Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health Care Consumer Assistance Act, along with my colleague from Oregon, Mr. Wyden. This legislation creates a consumer assistance program that is key to patient protections in the health insurance market. In 1997, President Clinton's Health Quality Commission identified the need for consumer assistance programs that allow consumers access to accurate, easily understood information and get assistance in making informed decisions about health plans and providers. Today, only a loose patchwork of consumer assistance services exists. And, while a number of sources provide assistance, most are limited. Many consumer groups have advocated for the establishment of consumer assistance programs to support consumers' growing need of information. The legislation I am introducing today gives states grants to establish nonprofit, private health care ombudsman programs designed to help consumers understand and act on their health care choices, rights, and responsibilities. Under my bill, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will offer funds for states to select an independent, nonprofit agency to provide the following services to consumers: information relating to choices, rights, and responsibilities within the plans they select; operate a 1-800 telephone hotline to respond to consumer requests for information, advice and assistance; produce and disseminate educational materials about patients' rights; provide assistance and representation to people who wish to appeal the denial, termination, or reduction of health care services, or a refusal to pay for health services; and collect and disseminate data about inquiries, problems and grievances handled by the consumer assistance program. This program has been championed by Ron Pollack of Families USA and Beverly Malone of the American Nurses Association, who served as members of the President's Commission on Quality, as well as numerous other consumer advocates. Mr. President, I have joined with many of my Democratic colleagues in sponsoring S. 6, the Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. I am pleased that S. 6 would establish a consumer assistance program, similar to that established by my legislation. My purpose today is to emphasize the importance of such a consumer protection program. This legislation is not without controversy, but I believe that American consumers deserve protection and assistance as they attempt to navigate the often confusing and complex world of health insurance. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of my bill printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health Care Consumer Assistance Act, along with my colleague from Oregon, Mr. Wyden. This legislation creates a consumer assistance program that is key to patient protections in the health insurance market. In 1997, President Clinton's Health Quality Commission identified the need for consumer assistance programs that allow consumers access to accurate, easily understood information and get assistance in making informed decisions about health plans and providers. Today, only a loose patchwork of consumer assistance services exists. And, while a number of sources provide assistance, most are limited. Many consumer groups have advocated for the establishment of consumer assistance programs to support consumers' growing need of information. The legislation I am introducing today gives states grants to establish nonprofit, private health care ombudsman programs designed to help consumers understand and act on their health care choices, rights, and responsibilities. Under my bill, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will offer funds for states to select an independent, nonprofit agency to provide the following services to consumers: information relating to choices, rights, and responsibilities within the plans they select; operate a 1-800 telephone hotline to respond to consumer requests for information, advice and assistance; produce and disseminate educational materials about patients' rights; provide assistance and representation to people who wish to appeal the denial, termination, or reduction of health care services, or a refusal to pay for health services; and collect and disseminate data about inquiries, problems and grievances handled by the consumer assistance program. This program has been championed by Ron Pollack of Families USA and Beverly Malone of the American Nurses Association, who served as members of the President's Commission on Quality, as well as numerous other consumer advocates. Mr. President, I have joined with many of my Democratic colleagues in sponsoring S. 6, the Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. I am pleased that S. 6 would establish a consumer assistance program, similar to that established by my legislation. My purpose today is to emphasize the importance of such a consumer protection program. This legislation is not without controversy, but I believe that American consumers deserve protection and assistance as they attempt to navigate the often confusing and complex world of health insurance. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of my bill printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. I would briefly like to comment on Senator Harkin's amendment and then make more generalized comments on the bill overall. But first let me speak to Senator Harkin's amendment. I commend him for his initiative. He is responding to the needs of the youngest, most junior members of our military forces who need this type of support not only to provide for themselves and their families but to have the mental attitude and the freedom of mind, if you will, to commit themselves to a military career, and to do so from the very beginning of their careers so they start off on the right foot and they develop successfully as professional soldiers, sailors, airmen. All of this is very important. I commend the Senator for his initiative and I hope we can work out the budgetary aspects of this legislation and adopt this amendment. Now let me turn to the bill in general. First, let me commend the chairman and all of my colleagues on the committee for recognizing the seriousness of this problem of retention and recruitment. Indeed, it is a very serious problem. And this is a very serious solution, because it not only provides for resources for recruitment and retention, it does raise very legitimate and very significant budgetary issues which I will address as I discuss the issues overall. Let there be no mistake, there is a retention and recruitment problem within the military services today. Each year, the Department of Defense is responsible for recruiting 200,000 men and women to fill the active ranks of the military forces in the United States. In fiscal year 1998, the services were only able to recruit 180,000 new soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. While the Air Force and Marines were able to achieve their recruiting goals in 1998, the Army fell short by 776 personnel, and the Navy was short by a significant number, 6,892. This is a problem and it is a problem that is getting worse. In the first 4 months of fiscal year 1999, the Marines again made their recruiting goal, and so did the Navy, but the Army fell short, reaching only 87 percent of its required strength level, and the Air Force only 94 percent of their required strength level. There is a problem with recruitment. And we know if you do not get good personnel to enter the military forces you cannot keep the strength levels up. There is also the associated problem of retaining these good individuals as they go through their military careers. Every service--and many of my colleagues have pointed this out--is struggling to keep pilots. These are highly skilled positions. These positions are not easily replaced. It takes years not only of training but of experience to develop the kind of combat skills necessary for an effective pilot. In the Air Force, for example, for every two pilots who enter the service, they are finding that three are leaving. That ratio is going to cause profound problems going forward. As my colleague from Arkansas pointed out, General Ryan in the Air Force estimated by fiscal year 2002 the Air Force would be 2,000 pilots short. That is a serious erosion of our national security posture. The Navy is experiencing the problems of recruiting and retaining surface warfare officers. This causes them to extend sea duty by months and months and months, putting additional pressure on military personnel. And it is this vicious circle, of fewer people to do the job, causing those who are on active duty to do more and more and more, that is adding additional pressure to the retention problem. This legislation addresses this problem very directly and with great gusto. There is a 4.8-percent pay increase. And that will not only make the daily lives of