Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Gun Show Background Check Act of 2001. Along with twenty of my colleagues, I am offering this legislation to renew the process of bringing some sense to our nation's gun laws by closing a loophole that has allowed criminals to buy firearms at gun shows for far too long. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reported to Congress last year that gun shows are a major gun trafficking channel responsible for more than 26,000 illegal firearms sales during an 18-month period. The FBI and ATF tell us again and again that convicted felons, domestic abusers, and other prohibited purchasers are taking advantage of the gun show loophole to acquire firearms. Two years ago, after Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 13 people at Columbine High School with weapons purchased from a private seller at a gun show, the United States Senate passed the Lautenberg amendment to close the gun show loophole. The legislation I am introducing today is identical to that Senate-passed amendment. Under federal law, Federal Firearms Licensees are required to maintain careful records of their sales, and under the Brady Act, to check a purchaser's background with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System before transferring any firearm. However, a person does not need a federal firearms license, and the Brady Act does not apply, if the person is not ``engaged in the business'' of selling firearms pursuant to federal law. These nonlicensees make up one quarter or more of the sellers of firearms at thousands of gun shows in America each year. Consequently, felons and other prohibited persons who want to avoid Brady Act checks and records of their purchases buy firearms at gun shows. My legislation incorporates recommendations made by the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury in their 1999 report on gun shows. The legislation would take several steps to make gun show transactions safer for all Americans: Definition of gun shows: Gun shows are defined to include any event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale. This definition includes not only those events where firearms are the main commodity sold, but also other events where a significant number of guns are sold, such as flea markets or swap meets. Gun show promoters: Gun show promoters would be required to register with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, maintain a list of vendors at all gun shows, and ensure that all vendors acknowledge receipt of information about their legal obligations. Background checks for all transactions: The bill requires that all firearms sales at gun shows go through a Federal Firearms Licensee. If a nonlicensed person is selling a weapon, they would use an FFL at the gun show to complete the transaction. The FFL would be responsible for conducting a Brady check on the purchaser and maintaining records of the transactions. Improved firearm tracing: FFLs would be required to submit information necessary to trace all firearms transferred at gun shows to the ATF's National Tracing Center, including the manufacturer/importer, model, and serial number of the firearms. However, no personal information about either the seller or the purchaser would be given to the government. Instead, as under current law, FFLs would maintain this information in their files. The NTC would request this information from an FFL only in the event that a firearm subsequently becomes the subject of a law enforcement trace request. Some will say that this legislation is an attempt to end gun shows, but the experience of states that have closed the gun show loophole proves otherwise. California, for example, requires not only background checks at gun shows but a 10-day waiting period for all gun sales, yet gun shows continue to thrive there. No, we're not trying to end gun shows. What we are trying to end is the free pass we're giving to convicted felons when they can walk into a gun show, find a private dealer, buy whatever weapons they want and walk out without a Brady background check. In overwhelming numbers, the American people believe that background checks should be required for all gun show sales. The people of Colorado and Oregon confirmed this last fall when they approved ballot initiatives to close the gun show loophole. I urge my colleagues to support the Gun Show Background Check Act of 2001 so that we can finally close this loophole in every state and make sure that convicted felons, domestic abusers, and other prohibited persons do not use gun shows to purchase firearms without a Brady background check.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation along with my colleague Senator Clinton, that establishes a Medical Education Trust Fund to support America's 144 medical schools and 1,250 graduate medical education, GME, teaching institutions. These institutions are national treasures, they are the very best in the world and deserve explicit and dedicated funding to guarantee that the United States continues to lead the world in the quality of its medical education and its health care delivery system. The Medical Education Trust Fund Act, METFA, of 2001 recognizes the need to begin moving away from existing medical education payment policies. The primary and immediate purpose of the legislation is to establish as Federal policy that medical education is a public good that all sectors of the health care system must support. This bill ensures that public and private insurers share the burden of financing medical education equitably. As such, METFA will be funded through three sources: a 1.5 percent assessment on health insurance premiums, Medicare, and Medicaid. The relative contribution from each of these sources is in rough proportion to the medical education costs attributable to their respective covered populations. GME is increasingly becoming hostage to fights over larger questions about the solvency and design of the Medicare system. The very commission entrusted to protect the integrity of the Medicare program, MedPAC, itself has succumbed to political and idelogical pressures by recommending that the GME program be removed from the Health Insurance Trust Fund and thrown into the appropriations process. I cannot stress strongly enough how important it is to reject this recommendation. To subject GME to the annual appropriations process does nothing more than to put a vital program in direct competition with many other important federal priorities in a budget that the Bush Administration is already severely constraining. We have seen this first hand in working through the 2002 budget, where the current Administration has proposed to cut a large portion of the Pediatric GME program to fund other programs. Leaving this program unprotected, will incite the same type of particularized special interest advocacy that we see emerging in other areas of health care. I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous notion and instead call on all of you to support the concept embodied in this bill. This legislation, METFA, is not my innovation. It is an idea, pioneered by our former colleague, Senator Moynihan. This bill recognizes that medical education is the responsibility of all who benefit from it and must therefore share in the responsibility to support it. As Senator Moynihan once said ``medical education is one of America's most precious public resources.'' He understood that despite the increasingly competitive health care system of our time, that medical education was a public good, that is, ``a good from which everyone benefits but for which no one is willing to pay.'' Some health reformers argue that in fact, GME does not meet the requirements of a public good and that therefore, an all-payer system is nothing more than a form of taxation. I beg to differ. Health care is not a commodity. While we can and should rely on competition to hold down costs in much of the health system, we must not allow it to bring a premature end to this great age of medical discovery, an age made possible by this country's exceptionally well trained health professionals and superior medical schools and teaching hospitals. Indeed, through the NIH and the tax code we have successfully and robustly, subsidized the development of new wonder drugs, and I certainly don't think anyone is suggesting that we