[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 79 (Wednesday, June 21, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5556-S5562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 2760. A bill to clarify the authority of the Secretary of 
Agriculture to establish performance standards for the reduction of 
microbiological pathogens in meat and poultry; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


    microbiological performance standards clarification act of 2000

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Microbiological 
Performance Standards Clarification Act of 2000. Passage of this bill 
is vital because on May 25th, the District Court of the Northern 
District of Texas struck down the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
(USDA) authority to enforce its Microbiological Performance Standard 
for Salmonella. The District Court's decision in Supreme Beef v. USDA 
(Supreme) seriously undermines the sweeping food safety changes adopted 
by USDA in its 1996 Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point and Pathogen 
Reduction (HACCP) rule.
  The District Court's decision in Supreme says that USDA does not have 
the authority to enforce Microbiological Performance Standards for 
reducing viral and bacterial pathogens.
  The Pathogen Reduction Rule recognized that bacterial and viral 
pathogens were the foremost food safety threat in America, responsible 
for 5,000 deaths and 33 million illnesses. To address the threat of 
foodborne illness, USDA developed a modern inspection system based on 
two fundamental principles.
  The first was that industry has the primary responsibility to 
determine how to produce the safest products possible. Industry had to 
examine their plants and determine how to control contamination at 
every step of the food production process, from the moment a product 
arrives at their door until the moment it leaves their plant.
  The second, even more crucial principle was that plants nationwide 
must reduce levels of dangerous pathogens in meat and poultry products. 
To ensure the new inspection system accomplished this, USDA developed 
Microbiological Performance Standards. These standards provide targets 
for reducing pathogens and require all USDA-inspected facilities to 
meet them. Facilities failing to meet a standard are shut down until 
they create a corrective action plan to meet the standard.
  To date, USDA has only issued one Microbiological Performance 
Standard, for Salmonella. The vast majority of plants in the U.S. have 
been able to meet the new standard, so it is clearly workable. In 
addition, USDA reports that Salmonella levels for meat and poultry 
products have fallen substantially. The Salmonella standard, therefore, 
has been successful. The District Court's decision threatens to destroy 
this success and set our food safety system back years.
  Congress cannot let a court's unfortunate misinterpretation of USDA's 
authority undermine our efforts to provide the safest food possible and 
the strongest food safety system available. Whatever the ultimate 
outcome of the Supreme Beef case, it is intolerable to have so much 
uncertainty about USDA's authority to enforce food safety regulations. 
The public should not have to worry about whether the products on their 
table have met food safety standards. This legislation provides the 
necessary clarification and assurance that if a product bears the USDA 
stamp of approval, it has met all of USDA's food safety requirements.
  I plan to seek every opportunity to get this language enacted. I 
think it is essential, both to ensuring the modernization of our food 
safety system, and ensuring consumers that we are making progress in 
reducing dangerous pathogens.
  I hope that both parties, and both houses of Congress will be able to 
act to pass this legislation before the July 4th weekend. The public's 
confidence in our meat and poultry inspection system is at stake.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 2761. A bill to fund task forces to locate and apprehend fugitives 
in Federal, State, and local felony criminal cases and to provide 
administrative subpoena authority; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                    capturing criminals act of 2000

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as a former prosecutor, I am well aware 
that fugitives from justice are an important problem and that their 
capture is an essential function of law enforcement. According to the 
FBI, nearly 550,000 people are currently fugitives from justice on 
federal, state, and local felony charges combined. This means that 
there are almost as many fugitive felons as there are citizens residing 
in my home state of Vermont.
  The fact that we have more than one half million fugitives from 
justice, a significant portion of whom are convicted felons in 
violation of probation or parole, who have been able to flaunt courts 
order and avoid arrest, breeds disrespect for our laws and poses 
undeniable risks to the safety of our citizens. We must do better. The 
Leahy-Kohl ``Capturing Criminals Act of 2000,'' which I introduce 
today, will provide additional tools and resources to our federal law 
enforcement agencies to pursue and capture fugitive felons on both 
federal and state charges.
  Our federal law enforcement agencies should be commended for the job 
they have been doing to date on capturing federal fugitives and helping 
the states and local communities bring their fugitives to justice. The 
U.S. Marshals Service, our oldest law enforcement agency, has arrested 
over 120,000 federal, state and local fugitives in the past four years, 
including more federal fugitives than all the other federal agencies 
combined. In prior years, the Marshals Service spearheaded special 
fugitive apprehension task forces, called FIST Operations, that 
targeted fugitives in particular areas and was singularly successful in 
arresting over 34,000 fugitive felons.
  Similarly, the FBI has established twenty-four Safe Streets Task 
Forces exclusively focused on apprehending fugitives in cities around 
the country. Over the period of 1995 to 1999, the FBI's efforts have 
resulted in the arrest of a total of 132,292 fugitives, including 
64,336, who were state fugitives.
  The Capturing Criminals Act would help our law enforcement agencies 
keep the pressure on fugitives by authorizing the Attorney General to 
establish regional Fugitive Apprehension Task Forces, to be coordinated 
by the United States Marshals Service; authorizing administrative 
subpoenas for use in obtaining records relevant to finding federal and 
state fugitives; and, finally, requesting a comprehensive report on the 
administrative subpoena authorities held by federal agencies, which 
vary in scope, enforcement and privacy safeguards.
  ``Administrative subpoena'' is the term generally used to refer to a 
demand for documents or testimony by an investigative entity or 
regulatory agency that is empowered to issue the subpoena independently 
and without the approval of any grand jury, court or other judicial 
entity. I am generally skeptical of administrative subpoena power. 
Administrative subpoenas avoid the strict grand jury secrecy rules and 
the documents provided in response to such subpoenas are, therefore, 
subject to broader dissemination. Moreover, since investigative agents 
issue such subpoenas directly, without review by a judicial officer or 
even a prosecutor, fewer ``checks'' are in place to ensure the subpoena 
is issued with good cause and not merely as a fishing expedition.
  Nonetheless, unlike initial criminal inquiries, fugitive 
investigations present unique difficulties. Law enforcement may not use 
grand jury subpoenas since, by the time a person is a fugitive, the 
grand jury phase of an investigation is usually over. Use of

