Peter Fitzgerald

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, readers of the Chicago Tribune and newspapers across America suffered a great loss last Thursday when legendary political cartoonist Jeff MacNelly lost his battle with lymphoma. He was 52. Jeff MacNelly was one of the giants of modern political commentary. In this era of multi-media communication, round-the-clock news, and ubiquitous political punditry, Jeff offered a fresh and witty perspective on local and national affairs. It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. But Jeff MacNelly was a master, and his were worth more. No matter what the issue, no matter who the subject of his praise of caustic criticism, Jeff had a way of making his point and making you laugh at the same time. That was his gift. Born in New York City in 1947, Jeff MacNelly knew he was meant to draw. He left college during his senior year in 1969 to pursue a career as a political cartoonist, and accepted a job with a weekly newspaper in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Jeff won his first Pulitzer Prize in 1972 at age 24, and two more followed in 1978 and 1985. His legendary comic strip ``Shoe,'' which he continued for the rest of his life, was born in 1977. By the time Jeff passed away last week, ``Shoe'' was syndicated in over 1,000 publications nationwide. Jeff briefly decided to retire his pen in 1981, but, missing the excitement of politics and the daily news business, was lured back into action in 1982 by the Chicago Tribune. He worked at the Tribune until his death. For nearly 30 years, Jeff MacNelly entertained and informed us with his unique blend of humor and political insight. He died young, but left his mark--literally and figuratively--on the entire world.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I begin by thanking Senator Murkowski for his efforts in introducing and promoting the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act which addresses an issue of critical importance to the nation and in particular to the State of Illinois. I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in voting to override the President's veto of this vital legislation. Nuclear waste disposal policy is one of the most significant issue facing our nation and my home State of Illinois. Illinois is home to 11 operating nuclear units which account for 38.4 percent of the electricity generated in Illinois in 1998. Nuclear energy also provided 20 percent of the electricity consumed by the nation as a whole last year. Nuclear power also yields a large amount of nuclear waste. Since we do not presently reprocess this material, it must be stored, usually on site at nuclear facilities in communities throughout our nation. Illinois is home to over 4,300 metric tons of commercial nuclear waste out of 30,000 tons located throughout the nation. This is more commercial nuclear waste than is found in any other State in the Union. Utility companies from Illinois and throughout the country along with their consumers have paid approximately $16 billion into a fund to provide for a central national site for the storage of this waste mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. But as of yet, there has been no action taken by the Department of Energy to take this waste as it was mandated to do by 1998. Illinois consumers alone have contributed $2.14 billion to the federal Nuclear Waste Fund since 1983. This is about 12.5 percent of the total amount contributed to the fund today. The DOE was required by statute to take possession of this waste in 1998. It failed to do so, and we now have a very serious problem. We need to decide the best way to allocate the costs of storage at existing facilities. To this end, Senator Murkowski offered this legislation which addresses DOE's failure and requires the Department to take responsibility for the costs associated with its failure to act. I again thank Senator Murkowski for his longstanding support on this issue of critical importance to my State of Illinois and the nation. It is my hope that we can enact Senator Murkowski's legislation and I urge all of my colleagues to vote to override the President's veto.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Organ Transplantation Fairness Act of 2000. I thank my original cosponsors on this bill: Senators Schumer, Durbin, Santorum, Specter, Mikulski, Sarbanes, and Kerrey. Our Nation's organ procurement and transplant system is in serious need of change. We could be saving more lives through organ transplants in this country than we are at the present time. The purpose of our bill and the goals of our bill are threefold. First, we want to increase the amount of organs that are being donated all across the country. There are many more people who need to receive organs to remain alive. They need organ transplants, and there are not a sufficient number of people donating those organs. This bill attempts to address that issue. Second, we want to bring greater fairness to how we allocate scarce organs after they are donated. Right now those organs are not allocated in the best possible way. And because of problems in our allocation system, people are dying unnecessarily. We could be saving more lives. The third goal of the bill is to seek to implement many of the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine in their 1999 report entitled ``Organ Procurement and Transplantation.'' In attempting to improve the system of organ procurement transplants in this country, we have picked out many of the Institute of Medicine's recommendations, and we tried to enact them into law. Our system is saving many more lives than it used to. Organ transplantation is fairly new to this country. If you go back 20 years or so, there were very few organs being transplanted. But now many more people are benefiting and going on to live healthy lives thanks to people who have donated organs, and thanks to successful transplants. But as many lives as our system has saved, we are not saving as many lives as we could. I have a chart to demonstrate this. As of today, there are over 68,000 American patients waiting for a life-saving organ transplant. In 1998, the most recent statistics available, over 4,800 people died while on that organ transplant waiting list. That means about 13 people a day are dying in this country while waiting to get an organ that can be transplanted into their bodies. I said earlier that we are not saving as many lives as we could save. Let me demonstrate why that is the case, and why we know we are not saving enough lives. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in 1998, some 71 percent of livers were transplanted to patients in the least urgent medical status categories. But at the same time that we were transplanting those livers into patients in the least urgent medical status categories, in the same year, 1,300 patients died while waiting for a liver. How can it be that we are transplanting livers into patients who aren't in the most critically ill categories, while at the same time people in the most critical condition were dying for lack of a liver transplant? The reason for that is we have a system in our country that is based on where you live. Whether you live or die because of an organ transplant may depend not on how sick you are but on where you live in this country. Let's examine this a little bit more closely. There is a private not-for-profit corporation in this country that has been given the authority to be in charge of our Nation's organ transplant and procurement network. They have set up a series of regions. They divided the whole country into regions. There are organs that are available within those regions. But if you live outside one of the regions where an organ is available, you are not liable to get one of the organs when it comes up. As a Senator from Illinois, I think the simplest thing for me to do in illustrating this problem is to use Illinois as an example. Most of Illinois is in organ procurement organization district 29. You can have a patient who lives in northern Illinois, just a few miles from the border of Wisconsin, and this patient could need a liver transplant. He or she could be in status 1 medical condition, which means he or she is in the most critical category and in need of a liver transplant immediately. A liver may become available just over the border in region 37, the Wisconsin network. But that liver can't be sent to the person in Illinois because that person in Illinois is in region 29--not 37. If a liver becomes available from a donor in Wisconsin, they will first look to see if they have a very critically ill person who needs a liver transplant in region 37. If they don't find such a person, then they will go to somebody who is in a less urgent situation who doesn't need the liver as quickly as that other person in Illinois. Thus, somebody who may be in status 2, or even what they call status 3 medical condition, which isn't as critical as status 1, could get the liver transplant up in Wisconsin. But that person a few miles south of the border who needs the liver immediately, because he or she happens to live in Illinois, cannot get it. If an organ doesn't become available in that region in which he or she lives, that person may not survive. There is a saying in the real estate industry by the real estate brokers and agents. When you go to them, they always tell you that everything and the value of your home depends on ``location, location, location.'' I bet not many Americans realize that in some cases if you are in need of a liver transplant or a heart transplant, your chances of survival are going to depend on your location, your location, your location. The purpose of our bill is to try to open this system up, and instead of directing the organs to the people depending on where they live, instead of determining whether people are going to live or die simply based on accidents of geography, we try to bring sense to this whole system. We try to get organs to people in the most critical need of those organs as soon as possible. We would hope to get those to the sickest people as soon as possible--the sickest people who have the chance of going on and having a successful transplant. There comes a point when your organs are so damaged and you are so sick that it could be that a transplant would no longer help you. Certainly, we have to be careful to make sure that we get the organs to those who are the sickest but who still have a good chance of surviving an organ transplant. In addition, attempting to get the organs to the sickest patients first, making that our Nation's public policy, we would like to encourage a broader sharing of organs. The Institute of Medicine's report suggested that each of these areas should contain at least 9 million people. That is the minimum level for optimal sharing to get the organs out and save the most lives. We want to make sure we broaden these networks. It isn't possible in all cases for all organs to be shared nationally. With the heart, for example, a heart cannot last much more than 4 hours after it has been given by a donor. It has to be transplanted quickly. Other organs, such as kidneys, my understanding is we can preserve them for over 24 hours, or even longer, and in that circumstance it would be possible to have more nationwide sharing to get those organs allocated to the people who need them the most. Another important provision of our legislation is to take a strong stand for the proposition that the private not-for-profit corporation that now runs the whole Nation's organ procurement and transplant network should have some public accountability. Members may have heard that a bill passed by the House of Representatives provides no public accountability for this private corporation that has life or death control over at least 68,000 Americans. There is no accountability in that bill. They wouldn't be accountable to elected officials. They could not be