[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 124 (Thursday, September 17, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10518-S10526]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 2489. A bill to amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant 
Act of 1990 and the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish and 
improve programs to increase the availability of quality child care, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                         child development act

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, right now in our country there are 
about 10 million children--of course, when I talk about children, I am 
talking about their parents as well--who are eligible for good 
developmental child care opportunities. As it turns out, we provide 
assistance to 1.4 million out of this 10 million. In other words, fully 
86 percent of children who are eligible to receive some assistance so 
that they will get better child care in those critical early years 
receive no assistance at all.
  I introduce today this piece of legislation, which I have called the 
Child Development Act. I have been working on it for the last year and 
a half. Altogether, over the next 5 years, it calls for $62 billion, 
about $12 billion--less than 1 percent of the budget--to be invested in 
the health, skills, intellect and character of our children.
  About $37.5 billion just increases funding for the Child Care and 
Development Block Grant Program (CCDBG), which has been a proven 
success in providing more money so that we can expand child care in our 
States and provide help to many working families that need this help.
  In addition, the bill provides funding for improving afterschool 
programs. We have funds that are set aside to improve the quality of 
child care. Children Defense Fund studies have shown that six out of 
seven child care facilities in this country provide only poor-to-
mediocre service, and one out of eight centers actually put children at 
risk.
  There is additional funding for professional training, for new 
construction, and I say to my colleagues, there is also funding for 
loan forgiveness, which is the effort that I have been working on with 
my colleague, Senator DeWine from Ohio, so that those men and women who 
do their undergraduate work and receive training in early childhood 
development, where the wages are so low, at least will receive loan 
forgiveness which will help them. Finally, there is some $13 billion in 
tax credits for low- and middle-income working parents to help them 
afford child care.
  Research has shown that much of what happens in life depends upon the 
first three years of development. The brain is so profoundly influenced 
during this time that the brain of a three-year-old has twice as many 
synapses (connections between brain cells) as that of her adult 
parents. The process of brain development is actually one of 
``pruning'' out the synapses that one does not need (or more 
accurately, does not use) from those that become the brains standard 
``wiring.'' This is why the first three years of development are so 
important--this is the time that the brain must develop the wiring that 
is going to be used for the rest of one's life. According to a report 
on brain development published by the Families and Work Institute, 
``Early care and nurture have a decisive, long lasting impact on how 
people develop, their ability to learn, and their capacity to control 
their own emotions.'' If children do not receive proper care before the 
age of three, they never receive the chance to develop into fully 
functioning adults.
  We are not allowing our children a chance in life when we do not 
provide them with proper care in their early years. If America is to 
achieve its goal of equal opportunity for our children, we need to 
start with proper care in their early years. It is a painful statistic 
then that our youngest citizens are also some of the poorest Americans. 
One out of every four of our country's 12 million children under the 
age of three live in poverty. It becomes very difficult to break out of 
the cycle of poverty if poor children are not allowed to develop into 
fully functioning adults.
  Yet many parents in America do not have the option of providing 
adequate care for their children. For parents who can barely afford 
rent it is nearly impossible to take advantage of the Family Medical 
Leave Act, and sacrifice 12 weeks of pay in order to directly supervise 
a child. Many mothers need to return to work shortly after giving birth 
and find that the only options open to them are to place their children 
in care that is substandard, even potentially dangerous--but 
affordable. According to the Children's Defense Fund, six out of seven 
child care centers provide only poor to mediocre care, and one in eight 
centers provide care that could jeopardize children's safety and 
development. The same study said that one in three home-based care 
situations could be harmful to a child's development. How can we abide 
by these statistics?
  This is a serious problem, and frighteningly widespread. The 
eligibility levels set for receiving child care aid through the federal 
Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) is 85 percent of a 
state's median income. Nationally, this comes out to about $35,000 for 
a family of three in 1998. However, according to the Children's defense 
fund, fully half of all families with young children earn less than 
$35,000 per year. Half! A family that has two parents working full time 
at minimum wage earns only $21,400 per year. This is not nearly enough 
to even dream of adequate child care.
  Child care costs in the United States for one child in full day care 
range from $4,000 to $10,000 a year. It is not surprising that, on 
average, families with incomes under $15,000 a year spend 23 percent of 
their annual incomes on child care. And in West Virginia, if a family 
of three makes more than that $15,000, they no longer qualify for child 
care aid! In fact, thirty-two states do not allow a family of three 
which earns $25,000 a year (approximately 185 percent of poverty) to 
qualify for help. Only four states in our nation set eligibility cut 
offs for receiving child care assistance at 85 percent of median family 
income, the maximum allowed by federal law. There is obviously not 
enough funding to support the huge need for child care assistance in 
our nation, and that is why I am proposing the Child Care Development 
Act.
  There is widespread support for expanded investments to improve the 
affordability and quality of child care. A recent survey of 550 police 
chiefs found that nine out of ten police chiefs surveyed agreed that 
``America could sharply reduce crime if government invested more in 
programs to help children and youth get a good start'' such as Head 
Start and child care. Mayors across the country identified child care, 
more than any other issue, as one of the most pressing issues facing 
children and families in their communities in 1996 survey. A recent 
poll found that a bipartisan majority of those polled

[[Page S10519]]