[[Page S5557]]

grand jury subpoenas to obtain phone or bank records to track down a 
fugitive would be an abuse of the grand jury. Trial subpoenas may also 
not be used, either because the fugitive is already convicted or no 
trial may take place without the fugitive.
  This inability to use trial and grand jury subpoenas for fugitive 
investigations creates a disturbing gap in law enforcement procedures. 
Law enforcement partially fills this gap by using the All Writs Act, 28 
U.S.C. Sec.  1651(a), which authorizes federal courts to ``issue all 
writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions 
and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.'' The procedures, 
however, for obtaining orders under this Act, and the scope and non-
disclosure terms of such orders, vary between jurisdictions.
  Thus, authorizing administrative subpoena power will help bridge the 
gap in fugitive investigations to allow federal law enforcement 
agencies to obtain records useful for tracking a fugitive's 
whereabouts. The Leahy-Kohl Capturing Criminals Act makes clear that 
the approval of a court remains necessary to obtain an order for 
nondisclosure of the subpoena and production of the requested records 
to the subscriber or customer to whom the records pertain.
  I am certainly not alone in recognizing the problem this nation has 
with fugitives from justice. Senators Thurmond and Biden have 
introduced the ``Fugitive Apprehension Act,'' S. 2516, specifically to 
address the difficulties facing law enforcement in this area. I commend 
both my colleagues for their leadership. While I agree with the general 
purposes of S. 2516, aspects of that bill would be problematic. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to 
resolve the differences in our bills.
  Without detailing all of the differences in the bills, let me provide 
some examples. As introduced, S. 2516 would limit use of an 
administrative subpoena to those fugitives who have been ``indicted,'' 
which fails to address the fact that fugitives flee after arrest on the 
basis of a ``complaint'' and may flee after the prosecutor has filed an 
``information'' in lieu of an indictment. The Leahy-Kohl ``Capturing 
Criminals Act,'' by contrast, would allow use of such subpoenas to 
track fugitives who have been accused in a ``complaint, information or 
indictment.''
  In addition, S. 2516 requires the U.S. Marshal Service to report 
quarterly to the Attorney General (who must transmit the report to 
Congress) on use of the administrative subpoenas. In my view, while a 
reporting requirement is useful, the requirement as described in S. 
2516 is overly burdensome and insufficiently specific. The Leahy-Kohl 
``Capturing Criminals Act'' would require the Attorney General to 
report for the next three years to the Judiciary Committees of both the 
House and Senate with the following information about the use of 
administrative subpoenas in fugitive investigations: the number issued, 
by which agency, identification of the charges on which the fugitive 
was wanted and whether the fugitive was wanted on federal or state 
charges.
  Although S. 2516 outlines the procedures for enforcement of an 
administrative subpoena, it is silent on the mechanisms for both 
contesting the subpoena by the recipient and for delaying notice to the 
person about whom the record pertains. The Leahy-Kohl ``Capturing 
Criminals Act'' expressly addresses these issues.
  This legislation will help law enforcement--with increased resources 
for regional fugitive apprehension task forces and administrative 
subpoena authority--bring to justice both federal and state fugitives 
who, by their conduct, have demonstrated a lack of respect for our 
nation's criminal justice system. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to ensure swift passage of this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2761

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Capturing Criminals Act of 
     2000''.

      SEC. 2. FUGITIVE APPREHENSION TASK FORCES.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General is authorized to 
     establish, upon consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Treasury and appropriate law enforcement officials in the 
     States, Fugitive Apprehension Task Forces, consisting of 
     Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities in 
     designated regions of the United States, to be coordinated by 
     the Director of the United States Marshals Service, for the 
     purpose of locating and apprehending fugitives, as defined by 
     section 1075 of title 18, United States Code, as added by 
     this Act.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the United States Marshals Service to 
     carry out the provisions of this section $20,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
       (c) Other Federal and State law.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to limit the authority under any other 
     provision of Federal or State law to locate or apprehend a 
     fugitive .

      SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS TO APPREHEND FUGITIVES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 49 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1075. Administrative subpoenas to apprehend fugitives

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `fugitive' means a person who--
       ``(A) having been accused by complaint, information or 
     indictment, or having been convicted of committing, a felony 
     under Federal law, flees from or evades (or attempts to flee 
     from or evade) the jurisdiction of the court with 
     jurisdiction over the felony;
       ``(B) having been accused by complaint, information or 
     indictment, or having been convicted of committing, a felony 
     under State law, flees from or evades (or attempts to flee 
     from or evade) the jurisdiction of the court with 
     jurisdiction over the felony;
       ``(C) escapes from lawful Federal or State custody after 
     having been accused by complaint, information or indictment, 
     or convicted, of committing a felony under Federal or State 
     law; or
       ``(D) is in violation of paragraph (2) or (3) of the first 
     undesignated paragraph of section 1073;
       ``(2) the term `investigation' means, with respect to a 
     State fugitive described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of 
     paragraph (1), an investigation in which there is reason to 
     believe that the fugitive fled from or evaded (or attempted 
     to flee from or evade) the jurisdiction of the court, or 
     escaped from custody, in or affecting, or using any facility 
     of, interstate or foreign commerce, or as to whom an 
     appropriate law enforcement officer or official of a State or 
     political subdivision has requested the Attorney General to 
     assist in the investigation, and the Attorney General finds 
     that the particular circumstances of the request give rise to 
     a Federal interest sufficient for the exercise of Federal 
     jurisdiction under section 1075; and
       ``(3) the term `State' means a State of the United States, 
     the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or 
     possession of the United States.
       ``(b) Scope.--In any investigation with respect to the 
     apprehension of a fugitive, the Attorney General may subpoena 
     witnesses for the purpose of the production of any records 
     (including books, papers, documents, electronic data, and 
     other tangible and intangible items that constitute or 
     contain evidence) that the Attorney General finds, based upon 
     articulable facts, are relevant to discerning the fugitive's 
     whereabouts. A subpoena under this subsection shall describe 
     the records or items required to be produced and prescribe a 
     return date within a reasonable period of time within which 
     the records or items can be assembled and made available.
       ``(c) Jurisdiction.--The attendance of witnesses and the 
     production of records may be required from any place in any 
     State or any other place subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     United States at any designated place where the witness is 
     served with a subpoena, except that a witness shall not be 
     required to appear more than 500 miles distant from the place 
     where the witness was served. Witnesses subpoenaed under this 
     section shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid 
     witnesses in the courts of the United States.
       ``(d) Service.--A subpoena issued under this section may be 
     served by any person designated in the subpoena as the agent 
     of service. Service upon a natural person may be made by 
     personal delivery of the subpoena to that person or by 
     certified mail with return receipt requested. Service may be 
     made upon a domestic or foreign corporation, a partnership, 
     or other unincorporated association that is subject to suit 
     under a common name, by delivering the subpoena to an 
     officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent 
     authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of 
     process. The affidavit of the person serving the subpoena 
     entered on a true copy thereof by the agent of service shall 
     be proof of service.
       ``(e)Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Noncompliance.--In the case of the contumacy by or 
     refusal to obey a subpoena issued to any person, the Attorney 
     General may invoke the aid of any court of the United States 
     within the jurisdiction of which the investigation is carried 
     on or of which the subpoenaed person is an inhabitant, or in 
     which he carries on business or may be found, to compel 
     compliance with

[[Page S5558]]

     the subpoena. The court may issue an order requiring the 
     subpoenaed person to appear before the Attorney General to 
     produce records if so ordered. Any failure to obey the order 
     of the court may be punishable by the court as contempt 
     thereof. All process in any such case may be served in any 
     judicial district in which the person may be found.
       ``(2) Rights of a subpoena recipient.--Not later than 20 
     days after the date of service of an administrative subpoena 
     under this section upon any person, or at any time before the 
     return date specified in the subpoena, whichever period is 
     shorter, such person may file, in the district court of the 
     United States for the judicial district within which such 
     person resides, is found, or transacts business, a petition 
     to modify or quash such subpoena on grounds that--
       ``(A) the terms of the subpoena are unreasonable or 
     unnecessary;
       ``(B) the subpoena fails to meet the requirements of this 
     section; or
       ``(C) the subpoena violates the constitutional rights or 
     any other legal right or privilege of the subpoenaed party.
       ``(3) Time for response.--The time allowed for compliance 
     with a subpoena in whole or in part shall be suspended during 
     the pendency of a petition filed under paragraph (2). Such 
     petition shall specify the grounds upon which the petitioner 
     relies in seeking relief.
       ``(f) Delayed Notice.--
       ``(1) In general.--Where an administrative subpoena is 
     issued under this section to a provider of electronic 
     communication service (as defined in section 2510 of this 
     title) or remote computing service (as defined in section 
     2711 of this title), the Attorney General may--
       ``(A) in accordance with section 2705(a) of this title, 
     delay notification to the subscriber or customer to whom the 
     record pertains; and
       ``(B) apply to a court, in accordance with section 2705(b) 
     of this title, for an order commanding the provider of 
     electronic communication service or remote computing service 
     not to notify any other person of the existence of the 
     subpoena or court order.
       ``(2) Subpoenas for financial records.--If a subpoena is 
     issued under this section to a financial institution for 
     financial records of any customer of such institution, the 
     Attorney General may apply to a court under section 1109 of 
     the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3409) 
     for an order to delay customer notice as otherwise required.
       ``(3) Nondisclosure requirements.--Except as provided in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), the Attorney General may apply to a 
     court for an order requiring the party to whom an 
     administrative subpoena is directed to refrain from notifying 
     any other party of the existence of the subpoena or court 
     order for such period as the court deems appropriate. The 
     court shall enter such order if it determines that there is 
     reason to believe that notification of the existence of the 
     administrative subpoena will result in--
       ``(A) endangering the life or physical safety of an 
     individual;
       ``(B) flight from prosecution;
       ``(C) destruction of or tampering with evidence;
       ``(D) intimidation of potential witnesses; or
       ``(E) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or 
     undue delay of a trial.
       ``(g) Immunity From Civil Liability.--Any person, including 
     officers, agents, and employees, who in good faith produce 
     the records or items requested in a subpoena shall not be 
     liable in any court of any State or the United States to any 
     customer or other person for such production or for 
     nondisclosure of that production to the customer, in 
     compliance with the terms of a court order for nondisclosure.
       ``(h) Delegation.--The Attorney General and the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall issue guidelines governing the issuance 
     of administrative subpoenas. Such guidelines shall mandate 
     that administrative subpoenas may be issued only after review 
     and approval of senior supervisory personnel within the 
     Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury.
       ``(i) Report.--The Attorney General shall report in January 
     of each year to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives on the number of 
     administrative subpoenas issued under this section, whether 
     each matter involved a fugitive from Federal or State 
     charges, and identification of the agency issuing the 
     subpoena and imposing the charges. This reporting requirement 
     shall terminate in 3 years after enactment.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 49 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``1075. Administrative subpoenas to apprehend fugitives.''.

