RECESS UNTIL 2:15
(Senate - July 29, 1998)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages S9181-S9211]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           RECESS UNTIL 2:15

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m.
  Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:40 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m.; 
whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding 
Officer [Mr. Roberts].
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, we have some housekeeping things before 
we go to the next amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3363

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Mr. Mack, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3363.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title IV, insert:

     SEC. __. LAND CONVEYANCE, UNITED STATES NAVAL OBSERVATORY/
                   ALTERNATE TIME SERVICE LABORATORY, FLORIDA.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--If the Secretary of the Navy 
     reports to the Administrator of General Services that the 
     property described in subsection (b) is excess property of 
     the Department of the Navy under section 202(b) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 
     U.S.C. 483(b)), and if the Administrator of General Services 
     determines that such property is surplus property under that 
     Act, then the Administrator may convey to the University of 
     Miami, by negotiated sale or negotiated land exchange within 
     one year after the date of the determination by the 
     Administrator, all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to the property.
       (b) Covered Property.--The property referred to in 
     subsection (a) is real property in Miami-Dade County, 
     Florida, including improvements thereon, comprising the 
     Federal facility known as the United States Naval 
     Observatory/Alternate Time Service Laboratory, consisting of 
     approximately 76 acres. The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the property shall be determined by a survey 
     that is satisfactory to the Administrator.
       (c) Condition Regarding Use.--Any conveyance under 
     subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that during 
     the 10-year period beginning on the date of the conveyance, 
     the University shall use the property, or provide for use of 
     the property, only for--
       (1) a research, education, and training facility 
     complementary to longstanding national research missions, 
     subject to such incidental exceptions as may be approved by 
     the Administrator;
       (2) research-related purposes other than the use specified 
     in paragraph (1), under an agreement entered into by the 
     Administrator and the University; or
       (3) a combination of uses described in paragraph (1) and 
     paragraph (2), respectively.
       (d) Reversion.--If the Administrator determines at any time 
     that the property conveyed under subsection (a) is not being 
     used in accordance with this section, all right, title, and 
     interest in and to the property, including any improvements 
     thereon, shall revert to the United States, and the United 
     States shall have the right of immediate entry thereon.
       (e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Administrator may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Administrator 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this amendment encourages GSA to convey 
property in Miami, should the Secretary of the Navy choose to access 
it. It is my understanding it has been accepted on both sides.
  Mr. KOHL. We accept that. That is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3363) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3364

(Purpose: To establish requirements for the provision of child care in 
                          Federal facilities)

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Mr. Jeffords, 
     for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Kohl, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 3364.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the amendment before us on the Treasury-
Postal appropriations bill concerns the provision of child care 
services located in federally-owned and -leased buildings. This 
amendment will go a long way towards ensuring that child care services 
located in federally-owned and leased buildings are safe, positive 
environments for the children of federal employees.
  I have been working closely with the Senate Committee on Government 
Affairs which has jurisdiction over this legislation. Chairman Thompson 
and his staff have been extremely helpful, as has the ranking member of 
that committee, Senator Glenn. The Senate Rules Committee was 
instrumental in crafting the language related to the Senate Employees' 
Child Care Center. I want to thank Chairman Warner, and Senator Ford 
and their staff for their assistance.
  This amendment was first introduced as a stand-alone bill on November 
7, 1997. It was drafted because of several serious incidents which 
occurred in federal child care facilities. At that time, it came to my 
attention that child care centers located in federal facilities are not 
subject to even the most minimal health and safety standards.
  As my colleagues know, federal property is exempt from state and 
local laws, regulations, and oversight. What this means for child care 
centers on federal property is that state and local health safety 
standards do not and cannot apply. This might not be a problem if 
federally-owned or leased child care centers met enforceable health and 
safety standards. I think most parents who place their children in 
federal child care would assume that this would be the case. However, I 
think federal employees will find it very surprising to learn, as I 
did, that, at many centers, no such health and safety standards apply.
  I find this very troubling, and I think we should be embarassed that 
child care in federal facilities child care cannot guarantee that 
children are in safe environments. The federal government should set 
the example when it comes to providing safe child care. It should not 
turn an apathetic shoulder from meeting such standards simply because 
state and local regulations do not apply to them.
  My amendment will require child care services in federal buildings to 
meet a standard no less stringent than the requirements for the same 
type of child care offered in the community in

[[Page S9182]]

which the federal child care center is located. The child care provider 
would not be required to obtain a state or local license, although that 
is an option open to them. The Government Services Administration would 
be responsible for establishing the rules and regulations necessary to 
ensure that each child care facility in a federal building meets the 
same level of standards applicable to other child care services in the 
community.
  In 1987, Congress passed the ``Trible amendment'' which permitted 
executive, legislative, and judicial branch agencies to utilize a 
portion of federally-owned or leased space for the provision of child 
care services for federal employees. The General Services 
Administration (GSA) was given the authority to provide guidance, 
assistance, and oversight to federal agencies for the development of 
child care centers. In the decade since the Trible amendment was 
passed, hundreds of federal facilities throughout the nation have 
established on-site child care centers which are a tremendous help to 
our employees.
  The General Services Administration has done an excellent job of 
helping agencies develop child care centers and have adopted strong 
standards for those centers located in GSA-leased or -owned space. 
However, there are over 100 child care centers located in federal 
facilities that are not subject to the GSA standards or any other laws, 
rules, or regulations to ensure that the facilities are safe places for 
our children. Most parents, placing their children in a federal child 
care center, assume that some standards are in place--assume that the 
centers must minimally meet state and local child care licensing rules 
and regulations. They assume that the centers are subject to 
independent oversight and monitoring to continually ensure the safety 
of the premises.
  Yet, that is not the case. In one case a federal employee had strong 
reason to suspect the sexual abuse of her child by an employee of child 
care center located in a federal facility. Local child protective 
services and law enforcement personnel were denied access to the 
premises and were prohibited from investigating the incident. Another 
employee's child was repeatedly injured because the child care 
providers under contract with a federal agency to provide on-site child 
care services failed to ensure that age-appropriate health and safety 
measures were taken--current law says they were not required to do so, 
even after the problems were identified and injuries had occurred.
  In addition, I believe that the federal government can and should 
lead by example. Federal facilities should always try to meet the 
highest possible standards. In fact, the GSA has required national 
accreditation in GSA-owned and leased facilities, and has stated that 
its centers are either in compliance or are strenuously working to get 
there. This is the kind of tough standard we should strive for in all 
of our federal child care facilities.

  For that reason, this amendment requires that within five years, all 
child care services located within federal facilities must become 
accredited by a professionally recognized child care accreditation 
entity. While state and local child care requirements generally ensure 
that those services meet the basic health and safety needs, child care 
credentialling entities go further. Accreditation also includes 
requirements that developmentally appropriate activities are an 
integral part of the program, that staff is trained, and that the 
program is a positive environment that contributes to the healthy 
development of children receiving child care services.
  There are several child care accreditation entities providing these 
services around the country. The National Council for Private School 
Accreditation is a coalition of 13 entities providing private school 
accreditation, many of which issue credentials to child care service 
providers. The Council on Accreditation of Services for Families and 
Children, Inc. has developed standards and guidelines that are used by 
several child care accreditation entities to ensure a high quality of 
care for children. The National Association for the Education of Young 
Children provides accreditation for child care centers throughout the 
country. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has been accrediting child 
care services longer than any other entity.
  Child care providers in federally-owned and leased facilities will be 
able to choose which child care accreditation they will obtain. In 
addition, the General Services Administration is permitted to develop a 
child care accreditation process to add to the choices already 
available to programs in federal facilities.
  Federal child care should mean something more than simply a location 
in a federal facility. The federal government has an obligation to 
provide safe care for the children of its employees, and it has a 
responsibility for making sure that those standards are monitored and 
enforced. Some federal employees receive this guarantee. Many do not. 
We can and must do better.
  Senators Landrieu and Dodd are original co-sponsors of this 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to help ensure high quality child care 
in federally owned and leased facilities by supporting this amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join my colleague 
from Vermont, Senator Jeffords and my colleague from Louisiana, Senator 
Mary Landrieu, in cosponsoring an amendment to require federal child 
care facilities to lead by example when it comes to child care quality.
  Up to this point Mr. President, we in the federal government have not 
shown strong leadership when it comes to child care quality.
  Many parents of children in federal child care facilities have been 
surprised to discover that these facilities are exempt from the state 
and local quality standards that apply to non-federal centers. Many 
parents have been surprised to find that the federal government does 
not require its centers to be accredited.
  With this amendment, for the first time, the more than 200 federal, 
non-military, child care centers would be required to meet all state 
licensing standards. For the first time, these centers would be 
required to demonstrate that they provide high quality child care by 
becoming accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting body.
  Child care shouldn't be like going to Las Vegas--where you roll the 
dice and hope for the best. Parents should be confident that when they 
are not able to be with their children, their children will still be 
well cared for. We shouldn't be gambling with our children's health and 
safety.
  This legislation will go a long way toward giving parents of children 
in federal facilities peace of mind.
  I should point out, Mr. President, that many of the child centers run 
by the federal government provide an invaluable service and excellent 
care to the children of federal workers and other families in the 
community. Many federal centers have even received accreditation from 
the National Association for the Education of Young Children--an 
outstanding private, non-profit accrediting entity.
  But this excellence is not uniform. In some federal agencies, only a 
minority of child care centers are accredited. Too many centers are 
falling through the cracks. And too many children are unnecessarily 
being placed at risk.
  Mr. President, at a time when we are asking our states and 
communities to take notice of the important research about brain 
development in young children--at a time when we all acknowledge how 
critical high quality child care is to helping children achieve their 
potential--shouldn't we, as federal government lead the way when it 
comes to providing the best care possible for our children?
  Mr. President, this legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support. It 
was incorporated into the CIDCARE bill that I co-sponsored with Senator 
Jeffords and was a part of the Child Care ACCESS Act that I offered 
with 27 of my Democratic colleagues earlier this year.
  This is an important step in improving the quality of our Nation's 
child care. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this amendment relates to Federal child 
care facilities. This amendment has been cleared by both sides of the 
aisle. I ask for its adoption.
  Mr. KOHL. We accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page S9183]]

  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3364) was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Alabama is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3362

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks on 
the family impact statement amendment offered by Senator Spencer 
Abraham earlier today. It is an amendment that I supported last year. I 
think it is a very, very important signal and an important event for 
this Government.
  I rise today in strong support of this important amendment and to 
voice my complete disagreement with antifamily action taken by 
President Clinton.
  In 1997, President Ronald Reagan, recognizing the importance of the 
American family and the need to be aware of the negative impact that 
Federal laws and regulations can have on the family, signed Executive 
Order 12-606. The purpose was to ensure that the rights of the family 
are considered in the construction and carrying out of policies by 
executive departments and agencies of this Government.
  Mr. President, even though we are faced with a staggering increase in 
out-of-wedlock births, rising rates of divorce, and increases in the 
number of child abuse cases, apparently President Clinton does not 
believe that considering the impact of regulations on families is good 
policy.
  Much to my dismay, on April 21, 1997, President Clinton signed 
Executive Order 13045, thus stripping from the American family any 
existing protection from harm in the formulation and application of 
Federal policies.
  President Reagan's Executive Order 12606, placed special emphasis on 
the relationship between the family and the Federal Government. 
President Reagan directed every Federal agency to asses all regulatory 
and statutory provisions ``that may have significant potential negative 
impact on the family well-being. * * *'' Before implementing any 
Federal policy, agency directors had to make certain that the programs 
they managed and the regulations they issued met certain family-
friendly criteria. Specifically, they had to ask:
  Does this action strengthen or erode the authority and rights of 
parents in educating, nurturing, and supervising their children?
  Does it strengthen or erode the stability of the family, particularly 
the marital commitment?
  Does it help the family perform its function, or does it substitute 
government activity for that function?
  Does it increase or decrease family earnings, and do the proposed 
benefits justify the impact on the family budget?
  Can the activity be carried out by a lower level of government or by 
the family itself?
  What message, intended or otherwise, does this program send 
concerning the status of the family?
  What message does it send to young people concerning the relationship 
between their behavior, their personal responsibility, and the norms of 
our society?
  The elimination of President Reagan's Executive Order 12606 is just 
the latest in a series of decisions that indicates the Clinton 
administration's very different approach to family issues. From the 
outset of President Clinton's first term, it became clear that his 
administration intended to pursue policies sharply at odds with 
traditional American moral principles. White House actions have ranged 
from the incorporation of homosexuals into the military to the 
protection of partial-birth abortion procedures, to opposing parental 
consent in cases involving abortion for minors.
  Mr. President, many have suggested it is community villages, in other 
words government, that raise children. But really it's families that 
raise children. Families are the ones who are there night and day to 
love, to care for, and to nurture children.
  Many bureaucratic regulations produce little benefit, but can have 
unintended consequences. The examples are too numerous to mention.
  What our amendment will do is to require the ``regulators'' to stop 
and take a moment to think through their regulations to make sure that, 
the most fundamental institution in civilization--the family, is not 
damaged by their actions. This is a reasonable and wise policy.
  Mr. President, I find it very odd that of all the Executive orders 
that exist, President Clinton would reach down and lift this one up for 
elimination. This body should speak out forcefully on this subject and 
I am confident we will. The families of America deserve no less.
  This amendment is a sound and reasonable piece of legislation which 
will restore a valuable pro-family policy that had been established for 
10 years.
  I urge all my colleagues to stand united, Republicans and Democrats, 
to show that the preservation of the family is not a partisan issue. 
Our voices united will send a loud and certain message to the President 
and this Nation that we consider family protection to be one of 
America's most important issues and we will not accept decisions that 
mark a retreat from our steadfast commitment to our Nation's families.
  Mr. President, I strongly believe that American families must be 
considered when the Federal Government develops and implements policies 
and regulations that affect families. Therefore, I am honored to be an 
original cosponsor for this amendment, which will reinstate the 
Executive order of President Reagan.
  I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Abraham, Faircloth, 
Hutchinson, for their dedicated work and help on this issue.
  As we know, there is some dispute and controversy and concern in this 
body concerning the President's proclivity to utilize executive 
regulations to carry out various policies that he wants to carry out. 
He eliminated this regulation of President Reagan by his own Executive 
Order, and in fact has stated and reflected his view that the American 
family is not at times jeopardized by the actions of this Government, 
and special watch and attention is not necessary to that.
  I just want to say this. Governmental policy in this country ought to 
consider what is good, wholesome, and healthy. The American family 
represents the finest opportunity to affect the growth, health, well-
being, the mental attitude, and the lawfulness of a young person. 
Healthy families tend to raise healthy children. It is not always so. 
It is not always so. Families that have trouble raise good kids a lot 
of time, and families that are personally good have troubled children.
  But fundamentally and historically we know, and there has been much 
data in recent months and years--you remember the article, ``Dan Quayle 
Was Right.'' So we know that there is a general consensus today that a 
healthy family is important.
  I think it was a bad signal. I think it is sad that in this entire 
monumental bureaucracy of this Federal Government that involves $1.7 
trillion in expenditures every year, you don't have to give special 
concern to your actions with regard to how they might impact the 
American family.
  I think in that regard the President made a serious error, and he 
sent a signal to this great Government and those who work for him 
within the executive branch that they don't have to give special 
scrutiny to it. I believe it was a mistake. Senator Abraham's amendment 
would restore that.
  I thank Senator Campbell for his interest and concern on these issues 
and for giving me a few moments to make these remarks.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Democratic leader is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3365

         (Purpose: To provide for marriage tax penalty relief)

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we lay aside 
the Abraham amendment, and I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3365.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page S9184]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The text 
of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments 
Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from South Dakota, 
Mr. Daschle, is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, as I noted this morning, Democrats have supported and 
continue to support tax relief for working families. In 1993, we 
supported tax cuts for millions of working families making less than 
$30,000 per year through an expansion of the earned income tax credit. 
Last year, we supported major tax relief proposals, including a $500-
per-child tax credit, a $1,500 HOPE education tax credit, a 20-percent 
lifetime learning credit, the reinstatement of student loan deductions, 
full deductibility of health insurance premiums for the self-employed, 
a cut in capital gains taxes for investors and small businesses, and an 
expansion of estate tax relief for family farms and businesses. All of 
these tax cuts for working families had one thing in common. They were 
consistent with a balanced budget; they were fully paid for.
  Democrats continue to have an ambitious agenda of tax relief for 
working families. But we also continue to insist that tax cuts be 
consistent with fiscal responsibility. This is because we understand 
that fiscal responsibility equals economic growth, and economic growth 
equals more jobs and higher wages.
  Part of our continuing agenda to provide working families with tax 
cuts is to provide them with substantial relief from the marriage 
penalty. In many families, married couples pay more in income taxes 
than if they had remained single. Democrats would like to remedy this 
undesirable aspect of our tax system.
  The amendment that I have just offered would let families deduct 20 
percent of the income of the lesser-earning spouse. This deduction 
would be phased out for families making between $50,000 and $60,000 a 
year. The 20-percent deduction would be an ``above-the-line'' 
deduction, ensuring that that everyone could claim it, regardless of 
whether they chose the ``EZ'' form or itemized their deductions on a 
more complicated tax form. Also, the deduction would be factored into 
the earned income tax credit calculation; that is, it would help people 
making less than $30,000 who may have no income tax liability against 
which to take the deduction.
  But, Mr. President, perhaps most important, contrary to the amendment 
offered this morning, this amendment is fully offset. The offsets 
include a number of proposals from the President's budget that have 
attracted broad support. Most of them would terminate unwarranted tax 
loopholes for corporations and investors. Because the amendment is 
fully offset, it is in keeping with the tradition and the practice that 
we have maintained all through the tax debate this year and previous 
years.
  To summarize, unlike the Brownback-Ashcroft amendment offered this 
morning, the Democratic amendment, first, focuses roughly 90 percent of 
its tax cut on families who are actually penalized., compared with 
about 40 percent to 45 percent for the Brownback amendment offered this 
morning.
  Second, it is fully offset. Its gross cost is $7 billion over 5 years 
and $21 billion over 10; but its net effect on the budget is zero. By 
contrast, the Brownback-Ashcroft amendment would have drained the 
Treasury and the Social Security trust fund by about $125 billion over 
5 years and $300 billion over 10 years.
  Therefore, if Senators are interested in delivering meaningful 
marriage penalty tax relief rather than simply grandstanding about it, 
they will want to support our amendment. Here are two examples of just 
how much tax relief our amendment would provide:
  First, a couple making $35,000, split $20,000 and $15,000 between two 
spouses. With our 20-percent, second-earner deduction, this couple 
would receive an additional deduction of $3,000, or 20 percent of the 
$15,000 income of the second earner. That translates into an annual 
family tax cut of about $450.
  Second, a couple making $50,000, in this case split $25,000 each 
between the two spouses. Under our 20-percent, second-earner deduction, 
the couple would receive an extra $5,000 deduction, or about $1,400 in 
actual cash-in-the-pocket tax relief.
  Mr. President, my amendment provides Senators with an opportunity to 
help hard-working married couples without busting the budget or 
endangering our efforts next year to restore the Social Security system 
to solvency for future generations.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President. I want to take a moment to explain my 
support for the Daschle amendment on marriage tax relief. As you know, 
earlier today I opposed the Ashcroft-Brownback amendment on the same 
subject. My concerns related to the wisdom of attaching such a 
substantial tax policy change to an appropriations bill. Also, the 
Brownback amendment was not offset--it would have thrown the budget off 
balance by approximately $125 billion. The marriage tax debate belongs 
within the context of a balanced budget and a comprehensive tax bill. 
And let me again state my hope that we will approve such a tax bill 
later this year.
  However, it's clear that today's debate is primarily about political 
messages and maneuvering. And, in that case, the record should 
demonstrate that my voice and vote definitely stands with those calling 
for the elimination of the marriage penalty. Our tax code should be 
family friendly. Couples who want to get married should not be 
discouraged from doing so based on how much they will owe in taxes. And 
tax policy changes should be fully offset and respect the principles of 
a balanced budget. For these reasons, I intend to support the Daschle 
marriage penalty amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Colorado is 
recognized.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, we spent almost 2 hours on the Ashcroft 
amendment. I assume that much of the debate that we have already gone 
through will be repeated.
  I don't think there is anyone on this floor who doesn't want to do 
something about the marriage penalty. We are all very comfortable with 
the fact that it is punitive, and I think all of us want to get rid of 
it, if we can. The question really has been, What is the vehicle to be 
able to do that?
  I ask the minority leader, since we have spent so much time on this 
already in the previous debate, if he would be interested in trying to 
work out some kind of a time agreement, because we have about 56 
amendments that we haven't cleared yet. It looks like it is going to be 
a long night, and a long day tomorrow, if we don't get some withdrawn, 
or some agreement on some of them.
  I ask the minority leader if he would be interested in a time 
agreement.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think the distinguished Senator from 
Colorado makes a very good point, and our desire is certainly not to 
complicate his efforts and the efforts of the distinguished ranking 
member to complete action on this bill. I know there are some Senators 
who wish to be heard on this particular version of the amendment, but I 
do believe that we can accommodate those Senators. I would be willing 
to enter into a time agreement of 30 minutes, if we could assume that 
there isn't going to be a great deal of debate on the other side. I am 
not sure we have to equally divide it. I propose we ask unanimous 
consent the vote on this amendment occur no later than 3 o'clock.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I concur with that, but we have not 
checked with the majority leader yet. So if I could perhaps ask for a 
quorum call until we confer with him? I appreciate the Senator's offer 
to limit that time to 30 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, Senator DeWine has been patiently 
waiting for a while to make a statement

[[Page S9185]]

and possibly offer an amendment. I ask unanimous consent at the 
conclusion of his comments, I be allowed to suggest the absence of a 
quorum at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Ohio is 
recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Ohio yield?
  Mr. DeWINE. I certainly would.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield to allow me this opportunity to 
call up the reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy? I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to do so.
  Let me withhold.
  Mr. DeWINE. I will be more than happy to yield the floor for the 
Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized and 
retains the floor.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield again?
  Mr. DeWINE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator withhold on the amendment? As I 
understand, we can do it at this time and it will only take a minute.
  I ask unanimous consent the pending Daschle amendment be set aside 
with the understanding we will immediately come back to it after my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3367

