Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. The Senator makes a good point. In some cases, they may suspend it and then they may turn around and impose the burden again. It is hard to know. The agency seems to be in so much turmoil and so insensitive to the home health care agencies.

Ms. COLLINS. That's correct.

Ms. COLLINS. I think the Senator will allow me to respond. This is a typical example of the administration rushing in without thinking through the regulatory burden that is imposed and, in response to an outcry from Members of Congress, such as ourselves, and from senior citizens and home health agencies, it then decided maybe it made a mistake. But, in the meantime, our home health agencies have gone through the time, trouble and expense of implementing these requirements.

Ms. COLLINS. Yes.

Ms. COLLINS. The Senator is absolutely correct. We not only have a flawed payment system, but home health agencies are struggling under a mountain of burden of unnecessary and onerous regulations imposed by HCFA, imposed by the Clinton administration. In fact, my colleague may be interested to know that earlier this year I chaired a hearing of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on home health care. We heard firsthand about the financial distress and cash-flow problems that home health agencies across the country are experiencing. In fact, the Senator has talked about the number that have closed in Kansas. The Senator may already know, but for the benefit of my colleagues who may not be as well informed as the Senator from Kansas, more than 2,300 home health agencies across the country have been forced to close their doors as a result of the regulatory burden and the flawed payment system. We heard witnesses talk about their frustrations. In fact, the CEO of the Visiting Nurses Service in Saco, ME, termed the Clinton administration's regulatory policy as being one of ``implement and suspend.'' She and others pointed to numerous examples of hastily enacted, ill-conceived requirements along the lines of what the Senator pointed out--surety bonds, sequential billing, the OASIS system, a host of unnecessary regulatory requirements. What has happened is, no sooner does HCFA impose this burden on these home health agencies and they invest the costs necessary to comply, then HCFA changes its mind and suspends the regulatory requirements and says never mind.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the conference report on the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill. I do so with considerable reluctance because the distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi, the subcommittee chairman, has always been so responsive to the needs of rural Maine. And the Senator, in his capacity as chairman, has provided valuable assistance to the State of Maine, particularly in the area of agricultural research, which is very important to my State. Unfortunately, circumstances largely beyond the control of my good friend from Mississippi have brought this measure before us without a component that is absolutely critical to the survival of Maine's dairy farmers. The lack of provisions reauthorizing the Northeast Dairy Compact creates a serious regional inequity and places an unfair burden on Maine's dairy farmers. While this measure contains $5.4 billion in payments for farmers harmed by low commodity prices, it ignores a mechanism that provides stability in pricing for dairy farmers in the Northeast. The Northeast Dairy Compact is a proven success, and it is absolutely critical to the survival of dairy farmers in Maine and throughout the Northeast. First approved by Congress as part of the 1996 farm bill, the Northeast Dairy Compact has a proven track record of benefits for both consumers and farmers. The compact works by simply evening out the peaks and valleys in the fluid milk prices, providing stability to the cost of milk, and ensuring a supply of fresh, wholesome local milk. The compact works with market forces to help both the farmer and the consumer. As prices climb and farmers begin to receive a sustainable price for their milk, the compact turns off. When prices drop to unsustainable levels, the compact is triggered on. The compact simply softens the blow to farmers of an abrupt and dramatic drop in the volatile fluid milk market. It is important to reiterate that consumers also benefit from the compact. Not only does the compact stabilize prices, thus avoiding dramatic fluctuations in the retail cost of milk, but also it guarantees that the consumer is assured of the availability of a supply of fresh local milk. Let us remember that the proof is in the prices. Under the compact, New England consumers have enjoyed lower retail fluid milk prices than many other regions operating without a dairy compact. Moreover, the compact, while providing clear benefits to dairy producers and consumers in the Northeast, has proven that it does not harm farmers or taxpayers in other regions of the country. Indeed, a 1998 report by the Office of Management and Budget showed that during its first 6 months of operation, the compact did not adversely affect farmers outside the compact region and added no Federal cost to nutrition programs. In