Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this morning I noticed in the Washington Times newspaper that President Clinton has signed the bill we authored here in the Senate, the National Missile Defense Act. This is very important legislation which the Senate passed after a lot of debate. The House and the Senate then reconciled differences between the House- passed measure and the Senate bill and sent the bill to the President. The President made a statement in connection with his signing the bill which raises some questions that I thought should be addressed by a comment this morning. After talking about the fact that he is signing the bill to address the growing danger that rogue nations may develop and field long-range missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies, he then has this to say in his message. He is referring to the fact that authorization and appropriations measures will be a part of the process in terms of when and how and to what extent the funding is available for national missile defense. This interpretation, which is confirmed by the legislative record taken as a whole, is also required to avoid a possible impairment of my constitutional authorities. The President is suggesting that the bill doesn't mean what it says. I think that has to be brought to the attention of the Senate. The bill is very clear. It provides that it is the policy of the United States, upon enactment of this law, to deploy a national missile defense system as soon as technologically possible. That is unequivocal. It does not say ``but if.'' It is a change in policy of our Government. It has passed both Houses by a large majority, and now the President has signed the statute. It seems to me the President is trying to reinterpret the bill to justify changing his position on this issue. He signed the bill; he didn't veto it. This is not a veto message. He could have vetoed the bill, if he disagreed with the terms, and given Congress an opportunity to review that veto message and override the veto or sustain it, as the Congress' will dictates. I point this out to suggest that it is clear we have changed our policy, irrespective of the President's qualms about the new policy, and we now are committed as a nation to deploy a national missile defense system. We will do so in the orderly course of authorization and appropriation bills that we pass, as required. We have an annual appropriations bill funding all of the activities of the Department of Defense. But it is clear that one of those activities will be the continued research, development, and deployment of a national missile defense system. I think it is very timely to point this out because the Prime Minister of Russia is coming to the United States. There will be talks this week with the President. I am hopeful, and I urge the President to be honest with the Russian leadership about the need to modify the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty because the first part of that treaty says that neither signatory will deploy a missile defense system to protect the territory of its nation. But we have just changed the law of the United States to say that is our intention. We are committed to deploying a missile defense system that will protect the territory of the United States. So, insofar as that is inconsistent with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the treaty needs to be changed, and our President should say that to the Prime Minister of Russia unequivocally--not we ``may'' change our mind when it comes time to authorize a deployment or to fund a deployment. The decision has been made to deploy a system, and when technology permits us to deploy an effective missile defense system under the terms of this act, we are going to do it irrespective of the provisions of that treaty. So we must change the treaty. And we want to assure the Russians that we are not targeting them. We are not trying to create a new era of tension or competition or to make this a more dangerous relationship--just the opposite; we want to be aboveboard, candid, and honest with the Russians. That is what I hope the President will do as a spokesman for our country. At this point, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the statement by the President at his signing of the National Missile Defense Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I agree with Senator Warner that this is an issue that must be addressed. In prior action, the Congress provided the authority for federal departments and agencies to contribute one-half of the costs of obtaining professional liability insurance for federal managers and law enforcement officials. Unfortunately, this benefit has not been offered by all federal departments. I am committed to working with Senator Warner to address this issue and to ensure that all federal managers and law enforcement officials are treated fairly.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am submitting a Senate Resolution to designate March, 2000 as Arts Education Month. This legislation complements S. 1293, the Congressional Recognition for Excellence in Arts Education Act, which I introduced earlier this week. Instruction in music, visual arts, theater and dance occurs in schools across the nation. There is growing awareness of arts education as a serious academic subject with a list of benefits that include ensuring America's arts traditions, higher I.Q.'s, better SAT scores, better math and language skills, less juvenile delinquency, better chances of higher education, and increased job opportunities. The National Assessment of Education Progress, The College Board, The U.S. Department of Justice, The National Endowment for the Arts, and scientific research on the brain have all recently reported evidence of the multiple advantages of arts instruction. For example, the July 5, 1999 issue of Time magazine has a report titled, ``Fingers, Brains and Mozart'' which highlights recent brain research and the positive effects of music instruction. It is time for the United States Senate to recognize the achievements and efforts in arts education in all schools. I hope that by designating March, 2000 as Arts Education Month, more schools will engage in activities that showcase celebrate, reward and provide new arts experiences. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in sponsoring Arts Education Month.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on May 6, 1999, I was pleased to join my friend, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, (Mr. Domenici), in introducing a Senate Resolution designating the third week in October, 1999 and 2000 as Character Counts Week. I am delighted today that we are approving this legislation, just as we have approved similar legislation in the Senate every year since 1994. In 1993, the Josephson Institute of Ethics convened a conference of ethicists, educators and other leaders to examine the issue of character development. The result of that conference, held in Aspen Colorado, was the Aspen Declaration on Character Education. The elements of character described in the Aspen Declaration were: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. They are often referred to now as the Six Pillars of Character. Today, more than 300 member organizations, including community groups, schools and businesses are part of a nationwide Character Counts Coalition. These organizations sponsor programs that emphasize the importance of good character traits in our society. American society is dependent on the strength of the character of her citizens. Never have we seen a time in the life of our society that good character has been more important. Solid lessons in character must be taught by parents and families, schools, and religious groups. A 1996 National School Boards Association report on Character Education in our schools showed a significant trend toward adopting character education programs in schools. Character Counts! suggests three steps to teach young people for making the decision to do the right thing: 1. Think about the welfare of all people likely to be affected by your actions and make choices that avoid harm to and promote the well-being of others. 