Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that debate only be in order to the pending agriculture appropriations bill until the hour of 6:45 p.m. this evening.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chairman. western area power administration

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, it is my understanding that western states and the western electric power industry have been engaged in intensive efforts to create a competitive and reliable western electricity market covering all or parts of 14 states, two Canadian provinces and northern Mexico. I believe this is exactly the type of local cooperative action Congress hoped for in the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. I ask the Chairman, does the budget contain funds to help western states work with the electric power industry to promote competitive and reliable electricity markets in the Western Interconnection?

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, the Chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, a question related to a project in my State. Am I correct in stating that the bill before the Senate today contains $3 million in funding for the Tooele City Wastewater Treatment and Reuse Project?

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Hatch in introducing the Utah School Lands Exchange Act. This legislation is the result of months of negotiations between the Utah School and Institutional Trust Administration (SITLA), the Governor of Utah and the Secretary of Interior. Utah is a mosaic of land ownership and the federal government is the largest landlord. With 22 million acres under BLM management alone, eight million acres under the United States Forest Service and another three million in National Parks and Monuments, public lands issues command considerable attention in my state. This is complicated by the 1894 Enabling Act which created a checkerboard pattern of state ownership among federal lands, intermingling five sections of state lands in every township. The federal government and the state of Utah have been trying to resolve the thorny issue of how to manage or dispose of these trust lands for well over a half century now. My father attempted to bring some resolution to the issue when he served in this body more than forty years ago. In 1993, after extensive negotiations, Congress passed P.L. 103-93 which set in motion a process to exchange lands out of Utah's National Parks and Forest lands for other parcels within the state. The process was marginally successful at best, due to the complex process of appraisals and arbitration established by the legislation. Of the 500 plus parcels identified in that exchange over five years ago, less than forty have actually been exchanged to date. The trust lands issue was further complicated by the creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in September of 1996. Without going into details, 176,000 acres of School Trust Lands were locked up by the creation of the Monument. President Clinton promised to use his office to facilitate the prompt exchange of these lands. Most Utahns were skeptical that this would actually happen. In fact, SITLA and the Utah Association of Counties filed suit over the creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Now, nearly two years later, the Clinton Administration has reached a historic agreement with the Governor of Utah and SITLA to exchange 376,000 acres of state lands for 138,000 acres of federal lands. This agreement fulfills the President's commitment to the schoolchildren of Utah and reduces the uncertainty over the future management of the Monument. I hope my colleagues understand that it is in the best interest of the federal government to exchange these lands promptly. This proposal benefits the school children of Utah as well as the visitors and users of public lands. In exchange for lands encumbered within parks, forests and the Monument, the state of Utah will receive just compensation in the form of mineral assets, comparable lands within the state and a sizable cash payment. These assets will be administered by the State Institutional Trust Lands Administration for the improvement of public education in Utah. In that context, we must support this agreement. We have a responsibility to help SITLA fulfill its mandate and utilize these lands for the greatest benefit to the children of Utah. Without this exchange, these lands, despite their significant mineral potential, will remain unproductive. At a time of competing interests and lack of consensus regarding land use in Utah, this is a step in the right direction. I believe that the agreement reached between the state and the Department of Interior bridges the gap that has existed for decades. While some interests are not totally satisfied, I believe the legislation we are introducing today is a fair and equitable agreement. I am also confident that the Committee will listen closely to those parties and make a good-faith effort to resolve any lingering concerns. I appreciate the good work of my colleague Senator Hatch, Governor Leavitt and Secretary Babbitt, as well as our colleagues in the House. I am confident that we will see a resolution to this longstanding debate in the 105th Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and bring this issue to closure.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Hatch in introducing the Utah School Lands Exchange Act. This legislation is the result of months of negotiations between the Utah School and Institutional Trust Administration (SITLA), the Governor of Utah and the Secretary of Interior. Utah is a mosaic of land ownership and the federal government is the largest landlord. With 22 million acres under BLM management alone, eight million acres under the United States Forest Service and another three million in National Parks and Monuments, public lands issues command considerable attention in my state. This is complicated by the 1894 Enabling Act which created a checkerboard pattern of state ownership among federal lands, intermingling five sections of state lands in every township. The federal government and the state of Utah have been trying to resolve the thorny issue of how to manage or dispose of these trust lands for well over a half century now. My father attempted to bring some resolution to the issue when he served in this body more than forty years ago. In 1993, after extensive negotiations, Congress passed P.L. 103-93 which set in motion a process to exchange lands out of Utah's National Parks and Forest lands for other parcels within the state. The process was marginally successful at best, due to the complex process of appraisals and arbitration established by the legislation. Of the 500 plus parcels identified in that exchange over five years ago, less than forty have actually been exchanged to date. The trust lands issue was further complicated by the creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in September of 1996. Without going into details, 176,000 acres of School Trust Lands were locked up by the creation of the Monument. President Clinton promised to use his office to facilitate the prompt exchange of these lands. Most Utahns were skeptical that this would actually happen. In fact, SITLA and the Utah Association of Counties filed suit over the creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Now, nearly two years later, the Clinton Administration has reached a historic agreement with the Governor of Utah and SITLA to exchange 376,000 acres of state lands for 138,000 acres of federal lands. This agreement fulfills the President's commitment to the schoolchildren of Utah and reduces the uncertainty over the future management of the Monument. I hope my colleagues understand that it is in the best interest of the federal government to exchange these lands promptly. This proposal benefits the school children of Utah as well as the visitors and users of public lands. In exchange for lands encumbered within parks, forests and the Monument, the state of Utah will receive just compensation in the form of mineral assets, comparable lands within the state and a sizable cash payment. These assets will be administered by the State Institutional Trust Lands Administration for the improvement of public education in Utah. In that context, we must support this agreement. We have a responsibility to help SITLA fulfill its mandate and utilize these lands for the greatest benefit to the children of Utah. Without this exchange, these lands, despite their significant mineral potential, will remain unproductive. At a time of competing interests and lack of consensus regarding land use in Utah, this is a step in the right direction. I believe that the agreement reached between the state and the Department of Interior bridges the gap that has existed for decades. While some interests are not totally satisfied, I believe the legislation we are introducing today is a fair and equitable agreement. I am also confident that the Committee will listen closely to those parties and make a good-faith effort to resolve any lingering concerns. I appreciate the good work of my colleague Senator Hatch, Governor Leavitt and Secretary Babbitt, as well as our colleagues in the House. I am confident that we will see a resolution to this longstanding debate in the 105th Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and bring this issue to closure.