regulated by the Department of Health and Human Services. If people had a complaint with how that organization was being run, there would be little or no recourse. I guess you could knock on their doors at their corporate headquarters in Richmond, VA, and ask them to listen to you, but they wouldn't have to. They are private not-for- profit corporations with no responsibility to make sure the best public policy goals of this country are achieved. I don't think that is right. I think we want this corporation to be publicly accountable to make sure that it is meeting the objectives of the laws that are on the books and serving the public interest. In addition, the Organ Transplantation Fairness Act of 2000 would create a national organ transplant advisory board. It implements the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine in this regard by creating an advisory board that reviews the organ procurement and transplantation network policies and advises the Secretary of our Department of Health and Human Services. We also put in place a process, based on sound medical criteria, for the certification and recertification of what they call OPOs--organ procurement organizations. It requires the OPOs that fail to meet performance criteria to file a corrected plan, and they will have 3 years to implement such a plan. We have to have a way of making sure the organ procurement organizations in this country are doing a good, professional job. There has to be some accountability of those organizations. One of the most important issues, of course, is encouraging more organ donations. Earlier this morning I had the opportunity to meet in my office with several individuals who had actually been the recipients of donated organs. Those transplants they had had saved their lives. One of them was a constituent of mine. His name was Kent Schlink from Peoria, IL. When Kent was in his late twenties, he had to have a heart transplant to correct a defect he had in his heart dating from his early childhood. He was very sick. He was on the waiting list for quite some time. He ultimately had a heart transplant at St. Francis Hospital in Peoria, IL, that saved his life. His life was saved at a time when he had a 6-month-old child. He has gone on to have another child. To see him talk about the joy to be with his young kids drives home what a gift people who donate organs make--a gift of life. We also had the opportunity to meet in my office with Britney Green, a young girl whom I believe is 13 years old. She had a liver transplant when she was 3 years old. She is currently on a waiting list for a new heart. She has had a very tough road to hoe, but she is a bright and cheerful young lady. She is very supportive and hopes we can improve the system in this country. Finally, I wish to mention one other young man who impressed me. His name is Danny Canal. Danny is 14 years old, and he is an incredibly bright, wonderful young man. He is a transplant recipient who actually had a four-organ transplant, if you can believe that. Not only did he have four organs transplanted, he actually had two sets of those organs before the third set began functioning properly. This wonderful young kid who has been saved by these organ transplants probably wouldn't have had to have so many organs transplanted into him, because he originally only needed a transplant of a small intestine. Unfortunately, it took so long, he was on the waiting list for the transplant of that intestine so long that his other organs started to fail, to the point where he had to have his pancreas and other organs replaced. Then there were problems and it took three times before they got that right. He is a wonderful young man. It was a very moving experience to hear his story. We need to encourage more people to donate organs so there can be more Danny Covals and Kent Schlinks and Britney Greens whose lives can be saved in this country. Our bill does a lot to address that. We seek to establish a grant program to assist organ procurement organizations and other not-for-profit organizations in developing and expanding programs aimed at increasing organ donation rates. We create a congressional donor medal to honor living organ donors and organ donor families, and give credit to the tremendous gift they are giving by giving an organ. We establish a system of support for State programs to increase organ donation, and we provide some financial support to pay for nonmedical travel expenses of living donors. We have long had a transplant policy in this country that it was against public policy, against the law to pay people for donating organs. That creates many medical and ethical issues. I agree with that prohibition against paying people for donating organs. Everybody who does it is doing it just for the internal reward of helping somebody else. They are not doing it for any financial gain. However, I think it is appropriate that we could at least help defray some of the nonmedical travel expenses of the living donors. Most health insurance policies do, in fact, now in this country cover the medical expenses associated with donating the organ. The bill also bans lobbying by the organ procurement and transplant network administrator. That is the private not-for-profit corporation in Richmond, VA. We prohibit that firm which administers the program under contract with the Department of Health and Human Services from using fees that it collects from transplant patients to lobby Members of Congress. That firm is collecting, I believe, $375 from every person who is on an organ donor waiting list in the country. We want to make sure those fees are helping to match organs with patients so that more people can be saved. We do not think they need to be using those funds to lobby Members of Congress. Finally, one of the things the bill does is it actually comes in and abolishes State laws that are on the books in several States that are referred to as organ hoarding laws. Several States now, I regret to say, have enacted laws saying organs donated within their State borders cannot be given to people outside of their States. One of those States is the State of Wisconsin, that borders on my State of Illinois. I love Wisconsin. I think it is one of the most beautiful States in our country. Every summer my family and I go up and we vacation in northern Wisconsin. We enjoy their fishing and beautiful forests and the wildlife there. But I disagree with the law they have on the books that says if somebody in Wisconsin donates an organ, it cannot save a life in Illinois. I know Walter Payton, if he could have had an organ donated from a Green Bay Packer fan, would have gladly accepted it. We do not need to be engaging in the Balkanization of our country. We do not need to have these kinds of barriers erected between States. We are, in the end, one nation, one giant state. This Balkanization has no place in our country. A report from the Institute of Medicine and other reports have indicated the statutes on the books in these several States greatly diminish the effectiveness and equity of a national organ transplant policy. We need to make sure that is no longer allowed. The other thing I point out is many of the people from Wisconsin may come down and get listed on a transplant list at a hospital in Chicago. Then the effect of that law, passed by the Wisconsin legislature, would be to deny their own resident of the State of Wisconsin the ability to get the transplant at maybe a very renowned hospital in Chicago, or even one they go to in New York or another big State. That is inappropriate. It is not good public policy. Our bill would very firmly say that those laws would no longer be allowed in the States, and I think we would be on our way toward developing a much better national policy. With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Mr. President. I compliment my friend and colleague from the State of Texas for all of her hard work and leadership in trying to correct the marriage tax penalty. It is an unfair quirk in our Tax Code that we hope we can finally bring to an end at some point this year. (The remarks of Mr. Fitzgerald pertaining to the introduction of S. 2398 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. CLELAND addressed the Chair.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Organ Transplantation Fairness Act of 2000. I thank my original cosponsors on this bill: Senators Schumer, Durbin, Santorum, Specter, Mikulski, Sarbanes, and Kerrey. Our Nation's organ procurement and transplant system is in serious need of change. We could be saving more lives through organ transplants in this country than we are at the present time. The purpose of our bill and the goals of our bill are threefold. First, we want to increase the amount of organs that are being donated all across the country. There are many more people who need to receive organs to remain alive. They need organ transplants, and there are not a sufficient number of people donating those organs. This bill attempts to address that issue. Second, we want to bring greater fairness to how we allocate scarce organs after they are donated. Right now those organs are not allocated in the best possible way. And because of problems in our allocation system, people are dying unnecessarily. We could be saving more lives. The third goal of the bill is to seek to implement many of the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine in their 1999 report entitled ``Organ Procurement and Transplantation.'' In attempting to improve the system of organ procurement transplants in this country, we have picked out many of the Institute of Medicine's recommendations, and we tried to enact them into law. Our system is saving many more lives than it used to. Organ transplantation is fairly new to this country. If you go back 20 years or so, there were very few organs being transplanted. But now many more people are benefiting and going on to live healthy lives thanks to people who have donated organs, and thanks to successful transplants. But as many lives as our system has saved, we are not saving as many lives as we could. I have a chart to demonstrate this. As of today, there are over 68,000 American patients waiting for a life-saving organ transplant. In 1998, the most recent statistics available, over 4,800 people died while on that organ transplant waiting list. That means about 13 people a day are dying in this country while waiting to get an organ that can be transplanted into their bodies. I said earlier that we are not saving as many lives as we could save. Let me demonstrate why that is the case, and why we know we are not saving enough lives. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in 1998, some 71 percent of livers were transplanted to patients in the least urgent medical status categories. But at the same time that we were transplanting those livers into patients in the least urgent medical status categories, in the same year, 1,300 patients died while waiting for a liver. How can it be that we are transplanting livers into patients who aren't in the most critically ill categories, while at the same time people in the most critical condition were dying for lack of a liver transplant? The reason for that is we have a system in our country that is based on where you live. Whether you live or die because of an organ transplant may depend not on how sick you are but on where you live in this country. Let's examine this a little bit more closely. There is a private not-for-profit corporation in this country that has been given the authority to be in charge of our Nation's organ transplant and procurement network. They have set up a series of regions. They divided the whole country into regions. There are organs that are available within those regions. But if you live outside one of the regions where an organ is available, you are not liable to get one of the organs when it comes up. As a Senator from Illinois, I think the simplest thing for me to do in illustrating this problem is to use Illinois as an example. Most of Illinois is in organ procurement organization district 29. You can have a patient who lives in northern Illinois, just a few miles from the border of Wisconsin, and this patient could need a liver transplant. He or she could be in status 1 medical condition, which means he or she is in the most critical category and in need of a liver transplant immediately. A liver may become available just over the border in region 37, the Wisconsin network. But that liver can't be sent to the person in Illinois because that person in Illinois is in region 29--not 37. If a liver becomes available from a donor in Wisconsin, they will first look to see if they have a very critically ill person who needs a liver transplant in region 37. If they don't find such a person, then they will go to somebody who is in a less urgent situation who doesn't need the liver as quickly as that other person in Illinois. Thus, somebody who may be in status 2, or even what they call status 3 medical condition, which isn't as critical as status 1, could get the liver transplant up in Wisconsin. But that person a few miles south of the border who needs the liver immediately, because he or she happens to live in Illinois, cannot get it. If an organ doesn't become available in that region in which he or she lives, that person may not survive. There is a saying in the real estate industry by the real estate brokers and agents. When you go to them, they always tell you that everything and the value of your home depends on ``location, location, location.'' I bet not many Americans realize that in some cases if you are in need of a liver transplant or a heart transplant, your chances of survival are going to depend on your location, your location, your location. The purpose of our bill is to try to open this system up, and instead of directing the organs to the people depending on where they live, instead of determining whether people are going to live or die simply based on accidents of geography, we try to bring sense to this whole system. We try to get organs to people in the most critical need of those organs as soon as possible. We would hope to get those to the sickest people as soon as possible--the sickest people who have the chance of going on and having a successful transplant. There comes a point when your organs are so damaged and you are so sick that it could be that a transplant would no longer help you. Certainly, we have to be careful to make sure that we get the organs to those who are the sickest but who still have a good chance of surviving an organ transplant. In addition, attempting to get the organs to the sickest patients first, making that our Nation's public policy, we would like to encourage a broader sharing of organs. The Institute of Medicine's report suggested that each of these areas should contain at least 9 million people. That is the minimum level for optimal sharing to get the organs out and save the most lives. We want to make sure we broaden these networks. It isn't possible in all cases for all organs to be shared nationally. With the heart, for example, a heart cannot last much more than 4 hours after it has been given by a donor. It has to be transplanted quickly. Other organs, such as kidneys, my understanding is we can preserve them for over 24 hours, or even longer, and in that circumstance it would be possible to have more nationwide sharing to get those organs allocated to the people who need them the most. Another important provision of our legislation is to take a strong stand for the proposition that the private not-for-profit corporation that now runs the whole Nation's organ procurement and transplant network should have some public accountability. Members may have heard that a bill passed by the House of Representatives provides no public accountability for this private corporation that has life or death control over at least 68,000 Americans. There is no accountability in that bill. They wouldn't be accountable to elected officials. They could not be regulated by the Department of Health and Human Services. If people had a complaint with how that organization was being run, there would be little or no recourse. I guess you could knock on their doors at their corporate headquarters in Richmond, VA, and ask them to listen to you, but they wouldn't have to. They are private not-for- profit corporations with no responsibility to make sure the best public policy goals of this country are achieved. I don't think that is right. I think we want this corporation to be publicly accountable to make sure that it is meeting the objectives of the laws that are on the books and serving the public interest. In addition, the Organ Transplantation Fairness Act of 2000 would create a national organ transplant advisory board. It implements the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine in this regard by creating an advisory board that reviews the organ procurement and transplantation network policies and advises the Secretary of our Department of Health and Human Services. We also put in place a process, based on sound medical criteria, for the certification and recertification of what they call OPOs--organ procurement organizations. It requires the OPOs that fail to meet performance criteria to file a corrected plan, and they will have 3 years to implement such a plan. We have to have a way of making sure the organ procurement organizations in this country are doing a good, professional job. There has to be some accountability of those organizations. One of the most important issues, of course, is encouraging more organ donations. Earlier this morning I had the opportunity to meet in my office with several individuals who had actually been the recipients of donated organs. Those transplants they had had saved their lives. One of them was a constituent of mine. His name was Kent Schlink from Peoria, IL. When Kent was in his late twenties, he had to have a heart transplant to correct a defect he had in his heart dating from his early childhood. He was very sick. He was on the waiting list for quite some time. He ultimately had a heart transplant at St. Francis Hospital in Peoria, IL, that saved his life. His life was saved at a time when he had a 6-month-old child. He has gone on to have another child. To see him talk about the joy to be with his young kids drives home what a gift people who donate organs make--a gift of life. We also had the opportunity to meet in my office with Britney Green, a young girl whom I believe is 13 years old. She had a liver transplant when she was 3 years old. She is currently on a waiting list for a new heart. She has had a very tough road to hoe, but she is a bright and cheerful young lady. She is very supportive and hopes we can improve the system in this country. Finally, I wish to mention one other young man who impressed me. His name is Danny Canal. Danny is 14 years old, and he is an incredibly bright, wonderful young man. He is a transplant recipient who actually had a four-organ transplant, if you can believe that. Not only did he have four organs transplanted, he actually had two sets of those organs before the third set began functioning properly. This wonderful young kid who has been saved by these organ transplants probably wouldn't have had to have so many organs transplanted into him, because he originally only needed a transplant of a small intestine. Unfortunately, it took so long, he was on the waiting list for the transplant of that intestine so long that his other organs started to fail, to the point where he had to have his pancreas and other organs replaced. Then there were problems and it took three times before they got that right. He is a wonderful young man. It was a very moving experience to hear his story. We need to encourage more people to donate organs so there can be more Danny Covals and Kent Schlinks and Britney Greens whose lives can be saved in this country. Our bill does a lot to address that. We seek to establish a grant program to assist organ procurement organizations and other not-for-profit organizations in developing and expanding programs aimed at increasing organ donation rates. We create a congressional donor medal to honor living organ donors and organ donor families, and give credit to the tremendous gift they are giving by giving an organ. We establish a system of support for State programs to increase organ donation, and we provide some financial support to pay for nonmedical travel expenses of living donors. We have long had a transplant policy in this country that it was against public policy, against the law to pay people for donating organs. That creates many medical and ethical issues. I agree with that prohibition against paying people for donating organs. Everybody who does it is doing it just for the internal reward of helping somebody else. They are not doing it for any financial gain. However, I think it is appropriate that we could at least help defray some of the nonmedical travel expenses of the living donors. Most health insurance policies do, in fact, now in this country cover the medical expenses associated with donating the organ. The bill also bans lobbying by the organ procurement and transplant network administrator. That is the private not-for-profit corporation in Richmond, VA. We prohibit that firm which administers the program under contract with the Department of Health and Human Services from using fees that it collects from transplant patients to lobby Members of Congress. That firm is collecting, I believe, $375 from every person who is on an organ donor waiting list in the country. We want to make sure those fees are helping to match organs with patients so that more people can be saved. We do not think they need to be using those funds to lobby Members of Congress. Finally, one of the things the bill does is it actually comes in and abolishes State laws that are on the books in several States that are referred to as organ hoarding laws. Several States now, I regret to say, have enacted laws saying organs donated within their State borders cannot be given to people outside of their States. One of those States is the State of Wisconsin, that borders on my State of Illinois. I love Wisconsin. I think it is one of the most beautiful States in our country. Every summer my family and I go up and we vacation in northern Wisconsin. We enjoy their fishing and beautiful forests and the wildlife there. But I disagree with the law they have on the books that says if somebody in Wisconsin donates an organ, it cannot save a life in Illinois. I know Walter Payton, if he could have had an organ donated from a Green Bay Packer fan, would have gladly accepted it. We do not need to be engaging in the Balkanization of our country. We do not need to have these kinds of barriers erected between States. We are, in the end, one nation, one giant state. This Balkanization has no place in our country. A report from the Institute of Medicine and other reports have indicated the statutes on the books in these several States greatly diminish the effectiveness and equity of a national organ transplant policy. We need to make sure that is no longer allowed. The other thing I point out is many of the people from Wisconsin may come down and get listed on a transplant list at a hospital in Chicago. Then the effect of that law, passed by the Wisconsin legislature, would be to deny their own resident of the State of Wisconsin the ability to get the transplant at maybe a very renowned hospital in Chicago, or even one they go to in New York or another big State. That is inappropriate. It is not good public policy. Our bill would very firmly say that those laws would no longer be allowed in the States, and I think we would be on our way toward developing a much better national policy. With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I have amendment No. 2961 at the desk.

