Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I want to speak about the appropriations agreement for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2001. This bill is part of the D.C. Appropriations bill and I thank the Senator from Texas for her help on this matter and everyone else on the subcommittee. I cannot tell you how hard we have tried to work with OMB and the White House on this bill. I find it hard to believe that they want to veto the bill based on what is in here. The main issue they have difficulty with is on immigration and it was never requested by the President and is not an appropriations matter. This bill does include $38.0 billion for these agencies. I believe the funding levels in this bill will allow the departments and agencies funded by it to fulfill their mandates. The first title in this bill is the Department of Justice. We provide $21 billion, an increase over last year's level. Within Justice, there are a number of issues that stand out. This bill provides comprehensive counter drug funding. It is our goal to provide the resources to protect our communities from the violence associated with illegal drugs. One of the most prevalent concerns in this area is the production of methamphetamine. The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has reported an increase in clandestine lab seizures nationwide. In 1997, 3,327 labs were seized by Federal, State, and local law enforcement. By 1999, that number had escalated to 7,060. Although the number of clandestine methamphetamine labs has almost doubled since 1997, the President included no funding to combat methamphetamine production, trafficking, and use in his FY 2001 budget request. We remedy that mistake here. Our recommendation includes a total of $76.9 million for methamphetamine initiatives. We provide $25.9 million for investigations and day to day operations on methamphetamine cases, including maintaining a database of labs around the country. Since the bi-products from methamphetamine production are hazardous, explosions or fires often result and specially equipped teams are sent in to clean-up the lab sites. We provide $20 million to the DEA through the COPS Methamphetamine Drug Hot Spots Program for clean-up activities. We have also made available for State and local law enforcement agencies $28.5 million for their methamphetamine enforcement and cleanup efforts. Of course, methamphetamines are not the only problem. We provide $28.8 million to DEA for its heroin-related efforts. Because drug traffickers are highly adaptive, we must have the ability to respond where ``hot spots'' arise. The bill provides $24.2 million for Regional Drug Enforcement Teams and $53.9 million for Mobile Enforcement Teams. To aid those communities that have suffered because of the presence of drug dealers, we provide $34.0 million in direct funding for the Weed and Seed program. This program distributes grant funding to qualified neighborhoods so that they can weed out criminals in their communities while seeding new prevention and intervention services to help revitalize the neighborhood. The drug problem in the United States is so pervasive that over 480 drug courts have evolved to handle these particular cases. This bill includes $50.0 million through the Office of Justice Programs for drug courts; additional funding can be obtained through the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants or the Juvenile Accountability Block Grants. Moving on to another important program in this bill, we continue the Safe Schools Initiative. This initiative was one the Ranking Member and I sponsored in 1999 just after the Columbine massacre. For fiscal year 2001, we provide a total of $227.5 million for State school programs with $180.0 million for school resource officers and $15.0 million for school technology. This program gives school administrators resources to enhance safety measures. It grants them the flexibility to implement decisions on how best to maintain a safe learning environment without impacting funding for educational programs. The final agreement contains funding for after-school youth programs. A leader in this category is the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. For this reason, $60.0 million is available for their programs. Additionally, Juvenile Mentoring Programs, JUMP, receive $16.0 million. These programs, including Big Brothers/Big Sisters, foster healthy relationships between at risk youth and responsible adults. The next item is of particular interest to me. The Missing Children program is one that continues to show positive results, and is funded at a level of $23.0 million. Within this amount, $6.5 million is provided for investigative cyber units for State and local law enforcement agencies and $11.4 million for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. One of the Center's most valuable resources is the Cyber TipLine, which allows individuals to report information about missing children on-line. Information reported to the Center is compiled and made accessible to law enforcement officers all over the continent. The Center dedicates significant resources to preventing and responding to incidents of cyber stalking. Overall, this bill includes more than $830.0 million for juvenile programs through the Office of Justice programs, the juvenile justice budget, and the COPS program. Our dedication to communities and families is also captured in our support of the Violence Against Women Act programs, which address domestic violence and its effects. For fiscal year 2001, we fund the program at $288.7 million. This includes funding for legal assistance, rural domestic violence initiatives, and court-appointed-special advocates. At my request, this bill also recommends $11.0 million for grants to address violence on college campuses. Grantees use these funds to expand defense classes; to make capital improvements, such as installing emergency phones and improving lighting on campuses; and to train campus administrators and students on how to deal with violence and its after effects. On a related topic, the conference agreement directs the Center for Sex Offender Management to develop a system through which local law enforcement can notify communities when a sex offender has been released and is living nearby. Law enforcement is Justice's primary mission, and there are several key components. The U.S. Marshals are responsible for protecting our Federal judges and courthouses, for serving legal papers in Federal cases, and for recapturing fugitives. The $604.3 million recommended for the Marshals provides funds for new initiatives to apprehend the most dangerous fugitives; outfit and man new courthouses; and reduce the backlog of security upgrades at old courthouses. The recommendation provides $4.6 billion for the Immigration & Naturalization Service, INS; $1.5 billion of this is derived from fees. The amount provided improves our posture on the border, expands efforts to apprehend illegal aliens in the interior, increases resources for naturalization backlog reduction, and begins to tackle the nationwide backlog on INS construction, maintenance, and repair. An appropriation of $3.2 billion is dedicated to the FBI. This includes $67.5 million for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, NICS, used by gun dealers to prevent the sale of weapons to individuals who are prohibited from owning a gun. We have reiterated the Senate recommendation that no fees be charged to conduct these checks. The FBI Crime Lab is famous for its forensic capabilities, and many States rely on its scientific expertise. The bill provides $137.3 million for forensic services within the Bureau. DNA testing is just one example of an important emerging forensic science. The FBI reported a 15 percent increase in the number of cases aided this year by having DNA profiles available in a national database. Our recommendation includes $1.4 million for the National Offender Database, which stores the DNA profiles of convicted criminals. The Internet has created numerous social and economic benefits in the United States and around the world. Unfortunately, it is also an efficient medium by which crimes can be committed. The conference agreement includes an increase to $3.9 million for the FBI's Computer Analysis and Response Teams and $30.5 million for its digital storm program. In addition, we continue funding levels for the Field Computer Crime Intrusion Squads, which are highly trained computer experts available on demand to field offices. Finally, $5.5 million is recommended for the Special Technologies Applications Unit of the National Infrastructure Protection Center, a clearinghouse for Federal cases dealing with cyber crime. We aggressively fund State and local law enforcement assistance, providing $2.8 billion. COPS is funded at $1.03 billion. A large portion of this amount is for hiring initiatives. This high level of funding also allows law enforcement agencies to upgrade technology. For programs funded under the Crime Identification Technology Act, $130.0 million is available. There is an additional $140.0 million for non-CITA technology needs. In order to get this bill passed without a veto, we have also provided $25.0 million for community prosecutors and $75.0 million for gun prosecutions. The agreement limited these funds to prosecutions of individuals who committed crimes with firearms. Separate from COPS funding we provide funding for the programs that Congress traditionally supports. There is $523.0 million available for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, $569.0 million for the Edward Byrne Grants, and $686.5 million for State Prison Grants. The last item I want to talk about in the Justice section of this bill is my proposal on how to prevent misuse of Social Security numbers. We have incorporated language that will protect people from the improper use of Social Security numbers. We must protect individuals when access to an