2. Demonstrate character by living up to all ethical principles of the Six Pillars of Character even when you must give up other things you want. 3. If you cannot live up to one ethical principle without giving up another, do the thing that you sincerely believe will promote a better society and should be done by all. The National School Boards Association report found that schools with character education programs reported improvement in student leadership, discipline, violence, vandalism, academic performance, attendance and drug and alcohol incidents. It also stated, ``Ultimately, . . . character education may be a long-term investment as improvement and contribution levels often increase over time.'' As we work to train our children well, we must keep in mind that we are building the foundation for new generations. The examples we set about how we treat others, and what we accept in social behavior will influence not only our children, but all children. In Mississippi, the Noxubee County Competitive Community Program, the Ocean Springs Chamber of Commerce, Kids With Character, and the Junior Auxiliary of Clinton are organizations who have joined the Character Counts! Coalition. They make specific commitments including: To integrate character education into new and existing programs and to encourage young people and their parents to adopt and model the Six Pillars. And, to participate in CHARACTER COUNTS! Week. I congratulate them on their important efforts and hope that this year more groups and communities will become involved in similar programs.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Congressional Recognition for Excellence in Arts Education Act. The act establishes awards for schools that include the arts in their regular curriculum. When Congress passed the Improving America's Schools Act in 1994, we found ``that the arts are forms of understanding and ways of knowing that are fundamentally important to education.'' Since then, many professional studies have been published about the relationship of arts education to brain development, student achievement, career potential and other life quality issues. The 1997 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Arts Report Card was the first ever assessment of the effects of specific arts instruction and the level of fine arts skills in American students. The assessment found that music and visual arts were more likely to be taught than theater or dance, but the percentages of students actually in classes and their achievement varied widely. The report card showed that instruction improved competency and literacy; and without it, very few students were able to create or perform at an advanced or adequate level. This report card makes clear that attaining knowledge and skill in the arts is no different from becoming proficient in any school subject. While a few students are gifted, most have to be taught in order to discover and use our abilities. And gifted students also need training and learning opportunities. The evidence of the positive effects of arts education on overall scholastic achievement is an incentive for students, parents and schools to support serious sequential course work. In 1997, The College Board reported that high school students with four or more years of arts instruction scored over 100 points higher on the Scholastic Aptitude Test than students with no arts instruction. And according to the medical publication, Neurological Research, a California study determined that young children with six months of keyboard instruction performed 34% higher on tests measuring temporal-spatial ability than other children. Arts activity has been shown to lower the likelihood of delinquent behavior. In 1996, the Department of Justice and the National Endowment for the Arts began a project called YouthARTS, which developed model after-school arts programs for teenagers. The evaluation of programs in Fulton County, Georgia; Portland, Oregon; and San Antonio, Texas found that YouthARTS participants significantly decreased their delinquent behavior, increased their communication skills, and improved their ability to complete tasks. The National Dropout Prevention Center reported that school arts classes and activities encourage attendance and achievement of at-risk high school students. Programs teaching arts in schools differ widely from state to state, and from district to district within a state. The effectiveness of the programs also varies. The Arts Education Partnership is a private, nonprofit coalition of education, arts, business, philanthropic, and government organizations that demonstrates and promotes the essential role of arts education in enabling all students to succeed in school, life, and work. It was formed in 1995 through a cooperative agreement between the National Endowment for the Arts, the United States Education Department, the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Mr. President, earlier this year, the Arts Education Partnership, with the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities, released a report titled, Gaining the Arts Advantage: Lessons From School Districts that Value Arts Education. It is a national study of arts education in schools. Thirteen ``critical success factors'' of district-wide arts education programs were identified. The introduction to the report summarizes the findings this way, ``the presence and quality of arts education in public schools today require an exceptional degree of involvement by influential segments of the community which value the arts in the total affairs of the school district: in governance, funding, and program delivery.'' The report profiles 91 American school districts with successful arts curriculum programs. I was very pleased to find the Hattiesburg and Starkville, Mississippi school districts featured in the report. Outside funding and the success of classes in music, drama, dance and visual arts has turned the arts into a priority in the Hattiesburg Public School District budget. Hattiesburg superintendent Dr. Gordon Walker views arts as a school responsibility to ensure that, ``all students' lives are enriched and enhanced through academic achievement in the arts.'' Starkville's K-12 arts programs include: theater, visual arts, music labs, television and graphic arts. Other features in their arts education plan are a design program that brings university architecture students to an elementary school and an after school program funded by a U.S. Department of Education grant. Joyce Polk, Starkville School District arts coordinator explained that a comprehensive arts education, ``. . . improves academic achievement and results in the development of well-rounded students who are able to leave rural Mississippi and compete in prestigious college and university environments.'' She also attributes arts opportunities in the schools with a higher quality of life for all community members, an understanding between diverse ethnic and cultural groups, a common bond among students, and long term healthy lifestyles. I am proud of these school districts and the example they set for other American school districts. An example of innovative efforts to support excellence and commitment in arts instruction is the Mississippi Arts Commission's Whole Schools Institute, which began this year. The institute at Millsaps College in Jackson, Mississippi, is a week of professional development in teaching, planning and implementing new curriculum. School teams of over 150 superintendents, principals, teachers, community and business leaders had one-on-one training with nationally renowned arts educators, child and brain development researchers and arts professionals. By recognizing the importance of arts instruction, I hope that we make arts classes in schools as common as English or math. My bill establishes the Congressional Recognition for Excellence in Arts Education (CREATE) Awards and a board to direct the activities needed to promote it, to encourage arts curriculum, and to determine eligible schools. Mr. President, vision and excellence can't be mandated, but through legislation, such as the Congressional Recognition for Excellence in Arts Education Act, we can reward it. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Congressional Recognition for Excellence in Arts Education Act. The act establishes awards for schools that include the arts in their regular curriculum. When Congress passed the Improving America's Schools Act in 1994, we found ``that the arts are forms of understanding and ways of knowing that are fundamentally important to education.'' Since then, many professional studies have been published about the relationship of arts education to brain development, student achievement, career potential and other life quality issues. The 1997 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Arts Report Card was the first ever assessment of the effects of specific arts instruction and the level of fine arts skills in American students. The assessment found that music and visual arts were more likely to be taught than theater or dance, but the percentages of students actually in classes and their achievement varied widely. The report card showed that instruction improved competency and literacy; and without it, very few students were able to create or perform at an advanced or adequate level. This report card makes clear that attaining knowledge and skill in the arts is no different from becoming proficient in any school subject. While a few students are gifted, most have to be taught in order to discover and use our abilities. And gifted students also need training and learning opportunities. The evidence of the positive effects of arts education on overall scholastic achievement is an incentive for students, parents and schools to support serious sequential course work. In 1997, The College Board reported that high school students with four or more years of arts instruction scored over 100 points higher on the Scholastic Aptitude Test than students with no arts instruction. And according to the medical publication, Neurological Research, a California study determined that young children with six months of keyboard instruction performed 34% higher on tests measuring temporal-spatial ability than other children. Arts activity has been shown to lower the likelihood of delinquent behavior. In 1996, the Department of Justice and the National Endowment for the Arts began a project called YouthARTS, which developed model after-school arts programs for teenagers. The evaluation of programs in Fulton County, Georgia; Portland, Oregon; and San Antonio, Texas found that YouthARTS participants significantly decreased their delinquent behavior, increased their communication skills, and improved their ability to complete tasks. The National Dropout Prevention Center reported that school arts classes and activities encourage attendance and achievement of at-risk high school students. Programs teaching arts in schools differ widely from state to state, and from district to district within a state. The effectiveness of the programs also varies. The Arts Education Partnership is a private, nonprofit coalition of education, arts, business, philanthropic, and government organizations that demonstrates and promotes the essential role of arts education in enabling all students to succeed in school, life, and work. It was formed in 1995 through a cooperative agreement between the National Endowment for the Arts, the United States Education Department, the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Mr. President, earlier this year, the Arts Education Partnership, with the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities, released a report titled, Gaining the Arts Advantage: Lessons From School Districts that Value Arts Education. It is a national study of arts education in schools. Thirteen ``critical success factors'' of district-wide arts education programs were identified. The introduction to the report summarizes the findings this way, ``the presence and quality of arts education in public schools today require an exceptional degree of involvement by influential segments of the community which value the arts in the total affairs of the school district: in governance, funding, and program delivery.'' The report profiles 91 American school districts with successful arts curriculum programs. I was very pleased to find the Hattiesburg and Starkville, Mississippi school districts featured in the report. Outside funding and the success of classes in music, drama, dance and visual arts has turned the arts into a priority in the Hattiesburg Public School District budget. Hattiesburg superintendent Dr. Gordon Walker views arts as a school responsibility to ensure that, ``all students' lives are enriched and enhanced through academic achievement in the arts.'' Starkville's K-12 arts programs include: theater, visual arts, music labs, television and graphic arts. Other features in their arts education plan are a design program that brings university architecture students to an elementary school and an after school program funded by a U.S. Department of Education grant. Joyce Polk, Starkville School District arts coordinator explained that a comprehensive arts education, ``. . . improves academic achievement and results in the development of well-rounded students who are able to leave rural Mississippi and compete in prestigious college and university environments.'' She also attributes arts opportunities in the schools with a higher quality of life for all community members, an understanding between diverse ethnic and cultural groups, a common bond among students, and long term healthy lifestyles. I am proud of these school districts and the example they set for other American school districts. An example of innovative efforts to support excellence and commitment in arts instruction is the Mississippi Arts Commission's Whole Schools Institute, which began this year. The institute at Millsaps College in Jackson, Mississippi, is a week of professional development in teaching, planning and implementing new curriculum. School teams of over 150 superintendents, principals, teachers, community and business leaders had one-on-one training with nationally renowned arts educators, child and brain development researchers and arts professionals. By recognizing the importance of arts instruction, I hope that we make arts classes in schools as common as English or math. My bill establishes the Congressional Recognition for Excellence in Arts Education (CREATE) Awards and a board to direct the activities needed to promote it, to encourage arts curriculum, and to determine eligible schools. Mr. President, vision and excellence can't be mandated, but through legislation, such as the Congressional Recognition for Excellence in Arts Education Act, we can reward it. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I have been told that it has been cleared on both sides of the aisle to continue morning business until 3:45 under the same terms with equal division of time between both sides. I ask that we extend by unanimous consent morning business until 3:45 p.m.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--and this has been cleared on both sides--that we continue in morning business until the hour of 3 p.m., with the time equally divided between both sides.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, is there an order for the conduct of business at this point?

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, imposing quotas on the importation of foreign steel to protect some U.S. steel producers will have several negative effects on the domestic and world economy. The best way to combat illegal trade practices is to adopt trade laws that are compatible with World Trade Organization rules. We already have in place section 201, dealing with temporary import surges and section 301, regarding anti-dumping. They have both proven effective in recent months in altering the steel trade balance. Steel imports are already subject to over 100 outstanding antidumping and countervailing duty orders. Congress should not judge the outcome of these investigations by imposing quotas on top of existing trade rules. Maintaining consistency in our trade policy is of utmost importance, given that the U.S. is the world's largest trading country. Furthermore, The United States will host the WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle later this year. The success of these ongoing international trade talks depends on our credibility and compliance with those rules. We must recognize that imposing on steel imports may affect other important U.S. industries as well. In Mississippi there are wire producers, shipbuilders and manufacturers who provide thousands of jobs and whose products contribute to our strong U.S. economy. And, when retaliations occur as a result of our implementation of quotas, they will undoubtedly affect other sectors of our economy, including agriculture. In Mississippi alone agriculture exports of cotton, soybeans, poultry, rice and meat account for $850 million and 13,900 jobs according to the USDA and Census Bureau. The American Farm Bureau reports that exports constitute more than one-third of all U.S. agricultural sales. More than 1 million Americans today have jobs dependent on U.S. agricultural exports, including farming, food processing and transportation. The Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports reports that every one billion dollars in exports helps create as many as 17,000 new jobs. In light of the market crises abroad in Asia, Russia, and the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union, it is more important than ever to assist the agricultural community by maintaining its access to the world's markets. This is the key to economic recovery of the farm sector. U.S. agricultural and manufacturing exports totaled more than $680 billion last year. If Congress imposes quotas inconsistent with WTO rules, all U.S. industries may be targets for retaliation, putting at risk the revenues and jobs these industries and their exports produce. It is these very WTO agreements which enable our trading partners to retaliate against our exports. This legislation's protection for the specialized steel industry will lead to protectionism. For the good of all U.S. industries--as well as agriculture--open markets, free, and fair trade, and a rules-based international trading system ought to be the principles on which we base our trade laws.