Jean Carnahan

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Madam President, small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. They create two of every three new jobs, produce 39 percent of the gross national product and are responsible for more than half of the Nation's technological innovation. Our Nation's 20 million small businesses provide dynamic opportunities for all Americans. Therefore, I believe we need a strong administrator to ensure that the SBA functions effectively on behalf of America's small businesses. Mr. Barreto is a native of Kansas City, MO who has demonstrated a belief in the entrepreneurial spirit of small business owners. As Chairman of the Board for the Latino Business Association, Mr. Barreto has shown his commitment to providing Latino Americans with business opportunities, education, and technical assistance. He also serves as the Vice Chairman of the Board of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. In this capacity, Mr. Barreto is successfully representing the interests of the Hispanic business community by strengthening national economic development programs and increasing business relationships between the corporate sector and Hispanic owned businesses. I am pleased that the President has put forward a nominee with such a strong record of leadership and commitment to promoting the success of small businesses. I supported Mr. Barreto's nomination in the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and I am similarly pleased to support his nomination here on the floor of the United States Senate.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, within the Office of Management and Budget has the important duty of reviewing the regulations issued by all Executive Branch agencies. These regulations are critical to environmental protections, worker safety, public health, and a host of other issues. I have carefully reviewed the credentials of Dr. John Graham for this position and his testimony before the Governmental Affairs Committee. I support Dr. Graham's nomination to be the Administrator of OIRA. Dr. Graham brings a wealth of experience and expertise to this position, including the use of cost-benefit analysis as a tool in evaluating regulations. As my colleagues know, the Clinton administration issued an Executive Order requiring the use of cost- benefit analysis to inform regulatory decision-making. I have no objections to the use of cost-benefit analysis as long as it is not carried too far. After all, we should not implement regulations if the costs of compliance grossly exceed the benefits the regulation would produce. It is appropriate for cost-benefit analysis to be one factor, but not the exclusive factor, in making regulatory decisions. Dr. Graham's testimony indicates that he shares this approach. While I may not agree with Dr. Graham's application of cost-benefit analysis in every instance, I believe that President Bush is entitled, within the bounds of reason, to have someone in this position that shares his approach to governing. In my view, Dr. Graham falls within this criteria.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for that eloquent and enthusiastic support for a solution to the problem we have worked on for so many years. I love the opportunity to work with him in being able to find that solution. Today, I want to speak about an issue that is important to the people of Missouri. As you see, my State lies at the confluence of these two great rivers, the Missouri and the Mississippi. The rise and the fall of these rivers has a tremendous effect on Missouri, on its agriculture and recreation and environment and economy. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed to shift the flow of the Missouri River so that more water passes through our State in the spring and less in the summer. It is called the spring rise. If this proposal goes into effect, it could have devastating consequences, including increased likelihood of flooding and the shutdown of the barge industry on the Missouri. The energy and water appropriations bill being considered by the Senate contains language that would prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from expediting the schedule to finalize revisions to the master manual that governs waterflow on the Missouri River. In effect, this provision would ensure that the decision regarding the flow of the river would not be made until 2003. While I welcome that language as a temporary stopgap for Missouri, it is not enough to protect Missourians or other downstream States, for without additional action by Congress, it is virtually certain that the Corps of Engineers will adopt the Fish and Wildlife Service's recommendation for spring rise. That is a condition that will do great harm to Missouri and other users of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. The Bond-Carnahan amendment strengthens the bill to provide greater protections for Missourians. It would allow the Corps to propose alternatives to assist the recovery of endangered species, but it would not preclude the Corps from adopting the Fish and Wildlife Service's proposal for spring rise. Just 8 years ago, Missourians faced one of the worst floods in their history. The water crested almost 50 feet over the normal level. Entire neighborhoods were washed away and damage estimates ran into the billions. This year, we saw communities up and down the river battling against floodwaters once again. I cannot believe that a government agency would contemplate an action that would put Missourians and residents of other downstream States at risk of even more flooding. The proposal is to release huge amounts of water from Gavins Point, SD, in the spring when the risk of flooding is already high. It takes 10 to 11 days for water from Gavins Point to reach St. Louis. What would happen if we received an unexpected heavy rainfall after the water had been released from Gavins Point? The answer is simple. Missourians would face a severe flood. Even the Corps admits that would be the case. That is an unacceptable risk. The change would also damage the region's economy. The barge industry contributes as much as $200 million to our economy and would be severely hurt by the low river levels that would occur in the summer. The economic benefits to upstream users, approximately $65 to $85 million, pales in comparison. We must also factor in the value of barge traffic on the Mississippi River. The proposed low summer flow would bring barge traffic to a near halt for at least 2 months during the summer at that area known as the bottleneck region of the Mississippi River. This is the portion of the river that stretches just south of the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, to Cairo, IL. The bottleneck needs the higher Missouri River flow to sustain barge traffic. The disruption caused by this proposal would jeopardize 100 million tons of Mississippi River barge traffic which generates $12 to $15 billion in annual revenue. Finally, there is no reason to believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service proposal will do anything to help endangered species. The Service claims that its recommended plan will benefit the pallid sturgeon below Gavins Point, but it provides no supporting evidence that any of the claimed