individual's most personal information is wrongly obtained. A recent example of the gross misuse of a Social Security number happened in Nashua, New Hampshire, just one year ago. Amy Boyer was murdered by a stalker who was able to purchase her Social Security number on the Internet. The social security number gave him access to information so that he was able to track her down and kill her. We have named the incorporated provision after Amy because its goal is to ensure that no more stalkers can easily use Social Security numbers for their nefarious acts. Amy Boyer's Law prohibits the display or sale to the public of any person's Social Security number without that individual's consent. It imposes civil and criminal penalties on those who violate this law. This legislation, while banning improper or fraudulent uses of social security numbers, does preserve the legitimate uses of Social Security numbers by such groups as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America, and the Association for Children for the Enforcement of Support, ACES, as well as banks, insurance companies, and others who use these numbers to prevent fraud. I am confident that this legislation is crafted in such a way as to balance the many concerns surrounding the use of Social Security numbers. I believe that passing Amy Boyer's Law is one of the most important things that Congress can accomplish this year. The next title in the bill is the Department of Commerce and its related agencies. Title II is funded at a level of $4.7 billion. One of the primary functions of Commerce is to generate a comprehensive international trade policy for our country. Many agencies play a part in this effort. For the agency that has the lead on negotiating trade agreements, we provide $29.5 million for the United States Trade Representative, USTR. To one of its supporting agencies, the International Trade Commission, we provide $48.1 million. Their statutory mandate also includes enforcing dumping and counterveiling duty actions in accordance with the World Trade Organization and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The International Trade Administration is responsible for promoting exports and provides information on Federal Government export assistance to individuals and businesses. We provide $337.4 million. This level includes additional funding to increase trade enforcement and compliance activities, in concert with USTR. Of particular importance are the funds included in this bill for compliance activities with respect to China, Japan, and the European Union. The bill also continues funding for the core programs within the agency. The bill includes $64.9 million for the Bureau of Export Administration which is an increase of roughly $10.8 million over the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. The Committee increases funding for export cooperation for the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Also, increased funds are provided to assist in export enforcement in the area of counterterrorism and computer export verification to ensure that high technology exports are being used for peaceful purposes and not for proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We are providing significantly less money this year for the census because most of the activities supporting the decennial census have been concluded. The Committee provides $433.6 million to conclude Census 2000 and maintain normal operations for fiscal year 2001. The conference agreement provides funding to permit the initiation of an effort to include a measurement of electronic business in the fiscal year 2002 economic census. The Committee's funding level should also permit the Bureau to continue issuing key reports on manufacturing, general economic, and foreign trade statistics which are so important to the U.S. business community. Moving on to the scientific side of the Commerce Department, this bill includes $100.4 million for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. From within this funding, $43.5 million is for the public telecommunications grant program and $45.5 million is for information infrastructure grants. The President believes solving the digital divide is a government obligation. He requested $50.0 million to provide new Home Internet Access grants. Neither the House nor Senate bills included funding for this program. However, the President made this a priority and raised it in discussions with us, so we have directed $30.0 million into the Information Infrastructure Grants as a compromise position. However, I note that in an earlier age, public libraries were created to give those without the resources to maintain a personal book collection access to information. The Schools and Libraries program was created in 1996 to provide access to the Internet for every American visiting a library and to school children. Just as Enoch Pratt and Andrew Carnegie endowed public libraries throughout the country, the high tech industry has the ability and the wealth to create an endowment for addressing the so-called digital divide. Every person in America who has a phone contributes to the Universal Service fund, which provides funds for the Schools and Libraries program. I do not believe that asking Americans to contribute additional funds to bring Internet access to homes is the way to solve the so-called digital divide. One of the agencies whose goals is to stimulate economic competition and innovation is the National Institute for Standards and Technology, NIST. This agency provides industry with assistance to leverage their efforts in technological advances and infrastructure enhancements that benefit all of us by keeping U.S. companies on the cutting edge. NIST's funding level is $598.3 million for fiscal year 2001. Of this amount, $312.6 million is for scientific and technical research and services programs; $155.0 million and carryover funding are available for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), and $105.1 million for the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP). Also, $10 million is provided to develop new measurements, test methods, and guidelines to better protect the information technology elements of the Nation's critical infrastructure, of which our cyber infrastructure is a key component. NIST's research results are made publicly available so that all may benefit from its findings and suggestions. Another agency within the Department with scientific expertise is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The bill before you includes $2.6 billion for NOAA, and the five major line offices within NOAA are funded as follows: the National Ocean Service at a level of $290.0 million; the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) at $517.0 million; the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at $323.0 million; the National Weather Service at $630.0 million; and, the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service at a level of $125.0 million. Within the National Ocean Service, $28.25 million for the National Estuarine Research Reserve program. We continue the efforts to reduce the backlog of NOAA mapping and charting as well as to map shorelines. The bill supports the Coastal Zone Management grants at a level of $52.0 million and the Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab at the Senate level of $7.0 million. Under the National Marine Fisheries Service, we assist the collecting of scientific data on healthy fisheries as well as those that are threatened. Protection for threatened and endangered species continues. For NMFS Information, Collection, and Analysis programs, the bill provides $120 million. The funding levels included in the bill for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research support several important programs of interest to the Senate. The Sea Grant College program continues at a level of $62.25 million and $15.8 million for the National Undersea Research Program. Climate and Air Quality research is funded at $68.5 million. A new climate initiative was requested for fiscal year 2001, and while the conference could not support the total request of $24.0 million, there is a recommendation of $9.25 million for initiating the ocean observations component of the proposal. The National Weather Service touches all of our lives, and provides the warnings to protect life and property. The Committee funds Weather Service Operations and Research and systems acquisitions at $630.8 million. NOAA's National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service operates the satellites which provide data used by the Weather Service to track hurricanes and to provide guidance for forecasts and warnings. Funding of $125.0 million is provided for this office within NOAA in fiscal year 2001. In addition, funding is provided elsewhere in the bill for the acquisition of both geostationary and polar-orbiting satellites. The next title in our bill covers the Judiciary. For the third branch of government we provide an increase to $4.25 billion. We provide conditional funding for the cost of living adjustment for the justices and judges. However, the Senate Committee language ending the ban on honoraria for judges was not incorporated into this final agreement. Now, for the last department in this bill, we provide $6.6 billion to the State Department. This is an increase over the fiscal year 2000 level for the department. After the Dar Es Salaam and Nairobi bombings, we poured funding into State Department security, but we emphasized the need for a cohesive plan that had the capability of being effective. The past performance of the Department and resulting plans have not allayed the misgivings we have about their handling of the billions of dollars we appropriate to them. We are disturbed by the security breaches. The State Department was not just lax with security overseas, but that it has been less than stellar at its headquarters here in Washington. From losing 