fact, the compact specifically exempts WIC, the Women, Infants, and Children's Program, from any costs resulting or related to the compact. The reauthorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact is also important as a matter of States rights. We often hear criticism of the inside- the-beltway mentality that tells States that we here in Washington know better than they do, even on issues that traditionally fall under State and local control. That is simply wrong. In the Northeast Dairy Compact, we have a solution that was devised by our dairy farmers, that was approved by the legislators and Governors of the New England States, that is supported by every State agricultural commissioner in the region and overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, by the dairy farmers of the region. We in Congress should not be an obstacle to this practical local solution. It is not too late. There are a variety of ways that Congress can allow dairy farmers in the Northeast to help themselves. All we need to do is to reauthorize the compact and take advantage of those opportunities. I am very disappointed, however, that Congress is missing the logical opportunity to renew this important measure through the Agriculture appropriations bill. Therefore, I must oppose this conference report. But I look forward to working with my colleagues to resolve this matter before we adjourn. Again, I thank the Senator from Mississippi. He has been extremely responsive to the needs of agricultural producers in my State. I know that he shares my commitment to resolving this matter and coming to a solution that will help our dairy farmers survive before we adjourn this session of the Senate. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back to the chairman any remaining time I might have.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join my colleague, Senator Jack Reed, in submitting a resolution designating October 24th-30th as National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week. This designation will help increase awareness of the significant dangers and prevalence of child lead poisoning across our nation. Recently, Senator Reed and I held a hearing in Rhode Island to address the impact exposure to lead paint can have on children's health and development, and to explore ways to improve our efforts to prevent and eventually eliminate lead poisoning in children. Great strides have been made in the last 20 years to reduce the threat lead poses to human health. Most notably, lead has been banned from many products including residential paint, food cans and gasoline. These commendable steps have significantly reduced the incidence of lead poisoning. But the threat remains, and continues to imperil, the health and welfare of our nation's children. In fact, lead poisoning is the most significant and prevalent environmental health threat to children in the U.S. today. Even low levels of lead exposure can have serious developmental consequences including reductions in IQ and attention span, reading and learning disabilities, hyperactivity and behavioral problems. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently estimates that 890,000 children aged 1-5 have blood levels of lead that are high enough to affect their ability to learn. Today, the major lead poisoning threat to children in found in interior paint that has deteriorated. Unfortunately, it is all too common for older homes to contain lead-based paint. In fact, more than half the entire housing stock--and three quarters of the stock built prior to 1978--contain some lead-based paint. Paint manufactured prior to the residential lead paint ban often remains safely contained and unexposed for decades, but over time, often through the remodeling process or through normal wear and tear, the paint can become exposed, contaminating the home with dangerous lead dust. Because of the prevalence of older homes in the Northeast, lead poisoning exposure is a significant problem in our region. In Maine, 42 percent of our homes were built prior to 1950. Although screening rates nationally and in my state are considered to be too low, the sampling that has been done in my state shows that in some areas of the state 7- 15 percent of children tested have high blood lead levels. In some areas of our country, the percentage is even higher. Next month, I will hold a hearing in Maine to address the lead-based paint threat in our homes, and what parents can do to protect their children from the risks associated with lead exposure. Once childhood development is impaired by exposure to lead, the effect is largely irreversible. However, if the presence of lead is detected prior to exposure, then remedial steps can be taken, such as lead containment or abatement, to prevent children from ever being harmed by lead's presence in the home. We are not helpless to stop this insidious threat. By raising awareness of the prevalence of lead paint in homes, and the steps that can be taken to prevent poisoning, we can stop the life-impairing effects of childhood lead poisoning. I urge my colleagues to support me in raising awareness about childhood lead poisoning by co-sponsoring Childhood Lead Paint Poisoning Prevention Week.