benefits will be realized. In fact, the Service admits, in its own Biological Opinion, that enormous gaps exist in our knowledge of the needs of the pallid sturgeon. Furthermore, the Biological Opinion notes that commercial harvesting of sturgeon is allowed in five States. If that is the case, I would think it would be more appropriate for the Service to halt the commercial harvesting, rather than risk severe flood and shut down barge traffic, all for unproven benefits to the sturgeon. I am also not convinced that the Fish and Wildlife Service plan will accomplish the goal of helping two bird species: the interior least tern and the piping plover. In fact, many experts believe that the higher reservoir levels upstream resulting from the Service's proposal could actually harm these birds and their habitat at a critical point in the year. Fluctuations in the river level could also greatly disrupt nesting burdens below Gavins Dam. The Service's Biological Opinion fails to address the consequences of these unnatural changes. There are better ways to ensure the continued healthy existence of these species. After the pallid sturgeon was added to the Federal endangered species list in 1990, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service formed the pallid sturgeon recovery team to rebuild the fish's dwindling numbers. The Missouri Department of Conservation joined this effort by working with commercial fishermen to obtain several wild sturgeon from the lower part of the Mississippi River. In 1992, the Department successfully spawned female pallid sturgeons, which has since lead to the production of thousands of 10- to 12-inch sturgeon for stocking. The pallid sturgeon had never been spawned in captivity, but the Department developed certain techniques to do so. The fish were then released into the rivers. Before the release, the Missouri Department of Conservation tagged them for tracking purposes. They have since been amazed at the number of reported sightings of the tagged fish, which has surpassed anything they anticipated. If we are dedicated to preserving these species, we can do so through efforts such as those carried out in Missouri. In recent years, this has become a partisan issue. It should not be. Some say it is an environmental issue. It is not. The environmental benefits of a spring rise are totally unproven. Some say it is an economic issue. It is not. On balance, it would harm our economy. This is an issue of fairness. It is not fair to expose Missourians and other downstream residents to severe flooding, economic loss, and potential environmental destruction. Our amendment, the Bond-Carnahan amendment, will ensure fairness for everyone who shares these rivers. I urge its adoption. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, it is the 100th anniversary of a business in Kansas City, MO that represents the entrepreneurial spirit that has made America great. In 1901, two Irish immigrants, Edward and Mary Flavin, in search of the American dream, designed and constructed a building that would serve as a grocery store and meat market. The couple wished to develop a successful business, catering to the needs of the residents in their neighborhood. The Flavins recognized the opportunity offered in the United States and took advantage of it, building a strong business that still exists today. The store continued to flourish, proving to be a profitable investment. But as the couple grew older, the Flavin Grocery store was eventually passed on to their daughter, Margaret Flavin-Browne, and her husband James Browne. They continued to operate and develop the store, changing the name to J.R. Browne Grocery. The grocery and building complex is now operated by Kerry Browne, fourth generation, and is known to Kansas Citians as Browne's Market & Deli. The building was designated a historic landmark in 1983, symbolizing the certainty of the American dream and the opportunity which embodies it. Today we celebrate the contributions of the Flavin-Browne family and this building complex to the cultural, aesthetic and architectural heritage of Kansas City and Jackson County. The great State of Missouri is very proud to honor this significant landmark on the centennial of its founding.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge a group of courageous young men and women from Canton, MO. They are visiting the Nation's capital this week. The group's journey began more than a year ago on a two-lane road in northeast Missouri. Seventeen-year-old Kristin Hendrickson was killed on Highway 61 when her car struck another vehicle head on. A four-lane road with a divider might have saved her life. Kristin was just a few months away from graduation at Canton R-5 High School. Her unused prom dress hung in her closet, a reminder of how full of life she had been. Kristin's friends tried to make sense of what happened. Determined to make something positive out of this terrible loss, they started a grassroots movement: Students of Missouri Assisting Rural & Urban Transportation, or SMART. Their goal was to ``promote and ensure the safety of rural transportation needs in the State of Missouri.'' Many of the students who created SMART graduated a few weeks later, but younger students carried on the work. And those who graduated stayed involved as advisors. The group developed four objectives: First, to educate the public on the need to improve local transportation; Second, to grow into other local districts, and then move statewide; Third, to lobby legislators for funding to improve rural transportation; and Fourth, to contact candidates for statewide office for their position on transportation, and use this information to educate the public. SMART has already become a powerful advocacy group in Missouri. Just 2 months after the organization was founded, the nonpartisan group made a presentation at a meeting of the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission. Their members have also addressed the Missouri Governor's Conference on Transportation. Representatives of the group have met personally with Missouri Governor Bob Holden and members of the Missouri General Assembly to encourage additional funding for rural transportation projects. But their greatest victory to date came in January when the Missouri Department of Transportation announced that it would upgrade more than 10 miles of highway 61 between Canton and LaGrange to a four-lane road. Although the victory came too late for Kristin, there is no way to know how many lives it will save in the years to come. It would not have happened without the forceful activism of these young people. I am extremely proud of these young people. Not only because of what they accomplished, but because of what they still intend to accomplish. They are not yet satisfied, and we have not heard the last of them. The group continues to organize similar groups throughout Missouri. They have come to Washington this week to encourage Members of Congress to support highway safety and to advocate for additional federal resources for transportation infrastructure. These committed young people can teach us all a lesson about how to get things done. The example they have set is not just valuable for other young people, but also for adults who have grown cynical about the political process. These young leaders have shown that you can make a difference--through action and determination. And I intend to work with them to increase the Federal Government's investment in our Nation's highways.