Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be laid aside.

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

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, my amendment will allow employers to permit solicitations by charitable groups without subjecting themselves to what I believe is unfair and frivolous union litigation. It may sound odd that a law is needed to protect charitable giving, but currently when an employer permits such solicitations, it is likely to be found by the National Labor Relations Board to have engaged in unlawful discrimination unless it provides unions equal access to the employer's property to engage in solicitation or distribution for union purposes. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the need for legislation of this type has never been greater. Currently, the NLRB interprets, I think wrongly, the National Labor Relations Act to require that a retailer that regularly allows charities or civic organizations to solicit or distribute material on the retailer's premises must also grant similar access to labor unions who are seeking to organize the retailer's employees attempting to communicate a message to the retailers' customers. Because of this, many of the Nation's largest retailers have adopted blanket no-solicitation rules which, unfortunately, include charitable organizations, to avoid being found in violation of unfair labor practices. I want to mention a couple of the many examples that can be given of retailers that are affected by the current interpretations of the NLRB. Example one: Prior to 1994, Meijer, Inc., located in Grand Rapids, MI, exercised its commitment to their communities and use of private property rights by allowing various charitable, religious, civic, community, and government groups for activities such as fundraising activities by groups such as United Way, Salvation Army, VFW, Lions Club, Shriners, school groups, and other national and local organizations; placement of collection or drop-off boxes by groups such as Goodwill, Toys for Tots, Lions eyeglass collection program and various community recycling programs; community service activities, such as immunization clinics or other medical screening activities run by private or government agencies, drug enforcement agencies, and the Armed Forces; and the use of conference rooms for meetings and use of parking lots for driver training, skill rodeos for public safety organizations and as staging areas for groups assembling for bus or other trips. In May of 1994, the Ohio UFCW Local 954 struck Meijer's four Toledo stores. Through the course of events that took place during the strike, Meijer prohibited the union from striking on their property. The union activity occurred in front of the doors to their stores and blocked the entry to the store. After successfully obtaining restraining orders, union picketers were required to move to the public right-of-way. Prior to the strike settlement, the union filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB. They claimed that Meijer discriminated against the union by prohibiting access to Meijer property while allowing other organizations permission, charitable groups that were soliciting. In the union's charge, they specifically pointed to the Salvation Army and the VFW as examples. Before the NLRB could complete its investigation to make a final decision, there was a settlement that was reached and the charges were dropped. As a result of this action, Meijer decided the only certain way to keep union picketers from their doors in the future was to bar all outside groups from access to their property--no more solicitation, no more charitable efforts, no more contributions to worthy causes. This was a difficult decision because Meijer had always striven to be a good corporate citizen and wholeheartedly supported the kinds of charitable activities described. Example two: Wawa, Inc., based in Wawa, PA, owns and operates 550 convenience stores in New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. For years, unions have been trying to unionize their labor force and because of this, Wawa instituted a no-solicitation rule. Last year, Wawa had to turn down hundreds of worthwhile charities, including groups such as the American Veterans of Foreign Wars, because of this policy. Because of the events that took place on September 11, those tragic attacks upon our Nation, Wawa decided to open its doors to the American Red Cross to assist in the fundraising effort for the victims of the terror attacks in New York and in the Nation's Capital. To date, Wawa has raised over $2 million for this effort. By allowing Wawa to open its doors to several other charities, they would be able to raise funds for not only the American Red Cross but also the Girl Scouts, the American Veterans of Foreign Wars, and other worthy causes. Convenience stores are on nearly every street corner and provide an easy and reliable dropoff point for charities. Convenience stores have nearly 1,000 customers a day and are able to reach out to thousands of individuals a week for their contributions. Wawa, because of the current NLRB ruling, is putting the future of the company in jeopardy. This amendment will provide them protection and provide greater resources for American charities. When retailers do allow charities to set up shop outside their doors, they often have to do so with extreme caution to shield the company from unfair litigation. Such is the case for an Arkansas firm that I am very proud of, and that is Wal-Mart Inc., in Bentonville, AR, which does currently allow charitable organizations on their property. They are putting their neck on the line to do so. Because they believe in this, they are doing it. They understand it benefits the community. But we are asking them to remain vulnerable until we have an amendment such as this that would provide them protection. The current NLRB solicitation rule has a profound impact on the neediest citizens of our country. These solicitation rules deny charitable and civic organizations the opportunity to raise hundreds of millions of dollars a year from retail customers. The magnitude of this loss cannot be overstated. Charitable donations raised through Wal-Mart alone are over $127 million annually. Because many retailers are forced to deny access to everyone, there are now fewer hot meals for the hungry, fewer toys for poor children, and less clothing and shelter for the homeless. This amendment is not meant to target unions. Unions are the largest contributors to the United Way. They are among the leaders in the country in charitable acts. The amendment simply recognizes private property rights. There is a distinction between what a union does in front of a store and what local charities and civic groups are there to do. They should not be treated the same. This amendment permits retailers to support their communities' charitable and civic activities without requiring them to open their property to union activity which could, in fact, drive away customers or force themselves to face unfair or even frivolous litigation. In light of the September 11 terrorist attacks, we need to do all we can to encourage charitable giving. I have heard from thousands of people since September 11 asking how they can help those directly affected by the terrorist attacks. By allowing retailers to open their doors to charitable groups, we make it possible for the American people to play an even greater role in this recovery effort. I received a letter from the chief counsel at Wal-Mart, and I want to read part of what he said: Wal-Mart's solicitation policy provides charities with access to our stores and customers. Each year over $100 million is raised by local grass-roots charitable organizations in front of Wal-Mart Stores and Sam's Clubs. Other retailers have chosen to avoid a controversy over various forms of solicitation by simply adopting a no solicitation policy. It is vitally important that our country have a policy that allows retailers to work with local charities to better serve their communities. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wal-Mart letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I also have a letter from the United States Chamber of Commerce, and I would like to read that into the Record. I am writing on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation representing over three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector and region, to express the Chamber's support for the Preserve Charitable Giving Act. This bill will provide a much-needed change in the National Labor Relations Act so that it will no longer serve as an impediment to employers that wish to maintain and enforce a valid no-solicitation/no-distribution policy and also wish to allow charitable fund-raising or other beneficent acts on their premises. We appreciate your sponsorship of S. 929 and encourage you to take appropriate steps to assure its prompt passage in the Senate. My concern and the reason for this amendment is that retailers fearful of extensive litigation will likely err on the side of caution and not permit these acts of kindness and generosity to occur. In the end, it is the public that suffers. An approach that allows charitable solicitation as an exception to an otherwise valid no-solicitation/no- distribution rule is in the public interest and recognizes the valid distinctions between the kinds of activities engaged in by charitable groups and those of labor unions. I ask my colleagues to untie the hands of retailers and consumers all across America that want to do all they can to help heal this country. Allow Americans to stretch out their arms to carry a coat, donate blood or reach into their pockets when they travel to their local retail or convenience store so they can help those who have been so deeply affected during this time of great need in our Nation's history. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I pick up on a point the distinguished majority whip made about Wal-Mart's great success in charitable giving. That is one thing on which we certainly agree. That is, that Wal-Mart has been enormously generous, giving last year over $100 million to charity. The distinguished former majority leader of the Senate just visited the Senate, Senator Bob Dole. Senator Dole said: Tell 'em that Wal-Mart gave $17.5 million to the World War II memorial. And they did. And we are all immensely proud of that and everything else that Wal-Mart has done. This is the reality: Wal-Mart has been generous. Their customers have been generous. And their employees have been generous at the risk of the future of the company. To say it is working fine is not the case because the vulnerability that Wal-Mart faces, that Target faces, that every retailer faces, that every convenience store faces--somewhere along the line, a labor union may decide to put pickets out in front, and as the customers try to go in the door, they will get the message: This company, we don't like. That company is going to then face the choice, Do we want to continue to allow solicitations for charities or are we going to have to adopt an absolute ``no solicitation'' policy that will exclude good charities? Right now, we are being forced by a misunderstanding, a misinterpretation of the National Labor Relations Act, to allow these pickets in front of our door. I don't think it is reasonable to expect that generous companies with generous employees and generous management should have to subject themselves to that in order to do the right thing. That is what we are asking them to do now. That is wrong. This has nothing to do with saying we are anti-union; it has everything to do with saying you don't treat a union activity in front of a store the same as you treat a Salvation Army bell ringer at Christmastime in front of that store. That is the issue. Let's unlock that generous spirit of America. We should not require the same kind of treatment for a labor union and a charitable organization soliciting in front of a retail establishment. It is not the same. I think we all realize it is not the same. That is all this amendment does. For a year, in the wake of the September 11 attack and the incredible need our Nation has, let's not make it more difficult for the American people to give and give and give, as they so generously want to do. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, the Senator raises some questions. He says there is no problem. So perhaps this letter from a retailer I mentioned earlier, the Meijer Company, which is headquartered in a wonderful State, in Grand Rapids, MI, answers that. Do we have a problem? I think they make it very clear in this correspondence we just received: As a mid-west based retailer, we care deeply about the communities we serve. As a corporate citizen, we want them to grow and thrive. That is why we are pleased to contribute to so many local programs. However, since 1994, we have been prevented from providing certain support to charitable and civic organizations due to language contained in the National Labor Relations Act. The language stipulated that if we provided access to our property to outside groups, then we would also be required to provide access to union organizations for the purposes of organizing, solicitation, distribution, picketing or other union purposes. Clearly, we believe there to be a difference between charitable and civic groups, and union activity. Additionally, while Americans have generously responded to our national crises, we are beginning to learn how local and state-based charities are beginning to suffer. We believe that your amendment is well suited for this present time, and will permit us to work with such worthy causes. This is very simple. The issue is simple and clear. Should union activity, including picketing, be treated the same as the Salvation Army bell ringer, the VFW, or the Salvation Army and other good groups soliciting for good causes? Should community-based charities be prohibited from soliciting funds in front of a retailer if that retailer would like them to, simply because of a decision by the National Labor Relations Board that says if they do one, they have to allow