military personnel easier--not only give them the resources to provide for their families--it will also be a strong symbolic gesture that will show that this Congress understands the value of our men and women in the military forces. That symbolic, as well as very practical, response is very, very important. Also, this legislation will reform the pay table so that we can begin to reward more effectively and efficiently those midlevel noncommissioned officers and officers. These are the key people who make our military services the best in the world. They are the squad leaders; they are the platoon sergeants; they are the young officers who are at the front doing the job out on patrol in Bosnia and other places. It is individuals who are so important to our military services. With the new pay tables, we will be able to provide better incentives and we hope provide better retention incentives for these individuals. There is another measure in this bill which is also very important, and that is extending the Montgomery GI bill benefits not only to individual military personnel but also to their families. I must commend Senator Cleland, my colleague, whose idea it was. He was the source of this language. It is very powerful language, because when you look at the retention problem, you find you are talking generally about men and women who are in their late twenties, early thirties. They have 12 years of active duty or so. They are also looking at their families and seeing children, 10, 11, 12 years old and beginning to understand really--not just theoretically--but really that they have to do something to put these children through college. And this provision will help them do that by allowing their benefits to be used for their children. This bill has many commendable components. Again, it stretches the budget dramatically. And that is an issue we have to deal with. But the principles included in this bill are very worthy of support. Let me suggest also, though, that this issue is not just about pay and compensation. Recruitment and retention are not just about pay and compensation. It is an important part, it might be the most salient issue, the one that we should deal with immediately and directly, but it is not the only issue, because there are many other factors that influence whether an individual will enter the military and, in many, many cases, whether that individual will stay on active duty. For example, there is the issue of operational tempo. We are stretching our military forces very, very thin. They are deployed in countries around the globe. They are deployed constantly. When they finish one deployment, they come home, they retrain, and suddenly, before expected in many cases, they are out once again in another deployment. This puts tremendous pressure on family life, puts tremendous pressure on the individual service members and their families. That is an issue we have to deal with. And we are not dealing with it simply by raising pay and allowances. Then there is the issue of readiness. The degree that we take money and put it into the personnel pay side is less money that we will have available for other issues of readiness--frankly, other issues with regard to the equipment that they have and that they believe they must have to do their jobs. That is another issue. Finally, there is the issue which I alluded to about family concerns. The military is changing. This is not the same military we had 20 years ago or 30 years ago. This military is more a family organization in which it is quite likely that younger military personnel will have family and will have dependents. It is also a situation now where the spouses of military personnel have to work. They have to work because, like so many families in America, they need two paychecks even if we increase the pay. But in many cases you have spouses who feel that their own professional and personal development require them to work. And it is very difficult, particularly when you reach that 30-year-old mark with someone who is a spouse who has a job, for them to pick up and suddenly move from one post to another. It might be a good change of assignment for the military member, but it could mean the death knell of the career for the spouse. That is another factor. There are limited opportunities for advancement. The military has gotten smaller. There is also, in this economy, the law of private incentive. We will never be able to pay as much money to a pilot as American Airlines or Delta. So increasing pay is important, but we also have to recognize that there are many, many other forces at work. When you consider these additional factors, you also have to recognize that it is, I think, probably more prudent to try to do this legislation in the context of the overall authorization bill and not separately. And it is also prudent to wait for some information and some analysis that will shortly be forthcoming. The Department of Defense, CBO, and GAO are studying these problems as we speak. We would be very prudent, I think, to wait for their information. For example, the GAO report will indicate, we believe, that the biggest complaint among military personnel--this is from a Defense Week article of February 22--is not pay and allowances; it is heavy workloads, job dissatisfaction, and poor health care. So, again, we are moving promptly to address this issue, but a little bit more circumspection might reward us with a better ultimate product. We are considering this bill today. We should consider this bill today. We also should be very conscious of the cost factors involved. We understand that this bill will likely be about $12 billion more than the President's proposal. That proposal has been fully paid for within the budget. We have to ask ourselves sincerely and reasonably, will this additional increment of billions of dollars make a difference in recruitment and retention? Second, where will we get these funds? These are legitimate questions that we have to consider. Secretary Cohen is acutely sensitive of these issues. In a February 19 letter to Senator Levin, he said: I am concerned that until there is a budget resolution that sets the defense budget level, this bill constitutes an unfunded requirement on the Department. Absent an increase in the topline for Defense, these items will only displace other key elements of our program. It would be counterproductive and completely contrary to our mutual desire not to undercut our modernization effort and other readiness priorities. Therefore, as enthusiastic as we are to see that military men and women are rewarded in pay and benefits for their great services to the country, we have to be very, very careful when it comes to this increase in the amount of spending because it could result in cuts in other programs, in modernization programs, in other types of family- like programs which might be equally important to ensure retention of military personnel. I understand and I support what we are trying to do in concept. I believe that this legislation must be changed, though, ultimately to recognize the severe budgetary constraints before we can accept it as law. I hope that when this bill comes back from conference it will not only have these very, very worthy elements, but it will be within a budget cap that we all agree is appropriate for not only the Department of Defense, but for our overall efforts. We have a responsibility to our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our marines, a responsibility to our taxpayers. We have to discharge both. I hope we pass this legislation, that we bring it back from conference in a much more constrained budgetary form. If we don't do that, I very well may be compelled to oppose it at that point. Today, I support it. I support it because the principles it includes are important. They address the fundamental problem in the military. It will represent, I hope, progress towards a final, more balanced solution. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. REED. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 22 (Purpose: To make certain technical corrections)

