[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 126 (Wednesday, October 11, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10252-S10260]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

  The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were 
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

           By Mr. ROTH:
       S. Con. Res. 147. A concurrent resolution to make a 
     technical correction in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 4868; 
     to the Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Lott):
       S. Con. Res. 148. A concurrent resolution to provide for 
     the disposition and archiving of the records, files, 
     documents, and other materials of joint congressional 
     committees on inaugural ceremonies; considered and agreed to.
           By Mr. MACK:
       S. Con. Res. 149. A concurrent resolution to correct the 
     enrollment of H.R. 3244; considered and agreed to.
                                 F_____
                                 

          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 3183. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 
coins in commemoration of the contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King, 
Jr., to the United States; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs.


         MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT OF 2000

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill which is long 
overdue but now appropriate as our Nation prepares to face the 
challenges of a new century.
  During the 1960s, a young and gifted preacher from Georgia gave a 
voice to the voiceless by bringing the struggle for freedom and civil 
rights into the living rooms of all Americans. Dr. Martin Luther King, 
Jr. raised his voice rather than his fists as he helped lead our Nation 
into a new era of tolerance and understanding. He ultimately gave his 
life for this cause, but in the process brought America closer to his 
dream of a nation without racial divisions.
  It has been said that, ``Those who do not understand history are 
condemned to repeat it.'' America's history includes dark chapters--
chapters in

[[Page S10253]]

which slavery was accepted and discrimination against African-
Americans, women and other minorities was commonplace. It is in 
acknowledgment of that history, and in honor of Dr. King's bright 
beacon of hope which has lead us to a more enlightened era of civil 
justice, that I introduce the Martin Luther King Commemorative Coin Act 
of 2000.
  This bill would instruct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins 
in commemoration of Dr. King's contributions to the United States. 
Revenues from the surcharge of the coin would be used by the Library of 
Congress to purchase and maintain historical documents and other 
materials associated with the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther 
King, Jr.
  As we start the 21st Century, I cannot think of better way to honor 
the civil and human rights legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
  Today, Dr. King's message goes beyond any one group, embracing all 
who have been denied civil or human rights because of their race, 
religion, gender, sexual orientation or creed. This Congress, as well 
as previous Congresses, has taken important steps to put these beliefs 
into civil code.
  However, upholding Dr. King's dream is a continuing struggle. Just 
last month, the House of Representatives passed hate crimes legislation 
making crimes based on race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation 
federal offenses. Champions of hate crimes legislation in the Senate 
and our colleagues in the House of Representatives gave powerful 
examples of the hatred that exists in our nation even today. As a 
society, we must always remember Dr. King's message, ``that one day 
this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 
`We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created 
equal.' ''
  Dr. King's majestic and inspiring voice as he made this speech will 
remain in our collective memory forever. His writings and papers 
compliment the visual history of his legacy. Keeping Dr. King's papers 
available for public access will serve to remind us of what our country 
once was, and how a solitary voice changed the path of a nation. It 
also would be a constant reminder of the vigilance needed to ensure we 
never return to such a time.
  This legislation has been developed in consultation with the King 
family, the Library of Congress, the Citizens Commemorative Coin 
Advisory Committee, and the U.S. Mint. Similar legislation has been 
introduced in the House of Representatives by the Chairman of the House 
Banking and Financial Services Committee, Congressman Jim Leach of 
Iowa.
  Although African-Americans have played a vital role in our Nation's 
history, African-Americans were included on only four out of 157 
commemorative coins:
  Jackie Robinson, who broke baseball's color barrier and brought about 
a cultural revolution with the courage and dignity in which he played 
the great American pass time, and the way he lived his life.
  Booker T. Washington, who founded Tuskegee Institute in Alabama and 
served as a role model for millions of African-Americans who thought a 
formal education would forever be outside of their grasp.
  George Washington Carver, whose scientific experiments began as a way 
to improve the lot in life of sharecroppers, but ended up 
revolutionizing agriculture throughout the South.
  And the Black Revolutionary War Patriots, a commemorative half-dollar 
which recognized the 275th anniversary of the birth of Crispus Attucks, 
who was the first revolutionary killed in the Boston Massacre.
  The Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Coin will give us the 
opportunity to recognize the valuable contributions of all Americans 
who stood and were counted during our Nation's civil rights struggle.
  Americans like the late Reverend Avery C. Alexander, who was a 
patriarch of the New Orleans' civil rights movement. He championed 
anti-discrimination, voter registration, labor rights, and 
environmental regulations as a six-term state legislator and as an 
adviser to Governor Morrison of Louisiana in the 1950s.
  Heroes like Dr. C.O. Simpkins from Shreveport, LA, whose home was 
bombed simply because he dared to stand by Dr. King and demand that the 
buses in Shreveport be integrated, and Reverend T. J. Jemison of Baton 
Rouge, a front-line soldier and good friend of Dr. King who helped 
coordinate one of the earliest boycotts of the civil rights movement.
  Louisiana also was fortunate enough to have elected leaders such as 
my father Moon Landrieu and Dutch Morial, both former mayors of New 
Orleans during those turbulent times. They led the way when the 
personal and political stakes were very high.
  These are just a few of the great civil rights leaders from my State. 
However, throughout Louisiana and all across America thousands of 
citizens--black and white, young and old, rich and poor--listened to 
Dr. King, followed his voice and dreamed his dreams. It is in memory of 
all of our struggles that I introduce this bill.
  The great Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza said, ``If you want the 
present to be different from the past, study the past.'' This 
legislation not only ensures we are able to preserve and study our 
past, but also honors Dr. King, who played such an integral role in 
shaping both our present and our future.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 3184. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
require premarket consultation and approval with respect to genetically 
engineered foods, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                genetically engineered foods act of 2000