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank my colleague from Missouri for raising this issue. For patients who have very specific pharmaceutical needs, pharmacy compounding is clearly extremely important, and I don't believe the federal government should be creating unnecessary hassles or problems for pharmacists who are legitimately serving these patients needs.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am genuinely flattered by the kind and generous comments of my distinguished colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts. As others know, he served with distinction as chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the other body. He led the passage of farm legislation in that body, and he has been a very effective spokesman for the farmers and ranchers of the entire country, not just of his home State of Kansas. We benefit from his advice and counsel. I appreciate his personal friendship as well and taking time to talk about this legislation and point out what we are trying to accomplish by funding the programs in this bill. I appreciate his remarks very much.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, we are hopeful we can take up amendments that Senators may have on this legislation. We will have between now and about 5:30 available for that purpose. The leader had announced when the Senate recessed last week that a vote was anticipated at or about 5:30 today. It could be that a vote on an amendment to the bill will occur at about 5:30 today. If Senators would like to offer an amendment and get a vote, this is an opportunity to do that--debate the amendment, explain the amendment; the managers are available here to consider any suggested changes in the bill. We invite Senators to come to the floor and offer their amendments or make statements on the bill. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Thurmond, I ask unanimous consent the privilege of the floor be granted to Ernie Coggins, a legislative fellow, during the pendency of S. 1233.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COCHRAN. I object. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator for his thoughts, and pledge to work with him and others during deliberations of the conference committee on this bill to address this problem.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to present for the Senate's consideration, S. 1233, the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. This bill provides fiscal year 2000 funding for all programs and activities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The Forest Service is not included. It is funded in the Interior appropriations bill. As reported, the bill recommends total new budget authority for fiscal year 2000 of $60.7 billion. This is $6.2 billion more than the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and $1.2 billion less than the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request. Changes in mandatory funding requirements account for the overall increase from the fiscal year 1999 enacted level primarily due to a $5.9 billion estimated increase in the required payment to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized losses. In fact, I point out that just over three-quarters of the total $60.7 billion recommended by this bill is for mandatory appropriations, over which the Appropriations Committee has no effective control. The spending levels for these programs are governed by authorizing statutes. The mandatory programs funded by the bill include not only the payment to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized losses which I just mentioned, but the food stamp and child nutrition programs, and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. Less than one-fourth of the total funding recommended by this bill is for discretionary programs and activities. Including congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior year spending actions, this bill recommends total discretionary spending of $13.983 billion in budget authority and $14.254 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2000. These amounts are consistent with the subcommittee's discretionary spending allocations. I will take a few minutes to summarize the bill's major funding recommendations. For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, appropriations of $638 million are recommended, $21 million more than the fiscal year 1999 level. For the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, $445 million is recommended, $11 million more than the 1999 level. Appropriations of USDA headquarters operations and for other agriculture marketing and regulatory programs are approximately the same as the 1999 appropriations levels, with the exception of a $7 million increase in the mandatory USDA rental payment to the General Services Administration, a $7 million reduction in funding for the census of agriculture, and increased funding for programs and activities included in the President's food safety initiative. For farm credit programs, the bill funds an estimated $3.1 billion total loan program level, $798 million more than the fiscal year 1999 level, excluding additional loans funded through fiscal 1999 emergency appropriations. The amount recommended includes $559 million for farm ownership loans and $2.4 billion for farm operating loans. Total appropriations of $795 million are recommended for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency. This is $80 million more than the 1999 level and the same as the President's budget request. For agriculture research, education, and extension activities, the bill provides total appropriations of $1.8 billion. Included in this amount is a reduction from fiscal year 1999 of $3.4 million for Agricultural Research Service, ARS, buildings and facilities, a $24 million increase for research activities of the ARS; and a $12 million increase in total funding for the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. For USDA conservation programs, total funding of $807 million is provided, $15 million more than the 1999 level. This includes $656 million for conservation operations, $99 million for watershed and flood prevention operations, and $35 million for the resource conservation and development program. USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service is funded at a level of $140 million. In addition, a total program level of $946 million is recommended for the Public Law 480 program, including $159 million for Title I and $787 million for Title II of the program. These amounts, together with projected carryover balances, will, at minimum, be sufficient to maintain the fiscal year 1999 funded P.L. 480 Titles I and II levels of $220 million and $837 million, respectively, in fiscal year 2000. The bill also provides a total program level of $2.2 billion for rural economic and community development programs. Included in this amount is $718 million for the Rural Community Advancement Program, $55 million for the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and a total of $1.6 billion program level for rural electric and telecommunications loans. In addition, the bill devotes additional resources to those programs which provide affordable, safe, and decent housing for low-income individuals and families living in rural America. Estimated rural housing loan authorizations funded by this bill total $4.6 billion, a $343 million increase from the fiscal year 1999 level. Included in this amount is $4.3 billion in section 502 low-income housing direct and guaranteed loans