change this policy, my legislation complements a competitive health market by providing tax-supported funding for the public services provided by teaching hospitals and medical schools. The legislation we introduce today is only the beginning. It establishes the principle that, as a public good, medical education should be supported by a stable, dedicated, long-term source of funding. To ensure that the United States continues to lead the world in the quality of its medical education and its health system as a whole, the legislation would also create a Medical Education Advisory Commission to conduct a thorough study and make recommendations, including the potential use of demonstration projects, regarding the following: alternative and additional sources of medical education financing; alternative methodologies for financing medical education; policies designed to maintain superior research and educational capacities in an increasingly competitive health system; the appropriate role of medical schools in graduate medical education; polices designed to expand eligibility for graduate medical education payments to institutions other than teaching hospitals, including children's hospital. The services provided by our nation's teaching hospitals and medical schools, groundbreaking research, highly skilled medical care, and the training of tomorrow's physicians, are vitally important and must be protected in this time of intense economic competition in the health system. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join Cambodian- Americans in celebration of the traditional Cambodian New Year, Chaul Chhnam, one of the major celebrations of the Cambodian culture. For three days this month, there will be gatherings across the United States to celebrate the beginning of the year. I take this opportunity to wish all Cambodian Americans a very happy New Year. New Year celebrations are about the passing of time and the rejuvenation of optimism for the future. The Cambodian New Year is this and more. It represents a traditional end of the harvest and a celebration of faith. Traditionally, it was a time for farmers to enjoy the fruits of their harvest and relax before the rainy season began. The start of the New Year is marked by the sounding of a bell. With the sounding, it is believed that the New Angel arrives. Throughout the day people participate in ceremonies and bring food to the Buddhist monks and religious leaders. The second day of celebration, or Vana Bat, is a time to show consideration for others. Gifts are given to parents, grandparents and teachers as a show of respect and charity is offered to the less fortunate. The third day, or Loeng Sak, includes more religious ceremonies and rituals to bring good luck and happiness to families. In my home state of Rhode Island there are numerous businesses owned by Cambodian-American families, most of them in the capital city Providence. These families enrich Rhode Island with their diversity and culture, and their hard work contributes much to the local economy. I would like to wish each one of them a happy New Year. The Cambodian New Year is an appropriate time to remind all Americans why we must support the political and economic stabilization of Cambodia. As Cambodia continues to recover from three decades of civil conflict, including the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge, it is critical that the United States and international community aid the Cambodian people in their efforts to build a lasting democracy. As we approach the beginning of Chaul Chhnam, I encourage all U.S. citizens to join in the spirit of this special holiday.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I don't think the Senator is saying he suspects that the President is not serious about a missile defense.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to lend support to the amendment of Senator Landrieu and Senator Carnahan and commend my chairman for his amendment. All of these individuals recognize the need for additional resources in defense spending. In fact, when it comes to Chairman Warner, there is no one in this Chamber who has been more solicitous and supportive of the welfare of American fighting men and women and the readiness of those forces than the Senator from Virginia, but I believe this is an important moment in the debate to make a broader point about this budget and defense spending. Explicitly, this budget calls for a $1.6 trillion or $1.7 trillion tax cut over 10 years. It reserves the money for that tax cut. Yet it ignores anticipated expenses that we already know will be incurred in defense. When it comes to defense spending in this budget, there is only one word for it: this budget is disingenuous. We are not prejudging President Bush. We are taking him at his word. I quote the President: At the earliest possible date, my administration will deploy antiballistic missile systems, both theater and national, to guard against attack and blackmail. When we look at the estimated costs for a national missile defense, it is approximately $115 billion, and that total is growing with each new reestimation. The $115 billion was an estimate that was included in this week's Defense Week magazine. This national missile defense is a centerpiece of the President's strategic program. I hardly believe that at the end of the strategic review conducted by the Secretary of Defense--and I commend him for that review--that the Secretary of Defense or the President will recommend that they withdraw their support for national missile defense or theater missile defense. We already know the President may urge us to spend as much as $115 billion just on national missile defense, and there is nowhere in this budget over 10 years that these costs are recognized. This is in addition to the cost that Senator Landrieu was talking about--quality of life for troops and readiness issues. Let us look again at some of these costs we know will be urged upon us. We will debate these costs. We will debate these programs. Some may be eliminated. But right now we know there is a multibillion-dollar defense program coming our way, and this budget does not provide for it. What this budget does is cut taxes explicitly to the tune of $1.7 trillion, yet ignores defense programs to which the President is emotionally, passionately committed. I think that is disingenuous, as I said before. If you look at national missile defense, we started and are developing a land-based system. It is estimated that the cost of 100 interceptors, a very rudimentary system, will be $43 billion. Again, I do not think that number is properly accounted for in this budget going forward 10 years. That system is criticized by many, including President Bush, as being not robust enough; that we have to build a system that is layered, not just a midcourse interception of enemy missiles coming to the United States by land-based systems, but also we have to have sea-based systems perhaps that will intercept in the boost phase and other systems that can intercept in other phases in flight. All of this adds additional cost. If the Administration chooses to go to a sea-based system, the likely candidate is called the Navy theater-wide missile defense system. That is one system. That system is just being developed now. Estimates for that system--to buy the ships, deploy the radar, deploy the missiles-- is about $5.5 billion. Again, we are not talking about this cost. If we look at another aspect--the spaced-based laser is the program the Air Force is developing--this system would be designed to be orbiting in space and also intercept enemy missiles. That is another multibillion-dollar program that is hardly off the drawing board. Yet the administration may choose to pursue this option and the cost is not accounted for. That is the realm of national missile defense--about $115 billion and counting. Indeed, every time there is an estimate of costs, the costs go up. This is a revolutionary innovative system that the Defense Department is already developing. But none of these costs are provided in this budget. If we look at theater missile defense, we just had good news. The PAC-3 missile system has been successfully tested. It is an advanced theater missile defense, but the sobering fact is that the PAC-3 missiles cost has increased more than 100 percent over the last few years, another cost