     SEC. 4. STUDY AND REPORT OF THE USE OF ADMINISTRATIVE 
                   SUBPOENAS.

       Not later than December 31, 2001, the Attorney General 
     shall complete a study on the use of administrative subpoena 
     power by executive branch agencies or entities and shall 
     report the findings to the Committees on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives. Such report shall 
     include--
       (1) a description of the sources of administrative subpoena 
     power and the scope of such subpoena power within executive 
     branch agencies;
       (2) a description of applicable subpoena enforcement 
     mechanisms;
       (3) a description of any notification provisions and any 
     other provisions relating to safeguarding privacy interests;
       (4) a description of the standards governing the issuance 
     of administrative subpoenas; and
       (5) recommendations from the Attorney General regarding 
     necessary steps to ensure that administrative subpoena power 
     is used and enforced consistently and fairly by executive 
     branch agencies.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 2762. A bill to establish SHARE Net grants to support the 
development of a comprehensive, accessible, high-technology 
infrastructure of educational and cultural resources for nonprofit 
institutions, individuals, and others for educational purposes through 
a systematic effort to coordinate, link and enhance, through 
technology, existing specialized resources and expertise in public and 
private cultural and educational institutions; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


saving humanities, arts, and resources for education networking act of 
                          2000 (share net act)

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which 
will help light the way to a stronger educational system with broader 
reach and deeper substance--the SHARE Net (Saving Humanities, Arts, and 
Resources for Education Networking) Act of 2000.
  Education is not just about schools and colleges. Education is 
everything from our very first breath as infants to our last days. We 
learn at work, at school, at home and in our cars. We learn from the 
people around us, from books, newspapers, artwork, radio and 
television, and, more and more, we learn from the Internet and 
computers.
  Our Nation has been rich in learning and education. We have an 
impressive system of public education, with fundamentally strong public 
schools--yes, some need help, but they continue to reach all children 
and open the doors of learning to over 50 million children each year. 
The strength of our post-secondary education system is unmatched in the 
world with an estimated 80 percent of our high school graduates going 
on to some post-secondary education. We have public libraries across 
the country that contribute the building blocks of lifelong learning 
with educational programs and access to books and other educational 
resources for the public--from the youngest to the oldest. We enjoy 
significant cultural institutions--museums, art galleries and other 
centers--that allow us to explore and continue to learn.
  This infrastructure of learning has not been achieved without 
significant effort. From our very first days, leading Americans have 
dedicated time and resources to developing schools, universities and 
other institutions of learning. Thomas Jefferson viewed the creation of 
the University of Virginia as one of his greatest accomplishments. 
Other Americans are well known for their passion and vision for 
learning--from Helen Keller to the Little Rock 9.
  There have been many here in Congress too who have lead on education 
issues. We tend to remember the more recent steps--the creation of the 
Pell Grant program or Head Start. But in fact, our commitment and 
involvement in these issues began much earlier. I believe one of these 
most significant, and overlooked, initiatives was the Morrill Acts of 
1862 and 1890. These initiatives brought about a sea-change in our 
Nation's educational system by allocating the proceeds from the sale of 
federally-held western lands to states for the creation of practical, 
accessible Land Grant Colleges and Universities. These Land-Grant 
institutions sparked a revolution in higher education, which had been 
solely the purview of the wealthy and privileged; Land-Grant 
institutions focused on reaching real people with helpful knowledge. 
They focused on agriculture, teaching and research into other practical 
areas--they encouraged and facilitated broader participation in post-
secondary education with low costs and continuing education programs.
  Today, Land Grant colleges and universities continue to fulfill their 
original missions of research, outreach and teaching. They have grown 
to be the very backbone of post-secondary education--providing access 
to quality, affordable higher education. These institutions have also 
emerged as leaders in