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Ford Motor Company's Living Legend Tour featuring the new 2002 Thunderbird and the Mustang Bullitt GT. These Ford vehicles will drive across Missouri from July 18-20, allowing Missourians to view them. Ford Motor Company and its employees, including the men and women of the United Auto Workers, have been instrumental in keeping Missouri's economy strong and our communities prosperous. More than 8,000 Missourians are employed in Ford assembly plants, credit locations, and dealerships across the state. We are gifted with a strong automotive industry in both the Kansas City and St. Louis areas. In addition, at each stop along this tour, Ford is raising money for the Missouri Children's Trust Fund, which is a nonprofit organization started by the state legislature in 1983. This organization provides education and training to reduce abusive situations for children, while creating a friendly environment for them to thrive. I am very pleased to welcome this automobile tour to Missouri to demonstrate the quality of these vehicles and highlight the hard work and the generosity of Ford's Missouri employees. Thank you to all Ford employees across the State for making me proud to be a Missourian.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President. I am proud to take this opportunity to honor a very special place in Missouri. On Saturday, June 23rd, Independence, MO, the hometown of Harry S. Truman, was selected as an All-American City. The All-American City Competition is the Nation's oldest award for civic accomplishment. The winning cities serve as ``models of exemplary grass-roots problem solving.'' A 51-member delegation of business interests, community leaders, and nonprofit organizations came together to lead Independence's participation in the competition. While community partnerships are sprouting up in cities across America, Independence is in a league of its own. Under the leadership of Mayor Ron Stewart, Independence has achieved a real sense of unity and community. So many different entities with widely divergent interests were recognized for their ability to successfully work together when faced with civic challenges. Independence's winning presentation, appropriately themed ``Together We Can,'' highlighted recent citywide improvements such as cleaning up the historic Truman district, a sales tax approved by the voters to repair streets and parks, and the William Chrisman High School program which involved youth in public service programs. Furthermore, even Independence's physical presence at the competition was a united effort. Community groups worked together to raise funds to pay for the trip and prepare the presentation. This truly exceptional community certainly deserves its prestigious recognition as an All-American City. Congratulations to Mayor Ron Stewart, participation coordinator Larry Kaufman, the delegation, and the residents of Independence. Your passionate work epitomizes the unlimited possibilities of cooperation. Thank you for making me proud to be a Missourian.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the McCain amendment. Our military has a number of pressing needs that simply are not being met this year. I have seen this first hand in my home State of Missouri. Senator McCain has done the hard work by requesting that Federal agencies identify funds that are not being spent in this fiscal year. These funds should be available and can be put to good use for basic military operations and supplies. This amendment will provide $200 million for quality-of-life improvements for our military personnel, $600 million for operations and maintenance of our military equipment, and $45 million for force protection of our fleet in the Arabian Gulf. Senator McCain has identified these needs, and he has uncovered the resources to relate to them. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Dodd.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, it is important to remember that what underlies today's debate are the lives of real people. This is about healthy new babies entering the world, parents worrying in the middle of the night when their child has a fever, and families coping with a terminal illness. It is about the quality of life. When your family is dealing with a medical crisis, it is time to come together in love and support. It is not the time to have to argue with an HMO over whether they will allow your child to go to an emergency room or whether your elderly parent is allowed to see a specialist. Physicians should not have to ask permission from HMOs to provide patients with the care they need. There is something fundamentally wrong with our health care system when medical decisions are not made by doctors, but by HMOs. One year ago this month, a comprehensive Patients' Bill of Rights came before the Senate. It was a strong bill that protected all Americans. It was designed to put patients before profits. It held managed care organizations accountable for their actions. It would have made a difference. What happened to this legislation? It failed by one vote--one vote. My late husband, Mel Carnahan, understood the power of one vote in the Senate. He ran for the Senate because he believed that his one vote would make a difference. I am in this Chamber today because I share that belief. That is why I support the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Bipartisan Patient Protection Act. Many Missourians know from firsthand experience the power that a patient protection law can have. In 1997, Governor Mel Carnahan signed into law one of the most comprehensive HMO consumer protection laws in the country. What happened in Missouri during that time took real political courage. Legislators such as Tim Harlan and Joe Maxwell stood up to the powerful HMOs and said: Enough is enough. Those who opposed the Missouri HMO reform law--like those who oppose the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill--said that costs would increase significantly, employers would drop coverage, and patients would crowd the courts with lawsuits. How many of these dire predictions came true? None; absolutely none. The insurance lobby predicted costs would increase by 24 percent. After the law was passed, insurers, business groups, professional medical societies, and health systems called for a review of how much the new law would cost. Do you know what the report concluded? That the average price increase would only be about 2 or 3 percent. I have not heard a single complaint from an employer that they have had to drop health care coverage for their employees or that they have experienced an unacceptable increase in premiums. The insurance lobby predicted people would lose their health insurance. Wrong again. Rates of insurance went from 87.4 percent in 1997 to 91.4 percent in 1999. The insurance lobby predicted there would be a flood of lawsuits. There has been only one lawsuit--that's right, one law suit. The problem is that State laws can only go so far. Federal laws require that thousands of Missourians be covered by Federal--not