 (Purpose: To extend the authorization for the Office of National Drug 
      Control Policy until September 30, 2002, and to expand the 
 responsibilities and powers of the Director of National Drug Control 
                    Policy, and for other purposes)

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself and Mr. 
     Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 3367.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is the reauthorization of the office 
of the drug czar, National Drug Control Policy. I do believe it has 
been accepted by both sides. It is critical that we have this amendment 
agreed to at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection--the Chair will observe the 
Chair is having difficulty hearing the Senator. Perhaps, if the Senator 
could speak up, it would be very helpful.
  Mr. HATCH. This is an amendment to reauthorize the Office of the 
National Drug Control Policy.
  In this era of passivity and neglect toward what I believe should 
remain a vigorous war on drugs, we as Americans must refuse to give up 
the fight against a youth drug plague that is threatening to erode the 
very core of our society. To do this, we must mount an unflappable 
effort against this drug scourge that continues to tighten its grip on 
our nation's children.
  Faced with such an ominous task, it is essential that the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy be maintained as the principal clearing 
house for the formulation and implementation of our nation's 
comprehensive counter-drug strategy. As a nation we simply cannot 
continue to turn our backs while drug abuse continues to run rampant 
among our youth.
  For this reason I implore each of my colleagues to support the Hatch/
Biden amendment, a substitute to H.R. 2610. This amendment truly 
represents a bipartisan effort to craft legislation that gives the 
office a meaningful reauthorization period and strengthens ONDCP's 
authority over drug control program agencies. In an effort to erase 
this Administration's abdication of its responsibilities to the 
Congress, the bill requires enhanced reporting requirements on the 
effectiveness of the National Drug Control strategy thus imposing far 
greater accountability to the Congress. It also disposes with an annual 
strategy that, under the Clinton administration, simply has served as 
an opportunity to grandstand in an effort to show that the President 
was going to take the drug war seriously in the future to make up for 
his past disinterest. Instead, the bill recognizes the comprehensive 
long term strategy drafted last year, and further requires an annual 
report that requires each administration to report on the success or 
failures of its strategy in the previous year.
  This substitute differs principally from the House bill in that it 
calls for a 4-year versus a 2-year reauthorization period; and, in that 
it does not statutorily mandate ``hard targets'' that must be achieved 
by 2001. Rather, consistent with ONDCP's previous authorization, it 
requires that ONDCP establish annual measurable objectives and long 
term goals. In addition, the legislation also officially authorizes 
ONDCP's Performance Measurement System which will provide the Congress 
and the American people with the specific data needed to ascertain 
whether the strategy is working and where changes are necessary.
  The legislation also provides flexibility in the event of a change in 
Presidents or ONDCP Directors. In such case, the incoming President or 
Director has the option of either adopting and continuing with the 
current strategy, or abandoning it in favor of an entirely new 
strategy. In addition, at any time upon a finding by the President that 
the current strategy, or certain policies therein, are found not to be 
sufficiently effective, the President may submit a revised strategy.
  We have worked with ONDCP, the Armed Services Committee, and Senator 
Biden to resolve a significant disagreement concerning ONDCP's 
involvement in, and authority over, the development of budgets of other 
agencies. We have crafted a process which allows ONDCP to have input at 
all stages of the budget drafting process and to decertify budgets 
which are inadequate to fulfill the responsibilities given to that 
agency. It also allows agencies who are forced to alter their budgets 
at the direction of ONDCP to submit an ``impact statement'' describing 
how such changes might affect the ability of that agency to fulfill its 
other responsibilities.

  I oppose a proposal by the administration to disband the office of 
``Supply Reduction'' headed by a deputy director, which was established 
to coordinate all law enforcement and interdiction programs, both 
domestic and international. As recognized by the legislation recently 
introduced by Senator DeWine, which I cosponsored, supply reduction is 
an integral part of our anti-drug efforts, and we need a deputy 
director specifically responsible for these efforts. We have, however, 
incorporated significant reorganizations of the leadership of ONDCP, 
including the new position of Deputy Director and a Deputy Director for 
State and Local Affairs.
  We have also strengthened the ONDCP office in many respects, 
including: (1) Clarifying the Director's authority by adding to his 
responsibilities that he shall represent the administration before the 
Congress on all issues relating to the National Drug Control Program, 
and that he shall serve as the administration's primary spokesperson on 
drug issues; (2) Requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture to give 
ONDCP an annual assessment of the acreage of illegal domestic drug 
cultivation; and (3) In order to strengthen ONDCP's ability to obtain 
information from its program agencies, adding provisions that require, 
upon the request of the Director, heads of departments and agencies 
under the National Drug Control Program to provide ONDCP with 
statistics, studies, reports, and other information pertaining to 
Federal drug abuse programs.
  I might also point out that the definition of ``drug control'' has 
been modified in the reauthorization to include underage use of alcohol 
and tobacco. This change codifies ONDCP policy begun under Republican 
administrations.
  While I recognize that there remain some concerns over reauthorizing 
this office in light of the Clinton administration's abysmal record on 
drugs, it is my belief that we must employ every possible weapon that 
is available to fight the drug war, including the authorization of a 
national drug office with teeth, which will be held accountable to take 
real action in combating illegal drug abuse. This bill achieves

[[Page S9186]]

that goal. For this reason, I urge each of my colleagues to support 
this amendment, and to work in a bipartisan manner to address 
legitimate concerns as we go to conference.
  Let me highlight why this issue is so pressing. Drug use by teenagers 
is one of the most serious domestic problems facing our nation today: 
In my mind, it may be the most crucial issue for our nation's ability 
to craft productive and law-abiding citizens. The worsening problem of 
drug abuse among our children and teens wreaks havoc on the lives and 
potential of thousands of young people each year. If we do not act 
decisively, we will pay a heavy price.
  According to the highly respected Monitoring the Future study 
published by the University of Michigan, drug use among young people 
began a steady decline in the early 1980's which continued until 1992. 
Survey after survey demonstrated that we were on the right track in 
raising children free from drug abuse.
  These declines, which I believe were largely the result of the strong 
leadership of Presidents Reagan and Bush, are not just statistics. The 
1980's and early 1990's produced a generation of young adults with low 
rates of substance abuse. We reap the benefits of that fact every day 
as those young men and women succeed in the workforce and build their 
families and communities. We see the benefits of our work in the 1980's 
and early 1990's in the lower drug abuse rates and declining crime 
rates we find among adults today.
  But just as we are realizing some benefit today from the hard work of 
the last decade, we will pay the price for the failures of the 1990's. 
Young people are being raised in an environment lacking in definition 
of moral leadership. As I saw these trends developing, I spoke out and 
demanded that this administration reverse course: I particularly 
recall, in 1993, President Clinton's first drug czar--Lee Brown--saying 
that drug control was no longer ``at the top of the agenda'' for the 
administration. Indeed, the administration's first drug control 
strategy in 1993 noted that there was developing ``a loss of public 
focus which has also allowed the voices of those who would promote 
legalization to ring more loudly.'' Mr. Brown's concerns regarding 
legalization, as we all know, were realized in some States. I feared 
then that the blame for this loss of public focus on the drug war would 
be laid at the feet of the Clinton administration. The Committee's 
warnings were frank, continuous, and bipartisan. In recent years, under 
the leadership of General Barry McCaffrey, we have seen some efforts to 
make up for the years of neglect. Yet, notwithstanding his efforts I 
believe drug control--and ONDCP--lack the full backing of President 
Clinton and the results are indisputable.
  The steady downward trends of the 1980's and early 1990's were 
tragically reversed. Remember that each percentage point we discuss 
represents thousands of teens who are much more likely to become bigger 
problems for society as they become adults.
  As measured by use in the past month, drug abuse by high school 
seniors jumped 27 percent in 1993, 20 percent in 1994, and an 
additional 9 percent in 1995. Past-monthly abuse by 10th graders 
skyrocketed by 27 percent in 1993. The 1996 National Household Survey 
on Drug Abuse published by Health and Human Services, published last 
year, shows that between 1992 and 1996 the number of 12- to 17-year-
olds having used marijuana in the past year more than doubled--from 1.4 
million to 2.9 million.
  The annual use of any illicit drug among high school students has 
dramatically increased since 1991--from 11 percent to 24 percent in 
1996 for 8th graders, from 21 percent to 38 percent for 10th graders, 
and from 29 percent to 40 percent for 12th graders.
  Lifetime use statistics show a similar trend--from 19 percent in 1991 
up to 31 percent in 1996 for 8th graders, from 31 percent up to 45 
percent for 10th graders, and from 44 percent to 51 percent for 12th 
graders.
  As for marijuana use for 8th graders, it is clear that marijuana use 
shot from 10 percent in 1991 to 23 percent in 1997.

  Although marijuana is still the most readily available drug across 
the United States, teenagers can obtain just about any drug they desire 
with little problem. Today, illegal drugs are more easily obtained than 
alcohol or tobacco.
  To those who suggested that marijuana does not serve as a gateway to 
even more harmful drug use, there are very few instances that I am 
aware of where the first drug a child ever tried was heroin or 
methamphetamine. Most teens tell you that they first experimented with 
marijuana. Studies show that if kids smoke marijuana, they have an 85 
times greater propensity to move on to experiment with harder drugs. 
General Barry McCaffrey should be commended for his personal leadership 
in fighting the trends towards tolerance for marijuana use.
  While marijuana use increasing, the use of other drugs--harder 
drugs--is growing at a dramatic rate. The use of methamphetamine has 
skyrocketed in the Western half of the country. Easy manufacturing and 
the increasing market have helped make methamphetamine cheaper and more 
available to kids.
  What is the reason behind this surge in teen drug consumption? I 
believe several things. First, in recent years there has been a decline 
in anti-drug messages from elected leaders--like President Clinton--and 
similar messages in homes, schools, and the media, Second, the debate 
over the legalization of marijuana and the glorification of drugs in 
popular culture has caused confusion in our young people. Third, 
disapproval of drugs and perception of risk has declined among young 
people. The percent of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders who ``disapproved'' 
or ``strongly disapproved'' of use of various drugs declined steadily 
from 1991 to 1995. In 1992, 92 percent of 8th graders, 90 percent of 
10th graders, and 89 percent of 12th graders disapproved of people who 
smoked marijuana regularly. By 1996, however, those figures had dropped 
significantly.
  Previous administrations recognized that education and treatment 
programs were only effective if coupled with tough criminal deterrence 
and effective interdiction. Statistics clearly show that as the 
interdiction dollars go down, drugs use goes up.
  I was recently pleased to hold a hearing on teen drug use. We heard 
from a teenager named Rachel who recounted her personal experience with 
drug addiction. We also heard testimony from two physicians, Dr. Nancy 
Auer and Dr. Sushma Jani who have seen in our emergency rooms and 
hospitals the devastating effects that drug abuse has had on our 
nation's youth. Lastly, we heard from Chris, an individual who works as 
an undercover officer in high schools in Ohio--to protect his continued 
ability to provide this valuable service, his identity was shielded 
during the hearing.
  In conclusion, I think it is clear that the rates of youth drug abuse 
are neither stable nor acceptable, but are instead rising sharply. I 
was therefore very surprised to hear President Clinton claim on the 
world stage in his recent speech before the United Nations that ``drug 
use by our young people is stabilizing, and in some categories, 
declining.'' I believe that we are in the middle of a crisis and that 
the time for action long since passed.
  Passage of this legislation will be a crucial part of that action.
  As I understand it, this is acceptable to both managers of the bill. 
So I urge its adoption.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment with 
Senator Hatch to reauthorize the Drug Director's Office. Senator Hatch 
and I have been assisted by several other Senators in this effort, and 
I would just note that the reauthorization bill reported by the 
Judiciary Committee last year was cosponsored by Senators Thurmond, 
DeWine, Coverdell, and Feinstein.
  I would also note that since then, we have worked closely with 
Senator McCain to meet some concerns that he had raised relating to the 
Drug Director's budget certification powers. And, the language we have 
negotiated with Senator McCain  is incorporated into the text offered 
in this amendment.
  This bipartisan legislation will, I hope, result in speedy action to 
keep the Drug Director's Office in place--no matter what perspective 
any of us have on any specific drug policy, this legislation is about 
whether we will have a

[[Page S9187]]

Drug Director and Drug Office to be responsible for--and accountable 
to--a national drug policy.
  In 1987, before my legislation creating the Drug Office finally 
became law, There was no official in charge of the administration's 
drug effort; and, because there was no Cabinet official in charge, 
every Cabinet official could duck responsibility to talk about tough 
drug policy issues--and, guess what, that meant no administration 
talked about drugs and no administration was accountable on drugs.
  Just as with my original drug czar legislation, the Hatch-Biden 
amendment retains its central goal--holding every administration and 
every President accountable on the drug issue.
  The Hatch-Biden amendment does so in several ways:
  First, and this was one of Chairman Hatch's top priorities, Hatch-
Biden requires the Clinton administration to identify measurable 
objectives for the National Drug Strategy, and provide on February 1, 
1999, specific answers about whether these objectives have been met;
  Second, Hatch-Biden retains the current law about the administration 
submitting a detailed annual drug budget--every line of which is 
reviewed and changed in the annual congressional appropriations 
process.
  To this, Hatch-Biden adds a requirement--called for by General 
McCaffrey--for budget projections covering the next 4 years. In other 
words, this prevents any ``pie-in-the-sky'' promises, which are not 
backed up by specific budget projections.
  Third, and this is the major change proposed by General McCaffrey and 
included in Hatch-Biden, instead of the overall drug strategy, it 
requires a detailed annual report which will focus the administration 
and the Congress on the ``nuts and bolts'' of implementing the 
strategy.
  As Senator Hatch points out--instead of a strategy in which an 
administration tells us what it is going to do about drugs; this report 
will force any administration to tell us what they have accomplished 
against drugs.
  Hatch-Biden includes specific language requiring:
  That the annual report include any necessary modifications of the 
drug strategy;
  A whole new strategy if the current strategy proves ineffective;
  An annual assessment of the progress on the specific, measurable 
goals identified in the drug strategy;
  Goals that are required by law to address--current drug use; 
availability of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana; drug 
prices, and purity among many others; and
  That any new President or new Drug Director submit a new drug 
strategy.
  Finally, the key addition of the annual report included in Hatch-
Biden is the ``performance measurement system''--which would add nearly 
100 detailed measures, each with a definite timetable.
  These measures are all about holding the 50 drug agencies and offices 
accountable to the drug policy goals of the administration--the one 
task that all Drug Directors have found exceedingly difficult to 
actually implement.
  Just to identify a few of these specific measures:
  Increase asset seized from drug traffickers by 15 percent; increase 
drug trafficking organizations dismantled by 20 percent in high 
intensity drug trafficking areas; and reduce worldwide coca cultivation 
by at least 40 percent.
  Of course, we would all like each of these measures to be achieved 
immediately--but, even if we could do this efficiently, the costs would 
be staggering--an additional $60-$90 billion over just the next 3 
years. So, achieving these goals will take time.
  One final point on the general's performance measurement system--if 
we are to give him a fighting chance to increase the accountability of 
all the drug agencies, we have to put this system in law. For, if we do 
not, mark my words, the general will be defeated by all the career 
officials in all the drug agencies who want to stop this increased 
accountability.
  Another element of General McCaffrey's proposal which has been 
included in Hatch-Biden is to require that the No. 2 official in the 
office--the Deputy Director--have to come before the Senator for 
confirmation just like the demand deputy, supply deputy and State and 
local deputy.
  I favor this because the hearing, committee, and floor votes on the 
Deputy Director would give the Senate another important opportunity to 
hold any administration accountable on drugs.
  In addition, the key mission of the Drug Office--holding the nearly 
50 agencies and offices with drug policy responsibilities accountable--
requires having officials with the credentials of Senate confirmation.
  The Hatch-Biden amendment also includes specific language calling for 
``scientific, educational, or professional'' credentials for whomever 
is nominated for the demand deputy job.
  This is an issue that Senators Grassley and Moynihan have really been 
the leaders on--and I just acknowledge their key role in this aspect of 
Hatch-Biden.
  I also note that, at the chairman's insistence, the length of time of 
this reauthorization has been drastically shortened.
  While the general initially proposed to authorize the office for 12 
years, Hatch-Biden reauthorizes for 4 years through September 30, 2002.
  In closing, I would point out that this legislation has been through 
a long process here in the Senate and that this process has resulted in 
a strong, bipartisan bill.
  I understand that the two managers of the bill, Senators Campbell and 
Kohl, are willing to accept this amendment. I appreciate their support, 
and the support of the full Senate for the reauthorization of the Drug 
Director.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I might add this amendment is acceptable 
to both sides. It is a very, very important program. It is basically 
the drug czar's program. We know we have spent an awful lot of money on 
this program in the last few years, but clearly it is having an effect 
on reducing teenage drug use in particular. I just wanted to add my 
comments to those of the Senator from Utah that this is a good 
amendment.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, the 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3367) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3354

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to pay for an abortion or to pay 
for the administrative expenses in connection with certain health plans 
                  that provide coverage for abortions)

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I believe my amendment is already at the 
desk. I call up my amendment in regard to Federal employees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment of the 
Senator from South Dakota is set aside, and the clerk will report the 
amendment of the Senator from Ohio.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine], for himself, Mr. 
     Abraham, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Brownback and Mr. Santorum, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3354.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VI, add the following:
       Sec.  . No funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
     available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative 
     expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal 
     employees health benefit program which provides any benefits 
     or coverage for abortions.
       Sec.  . The provision of section ___ shall not apply where 
     the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were 
     carried to term, or the pregnancy is the result of an act of 
     rape or incest.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to offer an 
amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Abraham, Senator Sessions, 
Senator Brownback, and Senator Santorum.
  This is an amendment that would maintain in force--and let me 
emphasize that--would maintain in force the current law, the status 
quo. This amendment would remain and keep in force the current Federal 
law restricting Federal employee health insurance

[[Page S9188]]

coverage for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the 
life of a mother.
  This is the same amendment that was accepted by voice vote during the 
debate for fiscal year 1998, the Treasury-Postal appropriations. This 
is the same amendment that was accepted by this body during the debate 
for fiscal year 1996. And, in fact, this is the same language that has 
been consistently supported by a bipartisan group of Senators and 
Representatives from 1983 to 1998, with the exception of only 2 years. 
So from 1983 to 1998, that has been the law of the land with the 
exception of only 2 years.
  Mr. President, I mention this to you and to my colleagues to make it 
clear that this amendment stakes out no new ground. It merely confirms 
what the status quo is today, what this body and what the other body 
have consistently voted in favor of.
  The principle that we are dealing with today is a very simple one, 
one that goes beyond the conventional pro-life, pro-choice boundaries. 
I think everyone in this Chamber knows that I am pro-life and, 
therefore, wish to promote the value of protecting innocent human life.
  I point out that the vast majority of Americans on both sides of the 
abortion issue--on both sides of the abortion issue--strongly agree 
that they should not pay for someone else's abortion, and that is what 
we are talking about today. Fairly stated, this amendment is not about 
abortion, it is not about the morality of abortion, or the right of 
women to choose abortions. This is a narrowly focused amendment that 
answers a key question: Should taxpayers pay for these abortions?
  Mr. President, Congress has consistently agreed that we should not 
ask the taxpayers to promote a policy, in essence, of paying for 
abortion on demand for a Federal employee.
  Again, this amendment would maintain the status quo. It limits 
Federal employee health plans to cover abortions only in the case of 
rape, incest, or threats to the life of the mother.
  The vast majority of Americans oppose subsidizing abortions. That is 
clear. Employers, as a general principle, determine the health benefits 
their employees receive. Taxpayers are the employers of our Federal 
workforce, and a large majority of taxpayers simply do not want their 
tax dollars to pay for these abortions. Taxpayers provide a substantial 
majority share of the funds to purchase health insurance for the 
Federal civilian workforce. Over three-quarters of that premium on an 
average is paid for by taxpayers.
  This amendment addresses the same core issue. It simply says that the 
Federal Government is not in the business of funding abortions. 
Abortion is a contentious issue, and we simply should not ask taxpayers 
to pay for them.
  Mr. President, this issue has been debated time and time and time 
again on this floor. I will say the identical language has been debated 
time and time and time again.
  Everyone in this Chamber has voted on this issue. Current law limits 
abortion availability in Federal employee health care plans to cases, 
again, of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. That is set 
in law. This has been the bipartisan position of the Senate and the 
bipartisan position of the House, and it has been approved by the 
President last year and the year before. We should not voluntarily take 
the money of many Americans who find abortion wrong to pay for those 
abortions. We should not go against the will of the people of this 
country. We should uphold the current law, and that is what this 
amendment would simply do.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Ohio, 
Senator DeWine, for offering this important amendment.
  This amendment will maintain in force the current law restricting 
Federal funding for abortions to cases of rape, incest, or life of the 
mother.
  This amendment would leave in place the restriction on Federal 
Employee Health Benefit Plans which prevents those plans from paying 
for abortions except in the case of rape or incest, and when the life 
of the mother is in danger.
  The principle here is simple: Should the taxpayers, regardless of 
whether they are pro-life or not, be forced to pay for abortions?
  Make no mistake about it, abortions provided under the Federal 
Employee Health Benefits Program would be subsidized by the taxpayers. 
Although employees are charged for the health plan they elect, a 
significant portion of the cost of those plans is offset by the 
Government using taxpayer dollars.
  Therefore, by participating in a health plan, employees who oppose 
abortion are effectively subsidizing abortions when they pay their 
health insurance premiums. If the major health plans all fall in line 
and start paying for abortions, employees who are morally opposed to 
abortion are put in a very difficult position.
  There are millions of Americans, myself included, who feel very 
strongly that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. It is 
unconscionable to ask taxpayers to subsidize elective abortions.
  Whatever your position on abortion is, this is one point we should 
all be able to agree on.
  Congress has consistently agreed that we should not ask taxpayers to 
promote a policy, in essence, of paying for abortion on demand by a 
Federal employee.
  This is the same amendment that was accepted by voice vote during the 
debate for fiscal year 1998 Treasury-Postal Appropriations; accepted by 
this body during the debate for fiscal year 1996; and in fact, this is 
the same language that has been supported by a bipartisan group of 
Senators and Representatives from 1983 to 1998.
  Madam President, I will just say this. People in this country can 
disagree about the sensitive issue of abortion. The laws are as they 
are. Some people like them, some people don't like them. But with 
regard to the question of whether or not taxpayers ought to be required 
to fund abortions, this country and the law and the vote of almost 
every State and this Congress has been not to fund that, and not to 
take taxpayers' money from individuals who feel very, very deeply and 
personally about this issue and expend that money to eliminate life. 
That is not a choice that we believe this Congress ought to make. We 
ought to prohibit it as part of this legislation. Maybe we won't even 
need a vote on it. But if we do, so be it. I think it will pass again 
this year, as it has.
  Again, I appreciate the work of the Senator from Ohio for 
reestablishing this year this important principle.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the DeWine 
amendment which would prohibit female federal employees from accessing 
affordable, safe and legal abortion related services as part of their 
health insurance benefits.
  I am always tempted to say, ``here we go again.'' Another assault on 
women's health and another barrier for women to safe, affordable 
reproductive health services. For some of my colleagues, the 1973 
landmark Roe versus Wade decision was not clear enough or they continue 
to attempt to restrict a women's right guarantee in this decision.
  Instead of standing up and arguing that a woman should not have 
choices or that women should not be allowed to access safe, affordable 
reproductive health services, some of my colleagues hide behind the 
issue of federal funding.
  Health benefits have been, and always will be for the benefit of the 
federal employee. It is a form of compensation. Every worker knows that 
health insurance is part of their compensation package, not a gift, not 
a loan, but something that they have earned. Health benefits are part 
of one's salary. This is no different for a federal employee or an 
employee of Boeing.
  We would never see an amendment on the floor of the Senate dictating 
to federal employees how they spend their salary. As long as the 
employee spends this compensation on a legal commodity, we cannot 
restrict his or her decisions. Simply because they are employed by the 
American taxpayer does not mean that we can dictate how they spend 
their salary.
   However, some of my colleagues are proposing to do just that. We are 
telling female federal employees how they can or cannot spend their 
health insurance benefits. In addition to denying federal employees the 
basic constitutional rights afforded every other