[[Page S5559]]

advanced research--a vital link in our national economy and one of the 
keys to our global competitiveness.
  Morrill's vision was not only hugely successful, it was also simple--
leverage public assets to transform education. Mr. President, I believe 
another such opportunity confronts us today as rapidly-developing 
technology offers new potential to expand the reach of education.
  The 1996 Telecommunications Act and Balanced Budget Act of 1997 
established a framework for the transition from analog to digital 
television and for the auction of publically-owned analog spectrum. 
This auction is expected to produce nearly $6 billion in federal 
revenue; some believe the figure to be as much as $18 billion. This 
valuable publically-owned asset is today's equivalent of the frontier 
lands of a century ago.
  These resources should be tapped to fund the further development of 
our educational system by utilizing today's technologies to expand the 
reach and impact of existing high-quality educational and community 
resources. Advanced Internet, digital spectrum and other 
telecommunications technologies offer new untapped potential to 
increase the quality and reach of educational resources.
  And the educational resources are abundant in our communities. What 
is needed is a systematic effort to link these resources, enhance their 
accessibility and broaden their content. My bill would do just this. It 
would support the work of local and regional partnerships of 
educational and cultural organizations. These partnerships would survey 
existing resources, identify and fill gaps, link these resources 
together through technology and broaden access to them and, ultimately, 
develop a comprehensive, accessible high-tech educational 
infrastructure to benefit all Americans.
  Mr. President, there is no question our educational system is strong. 
But it cannot be neglected. So let's learn from the past success of the 
Morrill Acts and invest today's public resources in our greatest asset 
and the very foundation of our future: education.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Dodd, Mr. DeWine, 
        Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. L. Chafee, 
        Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Burns, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Voinovich, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Boxer, 
        Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 2704. A bill to amend the National and Community Service Act of 
1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 to extend the 
authorizations of appropriations for the programs carried out under 
such acts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


       the national and community service amendments act of 2000

 Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a 
bill to reauthorize the Corporation for National Service, along with 25 
co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle.
  In 1993 Congress created the Corporation for National Service to 
enhance opportunities for all Americans to participate in contributing 
to their communities by actively engaging in local service programs. 
Community service should not be an option only for those who can afford 
to perform an important job without pay. It should be an opportunity 
for everyone. Every week, I have the privilege of reading with a third 
grade student in Washington, and I have seen her make very impressive 
progress during the last three years. I know first-hand that those who 
engage in community service gain as much as they give when they 
participate.
  The Corporation for National Service is expanding these opportunities 
for service by offering stipends and education awards to AmeriCorps 
members, and stipends to senior volunteers. It also offers professional 
development opportunities to teachers and identified leader schools, 
who will mentor other schools interested in beginning to pursue service 
learning. In the last five years, 150,000 adults have given a year of 
service to communities across the country as AmeriCorps members. 
500,000 senior citizens each year provide service to their communities 
in Foster Grandparent Programs, Senior Companion Programs, and the 
Retired Senior Volunteer Corps. In addition, over 1 million school 
children each year participate in service learning programs.
  The national service movement has also encouraged businesses to 
become actively involved in improving their communities. Local business 
leaders have stepped up to the plate to sponsor service corps programs, 
to offer technical support for existing programs, and to use community 
service as a way to work with local schools.
  As Robert Kennedy said, in words that became the hallmark of his 
life, ``Some people see things as they are and say why. I dream things 
that never were, and say why not?'' Because of community service, more 
and more citizens are asking that question every day in communities 
across the country.
  In Massachusetts, under the leadership of Maureen Curley and her 
talented Board of Directors, the Massachusetts Service Alliance has 
helped citizens to act against the injustices that they see around 
them. From City Year and Peace Games in Boston to Greenfield READS and 
the Barnstable Land Trust, they have created new opportunities to 
tutor, to provide useful information on health care, to fight domestic 
violence, to help senior citizens live independent lives, and to repair 
and revitalize their communities in many other ways. They have found 
that many citizens in their communities are eager to be involved and to 
stay involved, and they have been successful in creating large numbers 
of opportunities for that involvement. Last year, 180,000 citizens 
contributed 3.5 million hours of service in 140 communities across the 
state. Programs such as City Year, which began as a dream of Michael 
Brown and Alan Khazei in Boston, has a program in 13 sites across the 
country, engaging over 2,000 Corps members in service. We will welcome 
their newest site here in Washington in September.
  This bipartisan bill that we offer today will allow these programs to 
continue to grow and enable many more Americans to participate in 
improving their communities and building a stronger America.
  Our former colleague, Dan Coats, has written an eloquent article in 
support of AmeriCorps. The article appeared in today's edition of The 
Hill, and I ask unanimous consent that it be made a part of the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From The Hill, June 21, 2000]

                 Why I Changed My Mind About AmeriCorps

                             (By Dan Coats)

       When I was in the Senate, I did not support the legislation 
     that created AmeriCorps because of my fundamental belief in 
     private voluntary service and my skepticism about government-
     based solutions. I thought that government supported 
     volunteers would undermine the spirit of voluntary service 
     and that new federal resources might subvert the mission and 
     the independence of the civic sector.
       My faith in the civic sector has not diminished one bit; in 
     fact, it is stronger today than ever before. However, I have 
     changed my mind about AmeriCorps. Instead of distorting the 
     mission of the civic sector, AmeriCorps has proved to be a 
     source of new power and energy for nonprofit organizations 
     across the country.
       My changed view about AmeriCorps is in no small measure 
     because of the leadership that Harris Wofford, my Democratic 
     former Senate colleague from Pennsylvania, has given to that 
     program, Wofford and I did not vote on the same side very 
     often in the Senate, and we still differ on many issues. But 
     his leadership of AmeriCorps has convinced me that I should 
     have voted with him on this issue.
       First, thanks to Wofford's steadfast commitment to place 
     national service above partisanship, AmeriCorps has not 
     become the political program that some of us initially 
     feared. Second, he shares my belief that the solutions to 
     some of our most intractable problems lie in the civic 
     sector. Accordingly, he has set AmeriCorps to the work of 
     support, not supplanting, the civic sector.
       I have seen firsthand how AmeriCorps members have provided 
     a jolt of new energy to the civic sector from my experience 
     as president of Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. As 
     Millard Fuller, founder of Habitat for Humanity and another 
     former skeptic of government-supported volunteers, also 
     discovered, the leadership provided by full-time AmeriCorps 
     members is a key addition for nonprofit and faith-based 
     organizations that are tackling the most difficult community 
     and human problems.

[[Page S5560]]

       AmeriCorps members, through their idealism, enthusiasm and 
     can-do spirit, have multiplied the impact of organizations 
     like Big Brothers Big Sisters and Habitat, and hundreds of 
     other organizations large and small. The number of 
     Republicans who have changed their mind about AmeriCorps 
     continues to grow.
       In the last year, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Mike 
     DeWine (R-Ohio) and Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio) have spoken out 
     about the positive role AmeriCorps plays in strengthening the 
     civic sector. Together, we join a growing bipartisan list of 
     present and former federal and state legislators, governors 
     and civic leaders in support of AmeriCorps.
       Their support is part of a quiet, yet remarkable, 
     transformation in American politics that has occurred since 
     the white-hot debate that took place a few years ago between 
     those who believed that government should take the lead in 
     solving community problems and those who thought government 
     could accomplish little or nothing, and was even likely to be 
     a negative force.
       Now, as evidenced by both major party presidential 
     candidates and by growing bipartisan support in Congress, a 
     new middle ground has emerged, leading to a unique 
     partnership between AmeriCorps, the nonprofit organizations 
     and private and religious institutions that are critical to 
     strengthening our communities. It is these institutions that 
     transmit values between generations that encourage 
     cooperation between citizens, and make our communities 
     stronger.
       In a recent speech to the nation's governors, retired Gen. 
     Colin Powell declared himself ``a strong supporter of 
     AmeriCorps.'' After spending two years working with the 
     organization, Powell concluded ``[W]hat they do in terms of 
     leveraging other individuals to volunteer is really 
     incredible. So it is a tremendous investment in your people, 
     a tremendous investment in the future. . . .''
       Later this month, a bipartisan coalition in the Senate will 
     introduce legislation to reauthorize AmeriCorps and its 
     parent agency, the Corporation for National Service. I hope 
     that Congress will move quickly to enact this legislation so 
     that AmeriCorps can continue to work with the nonprofit and 
     faith-based sectors to strengthen our communities and build a 
     better future for us all.
 Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise this today as an 
original cosponsor of the National and Community Service Act of 2000 
and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the reauthorization of 
the Corporation for National Service through this legislation.
  While Americans often wonder what, exactly, it is that the numerous 
agencies and commissions scattered around town do, it is quite clear 
what the Corporation for National Service does. It's members tutor and 
mentor at-risk youth. They build affordable housing and clean up the 
Nation's rivers, streams and parks. They help seniors live independent 
and productive lives. They provide assistance to the victims of natural 
disasters. And perhaps most importantly, they train others to do all of 
these tasks and dozens more--leveraging their numbers, multiplying 
their effect, addressing countless community needs. These are important 
tasks. They empower our citizens. They build our communities. They 
renew our country. That is what the Corporation for National Services 
does in my view--provide a true national service to the citizens of 
this country.
  The Corporation for National Service is one of the most impressive 
success stories in recent memory. The numbers are simply remarkable. 
Take the AmeriCorps initiative for example. Since it's inception in 
1993, more than 150,000 Americans have served or are currently serving 
as AmeriCorps members. They have provided much-needed assistance to 33 
million of their neighbors in more than 4,000 communities.
  Specifically, AmeriCorps members have helped nearly 3 million 
children succeed in school through tutoring and mentoring initiatives. 
They have worked with the police and other community organizations to 
safeguard our neighborhoods--establishing, operating and expanding over 
40,000 safety patrols and working with 600,000 at-risk youth in after-
school programs. AmeriCorps members have improved the daily lives of 
Americans by building or rehabilitating over 25,000 homes, working with 
340,000 people to find jobs, and providing food, clothing and other 
necessities to over 2.5 million homeless people. With regard to our 
natural environmental, AmeriCorps members have planted over 50 million 
trees and removed 70,000 tons of trash from our neighborhoods. And when 
I talk about the leverage created through AmeriCorps members recruiting 
and training others, I am talking about nearly two million volunteers 
brought to bear on locally generated programs because of the efforts of 
AmeriCorps members.
  The National Senior Service Corps has been another resounding 
success. What Tom Brokaw has dubbed ``The Greatest Generation'' is 
still ready to meet the needs of their communities and they have been 
energized by the Corporation for National Service. With over 25,000 
Foster Grandparents, 15,000 Senior companions and 467,000 Retired and 
Senior Volunteer Program members, nearly 250,000 children--including, 
58,000 with learning disabilities or suffering from abuse and neglect--
have been given an invaluable source of loving care. Sixty-two thousand 
older Americans in need of a little extra help have been paired with 
Senior Corps members to make daily life more manageable. These Senior 
Corps members provide a critical bridge to independence for these 
seniors. Whether by helping with the daily tasks or simply being a 
friendly companion, these Senior Corps members are making a huge 
difference.
  Learn and Serve, yet another initiative of the Corporation for 
National service, has served more than 1.5 million students in 
kindergarten through college and helped them apply academic skills to 
meet community needs.
  It is an admirable track record of accomplishment, Mr. President. One 
that according to recent study returns $1.66 to the community for every 
dollar invested.
  While compiling the numbers, however, we often forget the impact this 
program has on those who dedicate themselves as volunteers. But we must 
not forget the impact that service has on those who give of 
themselves--their time and their energy--to make a difference. The 
personal satisfaction one receives from working for others is a feeling 
I can speak about personally. Long before AmeriCorps was a reality, I 
was Peace Corps volunteer in a small town in the Dominican Republic. 
But whether it is in the Dominican Republic or in my home state of 
Connecticut--or any state across this nation--there are many small 
towns that need help sustaining their educational system or providing 
health care to their neighbors or maintaining their environment or any 
number of areas. And an honest day's work on behalf of those efforts 
translates in any language. It is a source of tremendous satisfaction 
and pride. These are emotions that drive participants in either the 
PeaceCorps abroad or AmeriCorps here at home, to continue to work and 
continue to build their communities, something that can't be 
quantified.
  There is also a real period of personal learning that AmeriCorps 
members go through. A study by Aguirre International determined that 
``participation in AmeriCorps results in substantial gains in life 
skills for more than three-quarters of the members'' who participate. 
When we talk about life skills here, we are talking about 
communications skills, interpersonal skills, analytical problem-
solving, organizational skill and using information technology. These 
are necessary skills for the 21st century. AmeriCorps members take 
these skills with them after their term of service, back to employers 
who want them, back to communities who need them.
  The Corporation for National Service awakens in its members a strong 
ethic of civil responsibility and a lifelong desire to serve. By 
immersing its members in local, state and national issues, and asking 
them to address and interact with these issues, the Corporation for 
National Service is a catalyst for civic participation. And regardless 
of which side of the aisle you sit on, I think we can all agree that an 
active and involved constituency is what we all hope for.
  Acorss the range of initiatives that I have touched upon today, are a 
couple of common themes. Primarily, these efforts are initiated from 
the ground-up. These programs were not crafted by Senators or 
Congressmen or someone employed here in Washington, they are generated 
by people within the community they serve and administered at the state 
level. That allows these programs the flexibility to take advantage of 
the individual strengths of each community and as a result, better 
address their needs.
  Secondly, these programs harness what we all know is the true 
strength of America, it's citizens. The corporation for National 
Service is channeling