not appropriately factored into the system. There is another Navy lower-tier missile defense system with estimates of about $7 billion to develop. Again, it is not recognized in this budget. The Army is developing a missile defense called THAAD. Once again, that is struggling forward, being tested, being developed, estimated at billions of dollars. There is the Air Force airborne laser on aircraft, estimated at $6.5 billion in acquisition costs. That, too, is being considered but not budgeted. After we look at these programs, one after the other, and the President's commitment to have a robust comprehensive national missile defense and theater missile defense, we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. It is not in this budget. Just as the President eloquently and passionately called for a tax cut, he called for national missile defense. This budget is silent about those costs as it trumpets tax cuts. I do not think that is the way to do a budget. I do not think that is fair to our military forces because we know what will happen. These programs will be urged upon us. We will have a choice to borrow money because there is no money left after the tax cut to fund military programs, or to take money from domestic priorities. I do not think we should put ourselves in that position. We should honestly and fairly put in this budget those costs we know and the significant costs that are coming regardless of the outcome of this strategic review. We can illustrate, talk about other costs. We have other responsibilities. In the last few weeks, as a member of the Strategic Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, we have had several different commissions report to us. They have already done their studies. Secretary Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defense and former Secretary of Energy, reported to us on the status of our nuclear safeguarding procedures and all the laboratories that guard the readiness of our nuclear devices. His estimate is $800 million just for maintenance backlog; $300 million to $500 million per year for ten years for recapitalization--new equipment, new computers--billions of dollars a year to clean up nuclear waste sites. We know these costs already. They are not in this budget. The Department of Energy also runs programs to reduce the threat of weapons in the former Soviet Union, in Russia. We have been funding multimillion-dollar programs which we have to continue to fund to ensure our national security. The Strategic Subcommittee has heard the Space Commission's report. The Space Commission was chaired by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. This Space Commission has urged significant investments in our space capability. They rightly point out we don't have the situational awareness from space to understand what type of missiles might be fired, what might be a threat to us, or not a threat to us. They have not put a price tag on it. But again, we are talking about a very innovative, very expensive system, that the Secretary of Defense is very committed to. Another total not reflected in the budget. We just had this week a report about the National Reconnaissance Office which is responsible for overhead coverage, our satellites, our intelligence satellite. They, too, are indicating additional moneys must be spent. These studies have been completed. The verdict is in: We need more resources. Yet this budget does not reflect those costs. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars in military programs. One could debate and argue the merit of each, but we know they will be urged upon us. We have a budget that ignores the obvious costs in order to fund a very large tax cut. I think we have to be straightforward and honest about this budget. We have to recognize the need for defense. Again, we are not prejudging the President; we are taking him at his word that he wants to build a national missile defense, that he wants to continue on the work of our nuclear stockpile safeguard program, that he wants us to be a leader in space as we have been on the oceans and in the skies and on land. And all of this costs money. There is none of this money in the budget. I urge the passage of Senator Landrieu's amendment. I also urge as fervently that we look carefully at this budget and honestly reserve from this proposed tax cut the real resources we will be asking for and this administration will be asking for within months of our vote on this budget. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. I respond at this juncture the question is premature since the systems we are testing have not proven effective technologically. I would be reluctant to abrogate a treaty until I knew we had a system that worked with a high degree of confidence. I hope some day we have that choice.

Mr. REED. The Senator is likely right about those. As I understand the ABM Treaty, there are restrictions on anything other than a limited land-based system.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Yes.

Mr. REED. Fifteen minutes.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Harkin amendment. Senator Harkin understands that in America education provides the best opportunity for all of our citizens to achieve and that this country, at its best moments, should always be about opportunity. Senator Harkin seeks to ensure that every child has an opportunity. He has appropriately titled this amendment ``Leave No Child Behind,'' because he believes sincerely, as do I, that we have to reach out, not just rhetorically but with real resources, to make sure every child can seize opportunity, which is what America is all about. Unlike the Republican budget resolution before us, which contains only a paltry increase for education--in fact, this increase is smaller than the annual increases in education in the last 4 out of 5 years-- the Harkin Amendment provides $250 billion over 10 years for education, a funding level that would truly leave no child behind. All of our Nation's students have to be given the tools and the opportunity to excel and be successful, in effect, to live out the American dream. The Harkin amendment provides these tools and the opportunity through high quality education that spans a lifetime--from early childhood education, through elementary and secondary education, through higher education, and indeed beyond to postsecondary, lifelong learning. High quality education costs real dollars. The Harkin amendment puts those real dollars into this budget. President Bush and our Republican colleagues claim that their proposal will leave no child behind, but simply adding accountability to our elementary and secondary schools without providing adequate resources will not do the job. I have had many opportunities to talk with the Secretary of Education and other leaders in this administration with respect to their education proposal. They talk a good game. They talk about accountability. They talk about standards. But then when you ask them: Where are the resources? They say: Well, we really don't need resources. That is just not the case. Every American understands that education is worthwhile and that we must invest in education, not just with words but with dollars, to make a high quality education a reality in the life of every child. Indeed, today, the Federal budget only devotes only 2 cents of every Federal dollar to education. We have to do more-- not to dispossess the States and the localities of their responsibilities, but to complement and supplement what they are doing. Today we live in a challenging, international economic order, and students from Massachusetts are not just competing with students from Mississippi; they are all competing against the very best and brightest around the globe. That requires investment. It requires raising our standards and giving every child a chance to reach those standards to ensure that we have the best-educated workforce so we can compete in this competitive global economy. That is what the Harkin amendment will do. Specifically, Senator Harkin would help all children start school ready to learn by funding Head Start to make it available to all eligible 3- and 4-year-olds and to expand learning opportunities under the Early Learning Opportunities Act. Making children ready to learn has been a goal of the Federal Government for more than a decade. When President