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 ``Conquering Diabetes: Are We Taking Full Advantage of the Scientific Opportunities For Research?'' This Subcommittee hearing will examine the devastating impact that diabetes and its resulting complications have had on Americans of all ages in both human and economic terms. Additionally, we will review the recent recommendations of the Congressionally-established Diabetes Research Working Group and will look at the current Federal commitment to diabetes research to determine if sufficient funding has been provided to take advantage of the unprecedented opportunities to ultimately conquer this disease and its complications. The hearing will take place on Thursday, October 14, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 628 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, I want to begin my remarks by commending my friend and colleague from Texas for her leadership on this issue and for bringing it to the Senate's attention. I wish to share with my colleagues a wonderful example of the accomplishments that can be realized by a same-gender class. A gifted math teacher, Donna Lisnik, at Presque High School, pioneered an all- girls math class some years ago. She believed it would result in greater achievement by the young girls who were studying math at Presque High School. She began to offer the same-sex class in math and she proved to be absolutely right. The class was offered for over 5 years and the results were outstanding. Both the achievement of these girls and the number of them participating in advanced math and science classes increased. I had the privilege of visiting Mrs. Lisnik's classroom. I cannot overstate the excitement of the girls in her class studying advanced math. They were learning so much and they were so excited by this opportunity to learn together. Incredibly, the Federal Department of Education concluded that this math class violated title IX of the Education Act. Consequently, Presque High School was required to open the class to both boys and girls. It is interesting to note, however, that it is girls who continue to enroll in this class even though it is open to both boys and girls. It is unfortunate that schools are prevented by the Federal regulations from developing single-gender classes in which both young women--and in other classes, young men--can flourish and reach their full potential. Senator Hutchison's proposal assures that other schools with innovative education programs designed to meet gender-specific needs will not face such obstacles. This proposal does not weaken or undercut in any way the protections for women and girls in title IX. It does not allow a school to offer an education benefit for only one sex, to the exclusion of the other. Schools must have comparable programs for both boys and girls. However, it does give schools the flexibility to design and offer single-gender classes when the school determines that such classes will provide their students with a better opportunity to achieve high standards, the kind of high standards and achievement that I witnessed firsthand in Mrs. Lisnik's exciting math class in northern Maine. Although Senator Hutchison has decided to withdraw her amendment, I am going to work with her to ensure that it is incorporated in the rewrite of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that will be undertaken by the health committee later this year. This is a proposal that is designed to help young girls and young boys excel by using the device of single-sex classrooms. It deserves support. I am very pleased to join with the Senator from Texas in supporting this effort. I yield back any remaining time.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside and that I be permitted to call up an amendment that I have at the desk.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill to establish an independent commission to thoroughly examine the impact of airline deregulation on smalltown America. I am very pleased to be joined in this effort by several cosponsors, including Senators Rockefeller, Burns, Baucus, Robb, Hollings, and Harkin. This amendment is modeled after a bill I recently introduced that would authorize a study into how airline deregulation has affected the economic development of smaller towns in America, the quality and availability of air transportation, particularly in rural areas of this country, and the long-term viability of local airports in smaller communities and rural areas. For far too long, small communities throughout this Nation, from Bangor, ME, to Billings, MT, to Bristol, TN, have weathered the effects of airline deregulation without adequately assessing how deregulation has affected their economic development, their ability to create and attract new jobs, the quality and availability of air transportation for their residents, and the long-term viability of their local airports. It is time to evaluate the effects of airline deregulation from this new perspective by looking at how it has affected the economies in small towns and rural America. Bangor, ME, where I live, is an excellent example of how airline deregulation can cause real problems for a smaller community. Bangor recently learned it was going to lose the services of Continental Express. This follows a pullout by Delta Airlines last year. It has been very difficult for Bangor to provide the kind of quality air service that is so important in trying to attract new businesses to locate in the area as well as to encourage businesses to expand. Nowadays, businesses expect to have convenient, accessible, and affordable air service. It is very important to their ability to do business. Although there have been several studies on the impact of airline deregulation, they have all focused on some aspects of air service itself. For example, there have been GAO studies that have looked at the impact on airline prices. Not one study I am aware of has actually analyzed the impact of airline deregulation on economic development and job creation in rural States. Indeed, we have spoken to the GAO and the Department of Transportation, and they are not aware of a single study that has taken the kind of comprehensive approach I am proposing. Moreover, one GAO official told my staff he thought such a study was long overdue. We need to know more about how airline deregulation has affected smaller and medium-sized communities such as Presque Isle, ME, and Bangor, ME. We need to focus on the relationship between access to affordable, quality airline service and the economic development of America's smaller towns and cities. During the past 20 years, air travel has become increasingly linked to business development. Successful businesses expect and need their personnel to travel quickly over long distances. It is expected that a region being considered for