picketing and distribution of union material in front of that store? That is the issue. Clearly, they should not be treated the same. They are totally different causes. Retailers, while having great incentive to help charities, are not going to have an incentive to do something that is going to impede their own businesses. We should make that distinction, and this amendment would allow that for this year in this appropriations bill, and would allow for this year--a year clearly that our Nation is in crisis--to encourage that kind of charitable activity on the part of our Nation's retailers. I retain the remainder of our time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the resolution before us. First I commend the Senator from Iowa for his leadership on trade issues, his leadership on economic issues, and I certainly associate myself with his remarks regarding trade promotion authority and the need for the President to have that authority. I also commend the Senator from New Hampshire for his remarks regarding the human rights situation in Vietnam. I agree. We should have the opportunity to vote on a resolution condemning the human rights record in Vietnam. It would only be appropriate to follow the precedent of the House in, while passing normal trade relations with Vietnam, also passing by an overwhelming margin a resolution condemning the human rights record. The Senator from Iowa mentioned that trade benefits us. It should benefit us, and that should be the standard by which we engage these kinds of agreements. I ask the question: Will this agreement really do that? He also mentions the fact that it should create jobs. Certainly trade, if it is fair and free trade, will create jobs. The American consumer today is being purposefully confused, and our domestic farm-raised catfish industries are on the brink of bankruptcy in this country primarily due in large part to the massive exports from Vietnam of a product called basa fish. If this were any other product-- if it were steel, for instance--it would be called dumping. We have seen an incredible increase in the exports of basa fish to the United States and having it labeled within our country as being catfish. That blatant mislabeling is causing confusion among the American people and is absolutely destroying our domestic catfish industry. The States of Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana produce 95 percent of the Nation's catfish. These catfish are grain-fed and farm-raised catfish produced under strict health and environmental regulations. Today, with the passage of this resolution, we are helping Vietnam while we are doing absolutely nothing to help United States aquaculture, United States catfish farmers who are on the brink of bankruptcy. Arkansas ranks second in the amount of catfish produced nationally, but it is an industry that has grown and thrived in one of the poorest areas of our country, the Mississippi Delta, an area that has sometimes been referred to as the Appalachia of the nineties. It is an area that faces incredible economic challenges. Despite the strong work ethic, despite the strong spirit of the delta region, economic opportunities have been few and far between. I ask my colleagues who are thinking about improving the economy of Vietnam, let's first think about what, with our current trade practice, we are doing to the aquaculture industry in the United States which has been one of the few shining success stories in this deprived, poor region of our Nation. At a time when fears of unemployment and the realities of an economic downturn in the wake of the September 11 attacks are weighing heavily on the minds of the American people, it is not acceptable--it should not be acceptable--to sit back and watch an important industry that employs thousands of Americans, thousands of my constituents in the State of Arkansas, and see their industry crushed by inferior imports because of a glitch in our regulatory system. Vietnamese basa is being confused by the American public as catfish due to labeling that allows them to be called basa catfish. These Vietnamese basa are being imported at record levels. Let me explain. In June of this year, 648,000 pounds were imported into the United States. For the past 7 months, imports have averaged 382,000 pounds per month. To put that in perspective, in all of 1997, there were only 500,000 pounds of Vietnamese basa imported. We are almost doing that every month now. It is predicted that nearly 20 million pounds could be imported this year. That is an incredible 4,000-percent increase in 4 years. I want my colleagues to think about an industry in their State that could survive--could it survive?--imports that had increased at the level of 4,000 percent in a 4-year period of time under mislabeling, confusing regulations. The Vietnamese penetration into this market in the last year alone has more than tripled. Market penetration has risen from 7 percent to 23 percent of the total market. Four years ago, the Vietnamese basa, wrongly labeled ``catfish,'' comprised less than 10 percent--to be exact, 7 percent--of the catfish market in the United States. Today it is almost one-quarter of the catfish market in the United States. They have been able to achieve such remarkable market penetration by using the label of ``catfish'' on the packaging while selling this different species of fish for $1.25 a pound cheaper. It is a different species and is $1.25 a pound cheaper. It is being sold as what is produced in the United States, true channel catfish. For those who argue this is the result of a competitive market, I offer a few facts. When the fish were labeled and marketed as Vietnamese basa or just plain basa, sales in this country were almost nonexistent. Some importers even tried to label basa as white grouper, believing that was going to lead to greater sales. Still no success. However, by adding the name ``catfish'' to the label, these fish have seen sales skyrocket. Although the Food and Drug Administration issued an order on September 19 stating the correct labeling of Vietnamese basa be a high priority, the FDA is allowing these fish to retain the label of ``catfish'' in the title. I do not know whether it is by budget constraints or whether it is a lack of personnel at the FDA, but it is obvious that inspections have been lacking in the past and the inclusion of the term of ``catfish'' in the title serves to promote that confusion. This illustration shows how Vietnamese companies and rogue U.S. importers are trying to confuse the American people. Names such as ``cajun delight,'' ``delta fresh,'' and ``farm select'' lead consumers to believe the product is something that it is not. In fact, the brand ``delta fresh'' is one of the most misleading because it implies in the very title ``delta fresh catfish'' that it is being grown in the delta of the Mississippi, in Arkansas and Mississippi. The reality is, it is fish from the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, which has unhealthy, environmentally unsafe conditions, being sold to the American consumer as channel-grown, farm-grown