[[Page S9189]]

woman, we are proposing to dictate how they spend their compensation.
  Not only are health benefits considered employee compensation earned 
by the employee, federal employees are also responsible for up to 40 
percent of the cost of the premiums as well as any deductibles or 
copays. So in fact we are telling female federal employees how to spend 
their take home pay as well.
  If a federal employee uses his or her own salary to purchase a 
firearm is this federal funding of handguns? I would argue no. Even 
though there are federal taxpayers who oppose handguns, we do not 
restrict the right of federal employees to use their federal salary to 
purchase one. But, telling female federal employees how they can spend 
their insurance benefits is just as offensive. Only in this case it is 
probably more detrimental as it denies female federal employees access 
to safe, affordable reproductive health service.
  One could argue that female federal employees should pay out of 
pocket for certain reproductive health services and not depend on her 
health benefits to cover or provide this protection. I would like to 
point out that federal employees by and large are not well paid CEOs. 
They live pay check to pay check and many are single mothers. Covering 
a $600 or $1,000 health care bill is just not possible. Economic 
barriers are just as solid as legal or social barriers. Denying health 
insurance coverage for a full range of reproductive health services, is 
denying access to these services for many female federal employees.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose efforts to make second class citizens 
of female federal employees. They deserve our support and they deserve 
to be treated with dignity and respect. Instead of attacking a woman's 
right to make her own personal health decisions let's work to prevent 
unintentional pregnancies. I urge my colleagues to support federal 
family planning programs and contraceptive equity. The Supreme Court 
has already said that abortion with some restrictions is a legal right 
afforded all Americans. Let's not force federal employees to pay the 
price of political football, but rather let's do more to improve access 
to safe, affordable family planning benefits.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by Senator DeWine.
  The bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee would enable 
federal employees, whose health insurance is provided under the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Plan, to receive coverage for abortion 
services.
  The DeWine amendment would prohibit coverage for abortion, except in 
cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. It would continue a ban 
which has prevented federal employees from receiving a health care 
service which is widely available for private sector employees.
  I oppose this amendment for two reasons. First of all, it is an 
assault on the earned benefits of federal employees. Secondly, it is 
part of a continuing assault on women's reproductive rights and would 
endanger women's health.
  We have seen vote after vote designed to roll back the clock on 
women's reproductive rights. Since 1995, there have been over 81 votes 
in the House and Senate on abortion-related issues. It's clear that 
this unprecedented assault on a woman's right to decide for herself 
whether or not to have a child is continuing, as this amendment 
demonstrates.
  Well, I support the right to choose. And I support federal employees. 
And that is why I strenuously oppose this amendment.
  Let me speak first about our federal employees. Some 280,000 federal 
employees live in the State of Maryland. I am proud to represent them. 
They are the people who make sure that the Social Security checks go 
out on time. They make sure that our nation's veterans receive their 
disability checks. At NIH, they are doing vital research on finding 
cures and better treatments for diseases like cancer, Parkinson's and 
Alzheimers. There is no American whose life is not touched in some way 
by the hard work of a federal employee. They deserve our thanks and our 
support.
  Instead, federal employees have suffered one assault after another in 
recent years. They have faced tremendous employment insecurity, as 
government has downsized, and eliminated over 200,000 federal jobs. 
Their COLA's and their retirement benefits have been threatened. They 
have faced the indignity and economic hardship of three government 
shutdowns. Federal employees have been vilified as what is wrong with 
government, when they should be thanked and valued for the tremendous 
service they provide to our country and to all Americans.
  I view this amendment as yet another assault on these faithful public 
servants. It goes directly after the earned benefits of federal 
employees. Health insurance is part of the compensation package to 
which all federal employees are entitled. The costs of insurance 
coverage are shared by the federal government and the employee.
  I know that proponents of continuing the ban on abortion coverage for 
federal employees say that they are only trying to prevent taxpayer 
funding of abortion. But that is not what this debate is about.
  If we were to extend the logic of the argument of those who favor the 
ban, we would prohibit federal employees from obtaining abortions using 
their own paychecks. After all, those funds also come from the 
taxpayers.
  But no one is seriously suggesting that federal employees ought not 
to have the right to do whatever they want with their own paychecks. 
And we should not be placing unfair restrictions on the type of health 
insurance federal employees can purchase under the Federal Employee 
Health Benefit Plan.
  About 1.2 million women of reproductive age depend on the FEHBP for 
their medical care. We know that access to reproductive health services 
is essential to women's health. We know that restrictions that make it 
more difficult for women to obtain early abortions increase the 
likelihood that women will put their health at risk by being forced to 
continue a high-risk pregnancy.
  If we continue the ban on abortion services, and provide exemptions 
only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest, the 1.2 million 
women of reproductive health age who depend on the FEHBP will not have 
access to abortion even when their health is seriously threatened. We 
will be replacing the informed judgement of medical care givers with 
that of politicians.
  Decisions on abortion should be made by the woman in close 
consultation with her physician. These decisions should be made on the 
basis of medical judgement, not on the basis of political judgements. 
Only a woman and her physician can weigh her unique circumstances and 
make the decision that is right for that particular woman's life and 
health.
  It is wrong for the Congress to try to issue a blanket prohibition on 
insuring a legal medical procedure with no allowance for the particular 
set of circumstances that an individual woman may face. I deeply 
believe that women's health will suffer if we do so.
  I believe it is time to quit attacking federal employees and their 
benefits. I believe we need to quit treating federal employees as 
second class citizens. I believe federal employees should be able to 
receive the same quality and range of health care services as their 
private sector counterparts.
  Because I believe in the right to choose and because I support 
federal employees, I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the 
DeWine amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I oppose the DeWine amendment, which will 
curb the rights of women who work for the federal government to obtain 
abortion services through their health insurance. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Over one million women of reproductive age rely on the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program for their medical coverage. This 
amendment will stop them from using their own insurance to exercise 
their right to choose an abortion. The exceptions in this ban are 
inadequate to protect the rights of women.
  Women who are employed by the Federal Government work hard. They pay 
for their health premiums out of their own pockets. They deserve the 
same, full range of reproductive health benefits as women who work in 
the private sector.
  The question is: Should female federal employees or their dependents 
be treated the same as other women in the work force, or should they be 
treated differently, singled out, with their rights taken away from 
them?

[[Page S9190]]

  In 1993 and 1994, Congress voted to permit federal employees to 
choose a health care plan that covered abortion. Unfortunately, this 
Republican Congress over-turned that right.
  This bill provides funding for the full range of health benefits 
through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. We should ensure 
that these benefits remain in the bill by opposing this amendment.
  Anti-choice forces are chipping away at the right of women in this 
country to obtain safe, legal abortions. They are making a woman's 
ability to exercise that choice dependent on the amount of her paycheck 
and the employer who signs it. It's simply unjust.
  If there were an amendment to stop a man who happens to work for the 
Federal Government from getting a perfectly legal medical procedure, 
one that might protect his health, there would be an uproar on this 
floor. People would say, how dare you do that to the men of this 
country? Why not treat the men who work for the Federal Government the 
same way we treat men who work in the private sector?
  Decisions about health care--including reproductive health care--
should be made by patients and their doctors--not by HMO bureaucrats or 
politicians. Decisions about abortion are tough, personal, and private. 
We need to trust women to make that choice.
  Let's ensure that all federal employees have the rights, the 
protections, and the healthcare coverage they deserve. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I am 
truly sorry we have to address it every year.
  The bill we passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee treats 
federal employees just as private employees with health insurance 
coverage are treated: they are permitted to join a health care plan 
that covers a full range of reproductive health services, including 
abortion. The bill returns us to the policy that was in place before 
November of 1995. Currently, two-thirds of private fee-for-service 
health plans and 70% of HMOs provide abortion coverage.
  Like so many of my colleagues, I support a woman's right to choose, 
and I support policies that will keep abortions legal, safe, and rare. 
I also support anyone's right not to participate in a health plan that 
covers abortion, and federal employees can choose such plans under the 
bill as we passed it out of Committee.
  Adding this amendment, and continuing the unfair policy of the past 
few years, will impose real consequences, and real pain for government 
workers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
two letters that tell what these consequences were for two families of 
federal workers.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Compounding A Tragedy: Congress Gives Medical Advice

                                                September 6, 1996.
       Dear Senator: I've been a federal employee for 13 years. My 
     husband and I were elated this summer when I became pregnant. 
     At age 36, I was in the ``advanced maternal age'' category, 
     so my insurance company, Kaiser Permanete offered us genetic 
     screening as routine pre-natal care. They didn't mention that 
     Congress had erased the option to terminate a pregnancy, even 
     on the advice of my physician.
       I was scheduled for a sonogram at 14 weeks to make sure 
     we'd correctly estimated how far along I was. My husband, my 
     mother and my sister accompanied me to the ultrasound waiting 
     room because seeing this baby was a big event.
       I realized something was odd when both the sonogram 
     technician and the radiologist spent so much time looking at 
     my baby's head. The radiologist had detected abnormalities 
     and recommended that only my husband be allowed in to see the 
     sonogram. The radiologist termed it severe hydrocephalus--we 
     saw an empty skull. A week later, the perinatologist at 
     Fairfax Hospital's Antenatal Testing Center gave an even 
     colder picture. She called it holoprosencephaly and said the 
     fetal development was incompatible with life. All of the 
     doctors I saw agreed there was no hope for the fetus, and 
     recommended terminating as soon as possible.
       We were devastated. To compound the tragedy came the news 
     that as of January this year, companies insuring federal 
     workers are prohibited from covering abortions. I have since 
     learned that federal employees are the exception--coverage 
     for medically necessary abortions is provided for others by 
     my insurance company. In the end, we paid a very high fee to 
     have the abortion because the fetal anomaly made the 
     procedure more complicated.
       My husband and I question whether Congress is implying we 
     were immoral for aborting this fetus and hoping to get 
     pregnancy with a healthy child. Our decision was no wanton or 
     frivolous; it was heartbreaking. My abortion was the day 
     before my 37th birthday, and each year I face a higher 
     probability of having to terminate another pregnancy because 
     of a genetic problem. Yet, we really want to raise a family 
     and will keep trying.
           Sincerely,

                                           Susan Alexander and

                                                 Christopher Durr,
     Alexandria, VA.
                                  ____

                                               September 10, 1997.
       Dear Representative: My name is Kim Mathis.I live in 
     Talladega, Alabama with my husband who works at the Federal 
     prison in town. We are both covered under my husband's health 
     insurance plan for federal employees and their families.
       In February of last year, we learned that I was pregnant. 
     During a routine appointment my doctor performed a standard 
     A.F.P. test. This is a test that they offer to check for 
     neural tube defects and other problems. About a month later, 
     my doctor told me that the test came back positive and he 
     wanted me to go to a specialist for more tests.
       I immediately scheduled an appointment with the specialist. 
     During my exam, they performed an ultrasound and found that 
     my A.F.P. test results were elevated because I was carrying 
     twins.
       My next appointment was in May. This time the doctor 
     studies the ultrasound for almost and hour. After the doctor 
     was finished, he wanted to talk with us privately. It was at 
     that time that I knew that something was wrong. He told us 
     that was an unusually rare pregnancy. He told me that my 
     twins, which were boys, suffered from Twin-to-Twin 
     Transfusion Syndrome. Both babies shared the same blood 
     vessels. Because of this, the baby on top was giving his 
     blood and water to the baby on the bottom. The smaller twin 
     was about one month smaller in size than the larger twin. The 
     doctor said the larger twin was growing too fast. He also 
     told us that the smaller twin did not have kidneys and his 
     heartbeat was very slow. At that time, he gave us a 20% 
     chance of one of the twins surviving the pregnancy.
       After consulting with the doctor, my husband and I decided 
     that the best thing to do would be to end the pregnancy.It 
     was the hardest decision of my life.
       After we made our decision our doctor asked us what kind of 
     insurance we had. My husband told him and the doctor informed 
     us that he had never had a problem with their coverage. When 
     we arrived home that evening, we looked in my husband's 
     benefit plan book for 1996 which plainly stated that ``legal 
     abortions'' were covered.
       A few weeks after the termination we received the first 
     letter from our insurance company. The letter stated that our 
     claims were denied. After further inquiries we learned that 
     they denied our claims because Public Law 104-52 was enacted 
     on November 19, 1995 which limited federal employees health 
     benefits plans coverage of abortion.
       By this time, the hospital was harassing us. They turned 
     our accout over to collections agency. We received countless 
     threating letters and telephone calls at work. In the 
     October, my husband and I were forced to file bankruptcy. Our 
     lives and financial future have been ruined.
       I am writing this letter so you will know what happened to 
     us and so that you can change this law. Families like ours 
     should not have to go bankrupt in order to receive 
     appropriate medical care.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Kim Mathis.

  Mr. KOHL. One had to abort a fetus with no brain. Not only did they 
have the heartbreak of a failed pregnancy, but they also faced the high 
financial burden of a major operation not covered by insurance. The 
second letter tells of a family that had to abort non-viable twins. The 
cost of this complicated and necessary abortion bankrupted them.
  I understand and respect the deeply held convictions of both sides in 
the abortion debate. But it is not fair to allow our heated political 
debate to do real harm to the people who work for the government. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, before the Senator from Ohio came to the 
floor, we were in the process of trying to get a time agreement on the 
Daschle amendment. I ask the Senator if he would mind laying his 
amendment aside so we might finish the Daschle amendment as soon as we 
hear from the majority leader.
  Mr. DeWINE. No objection.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S9191]]

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3365

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I call for the regular order with respect 
to the Daschle amendment and ask that there be 20 minutes, equally 
divided, prior to the motion to table, and I then be recognized to make 
the motion to table and with no second-degree amendments in order prior 
to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. For the next 20 minutes, the floor would be open for 
discussion on the pending amendment, or Senators could speak on other 
issues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the amendment?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, while we are waiting, we are making 
progress in reaching agreements on other amendments.


                           Amendment No. 3368

 (Purpose: To provide for the adjustment of status of certain Haitian 
                               nationals)

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Mr. Graham, 
     for himself, Mr. Mack, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Moynihan, Mrs. 
     Feinstein, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Durbin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3368.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill that will bring justice to 
thousands of Haitian nationals who fought for democracy and freedom 
against the greatest odds.
  Last November, Congress passed the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central 
American Relief Act to protect those who fled Communism and oppression 
in Central America during the 1980s.
  But while that legislation was a monumental step forward for 
fairness, it left one deserving group completely unprotected.
  Just as brave Central Americans resisted tyranny in their native 
countries, Haitians struggled to free themselves from oppression.
  In fact, many Haitians seeking asylum in our country are here because 
they challenged a regime that was wantonly violating basic human 
freedoms.
  Mr. President, these brave Haitians have suffered greatly for the 
causes of freedom and democracy.
  They should not be forced to endure serious disruptions in their life 
once again.
  Even though conditions in Haiti have improved greatly since 1994, 
Amnesty International reports that human rights abuses still occur.
  As people who contribute mightily to the strength of our communities, 
the Haitians living in the United States should not be forced to risk 
returning to the scene of their prior persecution . . . to face the 
possibility that it might happen again.
  This amendment is a bipartisan effort. Senators Mack and I--along 
with the cosponsors of the bill I introduced last year, Senators 
Kennedy, Abraham, Moseley-Braun, D'Amato, Moynihan, Feinstein, Kerry of 
Massachusetts, Durbin, and Lautenberg--have joined together to ensure 
that the Haitian people who have sought fairness and justice for so 
long receive it in 1998.
  We have the bipartisan support of leaders ranging from President 
Clinton to Republicans like Jack Kemp and my Florida colleagues Ileana 
Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln Diaz Balart.
  Mr. President, we have left no stone unturned in crafting this 
legislation. We've asked for input from all sources.
  Senator Abraham held a hearing on this bill in December of 1997. The 
bill was marked up and passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on 
April 23, 1998.
  I have personally met with Senator Lott and explained the importance 
of this legislation to my state of Florida.
  Now we ask our Senate colleagues to take action. The 40,000 Haitian 
nationals in the United States face deportation in December if Congress 
does not act.
  Our nation was built as a bastion of freedom and a haven for those 
fleeing oppression around the world. We embrace that heritage in this 
legislation.
  Specifically, our bill helps three groups of individuals--a total of 
40,000--adjust their status to legal residency.
  Those who were paroled into the United States from Guantanamo Bay, 
after careful screening by immigration personnel.
  These individuals were flow to the United States for review because 
their asylum cases were deemed to be valid and credible.
  Our bill also helps those who were not paroled from Guantanamo, but 
who came to our nation and filed an application for asylum before 
December of 1995.
  Finally, it reaches out to a small group of unaccompanied or orphaned 
Haitian children.
  The members of each of these three groups are legally here in our 
country.
  They have followed all the laws of our land. This legislation will 
give them the chance to continue working here. It will help them as 
they build small businesses. It will keep their U.S. citizen children 
in school.
  Most importantly, it will keep their vibrant spirit and determined 
work ethic alive in our cities and communities.
  During our field hearing, I saw the problem that Haitians face 
through the eyes of a bright, young student. She couldn't come to the 
hearing because she was working at one of the two jobs she holds to pay 
her community college tuition. Alexandra Charles is eighteen years old.
  She is an orphan who came to the United States when she was ten years 
old--after her mother was brutally murdered by Haitian military 
officials.
  She has over a dozen relatives in the United States who are legal 
residents, but who are not closely related enough to be sponsors.
  She has virtually no relatives left alive in Haiti.
  Like many individuals in similar circumstances, Ms. Charles was 
granted a suspension of deportation.
  But this relief was withdrawn after the Board of Immigration Appeals 
ruled that the 1996 immigration law retroactively affected cases like 
hers.
  Alexandra's future in the United States looks bright.
  She is a hard worker and a model student.
  But without this legislation, our nation will lose the benefit of her 
special skills and her dedication to our community.
  Alexandra is just one of the thousands of law-abiding, hard working 
individuals who will not be allowed to pursue their valid asylum claims 
due to the retroactive nature of our 1996 immigration law.
  I ask for your help in this fight for justice and fairness.
  Let us prove once again that our nation values those who put their 
lives on the line in the struggle for freedom and democracy.
  Mr. MACK. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Graham/Mack 
immigration amendment to the Treasury/Postal Appropriations bill. I 
strongly believe that this amendment is the right thing to do for the 
Haitian community and that it is consistent with our treatment of 
similarly-situated immigrant groups.
  I would like to provide the Senate with some background information 
on what has led Senator Graham and me to introduce this amendment, a 
brief explanation of the amendment, and the policy rationale behind the 
amendment.
  First of all, some legislative history on events leading up to the 
introduction of this amendment. Last year, Senator Graham and I 
introduced legislation which was intended to ease the transition into 
implementation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996, otherwise known as IRAIRA. Our bill simply 
clarified that immigrants who were in the administrative pipeline for 
suspension of deportation when IRAIRA was enacted would have their 
cases for suspension considered under the rules in

