Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to inform the Senate that today the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, upheld contribution limits in the campaign finance system of the United States. This was a victory for our democracy. It was a victory for the voters because, essentially, what the Court said is that elections in the United States are about votes, not about money. They affirmed the core holding of Buckley v. Valeo that reasonable contribution limits in Federal campaigns--and today, by extension, in State elections--are constitutionally permissible. I was very pleased with this decision. Several months ago, I organized an amicus curiae brief, which was submitted to the Supreme Court in this case, and advocated the position the Court adopted today--that contribution limits are, in fact, permissible under the Constitution of the United States. Again, this is a victory for those who would like to see elections be contests of ideas rather than clashes of special interests, amplified by huge amounts of money. Today is a victory for voters who, by their decreasing numbers, show their disenchantment with the political system. They feel the system is not about ideas or candidates' positions, but really about the candidates' treasure chests. This feeling is a corrosive force that undermines democracy in this country. Well, today, the Supreme Court held the line and declared that we can impose reasonable limits on campaign contributions. As Justice Souter said in his opinion, this is a situation in which the perception of corruption is as powerful as the reality of corruption. If voters perceive that the system is not benefiting them, but benefitting a special few who contribute, they will lose faith in the system. That loss of faith will ultimately disrupt our ability to conduct a democratic government here in the United States. The decision today also indicates that we have both the opportunity and, I argue, the obligation to move forward on broader campaign finance reform. Today, the court said that, in fact, we can limit direct contributions of hard dollars to campaigns. By extension, they give us, I hope, the impetus to go ahead and extend these limits to soft money, because we all recognize that soft money is dominating the political scene today. As we speak, an avalanche of soft money is entering into our political system as part of the Presidential campaign and various federal and state campaigns for office. Soft money contributions were 75 percent higher in 1999 than in the same period in 1997. We can do something about this. The Supreme Court has confirmed our ability to legislate, and we should move very quickly and very forcefully to adopt, I believe, a total ban on soft money--but at the minimum to impose limits on soft money. If we don't do that, again we will undermine the faith and the trust of the people of this country in our electoral system. They trust and have faith that we are a nation ruled by votes and not by the size of political contributions. We have lots of work to do, and we should begin immediately. I sense, as many do, that one of the reasons we have been stalling on campaign finance reform in this body is because some people were able to offer up an easy excuse, that we should wait to see if contribution limits are going to be upheld by the Court as constitutional. The Supreme Court has now decided. They have spoken in a very strong voice today, by a vote of 6 to 3, and declared that reasonable limits on contributions are constitutionally appropriate. As a result, I believe we should take their decision Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC case and build on it by limiting soft money and other forms of indirect contributions. Let me quote from Justice Souter: . . . there is little reason to doubt that sometimes large contributions will work actual corruption of our political system, and no reason to question the existence of a corresponding suspicion among voters. Today's decision is an anecdote to that suspicion, but the real cure will come when we adopt comprehensive campaign finance reform by outlawing soft money and placing other reasonable restrictions on the electoral process. Today the Court discharged their responsibility. Now it is time to take up ours. The Supreme Court declared that we can act. We should act. I hope this decision will be a source of energy for us this Congress, so that we can work together on a bipartisan basis for adoption of reasonable and sensible campaign finance reform. I thank the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from New Jersey. I agree with him on the seriousness of the tragedy that befell his constituents in New Jersey. Several years ago, in Rhode Island, we had a similar tragic experience at another Dominican college, Providence College, where many students were injured and several were practically killed. All of us in America extend our sympathy to these families in New Jersey and to the Seton Hall University academic community.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to offer a few comments about H.R. 1693, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and clarify the overtime exemption for employees engaged in fire protection activities. This bipartisan bill was passed on the House Suspension Calendar without objection on November 4, 1999, and just passed the Senate under a unanimous consent agreement. Generally, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, workers are entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a given week. The FLSA contains an exemption for overtime, under Section 7(k), for employees of public agencies who are engaged in fire protection activities. This exemption allows employees engaged in fire protection activities some flexibility in scheduling their work hours. It also recognizes the extended periods of time that firefighters are often on duty by allowing firefighters to work up to 212 hours within a period of 28 consecutive days before triggering the overtime pay requirement. H.R. 1693 clarifies this firefighter exemption as it relates to emergency medical personnel. This bill provides that paramedics who are cross-trained/dual role firefighters, and work in a fire department and have the responsibility to perform both fire fighting and emergency medical services, be treated as firefighters for the purpose of Section 7(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. H.R. 1693 does not create a new exemption from the FLSA, it merely clarifies the definition of firefighter. Supported by the International Association of Fire Fighters and the International Association of Fire Chiefs, H.R. 1693 ensures that unreasonable burdens are not placed on fire departments when accounting for hours worked. In effect, it elucidates the original intent of the Section 7(k) provision of the FLSA, the provisions that apply to firefighters who perform normal fire fighting duties, and hopefully the Senate's passage of this clarification addresses the concerns of the interested parties.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to join Senators Roth, Collins, Lincoln, Chafee, Moynihan, and others in support of the Foster Care Independence Act. The Foster Care Independence Act, a top priority of the late Senator John Chafee, addresses the needs of children aging out of the foster care system who are facing the loss of critical support and benefits at a point when they most need them. Nationally, an estimated 20,000 foster care children ``age out'' of the system each year. In my home state of Rhode Island, approximately 30 percent of all children currently in foster care are older and will soon be leaving the system. When these young people leave the foster care system, they often find themselves on their own with few financial resources; limited education, training and employment options; no place to live; and little or no support from their community. The vulnerability of this population cannot be overstated. Studies show that those leaving foster care experience higher rates of unemployment and illegitimate pregnancies and are more likely to fall victim to crime. Indeed, twenty-five to forty percent of these young adults transitioning from foster care experience homelessness; only about half have completed high school; and less than half find jobs. Without the emotional, social, and financial support families provide, many of these young adults are not adequately prepared for life. If we do not arm them with the resources and skills they need as they transition out of foster care, we are sentencing these kids to failure and chronic dependency. We may see them again and again--on our welfare rolls, in our prisons, living on our streets. We do not want that legacy for any of our children, particularly when we know how to prevent such tragedies from happening in the first place. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Senate's Foster Care Independence Act, which will help these young adults make a strong and sustainable transition to independent adulthood by expanding resources available through the Independent Living Program; allowing states to use Independent Living funds for basic living needs, including room and board; and allowing states to provide health care, including coverage of mental health needs, through Medicaid. It is fitting that this legislation also renames the Independent Living Program after Senator John Chafee who worked so long on this issue and so hard on this legislation. I am confident, however, that Senator Chafee would have said that we need to do more for these young people. He advocated strongly for requiring states to provide health care to those aging out of the foster care system that need it. This requirement is not included in the bill we are passing today, but I encourage my own Governor and others to use the flexibility in this bill to provide health care to all those aging out of foster care. While I remain committed to continuing my work on this issue, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is an important step in helping young people leaving foster care to live up to their fullest potential.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act. I want to pay tribute to my colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Jeffords, who began working on this legislation in the last Congress-- effectively building support for this bill from a handful of senators to 79 cosponsors. I also want to commend Senators Moynihan and Roth, who have dedicated their time and effort to this important cause. They have kept the debate on this bill focused on the substance, and have prevented it from degenerating into grandstanding or partisan bickering. But the lion's share of credit should go to the members of the disability community, who have been tireless advocates for work incentives legislation. Without their hard work, we would not be here today. This bill is the product of their grassroots activism--making a common sense idea into a national policy. As my colleagues know, the major provisions of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act are infinitely sensible. They would remove the most significant barrier that individuals with disabilities face when they try to return to work--continued access to adequate health care. Currently, individuals with disabilities face the dilemma of choosing between the Medicare and Medicaid health benefits they need and the job they desire. Mr. President, this is not a choice at all, and it is regrettable. According to surveys, about three quarters of individuals with disabilities who are receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits want to work. Sadly, less than one percent are actually able to make a successful transition into the workforce. A major barrier seems to be the lack of sufficient health care coverage. By passing this legislation, we will extend eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid and provide a helping hand to individuals with disabilities who aspire to work. Mr. President, this legislation also takes a step to help workers who are stricken with progressive, degenerative diseases, such as Multiple Sclerosis, HIV/AIDS, and Parkinson's Disease, which can be slowed with proper treatment. With the health coverage buy-in offered under this bill, these workers can continue to hold a job instead of leaving the workforce in hopes of meeting the need requirements for Medicaid coverage. These citizens can continue to make substantial contributions to the workplace and to society while benefitting intellectually and emotionally. With the Americans with Disabilities Act, Congress adopted legislation to combat discrimination and remove physical barriers from the workplace. Now, we have the chance to lift yet another barrier to work, the loss of health care coverage. In my home state of Rhode Island, more than 40,000 individuals with disabilities could benefit from the work incentives bill. Across the country, more than 9.5 million people could be positively affected by this legislation. Our booming economy has created millions of new jobs, and has brought thousands of Americans into the workforce for the first time. By passing this legislation, we can take another step to help a significant group of Americans participate in our national economic prosperity. Mr. President, before I yield, I would like to briefly mention my concern about some offsets attached to this measure. As colleagues who have followed this bill know, it seemed as if there was a revolving door when it came to the consideration of offsets during the Conference. Provisions came and went and returned again. I was pleased that a controversial offset regarding the refund of FHA upfront mortgage insurance premiums was withdrawn. This offset was essentially a $1,200 tax on approximately 900,000 low- and middle- income families and first-time home-buyers, and the conferees were right to omit it from this bill. Regrettably, the bill retains two other controversial offsets, which I oppose. The first is an assessment on attorneys representing clients with Social Security disability benefits claims. Although the Administration supports this offset, I believe that it will discourage qualified attorneys from taking on these complicated, labor-intensive claims cases--which already offer little remuneration to attorneys. Ultimately, this assessment will hurt those individuals trying to secure their rightful benefits, not the attorneys. I commend the conferees for taking steps to blunt the impact of this provision by capping the fee at 6.3% and requiring GAO to study the cost and efficiency of this and alternative assessment structures. Nonetheless, I still believe that this is an inappropriate offset. The other offset changes the index for student loan interest rates from the 91-day Treasury bill to the three-month rate for commercial paper. This provision saves a modest amount of money in the short-term. Unfortunately, those savings will not be transferred to students, and the offset will actually put taxpayers on the hook if the markets turn sour. Let me add that this provision flies in the face of an agreement reached in last year's Higher Education Act Amendments. Under that legislation, we were to study the impact of this type of conversion. We are still awaiting the findings of that study, and in the absence of an authoritative conclusion, I believe it is premature to entertain this change in policy. Mr. President, setting these important concerns aside, I believe that the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act is a major victory for all Americans, and we should all support it. I want to again commend the leading Senate sponsors, Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, Moynihan, and Roth for their tremendous work in bringing this legislation to this point, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Providence Gay Men's Chorus, which celebrated its fourth anniversary on November 14, 1999. I would like to thank the Chorus for its four years of community involvement, during which time the members have shared not only their melodious voices with the citizens of Rhode Island, but also their hopes and ambitions for a better world. The Providence Gay Men's Chorus, which began in 1995 as a group of eight, now has 50 members. In addition to their musical talent, one of the attributes that is most unique about the Chorus, and most appreciated, is the group's mission to promote tolerance. As we know, the real work of fostering support for people with diverse backgrounds and lifestyles usually happens slowly, and within the context of shared activities and community. The Providence Gay Men's Chorus reaches out with its concerts to expand the bounds of community. By helping to create an atmosphere of tolerance and understanding, their work benefits not only the citizens of Rhode Island, but ultimately the entire nation. I am pleased to make it known that November 14, 1999 was not only the fourth anniversary of the Chorus, but also was declared Providence Gay Men's Chorus Day in the State of Rhode Island. Mr. President, I ask that a gubernatorial proclamation from the Governor of my home state of Rhode Island proclaiming November 14th as ``Providence Gay Men's Chorus Day'' be printed in the Congressional Record. I join in the chorus of voices supporting the Providence Gay Men's Chorus' dual mission of creating beautiful music and promoting mutual respect and understanding. I know this talented musical group will continue its good work and I wish them many, many