Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, Senator Dodd, Senator Hutchinson, Senator Wellstone, Senator Murkowski, Senator Torricelli, Senator Dorgan, Senator Lieberman and Senator Moynihan, to introduce the Organ Procurement Organization Certification Act of 2000 to improve the performance evaluation and certification process that the Health Care Financing Administration currently uses for organ procurement organizations. Our nation's 60 organ procurement organizations (OPOs) play a critical role in procuring and placing organs and are therefore key to our efforts to increase the number and quality of organs available for transplant. They provide all of the services necessary in a particular geographic region for coordinating the identification of potential donors, requests for donation and recovery and transport of organs. The professionals in the OPOs evaluate potential donors, discuss donation with family members, and arrange for the surgical removal of donated organs. They are also responsible for preserving the organs and making arrangements for their distribution according to national organ sharing policies. Finally, the OPOs provide information and education to medical professionals and the general public to encourage organ and tissue donation to increase the availability of organs for transplantation. According to the Institute of Medicine's (IOM's) 1999 report on organ procurement and transplantation, a major impediment to greater accountability and improved performance on the part of OPOs is the current lack of a reliable and valid method for assessing donor potential and OPO performance. The current certification process for OPOs sets an arbitrary, population-based performance standard for certifying OPOs based on donors per million of population in their service areas. It sets a standard for acceptable performance based on five criteria: donors recovered per million, kidneys recovered per million, kidneys transplanted per million, extrarenal organs (heart, liver, pancreas and lungs) recovered per million, and extrarenal organs transplanted per million. The HCFA assesses the OPOs' adherence to these standards every two years. Each OPO must meet at least 75 percent of the national mean for four of these five categories to be recertified as the OPO for a particular area and to receive Medicare and Medicaid payments. Without HCFA certification, an OPO cannot continue to operate. The GAO, the IOM, the Harvard School of Public Health and others all have criticized HCFA's use of this population-based standard to measure OPO performance. According to the GAO, ``HCFA's current performance standard does not accurately assess OPOs' ability to meet the goal of acquiring all usable organs because it is based on the total population, not the number of potential donors, within the OPO's service areas.'' OPO service areas vary widely in the distribution of deaths by cause, underlying health conditions, age, and race. These variations can pose significant advantages or disadvantages to an OPO's ability to procure organs, and a major problem with HCFA's current performance assessment is that it does not account for these variations. An extremely effective OPO that is getting a high yield of organs from the potential donors in its service area may appear to be performing poorly because it has a disproportionate share of elderly people or a high rate of people infected with HIV or AIDS, which eliminates them for consideration as an organ donor. At the same time, an ineffective OPO may appear to be performing well because it is operating in a service area with a high proportion of potential donors. For example, organ donors typically die from head trauma and accidental injuries, and these rates can vary dramatically from region to region. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 1991, the number of drivers fatally injured in traffic accidents in Maine was 15.54 per 100,000 population. In Mississippi, however, it was 30.56, giving the OPO serving that state a tremendous advantage over the New England Organ Bank, which serves Maine. Use of this population-based method to evaluate OPO performance may well result in the decertification of OPOs that are actually excellent performers. Moreover, unlike other HCFA certification programs, the certification process for OPOs lacks a clearly defined due process component for resolving conflicts--an OPO that has been decertified has no opportunity for appeal to the Secretary of HHS on either substantive or procedural grounds. The current system therefore forces OPOs to compete on the basis of an imperfect grading system, with no guarantee of an opportunity for fair hearing based on their actual performance. This situation pressures many OPOs to focus on the certification process itself rather than on activities and methods to increase donation, undermining what should be the overriding goal of the program. Moreover, the current two-year cycle--which is shorter than other certification programs administered by HCFA--provides little opportunity to examine trends and even less incentive for OPOs to mount long-term interventions. The legislation we are introducing today has four major objectives. First, it imposes a moratorium on the current recertification process for OPOs and on the use of population-based performance measurements. Under our bill, the certification of qualified OPOs will remain in place through January 1, 2002, for those OPOs that have been certified as of January 1, 2000, and that meet other qualification requirements apart from the current performance standards. Second, the bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate new rules governing OPO recertification by January 1, 2002. These new rules are to rely on outcome and process performance measures based on evidence of organ donor potential and other relevant factors, and recertification for OPOs shall not be required until they are promulgated. Third, the bill provides an opportunity for an OPO to appeal a decertification to the Secretary on substantive and procedural grounds, and fourth the bill extends the current two-year certification cycle to four years. Mr. PRESIDENT, the bill we are introducing today makes much needed improvements in the flawed process that HCFA currently uses to certify and assess OPO performance, and I urge all of our colleagues to join us in supporting it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed under the time reserved for the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas.

Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 2605 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to help commercial fishermen navigate the often choppy waters of the Internal Revenue Code. The legislation I am introducing would make two commonsense changes to our tax laws. First, my legislation would extend a $1,500 tax credit to commercial fishermen to assist them in the purchase of important safety equipment. Commercial fishermen engage in one of the most dangerous professions in America. They have a higher fatality rate than even firefighters, police officers, truck or taxi drivers. From 1994 to 1998, 396 commercial fishermen lost their lives while fishing. Last year, in the wake of catastrophic events that killed 11 fishermen over the course of only 1 month, the Coast Guard Fishing Vessel Casualty Task Force was convened. The task force issued a report that draws several conclusions about current fishing vessel safety. Despite the grim safety statistics surrounding the profession of fishing, the report concludes that most fishing deaths are preventable. One significant way to prevent these tragic deaths is to make safety equipment on commercial fishing vessels more widely available. As those of us who represent States with commercial fishing industries may recall, in 1988, Congress passed the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Act. This act required lifesaving and firefighting equipment to be placed on board all fishing boats. Unfortunately, the cost of some of the safety equipment has proven to be a serious practical impediment for many commercial fishermen. The margin of profit for some commercial fishermen is simply too narrow and they simply lack the funds required to purchase the expensive safety equipment they require. Moreover, as the fishing industry has come under increasingly heavy Federal regulation, fishermen have often felt compelled to greatly increase their productivity on those days when they are permitted to fish. As a result, too many take dangerous risks in order to earn a living. Just this last January, in my home State of Maine, a terrible and tragic incident highlighted the critical importance of safety equipment. Two very experienced fishermen tragically drowned off Cape Neddick when their commercial fishing vessel capsized during a storm. The sole survivor of this tragedy was the fisherman who was able to correctly put on an immersion suit, a safety suit that the Coast Guard has required on cold water commercial fishing boats since the early 1990s. In fact, immersion suits, liferafts, and emergency locater devices have been credited with saving more than 200 lives since 1993. By providing a $1,500 tax credit for fishermen to purchase safety equipment, my legislation would encourage the wider availability and use of safety equipment on our Nation's commercial fishing boats. We should take this sensible step to help ensure that fishermen do not set off without essential safety gear. The second provision of my bill would eliminate some of the perils that the Tax Code has that particularly affect commercial