[[Page S5561]]

a constant flow of human energy, ingenuity, and talent into the states 
and communities of our country. The Corporation partners with 
organizations that have a proven track record to provide the necessary 
human resource to grow and expand these already successful programs. It 
is a model that works. It is an idea that has captured the imagination 
and harnessed the energy of this Nation. It is our responsibility to 
ensure that it continues.
  The legislation we offer today will ensure that the Corporation for 
National Service continues through 2005. It retains the successful 
structure of the system that has been so effective over the last seven 
years, but makes allowances for a few improvements in the overall 
program, including a more responsive effort to ensure an increased 
participation by people with disabilities and a recognition that Indian 
tribes are qualified organizations to receive grants. This is a good 
bill. I hope we can work with our colleagues in the House to ensure 
that legislation reauthorizing the Corporation for National Service is 
passed by both houses and sent to the president for signature this 
year.
 Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join a number of 
my colleagues in introducing the National and Community Service 
Amendments Act of 2000. This legislation will reauthorize the National 
and Community Service Act and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act.
  The idea of the Federal government becoming a partner in community 
service originated with President Franklin Roosevelt's creation of the 
Civilian Conservation Corps. It was continued with President Kennedy's 
development of the Peace Corps and President Johnson's VISTA 
initiative. President Nixon contributed to the community service 
movement by expanding senior volunteer programs. In the 1990s, both a 
republican president and a democratic president strengthened the 
community service structure. President Bush established the Points of 
Light Foundation and President Clinton created the Corporation for 
National Service. The Corporation for National Service not only 
incorporated the community service programs previously established, but 
also created AmeriCorps.
  Since AmeriCorps began more than six years ago, over 40,000 
individual shave become AmeriCorps members, serving local and national 
organizations. Recently, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions, which I chair, held a hearing regarding the 
reauthorization of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and 
the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973. One of the witnesses who 
testified was Emily Zollo, an AmeriCorps member from Cabot, Vermont. 
Emily serves with the Northeast Kingdom Initiative AmeriCorps Program 
in Lyndonville, Vermont. Her assignment involves the Cobleigh Public 
Library in Lyndonville where she works with the ``Books on Wheels'' 
bookmobile program. Emily drives the bookmobile and as she eloquently 
stated, ``brings books and stories to seven rural villages and towns 
that vary in population from 350-5,000 residents.'' Emily Zollo 
eloquently summed up her AmeriCorps experience by stating: ``Although 
the best part of my AmeriCorps experience has been meeting with kids at 
the various stops, learning how they see the world and introducing them 
to books which help them see a wider world, I have also learned some 
better ways to work and serve in the community. I feel that service has 
become a part of me and will be incorporated into my life and career. 
It's great to feel good about what you do, knowing you are making a 
difference in your community.''