Bush organized the Governor's conference, they determined that their first goal was to ensure that every child should enter school ready to learn. We have failed to achieve that goal. With the resources this amendment provides, we can strive and, I hope, attain that goal. We also want to ensure that every child is taught by highly qualified teachers in classrooms that are not overcrowded or in ill-repair. The Harkin amendment quadruples funding for professional development, includes money for increasing our effort to reduce class sizes, and increases the resources going to school repair and modernization. We all understand, too, that every child, including those students with disabilities, must be a part of the educational experience in a meaningful way. That means fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. We also understand that we have a special obligation at the Federal level to provide the most disadvantaged American children with a real chance, and that is why Senator Harkin will increase title I funding substantially. Then in order to complete the job, we have to ensure that all of our children with talent and ambition coming out of secondary schools have the resources and the opportunity to go to college. So, Senator Harkin is calling for an increase in the maximum Pell grant by $600 to $4,350. He is also calling for a significant increase in other need-based student aid programs, such as LEAP, TRIO, and GEAR UP. All of these proposals go to the heart and soul of what we should be about: giving every child the chance to learn; making them ready for school; giving them good teachers and good facilities; and then giving them the opportunity to go on to postsecondary education. I cannot think of a more important task, one that is more central to the concerns of all Americans, and one that is more fully realized than this amendment proposed by Senator Harkin. I support him strongly. I will be offering two amendments with respect to education. The first I will offer, with my colleagues Senators Kennedy and Bingaman, would support recent initiatives sponsored by the administration and supported by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, that involves testing of our students. The President has called for the testing of all students in grades 3 through 8. I understand, as so many of my colleagues do, that testing is an important aspect of education, not the sole aspect of education, but an important aspect of education. But, I have raised concerns, as have others, that these tests can dominate curriculum so that essentially children are narrowly being taught the test. And one graver concern is that these tests, because so much rides upon them, would be dumbed down or otherwise compromised so that they are not really a valid tool to assess a school's performance. They simply become a routine way to secure Federal funding. Nevertheless, I believe we should provide the States with the resources if we require them to test every child in reading and math in grades 3 through 8. The HELP Committee passed the BEST Act under a unanimous vote, 20-0. The bill authorizes $510 million to help States meet this mandate--$400 million for the development and implementation of annual State assessments and $110 million for administering State assessments under the National Assessments of Educational Progress. The National Governors' Association, however, has expressed concern that this level of funding is likely not enough to cover the costs. In fact, with an average testing cost of $50 per student, the real cost may be well over $1 billion. While the amount authorized under the BEST Act is a start, it is really only an initial downpayment on the true cost of implementing these tests. From what I am hearing from colleagues in Rhode Island, high quality tests are very costly, and the State will need money to implement and administer these tests. It costs a great deal of money to administer and score the tests, to prepare schools and teachers to administer the tests, and to perform other tasks necessary to ensure an appropriate testing regime that will adequately assess the progress of children and will contribute to their education, not distract them from their education. In Rhode Island, it has been estimated that the cost of an annual testing regime as contemplated by the BEST Act will be about $4 million a year. That is a great deal of money in the State of Rhode Island for education. That money could be used for other purposes in education. I believe if we are mandating these tests, we should at least provide for these resources. I know a few years ago it was quite in vogue for Republican colleagues to talk about ``unfunded mandates,'' how the Federal Government was imposing these restrictions and requirements and not giving the resources to do it. I can't think of a more transparent and obvious unfunded mandate than to require each State to test each child in grades 3 through 8, which is a traditional province of the States in terms of curriculum, and not give them the Federal resources to carry out that mandate. So my amendment would, in fact, provide the downpayment on the costs of these tests. I hope it will be agreed to because, right now, this budget does not put the dollars behind the rhetoric when it comes to State testing. I will offer another amendment along with Senator Kennedy that would increase our commitment to opening the doors of higher education to our neediest students. Senator Harkin has indicated in his amendment that he understands the need to increase Pell grants and to support need- based programs. My amendment also would do this. It would increase significantly those resources that are going to programs that are designed to assist talented Americans who are economically deprived. It would increase the maximum Pell grant by $600 to $4,350, something Senator Harkin also supports. It would increase the LEAP program, a partnership between the Federal Government and the States to provide income-based grants and aid to students going to college by $45 million to $100 million. It would increase the supplemental educational opportunity grants. It would also increase the Federal Work-Study Program to provide students with more resources as they work their way through college. It would increase the TRIO program, designed to identify talented young people, assist them to get into school, and mentor them and help them as they progress through college. It would also increase the Perkins loans capital contribution to assist universities and colleges as they reach out to individual students who need help. It would also help on the loan cancellation part of the Perkins program for reimbursement to colleges for loan forgiveness. The amendment would also increase funding for the GEAR UP program, another early intervention program. It would also address teacher quality and recruitment through title II of the Higher Education Act by providing additional resources to help teachers better prepare themselves and help communities recruit better teachers. All of these programs are designed to be consistent with the theme that has been struck by Senator Harkin in his amendment. If we believe in opportunity, we really have to invest in education. When you get down to the practicalities of school systems in this country, the rhetoric doesn't work. When you get down to the notion that they will simply reorganize themselves effectively and that will make up for additional resources, that clashes with the reality of local education. What is the reality of local education? Well, the school committees strive for months to come up with a budget. They go ahead and they want increased professional development, and they want increased funds to improve their facilities, to fix roofs. They have made political compromises and struggles to get there. They are just about to announce it, and then they get a call--the superintendent gets a call; it is their health insurance company. They have just announced that premiums are going up 45 percent. So guess what happens to all that money for professional development, library books, and school construction; it is gone. The virtue and the value that we offer is that we can provide these funds and fence them off, if you will, commit them to libraries, school construction, reducing class size; and by doing that, we can make real progress working with local communities. The Harkin amendment is the most important amendment in this whole budget because it would put us on record again as saying that we believe in education, in opportunity, and we will support it with dollars and not just words. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the Baucus-Graham Medicare prescription drug amendment. The amendment sets a total of $311 billion for the creation of a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The need for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare grows each and every year. Unfortunately, the budget resolution currently before us fails to meet our seniors tremendous need in this area. Advances in medical science have revolutionized the practice of medicine. And the proliferation of pharmaceuticals has radically altered the way acute illness and chronic disease are treated and managed. Further fueling these advancements have been annual increases in the budget of the National Institutes of Health, NIH. This year, the NIH is slated to receive an increase of $2.8 billion, which not coincidentally just happens to be equal to the total increase in the entire Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, budget. While the allocation of $153 billion for both Medicare reform and the creation of a prescription drug benefit is probably the most blatant example of how our most vulnerable citizens are being shortchanged by the budget resolution, the overall budget for HHS is laden with vital programs that are being decimated so the Administration can fund an ever-growing and misguided tax cut. However, we will not know exactly which programs have been sacrificed until after the budget resolution has already passed. With regard to pharmaceuticals, I am deeply concerned that we are creating a situation like the classic story of Rapunzel, except in this case, scientists and remarkable new medical treatments are in the ivory tower and the people who would most benefit from these lifesaving advancements are on the other side of the moat with no bridge. Thanks to the years we held the course of fiscal discipline, we now have a historic opportunity to fund our nation's priorities, prepare for future expenditures and return some of the remaining surplus back to the American taxpayer. Later this week, an alternative budget resolution will be offered which I believe strikes the right balance of fiscal discipline and investing in our priorities. It includes adequate funding for a universal Medicare prescription drug benefit for every senior in America. We are already painfully aware of the fact that remarkable advances in medical science, particularly in the area of pharmaceuticals, do not come without a cost. Since 1980, prescription drug expenditures have grown at double digit rates and today prescription drugs constitute the largest out-of-pocket cost for seniors. For millions of seniors, many of whom are living on a fixed income and do not have a drug benefit as part of their health insurance coverage, access to these new medicines is simply beyond reach. Even more alarming, it is estimated that 38 percent of seniors pay $1,000 or more for prescription drugs annually, while 3 in 5 Medicare beneficiaries lack a dependable source of drug coverage. This lack of reliable drug coverage for today's seniors is reminiscent of the lack of hospital coverage for the elderly prior to the creation of Medicare. Back in 1963, an estimated 56 percent of seniors lacked hospital insurance coverage. Today, after all our investments in health care and prevention, 53 percent of seniors still lack a prescription drug benefit. This is unacceptable. The need for a Medicare prescription drug benefit is a top concern for the elderly and disabled in my home state of Rhode Island. Many seniors continue to be squeezed by declines in retiree health insurance coverage, increasing Medigap premiums and the capitation of annual prescription drug benefits at $500 or $1000 under Medicare managed care plans. Seniors in my state are frustrated and burdened both financially and emotionally by the lack of a reliable prescription drug benefit. As their Senator, I am committed to doing all I can to relieve them of this tremendous burden. While the need for a prescription drug benefit is clear and the desire on the part of some members of Congress is there, action on Medicare prescription drug legislation has been slow. I sincerely hope that this chamber can have the courage to fulfill the promise we made over 30 years ago to provide for seniors' health care needs. Clearly, in today's world that means the provision of prescription drug coverage. The time is now to make the step from rhetoric to action on a Medicare prescription drug benefit. We should all feel compelled to seize this opportunity to strengthen and enhance Medicare for the new millennium.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for their extraordinary efforts over the last several weeks, together with all of our colleagues, in trying to create a system of campaign finance reform that will be truly reflective of elections in the United States--elections about ideas and not just about money flowing in from everywhere. Their efforts will be for naught if we don't have the adequate enforcement of the laws that we are adopting today and on succeeding days. My amendment would specifically strengthen the Federal Election Commission, which is the organization that is charged with enforcing all the laws we have been discussing for the last 2 weeks. Observers have called the FEC ``beleaguered,'' a ``toothless watchdog,'' a ``dithering nanny,'' and a ``lapdog,'' indicating that the state of the FEC is rather moribund because they don't have the resources necessary or some of the tools necessary to do the job of effectively enforcing our campaign finance laws. All of this effort over these several weeks and several years will amount to very little if we don't give the FEC the resources and tools to effectively enforce our campaign finance laws. If we are serious about reform, we need to be serious about giving the FEC these resources. My amendment is based upon recommendations made by the FEC Commissioners over many years with respect to improving the performance of the FEC. As we all know, the FEC is composed of six Commissioners-- three Republicans and three Democrats. These recommendations represent a bipartisan response to the observed inadequacies of the Federal Election Commission. First and foremost, my amendment would reauthorize the Federal Election Commission, which hasn't been technically reauthorized since 1980. It would also increase the authorized appropriations for this Commission. Over the past 2 weeks, we have talked about doubling and tripling money going to candidates. Again, if we are serious about campaign finance reform, we should also talk about increasing the budget of the FEC. Senator Thompson mentioned yesterday that the average amount spent by a winning Senate campaign went from approximately $1.2 million in 1980, to $7.2 million in the year 2000. According to the FEC, total campaign spending has increased 1,000 percent since 1976. Total campaign finance disbursement activity was $300 million in 1976 and exploded to $3.5 billion in the year 2000 election cycle. But the agency responsible for administering these campaign finance laws, the Federal Election Commission, has seen very little increase in their operating budget over these many years. We have had an explosion of activity, we have had an explosion of contributions, but nothing to keep the FEC in league or in sync with this explosion of campaign spending. Despite all the increased activity, the FEC staff is virtually the same as it was almost 20 years ago. In 1980, the FEC had 270 full-time equivalent staff. In 1998, the level was about 303, a very small increase, and at the same time there has been an explosion of donations, an explosion of reports, and increased in activity. It is obvious with all of these activities, with all of these transactions that were reported that the FEC needs to do more and needs more resources to do the job it has been commissioned to do. The FEC is expected to review these financial reports. They are expected to enforce the laws, and unless we give them the resources to do that, we are going to be in a very sorry state and, indeed, we are in a very sorry state today. Because