Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, rural states are particularly affected by satellite service. Telecommunications is changing the way things are done, providing more and more of our services through satellites. Yet we have difficulty with people who live in low-density areas, people who live in the country, receiving their local satellite service. This is a common problem in a low-density State such as Wyoming, where we have fewer people, where we have more rural areas. Many issues we work on have a unique impact on people who live in rural areas. The reregulation of electricity, for example, has a different impact in Wyoming than it does in Pennsylvania. That is true, also, with the delivery of health care services. It is important, when we deal with nationwide issues, that we also take some time to give special attention to the differences that exist among consumers in the country. That is particularly true with TV. Technology and satellite TV have allowed TV services to be delivered in places it could never be delivered before. However, there are many rural people who cannot receive over the air television signals. That is the case in Wyoming. Technology and satellite TV are great because they often provide people with more services. Indeed, it does. But it is difficult to provide local TV, local news, and local emergency signals that are given by the local stations. When a satellite company cannot do that, customers get their NBC broadcast in Rawlins, WY, they receive it from Chicago. That is a problem in terms of being able to have those local services available to consumers. It is important, No. 1, we maintain local broadcast markets. It is important, as well, that people who live in that vicinity have the opportunity to see local news, to hear about local activities, to participate locally. The problem is, how do you provide satellite service and at the same time provide local news and local activities, as well? This week, the Senate-House conference will be meeting regarding the Satellite Home Viewers Improvement Act. Hopefully, something will come out of that. This is legislation which will enable more customers to receive broadcast network television. The question is, of course, who can adequately receive local service from their own antenna and who can receive these local broadcasts through a staellite provider. I had meetings in Wyoming this week. We only have two areas in Wyoming where the local TV has a designated area; the others do not. There are 15 States that do not have local-to-local service at all. When people up for satellite TV and they want the national broadcast-- which is done locally, if you can receive that from an antenna--viewers are blocked from receiving it on the satellite. The difficulty is determining the strength of the signal that comes to that antenna. There is a great difference of view about that. Frankly, it is very uncertain who makes that determination. The first issue is determining the strength of the signal. You have to find out if that signal is strong enough so you qualify to get it over your antenna, or have a technician show that it isn't. That is the difference of view. There needs to be a third party who says, whether you have adequate signal strength. Some viewers are behind a mountain or in a valley and can't get it. That is part of the problem. Another problem is considering the local market. Over 25 percent of the viewers in Wyoming receive their TV from satellites. This is the third highest percentage, I believe, in the United States. That is not a huge number of people, but it is a very high percentage of people. Without satellite access of course, the customers have no TV at all. Under the current situation, the TV they do get often comes from distant network stations. There are two problems. One is that there has been a moratorium so these viewers could continue to get their services. That moratorium is scheduled to expire at the end of this month for folks in Grade A. In the Grade B contour network service expires at the end of the year; and there is nothing to be done in the interim. We need to deal with the immediacy of the problem--hopefully give customers another moratorium to continue network service. Second, we need to decide how we can get local-to-local coverage, how we can get the local TV station carried in a ``must carry'' proposition. There are two difficulties. One, I am told--and I am not completely persuaded--that there is a lack of capacity on the satellites. In order to do that, additional satellites must be launched to carry all the local stations so people can get local broadcasts. Of course, that runs into the third issue--money. I know the folks in Kansas would be just as excited about having TV coverage as the folks in Wyoming; and I am sure the Presiding Officer would be instrumental in making this happen. In summary, I think many individuals would like to use satellites for their TV viewing. People in the country also want to have their local station available to them. They do not want to be blocked from receiving NBC or CBS because they are within the area that their local station carries, despite the fact they can't get it well on their own TV. This is a problem that can have a happy resolution. Ideally, everyone could receive TV and have a good picture. Ideally, everyone could view their local station. We will work toward this end. I hope the conference committee meeting now can help find a way to provide a remedy for the short term and then set up an efficient system as we look to the future. We have written a letter to the committee--I think there are 24 signatures on this letter--urging they set up a commission to determine how this might be done to resolve the question in the long term. I am optimistic that can be done. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 24, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet for an executive business meeting, during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 24, 1999, at 11:00 a.m. in Senate Dirksen, Room 226.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 24, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Aviation Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 24, 1999, at 2:15 pm on FAA research and development.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety be granted permission to conduct a hearing on NOX/ State Implementation Plans Thursday, June 24, 9:00 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday June 24, 1999. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss agricultural issues related to a variety of trade topics

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia be permitted to meet on Thursday, June 24, 1999 at 11:00 a.m. for a hearing on H.R. 974--The District of Columbia College Access Act and S. 856--Expanded Options in Higher Education for District of Columbia Students Act of 1999.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 24, 1999 at 2:45 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 24, 1999, to conduct a hearing on ``Export Administration Act Reauthorization: Private Sector Views.''

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 24, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to examine the implications of the proposed acquisition of the Atlantic Richfield Company by BP Amoco, PLC.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be permitted to meet Thursday, June 24, 1999 beginning at 10:00 a.m. in room SD-215, to conduct a markup.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to follow Senator Cleland for 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk for a few minutes about agriculture appropriations. That is the bill that is before us. It is one I believe is particularly important. But I want to talk, really, about the need for us to be doing the necessary work of the Congress to be moving forward with our appropriations bills to keep the Government operating. These are the things we have before us. We have to pass 13 bills before this Congress is adjourned, before the 30th of September. We have to do this to keep the operations of the Government moving, particularly in the area of agriculture where we are having one of the toughest times we have had in the economics of agriculture, all over the country. It has been very difficult. Of course the appropriations bill for agriculture will be there to help. There will be other things done as well, but this is the basic effort we will have to make. I am very sorry to say our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have seen fit to delay this bill by using stalling tactics and bringing up unrelated amendments that have caused us not to be able to move forward. This is not a question of which issue is most important. We believe, with all of these issues, it is a question of an orderly process of moving forward to do the things that we have to do to accomplish our assignments. I am sorry to say we are not able to do our job. It has been derailed by what I believe is simply an effort to bring partisan political issues to this debate which really do not have a place in this situation. One, we need to move forward with the appropriations bills; there is no question about that. Two, we are dealing with patients' rights, which we have dealt with before and with which we continue to deal. It is not a question of being willing to do it. We have a Republican bill for patients' rights. Are there some disagreements, some differences? Of course. We have been talking about this for more than a year. It is completely inappropriate to bring it up now and use it as a stalling tactic. The unfortunate part is this is not the first time we have had it happen. We had it happen just 2 weeks ago when we were talking about Social Security, and we were unable to move forward with the lockbox legislation. We are finding an unusual amount of disruption in moving forward with the business of this Congress. I commend the Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations for their hard work in putting this bill together. The lion's share of funding, $47 billion, is designated for mandatory programs. Domestic food programs, food stamps, and child nutrition programs account for more than half of the agriculture appropriations bill. Certainly, the subcommittee faced difficult challenges in crafting this bill. Industry is struggling. The requests for financial assistance are escalating. Those types of things are very real, and we are prepared to deal with them. All we need to do is have the opportunity to move forward. Unfortunately, the stalling tactics have stopped us. For those of us who are primarily from agricultural States, passage of this bill is fundamental to our economy and fundamental to those agricultural producers. Recently, I heard several of my colleagues describe the financial problems in agriculture, and I do not disagree with any of them. We are feeling those in my State of Wyoming. I am very frustrated we cannot take action on a bill because it has been bogged down. We should focus on this bill. We should get this one done. We can do it. There is general agreement on it. We can deal with the disagreements and move forward. There are a number of programs in this