business location or expansion should be reachable conveniently, quickly, and easily via jet service. Those areas without air access or with access that is restricted by prohibitive travel costs, infrequent flights, or small, slow planes appear to be at a distinct disadvantage compared to those communities that enjoy accessible, convenient, and economic air service. This country's air infrastructure has grown to the point where it now rivals our ground transportation infrastructure in its importance to the economic vibrancy and vitality of our communities. It has long been accepted that building a highway creates an almost instant corridor of economic activity for businesses eager to cut shipping and transportation costs by locating close to the stream of commerce. Like a community located on an interstate versus one that is reachable only by back roads, a community with a midsize or small airport underserved by air carriers appears to be operating at a disadvantage to one located near a large airport. What this proposal would do is allow us to take a close look at the relationship between quality air service and the communities it serves. Bob Ziegelaar, director of the Bangor International Airport, perhaps put it best. He tells me: Communities such as Bangor are at risk of being left behind with service levels below what the market warrants, both in terms of capacity and quality. The follow-on consequences are a decreasing capacity to attract economic growth. He sums it up well. A region's ability to attract and keep good jobs is inextricably linked to its transportation system. Twenty-one years after Congress deregulated the airline industry, it is important that we now look and assess the long-term impacts of our actions. The commission established by my amendment will ensure that Congress, small communities, and the airlines are able to make future decisions on airline issues fully aware of the concerns and the needs of smalltown America. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking minority members of both the subcommittee and the full committee for their assistance in shaping this amendment. I look forward to working with them. I know they share my concerns about providing quality, accessible air service to all parts of America. I thank them for their cooperation in this effort and yield the floor.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I again salute the Senator from Pennsylvania for his tremendous commitment to medical research. Without his leadership, we would not see the kinds of advancements that are being made. I thank him for his support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, and the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, be added as cosponsors to my sense-of-the-Senate amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 1824 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that diabetes and its resulting complications have had a devastating impact on Americans of all ages in both human and economic terms, and that increased support for research, education, early detection, and treatment efforts is necessary to take advantage of unprecedented opportunities for progress toward better treatments, prevention, and ultimately a cure) Mr. President, I do call up amendment No. 1824, which is at the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we are on the edge of an exciting breakthrough in the treatment and ultimately the prevention and cure of diabetes. That is why I am so excited by the possibility of a significant increase in research in this area. As the chairman of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I have had the opportunity to visit some of the leading-edge research labs that are doing work on diabetes. I have visited Jackson Labs in Bar Harbor, MA, where very exciting research is ongoing into the causes of both type I and type II diabetes. I am very proud of the contributions made by these distinguished scientists in my home State. In addition, I have had the pleasure of visiting the JDF Foundation Center at Harvard Medical School, where there is also tremendous research underway. I am convinced, with the kind of increased commitment called for by my resolution, and indicated in the Appropriations Committee's report, that we can in fact break through and reach a cure for this devastating disease. Mr. President, I do not know whether there is any other request for time. It is my understanding the vote is scheduled for 9:30. We have reached that hour. Mr. President, seeing no one seeking further time to speak, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my co-chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, Senator Breaux, as well as the chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, Senator Grassley, and the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, in introducing a sense-of-the- Senate resolution to help address the devastating impact of diabetes and its resulting complications on Americans of all ages. This resolution calls for increased support for diabetes research, education, early detection, and treatment. Diabetes research has been underfunded in recent years. It is imperative that we increase our commitment in order to take full advantage of the unprecedented and exciting scientific opportunities that we have as the millennium approaches for advances leading to better detection, treatment, prevention, and ultimately a cure for this devastating disease. Diabetes is a very serious condition that affects people of every age, race, and nationality. Here in America, 16 million people suffer from diabetes, and about 800,000 new cases are diagnosed each year. Moreover, diabetes frequently goes undiagnosed. Of the 16 million Americans with diabetes, it is estimated that 5.4 million do not realize they have this very serious condition. Diabetes is one of our Nation's most costly diseases, both in human and economic terms. It is the sixth deadliest disease in the United States and kills almost 200,000 Americans annually. It is the leading cause of kidney failure, of blindness in adults, and amputations. It is a significant risk factor for heart disease, stroke, and birth defects. The disease shortens the average life expectancy by up to 15 years Moreover, it is very costly in financial terms as well. Diabetes costs the Nation in excess of $105 billion annually in health-related expenditures. At present, more than 1 out of every 10 dollars that we spend on health care is related to treating people with diabetes. About 1 out of 4 Medicare dollars are used to treat people with diabetes. Indeed, more than 40 billion in tax dollars is spent each year treating people with diabetes through Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' health, and Federal employees' programs. Unfortunately, there currently is no way to prevent or to cure