[[Page S9192]]

place when they applied for suspension, not the new rules contemplated 
by IRAIRA. I was concerned with the unfairness of changing the rules on 
people midstream.
  While this bill was under consideration in the Senate, an agreement 
was reached in the House of Representatives which gave even greater 
relief to the Nicaraguan community--the ability to adjust to legal 
permanent resident status.
  Once it was apparent that Nicaraguans would be granted the 
opportunity to adjust to legal permanent resident status, the Haitian 
community made an attempt to be included in the relief. Although they, 
too, had a compelling case, it was not possible to include them in the 
final bill at that point in the negotiations. However, Senator Graham 
and I made a commitment to seek appropriate relief for the Haitians 
this Congress, and received assurances from the Administration that 
they would defer potential deportation decisions of the affected 
Haitians until after Congress had an opportunity to consider 
legislative relief.
  This amendment, identical in text to Senate bill 1504, which was 
reported favorably out of the Judiciary Committee, would provide 
permanent resident status to certain Haitians who fled Haiti after the 
Aristide regime was toppled in a brutal military coup in 1991 and were 
either paroled into the country or applied for asylum by December 31, 
1995.
  This amendment is more narrow than the legislation passed last year 
which gave permanent resident status to Nicaraguans, since the scope 
and number of people covered is much smaller. Under last year's bill, 
nearly every Nicaraguan in the United States before December 1, 1995 
was made eligible to adjust their status, approximately 150,000 people. 
Our amendment helps only a limited class of Haitians, estimated at 
30,000-40,000, who have sought the help of the United States in fleeing 
persecution. Let me emphasize that point again--this amendment is for 
those who have actively sought U.S. help, not those who came illegally 
and sought to evade detection.
  There are two different categories of Haitians involved. The first 
category are those paroled into the country after being identified as 
having a credible fear of persecution. Nearly all in this category, 
approximately 11,000 Haitians, were pre-screened at Guantanamo Bay and 
found to meet a credible fear of persecution test. These 11,000 
Haitians represent approximately 25% of those screened at Guantanamo, 
the other 75% were returned to Haiti. The second category are those 
Haitians who have applied for asylum by December 31, 1995. In the case 
of those in the second category, they are people who have been caught 
in an asylum backlog not under their control and may have a difficult 
time now, due to the passage of time, demonstrating a credible fear of 
persecution. In the meantime, they have put down roots in this country 
and are making positive contributions to their communities.
  I am talking about a twenty-five year old woman, Nestilia Robergeau, 
who fled Haiti, where she had been beaten and raped and her brother was 
murdered. Even though she was screened into this country through 
Guantanamo in 1992, she is still waiting for an asylum interview. In 
the meantime, she has graduated from high school and hopes to attend 
college to become a nurse. She works most days from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 
to support herself and her teenage brother.
  And then there is a little fourth grade girl in Miami, Florida, 
Louiciana Miclisse. Both of her parents were shot and killed in Haiti, 
and the only relative she has now is her Aunt Nadia, who came with her 
from Haiti. She wants to grow up to be a doctor. She has applied for 
asylum, but her case has still not been considered. Do we really want 
to send this child back to Haiti where she has no family? Is that what 
this country is all about? I believe we are more compassionate than 
that.
  It's also important to mention that conditions in Haiti are not safe 
for the return of these people. At an immigration subcommittee field 
hearing last December, the committee was informed that the Haitian 
government has not yet established the civil institutions necessary to 
protect these refugees from further retribution by those who 
perpetrated human rights crimes. In fact, it appears that these 
criminals continue to operate with impunity.
  As I mentioned at the outset, this amendment is consistent with our 
treatment of similarly-situated immigrant groups. As Grover Joseph 
Rees, former General Counsel of INS under President Bush, testified at 
the subcommittee field hearing last December, it has been the rule 
rather than the exception that when a human rights emergency has led to 
the admission of large numbers of parolees from a particular country, 
such refugees and others similarly situated have been subsequently 
granted permanent residency through Congressional action. Congress has 
granted permanent residence on this basis in the past to Hungarians, 
Poles, Soviets, Vietnamese, Chinese, Cambodians, Laotians, Cubans, and, 
most recently, Nicaraguans. This action for the Haitians is entirely 
consistent with our past treatment of similarly-situated groups from 
other countries.
  This amendment is the right thing to do, and this is the right time 
to do it. The Haitians who are affected by this situation have been 
left in limbo far too long. I urge my colleagues to support the Graham/
Mack amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, it is a privilege to join Senator 
Graham, Senator Mack, Senator Abraham and our other distinguished 
colleagues in supporting legislation to provide permanent residence to 
Haitian refugees. Last year Congress enacted the Nicaraguan Adjustment 
and Central American Relief Act, which enabled Nicaraguan and Cuban 
refugees to remain permanently in the United States as immigrants. That 
legislation also enables Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Eastern Europeans 
and nationals from the former Soviet Union to seek similar relief on a 
case-by-case basis.
  Haitian refugees deserve no less.
  Haitians have seen their relatives, friends and neighbors jailed, or 
murdered, or abducted in the middle of the night and never seen again. 
Like other refugees, they have fled from decades of violence and brutal 
repression by the Ton Ton Macoutes, and later the military regime which 
overthrew the first democratically elected president of Haiti.
  The Bush and Clinton Administrations found that the vast majority of 
these refugees were fleeing from political persecution in Haiti. 
Thousands of these Haitians were paroled into the United States after 
establishing a credible fear of persecution. Many others filed bona 
fide applications for asylum upon arrival in the United States.
  This legislation also includes a significant number of unaccompanied 
children and orphans who did not have the capacity to apply for asylum 
for themselves. Senator Abraham and I proposed an amendment which was 
approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee to include these deserving 
children in this legislation.
  This legislation concerns basic fairness. The United States has a 
long and noble tradition of providing safe haven to refugees. Over the 
years, we have enacted legislation to provide Hungarians, Cubans, 
Yugoslavs, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Poles, Chinese, and many 
other refugees with permanent protection from being returned to 
unstable or repressive regimes.
  Last year, we adopted legislation to protect Nicaraguans, Cubans and 
others, but, the Haitians were unfairly excluded from that bill. The 
time has come for Congress to remedy this flagrant omission and add 
Haitians to the list of deserving refugees.
  By approving this legislation, we can finally bring to an end the 
shameful decades of unjust treatment to Haitians. Throughout the 1980s, 
less than 2 percent of Haitians fleeing the atrocities committed by the 
Duvalier regimes were granted asylum. Yet, other refugee groups had 
approval rates as high as 75 percent. Haitian asylum seekers were 
detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, while asylum 
seekers from other countries were routinely released while their asylum 
applications were processed. Until recently, Haitians have been the 
only group intercepted on the high seas and forcibly returned to their 
home country, without even the opportunity to seek asylum.
  Like other political refugees, Haitians have come to our country with 
a strong love of freedom and a strong

[[Page S9193]]

commitment to democracy. They have settled in many parts of the United 
States. They have established deep roots in their communities, and 
their children born here are U.S. citizens. Wherever they have settled, 
they have made lasting contributions to the economic vitality and 
diversity of our communities and the nation.
  This legislation has strong bipartisan support. It is also supported 
by a range of nation-wide organizations, including the U.S. Catholic 
Conference, the Church World Service, the American Baptist Churches, 
the Mennonite Central Committee, the Council of Jewish Federations, the 
Lutheran Immigration Refugee Service, the United Methodist General 
Board of Church and Society, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and many, 
many more.
  We should do all we can to end this current flagrant discrimination 
under the immigration laws. Haitians refugees deserve too--the same 
protection we gave to Nicaraguans and Cubans last year. We need to pay 
more than lip service to the fundamental principle of equal protection 
of the laws.
  Finally, the amendment has been modified to resolve a budget problem, 
deeming approximately 1000 Haitians ineligible for Supplemental 
Security Income and Medicaid. A similar budget concern was not raised 
last year when the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief 
Act was considered. I am hopeful that this new injustice can be 
remedied as the Haitian legislation moves forward. I urge the Senate to 
accept this amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. This amendment is acceptable to both sides. I urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3368) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3369

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that a postage stamp should 
                  be issued honoring Oskar Schindler.)

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Mr. 
     Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 3369.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       Since during the Nazi occupation of Poland, Oskar Schindler 
     personally risked his life and that of his wife to provide 
     food and medical care and saved the lives of over 1,000 Jews 
     from death, many of whom later made their homes in the United 
     States.
       Since Oskar Schindler also rescued about 100 Jewish men and 
     women from the Golezow concentration camp, who lay trapped 
     and partly frozen in 2 sealed train cars stranded near 
     Brunnlitz;
       Since millions of Americans have been made aware of the 
     story of Schindler's bravery;
       Since on April 28, 1962, Oskar Schindler was named a 
     ``Righteous Gentile'' by Yad Vashem; and
       Since Oskar Schindler is a true hero and humanitarian 
     deserving of honor by the United States Government:
       It is the sense of the Congress that the Postal Service 
     should issue a stamp honoring the life of Oskar Schindler.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, this amendment has been cleared by 
both sides. I urge its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3369) was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Daschle 
amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3370

(Purpose: To improve access to FDA-approved prescription contraceptives 
                              or devices)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Ms. Snowe, for 
     herself and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3370.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be expended by the Office of Personnel Management to enter 
     into or renew any contract under section 8902 of title 5, 
     United States Code, for a health benefits plan--
       (1) which provides coverage for prescription drugs, unless 
     such plan also provides equivalent coverage for all 
     prescription contraceptive drugs or devices approved by the 
     Food and Drug Administration, or generic equivalents approved 
     as substitutable by the Food and Drug Administration; or
       (2) which provides benefits for outpatient services 
     provided by a health care professional, unless such plan also 
     provides equivalent benefits for outpatient contraceptive 
     services.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall apply to a contract with 
     any of the following religious plans:
       (1) SelectCare.
       (2) PersonalCare's HMO.
       (3) Care Choices.
       (4) OSF Health Plans, Inc.
       (5) Yellowstone Community Health Plan.
       (6) and any other existing or future religious based plan 
     whose religious tenets are in conflict with the requirements 
     in this Act.
       (c) For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``contraceptive drug or device'' means a drug 
     or device intended for preventing pregnancy; and
       (2) the term ``outpatient contraceptive services'' means 
     consultations, examinations, procedures, and medical 
     services, provided on an outpatient basis and related to the 
     use of contraceptive methods (including natural family 
     planning) to prevent pregnancy.

  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today, along with my colleague 
Senator Reid, to offer an amendment to the Treasury-Postal 
appropriations bill that will produce two critical results: It will 
provide women who work for the federal government the equality in 
health care and the affordable access to prescription contraception 
coverage they need and deserve; and it will help reduce the number of 
unintended pregnancies and abortions in this country.
  The Snowe-Reid amendment says that if a health plan in the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program, or FEHBP, provides coverage of 
prescription drugs and devices, they must also cover FDA-approved 
prescription contraceptives. It also provides that plans which already 
cover outpatient services also cover medical and counseling services to 
promote the effective use of those contraceptives.
  That's it, Madam President. That's the extent and scope of the Snowe-
Reid amendment. It only prevents health plans in the FEHBP from carving 
out exceptions for FDA-approved prescription contraceptives that 
prevent pregnancy.
  It does not cover abortion in any way, shape or form. It does not 
cover abortion related services such as counseling a woman to seek an 
abortion. And it does not require coverage of RU-486, because RU-486 is 
not a method of contraception. Let me repeat, this amendment does not 
require coverage of RU-486.
  The Snowe-Reid amendment also respects the rights of religious plans 
that, as a matter of conscience, choose not to cover contraceptives. 
Again, I want to make it clear that this amendment clearly exempts such 
plans.
  Finally, the Snowe-Reid plan isn't going to break the bank or burden 
American taxpayers. In fact, CBO has estimated that the cost to the 
federal government would be less than $500,000, and under CBO's 
practice of scoring bills to the nearest million dollars, CBO stated: 
``this provision would have no effect on the budget totals in FY 
1999.''
  So the Snowe-Reid amendment is a practical, common sense, cost 
effective approach to effecting the kind of public health policy that 
should set an example for the rest of the nation's insurers to follow.

[[Page S9194]]

  The need for this visionary measure is clear. Today, nearly 9 million 
Federal employees, retirees, and their dependents participate in the 
FEHBP. Fully 1.2 million are women of reproductive age who rely on 
FEHBP for all their medical needs. Unfortunately, the vast majority of 
these women are currently denied access to the broad range of safe and 
effective methods of contraception.
  In fact, according to the Office of Personnel Management, which 
administers the FEHBP, 81 percent of plans do not cover all five of the 
most basic and widely used methods of contraception and 10 percent of 
these plans do not cover any type of contraception at all.
  The ramifications of this are dramatic. When 8 out of 10 women 
enrolled in the FEHBP aren't covered for the leading methods of 
contraception, their choices are unfairly limited. Who are we to pick 
and choose what method works best--or is most medically suited--for 
each individual woman?
  The fact is, different women require different methods of 
contraception due to a variety of factors. If there is only one method 
of contraception her plan offers, where does that leave her? And even 
more to the point, why do we leave this decision to her health care 
plan, instead of her health care provider?
  Across America, this lack of equitable coverage for prescription 
contraceptives contributes to the fact that women today spend 68 
percent more than men in health care costs. That's 68 percent. And this 
gap in coverage translates into $7,000 to $10,000 over a woman's 
reproductive lifetime.
  So I ask my colleagues: with 25 percent of all Federal employees 
earning less than $25,000--and nearly 18,000 Federal employees having 
incomes below or slightly above the Federal poverty level--what do you 
think is the likely effect of these tremendous added costs for these 
Federal employees?
  Well, I'll tell you the effect it has: many of them simply stop using 
contraceptives, or will never use them in the first place, because they 
simply can't afford to. And the impact of those decisions on these 
individuals and this nation is a lasting and profound one.
  Women spend more than 90 percent of their reproductive life avoiding 
pregnancy, and a woman who doesn't use contraception is 15 times more 
likely to become pregnant than women who do. Fifteen times. And of the 
3.6 million unintended pregnancies in the United States, half of them 
will end in abortion.
  I can't think of anyone I know, no matter their ideology, party, or 
gender, who doesn't want to see the instances of abortion in this 
nation reduced. Well, imagine if I told you we could do something about 
it, and do it at almost no cost to the federal government.
  That is what the Snowe-Reid amendment does. When the Alan Guttmacher 
Institute estimates that the use of birth control lowers the likelihood 
of abortion by a remarkable 85 percent, how can we ignore a provision 
like the Snowe-Reid amendment that will make the use of birth control 
more affordable to our Federal employees, and do so with negligible 
cost to the Federal government?
  And yet, as thoughtful an approach as the Snowe-Reid amendment may 
seem, I know that there will still be some in this body who will argue 
against it. Well, I believe these arguments do not withstand scrutiny, 
and I would like to take just a few minutes to explain why.
  Some may voice concern that the Snowe-Reid amendment requires 
coverage of abortion of drugs that induce abortion, such as RU-486. To 
which I will reiterate, the Snowe-Reid amendment only requires coverage 
of FDA-approved methods of contraception--that means contraception to 
prevent pregnancy.
  It is important to make it clear that we are only talking about 
methods of contraception under this amendment. And I might add, methods 
of contraception which will reduce the number of abortions in this 
country--so the fact is--if you want to see fewer abortions performed 
in the United States, you should support this amendment.
  When it comes to the incredibly personal issue of abortion we should 
be celebrating common ground, not condemning it. This amendment 
achieves that goal. It does not pretend to settle the issue of abortion 
in America--far from it. It does, however, provide a rallying point for 
those who want to see abortions reduced--all of us, I would think--and 
that's the reason people like Senator Reid who is prolife, support it 
on one side of the abortion debate and people like me on the other.
  Some opponents may say that pregnancy isn't really a medical 
condition, and therefore we shouldn't be requiring its coverage in the 
FEHBP. Obviously, anyone who says this hasn't been through pregnancy or 
childbirth. If pregnancy isn't a medical condition, then I'd like to 
know what is!
  And in this day and age when prevention is the buzzword--as it should 
be--how is it we can support prescription coverage to treat a variety 
of biological conditions but not to prevent one of the most dramatic 
and life-altering conditions of all?
  Still others may argue, ``Pregnancy is a lifestyle choice, and 
shouldn't be covered like diseases that are not''. Such an argument 
simply ignores reality as well as the facts.
  As Luella Klein, the director of women's health issues at ACOG, put 
it: ``There's nothing `optional' about contraception. It is a medical 
necessity for woman during 30 years of their lifespan. To ignore the 
health benefits of contraception is to say that the alternative of 12 
to 15 pregnancies during a woman's lifetime is medically acceptible.''
  Of course, we shouldn't be too surprised at the attitude of our 
opponents. Indeed, it wasn't until 1978--only twenty years ago--that 
Congress passed a law requiring that maternity benefits be covered like 
any other medical care. Before we passed the Pregnancy Discrimination 
Act, 43 percent of insurance policies didn't include coverage of 
maternity care. Sound familiar?
  So here we are, twenty years later, battling some of the same 
insurance companies that in 1978 didn't want to provide the same 
coverage we now take for granted. How can they still not cover the 
means to prevent what they already acknowledge through existing 
coverage as a medical condition?
  The fact is, all methods of contraception are cost effective when 
compared to the cost of unintended pregnancy. And with unplanned 
pregnancies linked to higher rates of premature and low-birth weight 
babies, costs can rise even above and beyond those associated with 
healthy births.
  As the American Journal of Public Health estimates, the cost under 
managed care for a year's dose of birth control pills is less than one-
tenth of what it would cost for prenatal care and delivery.
  So the question, then, is not ``How can we afford to expand coverage 
to prescription contraceptives?'' but ``How can we afford not to?''
  No, the cost argument doesn't hold water, Mr. President, and neither 
do any of the other arguments. The bottom line is, the Snowe-Reid 
amendment makes sense from a standpoint of fairness, from the 
standpoint of compassion, from the standpoint of cost effectiveness and 
from the standpoint of good public health policy.
  Maybe that's why the concept is supported by such diverse groups as 
the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family 
Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Reproductive 
Medicine, the American Medical Women's Association, and the Society for 
Adolescent Medicine.
  Whatever the reason, as an employer and model for the rest of the 
nation, the federal government should provide equal access to this most 
basic health benefit for women. This amendment would allow federal 
employees to have that option, one already provided an option for 
contraceptives through the Medicaid program. Why shouldn't the same 
federal commitment be extended to women employed by the federal 
government?
  In closing, Madam President, let me say that if we, as a nation, are 
truly committed to reducing abortion rates and increasing the quality 
of life for all Americans, then we need to begin focusing our attention 
on how to prevent unintended pregnancies. The Snowe-Reid amendment is a 
significant step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting it.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I want to thank Senators Snowe and

[[Page S9195]]

Reid, for offering this important amendment today. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of the Snowe amendment. I am also proud to be an original 
cosponsor of the Snowe-Reid bill on which this amendment is based.
  This amendment is about two things--it's about equity and it's about 
women's health.
  The Snowe amendment would help to narrow the gender gap for women in 
insurance plans. What it does it really is quite simple. It requires 
that any health plan for federal employees that covers prescription 
drugs must also cover prescription contraceptives.
  Federal Employee Health Benefit plans routinely cover prescription 
drugs. But they routinely discriminate against women by not including 
prescription contraceptives. In fact, 81% of the plans under FEHBP fail 
to cover all five of the leading types of contraceptives. Ten percent 
offer no coverage at all.
  Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of our federal employees. I am 
proud that so many of them call Maryland their home. They work hard in 
the service of our country. And I work hard for them. Whether it's 
fighting for fair COLAs, against disruptive and harmful shutdowns of 
the federal government, or fighting to prevent unwise schemes to 
privatize important services our federal workforce provide, they can 
count on me.
  Today, I am fighting for equity in health insurance coverage for 
federal employee women. The failure of the majority of federal health 
plans to cover all forms of prescription contraceptions results in 
unfair physical and financial burdens for women. It forces women of 
reproductive age to spend 68% more for out-of-pocket health care costs 
than men.
  This amendment would help to correct that inequity. That is one 
reason why I so strongly support it.
  I also support the Snowe amendment because it will help to safeguard 
women's health. As a member of the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources, I have worked hard for women's health. Whether it was 
establishing the Office of Women's Health Research at NIH, fighting for 
inclusion of women in clinical trials, or ensuring that women receive 
safe and accurate mammograms through the Mammography Quality Standards 
Act, I have fought to make sure that women's health needs are met.
  Contraception is a part of basic health care for women. This 
amendment will ensure that federally-employed women will have the tools 
they need to plan their families, to avoid unintended pregnancies and 
to reduce the need for abortion.
  Access to family planning is one of the most important issues facing 
women today. Family planning improves maternal and child health. We 
know that unwanted pregnancies are associated with lower birth weight 
babies and jeopardize maternal health. They also too often put a young 
woman's future academic and personal achievement in jeopardy. When the 
resources are available to help women make good, responsible choices 
about parenthood and their futures, we have no excuse for not making 
those tools available.
  I am proud that my own state of Maryland has been a leader in this 
area. Earlier this year, Maryland became the first state in the nation 
to require insurers that cover prescription drugs to also cover FDA-
approved prescription contraceptives. Maryland has once again shown 
itself to be on the leading edge of progressive health care policy.
  Today, the Senate has an opportunity to take the first steps in 
following Maryland's example. We can adopt the Snowe amendment. We can 
ensure that women in the federal workforce have equitable access to 
prescription contraceptions.
  I hope we will adopt this amendment today. And I hope we will bring 
to the floor soon the Snowe-Reid bill to ensure that all insurance 
plans that cover prescription drugs include contraceptive drugs and 
devices in that coverage.
  Ms. MURRAY. Madam. President, I want to thank the sponsor of this 
important amendment for all his work and effort on behalf of women's 
health. As a Senator who has long championed women's health issues and 
fought to protect women's health, I commend him for his efforts. I am 
pleased to join with him today in support of women's health equity.
  There has been a great deal of debate lately regarding contraceptive 
equity. Let me first start by explaining what this amendment does not 
do. It does not mandate benefits. Let me repeat that, this is not a 
mandate. If a plan does not have a prescription drug benefit then they 
do not have to add contraceptives. If a plan has a copy of deductible 
for prescription benefits, then contraceptives would also have the same 
copy or deductible. If a plan requires payments or deductibles for 
surgical services, then family planning benefits would also have the 
same copayments and deductibles. This is not a mandate. It simply says 
that plans cannot treat contraceptives any differently than medication 
to treat high blood pressure or to treat diabetes.
  This amendment does not increase federal spending. CBO has scored 
this amendment as having a minimal effect on spending. The cost is such 
that CBO cannot even estimate as it falls below their threshold for 
calculating or determining budgetary impact. I would argue that in fact 
it will have a positive impact on spending. Currently, 50 percent of 
all pregnancies in this country are unintentional. Increasing access to 
safe, affordable family planning can only reduce this number. The 
average cost annually of oral contraceptives is estimated at $400 to 
$500. The cost of an uncomplicated delivery is close to $4,000, this 
excludes any prenatal or postnatal care. It does not take a budgetary 
expert to conclude that there will actually be savings from this 
amendment.
  This amendment is also not about abortion. Let me make this very 
clear. This is not an abortion debate. No part of this amendment would 
require federal funding of abortions. It simply goes to those 
contraceptives that are currently approved by the FDA to prevent 
unintentional pregnancies. RU486 is not currently available in the 
United States. No plan would be required to cover RU486. If you ask any 
woman if there is a difference between abortion and contraceptives I 
can assure you that the answer would be yes.
  Now let me tell you all what this amendment does. This amendment goes 
to the heart of women's health. Reproductive health and effective 
family planning are women's health issues. It is hard to go a week 
without hearing one of my colleagues talk about the importance of 
women's health. There are probably well over 500 pieces of legislation 
pending that impact women's health. Every member strives to have a 
solid record on women's health issues. Every member claims to be a 
champion of women's health. Yet denying access to safe, affordable 
contraceptives for federal employees poses a serious threat to women's 
health. On average, without effective, safe family planning, most women 
could expect to endure 12 to 13 pregnancies in her life time. While 
most women have safe and healthy pregnancies, for some it still can be 
life threatening. And for most women 12 or 13 pregnancies does pose a 
serious health threat.
  In order to protect women's health and reduce infant mortality it is 
critical to plan for pregnancy. To place economic barriers for women to 
receive safe family planning services is to place a significant health 
burden upon us.
  Many women may not even be aware, but women can expect to pay up to 
68 percent more in out of pocket health care costs than men. Ask any 
woman if she is willing to pay 68 percent more for housing, or food or 
transportation and I can assure you the answer would be a resounding 
no. But, for health care this is actually what women face. I stand 
today to say we must reverse this trend. We already know that women can 
expect to earn 71 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Now we want 
to say that they should pay 68 percent more for health care or for any 
consumer product.
  This is a basic question of equity and fairness. This is even more 
evident in the federal work force. By and large the federal work force 
is younger and paid less than the private sector. Effective family 
planning is even more essential in a younger work force. Many federal 
employees who live pay check to pay check. Yet, female federal 
employees have no guarantee that their insurance will not discriminate 
against them. If there is a health care benefit

