[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12997-13014]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              THE LOW-INCOME WIDOWS ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2000

 Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to 
introduce the Low-Income Widows Assistance Act of 2000. Since 1988, 
Congress has established several programs to help pay the out of pocket 
medical costs for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. These programs, 
commonly referred to as Medicare Buy-in or QMB, SLMB, and QI-1, operate 
as federal-state partnerships and are funded through state Medicaid 
programs. Depending on an eligible senior's income level, the programs 
could cover the cost of Medicare Part B premiums, doctor visits, 
deductibles, and co-payments.
  Despite the availability of these programs, many seniors are not 
aware that they may be eligible to receive these additional benefits. 
According to a 1998 Families USA study, there are somewhere between 3.3 
and 3.8 million seniors in America who are eligible to receive these 
benefits, but not currently receiving them. In my home state, the same 
study estimates that there are somewhere between 49,000 and 58,000 
Kentucky seniors who may be eligible for one of these assistance 
programs but are not enrolled. While the actual task of enrolling 
eligible seniors is left to the states, there are several important 
steps the federal government, through the Social Security 
Administration (SSA), can and should take.
  A key component in improving participation in cost-sharing programs 
is the capacity of federal and state agencies to identify those 
individuals who experience a reduction in income after they have 
already enrolled in Social Security and Medicare. One group at 
particular risk of reduced income in their later years is widowed 
spouses.
  For anyone who has lost a loved one, the experience is often 
overwhelming both mentally and emotionally. The loss of a spouse leaves 
many elderly with the difficult task of restructuring their lives in 
order to regain personal and financial stability. When SSA is informed 
that a married individual has died, the agency recalculates the benefit 
to determine the new benefit level. Frequently, the widowed spouse's 
benefit is lower than the amount the married couple received from 
Social Security. This sets up a circumstance in which a widow who was 
not previously eligible to receive QMB/SLMB benefits when she was 
married, would now be eligible to receive these benefits because her 
income has fallen.
  In an effort to address this serious problem, I am today introducing 
the Low-Income Widows Assistance Act. This legislation directs Social 
Security to undertake outreach efforts designed to identify and notify 
individuals who may be eligible for these expanded benefits. It also 
addresses the unique challenges facing widowed spouses by requiring 
that when SSA recalculates the benefits for a recently widowed spouse 
and finds that he or she might be eligible for these assistance 
programs, the agency must:
  One, notify the beneficiary that he or she may now be eligible for 
this additional assistance.
  Two, notify the beneficiary's state that she may be eligible so that 
they can begin their own outreach efforts.
  In order to help better understand how the Low-Income Widows 
Assistance Act would work in practical terms, I would like my 
colleagues to imagine the following scenario. Sally and Bob enjoyed 60 
years of marriage, but just last fall, Bob suddenly passed away. Since 
Bob's death, Sally has been having a hard time making ends meet. She 
now has a lot of expenses to take care of on her own: making the house 
payment, buying food and clothes, and paying for doctors' visits and 
prescriptions--and not to mention the ``extras'' like birthday and 
Christmas presents for her many grandchildren. While her expenses 
remain essentially the same, Sally's Social Security survivors benefit 
is lower than what she and Bob were receiving.
  Under the Low-Income Widows Assistance Act, when SSA recalculates 
Sally's benefit and finds that her monthly Social Security check has 
fallen below the $855 threshold for SLMB eligibility, the agency would 
be required to notify Sally that she may be eligible for SLMB benefits. 
SSA also would be required to notify Sally's state government that she 
may be eligible for these additional benefits. It is my hope that the 
states would then use this information to conduct their own outreach 
efforts to enroll Sally and others like her.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate, as well 
as Congressmen Lewis and Fletcher who are introducing similar 
legislation in the House, to help low-income widows by enacting the 
Low-Income Widows Assistance Act of 2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CLELAND (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 2815. A bill to provide for the nationwide designation of 2-1-1 as 
a toll-free telephone number for access to information and referrals on 
human services, to encourage the deployment of the toll-free telephone 
number, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
 Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my 
colleague, Senator Snowe, a bill to designate 2-1-1 as the nationwide, 
toll-free number to access health and human services. Such designation 
is needed to simplify access to the maze of numbers and service 
organizations that currently exist. These organizations, which exist to 
help people, are useless if those in need do not know how to access the 
services provided.
  Imagine a single mother who needs shelter and dinner one night for 
herself and her children. Although she may know of a shelter providing 
these services, there may be one closer that better fits her needs by 
catering to children and women in need. 2-1-1 could provide her with a 
targeted referral to a shelter specializing in child care and 
empowering mothers to get back on their feet. Or, visualize an older 
American on a fixed income, who may need assistance paying her 
electricity bill during a particularly cold month, can call 2-1-1 for a 
referral to an agency to assist her with her need. Also, if someone has 
goods or services she would like to donate to her community, she can 
call 2-1-1 for a referral to an agency with a specific need for her 
items or time. All 2-1-1 calls are confidential and unaffiliated with 
government agencies.
  The United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta has implemented 2-1-1 service 
with much success. Not only has this consolidation of human services 
referrals provided direction and aid to those in need, it also has 
helped pool the resources of area charitable organizations. This 
pooling of resources has eliminated duplication and highlighted gaps in 
current service, which in turn has improved the delivery of services to 
the citizens of Metro Atlanta. Because of the great success in Atlanta, 
the United Way and other non-profit groups are attempting to replicate 
this service in almost every state in the nation. Petitions to 
designate 2-1-1 as a referral to health and human services have been 
approved or are pending in several other states. However, 2-1-1 offers 
such an important service to communities, that I believe it is time to 
reserve this number nationwide. Several states have indicated 
reservations about pending petitions without direction from the 
appropriate federal agencies that 2-1-1 will not be used for another 
purpose. Senator Snowe and I believe it is time to indicate to state 
and federal regulators Congress's clear support for 2-1-1.
  One of the unique aspects of 2-1-1 in Metropolitan Atlanta, which I 
believe can be replicated in the other states, is the generous support 
it has received from the community through private donations. This 
funding model is one of the unique aspects of this legislation. 
Specifically, the bill stipulates that none of the costs of 2-1-1 
service shall be passed on to telephone customers but will be supported 
by the organizations operating the 2-1-1 service.

[[Page 12998]]

  Mr. President, I would like to submit a letter endorsing this 
legislation signed by the United Way of America, the American Red 
Cross, the Alliance for Children and Families, Girls Scouts of the 
United States of America, United Jewish Communities, Lutheran Services 
of America, and Volunteers of America to name only a few. I realize 
that N-1-1 numbers are finite in availability, but 2-1-1 is a service 
in the public interest that needs a national designation. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation that will enable Americans, no 
matter where they are, to obtain the assistance they need through the 
use of a three digit number.
  I ask consent that a copy of the United Way letter and a copy the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2815

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

     SECTION 1. NATIONWIDE DESIGNATION OF TOLL-FREE TELEPHONE 
                   NUMBER FOR ACCESS TO HUMAN SERVICES INFORMATION 
                   AND REFERRAL.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) N-1-1 codes, or 3-digit abbreviated dialing telephone 
     numbers, provide Americans with easy, efficient, nationwide 
     access to emergency and nonemergency information that serves 
     the public interest.
       (2) Individuals and families often find it difficult to 
     navigate the complex and ever growing maze of human services 
     agencies and programs and often spend inordinate amounts of 
     time in trying to identify the agency or program that 
     provides a service that may be immediately or urgently 
     required.
       (3) Americans desire to volunteer and become involved in 
     their communities, and this desire, together with a desire to 
     donate to organizations which provide human services, are 
     among the reasons to call a center which provides information 
     and referrals on human services.
       (4) The number ``2-1-1'' is easy-to-remember and 
     universally recognizable and would serve well as the 
     designation of a telephone service for linking individuals 
     and families to information and referral centers which could, 
     in turn, make critical connections between individuals and 
     families in need and appropriate human services agencies, 
     including both community-based organizations and government 
     agencies.
       (5) United Ways and other non-profit and governmental 
     centers that provide information about and referrals to human 
     services have secured funding for the establishment, 
     implementation, and current operation in the United States of 
     three centers that provide such information and referrals and 
     are accessed through the telephone number 2-1-1.
       (6) United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta, Contact Helpline of 
     Columbus, Georgia, and United Way of Connecticut currently 
     utilize the telephone number 2-1-1 for the purpose of access 
     to information about and referral to human services.
       (7) Since United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta and United Way 
     of Connecticut switched from 10-digit telephone numbers for 
     access to their centers of information and referral on human 
     services to the telephone number 2-1-1 for access to such 
     centers, the volume of calls received at such centers has 
     increased by approximately 40 percent. The centers of United 
     Way of Metropolitan Atlanta and United Way of Connecticut 
     each handled approximately 200,000 calls in 1999.
       (8) Rapid deployment nationwide of the telephone number 2-
     1-1 as a means of access to information about and referral to 
     human services requires coordination among State governments 
     and the information and referral centers of many localities.
       (9) Alabama, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Utah have 
     approved petitions for the implementation of the telephone 
     number 2-1-1 statewide for that purpose, and implementation 
     of the use of that number for that purpose is underway. 
     Jurisdictions in Louisiana and Tennessee have also designated 
     the use of 2-1-1 for that purpose.
       (10) Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin are 
     considering petitions to designate the telephone number 2-1-1 
     for that purpose.
       (11) Florida and Virginia have developed statewide models 
     for telephone access for that purpose.
       (12) The use of 2-1-1 for that purpose is being consider by 
     nearly every other State.
       (b) Designation of Toll-Free Human Services Access 
     Telephone Number.--
       (1) In general.--Section 251(e) of the Communications Act 
     of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251(e)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Human services access telephone number.--
       ``(A) Designation.--The Commission, and each commission or 
     other entity to which the Commission has delegated authority 
     under this subsection, shall designate 2-1-1 as a toll-free 
     telephone number within the United States for access to 
     information and referral centers for information about and 
     referral to providers of human services, including 
     information and referrals for purposes of volunteering and 
     making donations.
       ``(B) Applicability.--The designation under subparagraph 
     (A) shall apply to wire and wireless telephone service.
       ``(C) Payment of Costs.--The costs of a telecommunications 
     carrier in providing access to a provider of information and 
     referrals through the telephone number designated under this 
     paragraph shall be borne by the provider of such information 
     and referrals.
       ``(D) Call location information.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     shall be construed to require any telecommunications carrier 
     to provide call location information to a provider of 
     information or referrals on human services through the 
     telephone number designated under this paragraph.
       ``(E) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Human services.--The term `human services' means 
     services as follows:

       ``(I) Services that assist individuals in becoming more 
     self-sufficient, in preventing dependency, and in 
     strengthening family relationships.
       ``(II) Services that support personal and social 
     development.
       ``(III) Services that help ensure the well-being of 
     individuals, families, and communities.

       ``(ii) Information and referral center.--The term 
     `information and referral center' means a center that--

       ``(I) maintains a database of providers of human services 
     in a State or locality; and
       ``(II) assists individuals, families, and communities in 
     identifying, understanding, and accessing such providers and 
     the human services offered by such providers.''.

       (2) Transition.--The Federal Communications Commission 
     shall provide for the implementation within a reasonable 
     period of time of the designation required by paragraph (3) 
     of section 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as added 
     by paragraph (1) of this subsection, throughout the areas of 
     the United States where the designation is not in effect as 
     of the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Support for State Efforts.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall encourage and support 
     efforts by States to develop and implement the use of the 
     toll-free telephone number 2-1-1 for access to providers of 
     information and referrals on human services.
       (2) Activities.--In providing encouragement and support 
     under paragraph (1), the Commission shall--
       (A) consult with appropriate State officials, including 
     State human services agencies, and appropriate 
     representatives of the telecommunications industry, United 
     Ways, Alliance of Information and Referral Systems (AIRS), 
     AIRS affiliates, law enforcement and emergency service 
     providers, and local non-profit and governmental information 
     and referral centers; and
       (B) encourage States to coordinate statewide implementation 
     of the use of the telephone number in consultation with such 
     representatives.
       (3) Prohibition on imposition of obligations or costs.--
     Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize or 
     require the Commission to impose an obligation or cost on any 
     person.
       (d) Provision of Call Information.--Section 222(d) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) to provide call information when required by 
     applicable law.''.
                                  ____



                                        United Way of America,

                                    Alexandria, VA, June 29, 2000.
       Dear Senator: The undersigned organizations support the 
     bill cosponsored by Senators Max Cleland (D-GA) and Olympia 
     Snowe (R-ME) to nationally designate the 211 abbreviated 
     dialing code for access to health and human services 
     information and referral (I&R). 211 is an easy-to-remember 
     and universally recognizable number that makes a critical 
     connection between individuals and families in need and the 
     appropriate community-based organizations and government 
     agencies. Since United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta and United 
     Way of Connecticut switched from 10-digit I&R numbers to 211, 
     the volume of calls received at both has increased by 40 
     percent, with each handling over 200,000 calls in 1999.
       A petition to nationally designate 211 for health and human 
     services I&R submitted by the 211 Collaborative, of which 
     United Way and the Alliance of Information and Referral 
     Systems are members, has awaited action by the Federal 
     Communications Commission (FCC) for well over a year. FCC 
     inaction leaves current and ongoing 211 implementation in 
     state and local jurisdictions in jeopardy. Additionally, some 
     state public utility commissions have indicated they will not 
     take action on 211 petitions before the FCC makes its 
     decision. Further, with 211 being considered or implemented 
     in 45 states, if the

[[Page 12999]]

     FCC designates the number for a different purpose, all 
     current and future 211 call centers would need to make 
     significant expenditures and do considerable outreach to 
     convert to a new, 10-digit number.
       Legislation designating 211 for human services I&R would 
     alleviate these concerns and would bypass a potentially 
     lengthy and uncertain FCC approval process. We urge you to 
     support the Cleland--Snowe bill. Thank you.
           Sincerely,

     Alliance for Children and Families
     Alliance of Information and Referral Systems
     American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging
     American Red Cross
     America's Blood Centers
     Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies
     Camp Fire Boys and Girls
     Citizen's Scholarship Foundation of America
     Coalition of Human Needs
     Coalition of Labor Union Women
     Council for Health and Human Service Ministries
     Girl Scouts of the USA
     Girls Incorporated
     Lutheran Services of America
     National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral 
           Agencies
     National Association of State Units on Aging
     National Association of WIC Directors
     Service Employees International Union
     The Salvation Army
     United Jewish Communities
     United Neighborhood Houses
     United Way of America
     Volunteers of America
     Women in Community Service
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. L. Chafee, and Mr. 
        McCain):
  S. 2816. A bill to provide the financial mechanisms, resource 
protections, and professional skills necessary for high quality 
stewardship of the National Park System, to commemorate the heritage of 
people of the United States to invest in the legacy of the National 
Park System, and to recognize the importance of high quality outdoor 
recreational opportunities on federally managed land; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.


                   the national parks stewardship act

      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Gorton):
  S. 2817. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the 
Secretary of Agriculture to establish permanent recreation fee 
authority; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


               the recreational fee authority act of 2000

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I come before you to today to discuss one 
of our nation's most valued assets--our National Parks.
  Throughout the history of our country, visionary statesmen have 
arisen to remind us of the natural resource heritage on which our 
country rests. As early as 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt, spoke of 
the challenge at hand:

       We must handle the woods, the water, the grasses so that we 
     will hand them to our children and our children's children in 
     better and not worse shape than we got them.

