Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield back any time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his leadership on this issue, his expertise and knowledge. We are fortunate, indeed, to have someone with his knowledge of this issue as part of our institution. I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Pennsylvania. He is absolutely right. I served on the conference committee on the Patients' Bill of Rights for more than a year. We wrestled with these issues. There was broad consensus that we need a Patients' Bill of Rights. I agree; we need to have a Patients' Bill of Rights. We need to have a set of legislatively codified protections for those who are in managed care systems in this country. Where we had a problem was in the area of the lawsuits, the liability, the right to sue, and how broad should be that right to sue. While we have broad consensus in this body and in this country that there should be a Patients' Bill of Rights, there is also a growing understanding that if we do this wrong in the next few weeks, all we will do is move hundreds of thousands, if not indeed millions, of people out of the ranks of those who enjoy the protection of health insurance from their employer into the ranks of the uninsured. That is the risk we take and we better do this job right. The Kennedy-McCain bill ignores what I believe is the most important patient protection of all and that is access to affordable health insurance. They do absolutely nothing to move those 44 million people, who today in this country do not have health insurance, into a situation in which they are covered. This bill does not address that at all. While we may agree we need patient protections for those in HMOs, we need to be very careful that in enacting those patient protections we do not even exacerbate the problem of the uninsured in this country. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, has found the Kennedy-McCain bill would raise health insurance premiums by at least 4.2 percent and cause nearly $56 billion in lost wages over 10 years. That 4.2 percent, somebody says that is not much; that is about inflation, isn't it? That is on top of the 10-percent to 13-percent increase in health insurance premiums this year, which is the third consecutive year of annual premium increases in that range. In fact, in the year 2000, premiums increased 12.4 percent; in 2001, premiums are projected to increase 12.7 percent; and in 2002, premiums are projected to increase 12.5 percent. We are adding on top of that premium increase another 4.2 percent, as projected by the CBO. I think that is a very conservative estimate, 4.2, so we are making that problem even more severe. The Barents Group data shows for every 1-percent increase in health insurance premiums, 300,000 Americans will lose their health insurance. What that means is the Kennedy-McCain bill could cause as many as 1.3 million Americans to lose their health care, according to the CBO. If the CBO is wrong and they are understating it, as I believe they may well be, instead of 1.3 million Americans losing their health care, it could go considerably higher. There are 44 million uninsured Americans in our country now. So the Kennedy-McCain bill does nothing to make health insurance more affordable. Instead, it pushes the number of uninsured to even higher levels, from 44 million to 45 million, 46 million, or more. This is the question I pose to my colleagues: What good are patient protections when 45 million people cannot enjoy them? What good will this bill do for the 45 million who do not even have health insurance today? I will tell you, it does no good at all. Claims that the Kennedy-McCain bill covers all Americans is the biggest hoax being perpetrated in this debate today. This bill does not cover all Americans. This bill does absolutely nothing for the millions of Americans who cannot afford health insurance. We will do a disservice to this country, a disservice to the health care system in this country if, while addressing patient protections, we do not also address access. I will be offering amendments to that end. I hope my colleagues will be as well. Dealing with the issue of liability, Kennedy-McCain supporters keep telling the American public their bill protects employers from lawsuits and that it caps damages at $5 million. Let's be very candid; let's be very honest about this. This cap only applies to punitive damages in Federal court. What Kennedy-McCain proponents fail to mention is that employers can be sued for unlimited economic damages in Federal court, unlimited noneconomic damages in Federal court, unlimited punitive damages in State court, unlimited economic damages in State court, unlimited noneconomic damages in State court, and damages through unlimited class action lawsuits under both Federal and State laws. That is what, according to the CBO, is the second major component of the cost increases that are going to occur to health premiums across this country. I further point out there is really no exhaustion of the appeals process required. Though the bill says there is, the exceptions swallow up the rule. Kennedy-McCain requires a patient to file a request for external review within 100 days after the internal review. Nevertheless, Kennedy-McCain allows a patient--this is so important--to go right to court on the 181st day without even having gone through the appeals process by claiming that they just discovered an injury. It makes sense, then, if you think the insurance company, the HMO, has made a wrong decision and they have been inappropriate in the decision they have made, that you have an expedited internal appeal of that decision. We all agree upon that. It is also logical and consistent, and I think there is a consensus that there should also be an option to go to an external appeal, to an independent medical expert reviewer to look at the case and make a determination as to who is right. If we are really concerned about health care being provided for the patient, we should require that the internal and external appeal happen, happen quickly, and those appeals be exhausted before there is ever a right to sue. The goal should not be let's see if we can get to court to see who can get the dollars. The goal should be to ensure the patient is getting the health care they deserve. By allowing a patient to simply wait until 180 days have expired and then to simply allege they only now discovered the injury and to go directly to court without ever having gone through an internal appeal, without ever having gone through an external appeal, is to open the floodgates to lawsuits. Look at the original bill on page 149. You will see that exception is clearly there. This loophole allows an employer to be taken to court 5 years, 10 years, 15 years after its health plan denied a claim for a benefit without ever having gone through an external, independent, medical review process. What is the result? The result is that if Kennedy-McCain passes as it is now written, we will threaten the very employer-provided health insurance system that has served our country well. Maybe that is the goal. Maybe, instead of patient protections, the real goal in this legislation is to swell the ranks of the uninsured and then come back and say: Look at our huge problem. We have to address this again. I hope that is not the goal of those who are pushing this lawsuit- geared so-called Patients' Bill of Rights. Employers will be sued even if they are upheld by the independent medical reviewer's determination under the Kennedy-McCain bill. Kennedy-McCain is, in fact, a trial lawyer's dream. It is a trial lawyer's bill of rights. New lawsuits under Kennedy-McCain have absolutely nothing to do with ensuring that patients get quick access to needed care. According to the Urban Institute, medical malpractice claims take an average of 16 months to file, 25 months to resolve, and 5 years to receive payment. That is what we are inviting in this bill, not that patients are going to have rights and that patients are going to be assured that on an expedited basis they are going to be able to get the kind of medical treatment the insurance company has promised. This bill, as it is currently drafted, will ensure the courts are clogged with lawsuits and lawsuits for not months but years and years. That is not in the interest of improving health care in this country. You would think, after months and years in court, a patient or the patient's family would finally be justly compensated for their injury or their loss, right? Wrong. In fact, the tort system returns less than 50 cents on the dollar to the very people it is designed to help and less than 25 cents for actual economic losses. So the real winners in this lawyers' bill of rights will, in fact, be the trial lawyers. The lawyers win and the process wins and the patients lose. That is why we need to improve this bill. Madam President, how long do I have remaining?