[[Page S9196]]

program that should offer a wide range of affordable reproductive 
health benefits, I would argue it must be the Federal Employees Health 
Benefit Plan.
  There are some of my colleagues who will argue it should be up to the 
plan or even some who will argue that Members of Congress should decide 
what methods of family planning are covered. It is these very Members 
of Congress who also argue that only the physician and patient should 
be making health care decisions. Not health plans or politicians. I 
urge my colleagues to think very carefully about who they want making 
life and death health care decisions. I would hope that my colleagues 
would concur that only physicians and the patient should be making 
these decisions. This is why the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists endorses this amendment. They know how dangerous it is to 
make life or death decisions based solely on economics or other 
arbitrary criteria.
  Economic barriers and discriminatory insurance practices do threaten 
women's health. The National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality 
determined that ``infant mortality could be reduced by 10 percent if 
all women not desiring pregnancy used contraceptives.'' With one action 
we could be reducing our tragic infant mortality rate in this country. 
The Institutes of Medicine's Committee on Unintended Pregnancy 
recommended that ``financial barriers to contraception be reduced by 
increasing the proportion of all health insurance policies that cover 
contraceptive services and supplies.'' As the largest purchaser of 
private health insurance in this country, the Federal Government should 
set the example for the private market. We should listen to the 
evidence of the medical community and research scientists and tear down 
economic barriers within the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan.
  I urge my colleagues to let women and their doctors decide, not 
politicians and certainly not economics. Having access to the most 
appropriate family planning method without economic sanctions is a 
women's health issue. Each woman must have the ability to make this 
decision based on the recommendations of her doctor. To most women, 
this is a major women's health vote. This is a question of equity and 
fairness but more importantly it is an issue of access to safe, 
affordable reproductive health care services.
  How would any Member of this body feel if we found out that our 
insurance policies would only provide access to one form of high blood 
pressure medication, regardless of the side effects? How would we react 
if a plan operating in the FEHBP said that they would charge a higher 
copayment for prescription drugs to treat heart ailments? How we would 
respond to these discriminatory practices that threaten quality, 
affordable health care for FEHBP participants? I can tell you how this 
member would respond. I would be on the floor offering amendments to 
end discriminatory insurance practices that result in nothing more than 
economic sanctions that diminished access to safe health care services.
  We owe our federal employees more and we should be a leader on 
women's health. I urge my colleagues to vote for women's health instead 
of just talking about it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I urge the Senate to approve the 
amendment by Senator Snowe and Senator Reid to provide fairness in 
prescription coverage for family planning.
  The provisions of this amendment will benefit millions of American 
women by helping to make the cost of preventing unintended pregnancy 
more affordable. They will also help to reduce the number of unintended 
pregnancies by providing women with greater access to a broad range of 
safe and effective family planning services.
  Too often, insurance companies refuse to cover these costs. Only a 
third of all private health plans currently cover oral contraceptives--
the most widely used prescription method of family planning. According 
to a study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, nearly half of all large-
group plans do not cover such prescriptions--despite the fact that 97 
percent of traditional fee-for-service plans routinely cover 
prescriptions for other medicines and medical devices. In a recent 
column in the Washington Post, David Broder called this lack of 
coverage ``one of the great stupidities in the health care system.''
  The result in that women are too often forced to rely on family 
planning without the full range of available methods. Women pay 68 
percent more than men in out-of-pocket health care costs--in large part 
because of the high cost of preventing unintended pregnancies. As Ellen 
Goodman noted in a column in The Boston Globe, ``Some women are making 
hard economic choices between paying their bills and buying pills.''
  Too often, women are forced to settle for the family planning method 
that is most affordable, rather than the one that is most effective. 
Inevitably, many of them are forced to settle for no method at all. The 
result is large numbers of unintended pregnancies each year, and large 
numbers of abortions. Clearly, greater access to reliable methods of 
birth control will substantially reduce the number of abortions.
  In the United States, it is estimated that half of all pregnancies 
each year are unintended. Three million women use no method of birth 
control, and they account for half of all unintended pregnancies. 
Greater access to insurance coverage will significantly reduce this 
number. As an editorial in the American Journal of Public Health points 
out: ``Contraception is the keystone in the prevention of unintended 
pregnancy.''

  The vast majority of women who use some form of birth control do not 
have insurance coverage to defray the cost. Often, they are forced to 
choose inexpensive methods with high failure rates. The proposal by 
Senator Snowe and Senator Reid is an important step in the right 
direction. It requires private insurance companies to cover FDA-
approved, prescription birth control drugs and devices in a manner 
comparable to all other prescription drugs and devices.
  Just as more effective birth control means fewer unintended 
pregnancies and fewer abortions, it also means more savings in health 
costs. An April, 1995 study in the American Journal of Public Health 
estimated that women who use prescription contraceptives will avoid far 
more in other health costs than the cost of the prescriptions.
  According to the Guttmacher Institute, the increased cost to 
employers who provide this coverage to their employees would be $17.00 
a person per year. That's an increase of just one-half-of-one percent 
over current costs per employee.
  This bill is sound public policy. It is supported by all major family 
planning organizations and by the vast majority of the American people. 
In surveys, 75 percent of Americans express support for increasing 
access to family planning services. And, 73 percent of survey 
respondents continue to be supportive, even if contraceptive coverage 
modestly increases their insurance premiums.
  Support for increasing this coverage clearly crosses party lines. It 
is sound public policy that has been too long in coming. I urge the 
Senate to approve it.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, over the past few years we have become 
increasingly aware of the need to improve women's health. I am an 
original cosponsor of S. 766, the Equity in Prescription Insurance and 
Contraceptive Coverage Act and am proud to support Senators Snowe and 
Reid today in their amendment to ensure contraception coverage for all 
women covered by the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program.
  I held a hearing on this issue in the committee on Labor and Human 
Resources on July 21, 1998, and am pleased to see interest in and 
support for this issue growing. It has been too long in coming, but I 
am glad to have the opportunity to be part of providing equity in 
health care for women. I look forward to the day when all American 
women will enjoy the same equity in coverage this amendment provides to 
women employed by the federal government.
  Out-of-pocket health care expenses for women are 68 percent higher 
than those for men, and most of the difference is due to noncovered 
reproductive health care. It is disturbing how rapidly some insurance 
plans began covering Viagra when it has taken so

[[Page S9197]]

long for many of them to begin covering contraceptives. This bill helps 
achieve gender equity in health benefits, and its passage would be a 
victory for women across the Nation.
  ``EPIC'' provides that if a health insurance plan covers benefits for 
other FDA-approved prescription drugs or devices, it also must cover 
benefits for FDA-approved prescription contraceptive drugs or devices. 
Further, ``EPIC'' provides that if the plan covers benefits for other 
outpatient services provided by a health care professional, it also 
must cover outpatient contraceptive services.
  The bill does not require special treatment of prescription 
contraceptives or outpatient contraceptive services compared to other 
prescription drugs or outpatient care.
  Each year more than half of all pregnancies in the United States--
approximately 3.6 million pregnancies--are unintended, and almost half 
of all unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Reducing unintended 
pregnancies by making effective contraception more widely available 
would reduce the need for abortion. For that reason, surveys suggest 
that most people favor increasing coverage of contraception by health 
insurance plans.
  The vast majority of private insurers cover prescription drugs, but 
many exclude coverage for prescription contraceptives. In contrast to 
the lack of coverage for reversible contraception, most plans do cover 
abortion and sterilization.
  The gender equity issue has been highlighted recently by the 
willingness of many health insurance plans to cover Viagra. A Kaiser 
Family Foundation national survey on insurance coverage of 
contraception conducted in May of this year demonstrated that 75 
percent of Americans 18 years and older supported coverage of 
contraception, but only 49 percent supported coverage of Viagra.
  The Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA) has estimated that 
the extra cost to employers who do not now cover reversible medical 
methods of contraception is about $16 per employee per year--or less 
than one percent of current health care premiums.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I would like to express my support 
for the amendment offered by Senators Snowe and Reid.
  I applaud the efforts of these two Senators in bringing to our 
attention the inequities that exist for men and women in federal health 
care plans.
  Most federal employee health care plans (FEHBP) cover a wide range of 
prescription drugs without covering prescription contraceptive drugs. 
In fact, almost all federal insurance plans fail to cover all five of 
the most widely used forms of contraception. Ten percent have no 
coverage of contraception at all.
  A health care plan's refusal to cover contraception is effective 
discrimination against women. Access to contraception should be a basic 
health benefit for female federal employees. And women should be able 
to choose the best method of contraception for them, depending on their 
medical history and personal health care needs.
  If adopted, this amendment will certainly help lower the rate of 
unintended pregnancies and reduce the need for abortion. That result is 
something positive on which we can all agree.
  The Federal Government should be conscientious and fair about how it 
treats its employees. It should be a model for private insurance plans, 
guiding them to provide the best health care possible for those who 
enroll in government-sponsored plans. Not allowing access to a full 
range of contraceptive services to the women who work in our own Senate 
offices, to the civilian employees in the Pentagon, to FBI and DEA 
agents, and to the female officers on the Capitol Police Force, to name 
a few examples, is unfair and essentially creates a two-tiered health 
care system for public and private sector employees.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I strongly support my colleague's 
amendment to require Federal Employee Health Benefits plans to treat 
prescription contraceptives the same as all other covered drugs. This 
amendment is critical to improving both equity and health care for 
federal employees.
  The Federal Employee Health Benefits plans should be a model for 
health insurance coverage for all Americans. Unfortunately, they fall 
far short when it comes to reproductive health. Ten percent of Federal 
Employee Health Benefits plans have no coverage for contraception. 81 
percent of plans do not cover the range of contraceptive care for 
women, including the most commonly used reversible contraceptives, 
including (oral contraceptives, diaphragm, IUD, Depo-Provera, and 
Norplant.
  This is an issue of gender equity. Women spend 68 percent more in 
out-of-pocket costs for health care than men. Much of this difference 
is due to reproductive health costs. For many women, contraceptives 
cost an additional $400 or more each year. By passing this amendment, 
we can take an important step toward eliminating this economic 
disparity.
  I note with some concern that this amendment allows certain plans to 
exempt themselves from complying with this requirement. This exemption 
will limit the scope of these gains for American women. It was my hope 
that we could ensure contraceptive parity for all, not some.
  I urge my colleagues to continue to pursue that aim, but I 
acknowledge that effort must be left for another day.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this amendment, ``yes'' for 
equity, and ``yes'' for the reproductive health of our Federal 
employees.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. It would require Federal Employees Health Benefit (FEHB) 
plans that cover prescription drugs to also cover FDA approved 
prescription contraceptives. This same amendment was included in the 
House version of our bill by a vote of 239-183.
  The issue of family planning should be one that brings together both 
sides of the abortion debate. Close to half of all pregnancies in the 
United States are unintended, and tragically, those unintended 
pregnancies often lead to abortion. By providing federal workers with 
the most appropriate and safe means of contraception, we can reduce the 
number of abortions performed and increase the number of children who 
are born wanted, planned for, and loved.
  I thank Senators Reid and Snowe for their leadership on this issue, 
and I hope the Senate follows the House's lead and gives this amendment 
our overwhelming support.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, this amendment will help to create gender 
equity in health care, will provide for healthier mothers and children, 
will lower the rate of abortion and it will cost the government 
nothing--in fact it may save money.
  We can do all of this requiring the Federal Employee Health Benefits 
(FEHB) plans to cover prescription contraception just as they cover 
other prescriptions.
  Currently, women of reproductive age spending 68 percent more in out 
of pocket health costs than men.
  The proposed amendment would require FEHB plans to treat prescription 
contraceptives the same as all other cover drugs. In so doing, it would 
help to achieve parity between the benefits offered to male 
participants in FEHB plans and those offered to female participants, 
there by narrowing the gender gap in insurance coverage.
  The vast majority of FEHB plans offer prescription drug coverage, but 
fail to cover the full range of prescription contraceptions.
  I have said it many times now, but I believe if men were the ones who 
needed prescription contraceptives, I have no doubt they would have 
been covered by insurance years ago.
  the FEHB Program should be the model for private plans. the United 
States Government, as an employer, should provide basic health benefits 
for women and families insured through FEHB.
  Eight-one percent of FEHB plans do not cover all five leading 
reversible methods of contraception. (Oral contraceptives, diaphram, 
IUD's, Norplant and Depo-Provera)
  Ten percent of FEHB plans have no coverage of contraceptives--they do 
not cover any of the five leading methods.
  Women should be receiving health care coverage equal to the coverage 
that every man receives from the federal employee health care benefits

[[Page S9198]]

plan--which is probably a majority of the male Senators in this 
chamber.
  Contraceptive services also help to promote healthy pregnancies and 
healthy birth outcomes. A study of 45,000 women suggests that women who 
used family planning services in the 2 years before conception were 
more likely to receive early and adequate prenatal care.
  The National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality estimated that 10 
percent of infant deaths could be prevented if all pregnancies were 
planned; in 1989 alone, 4000 infant lives could have been saved.
  Now, we have all gone through the long abortion debates on this 
floor. they are heated passionate debates.
  Senator Snowe and I come from opposite sides of that debate. I am 
pro-life. Senator Snowe is pro-choice. But we have one thing in common 
regarding this issue: We both believe that abortions are to be avoided 
and that the number that occur in this country every year needs to be 
reduced.
  How do we reduce the number of abortions? We reduce the number of 
unintended pregnancies by providing women with the means to acquire 
birth control.
  Contraceptive help couples plan wanted pregnancies and reduce the 
need for abortion. There are 3.6 million unintended pregnancies in this 
Nation each year--about 60 percent of all pregnancies. And almost half 
of these unintended pregnancies end in abortion.
  I have a chart here that shows as the unintended pregnancy rate 
drops, so does the number of abortions.
  From 1981 to 1987 the unintended pregnancy rate dropped by about 1 
percent and the abortion rate also slightly dropped. the unintended 
pregnancy rate dropped 8.8 percent from 1987 to 1994, and the abortion 
rate per 1000 women during those years dropped from 24 to 20. Given 
this trend, I think it would be wise to do whatever we can to speed up 
the drop in unintended pregnancies.
  The cost effectiveness of family planning is well documented. Studies 
indicate that in the private sector, for every dollar invested in 
family planning, between $4 and $14 are saved in health care and 
pregnancy related costs.
  CBO has estimated that this amendment will cost less than $500,000. 
Under CBO's practice of scoring bills to the nearest million dollars 
this provision would have no effect on the budget total in fiscal year 
1999.


                Amendment No. 3371 to Amendment No. 3370

   (Purpose: To provide a rule of construction relating to coverage)

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3371 to amendment No. 3370.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued to read as follows:

       At the end of the amendment, add the following new 
     subsection:
       (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require 
     coverage of abortion or abortion related services.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.


                           amendment no. 3365

  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, as I stated earlier today, I am a strong 
proponent of fixing the marriage penalty. it is a top priority of the 
Finance Committee in our efforts to reform the Tax Code. But it must be 
done properly. And such is not the case with this amendment--nor with 
the amendment proposed this morning. As I said this morning, the bill 
on which my colleagues are trying to attach marriage penalty 
legislation is an appropriations bill. It is not a tax bill.
  As this Treasury-Postal appropriations bill is not a revenue 
measure--and as all revenue measures must originate in the House of 
Representatives--this one amendment could subject the entire bill to a 
blue slip. In other words, Madam President, adding a revenue measure 
that originates in the Senate to a nonrevenue bill, will sink the 
entire bill. Under the rules, any member in the House can raise an 
objection and kill this appropriations bill. And that is in no one's 
interest.
  So while I agree in principle with the objective of reforming the 
marriage penalty--I would be remiss in my duties if I did not make it 
clear that passing this amendment at this time is inappropriate. 
Whether the marriage penalty fix is paid for, or not, it must be 
handled in Congress as the Constitution requires. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, with regret, I must oppose Senator 
Daschle's amendment to provide for marriage tax penalty relief. 
Although I support the idea of a revenue-neutral solution to the 
inequitable situation created by the Internal Revenue Code for millions 
of married couples, an appropriations bill is not the proper forum for 
debating and voting on resolution of this matter. To attach this 
amendment to this bill would violate the constitutional requirement 
that revenue measures originate in the House, and it would kill this 
important appropriations legislation.
  I agree with the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, 
Senator Roth, that the issue of the marriage penalty should first be 
considered by the Finance Committee and proceed to the floor in the 
manner normally associated with tax legislation. I look forward to 
working with him, and all the members of the committee in coming to a 
bipartisan agreement on a measure that provides relief to taxpayers 
saddled with the marriage penalty and is properly offset under the 
budget rules.
  Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I further call for the regular order 
with respect to the Daschle amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I further tell Members, the majority side yields back 
all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes remains on the minority side for 
this amendment, controlled by the minority leader or his designee. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask the Daschle amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
Daschle amendment?
  Mr. REID. And, if necessary, the DeWine amendment, which is next in 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
Daschle amendment and the DeWine amendment? Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3370, As Modified

  Mr. REID. Madam President, on the Snowe-Reid amendment which is now 
pending, on page 2 of the amendment, line 3, the word ``all'' is 
listed. I would like to modify my amendment and delete the word 
``all.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's request? 
Without objection the amendment will be modified.
  The amendment (No. 3370), as modified, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be expended by the Office of Personnel Management to enter 
     into or renew any contract under section 8902 of title 5, 
     United States Code, for a health benefits plan--
       (1) which provides coverage for prescription drugs, unless 
     such plan also provides

[[Page S9199]]

     equivalent coverage for prescription contraceptive drugs or 
     devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration, or 
     generic equivalents approved as substitutable by the Food and 
     Drug Administration; or
       (2) which provides benefits for outpatient services 
     provided by a health care professional, unless such plan also 
     provides equivalent benefits for outpatient contraceptive 
     services.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall apply to a contract with 
     any of the following religious plans:
       (1) SelectCare.
       (2) PersonalCare's HMO.
       (3) Care Choices.
       (4) OSF Health Plans, Inc.
       (5) Yellowstone Community Health Plan.
       (6) and any other existing or future religious based plan 
     whose religious tenets are in conflict with the requirements 
     in this Act.
       (c) For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``contraceptive drug or device'' means a drug 
     or device intended for preventing pregnancy; and
       (2) the term ``outpatient contraceptive services'' means 
     consultations, examinations, procedures, and medical 
     services, provided on an outpatient basis and related to the 
     use of contraceptive methods (including natural family 
     planning) to prevent pregnancy.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the regular order.


