areauthorized to be appropriated to the Secretaryof the Interior such sums as are necessary topay the administrative expenses incurred by theSecretary of the Interior in carrying out thistitle.

And the House agree to the same.

BUD SHUSTER,DON YOUNG,SHERWOOD BOEHLERT,RICHARD H. BAKER,JOHN T. DOOLITTLE,DON SHERWOOD,JAMES L. OBERSTAR,ROBERT A. BORSKI,ELLEN TAUSCHER,BRIAN BAIRD,

Managers on the Part of the House.

JOHN H. CHAFEE,JOHN WARNER,BOB SMITH,GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,MAX BAUCUS,DANIEL MOYNIHAN,

Managers on the Part of the Senate.JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF

THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCEThe Managers on the part of the House and

Senate at the conference on the disagreeingvotes of the two Houses on the amendmentof the House to the bill (S. 507), to providefor the conservation and development ofwater and related resources, to authorize theSecretary of the Army to construct variousprojects for other purposes, submit the fol-lowing joint statement to the House andSenate in explanation of the effect of the ac-tion agreed upon by the managers and rec-ommended in the accompanying conferencereport:

The House amendment struck all of theSenate bill after the enacting clause and in-serted a substitute text.

The Senate recedes from its disagreementto the amendment of the House with anamendment that is a substitute for the Sen-ate bill and the House amendment. The dif-ferences between the Senate bill, the Houseamendment, and the substitute agreed to inconference are noted below, except for cler-ical corrections, conforming changes madenecessary by agreements reached by the con-ferees, and minor drafting and clericalchanges.

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

SECTION 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.101(a) Projects with Chief’s Reports

101(a)(1) Nome Harbor Improvements, Alaska.House § 101(b)(1), Senate § 101(b)(1).—Senaterecedes with an amendment.

101(a)(2) Sand Point Harbor, Alaska. House§ 101(a)(1), Senate § 101(a)(1).—Senate recedes.

101(a)(3) Seward Harbor, Alaska. House§ 101(b)(2), Senate § 101(b)(2).—Senate recedeswith an amendment.

101(a)(4) Rio Salado, Salt River, Phoenix andTempe, Arizona. House § 101(a)(2), Senate§ 101(a)(2).—Senate recedes.

101(a)(5) Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona.House § 101(a)(3), Senate § 101(a)(3).—Houserecedes.

101(a)(6) American and Sacramento Rivers,California. House § 101(a)(4), Senate§ 101(a)(4).—Senate recedes with an amend-ment.

101(a)(7) Oakland Harbor, California. House§ 101(a)(5), Senate § 101(b)(5).—Senate recedes.

101(a)(8) South Sacramento County Streams,California. House § 101(a)(6), Senate§ 101(a)(6).—Senate recedes.

101(a)(9) Upper Guadalupe River, California.House § 101(a)(7), Senate § 101(a)(7).—Houserecedes.

101(a)(10) Yuba River Basin, California.House § 101(a)(8), Senate § 101(a)(8).—Senaterecedes.

101(a)(11) Delaware Bay Coastline, Delawareand New Jersey-Broadkill Beach, Delaware.House § 101(a)(9), Senate § 101(a)(9).—Senaterecedes.

101(a)(12) Delaware Bay Coastline, Delawareand New Jersey - Port Mahon, Delaware. House§ 101(a)(10), Senate § 101(a)(10).—Senate re-cedes.

101(a)(13) Delaware Bay Coastline, Delawareand New Jersey-Roosevelt Inlet-Lewes Beach,Delaware. House § 101(a)(11), Senate§ 101(b)(7).—Senate recedes.

101(a)(14) Delaware Bay Coastline, Delawareand New Jersey: Villas and Vicinity, New Jer-sey. House § 101(a)(12), Senate § 101(b)(16).—Senate recedes.

101(a)(15) Delaware Coast from CapeHenelopen to Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach/South Bethany Beach, Delaware. House§ 101(a)(13), Senate § 101(b)(8).—Senate re-cedes.

101(a)(16) Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer,Florida. Senate § 101(a)(11). No comparableHouse section.—House recedes.

101(a)(17) Jacksonville Harbor, Florida. House§ 101(a)(14), Senate § 101(b)(9).—House recedes.

The conferees understand the Report of theChief of Engineers for the navigation projectat Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, recognizesthat a re-evaluation of the project based ona potential change in the commercial navi-gation fleet could result in redesignation ofthe locally preferred plan as the NationalEconomic Development Plan. Furthermore,if the locally preferred plan is redesignatedas the National Economic DevelopmentPlan, cost sharing for the recommended planshall be in accordance with section 101 of theWater Development Act of 1986.

101(a)(18) Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel,Florida. House § 101(a)(15), Senate§ 101(a)(14).—House recedes.

101(a)(19) Brunswick Harbor, Georgia. House§ 101(a)(16), Senate § 101(a)(15).—Senate re-cedes.

101(a)(20) Beargrass Creek, Kentucky. House§ 101(a)(17), Senate § 101(a)(16).—Senate re-cedes.

101(a)(21) Amite River and Tributaries, Lou-isiana, East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed.House § 101(a)(18), Senate § 101(a)(17).—Houserecedes.

101(a)(22) Baltimore Harbor Anchorages andChannels, Maryland and Virginia. House§ 101(a)(19), Senate § 101(a)(18).—House re-cedes.

101(a)(23) Red River Lake at Crookston, Min-nesota. House § 101(a)(20), Senate § 101(a)(19).—Senate recedes.

101(a)(24) Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas City,Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas. House§ 101(a)(21), Senate § 101(b)(13).—Senate re-cedes.

101(a)(25) Lower Cape May Meadows, CapeMay Point, New Jersey. House § 101(a)(22), Sen-ate § 101(b)(17).—House recedes with anamendment.

101(a)(26) Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet,New Jersey. House § 101(a)(23), Senate§ 101(a)(20).—House recedes with an amend-ment.

101(a)(27) Guanajibo River, Puerto Rico.House § 101(a)(24). No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

101(a)(28) Rio Grande de Manati, Barceloneta,Puerto Rico. House § 101(a)(25). No comparableSenate section.—Senate recedes.

101(a)(29) Rio Nigua at Salinas, Puerto Rico.House § 101(a)(26). No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

101(a)(30) Salt Creek, Graham, Texas. House§ 101(a)(27), Senate § 101(a)(22).—Senate re-cedes.101(b) Projects subject to report

The conference report includes project au-thorizations for which the Chief of Engineershas not yet completed a final report, but forwhich such reports are anticipated by De-cember 31, 1999. These projects have been in-cluded in order to assure that projects an-ticipated to satisfy the necessary technicaldocumentation by December 31, 1999 are notdelayed in each case that the final reportscan be completed by the end of 1999.

101(b)(1) Heritage Harbor, Wrangell, Alaska.No comparable House or Senate section.

101(b)(2) Arroyo Pasajero, California. House§ 518(1), Senate § 101(b)(3).—House recedes.

The conferees understand that there maybe potentially significant impacts on endan-gered species and state ecological reservelands. Consequently, the conferees believethat a full range of reasonable alternativesshould be considered.

101(b)(3) Hamilton Airfield, California. House§ 101(b)(3), Senate § 101(b)(4).—House recedes.

In the Water Resources Development Actof 1996, Congress provided that publicly orprivately owned upland sites may be consid-ered for dredged material disposal. The Sec-retary should consider developing a manage-ment plan that addresses the equitable dis-tribution of the dredged material in the SanFrancisco Bay area to various upland sites incases where dredged material from Corps ofEngineers construction or maintenancedredging is available for beneficial use orother upland disposal methods. In comparingthe costs and benefits of public and privatedisposal options, the Secretary shall con-sider all costs and benefits, including allpublicly funded costs, to ensure that an ob-jective and equitable comparison of privateand public facilities occurs.

101(b)(4) Success Dam, Tule River Basin, Cali-fornia. House § 518(2), Senate § 101(b)(6).—House recedes with an amendment.

101(b)(5) Delaware Bay Coastline, Delawareand New Jersey: Oakwood Beach, New Jersey.House § 101(b)(4), Senate § 101(b)(14).—Houserecedes with an amendment.

101(b)(6) Delaware Bay Coastline, Delawareand New Jersey: Reeds Beach and Pierces Point,New Jersey. House § 101(b)(5), Senate§ 101(b)(15).—Senate recedes.

101(b)(7) Little Talbot Island, Duval County,Florida. House § 101(b)(6), Senate § 101(b)(10).—Senate recedes.

101(b)(8) Ponce de Leon Inlet, Florida. House§ 101(b)(7), Senate § 101(b)(11).—Senate re-cedes.

101(b)(9) Savannah Harbor Expansion, Geor-gia. House § 101(b)(8), Senate § 101(b)(12).—Senate recedes.

101(b)(10) Des Plaines River, Illinois. House§ 101(b)(9). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

101(b)(11) Reelfoot Lake, Kentucky and Ten-nessee. No comparable House or Senate section.

101(b)(12) Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Har-bor, Brigantine Island, New Jersey. House

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7311August 5, 1999§ 101(b)(10), Senate § 101(b)(18).—Senate re-cedes with an amendment.

101(b)(13) Columbia River Channel, Oregonand Washington. House § 101(b)(11), Senate§ 101(b)(19).—Senate recedes.

101(b)(14) Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.House § 101(b)(12), Senate § 101(b)(21).—Senaterecedes.

101(b)(15) Howard Hanson Dam, Washington.House § 101(b)(13), Senate § 101(b)(22).—Houserecedes.

The managers recognize that the cost shar-ing for the Howard Hanson Dam projectcould appropriately be affected by the recentlisting of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmonas a protected species under the EndangeredSpecies Act. The United States Departmentof Commerce, National Marine FisheriesService, has stated its intent to consult withboth the Army Corps of Engineers and theCity of Tacoma concerning responsibilitiesunder the Endangered Species Act as it re-lates to the Howard Hanson Dam project andthe City of Tacoma water diversion project.One of the purposes of the project being au-thorized is to develop a fish passage fordownstream migration of salmon. When thisconsultation process is completed, the appro-priate cost sharing allocation for the projectmay be different from that stated in the re-port of the Chief of Engineers. Therefore, itis the understanding of the managers thatthe Secretary, after consultation with theSecretary of Commerce, will, if appropriate,revise the allocation of cost sharing found inthe final report of the Chief of Engineers toreflect the responsibilities under the Endan-gered Species Act for the protection of thethreatened Puget Sound Chinook Salmon.

SEC. 102. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS

102(a)(1) Eyak River, Cordova, Alaska. Sen-ate § 322. No comparable House section.—House recedes.

102(a)(2) Salcha River and Piledriver Slough,Fairbanks, Alaska. Senate § 321. No com-parable House section.—House recedes.

102(a)(3) Lancaster, California. House§ 102(a)(1). No comparable Senate Section.—Senate recedes.

102(a)(4) Magpie Creek. California. No com-parable House or Senate section.

102(a)(5) Gateway Triangle Area, CollierCounty, Florida. House § 102(a)(2), Senate§ 104(1).—Senate recedes.

102(a)(6) Plant City, Florida. House§ 102(a)(3), Senate § 104(m).—Senate recedes.

102(a)(7) Stone Island, Lake Monroe, Florida.House § 102(a)(4). No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

102(a)(8) Ohio River, Illinois. House§ 102(a)(5). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes.

102(a)(9) Hamilton Dam, Michigan. Senate§ 327. No comparable House section.—Houserecedes.

102(a)(10) Repaupo Creek, New Jersey. House§ 102(a)(6), Senate § 303(2).—Senate recedeswith an amendment.

102(a)(11) Irondequoit Creek, New York. Sen-ate § 303(3). No comparable House section.—House recedes.

102(a)(12) Owasco Lake Seawall, New York.House § 102(7). No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

102(a)(13) Port Clinton, Ohio. House§ 102(a)(8). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes.

102(a)(14) Abington Township, Pennsylvania.House § 102(a)(10). No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

102(a)(15) Port Indian, West Norriton Town-ship, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.House § 102(a)(11). No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

102(a)(16) Port Providence, Upper ProvidenceTownship, Pennsylvania. House

§ 102(a)(12). No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

102(a)(17) Springfield Township, MontgomeryCounty, Pennsylvania. House

§ 102(a)(13). No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

102(a)(18) Tawney Run Creek, Pennsylvania.No comparable House or Senate section.

102(a)(19) Wissahickon Watershed, Pennsyl-vania. No comparable House or Senate sec-tion.

102(a)(20) Tioga County, Pennsylvania. Sen-ate § 303(3). No comparable House section.—House recedes.

102(a)(21) First Creek, Knoxville, Tennessee.House § 102(a)14. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

102(a)(22) Metro Center Levee, CumberlandRiver, Nashville, Tennessee. House § 102(a)15).No comparable Senate section.—Senate re-cedes.

102(b) Festus and Crystal City, Missouri.House § 102(b). No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

102(b) Subsection (b) provides that themaximum Federal expenditure for theFestus and Crystal City, Missouri flood con-trol project shall be $10,000,000 and directsthe Secretary to make correspondingchanges to the project cooperation agree-ment. Nothing in this subsection affects anyapplicable cost sharing requirements underthe Water Resources Development Act of1986.SEC. 103. SMALL BANK STABILIZATION PROJECTS

103(a)(1) Arctic Ocean, Barrow, Alaska. Sen-ate § 305(a). No comparable House section.—House recedes.

103(a)(2) Saint Joseph River Indiana. House§ 103(1). No comparable Senate section.—Sen-ate recedes.

103(a)(3) Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan.House § 103(2), Senate § 305(b).—Senate re-cedes.

103(a)(4) Big Timber Creek, New Jersey.House § 103(3). No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

103(a)(5) Lake Shore Road, Athol Springs,New York. House § 103(4). No comparable Sen-ate section.—Senate recedes.

103(a)(6) Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NewYork. House § 101(5). No comparable Senatesection.—Senate recedes.

103(a)(7) Monroe County, Ohio. House§ 103(6). No comparable Senate section.—Sen-ate recedes.

103(a)(8) Green Valley, West Virginia. House§ 103(7). No comparable Senate section - Sen-ate recedes.

103(b) Yellowstone River, Billings, Montana.Senate § 305(c). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 104. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS

104(1) Grand Marais, Arkansas. House§ 104(1). No comparable Senate section.—Sen-ate recedes.

104(2) Fields Landing Channel, HumboldtHarbor, California. House § 104(2), Senate§ 104(e).—Senate recedes.

104(3) San Mateo (Pillar Point Harbor), Cali-fornia. House § 104(3). No comparable Senatesection.—Senate recedes.

104(4) Agana Marina, Guam. House § 104(4),Senate § 104(yy).—Senate recedes.

104(5) Agat Marina, Guam. House § 104(5),Senate § 104(vv).—Senate recedes.

104(6) Apra Harbor Fuel Piers, Guam. House§ 104(6), Senate § 104(xx).—Senate recedes.

104(7) Apra Harbor Pier F-6, Guam. House§ 104(7). No comparable Senate section.—Sen-ate recedes.

104(8) Apra Harbor Seawall, Guam. House§ 104(8), Senate § 104(ww).—Senate recedes.

104(9) Guam Harbor, Guam. House § 104(9).No comparable Senate section.—Senate re-cedes.

104(10) Illinois River Near Chautauqua Park,Illinois. House § 104(10). No comparable Sen-ate section.—Senate recedes.

104(11) Whiting Shoreline Waterfront, Whit-ing, Indiana. House § 104(11). No comparableSenate section.—Senate recedes.

104(12) Union River, Ellsworth, Maine. House§ 104(13). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes.

104(13) Naraguagus River, Machias, Maine.House § 104(12). No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

104(14) Detroit Waterfront, Michigan. House§ 104(14). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes.

104(15) Fortescue Inlet, Delaware Bay, NewJersey. House § 104(15), Senate § 304(9).—Sen-ate recedes.

104(16) Braddock Bay, Greece, New York.Senate § 304(10). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

104(17) Buffalo and LaSalle Park, New York.House § 104(16). No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

104(18) Sturgeon Point, New York. House§ 104(17). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes.

104(19) Fairpoint Harbor, Ohio. House§ 104(18). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 105. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENTOF THE ENVIRONMENT

House § 105(a). No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

105(b) Pine Flat Dam, Kings River, California.House § 105(b), Senate § 332.—House recedes.

SEC. 106. SMALL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMRESTORATION PROJECTS

106(1) Contra Costa County, Bay Delta, Cali-fornia. House § 106(1). No comparable Senatesection.—Senate recedes.

106(2) Indian River, Florida. House § 106(2).No comparable Senate section.—Senate re-cedes.

106(3) Little Wekiva River, Florida. House§ 106(3). No comparable Senate section.—Sen-ate recedes.

106(4) Cook County, Illinois. House § 106(4).No comparable Senate section.—Senate re-cedes.

106(5) Grand Batture Island, Mississippi.House § 106(5). No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

106(6) Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Coun-ties, Mississippi. House § 106(6). No comparableSenate section.—Senate recedes.

106(7) Mississippi River and River Des Peres,St. Louis, Missouri. House § 106(7), Senate§ 201(e)(3).—Senate recedes.

106(8) Hudson River, New York. House§ 106(8). No comparable Senate section.—Sen-ate recedes.

106(9) Oneida Lake, New York. House § 106(9).No comparable Senate section.—Senate re-cedes.

106(10) Otsego Lake, New York. House§ 106(10). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes.

106(11) North Fork of Yellow Creek, Ohio.House § 106(11). No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

106(12) Wheeling Creek Watershed, Ohio.House § 106(12). No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

106(13) Springfield Millrace, Oregon. House§ 106(13), Senate § 306.—Senate recedes.

106(14) Upper Amazon Creek, Oregon. House§ 106(14). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes.

106(15) Lake Ontelaunee Reservoir, BerksCounty, Pennsylvania. House § 106(15). Nocomparable Senate section.—Senate recedes.

106(16) Blackstone River Basin, Rhode Islandand Massachusetts. House § 106(16). No com-parable Senate section.—Senate recedes.

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL AUTHORITY.House § 201, Senate § 203.—House recedes.

SEC. 202. USE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS FOR COM-PILING AND DISSEMINATING INFORMATION ONFLOODS AND FLOOD DAMAGES

House § 202, Senate § 204.—House recedes.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7312 August 5, 1999SEC. 203. CONTRIBUTIONS BY STATES AND

POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS

House § 203, Senate § 207.—House recedes.SEC. 204. SEDIMENT DECONTAMINATION

TECHNOLOGY

House § 204, Senate § 218.—Senate recedes.SEC. 205. CONTROL OF AQUATIC PLANTS

House § 205, Senate § 214.—Senate recedeswith an amendment.SEC. 206. USE OF CONTINUING CONTRACTS RE-

QUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAINPROJECTS

House § 206. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 207. WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENTSTUDIES FOR THE PACIFIC REGION

House § 208, Senate § 209.—Senate recedes.SEC. 208. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA

ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

House § 209, Senate § 331, Senate § 102(k) andSenate § 309.—Senate recedes to the Housewith an amendment to subsections (a) and(b) and a new subsection (d).

SEC. 209. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGEDMATERIAL

House § 210, Senate § 206.—Senate recedeswith an amendment.

SEC. 210. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

House § 212, Senate § 205.—Senate recedeswith an amendment.

SEC. 211. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT,RESTORATION, AND DEVELOPMENT

House § 213, Senate § 216.—House recedeswith amendments at subsections (1) and (3).

Under this section, the managers supportproviding technical assistance to the non-Federal interests in the communities ofSpringfield and Decatur, Illinois in the Illi-nois River Watershed for the purpose of iden-tifying high nitrate levels in water suppliesand assisting with methods for reducing suchlevels.

SEC. 212. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINERESTORATION PILOT PROGRAM

House § 214, Senate § 201.—Senate recedes tothe House with amendments at subsections(b)(e)(g) and (h).

SEC. 213. SHORE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

House § 215. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 214. SHORE DAMAGE PREVENTION ORMITIGATION

House § 217, Senate § 228.—House recedeswith amendment.

SEC. 215. SHORE PROTECTION

House § 218(a), Senate § 202.—House recedeswith an amendment.

House § 218(b), Senate § 211(a).—Senate re-cedes.

Senate § 211(b). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

House § 218(c). No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

House § 218(d). No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 216. FLOOD PREVENTION COORDINATION

House § 219. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 217. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ONBEACHES

Senate § 219. No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 218. ANNUAL PASSES FOR RECREATION

House § 220. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 219. NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROLPROJECTS

House § 222, Senate § 213.—Senate recedes.SEC. 220. LAKES PROGRAM

House § 223, Senate § 217.—Senate recedeswith an amendment.

SEC. 221. ENHANCEMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFERESOURCES

House § 225, Senate § 220.—Senate recedes.SEC. 222. PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE

EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS

House § 226. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 223. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROLPROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL INTEREST

House § 224, Senate § 221.—Senate recedeswith amendments.

SEC. 224. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING

House § 228, Senate § 212.—Senate recedeswith an amendment.

SEC. 225. RECREATIONAL USER FEES

Senate § 208. No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 226. SMALL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTIONPROJECTS

Senate § 227. No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 227. USE OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISES

Senate § 232. No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes with an amendment.

TITLE III—PROJECT RELATED PROVISIONS

SEC. 301. TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAYWILDLIFE MITIGATION, ALABAMA AND MIS-SISSIPPI

No comparable House or Senate section.SEC. 302. OUZINKIE HARBOR, ALASKA

House § 302. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes to House with anamendment.

SEC. 303. ST. PAUL HARBOR, ST. PAUL, ALASKA

No comparable House or Senate section.SEC. 304. LOGGY BAYOU, RED RIVER BELOW

DENISON DAM, ARKANSAS, LOUISIANA, OKLA-HOMA, AND TEXAS

House § 305. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes to House with anamendment.

SEC. 305. SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA,CALIFORNIA

House § 306. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 306. SAN LORENZO RIVER, CALIFORNIA

House §307, Senate §102(a)(1).—House re-cedes with an amendment.

SEC. 307. TERMINUS DAM, KAWEAH RIVER,CALIFORNIA

House § 308. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.SEC. 308. DELAWARE RIVER, MAINSTEM AND

CHANNEL DEEPENING, DELAWARE, NEW JER-SEY, AND PENNSYLVANIA

House § 309. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 309. POTOMAC RIVER, WASHINGTON,DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

House § 310. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 310. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

House § 311. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 311. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBOROINLET, FLORIDA

House § 312. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.SEC. 312. LEE COUNTY, CAPTIVA ISLAND SEG-

MENT, FLORIDA, PERIODIC BEACH NOURISH-MENT

House § 227(a), Senate § 102(u).—House re-cedes.

SEC. 313. FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA

House § 313, Senate § 102(b)(1).—Senate re-cedes with an amendment.

SEC. 314. NASSAU COUNTY, FLORIDA

House § 314. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 315. MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FLORIDA

House § 315. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 316. ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA

House § 363(d), Senate § 102(a)(2).—Senaterecedes.

SEC. 317. MILO CREEK, IDAHO

No comparable House or Senate section.SEC. 318. LAKE MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS

House § 316, Senate § 102(l).—House recedes.SEC. 319. SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS

House § 317. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 320. OGDEN DUNES, INDIANA

House § 319. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 321. SAINT JOSEPH RIVER, SOUTH BEND,INDIANA

House § 320. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 322. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA

House § 321, Senate § 102(s).—House recedes.SEC. 323. DUBUQUE, IOWA

Senate § 102(n). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 324. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LOUISIANA

House § 322, Senate § 104(y).—Senate recedeswith an amendment.

SEC. 325. LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW,LOUISIANA

House § 323, Senate § 104(w).—Senate re-cedes with an amendment.

SEC. 326. LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARYLEVEE, LOUSIANA

House § 324, Senate § 102(o).—House recedes.SEC. 327. TWELVE-MILE BAYOU, CADDO PARISH,

LOUISIANA

House § 325, Senate § 104(a).—Senate recedeswith an amendment.SEC. 328. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER

(EAST OF HARVEY CANAL) LOUISIANA

House § 326. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 329. TOLCHESTER CHANNEL S-TURN,BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

House § 327, Senate § 102(d).—House recedes.SEC. 330. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, CHIPPEWA

COUNTY, MICHIGAN

House § 328. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 331. JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

House § 329, Senate § 102(p).—House recedes.SEC. 332. BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE

DISTRICT, MISSOURI

House § 331. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.SEC. 333. MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK

LEVEE, MISSOURI

House § 332. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.SEC. 334. MISSOURI RIVER MITIGATION PROJECT,

MISSOURI, KANSAS, IOWA, AND NEBRASKA

House § 333. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 335. WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND,NEBRASKA

House §334, Senate §102(a)(3).—Senate re-cedes.

SEC. 336. ABSECON ISLAND, NEW JERSEY

House § 335, Senate § 102(a)(4).—Senate re-cedes.

SEC. 337. NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENTCHANNELS, PORT JERSEY, NEW JERSEY

House § 336, Senate § 102(b)(4).—Senate re-cedes with an amendment.

SEC. 338. ARTHUR KILL, NEW YORK AND NEWJERSEY

House § 339, Senate § 102(a)(5).—House re-cedes with an amendment.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7313August 5, 1999SEC. 339. KILL VAN KULL AND NEWARK BAY

CHANNELS, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY

No comparable House or Senate section.

SEC. 340. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED

House § 340, Senate § 325.—Senate recedeswith an amendment.

SEC. 341. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM

House § 341. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 342. FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT,NEW YORK

House § 342. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 343. BROKEN BOW LAKE, RED RIVER BASIN,OKLAHOMA

House § 343. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 344. WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURECONTROL, MCKENZIE SUBBASIN, OREGON

House § 344, Senate § 102(b)(5).—Senate re-cedes with an amendment.

SEC. 345. CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA

House § 346. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 346. DELAWARE RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA ANDDELAWARE

House § 347. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 347. MUSSERS DAM, PENNSYLVANIA

House § 348. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 348. PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

No comparable House or Senate section.

SEC. 349. NINE-MILE RUN, ALLEGHENY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA

House § 349, Senate § 316.—House recedes.

SEC. 350. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA

House § 350. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 351. SOUTH CENTRAL, PENNSYLVANIA

House § 351. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 352. FOXPOINT HURRICANE BARRIER,PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND

Senate § 102(t). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 353. COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR,SOUTH CAROLINA

House § 352, Senate § 102(f).—House recedes.

SEC. 354. CLEAR CREEK, TEXAS

House § 354. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 355. CYPRESS CREEK, TEXAS

House § 355. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 356. DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION,DALLAS, TEXAS

House § 356, Senate § 102(g).—Senate re-cedes.

SEC. 357. UPPER JORDAN RIVER, UTAH

House § 357. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 358. ELIZABETH RIVER, CHESAPEAKE,VIRGINIA

House § 358, Senate § 102(i).—House recedes.

SEC. 359. COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL,WASHINGTON AND OREGON

Senate § 102(v). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 360. GREENBRIER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA

House § 360. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 361. BLUESTONE LAKE, OHIO RIVER BASIN,WEST VIRGINIA

House § 359. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 362. MOOREFIELD, WEST VIRGINIA

House § 361, Senate § 102(j).—Senate re-cedes.

SEC. 363. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIAFLOOD CONTROL

House § 362. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 364. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS

House § 363(b), (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h), Sen-ate § 101(a)(12), (13), (21) and (b)(20).—Senaterecedes with an amendment.

SEC. 365. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS

House § 364(a)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8),(9), (10), (11), (12), (b), (c), Senate § 103(a), (b),(c), (d), (e), (f), and 102(b)(3).—Senate recedeswith an amendment.

SEC. 366. AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS,CALIFORNIA

House § 365. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 367. MARTIN, KENTUCKY

House § 366. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 368. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA PILOTPROGRAM

House § 367. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 369. BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEERIVERS, JACKSON, ALABAMA

House § 368. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.SEC. 370. TROPICANA WASH AND FLAMINGO WASH,

NEVADA

House § 369, Senate § 102(e).—House recedes.SEC. 371. COMITE RIVER, LOUISIANA

House § 370. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 372. ST. MARYS RIVER, MICHIGAN

House § 371. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 373. CHARLEVOIX, MICHIGAN

House § 372, Senate § 326.—House recedes.SEC. 374. WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND

MISSOURI

Senate § 104(d). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 375. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA, WATERCONVEYANCE FACILITIES

House § 555, Senate § 102(a)(6).—Senate re-cedes with an amendment.

TITLE IV—STUDIES

SEC. 401. DEEP DRAFT HARBOR COST SHARING

House § 211. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—House recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 402. BOYDSVILLE, ARKANSAS

Senate § 104(b). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 403. GREERS FERRY LAKE, ARKANSAS

House §303. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 404. DEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

House § 428. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 405. FRAZIER CREEK, TULARE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA

Senate § 104(f). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 406. MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CALIFORNIA

No comparable House or Senate section.SEC. 407. STRAWBERRY CREEK, BERKELEY,

CALIFORNIA

Senate § 104(g). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 408. SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, SAN DIEGOCOUNTY, CALIFORNIA

House § 404. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 409. WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA

House § 405. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 410. DESTIN-NORIEGA POINT, FLORIDA

Senate § 104(k). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 411. LITTLE ECONLACKHATCHEE RIVERBASIN, FLORIDA

House § 406. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 412. PORT EVERGLADES INLET, FLORIDA

House § 407, Senate § 104(j).—Senate recedeswith an amendment.SEC. 413. LAKE ALLATOONA, ETOWAH RIVER, AND

LITTLE RIVER WATERSHED, GEORGIA

House § 533. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 414. BOISE, IDAHO

Senate § 104(n). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 415. GOOSE CREEK WATERSHED, OAKLEY,IDAHO

Senate § 104(o). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.SEC. 416. LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODLING, IDAHO

Senate § 104(p). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 417. SNAKE RIVER, LEWISTON, IDAHO

Senate § 104(q). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 418. SNAKE RIVER AND PAYETTE RIVER,IDAHO

Senate § 104(r). No comparable House Sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 419. UPPER DES PLAINES RIVER ANDTRIBUTARIES, ILLINOIS AND WISCONSIN

House § 408. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.SEC. 420. CAMERON PARISH WEST OF CALCASIEU

RIVER, LOUISIANA

House § 409, Senate § 104(t).—House recedes.SEC. 421. COASTAL LOUISIANA

Senate § 104(u). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes with an amendment.SEC. 422. GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LOUISIANA

House § 410. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.SEC. 423. GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY ECO-

SYSTEM, CHEF MENTEUR TO SABINE RIVER,LOUISIANA

Senate § 104(x). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.SEC. 424. MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND BOSTON,

MASSACHUSETTS

Senate § 104(aa). No comparable House sec-tion Section recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 425. WESTPORT, MASSACHUSETTS

House § 412. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.SEC. 426. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR,

MICHIGAN

House § 429. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 427. ST. CLAIR SHORES, MICHIGAN

Senate § 104(cc). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.SEC. 428. WOODTICK PENINSULA, MICHIGAN, AND

TOLEDO HARBOR, OHIO

Senate § 104(dd). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 429. PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MISSISSIPPI

Senate § 104(ee). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 430. TUNICA LAKE, WEIR, MISSISSIPPI

House § 330, Senate § 104(ff).—House recedes.SEC. 431. YELLOWSTONE RIVER, MONTANA

Senate § 104(hh). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7314 August 5, 1999SEC. 432. LAS VEGAS VALLEY, NEVADA

Senate §104(ii). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 433. SOUTHWEST VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE,NEW MEXICO

House § 413. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 434. CAYUGA CREEK, NEW YORK

House § 414. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 435. LAKE CHAMPLAIN, NEW YORK ANDVERMONT

No comparable House or Senate section.SEC. 436. OSWEGO RIVER BASIN, NEW YORK

Senate § 104(jj). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 437. WHITE OAK RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA

House § 552. No comparable House or Sen-ate section.—Senate recedes with an amend-ment.SEC. 438. ARCOLA CREEK WATERSHED, MADISON,

OHIO

House § 415. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.SEC. 439. CLEVELAND HARBOR, CLEVELAND, OHIO

Senate § 104(ll). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.SEC. 440. TOUSSAINT RIVER, CARROLL TOWNSHIP,

OHIO

House § 553, Senate § 104(nn).—House re-cedes.

SEC. 441. WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OHIO,INDIANA, AND MICHIGAN

House § 416, Senate § 225.—Senate recedes.SEC. 442. SCHUYLKILL RIVER, NORRISTOWN,

PENNSYLVANIA

House § 417. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 443. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL AREAS

Senate § 104(rr). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 444. SANTEE DELTA FOCUS AREA, SOUTHCAROLINA

House § 427, Senate § 104(oo).—House re-cedes.

SEC. 445. WACCAMAW RIVER, SOUTH CAROLINA

Senate § 104(pp). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 446. DAY COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA

House § 419. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.SEC. 447. NIOBRARA RIVER AND MISSOURI RIVER,

SOUTH DAKOTA

Senate § 104(ss). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 448. CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

House § 420. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.SEC. 449. MITCHELL’S CUT CHANNEL (CANEY FORK

CUT), TEXAS

House § 421. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 450. MOUTH OF THE COLORADO RIVER,TEXAS

House § 422. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 451. SANTA CLARA RIVER, UTAH

Senate § 104(tt). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 452. MOUNT ST. HELENS, WASHINGTON

Senate § 104(uu). No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 453. KANAWHA RIVER, FAYETTE COUNTY,WEST VIRGINIA

House § 423. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 454. WEST VIRGINIA PORTS

House § 424. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 455. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASINPROGRAM

House § 425, Senate § 223.—House recedeswith an amendment.

SEC. 456. GREAT LAKES NAVIGATIONAL SYSTEM

Senate § 104(aaa). No comparable Housesection.—House recedes.

SEC. 457. NUTRIENT LOADING RESULTING FROMDREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL

House § 426. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 458. UPPER MISSISSIPPI AND ILLINOISRIVERS LEVEES AND STREAMBANKS PROTECTION

House § 401. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.–

SEC. 459. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVERCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN

House § 402, Senate § 338.—House recedeswith an amendment.

SEC. 460. SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AND UPPERCHESAPEAKE BAY

No comparable House or Senate section.TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 501. CORPS ASSUMPTION OF NRCS PROJECTS

501(a) Llagas Creek, California. House § 501(a),Senate § 101(a)(5).—Senate recedes.

501(b) Thornton Reservoir, Cook County, Illi-nois. House § 501(b), Senate § 102(b)(2).—House recedes.

SEC. 502. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE

House §502 and §517. No comparable Senatesection.—Senate recedes with an amend-ment.

SEC. 503. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT DREDGINGTECHNOLOGY

House § 503, Senate § 230.—Senate recedeswith an amendment.

SEC. 504. DAM SAFETY

House § 504. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.SEC. 505. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS

House § 505. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 506. PROJECTS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OFTHE ENVIRONMENT

House § 506, Senate § 224.—House recedes.SEC. 507. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION

CHANNELS

House § 507, Senate § 104(s) and § 104(v).—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 508. MEASUREMENT OF LAKE MICHIGANDIVERSIONS

House § 508, Senate § 102(m).—House re-cedes.

SEC. 509. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVERENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

House § 509, Senate § 314.—House recedeswith an amendment.

SEC. 510. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORKMONITORING

House § 510, Senate § 229.—House recedes.SEC. 511. WATER CONTROL MANAGEMENT

House § 511. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 512. BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGEDMATERIAL

House § 512. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 513. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTIONASSISTANCE

House § 513. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 514. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPIRIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

House § 514, Senate § 210.—House recedes.SEC. 515. IRRIGATION DIVERSION PROTECTIONAND FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT ASSISTANCE

House § 515, Senate § 226.—House recedeswith an amendment.

SEC. 516. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FORWATERSHED RESTORATION

House § 516. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 517. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAINPROJECTS.

House § 318, § 518 and § 574, Senate § 307 and§ 313.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 518. DOG RIVER, ALABAMA

House § 519. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 519. LEVEES IN ELBA AND GENEVA,ALABAMA

House § 520 and 521, Senate § 333.—House re-cedes.

SEC. 520. NAVAJO RESERVATION, ARIZONA, NEWMEXICO, AND UTAH

House § 522. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 521. BEAVER LAKE, ARKANSAS

House § 524, Senate § 102(c).—House recedes.

SEC. 522. BEAVER LAKE TROUT PRODUCTIONFACILITY, ARKANSAS

House § 525. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 523. CHINO DAIRY PRESERVE, CALIFORNIA

House § 526. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 524. ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA

House § 528. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 525. RUSH CREEK, NOVATO, CALIFORNIA

House § 527. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 526. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA

House § 530. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 527. LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN,FLORIDA

House § 532. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 528. MAYO’S BAR LOCK AND DAM, COOSARIVER, ROME, GEORGIA

House § 534. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 529. COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD IMPACT RE-SPONSE MODELING SYSTEM, CORALVILLE RES-ERVOIR AND IOWA RIVER WATERSHED, IOWA

House § 535, Senate § 318.—House recedeswith an amendment.

SEC. 530. ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTIONASSISTANCE IN ILLINOIS

House § 536. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 531. KANOPOLIS LAKE, KANSAS

House § 537, Senate § 324.—House recedeswith an amendment.

SEC. 532. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY

House § 538. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 533. SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA

House § 539. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

Because the Corps of Engineers has enteredinto project cooperation agreements (PCA’s)with respect to the projects identified in theSoutheast Louisiana Project Technical Re-ports, dated April 1996, May 1996, and May1996, the conferees understand that theseprojects meet the requirements of section533(d) of WRDA 1996. This determinationcould only be modified by a subsequent de-termination made by the Chief of Engineersat his sole discretion.

SEC. 534. SNUG HARBOR, MARYLAND

House § 540. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H7315August 5, 1999SEC. 535. WELCH POINT, ELK RIVER, CECIL

COUNTY, AND CHESAPEAKE CITY, MARYLAND

House § 541. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 536. CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE,BUZZARDS BAY, MASSACHUSETTS

House § 544. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 537. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI

House § 545. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.SEC. 538. BEAVER BRANCH OF BIG TIMBER CREEK,

NEW JERSEY

House § 546. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 539. LAKE ONTARIO AND ST. LAWRENCERIVER WATER LEVELS, NEW YORK

House § 547. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 540. NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NEWYORK AND NEW JERSEY

House § 548. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.SEC. 541. SEA GATE REACH, CONEY ISLAND, NEW

YORK, NEW YORK

House § 549. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 542. WOODLAWN, NEW YORK

House §550. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 543. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, NEW YORK

House § 551. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.SEC. 544. TOUSSAINT RIVER, CARROLL TOWNSHIP,

OTTAWA COUNTY, OHIO

House § 553, Senate § 104(nn).—Senate re-cedes.

SEC. 545. SARDIS RESERVOIR, OKLAHOMA

House § 554, Senate § 312.—Senate recedes.The conferees understand the State of

Oklahoma may use a portion of the savingsfrom the buy-out to reduce the loan nec-essary to build a water distribution systemfor the surrounding area residents. The con-ferees also understand that the Sardis LakeAuthority, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma,and the State of Oklahoma may form an en-tity to benefit equally from the sale of sur-plus water from the appropriate agreed uponlake level of Sardis Lake.

SEC. 546. SKINNER BUTTE PARK, EUGENE,OREGON

House § 556. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 547. WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN, OREGON

House § 557, Senate § 201(e)(7).—Senate re-cedes with an amendment.

SEC. 548. BRADFORD AND SULLIVAN COUNTIES,PENNSYLVANIA

House § 558. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 549. ERIE HARBOR, PENNSYLVANIA

House § 559. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 550. POINT MARION LOCK AND DAM,PENNSYLVANIA

House § 560, Senate § 305(d).—Senate re-cedes.SEC. 551. SEVEN POINTS’ HARBOR, PENNSYLVANIA

House § 561. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 552. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA

House § 562. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.SEC. 553. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA-LACKAWANNA,

PENNSYLVANIA, WATERSHED MANAGEMENTAND RESTORATION STUDY

House § 563, Senate § 104(qq).—House re-cedes.

SEC. 554. AGUADILLA HARBOR, PUERTO RICO

House § 564. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 555. OAHE DAM TO LAKE SHARPE, SOUTHDAKOTA, STUDY

House § 565. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.SEC. 556. NORTH PADRE ISLAND STORM DRAINAGE

REDUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORA-TION PROJECT

House § 569, Senate § 323.—House recedeswith an amendment.

The conferees understand the authorizedproject is described in the Nueces CountyCommissioners Court report dated March 31,1997.

SEC. 557. NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA

House § 570. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 558. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION

House § 572, Senate § 231.—Senate recedes.SEC. 559. COASTAL AQUATIC HABITAT

MANAGEMENT

House § 573. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 560. ABANDONED AND INACTIVE NONCOALMINE RESTORATION

House § 575. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 561. BENEFICIAL USE OF WASTE TIRERUBBER

House § 576. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 562. SITE DESIGNATION

House § 577. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 563. LAND CONVEYANCES

House § 578, Senate § 334, § 320, § 102(q),§ 102(r), § 339, § 340.—Senate recedes with anamendment.

SEC. 564. MCNARY POOL, WASHINGTON

Senate § 339. No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 565. NAMINGS

House § 579, Senate § 308.—Senate recedeswith an amendment.SEC. 566. FOLSOM DAM AND RESERVOIR ADDI-

TIONAL STORAGE AND WATER SUPPLY STUD-IES.House § 580. No comparable Senate sec-

tion.—Senate recedes.SEC. 567. WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA

House § 581. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 568. DETROIT RIVER, DETROIT, MICHIGAN

House §582, Senate §104(bb).—Senate re-cedes with an amendment.

SEC. 569. NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA

House § 583. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 570. ALASKA

House § 584. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 571. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA

House § 585. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 572. SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AREAWATERSHED RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA.

House § 586. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 573. ONONDAGA LAKE

House § 587. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 574. EAST LYNN LAKE, WEST VIRGINIA

House § 588. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 575. EEL RIVER, CALIFORNIA

House § 589. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 576. NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS

House § 590. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes with an amendment.SEC. 577. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSISSIPPI

PLACE, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

House § 591. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—Senate recedes.

SEC. 578. DREDGING OF SALT PONDS IN THESTATE OF RHODE ISLAND.

Senate § 301. No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 579. SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN,PENNSYLVANIA

Senate § 302. No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 580. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND, FLOODPROJECT MITIGATION

Senate § 310. No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 581. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA

Senate § 311. No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.SEC. 582. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRO-

GRAM FOR COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVERSSALMON SURVIVAL

Senate § 315. No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 583. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL,CALIFORNIA

Senate § 317. No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 584. HOLES CREEK FLOOD CONTROLPROJECT, OHIO

Senate § 328. No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 585. SAN JACINTO DISPOSAL AREA,GALVESTON, TEXAS

Senate § 335. No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes with an amendment.

SEC. 586. WATER MONITORING STATION

Senate § 337. No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 587. OVERFLOW MANAGEMENT FACILITY,RHODE ISLAND

Senate § 329. No comparable House sec-tion.—House recedes.

SEC. 588. LOWER CHENA RIVER, ALASKA

No comparable House or Senate section.SEC. 589. NUMANA DAM FISH PASSAGE, NEVADA

No comparable House or Senate section.SEC. 590. EMBREY DAM, VIRGINIA

No comparable House or Senate section.SEC. 591. ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION, FRONT

ROYAL, VIRGINIA

No comparable House or Senate section.SEC. 592. MISSISSIPPI

No comparable House or Senate section.SEC. 593. CENTRAL NEW MEXICO

No comparable House or Senate section.SEC. 594. OHIO

No comparable House or Senate section.SEC. 595. RURAL NEVADA AND MONTANA

No comparable House or Senate section.SEC. 596. PHOENIX, ARIZONA

No comparable House or Senate section.SEC. 597. NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND

No comparable House or Senate section.TITLE VI. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE,

LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE, AND STATE OFSOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFEHABITAT RESTORATION.Senate §401. No comparable House sec-

tion.—House recedes with an amendment.Miscellaneous

PASSAIC RIVER, NEW JERSEY

House § 337. No comparable Senate sec-tion.—House recedes to Senate.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH7316 August 5, 1999The conferees understand that the Trans-

portation Equity Act for the 21st Century(P.L. 105–206) included funding for the designand construction of a facility for safe pedes-trian access, specifically an esplanade in thevicinity of Joseph G. Minish WaterfrontPark, Newark, New Jersey. The confereesunderstand it is the intent of the local pro-ponents that the esplanade is to have anoverall width of 600 feet. The conferees en-courage the Corps of Engineers to provide

appropriate technical assistance in the plan-ning of such project to ensure its coordina-tion with existing Corps’ projects and activi-ties along the Passaic River.

BUD SHUSTER,DON YOUNG,SHERWOOD BOEHLERT,RICHARD H. BAKER,JOHN T. DOOLITTLE,DON SHERWOOD,JAMES L. OBERSTAR,

ROBERT A. BORSKI,ELLEN TAUSCHER,BRIAN BAIRD,

Managers on the Part of the House.

JOHN H. CHAFEE,JOHN WARNER,BOB SMITH,GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,MAX BAUCUS,DANIEL MOYNIHAN,

Managers on the Part of the Senate.

N O T I C E

Incomplete record of House proceedings. Today’s House proceedings will be continuedin the next issue of the Record.

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.

.

S10267

Vol. 145 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 1999 No. 114

SenateThe Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was

called to order by the President protempore [Mr. THURMOND].

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. To-day’s prayer will be offered by ourguest Chaplain, Rev. Michael Coleman,Park United Methodist Church, Han-nibal, MO.

We are pleased to have you with us.

PRAYER

The guest Chaplain, Rev. MichaelColeman, offered the following prayer:

Almighty God, Your justice hasshown us that the righteous observanceof Your sacred law is necessary for anabiding and purposeful life. Your mercyhas taught us that none stand beforeYou in this life free of the influence ofsin upon our natures. So today we callourselves in humble obedience to thisChamber, for this session along withits purpose of caring for the welfare ofYour people.

We stand here today, as a govern-ment of leaders—as well as a land ofvarious peoples—united under YourWord. May we be inspired by Yourwords from II Chronicles 7:14: ‘‘If mypeople which are called by my name,shall humble themselves, and pray, andseek my face, and turn from theirwicked ways; then I will hear fromheaven, and will forgive their sin, andwill heal their land.’’

Divine Creator, we humbly requestthese things, in the spirit of all that isholy, and in the power of Your creativeinfluence. Amen.

f

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Honorable JOHN ASHCROFT, aSenator from the State of Missouri, ledthe Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:

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

RECOGNITION OF THE ACTINGMAJORITY LEADER

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Theable Senator from Virginia.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on be-half of the Senate leader, I shall ad-dress the Senate momentarily aboutthe calendar of events for the day, butI see my distinguished colleague fromMissouri, Mr. ASHCROFT, who had thegreat foresight and wisdom to invitethe Reverend Coleman as our guestChaplain.f

GUEST CHAPLAIN MICHAELCOLEMAN

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, Ithank the Senator from Virginia. Ithank in particular Rev. Mike Cole-man, of Hannibal, MO, for coming tothis Chamber today to call us to ourhighest and best. He prayed about jus-tice and he prayed about mercy, heprayed about the components of atti-tude and spirit that will help usachieve that which the people havesent us to do. The real opportunity wehave is to live at the maximums of ourexistence rather than to perform at theminimums. When we invite the pres-ence of the Almighty as we begin theseproceedings, we equip ourselves topoint toward the maximums instead ofto dwell on the minimums.

So as we approach this day, I thankRev. Mike Coleman for coming fromHannibal, MO, hometown of MarkTwain. I think it was Mark Twain, thephilosopher, who said there is nothingquite so embarrassing as a good exam-ple. Well, I do not think the Reverendis embarrassing to us, but he does set agood example as he calls us to ourhighest and best, and it is the prayer ofall of us together with him that todaywe would serve the people with com-passion and dignity and with justiceand mercy.

I thank the Chair and I thank theSenator from Virginia for allowing meto make these remarks.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thankmy colleague. It is a great pleasure forthose of us who join in the opening ofthe Senate to have the Pledge of Alle-giance to the flag. I have been here 21years, and at long last this essentialand I think necessary practice, whichis celebrated all over America everyday, particularly in the schools, and soforth, is now observed in the Senate.

The words of our guest Chaplaintoday were very stirring because thiscould be one of the final days in ourSenate life before we go on a recess,which will enable us to join our fami-lies and spend some time with our con-stituents and others.

I thank the Senator.Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield

for a brief comment?Mr. WARNER. Yes.Mr. BIDEN. I would like to welcome

the guest Chaplain as well and say, inlight of Mark Twain’s reputation, Rev.Coleman could have helped him a greatdeal in his attitude with a little en-lightenment in spiritual matters.

I think Hannibal could have used theReverend back in the time of MarkTwain. It might have been a little bitdifferent. I love Mark Twain, but hewas a little wry. And I just want every-one to know I recognize the irony ofthe guest Chaplain being from Han-nibal, MO, the home of Mark Twain.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senatoryield?

Mr. BIDEN. I would be delighted.Mr. ASHCROFT. It might have been

that Mark Twain got that educationafter he moved out East. He did end upmore in the territory of the east coast,but his roots were solid and good, nour-ished by the right values.

Mr. BIDEN. I have no question aboutthat.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if Imay just add a little to that colloquy,it is my recollection that Mark Twainhad some fairly pithy remarks on theCongress of the United States fromtime to time. Perhaps we should in-clude some of those in the RECORD. My

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10268 August 5, 1999mother came from St. Louis, MO, so Ifeel that I am particularly blessed bythe presence of this Chaplain today.

f

SCHEDULE

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, by pre-vious order, the Senate will begin 30minutes of debate on the Holbrookenomination; that is, the HonorableRichard Holbrooke, to be Ambassadorto the United Nations, with a vote tooccur at approximately 10 o’clocktoday. Following disposition of theHolbrooke nomination, the Senate willresume consideration of the Interiorappropriations bill with amendmentsexpected to be offered and debated. Inaddition, when the Senate receives thetax reconciliation conference reportfrom the House of Representatives, itis expected that the Senate will beginconsideration of that legislation.Therefore, Senators should expectvotes during the day and into theevening during today’s session of theSenate.

I thank my colleagues for their at-tention.

That is from the distinguished major-ity leader, Mr. LOTT.

f

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.HAGEL). Under the previous order, lead-ership time is reserved.

f

EXECUTIVE SESSION

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the Senate will gointo executive session to consider enbloc Executive Calendar Nos. 135 and140, which the clerk will report.

f

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

The legislative clerk read the nomi-nation of Richard Holbrooke, of NewYork, to be the Representative of theUnited States of America to the UnitedNations with the rank and status ofAmbassador Extraordinary and Pleni-potentiary, and the Representative ofthe United States of America in the Se-curity Council of the United Nations.

The legislative clerk read the nomi-nation of Richard Holbrooke, of NewYork, to be a Representative of theUnited States of America to the Ses-sions of the General Assembly of theUnited Nations.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, there now shall be30 minutes of debate equally divided tobe followed with the vote en bloc onthe nominations.

The Senator from Virginia.Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, I

thank the Senate leadership with re-spect to this nomination. It has been aunique one for various reasons. Theelements of that uniqueness are well

known to my colleagues. I shall notspeak in detail about the tradition of‘‘holds’’ but I think much of the gen-eral public is somewhat perplexedabout the procedures in the Senate.

There has been discussion as to theprocedure on this nomination and theuse of what is referred to as a ‘‘hold.’’There is a diversity of views withinthis body on the use of a ‘‘hold,’’ but,in my judgment, it is an important andproper procedure utilized by Senatorsin conjunction with what I view as thebalance of power established by theConstitution in the coequal branches ofthe Government: the executive branch,the power of nomination by the Presi-dent, and the Senate and its power ofadvice and consent.

The use of the hold is an exercise ofthat balance of power between the twobranches. In this instance, I thank thedistinguished majority leader and, ofcourse, the minority leader, and otherswho have worked to bring this nomina-tion to this point where today the Sen-ate will render its advice and consenton this very important nomination.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senatoryield?

Mr. WARNER. Yes. I thank manyother Senators who have worked withme—Senator HAGEL, Senator GRASS-LEY, Senator VOINOVICH, and my distin-guished colleague from Delaware, Mr.BIDEN who will be speaking momen-tarily. I yield for the comments of theSenator from Maryland.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, Iwant to put a question to the Senatoron the hold because I have been readingnewspaper reports that I think havecompletely misinterpreted how thehold process operates. These reportshave alleged that the Senate rules con-tain a provision that enables any Mem-ber of the Senate, in effect, to hold upaction either on a nominee or on legis-lation and sort of that is that. That isnot the case.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, theSenator is correct; it is tradition——

Mr. SARBANES. It is a courtesy thatis extended to a Member when heplaces a hold. The leadership can moveahead if the Member is being recal-citrant. Of course, it is up to Membersto exercise a hold with some self-re-straint. They may get the extra timethey need, but, in my judgement, itought not to be used as a weapon thatcompletely submerges the nominationor the legislation.

I interjected because I am very con-cerned. I have read a number of news-paper reports that seem to suggest thatthe rules of the Senate are such thatany Member can simply place a hold ona nomination and preclude any action.That is not the case. It is a courtesythat has been extended to Members bythe leadership, but the leadership canalways move ahead if they determine itis an urgent matter. Of course, they tryto work it out so Members are willingto have it come up. That is what hashappened in this instance.

I particularly express my apprecia-tion to the distinguished Senator from

Virginia for his efforts to try to movethis matter forward.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thankmy colleague from Maryland. He isquite accurate in his recitation of therules of the Senate. This is by tradi-tion. I suggest we not deal too muchwith what took place in the past onthis nomination, but I felt that thisRECORD this morning should reflect, forthose who are following the nomina-tion, my judgment with regard to thetradition of a Senator seeking a hold.

Again, it is part of that balance ofpower between the two branches. Forexample, Senator GRASSLEY, in hiscase, feels very strongly about the needto protect those individuals who arecommonly referred to as whistle-blowers. They should be protected.Senator GRASSLEY, after having talkedwith him many times, recognized theHolbrooke nomination is of impor-tance, but he carefully evaluated hisresponsibility as one of those leaders inthe Senate who have protected therights of whistleblowers. That is be-hind us.

Many Senators have worked on thisnomination. I express my appreciationagain to the leadership and those Sen-ators, particularly the Senator fromDelaware.

The facts about this nominee are wellknown. I have known him personallyfor a number of years. I have watchedhis distinguished career, and in thecourse of the morning, I will add somefacts. But I want to yield the floor mo-mentarily to my colleague from Dela-ware.

The point is that my concern aboutthis nomination and its timeliness isbecause of the fact that we now have inKosovo a force under the NATO Com-mand of General Clark, OperationJoint Guardian. While we had hopedthat this military operation wouldhave had a smooth operational history,in fact it has encountered many un-foreseen problems, problems where ourtroops and the troops of other nationshad to perform all types of diverse du-ties. Many of these young men andwomen who are courageously partici-pating in this operation have had noformal training in the military with re-spect to many of the responsibilitiesthey are now undertaking.

The United Nations, under a forceknown as United Nations Mission inKosovo, referred to as UNMIK, has hada very slow start getting organized andinto the field to perform duties thatare currently being performed by theNATO military.

One of the reasons for working to ac-celerate the consideration of this nom-ination is that in knowing Mr.Holbrooke and his forcefulness and hisbackground, he, I believe, is betterqualified than anyone else I know oftoday to take on this important postand to accelerate the functions of theUnited Nations in this region.

The sooner they get in, the less riskto the men and women of the ArmedForces currently undertaking manymissions which they are doing quite

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10269August 5, 1999well, despite the fact they have had lit-tle or no formalized training in oper-ating civil, local governments in thevillage of Kosovo. Fortunately, thisforce is under the command of theNATO Commander, General Clark.General Clark and AmbassadorHolbrooke have known each other formany years. They have worked to-gether. They participated in the Day-ton accords, for which AmbassadorHolbrooke deserves great credit, and Iwill have further comment on thatlater.