  It is a challenge we still face today, and will into the future, in 
our role as stewards of the world in which we live.
  Our system of National Parks and other public lands is the envy of 
the world. It serves as a model for other countries, as they also seek 
to preserve their natural and cultural heritage. No other country has 
set aside as full a spectrum of public lands--from wilderness to urban 
parks--for people to use and enjoy. But to just set them aside is, of 
course, not enough. The feature that makes these lands remarkable--that 
they are open and accessible to all Americans to enjoy--also threatens 
their existence in the future.
  Mr. President, we face an ironic question: are we loving our national 
parks to death? The simple answer to that question is yes.
  Earlier this year, the National Parks Conservation Association 
released its list of the Ten Most Endangered National Parks. We should 
all feel ashamed that they have so many endangered Parks from which to 
chose. This year's list includes National Parks across the country, 
from Alaska to Arizona, from Tennessee to Hawaii. It also includes 
Everglades National Park in my state of Florida, where decades of human 
manipulation have led to ecosystem destruction.
  This list of the 2000 Ten Most Endangered National Parks is 
unfortunately not comprehensive, but is representative. During the past 
year I have visited several national parks to get a first hand view of 
the problem. From personal experience, I can enlarge the list of 
endangered national parks.
  At Ellis Island National Monument, a facade of immaculate buildings 
hides an inventory of dilapidated historical structures.
  At Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico, lack of maintenance and 
vandalism is leading to the deterioration of historical artifacts.
  I recently witnessed a similar deterioration of marine-related 
artifacts at a park in my own state of Florida.
  In April I participated in my 359th work day at Biscayne National 
Park, a chain of subtropical islands protecting mangrove shoreline, 
interrelated marine systems and the northernmost coral reef in the 
United States. This was my 4th workday in a National Park.
  At Biscayne National Park, we Americans are in danger of losing a 
piece of our history. The HMS Fowey, an 18th century British warship, 
lies submerged in a highly unstable location. This very significant, 
national register site has been weakened by looting, prop-wash 
deflection, storms and other forces. The best choice available is to 
excavate the wreckage and recover whatever of the historical record we 
can. This kind of operation is well beyond the means of Biscayne 
National Park's annual operating budget.
  My feelings about the National Park System are truly of wonder. The 
wonder that I feel at the treasures in our park system is only matched 
by my wonder at how we can take such treasures for granted. The 
importance of our National Parks should be reflected in our stewardship 
of the National Park System. We have failed to provide the National 
Park Service with the tools it needs to be good stewards of our 
National Parks.
  Today, with my colleagues, Senator Akaka, Senator L. Chafee, and 
Senator McCain, I am introducing the ``National Parks Stewardship 
Act''.
  I would also like to include for the record a letter from the 
National Parks Conservation Association expressing that organization's 
support for this legislation.
  This legislation seeks to give the National Park Service the tools it 
needs to prepare for the next century. It also includes many of the 
proposals of others who feel strongly about the importance of our 
National Parks.
  This bill gives park managers the protective tools needed to support 
the stewardship challenges of Theodore Roosevelt. We provide three 
types of tools: resource protection, financial tools and human 
resources.
  The first element in the resource protection section of my bill deals 
with activities occurring outside park boundaries.
  My inspiration for this was legislation introduced by the late 
Senator John Chafee who proposed the formation of ``park protection 
areas'' in 1986. John Chafee proposed that these areas be formed 
outside park boundaries to create the ``buffer zone'' needed for 
resource protection.
  I identified strongly with this concept, having worked since the 
1970's on a state-federal partnership for Everglades restoration that 
focuses heavily on providing a buffer zone for Everglades National 
Park. Today, the original boundaries of Everglades National Park are 
surrounded by Big Cypress Preserve, an expanded park boundary, and 
undeveloped land on the eastern side of the park.
  It is as a memorial to John Chafee that I echo his provision in my 
bill, which I hope will become a permanent component of National Park 
stewardship. It is an honor to have Lincoln Chafee, a fine statesman in 
his own right, as a co-sponsor.
  The federal government must be unified in its stewardship of the 
National Parks.
  My legislation requires that federal agencies taking action on lands 
bordering National Park units consult with the Department of the 
Interior to ensure such actions do not degrade or destroy National Park 
resources.
  It also requires the Secretary of the Interior to prohibit actions on 
Interior

[[Page 13000]]

lands that will adversely impact Park resources.
  The second action I propose to protect park resources relates to park 
uses.
  The National Park Stewardship Act requires that activities allowed in 
National Parks pass the test of compatibility with natural, cultural 
and historical resource protection. As our parks are used and enjoyed 
by visitors, we must ensure that park resources are not inadvertently 
damaged. For example, the Park Service recently issued regulations 
limiting or prohibiting the use of personal water craft in some areas. 
This action was only taken after the use of these water craft in some 
areas was allowed at intensities seriously degrading water and air 
quality, and threatening both park wildlife and other park visitors.
  My bill requires the National Park Service to take action to protect 
these resources before damage occurs. Activities must be analyzed and 
the impacts understood before they are authorized. It also asks the 
National Parks to seriously plan for the future, projecting visitation 
and use trends and identify needed personnel and facilities.
  Another resource protection portion of the bill focuses on ensuring 
that our National Park System fully represents the history of our 
nation. Each year, a smaller percentage of the American population can 
trace its ancestry to those who landed at Plymouth rock, settled 
Jamestown, or fought in the American revolution. Many Americans are 
descended from people who crossed international boarders from the North 
or South, or landed at locations from the Florida Keys to the Aleutian 
Islands, from Ellis Island to the island of Oahu. All those who came to 
settle write their history alongside, and often atop the history of our 
country's native peoples.
  The bill calls for a comprehensive look at the ethnic and cultural 
content of our National Park System. It asks the National Park Service 
to report this review to Congress, and to make recommendations on sites 
that might round out the American story. It encourages cultural/ethnic 
groups to nominate sites important to their heritage for inclusion in 
the System, and to recommend changes in the interpretation of present 
sites to improve historic accuracy.
  America is etched with a rich historical record. I commend those who 
have succeeded in adding important heritage sites to the National park 
System. Units like the National Underground Railroad Network to 
Freedom, authorized by Congress in 1998, and the Juan Bautista de Anza 
National Historic Trail in California, tracing the path of a party of 
Spanish colonists in 1776, ensure that these events do not pass from 
our historical landscape. There are certainly many as equally important 
sites to consider.
  Mr. President, I would like to include in the Record letters from the 
Ambassador of Spain and the Spanish Institute for Military History and 
Culture. These letters exemplify the willingness of those who 
contributed to the history of the United States to help in this effort. 
The Ambassador points out how the Institute's letter, ``opens the way 
for a cooperation between the two institutions that could result in a 
much better use of the many historical sites, of Spanish origin, on 
American soil. They could ``make the stones speak'' to many people in 
this country who are still unaware of a very rich and common 
heritage.'' I am sure other countries will be willing to help 
illustrate how the history of our country is linked to their own 
history.
  Our National Park System, the treasured sites of American history, 
must contain the history of all Americans. If not, our National Park 
System is like a partially woven tapestry, depicting only part of the 
picture. Instead let our National Park System be woven, whole and 
beautiful, from the multi-colored threads of history of the people of 
these United States.
  I hope this proposal will move us one step closer to a National Park 
System where all Americans should be entitled to see the role of their 
people in the exploration, settlement and development of this country. 
And I see it as complementing Senator Akaka's bill, S. 2478, calling 
for a study on the ``Peopling of America,'' which I am honored to co-
sponsor.
  The second major section of the National Parks Stewardship act deals 
with financial resources.
  Last year, I introduced legislation with Senators Reid and Mack, S. 
819, the National Park Preservation Act, that would provide dedicated 
funding to the National Park Service to restore and conserve the 
natural, cultural and historic resources in our park system. We 
continue to work toward final passage of S. 819. However, this bill 
alone does not meet all of the needs in our National Parks.
  The need for construction and maintenance in National Parks is great. 
Backlog estimates range from 2 to 8 billion dollars, depending on the 
method of calculation.
  In order to accommodate many visitors each year, some National Parks 
have facilities and services that rival those of towns or small cities. 
Along with these facilities come the problems of infrastructure 
maintenance and repair that are beyond the reach of annually 
appropriated budgets.
  Even at Yellowstone National Park, certainly a crown jewel of the 
system, a dilapidated sewer system leaking untreated waste befouls what 
should be pristine streams and lakes. At Yellowstone, a park visited by 
over 3 million people a year, certainly we should provide the means for 
financing a new sewer system.
  My colleague Senator McCain addressed this need through his bill, S. 
831, which would authorize a portion of park entrance fees to be used 
to secure bonds for these very necessary capital improvements. Bonding 
would seem to be a workable approach, if we could find an appropriate 
way for a federal agency to issue revenue bonds.
  The National Parks Stewardship Act introduced today calls for the 
Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Interior to study 
and report to Congress how National Parks could issue revenue bonds to 
meet such large infrastructure needs.
  The authority to issue revenue bonds places into the hands of 
National Park superintendents a tool to generate the funds to make 
these repairs.
  The second revenue provision I propose is to make the recreation fee 
program in operation as a demonstration since its authorization in 1996 
into a permanent park program. The program has demonstrated that park 
visitors can get a good return on the fees they pay; a return paid out 
in better maintained facilities, improved visitor services, and all-in-
all, a more enjoyable park visit.
  To underscore the importance of recreation fee permanence, I, along 
with Senator Gorton, am introducing today the ``Recreation Fee 
Authority Act of 2000,'' a stand along piece of legislation containing 
these provisions.
  In fiscal year 1999, the recreation fee demonstration program 
generated $176.4 million in fee revenue at National Parks, National 
Forests, National Wildlife Refuges and Bureau of Land Management sites. 
Even more important than the amount collected is the fact that the 
large majority of the fees were retained at the site where collected 
for use in Park operations, maintenance, resource protection and 
visitor services.
  Biscayne National Park, where I worked for a day in April, is one of 
the units benefitting from the recreation fee demonstration program. 
Last year, that park collected over $20,000 in recreation fees. At 
Biscayne, these funds were used to:
  replace the broken tables and grills in the picnic area;
  restore a historic breeze way trail across Elliott Key; and
  renovate the public showers and bathrooms on Elliott Key, improving 
their accessibility for people with disabilities.
  When park visitors see their ``fees at work'' in the form of improved 
facilities and services, research has shown that they understand and 
support the collection of an appropriate and reasonable fee. Over 95 
percent of respondents to this year's National Survey on Recreation and 
the Environment felt

[[Page 13001]]

reasonable fees were acceptable as a means for funding recreation 
services on public lands.
  The recreation fee demonstration authority is temporary. If it is not 
extended or made permanent, Biscayne and other National Parks will lose 
this very necessary means to get the job done. Let's instead make this 
a permanent tool for National Park Stewardship.
  In addition to revenue bonding and the recreation fee program, I 
propose the expanded use of Challenge Cost Share agreements, which 
allow the ``leveraging'' of Park Service appropriations with funds from 
the private sector and other federal agencies.
  The final tool I propose in this legislation focuses on the 
professional skills of those we employ as the stewards for National 
Parks. Professionals typically attracted to the Service come from many 
fields, including education, recreation management, and the biological 
sciences. Today park managers must also demonstrate fiscal and program 
accountability and management planning, skills that are not found 
throughout National Park Service ranks.
  I am proposing a pilot program, ``Professionals for Parks'', to 
attract needed skilled professionals to National Park Service careers. 
It will focus on recruiting at business schools across the country, 
offering talented graduates an entry level professional job within the 
National Park Service and a student loan buy-back program.
  Professionals for Parks will add to National Park Service ranks the 
business management skills needed for better management, leading to 
long term stewardship. And we know this can make a difference.
  We're looking for people like Nick Hardigg, a recent graduate of the 
Yale School of Management, who is now working as Chief of Concessions 
at Denali National Park. His financial analysis of the visitor 
transportation system in Denali led to a newly negotiated contract with 
the bus company. This contract allows for a healthy profit for the 
operator and for the first time in several years does not increase fees 
to park visitors. It also protects park resources by providing a 
quality transportation system.
  It's a long way from the Ivy League to the Alaskan wilderness. Mr. 
Hardigg has made that journey, and has put his business skills to good 
use for National Park stewardship.
  Mr. President, the National Park Stewardship Act is not calling for a 
revolution in the National Park System. It recognizes the value of what 
we have in the National Park System, recognizes what we stand to lose 
without immediate attention, and supplies the tools to the right people 
to tackle the job.
  In closing I would like to recall the words of John Chafee, a 
visionary statesman who helped craft much of the foundation on which 
our system of environmental protection rests.
  In 1994, he reminded us of the importance of our Parks stewardship 
role:

       I can think of no instance where the Government has 
     designated an area as a park and years later people have 
     looked back, regretted the decision, and tried to reverse it. 
     As we continue to develop and extract resources from the 
     remaining open spaces in our Nation, it is important that we 
     ensure that there will always be places where people can get 
     away and renew their spirits, breathe fresh air, and 
     appreciate nature's gifts.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    National Parks