agriculture bill that are particularly important. In addition to the domestic food programs, it contains funding for activities that are essential to an industry that employs more people in this country than any other industry, and that is agricultural producers. It has to do with land grant universities. It has to do with our rural citizens. Of particular importance to Wyoming, a State where 50 percent of the State belongs to the Federal Government and is managed by the BLM and Forest Service, there are funds for predator management which is particularly important, even important in places like Hawaii. It has to do with decreasing livestock losses and crop losses. It has to do with research and extension. We have the most efficient agriculture in the world because we have had land grant colleges and we have had the extension service. We have been able to produce more efficiently than anyone else. It is one of the largest exports we have. There are conservation initiatives. Mr. President, $800 million is provided in this bill to assist farmers and ranchers to be stewards of the land, to be environmental stewards, to reduce soil erosion, to reduce nonpoint water pollution. The list of positive programs in this bill goes on and on. For food safety, there is $638 million, an increase of $24 million over the fiscal year 1999 level. Also in the bill are agricultural credit programs--the Presiding Officer is one of the experts with a background in agriculture and has worked on this problem--loan authorization for rural housing, and assistance for rural communities to develop waste disposal and solid waste management programs. To brush this off and say we have other things to do, we should not undertake to deal with this agricultural appropriations, is distressing to me. I want us to move forward with it. It is important, of course, not only to producers but to all of us as citizens of this country when we talk about safe food. When we are finally able to debate the agriculture appropriations bill, there will be numerous amendments, as there should be. Some will be controversial which will further delay the passage of the bill. We ought to also keep in mind that in order to go forward with the programs of this country, we need to move forward. We have about four appropriations bills that have been passed. Our goal should be to pass at least 11 of them by the end of July. We do not want to find ourselves in this business of having political problems that shut down the Government, as we did several years ago, and trying to blame each other. Instead, we ought to move forward and do the things we ought to be doing. We have a process and we ought to move forward with it. There is much to be done, and I urge my colleagues to end their tactics of derailing and allow us to move forward on this very important spending bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to utilize the remaining time on the Republican side.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am encouraged by what my friends on the other side have said. On an issue they wouldn't let us talk about yesterday--that is called Social Security--they talk about wanting to get things to the floor and get it done--yesterday every one of them voted against moving forward with the lockbox to do something with Social Security. It is a little bit incongruous with what they are saying today. That is one of the real major issues we need to talk about. I might add, over the last couple of years there has been a Patients' Bill of Rights on the floor. It has been offered. The reason it hasn't gone anywhere is because the other side has to have amendments that have no relevance to the bill, and go on and on. If they would like to pass something, I suggest to them we put something out there, stick to the issue and do it. I see they have disappeared. Let me talk about Social Security. It seems to me it is one of the things we are focused on; it is one of the things that is on our Republican list to complete this year. We are probably not going to reform Social Security in this session, so we do need to make a move, and the move is the lockbox--to take the surplus that is now all Social Security that comes in this year and seek to ensure that it is used for that purpose. For a very long time, this has not been the case. The money that has come in for Social Security, of course, has been put into Government securities, and has been spent for other things. For the first time in 25 years, we have a surplus, even though it is Social Security. So it is time, I believe, to do something to put that money aside for the purpose for which it is extracted from you and me as taxpayers. Is the lockbox the ultimate solution? Of course not. But it is a way for us to control what that money is used for, to stop the idea, which the President supports, of $158 billion in expenditures on other issues using Social Security money. Everyone knows that we have to do something if we intend to have Social Security in the future for the young people who are now starting to pay, as well as paying the beneficiaries that we now have. It wasn't many years ago that Social Security was thought to be the third-rail politics and nobody could touch it, otherwise they would be dead. Now we come to the realization that if we want to continue this program over the years--particularly so young people beginning to pay and who have many years to look forward to will get some benefit--we have to do something. The sooner we do it, the less drastic the change will have to be. I think most everyone would agree that is a fact. In the year 2014, Social Security