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to General Bernard A. Schriever, a modern-day pioneer whose legendary contributions to our nation's defense will be appropriately recognized on Friday, June 5, 1998, when Falcon Air Force Base will be renamed in his honor. General Schriever, a retired four-star general, is widely regarded as the father of the ICBM. General Schriever was born in Bremen, Germany, on September 14, 1910. His family immigrated to the United States when he was seven years old, and he became a naturalized citizen at age 13 and finished his early schooling in San Antonio, Texas. His flying career began in the late 1920s, as a mail-carrier flying between my home state of Utah and Wyoming. In 1931, he received a Bachelor of Science degree from Texas A&M, and a reserve appointment in the Field Artillery. He earned his wings as a second lieutenant in the Army Air Corps Reserve in June 1933. After obtaining his Master's degree in Aeronautical Engineering from Stanford University in 1942, he gained rapid promotions and positions of increasing responsibility during World War II. He was Chief of Staff of the 5th Air Force Service Command and later Commander of the Advanced Headquarters for the Far Eastern Air Force Service Command. After the war he became the Chief of the scientific Liaison Section at Headquarters USAF and held other scientific evaluation jobs as they pertained to military weaponry. Beginning in 1954 when he assumed command of the Air Force Ballistic Missile Division and later with the Air Research and Development Command, General Schriever pushed forward research and development on all technical phases of the Atlas, Titan, Thor and Minuteman ballistic missiles. He also provided for the launching sites and equipment, tracking facilities, and ground support equipment necessary to the deployment of these systems. With the expansion of the Air Research and Development Command, he became Commander of the newly created Air Force Systems Command (AFSC). Among the many creative programs he conceived and directed at AFSC was Project Forecast I, completed in 1964, which enlisted the best scientific and technological minds of that period in the projection of the aerospace world for the future. After retiring from the Air Force on August 31, 1966, with more than 33 years of active military service, General Schriever became a consultant to government and industry where he could most effectively use his knowledge and experience pursuing technology and its management into military operational capabilities. General Schriever has had several important government advisory assignments since his retirement in 1966, including: by Executive Order, Chairman, President's Advisory Commission on Management Improvement (PACMI); member, National Commission on Space; member, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; member, Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) Technical Advisory Committee; Chairman, SDI Institute, and various ad hoc advisory committees and panels involving national security (DoD) and space (NASA). General Schriever has been awarded four honorary Doctor of Science degrees, one honorary Doctor of Aeronautical Science degree, one honorary Doctor of Engineering degree, and one honorary Doctor of Laws degree, by various colleges and universities, including Utah State University. Inducted into Aviation Hall of Fame in 1980. Elected Honorary Fellow AIAA, recipient of James Forrestal Award 1986. Member of NAE. He received the National Air and Space Museum Trophy for Lifetime Achievement in November 1996. General Schriever remains very active even today, and continues to serve on several important advisory boards to government, industry, and education. He currently chairs the Guidance Council for the Space Dynamics Lab at Utah State University in my home state. Several years ago, I was honored to have General Schriever participate as the featured speaker at my annual conference, SpaceTalk. General Schriever's patriotism, intelligence, and vision have served our country well. The United States is more secure thanks to his many contributions and achievements. Thank you, General Schriever, for your dedication to the nation's well-being. I congratulate you and wish you continued success.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to expand the boundaries of Arches National Park. I appreciate my colleague Senator Hatch for joining me in this effort. The House version of this bill, H.R. 2283 sponsored by Mr. Cannon, was passed late last year. Most Americans recognize the familiar landscape of Arches National Park. It encompasses some of the most unique lands in the Southwest. Delicate sandstone arches, stunning vistas, contrasting colors, sweeping desert valleys, maze-like rock formations, and rugged gorges characterize the panorama in the park. In 1929, when the park was created, knowledge of ecosystem management was almost nonexistent. Park designation preserved these unique geological treasures but also relied on fairly rigid park boundaries which has resulted in some fragmentation of ecological areas within the park. This bill authorizes a 3,140 acre expansion to include the beautiful and unique Lost Spring Canyon parcel contiguous with the eastern boundary of the Arches. This addition will enhance the ecological protection of Arches. The Arches National Park Expansion includes portions of the following drainages: Salt Wash, Lost Spring Canyon, Fish Seep Draw, Clover Canyon, Cordova Canyon, Mine Draw, and Cottonwood Wash. These areas are currently under the jurisdiction of either the Bureau of Land Management or the State of Utah. Once the expansion is complete, the Park Service will continue to protect the wilderness values of these lands. No road or campground construction will occur in the new addition. Lost Spring Canyon will continue primarily to be used for back-country hiking. It is not in danger of being overrun by thousands of park visitors simply by the nature of the rugged terrain and the distances involved. But it makes good management sense to bring these areas under park management. Public lands debates are far too contentious in the West, particularly in Utah. While it is unfortunate that we have not been able to reach consensus on issues like wilderness, I am pleased that the expansion of Arches National Park is an issue which a diverse group of interests do agree. Local officials, the Grand Canyon Trust, the National Parks and Conservation Association, environmental groups, the State of Utah, the Utah Congressional delegation, and the Administration all support this bill. This legislation is good for Arches National Park and is a great example of how it is possible to reach consensus among public lands interests. The expansion will enhance the visitor experience of Arches by expanding back-country opportunities. It makes good management sense for both BLM and the Park Service. I hope my colleagues will join me in moving this legislation quickly.