Also, Ambassadors, when they reportfor their duties, may be fortunate tohave a spouse who is quite interestedin those duties and perform as a team.This is going to be an extraordinaryhusband and wife team of RichardHolbrooke and Kati Marton, his wife.She is a noted authoress. She has rootsin central Europe. She is a beautifullyeducated and cultured woman. I havehad the privilege of knowing her for anumber of years. They will be an ex-traordinary team in this importantpost.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent to print in the RECORD a biog-raphy of Richard Holbrooke.

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

RICHARD C. HOLBROOKE

Richard C. Holbrooke was the chief nego-tiator for the 1995 Dayton Peace Accord,which served to bring peace and an end tohuman rights abuses in Bosnia, while servingas Assistant Secretary of State for Europeanand Canadian Affairs, from September 1994to February 1996. Beginning June 1997,Holbrooke served as Special PresidentialEnvoy for Cyprus, and in 1998 he was SpecialPresidential Envoy for Kosovo. Prior to be-coming Assistant Secretary of State, he wasU.S. Ambassador to Germany.

President Carter appointed him in 1977 asAssistant Secretary of State for East Asianand Pacific Affairs, a post he held until 1981.During his tenure, among other majorevents, the United States established fulldiplomatic relations with China. He is theonly person ever to hold two regional Assist-ant Secretary of State posts.

Holbrooke began his governmental careerin 1962, joining the Foreign Service imme-diately after graduating from Brown Univer-sity. After studying Vietnamese, he was sentto Vietnam and, in the following six years,served in a variety of posts related to Viet-nam—first in the Mekong Delta as a provin-cial representative working on rural develop-ment, for the Agency for International De-velopment (AID), and then as a staff assist-ant to Ambassadors Maxwell Taylor andHenry Cabot Lodge. In 1966 he was reassignedto the White House, working on the Vietnamstaff to President Johnson. During 1967–69,he wrote one volume of the Pentagon Papers,served as a special assistant to Undersecre-taries of State Nicholas Katzenbach and El-liot Richardson, and was a member of theAmerican Delegation to the Paris PeaceTalks on Vietnam, headed successively byAverall Harriman and Henry Cabot Lodge.

Following these assignments Holbrookespent a year as a fellow at the Woodrow Wil-son School at Princeton University. From1970 to 1972 he was Peace Corps Director inMorocco. In 1972, he took leave from the For-eign Service to become Managing Editor ofthe quarterly magazine Foreign Policy, a po-

sition he held until 1976. During 1974–75 healso served as a consultant to the President’sCommission on the Organization of the Gov-ernment for the Conduct of Foreign Policy,and was a contributing editor of Newsweekmagazine’s International Edition. In 1976 hecoordinated National Security Affairs for theCarter-Mondale presidential campaign.

In 1981 he move to the private sector, form-ing a consulting firm, Public Strategies,with James A. Johnson. He became a Man-aging Director at Lehman Brothers in 1985.As a banker and diplomat, he has traveled toover 100 countries, including over 65 trips toChina alone. He covered both domestic andforeign clients at Lehman Brothers, workingon a wide variety of transactions.

In 1992 he chaired the Bipartisan Commis-sion on Reorganizing the Government forForeign Policy.

His most recent position in the private sec-tor has been as Vice Chairman of CreditSuisse First Boston Corporation, based inNew York.

Holbrooke has had long involvement in thenon-governmental organization community.He is current Chairman of Refugees Inter-national; Chairman of the American Acad-emy in Berlin; Chairman of the National Ad-visory Council of the Harriman Institute,and a member of numerous Boards of direc-tors and committees.

Holbrooke adds the Eleanor Roosevelt Val-Kil Medal to a long list of distinguishedawards and honorary degrees already re-ceived. He is the author of ‘‘To End a War,’’on his Balkan peacemaking experiences, andco-author of Counsel to the President, thememoirs of Clark Clifford, as well as numer-ous articles on foreign policy.

Holbrooke was born on April 24, 1941 inNew York. He received a bachelor’s degreefrom Brown University. He has two sons,both television producers. He is married toauthor Kati Marton and lives in New York.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, thatconcludes my opening remarks. I mayhave further remarks about this nomi-nee, but I want to share the time nowwith my distinguised colleague fromDelaware. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ampleased the Senate is finally consid-ering the nomination of Richard C.Holbrooke to be the United States Rep-resentative to the United Nations.

Before stating my reasons why Istrongly believe that AmbassadorHolbrooke should be confirmed, let mebriefly review the process which led usto this day.

In June 1998, the President an-nounced his intention to nominate Am-bassador Holbrooke for the job of UNAmbassador. The formal nominationwas delayed, however, until Februaryof this year by an investigation into al-leged ethical violations by AmbassadorHolbrooke.

That investigation culminated in asettlement with the Department ofJustice in which AmbassadorHolbrooke agreed to pay five thousanddollars in civil penalties.

Once the Senate received the nomi-nation in February, the Committee onForeign Relations conducted its owninquiry, reviewing in great detail theinvestigation conducted by the StateDepartment Inspector General and theDepartment of Justice.

In June, the Committee conductedthree separate hearings on Ambassador

Holbrooke’s nomination, reviewingfirst the ethical matters, then review-ing issues related to the United Na-tions and UN reform, and then review-ing Ambassador Holbrooke’s involve-ment in United States policy towardthe Balkans.

On June 30 the Committee votedunanimously—on a voice vote—to re-port Ambassador Holbrooke’s nomina-tion to the full Senate.

Since the Committee reported Mr.Holbrooke’s nomination, it has beensubjected to a variety of reported‘‘holds’’ by several senators, only oneof which, as I understand it, had any-thing to do with Mr. Holbrooke’s quali-fications to be ambassador.

This delay is quite extraordinary fora position of this importance. The lasttwo UN ambassadors were confirmedon the same day that the Committeevoted, and in the last two decades, theSenate has, on average, voted withinfour days of the Committee’s vote.

But we have now worked through allthose and we are here today, for whichI am grateful to the Majority Leaderand the Chairman.

I believe the Senate should confirmAmbassador Holbrooke for a simplereason: he is highly qualified for thejob.

There are few people who have hadthe kind of diplomatic experience thatAmbassador Holbrooke has had.

Ambassador Holbrooke had been inpublic service since the early 1960s,when he entered the Foreign Service.Since then, he has served in a wide va-riety of diplomatic positions—in eachcase with distinction.

In the Carter Administration, heserved as Assistant Secretary of Statefor East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Ap-pointed at the age of 37, at the time hewas the youngest person ever ap-pointed as assistant secretary.

In 1993, Ambassador Holbrooke re-turned to government service as Am-bassador to Germany.

In September 1994, he became Assist-ant Secretary of State for Europeanand Canadian Affairs. Again, Ambas-sador Holbrooke established a prece-dent: he became the first person toserve as assistant secretary of state fortwo different geographic regions.

A key challenge facing him upon hisreturn to the United States was theconflict in Bosnia, which by then hadbeen raging since April 1992.

As Assistant Secretary, Mr. Hol-brooke helped design and implement astrategy that culminated in the sign-ing of the Dayton Accords in November1995, which brought an end to the Bos-nian war.

Of course, several people in the U.S.government deserve credit for the suc-cess at Dayton. But it cannot be deniedthat Ambassador Holbrooke—and thecreativity and tenacity he brought tothe task—was critical to bringingabout this diplomatic achievement.

In February 1996, for personal rea-sons, Ambassador Holbrooke resignedfrom full-time government service. At

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10270 August 5, 1999the request of Secretary of State Chris-topher, he remained available to under-take special missions and to advisesenior officials in the State Depart-ment. In 1997, President Clinton alsoasked him to become special Presi-dential envoy for Cyprus.

Throughout the three and one-halfyear period since leaving full-time gov-ernment service, Ambassador Hol-brooke has never been paid a dime forhis efforts.

Mr. President, I daresay that thereare few people with the diplomatic ex-perience that Mr. Holbrooke will bringto the job of UN ambassador. He hassignificant experience at high levels ofgovernment. He has deep experience intwo regions. And he has recently super-vised and managed a major diplomaticconference that culminated in the endof a tragic war.

Let me state it as bluntly as I knowhow: we need Dick Holbrooke in NewYork and we need him there now. Ithas been nearly a year since we havehad a UN ambassador.

The agenda facing the next UN am-bassador is a long one.

The United Nations is taking thelead in establishing a civilian adminis-tration in Kosovo. We need someonewith Dick Holbrooke’s skill and knowl-edge to make sure it gets done right.

The United Nations is greatly in needof reform. We have promised the UNthat we will pay nearly one billion dol-lars in back dues if these reforms aremade. Ambassador Holbrooke promisedthat UN reform will be his ‘‘highestsustained priority.’’ We need someonewith Dick Holbrooke’s negotiatingskills to help bring them about.

The UN Security Council remainsseized with the issue of dismantlingIraq’s arsenal of mass destruction. Weneed someone with Dick Holbrooke’stoughness to carry that task forward.

In sum, I believe AmbassadorHolbrooke has all the qualities nec-essary to be an excellent UN ambas-sador, and I believe that the Senateshould confirm him forthwith.

Let me turn briefly to the issues thatdelayed Mr. Holbrooke’s nomination.

Last July, soon after the Presidentannounced his intention to nominateMr. Holbrooke, an anonymous letterarrived in the Office of the InspectorGeneral at the Department of State al-leging that Ambassador Holbrookemay have violated ethics laws and reg-ulations.

Spurred by this letter, the InspectorGeneral opened a wide-ranging inves-tigation that took over five months,involved dozens of interviews, and theproduction of thousands of pages ofrecords.

Earlier this year, while the nomina-tion was pending, the Inspector Gen-eral opened a second investigation, thistime based only on an oped article inthe Washington Post.

The first investigation culminated ina civil settlement between AmbassadorHolbrooke and the Department of Jus-tice in which Ambassador Holbrooke

agreed to pay five thousand dollars tosettle allegations that he violated Sec-tion 207(c) of Title 18 of the UnitedStates Code.

To this day, Ambassador Holbrookedenies that he violated the law, but hesettled the matter in order to avoidfurther delay of the nomination. Thesecond investigation was closed almostas quickly as it was opened, with nopunishment imposed against Ambas-sador Holbrooke.

The Committee obtained the thou-sands of pages of documents that wereproduced in the investigations of Am-bassador Holbrooke, and has reviewedthem independently.

I have reviewed all these mattersclosely, and I do not believe that theyeven begin to rise to the level wherethey should be considered disquali-fying.

I do not make this statement lightly.I am a strong supporter of the ethicslaws, and believe they must be rigor-ously enforced. Government employ-ees, as Ambassador Holbrooke stated inhis first hearing before the Committee,must maintain the public trust.

I have known Richard Holbrooke fortwo decades, and am presumptuousenough to call him a friend. I do notbelieve that he is an unethical person,and I find totally inconsistent with hischaracter any suggestion that he is.

On the contrary: Dick Holbrooke is adedicated public servant who, as therecord compiled by the Committeedemonstrates, willingly devoted doz-ens—if not hundreds—of hours to as-sisting the government in the past sev-eral years, to the detriment of his com-mitment to his private employer.

Every senator can be assured thatthe Committee has left no stoneunturned.

The Committee sought and receivedaccess to every document reviewed bythe investigators, and received accessto internal documents of the WhiteHouse, the Department of State, andthe Department of Justice, includingthe memorandum setting forth the rea-sons why a criminal prosecution of Mr.Holbrooke was not warranted.

Mr. President, my friend from Vir-ginia is very diplomatic. My friendfrom Virginia is a man of grace andelegance. My friend from Virginia is aman who is able to get things done notmerely because of his intellect but be-cause of his style.

I am not as elegant as my friend fromVirginia, so I will just say it out loud.This would not have happened withoutmy friend from Virginia. The truth ofthe matter is, it took a Republican ofstature, seniority, and influence in thisarea to break this loose. He is going toget mad at my saying this, but I thinkit is a shame that was required, but Ithank him for it because he was relent-less over the last 5 months in trying toget us to this point today.

I will ruin his reputation here, butthe President owes him a debt of grati-tude, the Nation owes him a debt ofgratitude, the Senate owes him a debt

of gratitude, and Mr. Holbrooke, Iknow, is grateful for his effort. Becauseas the Senator from Virginia indicated,there is a significant agenda facing ournext Ambassador to the United Na-tions.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if theSenator will yield, I appreciate histhoughtful remarks, but, again, it wasa team effort by a number of us, in-cluding the Senator from Delaware.

I want to make the point here, thedistinguished chairman of the ForeignRelations Committee, Mr. HELMS, andSenator BIDEN’s colleagues on thatcommittee held a hearing. There was aunanimous vote, and Mr. HELMS re-ported this nomination to the floor. Itdid pass through there with the ap-proval of the committee on which theSenator serves.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I neverhad a doubt, nor did any of my col-leagues, that if we ever got any forumin which we could discuss the qualifica-tions of Richard Holbrooke, he wouldwin unanimously. We never doubtedthat. But it took a lot to get it to theForeign Relations Committee, to get avote in the Foreign Relations Com-mittee, and once it got to the floor, tomove it forward.

I want to say something about theseholds. I have been here 27 years. I havebeen a sitting Senator longer than theSenator from Virginia. There are onlyseven people who have been in the en-tire Senate longer than I. We have lostour sense of proportion. Holds havenothing to do with—nothing to dowith—the balance of power here whenused in the fashion they were used.

Let me explain what I mean by that.It is one thing to say, I am going tohold up that bill from passing becausethe bill left out two bridges in myState that are critical to the commerceof my State. There is a correlation be-tween the spending of money and theimpact on my State—a sense of propor-tion.

If I say that I am going to hold upthe next Director of NASA because Iwant answers on how the space pro-gram is going to work, that is reason-able. There is a sense of proportion.There is a relationship between NASAand the head of NASA.

But when I was chairman of the Judi-ciary Committee for several years, orwere I to become chairman of the For-eign Relations Committee, and I said:By the way—and, by the way, thechairman of the Foreign RelationsCommittee did not do this—were I tosay: You know, I realize the Presi-dent’s nominee for the Supreme Courtmay be a good guy, or good woman, butI’m going to hold her up because theDover Air Force Base is being closed,that is no sense of proportion, that isan abuse of power—an abuse of power.That is totally unreasonable.

Let’s get straight what this wasabout. We held up one of the singlemost important foreign policy per-sonnel decisions to be made by this ad-ministration. And not a person in this

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10271August 5, 1999Senate would disagree with that asser-tion. Why? Because one Senator want-ed someone on the Federal ElectionCommission whom he did not get, andanother Senator thought that somesecond-tier person who worked at theU.S. mission to the U.N., who in factwas disciplined, should not have beendisciplined.

The process in the law that calls forreview of that person’s case is under-way. The person who helped write thatprocess into the law decides that theprocess isn’t working quickly enoughor getting the result he wants, so theyhold up the Ambassador to the UnitedNations at this moment in our history.

I respect both the gentlemen who didthose things personally, but I respect-fully suggest—as we Catholics say,when you are a little kid and you go toconfession, they say you learn to exam-ine your conscience. Go examine yourconscience and tell me whether there isany sense of proportion.

As I stated earlier, since 1981, in thecase of nominations for UN ambas-sador, the average amount of time—thenumber of days between the time thatnominee was reported by the ForeignRelations Committee and the time thatthat nominee was voted on in the Sen-ate was 4 days—4 days.

The reason I mention this is, youknow what I am afraid of? I say to myfriend from Virginia and my Repub-lican colleagues. When the DemocraticParty takes control, we are going tolearn wrong lessons from you all, weare going to learn the wrong lessons.

I remember when I was chairman ofthe Judiciary Committee, we had theClarence Thomas nomination. BeforeAnita Hill came along we had a vote,and it was 7–7. Guess what. Tech-nically, that means he did not getenough votes to be voted out. I hadsome very liberal Democrats, hard-edged Democrats, like your hard-rightRepublicans, say: Mr. Chairman, it’swithin your power not to report him tothe floor.

How responsible would it have beenfor me, as the chairman of the com-mittee—which I could have done—toprevent the Senate from voting on aSupreme Court nominee? The Repub-licans would have done that, based ontheir conduct on this nomination. Andguess what. If it happens again, markmy words, Democrats are going to jointhis place who are going to learn allthe wrong lessons from this abuse ofpower, this lack of proportionality.

I am not going to say any more aboutit. The reason I am not is that it isdone. But I really, truly hope and pleadwith my colleagues, on both sides ofthe aisle, have a sense of proportionhere. We dodged a bullet here becauseof the incredible work of SenatorHELMS and Senator WARNER on the Re-publican side and the eventual yieldingon the part of others. Reason ulti-mately prevailed. But this is a bad,bad, bad practice; and this is a good,good, good nominee.

I will conclude, because others wantto speak, by stressing two points about

Mr. Holbrooke. One, in all my years inthe Senate, no one in the Senate whohas come before our committee is morequalified to do the job for which he hasbeen nominated than this man—none;not one.

Secondly, this is an ethical man.This man’s ethics have been questionedunder what I believe to be an aberra-tion. We put in the law—and I voted forinspectors general, but guess what. Thelaw can be triggered by an article in anewspaper. That can hold up a nomina-tion for months and months, requiringintensive investigation. This is themost investigated man we have had forthe United Nations, and there is not anunethical drop of blood in this guy’sveins.

So I think there are three things wehave to do.

Let’s put this man in place. Let thisincredible energy and intellectualhorsepower that this fellow has go towork on behalf of America. Two, let’sreexamine whether or not we exercisedany proportionality here in holdingthis up. And three, I would ask my col-leagues on both sides of the aisle toconsider joining with me and goingback and relooking at the way in whichthe inspector general’s office is trig-gered and worked so we avoid this kindof thing in the future.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senatoryield me 2 minutes?

Mr. BIDEN. Yes.Mr. WARNER. If I might just advise

my colleagues, the previous order isthat the Senate will vote at 10. I askunanimous consent that that be ex-tended to, say, 10 minutes after 10, toafford other colleagues an opportunityto contribute their remarks. I amsorry, but the leader is very anxious,given the heavy calendar of worktoday, and I think it is important weproceed to this nomination. So if eachof the remaining Senators can take 1or 2 minutes, that would be helpful.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes. I object. Mr.President, I am sorry, but I would liketo have up to 5 minutes, and I did notrealize I would be shut off.

Mr. WARNER. We will just accommo-date the 5 minutes, then. I ask unani-mous consent that the Senator fromTexas have 5 minutes. What are the re-quests of the other Senators? Two orthree minutes? So I ask unanimousconsent that we go to the hour of 10:15,at which time we then, hopefully—havethe yeas and nays been ordered, Mr.President?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, theyhave.

Is there objection to the unanimousconsent request?

Without objection, it is so ordered.Several Senators addressed the

Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Maryland.Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise

in strong support of the nomination ofRichard Holbrooke to be the United

States representative to the United Na-tions with the rank of Ambassador.Ambassador Holbrooke has renderedsuperb service to our Nation during thecourse of his career. His diplomatic ex-perience makes him an ideal choice forthis very important position.

We need good, strong leadership atthe United Nations. We have been with-out a permanent representative nowfor an extended period of time. An able,competent, skillful diplomat can makea big difference in terms of serving thenational interests of our country.

Dick Holbrooke has had an illus-trious career. He joined the ForeignService in 1962. He had assignments inVietnam, where he worked closely withAmbassador William Porter, Ambas-sador Maxwell Taylor, and AmbassadorHenry Cabot Lodge. From the very be-ginning he was right in the middle ofthe decisionmaking arena and was rec-ognized for his extraordinary talents.He was the Director of the Peace Corpsin Morocco. He then left the Govern-ment for a while and was a managingeditor of Foreign Policy magazine, oneof our leading foreign policy thinkmagazines, where he did an out-standing job. In the mid-1970s, he wassenior consultant to the President’sCommission on the Organization of theGovernment for the Conduct of ForeignPolicy.

This is a man who has committed hisentire career to analyzing and enhanc-ing the foreign policy of the UnitedStates in the name of serving our na-tional security interests. He held twoassistant secretaryships within the De-partment of State: Assistant Secretaryfor East Asian and Pacific Affairs andAssistant Secretary for European andCanadian Affairs. He has also served ina very distinguished way as our Am-bassador to Germany.

I have worked closely with him in hiscapacity as Presidential Special Envoyto Cyprus, where he has striven might-ily to try to move that issue forward.

He will do a terrific job at the UnitedNations. He has done an excellent jobin every government position he hasheld. His commitment and dedicationare obvious for all to see. I think theSenator from Delaware was right insaying that there were attacks on DickHolbrooke’s character which were ex-tremely unfortunate and without basisor justification. To his credit, he with-stood all of that. A lesser person mighthave walked away and said: Who needsto put up with this? But he has a driv-ing sense of serving the country andserving the national interest.

Dick Holbrooke has addressed dif-ficult, complex foreign policy issues inan extremely incisive and competentway. We need that skill at the UnitedNations. That is the skill he will bring.I am relieved that the nomination is fi-nally before us for judgment.

I urge my colleagues to support thenomination of Dick Holbrooke to beour Ambassador to the United Nations.He will serve our Nation and, indeed,the world well in this position.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10272 August 5, 1999I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ROB-

ERTS). The Senator from Connecticut.Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today we

consider the nomination of RichardHolbrooke to the position of UnitedStates Permanent Representative tothe United Nations. I would say thatthis debate is long overdue.

The United Nations is a very impor-tant tool in America’s foreign policyarsenal and our ambassador to the U.N.is the key to unlocking that power. Forthe past ten months, however, thatpost has stood vacant, thereby degrad-ing our influence at the U.N. Today wehave an opportunity to correct thatomission and restore some of theUnited States’ leadership in that worldbody.

There are few things the UnitedStates as a nation holds more dearthan the ideals our country was found-ed on nearly 223 years ago. We continueto lead the global fight for freedom, fordemocracy, for peace, and for respectfor human rights. For the past five dec-ades, it has been the United States’strong, clear and persistent voice inboth the Security Council and the Gen-eral Assembly which has convincedother nations to support those sameideals.

Looking back on those fifty years, itis clear that our work at the UnitedNations has, by and large, been a suc-cess. Today, the United Nations is oneof the most powerful champions ofhuman rights, freedom and peacearound the world. The U.S. has usedthe United Nations to support our for-eign policy in places as far flung asKorea, Libya, Iraq, and Bosnia.

Without the United Nations, the twosuspects in the bombing of Pan AmFlight 103 would probably never havefaced a judge to account for their ac-tions. Similarly, Saddam Husseinwould still be free to terrorize both hisneighbors and his own citizens. If itwere not for the United Nations spon-sored Implementation Force in Bosnia,war, bloodshed and genocide would stillrule that nation. Today, the United Na-tions is engaged in helping to imple-ment certain aspects of the peace set-tlement in Kosovo—which we all hopeand pray will put an end to the blood-shed there as well.

While we are all familiar with UnitedNations peace keeping efforts in Bosniaand Iraq, we must not forget that menand women wearing the U.N.’s signa-ture blue helmets are keeping thepeace in places as disparate as Angolaand Tajikistan. In all, there are cur-rently 16 different on-going peace keep-ing operations on four continents.

As we embark on the next stage ofinvolvement in Kosovo—one in whichthe United Nations will have an impor-tant role—it is tremendously impor-tant that we are represented in thatworld body. We must not allow any ad-ditional delay to further erode ourleadership.

Last fall, President Clinton tappedan exceedingly qualified diplomat to

head our delegation to the United Na-tions. Richard Holbrooke has servedour nation well in a wide variety ofposts—from Assistant Secretary ofState for two different regions to Am-bassador to Germany.

Today, many of our thoughts are fo-cused on the Balkans and this first realchance to bring peace to Kosovo. It isparticularly fitting, therefore, thatamong Ambassador Holbrooke’s great-est achievements are the Dayton PeaceAccords which ended the civil war andgenocide in Bosnia.

Five years ago, it was the war andethnic cleansing in Bosnia, not Kosovo,that captured the world’s attention. In-nocent civilians were murdered andraped simply on the basis of their eth-nicity. Venturing into the market tobuy food entailed the risk of instantdeath at the hands of snipers or sol-diers with a mortar on a nearby hill-top. Each day was a fight for survival.

Today, however, Bosnia is rebuilding.In 1995, talks held thousands of milesaway from the battlefields—in Dayton,Ohio—silenced the sounds of gunfireand ended the massive human rightsabuses. The man who brought theSerbs, Bosnians and Croatians togetherfor those talks and fought hard toreach a settlement is sitting before ustoday.

As Ambassador Holbrooke wellknows, it is often easier to wage warthan to make peace. In spite of thedaunting odds, however, AmbassadorHolbrooke did make peace and for thathe deserves our praise.

Following his return to the privatesector in 1996, Ambassador Holbrookecontinued to serve his country. With-out any compensation from the govern-ment, Ambassador Holbrooke focusedhis efforts on trying to end the disputeon the island of Cyprus and the blood-shed in Kosovo.

The success or failure of the Kosovoagreement it will be determined bywhether the United States, our NATOallies and Russia stay the course to-gether. The job of bringing this broadcoalition together and keeping it to-gether will not be an easy one, but it isone with which Ambassador Holbrookehas experience—experience we need atthe United Nations at this criticaljuncture.

It is important to mention the othercritical issue which is damaging ourreputation and effectiveness at theU.N.: our failure to pay our dues. Thefunds we owe the U.N. are formal trea-ty obligations, not optional contribu-tions. Today, we are in grave danger oflosing our vote in the General Assem-bly. Imagine the irony if the UnitedStates, one of the founders of theUnited Nations, loses its vote in thatorganization’s primary decision mak-ing body. The compromise ChairmanHELMS and Senator BIDEN worked outwith respect to our dues will go a longway to repairing the damage if we areable to convince our colleagues in theHouse to refrain from attaching poisonpills to this bill. We already missed one

opportunity to pass that compromise,namely the emergency supplementalappropriations bill. I remain hopeful,however, that the compromise, whichis a part of the Senate passed State De-partment Authorization bill and now inconference with the House will becomelaw before the end of this session ofCongress.

Now is the right time to confirm anew ambassador to the U.N. He has therequisite experience for the job and,even more importantly, is a provenpeacemaker.

Mr. President, in conclusion I add myvoice to those who have already spokenexpressing their gratitude to SenatorHELMS and Senator BIDEN, who are thechair and ranking member of the Sen-ate Foreign Relations Committee, forthe leadership that my friend and col-league from Virginia, the chairman ofthe Armed Services Committee, hasshown on this nomination, and formany others who have spoken on be-half of Richard Holbrooke, in manycases, not because they agree with thepolitics of Richard Holbrooke or nec-essarily agree with every position hehas taken on various public matters,but because there is an understandingthat in our country, regardless of ad-ministration and politics, we needgood, talented people, who analyzeissues well and bring an energy and apassion and a commitment to publicpolicy.

For those reasons, I am particularlygrateful to our friends on the otherside who may not agree with RichardHolbrooke but understand he is a tal-ented human being.

I underscore the point that SenatorSARBANES made. Too often we discour-age good people in this country fromserving their Nation because we havecreated a gauntlet that one has to gothrough prior to confirmation that willdiscourage other people from eventhinking about going through thisprocess. What you expose yourself andyour family to to take on positions toserve your country is becoming far toomuch. I think as a body we ought totake a closer look at what we ask peo-ple to go through whom we ask toserve their Nation.

Richard Holbrooke has a distin-guished career, as Senator SARBANESand Senator WARNER and others havepointed out, going back more than 30years. He has been through an awful lotover the last year and a half, almost 2years now.

I particularly am concerned aboutthe inspector general at the State De-partment, as my colleagues on the For-eign Affairs Committee know. I havewritten an amendment, which wasadopted, that requires that those peo-ple in the State Department who areaccused of wrongdoing have a right—Iknow this sounds like a radicalthought—to know what they are ac-cused of and have an opportunity to re-spond to the accusation before the re-ports are written. That is not the casetoday.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10273August 5, 1999Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator

yield?Mr. DODD. I am glad to yield.Mr. SARBANES. Does the Senator

mean that at the moment you are notpermitted to find out what the chargesare and the nature of the accusations?

Mr. DODD. That is absolutely cor-rect. In the case of Richard Holbrooke,he was not allowed to find out what thecharges were against him for well overa year. A common criminal accused ofa felony in this country has that right.It seems to me if we have a system in-side our government where a mere ac-cusation of someone can result inmonths and months of delay or publicretribution, not to mention legal coststo defend yourself, something is ter-ribly wrong with that process. We aretrying to correct it.

Again, I don’t want to spend the timetalking about the problems we havebut to commend one individual for per-sistence, who wants to serve his coun-try, who is going to do, in my view, aremarkably fine job for all of us. I amsorry it took so long for him to arriveat this point, but I am grateful he has.Again, for those who made it possible,I thank them and am confident thatRichard Holbrooke will serve our Na-tion well.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The dis-

tinguished Senator from Texas is rec-ognized for 5 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Iwill speak about why I am going tovote against the Holbrooke nomina-tion. I start by saying, I have never puta hold on this nomination. I thoughtthe process should go forward in duecourse. I think Richard Holbrooke is aprincipled man. I think he is a com-mitted public servant. I admire his te-nacity, his dedication. I have nothingpersonal against Richard Holbrooke.

I am voting against him because Idisagree with the policy that he hasput forward in the Balkans. I justcan’t, in good conscience, vote forsomeone who I think is taking ourcountry in the wrong direction.

This is his policy: that the UnitedStates should spend billions of dollars,wear and tear on our equipment andour troops, stretching our military fora goal that I believe is not achievable.

I would commit our military imme-diately if I thought the goal and themission were the correct one, but I be-lieve our policy in the Balkans is toforce factions to live together in anAmerican model, when the cir-cumstances are different from any wehave ever had in our country. I don’tthink we can put American require-ments into the Balkans with anychance to succeed.

We have had a policy that the UnitedStates could use force of vast propor-tions without strategically assessingwhat would be more proportional re-sponses in line with our own securitythreat and our other responsibilities inthe world. Richard Holbrooke did notallow the United States, through his

policies, to lift the arms embargo onone faction in Bosnia, so one group wasunarmed against two groups that werearmed. I think if we had lifted the armsembargo 3 years before the Dayton ac-cords, those people would have had afair chance. I don’t think we wouldhave seen the mass slaughter of theMoslems that we did. I disagree withthat policy.

We never looked at the opportunityfor self-determination in the Balkans.We never looked at the opportunity tolet these people form governmentswithin their ethnic groups. They are 98percent in ethnic groups now in Bosnia,but we are still trying to force them tohave a coalition government. If wewalked out today, I think every expertwould agree the fighting would con-tinue.

The Washington Post yesterday hada headline, ‘‘NATO Losing Kosovo Bat-tle.’’ This was not a headline 2 monthsago. It was yesterday.

The reason is, we have a policy in theBalkans that I think is going to hurtour own national security by over-deploying our military troops, by wearand tear on our equipment, by not hav-ing a sense of proportion in looking forother options, not looking at all of ourcommitments in the world, but insteadtrying to force an American model thatI think is unrealistic today.

I think there are other options to tryto help the people in the Balkans cre-ate stability with self-determinationand then, eventually maybe, theywould be able to live closer together inharmony.

Mr. President, I want to say I amonly voting against Mr. Holbrooke onhis foreign policy principles, not onhim as a person. I will say again that Ithink he is a committed public servant.I think he is tenacious in his beliefs,and I admire that in a person. I just be-lieve that our foreign policy is going inthe wrong direction in this country. Ithink we are going to pay a high pricefor it, and I think Richard Holbrooke isone of the architects of this policy thatI believe is quite erroneous. So, forthat reason, I will vote against RichardHolbrooke.

Thank you, Mr. President.Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I have

had a chance to discuss the role of theU.S. at the United Nations with thenominee on a number of occasions andI am confident that the President hasnominated the right man for the job.Mr. Holbrooke has a reputation forbeing a tough negotiator and a prac-ticed arm-twister and those are exactlythe attributes we need in our next Am-bassador to the United Nations.

It’s not going to be easy to get theUN to implement the Helms-Bidenpackage even though there is wide-spread agreement on the need for re-form. I believe Ambassador Holbrookehas the skills necessary to leverage ourposition as the most powerful nation inthe world—and as the largest contrib-utor to the UN—to ensure greatertransparency and accountability in

that organization. That is why I haveenthusiastically backed the nomina-tion of Mr. Holbrooke and look forwardto working with him in the future.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Istrongly support the nomination ofRichard Holbrooke to be America’sAmbassador to the United Nations, andI am pleased that the Congressionaldelay in reaching this vote has finallyended.

Richard Holbrooke has a long anddistinguished record of public serviceand is an outstanding diplomat. Heclearly has the necessary experience,background, and skills to ably rep-resent America’s interests at theUnited Nations.

Richard Holbrooke has served withgreat distinction in many previous ca-pacities, and all of us who know himhave great respect for his ability andjudgement. He has served as the Presi-dent’s Special Envoy to Cyprus, as As-sistant Secretary of State for Europeanand Canadian Affairs, as U.S. Ambas-sador to Germany, as Assistant Sec-retary of State for East Asian and Pa-cific Affairs, and as a Peace Corps Di-rector in Morocco.

Of his many extraordinary accom-plishments, he is best known for hisskillful work in presiding over the longand difficult negotiations to achievethe Dayton Peace Accords in 1995,which ended the war in Bosnia.

The United Nations is a complex in-stitution involving many internationalinterests, and I’m confident that Rich-ard Holbrooke will represent our coun-try well. Our representative must be anexceptional negotiator. RichardHolbrooke is a skilled negotiator withthe ability to articulate clearly ourcountry’s ideals and persuade othermembers of the international commu-nity to support these ideals as well.He’s an outstanding choice for thisvery important foreign policy position,and I’m proud to express my strongsupport.

Mr. SPECTER. I am pleased to votefor the confirmation of AmbassadorRichard Holbrooke to be United StatesAmbassador to the United Nations andeven more pleased to see the Senatevote on this important nomination inadvance of the August recess so thatAmbassador Holbrooke can start on hisimportant assignment.

Ambassador Holbrooke brings uniquequalifications to this position. Hebegan his government career in 1962joining the Foreign Service after grad-uating from Brown University. Amongthe many posts he has held are SpecialPresidential Envoy for Cyprus in 1997,Assistant Secretary of State for Euro-pean and Canadian Affairs, AssistantSecretary of State for East Asian andPacific Affairs, Peace Corps Director inMorocco and U.S. Ambassador to Ger-many. Ambassador Holbrooke was thechief negotiator for the Dayton PeaceAccord in Bosnia.

I had occasion to evaluate Ambas-sador Holbrooke’s work in some detailwhen I served as Chairman of the Intel-ligence committee which undertook a

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10274 August 5, 1999detailed investigation of the sale ofIranian arms to Bosnia. AmbassadorHolbrooke was involved in a complex,highly sensitive matter and he dis-charged his duties with profes-sionalism.

In undertaking the complex negotia-tions on Bosnia, AmbassadorHolbrooke again performed a greatservice for the United States. His lastminute negotiations with Yugoslavia’sPresident Milosevic, while unsuccess-ful, showed his unique talents whichwill be put to good use for our nationalinterest in his new capacity as U.S.Ambassador to the United Nations.

Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed theChair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The dis-tinguished Senator from Connecticut isrecognized.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.I believe the Senator from Virginiayielded a couple minutes to me earlier.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield2 minutes to the Senator from Con-necticut, and also to Senator HAGEL,who has been very helpful in this nomi-nation. At the conclusion of his re-marks, the vote will occur.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, Ifirst thank those who have finallybrought the nomination of RichardHolbrooke to the floor of the Senate,particularly the senior Senator fromNorth Carolina and the senior Senatorfrom Virginia, Mr. WARNER, who havedone yeoman’s work here in the na-tional interest.

Secondly, I wanted to say this aboutthe nominee himself, who I have beenprivileged to come to know. In myopinion, Richard Holbrooke is one ofAmerica’s great natural resources. Cer-tainly, he is one of our great diplo-matic resources. He has had a careerthat has been described in detail herethat puts him at the top ranks of thosewho have served America in the inter-national arena. He is a person of prin-ciple, purpose, intellect, and enormousenergy and talent. He combines thesense of American purpose, which, inci-dentally, is reflected in his work on be-half of the policy of the United States,representing the Commander in Chiefof the United States in regard to theBalkans, about which my friend fromTexas has just spoken. He combinesthat sense of American principle andthe continuing vitality of America’smorality in the world with extraor-dinary, tough-minded, practical, andinterpersonal diplomatic skills.

We are fortunate to have a person ofthis talent willing to serve our Nation.I am confident that he will advance ournational security and principled inter-ests in the United Nations. I am proudto support the nomination.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Nebraska is recognized.Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to

strongly support the nomination ofRichard Holbrooke to be this country’sAmbassador to the U.N. I was thinking

the other day when we were engaged inthe Foreign Relation Committee’sfourth hearing on Mr. Holbrooke —fourhearings on Mr. Holbrooke. We lookedrather closely and thoroughly at hispolicies, his background, his profes-sional and personal life. He did notcome up short in all of those areas. ButI was thinking, I don’t know if therehas been an individual who has beenmore probed and investigated for thisvery important position than Mr.Holbrooke.

I have believed for a long time thatthe President of the United States de-serves his team. As he nominates histeam for the Senate to pass judgmenton, give advice and consent, as con-stitutionally is our responsibility, ifthat individual possesses the highmoral quality and qualifications, andthe high professional standings, quali-fications, and experience, then thePresident needs his team.

I echo much of what has been saidthis morning about how important it isthat we get our Representative of theUnited Nations. Now, we have dif-ferences of opinion in philosophy andpolicy, and I appreciate that. EverySenator has his or her own position, asit should be. But I will say this as mylast comment about Mr. Holbrooke. Ihope and I believe he will make everyeffort to bring some bipartisanship toforeign policy. It seems to me that wehave allowed bipartisanship in foreignpolicy and national security affairs toerode and come undone to the pointwhere it is dangerous.

I believe both sides are responsible. Ithink the President hasn’t reached outenough, and I think we in the Congresshave made foreign policy and nationalsecurity affairs a more brittle, raw po-litical dynamic. If we don’t come backtogether, as bipartisanship needs to besewn back together in these very im-portant issues for the future of ourcountry and stability of the world, wewill pay a high price. I hope that Mr.Holbrooke will lead that effort.

I yield the floor.Mr. WARNER. I thank the distin-

guished Senator. He has been veryhelpful throughout the nominatingprocess.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All timehaving expired, the question is, Willthe Senate advise and consent to thenomination of Richard Holbrooke, ofNew York, to be the Representative ofthe United States of America to theUnited Nations with the rank and sta-tus of Ambassador Extraordinary andPlenipotentiary, and the Representa-tive of the United States of America inthe Security Council of the United Na-tions, and the nomination of RichardHolbrooke, of New York, to be a Rep-resentative of the United States ofAmerica to the Sessions of the GeneralAssembly of the United Nations duringhis tenure of service as Representativeof the United States of America to theUnited Nations, en bloc.

The yeas and nays have been ordered,and the clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk calledthe roll.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that theSenator from Idaho (Mr. CRAPO), andthe Senator from North Carolina (Mr.HELMS) are necessarily absent.

Mr. REID. I announce that the Sen-ator from Louisiana (Ms. LANDRIEU) isnecessarily absent.

I further announce that, if presentand voting, the Senator from Louisiana(Ms. LANDRIEU), would vote ‘‘aye.’’

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are thereany other Senators in the Chamber de-siring to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 81,nays 16, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 259 Ex.]YEAS—81

AbrahamAkakaAshcroftBaucusBayhBennettBidenBingamanBondBoxerBreauxBrownbackBryanBurnsByrdCampbellChafeeClelandCochranCollinsConradCoverdellDaschleDeWineDoddDomeniciDorgan

DurbinEdwardsFeingoldFeinsteinFitzgeraldFristGortonGrahamGramsGrassleyHagelHarkinHatchHollingsInouyeJeffordsJohnsonKennedyKerreyKerryKohlLautenbergLeahyLevinLiebermanLincolnLugar

McCainMcConnellMikulskiMoynihanMurkowskiMurrayReedReidRobbRockefellerRothSantorumSarbanesSchumerShelbySmith (OR)SnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondTorricelliVoinovichWarnerWellstoneWyden

NAYS—16

AllardBunningCraigEnziGrammGregg

HutchinsonHutchisonInhofeKylLottMack

NicklesRobertsSessionsSmith (NH)

NOT VOTING—3

Crapo Helms Landrieu

The nominations, en bloc, were con-firmed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The mo-tion to reconsider is laid upon thetable. The President will be imme-diately notified.f

LEGISLATIVE SESSIONThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ate will now resume legislative session.f

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORAND RELATED AGENCIES APPRO-PRIATIONS ACT, 2000—ResumedThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report the pending business.The legislative assistant read as fol-

lows:A bill (H.R. 2466) making appropriations

for the Department of the Interior and re-lated agencies for the fiscal year ending Sep-tember 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

Pending:Gorton Amendment No. 1359, of a technical

nature.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The dis-tinguished majority leader is recog-nized.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10275August 5, 1999Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before I

yield the floor to the distinguishedchairman of the Interior Appropria-tions subcommittee, I confirm againwe are going back to the Interior ap-propriations bill. We hope to and planto have debate on amendments begin-ning right away. We could have a re-corded vote on one of the amendmentswithin the next 15 to 30 minutes. Wewill continue working on the Interiorappropriations bill until we get anagreement as to exactly when to pro-ceed to the reconciliation conferencereport.

I will not propound a unanimous con-sent request at this time, but it is myhope we can get an agreement to beginat 1 o’clock on the consideration of areconciliation conference report, andwe debate it for 6 hours, of course,equally divided in the usual form, andthe vote then would occur around 7o’clock.

We do not have that worked out yet.If we require more time, if we have tobe in later, then of course the votewould go later in the night, perhaps 8o’clock or, if we cannot get thatworked out, we will go however long weneed to go tonight and we would voteon Friday morning sometime. But wehope to get an agreement where wecould complete that and have a votearound 7 o’clock tonight.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The dis-

tinguished Senator from Washington isrecognized.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in just amoment I will have several agreed-upon amendments to propound andhopefully they will be agreed to veryquickly.

Then Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire ishere with the first contested amend-ment. I hope we can finish as many asthree amendments that are likely torequire rollcalls between now and 1o’clock. After the Smith amendmentthat deals with the National Endow-ment for the Arts, I hope we will havean opportunity to go to an amendmentby Mr. GRAHAM of Florida and Mr.ENZI, relating to Indian gambling.While I have not found the Senator yet,I would like, after that, to go to anamendment by the Senator from Ne-vada, Mr. BRYAN, on forest roads. Oth-ers may intervene.

We also have a number of amend-ments that will be agreed upon fromtime to time. My own reading of ourlist of amendments is that they arereasonably limited, even at this point.Several require votes. I hope none willrequire a long and extensive debate.The majority leader wants, as early aspossible, to get an agreed-upon list ofamendments. I suspect we will be ask-ing for unanimous consent to say allamendments must be filed by, say,sometime this afternoon. So Memberswho have amendments about whichthey have not notified the managersare encouraged to do so as promptly aspossible.

I believe the majority leader wishesto finish this bill, as well as the rec-

onciliation bill on taxes, before the re-cess begins sometime tomorrow.

AMENDMENT NOS. 1563 THROUGH 1568, EN BLOC

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the pendingamendment be set aside and that weconsider six amendments en bloc whichI send to the desk. I will explain eachof these amendments, sponsored by aSenator and relating to projects withinthat Senator’s State or the two Sen-ators’ State, and simply shifts moneyamong projects within the States.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered. The clerkwill report.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:

The Senator from Washington [Mr. GOR-TON] proposes amendments numbered 1563through 1568, en bloc.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the reading ofthe amendments be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendments are as follows:AMENDMENT NO. 1563

(Purpose: To Increase Funds in the Bureau ofIndian Affairs Tribal College account by$700,000 with offset from Forest Serviceland acquisition on the San Juan NationalForest)On page 27, line 22, strike ‘‘$1,631,996,000’’

and insert ‘‘$1,632,696,000’’.On page 65, line 18, strike ‘‘$37,170,000’’ and

insert ‘‘$36,470,000’’.

AMENDMENT NO. 1564

(Purpose: To provide additional funding tothe United States Fish and Wildlife Serv-ice for activities relating to the Preble’smeadow jumping mouse, with an offsetfrom Forest Service Land Acquisition(Continental Divide Trail) in Colorado)On page 10, line 15, strike ‘‘$683,518,000’’ and

insert ‘‘$683,919,000’’.On page 10, line 23, before the colon, insert

the following: ’’, and of which not less than$400,000 shall be available to the UnitedStates Fish and Wildlife Service for use inreviewing applications from the State of Col-orado under section 7 of the Endangered Spe-cies Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536), and in assist-ing the State of Colorado by providing re-sources to develop and administer compo-nents of State habitat conservation plans re-lating to the Preble’s meadow jumpingmouse.’’.

On page 65, line 18, strike ‘‘$37,170,000’’ andinsert ‘‘$36,770,000’’.

AMENDMENT NO. 1565

(Purpose: To make unobligated funds avail-able for the acquisition of land in the Ot-tawa National Wildlife Refuge, for theDayton Aviation Heritage Commission,and for the preservation and restoration ofthe birthplace, boyhood home, and school-house of Ulysses S. Grant, Ohio)On page 62, between lines 3 and 4, insert

the following:SEC. 1 . FUNDING FOR THE OTTAWA NATIONAL

WILDLIFE REFUGE AND CERTAINPROJECTS IN THE STATE OF OHIO.

Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, from the unobligated balances appro-priated for a grant to the State of Ohio forthe acquisition of the Howard Farm nearMetzger Marsh, Ohio—

(1) $500,000 shall be derived by transfer andmade available for the acquisition of land inthe Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge;

(2) $302,000 shall be derived by transfer andmade available for the Dayton Aviation Her-itage Commission, Ohio; and

(3) $198,000 shall be derived by transfer andmade available for a grant to the State ofOhio for the preservation and restoration ofthe birthplace, boyhood home, and school-house of Ulysses S. Grant.

AMENDMENT NO. 1566

(Purpose: To transfer $700,000 in land acquisi-tion funds from the San Juan NationalForest (Silver Mountain) CO to the PatokaRiver National Wildlife Refuge, IN)On page 13, line 8: Strike ‘‘$55,244,000’’ and

insert ‘‘$55,944,000’’.On page 65, line 18: Strike ‘‘$37,170,000’’ and

insert ‘‘$36,470,000’’.

AMENDMENT NO. 1567

(Purpose: To provide funding for construc-tion of the Seminole Rest facility at theCanaveral National Seashore, Florida, withan offset from the J.N. Ding Darling Na-tional Wildlife Refuge, Florida)On page 13, line 8, strike ‘‘55,244,000’’ and

insert ‘‘$54,744,000’’.On page 17, line 19, strike ‘‘$221,093,000’’ and

insert ‘‘$221,593,000’’.

AMENDMENT NO. 1568

(Purpose: To provide $150,000 for the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Partners for Fish andWildlife Program within the Habitat Con-servation Program. This funding will sup-port the Nevada Biodiversity Research andConservation Initiative for migratory birdstudies at Walker Lake, Nevada. The in-crease in $150,000 for the Nevada Biodiver-sity Research and Conservation Initiativeis offset by a $150,000 decrease in the WaterResources Investigations Program of theU.S. Geological Service of which $250,000was directed for hydrologic monitoring tosupport implementation of the TruckeeRiver Water Quality Settlement Agree-ment (Senate Report 106–99, page 43))On page 10, line 15 strike the figure

‘‘$683,519,000’’ and insert in lieu thereof thefigure ‘‘$683,669,000’’ and on page 20, line 18strike the figure ‘‘$813,243,000’’ and insert inlieu thereof the figure ‘‘$813,093,000’’.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, theamendments are these:

Senator BURNS: Transfers $700,000 totribal colleges with an offset from aland acquisition in his State.

Senator CAMPBELL: $400,000 for ahabitat conservation program with anoffset in his State.

Senator DEWINE: Redirecting variousprojects within the State of Ohio.

The two Senators from Indiana, Sen-ators LUGAR and BAYH: $700,000 for aland acquisition and a wildlife refugeoffset by another land acquisition inthat State.

The two Senators from Florida, Sen-ators MACK and GRAHAM: A very simi-lar land acquisition offset.

And Senator REID of Nevada: A shiftof $150,000, again, within the State ofNevada.

I ask unanimous consent that all sixamendments be considered en bloc andaccepted en bloc.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, the amendments are agreedto.

The amendments (Nos. 1563 through1568) were agreed to.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I moveto reconsider the vote, and I move tolay that motion on the table.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10276 August 5, 1999The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The dis-

tinguished Senator from New Hamp-shire is recognized.

AMENDMENT NO. 1569

(Purpose: To eliminate funding for theNational Endowment for the Arts)

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr.President, on behalf of myself and Sen-ator ASHCROFT, I send an amendmentto the desk and ask for its immediateconsideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection to laying aside the pendingamendment? Without objection, it is soordered.

The clerk will report.The assistant legislative clerk read

as follows:The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr.

SMITH], for himself and Mr. ASHCROFT, pro-poses an amendment numbered 1569.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr.President, I ask unanimous consentthat the reading of the amendment bedispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:On page 94, strike lines 3 through 26.On page 106, beginning with line 8, strike

all through page 107, line 2.On page 107, lines 3 and 4, strike ‘‘National

Endowment for the Arts and the NationalEndowment for the Humanities are’’ and in-sert ‘‘National Endowment for the Human-ities is’’.

On page 107, lines 8 and 9, strike ‘‘for theArts and the National Endowment’’.

On page 107, lines 11 and 12, strike ‘‘for theArts or the National Endowment’’.

On page 108, beginning with line 12, strikeall through page 110, line 11.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr.President, my amendment to the Inte-rior appropriations bill is a very simpleone. It eliminates all funding for theNational Endowment for the Arts. Thisamendment has been considered by theSenate in the past, unfortunately un-successfully. I know where the votesare, but I believe it is important wemake a statement about this because Ido not believe the Federal Governmentshould be spending money for this.

This amendment does not try to re-form the agency. This amendment doesnot try to restructure the agency. Itsimply shuts it down in fiscal year 2000.

I want to take a little different tackon this. Many who have spoken in thepast on the National Endowment forthe Arts, as far as elimination of fund-ing, have focused heavily on some ofthe reprehensible and repulsive, frank-ly, types of material that has been dis-played and called ‘‘art.’’ I am not goingto do that this morning. Most Membersare fully aware of the kinds of thingsthat have been funded by this agency.

I remind every Member that we tookan oath to support the Constitution.All of us at one point stood right wherethe pages are now sitting and said thatwe would bear true faith and allegianceto the Constitution of the UnitedStates of America. I certainly believethat every Member took that oath seri-

ously. That is why I am hopeful Imight be able to persuade my col-leagues to support this amendment be-cause, frankly, whatever opinion youmay have of it, is unconstitutional tohave the National Endowment for theArts funded by the Federal Govern-ment. I can prove that.

A constituent challenged me on thisone time and wrote:

Where in the Constitution of the UnitedStates does it say that the Federal Govern-ment is authorized to fund art?

Let me repeat:Where in the Constitution of the United

States does it say that the Federal Govern-ment is authorized to fund art?

I challenge any of my colleagues toshow me that in the Constitution, andI will reconsider my amendment.

I offer this amendment because Ihave not been able to find this in theConstitution. The authors of our Con-stitution envisioned a government oflimited powers, and if it does not sayyou do it in the Constitution, then it isreserved to the people and the States.If the State or the people want to funda State endowment for the arts, Iwould not have a problem with that.That is entirely within their param-eters.

The framers made it clear—veryclear—that unless the Constitution ex-plicitly granted a power to the FederalGovernment, that power would be re-served to the States, to the localities,to civil society, or to the people.

I know there are many—and this isthe frustrating part for me—too manyin this body who reject that vision. Ihave been here going on 9 years, and itis very frustrating for me to watch theConstitution of the United States beingtrampled time after time. Just a weekor so ago, we passed more gun controlsand sent it to conference. Gun control,however you may feel about the needfor gun control, is unconstitutional be-cause we have a second amendmentthat says we have the right to keep andbear arms. Whatever you may feelabout that issue, we did not come hereto pass laws about our personal beliefs.We came here to pass laws that supportthe Constitution of the United Statesof America.

When we swear to uphold that docu-ment, we agree to live by that visionwhether we like it or not. Whether wedisagree or agree, we should live withthat vision. Regretfully, we do not al-ways do that here.

This amendment is my effort—just asmall effort—to move a little closer tothe founders, move a little closer tothat vision of limited constitutionalgovernment. It is interesting that Ihave to say move a little closer. Whydo we have to move closer to the visionof the founders when we are supposedto uphold the Constitution and enforcethat vision, not move a little closer toit. We should be there.

It is a bad idea. Whether it is con-stitutional or unconstitutional, it is abad idea to use taxpayers’ funds to sub-sidize art. But it is unconstitutional.

Whether it is a good idea or bad idea, itis unconstitutional, and that is thepoint I am making.

Most of my colleagues will recall thecontroversies in which this agency hasbeen embroiled. I referenced thembriefly in the beginning of my remarks.I am not going to get into all of it be-cause we have heard it before. Butfunding the exhibition ofsadomasochistic photographs, fundingthe exhibition of a photograph of a cru-cifix submerged in human waste, fund-ing the exhibition of a performance‘‘artist’’ who smeared chocolate acrossher naked torso, or how about theother NEA funding artist who exposedhis audience to HIV-infected blood—allof these things were funded by the tax-payers of the United States in thename of art.

Let me repeat that. Funding ofsadomasochistic photographs, fundingof a photograph of a crucifix submergedin human waste, funding of a so-calledperformance artist who smeared choco-late across her naked torso, and a manwho exposed his audience to HIV-in-fected blood, all funded by the tax-payers of the United States of America.

I ask you to reflect, if you are a tax-payer, on the fact that you work prettyhard for those dollars, and when youpay those taxes every April 15 to UncleSam, you probably hope it is used topreserve and protect and defend theUnited States of America, perhaps topromote education or some positivething. But do you really want yourmoney to go to this kind of so-calledart?

The question is, some people may saythis is art, but there are people outthere who will disagree. There are peo-ple who will say: If I want to put a cru-cifix in urine and call that art, I havea right to do that; it is a free country.You do. I will fight to my death to sayyou have a right to do that. I may notagree it is art, but that is your positionand you have a right to it.

But the question is, Is it constitu-tional to fund art? Even more so, Is itconstitutional to fund this kind ofstuff? Do you want your taxpayer dol-lars being spent for this? The sad partabout this—we have seen this in debateafter debate, in amendment afteramendment, year after year, as wetried to stop this. Senator HELMS hasbeen involved in this many times, tohis credit, as a leader in trying to ex-pose this agency. Senator ASHCROFT,who is my original cosponsor, has alsobeen involved in this and has been aleader on this.

But the defenders of the NEA, theNational Endowment of the Arts, al-ways tell you—you will hear it afterthe vote on this amendment, I am sure,if not before—that they believe theseoutrages are a thing of the past, thatall of the things I just cited about thecrucifix in human waste, and so forth,are all in the past: We have cleaned upthe agency. It is not happening any-more. It is old news. We heard you. Welistened, and we made the changes.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10277August 5, 1999I am sorry to tell you, that is not

true. I will prove that in a few mo-ments. Once you really understand theNEA, you will not be surprised to learnthat the outrages continue, and notonly do they continue, they are all toocommon in this agency.

Let me illustrate the point about agrant that made news earlier this year.The events surrounding this grant weredescribed in an article in the New YorkTimes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that this New York Times articlebe printed in the RECORD.

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

[From the New York Times, Mar. 10, 1999]

U.S. CANCELS GRANT FOR CHILDREN’S BOOKWRITTEN BY MEXICAN GUERRILLA

(By Julia Preston)

MEXICO CITY.—A macaw with scarlet andviolent plumes soars across the cover of abook called ‘‘The Story of Colors,’’ invitingchildren to read a folk tale about Mexicangods who took a gray world and filled it withbrilliant hues.