                           Amendment No. 3365

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order brings back the amendment by 
Senator Daschle. The time is being charged against the amendment on the 
minority side. All time has been yielded back on the majority side.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I have been asked to yield back the rest 
of our time on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back on both sides.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. On behalf of the majority leader, I move to table the 
Daschle amendment. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. 
Daschle.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is absent because of illness.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``aye.''
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 243 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3365) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Amendments Nos. 3370, as modified, and 3371, En Bloc

  Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now consider 
amendment No. 3370 as modified and offered by Senator Reid of Nevada 
for Senator Snowe and ask for its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The two amendments are pending; they are the 
pending amendments.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I further ask unanimous consent that amendments Nos. 
3370 and 3371 be considered and accepted en bloc. This is the Snowe-
Reid amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments 
en bloc.
  The amendments (No. 3371 and No. 3370, as modified, as amended) were 
agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Mikulski be listed as 
a prime cosponsor of the amendment just agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3354

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I call for regular order with respect to 
amendment No. 3354, the DeWine amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I know of no further debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3354) was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thought there was going to be----
  Mr. CAMPBELL. It is my understanding this amendment has been accepted 
by both sides of the aisle.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I misunderstood the parliamentary situation. The 
Senator from Colorado is correct.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Record show that had there been a 
recorded vote, I would have voted no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Moseley-
Braun and Senator Gordon Smith be added as cosponsors of the Snowe-Reid 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S9200]]

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3372

  (Purpose: To require a study of the conditions under which certain 
grain products may be imported into the United States, and to require a 
                          report to Congress)

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Mr. Dorgan, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3372.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     SEC.   . IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN GRAINS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) importation of grains into the United States at less 
     than the cost to produce those grains is causing injury to 
     the United States producers of those grains;
       (2) importation of grains into the United States at less 
     than the fair value of those grains is causing injury to the 
     United States producers of those grains;
       (3) the Canadian government and the Canadian Wheat Board 
     have refused to disclose pricing and cost information 
     necessary to determine whether grains are being exported to 
     the United States at prices in violation of United States 
     trade laws or agreements.
       (B) Requirements.--
       (1) The Customs Service, consulting with the United States 
     Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce, shall 
     conduct a study of the efficiency and effectiveness of 
     requiring that all spring wheat, durum or barely imported 
     into the United States be imported into the United States 
     through a single port of entry.
       (2) The Customs Service, consulting with the United States 
     Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce, shall 
     determine whether such spring wheat, durum and barley could 
     be imported into the United States through a single port of 
     entry until either the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian 
     Government discloses all information necessary to determine 
     the cost and price for all such grains being exported to the 
     United States from Canada and whether such cost or price 
     violates any law of the United States, or violates, is 
     inconsistent with, or denies benefits to the United States 
     under, any trade agreement.
       (3) The Customs Service shall report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations and Finance not later than ninety days after 
     the effective date of this act on the results of the study 
     required by subsections (1) and (2), above.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this amendment asks the Customs Service 
to conduct a study regarding Canadian wheat. It has been agreed to by 
both sides. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3372) was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, we are not making very good progress on 
this bill. We have only cleared 14 amendments and we have yet to deal 
with 43. I just say to all of the Senators that this is our second day. 
We have been in here since 9:30 this morning. I urge them to help us 
expedite the process of dealing with these outstanding 43 amendments. 
It may be a very long evening and into the day tomorrow if we don't 
start clearing some of them. So I ask the Senators are watching the 
proceedings to come to the floor and help us move these forward.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ellen Brown 
of my staff be allowed floor privileges for the duration of the 
discussion of the amendment that I am about to bring up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3353

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we brought up yesterday amendment No. 
3353 to the bill. Senator Harkin had a situation he had to attend to 
yesterday, so we set it aside for the consideration of other business. 
Now Senator Harkin is here. I think he will be joining us momentarily. 
We wanted to take advantage of the opportunity at this time to bring it 
up. I have been discussing this item with Senator Harkin to see if we 
could reach an agreement. I don't believe that we are going to be able 
to.
  Just basically, in summary, Mr. President, this has to do with 
procurement legislation. This is a very complex area. I can't think of 
an area that is more boring and more complex than the procurement laws. 
For that reason, the staff of our committee--the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, which has jurisdiction generally over the procurement laws--
spent many, many hours on this subject. The last two Congresses have 
produced reform legislation that balances the interest in the 
procurement field between the government and those who are selling 
goods and services to the government.
  This provision, section 642 in this Treasury-Postal bill, essentially 
is a procurement piece of legislation. It has to do with child labor. 
It essentially prohibits the Government from buying from those who use 
child labor any goods or services produced by child labor. That is a 
laudable goal. I support that. My amendment incorporates that goal. I 
point out that it is already against the law. But it is certainly fine 
with me if we put in this Treasury-Postal bill another law that says we 
cannot procure services or goods from those who do that sort of thing.
  My problem, other than the fact that I believe the best way to 
legislate in this matter is to have hearings on a complex subject like 
this, is that it sets up a procedure that basically is overreaching and 
unfair, and probably unconstitutional. Because with regard to this 
area, as in no others, a contractor is required to sign a statement 
with the Government that will allow a Government official at any time 
at his discretion to come in and look at the books and records, or talk 
to the individual at any time at his discretion to see whether or not a 
child labor law has been violated. He should not be required to give up 
the fourth amendment rights in order to contract with the Government.
  As I say, trafficking in those kinds of goods and services is against 
the criminal law. There is provision that prohibits such immoral 
activity by that company when dealing with the Federal Government as it 
is. But it certainly does not call for an abrogation of rights that we 
otherwise hold near and dear.
  It says that the Secretary of Labor shall publish a list of items 
that might have been produced by child labor. And then the contractor 
has to certify that he is not using any of those items. Evidently, it 
is difficult to determine sometimes whether or not child labor has been 
used. The Government's only responsibility is to determine whether or 
not they might have been used. And, yet, the contractor is required to 
certify that they have not been used.
  I am afraid this is a Catch-22 with regard to people in good faith 
who are out trying to do the right thing and certainly would not 
consider using child labor; but would allow unlimited access and 
unfettered access, under the language of this statute as it is now 
written, and would allow any Government official to come in and have 
unlimited access to books and records.
  One other feature of this provision that I think is erroneous is the 
exception. This does not apply to countries that have signed NAFTA, for 
example. There are a couple of other exceptions. But I will just 
concentrate on that.
  If a foreign country has signed the NAFTA agreement, then presumably 
companies of that country do not have this law applied to them.
  We are focusing in on our own companies. We signed NAFTA. But we are 
focusing in on our own companies requiring this kind of intrusion with 
regard to our own contractors, and we are not applying the same 
standard to contractors of another country who might be supplying child 
labor.
  I don't think that is right. I don't think that is fair. I do not 
want to make a mountain out of a molehill.
  I think this is important. I feel a responsibility, as chairman of 
the Governmental Affairs Committee, to bring this to the attention of 
the Senate, and simply say that in matters that are this complex that 
require a balancing of interests, we should go through the committee 
process.
  Senator Glenn had a piece of legislation that we considered last 
year. We

[[Page S9201]]

have had the Clinger-Cohen Act, and lots and lots of working hours put 
into this in trying to reach the right balance.
  We should not come in with a provision in an appropriations bill that 
basically upsets that balance and places new responsibilities, new 
requirements, new intrusions on contractors that in the wisdom of their 
deliberations the committees, after considering this thing for years, 
have not decided to do.
  I respectfully urge the support of my colleagues with regard to my 
amendment.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I will 
not object, but if the Senator will hold off just a moment. Apparently, 
we cannot find our copy of the amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me supply a copy.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Senator. If he would like to proceed, I 
have the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                Amendment No. 3373 to Amendment No. 3362

  (Purpose: To prevent Congress from enacting legislation which fails 
to address the legislation's impact on family well-being and on 
children.)
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send this second-degree amendment to 
the Abraham amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3373 to amendment No. 3362.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of the amendment insert the following:

     SEC.  . FAMILY WELL-BEING AND CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT.

       Consideration of any bill or joint resolution of a public 
     character reported by any committee of the Senate or of the 
     House of Representatives that is accompanied by a committee 
     report that does not contain a detailed analysis of the 
     probable impact of the bill or resolution on family well-
     being and on children, including whether such bill or joint 
     resolution will increase the number of children who are 
     hungry or homeless, shall not be in order.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry. Before the Senator from Minnesota 
starts, what is the order of precedence at the desk right now, of 
amendments? What amendment are we on right now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the Wellstone amendment to the 
Abraham amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Further parliamentary inquiry, I thought we were on the 
Thompson amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment has been temporarily set aside.
  Mr. HARKIN. I understand. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, do I have the floor? I believe I do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I was not aware the amendment was set aside. I called 
it up. No one moved that it be set aside that I am aware of. Maybe I am 
mistaken. I thought we were on it. Senator Harkin is prepared to 
address it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee could call for the 
regular order, which would bring his amendment back.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I call for the regular order, Mr. President.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. We have two different views. Might I ask what regular 
order is? Is regular order the Abraham amendment that I have now 
second-degreed? Or not? I was under the impression that it was.


                           Amendment No. 3353

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is the underlying Thompson 
amendment. When we finish that, we will return to the amendment of the 
Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I apologize to my friend and colleague 
from Minnesota. Senator Thompson and I were prepared to engage in some 
colloquies and debates and things on this amendment. I was surprised. I 
thought it had been called up. I apologize to my friend from Minnesota. 
We were scheduled to start this debate on the issue of child labor.
  Mr. President, the Thompson amendment, which is the pending 
amendment, seeks to strike from the bill a provision that was 
incorporated at the committee level--subcommittee level and committee 
level--by unanimous consent. I don't know of any votes that were held 
on it. It seemed to be adopted overwhelmingly. No one raised any 
questions about it in full committee or anything like that.
  The provision deals with setting some parameters on procurement 
policy for the Federal Government, to the maximum extent possible to 
preclude the Federal Government from purchasing items made by forced or 
indentured child labor.
  I hardly know where to begin to respond to some of the issues raised 
by my friend from Tennessee, but let me attempt to start here. First of 
all, right now it is true that there are certain laws that we have that 
cover child labor in this country. But that gets to the point where if 
something happens, then you can take someone to court and you can fine 
them and debar them and all that. There is a long process and procedure 
for that.
  What this provision that was put in the committee bill seeks to do is 
to set up a structure to try to avoid or to preclude this from 
happening in the first place. So that those who sell to the Federal 
Government would be on notice that, first of all, there is a list of 
items that would be promulgated--published by the Department of Labor 
in consultation with the Department of State and Department of the 
Treasury--a list of items which would be very small in number because 
there are not that many items, a list of items that have historically 
and traditionally been made with the use of forced or indentured child 
labor; that if you are a seller to the Federal Government and if you 
are procuring or selling those kinds of items--like hand-knitted 
carpets, for example, or certain leather items, some apparel, rattan 
furniture, things like that--where the Department of Labor over the 
last 4 years in studying this issue has issued about four volumes on 
the use of forced and indentured child labor and the products that are 
made and that type of thing. These are very extensive studies that are 
made by the Department of Labor. What this provision in the bill does 
is it sets up a list. They put out a list. Then, if you are selling to 
the Federal Government, you check a little box that you attest--
``attestation'' they call it--you attest that the item that you are 
selling to the Federal Government was not made using forced or 
indentured child labor. That is basically it.
  The list is necessary for two reasons. First, it would narrow the 
scope to only suspect industries, thus preventing a sort of widespread 
kind of provision or a burdensome requirement on industries where the 
use of forced or indentured child labor does not occur. For example, I 
heard some mention made of Boeing aircraft. Boeing aircraft does not 
make things made by forced or indentured child labor. There has never 
been a scintilla of evidence to show that, so none of their products 
would be on the list. So we narrow the scope right away to just a few 
suspect industries.
  Second, the list is necessary because procurement officers need 
guidelines to enforce the intent of the legislation. Again, this list 
would be compiled based on the four child labor studies already 
released by the Department of Labor. Furthermore, the only companies 
that would be affected by this are

[[Page S9202]]

ones that sell an item that appears on the list. If you don't sell an 
item that appears on the list, you will not be affected by this. You 
would not have to attest; you would not have to check the box and 
attest that the item was not made by forced or indentured child labor 
if you are not even on the list. Boeing and all those wouldn't even be 
on the list, so they would not have to check the box. That is the first 
thing. We keep it narrow, and that is why we have the list.

  Mention was made by the Senator from Tennessee about the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, that we already have this law. I say to the Senator from 
Tennessee that this law doesn't cover U.S. embassies abroad purchasing 
goods. For example, we could have an embassy, say in Pakistan, India, 
or whatever country, buying glassware or buying hand-knitted carpets or 
buying rattan furniture--I mentioned that--but they are not covered by 
this at all. I would like to have them covered by it. That is the 
intent of the provision that is in the committee bill. They are not 
covered by it. They would be covered by this. U.S. law, the Fair Labor 
Standards Act applies to the United States, but not to other countries. 
That is why this provision is necessary.
  These are not new requirements, as I have said before and in private 
conversation with the Senator from Tennessee. There are similar 
requirements for companies that sell to the Armed Forces. I will get 
into that in a second. Even though it has to do with different types of 
contracts, they are similar. I think there is a difference without a 
distinction, but they are similar, and I will get into that in a 
second.
  They said it would be duplicative. It is not really duplicative. 
Forced and indentured child labor is already illegal in interstate 
commerce, that is true, but what I am seeking to do, for debarment 
purposes, and what this amendment will do is have them attest up front 
that they are not using child labor. There are no provisions, as I 
understand, in law for that at this time.
  Next, there was a question raised about the constitutionality of the 
provision. It requires a contractor to agree to allow official access 
to the records of the employees and premises. As I said, we already 
have such a provision, and as I said, we discussed that in private.
  FAR, title 10 of Armed Forces, 10 U.S.C. section 2313 says:

       Agency authority. Section 2313, examination of records of 
     contractor.
       (1) The head of an agency, acting through an authorized 
     representative, is authorized to inspect the plant and audit 
     the records of:
       (A) a contractor performing a cost reimbursement, 
     incentive, time and materials, labor hour or price 
     redeterminable contract or any combination of such contracts 
     made by that agency under this chapter and,
       (B) a subcontractor performing any cost reimbursement, 
     incentive, time and materials, labor hour or price 
     redeterminable subcontract or any combination of such 
     contracts under a contract referred to in subparagraph (A).

  The head of an agency, acting through himself or through an 
authorized representative can already have access to premises and to 
records under Armed Forces procurement law, and that is under FAR.
  I understand this has to do with different types of contracts. That 
is OK, but that is, I think, a difference without distinction. It may 
be a time reimbursable or cost reimbursement or labor hour or price 
redeterminable contract. It is all fine and good, but I don't think 
that is really a distinct difference with a contract that provides 
goods or services to the Federal Government. So I say I don't think we 
have any kind of a constitutional problem there.
  Senator Thompson did raise, I believe, a good point, and I am going 
to correct that with a technical amendment, to track the wording that 
is already in the FAR and in title 10. I am going to make it 
specifically that it is the head of an agency, acting through an 
authorized representative, so that not just anyone would have access, 
but that it would have to come from the head of an agency.
  There is another question that the Senator from Tennessee raised, and 
that is, why do we exempt NAFTA or WTO countries. I say to my friend 
from Tennessee, I wish we didn't have to, but I am told we have to 
because it is a treaty that we signed on NAFTA and WTO. My amendment 
will exempt those countries that are parties to these two agreements. I 
am not happy about it, but it is the current U.S. law. It is treaty, 
and I guess we have to adhere to it, as I understand. We can't change 
this law or negotiate new procurement agreements.
  I will just point out that the Committee on Government Procurements, 
the parties to this under WTO and NAFTA, basically are countries we 
really don't have a problem with--Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany 
and places like that we really don't have much of a problem. The only 
problem that we do have, I say, in NAFTA is perhaps with Mexico. But 
then, again, that is part of the NAFTA agreement and, quite frankly, we 
are stuck with that for right now on that issue.
  The Federal Acquisition Regulations govern acquisition by executive 
branch agencies. Much of this regulation implements various statutes 
and Executive orders. My amendment is not unique under the FAR in 
seeking to implement U.S. standards and policies.
  For example, Federal agencies cannot acquire supplies or services 
originating from sources within or that are located in or transported 
from or through North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Iran, Sudan and Iraq. We 
already have that.
  In addition, my amendment is not unique in seeking to address a 
policy concern, such as protecting domestic industries through Federal 
procurement legislation. For example, the Buy America Act provides an 
advantage to U.S. domestic producers through the competitive bidding 
process.
  As a matter of fact, I include Senator Thompson's amendment as part 
of my provision already. However, I crafted my provision to be more 
targeted. My provision does treat forced or indentured child labor 
differently than other procurement regulations because of the illegal 
and hidden nature of the act it seeks to prevent.
  For example, all goods shipped to the United States must carry a 
country of origin label. No such provision in current Federal 
procurement regulations exist for forced or indentured child labor. 
Likewise, the Buy America Act model is different because it operates 
through the bidding process. No such procedure exists for forced or 
indentured child labor. You don't know where the forced or indentured 
child labor is.
  Therefore, it was necessary to create a special targeted mechanism to 
address this issue in a meaningful way that is the least burdensome to 
contractors. In short, to accomplish this, the provision that is in the 
bill, one, calls on the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the 
Secretaries of Treasury and State, to draft a list of items which they 
feel historically has been made with forced or indentured child labor. 
That keeps the perspective narrow.
  Next, this provision requires the contractor to sign an attestation 
that their products were not made with forced or indentured child labor 
and, yes, to provide access to records, premises and persons for a 
lawful investigation arising from allegations that forced or indentured 
child labor was used to produce the product.
  Again, I read that other one that is already in Armed Forces, that 
the head of an agency, acting through an authorized representative, can 
inspect a plant and audit the records of, et cetera.
  Lastly, this provision provides a debarment option for 3 years for 
making a false certification. In other words, if you certify that you 
did not use child labor, and inspections prove otherwise, then you 
could be debarred for up to 3 years for making a false certification.

  Senator Thompson's proposal, his amendment, is not targeted enough 
for two reasons: One, procurement officers need specific information in 
order to apply a statute. Senator Thompson's amendment will take away 
the list which gives contract officers specific areas to look for 
forced or indentured child labor problems. By removing this self-
certification, and the threat of debarment for a false certification, 
you ensure that the provision will never be effectively enforced 
because the Federal Government may never be able to track the forced or 
indentured child labor practices of all of its contractors, much less 
ever investigating them.
  Quite simply, I do not believe that signing a simple attestation, if 
you are providing items to the U.S. Government which appear on a list 
of problem

[[Page S9203]]

items, will prove a very difficult burden. It will be burdensome if you 
are illegally employing children. Then it will be burdensome. But if 
you are not, then it will not be. So again, this provision seeks to 
deter child labor, stopping it before it happens, or before the U.S. 
Government buys goods made with forced or indentured child labor.
  Obviously, the Thompson amendment seeks to debar those who have been 
convicted or fined for using child labor. Nothing wrong with that. But 
that is included in the provision that is in the bill already. But what 
he carves out is a provision that seeks to prevent it from happening in 
the first place by saying that if you use it, the U.S. Government just 
simply will not do business with you.
  I say, the difference might be that Senator Thompson's approach is: 
``We'll do business with you. Now, if we can take you in and prove 
through a lengthy court process and stuff, then we'll debar you.'' But 
mine comes up front and says, ``Look, if you are using child labor, and 
you are on this list, you are making these items, you have to attest 
that you are not using child labor.'' That right away puts them on 
notice--puts them on notice that they are going to be in for some 
problems if they are on that list and that they would be subject to a 
head of an agency to come in and inspect them and inspect their records 
to see whether or not they actually were using child labor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Would the Senator from Iowa yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I would be glad to, without losing my right to the 
floor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. The child labor issue is important to all of us. I 
point out something I mentioned awhile ago. I say to the Senator, we 
have 43 amendments yet to clear. I wonder if the Senator would agree to 
a time limit on the debate. I talked to Senator Thompson. He is 
agreeable to a 20-minute time debate equally divided on both sides. 
Would the Senator from Iowa also agree with that?
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Twenty minutes equally divided; 10 minutes on each 
side.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will consider that. Just a second. Let me finish my 
statement. It does not sound totally unreasonable.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you.
  Mr. HARKIN. Again, you might ask, well, why should they have to look 
for this? Why should procurement officers have to be concerned about 
this? Under 48 CFR 9.406-2, ``Causes for Debarment,'' there is a whole 
list of things that they should look for that they made. The ``Made in 
America'' inscription that I have mentioned, violations of the Drug-
Free Workplace Act--there is a whole list of things about which they 
have to be concerned.
  The fact is, they do not have to be concerned about child labor right 
now. It is not even a concern of theirs. So we find ourselves in a 
peculiar position that procurement laws for the Federal Government say 
that you have to meet certain standards--a drug-free workplace; you 
have to have a ``Made in America'' inscription if it is made in 
America; you have to have country of origin--but you do not have to be 
worried about child labor. I find that rather odd.
  What this all really arises out of is that in the 1930 Tariff Act, a 
provision was added that barred the entry into this country of any item 
made with forced or indentured labor. That has been part of our law 
since 1930.
  Well, forced or indentured labor--what does that mean? It has been 
interpreted to mean prison labor. There are other forms of forced or 
indentured labor. A year ago I wrote a letter to the Department of the 
Treasury asking for a clarification of this: Did forced or indentured 
labor cover forced or indentured child labor? The letter they wrote 
back was sort of: ``Well, yes, we think it does because we say `forced 
or indentured labor.'' ' We didn't specify it has to be adult labor, 
but it has never really been clarified. So we have sought to clarify 
that.
  Again, procurement officers have to take into account they have to be 
aware of whether or not something is made by prison labor. Can the 
Federal Government buy items made by prison labor? The answer is no, 
absolutely not. Can the Federal Government today buy items made by 
forced or indentured child labor? The answer is yes. We do it all the 
time overseas. We buy carpets, we buy furniture, we buy glassware, we 
buy leather. We buy a lot of items made by forced or indentured child 
labor. And that is what this provision seeks to get to.
  The Fair Labor Standards Act does not reach that far, does not reach 
overseas, does not reach to these items. Our procurement policies do 
not reach to our embassies abroad, for example. They are part of the 
Federal Government. They are part of the executive branch. They do buy 
items. But right now they are blind as to whether something is made by 
forced or indentured child labor. That is why this provision is in the 
bill.
  Lastly, Mr. President, I just point out that the administration is in 
support of this section, 642, of the Treasury-General Government 
appropriations bill. I have a letter here from Secretary Alexis Herman 
saying that this provision, a prohibition against the Federal 
Government's purchase of Federal products made by forced or indentured 
child labor ``would establish a system to ensure that contractors take 
steps to avoid providing products to the Government that have been 
mined, produced, or manufactured using forced or indentured child 
labor.

