Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his gracious cooperation. This would increase the money we are committing to the weatherization program so that we could, in fact, provide more assistance to low-income homes to weatherize their homes, both to protect themselves in the cold of winter and the heat of summer. It would also make, we hope, the Nation less dependent on foreign sources of energy. It is an excellent proposal and program. I thank the Senator for his cooperation. Mr. President, I yield back my time and ask for a voice vote on the measure.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, Rhode Island and the Nation have lost an extraordinary statesman and patriot, Senator John O. Pastore. Senator Pastore passed away Saturday at the age of 93. He served in this body from December 1950 until January 1977. He served with distinction, he served with integrity, and he served with the utmost commitment to helping the people of Rhode Island and the people of this Nation to achieve the noblest aspirations of this country. He committed his life to public service. Senator Pastore was, in turn, a State representative, an assistant attorney general of the State of Rhode Island, a lieutenant governor, a Governor, and then, for over 26 years, a U.S. Senator. He began his life on March 17, 1907, on Federal Hill, the Italian American community in Rhode Island. It was an interesting combination of a young Italian American born to immigrant parents on St. Patrick's Day. He would never let anyone around forget that he was both proudly Italian and fortuitously Irish--at least for 1 day of the year. He grew up in an immigrant household that was experiencing all the difficulty and travail of people who come to a new land to find themselves and make a better life for their children. It was not glamorous; it was difficult. He endured the difficulties with the same kind of determination that marked his whole life. In his own words: We lived in the ghetto of Federal Hill. We had no running water, no hot water. I used to get up in the morning and have to crank the stove and go out in the back yard and sift out the ashes and come back with a coal that I could recoup. I had to chisel ice with an ice pick in the sink so that I could wash up in the morning. And that was everybody in the family. That wasn't me alone. That was my wife's family. That was everybody's family. The hard, difficult life of a young immigrant family in Providence, RI, in the early part of the century became even more difficult because when Senator Pastore was 9 years old, his father, a tailor, passed away. At the age of 9, he became the man of the family. His mother went to work as a seamstress to support Senator Pastore and four other children. She labored all of her life to do that. Senator Pastore was a bright and gifted student. He progressed through the Providence public schools and finished Classical High School, which was the preeminent public high school in the State of Rhode Island. He did so well that he was offered an opportunity to attend Harvard College so that he could fulfill his dream to become a doctor. He did so well, not only by studying but at the same time supporting his family, working in a jewelry factory in Providence, RI. But the reality and the truth was, he was poor, he was without a father, and he felt the keen obligation to ensure that he protected and helped his family. And so he would forego that opportunity. He was without the funds. He had to work to support his brothers and sisters and help his mother. It is said--and he has said it, in fact--that he wept on the night of his graduation, thinking that his great talent would never be fully utilized, that he would forever be committed to a life of perhaps even menial work. But he did so willingly and voluntarily because he, too, wanted to help his mother and his brothers and sisters to make it in this great country. As we all recognize, all of us who have in any way briefly come in contact with Senator John O. Pastore, he was a man of extraordinary determination. He went to work as a clerk at the Narragansett Electric Company, and during the day he worked hard. But in the evening he enrolled at the Northeastern University Law School extension, held at the Providence YMCA. Those were the days when you could become a lawyer without going to college and then going from college into law school. At night, while working and supporting his family, he became a lawyer. After he became a lawyer, he opened up his practice in the basement of his family's home in Providence. The clientele did not rush to him, frankly, but he also discovered that he had a knack for politics. He ran as a State representative in the thirties. He was elected twice and, at that point, he began to create a name for himself as an articulate advocate, someone who was a hard- working, determined champion, not only for his people but for all people. He was made an assistant attorney general for the State, and then he was selected to run as lieutenant governor. He served as lieutenant governor for the State of Rhode Island. And then, fortuitously--because the Governor accepted a position in the Democratic administration--he became the first Italian American Governor in this great country. Then, he moved on to the U.S. Senate to become the first Italian American Senator in the history of this country. An extraordinary individual. He came here and worked on so many different issues. He was the chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy at the time when atomic energy was becoming a powerful force in all of our lives. He committed himself to the peaceful use of atomic energy to try to develop its potential to help rather than to destroy. He worked ceaselessly to ensure that we were controlling atomic energy throughout the world. He worked very hard on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. He worked with many colleagues--some colleagues who are here today--on that landmark legislation. He also served on the Commerce Committee where he was the chairman of the telecommunications subcommittee. I daresay many of the fundamental foundations and principles that have guided this huge explosion of telecommunications that have opened up the cyberspace of the world began years ago under his deliberations on that committee. Also, in 1974 at the end of his career, he was very active in campaign finance reform in the wake of the Watergate affair. Those are accomplishments, but what is so compelling and so emblematic of the man is that his whole life represented something so fundamentally American. He was modest and humble. He seized the opportunity that is America--the chance to succeed. Then he committed himself in his public life, day in and day out, to ensure that every American had those types of opportunities. That is why he and his colleagues in the 1960s embraced the idea of providing educational support to the talented but poor Americans who could get into college but couldn't afford to go to college. That was not some theoretical flourish he discovered in a lecture hall at a great university; that was from his heart, from having lived it, from having seen so many of his contemporaries with the talent, the skills, and the ambition frustrated and thwarted because they didn't have the money to go to college. In so many other ways, he tried to ensure that ``opportunity'' was the watchword of America. His greatest contribution perhaps is the fact that he lived what we all think America should be and is--that someone can rise up from an immigrant household, from a place where English is not the first language, to the highest positions in this country through hard work, dedication, and commitment. That example alone, that inspiration alone, is extraordinarily important to all of us. We in Rhode Island are very lucky because we have a chance to see our public officials close up. All of us have stories about our leaders. In Rhode Island, Senator Pastore was no exception. We all understood early on that he was one of the most extraordinary debaters and oral advocates this body has seen in a very long time. In 1964, President Johnson asked Senator Pastore to be the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention. I was 14 years old then. I, as every other Rhode Islander, was crowded around the television set on a hot summer's night waiting for our Senator to speak to the Nation. He spoke in his typical powerful and forceful way. He spoke about justice and opportunity. He spoke about the Democratic Party, and he spoke about our commitment to help everyone. He spoke with both passion and precision. He moved that convention, and he moved the Nation. We will never forget those words. Also, again because of the proximity of everyone to everyone else in Rhode Island, I had the chance to see him when I was a younger person in my early teens because my parents would summer down at Narragansett, RI, and his family would summer there also. It was a very modest summer resort. My father was a school custodian. So this was not exactly the Riviera. But he was there because that is where the people were. That is where he went for his summer vacation. I can remember going to mass on a hot summer's day. We were all lucky just to be in long pants because it was summertime. However, he would be there in his suit and tie looking every inch the sartorial master that he was, with a bearing and a dignity that was beyond senatorial, it was regal, but also with a kindness and a humility that came through equally well. Finally, with a great deal of appreciation and gratitude, Senator Pastore was the individual who appointed me to the military academy at West Point. He gave me the greatest opportunity of my life. He did it in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical way. I had never really met the Senator. I had asked for the appointment. I sent him a letter. He