                                     Conservation Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 23, 2000.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: The National Parks and Conservation 
     Association (NPCA) would like to commend you and your 
     cosponsors for the introduction of the National Parks 
     Stewardship Act. This bill includes many provisions that will 
     promote better protection and management of national park 
     resources.
       As you know, the beginning of the 21st century is a 
     watershed moment for Americans and our National Park System. 
     One hundred and twenty-eight years after the establishment of 
     Yellowstone, we have a magnificent park system that stretches 
     from the coast of Maine to the tropical reefs of American 
     Samoa. Millions people visit and enjoy these parks every 
     year.
       However, the National Park System also is severely 
     troubled. Threats to the health of the National Park System 
     fall into several broad categories: lack of funding; 
     activities that damage park resources from inside and outside 
     park boundaries; and poor management. As a result, basic 
     information about park resources is lacking, much of the 
     infrastructure and visitor services are in poor condition, 
     and parks are increasingly jeopardized by activities around 
     them.
       Your National Stewardship Act addresses many of these 
     concerns by:
       Facilitating the issuance of national park revenue bonds 
     that would help finance needed improvements at national 
     parks;
       Requiring that all activities in national parks be 
     consistent with resource protection and preservation;
       Ensuring that other federal government agencies respect the 
     integrity of national park lands;
       Promoting the protection of the historical documents in 
     National Park Service collections;
       Expanding the opportunities for national park managers to 
     develop public administration and business management skills.
       The National Parks Stewardship Act also ensures that the 
     National Park System will better represent the diverse 
     heritage of all people of the United States. Support for the 
     National Park System runs deep in the hearts of millions of 
     Americans. That support, however, will wane if significant 
     numbers of people feel disconnected from the message and 
     meaning of the parks. To ensure continued public support, and 
     historical relevance, the National Parks Stewardship Act 
     requires that the National Park Service review existing sites 
     to determine if there are deficiencies in the accurate 
     representation of all peoples that contributed to the shaping 
     of the United States. We commend you for this farsighted 
     proposal.
       Thank you for undertaking this effort to assure the 
     vitality of the National Park System through the 21st century 
     and beyond. We look forward to promoting this legislation 
     with you.
           Sincerely,
     Thomas C. Kiernan.
                                  ____



                                       El Embajador de Espana,

                                   Washington, DC, April 27, 2000.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator, I have read with the utmost interest your 
     proposed legislation on the role of the National Park Service 
     of the United States in conservation and promotion of 
     historic sites in this country.
       With respect to the numerous monuments left by Spain in the 
     southern States, we would certainly welcome all possible 
     cooperation with the Park Service to give these venerable 
     ruins a real cultural and educational purpose. We believe 
     that solid support from historians and other experts from 
     Spanish official institutions such as our Ministry of Defense 
     or the Institute for the Protection of Historic Legacy, could 
     make these sites incite the interest of new generations on 
     pages of their past that they might have insufficient 
     knowledge of.
       I have written to the two aforementioned Spanish cultural 
     institutions to ensure their willingness to collaborate with 
     the National Park Service on the goals set forth in the draft 
     Resolution.
       In the meantime, let me assure you of our enthusiastic 
     support for your initiative that I certainly hope will muster 
     the necessary backing from the rest of the Senate.
       Thanking you most warmly for your enlightened defense of 
     the cultural integrity of this great country.
       I remain,
           Yours very sincerely,
     Antonio de Oyarzabal.
                                  ____



                                       El Embajador de Espana,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 2000.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator, I am pleased to enclose the attached letter 
     from my friend General Penaranda, the Director of the 
     Institute for Military History and Culture in Madrid, in 
     response to my request for support to your initiative in 
     Congress, on behalf of the ``National Park Service.''
       I think General Penaranda's very enthusiastic answer opens 
     the way for a cooperation between the two institutions that 
     could result in a much better use of the many historical 
     sites, of Spanish origin, on American soil. They could ``make 
     the stones speak'' to many young people in this country who 
     are still unaware of a very rich and common heritage.


                                           Embajada de Espana,

                                             Madrid, May 29, 2000.
     His Excellency Ambassador Antonio de Oyarzabal Marchesi,
     Ambassador of Spain to the U.S.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ambassador and Friend: It gives me great pleasure to 
     be able to oblige you with regard to the wishes of the 
     National Park

[[Page 13002]]

     Service which you refer to in your letter of April 26. I have 
     consulted this Institute's Standing Committee on Historical 
     Studies (Comision Permanente de Estudios Historicos) 
     regarding the possibility of satisfying the possible American 
     request, and it could not be more favorably disposed to the 
     idea. It is very satisfying to be able to cooperate in some 
     way in the efforts to heighten the historical value of the 
     old Spanish military monuments in the U.S. as well as that of 
     any other collection of documents, books or movables that can 
     be considered part of this important historical legacy.
       This institute has a considerable collection of documents 
     and artifacts in its archives relating to the ancient 
     viceroyalty and overseas provinces. Most of the items have 
     already been catalogued (some have even been studied by U.S. 
     specialists). Now we are in the advanced stages of 
     negotiation with Puerto Rico whose Legislative Assembly has 
     already allocated a budget for cataloguing, microfilming and 
     digitizing all the material in our historical military 
     archives about matters related to that island.
       In any case, Antonio, you know that you can count on the 
     Institute for Military History and Culture to initiate a 
     collaborative effort with the National Park Service. It would 
     be advisable to establish direct contact between the National 
     Park Service and this Institute so as to define the matters 
     of most interest to them. While we could begin in writing, a 
     trip to Spain by a director or historian of the Park Service 
     so that they might gain an understanding in situ of our 
     capabilities with regard to their projects would be very 
     fruitful. They will be most warmly received.
       I am at your service!
           With my best regards,
                                     Juan Ma de Penaranda y Algar.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Florida, Senator Graham, in introducing legislation today that seeks to 
permanently authorize the recreation fee program for the federal land 
management agencies. Congress authorized the Recreation Fee 
Demonstration Program in the FY 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Recissions 
and Appropriations Act, and has extended the program through the 
Interior Appropriations bill several times since 1996.
  In the Pacific Northwest, the fees collected by the National Park 
Service and Forest Service have been a tremendous additional resource 
to provide improved campgrounds, trails, and other visitor facilities. 
As chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations Committee, I have 
consistently provided increases for operations, maintenance, and repair 
of park, forest, and refuge facilities. Regardless, this country's love 
affair with recreation and the great outdoors has begun to take its 
toll on the public lands we enjoy so much.
  Since I took over the chairmanship of the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee, I also have been faced with an unending list of federal 
land acquisition proposals. The demand to increase the federal 
government's land base cannot be considered in a vacuum, especially 
when we're faced with at least a $12 billion maintenance backlog on the 
lands we already own. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office 
recommended last year that the federal government place a ten-year 
moratorium on land acquisitions in an effort to address the backlog in 
maintenance projects.
  I don't support taking such an extreme step. Rather, I believe we can 
have a reasonable level of land acquisitions, but we also need to 
commit to finding the additional resources to maintain what we already 
have. I am committed to providing access to our public lands, but this 
can only happen if we have enough funding to maintain the land and 
facilities treasured by Americans and visitors from all over the world.
  Over the past five years of the fee demonstration project, the 
federal agencies have tested various types of fees and collection 
methods in preparation for the possibility of some day establishing a 
long-term, consistent, and fair fee program. In general terms, the 
project has been a great success, providing the federal land management 
agencies nearly $200 million last year in additional revenue for 
maintenance and repair projects, and resources for improved visitor 
services.
  In 1999, at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest in my state, the program 
allowed this Forest to clear 739.6 miles of trail, hire 22 trail 
maintenance workers, develop leveraged partnerships with non-profit 
groups to accomplish maintenance work with volunteers, and maintain 67 
trailhead toilets and 136 trailheads. All of this vital work was 
accomplished by charging $3 for day passes or $25 for an annual pass.
  Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported the Interior 
Appropriations bill, which extends the Recreation Demonstration Fee 
Program through the end of fiscal year 2002. Despite my resistance to 
using the Interior bill to continue this program, I felt it was vital 
to provide the agencies certainty for another year. In fact, recent 
improvements to the Forest Service fee program in the Northwest, 
including the new Northwest Forest Pass, would have been jeopardized 
without the extension.
  With that said, I believe the Senate, through the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, deserves the opportunity to fully consider 
legislation to permanently authorize the recreation fee program. The 
success stories are abundant, but by no means am I blind to the 
problems we've seen over the past five years. Most importantly, the 
public deserves the opportunity to participate, both through hearings 
and contact with their elected representatives, to provide us the input 
we need to authorize a permanent program.
  That's why I have chosen to join Senator Graham today in introducing 
a bill to begin the debate over how and whether Congress should 
permanently authorize the recreation fee program. The bill we've 
crafted provides the framework for a permanent program that will build 
upon the successes and correct the problems we've seen so far.
  I want to stress that this bill will serve as the starting point for 
what I hope to be a full and deliberative discourse on recreation fees. 
I intend to work with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to 
hold a series of hearings, including field hearings, so representatives 
of recreation groups, gateway communities, and other interested parties 
can air their concerns and suggestions. My staff and I have spent a 
considerable amount of time meeting and talking with recreation groups 
based in Washington state. I am certain there will be many ways we can 
improve the legislation introduced today to address their concerns 
through the committee process, and I am excited to continue that 
dialogue.
  It goes without saying that no one really wants to pay a fee to 
recreate on public lands. The key to making a permanent program a 
success in the future will depend on keeping the fees reasonable and 
the results tangible. The most important component of the Recreation 
Fee Demonstration Project is the requirement that 80 percent of the 
fees remain at the site the fees are collected. The legislation 
introduced today maintains that requirement. In addition, Congress and 
the Administration must make a firm commitment to uphold its 
responsibility to continue to increase appropriations in the future to 
reduce the maintenance backlog. It's a two-way street, and we must all 
do our part.
  Further, I fully expect to address other issues raised by my friends 
in the recreation community. Although the situation has improved 
recently, the multiple fee structures tested by the Forest Service 
created a confusing and frustrating situation for hikers and rock 
climbers. In particular, rock climbers have been hit with multiple fees 
for just one visit to the forest. Many recreationists are calling for 
multi-agency passes. I find this idea intriguing and would urge further 
discussion through the committee process. I must note, however, that 
multi-agency fees may distract from the expectation that fees remain at 
the facilities and sites where they are collected. Further, some 
outdoor enthusiasts are concerned the fee program could inspire over-
building on our public lands to justify collection of the fees. I, too, 
am concerned with preserving the integrity of our public lands and 
avoiding the impulse to provide unnecessary facilities. This 
legislation directs the agencies to place a priority on deferred 
maintenance projects. But again, these are topics that deserve 
thoughtful discussion, and I look forward to addressing them in the 
near future.
  Finally, many active recreationists have made a strong case for 
developing

[[Page 13003]]

a recognition program that rewards volunteers for dedicating their time 
to improving our public lands. Many forests and parks have well-
developed volunteer programs, while others do not. I am dedicated to 
working with recreation groups to provide the agencies appropriate 
guidelines in the bill to develop a consistent program that provides 
volunteers reduced or free access to our public lands.
  Again, I want to thank my colleague from Florida for being a leader 
in the protection of the nation's public lands. I look forward to 
working with him, and the members of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, to authorize a permanent program that provides necessary 
resources to maintain and improve these national treasures for 
generations to come.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON:
  S. 2818. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to 
establish a flexible fallow program under which a producer may idle a 
portion of the total planted acreage of the loan commodities of the 
producer in exchange for higher loan rates for marketing assistance 
loans on the remaining acreage of the producer; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


           the food security and land stewardship act of 2000

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to amend 
the 1996 farm bill. This legislation is really the culmination of at 
least two years of work on the part of two agricultural producers from 
my home State of South Dakota. These two individuals, Craig Blindert of 
Salem and Phil Cyre of Watertown, have devoted an enormous amount of 
time and energy refining the proposal I am introducing today and I want 
to express my thanks and gratitude.
  While some policy makers purport to have all the answers to 
agricultural policy and our current economic disaster in farm country, 
I am proud that two South Dakota farmers approached me with their plan. 
Mr. Blindert and Mr. Cyre exhibit a quality inherent to a farmer that 
most policy makers will never exhibit, something I call ``tractor seat 
common sense.'' Former President Eisenhower once said, farming looks 
mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles away 
from a farm. Instead of pretending I have all of the answers, I think 
it just makes good practical sense to listen to farmers who know their 
business better than anyone in the world, and that is what I have tried 
to do with this proposal.
  Unfortunately, all of that expertise our farmers demonstrate about 
the production of crops and livestock, marketing, and risk management 
means little when our farm policy and agribusinesses minimizes them 
into mere price takers. The legislation I am introducing today attempts 
to allow farmers to become price setters in response to the free 
market, and it attempts to ensure responsibility from agribusiness to 
finally offer a decent price for commodities.
  The current economic setting and commodity price forecast for farmers 
and ranchers remains disastrous. Crop prices have absolutely collapsed 
with corn prices at a 12 year low, soybeans prices at a 27 year low, 
and wheat prices that have not been so low since 1977. Meatpacker 
concentration and unfair livestock dumping are still crippling 
livestock producers. Prices paid for livestock have remained low in the 
pork and lamb sectors while they have recovered, at a very limited and 
still unprofitable rate, for cattle producers. As a result, net farm 
income has plummeted to around $40 billion this past year, plunging $9 
billion from last year, without government assistance. Agricultural 
exports are down over $11 billion from 1996, and constricted global 
demand for our agricultural products restricts exports from boosting 
prices.
  It is clear that once again this disastrous marketplace clouds the 
landscape of rural America as a woefully inadequate farm bill continues 
to rip the safety net from beneath farmers and ranchers. If not for 
government market loss assistance the last three years--a record level 
of $23 billion in 1999--many hard-working farmers and ranchers might be 
out of business.
  The course of the last few years under the current farm bill has 
given all of us the opportunity to measure the theories of Freedom to 
Farm against the practical reality of experience. The measurable 
results of that practical experience should convince Congress we cannot 
delay to reform the current farm bill. Some tend to ignore this 
reality, choosing instead to overlook the flawed farm policy, in hopes 
that over time our nation's family farmers and ranchers will find 
themselves enjoying the prosperity of our booming economy. However, 
most farmers merely read about this prosperity as they face escalating 
production expenses, eroding equity, and collapsing crop prices.
  Delay in reforming farm policy is dangerous to the entire fabric of 
rural America. The other day a farmer remarked to me, ``the best time 
for Congress to write a better farm bill would have been in 1996, but, 
the next best time is today.'' I couldn't agree more.
  Congress cannot continue to overlook the link between the current 
financial stress our family producers face and the 1996 farm bill 
provisions which eliminated the financial safety net for farmers. 
Consequently, there should be no higher priority for this Congress to 
accomplish in farm policy than to restore a fair price from a truly 
free marketplace.
  The legislation I am introducing today is not a radical departure 
from the current farm bill. We try to reinforce the advantages of 
Freedom to Farm while improving upon other areas of our farm policy. 
Coined ``Flexible Fallow'' by the farmers who developed it, my proposal 
adds a voluntary, annual, conservation-use feature to the loan rate 
provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill. Should a farmer desire to operate 
under current farm bill conditions, my legislation ensures that 
opportunity. However, should a farmer need greater leverage over crop 
production and marketing, Flex Fallow guarantees that planting and 
marketing flexibility.
  Neil Harl of Iowa State University, arguably the most respected 
agricultural economist in the country, has enthusiastically endorsed my 
Flex Fallow proposal. In a letter to me he describes Flex Fallow as 
``the missing link to the 1996 farm bill.'' He believes this proposal 
will function in a market oriented fashion and ensure that ``farmers 
continue to make production decisions based upon their own operations 
in a manner that makes economic sense.''
  Mr. President, farmers electing to devote a portion of their total 
crop acreage to conservation-use under my bill receive a higher loan 
rate on their remaining crop production. On an annual and crop-by-crop 
basis, farmers can choose to conserve up to thirty percent of their 
total crop acreage.
  An adjustable loan rate schedule is a key feature of this proposal. 
With the exception of wheat and soybeans, the proposed base loan rates 
for 0 percent participation in Flex Fallow (otherwise known as full 
production) are set at 2000 levels. Participation in Flex Fallow is 
directly proportional to increased loan rates. For corn, wheat, and 
soybeans, loan rates increase by one percent for each one percent 
increase in conservation-use.
  In 1999, the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) 
completed an analysis of the Flex Fallow proposal. I believe the 
results were very promising. In years and regions (areas of the country 
with a wide basis) of low commodity prices, Flex Fallow encourages 
farmers to voluntarily set-aside land in turn for a higher loan rate. 
Yet in years of better commodity prices, farmers are inclined to 
produce for the market, planting most or all of their land to crop 
production. The reduced plantings in years of poor crop prices, like 
the last three years, would lead to higher crop prices. More 
specifically, reduced plantings in the first two years of the program 
would translate into the following higher crop prices. Corn prices rise 
27 cents per bushel over current levels, soybean prices climb 44 cents 
per bushel, wheat prices recover 29 cents per bushel, and cotton prices 
rise 9 cents per pound. The FAPRI analysis predicts a commodity price 
recovery in the long-