There are a few surprises, though, in thiseye-catching bilingual children’s book justpublished by a small publisher in El Paso,Texas, which won a grant from the NationalEndowment for the Arts.

Its author is Subcomandante Marcos, thepolitical mastermind and military strategistof the Zapatista guerrillas of southern Mex-ico. On the inside flap, he appears in a photowith a black ski mask hiding his face andbullet-laden ammunition belts slung acrosshis chest.

On Tuesday, the chairman of the Endow-ment, William J. Ivey—who is working to re-build the agency after its recent reprievefrom a death sentence issued by congres-sional Republicans—abruptly canceled thegrant for the book. Ivey overruled a multi-layered, year-long grant approval process,acting within hours after the book wasbrought to his attention by a reporter’sphone call.

He said he was worried that some of theEndowment’s funds might find their way tothe Zapatista rebels, who led an armed upris-ing in 1994 against the government of Mex-ico.

Ivey’s decision stunned the Cinco PuntosPress, a shoestring operation that had laidout $15,000 to print 5,000 copies of the book,half of which was to be paid by the Endow-ment grant. The books are ready to be dis-tributed and carry the Endowment’s logo onthe last page, together with an acknowledg-ment of ‘‘generous support’’ from the agen-cy.

‘‘This is spineless,’’ said Bobby Byrd, apoet and editor of books on border issueswho runs the publishing company with hiswife and daughter from their home in ElPaso. ‘‘This book is essentially about diver-sity and tolerance, everything the NEA issupposed to stand for, and they just don’thave the courage to publish it.’’

‘‘The Story of Colors’’ reflects a literacy,sometimes whimsical side that has distin-guished Subcomandante Marcos, the onlynon-Indian among the Zapatistas’ highestleaders, from other steely Latin Americanguerrilla commanders. (His real name isRafael Sebastian Guillen Vicente, and he is aformer university graphics professor.)

In the text, the masked rebel leader de-scribes himself as lighting up his pipe, one ofhis hallmarks, and sitting down on a junglepathway to hear a tale from an Indian elder

named Antonio. The old man recounts howmythical gods grew bored with the universewhen it was tinted only in grey, and wentabout inventing colors one by one. In the endthey pin all the colors on the tail feathers ofthe macaw.

The bird ‘‘goes strutting about just in casemen and women forget how many colorsthere are and how many ways of thinking,and that the world will be happy if all thecolors and ways of thinking have theirplace,’’ the text concludes.

The illustrations are bright, broad-strokedpaintings of gods with horns and bug-eyesdone by Domitila Dominguez, a Mexican In-dian artist.

Spun in the sensuous tradition of Latinstorytelling, the tale includes elements thatmight be controversial in the mainstreamAmerican children’s book market. As thestory opens, the text reads, ‘‘The men andwomen were sleeping or they were makinglove, which is a nice way to become tired andthen go to sleep.’’

The double-page illustration shows a re-clining naked woman in a sexual embracewith a figure that appears to be a male god.

There are no references to the Zapatistas’cause or their military tactics, but in acover blurb, Amy Ray, a member of the In-digo Girls, a Grammy-winning Americansong duo, says, ‘‘This beautiful book remindsus that the Zapatista movement is one ofdignity that emanates from the grassroots ofthe indigenous people of Mexico.’’

‘‘The most important thing is that it is abeautiful book,’’ said Byrd, whose press spe-cializes in bilingual children’s books. ‘‘A lotof our stories in the United States have beencleaned up with a politically correct senti-ment, and so much detail has been washedaway.’’

He added, ‘‘I can imagine how someonewould rewrite this for an Anglo audience,’’referring to non-Hispanic Americans. ‘‘Therewouldn’t be anybody smoking or makinglove.’’

‘‘The Story of Colors’’ was originally pub-lished in Spanish in 1997 by a press in Guada-lajara, Mexico called Colectivo Callejero,which supports the Zapatistas’ cause.

Byrd said that he provided a copy of theoriginal to the Endowment when he appliedfor the grant to translate it in March 1998.His first request, for $30,000 to translate atotal of five books, passed two levels of re-view at the agency but the funds were cutback to $15,000. Byrd said he conferred re-peatedly with literature experts at the En-dowment when he chose to leave ‘‘The Storyof Colors’’ in a revised grant request he pre-sented to translate only two books. CincoPuntos Press (the name means Five Pointsin Spanish) received a written notice in Feb-ruary that the funds had been approved. Theonly step left was for the agency to send themoney.

Ivey, the Endowment chairman, said thathe was not concerned about the book’s con-tents and had not seen the finished printedbook. When he went over the grant recordsMoney night, he said, he became worriedabout rights payments, which the El Pasopress had contracted to make to the pub-lishing group in Mexico.

‘‘There was an uncertainty about the ulti-mate destination of some part of the funds,’’Ivey said. ‘‘I am very aware about disbursingtaxpayer dollars for Americans’ cultural life,and it became clear to me as chairman thatthis just wasn’t right for the agency. It wasan inappropriate use of government funds.’’

An Endowment official, who spoke on thecondition of anonymity, said that it is veryunusual for the chairman to step in at thelast moment to override the work of severalreview committees, including the 26-memberNational Council on the Arts, which includessix federal lawmakers.

Byrd said he had made it clear in his grantproposal that no part of the grant would goto the author, Subcomandante Marcos, be-cause the guerrilla leader has declared hedoes not believe in copyright and formallywaived his rights in talks with the Mexicanpress. Byrd said that rights would be paid tothe Guadalajara Press for the use of the art-work.

When Republicans gained control of theCongress in 1995, they were frustrated withthe Endowment’s support for art works theyregarded as offensive and vowed to eliminatethe agency. But the House moderated itsviews under election year pressures andvoted overwhelmingly in July 1998 to keepthe agency alive.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Thisgrant had to do with a grant to a pub-lisher for a children’s book. Listencarefully, a children’s book. This was agrant to a publisher for a children’sbook, paid for by the taxpayers underthe National Endowment of the Arts,at a time—recently—when we had beentold that the agency had cleaned up itsact and that this was no longer preva-lent; no longer do they do these ter-rible things I just mentioned.

The grant that I am referring to forthis children’s book had been approvedat every level of the NEA’s reviewprocess. It was canceled at the lastminute by the agency’s chairman.

Somebody might say: Well, there yougo. It worked. They stopped this grantfor a children’s book; it wasn’t appro-priate for children. So what is your ar-gument, Senator?

Let me finish. Why did they cancel atthe last minute? Because the Chairmanof the NEA found out that the book’sauthor was a Mexican guerrilla leader.The chairman was afraid that the roy-alties would benefit the Mexican guer-rillas. So the reason for the grant can-cellation was because of the Mexicanguerrilla group, not because of the con-tent.

Let’s take a look at the content. TheNew York Times reported that thischildren’s book contained sexually ex-plicit illustrations and text; in otherwords, this children’s book, with sexualcontent, would have received the NEAsupport this year—not 10 years ago;this year—if there had not been theother issue about royalties going toMexican guerrillas.

I submit there is an inherent flaw inthe peer review process that led to thiscircumstance, and all the other out-rages over the years. The peer reviewprocess does not reflect the values ofthe decent, hard-working, tax-payingAmericans who fund this agency.

Let me just find the article from theNew York Times, which I have enteredinto the RECORD.

I want to remind you, again, thatthis grant was canceled because themoney would go to a Mexican guerrillagroup, and there was no referencewhatsoever to the content.

This is a children’s book. I would askmy colleagues and the American peopleto ask yourselves whether you wantyour tax dollars to go for this kind ofstuff for a children’s book:

The illustrations are bright, broad-strokedpaintings of gods with horns and bug-eyes

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10278 August 5, 1999done by [a man by the name of] DomitilaDominguez, a Mexican Indian artist.

Spun in the sensuous tradition of Latinstorytelling, the tale includes elements thatmight be controversial in the mainstreamAmerican children’s book market. As thestory opens, the text reads, ‘‘The men andwomen were sleeping or they were makinglove, which is a nice way to become tired andthen go to sleep.’’

The double-page illustration shows a re-clining naked woman in a sexual embracewith [a] figure that appears to be a male god.

We could go on and on and on.This is a children’s book. It was can-

celed because the money went to Mexi-can guerrillas, not because of the con-tent. So you see, the agency has notcleaned up its act. They have been get-ting away with this year after yearafter year. And why do they get awaywith it? They get away with it verysimply because we won’t stop the fund-ing. We don’t have the courage to stopthe funding.

Again, the business about censor-ship—this is about the Constitution ofthe United States of America, whichwe are sworn to uphold and defend.Show me in the Constitution where theNational Endowment of the Artsshould be funded and why it should befunded. Show me.

When we try to say anything aboutit, we are always accused of censorship.The Smith amendment solves thatproblem by allowing the public to sup-port the art works they wish volun-tarily. You want to support a chil-dren’s book that shows a naked womanand a naked man in a sexually explicitembrace? Go ahead. You want to showthat to your children? Be my guest.You want to raise your children andteach them to read and show them thepictures? Be my guest. But it is notconstitutional. And it ought not tohappen in the Senate by funding thiskind of stuff. We should not be fundingart at all, let alone this kind of art.

So that is how it was done in Amer-ica for the first 189 years of our his-tory: Voluntarily you support the arts.Voluntarily you look at what you wantto look at. You show your childrenwhat you want to show them. But youdo not fund it by taking money fromthe rest of us to do it.

Let me just pause here for a momentto make a point. We could go througha litany of items that are unconstitu-tional that we pass on this floor almostliterally every day—certainly everyweek.

I just ask the rhetorical question tothe people of America: When are wegoing to wake up? We saw it time aftertime. We saw it with the Clinton im-peachment: As long as my 401(k) andmy retirement account is doing well,and as long as I am making money, aslong as I have a job and 3 or 4 weeks ofvacation, and everything is going fine,I don’t care about the morality of thiscountry. I don’t care that the Com-mander in Chief did what he did. It isOK with me. Poll after poll after pollsaid just that.

Let me tell you. That is the samething. Time after time after time, year

after year after year, we vote to fundthe National Endowment of the Arts.We are told every year that all thisstuff that I just referred to has beencleaned up and it does not happen any-more. It does.

Yet why does it happen? Don’t blamethe National Endowment of the Arts. Idon’t blame them. I don’t blame theChairman. I don’t blame the board. Idon’t blame any of them for this.

I blame the Senate, the House, andthe President of the United States be-cause we pass it and he signs it. Wehave been doing it year after year afteryear. They are going to keep right onspending your money as long as youkeep giving it to them.

So don’t blame them; don’t directyour anger at them. You should directit right here to the people who votethat money. Sooner or later, as thefrog in the pot boils slowly and then iscooked before he realizes it, the Con-stitution of the United States is goingto slip through the fingers of all of us.

It is happening. We are going to con-tinue to let it happen by these kinds ofvotes. If we want to take seriouslywhat we stood there and took the oathto do, to protect and defend the Con-stitution of the United States of Amer-ica, we ought to vote against fundingthe National Endowment for the Arts.

So that everybody understands, thereare essentially two major political par-ties in the United States right now,some smaller parties. Here is theDemocratic Party on the NEA. This isa quote right out of their platform:

We believe in public support for the arts,including the National Endowment for theArts. . . .

That is the 1996 Democrat platform;‘‘Responsible Entertainment.’’ It is anhonest statement. They have made itvery clear they support this. It doesn’tnecessarily mean they are implyingthat they support the kinds of things Ihave said, but it does mean that aslong as you continue to fund it and youdon’t stop it, those kinds of things aregoing to continue to be funded.

What we have in the Democraticplatform is a statement that is uncon-stitutional. It is totally unconstitu-tional. To support the arts, includingthe National Endowment for the Arts,with taxpayer dollars is unconstitu-tional. But I think Members will find,when they see the votes taken on myamendment in a few minutes, thatmost of the members of the Demo-cratic Party will support their plat-form. They will vote, I think, probablyoverwhelmingly, probably 90–95 per-cent—maybe 100 percent, I am notsure—in favor of the National Endow-ment for the Arts and against myamendment. They will live up to theirplatform. I personally believe they aretaking an unconstitutional vote, butthat is their right. They can do it.They were elected just as I was, andthey can vote any way they want to. Irespect that right.

Let us look at the Republican Partyplatform. The Republican Party plat-form on the NEA, same issue:

As a first step in reforming government,we support . . . defunding or privatization ofagencies which are obsolete, redundant, oflimited value, or too regional in focus . . .[one of the] agencies we seek to defund or toprivatize [is] the National Endowment forthe Arts.

That is the 1996 Republican platform:‘‘Changing Washington from theGround Up.’’ We are going to changeWashington from the ground up. I sup-port that statement because it is un-constitutional not to support it. TheGovernment should not be funding,under the Constitution, the NationalEndowment for the Arts. If one seesthat statement and realizes that is theposition of the party, then one couldlogically conclude that 90–95 percent ofRepublicans will vote to support theirplatform and vote to eliminate the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts. We willsee. Don’t bet on it.

That is the platform. So when thevotes come, it will be interesting forthe public to look to see who supportstheir platform. Will the Democratssupport their platform, albeit unconsti-tutional in my view, on this issue, orwill the Republicans support their plat-form? Let us see where the votes fall.

Let me issue a challenge to anyonelistening: Take a look at the votesafter it is all over. See who the Repub-licans are, see who the Democrats are,and see who supports the Republicanplatform and see who supports theDemocrat platform.

This amendment takes out the entirefunding, which is about $99 million.People will say that is not a lot ofmoney. I guess around Washington it isnot. But it sure was a lot of moneyaround a little town called Allentown,NJ, where I grew up before I moved toNew Hampshire. That was a whole lotof money. I know a whole lot of peoplewho worked real hard—farmers, mer-chants, teachers—for those dollars. Forthis kind of money to be spent fromthem, I think it is wrong. It is wrongmorally, philosophically, and, as I saidbefore, it is unconstitutional.

Mr. President, seeing no other speak-er on my behalf at this time, I ask forthe yeas and nays on the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield

the floor and appreciate the chairman’sconsideration in offering the amend-ment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Washington.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, myfriend, the distinguished Senator fromNew Hampshire, argues for his amend-ment striking the appropriation for theNational Endowment for the Arts, as Ihave listened to him, on two grounds.The first ground is that the appropria-tion is unconstitutional. The secondground is that it is undesirable.

I agree with the Senator from NewHampshire that Members of the Senateof the United States have a responsi-bility, just as do sworn members of the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10279August 5, 1999judiciary of the United States, to con-sider carefully the constitutional im-plications of all of the work they do. Idisagree with the Senator from NewHampshire, however, on what seems tome an easy question to answer: theconstitutionality of an appropriationof this nature. In fact, I think the Sen-ator from New Hampshire implied or il-lustrated the weakness of his own ar-gument when he said, just a few mo-ments ago, why should the people ofthe United States be paying for an ac-tivity of this sort as against paying forthe education of our children, amongother items that he listed.

The education of our children is nomore mentioned in the Constitution ofthe United States than are the arts orany other cultural activity. Yet it isclearly constitutional, as well as ap-propriate, for the Congress of theUnited States to support the educationof our children and, for that matter,our young people through college andthrough graduate school, and we do sowith increasing enthusiasm in each andevery year.

The same interpretation of the Con-stitution of the United States that al-lows and encourages us to do that foreducation allows us to do so for cul-tural activities, including the NationalEndowment for the Arts. If support forthe National Endowment for the Artsis unconstitutional, so is support forthe Library of Congress—I see nothingabout a library in the Constitution ofthe United States—so is support for theNational Gallery of Art, for the Smith-sonian Institution, and for the Air andSpace Museum, for all of the other cul-tural activities enthusiastically and, Imay say, appropriately supported bythe Congress of the United States.

No, there is no precedent and no seri-ous legal argument against the con-stitutionality of our support, modestas it is, for the National Endowmentfor the Arts. There has been, however,a considerable argument during thecourse of the last decade or perhapstwo decades over the appropriatenessof the support for the arts or, alter-natively, over the way in which the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts spendsits money. Again, I think a vast major-ity of the Members of both Houses ofCongress think, in the abstract, that itis appropriate to spend a modestamount of money on the arts.

From the very beginning of the Re-public, we have decorated this buildingwith all kinds of works of art that arenot necessary for the functioning ofthe Congress of the United States. Idon’t think anyone has ever challengedeither the appropriateness or the con-stitutionality of the use of Federalmoney for the arts in that respect.

But climaxing in 1995, there waswidespread criticism of a significantnumber of grants made by the NationalEndowment for the Arts—criticismthat I think was totally valid—andsome of those specifics the Senatorfrom New Hampshire has illustratedhere once again.

In 1995, when this debate was at itsheight, the proponents of the arts se-verely restricted the ability of the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts tomake individual grants, and many ofthese highly criticized expenditureswere to individuals rather than togroups and organizations. Overwhelm-ingly, today, money for the NationalEndowment for the Arts goes to States’arts agencies and through grants to awide range of cultural institutions,many of them, fortunately—more thanwas the case in the past, though per-haps not quite enough—to organiza-tions in the smaller communities ofthe United States, outside of majormetropolitan areas, either to bring var-ious forms of music, dance, theater, thevisual arts to those smaller commu-nities, or to support the creation ofsuch art in those communities in a waythat I think is highly enthusiastic. Andit becomes increasingly difficult forthe critics of the Endowment to saythat the moneys we appropriate hereare used on matters that are not artis-tic or are totally and completely inap-propriate.

The present Chairman of the Endow-ment and the predecessor Chairman ofthe Endowment have worked diligentlyand, I think, quite successfully in see-ing to it that that was not the case. Wecreated congressional nonvoting mem-bers of the National Endowment. TheSenator from Alabama, who is one ofthose members, is here on the floor. Hehas expressed to me his frustration fre-quently with the way in which some ofhis advice has been ignored. But Ithink his very presence has a salutaryeffect on the way in which the Endow-ment is managed.

As a consequence, there was a bitterdivision between the Senate and theHouse of Representatives in which theHouse, on at least one occasion—and Ithink two—did defund the National En-dowment and it was rejected by a sub-stantial majority in the Senate. Thisyear, it has disappeared. The House ofRepresentatives has funded the Endow-ment. If my memory of the bill is cor-rect, there is only a $1 million, or 1-percent, difference between this billand the bill that passed the House ofRepresentatives.

For me, perhaps the most significantand weighty argument in favor of thisappropriation is an argument I havemade on behalf of a number of otherprograms that involve partnershipsamong the Congress of the UnitedStates, State governments, and the pri-vate sector. That is the fact that I donot believe there is a single arts groupor institution in the United States ofAmerica that receives all of its fundingfrom the National Endowment for theArts.

As a matter of fact, there may not beany that receives 10 percent of theamount of money that they spend fromthe National Endowment for the Arts.Overwhelmingly, its grants are modestin amount. They are sought eagerly byfar more applicants than can possibly

receive those grants, because the veryfact that the National Endowment forthe Arts has given $20,000, or $30,000, or$100,000 to a particular organizationadds a degree of prestige and impri-matur to the activities of that organi-zation that make its efforts to secureprivate funding—and in almost everycase, the great majority of the fundingof these organizations comes from theprivate sector—makes securing thatfunding easier. Whether it is right ornot, contributors seem far more likelyto contribute to an organization thathas been recognized by the NationalEndowment for the Arts than they arewilling to do so with respect to thethousands of other arts organizationsand groups that don’t receive suchfunding.

So the appropriation here is consider-ably less than 1 percent of the moneyin this appropriations bill that goes tothe National Endowment for the Artsand multiplied many times over bysupport from the private sector. This istrue in other areas in my bill, and oneI am very interested in, funding for therenewal of salmon runs in the State ofWashington. We have money here thatwill go to a foundation that guaranteesthat it can double or triple the amountof money actually getting into thefield for this purpose, instead of takingon something that would otherwise bewholly and completely a responsibilityof the Government of the UnitedStates.

So, Mr. President, I believe the seri-ous debate over the future of the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts haspassed. I think it has passed becausethe National Endowment is reformed. Ithink it has passed because they arenow doing what I believe the Endow-ment was originally intended to do,and doing it in almost every case witha remarkable degree of thoughtfulnessand good sense. What we come up withhere, representing only a tiny percentof what goes in the arts activities inthe States, is nevertheless very impor-tant in that support and vitally impor-tant in securing the private sector sup-port for the arts, and that has been inthe past and will be in the future a pri-mary source of the money.

Regrettably, I oppose the amendmentof the Senator from New Hampshire inthis connection. If he wishes to speakagain, I am going to yield the floornow. I note the presence of the Sen-ators from Florida and Wyoming, and Iknow the Senator from Missouri, Mr.ASHCROFT, wants to speak on thisissue. So we are not going to bring it toa vote now. When the Senator fromNew Hampshire has made his com-ments, I will ask unanimous consent togo on to the next amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Wasthe Senator from Florida seeking to re-spond to the amendment?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, he ishere on his own amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr.President, I have just a few brief re-sponses to my colleague.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10280 August 5, 1999I believe it would be a fallacy to

equate Government funding, its ownactivities, legitimate functions of theGovernment, to fund those activitiessuch as the Library of Congress and theSmithsonian, which obviously are doc-ument preservation, artifacts, and his-torical matters—that is legitimate, inmy view; but to equate that with theGovernment funding of private activi-ties is where I have my differences. Ithink that is the difference—the Gov-ernment funding its own activitiesversus the Government funding privateactivities.

I believe that art, in terms of the ex-amples I gave, is and should be fundedprivately because there is a matter ofwhat is art and what is not art, whichis a matter of personal opinion. I don’tbelieve taxpayers should fund some-body else’s view of what art is or is not.I also think it is wrong for us to actwithout explicit constitutional author-ity, whether it is in the arts, or edu-cation, or anything else.

The Senator from Washington is cor-rect. I misspoke when I said education.I should not have used that term be-cause, also, the Federal Government,in my view, does not have a legitimaterole in determining the education ofour children. I believe that is a localmatter that ought to be done by theStates, the local communities, and par-ents.

Finally, to say it is a good thing fora Federal agency to provide a ‘‘seal ofapproval’’ for the arts so that the pri-vate sector will know what to support,that is a threat to art.

I think that threatens the legitimateissue of art in that government has nobusiness telling people what good art isor what bad art is. I don’t think thereis any room for the government in art.

Frankly, it is very interesting whenyou pick out the platform of the Re-publican Party and read it. Some don’tbelieve we should read our platforms.But I happen to believe we should.

In the 1996 Republican Platform,there is a quote of Senator Bob Dole ofMarch 10, 1995, in which he said:

On November 8, 1994, the American peoplesent a message to Washington. Their mes-sage is my mandate to rein in government,reconnect it to the values of the Americanpeople, and that means making governmenta whole lot smaller, a lot less arrogant andgetting it out of matters best left to theStates, cities, and families across America.

That is all I am trying to do. What Iam trying to say is if there is somefamily out there—I can’t believe therewould be, but there may be—who wouldlike to have a children’s book shown totheir children showing a naked manand naked woman embracing in the actof sex, if they want to show that totheir children, as I said before, I guessthat is up to them, but I don’t think weought to be funding it.

Furthermore, finally, what the Re-publican Platform said at that timewas:

As a first step in reforming government,we support the elimination of the depart-

ments of Commerce, Housing and Urban De-velopment, Education, Energy, and theelimination, defunding, or privatization ofagencies which are obsolete, redundant, oflimited value, or too regional in focus. Ex-amples of agencies that we seek to defund orto privatize are the National Endowment forthe Arts, the National Endowment for theHumanities, the Corporation for PublicBroadcasting, and the Legal Services Cor-poration.

I am quoting out of the platform. Fi-nally:

In addition, we support Republican spon-sored legislation that would require theoriginal sponsor of proposed Federalizationto cite specific constitutional authority forthe measure.

If you are going to offer something asan amendment or a bill which ulti-mately may become law, then cite con-stitutional authority for it because,after all, we are here to protect and de-fend the Constitution.

That is the only point I am trying tomake. I understand that the votes havenever been here to eliminate this agen-cy. I don’t expect them to be here thistime.

I don’t mean to argue, other than tosay that I ask my colleagues to try tomove back to the constitutionalityissue because I believe that is whatthis is all about. If you make an excep-tion, even if this was art that waspleasing to me, if it was art that Iliked, that I approved of, it would bethe same argument—that it has nobusiness being funded. It is not con-stitutional. I don’t believe that weshould be funding it.

I see my colleague from Missouri. Iknow he is an original sponsor of thisamendment.

Mr. President, at this time I yieldthe floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Missouri.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I risetoday in support of this amendment of-fered by Senator Bob SMITH of NewHampshire.

This amendment, which eliminatesthe $99 million appropriated to theNEA, gives Senators the opportunityto decide whether the Federal Govern-ment should be in the business of judg-ing and funding art.

There are only two ways a Federalgovernment could be involved in fund-ing art: either by judging it or by fund-ing it randomly. I don’t think either ofthose is a good alternative for the Fed-eral Government.

I hope a majority of my fellow Sen-ators will agree with me that the Fed-eral Government should resign from itsrole as a national art critic—telling uswhat to enjoy or what not to enjoy,and spending our money to tell us thatthis is good or that is bad.

It seems to me that to have the Fed-eral Government as an art critic to de-termine what type of art is superior toanother type of art is not somethingthat a free nation would want to en-courage. Government should not be inthe business of subsidizing free speech,putting its so-called ‘‘Good House-

keeping Seal of Approval’’ on certainpieces of so-called art.

When the government funds art, itwill always have to make value judg-ments on what is art and what it isnot. I don’t think that is an appro-priate function of government. Theonly way to get out of this business isto stop government from funding art.

I guess you could fund art ran-domly—spin the wheel, and whicheverartist’s name comes up, give them themoney. But you would have to decidewho got to be part of the lottery.

For those who say this is an issue offree speech, my view is that speech isnot free if government funds it. As amatter of fact, it is funded speech, andnot free speech.

When we tax people, we take theirdollars coercively. We simply say thatif you do not give us the money, you goto jail. Try not paying your taxes andfind out whether it is enforced or not.You will find out that the IRS can bevery convincing and very persuasivebecause they have this independent ca-pacity to coerce the dollars.

Government subsidies, even with thebest intentions, are dangerous becausethey skew the market toward whateverthe government grantmakers prefer.The National Endowment for the Artsgrants place the stamp of official U.S.Government approval on funded art.This gives the endowment enormouspower to dictate what is regarded asart and what is not.

A number of art critics and people inthe arts community, have observedthis.

Jan Breslauer, Los Angeles Times artcritic said in 1997 that,

[T]he endowment has quietly pursued poli-cies rooted in identity politics—a kind ofseparatism that emphasizes racial, sexualand cultural differences above all else. Theart world’s version of affirmative action,these policies . . . have had a profoundly cor-rosive effect on the American arts—pigeonholing artists and pressuring them toproduce work that satisfies a politically cor-rect agenda rather than their best creativeinstincts.—The Washington Post, March 16,1997.

I would like to call myself an artistbecause I like to engage in musical per-formances. I like to engage in the writ-ing of music, and the writing of poetry.But I feel a little below par, so I can’treally call myself an artist. There havebeen some who have said that some ofmy stuff might qualify for art. But Ihave never qualified for a grant, and Idon’t want a grant. My wife alwaysteases me, saying: You can’t sell it.You can’t even give it away.

But the idea of government fundingart means that we would begin to bendthe artist away from true expressiontowards something for which the gov-ernment was providing a subsidy. Thatis the point that Jan Breslauermakes—that this subsidy has had ‘‘aprofoundly corrosive effect on theAmerican arts’’—taking people awayfrom the true expression of art,‘‘pigeonholing artists and pressuringthem.’’

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10281August 5, 1999The concept of pressure and art is a

very difficult concept to reconcile. Ithink of Michelangelo painting on theSistine Chapel and the Pope demandingone thing and another. I don’t know ifit is true, but it is said that in responseto that pressure, Michelangelo paintedcertain people in hell as a way of indi-cating that he would resist the pres-sure.

Joseph Parisi, editor of Poetry Maga-zine, the nation’s oldest and most pres-tigious poetry magazine, has said thatdisconnecting ‘‘artificial support sys-tems’’ for the arts, such as cuts in NEAfunding, has had some positive effects.Parisi has said that cuts in federalspending for the arts are causing ‘‘ashake-out of the superficial. The mar-ket demands a wider range, an appealto a broader base. Artists and writersare forced to get back to markets.What will people buy? If you’retenured, if the government buys,there’s no response to irrelevance.’’—Atlanta Constitution, Nov. 8, 1996.

In short, the government should notpick and choose among different pointsof view and value systems, and con-tinuing politicizing the arts. GarthBrooks fans pay their own way, whilethe NEA canvasses the nation for po-litically correct ‘‘art’’ that needs atransfusion from the Treasury. It isbad public policy to subsidize freespeech.

Why I should pay full freight to gosee a country star, and the Mercedeslimousine set should get a subsidy togo to the ballet, I don’t know.

On this point I refer Senators to sec-tion 316 on page 106 of the Senate bill,which makes a case for elimination ofthe funding of NEA. It says the NEAcan only fund those individuals whohave received a ‘‘literature fellowship,a National Heritage Fellowship or’’—Iam still quoting—an ‘‘American JazzMasters Fellowship.’’

I know very little about music, but Ispend a lot of time in music. I knowand appreciate that jazz is a great formof American music. But for the life ofme, I cannot understand why the Fed-eral Government believes it has thewisdom to use taxes paid by a hard-working plumber or a policeman or apainter to decide which jazz mastershould be subsidized and which jazzmaster should not be subsidized. Evenif we could subsidize all jazz masters, isit fair to fund jazz masters and not paystipends to a master classic pianist, acomposer, a struggling rhythm andblues artist, or a rock-and-roller?

The fact that the Federal Govern-ment does not have infallible wisdomto serve as the Nation’s art critic un-derscores the brilliance of our Found-ing Fathers who, in writing the Con-stitution, specifically voted againstprovisions calling on the Federal Gov-ernment to subsidize the arts. This isnot a new request. The founders consid-ered this and rejected it.

Although funding for the NEA issmall in comparison to the overallbudget, elimination of this agency

sends a message that Congress is tak-ing seriously its obligation to restrictthe Federal Government’s actions tothe limited role appropriately envi-sioned by the framers of the Constitu-tion. Nowhere in the Constitution isthere a specific threat of authoritythat could reasonably be construed toinclude promotion of American jazzmasters as compared to or in contra-distinction to classical pianists or ordi-nary guitar pickers.

During the constitutional conventionin Philadelphia in 1787, DelegateCharles Pinckney introduced a motioncalling for the Federal Government tosubsidize the arts in the United States.Although the Founding Fathers werecultured individuals who knew first-hand of various European systems forpublic arts patronage, they overwhelm-ingly rejected Pinckney’s suggestionbecause of their belief in limited con-stitutional government.

Accordingly, nowhere in its list ofpowers enumerated and delegated tothe Federal Government does the Con-stitution specify a power to pick jazzmasters over guitar pickers.

It is noteworthy what the Constitu-tion does provide. Article I, section 8,states:

The Congress [of the United States] shallhave Power . . . To promote the Progress ofScience and useful Arts, by securing for lim-ited Times to Authors and Inventors the ex-clusive Rights to their respective Writingsand Discoveries;

We can protect the work of artistsfrom unlawful and inappropriate appro-priation by those who would stealthose works and profit from them. Inother words, our Founding Fathers es-tablished the noble goal of protectingintellectual property of those who areinvolved in science or the arts. TheFounding Fathers did not think theway to protect the rights was to sub-sidize them or contaminate them or toprefer one or another. Instead, they be-lieve Government protection should ex-tend to protecting their initiative,their creativity, and their discovery.

Some have taken comfort in the re-cent Supreme Court decisions thathave upheld the Federal statute direct-ing the NEA to take into consideration‘‘general standards of decency and re-spect for the diverse beliefs and valuesof the American public’’ in makinggrants.

While some have said this ruling willappropriately address the concernsover the type of art the NEA will fund,I don’t think that is the case. More-over, in response to the Finley deci-sion, Chairman Ivey said the rulingwas a ‘‘reaffirmation of the agency’sdiscretion in funding the highest qual-ity of art in America’’ and that itwould not affect his agency’s day-to-day operations. That was a quote fromthe New York Times.

These court cases do nothing to solvethe underlying issue of whether Gov-ernment should fund and decide what isart. Suffice it to say the time has cometo end the Federal Government’s role

of paying for and thereby politicizingart. Art should be pure, not politics,and it shouldn’t ever become pure poli-tics; it can, when art is elicited,shaped, and coerced in order to complywith Federal guidelines.

I thank the Senator from New Hamp-shire for offering this amendment. Iurge my colleagues to join me in sup-porting this amendment.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Illinois.Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in

opposition to this amendment. In away, I am grateful this amendment hascome to the floor. I think this Senateshould go on record: Will we decide togo on the course suggested by SenatorASHCROFT of Missouri and SenatorSMITH of New Hampshire and say therewill be no funding of the arts in Amer-ica, that we have decided now at thismoment in our history that we willwalk away from governmental assist-ance to the artists across America whoare starting out and trying to developtheir own skills?

I think that is an important ques-tion. I know as well as those listeningto the debate that over the last 10 or 12years there has been a lot of con-troversy about the National Endow-ment for the Arts. There have beensome controversial grants, grants forart projects which I personally foundreprehensible.

The bottom line is, it is as wrong tocondemn the National Endowment forthe Arts because of one or two grantsas it is to condemn any Member of theSenate for one or two votes. EachMember can make a mistake. EachMember can do something unpopular.Each Member can do the wrong thingin the eyes of the public. Yet to con-demn Members as individuals is justnot fair, just, or American. Nor is itfair for Members to condemn the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts forthings that were done many years ago.

Over the last several years, it hasbeen my good fortune to be a non-voting member of the National Councilof the Arts, meeting every 6 months toreview the applications for assistanceto the NEA. Several Members of theSenate and the House of Representa-tives have shared in that responsi-bility. It has been an eye-opener to sitas I have with men and women fromacross America and to consider thosewho come to the National Endowmentfor the Arts asking for assistance.

Listening to the speeches on thefloor, one would think that these arepeople who come in with some grandpolitical agenda or they are looking forsome big government seal of approval.That is not the case at all. By andlarge, these are creative people lookingfor an opportunity. Some of the oppor-tunities which they have presented as aresult of the National Endowment forthe Arts are amazing in their scope.

Think of the impact if we eliminatethe National Endowment for the Arts.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10282 August 5, 1999Let me tell Members about one par-ticular program. I am sorry the Sen-ator from Missouri cannot hear this be-cause I think he would appreciate itsince he was born in the city of Chi-cago. I think he would understand theimportance of this program.

In my home State of Illinois there isa program called the Merit Music Pro-gram. The Merit Music Program is anexceptional effort inspired by one ladywho decided that she would try toreach down to the poorest schools inthe city of Chicago and find those kidswho had music potential. What she hasdone over the years is to literally bringin hundreds of kids each year wholearn how to play a musical instru-ment. These are kids who live in someof the poorest housing in Chicago, andtheir most prized possession will be aviolin, a clarinet. They will developmusical skills.

Each year, I try to attend their re-cital on Saturday while kids from kin-dergarten on up play their musical in-struments. It is an amazing perform-ance from kids who come from thepoorest families. It is a performancethat is made possible by the NationalEndowment for the Arts.

These kids get a chance to learn toplay a musical instrument. One mightsay, well, that is a nice hobby; whatcan it mean? When we follow these kidsthrough their music education, whatdo we find? Every single one of thesekids goes to college. These kids, givena chance at artistic expression, notonly have wonderful fulfillment, theyhave ambition. They decide they canrise above what they have seen aroundthem in their neighborhoods. That iswhat art and music can do.

I am almost at a loss for words—which is something to say for a Sen-ator—when I hear those on the otherside of the aisle stand and say: Well,what good is this? Why would we dothis? Why would we encourage this?

In downtown Chicago we have ablock that has become known as Gal-lery 37. In the Loop in Chicago itstands out. It is ultimately going to bedeveloped by some big company, I amsure. Over the last several years, wehave decided that Gallery 37 will be anartistic opportunity for kids all acrossChicago, kids who can show their artis-tic wares, who can learn skills in art,and perhaps even be trained for jobs inart. It really has become a magnificentundertaking of that community thatreaches out all across Chicago. Therich, the poor, the black, the white, thebrown, all come together—Gallery 37,National Endowment for the Arts.

If you go home to your community inyour State, whatever it might be, Iguarantee you will find the recipientsof the grants from the National Endow-ment for the Arts are not some peopleliving in these ivory towers but, rath-er, the folks living in your community.Does your city have a local symphonyorchestra? My guess is, if not this year,then at some year in the past, the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts has

helped that symphony orchestra. Doesyour school system have an art pro-gram that encourages kids and movesthem along? Many of those programsacross America receive assistance fromthe National Endowment for the Arts.

The National Endowment for theArts last year received $98 million outof a Federal budget of about $1.7 tril-lion. We took $98 million to give to theNational Endowment for the Arts.That is a lot of money; I will concedethat point. In the context of the bigFederal budget, though, it is a verytiny piece. But it is a piece of Federalspending that is used to encourage ar-tistic creation and expression.

Of what value is that expression tothose of us who are simply art con-sumers? Let me tell you a personalstory. My mother was an immigrant tothis country. She came at the age of 2from Lithuania with her mother andgrew up in East St. Louis, IL. Shemade it to the eighth grade, and that iswhen she had to stop and go to work asa switchboard operator at a telephonecompany. She raised me and my twobrothers, and she was a woman whowas always trying to learn and to ap-preciate things. I would like to tell theSenator from Missouri, Mr. ASHCROFT,she used to put us in the family car ona Sunday afternoon and we would goacross the bridge to the St. Louis ArtMuseum, and my mother and I wouldwalk through there looking at paint-ings. Frankly, she had no knowledge ofart, but she knew what she liked andappreciated. How many Sunday after-noons we walked through there and Ilooked at those paintings. As a kid, Iwas totally bored. As I got a littleolder, I came to appreciate them. Buthere she was, a simple woman, immi-grant woman, a blue-collar worker,who thought it was important her sonsee art and what it stands for.

So when I hear the arguments madethat this is unfair to blue-collar work-ers across America, to ask them totake a tiny fraction of their Federaltaxes and devote it to the arts, I thinkthose critics miss the point. Visit mu-seums on The Mall here in Washingtonor in any city across America, and Iguarantee you will see a cross-sectionof American life, the rich and the poor,the educated and the uneducated, allappreciating what art can bring to ourlives. This is not something for whichwe should apologize. It is something weshould be proud of. The legacy we willleave in America for future generationsis not just a legacy of concrete andsteel; it is a legacy of art as well.

Those who visit countries around theworld, wherever they may be, usuallystop first at the art museums becausethey want to see the collections. Itsays something about the value of artwhen it comes to civilization. To thinkwe would take a step backwards on thefloor of the Senate today and decide wewill no longer, after years and years,provide assistance and money for thearts is unthinkable. It is unthinkable.In a way, I appreciate the opportunity

to have this amendment. Let’s have arecord vote. Let’s see how many peoplehere want to join a group which basi-cally says that the United States ofAmerica, with all of its richness, withall of its diversity, cannot afford $98million to encourage the arts.

Let me tell you about another artproject that received a decoration, anaward from the National Endowmentfor the Arts. It is called Street LevelArt, and it is an amazing thing. It is inthe city of Chicago again. Two youngmen who worked for advertising agen-cies decided they just didn’t quite likegoing to work 9 to 5 every day. Theywanted to do something more. So theygathered together equipment from peo-ple who were getting new versions ofcomputers and videotape machines andthe like. They put it in a little store-front on Chicago Avenue, and they in-vited kids from junior high and highschool across Chicago to come afterschool to learn how to make documen-tary films and to do animation for car-toons.

I met a young lady there who livedon the south side of Chicago who lit-erally had to take three buses afterschool to get to the Street Level ArtProgram, but she was so excited at theprospect of developing her skills, hercreativity in art. This is another groupthat received an award from the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts. ForSenators to come to the floor and sayget Government out of this business isto basically say do not get the seedmoney to Street Level, don’t give theseed money to Gallery 37, don’t givethe seed money to Merit music. If wedid, if we said we are going to close thedoor and turn out the lights on Govern-ment involvement for the arts, wouldwe be a better nation for that? I do notthink so.

I think, frankly, the National Endow-ment for the Arts has done an excellentjob. It has learned some valuable polit-ical lessons over the last several years.It is unfortunate the sponsors of thisamendment do not concede that pointand they cannot join the other Mem-bers of the Senate to come with me tothese meetings twice a year to seewhat is involved because not only edu-cation programs but children’s fes-tivals, literary programs, orchestras,museums, dance companies, all receivea helping hand from this National En-dowment for the Arts.

I see Senator SESSIONS from Alabamaon the floor here. He has joined me atmeetings of the National Endowment.The President has proposed a program.It is called ‘‘Challenge America.’’ Apoint made by Senator SESSIONS at oneof our meetings, and a valid one, wasthat the National Endowment for theArts should reach out into commu-nities which have not traditionallybeen served and helped by the NationalEndowment, and they are doing that. Ithink that is the right thing to do be-cause we can encourage artistic expres-sion in the rural areas of Alabama andthe rural areas of Illinois. I think wewill be better for it.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10283August 5, 1999Unfortunately, this bill does not pro-

vide a great deal of funding for that,but the bottom line is that it is a con-cept we should pursue in this country.As it stands, this is still in the conceptstage, but it is an important concept,particularly when it comes to edu-cating and reaching out to young peo-ple at risk of dropping out of school orbecoming delinquent or abusing drugs.

We spend so much time here on thefloor wrestling with problems thatAmerican families are worried over,not the least of which was the shootingat Columbine High School in Littleton,CO. We are trying to read and studyand speak among ourselves and say:What is going on in the minds of thesechildren that they would become soviolent, grab a gun, and shoot at theirclassmates?

Even though I am a parent and proudof the three children my wife and Iraised, and our grandchild, I do notconsider myself a specialist in thisarea. But I do remember from my ownlife experience, watching my kids growup, if you give a young person a chancefor fulfillment, that young personsometimes will show you that chancehas not been squandered and will makesomething good of it. Some of themwill be the best students in the class.Others may not be great when it comesto grades, but they may turn out to beexcellent artists or excellent musi-cians.

If we close down the NEA and turnout the lights, as this amendment sug-gests, we are turning out the lights ona lot of young children in America whojust need an opportunity to expressthemselves, to prove themselves. With-out that opportunity, they will cer-tainly be frustrated; I hope not worse.But it really would be a loss for thisNation.

I sincerely hope this amendment isdefeated, and I hope it is defeated over-whelmingly because I believe, in de-feating this amendment, we will makeit clear that when it comes to freedomof expression and encouragement ofarts, even though our investment isrelatively small in terms of the largerFederal budget, it is still important be-cause it says what we are about inAmerica. We are about encouraging di-versity of opinion, encouraging artisticexpression, encouraging our young peo-ple to fulfill themselves.

I hope my colleagues will join me indefeating this amendment, and I yieldthe floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Minnesota.

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator fromMinnesota yield for just a moment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will not yield myplace in the floor but——

Mr. GORTON. No. But simply for thebenefit of all Members, if the Senatorfrom Minnesota could give us somekind of estimate as to how long he willspeak? Because we are going to anothermatter soon. When his remarks areover, I will move to table the Smithamendment. We will ask for the yeasand nays.

I misled my colleagues from Floridaand Wyoming, who have an amendmentthat I think can be disposed of rel-atively quickly and I trust without arollcall vote. But because of the lunchhour, I hope we can get to a vote onthis amendment without disrupting ev-eryone.

Does the Senator from Virginia wishto speak on this amendment?

Mr. ROBB. Not on this amendment,Mr. President, but I would like tomake a statement at the appropriatetime on this legislation.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Isay to my colleague, I will be rel-atively brief. I will try to keep my re-marks under an hour.

Did the Senator hear what I said? Iwas kidding. I said I would keep my re-marks under an hour. Was that theSenator’s approval? In 10 minutes I willbe able to say what I need to say.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from West Virginia.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, withouthis losing his right to the floor, I wouldlike to make a few brief remarks onthis amendment also.

Mr. GORTON. Then I will certainlywait.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Minnesota.Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my

colleague from Florida says I cannot doit in 10 minutes, but I am going toprove him wrong.

I do not know whether I can add thatmuch to the remarks of Senator DUR-BIN. I have heard the Senator speakquite often. I actually think that wasone of the strongest statements. Real-ly. I wish I were not following him.

I say to all my colleagues, Democratsand Republicans alike, this will be ahealthy vote because we ought to voteon how we view the National Endow-ment for the Arts. As a Senator fromMinnesota, I think the most importantthing we can do as Senators is to doour work every day in such a way thatwe can assure equal opportunity forevery child. That is the way I approachthis topic, I say to my friend from NewHampshire.

Senator DURBIN’s point was welltaken. What you want to do with chil-dren, starting at a very early age, isyou want to take that spark of learn-ing that all children have—they are soeager—and we need to ignite it. Dif-ferent children are good at differentthings. Some are really good at aca-demics, at least the way we define for-mal academics; some are athletes;some are musicians; some are artists.

The National Endowment for theArts has done an absolutely fabulousjob of funding some of the most won-derful community arts partnershipsyou ever want to see in the State ofMinnesota, by the way, rural as well asurban. There is some great work withat-risk kids, some great work with allthe children in Minnesota—white us,black us, brown us—all of us. It isunited. It is wholesome.

There have been mistakes made. Iagree with Senator DURBIN, Jane Alex-ander understood that and did a greatdeal to correct some of the mistakesthat had been made. I do not thinkthat has been properly acknowledgedin this amendment that my colleaguesbring to the floor.

Overall, it is so enriching and it is soexciting to see what is done with thesecommunity arts partnerships.

I did not get a chance to hear the re-marks of my colleague from Missouri,so it would not be fair to him—he isnot here—for me to even try to respondto what I think he may have said basedupon what Senator DURBIN said.

I have had a chance to visit with thearts community. I have had a chanceto see some of these projects take holdin Minnesota, in our neighborhoods, inour communities, urban, rural, andsuburban, and I am especially focusedon children and kids.

This does not have a thing to do withblue collar, white collar, high income,low income, middle income. This hasreally been some wonderful, nurturing,enriching work with children in Min-nesota, some of whom have really comeinto their own as a result of the way inwhich the NEA grants and good artwork and artists have reached them.Some of the things that these kids do,some of the ways in which they are cre-ative and express themselves, some ofthe ways in which they, in turn, con-tribute to community, based upon thenurturing and the support from theNEA grants—it is just a marvelousthing to see.

Yes, mistakes have been made, but Icall on Senators to be our own bestselves. I do view this as a vote that hasa whole lot to do with children, a wholelot to do with kids, a whole lot to dowith the importance of communityarts partnerships. I hope this amend-ment will be defeated with a resound-ing vote.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FITZ-

GERALD). The Senator from West Vir-ginia.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am op-posed to the amendment that is beingoffered by the Senator from NewHampshire, my good friend Mr. SMITH.He and I serve together on the ArmedServices Committee. I have great re-spect for him and certainly for many ofhis viewpoints. But on this matter, Iwill oppose his amendment.

I am a product of the Depression aswell as the days and some of the yearsante-Depression. When I graduatedfrom high school in 1934, which was 65years ago now, I was the valedictorianof the class. Of course, we only had 28in the class. If there had been 29, Imight not have been the valedictorian.But I was very fortunate in going tothe Mark Twain High School and gradeschool in a coal mining community insouthern West Virginia.

Mark Twain High School had a fac-ulty that probably would have matchedthe faculty of a junior college in these

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10284 August 5, 1999days. Teachers did not get paid much,but they were highly dedicated teach-ers.

The principal of the high school wasa man by the name of William Jen-nings Bryan Cormany. And his wife,Marguerite Cormany, was an excellentmusic teacher. Mr. Cormany was astrict disciplinarian. He was the kindof high school principal we should haveall across this country these days. Wepaid attention in his class. He taughtphysics. He was an excellent teacher.

His wife organized a high school or-chestra and a band. She wanted me tobe in the band. I was the bass drum-mer. The bass drum was larger than Iwas, but I was the bass drummer. Shealso talked me into taking lessons onthe violin. My foster father was a coalminer, and through the sweat of hisbrow, he bought me a violin. I can re-member the Saturday afternoon whenwe piled into a large flat-bed truck andwent from Stotesbury to Beckley,about 15 miles away.

I went back home that night. I had aviolin case tucked under my arm witha violin in it. My dad paid all of about$28 or $29 for this violin, violin bow,and violin case. I went home that nightand had visions of becoming a Schubertor a Chopin. I could see myself beingone of the great artists. Those weredreams.

How great it is to believe the dreamAs we stand in youth at the starlit stream,But greater still to live life throughAnd find at the end that the dream is true.

I dreamed of being a great musician.My natural father was a musician. Hewas not an educated man. He nevertook a music lesson in his life. I neverknew him very well. I only lived withhim about a week in my life. He wasmy natural father.

I lost my mother when I was lessthan a year old. She died with the in-fluenza in 1918. But she wanted my fa-ther, if she died with the influenza, togive me to one of his sisters who hadmarried a Byrd. She died the next dayor so after she came down with the flu.

My father just had a natural talentfor many things. When he went out topick the beans in the garden, he wouldbe memorizing chapters from the Bible.He could play almost any instrumenthe ever put his hands on—the organ,the banjo, the guitar, the Autoharp,and so on. He had a natural talent formusic.

I inherited some of that talent formusic. I loved it. And so my coal minerdad, who was my uncle, bought thisviolin for me. I started taking lessonswhen I was in the 7th grade in school.When I graduated, of course, I was stillin the orchestra and in the band.

By that time, I had also learned toplay many of the old mountain tunes.My music teacher, Mrs. Cormany, didnot take that very well. She was notvery happy that I would go out behindthe schoolhouse and play ‘‘Old JoeClark’’ on my fiddle or ‘‘ArkansasTraveler’’ or ‘‘The Mississippi Sawyer’’or ‘‘The Chicken Reel.’’ She did not ap-

prove of that. But I did it nevertheless.So, I came to learn to play ‘‘by ear,’’ asthey say.

Well, now, my boyhood without thatmusic would have been an empty boy-hood. I started out in life where thebottom rungs in the ladder were notthere. They were missing. There wasnot the first rung or the second rung.As I say, I grew up in the Depression,which was a hard, hard life at best.

But the music did something for me.It did for me what David’s music didfor Saul when he appeared before KingSaul. Music through the ages has comefrom the depths of the soul of man. Ithas been an inspiration to him Michel-angelo and the Sistine Chapel;Leonardo da Vinci and the Mona Lisa;Phidias, who was a great sculptor atthe time of Pericles. Pericles lived inthe latter half of the 5th century. I re-member the Peloponnesian Wars lastedfrom 431 to about 404 BC. Phidias was agreat sculptor at that time.

All through the ages, men have hadthis desire to use their talents. We readabout seeing the forms of animals orpersons carved into the caves of an-cient mankind and on the obelisks inEgypt. We know about the cuneiformwritings, the Sumerians, the Hittites,the ancient Chinese. The ancient peo-ples drew word pictures before theylearned to write.

There is something about man that isabove the animal. Do not tell me thatman is an animal. I know they teachthat in school, but they are all wrong.They are 100 percent wrong. Man is notan animal. An animal cannot draw apicture. An animal cannot paint a pic-ture. An animal cannot play a violin.An animal cannot memorize the mul-tiplication table. Man is not an animal.

God created man out of the dust ofthe ground, and breathed into his nos-trils the breath of life. There is a sparkof the divinity in man. A man is a lit-tle above the beasts of the field, a littlelower than the angels, but there is thatspark of divinity. There is somethingin mankind that tends to lift his spiritin the lofty flights of song and poetry.Music is one of those talents that is in-grained in the genes of man.

I can certainly understand the feel-ings of Senators with respect to someof the recipients of funds from the Na-tional Endowment of the Arts in yearsgone by. They were absolutely foolish,stupid to make those awards. It was co-lossal stupidity on the part of the En-dowment to award grants to peoplewho had such motives and objectives asa few of them had. But they were a tinyfew. I think it would be a very seriousmistake here to strike this from thebill.

Who knows, there may be a little Mi-chelangelo, there may be a little Ben-jamin West. Benjamin West said thatone day he took to his mother somechildish drawings of birds, and hismother took him up on her knee,kissed him, and said: ‘‘Son, you willgrow up to be a great painter.’’ Ben-jamin West said that it was a mother’s

kiss that led him to become a greatpainter. The encouragement that hismother gave him after seeing the child-ish drawings and paintings that he hadmade caused him to aspire to do great-er things.

I can remember that my dad wasvery poor, the man who raised me. AtChristmastime, he never gave me a capbuster or a cowboy suit. In saying this,I do not denigrate those things. But hegave me a watercolor set or a drawingtablet or a book. He did not want me tobe a coal miner, as he had been.

So here we are today. In a sense, wecan feel that in passing this legisla-tion, as we are passing it, and pro-viding funds—and funds are hard tocome by—but we are in a sense pro-viding a little watercolor set or a draw-ing tablet—we can put it down to thatlevel—to some talented, ambitious, de-serving achieving person.

I close with this poem, if I can recallit, which tells the story. Who knows,out of these funds there may not bejust one, but there may be many mas-ters—masters—as they develop the tal-ents that are borne within their genes.Many people have those talents andnever have the opportunity to developthem. So, where we can, I think, pro-vide the opportunity and the encour-agement, we ought to do it. That is aside of life—a side of our culture that isuplifting. We should not attempt todampen it down, or discourage or put itbeyond the reach of those who cannototherwise afford it.’Twas battered and scarred, and the auc-

tioneerThought it scarcely worth his while

To waste much time on the old violin,But held it up with a smile:

‘‘What am I bidden, good folks,’’ he cried,‘‘Who’ll start the bidding for me?’’

‘‘A dollar, a dollar’’; then, ‘‘Two!’’ ‘‘Onlytwo?

Two dollars, and who’ll make it three?Three dollars, once; three dollars, twice;

Going for three——’’ But no,From the room, far back, a gray-haired man

Came forward and picked up the bow;Then, wiping the dust from the old violin,

And tightening the loose strings,He played a melody pure and sweet

As a caroling angel sings.

The music ceased, and the auctioneer,With a voice that was quiet and low,

Said: ‘‘What am I bid for the old violin?’’And he held it up with the bow.

‘‘A thousand dollars, and who’ll make it two?Two thousand! and who’ll make it three?

Three thousand, once, three thousand twice,And going, and gone,’’ said he.

The people cheered, but some of them cried,‘‘We do not quite understand

What changed its worth.’’ Swift came thereply:

‘‘The touch of a master’s hand.’’

And many a man with life out of tune,And battered and scarred with sin,

Is auctioned cheap to the thoughtless crowd,Much like the old violin.

A ‘‘mess of pottage,’’ a glass of wine;A game—and he travels on.

He is ‘‘going’’ once, and ‘‘going’’ twice,He’s ‘‘going’’ and almost ‘‘gone.’’

But the Master comes, and the foolish crowdNever can quite understand

The worth of a soul and the change that’swrought

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10285August 5, 1999By the touch of the Master’s hand.

Let us defeat this amendment and re-ject it overwhelmingly let us continueto make it possible for some futuremasters to lay their talented handsupon the culture of our own civiliza-tion and thereby benefit all of pos-terity.

Mr. REID addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Nevada.Mr. REID. Mr. President, the only

reason I sought recognition is to speakbefore the motion to table is made. Iapologize to my friend, the manager ofthe bill, recognizing how badly hewants to move on. I feel inclined tospeak on this amendment.

I say to the Senator from West Vir-ginia, my friend, I have had many in-spirational times on the Senate floor,and most of them have been directlyattributable to the Senator from WestVirginia. If what we just listened to,was not inspirational, then someonewasn’t listening.

I had the honor a week ago to par-ticipate in a parliamentary exchangewith the British Parliament. I was ableto meet with a small group of Britishparliamentarians, with a number ofSenators in West Virginia. The hosts ofthat event were Senators BYRD andSTEVENS. It was a wonderful weekendwhere we talked issues.