had his staff direct me to take a test. I took a test. I took a physical. I took a physical aptitude test. I still remember the moment when his executive assistant called me and told me I was going to West Point. In my office in Washington I have both his picture and the letter he sent me on that day. In my office in Rhode Island I have his picture and the telegram he sent to follow up. He gave me a great opportunity. I like to think that the good things I have done in a way have been a response to that confidence he showed in me as a very young man. He also was someone who had a great sense of humor about himself and about many things. He once quipped that he was very grateful his parents named him John O. Pastore rather than Giovanni Orlando Pastore because in the latter case his initials would have been ``GOP,'' which is something he would have been hard pressed to deal with because of his very strong Democratic life and career. I can remember also that Senator Mansfield spoke to me one time. He said: You know, every St. Patrick's Day, Senator Pastore insisted that he be the President pro tempore. It was his birthday. He wanted to preside. He also reminded everyone that his name was really John O. Pastore with the accent one would have if one were John O'Rourke, or John O'Neill, or John O'Donnell. He was an extraordinary man. He graced us with a life of service. He graced us with a life that is an example to all of us. He has honored us by doing his best every day, by taking his work much more seriously than himself, and by doing this great work and then quietly and gracefully returning home, back to Rhode Island, to his beloved wife and his family--to his simple life with the people he respected and admired. He is beloved in my State of Rhode Island. He is well deserving of that great love. To his wife, Mrs. Pastore, to his son John, to his daughters Francesca and Louise, to his sisters Elena and Michelina, our sincere condolences. But today we not only commemorate his passing but we celebrate his great life. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have amendment No. 3798 at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I do applaud the Senator's efforts over many years to increase this account. He has done that. I think it makes a great deal of sense to provide a local match, which he has, and we would encourage more local participation. It is true we have provided an offset because I recognize that we do not have unlimited free money to put back into the budget. We have taken money from every Federal agency. But I am told that our cut represents .05 percent per agency coming out of travel pay, coming out of administrative overhead. I think that is probably something they could well absorb. I daresay it would not require them to either turn down the heat or turn off the air-conditioning, whereas we are talking about a situation of homes throughout this country where they don't have that luxury. So I agree in principle that we are taking it from agencies, but we are taking such a minute fraction that I think it would be readily absorbed. And we are putting it into a program that is both worthwhile and necessary in so many cases, and also going to the heart of ensuring that people can go into this heating season --particularly in the Northeast--with a little more confidence. I am concerned we are going to see tremendous oil heating price hikes which will force people into very difficult choices between heating or eating. This is a way, I believe, in which we can begin to start addressing this point. Again, I recognize that the chairman has very diligently and sincerely tried to increase these funds. I hope we can do better. I don't think we are penalizing the agencies, and I don't anticipate a park being shut down by the loss of .5 percent of their travel expenses and other overhead.

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy and Senator Schumer be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would provide an additional $8 million for the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program. Across the country this summer, Americans have faced unacceptably high gasoline prices. Last winter, our constituents, particularly in the Northeast, saw extraordinary increases in home heating oil prices. Members of this body have offered various proposals to address this issue, ranging from urging OPEC to increase production; increasing domestic crude oil production, by drilling in new areas; building up our refining capacity; and expanding our use of ethanol and alternative fuels. Essentially, all of these proposals are supply side proposals, increasing the supply of energy. In fact, we are reaching a point now where the proposal to encourage OPEC might be running out of time. I note that the Saudi Arabians are asking for a meeting of OPEC in the next few days, because if there is not a meeting immediately, even if there is an increase in production, it will be insufficient in terms of reaching our markets for the winter heating season. All of these supply side proposals are interesting, but we are neglecting an important aspect of the overall composition of the heating market--and that is demand. The weatherization program goes right to this critical issue of demand. By weatherizing homes, by making them more energy efficient, we are literally cutting down the demand for energy, and typically foreign energy. As Congress debates these proposals for supply relief, we should also start thinking seriously about demand reduction. That is critically involved in the whole issue of energy efficiency and weatherization. At the same time, our weatherization program protects the most vulnerable people in our society because they are aimed at the elderly, individuals with disabilities, children, all of them being subject to huge increases in heating costs, not only in the wintertime--that is the case in the Northeast--but in the Southeast and Southwest and the very hot parts of this country in the summertime. In fact, it was not too long ago--several years ago--in Chicago where there was an extraordinary heat spell. People literally died because they could not afford to keep their air-conditioners running, if they had air-conditioning. Or they could not afford to keep paying exorbitant energy costs because their homes were inefficient in terms of retaining the cool air from air-conditioning. So this is a program that cuts across the entire country. The Weatherization Assistance Program supports the weatherization of over 70,000 low-income homes each year. To date, over 5 million American homes have been weatherized with Federal funds, and also local funds, which must be part of the formula in order to provide this type of assistance for American homes. Last December, I had a chance to witness this program in action. I was in Providence, RI, with Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson. We went to a low-income home in Providence. In just a few hours, a contractor was able to blow in insulation between the walls; they were able to caulk windows and doorways; they were able to conduct tests to ensure that the energy efficiency of the structure had increased dramatically. This was a home of a family of first-generation Americans. They had come from Southeast Asia in the turmoil of the war in Southeast Asia. The father was in his late 40s, early 50s, and had several children-- all of them American success stories. The children were in college. His mother was living with them. She was disabled, suffering from Alzheimer's. This is typically the type of families--low-income families, struggling, working hard with jobs, trying to get kids through college--who are the beneficiaries of this program. It is an excellent program. It is a program that is terribly needed by these low-income families. Typically, low-income families will spend about 15 percent of their income on heat--or in the summer, air-conditioning--more than four times the average of more affluent families. Over 90 percent of the households that are served by this weatherization program have annual incomes of less than $15,000. This is a program that works. It works for these individual families. Not only that, it also works for us. It creates jobs. About 8,000 jobs throughout the country have been created because of this weatherization program. It also saves us from consuming and wasting energy. I argue, as I have initially, one should look at the supply side complications of the energy crisis. One should implore OPEC to increase production. One should have sensible problems to ensure supply. But if we neglect the demand part of the equation, we are not only missing the boat, but I think we are deficient in our responsibility to formulate a comprehensive approach to energy efficiency in this country. In 1996, the budget was $214 million, but because of cuts generated by the Contract With America, and other proposals, it dipped down to about $111 million--a significant cut. This was one of those programs that was devastated by the budget policies of the mid-1990s. Since that time, we have added money back because, again, I believe this body particularly recognizes both the fairness and the efficiency of this program. But still we are at about $135 million in fiscal year 2000. That is still 37 percent below the 1996 figure. If we can afford, as Senator Kennedy said, at length and eloquently, to engage in trillion-dollar tax cuts, multibillion-dollar benefits that go to the very wealthiest Americans, we should be able to at least increase our weatherization funding by $8 million to cover additional families, low-income families, families who have disabled members, families who are working hard trying to get by and need this type of assistance. Again, as we look over the last several weeks, and even this week, talking about relief for the marriage penalty, estate tax relief, it reminds me of a play on Winston Churchill's famous line about the RAF, ``never have so many owed so much to so few.'' We seem to be in a position of saying, never have so few gotten so much from so many. I want to ensure that at least when it comes to weatherization we are responding to the critical needs of families across this country. I had hoped we could move towards the President's request of $154 million. That would be about a 14-percent increase over our present level of $135 million. My amendment does not seek that full increase. It simply seeks an additional $8 million. I think the money will be well spent. The program works. It puts people to work. It helps low-income families. It helps us address a problem which is growing with increasing importance, and that is to control our insatiable demand for energy, particularly petroleum. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I hope, perhaps, we can even work out a way in which this amendment can be accepted by the chairman and his colleagues. If it is appropriate, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment because it contains language that raises serious First Amendment questions regarding the separation of church and state. This amendment basically allows taxpayer dollars to flow to religious institutions, such as churches, mosques, and synagogues, to administer social services and public health benefits on behalf of our federal government. I believe this provision is Constitutionally suspect and requires more thoughtful Congressional scrutiny in the form of hearings and public discussion. Instead, this dubious language has been slipped into a several-hundred page amendment that few, if any, of my Senate colleagues have probably read. Unlike the charitable choice provision in the 1996 welfare reform act, which applies to a very limited number of social service programs, this language would expand the scope of ``charitable choice'' to every current and future public health and social service program that receives federal funds. This new charitable choice language also would go further by allowing religious institutions receiving taxpayer dollars to discriminate in their hiring and firing decisions on the basis of their particular religious beliefs and teachings, abrogating the intent of our nation's civil rights laws. Thus, under this particular provision, persons hired with federal taxpayer money, notwithstanding their personal religious beliefs, could be fired because they did not abide by particular religious standards, such as regular church attendance, tithing, or perhaps abstinence from coffee, tea, alcohol, and tobacco. This new language could allow a federally funded employee to be fired because she remarried without seeking an annulment of her first marriage. This seemingly innocuous ``charitable choice'' language amounts to federally funded employment discrimination, and allows religious organizations supported by taxpayer money to exclude people of different tenets, teachings and faiths from government-funded employment. I would also like to address a point made by Senator Santorum last evening regarding Vice President Gore's support of ``charitable choice.'' Senator Santorum failed to mention that in a speech given in May 1999 by the Vice President, he stated that any charitable choice ``extension must be accompanied by clear and strict safeguards.'' He also said that ``government must never promote a particular religious view, or try to force anyone to receive faith.'' This amendment fails on both accounts. There is a tradition in Rhode Island of religious tolerance and respect for the boundaries between religion and government. Indeed, Roger Williams, who was banished from Massachusetts for his religious beliefs, founded Providence in 1636. The colony served as a refuge where all could come to worship as their conscience dictated without interference from the state. With that background, I believe that we should be very careful to maintain the distinction between government and religion. They both have important roles to play, especially in helping some of our country's neediest citizens. However, if a church or mosque is going to accept taxpayer dollars to perform contractual government services, they should not be able to deny employment to qualified American citizens. Our nation's laws should not allow discrimination on the basis of religion. I suspect that the drafters of the amendment understand the Constitutional infirmities of their language. They seek some protection by inserting a reference to the ``Establishment Clause in the First Amendment'' as a check on permissible programs. However, such an approach blithely ignores the succeeding words of the same sentence. ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .'' (emphasis added). Their use of the Establishment Clause is a transparent ploy to dress up dubious legislation in the trappings of the Constitution without giving effect to the full meaning of the Constitution. The proposed legislation raises serious questions about the ``free exercise'' of religion. By imposing religious tests on federally funded employment and by condoning religious based treatment regimes paid for by public funds which may conflict with the religious beliefs of beneficiaries, this legislation severely impinges on the ``free exercise'' of conscience. With specific regard to the religious beliefs of beneficiaries, the drafters try to salvage this amendment from the Constitutional morass that they have created. They purport to require governmental entities to provide access to an ``alternative'' service provider if an individual objects to the religious character of the service provider. Having abandoned the Constitution, the amendment now abandons reality. In a country with insufficient resources to fully treat and serve all who qualify for public services, where are these alternative service providers? We are all familiar with the long waiting lists for substance abuse treatment, just to name one area of concern. We are equally familiar with situations in many areas, both rural and urban, where there is only one realistic provider. How available can any alternative provider be in practice? Moreover, why should a qualified beneficiary have to advance a ``religious'' reason as a condition to receiving public benefits? Unfortunately, the enactment of the ``charitable choice'' language in this amendment will result in expensive and time-consuming Constitutional litigation, bogging down the passage of its laudatory community renewal provisions. Mr. President, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to vote against federally supported religious discrimination. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my remarks be included at the appropriate place in the Record. amendment no. 3838

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, if I could ask my friend to yield, we have 40 amendments filed. I hope the Senator will work on his side as we will on our side. There is some duplication. It may not be necessary to have votes on each amendment. There may be other things that develop during Monday. We may not need all of those votes.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on September 3, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, or LWCF, was created by Congress to use revenues from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas development--a non- renewable resource--to invest in America's renewable resources by creating parks and open spaces, protecting wilderness, wetlands and refuges, preserving habitat, and enhancing recreational opportunities. The LWCF has been a remarkable conservation success story. In its 35- year history, LWCF has supported the acquisition of nearly 7 million acres of parkland and the development of more than 37,000 park and recreation projects. In my state of Rhode Island alone, LWCF has invested over $32 million in nearly 400 state and local parks projects, including $1.7 million for development of Roger Williams Park in Providence, $1.1 million for Scarborough State Beach in Narragansett, and $536,000 for rehabilitation of the famous Cliff Walk in Newport. Because State and local governments provide at least half of initial project costs and assume all operation and maintenance costs in perpetuity, each Federal dollar leverages several dollars in non- Federal contributions. But despite the LWCF's success, funding for the program has fallen well below its authorized level of $900 million per year, and the stateside grant program was completely zeroed out in 1995, even as offshore oil and gas revenues increased and the need for parks and open space continued to rise dramatically. Last year, President Clinton proposed an historic Lands Legacy budget initiative to fully fund the LWCF at its authorized level. Although appropriators did not fully fund the Lands Legacy budget request, Members of Congress are clearly getting the message Americans are sending to Washington about the need for major conservation legislation to promote open space and recreation. On May 11, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000, by a vote of 315-102. The ``CARA'' bill, which would automatically set aside revenues from offshore oil and gas leases to fully fund the Federal and State LWCF grant programs for the first time in decades, was the product of an extraordinary bipartisan compromise between the House Resources Committee chairman, Don Young, and the ranking member, George Miller. The CARA bill would provide nearly $3 billion annually until 2015 to support conservation efforts across the country. All eyes are now on the Senate, Mr. President. Across the country, Americans in cities, suburbs, and rural areas have joined State Governors, city and town planners, wildlife program managers, hunters and fishermen, and environmental organizations to call on the Senate to act on this historic