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Genetically 
Engineered Foods Act. This legislation would strengthen consumer 
confidence in the safety of genetically engineered foods, and in the 
ability of the federal government to exercise effective oversight of 
this important technology. This bill requires an FDA pre-market review 
of all genetically engineered foods, and grants FDA important 
authorities to conduct oversight. In addition, the Genetically 
Engineered Foods Act creates a transparent process that will better 
inform and involve the public as decisions are made regarding the 
safety of genetically engineered foods.
  In the past five years, genetically engineered foods have become a 
major part of the American food supply. Many foods on the grocery store 
shelves now contain genetically engineered ingredients such as corn, 
soy, and potatoes. These foods have been enhanced with important 
qualities that help farmers grow crops more efficiently. But they have 
also raised significant concerns as to the safety of these new foods, 
and the adequacy of government oversight. These concerns were 
heightened by the recent recall of taco shells that contained a variety 
of genetically engineered corn that was not approved for human use.
  Up until now, genetically engineered foods have been screened by the 
federal Food and Drug Administration under a voluntary program. The 
Genetically Engineered Foods Act will make this pre-market review 
program mandatory, and strengthen government oversight in several 
important ways.
  Mandatory Review: Companies developing genetically engineered foods 
will receive approval from FDA before new foods could be marketed. FDA 
will scientifically ensure that genetically engineered foods are just 
as safe as conventional foods before allowing them on the market.
  Clear-cut Authority: FDA will be given authority to review all 
genetically engineered foods, whether produced domestically or 
imported, including authority over genetically engineered food 
supplements (such as ginseng extract, for example). Genetically 
engineered foods not approved for market will be considered 
``adulterated'' and subject to FDA recall.
  Public Involvement: Scientific studies and other materials submitted 
to FDA in their review of genetically engineered foods will be 
available for public review and comment. Members of the public can 
submit any new information on genetically engineered foods not 
previously considered by FDA and request a new review of a genetically 
engineered food, even after the food is on the market.
  Testing: FDA, in conjunction with other federal agencies, will be 
given the authority to conduct scientifically-sound food testing to 
determine whether genetically engineered foods are inappropriately 
entering the food supply (for instance, whether a food cleared for use 
only as an animal feed is showing up in food for humans).

[[Page S10254]]

  Communication: FDA and other federal agencies will establish a 
registry of genetically engineered foods for easy, one-stop access to 
information on which foods have been cleared for market, and what 
restrictions are in place on their use. Federal agencies will report 
regularly to Congress on the status of genetically engineered foods in 
use. The genetically engineered food review process will be fully 
transparent so that the public has access to all non-confidential 
information.
  Research: An existing genetically engineered foods research program 
will be expanded to focus research on possible risks from genetically 
engineered foods, with a specific emphasis on potential allergens. 
Research is also directed at understanding impacts, to farmers and to 
the overall economy, of the growing use of genetically engineered 
foods.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this 
important legislation. The American people should be assured that the 
food they feed their families is the safest in the world. The 
Genetically Engineered Foods Act can help provide that assurance. I ask 
unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 3184

       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 ``Genetically Engineered Foods 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) genetically engineered food is rapidly becoming an 
     integral part of the United States and international food 
     supplies;
       (2) the potential positive effects of genetically 
     engineered foods are enormous;
       (3) the potential for negative effects, both anticipated 
     and unexpected, exists with genetic engineering of foods;
       (4) evidence suggests that unapproved genetically 
     engineered foods are entering the food supply;
       (5) it is essential to maintain public confidence in the 
     safety of the food supplies and in the ability of the Federal 
     government to exercise adequate oversight of genetically 
     engineered foods;
       (6) public confidence can best be maintained through 
     careful review of new genetically engineered foods, and 
     monitoring of the positive and negative effects of 
     genetically engineered foods as the foods become integrated 
     into the food supplies, through a review and monitoring 
     process that is scientifically sound, open, and transparent, 
     and that fully involves the general public; and
       (7) since genetically engineered foods are developed 
     worldwide and imported into the United States, it is also 
     imperative to ensure that imported genetically engineered 
     foods are subject to the same level of oversight as domestic 
     genetically engineered foods.

     SEC. 3. PREMARKET REVIEW OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS.

       Chapter IV of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 341 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 414. GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Genetic engineering.--The term `genetic engineering' 
     means the application of a recombinant DNA technique or a 
     related technology to modify genetic material with a degree 
     of specificity or precision that is not usually available 
     with a conventional breeding technique or another form of 
     genetic modification.
       ``(2) Genetically engineered food.--The term `genetically 
     engineered food' means a food or dietary supplement that--
       ``(A)(i) is produced in a State; or
       ``(ii) is offered for import into the United States; and
       ``(B) is created by genetic engineering.
       ``(3) Producer.--The term `producer', used with respect to 
     a genetically engineered food means a person, company, or 
     other entity that develops, manufactures, imports, or takes 
     other action to introduce into interstate commerce, a 
     genetically engineered food.
       ``(4) Safe.--The term `safe', used with respect to a 
     genetically engineered food, means that the food is 
     considered to be as safe as the appropriate comparable food 
     that is not created by genetic engineering.
       ``(b) Regulations for Genetically Engineered Foods.--
       ``(1) Premarket consultation and approval.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
     that require a producer of a genetically engineered food, in 
     order to obtain the approval described in subparagraph (B), 
     to use a premarket consultation and approval process 
     described in subparagraph (C).
       ``(B) Approval.--The regulations shall require the producer 
     to use the process in order to obtain approval to introduce 
     the food into interstate commerce, except in cases where the 
     producer has previously successfully completed the process 
     described in subparagraph (C) or the voluntary premarket 
     consultation process described in paragraph (2).
       ``(C) Process.--The regulations shall require the producer 
     to use a premarket consultation and approval process that--
       ``(i) includes the procedures of the voluntary premarket 
     consultation process described in paragraph (2); and
       ``(ii) meets the requirements of this subsection.
       ``(2) Voluntary premarket consultation process.--The 
     process referred to in paragraph (1)(C)(i) is the voluntary 
     premarket consultation process described in--
       ``(A) the guidance document entitled `Guidance on 
     Consultation Procedures: Foods Derived From New Plant 
     Varieties', issued in October 1997, by the Office of 
     Premarket Approval of the Center for Food Safety and Applied 
     Nutrition, and the Office of Surveillance and Compliance of 
     the Center for Veterinary Medicine, of the Food and Drug 
     Administration (or any corresponding similar guidance 
     document);
       ``(B) the statement of policy entitled `Foods Derived From 
     New Plant Varieties', published in the Federal Register on 
     May 29, 1992, 57 Fed. Reg. 22984 (or any corresponding 
     similar statement of policy); and
       ``(C) such other documents issued by the Commissioner 
     relating to such process as the Secretary may determine to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(3) Submission and dissemination of materials.--
       ``(A) Submission.--The regulations shall require that, as 
     part of the consultation and approval process, each producer 
     of a genetically engineered food submit to the Secretary--
       ``(i) each summary of research, test results, and other 
     materials that the producer is required to submit under the 
     process described in paragraph (2); and
       ``(ii) a copy of the research, test results, and other 
     materials.
       ``(B) Dissemination.--On receipt of a request for the 
     initiation of a consultation and approval process, or on 
     receipt of such summary, research, results, or other 
     materials for a food, the Secretary shall provide public 
     notice regarding the initiation of the process, including 
     making the notice available on the Internet. The Secretary 
     shall make the summaries, research, results, and other 
     materials relating to the food publicly available, including, 
     to the extent practicable, available on the Internet, prior 
     to making any determination under paragraph (4).
       ``(C) Protection of trade secrets.--The regulations shall 
     ensure that laws in effect on the date of enactment of the 
     Genetically Engineered Foods Act that protect trade secrets 
     apply with respect to the information submitted to the 
     Secretary under subparagraph (A). Such regulations may 
     provide for the submission of sanitized information in 
     appropriate cases, and the dissemination of such sanitized 
     information.
       ``(4) Determinations.--The regulations shall require that, 
     as part of the consultation and approval process for a 
     genetically engineered food, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) determine whether the producer of the food has 
     submitted, during the consultation, materials and information 
     that are adequate to enable the Secretary to fully assess the 
     safety of the food, and make a description of the 
     determination publicly available; and
       ``(B) if the Secretary determines that the producer has 
     submitted adequate materials and information, conduct a 
     review of the materials and information, and, in conducting 
     the review--
       ``(i) prepare a response that--