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we also commend the Senator from West Virginia for his amendment, and I concur with the chairman's remarks. This would not materially increase in any way the costs associated with the Montgomery programs, and it would also provide additional opportunities for service members to pursue higher education. It is something that is consistent with the legislation, and it is an amendment which we support with enthusiasm.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we agree this amendment is necessary to accomplish the purposes of the bill, and we support it. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. REED. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my opinion memorandum relating to the impeachment of President Clinton be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chief Justice, for the past six weeks, the Senate has been engaged as a Court of Impeachment to try President William Jefferson Clinton--the first trial of an elected President in the history of the United States. Our deliberations will bring to a close more than a year of controversy which has left the American people both frustrated and dismayed. And, hopefully, our decision will serve as a means of rededicating the energies of our Government to the service of the American people. In this endeavor, our solemn duty to the Constitution is paramount. Conscious of these responsibilities and based on the evidence in the record, the arguments of the House Managers and the counsels for the President, I conclude as follows. The President has disgraced himself and dishonored his office. He has offended the justified expectations of the American people that the Presidency be above the sordid episodes revealed in the record before us. However, the House Managers failed to establish that the President's conduct amounts to ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' requiring his removal from office in accordance with the Constitution. Moreover, the House Managers also failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the allegations in the Articles would constitute the crimes of perjury or obstruction of justice. The Constitutional grounds for Impeachment, ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' indicate both the severity of the offenses necessary for removal and the essential political character of these offenses. The clarity of ``Treason'' and ``Bribery'' is without doubt. No more heinous example of an offense against the Constitutional order exits than betrayal of the nation to an enemy or betrayal of duty for personal enrichment. With these offenses as predicate, it follows that ``other high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' must likewise be restricted to serious offenses that strike at the heart of the Constitutional order. Certainly, this is the view of Alexander Hamilton; one of the trio of authors of the Federalist Papers which is the most respected and authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton describes impeachable offenses as ``those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.'' \1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See footnotes at end of speech. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This view is sustained with remarkable consistency by other contemporaries of Hamilton. George Mason, a delegate to the Federal Constitutional Convention, declared that ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' refer to ``great and dangerous offenses'' or ``attempts to subvert the Constitution.'' \2\ James Iredell, a delegate to the North Carolina Convention which ratified the Constitution and later a justice of the United States Supreme Court, stated during the Convention debates: The power of impeachment is given by this Constitution, to bring great offenders to punishment. . . . This power is lodged in those who represent the great body of the people, because the occasion for its exercise will arise from acts of great injury to the community, and the objects of it may be such as cannot be easily reached by an ordinary tribunal.\3\ Iredell sustains the view that an impeachable offense must cause ``great injury to the community.'' These interpretations strongly indicate that private wrongdoing, without a significant, adverse effect upon the nation, does not constitute an impeachable offense. Later commentators expressed similar views. In 1833, Justice Story quoted favorably from the scholarship of William Rawle in which Rawle concluded that the ``legitimate causes of impeachment . . . can have reference only to public character, and official duty. . . . In general, those offenses, which may be committed equally by a private person, as a public officer, are not the subject of impeachment.'' \4\ This line of reasoning was manifest in the careful and thoughtful work of the House of Representatives during the Watergate proceedings in 1974. The Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee concluded that: [b]ecause impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is to be predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of [the President's] office.\5\ This view was echoed by many of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee when they declared: . . . the Framers . . . were concerned with preserving the government from being overthrown by the treachery or corruption of one man . . . [I]t is our judgment, based upon this constitutional history, that the Framers of the United States Constitution intended that the President should be removable by the legislative branch only for serious misconduct dangerous to the system of government.\6\ This authoritative commentary on the meaning of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' is supported by the structure of the Constitution which makes impeachment independent from the operation of the criminal justice system. Regardless of the outcome of an impeachment trial, the accused ``shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.'' \7\ The independence of the impeachment process from the prosecution of crimes underscores the function of Impeachment as a means to remove a President from office, not because of criminal behavior, but because the President poses a threat to the Constitutional order. Criminal behavior is not irrelevant to an Impeachment, but it only becomes decisive if that behavior imperils the balance of power established in the Constitution. The House Managers argue that we should apply the same reasoning to the removal of the President that we have applied to the trial of Federal judges. They make their argument with particular urgency in regard to Article I and its allegations of perjury since several judges have been removed for perjury.\8\ This reasoning disregards the unique position of the President. The President is elected and popular elections are a compelling check on Presidential conduct. No such ``popular check'' was imposed on the Judiciary. They are deliberately insulated from the public pressures of the moment to ensure their independence to follow the law and not a changeable public mood. As such, impeachment is the only means of removing a judge. And, the removal of one of the 839 Federal judges can never have the traumatic effect of the removal of the President. To suggest that a Presidential impeachment and a judicial impeachment should be treated identically strains credibility. Moreover, the Constitution requires that judicial service be conditioned on ``good Behavior.'' This adds a further dimension to the consideration of the removal of a judge from office. Although ``good Behavior'' is not a separate grounds for impeachment, this Constitutional standard thoroughly permeates any evaluation of judicial conduct. Judges are subject to the most exacting code of conduct in both their public life and their private life.\9\ Without diminishing the expectations of Presidential conduct, it is fair to say that we expect and demand a more scrupulous standard of conduct, particularly personal conduct, from judges. The House Managers' argument is ultimately unpersuasive. Rather than reflexively importing prior decisions dealing with judicial impeachments, we are obliged to consider the President's behavior in the context of his unique Constitutional duties and without the condition to his tenure of ``good Behavior.'' Authoritative commentary on the Constitution, together with the structure of the Constitution allowing independent consideration of criminal charges, makes it clear that the term, ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' encompasses conduct which involves the President in the impermissible exercise of the powers of his office to upset the Constitutional order. Moreover, since the essence of impeachment is removal from office rather than punishment for offenses, there is a strong inference that the improper conduct must represent a continuing threat to the people and the Constitution, and not simply an episode that either can be dealt with in the Courts or raises no generalized concerns about the continued service of the President. Measured against this Constitutional standard, the allegations against the President do not constitute ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The uncontradicted facts of the case paint a sordid picture of the President's involvement in a clandestine, consensual affair with a young woman. His atempts to disguise this affair collided with the Jones lawsuit; a lawsuit filed against him in his capacity as a private citizen, and not in anyway directed at his conduct as President. Over many months, he misled and he dissembled about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He lied to his family, he lied to his colleagues, and, on January 26, 1998, he lied to the American people. All of these lies were designed to disguise his illicit but consensual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Only after being compelled to testify before a Federal Grand Jury in August of 1998, did the President finally admit his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The House Managers take this tale of deception and betrayal, more soap opera than high drama of State, and urge that it rises to behavior evidencing an impermissible exercise of his powers as President or an impermissible failure to discharge his duties as President which threatens the Constitutional balance of government and can only be remedied by the removal of the President. They urge too much. The allegations, even construed in the most favorable light to the House Mangers, do not constitute ``high Crimes and misdemeanors'' as that term has been consistently interpreted over the course of American history.