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to expand the boundaries of Arches National Park. I appreciate my colleague Senator Hatch for joining me in this effort. The House version of this bill, H.R. 2283 sponsored by Mr. Cannon, was passed late last year. Most Americans recognize the familiar landscape of Arches National Park. It encompasses some of the most unique lands in the Southwest. Delicate sandstone arches, stunning vistas, contrasting colors, sweeping desert valleys, maze-like rock formations, and rugged gorges characterize the panorama in the park. In 1929, when the park was created, knowledge of ecosystem management was almost nonexistent. Park designation preserved these unique geological treasures but also relied on fairly rigid park boundaries which has resulted in some fragmentation of ecological areas within the park. This bill authorizes a 3,140 acre expansion to include the beautiful and unique Lost Spring Canyon parcel contiguous with the eastern boundary of the Arches. This addition will enhance the ecological protection of Arches. The Arches National Park Expansion includes portions of the following drainages: Salt Wash, Lost Spring Canyon, Fish Seep Draw, Clover Canyon, Cordova Canyon, Mine Draw, and Cottonwood Wash. These areas are currently under the jurisdiction of either the Bureau of Land Management or the State of Utah. Once the expansion is complete, the Park Service will continue to protect the wilderness values of these lands. No road or campground construction will occur in the new addition. Lost Spring Canyon will continue primarily to be used for back-country hiking. It is not in danger of being overrun by thousands of park visitors simply by the nature of the rugged terrain and the distances involved. But it makes good management sense to bring these areas under park management. Public lands debates are far too contentious in the West, particularly in Utah. While it is unfortunate that we have not been able to reach consensus on issues like wilderness, I am pleased that the expansion of Arches National Park is an issue which a diverse group of interests do agree. Local officials, the Grand Canyon Trust, the National Parks and Conservation Association, environmental groups, the State of Utah, the Utah Congressional delegation, and the Administration all support this bill. This legislation is good for Arches National Park and is a great example of how it is possible to reach consensus among public lands interests. The expansion will enhance the visitor experience of Arches by expanding back-country opportunities. It makes good management sense for both BLM and the Park Service. I hope my colleagues will join me in moving this legislation quickly.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to submit for the Record, in accordance with Senate Rule 26.2, the Rules for the Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem which were adopted by a unanimous vote of the Committee on Wednesday, May 20, 1998. Also, I want to express my gratitude to the leadership on both sides of the aisle for their support, without which we could not have created this very important Committee. I also want to take a moment to mention that the Sergeant at Arms' great help in assisting us in the set up of our offices. Finally, I would be remiss not to mention that the hard work and patience of the staff of the Rules Committee has also aided us in moving forward in a more expeditious fashion. Rules of Procedure i. convening of meetings and hearings 1. Meetings. The Committee shall meet to conduct Committee business at the call of the Chairman. 2. Special Meetings. The Members of the Committee may call additional meetings as provided in Senate Rule XXVI(3). 3. Notice and Agenda: (a) Hearings. The Committee shall make public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing at least one week before its commencement. (b) Meetings. The Chairman shall give the Members written notice of any Committee meeting, accompanied by an agenda enumerating the items of business to be considered, at least 5 days in advance of such meeting. (c) Shortened Notice. A hearing or meeting may be called on not less than 24 hours notice if the Chairman, with the concurrence of the Vice Chairman, determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing or meeting on an expedited basis. An agenda will be furnished prior to such a meeting. 4. Presiding Officer. The Chairman shall preside when present. If the Chairman is not present at any meeting or hearing, the Ranking Majority Member present shall preside. Any Member of the Committee may preside over the conduct of a hearing. ii. closed sessions and confidential materials 1. Procedure. All meetings and hearings shall be open to the public unless closed pursuant to paragraph 3 of this section. To close a meeting or hearing or portion thereof, a motion shall be made and seconded to go into closed discussion of whether the meeting or hearing will concern the matters enumerated in Rule II.3. Immediately after such discussion, the meeting or hearing may be closed by a vote in open session of a majority of the Members of the Committee present. 2. Witness Request. Any witness called for a hearing may submit a written request to the Chairman no later than twenty-four hours in advance for his examination to be in closed or open session. The Chairman shall inform the Committee of any such request. 3. Closed Session Subjects. A meeting or hearing or portion thereof may be closed if the matters are consistent with Senate Rule XXVI(5)(b). 4. Confidential Matter. No record made of a closed session, or material declared confidential by the Chairman and Vice Chairman, or report of the proceedings of a closed session, shall be made public, in whole or in part or by way of summary, unless specifically authorized by the Chairman and Vice Chairman. 5. Radio, Television, and Photography. The Committee may permit the proceedings of hearings which are open to the public to be photographed and broadcast by radio, television, or both, subject to such conditions as the Committee may impose. iii. quorum and voting 1. Reporting. A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum for reporting a resolution, recommendation, or report to the Senate. 2. Committee Business. Three voting members shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of Committee business, other than a final vote on reporting, providing a minority Member is present. One Member shall constitute a quorum for the receipt of evidence, the swearing of witnesses, and the taking of testimony at hearings. 3. Polling. (a) Subjects. The Committee may poll (1) internal Committee matters including those concerning the Committee's staff, records, and budget; (2) authorizing subpoenas; and (3) other Committee business which has been designated for polling at a meeting. (b) Procedure. The Chairman shall circulate polling sheets to each Member specifying the matter being polled and the time limit for completion of the poll. If any Member so requests in advance of the meeting, the matter shall be held for meeting rather than being polled. The clerk shall keep a record of polls. If the Chairman determines that the polled matter is one of the areas enumerated in Rule II.3, the record of the poll shall be confidential. Any Member may move at the Committee meeting following a poll for a vote on the polled decision. iv. subpoenas 1. Subpoenas. Subpoenas may be authorized by the Committee at a meeting of the Committee or pursuant to Rule III.3.a (above). Subpoenas authorized by the Committee may be issued over the signature of the Chairman after consultation with the Vice Chairman, or any member of the special committee designated by the Chairman after consultation with the Vice Chairman, and may be served by any person designated by the Chairman or the member signing the subpoena. v. hearings 1. Notice. Witnesses called before the Committee shall be given, absent extraordinary circumstances, at least forty- eight hours notice, and all witnesses called shall be furnished with a copy of these rules upon request. 