catfish. The total impact of the catfish industry on the U.S. economy is estimated to exceed $4 billion annually. Approximately 12,000 people are employed by this industry. I have been told by the catfish association that as many as 25 percent of the catfish farmers in Arkansas will be forced out of business if this problem is not corrected soon. Now let me remind my colleagues, this is the poorest region of the United States. It is poorer than what the Appalachian region was when we went in with massive national support. Yet this region, which has had very few bright spots in its economy in the last decade, has seen aquaculture as perhaps being the salvation of the economy in the delta of Arkansas. Twenty-five percent of these catfish farmers could be gone in the next year if we do not correct this problem. Catfish farmers in this country have invested millions of dollars educating the American public about the nutritional attributes of catfish. Through their efforts, American consumers have an expectation of what a catfish is and how it is raised. They have an expectation that what they purchase is indeed a catfish and that it has been raised and farmed in a clean and environmentally safe environment. All of the investment that the American catfish industry has made in order to educate the American people is being kidnapped by Vietnamese basa growers and rogue importers who are bringing this product in and pretending that it is that same product, and it is not. This next poster shows an official list of both scientific names and market common names from the Food and Drug Administration. Almost all of these fish can contain the word ``catfish'' in their names under current FDA rules. We can see all of the very scientific names, and yet all of these various scientific names are allowed to use ``catfish'' in their market or common names creating incredible confusion among the consuming public, understandably. Most people look, they see the word ``catfish,'' and they do not pay any attention to the rest of that package labeling. When the average Arkansan hears the word ``catfish,'' the idea of a typical channel catfish is what comes to mind. When they sit down at a restaurant and order a plate of fried catfish, that same channel catfish is what they expect to be eating. The channel catfish, as we can see, there is a whole list of other varieties that are now being allowed to usurp that name. One cannot blame the restaurateur who is offered ``catfish for a dollar less a pound'' for buying it. It is basa. It is not catfish. However, in many cases they do not realize that what they are really buying is not American-grown channel catfish but Vietnamese basa, that it is not subject to health and safety standards, not grown in clean ponds, not fed as American catfish are fed. The third poster shows the relationship between these fish, and you will notice they are in different families and--only in the same order but totally separate families. The FDA claims since the fish are the same order, they can have the word ``catfish'' in their market or common name, even though they are not in the same family, they are not in the same genus, and they are not in the same species. By this standard, cats and cattle could be labeled the same. In addition, it is important to note the conditions in which these fish are raised. U.S. catfish producers raise catfish in pristine ponds that are closely monitored. These ponds are carefully aerated and the fish are fed granulated pellets consisting of grains composed of soybean, corn, and cotton seed, all in strict compliance with Federal, State, and local health and safety laws. What we are asking those catfish growers to compete with is Vietnamese basa which now composes almost a quarter of the domestic market. These other species, basa, are raised in cages in the Mekong Delta, one of the most polluted watersheds in the world. It has been reported that these fish are exposed to many unhealthy elements, including raw sewage. I say to my colleagues, they would not allow the United States Food and Drug Administration to permit medicine to come in from such unhealthy, environmentally unsafe conditions. Yet we are allowing the American consuming public to eat basa labeled as catfish, grown in unhealthy environments, and not know the reality of what they are getting. It is obvious the use of the label ``catfish'' is being used to mislead consumers and is unfairly harming our domestic industry. I think it is odd we continue to look for new and more open trade policies to provide other nations access to our markets when we continually fail to enforce meaningful fairness provisions. As we sit on the brink of allowing another trade bill to pass this Congress, I want to reiterate a phrase that I have heard over and over: Free trade only works if it is fair trade. This is not fair. Our regulatory agencies must recognize their responsibilities and act on them. I realize this trade bill is not the answer to this problem. I understand this is a labeling issue, a regulatory issue, but I could not allow us to pass a trade bill that is going to benefit Vietnam at a time that we are so lax in our regulatory environment we are allowing a domestic industry to be gutted while we approve trade relations with a country that is destroying this domestic industry. I urge all of my colleagues to support me and the congressional delegations of Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama as we move forward in trying to resolve this pressing issue, be it through regulatory changes or be it through legislative mandate. I thank my colleagues for their willingness to allow me to make my case on this important issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank my good friend from Maine, Senator Collins, and our distinguished colleagues from the Senate Armed Services Committee. I need not tell them that the forest products industry is an important industry in Arkansas. I will stand with you, if it becomes necessary, to restrict the Department of Defense authorization for release of sebacic acid. I know that we will be joined by many others, on both sides of the aisle. It is easy to see that the impact of this issue has the potential to affect the quality of life of working Americans across any number of states. I find it reassuring that our Committee is making such a strong statement of our intention to act if necessary. Our restraint this year demonstrates the trust we place in the Department of Defense to act reasonably within the scope of current legislative language. But that restraint will turn to resolve if the release of sebacic acid under the current authority proves harmful to the sebacic acid market.