and $114 million in section 515 rental housing loans. In addition, $640 million is included for rental assistance program. This is the $200 million more than the budget request and $57 million more than the 1999 appropriations level. Over 58 percent of the bill's total funding, $36 billion, is provided for USDA's domestic food assistance programs. This includes $9.6 billion for child nutrition programs, including $13 million for the newly-authorized school breakfast pilot projects and evaluation; $4 billion for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, WIC; $131 million for the commodity assistance program; and $21.6 billion for the food stamp program. The bill also provides first-time funding of $3 billion for Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships through the Congressional Hunger Center. For those independent agencies funded by the bill, the Committee provides total appropriations of $1.1 billion. Included in this amount is $61 million for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and $1 billion for the Food and Drug Administration, FDA. Total appropriations recommended for salaries and expenses of the FDA are $65 million more than the 1999 level, and reflect the full increase requested in the budget for FDA rental payments to the General Services Administration, an additional $25 million for FDA food safety initiatives, and an increase of $28 million for premarket application review. In addition, the bill makes available $145 million in Prescription Drug User Fee Act collections, $13 million more than the fiscal year 1999 level. The increase provided for premarket application review is the full amount requested by the President for these activities through a combination of direct appropriations and collections from proposed new user fees. By FDA's own admission, new blood products, animal and generic drugs, medical devices, and food additives all suffer from lengthy review time, far short of meeting the statutory performance requirements. This increase is essential to enable FDA to perform its core statutory mission of reviewing drugs, foods, medical devices and products within statutory time frames and to ensure patients' speedy access to new products and the latest technology. I point out to my colleagues that the discretionary budget authority allocation for this bill is nearly the same as the CBO baseline level, or a ``freeze'' at the 1999 enacted appropriations level. To provide the selected increases I just cited and to maintain funding for essential farm, housing, and rural development programs, several mandatory funding restrictions are included in the bill. Modest limitations are imposed on Food Stamp program commodity purchases, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and on new acreage enrollments in the Wetlands Reserve Program. Funding for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems is limited to $50 million, and restrictions are imposed on fiscal year 2000 funding for the Conservation Farm Option Program and the Fund for Rural America. I also point out to my colleagues that although the total discretionary spending recommended by this bill is approximately $190 million in budget authority below the President's request level, the President's proposed budget relies on additional revenues and savings to accommodate much higher levels of discretionary spending. The President's budget proposes to generate a net total of $532 million in collections from new user fees proposals; to make an additional $180 million available by double-counting savings used to offset 1999 appropriations; to shift the Foreign Market Development Cooperator program from the discretionary to the mandatory side of the ledger, saving $28 million; to defer until fiscal year 2001 a portion of the funds needed to meet rental assistance requirements, saving $200 million; and to redirect funds from ongoing projects and Congressional initiatives to pay for Presidential initiatives. We do not propose savings from scorekeeping tactics, or have the luxury of being able to rely on revenues and savings from legislative proposals that have not been acted on by the Congress or signed into law. Consequently, within the discretionary spending limitations established for this bill, we have not been able to afford many of the discretionary spending increases and new initiatives proposed by the administration. I am going to highlight what I think to be some of the important provisions of this bill and discuss how the subcommittee reached its decisions as to the priorities we felt were important enough to include for increases in spending and how we generally approached developing this legislation. As the occupant of the Chair may well remember, we decided this year to conduct our hearings based on subject matter categories. We defined food safety as one of the highest priority interests in the country today, and one of the most challenging issues. After hearing the Secretary of Agriculture present the overall budget request for the Department of Agriculture this year, we then began concentrating on the issue areas we thought to be considered high priority areas of interest. Food safety was the first one we considered, with witnesses being the highest ranking officials in the administration with responsibilities over those areas of the President's budget. Testifying were the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, for example; the Director of the Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta was represented at this hearing as well. Based on our findings and the information we were able to obtain, this committee has recommended increases for funding of programs and activities that come under this general issue area. We also want to point out that it was clear to us, because of the programs and activities and hard work in the past, we are able to enjoy the safest food supply in the world, the most abundant food supply, the most affordable food supply. The fact of the matter is, Americans ought to feel very confident and comfortable with the inspection programs, with the recent initiatives that have been developed to make them better, more effective, and the funding levels that are contained in this legislation to help assure that we continue to improve upon the record of the past. There have been problems, and we are frightened when we hear about contaminated food products. We think more needs to be done in terms of educating the public in the handling of food and in the preparation of foodstuffs. At the same time, there are some responsibilities that peculiarly belong in the hands of the Federal Government. Our challenge is to make sure those programs are being administered in the way they should be, in the way Congress provided the authority for them to be administered, and that they are using the funds effectively. I believe we can be confident in the expression of support we have for the food safety initiative. We have added funds for that and in other ways we think we have strengthened the activities of the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and others as they relate to food safety. I am also happy to report that we were able to recommend funding for important nutrition programs. People may not realize it, but almost 60 percent of the funding in this bill is allocated to food and nutrition programs. Of the total amount of $60.7 billion, almost 60 percent of it will be spent in the year 2000 to help provide food that is needed by those who cannot afford to adequately meet their own needs and the needs of their families, and for other programs, like the School Lunch Program which we know is tied directly to child health and learning and school performance. There are other programs, as well, for those who are out of work and disabled. The Food Stamp Program is one of the best known and also is funded at a high level, although the trend has been going down. That is an indication of the strength of the economy and the fact that when we do have a good economic growth program and jobs are being provided, less money is needed for the Food Stamp Program. That is one reason we were able to hold down the increase in the mandatory programs, because there is a reduction of about $1 billion in the expected cost of the Food Stamp Program for next year as compared to last year. That is good news. We are increasing the funds for the WIC Program, the Special Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants, and Children. This is the special program that deals with those women who are pregnant, and young children who need