\10\ One could confidently stop at this point and reach a judgment to acquit the President. Such a judgment does not forgive the disreputable behavior of the President. Rather, it does, as it must, keep faith with the Constitution. However, to stop at this juncture and ignore the allegations of criminal conduct could leave several misperceptions. First, such an approach could be criticized as failing to afford the House of Representatives in appropriate recognition as the proponent of Articles of Impeachment. The House of Representatives acted in the discharge of its exclusive Constitutional prerogative to Impeach the President. They cast these Articles as criminal violations, and due deference must be given to the decision of the House. Second, failing to examine the allegations of criminal conduct may leave the erroneous impression that criminal activity by the President can never rise to the level of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' And, finally, failing to examine these allegations leaves in doubt charges of criminal misconduct against the President. Although the Senate does not sit as a criminal court, a condemnation or exoneration ``by silence'' would be unfair to both the President and to the American people. The House Managers argue in Article I that the President committed the crime of perjury while testifying before the Federal Grand Jury on August 17, 1998. They argue in Article II that the President committed the crime of obstruction of justice in the Jones case. After considering the evidence and the arguments of the House Managers and the White House counsels, I believe that the House Managers have not shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the President is guilty of the alleged crimes. It is without dispute that the House Managers have the burden of proof. It is also without dispute that each Senator has the right individually to determine what constitutes the appropriate burden of proof. Because of the gravity of this impeachment process, but, more significantly, because of the urging of the House Managers,\11\ I believe that a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt should be used.\12\ This is the standard used in the prosecution of criminal cases. Article I alleges that the President committed perjury before the Grand Jury by knowingly making false, material statements. The first great hurdle that the House Managers must overcome is the fact that the House refused to adopt an article of impeachment regarding the President's testimony at the Jones deposition. However one characterizes these two statements under oath, no one can argue that the President was more truthful at the Jones deposition. Most, if not all, would argue that he was considerably less truthful at the Jones deposition. This discrepancy fatally undercuts the contention that this Article constitutes ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' and it seriously erodes the claim that the President committed the crime of perjury before the Grand Jury. Unlike the Jones deposition, the President admitted up front in his Grand Jury testimony that he had engaged in ``inappropriate intimate behavior'' with Ms. Lewinsky while they were ``alone.'' Confronted with this preemptive statement by the President, the Article generally alleges perjury without citing specific statements from the Grand Jury testimony and leaves the House Managers with the task of sifting through the record to suggest examples of the President's alleged perjury. They suggest four general areas. First, they point to discrepancies between the testimony of the President and Monica Lewinsky about intimate details of their relationship. This is a difficult proposition to prove without corroborating evidence, and the House Managers offer none. Moreover, some of these details, such as the number of times they engaged in sexual banter on the phone, are just not material. Second, the House Managers attempt to ignore the President's preliminary statement and argue that he adopted the ``perjurious'' testimony of his Jones deposition. This is simply not true. To make this assertion, the House Managers use the President's Grand Jury testimony that ``I was determined to walk through the mind field of this deposition without violating the law, and I believe I did.'' \13\ But, the President's peremptory statement clearly indicated that he was not vouching for the facts of his Jones deposition. The President's statement expresses his state of mind. It is not an affirmation of the Jones testimony. Not even Independent Counsel Starr alleged that the President committed perjury in this way. Third, the House Managers allege that the President's silence, while his counsel made representations about the Lewinsky affidavit, constitutes perjury. This novel theory of ``unspoken perjury'' fails from the lack of any conclusive evidence concerning the President's state of mind at this time. Such evidence is necessary to prove the specific intent to establish the crime. Fourth, the House Managers alleged that the President committed perjury when he denied his involvement in the obstruction of justice, particularly his alleged involvement in the exchange of gifts between Monica Lewinsky and Betty Currie. This topic will be discussed in more detail with respect to Article II. At this juncture, it is sufficient to note that the House Managers have not presented evidence to indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that the President committed perjury. Fifth, the House Managers allege that the President committed perjury when he denied ``coaching'' Betty Currie. Again, this issue will be addressed in more detail with respect to Article II. But, this allegation also fails from the absence of persuasive evidence establishing the President's specific intent in conducting this conversation with Ms. Currie. Finally, the House Managers allege that the President committed perjury when he gave false information to his aides about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. This too raises the issue of the President's state of mind. His Grand Jury testimony expressed his belief that he tried to say things that were true. He acknowledged that he misled, but he asserted that he tried not to lie. To prove that these statements are perjurious, the House Managers had to prove that the President had the necessary specific intent. They have not done so. Article II alleges that the President obstructed justice. The article sets forth seven ``acts'' which the House Managers argue the President used to implement this ``scheme.'' Three of these alleged ``acts,'' encouraging Monica Lewinsky to file a false affidavit, urging her to give false testimony, and finding her a job to obtain her silence, crash on an immovable evidentiary rock: Monica Lewinsky's uncontradicted and often repeated statement, ``no one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence.'' \14\ The House Managers offered other circumstantial evidence, but this too failed to be persuasive. The fourth ``act'' involves the transfer of gifts between Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie. Although Ms. Lewinsky's testimony strongly suggests that the President directed Ms. Currie to retrieve gifts, the two parties to this suggested transaction, the President and Ms. Currie, flatly deny any such conversation. Certainly, there is more than a reasonable doubt based on this conflicting testimony; particularly, since no one has ever impeached Ms. Currie's credibility. The fifth ``act'' recharacterizes the President's silence, while his attorney made representations about Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, as obstruction of justice. This allegation fails based on the lack of any conclusive evidence of the President's state of mind. The sixth ``act'' involved the purported coaching of Betty Currie by the President after his Jones deposition. This allegation too turns on the President's