support increased investments in helping families pay for child care--
specifically, 74% of those polled favor a bill to help low-income and 
middle-class families pay for child care, including 79% of Democrats, 
69% of Republicans, and 76% of Independents.
  It is clear that many like to talk about supporting our children, and 
many are in favor of supporting our children, but what action is 
actually taken? Yes, the addition of new child care dollars in 1996 has 
helped welfare recipients, but it has done nothing for working, low-
income families not receiving TANF. The Children's Defense Fund 
recommends that Congress pass comprehensive legislation that guarantees 
at least $20 billion over five years in new funding for the Child Care 
Development Block Grant (CCDBG). My Child Care Development Act goes 
beyond this, yet even my bill is just a first step. This bill is 
designed to provide affordable, quality child care to half of the ten 
million American children presently in need of subsidized care. It will 
provide $62.5 billion over 5 years--$12.5 billion a year--nearly three 
times the amount proposed in the President's most ambitious, and still 
unprosecuted, proposal. In 1997 the President proposed extending care 
to 600,000 children from poor families, leaving fully 80% of eligible 
children without aid. That was the last we heard of it. And it wasn't 
good enough, anyway.
  If we are serious about putting parents to work and protecting 
children, we need to invest more in families and in child care help for 
them. Enabling families to work and helping children thrive means 
giving states enough money so that they can set reasonable eligibility 
levels, let families know that help is available, and take working 
families off the waiting lists.
  The Child Care Development Act will require $62.5 billion over five 
years. There will be several offsets necessary if we are serious about 
giving children in this country the type of care they need and deserve. 
Shifting spending from these offsets demonstrates that our true 
national priority is children, not wasteful military spending and 
corporate tax loopholes.
  The offsets that will be necessary are as follows. If we repeal the 
reductions in the Corporate Minimum Tax from the 1997 Budget Bill, we 
create $8.2 billion. The elimination of the Special Oil and Gas 
Depletion Allowance will make room for and additional $4.3 billion. An 
offset of $.575 billion will come from a repeal of the Enhanced Oil 
Recovery Credit and an offset of $13.767 billion will come from the 
elimination of exclusion for Foreign-Earned Income. From these four 
different offsets in tax provisions a sub total amount of $26.835 is 
created to spend on child care.
  Defense Cuts will also be necessary in the amount of $24.4 billion. 
This will come from canceling the F-22, a plane plagued with troubles, 
which will free up $19.29 billion, and $5.11 billion will come from a 
reduction in Nuclear Delivery Systems Within Overall Limits of START 
II.
  The remaining offsets can be made by reducing the Intelligence Budget 
by 5 percent, which would save $6.675 billion; by reducing Military 
Export Subsidies by $.85 billion; and by canceling the International 
Space Station, which costs $10.045 billion. All of which, when added 
together, allows for an additional $68.805 billion to be used to 
support our children.
  This is, finally, a child care bill on the same scope as the problem 
itself. We as a nation are neglecting the most vulnerable and important 
portion of our society--our children. Here is an ambitious solution to 
this vast problem that has been plaguing our country. So that we don't 
have to be a country that just talks about putting our children first.
  Mr. President, I want to speak a little bit from the heart. We are 
now at a point in our session where we have maybe 2\1/2\, 3 weeks to 
go. I think it is a tragedy that, in many ways, we are not involved in 
the work of democracy. From my point of view as a Senator from 
Minnesota, the work of democracy is to try to respond and speak to the 
concerns and circumstances of people's lives.
  As I travel around Minnesota and travel around the country, I believe 
that, more than anything else, what families are saying to us is, ``We 
want to do our very best by our kids, because if we as parents,'' or a 
single parent, ``can do our best by our kids, we will do our best by 
our country.''
  One of the reasons we--I am talking about the people now in the 
country--are so disillusioned about our political process, above and 
beyond all that they hear about every day, which I hate, is that all 
that is happening is no good for our country. I think the polls show 
this as well, people are saying, ``Get on with your governing, too; 
please govern; please be relevant and important to our lives.'' People 
feel like we are not doing that.
  I have to say that if we can respond to what most people are talking 
about, which is how we earn a decent living and how do we give our 
children the care we know they need and deserve, we will be doing well 
by people. If we can do everything that we can do as Senators, 
Democrats and Republicans, and if the private sector plays its role and 
we also engage in voluntarism and a lot of good things happen at the 
community level and non-Government organizations, and nonprofits play 
their role, and I say to Rabbi Shemtov, our guest chaplain today, the 
religious community needs to play their role: if we all do everything 
we can to enable parents or a parent to do their best by their kids, 
then that is the best single thing we can do.
  What saddens me and also angers me is that all of a sudden, the focus 
on children is just off the table. We have lost it. It wasn't that many 
months ago that we were having conferences and we were talking about 
reports that were coming out and we couldn't stop discussing the 
development of the brain; how important it is to make sure that we get 
it right for our children because by age 3, if we don't get it right 
for them, they are never going to be ready for school and never be 
ready for life.
  What happened? What happened to our focus? We have lost our focus. We 
have lost our way. We are talking a lot about values, and we are 
talking a lot about moral issues and we should--we should. But isn't it 
also a moral question or a moral issue that one out of every four 
children under the age of 3 is growing up poor in America today, and 
one out of every three children of color under the age of 3 is growing 
up poor in America today?
  With our economy still humming along, how can it be that we cannot do 
better? I don't understand that. I say to the Rabbi and Chaplain, in 
the words of Rabbi Hillel, ``If not now, when?''
  Here we are with 3 weeks to go to this Congress, and we haven't done 
anything to help families, to help children, to fill their void so that 
we make sure that every child who comes to kindergarten comes to 
kindergarten ready to learn. If we are going to talk about education, 
and we are going to have a discussion about education--maybe we won't 
on the present course--I think we have to focus on the learning gap.

  The truth of the matter is, we do quite well for kids in our public 
schools if they come to kindergarten ready to learn. It is the kids who 
come to kindergarten not ready to learn for whom we don't do well.
  I am not trying to take K-12 off the hook. We need to do much better. 
But couldn't we say that as a national goal we want to make sure that 
every child who comes to kindergarten comes to kindergarten ready to 
learn? So that she knows the alphabet. He knows colors and shapes and 
sizes. She knows how to spell her name. They have been read to widely 
and they come with the readiness to learn.
  The Presiding Officer, Senator DeWine, is as committed to children as 
any Senator in the Senate. He knows what I am saying.
  This is a cost-neutral bill. I will not go on about this bill's 
offsets. I cut into some tax loopholes and some subsidies that go to 
some of the largest corporations in America that do not need it. I 
raise some questions about whether we need some additional missiles and 
additional bombers. I redefine national security, and say, yes, we need 
a strong defense, but we need to take some of the money and invest for 
children. People can agree or disagree about where I get the money for 
this. Can't we agree that we take 1 percent of our budget and invest it 
in the

[[Page S10520]]

health and skills and character and intellect of our children? They are 
100 percent of our future.
  I must repeat this point. I cannot believe that not that many months 
ago we were all talking about development of the brain, early childhood 
development. We were all talking about legislation--we were all talking 
about how we were going to do something to help parents do better by 
their kids, and we are not doing that.
  That is why I introduce this legislation today. I do not think it is 
a cry in the wilderness, because I hope next year we are going to get 
this bill enacted. I am going to fight for this. And maybe, if I have a 
chance--I don't know that I will, given the next 3 weeks--I will bring 
some of it up as amendments. But we have to start speaking out about 
this, Mr. President. I say to Senator DeWine, the Presiding Officer, we 
have to start speaking out about this because we should be doing 
better.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FAIRCLOTH:
  S. 2490. A bill to prohibit postsecondary educational institutions 
from requiring the purchase of goods and services from on-campus 
businesses, intentionally withholding course information from off-
campus businesses, or preventing students from obtaining course 
information or materials from off-campus businesses; to the Committee 
on Labor and Human Resources.