State--law. I stand in this Chamber today in support of the bipartisan McCain- Edwards-Kennedy bill because it is the only bill before the Senate that protects all Missourians and all Americans. Recently, my office received a call from Peggy Koch, who lives in Winona, MO. A year ago, in February, Peggy's daughter Kim began having migraine headaches every day. Her headaches became debilitating. She could not work. She stopped attending college. She slept all the time and was in constant, severe pain. Kim needed to be admitted to the Saper Clinic in Michigan, which had the ability to give her the specialized care she needed. She had a referral to receive the care, but her insurance company would not approve it. When Kim's mother called my office for help to get Kim's insurance company to cover this needed treatment, there was nothing I could do to help her since current Federal law does not protect her. I can do something now. I can fight for a law that protects her and other families in similar situations. In the end, after weeks of continuous wrangling and extreme stress, the insurance company paid for 7 of the 15 days of needed treatment. Mrs. Koch decided that Kim's health was more important than bills and told the hospital to keep her daughter until she completed the 15-day program. The treatment worked and Kim has shown remarkable improvement since completing the program. Now they have no idea how they will pay the bills. The Kochs have always been diligent about paying their bills. They don't know how they will be able to make it with the medical bills that will hit them in the next few weeks and months. As a mother, I understand what Kim's mother went through. When your child is in such pain, you will do whatever you have to in order to help your child. What is sometimes forgotten in this debate is that Kim had paid for the insurance. But Kim had no way to force the insurance company to pay for the critical services directed by her physician. That is why we are here--to make sure that HMOs and insurance companies fulfill their commitment to do what is in the best interests of patients. No family should have to make this type of decision. Today many Missourians currently have the right to access emergency room services without prior authorization from their HMO. I would like to share with you a story that happened 5 years ago before Missouri passed its law. Doug Bouldin is a registered professional nurse and family nurse practitioner in Troy, MO with over 12 years of experience in emergency medicine and critical care. He told me this story several years ago, and I will never forget it. Doug was working at a large metropolitan St. Louis emergency department. A husband and wife drove into the garage of his department, but the husband was in cardiac arrest. His team pulled him from the car and began resuscitation efforts immediately. Doug showed the wife to the family room and began collecting her husband's health history. She said her husband had been suffering chest pain for several days, and when they called their health plan, they were told to drive to a hospital approximately 50 miles from their home instead of going to the closest facility. They passed by four major facilities that could have more than adequately handled his care. They ended up in Doug's emergency department after he slumped over unconscious in the passenger seat on the highway less than half way to their destination. The doctors were unsuccessful in resuscitating him, and when the physician and Doug went to tell her, the first words out of her mouth were, ``Why did they tell us to drive so far?'' Why did they tell us to drive so far? There is no way to answer that question. I received a letter from Dr. Alan Weaver who works at the Tri-County Medical Clinic in Sturgeon, MO. He wrote to me about the problems he experiences trying to provide emergency care to patients who get their insurance through self-funded plans. Access to emergency room care is a particular problem when people suffer an injury outside of their health plan's network. Two years ago, a worker who was covered by a self-insured plan through his employer was admitted for a heart attack into the hospital where Dr. Weaver was Working. His insurance company demanded that he be transferred to a hospital in St. Louis, which is 3\1/2\ hours by road, before he was stable. they refused to pay for in patient care. The patient had no choice and transferred to the other hospital. This patient is the exact reason why we are here today. We need to pass a Federal law to protect these individuals and give them access to emergency room care. Not all of the problems associated with HMOs involve coverage denials. In many instances, the structure of the current HMO health care system puts up so many barriers for patients to access care that they might as well be denying care. Women are particularly affected by these barriers when they need OB/GYN care. The McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill provides women direct access to their OB/GYN doctors. Now, women have to go through a gatekeeper--their primary care physician--whenever they have a healthcare problem separate from their annual exams. When a women is experiencing a health problem and needs to see her OB/GYN, it is deeply personal. For a woman to share the full extent of her health problems, she needs to feel comfortable. If she does not feel comfortable, who may not choose to seek the care she needs. Let's think for a minute about the steps a woman takes just to see her doctor. After entering the OB/GYN's office, she goes to the front desk to check in and explain her health concern to a stranger. If she doesn't have a referral from her primary care physician, she is shown to a telephone. Now she must call and discuss again what her health problem is with her HMO. Remember, it took courage just to make it into the office, just to walk into the door. Imagine how odd it must feel to be directed to a cold telephone. After this phone call and hearing that the HMO has denied her request to see a specialist--her OB/GYN, I'm sure you can understand how traumatic this experience can be and how unappealing it becomes to try the process again. All she has sought to do is get the care she feels she needs. Dr. Gary Wasserman, an OB/GYN in St. Louis, so eloquently sums up this situation stating: ``We have created a system that isolates women and infringes on their privacy and dignity.'' One final point: I think it is important for everyone to understand that right now, HMOs are totally unaccountable for their actions. No other institution or profession in America enjoys this status. Is there anyone in this Chamber that would vote to make lawyers, or doctors, or any manufacturer totally unaccountable if they make a mistake that causes an injury? I don't think there is. The status quo is unacceptable. Of course, there will be great debate on how to structure this bill. But the bottom line is that a vote against the Patients' Bill of rights is a vote to keep HMOs totally unaccountable. I don't think this is good policy, and I don't believe that this is what the American people want. It is time for the Senate to pass the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill. As Missouri has seen, HMOs will provide better care when they are forced to step up to the plate. Federal legislation will allow us to strengthen patient protections for everyone in Missouri as well as in the Nation. We can and should ensure that doctors, not bureaucrats, are making medical decisions. We must ensure that patients are put ahead of profits. We must ensure that it begins today. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the bill by Senator Bond that is identical to this amendment. This proposal will provide a vital acceleration of the phase in of full tax deductibility for the health insurance costs of the self-employed. This is a much-needed change to provide relief and level the playing field for small businesses, farmers, and independent contractors. I voted for this provision when it was included as part of the Senate's $1.35 trillion tax cut bill and was disappointed that it was not included in the Conference Report. Although I strongly support Senator Bond's legislation, I regret that I cannot support this amendment to the Patients' Bill of Rights. First, the tax cuts in the amendment are not offset and therefore would increase the national debt. Now that the $1.35 trillion tax cut has been adopted, we need to exercise restraint when considering additional tax cuts. Furthermore, I do not believe the amendment is an appropriate addition to the Patients' Bill of Rights. We need to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights to improve patient care and hold HMOs accountable for their health care decisions. Reducing the number of Americans that lack health coverage is a vitally important subject, but one that should be addressed separately from the Patients' Bill of Rights.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to honor the residents of Clay County, MO for their vision, harmony, and unity. At a time when some communities are engaged in divisive debates regarding our Nation's past, Clay County residents have chosen to dedicate a monument and water fountain on the county courthouse lawn honoring the unsung black heroes and heroines who survived slavery and helped make Clay County a successful and thriving community in the heartland. Tomorrow, Friday, June 15, the Clay County Commission and the Clay County African-American Legacy Consortium will dedicate the Legacy Memorial and Fountain honoring Clay County African-American pioneers and their contributions to this county, first in slavery, and then in freedom. The location of the memorial and fountain is especially significant since slaves were once sold from the courthouse steps and African-Americans were required to drink from separate water fountains in that very building. The monument will list over 150 Clay County African-Americans and their contributions to this community dating back to 1800. Included in the monument's listing are Vennie and Lulu Fielder. Mr. and Mrs. Fielder both became entrepreneurs, opening Fielder Hardware and Box Company in Kansas City, Missouri, and Lulu Fielder's Sandwich Shoppe. Mrs. Lulu Fielder is now the oldest living African-American native resident of Clay County at the young age of 102. Mrs. Fielder will take the first ceremonial drink from the water fountain at tomorrow's celebration. And with that drink, Lulu Fielder will epitomize the words inscribed on the monument, ``come, drink, all who thirst for freedom; the water fountain will no longer separate us as a people.'' Congratulations to the Clay County Commission, the Clay County African-American Legacy Consortium, and all Clay County residents. Thank you for making me proud to be a Missourian.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, Saturday, June 16 starts the 62nd session of Missouri Boys State. Founded in 1938 by the Missouri American Legion, Missouri Boys State has educated over 33,000 young men on the basic principles of democracy. For more than 60 years, Missouri Boys State has lived up to its motto and has made an ``investment in our State's greatest resource--the youth of Missouri.'' Boys State was started in 1934 in Illinois by Dr. Hays Kennedy and Harold Card, and was designed to teach democratic ideals to America's youth. The four founding members of Missouri Boys State, Jerry F. Duggan, Harry M. Gambrel, Dr. Truman L. Ingle, and A.B. Weyer, did not realize that Missouri's program would develop into one of the most successful and prestigious programs in the country for youth involvement. The Missouri Boys State program has become one of the most revered honors bestowed upon high school boys in Missouri. The first session occurred in Fulton, MO in 1938 with 129 young men. This year's session is expected to draw over 1,000 participants including over 100 counselors. From that very first session in 1938 to today, the same message rings true--``Democracy depends on me!'' Boys State continues to stress the important aspects of serving the public and one's community. The success of Missouri Boys State continues today. In July of 1999, a high school student from Columbia, Missouri, Ryan Rippel, was elected President of Boys Nation. Boys Nation, sponsored annually by the American Legion, is a program by which select students from across the nation gain first-hand experience in how our federal government works through mock Senate activities. Missouri Boys State has had wide community and public support. Over 500 civic organizations and individuals contribute to the success of this program. A memorial trust was established in 1982 to ensure the continuation of Missouri Boys State. The Missouri Boys State Scholarship fund was established in 1993 to provide a renewable, 4-year college scholarship for the participant that earns the ``Citizen of the Week'' honor. And the Martin Luther King, Jr. Scholarship program was established in 1989 to ensure the continued participation of minority students. Missouri Boys State plays an integral role in developing our youth in Missouri. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues recognize all that Boys State does for our young men and wish them well as they open their 2001 session.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

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

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, we must never let any of our children slip through the cracks of the education system. That's why a yardstick of performance is needed. It's why rigorous accountability and increased testing have become cornerstones of the education debate. I strongly support testing to help us measure the progress of our Nation's students. Missouri is at the forefront of using testing to drive education reform. Since 1993, Missouri educators have worked hard to shape a testing structure called the Missouri Assessment Program. These tests measure progress in math, communication arts, science, and social studies as well as a variety of skills. Each of the four core subject areas is tested in three grade levels. In each of these grade levels, every child is tested. I commend Missouri educators on creating a superb testing instrument. Each child's development is gauged on an individual, case-by-case basis as well as in relation to other students across the Nation. By contrast, under President Bush's plan, States would be required to test every child annually in grades 3-8. In Missouri, this would require tremendous cost. In