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am proud to be lead Republican sponsor of the concurrent receipt amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid. Now is the time to restore fairness to our military retired. Men and women who served our country, who dedicated their lives to the defense of freedom have earned fair compensation. Our veterans have earned and deserve fair compensation. I have been a longstanding supporter of efforts to repeal the 110-year-old law that prohibits military retirees from collecting the retired pay that they earned as well as VA disability compensation. This amendment will correct the inequity of disability compensation for our Nation's military retirees. Today, our military retirees are forced to fund their own disability compensation. Essentially, it is the view of this government, that those that have already given so much for our Nation must provide more. These are worthy Americans who answered our Nation's call for 20 years or more. They are veterans who stood the line, defending our Nation, during peacetime and conflict. Today as we face a new enemy we have the duty to show our men and women in uniform that we as a nation fully support them, that the United States Senate recognizes their sacrifice. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Currently, the staff of the Fort Smith office are processing a significantly greater number of cases than was originally planned and doing so without a corresponding increase in staff. Thus, it is common for a person's work permit or travel document to be unnecessarily delayed due to the fact that the Fort Smith office simply does not have the resources necessary to locally process the application. A Sub-office designation, and the Officer-in-Charge that would accompany it, would allow the Fort Smith office to administer oaths of naturalization, authorize arrest warrants, issue intentions to fine, and process other administrative matters.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That's absolutely correct. As you know, according to the 2000 Census, Arkansas' Hispanic population grew by 337 percent over the course of the past decade, a rate of growth which is believed to be the fastest in the nation. In the Third Congressional District, where the Fort Smith office is located, Hispanics now comprise 5.7 percent of the total population. This phenomenal growth is shown even more poignantly when one considers that the Northwest Arkansas county which is home to the University of Arkansas, Washington County, experienced a 629 percent increase in its Hispanic population. Needless to say, this influx of new immigrants is putting a significant strain on the provision of basic immigration services.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, on this day of mourning and on behalf of all Arkansans, I offer my deepest and most sincere condolences to the families of the victims of the cowardly attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I especially want to mention the Arkansas flight attendant, Sara Lowe, and offer my sympathy and condolences to her parents Mike and Bobbie, and to her sister Allison. There may well be other Arkansans who were aboard, but Sara served, and served well, on Flight No. 11. While New York bears the brunt of the pain today, I am reminded, as I think of Sara Lowe from Batesville, AR, that there are hundreds of towns and hamlets and villages all across the Nation that share in the grief and the suffering today. Our Nation is grief stricken but our Nation is strong. Our Nation is united, and our Nation is resolved to bring those responsible to justice. I honor today the courage and compassion of the rescuers in New York City and at the Pentagon. Your Nation is grateful and your Nation is indebted. We all woke up yesterday and prepared to go about our normal business in a world that looked the same as it did the day before. Today everything is different. The New York skyline is changed, and so is the geopolitical landscape of the world. We stand at the violent birth of a new era in international relations and national security. The strategic pause that we enjoyed after the cold war ended is over. I pray that we have used this interlude properly; and I fear that we may not have. But this needs to be clear: Any nation that harbors, shelters, or abets these terrorist thugs will be regarded as full participants in these acts of war and will be held equally accountable. We will devote as many resources as necessary to find and punish the perpetrators of these acts. We must make a national commitment to breaking the back of international terrorism. On the Armed Services Committee, I am fortunate to have served as a member of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee under the leadership of Senator Roberts from Kansas. As frightening and as horrific as the toll and the results of the incidents yesterday are, I fear that a biological or a chemical attack upon this country would make the tens of thousands of victims yesterday pale in comparison to the millions that might be the victims of such an attack. But the American people should be assured that we will utilize every resource at the disposal of our great country to protect them. We Americans will stand together, united, determined, and ultimately victorious. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by my colleague, Senator Craig, In introducing the Advancement of Geriatric Education Act of 2001, or AGE Act is comprehensive legislation which seeks to prepare physicians and other health care professionals to care for our Nation's growing aging population. It is a know fact that children cannot be treated like little adults and prescribed the same medications in the same dosage amounts. For this reason, we have pediatricians. But just as there are differences between children and adults, so are there differences between middle aged adults and seniors. Many people are unaware that aging individuals often exhibit different symptoms than younger adults with the same illness. For example, an older person who has a heart attack may not experience excruciating chest pain, but rather, show signs of dizziness and confusion. Similarly, older people often exhibit different responses to medications than younger people. The demographic reality is that there is an enormous segment of the population which will soon be age 65 or older, and there is serious doubt that the U.S. health system will be equipped to handle the multiple needs and demand of an aging population. By 2030, it is projected that one in five Americans will be over age 65. Geriatricians are physicians who are experts in aging-related issues and the study of the aging process itself. They are specially trained to prevent and manage the unique and often multiple health problems of older adults. Geriatric training can provide health care professionals with the skills and knowledge to recognize special characteristics of older patients and distinguish between disease states and the normal physiological changes associated with aging. Our health care system must increase its focus in this vital area. Today, there are 9,000 practicing, certified geriatricians in the United States, far short of the 20,000 geriatricians estimated to be necessary to meet the needs of the current aging population. By the year 2030, it is estimated that at least 36,000 geriatricians will be needed to manage the complex health and social needs of the elderly. These figures, as astounding as they sound, say nothing