fishermen. I propose to allow fishermen to use income-averaging tax provisions that are now available to our Nation's farmers. For tax purposes, income averaging allows individuals to carry back income from a boom year to a prior less prosperous year. This tax treatment assists individuals who must adapt to wide fluctuations in their income from year to year by preventing them from being pushed into higher tax brackets in random good years. Until 1986, both farmers and fishermen were covered under the Tax Code's income-averaging provisions. However, income averaging disappeared as part of the tax restructuring undertaken in 1986. In 1997, income-averaging provisions were again reintroduced into our Tax Code, but unfortunately, under the changes in the 1997 law, only farmers were permitted to benefit from this tax relief. The Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act of 1998 permanently extended this tax relief provision, but again only for our farmers. Although I am very pleased that Congress has restored income averaging for our Nation's farmers, I do not believe our fishermen should be left out in the cold and excluded from using income averaging. The legislation that I introduce today would restore fairness by extending income averaging to our fishermen as well as our farmers. Parallel tax treatment for fishermen and farmers is appropriate for many reasons. Currently, unlike farmers, fishermen's sole tax protection to handle fluctuations in income are found in the Tax Code's net operating loss provisions. These provisions do not provide the tax benefits of income averaging and are so complex in their computation that it often defies the ability of any individual without a CPA after his or her name. Most importantly, both farm and fishing income can fluctuate widely from year to year due to a wide range of uncontrollable circumstances, including market prices, the weather and, in the case of fishing, Government restrictions. I urge my colleagues to help our fishermen cope with the fluctuations in their income by restoring this important tax provision and by extending a safety tax credit to help protect them from the hazards that their fishing profession entails.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to help commercial fishermen navigate the often choppy waters of the Internal Revenue Code. The legislation I am introducing would make two commonsense changes to our tax laws. First, my legislation would extend a $1,500 tax credit to commercial fishermen to assist them in the purchase of important safety equipment. Commercial fishermen engage in one of the most dangerous professions in America. They have a higher fatality rate than even firefighters, police officers, truck or taxi drivers. From 1994 to 1998, 396 commercial fishermen lost their lives while fishing. Last year, in the wake of catastrophic events that killed 11 fishermen over the course of only 1 month, the Coast Guard Fishing Vessel Casualty Task Force was convened. The task force issued a report that draws several conclusions about current fishing vessel safety. Despite the grim safety statistics surrounding the profession of fishing, the report concludes that most fishing deaths are preventable. One significant way to prevent these tragic deaths is to make safety equipment on commercial fishing vessels more widely available. As those of us who represent States with commercial fishing industries may recall, in 1988, Congress passed the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Act. This act required lifesaving and firefighting equipment to be placed on board all fishing boats. Unfortunately, the cost of some of the safety equipment has proven to be a serious practical impediment for many commercial fishermen. The margin of profit for some commercial fishermen is simply too narrow and they simply lack the funds required to purchase the expensive safety equipment they require. Moreover, as the fishing industry has come under increasingly heavy Federal regulation, fishermen have often felt compelled to greatly increase their productivity on those days when they are permitted to fish. As a result, too many take dangerous risks in order to earn a living. Just this last January, in my home State of Maine, a terrible and tragic incident highlighted the critical importance of safety equipment. Two very experienced fishermen tragically drowned off Cape Neddick when their commercial fishing vessel capsized during a storm. The sole survivor of this tragedy was the fisherman who was able to correctly put on an immersion suit, a safety suit that the Coast Guard has required on cold water commercial fishing boats since the early 1990s. In fact, immersion suits, liferafts, and emergency locater devices have been credited with saving more than 200 lives since 1993. By providing a $1,500 tax credit for fishermen to purchase safety equipment, my legislation would encourage the wider availability and use of safety equipment on our Nation's commercial fishing boats. We should take this sensible step to help ensure that fishermen do not set off without essential safety gear. The second provision of my bill would eliminate some of the perils that the Tax Code has that particularly affect commercial fishermen. I propose to allow fishermen to use income-averaging tax provisions that are now available to our Nation's farmers. For tax purposes, income averaging allows individuals to carry back income from a boom year to a prior less prosperous year. This tax treatment assists individuals who must adapt to wide fluctuations in their income from year to year by preventing them from being pushed into higher tax brackets in random good years. Until 1986, both farmers and fishermen were covered under the Tax Code's income-averaging provisions. However, income averaging disappeared as part of the tax restructuring undertaken in 1986. In 1997, income-averaging provisions were again reintroduced into our Tax Code, but unfortunately, under the changes in the 1997 law, only farmers were permitted to benefit from this tax relief. The Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act of 1998 permanently extended this tax relief provision, but again only for our farmers. Although I am very pleased that Congress has restored income averaging for our Nation's farmers, I do not believe our fishermen should be left out in the cold and excluded from using income averaging. The legislation that I introduce today would restore fairness by extending income averaging to our fishermen as well as our farmers. Parallel tax treatment for fishermen and farmers is appropriate for many reasons. Currently, unlike farmers, fishermen's sole tax protection to handle fluctuations in income are found in the Tax Code's net operating loss provisions. These provisions do not provide the tax benefits of income averaging and are so complex in their computation that it often defies the ability of any individual without a CPA after his or her name. Most importantly, both farm and fishing income can fluctuate widely from year to year due to a wide range of uncontrollable circumstances, including market prices, the weather and, in the case of fishing, Government restrictions. I urge my colleagues to help our fishermen cope with the fluctuations in their income by restoring this important tax provision and by extending a safety tax credit to help protect them from the hazards that their fishing profession entails.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, in introducing the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act of 2000, which is intended to improve access to automated external defibrillators in small communities to boost the survival rates of individuals who suffer cardiac arrest. We are very pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation by the following cosponsors: Senators Murray, Abraham, Wellstone, Hutchinson, Dorgan, Grams, Bingaman, Chafee and Enzi. Heart disease is the leading cause of death both in the State of Maine and nationwide. According to the American Heart Association, an estimated 250,000 Americans die each year from cardiac arrest. Many of these deaths could be prevented if AEDs were more accessible. AEDs are computerized devices that can shock a heart back into the normal rhythm and restore life to a cardiac arrest victim. They must, however, be used promptly. For every minute that passes before a victim's normal heart rhythm is restored, his or her chance of survival falls by as much as 10 percent. We have a number of new and improved technologies in our arsenal of weapons to fight heart disease, including a new generation of small, easy-to-use AEDs that can strengthen the chances of survival. These new devices make it possible not only for emergency medical personnel, but also trained lay rescuers, to deliver defibrillation safely and effectively. The new AEDs are safe, effective, lightweight, low maintenance, and relatively inexpensive. Moreover, they are specifically designed so they can be used by nonmedical personnel, such as police, firefighters, security guards, and other lay rescuers, providing they have been trained properly. According to the American Heart Association, making AEDs standard equipment in police cars, firetrucks--as I know the Presiding Officer has done in his hometown--ambulances, and other emergency vehicles, and getting these devices into more public places could save more than 50,000 lives a year. Last December, the Bangor Mall installed an AED that is one of the first of these devices in Maine to be placed in a public setting outside the direct control of emergency medical personnel and