communication arts, for example--which tests reading, as well as writing ability, punctuation, spelling, and thought organization-- Missouri currently tests kids in grades 3, 7, and 11. Under the new requirement, the State would have to develop new tests for grades 4, 5, 6, and 8. The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education estimates that initial development costs would be approximately $3.5 million and ongoing development costs would be an additional $1.2 million per year. About another $5 million would be required to develop new math tests, and a new science test would be even more expensive. These estimates do not even include the costs of implementing, scoring, and analyzing these tests. In the end, the annual costs for Missouri may exceed $15 million per year. The ESEA legislation that we are now debating, however, would provide for the entire Nation $400 million per year for developing and implementing the new tests. But the truth is that we don't know exactly how much the new tests will cost. The National Association of State Boards of Education has estimated the total national costs to be between $2.7 billion and $7 billion over 7 years. The reality is that when it comes to the cost of these new tests, we are looking at a huge question mark. And we face the possibility that there could be a tremendous gap between funding available for these new tests and funding needed. This uncertainty places an unfair burden on our local districts and schools. Last month, I joined my Senate colleagues in supporting full funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. As did my colleagues, I heeded the cry of local educators and parents who told us that Congress had not fulfilled its promise to fund 420 percent of IDEA. They told us that this failure had drained local districts of already scarce funds. They told us that these circumstances hurt the students in our schools. After years of delay, we raised our collective voice to recognize that Congress cannot place unfunded mandates on our schools. Now, numerous letters have been pouring into my office from superintendents across Missouri, voicing concern about the cost of the new tests. Let me share some of them with you. One is from David Legaard, the superintendent in Smithville, who wrote: The Smithville R-II School District supports your efforts. Our school district cannot afford to pay for mandated federal testing programs. Don Lawrence, the superintendent in Savannah, MO, wrote: Rest assured the local school districts in the state of Missouri do not have access to additional funds to pay for national school testing. We should not make the same mistake with testing as we did with IDEA. We simply cannot put our State and local governments in the position of draining local resources to pay for new, unfunded Federal requirements. The amendment I am offering today with my colleague, Senator Ben Nelson, will ensure that our schools don't bear an unfair burden. The idea behind this amendment is straightforward: if new tests are required by the Federal Government, they should be paid for by the Federal Government. States would not be obligated to give the tests in any year that the Federal Government fails to provide 100 percent of the funding. The Carnahan-Nelson amendment builds on the Jeffords amendment, which passed by a 93-7 margin. I was pleased to support that amendment, but in our view it did not provide sufficient protection to State governments and local educators. The Jeffords amendment provides that States must conduct the new tests so long as the Federal Government provides $400 million for design and implementation costs. The problem is, what happens if the cost is twice that amount, or ten times that amount, as some groups are estimating? Who will pick up the additional costs? The answer is that our local schools, supported by local tax dollars, will have to pick up the tab for the federally mandated tests. We think that is the wrong policy. Some have argued that this is an ``antitesting'' amendment because it links a State's obligation to conduct the new tests with full Federal funding. The bill before the Senate already links a State's obligation to test to Federal funding. Our amendment merely changes the amount of Federal funding required from the arbitrary figure of $400 million to 100 percent of the true cost of testing. Our schools should not have to forego the purchase of textbooks, or increases in teachers' salaries, or the renovation of classrooms so that they can put in place the new tests. If the Federal Government is going to impose this new requirement, the Federal Government should provide the resources to do it. In addition, our amendment covers science tests, which the current bill does not. And, our amendment requires the Secretary of Education to calculate the total costs of complying with the testing mandate so legislators know whether the Federal Government is meeting its obligation to our local schools. The Governor of Missouri, Bob Holden, has strongly endorsed the Eliminate Unfunded Mandates amendment. He comments: I feel strongly that implementing new testing requirements without the adequate funds in place would be a disservice to the children in Missouri and across the nation . . . If the Federal Government is going to require new testing measures, then the Federal Government should pay 100 percent of all costs. Governor Holden's sentiment is echoed in an endorsement letter from the Democratic Governors' Association, which notes that the Carnahan- Nelson amendment would help ``fulfill [a] historic commitment to America's children.'' Many Senators have extolled the virtues of testing during this debate. Many have spoken in favor of local control over education funds. If you want to ensure that testing will take place and that our local schools can spend their own dollars on their own priorities, then you should vote for the Carnahan-Nelson amendment. I am pleased that Senator Baucus and Senator Hollings support this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that they be added as cosponsors.

Mrs. CARNAHAN. I am happy to yield the floor for the Senator from Nebraska to make further comments.

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I suggest to the Senator from Tennessee that he has already announced this was, in fact, a mandate. It is an inadequately funded mandate at that. I reiterate, what we have in cost is a best guess estimate. There is no certainty. The current bill provides protection only if $400 million is all that is needed. Beyond that, we have no guarantee. We have no guarantee that the Wellstone amendment or others will have money appropriated. This amendment, I might also suggest, is not an anti-testing amendment. The only circumstances where States will be released from the testing requirement is if the Federal Government fails to provide full funding. Anyone who makes an anti-testing argument about this amendment is implicitly saying that the Federal Government is not going to pay the full cost of the tests. If you say the Federal Government is not going to pay the full costs of the tests, I ask in return, what part of local budgets do you plan to cut to make up the difference? Are you going to cut teachers' salaries or textbooks or other resources that are stretched too thin?