of the geriatrics training needed for all health care professionals who are facing such an increasingly older patient population. Unfortunately, out of 125 medical schools in our country, only 3 have actual Departments of Geriatrics, including the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. Moreover, only 14 schools include geriatrics as a required course, and one-third of medical schools do not even offer geriatrics as a separate course elective. Congress has taken some positive steps to increase our focus on geriatrics, including the establishment of Geriatric Education Centers and Geriatric Training Programs, which seek to train all health professionals in the area of geriatrics. Congress has also established the Geriatric Academic Career Award program, which promotes the development of academic geriatricians. It is clear to me, however, that more steps need to be taken, which is why I have introduced the AGE Act today. The AGE Act encourages more physicians to specialize in the area of geriatrics and enhances the current federal programs relating to geriatrics under the Public Health Service Act. The AGE Act is supported by the American Geriatrics Society, the International Longevity Center, and the American Association of Geriatric Psychiatry. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the AGE Act and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by my colleague, Senator Craig, In introducing the Advancement of Geriatric Education Act of 2001, or AGE Act is comprehensive legislation which seeks to prepare physicians and other health care professionals to care for our Nation's growing aging population. It is a know fact that children cannot be treated like little adults and prescribed the same medications in the same dosage amounts. For this reason, we have pediatricians. But just as there are differences between children and adults, so are there differences between middle aged adults and seniors. Many people are unaware that aging individuals often exhibit different symptoms than younger adults with the same illness. For example, an older person who has a heart attack may not experience excruciating chest pain, but rather, show signs of dizziness and confusion. Similarly, older people often exhibit different responses to medications than younger people. The demographic reality is that there is an enormous segment of the population which will soon be age 65 or older, and there is serious doubt that the U.S. health system will be equipped to handle the multiple needs and demand of an aging population. By 2030, it is projected that one in five Americans will be over age 65. Geriatricians are physicians who are experts in aging-related issues and the study of the aging process itself. They are specially trained to prevent and manage the unique and often multiple health problems of older adults. Geriatric training can provide health care professionals with the skills and knowledge to recognize special characteristics of older patients and distinguish between disease states and the normal physiological changes associated with aging. Our health care system must increase its focus in this vital area. Today, there are 9,000 practicing, certified geriatricians in the United States, far short of the 20,000 geriatricians estimated to be necessary to meet the needs of the current aging population. By the year 2030, it is estimated that at least 36,000 geriatricians will be needed to manage the complex health and social needs of the elderly. These figures, as astounding as they sound, say nothing of the geriatrics training needed for all health care professionals who are facing such an increasingly older patient population. Unfortunately, out of 125 medical schools in our country, only 3 have actual Departments of Geriatrics, including the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. Moreover, only 14 schools include geriatrics as a required course, and one-third of medical schools do not even offer geriatrics as a separate course elective. Congress has taken some positive steps to increase our focus on geriatrics, including the establishment of Geriatric Education Centers and Geriatric Training Programs, which seek to train all health professionals in the area of geriatrics. Congress has also established the Geriatric Academic Career Award program, which promotes the development of academic geriatricians. It is clear to me, however, that more steps need to be taken, which is why I have introduced the AGE Act today. The AGE Act encourages more physicians to specialize in the area of geriatrics and enhances the current federal programs relating to geriatrics under the Public Health Service Act. The AGE Act is supported by the American Geriatrics Society, the International Longevity Center, and the American Association of Geriatric Psychiatry. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the AGE Act and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would like to thank the Senator for his support of continued funding for a small flood control project for Bono, Arkansas, which is very important to me. I appreciate his efforts to help me secure language in the statement of managers which would fund this project under the section 205 small flood control projects program.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the ranking member and I also thank the honorable chairman, Senator Reid, for his help with this vital flood control project. I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for yielding a brief period of time out of order. I express my gratitude and my appreciation to Senator Stevens for his willingness to accept into the managers' amendment an amendment I had proposed that provides $24 million in emergency funding that is offset in the amendment but is essential for cleanup from devastating ice storms in the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma. I also express my appreciation to the chairman, Chairman Byrd, for his cooperation in this very vital funding. I will make my comments brief. I know there are many desiring to speak and many amendments we are considering. But while December of 2000 has come and gone, and many have forgotten those many months ago, it will not be a time that is quickly forgotten in the State of Arkansas. It is certainly a time I will never forget. For many, it was anything but a merry holiday season. On December 12, and again on December 26, Arkansas was hit by two major winter storms. The Arkansas Department of Emergency Services said: ``These two storms combined created the most widespread and financially devastating disasters in our state's history.'' Life in most parts of Arkansas came to a halt as snow, sleet, and 2 to 4 inches of ice covered much of my State for weeks. To the Senator from Alaska, that may not sound like much, but I will tell you, the damage, the devastation that was done was unparalleled and unprecedented in Arkansas history. As a result of the December 12 storm, more than 250,000 Arkansans lost power. At the time, that was considered the worst storm in 70 years. By the time the first storm passed, more than 40 