       ``(I) summarizes the materials and information;
       ``(II) explains the determination; and
       ``(III) contains a finding by the Secretary that the 
     genetically engineered food--

       ``(aa) is considered to be safe and may be introduced into 
     interstate commerce;
       ``(bb) is considered to be conditionally safe and may be so 
     introduced if certain stated conditions are met; or
       ``(cc) is not considered to be safe and may not be so 
     introduced;
       ``(ii) make the response publicly available; and
       ``(iii) provide an opportunity for the submission of 
     additional views or data by interested persons on the 
     response.
       ``(5) Review for cause.--
       ``(A) Request for additional review.--The regulations shall 
     provide that any person may request that the Secretary 
     conduct an additional review, of the type described in 
     paragraph (4)(B), for a food on the basis of materials and 
     information that were not available during an earlier review 
     described in paragraph (4)(B) or that were not considered 
     during the review.
       ``(B) Finding for additional review.--The Secretary shall 
     conduct the additional review, on the basis of the materials 
     and information described in subparagraph (A) if the 
     Secretary finds that the materials and information--
       ``(i) are scientifically credible;
       ``(ii) represent significant materials and information that 
     was not available or considered during the earlier review; 
     and
       ``(iii) suggest potential negative impacts relating to the 
     food that were not considered in the earlier review or 
     demonstrate that the materials and information considered 
     during the earlier review were inadequate for the Secretary 
     to make a safety finding.
       ``(C) Additional materials and information.--In conducting 
     the additional review, the Secretary may require the producer 
     of

[[Page S10255]]

     the genetically engineered food to provide additional 
     materials and information, as needed to facilitate the 
     review.
       ``(D) Finding.--In conducting the review, the Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(i) issue a response described in paragraph (4)(B) that 
     revises the finding made in the earlier review with respect 
     to the safety of the food; or
       ``(ii) make a determination, and issue an explanation 
     stating, that no revision to the finding is needed.
       ``(E) Action of secretary.--If, based on a review under 
     this paragraph, the Secretary determines that the food 
     involved is not safe, the Secretary may withdraw the approval 
     of the food for introduction into interstate commerce or take 
     other action under this Act as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(6) Exemptions.--
       ``(A) Categories of genetically engineered foods.--
       ``(i) Proposed rule.--The Secretary may issue a proposed 
     rule that exempts a category of genetically engineered foods 
     from the regulations described in paragraph (1) if--

       ``(I) the rule contains a narrowly specified definition of 
     the category;
       ``(II) the rule specifies the particular foods included in 
     the category;
       ``(III) the rule specifies the particular genes, proteins, 
     and adjunct technologies (such as use of markers or 
     promoters) that are involved in the genetic engineering for 
     the foods included in the category; and
       ``(IV) not less than 10 foods in the category have been 
     reviewed under paragraph (4)(B) and found to be safe.

       ``(ii) Public comment period.--The Secretary shall provide 
     an opportunity, for not less than 90 days, for the submission 
     of comments by interested persons on the proposed rule.
       ``(iii) Final rule.--At the end of the comment period 
     described in clause (ii), the Secretary shall issue a final 
     rule described in clause (i).
       ``(B) Regulated genetically engineered foods.--
       ``(i) Proposed rule.--The Secretary may issue a proposed 
     rule that exempts from the regulations described in paragraph 
     (1) genetically engineered foods that the Secretary 
     determines are subject to regulation under Federal law other 
     than this section, such as foods from pharmaceutical-
     producing plants.
       ``(ii) Public comment period.--The Secretary shall provide 
     an opportunity, for not less than 90 days, for the submission 
     of comments by interested persons on the proposed rule.
       ``(iii) Final rule.--At the end of the comment period 
     described in clause (ii), the Secretary shall issue a final 
     rule described in clause (i).
       ``(7) Issuance dates.--The Secretary shall issue proposed 
     regulations described in paragraph (1) not later than 6 
     months after the date of enactment of the Genetically 
     Engineered Foods Act, and final regulations described in 
     paragraph (1) not later than 18 months after such date of 
     enactment.

     ``SEC. 415. REPORTS ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `genetic 
     engineering' and `genetically engineered food' have the 
     meanings given the terms in section 414.
       ``(b) General Authority.--The Secretary, the Administrator, 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in this section 
     as the `covered officers'), after consultation with the 
     Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Interior, the 
     Council on Environmental Quality, and the heads of such other 
     agencies as the covered officers may determine to be 
     appropriate, shall jointly prepare and submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress reports on genetically 
     engineered foods and related concerns.
       ``(c) Contents.--The reports shall contain--
       ``(1) information on the types and quantities of 
     genetically engineered foods being offered for sale or being 
     developed, domestically and internationally;
       ``(2) information on current and emerging issues of concern 
     relating to genetic engineering, including issues relating 
     to--
       ``(A) the ecological impacts of, antibiotic markers for, 
     insect resistance to, nongerminating or terminator seeds for, 
     or cross-species gene transfer for, genetically engineered 
     foods;
       ``(B) foods from animals created by genetic engineering;
       ``(C) non-food crops, such as cotton, created by genetic 
     engineering; and
       ``(D) socioeconomic concerns (such as the impact of 
     genetically engineered foods on small farms), and liability 
     issues;
       ``(3) information on options for labeling genetically 
     engineered foods, the benefits and drawbacks of each option, 
     and an assessment of the authorities under which such 
     labeling might be required;
       ``(4) a response to and information on the status of 
     implementation of the recommendations contained in a report 
     entitled `Genetically Modified Pest Protected Plants', issued 
     in April 2000, by the National Academy of Sciences;
       ``(5) an assessment of data needs relating to genetically 
     engineered foods;
       ``(6) a projection of the number of genetically engineered 
     foods that will require regulatory review in the next 5 
     years, and the adequacy of the resources of the Food and Drug 
     Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and 
     Department of Agriculture to conduct the review; and
       ``(7) an evaluation of the national capacity to test foods 
     for the presence of genetically engineered ingredients.
       ``(d) Submission of Reports.--The covered officers shall 
     submit reports described in this section not later than 2 
     years, 4 years, and 6 years after the date of enactment of 
     the Genetically Engineered Foods Act.