state of mind. The House Managers argue that the President's intent was to influence the testimony of Ms. Currie as a potential witness. White House counsels argue that the President had no reasonable anticipation that she would be a witness. But, more decisively, they argue that his intent was to confirm his story in anticipation of a media onslaught. The lack of persuasive evidence about his state of mind also undercuts this allegation. Finally, the last allegation involves the President's purported attempt to influence the testimony of his aides. Again, the House Managers have not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the President intended to make his statement to influence their testimony. There is an equally plausible inference that the President was simply continuing his public campaign to deny his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. This campaign led him to lie to the American public and no one suggests he was then tampering with witnesses. Indeed, as a result of these public statements, it seems unlikely that he would tell his aides anything else. The House Managers have not sustained their burden of proof in regard to Article II. It is clearly evident that the facts of the case require acquittal. As such, serious questions can and should be raised about the unwarranted extension of the trial. Given the significant doubts surrounding the case of the House Managers, a motion to dismiss, followed by a debate on censure should have been utilized to properly put an end to these proceedings. Instead, a majority of the Senate accommodated the desire of the House Managers to excessively pursue allegations that were politically damaging to the President. Indeed, had members of the House of Representatives been allowed to consider censure this matter may never have reached the Senate. We, as a nation and as the Senate, have come to the end of a long and wearisome road. It has wandered through scandal and deception. Many of those who have trod this road, both individuals and institutions, have seen their reputations besmirched. The journey emanated from the reckless conduct of William Jefferson Clinton. But, the passage has also exposed vicious political partisanship and the reckless and relentless exploitation of the powers of the Independent Counsel. In the midst of this dishonor, deception, and rancor, we could have easily lost our way. But, we reached this moment because we have been guided by the Constitution and inspired by the common sense and common decency of the American people, and with such a guide and such inspiration, we will do justice with our votes, whether they be to conflict or acquit. And for my part, the Constitution and the evidence compels me to vote to acquit the President on both Articles of Impeachment. footnotes \1\ The Federalist Papers, No. 65 (Hamilton) at 396 (Clinton Rossiter, ed., 1961) (emphasis in original). \2\ Max Farrand, ed., The Record of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 550 (1966). \3\ Jonathan Elliot, Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, at 113 (emphasis added). \4\ Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution Sec. 799 at 269-270 quoting William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States at 213 (2d ed. 1829). \5\ Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, Report by the Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry, House Comm. On Judiciary, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. at 26 (1974). \6\ Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, Report of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess., H. Rep. 93-1305 at 364-365 (Aug. 20, 1974) (Minority Views of Messrs. Hutchinson, Smith, Sandman, Wiggins, Dennis, Mayne, Lott, Moorhead, Maraziti, and Latta). \7\ U.S. Const. Art. I Sec. 3. Cl. 7. \8\ For example, both Judge Walter L. Nixon, Jr. and Judge Alcee L. Hastings were convicted based on charges of perjury. \9\ The Judicial Conference of the United States publishes a Code of Conduct for United States Judges, as prepared by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Cannon 2 of the Code requires federal judges to ``avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.'' (March, 1997.) This Cannon requires a Judge to at all times act in ``a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.'' Perceived violations of the Code could result in a complaint to the Judicial Conference, which can make referrals to the House Judiciary Committee. \10\ These allegations are a far cry from the most relevant historical precedent, the Watergate affair of President Richard M. Nixon. For example, President Nixon attempted to cover up a burglary of the Democratic National Committee by enlisting the authority and the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency. The precipitating event of this crisis was a direct attack on a fundamental Constitutional tenet, the right to free and fair elections unimpeded by the criminal attempts to steal information and wiretap telephones. Moreover, President Nixon liberally exercised the formal powers of his office to impede the investigation. \11\ Mr. Manager McCollum stated, ``none of us, would argue . . . that the President should be removed from the office unless you conclude he committed the crimes that he is alleged to have committed.'' 145 Cong. Rec. S260 (daily ed. Jan. 5, 1999) (Statement of Mr. Manager McCollum). The House Managers invited the Senate to arrive at a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt before voting to convict the President. I take them at their word. \12\ The adoption of a standard of ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' in this matter should not be construed as implying that the same standard must be utilized in each and every Impeachment proceeding. Conduct of ``civil officers'' in the performance of their official duties might pose such an immediate threat to the Constitution that a less exacting standard could properly be used. Any choice of a standard of proof must, at a minimum, consider the nature of the allegations and the impact of the alleged behavior on the operation of the government. \13\ Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton on 8/17/98 as cited in the House Managers' Trial Brief, p. 60. \14\ Part I, Appendices to the Referral to the U.S. House of Reps., Communication from The Office of the Independent Counsel, Kenneth W. Starr, 105th Cong. 2d Sess., H. Doc. 105- 311 (September 18, 1998) at 1161. (Ms. Lewinsky responding to a question from a juror). See also Counsel to the President's Trial Brief, p. 57.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Hagel in introducing the Small Business Banking Act of 1999, legislation that eliminates a Depression-era federal law prohibiting banks from paying interest on commercial checking accounts. Last year, I cosponsored a similar bill with Senator Hagel that was incorporated into a financial institutions regulatory relief bill which passed the Banking Committee. The prohibition against the payment of interest on commercial accounts was originally part of a broad prohibition on the payment of interest on any deposit account. At the time of enactment in 1933, it was the popular view that payment of interest on deposits created an incentive for rural banks to shift excess deposits to urban money center banks which made loans that fueled speculation. Moreover, it was believed that such transfers created liquidity crises in rural communities. However, a number of changes in the banking system since enactment of the prohibition have called into question its usefulness. First, with the passage of the Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act of 1980, Congress allowed financial institutions to offer interest-bearing accounts to individuals--a change which has not adversely affected safety and soundness. Second, many banks have developed complex mechanisms called sweep accounts to circumvent the interest rate prohibition. Because of the costs associated with developing sweep accounts, large banks have become the primary offerors of these accounts. As a result, many smaller banks are at a competitive disadvantage with larger banks which can offer their commercial depositors interest-bearing accounts. Most importantly, the vast majority of small businesses cannot afford to utilize sweep accounts because the cost of opening these accounts is relatively high and most small businesses do not have a large enough deposit base to justify the administrative costs. In light of these developments, it has become clear that the prohibition on interest-bearing commercial accounts is nothing more than a relic of the Depression-era that has effectively disadvantaged small businesses and small banks, and led large banks to dedicate significant resources to circumventing the prohibition. I am, therefore, pleased to cosponsor this legislation that will eliminate this prohibition and level the playing field for small banks and small business. Mr. President, as we move into a new millennium, I think it appropriate that we eliminate this vestige of the early twentieth century that is no longer useful and is indeed burdensome.