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to explain that while I wholeheartedly support extending the current moratorium on Internet access taxes, I must oppose this amendment. I believe that we should, and I am confident that we will, pass legislation this year that extends the moratorium on Internet access taxes. However, I think it is crucial that the legislation we pass to extend the ban on access taxes also address the ability of states to require remote sellers to collect and remit sales taxes. The Internet is still a growing and dynamic innovation and I believe that we must ensure that its development is not encumbered by discriminatory taxation. However, as the Internet becomes an increasingly important medium for the transaction of commerce, an unlevel playing field is emerging. While sales transacted at main street businesses are subject to state sales taxes, goods sold over the Internet are often free of such taxes. This creates two distinct problems. First, brick-and-mortar retailers are being subjected to a competitive disadvantage as consumers are able to purchase goods over the Internet without having to pay state sales tax on them. This situation provides a disincentive to shop at traditional retail locations and could have very negative long-term consequences for main street retailers. The second problem is that state and local governments rely on sales tax revenues for education, transportation infrastructure, law enforcement services, fire protection and more. The rise in untaxed electronic commerce is eroding state and local governments' revenue bases and may eventually compromise their ability to provide these essential services. Therefore I believe that we must address the issue of the collection of state sales taxes, and I fear that if this amendment is adopted, the impetus to deal with such issues will be diminished. I look forward to the opportunity to support an extension to the current moratorium in the context of a larger bill that also deals with the ability of states to require remote sellers to collect and remit sales taxes.

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, this tax bill has a glaring omission. I call upon my colleagues to correct it. One group, those in the 15-percent marginal tax bracket, have been overlooked. There is no rate cut for them. Who are these people? They are the forgotten middle-income, working families, those who have a gross family income of $30,000 to $65,000, 72 million Americans--1.7 million of them in Missouri; 44 percent of all Missouri taxpayers. They do not walk these halls. They work every day. They pick up their children at daycare. They pay their bills. They help their children with their homework. They take care of their elderly parents. They trust us to do what is fair. We can do so by reducing this tax rate by 1 point, to 14 percent. To overlook 17 million Americans is a sin of omission we must not commit. I encourage my Democratic and Republican colleagues to correct this wrong. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, Americans have clearly expressed that they want a tax cut, and I favor a tax cut as do all Democrats but one that benefits all Americans. The focus of this tax cut debate has been on marginal rates, which are the tax rates paid on the final dollar of an individual or family's income. One of the best provisions of the President's proposal and the tax cut constructed by the Finance Committee is the creation of a new 10- percent marginal rate that covers taxable income up to $12,000 for couples. All income-tax payers receive a $600 tax cut from this change in the law, whether they make $50,000 or $500,000. I come to the Senate Chamber this evening, however, to correct a serious inequity in the bill before us. This bill contains a marginal rate cut for each group of income taxpayers but one: couples who have taxable income between $12,000 and $45,000. This omission is so glaring that it is worth reviewing precisely what this bill would do. Couples with taxable income between $45,000 and $109,000 would get a marginal tax rate cut of 3 percent. Couples with taxable income between $109,000 and $167,000 would get a marginal tax rate cut of 3 percent. Couples with a taxable income between $167,000 and $297,000 would get a marginal tax rate cut of 3 percent. Couples with a taxable income of over $297,000 would get a marginal tax rate cut of 3.6 percent. But couples with a taxable income between $12,000 and $45,000 would get absolutely no rate cut for the final dollars of income earned. Who are these families who are singled out for virtually no tax cut in this bill? They have gross incomes of between $30,000 and $65,000. This is the heart of the American middle class. They are Americans who are working the late night shift at the factories, they are cops on the beat, and they are American moms and dads working two jobs to send their kids to college. They are family farmers waking up early to tend their chores. Mr. President, 72 million American taxpayers pay a 15-percent tax on their last dollar of income; 1.7 million Missouri taxpayers fall into this category. This is 44 percent of all Missouri taxpayers. These are the folks who work hard, play by the rules, struggle to make ends meet, but then get left out when it is time to get relief. They do not have high-priced lobbyists or groups running television commercials on their behalf. Why is it that they are passed over to give such large tax cuts to couples with taxable income over $300,000? This is the forgotten American middle class. The amendment I propose tonight on behalf of Senator Daschle and many of my colleagues would correct this oversight by cutting the 15 percent rate to 14 percent. This can be accomplished and still cut every other rate by 1 percent. The top 1 percent of American taxpayers would still receive substantial tax relief under this amendment. On average, our wealthiest taxpayers would still receive a rate cut of $9,000. But by adjusting the 15 percent bracket, we would be providing middle-class families $332 in tax relief in addition to the $600 cut from the creation of the 10-percent bracket. Mr. President, Americans expect tax relief, but they also expect fundamental fairness. My amendment would make this bill fairer. I commend it to the Senate. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, things are happening fast in the value- added agriculture industry, and I'm pleased that Missouri is leading the way in establishing innovative, value-added enterprises that will help our farm economy prosper. By encouraging new economic opportunities that add value to crops, we can help improve the economic stability of our family farms. While value-added agriculture can take many forms, a prime example is ethanol production. Increased ethanol production is not only exciting because it can be farmer-owned and farmer-driven, but because it will create a cleaner-burning fuel that stands to improve air quality. Ethanol production has become increasingly important as cities across the nation strive to fight smog and meet federal clean air standards. Hundreds of Missouri gas stations in the St. Louis area have begun dispensing reformulated gasoline, a move that will help boost demand for ethanol. With ethanol we also have greater energy security because we are replacing oil imports with domestic sources of renewable energy. Additional ethanol production will help provide a consistent demand for corn, which should help to improve corn prices and put more money in growers' pockets. Now more than five percent of our domestic corn production, or 550 million