2. Oath. All witnesses who testify to matters of fact shall be sworn. The Chairman or any Member may administer the oath. 3. Statement. Any witness desiring to make an introductory statement shall file 50 copies of such statement with the clerk of the Committee 24 hours in advance of his appearance, unless the Chairman and Vice Chairman determine that there is good cause for a witness's failure to do so. 4. Counsel: (a) A witness's counsel shall be permitted to be present during his testimony at any public or closed hearing, or staff interview to advise the witness of his rights, provided, however, that in the case of any witness who is an officer or employee of the government, or of a corporation or association, the Chairman may rule that representation by counsel from the government, corporation, or association creates a conflict of interest, and that the witness shall be represented by personal counsel not associated with the government, corporation, or association. (b) A witness who is unable for economic reasons to obtain counsel may inform the Committee of this circumstance at least 48 hours prior to his appearance, and the Committee will endeavor to obtain volunteer counsel for the witness. Such counsel shall be subject solely to the control of the witness and not the Committee. Failure to obtain counsel shall not excuse the witness from appearing and testifying. 5. Transcript. An accurate electronic or stenographic record shall be kept of the testimony of all witnesses in closed and public hearings. Any witness shall be afforded, upon request, the right to review that portion of such record, and for this purpose, a copy of a witness's testimony in public or closed session shall be provided to the witness. Upon inspecting his transcript, within a time limit set by the committee clerk, a witness may request changes in testimony to correct errors of transcription, grammatical errors, and obvious errors in fact. The Chairman or a designated staff officer shall rule on such requests. 6. Minority Witnesses. Whenever any hearing is conducted by the Committee, the minority on the Committee shall be entitled, upon request made by a majority of the minority Members to the Chairman, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify or produce documents with respect to the measure or matter under consideration during at least one day of the hearing. Such request must be made before the completion of the hearing. 7. Conduct of Witnesses, Counsel and Members of the Audience. If, during public or executive sessions, a witness, his counsel, or any spectator conducts himself in such a manner as to prevent, impede, disrupt, obstruct, or interfere with the orderly administration of such hearing, the Chairman or presiding Member of the Committee present during such hearing may request the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, his representative, or any law enforcement official to eject said person from the hearing room. vi. amendment of rules The rules of the Committee may be amended or revised at any time, by a majority vote of the Committee, provided that no less than 3 days notice of the amendments or revisions proposed was provided to all members of the committee.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1998. This legislation would authorize additional funds for lupus research and grants for state and local governments to support the delivery of essential services to low- income individuals with lupus and their families. The National Institute of Health (NIH) spent about $33 million on lupus research last year. I believe that we need to increase the funds that are available for research of this debilitating disease. Lupus is not a well-known disease, nor is it well understood, yet at least 1,400,000 Americans have been diagnosed with lupus and many more are either misdiagnosed or not diagnosed at all. More Americans have lupus than AIDS, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, sickle-cell anemia or cystic fibrosis. Lupus is a disease that attacks and weakens the immune system and is often life threatening. Lupus is nine times more likely to affect women than men. African-American women are diagnosed with lupus two to three times more often than Caucasian women. Lupus is also more prevalent among certain minority groups including Latinos, Native Americans and Asians. Because lupus is not well understood, it is difficult to diagnose, leading to uncertainty on the actual number of patients suffering from lupus. The symptoms of lupus make diagnosis difficult because they are sporadic and imitate the symptoms of many other illnesses. If diagnosed and with proper treatment, the majority of lupus cases can be controlled. Unfortunately, because of the difficulties in diagnosing lupus and inadequate research, many lupus patients suffer debilitating pain and fatigue. The resulting effects make it difficult, if not impossible, for individuals suffering from lupus to carry on normal everyday activities including work. Thousands of these debilitating cases needlessly end in death each year. Title I of the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1998 authorizes $45 million in grants starting in fiscal year 1999 to be earmarked for lupus research at NIH. This new authorization would amount to less than one-half of 1 percent of NIH's total budget but would greatly enhance NIH's research. Title II of the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1998 authorizes $40 million in grants to state and local governments as well as to nonprofit organizations starting in fiscal year 1999. These grants would support the delivery of essential services to low-income individuals with lupus and their families. I would urge all my colleagues, Mr. President, to join Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Shelby, and myself in sponsoring this legislation to increase funding available to fight lupus.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1998. This legislation would authorize additional funds for lupus research and grants for state and local governments to support the delivery of essential services to low- income individuals with lupus and their families. The National Institute of Health (NIH) spent about $33 million on lupus research last year. I believe that we need to increase the funds that are available for research of this debilitating disease. Lupus is not a well-known disease, nor is it well understood, yet at least 1,400,000 Americans have been diagnosed with lupus and many more are either misdiagnosed or not diagnosed at all. More Americans have lupus than AIDS, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, sickle-cell anemia or cystic fibrosis. Lupus is a disease that attacks and weakens the immune system and is often life threatening. Lupus is nine times more likely to affect women than men. African-American women are diagnosed with lupus two to three times more often than Caucasian women. Lupus is also more prevalent among certain minority groups including Latinos, Native Americans and Asians. Because lupus is not well understood, it is difficult to diagnose, leading to uncertainty on the actual number of patients suffering from lupus. The symptoms of lupus make diagnosis difficult because they are sporadic and imitate the symptoms of many other illnesses. If diagnosed and with proper treatment, the majority of lupus cases can be controlled. Unfortunately, because of the difficulties in diagnosing lupus and inadequate research, many lupus patients suffer debilitating pain and fatigue. The resulting effects make it difficult, if not impossible, for individuals suffering from lupus to carry on normal everyday activities including work. Thousands of these debilitating cases needlessly end in death each year. Title I of the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1998 authorizes $45 million in grants starting in fiscal year 1999 to be earmarked for lupus research at NIH. This new authorization would amount to less than one-half of 1 percent of NIH's total budget but would greatly enhance NIH's research. Title II of the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1998 authorizes $40 million in grants to state and local governments as well as to nonprofit organizations starting in fiscal year 1999. These grants would support the delivery of essential services to low-income individuals with lupus and their families. I would urge all my colleagues, Mr. President, to join Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Shelby, and myself in sponsoring this legislation to increase funding available to fight lupus.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Explanation of Absence Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, because of a flight cancellation and delays, I missed three votes this afternoon. If I were here, I would have voted against tabling all three amendments. While there are times when a temporary increase in High-Skilled Worker Visas is necessary, this bill doesn't adequately protect American workers, and I am therefore unable to support the bill on final passage. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I am through with my presentation. Yes, I yield.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank my friend who has been very indulgent in my obsession with this issue in the subcommittee of the legislative branch of appropriations. In the spirit of what I just said about reports, I can report to the Senate that he and I heard testimony before our last appropriations subcommittee that the Senate will indeed be Y2K-compliant in the year 2000. The Sergeant at Arms, the Secretary of the Senate, and others, have focused on the priorities and are doing the things necessary to get us there. They are changing the computers in the Senate at the rate now of about a thousand a month. I was startled, as I think my friend, Senator Dorgan, may have been, to learn that there were close to 9,000 computers in the Senate; that is 90 for each Senator. I didn't think we needed that many. But there are. They are being made Y2K-compliant at the rate of about a thousand per month now. That will allow us the requisite amount of time to test the various fixes and see to it that we have it under control. The one disquieting note that came out of the hearing that I share with my colleagues was that they said, ``We will have the mission- critical systems Y2K compliant by January of 2000.'' I said, ``What is your definition of a `nonmission-critical system?' '' They said, ``Well, the copier in your office may not work.'' There will be many constituents that will be delighted to know that we cannot make copies in January of 2000 until additional work gets done. But I thank my friend for his support in that area and for his very kind words. They are much appreciated. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise because this is an anniversary date, not an anniversary of something that happened in the past but an anniversary of something that is going to happen in the future. This is an anniversary that is counting backwards. Depending on how you count it, this is either day No. 599 or day No. 600; 599 to the 31st of December, 1999, or 600 days prior to January 1, 2000--the day of the great New Year's Eve party that everybody is reserving their time for in Times Square, in the various hotels in New York. But it is also a day that we need to look forward to with some concern because of what has come to be known as the millennium bug, the year 2000 problem, or, as the computer people abbreviate it, Y2K. I used the phrase ``Y2K,'' and my wife said, ``What are you talking about? What does it stand for?'' Well, the ``Y'' stands for ``year;'' ``2'' and ``K,'' for ``kilo'' or 1,000 years--2,000--so it shortens it. Call it Y2K. She stopped and thought about it a minute, and she said, ``Y2K or year 2000, you only save one syllable. What's the point?'' Nevertheless, that is what it has come to be known as. As the chairman of the newly created committee dealing with this challenge here in the Senate, I want to take this anniversary date to bring the Senate and any who are listening over C-SPAN out in the country as a whole up to date on where we are with the Y2K problem. First, let me outline the dimensions of the problem. A lot of people say, ``Oh, yes; we understand it. It is simply that computers are geared to handle the date with two digits instead of four.'' So 1998 would be in the computer as ``98'' instead of ``1998.'' And that means when you get to the year 2000, the ``00'' to the computer means ``1900'' because the ``19'' is assumed in advance. Actually, it is more serious than that. There are three areas of concern about Y2K. The first one, of course, is the software concern that I have already mentioned. The software is programmed with two digits for the date instead of four. If you do not change the software program, the computer runs into problems and starts to do very strange things when it hits the year 2000. That is the first area, the area we have been focused on. Since I have been involved in this issue--and it has been almost a year since I began to focus on it--I have discovered there were two other areas. So in addition to software, you have a hardware problem symbolized in the phrase ``embedded chips.'' These little tiny chips that drive the computers, the miracles of the modern technological age, very often have a date function built into them. And, again, in order to save space on the chip, the date function is built in with two digits. Where are the embedded chips? They are embedded everywhere. Andy Grove, the CEO of Intel, the largest producer of chips in the United States, was here in Washington a week or so ago. He was asked, ``How serious is the Y2K problem?'' He said, ``It is very serious. And the reason is''--he is focusing on the chip side--``you don't know where the embedded chips are embedded.'' ``For example,'' he said, ``the thermostat in your home may not work after New Year's Eve, 1999.'' Now, it will not do you any good to call the manufacturer of the thermostat and ask him, because the manufacturer himself does not know. The chips were purchased, put into the thermostat, without concern as to whether or not they had a date function. And if the manufacturer got some chips that had date functions in them and put those chips into your thermostat, you are going to be very chilly on New Year's Day in the year 2000. And there is no way of knowing in advance whether that is going to happen. That can be a nuisance for you, it can be a life-or-death situation for some people, and it can be an enormous manufacturing challenge where we are storing and refrigerating meat and other perishables that are dependent on those embedded chips. It can be a life-or-death situation for an automobile manufacturer whose entire plant is now automated with robotics, all of which have embedded chips. So, as I said, Mr. President, it is not just the software that needs to be changed, as the first of these three areas of concern; it is also the embedded chips that need to be found and dealt with. As a final footnote to this, I was discussing this whole Y2K issue with an individual at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, more commonly known as the Mormon Church, the largest church in the State which I represent, asking him how prepared the church was. Fortunately, it was good news. He said the church was quite prepared. But he said, ``We have identified, among other things, two embedded chips in the tabernacle organ, which if we do not replace means that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir will not have any organ accompaniment to it on January 1, 2000.'' That shows how ubiquitous the problem of the embedded chips can be and how it can show up in places no one would ever think. I said there were three areas of concern. I talked about the software and the embedded chips. What is the third? This is the area of connections. Everything in the computer world is connected to everything else in one way or another. I was at the Defense Department talking to those officials about their Y2K problem and made the comment about how difficult it will be in our defense establishment if, on January 1, the screen goes blank, the various screens that handle the computerized information, in our defense establishment. Deputy Secretary Hamre said, ``No, Senator, if the screen goes blank, while that is a problem, it is not a catastrophe; because if the screen goes blank that tells you you have a problem in that particular piece of equipment. The thing we are worried about is if the screen does not go blank, the computer continues to operate, but another computer system to which it is connected starts feeding it inaccurate data.'' If the computer continues to function, make its calculations that ``zero zero'' really does mean 1900 and begins to give you bad information, that could contaminate your entire database. That, he says, is a bigger concern than if the screen goes blank. Frankly, that had not occurred to me. I was able to add, unhappily, a third category of concern-- software, hardware in embedded chips, and now connections. What are we looking at