                 the college costs savings act of 1998

 Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, this fall millions of college 
students are returning to campus. Today I introduce legislation that 
will ease the financial burden for these students, and reduce the costs 
of student financial aid on the taxpayers.
  My bill seeks to inject some good, old-fashioned competition in the 
market for the purchase of college textbooks. Every student knows that 
the costs of textbooks can run into hundreds of dollars. It has become 
a major expense for most college students. My bill would bar financial 
aid to any university or any student attending a university that, 
directly or indirectly, requires students to purchase textbooks 
exclusively on campus. Further, the legislation would require that non-
campus businesses have reasonable access to the textbook requirements 
of college courses, so that they too could stock textbooks and have 
them available to students at a more competitive price.
  Regrettably, the way aid is currently disbursed by the Department of 
Education is artificially raising costs for students throughout the 
country. There is a nationwide use of financial aid to, in effect, 
channel funds exclusively to college ``business-like'' enterprises. 
These funding methods prevent financial aid from being spent at small 
businesses attempting to compete in the campus area marketplace.
  Through the use of Department of Education-permitted ``student 
accounts,'' colleges are creating their own dominance in such areas as 
college bookstores. Off-campus choice is virtually unavailable, even if 
off-campus stores offer students a less-expensive alternative. With the 
development of ``campus cards,'' aid is even more captive to the on-
campus economy.
  I raised this issue with Secretary Riley at a hearing this spring and 
through a subsequent letter. The Department claims such distribution of 
aid funds is voluntary. The Department of Education stated in its June 
22nd response that off-campus businesses can accept these campus cards 
only if an institution ``wishes to establish a business relationship 
with an off-campus business.'' In most cases, that is not their wish. 
In most cases, only on-campus enterprises benefit. The Congress never 
intended financial aid funds--or any other funds--to be used for 
purposes of monopolization on college campuses. Competition in the 
campus-area marketplace is being restricted--and in many cases--
eliminated. Students have little to no choice in shopping for books and 
materials.
  The net result is that students are often paying higher costs for 
these goods and services, like textbooks. And, the federal government, 
providing student aid, is paying the higher price too.
  There isn't a college student in this country that does not think 
that textbooks cost too much. Buying course books has become a major 
expense for the vast majority of students.
  Evidence shows that off-campus bookstores are generally less-
expensive if students receiving financial aid had full access to them. 
A recent report of the National Association of College Stores 
(``NACS'') reports that each student spends an average of $300 for new 
textbooks at an on-campus bookstore compared with less than $200 for 
textbook purchases at an off-campus bookstore.
  Additionally, another unfair practice that I have been informed about 
is that some institutions refuse or obstruct access by off-campus 
college bookstores to the titles of textbooks required by the teaching 
staff. This legislation addresses both of these problems.
  Further, I believe we should be taking any reasonable steps that we 
can to reduce the cost of attending college. A 1998 Congressional 
Commission on the Cost of Higher Education Report tells us that America 
has a ``college cost crisis.'' It found that 71 percent of the public 
believes that a four-year education is not affordable for most 
Americans. Clearly, people are concerned about the ever-growing costs 
of higher education.
  This legislation could save every student hundreds of dollars a year 
in college costs, if we can promote greater free market competition in 
the sale of college textbooks. As for financial aid, if this 
legislation can only save one percent of the amount that is spent on 
financial aid, it would approximate a $500 million savings.
  Clearly parents, students and the federal government could use this 
kind of financial relief. Mr. President, I would urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 2491. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect 
children from sexual abuse and exploitation, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


        Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce S. 2491 the 
Hatch-Leahy-DeWine ``Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act 
of 1998.'' I want to especially thank Senators Leahy and DeWine for 
their cooperation in drafting this exemplary piece of legislation. S. 
2491 strengthens the ability of law enforcement and the courts to 
respond to high-tech sexual predators of children. Pedophiles who roam 
the Internet, purveyors of child pornography, and serial child 
molesters are specifically targeted.
  The Internet is a wonderful creation. By allowing for instant 
communication around the globe, it has made the world a smaller place, 
a place in which people can express their thoughts and ideas without 
limitation. It has released the creative energies of a new generation 
of entrepreneurs and it is an unparalleled source of information.
  While we should encourage people to take full advantage of the 
opportunities the Internet has to offer, we must also be vigilant in 
seeking to ensure that the Internet is not perverted into a hunting 
ground for pedophiles and other sexual predators, and a drive-through 
library and post office for purveyors of child pornography. Our 
children must be protected from those who would choose to sexually 
abuse and exploit them. And those who take the path of predation should 
know that the consequences of their actions will be severe and 
unforgiving.
  How does this bill provide additional protection for our children? By 
prohibiting the libidinous dissemination on the Internet of information 
related to minors and the sending of obscene material to minors, we 
make it more difficult for sexual predators to gather information on, 
and lower the sexual inhibitions of, potential targets. And by 
requiring electronic communication service providers to report the 
commission of child pornography offenses to authorities, we mandate 
accountability and responsibility on the Internet.
  Additionally, law enforcement is given effective tools to pursue 
sexual predators. The Attorney General is provided with authority to 
issue administrative subpoenas in child pornography cases. Proceeds 
derived from these offenses, and the facilities and instrumentalities 
used to perpetuate these offenses, will be subject to forfeiture. And 
prosecutors will now have the power to seek pretrial detention of 
sexual predators prior to trial.

[[Page S10521]]