     ``SEC. 416. MARKETPLACE TESTING.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in conjunction with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the Administer of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, shall establish a program to 
     conduct testing, as determined necessary by the Secretary, to 
     identify genetically engineered foods at all stages of 
     production (from the farm to the retail store).
       ``(b) Permissible Testing.--Under the program under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary may conduct tests on foods --
       ``(1) to identify genetically engineered ingredients that 
     have not been approved for use pursuant to this Act, 
     including foods that are developed in foreign countries that 
     have not been approved for marketing in the United States 
     under this Act; and
       ``(2) to identify the presence of genetically engineered 
     ingredients the use of which is restricted under this Act 
     (including approval for animal feed only, approval only if 
     properly labeled, approval for growing or marketing only in 
     selected regions).

     ``SEC. 417. GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD REGISTRY.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, in conjunction with 
     the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administer of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, shall establish a registry 
     for genetically engineered foods that contains a description 
     of the regulatory status of all such foods that have been 
     submitted to the Secretary for premarket approval and that 
     meets the requirements of subsection (b).
       ``(b) Requirement.--The registry established under 
     subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) identify all genetically engineered food that have 
     been submitted to the Secretary for premarket approval;
       ``(2) contain the technical and common names of each of the 
     foods identified under paragraph (1)
       ``(3) contain a description of the regulatory status under 
     this Act of each of the foods identified under paragraph (1);
       ``(4) contain a technical and non-technical summary of the 
     types of genetic changes made to each of the foods identified 
     under paragraph (1) and the reasons for such changes;
       ``(5) identify an appropriate public contact official at 
     each entity that has created each of the foods identified in 
     paragraph (1);
       ``(6) identify an appropriate public contact official at 
     each Federal agency with oversight responsibility over each 
     of the foods identified in paragraph (1); and
       ``(7) be accessible by the public.''.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITED ACTS.

       Section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 342) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) If it is a food containing a genetically engineered 
     food as an ingredient, or is a genetically engineered food 
     (as defined in section 414(a)) that is subject to section 
     414(b) that--
       ``(1) does not meet the requirements of section 414(b); and
       ``(2)(A) is produced in the United States and introduced 
     into interstate commerce by a producer (as defined in section 
     414(a)); or
       ``(B) is introduced into interstate commerce by an 
     importer.''.

     SEC. 5. GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL 
                   RISKS AND BENEFITS OF USING BIOTECHNOLOGY IN 
                   FOOD PRODUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 1668 of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5921) is 
     amended by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       ``(1) to authorize and support research intended to 
     identify and analyze technological developments in the area 
     of biotechnology for the purpose of evaluating the potential 
     positive and adverse effects of the developments on the 
     United States farm economy and the environment, and 
     addressing public concerns about potential adverse 
     environmental effects, of using biotechnology in food 
     production; and
       ``(2) to authorize research to help regulatory agencies 
     develop policies, as soon as practicable, concerning the 
     introduction and use of biotechnology.
       ``(b) Grant Program.--The Secretary of Agriculture, acting 
     through the Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
     Extension Service and the Agricultural Research Service, 
     shall establish a competitive grant program to conduct 
     research to promote the purposes described in subsection 
     (a).''.
       (b) Types of Research.--Section 1668(c) of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     5921(c)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) Research designed to evaluate--
       ``(A) the potential effect of biotechnology developments on 
     the United States farm economy;

[[Page S10256]]

       ``(B) the competitive status of United States agricultural 
     commodities and foods in foreign markets; and
       ``(C) consumer confidence in the healthfulness and safety 
     of agricultural commodities and foods.''.
       (c) Priority.--Section 1668(d)(1) of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5921(d)(1)) is 
     amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``, 
     but giving priority to projects designed to develop improved 
     methods for identifying potential allergens in pest-protected 
     plants, with particular emphasis on the development of tests 
     with human immune-system endpoints and of more reliable 
     animal models''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1668 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
     and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5921) is amended by striking 
     the section heading and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 1668. GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON ECONOMIC AND 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS AND BENEFITS OF USING 
                   BIOTECHNOLOGY IN FOOD PRODUCTION.''.

       (2) Section 1668(g)(2) of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5921(g)(2)) is 
     amended by striking ``for research on biotechnology risk 
     assessment''.
                                 F_____
                                 
      Mr. KYL (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 3188. A bill to facilitate the protection of the critical 
infrastructure of the United States, to enhance the investigation and 
prosecution of computer-related crimes, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                 CYBER SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2000