16 laptop computers and letting press agents roam unattended through its corridors, the State Department's security plans remain of grave concern. We are providing the funding but are not seeing improvements. This bill gives the State Department substantial resources to address its requirements. The funding levels include $410 million for worldwide security under Diplomatic and Consular Programs. We also provide $663.0 million in security-related construction under the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance account. The agreement includes a sizeable increase over last year's levels for Cultural and Educational Exchange Programs, providing $231.6 million--an amount above the President's original request and the Senate and House levels. The funding is used to bring individuals together, professionally and culturally, to share experiences to foster peace and understanding among multiple countries and the United States. My colleagues may be familiar with the Fulbright, International Visitors, and English Teaching Fellows programs that are included in this account. Lastly in State, we provide $299 million to cover our country's regular dues to the United Nations and $846 million for U.N. peacekeeping. We remain concerned that the United Nations continues to levy peacekeeping payments against us based on a percentage system setup during the 1970s connected to estimates on what member countries could afford to pay for such ventures at that time. The United States contests millions of dollars in payments to the United Nations because their billing procedure is outdated and does not reflect the fiscal capacities of the current member states. For decades, the United States has been levied to pay roughly one- third of peacekeeping efforts even though it is an obligation of all 188 United Nations members. We will continue to encourage other members who have rebuilt and financially recovered from the ravages of the Twentieth Century's wars. They must step up and take over a more proportionate share of the financial burden of current peacekeeping endeavors. This bill contains a handful of related agencies that act independently of the departments within this bill, and comprise $2.2 billion of the total of this bill. The first of these agencies is the Maritime Administration which is responsible for administering several programs for the maritime industry relating to U.S. foreign and domestic commerce and our national defense. The bill includes a total of $219.6 million for its efforts. Within this level, the Maritime Security Program receives $98.7 million. The Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program (Title XI) is funded at $34.0 million. In addition, $10.0 million in carryover balances from prior fiscal years are available for this purpose. The final bill before you includes an increase over last year's funding level for the Federal Communications Commission to $230.0 million. The Small Business Administration (SBA) is one of the larger independent agencies in this bill. We provide $837.0 million for the SBA. Within this amount, $88 million is appropriated for the Small Business Development Centers; $15.0 million for PRIME; $3.8 million for SCORE; and, $4.0 million for the Veteran's Outreach program. For SBA's business loan program account, the bill provides a total of $294 million in fiscal year 2001. This funding level provides a program level of $10.4 billion for 7(a) loans. For the SBA disaster loan program, a total of $186.5 million is included to cover loans and the administration of the program. The last two agencies I want to mention are the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC. We have given both these agencies increases this year, funding the FTC at a level of $147.2 million and the SEC at a level of $422.8 million. The Internet has caused a fundamental change to both these agencies as they try to put in place mechanisms to prevent fraud in the electronic market place. The FTC has brought 100 cases against 300 companies and individuals for Internet fraud. As Internet access expands and more Internet businesses come on-line, the need for these agencies to have a strong presence in the market increases. There is a need to protect consumers, and particularly elderly consumers who are prone to attacks, from ever varying fraudulent schemes. In 1999, consumers were estimated to have spent $20.2 billion on line, and the expectation is that this number will grow almost exponentially over the next 4 years. We are providing additional funding for investigators and prosecutors within both the SEC and FTC to grow with the impending surge of activity. We provide funding to expand Consumer Sentinel so that international law enforcement officers will have access to it. The strong presence we promote throughout this bill in the cyber- world is not one derived from statutory and regulatory restrictions, but achieved instead through the presence of enforcers of existing laws that will aggressively seek out those who abuse the Internet. I have made a point of mentioning throughout this summation the key Internet initiatives within the agencies and departments because it is such a critical issue for all of us. Its importance will continue to grow. We have bolstered Federal agencies' efforts to stay on top of Internet advancements and maintain functionality in the technological world. This bill effectively uses our resources to provide adequate funding for the agencies under our jurisdiction. It addresses the most pressing needs that were brought to our attention by the Administration and by my colleagues. Chairman Rogers, the Ranking Members, and I have worked together with the members of the Committee to craft a bipartisan bill to recommend to both our houses. I do want to thank my colleague from South Carolina for his efforts in creating this bill. He remains a leader on many of the issues we address. I urge my colleagues to adopt this funding agreement. Madam President, I would also like to acknowledge today the dedication of one of the staffers who drafted portions of this effort who has retired from Federal service. Paddy Link served on the Committee for 4 years dealing with the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, the Commerce Department, the Small Business Administration, and many other agencies. She was an expert in FCC and NOAA. Her astute evaluation and handling of technical concepts made her a valued part of the Committee. She has in-depth knowledge of the people and issues in the areas she worked on which gave her much appreciated insight on the issues the Committee had to tackle. She provided decades of Federal service, starting as staff in the House of Representatives, moving to the Department of Commerce as a congressional liaison officer and then to be the director of the office of legislative affairs for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Most recently before her time with Appropriations, Paddy was the staff director of the Senate Commerce Committee under former Chairman Larry Pressler and had a critical role in writing and passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. We miss her political acumen as well as her sense of humor. We wish her the best of luck in the future.

Mr. GREGG. I thank my colleagues from Florida and Hawaii and would like to clarify that the BJA should consider funding under the Edward Byrne Memorial Discretionary Grants Program for this joint Hawaii/ Florida demonstration project.

Mr. GREGG. The Senators are correct. The intent of the committee in originally providing for this funding in the Senate-reported appropriations is as the Senators have described it. The conference report maintains the Senate position. I would also state it is our expectation that the FTC provide this report to Congress no later than sixteen months from the date of enactment of this legislation.

Mr. GREGG. Yes, the interpretation is correct. Both of these programs provide support for high-technology businesses and, therefore, both have been funded under the general topic of SBIR Rural Outreach. Thank you for bringing to our attention that clarification.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, my distinguished colleague from Colorado is correct. The conference agreement should be read to recommend that the FBI expend sufficient funds for OCE on combating the crimes addressed by the Jewelry and Gem Program. fast program

Mr. GREGG. My understanding is that the intent of the conferees is that $1.5 million of the total amount be spent on the Rural Outreach Program and $3.5 million be spent on the FAST program.