One evening we were able to meetand have a social event in a placecalled Kate’s Mountain in West Vir-ginia. I had been there only once be-fore. I came to realize, on my first tripto West Virginia at Kate’s Mountain,what that song, those West Virginiahills where I was born, means to some-one from West Virginia because Kate’sMountain is part of those West Vir-ginia hills. I appreciate those hills,even though I wasn’t born in thoseWest Virginia hills. Part of the enter-tainment that night, just a few daysago, was a blue grass band playing.Senator BYRD participated in the en-tertainment. He took the microphoneand proceeded to sing. It was a wonder-ful, fun, entertaining evening.

Well, Mr. President, I can’t sing. Ican’t play a musical instrument. Butthere is no one in the world that enjoysmusic more than I enjoy music. I havetried to play music. I have tried tosing. I can remember as a young manin high school, I wanted to sing. I wentto try out for the choir at Basic HighSchool in Henderson, NV. I can still re-member the choir director, ChapmanWooten, a wonderful man, but he couldunderstand talent when he saw it. Hedidn’t see it in me. He said I shouldcontinue playing football and baseballand pass on the choir.

I didn’t make the choir. In fact, Ionly was there a few minutes. But Istill love music. I can’t paint a picture.I have tried. My grandchildren paintbetter than I do. But I love to see peo-ple paint pictures, and I love to see thefinished product. I have in my homepaintings that may not be very valu-able, but they are valuable to me. They

are paintings I have bought because Iloved those paintings. I can rememberthe first painting I ever bought. I wasjust out of law school. I went to theTropicana Hotel in Las Vegas and aman by the name of McCarthy had anexhibit there. I don’t know if he hasever made a living painting, but I gavehim $75 for a painting that I still have.If you come in my home, there is thefirst painting that I ever bought. Ibought that painting because it re-minded me of my wife. It is a paintingof a woman. I love that picture.

I was born and raised, as most of youknow, in a little place called Search-light, NV. We had very little entertain-ment in Searchlight. There wasn’t achurch to go to. I never went to achurch until I went to high school.There wasn’t one to go to. In the wholetown there was one person who playeda piano. I don’t know how well sheplayed it, but she played the piano forChristmas programs. That is about allI can remember. She was a woman ofsome note. She was not noted for play-ing her piano. She had been married 14times. I know that because she wasmarried to a few of my uncles. But sheplayed the piano. She was our music inSearchlight. Any program we had, shewas part of it.

I am sure in that little town ofSearchlight there were people whocould have played, if there had beensomeone there to give them a lesson,someone who could paint a picture, ifthere was someone who could teachthem how to paint a picture. In the en-tire time that I was growing up inSearchlight, I don’t remember a singleperson playing a musical instrumentbecause they didn’t play one. I don’tremember a single person painting apicture because they didn’t paint a pic-ture. There was no one there to help us,to encourage us.

The National Endowment for theArts is a program that I envision ashelping kids like HARRY REID growingup in rural America, rural Nevada. Italso helps kids in urban America, but Ithink of it as to what I can relate to.The National Endowment for the Artsis a program that is important for peo-ple in this country.

I can remember first becoming ac-quainted with the National Endowmentfor the Arts because Senator BYRD al-lowed me to conduct some of the hear-ings when he was chairman of the Inte-rior Subcommittee of the Appropria-tions Committee. I conducted the hear-ings. I loved doing that. We conductedhearings relating to the National En-dowment for the Arts. I became so im-pressed with the work that they dothat I have been a fan ever since.

In Elko, NV, we benefit from the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts and theNational Endowment for the Human-ities. There is a great program; it isworld famous now. It is called the Cow-boy Poetry Festival. It took years toget off the ground. A man by the nameof Cannon got it started. He started offin Utah, and he did everything he could

because he had this idea that there wascowboy poetry that should be preservedand perpetuated. He couldn’t get it offthe ground. He went to private founda-tions. He did everything he could. Theydidn’t think his idea was very good. Hewent to Elko, NV, and luckily the Na-tional Endowment for the Humanities,the National Endowment for the Artshelped him get this program started.Now it is world famous. You can’t finda motel or a hotel room when this fes-tival is occuring. People recite poetry.There are books on western Americanhistory that are written and talkedabout and presentations made. It is be-cause of these programs, the NationalEndowment for the Arts, National En-dowment for the Humanities.

In Nevada, we benefit all over. Thereare so many things. I have a spate ofpapers here talking about how greatthese programs are. One from DeloresNast. She doesn’t teach art. She is nota teacher. She loves art, though. Shewrites: Many Nevadans believe strong-ly that part of our tax dollars shouldbe directed towards support of our Na-tion’s cultural and educational initia-tives.

What an understatement. The mostpowerful Nation in the entire worldcan’t spend a few dollars on helpingkids from Searchlight, NV, learn topaint a picture or play a musical in-strument. Yes, we can do that. Wemust do that.

I am not going to, as I say, hold upthe manager of this bill. I only want tosay that we in Nevada believe in theNational Endowment for the Arts.There are some people who criticize it,but they criticize anything dealingwith government. I am proud of sup-porting the National Endowment forthe Arts. I am proud of supporting amotion to table this amendment. Itshould be tabled overwhelmingly be-cause we, the most powerful Nation inthe world, need to spend more, not less,on the arts.

Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Washington is recognized.Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I under-

stand the Senator from Vermont has aquick unanimous consent request.

CHANGE OF VOTE

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, onroll call No. 258, I was recorded as vot-ing ‘‘nay.’’ I ask unanimous consent tochange my vote to ‘‘yea.’’ This will inno way change the outcome of thevote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

(The foregoing tally has beenchanged to reflect the above order.)

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, Itake this opportunity to voice my sup-port for the Arts in general, and spe-cifically for the National Endowmentfor the Arts. I also want the Senate andmy constituents to know that I wouldhave demonstrated this support withmy vote if I had not been engaged in animportant meeting at the White Housewhile the vote was taking place.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10286 August 5, 1999This meeting today concerned the fu-

ture of the steel industry and the Ad-ministration’s commitment to workwith Congress, the industry and laborto ensure that unfair and illegal im-ports are returned to pre-crisis levels.As my colleagues and constituentsknow, my commitment to the futurestability and viability of our domesticsteel industry—which is critical to theeconomic well-being of West Virginia—is unwavering, and for that reason Ifelt it necessary to remain at theWhite House for this important meet-ing.

Unfortunately, the vote on the SmithAmendment was called earlier than an-ticipated, and I missed the vote. Iwould have voted against the SmithAmendment if I could have been in thechamber because I believe in fundingfor the arts, including the National En-dowment for the Arts. I take comfortin the fact that the lopsided marginmeant that my vote was not necessaryto ensure funding for the NEA. I under-stand that some have challenged NEA’sfunding decisions in recent years, but Ibelieve the agency has done an admi-rable job in modifying its policies anddecision making process to respond toconcerns. Thanks to these efforts, theNEA is a stronger organization. Thearts and the NEA contribute greatly toour culture, and it is a valuable invest-ment in my view.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I add myvoice in support of the National En-dowment of the Arts, and in oppositionto Senator SMITH’s amendment. TheNEA continues to provide valuable seedmoney to support a range of worthy en-deavors, such as orchestras, inner-cityarts outreach programs and efforts topreserve vanishing American culturalinstitutions. In addition, the NEAplays a strong role in promoting pri-vate investment in the arts and helpsto bring culture to those Americanswho are ordinarily unable to afford ac-cess to the arts. As a country, we oughtto continue to support these efforts. Iurge my colleagues to oppose thisamendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I com-pliment both the Senator from Nevadaand the Senator from West Virginia onvery thoughtful and fascinating state-ments on this matter.

I move to table the Smith amend-ment and ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the motionto table amendment No. 1569.

The clerk will call the roll.The legislative assistant called the

roll.Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the

Senator from Idaho (Mr. CRAPO) andthe Senator from Colorado (Mr. AL-LARD) are necessarily absent.

Mr. REID. I announce that the Sen-ator from Louisiana (Ms. LANDRIEU)and the Senator from West Virginia

(Mr. ROCKEFELLER) are necessarily ab-sent.

The result was announced—yeas 80,nays 16, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 260 Leg.]YEAS—80

AbrahamAkakaBaucusBayhBennettBidenBingamanBondBoxerBreauxBryanBurnsByrdCampbellChafeeClelandCochranCollinsConradCoverdellCraigDaschleDeWineDoddDomeniciDorganDurbin

EdwardsEnziFeingoldFeinsteinFristGortonGrahamGramsGrassleyGreggHarkinHatchHollingsHutchisonInouyeJeffordsJohnsonKennedyKerreyKerryKohlLautenbergLeahyLevinLiebermanLincolnLott

LugarMcConnellMikulskiMoynihanMurkowskiMurrayReedReidRobbRobertsRothSantorumSarbanesSchumerShelbySmith (OR)SnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonTorricelliVoinovichWarnerWellstoneWyden

NAYS—16

AshcroftBrownbackBunningFitzgeraldGrammHagel

HelmsHutchinsonInhofeKylMackMcCain

NicklesSessionsSmith (NH)Thurmond

NOT VOTING—4

AllardCrapo

LandrieuRockefeller

The motion was agreed to.Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move

to reconsider the vote.Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that

motion on the table.The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.f

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREE-MENT—CONFERENCE REPORT TOACCOMPANY S. 1429

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.BUNNING). The majority leader.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unan-imous consent that at 1:06 this after-noon the Senate begin consideration ofthe reconciliation conference report,notwithstanding the receipt of the pa-pers, and there be 6 hours for debate tobe equally divided in the usual formwith the vote to occur at the conclu-sion or yielding back of the time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection?

Mr. ROBB. Reserving the right to ob-ject, may I ask a question of the major-ity leader.

Is it the majority leader’s intentionto return to the underlying bill, the In-terior appropriations bill, at the con-clusion of consideration of the tax billtoday?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, to respondto the Senator’s question, it is. Whenwe complete reconciliation, at the con-clusion of this 6 hours or yielding backtime, which theoretically could occur,then when that is completed our intentis to go back to the Interior appropria-tions bill.

The agreement we had last week wasthat this week we would try to com-plete these two appropriations bills,Agriculture and Interior, complete thereconciliation conference report, andtry to get as many nominations con-firmed as we could get cleared on bothsides.

We are still assiduously pursuingthat goal.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, continuingto reserve the right to object, I ask themajority leader, without specificallyasking for an additional unanimousconsent request, that if it is his inten-tion to proceed, those of us who havebeen waiting through two sessions toeither raise points of order, offeramendments, or whatever the case maybe, to the Interior appropriations bill,might be able to do so tonight afterconclusion of this bill. I am in fullagreement with the expedition of anumber of matters that have beenpending on this floor, particularlysome of the appointments. While I maynot favor the tax bill that will be takenup this afternoon, I am in favor of mov-ing the trains.

With that, if the majority leader isprepared to give that verbal under-standing his concurrence, I will not ob-ject.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I give myconcurrence in that. We intend to re-turn to the Interior appropriations bill.I believe the distinguished manager ofthis legislation would be glad to agreewe would go to this issue immediatelyupon return, with a vote if one is re-quired.

Mr. GORTON. If the majority leaderwill yield, I would be delighted to havethe first item to be dealt with, with re-spect to the Interior appropriationsbill, immediately after the vote on thetax bill, be the point of order the Sen-ator from Virginia wishes to raise.

Mr. ROBB. Will the majority leaderinclude that particular provision in hisunanimous consent request?

Mr. LOTT. I am glad to make thatadditional request in my unanimousconsent request.

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

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOP-MENT ACT OF 1999—CONFERENCEREPORTMr. LOTT. Mr. President, to my ab-

solute surprise and delight, I under-stand the water resources developmentbill has been completed in conference. Iextend my hearty congratulations tothe managers and to the distinguishedchairman of the committee, SenatorCHAFEE, for his efforts in getting thatconclusion.

I yield the floor to him for a consentrequest with regard to that conferencereport.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Rhode Island.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent the Senate nowproceed to consideration of the con-ference report to accompany S. 507.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10287August 5, 1999The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.The assistant legislative clerk read

as follows:The committee on conference on the dis-

agreeing votes of the two Houses on theamendment of the House to the bill (S. 507),have agreed to recommend and do rec-ommend to their respective Houses this re-port, signed by a majority of the conferees.

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

(The conference report is printed inthe House proceedings of today.)

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the conferencereport be agreed to, the motion to re-consider be laid upon the table, andany statement relating to the con-ference report be printed in theRECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The conference report was agreed to.Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the majority

leader for moving this legislationalong, and I thank all concerned.

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

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as amember of the minority who had thehonor to be a conferee, may I say thatthis legislation of great importancecould not have happened in the absenceof our chairman. Our chairman did asuperb job, never an easy one with theother side. But here it is before us andhe is to be congratulated. I, for one, amdeeply grateful.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Rhode Island.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thankthe distinguished Senator from NewYork. He has headed many of theseconferences. I particularly recall someof the transportation conferences hehas headed in which he did landmarkwork. Having kind words coming fromhim and praises is doubly important tome. I greatly appreciate them. I thankthe Chair.

Mr. President, today the Senate isconsidering the conference report toaccompany S. 507, the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1999. This measure,similar to water resources legislationenacted in 1986, 1988, 1990 and 1992, iscomprised of water resources projectand study authorizations, as well asimportant policy initiatives, for theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers CivilWorks program.

This bill was introduced by SenatorWARNER at the beginning of this year.In previous years, the Senator fromVirginia had been the chairman of theTransportation and Infrastructure Sub-committee of the Senate. In that rolehe guided a similar bill through theSenate during the previous Congress.We are very grateful for his hard workon this legislation and sticking withthe project considering the new de-mands on his time as chairman of theArmed Services Committee.

Unfortunately, the House was unableto pass a companion measure last year

because of a dispute over flood controland water supply in the State of Cali-fornia. So, this WRDA bill is somewhatoverdue.

This year, S. 507 was adopted unani-mously by the Senate on April 19, 1999.On April 29 of this year, the House ofRepresentatives adopted its version ofthe legislation by a vote of 418 to 6.

Since that time, we have worked to-gether with our colleagues from theHouse of Representatives and the ad-ministration to reach bipartisan agree-ment on a sensible compromise meas-ure. Because of the numerous dif-ferences between the Senate- andHouse-passed bills, completion of thisconference report has required manyhours of negotiation.

To ensure that the items containedin this legislation are responsive to thenation’s most pressing water infra-structure and environmental needs, wehave adhered to a set of criteria estab-lished in previous water resources law.Mr. President, let me take a few mo-ments here to discuss these criteria—that is—the criteria used by the SenateEnvironment and Public Works Com-mittee to determine the merit of pro-posed projects, project studies and pol-icy directives.

In 1986 Congress enacted and Presi-dent Reagan signed a Water ResourcesDevelopment Act that broke newground. Importantly, the 1986 Actmarked an end to the sixteen-yeardeadlock between Congress and the ex-ecutive branch regarding authorizationof the Army Corps Civil Works pro-gram.

In addition to authorizing numerousprojects, the 1986 Act resolved long-standing disputes relating to cost-shar-ing between the Army Corps and non-federal sponsors, waterway user fees,environmental requirements and, im-portantly, the types of projects inwhich federal involvement is appro-priate and warranted.

Each flood control, navigation, envi-ronmental restoration, or other projectrequires a local cost share that is ap-plied uniformly across the nation.

Second, projects are not authorizeduntil various reports and studies havebeen completed to assure that theprojects are justified from economic,engineering and environmental per-spectives.

Third, projects must fit within thetraditional mission of the civil worksprogram of the Army Corps. That mis-sion includes flood control, improve-ments to navigation, shoreline protec-tion, and environmental restoration.

These are the precepts that we haveapplied to the provisions contained inthe pending conference report. Al-though there are special circumstancesthat justify exceptions to every rule, Ibelieve that this bill does a good job ofadhering to the fundamental purposesand principles of the WRDA program.

Water resources legislation has beenenacted on a biennial basis since 1986,with the exception of 1994.

The bill we are bringing back fromconference today includes scores of

projects with a total federal authoriza-tion of approximately $4.3 billion. Im-portantly, more than $1.5 billion of thisamount will go toward environmentalmitigation and restoration and watercleanup projects for sewage discharges,stormwater retention, and the controlof combined sewer overflows.

A bill like this takes hard work bymany parties. I would like to saluteour Senate conferees, Senators SMITH,BAUCUS, MOYNIHAN, VOINOVICH, andBOXER. As I said earlier, Senator WAR-NER has been the key player on this billas its author, manager and member ofthe conference committee.

Senate staff playing a key role onthis bill included Ann Loomis for Sen-ator WARNER and JoEllen Darcy forSenator BAUCUS. On my staff, first DanDelich and, after he left us, AbigailKinnison and Chelsea Henderson, haveworked many long hours to make thisbill possible.

On the House side, the chairman ofthe Transportation and InfrastructureCommittee, Congressman SHUSTER, andcommittee members, CongressmanOBERSTAR and Congressman BOEHLERTdeserve high praise for their work. Wethank them very much for the spirit ofcompromise they brought to the con-ference and for their efforts to com-plete this task before the recess.

I am pleased to bring this conferencereport to the Senate. I trust that thosewho every day depend on the fine workof the Corps of Engineers to protecttheir lives and their livelihoods willbenefit greatly from the legislativework that has been done.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I risetoday to support the adoption of theConference Report to accompany S.507, The Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1999, WRDA.

As we all know, the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1998 passed thisChamber last year, but was never en-acted. This Conference Report buildsupon the work done on that legislationand includes some additional projectsand programs for the Army Corps ofEngineers. With the adoption of thisconference report, we wrap up some un-finished business from the 105th Con-gress and are back on course for devel-opment of a Water Resources Develop-ment Act for 2000.

S. 507 authorizes projects for floodcontrol, navigation, shore protection,environmental restoration, water sup-ply storage and recreation, as well asseveral studies which will be the basisfor future Corps projects. The projectshave the support of a local sponsorwilling to share the cost of the projectwith the Federal Government.

Many of the projects contained inthis bill are necessary to protect thenation’s shorelines, along oceans, lakesand rivers. Several of the navigationprojects need timely authorization inorder to keep our ports competitive inthe global marketplace. The projectswill be reviewed by the Army Corps ofEngineers and must be in the federal

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10288 August 5, 1999interest, technologically feasible, eco-nomically justified and environ-mentally sound in order to go forward.In other words, these are projects wor-thy of our support.

Furthermore, the bill authorizesstudies, including a comprehensive, cu-mulative impact study of the Yellow-stone River in my home state of Mon-tana, that need to get underway sothat we can make informed decisionsabout the future use and managementof these precious resources.

In addition, the conference reportcontains a new continuing authoritiesprogram, known as Challenge 21. Thisprogram, proposed by the Administra-tion and supported by the conferees,emphasizes non-structural flood dam-age reduction measures and riverineand wetland ecosystem measures thatconserve, restore and manage the nat-ural functions and values of the flood-plain. We hope that this new programwill integrate needed flood damage re-duction with the ecosystem in a morenatural way than traditional brick andmortar. Programs like Challenge 21will help move the traditional Corps’mission into the next century.

I am pleased the conference reporthas been approved.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ampleased that the Senate today willenact the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1999. This important legis-lation continues the Corps of Engineerscivil works critical mission to provideflood control, hurricane protection,river and harbor navigation improve-ments, environmental restoration ofour nation’s waterways and otherwater resource infrastructure improve-ments.

Since 1986 when the Congress and theExecutive Branch reach agreement onlandmark cost-sharing principles thatapply to the preparation and construc-tion of these projects, the Congress hasendeavored to enact this reauthoriza-tion bill on a two-year cycle.

As the former Chairman of the Envi-ronment and Public Works Sub-committee on Transportation and In-frastructure, the Congress enacted awater resources reauthorization bill in1996. Regrettably, due to the complex-ities involving a project to provideflood protection for the Sacramento,California area, the House and Senatewere unable to resolve the differencesconcerning this project in 1998.

Today, the conference report beforethe Senate includes those projects inlast year’s bill along with other con-struction projects that the Corps of En-gineers has reviewed and judged to bein the national interest. Through acomprehensive process to study andanalyze the scope of individualprojects, the Chief of the Corps of Engi-neers has found the 45 authorizationsfor new construction projects to betechnically sound, economically justi-fied and environmentally acceptable.

Mr. President, this simply meansthat the Federal taxpayer will receivea higher return on the economic bene-

fits resulting from construction ofthese projects compared to the indi-vidual construction costs. Also, forthese projects, a state or local govern-ment will provide from 35 percent to 50percent of the costs of construction.

The Corps civil works program pro-vides significant protection to livesand property from flooding and coastalstorms. The maintenance of our riverand harbor navigation channels arecritical for us to maintain a competi-tive edge in a ‘‘one-world’’ economicmarket.

The value of water resource projectsis well-documented. In 1997, Corps floodcontrol projects prevented approxi-mately $45.2 billion in damages. TheCorps continues to support the naviga-tion channel deepening projects so thatthe larger class of cargo ships andsuper coal colliers can call on our com-mercial water ports. The value of com-merce on these waterways totaled over$600 billion in 1997, generating approxi-mately 16 million jobs.

Mr. President, the conference reportalso contains very important provi-sions to strengthen and expand theCorps new focus on environmental res-toration of our nation’s waterways. Wehave established a new program,known as ‘‘Challenge 21’’, which pro-vides the Corps with the direction towork with local communities to devel-oped non-structural flood controlprojects. This is an initiative that willhopefully produce less-costly flood con-trol options. This program will be im-portant to financially-strapped com-munities who may not be able to affordto provide the 35 percent local costs fora traditional flood control project.Also, this program will foster the pres-ervation of sensitive ecosystems thatprovide vital flood protection in thefloodplain.

Challenge 21 also has the potential toproduce significant savings in the re-duction of flood damages and Federalflood damage assistance costs.

Mr. President, since the enactment ofthe 1986 water resources bill which es-tablished cost-sharing requirements forthe construction of water projects, Ihave been committed to applying theserequirements to projects authorized insubsequent bills. I applaud my Senatecolleagues for enacting Senate legisla-tion that adhere to these rules. Thecost-sharing requirements have beensuccessful in leveraging non-Federalfunds and they have ensured that onlythose projects with the greatest merit,economic benefit and local supportmove forward.

It was my view, along with ChairmanCHAFEE and the Ranking member, Sen-ator BAUCUS, that we must insist onthe cost-sharing requirement forprojects authorized in this bill. I re-gret, however, that the conference re-port does not apply the cost-sharingprinciples in all cases.

I would just ask my House and Sen-ate colleagues to remember the 10-yearstalemate that existed between theCongress and the Executive Branch

from 1975 to 1986. At that time no waterresource projects moved forward be-cause the Executive Branch insisted onsome level financial contribution fromthose who would benefit from theseprojects. By 1986, the Congress and theAdministration reached agreement ona fair allocation of costs and since thattime there has been an orderly processfor planning, designing and con-structing water resource projects.

We must not abandon cost-sharingrules, or else there is the very real pos-sibility of again triggering a halt toFederal funding for these importantprojects. I will continue to work to fol-low the requirements of the 1986 billand stand ready to work with my col-leagues on this issue.

Mr. President, this legislation, whichwas three years in the making, in-volved a great deal of staff time andcommitment. I want to express my ap-preciation to the staff of the Environ-ment and Public Works Committee—Jimmie Powell, the Staff Director, DanDelich, Abigail Kinnison, Chelsea Hen-derson, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Ellen Stein andPeter Washburn for all of their efforts.Also, the professional expertise of theCorps of Engineers was invaluable. Iparticularly want to thank LarryPrather, Gary Campbell and the manydedicated professionals at the Corps ofEngineers Headquarters for their tech-nical evaluation of the many projectsthat came before the Committee forconsideration.

Mr. President, I urge the adoption ofthe conference report.

THE SAVANNAH HARBOR DEEPENING PROJECT

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, Irise to request that the Chairman ofthe Senate Environment and PublicWorks Committee help me to clarifythe intent of the Savannah Harbor Ex-pansion Project that appears in Sec-tion 102 of the 1999 Water ResourcesDevelopment Act. It is my under-standing that this legislation author-izes a project to deepen the SavannahRiver channel to a depth of up to 48feet subject to a favorable report bythe Chief of Engineers and a favorablerecommendation of the Secretary byDecember 31, 1998.

Mr. CHAFEE. The senior Senatorfrom Georgia is correct.

Mr. COVERDELL. It is my under-standing as well, that both the Chief ofEngineer’s Tier I Environmental Im-pact Statement and Feasibility Reportprovide for the establishment of astakeholders’ evaluation group whichwill have early and consistent involve-ment in the project, and as part of theprocess, the EIS requires the develop-ment of a mitigation plan to fully andadequately address predicted and po-tential adverse impacts on, amongother things, the Savannah NationalWildlife Refuge; striped bass popu-lation; short-nose sturgeon; salt waterand fresh water wetlands; chloride lev-els; dissolved oxygen levels; erosion;and historical resources. Is that cor-rect?

Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10289August 5, 1999Mr. COVERDELL. It is my further

understanding that before this projectis carried out, the Secretary, in con-sultation with affected federal and non-federal entities, must develop a mitiga-tion plan addressing adverse projectimpacts and that the plan must be im-plemented in advance of or concurrentwith project construction and must en-sure that the project cost estimates aresufficient to address all potential miti-gation alternatives. Is that correct?

Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct.Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Chair-

man for his assistance and look for-ward to working with him on this im-portant matter.

Mr. CLELAND. Will the Chairmanyield for two additional questions onthis project?

Mr. CHAFEE. I would be happy to an-swer any questions the Senator mayhave.

Mr. CLELAND. As the Senator re-calls, during the Senate’s considerationof the Water Resources DevelopmentAct in the 105th Congress, we discussedthe matter of whether the bill author-ized the Secretary or the Georgia PortsAuthority to proceed with constructionof the project without the respectivedepartment heads concurring on an ap-propriate implementation plan andmitigation plan and that it was our un-derstanding that the bill did not pro-vide such authority. In this currentversion, is this still your under-standing?

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator’s under-standing is correct.

Mr. CLELAND. Further, is it still theSenator’s understanding that any fundsto be appropriated by Congress for theproject must be allocated in a mannerthat ensures that project impacts arefully and adequately mitigated and areotherwise consistent with the mitiga-tion plan developed by the Secretaryand the stakeholder evaluation group?

Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct.Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chairman

for the opportunity to clarify these un-derstandings.

HOWARD HANSON DAM

Mr. GORTON. Mr. Chairman, I wantto thank the Committee for its effortsto help resolve several very importantand contentious issues affecting theHoward Hanson Dam project in Wash-ington state.

I applaud the Howard Hanson provi-sion in the Managers Statement ac-companying this legislation, which rec-ognizes the ongoing negotiations be-tween the Corps of Engineers and theNational Marine Fisheries Service withrespect to the Corps’ responsibilitiesunder the Endangered Species Act forthe protection of threatened PugetSound Chinook Salmon. These fishruns are directly impacted by theCorps of Engineers’ operation of How-ard Hanson Dam and, as a consequence,the Corps will be asked to bear respon-sibility for these impacts under theESA.

I appreciate the Committee’s ac-knowledgment that the requirements

of ESA might force a revision of thecost allocation for the Howard Hansonproject. Given the urgent need to havemitigation measures in place as soonas possible to protect salmon runs inthe Puget Sound region, is it the Com-mittee’s intent that the Corps providea proposal for a cost reallocation to theCommittee for consideration in theWater Resources Development Act forthe year 2000?

Mr. CHAFEE. It is the Committee’sintent to urge the Corps and the Na-tional Marine Fisheries Service tocomplete their ESA consultation expe-ditiously so that a cost share adjust-ment can be considered by the Com-mittee in a timely manner.

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Chairman.AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask mycolleagues on the Committee on Envi-ronment and Public Works, and Sen-ator VOINOVICH, Chairman of the Sub-committee on Transportation and In-frastructure, and my ranking member,Senator BAUCUS, a question on theWater Resources Development Act of1999 as we prepare to give approval tothe conference report.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I will be happy torespond to the Senator from California.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I firstthank the leadership of this distin-guished committee and its members fortheir perseverance in working to fi-nally pass the Water Resources Devel-opment Act, WRDA, an effort that hastaken about a year. I also want to sayhow I appreciate Senator VOINOVICH’sleadership as our new chairman of thesubcommittee.

Despite our hard work and achieve-ments, I am disappointed at the out-come in conference on the AmericanRiver Watershed project. We failed toinclude the Senate program for pro-viding a 170-year level of flood protec-tion for the City of Sacramento in theAmerican River Watershed. The Senatebill represented the local consensusagreement to increase in the level offlood protection for our state capital,Sacramento. Sacramento’s 400,000 resi-dents, 130 schools and 5,000 businessesare located in the flood plain at theconfluence of the Sacramento Riverflowing from the north and the Amer-ican River, which cascades from theHigh Sierra mountains, from the east.The most likely cause of a flood wouldbe a breach in the American River lev-ees which could inundate 55,000 acres.

The damages from even a 100-yearflood would be comparable to the 1989Loma Prieta earthquake which caused63 deaths, almost 4,000 injuries and $8billion in direct property damage. Sac-ramento has one of the highest levelsof risk and one of the lowest levels ofprotection.

There was a year-long effort to pres-sure this Congress to link extraneouswater supply projects to this flood con-trol measure, despite the fact that byunanimous vote in the Senate and a418-to-6 vote in the House, WRDA billswere approved with no special set aside

for water supply projects in Californiathat would override the water agree-ments and planning processes thathave taken years of sweat, blood andtears to put into place. We were able inthis conference to stop inclusion ofthose water supply projects, and weachieved an increase in the level ofprotection for Sacramento from 90-yearto 140-year level of protection. How-ever, this level is unacceptable. It stillputs 400,000 people at too high a risk ofdisaster.

I would like to ask the leadership ofthe Environment and Public WorksCommittee Subcommittee on Trans-portation and Infrastructure if they be-lieve as I do that this conference reportreflects only an incremental step inour efforts to increase protection forSacramento and that more needs to bedone to remove this risk.

Mr. BAUCUS. I look forward to work-ing with the Senator on more improve-ments for flood protection for Sac-ramento in subsequent WRDA bills.

Mr. VOINOVICH. The Senator fromCalifornia is correct. We have providedimportant improvements for the floodprotection for Sacramento. However,we can do better, and I think we shouldconsider increased protection in the fu-ture.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleagues.I do note that, while I am disappointedat the outcome on the American River,this bill does provide numerous bene-fits for my state of California. The newdredging project for the Port of Oak-land will enhance international tradeand the regional economy and enablenew efficiencies at the port to be un-dertaken with the new intermodal ter-minal. In addition, the dredge spoil willhelp restore wetlands in Marin Countywhere a portion of the former HamiltonArmy Airfield is being used for envi-ronmental restoration. We have newflood protection plans authorized inSanta Clara, the Yuba River Basin,Sacramento area, the City of SantaCruz, and Fresno County. We have pri-ority designations throughout thestate for the new riverine ecosystemrestoration program to encourage nat-ural flood control systems and we haveassistance for important new waterreclamation projects in the San RamonValley and the South Bay area of LosAngeles.

But more work needs to be done toprotect Sacramento, and we will ad-dress those needs in the next WRDAbill. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I risein support of the conference agreementon the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1999 which provides for the de-velopment and improvement of our Na-tion’s water resources infrastructure.This legislation authorizes water re-source projects of vital importance toour nation’s and our states’ economyand maritime industry as well as ourenvironment.

I am particularly pleased that themeasure includes a number of provi-sions for which I have fought to ensure

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10290 August 5, 1999the future health of the Port of Balti-more and of Maryland’s environment.

First the bill authorizes nearly $28million for needed improvements toBaltimore Harbor Anchorages andChannels. Many of the existing anchor-ages and branch channels within Balti-more Harbor were built in the first halfof this century and are no longer deepenough, wide enough or long enough toaccommodate the vessels now callingon the Port of Baltimore. Many of thelarger ships must now anchor some 25miles south of Baltimore in naturallydeep water, resulting in delays and in-creased costs to the shipping industry.Also, the narrow widths of some of thebranch channels result in additionaltime for the pilots to maneuver safelyto and from their docking berths. InJune 1998 the Chief of Engineers ap-proved a report which recommended anumber of improvements including: (1)widening and deepening Federal an-chorages 3 and 4; (2) widening and pro-viding flared corners for state-ownedEast Dundalk, Seagirt, Connecting andWest Dundalk branch Channels; (3)dredging a new branch channel atSouth Locust Point; and (4) dredging aturning basin at the head of the FortMcHenry Channel. The report identi-fied the project as ‘‘technically sound,economically justified and environ-mentally and socially acceptable.’’This project has been a top priority ofmine, of the Maryland Port Adminis-tration and of the shipping communityfor many years and I am delighted thatthis legislation will enable us to moveforward with this important project.

Second, the legislation directs theCorps of Engineers to make criticallyneeded safety improvements to theTolchester Channel in the ChesapeakeBay. The Tolchester Channel is a vitallink in the Baltimore Port system. Itwas authorized in the River and HarborAct of 1958 and aligned to take advan-tage of the naturally deep water in theChesapeake Bay, along Maryland’sEastern Shore. This alignment, whichis shaped like an ‘‘S,’’ has posed a seri-ous navigation problem and safetyrisks for vessels. Ships must changecourse five times within three miles,often beginning a new turn, sometimesin the opposite direction, before com-pleting a first turn. With vessels nearly1,000 feet in length, it is difficult tosafely navigate the channel, particu-larly in poor weather conditions. TheU.S. Coast Guard and the Maryland Pi-lots Association have expressed seriousconcerns over the safety of the areaand have long recommended straight-ening of the channel due to the ground-ing and ‘‘near misses’’ which have oc-curred in the area. The cost forstraightening the Tolchester ‘‘S-turn’’is estimated at $12.6 million with $1.3million coming from non-federalsources. This authorization enables theCorps to proceed expeditiously withthese improvements and address the se-rious concerns of those who must navi-gate the treacherous channel. With $5.8million already included in the fiscal

2000 Energy and Water Appropriationsbill, this provision will ensure thatthese improvements will be undertakenin the near future.

Mr. President, the Port of Baltimoreis one of the great ports of the worldand one of Maryland’s most importanteconomic assets. The Port generates $2billion in annual economic activity,provides for an estimated 62,000 jobs,and more than $500 million a year inState and local tax revenues and cus-toms receipts. These two projects willhelp assure the continued vitality ofthe Port of Baltimore into the 21stCentury.

In addition to port development andimprovement projects, the measurecontains a provision which will helpsignificantly to enhance Maryland’senvironment and quality of life andhelp achieve the goals and vision of thePotomac American Heritage River des-ignation.

It authorizes $15 million for the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers to modify theexisting flood protection project atCumberland, Maryland to restore fea-tures of the historic Chesapeake andOhio Canal adversely affected by con-struction and operation of the project.Mr. President, the C&O Canal is widelyregarded as the Nation’s finest relic ofAmerica’s canal building era. It wasbegun in 1828 as a transportation routebetween commercial centers in theEast and frontier resources of theWest. It reached Cumberland in 1850and continued operating until 1924when it succumbed to floods and finan-cial failure. In the early 1950’s, a sec-tion of the Canal and turning basin atits Cumberland terminus was filled inby the Corps of Engineers during con-struction of a local flood protectionproject. Portions of the Canal were pro-claimed a national monument in 1961and it was officially established as anational historical park in 1971. JusticeDouglas described the park ‘‘* * * notyet marred by the roar of wheels andthe sound of horns. * * * The stretch of185 miles of country from Washingtonto Cumberland, Maryland, is one of themost fascinating and picturesque inthe Nation.’’

The National Park Service, as part ofits General Management Plan for thePark, has long sought to rebuild andre-water the Canal at its Cumberlandterminus. The NPS entered into aMemorandum of Agreement, MOA,with the Corps to undertake a study ofthe feasibility of reconstructing thelast 2200 feet of the canal to the ter-minus, through and adjacent to theCorps’ flood protection project. TheCorps completed this study in July 1995and determined that ‘‘it is feasible tore-water the canal successfully; thecanal and flood protection levee canco-exist on the site without compro-mising the flood protection for the Cityof Cumberland; re-construction andpartial operation of the locks is fea-sible; and, based on the as-built infor-mation available, underground utilityimpacts can be mitigated at reasonable

cost to allow construction of the canaland turning basin in basically the samealignment and configuration as theoriginal canal.’’ A subsequent Re-watering Design Analysis estimatedthe total project cost at $15 million.This authorization will enable theCorps to proceed with restoring a 1.1mile stretch of the C&O Canal and revi-talize the area as a major hub for tour-ism and economic development.

The conference agreement also au-thorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers to undertake a study for controland management of waterborne debrison the Susquehanna River. The Sus-quehanna River is the largest tributaryof the Chesapeake Bay, draining anarea of about 27,500 square miles. It isalso one of the most flood prone riverbasins in the nation. The U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers operates severalreservoirs for flood control and otherpurposes and there are three large hy-droelectric dams on the lower Susque-hanna. During high flow events, enor-mous amounts of debris, includingtrees, branches and manmade mate-rials, are carried downstream and ulti-mately into the Chesapeake Bay. Mostrecently, the flood waters of January1999 deposited tremendous amounts ofdebris as far as Anne Arundel County,Maryland, creating hazards to naviga-tion, damaging boats and bulkheads,aggravating flooding and cloggingbeaches and shorelines. This legislationwill enable the Corps of Engineers toevaluate the economic, engineeringand environmental feasibility of poten-tial measures to control and managethe amount of waterborne debris aswell as determine if new and improveddebris removal technologies can be uti-lized in the Susquehanna.

Finally, the conference agreementincludes several other provisions whichwill help address important water re-source needs in Maryland and nearbycommunities including the flood pro-tection project for the District of Co-lumbia, and the studies for the WestView Shores Community of Cecil Coun-ty, Welch Point and Chesapeake City,MD.

I want to compliment the distin-guished chairmen of the Committeeand the Subcommittee, SenatorsCHAFEE and WARNER, and the rankingmember, Senator BAUCUS, for theirleadership in crafting this legislationand I urge my colleagues to join me insupporting this measure.f

TAXPAYER REFUND AND RELIEFACT OF 1999—CONFERENCE RE-PORT

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I submit areport of the committee of conferenceon the bill (H.R. 2488) to provide forreconciliation pursuant to sections 105and 211 of the concurrent resolution onthe budget for fiscal year 2000, and askfor its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re-port will be stated.

The Legislative clerk read as follows:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10291August 5, 1999The committee on conference on the dis-

agreeing votes of the two Houses on theamendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.2488), have agreed to recommend and do rec-ommend to their respective Houses this re-port, signed by a majority of the conferees.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, the Senate will proceed tothe consideration of the conference re-port. (The conference report is printedin the House proceedings of the RECORDof August 4, 1999.)

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the funda-mental question before Congress thesepast few weeks, as we have debated theTaxpayer Refund Act of 1999, is quitesimple: Is it right for Washington totake from the taxpayer more moneythan is necessary to run the Govern-ment?

The issue of tax relief is not anymore complicated than that, and theoutcome of the conference between theSenate and House makes it clear thatwe believe Government is not auto-matically entitled to the surplus thatis, in large part, due to the hard work,thrift, and risk-taking of the Americanpeople.

Individuals and families are due a re-fund, and that is exactly what we dowith this legislation. We give the peo-ple a refund. We do it in a way that isfair, broad based, and empowering. Wedo it in a way that will benefit nearlyevery working American, a way thatwill help restore equity to the TaxCode, and provide American familieswith the relief and resources they needto meet pressing concerns.

This tax refund legislation will helpindividuals and families save for self-reliance in retirement. It will help par-ents prepare for educational costs. Itwill give the self-employed and under-insured the boost they need to pay forhealth insurance, and it will begin torestore fairness to the Tax Code by ad-dressing the marriage tax penalty.

How do we accomplish all of this? Webegin by reducing our marginal incometax rates by a point. In other words,the 15-percent tax bracket will drop to14 percent, and the 39.6-percent toprate will drop to 38.6 percent. The new14-percent bracket will be extended up-ward to include millions of Americanswho are now paying taxes in the 28-per-cent bracket.

These changes will benefit individ-uals and families across the economicspectrum. For example, an individualwith $40,000 of income will save over$700. An individual earning $50,000 willsave over $800. Under this bill, a tax-payer with $70,000 of income will saveover $1,000.

This is significant tax relief. Whenfully phased in, a middle-class familyof four with an adjusted gross incomeof $80,000 will save almost $3,000 a year.This is real savings, money that can beused by individuals and families tomeet their pressing needs and objec-tives.

To restore equity to the Tax Code,this legislation also meets a bipartisanobjective by providing relief for the

marriage tax penalty, and it does thisby doubling the standard deduction andthe 15-percent tax bracket for marriedcouples filing jointly.

We can all agree on how importantthis is. For too long, husbands andwives who have worked and paid taxeshave been penalized by their dual in-comes. This plan will address that in-equity by giving working Americancouples greater relief.

Let me give an example. Two individ-uals, each making $35,000 a year, face apenalty of almost $1,500 when theymarry. Under this legislation, thatpenalty will be addressed in two ways:first, by doubling the standard deduc-tion and, second, by doubling the 15-percent tax bracket to include theircombined income.

The marriage penalty relief offeredin this bill retains the Senate positionon the amount of relief received, and iteven provides relief for people receiv-ing the earned income tax credit.

To help families with their educationexpenses, the legislation before us al-lows taxpayers to increase their con-tributions to education IRAs, or whatwill—under the provisions of this bill—be called education savings accounts.Allowable contributions will rise from$500 to $2,000 annually.

And these funds will be available tomeet expenses for all students, fromkindergarten through college. Beyondincreasing the level a family can savefor education, this Tax Relief Act alsomakes interest earned on qualifiedState and private school higher edu-cation tuition plans tax free—a mostimportant development, in my judg-ment. It also extends employer-pro-vided educational assistance for under-graduate studies, and it repeals the 60-month rule on student loan interest de-ductions. This will allow individuals toclaim tax deductions on interest thatthey pay on their student loan, withoutthe imposition of a time limit.

To help families meet health careand long-term care needs, this legisla-tion provides a 100 percent above-the-line deduction for those who pay morethan 50 percent of their health insur-ance premiums. This, of course, in-cludes the self-employed. The plan alsoprovides an additional personal exemp-tion for those who care for an elderlyrelative in their home.

As you can see, this legislation is, in-deed, empowering; it addresses con-cerns that are vitally important in thelives of our families, coast to coast. Itprovides across-the-board tax relief. Itaddresses the marriage tax penalty.

It makes education more affordablefor all students—kindergarten throughcollege. And it helps our families meettheir health care and long-term careneeds. But it doesn’t stop here; it doesmuch more.

The legislation before us phases outthe alternative minimum tax. It pro-vides capital gains tax relief, simpli-fying the rate structure, and reducingthe individual capital gains tax ratefrom 20 percent to 18 percent, begin-

ning with the current 1999 tax year.For those individuals taxed at the low-est individual rate, their capital gainstax rate is reduced from 10 percent to 8percent.

In addition, the tax basis of certainassets may be increased by an ‘‘infla-tion adjustment,’’ so that any capitalgain attributable to inflation is notsubjected to tax. Also, we have main-tained the 2 percent capital gains ratedifferential that is imposed on long-term capital gains from depreciablereal estate, by reducing that rate from25 percent to 23 percent.

Another very important measure isthe treatment of estate taxes. This leg-islation completely phases out and ul-timately repeals the Federal estate,gift, and generation skipping taxes. Italso corrects technical problems in theHouse provision.

Each of these will be a powerful toolin the hands of taxpayers and familieswho will use these changes—their re-lief—to meet the needs that are uniqueto their situation. However, a couple ofmajor provisions in this bill that Iwould like to outline in some detailwill—like the across-the-board tax ratecut—benefit everyone, enabling indi-viduals and families to prepare for self-reliance and success in retirement.These, of course, include the expansionof individual retirement accounts andpension programs.

Under the bill, IRA contribution lim-its will be increased over the next 7years until they reach $5,000. And tax-payers who are close to retiring will beallowed to make catchup payments intheir plans. These changes will in myjudgment, be incredibly beneficial. Forexample, an individual without an em-ployer-provided pension plan, who con-tributes the maximum amount allow-able, as it increases over the next 7years—with the magic of compoundinginterest—will be able to put away over$31,000 for retirement. In year 7 and be-yond, he or she will be able to put awaythe full $5,000 annually.

With the catchup provision—applica-ble for people over the age of 50—ifthose 7 years pass just prior to the tax-payer’s retirement, the amount, for ex-ample, he or she could save in those 7years under this bill would be over$44,000. This bill also increases the in-come threshold for those who can takefull advantage of Roth IRA accounts upto $200,000 for a couple filing jointly.

For employer-provided plans, thisbill increases the maximum amount anindividual can contribute to a 401(k)plan, a 403(b) plan or a 457 plan. Start-ing next year, an employee may con-tribute up to $11,000 to his employer’s401(k) plan In each year thereafter, hecould contribute increasing amounts tohis 401(k), and in 2005, he will be able tocontribute a full $15,000. To show youhow empowering this is, if John, a 35-year-old, contributes the maximumamount allowable over the next 30years, his 401(k) plan benefit at retire-ment would increase by over $1.2 mil-lion.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10292 August 5, 1999In addition, if John’s employer estab-

lished a newly added Plus Account pro-gram under its 401(k) plan, thatamount would be nontaxable whenJohn receives it at retirement. ThePlus Account program—as addressed inthis bill—lets an employer establish anaccount which has the same tax treat-ment as a Roth IRA. That means thatJohn would have over $1.2 million innontaxable income.

Finally, this bill gives small busi-nesses a new incentive to establish aretirement plan for their employees.The contribution limits for a SIMPLEplan—a defined contribution plan onlyfor small businesses—have been in-creased in this bill to encourage smallbusiness owners to establish suchplans. The incentive to establish aSIMPLE plan is easy to understand.Small business owners who offer SIM-PLE plans will be able to save up to$10,000 in the plans they establish.

This will be a great benefit to them,but in order to save their own money—as part of the SIMPLE plan—they willhave to provide their employees with acontribution to their own plans of upto 2 percent of their salary.

At the same time, under this plan theemployees could also receive a match-ing contribution from their employerof up to 3 percent of compensation ifthey decide to contribute to the SIM-PLE plan.

Now, I believe this is good policy. Itwill encourage Americans to take ad-vantage of these opportunities and pro-vide for their retirement future. Aswith almost every provision in thisTaxpayer Refund Act, the catalyst isthe individual and the family, usingtax relief to meet their needs. Everymeasure I have outlined as part of theTaxpayer Refund Act of 1999 is impor-tant, as each rightfully returns re-sources that Americans can use tomeet their current needs, and the re-fund being offered comes from surplusfunds. In other words, this broad-basedtax relief package can be passed, signedinto law, and, indeed, still leave suffi-cient resources in Washington to takecare of Social Security, Medicare re-form, and other necessary Governmentobligations.

Let me repeat that: This broad-basedtax relief package can be passed, signedinto law, and still leave sufficient non-Social Security funds available to ad-dress comprehensive Medicare reform,including a prescription drug benefit.We can offer this relief and still paydown the debt and keep the budget bal-anced. We can do all of this for onevery simple reason: The work, the in-vestment in job creation achieved byAmericans everywhere, has succeededin creating long-term economicgrowth. As I have said before, it is notright that the reward for this success isthat today our taxes are the highestpercent of our gross national productof any time in postwar history.

After paying for the Government pro-grams for which Congress has plannedand budgeted, a refund from the sur-

plus must now be returned to theAmerican taxpayer.

I know there is wide agreement thatAmericans deserve relief. This is thebill that will give them relief. We mustand should support it.

We must keep in mind that major taxcuts must be done through the rec-onciliation process. This is, indeed, alengthy, time-intensive process. Wehave successfully completed it. I amproud to say that this conference re-port, as it stands today, carries no pro-vision that was not in either the Houseor Senate bill. In other words, nothingextraneous was added in conference. Itis clean and representative of the di-rection received by those who craftedthe Senate and House bills.

Frankly, this is a first in tax history.It represents a tremendous amount ofwork by our colleagues, Members ofthe House, and the staff in both Cham-bers. Those who believe we may becoming back to do this again in Sep-tember are mistaken. This is the taxbill for this year. We won’t have a sec-ond chance on this. When we comeback after recess, our time and atten-tion will be focused on Medicare re-form, a vital issue that concerns us all.

For those who are concerned thatthis major relief package may be toobig, please be reminded that there areimportant trigger mechanisms in-cluded in this bill. If we don’t continueto reduce the payment on the intereston the national debt—let me repeatthat—if we don’t continue to reducethe payment on the interest on the na-tional debt, then the tax relief includedhere will be reduced to compensate ac-cordingly.

Well, the bottom line is that this istax relief in which we can have con-fidence. It meets the criteria we estab-lished before we began. It is fair. It re-stores equity to the Tax Code andmakes education more affordable. Ithelps taxpayers prepare for self-reli-ance and retirement. This legislationwill help families keep their homes,their farms, and businesses safe fromdeath taxes. It makes health care moreaffordable.

I believe these are objectives that areshared by everyone. They are objec-tives that can be embraced by Senatorsand Congressmen on both sides of thepolitical aisle.

Mr. President, I encourage my col-leagues to vote for passage, and I yieldthe floor.

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

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President,might I begin on a general point withwhich our revered chairman has justconcluded, which is the reservation ofthe Social Security surpluses of thenext decade for purposes of retiring thedebt. This is a fact easily unobservedbecause we are not arguing about it.There is agreement here. What we willdo, we will cut the national debt bymore than half, the publicly held debt,and the interest costs accordingly.

Just a few years ago interest costshad become the third highest item in

our budget. It is not noticed becausewe don’t debate it. We don’t decide howmuch we will pay in interest costs; it isautomatic. But this has now happened.There has been a great recovery ofAmerican Government finances from agrim moment in 1992 when we had a fis-cal year with a $290 billion deficit.

I will point simply to this morning’sNew York Times and the lead story,sir. I will just read the headline, ‘‘Gov-ernment Plans to Buy Back Bonds andSave Interest: Would retire some debtusing the surplus to replace high-inter-est securities at lower rates’’—a com-plex proposal being worked out inTreasury under Secretary Summers.Also, in the business section of thismorning’s New York Times, there isanother story, ‘‘The Dwindling Marketin U.S. Treasury BONDs,’’ discussinghow the market is going to respond tothe bond buy back. And there is this:

‘‘This is a sea change,’’ said James M. Kel-ler, senior vice president and portfolio man-ager for Treasury securities at Pimco Advi-sors, an asset management firm. ‘‘I wasstruck by the Treasury’s observation thatthe last time there were two back-to-backyears of budget surpluses was in 1956 and1957. I wasn’t alive then, so this is a newthing for me.’’

Indeed, it is a new thing and hugelyto be welcomed.

I might also say that the chairmanstated that this bill, which we will voteon at 7:06 this evening, is a clean bill;there is no provision in it that was notin either the House or the Senate pro-posals. But now I have to say to theSenate, with the utmost deference tomy friend—I say to the Senators fromNebraska, Florida, Minnesota, SenatorBINGAMAN—we have the word of thechairman, and his word is absolutelybondable in this body. If he says it, itis so. But that is the only way youwould know it is so because we just re-ceived a copy of the bill this morning,and certainly have not been able to re-view all 589 pages.

This is not the way to handle the sec-ond largest tax decrease in history.There was no conference on this mat-ter. We met formally for 20 minutes,and the negotiation was entirely be-tween party leaders of the majority. Itis an age-old practice of the Congressto, at the end of a conference, dis-tribute the signature papers that theconferees sign or do not sign. I was theconferee for this side of the aisle; nosignature paper came to me.

There was no participation of anykind from this side of the aisle. I thinkthat would be true in the House as wellas in the Senate. That is something wehave to watch in terms of our proce-dures. It was not the way the Senateconducted itself in such a matter whenI first came here and became a memberof the Finance Committee.

During the debate last week on theSenate version of the reconciliationbill, I attempted to put the debate in a‘‘doctrinal perspective,’’ as I put it. Itraced the development from the 1960sof an intellectual movement whichholds that the only way to restrain the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10293August 5, 1999growth of Government is to delib-erately create a protracted fiscal cri-sis. This was disarmingly put by thenPresident-elect Reagan. It was just 16days before his inauguration in 1981. Hesaid:

There were always those who told us thattaxes couldn’t be cut until spending was re-duced. Well, you know, we can lecture ourchildren about extravagance until we runout of voice and breath. Or we can cut theirextravagance by simply reducing their al-lowance.

So in 1981 to 1983, the allowance ofthe Federal Government was reduced.While other intervening events—asharp recession in 1981–82—impacted onrevenues, nonetheless, there was a pre-cipitous drop in revenues from 19.0 per-cent of GDP in 1980 to 17.5 percent ofGDP in 1983. Simultaneously, the re-cession and defense buildup conspiredto increase outlays from 20.2 percent ofGDP in 1979 to 23.6 in 1983. The result,a huge gap—6 percent of GDP—betweenrevenues and outlays, and deficits of$200 billion or more ‘‘as far as the eyecould see,’’ to quote the former Direc-tor of OMB, David Stockman, and withthis huge gap, the national debt quad-rupled from under $1 trillion to $4 tril-lion between 1980 and 1992.

In August of 1993, with a deficit of$290 billion, we chose to confront that,to raise taxes and reduce outlays by alittle more than a half trillion dollars.More recently, the Office of Manage-ment and Budget estimated that ‘‘thetotal deficit reduction has been morethan twice this—$1.2 trillion.’’ In 1997,a bipartisan measure was passed. Weare now in a situation of reasonablesurplus, reasonable expectation. Butthere is no reason to act on a surplusthat does not yet exist.

Here we are, with unemployment at4.3 percent, near zero inflation, realeconomic growth at 4 percent, and aneconomy in the ninth year of an expan-sion. All the economists—the ones wecare much about—are saying: Not now.Alan Greenspan suggested, speakingbefore the Senate and House BankingCommittees just last month, the mosteffective means that we can have to re-generate the economy and keep thelong-term growth path moving higheris if we hold tax cuts until we need astimulus. Contrariwise, to stimulatewhen you don’t need it is to invite in-flation—inflation, which is a tax onanyone when interest rates go up. Any-body who pays a car loan and has acredit card or a mortgage pays it.

Dale Jorgenson described this per-sistent interest in cutting down thesize of Government by reducing rev-enue ‘‘fiscal disaster’’ in his 1995 testi-mony before the Finance Committee.Yet it persists as a conviction. There isvery little testing of the proposition.

I won’t go on too long in this doc-trinal discourse, but back in 1973, Her-bert Kaufman of the Brookings Institu-tion published a small book called ‘‘AreGovernment Organizations Immortal?’’He reported that of 175 organizationshe could identify in the Federal Gov-

ernment in 1923, no less than 148 werestill there a half century later, and ofthe others, most of their functions hadjust been moved to different organiza-tions.

Recently, the Cato Institute, a con-servative group here in Washington,looked at the half dozen organizationswhich the 1995 House Contract WithAmerica targeted for extinction—$75billion worth of programs, out. Sir, notone of them is out. Indeed, the appro-priations for them have gone up by $2billion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that a table prepared by the CatoInstitute and printed in the Wash-ington Post be printed in the RECORD.

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

[From the Washington Post, Aug. 3, 1999]GROWING BACK

In 1995, the House GOP’s ‘‘Contract WithAmerica’’ targeted $75.3 billion worth of pro-grams for extinction. Now the governmentspends $77 billion on those programs. Hereare some of the targeted agencies and pro-grams for which spending has risen, in mil-lions of dollars.