legislation. Several bills have been introduced in the Senate: S. 2123, introduced by Senators Landrieu and Murkowski, is identical to H.R. 701 as reported by the House Resources Committee; S. 2567, introduced by Senator Boxer, is identical to H.R. 701 as passed by the full House; S. 2181, introduced by Senator Bingaman, would support many of the same programs as the House bill but would distribute a greater percentage of LWCF stateside funds evenly among the states, benefitting states with small populations, such as Rhode Island. In addition, it would support a number of marine research and conservation programs; And there are several more bills, all of which seek to fully fund the LWCF and preserve our natural heritage for future generations. Mr. President, none of these bills is perfect; there is always room for improvement. Members of the Senate may disagree, for example, on how much funding should go to coastal assistance, or federal land acquisition in western states, or endangered species protection. I, for one, believe it is critically important that we provide $125 million or more each year for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery, UPARR, program, as well as full annual funding of $150 million for the Historic Preservation Fund. We should also avoid creating incentives for new offshore oil and gas drilling. Whatever our differences over the details of this legislation, Mr. President, the important thing is that we pass a bill this year. Any one of these conservation bills would represent an unprecedented and desperately needed investment in our natural resources and our cultural and historic heritage. But we have to act soon. There are, at best, 33 legislative days left in the 106th Congress. Many members of this body, myself included, are disappointed that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has postponed several markups of the CARA bill. But we understand that Chairman Murkowski and ranking member Bingaman are working to satisfy a wide array of regional interests on the Committee, and we continue to hope that an agreement can be reached in time for the Committee to approve the bill next week. We would urge the Majority leadership to move the bill expeditiously to the floor following the Committee's action. I look forward to working with my colleagues to send to the President a bill that will respond to our constituents' overwhelming calls for Congress to make a substantial and reliable investment in the conservation of our Nation's wildlife, coastal resources, and open spaces. The momentum is with us, and we should not miss this rare opportunity to create a conservation legacy for generations to come.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senator from Nevada offered an amendment on childhood lead exposure on behalf of myself and Senator Torricelli. I wish to speak briefly at this time on the merits of that amendment. Today, we are here to offer an amendment that would address a problem that is particularly pernicious, dealing with the health of children and exposure to lead paint. There are countless numbers of children across this country who have been physically and emotionally harmed, and cognitive development impaired, because they were unwittingly, in most cases, exposed to lead-based paint. Generally, this type of paint is common in older homes throughout the country. It is a particular problem in the Northeast, in Rhode Island and in Massachusetts; but it is not limited to that part of the country. Anyplace where you have older houses, and the homes are more than 20 or 30 years old--you have this potential problem of exposure to lead- based paint by children, which may impact their physical and intellectual development. The Medicaid authorities have recognized this problem and have promulgated regulations for screening and follow-up treatment services for Medicaid-eligible young children. However, in all too many cases, this screening requirement is ignored by Medicaid contractors. Without screening and without identification of lead poisoned children, there is no good opportunity for followup treatment. Now, the amendment, proposed by Senator Torricelli and myself, would codify these regulations and would require screening conducted by Medicaid contractors, which are the health plans that provide services for the Medicaid population. With screening, it would also require the followup treatment and services necessary to ensure that the child can successfully deal with exposure and poisoning from lead. What we are seeing across the country, from statistics being generated by the General Accounting Office, is that many States are negligent in ensuring that the contractors are screening children and providing followup treatment. Our amendment would try to respond to this known deficiency by requiring an annual report to Congress from HCFA and, in turn, requiring legislatively that the States not only insist upon the screening, but also report back to HCFA on the results of their screening efforts. Let me emphasize that this is not a new mandate on the States. This is in response to the fact that the existing Federal regulations are being ignored. The next logical step--the one we propose--is to codify these regulations, literally give them the force of law so the States and Medicaid contractors will begin to do what they should have been doing since 1992. What we have seen, in terms of the population of Medicaid children, is that they represent about 60 percent of all children who have been exposed to and poisoned by lead paint. Yet, only 20 percent of Medicaid-eligible children have been effectively screened for lead exposure. So you have estimates of 60 percent of the youth Medicaid population with some exposure to lead paint. Only 20 percent have been screened. That huge gap suggests very strongly that there are many, many children--too many--who are not being given the treatment they need to correct a very difficult problem. Now, the other aspect we want to emphasize is the fact that timely screening of children exposed to lead is critical to their ultimate recovery. It is critical, not only to saving families the stress, turmoil and tragedy of a lead-poisoned child, but also saving society enormous economic costs associated with lead exposure and lead poisoning. One of the things that is quite clear to all who have looked into this problem is that, first, lead poisoning is a completely preventable illness. If children are not exposed to lead--and typically exposure comes from paint in their homes--then they will not contract this disease. What is also critical is the fact that lead poisoning can cause extremely detrimental health effects in developing children. It is associated with brain damage, behavioral and learning problems, slow growth, and other maladies, all of which are avoidable if we screen, test, and literally get the lead out. Statistics show that young children who are exposed to lead poisoning frequently require special education services. In fact, it has been suggested that children who have exposure to lead paint are 40 percent more likely to require special education. Special education is one of the issues we often talk about during the course of the debate on educational priorities and funding. It costs an average of $10,000 above the cost of regular education for the typical special education child. Many of these children are in special education programs because they were poisoned by lead in their homes. If we can effectively deal with this health care problem, we will also deal with an educational problem and a funding problem, a problem that bedevils every local school system in this country. Whenever I go back to my State, one of the top issues I hear about from my constituents is the extra cost of special education. While this proposal will at least go a small way toward addressing that problem, as well as going to the heart of the matter on protecting children from an environmental poison that can be avoided if we screen and take other remedial actions. This amendment is only one part of a comprehensive strategy we need to protect children against the hazards of lead poisoning. We need screening of individual children and we need quick access to followup services and treatment; but we also need a housing policy that recognizes that we have an obligation to remove from older homes the lead paint that is the source of the contagion for these young children. If we put these together--screening, treatment, housing policies that try to get the lead out, and provide safe housing for all of our children--then I think we will be on our way not only to providing good, compassionate care for our children, but also saving society countless millions of dollars each year. I particularly thank my colleagues, Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski, because over the last couple of years we have been able to put more resources into Federal lead abatement programs, treatment programs, and other programs aimed at this particularly pernicious problem. I hope we, in fact, continue on that trend. Today we have an important opportunity to do what we have tried to do through regulations, but to do it through the force of law, by requiring screening and access to care for children, by requiring appropriate reports to Federal authorities and to the Congress, so we can eradicate this problem amongst our children in this country. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr President, I rise to join my colleagues Senators Frist, Kennedy, Jeffords and others in support of our bill the ``Children's Public Health Act of 2000''. This critical legislation seeks to improve the lives of children in this nation by enhancing access to certain health care services and providing additional resources for pediatric health research. Children are our most precious resource, and we must do all we can to enable our children to reach their full potential both physically and intellectually. The Children's Public Health Act takes an important step toward achieving this goal by creating an environment where children are able to grow and develop unhindered by the burden of disease. Overall, tremendous improvements have been made in the quality of children's health over the past century. For instance, deadly and debilitating diseases that were once prevalent during childhood have been largely eradicated thanks to advancements in vaccines. Yet, even with these remarkable advancements, new problems have arisen. In particular, over the past decade, we have seen dramatic increases in the number of preventable childhood injuries, as well as a rise in diagnoses of asthma, autism, and diseases often attributed to obesity, such as diabetes, high cholesterol and hypertension in young children. This legislation sets forth creative approaches for dealing with these increasingly prevalent pediatric conditions. Generally, the programs and initiatives authorized under the Children's Public Health Act can be broken down into four specific categories: (1) injury prevention; (2) maternal and infant health; (3) pediatric health promotion and; (4) pediatric research. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a couple of the provisions included under the pediatric health promotion section of the bill dealing with lead poisoning prevention and childhood obesity. First, the Children's Public Health Act contains a section based on legislation I introduced last year along with Senator Torricelli, entitled the Child Lead SAFE Act. This comprehensive bill seeks to address an entirely preventable problem that continues to plague far too many children in this nation--lead poisoning. While tremendous strides have been made over the last 20 years in reducing lead exposure among the population, it is estimated that nearly one million preschoolers nationwide still have excessive levels of lead in their blood--making lead poisoning the leading childhood environmental disease. Childhood lead poisoning has a profound health and educational impact on children. Children with high blood lead levels can suffer from brain damage, behavior and learning problems, slowed growth, and hearing problems, among other maladies. Moreover, children with a history of lead poisoning frequently require special education to compensate for intellectual deficits and behavioral problems that are caused by their exposure to lead. Research shows that children with elevated blood-lead levels are seven times more likely to drop out of high school and six times more likely to have reading disabilities. By failing to eradicate lead poisoning, we are preventing our children from achieving their fullest potential and are also imposing significant health and special education costs on taxpayers. Timely childhood lead screening and appropriate follow-up care for children most at-risk of lead exposure is critical to mitigating the long-term health and developmental effects of lead. Regrettably, our current system is not adequately protecting our children from this hazard. Despite longstanding federal requirements for lead screening for children enrolled in Medicaid and other federally funded health care program, a January 1999 GAO report found that two-thirds of these children have never been screened and, consequently, remain untreated, eventhough low-income children are at particular risk for lead exposure. As a result, there may be thousands of children with lead poisoning who continue to go undiagnosed. The Children's Public Health Act will begin to address this problem by enhancing the existing lead grant program through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and authorizing new grant programs to conduct outreach and education for families at risk of lead poisoning, implement community-based interventions to mitigate lead hazards, establish uniform guidelines for reporting and tracking of blood lead screening from laboratories and local health departments and ensure continuous quality measurement and improvement plans for communities dedicated to lead poisoning prevention. The legislation also provides resources for health care provider education and training on current lead screening practices and would require the Health Resources and Services Administration to submit an annual report to Congress on the percentage of children in the health centers programs who are screened for lead poisoning. A second element of this bill that I believe will have a major impact on improving and preserving the health of children in this nation is a provision related to childhood obesity. Over the past fifteen years, childhood obesity rates have doubled. It is estimated that almost five million, or 11% of youth 6-19 years of age are seriously overweight. Contributing to this trend has been the rise in fast food consumption, coupled with an increasingly sedentary lifestyle where time engaged in physical activity has been replaced by hours playing computer games and watching television. Another reason for the lack of physical activity in children is the reduction of in daily participation in high school physical education classes, which has declined from 42 percent in 1991 to 27 percent in 1997. Children simply do not have the time or opportunity to engage in healthy physical activities. As a result, younger and younger Americans are showing the signs of obesity-related diseases, such as heart disease and diabetes. Research shows that 60 percent of overweight 5-10 year old children already have at least one risk factor for heart disease, such as hypertension. If our society continues on this trend, obesity will soon rival smoking as a leading cause of preventable death. Clearly, action needs to be taken to curb this potentially deadly epidemic. The Children's Public Health Act acknowledges and attempts to reverse this trend through a multi-pronged approach. First, the bill would provide states and local communities with the resources they need to develop and implement creative approaches to promoting good nutrition habits and enhancing the levels of physical activity among children. The bill authorizes a new competitive grant program through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, whereby states would develop comprehensive, inter-agency, school- and community-based approaches to better physical and nutritional health in children and adolescents. These programs would be evaluated and information about effective intervention models and obesity prevention strategies would be broadly disseminated. The legislation also calls for greater applied research in order to improve our understanding of the many factors that contribute to obesity. Research will also focus on the study of the prevalence and costs of childhood obesity and its effects into adulthood. Another aspect of the bill is the development of a nationwide public education campaign informing families of the health risks associated with chronic obesity that provides information on incorporating good eating and regular physical activity into daily living. Lastly, the bill provides resources for health care provider education and training on evaluation and treatment practices for obese children or children at risk of becoming obese. Overall, this bill has many substantial provisions that will go a long way in improving the health and well-being of our children. This legislation not only expands the base of pediatric medical research currently ongoing, it also includes important enhancements in maternal and prenatal health as well as several other initiatives that will greatly enhance access to services to children with chronic and debilitating diseases. I am pleased to join my colleagues today on introducing this important legislation, and I look forward to working to pass the bill through the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the full Senate this year. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Reserving the right to object, on rollcall vote No. 169, I was recorded as voting nay and I voted yea. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the official record be corrected to accurately reflect my vote. This will in no way affect the outcome of the vote.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Durbin amendment. I commend him for raising this very important issue this evening. This debate has already illustrated the knowledge of the participants and also the commitment of both sides in this debate to try to reach a very important and principled decision with respect to national missile defense. The obvious fact is that this is the most expensive military program we have contemplated, perhaps, in the history of this country, and there is a great deal riding on it. It is not only financial, it is also strategic in terms of our increased security in the world and in terms of the reaction of our allies, reaction of potential adversaries, all of which makes this debate critical. At the heart of this debate--one of the reasons the Senator from Illinois is contributing mightily to the debate--is the issue of countermeasures. The importance of countermeasures should be obvious to all of us. My colleague from Massachusetts talked about this. In the history of conflict, for every development, there is an attempt to circumvent or to neutralize that development. So it should be no wonder, as we contemplate deploying a national missile defense, our adversaries are at this time thinking of ways they could, in fact, defeat such a national missile defense. There are two general ways to do that. One is to build more launchers with more warheads so you essentially overwhelm whatever missile defense we have in place. Or--this is probably the most likely response--you develop countermeasures on your missiles to confuse our defense and allow your missiles to penetrate despite our national missile defense. At the heart of what we should be doing in contemplating the deployment and funding of this system is ensuring that in the testing we pay particular attention to the issue of countermeasures, because that is the most likely response of an adversary to defeat the system we are proposing. That is common sense in many respects. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of history would immediately arrive at that conclusion. This is not a merely theoretical discussion. Sophisticated countermeasures already exist. They are the penetrating aids which are on most of the Russian missiles. There is the possibility, of course, that these penetrating aids will either be copied by rogue nations or, in fact, be traded or exchanged to these rogue nations. I found very interesting a report by the intelligence community which was unclassified and issued last September. In their words: We assess that countries developing ballistic missiles would also develop various responses to U.S. theater and national defenses. Russia and China each have developed numerous countermeasures and probably are willing to sell the requisite technologies. Many countries, such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq, probably would rely initially on readily available technology--including separating RVs, spin-stabilized RVs, RV reorientation, radar absorbing material, booster fragmentation, low-power jammers, chaff, and simple balloon decoys--to develop penetration aids and countermeasures. These countries could develop countermeasures based on these technologies by the time they flight test their missiles. Frankly, what we are testing against today is a very small fraction of these possible countermeasures penetrating aids. We have selected a very discrete set of the most primitive countermeasures, and we have used that as our benchmark to determine whether or not the proposed national missile defense system will work well enough to fund development and ultimate deployment, when, in fact, our own intelligence community is telling us today there are numerous sophisticated penetrating aids that are readily available. They are also telling us that as we build up this national missile defense, our potential adversaries, while they build their missiles, are not just waiting around. They are also developing their countermeasures. So countermeasures takes on a very important role in our deliberations. Senator Durbin has identified this critical issue and has focused the attention of the Senate on how we will respond to this particular issue. His response is not only principled but is entirely logical. What he is saying is, let's ensure that in the testing process, we don't test the just rudimentary countermeasures, we test for robust countermeasures. If we can defeat those countermeasures, then we have a system that not only we can deploy, but that system will be much more stable, much more effective over time; in effect, increasing the longevity of the system. When we are going to spend upwards of $60 billion--I think that was one figure quoted; frankly, I believe whatever figure we have now, it will be much more when we finish paying the price--if we are spending that much money, we don't want to buy something that has a half-life of 1 year, 2 years, 3 years or 4 years. We want something that will justify the expense and defend the country against likely threats for many years. Senator Durbin used the analogy of golf. The other analogy that is very popular to try to bring into popular parlance what is going on here is essentially what we are trying to do is hit a bullet with another bullet, small objects flying through space at relatively large speeds. Think about how difficult that is right now. We have made progress in terms of supercomputers, in terms of large- scale computer capacity. So the problem of identifying a speeding bullet and then calculating instantaneously through billions of calculations its trajectory and then sending that message to another bullet is a daunting physical problem, but we have made progress. However, the countermeasures takes that daunting task and infinitely increases its complexity because to our system and our kinetic kill vehicle that is hurling through space, it won't be only one target; it could be multiple targets. To differentiate those targets, identify the real targets, and strike it in a matter of seconds is an incredibly complex technological task. So I believe, once again, that the Senator has identified something that is critical to our responsibilities--not the responsibility of the Secretary of Defense, not the President's responsibility, but our responsibility as the Senate of the United States to supervise, to carefully review, and, ultimately, through appropriations and authorization, to give the final say about this system. That is our responsibility, and we would be rejecting that responsibility if we didn't look hard and insist that the executive look hard at this whole issue of countermeasures. The other issue that has been discussed tonight is, why should we tell the Department of Defense to do something such as this when they are already doing it? Well, the simple answer is: We do it all the time. Here are a few examples recently: Last December, the F-22, a very sophisticated fighter aircraft, was supposed to start its low-rate initial production; but this decision was delayed because there was dissatisfaction with its progress, with whether or not it was living up to its capabilities. We mandated tests because we were unsatisfied with the deployment schedule and its ability to be brought to the forces in the field. That was done much further along the line than the place we are in developing the national missile defense. In many respects, we are doing the same thing with the Joint Strike Fighter this year. So it is not unusual to tell the Department of Defense, or to look over the Secretary's shoulder and say, even though you might be doing it, we want to make sure you are doing it, we want to make sure that they are looking specifically at the countermeasures. We want to know more specifically, when he talks about the capacity of this system to grow, will it grow up to all the countermeasures listed by the Intelligence Committee? Will it go from C-1 to C-2? We are not sure whether it will reach that ultimate test of countermeasures. This is a valuable role we must play. There is another aspect to this whole debate, which I think should be noted. It is a very difficult thing and, in some respects, an intellectual challenge. For years and years, decades and decades, we have relied upon deterrence policy----

Mr. REED. I will wrap up quickly. We have relied upon deterrence policy. At the heart of deterrence policy is the notion that the other side is rational, and they will calculate the damage you can do them just as you can calculate the damage that is done by them. What has changed now? I would say that intellectually why we are even having this debate is we have abandoned this concept of rationality. We don't think North Korea is rational. Again, that is an assumption that we have to look at closely as we look at some of these other things. In some respects, if they are totally irrational, then maybe there is a little hope of deterring them from doing anything, even with the national missile defense. But that is the difference. That is why my colleague from Massachusetts said we used to think about intentions, and now we don't. We made an intellectual decision we weren't going to look at that because we concluded they were irrational. I suggest that as we pursue this debate, we should look seriously at whether or not that assumption is valid. I thank the Senator from Illinois. I yield back my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Durbin on an amendment to restore funding to one of our most accomplished public health initiatives, our national immunization program. The purpose of the amendment is quite simple--it seeks to strengthen and enhance the operations and infrastructure grants administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Section 317 immunization program. These monies fund a variety of essential programs and services within the immunization program for children, including outreach efforts to educate parents about the immunization schedule, training and education of providers about new vaccines and outbreak control when cases of infectious diseases arise. The CDC's operation and infrastructure grants also support vital initiatives to identify under-immunized children, provide resources necessary to implement and maintain state- based immunization registries and allow the state immunization program to forge linkages with other public health services, such as WIC and Head Start, since these places are often points of entry for low-income children who may lack all or some of the recommended vaccinations. Originally, Senator Durbin and I had intended to offer an amendment that would add a total of $75 million for the CDC Section 317 operations and infrastructure grant program. We have modified our amendment so that it now calls for a $37.5 million increase in funding for these grants this year with the understanding that Chairman Specter has agreed to work to provide additional $37.5 million in FY 2002 for this grant program. I would thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for agreeing to accept this important amendment. Numerous public health and provider groups including the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), the American Academy of Pediatrics and every Child by Two, just to name a few support our amendment. Since the advent of the polio vaccine in 1955, the United States has invested in a national immunization campaign to rid the population of devastating diseases such as smallpox, polio, diphtheria and measles. The CDC Section 317 