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. It is said over and over again that we have to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights because the American people are demanding it. I think if you ask the American people, if you ask most Members of Congress, are you for a Patients' Bill of Rights, they would overwhelmingly say yes. I would say yes. We all believe patients ought to have greater patient protections and they ought to be codified. They ought to be in law. But it does not tell the whole story. A recent survey that was conducted in conjunction with the Harvard School of Public Health found this. When the question was asked of the American people, all voters, Republicans, Democrats and Independents, do you favor a Patients' Bill of Rights, 76 percent said yes. But when they were asked this question, what if you heard that this law would raise the cost of health plans and cause some companies to stop offering health care plans to their workers, would you still favor a Patients' Bill of Rights? Instead of 76 percent, 30 percent say they would favor it under that situation. During the last few weeks, it has become increasingly clear to the American people that the Kennedy-McCain Patients' Bill of Rights, which opens the floodgates to lawsuits, would increase health care premiums and cause millions of people to lose their health care insurance, and they do not favor that kind of bill of rights. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from two of my Arkansas constituents who are employers, telling about the threat this litigation-laden bill poses to their ability to offer health insurance to their constituents.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the debate over energy use in America has gripped our national attention for well over a year. A week doesn't go by that you don't pick up a newspaper or magazine and read at least one story about our Nation's domestic or foreign energy crisis. One issue in the energy debate that has caught my attention and that of farmers in my State is renewable fuels. The technology to convert agricultural crops into combustible fuel, suitable for use in modern diesel and gasoline engines, has existed for more than 100 years. I believe this process continues to hold great potential for America. The production and use of biofuels offers our Nation a safe, renewable source of energy for travel and transport, not to mention the long-term economic benefits for farmers and consumers. That is why I rise today to introduce the Biodiesel Renewable Fuels Act. I am pleased that Senator Dayton has joined with me as my lead cosponsor. This bill encourages the use of biodiesel by establishing a tax credit for manufacturers who produce a blend of conventional diesel and soybean or oilseed additives. By reducing the diesel fuel excise tax, suppliers will receive a 3-cent-per-gallon credit for using a diesel blend that contains at least 2 percent biodiesel. This tax credit is very similar to the existing tax incentive for ethanol, a biofuel made from corn-based products. I believe a tax incentive for soy-based biodiesel will increase domestic production and capture the agricultural, environmental and economical benefits associated with using this renewable source of energy. Most Americans don't realize that farm communities sit atop a vast and virtually untapped source of renewable fuels in the form of agriculture crops. Farmers in Arkansas are interested in developing new markets for soybean and oilseed products. In Arkansas for example, farmers grew 94 million bushels, or 2.5 million metric tons, of soybeans last year. Nationally, farmers produced 2.6 billion bushels of soybeans in 1999-2000, equal to 72 million metric tons. The oil derived from soybeans and other oilseed crops can be refined into a diesel additive or diesel alternative. According to a USDA study released in 1996, an annual market for biodiesel of 100 million gallons in the United States would raise the price of soybeans by up to seven cents per bushel. Given the recent U.S. soybean crop, that kind of annual market would result in more than $168 million directly related to the use of soy-based biodiesel. Producing biodiesel domestically also means that more money stays in the U.S. Instead of purchasing more foreign petroleum, manufacturers can reduce their dependence on overseas oil by adding biodiesel blends for use in existing diesel engines. If domestic companies are encouraged to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce more biodiesel, the economic effect will be more U.S. jobs, lower prices for the consumer and larger markets for farmers. Developing markets for agricultural commodities and reducing our dependence on foreign oil is good, but there are environmental benefits as well. It is well documented that the burning of biofuels in combustion engines reduces the emissions of harmful greenhouse gases and particulate matter. In fact, biodiesel passes some of the Environmental Protection Agency's most stringent emissions and health standards for fuel additives and fuel alternatives. This becomes important when you consider the EPA's recent announcement that California should continue to use ethanol as a fuel oxygenate to improve air quality. As more cities and States are faced with having to improve the quality of their air, I believe biofuels are a sensible alternative to existing oxygenates which are not as friendly to the environment or human health. If using biodiesel improves air quality, reduces our dependence on foreign oil and provides a value-added market for soybean and oilseed crops, then we should support legislation to further development of this renewable source of fuel. My bill is good for farmers, it's good for consumers and it's good for the environment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Biodiesel Renewable Fuels Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the debate over energy use in America has gripped our national attention for well over a year. A week doesn't go by that you don't pick up a newspaper or magazine and read at least one story about our Nation's domestic or foreign energy crisis. One issue in the energy debate that has caught my attention and that of farmers in my State is renewable fuels. The technology to convert agricultural crops into combustible fuel, suitable for use in modern diesel and gasoline engines, has existed for more than 100 years. I believe this process continues to hold great potential for America. The production and use of biofuels offers our Nation a safe, renewable source of energy for travel and transport, not to mention the long-term economic benefits for farmers and consumers. That is why I rise today to introduce the Biodiesel Renewable Fuels Act. I am pleased that Senator Dayton has joined with me as my lead cosponsor. This bill encourages the use of biodiesel by establishing a tax credit for manufacturers who produce a blend of conventional diesel and soybean or oilseed additives. By reducing the diesel fuel excise tax, suppliers will receive a 3-cent-per-gallon credit for using a diesel blend that contains at least 2 percent biodiesel. This tax credit is very similar to the existing tax incentive for ethanol, a biofuel made from corn-based products. I believe a tax incentive for soy-based biodiesel will increase domestic production and capture the agricultural, environmental and economical benefits associated with using this renewable source of energy. Most Americans don't realize that farm communities sit atop a vast and virtually untapped source of renewable fuels in the form of agriculture crops. Farmers in Arkansas are interested in developing new markets for soybean and oilseed products. In Arkansas for example, farmers grew 94 million bushels, or 2.5 million metric tons, of soybeans last year. Nationally, farmers produced 2.6 billion bushels of soybeans in 1999-2000, equal to 72 million metric tons. The oil derived from soybeans and other oilseed crops can be refined into a diesel additive or diesel alternative. According to a USDA study released in 1996, an annual market for biodiesel of 100 million gallons in the United States would raise the price of soybeans by up to seven cents per bushel. Given the recent U.S. soybean crop, that kind of annual market would result in more than $168 million directly related to the use of soy-based biodiesel. Producing biodiesel domestically also means that more money stays in the U.S. Instead of purchasing more foreign petroleum, manufacturers can reduce their dependence on overseas oil by adding biodiesel blends for use in existing diesel engines. If domestic companies are encouraged to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce more biodiesel, the economic effect will be more U.S. jobs, lower prices for the consumer and larger markets for farmers. Developing markets for agricultural commodities and reducing our dependence on foreign oil is good, but there are environmental benefits as well. It is well documented that the burning of biofuels in combustion engines reduces the emissions of harmful greenhouse gases and particulate matter. In fact, biodiesel passes some of the Environmental Protection Agency's most stringent emissions and health standards for fuel additives and fuel alternatives. This becomes important when you consider the EPA's recent announcement that California should continue to use ethanol as a fuel oxygenate to improve air quality. As more cities and States are faced with having to improve the quality of their air, I believe biofuels are a sensible alternative to existing oxygenates which are not as friendly to the environment or human health. If using biodiesel improves air quality, reduces our dependence on foreign oil and provides a value-added market for soybean and oilseed crops, then we should support legislation to further development of this renewable source of fuel. My bill is good for farmers, it's good for consumers and it's good for the environment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Biodiesel Renewable Fuels Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume in opposition to the Dodd amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as we hear the debate on removing the 21st century program from the Straight A's demonstration project, I am reminded very much of the fierce debate that occurred in the early and mid-1990s over welfare reform. I was in the House at the time and there were those of us who believed that the great reforms that were taking place in welfare were occurring at the State level--there were a number of Governors around the country who were in the forefront of reforming, and the Presiding Officer was one of those Governors--and that the best thing we could do on the Federal level after a generation of trying to micromanage welfare, and having done a miserable job at it and, in fact, having seen welfare dependence only increase in our country, many of us believed, on a bipartisan basis, that the best possible thing we could do was to give the States broad new flexibility in the reforms they would enact at the State level. There was a fierce debate over whether that was a good direction in which to go. The opponents continually raised the issue that you can't really trust the States and we dare not give them that kind of flexibility; if we give them that flexibility, they will misuse it and they will abuse the poor and they will not take care of the most vulnerable in our society. And there was the hue and cry about block granting being the great evil; that only those of us in Washington knew how to care for those who were in need. Many campaigns were run on the issue of how callous and heartless it was to pass welfare reform. Well, history demonstrated that that was one of the greatest things we could do for the working poor and for the welfare-dependent in this country--the welfare reform that Congress passed and President Clinton ultimately signed into law. As a result, welfare rolls nationwide have fallen. Tens of thousands have gone from a life of dependence to a life of productive work and have begun to realize and to live out the American dream. As we bring forth a very small demonstration program that has been compromised and compromised, whittled and whittled, until it is but a shadow of its former self, we hear the same arguments raised against this small demonstration program that we heard against welfare reform years ago. I know there are differences, but there are a lot of similarities; the argument is basically the same: You can't trust that the States are going to do the right thing. Never mind that they are elected by the same people who elected us. It doesn't matter that they are accountable to the same constituents to whom we are accountable. We can't trust them. Only we can ensure that these programs are conducted in the right way. There have been good faith negotiations that went on, bipartisan negotiations, about a bill and about a program--the Straight A's--that at least there could be a little effort, a little opportunity for States--no State would be compelled to--and for 25 school districts-- but no school district would be compelled--to enter into not a block grant in the purest sense but a program in which they would be given greater flexibility than ever before in exchange for a very tight commitment on performance improvement. But if a State is going to make that kind of commitment, there has to be some incentive. And the more we pull out of the Straight A's demonstration program, the less incentive there is. I think most who have looked at what is left of Straight A's would agree that if the Dodd amendment passes, there will be little if any incentive. There will not be a Straight A's. This will destroy it, take out the very heart of it, and there will not be one State or one school district that would see it worthwhile to make the kind of commitments required under Straight A's for the limited flexibility that would remain. Let me just say, as we think about where this program has gone, the President campaigned on this and he called it charter States. He saw it as a national program. He wanted to make it an opportunity for all States. This is where we are now. We have gone from 50 States and 14,000 school districts to a demonstration project for 7 States and 25 school districts. For those who would argue that we have not given, not compromised, I say we have compromised to the point that there is nothing left if this amendment passes. So we have gone from a national program of 50 States to 7 States and 25 school districts. Additionally, there must be geographic distribution if more than that number applies. We have gone from no targeting of Federal dollars to maintaining the title I targeting to schools unless an alternative method better targets. We have made that compromise from the original program. We have gone from no limitations on non-title I dollars to providing that non-title I must target as well--additional targeting. That is a compromise that the authors of this legislation have made in the course of the negotiations. We have agreed to take out reading--a $1 billion program--from the list of eligible programs. We also agreed to take out the following programs in the negotiations, as the Senator from Connecticut well knows. We agreed to remove the migrant program, the homeless program, the immigrant program, and the Indian program. We have agreed to maintenance of effort language--another compromise made from the original proposal that the President ran on and that so many of us believe in and have sought. We have agreed to restrict the amendment process so SEAs or LEAs cannot game the process. We have agreed to allow an LEA to opt out of the performance agreement upon permission from the SEA. We have agreed to require parental involvement to be required in the performance agreement. That is something that Senator Reid sought as a concession in the process of negotiations that were made. We have agreed to requiring parental participation and that it be reported. We have agreed to prevent a State from becoming a charter State if an LEA becomes one until the end of the term of the LEA performance agreement. We agreed to make the sections of title I apply, and there are six different sections that we agreed to make apply. None of those sections were originally applied to Straight A's. We have agreed to include teacher quality and bilingual education goals as part of the performance agreements--another concession and compromise made. We have agreed to strict private school equitable participation language. We have tightened the approval requirements for the performance agreements so it will be subject to peer review and based on quality, not first come/first served as was done with the Ed-Flex legislation. We have tightened the amendment procedure for amendments to performance agreements. We have agreed that a State or district may not get an Ed-Flex waiver for any program it consolidates under the performance agreement. On and on goes the list of concessions that have been made, in trying to preserve an important part of this education legislation. And now the last remnant is sought to be pulled out as well. Basically, when we vote on this amendment, the question is: Do we want to have a Straight A's demonstration program or not? To vote for the Dodd amendment is to say we should not have this at all. If that is the position, it is honest, but let's just say that not just whittle it down until there is nothing but a few fragments of sawdust left of what was a concept and an idea that had great merit. So we are clinging to that which is left, after all of the concessions that have been made. To pull this program will pull so much of the remaining funding resources in the Straight A's demonstration program that there will be virtually no incentive for school districts or for States to participate. It will be but a figleaf. It will be that we can say, well, it is in the bill, but what is there isn't--we really would not even get an idea of whether it was a workable concept in the first place if this much is pulled out. I plead with my colleagues. I don't question the sincerity of those who are devoted to this. There are devotees to every program in Straight A's. I am certain that there are worthwhile qualities to most of those programs. But if the concept is we consolidate spending streams, provide flexibility to the States and local school districts, in exchange for a guarantee that they are going to increase performance, then we must set aside those very parochial, programmatic loyalties to say at least in these few States and few school districts we will give them the opportunity to experiment and see if they have a better way. I ask my colleagues to defeat the Dodd amendment, to preserve what is left of the Straight A's Program in this demonstration, and allow those few States and those few school districts that will be given an opportunity under the language in the bill to have a chance, given the new flexibility they will have, to demonstrate that the reforms and the leadership they can provide at the local level will, in fact, reward the children. That is where our great interest should be, not in preserving a program but in doing what is best for the children. I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of our time.

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order in relation to amendment No. 555.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I send a further modification to amendment No. 555 to the desk and ask unanimous consent it be so modified.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I want to make a brief presentation on this amendment and the need for this amendment. Senator Sessions may also wish to make a brief statement regarding this amendment. I believe in discussions with Senator Kennedy and Senator Reid this amendment has been agreed to, but I do want to make a brief statement about it and give Senator Sessions an opportunity to do likewise. In my role last year as chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee on Armed Services, we held two hearings regarding recruitment to our armed services. One of the tragedies I became aware of was there are literally thousands of high schools across the United States that have denied access to our military recruiters. That is a national shame. In fact, we found that in 1999, which is the last year figures are available, the Army was denied access to 4,515 high schools; The Navy was denied access to 4,364 high schools; The Marine Corps was denied access to 4,884 high schools; and the Air Force was denied access to 5,465 high schools. These same high schools across the country are providing student directory information to college recruiters. They are providing routine access to employers, to class ring companies. I was very concerned about this. As a result, I put a provision in last year's Defense authorization bill that required those high schools that want to deny access to go through a process in which the publicly elected school board members would have to vote proactively to deny access on a discriminatory basis to military recruiters. I do not think many are going to do that. The thousands of schools that are denying access are doing so usually at the whim of a principal or superintendent who, for one reason or another, does not believe recruiters should come on campus. I believe they should have equal access. To the extent they allow college recruiters and employers to recruit, then our military recruiters should be able to come on that campus and tell their story, and they have a great story to tell. They have a story to tell about career opportunities in our armed services. They have a story to tell about educational benefits that are offered in the armed services. They have a story to tell about what Congress has done to enhance health care benefits for those who make a career in the armed services. They have a great story to tell young people, and young people need to have this career option laid out before them. The military should not be discriminated against. We put those provisions in, and Senator Kennedy worked closely with us ensuring it was not too heavy handed. In fact, there is a whole process set up in which schools that are denying access will have everyone clear up to the Secretary of Defense notified. The Governor of the State will be notified, and a process is put in place whereby whatever problems may have led to that discriminatory denial of access can be addressed and hopefully amicably addressed so recruiters can get into the schools again. Only when a publicly elected school board votes publicly to deny access will they be able to opt out of the bill. If they ignore the law, which was passed by the Congress last year and signed into law, they open themselves to a Federal lawsuit. What we are finding out now is we are approaching the 1 year out from when the law takes effect. Recruiters have told me this year, personnel chiefs have told me this year that they are finding principals do not know there has been a change in the law. Superintendents simply do not know that this is the new law of the land. My amendment tells the Secretary of Education that he must begin an educational campaign in the course of this next year so superintendents and principals are not going to have the excuse that they did not know. They are going to know what the new policy is. They are going to know what the new law is and begin, hopefully, to prepare for July 1, 2001, when that law takes effect. I am very pleased that on both sides of the aisle, in a bipartisan way, there is an agreement. This has been a good step to take. This is a good vehicle for this provision in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I am also pleased Senator Sessions of Alabama called to my attention another problem that has developed. I yield to Senator Sessions for a statement about that provision he has added in a modification to the amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, for his leadership on this issue. He has outlined not only what this amendment is but what it would do and why it is so important. It would enable 10 interested cities, 3 interested States, to provide low-income parents with the option to send their children to the public or private school of their choice. The Secretary of Education would award grant money to these interested cities and States based on their application. Under the amendment, special consideration would be given to applications which sought to serve the highest number of children from low-income families and that provided parents with a diverse range of schools from which to choose. No money would be taken away from public schools for this program. Whether it is title I or IDEA, there would be a hold harmless. Nobody would be reduced. A pool of money of $50 million would be established in fiscal year 2002 to be used for this new program. Only children who are eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, children from families at 185 percent of poverty or below, and who attend a school that has been identified as failing for 3 successive years would be eligible to receive educational certificates for tuition under this amendment. There is also a strong evaluation component to this program. It requires the Secretary of Education to contract with an independent evaluating entity to conduct an ongoing evaluation of the program. For all the doubters out there, we would at least be able to provide the data, to provide the evidence one way or another on whether choice really benefits students and parents and, in fact, improves public schools. The Center on Education Policy, an independent advocate for public schools, states in their report entitled ``School Vouchers: What We Know and Don't Know and How We Could Learn More,'' evaluation requirements are important to any public policy on school choice. This little pittance of $50 million for the entire Nation could provide us the kind of database we need, the kind of evidence, the kind of analysis to allow public policymakers of the future to know. Senator Gregg and I may have the confidence--we may believe the evidence is there--but this demonstration program will provide the kind of evidence needed to convince policymakers, both at the State and Federal level, of the value of a choice program. The idea of school choice is not at all new. It has been around for years. We currently have three high-profile school choice programs in Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Florida. There are a number of others around the country. They offer a money-back guarantee to parents of children in failing schools. Taxpayers deserve to get results from funding that goes to public schools. After 35 years and $120 billion in Federal funding, it is time we hold schools accountable for enabling our children to reach high standards. In my own thinking, as I have cosponsored this amendment and thought about the issue of what is the legitimate role of the Federal Government, do we have a role, I believe it must be very limited. I do believe, however, that a demonstration program that targets only low- income students--and that has been the basis upon which the Federal Government has involved itself in a domain that has been historically left to State and local entities; we have said the Federal Government has a responsibility for disadvantaged students in trying to narrow the learning gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students--fits the proper Federal role. This amendment targets directly those who are disadvantaged. Only low-income students from low-income families would be able to access these education certificates. In my own mind, I have outlined five reasons I believe this amendment should be passed. No. 1, it is totally voluntary and permissive. We are talking about 10 cities in 3 States. No one would be forced. There would be no compulsion. I know some of my colleagues from Western States do not support the idea of choice. They don't see that as advantageous in their particular situation. I understand that. I ask them--not for what it might do for their rural States in which there are few choices and in which schools are widely diverse and separated by many miles--to think, as they vote on the amendment, not about their States, because it will not affect them, but about those children trapped in failing schools in the inner cities of our country, to think about inner-city Philadelphia or inner-city Washington, DC, or Atlanta or Houston where the Secretary of Education understands the value of this kind of a program and has endorsed this very concept. No one would be forced to be involved. There is no compulsion. There would be an independent entity to evaluate and determine whether or not this was a worthwhile approach. A report prepared by the National Research Council and commissioned by the Clinton administration recommends that Government conduct ``a large and ambitious research experiment to determine whether school choice programs improve student performance.'' That was the recommendation of a study commissioned by the Clinton administration, issued in 1999, that said this is exactly the kind of large-scale experiment--if you can call $50 million nationwide large scale--to give us the answers to the questions posed concerning the value of a choice program. I believe choice opponents, those who oppose the idea of allowing parents this kind of choice, should support this amendment. If in fact they are right, this will give them the data to put the stake, finally, in the idea of choice programs. It is totally voluntary. It is entirely permissive. I hope my colleagues who have reservations about choice will support this amendment, realizing that no school district and no State would be required to participate. It is entirely permissive. Only those who are interested, only those who, on their own volition, decide they want to experiment, they want to try, they want to be a part of this demonstration program, will even be affected. No. 2, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment because in fact it does target and benefit those for whom we have our greatest concern--low-income families. It would only be failing schools, those who have failed year after year after year. The certificates would only be for children who are eligible for free and reduced lunch. We have a form of choice in this country right now. The choice, though, is limited to your ability to move to a new neighborhood. I am told that in Dallas, TX, there are about 158 local schools. Affluent families are limited in their choice of what elementary school to go to only by their ability to buy a home in that particular neighborhood. Those who have the means to relocate--and it happens here in the Washington, DC, area. When people think about buying a home or a townhouse, they will investigate the neighborhood, the schools, the crime rate, and they will check out where the best schools are, which schools have the best teachers, which schools produce the best academic product. They will make their determination of where they want to locate, buy their townhouse, or build their home based upon the quality of the schools. They have their choice. But those who have no choice are those who are trapped by a limited income and limited resources and cannot make the decision that their more affluent neighbors can make to move to a better neighborhood. Those low-income families are trapped. They have no choice. My friends, we have a choice program in this country. The choice is whether we want to extend those choices to those today who are left out, who don't have the resources. This amendment targets only those who are in the title I category, those who are low income. In August of 2000, Dr. Jay Greene issued a report entitled ``The Effective School Choice and Evaluation of the Charlotte Children Scholarship Fund.'' He released the results of that study on the Charlotte scholarship program. Among the study's findings, he found that school choice improved scores, pleased parents, provided a safer environment, reduced racial conflict, operated with less money, and offered smaller class sizes and helped low-income parents. In early 2000, John Witt, a professor of the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, the official evaluator of the Milwaukee school choice program, released the results of that latest study. His prior reports, which often had been critical of the Milwaukee choice program and basically concluded they didn't work, most recently changed his conclusions and said the market approach to education and analysis of America's voucher program said that ``choice is a useful tool to aid low-income families.'' That is the reason I ask my colleagues to join in supporting this amendment because it is targeting only the most disadvantaged. The argument so often raised against vouchers is this is only going to benefit higher income people making the choice to go to private schools and this is going to make it easier for them to flee the public schools for the private schools. You cannot make that case under this amendment. It targets and it is limited only to failing schools and low-income families. Low-income academic improvement has been undisputed in the choice programs in this country. In August of 2000, Harvard University professor Paul Peterson and his colleagues released the results of a study of a privately funded voucher program in New York, in Dayton, OH, and in the District of Columbia. They found that African-American children who used vouchers to attend private schools made significant academic improvements. Black students in their second year at a private school had improved their test scores by 6.3 percentile points--a striking advance at a time when schools around the country were showing an inability to close the achievement gap between white and African- American students. If we are really concerned, as we insist we are, in increasing title I funding because of our concern about disadvantaged students, everyone who says that should support this amendment because it can only benefit those who are least advantaged today. Another piece of evidence is that test scores of low-income children are consistently improving when they are placed in schools with middle- income children. For example, a congressionally mandated 4-year study of about 27,000 title I students found that poor students who attended middle-class schools performed significantly better than those who attended schools where at least half the children were eligible for subsidized lunch. The contrast was even greater with schools in which more than 75 percent of students lived in low-income households. I think that is very compelling; that this kind of a demonstration program, this kind of a choice opportunity is going to be particularly beneficial academically for low-income, disadvantaged students who now would be able to be shoulder to shoulder in a school that had higher income students--what we call middle and upper middle class students. The evidence is that when put in that classroom context, academic scores go up. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment because, in fact, it targets and benefits the most needy--low-income students. Thirdly, it takes absolutely nothing from the public schools. No State will lose money. Not a State in this country would see their portion of Federal funding reduced because of this amendment. There would be no title I reductions; there would be no IDEA impact. All of the kinds of traditional arguments we hear against choice programs are taken off the table by this amendment. No school would lose money; no public school would be hurt. It would merely provide an opportunity--a small opportunity indeed--for $50 million statewide, 3 States, 10 cities--but it would begin to give us the evidence we need, and it would give hope to a few who would be able to participate in this demonstration program. It answers the main concern that opponents have raised, and that is that it is taking money away from public schools. It will not do that. I think that is evidenced by the fact the Washington Post endorsed the Gregg amendment. Everybody--all my colleagues--has on their desk a copy of that endorsement. Their concern has been that these kinds of choice programs are going to take money away from the public schools or they are going to only benefit higher income people. This amendment addresses both of those concerns. That is why the Washington Post has endorsed this amendment, because it targets the low income and will have no negative impact on public schools. Fourthly, I ask Senators to support this amendment because this whole concept is, in fact, immensely popular. It is supported by the vast majority of the American people--this kind of idea to give parents more choices and more opportunities. For example, a congressionally mandated 4-year study of about 27,000 title I students--I made reference to that, but they showed great academic improvement. The popularity of this program is becoming increasingly beyond dispute. In March 2001, the National Education Association released their findings from a recent survey in which a clear majority of the American people supported the President's proposal to allow parents of children in chronically failing schools to use public dollars to send their children to a public, private, or charter school of choice. In fact, 63 percent favored giving them tuition vouchers worth $1,500 a year, as the President originally proposed. Frankly, I wish we had done what the President campaigned on and what he proposed doing, in taking part of that title I money, the Federal dollars, for low-income children, and in chronically failing schools that failed in 3 successive years, giving them the opportunity to take that money and use it in private schools, with tutors. That has been watered down, diluted, and basically removed. All that remains is supplemental services, not a voucher at all. I wish we had done that. The American people supported that. But we didn't and we are where we are. This is our opportunity to at least give it a try. It is supported and is very popular. Senator Gregg cited the statistics during his opening comments that last year the Children's Scholarship Foundation, a private scholarship fund, offered 40,000 scholarships nationwide and had one and a quarter million applicants. Maybe that is the best evidence. Maybe that is the best evidence of the popularity of this approach. Those one and a quarter million applications were in spite of the fact that applicants had to match the scholarship with $1,000 of their own money. Low- income, poor families were willing to put up $1,000 in order to be able to participate, to have the choice that wealthier, higher income people have every day. This is a popular concept. It is something we as a Senate, we as a Congress, should give a trial opportunity--or fail. We should not buckle under to the teachers unions and those who are wedded to the status quo. If we are concerned about leaving no child behind, this is an amendment that ought to get overwhelming support in the Senate. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment because it fosters competition and innovation. I believe competition between private schools and public schools benefits all children in this country. I have often used the analogy of our higher education in this country. We have, indisputably, the best higher educational system in the world. Travel the world; we find leaders in most of the countries of this world who have received part of their higher education in the United States. Foreign students flock to this country to receive the best in higher education. How did we achieve that? We created a system of Pell grants. One can take that Pell grant and go anywhere, any accredited institution: public, private, parochial or otherwise. That competition has enhanced the quality and the academic standing of all of our institutions of higher learning. It has fostered innovation and made our colleges and universities world class by all standards. Then we look at elementary, look at high school, and see between 4th grade and 12th grade this steep decline in our competitiveness with other nations. The difference is, in higher education, there is choice; in elementary and secondary, there is no choice unless you are wealthy enough to take advantage, unless you have the resources. Then you have choice. Why should we not give low-income parents the same opportunity, the same choices, the same chance to give their children the opportunity to live the American dream that their more affluent neighbors have? That is the heart, that is the crux of the Gregg amendment. I believe, as we have seen in Milwaukee, public schools will improve and academic achievement for all students will improve. It is one of the interesting things about the Jay Greene study on the Florida A+ program. It was not just the students who were beneficiaries but the public school institutions that are the winners. He found when a public school failed for the second time and they began to have the threat that some of their students might depart and receive opportunity scholarships to go elsewhere hanging over them, suddenly those test scores began to increase. In fact, they increased twice as much as those test score achievements in other schools. So the schools of all stripes are the winners under a program such as this. That competition is healthy. America today has, whether we admit it or not, a nationwide school choice system. It is a school choice system that is rationed, rationed educational opportunity, through the housing market--where you can afford to live. If you can afford to move out into the suburbs, if you can afford to go and pick your neighborhood where the good schools are, you have your choice. We have a very class conscious choice system in this country. The Gregg amendment says shouldn't those who stand to gain the most, those who are the most disadvantaged, those who are in the lowest income homes, have some choices, too? They have been locked out of those choices. They have been trapped in failing schools. They don't have the opportunity to move away from their neighborhood. When given the chance, through private scholarships, limited as any are, the private scholarship students have taken those opportunities because they know what is at stake is the children's future. That is why I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment--not just to write it off as a choice program that may or may not benefit your particular State, or to write it off and say, I have always said I oppose choice so I will vote against this without even examining what it does or who it targets, or to say, I don't want to take the heat I might receive from the National Education Association or other groups that are wedded to this system we have had for 35 years. If we believe our commitment and our responsibility as Federal public policymakers is to help low-income, help disadvantaged kids, then look at this amendment. I remind my colleagues again, it takes nothing away from the public schools. It does not diminish by one dime the resources they have. It targets only the low income. Let's give it a chance. Look at the data: $50 million, 3 States, 10 cities. Let's give the most needy in our society the same choice the most affluent already have.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jonathan McIllwain and Brittni Aldridge, summer interns in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of today's debate on S. 1.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, let me say a few words about this amendment. Then I will speak on the bill in general. Just reading the Wellstone amendment helps to clarify the argument and the signal this amendment sends. It says: No State shall be required to conduct any assessments under this subparagraph in any school year if, by July 1, 2005, the amount appropriated to carry out this part for fiscal year 2005 does not equal or exceed $24,720,000,000. That is, let's fully fund--however we define ``fully fund''--title I before we require this accountability and these assessments. The signal of this amendment, the not-too-subtle message is that the problem in our educational system in this country is there is not enough money. That is the less-than-subtle message the Senator from Minnesota would send out to school districts across this Nation: We are not going to have accountability; we are not going to require testing; we are not going to have assessments under this title until we triple the funding. If money were the issue, if simply spending more money would solve our education problems in this country, we would have no education bill before us. If one looks at the last decade, particularly in terms of the Federal Government's involvement, it has been about a 180-percent increase over the previous decade. Nationally, we have increased spending on education by about 30 percent, if one looks at every source of spending on education. There have been dramatic increases in education spending, but there has been no--I repeat--there has been no correlation to increased test scores and increased student achievement. While I do not doubt the sincerity of the Senator from Minnesota, I question the logic and the message this amendment sends forth. In the 1994 ESEA reauthorization, Congress required assessments in three grades. Those provisions were in effect no matter how much or how little Federal funding was provided. The fact is, we did not pay for the testing that we at that time required. In the bill before us, I believe we are more than increasing spending sufficient to meet the new mandates that are being placed upon the States. The Senator from Minnesota says we are setting schools up for failure. I suggest that what we are really doing is freeing schools and freeing States to make the kind of reforms to focus resources where real academic achievement can be realized. I have talked to education officials in the State of Arkansas. I have talked to education officials in our State department, and they support the President's education initiative. They support the provisions regarding testing. It does not scare them. They realize this is the way we measure; this is the way we assess; this is the best means we have to really demonstrate that education is working, that children are learning, and that the investments being made in Federal, State, and local resources are good investments. This amendment strikes at the very heart of the President's plan. We currently provide almost $9 billion for title I, and since title I has been around, we have seen no correlating rise in test scores among students being served. Why then would it be suggested we should require that we eliminate the most important accountability provisions of the bill and not put those accountability provisions in effect until we triple title I funding? Total national spending on elementary and secondary education has increased 129 percent over the last decade, but Federal spending has increased by over 180 percent over the last decade. Since Republicans gained control of the House and Senate in 1995, Federal spending on elementary and secondary education has increased from $14.7 billion in 1996 to $27.8 billion in 2002. That is an almost doubling of the Federal funds for elementary and secondary education. I suggest we should not try to portray one party or another party as being committed to education but look at the facts, look at the commitment that has been demonstrated in resources. But increasing funding is simply not the answer in and of itself. There are a lot of statistics that can demonstrate that. Let me share a few of them. These statistics came from the most recent 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress, the NAEP test, demonstrating that with the $120 billion that has been invested, poor kids still lag behind those of more affluent backgrounds in reading. In 4th grade, 8th grade, 12th grade, the areas in which we require testing, we can see that gap is as real and as evident as it ever was. The whole reason the Federal Government involved itself in local education was justified by our commitment to narrowing the gap between affluent homes, advantaged children, and those from less affluent homes and disadvantaged backgrounds. The experiment has been a monumental failure. We have invested billions of dollars, and yet we have not narrowed that gap. It is not time to reduce the resources but to ensure with those resources there are genuine and real reforms that accompany the resources. This is a graph demonstrating ESEA funding versus the NAEP reading scores. A chart such as this clearly demonstrates there is a lack of correlation between increased spending and automatic improvement in reading scores or academic achievement. The appropriation for ESEA programs is in the billions of dollars. The red line demonstrates how dramatically those increases have occurred. The green line demonstrates the national fourth grade reading scores, which have effectively, since 1991, been level. There has been increased spending without a comparable increase--in fact, any demonstrable increase--in reading scores nationally. If we look at math, we find exactly the same story. These are ESEA funding versus NAEP math scores. There is a flat line on math achievement and a dramatic increase in appropriations for ESEA. We simply cannot find the evidence which shows that with increased spending, given the resources, the results are going to be there. This bill dramatically increases spending, but to its credit and to the President's credit for taking the lead on this issue, it says increased resources must be accompanied by real reforms, real assessments, real accountability. That is what this legislation does. The United States spends more per student than most other advanced nations in the world. This chart clearly demonstrates, even if we look at advanced nations in Europe--Denmark, Switzerland, France--and Australia, we are expending more money, sometimes dramatically more money, than other developed nations. If spending were the answer, if the more we spent per student the better the test scores were going to be, the greater the academic achievement, hence, the greater opportunity those children would have in the future, then we should be leading the world in academic achievement. After all, we are spending more per student than any other advanced nation in the world. What are the academic results internationally? A 1999 chemistry knowledge achievement on the TIMSS eighth grade test shows we are lagging way behind Hungary, Finland, Japan, Bulgaria, Slovak Republic, South Korea, Russian Federation, Australia--we are way down in our achievement in the area of chemistry. We are spending more, but we are not producing more. This chart shows the 1999 algebra knowledge achievement test in the area of math in the eighth grade. Once again, we are near the bottom of the industrialized nations of the world. South Korea cannot compare with how much we are spending per student in this country, and yet they dramatically outperform American students. There simply is not the correlation between spending and academic achievement that many would like to draw. This next chart is 1999 geometry knowledge achievement in the eighth grade. Once again, looking at the industrialized nations around the world from Japan to Australia, they far outperform American eighth grade students in math and in science. Does it mean we should spend less? No. It means we should spend more wisely. It means we must accompany increased spending with real reform, with accountability, with assessment, with local control and flexibility. Truly one size does not fit all. There is one message the Arkansas Department of Education sent to my office: Do not handcuff us; do not continue down the road of prescriptive national formulas on what we must do. Give us the flexibility to make local reforms and, hence, improve student achievement. The evidence is clear that this amendment, well intended as it may be, is greatly misguided. We have a bill before us that, if we were to enact it without undermining its very underpinnings and pulling its very heart out, could move us in a dramatically new and better direction on education. It provides important provisions on greater parental choice, not as much as many would like but greater parental choice. The charter States and the straight A provisions, although much watered down, still provide a new and bold opportunity for a few States to experiment with real reform, unhindered by Federal prescriptive programs. New standards; the requirement of testing grades 3-8; participation in the NAEP; testing 4 and 8; ensuring that not only are the States testing but the tests they are utilizing are meaningful and are giving an accurate depiction of what schools are succeeding and what schools are failing; what States have reforms that are working and what States are not doing the job. On improvement in teacher quality, I applaud and commend the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire for his lead on improving teacher quality and ensuring that money is wisely invested in professional development, not giving a one-size-fits-all but providing a flexible funding stream to meet the particular teacher quality needs that school districts have across this country. Finally, with those reforms, with increased parental flexibility, local school flexibility, with attention on individual children, with the requirements on testing, with the consolidation of the plethora of Federal programs, with all of those reforms, there is the increase in spending. That should be the proper Federal role. We have a great opportunity before the Senate. We have been on the bill for weeks and weeks. We have debated scores of amendments. The genuine and real thrust of the President's education program has thus far been kept intact. The challenge before the Senate this week and next will be to beat back those amendments that turn back to the failed practices of the past, turn back to the misguided notion that more money means better education. That is our challenge, to keep that part of this bill alive, to honor the pledge the President of the United States made to the American people to take us in a new and dramatically better direction on education. I am still hopeful and optimistic, but amendments such as this threaten a return to the failed status quo. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Would the Senator from Michigan concede that although there are differences between European nations and the students they educate in the upper grades, the statistics I showed giving international comparisons in the eighth grade in both Europe and the United States, all students are being educated, that it demonstrates we are achieving less on those international test scores than comparable student bodies in European nations?

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I am proud to rise today as an original cosponsor of Senator Jeffords' and Senator Feinstein's resolution designating this week as ``National Correction Officers and Employees Week.'' I commend them for their efforts to honor the 200,000 men and women who work in our Federal and State correctional institutions. Too often, American citizens overlook the importance of these men and women who must work with society's most hardened and dangerous criminals under difficult circumstances. Today, I want them to know how much I admire and appreciate them for their willingness to face danger daily as they work to enforce our Nation's laws and ensure the safety of all American citizens. At this time, I also offer my condolences to the families and friends of the 11 correctional officers who died in the line of duty last year. I am deeply appreciative of their sacrifices and am sorry for their loss.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the amendment by my colleague from Arkansas tears the very heart out of the Coverdell ESA that previously passed this Chamber by large bipartisan majorities. This is by no means vouchers, by any stretch of the imagination. These are education IRAs, and the rights of parents should be preserved to have the maximum flexibility in their use. In fact, studies indicate that 75 percent of the parents who have used these ESAs have their children in public schools. It harms the bipartisan nature of the chairman's mark, the agreement that was reached on education savings accounts, and to prohibit the use of ESA moneys for tuition and fees or room and board as proposed by the Senator from Arkansas would mean that the ESAs could only finance tutoring, enrichment courses, and postsecondary education costs. It would, in Arkansas, eliminate 26,645 children and their parents from participation in the use of these education savings accounts. This is a bipartisan measure. It has been agreed upon. It is not vouchers by any stretch. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Preserve Charitable Giving Act. I am proud of this legislation but am profoundly saddened that it has become necessary. Aggressive union organizing tactics have made this legislation necessary because those tactics have forced many of our nation's largest retailers who allow charities to solicit donations on their premises to also give unions access to their premises for the express purpose of organizing or face a flurry of unfair labor practice charges. When faced with this situation, these retailers are thus forced to deny access to everyone, resulting in a loss of charitable donations. The magnitude of this loss cannot be overstated, as charitable donations raised through Wal*Mart alone are over $127 million annually. This means that there are now fewer hot meals for the hungry, fewer toys for poor children, and less clothing and shelter for the homeless. This is unacceptable. Companies should not be forced to choose between furthering charity or increasing union membership. The Preserve Charitable Giving Act will clarity the National Labor Relations Act so that retailers who choose to allow access to their premises for charitable solicitations will not also be forced to give access for union organizing purposes. Thus, I ask my colleagues to preserve charitable giving by helping to enact this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Preserve Charitable Giving Act. I am proud of this legislation but am profoundly saddened that it has become necessary. Aggressive union organizing tactics have made this legislation necessary because those tactics have forced many of our nation's largest retailers who allow charities to solicit donations on their premises to also give unions access to their premises for the express purpose of organizing or face a flurry of unfair labor practice charges. When faced with this situation, these retailers are thus forced to deny access to everyone, resulting in a loss of charitable donations. The magnitude of this loss cannot be overstated, as charitable donations raised through Wal*Mart alone are over $127 million annually. This means that there are now fewer hot meals for the hungry, fewer toys for poor children, and less clothing and shelter for the homeless. This is unacceptable. Companies should not be forced to choose between furthering charity or increasing union membership. The Preserve Charitable Giving Act will clarity the National Labor Relations Act so that retailers who choose to allow access to their premises for charitable solicitations will not also be forced to give access for union organizing purposes. Thus, I ask my colleagues to preserve charitable giving by helping to enact this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside; that I be recognized in order to offer amendment No. 550; and that there be 15 minutes for me to present this amendment; further, following my statement, that my amendment be set aside and Senator Boxer be recognized in order to call up amendment No. 563 and there then be 1 hour equally divided for debate. Further, I ask that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment, and, finally, that there be no amendments in order to either amendment prior to the votes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I so amend my unanimous consent request.