of the onslaught of cases before the FEC, it has to prioritize its enforcement work. It turns out they give certain cases priority status. That means when there is an available attorney, they will put that attorney on the case, but there are so many cases that they eventually become stale. In fact, the FEC had to dismiss about half of its enforcement caseload in fiscal year 1998 and in fiscal year 1999 due to lack of resources. Due to the limited resources they have, they simply cannot keep up with the work. Once again, if we are serious about reform, we should be serious about giving the FEC the resources to do it. Let me move forward and suggest other aspects of the legislation which is before us today in my amendment. In addition to increasing the resources to meet this obvious need, the amendment would also authorize the Commission to conduct random audits in order to ensure voluntary compliance with the campaign act. It is based upon the same premise we use with the Internal Revenue Service. The idea that somebody would show up and look at your records encourages you to keep good records and to follow the law. That same principle would be effective with respect to the Federal Election Commission. In addition to giving authority for random audits, it also would give the Commission the authority to seek an injunction from a Federal judge under specific circumstances. First, there would have to be a substantial likelihood that a violation of campaign finance laws is occurring or is about to occur. There has to be a showing that the failure to act expeditiously will result in irreparable harm to a party affected by the potential violation, and that expeditious action would not cause undue harm to a party affected by the potential violation, and finally, the public interest would be best served by such an injunction. I point out that in order to seek such an injunction, the Commission would have to have a majority vote, 4 out of 6, and since there are three Republicans and three Democrats, this process of injunction would necessarily have to include votes from both Republicans and Democrats. I think it is a way to ensure fairness and not abuse this injunctive power. In addition to providing these aspects, the amendment would do something else. It would also increase the penalties for willful violations and knowing violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act. The violations would be increased from $10,000 to $15,000 or an amount equal to 300 percent of the violation amount, the greater of those two sums. The amendment also includes a provision that would restrict the misuse of a candidate's name. It would require that a candidate's committee include the name of the candidate, but it also would prohibit the use of that candidate's name by an unauthorized committee or any other committee except the party committee. This would, I hope, correct a situation in which committees or organizations unrelated to the candidate use the name of the candidate and misuse the name of the candidate. Also, the amendment would expedite procedures used by the FEC to enforce violations or investigate violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act. It would also allow an expedited referral to the Attorney General in the case of a perceived criminal violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Once again, such a referral would require a majority vote of the Commissioners, so it would be inherently bipartisan and could not be abused by a partisan faction of the Federal Election Commission. We have for the last several weeks been working diligently, creatively to fashion stronger Federal election campaign laws. But without my amendment, all of our work might be for nought because unless we strengthen the Federal Election Commission, we will not have the enforcement capability to take this legislative design which we have worked over so many days, and make it effective to regulate the campaigns for Federal office in the United States. I urge adoption of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. REED. I have no opposition to working in a purposeful manner. I reassure the Senator of concerns expressed. First, the random audit would have to be approved by the majority of commissioners. This is not something that would be inherently abusive, since it requires four commissioners, at least one of whom has to be from the opposing party. In addition, the audits would be subject to strict confidentiality rules and only when the audits are completed would they be published, and not try to insinuate an audit into the newspapers for political campaign purposes. I do believe this is a good way to reach compliance, and it is something that has been suggested by those people who look closely at the Federal Election Commission. With respect to the lengthening of the time period for audit, the length is increased from 6 months to 12 months for those audits for cause. I think that is a reasonable amendment to the current practice. I hope it is accepted. As the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Kentucky suggest, I have no opposition to thinking on this overnight and coming back.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Jeffords, Collins, Mikulski, Wellstone and Clinton, in introducing bipartisan legislation that we believe can make a real difference in the lives of health care consumers in this nation. The Health Care Consumer Assistance Act provides grants to States to create, or expand upon, health care consumer assistance, or health ombudsman programs. In 1997, the President's Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry noted that consumers have the right to accurate information and assistance in making decisions about health plans. One model program, the Administration on Aging's Long Term Care Ombudsman Program, has been highly successful for twenty five years in promoting quality living and health care for nursing home residents nationwide. Now more than ever, people need this kind of assistance to navigate the health care system. The Health Care Consumer Assistance Act would create a grant program for states to establish private, non-profit, independent entities to operate statewide ombudsman programs. Each state ombudsman program would be a ``one-stop'' source for information, counseling and referral services for health care consumers. Last summer, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Consumer Reports magazine released the results of a survey on consumer satisfaction with health plans. This survey is part of a larger project examining 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 able to resolve them, the majority of those surveyed were confused about where to go for information and help. Over the past few years, a growing number of states have taken steps to give patients new rights in dealing with their health insurance plans. For example, more than 30 states now have an external review process for residents to appeal adverse decisions by their health plans. While the majority of those surveyed thought the ability to appeal a decision to an independent medical expert would be helpful, only one percent had actually used the process available in many states. In fact, most consumers were unaware this option even existed, much less how to use it. The legislation we introduce today 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 make health care consumers more educated and effective as they seek to understand and exercise their health care choices, rights, and responsibilities. I believe that the Health Care Consumer Assistance Act would compliment a Patient's Bill of Rights that includes a strong appeals process and access to legal remedies. It may, in fact, actually serve to ease the ongoing debate about litigation. By empowering health care consumers with information and effective strategies for making sure they get the care they have paid for when they need it most, the chances that a health-related dispute will end up in court are drastically minimized. When a person is sick and in need of medical care, the last thing they want is to have a protracted legal battle, they simply want the care that will make them better. Under this bill, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will provide funds to eligible states 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 about strategies for health care consumers to resolve problems and grievances; operate a 1-800 telephone hotline for consumer inquiries; coordinate and make referrals to other private and public health care entities when appropriate; and conduct education and outreach in the community. The concept of a health care consumer assistance program has gained considerable support over the past several years as states have contemplated the patient protection issue and several states have taken steps 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. However, a Families USA survey of existing programs has found that while some states have successfully launched their programs, other state initiatives have faltered due to a lack of sufficient funding. 