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Hagel in introducing the Small Business Banking Act of 1999, legislation that eliminates a Depression-era federal law prohibiting banks from paying interest on commercial checking accounts. Last year, I cosponsored a similar bill with Senator Hagel that was incorporated into a financial institutions regulatory relief bill which passed the Banking Committee. The prohibition against the payment of interest on commercial accounts was originally part of a broad prohibition on the payment of interest on any deposit account. At the time of enactment in 1933, it was the popular view that payment of interest on deposits created an incentive for rural banks to shift excess deposits to urban money center banks which made loans that fueled speculation. Moreover, it was believed that such transfers created liquidity crises in rural communities. However, a number of changes in the banking system since enactment of the prohibition have called into question its usefulness. First, with the passage of the Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act of 1980, Congress allowed financial institutions to offer interest-bearing accounts to individuals--a change which has not adversely affected safety and soundness. Second, many banks have developed complex mechanisms called sweep accounts to circumvent the interest rate prohibition. Because of the costs associated with developing sweep accounts, large banks have become the primary offerors of these accounts. As a result, many smaller banks are at a competitive disadvantage with larger banks which can offer their commercial depositors interest-bearing accounts. Most importantly, the vast majority of small businesses cannot afford to utilize sweep accounts because the cost of opening these accounts is relatively high and most small businesses do not have a large enough deposit base to justify the administrative costs. In light of these developments, it has become clear that the prohibition on interest-bearing commercial accounts is nothing more than a relic of the Depression-era that has effectively disadvantaged small businesses and small banks, and led large banks to dedicate significant resources to circumventing the prohibition. I am, therefore, pleased to cosponsor this legislation that will eliminate this prohibition and level the playing field for small banks and small business. Mr. President, as we move into a new millennium, I think it appropriate that we eliminate this vestige of the early twentieth century that is no longer useful and is indeed burdensome.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I wish to share with my colleagues the outstanding accomplishments of a great Rhode Islander, Mr. William A. McCombe, Chief of Police in the Town of New Shoreham on Block Island, Rhode Island. Chief McCombe grew up in my hometown of Cranston, Rhode Island. He embarked on a long and successful career in public service by joining the New Shoreham Police Department in 1980 at the age of 20, attending the Rhode Island Police Academy the following year. After being promoted to Sergeant in 1984, Mr. McCombe received a bachelors degree in Criminal Justice from Roger Williams University in 1987. In 1992, at 32 years of age, he was promoted to Chief of Police for the Town of New Shoreham. Two years later, Chief McCombe graduated from the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia. He also has attended the Secret Service Diplomatic School in Washington, DC in 1998. I have known Chief McCombe for a few years, but following President Clinton's decision to accept my invitation to visit Block Island, I worked closely with the Chief to ensure the President's short stay went smoothly. Chief McCombe's professionalism and attention to detail were exemplary and were essential in ensuring that the island's limited resources were not overwhelmed. Chief McCombe has lived on Block Island for 21 years and has served on the police department for 19 of those years. He has devoted his life to preserving the public safety enjoyed by the people of the Town of New Shoreham and the entire state of Rhode Island. We are grateful for his continuing public service.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues as an original cosponsor of Senator Cleland's Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999. I am glad we are introducing this bill today because it demonstrates our interest and support for one of the greatest needs of our fighting men and women--improved pay and benefits. As my colleagues know, this is one of the most serious issues likely to come before the Armed Services Committee this year. Last week, I attended my first hearing as a new member of the committee. I carefully listened to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as they outlined their priorities for the fiscal year 2000 budget. Without exception, each named recruitment and retaining skilled personnel as their top priority. The Joint Chiefs asked us unequivocally to address this issue, and I believe the bill we introduce today places us on the proper path. This bill will make a difference to men and women when they are deciding to begin or continue a military career. The 4.8 percent pay increase will make their daily lives easier and more enjoyable. Reforming the pay table to provide increases in salaries for midcareer NCOs and officers will not only reward these dedicated men and women for the years they have served our country, but provide an incentive for them to continue their valued work. Renewing the various bonuses for three more years will let our men and women in uniform know that we realize and appreciate the sacrifices they make performing dangerous missions for months at a time far from home. Perhaps the most unique provisions of the Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act are the educational benefits. Military personnel would no longer have to contribute $1,200 to take advantage of the Montgomery GI bill and they would received increased monthly benefits. In addition, the Service Secretaries would be given the discretion to allow military personnel who qualify to transfer their education benefit to a spouse or child. Education is vital in today's society, yet financing needed training is an enormous burden to shoulder. I believe that many of our men and women in uniform choose to leave the service because they must find a job which will allow them to pay for their children's education. With the provisions in this bill, military personnel can continue their careers and more readily afford the cost of educating their children. Mr. President, taking care of America's military personnel is one of the most serious responsibilities Congress has. Every day our men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend our country and the principles we champion. It is our obligation to let them know that we appreciate the sacrifices they make on our behalf. If we do not, the entire country will suffer. Finding the best ways to improve our troop's quality of life is a difficult and complex task. The Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act is a sound proposal, but it is only the beginning to a comprehensive solution. We will not find a solution if Democrats and Republicans do not work together. Indeed, care of America's troops has always been an issue in which we have been united and it is my sincere hope that this tradition can continue in the 106th Congress.