in our special committee with respect to the year 2000 problem? I have divided it up into seven areas and prioritized these areas. We will look at them in the following order to try to see what we can do to avert disaster in the next 599 days--all the days that are remaining to us. Obviously, we would like to pass a resolution saying that we have an extra 2 or 3 years. We do not, no matter what the Congress does, no matter what the President does, no matter what anybody else does, we have 599 days and counting down, inexorably from right now. These are the areas of concern. No. 1, utilities. If the power grid goes down because of connections in the computers or because of embedded chips in certain power plants that shut those power plants down because of bad software somewhere, then it is all over. It doesn't matter if every computer in the country is Y2K compliant if you can't plug it into something. So we are focusing first and foremost on utilities and not just power. The water treatment system in every municipality in this country is computer driven and has the potential of being upset because of embedded chips and bad software. Utilities, therefore, are at the top of the list of the things we are addressing in our committee and are doing what we can to try to expose information about and get people worried and working on it. Second is telecommunications. What happens if you pick up the phone on January 1, 2000, and you cannot get a dial tone? I don't think that is going to happen in the United States. But the evidence is fairly clear that it is going to happen in some countries. If you are running a multinational organization, be it the Defense Department or a corporation, and you pick up the phone and you cannot get a dial tone in various parts of the world, you are in serious trouble. So, behind utilities, we are looking next at telecommunications. Third, transportation. Instantly people think of the FAA and the inability of the air traffic control system to control airplanes, and that is a concern, but what about shipping on the high seas--global positioning systems that all have chips in them that control the navigation of the oil tankers and the other freighters that are moving commerce all over the world? Here in the United States the railroads are heavily dependent on computer systems to route the traffic that produce the shipment of the heavy materials that keep our Nation going. Transportation is clearly No. 3 following utilities and telecommunications. No. 4 is the area that got me interested in this problem in the first place, the financial services. What happens if the banks cannot clear checks? What happens if there can be no electronic transfers of funds? I am happy to report that I believe we are fairly well along the road toward getting this problem solved. We have had seven hearings in my subcommittee on the Banking Committee on this issue, but we cannot relax here, either. The financial services clearly come in as the No. 4 concern. Then, No. 5, general government services, not only Federal but State and local, as well. What happens if in our large cities the county government cannot distribute welfare checks, the county government cannot handle food stamp distribution because of computerization of the way that situation is handled? What happens if HCFA, the Health Care Financing Administration, cannot handle reimbursement of Medicare or Medicaid funds? I have talked to hospitals and other health care providers that are dependent on HCFA reimbursements for their cash flow projections and they use the HCFA cash flow to do such things as purchase ordinary supplies for running the hospital. The whole health care system could grind to a halt if the government services in this area are not made Y2K compliant. The doctors who I have talked to tell me we have long since quit dealing with HCFA with paper. All of our interconnections with HCFA are electronic, and if that system goes down, the ripple effect will be tremendous. Next, general manufacturing. Fortune magazine had an article on their web site pointing out how much trouble General Motors is in. I don't mean to single out General Motors because I think every manufacturer has the same kind of problem. In today's world, where computers are available, we operate a just-in-time inventory system where you do not have huge stockpiles of spare parts out on the back lot anymore. With the computer, you have it worked out with your supplier that your spare parts arrive just in time for you to put them in your final manufacturing product. The just-in-time manufacturing system shuts down altogether and the manufacturing shuts down. General Motors has done a survey of every one of their manufacturing plants and they have found embedded chips in every one of their robotic systems. If they do not get this problem solved, they will not be able to produce an automobile after January 1, 2000. And then, finally, No. 7, listed last because it will come last chronologically, but probably should be listed first in terms of its financial impact if we do not get the other six solved, is litigation. The lawsuits that will be filed will be enormous. Estimates before my subcommittee of the Banking Committee indicate the total litigation bill could run as high as $1 trillion, one-seventh the size of the total economy that will change hands as people sue each other over the problems created by Y2K. We have to make sure we solve the other six so that No. 7 doesn't hit us and destroy us. The purpose of the special committee created by the Senate, I believe, is to examine all seven of these areas, act as a coordinating point for people involved with each of the areas, and then give reports, both to the Senate and to the people in the country as a whole, as to where we are, because it is not all doom and gloom. We do have areas where we are making progress. I talked this morning with John Koskinen who heads this effort on behalf of President Clinton in the executive branch. He reported to me that contrary to some of the information we have seen in the press, the Social Security Administration will be all right, and will indeed be able to distribute Social Security checks in the year 2000. Now, if the banking system is all right, those checks can be received, and that is a demonstration of the problem of interconnectivity that we have. But that is a piece of good news. As we focus on the challenge of Y2K, we should not lose sight of the fact that there is good news and there is progress being made. I close with this observation about the importance of this entire issue. One of the experts with whom I have been in contact since I assumed this new chairmanship said to me, ``The one thing we know for sure about this is that nobody has ever done it before. We have no historical precedent to guide us, to tell us how to handle this and what we can expect.'' And, of course, he was accurate. Of course, that is a true summation of where we are. Yet when I made that comment to another friend of mine, he said something that I think summarizes exactly the challenge we are facing. He said, ``No, Bob, that is not true. We have a historic example. I said, ``What is it?'' He said, ``the Tower of Babel.'' He said, ``The people got together and decided they were going to build a tower to heaven, and God didn't like it, so he fixed it so they could not talk to each other and that ended it.'' He said, ``That is the paradigm of what we are dealing with here, Y2K.'' We are facing the possibility that after January 1 we cannot talk to each other because the world is all wired by computers, and if, indeed, that turns out to be the case, as was the case in Genesis, that will end it. I am hoping that everyone recognizes this anniversary for what it is--a milepost on the road toward an inexorable challenge, and that we use the opportunity to take the remaining 599 days to see to it that when we get to New Year's Eve 1999, we can look back and say that we were facing something as serious as the Tower of Babel, but we have, as a Nation, and as a world, faced up to that, and now Y2K is going to be a bump in the road instead of a drive off the cliff.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, am I correct that I am recognized by previous order for 15 minutes?