counties in Arkansas had been declared disaster areas. FEMA officials came in and said they would be in the State to do preliminary damage assessments on December 26, but they could not do it on December 26 because on Christmas morning Arkansans awoke to sleet, which turned to freezing rain by late afternoon and continued for 3 days. Western Arkansas was covered with more than 3 inches of ice. Power lines were down, homes and vehicles were damaged by falling limbs, and over half a million electrical customers lost their power just at the time many of them had their power restored from the first storm. Arkansas received a Federal disaster declaration on December 29. Eventually, 65 out of 75 Arkansas counties were declared disaster areas. Despite the recovery efforts, many scars are going to remain in Arkansas for years and years to come. It is July and the Forest Service personnel are still working to remove damaged timber, reopen roads and trails, and repair facilities. The Ouachita National Forest in western and central Arkansas took the brunt of the damage. The weight of the ice brought down an estimated 500 million board feet of timber. Now that Forest Service personnel have fought their way into many of the most remote areas of the forest, that estimate may increase to as much as 800 million board feet. I personally visited the forest this spring. I was shocked at the extent of the damage. All 1.8 million acres of the Ouachita National Forest were damaged to some extent. Twenty-six hundred miles of roads and six hundred and twenty-five miles of trails were closed or blocked. Roads, trails, and recreation areas in the heaviest damaged areas remain closed even to this day. Now fire experts have evaluated the fuel loading in the forest and found that it is more than 10 times normal levels. Normally, there is about 5 tons of timber lying on the forest floor per acre. After the storms, that number jumped from 40 to 60 tons per acre. And in the hardest hit areas you get a little idea of it: The hardest hit areas have 80 tons of fuel per acre. Wildfires on a 1.8 million-acre forest are difficult to respond to under normal conditions, but roads and trails into the most remote parts of the Ouachita are still impassable. So as the threat of fire grows with each passing summer month, my main concern is for the 843,000 Arkansans living along and around the Ouachita National Forest. And that doesn't include the three ranger districts in Oklahoma that are of interest to Senator Nickles and Senator Inhofe as well. The Forest Service is doing everything it can, but if this situation does not change, in the next two summers we will see uncontrollable wildfires in the Ouachita National Forest. So I appreciate this $24 million being included in the managers' amendment. I repeat the words of the Arkansas Department of Emergency Services: ``These two storms combined created the most widespread and financially devastating disasters in our state's history.'' It is now impacting tourism. It is impacting our entire economy. I have been working with the Forest Service, and I believe this $24 million will provide the kind of relief to ensure the proper cleanup of that fuel in the Ouachita National Forest.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank Senators Stevens and Byrd and yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, it is my understanding that amendments are now in order and the Republican side will have the first opportunity. I call up amendment No.----

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 807, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, earlier this morning as I left the Chamber after the vote to proceed to the Patients' Bill of Rights, I was approached by a reporter who said: Senator Hutchinson, what do you have to say about all of these terrible stories, these horror stories that are being presented on the floor of the Senate? My response was: They are true; they are right. We are all horrified by some of the abuses that have occurred and the need for patient protection. I went on to say: Whether it is the Nickles bill from last year on which many worked so hard, whether it is the Frist-Jeffords bill this year, or whether it is the Kennedy-McCain bill, all of them have agreed upon basic patient protections; that every one of these stories that have been graphically portrayed in the Senate will have been addressed by these pieces of legislation. Whether it is access to the closest emergency room, whether it is direct access to an OB/GYN, or any of the basic protections, all of these bills address those concerns. The biggest point of contention, I went on to comment, is on whether or not there is going to be an open-ended right to sue that will cost millions of Americans health insurance coverage. Are we going to have a bill that is so prone to lawsuits that those lawsuits will increase the cost of premiums and, as a result, employers are either going to drop their insurance or increase the copays and, as a result, we are going to see millions more lose their health insurance? That is the debate. We are talking about people in need. We need not just focus upon those terrible stories where an insurance company may have overruled a medical decision of a doctor. We need to address that, but there is a consensus on that. What we need to remember is we must not in this legislation do such harm to our system that we actually have a cure that is worse than the malady. We have to keep in mind the whole issue of access, and the amendment that Senator Bond and I offer today addresses specifically how we can decrease the number of uninsured in this country instead of exacerbating a situation that is growing worse year by year. The Kennedy-McCain bill before us, I am afraid, will, without question, increase premiums, CBO says, by 4.2 percent. That surely is a conservative estimate. But even with the 4.2 percent, we will see 300,000 new uninsured for every percentage point of increase in health care premiums. We are going to see well over a million, 1.3 million, lose their health care benefits. I think it will be far more than that. This is of deep concern to me. Forty-three million Americans are currently uninsured, and in my home State of Arkansas, there are almost a half million people who do not have health insurance. Twenty-two percent of the State population is uninsured. We must not, I believe, in our zeal to have new patient protections open the door to increases in premiums that are going to result in hundreds of thousands of people losing their health insurance. Roughly half of employers, 46 percent, reported ``they likely would get out of the business of providing health care coverage if exposed to increased liability.'' And that is what we are confronted with in the Kennedy-McCain bill: increased liability. Similarly, 48 percent said expanded liability would hinder care, and 80 percent said it would increase consumer costs. I know that as the American people become more familiar with the Kennedy-McCain bill and what its liability provisions are, they are going to be less and less enamored by the