special assistance. We are increasing the funds so that those needs will be met as a result of the spending in this bill. There was a pilot program authorized last year by the agriculture committees that have legislative jurisdiction over these programs for a school breakfast program. This will be a demonstration program that would provide free breakfasts to all children in a school to find out what effect that would have, whether the need is there, whether the demand is there. We provided funds to start up and evaluate a pilot breakfast program in this legislation. We have added funds for a fellowship program for the Congressional Hunger Center. These fellowships will be named for Bill Emerson, a former Congressman from Missouri, and Mickey Leland, former Congressman from Texas, both of whom have been instrumental in their careers when they served in the Congress on hunger issues and in dealing with problems of those who do not have enough to eat. We are hopeful the entire nutrition area will meet with favor in the Senate because of the way we analyzed and went about trying to identify the priority needs, looking at the available funding and trying to match those in a reasonable and thoughtful way in the bill, and I think we have done that. Research is an area a lot of people do not think about too much unless they are involved in it or benefit directly from it. But it is a part of this Department's activities where we have recommended additional spending, additional spending compared with last year and, in many cases, additional spending as compared with the President's budget request. We think these are wise investments in making sure we identify the emerging technologies that can benefit production agriculture, farmers who are out there trying to deal with the big problem of prospective low income because of low commodity prices. One way you can make that up or help deal with that challenge is to improve yields of crops, to develop ways to operate a farm more efficiently, to cut down the costs of the so-called inputs into production agriculture, the costs of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer, and other variable costs of production. One way to get at this is develop new techniques. Biotechnology is one example. Seed genetics is another. Private industry is contributing an enormous amount of research and development in these areas, but the Federal Government has a role to play, too. In many cases, what the Federal Government starts in the way of research in some of these areas is carried on by others in the private sector. Colleges and universities have laboratories and students and scientists involved in many of these research projects. So across the country, we see very important work being done in agriculture-related research that will help farmers achieve profits in agriculture in the future and help make our food supply safer, help make production agriculture more compatible with the environment through more effective pesticides, and other inputs in production agriculture that are very costly to the farmer but also contain some inherent environmental risk as well and have to be closely monitored. So I think agriculture research, particularly ARS research activities, as they are increased in this bill, are justified because of the end results that we think will flow from these activities. Another area that we emphasized in this legislation is conservation, not just protecting our land and water resources from erosion or contamination but also using incentives in this legislation to encourage farmers to manage their lands, to enhance wildlife habitat, and to be more sensitive to the needs of those who enjoy the outdoors for hiking along the beautiful rivers and streams we have in our country. All of these are very important national assets. So this legislation funds programs that are designed to achieve the goal of protecting our environment, protecting our land from erosion, protecting our water from contamination. One example of a fairly new program that farmers are beginning to appreciate more and more is the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. Funds are made available directly through the Commodity Credit Corporation to encourage farmers who participate in and who want to be involved in this program with new techniques in ways of improving wildlife habitat on their land, devoting certain acreage to wildlife plantings or conservation techniques. We are finding that is a very important new program. We are also providing more funds for wetlands conservation program activity than ever before in this bill. The Conservation Reserve Program is another important program. It has led to a lot of tree planting, a lot of conservation practices, idling acres that had been in production agriculture that probably should not have been in production agriculture from the beginning and defined by those at the Department of Agriculture, who have responsibilities for soil conservation programs, as erodible, highly erodible lands. So we have provided the continuation of funding for that program as well. So this is an effort to establish priorities and to see that within the limitations that we have for discretionary spending, that we target the funds where we think they are very definitely needed. We think this is one of those areas. Let me just say something about farm income support. We had an entire hearing looking at the prospects for farm income. The chief economist at the Department was there. Other high-ranking officials of the Department of Agriculture came and testified as well. We learned what a lot of people already know who watch this situation very closely; that farm income is going to be down, net farm income, by over $3 billion in this next crop year, which has already begun. You compare that with last year's level of income which was substantially lower than the year before, that triggered a $6 billion disaster assistance program, and you understand how serious the income situation is for those involved in farming in America today. We talked about what could be done, what programs are in place that we could fund or continue or improve that would improve the likelihood that farmers could achieve a better result than projected. Some things came to mind: Doing a better job in the promotion of American agriculture products overseas, trying to make sure that our trade relations are good, getting the Government more actively involved in taking up for farmers in the sale of what they produced in overseas markets. If they are denied access to a market or if American commodities are being discriminated against in some way, the Government has an obligation to get actively involved and not just say: farmers, sorry; exporters, sorry. You are on your own. This is a business country, and free enterprise means that you have to get out there and do this on your own. We do not agree with that hands-off attitude in this committee. We are funding programs that will help ensure that farmers get a better chance of selling what they produce in overseas markets. Breaking down barriers to trade, sometimes Congress does itself in on this issue. I hear that we are considering taking up a bill to put imports on steel. Somebody may say: Who cares? What does that have to do with farming? If you do something like that, immediately you reap the whirlwind, because those that you put a quota on, who are trying to sell you something, put a quota on you. And what do we sell most of? We have a surplus of trade in agriculture commodities. We have a deficit in trade on most other things. We have an overall trade deficit. Agriculture is one of the few sectors of our economy with a positive trade balance. But we are going to undo that if we are not careful as we take on some of these issues that may sound good for the moment or please some organized labor union. We are going to find out that is not very smart. I hope the Senate will be careful as it approaches issues like that. But one thing we are doing, legislation reported by the Agriculture Committee, which I hope the Senate will pass, which does something about rationalizing the attitudes of how to use sanctions and imposing sanctions on trade when we are mad at some country because they do not behave in a way that we think they ought to. In the past, we have seen administrations--including this one; others, too--impose sanctions to try to punish that country. What happens is we end up punishing our farmers because we cannot export our agriculture commodities. We are exempting, as the Senate has recently acted on, food in trade relations. We know that food should not be used as a weapon. We are learning that. There are a few clear examples where we are going to continue to do it, I suppose--Cuba, some other countries that are in that category--but generally speaking, we are changing the policy so that farmers will not have to pay the price and bear the brunt of American foreign policy by giving up trading opportunities and the opportunity to export and sell farm commodities in the international market. But nonetheless, there are going to be problems, even though we are trying to do the right thing on trade sanctions reform, on fair and reciprocal trade relations. Tax reform is another jurisdictional committee responsibility, but we are seeing progress being made there. Interest rates are a big factor because that is a major input into the costs of production agriculture in some areas of the country, particularly in the South. We are hopeful that the interest rates can remain low and will not be increased. That can be a very serious detriment to the effort to try to improve farm income. There are some in our committee who wanted to attach to this bill a $6.5 billion amendment for disaster assistance. It was offered in our committee, but I made a motion to table the amendment. That motion carried. Then in the full committee, while it was mentioned as a possibility for debate in the full committee, it was not offered in the full committee. But we have been told there will be an amendment offered to add $6.5 billion or thereabouts to this bill for disaster assistance for farmers. I do not think there is any question that farmers are in trouble this year because of low commodity prices, and other factors, some of which I have mentioned. We do not know what the weather situation is going to be. This is the beginning of the crop year. To try to anticipate right now what the situation is going to be at harvest time and at the time when most farmers may be selling their crops, we know that it is likely that income is going to be down. So what we hope we will see is an administration that remains very much involved in monitoring the situation that confronts production agriculture and submit to the Congress a request for additional funding for disaster assistance as may be needed based on the circumstances. Senators will remember that this month the Department of Agriculture is just now getting around to sending to a lot of farmers benefit checks that were approved last October in the disaster bill which was passed by Congress in the total amount of about $6 billion. Some $2.4 billion of that amount was for weather-related disasters, multiyear disasters. Arguably, the administration had a difficult time determining eligibility, settling on the regulations to implement the program. It was a big job; there is no question about that. But it took a long time. We responded, when we were requested to provide additional funding for staffing to process the applications from farmers who wanted to apply for benefits under that program. We provided in the initial bill about $40 million for that purpose for additional funds for the Farm Service Agency offices. Then later this year we were asked to provide more. We responded and provided more. As a matter of fact, in the supplemental that was passed in May, there was about $575 million of additional funding approved for the Department of Agriculture, a good bit of which was related to the continuing disaster program and the administration of that program that was identified last year by Congress and the administration. One thing that stands out in my memory about this disaster assistance issue is that this bill last year, when we were on the floor presenting it to the Senate, had included an issue relating to disaster assistance. What the Senate did was try to listen to other Senators. We were here on the floor discussing alternatives for responding to the disaster. We ended up, in the course of handling this bill, developing a disaster assistance program of $4 billion for America's farmers for emergency disaster assistance. Guess what happened. The President vetoed the bill. I am going to read you what the President said in his veto message to the Congress after vetoing the agriculture appropriations bill last year: I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 4101, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999. I am vetoing this bill because it fails to address adequately the crisis now gripping our Nation's farm community. Then, after four paragraphs or so, the President says this: I am extremely disappointed that the Congress has reacted to this agriculture emergency situation by sending me a bill that fails to provide an adequate safety net for our farmers. I have repeatedly stated that I would veto any emergency farm assistance bill if it did not adequately address our farmers' immediate needs, and this bill does not do enough. Then at the end of the message: Therefore, as I return this bill, I again call on the Congress to send me a comprehensive plan before this session ends that adequately responds to the very real needs of our farmers at this difficult time. William J. Clinton, the White House, October 7, 1998. That wasn't very long ago. Well, what happened next was, we reconsidered the agriculture appropriations bill in the Congress. The House and Senate conferees got back together with representatives of the administration. This was a bipartisan effort to try to reach some agreement as to what would be an adequate amount of disaster assistance. We had tried to get the administration involved early in the process, and we didn't have any luck. There was no active involvement in providing information, any guidance as to what the President's views were. There were differences of opinion all over Capitol Hill as to what should be done. Then we passed a $6 billion disaster assistance package in the Omnibus Appropriations Act at the end of last year's Congress. That was signed by the President. Now we are just getting all of those benefits delivered to the farmers. This is June, and it was June when the last checks were supposed to be going out from that October disaster assistance bill last year. What I have suggested we do, rather than doing what we did last year, which provoked a veto--Congress acted first. We went forward and tried to develop a sensitive and, we thought, thoughtful response. The President gave us the back of his hand, in my view, with an effort to win political points with a distressed agriculture community, and said: Congress was not generous enough, but I will be more generous. I will insist that they spend more. Well, we are not going to fall for that again. I am not going to recommend to this Senate that we pick a number and try to satisfy the President and guess at what the weather situation is going to be throughout the country, what the yields are going to be in all the different commodities, who is going to have the big problems, the serious problems, and who may be able to weather it without disaster assistance this year. I have been joined in an effort by 21 other Senators. This letter was sent to the President on June 15, which is the day we proceeded with the markup on this bill. I will read it into the Record: Dear Mr. President: American farmers are currently facing one of the most severe economic situations in recent history. Last year, rising world commodity supplies, coupled with weakening international demand for U.S. agricultural products, greatly reduced farm prices and the value of U.S. farm exports. Congress responded by providing emergency farm assistance totaling $5.9 billion. Many farmers who struggled with cash flow problems in 1998 will likely see their problems worsen in 1999. It is projected that net cash farm income will decline by $3.6 billion this year. Also, according to USDA, 1998 net farm income for wheat, corn, soybeans, upland cotton, and rice crops was 17 percent below the previous 5-year average. For 1999 crops, current projections indicate that income will be 27 percent below the previous 5-year average. We are writing to invite your personal attention to the statement of managers language accompanying the recent emergency supplemental appropriations bill that calls upon the Administration to monitor the agriculture situation closely and submit a request to the Congress for any additional funds needed to address this potential farm crisis. The letter was signed by this Senator and 21 other Senators. We have not had a response, and I did not expect one by now from the President. But the point of this is