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

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment which provides that in the event it is determined we have spent any of the Social Security trust fund moneys on any other program, we will provide for a sequestration law that will cause across-the-board cuts to ensure that we are not dipping into Social Security for any other purpose. There are 25 cosponsors of this amendment. In my judgment, it is a more effective way than any of the other ways we have talked about, with points of order and the like, to assure that Congress and Washington are not plundering the Nation's Social Security trust fund. Congress has passed laws that prohibit private employers from dipping into their employees' pension funds. We even passed laws that prohibit State and local governments from dipping into their employees' pension funds for any other purpose. Yet we have no law on the books that ensures we will not spend Social Security money on other programs.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a couple of moments about our guest Chaplain, Bishop Roger Kaffer from Joliet, IL, who just gave the opening prayer. Bishop Kaffer is an old friend of my family. In fact, he went to grade school and to high school with my mother back in Joliet, IL--St. Raymond's grade school and Joliet Township high school. He is now the Auxiliary Bishop in the Joliet diocese outside of Chicago, IL. I thank him for his prayer and welcome him to the Senate. We very much appreciate it. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FITZGERALD

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

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 94, the adjournment resolution, which is at the desk.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Bayh, pertaining to the introduction of S. 2233 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation called the ``MTBE Elimination Act of 2000.'' As I so rise, I thank my colleagues who have cosponsored this legislation. They are Senators Bayh, Abraham, Kohl, Grassley, Durbin, Brownback, and Grams. I appreciate their support and I look forward to talking to each of my colleagues about this very important piece of legislation we are introducing today. Mr. President, the MTBE Elimination Act would ban all across the country, the chemical compound which is termed MTBE for short. Its longer chemical name is methyl tertiary butyl ether. MTBE is one of the world's most widely used chemicals, and is found anywhere in the United States. In fact, it is added to approximately 30 percent of our Nation's gasoline supplies. Its use in this country dates back at least to about 1979 and was originally added to gasoline to boost the octane. For many years, oil companies had added lead to fuel in order to improve its performance and to boost octane. The Federal Government banned lead in the 1970s, and ultimately it was replaced in many cases by MTBE. Later on, in 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act and President Bush at the time signed those amendments. Those amendments required all the smog filled large cities in this country to have an additive in their gasoline that would make the gasoline approximately 2.7 percent oxygen by weight. This is commonly referred to as the oxygenate requirement in our Nation's Clean Air Act. The purpose of that oxygenate requirement was to make the oil companies produce, and our cars use, a cleaner burning fuel. The idea was to clean up the smog in some of our Nation's largest and most congested cities. That program has worked very well over the last 10 years in cleaning up the smog all across the country, in cities like New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. My home State of Illinois, of course, has a large metropolitan area in Chicago. The reformulated fuel requirements that were implemented by the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act have helped greatly in reducing the emissions from our automobiles, in providing cleaner burning fuels, at least as far as our air quality is concerned. As I said earlier, about 30 percent of the gasoline used in this country is reformulated and has an additive in it, most of which is MTBE. In the parts of this country that are required to use reformulated fuel, over 80 percent of them are using MTBE as their oxygenate. The other areas are using another oxygenate known as ethanol to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. In fact, Chicago and Milwaukee both use ethanol as opposed to MTBE. It turns out now that we have mounting evidence that MTBE, while it works well in cleaning up smog, has a problem we had not anticipated, and one which very regrettably had not been fully investigated before we started down the path that encouraged a dramatic increase in the usage of MTBE. MTBE has, in recent years, been detected in the nation's drinking water all across the country, from the east coast to the west coast. In fact, right now the U.S. Geological Survey is performing an ongoing evaluation of our nation's drinking water, groundwater supplies all across the country. They have not yet completed this survey. If you look at this chart, in the States that are in white, the U.S. Geological Survey analysis has not yet been performed. But in the States that are in red, those are the States where they have found MTBE in the groundwater. Incidentally, I believe it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 22 States where they have found methyl tertiary butyl ether in the groundwater. In my home State of Illinois, we do not use much MTBE; ethanol is the oxygenate of choice. But nonetheless, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has been finding MTBE in our groundwater. So far, they have found MTBE in at least 25 different cities all across the State, and many Illinois municipalities have not tested the groundwater. Three of these cities have had to switch their source of drinking water and go to other wells because there was a sufficient amount of MTBE in that water to make it undrinkable. About a month ago, CBS News, in their program ``60 Minutes,'' did a report on how MTBE has been turning up with greater and greater frequency in our Nation's drinking water supplies. During that report, which seemed to me to be very well researched, it was noticed that this chemical, MTBE, has some very interesting properties. Unlike most of the other components of gasoline which, when it leaks out accidentally from underground storage tanks or out of pipes which carry fuel--there are leaks now and then; we try to prevent them, but they do occur--most of the components of gasoline are absorbed in the soil and do not make it down to the ground water. MTBE is a pesky substance, however, that resists microbial degrading in the ground and rapidly seeks out the ground water. It resists degrading as it finds its way to the water. Then once it gets into the water, it rapidly spreads. It has properties that, when it is in drinking water in very minute quantities, between 20 to 40 parts per billion, make the drinking water undrinkable. I say undrinkable because it makes the water smell and taste like turpentine. There have been studies that have shown that a single cup of MTBE renders 5 million gallons of water undrinkable. I say it makes the water undrinkable. The fact is, we do not know exactly what health effects it has on humans who ingest the water. Very few studies have been done on what happens to humans who consume MTBE. There have been studies of laboratory rats that suggest it is a possible carcinogen, and the EPA has recognized MTBE as a possible cause of cancer. We need to do more research on MTBE's effects on human health. We simply do not know all that much about this chemical. However, we do know that most people, when they smell the turpentine-like smell or taste of it, it inspires an instant revulsion and they do not want to drink the water. It is almost a moot point as to whether it has ill health effects because it makes the water undrinkable. Most humans will recoil at the thought of drinking that type of water. In the ``60 Minutes'' segment I referred to earlier, they went to a town in California where literally most of the town has left because their water has this MTBE in it. Many of the businesses have closed up, many of the people have left, and for those remaining in that community, the State of California is trucking in fresh water for them to drink. It is a very serious problem. There have been a few cities around the country--I believe there is one in the Carolinas, and also Santa Barbara, CA--where they had sued oil companies and won judgments to clean up the ground water in which they detected MTBE. In order to address this alarming trend of finding this pesky, horrible chemical in our drinking water all across the country with increasing frequency, I, with my colleagues, am introducing the MTBE Elimination Act. This act will do four things: First, it will phase MTBE out gradually over 3 years. The way the bill accomplishes that is it amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to add methyl tertiary butyl ether to the list of proscribed toxic substances in this country. It will eliminate the MTBE over 3 years because it will be hard to simply switch our Nation's gasoline supply overnight. To be realistic, it will take a period of time. The bill allows discretion for the EPA to establish a timetable and a framework for this MTBE phase-out. Secondly, the bill will require that gasoline which is dispensed at the pump containing MTBE be labeled so people know when they are filling up their car with gasoline that it contains this additive, and this chemical is being used in their community. In many cases, of course, people are not even aware of this chemical. They have never heard of it. We were very surprised in Illinois. We did not think much MTBE was even used in Illinois. Then we found it in our ground water. Third, the bill authorizes grants for research on MTBE ground