Kennedy-McCain version of the Patients' Bill of Rights. We are going to pass, I believe with all my heart, a Patients' Bill of Rights. It is my hope we will pass one that will not add to the ranks of the uninsured. According to the Urban Institute, medical malpractice claims take an average of 60 months to file, 25 months to resolve, and 5 years to receive payment. With increased liability, we are not talking about increased health care for patients, we are talking about increased dollars for trial lawyers. The Kennedy-McCain bill allows unlimited economic damages, unlimited noneconomic damages, unlimited punitive damages, both in State court and Federal court, taking two bites out of the apple. This whole issue of access is what concerns me. Our amendment will provide an immediate 100-percent deductibility for the self-employed. The Senate has taken a position on this in the past. This bill that Senator Bond has courageously taken the lead on for years had 52 cosponsors in the Senate, so we know where the Senate stands on this issue. It is one of equity, it is one of fairness, it is one of decreasing the number of uninsured in this country. As current law stands, self-employed individuals are only allowed to deduct 60 percent of their health insurance costs this year, 70 percent next year, and only in the year 2003 will the self-insured be allowed to deduct 100 percent of health insurance costs. Corporations are allowed 100-percent deduction for their health insurance costs right now. Employees receive 100-percent exclusion for their health insurance paid by their employers right now. However, to the self-employed individual, we have said: We know it is unfair, we know there is a disparity, we know there is an inequity. You wait. You have waited years, wait 2 more years. In 2003 we will finally give you equal treatment. There is no excuse as we deal with this Patients' Bill of Rights legislation, not to make that 100-percent deductibility immediate. Under this amendment, beginning January 1 of next year, there is a 100- percent deductibility allowed. This is an appropriate step to take. Self-employed individuals under this amendment are allowed to deduct 100 percent of the costs of health insurance for themselves and their families beginning next year. This is one small step, and a very important and significant step, in turning back the direction of this legislation, which is to increase the number of uninsured. It also corrects the disparity under current law that prohibits a self-employed individual from deducting his or her health care costs if he or she is simply eligible to participate in another health insurance plan, whether offered through a second job or by a spouse's employer. The Hutchinson-Bond amendment addresses this by disallowing the deduction only if the self-employed individual actually participates in another health insurance plan. The question might be asked, and should be asked, Who are the self- employed? I received an e-mail from one of our small self-employed businesses in Arkansas. I will read but the pertinent aspect: Patrick Burnett, PB& J Creative Communications, Little Rock, Arkansas. Senator Hutchinson: The main issues plaguing those of us who decide to work independently are unaffordable and nontax deductible health insurance. I have no insurance right now because I can't afford it. The bill before the Senate, unless we address some of these issues, will only make that situation worse. Who are these people? Of the 12.5 million self-employed individuals in this country, 3.1 percent are uninsured. These self-employed, almost one out of four, cannot afford to buy insurance. Almost one out of four of the self-employed in this country could write exactly the e-mail I received in which he said, ``I can't afford to buy insurance.'' One-hundred-percent deductibility helps relieve that. Who are these people? Nearly 70 percent of these individuals earn less than $50,000 annually. Some might say: Self-employed equates to affluent, high income. Why should we provide 100-percent deductibility for those who can afford it? The fact is, one out of four self-employed are not insured because they cannot afford it, because 70 percent of these individuals earn less than $50,000 annually. When you count the number of family members a self-employed family has, 21.6 million Americans benefit from the Hutchinson-Bond amendment, including--and I emphasize this to my colleague--including 6.4 million children, of whom 1 million are currently not insured at all. If we want to talk about caring about people, if we want to display emotional, heart-rending pictures in the Senate that tear at the very heart of all who care about those who are hurting and vulnerable in our society, think about those 1 million children today in the homes of the self-employed who are uninsured because--at least in part--because we have not given them treatment equal to that of the large corporations. We have not given them the 100-percent deductibility. The purpose of this amendment is simple. Increasing the deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed is an important step toward equalizing the Tax Code treatment of health insurance and increasing its affordability. What difference will it make? The tax savings will be substantial. If a self-employed individual trying to buy health insurance finds out the premiums are $6,000 per year--not unlikely; it could well be higher than that; perhaps they have insurance and they are paying that $6,000 per year--current law allows the current deduction, 60 percent for the self-employed. If they are in the 27-percent tax bracket, they currently have tax savings at that 27-percent tax bracket of $972. Under the Hutchinson-Bond amendment, under the 100-percent deduction that we allow, that $3,600 they can deduct currently increases to $6,000 and the $972 in savings increases to $1,620. That means an additional savings from this amendment for that self-employed individual of $648. That is very significant, very meaningful. It may well be the difference for literally millions and whether they have the ability to purchase that insurance or whether they stay in the ranks of the uninsured or join the ranks of the uninsured. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this amendment reduces revenues by $214 million in fiscal year 2002, $642 million in fiscal year 2003, for a total of $856 over 10 years, and that minimal revenue loss is easily accommodated under the budget resolution. I am very pleased the first amendment on this Patients' Bill of Rights is one that will deal with the issue of access and is going to reduce the number of uninsured and try, in so doing, to improve this bill. I am pleased to be joined in cosponsoring this amendment with a man who has led this fight for years and deserves enormous credit for the progress that has been made on this issue. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Collins and Senator Allen as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. This is at the very heart of this bill on access, and I think we need a lot of time to talk about this.