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I speak today about passage of the conference report on the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, S. 1260. Recently, the report was agreed to by both chambers of Congress and sent to the President for his signature. I supported the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 as well as S. 1260. I did so because I recognize the national nature of our markets as well as the need to encourage capital investment. I am pleased that we have been able to further these goals through this legislation. However, I am concerned by the attempt of a few to lessen the obligations owed investors. Particularly troubling has been the incorrect use of legislative history to imply that a defrauded investor, now barred from discovery prior to the adjudication of a motion to dismiss, must include, in a pleading, evidence of conscious attempts to defraud by the defendant. First, no such implication was made by the 1995 bill. Second, no bill would have passed if such implications were included in the 1998 legislation. Thus, allegations of motive, opportunity, and recklessness, as well as conscious fraud, continue to satisfy the requirements of a 10b(5) pleading. This is the rigorous, but time- tested standard for pleading which has been applied in the Second Circuit. This is the standard that we adopted in 1995, and the national standard created by S. 1260. The legislative history most frequently cited incorrectly is the Presidential veto message which accompanied his rejection of the 1995 bill; a veto which was overridden. I cannot understand why any weight would be given to the President's interpretation of a bill he vetoed. The purpose of any veto message is to portray the bill as negatively as possible, to avoid a veto override. Accusations the President made about the pleading standard were not only overblown, they were specifically rejected during debate after the veto and prior to the veto override. Mr. President, as the Senate considered partially preempting state law, many Senators, including the primary sponsors of the bill, made clear that preemption would only occur if the federal standard insured investors protections from fraud. Most importantly this means a proper pleading standard and scienter requirement. This view was shared by Chairman Levitt of the Securities Exchange Commission. This is reflected in Chairman Levitt's testimony before Congress, in correspondence between the SEC and the Senate sponsors of the bill, as well as in statements by Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman D'Amato and the Ranking Member of the Securities Subcommittee, Senator Dodd. Recent events in foreign markets have made all too clear the havoc that results when investors are not fully apprized of substantial risks and rewards associated with investments. The Senate made clear that, in enacting partial preemption, it would not tolerate implementation of untested standards concerning the obligations owed investors. Nor, might I add, did industry proponents of the bill ask for a lessening of these standards. In order to better illustrate this point, Mr. President, I ask that a letter I sent to Members of the Conference Committee on S. 1260 be printed in the Record. The letter follows: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, October 2, 1998. Chairman Alfonse M. D'Amato, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Washington,

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I respectfully point out that the letter was sent during the Conference Committee negotiations on the bill and illustrates the fact that the Senate was unwilling to alter positions it established in Senate passage of S. 1260. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the debate surrounding this issue. I commend Chairman D'Amato and Senator Dodd for their work on this bill. They have furthered the goal of capital formation while ensuring proper protections for consumers.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Senate's confirmation of Margaret Ellen Curran as U.S. Attorney for the District of Rhode Island. I am proud to have been involved in the historic nomination of this outstanding career prosecutor. A native of Providence, Meg is the first woman to serve as Rhode Island's federal attorney. Her confirmation by the U.S. Senate today sends a clear message to career federal attorneys that their work and service is valued. Ms. Curran brings not only the necessary legal expertise and technical skill to this position, but she has also demonstrated the prosecutorial temperament necessary to carry out her significant responsibilities in a fair and judicious manner. I am confident that U.S. Attorney Curran will serve Rhode Island and its people extremely well. Ms. Curran graduated from Pilgrim High School in Warwick. She received a B.A. degree from the University of Pennsylvania, a Master of Science from Purdue University, and her law degree from the University of Connecticut School of Law, where she was Editor in Chief of the Law Review. After graduation, Meg served as a law clerk to the Honorable Bruce Selya, then a federal district judge in Rhode Island. She nexted served a clerkship for the Honorable Thomas Meskill on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. After her second clerkship, in 1985, Meg became an associate at the Providence law firm of Wistow & Barylick pursuing general litigation matters. Since 1986, when she joined the U.S. Attorney's Office in Rhode Island, Meg has distinguished herself as an outstanding prosecutor. As a trail prosecutor, Meg tried a range of cases involving white-collar criminals, organized crime, illegal weapons possession, and was responsible for obtaining the largest monetary penalty, at the time, for the illegal discharge of pollutants into Narragansett Bay. In 1990, Meg was appointed as the district's Principal Appellate Attorney and Appellate Chief. In that position she has had primary responsibility for all appeals. As Appellate Chief she has successfully pursued precedent setting cases involving both mandatory sentencing for career criminals as well as heightened penalties for dealers of dangerous drugs. Meg has proven herself an accomplished trial and appellate attorney, and, for this, she has been recognized. She has received the annual Special Achievement Awards for Sustained Superior Performance of Duty from the Department of Justice four times. In 1993, she was named the Federal Employee of the Year by the Federal Executive Council of Rhode Island. Today, the United States Senate has provided her with the ultimate recognition of a career prosecutor by confirming her as U.S. Attorney for the District of Rhode Island. In addition to her professional service, Meg has also found time to serve her community. Since 1995, Meg has been an adjunct professor at Roger Williams University School of Law, teaching advanced criminal procedure. She is a member of the Rhode Island Bar Association and serves on the Federal Bench/Bar Committee. Meg also serves on the First Circuit Gender Bias Task Force and is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Rode Island Zoological Society. Mr. President, I am proud to have been involved in the nomination of U.S. Attorney Curran. I wish her, her husband Michael, and their daughter Margee the very best. confirmation of cardell cooper

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, it is a bittersweet task that brings us back to Washington for one last vote before the end of the 105th Congress. Today, we will complete our work on the fiscal year 1999 budget. To be sure, there is much that I like about the Conference Report before us, but there are some provisions that I strongly disagree with. On balance, however, it is a budget that is worthy of support. Like many of my colleagues, I must lament the process that has brought us to this point--20 days after the start of the fiscal year. The Conference Report that we are about to vote on is almost 4,000 pages long. We have been given only a few hours to examine it. None of us knows the complete contents of the legislation, and there has been no opportunity to debate or offer amendments. Fortunately, we have avoided a budgetary train-wreck similar to the one that closed down the government in 1995. But, Mr. President, this year the train is extremely late, and to hear the debate in this chamber, nobody wants to take responsibility for driving the engine. We have subverted the regular budgetary process, failing even to pass a Budget Resolution. The majority could not reconcile its own discordant priorities to pass this blueprint legislation, which is required by law. On this side of the aisle, we had a definitive agenda: preserve the budget surplus to save Social Security, invest in education, pass health care reform legislation, pass campaign finance reform, and pass legislation to prevent the tobacco industry from preying on our youngsters. The President made these goals clear in his State of the Union Address and later with his fiscal year 1999 budget proposal. Claims that the priorities on this side were hidden until the very end are false. We have been here all along, working toward goals that the American people recognize as important, and we have had some success in achieving these goals in this legislation. There are a few provisions of the Conference Report that I would like to highlight: This legislation preserves the surplus to help save Social Security. It includes $1.2 billion for efforts to reduce class-size, of which $5.6 million would be awarded to my home state of Rhode Island. The omnibus bill also allocates funding to improve teacher preparation and recruitment, a cause that I was actively involved with during the drafting of the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998. The budget bill also includes funding for critical reading legislation--$260 million to help address the serious declines in literacy levels that have left 40% of America's fourth graders without basic literacy skills. The newly created GEAR UP program would receive $120 million under the bill. This