hospital staff. Both the AED and an oxygen tank are kept inside a customer service booth, which is in an area of the mall where there is a high concentration of traffic and where heart emergencies might occur. Mall personnel have also received special training and, during mall hours, there is always at least one person who has been certified in both CPR and defibrillator use. For at least one Bangor woman, this has been a lifesaver. On January 12th, just weeks after the AED was installed, two shoppers at the Mall collapsed in a single day. One was given oxygen and quickly revived. But the other shopper was unconscious and had stopped breathing. The trained mall staff--Maintenance Supervisor Larry Lee, Security Chief Dusty Rhodes, and General Manager Roy Daigle--were only able to detect a faint pulse. They quickly commenced CPR and attached the AED. It is important to note that defibrillation is intended to supplement, not replace standard CPR. These devices, which are almost completely automated, run frequent self-diagnostics and will not allow the administration of shock unless the victim's recorded heart pattern requires it. When the AED is attached, it automatically analyzes the victim's vital signs. One of two commands will then be voiced and displayed by the unit: ``Shock advised--charging''; or ``Shock not advised--continue CPR.'' In the Bangor Mall case, the shock was not advised, so CPR was continued until the emergency medical personnel arrived. The EMT's told Mr. Daigle, the General Manager of the mall, that the woman--who had had a heart attack and subsequently required triple by-pass surgery-- simply would not have survived if they had not been so prepared. As Mr. Daigle observed, ``Twelve to fifteen minutes is just too long to wait for the emergency services to arrive.'' Cities across America have begun to recognize the value of fast access to AEDs and are making them available to emergency responders. In many small and rural communities, however, limited budgets and the fact that so many rely on volunteer organizations for emergency services can make acquisition and appropriate training in the use of these life-saving devices problematic. The legislation that Senator Feingold and I are introducing today is intended to increase access to AEDs and trained local responders for smaller towns and rural areas in Maine and elsewhere where those first on the scene may not be paramedics or others who would normally have AEDs. Our bill provides $25 million over three years, to be given as grants to community partnerships consisting of local emergency responders, police and fire departments, hospitals, and other community organizations. This money could then be used to help purchase AEDs and train potential responders in their use, as well as in basic CPR and first aid. I commend the leadership of the Senator from Wisconsin for coming forth with this idea. I am very pleased to join him in introducing this important legislation. The Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act has been endorsed by both the American Heart Association and the American Red Cross as a means of expanding access to these lifesaving devices across rural America. I urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from both the American Heart Association and their Maine affiliate be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold a hearing entitled ``Phony IDs And Credentials On The Internet.'' This Subcommittee hearing will focus on the widespread availability of false identification documents and credentials on the Internet and the criminal uses to which such identification is put. The hearing will take place on Friday, May 19, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Lee Blalack of the Subcommittee staff at 224-3721.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, in introducing the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act of 2000, which is intended to improve access to automated external defibrillators in small communities to boost the survival rates of individuals who suffer cardiac arrest. We are very pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation by the following cosponsors: Senators Murray, Abraham, Wellstone, Hutchinson, Dorgan, Grams, Bingaman, Chafee and Enzi. Heart disease is the leading cause of death both in the State of Maine and nationwide. According to the American Heart Association, an estimated 250,000 Americans die each year from cardiac arrest. Many of these deaths could be prevented if AEDs were more accessible. AEDs are computerized devices that can shock a heart back into the normal rhythm and restore life to a cardiac arrest victim. They must, however, be used promptly. For every minute that passes before a victim's normal heart rhythm is restored, his or her chance of survival falls by as much as 10 percent. We have a number of new and improved technologies in our arsenal of weapons to fight heart disease, including a new generation of small, easy-to-use AEDs that can strengthen the chances of survival. These new devices make it possible not only for emergency medical personnel, but also trained lay rescuers, to deliver defibrillation safely and effectively. The new AEDs are safe, effective, lightweight, low maintenance, and relatively inexpensive. Moreover, they are specifically designed so they can be used by nonmedical personnel, such as police, firefighters, security guards, and other lay rescuers, providing they have been trained properly. According to the American Heart Association, making AEDs standard equipment in police cars, firetrucks--as I know the Presiding Officer has done in his hometown--ambulances, and other emergency vehicles, and getting these devices into more public places could save more than 50,000 lives a year. Last December, the Bangor Mall installed an AED that is one of the first of these devices in Maine to be placed in a public setting outside the direct control of emergency medical personnel and hospital staff. Both the AED and an oxygen tank are kept inside a customer service booth, which is in an area of the mall where there is a high concentration of traffic and where heart emergencies might occur. Mall personnel have also received special training and, during mall hours, there is always at least one person who has been certified in both CPR and defibrillator use. For at least one Bangor woman, this has been a lifesaver. On January 12th, just weeks after the AED was installed, two shoppers at the Mall collapsed in a single day. One was given oxygen and quickly revived. But the other shopper was unconscious and had stopped breathing. The trained mall staff--Maintenance Supervisor Larry Lee, Security Chief Dusty Rhodes, and General Manager Roy Daigle--were only able to detect a faint pulse. They quickly commenced CPR and attached the AED. It is important to note that defibrillation is intended to supplement, not replace standard CPR. These devices, which are almost completely automated, run frequent self-diagnostics and will not allow the administration of shock unless the victim's recorded heart pattern requires it. When the AED is attached, it automatically analyzes the victim's vital signs. One of two commands will then be voiced and displayed by the unit: ``Shock advised--charging''; or ``Shock not advised--continue CPR.'' In the Bangor Mall case, the shock was not advised, so CPR was continued until the emergency medical personnel arrived. The EMT's told Mr. Daigle, the General Manager of the mall, that the woman--who had had a heart attack and subsequently required triple by-pass surgery-- simply would not have survived if they had not been so prepared. As Mr. Daigle observed, ``Twelve to fifteen minutes is just too long to wait for the emergency services to arrive.'' Cities across America have begun to recognize the value of fast access to AEDs and are making them available to emergency responders. In many small and rural communities, however, limited budgets and the fact that so many rely on volunteer organizations for emergency services can make acquisition and appropriate training in the use of these life-saving devices problematic. The legislation that Senator Feingold and I are introducing today is intended to increase access to AEDs and trained local responders for smaller towns and rural areas in Maine and elsewhere where those first on the scene may not be paramedics or others who would normally have AEDs. Our bill provides $25 million over three years, to be given as grants to community partnerships consisting of local emergency responders, police and fire departments, hospitals, and other community organizations. This money could then be used to help purchase AEDs and train potential responders in their use, as well as in basic CPR and first aid. I commend the leadership of the Senator from Wisconsin for coming forth with this idea. I am very pleased to join him in introducing this important legislation. The Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act has been endorsed by both the American Heart Association and the American Red Cross as a means of expanding access to these lifesaving devices across rural America. I urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from both the American Heart Association and their Maine affiliate be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa and my colleague from New York for their graciousness. I ask unanimous consent that we be permitted to proceed for not to exceed 15 minutes, and that would be divided such that I would have 7 minutes and the Senator from Wisconsin would be permitted to proceed for not to exceed 8 