water contamination and remediation. It directs resources to do more research on the health effects of this chemical too. We need to know more about this chemical in order to combat it. Right now we do not fully understand the health risks. Most of the studies that have been done, of which I am aware, are on laboratory mice, and there have been very few studies, if any, on the effects to humans who ingest or inhale this chemical. We also need research on how we remediate the chemical, how we clean it up because, in addition to all of its other properties, it turns out it is very difficult to eliminate. Our normal processes for eliminating hazardous chemicals from ground water, in many cases, according to the literature, do not seem to work on MTBE. EPA needs to research this issue and help the rest of the country have a body of knowledge, so when they find MTBE contamination, they know how to clean it up or remediate it. The bill contains a section which expresses the sense of the Senate that the EPA, our national Environmental Protection Agency, should provide technical assistance, information, and matching funds to our local communities that are testing their underground water supplies and also trying to remediate and clean up MTBE that has been detected in those water supplies. Finally, as an afterthought, some of my colleagues may be asking: What will we do about that portion of the Clean Air Act that requires our fuel in this country, at least in the smog-filled large cities, to have an oxygenate in it to reduce smog emissions? There is an answer. We do have an alternative--a renewable source produced from corn or other biomass products. It is called ethanol. In my judgment, ethanol will allow us to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act all across the country, and it will not require us to make that terrible choice between clean air and clean water. I want our country to have clean air and clean water and never one at the expense of the other. Ethanol, in my judgment, provides the answer to that problem. The USDA recently did a study using ethanol to replace MTBE all across the country. It would mean, on average, about $1 billion in added income to our farmers every year.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes. I thank the Senator and appreciate his support. I appreciate his cosponsorship of this legislation. My bill would ban MTBE within 3 years after the enactment of this law. It would leave the exact timetable up to the EPA. They could set parameters within that 3 years. But within 3 years after the bill is signed into law, we would expect MTBE to be gone. Following up on that, as Senator Durbin said, we have been working very hard, particularly with Senator Grassley, Senator Harkin, and Senators from all over the country, in trying to clean up MTBE, and also trying to promote renewable sources of fuels, such as ethanol. That discussion about the importance of renewable fuels is made much more important now as we see our dependence on foreign oil and the high prices of oil in recent weeks. But this is an issue that has bipartisan support. Senator Durbin is a Democrat; I am a Republican. But the ethanol issue has always been bipartisan. I look forward to working with my friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle so that we can continue to work on improving our Nation's clean air and water and also our farm economy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the bill in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that will help us fight one of the leading killers of America's children--the automobile collision. Car crashes account for 1 of every 3 deaths among children. In the United States we lose an average of 7 of our children every day to car collisions. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, crash injuries are the leading cause of death for the 5 to 12 year old age group. Regrettably, up to half of the deaths involve children who already are buckled up or restrained in car seats and booster seats. That is why I am introducing legislation to substantially improve the child safety seats that we buy to protect our children. My bill, ``The Child Passenger Safety Act of 2000,'' would direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to improve the safety features of car seats, to upgrade the way we test and certify car seats, to consider adopting measures to better protect older children, and to give parents the information they need to shop for, and install, safe car seats for their children. Over the years, NHTSA has implemented many measures to improve child passenger safety. I applaud, in particular, the NHTSA Administrator's recent efforts to implement a new tether requirement for child seat makers and automobile manufacturers. But we cannot allow these past successes to obscure a fundamental fact: too many of our children are killed or injured in car crashes every day. We should not wait to begin upgrading the safety of child car seats and booster seats. The first thing this bill seeks to do is to improve the testing of car seats and booster seats. It calls for the government to consider using more dummies that simulate children of many different ages in these tests. A six-month old has a very different build than an eighteen-month-old, and an eighteen-month-old is very different from a six-year old. In Europe, they use as many as six different child dummies in testing their car seats and booster seats, ranging in age from newborn to ten years. In this country, we do not crash test child safety seats with dummies that represent a premature infant, an eighteen-month-old or a ten-year-old. Currently, we test car seats on a sled. My bill directs NHTSA to put car seats in some of the actual cars that already are being tested under an existing program. Under this program, called the ``New Car Assessment Program,'' the government buys 40 or so vehicles and crash tests them to see how each would perform in a collision in the real world. Why, Mr. President, could we not put at least one car seat or booster seat in each of these cars? Doing it would help us better understand how these safety seats perform in the real world. In addition, my bill calls for the government to study ways to update the seat bench that is used in tests of child safety seats to better reflect the design of modern vehicles. The seat bench from a 1975 Chevy Impala with lap belts is what we now use to test car seats. I am also asking the government to focus attention on how car seats and booster seats perform in rollover, rear-impact, and side-impact crashes, as they do in Europe. These types of crashes are not as common as frontal collisions, but they result in a number of injuries and deaths. Finally, my proposal calls upon NHTSA to increase the funds they spend on testing car seats each year to at least $750,000, from the current $500,000. Second, we must deal with the problem of head injuries in side-impact crashes and rollovers. Children's heads and necks are even more vulnerable than those of adults, because children's heads are larger in proportion to the rest of their bodies. In Europe, car seats have side impact padding to better protect children's heads in these types of crashes. My bill would require car seat manufacturers in the U.S. to provide the same type of protection. Third, we must focus more attention on an issue that auto safety advocates have dubbed ``the forgotten child'' problem. The ``forgotten children'' (ages 8-12) have outgrown their car seats but do not fit properly in adult seat belts. In crashes, they are at greater risk than other passengers. My bill calls for NHTSA to close this child safety seat gap, but it leaves it up to NHTSA to decide when and how to do that. The agency could, for example, encourage the states to pass more laws requiring the use of booster seats for older children. They could do it by mounting a public information campaign about the importance of booster seats. Or they could amend our safety standards for seat belts. Fourth and finally, we must get more information to parents about the safety of various car seats on the market today, as well, Mr. President, as on the correct means of installing car seats. My bill directs NHTSA to institute a new crash test results information system that will help equip parents with the safety information and knowledge they need to make rational choices when they are buying and installing car seats for their children. My bill also requires that the warning labels on child seats be straightforward and written in plain English. Next week is National Child Passenger Safety Week. What better time than now to make these efforts to protect our children? I urge my colleagues to support this vitally important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that will help us fight one of the leading killers of America's children--the automobile collision. Car crashes account for 1 of every 3 deaths among children. In the United States we lose an average of 7 of our children every day to car collisions. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, crash injuries are the leading cause of death for the 5 to 12 year old age group. Regrettably, up to half of the deaths involve children who already are buckled up or restrained in car seats and booster seats. That is why I am introducing legislation to substantially improve the child safety seats that we buy to protect our children. My bill, ``The Child Passenger Safety Act of 2000,'' would direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to improve the safety features of car seats, to upgrade the way we test and certify car seats, to consider adopting measures to better protect older children, and to give parents the information they need to shop for, and install, safe car seats for their children. Over the years, NHTSA has implemented many measures to improve child passenger safety. I applaud, in particular, the NHTSA Administrator's recent efforts to implement a new tether requirement for child seat makers and automobile manufacturers. But we cannot allow these past successes to obscure a fundamental fact: too many of our children are killed or injured in car crashes every day. We should not wait to begin upgrading the safety of child car seats and booster seats. The first thing this bill seeks to do is to improve the testing of car seats and booster seats. It calls for the government to consider using more dummies that simulate children of many different ages in these tests. A six-month old has a very different build than an eighteen-month-old, and an eighteen-month-old is very different from a six-year old. In Europe, they use as many as six different child dummies in testing their car seats and booster seats, ranging in age from newborn to ten years. In this country, we do not crash test child safety seats with dummies that represent a premature infant, an eighteen-month-old or a ten-year-old. Currently, we test car seats on a sled. My bill directs NHTSA to put car seats in some of the actual cars that already are being tested under an existing program. Under this program, called the ``New Car Assessment Program,'' the government buys 40 or so vehicles and crash tests them to see how each would perform in a collision in the real world. Why, Mr. President, could we not put at least one car seat or booster seat in each of these cars? Doing it would help us better understand how these safety seats perform in the real world. In addition, my bill calls for the government to study ways to update the seat bench that is used in tests of child safety seats to better reflect the design of modern vehicles. The seat bench from a 1975 Chevy Impala with lap belts is what we now use to test car seats. I am also asking the government to focus attention on how car seats and booster seats perform in rollover, rear-impact, and side-impact crashes, as they do in Europe. These types of crashes are not as common as frontal collisions, but they result in a number of injuries and deaths. Finally, my proposal calls upon NHTSA to increase the funds they spend on testing car seats each year to at least $750,000, from the current $500,000. Second, we must deal with the problem of head injuries in side-impact crashes and rollovers. Children's heads and necks are even more vulnerable than those of adults, because children's heads are larger in proportion to the rest of their bodies. In Europe, car seats have side impact padding to better protect children's heads in these types of crashes. My bill would require car seat manufacturers in the U.S. to provide the same type of protection. Third, we must focus more attention on an issue that auto safety advocates have dubbed ``the forgotten child'' problem. The ``forgotten children'' (ages 8-12) have outgrown their car seats but do not fit properly in adult seat belts. In crashes, they are at greater risk than other passengers. My bill calls for NHTSA to close this child safety seat gap, but it leaves it up to NHTSA to decide when and how to do that. The agency could, for example, encourage the states to pass more laws requiring the use of booster seats for older children. They could do it by mounting a public information campaign about the importance of booster seats. Or they could amend our safety standards for seat belts. Fourth and finally, we must get more information to parents about the safety of various car seats on the market today, as well, Mr. President, as on the correct means of installing car seats. My bill directs NHTSA to institute a new crash test results information system that will help equip parents with the safety information and knowledge they need to make rational choices when they are buying and installing car seats for their children. My bill also requires that the warning labels on child seats be straightforward and written in plain English. Next week is National Child Passenger Safety Week. What better time than now to make these efforts to protect our children? I urge my colleagues to support this vitally important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business and that the time be charged to the bill.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, later this afternoon a resolution sponsored by Senator Durbin and I will be sent to the desk. That resolution expresses the sense of the Senate regarding its sorrow upon the passing yesterday of one of the Nation's leading radio personalities, Bob Collins from WGN Radio in Chicago. Yesterday afternoon, Bob Collins, who was one of the Nation's leading radio personalities, who had a listening audience of over 600,000 people, after finishing his radio program, drove to his home in Lake County, IL, and decided to go out and fly his airplane. He apparently had a friend with him in that airplane. While that airplane was attempting to land at Waukegan Airport in Waukegan, IL, another small aircraft hit it. Ultimately, it drove Mr. Collins' plane into a building. It later was confirmed that he died as a result of the accident. It was a horrible tragedy. In the last 24 hours, all of Chicago and many people throughout the Midwest have been mourning the death of Bob Collins. Mr. Collins was a personal friend of mine, somebody I thought very highly of. It is with particular sadness that I rise upon this occasion of his untimely death. Bob Collins was known affectionately to his Chicago audience as Uncle Bob. He had the main drive time-radio program at WGN Radio since 1986. He had by far the largest audience. In fact, his rating points for the last 10 years showed that his audience was twice the size of his next closest competitor. He was very much loved all around Chicago by people who for the past 13 or more years, every morning when they awoke, heard on the radio the voice of Bob Collins. His show ran from 5 a.m. until 9 a.m., and so hundreds of thousands of Chicagoans, as they were driving to work in the morning on congested expressways, would be listening to him day in and day out. Some have described Bob Collins as the narrator of events in Chicago and in the Midwest over the past decade or more. He talked about everything from the local and national news to current political topics. In fact, he was a very devoted Republican in a very Democratic city. But notwithstanding his political views, he still had wide popularity. He had guests from all walks of life on his radio show every day. Senator Durbin and I on at least one occasion were guests of Bob Collins on his radio show. Bob did everything during his radio show. He would announce the weather. He would talk the whole 4 hours. He even read his own commercials. And being on from 5 in the morning until 9 in the morning and thinking about how you hold that audience's attention for that long of a time when you are talking is very difficult. It is even tougher to do it and remain interesting. But Bob was always interesting. Yet he didn't grate on people, and he retained and built his audience over the years. He really had a gift of talking. People enjoyed what he was saying and found him entertaining. He never stooped to the methods we are seeing increasingly with the shock jocks, the rude and obnoxious talk radio we so often hear. He never resorted to cheap tricks to maintain the interest of his audience. I think that is the reason people never tired of him and that he went on for years as a popular radio guy. Bob was very folksy and unpretentious. In fact, he was the exact same person on the radio as he was off the radio. I saw him many times in relaxed, amicable circumstances, and he was just the same regular old Bob Collins who grew up in Lakeland, FL, who liked to ride motorcycles and fly airplanes, with a very sunny and cheerful personality at all times. He had a zest for life and always had a sunny disposition. On his show, he was always very polite and agreeable. Even when he disagreed with his guests, he was always very affable. I want to read from a column that appeared this morning in the Chicago Tribune by Mary Schmich. She wrote about Mr. Collins' life. It is a wonderful article. I will read a couple of paragraphs about how she described Mr. Collins: As a radio guy, he was both a master and a freak. In the age of screechers and squawkers and shock jocks, in a time that has elevated the obscenity to art and rewarded it with megabucks, Bob stayed Bob. He earned his big bucks the old-fashioned way and still seemed as down-to-earth as the guy one row behind you in the bleachers. He was blunt but never crude, amusing but rarely rude, opinionated but not obnoxious. It was a formula that made him the most popular morning radio guy in one of the world's most cutthroat radio towns. He walloped the competition as easily as if he were sunbathing. That's the mark of an artist--he makes the difficult look easy. Uncle Bob, who for so many years in Chicago, to so many thousands of listeners around the Midwest, always made the difficult look easy, I am going to miss you; we are all going to miss you. Thank you for all you have done for Chicago and for our community. May God comfort your wife Christine and your mother and father, and may God rest and keep your soul. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, today is the fifth day of the 26th annual Catholic Schools Week, and tomorrow, we will observe National Appreciation Day for Catholic School Teachers. I want to take this opportunity to recognize the 167,000 teachers in our nation's Catholic schools for their valuable contributions to the education of many of America's children. There are over 2 million students enrolled in the nation's 8,217 Catholic elementary and secondary schools today. These schools are attractive to many parents because they combine an intellectually stimulating environment with an emphasis on the spiritual and moral development of their students. Catholic school teachers are widely recognized for offering an excellent scholastic education, which may explain why 41 percent of these schools have a waiting list for admission. According to the National Catholic Educational Association, the student-teacher ratio in Catholic schools is 17 to 1, and the graduation rate of Catholic school students is an extraordinary 95 percent. Only 3 percent of Catholic high school students drop out of school, and 83 percent of Catholic high school graduates go on to college, the Association has estimated. But Catholic school teachers provide students with more than just a solid academic background. They encourage the spiritual and moral development of their students as well. Catholic school teachers are educating an increasingly diverse group of students. Since 1970, the percentage of minorities enrolled in Catholic schools has more than doubled to 25 percent. More and more non-Catholic students are enrolling in Catholic schools: today, as many as 13 percent of Catholic school students are non-Catholic, according to the National Catholic Educational Association (compared to 2.7 percent in 1970). In some city schools, a majority of the students are non-Catholic. This week, a delegation of over 100 Catholic school teachers, students, and parents are in Washington, D.C. to meet with Members of Congress. They hand-delivered information about Catholic schools to every congressional office yesterday, which was National Appreciation Day for Catholic Schools. I would like to close by welcoming these teachers, students, and parents to the Nation's Capitol, and by congratulating the Catholic schools across the country that received Excellence in Education Awards from the U.S. Department of Education.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise today with my distinguished colleagues to support the pending resolution and express my sincere congratulations to the Super Bowl XXXIV Champion St. Louis Rams. In the aftermath of a heart-stopping NFC division victory over the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and an outstanding regular season record of 13 wins and 3 losses, the St. Louis Rams increased their intensity to win Super Bowl XXXIV, bringing home the most priced possession in the National Football League, the Lombardi Trophy. In an extraordinary effort and show of heart, the Rams countered the incredible second-half push by the Tennessee Titans in a game that more than lived up to its billing of ``Super'' and made history on Sunday, January 30, 2000, by pulling out a thrilling victory by the score of 23-16, becoming the Super Bowl XXXIV Champions. This was Coach Dick Vermeil's third year as head coach of the Rams. Coach Vermeil previously led the Philadelphia Eagles to the Super Bowl in 1980, but had been away from coaching for almost 15 years. The passionate 63-year-old coach showed he still had the stuff it takes to lead this team of stars to the championship. The fans of professional football have appropriately awarded Coach Vermeil by voting him the Staples Coach of the Year, the only NFL honor determined solely by a vote of the fans. The three-year path to glory began slowly, with 9 wins and 23 losses over the previous two seasons, including just 4 victories last season, but the team turned it around this year. While the Rams were truly a team that played well together all year, this triumphant season can be attributed to the performance of several key players, including six players that were chosen to start in the Pro Bowl. Kurt Warner, stepping in as the starter after Trent Green was injured in an early preseason game, enjoyed one of the best years ever for an NFL quarterback, throwing for 4,353 yards, 41 touchdowns and only 13 interceptions, a performance worthy of being awarded the NFL's Most Valuable Player and the Pro Bowl starting quarterback. This remarkable individual, in just his second season in the NFL, was bagging groceries in Waterloo, Iowa, just five years ago. While setting passing and scoring records in the Arena Football League for 3 seasons and 1 season in the NFL Europe, he never gave up his dream of playing in the NFL. Last night, he helped to bring the dream of a Super Bowl championship home to St. Louis. Marshall Faulk, one of the league's premier running backs, set an NFL record this season for combined rushing and receiving yards from the line of scrimmage in a single season with 2,429, in addition to scoring 12 touchdowns. He was also chosen to start in the Pro Bowl. All season long, the team benefited from a stellar group of talented receivers, led by Isaac Bruce, who will join his teammates in the Pro Bowl; Torry Holt; Az-zahir Hakim; and Ricky Proehl. Proehl, you may remember, caught a clutch game-winning touchdown in the closing minutes of the Rams' win last week over the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, while Bruce made a truly spectacular play in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl by catching a 73 yard touchdown pass that sealed the championship. These stars helped the Rams to establish early on that they were an offensive-minded team, scoring a total of 526 points this season, the third-most in NFL history. But as the saying goes, ``Defense wins championships,'' and the Rams proved this adage, by leading the NFL in rushing defense, and ranking sixth in the league in overall defense. This season, the Rams' defensive end, Kevin Carter, led the league with 17 quarterback sacks and earned his first start in the Pro Bowl. After only 5 years in the league, this outstanding defender has developed a well-documented work ethic that has helped him achieve more sacks over the past two seasons than anyone else in the league. We all know that to be champions requires a strong commitment to work harder and be more disciplined than the rest. The Rams' Super Bowl win is a credit to the extraordinary efforts by the entire Rams' organization. After moving to St. Louis in 1995, the management went to work in hiring excellent personnel and a committed coaching staff. This season, the organization's slogan was aptly and accurately versed: ``Gotta go to work!'' With the whole organization working as one cohesive unit and regularly working well beyond the hours of 9 to 5, they showed us just how much can be accomplished when everyone works together for a common goal and is committed to doing more than his or her fair share. We would be remiss if we overlooked another admirable quality of this fine organization, and that is the commitment to the community. When the Rams relocated to St. Louis in 1995, the team identified community involvement as one of the top priorities. Since that time, many charitable organizations have benefited from the time and resources of these big-hearted athletes, as various Rams players have dedicated dollars for every touchdown, interception, field goal, sack and more. Some examples of how these stars contribute to the community include: 1. The defense live--donating $500 for every quarterback sack to a local homeless shelter. 2. Wide receive Isaac Bruce--donating $500 for every touchdown to Edgewood's Childhaven, an educational center for children with learning disabilities. 3. Running back Marshall Faulk--continuing the ``Marshall Plan'' that began in Indianapolis by donating $2,000 for every touchdown that he scores to the Marshall Faulk Foundation. 4. Quarterback Trent Green--donating $300 for every Rams passing touchdown to the Trent Green Family Foundation. 5. Safety Keith Syle--donating $500 for every interception to local literacy programs. 6. Kicker Jeff Wilkins--donating $50 for every field goal to Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital. 7. Tight end Roland Williams--donating $86 for every catch to the Roland Williams Youth Life Line Foundation which supports children in Roland's hometown. Most of these players have also been successful in receiving matching commitments from local businesses and individuals, helping to foster a true sense of community. In addition, each year, players make countless appearances at local schools, hospitals and youth centers to use their influence with children to stress the importance of education and making proper choices in life. The hard work and dedication of the Rams to their team and the people of the St. Louis metropolitan area deserves our highest commendations. So, on behalf of myself and the good people of my state of Illinois, I congratulate Coach Dick Vermeil, Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Isaac Bruce, and the entire St. Louis Rams team on an outstanding performance. Coach Vermeil, players, and fans: congratulations on a great season and an outstanding victory.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam President, it is with great pride that I rise today with my distinguished colleagues to express my sincere congratulations to the Super Bowl XXXIV Champion St. Louis Rams. In the aftermath of a heart-stopping NFC division victory over the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and an outstanding regular season record of 13 wins and 3 losses, the St. Louis Rams increased their intensity to win Super Bowl XXXIV, bringing home the most prized possession in the National Football League, the Lombardi Trophy. In an extraordinary effort and show of heart, the Rams countered the incredible second-half push by the Tennessee Titans in a game that more than lived up to its billing of ``Super'' and made history on Sunday, January 30, 2000, by pulling out a thrilling victory by the score of 23-16, becoming the Super Bowl XXXIV Champions. This was Coach Dick Vermeil's third year as head coach of the Rams. Coach Vermeil previously led the Philadelphia Eagles to the Super Bowl in 1980, but had been away from coaching for almost 15 years. The passionate 63 year old coach showed he still had the stuff it takes to lead this team of stars to the championship. The fans of professional football have appropriately awarded Coach Vermeil by voting him the Staples Coach of the Year, the only NFL honor determined solely by a vote of the fans. The three-year path to glory began slowly, with 9 wins and 23 losses over the previous two seasons, including just 4 victories last season, but the team turned it