[[Page 13004]]

term, and the analysis found participation in Flex Fallow to decline 
after 2002.
  While I work on this amendment to the current farm bill, I am 
absolutely open to other ideas and alternatives that revise our farm 
policy. Unlike the authors of the 1996 farm bill, I do not cling to a 
pride in authorship in a farm program. So, I want the opportunity to 
support as many viable alternatives as possible.
  In summary, here are a few highlights of the Flex Fallow farm bill 
amendment I am introducing today. Flex Fallow is flexible and 
adjustable enough to meet the needs of individual farm operations. Flex 
Fallow is voluntary. Flex Fallow is market-oriented because it permits 
farmers the freedom to plant for marketplace conditions. Flex Fallow 
emphasizes conservation practices. Flex Fallow updates yield data and 
eliminates current base acres. Flex Fallow targets disaster assistance 
to producers who suffer from weather-related crop loss and price 
collapse. Finally, Flex Fallow will result in a modest cost to 
taxpayers. The FAPRI analysis finds net Commodity Credit Corporation 
expenditures under Flex Fallow to compare with that of the 1996 farm 
bill without billion-dollar emergency spending additions.
  In the coming months I anticipate a full airing of my Flex Fallow 
amendment to the farm bill, alongside other pieces of farm bill reform 
legislation that others in Congress may introduce. I expect to refine 
this proposal after discussing it further with farmers and farm 
organizations across South Dakota and the entire country. As a result, 
it is likely I will introduce another piece of legislation similar to 
Flex Fallow in the next session of Congress, wherein two other 
significant issues will be addressed.
  First, of critical importance to me is the need to design a farm bill 
in the future that targets the benefits to family-sized farmers and 
ranchers. Too often, Congress and the Administration devise tactics to 
ignore and plow under the existing farm program payment limitations. If 
we have a limited amount of taxpayer funds in which to devote to price 
support for farmers, it simply makes sense to target those benefits to 
small and mid-sized family producers. While the amendment I introduce 
today does not alter current payments limits under the farm bill, I am 
a strong supporter of targeting. As such, I will work to place 
sensible, responsible, payment limitations that provide benefits to all 
but ensure targeted benefits to the small and mid-sized family farmers 
and ranchers who need and deserve greater attention from Congress.
  Second, I believe Congress will be unable to develop a future farm 
bill without the support of those in the conservation and wildlife 
community. I am a strong supporter of conservation programs that 
protect sensitive soil and water resources, promote wildlife habitat, 
and provide farmers and landowners with benefits and incentives to 
conserve land. Flex Fallow can work very well with both short-term and 
longer-term conservation practices. It is my goal to bring conservation 
groups together with farm interests in order to develop a well-balanced 
approach to future farm policy that protects our resources while 
promoting family-farm agriculture.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Dr. Harl 
be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                             Iowa State University


                                    of Science and Technology,

                                         Ames, IA, April 17, 2000.
     Senator Tim Johnson,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johnson: It is my understanding that 
     legislation based on the ``Flexible-Fallow'' concept 
     developed and advanced by Craig Blindert and Phil Cyre of 
     South Dakota is being prepared for introduction. I would like 
     to write in strong support of the legislation and do so most 
     enthusiastically.
       Mr. Blindert called me in late 1998 with a request for a 
     half day to discuss a farm bill proposal. I was extremely 
     busy at the time but reluctantly agreed to set aside an 
     afternoon in late December. As the proposal was explained, I 
     could see that what Blindert and Cyre had developed was the 
     missing link for the 1996 farm bill. I wrote in strong 
     support of the proposal following that meeting--encouraging 
     an analysis by the Food and Agriculture Policy Research 
     Institute (FAPRI)-- and am even more supportive today.
       The weak element of the 1996 farm bill was the downside 
     protection in the event of pressure on the supply side for 
     commodities. A series of normal to good weather years, a drop 
     of nearly 20 percent in exports and the relentless effects of 
     technology have combined to produce very low prices for most 
     crops.
       What I find so appealing about the Blindert-Dyre proposal 
     is that--(1) the proposal would function in a market-oriented 
     manner; (2) it would be most appealing in the so-called 
     ``swing'' areas which are expected to shift land use patterns 
     when prices for intensively-produced crops are low and to 
     return to such production when prices recover; (3) the 
     proposal would self-correct when prices rise; (4) it would 
     entail only a modest amount of administrative involvement on 
     a discretionary basis; (5) it would enable producers to 
     continue to make decisions based on their own situation, in a 
     manner that makes economic sense to them; and (6) the cost 
     would be modest to taxpayers and to consumers.
       I would be pleased to respond further in support of the 
     proposal. Mr. Blindert and Mr. Cyre are to be commended for 
     developing what I believe would be an enormously helpful 
     adjunct to the 1996 farm bill.
           Sincerely,
     Neil E. Harl,
       Charles F. Curtiss Distinguished Professor in Agriculture, 
     Professor of Economics and Director, Center for International 
     Agricultural Finance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 2819. To provide for the establishment of an assistance program 
for health insurance consumers; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.


                the health care consumer assistance act

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator 
Jeffords today to introduce the Health Care Consumer Assistance Act. 
This important legislation seeks to address a significant problem that 
currently exists in the health insurance market, the lack of a reliable 
source of information and assistance for health care consumers.
  In 1997, President Clinton's Health Quality Commission identified the 
need for consumer assistance programs that allow consumers access to 
accurate, easily understood information and get assistance in making 
informed decisions about health plans and providers. Earlier this 
month, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Consumer Reports 
magazine released the results of a survey they conducted on consumer 
satisfaction with their health plans. Their survey is part of a larger 
project looking at ways to improve how consumers resolve problems with 
their health insurance plans. The survey found that while most people 
who experienced a problem with their plan were often able to resolve 
them, the majority of those surveyed were confused about where to go 
for information and help if they have a problem with their health plan. 
Eventhough a growing number of states have taken steps to give patients 
new rights in dealing with their health insurance plans, most consumers 
are either unaware or do not know how to exercise those rights.
  The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Jeffords seeks to 
remedy this information gap by providing grants to states that wish to 
establish health care consumer assistance programs. These programs are 
designed to help consumers understand and act on their health care 
choices, rights, and responsibilities. Under this bill, the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services will offer states funds to create or 
contract with an independent, nonprofit agency to provide a variety of 
information and support services for health care consumers, including 
the following: educational materials for health care consumers about 
strategies to resolve problems and grievances; operate a 1-800 
telephone hotline to respond to consumer inquiries; coordinate and make 
referral to other private and public health care entities when 
appropriate; conduct

[[Page 13005]]

education and outreach in the community; and collect and disseminate 
data about nature of inquiries, problems and grievances handled by the 
program.
  The concept of a health care consumer assistance program has already 
received considerable support and several states have taken the 
initiative to create these programs. Governors and state legislatures 
in many states including, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland, 
Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin 
have introduced or enacted health care ombudsman legislation. While 
some states have successfully launched their programs, other state 
initiatives have faltered due to a lack of sufficient funding.
  While important strides are being made to enhance health care 
consumer information and resources, clearly more needs to be done to 
expand access to these simple and cost-effective services to all 
Americans.
  Mr. President, I believe that Americans deserve access to the 
information and assistance they need to be empowered and informed 
health care consumers. As the health insurance system becomes more 
confusing and complex, it is critically important that as consumers 
navigate this system, they have a place where they can go for 
information, counseling and assistance. As health plan options become 
more complicated and the web of policies and principles governing those 
plans becomes more enmeshed, people need a reliable, accessible source 
of information, and state health care consumer assistance programs have 
proven their ability to meet this challenge. I look forward to working 
with my colleague, Senator Jeffords, in advancing this important and 
timely legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of my bill 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2819

       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 ``Health Care Consumer 
     Assistance Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) People with health care insurance or coverage have many 
     more options with respect to coverage of, payment or payments 
     for, items, services or treatments. Also, their health plans, 
     coverages, rights, and providers are frequently being 
     reorganized, expanded, or limited.
       (2) All consumers need information and assistance to 
     understand their health insurance choices and to maximize 
     their access to needed health services. Many do not 
     understand their health care rights or how to exercise them, 
     despite the current efforts of both the public and private 
     sectors.
       (3) Few people with health care coverage have independent 
     credible sources of information or assistance to guide their 
     decisionmaking or to help resolve problems.
       (4) It is important to maintain and strengthen a productive 
     working relationship between all consumers and their health 
     care professionals and health insurance providers.
       (5) Federally initiated health care consumer assistance and 
     information programs targeted to consumers of long-term care 
     and to medicare beneficiaries under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) are effective, as are a 
     number of State and local consumer assistance initiatives.
       (6) The principles, policies, and practices of health care 
     providers for delivering safe, effective, and accessible 
     health care can be enriched by State-based collaborative, 
     independent education, problem resolution, and feedback 
     programs. Health care consumer assistance programs have 
     proven their ability to meet this challenge.
       (7) Health care consumers want and need reliable 
     information about their health care options that integrates 
     data and effective resolution strategies from the full range 
     of available resources. Health care consumer assistance 
     programs can provide that reliable, problem-solving 
     information to help in navigating the health care system.
       (8) Health care delivered to individuals and within 
     communities can be improved by collecting and examining 
     consumers' experiences, questions, and problems and the ways 
     in which their questions and problems are resolved. Health 
     care consumer assistance programs can educate and inform 
     consumers to be more effective, self-directed health care 
     consumers.
       (9) Many states have created health care consumer 
     assistance programs. The Federal Government can assist the 
     States in developing and maintaining effective health care 
     consumer assistance programs.

     SEC. 3. GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall award 
     grants to States to enable such States to establish and 
     administer (including the administration of programs 
     established by States prior to the enactment of this Act) 
     consumer assistance programs designed to provide information, 
     assistance, and referrals to consumers of health insurance 
     products.
       (b) State Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this section a State shall prepare and submit to the 
     Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary may require, 
     including a State plan that describes--
       (1) the manner in which the State will establish, or 
     solicit proposals for, and enter into a contract with, an 
     entity eligible under subsection (d) to serve as the health 
     care consumer assistance office for the State;
       (2) the manner in which the State will ensure that the 
     health care consumer assistance office will assist health 
     care consumers in accessing needed care by educating and 
     assisting health insurance enrollees to be responsible and 
     informed consumers;
       (3) the manner in which the State will coordinate and 
     distinguish the services provided by the health care consumer 
     assistance office with the services provided by the long-term 
     care ombudsman authorized by the Older Americans Act of 1965 
     (42 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), the State health insurance 
     information program authorized under section 4360 of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1395b-
     4), the protection and advocacy program authorized under the 
     Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 
     1986 (42 U.S.C. 10801 et seq.), and any other programs that 
     provide information and assistance to health care consumers;
       (4) the manner in which the State will coordinate and 
     distinguish the health care consumer assistance office and 
     its services from enrollment services provided under the 
     medicaid and State children's health insurance programs under 
     titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 
     et seq. and 1397aa et seq.), and medicare and medicaid health 
     care fraud and abuse activities including those authorized by 
     Federal law under title 11 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1301 et seq.);
       (5) the manner in which the State will provide services to 
     underserved and minority populations and populations residing 
     in rural areas;
       (6) the manner in which the State will establish and 
     implement procedures and protocols to ensure the 
     confidentiality of all information shared by consumers and 
     their health care providers, health plans, or insurers with 
     the office established under subsection (d)(1) and to ensure 
     that no such information is used, released or referred 
     without the express permission of the consumer, except to the 
     extent that the office collects or uses aggregate information 
     as described in section 4(c)(8);
       (7) the manner in which the State will provide for the 
     collection of non-Federal contributions for the operations of 
     the office in an amount that is not less than 30 percent of 
     the amount of Federal funds provided under this Act; and
       (8) the manner in which the State will ensure that funds 
     made available under this Act will be used to supplement, and 
     not supplant, any other Federal, State, or local funds 
     expended to provide services for programs described under 
     this Act and those described in paragraphs (3) and (4).
       (c) Amount of Grant.--
       (1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under section 4 
     for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall award a grant to a 
     State in an amount that bears the same ratio to such amounts 
     as the number of individuals within the State covered under a 
     health insurance plan (as determined by the Secretary) bears 
     to the total number of individuals covered under a health 
     insurance plan in all States (as determined by the 
     Secretary). Any amounts provided to a State under this 
     section that are not used by the State shall be remitted to 
     the Secretary and reallocated in accordance with this 
     paragraph.
       (2) Minimum amount.--In no case shall the amount provided 
     to a State under a grant under this section for a fiscal year 
     be less than an amount equal to .5 percent of the amount 
     appropriated for such fiscal year under section 5.
       (d) Provision of Funds For Establishment of Office.--
       (1) In general.--From amounts provided under a grant under 
     this section, a State shall, directly or through a contract 
     with an independent, nonprofit entity with demonstrated 
     experience in serving the needs of health care consumers, 
     provide for the establishment and operation of a State health 
     care consumer assistance office.
       (2) Eligibility of entity.--To be eligible to enter into a 
     contract under paragraph (1), an entity shall demonstrate 
     that the entity has the technical, organizational, and 
     professional capacity to deliver the services described in 
     section 4 throughout the State to all public and private 
     health insurance consumers.