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida. I rise to commend the Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from Florida, the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Louisiana, and all of those who have been involved in putting together the Lieberman amendment, for their efforts. It is a typical approach taken by the Senator from Connecticut to so many legislative issues, in that he is looking for a responsible and responsive approach that is innovative and attempts to bridge the partisan gap. I don't support all of the provisions of the Lieberman amendment, but I commend the Senator and his cosponsors for recognizing that we do need to take a new approach, that we need to focus on whether or not our students are learning, rather than focusing on whether paperwork and regulations are complied with. I commend the authors of this legislation for their efforts to focus the debate on giving States and local school boards more flexibility in using Federal funds to meet the greatest need in their communities. I also commend them for focusing on accountability, for making sure our Federal education efforts bear the fruit of increased student achievement, and help to narrow the gap that troubles all of us in the learning of poor children versus those from more affluent communities and affluent families. One of the reasons we need more flexibility in using Federal funds can be found in Maine's experience under two Federal programs. Maine is fortunate in having small classes. In the classes in Maine, on average, the ratio is only 15 to 1. So our problem and challenge is not class size. Yet Maine had to get a waiver to use the Federal class size reduction moneys for professional development which is, in many schools in Maine, a far greater need than the reduction of class size. One school board chair, from a small town in eastern Maine, wrote to me that they have received $6,000 under the Federal Class Size Reduction Program. Clearly, that is not enough to hire a teacher. They did receive permission from the Federal Government to use that effectively for professional development. But my point is, why should this school system, or the State of Maine, have to get permission from the Federal Government to use those funds for the vital need of professional development? The second example I have discussed previously, and it has to do with Maine's effort to narrow the achievement gap between poor and more wealthy students in high schools. Maine has done an outstanding job-- and I am proud of this--in narrowing the achievement gap between disadvantaged and more advantaged children in the elementary schools. In fact, it has virtually disappeared. So that is not the need under title I funds for the State of Maine right now. We still, however, have a considerable gap when those title I children get to high school. Maine came up with a very promising approach that was put out by the Maine Commission on Secondary Education that set forth a plan for narrowing the achievement gap among high school students. But, here again, it required a waiver from Federal regulations for Maine to use its funding for this purpose. So, again, I do think we need more flexibility and accountability. I commend my friends on the other side of the aisle for their steps in that direction. I hope we can continue to work and see if it is possible for us to come up with a bipartisan package we could support that would help bridge the partisan gap and make a real difference in the futures of our students. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank my two colleagues for their kind comments and for agreeing to accept this amendment. I think it is very important to the future of vocational education, which, as the Senator from Massachusetts points out, is so important to so many students and so many adults in this country, and particularly in our section of the country, in New England. With that, I yield the remainder of my time and I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3104, which is pending at the desk.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me express my very sincere appreciation to the chairman of the committee and the ranking minority member for their cooperation in accommodating my amendment this evening. I am very grateful for their efforts. My amendment is very straightforward. It simply removes the Perkins Act from the programs listed under the Straight A's proposal that is in this legislation. I am a strong supporter of the Straight A's approach, but the Perkins Act simply does not belong in Straight A's, and I believe it was probably included as an oversight. There are three reasons why the Perkins Act should be separated from Straight A's. First of all, the Perkins Act, which funds vocational education, is simply not part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is not part of the programs that we are reauthorizing. In Maine, and in many other States, secondary vocational education is operated on a parallel, independent system. In Maine, there are even restrictions on the ability of an academic high school to offer vocational education. Moreover, the Perkins Act and the ESEA have very different specific objectives, and they are not easily merged together. The second reason is the Perkins Act authorizes programs at both the secondary and the postsecondary levels. Each State decides how to allocate its Perkins grant. In fact, 56 percent of Perkins funds go for postsecondary education, and in at least one State, all of the Perkins funds are used for postsecondary education. In my State, the funds are allocated equally to secondary and postsecondary education, with the requirement that vocational high schools and technical colleges allocate 30 percent of their funding to training programs operated by the Maine adult education system. The third reason is the Perkins Act was written to be part of the national workforce development efforts and is designed to coordinate it with provisions of the Workforce Investment Act, which the Senate successfully passed in 1998. If we pull out the Perkins Act funding, we will allow the intentions of Congress in redesigning the Workforce Investment Act to go forward. In short, the Perkins Act does not belong in this legislation. It makes sense for us to take out the Perkins Act from the list of programs under Straight A's. It is not part of the ESEA, and as it is used, at least 56 percent of the funds under the Perkins Act do not go to secondary schools but, rather, to postsecondary schools. I thank the chairman and ranking minority member for their cooperation in this effort and particularly for accommodating this amendment this evening. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator for yielding for a question. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Washington State for their terrific, truly extraordinary leadership on this entire bill. As the Senator from New Hampshire knows, the issue of whether or not Straight A's authorizes Federal funds for private school vouchers was most important to me. I have worked with him and with the Senator from Washington. Indeed, I am the author of the provisions in the Gorton amendment which makes it crystal clear that Federal funds could not be used for vouchers under the Straight A's proposal. Will the Senator from New Hampshire agree with me that while there is nothing in this legislation that prohibits a State from using also its own funds for some sort of voucher proposal, that the Gorton amendment now makes clear that Federal funds under the Straight A's proposal could not be used for private school vouchers?

Ms. COLLINS. I ask to be a cosponsor of the Gorton amendment. I am pleased to have contributed to it in this area in clarifying the law since I think it was ambiguous as to whether we were changing current law, and that ambiguity has now been eliminated. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his clarification on this.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the one thing that is certain is that every Member of this Chamber is committed to improving public education in America. In America, we differ on how to accomplish that goal. Over the years, we have enacted Federal program after Federal program. There are dozens of Federal programs on the books, all in the hope of narrowing the gap in achievement between low-income students and high-income students. All of us want to narrow that achievement gap. Each and every person here is committed to providing an equal educational opportunity to every child in America. But we have to look at the record. We have to look at the facts. When we evaluate in what direction we should go, we have to look at from where we have come. The fact is that after 35 years and $120 billion spent on Federal education programs aimed at the disadvantaged, we have not achieved the goal of ensuring that children in high-poverty schools receive a good education. We know that children from poor families have just as many brains as children from wealthier families. We know that they have all the ability in the world. This is not about aptitude. It is not about the ability of these children. The debate is whether or not our current education system has served them well. The evidence suggests overwhelmingly that in too many cases our schools are failing these children. Let's look at the statistics. Seventy percent of children in high- poverty schools scored below even the most basic level of reading. Seventy percent have disadvantaged children that are unlikely to graduate from high school if they are in high-poverty schools in the inner cities. Children in