to involve the White House in the process up front, at the outset, rather than presume to be able to write a disaster assistance package at this point in this crop year that would anticipate everything that is going to happen that would affect production agriculture in this crop year. It is just impossible. I didn't think we had a member of our subcommittee smart enough to do that. I am not sure there is a Senator serving today smart enough to do that. There is nothing wrong with working, though, with the administration to prepare and to think about the options. That is a good idea. Farm groups have met with the President. We have invited representatives of farm organizations to meet with Senators. I am sure that has been happening on the House side, too. We have had hearings in our Agriculture Committee with representatives of producers and other associations who are familiar with this situation. And the outlook is not good. It is serious. I want to be sure that everybody understands we are aware of the problem. We want to be actively involved in helping to deal with it in a fair and thoughtful way. We also recognize the limitations we have under the Budget Act that was passed and signed by the President under the budget resolution adopted by the Congress. So this subcommittee isn't going to presume to do anything that violates the provisions of those legislative enactments. But we are prepared to work in a cooperative way with all concerned to reach a just and fair solution and a response that is sensitive to the problems as they exist in agriculture. So I invite Senators to review this legislation. I am hopeful it will meet with the approval of the Senate, and that we can proceed with considering any suggestions that Senators have for changes in the bill. The programs and activities included in this bill are, for the most part, funded at or near the 1999 levels. There are some increases recommended. These include $80 million to meet the President's requested level for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency, which administers the farm programs; $53 million for agricultural research; $15 billion for conservation operations; $21 million for the Food Safety and Inspection Service; $114 million for the WIC Program, to maintain an average monthly program participation level of $7.4 million in fiscal year 2000; and $65 million for food safety and premarket application review activities of the Food and Drug Administration. Food safety, as I pointed out, continues to be a high priority of this committee. The bill provides the funds necessary to ensure that American consumers continue to have the safest food supply in the world. Not only does the bill provide increased funds required for meat and poultry inspection activities for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, it provides total funding of $321 million, which is a $46 million increase from the 1999 level, for Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration programs and activities included in the President's food safety initiative. I also want to thank the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, as well as all of the other members of the subcommittee for their support and cooperation in putting this bill together. I believe the bill represents a balanced and responsible set of funding recommendations within the limited resources available to the subcommittee. I hope the Senate will support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter I read and addressed to the President be printed in the Record, with the signatures of all Senators who signed it.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Appropriations Committee staff members and intern be granted floor privilege during consideration of this bill and any votes that may occur in relation thereto: Rebecca Davies, Martha Scott Poindexter, Hunt Shipman, Les Spivey and Buddy Allen.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, am I correct in assuming that this is the time, under a previous order, to proceed to the consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to provide relief to many Federal employees and their families who, through no fault of their own, find themselves the victims of retirement coverage errors. In 1984, the Federal government made a transition from the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). As government agencies carried out the complex job of applying two sets of transition rules, mistakes were made, and thousands of employees were placed in the wrong retirement system--many learning that their pensions would be less than expected. Under the current statutory scheme, federal agencies have no choice but to correct a retirement coverage error when it is discovered, effectively forcing employees into a new retirement plan. Unfortunately, the correction of a retirement coverage error can have a harmful impact on an employee's financial ability to plan for retirement. This proposal, ``The Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage Corrections Act,'' provides comprehensive and equitable relief to employees, former employees, retirees, and survivors who are affected by retirement coverage errors. The bill provides individuals with a choice between corrected retirement coverage and the coverage the employee expected to receive, without disturbing Social Security coverage law. For each type of retirement coverage error, individuals are furnished the opportunity to maintain their expected level of retirement benefits without a change in their retirement savings and planning. Among other provisions, the bill also provides that certain employees who missed an opportunity to contribute to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) due to a coverage error may receive interest on their TSP make-up contributions. ``The Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage Corrections Act'' provides a comprehensive solution to the problems faced by Federal employees due to retirement coverage erros--it does so at a reasonable cost and without creating unnecessary administrative burdens. I invite my colleagues to support this effort to address a serious problem affecting Federal employees and their families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the section-by- section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to provide relief to many Federal employees and their families who, through no fault of their own, find themselves the victims of retirement coverage errors. In 1984, the Federal government made a transition from the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). As government agencies carried out the complex job of applying two sets of transition rules, mistakes were made, and thousands of employees were placed in the wrong retirement system--many learning that their pensions would be less than expected. Under the current statutory scheme, federal agencies have no choice but to correct a retirement coverage error when it is discovered, effectively forcing employees into a new retirement plan. Unfortunately, the correction of a retirement coverage error can have a harmful impact on an employee's financial ability to plan for retirement. This proposal, ``The Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage Corrections Act,'' provides comprehensive and equitable relief to employees, former employees, retirees, and survivors who are affected by retirement coverage errors. The bill provides individuals with a choice between corrected retirement coverage and the coverage the employee expected to receive, without disturbing Social Security coverage law. For each type of retirement coverage error, individuals are furnished the opportunity to maintain their expected level of retirement benefits without a change in their retirement savings and planning. Among other provisions, the bill also provides that certain employees who missed an opportunity to contribute to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) due to a coverage error may receive interest on their TSP make-up contributions. ``The Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage Corrections Act'' provides a comprehensive solution to the problems faced by Federal employees due to retirement coverage erros--it does so at a reasonable cost and without creating unnecessary administrative burdens. I invite my colleagues to support this effort to address a serious problem affecting Federal employees and their families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the section-by- section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.