  Federal law enforcement will be given increased statutory authority 
to assist the States in kidnaping and serial murder investigations, 
which often involve children. In that vein, S. 2491 calls for the 
creation of the Morgan P. Hardiman Child Abduction and Serial Murder 
Investigative Resources Center. That center will gather information, 
expertise and resources that our nation's law enforcement agencies can 
draw upon to help combat these heinous crimes.
  Sentences for child abuse and exploitation offenses will be made 
tougher. In addition to increasing the maximum penalties available for 
many crimes against children and mandating tough sentences for repeat 
offenders, the bill will also recommend that the Sentencing Commission 
reevaluate the guidelines applicable to these offenses, and increase 
them where appropriate to address the egregiousness of these crimes. 
And S. 2491 calls for life imprisonment in appropriate cases where 
certain crimes result in the death of children.
  Protection of our children is not a partisan issue. We have drawn 
upon the collective wisdom of Senators from both sides of the aisle to 
draft a bill which includes strong, effective legislation protecting 
children. I call upon my colleagues to support this bill and speed its 
passage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
  [The bill was not available for printing. It will appear in a future 
edition of the Record.]
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know everyone is concerned about 
protecting this country's children from those who would prey upon them. 
Those concerns have intensified in recent years with the growing 
popularity of the internet and the world wide web. Cyberspace gives 
users access to a wealth of information; it connects people from around 
the world. But it also creates new opportunities for sexual predators 
and child pornographers to ply their trade. The challenge is to protect 
our children from exploitation in cyberspace while ensuring that the 
vast democratic forum of the Internet remains an engine for the free 
exchange of ideas and information.
  The bill that we are introducing today meets this challenge. While it 
is not a cure-all for the scourge of child pornography, it is a good 
step toward limiting the ability of cyber-pornographers and predators 
from harming children.
  This bill differs markedly from H.R. 3494, the child protection and 
sexual predator bill that the House passed last June. I should note 
that this bill mirrors a Hatch-Leahy-DeWine substitute to H.R. 3494, 
which passed the Judiciary Committee by unanimous consent this 
afternoon.
  I thank the Chairman for working with me to fix the many problems in 
H.R. 3494, and to make this bill more focused and measured. Briefly, I 
would like to highlight and explain some of the differences between the 
bills.
  As passed by the House, H.R. 3494 would make it a crime, punishable 
by up to 5 years' imprisonment, to do nothing more than ``contact'' a 
minor, or even just attempt to ``contact'' a minor, for the purpose of 
engaging in sexual activity. This provision does not appear in the 
Hatch-Leahy-DeWine bill. The act of making contact is not very far 
along the spectrum of an overt criminal act: it is only the expression 
of a criminal intention without follow through. A simple ``hello'' in 
an internet chat room, coupled with bad intentions, would expose the 
speaker to severe criminal sanctions. Targeting ``attempts'' to make 
contact would be even more like prosecuting a thought crime.
  Another new crime created by the House bill prohibited the 
transmittal of identifying information about any person under 18 for 
the purpose of encouraging unlawful sexual activity. In its original 
incarnation, this provision would have had the absurd result of 
prohibiting a person under the age of consent from e-mailing her own 
address or telephone number to her boyfriend. We fixed this problem by 
making it clear that a violation must involve the transmission of 
someone else's identifying information. In addition, to eliminate any 
notice problem arising from the variations in state statutory rape 
laws, we lowered the age of the identified minor from 18 to 16--the 
federal age of consent. Finally, we clarified that the defendant must 
know that the person about whom he was transmitting identifying 
information was, in fact, under 16. This change was particularly 
important because, in the anonymous world of cyberspace, a person may 
have no way of knowing the age of the faceless person with whom he is 
communicating.
  I had many of the same concerns regarding another provision of the 
House bill, which makes it a crime to transfer obscene material to a 
minor. Again, the Hatch-Leahy-DeWine bill lowers the age of minority 
from 18 to 16 and provides that the defendant must know he is dealing 
with someone so young. I would add that this provision of the bill 
applies only to ``obscene'' material, that is, material that enjoys no 
First Amendment protection whatever--material that is patently 
offensive to the average adult. The bill does not purport to proscribe 
the transferral of constitutionally protected material that may, 
however, be unsuitable for minors. Besides raising serious 
constitutional concerns, such a provision would also have the 
unacceptable consequence of reducing the level of discourse over the 
Internet to what would be suitable for a sandbox.
  The original House bill would also have criminalized certain conduct 
directed at a person who had been ``represented'' to be a minor, even 
if that person was, in fact, an adult. The evident purpose was to make 
clear that the targets of sting operations are not relieved of criminal 
liability merely because their intended victim turned out to be an 
undercover agent and not a child. The new ``sting'' provisions 
addressed a problem that simply does not currently exist: no court has 
ever endorsed an impossibility defense along the lines anticipated by 
the House bill. The creation of special ``sting'' provisions in this 
one area could lend credence to impossibility defenses raised in other 
sting and undercover situations. At the same time, these provisions 
would have criminalized conduct that was otherwise lawful: it is not a 
crime for adults to communicate with each other about sex, even if one 
of the adults pretends to be a child. Given these significant concerns, 
the ``sting'' provisions have been stricken from the Hatch-Leahy-DeWine 
bill.
  Another major problem with the House bill is its modification of the 
child pornography possession laws. Current law requires possession of 
three or more pornographic images in order for there to be criminal 
liability. Congress wrote this requirement into the law as a way of 
protecting against government overreaching. By eliminating this numeric 
requirement, the House bill puts at risk the unsuspecting Internet user 
who, by inadvertence or mistake, downloads a single pornographic image 
of a child. The inevitable result would be to chill the free exchange 
of information over the web. I was unwilling to accept this 
possibility; the Hatch-Leahy-DeWine bill keeps current law in place.
  Unlike H.R. 3494, the bill we are introducing today contains no new 
mandatory minimum sentences. I oppose the use of mandatory minimums 
because they take away the discretion of the sentencing judge, which 
can result in unjust sentences and can also induce defendants who would 
otherwise have pled guilty, hoping to obtain some measure of leniency 
from the court, to proceed to trial.
  Another problematic provision of the House bill gives the Attorney 
General sweeping authority to subpoena records and witnesses in 
investigations involving crimes against children. We should be 
extremely wary of further extending the Justice Department's 
administrative subpoena power. The use of administrative subpoenas 
gives federal agents the power to compel disclosures without any 
oversight by a judge, prosecutor, or grand jury, and without any of the 
grand jury secrecy requirements. That being said, the secrecy 
requirements may pose a significant obstacle to the full and efficient 
cooperation of federal/state task forces in their joint efforts to 
reduce the steadily increasing use of the Internet to perpetrate crimes 
against children, including crimes involving the distribution of child 
pornography.
  In addition, it appears that some U.S. Attorneys Offices are 
reluctant to open

[[Page S10522]]