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 becomes critically important that consumers have a place where they can go for counseling and assistance. As health plan options become more complicated, people need a reliable, accessible source of information. State health care consumer assistance programs have proven their ability to meet this challenge. I look forward to working with my colleagues in advancing this important and timely legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Hagel amendment. I respect Senator Hagel immensely and compliment him for his efforts, but I think it is the wrong direction for campaign finance reform. The core of our debate about campaign finance reform is to restore the confidence of the American people in our political system--to make them believe, as we hope they once did, that their vote is the most significant aspect of a Federal election. Today I fear they believe their vote is less important than the contributions of special interests or economic elites. The Hagel amendment would amplify significantly the bankrolling of economic elites in elections by raising the limits on contributions that these individuals can make. I think it is very important to point out today the limits on contributions are only reached by approximately one-ninth of 1 percent of our country's citizens. This infinitesimal fraction of individuals are donating significant amounts of money to political campaigns. This does not represent, as a result, this effort to raise the limits, an attempt to reach out to the broad spectrum of American voters. It would, in fact, increase and enhance the role of a very small minority of America. That is not the direction we should take for campaign finance reform. We should not increase the amount of dollars going to the system. We should create a system in which people again believe their vote, rather than any contribution by a special interest or a wealthy American, is the most important part of our system. The other aspect of the Hagel amendment which is troubling is the institutional savings of soft money. His proposal allows wealthy individuals to donate $60,000 per calendar year to a political party, congressional campaign committee of a national party and others. This institutionalization once again exacerbates the role of money in campaigns and once again focuses away from the individual voter to the very wealthy contributor. I think it is the wrong direction to take. As I said, the perception of our constituents is that this system is not working for them. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for graciously yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the Hollings amendment. Senator Hollings recognizes that in the early seventies, in the wake of Watergate, this Congress passed what they thought was a comprehensive system of campaign finance reform. The two principal pillars of that reform were a limit on contributions by individuals to candidates and a limit on expenditures in the campaign by candidates. Just before the system even started, the Supreme Court struck down a major pillar in that structure, and this system has collapsed and has been falling apart since then. The evidence is clear. Every election we see a huge explosion in spending because there are no limits on campaign expenditures. For candidates, it is almost akin to the nuclear arms race: You can never have enough money. You can never have enough because your opponent might get a little more, and unless we stop this race for dollars, we will not have true campaign finance reform in this country. We will not have a system of campaign finance reform. Every time we pass legislation--and I commend wholeheartedly Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for their effort, and their effort is important, but we need this amendment to ensure we can create a system of campaign finance reform that will truly work. As I said, and my colleague pointed out, there has been a huge explosion in spending. What has this done? Again, as Senator Biden pointed out, it certainly has put out of reach for so many Americans the idea of actually running for public office, at not just the Federal level but all levels. It has done something else, something insidious: Questioning, in the minds of the American public, the legitimacy of what we do and for whom we do it. The idea of our Government is that we are servants of the people. Yet in the minds of so many Americans they see us as servants of special interests. I was particularly struck by a poll taken by Princeton Survey Research Associates immediately after the election in 1996. Special interest groups in politics were rated a major threat to the future of this country. It was second only to international terrorism. In the minds of so many Americans, special interest politics is just as threatening to the future of this country as international terrorism. We have to do something. We have to, I believe, support Senator Hollings in this amendment. He recognized that until we have the ability to truly create a system of campaign finance, we will always have this escalation of spending, this escalation of continued distrust by the American public of their political system. The Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, made the presumption or the assumption that speech equals money or money equals speech. Frankly, that is not always the strain of constitutional theory that the Court has presented. For example, in 1966, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Court struck down a poll tax of $1.50 in Virginia, declaring, ``Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth. . . .'' Later, in 1972, in Bullock v. Carter, they struck down candidate filing fees ranging from $150 to $8,900 for local office in Texas because the theory was that one should not have to pay to be a candidate, one should not have to have his or her test of qualification, even to vote or to run, based upon money. The reality today is that to be a candidate, you have to have money. We spend a great deal of time trying to get that money. The Court in Buckley v. Valeo erred dramatically. I do not think--and I am shared in this view by my colleague from Delaware--that money equals speech. In fact, I am a bit confused on constitutional theory why a contribution to a candidate can be limited, even though I might be making that my form of speech, yet we cannot limit the overall spending of a candidate in an election. The Court in Buckley v. Valeo was wrong. The only way we get out is to pass the Hollings amendment and give them a way clear so they will, under the Constitution, recognize that not only should we but we can craft a comprehensive system of campaign finance reform. This view is not particularly radical. In the 25 years since Buckley, more and more people have come to the conclusion that it was wrongly decided and that, in fact, we can and should impose limits on expenditures. Constitutional scholars, public officials at every level, State attorneys general, secretaries of state, all have suggested we can and should put a limit on expenditures. The States have acted. They have created legislatively a limit on expenditures. It was challenged in court, but for the first time a judge looked seriously at the record, a district court judge, and conditioned that perhaps there was a justification for this limit but, being a district court judge bound by the opinion in Buckley v. Valeo, struck down the provision. Similar provisions are being litigated and have been litigated in Ohio, and they are being litigated today in the context of an Albuquerque, NM, city ordinance which provides for a limit. We can give our colleagues and the Court the benefit of this amendment. We can give them the rationale to go ahead and do what I think should be done, to be able to limit expenditures so that every candidate has the right to spend a certain amount, but the spending will not overwhelm the true test of a race, which is the quality of their ideas and positions. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 180th anniversary of Greek Independence. On March 25, 1821, ordinary Greek citizens with a conviction for freedom rose up against their oppressors. And, much like America's patriots, they struggled against overwhelming odds and won, bringing about their independence. For this reason, I was pleased to join my colleagues in cosponsoring and passing Senate Resolution 20 which designates March 25 as Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy. On this anniversary, Greeks and Greek-Americans can reflect on the struggle for independence and be proud. Their ancestors stood up and fought for their freedom, ending 400 years of rule by the Ottoman Empire. History is quick to forget the details and summarize the outcome. That is why remembering the sacrifices, the oppression, the battles, the poorly armed men standing outnumbered, and their victory are so important. March 25th, however, is not just for those of Greek descent. It is a day for all who appreciate freedom and treasure democracy. Territorially, the nation of Greece is smaller than the state of Alabama. Yet, for such a small nation it has left a large mark on history and society. The Hellenes have produced many lasting societal advances and cultural contributions, art, science, philosophy, and architecture are just a few. In addition, they have had a rich and lasting impact upon politics. Democracy, the modern day pinnacle of government, was founded in Greece over two thousand years ago. As citizens of a great democracy, we are proud to recognize the contributions of the Hellenic culture in our own nation. From the education of the Founding Fathers to the development of our Constitution, Greek ideas have shaped America. In my own state, the Greeks have been members of Rhode Island's communities for over 100 years. Originally starting as factory workers and fishermen, today's descendants of the first immigrants continue to advance both economically and professionally, contributing to our state with their hard work and active citizenship. Therefore, on the day marking the 180th anniversary of the revolution for independence, I congratulate all Greeks and Greek-Americans and express my appreciation for their contributions and those of their ancestors.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the achievement of La Salle Academy of Providence, RI whose football team became State Champions for the year 2000. In 1871, the de La Salle Christian Brothers came to Rhode Island to teach at the ``Brothers'' school. In 1876, that school became an academy and was named La Salle, after the Christian Brothers founder, Saint John Baptiste de La Salle. Since its opening 125 years ago, La Salle has offered its students a rigorous, value-based education. The Brothers' approach to comprehensive student development has been evident not only in their academic excellence, but in the successes of their clubs and athletic teams as well. The athletic department at La Salle has a strong commitment to instilling leadership, sportsmanship, and a healthy approach to athletic competition. Since its founding in 1908, the La Salle football program has been one of the most successful in the state. Legendary Coach Jack Cronin guided the Rams to 274 wins during his 44 years tenure from 1928 to 1972. In the 1940's and 1950's, La Salle played before some of the largest crowds ever to see a game in Rhode Island, including 25,000 in 1945, 40,000 in 1947, and 10,000 in 1955. In the 1970's and 1980's, the La Salle football team won ten Division A titles. La Salle also participates in the oldest sports rivalry in the state. For seventy-one years, La Salle and East Providence High School have met traditionally on Thanksgiving Day. Up until this past year, the series had been tied, but with La Salle's victory they now proudly lead that series 35-34, with two ties. Through the leadership of Tim Coen, first year Coach of the La Salle Rams, and Team Captains Toyin Barnisile, Joe Ben, Howie Brown, David Regus, and Jon-Erik Schneiderhan, La Salle can boast its first Super Bowl Division Championship. After winning only four of nine league games in the previous year, the Rams completed the regular season with an impressive 9-0 record, including a win over Thanksgiving rival and two-time defending state champions East Providence. The last time La Salle played in a championship game was nearly a decade ago in 1992, when they lost to Portsmouth High School. The year 2000 finally brought a re-match as this year's Super Bowl game pitted the Portsmouth Patriots against the La Salle Rams. The Rams were victorious in a very close game, thanks to the exceptional effort put forth by the La Salle team supported by their fellow students and alumni. As a proud graduate and former member of the La Salle Academy football team, I know the skills, training, and strength of character that are necessary to achieve what this program has achieved. I would ask that my colleagues join me in applauding La Salle Academy for its remarkable accomplishments this year and throughout its long tradition of excellence.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today is the 11th Annual National Sportsmanship Day, which is a unique program that champions sportsmanship and enhances student leadership and academic skills. The object of the 2001 National Sportsmanship Day is to promote appreciation for the critical role of ethics and honesty in athletics and society through student-athlete outreach programs, writing and art contests, coaches' forums and other activities aimed at furthering the principles of sportsmanship. National Sportsmanship Day was founded at the University of Rhode Island in 1991. Today, more than 12,000 elementary, middle, and high schools, as well as colleges and universities in all 50 States and over 100 countries will participate in the events planned to help instill in young people the importance of playing fair and the value of hard work and discipline. The Institute of Sport is also proud that National Sportsmanship Day will be webcast over the Internet. Through online interaction with featured guests, exclusive interviews, and sportsmanship polls, this event will harness the power and expanse of the World Wide Web to reach students and supporters here and around the world. The organizers of National Sportsmanship Day have gathered some of the best of our nation's sportsmen and women to serve as 2001 Sports Ethics Fellows. By sharing their remarkable accomplishments athletes Grant Hill of the Orlando Magic, soccer great Mia Hamm, Sergei Fedorov of the Detroit Red Wings, and 2000 Olympic Gold Medalist Lenny Krayzelburg, among others, will help encourage young athletes to strive and succeed by the rules of fair play. And in so doing, these gifted athletic heroes will inspire today's athletes to impart on future athletes the lessons of good sportsmanship. Also part of this event and in its third year is a program called ``The No Swear Zone,'' which is a pledge that can be signed by athletes and coaches to stop the use of profanity in sports and everyday life. Further, in conjunction with National Sportsmanship Day, the Institute for International Sport will launch the Center for Sports Parenting. This online center will provide an interactive service where parents, coaches, educators, and team officials involved in youth sports can seek guidance on youth sports. Indeed, it is equally important for adults involved in youth athletics to teach and lead in the spirit of sportsmanship. Sportsmanship needs to be taught to each successive generation, and I commend the Institute of Sport and all this year's participants for making sure that this valuable life lesson continues to lead the way on and off the field.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I understand the time is controlled by the Democrats until noon.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 20 minutes.

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.