  Other community service programs include Learn and Serve America 
which provides assistance to over one million students from 
kindergarten through college who participate in community service 
activities that are aligned with the students' academic programs. In my 
home State of Vermont, Learn and Serve is making a difference in a 
number of elementary and secondary schools, including vocational 
technical educational centers. Another service program, the National 
Senior Service Corps, serves nearly half a million Americans, age 
fifty-five and older, who use their talents as Foster Grandparents, 
serving as mentors to young people with special needs. In addition, the 
Senior Companions program helps other seniors live independently. 
Retired and Senior Volunteer Program members provide an array of 
services for unmet community needs. The senior programs are very 
essential to rural communities. In Springfield, Vermont, the Windsor 
County Retired and Senior Volunteer Program provides services to 
isolated seniors and persons with disabilities.
  A key aspect of the National and Community Service Act is the State 
Commissions. The State Commissions decide which programs are to be 
funded, recruit volunteers, and evaluate and disseminate information 
about community and domestic service opportunities. The important role 
of States was also discussed at the hearing by several witnesses who 
represented various regions of the country. We heard about the positive 
impact of organizing service activities in a small rural State from 
Jane Williams, the executive director of the Vermont Commission on 
National and Community Service. Under Jane's leadership, the Vermont 
commission has been instrumental in getting 10,000 Vermonters of all 
ages and backgrounds involved in 31 community service projects. 
Governor Marc Racicot of Montana gave an excellent presentation 
regarding the importance of community service in ``building unique 
partnerships between public and private agencies by engaging 
particularly young people in service to their communities.''
  Community service is not a democrat, republican, or independent 
issue--it's an ideal--an ideal that is central to the philosophy of 
America--neighbor helping neighbor. It is in that spirit that I am 
pleased to be a cosponsor of the National and Community Service 
Amendments Act of 2000.
 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today Senator Kennedy and a 
bipartisan coalition are introducing the National and Community Service 
Amendments Act of 2000 to strengthen this program of community service 
throughout our country. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this 
bill because I know how public service has enriched my life. As elected 
representatives, we are entrusted with preserving the strong democracy 
and just society that our founders envisioned. The programs supported 
by this legislation, such as AmeriCorps, extend the opportunity to 
young people to do something for others.
  While working in the Peace Corps, at an Asian desk, I was motivated 
to accept the challenge made by president Kennedy and I joined VISTA. 
Through VISTA, I came to West Virginia and a ``coal camp,'' a small, 
struggling town called Emmons. Working to improve life in Emmons was 
not easy. But after a lot of effort, I was able to both make friends 
and work to make some kind of difference. We pulled down an abandoned 
school house in southern West Virginia and hauled the boards back to 
Emmons, where we built a community center. We brought a mobile health 
van for women to get Pap smears for the first time. And we waged a 
long, hard fight to get the school bus to stop close enough so the 
teenagers did not have to drop out of school just because the 
transportation to high school did not exist. Those two years in Emmons, 
and the experiences gained there, changed me forever. I stayed in West 
Virginia and chose to make public service my career.
  When President Clinton chose to unveil a new domestic civil-service 
program in 1993, I was proud to stand by him as he announced the 
creation of AmeriCorps in Princeton, New Jersey. AmeriCorps is an 
exciting program promoting community service, like VISTA. Under 
AmeriCorps, members invest their time in community service and earn 
educational awards that help finance college or pay back student loans.
  Since its inception just a few years ago, AmeriCorps has renewed 
community service across our nation with a network of programs designed 
to meet the specific needs of an area. In West Virginia, AmeriCorps has 
established more than a half dozen programs that help children learn 
how to read, provide them with caring mentors, and promote healthy 
lifestyles.
  In highlighting a few of these programs, I must begin with the 
AmeriCorps Promise Fellows. These individuals service eighteen West 
Virginia counties, striving to mobilize

[[Page S5562]]

communities to provide children with resources critical to their 
development. In the same way that I helped the community of Emmons 
build a center where young people could learn and play, AmeriCorps 
Promise Fellows work to establish safe places and structured activities 
in their local areas. Another program, Energy Express, provides 
balanced meals, an environment that abounds with literature, and the 
attention of mentors to school-aged children during the summer months. 
I visited the Energy Express site in Pineville, West Virginia, and read 
to children there. AmeriCorps programs also aid adult members of the 
community, as evidenced by the success of Project MOVE in west-central 
West Virginia that strives to move people from welfare to work. After 
the first year, the heads of households in twenty families had become 
employed and had sustained themselves for more than three months.
  These three programs are just a sampling of what AmeriCorps does in a 
rural state like West Virginia. In more urban areas throughout the 
country, AmeriCorps has programs that address the unique needs of those 
cities and their populace.
  I place an enormous value on public service, and I know that I gained 
much from my VISTA experience in Emmons. Continuing AmeriCorps, VISTA 
and our range of community service programs will enhance the lives of 
Americans, young and old, who join and enrich our communities.

                          ____________________