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Cyber Security 
Enhancement Act of 2000. This legislation is designed to enhance 
America's ability to protect our critical infrastructures from attack 
by hackers, terrorists, or hostile nations. It is a result of many 
meetings and hearings I have held as the Chairman of the Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information that 
focused on cyber security and critical infrastructure protection.
  As we all know, the Information Revolution has transformed virtually 
every aspect of our daily lives. However, advancements in technology 
have not been accompanied by adequate security. Today, our nation's 
critical infrastructures have all become interdependent, with 
vulnerable computer networks as the backbone. These networks, and the 
vital services they support like transportation, electric power, air 
traffic control, and telecommunications, are vulnerable to disruption 
or destruction by anyone with a computer and a modem. And an attack on 
one sector can cascade to others, causing significant loss of revenue, 
disruption of services, or loss of life.
  The Cyber Security Enhancement Act seeks to remove some of the 
impediments to effective cooperation between the private sector and the 
government that prevent effective cyber security. Over the past three 
years, Senator Feinstein and I have held seven hearings in our 
subcommittee on cyber security issues. Although we received many 
recommendations from experts at these hearings and from Executive 
Branch commissions, I have only included those ideas in this bill that 
I thought would clearly improve cyber security efforts.
  In particular, this bill would allow companies to voluntarily submit 
information on cyber vulnerabilities, threats, and attacks to the 
federal government, without this information being subject to Freedom 
of Information Act disclosure. The bill would also clarify anti-trust 
law to permit companies to share information with each other on these 
cyber security issues. In addition, the bill would authorize the 
Attorney General to issue administrative subpoenas in order to swiftly 
trace the source of a cyber attack. It then requires the Attorney 
General to report to Congress on a plan to standardize requests from 
law enforcement agencies to private companies for electronic 
information and records used during a cyber investigation. Finally, it 
requires the Attorney General and the Secretary of Commerce to report 
on efforts to encourage the utilization of technologies that prevent 
the use of false Internet addresses.
  I would like to provide a brief background some of the actions by the 
government that have helped to highlight the impediments addressed by 
the Cyber Security Enhancement Act:
  Because of my concern for America's new ``Achilles heel'', I authored 
an amendment to the 1996 Defense Authorization Act, directing the 
President to submit a report to Congress ``setting forth the results of 
a review of the national policy on protecting the national information 
infrastructure against strategic attacks.''
  In July 1996, the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure 
Protection, PCCIP, was established. It was required to report to the 
President on the scope and nature of the vulnerabilities and threats to 
the nations critical infrastructures. It was also charged to recommend 
a comprehensive national policy and implementation plan for critical 
infrastructure protection and determine legal and policy issues raised 
by their proposals. The Cyber Security Enhancement Act implements some 
of their legal recommendations.
  The Commission released its report in October of 1997. It called for 
an unprecedented partnership between the public and private sector to 
better secure our information infrastructure. This partnership is 
essential because approximately 90 percent of the critical 
infrastructures are owned and operated by private industry.
  In May 1998, the President issued Presidential Decision Directive 63, 
PDD 63, as a response to the Commissions recommendations. This 
directive set 2003 as the goal for protecting our critical 
infrastructures from attack. Among other provisions, PDD-63 created 
Information Sharing and Analysis Centers, ISACs, for the private sector 
to share information on cyber vulnerabilities and attacks.
  Finally, on January 7th, 2000, President Clinton released the first 
edition of the national plan to protect our critical infrastructures. 
The plan was a modest first step towards addressing the cyber security 
challenges before the nation. Like the PCCIP, its key element was the 
call for a public-private partnership. In February of 2000, I chaired a 
hearing in my Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and 
Government Information on the national plan and its privacy 
implications. I plan to hold additional oversight hearings on the plan 
in the future.

  Overall protection from cyber attack necessitates that information 
about cyber vulnerabilities, threats, and attacks be communicated among 
companies, and with government agencies. Two major legal obstacles 
towards accomplishing this goal have been repeatedly identified.
  A company which voluntarily submits cyber vulnerability and attack 
information to the federal government in order to help raise overall 
security must be assured that this information is protected from 
disclosure or they will not voluntarily submit such information. My 
legislation provides a narrowly defined exemption from the Freedom of 
Information Act for this purpose.
  In its report, the PCCIP specifically addressed the legal impediments 
to information sharing. In that section, the Commission stated:

       We envision the creation of a trusted environment that 
     would allow the government and private sector to share 
     sensitive information openly and voluntarily. Success will 
     depend upon the ability to protect as well as disseminate 
     needed information. We propose altering several legal 
     provisions that appear to inhibit protection and thus 
     discourage participation.
       The Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, makes information in 
     the possession of the federal government available to the 
     public upon request. Potential participants in an information 
     sharing mechanism may require assurances that their sensitive 
     information will remain confidential if shared with the 
     federal government.
       We recommend: The proposed Office of National 
     Infrastructure Assurance (now the Critical Infrastructure 
     Assurance Office) require appropriate protection of specific 
     private sector information. This might require, for example, 
     inclusion of a b(3) FOIA exemption in enabling legislation.

  Currently, there are over 100 exemptions to FOIA that have been 
created by other laws. My legislation creates another so called 
``(b)(3)'' exemption that would ensure that Federal entities, agencies, 
and authorities that receive information submitted under the statute 
can offer the strongest possible assurances that information received 
will be protected from FOIA disclosure.
  Our legislation would not allow submitters to hide information from 
the public. If current reporting obligations require that certain 
information be

[[Page S10257]]

submitted to a particular agency, this non-disclosure provision would 
not alter that requirement. The legislation would only protect 
voluntarily submitted information that the government would otherwise 
not have.
  There is tremendous support for this FOIA exemption. My subcommittee 
held a hearing in March to address the impediments to information 
sharing. At that hearing, I asked Harris Miller, President of the 
Information Technology Association of America (the largest and oldest 
association of its kind in the nation): ``With respect to FOIA, is it 
fair to say that we won't have adequate information sharing until we 
offer an exemption to FOIA for critical information infrastructure 
protection?'' Mr. Miller responded: ``Absolutely. As long as companies 
believe that by cooperating with the government they're facing the risk 
of very sensitive and confidential information about proprietary 
secrets or about customer records, however well intentioned, ending up 
in the public record, that is going to be, to use your phrase, a show 
stopper.''
  FBI Director Louis Freeh testified at the same hearing. He was asked 
if he supported a FOIA exemption and said: ``I would certainly tend to 
favor it in the limited area of trade secrets, proprietary information, 
intellectual property, much like my comments about the Economic 
Espionage Act, where that is carved out as an area that protects things 
that are critical to conduct an investigation, but would be devastating 
economically and otherwise to the owner of that property, if it was 
disclosed or made publicly available.''
  The Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office has sponsored the 
``Partnership for Critical Infrastructure Security'', which is a 
collaborative effort of industry and government to address risks to 
national critical infrastructures and assure delivery of essential 
services. It has representation from all sectors of private industry. 
During their meeting in February, five working groups were formed, one 
of which addressed legal impediments to information sharing. FOIA was 
raised as a primary impediment.

  Former Senator Sam Nunn and Frank Cilluffo, of the Center for 
Strategic and International Studies, wrote an op-ed on cyber security 
in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution last month. In the article, they 
stated: ``We need to review and revise the Freedom of Information Act, 
which now constitutes an obstacle to the sharing of information between 
the public and private sectors.''
  We clearly need to assure private companies that information they 
share with the government in order to improve cyber security and 
protect our critical infrastructures will be protected from public 
disclosure. This legislation provides that assurance.
  Information-sharing activities between companies in the private 
sector is inhibited by concern over anti-trust violations. According to 
the PCCIP, ``Potential contributors from the private sector are 
reluctant to share specific threat and vulnerability information 
because of impediments they perceive to arise from antitrust and unfair 
business practice laws.''
  The Cyber Security Enhancement Act includes an assurance that 
companies who share information with each other on the narrow issues of 
cyber threats, vulnerabilities, and attacks will not be subject to 
anti-trust penalties. This protection was similarly provided to 
companies during the preparation for Y2K. There is also a great deal of 
support for this provision.
  David Aucsmith, Intel's chief security officer, testified at a 
Scottsdale, AZ field hearing of my subcommittee on cyber security on 
April 22. In reference to information sharing between companies, he 
stated, ``However, there are problems with that cooperation. We are now 
having a collection of industry competitors coming together to share 
information. This brings up anti-trust issues.''
  In the op-ed by Nunn and Cilluffo, they stated, ``Likewise, we need 
to address legislatively the multitude of issues related to liability, 
including anti-trust exposure that may arise in sector-to-sector 
cooperation in cyberspace.''
  Harris Miller, President of the ITAA, wrote an op-ed on cyber 
security for the Washington Post in May. In his section on information 
sharing, he commented, ``Part of the answer will require new approaches 
to the Freedom of Information Act and the anti-trust laws so that 
sensitive information can be protected.''
  Companies need assurance that their participation in information 
sharing activities about cyber vulnerabilities, threats, and attacks 
will not result in punishment. The Cyber Security Enhancement Act 
provides the assurance that such narrow areas of cooperation will not 
result in unwarranted anti-trust prosecution.
  Cyber attacks often leave no witnesses. When an attack does occur, 
its origin, scope, and objective are usually not obvious at first. Time 
is a critical factor in the pursuit of a cyber attacker, and new tools 
are needed to fight this problem. At the March hearing of my 
subcommittee, FBI Director Louis Freeh testified about the need for law 
enforcement to have administrative subpoena authority in order to 
swiftly trace the source of a cyber attack. The Cyber Security 
Enhancement Act will permit law enforcement to use administrative 
subpoenas to gain source information of an attack. Under current law, 
the authority to issue administrative subpoenas is limited to cases 
involving violations of Title 21 (i.e. drug controlled substances' 
cases), investigations concerning a federal health care offenses, or 
cases involving child sexual exploitation or abuse.
  The ``Love Bug'' virus investigation is an excellent example of where 
speed is of the essence in catching a cyber criminal. Philippine 
authorities investigating the ``Love Bug'' computer virus wanted to 
search the suspects' apartment sooner, but were unable to find a judge 
over the weekend. The delay apparently gave the apartment's residents 
time to dispose of the personal computer and key evidence.
  The administrative subpoena provision in my legislation is very 
narrowly limited to cybercrime investigations involving violations of 
nine federal statues that address computer crimes. This provision is 
only concerned with obtaining information about the source of the 
electronic communication. It specifically protects privacy rights by 
prohibiting the disclosure of the contents of an electronic message. 
Administrative subpoenas will provide law enforcement with the speed 
and the means to enhance the protection of our critical infrastructures 
from attack in cyberspace.
  The Cyber Security Enhancement Act will remove roadblocks to 
information sharing and investigation of cyber attacks. It will foster 
greater cooperation among the private sector and with the government on 
cyber security issues by providing limited protection from FOIA and 
anti-trust laws. It will take away the current ability of cyber 
criminals to evade law enforcement's efforts to catch them by 
authorizing administrative subpoenas. It will encourage standardization 
in requests for information by law enforcement to the private sector. 
It will encourage the use of technologies that inhibit a cyber attacker 
from utilizing a false Internet address.
  Ultimately, this legislation enhances the protection of our nation's 
critical infrastructures from cyber attack by hackers, terrorists, or 
hostile nations. I am committed to doing what I can to secure our 
nation's way of life in the Information Age. This legislation is a 
critical first step.
                                 F_____
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Kohl, Mr. L. Chafee, Mr. 
        Moynihan, and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 3189. A bill to provide more child support money to families 
leaving welfare, to simplify the rules governing the assignment and 
distribution of child support collected by States on behalf of 
children, to improve the collection of child support, to promote 
marriage, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                 CHILD SUPPORT DISTRIBUTION ACT OF 2000

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Support 
Distribution Act. This is companion legislation to Congresswoman Nancy 
Johnson's bill in the House, which passed the House overwhelmingly on 
September 7, 2000. I want to begin by thanking Senator Kohl for his 
leadership on child support issues; I am delighted to have been able to 
team up with him again in this important area. The child support 
provisions of this bill

[[Page S10258]]

closely resemble his original legislation--the Children First Child 
Support Reform Act--of which I am a proud cosponsor. I also want to 
thank Senator Bayh for his leadership on new fatherhood initiatives. I 
am pleased that we could work together and incorporate their ideas into 
this vital legislation. I am pleased to have Senators Chafee, Moynihan, 
and Breaux as original cosponsors on this bill.
  There is no question that children are the very future of our country 
and I believe fundamentally that every child has the right to grow up 
healthy, happy, and safe. Throughout my career, promoting children's 
well-being and keeping our children safe is a mission that has been 
close to my heart. While we cannot expect the government to ensure that 
every child receives parental love and attention, we can ensure that 
parents pay court-ordered child support, and we can ensure that the 
custodial parent--not the government--receives this vital financial 
support.
  Ending poverty and promoting self-sufficiency is an on-going national 
commitment. Four years ago Congress restored welfare to a temporary 
assistance program, rather than a program that entangles and traps 
generation after generation. Today, the welfare caseload has fallen by 
six million recipients from 12.6 million in 1996 to 6.6 million in 
September 1999. This reflects a drop of 49 percent in just three years. 
We also have the lowest percentage (2.4) of the American population on 
welfare since 1967.
  Unfortunately, while we are succeeding in promoting self-sufficiency 
and self-reliance through welfare reform, we are sending out a double-
edged message on the need to pay child support. Current law regarding 
the assignment and distribution of child support for families on 
welfare is extremely complicated--depending on when families applied 
for welfare, when the child support was paid, whether that child 
support was for current or past-due payments, and depending on how the 
child support was collected, in other words, through direct payments, 
through garnishing wages or other government assistance programs, or 
the federal income tax return intercept program.
  The ``Child Support Distribution Act of 2000'' would provide more 
child support money to families leaving welfare; would simplify the 
rules governing the assignment and distribution of child support 
collected by States; would improve the collection of child support; 
would authorize demonstration programs encouraging public agencies to 
help collect child support; and would implement a fatherhood grant 
program to promote marriage, encourage successful parenting, and help 
fathers find jobs and increase their earnings.
  Under current law, when child support is collected for families 
receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, the money is 
divided between the state and federal governments as payment for the 
welfare the family has received. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act gave 
states the option to decide how much, if any, of the state share of 
child support payments collected on behalf of TANF families to send to 
the family.
  The 1996 Welfare Reform law also required that in order to qualify 
for TANF benefits, beneficiaries must ``assign''--or give--their child 
support rights to the state for periods before and while the family is 
on welfare. This means that the State is allowed to keep (and divide 
with the federal government) child support arrearages that were owed 
even before the family went on TANF if they are collected while the 
family is receiving welfare benefits.
  The original intent of these assignment and distribution strategies 
was to reimburse the state and federal governments for their outlays to 
the welfare family. But how much sense does it make to tell a family 
that is on welfare or trying to get off welfare that the State is 
entitled to the first cut of any child support payment, even if the 
absent parent begins to pay back the child support that was owed before 
the family went on welfare?
  This means that the state gets the support before a parent can buy 
new shoes for her child, before she can buy her child a new coat for 
the approaching winter, before she can buy groceries for her family, or 
pay the rent for the next month. So in the real world, not just a 
policy-oriented world, our current law regarding child support payments 
provides a disincentive for struggling parents to leave welfare, and it 
certainly provides no incentive for the absent parent to pay, much less 
catch up with, their child support bills. I wonder how we can 
realistically expect to foster a positive relationship between a 
custodial parent, and the parent paying child support, when the State 
is entitled to all of the support money.
  The key provisions of the bill I am introducing today will allow 
states to pass through the entire child support collected on their 
behalf while a person is on welfare; will change how and when child 
support is ``owed'' to the states for reimbursement for welfare 
benefits; and will expand the child support collection provisions such 
as revoking passports for past-due child support.
  We must ensure both non-custodial and custodial parents that child 
support payments are directly benefitting their children. This bill 
will enable families to keep more of the past-due child support owed to 
them and it will further the goals of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act by 
helping families to remain self-sufficient. This bill will give mothers 
leaving welfare an additional $4 billion child support collections over 
the first five years of full implementation. It will also lead to the 
voluntary payment by states of about $900 million over five years in 
child support to families while they are still on welfare.
  Children are the leaders of tomorrow; they are the very future of our 
great nation. We owe them nothing less than the sum of our energies, 
our talents, and our efforts in providing them a foundation on which to 
build happy, healthy and productive lives. And, when appropriate, we 
need to help parents financially support and provide for their 
children. Because it simply makes little sense to ask people to be 
self-sufficient, to pay their child-support bills, and then to allow 
the State to collect all of that child-support.
  I encourage my colleagues to take a serious look at this bill and 
pass it before we adjourn.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today with the hope that this 
important legislation will be addressed prior to the adjournment of 
this Congress. As an original cosponsor of the ``Child Support 
Distribution Act of 2000,'' I strongly support the promotion of 
responsible fatherhood and putting more money in the hands of families 
for their children. The House of Representatives has done their part by 
passing a similar bill 405 to 18. It is time for the Senate to act.
  This bill incorporates provisions from a bill I authored, S. 1364, 
the ``Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Act,'' a bipartisan bill to help 
fathers and noncustodial parents provide emotional and financial 
support for their children. The provision in this bill to provide 
states with grants for fatherhood programs is essential to ensure 
smaller more localized programs receive funding and to provide each 
state with seed money to expand upon current fatherhood initiatives.
  With the inclusion of fatherhood and media grants, this bill strikes 
an appropriate balance to address ``dead-broke'' fathers and 
``deadbeat'' fathers. In order to help dead-broke fathers act 
responsibly, this bill authorizes grants to fatherhood programs to 
provide employment training and build upon parenting skills. Last year, 
I visited the Father Resource Program, run by Dr. Wallace McLaughlin in 
Indianapolis, Indiana. This program is a wonderful example of a local, 
private/public partnership that delivers results. It has served more 
than 500 fathers, primarily young men between the ages of 15 and 25, by 
providing father peer support meetings, premarital counseling, family 
development forums and family support services, as well as co-
parenting, employment, job training, education, and life skills 
classes.
  The fathers there were eager to tell me when I asked about the 
difference these programs have made in their lives and the lives of 
their children.
  One said to me, ``After the six-week fatherhood training program, the 
support doesn't stop . . . I was wild before. The program taught me 
self-discipline, parenting skills, responsibility.''
  Another said, ``As fathers, we would like to interact with our kids. 
When

[[Page S10259]]