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for his courtesy, and also the Senator from Idaho for his courtesy. I want to speak today, just quickly, in response to the press conference which the President held in the Rose Garden approximately an hour and a half ago. The tenor of the press conference was that the Commerce-State-Justice bill will be vetoed because the White House had not been allowed to participate in the negotiations on how the bill was put together. I chair the Subcommittee on Commerce-State-Justice appropriations. I have to say that I believe the President's statement is an inaccuracy of the most egregious level. The fact is, the White House, myself, Congressman Rogers, along with Senator Hollings and Congressman Serrano, representing the ranking membership on the committee, negotiated with the White House for many hours relative to the Commerce-State-Justice bill. The bill that was produced was agreed to in almost all aspects except on issues of extraneous language that had never been in either bill, that language was authorizing language dealing with immigration--the NACARA language, as it has come to be known. This was language that had nothing to do with the appropriations bill. It was authorizing on an appropriations bill. It has not been acted on in either committee. It was, therefore, not relevant, appropriate, and would not be germane to the bill under our rules. However, the White House wanted action on that language. As to the appropriations bill, his representation that the appropriations bill was in some way done in a back room without White House participation is totally fallacious. The fact is, the White House was there at the table, negotiating. And because of the White House's insistence on certain changes, this bill was changed. The White House asked for an additional $700 million. We agreed to it. We agreed to fully fund peacekeeping. We agreed to fully fund the COPS Program. We agreed to a number of funding increases which the White House demanded, as a matter of good faith, to move along this piece of legislation which is so critical to the operation of our Government. Specifically, this bill, as has been mentioned before on this floor, represents the funding for almost all law enforcement activities at the Federal level. The FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Border Patrol, the Federal marshals, the U.S. attorneys, the U.S. court system--all of these agencies require funding. All of these agencies need the funding in this bill to operate effectively in our law enforcement community. This bill also funds the State Department, the other Commerce Department agencies, and agencies such as the SBA, the FTC, the FCC, and the SEC, fairly significant agencies in our Government which need to operate. For the President to claim that he has not been a participant in developing this bill is absolutely inaccurate. It is an inaccuracy of the worst sort because it is totally inconsistent with the facts as they occurred. They participated. We changed the bill to meet their desires, except in one area, the area of NACARA, which, by the way, has nothing to do with an appropriations bill. This type of legislation should be taken up on some other bill, and by the Judiciary Committee where the jurisdiction actually lies. This bill, I am sure, will be vetoed because the President has promised to do so. The Administration will throw up a lot of other issues, but those issues were essentially settled--questions such as Amy Boyer's law. We accepted the two major items they wanted; on issues such as tobacco. We essentially said: We will no longer try to take congressional control over how money is distributed to the Justice Department. You have $350 million to do with whatever you want, within the Justice Department, and in the area of litigation. You certainly do not need another $7 or $12 million earmarked to tobacco litigation. They have plenty of money for tobacco. Those issues are red herrings and would not be in play at all except for this extraneous issue of NACARA. The President has once again used his bully pulpit to mislead the American public on this specific issue, which is the question of whether or not the White House played a role in developing the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. The White House not only played a role, they had a significant impact. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Missouri. I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I yield back the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, first, I appreciate the kind words that have been expressed relative to my efforts on this bill. They are minor compared to the efforts of the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Maryland who have worked very hard. The underlying bill is a strong bill. Remember, we are talking about a 5-year authorization. We are not talking about 1 day, 2 days, 1 year, or 2 years. We are talking about 5 years. We are talking about continuing the status quo for another 5 years on this piece of legislation. This amendment is about good government. The amendment is: Are you for language which says that a grantee that misuses the funds can be disciplined by the Department of Labor? It is that simple. It is generic. If the Department of Labor determines that a grantee misuses funds, this gives the Department of Labor the capacity to do something about that. As I talked about earlier today, we have an example of one of the grantees, the National Council of Senior Citizens, which has grossly misused funds, which set up a slush fund of $6 million, which spent over $10 million basically to pay for expenses for insurance, which were insurance organizations operated by the same people who ran the National Council of Senior Citizens, which has had an audit in the years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, all of which audits have shown it has misused funds. If we do not adopt this amendment, that organization will continue to get $64 million a year, will continue to misuse those funds, and the Department of Labor will not have the authority to act against that organization in anything that is even conceivably a reasonable timeframe. Under this bill, as it is presently structured, the fastest timeframe in which the Department of Labor can act against an organization which has acted in the manner in which this organization has acted is 3 years. Even then it is not an issue because there is no language for activity for misuse of funds. They would have to raise it to a level of criminal or fraudulent activity, which is a standard that is very hard to prove. It is very obvious that American tax dollars are not being used for the purposes of employing senior citizens, which should be our goal. I am asking for some extremely reasonable good government language to be inserted into this bill. The only argument I have heard today against this language is essentially that, if this little amendment goes in, this bill dies. I say to my colleagues, that is absurd on its face. We are not leaving here very soon. Regrettably, I wish we were leaving here today. A lot of us wish we were leaving here today, but we are not. I happen to know of three major pieces of legislation which are not going to be completed today. They probably are not going to be completed tomorrow. It is a fairly safe bet that we are going to be back next week. In fact, I can almost guarantee it. I can say that with some authority because I happen to chair one of the committees which has jurisdiction over one of these pieces of legislation, the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. That bill is not going to be completed today, and it is probably not going to be completed this week, and probably we will be back next week. The same is true of the Labor-HHS bill, and the same is true of the tax bill. We know we are going to be able to take this amendment, send it back to the House, have it passed, and come back here and pass the whole bill. If that is the reason this language is being opposed, it is inaccurate. This language can be inserted, this bill can be reformed and it can be corrected, and the bill can be brought back to us and passed. The House of Representatives passed this bill overwhelmingly. This language is not debilitating to the bill. It is an attempt to make the bill function as it should. What should it do? It should make sure that when we give $350 million a year to agencies without requiring them to bid on the programs, when we give them an entitlement that says, you get this money; you just walk up to the window and we give it to you, at least those agencies should be required not to misuse the money; that those agencies should be required to spend the money for the purposes of employing senior citizens, not for the purpose of creating a slush fund, not for the purpose of financing a Teamsters Union election, not for the purpose of financing a campaign against a Senator, not for the purpose of creating an insurance vehicle which benefits the underlying agency. It should be that those moneys should be used for the senior citizens, to be employed under the bill under title V. That is all this language does. It is benign language. Without this language, we will essentially continue a process that allows these agencies to come to the window, take the money, and run, without adequate accountability. Even more importantly, there will be no competition and no performance standards. So the language is reasonable. It needs to be included in the bill. The timing of this bill is not such that this language is going to kill the bill. The momentum for this bill is immense. There is no way that this bill will not pass with this language in it if this amendment is agreed to. The bill will pass. The bill will be conferenced. The bill will be back here. The bill will be voted on before we adjourn as a Senate or a Congress. So that debate is inaccurate. So I hope that this language, which is a very reasonable attempt to address what is regrettably a glaring problem in the delivery of these services, will be accepted. I hope people would not vote against something so simple as a statement that we should allow the Department of Labor to discipline people who misuse tax dollars. To vote against that is really to take a position which I think is very hard to defend. We are going to vote on this amendment. I would certainly appreciate my colleagues not being swayed by the argument that a vote for my amendment will bring the bill down because that argument is a red herring, in my opinion, because we are going to be here next week and we can certainly pass this bill next week. It will pass on a voice vote once this amendment is taken. In fact, it will pass by unanimous agreement. But, rather, I hope my colleagues will be swayed by the fact that if we fail to include this amendment, we will continue to have the issue of whether or not the dollars we are spending to employ seniors, to make their lives better, are, instead, going to be able to be spent to benefit some agency in some way that has no relationship to seniors and their needs. A good government requires that this type of language be put in the bill. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. President, I understand that all time on the other side has been used; is that correct?