[[Page 13006]]



     SEC. 4. USE OF FUNDS.

       (a) By State.--
       (1) In general.--A State shall use amounts received under a 
     grant under this Act to establish and operate of a health 
     insurance consumer assistance office as provided for in this 
     section and section 3(d).
       (2) Noncompliance.--If the State fails to enter into or 
     renew a contract for the operation of a State health 
     insurance consumer assistance office, the Secretary shall 
     reallocate amounts to be provided to the State under this 
     Act.
       (b) By Entity.--An entity that enters into a contract with 
     a State under section 3(d) shall use amounts received under 
     the contract to establish and operate a health insurance 
     consumer assistance office.
       (c) Activities of Office.--A health insurance consumer 
     assistance office established under this Act shall--
       (1) operate a toll-free telephone hotline to respond to 
     requests for information and assistance with health care 
     problems and assist all health insurance consumers to 
     navigate the health care system;
       (2) acquire or produce and disseminate culturally and 
     language appropriate educational materials concerning health 
     insurance products available within the State, how best to 
     access health care, and the rights and responsibilities of 
     the health care consumer;
       (3) educate health care consumers about strategies that 
     such consumers can implement to promptly and efficiently 
     resolve inquiries, problems, and grievances related to health 
     insurance and access to health care;
       (4) refer health care consumers to appropriate private and 
     public entities so that inquiries, problems, and grievances 
     with respect to health insurance and access to health care 
     can be handled promptly and efficiently;
       (5) coordinate with health organizations in the State, 
     State health-insurance related agencies, and State 
     organizations responsible for administering the programs 
     described listed in paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 3(b) so 
     as to maximize the ability of consumers to resolve health 
     care questions and problems and achieve the best health care 
     outcomes;
       (6) conduct education and outreach within the State in 
     partnership with consumers, health plans, health care 
     providers, health care payers and governmental agencies with 
     health oversight responsibilities;
       (7) provide information to consumers about an internal, 
     external, or administrative grievance or appeals procedure 
     (in nonlitigative settings) to appeal the denial, 
     termination, or reduction of health care services, or the 
     refusal to pay for such services, under a health insurance 
     plan; and
       (8) provide information to State agencies, employers, 
     health plans, insurers, and the general public concerning the 
     kinds of inquiries, problems, and grievances handled by the 
     office.
       (d) Confidentiality and Access to Information.--The health 
     insurance consumer assistance office of a State shall 
     establish and implement procedures and protocols to ensure 
     the confidentiality of all information shared by consumers 
     and their health care providers, health plans, or insurers 
     with the office and to ensure that no such information is 
     used, released or referred to State agencies or outside 
     entities without the expressed permission of the consumer, 
     except to the extent that the office collects or uses 
     aggregate information described in subsection (c)(8).
       (e) Availability of Services.--The health insurance 
     consumer assistance office of a State shall not discriminate 
     in the provision of information and referrals regardless of 
     the source of the individual's health insurance coverage or 
     prospective coverage, including individuals covered under 
     employer-provided insurance, self-funded plans, the medicare 
     or medicaid programs under title XVII or XIX of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 and 1396 et seq.), or under any 
     other Federal or State health care program.
       (f) Designation of Responsibilities.--
       (1) Within existing state entity.--If the health insurance 
     consumer assistance office of a State is located within an 
     existing State regulatory agency or office of an elected 
     State official, the State shall ensure that--
       (A) there is a separate delineation of the funding, 
     activities, and responsibilities of the office as compared to 
     the other funding, activities, and responsibilities of the 
     agency; and
       (B) the office establishes and implements procedures and 
     protocols to ensure the confidentiality of all information 
     shared by consumers and their health care providers, health 
     plans, or insurers with the office and to ensure that no 
     information is transferred or released to the State agency or 
     office without the expressed permission of the consumer.
       (2) Contract entity.--In the case of an entity that enters 
     into a contract with a State under section 3(d), the entity 
     shall provide assurances that the entity has no real or 
     perceived conflict of interest in providing advice and 
     assistance to consumers regarding health insurance and that 
     the entity is independent of health insurance plans, 
     companies, providers, payers, and regulators of care.
       (g) Subcontracts.--The health insurance consumer assistance 
     office of a State may carry out activities and provide 
     services through contracts entered into with 1 or more 
     nonprofit entities so long as the office can demonstrate that 
     all of the requirements of this Act are complied with by the 
     office.
       (i) Training.--
       (1) In general.--The health insurance consumer assistance 
     office of a State shall ensure that personnel employed by the 
     office possess the skills, expertise, and information 
     necessary to provide the services described in subsection 
     (c).
       (2) Contracts.--To meet the requirement of paragraph (1), 
     an office may enter into contracts with 1 or more nonprofit 
     entities for the training (both through technical and 
     educational assistance) of personnel and volunteers. To be 
     eligible to receive a contract under this paragraph, an 
     entity shall be independent of health insurance plans, 
     companies, providers, payers, and regulators of care.
       (3) Limitation.--An amount not to exceed 7 percent of the 
     amount awarded to an entity under a contract under section 
     3(d) for a fiscal year may be used for the provision of 
     training under this section.
       (j) Administrative Costs.--An amount not to exceed 1 
     percent of the amount of a grant awarded to the State under 
     this Act for a fiscal year may be used by the State for 
     administrative expenses.
       (k) Term.--A contract entered into under this section shall 
     be for a term of 3 years.

     SEC. 5. FUNDING.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 to 
     carry out this Act.

     SEC. 6. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare and 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report 
     that contains--
       (1) a determination by the Secretary of whether amounts 
     appropriated to carry out this Act for the fiscal year for 
     which the report is being prepared are sufficient to fully 
     fund this Act in such fiscal year;
       (2) with respect to a fiscal year for which the Secretary 
     determines under paragraph (1) that sufficient amounts are 
     not appropriated, the recommendations of the Secretary for 
     fully funding this Act through the use of additional funding 
     sources; and
       (3) information on States that have been awarded a grant 
     under this Act and a summary of the activities of such States 
     and the data that is produced.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am here today to join in introducing 
the Health Care Consumer Assistance Act. This important bill has been 
crafted to help Americans navigate our increasingly complex and ever 
changing health care system. I want to recognize the leadership of 
Senator Jack Reed in bringing this issue forward for consideration.
  Americans need and want help with their health care. In a recent 
national survey, Consumers Report and the Kaiser Family Foundation 
learned that half of all managed care plan members have had a problem 
with their plan in the last year. The vast majority of those 
``problems'' were minor and successfully resolved in a very short 
period of time. However, a large number of Americans report significant 
financial consequences, lost time at work, or actual health declines as 
a result of these disputes.
  The same survey reports that 84% of Americans want ``an independent 
place to turn for help'' with their health care rights. In fact, 
Americans prefer, by a wide margin, an independent source of help, as 
provided for in the Health Care Consumer Assistance Act, rather than a 
right to sue.
  Three years ago, my own state recognized that Vermonters needed an 
independent program to help them navigate the complex health care 
delivery system. The state offices of the Division of Banking and 
Insurance and the Office of Vermont Health Access (our Medicaid agency) 
jointly administer the Vermont Ombudsman. It has helped Vermonters find 
care providers and use appeal procedures.
  It is time for the federal government to play a constructive role in 
aiding states like Vermont that will answer the needs of their citizens 
for a consumer-focused, consumer-directed health care assistance 
program. This bill builds on the existing state-based programs to 
provide an office that provides consumers with the basic and credible 
information they want and need to make all kinds of important health 
care decisions.
  The bill gives each State the opportunity to design a consumer 
assistance program that meets local needs. At the same time, the grant 
program calls

[[Page 13007]]

upon the state to coordinate this overall health care consumer 
assistance office's activities with its existing consumer assistance 
offices such as the long-term care Ombudsman program for long term care 
consumers and its work in registering children and families for S-CHIP.
  Access to quality health care services is a priority for every 
American family, every state, and this nation. It is clearly time for a 
federal commitment to help families get the health care information and 
assistance they want and need.
  Once again, I want to thank Senator Reed for this bipartisan effort 
on such important health legislation. Health care consumers, plans, 
providers, and states will be well served by enacting our legislation 
as soon as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (by request):
  S. 2820. A bill to provide for a public interest determination by the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission with respect to repair, replacement, 
or refund actions, and to revise the civil and criminal penalties, 
under both the Consumer Product Safety Act and the Federal Hazardous 
Substances Act; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


    the consumer product safety commission enhanced enforcement act

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce at the request of 
the Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission Enhanced Enforcement Act of 
2000. This legislation is designed to enhance the authority of the CSPC 
to prevent the manufacture and sale of defective products.
  The legislation seeks to accomplish this goal in two significant 
ways. First, it proposes to remove the cap that exists under current 
law on the maximum civil penalty that can be assessed to companies that 
market products in violation of federal consumer product safety 
regulations. Currently, the maximum civil penalty that can be assessed 
to companies that violate consumer product safety laws is $1,650,000, a 
figure that is less than the amount that generally could be assessed by 
the CPSC. According to the agency, in many instances, it seeks 
penalties against very large companies, which likely are not deterred 
by the $1,650,000 cap. Second, the legislation proposes to increase the 
CPSC's authority over recalls by authorizing the Commission to 
determine the manner in which a defective product is to be corrected. 
Currently, a company that has marketed a defective product has the 
right to determine the remedy that is offered to the public, regardless 
of whether the selected remedy is the most effective solution. The 
proposed legislation alters this situation by permitting the CPSC to 
choose the remedy that is best suited to protect the public as opposed 
to the company.
  For these reasons, Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this act 
on behalf of the Administration and the CPSC.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. 
        Grassley, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Coverdell, and Mr. Biden):
  S. 2823. A bill to amend the Andean Trade Preference Act to grant 
certain benefits with respect to textile and apparel, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                      the plan colombia trade act

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by Senators 
DeWine, Moynihan, Grassley, Dodd, Coverdell, and Biden, to introduce 
the Plan Colombia Trade Act, a bill that would provide additional trade 
benefits to the nations of the Andean Trade Pact, which includes 
Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.
  This bill is an important component of Plan Colombia, which seeks to 
address not only the nation's crisis with respect to massive 
narcotrafficking and insurgent and paramilitary forces, but also 
focuses on Colombia's deep economic recession. The bill is consistent 
with U.S. policy of promoting trade and combating drugs on a regional 
basis, thereby ensuring that U.S. benefits and assistance provided to 
one nation do not adversely affect other nations in the immediate 
region. Such a strategy is the only way to avoid what is often 
described as the ``balloon effect,'' which has meant that the drug 
problem, at best, is displaced from one location to another. Finally, 
the bill would re-assert our commitment to promote economic growth and 
regional stability throughout the Andean region, and to provide 
alternatives to the cultivation and exportation of illegal narcotics.
  Passage of this legislation by the Senate will signal the United 
States' support of the Andean Trade Pact's economic reform efforts, and 
will boost the confidence of both domestic and international investors 
in pursuing business opportunities that create jobs and enhance 
international trade in the Andean region, particularly in Colombia. In 
addition, this bill would ensure that U.S. trade with these important 
nations is not adversely affected by the recent passage of the ``Trade 
and Development Act of 2000,'' which provided significant trade 
benefits to the Caribbean Basin.
  To briefly summarize, the ``Plan Colombia Trade Act,'' would extend, 
for approximately one year, additional trade benefits to Bolivia, 
Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru-nations that currently benefit from the 
Andean Trade Preferences Act of 1991 (commonly known as the ATPA). New 
trade benefits would include some--but not all--trade benefits extended 
to the nations of the Caribbean Basin under the ``Trade and Development 
Act of 2000,'' which was signed by the President on May 18, 2000. 
Specifically, the bill would extend duty-free, quota-free treatment to 
apparel articles assembled or cut in ATPA beneficiary nations using 
yarns and fabric wholly formed in the United States, thereby achieving 
a measure of parity with the CBI nations, as well as expanding an 
important source of economic and employment growth for the U.S. textile 
and apparel industry.
  In its March 2000 interim report, ``First Steps Toward a Constructive 
U.S. Policy in Colombia,'' a Council on Foreign Relations/Inter-
American Dialogue Independent Task Force--which I co-chair with Brent 
Scowcroft--recommended the extension of the ATPA, to include the same 
benefits as those contained under the Caribbean Basin Initiative. 
Specifically, we recommended the following:

       Indeed, Colombia's economic well-being is absolutely 
     critical, and in this area the United States can be more 
     helpful. Perhaps even more important than providing increased 
     assistance to the Colombian government to support employment 
     programs is assuring Colombia greater access to U.S. markets 
     for its products. Extending trade-related benefits to 
     Colombia would have a positive impact on the country's 
     prospects for higher growth and employment levels.