a grand jury investigation when the only goal is to identify 
individuals who have not yet, and may never, commit a federal (as 
opposed to state or local) offense. The Hatch-Leahy-DeWine bill 
accommodates all the competing interests by granting the Department a 
narrowly drawn authority to subpoena only the information that it most 
needs: routine subscriber account information from Internet service 
providers. Importantly, subscribers may obtain notice from their 
service provider.
  The new reporting requirement established by H.R. 3494 is also 
troubling. Under current law, Internet service providers are generally 
free to report suspicious communications to law enforcement 
authorities. Under H.R. 3494, service providers would be required to 
report such communications when they involve child pornography; failure 
to do so would be punishable by a substantial fine.
  Of course, we are all committed to eradicating the market for child 
pornography. Child pornography is inherently harmful to children. 
Service providers that come across such material should report it, and, 
in most cases, they already do. We must tread cautiously, however, 
before we compel private citizens to act as good Samaritans or to 
assume duties and responsibilities that are better left to law 
enforcement.
  Working with the service providers, we have refined the House bill in 
various ways.
  First, we raised the bar for the reporting duty; a service provider 
has no obligation to make a report unless it has ``probable cause'' to 
believe that the child pornography laws are being violated. By setting 
such a high standard, we intended to discourage service providers from 
erring on the side of over-reporting every questionable image. This 
would also overwhelm the FBI and law enforcement agencies.
  Second, we provided that there is no liability for failing to make a 
report unless the service provider knew both of the existence of child 
pornography and of the duty to report it (if it rises to the level of 
probable cause).
  Third, we made clear that we are not imposing a monitoring 
requirement of any kind: service providers must report child 
pornography when they come across it or it is brought to their 
attention, but they remain under no obligation to go out looking for 
it.
  Fourth, we added privacy protections for any information reported 
under the bill.
  Fifth, we lowered the maximum fine for first offenders to $50,000; a 
second or subsequent failure to report, however, may still result in a 
fine up to $100,000.
  Thus improved, I am confident that the reporting requirement will 
accomplish its objectives without unduly burdening the service 
providers or violating the privacy rights of internet users.
  Beyond this, the Hatch-Leahy-DeWine bill strips the House bill of 
various other extraneous or improvident provisions. Our bill is also 
free of certain add-ons that appeared in the original version offered 
by Senator Hatch. In particular, the original version would have opened 
the floodgates of federal inchoate crime prosecutions by creating a 
general attempt statute--making it a crime to commit each and every 
offense in title 18--and by making the penalty for its violation as 
well as for violation of the general conspiracy statute (which is now 
capped at 5 years) equal to the penalty for the offense that was the 
object of the attempt or conspiracy. The Chairman's original bill also 
created a new rule of criminal procedure requiring defendants to 
provide notice of their intention to assert an entrapment defense.
  I think there are good reasons why these ideas have been rejected in 
the past, both by the Congress and by the Federal Judicial Conference, 
and why they are opposed by business and civil liberties groups alike. 
At the very least, we should not usher in such radical changes to the 
federal criminal law without more careful consideration, after proper 
hearings.
  In conclusion, I commend Senators Hatch and DeWine for their efforts 
to address the terrible problem of child predators and pornographers. I 
am glad that we were able to join forces to construct a bill that goes 
a long way towards achieving our common goals.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express my outrage at 
the depraved criminals who are using the Internet to exploit children.
  Recently, the United States Customs Service, in cooperation with 
authorities in fourteen other nations, conducted successful raids on an 
extensive Internet child pornography ring. The ring, called the 
Wonderland Club, had been distributing more than 100,000 pornographic 
photographs of children. Some of the children were as young as 18 
months. I am deeply disturbed, and disgusted, that people would 
victimize innocent children in this way.
  I want to commend the Customs Service and the other international law 
enforcement agencies involved on their successful effort. They made 46 
arrests worldwide and there may be hundreds more after all the evidence 
is analyzed. The raids also covered 22 states, including one location 
in my home state of New Jersey.
  While this raid has put this one ring of Internet pedophiles out of 
business, I am concerned that there may be others. Many law enforcement 
officials are concerned that the advancements in Internet technology 
are making it that much easier for pedophiles to conduct their 
sickening schemes. Additionally, the anonymity of the Internet makes it 
easier for these criminals to evade detection.
  Clearly, we must fight back against these cyberspace criminals. One 
step that we can take is to ensure strong penalties for those who use 
the Internet for these horrible purposes. That is why I support the 
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998. This 
measure would double the maximum penalty for sexual abuse of a child 
under twelve--from ten years to twenty years. It would also increase 
the prison terms and fines for anyone using the Internet, or the mail, 
to contact a minor for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity or 
transferring obscene material.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I hope it will pass 
the Senate before we adjourn this year. We must act quickly to help 
prevent another generation of children from suffering.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Graham):
  S. 2492. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
deduction for the long-term care insurance costs of all individuals who 
are not eligible to participate in employer-subsidized long-term care 
health plans; to the Committee on Finance.


               long-term care and retirement security act

 Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I introduce the Long-Term Care 
and Retirement Security Act. This bill is an important first step in 
helping Americans prepare for their long-term care needs. A companion 
bill to the Long-Term Care and Retirement Security Act has been 
introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Nancy 
Johnson.
  Longer and healthier lives are a blessing and a testament to the 
progress and advances made by our society. However, all Americans must 
be alert and prepare for long-term care needs. The role of private 
long-term care insurance is critical in meeting this challenge.
  The financial challenges of health care in retirement are not new. 
Indeed, too many family caregivers can tell stories about financial 
devastation that was brought about by the serious long-term care needs 
of a family member. Because increasing numbers of Americans are likely 
to need long term care services, it is especially important to 
encourage planning today.
  Most families are not financially prepared when a loved one needs 
long-term care. When faced with nursing home costs that can run more 
than $40,000 a year, families often turn to Medicaid for help. In fact, 
Medicaid pays for nearly two of every three nursing home residents at a 
cost of more than $30 billion each year for nursing home costs. With 
the impending retirement of the Baby Boomers, it is imperative that 
Congress takes steps now to encourage all Americans to plan ahead for 
potential long-term care needs.
  The Long-Term Care and Retirement Security Act will allow Americans 
who do not currently have access to employer subsidized long-term care 
plans to deduct the cost of such a plan from their taxable income. This 
bill will encourage planning and personal responsibility while helping 
to make long-

[[Page S10523]]

term care insurance more affordable for middle class taxpayers.
  This measure will encourage Americans to be pro-active and prepare 
for their own long term care needs by making insurance more affordable. 
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
  [The bill was not available for printing. It will appear in a future 
edition of the Record.]
 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator 
Grassley, to introduce legislation designed to protect our nation's 
families hard-earned savings and ensure quality long-term care.
  Our nation has achieved great strides in the 20th century in 
delivering quality health care and improving the standards of living of 
its citizens. Just last year Congress added preventive benefits to the 
Medicare program, thereby ensuring that Americans will have longer, 
more productive lives. In fact, thanks to these developments life 
expectancy has increased from 47 years in 1900 to 68 years in 1950, and 
has steadily increased to 76 years in 1991. These tremendous advances 
in medicine have also produced challenges because as more and more 
people live longer, chances increase that they will experience chronic 
illnesses and disability.
  A three-year stay in a nursing home can cost upwards of $125,000. As 
a result, nearly half of all nursing home residents who enter as 
privately-paying patients exhaust their personal savings and lose 
health insurance coverage during their stay. Medicaid becomes many 
retirees' last refuge of financial support.
  Another challenge facing America in the future will be the aging of 
the ``baby boomers.'' Unfortunately, many ``baby boomers'' are not 
planning for the future because they are preoccupied with more 
immediate concerns. This portion of our population represents more than 
half of all workers and are the parents of 75% of the nation's children 
under age 18. Child care, housing expenses and saving for their 
children's college education tend to dominate their budgets.
  Many Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare will pay for their 
long-term care needs. ``Baby boomers'' need to understand the 
limitations of government programs with regard to long-term care. In 
reality, this program primarily focuses on hospital stays and physician 
visits. Without adequate private insurance a significant number of 
retirees are likely to deplete their assets in order to receive 
essential long-term care.
  Insurance products are available to ensure that an individual's long-
term care needs are met. However, current tax law establishes several 
obstacles to purchasing long-term care insurance. First, most Americans 
purchase health insurance through their employer. Over sixty-five 
percent of 235 million individuals, under age 65, purchase their health 
insurance through their employer or union. However, tax law prohibits 
an employer from offering employer subsidized long-term care insurance 
products through its employee benefits plans.
  Since the enactment of the Kennedy-Kassebaum legislation of 1996, 
purchasers of qualified long-term care insurance policies are permitted 
to deduct the premiums as part of their medical expenses. However, for 
taxpayers other than the self-employed, the tax code restricts the 
medical expense deduction to the portion of expenses exceeding 7.5 
percent of their income--a threshold that bars the deduction for 95 
percent of non-self employed people.