Program 1995 1999

Department of Commerce ......................................... $3,401 $4,767Department of Education .......................................... 31,205 34,360School-to-work grants ............................................... 82 503Goals 2000 ................................................................ 231 507Manufacturing Extension Partnerships ..................... 40 128Aid to East Europe and Baltic states ...................... 332 450Economic Development Administration .................... 350 438Adult education ......................................................... 299 400Star Schools .............................................................. 25 45Summer youth employment and training ................. 867 871Bilingual and immigrant education ......................... 225 386Trade adjustment assistance ................................... 268 307Intelligent transportation system ............................. 143 185

Source: Cato Institute analysis of federal budget.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Somehow we haveto come to terms with this whole as-sumption. Perhaps something like theHoover Commission on the organiza-tion of the executive branch needs tobe done. Some of us have the assump-tion that we really aren’t that serious.As that brief ceremonial meeting ofour conferees this week opened, our re-spected friend—and we have knowneach other for a quarter century—BILLARCHER said in his opening remarks:

We don’t need full-time Government andpart-time families; we need part-time Gov-ernment and full-time families.

In no way to cast any suggestion thathe is anything but absolutely sincere, Idon’t think the proposition would sur-vive close inquiry. I asked him: Sir, doyou think we could settle for ‘‘a part-time Marine Corps, or a part-time Fed-eral Bureau of Investigation?’’ No, youdon’t mean that.

I, for one, very much share the viewthat the Federal Government hastaken on too many matters and needsto be cleared out a very great deal. OurFederal system makes that possible,and the world situation in which wenow find ourselves makes it necessarybut not through the illusion that itwill happen simply by reducing reve-nues.

I wish to make the point that wecan’t afford this tax cut. We may wantone in 5 years time or in 3 years, but

not at this time. That is why the fateof this measure has already been set-tled.

According to the Joint Committee onTaxation, tax expenditures are pro-jected to cost about $672 billion in 2003.While we have not yet had time to ade-quately scour the conference report forall of its provisions, a cursory reviewindicates that, the bill we are asked tovote on today would increase annualtax expenditures by about $19 billion in2003.

Under the Congressional Budget andImpoundment Control Act of 1974, a taxexpenditure is a revenue loss:

. . . attributable to provisions of the Fed-eral tax laws which allow a special exclusion,exemption or deduction from gross incomeor which provide a special tax credit, a pref-erential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax li-ability.

The problem is that we continue touse tax expenditures as a way of fund-ing programs that we do not seem tohave the will to finance with outlays—a problem made all the more severe bythe caps on discretionary spending al-luded to earlier.

On a more global scale, 40 years agoWalter Heller, Chairman of the Councilof Economic Advisers in the Kennedy-Johnson Administration spelled outthe criteria for evaluating tax expendi-tures—criteria which most tax expendi-tures fail to meet. In testimony beforethe House Ways and Means CommitteeHeller stated that Federal fiscal policyrelies on income taxes for three centralroles: (1) Placing resources at the Gov-ernment’s disposal in a non-infla-tionary way; (2) Offsetting fluctuationsin the private economy; and (3) Bring-ing the distribution of income moreclosely into line with public pref-erences.

Heller then argued that the use ofthe tax code to promote other objec-tives should be subject to stern tests,which can be summarized as follows:

Is the tax preference for a legitimatepublic purpose?

Is the tax preference the most effec-tive way to achieve that purpose?

Is the preference targeted?In Heller’s view most tax preferences

fail the test. Yet, he noted we persistin expanding tax preference because:

The back door to Government subsidiesmarked ‘‘Tax Relief’’ is easier to push openthan the front door marked ‘‘Expenditures.. . .’’

Besides, tax expenditures need not bereviewed annually through the appro-priations process.

This bill also adds to the complexityof the tax code. I have long been con-cerned that today’s tax system is socomplex that ordinary taxpayers havedifficulty following the rules. For ex-ample, under the bill capital gains areindexed. The Senate Finance Com-mittee held hearings on February 16,1995 regarding the enormous newrecord keeping burdens that would berequired to calculate the gain or losson common transactions. The NewYork State Bar Association statedthat:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10294 August 5, 1999Congress should reject any proposal to ad-

just or ‘‘index’’ the basis of capital assets forinflation. [A]n indexation regime would cre-ate intolerable administrative burdens fortaxpayers and administrators as well as offernumerous tax arbitrage and avoidance oppor-tunities for aggressive tax planners.

The Joint Committee on Taxationwrote at that time that ‘‘[i]ndexingwould involve a significant amount ofrecord keeping’’ and that it ‘‘wouldsubstantially increase the number ofcalculations necessary to calculatetaxable gain for many common trans-actions.’’

Even if this bill did not risk a returnto protracted fiscal crisis, and even ifits 589 pages did not add to the com-plexity of the code, it should be re-jected because most of the benefits ac-crue to those already well-off.

My colleagues on the other side ofthe aisle argue that the bill justifiablyprovides most of the tax relief to thosewho pay most of the taxes. But theiranalysis is incomplete since it is basedsolely on the distribution of incometaxes. For example, taxpayers earningless than $50,000 pay 36 percent of pay-roll taxes; while those earning over$200,000 pay only 7 percent of payrolltaxes.

The conclusion is very different if theanalysis is based on the distribution ofall federal taxes—income, excise, andpayroll. Those earning less than $50,000pay almost a quarter of the taxes,which is the same percentage as thoseearning over $200,000. So, why is it thatthe Republican tax bill before us todayonly provides 14 percent of the tax cutto those earning less than $50,000 whileproviding 78 percent of the tax cut tothose earning over $80,000? Even worse,why does 45 percent of the tax cut go tothe top 5 percent of income earners,those earning over $155,000? Should wenot provide a more equitable tax cut?

We might also consider heeding theadvice of Herbert Stein, Chairman ofthe Council of Economic Advisers in aRepublican Administration. In an op-edin yesterday’s Wall Street Journal Mr.Stein had this to say:

. . .I [have] come to the conclusion that weshould not make a large tax cut at this time.But my purpose here is not to sell that con-clusion. What I am trying to do is to sell theidea that we need a more systematic, ex-plicit and thorough public discussion of thetax vs. debt reduction issue and to illustratewhat some of the elements of such a discus-sion would be.

We have not had that debate.I see that my learned friend, the gal-

lant Senator from Nebraska, is here,and I think he would like to speak.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.VOINOVICH). The Senator from Ne-braska.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Iyield such time as he may require toSenator KERREY.

Mr. KERREY. I thank the Senatorfrom New York very much.

I am sorry I didn’t wear the samenecktie that he did. Other than that,we are deeply matched.

Mr. President, first I want to com-pliment Chairman ROTH. I believe all

through the Finance Committee delib-erations and last week on the Senatefloor he held true to two ideas that Ishare.

The first is that we can cut taxes.The second is we must do so fairly. In-deed, the net effect of cutting taxes bynearly $800 billion over ten years is togive the American people an $800 bil-lion increase in their after-tax income.I believe we can do it safely. We have $3trillion in surpluses forecast over thenext ten years. And I don’t believe thatcutting taxes will generate inflation ifdone correctly.

In his original package, the Chair-man held true to the idea that somestandard of fairness need be applied inhow the income tax cuts would be dis-tributed. He attempted to do that.Doing that caused him a little grief onhis side of the aisle. I appreciate verymuch what the chairman attempted todo with his original tax cut package.

Accordingly, I voted for the packageenthusiastically on the floor. I believeit was a good proposal. I may havewritten it a little differently if I werethe one who was doing the writing. ButI thought it was a balanced proposaland a good proposal, and I was fullysupportive of it. I was one of fourDemocrats to do so.

Thus, I come to the floor with someregret. I say to my friends on the otherside of the aisle that you should knowthat people like me took a positionthat said we were prepared to vote fora tax cut of $800 billion. The Chair-man’s original package received 57votes on this floor. I understand theother side has been working all nightto get the votes to pass the package wehave before us and I suspect the mostvotes this package will receive is 52. SoI say to my friends on the other side ofthe aisle, if you are trying to get apiece of legislation passed to try tochange the law and give Americans anincome tax cut, you are going in thewrong direction. With the Presidentthreatening to veto the bill, it seems tome that a better approach would havebeen to try to get more votes, notfewer.

I am here, regrettably, to say that Iwill not only change my vote from anenthusiastic ‘‘aye,’’ but I will nowchange and be voting enthusiastically‘‘no.’’ Let me tell my colleagues why.

First of all, I want to identify somethings that are in this package that Ithink would be good. I appreciated verymuch the chairman fighting for themand getting them into the bill, and Iam fully supportive of them.

Eliminating the marriage penalty isterribly important. There are new pro-visions in here which will make it morelikely that Americans will save andwill have the resources they need forretirement. There are provisions inhere which will make it more likelythat Americans will have health insur-ance, and that will make it more likelythat Americans will be able to affordthe cost of higher education.

I do not object at all to eliminatingthe inheritance tax. I cosponsored leg-

islation to do that. I am not going totake a great deal of time explainingwhy, as a Democrat, I reached thatconclusion. I am prepared, if anybodyis interested, in debating it at a latertime.

I am not ideologically opposed tolowering the capital gains tax.

There are many things in this pro-posal that I, in short, like or don’thave strong objections to. It is thistest of fairness which I believe was ap-plied to the Senate version that I findlacking in the conference report.

Let me take the one provision that isthe most important provision in theSenate version.

The provision that cut the lowest taxrate on income from 15 to 14 percentthat was in the Senate finance billwould have cut taxes for families inNebraska with an income of $46,000, fora family of four, by $440. It would havecut taxes on a U.S. Senator with aspouse and two kids by $440 as well.That was the idea.

I am not interested in engaging inclass warfare. I have no quarrel withupper-income Americans or upper-in-come Nebraskans. Quite the contrary.In Nebraska, there were 775,000 federalincome tax returns in 1996. Of that,6,500 had adjusted gross incomes ofover $200,000. That is a relatively smallnumber. But they paid almost a thirdof all the $3.6 billion in federal taxespaid by Nebraskans.

So I am not here to say that upper-income people don’t deserve a taxbreak. I think it is very important forus to take a look at America and try todiscern which taxpayers are most inneed of help. It is, it seems to me, afair question for us to ask. And to tryto apply a standard of fairness, itseems to me, is something we ought tobe doing.

Under last week’s proposal, a singleMember of Congress, I would have got-ten a $260 tax rate cut, just as a singleperson with $26,000 of income. Butunder this proposal, by decreasing thetaxes for everyone at higher rates aswell, a Member of Congress, a singleMember such as myself, I am going toget a tax cut of $1,185. I get over $900more under this proposal. And if I gotmarried, I would do even better.

I can make an argument that becauseI am paying more taxes I ought to getmore of a tax cut. But look at house-holds. A family of four with $46,000worth of income probably ought tohave a larger tax cut than I do. At thevery least, I should not receive morethan they do. That is what I meanwhen I say that this bill, when itpassed here last week, met the mini-mal standard of fairness.

I say to my friends on the other sideof the aisle that if you are trying tofigure out how to get more votes andnot fewer, you have now figured outhow to get fewer. You had 57 votes onthis side last week. The high watermark today, in my view, is likely to be52. I understand that the conference re-port had to be reopened in the later

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10295August 5, 1999hours of yesterday evening and someprovisions had to be put in to woo somevotes for a bare majority. I know therewere some concerns that the VicePresident might be sitting up there atthe end of business today and theremight be no more than 50 votes for thislegislation. All of that should be a sign.You had 57 votes. Yesterday you didnot have 50. Something is going in thewrong direction.

I believe a majority of Democratsand Republicans in chamber, want toapply a standard of fairness. The dis-tinguished junior Senator from Texas,offered an amendment on this floor lastweek that would increase the standarddeduction for a married couple. Whydid she want to eliminate the marriagepenalty for people who are using thestandard deduction? It got a lot ofDemocratic votes and a lot of Repub-licans votes. Indeed, I think it was theonly amendment that actually brokethe 60-vote requirement. That is a clue.That was a fairness issue and the jun-ior Senator wanted that fairness ap-plied to married people who take thestandard deduction, people who do notitemize, people who are generally notin the upper reaches of income in thiscountry.

I’m not talking about crafting a so-cial engineering package. What I amtalking about is applying a standard offairness.

As I said, I have great respect for thechairman of the Finance Committee. Ibelieve he attempted to apply a stand-ard of fairness, and, in my judgment,his package of last week passed thattest. I voted for it enthusiastically.But the conference committee reportdoes not pass that test. It does not passthe test of fairness.

So I enthusiastically and confidentlywill vote ‘‘no’’ on it. I do so regrettablybecause I believe there was an oppor-tunity this year not just to do this butto get a bipartisan solution on Medi-care and to get a bipartisan solution onSocial Security. The package before ustoday does not bode well for future bi-partisan efforts to come up with thosesolutions.

This bill had 57 votes last week. As Isaid, were it not for the sort of last-minute work to try to have somechanges to get some additional votes,it might not have even 50 votes latertoday when we will have a vote on finalpassage.

I say to my Republican friends, if youwant to cut Americans’ taxes, listennot just to what Democrats are sayingbut also listen to what Republicans aresaying. They want a standard of fair-ness applied. It is a legitimate concern.

I don’t know how many Members ofthe Senate believe that $800 billion istoo much. I believe the distinguishedoccupant of the Chair does. He foughtvery hard as mayor and Governor, andI think he is coming to this Congresssaying we ought to be careful not tospend the surplus and lose all theprogress that we have made. Fine.Make that argument.

But for the majority of us who be-lieve that $800 billion is not too much,if we want to persuade our reluctantcolleagues to support cutting taxes forAmerican families, then you have toapply a standard of fairness, a test offairness. You may not like doing it.You may believe your ideology tellsyou that you should do something else.But if you want to change the law andget this done, you had darned sure bet-ter do it, because not only will you notget the strong majority you will needbut you will never, in my judgment,get the President of United States tosign a piece of legislation that doesn’tattempt to measure and apply sometest of fairness.

Again, I appreciate very much thework that the distinguished chairmandid, Senator ROTH of Delaware, as wellas the ranking Democrat, SenatorMOYNIHAN. I appreciate very much theleadership of both of them. SenatorMOYNIHAN led the Democrats in thecommittee to come up with a $300 bil-lion tax cut proposal. It had a very keycomponent in there, which was to in-crease the standard deduction for indi-viduals. That takes a number of peopleoff the income tax rolls, reduces thetop tax rate for many and simplifiestax filing for millions.

I suggest to my Republican col-leagues on the other side of the aislethat if you want to get a bill, that isthe kind of proposal that you shouldhave included in this package and it isunfortunate that you did not. It is un-fortunate that the centerpiece of thetax proposal that we voted for lastweek—the reduction of the 15 percenttax rate to 14 percent—was not leftalone. If there is a second chance toconsider a tax bill this year, I hope wewill work harder to pass a bill that willget significant support from this sideof the aisle and the way to do that is toensure a bill meets a basic standard offairness.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Minnesota.Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.Mr. ROTH. I yield 10 minutes on be-

half of the minority to the distin-guished Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Sen-ator from Delaware. Let me start outby saying I also appreciate the work ofSenator ROTH as the chair of the Fi-nance Committee. However, I am inprofound disagreement with this rec-onciliation bill, this tax cut bill, thatcomes before the Senate—$792 billionin tax cuts, aggregate amount.

According to Citizens for Tax Jus-tice, the top 1 percent of taxpayerswould receive 42 percent of the bene-fits, while the bottom 60 percent wouldreceive only 7.5 percent of the benefits.Regarding distributional effect, mycolleague from Nebraska talked abouta standard of fairness: 60 percent of alltaxpayers would get an average tax cutof $65; the wealthiest 10 percent wouldget an average tax cut of $1,322; thewealthiest 1 percent would get an aver-age tax cut of $5,281.

This tax cut bill that the Repub-licans bring to the floor of the Senateis ‘‘Robin Hood in reverse’’ economics.Even worse, I think it represents a pol-itics of illusion.

Not that long ago others, I thinkformer President Bush, talked aboutvoodoo economics. He was referring toa set of proposals in the early 1980sthat said we could have massive taxcuts, increase Pentagon spending,make the investments we needed tomake as a nation, and continue to re-duce the deficit. That is not what hap-pened.

It is pretty simple, I say to the peo-ple in Minnesota, and to the the peoplein the Nation. We are in agreement, Ihope, that of the $3 trillion of surplus,$2 trillion is Social Security. It is nottouched. It is to make sure that systemwill be solvent. Of the other $1 trillion,three-quarters of it is in assumedcuts—assuming we have the economicgrowth in discretionary domesticspending.

With this proposal before the Senatethat the Republicans bring to the floorof the Senate, not only do we have taxcuts and benefits to people in inverserelationship to need, a ‘‘Robin Hood inreverse’’ economics, but we have a poli-tics and an economics of illusion. Weare going to explode the debt. We aregoing to build the debt up again. In ad-dition, we are not going to be makingthe investments that we in our speech-es on the floor of the Senate say thatwe are for.

I heard my colleague from Delawaretalk about health care, talk about edu-cation, talk about children, talk abouttax cuts. One more time, to use the oldYiddish proverb: ‘‘You can’t dance attwo weddings at the same time.’’

We are not going to be able to havethis amount of tax cuts, $792 billion intax cuts, and at the same time con-tinue to pay down the debt and makethe kind of investments we need tomake. We are going to see, America, iscuts in Head Start, cuts in low-incomeenergy assistance, cuts in communitypolicing, cuts in environmental protec-tion, cuts in veterans’ health care, andcuts in Pell grant programs. We are notgoing to make any of the investmentsto which we say we are committed.

I think this tax cut legislation beforethe Senate is in many ways more seri-ous than bad economics. And it is badeconomics. It is bad economics becauseit will build up the debt rather thanpay down the debt. It is bad economicsbecause it could very well lead to high-er interest rates. It is bad economicsbecause it is the last thing we ought todo in an expanding economy. In addi-tion, it is bad economics because weare not going to be able to make theinvestments that my colleague fromDelaware says we are committed to atthe same time we are doing all thesetax cuts.

It is also an illusion. It will put thiscountry in a straitjacket where we arenot going to be able to do one positive

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10296 August 5, 1999thing to make sure we have equal op-portunities for every child in this coun-try. We are not going to increase HeadStart benefits; we are going to cutthem. We are not going to increasehealth care benefits for our citizens; weare going to cut them. We are notgoing to do anything about the acuteshortage of affordable housing; we aregoing to cut housing programs. We arenot going to get it right for veterans inhealth care; we are going to cut. Weare not going to do anything about theshameful statistic of right now pro-viding benefits for only 1 percent of thekids who would benefit from EarlyHead Start in our country; we aregoing to cut.

There is not one Senator who cancome to the floor of the Senate and de-bate me on the argument I have justmade. That is exactly what we aregoing to do.

This is also an ideological debate. IfMembers believe—and maybe this iswhat my colleagues now believe, let menow give credit—when it comes to themost pressing issues of people’s lives inthe United States of America, or Min-nesota, that there is nothing that thegovernment can or should do, if youdon’t think we should be making anyof these kinds of investments in Pellgrants, or affordable child care, orHead Start, or community policing, orveterans’ health care, or health care,or affordable housing, then you wouldbe for this conference report. What thiswill do is put this country in a strait-jacket where any kind of an invest-ment that any Senator will talk aboutto expand opportunities for our citizenswill be, by definition, fiscally irrespon-sible because we won’t have any of therevenue.

I conclude this way. The political ar-gument behind these tax cuts is a pret-ty effective argument if you listen to itonly up to a point. The argument isthat we built up the surpluses—maybe,assuming the economy continues toperform. Let’s give it back to the citi-zens; it is your money. People in Min-nesota, it belongs to you.

I maintain, as a Senator from Min-nesota, it doesn’t belong to me; itdoesn’t belong to adults. It belongs toour children, and it belongs to ourgrandchildren. Whatever surplus thereis ought to be used to pay down thedebt. We put it on their shoulders.Whatever surplus there is ought to beused to make sure their Social Secu-rity and Medicare is there, just as itwill be there for us. It ought to be usedto make sure there are opportunitiesfor children so that our children andour grandchildren have the same op-portunities that we have had.

The Presiding Officer, the Senatorfrom Ohio, is committed to early child-hood development. The Presiding Offi-cer, the Senator from Ohio, came tothe Senate with a commitment to chil-dren. I know that. That is his passion,and he will make an enormous dif-ference. I don’t care whether he is Re-publican or not. I know what he cares

about, and I know he is an effectiveSenator.

With this measure of tax cuts, if thislegislation passes, we will not only notbe making any additional investmentsin the way we should in early child-hood development, such as Early HeadStart or Head Start, much less what wereally should be doing for child care,much less nutrition programs, muchless affordable housing programs, wewill be cutting those programs.

That is shameful. That is uncon-scionable. That is exactly what we willbe doing. I say to the President of theUnited States of America, Mr. Presi-dent, you should veto this legislation.Let’s not get into Washington, DC, bar-gaining where we say $500 billion or$600 billion is a reasonable com-promise. If that is what we do, we stillwill not be in a position to make any ofthese investments. We still will seecuts in discretionary spending to thetune of hundreds of billions of dollars.Let’s pay down the debt. Let’s makesure we make a commitment to Medi-care and Social Security. More thananything else, I would rather see moreof the emphasis on an investment inchildren. I believe when we pay downour debts, the most important debt wecan pay off is the debt we would leaveour children.

What we owe our children is to makesure that every child in the UnitedStates of America—regardless of colorof skin, regardless urban or rural, re-gardless high income or low income ormiddle income—has the same chanceto reach his and her full potential.These tax cuts will make that impos-sible.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Delaware.Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, just so the

record is clear, we have 6 hours, 3 hoursto a side. The two managers haveagreed we will go back and forth fromone side to the other when people arepresent. But that is not the case now.So I yield 15 minutes on behalf of theminority to the distinguished Senatorfrom North Dakota.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from North Dakota.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this isan editorial that appeared in the NewYork Times on August 2. It says: ‘‘Herewe go again.’’ That is exactly what thistax bill is all about. Here we go again.

Back in 1980 Ronald Reagan assured oneand all that he could cut taxes sharply, in-crease defense spending substantially andbalance the Federal budget.

That is the promise he made. It didnot work out that way. The deficits ex-ploded. George Bush at the time:

. . . famously derided Mr. Reagan’s supplyside fantasies as ‘‘voodoo economics.’’

We all remember that. The veteranWashington Post reporter Lou Cannon,in his book ‘‘President Reagan, theRole of a Lifetime’’ described the reac-tion of James Baker, Mr. Reagan’s ownchief of staff, to the transformation ofeconomic fantasy into national policy.He wrote:

Though not particularly well-versed in eco-nomics, Baker suspected there was some-thing screwy about the idea that massive taxcuts would increase government revenues.Later, he would privately express regretsthat the deficits had ‘gotten away’ from theadministration and wished he had paid moreattention to the consequences of the taxcuts.

Here we go again. Again, we have thefantasy being held out to the Americanpeople that somehow you can have amassive tax cut, you can have a big de-fense buildup, domestic needs will notbe hurt, and somehow it is all going toadd up. The problem with it is it ishighly unlikely to happen. Let’s justcheck the record. It shows very clearlywhat happened in the Reagan adminis-tration when they had this fantasythat they were going to cut taxes dra-matically, have a big defense buildup.Somehow it was all going to add up. Itdid not add up and this plan does notadd up.

This is what happened back then.President Reagan inherited a deficit ofjust under $80 billion and he promptlyshot it to $200 billion. That is whathappens when we just put our head inthe sand and get wedded to an ideologyand do not care about the economic re-sults, or the economic fallout. Thisplan is a disaster. I do not know howelse to say it. It is risky; it is radical;it is reckless. We would make a pro-found mistake to pass it today.

We then went into the Bush adminis-tration and the deficits went up, up,and away again. It went up to $290 bil-lion in 1990.

In 1993, President Clinton came intooffice and we passed a 5-year budgetplan to cut spending and, yes, raise in-come taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent.That plan worked. Each and every yearof that 5-year plan the deficit camedown until finally we have achieved abalanced budget. Why would we everwant to go back? Why would we everwant to repeat the incredible mistakesthis country made in the 1980s thatthreatened the economic security ofthis country, that put this country’seconomy in a ditch, that led to reces-sion, that led to job loss, that led to anextinguishment of economic growth?Why would we want to repeat thattragic mistake? Yet here we are. ‘‘Herewe go again.’’ Goodness knows, don’twe have more common sense than this?

This is not just my view. This is theview of economist after economist whohas looked at this proposal. Mr. Sam-uelson, the columnist, wrote:

The wonder is that the Republicans are sowedded to a program that is dubious as toboth policy and politics.

He went on to say:As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Green-

span noted the other day, tax cuts mightsomeday be justified to revive the economyfrom a recession or to improve the prospectsof a sweeping program of tax simplification.But there is no case for big tax cuts basedmerely on paper projections of budget sur-pluses.

That is what this is. These are plansbased on projections of what might

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10297August 5, 1999happen over the next 10 years. What arisky way to run the economy. What areckless way to run economic policy,to run out here and shovel $800 billionout the door before the money is col-lected. That puts this entire economyat risk. That puts this entire period ofbringing down the deficit at risk. Thatputs this entire successful economicpolicy of improving economic growth,reducing unemployment, reducing in-flation at risk. It is a mistake weshould not make.

This columnist points out:Suppose that spending exceeds projections

by one percentage point of national incomeand that tax revenues fall below projectionsby the same amount. In today’s dollars,these errors . . . not out of line with pastmistakes . . . would total $170 billion annu-ally. Most of the future surpluses would van-ish.

That is the reality. We are bettingthe farm on projections of what isgoing to happen over the next 10 years.Does anybody believe these projectionsare going to come true?

I used to be responsible for projectingthe income of the State of North Da-kota. That was my job. I can tell you,projecting 5 years out is very risky.Frankly, it is hard to project 1 yearout. Projecting 10 years out is a totalcrapshoot and we are basing the eco-nomic security of this country on a 10-year projection? Are we really going todo that?

I ask my colleagues, are we reallygoing to do that? Is this what you areseriously proposing for the UnitedStates, after the economic success wehave enjoyed by reducing the deficits,by reducing debt?

Some of the very same people whosaid the 1993 plan would not work arehere today, advocating this riskyscheme. The 1993 plan, as I showed,worked. That 5-year deficit reductionplan, in fact, reduced the deficit eachand every year. But when we passed itin 1993, the other side said it would cra-ter the economy; it would ruin us.

This is what Senator GRAMM, who ison the Budget Committee and on theFinance Committee, said back in 1993:

I want to predict tonight that if we adoptthis bill the American economy is going toget weaker and not stronger, the deficit 4years from now will be higher than it istoday and not lower. . ..When all is said anddone, people will pay more taxes, the econ-omy will create fewer jobs, government willspend more money, and the American peoplewill be worse off.

That is Senator GRAMM in 1993 whenwe passed the plan that did just the op-posite. Let’s look at the record. Wepassed that plan in 1993, and here iswhat happened: Unemployment wentdown to the lowest level in 41 years.

Senator GRAMM and the advocates ofopposition to the 1993 plan, who are thevery ones who are the advocates of thisplan today, were wrong. They said itwas going to increase unemployment.They were wrong. We have the lowestunemployment in 41 years. They saidthat that economic plan would increaseinflation. They were wrong. That plan

reduced inflation to the lowest level in33 years.

Mr. President, it does not stop there.Look at the economic growth. Theysaid the 1993 plan would retard eco-nomic growth. They were wrong. Lookat the record. We have the strongesteconomic growth during the last 6years of any administration going backto the administration of Lyndon John-son.

Friends, people who are listeningacross the country, let’s think aminute: Is the economy in good shapeor is the economy in bad shape? I thinkevery one of us knows we have thestrongest economy in anyone’s mem-ory. That was built on a plan of reduc-ing the deficits, relieving pressure oninterest rates, making America morecompetitive, reducing home interestloans, reducing car loans, reducing stu-dent loans, because there was less def-icit, less debt. Now we are on the brinkof completely changing that policy andgoing back to the bad old days of defi-cits and debt and decline. Are we reallygoing to turn back the clock to thosedays? I hope not. I hope we do notmake as foolish a mistake as that.

Because of the 5-year plan put inplace in 1993, not only have we gottenthe lowest unemployment, the lowestinflation in decades, the strongest eco-nomic growth in decades, we have alsoseen welfare caseloads decline dramati-cally. That is the record. That is thefact.

The other side says: Oh, but wait aminute. Taxes are the highest theyhave been in 20 years.

They are not telling the whole story.Here is what has happened. Rememberwhen we had deficits, we had a gap be-tween the revenue of the United Statesand the spending of the United States.The blue line is the spending; the redline is the revenue.

Go back to 1993. There was the gap.That was the deficit, $290 billion. Wecut the spending line, and we raised therevenue line. That is how we balancedthe budget. We cut spending; we raisedthe revenue line.

When they say the taxes are thehighest they have ever been, again,they are not telling the whole story.Revenues are strong because the econ-omy is strong, but individual taxpayersare not paying more in taxes; most arepaying less. That is not the Senatorfrom North Dakota speaking, that isthe respected accounting firm ofDeloitte & Touche. They analyzed thetax burden, including payroll taxes andincome taxes, of a family earning justunder $20,000 a year. They looked at1979, and they looked at 1999.

In 1979, that family was paying 8.6percent of their income in taxes—pay-roll taxes and income taxes. That bur-den has been reduced to 5 percent.Why? Because when we raised taxes onthe wealthiest 1 percent in the 1993plan, we also cut taxes on 28 millionAmericans by increasing the earned in-come tax credit. So we reduced taxesfor individuals.

The same is true for a family of fourearning $35,000 in 1999. Again, the re-spected accounting firm of Deloitte &Touche went out and looked at theirtax burden: 1979, 11.2 percent. That hasbeen reduced to 10.5 percent in 1999. Itis also true of a family earning $85,000a year. In 1979, they had a total taxburden of 17 percent; in 1999, 16.3 per-cent.

Does that mean there should not beany tax relief? No. We should have taxrelief, but we ought to have a respon-sible package of tax relief, not one thatthreatens to put us back in the eco-nomic ditch of deficits and debt. Unfor-tunately, that is what the Republicanplan does.

On the question of the fairness of thisproposal, if this is fair, I do not under-stand fairness. They are going to giveto the top 1 percent in this countrywith an average income of $837,000 a$46,000 tax cut. They are going to giveto the bottom 60 percent of the incomeearners in this country, the vast ma-jority of people on average, a tax re-duction of $138. That does not strikeme as very fair.

Let’s check their math. We haveheard over and over they are just giv-ing 25 percent of the money that isavailable in surplus back in a tax cut.That is interesting math they areusing. Let’s check it.

The total surplus is $2.9 trillion. Thatis the CBO estimate.

I ask for 3 additional minutes.Mr. ROTH. I yield 3 minutes on be-

half of the minority.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator has 3 more minutes.Mr. CONRAD. Look at what CBO is

projecting—and I emphasize pro-jecting—as the surplus over the next 10years, $2.9 trillion. But $1.9 trillion ofthat is Social Security. If you takethat out, you have $1 trillion left. Re-publicans are proposing nearly $800 bil-lion of tax cuts. When you do that, youadd interest costs of $141 billion. Thatonly leaves $63 billion left for debt re-duction, for strengthening Medicare,for domestic needs. They are using not25 percent of what is available; theyare using 94 percent of what is avail-able, because we have all agreed thatnone of the Social Security money isavailable.

The only way they get this number of25 percent being used for a tax cut iswhen they include Social Security inthe base. Are they proposing we aregoing to use 25 percent of the SocialSecurity money for a tax cut? No. Sothey are using phony statistics. Theyare applying this 25 percent to two-thirds of the money that is Social Se-curity money. They are taking 94 per-cent of the money that is truly avail-able for this risky tax cut.

Here are the choices: Republicans say$800 billion of tax cuts; nothing tostrengthen Medicare; nothing for do-mestic needs; they have $63 billionunallocated.

Our proposal in the Senate was bal-anced. We said save every penny of So-cial Security for Social Security and

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10298 August 5, 1999then one-third for tax relief; one-thirdto strengthen Medicare—and, by theway, this money is not needed imme-diately so it can be used for the next 15years to pay down debt—and one-thirdof the money for high-priority domes-tic needs, such as education, defense,and agriculture.

That leads our friends on the otherside to say: There go the Democratsagain; they just want to spend money.

Let’s examine that notion. This blueline shows constant buying power ofwhat we do with Federal spending nowfor domestic needs. That is what wouldhappen if we had constant buyingpower. The Democratic plan is rep-resented by this red line. It is a cutfrom current buying power. Here is theRepublican plan down here. They havea massive cut, $770 billion over thenext 10 years from what current buyingpower would permit.

They do not want anybody to talkabout this, but the reality is, they areadvocating deep cuts in education, indefense, in agriculture, and in all therest—parks, law enforcement—becausethere is no way to avoid this mathe-matical reality. They came to thisChamber with a chart that said, yes,you could accommodate this tax cut ifyou froze all domestic spending for 10years. It has never been done. What isamazing about it is that it is not whatthey are doing in the AppropriationsCommittees that meet every day. Theyare spending additional money.

I ask for 1 additional minute.Mr. ROTH. On behalf of the minority,

I yield 1 minute.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered. The Senatoris yielded 1 minute.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.Mr. President, let’s be honest with

the American people. This plan doesnot add up. It threatens to take usback to a period of growing debts. Itfails to meet high-priority domesticneeds such as education and agri-culture and defense. It does not do any-thing to secure Medicare for the future.It is not real. It is not balanced. It isnot responsible. This plan is not con-servative.

It is radical; it is risky; it is reckless.It ought to be rejected.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Senatorfrom North Dakota be granted 2 addi-tional minutes from the minority timeso he might be able to respond to aquestion.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thinkSenator CONRAD makes the most com-pelling presentation in the Senate onthese budget matters. The charts hehas used today have been extraor-dinary in their description of the follyhere with respect to this plan.

I want to ask the Senator to go backto a couple charts with respect to thosewho made predictions some years agobecause I thought that was very tell-ing. The practice of augury in old

Roman times was that the high priestwould read the flights of birds and theentrails of cattle in order to evaluatethe future.

We have some folks who are prac-ticing augury in the Senate. They arethe prophets who have described to ushow wonderful this plan is. I know theSenator used, a bit ago, the same kindof descriptions from these same proph-ets 7, 8 years ago.

Could the Senator refer to thatagain, because I think that is mosttelling who brings this plan to the Sen-ate, and what were their predictionspreviously?

Mr. CONRAD. I remember so well. Iremember being on the floor of theSenate the day we passed the 5-yearplan that got us back on track. I re-member Republican leaders saying ifwe passed the plan, it would crater theeconomy. I remember Republican lead-ers telling us if we passed the plan itwould increase unemployment, itwould increase inflation, that it wouldcost jobs, that it would wreck the econ-omy. They were wrong, and they werewrong on every single count. Theysaid: If you raise taxes on the wealthi-est 1 percent, and you cut spending, itis going to create a nightmare. Theywere wrong. They were absolutelywrong.

Maybe we are not reminding peopleenough. Maybe we are not learning thelessons of the past, but we have to be-cause we should not go back to thedays of deficits and debt that put thiseconomy in the ditch.

So I am very hopeful we will learnfrom the past and we will recognizethat to come out here, based on a pro-jection over the next 10 years, to jus-tify a massive tax-scheme giveawaythat blows a hole in the budget, blowsa hole in the deficit, leads us back tothe path of debt and is a profound mis-take.

It makes us all feel good. I wouldlove to have a tax cut. I have two kidsin college, and it is expensive. But Icare more about their long-term fu-ture. I care about them inheriting aworld that is less debt-laden than whatwe have done to them so far. Becauseour generation—and here it is—hastaken the debt from 1980, and here weare today. This is what we have donewith the national debt. We have run upthe debt from less than $1 trillion tonearly $4 trillion.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator’s time has expired.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous con-sent for 1 final minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CONRAD. That is what we havedone in our generation. We have takenthis national debt of less than $1 tril-lion and run it up to nearly $4 trillion.That is the publicly held debt. Grossdebt is even higher. But this is publiclyheld debt.

Is that the legacy we want to leave,that we ran up the debt on our watch?I do not think so. This is what could

happen if we stay the course. This iswhat the Congressional Budget Officetells us could happen if we stay thecourse. We could actually eliminatepublicly held debt over the next 15years. But it will not happen with thisplan because we apparently all haveour hand out. We want to take care ofourselves first and forget about the fu-ture. I hope that is not the legacy weleave.

I thank the Chair, and I thank mycolleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH. On behalf of the minority,I yield 20 minutes to the distinguishedSenator from Florida.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Florida.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair andthank my colleague, the chairman.

Mr. President, last year we learned avery satisfying and important lesson.That is that there are rewards for fis-cal discipline. After almost three dec-ades of deficits and mounting nationaldebt, we finally were able to eke out asmall surplus. The very prospect ofthat small surplus has been a majorcontribution to one of the longest andmost expansive periods of economicgrowth in our Nation’s history. Thisfiscal discipline helped us to create fa-vorable economic and fiscal conditionsto address our long-term national chal-lenges, especially our long-term com-mitments in Social Security and Medi-care.

This, frankly, is a time of nationalcelebration. The question is, What kindof celebration? Will it be a prudent andpatriotic celebration of our successwhere we will channel our justified en-thusiasm for our accomplishment intopositive national family and individualgoals or will it be a wanton and reck-less celebration? Because our success,our opportunity to celebrate, did notgive us license to return to the freespending, free period of increased in-debtedness of the recent past. No. Weowe it to our children and our grand-children to save this money, to savethis money until we have dealt withour future obligations to them.

Unfortunately, several major legisla-tive actions in the 105th, now the 106th,Congress have made a mockery of ourpromise to maintain fiscal discipline.As an example, in February of thisyear, the Senate passed a military paybill, with great enthusiasm and withgreat acclamations among those whowould be particularly benefited andwho hoped that it would strengthen ournational security. The problem is, wedid not provide a means of paying forit. So we were, in essence, saying wewill pay for it out of our surplus.

If last February’s legislation was justan aberration, a momentary lack ofjudgment, an inadvertent haste to turnfrom impeachment to legislation, itmight have been forgiven. Sadly, itcannot be so characterized. It, in fact,was part of a pattern of a continuedlack of fiscal discipline. It was the sec-ond time, in fact, within 8 months thatwe had proven ourselves unwilling to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10299August 5, 1999take the hard decisions and too willingto sacrifice the well-being of futuregenerations on the altar of expediency.

It was in October of 1998, in the wan-ing hours of last fall’s budget negotia-tions, that we passed a $532 billion om-nibus appropriations bill. Included inthat bill was $21.4 billion in so-calledemergency spending. Since that $21.4billion of emergency spending could beapproved without the necessity of find-ing any way to pay for it, that fundingcame right out of the surplus. It took$3 billion out of the fiscal 1998 surplus.It took $13 billion out of the 1999 sur-plus. It will take $5 billion out of thisyear’s surplus.

The action would have been evenmildly palatable had all of the sup-posed emergency funds been allocatedto true emergencies. But, in fact, manyof the items that were funded out ofthe $21.4 billion were items which hadin the past been considered normal,regular obligations of the Federal Gov-ernment, not the necessary, sudden, ur-gent, unforeseen, temporary needs thatare supposed to be the hallmarks ofreal emergencies.

In June, we made our third raid onthe Social Security surplus, a supple-mental appropriations bill that againcloaked many nonemergency spendingitems in emergency designation underthe title of Kosovo. With all the nega-tive public attention that had been fo-cused on our previous raids, one wouldhave thought that we might have atleast been embarrassed back into fiscalresponsibility. But, again, I am sorrythat was not the case. So another $4billion was taken out of the surplusthrough emergency spending for 1999and $7 billion will be taken out in theyear 2000.

What have we done thus far? Westarted with a total surplus for 1999 of$137 billion, of which $124 billion wasSocial Security. But after we hadtaken $13 billion for the emergency of1998 and $4 billion for the emergency of1999, we have reduced our surplus downto $120 billion. So we have spent everypenny of the off-budget surplus, and wehave spent $4 billion of the Social Se-curity surplus to fund these emer-gencies.

Now, what is the chart for the year2000? We started out with a total sur-plus of $173 billion, of which $147 billionwas Social Security. We have the $5billion from 1998, we have the $7 billionbloated Kosovo emergency expendi-ture, and just last night, we voted yetanother emergency expenditure of $8billion for agriculture. Today we haveon the floor a tax bill that will cut therevenue for the year 2000 by $5 billion.So what started off as a $173 billionsurplus has already shrunk to $148 bil-lion. Every dollar of that surplus is So-cial Security save $1 billion, which, asI will point out in subsequent remarks,is highly in danger.

The action yesterday relative to agri-culture represents the difficulty of thedilemma. Certainly American farmersare facing distressful circumstances. I

happen to be an American farmer. Ithink I understand something of theirplight. But the way to deal with thisproblem is not by temporary emer-gency fixes. The way to deal with thisproblem is to look at the underlyingcauses, which might be that we haven’tbeen adequately dealing with funda-mental issues such as crop insurancereform or that we have not been suffi-ciently aggressive in our trade policyin order to ensure there are open mar-kets for American agricultural goods.Those are some of the ways in whichwe ought to be directing our attention,not through emergency spending to de-plete our surplus.

The budget resolution says thatemergency spending must meet fivecriteria. It must be necessary, sudden,urgent, unforeseen, and it must not bepermanent. I suggest that many ofthese expenditures we have made overthe last 2 years fail to meet thosestandards of emergency.

Our fiscal irresponsibility, however,is not limited just to emergency appro-priations. We have defined the surplusas the difference between estimatedrevenue and estimated expenditures.Yet in arriving at those estimated ex-penditures, we have used unrealisticstandards. We have created expenditureexpectations that no one in this Con-gress believes are, in fact, going to bemet; thus, the necessity to resort tothese kinds of emergency measures.While we are doing that, we are alsofundamentally deceiving the Americanpeople as to what our Federal Govern-ment’s policies will be.

Let me use one example.I ask unanimous consent at the end

of my remarks to have printed in theRECORD an article from the New YorkTimes of July 25, ‘‘National Parks,Strained by RECORD Crowd, Face a Cri-sis.’’

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

(See Exhibit 1.)Mr. GRAHAM. There is no better

time than in early August to talkabout the state of our national parks,because this is a time of the year whenhundreds of thousands of our fellowcitizens are taking advantage of one ofAmerica’s great treasures—its nationalpark system. But it is a treasure whichwe have been systematically lootingthrough indifference. It is stated inthis article that in an assessment madelast year, the Park Service estimatedit would cost $3.54 billion to repairmaintenance problems at nationalparks, monuments, and wildernessareas, maintenance that has been putoff for decades, in some cases, becauseof lack of money.

Mr. President, while we may deceiveourselves into the statement that wehave this significant surplus, it is asurplus which is being derived by a sys-tematic underfunding of important na-tional priorities, priorities which weknow eventually are going to be met,but which we are now deceiving our-selves into the false illusion that there

is an unrealistic surplus, a surpluswhich we can now use to fund thesemassive tax cuts.

The time is now to provide some hon-est leadership for the American people,not hollow statements and false prom-ises. I am afraid that that leadershipand honesty are not to be found in thetax bill before us today.

What I think we need to do is to putfirst things first. As Ecclesiastes says:There is a time for all things. There isa season to plant and there is a seasonto harvest.

What is the season today, in thistime of national celebration of the re-sults of fiscal discipline? I suggest theseason for today is to deal with thechallenges of our children and ourgrandchildren, starting with two crit-ical national programs.

We should provide for the solvency ofSocial Security for our children andour grandchildren, and we shouldstrengthen Medicare and bring it intothe 21st century by providing it withthe tools necessary, not just to dealwith illness but to do what Americanswant—to provide for their health andwell-being. We should be funding thosemedical services that will prevent dis-ease and illness, that will maintain ourAmerican people in their highest stateof health. Unfortunately, when we havespent the resources that would be nec-essary to fund this tax cut before hav-ing dealt with Social Security andMedicare, there will be no money leftto deal with Social Security and Medi-care.

The statement will be made that So-cial Security is off the table; we havealready dealt with it; that by placingall of the Social Security surplus intoa lockbox to protect it for Social Secu-rity, we have discharged that responsi-bility. Well, first, I say that we have avery leaky lockbox. Willie Sutton wasonce asked: Why do you rob banks? Theanswer was: That is where the moneyis. Well, the lockbox assumes themoney has already gotten to the bank.But Jesse James figured out that if hecould rob the train before the box gotto the bank, he could get the moneybefore it could be placed in the vault.That is essentially what this emer-gency spending loophole is allowing usto do. We are looting the lockbox be-fore the money arrives.

Even if we put the full amount of theSocial Security surplus into the SocialSecurity program, we would only haveextended its solvency for our childrento the year 2034.

The Greenspan Commission of theearly 1980s had recommended that weought to fund Social Security on athree-generational program, whichwould mean through the year 2075. Wehave not completed our task if the onlything we have done is to secure the sol-vency of Social Security to the year2034.

Mr. President, we have an oppor-tunity to lead the Nation in the way inwhich I believe thoughtful Americanswish to go. They wish to be prudent at

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10300 August 5, 1999this time. They wish to celebrate thesuccesses of fiscal discipline and tocontinue those successes. They want totake care of today’s season of businessfirst. They do not want us to embarkupon a reckless course which woulddissipate our ability to deal with ourfuture needs and place us in the precar-ious position of depending upon unreal-istic estimates of future revenues and atotally unrealistic expectation of fu-ture national needs.

So the issue is not the details of thistax proposal, although I believe an ex-amination of that detail would indicatethis plan is woefully lacking in basicprinciples of fairness and equity to allAmericans. But the fundamental defi-ciency of this tax bill is its lack oftimeliness. We should not be consid-ering any tax cut until we have takencare of priority business—protectingSocial Security for three generationsand strengthening Medicare. We shouldnot be considering any tax measuresuntil we are certain the projections ofrevenue and the estimates of futureneeds are based on realistic, not polit-ical, assessments.

After we have carried out those firsttasks, then if there are funds left avail-able—and I suggest there probably willbe —then we could consider what wouldbe an appropriate form of returningthat measure back to the Americanpeople through a tax cut. But, fortoday, the answer must be no to themeasure that is before us. I hope thatsoon we will be answering yes to theresponsibility we have to do America’sfirst business first.

Thank you, Mr. President.EXHIBIT 1

[From the New York Times, July 25, 1999]NATIONAL PARKS, STRAINED BY RECORD

CROWDS, FACE A CRISIS

(By Michael Janofsky)YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, WY—

In growing numbers that now exceed 3.1 mil-lion a year, visitors travel here to America’soldest national park to marvel at wildlife,towering mountains, pristine rivers and geo-logical curiosities like geysers, hot springsand volcanic mudpots.

Yet many things tourists may not see on atypical trip through Yellowstone’s 2.2 mil-lion acres spread across parts of Idaho, Mon-tana and Wyoming could have a greater im-pact on the park’s future than the growl of agrizzly or spew of Old Faithful.

For all its beauty, Yellowstone is broken.Hordes of summer tourists and the increas-ing numbers now visiting in the spring, fallad winter are overwhelming the park’s abil-ity to accommodate them properly.

In recent years, the park’s popularity hascreated such enormous demands on waterlines, roads and personnel that park manage-ment has been forced to spend most of Yel-lowstone’s annual operating budget, about$30 million, on immediate problems ratherthan investing in long-term solutions thatwould eliminate the troublesome areas.

Yellowstone is not the only national parksuffering. With the nation’s 378 nationalpark areas expected to attract almost 300million visitors this year, after a record 286million in 1998, many parks are deferring ur-gently needed capital improvements.

For instance, damaged sewage pipes at Yel-lowstone have let so much ground water

from spring thaws into the system thatcrews have had to siphon off millions of gal-lons of treated water into meadows each ofthe last four years.

And with budget restraints forcing per-sonnel cutbacks in every department, eventhe number of park rangers with law-en-forcement authority has dropped, contrib-uting to a steady increase in crime through-out Yellowstone.

‘‘It’s so frustrating,’’ Michael V. Finley,Yellowstone’s superintendent, said. ‘‘As thepark continues to deteriorate, the servicelevel continues to decline. You see how manyAmericans enjoy this park. They deservebetter.’’

Over the last decade the annual budget ofthe National Park Service, an agency of theInterior Department, has nearly doubled, to$1.9 billion for the fiscal year 1999 from $1.13billion in 1990, an increase that narrowlyoutpaced inflation.

But in an assessment made last year, thepark service estimated that it would cost$3.54 billion to repair maintenance problemsat national parks, monuments and wilder-ness areas that have been put off—for dec-ades, in some cases—because of a lack ofmoney.

The cost of needed repairs at Yellowstonewas put at $46 million, the most of any parkarea in the system. But the park service re-port shows that budget limits have forcedvirtually all national parks to set aside bigmaintenance projects, delays that manypark officials say compromise visitor enjoy-ment and occasionally threaten their healthand safety.

Senator Craig Thomas, a Wyoming Repub-lican who is chairman of the Subcommitteeon National Parks, and Bob Stanton, direc-tor of the park service, negotiated a deal thisweek to spend $12 million over the next threeyears for Yellowstone repairs.

Other parks may have to wait longer. TheGrand Canyon National Park depends on awater treatment system that has not beenupgraded in 30 years, a $20 million problem,park officials say. Parts of the Chesapeakeand Ohio Canal National Historical Parkalong the Potomac River are crumbling, an-other $10 million expense. The EvergladesNational Park in South Florida needs a $15million water treatment plant.

Even with a heightened awareness of needamong Federal lawmakers and Clinton Ad-ministration officials, money to repair thoseproblems may be hard to find at a time whenCongress is wrestling over the true size of aprojected budget surplus and how much of itwill pay for tax cuts. If billions were to be-come available for new spending, the parkservice would still have to slug it out withevery other Federal agency, and few predictthat parks would emerge a big winner.

It is a disturbing prospect to conservation-ists, parks officials and those lawmakerswho support increased spending to help theparks address their backlog of maintenanceproblems.

‘‘It’s kind of like a decayed tooth,’’ saidDave Simon, the Southwest regional directorfor the National Parks and Conservation As-sociation, a citizens’ group that is workingwith Yellowstone to solve some of the long-term needs. ‘‘If you don’t take care of it, oneday you’ll wake up with a mouthful of cav-ities.’’

The parks’ supporters like RepresentativeRalph S. Regula, an Ohio Republican who ischairman of Appropriations Subcommitteeon the Interior, concede that budgetary in-creases as well as revenue from new pro-grams that allow parks to keep a greatershare of entrance fees and concession saleshave been offset by inflation, rising costsand daily operational demands that now ac-commodate 8.9 percent more people than

those who visited national parks a decadeago.

With few dollars available for maintenanceprograms, the parks suffered ‘‘benign ne-glect,’’ Mr. Regula said, adding: ‘‘It’s notvery sexy to fix a sewer system or maintaina trail. You don’t get headlines for that. Itwould be nice to get them more money, butwe’re constrained.’’

Denis P. Galvin, the deputy director of theNational Park service, noted that only twicethis century, in the 1930’s and in 1966, has theFederal Government authorized money forsystemwide capital improvements, and hesaid he was not expecting another windfallsoon.

‘‘Generally,’’ Mr. Galvin said, ‘‘domesticprograms come at the back of the line whenthey’re formulating the Federal budget, andI just don’t think parks are a priority.’’

Perhaps no park in America reflects thearray of hidden problems more than Yellow-stone, which opened in 1872, years beforeIdaho, Montana and Wyoming became states.

Park officials here say that the longerproblems go unattended, the more expensiveand threatening they become.

The budget restraints have meant reducingthe number of rangers who carry guns andhave the authority to make arrests.

Rick Obernesser, Yellowstone’s chief rang-er, said the roster had dwindled to 112 from144 over the last 10 years, which often meansleaving the park without any of these rang-ers from 2 A.M. to 6 A.M.

Next year, Mr. Obernesser said, the parkwill have only 93 of these rangers, about 1 forevery 23,000 acres compared with 1 for every15,000 acres when his staff was at peakstrength.

That has not only led to slower responsetimes to emergencies, like auto accidentsand heart attacks, he said, but also to an in-crease in crime. Since the peak staffing yearof 1989, he said, the park has experienced sig-nificant increases in the killing of wildlife,thefts, weapons charges against visitors andviolations by snowmobile drivers.

* * * * *Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Oklahoma is recognized.Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask

the Senator from Delaware to yield me20 minutes.

Mr. ROTH. I am happy to yield 20minutes to the distinguished Senatorfrom Oklahoma.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, Iwish to compliment my colleague, thechairman of the Finance Committee,Senator ROTH, for his leadership inbringing the bill to the floor. In addi-tion, I compliment Senator LOTT andSenator DOMENICI because they helpedmake this happen.

The Senate, earlier this year, passeda budget resolution that says let’s usemost of the surplus that is projected topay down the national debt. As a mat-ter of fact, let’s use over two-thirds ofit to pay down the national debt. Ihave heard complaints from colleagueson the Democrat side saying we don’tdo enough. Frankly, we pay down thenational debt more than the Democratshave proposed and more than the Presi-dent has proposed. Maybe that is notenough for them, but it is more thanthey have proposed.

I compliment Senator DOMENICI andSenator LOTT, as well as Senator ROTH,for laying the groundwork to say let’s

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10301August 5, 1999take at least one-fourth of the surplusprojected and let the people keep it.Some people say give it back to them.Well, I don’t think they should everhave to send it to Washington, DC, inthe first place; it is their money.

That is the issue. Are we going toallow the taxpayers to keep one-fourthof the surplus, or are we going to insiston that money going to Washington,DC, and Washington spending it? Obvi-ously, there is no limit on the numberof demands we have on spending otherpeople’s money. We can spend it alljust like that. It is quite easy, in factit is the easiest thing to do. Now, we fi-nally have an opportunity, as a resultof the significant surplus, to allow peo-ple to keep more of it.

We do that in this bill. We have comeup with a bill that I believe is fair, bal-anced, and I think is a good tax bill, atax bill for taxpayers. I will go intosome of the benefits. First, I want torepudiate some of the comments thatwere made against it. One Senator saidit was too much. It is one-fourth of thesurplus.

I don’t think that is too much. Wehave given tax cuts in the past whenwe didn’t even have a surplus. I happento have supported those. We passed atax cut in 1997—a strong majority ofCongress passed it. We didn’t have asurplus then. I think it was the rightthing to do. We gave a tax cut because,in some cases, rates were too high. Wesaid if we have a tax cut, it will stimu-late the economy and raise moremoney. Guess what. That is what hap-pened.

We cut the capital gains tax both in1995 and in 1997. The President vetoedit in 1995. He signed it in 1997. When Isay ‘‘we,’’ I am talking about Repub-licans because we didn’t have any sup-port in 1995 from our Democrat col-leagues—maybe with one or two excep-tions. We passed it in 1997. We cut cap-ital gains from 28 to 20 percent. Ithelped the economy and raised a lot ofmoney. It beat the expectations by theCBO and the Treasury Department.Why? We reduced the tax on trans-actions by about 230 percent and endedup having more financial transactions.As a result, you have more income andmore taxes. It helped the economy.Many of us said that would happen,that it would have a very positive im-pact.

Let me touch on one other thing. Acouple of colleagues said you can’thave this tax cut because it benefitshigh-income people. Heaven forbid,somebody making $500,000 is going toget a greater benefit than somebodymaking $10,000. Let me just step back alittle bit. Is this tax cut too high, toogenerous for high-income people? Idon’t think so.

Let me talk about rates. I believemarginal rates impact on whether ornot somebody is going to do extrawork. I have been in the private sector.I used to have a janitorial service, andmarginal rates kept me from doingmore work. I had a situation where I

was making enough money to combineincome and Social Security taxes. Iwas working about 40 percent of thetime for the Government, and I saidthat is enough. I am not going to workmore if the Government is going totake almost half of everything I make.It denied the advancement and expan-sion of my business—a small business.

I might mention, that small businessis where most additional new employ-ees are starting. Somebody says, wait aminute, this tax cut is unfair, it bene-fits the high income bracket. Look atwhat we do for high income. We reduceevery single income bracket by 1 per-centage point. The low end is 15 per-cent and we reduced it to 14 percent.The high income is 39.6 percent, and wereduced it to 38.6 percent, and so on.There is a 28 percent bracket; we movethat to 27.