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair, and I especially thank the Senator from Nevada for his courtesy in allowing me to proceed. Anyway, the first section goes to requiring proven ability. The second section requires that there be timely reviews and that there be no disruption of service. In other words, I do not want seniors losing their jobs because the agency has come in and said that somebody has been misusing their funds. Thirdly, we make it clear that in three major areas if you are found to be in violation of the responsibility test, you lose your funding if the Department of Labor decides to do that. The first two are already in the bill: fraud and debts after three demand letters. The third one, which I am putting in, is: Established misuse of funds, including the use of funds to lobby or litigate against any Federal entity or official or to provide compensation for any lobbying or litigation activity identified by the Secretary, independent Inspector General audits, or other official inquiries or [audits] by the Federal Government. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, we basically lower the hold harmless from 5 percent to 2 percent. Lastly--and I think equally importantly--we put in a competition clause so if it is determined that one of these agencies does not qualify, is misusing funds, or has acted fraudulently, then the funds can be competed out. We also make it clear that the Department of Labor can use some of the extra money which they retained from this program for the purposes of auditing programs to make sure they are being done correctly. The important point here is this. I am not suggesting anything radical. I am not suggesting anything even remotely outrageous or excessive. All I am saying is, let's, under this responsibility test, have some teeth. Let's make it possible for the Department of Labor to come in, and when they find that a group has been acting inappropriately with these funds, misusing these funds, let's give them the authority they need to take action. They may not take action, but let's at least give them the authority to do that. Under the present responsibility test, and the time constraints, and the bureaucracy, it is 3 years, at a minimum, before they could take action--3 years for the National Council of Senior Citizens; that is $64 million a year, almost $200 million of taxpayer money being misused. We have already had audits which establish beyond a question that one agency has acted inappropriately and has misused the funds. It is appropriate we give the Department of Labor the authority to act, so if they determine that, they can take action to make sure the money ends up where it is supposed to be, which is in the pockets of seniors who deserve to have jobs and need those jobs for a better lifestyle. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG. My statement will go for about another 10 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to continue under this bill.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent----

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, I congratulate the Senator from Ohio and the ranking member, the Senator from Maryland, for bringing this bill forward, the chairman and ranking members of the subcommittee, and also the chairman of the full committee and ranking member of the full committee, the Senators from Vermont and Massachusetts. The Older Americans Act is a significant piece of legislation. I had the good fortune to chair this subcommittee for a number of years and worked very hard on this piece of legislation. Regrettably, at that time we were unable to pass it all the way through the Congress. Certainly, the work of the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Maryland in getting it to this point is significant and positive for senior citizens of America. This is a very important piece of legislation. There is no question about that. The changes made to this bill are extremely constructive to making the plan more flexible, more vibrant, more effective for our seniors and for the States in their ability to administer this program. Again, they have done an excellent job and I look forward to voting for final passage of the full bill. There is, however, one area where I have reservations about the mechanisms in the bill which are designed to protect the money and make sure the money flows to the benefit of senior citizens. The whole object of this piece of legislation is to benefit our seniors primarily in meals programs, employment programs, and a variety of other programs. It is extremely critical that the dollars that are spent not get tied up in bureaucracy and not get abused or misused, not be subject to fraudulent activity but, rather, actually flow through the system to the benefit of seniors; in the specific area of title V, which is the employment program of the bill, that the dollars flow for the purposes of employing seniors in jobs that can be constructive for them and give them a better lifestyle. That is the purpose of this bill. The problem, the concern, I have with the bill is that I do not believe it is strong enough in the area of enforcing the discipline in order to assure that the dollars flow through and end up benefiting the seniors of our country. I have suggested some changes to the bill which are part of this amendment. The bill has what is known as a responsibility test in title V which essentially lays out approximately 12 different areas where the Department must review the activities of grantees in order to determine whether or not they are delivering services correctly. Let me step back a minute and explain that there are a series of grantees under this title V proposal. One group is funded at the State level; another group is funded at the Federal level. The group funded at the Federal level is made up of a series of named agencies, specific agencies. Some of them are extraordinarily good at what they do. For example, Green Thumb does an extremely good job. Our parks department does an extremely good job. These agencies every year get what amounts to an entitlement, a specific amount of money to specifically grant to them $350 million in total which flows to each one of these agencies without any competition. With most Federal grants, most Federal contracts, if you want to build a road or you want to start a program of social service somewhere, you want to help people out in a day-care center, you have to usually compete, go through a system of applying to the proper Federal agency and competing for that money to see if the program you are proposing makes more sense that the program somebody else is proposing. That is called good government, creating that atmosphere of competition so that different ideas come to the table. In the area of these initiatives, I think nine agencies get the money independent of any competition. They get this money as an entitlement. It is simply a check written every year to them and they get it under the law. They don't have to compete for it. They don't have to apply for it. All they have to do is go to the Department of Labor and pick up their check. Obviously, when you have that structure, you are bypassing one of the safeguards for making sure that the money is effectively spent and that it flows to the people who deserve it. You are bypassing the safeguard of annual competition for the funds--a fairly significant decision, by the way. When you do bypass that safeguard, you need to put into the law something that makes sense in the area of giving the Department of Labor oversight over those dollars so the Department of Labor has the authority and the capacity to look at a grantee who has an absolute right to this money and say: Well, even though you have an absolute right to this money, Mr. or Mrs. Grantee, you have to do a better job or we are going to have to question whether you should get the money. If you don't do a better job, we will have to put you through some disciplines to get you to do a better job or, alternatively--and this is where I am really concerned--if you happen to misuse this money, if you happen to use it in a way which is totally inappropriate to the purposes of assisting seniors in getting better employment, the Department of Labor should have the authority to go in and say you can't have that money any longer. I mean, that is just logical to me. This is pure logic, as far as I see; ``intuitively obvious through observation,'' as a professor of mine once said. If someone is abusing the money, the Department of Labor ought to have the right to go in and reduce that grant, or maybe even eliminate the grant, take the money back and redistribute it to people who are using it effectively, such as Green Thumb. But, under the present law, that is not the case. That type of authority really does not rest with the Department of Labor. There are procedures the Department of Labor can go through, but the complication, bureaucracy, and time limit involved in executing those procedures makes them virtually useless. As a result, there is no clear-cut way for the Department of Labor to, essentially, make accountable those agencies which presently have what amounts to an entitlement from the Department of Labor and from us, the Congress, for $350 million. What my legislation does is try to address that issue. It tries to add to the responsibility test which is in the bill. The present responsibility test in the bill has good language, but unfortunately it does not have good enforcement and does not have the language we need in order to accomplish enforcement in any sort of reasonable timeframe. It tries to add to that language tightening elements which will make it more effective for the Department of Labor. Let me run through it briefly. Essentially what it does is it says: First, the grantees have to have the proven ability to do what they say they are going to do. That is reasonable. You wouldn't want someone who cannot establish that. It says if they misuse the funds--including doing lobbying or litigation against the Federal Government, which is illegal, by the way; they are not allowed to do that--if they misuse the funds and the Secretary identifies that or an independent inspector general audit identifies that or there are official inquiries of the Federal Government that identify that, that misuse of funds is cause for the Department of Labor to move and take the money back from that grantee. It does not have to, but it creates a cause that allows the Department of Labor to do that. One would think they would because why would the Department of Labor want to fund somebody who had been found by, for example, the General Accounting Office or the inspector general, to have misused funds? So that only makes sense, in my opinion. It also tightens the disallowance. Under the present proceedings, you can have a 5-percent misuse of funds and still get away with it. There is law that says basically if you want to take 5 percent of your grant and misuse it, essentially you are going to get protection. We move that down to 2 percent, which I think seems a little more reasonable. Then what it says is, if there is a grantee who has misused funds, who has been found by the Department of Labor or the IG or the GAO, some group that has the