diabetes. Available treatments have had only limited success in controlling the devastating consequences of this disease. This problem is made all the more complex by the fact that diabetes is not a single disease, but rather it occurs in several forms and the complications affect virtually every system of the body. Children with type I diabetes face a lifetime of multiple daily finger pricks to check their blood sugar levels, daily insulin injections, and the possibility of lifelong complications, including kidney failure and blindness, which can be deadly, can be disabling. Older Americans with diabetes also can be disabled by the multiple complications of the disease. Every year, the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation hosts a children's congress in Washington, DC. They bring children from all over this Nation to put a human face on the consequences of type I diabetes. Recently, I had the opportunity to meet a courageous 8-year-old boy from North Yarmouth, ME. Nathan Reynolds is an active young boy. He loves school, biking, swimming, and baseball, and he particularly likes collecting old coins. He is also suffering from type I diabetes. He was diagnosed about 2 years ago, and it has completely changed his life and the life of his family. He has had to learn how to check his blood. In fact, his 4-year-old brother reminds him to do it before each meal. He has to give himself an insulin shot or get his teacher or the school nurse or his parents to help him do so. Nathan can never take a day off from his disease. It does not matter whether it is Christmas or his birthday, he still has to prick his finger and check his blood sugar. He still has to inject himself with insulin in order to keep relatively healthy. I will never forget the story a teacher told me of all the children in her class making a wish for Christmas. Some of them wished for a new toy, one wished for a pony, another wished to go to Disney World. But one little boy who had juvenile diabetes made the wish that he could just have Christmas without having to give himself ``yucky'' shots. That story touched me deeply, and it hit home with the fact that this is a lifelong condition for children who are diagnosed with type I diabetes. I will also never forget the anguish on a young mother's face who told me her 5-year-old son had just been diagnosed with diabetes. ``How do I tell him?'' she said. ``How do I tell him he is going to have to have shots every day, that he is going to have to constantly prick his finger to check his blood sugar levels? How do I tell him what this means for him and for all of us who love him?'' There is also some good news. Exciting research is underway that should lead to medical breakthroughs for Nathan, for other children, and for adults who have type I and type II diabetes. Reducing the tremendous health and human burdens of diabetes and its enormous economic toll depends upon identifying the factors responsible for the disease and developing new methods for treatment, prevention, and ultimately a cure. The next decade holds tremendous potential and promise for diabetes research. Improvements in technology and the general growth in scientific knowledge have created unprecedented opportunities for advancements that might lead to better treatments, prevention, and a cure. Earlier this year, the congressionally mandated diabetes research working group, an independent panel composed of 12 scientific experts of diabetes and 4 representatives of the lay diabetes communities, issued an important report. It is called ``Conquering Diabetes: A Strategic Plan for the 21st Century.'' This important report details the magnitude of the problem, and it lays out a comprehensive plan for research conducted by the National Institutes of Health on diabetes. In this report, the diabetes working group found, ``Many scientific opportunities are not being pursued due to insufficient funding, lack of appropriate mechanisms and a shortage of trained researchers.'' The report also concluded that the current level of funding, the level of effort, and the scope of diabetes research falls far short of what is needed to capitalize on these promising opportunities. The funding level, the report found, is so far short of what is required to make progress on this complex and difficult problem. The report goes on to recommend a funding level of $827 million for diabetes research at NIH in fiscal year 2000, and, indeed, many of our colleagues signed a letter to the Appropriations Committee requesting an appropriation of just that level to be included to advance the goals of this legislation. I am a strong supporter of increased research and of efforts to double our investment in biomedical research over the next few years. There is simply no investment that would yield greater returns for the American taxpayers, and the commitment of the bill before us of an additional $2 billion in funding for NIH, which represents nearly a 13- percent increase, will bring us so much closer to that goal. This strategy is particularly important as we move into the next century when our public health and disability programs will be under increasing strains due to the aging of our population. I am also very pleased and commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Specter, and the ranking minority member, Senator Harkin, for including very strong language in the report accompanying this bill which recognizes that diabetes research has been underfunded in the past and directs that funding for diabetes be increased at the National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease and other NIH institutes. Again, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Specter and Senator Harkin, have all been tremendous advocates for people with diabetes and are to be commended for their strong leadership in this effort. The amendment I am offering today does not earmark a particular funding level for diabetes research. Rather, it is intended to heighten awareness of the devastating impact of this disease, and it is intended to affirm that diabetes research is a high priority. Most of all, the amendment expresses the clear intent of the Senate that the National Institutes of Health should substantially increase its investment in the fight against diabetes along the lines recommended in this landmark report, the $827 million recommendation. We must ensure that sufficient resources are available to take full advantage of the extraordinary and unprecedented scientific opportunities identified by the diabetes working group. If we do so, we can better understand and ultimately conquer this devastating disease. I thank the Chair for his attention. I hope all of my colleagues will join us in supporting this resolution to send a clear signal that we are committed to conquering diabetes. I reserve any remaining time I may have left.