       The Administration agrees that we should tap the purchasing 
     power of the U.S. government in our efforts to eliminate 
     egregious forms of child labor. In addition, the President's 
     FY 1999 Budget includes an $89 million increase to address 
     both international and domestic child labor abuses. We 
     believe [this] amendment, coupled with our FY 1999 
     initiatives, will help reduce the prevalence of these forms 
     of child labor.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection to the presentation of this report from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program.

  Again, I think that the provision stands foursquare on constitutional 
grounds. I do not believe there is any constitutional problem with it. 
I do not believe it runs far afield of provisions that we already have 
in present procurement law. It simply identifies one aspect, that is, 
like the ``Made in America'' or the ``drug-free workplace'' or ``prison 
labor.'' It identifies another one, and that is ``forced or indentured 
child labor'' as one of those items that we want to put up front and to 
have those who seek to sell items to the Federal Government attest that 
they are not using forced or indentured child labor in the provision of 
those goods.
  Again, this will be based upon the list. There will be a list, yes, 
publication of a list of prohibited items.
  The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Treasury and the Secretary of State, shall publish in the Federal 
Register every other year a list of items that such officials have 
identified that might have been mined, produced, or manufactured by 
forced or indentured child labor.
  So we work from that list. And that list has to be published.
       The head of an executive agency shall include in each 
     solicitation of offers for a contract for the procurement of 
     an item included on a list published under subsection (b) 
     [the list I just mentioned] the following clauses:
  Again, the clauses stating that the contractor has not indeed used 
forced or indentured child labor in the production of any of the items 
that are on that list.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the 
Senator from Tennessee. The Senator, I believe, shares the concerns of 
those of us who drafted section 642--we want to make sure the Federal 
government does not buy goods made with child labor. However, his 
amendment, by eliminating the list of suspect goods that Section 642 
requires the Department of Labor to make, will make it very difficult 
for Federal contractors to know whether they are buying a product 
manufactured by children.
  Section 642 requires the Department of Labor print a list of products 
that may have been produced with forced child labor. Any federal 
contractor that sells these products to the government will be put on 
notice that the items he or she sells might have been produced by child 
labor. Those businesses then will have to check their suppliers and get 
assurances that they are not illegally selling a goods produced by 
children to the government.
  The importance of this list of products that are potentially made 
with

[[Page S9204]]

child labor cannot be underestimated. This list will allow federal 
agencies to focus on specific industries that use child labor most 
often. It will allow us to be vigilant in our efforts to stop the 
procurement of such goods. When the government buys soccer balls for 
the West Point soccer team, we need to be sure they were not sewn 
together by children. When the government buys tea for the cafeterias 
and commissaries of federal facilities, we ought to know those leaves 
were not picked by children.
  I want to commend Senator Harkin for his tireless work on behalf of 
the exploited children of the world. By putting in place a process by 
which Federal contractors can know about and be held accountable for 
products they sell to the government, Senator Harkin has done a 
significant patriotic act. He has ensured that the United States is not 
in any way sanctioning, promoting, or even tolerating shameful 
exploitation of children.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Thompson amendment--and to 
vote against diluting protections against government purchase of goods 
made with child labor.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Colorado that 
I think I will need perhaps 5 minutes.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. If the Senator from Iowa is willing to agree to a time 
agreement, I will make a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HARKIN. I have a couple of other items, then I will be ready to 
yield.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Would 10 more minutes be enough?
  Mr. HARKIN. As I said, after I get the floor again.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, a couple of comments with regard to the 
remarks of my distinguished colleague from Iowa.
  First of all, let's keep in mind my amendment makes the use of child 
labor grounds for disbarment and suspension. We need to keep that in 
mind. We set it out in bold type. It is already against the law, and 
now we are saying in addition to that you can't do business with the 
Federal Government if you engage in that kind of activity. So we get 
that out of the way to start with.
  That is not the issue. The issue here is whether or not we want to 
set up a mechanism whereby some Federal official has unlimited access 
to your books and records and persons. Now, this whole area was 
entirely rewritten in 1994. Senator Glenn's bill, the Federal 
Acquisition Streamlining Act, provided for very circumspect, specific 
audit authorities for agencies, and GAO provided some subpoena 
authority in a very limited way. All this was debated and considered on 
a bipartisan basis and the competing interests were balanced out over a 
period of several days, and we came up with a law that we have now.
  What we have here in the bill that we are seeking to amend departs 
from that substantially. There can be no comparison with the bill 
currently in force with existing law. Existing law under section 2313, 
chapter 137, procurement generally, is so long and detailed that I am 
not going to burden the record by going into it, but suffice it to say 
that there are very limited circumstances. Only certain kinds of 
contracts, certain circumstances are dealt with where subpoena 
authority is issued under certain kinds of contracts--limited 
authority, over contracts over $100,000.
  Compare that with what we have before us in the bill today that says 
a clause that obligates the contractor to cooperate fully to provide 
access for it says any official--I understand that will be changed--but 
you must agree to provide access for some Government official of the 
United States to the contractors' records, documents, persons, or 
premises, if requested by the official, for the purpose of determining 
whether forced child labor is being issued. It is a total fishing 
expedition. You are not only going to have to give unlimited access to 
your books and records, but unlimited access to your person.
  There is nothing I know of like this in law, much less procurement 
law. We are really doing something substantially different here. We can 
cover the child labor situation without opening up Pandora's box and 
running contractors away from us.
  One of the reforms that Senator Glenn and others carried out had to 
do with the fact that we want to bring more contractors in. It is 
better for the taxpayer to have more competition, more people coming in 
to compete for these things.
  My distinguished friend from Iowa suggests that we need to have a 
certification on the front end. Prior committee action got rid of all 
certification under the Governmental Affairs Committee and armed 
services jurisdiction for the simple reason, first, if you are going to 
violate the law, if you are going to use child labor, you are not going 
to certify something on the front end. It will not make you quit doing 
it.
  Secondly, we got tired of raising so many hoops and intruding so much 
that we were discouraging people from coming in and contracting with 
the Government. Therefore, costs of things are higher than they ought 
to be. This whole area has been addressed. It cannot even be discussed 
in a limited period of time because it is so extensive.
  But with regard to the question of opening up books and records and 
persons by some anonymous Federal official to see whether or not you 
might have done something wrong, and when they get in there they are 
not limited to look just for the thing that you say they are looking 
for. Their eyes can gaze on whatever it is they are to be gazed upon.
  When you deal with something like that, you are dealing with very, 
very, important constitutional rights and nobody is going to put up 
with that. Nobody is going to contract or agree to do business with the 
Government if they have that kind of burden. It has been well thought 
out, it has been considered, it has been deliberated upon for a long, 
long time, and we should not address something this important and this 
complex in this fashion.
  I respectfully urge this amendment be adopted.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this provision is not unconstitutional and 
does not interfere with the Constitution, and it does not interfere 
with the exercise of any fourth amendment right a Government contractor 
might have.
  The provision makes it possible for the Federal Government to ensure 
that it does not purchase items produced with forced or indentured 
child labor. Without ready Government access to records, workers and 
worker places, meaningful enforcement would be impossible.
  Now this principle applies in a whole range of worker protection 
laws. Now there is no need for a statutory probable cause requirement 
or a statutory procedure for challenging a search by a Government 
agency. A contractor who believes that a Federal agency had no probable 
cause to inspect his business would be free to refuse entry to the 
agency. It is a constitutional right. The agency would then be required 
to seek a warrant from a court, and if necessary, to ask the court to 
enforce the warrant. In this way, the court would ensure that the 
fourth amendment was followed.
  Lastly, this is how the process works under comparable statutes, like 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Applying the fourth amendment, 
the Supreme Court has held that OSHA must show probable cause or the 
legal equivalent if an employer refuses OSHA entry. There is no 
statutory probable cause requirement and no statutory procedure for 
challenging a search. Government agencies can be expected to develop 
reasonable and neutral criteria for seeking access. They would do so in 
order to comply with the fourth amendment which the courts will apply.
  OSHA, for example, has adopted such criteria, although the 
Occupational Safety Health Act does not prescribe this, and they have 
been upheld by the courts. Only Government agencies with a legitimate 
need for access would be entitled to access. The access provision in 
section 642 makes clear that the contractors' obligation is to provide 
access only to the head of an agency, a Federal officer, and only for 
the purpose of

[[Page S9205]]

determining whether forced indentured child labor was used.
  So there is no reason to believe this provision would be invoked by 
an official acting without authority. But, if it happened, the 
contractor could not be sanctioned for refusing to cooperate, for 
example.
  The fourth amendment may not apply in these certain cases in any case 
until a contractor's consent to providing access is required to provide 
access. The accession provision is intended to be incorporated in a 
Government contract. The contract provision would be required only for 
companies who wish to supply the Federal Government with an item from a 
list of items that may have been introduced by forced or indentured 
child labor.
  I keep coming back to that. The Senator raises the specter that you 
will have the Government people all of a sudden going into Boeing and 
places like that. That won't happen, first of all, because they won't 
have anything on the list. So they won't have that. There will not be 
items that have been identified produced by forced or indentured child 
labor. Companies which choose to supply such items and which accept the 
terms of the contract have agreed to provide access.
  As I said, there is no constitutional problem with this provision 
whatsoever.
  Now, again, Mr. President, what we do have a problem with, and what 
this amendment really gets to, and for which there is no provision in 
law, is, when an arm of the Federal Government, such as the executive 
branch, acting through embassies overseas, procures items and those 
items are identified as having been produced by forced or indentured 
child labor, there is nothing that we can do about that--unless we 
adopt this provision, of course. And this is a good and reasonable 
place for this provision to be, in this appropriations bill, since we 
are providing appropriations for the running of the Government. So this 
is an appropriate place for the amendment.
  I think there is some urgency to this also. The urgency is that we 
are gaining more and more information around the world about the use of 
forced or indentured child labor. The United States has, quite 
appropriately--and I am happy to see it--taken a forward position on 
trying to do away with forced and indentured child labor. I mentioned 
the letter from the Secretary of Labor indicating that the President 
had already asked for, I think, $89 million in the budget to address 
child labor abuses both here and abroad. We participate heavily in 
IPEC, the International Program for the Elimination of Child Labor, 
which has been increased this year from $30 million, up from $3 
million.
  So the U.S. Government has--and also through our work on the 
International Labor Organization, UNICEF, and others, we have been 
taking a very strong position against forced indentured child labor, as 
we should. But if one arm of our Government overseas is openly 
procuring items made by forced and indentured child labor, what kind of 
a signal does that send? So that is what this provision in the bill 
seeks to end, and would end, if this provision remains in.
  Now, the things that the Senator from Tennessee is talking about we 
already incorporate in our amendment. There is a debarment procedure 
provision in the bill. That is already there. That debarment procedure 
is already there. What the Senator's amendment does is, it takes away 
those preliminary steps of publishing a list and then say to a 
procurement officer, look out for these items, and if you are buying 
one of these items, have that company attest on the form that they are 
not using forced and indentured child labor. If they do, then they are 
agreeing that you can, as we have under FAR--that the head of an agency 
is authorized to inspect the records of that company.
  As I said earlier, the Senator from Tennessee, I think, raised one 
point that I think was very legitimate, and that was in the original 
amendment. It says, on page 99, the words ``any official of the United 
States.'' Quite frankly, that is too broad. As we look at the FAR and 
at title X for the Department of Defense, it uses the words ``the head 
of an agency.'' So I have a perfecting amendment that I am going to 
offer that would strike out ``any official of the United States'' and 
insert in lieu thereof ``the head of the executive agency or the 
inspector general of the executive agency.''


                Amendment No. 3374 to Amendment No. 3353

    (Purpose: To provide a substitute that limits the scope of the 
     requirement relating to inspection of a contractor's records)

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3374 to amendment No. 3353.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike out all after Sec. 642.'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     the following:

     PROHIBITION OF ACQUISITION OF PRODUCTS PRODUCED BY FORCED OR 
                   INDENTURED CHILD LABOR.

       (a) Prohibition.--The head of an executive agency may not 
     acquire an item that appears on a list published under 
     subsection (b) unless the source of the item certifies to the 
     head of the executive agency that forced or indentured child 
     labor was not used to mine, produce, or manufacture the item.
       (b) Publication of List of Prohibited Items.--(1) The 
     Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Treasury and the Secretary of State, shall publish in the 
     Federal Register every other year a list of items that such 
     officials have identified that have been mined, produced, or 
     manufactured by forced or indentured child labor.
       (2) The first list shall be published under paragraph (1) 
     not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Required Contract Clauses.--(1) The head of an 
     executive agency shall include in each solicitation of offers 
     for a contract for the procurement of an item included on a 
     list published under subsection (b) the following clauses:
       (A) A clause that requires the contractor to certify to the 
     contracting officer that the contractor or, in the case of an 
     incorporated contractor, a responsible official of the 
     contractor has made a good faith effort to determine whether 
     forced or indentured child labor was used to mine, produce, 
     or manufacture any item furnished under the contract and 
     that, on the basis of those efforts, the contractor is 
     unaware of any such use of child labor.
       (B) A clause that obligates the contractor to cooperate 
     fully to provide access for the head of the executive agency 
     or the inspector general of the executive agency to the 
     contractor's records, documents, persons, or premises if 
     requested by the official for the purpose of determining 
     whether forced or indentured child labor was used to mine, 
     produce, or manufacture any item furnished under the 
     contract.
       (2) This subsection applies with respect to acquisitions 
     for a total amount in excess of the micro-purchase threshold 
     (as defined in section 32(f) of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 428(f)), including 
     acquisitions of commercial items for such an amount 
     notwithstanding section 34 of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Act (41 U.S.C. 430).
       (d) Investigations.--Whenever a contracting officer of an 
     executive agency has reason to believe that a contractor has 
     submitted a false certification under subsection (a) or 
     (c)(1)(A) or has failed to provide cooperation in accordance 
     with the obligation imposed pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(B), 
     the head of the executive agency shall refer the matter, for 
     investigation, to the Inspector General of the executive 
     agency and, as the head of the executive agency determines 
     appropriate, to the Attorney General and the Secretary of the 
     Treasury.
       (e) Remedies.--(1) The head of an executive agency may 
     impose remedies as provided in this subsection in the case of 
     a contractor under a contract of the executive agency if the 
     head of the executive agency finds that the contractor--
       (A) has furnished under the contract items that have been 
     mined, produced, or manufactured by forced or indentured 
     child labor or uses forced or indentured child labor in 
     mining, production, or manufacturing operations of the 
     contractor;
       (B) has submitted a false certification under subparagraph 
     (A) of subsection (c)(1); or
       (C) has failed to provide cooperation in accordance with 
     the obligation imposed pursuant to subparagraph (B) of such 
     subsection.
       (2) The head of the executive agency, in the sole 
     discretion of the head of the executive agency, may terminate 
     a contract on the basis of any finding described in paragraph 
     (1).
       (3) The head of an executive agency may debar or suspend a 
     contractor from eligibility for Federal contracts on the 
     basis of a finding that the contractor has engaged in an act 
     described in paragraph (1)(A). The period of the debarment or 
     suspension may not exceed three years.
       (4) The Administrator of General Services shall include on 
     the List of Parties Excluded

[[Page S9206]]

     from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs 
     (maintained by the Administrator as described in the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation) each person that is debarred, 
     suspended, proposed for debarment or suspension, or declared 
     ineligible by the head of an executive agency or the 
     Comptroller General on the basis that the person uses forced 
     or indentured child labor to mine, produce, or manufacture 
     any item.
       (5) This subsection shall not be construed to limit the use 
     of other remedies available to the head of an executive 
     agency or any other official of the Federal Government on the 
     basis of a finding described in paragraph (1).
       (f) Report.--Each year, the Administrator of General 
     Services, with the assistance of the heads of other executive 
     agencies, shall review the actions taken under this section 
     and submit to Congress a report on those actions.
       (g) Implementation in the Federal Acquisition Regulation.--
     (1) The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall be revised 
     within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act--
       (A) to provide for the implementation of this section; and
       (B) to include the use of forced or indentured child labor 
     in mining, production, or manufacturing as a cause on the 
     lists of causes for debarment and suspension from contracting 
     with executive agencies that are set forth in the regulation.
       (2) The revisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
     shall be published in the Federal Register promptly after the 
     final revisions are issued.
       (h) Exception.--(1) This section does not apply to a 
     contract that is for the procurement of any product, or any 
     article, material, or supply contained in a product, that is 
     mined, produced, or manufactured in any foreign country or 
     instrumentality, if--
       (A) the foreign country or instrumentality is--
       (i) a party to the Agreement on Government Procurement 
     annexed to the WTO Agreement; or
       (ii) a party to the North American Free Trade Agreement; 
     and
       (B) the contract is of a value that is equal to or greater 
     than the United States threshold specified in the Agreement 
     on Government Procurement annexed to the WTO Agreement or the 
     North American Free Trade Agreement, whichever is applicable.
       (2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``WTO 
     Agreement'' means the Agreement Establishing the World Trade 
     Organization, entered into on April 15, 1994.
       (i) Applicability.--(1) Except as provided in subsection 
     (c)(2), the requirements of this section apply on and after 
     the date determined under subsection (2) to any solicitation 
     that is issued, any unsolicited proposal that is received, 
     and any contract that is entered into by an executive agency 
     pursuant to such a solicitation or proposal on or after this 
     date.
       (2) The date referred to is paragraph (1) is the date that 
     is 30 days after the date of the publication of the revisions 
     of the Federal Acquisition Regulation under subsection 
     (g)(2).

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what this perfecting amendment does, very 
simply, is it takes the suggestion of the Senator from Tennessee and 
strikes out ``any official of the United States'' and inserts in lieu 
thereof ``the head of the executive agency or the inspector general of 
the executive agency.''
  Secondly, it strikes the word ``might'' from page 99, because in the 
original language it said that they shall publish in the Federal 
Register every other year a list of items that ``might have been mined. 
. ..'' We strike that out. That is a great suggestion, to say that they 
have to publish a list of items that such officials have identified 
that ``have been mined, produced, or manufactured by forced or 
indentured child labor.''
  So this perfecting amendment tightens up my original amendment in two 
ways. It provides that only the head of an agency or the inspector 
general of that agency may be the one to do the inspection or authorize 
the inspection. Secondly, it says that the published list can only be 
of items that have been identified as having been mined, manufactured, 
or produced by forced or indentured child labor.
  The rest of the provision remains the same as it is in the bill, but 
this tightens up those two provisions.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, with regard to the Treasury-Postal Service 
appropriations bill, I know there are amendments that are pending. They 
are trying to work out something on that. I urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to agree to reasonable time limits, and let's have a 
vote. But I am directing my remarks now more to other Senators who are 
not on the floor who may have amendments.
  We need to make it clear that we are going to finish this bill 
tonight. We should be able to be through by 6 o'clock. But we still 
have a number of amendments that have not been resolved and haven't 
been worked out, or accepted, or offered.
  We are going to have to just keep going. That could mean another late 
night. The managers of the bill would like cooperation to get this 
completed. But we are either going to be having votes at 11 or 12 
o'clock, or we are going to agree to some process whereby we can finish 
the amendments that are still out there and get final votes on them in 
the morning in a stacked sequence. We can agree to that. But one of the 
things that is required is that Senators who do want to offer 
amendments have to come over here and offer them.
  I am going to talk with Senator Daschle. I believe that he will 
support me in supporting the managers. If at a certain hour tonight 
Senators have not offered their amendments and have not come over here 
to debate those amendments, we will go out of session, and all 
amendments that have been agreed to would be stacked in sequence if 
they have to have votes in the morning.
  Once again, while this week has been a difficult week because of the 
sadness we have all experienced, everybody has tried to be 
understanding of that, but now we are beginning to get back into the 
old routine. We have far too many amendments left on the bill that 
really shouldn't be that difficult to finish.
  I plead again with my colleagues to come over here and offer their 
amendments. Let's get an agreement on how we are going to handle them 
and get votes on those amendments. If we don't get amendments, I can 
force votes tonight at all hours of the night. I don't want to do that. 
But it is going to take some cooperation again.
  Mr. President, do we have an agreement on how to dispose of the 
present amendment? Do Senator Thompson and Senator Harkin have 
something worked out in terms of a time agreement on this, or do I just 
need to move to table everything right where we are?
  Mr. THOMPSON. Will the leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. THOMPSON. If the leader will give us just a moment, I think we 
can ask for the yeas and nays momentarily.
  Mr. LOTT. That would be very helpful.
  Mr. President, unless somebody seeks the floor, I observe the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMPSON. In response to the leader's request, I ask my colleague 
from Iowa, is he agreeable to having an up-or-down vote on the Harkin 
amendment, immediately followed by an up-or-down vote on the Thompson 
amendment?
  Mr. HARKIN. That is fine.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I agree with that. Are we prepared to vote?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am prepared to move forward with that agreement right 
now.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I ask unanimous consent, pursuant to that 
understanding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Chair informs Senators the yeas and nays have been ordered on the 
Harkin amendment.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Thompson amendment, 
and ask that vote occur immediately following that on the Harkin 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Is there 
a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time, the question is on agreeing to 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa.