around this year. While the Rams were truly a team that played well together all year, this triumphant season can be attributed to the performance of several key players, including six players that were chosen to start in the Pro Bowl. Kurt Warner, stepping in as the starter after Trent Green was injured in an early preseason game, enjoyed one of the best years ever for an NFL quarterback, throwing for 4,353 yards, 41 touchdowns and only 13 interceptions, a performance worthy of being awarded the NFL's Most Valuable Player and the Pro Bowl starting quarterback. This remarkable individual, in just his second season in the NFL, was bagging groceries in Waterloo, Iowa, just five years ago. While setting passing and scoring records in the Arena Football League for 3 seasons and one season in the NFL Europe, he never gave up his dream of playing in the NFL. Last night, he helped to bring the dream of a Super Bowl championship home to St. Louis. Marshall Faulk, one of the league's premier running backs, set an NFL record this season for combined rushing and receiving yards from the line of scrimmage in a single season with 2,429, in addition to scoring 12 touchdowns. He was also chosen to start in the Pro Bowl. All season long, the team benefitted from a stellar group of talented receivers, led by Isaac Bruce, who will join his teammates in the Pro Bowl; Torry Holt; Az-zahir Hakim; and Ricky Proehl. Proehl, you may remember, caught a clutch game-winning touchdown in the closing minutes of the Rams' win last week over the Tampa Bay Buccanneers, while Bruce made a truly spectacular play in the fourth-quarter of the Super Bowl by catching a 73 yard touchdown pass that sealed the championship. These stars helped the Rams to establish early on that they were an offensive-minded team, scoring a total of 526 points this season, the third-most in NFL history. But as the saying goes, ``Defense wins championships,'' and the Rams proved this adage, by leading the NFL in rushing defense, and ranking sixth in the league in overall defense. This season, the Rams' defensive end, Kevin Carter, led the league with 17 quarterback sacks and earned his first start in the Pro Bowl. After only 5 years in the league, this outstanding defender has developed a well-documented work ethic that has helped him achieve more sacks over the past two seasons than anyone else in the league. We all know that to be champions requires a strong commitment to work harder and be more disciplined than the rest. The Rams' Super Bowl win is a credit to the extraordinary efforts by the entire Rams' organization. After moving to St. Louis in 1995, the management went to work in hiring excellent personnel and a committed coaching staff. This season, the organization's slogan was aptly and accurately versed: ``Gotta go to work!'' With the whole organization working as one cohesive unit and regularly working well beyond the hours of 9 to 5, they showed us just how much can be accomplished when everyone works together for a common goal and is committed to doing more than his or her fair share. We would be remiss if we overlooked another admirable quality of this fine organization, and that is the commitment to the community. When the Rams relocated to St. Louis in 1995, the team identified community involvement as one of the top priorities. Since that time, many charitable organizations have benefitted from the time and resources of these big-hearted athletes, as various Rams players have dedicated dollars for every touchdown, interception, field goal, sack and more. Some examples of how these stars contribute to the community include: 1. The defensive line--donating $500 for every quarterback sack to a local homeless shelter. 2. Wide receiver Isaac Bruce--donating $500 for every touchdown to Edgewood's Childhaven, an educational center for children with learning disabilities. 3. Running back Marshall Faulk--continuing the ``Marshall Plan'' that began in Indianapolis by donating $2,000 for every touchdown that he scores to the Marshall Faulk Foundation. 4. Quarterback Trent Green--donating $300 for every Rams passing touchdown to the Trent Green Family Foundation. 5. Safety Keith Lyle--donating $500 for every interception to local literacy programs. 6. Kicker Jeff Wilkins--donating $50 for every field goal to Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital. 7. Tight end Roland Williams--donating $86 for every catch to the Roland Williams Youth Life Line Foundation which supports children in Roland's hometown. Most of these players have also been successful in receiving matching commitments from local businesses and individuals, helping to foster a true sense of community. In addition, each year, players make countless appearances at local schools, hospitals and youth centers to use their influence with children to stress the importance of education and making proper choices in life. The hard work and dedication of the Rams to their team and the people of the St. Louis metropolitan area deserves our highest commendations. So, on behalf of myself and the good people of my state of Illinois, I congratulate Coach Dick Vermeil, Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Issac Bruce, and the entire St. Louis Rams team on an outstanding performance. Coach Vermeil, players, and fans: congratulations on a great season and an outstanding victory.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the passage of the Electronic Benefit Transfer Interoperability and Portability Act of 1999. This legislation addreses the problem of food stamp beneficiaries being unable to redeem their benefits in authorized stores that may be located outside their state of residence. As you may know, Congress passed legislation in 1996 that required the federal government to deliver food stamp benefits electronically, rather than using paper coupons. Most states have started the process of issuing plastic cards, very similar to ATM cards, to access these benefits. The federal government termed this new process, electronic benefits transfer (EBT). You may have noticed a separate button on the payment terminal in your local supermarket with the designation ``EBT'' or a separate stand-along payment terminal to handle these new transactions. More than half of the country has already switched from the paper coupons to this new EBT card. However, one significant issue is causing problems in the program for retailers, states, and recipients. That issue is the inability of recipients to use their state-issued cards across state lines. This is especially true in communities that are near a state border. Under the old paper system, recipients could use the coupons in any state in the country. Under the new electronic system, that is the case Customers go into a food store expecting to use their federal benefits to purchase food. When they cannot use their EBT cards, they become frustrated and dissatisfied with the food stamp program. For example, under the old system, a food stamp recipient living in Palmyra, Missouri could use his food stamp coupons in his favorite grocery store in Quincy, Illinois, just over the border. Similarly, a recipient living in Illinois could visit family in Tennessee and still purchase food for his children. Food stamp beneficiaries are not unlike the average shopper. Cross-border shopping occurs for a variety of reasons. One reason is convenience; another equally important reason is the cost of groceries. The supermarket industry is very competitive. Customers paying with every type of tender except EBT have the ability to shop around for the best prices. Shouldn't recipients of our nation's federal food assistance benefits be able to stretch their dollars without regard to state borders? Another reason for cross-border shopping is convenience. While one of my constituents may live in the metro east area of Illinois, he or she may work in St. Louis. Under the current situation, if the only grocery store between work and home is in Missouri, the recipient cannot purchase food without traveling miles out of the way. The legislation would once again provide for the portability of food assistance benefits and allow food stamp recipients the flexibility of shopping at locations that they choose. Interoperability works well today with ATM/Debit cards, the type of cards that EBT was modeled after. Consumers and merchants are confident that when a MAC card issued by a bank in Pittsburgh is presented, authorization and settlement of that transaction will work the same as when a Star card, issued by Bank of America in California is presented. This occurs regardless of where the merchant is located. Unfortunately, this is currently not the case with EBT cards. If every state operated their EBT program under a standard set of operating rules, as this legislation requires, companies operating in multiple states could be more efficient, resolve any discrepancies in customer accounts more quickly, and ultimately hold down the price of groceries for all consumers. This legislation is more about good government than it is about food stamps. Since 1996, the transition from paper coupons to electronic benefit transfers has saved the federal government a significant amount of money. For example, while the food stamp caseload decreased 24 percent from fiscal year 1995 to 1998, food stamp production and redemption costs dropped by an impressive 39 percent. While it is estimated that the bill's implementation will cost the federal government no more than $500,000 annually, it will save at least $20 million per year when paper coupons are a thing of the past. This legislation is sound public policy that enjoys strong bipartisan support. I thank my colleagues, Senators Leahy, Lugar, Harkin, Craig, Cochran, Crapo, Kohl, and Kerrey for joining me as co-sponsors of this bill. This legislation is vitally important to every food stamp recipient, every state food stamp program administrator, and every grocery store in the country. I thank the presiding officer, and I yield the floor.