high-poverty schools score two grade levels below their peers in high-income schools when it comes to math and three grade levels when it comes to reading. Again, the problem is not a lack of ability. These children have all the ability in the world. The problem is that we are not meeting their needs. We can continue down the path we followed during the past 35 years--a path paved with good intentions but not producing good results. We can try a new approach. We can try to be innovative. We can get away from the ``Washington knows best'' approach, and empower local school boards, teachers, and parents to work together with State education officials to make a real difference in the lives of these children. That is what our Republican bill would do. I point out again that no State is forced to accept the increased flexibility in designing programs using Federal funds. If a State is content with the status quo, if a State believes that its schools are delivering the best education possible, it can continue with the status quo. It can continue along the path of receiving Federal funds, attached with Federal strings, attached with paperwork, and tied up with redtape. If that works fine with a State, then a State can continue with that system. But a second alternative is for a State to enter into what is known as a performance partnership. Under this approach, a State would have more flexibility in spending Federal dollars and can consolidate some Federal programs as long as the State can show improved student achievement. Under the third and most innovative approach, 15 States would be allowed to participate in what is known as the Straight A's Program. Under Straight A's, a State would have great flexibility in combining Federal funds to meet whatever is the greatest need of that community. The needs differ from community to community. One community may need to hire more math teachers. Another may need to concentrate on improving reading skills. Still a third may need to upgrade the science labs. The needs are not identical from community to community. Straight A's recognizes this and would allow a State to choose to consolidate Federal funds to meet the greatest need of that community. That is what this debate is about. It is about trying a new approach that could help ensure a brighter future for the disadvantaged children of America. That is our goal. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Vermont, for his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the Senate floor. It is evident from the debate we have already heard that we are going to have, this week, a very vigorous and productive debate on the best way for the Federal Government to improve America's public schools, to improve teaching and learning. I look forward to the adoption of this legislation which will strengthen our K-12 education. No endeavor is more important to our Nation's future than ensuring that all children reach high standards. That is exactly what the legislation before us demands. The Educational Opportunities Act will put children first. That should be our goal as we consider this important legislation. We should put children first so that no child is left behind. I recently had a schoolteacher in eastern Maine give me a pin that I am wearing today that says, ``Children First.'' If we keep that in mind, if that is our goal throughout this debate, then I am confident we will pass this legislation which will make a difference in the public schools of America and to the future of our children. During the past 3 years, I have visited dozens of schools all over the State of Maine, from Kittery at the southern tip, to Jackman in the west, Rockland on the coast, and St. Agatha in the north. In fact, just last Friday, I visited two excellent schools in Kittery, ME, the Frisbee Elementary School and the Shapleigh Middle School, where I talked with students and they asked me wonderful questions for over an hour. It was a wonderful visit to these two schools. I have seen firsthand the excellent jobs that Maine teachers and administrators are doing in educating our children. The quality of instruction taking place in Maine schools is, indeed, impressive, and it is producing results. Maine's scores on national tests and its rate of high school graduation proves that our State's public schools are among the best in the Nation. Moreover, Maine's public schools provide a good education for all of our children regardless of their family income or where they live in our State. The recent report issued by the Council of Chief State School Officers shows that low-income students are performing nearly as well as the average of all Maine public school students, and that, of course, is our goal. An important factor in Maine's success has been its ability to obtain waivers from Federal regulations. Let me repeat that. One reason that Maine schools have been successful is they have been able to get waivers from Federal regulations. Federal regulations in some areas have been an obstacle to their success. It is only because Maine's commissioner of education has been vigilant in trying to get waivers from Federal regulations that he has been able to move forward on a number of fronts to improve Maine's schools. The most recent of the waivers that the State received gave Maine's schools more flexibility to use class-size reduction funds for teacher professional development. This is an option that the bill before us, S. 2, would give to all States. Recently, I had a phone call from the chairman of a school board in a small community in Washington County. She conveyed the appreciation of that school district for the flexibility to use Federal class-size monies for teacher professional development. She put it well. She said: We don't need to reduce class size; what we need is funds for professional development. Indeed, this school system is so small that it only received about $6,000 under the Class Size Reduction Program, not enough to hire a teacher, but they were able to put that money to good use by investing in professional development, a high need in that particular school system. On a larger scale, Maine sought and was granted a waiver from Federal regulations to allow it to use a grant from the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program to support the State's major reform initiative focusing on improving high schools. That was to implement this excellent report that the State produced through its Commission on Secondary Education. It is called ``Promising Futures: A Call for Improving Learning for Maine's Secondary Schools.'' Although Maine has almost eliminated the performance gap between disadvantaged and advantaged students in the elementary schools, the Federal regulations require the State of Maine to use these funds only in the lower grades. Fortunately, Maine was able to receive permission to move ahead on carrying out the recommendations put forth in this report by the Maine Commission on Secondary Education and to go forward with comprehensive reform in title I-eligible high schools. Why should the State of Maine have to go to Washington and get special permission to pursue these critical reforms? That does not make sense. It is the people in Maine who know best what their schools need. The people in Maine, working hard on this commission, decided there needed to be more focus on improving Maine's high schools, and yet Federal regulations were an impediment to achieving that goal. We have what I think of as a ``Mother, may I?'' approach to Federal regulation of our schools. Our States have to beg for permission to move forward. They have to seek waivers of regulations in order to pursue worthwhile programs. The Educational Opportunities Act will give the States this option without the time-consuming and costly administrative burden of seeking waivers from all these Federal regulations. These Federal regulations are well meaning, they are well-intentioned, but too often they act as an impediment to reform. Unfortunately, the performance in many other States' schools lags behind Maine's with large gaps between the performance of children in high- poverty areas versus low-poverty schools. Our goal as a nation, and the intent of the Educational Opportunities Act, is to help every public school succeed so that every student has the opportunity to achieve his or her full potential. In many cases, education is the difference between prosperity and poverty, hope and despair, dreams fulfilled and lost opportunities. Fueled by the remarkable success of the dot-com generation, many areas of the United States have experienced unparalleled economic growth. However, between Silicon Valley and Wall Street, many Americans still live in the shadows of the new prosperity. Education is the best, perhaps the only way, to close the ever-widening economic gap in America. Indeed, the economic gap in America is largely an education gap. Moreover, education is the best way for us to stoke the fire of our Nation's economic engine. The question before us as we debate the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is: What is the proper role of the Federal Government in promoting excellence in every public school and helping every student succeed? We can all agree that our public schools must do a better job in teaching our children and that the Federal Government must also do a better job in supporting our public schools. The question is: How can we best accomplish that goal? Seventeen years ago, the landmark study, ``A Nation at Risk,'' warned of declining performance in American schools and turned the Nation's eyes toward reforming public education. Today, however, too many schools, particularly in our inner cities, continue to fail to provide a solid education to their students. Although the United States spends more than $660 billion a year on education, nearly 60 percent of our low-income fourth graders cannot read at a basic level. Clearly, reforms are necessary to ensure that every child learns and achieves his or her full potential. Recent polls show that the American public thinks our public schools are in a state of crisis. More than two-thirds of the people surveyed said in a recent poll that they are dissatisfied with the way public education is working, and nearly 50 percent gave our schools only a grade of C. On the bright side, Americans are committed to fixing our public schools and eliminating mediocrity. Nearly every person surveyed said that improving our public schools should be a top priority. The Federal Government clearly takes a back seat to States and communities in terms of funding and overseeing our public schools, and that is how it should be. The Federal role is, nevertheless, important, particularly for helping disadvantaged students. Unfortunately, Washington has not always been helpful, nor has it been successful in achieving that goal. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, first enacted in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty, is the cornerstone of the Federal involvement in K-12 education. It is intended to provide financial assistance to States and school districts to improve education for children from disadvantaged families. Today, title I remains the largest Federal program, funded at nearly $8 billion annually. But, after 35 years, and $120 billion spent, the results remain a disappointment. The statistics are troubling and should give us pause: Only 13 percent of low-income fourth graders score at or above the proficient level on national reading tests; Two out of three African American and Hispanic fourth graders can barely read; Half of the students from urban school districts fail to graduate on time; and In math, fourth graders in high-poverty schools remain two grade levels behind their peers in low-poverty schools; in reading, they are three grade levels below their peers in schools in better neighborhoods. We can no longer pretend that Federal programs have succeeded. We need a new approach. As these sobering statistics highlight, little progress has been made toward achieving the ESEA's fundamental goal of narrowing the achievement gap between low-income and higher-income students. We know that the gap can be narrowed. We have largely accomplished that goal up to eighth grade in the State of Maine. But, clearly, we are not doing all we can to assist States and communities in reaching this goal. Clearly, the approach we have taken during the past 35 years simply has not worked. The Educational Opportunities Act gives the Senate the potential to do for education what it did for welfare a few years ago: end years of inflexible rules, provide new incentives, and focus Federal dollars on results. Under the current system, Washington requires schools to spend an inordinate amount of time filling out forms and complying with bureaucratic mandates. As a result, our public schools spend more than 48 million hours each year on Federal paperwork. That is 48 million hours that could be spent on students; instead, it is spent on Federal paperwork. The bill before us today will increase the authorization for Federal education funding without adding burdensome restrictions. It will create an environment focused on increased achievement, on results, on student learning, not on more bureaucracy and paperwork, and it will improve our public schools, not abandon them. The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee held many hours of hearings on how to improve the effectiveness of the ESEA. The majority of the committee concluded that individual States, local school boards, teachers, and parents are far better prepared than Washington to make decisions about what their students need. So the committee decided to give States more options. This legislation allows States to choose among three options for how to receive Federal funds. First, a State could decide to continue under the traditional ESEA approach of receiving formula grants for specific Federal programs for specific purposes as well as applying for competitive grants. In other words, if a State is content with the status quo, its schools can continue along that path. No one is forced to adopt a different approach. The second option is for States to apply to the Secretary of Education to enter into a performance partnership. This approach gives States somewhat more flexibility in the use of Federal education dollars in return for an agreement to achieve specific results, in other words, in return for an agreement to show true improvement in student learning. Under the third and what I believe to be the most promising and innovative approach, a State could apply, under the Straight A's Program, to be one of 15 States that will be given even more flexibility in spending Federal funds in return for strict accountability focused on student achievement. That is one of the major philosophical differences we are seeing in this debate. Our bill says that what is important is what students are learning. Showing achievement gains should be the bottom line. Unfortunately, too many on the other side of the aisle are wedded to the old approach which says what is important is having Federal strings attached to every dollar and making sure the paperwork is filled out correctly. The premise underlying the performance partnership and the Straight A's approach is similar. Instead of imposing a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate, the Federal Government would recognize that one community may need more math teachers while another may need to concentrate on improving reading programs, and that still a third may need to upgrade the science labs. The point is, it should be your community's decision, not Washington's. The Educational Opportunities Act frees States from Federal control and redtape but only in exchange for increased student performance, increased student achievement gains. Another important title of S. 2 includes the Teacher Empowerment Act. Other than involved parents, a well-qualified and dedicated teacher is the single most important prerequisite for student success. The lessons are clear. We must encourage talented people to choose teaching as a career and keep them in the classroom. The Teacher Empowerment Act authorizes $2 billion for State and local efforts to improve the quality of teaching. It gives States and communities the freedom to use Federal dollars to provide effective professional development for our teachers; to prepare, recruit, and retain well-qualified teachers; or to reduce class size--whatever the priority is in that community. Some States are also exploring alternatives to traditional teacher certification. I find it ironic that in public high schools in most States Alan Greenspan could not teach a class on economics, and our distinguished scholarly colleague, Senator Moynihan, could not teach a class on American Government. I am not saying that subject matter expertise alone qualifies someone to teach, but surely we should give incentives to States to be more creative in pursuing alternate routes to certification. Our legislation would do just that. I am particularly pleased that the bipartisan legislation that I introduced to help our Nation's rural schools has been included in this bill. I see my colleague, Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas, is on the floor. He is one of the cosponsors of this legislation. Although my commitment extends to every student in every school-- whether rural, suburban, or urban--I have a particular concern for the challenges that are unique to small school districts, especially those in rural areas. Smaller rural schools face at least two problems under the current Federal system. First, they often receive very small amounts to carry out federally mandated activities. One Maine school district in Frenchboro, ME, received a whopping $28 to fund a district-wide Safe and Drug Free School program--clearly, not enough to accomplish the goal of that Federal law. Another school district in northern Aroostook County with 400 students receives four separate Federal grants, ranging from $1,900 to $9,500. Not one of these grants is sufficient to implement the goals of the Federal program, and each small amount comes with its own paperwork, redtape, and strings attached. The second problem is that small school districts are essentially shut out of the competitive grant program. They lack the grant writers and other resources necessary to apply for and manage Federal grants that larger school districts are able to seek. My legislation addresses both problems by allowing small school districts to consolidate the Federal funds for local priorities and to receive supplemental funds in lieu of applying for competitive grants. These small rural districts could then use these funds to hire a new math or reading teacher, fund professional development, offer a program for gifted and talented students, purchase computers, or pay for any other activity that meets the community's priorities and needs. I thank the chairman of the committee for including my rural education initiative as part of his chairman's mark. Education is more important now than ever before. A strong K through 12 education prepares students for the postsecondary education they will need to adapt to an increasingly dynamic marketplace and to have choices and opportunities throughout their lives. As Plato said centuries ago: The direction in which education starts a man will determine his future life. I look forward to continuing the debate on the Educational Opportunities Act and to assuring that America's public education system starts all children, from all backgrounds, regions, and income levels, toward a lifetime of learning, contributing to society, and achieving their dreams. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, Thursday, April 13, is National D.O. Day. I therefore want to take this opportunity to recognize the 45,000 osteopathic physicians (D.O.s) across the country for their contributions to the American healthcare system. For more than a century, D.O.s have made a difference in the lives and health of Americans everywhere. They have treated presidents and Olympic athletes. They have helped to keep children well and have contributed to the fight against AIDS. Today, members of the osteopathic medical profession serve as U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, the chief medical officer for the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Surgeon General of the U.S. Army. As fully licensed physicians able to prescribe medication and perform surgery, D.O.s are committed to serving the health needs of rural and underserved communities. They make up 15 percent of the total physician population in towns of 10,000 or less. In addition, 64 percent of D.O.s practice in the primary care areas of medicine, fulfilling a need for more primary care physicians in an era marked by the growth of managed care. Their contributions have been particularly important in rural states like Maine. More than 100 million patient visits are made each year to D.O.s. D.O.s approach their patients as ``whole people.'' They don't just treat a specific illness or injury. D.O.s take into account home and work environments, as well as lifestyle, when assessing overall health. This approach provides Americans with high quality healthcare--patients seen as people, not just an illness or injury. From the state-of-the-art healthcare facility in a major city to a clinic in a rural Maine community, D.O.s continue to practice the kind of medicine that Andrew Taylor Still envisioned over 100 years ago when he founded the profession. It was my pleasure to meet today with two representatives of the osteopathic medical profession visiting our Capitol from Maine. The University of New England, College of Osteopathic Medicine (UNECOM), in Biddeford, is the only medical school in my home state. To the more than 400 osteopathic physicians in Maine, the approximately 1,100 graduates of UNECOM, and the 45,000 D.O.s represented by the American Osteopathic Association--congratulations on your contributions to the good health of the American people. I look forward to working with you to further our mutual goal of improving our nation's health care.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my friend and colleague, Senator Johnson, in introducing the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act of 2000. This legislation will provide our veterans with expanded educational opportunities at a reasonable cost. Endorsed by the 47-member Partnership for Veterans Education, our legislation provides a new model for today's GI bill that is logical, fair, and worthy of a nation that values both higher education and our veterans. The original GI bill was enacted in 1944. As a result of this initiative, 7.8 million World War II veterans were able to take advantage of postservice education and training opportunities, including more than 2 million veterans who went on to college. My own father was among those veterans who served bravely in World War II and then came back home to resume his education with assistance from the GI bill. Since that time, various incarnations of the G.I. Bill have continued to assist millions of veterans in taking advantage of the educational opportunities they put on hold in order to serve their country. New laws were enacted to provide educational assistance to those who served in Korea and Vietnam, as well as to those who served during the period in-between. Since the change to an all-volunteer service, additional adjustments to these programs were made, leading up to the enactment of the Montgomery G.I. Bill in 1985. The value of the educational benefit assistance provided by the Montgomery G.I. Bill, however, has greatly eroded over time due to inflation and the escalating cost of higher education. Military recruiters indicate that the program's benefits no longer serve as a strong incentive to join the military; nor do they serve as a retention tool valuable enough to persuade men and women to stay in the military and defer the full or part-time pursuit of their higher education until a later date. Perhaps most important, the program is losing its value as an instrument for readjustment into civilian life after military service. This point really hit home for me when I recently met with representatives of the Maine State Approving Agency (SAA) for Veterans Education Programs. They told me of the ever increasing difficulties that service members are having in using the G.I. Bill's benefits for education and training. For example, the Maine representatives told me that the majority of today's veterans are married and have children. Yet, the Montgomery G.I. Bill often does not cover the cost of tuition to attend a public institution, let alone the other costs associated with the pursuit of higher education and those required to help support a family. In fact, in constant dollars, with one exception, the current G.I. Bill provides the lowest level of assistance ever to those who served in the defense of our country. The basic benefit program of the Vietnam Era G.I. Bill provided $493 per month in 1981 to a veteran with a spouse and two children. Twenty years later, a veteran in identical circumstances receives only $43 more, a mere 8% increase over a time period when inflation has nearly doubled, and a dollar buys only half of what it once purchased. To address these problems, we are offering a modern version of the Montgomery G. I. Bill. This new model establishes a sensible, easily understood benchmark for G.I. Bill benefits. The benchmark sets G.I. Bill benefits at ``the average monthly costs of tuition and expenses for commuter students at public institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate degrees.'' This commonsense provision would serve as the foundation upon which future education stipends for all veterans would be based and would set benefits at a level sufficient to provide veterans the education promised to them at recruitment. The current G.I. Bill now provides nine monthly $536 stipends per year for four years. The total benefit is $19,296. Under the new benchmark established by this legislation, the monthly stipend for the this academic year would be $975, producing a new total benefit of $35,100 for the four academic years. Mr. President, today's G.I. Bill is woefully under-funded and does not provide the financial support necessary for our veterans to meet their educational goals. The legislation that we are proposing would fulfill the promise made to our nation's veterans, help with recruiting and retention of men and women in our military, and reflect current costs of higher education. Now is the time to enact these modest improvements to the basic benefit program of the Montgomery G.I. Bill. I urge all members of the Senate to join Senator Johnson and myself in support of the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my friend and colleague, Senator Johnson, in introducing the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act of 2000. This legislation will provide our veterans with expanded educational opportunities at a reasonable cost. Endorsed by the 47-member Partnership for Veterans Education, our legislation provides a new model for today's GI bill that is logical, fair, and worthy of a nation that values both higher education and our veterans. The original GI bill was enacted in 1944. As a result of this initiative, 7.8 million World War II veterans were able to take advantage of postservice education and training opportunities, including more than 2 million veterans who went on to college. My own father was among those veterans who served bravely in World War II and then came back home to resume his education with assistance from the GI bill. Since that time, various incarnations of the G.I. Bill have continued to assist millions of veterans in taking advantage of the educational opportunities they put on hold in order to serve their country. New laws were enacted to provide educational assistance to those who served in Korea and Vietnam, as well as to those who served during the period in-between. Since the change to an all-volunteer service, additional adjustments to these programs were made, leading up to the enactment of the Montgomery G.I. Bill in 1985. The value of the educational benefit assistance provided by the Montgomery G.I. Bill, however, has greatly eroded over time due to inflation and the escalating cost of higher education. Military recruiters indicate that the program's benefits no longer serve as a strong incentive to join the military; nor do they serve as a retention tool valuable enough to persuade men and women to stay in the military and defer the full or part-time pursuit of their higher education until a later date. Perhaps most important, the program is losing its value as an instrument