will begin to run a deficit. So we need to look forward to that time. The options are fairly easy to understand. One, of course, is that you could raise taxes. I don't know of many people, given the 12 percent of our payroll that we now pay, would want to increase that. For many folks in this country, Social Security withholding is the highest tax they pay, and it is a substantial one. The other, of course, is to change the benefits, change the age, and do those kinds of things. There may be some tinkering with that, but basically the benefits will not be changed. It leaves a third option, which I think is a good one, and that is to take the money that we have paid in--each of us--a certain percentage of that becomes an amount of money that is in our account, and it can be invested in equities, which returns a higher yield. That is really the third option that we need to look at. The opportunity to do that is probably somewhere ahead of us. So the lockbox, then, becomes the important thing now--to put that money aside so that we don't spend it. There are, in my opinion, other reasons for doing that as well. This is one of the big debates here, as you can tell by listening just a few moments ago. There are those who want more and more Government spending, and others would like to restrict the size of the Federal Government, to move more of the decisions back to counties and States and individuals. That is the debate--a legitimate debate between those who want more taxes and more spending and those who would like to have a smaller Government, to bring it down to only those essential things. When you have a surplus, that is very difficult to do. So if we are talking about maintaining a budget, which we are very proud of, having spending caps, in which the budget ceiling has been the largest contributor to having a balanced budget, if we are interested in doing those things, those are all part of setting aside this Social Security money. Over time, hopefully, in the future, as this surplus extends not only to Social Security, but to the regular operational budget, we will have an opportunity to have some tax reform and to return some of this money to people so they can spend it for their families, so they can spend it to do some of the things our friends were just talking about a few moments ago. I think it is very important that we take it up. We have voted three times now to move forward with the lockbox. We asked to be able to go forward with this. Each time our friends on the other side of the aisle have said no. Everyone on that side of the aisle voted no yesterday. They said, no, we don't want to set the money aside, but they are up today saying here is where we want to make new expenditures of billions of dollars. There is something incongruous about that. We need to make some decisions about where we are. I think Republicans have four pretty well-defined goals we are working toward. One is Social Security--not just to say save Social Security, as the President has said, and not do anything, but to actually do something. Two is to do something about education. We have moved forward to do that. We have the Ed-Flex Program, for one, that has moved decisions back to the schools boards and the States and counties where they ought to be for educational decisions. We are talking about tax reform. We need to have tax reform. I noticed last night somebody did a study of the whole world, and we are the second highest in the world on estate taxes, topped only by Japan. It is time that we did some tax reform and some of those things. Then security, of course, for the benefit our country, we have done a great deal on that, in strengthening the military. I hope we will stop just talking about these things and actually do something. I'm talking about going forward with issues. We had a chance yesterday to go forward with an issue, and we had 45 votes against it. I hope we can move forward. One of the most important items in this country is Social Security, and the first step would be lockbox. I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. No. We have used our time. I return it back to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. THOMAS. We can on the Senator's time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for bringing this subject, his amendment, to the floor. We are talking about lockbox legislation. We are talking about Social Security, which is the bottom line. Lockbox is simply the first step to accomplish that. We have had in our agenda this year: Social Security, tax reform, education, and security for this country. These are the things we have been talking about and will, indeed, continue to talk about. The two Senators from the other side of the aisle have spoken about excuses for not going forward with this bill. I can hardly understand it. They talk about amendments. They have 22 or 25 amendments designed to keep us from voting on the bill. That is why we are not doing amendments. We decided to move forward with something designed to ensure that Social Security surplus funds will be reserved for Social Security alone. There are lots of things involved, of course, in addition to Social Security. That is, if you like smaller government, if you like tax relief, if you would like to limit the amount of spending, then this is the way to do that and hold the spending to those funds that do not come from Social Security. So this helps us retain our commitment to smaller and more efficient government. One only has to look at last year's omnibus appropriations to see this legislation is necessary, where $20 billion in nonemergency spending