Somebody says, that benefits thehigh income. Wait a minute. We reduceit in every single bracket by 1 percent-age point. It so happens that for the 15-percent bracket, to move down 1 point,that is a 7-percent reduction. If youmove a 39.6 percent down to 38.6, thatis a 2.6-percent reduction—less thanhalf of a percentage reduction of the 15-percent taxpayer, or the lower incometaxpayer. So I don’t think this is tiltedin any way. If anything, if one reallylooks at this, it makes the systemmore progressive.

So the argument that this benefitsupper income doesn’t fly, and it doesn’tfly with history. Look at what the taxcut rates were when President Clintonwas sworn into office. The maximumrate in 1992 was 31 percent. After theClinton tax increase—or maybe Ishould say the Democrat tax increasebecause it only passed by Democrats,with the Vice President breaking thetie vote twice in this Chamber—it in-creased the maximum rate from 31 to39.6 percent. Actually, it went higherthan that because they also took thecap off the Medicare tax and said youhave to pay Medicare tax on all in-come, all salary, and all wages. So youhave payroll taxes and Federal incometaxes and Social Security taxes, and nolimit, no base, no cap on Medicaretaxes.

Medicare tax is 1.45 percent of pay-roll, plus your employer’s contribution;that is 2.9 percent. So a person in themaximum bracket pays actually 39.6,plus 2.9 percent Medicare. That is atotal of 42.5 percent. When Bill Clintonwas sworn in, the maximum rate was 31percent. One year later, it was 42.5 per-cent on all income, all wages, on every-body in the country.

That is a massive tax increase. Thatis a 37-percent increase.

What are we doing in this bill? Weare reducing that by one point. We re-duce it from 39.6 to 38.6; 38.6 is a wholelot more than 31.

So, the tax cut that we are proposingis just a small fraction of the tax in-crease President Clinton and theDemocrats passed in 1993—a small frac-tion. Yet some of my colleagues are

saying we can’t do that. It might denyus the ability to spend more money. Wehave a whole laundry list of people pa-rading to Washington, DC, saying: Giveme some more money because we wantto spend it. We want more of yourmoney because we can spend it betterthan you can.

Finally, I want to address the com-ments of one of our colleagues whosays we favor a tax cut, but we don’tbelieve now is the time to do it. Wait aminute. When are you going to do it, ifnot now?

We have estimates of a $3 trillionsurplus over the next 10 years. And weare not going to do it now? Will weonly give you a tax cut if it is $4 tril-lion, or $5 trillion? At what pointwould our colleagues say it is time tolet people keep more of their ownmoney? We are taking too much fromthem. If my colleagues are not going toagree to a tax cut that is only one-fourth of the surplus, they will neveragree to one.

It absolutely amazes me how ourDemocrat colleagues all marched instep in 1993 and said: We are going tosupport this tax increase because BillClinton wants it.

You might remember that Bill Clin-ton shortly after that said, Oops, sur-prise, I agree with the business commu-nity. We increased taxes too much. Heactually admitted to that. A lot ofDemocrats were mad, but he admittedto it anyway and then he went aheadand vetoed our tax cut in 1995.

Then in 1997, he eventually agreed toa tax cut and everybody seemed tofavor it. I guess whatever Bill Clintonsays the Democrats march in line to.

I don’t know. But we cut taxes in1997. We reduced capital gains from 28to 20 percent—very positive things.They might think that was a bad thingto do. No one offered an amendmentsaying let’s bring capital gains back upto 28 percent saying that it was ter-rible. A lot of people debated against itin 1997. But it was the right thing todo.

We cut taxes for families in 1997. Wepassed a $500 tax credit for each childin 1997. Bill Clinton campaigned for itin 1992. He didn’t deliver in 1993. As amatter of fact, in 1993 he increasedtaxes. That tax cut didn’t happen until1997. Republicans passed it. The Presi-dent vetoed it. We passed it in 1997 andhe eventually signed it.

A family of four with an income ofless than $80,000 has $2,000 per year thatthey can keep. A family with four kidsgets to keep $2,000 more per year be-cause Republicans in Congress said weare going to pass it. We promised toand we did.

We established the ROTH IRA.We did some good things in 1997.

Guess what? We didn’t have the pro-jected surplus in 1997 that we have in1999. Now we have trillions of dollars ofanticipated surplus. Let’s give one-fourth of it back to the American peo-ple. Let’s let them keep it. Theyshouldn’t have to send that much to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10302 August 5, 1999Washington, DC. Their taxes are toohigh.

I will go through a couple of exam-ples that we correct in this bill to showwhy their taxes are too high and whatwe do about it. There are too manypeople who send too much to Wash-ington DC. Let me address a couple ofthose examples.

I mentioned a self-employed person.A self-employed person, an individual,makes $25,000. They are taxed at themarginal bracket of 15 percent on ev-erything they make up to $25,000.Above that they are taxed at 28 per-cent. If somebody has a painting serv-ice in rural Delaware, and paintshouses and works for himself, that in-dividual has a taxable income of$25,000, and probably is not consideredwealthy by most people’s standards.Any additional contract that personmakes, any additional income that per-son makes, is taxed at 28 percent. Healso has to pay Social Security andMedicare tax. That is 15.3 percent ontop of the 28 percent. Add those two to-gether, and it is 43.3 percent. He has topay State income tax. In my State thatis 6 or 7 percent. For any additionaldollar that individual makes paintinghouses, fifteen cents of it goes to thegovernment.

That is too high. That is far toomuch.

For a married couple right now thatmakes $43,000, it is the same thing. Forany additional dollar they make, halfof it goes to the government, if theyare self-employed.

That is too high. So we cut that.We provide marriage penalty relief

and several other positive things. Letme go through some more of thechanges.

I mentioned that we cut all bracketsby one percent. That benefits the lowermore than the upper brackets. Thelower brackets get a seven-percent re-duction and the upper brackets get a2.8 percent reduction. That is notstacked towards the higher incomepeople. It is a tax cut for all taxpayers,and it benefits, percentage-wise, thelowest income taxpayers first. The low-est income taxpayer gets the breakfirst.

Again, for somebody who says this isweighted towards the wealthy, it is ab-solutely totally and completely false.

We widen the 15 percent bracket. Wemake it 14 percent. Then we widen it.We ship $3,000 more of income into the14-percent bracket instead of the 28-percent bracket.

That is a very positive change for anindividual with an income up to $25,750.That means they get to save $390. Thatis fairly significant. I think that isvery significant.

For a couple you are talking aboutdouble that amount. So they get tosave a significant amount as well.

Marriage penalty relief: What did wedo? Some people do not understandwhat we did. We said we would doublethe bracket by increasing the standarddeduction—basically doubling the

standard deduction for an individual. Ifyou look at the income tax forms, andsay you are filing as individuals, orjoint. If you file as married, you don’tget twice the individual deduction. So,frankly, it would be better off if a mar-ried couple filed as individuals. Theyare penalized for filing jointly.

Does it make any sense for our TaxCode to penalize people for being mar-ried to the tune of $1,400 per family?That is wrong. This bill eliminatesthat for most couples.

What do we do? We said, Let’s doublethe standard deduction. It should betwice as much for those who are mar-ried as it is for individuals.

We do that with this legislation be-cause the biggest hit is on married cou-ples, and the marriage penalty is thatindividually they are taxed at 15 per-cent. For joint income tax they aretaxed at 28 percent—almost twice ashigh. We move those rates to 14 and to27 percent. We are saying for all of theincome that is taxed up to 14 percentthey should have twice that bracketamount for a couple. That is not theway the tax code is right now.

Let me explain it.Individuals today are taxed at 15 per-

cent up to $25,000. You say, OK. That isfor an individual, and it would makesense for a couple then to be taxed at15 percent up to $50,000. But that is notthe present law. The present law saysabove $43,000 they are taxed at 28 per-cent. So they have $7,000 that they aretaxed at a higher rate, twice the rateas what they should be. We eliminatethat. We double the 15 percent bracketfor married couples.

So if it is $25,000 at 15 percent for anindividual, it would be $50,000 for a cou-ple.

What does that mean in savings to acouple that makes $50,000? It means$980 a year that they will be able tokeep. We are not going to penalize cou-ples because they happen to be marriedand because they happen to file jointreturns.

I want to compliment the chairman,because he has worked very hard insupporting this.

We have $100 billion in tax relief formarried couples by eliminating themarriage penalty in this legislation—that is one eighth of this bill.

When we debated this legislation onthe floor of the Senate last week, noone said take out the marriage pen-alty.

The marriage penalty tax elimi-nation is one of the most important as-pects of this bill and we are going tomake it happen.

The upper rate reductions that Imentioned move one percent down.

That may not happen, because wehave a trigger mechanism that says ifwe don’t meet the deficit reduction tar-gets the tax cut doesn’t happen.

That is not the case for marriagepenalty relief.

I encourage my colleagues. If you be-lieve in getting rid of the marriagepenalty, you had better vote for this

bill. It is one of the most significant re-forms that we have in this legislation.

What else did we do? Why shouldsomebody be in favor of this?

We eliminate the death tax.We changed the current unified cred-

it into an exemption.What does that mean? Right now ev-

erybody knows that we have a unifiedcredit that says if you have a taxableestate above $650,000, you don’t have topay a death tax. If you pass away, yoursurvivors and kids won’t have to payany death tax.

We changed that unified credit intoan exemption.

What does that mean? Once you haveto pay the tax, you start paying at 39percent.

By making an exemption, you startout at a lower rate. So any taxable es-tate will be taxed at an 18 percent rate.

The beginning rate of a taxable es-tate will be 18 percent instead of 39 per-cent. We will be helping out estatesthat are just over the threshold, es-tates that are $1 million or $1.5 million.That is a very positive change.

Eventually, in 9 years, by the year2009, we eliminate the death tax. Atthat point, estates should be taxedwhen the property is sold—not in theevent of death but when the property issold. If your kids inherit a business orranch, they don’t have to pay inherit-ance tax until they sell it; if they sellit, then they are taxed capital gains.And they have to pay tax on the base,going back to the original base. That ishow it should be. If they sell, theyshould pay capital gains; if they don’tsell, they shouldn’t be hit.

I learned the hard way. This inherit-ance tax makes people sell businessesall the time. It makes people sellfarms, ranches, homes—just name it—to cover estate taxes. That is wrong. Ifthey should choose to sell it, then letthem pay the tax on the gain. That iswhat we do here and that is a very sig-nificant provision in this bill.

What else do we do in this bill? Wereduce capital gains taxes. We haveproven time and time again, goingback to the time of John F. Kennedy,reduce taxes and we generate moremoney to Government, particularlywith marginal rates and capital gainsrates. We reduced the capital gainsrate in 1997 from 28 to 20 percent, andit raised a lot of money for the FederalGovernment. In this bill, immediatelygoing back to January 1 of this year,we reduce the capital gains rate from20 percent to 18 percent.

Beginning January 1 of next year weindex capital gains. What does thatmean? It means we will quit taxing in-flation. If someone has a home andthat home is escalating in pricethrough inflation, they won’t have topay taxes on that inflated gain becausethe home really hasn’t increased invalue, it is just staying up. That is avery positive provision and I com-pliment the authors of the bill for theirhard work.

We increase IRA deductions from$2,000 to $5,000. We haven’t increased it

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10303August 5, 1999since we passed IRAs many years ago.That is another significant provision,so people are saving and are not so de-pendent on an employer or the FederalGovernment.

We allow self-employed persons todeduct 100 percent of their health carecosts. Right now they can deduct 45percent. This measure affects nearly 16million taxpayers. It is a very positiveprovision. We allow 100-percent deduct-ibility of health insurance for workerswithout generous employers. If you donot work for a generous employer, youcan deduct your health care costs.

We increase child care tax credits.We have AMT reforms so people don’t

get stuck paying an alternative min-imum tax just because they are taking

tax credits that Congress has alreadypassed.

We allow small businesses to be ableto expense up to $30,000 a year. We in-crease that from $19,000. This is a pro-vision that will benefit thousands andthousands of businesses, small busi-nesses, all across the country.

I say to my colleagues, this bill is agood tax bill, it is a fair tax relief bill.It allows small business, individuals,and married couples an opportunity tokeep more of their own money insteadof sending it to Washington, DC.

I urge my colleagues on behalf of thetaxpayers all across America to vote‘‘yes’’ on this bill later this evening.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent to have printed in the RECORD a

couple of tables showing the distribu-tional effects. Changes that we aremaking will show the greatest percent-age of reductions are certainly pushedtowards the lower income. For exam-ple, on married filing jointly, the ratereduction is 7 percent but the biggestreduction actually is for incomes of$40,000 to $60,000, receiving significantreductions, up to 17 and 22 percent, be-cause of the marriage penalty reliefthat we have added.

I ask unanimous consent to havethese tables printed in the RECORD.

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

IMPACT OF RATE REDUCTION & BRACKET EXPANSION

Taxable In-come

Current law GOP tax cut Change

Taxable @15%

Taxable @28%

Taxable @31%

Taxable @36%

Taxable @39.6% Total tax Taxable @

14%Taxable @

27%Taxable @

30%Taxable @

35%Taxable @

38.6% Total tax Amount ofchange

Change as% of taxes

MARRIED FILING JOINTLY

10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 1,500 10,000 0 0 0 0 1,400 (100) ¥720,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 3,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 2,800 (200) ¥730,000 30,000 0 0 0 0 4,500 30,000 0 0 0 0 4,200 (300) ¥740,000 40,000 0 0 0 0 6,000 40,000 0 0 0 0 5,600 (400) ¥750,000 43,050 6,950 0 0 0 8,404 50,000 0 0 0 0 7,000 (1,404) ¥1760,000 43,050 16,950 0 0 0 11,204 57,500 2,500 0 0 0 8,725 (2,479) ¥2270,000 43,050 26,950 0 0 0 14,004 57,500 12,500 0 0 0 11,425 (2,579) ¥1880,000 43,050 36,950 0 0 0 16,804 57,500 22,500 0 0 0 14,125 (2,679) ¥1690,000 43,050 46,950 0 0 0 19,604 57,500 32,500 0 0 0 16,825 (2,779) ¥14

100,000 43,050 56,950 0 0 0 22,404 57,500 42,500 0 0 0 19,525 (2,879) ¥13110,000 43,050 61,000 5,960 0 0 25,382 57,500 46,500 5,950 0 0 22,404 (2,979) ¥12120,000 43,050 61,000 15,950 0 0 28,482 57,500 46,550 15,950 0 0 25,404 (3,079) ¥11130,000 43,050 61,000 25,950 0 0 31,582 57,500 46,550 25,950 0 0 28,404 (3,179) ¥10140,000 43,050 61,000 35,950 0 0 34,682 57,500 46,550 35,950 0 0 31,404 (3,279) ¥9150,000 43,050 61,000 45,950 0 0 37,782 57,500 46,550 45,950 0 0 34,404 (3,379) ¥9160,000 43,050 61,000 54,500 1,450 0 40,955 57,500 46,500 54,500 1,450 0 37,476 (3,479) ¥8170,000 43,050 61,000 54,500 11,450 0 44,555 57,500 46,550 54,500 11,450 0 40,976 (3,579) ¥8180,000 43,050 61,000 54,500 21,450 0 48,155 57,500 46,550 54,500 21,450 0 44,476 (3,679) ¥8190,000 43,050 61,000 54,500 31,450 0 51,755 57,500 46,550 54,500 31,450 0 47,976 (3,779) ¥7200,000 43,050 61,000 54,500 41,450 0 55,355 57,500 46,550 54,500 41,450 0 51,476 (3,879) ¥7250,000 43,050 61,000 54,500 91,450 0 73,355 57,500 46,550 54,500 91,450 0 68,976 (4,379) ¥6300,000 43,050 61,000 54,500 124,600 16,850 91,961 57,500 46,550 54,500 124,600 16,850 87,083 (4,879) ¥5350,000 43,050 61,000 54,500 124,600 66,850 111,761 57,500 46,550 54,500 124,600 66,850 106,383 (5,379) ¥5400,000 43,050 61,000 54,500 124,600 116,850 131,561 57,500 46,550 54,500 124,600 116,850 125,683 (5,878) ¥4450,000 43,050 61,000 54,500 124,600 166,850 151,361 57,500 46,550 54,500 124,600 166,850 144,983 (6,379) ¥4500,000 43,050 61,000 54,500 124,600 216,850 171,161 57,500 46,550 54,500 124,600 216,850 164,283 (6,879) ¥4

10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 1,500 10,000 0 0 0 0 1,400 (100) ¥720,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 3,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 2,800 (200) ¥730,000 25,750 4,250 0 0 0 5,053 28,750 1,250 0 0 0 4,363 (690) ¥1440,000 25,750 14,250 0 0 0 7,853 28,750 11,250 0 0 0 7,063 (790) ¥1050,000 25,750 24,250 0 0 0 10,653 28,750 21,250 0 0 0 9,763 (890) ¥860,000 25,750 34,250 0 0 0 13,453 28,750 31,250 0 0 0 12,463 (990) ¥770,000 25,750 36,700 7,550 0 0 16,479 28,750 33,700 7,550 0 0 15,389 (1,090) ¥780,000 25,750 36,700 17,550 0 0 19,579 28,750 33,700 17,550 0 0 18,389 (1,190) ¥690,000 25,750 36,700 27,550 0 0 22,679 28,750 33,700 27,550 0 0 21,389 (1,290) ¥6

100,000 25,750 36,700 37,550 0 0 25,779 28,750 33,700 37,550 0 0 24,389 (1,390) ¥5110,000 25,750 36,700 47,550 0 0 28,879 28,750 33,700 47,550 0 0 27,389 (1,490) ¥5120,000 25,750 36,700 57,550 0 0 31,979 28,750 33,700 57,550 0 0 30,389 (1,590) ¥5130,000 25,750 36,700 67,550 0 0 35,079 28,750 33,700 67,550 0 0 33,389 (1,690) ¥5140,000 25,750 36,700 67,800 9,750 0 38,667 28,750 33,700 67,800 9,750 0 36,877 (1,790) ¥5150,000 25,750 36,700 67,800 19,750 0 42,267 28,750 33,700 67,800 19,750 0 40,377 (1,890) ¥4160,000 25,750 36,700 67,800 29,750 0 45,867 28,750 33,700 67,800 29,750 0 43,877 (1,990) ¥4170,000 25,750 36,700 67,800 39,750 0 49,467 28,750 33,700 67,800 39,750 0 47,377 (2,090) ¥4180,000 25,750 36,700 67,800 49,750 0 53,067 28,750 33,700 67,800 49,750 0 50,877 (2,190) ¥4190,000 25,750 36,700 67,800 59,750 0 56,667 28,750 33,700 67,800 59,750 0 54,377 (2,290) ¥4200,000 25,750 36,700 67,800 69,750 0 60,267 28,750 33,700 67,800 69,750 0 57,877 (2,390) ¥4250,000 25,750 36,700 67,800 119,750 0 78,267 28,750 33,700 67,800 119,750 0 75,377 (2,890) ¥4300,000 25,750 36,700 67,800 152,900 16,850 96,873 28,750 33,700 67,800 152,900 16,850 93,483 (3,390) ¥3350,000 25,750 36,700 67,800 152,900 66,850 116,673 28,750 33,700 67,800 152,900 66,850 112,783 (3,890) ¥3400,000 25,750 36,700 67,800 152,900 116,850 136,473 28,750 33,700 67,800 152,900 116,850 132,083 (4,390) ¥3450,000 25,750 36,700 67,800 152,900 166,850 156,273 28,750 33,700 67,800 152,900 166,850 171,383 (4,890) ¥3500,000 25,750 36,700 67,800 152,900 216,850 176,073 28,750 33,700 67,800 152,900 216,850 170,683 (5,390) ¥3

Policies as fully phased in applied to 1999 tax brackets.Provided by Senator Don Nickles, 08/05/99

N O T I C E

Incomplete record of Senate proceedings. Today’s Senate proceedings will be continuedin the next issue of the Record.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

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

Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E1747August 5, 1999

ALICE TENNISON

HON. HEATHER WILSONOF NEW MEXICO

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 4, 1999

Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bringto your attention the outstanding work of AliceTennison.

Alice lives in Albuquerque, New Mexico, andis a constituent of mine. Recently, Alice wonthe Education’s Unsung Heroes Award formentoring students and founding the StudentMentorship in Education Project. The StudentMentorship in Education Project gives highschool students hands-on experience in lead-ing elementary school classrooms.

I would also like to thank ReliaStar FinancialCorporation and Northern Life Insurance Com-pany for sponsoring the event.

A good education helps students achievetheir career and life goals. Alice Tennison hashelped provide a quality education in NewMexico. Her work touches the lives of our nextgeneration of teachers.

Alice Tennison continues to contribute toNew Mexico education and I hope she willcontinue to do so well into the future. Mr.Speaker, I ask that we recognize and thankAlice Tennison for her achievement.f

INNOVATIVE RESPONSES TOYOUTH VIOLENCE AND SCHOOLDROPOUTS RATES

HON. ROBIN HAYESOF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 4, 1999

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, educators in com-munities across the country are searching forinnovative methods to assist families in com-bating the threats that plague so many of ournation’s high schools. Drugs, juvenile violence,high school students dropping out of their edu-cation: schools have a responsibility to partnerwith parents in safeguarding our children fromthese hazards.

In 1997, the last year for which we have re-liable statistics available, there were 706,000violent crimes involving teenagers. To reducethis number, we have to start early: as formerWinston-Salem, North Carolina police chiefGeorge Sweat has said, ‘‘the fight againstcrime needs to start in the highchair, not waitfor the electric chair.’’

Nationwide, 5 percent of students drop outof school. Only 40 percent of high schooldropouts are employed. Dropping out oftenleads students to drifting, trouble and some-times crime and time in jail. As the demandsof the workplace grow more dependent uponhigh levels of literacy and technical skill, highschool dropouts will increasingly face prob-lems in getting and keeping jobs.

The American family is the bedrock of hopefor instilling values in children that can keep

them on the right path. But our schools canhelp as well. The use of innovative methods toeducate and encourage young people to re-spect themselves, to stay in school and out oftrouble is essential. One such method is apublic-private partnership to which over 40percent of American schools belong. Theseschools work with the Channel One Network,an in-school news analysis program thatreaches eight million American students daily.Studies have shown that public service an-nouncements by this programmer for militaryrecruitment and drug prevention have beenextraordinarily effective. Students in ChannelOne Schools have more negative impressionsof drug use. They are also more likely to con-sider enlisting in their nation’s armed services.

I believe that schools must increase sucheffective programs in the areas of juvenile vio-lence and high school dropout prevention. I in-tend to work hard to ensure that our govern-ment expands its support of our schools’ ef-forts in this direction.

f

TRIBUTE TO OFFICER MICHAELLEWELLEN

HON. LORETTA SANCHEZOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 4, 1999

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I rise tohonor Officer Michael Lewellen for his com-mendable service to the United States ArmedForces. It is with great pride that I present Mr.Lewellen with seven prestigious militaryawards and decorations including the BronzeStar Medal, the Purple Heart, the Air Medal,the National Defense Service Medal, the Viet-nam Service Medal, the Combat MedicalBadge, and the Republic of Vietnam Cam-paign Ribbon with Device.

Our nation is graced with many treasures,though none so precious as the peace weenjoy in our prosperous country. I am honoredto commend Mr. Lewellen for his contributionto safeguarding that peace. It is one of our na-tion’s great strengths that men and womenhave answered their country’s call, and con-tinue to heed it today to prevent the devasta-tion we have witnessed too often this century.

Fortunately, our society has been blessedwith many leaders who learned the values ofleadership—responsibility, accountability andloyalty—while wearing the uniform of theircountry. For without their dedication to duty,we would not enjoy the many freedoms a for-tunate America has to offer.

Again, I offer Mr. Lewellen my sincerestcongratulations. I join together with everyonein this room to celebrate Mr. Lewellen’s patri-otism and to pay tribute to his service to ourgreat nation.

BRINGING SMILES TO FLORIDA

HON. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALARTOF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 4, 1999

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise todayto offer my warmest congratulations to thedental community in Florida for their great suc-cess with Project: Dentists Care (PDC), whichfacilitates access to dental care for indigent orunderserved populations throughout the State.In a typical year, over 700 dentists donatemore than 10,000 hours to treat 6,000–7,000patients, providing close to a million dollarsworth of dentistry, all at no charge.

Project: Dentists Care Began in Palm BeachCounty in 1992, and now enjoys successthroughout the State. Money raised from fundraisers such as the annual Dentist’s Day inOctober, including the ball, the silent auctionand art sales, helps buy supplies and equip-ment needed for the programs.

I am pleased to support the efforts ofProject: Dentists Care, and I urge my col-leagues to join me as I extend my support andbest wishes for a successful Dentist Day.f

COMMANDER JACKIE W. KYGER

HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZOF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 4, 1999

Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today tocommend a gentleman who does an out-standing job commanding a Coast Guard Sta-tion in my district, Commander Jackie W.Kyger.

Commander Kyger is an absolutely superbman. He commands the South Padre IslandCoast Guard Station in Port Isabel, Texas, inmy district and he will be leaving Friday, Au-gust 6, for the private sector. If he carries thesame gung-ho, can-do attitude that he hasemployed in his service to our country into theprivate sector, I have no doubt he will retire amillionaire.

The Port Isabel station has a very toughmission, which centers largely on drug inter-diction. They have quite a small station, witha tremendous amount of space to cover. Inthe last Congress, it came to my attention thatthe station desperately needed new equip-ment. They were making do with surplusequipment in their quest to interdict drugsmugglers along a large chunk of South Texascoast. We ask our Coast Guard to do somuch: search and rescue, boat safety, druginterdiction and fishing regulation enforcement,among others.

It is just not right to give them that enor-mous responsibility without the equipment todo the job. In the next Coast Guard Authoriza-tion bill, I made sure to include committee re-port language stressing the need for newequipment, and as a result, the Port Isabel

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE1748 August 5, 1999Coast Guard station recently got two new util-ity vehicles that are currently being fitted. Thisspeaks to Commander Kyger’s leadership abil-ity, ensuring that his people had the properequipment to accomplish their mission.

Mr. Speaker, Commander Kyger will begreatly missed by the larger South Texascommunity, as well as the Coasties he com-mands. He is a devoted family man who isalso committed to helping the community. Hewas of great help to a community projectknown as ‘‘Save Our Children,’’ a non-profitgroup that targeted young people in the Val-ley, encouraging them to stay away from vio-lence and drugs, and reassuring them thatthey are indeed loved and are a valuable re-source to South Texas. He was also instru-mental in forming a partnership with the BoysScouts of America to create a U.S. CoastGuard Explorers Post, an activity that providesa positive focus for young people after school.

I ask my colleagues to join me today incommending Jackie Kyger, an outstanding pa-triot, officer and family man on his departurefrom Coast Guard Station South Padre Islandthis week.f

FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORTFINANCING, AND RELATED PRO-GRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT,2000

SPEECH OF

HON. ROBERT WEXLEROF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Monday, August 2, 1999

The House in Committee of the WholeHouse on the State of the Union had underconsideration the bill (H.R. 2606) making ap-propriations for foreign operations, export fi-nancing, and related programs for the fiscalyear ending September 30, 2000, and for otherpurposes:

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly op-pose the Burton Amendment to H.R. 2606, theForeign Operations Appropriations bill, whichwould limit U.S. foreign aid to India.

This amendment, which cuts essential aid toIndia, sends the wrong message to the gov-ernment in Dehli. U.S./India relations have sig-nificantly improved since the end of the coldwar. In reaching out to the United States andthe international community, India has under-taken dramatic economic policy reforms to be-come a market-oriented economy. As oftoday, the United States is India’s largest trad-ing partner and largest investor.

The Indian government has also taken con-structive steps to improve its human rightsrecord. We must recognize the Indian govern-ment’s efforts and progress, and assist themin taking further steps to reduce human rightsabuses in their country.

Although the Indian government has madeprogress with respect to economic reformsand human rights, they face a much toughergoal of providing for a population of close toa billion people with a rapid population growthof 1.7 percent per year. Forty percent of In-dia’s urban population and half of the ruralpopulation live below the poverty level. TheBurton amendment would cut crucial U.S. hu-manitarian aid to India that is desperatelyneeded for disease control, population control,malnutrition, and rural development.

India which is an important strategic ally ofthe United States borders Iran and CommunistChina. Like the United States, India has manysecurity concerns, including the direct threat ofterrorism. Radical terrorist outfits trained in Af-ghanistan and Pakistan, including that ofOsam Bin Laden, have targeted and executedinnocent civilians in Kashmir.

I believe that the United States and Indiahave already begun to see the benefits of im-proved bilateral relations. Unfortunately, thisamendment reverses the gains made betweenour two democracies and denies humanitarianassistance to the most needy in India. I urgemy colleagues to defeat this amendment.f

INTRODUCTION OF THE MEDICAREPARAMEDIC INTERCEPT SERVICEEQUITY ACT

HON. SUE W. KELLYOF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 4, 1999

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to in-troduce the Medicare Paramedic InterceptService Equity Act, legislation which will pro-vide reimbursement for critically needed am-bulance intercepts, no matter where theyoccur.

In the past, paramedic ambulance compa-nies have billed Medicare for services admin-istered to beneficiaries during an intercept. InMay 1995, the Health Care Financing Admin-istration discontinued allowing the paramedicambulances to bill Medicare, stating that theyonly grant payment for services provided bythe transporting ambulance, which under anintercept would be the non-billing volunteerambulance. This policy precludes paramedicambulances from receiving Medicare paymentfor their services.

According to the providers this policy hasproven to be a nightmare. It creates a situa-tion in which the volunteer personnel mightchoose to not call paramedic personnel, evenif it is against their best judgment, because thepatient may not be able to afford the cost ofthe paramedic care. The billing of the patientcould also be avoided, if the patient is phys-ically transferred from the volunteer ambu-lance to the paramedic ambulance, therebymaking it the transporting ambulance but, inthe process, wasting time that could be criticalto the well being and survival of the patient.However, if the volunteer company doeschoose to call paramedic personnel, then thecost is passed on to the patient.

Although carriers have begun billing patientsfor their services, they often waive the chargesfor seniors who cannot afford to pay the bill.As a result of this policy, many paramedic am-bulance companies are experiencing seriousfinancial losses and may have to go out ofbusiness, which jeopardizes emergency care.Additionally, many seniors have taken to call-ing paramedic providers to describe their con-ditions to see if they would require their serv-ices, before calling the volunteer ambulance.

In 1997, Congress addressed this issue inthe Medicare provision of the Balanced Budg-et Act. This provision amended the Social Se-curity Act to provide coverage in rural areasfor paramedic intercept services under Medi-care Part B. This change was intended toallow paramedic ambulance companies to bill

Medicare for their services despite the factthat they were not the transporting vehicle. Yetunder the Health Care Financing Administra-tion’s proposed methodology, many areaswhich would commonly be thought of as ruralare not considered as such under the rule.Thus, these areas have all the problems ofbeing rural, yet have none of the protectionsthat Medicare reimbursements for paramedicintercept services would provide.

As a result, one town with the fortune ofbeing classified as rural has paramedic inter-cept coverage, while the town directly nextdoor with the same basic rural nature, but afew more residents has no coverage. Thisleaves seniors stuck in the middle, confusedas to what areas are covered, and scared tocall for an ambulance for fear they will becharged with a bill they cannot afford. The pol-icy of only reimbursing ambulance interceptsthat occur in rural areas geographically dis-criminates against Medicare beneficiaries byarbitrarily setting standards for reimbursementthat will help only those seniors with the luckof living in a federally defined rural town.

Paramedic intercepts should be covered byMedicare no matter where a senior lives. If asenior is in medical need of an intercept, thenMedicare should pay for it. The MedicareParamedic Intercept Service Equity Act takesthe debate over coverage out of rural vs.urban and towards one of medical necessity.Specifically, this bill strikes the word ‘‘rural’’from the ambulance intercept provision of theBalanced Budget Act. In doing this, all inter-cepts are covered whether they are in a ruralarea or not.

Please join me in providing seniors with thecritical emergency services they need and co-sponsor this important bill.f

COSTELLO HONORS 300TH ANNI-VERSARY OF THE VILLAGE OFCAHOKIA

HON. JERRY F. COSTELLOOF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 4, 1999

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today inhonor of the 300th Anniversary of the Villageof Cahokia.

As we begin to near the end of this millen-nium, I ask my colleagues to join me in cele-brating the history of the small towns within allof our districts. Throughout this year, Cahokia,a village in my district, continues to celebrateit’s tricentennial anniversary, with reflection onits vital place in American history.

The Village of Cahokia derives its name,which means ‘‘Wild Geese’’, from the CahokiaIndian tribe. Today, it is recognized not onlyas a wonderful, thriving community of South-ern Illinois but also as the site of the CahokiaMounds, which is both an Illinois State HistoricSite and a World Heritage Site. TheCahokians, members of the Illini Confed-eration, along with their relatives, theTamaroas, were the first people known to in-habit this small and beautiful region in the Mis-sissippi Valley. While the Cahokian tribe con-tinues to provide a vital, unique character tothe region, in 1699, the diversity of the com-munity was further strengthened withCahokia’s founding by missionary priests fromthe Seminary of Quebec.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E1749As the 18th century progressed, this com-

munity also became the principal commercialcenter in the mid-west. Specializing in thetrade of Indian goods and fur, Cahokia’s eco-nomic development thrived. This served as theimpetus for prompting the expansion of Agri-culture as a viable livelihood, which was sonecessary to feed the rapidly growing commu-nity of settlers.

The Village of Cahokia also took pride in itsrole in winning a battle of the American Revo-lution. Captain Joseph Bowman and GeorgeRogers Clark negotiated peace agreements inCahokia at Fort Bowman with neighboringtribes of the Illini Confederation, and thenlaunched an attack on British occupied Vin-cennes. Both their soldiers and ammunitionwere primarily supplied by the residents ofCahokia.

Cahokia has long been recognized as a sig-nificant force in Illinois politics. In the 18th and19th centuries, the Cahokia Courthouseserved as an important center of activity in theNorthwest. At one point it was both the judicialand administrative center for a massive areawhich rose up to the borders of Canada.

Today, I am honored to represent Cahokia,which has embraced its heritage of both Na-tive-American history, as well as the influx ofFrench and other ethnicities, spurred by west-ward expansion. This close community ofchurches, civic groups, and businesses in-spires us to remember the legacy of our fore-fathers, while also celebrating the future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join mein recognizing the Village of Cahokia thismonth in commemoration of its 300th Anniver-sary!f

MUSEUM FOR AFRICAN ART

HON. JERROLD NADLEROF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 4, 1999

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased torecognize one of New York City’s premier cul-tural institutions, the Museum of African Art,and to invite my colleagues to visit the Mu-seum over the August recess. Founded in1984, the Manhattan-based Museum is theonly independent museum in the UnitedStates devoted exclusively to historical andcontemporary African art.

The Museum for African Art is dedicated toincreasing public understanding and apprecia-tion of African art and culture. Through exhibi-tions and catalogues of the highest aestheticand scholarly merit, the Museum offers defini-tive research and scholarship on African cul-tural groups and their regional influences.

The Museum provides thematic comparisonand exploration of artistic ideas reflected in thegreat variety of cultures in Africa, innovativemethods of display and interpretation of Afri-can art to involve audiences directly in the ex-hibition process, and programs that stimulatelifelong learning and appreciation of African artand culture.

In April 1999, the Museum opened agroundbreaking exhibition entitled ‘‘A CongoChronicle: Urban Art and the Legend ofPatrice Lumumba.’’ Consisting of 50 paintingsby famed African artist Tshibumba Kanda-Matulu and several other urban artists of thetime, this exhibition offers a uniquely personal

encounter with the African independencemovement as it was born and took holdamong the population.

African art aficionados are looking forwardto the September unveiling of the exhibit, Lib-erated Voices: Contemporary Art from SouthAfrica. Featuring close to 100 works, includingpaintings sculptures, installations, photo-graphs, and videos made since Apartheidended in 1994. This exhibition highlights majortrends in contemporary South African artisticpractice. The exhibit will focus on the diverseworks of young artists in today’s South Africa.Through their personal experiences Museumvisitors will gain a greater insight into this dy-namic country.

Mr. Speaker, the Museum for African Art isa unique resource. I hope all of my colleagueswill have the opportunity to visit the Museumto learn more about African art and its influ-ence and significant contributions to our cul-ture and society.f

IN CELEBRATION OF THE BIRTHOF MORGAN JULIANN TAYLOR

HON. DAVID M. McINTOSHOF INDIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 4, 1999

Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, last Wednes-day, July 28, 1999, Morgan Juliann Taylor wasborn. She is the daughter of my chief of staff,Jeff Taylor and his wife Julie. God blessedthem with a beautiful, healthy child. When wedebate issues on the floor of the U.S. Houseof Representatives which will impact the livesof children, I like to think of children I know,especially my own daughter, Ellie. From thistime forward, I will also keep Morgan Juliannin my mind and heart as this great body worksto make this country a better place to live forEllie, Morgan and all of our children andgrandchildren.f

TRIBUTE TO ISAAC DARKO

HON. JOSE E. SERRANOOF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 4, 1999

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to onceagain congratulate and to pay tribute to Mr.Isaac Darko, a constituent of mine and a dis-tinguished student at Columbia University inNew York. He will be recognized for his aca-demic and scientific achievements as a partici-pant in the National Institutes of Health (NIH)Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Indi-viduals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds(UGSP) on August 5, 1999 for the secondyear in a row.

Isaac graduated from the Health Profes-sions and Human Services High School in1997 and has just completed his freshmanyear at Columbia University. This summer hehas been working at the NIH Department ofMolecular Biology under the supervision of Dr.Alfred Johnson. He has been working on theepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR),which is expressed in such cancers as breastand prostate cancer and in other cancer celllines.

Mr. Speaker, the UGSP scholars search ishighly competitive and nationwide. Currently,

the program has 24 scholars from all over thenation, from institutions such as Columbia Uni-versity, MIT, Harvard, Georgetown, U.C.Davis, and Stanford. In order to participate inthe program, a Scholar must either have a 3.5Grade Point Average or be in the top 5 per-cent of his/her class. Candidates must alsodemonstrate a commitment to pursuing ca-reers in biomedical research and must be froma disadvantaged background. The currentgroup is composed of 32 percent Hispanics,32 percent African Americans, 21 percentAsians, 10 percent Caucasians, and 5 percentNative American, with a balance between thegenders of 52 percent female and 48 percentmale.

Mr. Speaker, being selected for this pro-gram for two consecutive years indicates thatIsaac has demonstrated that he has the abilityand the desire to be an asset and a rolemodel in our community. We are proud of hisaccomplishments and I know he is taking fulladvantage of the opportunity presented to him.He is a terrific example for future participantsin this program and others like it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join mein congratulating once again Mr. Issac Darkofor his outstanding accomplishments and alsoin commending the National Institutes ofHealth Undergraduate Scholarship Programfor Individuals from Disadvantaged Back-grounds for offering opportunities to studentslike Isaac.f

FAMILY BUILDING ACT OF 1999

HON. ANTHONY D. WEINEROF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 4, 1999Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, today I intro-

duced the Family Building Act of 1999.This legislation will assure the millions of

Americans suffering from the disease of infer-tility that the treatments they so desperatelyneed will be covered by their health insuranceplans.

There is nothing more basic to humanbeings than the desire to have a family. Yet,more than 6 million American families will suf-fer from infertility at some point in their repro-ductive lives. However, fewer than 1 in 4 em-ployer-based insurance plans include cov-erage for infertility.

Imagine being given the devastating newsthat you have a fertility problem. Fortunately,your physician confidently informs you that themajority of couples who seek treatment fortheir infertility are able to have a baby. So youleave the office feeling hopeful if not opti-mistic. Then news even more devastating thanyour diagnosis comes your way: your healthplan has decided that infertility is a diseasethey don’t think worthy of covering. Their prof-its mean more than your inability to have afamily.

It’s unfair, and it happens too often in thiscountry.

As fewer and fewer of our citizens are al-lowed any meaningful choice in health plans,Americans are being denied access to medicaltreatments that provide them with their onlyhope of becoming a parent. This is unfair, andthe Family Building Act of 1999 will put a stopto it.

The insurance industry may claim that pro-viding infertility coverage will cost them so

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE1750 August 5, 1999much money that they will either go out ofbusiness or that employers will not be able toprovide any coverage at all. This is not thecase.

Studies completed by the American Societyfor Reproductive Medicine have shown thatproviding comprehensive infertility coveragewill add only three dollars per member peryear. Thirteen states have already passedsimilar legislation and it has not driven the in-surance companies out of business, nor has itcaused employers to drop their health insur-ance. In fact, in Massachusetts a study showsthat the cost for HMOs actually went downwhen they started providing coverage.

Insurance coverage for infertility also allowsfor better medicine. We have all heard aboutand been concerned with the rising number oftriplets, quadruplets and even higher numbersof multiple births from fertility treatments.Proper insurance coverage will allow patientsand their physicians to pursue conservative,medically appropriate treatments and lowerthe risk of multiple births.

Consider: just three dollars a year couldallow thousands of Americans to become par-ents. I think it’s worth it, the American peoplethink it’s worth it and I hope this House willshow it thinks it’s worth it by passing the Fam-ily Building Act of 1999.f

ISSUES FACING YOUNG PEOPLE

HON. BERNARD SANDERSOF VERMONT

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 4, 1999Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to

have printed in the RECORD statements byhigh school students from my home State ofVermont, who were speaking at my recenttown meeting on issues facing young peopletoday. I am asking that you please insertthese statements in the CONGRESSIONALRECORD as I believe that the views of theseyoung persons will benefit my colleagues.

WORKERS’ RIGHTS AND WELFARE REFORM

(On behalf of Daniel Peyser and JennDonohue)

Daniel Peyser: I’m going to be coveringworkers’ rights, and specifically minimumwage, and maybe health care, and Jenn isgoing to be doing welfare reform, which willtie into it.

A key issue regarding the basic rights ofworkers is a livable wage. There was a min-imum wage increase that was from $4.25 to$5.15, but it is still not livable. It is nice tohave the wage increase, but it is not signifi-cantly helping us out. I make minimumwage, and it’s a pain when you are not mak-ing enough money that you feel that youwould deserve more for the work that youput in. But, over the past two decades, theminimum wage, with that one exception ofthat increase, has largely, for most people,stagnated or declined, and combined with in-flation, the real value of the minimum wagehasn’t increased very much since around 1955to 1970.

It used to be, after World War II, that whenproductivity went up in companies that theworkers got cut into the action and everyoneprospered. But between 1983 and 1989, wehave seen that, as companies reach recordprofits, that workers aren’t getting cut inany more. And between 1983 and 1989, 99 per-cent of the new wealth that was accumulatedwent to the top 20 percent of the incomegroups.

America is now the most economicallystratified country in the industrializedworld. So there’s a lot of issues that also tiein with livable wage. I mean, you have wel-fare, which is one issue. And one of the in-centives perhaps for a lot of people who areon welfare would be a higher minimum wage.I think the answer to the problem would beto require companies to, first of all, raise theminimum wage to something that is easilylivable. Ideally, I would have said $9 an houror so. Cut back working hours, so requirecompanies, based on how much money theymake, to hire a certain number of workers,also based on their expenses, which wouldhelp unemployment rates.

Other issues that tie in are, a large part ofhaving an unbalanced budget can be attrib-uted to having stagnated wages. College edu-cation prices have gone up 80 percent overthe past two decades, I think, as far as thecost of real value. And it is going to be hard-er and harder for people who are makingminimum wage now to send their kids to col-lege or to support their families.

Congressman Sanders: Jenn?Jenn Donohue: As a senior in high school,

the time is coming where I have to go outand find a job and employment. And, as Danwas saying, it bothers me in both respects,that there are people out there who are mak-ing minimum wage, trying to feed their kids,trying to buy necessities, basic things thatpeople need, and they are getting welfare;and there are other people out there whodon’t work, who wait for the check to comeevery month, and that’s what they live on,they have no initiative to get up, get out,and get a job.

Welfare was established for people in need,to help them get back up on their feet untilthe time came where they were okay, andthey were all set, and they didn’t need it asmuch as they did before. But now, I think,there is a problem where people are using itas their basic income. They have no desire toget up and get a job. And it is not the casewith all people who are on welfare. Somepeople need it intensely. They are workingtwo jobs, their spouse is working two jobs.Their kids are going to school, they needfood and products all kids need.

I just think that something has to be doneto change the way that welfare is going, be-cause it is unfair to deprive people who real-ly need the welfare of the money, when it isgoing to people who are just using it—Imean, there are women who get pregnant sothey will have more money coming in thedoor. It is sick and it’s twisted, and some-thing needs to be done to reform welfare, sothat the people who need it are getting it,and the people who need it and aren’t doinganything to get it do something about that.

Congressman Sanders: Thanks for tacklinga very, very important issue.

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR ALCOHOL

(On behalf of Laura Megivern)Laura Megivern: My name is Laura

Megivern, and I’m from South BurlingtonHigh School.

In all 50 states, it is illegal for anyoneunder 21 to purchase and possess alcoholicbeverages. Following this logic, it shouldtherefore be illegal for anyone under the ageof 21 to have a blood alcohol concentration ofanything over .00. However, this is not thecase. In Vermont, anything under a .02 alco-hol level is legal for someone under 21 yearsold, who cannot legally purchase or possessany alcoholic product.

It is required that all states have a zerotolerance law for people under the legaldrinking age. A zero tolerance law is definedas any law that states that persons under 21are not allowed to have a blood alcohol level

of anything more than .02, .01 or .00. In 1994,according to the National Highway SafetyAdministration, motor vehicle traffic crash-es cost the United States more than $150 bil-lion in economic costs. Crashes involving 15-to 20-year-olds cost the United States yearsmore than $21 billion in 1994.

Although they may be effective, there is abit of a discrepancy in the fact that, al-though youth are not permitted to purchaseor possess alcohol, it is all right for them tohave some alcohol in their blood. One reasonwhy the legal limit is set above zero is be-cause of problems with the calibration of in-struments, and because of the margin oferror that may exist in the use of aBreathalyzer.

Other reasons brought up while the lawwas being created were that some foods mayraise the alcohol level in breath, and thatwine consumed in church as part of com-munion may raise the blood alcohol to an il-legal level. The amount of wine ingested dur-ing communion would most likely be im-measurable, unless the Breathalyzer test wasadministered just afterwards. Also, an aver-age high school student taking one dose ofNyQuil would be under this limit, as the al-cohol level would barely be measurable—al-though, in my opinion, if you feel badenough to take NyQuil, a cough syrup adver-tised as helping someone get to sleep, youprobably shouldn’t be driving anyway. Someyeast products may also raise the alcoholcontent, but not to a measurable level, ac-cording to Dan Steinbar of the Day One Pro-gram, an outpatient rehabilitation program.He also says that, a beginning drinker with-out a high tolerance to alcohol, like a teen-ager, would be showing signs of impairment,especially of slurred speech and impairmentof judgment, at a .02 blood alcohol con-centration.

To get to a .02 blood alcohol concentration,you would need to drink a can of beer, 12ounces, or 6 ounces of wine. In fact, for a 150-pound male, one can of beer, 5 ounces ofwine, or 1.5 ounces of hard liquor puts theblood alcohol concentration above the legallimit even for someone over 21. However, ifthe male waited two hours to drive, he wouldbe below it.

The rationale for zero tolerance is clearlyunderstandable. According to the NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration, 21percent of 15- to 20-year-old drivers involvedin fatal crashes had some alcohol in theirblood in 1996. In the same year, an estimated846 lives were saved by the minimum-agedrinking laws, and an estimated 16,513 liveshave been saved by these laws since 1975.

Although there is a discrepancy in thelegal limit and what one would hope wouldbe the legal limit, I see the reasoning behindit, although I hope that, one day, equipmentwill be in use in Vermont that has no marginof error, so that we can have an actual zerotolerance law, rather than a .02 tolerancelaw, because zero should mean zero.

f

MAXINE DEAMOS

HON. IKE SKELTONOF MISSOURI

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 4, 1999

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me takethis opportunity to recognize Maxine Deamosupon her retirement from the Lafayette Re-gional Health Center in Lexington, Missouri.

Ms. Deamos first started working at theformer Lexington Memorial Hospital 34 yearsago. During her tenure, she worked as a nurs-ing aid in various departments of the hospital,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E1751including surgery, obstetrics, and the operatingroom. At the time of her retirement, Ms.Deamos was employed in the sterile centralsupply, the part of the hospital that providessterile processing for surgical instruments andequipment. A standout employee during her34 years, she was named Lafayette RegionalHealth Center Employee of the Year in 1967and given the Smile Award, recognizing hercheery attitude, in 1997.

Maxine Deamos is an outstanding citizen ofthe Lexington community, and her wonderfulpersonality will be missed by all at LexingtonRegional Health Center. During her quietertimes, Ms. Deamos plans to travel, work onher crafts, and spend time with her grand-children. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that our col-leagues join me in recognition of this out-standing Missourian.

f

A TRIBUTE TO LULAC

HON. LORETTA SANCHEZOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 4, 1999

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today tohonor one of the most influential Hispanic civilrights organizations in the United States. TheLeague of United Latin American Citizens iscelebrating its 70th anniversary of service tothe Latino community.

In 1929 LULAC was formed in CorpusChristi, TX. Formed as a grassroots self-helporganization, LULAC has a distinguishedrecord of fighting for Hispanic education, em-ployment and civil rights. Today, LULAC’s250,000 members make it the largest Hispanicorganization in the U.S. Its 600 councils na-tionwide have been significant in empoweringLatino communities in Texas, New Mexico,California, Florida, Washington, DC and NewYork.

Education has always been a chief priorityfor LULAC, providing more than half a milliondollars in scholarships for Latino students.LULAC National Educational Service Centersserve over 18,000 students with counselingand dropout prevention programs. At the sametime, its commitment to the assurance ofequal access has been fundamental inLULAC’s fight for affirmative action and wom-en’s rights.

In the Hispanic business community, LULAChas been important in furnishing training andmanagement expertise, while also providingsupport for economic development. LULAChas also made great strides in combating His-panic unemployment through the developmentof programs like SER-Jobs for Progress andVocational Training Centers.

I am proud to represent the city of SantaAna, which is the home of the first LULACcouncil in California. Its work in my communityis indispensable. In fact, LULAC was respon-sible for desegregating Orange CountySchools in 1946 with Mendez v. WestministerSchool District.

I congratulate LULAC for its 70 years ofservice to Hispanics in the United States. Itsoutstanding work should be an inspiration toother Latino leaders and elected officials, es-pecially those here in Congress. I applaudLULAC’s on its anniversary, and give thanksfor all its good work.

THE PUBLIC SCHOOLMODERNIZATION ACT

HON. FORTNEY PETE STARKOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 4, 1999

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today insupport of H.R. 1660, the Public School Mod-ernization Act. It is time for Congress to takeaction and make an investment in the future ofAmerica, our children. This legislation will pro-vide significant help to local school districts inmeeting their needs both to build new class-rooms to keep up with skyrocketing school en-rollments and to renovate and modernize theirexisting facilities.

Overall, California alone projects a $20.1 bil-lion five-year cost for school modernization, in-cluding $11 billion for modernization and tech-nology upgrades of old facilities. These tech-nology upgrades include very basic amenitiessuch as additional electrical outlets, and tele-phone jacks for internet connection.

Additionally, California will need $4 billionjust to build new facilities to accommodategrowing enrollment. California would get justover $3 billion under the Public School Mod-ernization Act. This bill will provide $24 billionin interest-free funds for school modernizationprojects and deserves our support.

According to the Committee for EducationFunding, the Republican education agenda isprojected to cut over $3 billion from the De-partment of Education’s budget including a $1billion cut from Title I funding, a programaimed at supporting children in poverty. Fund-ing will also be slashed dramatically for Fed-eral Pell Grants and the Head Start Program.

It would be prudent to cut funding for waste-ful defense programs, and unnecessarymanned space exploration. It is time to makea significant improvement in the education ofour children. I urge my colleagues to supportHR 1606. Our children’s future depends on it.f

A DARK CHAPTER IN OURNATION’S HISTORY

HON. ROBERT WEXLEROF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 4, 1999

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I am here tosupport Italian Americans who were singledout during World War II as enemy aliens ofthe United States. Unfortunately, like manyJapanese Americans who were persecutedduring World War II, over 600,000 ItalianAmericans were subjected to harsh treatmentby the American government, including beingevicted from their homes and subjected tostrict curfews. Hundreds of Italian Americanswere sent to internment camps.

It is unconscionable that these hard workingAmericans were denied fundamental humanrights and freedoms. Like many other ethniccommunities in the United States, ItalianAmericans fought bravely in World War II andplayed a major role in defeating the Axis pow-ers. However, many Italian Americans who re-mained in the United States during World WarII faced discrimination including the families ofsoldiers who were injured or killed in Europeand in the Pacific.

I believe that it is incumbent upon the Presi-dent and the United States government to ac-knowledge this dark chapter of our nation’shistory. Italian Americans who were victims ofpersecution are entitled to no less, and Amer-ica needs to acknowledge the truth. I urge mycolleagues to support H.R. 2442.f

INTRODUCTION OF THE ELEC-TRONIC BENEFIT TRANSFERINTEROPERABILITY AND PORT-ABILITY ACT OF 1999

HON. BOB GOODLATTEOF VIRGINIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 4, 1999Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, today I in-

troduced the Electronic Benefit Transfer Inter-operability and Portability Act of 1999. Thesole focus of the bill is to allow food stampbeneficiaries the ability to redeem their bene-fits in any eligible store regardless of location.Beneficiaries had this ability under the oldpaper food stamp system but lost it as statesmigrated to an electronic benefits transfer sys-tem.

Under the old paper food stamp system, re-cipients could redeem their food coupons inany authorized food store anywhere in thecountry. For example, a food stamp recipientliving in Bath County, VA could use their foodstamps in their favorite grocery store even if ithappened to be in West Virginia. Similarly, arecipient living in Tennessee could visit theirMother in Virginia and purchase food for theirchildren while away from home. Unfortunately,as we move to electronic delivery of benefits,this is currently not the case. My bill providesfor the portability of food assistance benefitsand allows food stamp recipients the flexibilityof shopping at locations that they choose.

Across the country we are finding that peo-ple live in one state and shop in another. Thiscross border shopping is conducted for a vari-ety of reasons. One of them is convenience,another is the cost of goods. The supermarketindustry is a very competitive industry. Everyweek stores advertise specials in newspaperads across the country. People not only shopat locations convenient to them but also shoparound for the best prices. Customers payingwith every type of tender except EBT have theflexibility to shop where they choose. Whyshouldn’t recipients of food assistance benefitsbe allowed to stretch their dollars in the sameway that other consumers do, without regardto state borders?

EBT potability is simply allowing recipientsof benefits under the food stamp program toredeem those benefits without regard to stateborders at the stores they choose. In additionto portability, my legislation allows for theinteroperability of EBT transactions. Interoper-ability can be simply defined as the ability ofvarious computers involved in authorizing,routing and settling an EBT transaction to talkto each other.

I offered a Sense of the Congress Amend-ment to the Welfare Reform bill that Congresspassed in 1996. My amendment urged statesto work together to achieve a seamless sys-tem of food stamp benefit redemption. Statesdid a decent job considering the cir-cumstances. They are now asking for an extranudge to realize the goal of my earlier amend-ment.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE1752 August 5, 1999My legislation requires states to conform

their EBT standards to a national, uniform op-erating system that the states themselveschoose. The clear choice, the Quest operatingsystem, has already been adopted by 33states.

Pilot studies have been conducted to deter-mine cost and other efficiencies that might berealized by EBT interoperability. The pilot pro-gram determined my bill would only cost theFood Stamp Program $500,000. That’s not alot of money for an $18 billion program. Also,the State of Missouri found around $32 millionin abuse of the program that they never wouldhave found if their EBT system couldn’t talkwith neighboring state systems.

Mr. Speaker, the bill I introduce today issimple. It returns the national redemption con-venience to the beneficiaries of the program,gives the states the guidance they are lookingfor, and provides another tool in the fightagainst fraud, waste and abuse in the FoodStamp Program. Thank you for this time andI urge support from the membership for theElectronic Benefit Transfer Interoperability andPortability Act of 1999.f

AMERICAN INVENTORSPROTECTION AT OF 1999

SPEECH OF

HON. MICHAEL P. FORBESOF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, August 3, 1999

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today inopposition to a bill that jeopardizes America’sfuture prosperity by endangering the protectionof our nation’s independent inventors. HR2654 seeks to extensively reform the patentprocess, which should only occur after delib-erative discussion and with the opportunity foramendment. This bill will pass this body with-out even the courtesy of open debate. Suchan important matter demands a thorough dia-logue.

Small inventors, like the industrious citizensof Eastern Long Island, provided sparks of in-spiration that helped build this nation. TheConstitution ensures that inventors have theexclusive right to the product of their efforts.The bill upon which HR 2654 is based wouldseverely erode that protection. Without consid-ered debate and extensive review of HR 2654,we have no idea whether it would be similarlyharmful.

Technology has driven America’s latest eco-nomic boom. It is the foundation of the neweconomy as we move into the 21st Century.Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and RaymondDamadian, the inventor of the MRI, were onceindependent inventors whose ideas havechanged the face of society and how we viewourselves. Their creations were protected andhave contributed to the prosperity Americanow enjoys. Tomorrow’s inventors deserve thesame treatment.

Mr. Damadian, a valued constituent of mine,has written extensively on the issue of patentreform given his unique position as an inde-pendent inventor who has seen the impact ofhis ideas on the lives of his fellow citizens. Incorrespondence with our colleague, Rep-resentative Manzullo, he strenuously objectedto passing this bill that could cost independentinventors a right protected by the U.S. Con-

stitution. I would like to place that letter intothe CONGRESSIONAL RECORD at this point.

In more depth, he explored the problemswith HR 2654’s companion bill, S. 507, in ahighly erudite letter to the Senate MajorityLeader, TRENT LOTT. In that correspondence,he highlights the U.S. patent as ‘‘one of Amer-ica’s great blessings’’ and clearly outlines theserious problems with that bill from removingthe U.S. Patent Office from the purview ofCongressional oversight to eroding cherishedConstitutional guarantees.

Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Damadian has written,Congress should not hastily pass laws thatcould have far-reaching impacts without anddiscussion. It is clear that we do not knowwhat the effects of HR 2654 will be. We oweit to our independent inventors, and to our fu-ture, to be sure.

FONAR CORPORATION,Melville, NY, August 3, 1999.

Hon. DONALD MANZULLO,House of Representatives,Cannon HOB, Washington, DC.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN MANZULLO: It has cometo my attention that an effort is under footto steal the U.S. Patent System in what Iconsider an outrageous usurpation of power.the House of Representatives intends to passa bill, H.R. 2654, that will void the constitu-tionally granted patent rights of inde-pendent inventors everywhere.

Remarkably it is doing so without even awritten bill informing the affected parties oreven their Representatives what the bill con-tains. Even more remarkably it is doing itunder a suspension of the rules, whose predi-cate is that there is no opposition to the bill,when independent inventors everywhere areBOILING over the prospect of losing theirconstitutionally granted rights to a patent.

Please be advised that Roberts Rinesspeaks only for himself and not for the restof us great masses of independent inventors,whose rights are being taken away without ahearing, without a vote, without a singlesentence of the bill to view and in the dark-ness of the night, a villainy that will live ininfamy!

Sincerely yours,RAYMOND DAMADIAN,

President and Chairman; Inductee, NationalInventors Hall of Fame.

f

TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE B–2BOMBER

HON. IKE SKELTONOF MISSOURI

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 4, 1999

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me takethis means to recognize the tenth anniversaryof the first flight of the B–2 bomber. The anni-versary was recently celebrated at a ceremonyat Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, CA, on July17, 1999.

The first public display of the B–2 was inlate 1988, at Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale,CA. This was followed by the first flight of theB–2 on July 17, 1989, at Edwards Air ForceBase, CA. Northrop Gumman’s Military AircraftSystems Division unveiled its brand new prod-uct—a low-observability, Multi-role bomberthat can fly 6,000 nautical miles (9,600 kilo-meters) without refueling. The plane’s revolu-tionary design, while instantly recognizable tothe human eye, makes it all but invisible toradar.

The B–2 is an engineering marvel. Theplane’s low-observability characteristic derivesfrom a combination of reduced infrared acous-tic, electromagnetic, visual, and radar signa-tures. These facts make it difficult for even themost sophisticated defensive systems to de-tect and engage the B–2. While most of thetechnical aspects of the plane remain classi-fied, the B–2 owes some of its stealth capabili-ties to special coatings, the flying wing design,and the composite materials of which it ismade. These innovations are complementedby the highest-precision bombing technologyin existence. The B–2 is now outfitted with theJoint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) guidancekit. This system combines the Global Posi-tioning System and Inertial Navigation Systemfor incredibly accurate bombing.

The B–2 is based at Whiteman Air ForceBase, near Knof Noster, MO. The first B–2,the Spirit of Missouri, was delivered to White-man on December 17, 1993. During the recentair war, B–2 made 30-hour round-trip missionsfrom this base to Kosovo, where they droppedeleven percent of the precision ordnance whileflying less than one percent of the sorties. AsGeneral Leroy Barnidge said at the tenth anni-versary ceremony, ‘‘The airplane exceededeverybody’s expectations. It’s got a war-fight-ing capability that is second to none.’’

Mr. Speaker, I know that all of our col-leagues in the House will join me in cele-brating the tenth anniversary of the most revo-lutionary design in bombing aircraft sinceWorld War II.f

IT’S TIME TO CONSIDER APATIENTS’ BILL OF RIGHTS

HON. DENNIS MOOREOF KANSAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, the people of

Kansas’ Third District sent me to Washington,D.C., to represent their concerns and do all Ican to address major, pending federal issues.For this reason, I was very disappointed whenit became apparent in the last few days thatthe House would not be considering proposalsto enact a Patients’ Bill of Rights.

One of my first actions as a freshman Mem-ber of Congress was to join as an original co-sponsor of H.R. 358, the Patients’ Bill ofRights. This important legislation will ensurebasic rights for patients and give them the pro-tections they deserve. While the majority wasunable to reach the consensus necessarywithin their caucus to bring a proposal in thisarea before the House for consideration thisweek, I am pleased that Commerce Com-mittee Ranking Democrat JOHN DINGELL hascontinued active discussions with three mem-bers of the majority who are physicians—Doc-tors GANSKE, COBURN and NORWOOD—in anattempt to reach a bipartisan consensus on aproposal to provide meaningful protections formanaged care patients and physicians.

I also want to bring to the attention of mycolleagues a recent newspaper column bySteve Rose, the chairman of Sun Publications,which publishes the Johnson County Sun andseveral other newspapers that serve my con-gressional district. I commend to everyone Mr.Rose’s commentary regarding the real-worldproblems that indicate a need for enactmentthis year of a Patients’ Bill of Rights.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E1753DARLA WANTS HER RIGHTS

My good friend Darla is all for the Pa-tients’ Bill of Rights. She’s had it up to hereand won’t take it anymore.

Just last week, Darla called her doctor toask if he thought it might be a good idea forher to try a new medication on the marketcalled Celebrex, for her arthritis. Darla alsohas a stomach disorder, ulcerative colitis, soshe has to be careful of side effects.

Her doctor thought Celebrex was a goodmedication to try, at first in a small dose.So, he called the pharmacy in Overland Parkand ordered a 30-day supply. When Darla ar-rived at the counter, however, she met trick-led-down red tape, straight from the insur-ance company.

The pharmacist explained that the healthinsurance provider had denied the prescrip-tion until Darla tried a generic brand first.

‘‘What’s the difference between the genericdrug and Celebrex?’’ asked Darla. The phar-macist replied, ‘‘They’re about the same, ex-cept the generic drug can be a little harderon your stomach.’’

‘‘That won’t do,’’ replied Darla, ‘‘I have ul-cerative colitis, and I can’t stand any medi-cations that irritate the stomach.’’

The pharmacist was sympathetic, butthere was nothing to be done. Darla was ad-vised to consult her doctor, who could con-tact the insurance company.

That’s exactly what Darla did. She calledher doctor and explained what had happened.

Said the doctor, ‘‘I’ll contact the insurancecompany, and get this resolved.’’

A day later, Darla got a call from her doc-tor.

‘‘I just spent an hour-and-a-half on thephone with the insurance company,’’ said thedoctor. ‘‘I could not speak with anyone withany medical background. After being put onhold three times, and being switched fromone person to another, all I got was a clerkwho wouldn’t budge. I lost.’’

Darla is still fuming.There are millions of Darlas out there. And

when the President calls for a Patients’ Billof Rights, he has a lot of folks clapping.

Ironically, the President’s proposal woulddo nothing for Darla. It only addresses man-datory emergency room care, an appealsprocess when insurance companies deny crit-ical procedures, and the right of patients tosue insurance companies.

Nonetheless, Darla figures, probably cor-rectly, that if this first Bill of Rights can bepassed, it undoubtedly will be amended laterto deal with some of her issues.

Insurance companies will scream that gov-ernments’ intervention will only drive uphealth care costs. And they’re probablyright.

But if you asked Darla, she would be gladto pay a little more to let the insurancecompanies know they cannot just roll overher, or her doctor.

The Bill of Rights cure might be worsethan the insurance disease, but Darla is sofrustrated, she says she’s willing to takethat risk.

f

CHILDREN’S ASTHMA RELIEF ACTOF 1999

HON. HENRY A. WAXMANOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today tojoin my colleague, FRED UPTON, in introducingthe Children’s Asthma Relief Act of 1999.

Asthma is one of the most significant andprevalent chronic diseases in America. The

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC) reports that 6.4 percent of the popu-lation, or 17.3 million Americans, report havingasthma. This represents a dramatic 75 percentincrease in self-reported cases from 1980 to1994.

Asthma is disproportionately hurting chil-dren. Today, it is the most common childhoodchronic disease. Five million American chil-dren have asthma. And as Surgeon GeneralDavid Satcher recently concluded, the UnitedStates is ‘‘moving in the wrong direction, espe-cially among minority children in the urbancommunities.’’ The most devastating indicatorof our Nation’s lack of progress is the newsthat, from 1980 to 1993, the mortality rate forchildren and teens with asthma rose a stag-gering 78 percent.

Just a few days ago, Dr. Philip Landriganreported in the Journal of Asthma that higherasthma hospitalization rates are associatedwith children, communities of color and thepoor. The potential causes for the dispropor-tionate impact of asthma are wide ranging,from the lack of preventive care, poor housingconditions and increased exposure to indoorallergens, to sedentary lifestyles and the sitingof polluting commercial facilities.

Our country can and must do more to pre-vent and treat asthma. I am pleased to intro-duce the Children’s Asthma Relief Act of1999, which was originally introduced by DICKDURBIN and MIKE DEWINE in the Senate. Thislegislation provides $50 million for pediatricasthma prevention and treatment programs,allowing states and local communities to targetand improve the health of low-income childrensuffering from asthma. The Act would also in-crease the enrollment of these children intoMedicaid and state Children’s Health Insur-ance Programs (CHIP), such as California’sHealthy Families.

I am also pleased that the Act includes mo-bile ‘‘breathmobiles’’ among the community-based programs eligible for funding. Theseschool-based mobile clinics were developedby the Southern California chapter of the Asth-ma and Allergy Foundation of America, in con-junction with Los Angeles County, Los Ange-les Unified School District and the Universityof Southern California.

This legislation has the support of leadingchild health and asthma organizations, includ-ing the American Lung Association, the Amer-ican Academy of Pediatrics, Association ofMaternal and Child Health Programs, the Na-tional Association of Children’s Hospitals, theAmerican Academy of Chest Physicians andthe Children’s Health Fund.

As an honorary co-chair of Asthma Aware-ness Day, I urge my colleagues to join us incosponsoring the Children’s Asthma Relief Actof 1999.f

INTRODUCTION OF A BILL TO EX-PAND ALASKA NATIVE CON-TRACTING OF FEDERAL LANDMANAGEMENT

HON. DON YOUNGOF AKASKA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ampleased to introduce a bill to expand AlaskaNative contracting of Federal land manage-

ment functions and activities and, promote hir-ing of Alaska Natives by the federal govern-ment within the State of Alaska.

This bill was developed in response to myrequest to the Alaska Federal of Natives attheir retreat in August of 1998. Pursuant to theIndian Self-Determination and Education As-sistance Act, tribes are authorized to enter intocontracts with the Department of the Interior todirectly administer programs previously admin-istered by that agency. Congress strongly ad-vocated this change to allow tribes to providedirect and improved services to their mem-bers.

The bill entitled ‘‘Alaska Federal Lands Man-agement Demonstration Project’’ would directthe Secretary of the Interior to enter into ademonstration project in fiscal years 2000 and2001 with no less than six eligible Alaska Na-tive tribes or tribal organizations to manage aconservation unit or other public land unit with-in the closest proximity of that tribal organiza-tion.

The bill further directs the Secretary to fullyfund these demonstration projects in the samemanner he would have funded the programs ifthey were still being managed by the Depart-ment of the Interior.

It has always been my strong belief thatAlaska Natives can manage conservation unitsor national park systems units as well or evenbetter than the federal government. AlaskaNatives have demonstrated their reliance ofthe land, the conservation of its bounty andgreat respect for the cautious management ofits resources to preserve for future genera-tions. I believe that Alaska Natives should begiven the opportunity to manage federal con-servation units that are in close proximity totheir own lands.

The Alaska regional non-profits worked longand hard to carefully draft a bill which wouldhave the support of the Alaska Federation ofNatives and all of the Alaska regional non-profits. I believe it is time that we authorizeAlaska Native entities to manage federal con-servation units in the manner consistent withlands that they have carefully preserved andutilized for thousands of years. This bill doesexactly that.f

BROOKFIELD ZOO’S SALT CREEKWILDERNESS EXHIBIT

HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKIOF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased toannounce that on August 14th Brookfield Zoowill celebrate the grand opening of its newestattraction, the Salt Creek Wilderness exhibit.

Representing a northeastern Illinois wetland,Salt Creek Wilderness includes the existing In-dian Lake, the Ellen Thorne Smith nature trail,and a new demonstration wetland exhibitcalled Dragonfly Marsh. Guests will be able tohike along a wood-chipped trail that circles the4-acre lake to see trumpeter swans and sev-eral other waterfowl species. At the north endof the lake, the trail is paved and leads ontoa wheelchair-accessible boardwalk that over-looks Dragonfly Marsh.

Support for the Salt Creek Wildernessproject comes from the Chicago ZoologicalSociety, Forest Preserve District of Cook

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE1754 August 5, 1999County, Illinois Environmental ProtectionAgency, U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-cy—Region 5, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,The Conservation Fund, Army Corps of Engi-neers, and the Urban Resources Partnership.With the assistance of these project partners,the new exhibit will help to raise awareness ofthe importance of protecting not just animalsin other parts of the world, but also speciesand natural habitats in our own communities.

Brookfield Zoo has always been a leaderamong zoos around the world. The zoo’s mis-sion is to focus on enhancing visitor under-standing of the critical need for people to livemore sustainable and harmoniously with thenatural world through naturalistic environ-mental settings and accompanying interpretivematerials. I invite all my colleagues to join mein celebrating the opening of the Salt CreekWilderness exhibit, which, I am certain, willgreatly strengthen the zoo’s mission.

f

A BILL TO REPEAL THE SPECIALOCCUPATIONAL TAX (SOT) ONTHE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEV-ERAGES

HON. DAVE CAMPOF MICHIGAN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, along with severalof my colleagues on the Ways and MeansCommittee, Ms. THURMAN, Mr. NUSSLE, Mr.MATSUI, Mr. MCINNIS, and Mr. JOHN LEWIS, Iam introducing a bill today to repeal the Spe-cial Occupational Tax (SOT) on the sale of al-coholic beverages.

We are introducing this bill to alleviate aproblem that many of our constituents haveraised with us. I know that many of our col-leagues have also heard from conveniencestore owners, innkeepers, restaurant owners,vintners, wholesalers and other small businessowners complaining about the burden of theSpecial Occupational Tax on the sale of alco-holic products.

The SOT is an annual tax imposed on allbusinesses that manufacture, distribute or sellalcohol products. Whether it’s a seasonal res-taurant, an Elks Lodge, convenience or gro-cery store, or even a campground or floristthat delivers wine with flowers—no one isspared from the tax.

However, it is especially burdensome forsmall retain stores. Over 90 percent of all SOTrevenue comes from retailers. In addition,small producers—especially wineries—have adifficult time meeting the obligations of thistax.

A recent General Accounting Office study,which conceded that the alcohol industry is aheavily taxed and regulated industry already,illustrated the problems caused by this tax,particularly on small business owners. This taxis an unnecessary burden and should beeliminated.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me as co-sponsors on this bill to repeal this unfair taxon small businesses.

HONORING MATTHEW EMMONS ONCAPTURING A GOLD MEDAL ATTHE PAN AMERICAN GAMES

HON. JIM SAXTONOF NEW JERSEY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise tocongratulate a young man from PembertonTownship, New Jersey, Matthew Emmons.Matthew brought home the gold with a nearperfect score in the men’s Prone Free Riflecompetition at the 1999 Pan American gamesin Winnipeg, Canada. Matthew has made hiscountry and the Pemberton Township commu-nity proud with his resounding victory underdifficult conditions and against some of theworld’s finest athletes.

The sport of small-arms target shootingdates from the invention of the pistol and therifle in the 16th century. For several centuries,the sport was contested only in sporadic im-promptu fashion, because the firearms of thatperiod were too undependable and inaccurateto meet the requirements of large-scale orga-nized competition. Turkey shoots and week-end target-shooting matches were popularamong the frontiersmen of colonial America.

During the American Revolution (1775–1783) and the American Civil War (1861–1865) rural sharpshooters played a strategicrole as snipers. Popular interest in rifle shoot-ing reached new heights after the Civil War,when the sport became a favorite diversion ofcity dwellers, groups of whom organizedweekend target-shooting excursions into thecountryside. New advances in the manufac-ture of weapons and ammunition, meanwhile,resulted in high standards of accuracy and re-liability. By 1870, conditions were ripe for or-ganized regional and national competition.Matthew has added to this great and vener-able history with his honorable performance.

Mr. Speaker, Matthew’s mental and physicalfortitude guided him to victory. His patience,steadiness, clear vision and accuracy will like-ly lead to success at the University of Alaska,Fairbanks where he has enrolled, and togreater accomplishments in Olympic competi-tion.f

A TRIBUTE TO WILL RUBENS

HON. PETER T. KINGOF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ac-knowledge just how fortunate I, my staff andthe people of the Third District of New Yorkwere to have an intern that could serve asboth Commissioner of Food and Beverageand Director of Internal Security for the pasttwo months. To some he was known as WillRubens but to me he was simply, ‘‘TheCommish’’. Forget the fact that my NotreDame doormat was stolen or the fact that mymodel E–2C Hawkeye was vandalized underhis watch. In his investigation of these crimes,the Commish’ was undeterred and never al-lowed conspiracy theories to be generated byanyone other than himself. There was never abusiness card fight he didn’t prematurely endfor the sake of my staff or a private conversa-

tion he didn’t interrupt. Despite the increase incrime in my office over the last two months Iknow that the Commish’s powers are beingwasted here while numerous crimes of inepti-tude go unresolved on the football fields of theUniversity of Michigan at Ann Arbor—an inep-titude which will be glaringly disclosed whenNotre Dame’s Fighting Irish pulverize the Wol-verines on September 4th. I am confident thatthe Commish’ will go on to bigger and betterthings and it has truly been a pleasure andhonor to have him work in my office this sum-mer. His intelligence and unique sense ofhumor will be missed. I thank you Will for allyour hard work and effort. All the best.f

INTERNET PHARMACY CONSUMERPROTECTION ACT OF 1999

HON. HENRY A. WAXMANOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today tojoin my colleagues, RON KLINK, JOHN DINGELL,and BART STUPAK, in introducing the InternetPharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 1999.

While the Internet is transforming global fi-nance and culture, it is also raising novelquestions about the practices of medicine andpharmacy. There is no question that the WorldWide Web and other forms of e-commercehave facilitated consumer access to health in-formation and products. Patients clearly ben-efit from the rapid dissemination of reliablemedical knowledge, and from novel, conven-ient ways of receiving health care.

But unwary consumers are also increasinglyexposed to fraud or quackery from anony-mous, unaccountable vendors. Illegal, unsafeor unapproved drugs and dietary supplementsare more widely available than ever. Hundredsof offshore and domestic ‘‘pill mills’’ dispenseViagra or Xenical to patients sight unseen—aswell as to shorthair cats, the deceased, andpatients with life-threatening counterindicatedhealth conditions, as an investigation byWWMT of Kalamazoo, Michigan discovered.

On July 30, the Commerce Subcommitteeon Oversight and Investigations held a hearingon online pharmacies. We heard a clear mes-sage from the testimony of Federal TradeCommission, the Food and Drug Administra-tion, the Department of Justice, state authori-ties like the Texas Department of Health, andinvestigative media—regulators simply cannotenforce existing laws to protect consumersfrom illegal online pharmacies unless theyknow who is responsible and where they are.

The Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protec-tion Act of 1999 requires very simple disclo-sures from online pharmacies. Tell us yourname and place of business. Tell us whereyour pharmacy is licensed. And tell us whereyour online physician, if any, is licensed.That’s all.

With this basic information, regulators arehamstrung. No enforcement is possible or re-quires unsustainable commitments of limitedlaw enforcement resources. But enactment ofand compliance with this legislation wouldquickly separate legitimate from illegitimateonline pharmacies.

Failure to comply with these minimal re-quirements would also help warn consumersfrom questionable websites. In fact, Congress

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E1755and the Administration are already aggres-sively encouraging responsible online busi-nesses to provide comparable disclosures re-garding their privacy policies. The lack of li-censure and privacy information at an onlinepharmacy should provide a clear warning ofcaveat emptor.

Nor does this legislation pose a technicalbarrier to e-commerce. It only asks onlinepharmacies to provide the same licensure in-formation as brick and mortar pharmacies dowhen they hang framed licenses on the wall.It is a simple matter to add a few new links toonline pharmacy sites. In fact, any person withrudimentary knowledge of HTML could writeup the necessary information and upload it toa website in a matter of minutes.

The Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protec-tion Act of 1999 is a simple and common-sense way to help federal and state authoritiesenforce existing consumer and public healthprotections. Responsible online pharmaciesare likely already in compliance with the legis-lation, or could be in a matter of minutes. Butillegal, unprofessional or questionable onlinepharmacies will be exposed to greater scrutinyand more susceptible to the enforcement ofessential legal protections and State licensurerequirements.

I urge my colleagues to join us in cospon-soring the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Pro-tection Act of 1999.f

INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATIONTO AMEND THE ALASKA NATIVECLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT

HON. DON YOUNGOF ALASKA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today

I am introducing legislation that would addressseveral matters of concern to Alaska Nativesthrough an amendment to the Alaska NativeClaims Settlement Act (ANCSA).

As my colleagues know, ANCSA was en-acted in 1971, stimulated by the need to ad-dress Native land claims as well as the desireto clear the way for the construction of theTrans-Alaska Pipeline and thereby provide ourcountry with access to the petroleum re-sources of Alaska’s North Slope. As the yearspass, issues arise which require amendingthat Act. The Resources Committee as a mat-ter of course routinely considers such amend-ments and brings them before the House.

Consequently, I am introducing this bill con-taining several such amendments to ANCSAin order to facilitate having its provisions cir-culated during the upcoming Congressional re-cess through the Congress and the Adminis-tration as well as the State of Alaska for re-view and consideration.

This bill has nine provisions. One provisionwould allow common stock to be willed toadopted-out descendants and another wouldclarify the liability for contaminated lands. Theclarification of contaminated land would de-clare that no person acquiring interest in landunder this Act shall be liable for the costs ofremoval or remedial action, any damages, orany third party liability arising out or as a re-sult of any contamination on that land at thetime the land was acquired under this Act.

SECTION 5. ALASKA NATIVE VETERANS

Section 5 of the bill amends the Act furtherto allow equal access to Alaska Native Vet-

erans who served in the military or otherarmed services during the Viet Nam war. Alas-ka Natives have faithfully answered the call ofduty when asked to serve in the armed serv-ices. In fact, American Indians and Alaska Na-tives generally have the highest record of an-swering the call to duty.

Under the Native Allotment Act, Alaska na-tives were allowed to apply for lands whichthey traditionally used as fish camps, berrypicking camps or hunting camps. However,many of our Alaska natives answered the callto duty and served in the services during theViet Nam war and were unable to apply fortheir native allotment. This provision allowsthem to apply for their native allotments andwould expand the dates to include the fullyears of the Viet Nam war. The original datesrecommended by the Administration only al-lowed the dates January 1, 1969 to December31, 1971. Our Alaska Natives veterans shouldnot be penalized for serving during the entiredates of the Viet Nam conflict. This provisioncorrects that inequity by expanding the datesto reflect all the years of the Viet Nam war—August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975.

SECTION 8. ELIM NATIVE CORPORATION LANDRESTORATION

In 1917, the Norton Bay Reservation wasestablished on 350,000 acres of land locatedon the north side of Norton Bay southeast ofNome, Alaska for the benefit of Alaska Nativeswho now reside in the village of Elim, Alaska.The purpose of the establishment of the res-ervation included providing a land, economic,subsistence, and resources base for the peo-ple of that area.

In 1929, through an Executive Order,50,000 acres of land were deleted from thereservation with little consultation and certainlywithout the informed consent of the peoplewho were to be most affected by such a dele-tion. After passage of ANCSA, only the re-maining 300,000 acres of the original Res-ervation were conveyed to the Elim NativeCorporation. This loss of land from the originalReservation has become over the years a fes-tering wound to the people of Elim. It nowneeds to be healed through the restoration orreplacement of the deleted fifty thousandacres of land to the Native Village Corporationauthorized by ANCSA to hold such land.

As I am sure my colleagues will agree, thehistory of our nation reflects many examplesof injustices to Native Americans. As hearingswill confirm, this is one of those calls out to besensibly remedied and can be with relativeease as outlined in this section of the bill.

Again, I am introducing this bill today to fa-cilitate having its provisions circulated and re-viewed during the August recess by the De-partment of the Interior, the State of Alaskaand Alaska natives.f

TRIBUTE TO THE U.S. ASIATICFLEET AND U.S.S. TRINITY

HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKIOF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today tosalute the bravery and valor exhibited by theveterans of the U.S. Navy Asiatic Fleet.

From 1910 to 1942, the Asiatic Fleet pro-tected American interests and promoted Amer-

ican ideals in the Far East. At the time, thefleet was comprised of 3 cruisers, 13 WorldWar I vintage destroyers, 29 submarines anda small number of gunboats and patrol air-craft. Following the declaration of war againstImperial Japan, the outnumbered andoutgunned Asiatic Fleet courageously foughtagainst a vastly superior Japanese armadacomprised of 10 carries, 28 cruisers, 113 de-stroyers, and 63 submarines.

The fleet participated in the first surfaceU.S. naval engagement of World War II. Fight-ing with little aircover, the brave men andwomen of the fleet fought against all odds, butin the end they suffered staggering losses.The fleet lost 22 ships, 1826 killed, and 518POWs.

The U.S.S. Trinity was one of the few sur-viving ships.

From September 1 to September 4, the sur-viving U.S.S. Trinity crew and their families willhold a reunion in Chicagoland. Although I willnot be able to join them, I wish them all thebest as they gather together to fellowship,renew their friendships, and cherish thethoughts of their fallen comrades.

Protecting freedom and democracy has aprice, and many of the brave Americans in theAsiatic Fleet paid the ultimate price. As Ameri-cans, we are truly blessed to have had somany extraordinary men and women serve inour armed forces. Their Sacrifices enables usto live in the world we live in today.

So let us not forget their deeds. Let us notforget their blood, sweat, and tears. Let us re-member the sacrifices they made, so that wemay live in freedom instead of tyranny.

I submit that the many untold stories of theAsiatic Fleet and the U.S.S. Trinity are all pro-files of courage.

Mr. Speaker, I salute them all today.f

SALUTE TO JUDIE SEDELL, DEP-UTY PROBATION OFFICER OFTHE YEAR

HON. ELTON GALLEGLYOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, Judie Sedellof Simi Valley, California, says she just loveschasing criminals. She’s good at it, too, whichis one of the reasons this mother of two grownchildren recently was honored by the VenturaCounty Probation Agency as its Deputy Proba-tion Officer of the Year.

Now in her 21st year as a probation officer,Judie not only is an exceptional probation offi-cer, she is an exceptional person. Not onlydoes she have the respect of her colleaguesin the criminal justice system, she also hasgained the admiration of her clients, evenwhen they fail to stay on the right side of thelaw. In fact, Judie handles some of the high-est-risk offenders, including rapists and armedrobbers, and makes more arrests than anyother officer in her unit.

Her success is due to hard work, a wonder-ful sense of humor and her ability to treat herclients with a combination of firmness, empa-thy, respect and dignity. She recently was ob-served joking with a convicted felon who hadviolated his probation. She gave him a candybar, and, a short while later, told him he wasunder arrest. When she handcuffed him, he

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE1756 August 5, 1999reacted calmly because he knew Judie wasonly doing her job because he had failed to dohis.

Judie’s supervisor describes her as a con-summate team player, a role model for noviceofficers and a source of amazement for vet-erans who cannot figure out how she main-tains her enthusiasm. A former social worker,Judie says she finds great satisfaction in pro-tecting her community while helping felons tolead productive lives after being imprisoned.‘‘It doesn’t happen very often, but when yousee someone’s life turn around, it’s an ex-tremely rewarding experience,’’ Judie recentlytold her local newspaper.

I am proud to say that Judie Sedell not onlyis an outstanding constituent, she and herhusband Mike, Simi Valley’s city manager, arealso my friends. I urge my colleagues to joinme in wishing her many more years of contin-ued success.f

MARV VALENTINE

HON. DAVE CAMPOF MICHIGAN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today todraw the attention of my colleagues in theU.S. House of Representatives and my con-stituents in the 4th Congressional District tothe distinguished career of a man I am proudto represent in Congress, Mr. Marv Valentineof Clare, Michigan.

Mr. Valentine is retiring after having dedi-cated 30 years of his life to Camp Rotary inClare, and serving on the Lake Huron Council,Boy Scouts of America.

Through dedication, perseverance, and self-lessness, Mr. Valentine and his wife, Justine,have built Camp Rotary into one of the finestscouting establishments in the Nation.

Scouting troops from the Midwest, andthose from as far away as West Virginia, haveexperienced the wonder of Michigan’s naturalbeauty at Camp Rotary. Located on 1,100acres off Old Highway 27 in Clare, the campis nestled in a woods of whispering whitepines, next to a sparkling lake where deer andwild turkeys roam.

Besides serving as a home for scouts,Camp Rotary has also hosted football andband camps. Years ago, Mr. Valentine initi-ated an outdoor educational program for pub-lic and private schools.

Over three decades, more than 60,000young people have learned new skills andmade lifelong friends at Camp Rotary underMr. Valentine’s guiding hand and watchful eye.

On behalf of the campers and my constitu-ents, I would like to thank him for his dedica-tion to shaping so many lives and giving theseyoung people priceless memories of theircarefree days as a child at camp.f

RECOGNIZING THE 25TH ANNIVER-SARY OF SUE AND ED SMITH

HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEYOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, in 1972 SueWeinreb and her three children Kara, Dana

and David, and Edmund Smith and his threechildren, Corrie, Peter and Eddie moved tothirteen acres in Sonoma County, California tobegin a life together. She was 29, he was 37.Together they had little money, no electricity,no running water, no house, and six kids be-tween the ages of three and nine. Three boysand three girls. The original Brady Bunch.That summer they began the first of many do-it-yourself projects—building a home whichwould eventually take eight years to complete.Meanwhile, during that first year together, the8 of them lived in a 24’ trailer, a tent, and aDatsun, and took baths once a week at theneighbor’s house down the road. Two yearslater, on June 29, 1974, they left the kids witha babysitter and snuck off to a rare weekendalone to get married. They planted eight red-wood seedlings in the yard, to honor the newfamily.

In 1976 Sue and Ed started an environ-mental consulting business which they ran outof the barn. Over the next 12 years they grewthe business into a full service analytical test-ing laboratory which employed 50 people in an11,000 sq. ft. building in Santa Rosa. Otherventures followed. Meanwhile, they somehowmanaged to attend every one of their chil-dren’s swimming meets, awards ceremonies,dance concerts, football games, and schoolplays. They made Halloween costumes andbirthday crowns, helped with science fairprojects, and joined in the wooden spoonduels in the kitchen. They volunteered whenthe community, built a playground, and theywere involved in local politics. Because of theirbusy schedules, they made sure the family atedinner together every night. And, they madesure to pass on their special interests to theirchildren: sewing, woodworking, fishing, pho-tography, science, art and travel.

Later, after the youngest had left home andthey’d sold their business, they traveled to Af-rica, Australia, and Europe. No lazing aroundfancy hotels for them. Pictures show themkayaking with orca whales, riding donkeys,carving wooden masks, scuba diving, feedinggiraffes and monkeys, and rock climbing.

This summer, Sue and Ed Smith will cele-brate their 25th wedding anniversary withfriends and family under those same eight red-wood trees, which now tower over the housethey built. Those 25 years haven’t alwaysbeen easy. There were especially terribletimes—a separation, the death of Peter at age28. But, there were especially joyous times—the births of their grandchildren Nick SmithShafer and Scott Anderson Shafer (with theiroldest son recently announcing that a third ison the way).

Sue and Ed’s marriage is a testament towhat can be created when a couple has ashared vision and a commitment to do what-ever needs to be done to do the job right.They have always provided support for eachother, their community, and their kids, to help,to listen, and to do.

Their greatest accomplishments thus far?The creation of a family, not without its strainsand difficulties like all families, but a familywhere the grown children—now a teacher, alegislative assistant for a member of Con-gress, a stay-at-home mom/sex educator, anaccountant with a fledgling business, and alighting director/screenwriter—genuinely enjoyand care for each other and their parents.And, after 25 years of marriage, Sue and EdSmith are truly best friends who treasure each

other’s company. They are a wonderful exam-ple of family values and an inspiration to all ofus.f

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

HON. DAVID D. PHELPSOF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No.342, I was very surprised to discover that myvote for final passage of H.R. 2605, the En-ergy and Water Appropriations Act, was notrecorded. I was definitely present for all thepreceding votes on amendments and for finalpassage.

Although I do not understand why my voteon final passage was not recorded, I know Iwas present on July 27 and intended to votefor passage of H.R. 2605, The Energy andWater Appropriations Act, on Tuesday, July27. Please let it be noted that I support TheEnergy and Water Appropriations Act, asamended. I would have voted in favor of pas-sage.f

A TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLELLOYD WELCH POGUE

HON. CONSTANCE A. MORELLAOF MARYLAND

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today towish The Honorable Lloyd Welch Pogue, amember of the Provincial Families of Mary-land, who has resided in Maryland more than60 years, a happy 100th-year birthday anni-versary on 21 October 1999. I also wish tomake special mention of his appointment byPresident Franklin D. Roosevelt as a Memberand Chairman of the United States Civil Aero-nautics Board. The USCAB rendered valuableservices in the World War II program through-out the period of this Nation’s involvement inthat War. His professional career culminatedin his being named Partner in a large law firm.f

AMERICAN INVENTORSPROTECTION ACT OF 1999

SPEECH OF

HON. PATSY T. MINKOF HAWAII

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, August 3, 1999

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I risetoday in opposition to H.R. 1907, the Amer-ican Inventors Protection Act of 1999. My po-sition on this legislation is a result of my deepconcern for the rights of those whom the billclaims to protect, the small, independent in-ventors whose ideas have revolutionized ourcountry from its very inception. Along withthese concerns, I object to the speed, secrecy,and convoluted method by which this bill hasbeen slipped onto the floor late at night undersuspension of the rules. The process by whichH.R. 1907 comes to the House floor for a voteis an example in how not to proceed with apiece of legislation that not only attempts to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E1757constrain citizens’ Constitutional rights, buthas vital importance to our nation’s economyin this era of furious, global competition intechnology.

I find the manner with which this bill wasbrought to the House floor unacceptable. Thefundamental right of a person to his or her in-tellectual property lies at stake in this situation.This is not a bill which should be passed with-out meaningful, in-depth investigation and de-bate. Far from a lengthy, informed process,H.R. 1907 make its way to this chamber fol-lowing a slippery, silent path which featuredname changes, number changes, unpublisheddocuments, and finally, this evening, an un-published bill, finished only minutes beforebeing called up for approval. This is deplor-able. Why must this bill be taken up in sucha circuitous way? If it is a wonderful piece oflegislation that protects the rights of the smallinventor, why is it not open to more than theminimum debate and why can’t we hold hear-ings on this final version, whose ink is not yetdry?

The Judiciary Committee marked up H.R.1907 without the benefit of hearings; providingno public forum for the stakeholders involved.This stark omission comes despite extensivecontroversy surrounding this issue in the 105thCongress. There is no published committeereport on H.R. 1907 and, until this evening,this House was scheduled to consider a pat-ent bill almost half the length of H.R. 1907. Iwas expecting to debate H.R. 2654, and wasshocked to find that H.R. 1907 was resur-rected and had usurped its place. This is anappalling way to manage legislation embody-ing such an expansive scope and con-sequences.

H.R. 1907 provides for the publication ofpatent applications before the patent is grant-ed if the inventor also applies for a patent ina foreign country. This leaves open the possi-bility that large companies may prey on theunprotected ideas of the small inventor be-tween the time of publication and patent ap-proval. This type of situation needs to bebrought to a public forum, discussed amongmany members, not just the few speaking to-night. I am deeply distressed by this lack ofopportunity.

Mr. Speaker, our nation’s founders designedour society to be a land of unfettered oppor-tunity where individual rights are zealouslyprotected and elected officials considered fu-ture laws of the land in a public forum. Bothof these ideals are jeopardized by this legisla-tion. H.R. 1907 places at risk the right to enjoythe benefits generated by a person’s ingenuityand innovative ideas. Without this right, westrangle the incentive for people to create anddevelop vital products and services whichcould improve our daily lives and bolster oureconomy. This subject matter deserveslengthy consideration, substantial debate, andopen discussion, not a quick, suspension voteafter a whirlwind visit to Committee.f

IN TRIBUTE TO JERRY L.GLADDEN

HON. ELTON GALLEGLYOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor

my good friend Jerry L. Gladden, who will re-

tire this month after 30 years, 1 month, 2weeks and 6 days with the Rancho SimiRecreation and Park District.

For more than 20 years, Jerry has servedas general manager for the district and clerkof the board, leading the district capably andefficiently through several financial crises ashe continued to see that Simi Valley and OakPark, California, has superb parks and rec-reational programs.

Jerry has contributed to the community inmany other ways as well. He was president ofthe Simi Valley Noontime Lions Club from1976 to 1977. Since 1979, he has been amember of the Simi Valley Rotary Club, forwhich he has chaired several committees. Heis a former member of the Simi Valley Cham-ber of Commerce and served on the UnitedWay Allocations Committee for seven years.

But Jerry’s greatest legacy will be the rec-reational opportunities he created and main-tained.

A general manager’s greatest challenge isto keep his agency solvent. When money be-came tight, Jerry helped form the Rancho SimiFoundation, a non-profit organization with theresponsibility of raising funds to help supportrecreation programs. He pushed for a con-tinuing grant program, which has brought inmore than $6.2 million to the Park District dur-ing the past 25 years. He is responsible forestablishing a lease/operator concession pro-gram that generates more than $1 million forthe district each year. He also found ways tocut insurance premiums for the district.

In addition, Jerry established a volunteerprogram with a core of more than 200 volun-teers who clear trails, clean parks, performclerical work and help run youth programs. Healso established a fundraising program thathas raised more than $40,000 in cash andgifts to help support special events for SimiValley’s youth.

Apparently he had too much time on hishands and accepted the position of chief ad-ministrative officer for the Rancho Simi OpenSpace Conservation Agency, a joint powersauthority between the Park District and theCity of Simi Valley. The agency managesCorriganville Park, an old-time movie ranchthat was the model for present-day UniversalStudios.

Not surprisingly, Jerry has won numerousawards for his hard work, dedication and suc-cess.

Jerry and his wife, Donna, have three chil-dren and four grandchildren. When time per-mits, he enjoys woodworking and restoringcars. He is also still learning to golf. It is un-known if more time on the greens will actuallyimprove his game.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues will joinme in recognizing Jerry L. Gladden for hisdecades of dedicated service and in wishinghim and his family Godspeed in his retirement.His dedication to recreational opportunities willbe difficult for the Park District to replace.f

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION INARGENTINA

HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNSOF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the fol-lowing testimony of Dr. Federico Westerkamp,

founder of the Center for Legal and SocialStudies.

JULY 22,1999.To the members of Congress: Rep. TOM LAN-

TOS, Rep. ERIC FALEOMAVAEGA, Rep. JOHNEDWARD PORTERFirst of all, thank you very much for invit-

ing me, as a founding member of the Centerfor Legal and Social Studies (CELS) of Bue-nos Aires, to act as a witness in this Mem-bers Briefing on Judicial Corruption in Ar-gentina.

In my view, the judiciary of my country isin a delicate state. Charges of corruptionhave proliferated in the last years. Severaljudges are under legal processes althoughthey move with the certain slowness. Var-ious judges are currently under close scru-tiny. Some of them are being submitted tothe so called impeachment under the old sys-tem where the House of Representativesmakes the accusation and the Senate decidesif removal is fitting or not.

With few exceptions, mainly for ethicalcorruption, the system of impeachmentfailed and the new 1995 constitution replacedwith the Council of the Magistracy, a meth-od which just recently started. Many hopeshave been placed on the new system, whichin its first cases will show whether or not itwill fulfill the hopes of the citizenry.

There are some courts which have beingcharged of prevarication, abuse of authority,bad fulfillment of the public functions andideological falsehood. These are the mostcommon charges against the bad judges, andwe hope that the Council of Magistraciesproceeds with decision and courage so thatthe new institution does not fail.

In the last decade one case has preciselydemonstrated the three categories alreadymentioned and I do not hesitate signalingthat it is the case of the three judges:Mariano Bergers, Roberto Murature andJulio Caesar Corvalan de la Colina, who haveall acted as lower court judges in the case ofthe Buenos Aires Yoga School (BAYS). Thecase was initiated in December 1993 underthe command of the first judge named above,storming the school headquarters and alsovarious private properties of their members,and putting two distinguished ladies in pris-on without any proof of having committedany crime; on the contrary, all chargesagainst the yoga school were unproved andall the noisy campaign of the court, full offalse accusations and with lavishness of falseinformation, created a sense of hysteria inthe population of the country, which incred-ulous, did not know whether to believe ordisbelieve the information from the judge,his secretary and various employees andchaperones.

The authorities of the Yoga School werethreatened with imprisonment. Formerjudge Berges pronounced serious anti-Se-mitic expressions against the president ofBAYS Dr. Percowicz, and several of his advi-sors wrote similar expressions on the wallsduring the searches.

As time passed and the facts appeared inthe real image, many people—myself amongthem—realized that everything was a bluff,probably due to the ideological backgroundof the court, and as the truth began to be re-vealed, the public began to disbelieve thecharges against the whole Yoga school, in-cluding its students. Judge Berges opted forgiving up the case, as he knew that theHouse Impeachment Committee was going toaccuse him before the Senate, in order to re-move him.

A new lower court judge, RobertoMurature took over; the campaign againstthe Yoga school was still promoted, but atthis time it was obvious that the process wasweakening, so the second judge was relieved

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE1758 August 5, 1999of the case by a suspicious division in thecourt, and a the third judge took over.

The process has revealed that the chargesagainst the Yoga school were promoted bythree families whose daughters were suf-fering bad treatment before entering theYoga school, from their mothers and fathers.(In the first case the woman was charged byher stepfather of showing strange behavior,that he ascribed to the Yoga School and itsalleged ‘‘brain washing’’ by members of theschool).

The stepfather, with his so called ‘‘expert’’in cults Mr. Silletta started a virulent cam-paign against the Yoga School, through themedia. Last March, the third judge startedthe second process against the yoga school(double jeopardy, ‘‘non bis in idem’’), victim-izing three women, Veronica Cane, ValeriaLlamas, and Carla Paparella and under peti-tion of their parent declared them mentally‘‘incapable’’ without taking into consider-ation their psychiatric reports compulsorilyordered by the first judge Berges. The threewomen, hopeless, came to my home in orderto ask me, as a well known human rights de-fender, for help.

That is the reason why I am here. I havetried to speak with Judge Corvalan de laColina, and with the Secretary of the court,but it was useless, the judge never receivedmyself nor the three women. It seems he isaccustomed to ignoring the arguments ofanyone who knows what is happening in hiscourt.

This is why I have decided to present mytestimony as a witness at this briefing, inorder to protect the above mentionedwomen, and to carry over my experiences asa member and founder of human rightsNGO’s, such as the Assembly of HumanRights, The Center for Legal and SocialStudies, and the Movement for Life andPeace.

Thank you very much Honorable Rep-resentatives.

f

A TRIBUTE TO CAPTAIN LOUIS‘‘DEAK’’ CHILDRESS

HON. CALVIN M. DOOLEYOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, Irise today to pay tribute to Captain Louis‘‘Deak’’ Childress, who is leaving his post thismonth as the Commanding Officer of NavalAir Station Lemoore, in Lemoore, California.For the past three years, Captain Childresshas dedicated himself to improving the qualityof life of the Lemoore community and expand-ing the base’s military capabilities.

Captain Childress began his Naval career in1973. He has held numerous assignments, in-cluding flying the F–4 Phantom from the decksof the USS Nimitz and USS Forrestal inOceana, Virginia, serving as an instructor pilotat NAS Miramar in San Diego, and serving inthe Persian Gulf as Senior Naval Representa-tive to COMUSNAVCENT’s contingency plan-ning cell in Dharhran, Saudi Arabia.

In March of 1995, he was promoted to hiscurrent rank of Captain, and reported as theCommanding Officer of Naval Air Station,Lemoore in July of 1996. While serving asCommanding Officer of the base, Childresshas played a vital role in improving the facili-ties and quality of life at NAS Lemoore. Re-sponding to the concerns of his sailors and pi-lots regarding living conditions on the base,

Captain Childress facilitated visits to the baseby members of the defense committees inCongress and high-level Navy officials. He hasled efforts to build the base’s infrastructure,which resulted in the 1998 announcement thatfive squadrons of the new F/A–18E/F SuperHornet Fighter aircraft will be based atLemoore, bringing an additional 6,000 per-sonnel to the base.

Captain Childress’ continued efforts to im-prove conditions at the base is exemplified bythe changes that have been made over thelast three years under his leadership. Some ofthese accomplishments include his implemen-tation of the innovative Regionalization Busi-ness Analysis, facility renovations in anticipa-tion of the new F/A–18E/F program, and brandnew housing facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join metoday in congratulating Captain Childress forhis devoted service to the Navy and theLemoore community. He has distinguishedhimself as an innovative leader and dedicatedNavy Captain. We wish him the best as heleaves Lemoore to continue his service to theNavy.f

A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZINGTHE MARRIAGE OF DAVID GOOD-WIN AND KERRY JANAS

HON. ROBERT W. NEYOF OHIO

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the fol-lowing article to my colleagues:

Whereas David Goodwin and Kerry Janaswere united in marriage on Saturday, August7, 1999 in Cleveland, Ohio;

Whereas, David and Kerry declared theirlove before God, family and friends;

Whereas, David and Kerry may be blessedwith all the happiness and love that two canshare and may their love grow with eachpassing year;

Whereas, from this day forward, David andKerry will always remember the reason theyvowed their love and commitment to eachother. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleaguesjoin me in congratulating David and KerryGoodwin on their recent nuptials.f

WILBUR ‘‘PONY’’ WILSON: ANATHLETE’S FRIEND

HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWSOF NEW JERSEY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, it is with greatsadness that the Rutgers University-Camdencommunity is informed about the passing ofWilbur ‘‘Pony’’ Wilson. Pony Wilson served theRutgers-Camden campus as athletic directorfor almost 30 years. He passed away this pastSaturday evening. Few will deny Pony’s truelegacy is his commitment to encouraging stu-dents to pursue their studies and their dreams.He believed that education, not sports, wasthe driving force for young men and womenwho competed in athletics at Rutgers-Cam-den.

In an interview prior to his retirement, Ponynoted ‘‘What’s most rewarding is that kids

now—since the late 60’s and early 70’s—aregraduating. When you talk about the percent-age of the kids that played [sports], we had ahigh rate on the basketball teams who gottheir degrees.’’

To many, Pony was not only a colleague ora coach, he was a friend to professors andstudents alike who passed through the Rut-gers-Camden campus. The current Athletic Di-rector, Ed Cialella, who was Pony’s first hire in1969 when he joined the college as an Assist-ant Instructor of Physical Education, reflects,‘‘We lost a friend of athletics, and an athlete’sfriend.’’

During his tenure at Rutgers-Camden, Ponydeveloped the athletic department from a five-sport program—with no on-campus facilitiesand no women’s teams—to one that boasts asmany as 14 teams with ample competition forboth genders. He was known throughout theNCAA Division III conference for his belief thateducation, not sports, was the priority of themen and women at Rutgers-Camden.

Pony believed that ‘‘student athletes are stu-dents first.’’ On behalf of all those lives thatPony Wilson touched, I would like to conveymy most sincere condolences to his family.May his unfailing commitment to universityathletics and education continue to live on inevery one of us.f

SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SU-PERVISORS ASKS BAY AREARAPID TRANSIT (BART) TOAVOID STEEL PRODUCED BYSTRIKE BREAKERS

HON. TOM LANTOSOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my col-leagues to join me in commending the Boardof Supervisors of San Francisco for theiradoption of a resolution, which was unani-mously adopted on Monday, urging that BayArea Rapid Transit (BART) refrain from pur-chasing steel rails produced by strikebreakersat Oregon Steel’s Rocky Mountain Steel Mill inPueblo, Colorado. This principled action re-flects the Supervisors’ deep concern for thesafety of Bay Area public transport con-sumers, as well as their commitment to de-fending fair labor practices in San Franciscoand across our nation.

The Rocky Mountain Steel Mill in Pueblo,Colorado, illegally replaced 1,100 strikingsteelworkers in 1997. This outrageous and ille-gal action is only the most recent in a longrecord of that company’s reckless disregardfor the welfare of its own employees. Thisrogue corporation has been charged by theNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB) withover 100 violations of federal laws, and hasbeen found guilty by the Occupational Safetyand Health Administration (OSHA) of 62 willfuland serious health violations, resulting in thesecond largest OSHA fine in the history of theState of Colorado. Communities have both theright and the obligation to expect higher stand-ards of conduct from the entities that do busi-ness with them.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Super-visors’ request that BART refuse to purchaserails for the San Francisco Airport expansionproject from the Rocky Mountain Steel Mill.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E1759This vital transportation project cuts throughthe heart of my congressional district, and Istrongly believe that the safety of my constitu-ents should not be put at risk by the shoddywork of inexperienced strikebreakers and thecorporate recklessness of Rocky Mountain’sexecutives.

Since the decision to terminate its workforceeighteen months ago, Rocky Mountain Steelhas reportedly encountered serious qualityproblems with its manufactured products.Under no circumstances should the well-beingof BART’s hundreds of thousands of regularcommuters be jeopardized by this corpora-tion’s careless and irresponsible behavior.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the initiative takenby the San Francisco Board of Supervisors tourge BART to end its purchases of RockyMountain Steel. The company’s striking steel-workers deserve better, and the safety of BayArea commuters demands no less.

f

TRIBUTE TO BARBARA AND JAYVINCENT

HON. GEORGE MILLEROF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr.Speaker, I rise today to salute two very spe-cial individuals, Barbara and Jay Vincent ofRichmond, California. Barbara and Jay eachdeserve recognition in their own right for thecountless hours they have individually given totheir community. From Barbara’s leadershipwith the PTA, League of Women Voters andthe Richmond Planning Commission, to Jay’sinvolvement with the YMCA, Richmond Farm-ers’ Market and the East Brother Light Stationrestoration, the Vincents’ commitment hastouched every corner of the City.

Yet, perhaps the greatest contribution Bar-bara and Jay have made to the future of Rich-mond is their tireless efforts to preserve ourregion’s open space and natural resources.Long appreciating the beauty of the San Fran-cisco Bay and its habitats, the Vincents haveworked to ensure that the Richmond shorelinewill continue to be accessible and enjoyed bygenerations to come. It is indeed fitting thatthe City of Richmond recently honored theseefforts by dedicating the Barbara and Jay Vin-cent Park, a spectacular bayside site withsweeping vistas of San Francisco, the GoldenGate Bridge, Angel Island, and Mt. Tamalpais.

It has been my distinct honor and pleasureto know and work with the Vincents during mytenure in the U.S. Congress. Their personaldedication to community service has alwaysbeen an exceptional source of inspiration. Iknow my colleagues join me today in cele-brating their many accomplishments, and inexpressing our deepest appreciation.

f

COLUMBINE HIGH SCHOOL

HON. THOMAS G. TANCREDOOF COLORADO

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, today, I risewith a heavy heart, but a heart that is buoyed

by thoughts of hope and inspiration. In a littleover a week, the first day of school begins atColumbine High School in Littleton, Colorado,which is located in my district.

We can all remember the first day of schooland the excitement that went along with it.The anticipation for the year ahead and whatit would bring. The exhilarating feeling of see-ing friends, joining new clubs and sportsteams, and being a part of something special.I doubt that many of us would ever trade ourexperiences in high school for anything.

Tragically, more than 2,000 students willbegin school at Columbine without twelve oftheir classmates, and one teacher. These indi-viduals are not among them not because theyhave graduated and gone onto college ormoved to another town and now attend an-other school. They are not pursuing passionssuch as being a Navy pilot, fishing, singing,playing football, traveling to France, acting,playing music, working as a missionary, play-ing volleyball, praying, or being a father. Theyare not with them, because they were the vic-tims of a senseless and destructive act thattook place April 20, 1999.

Among these students will be twenty-two in-dividuals who were wounded during theevents of April 20th and are hoping to returnto school this year. These students and teach-ers face challenges in the coming days andbeyond that no one should have to face in thefuture. Richard Castaldo, Sean Graves, AnneMarie Hochhalter, Lance Kirklin, KaseyRuegsegger, Patrick Ireland, Mark Taylor, Jen-nifer Doyle, Makai Hall, Mark Kintgen, Nicole,Nowlen, Danny Steepleton, Brian Anderson,Stephen Austin Eubanks, Nicholas Foss,Joyce Jankowski, Adam Kyler, StephanieMunson, Patricia Nielsen, Charles Simmons,Evan Todd, and Michael Johnson are strongenough to stand up and begin another chapterin their lives, a chapter that we will help themwrite by giving them every opportunity to havea year of safe and enjoyable memories. Threeof the wounded, Valeen Schnurr, Lisa Kreutz,and Jeanna Park, received their diplomas lastSpring, and have now begun the importantstep of continuing on with life after such atragic event.

This tragedy has caused us as Americansto reevaluate and reflect on our own moraland social values and to reexamine the rolethat we play as parents, relatives, and familymembers in the lives of our nation’s children.This tragedy has driven many of us to work tobring not only healing, but also a reformationof our way of life. Everyone who lives in Amer-ica felt what happened to those students. Thephrase, ‘‘it can’t happen in my backyard’’ isnow gone for the residents of the Sixth Dis-trict.

I do, however, feel hope and inspirationtoday. I feel a sense of hope when I see andhear the determination and genuine concernthat individuals have when discussing ourschools and a desire to make them a safe andprosperous environment. I feel a great senseof inspiration in these students and teacherswho are walking back through the same doorsthey ran out on April 20, 1999. In fact, as ofAugust 2, no students had applied for a trans-fer from Columbine. We are witnessing realcourage.