[[Page S9207]]

  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is absent because of illness.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 244 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--53

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  The amendment (No. 3374) was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senator Daschle and I are working with our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to identify the remaining serious 
amendments. I have here a list that looks like it is about 20, but I 
think that we can probably identify half a dozen or so amendments.
  Senator Daschle, do you have some information on that?
  Mr. DASCHLE. In response to the majority leader, we have, I think, 
four amendments that currently would require a rollcall vote. There are 
two of those four that may actually still get worked out, so I think we 
are getting relatively close to coming to closure on this bill. I hope 
all Senators who wish to offer amendments will stay on the floor 
because this could happen fairly quickly. I think it would be very 
helpful if you are right on the floor to offer the amendment. It would 
expedite our ability to complete our work on this bill.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator Daschle.
  We have, it looks like, probably no more than two amendments left on 
our side that might require a vote. With regard to one of the four you 
identified, I believe Senator Baucus has an amendment. We are working 
very hard to see if we can't get some agreement on that right now.
  For the information of Senators, with regard to schedule, we think 
the best thing to do is just keep going and not have a break for the 
mealtime because we think that actually might wind up wasting time. If 
we would stay on the floor and focus here, we could finish this by 8 
o'clock and would be through with this bill and then could decide--
Senator Daschle and I need to discuss further--then, exactly whether we 
are going to go to health care or go to the DOD appropriations bill. We 
could get on that tonight, and then that would be the final business 
for the week.
  We need your cooperation. When you do offer an amendment, agree to a 
short time so we don't have to go straight to a motion to table. We 
want everyone to have a chance to explain their case. With your 
cooperation, we can finish this at 8 o'clock.
  I also note there are some Senators who would like to be able to go 
to the funeral in the morning. If we could finish this at a reasonable 
hour tonight, we wouldn't have to have stacked votes in the morning. We 
tried very hard to not have a lot of late nights, but we are going to 
have to in order to finish this, but with your cooperation we could 
finish it in a couple of hours.
  I urge Members to do that. I thank Senator Daschle. Let's keep this 
working and see if we can't get this down to no more than two or three 
votes.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I ask the yeas and nays on the Thompson amendment be 
vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Thompson 
amendment numbered 3353.
  The amendment (No. 3353) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3368

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I enter a motion for reconsideration of the 
amendment numbered 3368.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Is that motion debatable?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion has been entered but it has not 
been made.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I move to table the motion to reconsider.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is not before the body, so the 
motion to table would not be in order at this time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. What is the pending business?


                Amendment No. 3373 to Amendment No. 3362

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business before the Senate is the 
Wellstone amendment numbered 3373.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If I could ask my colleague, I know Senator Graham 
wants 10 seconds to dispose of an amendment, but I ask unanimous 
consent as soon as he does this that I then have the floor and go for a 
vote on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator making a unanimous-consent 
request?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer, in his capacity as a 
Senator from the State of Michigan, objects.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the pending business is this amendment, 
correct, the second-degree amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of New Hampshire). The pending 
business is amendment No. 3373, the Wellstone amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me explain this amendment and speak on it for a 
short period of time. I don't know that there will be a vote within the 
next 2 or 3 minutes, I say to colleagues.
  Mr. President, my amendment, which is a second-degree amendment to 
the Abraham amendment, expands on what Senator Abraham is trying to do. 
It applies to the Congress and not just to the administration. 
Furthermore, what my amendment says is that when the Congress prepares 
its report on family well-being --which I think is a real important 
concept; I think it is something that we should be about--the Congress 
also reports on the impact of our legislation on children.
  The amendment doesn't strike the Abraham amendment. It expands on the 
amendment. I believe that my colleagues, if I am given a little bit of 
time, will want to support this.
  Mr. President, I think the reason when we pass legislation out of 
committee, that in our report language we need to talk about the impact 
of children, is because of the reality of the lives of children in 
America. Part of our definition of family well-being, surely, has to do 
with parents, and we ought to make sure that parents are able to do 
their very best by their children, because when parents do their very 
best by their children, they do their very best by our country. It is 
also true if we are going to talk about parents, we have to talk about 
the impact of our legislation on children.
  Mr. President, one out of every four children in our country under 
the age of 3 is growing up poor. One in three children will be poor at 
some point in their childhood. One in five children today under the age 
of 6 is poor today in America. One in three is a year or more behind in 
school. One in four children is born to a mother who did not graduate 
from high school. One out of every four children lives with only one 
parent. One out of every five children

[[Page S9208]]

lives in a family receiving food stamps. One out of every five children 
is born to a mother who received no prenatal care in the first 3 months 
of her pregnancy. One out of every seven children have no health 
insurance. One out of every eight children are born to teenage 
children. One out of every 12 children has a disability. One out of 
every 13 children is born at low birthweight. One out of every 25 
children lives with neither parent. One out of every 132 children in 
America dies by the age of 1. And 1 in 680 children is killed by 
gunfire before the age of 20.
  Let me do it a different way as to why I believe when we pass 
legislation we ought to talk about the impact of this legislation on 
children, and we ought to make it clear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will have order in the Chamber.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I will say to my colleagues, if I 
don't get order, I will talk for a long time about this, because I 
don't think there is anything inappropriate about having a focus on the 
state of children in America.
  So I hope that we can have order in the Chamber and I will be able to 
go on. I will take as long as necessary.
  Mr. President, every day in America, one mother dies in child birth. 
Every day in America, three people under the age of 25 die from HIV 
infection. Every day in America, six children or young people commit 
suicide. Every day in America, 13 children and youths are murdered. 
Every day in America, 16 children and youths are killed by firearms. 
Every day in America, 36 children and youths die from accidents. Every 
day in America, 81 babies die. Every day in America, 144 babies are 
born at very low birth weight. Every day in America, 311 children are 
arrested for alcohol offenses. Ever day in America, 316 children are 
arrested for violent crime. Every day in America, 403 children are 
arrested for drug offenses. Every day in America, 443 babies are born 
to mothers who receive late or no prenatal care. Every day in America, 
781 babies are born at low birth weight. Every day in America, 1,403 
babies are born to mothers younger than 20. Every day in America, 2,377 
babies are born to mothers who are not high school graduates. Every day 
in America, 2,556 children--babies--are born into poverty. Every day in 
America, 3,356 young people drop out of high school.
  Colleagues, when I cite these figures from the Children's Defense 
Fund Report of this summer--this last report was July 17, 1998. When I 
cite the statistics that every day in America 3,356 high school 
students drop out, there is a higher correlation between high school 
dropouts and winding up in prison than between cigarette smoking and 
lung cancer. Surely, we ought to be looking at the state of children in 
America.
  Mr. President, one quarter of all the homeless people in America are 
children under the age of 18, and 100,000 of these kids live on the 
streets right now. Mr. President, 5.5 million children go hungry in the 
United States of America today.
  Mr. President, I commend my colleague for his emphasis on families. I 
commend my colleague for wanting to say that we want to do everything 
we can to enable parents to do well by their children. I want to 
commend my colleague for making the point that we want to make sure 
that parents are really able to exercise their responsibilities as 
parents with their children.
  But I also want to say something else to my colleagues, which is that 
this second-degree amendment adds a lot of strength to what is on the 
floor. I don't think there should be any vote against this, because 
what the second-degree amendment says is, let's also apply this to the 
Congress. We simply say that whatever we vote out of committee, we 
also, in report language, have a very careful child impact statement. I 
see my colleague from Connecticut on the floor--probably the leading 
Senator for years when it comes to focusing on children. I say to my 
colleague, I think this is really an excellent idea. I think it is 
important for us to be looking at the impact.
  Mr. President, I have one question that I can't let go of in my own 
mind, which I pose for every single colleague here: How can it be that 
right now in the United States of America, at our peak economic 
performance, we have one out of every four children under the age of 3 
growing up poor in our country, and one out of every two children of 
color growing up poor in our country today? This is the most affluent 
country in the world, the most powerful country in the world, with 
record low unemployment, record economic performance, low inflation, a 
celebrated GDP, and we have a set of social arrangements that allow 
children to be the poorest group of Americans in our country. That is a 
national disgrace.
  Now, Mr. President, I just want to go on and make one other point. In 
some of the debate that we have had over the years, colleagues have 
said, look, all right, Senator Wellstone, you disagree about proposed 
cuts in affordable housing, or Head Start; you disagree with proposed 
cuts in the Food Stamp Program, which is the major safety net food and 
nutrition program for children in America; you disagree with some of 
our other priorities, but we want to tell you that in no way, shape, or 
form are we not committed to children in America. I accept that in good 
faith. But what I want to say tonight is that, if so, we ought to at 
least be willing to look at our actions. We ought to be willing to look 
at our legislation, and we ought to be willing to analyze the impact on 
children in America.
  Mr. President, I have traveled not just in Minnesota, but in our 
country, and the one thing that troubles me the most is, I just think 
we have to do a lot better for kids, a lot better for kids in our 
country.
  We talk about low SAT scores; that is there. We talk about high rates 
of high school dropouts; that is there. We talk about children being 
arrested for substance abuse; that is happening. We talk about too many 
children taking their own lives; that is happening. We talk about too 
many children that are murdered; that is happening. We talk about too 
much violence in our schools; that is happening. We talk about too many 
hungry children in America; that is happening. We talk about too many 
children that are 3 and 4 years old and are home alone because the 
single parent is working and because there is no child care; that is 
happening. Second graders and first graders come home alone with no 
parent there, sometimes in very dangerous neighborhoods; that is 
happening. We talk about the poverty in our country and the number of 
children that are homeless children.
  I say to the Chair, because of his commitment to veterans, that one 
of the most disgraceful things going on in our country is that about 
one-third of all the homeless are veterans--many Vietnam veterans. That 
is a scandal; that is simply unconscionable.
  But the fact of the matter is that all of us say that we are for the 
children. All of us say that they are 100 percent of our future. All of 
us say that we care about children. All of us want to have our pictures 
taken next to children. All of us say that we are parents and 
grandparents and that this is our commitment. Well, I am saying that 
Senator Abraham has brought a good piece of legislation on the floor. 
He wants to talk about the importance of parental responsibility. He 
wants to talk about the importance of families. And what I believe is 
that this second-degree amendment expands on his work, and I certainly 
hope that this amendment will be accepted by my colleagues.
  Mr. President, I know there is a lot that we are trying to do 
tonight, and I have a lot more to say. In deference to colleagues--the 
majority leader has been gracious enough to come over here and say that 
this amendment will be accepted.
  I just say to colleagues that, if so, I am delighted, I say to the 
Senator from Colorado. Might I ask my colleague one thing?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. There is no opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Knowing of the commitment of the Senator from Colorado 
and just sort of knowing the way things work here, I wonder whether I 
could ask my colleague something. I am sort of tempted to have a vote 
because I would like to show a lot of support for this. I ask my 
colleague whether or not he would be willing to fight hard to keep this 
in conference committee?
  I know my friend from Colorado being an honorable Senator--I am 
delighted that it will be taken--I am

[[Page S9209]]

wondering whether my colleague would give me some sense of whether or 
not he supports this, whether I can count on his support in the 
conference committee so this doesn't get taken out.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I can't speak for everyone in the conference, but from 
my own perspective I am very supportive.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That means a great deal to me.
  I don't know whether my colleague from Wisconsin is on the floor 
right now, Senator Kohl, but I believe that I can count on his support.
  Is the Senator from Michigan, Senator Abraham, on the floor?
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I am delighted that the 
amendment is accepted. We can vote on it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, there is no opposition on the majority 
side to the Abraham amendment.
  With that, Mr. President, I voice my support for the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Wellstone 
amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the 
Senator from Minnesota.
  The amendment (No. 3373) was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 3362, as amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is now on the Abraham 
amendment, as amended, by the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota.
  Is there further debate an the Abraham amendment?
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. We 
are in the process of getting some technical corrections on the 
amendment of the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, we got ahead of ourselves on the 
amendment of the Senator from Tennessee. I ask unanimous consent that 
the motion to reconsider the amendment be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Abraham amendment is the pending question.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The pending question is the Abraham amendment.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico still has the 
floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                    Amendment No. 3362, As Modified

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification of the 
Abraham amendment?
  Hearing no objection, it so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3362, as modified) is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ASSESSMENT OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND POLICIES ON 
                   FAMILIES.

       (a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to--
       (1) require agencies to assess the impact of proposed 
     agency actions on family well-being; and
       (2) improve the management of executive branch agencies.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``agency'' has the meaning given the term 
     ``Executive agency'' by section 105 of title 5, United States 
     Code, except such term does not include the General 
     Accounting Office; and
       (2) the term ``family'' means--
       (A) a group of individuals related by blood, marriage, 
     adoption, or other legal custody who live together as a 
     single household; and
       (B) any individual who is not a member of such group, but 
     who is related by blood, marriage, or adoption to a member of 
     such group, and over half of whose support in a calendar year 
     is received from such group.
       (c) Family Policymaking Assessment.--Before implementing 
     policies and regulations that may affect family well-being, 
     each agency shall assess such actions with respect to 
     whether--
       (1) the action strengthens or erodes the stability or 
     safety jof the family and, particularly, the marital 
     commitment;
       (2) the action strengthens or erodes the authority and 
     rights of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision 
     of their children;
       (3) the action helps the family perform its functions, or 
     substitutes governmental activity for the function;
       (4) the action increases or decreases disposable income or 
     poverty of families and children;
       (5) the proposed benefits of the action justify the 
     financial impact on the family;
       (6) the action may be carried out by State or local 
     government or by the family; and
       (7) the action establishes an implicit or explicit policy--
     concerning the relationship between the behavior and personal 
     responsibility of youth, and the norms of society.
       (d) Governmentwide Family Policy Coordination and Review.--
       (1) Certification and rationale.--With respect to each 
     proposed policy or regulation that may affect family well-
     being, the head of each agency shall--
       (A) submit a written certification to the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget and to Congress that such 
     policy or regulation has been assessed in accordance with 
     this section; and
       (B) provide an adequate rationale for implementation of 
     each policy or regulation that may negatively affect family 
     well-being.
       (2) Office of management and budget.--The Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall--
       (A) ensure that policies and regulations proposed by 
     agencies are implemented consistent with this section; and
       (B) compile, index, and submit annually to the Congress the 
     written certifications received pursuant to paragraph (1)(A).
       (3) Office of policy development.--The Office of Policy 
     Development shall--
       (A) assess proposed policies and regulations in accordance 
     with this section;
       (B) provide evaluations of policies and regulations that 
     may affect family well-being to the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget; and
       (C) advise the President on policy and regulatory actions 
     that may be taken to strengthen the institutions of marriage 
     and family in the United States.
       (e) Assessments Upon Request by Members of Congress.--Upon 
     request by a Member of Congress relating to a proposed policy 
     or regulation, an agency shall conduct an assessment in 
     accordance with subsection (c), and shall provide a 
     certification and rationale in accordance with subsection 
     (d).
       (f) Judicial Review.--This section is not intended to 
     create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, 
     enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its 
     agencies, its officers, or any person.

     SEC.   . FAMILY WELL-BEING AND CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT.

       Consideration of any bill or joint resolution of a public 
     character reported by any committee of the Senate or of the 
     House of Representatives that is accompanied by a committee 
     report that does not contain a detailed analysis of the 
     probable impact of the bill or resolution on family well-
     being and on childen, including whether such bill or joint 
     resolution will increase the number of children who are 
     hungry or homeless, shall not be in order.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, at this time I believe we have concluded 
all debate on the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Abraham 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator 
from Michigan.
  The amendment (No. 3362), as modified, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

[[Page S9210]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is S. 2312, which is open 
to amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be set aside so I can offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no amendment pending. The Senator has 
a right to offer an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3376

(Purpose: To provide emergency authority to the Secretary of Energy to 
           purchase oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Torricelli, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3376.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I note 
that we do not have copies of the amendment. We have not had a chance 
to see it yet.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will have my staff get a copy to the 
manager immediately. I thought we had done that before.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let me clarify. Is there objection to 
dispensing with the reading of the Bingaman amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:

   ``ADDITIONAL PURCHASES OF OIL FOR THE STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

       ``In response to historically low prices for oil produced 
     domestically and to build national capacity for response to 
     future energy supply emergencies, the Secretary of Energy 
     shall purchase and transport an additional $420,000,000 of 
     oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve upon a determination 
     by the President that current market conditions are 
     imperiling domestic oil production from marginal and small 
     producers: Provided, That an official budget request for the 
     purchase of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and 
     including a designation of the entire request as an emergency 
     requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by 
     the President to the Congress: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount in the preceding proviso is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to talk about a critical 
energy issue facing the country today that calls for urgent action.
  That is the price collapse that we have seen for crude oil. We are 
near historically low prices for crude oil in the world, in real terms, 
due in part to the economic turmoil in Asia. This is leading to several 
serious problems.
  First, we are threatened with the loss of a major domestic industry. 
When the wellhead price of crude oil is in the vicinity of $10 a 
barrel, as it has been recently in the Permian basin and elsewhere in 
the country), we drive producers of oil from marginal wells out of the 
business. There are about a half million marginal wells in this 
country. The employment from operating those wells puts food on the 
table for a lot of families all over the country, and we need to be 
concerned about their economic future.
  Second, low prices mean we lose royalty and tax revenues that fund 
public education. Since October 1997, the drop in crude oil prices has 
triggered a revenue shortfall in the States totaling $819 million. 
That's close to a billion dollar loss for public education in less than 
one year. In New Mexico, counties and towns are canceling planned 
school construction and renovation projects.
  Third, our national energy security is threatened. During the Arab 
oil embargo of the 1970s, we imported 30 percent of our oil. Today, 
it's 56 percent. Even before the current price decline, the Energy 
Information Administration was predicting that imports would go to 68 
percent by 2015. With lower prices, though, EIA's projection rises to 
75 percent oil import dependence.
  Finally, international stability is put at risk by current oil 
prices. Earlier this month, the IMF approved $11.2 billion in aid for 
Russia. $2.9 billion of that amount was to make up for shortfalls in 
Russia's export earnings. Over half of Russia's oil is exported, but 
the benchmark price for that oil has declined by 25 percent in this 
year alone. Continued low world oil prices could undo whatever gains in 
stability are accomplished in Russia by IMF funding. The same is true 
of other major oil-producing countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia.
  The Senate has recently focused on the problems confronting farmers 
growing out of collapsing world commodity prices. When it considered 
the agriculture appropriations bill, the Senate agreed to help address 
this urgent farm crisis by providing the Secretary of Agriculture with 
$500 million, under an emergency appropriation, to help agricultural 
producers, including family farmers, to stay in business. We need to do 
the same thing for the domestic oil industry.
  The amendment that I have sent to the desk does just that. It is an 
emergency appropriation to allow the Administration to buy back all the 
oil the government has sold out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for 
budgetary purposes since the Gulf War. That amount comes to 28 million 
barrels.
  We sold this oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to pay for 
other unrelated spending on appropriations bills. In effect, we were 
using one of the country's prime energy security tools as a giant ATM 
machine. The Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee and I led an 
effort last year and this to put a stop to such sales.
  I am gratified that the Committee on Appropriations is not proposing 
any further sales this year. But the energy security concerns that I 
have mentioned, particularly our continuing and growing reliance on 
foreign oil imports, make repurchase of the oil for the SPR a good 
idea. Also, at current world oil prices, the oil we put back will cost 
less than what we sold it for. At an estimated cost of $15 per barrel 
delivered to the SPR, this amendment would require a $420 million 
emergency appropriation.
  The use of an emergency appropriation in this case is well justified. 
It is somewhat less than what the Senate has done for farmers who are 
facing similar financial losses from the same sort of world economic 
forces and collapsing prices. And there can be no doubt that the 
economic implosion that threatens the oil-producing regions of the 
Southwest, if we allow current trends to continue, qualifies as an 
emergency.
  This amendment gives the kind of help that does the most good here in 
the United States and internationally. It gets excess oil off the 
market. This would have a significant beneficial impact on wellhead 
prices, but not enough to trigger a price spike for refined oil 
products.
  I think this is a good amendment. I think it is consistent with our 
concern for our long-term energy security. I think it is a very good 
investment. This is the time when we should, as a country, be thinking 
about replenishing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I hope very much 
the managers of the bill will be able to accept this amendment and that 
we will be able to add it to this piece of legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bingaman, will you add me as a cosponsor, 
please?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am very pleased to add Senator Domenici as a 
cosponsor. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it probably will come as a big surprise 
that, for example, the current price for a gallon of crude oil is 
cheaper than the price for a gallon of bottled water. Many people will 
say, ``That is great.'' Those who look at the American economy and 
forget about our oil production and our oilfield workers, they would 
say, ``Great.'' But if you are looking at how far we have gone in our 
oil dependence, you will see the small producers of oil in the United 
States are in the most serious problem they have been in in modern 
times. The prices are so low that I had two of them come to see me the 
other day.

[[Page S9211]]

 One last year had $15 million invested in new wells; this year, zero. 
One drilled 31 new wells last year; this year, 1. We have hundreds of 
thousands of small wells, called stripper wells, producing 15 barrels a 
day or less. Many of those, if they shut them in, the oil is gone. The 
entire reserve is lost.
  We are not sure how to fix that. It is a very complicated problem. 
But the amendment that is being offered, which I join in, is saying, 
with prices this low and the fact that we used a lot of our expensive 
oil during the Iraqi war, we ought to replenish with $420 million worth 
of purchases. At least it will stabilize somewhat the faltering prices 
here and may stabilize the stripper wells that are going down the tube 
and will not be available to America for the production of oil. The way 
it is paid for is to say: If the President of the United States deems 
it to be an emergency, then it will be an emergency under the budget. 
That is not exceptional. We do that for emergencies all the time. We 
think the oil patch is in a state of emergency.
  Mr. President, the head of the National Stripper Well Association, 
estimated that small producers already have closed 100,000 wells this 
year, and cut production by 300,000 barrels a day and has been forced 
to eliminate 10,000 jobs because of falling prices.
  Small oil companies are sinking with crude oil prices.
  Behind the price drop is the reduced demand in Asia because of its 
financial crisis, the prospect of Iraq selling more oil and the 
inability of the OPEC to agree on production cuts.
  The state, receives about 30 percent of its funds from oil and gas. 
Each dollar drop in the price of a barrel of oil translates roughly 
into a drop of $20 million in state revenues.
  In Oklahoma, the continuation of low oil prices could lead to the 
permanent abandonment of about three-fourths of Oklahoma's almost 
90,000 oil wells.
  This amendment will direct the Secretary of Energy to purchase and 
transport and additional $420,000,000 of oil for the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve upon a determination by the President that the 
current market conditions are imperiling domestic oil productions from 
marginal and small producers.
  This is a small step to show support for our domestic oil industry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________