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the University of Utah ROTC Class of 1944 which responded to the call for active military duty during World War II. On May 2, 1998, at the University of Utah members of the ROTC Class of 1944 will hold a reunion commemorating the 55th anniversary of their activation into our national armed services. I believe it is fitting that we honor them today in the United States Senate. The University of Utah Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) was an unique organization. It was one of the few military units which were called into service during World War II from a specific community and which can return to that home area for a reunion. Most military units include individuals whose residences are scattered throughout the country. Through an Act of Congress in 1916, ROTC programs were established in higher education institutions across the country. Since that time, they have been an important part of this nation's civil defense--in times of war and peace--training generations of students for service to their country. In the early 1940s, this class trained at the University of Utah with horse-drawn artillery working with an old French 77 millimeter cannon and with a 105 millimeter howitzer, new at the time. As a unit, this ROTC class was first assigned to Camp Roberts in California, for basic training in truck drawn artillery. Later they were assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for further training and ultimately received further schooling at the Infantry Officers School at Fort Benning, Georgia. After graduation from Fort Benning, these young men, whose average age at the time was slightly over 20, served as officers in various combat units in Italy, France and the South Pacific. These were brave and honorable men, each one of them. Of the 99 who were called to active duty in 1943, two were killed in action while serving in the 10th Mountain Division in Italy. One was later killed in the Korean Conflict. Of the group's original 99 members, 71 are still alive. Today, I speak for all Utahns and all Americans when I say, we honor these brave men and pay tribute to them for their service and sacrifice for this great country. The Class of 1944's great tradition of discipline and leadership continues today as many of its members are respected professionals in the public and private sector as well as their own communities. I ask that a copy of the unit's activation orders for March 16, 1943 be printed in the Record as part of this tribute. And finally, Mr. President, before I close, I want to thank Chris S. Metos of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the outstanding job he has done to help organize this upcoming reunion and for the many years of service he has provided to this country and to the people of the state of Utah. The activation orders follows: Activation Orders: Headquarters Ninth Service Command, Fort Douglas, Utah, March 16, 1943 1. Following-named Enl Res, 1st yr Advanced ROTC, are ordered to AD. WP fr Univ of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah so as to rpt to Recp Cen. Fort Douglas, Utah on April 5, 1943 for processing and asgmt to Camp Roberts, Calif to receive Mil Tung in lieu of that normally given during 2d yr advanced course ROTC (FA) instructions. Ea Enl Res named herein reporting to Recp Cen will present to Classification Officer transcript of colg academic and ROTC records. Pvt Ray N. Welling, in charge of detachment; Pvt Rodney E. Alsop; Pvt Arthur S. Anderson; Pvt David F. Anderson; Pvt Warren S. Anderson; Pvt Dale F. Barlow; Pvt Eliot D. Barton; Pvt Ronald A. Bell; Pvt Wallace G. Bennett; Pvt Wilford N. Bergener; Pvt Burton F. Brasher; Pvt Over J. Call; Pvt Louis B. Cardon; Pvt Gordon L. Carlson; Pvt John S. Carlson; Pvt Charles G. Chase; Pvt Lorin W. Clayton; Pvt Jack A. Clegg; Pvt Walter K. Conrad; Pvt Max T. Cornwell; Pvt Everett E. Dahl; Pvt Peter W. Eberle; Pvt Bernard J. Eggertsen; Pvt Keith M. Engar; Pvt Boyd C. Erickson; Pvt Roland T. Evans; Pvt Silvio J. Fassio; Pvt Moffet E. Felkner; Pvt Joseph B. Fetzer; Pvt Donald L. Fox; Pvt Norman J. Fuellenbach; Pvt Orin A. Furse; Pvt James H. Gardner; Pvt Phil R. Garn; Pvt Edwin G. Gibbs; Pvt LeRoy B. Hansen; Pvt Dale A. Harrison; Pvt Leon G. Harvey; Pvt Clarence R. Hawkins; Pvt Charles S. Hewlett; Pvt Parnell K. Hinckley; Pvt Jesse H. Jameson; Pvt James R. Jarvis, Jr.; Pvt Victor D. Jensen; Pvt Frank L. Johnson; Pvt Melvin A. Johnson; Pvt William L. Korns; Pvt Robert J. Kurtz; Pvt Gerald P. Langton; Pvt Earl V. Larson; Pvt Jack D. Lawson; Pvt Franklin M. Leaver; Pvt Elwin C. Leavitt; Pvt George A. Lockhart; Pvt John S. MacDuff; Pvt Robert H. Marshall; Pvt Herbert W. Maw; Pvt Hal N. Mays; Pvt Christopher S. Metos; Pvt Franklin L. McKean; Pvt Clinton R. Miller; Pvt Edward L. Montgomery; Pvt Robert L. Montgomery; Pvt Jerome R. Mooney; Pvt Robert F. Moore; Pvt Henry G. Nebeker; Pvt Frank A. Nelson, Jr.; Pvt Delbert E. Olson; Pvt August L. Orlob; Pvt Evan J. Pearson; Pvt Richard V. Peay; Pvt Artmas T. Peterson; Pvt Donald H. Pickett; Pvt Bill J. Pope; Pvt Robert F. Poulson; Pvt John R. Rampton, Jr.; Pvt Garry L. Rich; Pvt Charles E. Richards; Pvt William S. Ryberg; Pvt Ernest J. Sabec; Pvt Robert S. Shriver; Pvt Rocco C. Siciliano; Pvt Frank R. Slight; Pvt Allan R. Sloan; Pvt David W. Smith, Jr.; Pvt Craig Temple; Pvt Donald C. Thomas; Pvt Parry E. Thomas; Pvt LaMar Tibbs; Pvt Joseph Tibolla; Pvt Lawrence S. Tohill; Pvt John Van Den Berghe; Pvt Milton E. Wadsworth; Pvt James C. Waller, Jr.; Pvt Saint C. Weaver; Pvt Shirley R. Wood; Pvt Eugene T. Woolf; Pvt Verner H. Zinik; and Pvt William E. Zwick, Jr. By command of Major General JOYCE: P. R. Davison, Colonel, General Staff Corps, Chief of Staff.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the University of Utah ROTC Class of 1944 which responded to the call for active military duty during World War II. On May 2, 1998, at the University of Utah members of the ROTC Class of 1944 will hold a reunion commemorating the 55th anniversary of their activation into our national armed services. I believe it is fitting that we honor them today in the United States Senate. The University of Utah Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) was an unique organization. It was one of the few military units which were called into service during World War II from a specific community and which can return to that home area for a reunion. Most military units include individuals whose residences are scattered throughout the country. Through an Act of Congress in 1916, ROTC programs were established in higher education institutions across the country. Since that time, they have been an important part of this nation's civil defense--in times of war and peace--training generations of students for service to their country. In the early 1940s, this class trained at the University of Utah with horse-drawn artillery working with an old French 77 millimeter cannon and with a 105 millimeter howitzer, new at the time. As a unit, this ROTC class was first assigned to Camp Roberts in California, for basic training in truck drawn artillery. Later they were assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for further training and ultimately received further schooling at the Infantry Officers School at Fort Benning, Georgia. After graduation from Fort Benning, these young men, whose average age at the time was slightly over 20, served as officers in various combat units in Italy, France and the South Pacific. These were brave and honorable men, each one of them. Of the 99 who were called to active duty in 1943, two were killed in action while serving in the 10th Mountain Division in Italy. One was later killed in the Korean Conflict. Of the group's original 99 members, 71 are still alive. Today, I speak for all Utahns and all Americans when I say, we honor these brave men and pay tribute to them for their service and sacrifice for this great country. The Class of 1944's great tradition of discipline and leadership continues today as many of its members are respected professionals in the public and private sector as well as their own communities. I ask that the text of the unit's Activation Orders for March 16, 1943 be printed in the Record as part of this tribute. And finally, Mr. President, before I close, I want to thank Chris S. Metos of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the