  Although the bill provides benefits to all ATPA beneficiaries, it is 
particularly critical to Colombia, which in 1998 exported 59 percent of 
all textiles and apparel from the Andean region to the U.S., two-thirds 
of which were assembled and/or cut from U.S. yarns and fabric.
  This legislation addresses an important, albeit unintentional, 
contradiction in U.S. policy towards Colombia. With the recent passage 
of enhanced trade benefits to the countries of Caribbean Basin 
Initiative, Colombia stands to lose up to 150,000 jobs in the apparel 
industry. At least ten (10) U.S.-based companies that purchase apparel 
from Colombian garment manufacturers have already indicated their near-
term intentions to shift production to CBI countries due to the 
significant cost savings associated with the new trade benefits 
afforded to the Caribbean basin. Some of these U.S. companies have 
utilized Colombia as a manufacturing base for over ten (10) years, 
providing desperately needed legitimate employment in the Colombian 
economy.
  In summary, the immediate reaction of these companies to enhanced 
Caribbean trade benefits clearly demonstrates the negative effects of 
the CBI legislation on Colombia. It would be foolish for the Congress 
to approve a comprehensive aid package for Colombia, while 
simultaneously implementing legislation that puts tens of thousands of 
Colombians out of work. This bill will address that critical, 
unintended contradiction.

[[Page 13008]]

  On a more comprehensive scale, passage of this legislation is 
critical to ensure that all nations in the Western Hemisphere can 
maintain their long-term competitiveness with Asian nations, 
particularly in the textile industry. At present, the textile products 
of most Asian nations are subject to quotas imposed by the Multi-Fiber 
Agreement, now known as the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. This 
restriction on Asian textiles has enabled the nations of the Western 
Hemisphere to remain competitive, and further, the Andean region--
specifically Colombia--has become a significant market for fabric woven 
in U.S. mills from yarn spun in the U.S., originating from U.S. cotton 
growers.
  However, in 2005, these Asian import quotas will be phased out. At 
that time, textile production in both the Andean region and the 
Caribbean basin will be placed at a distinct and growing disadvantage. 
Disinvestment in the region will occur, reducing the incentive to use 
any material from U.S. textile mills or cotton grown in the United 
States.


                               background

  Seventeen years ago, the U.S. Congress passed the first legislation 
to provide trade preferences to the twenty-seven countries of the 
Caribbean Basin. In 1983, the Caribbean Basin was a region inflamed 
with violent conflict and rampant drug trafficking that threatened the 
political and economic stability of our closest neighbors, as well as 
our own national security. The primary goal of the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative (CBI) was to stabilize the region by building stronger and 
more diverse economies, encouraging growth in international trade, 
developing a strong economic relationship between the U.S. and the 
region, and creating employment opportunities in the legitimate economy 
as an alternative to drug trafficking.
  Following enactment of CBI, the U.S. trade position with the region 
improved from a deficit of $3 billion in 1983, to a surplus of nearly 
$3.5 billion in 1998. Between 1983 and 1998, U.S. exports to the region 
increased fourfold, while total imports from the region grew by less 
than 20 percent. On a per capita basis, the U.S. trade surplus with the 
region has consistently outpaced the U.S. trade surplus with any other 
region of the world--in fact, since 1995, U.S. exports to the CBI 
region have increased by almost 32 percent.
  In 1991, after 8 years of resounding success in the CBI region, 
Congress passed the ATPA, providing CBI-like trade benefits to the 
countries of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. In the nine years 
following enactment of ATPA, U.S. exports to the Andean region have 
more than doubled--from $3.8 billion in 1991 to over $8.6 billion in 
1998. U.S. exports to Colombia account for over half of this increase, 
growing from $2 billion in 1991 to $4.8 billion in 1998. During the 
same time period, Andean exports to the U.S. increased by almost 80 
percent. In addition, in 1998, the U.S. achieved a $309 million trade 
surplus with the ATPA nations. Under ATPA, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, 
and Peru enjoyed the same trade benefits that we had extended to the 
CBI region. However, on May 18, 2000, the President signed the ``Trade 
and Development Act of 2000,'' which extended additional trade 
benefits--particularly with respect to textiles and apparel--to the 
nations of the CBI region. Therefore, our Andean trading partners are 
now likely to lose significant trade and investment opportunities that 
will shift to the CBI, given the additional trade benefits included in 
the ``Trade and Development Act of 2000.''


                Need for the ``Plan Colombia Trade Act''

  The United States is at now a critical juncture with its neighbors in 
the Andean region. As was demonstrated by the recent passage of the 
``Trade and Development Act of 2000.'' it is clear that we must 
continue enhance our trading relationship with our partners in the 
Caribbean and the Andean region.
  In particular, these additional trade benefits should be extended to 
Colombia, which is currently fighting a war for the survival of its 
democratic institutions, its free market economy and for the future of 
its people. Those challenging Colombia's future include drug 
traffickers, guerilla groups (the FARC and the ELN) and other elements 
of society who seek to foster instability and fear. A comprehensive 
strategy in response to the crisis in essential for Colombia.
  The government of Colombia, therefore, has formulated Plan Colombia. 
The United States government, in turn, has responded generously to 
Columbia's needs by considering a supplemental appropriations package 
of more than $1.6 billion to help the country in this time of crisis. 
This will supplement over $4.0 billion being spent by Colombia itself.
  Fundamental to Plan Colombia (and to the government's ability to 
succeed in its efforts to safeguard the country) will be efforts to 
encourage economic growth and provide jobs to the Colombian people. 
Today in Colombia more than one million people are displaced, the 
unemployment rate is nearly 20 percent and Colombia is experiencing the 
worst recession in 70 years. Without new economic opportunities, more 
and more Colombians will turn to illicit activities to support their 
families or seek to join the growing numbers of people who are leaving 
the country to find a better, safer future for their families.
  Measuring both imports and exports, Colombia is by far the most 
important U.S. trade partner in the ATPA region. In 1998, over 53 
percent of U.S. exports to the Andean region went to Colombia, and over 
53 percent of U.S. imports from the Andean region originated from 
Colombia.
  Mr. President, to promote economic growth and regional stability, the 
Congress must consider additional trade measures that benefit the 
entire Andean region. Therefore, Congress should grant CBI parity to 
the ATPA beneficiaries, specifically with respect to textiles and 
apparel. During 1999, Colombia and its Andean neighbors exported 
approximately $562 million in textiles and apparel to the United 
States. While insignificant in comparison to the $8.4 billion in 
textile and apparel exports originating in the CBI region, Andean 
textile and apparel production sustains more than 200,000 jobs in 
Colombia alone--valuable jobs in the legitimate economy. Absent CBI 
parity, the Andean region will find itself at a significant competitive 
disadvantage with the 27 countries of the CBI region.
  Mr. President, upon final passage of CBI enhancement legislation, I 
stated that we had initiated the process of establishing true 
``partnership for success'' with some of our most important neighbors. 
Although that legislation was a good start, it was only the beginning. 
I urge my colleagues to look towards the future by supporting the 
``Plan Colombia Trade Act,'' and by taking advantage of the real 
economic benefits that can be achieved by further enhancing our 
relationship with all of the nations of the Western Hemisphere.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2823

       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 ``Plan Colombia Trade Act''.

     SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF ADDITIONAL TRADE BENEFITS TO 
                   CERTAIN ANDEAN COUNTRIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 204(b) of the Andean Trade 
     Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3203(b)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b) Exceptions to Duty-Free Treatment.--
       ``(1) In General.--Subject to paragraphs (2), the duty-free 
     treatment provided under this title shall not apply to--
       ``(A) textile and apparel articles which are subject to 
     textile agreements;
       ``(B) footwear not designated at the time of the effective 
     date of this Act as eligible for the purpose of the 
     generalized system of preferences under title V of the Trade 
     Act of 1974;
       ``(C) tuna, prepared or preserved in any manner, in 
     airtight containers;
       ``(D) petroleum, or any product derived from petroleum, 
     provided for in headings 2709 and 2710 of the HTS;

[[Page 13009]]

       ``(E) watches and watch parts (including cases, bracelets 
     and straps), of whatever type including, but not limited to, 
     mechanical, quartz digital or quartz analog, if such watches 
     or watch parts contain any material which is the product of 
     any country with respect to which HTS column 2 rates of duty 
     apply;
       ``(F) articles to which reduced rates of duty apply under 
     subsection (c);
       ``(G) sugars, syrups, and molasses classified in 
     subheadings 1701.11.03, 1701.12.02, 1701.99.02, 1702.90.32, 
     1806.10.42, and 2106.90.12 of the HTS; or
       ``(H) rum and tafia classified in subheading 2208.40.00 of 
     the HTS.
       ``(2) Transition period treatment of certain textile and 
     apparel articles.--
       ``(A) Articles covered.--During the transition period, the 
     preferential treatment described in subparagraph (B) shall 
     apply to the following articles:
       ``(i) Apparel articles assembled in one or more beneficiary 
     countries.--Apparel articles assembled in one or more 
     beneficiary countries from fabrics wholly formed and cut in 
     the United States, from yarns wholly formed in the United 
     States, that are--

       ``(I) entered under subheading 9802.00.80 of the HTS; or
       ``(II) entered under chapter 61 or 62 of the HTS, if, after 
     such assembly, the articles would have qualified for entry 
     under subheading 9802.00.80 of the HTS but for the fact that 
     the articles were embroidered or subjected to stone-washing, 
     enzyme-washing, acid washing, perma-pressing, oven-baking, 
     bleaching, garment-dyeing, screen printing, or other similar 
     processes.

       ``(ii) Apparel articles cut and assembled in one or more 
     beneficiary countries.--Apparel articles cut in one or more 
     beneficiary countries from fabric wholly formed in the United 
     States from yarns wholly formed in the United States, if such 
     articles are assembled in one or more such countries with 
     thread formed in the United States.
       ``(iii) Special rules.--

       ``(I) Exception for findings and trimmings.--(aa) An 
     article otherwise eligible for preferential treatment under 
     this paragraph shall not be ineligible for such treatment 
     because the article contains findings or trimmings of foreign 
     origin, if such findings and trimmings do not exceed 25 
     percent of the cost of the components of the assembled 
     product. Examples of findings and trimmings are sewing 
     thread, hooks and eyes, snaps, buttons, `bow buds', 
     decorative lace, trim, elastic strips, zippers, including 
     zipper tapes and labels, and other similar products. Elastic 
     strips are considered findings or trimmings only if they are 
     each less than 1 inch in width and are used in the production 
     of brassieres.
       ``(bb) In the case of an article described in clause (ii) 
     of this subparagraph, sewing thread shall not be treated as 
     findings or trimmings under this subclause.
       ``(II) Certain interlining.--(aa) An article otherwise 
     eligible for preferential treatment under this paragraph 
     shall not be ineligible for such treatment because the 
     article contains certain interlinings of foreign origin, if 
     the value of such interlinings (and any findings and 
     trimmings) does not exceed 25 percent of the cost of the 
     components of the assembled article.
       ``(bb) Interlinings eligible for the treatment described in 
     division (aa) include only a chest type plate, `hymo' piece, 
     or `sleeve header', of woven or weft-inserted warp knit 
     construction and of coarse animal hair or man-made filaments.
       ``(cc) The treatment described in this subclause shall 
     terminate if the President makes a determination that United 
     States manufacturers are producing such interlinings in the 
     United States in commercial quantities.
       ``(III) De minimis rule.--An article that would otherwise 
     be ineligible for preferential treatment under this paragraph 
     because the article contains fibers or yarns not wholly 
     formed in the United States or in one or more beneficiary 
     countries shall not be ineligible for such treatment if the 
     total weight of all such fibers or yarns is not more than 7 
     percent of the total weight of the good. Notwithstanding the 
     preceding sentence, an apparel article containing elastomeric 
     yarns shall be eligible for preferential treatment under this 
     paragraph only if such yarns are wholly formed in the United 
     States.
       ``(IV) Special origin rule.--An article otherwise eligible 
     for preferential treatment under clause (i) or (ii) of this 
     subparagraph shall not be ineligible for such treatment 
     because the article contains nylon filament yarn (other than 
     elastomeric yarn) that is classifiable under subheading 
     5402.10.30, 5402.10.60, 5402.31.30, 5402.31.60, 5402.32.30, 
     5402.32.60, 5402.41.10, 5402.41.90, 5402.51.00, or 5402.61.00 
     of the HTS duty-free from a country that is a party to an 
     agreement with the United States establishing a free trade 
     area, which entered into force before January 1, 1995.

       ``(iv) Special rule for fabrics not formed from yarns.--

       ``(I) Application to clause (i).--An article otherwise 
     eligible for preferential treatment under clause (i) of this 
     subparagraph shall not be ineligible for such treatment 
     because the article is assembled in one or more beneficiary 
     countries from fabrics not formed from yarns, if such fabrics 
     are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and 
     are wholly formed and cut in the United States.
       ``(II) Application to clause (ii).--An article otherwise 
     eligible for preferential treatment under clause (ii) of this 
     subparagraph shall not be ineligible for such treatment 
     because the article is assembled in one or more beneficiary 
     countries from fabrics not formed from yarns, if such fabrics 
     are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and 
     are wholly formed in the United States.

       ``(B) Preferential treatment.--During the transition 
     period, the articles to which this paragraph applies shall 
     enter the United States free of duty and free of any 
     quantitative restrictions, limitations, or consultation 
     levels.
       ``(C) Transition period.--In this paragraph, the term 
     `transition period' means, with respect to a beneficiary 
     country, the period that begins on the date of enactment of 
     the Plan Colombia Trade Act or October 1, 2000, whichever is 
     later, and ends on the date that duty-free treatment ends 
     under this title.''.
       (b) Factors Affecting Designation.--
       (1) In general.--Section 203(d) of the Andean Trade 
     Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3202(d)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (11);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) the extent to which such country adheres to 
     democratic principles and the rule of law.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     take effect on the earlier of--
       (A) October 1, 2000; or
       (B) the date of enactment of the Plan Colombia Trade 
     Act.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor the Plan 
Colombia Trade Act along with my colleague, Senator Bob Graham. This 
important bill will supplement Plan Colombia by expanding trade 
benefits to the countries of Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru.
  Plan Colombia is an important package that provides about a billion 
dollars to the government of Colombia, and other countries in that 
region. These funds will go to fight drugs, eradicate the crops which 
create them, and provide for alternative development. Unfortunately, 
Plan Colombia does not provide for an important measure that we can do 
to help these countries, that is to stimulate their economy. We can 
achieve this by passing the Plan Colombia Trade Act, which will provide 
assistance to develop their textile and apparel industries.
  Developing the apparel industry of these countries will encourage 
global trade, and offer the good people of that region a future filled 
with prosperity. Additionally, the trade benefits outlined in this bill 
will enhance peace, stability, and prosperity in that region, which 
will ultimately yield a better quality of life for all involved. This 
bill will not only benefit the struggling economies of Colombia, 
Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru, but will advance the economy of the United 
States as well.
  As important as the assistance package to Colombia is, most of the 
money we provide will not reach ordinary Colombians. They also are 
engaged in the effort to combat illegal drugs. We need to ensure that 
they are not penalized for doing so. The current bill helps us help 
Colombians not with cash but with opportunity. It preserves legitimate 
jobs in a country sorely beset with problems.
  Most garments that are produced in Colombia are subject to a 20-30% 
duty rate upon importation into the U.S. As an example, swimsuits are 
subject to a duty rate of 33%. By granting duty-free and quota-free 
benefits to apparel assembled in these countries from U.S. made yarn, 
and U.S. made fabric, these countries will now be able to compete with 
other developing countries that currently enjoy duty-free and quota-
free benefits. It will also afford them the opportunity to participate 
in the global economy. This will encourage additional export of U.S. 
made cotton and yarn, stimulate U.S. investment in the region and 
create needed jobs as well.
  This bill is an opportunity to help rebuild a region which has been 
plagued by the drug trade. We can assist these countries, not by giving 
them more money, but by providing these enhanced trade opportunities. 
By helping our neighbors in the south to maintain

[[Page 13010]]

political and economic stability, we will in effect be securing the 
National Security of the United States. This legislation will provide 
these countries with the opportunity build their industry and their 
struggling economies and will improve the quality of their everyday 
lives.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important bill which will have a 
positive effect on the prosperity of our neighbors in Colombia, 
Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 2825. A bill to strengthen the effectiveness of the earned income 
tax credit in reducing child poverty and promoting work; to the 
Committee on Finance.


            the tax relief for working families act of 2000

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to be joined by Senators 
Jeffords and Breaux in introducing the Tax Relief for Working Families 
Act of 2000. This bipartisan bill is designed to strengthen the 
effectiveness of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in reducing child 
poverty and promoting work.
  Our bill will increase the EITC for families with three or more 
children. Families could qualify for almost an additional $500. 
Obviously, raising a large family costs more, and these families have a 
higher poverty rate of 29 percent, more than double the poverty rate of 
children in smaller families. Nearly three out of every five poor 
children live in families with three or more children.
  A report by the Committee for Economic Development found that the 
``EITC has become a powerful force in dramatically raising the 
employment of low-income women in recent years.'' The report also 
recommended further expansions of the EITC. Since research shows that 
larger families have greater problems leaving welfare for work, this 
legislation should build upon our welfare reform efforts.
  But even more compelling than national statistics are the real 
stories from West Virginia families. One woman in Huntington, West 
Virginia is struggling to raise five daughters and care for her husband 
who was disabled in a roofing accident. That family is managing on 
approximately $13,000 a year. She works the night shift, but must 
currently rely on the public bus. Her shift begins at midnight, but the 
last bus is at 9:00 p.m. so she takes the earlier bus, and spends 
several hours waiting for her shift instead of having time with her 
family. Last year, she used the EITC to pay her bills, including a 
winter coat for one of her daughters. With an increase, she hopes to 
save for a used car.
  Another West Virginia mother is recently divorced and struggling to 
raise four sons, ranging in age from sixteen to seven. Her 16-year-old 
son has Downs Syndrome. Last year she earned $13,800 and she used her 
EITC to purchase a used van so she would have reliable transportation 
for her 50-mile commute to work. Another year, the EITC helped pay for 
new mattresses for her children's beds. With an increase, she'd like to 
save a little money in case of an emergency or for better housing.
  These are real stories of real families who are working hard to make 
ends meet but need and deserve more help.
  This is a bipartisan bill. We have closely consulted with leading 
groups like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Catholic 
Charities U.S.A., the United Way of America, and the Progressive Policy 
Institute.
  In addition to increasing the EITC available to large families, our 
bill includes several bipartisan provisions to simplify the credit by 
conforming the definition of earned income and simplifying the 
definition of a dependent child.
  Some may question the cost of expanding the EITC, but I believe, 
compared to other tax proposals such as providing additional marriage 
tax relief, investing an additional $8 billion over the next five years 
is a reasonable investment to help low-wage working families. Most of 
these families are married. All are struggling, but working hard to do 
the right thing for their children. In its letter supporting our 
efforts, Catholic Charities U.S.A. describes our legislation is ``pro-
family, pro-marriage, and pro-work.''
  During the 1998 tax year, over 19 million working Americans got $30.5 
billion in tax relief, thanks to the EITC. In my state, about 141,000 
West Virginians claimed $210.7 million. About nineteen percent of West 
Virginia taxpayers benefit from the EITC. In my state, 84 percent of 
taxpayers earn less than $50,000. I believe that this legislation to 
expand the EITC for families with three or more children will help more 
West Virginians than many of the other, more expensive provisions under 
consideration as part of the marriage penalty relief debate.
  We know that the EITC works. It encourages work, and it helps lift 
families out of poverty. I urge my colleagues to join with Senators 
Jeffords and Breaux to help hard working families raise their children.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senators 
Rockefeller and Breaux to introduce a bill that will provide a third-
tier earned income tax credit (EITC) for families with three or more 
children. I believe that the additional tax credit provided by this 
bill could be of significant help to working low-income families.
  The EITC is a refundable tax credit to low-income families. It is 
only available to taxpayers who work and earn wages. Indeed, the EITC 
was enacted to encourage taxpayers to work--even at low-paying jobs--
rather than relying on government programs. The EITC has played a key 
role in reducing the poverty rate for families. By some estimates, it 
has been the single most important factor in removing children from 
poverty.
  As currently structured, the EITC provides a credit to families with 
one child, and a higher credit to families that have two or more 
children. Families with three or four children receive the same EITC as 
families with two children.
  For low-income families of four, we have seen significant progress in 
reducing the incidence of poverty. The combination of the minimum wage, 
the EITC, and food stamps can raise a family of four with a full-time 
year-round minimum wage worker close to the poverty line. But poverty 
persists in large families where there are more than two children. In 
families with three or more children, the official poverty rate is 29 
percent--twice the rate for families with two children. While children 
in families with three or more children were 37 percent of all children 
in the United States in 1998, they comprised 57 percent of the children 
living in poverty.
  It is not surprising that reducing poverty is more problematic in 
large families. As family size rises, so do family expenses. Welfare 
benefits increase with family size; wages, however, do not. For a large 
family, moving from welfare to work may actually mean less money. In 
addition, with more children, child care is not only more expensive, it 
is also more complicated.
  With surplus projections now reaching $1.7 trillion, there are a 
whole host of tax reform proposals--many meritorious--circulating on 
Capitol Hill. In the debate about tax cuts, we must not lose sight of 
our most vulnerable workers. We should build on the proven success of 
the EITC to help these workers. I believe a larger earned income tax 
credit for families with three or more children will help put more low-
income families on the path to self-sufficiency, while at the same time 
helping welfare reform succeed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 2826. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage of substitute adult day care services under the 
Medicare Program; to the Committee on Finance.


            the medicare adult day services alternative act

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, as this Congress continues to deliberate 
options of how best to care for our senior population, it is critical 
to consider, as well, the role that caregivers play in accommodating 
the delivery of

[[Page 13011]]

such care to loved ones. Family caregivers are often forced to make 
difficult sacrifices. By just one measure, it is estimated that the 
average loss of income to these caregivers is more than $600,000 in 
wages, pensions and Social Security benefits. This does not have to be 
the case, though.
  It does not have to be the case with the choices afforded by 
legislation I am pleased to be introducing today along with Senator 
Rockefeller of West Virginia aimed at reforming Medicare's home health 
benefit. The Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act of 2000 would 
provide Medicare beneficiaries who qualify for home health benefits the 
choice to receive those services in qualified adult day care centers, 
and simultaneously assist family caregivers with the very real 
difficulties in caring for a homebound family member.
  It is with America's Medicare beneficiaries and family caregivers in 
mind which makes the Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act a 
winner for Medicare, for patients and for their caregivers. First, it 
would allow patients to receive home health services in a setting that 
promotes rehabilitation by providing social interaction, meals and 
therapeutic activities above and beyond the provision of the prescribed 
home health benefit. Second, caregivers for homebound patients would be 
able to maintain employment outside of the home because they would know 
that their family member is in a healthy, protected environment during 
the day.
  With this legislation, patients could elect to receive some, or all, 
of their home health benefit in a home or an adult day care congregate 
setting. I think my colleagues would agree with me that the opportunity 
to interact with others with similar needs can improve patients' mental 
and physical wellbeing. While not expanding the existing eligibility 
criteria for home health, this legislation offers Medicare 
beneficiaries a greater sense of autonomy afforded by receiving 
necessary care outside of their homes.
  The adult day care center would be paid 95% of the rate paid to a 
home health agency for providing the Medicare-covered service. But 
within that lump-sum payment, the adult day care center would also be 
required to cover transportation, medication management, therapeutic 
activities, and meals.
  The Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act recognizes the 
benefit that will come to family members of Medicare recipients of this 
service. These caregivers will be able to attend to other things in 
today's fast-paced family life, knowing their loved ones are well cared 
for. This creative solution to health care delivery also adequately 
reimburses providers and is designed to be budget neutral.
  I hope that members on both sides of the aisle will join me in 
advancing this important issue for Medicare beneficiaries and their 
families. As this Congress considers various proposals to improve 
Medicare's home health benefit, this proposal deserves the serious 
attention and consideration of my colleagues. I look forward to working 
with them to enact this pro-beneficiary, potentially cost-saving reform 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2826

       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 ``Medicare Adult Day Services 
     Alternative Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) adult day care offers services, including medical care, 
     rehabilitation therapies, dignified assistance with 
     activities of daily living, social interaction, and 
     stimulating activities, to seniors who are frail, physically 
     challenged, or cognitively impaired;
       (2) access to adult day care services provides seniors and 
     their familial caregivers support that is critical to keeping 
     the senior in the family home;
       (3) more than 22,000,000 families in the United States 
     serve as caregivers for aging or ailing seniors, nearly 1 in 
     4 American families, providing close to 80 percent of the 
     care to individuals requiring long-term care;
       (4) nearly 75 percent of those actively providing such care 
     are women who also maintain other responsibilities, such as 
     working outside of the home and raising young children;
       (5) the average loss of income to these caregivers has been 
     shown to be $659,130 in wages, pension, and Social Security 
     benefits;
       (6) the loss in productivity in United States businesses 
     ranges from $11,000,000,000 to $29,000,000,000 annually;
       (7) the services offered in adult day care facilities 
     provide continuity of care and an important sense of 
     community for both the senior and the caregiver;
       (8) there are adult day care centers in every State in the 
     United States and the District of Columbia;
       (9) these centers generally offer transportation, meals, 
     personal care, and counseling in addition to the medical 
     services and socialization benefits offered; and
       (10) with the need for quality options in how to best care 
     for our senior population about to dramatically increase with 
     the aging of the baby boomer generation, the time to address 
     these issues is now.

     SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF SUBSTITUTE ADULT DAY CARE SERVICES UNDER 
                   MEDICARE.

       (a) Substitute Adult Day Care Services Benefit.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1861(m) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395x(m)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting 
     ``or (8)'' after ``paragraph (7)'';
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in paragraph (7), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (7), the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(8) substitute adult day care services (as defined in 
     subsection (uu));''.
       (2) Substitute adult day care services defined.--Section 
     1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:

     ``Substitute Adult Day Care Services; Adult Day Care Facility

       ``(uu)(1)(A) The term `substitute adult day care services' 
     means the items and services described in subparagraph (B) 
     that are furnished to an individual by an adult day care 
     facility as a part of a plan under subsection (m) that 
     substitutes such services for a portion of the items and 
     services described in subparagraph (B)(i) furnished by a home 
     health agency under the plan, as determined by the physician 
     establishing the plan.
       ``(B) The items and services described in this subparagraph 
     are the following items and services:
       ``(i) Items and services described in paragraphs (1) 
     through (7) of subsection (m).
       ``(ii) Transportation of the individual to and from the 
     adult day care facility in connection with any such item or 
     service.
       ``(iii) Meals.
       ``(iv) A program of supervised activities designed to 
     promote physical and mental health and furnished to the 
     individual by the adult day care facility in a group setting 
     for a period of not fewer than 4 and not greater than 12 
     hours per day.
       ``(v) A medication management program (as defined in 
     subparagraph (C)).
       ``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B)(v), the term 
     `medication management program' means a program of services, 
     including medicine screening and patient and health care 
     provider education programs, that provides services to 
     minimize--
       ``(i) unnecessary or inappropriate use of prescription 
     drugs; and
       ``(ii) adverse events due to unintended prescription drug-
     to-drug interactions.
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), 
     the term `adult day care facility' means a public agency or 
     private organization, or a subdivision of such an agency or 
     organization, that--
       ``(i) is engaged in providing skilled nursing services and 
     other therapeutic services directly or under arrangement with 
     a home health agency;
       ``(ii) meets such standards established by the Secretary to 
     ensure quality of care and such other requirements as the 
     Secretary finds necessary in the interest of the health and 
     safety of individuals who are furnished services in the 
     facility;
       ``(iii) provides the items and services described in 
     paragraph (1)(B); and
       ``(iv) meets the requirements of paragraphs (2) through (8) 
     of subsection (o).
       ``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the term `adult day 
     care facility' shall include a home health agency in which 
     the items and services described in clauses (ii) through (v) 
     of paragraph (1)(B) are provided by others under arrangements 
     with them made by such agency.
       ``(C) The Secretary may waive the requirement of a surety 
     bond under paragraph (7) of subsection (o) in the case of an 
     agency or organization that provides a comparable surety bond 
     under State law.
       ``(D) For purposes of payment for home health services 
     consisting of substitute adult day care services furnished 
     under this title, any reference to a home health agency is 
     deemed to be a reference to an adult day care facility.''.

[[Page 13012]]

       (3) Conforming amendments.--Sections 1814(a)(2)(C) and 
     1835(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395f(a)(2)(C); 1395n(a)(2)(A)(i)) are each amended by 
     striking ``section 1861(m)(7)'' and inserting ``paragraph (7) 
     or (8) of section 1861(m)''.
       (b) Payment for Substitute Adult Day Care Services.--
     Section 1895 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395fff) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Payment Rate for Substitute Adult Day Care 
     Services.--In the case of home health services consisting of 
     substitute adult day care services (as defined in section 
     1861(uu)), the following rules apply:
       ``(1) The Secretary shall determine each component (as 
     defined by the Secretary) of substitute adult day care 
     services (under section 1861(uu)(1)(B)(i)) furnished to an 
     individual under the plan of care established under section 
     1861(m) with respect to such services.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall estimate the amount that would 
     otherwise be payable under this section for all home health 
     services under that plan of care other than substitute adult 
     day care services for a week or other period specified by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) The total amount payable for home health services 
     consisting of substitute adult day care services under such 
     plan may not exceed 95 percent of the amount estimated to be 
     payable under paragraph (2) furnished under the plan by a 
     home health agency.
       ``(4) No payment may be made under this title for home 
     health services consisting of substitute adult day care 
     services described in clauses (ii) through (v) of section 
     1861(uu)(1)(B).''.
       (c) Adjustment in Case of Overutilization of Substitute 
     Adult Day Care Services.--
       (1) Monitoring expenditures.--Beginning with fiscal year 
     2002, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     monitor the expenditures made under the medicare program 
     under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 
     et seq.) for home health services (as defined in section 
     1861(m) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(m))) for the fiscal 
     year, including substitute adult day care services under 
     paragraph (8) of such section (as added by subsection (a)), 
     and shall compare such expenditures to expenditures that the 
     Secretary estimates would have been made for home health 
     services for that fiscal year if subsection (a) had not been 
     enacted.
       (2) Required reduction in payment rate.--If the Secretary 
     determines, after making the comparison under paragraph (1) 
     and making such adjustments for changes in demographics and 
     age of the medicare beneficiary population as the Secretary 
     determines appropriate, that expenditures for home health 
     services under the medicare program, including such 
     substitute adult day care services, exceed expenditures that 
     would have been made under such program for home health 
     services for a year if subsection (a) had not been enacted, 
     then the Secretary shall adjust the rate of payment to adult 
     day care facilities so that total expenditures for home 
     health services under such program in a fiscal year does not 
     exceed the Secretary's estimate of such expenditures if 
     subsection (a) had not been enacted.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to items and services furnished on or after the 
     date on which the prospective payment system for home health 
     services furnished under the medicare program under section 
     1895 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395fff) is 
     established and implemented.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD.
  S. 2827. A bill to provide for the conveyance of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs Medical Center at Ft. Lyon, Colorado, to the State of 
Colorado, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.


         legislation to improve healthcare options for veterans

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve 
the healthcare options for veterans in southern Colorado. To do this, I 
am expediting the transfer of the Ft. Lyon facility to the State of 
Colorado, which will allow the Veterans Administration (VA) to 
implement their plan to use the annual $8.6 million in savings from the 
closure of Fort Lyon to provide better service to Colorado's veterans 
through new outpatient clinics in La Junta, Lamar and Alamosa and a 
smaller, more efficient nursing home in Pueblo, CO.
  Ft. Lyon is a historical building, but it is simply not more 
important than the needs of those who served us. I would prefer that 
the money currently used to maintain the facility was instead used to 
provide medical care for those veterans who need it.
  This bill will lead to an improvement in medical services for 
veterans in several ways. With the estimated $8.6 million in savings to 
be realized after the Ft. Lyon closure, clinics will be set up in local 
communities which will be closer and more responsive to their local 
veteran communities. This bill mandates that the VA must open the 
replacement clinics before they convey Ft. Lyon to the State of 
Colorado, to ensure there is no gap in service. This bill will help to 
ensure that no service-connected veteran's needs are unmet. No veteran 
will go homeless. Every veteran who needs a nursing home bed due to 
service connected illness will still be granted one. Those veterans 
currently in Ft. Lyon will continue to receive nursing home care, at no 
additional charges to them. The cemetery and historic Kit Carson chapel 
will remain fully accessible to the public. And the people of the 
region will also be assisted by the opening of a state facility to 
replace Ft. Lyon in the local economy. Without this legislation, there 
are no guarantees any of this would occur.
  I hope that this bill will be considered and pass quickly, so that 
the savings and the improvements in veteran's healthcare can begin as 
soon as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Gregg, 
        Mr. Gorton, Mr. Coverdell, and Mr. Inhofe):
  S. 2829. A bill to provide for an investigation and audit at the 
Department of Education; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.


      department of education investigation and audit legislation

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
requiring an audit of accounts at the U.S. Department of Education that 
are susceptible to waste, fraud, and abuse. It is unfortunate that 
Congress has to be dealing with this issue, but unfortunately, it is 
all too necessary.
  As Members of the Senate have been debating education this year, we 
have stressed the need for accountability of federal funds. Before we 
stress accountability at the local level, though, we must ensure that 
accountability is also occurring at the federal level. It we are going 
to increase the budget for the Department of Education, as the Fiscal 
Year 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
Appropriations bill does, we have the responsibility to determine 
whether the Department is properly accounting for the funding that they 
already have.
  The U.S. Department of Education is already having problems 
overseeing the programs that it currently administers. For the second 
year in a row, the Department of Education has been unable to address 
its financial management problems. In its last two audits, the 
Department was unable to account for parts of its $32 billion program 
budget and the $175 billion owed in student loans. Every year, the 
Department is required to undergo an independent audit. Unfortunately, 
for Fiscal years 1998 and 1999, auditors have declared the Department 
of Education inauditable.
  The House Education and the Workforce Committee has been holding 
hearing on financial problems at the Department of Education, and has 
found serious instances of duplicate payments to grant winners and an 
$800 million college loan to a single student. In its 1998 audit, the 
Department blamed its problems on a faulty new accounting system that 
cost $5.1 million, in addition to the cost of manpower to try to fix 
the system. A new accounting system will be the third in five years.
  The most recent 1999 audit showed that the Department's financial 
stewardship remains in the bottom quartile of all major federal 
agencies. It also sent duplicate payments to 52 schools in 1999 at a 
cost of more than $6.5 million. In addition, none of the material 
weaknesses cited in the 1998 audit were corrected.
  These instances show that the Department is currently vulnerable to 
fraud, waste, and abuse. The House of Representatives has already 
indicated its support for a fraud audit at the Department of Education 
by passing its own version of this bill on June 13, 2000, by an 
overwhelming vote of 380-19. Before Congress entrusts the U.S. 
Department of Education with funding that is so important to our 
nation's schools

[[Page 13013]]

and students, we must demand that the funds they already have are well-
managed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 2830. A bill to preclude the admissibility of certain confessions 
in criminal cases; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 the miranda reaffirmation act of 2000

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its 
landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona. I applaud that decision. 
Miranda struck a balance between the needs of law enforcement and the 
rights of a suspect that has worked well for 34 years. There is no 
reason to upset that balance now.
  Shortly after Miranda was decided in 1966, I became State's Attorney 
for Chittenden County, Vermont. I remember clearly the immediate impact 
that this momentous decision had upon law enforcement, prosecutors, 
criminal defendants and the criminal justice system as a whole. The 
Supreme Court's pronouncement that all suspects in custody needed to be 
advised of certain constitutional rights, including the privilege 
against self-incrimination, before being questioned was as new then as 
it is familiar today.
  The Miranda decision put into place a fair and bright-line rule that 
both protects the rights of the accused and has proven workable for law 
enforcement. Statements stemming from custodial interrogation of a 
suspect are inadmissible at trial unless the police first provide the 
suspect with a set of four specific warnings: (1) you have the right to 
remain silent; (2) anything you say may be used as evidence against 
you; (3) you have the right to an attorney; and (4) if you cannot 
afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.
  These warnings are necessary to dispel the compulsion inherent in 
custodial surroundings and so ensure that any statement obtained from 
the suspect is truly the product of his free choice. As author and 
former Federal prosecutor Scott Thurow wrote in an opinion article in 
Wednesday's New York Times: ``The requirement to recite Miranda is an 
important reminder to the police that the war on lawlessness is always 
subject to the guidance of the law.''
  Over the last 34 years, the Miranda rule has developed into a bedrock 
principle of American criminal law. The required issuance of Miranda 
warnings has been incorporated in local, State and Federal police 
practice across this nation. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say, as 
the Court said this week, that Miranda warnings ``have become part of 
our national culture.''
  Two years after Miranda was decided, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. 3501, 
which laid down a rule that purported to overrule Miranda and to 
restore the case-by-case, totality-of-the-circumstances test of a 
confession's ``voluntariness'' that the Miranda decision found 
constitutionally inadequate. The validity of section 3501 did not come 
before the Court until now because no Administration of either party 
sought to use it, out of concern for its dubious constitutionality. The 
issue was finally presented only because an organization of 
conservative activists maneuvered a case before the most conservative 
Federal appeals court in the country. To her credit, Attorney General 
Reno declined to argue that Miranda had been invalidated by section 
3501. She also declined to ask the Supreme Court to overrule Miranda, 
on the ground that it has proved to be workable in practice and in many 
respects beneficial to law enforcement.
  The Court's decision this week in Dickerson v. United States--
announced by the Chief Justice and joined by six other Justices--erased 
any doubt that the protections announced in Miranda are 
constitutionally required and cannot be overruled by an act of 
Congress. Section 3501's attempt to authorize the admission at trial of 
statements that would be excluded under Miranda is therefore 
unconstitutional, as I have long believed.
  This week's resounding reaffirmation of the Miranda rule should put 
to rest the issue of Miranda's continuing vitality. Most law 
enforcement officers made their peace with Miranda long ago: It is time 
for the rest to do the same. That is why I am disturbed by Justice 
Scalia's parting shot in Dickerson. In a dissenting opinion joined by 
Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia vowed to continue to apply section 3501 
until such time as it is repealed.
  Mr. President, that time has come. I am introducing a bill today, 
together with my good friend, Senator Feingold, to repeal section 3501. 
I can think of no good reason to allow this patently unconstitutional 
statute to remain on the books. On the contrary, leaving section 3501 
on the books is sure to invite more unwarranted attacks on Miranda by 
the same conservative activists who brought us the Dickerson case. 
Enough is enough. Whatever you think of Miranda's reasoning and its 
resulting rule, seven Supreme Court Justices have reaffirmed its 
constitutional pedigree. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution by repudiating 
an unconstitutional statute.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2830

       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 ``Miranda Reaffirmation Act of 
     2000''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18.

       Section 3501 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (a) and (b); and
       (2) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c) respectively.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend from 
Vermont to introduce the Miranda Reaffirmation Act, a bill that repeals 
two sections of the United States Criminal Code because they directly 
conflict with the constitutional rule set forth by the United States 
Supreme court in the 1966 landmark decision of Miranda v. Arizona.
  This week, nearing the conclusion of a busy term, the United States 
Supreme Court handed down several very important decisions. In one of 
the more highly anticipated rulings, Dickerson v. United States, the 
Court held by a 7-2 majority that the rule announced in Miranda is 
still the supreme law of this land. As we are all aware, the Miranda 
rule instructs all law enforcement officers that prior to an in-custody 
interrogation they must inform suspects of several important 
constitutional rights: the right to remain silent, the right to 
counsel, and the right to have counsel appointed if they cannot afford 
one.
  As the Court noted, ``Miranda has become embedded in routine police 
practice to the point where the warning have become part of our 
national culture.'' Millions of American children have first learned 
about their constitutional rights by watching police dramas on 
television and hearing the famous Miranda warnings given to criminal 
suspects.
  Mr. President, the Supreme Court's reaffirmation of the Miranda rule 
was extremely important. In the Dickerson case, a private legal 
foundation and a law professor intervened in a criminal case and 
questioned whether Miranda warnings are constitutionally required. 
Relying on 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3501, they argued that law enforcement 
officers should not have to inform suspects of their basic 
constitutional rights before proceeding with in-custody interrogations 
as long as any confessions obtained were determined to be voluntary. 
While every administration since the law was passed in 1968 has refused 
to make this argument, a lower court in the Dickerson case agreed with 
it. Section 3501 was enacted in 1968, just two years after the original 
Miranda decision. It was a clear attempt by Congress to overturn the 
constitutional rule laid down in that case.
  It is a strange quirk of history that the validity of Sec. 3501 and 
Congress's attempt to overrule Miranda was addressed for the first time 
by the Supreme Court in the Dickerson case. The reason is that a series 
of Departments

[[Page 13014]]

of Justice, under both Republican and Democratic Presidents assumed 
that the statute was unconstitutional and refused to proceed under it. 
In Dickerson, the Supreme Court agreed with that view.
  Writing for a seven justice majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist pointed 
out that ``because of the obvious conflict between our decision in 
Miranda and Sec. 3501 we must address whether Congress has the 
constitutional authority to thus supercede Miranda.'' Second, the Chief 
Justice reiterated the established principle that ``Congress may not 
legislatively supercede our decision[s] interpreting and applying the 
constitution,'' and he concluded by ruling that ``Miranda announced a 
constitutional rule that Congress may not supercede legislatively.''
  Justice Scalia, in dissent, disagreed vehemently with the majority's 
analysis. In a somewhat curious declaration of defiance he wrote: 
``[U]ntil Sec. 3501 is repealed, [I] will continue to apply it in all 
cases where there has been a sustainable finding that the defendant's 
confession was voluntary.''
  Mr. President, as a result of the Court's unequivocal ruling in 
Dickerson, we now have a law on the books that the Court has ruled is 
inconsistent with what the Constitution requires with respect to 
constitutional in-custody interrogations. That may seem to be a matter 
of little consequence, but the statement of Justice Scalia that he will 
continue to apply it in future cases shows that it is not. The bill 
that we are introducing today eliminates this potential problem by 
removing the unconstitutional provision from the criminal code.
  This repeal will accomplish two things. It will bring our criminal 
code into line with what the Supreme Court has now firmly established 
as the law of the land, and it will remove from the books an 
ineffective law that Justice Rehnquist considered ``more difficult than 
Miranda for law enforcement officers to conform to, and for courts to 
apply in a consistent manner.'' The prophylactic rule established by 
Miranda has worked well and stood the test of time. Law enforcement 
officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys have found that it is a 
far better way to protect the constitutional rights of those accused of 
crimes than the ``voluntariness'' standard that was in place before 
Miranda and that Sec. 3501 attempted to keep in place.
  Mr. President, it is simply not appropriate for the existing criminal 
code to conflict with what the Supreme Court has ruled that the 
Constitution requires. It is our duty to act to repeal a provision that 
the Department of Justice has refused to apply and that the Supreme 
Court has held, in any event, cannot be enforced. As the ranking member 
of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I 
am proud to join the ranking member of the full Committee, Senator 
Leahy, in offering this straightforward and commonsense measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 2831. A bill to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act to improve conservation and management of sharks and 
establish a consistent national policy toward the practice of shark-
finning; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

                          ____________________