they grow into something, we want to feel proud and say that we were a 
part of that.''
  And yet another, ``The program showed me how to have a better 
relationship with my child's mother, and a better relationship with my 
child. Before those relationships were just financial.''
  While the program's emotional benefits to families are difficult to 
measure, we do know it is helping fathers enter the workforce. Over 80 
percent of the men who have graduated from the program are currently 
employed.
  In addition, to grant programs that provide parenting skills, 
employment related training, and encourage healthy child-parent 
relationships there needs to be a cultural shift. This shift will only 
take place when society deems it unacceptable to evade one's 
responsibility as a father. This shift is necessary to motivate the 
``deadbeat'' fathers to take responsibility for their children. In an 
effort to achieve this cultural shift, the ``Child Support Distribution 
Act of 2000'' includes $25 million for a media grant program that will 
allow each state to air television ads that convey the importance of 
fatherhood.
  In addition, this bill expands upon the provision in S. 1364 to 
encourage states to pass-through child support funds directly to 
families that are currently on government assistance. This provision 
would provide an additional $6.2 billion in the hands of families and 
children over the next ten years. In addition, it will increase the 
likelihood that noncustodial parents will pay child support and allow 
children to benefit from their noncustodial parents' financial 
contributions. Making families self sufficient through the 
participation of both parents in their children's lives is the next 
step in welfare reform.
  Society has been aware of the connection between fatherlessness and 
children experiencing social ills such as poverty, crime, and teen 
pregnancy for sometime now. However, the Federal Government continues 
to spend billions of dollars to address these social ills and very 
little to address the root causes of such social ills. In order to 
break the cycle of poverty, government dependance, and crime Congress 
needs to address fatherlessness and the breakdown of the family 
structure.
  The investment called for in this legislation is fiscally 
responsible--it helps deal with the root causes, not just the symptoms, 
of many of the social problems that cost our society a great deal of 
money.
  The cost to society of drug and alcohol abuse is more than $110 
billion per year.
  The federal government spends $8 billion a year on dropout prevention 
programs.
  Last year we spent more than $105 billion on poverty relief programs 
for families and children.
  The social and economic costs of teenage pregnancy, abortion and 
sexually transmitted diseases have been estimated at more than $21 
billion per year.
  All this adds up to a staggering price we pay for the consequences of 
our fraying social fabric, broken families and too many men not being 
involved with their kids.
  The number of kids living in households without fathers has tripled 
over the last forty years, from just over 5 million in 1960 to more 
than 17 million today. Children need positive role models.
  The House overwhelmingly declared their support for child support and 
fatherhood measures. I urge the Senate to declare their support for 
these measures and pass this legislation this year. I yield the 
remaining time to the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as an original co-sponsor of 
this important legislation, the ``Child Support Distribution Act of 
2000,'' and am pleased to join with Senators Snowe, Bayh, Chafee, 
Moynihan and Breaux in this effort to help build stronger families and 
improve our public child support system.
  I want to thank and commend Senator Snowe and the other co-sponsors 
for working with me to present this combined child support/fatherhood 
legislative package, containing child support provisions that are 
similar to my legislation, S. 1036, the ``Children First Child Support 
Reform Act.'' Both my bill and the legislation we are introducing today 
take significant steps to increase child support collections and to 
increase the support dollars that are delivered directly--or passed-
through--to families involved in the public system.
  In Fiscal Year 1998, the public child support system collected child 
support payments for only 23 percent of its caseload. This means that 
our nation's children are owed roughly $47 billion in over-due child 
support. Though every year we collect more, it is clear that our child 
support system is still not working as it should and that too many 
children still lack the support they need and deserve.
  In 1997, I worked with my State of Wisconsin to institute an 
innovative program of passing through child support payments directly 
to families--and they have with great success. Wisconsin has found that 
when child support payments are delivered to families, non-custodial 
parents are more apt to pay, and to pay more. In addition, Wisconsin 
has found that, overall, this policy does not increase government 
costs. That makes sense because ``passing through'' support payments to 
families means they have more of their own resources, and are less apt 
to depend on public help to meet other needs such as food, 
transportation or child care.
  And since 1997, I have worked to promote expansion of this policy to 
the other states. I contributed to the Administration's child support 
financing reform consultation process and urged the President to make 
pass-through expansion part of his budget for fiscal year 2001, which 
he agreed to do. I also worked to reach consensus on pass-through 
expansion with the states, children's advocates and fatherhood groups. 
These efforts led to my introducing bipartisan legislation last year on 
child support financing reform, S. 1036, that advanced many of the 
policies and principles incorporated into this legislation. I also 
testified on child support pass-through policy at a hearing before the 
Senate Finance Committee on July 25, 2000.
  Though we've come a long way since the 1997 beginning of an expanded 
pass-through program in Wisconsin, we now have a key opportunity to 
encourage other states to follow Wisconsin's example. A House version 
of this child support/fatherhood legislation passed the House on 
September 7th by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 405 to 18. On 
September 25th, I sent a letter to the Senate leadership, a letter co-
signed by 21 of my Senate colleagues, urging the leadership to take 
action on child support and fatherhood policy reforms before the end of 
this legislative session. And it is our goal and my sincere hope that 
this bipartisan ``Child Support Distribution Act,'' which so closely 
resembles the House bill, will be approved by the Senate unanimously. 
This legislation will deliver over $6 billion in increased child 
support payments to families over the next ten years. And as my 21 
Senate colleagues and I emphasized in our letter, we can and should 
move this legislation this year because our nation's children need and 
deserve nothing less.
  While we all agree that the level of over-due child support is 
unacceptable, we also know that poor collection rates don't tell a 
simple story. There are many reasons why non-custodial parents may not 
be paying support for their children. Some are not able to pay because 
they don't have jobs or have fallen on hard times. Others may not pay 
because they are unfairly prevented from spending time with their 
children.
  But other fathers don't pay because the public system actually 
discourages them from paying. As my colleagues may know, under the 
current system, nearly $2 billion in child support is retained every 
year as repayment for public assistance, rather than delivered to the 
children to whom it is owed. This policy has existed since 1975 when we 
designed the public child support system to recover the costs of 
welfare assistance. Once collected, those support dollars are split 
between the state and federal governments as reimbursement for welfare 
costs.
  Since the money doesn't benefit their kids, fathers are either 
discouraged from paying support altogether or at least discouraged from 
paying through the formal system. And on the other side of the 
equation, mothers have no incentive to push for payment since the 
support doesn't go to them.

[[Page S10260]]

  Our ``Child Support Distribution Act,'' just like my ``Children First 
Child Support Reform Act,'' attempts to address this problem. The 
legislation reforms child support policy so that families working their 
way off--or just off--public assistance, keep more of their own child 
support payments. With this bill, the federal-state child support 
partnership will embark upon a new policy era with a mission focused 
both on promoting self-sufficiency, rather than cost recovery, and on 
making child support payments truly meaningful for families.
  We know that creating the right incentives for non-custodial parents 
to pay support and increasing collections has long-term benefits. 
People who can count on child support are more likely to stay in jobs 
and stay off public assistance.
  Delivering or passing through child support directly to families 
would simplify the job for states as well. The states currently devote 
six to eight percent of what they spend to run the entire child support 
program--$250 million per year--on distributing collections. This has 
created an administrative nightmare. Right now, the states divvy up 
child support dollars into as many as nine pots. Under my proposal, 
states would have greater freedom to adopt a straightforward policy of 
collecting child support and delivering it to families, without costly 
and burdensome regulations.
  Moving towards a simpler child support system that puts greater 
emphasis on getting funds to families is the right and most fair 
approach --for fathers, mothers, and children, and for all of us 
interested in making the child support program work. I urge my Senate 
colleagues to support this legislation this year, and I look forward to 
our working to deliver more child support resources to the children to 
whom they are owed so that all our communities benefit from healthier, 
happier children and stronger, more stable families.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support 
for the Child Support Distribution Act of 2000 introduced today in the 
Senate. I would also like to commend my colleagues on their efforts to 
reconcile the House-passed Child Support Distribution Act, H.R. 4678, 
with similar bills introduced in the Senate. I agree that it is 
imperative for the Senate to join the House in passing strong 
bipartisan legislation to strengthen the child support system and 
assist low income families by allowing them to retain child support 
payments. I also believe that it is important to encourage noncustodial 
fathers to take responsibility for their children's well-being and I am 
pleased that this legislation includes funding to states to develop 
programs promoting responsible parenthood.
  I feel so strongly about this legislation because of the significance 
of child poverty in the United States, and particularly in my own State 
of Louisiana. According to the Children's Defense Fund, there are 
almost 366,000 children living in poverty in the State of Louisiana, 
almost 30 percent of the state's children. Over 33 percent of families 
in Louisiana have no father in the home and 40 percent of babies are 
born out-of-wedlock. Studies show that children who are raised with no 
father are five times more likely to live in poverty and twice as 
likely to commit a crime or commit suicide, as well as more likely to 
use drugs and alcohol or to become pregnant. It is time to break this 
cycle of child poverty. Strengthening the child support system, 
ensuring that money gets into the hands of the families that need it, 
and supporting programs that encourage responsible parenthood are 
important steps in addressing child poverty. I am pleased to cosponsor 
the Child Support Distribution Act and encourage the Senate to act on 
it this Congress. Thank you for this opportunity to voice my support 
for this important legislation.

                          ____________________