outstanding job he has done to help organize this upcoming reunion and for the many years of service he has provided to this country and to the people of the state of Utah. The material follows: Activation Orders: Headquarters Ninth Service Command, Fort Douglas, Utah, March 16, 1943 1. Following-named Enl Res, 1st yr Advanced ROTC, are ordered to AD. WP fr Univ of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah so as to rpt to Recp Cen. Fort Douglas, Utah on April 5, 1943 for processing and asgmt to Camp Roberts, Calif to receive Mil Tung in lieu of that normally given during 2d yr advanced course ROTC (FA) instructions. Ea Enl Res named herein reporting to Recp Cen will present to Classification Officer transcript of colg academic and ROTC records. Pvt Ray N. Welling, in charge of detachment; Pvt Rodney E. Alsop; Pvt Arthur S. Anderson; Pvt David F. Anderson; Pvt Warren S. Anderson; Pvt Dale F. Barlow; Pvt Eliot D. Barton; Pvt Ronald A. Bell; Pvt Wallace G. Bennett; Pvt Wilford N. Bergener; Pvt Burton F. Brasher; Pvt Over J. Call; Pvt Louis B. Cardon; Pvt Gordon L. Carlson; Pvt John S. Carlson; Pvt Charles G. Chase; Pvt Lorin W. Clayton; Pvt Jack A. Clegg; Pvt Walter K. Conrad; Pvt Max T. Cornwell; Pvt Everett E. Dahl; Pvt Peter W. Eberle; Pvt Bernard J. Eggertsen; Pvt Keith M. Engar; Pvt Boyd C. Erickson; Pvt Roland T. Evans; Pvt Silvio J. Fassio; Pvt Moffet E. Felkner; Pvt Joseph B. Fetzer; Pvt Donald L. Fox; Pvt Norman J. Fuellenbach; Pvt Orin A. Furse; Pvt James H. Gardner; Pvt Phil R. Garn; Pvt Edwin G. Gibbs; Pvt LeRoy B. Hansen; Pvt Dale A. Harrison; Pvt Leon G. Harvey; Pvt Clarence R. Hawkins; Pvt Charles S. Hewlett; Pvt Parnell K. Hinckley; Pvt Jesse H. Jameson; Pvt James R. Jarvis, Jr.; Pvt Victor D. Jensen; Pvt Frank L. Johnson; Pvt Melvin A. Johnson; Pvt William L. Korns; Pvt Robert J. Kurtz; Pvt Gerald P. Langton; Pvt Earl V. Larson; Pvt Jack D. Lawson; Pvt Franklin M. Leaver; Pvt Elwin C. Leavitt; Pvt George A. Lockhart; Pvt John S. MacDuff; Pvt Robert H. Marshall; Pvt Herbert W. Maw; Pvt Hal N. Mays; Pvt Christopher S. Metos; Pvt Franklin L. McKean; Pvt Clinton R. Miller; Pvt Edward L. Montgomery; Pvt Robert L. Montgomery; Pvt Jerome R. Mooney; Pvt Robert F. Moore; Pvt Henry G. Nebeker; Pvt Frank A. Nelson, Jr.; Pvt Delbert E. Olson; Pvt August L. Orlob; Pvt Evan J. Pearson; Pvt Richard V. Peay; Pvt Artmas T. Peterson; Pvt Donald H. Pickett; Pvt Bill J. Pope; Pvt Robert F. Poulson; Pvt John R. Rampton, Jr.; Pvt Carry L. Rich; Pvt Charles E. Richards; Pvt William S. Ryberg; Pvt Ernest J. Sabec; Pvt Robert S. Shriver; Pvt Rocco C. Siciliano; Pvt Frank R. Slight; Pvt Allan R. Sloan; Pvt David W. Smith, Jr.; Pvt Craig Temple; Pvt Donald C. Thomas; Pvt Parry E. Thomas; Pvt LaMar Tibbs; Pvt Joseph Tibolla; Pvt Lawrence S. Tohill; Pvt John Van Den Berghe; Pvt Milton E. Wadsworth; Pvt James C. Waller, Jr.; Pvt Saint C. Weaver; Pvt Shirley R. Wood; Pvt Eugene T. Woolf; Pvt Verner H. Zinik; and Pvt William E. Zwick, Jr. By command of Major General JOYCE: P. R. Davison, Colonel, General Staff Corps, Chief of Staff.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the University of Utah ROTC Class of 1944 which responded to the call for active military duty during World War II. On May 2, 1998, at the University of Utah members of the ROTC Class of 1944 will hold a reunion commemorating the 55th anniversary of their activation into our national armed services. I believe it is fitting that we honor them today in the United States Senate. The University of Utah Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) was an unique organization. It was one of the few military units which were called into service during World War II from a specific community and which can return to that home area for a reunion. Most military units include individuals whose residences are scattered throughout the country. Through an Act of Congress in 1916, ROTC programs were established in higher education institutions across the country. Since that time, they have been an important part of this nation's civil defense--in times of war and peace--training generations of students for service to their country. In the early 1940s, this class trained at the University of Utah with horse-drawn artillery working with an old French 77 millimeter cannon and with a 105 millimeter howitzer, new at the time. As a unit, this ROTC class was first assigned to Camp Roberts in California, for basic training in truck drawn artillery. Later they were assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for further training and ultimately received further schooling at the Infantry Officers School at Fort Benning, Georgia. After graduation from Fort Benning, these young men, whose average age at the time was slightly over 20, served as officers in various combat units in Italy, France and the South Pacific. These were brave and honorable men, each one of them. Of the 99 who were called to active duty in 1943, two were killed in action while serving in the 10th Mountain Division in Italy. One was later killed in the Korean Conflict. Of the group's original 99 members, 71 are still alive. Today, I speak for all Utahns and all Americans when I say, we honor these brave men and pay tribute to them for their service and sacrifice for this great country. The Class of 1944's great tradition of discipline and leadership continues today as many of its members are respected professionals in the public and private sector as well as their own communities. Finally, Mr. President, before I close, I want to thank Chris S. Metos of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the outstanding job he has done to help organize this upcoming reunion and for the many years of service he has provided to this country and to the people of the state of Utah.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with Senator Wyden, the Affordable Housing Barrier Removal Act of 1998. According to the National Association of Home Builders, housing compromises 12 percent of the economy of the United States and the housing construction and remodeling industries employ approximately 2 million people each year. However, housing costs continue to rise and housing affordability continues to be a challenge for many American families. Unnecessary regulations contribute significantly to the costs of housing. Layers of excessive and unnecessary regulation imposed by all levels of government--federal, state, and local--can add 20 to 35 percent to the cost of a new home. Mr. President, the removal of regulatory burdens is essential to increasing the home ownership rate in the United States. Home ownership is the cornerstone of family security, stability, and prosperity. Congress has the responsibility to do all that it can to encourage and promote policies that increase homeownership. Mr. President, it is for these reasons that Senator Wyden and I introduce the Barriers bill today. This bipartisan bill has three major goals. First, the bill require federal agencies to evaluate any new rule or regulations to determine if they have an impact on the cost of housing. Second, the bill will encourage states and localities to bring together all the parties involved in the production of housing and those who regulate them to discuss barriers and how to remove them. Third, the bill will remove outdated requirements in the Federal Housing Administration's single-family mortgage insurance program to make the program more efficient. In addition to the major goals of the legislation, the Barriers bill will authorize the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to become more involved in comprehensive efforts to encourage barrier removal activities. As the federal entity that oversees our national housing policy, HUD must be actively involved in strategies and activities to remove regulatory burdens to produce more affordable housing. Mr. President, while there is no doubt regulations are necessary to protect our workers and our environment, there must be a commonsense approach to relief from excessive regulatory burdens that impact other sectors of the economy. I look forward to the input from my other colleagues and others involved in the housing industry about this legislation. I believe it opens an important and timely dialogue, and I commend Senator Wyden for the leadership he is showing on this issue.