was taken from Social Security last year. The same thing will happen again unless we make a move to do something about it. Unfortunately, the Democrats have decided to filibuster this bill and not let it happen. Apparently they support these ideas of raiding Social Security for their big government agenda. I understand that. The President's budget raids the Social Security funds to the tune of $158 billion. That is where we are, absent this kind of movement. We are, of course, dealing with everything from lockbox to fundamental Social Security reforms. Everybody knows the system is not sound; by 2014, Social Security begins to run a deficit. Obviously, there are a number of demographics that bring that about--the declining number of workers, their increased longevity, and the impending retirement of the baby boomers. There are three solutions to the problem: One is to raise taxes on Social Security, one is to reduce benefits of Social Security--neither of which is acceptable to most of us--and the third is to provide an increased rate of return on the investments we have. I am not for raising taxes. There are better ways to do that. I certainly want, however, to do something with Social Security which will allow a certain part of those funds to be put in private accounts to be invested in the private sector to increase the returns so we strengthen Social Security. We cannot do that unless we set aside these funds. I am amazed at the opposition to this. The President has been talking for 2 years and all he said was: Save Social Security; no plan, no effort, no movement. Now we have a chance to take the first steps to do something. We have a plan that works to move us to save Social Security, and what do we have? Opposition by filibuster. It is amazing to me. I guess it is simply a defense of spending more for large government. I do not want to do that. Americans work hard for their money. They ought to have a say in how it is spent. Therefore, I urge we move forward with the first step in doing something about Social Security. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, amendment No. 437 to S. 1059, the Defense Authorization bill, prohibits the return to a foreign country of any portion of a memorial to American veterans without the express authorization of Congress. I would not have thought that an amendment like this was necessary, Mr. President. It would never have occurred to me that an administration would even briefly consider dismantling part of a memorial to American soldiers who died in the line of duty in order to send a piece of that memorial to a foreign country; but a real possibility of just that happening exists in my state of Wyoming involving what are known as the ``Bells of Balangiga.'' In 1898, the Treaty of Paris brought to a close the Spanish-American War. As part of the treaty, Spain ceded possession of the Philippines to the United States. At about the same time, the Filipino people began an insurrection in their country. In August 1901, as part of the American efforts to stem the insurrection, a company of 74 officers and men from the 9th Infantry, Company G, occupied the town of Balangiga on the island of Samar. These men came from Ft. Russel in Cheyenne, WY-- today's F.E. Warren Air Force Base. On September 28 of that year, taking advantage of the preoccupation of the American troops with a church service for the just-assassinated President McKinley, a group of Filipino insurgents infiltrated the town. Only three American sentries were on duty that day. As described in an article in the November 19, 1997 edition of the Wall Street Journal: Officers slept in, and enlisted men didn't bother to carry their rifles as they ambled out of their quarters for breakfast. Balangiga had been a boringly peaceful site since the infantry company arrived a month earlier, according to military accounts and soldiers' statements. The quiet ended abruptly when a 23 year old U.S. sentry named Adolph Gamlin walked past the local police chief. In one swift move, the Filipino grabbed the slightly built Iowan's rifle and smashed the butt across [Gamlin's] head. As PFC Gamlin crumpled, the bells of Balangiga began to peal. With the signal, hundreds of Filipino fighters swarmed out of the surrounding forest, armed with clubs, picks and machete-like bolo knives. Others poured out of the church; they had arrived the night before, disguised as women mourners and carrying coffins filled with bolos. A sergeant was beheaded in the mess tent and dumped into a vat of steaming wash water. A young bugler was cut down in a nearby stream. The company commander was hacked to death after jumping out a window. Besieged infantrymen defended themselves with kitchen forks, mess kits and baseball bats. Others threw rocks and cans of beans. Though he was also slashed across the back, PFC . . . Gamlin came to and found a rifle. By the time he and the other survivors fought their way to the beach, 38 US soldiers were dead and all but six of the remaining men had been wounded. The remaining soldiers escaped in five dug-out canoes. Only three boats made it to safety on Leyte. Seven men died of exposure at sea, and other 8 died of their wounds; only 20 of the company's 74 members survived. A detachment of 54 volunteers from 9th infantry units stationed at Leyte returned to Balangiga and recaptured the village. They were reinforced a few days later from Companies K and L of the 11th Infantry Regiment. When the 11th Infantry was relieved on October 18 by Marines, the 9th Infantry took two of the church bells and an old canon with them back to Wyoming as memorials to the fallen