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 1653, which would reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. As an original cosponsor of this important legislation, I would like to applaud the excellent work of Senator Chafee and the Foundation to conserve the fish, wildlife, and plant resources of the United States. The Foundation was created by Congress in 1984 to promote improved conservation and sustainable use of our country's natural resources. Since then, it has awarded over 2,400 grants, using $101 million in federal funds, which it matched with $189 million in nonfederal funds, putting a total of over $290 million on the ground to promote environmental education, protect habitats, prevent species from becoming endangered, restore wetlands, improve riparian areas, and conserve native plants. The hallmark of this outstanding organization is forgoing partnerships between the public and private sectors-- involving the government, private citizens, and corporations--to address the root causes of environmental problems. This reauthorization will allow the Foundation to continue its valuable work throughout the country. Besides being an important link between groups with differing interests in natural resources, the Foundation is an extremely effective tool for stretching scarce federal dollars. The Foundation was created by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act, which stipulates that the Foundation must match any federal money appropriated to it on a one-to-one basis. The Foundation does the Act one better. It has an internal policy of matching federal funds at least two-to-one with money from individuals, corporations, state and local governments, foundations, and nongovernmental organizations. Furthermore, all of the federal money appropriated to the Foundation supports on-the-ground conservation--its operating funds come strictly from private donations. The Foundation does not use federal funds for lobbying; nor does it support projects that entail political advocacy or litigation. In my home state of Maine, the Foundation has invested over $3.4 million in federal funds in 109 projects, generating an additional $6.9 million in matching funds from private, corporate, and other state sources. Most notably, the Foundation has funded projects in Maine to help fishermen cope with the collapse of traditional groundfish fisheries, build a program to preserve Maine's native Atlantic salmon, and protect habitat for breeding Neotropical migratory birds. Mr. President, I strongly support this bill to reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Year after year, the Foundation consistently performs valuable conservation work, not only in my state, but throughout the country. Its ability to triple the power of federal funding for conservation is unique, making it one of the most effective means we have for preserving our natural resources. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting expeditious passage of this important measure.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, those of us who strongly supported an increased Federal investment in education should be celebrating this legislation, not criticizing it. Let's look at the numbers. The committee's appropriation for total education spending is $1.9 billion more than for fiscal year 1999. It is a half billion dollars more than the President's request. Let me repeat that because I think that has been lost in this debate. The fact is, the Appropriations Committee has increased total education funding in this bill by a half billion dollars more than President Clinton requested. Similarly, the committee has increased spending for Pell grants--an essential program that I strongly support--for title I, for special education--I could go on and on. So it is clear that this debate is not about money. What is it about? It is about power. It is about command and control. It is about who will be making the decisions and where they will be made. Let's look at the language of the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton. It says: School districts may use the funds for class size reductions or for any other authorized activity in the ESEA that will improve the academic achievement of our students. Who could be opposed to that? Isn't that the bottom line? Isn't that what we want--improved academic achievement, better results for our students? So the question before the Senate is whether we should continue with the Washington-knows-best, arrogant attitude or whether we should recognize that our local school boards, our principals, our teachers, and our parents are best able to determine what local students need to improve their performance. The question--the bottom line--should be: What have our students learned? Have they improved? It should not be: How did you spend your Federal grant? Did you fill out the paperwork correctly? In some school districts, smaller class size may be what is needed. But in others, we may need to upgrade the science lab or institute a program for gifted and talented students or hire more teachers. The needs vary as much as our schools vary. A one-size-fits-all approach simply does not work. The Senator from Connecticut mentioned an article in today's newspaper which has the startling results that nationally three-fourths of the students cannot compose an organized essay. I am pleased to note that my State of Maine ranks near the top--No. 2 only to Connecticut-- in performance on this test. But nationwide, three-quarters of the students failed this simple test. Is the answer the same in every State? I do not think so. In some States, improved professional development for the teachers may be the key to reversing these test results. In other States, it may be smaller classes. Yet in another State it may be another technique or method or solution that is required. The point is that we do not know here in Washington what the best approach is in the thousands of school districts across this country. All we are saying is, let the local school districts decide what they need to do to improve student achievement. There is nothing in Senator Gorton's amendment that prohibits the school district from using the money to reduce class size if that is what is needed. But that may not be what is needed. Indeed, 41 States already exceed the ideal teacher-student ratio. What we need to do is to trust local people to make the decisions that are going to help bring out the best in the students in our communities across the United States. That is exactly what Senator Gorton's amendment would do. This is not a debate about money. All of us agree that we want to increase the Federal investment in education. It is the best investment of our money we can make. The issue is about who is making the decision. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.