  Kennedy-Kassebaum also precluded employees from purchasing long term 
care insurance on a pre-tax basis through their employer. Specifically, 
the legislation prohibited the inclusion of long-term care insurance in 
employer-sponsored cafeteria plans and flexible spending accounts. Only 
if the employer actually pays for the insurance can the employee obtain 
the coverage on a tax-free basis, but few employers currently are 
willing to pay for the coverage. The result is that only a small 
percentage of purchasers of long-term care insurance can obtain the 
insurance on a pre-tax basis.
  Second, long-term care insurance paid directly by the taxpayer is 
only deductible if the individual both itemizes his or her deductions 
and already has deductible medical expenses in excess of 7.5 percent of 
their adjusted gross income.
  Suppose Mr. and Ms. Jones earn $40,000 per year and want to purchase 
long-term care insurance. Under current law, health and medical 
expenses are not deductible unless they exceed 7.5 percent of $40,000, 
which is $3,000.
  Suppose the premiums for long-term care insurance totaled $1,000. The 
Joneses would get no tax benefit from the deduction of the premiums 
unless they already had $2,000 in other qualified medical expenses, and 
would not get the full benefit of the deduction unless they had $3,000 
in other qualified expenses.
  Even if they meet this threshold, the Joneses still will not benefit 
from the current deduction unless their total itemized deductions--
health and non-health--exceed the standard deduction, currently $6,900 
for a married couple.
  It becomes clear that the current deduction for log-term care 
insurance premiums is not providing a very strong incentive to prepare 
for one's health retirement. A recent survey shows that premium 
deductibility was cited most frequently as the action that would make 
non-buyers more interested in long-term care insurance.
  Looking into the future, there are two key goals for retirement 
security: (1) saving enough money for retirement, and (2) protecting 
against life's uncertainties, including long-term care costs. An 
unanticipated nursing home stay can deplete hard-earned savings and 
threaten a family's financial future. This situation could be 
especially difficult for the surviving spouse of someone who has had a 
long-term care stay and depleted all of their retirement savings. The 
widow or widower can have many years left to live and no remaining 
retirement assets.
  A recent study by the American Council for Life Insurance indicates 
that long-term care insurance has the potential to significantly reduce 
future out-of-pocket and Medicaid expenditures for long-term care. If 
individuals are covered by long-term care insurance, they are less 
likely to become Medicaid beneficiaries, thus preserving the 
individual's savings and decreasing government spending. This would 
also reinforce Medicaid's intent of serving as a safety net for those 
who are most needy.
  With the provisions in this legislation, Americans can be more 
assured of a financially secure retirement.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 2493. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
tax credit for the nutrient management costs of animal feeding 
operations; to the Committee on Finance.


      the animal agriculture environmental incentives act of 1998

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, recently we have seen growing 
concerns around the country about the environmental problems associated 
with livestock, dairy and poultry production. Continued reports of 
manure spills, evidence of water pollution from manure runoff, and 
ongoing complaints about odor and air pollution are creating increasing 
pressure on the livestock and poultry industry.
  Last year, I introduced the Animal Agriculture Reform Act, the first 
legislation of its kind to call for national environmental standards 
for animal feeding operations. Just this week, the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced what 
they call a Draft Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding 
Operations. That is a big title, but what it boils down to is a 
comprehensive, national plan for tackling the environmental problems of 
the livestock and poultry industry.
  The Administration's Strategy looks a lot like my bill, so I think it 
is a good start. The Strategy calls for mandatory nutrient management 
plans for larger operations and restrictions on manure application to 
protect the environment--those provisions are at the heart of my bill 
and also are the focus of the EPA/USDA Strategy.
  However, the Administration's plan is only a strategy and it must be 
implemented. We will still see manure spills, runoff and threatened 
waterways

[[Page S10524]]

around the country until we have better management and better controls 
at animal feeding operations.
  One of the keys to getting this job done, and to helping producers 
comply with EPA regulations, is finding solutions rather than imposing 
sanctions. That is why today I am introducing a bill that would provide 
a 25 percent tax credit to livestock producers to purchase equipment 
for new and innovative ways to process and use manure.
  The aim of my bill is to help producers help themselves when it comes 
to manure management, particularly in circumstances where too much 
manure is generated to be safely applied to land.
  The tax credit would cover equipment that allows farmers to carefully 
apply only as much manure as their crops need, and equipment that 
processes manure for safer handling, better nutrient value, or 
alternative uses like energy generation. This is the kind of equipment 
that producers need to comply more easily with nutrient management 
plans, move manure more economically to areas where crop land is 
available, or adopt alternative uses for manure.
  The bottom line as I see it is that livestock, dairy and poultry 
producers in this country are going to face limits on manure 
application. These limits are going to have a serious effect on some 
operations, and particularly in certain regions of the country.
  Of course, there are all kinds of operations that make up our 
livestock, dairy and poultry industry, and each producer needs an 
environmental solution that makes sense for that individual operation.
  Some producers have enough land to apply all of their manure. For 
these producers, up to date facilities and careful management should be 
sufficient. For other producers, simple composting or efficient solid 
liquid separation may be the solution, so that solids can be 
transported more economically for off-site land application. In still 
other situations, particularly for very large operations or in regions 
with intensive production, we may need to adopt more advanced 
technology.
  I believe that the bill I am introducing today is just a first step 
along the way to making the adoption of better technologies, whether 
low-tech composting or high-tech processing, more affordable for any 
size producer.
  I want to thank the National Pork Producers Council for its support 
of this tax credit initiative. The National Pork Producers have been 
far in front of the crowd in engaging policy makers at the national 
level and in working with pork producers to address environmental 
problems. I look forward to continuing to work with them on these 
issues.
  Let me be clear that I want the livestock industry to thrive in both 
Iowa and across the United States. But for our industry to flourish, we 
need to get our environmental house in order. I do believe that we can 
have both a healthy livestock industry and a sound environment, and I 
hope that the Congress will act quickly to enact this tax credit to 
help producers get the tools they need to reach this goal.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a letter of 
endorsement from the NPPC be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
  [The bill was not available for printing. It will appear in a future 
edition of the Record.]
                                                     National Pork


                                             Producers Council

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 1998.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: I'm writing on behalf of the members 
     of the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) to express our 
     support for allowing livestock producers to claim an income 
     tax credit for innovative environmental management equipment. 
     We believe the goal of any tax credit for livestock manure 
     handling practices and equipment should be to enhance the 
     quality of surface and ground water and the air. The focus 
     should be on those practices which are an alternative to 
     traditional storage and handling practices or which 
     significantly improve the function of traditional storage and 
     handling methods.
       Pork producers have been very aggressive in the development 
     of new regulations for their operations through the National 
     Environmental Dialogue on Pork Production recommendations. We 
     recognize that sound environmental management and compliance 
     with new regulations will, in many cases, require producers 
     to adopt and pay for new equipment. In an increasingly 
     competitive world pork industry, such a tax credit will 
     provide U.S. producers an important advantage in the rapid 
     development of sustainable, affordable production systems.
       We look forward to working with you to enact this important 
     initiative.
           Sincerely,
                                              Donna Reifschneider,
                                                President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Hatch, Mr. DeWine, and 
        Mr. Kohl):
  S. 2494. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
151 et seq.) to enhance the ability of direct broadcast satellite and 
other multichannel video providers to compete effectively with cable 
television systems, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