soldiers. The bells and canon have been displayed in front of the base flagpole on the central parade grounds since that time. The canon was restored by local volunteers and placed under a glass display case in 1985 to protect it from the elements. The bells were placed in openings in a large specially constructed masonry wall with a plaque dedicating the memorial to the memory of the fallen soldiers. Off and on since 1981, there have been some discussions in various circles in Cheyenne, Washington, and Manila about the future of the bells, including the possibility of returning them to the Philippines. Most recently, the Philippine government--having run into broad opposition to their request to have both bells returned to them--has proposed making a copy of both bells, and having both sides keep one copy and one original. Opposition to the proposal from local and national civic and veterans groups has been very strong. Last year, developments indicated to me that the White House was seriously contemplating returning one or both of the bells to the Philippines. 1998 marked the 100th anniversary of the Treaty of Paris, and a state visit by then-President Fidel Ramos--his last as President--to the United States. The disposition of the bells was high on President Ramos' agenda; he has spoken personally to President Clinton and several members of Congress about it over the last three years, and made it one of only three agenda items the Filipino delegation brought to the table. Since January 1998, the Filipino press has included almost weekly articles on the bells' supposed return, including several in the Manila Times in April and May which reported that a new tower to house the bells was being constructed in Borongon, Samar, to receive them in May. In addition, there have been a variety of reports vilifying me and the veterans in Wyoming for our position on the issue, and others threatening economic boycotts of US products or other unspecified acts of retaliation to force capitulation on the issue. Moreover, inquiries to me from various agencies of the administration soliciting the opinion of the Wyoming congressional delegation on the issue increased in frequency in the first 4 months of 1998. I also learned that the Defense Department, perhaps in conjunction with the Justice Department, prepared a legal memorandum outlining its opinion of who actually controls the disposition of the bells. In response, the Wyoming congressional delegation wrote a letter to President Clinton on January 9, 1998, to make clear our opposition to removing the bells. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of that letter be inserted at this point in the Record. In response to that letter, on May 26, I received a letter from Sandy Berger of the National Security Council which I think is perhaps one of the best indicators of the direction the White House was headed on this issue. To head off any move by the administration to dispose of the bells, I and Senator Enzi introduced S. 1903 on April 1, 1998. The bill had 18 cosponsors, including the distinguished Chairmen of the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Finance, Energy and Natural Resources, Rules, Ethics, and Banking; the Chairmen of five Subcommittees of the Foreign Relations Committee; and five members of the Armed Services Committee. While time has passed since this issue came to a head last April, Mr. President, my deep concern that the administration might still dispose of the bells has not. The administration has not disavowed its earlier intent to seek to return the bells--an intent derailed by the introduction of S. 1903 last year. In addition, despite article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution, which states that the ``Congress shall have the power to dispose of . . . Property belonging to the United States,'' the Justice Department has issued an informal memorandum stating that the bells could possibly be disposed of by the President pursuant to the provisions of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2572. I continue to be amazed, even in these days of political correctness and revisionist history, that a U.S. President--our Commander in Chief--would appear to be ready to ignore the wishes of our veterans and tear down a memorial to U.S. soldiers who died in the line of duty in order to send part of it back to the country in which they were killed. Amazed, that is, until I recall this President's fondness for sweeping apologies and what some might view as flashy P.R. gestures. Consequently, Senator Enzi and I decided to pursue the issue again in the 106th Congress. Mr. President, to the veterans of Wyoming, and the United States as a whole, the bells represent a lasting memorial to those 54 American soldiers killed as a result of an unprovoked insurgent attack in Balangiga on September 28, 1901, In their view, which I share, any attempt to remove either or both of the bells--and in doing so actually physically dismantling a war memorial--is a desecration of that memory. This amendment will protect the bells and similar veterans memorials from such an ignoble fate. The bill is quite simple; it prohibits the transfer of a veterans memorial or any portion thereof to a foreign country or government unless specifically authorized by law. I would like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Committee [Senator Warner] for his assistance, and that of his staff, in moving this amendment forward. amendment no. 438 (Purpose: To authorize emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1999) In title X, at the end of subtitle A, add the following: