[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8431-8438]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ENZI:
  S. 906. A bill to provide for protection of gun owner privacy and 
ownership rights, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to announce the introduction of 
legislation that would make a technical correction to Chapter 44 of 
title 18 of the United States Code which would ensure that the rights 
of law-abiding gun owners are not further eroded by the Federal 
Government when it performs background checks for the purchase of 
firearms.
  My heart goes out to the families who have suffered harm or death at 
the hands of persons who have chosen to break State and Federal gun 
statutes. There is no excuse for violence. When one citizen suffers the 
effects of violence, all of America should be outraged and should 
demand the violation be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
  Unfortunately, many people have lost sight of the reason for these 
tragedies, and rather than focusing on preventing further gun violence 
by working to resolve the violent nature of modern society, the debate 
over gun control has deteriorated into an argument over ways to punish 
law-abiding citizens for the criminal actions of others. This leaves us 
far too often confronted with legislation that attempts to make people 
feel safer without providing any real security.
  Because of the extreme seriousness that surrounds incidents of gun 
violence, and because of the deep grief and horror that accompanies 
those times when the value of a human life is taken so lightly, I 
cannot in good faith support any legislation that makes empty promises 
and then does nothing to protect America's children.
  Events during the past two years clearly show that no number of laws 
or statutes will protect our children if those laws are not enforced. 
The key to curbing gun violence is stricter enforcement of existing 
laws and teaching our children that it is wrong to kill.
  No legislative action in the world will keep anyone safe if it is not 
enforced. By that same token, taking away the rights of law-abiding 
citizens does nothing to protect America's children from the illegal 
ownership or use of a firearm. As in all social problems, the solution 
to ending gun violence lies

[[Page 8432]]

in addressing the cause of the disease and not in picking away at its 
symptoms. Moral and social changes must take place throughout the 
nation. People must become more involved in their communities. Parents 
must become more involved in the lives of their children. Our society 
must reinforce the importance of treating others as you would like to 
be treated yourself.
  The legislation I am introducing today would correct a misguided 
oversight that has occurred in the enforcement of the background check 
requirements by first, prohibiting the Federal Government from imposing 
a tax on federally mandated background checks conducted for the 
transfer of a firearm; second, it would require law enforcement 
agencies who conduct background checks to immediately destroy the 
records of those firearm purchasers who, as a result of the background 
check, are determined to be a legal purchaser; and finally, it imposes 
civil penalties for Federal agencies who fail to comply with this 
requirement.
  The United States stands out as the example of democracy and freedom 
for the rest of the world. We hold this position because of our 
unswerving dedication to the Constitution, and to a Federal court 
system that has diligently worked to uphold the individual rights 
created by that historic document. This legislation makes it possible 
for law enforcement agencies to prevent conflicts that have arisen 
between an individual's right to privacy and an enumerated right to own 
a firearm. These conflicts have arisen as a result of a bad policy 
decision that allows Federal agencies to hold onto background check 
records for up to 90 days for ``Internal Audit'' reasons. Because of an 
inability to monitor what agencies do with those records during that 
time, the immediate record destruction requirement is absolutely 
necessary to prevent abuses that could place the rights of our citizens 
in further conflict. Once again, this does not apply to persons whose 
background checks show they are attempting to illegally purchase a 
firearm but only applies to law-abiding citizens whose background 
checks demonstrate that they can legally purchase a firearm.
  The underlying background check statute that this legislation amends 
authorizes federal agencies to conduct background searches for one 
reason and one reason only, to determine if the applicant can legally 
purchase a firearm. Once that purpose has been fulfilled there is no 
further authorization to retain the records of legal and law-abiding 
gun purchasers for any other agency actions.
  I realize that the question over the rights of gun ownership is an 
emotional issue for many people on both sides of the debate, but until 
the United States Constitution is overridden and our citizens' rights 
to own a gun are taken away, then our Federal agencies have no 
authority to impede or prevent law-abiding citizens from purchasing or 
possessing legally-acquired firearms. This legislation would retain 
those rights and restore equity to the implementation of the firearm 
background check statute.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CARNAHAN:
  S. 907. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
encourage the use of ethanol and the adoption of other forms of value-
added agriculture, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, things are happening fast in the value-
added agriculture industry, and I'm pleased that Missouri is leading 
the way in establishing innovative, value-added enterprises that will 
help our farm economy prosper.
  By encouraging new economic opportunities that add value to crops, we 
can help improve the economic stability of our family farms.
  While value-added agriculture can take many forms, a prime example is 
ethanol production. Increased ethanol production is not only exciting 
because it can be farmer-owned and farmer-driven, but because it will 
create a cleaner-burning fuel that stands to improve air quality.
  Ethanol production has become increasingly important as cities across 
the nation strive to fight smog and meet federal clean air standards. 
Hundreds of Missouri gas stations in the St. Louis area have begun 
dispensing reformulated gasoline, a move that will help boost demand 
for ethanol. With ethanol we also have greater energy security because 
we are replacing oil imports with domestic sources of renewable energy.
  Additional ethanol production will help provide a consistent demand 
for corn, which should help to improve corn prices and put more money 
in growers' pockets. Now more than five percent of our domestic corn 
production, or 550 million bushels of corn, is used every year to 
produce ethanol. That's especially important in times such as these 
when our farmers are facing critically low commodity prices.
  Today, I am introducing the Investment in Value-Added Agriculture 
that will build on the success of programs enacted during the Carnahan 
administration to encourage ethanol use and other forms of value-added 
agriculture. My legislation updates existing federal law affecting 
ethanol and uses Missouri law as a model for federal legislation to 
encourage investments in ethanol and other value-added agribusiness.
  My proposal consists of three components.
  First, it would extend the ethanol motor fuel excise tax. Currently, 
this exemption is due to expire in 2007. My legislation would extend 
the exemption through 2015.
  Second, the legislation would expand eligibility of the federal 
producer tax credit to farmer-owned cooperatives. It would also 
increase the production capacity limit to allow plants producing up to 
60 million gallons of ethanol receive the credit.
  Third, the legislation would encourage private investment in new-
generation cooperatives by creating a 50 percent tax credit on 
investments in these enterprises. New-generation cooperatives are 
producer owned entities designed to add a step to the production 
process that adds value to crops.
  With this legislation I want to continue to help farmers in Missouri 
and to also help farmers throughout the United States by bringing 
proven Missouri programs to the federal level. During my husband's 
gubernatorial administration, Missouri made great strides to encourage 
ethanol production and value-added agriculture.
  To encourage ethanol production in the state, Governor Carnahan 
provided the initial funding for the Missouri Qualified Fuel Ethanol 
Producer Incentive Fund. Under the incentive fund, Missouri ethanol 
producers are eligible for a maximum annual grant of $3.125 million for 
5 years.
  Two farmer-owned ethanol plants are now operating in Missouri. Both 
plants utilized funds from this incentive fund.
  In 1997, Missouri established a value-added grant and loan programs 
to help farmers process and add value to their raw commodities and earn 
more profit on their products. As of last year this program awarded 
more than $1.6 million in grants.
  In addition, the Value-Added Loan Guarantee Program has issued loan 
guarantees for more than $1.7 million. This program offers commercial 
lenders added security on agricultural development loans for projects 
that add value to Missouri farm products.
  One of Governor Carnahan's top priorities was the creation of an 
Agriculture Innovation Center. This Center, run out of the Missouri 
Department of Agriculture, serves as a one-stop shop for Missouri 
producers seeking help to implement creative ideas for raising, 
processing and marketing agricultural products.
  It is my sincere hope that this legislation will help encourage 
adoption and investment in value-added agriculture. Value-added 
agriculture holds the promise of invigorating the rural landscape and 
keeping jobs and income in local communities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Allard, Mr. Helms, Mr. 
        Hutchinson, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Shelby):
  S. 908. A bill to require Congress and the President to fulfill their 
constitutional duty to take personal responsibility for Federal laws; 
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

[[Page 8433]]

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing the 
Congressional Responsibility Act of 2001. The underlying principle of 
this legislation is that the Constitution forbids the delegation of 
legislative powers to any other branch of government.
  Following the preamble to the Constitution, Article I, Section 1 
begins: ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
Congress.'' The Founders clearly believed that this included the power 
to regulate, as they had noted John Locke's wise admonition that, ``the 
legislative [branch] cannot transfer the power of making law to any 
other hands.'' They understood that if this transfer did occur, 
legislators would no longer be responsible for the laws that government 
imposes on the people.
  Throughout the late eighteenth century and the entire nineteenth 
century, in fact for the first 150 years of our republic, the Supreme 
Court held that the transfer of legislative powers to another branch of 
government was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, in the late 1920's a 
radical break with the Constitution, and established precedent in 
previous Supreme Court rulings, occurred with the landmark case, J.W. 
Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States. This was, essentially, a ruling in 
favor of political expediency, and it started Congress down a slippery 
slope. Since the Hampton case, Congress has ceded its basic legislative 
responsibilities to executive branch agencies that craft and enforce 
regulations, which have the full force of law.
  Consequently, our constituents can be taxed, fined, and even 
imprisoned without any congressional action. This is unjust. The 
Founders purposefully designed the Congress to be the most accountable 
branch of government, but Congress has grown increasingly 
irresponsible. The fundamental link between voter and lawmaker has been 
severed. A handful of broadly written laws has spawned a virtual 
alphabet soup of government agencies and an overwhelming regulatory 
burden that undermines the very idea of representative government. 
During the 106th Congress, 2,510 new rules and revisions of old rules 
went into effect. Of these, 75 were considered to be major rules--or 
rules with an impact of $100 million or more. The case has become so 
egregious that many regulatory analysts believe more consequential law 
is generated in the executive branch than in the legislative branch.
  The bottom line is that the executive branch has assumed the law-
making authority given to the Congress. This is wrong.
  The Congressional Responsibility Act would restore the constitutional 
responsibility of the Congress over the formulation of all laws by 
making executive branch agencies accountable to the American people 
through their elected representatives in Congress. In short, it would 
return power to Congress, and ultimately it would return power to the 
people who elect us.
  Under the Congressional Responsibility Act all rules and regulations 
would have to come before the Congress prior to being enacted into law. 
Congress would then be required to have an up or down vote on the 
proposed rule or regulation before it could take effect. The bill 
provides for consideration of rules and regulations in an expedited 
manner, unless a majority of Members vote to send it through the normal 
legislative process. Under the bill, if Congress did not take action on 
the rule, then it would die by default. This approach not only puts 
Congress back in control of the legislative process, it also ends the 
horrendous practice of delegation without representation--and it makes 
Congress accountable for the laws that affect the lives of every 
American. It is about returning power, responsibility and authority 
back to Congress.
  This non-partisan, ideologically neutral concept was first offered by 
then Judge Stephen Breyer who wrote that we should end delegation as a 
means to satisfy ``the literal wording of the Constitution's bicameral 
and presentation clauses.'' The concept offered in the Congressional 
Responsibility Act also takes into account the Supreme Court's 1983 
decision in INS v. Chadha, which held a one-house veto to be 
unconstitutional. Other supporters of this concept include Judge Robert 
Bork; David Schoenbrod, a professor at New York Law School; and 
numerous other constitutional scholars.
  The Constitution suffered greatly in the twentieth century. Now, at 
the beginning of the twenty-first century, we have a tremendous 
opportunity to restore the Constitution to its rightful preeminence as 
the guarantor of our freedoms, the protector of our liberties, and the 
guiding force for our form of government.
  Delegation of legislative powers is as wrong today as taxation 
without representation was in the 1700s. With enactment of this 
legislation, we will send a clear message to the bureaucrats in 
Washington and to the American people at home: Congress must not 
delegate its constitutionally-granted powers.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, the Wildlife Services Division of the 
United States Department of Agriculture needs assistance in expediting 
proper bird management activities. I am here today to introduce 
legislation that accomplishes this goal.
  Proper migratory bird management is important to the State of 
Arkansas for a number of reasons. We are deemed ``The Natural State'' 
due to the numerous outdoor recreational opportunities that exist in 
the State. Fishing, hunting, and bird watching opportunities abound 
throughout Arkansas. Maintaining proper populations of wildlife, 
especially migratory birds, is essential for sustaining a balanced 
environment.
  In Arkansas, aquaculture production has taken great strides in recent 
years. The catfish industry in the State has grown rapidly and Arkansas 
currently ranks second nationally in acreage and production of catfish. 
The baitfish industry is not far behind, selling more than 15 million 
pounds of fish annually, with a cash value in excess of $43 million. I 
have been a great supporter of this industry since my days in the House 
of Representatives and I am concerned about the impact the double 
breasted cormorant is having on this industry. In the words of one of 
my constituents, ``The double-crested cormorant has become a natural 
disaster!'' I am pleased that the Fish and Wildlife Service has agreed 
to develop a national management plan for the double breasted cormorant 
and I am hopeful that an effective management program will be the 
result of these efforts.
  One of my top priorities since coming to Congress in 1992 has been to 
work to make government more efficient and effective. To specifically 
address what I see as an inequity among government agencies regarding 
this issue, I am introducing a bill today that gives Wildlife Service 
employees as much authority to manage and take migratory birds as any 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee. After all, Wildlife Services 
biologists are professional wildlife managers providing the front line 
of defense against such problems. With this legislation I would like to 
recognize the excellent job that Wildlife Services has done and is 
doing for bird management.
  Currently, USDA-Wildlife Services is required to apply for and 
receive a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before they 
can proceed with any bird collection or management activities. This 
process is redundant and unnecessary. Oftentimes, Wildlife Services 
finds that by the time a permit arrives, the birds for which the permit 
was applied for are already gone. I hope that this legislation will 
lead to a more streamlined effort for management purposes and I urge 
both agencies, USDA and the Fish and Wildlife Service, to work together 
to accomplish this goal.
  I would like to thank my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Tim 
Hutchinson, for joining me in this effort and look forward to working 
with my colleagues to ensure that government is operating efficiently.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Dayton and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 910. A bill to provide certain safeguards with respect to the 
domestic steel industry; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page 8434]]

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I introduce the Save the 
American Steel Industry Act of 2001. As you know, the domestic steel 
industry is currently faced with the most devastating crisis in its 
history, one that could lead to its decimation if the Administration 
fails to initiate action under Section 201 of our trade laws. Over two-
thirds of our largest steelmakers have entered bankruptcy since 1997, 
and some analysts predict that almost half of existing U.S. steelmaking 
capacity may be idled by year's end if the President does not take 
immediate and decisive action to provide the industry with desperately 
needed relief. The surge of dumped, subsidized, and disruptive imports 
that was initially triggered by the onset of the Asian financial crisis 
has not abated, but has in fact worsened over the past few months. 
Steel prices have plummeted over the last 3 years, with no hopes of 
rebounding, and an additional five U.S. steel companies entered Chapter 
11 in the first 4 months of this year, with more certain to follow 
absent Presidential action on Section 201.
  My State has two major steel facilities, one owned by Weirton and the 
other by Wheeling-Pittsburgh. Wheeling-Pitt is in bankruptcy and 
Weirton is struggling. Thousands of jobs and two important communities 
in a small, relatively poor State are threatened. It is a situation 
that is all too common in the American steel belt, and one that demands 
immediate attention.
  Throughout the steel belt, tens of thousands of jobs are at stake; 
more than 20,000 have already been lost. Hundreds of communities are 
endangered. Billions of dollars in wages and shareholder value are 
threatened. Most alarming, our national security is threatened. Unless 
we act decisively, the United States could soon be as dependent on 
foreign steel as we are on foreign oil. We are facing a permanent loss 
of capacity that has the potential to harm every heavy industry in this 
country, including automakers, defense contractors and, in my home 
State of West Virginia, aerospace companies.
  For some time now, I have advocated consolidation as one of the best 
ways to ensure the survival of the domestic steel industry in the face 
of this massive surge of imports. Merged companies create greater 
economies of scale and with their enhanced capacity and purchasing 
power, stand a better chance of competing against their heavily 
subsidized foreign competitors. While consolidation by itself will not 
relieve the hardships of the steel crisis for our steelworkers, their 
families and communities, the domestic industry can really only recover 
with the imposition of remedies under Section 201, I believe that it is 
a step in the right direction.
  Unfortunately, the pace of consolidation in the domestic industry has 
been slowed due to companies' fears of assuming the tremendous legacy 
and environmental compliance costs of acquired entities. Legacy costs, 
in particular, are a tremendous expense for companies, as there are 
more retired steelworkers than steelworkers currently employed. The 
burden of assuming such substantial costs has acted as a deterrent to 
industry consolidation, which I believe, gives our industry a much 
better chance of long-term survival.
  The Save the American Steel Industry Act of 2001 attempts to address 
these concerns. Title I of the Act establishes a Steel Retiree Health 
Care Board in the Department of Labor to administer a newly-created 
Health Care Benefit Costs Assistance Program. Under the program, the 
board will contribute funds to eligible steelworker group health plans 
equal to 75 percent of the qualified expenditures of such plans. The 
funds will be allocated from a Steelworker Retiree Health Care Trust 
Fund in the U.S. Treasury financed by a 2 percent Federal excise tax on 
all steel products sold in the United States.
  Title I is critical, because by some estimates, 10 percent of the 
cost of steel in the U.S. consists of payments to pension and retiree 
health care funds for workers laid off in the 70's and 80's. This new 
fund would be accessible to all steel companies providing health 
insurance to retirees and, as the pool of affected retirees declines, 
the tax will be reduced. In the meantime, U.S. companies will be at 
less of a disadvantage against competitors whose governments pick up 
the tab for health care and retirement costs.
  Title II of the Act allows merged companies to apply for grants of up 
to $200 million from the Commerce Department to help cover the costs of 
compliance with applicable environmental regulations. The Secretary of 
Commerce can only provide grants after it is determined that the merger 
promotes maximum retention of jobs and production capacity consistent 
with long-term viability. Specifically, at least 80 percent of the 
steelworkers employed by the merging companies, including a minimum 50 
percent of steelworkers employed by the acquired company, must be 
retained to qualify for a grant. At least 80 percent of the steelmaking 
facilities of each party must be retained. The Act provides for 
substantial penalties if a company receiving a grant subsequently 
violates these thresholds.
  Together, these two actions could make a tremendous difference for 
many domestic steel mills, especially small and mid-sized operations by 
providing incentives for domestic steel companies to consider joining 
forces. The Health Care Benefit Costs Assistance Program proposed under 
Title I makes mergers more likely by ensuring that a large portion of 
legacy costs inherited in consolidation plans would be covered by the 
Federal Government. By providing domestic steelmakers with substantial 
funds to bring merged facilities into compliance with environmental 
laws, Title II of the bill provides further incentives for 
consolidation. At the same time, Title II ensures that steelworkers and 
their families are not sacrificed in the merger process by requiring 
that most jobs and production capacity are retained and by heavily 
penalizing companies that receive funding and subsequently do not stick 
to the agreement.
  The American steel industry has earned the respect and consideration 
of this body as an industry that took some very tough medicine not so 
very long ago. During the first steel crisis, the U.S. steel industry 
got very little sympathy. As the first great wave of imports washed 
across our coasts, the industry was told that it was too old, too 
inefficient, and too unresponsive to save.
  But rather than walk away, the American steel industry put itself 
through a wrenching, and almost miraculous revitalization, transforming 
century-old mills into miracles of modern production. No steel industry 
on earth gets more production per man hour than the U.S. industry. None 
has a cleaner environmental record. No one has been faster or more 
effective at integrating computer technology into its production.
  And yet, having done that, the industry finds itself threatened 
again--not by better steelmakers, but by subsidized producers. 
Companies who have the support of their governments are taking 
advantage of our traditional commitment to trade, to dump steel on a 
saturated market. Their competitive advantage lies in their government 
support, and not their manufacturing skill. It is not fair. It is not 
just. And I don't believe that our Government should stand by idly and 
let the painful years and billions of dollars our steel industry 
invested be stolen away by companies who do not play by the rules.
  The Save the American Steel Industry Act of 2001 represents the first 
step in the Federal Government's commitment to ensuring that the United 
States maintains our basic steelmaking capacity. While I do not believe 
that the industry can survive without a comprehensive Section 201 
action on all steel products and ultimately, negotiation of a 
multilateral steel agreement with our trading partners to address the 
foreign overcapacity problem, this act provides greater incentives for 
domestic steel companies to consider consolidation, which, I believe, 
substantially enhances their chances of survival in today's 
increasingly turbulent steel marketplace. Failure to act now, in this 
Congress, would be a grave mistake.

[[Page 8435]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 911. A bill to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act of 1973; to 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, on Monday, May 7, I traveled once 
again to Klamath Falls, OR, to address a rally of more than 15,000 
people. They came to show their support for the farmers, farm workers, 
small business owners and local officials in the Upper Klamath River 
Basin who were devastated by the April 6 Bureau of Reclamation 
announcement that the agency would deliver no water to most of the 
agricultural lands that have always received irrigation water from the 
federal project.
  This decision is expected to cost the local economy between two 
hundred fifty million and three hundred million dollars. This is an 
area that has already been hurt economically by the significant 
reduction in the Federal timber sale program, and was further harmed 
when the Federal roadless policy precluded a proposed ski area that 
would have brought jobs and tourism dollars to the local community.
  This crisis highlights many of the current problems with the 
administration of the Endangered Species Act. We are managing the water 
resources in this basin for two fish species, at the expense of all 
other wildlife, including bald eagles. We are foregoing water 
deliveries to refuges that are a critical component of the western 
flyway in order to triple the water we are sending down the river for 
fish. We are also forgetting our human stewardship, and to date have 
failed to provide assistance to the farmers and ranchers who are facing 
economic ruin over this water allocation decision.
  You cannot look in the faces of those honest, hard-working farmers 
and ranchers, as I have, and believe that this situation is just or 
reasonable. You cannot see the anxiety on the faces of children who 
don't understand what is happening, or why a fish is more important 
than their family, and not be moved to action.
  That is why, to begin a meaningful dialogue on the Endangered Species 
Act, I am introducing the ``Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2001.'' 
This bill is almost identical to legislation that was reported out of 
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in the 105th Congress 
by a vote of fifteen to three. Those voting in favor were Senators 
Allard, Baucus, Bond, Chafee, Graham, Hutchison, Inhofe, Kempthorne, 
Moynihan, Reid, Sessions, Smith of New Hampshire, Thomas, Warner, and 
Wyden. The bill was supported by the Western Governors' Association, 
and incorporates the recommendations which that Association, the 
National Governors' Association and the International Association of 
Fish and Wildlife Agencies sent to the Congress in 1995.
  If enacted, this bill would do a better job of recovering species, 
while addressing the legitimate concerns of property owners or others 
affected by the Endangered Species Act. While increasing public 
participation, this legislation significantly strengthens the recovery 
planning process and creates new tools to ensure that recovery plans 
are implemented. The bill also streamlines the consultation process and 
provides significant new incentives for property owners to preserve and 
restore habitat for listed species.
  I remain committed to enhancing our environmental stewardship. But 
right now, we have a situation where over 1,100 species have been 
listed under the existing Act, and less than two dozen have been 
delisted. Litigation is consuming far too much of the time and 
resources of federal agencies that could be better spent actually 
recovering species.
  The time has come to admit that there must be a better way to protect 
wildlife. I hope that this will be the beginning of a bipartisan 
dialogue that results in effective improvements in the Act.
  In the meantime, I will continue to press for the assistance that the 
residents of the Klamath Falls area need to make it through this year. 
It has become increasingly apparent to me over the last three weeks 
that existing federal disaster assistance programs and crop insurance 
programs are simply not geared toward the type of situation we have in 
the Klamath Falls area. I will continue to press the Administration for 
an assistance package that will provide meaningful relief to these 
families.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 912. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to increase 
burial benefits for veterans; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Veterans Burial 
Benefits Improvement Act of 2001. I am pleased that my colleague, 
Senator Hutchison, joins me in introducing this legislation today.
  During the upcoming Memorial Day holiday, we will honor our U.S. 
soldiers who died in the name of their country. These service men and 
women are America's true heros and on this day we pay tribute to their 
courage and sacrifice. Some have given their lives for our country. All 
have given their time and dedication to ensure our country remains the 
land of the free and the home of the brave. We owe a special debt of 
gratitude to each and every one of them.
  This holiday serves as an important reminder that our nation has a 
sacred commitment to honor the promises made to soldiers when they 
signed up to serve our country. As the Ranking Member of the Senate 
Appropriations Subcommittee that funds veterans programs, I fight hard 
to make sure promises made to our service men and women are promises 
kept. These promises include access to quality, affordable health care 
and a proper burial for our veterans.
  I am deeply concerned that the Federal Government has not increased 
veterans' burial benefits for the families of our wounded or disabled 
veterans in over a decade. We are losing over 1,100 World War II 
veterans each day, but Congress has failed to increase veterans' burial 
benefits to keep up with rising costs and inflation. While these 
benefits were never intended to cover the full costs of burial, they 
now pay for only a fraction of what they covered in 1973, when the 
Federal Government first started paying burial benefits for our 
veterans.
  That's why I am introducing the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement 
Act. This bill will increase burial benefits to cover the same 
percentage of funeral costs as they did in 1973. It will also provide 
for these benefits to be increased annually to keep up with inflation.
  In 1973, the service-connected benefit payed for 72 percent of 
veterans' funeral costs. But this benefit has not been increased since 
1988, and it now covers just 29 percent of funeral costs. My bill will 
increase the service-connected benefit from $1,500 to $3,713, bringing 
it back up to the original 72 percent level.
  In 1973, the non-service connected benefit payed for 22 percent of 
funeral costs. It has not been increased since 1978, and today it 
covers just 6 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the non-
service connected benefit from $300 to $1,135, bringing it back up to 
the original 22 percent level.
  In 1973, the plot allowance payed for 13 percent of veterans' funeral 
costs. This benefit has never been increased, and it now covers just 3 
percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the plot allowance from 
$150 to $670, bringing it back up to the original 13 percent level.
  Finally, the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act will also 
ensure that these burial benefits are adjusted for inflation annually, 
so veterans won't have to fight this fight again.
  This legislation is just one way to honor our nation's service men 
and women. I want to thank the millions of veterans, Marylanders, and 
people across the Nation for their patriotism, devotion, and commitment 
to honoring the true meaning of Memorial Day. U.S. soldiers from every 
generation have shared in the duty of defending America and protecting 
our freedom. For these sacrifices, America is eternally grateful.

[[Page 8436]]

  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter from 
several veterans advocacy groups supporting it, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 912

       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 ``Veterans Burial Benefits 
     Improvement Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN BURIAL BENEFITS FOR VETERANS.

       (a) Burial and Funeral Expenses.--(1) Section 2302(a) of 
     title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking ``$300'' 
     and inserting ``$1,135 (as increased from time to time under 
     section 2309 of this title)''.
       (2) Section 2303(a)(1)(A) of that title is amended by 
     striking ``$300'' and inserting ``$1,135 (as increased from 
     time to time under section 2309 of this title)''.
       (3) Section 2307 of that title is amended by striking 
     ``$1,500,'' and inserting ``$3,713 (as increased from time to 
     time under section 2309 of this title),''.
       (b) Plot Allowance.--Section 2303(b) of that title is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``$150'' the first place it and inserting 
     ``$670 (as increased from time to time under section 2309 of 
     this title)''; and
       (2) by striking ``$150'' the second place it appears and 
     inserting ``$670 (as so increased)''.
       (c) Annual Adjustment.--(1) Chapter 23 of that title is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 2309. Annual adjustment of amounts of burial benefits

       ``With respect to any fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     provide a percentage increase (rounded to the nearest dollar) 
     in the burial and funeral expenses under sections 2302(a), 
     2303(a), and 2307 of this title, and in the plot allowance 
     under section 2303(b) of this title, equal to the percentage 
     by which--
       ``(1) the Consumer Price Index (all items, United States 
     city average) for the 12-month period ending on the June 30 
     preceding the beginning of the fiscal year for which the 
     increase is made, exceeds
       ``(2) the Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period 
     preceding the 12-month period described in paragraph (1).''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of that chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``2309. Annual adjustment of amounts of burial benefits.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), the amendments made by this section shall apply to 
     deaths occurring on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) No adjustments shall be made under section 2309 of 
     title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (c), for 
     fiscal year 2002.
                                  ____

                                           The Independent Budget,


                            A Budget for Veterans by Veterans,

                                     Washington, DC, May 14, 2001.
     Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Mikulski: We are pleased to support your 
     proposed legislation, the Veterans Burial Benefits 
     Improvement Act, to increase burial benefits for veterans. A 
     meaningful increase in benefits provided by our Government to 
     cover veterans' burial and funeral expenses is long overdue.
       This proposed legislation would increase burial allowances 
     to reflect the increasing costs of burial for veterans. 
     Benefits would be increased to cover the same percentage of 
     veterans' burial costs as in 1973. It would also provide for 
     these benefits to be adjusted to cover the costs of 
     inflation.
       The Independent Budget (IB) produced by AMVETS, Disabled 
     American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the 
     Veterans of Foreign Wars fully supports an adjustment of 
     burial allowances to reflect the increases in burial costs. 
     The allowance for service-connected deaths was last adjusted 
     in 1988, and the allowance for other deaths was last adjusted 
     in 1978. Over these several years without adjustment, the 
     value of the burial allowance has eroded. Clearly, it is time 
     these allowances are raised to make them a more meaningful 
     contribution to the costs of burial for our veterans.
       We greatly appreciate your efforts to increase veterans 
     burial allowances to a level that reflects the intended 
     benefit. This proposed legislation would help ensure that our 
     Nation's military veterans will be buried with the dignity 
     they deserve.
     David E. Woodbury,
       Executive Director, AMVETS.
     Keith W. Wingfield,
       Executive Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America.
     Robert E. Wallace,
       Executive Director, Veterans of Foreign War.
     David W. Gorman,
       Executive Director, Disabled American Veterans.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Smith of Oregon, 
        and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 913. A bill to amend title XVIII, of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage under the medicare program of all oral anticancer 
drugs; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a small bill, but 
one with important consequences. My measure, the Access to Cancer 
Therapies Act, would provide coverage of all oral anticancer drugs 
under the Medicare program. I am pleased to be joined by Senators 
Rockefeller, Gordon Smith, and Feinstein in introducing this measure.
  As my colleagues know, there is no Medicare outpatient prescription 
drug benefit today. If there was, we would not need this legislation. 
There should be and there must be a Medicare prescription drug benefit 
this year. Seniors are reeling from the burden of their prescription 
drug expenses, and they can't defer their illnesses or their costs.
  This legislation also reminds us of how crucial prescription drugs 
are, not only now but even more so in the future. Eight years ago, 
Congress created a unique Medicare drug benefit for oral anti-cancer 
drugs, but only if the drug is equivalent to drugs provided 
``incident'' to a physician visit; for example, drugs that must be 
injected. At present, upwards of 95 percent of cancer drug therapy is 
covered by Medicare either in a physician office or in a reimbursed 
oral form. But in the near future as much as 25 percent of cancer drug 
therapy will be in the form of oral drugs that are not currently 
covered.
  In fact, this is already happening. Today, there are about 40 oral 
anti-cancer drugs, but less than 10 are reimbursed by Medicare. For 
example, one of the most common drugs used in the treatment of breast 
cancer, tamoxifen, is among the drugs not currently reimbursed by 
Medicare.
  As cancer therapy moves more toward reliance on oral drugs, Medicare 
coverage policy must be updated to cover the new therapies, or else 
even the intent of this very limited policy will be meaningless and 
Medicare beneficiaries will increasingly lose access to the best cancer 
therapies. And without this legislative change, beneficiaries will 
increasingly bear the burden of buying these drugs from their own 
pockets, which most seniors can ill afford.
  Let me provide one very exciting example of an oral anti-cancer drug 
that illustrates both the urgency of this policy change and of enacting 
a Medicare prescription drug bill. Last week, the Food and Drug 
Administration approved a compound known as STI-571. Also known by its 
brand name Gleevec, this medication was approved in a record setting 
two and one-half months. Gleevec is used to treat one kind of leukemia 
and may also be effective against a rare but lethal stomach cancer.
  Gleevec is the first, let me repeat, first, cancer drug to 
specifically address a molecular target which is not only in the 
cancer, but actually the cause of the cancer, according to the National 
Cancer Institute. More precisely, Gleevec knocks out a specific enzyme 
needed for the cancer to thrive. By contrast, most current cancer 
therapies act like a shotgun, killing both cancer and normal cells. 
Moreover, Gleevec is among the first fruits of three decades of 
research into the basic biology of cancer.
  But Gleevec is not a cure, it simply arrests the cancer and returns 
most lab tests to normal. Patients may need to take the drug for life. 
And treatment is not cheap--a month's supply of Gleevec costs upwards 
of $2,400.
  While biomedical research is providing new, more targeted, and less 
toxic methods of treatment through new oral anti-cancer drugs that 
patients can safely take in the comfort of their own homes, Medicare 
policy is currently unable to provide reliable access to these 
medications for beneficiaries with cancer.
  At the very least, we must ensure all oral anti-cancer drugs are 
available to

[[Page 8437]]

our seniors. The Access to Cancer Therapies Act will build on current 
Medicare policy by ensuring coverage of all anti-cancer drugs, whether 
oral or injectable, are available to Medicare beneficiaries. The Act 
will provide beneficiaries with access to innovative new therapies that 
are less toxic and more convenient, more clinically effective and more 
cost-effective than many currently covered treatment options. I urge my 
colleague to support this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I have spoken many times about 
the importance of adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. There 
are other ways in which the Medicare program could be strengthened, for 
example, by upgrading for innovative medical technologies not covered 
under the old structure of Medicare. One example of advanced 
technologies that should be in use are oral anti-cancer drugs. I rise 
today in support of the Access to Cancer Therapies Act.
  Most people would be surprised to know that all cancer therapies are 
covered under Medicare. This situation is due to an accident of fate. 
When Medicare was created in 1965, orally administered cancer drugs 
were completely unknown. While 90 to 95 percent of anti-cancer drug 
therapy is covered under Medicare Part B, this coverage is largely 
limited to injectable drugs that are administered incident to covered 
physician services. Orally administered anti-cancer drugs are only 
covered if they have an injectable equivalent. Currently there are only 
seven of these pharmaceuticals available. Researchers fully expect that 
in the near future, cancer care will be much more heavily based on oral 
drugs; while oral drugs currently make up around 5 percent of the 
oncology market, it is projected that they will become 25 percent or 
more within a decade. Continuing to exclude coverage of oral cancer 
medications will impose significant unnecessary cost burdens on 
Medicare beneficiaries, and could influence treatment decisions more on 
the basis of cost than quality.
  The cure for cancer has long been the golden ring of medical 
research, eluding the grasp of even the most intrepid scientists. But 
today, in Oregon, we are one step close to a cure. At Oregon Health & 
Science University, or OHSU, in Portland, Dr. Brian Druker has 
discovered a treatment for a specific form of leukema--a treatment that 
offers hope to cancer patients everywhere. Dr. Druker's treatment, 
known as Gleevec, offers hope to cancer patients everywhere because it 
shows us how to fight cancer: at the molecular level. As Dr. Peter 
Kohler, President of OHSU, said: ``People have won the Nobel Prize for 
lesser work.''
  For Dr. Druker, this was a dream that began over twenty years ago, as 
a medical student. He sat through a lecture on chemotherapy and thought 
the practice barbaric. He dreamt of the day that chemotherapy could be 
replaced with a more humane treatment that killed cancerous cells, but 
didn't ravage the body. In his research, he developed an interest in 
the proteins responsible for signaling cell growth. He believed these 
proteins were perfect targets for new therapies. In particular, he felt 
that BCR-ABL, an abnormal protein responsible for overproduction of 
white blood cells in a certain type of leukemia, was the best bet for 
targeted therapy.
  In 1993, he came to Oregon to head up his own leukemia research lab 
at OHSU. It was at that point that his research really started to 
blossom. He began to experiment with potential treatments for chronic 
myelogenous leukemia, or CML. One chemical compound, STI 571, 
immediately showed the most promise. Clinical testing began in June 
1998 and the results were nothing less than astonishing. In every case, 
white blood cell counts returned to normal within six weeks. ``I 
thought it was too good to be true,'' Druker says.
  In fact, further clinical trials have shown that STI 571, now known 
as Gleevec, is, if anything, more effective than Dr. Druker originally 
thought. Trials have been extended to 30 countries and nearly 3000 
patients. Over 90 percent of those in the disease's acute, or blast, 
phase have seen their white blood cell counts return to normal, and 
one-third in the same phase have no remaining traces of leukemia. In 
other words, not only did Gleevec treat the leukemia symptoms, it began 
to eliminate the molecular basis of the disease altogether. Not 
surprisingly, the Food and Drug Administration last week approved 
Gleevec for the treatment of CML, the fastest ever approval by the FDA 
for an anti-cancer treatment.
  Further clinical trials have shown that Gleevec is effective for a 
rare form of cancer known as gastrointestinal stromal tumor, or GIST. 
Similar to the way Gleevec inhibits the BCR-ABL protein that is found 
in nearly all CML sufferers, Gleevec also appears to inhibit the so-
called KIT protein that is prevalent in most gastrointestinal tumor 
patients. Trials are also planned or already underway to test Gleevec 
on brain tumors and soft tissue sarcoma. As Dr. Druker says, Gleevec is 
unlikely to be a cure for every form of cancer. Nevertheless, it does 
provide a road map. The important step is to find the molecular defect 
that underlies each form of cancer and target it for therapy. And with 
the completion of the Human Genome Project, the information to help 
find those molecular defects is now available.
  The discovery of Gleevec secures Dr. Druker's reputation as one of 
the foremost scientists of his generation, and may well put him in line 
for that Nobel Prize mentioned by Dr. Kohler. But it also symbolizes 
the growing strength of the Oregon Cancer Institute at OHSU. The 
institute is relatively new, but that hasn't hindered it from having a 
large impact on the field. That's a testament to the high intellectual 
caliber of the staff there. As Dr. Grover Bagby, director, points out: 
the Oregon Cancer Institute was founded on the principle of fighting 
cancer at the molecular level. And thanks to Dr. Druker, fighting 
cancer at the molecular level is now the guiding principle for cancer 
researchers everywhere.
  As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the cure for cancer has 
long been the golden ring of medical research. Yet today, thanks to the 
work of Dr. Druker and others at OHSU, cures for cancer are at hand. 
This is a proud day for medical research, and a proud day for Oregon.
  Passage of the Access to Cancer Therapies Act would give hope to 
Oregonians such as Jim Underwood, a Medicare beneficiary in Oregon in 
the last stages of leukemia. Because Medicare does not currently cover 
oral cancer treatments, many patients like Jim Greenwood may not 
benefit from the most innovative, appropriate cancer fighting 
technologies. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move 
quickly to pass the Access to Cancer Therapies Act so that all Medicare 
beneficiaries can have access to the most technologically advanced 
medications available and appropriate for their conditions.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I am pleased today to join as an 
original sponsor with Senators Snowe, Smith and Rockefeller, a bill to 
provide Medicare coverage of cancer drugs.
  More than 8 million Americans require some form of cancer care: 1.2 
million of these are newly diagnosed patients; some are already on 
treatment; some need follow-up care. Over half a million people will 
die from cancer this year.
  Medicare, generally, does not cover cancer drugs. This bill will 
provide that coverage.
  Providing Medicare coverage of cancer drugs is particularly important 
in light of a promising new class of drugs that are becoming available. 
One of those drugs is Gleevec, formerly known as STI 571.
  I am greatly heartened by the news that on May 10 the Food and Drug 
Administration approved Gleevec for the treatment of chronic 
myelogenous leukemia. Gleevec is revolutionary because it can precisely 
target the dysfunctional proteins that cause this cancer and it can 
disable cancer cells to the point that they are metabolically 
inactivated with 12 hours of administering the drug.
  Furthermore, Gleevec does not destroy the ``good'' cells, as other 
treatments do. It helped over 90 percent of patients in clinical trials 
and holds

[[Page 8438]]

great promise for other cancers. Scientists say this drug is the wave 
of the future.
  Not only is this drug highly medically effective, it is cost-
effective. Gleevec is expected initially to cost around $25,000 
annually. While that is a high price, in my view, the other 
alternative, or standard treatment for this kind of leukemia, is a bone 
marrow transplant. Bone marrow transplants cost on average $250,000 per 
procedure. So this drug will be cheaper than the conventional 
treatment.
  Sixty percent of cancer cases occur among people over age 65, a 
number that will grow as the American population ages, so Medicare is a 
major payer of cancer care. Cancer therapies have evolved to the point 
where most cancer care is delivered on an outpatient basis, not in a 
hospital.
  In terms of Medicare, oral, outpatient, prescription cancer drugs are 
currently covered by Medicare only if the drugs have the same active 
ingredient as the equivalent injectable cancer drug. This means that 
very few cancer drugs are covered.
  No one really knows how much Medicare patients pay out-of-pocket for 
cancer drugs, but according to the Institute of Medicine, ``available 
evidence suggests that it is substantial.'' One study found that 
Medicare covered 83 percent of typical charges for lung cancer and 65 
percent of typical charges for breast cancer. Out-of-pocket expenses 
ranged from less than $100 to near $4,000. One-third of Medicare 
beneficiaries have private insurance that covers the prescription drugs 
that Medicare does not cover. Even if beneficiaries have private drug 
coverage, that coverage often has high deductibles and other limits so 
that beneficiaries still have high out of pocket expenses.
  The bill we are introducing today addresses just part of the problem. 
Clearly, we must work for a comprehensive Medicare drug benefit for all 
illnesses and we must work to improve private health insurance 
coverage.
  The cost of delivering cancer care is $50 billion a year, says the 
National Cancer Institute. These are costs that we can reduce and this 
bill is one step.
  I hope that by expanding Medicare coverage to cover cancer drugs we 
can garner support for broader coverage, we can encourage drug 
companies to make many more new drugs and we can give hope to millions 
who suffer from cancer.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 914. A bill to designate the United States courthouse located at 
95 Seventh Street in San Francisco, California, as the ``James R. 
Browning United States Courthouse''; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to name 
the courthouse at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco, CA as the ``James 
R. Browning United States Courthouse.''
  Judge Browning was appointed to the court by President Kennedy and 
has spent 40 years as a circuit judge on the Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit. For twelve of those years, he served as Chief Judge. As 
chief judge, Judge Browning reorganized and modernized the 
administration of the Ninth Circuit. Now, he is on Senior Status.
  He is originally from Montana and graduated from Montana State 
University in 1938 and from Montana University Law School in 1941, 
achieving the highest scholastic record in his class and serving as 
editor-in-chief of the law review. Before being appointed to the Court, 
Judge Browning served in the U.S. Army and worked for Department of 
Justice and in private practice.
  I can think of no more appropriate honor for Judge Browning than to 
place his name on the courthouse building where he has worked for 40 
years.

                          ____________________