imprimatur of authority of the Federal Government-- if that group determines there has been a misuse of funds and revokes the grant, then the dollars get rebid. The dollars flow back into the pool, the pot; they are not lost. They go back into title V and they get rebid. For example, if one of the nine grantees were found to be acting inappropriately, misusing funds--inappropriateness doesn't lose your funds but misusing funds, fraudulently using funds, that grantee loses its funds--that money would go back in the pool and logically somebody such as Green Thumb or some other agency which has a respectable track record and knows what they are doing and has not been using the money for inappropriate activities and has been getting the money out to the senior citizens would have the right to compete to get those dollars. That is the theme of this amendment: good government, it is called; a good government amendment. Why do we need it? We need it because we have an example of one of these agencies that gets an entitlement acting in a way which essentially has been a misuse of funds. Yet there has been no way to remove that agency from the list of those who get an entitlement. This agency is, today, called the National Senior Citizens Education and Research Center. It used to be known as the National Council of Senior Citizens. I think it is important to review the things this group has done with these tax dollars which have flowed to it for the purposes of helping seniors, and have turned out to be doing a lot less than that. In fact, they have been found by innumerable Federal reviews to have actually been misusing those funds in a way that is significant. This is not a small agency. This agency every year gets $64 million in tax money written to it as a check, as an entitlement--$64 million. That is a lot of money to be flowing to an agency without any competition, without any oversight in the sense it has to justify how it uses those dollars or, when it does have to justify them, actually has to produce a result, as we will see from what they have actually done as an agency. So it is not small dollars. The IG took a number of looks at this. I think it is important to review what the IG has found. The IG found this grantee has misused over $10 million of Federal taxes since 1992--$10 million. In an audit in 1992-1994--and remember, the IG does not audit every year, so it could have been more. Who knows? But from an audit in 1992-1994, they questioned $5.8 million of direct costs claimed by the National Council of Senior Citizens as not allowable under OMB regulations. These regulations are regulations the Department did not enforce: $3.8 million for health insurance refunds that it received from insurers providing health coverage for seniors participating in the JOBS Program. This may seem to be a worthy endeavor, purchasing health insurance for seniors. It is. But the IG found the National Council of Senior Citizens paid premiums out of its DOL account but received refunds based on favorable claim experiences and, instead of using the refunds to offset the earlier charges to the DOL grant, the National Council of Senior Citizens essentially pocketed the money. Under the Federal regulation, Circular A-122 of the OMB, the refund should have been credited directly to the costs of the program. But they were not; $1.1 million of direct costs were questioned in 1992 and 1994 because the National Council of Senior Citizens charged its DOL grant the cost of incurring the administration for this health insurance program on which they got the refunds. Here is a clever little scheme. They charged a fee to the insurer and claimed the fee for administering the plan was membership promotion income. The fee should have gone to reduce the DOL grant cost as required under the circular I just cited. But, instead, the money went into--where? The National Council of Senior Citizens' pockets. We will later get to what that money went to and, believe me, it was not senior citizens. It is very interesting where this money ended up. This trail leads down some very interesting roads. Mr. President, $580,000 of the $850,000 total general liability insurance cost was also questioned during the 1992-1994 audit as being an arm's length transaction because the insurance company shared the same management as the personnel of the National Council of Senior Citizens, and it was not competitively bid. In other words, the National Council of Senior Citizens was hiring its leadership to run an insurance company to insure its programs. That has a very suspicious note to it, I would think, under any program. It is a very disturbing finding by the audit. This very disturbing finding by the audit was that the liability company, which was being run by the National Council of Senior Citizens, appeared to be related almost entirely to the National Council of Senior Citizens and its affiliated entities. Many of the insurance company board members were members of the National Council of Senior Citizens' executive management group. This is not my information, by the way. This is information found by the IG. The IG found this liability insurance to not be an arm's length transaction, and the DOL, Department of Labor, has even concluded that all of the costs of the policy should be disallowed. So you have what appears to be a sham contract, not an arm's length contract, for $850,000 that was not even competed out. The Department of Labor has agreed with the bulk of these findings from the 1992-1994 audit and has issued a final determination that requires the National Council of Senior Citizens to repay millions of dollars in questionable funds. Has the agency repaid these funds? No, it has not. In fact, they have appealed the administrative law judge decision, and are currently in a discovery process. Then there is, of course, the fact that they will probably go to Federal court, all the time keeping these funds which are so clearly being misused. Believe me, they are not running to benefit any senior citizen who is trying to get a job under this program. All during this process, they have been running this sham operation-- that is my term; ``it is not an arm's length transaction'' was the IG's term--all during this process they have been receiving $64 million a year every year, just being paid out. There are other items about this organization that are working their way through the Department of Labor which are showing there are even more serious issues and significant problems. An IG report reviewing the 1995 funds--remember, the ones I was talking about reviewed 1992 to 1994--finds identical violations-- identical violations. In other words, after they have already been found to have violated the rules of the Department of Labor, the rules of the Office of Management and Budget, and the rules of objectivity, identical violations were committed in 1995, and it was recommended $2.8 million be disallowed. There are still other audits reviewing 1996 and part of 1997 that call into question approximately $2.7 million. This grantee has simply not, under any reasonable test, been administering these funds in a responsible way. It has been misusing these funds. As if these types of findings are not bad enough, there is another audit from the IG dated April 24, 1998--fairly recently--which exposes a $6.1 million slush fund at the National Council of Senior Citizens maintained for over 14 years. This fund, which they euphemistically call a contingency fund, was set up in 1984 with $3.7 million in Federal funds to provide financial assistance to enrollees ``in case the JOBS Program had been terminated by the Congress or the administration.'' In other words, they set up a slush fund, the purpose of which was to continue the program in case Congress, by some decision, decided the program was not any good. In other words, they were going to be an extraordinary form of government. We now do not have three branches of Government, we have a fourth over here. It is called the National Council of Senior Citizens which had decided even if Congress determined, which it has not and which it will not, that title V did not make sense, they were going to continue to run title V with tax dollars. That is a new form of government in our midst. The program was not terminated, of course. It has continued. It will continue as far as the eye can see because it is a program which, on balance, has worked extraordinarily well for our seniors. Has the slush fund been terminated which was set up in 1984 in case there was a contingency that this program might be terminated? Has that slush fund been terminated? No, it has not. The IG found it. After the IG discovered the fund, by then the money had been transferred to a trust fund. It recommended the money be returned to the Treasury, but the National Council of Senior Citizens filed a lawsuit in Federal court saying they should be able to keep the money. This is unacceptable. It should be unacceptable to all of us. Anybody who is interested in good government should say, on the face of it, this is an unacceptable action by somebody who is using our Federal dollars in trust for the purposes of helping seniors get jobs. Many of the grantees who participate in these programs, even the entitlement grantees--in fact, all the entitlement grantees--do so with the understanding that they have local and community organizations; they basically take the money from the Federal Government under this entitlement, and they funnel it out to the local community organizations which then manage the money and the people they administer. Green Thumb is a classic example of this. Urban League and ARP are other examples. This is a very legitimate, good way to do it. They have a national organization and send it out to the local organization. That is the concept behind this. This is why we had, I presume, although I do not know, the original nine grantees. I hope nine is right. Nine grantees were picked because they were national but they had local organizations or they at least represented they would. The National Council of Senior Citizens does not. It does not have local affiliates. Instead, they function exclusively as a middleman program. They subcontract the services and the job placement out to other nonprofit organizations in States. They do not have a unique expertise to bring to the table. They are simply an intermediary. In their case, they are an intermediary which takes a fair amount of the money and keeps it here in Washington, as it would appear, under their insurance program to benefit an insurance company with which it is affiliated, in the sense its membership is the same membership as the National Council of Senior Citizens group, and that it creates a slush fund with the money, and that the IG in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 found in violation of the rules of the Department of Labor and the Office of Management and Budget. One has to wonder why we need such a middleman. Would it not make more sense, if we are going to have these entitlement programs, if we at least send them to people who are using the money to benefit seniors and give them jobs, such as the Urban League, ARP, or Green Thumb, and let them compete for it. There is something equally disturbing about this organization