for readjustment into civilian life after military service. This point really hit home for me when I recently met with representatives of the Maine State Approving Agency (SAA) for Veterans Education Programs. They told me of the ever increasing difficulties that service members are having in using the G.I. Bill's benefits for education and training. For example, the Maine representatives told me that the majority of today's veterans are married and have children. Yet, the Montgomery G.I. Bill often does not cover the cost of tuition to attend a public institution, let alone the other costs associated with the pursuit of higher education and those required to help support a family. In fact, in constant dollars, with one exception, the current G.I. Bill provides the lowest level of assistance ever to those who served in the defense of our country. The basic benefit program of the Vietnam Era G.I. Bill provided $493 per month in 1981 to a veteran with a spouse and two children. Twenty years later, a veteran in identical circumstances receives only $43 more, a mere 8% increase over a time period when inflation has nearly doubled, and a dollar buys only half of what it once purchased. To address these problems, we are offering a modern version of the Montgomery G. I. Bill. This new model establishes a sensible, easily understood benchmark for G.I. Bill benefits. The benchmark sets G.I. Bill benefits at ``the average monthly costs of tuition and expenses for commuter students at public institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate degrees.'' This commonsense provision would serve as the foundation upon which future education stipends for all veterans would be based and would set benefits at a level sufficient to provide veterans the education promised to them at recruitment. The current G.I. Bill now provides nine monthly $536 stipends per year for four years. The total benefit is $19,296. Under the new benchmark established by this legislation, the monthly stipend for the this academic year would be $975, producing a new total benefit of $35,100 for the four academic years. Mr. President, today's G.I. Bill is woefully under-funded and does not provide the financial support necessary for our veterans to meet their educational goals. The legislation that we are proposing would fulfill the promise made to our nation's veterans, help with recruiting and retention of men and women in our military, and reflect current costs of higher education. Now is the time to enact these modest improvements to the basic benefit program of the Montgomery G.I. Bill. I urge all members of the Senate to join Senator Johnson and myself in support of the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for S. 2323, the Worker Economic Opportunity Act. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation, which has broad bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. In recent years, we have seen substantial growth in the use of employee equity programs such as stock options, stock appreciation rights, and employee stock purchase plans. This growth has not only been in the number of companies which offer such plans, but also in the employees to whom such plans are available. While long used as a form of incentive for corporate executives, equity programs are now available to more employees than ever. In fact, a 1998 survey by Hewitt Associates found that in excess of two-thirds of large U.S. companies offered stock options to non-executive employees, and more than a quarter of these companies make such plans available to their entire workforce. Unfortunately, the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was enacted in 1938, does not recognize the importance of stock options as an employee benefit. Thus, when asked how to deal with stock options when calculating overtime pay for hourly-wage employees, the Department of Labor ruled that the options would have to be included in the calculations. The end result of this decision left employers with two options: One, go through the burdensome task of recalculating an employee's regular pay rate, retroactively, based on the change in the value of the stock from the time the option was granted until it was exercised; or, two, do not offer any form of equity program to any employee who is not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. Since complying with the Department of Labor's onerous ruling would not likely be worth the benefit of offering an equity plan, the vast majority of companies would be left to face option two, thus eliminating the use of a benefit that is popular with both employers and employees. Recognizing the need to remedy this matter, for the good of companies and workers alike, a bipartisan group of legislators worked to craft the bill we have before us today, the Worker Economic Opportunity Act. This legislation would exempt employee equity programs from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, just as profit sharing and holiday bonus plans are exempted. In addition, the bill protects employers who offered employee equity programs prior to the date this legislation is enacted. This legislation will allow employers to offer the kind of benefits which will allow them to attract a quality workforce, while providing employees with a benefit they truly want. It is all too rare for Congress to come up with a win-win solution to a problem, but in this case we certainly have. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas and salute the work she has done on behalf of retail businesses in border communities in Texas on the very issue I am about to discuss. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution seeking parity among the countries that are parties to the North American Free-Trade Agreement with respect to the personal exemption allowance for merchandise purchased by returning residents. I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Moynihan, Kyl, Gregg, Hutchison, and Leahy as original cosponsors. NAFTA was intended to remove trade barriers among the countries of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. While some of the goals of NAFTA have been realized, glaring inequities remain. One such inequity that affects small businesses, particularly retailers, located in border communities is the difference in personal exemption allowances permitted by the U.S. versus the allowances permitted by Canada and Mexico. For Maine citizens living near the U.S./Canadian border, moving freely and frequently between the two countries is a way of life. Cross-border business and family relationships abound. The difference in personal exemption allowances, however, puts Maine businesses near the Canadian border at a considerable disadvantage in relation to their Canadian counterparts. Let me explain why. A United States citizen traveling to Canada for fewer than 24 hours is exempt from paying duties on $200 worth of merchandise. For trips over 48 hours, the exemption increases to $400 worth of merchandise. Under our laws, Canadian stores are able to serve both Canadian and American customers and, because of the exemption level, can sell Americans a significant amount of merchandise duty-free. Unfortunately, this situation only works one way. A Canadian citizen is allowed a duty-free personal exemption allowance of only $50 for a 24-hour visit and $200 for a 48-hour visit. This means that a Canadian shopping for the day in the border communities of Fort Kent, Madawaska, or Calais or indeed anywhere in Maine can bring home only $50 worth of merchandise before a duty is imposed. This is a significant deterrent to Canadians who would otherwise shop in Maine communities. This disparity harms many Maine businesses, including Central Building Supplies, a small, family-owned home building materials business that has been in the same location in Madawaska, Maine for 35 years. Its owner wrote to me concerned about this issue. Over the past couple years, his small store has lost sales in kitchen cabinets, windows, wood flooring, and ceramic tile largely due to the inequity in duty allowances and the exchange rate. Whether they are located in the St. John Valley or in Washington County, small businesses cite similar problems. The allowance disparity also hurts stores in the Aroostook Centre Mall and the Bangor Mall, which have traditionally attracted Canadian shoppers. This discrepancy in personal exemption allowances gives an enormous competitive advantage to the Canadian and Mexican retailers. It gives these retailers to our north and the south access to cross-border shoppers while limiting that same opportunity for American retailers. Mr. President, this is not fair trade, and this is not free trade. This parity should be eliminated. The resolution I am submitting today would express the sense of the Senate that the United States Trade Representative and the Secretary of the Treasury should initiate discussions with officials of the Governments of Canada and Mexico to achieve parity with respect to the personal exemption allowance structure. In the event that parity in the personal exemption is not reached within one year after the date of the adoption of this resolution, this resolution would require the United States Trade Representative and the Secretary of the Treasury to submit recommendations to Congress on whether legislative changes are necessary to achieve personal exemption parity. The steps set forth in this resolution would begin to resolve this inequity. I urge my colleagues to support its swift passage. I thank the Senator from Texas for not only yielding but for cosponsoring this resolution.