             THE MULTICHANNEL VIDEO COMPETITION ACT OF 1998

   Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will 
address two problems confronting the millions of Americans who 
subscribe to satellite TV service. I am delighted to have Senators 
Hatch, Leahy, DeWine and Kohl as original co-sponsors.
  These two problems involve the legal and practical difficulties 
satellite TV providers currently face in providing network TV stations 
as part of their service package.
  The first problem is that the law effectively prevents satellite TV 
companies from providing local network stations to their subscribers. 
That hampers the ability of satellite TV to compete effectively with 
cable TV and, by doing so, to check cable rate increases.
  The second problem is that existing law also forbids satellite TV 
providers from offering distant network stations unless the subscriber 
happens to be located beyond the reach of local network stations. But 
the satellite companies and their subscribers claim that the law's 
definition of what constitutes decent off-air TV reception is too 
narrow. This has resulted in many situations in which consumers who 
cannot receive local network stations as a practical matter, are 
nevertheless regarded as being able to receive them, as a legal matter. 
In many cases, satellite TV providers are offering distant network 
signals even though it's actually illegal. This has led to litigation 
and a court order that could cause more than a million satellite TV 
subscribers throughout the country to lose their network TV within the 
next several weeks.
  Mr. President, we need to fix these problems, and we need to fix them 
quickly. No satellite TV company should be forced to suddenly 
discontinue any customer's network TV service, and satellite TV 
companies should be able to provide their subscribers with local 
network TV stations, just as cable TV companies can.
  The legislation being introduced today is intended to strike a 
reasonable balance between the competing interests of cable operators, 
broadcasters, and satellite TV providers, to enable satellite TV 
providers to offer network stations, to assure that no satellite TV 
subscriber is unfairly deprived of network TV service, to assure local 
broadcasters are not deprived of the support of their local audience, 
and to make satellite TV a more effective competitive alternative to 
cable TV.
  This legislation will also require changes to the Copyright Act, the 
Satellite Home Viewers Act, and the Communications Act. The 
distinguished Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator 
Hatch, has developed legislation to give satellite TV providers a 
compulsory copyright license enabling them to offer local TV stations. 
I am also cosponsoring this legislation.
  The bill I am introducing today will be merged with Senator Hatch's 
legislation to provide a comprehensive and workable solution to all 
these problems. Let me briefly describe what my bill provides.
  My bill directs the Federal Communications Commission to straighten 
out the rules governing satellite TV companies' carriage of distant 
network TV stations, and provides guidelines for the Commission's 
decision. It will also guarantee that no satellite TV subscriber loses 
network stations before the FCC issues revised rules next

[[Page S10525]]

February. It will require that satellite TV companies carry all local 
TV stations, just as cable systems must, when it becomes feasible for 
them to do so. In the interim it will allow them to carry fewer than 
all local stations as long as they compensate any local stations that 
are not carried for any loss of revenue the stations will suffer as a 
result.
  During the last several weeks the Majority Leader, Senator Lott, and 
the Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Fritz Hollings, 
have worked tirelessly with the broadcast and satellite industries to 
develop a compromise that will avoid the disruption of satellite TV 
subscribers network TV service until this legislation can be enacted 
into law. I would like to recognize them for their efforts on behalf of 
every member of the public who subscribes to multichannel video 
service, whether by satellite or by cable. All of us should be grateful 
for their leadership on this issue.
  I intend to hold hearings on the status of the parties efforts to 
reach a compromise, and on the legislation sponsored by Senator Hatch 
and myself, next week. It is my hope that broadcasters and satellite TV 
providers can reach a mutually-acceptable temporary agreement that will 
enable Senator Hatch and myself to enact our comprehensive legislation 
as soon as possible, and in any event no later than early in the next 
Session of Congress.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I support this measure, which will 
help create competition between satellite and cable television. Read in 
tandem with our Judiciary Committee proposal, it offers the promise of 
a comprehensive solution that removes some of the roadblocks to true 
video competition. Let me commend Senators McCain, Hollings, Hatch, 
Leahy, DeWine and Lott for their efforts, all of which were 
instrumental in the creation of a comprehensive package with a real 
chance to be enacted this year.
  Mr. President, let me explain why we need to move on these measures 
before the opportunity passes us by. Consumers want real choices. But 
they won't have a fair opportunity to choose between cable, satellite 
or other video systems if their network signals are, in essence, 
separate and unequal.
  The legislation that the Judiciary and Commerce Committees have been 
working on together would eliminate this problem. They extend the 
Satellite Home Viewer Act, give satellite carriers the ability to 
provide local television broadcast signals (while appropriately phasing 
in must-carry), reduce the royalty fees for these signals, give the FCC 
time to take a much-needed second look at the definition of ``unserved 
households,'' and make sure no one--no one--is terminated before 
February 28th of next year.
  Mr. President, these bills are not perfect pieces of legislation. And 
we invite the interested parties to work with us to improve them. But 
the overall package is a fair and comprehensive one. If we continue to 
work together, then consumers will have real choices among video 
providers, and that television programming will be more available and 
affordable for all of us. In addition, we will help to preserve local 
television stations, who provide all of us with vital information like 
news, weather, and special events--especially sports.
  I urge my colleagues to support these bipartisan bills, which will 
move us toward video competition in the next millennium, and I hope we 
can enact them as one before this Congress adjourns in October.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. D'Amato):
  S. 2495. A bill to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site 
in the State of New York, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


              the kate mullany national historic site act

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it is with great pride, with my 
distinguished colleague Senator D'Amato, I introduce the ``Kate Mullany 
Historic Site Act,'' a bill to designate the Troy, New York home of 
pioneer labor organizer Kate Mullany as a National Historic Site. A 
similar measure introduced in the House of Representatives this year by 
Congressman Michael R. McNulty has engendered a great deal of support 
and cosponsorship by over 100 members.
  Like many Irish immigrants settling in Troy, Kate Mullany found her 
opportunities limited to the most difficult and low-paying of jobs, the 
collar laundry industry. Troy was then known as ``The Collar City''--
the birthplace of the detachable shirt collar. At the age of 19, Kate 
stood up against the often dangerous conditions and meager pay that 
characterized the industry and lead a movement of 200 female 
laundresses demanding just compensation and safe working conditions. 
These protests marked the beginning of the Collar Laundry Union, which 
some have called ``the only bona fide female labor union in the 
country.''
  Kate Mullany's courage and organizing skills did not go unnoticed. 
She later traveled down the Hudson River to lead women workers in the 
sweatshops of New York City and was ultimately appointed Assistant 
Secretary of the then National Labor Union, becoming the first women 
ever appointed to a national labor office.
  On April 1, 1998, Kate Mullany's home was designated as a National 
Historic Landmark by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and on 
July 15 First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton presented citizens of Troy 
with the National Historic Landmark plaque in a celebration. Given the 
recent attention to the contributions of Kate Mullany, I am quite 
pleased to introduce this bill with my colleague Senator D'Amato 
today.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 2496. A bill to designate the Department of Veterans Affairs 
medical center in Aspinwall, Pennsylvania, as the ``H. John Heinz III 
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center''; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.