because, as I said earlier, where did this money go? What were they doing? It is my understanding that at one point almost 90 percent of the money of this organization came from this entitlement, and even today this entitlement makes up a huge amount of their funds. So shouldn't they be basically working on senior citizens issues? You say, yes, that is right, of course. It turns out that a lawsuit in New York City involving the Teamsters Union and the illegal use of cash in the electoral process for the president of the Teamsters Union, which some may remember involved transferring money from the Democratic National Committee to the Teamsters Union and the Teamsters Union to the Democratic National Committee--back and forth and in and out--that in that lawsuit, lo and behold, the National Council of Senior Citizens ended up being named as an unindicted co-conspirator. According to the scheme outlined by the Federal prosecutors in the court documents, the Teamsters allegedly funneled money illegally into the National Council of Senior Citizens, which then arranged to hire direct mailing firms whose president applied a portion of the money received to the campaign for the presidency of the Teamsters Union. Money, of course, is fungible, but one has to presume that some of the operating dollars was being used by the National Council of Senior Citizens to float this exercise with the Teamsters Union. You explain to me why funds which are supposed to be flowing to benefit seniors getting jobs are flowing to get the president of the Teamsters Union elected president of the Teamsters Union. Explain that to us and tell us that we, as a Senate, justify allowing this to happen. It is pretty hard to explain. Is that their only illegal campaign activity? No, it is not. In yet another instance involving the same organization, the Federal Election Commission conducted an investigation of the National Council of Senior Citizens, and as part of the complaint filed relating to the 1994 Virginia Senate race, that investigation resulted in the National Council of Senior Citizens admitting that they had violated the law, and I believe they actually paid a fine as a result of violating an election campaign law. These election violations involved paying for publications specifically endorsing candidates, making illegal corporate advances, and coordinating activities of political candidates. This, by the way, is an organization which gets a majority of its funding or has traditionally gotten a majority of its funding, as a result of an entitlement to tax dollars, the purpose of those tax dollars being to hire senior citizens to give them work so they can have a better lifestyle. So one would guess that maybe--this is only a guess or a projection-- maybe some of that contingency fund, otherwise known as a slush fund that the IG found was used at least potentially, because money is fungible, be exchanged with the dollars which were being used, in the FEC's opinion, in violation of campaign financing, and in opinion of the U.S. attorney for the district of New York for the purposes of being an unindicted co-conspirator in the election of the president of the Teamsters Union, who later lost his election. He won the election, but it was sort of one of those elections that was thrown out because there was so much inappropriateness about it; and he was found to have violated the law in that election as did a number of other individuals. So this organization has a pretty sour--and ``poor'' would be generous--track record on the management and use of the funds which flowed to it as an entitlement under title V. Does my language specifically say this organization gets defunded? No, it does not. I would certainly hope there would be a conclusion by the Department of Labor that this sort of action was intolerable and that tax dollars should not be used in this way. They should not be used to create slush funds. They should not be used to fund liability in health insurance corporations which are closely connected to the management of the group that is paying for them. They should not be used in a mismanaged way, as the IG has found. I would certainly hope that. But my amendment does not specifically say the National Council of Senior Citizens, which has now been renamed--I always forget its new name, but I guess it is changing its name again anyway. It changes its name a lot. I can't, quite honestly, understand why they did that. They are going to change its name again and are going to be absorbed into the AFL-CIO, which is the original creator of the organization. The National Senior Citizens Education and Research Center --the National Council of Senior Citizens--which will soon be an AFL arm, that the organization should lose its funding and that those funds should be made available to other agencies which are doing the job right, does my amendment say that has to happen? No, it does not. What my amendment says is this. I will run through it. Basically, it boils down to saying we should manage these Federal resources in the way they are intended; that we should manage them for the purposes of giving senior citizens jobs, and making sure the people who are responsible for giving them jobs are responsible organizations. That is essentially what my amendment does. Let me run through the specifics so people understand this is a reasonably benign amendment. I do not know why it has been resisted. I find the resistance, in light of what the National Council of Senior Citizens has done--in fact, we have a track record of an agency that has clearly misused funds-- highly inappropriate. But in the first part of my amendment, basically, I take the responsibility tests section of the present bill, and I add to them language which says, first, there must be proven ability of the agency which is getting these entitlement dollars from the Federal Government to do the job of delivering a senior citizen employment program. There is nothing unreasonable about that. Second, we say the Secretary must do a timely review of each agency to determine that they have the capacity to do the job they claim they are going to do. There is a problem here in that sometimes these----

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

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

Mr. GREGG. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. GREGG. As I understand, there are 2 hours under my control.

Mr. GREGG. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Vermont at this point.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in his 1991 book ``Assets and the Poor: a New American Welfare Policy,'' Washington University Professor Michael Sherraden argues that people move forward economically through savings and investment, not through spending and consumption. Owning assets gives people a stake in the future--a reason to save, to dream, and to invest time, effort and resources in creating a future for themselves and their children. As Sherraden puts it, ``income may feed people's stomachs, but assets change their heads.'' I am pleased today to be joined by Senator Harkin in introducing legislation designed to further promote innovative asset-building strategies for the poor. Over the past two years, asset-building strategies have gained widespread, bi-partisan support at both the federal and state levels. Legislation has been introduced and laws have been enacted to develop and promote Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) among low income Americans. IDAs reward the monthly savings of working poor families who are trying to buy their first home, pay for post secondary education, or start a business. In some respects, IDAs are like Individual Retirement Accounts for the working poor. IDAs are dedicated savings accounts that can be used for purchasing a first home, paying for post-secondary education, or capitalizing business. These investments are associated with extremely high rates of return that have the potential to bring a new level of economic and personal security to families and communities. Participants also are able to make emergency withdrawals in limited circumstances and must pay back such withdrawals within 12 months. The individual or family deposits whatever dollar amount they can save (typically $5 to $20 a month) into the account. The sponsoring organization matches that deposit with funds provided by local churches and service organizations, corporations, foundations, and state or local governments. The sponsoring organization determines the ratio at which they will match an individual's contribution (not less than $0.50 and not more than $4 for every $1). In 1998, Congress enacted legislation entitled the ``Assets for Independence Act''. This Act established a five year demonstration program to determine the social, civic, psychological and economic effects that individual development account, IDA, savings accounts can have on low income individuals and their families. The assets for independence demonstration program is presently the largest source of federal funding for individual development accounts. The intent of this demonstration program is to encourage participants to develop and reinforce strong habits for saving money. To assist this, sponsor organizations provide participating individuals and families intensive financial counseling and counseling to develop investment plans for education, home ownership, and entrepreneurship. In addition, participating welfare and low-income families build assets whose high return on investment has the capacity for propelling them into independence and stability. The community also benefits from the significant return on investment in IDAs: we expect welfare rolls to be reduced, tax receipts to increase, employment to increase, and local enterprises and builders can expect local businesses to benefit from increased activity. Neighborhoods will be rejuvenated as new micro-enterprises and increased home renovation and building drive increased employment and community development. In fact, it is estimated that an investment of $125 million in assert building through these individual accounts will generate 7,050 new businesses, 68,799 new jobs, $730 million in additional earnings, 12,000 new or rehabilitated homes, $287 million in savings and matching contributions and earnings on those accounts, $188 million in increased assets for low-income families, 6,600 families removed from welfare rolls, 12,000 youth graduates from vocational education and college programs, 20,000 adults obtaining high school, vocational, and college degrees. IDA programs currently exist in about 250-300 communities, with another 100 in development. Overall, at least 10,000 people are currently saving in an IDA and another 30,000-40,000 are expected to be reached by the year 2003. All but three states have IDA programs in their states or mechanisms in place to permit the start up of an IDA program. The field of economic development has rapidly changed over the course of the last few years, and as a result, those administering IDAs on a national basis have sought to work within the structure defined by Congress. Unfortunately, because of changes in the field and certain unforeseen difficulties with the implementation of the demonstration in its current form, we have been asked to consider making a handful of technical changes that will help with program administration and make the program run more consistently and effectively. Those changes include: (1) changing the legal accounting structure of IDAs; (2) expanding the potential field of grantees to include low- income credit unions and community development financial institutions; (3) providing additional flexibility for withdrawals from IDA accounts for the purchase of a home; (4) expanding the availability of funds for economic literacy training; and (5) adding a Federal poverty measure to the current eligibility criteria; and (6) making the AFIA and TANF Individual Development Account programs consistent with respect to the treatment of funds for purposes of determining eligibility for Federal programs based on need. These are modest but needed changes in the law that will help Federal IDA programs function more as originally intended. I urge their adoption. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise to note the recent passing of the Reverend Dr. Bennie Thayer. Dr. Thayer was an extraordinary and inspiring figure in the eyes of all who knew him, and I would like to take this opportunity to describe for the record just a few of his achievements and his many attributes. I have found it striking that the people who are now mourning Dr. Thayer's loss come from so many different backgrounds and walks of life. Clearly this was a man who touched many people in many different ways. Dr. Thayer was an ordained minister, the Senior Pastor at the United Methodist Church of the Redeemer in Temple Hills, Maryland. He also worked tirelessly to expand the political activities and economic opportunities for African Americans, both within his community and across the nation. His funeral last Saturday literally produced an overflow crowd--testimony to the high esteem in which he was held in religious communities, in political circles, and among many others. Reverend Thayer was also the President and the CEO of the National Association for the Self-Employed, and it was in this capacity that I had come to know him. Along with Senator John Breaux, Congressman Jim Kolbe and Congressman Charlie Stenholm, I co-chaired the CSIS National Commission on Retirement Policy. In the course of our work we took testimony from all sorts of groups--seniors' groups, youth advocacy groups, employer groups, and others--and it was through the gathering this testimony that my office first established regular contact with Reverend Thayer. Among those who worked in the area of Social Security reform, Dr. Thayer stood out for his passionate and unswerving dedication to his cause. He also stood out in every other respect as well. He was an impressive, imposing figure of a man, with a deep and sonorous voice that he used to tremendous effect. And he was always there to do whatever was necessary to advance the work in which he so deeply believed. In the rough and tumble world of Social Security politics, it is easy to become discouraged or demoralized, but Dr. Thayer was unfazed by any setback. Regardless of the short-term fortunes, he always kept his eye on the long-term horizon, and applied all of his considerable gifts and his hard work to achieving it. All of us who knew Dr. Thayer admired him deeply for his willingness to argue passionately for an unconventional position when he knew that he was right. What was striking about Dr. Thayer's oratorical style was that he always strove to appeal to the very best instincts in his listeners--never selfishness, never division, never despair--always hope, opportunity, advancement, responsibility, self-reliance, and giving all that one can. There's a poignant example of this in a recent speech that he gave in Nashville, Tennessee, ``The Power of Small Business for Wealth Creation in the Minority Community''--when he talks about why he felt that African Americans should support reform of the Social Security system. To quote from his words: ``First, African Americans tend to start working at a younger age than whites. So we pay taxes into the system for more years than whites. And second, African-Americans also have shorter life expectancies than whites. The average African-American male currently has a life expectancy of less than the retirement age of 65! So many African-Americans will spend their entire working lives paying taxes into Social Security. But then, they won't draw out a dime in retirement benefits. Or accumulate any wealth to pass along to their children, or other heirs.'' This is typical of his approach; noting not what was in it for him--but what kind of legacy was being left behind. The sad irony here is that Bennie himself died at the age of 61. When one heard Bennie speak those words, one didn't think that he was talking about himself. I think that everyone close to him assumed that he had come so far in life that he would beat the odds. And indeed Reverend Thayer had come very far from his birthplace in Pickens County, South Carolina. He was fully 36 when he received his bachelor's degree from the University of Maryland, 54 when he received his master's in divinity, and 58 when he received his doctorate of divinity. His biography shows the mark of a man who was always striving, always working to create the next opportunity. But when you look carefully at the opportunities that he sought, they so frequently centered on creating new hopes for others--promoting economic opportunities with the National Association of the Self-Employed, spiritual guidance through his ministry, bequeathing wealth to our children and our grandchildren through reform of the Social Security system. This theme of striving to create a constructive and uplifting legacy ran throughout his life and throughout his work. Dr. Thayer was an extraordinary man who led an extraordinary life. He is already deeply missed.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor B.J. Bedford, a gold medalist for the 2000 United States Olympic Swim Team and originally from the town of Hanover in my home state of New Hampshire. B.J. has been a competitive swimmer in national standings for years. She competed in the 1988 Olympic trials when she was just 15 years old. After three Olympic trials and a successful 12 year career in domestic competition, B.J.'s hard work has paid off this year as she secured a spot on the U.S. Swim Team for the 2000 Summer Games. B.J.'s participation in the XXVII Olympiad certainly adds to a long and illustrious career in swimming. B.J. Bedford has qualified and competed in four Olympic trials, winning the 100 meter backstroke this year, set an American record in the 50 meter backstroke, and won seven U.S. National Titles in the 50, 100 and 200 meter backstroke and two gold medals for relays at the 1998 World Championships. On September 23, 2000, B.J. Bedford became the holder of a new world record. Swimming the backstroke leg of the 4 x 100 meter medley relay, B.J. and three of her teammates won gold in Sydney and smashed the previously held world record by an incredible three seconds. Her outstanding work in the pool, along with her display of dedication to her sport and her country, have helped to make the U.S. Swim Team more successful than any other country at the Sydney Games. The United States won 33 medals in swimming, tying its highest total since 1984. B.J. Bedford was an important part of this overall team victory, as her experience undoubtedly made her a leader in the pool. B.J.'s athleticism, drive and determination have allowed her to claim her place in history. She has made both New Hampshire and the country proud, and I am confident that B.J. will be successful in all that she chooses to do. I would like to congratulate B.J. for her fine work at the Olympics, for the excitement that she brought to Americans this summer, and for her gracious representation of the United States. She is a positive role model that will be looked up to by younger swimmers, and for that, she should be proud. We wish her nothing but the best in all of her future endeavors.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate one of our nation's finest Olympians, Jenny Thompson. This week, Jenny set herself apart from the rest of the world. With 10 Olympic medals, 8 of which are gold, Jenny has become the most decorated Olympic female swimmer of all time. As an American, I am very proud of our U.S. Olympic athletes, but I am especially proud of Jenny Thompson, from my home state of New Hampshire. Jenny first appeared on swimming's national stage in the mid-1980's when she began swimming for the Seacoast Swimming Association in Dover, New Hampshire for coach Mike Parratto. At the age of 15, Jenny just missed making the 1988 U.S. Olympic Swim Team, but her success as a young athlete drew the attention of college swimming programs from around the country. Jenny began attending Stanford University in 1991, and in 1992, she became the first woman in 61 years to set a world record in the 100 meter freestyle event. She followed up on her new world record by leading Stanford to a 27-0 dual-meet record, four PAC- 10 titles and four consecutive NCAA Championships. Through her leadership and her firm sense of teamwork, Jenny Thompson was elevated to team captain and served as a mentor for Stanford's more recent arrivals to the natatorium. In addition to Jenny's team accomplishments, she managed to swim her way to 19 NCAA titles, the most in women's collegiate swimming history. Having also captured 23 U.S. national titles, Jenny is the most successful active swimmer in the United States. When Jenny arrived in Sydney, Australia, she did so with five gold medals and one silver medal. She has now added to her Olympic success by again leading the U.S. women's relay team to gold in the 4 x 100 meter freestyle relay, setting another new world record, and the 4 x 100 meter medley relay. Additionally, Jenny continued to show her competitive edge as an individual by medaling in the 100 meter freestyle, winning the bronze. Jenny Thompson's performance at the 2000 Sydney Olympics has made her the most decorated female Olympian in the United States and the most successful female Olympic swimmer in history. Aside from her achievements at the Olympics and Stanford University, Jenny has won numerous World Championships and accumulated countless awards and honors as an athlete. She has always displayed team spirit and professionalism in and around the pool, showing that character is one of her finest assets. Her contribution to the sport of swimming is unmatched and has left a lasting impression in the minds and hearts of all who have watched her represent the United States throughout the years. Jenny Thompson has inspired a generation of young swimmers to dream and achieve their goals, to think positively and to work hard. Jenny Thompson will enter Columbia University Medical School next fall, where I know she will be successful. Her drive and desire will surely allow her to achieve her goals as she makes her way into a different stage of her life. I am confident that Jenny will continue to be a role model for all, and I hope that she knows we are proud of her. New Hampshire is proud of her, our nation is proud of her, and we wish her nothing but the best in her future endeavors.