program has been an integral part of our national immunization initiative. The Section 317 program can be broken down into two main categories--(1) vaccine purchase and (2) infrastructure to facilitate the delivery and monitoring of vaccines. The Section 317 program is the only source of critical federal funding to support the infrastructure necessary to administer immunizations to children in communities throughout the country. A little over a week ago, the Institute of Medicine released their report on immunization finance policies and practices. This report was conducted at the request of the Senate Appropriations Committee and more specifically by our colleague Senator Dale Bumpers, a long-time champion of the immunization program. This landmark report offers us many important insights into the complex federal-state-local partnership that makes up our national immunization initiative. The report found that although average immunization coverage levels are at record highs, several problems continue to plague the program, while even greater challenges lie ahead. The issues threaten the great success we have achieved in essentially eradicating deadly and debilitating diseases that were prevalent in this country a relatively short time ago. Many of these same diseases continue to strike children in developing nations throughout the world. According to the IOM report, one of the greatest challenges currently facing our immunization program is the persistent disparities in coverage that exist among and within states, as well as within major cities. The 1998 National Immunization Survey (NIS) found a gap of between 7 and 8.6 percent between the immunization rates for non-Hispanic white children and those of Hispanic and African-American children for one of the most important series of immunizations. Disparities in immunization levels also fall along the poverty line. For the same series, National Immunization Survey found a 9 percentage point difference between the immunization rates for children living below the poverty level compared to those at or above the poverty line. These disparities in coverage are often found in concentrations of un-immunized and under-immunized children who typically reside in urban areas as well as in certain rural areas. These areas are also referred to as `pockets of need'. Our investments in the immunization program thus far have yielded great benefits in terms of improving the health of children, as well as producing significant health care cost savings. For example, for every dollar spent on the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) vaccine, $10.30 in savings were captured in terms of direct medical costs and $13.50 in indirect societal costs, such as lost work time, disability and death. While great progress has been made in boosting immunization coverage nationally, we are at a point where it will require additional resources in order to reach those remaining children who have not been immunized. In other words, reaching these remaining un-immunized and under-immunized children in `pockets of need' areas, will require more effort and more resources. Another significant problem outlined in the IOM report is the, ``The repetitive ebb and flow cycles in the distribution of public resources for immunization programs . . .'' Federal funding for the immunization program has been volatile, particularly over the past decade. To give my colleagues some background, the federal government began to pay greater attention to the need to support and strengthen our immunization program after a measles outbreak struck several parts of the U.S. in 1989-1990. Following the epidemic, the CDC launched a national initiative designed to strengthen state immunization programs and provide resources for a broad array of direct services and outreach. The goal of this effort was to strengthen and enhance our capacity to monitor immunization levels and improve our ability to respond to disease outbreaks. During that period, federal funding for infrastructure grants increased seven-fold from a total of $37 million in 1990 to $271 million in 1995. However, states were not immediately prepared for the dramatic funding increases and the expansion of immunization delivery systems at the state level took time. As a result, funds were ``carried over'' from one year to the next as states prepared to make the capital investments necessary to strengthen critical areas of their immunization program, such as vaccine delivery, outreach into underserved areas and improvements in monitoring through the development of state-based immunization registries. However, as the threat of another disease outbreak faded, carry-over fund balances grew and pressure to reduce federal discretionary spending intensified here in Congress. What happened as a result was an almost 50 percent decline in funding, and for the past two years, the CDC infrastructure grant program has been level funded at $139 million. For the past few years, states have been using remaining carry-over funds to cover expenses that could not be met by their new award. The estimated FY 2001 figures indicate that most states have exhausted their carry-over funding and must rely solely on their new grant award to finance their operations. This cut has seriously eroded states' ability to develop and implement program innovations and threatened their capacity to administer vaccines. These reductions over the past several years have also forced states to scale back on other important activities such as community outreach, parental and physician education and the development and operation of registries. This reduction in the operations and infrastructure grant awards has had a significant impact on my home state of Rhode Island. My state has gone from a high of approximately $3 million to a low of $500,000 in just four years. These kinds of swings in funding make it virtually impossible for a state to administer its program, let alone plan ahead for the future. And these dramatic declines have not only happened in my state--they have happened in virtually every state in the country. Fortunately, my state has been extremely successful thus far in expanding immunization coverage rates in the nation (89%). However, continued vigilance is necessary to maintain coverage rates in states like Rhode Island, while additional effort and resources are required to bring up immunization rates in areas like Chicago (69%) and Houston (56%). Mr. President, we must remain diligent and focused on our immunization goals and invest in the tools necessary to protect our children. This additional funding will help to achieve that end by restoring immunization grant awards to a level that will enable states to carry out critical program activities. As I mentioned before, our amendment would add $37.5 million over two years to the CDC operations and infrastructure grant program. The IOM report makes clear that our immunization system is at a critical juncture, and I am pleased that Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Harkin have agreed to accept our amendment because we should not wait for a serious outbreak to a vaccine-preventable disease to address the shortfall in the CDC immunization program. amendment no. 3710 (Purpose: To require that contracts for the care of research NIH chimpanzees be awarded to contractors that comply with the Animal Welfare Act) At the appropriate place, add the following: ``None of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be expended by the National Institutes of Health on a contract for the care of the 288 chimpanzees acquired by the National Institutes of Health from the Coulston Foundation, unless the contractor is accredited by the Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International or has a Public Health Services assurance, and has not been charged multiple times with egregious violations of the Animal Welfare Act.''.

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator. Does the Senator share my concern about maintaining the Senate's $70 million for LEAP and is the Senator's intent to fight for this level in Conference?

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to engage Senators Specter and Harkin in a colloquy regarding funding for the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) program. First, I want to commend Senators Specter and Harkin for numerous education funding increases in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill. There are tough budget pressures facing Senators Specter and Harkin, and they have done tremendous work on this bill. In particular, I am pleased that they have increased funding for the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) program to $70 million. LEAP, a federal-state partnership, is vital to our efforts to help needy students attend and graduate from college. In fact, without this important federal incentive, many states would never have established or maintained their need-based financial aid programs. Over the past three years, I have worked with Senator Collins and others in the Senate to restore, revamp, and increase funding for LEAP. This year, the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill provides $70 million for LEAP. While this funding level is less than the bipartisan request that I submitted with 32 of my colleagues, it is a significant increase over current funding and the President's request. This would be the biggest boost for the program in some time, and, as such, I decided not to offer an amendment to further increase funding for LEAP. However, I am concerned that during Conference with the House, which has once again zero-funded the program, LEAP will not remain at the Senate's $70 million funding level. This concern is also shared by the higher education community, which strongly supports the Senate's $70 million for LEAP. Would the Chairman yield for a question?

Mr. REED. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor. the role of human factors research in reducing medical errors

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their persistence in negotiating a Section 527 disclosure bill that has passed both chambers of Congress. The overwhelming vote in both the House and Senate in support of H.R. 4762, a bill mirroring a successful amendment we made to the Defense Authorization bill several weeks ago, is an important step in fixing our broken campaign finance reform system. Both parties have now acknowledged that some change in our campaign finance laws is warranted, the first such legislative consensus on this issue since technical changes were made in 1979 to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. A majority has agreed that Section 527 organizations need to both follow federal campaign law and to file tax returns. H.R. 4762, like our amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, requires Section 527s to disclose any contributors who give more than $200, and report any expenditures of more than $500. Unlike our original amendment, it requires a Section 527 organization that fails to disclose contributions and expenditures to the IRS to pay a penalty tax on the amounts it failed to disclose. The amendment we made to the Defense Authorization bill would have removed a Section 527's tax exempt status for the same violation. Although not as severe a penalty, I believe that this change in the House version of this legislation does reflect the spirit of the original Senate amendment. Although disclosure is only part of the solution, the passage of H.R. 4762 ensures that the public understands what these committees are, who gives them their money, and how they spend that money to impact election outcomes. This law, once signed by the President, will close a major loophole and stop these stealth PACs from skirting campaign finance requirements, and I was pleased to vote in support of it. However, we still have much to do. We cannot, and must not, rest with this vote today. Our campaign finance system still needs major overhaul if we are going to reduce the influence of almost unlimited amounts of campaign cash on our electoral system. Until a majority of our citizens believe again that our government is ``by and for'' the people, we cannot stop our battle to reform this process. We need to pass a ban on soft money, reduce skyrocketing campaign expectations, and return our electoral process to the people, where it belongs. The power in our country should rest with the vote, not with the purse.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Dorgan's proposal. It is very straightforward, simple, and it states categorically that all Americans covered by health insurance should have the protections of the Patients' Bill of Rights. Nothing could be clearer or more effective and efficient in providing protections to the American people, to which we all, by and large, agree. We have seen this proposal in the Democratic legislation that was submitted to this Chamber. It is included within the Norwood-Dingell legislation in the other body. It is consistent, it is appropriate and, frankly, it seems so common sensical. Why should an American citizen be denied protections and practices and benefits because he or she is in an ERISA plan rather than a non-ERISA plan? ERISA is a time and security income program created to protect the solvency of retirement funds and the financial aspects of these plans. It was never intended to be a health care plan or to define the coverage for health care plans in the United States. So on that point alone, it seems to be an inappropriate way to discriminate against those Americans who have access to the protections of the Patients' Bill of Rights. I have been listening to the proposals by the Senator from Oklahoma and the description of the Senator from Tennessee and trying to understand their proposals. My understanding is this: They have--and Senator Frist has announced a long list of protections and rights, and they only apply to ERISA plans--48 million Americans. The appeals process, however, would be expanded to apply to 131 million Americans. Now, it appears to be inconsistent, but I think the rationale and the logic is pretty clear. If you don't have rights, it doesn't matter whether or not you have an appeals process. If you don't have the rights outlined by the Senator from Tennessee, then you could have the appeals process, but what are you appealing? You are appealing nothing. It comes back to the point that Senator Dorgan has made so well. This issue is about scope, so that not only do you have the right to appeal--all Americans--but you actually have valid rights that you can insist upon in an appeals process. That is included within the Democratic proposal, the Norwood-Dingell bill, and it is significantly absent from the Republican proposal we are hearing today. Now, the justification, of course, for this approach--the Republican approach--is we can't disrupt State regulations, or the sanctity of State regulations. However, step back and look again. Under the pressure of Norwood-Dingell, the pressure of Senator Dorgan's proposal, and the pressure building up month after month of trying to bring this Patients' Bill of Rights to the floor for final passage--something solid and substantive--the appeals process has been expanded. When it comes to appeals, we are saying we don't care about State regulations anymore. That argument falls out. If we don't care about the appeals process with respect to the sanctity of State regulations, why do we care when it comes down to fundamental rights? Or why do you care about it in this, I think, inappropriate, illogical, and irrelevant distinction between ERISA plans and non-ERISA plans? The answer is, this ERISA distinction is a convenient dodge to avoid providing rights for all Americans in this health care bill. Now, also, they talk about the fact that the cost of these patient protections will go up dramatically. Yet the Senator from Tennessee just announced a long list of protections that apply to ERISA plans. Why, if these are so onerous and costly, would we allow them to be applied to ERISA plans and not to other plans? The answer, I think, also should be obvious. It is that, in fact, these proposals are not only necessary but appropriate, and that the costs will not unnecessarily drive people away from insurance protection. So what we have in the Republican proposal is based upon illogical premises, distinctions that should not be in place with respect to ERISA or non-ERISA, and also would create a complexity that is one of the banes of our health care system today. On this side, and also on the bipartisan measure adopted by the House of Representatives, you have a very simple, direct proposal that will cover every American--not just in the appeals process but in the basic rights they have. I think, in comparison, it is clear that we should support the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Jeffords today to introduce the Health Care Consumer Assistance Act. This important legislation seeks to address a significant problem that currently exists in the health insurance market, the lack of a reliable source of information and assistance for health care consumers. In 1997, President Clinton's Health Quality Commission identified the need for consumer assistance programs that allow consumers access to accurate, easily understood information and get assistance in making informed decisions about health plans and providers. Earlier this month, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Consumer Reports magazine released the results of a survey they conducted on consumer satisfaction with their health plans. Their survey is part of a larger project looking at ways to improve how consumers resolve problems with their health insurance plans. The survey found that while most people who experienced a problem with their plan were often able to resolve them, the majority of those surveyed were confused about where to go for information and help if they have a problem with their health plan. Eventhough a growing number of states have taken steps to give patients new rights in dealing with their health insurance plans, most consumers are either unaware or do not know how to exercise those rights. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Jeffords seeks to remedy this information gap by providing grants to states that wish to establish health care consumer assistance programs. These programs are designed to help consumers understand and act on their health care choices, rights, and responsibilities. Under this bill, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will offer states funds to create or contract with an independent, nonprofit agency to provide a variety of information and support services for health care consumers, including the following: educational materials for health care consumers about strategies to resolve problems and grievances; operate a 1-800 telephone hotline to respond to consumer inquiries; coordinate and make referral to other private and public health care entities when appropriate; conduct education and outreach in the community; and collect and disseminate data about nature of inquiries, problems and grievances handled by the program. The concept of a health care consumer assistance program has already received considerable support and several states have taken the initiative to create these programs. Governors and state legislatures in many states including, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin have introduced or enacted health care ombudsman legislation. While some states have successfully launched their programs, other state initiatives have faltered due to a lack of sufficient funding. While important strides are being made to enhance health care consumer information and resources, clearly more needs to be done to expand access to these simple and cost-effective services to all Americans. Mr. President, I believe that Americans deserve access to the information and assistance they need to be empowered and informed health care consumers. As the health insurance system becomes more confusing and complex, it is critically important that as consumers navigate this system, they have a place where they can go for information, counseling and assistance. As health plan options become more complicated and the web of policies and principles governing those plans becomes more enmeshed, people need a reliable, accessible source of information, and state health care consumer assistance programs have proven their ability to meet this challenge. I look forward to working with my colleague, Senator Jeffords, in advancing this important and timely legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of my bill printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. REED. Yes.