I ask that my colleagues in the UnitedStates Congress, any my fellow citizens, pray

for the students of Columbine High School asthey start a new year. Pray that the smiles ofyouth return to these students. Pray that wehave the power and the faith to do our part toensure that this horrible violation of innocenceis never repeated again.

And, most of all, pray for the families of:Cassie Bernall, Steven Curnow, CoreyDePooter, Kelly Fleming, Matthew Kechter,Daniel Mauser, Daniel Rohrbough, RachelScott, Isaiah Shoels, John Tomlin, LaurenTownsend, Kyle Velazques, and Dave Sand-ers, the twelve students and one teacher whowill not be starting school this year.

f

HONORING ST. BARTHOLOMEWSCHOOL ON ITS 75TH ANNIVER-SARY

HON. JOSEPH CROWLEYOF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like tohonor the St. Bartholomew School in Elm-hurst, Queens on the occasion of its 75th An-niversary.

St. Bartholomew has been in the forefront ofproviding a quality value-based education tothe children of the community for three-quar-ters of a century. The School, the third largestCatholic parochial school in the entire Dioceseof Brooklyn and Queens, currently has an en-rollment of some 650 students and is accred-ited by the prestigious Middle States Associa-tion.

St. Bart’s, as it is affectionately known, firstopened its doors in 1923, and has since thenbeen an integral and significant element in thelife of the Elmhurst community. Elmhurst wasrecently identified in the September issue ofNational Geographic magazine as ‘‘Elmhurst11373, the most ethnically diverse zip code inthe United States.’’ Affiliated with St. Bar-tholomew Roman Catholic Parish, St. Bart’sSchool ably reflects that rich diversity of herit-age in a most enthusiastic way, welcomingstudents of many religions and national originsto participate in its outstanding academic pro-gram.

In addition to a full schedule of academicsubjects, students in all grades receive in-struction in computer skills, physical edu-cation, and library science, and participate ina host of interesting and informative clubs andextracurricular activities. But most importantly,the religious and lay faculty cooperate in striv-ing for the utmost creativity in education, em-phasizing values and excellence in an atmos-phere of healthy academic discipline.

Finally, I would like to commend Sister Au-gusta Conter, o.p., Principal, and Mr. ThomasStraczynski, Social Studies teacher and Chair-man of the 75th Anniversary Committee, aswell as all of the committee members whosetireless efforts made the anniversary and itsmany events a tremendous success.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in paying this75th Anniversary tribute to a superb institutionof learning and to the people who help makeit all possible.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE1760 August 5, 1999IN HONOR OF PRIVATE HARRY H.

MARGOLIS

HON. JERROLD NADLEROF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, Pericles said,while speaking at a funeral for fallen soldiers,‘‘If our country should appear great to you, re-member that her glories were purchased bybrave and valiant men, by men who knewtheir duty.’’ I rise today to honor one suchman, Private Harry H. Margolis. Pvt. Margoliswas born on September 8, 1913, and died 30years later in France during World War II.When he began his active service 10 monthsearlier, he left behind in New York his wifeIsobel, their 17-month-old son Harvey, and hisparents.

Many years later, Pvt. Margolis’ son beganto wonder if his father should have beenawarded a medal for his sacrifice that day in1944. His mother then called my office in re-sponse to her son’s inquiry. Now, exactly 55years and 1 day after Pvt. Margolis perishedat the Battle of St. Louis, he has been award-ed the Purple Heart. He has finally receivedthe recognition he so richly deserves and hisfamily can rest assured that the United Statesof America is deeply grateful for the life thatwas given in her name on July 11th, 1944.Such glorious gifts will never be forgotten.f

HONORING THE ALBANIAN AMER-ICAN WOMEN’S ORGANIZATION

HON. ELIOT L. ENGELOF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor theAlbanian American Women’s Organization

(AAWO), ‘‘Motrat Qiriazi.’’ The AAWO is anonprofit group committed to the advancementof Albanian Women within their families, com-munities, and society.

The Albanian American Women’s Organiza-tion was founded in 1993 by a small group ofAlbanian immigrants in New York City. ‘‘MotratQiriazi’’ is named for sisters Qiriazi, the firstAlbanian women educators who dedicatedtheir lives to the empowerment of Albanianwomen. The organization is composed entirelyof volunteers and numbered more than 1,200in 1998.

When the situation deteriorated in Kosova,the AAWO began to focus its attention onhelping the people in crisis. In 1999, theAAWO raised $54,000 and developed strongties with organizations like the InternationalRescue Committee. The leadership of theAAWO met with First Lady Hillary Clinton atthe White House on August 2, 1999. They arecurrently involved in giving support to recentimmigrants and refugees, including providinghost families and job placement.

Once again, I offer my most heartfelt com-mendation to the AAWO for their hard workand commitment to helping people both in theUnited States and throughout the Balkans.f

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

HON. JIM McDERMOTTOF WASHINGTON

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was ab-sent and unable to vote due to my recoveryfrom heart surgery, August 2, 1999—August 6,1999.

On August 2, 1999: I would have voted infavor of the Motion to Instruct Conferees onH.R. 2488 (Rollcall number 356). I would havevoted in favor of the motion to suspend therules and pass H.R. 747 (Rollcall number

357). I would have voted in favor of the motionto suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1219(Rollcall number 358). I would have votedagainst the Andrews amendment to H.R. 2606(Rollcall number 359).

On August 3, 1999: I would have votedagainst the Paul amendment to H.R. 2606(Rollcall number 360). I would have votedagainst the Paul amendment to H.R. 2606(Rollcall number 361). I would have voted infavor of the H.R. 2606 (Rollcall number 362).I would have voted in favor of the engross-ment and third reading of H.R. 2031 (Rollcallnumber 363). I would have voted in favor ofH.R. 2031 (Rollcall number 364). I would havevoted against H.J. Res. 58 (Rollcall number365). I would have voted against H.R. 987(Rollcall number 366).

On August 4, 1999: I would have voted infavor of approving the journal (Rollcall number367). I would have voted in favor of the motionto suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1907(Rollcall number 368). I would have votedagainst the H. Res. 273 (Rollcall number 369).I would have voted in favor of the Serranoamendment to H.R. 2670 (Rollcall number370). I would have voted in favor of the motionthat the Committee Rise (Rollcall number371). I would have voted in favor of the Scottamendment to H.R. 2670 (Rollcall number372). I would have voted in favor of theDeGette amendment to H.R. 2670 (Rollcallnumber 373). I would have voted in favor ofthe Coburn amendment to H.R. 2670 (Rollcallnumber 374). I would have voted in favor ofagreeing to the Senate amendments to H.R.1664 (Rollcall number 375).

On August 5, 1999: I would have voted infavor on approving the journal (Rollcall num-ber 376). I would have voted against H. Res.274 (Rollcall number 377). I would have votedin favor of the motion to recommit H.R. 2488(Rollcall number 378). I would have votedagainst agreeing to the conference report toH.R. 2488 (Rollcall number 379)

D937

Thursday, August 5, 1999

Daily DigestHIGHLIGHTS

Senate agreed to the Budget Reconciliation/Tax Relief ConferenceReport.

Senate agreed to the Water Resources Development Act ConferenceReport.

SenateChamber ActionRoutine Proceedings, pages S10267–S10303Measures Introduced: Sixty-six bills and ten reso-lutions were introduced, as follows: S. 1499–1564,S.J. Res. 31–32, S. Res. 175–178, and S. Con. Res.51–54. (See next issue.)

Measures Reported: Reports were made as follows:S. 720, to promote the development of a govern-

ment in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbiaand Montenegro) based on democratic principles andthe rule of law, and that respects internationally rec-ognized human rights, to assist the victims of Ser-bian oppression, to apply measures against the Fed-eral Republic of Yugoslavia, with an amendment inthe nature of a substitute. (S. Rept. No. 106–139)

Report to accompany S. 1255, to protect con-sumers and promote electronic commerce by amend-ing certain trademark infringement, dilution, andcounterfeiting laws (S. Rept. No. 106–140)

S. 97, to require the installation and use byschools and libraries of a technology for filtering orblocking material on the Internet on computers withInternet access to be eligible to receive or retain uni-versal service assistance, with an amendment in thenature of a substitute. (S. Rept. No. 106–141)

S. 798, to promote electronic commerce by en-couraging and facilitating the use of encryption ininterstate commerce consistent with the protection ofnational security. (S. Rept. No. 106–142)

S. 199, for the relief of Alexandre Malofienko,Olga Matsko, and their son, Vladimir Malofienko.

S. 275, for the relief of Suchada Kwong.S. 452, for the relief of Belinda McGregor, with

an amendment.S. 486, to provide for the punishment of meth-

amphetamine laboratory operators, provide additionalresources to combat methamphetamine production,

trafficking, and abuse in the United States, with anamendment in the nature of a substitute.

S. 620, to grant a Federal charter to Korean WarVeterans Association, Incorporated. (See next issue.)

Measures Passed:Adjournment Resolution: Senate agreed to S.

Con. Res. 51, providing for a conditional adjourn-ment or recess of the Senate and a conditional ad-journment of the House of Representatives. (See next issue.)

Tobacco Production and Marketing Information:Senate passed S. 1543, to amend the AgriculturalAdjustment Act of 1938 to release and protect therelease of tobacco production and marketing infor-mation. (See next issue.)

U.S. Capitol Construction: Senate agreed to H.Con. Res. 167, authorizing the Architect of the Cap-itol to permit temporary construction and otherwork on the Capitol Grounds that may be necessaryfor construction of a building on Constitution Ave-nue Northwest, between 2nd Street Northwest andLouisiana Avenue Northwest, after agreeing to thefollowing amendment proposed thereto: (See next issue.)

Gorton (for McConnell) Amendment No. 1608, toauthorize the Architect of the Capitol to permittemporary construction and other work on the Cap-itol grounds, to provide that health and safety re-quirements, including access for the disabled, be ob-served. (See next issue.)

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act:Senate passed S. 1255, to protect consumers and pro-mote electronic commerce by amending certaintrademark infringement, dilution, and counterfeitinglaws, after agreeing to a committee amendment in

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGESTD938 August 5, 1999

the nature of a substitute, and the following amend-ment proposed thereto: (See next issue.)

Brownback (for Hatch/Leahy) Amendment No.1609, to clarify the rights of domain name reg-istrants and Internet users with respect to lawfuluses of Internet domain names. (See next issue.)

Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small BusinessDevelopment Act: Senate passed H.R. 1568, to pro-vide technical, financial, and procurement assistanceto veteran owned small businesses, after agreeing toa committee amendment in the nature of a sub-stitute, and the following amendment proposedthereto: (See next issue.)

Brownback (for Bond) Amendment No. 1617, tomake amendments with respect to the Board of Di-rectors of the National Veterans Business Develop-ment Corporation. (See next issue.)

Indonesia Elections: Senate agreed to S. Res. 166,relating to the recent elections in the Republic ofIndonesia, after agreeing to a committee amendment. (See next issue.)

Technical Correction: Senate passed S. 1072, tomake certain technical and other corrections relatingto the Centennial of Flight Commemoration Act (36U.S.C. 143 note; 112 Stat. 3486 et seq.), after agree-ing to the following amendments proposed thereto: (See next issue.)

Brownback (for DeWine) Amendment No. 1618,to clarify certain duties of the Centennial of FlightCommission. (See next issue.)

Brownback (for Helms) Amendment No. 1619, tomake a technical correction. (See next issue.)

Poison Control Center Enhancement andAwareness Act: Senate passed S. 632, to provide as-sistance for poison prevention and to stabilize thefunding of regional poison control centers, afteragreeing to a committee amendment in the natureof a substitute. (See next issue.)

Mineral Leasing on Indian Lands: Senate passedS. 944, to amend Public Law 105–188 to providefor the mineral leasing of certain Indian lands inOklahoma. (See next issue.)

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum: Sen-ate agreed to S. Con. Res. 48, relating to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum. (See next issue.)

U.S. Customs Service Authorization: Senatepassed H.R. 1833, to authorize appropriations forthe United States Customs Service, after agreeing toa committee amendment in the nature of a sub-stitute. (See next issue.)

Export-Import Bank Quorum Requirement:Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairswas discharged from further consideration of H.R.

2565, to clarify the quorum requirement for theBoard of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of theUnited States, and the bill was then passed, clearingthe measure for the President. (See next issue.)

Federal Building Naming: Senate passed H.R.211, to designate the Federal building and UnitedStates courthouse located at West 920 Riverside Av-enue in Spokane, Washington, as the ‘‘Thomas S.Foley Federal Building and United States Court-house’’, and the plaza at the south entrance of suchbuilding and courthouse as the ‘‘Walter F. HoranPlaza’’, clearing the measure for the President. (See next issue.)

International Religious Freedom Act Amend-ments: Senate passed S. 1546, to amend the Inter-national Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to provideadditional administrative authorities to the UnitedStates Commission on International Religious Free-dom, and to make technical corrections to that Act. (See next issue.)

Appreciating U.S. Army Personnel Service: Sen-ate agreed to S. Res. 176, expressing the apprecia-tion of the Senate for the service of United StatesArmy personnel who lost their lives in service oftheir country in an antidrug mission in Colombiaand expressing sympathy to the families and lovedones of such personnel. (See next issue.)

National Alcohol and Drug Addiction RecoveryMonth: Senate agreed to S. Res. 177, designatingSeptember, 1999, as ‘‘National Alcohol and DrugAddiction Recovery Month’’. (See next issue.)

Construction Industry Payment Protection Act:Senate passed H.R. 1219, to amend the Office ofFederal Procurement Policy Act and the Miller Act,relating to payment protections for persons pro-viding labor and materials for Federal constructionprojects, clearing the measure for the President. (See next issue.)

Private Relief: Senate passed S. 199, for the reliefof Alexandre Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and theirson, Vladimir Malofienko. (See next issue.)

Private Relief: Senate passed S. 275, for the reliefof Suchada Kwong. (See next issue.)

Private Relief: Senate passed S. 452, for the reliefof Belinda McGregor, with an amendment, afteragreeing to a committee amendment. (See next issue.)

Safety of Soldiers Missing in Action: Senatepassed H.R. 1175, to locate and secure the return ofZachary Baumel, an American citizen, and otherIsraeli soldiers missing in action, after agreeing to acommittee amendment, and the following amend-ment proposed thereto: (See next issue.)

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST D939August 5, 1999

Brownback (for Leahy) Amendment No. 1620, toprovide for the consideration of assistance to certaingovernments relating to the location and return ofcertain soldiers. (See next issue.)

Federal Charter: Senate passed S. 620, to granta Federal charter to Korean War Veterans Associa-tion, Incorporated. (See next issue.)

Wireless Communications and Public SafetyAct: Senate passed S. 800, to promote and enhancepublic safety through the use of 9–1–1 as the uni-versal emergency assistance number, further deploy-ment of wireless 9–1–1 service, support of States inupgrading 9–1–1 capabilities and related functions,encouragement of construction and operation ofseamless, ubiquitous, and reliable networks for per-sonal wireless services, after agreeing to committeeamendments. (See next issue.)

Department of the Interior Appropriations: Sen-ate resumed consideration of H.R. 2466, making ap-propriations for the Department of the Interior andrelated agencies for the fiscal year ending September30, 2000, taking action on the following amend-ments proposed thereto: Pages S10274–86

Adopted:Gorton (for Burns) Amendment No. 1563, to in-

crease funds in the Bureau of Indian Affairs TribalCollege account by $700,000 with offset from ForestService land acquisition in the San Juan NationalForest. Pages S10275–76

Gorton (for Campbell) Amendment No. 1564, toprovide additional funding to the United States Fishand Wildlife Service for activities relating to thePreble’s meadow jumping mouse, with an offsetfrom Forest Service Land Acquisition in Colorado. Pages S10275–76

Gorton (for DeWine) Amendment No. 1565, tomake unobligated funds available for the acquisitionof land in the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge, forthe Dayton Aviation Heritage Commission, and forthe preservation and restoration of the birthplace,boyhood home, and schoolhouse of Ulysses S. Grant,Ohio. Pages S10275–76

Gorton (for Lugar/Bayh) Amendment No. 1566,to transfer $700,000 in land acquisition funds fromthe San Juan National Forest (Silver Mountain), Col-orado to the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge,Indiana. Pages S10275–76

Gorton (for Mack/Graham) Amendment No.1567, to provide funding for construction of theSeminole Rest facility at the Canaveral National Sea-shore, Florida, with an offset from the J.N. DingDarling National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Pages S10275–76

Gorton (for Reid) Amendment No. 1568, to pro-vide $150,000 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Part-

ners for Fish and Wildlife Program within the Habi-tat Conservation Program. This funding will supportthe Nevada Biodiversity Research and ConservationInitiative for migratory bird studies at Walker Lake,Nevada. The increase in $150,000 for the NevadaBiodiversity Research and Conservation Initiative isoffset by a $150,000 decrease in the Water Re-sources Investigations program of the U.S. Geologi-cal Service of which $250,000 was directed for hy-drologic monitoring to support implementation ofthe Truckee River Water Quality Settlement Agree-ment. Pages S10275–76

Rejected:Smith (of N.H.)/Ashcroft Amendment No. 1569,

to eliminate funding for the National Endowmentfor the Arts. (By 80 yeas to 16 nays (Vote No. 260),Senate tabled the amendment.) Pages S10276–86

Pending:Gorton Amendment No. 1359, of a technical na-

ture. Page S10274Senate will resume consideration of the bill on

Wednesday, September 8, 1999.Water Resources Development Act: Senate agreedto the conference report on S. 507, to provide for theconservation and development of water and relatedresources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army toconstruct various projects for improvements to riversand harbors of the United States. Pages S10286–90

Budget Reconciliation/Tax Relief: By 50 yeas to49 nays (Vote No. 261), Senate agreed to the con-ference report on H.R. 2488, to amend the InternalRevenue Code of 1986 to reduce individual incometax rates, to provide marriage penalty relief, to re-duce taxes on savings and investments, to provide es-tate and gift tax relief, to provide incentives for edu-cation savings and health care, clearing the measurefor the President. Pages S10290–S10303 (continued next issue)

Transportation Appropriations: Senate began con-sideration of the motion to proceed to the consider-ation of H.R. 2084, making appropriations for theDepartment of Transportation and related agenciesfor the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000. (See next issue.)

A motion was entered to close further debate onthe motion to proceed to the bill and, in accordancewith the provisions of Rule XXII of the StandingRules of the Senate, a vote on the cloture motionwill occur at 9:30 a.m., on Thursday, September 9,1999. (See next issue.)

Subsequently, the motion to proceed was with-drawn. (See next issue.)

Legislative Branch Appropriations—Agreement:A unanimous-consent agreement was reached pro-viding that when the Senate receives from the House

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGESTD940 August 5, 1999

the conference report on H.R. 1905, making appro-priations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal yearending September 30, 2000, the conference report bedeemed agreed to. (See next issue.)

Nominations—Agreement: A unanimous-consentagreement was reached providing that all nomina-tions received by the Senate during the 106th Con-gress, remain in status quo, notwithstanding the Au-gust adjournment of the Senate and the provisions ofRule 31, paragraph 6 of the Standing Rules of theSenate, with certain exceptions. (See next issue.)

Authority for Committees: All committees wereauthorized to file legislative reports during the ad-journment of the Senate on Friday, August 27,1999, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. (See next issue.)

Removal of Injunction of Secrecy: The injunctionof secrecy was removed from the following treaty:

Convention (No. 182) for Elimination of theWorst Forms of Child Labor (Treaty Doc. 106–5).

The treaty was transmitted to the Senate today,considered as having been read for the first time, andreferred, with accompanying papers, to the Com-mittee on Foreign Relations and was ordered to beprinted. (See next issue.)

Messages From the President: Senate received thefollowing messages from the President of the UnitedStates:

A message from the President of the United Statestransmitting, a draft of proposed legislation entitled‘‘Central American and Haitian Parity Act of 1999’’;to the Committee on the Judiciary. (PM–55). (See next issue.)

Nominations Confirmed: Senate confirmed the fol-lowing nominations:

By 81 yeas to 16 nays (Vote No. EX. 259), Rich-ard Holbrooke, of New York, to be the Representa-tive of the United States of America to the UnitedNations with the rank and status of Ambassador,and the Representative of the United States ofAmerica in the Security Council of the United Na-tions.

By 81 yeas to 16 nays (Vote No. EX. 259), Rich-ard Holbrooke, of New York, to be a Representativeof the United States of America to the Sessions ofthe General Assembly of the United Nations duringhis tenure of service as Representative of the UnitedStates of America to the United Nations.

Mervyn M. Mosbacker, Jr., of Texas, to be UnitedStates Attorney for the Southern District of Texas forthe term of four years.

M. Osman Siddique, of Virginia, to be Ambas-sador to the Republic of Fiji, and to serve concur-rently and without additional compensation as Am-bassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the

United States of America to the Republic of Nauru,Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of theUnited States of America to the Kingdom of Tonga,and Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiaryof the United States of America to Tuvalu.

Robert Z. Lawrence, of Massachusetts, to be aMember of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Martin George Brennan, of California, to be Am-bassador to the Republic of Uganda.

William J. Rainer, of New Mexico, to be Chair-man of the Commodity Futures Trading Commis-sion.

William J. Rainer, of New Mexico, to be a Com-missioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Com-mission for the term expiring April 13, 2004.

Richard Monroe Miles, of South Carolina, to beAmbassador to the Republic of Bulgaria.

Charles A. Blanchard, of Arizona, to be GeneralCounsel of the Department of the Army.

Carol DiBattiste, of Florida, to be Under Secretaryof the Air Force.

Barbro A. Owens-Kirkpatrick, of California, to beAmbassador to the Republic of Niger.

Earl E. Devaney, of Massachusetts, to be InspectorGeneral, Department of the Interior.

Barbara J. Griffiths, of Virginia, to be Ambassadorto the Republic of Iceland.

Sylvia Gaye Stanfield, of Texas, to be Ambassadorto Brunei Darussalam.

Tibor P. Nagy, Jr., of Texas, to be Ambassador tothe Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.

Jeffrey A. Bader, of Florida, to be Ambassador tothe Republic of Namibia.

Martin Neil Baily, of Maryland, to be a Memberof the Council of Economic Advisers.

4 Army nominations in the rank of general.3 Navy nominations in the rank of admiral.A routine list in the Foreign Service.

Pages S10268–74 (continued next issue)

Nominations Received: Senate received the fol-lowing nominations:

Carol J. Parry, of Illinois, to be a Member of theBoard of Governors of the Federal Reserve Systemfor a term of fourteen years expiring January 31,2012.

John Goglia, of Massachusetts, to be a Member ofthe National Transportation Safety Board for a termexpiring December 31, 2003. (Reappointment)

Paul L. Hill, Jr., of West Virginia, to be Chair-person of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investiga-tion Board for a term of five years. (Reappointment)

Paul L. Hill, Jr., of West Virginia, to be Memberof the Chemical Safety and Hazard InvestigationBoard for a term of five years. (Reappointment)

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST D941August 5, 1999

Norman A. Wulf, of Virginia, to be a SpecialRepresentative of the President, with the rank ofAmbassador.

Marianne O. Battani, of Michigan, to be UnitedStates District Judge for the Eastern District ofMichigan.

Steven D. Bell, of Ohio, to be United States Dis-trict Judge for the Northern District of Ohio.

Ronald A. Guzman, of Illinois, to be UnitedStates District Judge for the Northern District of Il-linois.

David M. Lawson, of Michigan, to be UnitedStates District Judge for the Eastern District ofMichigan.

Ann Claire Williams, of Illinois, to be UnitedStates Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit.

James A. Wynn, Jr., of North Carolina, to beUnited States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit.

Melvin W. Kahle, of West Virginia, to be UnitedStates Attorney for the Northern District of WestVirginia for a term of four years.

Ted L. McBride, of South Dakota, to be UnitedStates Attorney for the District of South Dakota fora term of four years.

Robert S. Mueller, III, of California, to be UnitedStates Attorney for the Northern District of Cali-fornia for a term of four years.

John W. Marshall, of Virginia, to be Director ofthe United States Marshals Service.

Linda Joan Morgan, of Maryland, to be a Memberof the Surface Transportation Board for a term expir-ing December 31, 2003. (Reappointment)

Sylvia V. Baca, of New Mexico, to be an AssistantSecretary of the Interior.

Richard A. Meserve, of Virginia, to be a Memberof the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a term offive years expiring June 30, 2004.

George L. Farr, of Connecticut, to be a Memberof the Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board fora term of four years. (New Position)

George B. Daniels, of New York, to be UnitedStates District Judge for the Southern District ofNew York.

Ruben Castillo, of Illinois, to be a Member of theUnited States Sentencing Commission for a term ex-piring October 31, 2003.

Sterling R. Johnson, Jr., of New York, to be aMember of the United States Sentencing Commis-sion for a term expiring October 31, 2001.

Diana E. Murphy, of Minnesota, to be a Memberof the United States Sentencing Commission for aterm expiring October 31, 2005. (Reappointment)

Diana E. Murphy, of Minnesota, to be Chair ofthe United States Sentencing Commission.

Diana E. Murphy, of Minnesota, to be a Memberof the United States Sentencing Commission for theremainder of the term expiring October 31, 1999.

William Sessions, III, of Vermont, to be a Mem-ber of the United States Sentencing Commission fora term expiring October 31, 2003. (See next issue.)

Messages From the President: (See next issue.)

Messages From the House: (See next issue.)

Communications: (See next issue.)

Petitions: (See next issue.)

Executive Reports of Committees: (See next issue.)

Statements on Introduced Bills: (See next issue.)

Additional Cosponsors: (See next issue.)

Amendments Submitted: (See next issue.)

Authority for Committees: (See next issue.)

Additional Statements: (See next issue.)

Text of H.R. 1906 as Previously Passed: (See next issue.)

Record Votes: Three record votes were taken today.(Total—261) Pages S10274, S10286 (continued next issue)

Adjournment: Senate convened at 9:30 a.m., andadjourned according to the provisions of S. Con. Res.51, at 8:52 p.m., until 12 Noon, on Wednesday,September 8, 1999. (For Senate’s program, see theremarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today’sRecord.)

Committee Meetings(Committees not listed did not meet)

U.S. FARM ECONOMYCommittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry: Com-mittee concluded hearings on the market and finan-cial performance of the United States agriculturalsector, after receiving testimony from Robert M.Bor, USA Rice Federation, and Katherine Ozer, Na-tional Family Farm Coalition, both of Washington,D.C.; John McNutt, Iowa City, Iowa, on behalf ofthe National Pork Producers Council; and JackHamilton, Lake Providence, Louisiana, on behalf ofthe National Cotton Council.

HUD MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ASSISTANCERESTRUCTURINGCommittee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation con-cluded oversight hearings on activities of the Officeof Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGESTD942 August 5, 1999

the Department of Housing and Urban Develop-ment, after receiving testimony from Ira G. Pepper-corn, Director, Office of Multifamily Housing As-sistance Restructuring, Department of Housing andUrban Development; Steven D. Pierce, MassachusettsHousing Finance Agency, Boston; DeborahWhitaker, Community Preservation Corporation,New York, New York; John T. McEvoy, NationalCouncil of State Housing Agencies, Washington,D.C.; and Michael F. Petrie, P/R Mortgage and In-vestment Corporation, Indianapolis, Indiana, on be-half of the Mortgage Bankers Association of Amer-ica.

NOMINATIONSCommittee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:Committee concluded hearings on the nominationsof Armando Falcon, Jr., of Texas, to be Director ofthe Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,Department of Housing and Urban Development,Martin Neil Baily, of Maryland, to be a Member ofthe Council of Economic Advisers, Robert Z. Law-rence, of Massachusetts, to be a Member of theCouncil of Economic Advisers, Dorian Vanessa Wea-ver, of Arkansas, to be a Member of the Board ofDirectors of the Export-Import Bank of the UnitedStates, and Dan Herman Renberg, of Maryland, tobe a Member of the Board of Directors of the Ex-port-Import Bank of the United States, after thenominees testified and answered questions in theirown behalf. Mr. Renberg was introduced by SenatorSpecter.

Also, Committee concluded hearings on the nomi-nation of Harry J. Bowie, of Mississippi, to be aMember of the Board of Directors of the NationalConsumer Cooperative Bank.

NOMINATIONSCommittee on Foreign Relations: Committee concludedhearings on the nominations of Jimmy J. Kolker, of

Missouri, to be Ambassador to Burkina Faso, JeffreyA. Bader, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Re-public of Namibia, Martin George Brennan, of Cali-fornia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Uganda,Harriet L. Elam, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassadorto the Republic of Senegal, Gregory Lee Johnson, ofWashington, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom ofSwaziland, David H. Kaeuper, of the District of Co-lumbia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Congo,Delano Eugene Lewis, Sr., of New Mexico, to beAmbassador to the Republic of South Africa, TiborP. Nagy, Jr., of Texas, to be Ambassador to the Fed-eral Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, and Barbro A.Owens-Kirkpatrick, of California, to be Ambassadorto the Republic of Niger, after the nominees testi-fied and answered questions in their own behalf. Mr.Kolker was introduced by Senator Daschle and Rep-resentative Holt.

BUSINESS MEETINGCommittee on the Judiciary: Committee ordered favor-ably reported the following business items:

S. 486, to provide for the punishment of meth-amphetamine laboratory operators, provide additionalresources to combat methamphetamine production,trafficking, and abuse in the United States, with anamendment in the nature of a substitute;

S. 620, to grant a Federal charter to Korean WarVeterans Association, Incorporated;

S. 199, for the relief of Alexandre Malofienko,Olga Matsko, and their son, Vladimir Malofienko;

S. 275, for the relief of Suchada Kwong;S. 452, for the relief of Belinda McGregor, with

an amendment; andThe nomination of Mervyn M. Mosbacker, Jr., to

be United States Attorney for the Southern Districtof Texas.

h

House of RepresentativesChamber ActionBills Introduced: 92 public bills, H.R. 2713–2804;2 private bills, H.R. 2805–2806; and 12 resolutions,H.J. Res. 65, H. Con. Res. 173–179, and H. Res.277–280, were introduced. (See next issue.)

Reports Filed: Reports were filed today as follows:H.R. 853, to amend the Congressional Budget

Act of 1974 to provide for joint resolutions on thebudget, reserve funds for emergency spending,

strengthened enforcement of budgetary decisions, in-creased accountability for Federal spending, accrualbudgeting for Federal insurance programs, mitiga-tion of the bias in the budget process toward higherspending, modifications in paygo requirements whenthere is an on-budget surplus, amended (H. Rept.106–198 Pt. 2);

H.R. 853, to amend the Congressional BudgetAct of 1974 to provide for joint resolutions on thebudget, reserve funds for emergency spending,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST D943August 5, 1999

strengthened enforcement of budgetary decisions, in-creased accountability for Federal spending, accrualbudgeting for Federal insurance programs, mitiga-tion of the bias in the budget process toward higherspending, modifications in paygo requirements whenthere is an on-budget surplus, amended (H. Rept.106–198 Pt. 3);

H.R. 1867, to amend the Federal Election Cam-paign Act of 1971 to reform the financing of cam-paigns for elections for Federal office (H. Rept.106–294);

H.R. 2668, to amend the Federal Election Cam-paign Act of 1971 to reform the financing of cam-paigns for election for Federal office, amended (H.Rept. 106–295);

H.R. 1922, to amend the Federal Election Cam-paign Act of 1971 to reform the financing of cam-paigns for election for Federal office (H. Rept.106–296, Pt. 1);

H.R. 417, to amend the Federal Election Cam-paign Act of 1971 to reform the financing of cam-paigns for elections for Federal office, amended (H.Rept. 106–297, Pt. 1);

Conference report on S. 507, to provide for theconservation and development of water and relatedresources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army toconstruct various projects for improvements to riversand harbors of the United States (H. Rept.106–298);

Conference report on H.R. 2587, making appro-priations for the government of the District of Co-lumbia and other activities chargeable in whole or inpart against revenues of said District for the fiscalyear ending September 30, 2000 (H. Rept.106–299);

H.R. 2559, to amend the Federal Crop InsuranceAct to strengthen the safety net for agricultural pro-ducers by providing greater access to more affordablerisk management tools and improved protectionfrom production and income loss, to improve the ef-ficiency and integrity of the Federal crop insuranceprogram, amended (Rept. 106–300); and

Conference report on S. 1059, to authorize appro-priations for fiscal year 2000 for military activitiesof the Department of Defense, for military construc-tion, and for defense activities of the Department ofEnergy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fis-cal year for the Armed Forces (Rept. 106–301). Pages H7276–H7316 (continued next issue)

Speaker Pro Tempore: Read a letter from theSpeaker wherein he designated Representative Kolbeto act as Speaker pro tempore for today. Page H7251

Journal Vote: Agreed to the Speaker’s approval ofthe Journal of Wednesday, August 4, by a yea and

nay vote of 356 yeas to 50 nays with 1 voting‘‘present’’, Roll No. 376. Pages H7251–52

Financial Freedom Act: The House agreed to theconference report on H.R. 2488, to amend the Inter-nal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce individual in-come tax rates, to provide marriage penalty relief, toreduce taxes on savings and investments, to provideestate and gift tax relief, and to provide incentivesfor education savings and health care by yea and nayvote of 221 yeas to 206 nays, Roll No. 379. Pages H7261–76

Agreed to H. Res. 274, the rule that provided forconsideration of the conference report was agreed toby a yea and nay vote of 224 yeas to 203 nays, RollNo. 377. Pages H7252–61

Rejected the Rangel motion to recommit the con-ference report to the committee on conference withinstructions, to the extent permitted within thescope of conference, to insist on limiting the net 10-year tax reduction to not more than 25% of the cur-rently projected non-Social Security surpluses (or ifgreater, the smallest tax reduction permitted withinthe scope of conference); and shall insist on not in-cluding any provision which would constitute a lim-ited tax benefit within the meaning of the Line ItemVeto Act in order to A. preserve 100% of the SocialSecurity Trust Fund surpluses for the Social Securityprogram and preserve 50% of the currently projectednon-Social Security surpluses for purposes of reduc-ing the publicly held national debt, and B. insurethat there will be adequate budgetary resourcesavailable to extend the solvency of the Social Secu-rity and Medicare systems, and provide a Medicareprescription drug benefit, the by yea and nay voteof 205 yeas to 221 nays, Roll No. 378. Pages H7274–75

Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Re-lated Agencies Appropriations: The House passedH.R. 2670, making appropriations for the Depart-ments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judici-ary, and related agencies for the fiscal year endingSeptember 30, 2000 by yea and nay vote of 217 yeasto 210 nays, Roll No. 387. The House completedgeneral debate and began considering amendmentson August 4. (See next issue.)

Rejected the Bonior motion to recommit the billto the Committee on Appropriations with instruc-tions to report it back with an amendment that in-creases the amount provided for Community Ori-ented Policing Services to the amount requested inthe President’s budget, with corresponding adjust-ments to keep the bill within the committee 302(B)allocation by a recorded vote of 208 ayes to 219noes, Roll No. 386. (See next issue.)

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGESTD944 August 5, 1999

Agreed to:The Ehlers amendment that increases NOAA

funding by $390,000 for research projects; (See next issue.)

The Terry amendment that increases MerchantMarine Academy funding by $2 million for repair ofbuildings; (See next issue.)

The Tiahrt amendment, as modified, that pro-hibits the expenditure of any appropriation to deni-grate or otherwise undermine the religious or moralbeliefs of students who participate in programs fund-ed by the Department of Justice; (See next issue.)

The Deal amendment that prohibits any funds ap-propriated from being used to process or providevisas to countries that deny or unreasonably delay ac-cepting the return of their citizens under section243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; (See next issue.)

The Traficant amendment, as modified, that pro-hibits the transport of maximum or high securityprisoners to a facility that is not certified by the Bu-reau of Prisons as appropriately secure for housingsuch prisoners; (See next issue.)

The Vitter amendment that prohibits any funds tobe used by United States delegates to the StandingConsultative Commission in any activity to imple-ment the Memorandum of Understanding relating tothe Anti-Ballistic Missile Limitation Treaty enteredinto by the United States, Russia, Kazakhstan,Belarus, and Ukraine on September 26, 1997; (See next issue.)

The Hayworth amendment that prohibits the ex-penditure of any funds for activities in support ofadding or maintaining any World Heritage Site(agreed to by a recorded vote of 217 ayes to 209noes, Roll No. 383); and (See next issue.)

The Tauzin amendment that prohibits any fundsto be used by the FCC to enforce or administer theUniform Systems of Accounts for Telecommuni-cations Companies with respect to any common car-rier that was determined to be subject to price capregulation by the Commission’s order or has electedto be subject to price cap regulation (agreed to bya recorded vote of 374 ayes to 49 noes, Roll No.384). (See next issue.)

Rejected:The Hall of Ohio amendment that sought to

strike the provision that prohibits the payment ofUnited Nations arrearages unless expressly author-ized by an Act that makes such payments contingentupon United Nations reform (rejected by a recordedvote of 206 ayes to 221 noes, Roll No. 380); (See next issue.)

The Bass amendment that sought to require thatthe Federal Communications Commission developand implement a plan for the efficient allocation of

telephone numbers (rejected by a recorded vote of169 ayes to 256 noes, Roll No. 381); (See next issue.)

The George Miller of California amendment thatsought to limit the amount obligated or expendedfor the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission(rejected by a recorded vote of 211 ayes to 215 noes,Roll No. 382); and (See next issue.)

The Kucinich amendment that sought to prohibitany funds to be used for the filing of a complaintor any motion seeking injunctive relief in any legalaction brought under the North American FreeTrade Agreement Implementation Act or UruguayRound Agreements Act (rejected by a recorded voteof 196 ayes to 226 noes, Roll No. 385). (See next issue.)

Withdrawn:The Stearns amendment was offered, but subse-

quently withdrawn, that sought to reduce State De-partment general administrative funding by$500,000 to highlight personnel issues relating toMs. Linda Shenwick’s employment at the U.S. Mis-sion to the United Nations; (See next issue.)

The Inslee amendment was offered, but subse-quently withdrawn, that sought to strike Section620 that prohibits any funds appropriated to be usedfor the implementation of or the preparation for theKyoto Protocol; (See next issue.)

The Davis of Illinois amendment was offered, butsubsequently withdrawn, that sought to prohibitfunding to any law enforcement agency except oneidentified in an annual summary of data on the useof excessive force published by the Attorney General; (See next issue.)

The Campbell amendment was offered, but subse-quently withdrawn, that sought to require thataliens have access to secret evidence used to detainor deport them; (See next issue.)

The Wynn amendment was offered, but subse-quently withdrawn, that sought to increase fundingfor the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissionby $33 million and reduce Administration of For-eign Affairs funding accordingly; (See next issue.)

The Crowley amendment was offered, but subse-quently withdrawn, that sought to prohibit anyfunding to be used for joint training programs be-tween the Royal Ulster Constabulary and any Federallaw enforcement agency; (See next issue.)

The Dingell amendment was offered, but subse-quently withdrawn, that sought to prohibit grants tostates that have not certified that 95 percent or moreof records evidencing a State judicial or executive de-termination are sent to the FBI to support imple-mentation of the National Instant Criminal Back-ground Check System; and (See next issue.)

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST D945August 5, 1999

The Jackson-Lee amendment was offered, but sub-sequently withdrawn, that sought to establish newprovisions cited as the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. (See next issue.)

Late Report: The Commerce Committee receivedpermission to have until midnight on September 7,1999 to file reports on H.R. 1714, H.R. 1858, H.R.486, H.R. 2130, and H.R. 2506. (See next issue.)

VA, HUD Appropriations: The House agreed toH. Res. 275, the rule providing for consideration ofH.R. 2684, making appropriations for the Depart-ments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and UrbanDevelopment, and for sundry independent agencies,boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for thefiscal year ending September 30, 2000. Agreed toorder the previous question by yea and nay vote of217 yeas to 208 nays, Roll No. 388. (See next issue.)

Legislative Branch Appropriations: The Houseagreed to the conference report on H.R. 1905, mak-ing appropriations for the Legislative Branch for thefiscal year ending September 30, 2000 by a yea andnay vote of 367 yeas to 49 nays, Roll No. 389. (See next issue.)

Earlier, agreed that it be in order to consider theconference report, that it be considered as read, thatall points of order be waived; and that the previousquestion be ordered to final adoption without inter-vening motion except 20 minutes of debate, equallydivided and controlled and one motion to recommit. (See next issue.)

Committee Resignations: Read a letter from Rep-resentative Clyburn wherein he resigns from theCommittee on Appropriations and read a letter fromRepresentative Ackerman wherein he resigns fromthe Committee on Banking and Financial Services. (See next issue.)

Committee Election: The House agreed to H. Res.277 electing Representative Forbes to the Commit-tees on Appropriations and Banking and FinancialServices. (See next issue.)

Water Resources Development Act: House agreedto the conference report on S. 507, to provide for theconservation and development of water and relatedresources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army toconstruct various projects for improvements to riversand harbors of the United States—clearing the meas-ure for the President. (See next issue.)

Technical Corrections to Water Resources De-velopment Act: The House passed H.R. 2724, tomake technical corrections to the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act. (See next issue.)

Extension of Aviation Programs: The Housepassed S. 1467, to extend the funding levels for avia-

tion programs for 60 days. Subsequently, agreed tostrike all after the enacting clause and insert the textof H.R. 1000, a similar House-passed bill. Agreedto amend the title. (See next issue.)

The House then agreed to insist on its amend-ments to S. 1467 and ask for a conference. Ap-pointed as conferees: From the Committee on Trans-portation and Infrastructure for consideration of theSenate bill and the House amendment and modifica-tions committed to conference: Representatives Shu-ster, Young of Alaska, Petri, Duncan, Ewing, Horn,Quinn, Ehlers, Bass, Pease, Sweeney, Oberstar, Ra-hall, Lipinski, DeFazio, Costello, Danner, E. B.Johnson of Texas, Millender-McDonald, and Boswell.From the Committee on the Budget for consider-ation of titles IX and X of the House amendment,and modifications committed to conference: Rep-resentatives Chambliss, Shays, and Spratt. From theCommittee on Ways and Means for consideration oftitle XI of the House amendment and modificationscommitted to conference: Representatives Nussle,Hulshof, and Rangel. (See next issue.)

Permission for Temporary Construction on theCapitol Grounds: The House agreed to the Senateamendment to H. Con. Res. 167, authorizing theArchitect of the Capitol to permit temporary con-struction and other work on the Capitol Groundsthat may be necessary for construction of a buildingon Constitution Avenue Northwest, between 2ndStreet Northwest and Louisiana Avenue Northwest. (See next issue.)

International Religious Freedom Act: The Housepassed S. 1546, to amend the International ReligiousAct of 1998 to provide additional administrative au-thorities to the United States Commission on Inter-national Religious Freedom, and to make technicalcorrections to that Act—clearing the measure for thePresident. (See next issue.)

Veteran Owned Small Business: The Houseagreed to the Senate amendments to H.R. 1568, toprovide technical, financial, and procurement assist-ance to veteran owned small businesses—clearing themeasure for the President. (See next issue.)

Tobacco Production and Marketing Information:The House passed S. 1543, to amend the Agricul-tural Adjustment Act of 1938 to release and protectthe release of tobacco production and marketing in-formation—clearing the measure for the President. (See next issue.)

Summer District Work Period: The House agreedto S. Con. Res. 51, providing for a conditional ad-journment or recess of the Senate and a conditionaladjournment of the House of Representatives. (See next issue.)

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGESTD946 August 5, 1999

Speaker pro Tempore: Read a letter from theSpeaker wherein he designated RepresentativeMorella or, if not available, Representative Wolf toact as Speaker pro tempore to sign enrolled bills andjoint resolutions through September 8. (See next issue.)

Resignations—Appointments: Agreed that not-withstanding any adjournment of the House untilWednesday, September 8, 1999, the Speaker, Major-ity Leader, and Minority Leader were authorized toaccept resignations and to make appointments au-thorized by law or by the House. (See next issue.)

Calendar Wednesday: Agreed to dispense with theCalendar Wednesday business of Wednesday, Sep-tember 8. (See next issue.)

Presidential Message—Legislative Proposal: Reada letter from the President wherein he transmitteda legislative proposal entitled ‘‘Central American andHaitian Parity Act of 1999—referred to the Com-mittee on the Judiciary and ordered printed H. Doc.106–114. (See next issue.)

Senate Messages: Message received from the Senateappears on page H7252.Referral: S. 695 was referred to the Committee onVeterans’ Affairs. (See next issue.)

Amendments Ordered Printed: Amendments or-dered printed pursuant to the rule appear in the nextissue.Quorum Calls—Votes: Seven yea and nay votes andseven recorded votes developed during the pro-ceedings of the House today and appear on pagesH7251–52, H7260, H7275, H7275–76 (continuednext issue). There were no quorum calls.Adjournment: The House met at 10:00 a.m. andpursuant to the provisions of S. Con. Res. 51, ad-journed at 12:13 a.m. on Friday, August 6 until10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 8.

Committee MeetingsFOOD STAMP PROGRAM—REVIEWOPERATIONSCommittee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Depart-ment Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestryheld a hearing to review the operations of the FoodStamp Program. Testimony was heard from ShirleyWatkins, Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, andConsumer Services, USDA; Clarence H. Carter,Commissioner, Department of Social Services, Stateof Virginia; Douglas E. Howard, Director, FamilyIndependence Agency, State of Michigan; Lynda G.Fox, Secretary, Department of Human Resources,State of Maryland; Melba L. Price, Associate Direc-tor, Department of Social Services, State of Missouri;and public witnesses.

U.S. FUTURE EXCHANGES—REGULATORYRELIEFCommittee on Agriculture: Subcommittee on Risk Man-agement, Research, and Specialty Crops held a hear-ing to review regulatory relief for U.S. futures ex-changes. Testimony was heard from the following of-ficials of the Commodity Futures Trading Commis-sion: David D. Spears, Acting Chairman; BarbaraPedeson Holum, James E. Newsome and Thomas J.Erickson, all Commissioners; and public witnesses.

MISCELLANEOUS MEASURESCommittee on Commerce: Ordered reported, amended,the following bills: H.R. 1714, Electronic Signaturesin Global and National Commerce; H.R. 1858, Con-sumer and Investor Access to Information Act of1999; H.R. 486, Community Broadcasters Protec-tion of 1999; H.R. 2130, Hillory J. Farias Date-Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999; and H.R. 2506,Health and Research and Quality Act of 1999.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE FIGURESCommittee on Government Reform: Held a hearing on‘‘White House Insider Mark Middleton: His Ties toJohn Huang, Charlie Trie, and Other Campaign Fi-nance Figures’’. In refusing to give testimony, MarkMiddleton invoked Fifth Amendment privileges.

MISCELLANEOUS MEASURESCommittee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crimeheld a hearing on the following bills: H.R. 2558,Prison Industries Reform Act of 1999; and H.R.2551, Federal Prison Industries Competition in Con-tracting Act of 1999. Testimony was heard fromRepresentative Hoekstra; Kathleen M. Hawk Sawyer,Director, Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice;Reginald A. Wilkson, Director, Department of Re-habilitation and Correction, State of Ohio; and pub-lic witnesses.

OVERSIGHTCommittee on the Judiciary: Subcommittee on Immi-gration and Claims held an oversight hearing on theH–1B Temporary Professional Worker Visa Pro-gram. Testimony was heard from public witnesses.

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASING—LANDS OFFSHORE FLORIDACommittee on Resources, Subcommittee on Energy andMineral Resources held a hearing on H.R. 33, im-posing certain restrictions and requirements on theleasing under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Actof lands offshore Florida. Testimony was heard fromRepresentative Goss; Walt Rosenbusch, Director,Minerals Management Service, Department of the In-terior; Jay Hakes, Administrator, Energy InformationAdministration, Department of Energy; Mike Joyner,Director, Legislative and Governmental Affairs, Stateof Florida; and a public witness.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST D947August 5, 1999

COASTAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATIONACTCommittee on Resources: Subcommittee on FisheriesConservation, Wildlife and Oceans approved for fullCommittee action, amended, H.R. 2669, CoastalCommunity Conservation Act of 1999.

MISCELLANEOUS MEASURESCommittee on Resources: Subcommittee on NationalParks and Public Lands approved for full Committeeaction the following bills: H.R. 20, Upper DelawareScenic and Recreational River Mongaup Visitor Cen-ter Act of 1999; H.R. 748, amended, to amend theAct that established the Keweenaw National Histor-ical Park to require the Secretary of the Interior toconsider nominees of various local interests in ap-pointing members of the Keweenaw National His-torical Parks Advisory Commission; H.R. 1615,Lamprey Wild and Scenic River Extension Act; H.R.1665, amended, to allow the National Park Serviceto acquire certain land for addition to the Wilder-ness Battlefield in Virginia, as previously authorizedby law, by purchase or exchange as well as by dona-tion; H.R. 2140, amended, to improve protectionand management of the Chattahoochee River Na-tional Recreation Area in the State of Georgia; andH.R. 2339, National Discovery Trails Act of 1999.

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORMACTCommittee on Rules: Granted by voice vote, a struc-tured rule providing one hour of general debate onH.R. 417, Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Actof 1999 divided equally between the chairman andranking minority member of the Committee onHouse Administration. The rule makes in order onlythose amendments printed in the Rules Committeereport. The rule provides that amendments made inorder may be offered only in the order printed in thereport, may be offered only by a Member designatedin this report, shall be considered as read, shall bedebatable for the time specified in this report equal-ly divided and controlled by the proponent and anopponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.The rule also waives all points of order against theamendments printed in the report except that theadoption of an amendment in the nature of a sub-stitute shall constitute the conclusion of consider-ation of the bill for amendment. The rule permitsthe Chairman of the Committee of the Whole topostpone votes during consideration of the bill, andto reduce voting time to five minutes on a post-poned question if the vote follows a fifteen minutevote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recom-mit with or without instructions. Testimony washeard from Chairmen Thomas and Goodling; Rep-

resentatives Ewing, Shays, Hutchinson, Shaw, Cal-vert, Brady of Texas, Wamp, Hoyer, Davis of Flor-ida. Meehan and Levin.

CONFERENCE REPORT—WATERRESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACTCommittee on Rules: Granted, by voice vote, a rulewaiving all points of order against the conference re-port to accompany S. 507, Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1999, and against its consideration.The rule provides that the conference report shall beconsidered as read. Testimony was heard from Rep-resentative Boehlert.

MISCELLANEOUS MEASURESCommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Orderedreported the following measures: H.R. 2681, RailPassenger Disaster Family Assistance Act; H.R.2679, Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1999; H. Con.Res. 171, congratulating the American Public Tran-sit Association for 25 years of commendable serviceto the transit industry and the Nation; and H.R.1300, amended, Recycle America’s Land Act of1999.

The Committee also approved the following: 1lease resolution; 1 repair and alteration resolution;and Corps of Engineers Survey resolutions.

U.S. NEGOTIATING OBJECTIVES—WTOSEATTLE MINISTERIAL MEETINGCommittee on Ways and Means: Subcommittee onTrade held a hearing on United States NegotiatingObjectives for the WTO Seattle Ministerial Meeting.Testimony was heard from Representatives Weller,Becerra, Regula and Miller of Florida; Susan G,Esserman, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative; Shel-don R. Jones, Director, Department of Agriculture,State of Arizona; and public witnesses.f

COMMITTEE MEETINGS FORFRIDAY, AUGUST 6, 1999

(Committee meetings are open unless otherwise indicated)

SenateNo meetings/hearings scheduled.

HouseCommittee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on

Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources,hearing on the Narcotics Threat from Colombia, 9 a.m.,2154 Rayburn.

Joint MeetingsJoint Economic Committee: to hold hearings on the em-

ployment and unemployment situation for July, 9:30a.m., 2212 Rayburn Building.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST

Congressional Record The public proceedings of each House of Congress, as reported bythe Official Reporters thereof, are printed pursuant to directionsof the Joint Committee on Printing as authorized by appropriate

provisions of Title 44, United States Code, and published for each day that one or both Houses are in session, excepting veryinfrequent instances when two or more unusually small consecutive issues are printed at one time. ¶ Public access to

the Congressional Record is available online through GPO Access, a service of the Government Printing Office, free of charge to the user.The online database is updated each day the Congressional Record is published. The database includes both text and graphics from thebeginning of the 103d Congress, 2d session (January 1994) forward. It is available on the Wide Area Information Server (WAIS) through theInternet and via asynchronous dial-in. Internet users can access the database by using the World Wide Web; the Superintendent ofDocuments home page address is http://www.access.gpo.gov/suldocs, by using local WAIS client software or by telnet toswais.access.gpo.gov, then login as guest (no password required). Dial-in users should use communications software and modem to call (202)512–1661; type swais, then login as guest (no password required). For general information about GPO Access, contact the GPO Access UserSupport Team by sending Internet e-mail to gpoaccess@gpo.gov, or a fax to (202) 512–1262; or by calling Toll Free 1–888–293–6498 or (202)512–1530 between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. ¶ The Congressional Record paper and24x microfiche will be furnished by mail to subscribers, free of postage, at the following prices: paper edition, $165.00 for six months, $325.00per year, or purchased for $2.75 per issue, payable in advance; microfiche edition, $141.00 per year, or purchased for $1.50 per issue payable inadvance. The semimonthly Congressional Record Index may be purchased for the same per issue prices. Mail orders to: Superintendent ofDocuments, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250–7954, or phone orders to (202) 512–1800, or fax to (202) 512–2250. Remit check or money order,made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or use VISA, MasterCard, Discover, or GPO Deposit Account. ¶ Following each session ofCongress, the daily Congressional Record is revised, printed, permanently bound and sold by the Superintendent of Documents in individualparts or by sets. ¶With the exception of copyrighted articles, there are no restrictions on the republication of material from theCongressional Record.

UNUME PLURIBUS

D948 August 5, 1999

Next Meeting of the SENATE

12 noon, Wednesday, September 8

Senate Chamber

Program for Wednesday: After the transaction of anymorning business (not to extend beyond 1 p.m.), Senatewill resume consideration of H.R. 2466, Department ofthe Interior Appropriations.

Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

10 a.m., Wednesday, September 8

House Chamber

Program for Wednesday: To be announced.

Extensions of Remarks, as inserted in this issueHOUSE

Andrews, Robert E., N.J., E1758Camp, Dave, Mich., E1754, E1756Costello, Jerry F., Ill., E1748Crowley, Joseph, N.Y., E1759Diaz-Balart, Lincoln, Fla., E1747Dooley, Calvin M., Calif., E1758Engel, Eliot L., N.Y., E1760Forbes, Michael P., N.Y., E1752Gallegly, Elton, Calif., E1755, E1757Goodlatte, Bob, Va., E1751Hayes, Robin, N.C., E1747Kelly, Sue W., N.Y., E1748

King, Peter T., N.Y., E1754Lantos, Tom, Calif., E1758Lipinski, William O., Ill., E1753, E1755McDermott, Jim, Wash., E1760McIntosh, David M., Ind., E1749Miller, George, Calif., E1759Mink, Patsy T., Hawaii, E1756Moore, Dennis, Kans., E1752Morella, Constance A., Md., E1756Nadler, Jerrold, N.Y., E1749, E1760Ney, Robert W., Ohio, E1758Ortiz, Solomon P., Tex., E1747Phelps, David D., Ill., E1756Sanchez, Loretta, Calif., E1747, E1751

Sanders, Bernard, Vt., E1750Saxton, Jim, N.J., E1754Serrano, Jose E., N.Y., E1749Skelton, Ike, Mo., E1750, E1752Stark, Fortney Pete, Calif., E1751Tancredo, Thomas G., Colo., E1759Towns, Edolphus, N.Y., E1757Waxman, Henry A., Calif., E1753, E1754Weiner, Anthony D., N.Y., E1749Wexler, Robert, Fla., E1748, E1751Wilson, Heather, N.M., E1747Woolsey, Lynn C., Calif., E1756Young, Don, Alaska, E1753, E1755

(Senate and House proceedings for today will be continued in the next issue of the Record.)