bushels of corn, is used every year to produce ethanol. That's especially important in times such as these when our farmers are facing critically low commodity prices. Today, I am introducing the Investment in Value-Added Agriculture that will build on the success of programs enacted during the Carnahan administration to encourage ethanol use and other forms of value-added agriculture. My legislation updates existing federal law affecting ethanol and uses Missouri law as a model for federal legislation to encourage investments in ethanol and other value-added agribusiness. My proposal consists of three components. First, it would extend the ethanol motor fuel excise tax. Currently, this exemption is due to expire in 2007. My legislation would extend the exemption through 2015. Second, the legislation would expand eligibility of the federal producer tax credit to farmer-owned cooperatives. It would also increase the production capacity limit to allow plants producing up to 60 million gallons of ethanol receive the credit. Third, the legislation would encourage private investment in new- generation cooperatives by creating a 50 percent tax credit on investments in these enterprises. New-generation cooperatives are producer owned entities designed to add a step to the production process that adds value to crops. With this legislation I want to continue to help farmers in Missouri and to also help farmers throughout the United States by bringing proven Missouri programs to the federal level. During my husband's gubernatorial administration, Missouri made great strides to encourage ethanol production and value-added agriculture. To encourage ethanol production in the state, Governor Carnahan provided the initial funding for the Missouri Qualified Fuel Ethanol Producer Incentive Fund. Under the incentive fund, Missouri ethanol producers are eligible for a maximum annual grant of $3.125 million for 5 years. Two farmer-owned ethanol plants are now operating in Missouri. Both plants utilized funds from this incentive fund. In 1997, Missouri established a value-added grant and loan programs to help farmers process and add value to their raw commodities and earn more profit on their products. As of last year this program awarded more than $1.6 million in grants. In addition, the Value-Added Loan Guarantee Program has issued loan guarantees for more than $1.7 million. This program offers commercial lenders added security on agricultural development loans for projects that add value to Missouri farm products. One of Governor Carnahan's top priorities was the creation of an Agriculture Innovation Center. This Center, run out of the Missouri Department of Agriculture, serves as a one-stop shop for Missouri producers seeking help to implement creative ideas for raising, processing and marketing agricultural products. It is my sincere hope that this legislation will help encourage adoption and investment in value-added agriculture. Value-added agriculture holds the promise of invigorating the rural landscape and keeping jobs and income in local communities.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, things are happening fast in the value- added agriculture industry, and I'm pleased that Missouri is leading the way in establishing innovative, value-added enterprises that will help our farm economy prosper. By encouraging new economic opportunities that add value to crops, we can help improve the economic stability of our family farms. While value-added agriculture can take many forms, a prime example is ethanol production. Increased ethanol production is not only exciting because it can be farmer-owned and farmer-driven, but because it will create a cleaner-burning fuel that stands to improve air quality. Ethanol production has become increasingly important as cities across the nation strive to fight smog and meet federal clean air standards. Hundreds of Missouri gas stations in the St. Louis area have begun dispensing reformulated gasoline, a move that will help boost demand for ethanol. With ethanol we also have greater energy security because we are replacing oil imports with domestic sources of renewable energy. Additional ethanol production will help provide a consistent demand for corn, which should help to improve corn prices and put more money in growers' pockets. Now more than five percent of our domestic corn production, or 550 million bushels of corn, is used every year to produce ethanol. That's especially important in times such as these when our farmers are facing critically low commodity prices. Today, I am introducing the Investment in Value-Added Agriculture that will build on the success of programs enacted during the Carnahan administration to encourage ethanol use and other forms of value-added agriculture. My legislation updates existing federal law affecting ethanol and uses Missouri law as a model for federal legislation to encourage investments in ethanol and other value-added agribusiness. My proposal consists of three components. First, it would extend the ethanol motor fuel excise tax. Currently, this exemption is due to expire in 2007. My legislation would extend the exemption through 2015. Second, the legislation would expand eligibility of the federal producer tax credit to farmer-owned cooperatives. It would also increase the production capacity limit to allow plants producing up to 60 million gallons of ethanol receive the credit. Third, the legislation would encourage private investment in new- generation cooperatives by creating a 50 percent tax credit on investments in these enterprises. New-generation cooperatives are producer owned entities designed to add a step to the production process that adds value to crops. With this legislation I want to continue to help farmers in Missouri and to also help farmers throughout the United States by bringing proven Missouri programs to the federal level. During my husband's gubernatorial administration, Missouri made great strides to encourage ethanol production and value-added agriculture. To encourage ethanol production in the state, Governor Carnahan provided the initial funding for the Missouri Qualified Fuel Ethanol Producer Incentive Fund. Under the incentive fund, Missouri ethanol producers are eligible for a maximum annual grant of $3.125 million for 5 years. Two farmer-owned ethanol plants are now operating in Missouri. Both plants utilized funds from this incentive fund. In 1997, Missouri established a value-added grant and loan programs to help farmers process and add value to their raw commodities and earn more profit on their products. As of last year this program awarded more than $1.6 million in grants. In addition, the Value-Added Loan Guarantee Program has issued loan guarantees for more than $1.7 million. This program offers commercial lenders added security on agricultural development loans for projects that add value to Missouri farm products. One of Governor Carnahan's top priorities was the creation of an Agriculture Innovation Center. This Center, run out of the Missouri Department of Agriculture, serves as a one-stop shop for Missouri producers seeking help to implement creative ideas for raising, processing and marketing agricultural products. It is my sincere hope that this legislation will help encourage adoption and investment in value-added agriculture. Value-added agriculture holds the promise of invigorating the rural landscape and keeping jobs and income in local communities.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I call for the regular order on amendment No. 274, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.