           h. john heinz iii veterans affairs medical center

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to honor 
the memory of Senator John Heinz by designating the Veterans Medical 
facility in Aspinwall, Pennsylvania, as the H. John Heinz III Veterans 
Affairs Medical Center.
  Recognition of the distinguished work of Senator Heinz has been 
memorialized in a variety of ways. This designation of the Veterans 
Center pays tribute to his outstanding work for America's veterans. 
Senator Heinz, a veteran himself, made many contributions to this 
nation and to America's veterans.
  H. John Heinz III was born on October 23, 1938 in Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania. While he grew up in San Francisco, California, he spent 
many summers in Pittsburgh with his father who was chairman of the H.J. 
Heinz Company founded in 1869 by the Senator's great-grandfather. John 
graduated from Yale University with honors in 1960 and piloted a 
single-engine plane through Africa and the Middle East, ending up in 
Sydney, Australia working as a salesman for a truck company. He entered 
Harvard Business School in 1961 and the following year worked for the 
summer with the Union Bank of Switzerland in Geneva. While in 
Switzerland he met his future wife, Teresa Simoes Ferreira, who was 
attending graduate school in Geneva. He received his Master's degree in 
Business Administration from Harvard in 1963.
  After enlisting in the U.S. Air Force Reserve, John Heinz served on 
active duty in 1963 at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. 
For the remainder of his enlistment, he served with the 911th Troop 
Carrier Group based at the Greater Pittsburgh Airport. As an Airman 
Third Class, he received a U.S. Department of Defense citation for 
suggestions to improve the management of parts and supplies, saving the 
Air Force $400,000 annually. With the rank of staff sergeant, he 
received an honorable discharge from the Air Force Reserves in 1969.
  In 1964, John Heinz served as a special assistant to Senator Hugh 
Scott (R-PA) in Washington, D.C. and as assistant campaign manager in 
Senator Scott's successful reelection bid. Returning to Pittsburgh, he 
was employed in the financial and marketing divisions of the H.J. Heinz 
Company from 1965 to 1970. He married Teresa in 1966, and they 
subsequently had three sons: Henry John IV, Andre, and Christopher. He 
taught at the Graduate School of Industrial Administration at Carnegie 
Mellon University in Pittsburgh during the 1970-71 academic year.

[[Page S10526]]

  Senator Heinz was a stalwart of the Republican Party, contributing 
generously of his time, talents and efforts by campaigning for others. 
He was active in the campaigns of Governor William Scranton for the 
Republican Presidential nomination in 1964, Judge Maurice B. Cohill for 
Juvenile Court in 1965, Richard L. Thornburgh for Congress in 1966, 
Robert Friend for County Controller in 1967, and John Tabor for Mayor 
in 1969. He chaired the Pennsylvania Republican platform committee 
hearings in 1968, won election as a delegate at the Republican National 
Convention in the same year (and again in 1972, 1976, and 1980), and 
chaired the Pennsylvania Republican State Platform Committee in 1970.
  Upon the sudden death in April 1971 of Congressman Robert J. Corbett 
(R-PA), John Heinz pursued the unexpired term and won, making him the 
youngest Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives at 33 
years old. In November 1972 and 1974, John Heinz was re-elected to the 
House.
  When Senator Hugh Scott announced his retirement in December 1975, 
Senator Heinz, George Packer and I ran for the Republican nomination 
for U.S. Senate in the April 1976 primary. After Senator Heinz won that 
primary contest, I endorsed him at a major rally in September 1976 in 
Delaware County at the kick off of his campaign in Southeastern 
Pennsylvania. Senator Heinz defeated Congressman William J. Green III 
and took his seat in the United States Senate on January 3, 1977.
  In his capacity as Chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign 
Committee, Senator Heinz gave me tremendous support and was 
instrumental in my election to the United States Senate in November 
1980.
  Thereafter, Senator Heinz and I established a very close friendship 
and working relationship. Although I cannot personally attest to all 
other Senate relationships, I believe that our cooperation and 
coordination was as close as any two Senators from the same state in 
the Senate's history.
  When one of us was unable to attend a specific event, the other was 
always ready, willing and able to take his place. We discussed the 
pending international, national and state issues incessantly. On the 
late night sessions, and there were many, I would drive John home in my 
aging Jaguar leaving him off in the alley behind his home in 
Georgetown.
  On one occasion in 1982 we had a lengthy discussion about the 
upcoming vote the next day on a constitutional amendment for a balanced 
budget. I laid out my reasons for opposing the amendment and John gave 
me his reasons for supporting it. I found his arguments so persuasive 
that I voted for the constitutional amendment for the balanced budget 
the next day. I was surprised to find that he voted against it. We had 
a good laugh on that exchange of views and our reciprocal change of 
positions.
  Senator Heinz and I made it a practice to inform and invite the other 
to all of our events. On April 3, 1991, our paths crossed in Altoona, 
Pennsylvania, where he had scheduled a meeting with a group of doctors. 
I accepted his invitation and recall his warm greeting when Joan and I 
arrived to join the discussion. He kissed Joan on the cheek and joked 
with me about calling her ``blondie.'' We parted that day and that was 
the last time I saw John Heinz because he had the fatal air crash the 
next day, April 4, 1991, in a small plane from Williamsport, 
Pennsylvania, to Philadelphia.
  Senator Heinz was an extraordinary man and a great Senator. The 
designation of the Veterans Medical Center in Aspinwall, Pennsylvania, 
is an appropriate additional tribute to his memory.
  Senator Heinz' work on behalf of the citizens of Pennsylvania, young 
and old, will long be remembered. He was a tireless advocate for 
seniors, working to ensure the long-term viability of the Social 
Security system. He fought to protect Medicare and Medicaid patients. 
He authored the Age Discrimination and Employment Amendments of 1985, 
protecting the employment rights of our nation's seniors. He authored a 
bill to strengthen the U.S. job training program for displaced veterans 
in the work force. For military families, he worked to ensure that the 
children of service members were adequately cared for. He worked on 
behalf of U.S. workers and businesses in an increasingly international 
marketplace. He also played an important role in ensuring appropriate 
environmental protections in Pennsylvania and across the nation. John 
Heinz had a remarkable career of public service.
  As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I ask my 
colleagues to support this measure naming the Department of Veterans 
Affairs Medical Center in Aspinwall, Pennsylvania, after our departed 
colleague, Senator H. John Heinz III.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2496

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF H. JOHN HEINZ IN DEPARTMENT OF 
                   VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER, ASPINWALL, 
                   PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in 
     Aspinwall, Pennsylvania, is hereby designated as the ``H. 
     John Heinz III Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
     Center''. Any reference to such medical center in any law, 
     regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the 
     United States shall be considered to be a reference to the 
     ``H. John Heinz III Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
     Center''.

                          ____________________