more birthdays. The proclamation follows: State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations--Gubernatorial Proclamation Whereas, the Providence Gay Men's Chorus was first conceived in a karaoke bar in Providence in October 1995. The first meeting of its original eight members from Rhode Island and Massachusetts was held in November 1995, in a home in Pawtucket. The name Providence Gay Men's Chorus (PGMC) was decided on after some deliberation and the group was then underway with a music director and an accompanist; and, Whereas, the mission of the PGMC is to provide and foster continuing growth of men's voices. Through the sharing of song concerts, the PGMC hopes to foster mutual understanding, tolerance and support of people with diverse backgrounds and lifestyles; and, Whereas, the membership started to blossom during the first year and moved to St. James Episcopal Church in North Providence. During this year, the first board was also formed and the first concert was held in Warcham, Massachusetts with 12 members; and, Whereas, the chorus kept growing and moved again. This time to the Bell Street Chapel in Providence, where the now 35- member chorus was performing two seasons per year with three concerts per season. It was at the Bell Street Chapel that the PGMC achieved their first sell out audience; and, Whereas, as membership approached 40 members, the chorus moved once again to the First Unitarian Church in Providence. During this time, the PGMC joined the national choral organization for gay and lesbians called GALA and received its first corporate sponsorship; and, Whereas, the chorus is now approaching its fourth birthday, has a membership of 50 and is back at the Bell Street Chapel. The members will be performing series of concerts in November, singing at First Night 2000, and initiating a scholarship program. Future plans for the chorus are to bring a program to the Hasbro's Children's Hospital, perform to mainstream audiences throughout the city and state, and attend the national GALA conferences; and, Whereas, on November 14, 1999 the chorus will hold a concert at the Newport Congregational Church, under the direction of Charles Pietrello and the accompaniment of Bruce Ruby; Now, therefore, I, Lincoln Almond, Governor of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do hereby proclaim November 14, 1999, as Providence Gay Men's Chorus Day.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Reed- Sessions amendment to the manager's amendment to S. 625, the bankruptcy reform legislation we have been considering over the past few days. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this important amendment. The Reed-Sessions amendment deals with the reaffirmation of one's debt, and it reflects a compromise that has been worked out at length between myself, Senator Sessions, the Treasury Department and consumers. I believe it is a fair and balanced amendment that seeks to treat those who enter into reaffirmation agreements with their creditors in a fair and just manner, and to provide them--as well as the bankruptcy courts--with the greatest amount of information they need in order to make the wisest decisions possible. For those of my colleagues unfamiliar with these agreements, a reaffirmation is an agreement between a debtor and a creditor in which the debtor reaffirms his or her debt and willingness to pay the creditor back, even after many of the other debts may have been discharged during bankruptcy. The creditor must then file this reaffirmation agreement with the bankruptcy court. The court then has the opportunity to review this agreement, but in most cases, for one reason or another, does not. Recently, there have been some documented cases in which creditors have used coercive and abusive tactics with consumers in order to persuade them to reaffirm their debt, when in many of these cases there is no question that the individual can in no way afford to do so. The most visible of these cases occurred with Sears, in which the company did not even file these reaffirmation agreements with the court, therefore negating even the option of the court to review these cases. The Reed-Sessions amendment would essentially provide for clear and concise disclosures when a debtor chooses to enter into a reaffirmation agreement with a creditor. Our amendment would create a uniform disclosure form, whereby everyone who is filing a reaffirmation agreement must fill this form out. Based on the information provided on the form, certain situations will then obligate the court to review such agreements in order to determine if the reaffirmation agreement is truly within the debtor's best interests. In constructing this compromise amendment, I think we have achieved some very important goals. First and foremost, we want everyone to recognize that a reaffirmation agreement is a very weighty decision, and that the individual needs to understand--whether they are represented by counsel or not--all the ramifications of the agreement into which he or she is entering. In fact, the individual needs to understand that they in no way need to file a reaffirmation agreement. Another vital issue is to have the court review such cases in which the debtor wants to reaffirm his or her debt, but in calculating the difference between the person's income and all their monthly expenses, it remains impossible for the debtor to do so. In other words, there exists a presumption of undue hardship upon the person. It is at that point that we want the court to have the ability to step in and say to this person, that either they have the ability to repay some of this debt because of other sources of funds--such as a gift from the family--or that they do not, and therefore the reaffirmation cannot be approved by the court. Without this amendment, we are concerned that the abuses in the reaffirmation system that we have seen will continue to occur, and the courts may continue to be left in the dark with respect to the existence of these agreements, let alone have the option to review them. This amendment is not perfect, and if given the choice, I probably would have preferred to go even further than we have in our language. With that said, I think it's still important to note that with this amendment, we have given our courts and consumers the appropriate tools that will provide them with the necessary information to make decisions that are in the individual's best interests, not the creditor's. That is a crucial point that I wanted to emphasize. I appreciate all the efforts of those involved in the process that went into constructing this compromise amendment, and I am confident that it strengthens the hands of our courts, and more importantly, the minds of our consumers as they make decisions that will weigh upon them for the rest of their lives.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise as a strong and proud supporter of Senator Kennedy's amendment to raise the minimum wage one dollar over 2 years. I commend Senator Kennedy not only for his leadership today but for his attention to the needs of working Americans throughout his career in the Senate. Today we are debating, and I hope soon adopting, legislation to address an issue vital to America's working families. The amendment before us calls for a 50-cent increase in the minimum wage in January of 2000, with another 50-cent increase in January of 2001. So in a 2- year period we would increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15. This minimum wage increase is a necessity for many individuals participating in today's workforce, particularly those moving from welfare to work. Among the rationales behind welfare reform was that everyone who is able to work should work and that a job should offer a sustainable income. Unless we have a living minimum wage, a minimum wage that can support a family, a minimum wage that can allow a family to meet its basic needs, then it is something of a cruel hoax to force people into the workforce, knowing that they will not be able to support themselves on their income alone. Our economy has been performing remarkably well since the last increase in the minimum wage in 1996. A record 8.7 million jobs have been created. We all recall when we were debating the minimum wage that year, one of the most persistent objections was that the increase would kill job growth; it would prevent our economy from continuing to grow. The reality is that we are in the midst of a period of record economic expansion during which a large number of new jobs have been created. Increasing the minimum wage is not something that is going to hamper our economy. It will enable working families to provide for their families. Moreover, economic factors dictate that if we don't increase the minimum wage now, the modest growth in inflation will wipe out the gains of the 1996 increase. Indeed, the minimum wage is in danger of dropping below its pre-1996 level in real dollars if we do not pass this amendment. I believe other economic factors dictate that we increase the minimum wage. As we look at this economy, we are discovering fantastic growth in many quarters, but we also see that the incomes of the poorest Americans are not growing as fast as they have grown in the past. Between 1950 and 1978, income growth for the lowest earners grew proportionally more than any other income level. What has happened recently, because of our new information society, because of new technology, because of a booming stock market, the wealthiest Americans are increasing their incomes substantially. In fact, the wealthiest one percent of Americans, doubled their incomes between 1977 and 1999. In sharp contrast, the poorest 20 percent of Americans actually saw their incomes fall by 9 percent between 1977 to 1999. There are some things that we can do to begin to reverse this trend, to ensure that every part of our American family participates in our country's economic success. The first step is to increase the minimum wage. The reality is that today, workers making the minimum wage--heads of households, single heads of households with a full-time job--earn about $10,700. That is about $2,500 below the poverty level for a family of three. So essentially, what we are telling workers who are going into the workforce with minimum-wage jobs, is that they will not be able to get out of poverty. That I believe is wrong. If someone is going to go into the workforce, work 40 hours a week, and try to raise a family, they should at least be able to make enough money to live above the poverty line. The other issue that has often been raised with respect to the minimum wage is that, really, this is just a benefit for kids, that kids are the only group of people who have minimum-wage jobs. They are the people working at the fast food restaurants and performing other minimum wage jobs. This is not the truth. Statistics show that 70 percent of minimum-wage earners are adults over 20 years of age. They also show that 46 percent of these minimum-wage workers have full-time jobs and that 59 percent are women. This correlates closely with the startling statistics we have seen with respect to children and poverty. Frankly, one of the most disturbing statistics is the growth in the number of children living in poverty. Typically, these children are in single-parent households led by women. Since 59 percent of minimum-wage earners are women and 40 percent of minimum-wage earners are the sole breadwinners of their family, these problems seem to be directly connected. One of the great shames of this Nation, at a time when we are recording robust growth in the stock markets, at a time when we are seeing extraordinary development in our economy, is that one in five children still live in poverty in the United States; that 12 percent of American households cannot meet their basic nutritional needs some part of the year; that 39 percent of the families who turn to food banks for assistance have one adult member who holds a job. These are working Americans, but their wages are so low they cannot feed their families and their children live in poverty. We can do better than this in our great country. The first way to do better is to support this increase in the minimum wage proposed by Senator Kennedy. The reality is that having a job today does not mean you are going to be above the poverty level. Having a minimum-wage job frequently guarantees you are below the poverty level. At this time in our history, with such economic progress, with the vista of a new century before us, with the information age bursting upon us, we should be able to guarantee if a person works 40 hours a week, that person should be able to raise a family above the poverty level. This proposal for a minimum wage seems only to be controversial here in the Senate. If you go back to Rhode Island and ask people what they think, they think the minimum wage should go up. They recognize and understand how hard it is to support their own families. They know if they had a minimum-wage job, it would be close to impossible to do that. Indeed, there was a survey done by the Jerome Levy Economic Institute which showed that 87 percent of small businesses that were contacted and asked about increasing the minimum wage thought that they could absorb this modest cost. That is up from 79 percent just a year ago. So even small business believes raising the minimum wage is appropriate. That might be a direct reflection of the fact that many states have already raised the minimum wage above the federal level. Indeed, in many parts of the country with the highest minimum wages, there is a persistent shortage of labor. In fact, businesses are bidding for workers at levels above the minimum wage. We are really talking about protecting the most vulnerable workers in our economy, those without the power to negotiate higher wages, those in areas of economic activity that do not require high skill levels, and therefore can be easily replaced. These are the people for whom we should have a special concern, these are the people we should help move up out of poverty, not by a handout but by simply rewarding the value of each hour they work. Business Week, a magazine that is not traditionally a strong proponent of prolabor sentiments, had this to say: It is time to set aside the old assumptions about the minimum wage. . . . We don't know how high the minimum wage can rise until it hurts the demand for labor. But with the real minimum wage no higher than it was under President Reagan, we can afford to take prudent risks. Frankly, this is not a risk, it is a prudent investment in the workers of America. My own paper, the Providence Journal, adds: An increase to $6.15 would help take a nick out of poverty and provide a more solid base for . . . economic expansion. Congress ought to do it. I ask unanimous consent to have this Providence Journal editorial printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. REED. I agree with the Providence Journal. It is about time Congress acted. It is about time we took a nick out of poverty. It is about time we invested in working families and gave them, through their own efforts, the resources to raise their families, to raise them up out of poverty. We must give new hope to families who are working very hard in this economy to raise children, to move forward and seize the opportunity at the heart of the American dream. I again commend Senator Kennedy for his great efforts, not just today, but for so many days on the floor, fighting for working families, fighting for economic justice for all our citizens. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Raise the Minimum wage A proposal in Congress to raise the minimum wage, now $5.15 an hour, by two increments of 50 cents each over the next two years seems reasonable. This would still leave those subsisting on these wages well below the federal poverty level, but it would at least bring them some modest relief. (The debate comes, by the way, as Congress voted itself an average $4,600 raise.) The argument is sometimes made that to raise the minimum wage would reduce employment by raising employers' costs. We see little indication over the past few years that the move would shrink employment. For that matter, increasing the minimum wage, by widening purchasing power, could substantially help the economy and boost employment over the long run. It should also be noted that higher wages often mean greater loyalty and effort on the part of employees. Thus, whatever the increment of a higher minimum wage, that costs could be more than offset by higher revenue and profits from increased productivity and reduced turnover, hiring and training costs. It is interesting that in my states with the highest state minimum wages, such as Massachusetts (now at $5.25 and to be raised to $6.75 in two 75-cent increments over the next two years), there are serious labor shortages. Recent increases in those states' minimum wages have not brought about price rises or layoffs, so far as such things can be measured. But then, consider that the purchasing power of the current minimum wage is about $2 less that of the minimum wage in 1968 (when the jobless rate was also very low). Further, it should be noted that more than 70 percent of American workers receiving the minimum wage are over age 25 or not longer in school. An increase to $6.15 would help take a nick out of poverty and provide a more solid base for the economic expansion. Congress ought to do it.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. May I be recognized for 2 minutes?

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank and commend the Senator from Virginia for his very thoughtful introduction of those remarks. Like so many in our body, we were in that church. Zech Chafee's words rang so true--the clarion call about his father, his service to this great Nation. Also, I join Senator Warner in saying this is a very proud day for the Chafee family. They are proud of the accomplishments of Senator John H. Chafee and proud of the commitment to public service of Lincoln Chafee. I am pleased and proud to join my colleague from Virginia in this request. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank Senator Dodd for his kind words and his great leadership, along with Senator Sarbanes. I rise to support the conference report on S. 900, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. We are on the verge of a historic transformation of the financial services industry that will take it from the Depression-era laws of Glass-Steagall and position it to meet the challenges of the next century. Some may argue this legislation is a ratification of what the market has already done, but it is an important ratification because it will allow our financial institutions to be more efficient and more effective. I think it will accomplish two fundamental and very important goals. First, it will provide more efficient access to financial services which will directly benefit consumers in terms of better service and lower cost. Second, it will make our financial institutions much more competitive in a world of globalized financial transactions. These two goals have been achieved in this legislation. I am proud to support the legislation. It is also incumbent upon us to understand and underscore some of the concerns that still remain after this legislation is passed. Again, let me emphasize this legislation will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our financial services industry and will benefit the American consumer. As we tear down the walls between banks and insurance companies and securities firms and open up many possibilities, we also open many potential pitfalls. I think we should be concerned about those, also. As we celebrate passage today, we should also underscore and point out areas that bear close watching. Fundamental changes as we are proposing today include consequences which may have adverse effects if they are not anticipated and watched carefully. Among those is the issue of the consolidation of our financial services industry. We are witnessing the megamergers that are transforming our financial services industry from small multiple providers to large providers that are very few in number. We run the risk of the doctrine ``too big to fail;'' that the financial institutions will become so large we will have to save them even if they are unwise and foolish in their policies. We have seen this before. We have to be very careful about this. The legislation does not require any market policing requirements with regard to this issue. It does mandate the Federal Reserve, within 18 months of passage of this bill, will review the impact of potential mergers and consolidations in the financial services industry. I think that is appropriate, and I look forward to the report of the Federal Reserve. Again, this is another issue of which we have to be terribly conscious because with this legislation we are allowing a huge concentration across different functional areas of financial activities in the United States. Again, I believe it is justified and warranted by the changing conditions of our economy, but we should be careful as we go forward. Another issue that has been mentioned several times before is the issue of privacy. The legislation before us is taking a first step in protecting the financial information of the consumers of America, but it is just a first step. There are many more steps we must and should take. They will be demanded of us by our constituents, the consumers of financial services throughout the United States. With the growth of computer technology and the ability to store and disseminate large volumes of information instantaneously, we will continue to wrestle with these issues of privacy, not just in financial services but in every area of endeavor throughout our economy. We took a first step. We have instructed companies, if they wish to share a customer's private information, they must give that customer the option to say no to that activity. We have also tried to curtail some of the more egregious predatory activities we have witnessed in the last few years with respect to the abuse of consumer information by financial institutions. As I said before, we are moving ahead with this first step. We must not only contemplate but also be prepared to take other steps in the future to protect the privacy of the American people. This legislation has laid a foundation, but that foundation alone will not protect the privacy of the American people. There is another issue I would like to comment upon, which has been commented upon by my colleagues also, and that is the issue of the Community Reinvestment Act. The Community Reinvestment Act is not just a device to allocate resources in poor neighborhoods; it is a commitment by this Government, through the banking industry, to ensure that all Americans have a fair opportunity to participate in the economy and do so in a way that they can benefit themselves and their families. Community Reinvestment has been a powerful success over the decade since its passage because it has, for the first time, given many communities which before were ignored, which before were denied access to credit and financial services, those very financial services and credit. As a result, not only did they get the money but they got something else: They got a feeling of participation and connection to this economy and to this country. That perception, that feeling, is just as important as any of the specific programs funded by CRA. What we have done in this legislation is protect the fundamental essence of what I think CRA should be about. We have said that if any financial institution wants to partake of these new, enhanced, expanded powers, they must by law have a satisfactory CRA rating. If they do not have a satisfactory CRA rating, they will not be able to take advantage of this legislation. I believe the dynamics of the financial industry are such that the opportunity to participate in these new powers will be a positive force, ensuring through competition in the marketplace that CRA is not neglected, that CRA is still a strong, vital part of any financial institution. If that is not the case, then we have to be prepared to act once again because we cannot abandon the Community Reinvestment Act. To do so would be to abandon scores and scores of our fellow citizens. We cannot do that. We should not do that. This legislation with respect to CRA has been improved immensely from the Senate version. As you recall, the original provisions sent forward by Chairman Gramm had potentially severe effects on CRA. There was a total exemption of small banks from any CRA requirements. That would represent 38 percent of the banks in this country. They would be exempt totally from any recognition of CRA responsibility. That has been eliminated from this conference report. What we have done is allowed small banks that have satisfactory or better CRA records to have a longer interval between their inspections. But we have also required and provided that the regulators at any time can conduct a CRA inspection if they have reasonable cause to believe the CRA program is not being followed by that financial institution. These are steps which have strengthened CRA, particularly in contrast to the legislation we considered on this floor several months ago. There is another aspect I believe deserves comment, and that is the issue of functional regulation. I am very pleased that functional regulation has become the order of the day, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will look at securities activities, banking regulators look at banking activities, and the Federal Reserve will have enhanced powers to look at financial holding companies and other major financial institutions. But I believe we have to recognize we are giving these regulatory authorities new powers, some of which are somewhat novel. They have to have the capacity, both institutionally and financially, with resources, to be much more perceptive and much more thorough in their regulatory process-- again hearkening back to the point of the huge potential concentration in these financial institutions. We also understand with respect to this legislation that, in this arena of functional regulation, there might be some potential stalemates. Mr. President, one of the potential roadblocks or stalemates is that State insurance commissioners still play an extremely important role. In some respects, unless they are fully integrated through this Federal financial regulatory structure, we might in fact have problems. That is another issue that bears close watching. There is, I believe, something else we should comment upon, and that is the success we have had in allowing the financial services industry to choose the mode of operation which best suits their unique situation for an individual company. What I am specifically referring to is the language with respect to operating subsidiaries. I know my colleague, Senator Shelby of Alabama, has worked long and hard on this. I, too, have worked long and hard on it. We now have a situation where national banks can choose to operate a certain limited spectrum of activities in a subsidiary or in the holding company. I believe this is sensible. It also gives the Treasury Department a significant role in the regulatory process since they, too, will be able to regulate some of these new activities. That is important also. One last point I believe bears repeating. We are entering in some respects, a brave new world. The old walls have come down. We have new opportunities; new financial vistas have to be explored. It behooves us to be very watchful, very careful, and to insist on and ensure that the regulators are careful and also that they have the resources to do this job. We will all rue the day, this day, if years from now or months from now we discover that, because of this new flexibility, there are more complicated problems facing us. I think we should go forward but go forward with the notion that we, in fact, are going to regulate well and wisely these new powers we are giving financial institutions. Let me conclude by saying this has been the work of many hands. I thank Chairman Gramm for his persistent efforts. Our ranking member, Senator Sarbanes, has done a remarkable job leading us carefully, thoroughly, and thoughtfully. Senator Dodd has been especially important in this process, bringing us together in moments when we did not think we could come together for final resolution. Senator Schumer, my colleague from New York, was very active throughout this process; Senator Edwards, and many others--all of the conferees played critical roles. In the other body, Chairman Leach and ranking member LaFalce, Chairman Dingell and Chairman Bliley, all were very effective. I reserve special words for two members of the administration with whom I have worked over the last several years: Bob Rubin, the former Secretary, and John Hawke, the former Comptroller of the Currency. Finally, on my staff, I thank Jonathan Berger and Kevin Davis for their great work. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I would like to express my disappointment about a provision that the Majority chose to include in the Youth Drug and Mental Health Services Act, S.976. In Section 305 of the Act, the ``Charitable Choice'' provision permits all religious institutions, including pervasively religious organizations, such as churches and other houses of worship, to use taxpayer dollars to advance their religious mission. Given the Supreme Court precedent, I believe this provision is Constitutionally suspect and be subject to greater review when this bill goes to Conference with its House counterpart. Although charitable choice has already become law as a part of welfare reform and the Community Services Block Grant, CSBG, portion of the Human Services Reauthorization Act, efforts are being made to expand this change to every program that receives federal financial assistance. The inclusion of charitable choice in this legislation is particularly disturbing since, unlike its application to the intermittent services provided under Welfare Reform and CSBG, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) funds are used to provide substance abuse treatment which is ongoing, involves direct counseling of beneficiaries and is often clinical in nature. In the context of these programs it would be difficult if not impossible to segregate religious indoctrination from the social service. I agree with the Majority that faith-based organizations have an important and necessary role to play in combating many of our nation's social ills, including youth violence, homelessness, and substance abuse. In fact, I have seen first-hand the impact that faith-based organizations such as Catholic Charities have on delivering certain services to people in need in my own state. By enabling faith-based organizations to join in the battle against substance abuse, we add another powerful tool in our ongoing efforts to help people move from dependence to independence. However, although there are great benefits that come with allowing religious organizations to provide social services with federal funds, the Vice President recently reminded us that ``clear and strict safeguards'' must exist to ensure that the dividing line between church and state is not erased. Even the front runner for the Republican Presidential nomination, Governor George W. Bush, acknowledged to the New York Times that these safeguards are necessary: ``Bush said . . . that federal money would pay for services delivered by faith-based groups, not for the religious teachings espoused by the groups.'' In my home state of Rhode Island there is a tradition of religious tolerance and respect for the boundaries of religion and government. Indeed, Roger Williams, who was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony 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. Understandably, Rhode Islanders remain mindful of mixing religion with its political system. Mr. President, I am particularly concerned that without proper safeguards, well-intentioned proposals to help religious organizations aid needy populations, might actually harm the First Amendment's principle of separation of church and state. For example, the charitable choice provision creates a disturbing new avenue for employment discrimination and proselytization in programs funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Under current law, many religiously-affiliated nonprofit organizations already provide government-funded social services without employment discrimination and without proselytization. However, the legislation before us extends title VII's religious exemption to cover the hiring practices of organizations participating in SAMHSA funded programs. As the Majority's report language points out, even if the organization is solely funded by SAMHSA, it may ``make employment decisions based upon religious reasons.'' For example, a federally funded substance abuse treatment program run by a church could fire or refuse to hire an individual who has remarried without properly validating his or her second marriage in the eyes of that church--even if he or she is a well-trained and successful substance abuse counselor. This is not an entirely hypothetical example. In Little v. Wuerl, 929 F.2d 944 (3d Circ. 1991) the Court held that ``Congress intended the explicit exemptions to title VII to enable religious organizations to create and maintain communities composed solely of individuals faithful to their doctrinal practices, whether or not every individual plays a direct role in the organization's religious activities.'' The Court concluded that ``the permission to employ persons `of a particular religion' includes permission to employ only persons whose beliefs and conduct are consistent with the employer's religious precepts.'' This may be acceptable when the religious organization is using its own money, but when it is using federal funds, with explicit prohibitions against proselytization, this kind of discrimination is a cause of considerable concern. During markup, Senator Kennedy and I introduced an amendment that would have addressed this issue by including important safeguards and protections for beneficiaries and employees of SAMHSA funded programs. The Reed-Kennedy amendment would have removed the bill's provision that allows religious organizations to require that employees hired for SAMHSA funded programs must subscribe to the organization's religious tenets and teachings. Since section 305 prohibits religious organizations from proselytizing in conjunction with the dissemination of social services under SAMHSA programs, it is contradictory to permit religious organizations to require that their employees subscribe to the organization's tenets and teachings. Second, the amendment would have eliminated the bill's provision that extends title VII's religious exemption to cover the hiring practices of organizations participating in SAMHSA funded programs. Ultimately, the modest proposal would not have reduced the ability of religious groups to hire co-religionists or more actively participate in SAMHSA funded programs. It merely would have eliminated the explicit ability to discriminate in taxpayer funded employment and left to the courts the decision of whether employees who work on, or are paid through, government grants or contracts are exempt from the prohibition on religious employment discrimination. Unfortunately, the Majority chose to vote against including the important safeguards proposed in the Reed-Kennedy amendment. For the last 30 years, federal civil rights laws have expanded employment opportunities and sought to counter discrimination in the workplace. I recognize that we need the assistance of religious organizations in the battle against substance abuse, but without a far more robust and informed debate must be far more circumspect of efforts to expand current exemptions to title VII. Mr. President, I believe we should enlist the assistance of religious organizations without undermining constitutional principles and civil rights law. Accordingly, I am concerned that the charitable choice provision, though laudable in concept, would have disturbing practical and constitutional consequences. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters expressing the view of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations and the American Jewish Committee be printed in the Record so my colleagues may become more aware of these organizations' views on this matter.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to honor an outstanding individual who has dedicated her life to the education of our young people. Karen Leach of Johnston, Rhode Island, is retiring from the Providence School Department after nearly thirty years of dedicated service. Since Karen graduated from Rhode Island College in 1969 with a Bachelor's Degree in Elementary and Special Education, she has received Masters of Education Degrees in both Elementary Education and in Administration for Elementary and Middle Schools. She has also furthered her professional development by achieving certification in many areas. The capital of Rhode Island, Providence is at the heart of our state's urban center and during her career, Karen has been assigned to several schools in the District. Karen began her long and accomplished career as a teacher and dedicated her efforts toward Special Education. During her tenure, the field of education has seen tremendous change-- from curriculum, to technology, to teaching methods and to administrative practices. Throughout nearly three decades of service, Karen has brought efficiency, expertise and professionalism to her many challenging assignments. In 1988, Karen was named Supervisor of Elementary/Pre-School Education for the Providence School Department and in 1992, she became Principal of the Sackett Street Elementary School and the Reservoir Avenue Elementary School. Since the 1992-1993 school year, she has been Principal of the Sackett Street Elementary School and she is retiring from her present administration position as Interim Acting Superintendent of Teaching and Learning. Karen Leach is a person of great integrity, compassion and initiative. She is accomplished and well respected for her many contributions to the Providence School System. She has made a positive impact on the quality of education, and in the lives of students, especially those with special needs. Most recently, Karen's leadership as a Principal and as an Administrator has left a lasting mark on the City of Providence. So many young people have had their lives enriched by one person's efforts. Karen Leach's commitment and her tangible accomplishments clearly demonstrate that an investment in education is indeed an investment in the future. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Karen Leach for her commitment to educational excellence and for her efforts to improve the overall quality of our education system. Indeed, she has made a tremendous difference in the lives of her students. As Karen Leach leaves the Providence School Department, she plans to continue as a professional educational consultant. I wish her well and remain confident that we will hear more news of this outstanding educator's good works.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, under rule XXII, I yield my hour to the minority leader.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my regret over the tragic situation in Armenia. As we all know, a few days ago gunmen broke into their Parliament and killed the Prime Minister and several other officials of the Armenian Government. Later today Senator Abraham will introduce a resolution which will express our condolences to the people of Armenia and our expression of support for their continued struggle to create a viable and strong democratic tradition in their country. As I said, late yesterday afternoon in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, several gunmen broke into their Parliament and killed eight Government officials and wounded seven others. They then held hostages for 24 hours, and only after the intercession of the President of Armenia in negotiations did they relent, release the hostages, and then surrender to the authorities. Among those killed were Prime Minister Vazgen Sarkisian, Parliament speaker Karen Demirchian, deputy speakers Yuri Bakhshian and Ruben Miroian, Energy Minister Leonard Petrosian, senior economic official Mikhail Kotanian and lawmakers Genrikh Abramian and Armenak Armenakian. These gentlemen gave their lives as they were pursuing a democratic future for the people of Armenia. It appears the gunmen were not part of any larger conspiracy. They were family members who were bent on a path of individual retribution and revenge. But the tragic incident reminds us of the fragility of constitutional government and democracy around the world, particularly in Armenia. Armenia declared its independence in September of 1991. It has been struggling to ensure a free and fair electoral process. Today, Armenians continue to be determined to ensure democracy will be the rule in their country. I had the occasion to travel there two years ago. We all know one of the great points of friction in the area is the area of Nagorno-Karabakh, an ethnically Armenian territory which was controlled for years by Azerbaijan. Recently, we have seen progress. Indeed, the Prime Minister was one of the key figures in forging a dialogue between the Government of Azerbaijan and the Government of Armenia. His tragic loss, I hope, is not a setback for that process. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott had just left Armenia in his efforts to try to prompt further discussions between Azerbaijan and Armenia. He has now returned there to ensure it is clear to the Government and people of Armenia that America will stand with them. Today is an opportunity to send our message of support, our message of condolence; also, our message of further support for the people of Armenia as they confront the challenges of democracy. I join my colleague, Senator Abraham, and others supporting this legislation to, once again, signal to the world and the people of Armenia that we stand with them in this time of tragedy, and will in the future on more hopeful days. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Absolutely. One thing that resonates throughout this entire dialog this afternoon is the fact that our inaction costs individual Americans; it costs them better health care, it costs them better education, it costs them the right to have a Federal judiciary that is fully staffed by competent and committed judges, and it costs many literally their lives because our indifference to hate crimes can do nothing to stop them. In fact, one could suggest they create an environment that does not discourage them and therefore might encourage them. But, in any case, our inaction means that Americans are bearing the costs, and these costs can be avoided simply by bringing to the floor legislation and by moving with respect to this legislation in a prompt and purposeful way. I thank the Senator.

Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. REED. I wonder if the Senator from Nevada shares my same frustration that the Republicans are distorting the record of Social Security and their efforts to protect it. Like you, I lived through the days of the Republican revolution back in 1995, when they literally were talking about dismantling the Social Security system. Their current track seems to be entirely bogus. But at the same time they are distorting Social Security, they are also turning their backs on the need in our country for some important legislation. Many of them have been mentioned, but there is one, I think, that warrants particular emphasis. That is hate crimes legislation. After the tragic death of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming, of James Byrd in Texas, the tragedy at Columbine, and arsons at synagogues in Sacramento, it is high time we took a very simple step to provide the full ambit of our civil rights protection for those crimes that are hate oriented, that have been based upon gender or disability or sexual orientation. Yet that, too, is in, as our leader said, the landfill of legislation that has become this Congress to date. I wonder if the Senator shares my frustration about that?

Mr. REED. I do, indeed, agree with the Senator. What also strikes me as particularly ironic is, when one of these incidents occurs, across the spectrum of political thought, across the spectrum of this body, there is unanimous condemnation. There is a lot of moralizing, a lot of talk about isn't this horrible. Yet we have it within our power, as the Senator suggests, to bring this legislation to the floor, to have a debate, to constructively engage, to compromise, not on principles but on details, so we can fulfill our legislative responsibilities. Yet what frustrates me, and I believe also the Senator from Nevada, is the fact that none of this is taking place, that all of this is being shoved off to the sideline so that we are not able to do our jobs. And while we are being frustrated, I should say that, as the Senator pointed out so accurately, these hate crimes go on day in and day out. Some are very publicized, some are not getting attention. It is frustrating and it is wrong. All we are asking for a very simple remedy. Let's make the protections of the hate crimes bill within the ambit of our civil rights laws. Let us be able to give our enforcement authorities the power to deal with crimes that are based upon disability, gender, or sexual orientation. If we do that, then I think we will advance the cause of justice in this society. (Mr. GORTON assumed the chair.)

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague Senator Torricelli that would give the federal government clear authority to recover from the manufacturers of lead-based paint, funds spent on the prevention and treatment of childhood lead poisoning. Our knowledge of lead poisoning dates back to 200 BC, when the Greek physician Galen wrote ``lead makes the mind give way.'' Benjamin Franklin knew about ``the mischievous effects of lead'' back when he wrote those words in 1786. In the late 19th century, scientific studies and medical reports began detailing the effects of lead on children. And by 1904, the source of those poisonings was identified as white lead paint used in housing. Queensland, Australia, was the first to ban certain applications of lead-based paint in 1922. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, France, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Spain, and Sweden followed suit in the mid-1920's. In 1978, more than a half of a century later, lead-based paint was banned in the United States. Today, nearly one million preschoolers nationwide have excessive levels of lead in their blood; making lead poisoning the leading environmental health disease among children. Even low levels of lead exposure can cause serious injury to the developing brain and nervous system of children, lost IQ points, learning and reading disabilities, hyperactivity, and aggressive or delinquent behavior. At high levels of exposure, lead causes mental retardation, coma, convulsions and even death. Lead-based paint in housing is the major remaining source of exposure and is responsible for most cases of childhood lead poisoning. Children contract lead poisoning when they come into contact with lead-based paint chips, contaminated soil, or dust generated from deteriorated paint. An estimated three million tons of lead still coats the walls and woodwork of American homes. Approximately half of America's housing stock, roughly 64 million units contain some lead-based paint. Twenty million of which are considered hazardous because they contain paint which is peeling, cracked, or chipped. My home state of Rhode Island has the fifth oldest housing stock in the country, and, as a result, has a lead poisoning rate that is three times the national average. Sadly, this disease is particularly prevalent in those communities with the fewest resources to address the problem. Poor children are eight times more likely than kids from moderate and upper income families to contract lead poisoning. Yet, while lead poisoning is most prevalent in low-income communities, 20-25 percent of children who are poisoned live in middle- or upper-income homes. They were poisoned by exposure to lead released through renovation or repainting activities. Taxpayers have already paid billions of dollars to deal with the tragic consequences of childhood lead exposure, including large expenditures for medical care, special education, and lead abatement in housing. However, what has been spent so far is barely a drop in the bucket. In Rhode Island alone, we are looking at a bill of $300 million to clean up just the most dangerous housing units. There are simply not enough grant or loan programs available. Last year, one federal lead abatement program had to turn down nine applicants for every grant it made. Each year, we fight to make childhood lead poisoning a priority in Congress, in State legislatures, in cities, and in communities, knowing that the real solution is getting rid of the source of a child's exposure. At the same time we are frightfully aware that it could be decades longer, and millions of poisoned children later, until we finally ``get the lead out.'' The Rhode Island Attorney General recently filed a 10-count lawsuit against the manufacturers of lead paint and the industry's trade association. The lawsuit documents nearly a century-long record of industry culpability. The lead industry aggressively marketed its product as safe, despite knowledge of its harmful effects that were made apparent by continuous warnings from the medical community. To date, an industry that has over $30 billion in assets has yet to make a significant contribution to addressing the problems associated with its product. Clearly, victims of lead poisoning were never given a chance, not even a warning. Parents were never told that the product they used to beautify their home could prevent their children from achieving their fullest potential. Instead, the industry fought regulations in California, New York, and Maryland that would have banned the use of lead-based paint or required the product to be labeled as poisonous. In 1954, the Board of Health of New York City proposed a sanitary code provision banning the sale of paints containing more than 1 percent lead, and requiring lead paint to be labeled as ``poisonous'' and not for interior use. The lead industry opposed the proposal as ``unnecessary and unjustified'' and unduly burdensome. Ultimately, the New York City Board of Health dropped the proposed ban of lead paint in 1955, and adopted a more narrow warning label requirement. This is only one example from an extensive record of industry wrongdoing which I believe the federal government should have the authority to address. That is why Senator Torricelli and I are introducing legislation that will ensure that justice is served. Our legislation provides clear authority for the Federal government to recover the significant resources it has expended to mitigate childhood lead poisoning. This includes dollars spent on medical care and treatment, special education, and funds spent to make homes lead-safe for children. As cities and states stand up and say enough is enough, it is only appropriate for the federal government to join them in the effort to hold the industry responsible. The severity of childhood lead poisoning and the considerable expense borne by taxpayers to clean up the industry's mess demands action now. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation so that we can move aggressively towards our goal to end childhood lead poisoning. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague Senator Torricelli that would give the federal government clear authority to recover from the manufacturers of lead-based paint, funds spent on the prevention and treatment of childhood lead poisoning. Our knowledge of lead poisoning dates back to 200 BC, when the Greek physician Galen wrote ``lead makes the mind give way.'' Benjamin Franklin knew about ``the mischievous effects of lead'' back when he wrote those words in 1786. In the late 19th century, scientific studies and medical reports began detailing the effects of lead on children. And by 1904, the source of those poisonings was identified as white lead paint used in housing. Queensland, Australia, was the first to ban certain applications of lead-based paint in 1922. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, France, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Spain, and Sweden followed suit in the mid-1920's. In 1978, more than a half of a century later, lead-based paint was banned in the United States. Today, nearly one million preschoolers nationwide have excessive levels of lead in their blood; making lead poisoning the leading environmental health disease among children. Even low levels of lead exposure can cause serious injury to the developing brain and nervous system of children, lost IQ points, learning and reading disabilities, hyperactivity, and aggressive or delinquent behavior. At high levels of exposure, lead causes mental retardation, coma, convulsions and even death. Lead-based paint in housing is the major remaining source of exposure and is responsible for most cases of childhood lead poisoning. Children contract lead poisoning when they come into contact with lead-based paint chips, contaminated soil, or dust generated from deteriorated paint. An estimated three million tons of lead still coats the walls and woodwork of American homes. Approximately half of America's housing stock, roughly 64 million units contain some lead-based paint. Twenty million of which are considered hazardous because they contain paint which is peeling, cracked, or chipped. My home state of Rhode Island has the fifth oldest housing stock in the country, and, as a result, has a lead poisoning rate that is three times the national average. Sadly, this disease is particularly prevalent in those communities with the fewest resources to address the problem. Poor children are eight times more likely than kids from moderate and upper income families to contract lead poisoning. Yet, while lead poisoning is most prevalent in low-income communities, 20-25 percent of children who are poisoned live in middle- or upper-income homes. They were poisoned by exposure to lead released through renovation or repainting activities. Taxpayers have already paid billions of dollars to deal with the tragic consequences of childhood lead exposure, including large expenditures for medical care, special education, and lead abatement in housing. However, what has been spent so far is barely a drop in the bucket. In Rhode Island alone, we are looking at a bill of $300 million to clean up just the most dangerous housing units. There are simply not enough grant or loan programs available. Last year, one federal lead abatement program had to turn down nine applicants for every grant it made. Each year, we fight to make childhood lead poisoning a priority in Congress, in State legislatures, in cities, and in communities, knowing that the real solution is getting rid of the source of a child's exposure. At the same time we are frightfully aware that it could be decades longer, and millions of poisoned children later, until we finally ``get the lead out.'' The Rhode Island Attorney General recently filed a 10-count lawsuit against the manufacturers of lead paint and the industry's trade association. The lawsuit documents nearly a century-long record of industry culpability. The lead industry aggressively marketed its product as safe, despite knowledge of its harmful effects that were made apparent by continuous warnings from the medical community. To date, an industry that has over $30 billion in assets has yet to make a significant contribution to addressing the problems associated with its product. Clearly, victims of lead poisoning were never given a chance, not even a warning. Parents were never told that the product they used to beautify their home could prevent their children from achieving their fullest potential. Instead, the industry fought regulations in California, New York, and Maryland that would have banned the use of lead-based paint or required the product to be labeled as poisonous. In 1954, the Board of Health of New York City proposed a sanitary code provision banning the sale of paints containing more than 1 percent lead, and requiring lead paint to be labeled as ``poisonous'' and not for interior use. The lead industry opposed the proposal as ``unnecessary and unjustified'' and unduly burdensome. Ultimately, the New York City Board of Health dropped the proposed ban of lead paint in 1955, and adopted a more narrow warning label requirement. This is only one example from an extensive record of industry wrongdoing which I believe the federal government should have the authority to address. That is why Senator Torricelli and I are introducing legislation that will ensure that justice is served. Our legislation provides clear authority for the Federal government to recover the significant resources it has expended to mitigate childhood lead poisoning. This includes dollars spent on medical care and treatment, special education, and funds spent to make homes lead-safe for children. As cities and states stand up and say enough is enough, it is only appropriate for the federal government to join them in the effort to hold the industry responsible. The severity of childhood lead poisoning and the considerable expense borne by taxpayers to clean up the industry's mess demands action now. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation so that we can move aggressively towards our goal to end childhood lead poisoning. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I would like to be recognized to conduct morning business.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.