ambitious new initiative will help encourage youngsters living in high poverty areas to pursue their higher education goals. Finally, this Conference Report contains $33 million for the construction of as many as five new Job Corps centers, including one in Rhode Island, which is one of only four states currently without a center. On the negative side, $800 million in subsidies for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was slipped into this legislation. Neither House of Congress included this level of funding in its version of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. The omnibus package also retains a poorly constructed rider that prevents the Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from conducting inspections on small farms in response to fatal accidents involving minors. I am committed to addressing both of these issues next year. This Conference Report is also bad for what it does not contain. In particular, it lacks funding for school construction, which is required to help meet the $121 billion need for new and refurbished schools, nor does it include an important bipartisan initiative authored by Senators Jeffords and Kennedy to help individuals with disabilities join the workforce while maintaining their essential Medicare and Medicaid coverage. Finally, it fails to adequately fund the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP), a federal-state program that is a major source of higher education grant aid. I worked hard with the other authors of the Higher Education Act Amendments to reauthorize and improve this program, and I believe the failure to sufficiently fund LEAP is short-sighted. Mr. President, there is much that could be done to improve this Conference Report, but we must pass it to keep the government open. It is unfortunate that we have been put in the position of having to vote up or down on this hefty omnibus package with no opportunity to offer amendments, no opportunity for a substantive debate, and little chance to review the measure itself. Fast-Track budgeting at the end of a Congress is no way to make up for time squandered at the beginning. I hope that this is the last time we follow this kind of eleventh-hour, gerry-rigged process. ryan white aids funding under title iv

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Patients' Bill of Rights and join my colleagues, Senator Kennedy, Senator Graham, Senator Harkin, and many others in urging that this very important legislation be brought to this floor immediately, debated thoroughly, and passed. When I go back to my home State of Rhode Island, I encounter lots of issues. But there is no issue that is more important to my State and to this Nation than having a health care system that works for them, having a health care system that is governed by rules which require that people get what they pay for. There are thousands and thousands of individuals who are paying for managed care coverage, thousands and thousands and thousands of companies that are providing coverage. The shocking thing is that many times people discover they really do not have the coverage they need when they need it. With the Patients' Bill of Rights, we are going to provide a framework of sensible rules which will guarantee access to quality health care coverage for the vast majority of Americans. The Democratic bill, S. 1890, does that. In stark contrast to the Republican proposal, it will provide broad coverage to the American people. As illustrated by this chart, the only group of people covered by the Republican proposal are just those who are covered through a self-funded employer plan, only 48 million Americans. The Republican bill leaves out 113 million Americans. It leaves out people whose employer provides coverage through an insurance policy or an HMO directly. It leaves out State and local government workers and people buying individual health insurance policies. I hope that we can at least agree that if we are going to do something with respect to reforming managed care in the United States, we will do something that covers all people who are insured by HMOs throughout the United States. As my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, just pointed out, when you leave out State and local government workers, you are leaving out police officers, firefighters--those people who not only do we depend upon, but people who we hope will have access to high-quality care. That is just one example of groups of people who are denied protections under the Republican version but will be provided these protections under the Democratic bill, S. 1890. Throughout this debate, we have heard a lot about what we must do with respect to health care. Again, as my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, pointed out, the Democratic bill is supported by the broadest possible coalition of health care organizations. Here is a partial list of those organizations: The American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the National Association of Children's Hospitals. Every major health care organization in the United States has recognized the need for protections with respect to managed care and has recognized the value of S. 1890, the Democratic bill, and is strongly supportive of this proposal. We have people throughout this country demanding that we take appropriate action. We have every major organization committed to the health and welfare of this country and its people--all of them-- together asking us to act. And yet here we find inaction; we are not able to bring this bill to the floor for a thorough debate and for a vote. I think that is wrong, and I think we are not doing our job as representatives of the American people. Congress is not responding to one of the critical needs of every family in this country: Providing high quality health care for all families. My focus throughout the debate has been to ensure particularly that children are treated fairly by managed care health care plans. If a family has a problem with a managed care plan, it is serious. When it is an adult, a mother or father, it is serious. But it is particularly serious, and many times tragic, when it involves a child. Earlier this year, I introduced legislation that deals specifically with the issue of children in managed care. This legislation was prompted by my own observations and advice I received from the American Academy of Pediatrics, by the National Association of Childrens Hospitals, by many pediatric specialty organizations--all of these groups together pointed out to me that we just can't consider children as small adults. If a child has a particular condition, the expertise needed to deal with that pediatric condition is not something gained generally in medical education. Pediatric specialists are vital to our health care system because they can treat the unique needs of children. Children often need access to these specialists, and frequently they are denied that type of care. Earlier this year in the Labor Committee, we heard the story of Melissa Froelich. I have a picture of Melissa right here. She is 2 years old and has become the poster child for the American Red Cross. As this poster describes, ``Melissa spent her first 18 months in a hospital clinging to life. Thanks to medical miracles and blood donors like you, she is finally home and doing well.'' I would imagine her parents would hasten to add something along the lines of, ``No thanks to the managed care plan'' because her medical ordeal was matched by a bureaucratic ordeal waged by her parents, particularly her mother, on her behalf. Melissa was born with serious congenital heart defects. In the first 2 years of her life, she spent a great deal of time in and out of hospitals. Her mother, Staci Froelich, had to fight a battle every day, a relentless battle to get Melissa the kind of care she needed and deserved and that they had paid for. Staci Froelich is a registered nurse, a licensed nursing home administrator. She is someone very sophisticated in the way the system operates. I hesitate to speculate what would have happened if Melissa's mother hadn't had that kind of expertise--if she were, like so many Americans, not prepared to deal with all the bureaucratic red tape, all the hurdles that HMOs can throw up when they deny coverage and deny care. She persevered, and she did it day in and day out. In her words, this is what her struggle was like: My husband and I are responsible middle-class American citizens. We were both employed and had two healthy children. We took out the best health insurance policies our places of employment had to offer. We believed if there were ever a medical emergency, we would be covered. After all, we had done everything in our power to have the necessary coverage should that occur. We were in for a rude awakening. With the birth of Melissa, with her serious heart problems, they found out that literally that their HMO didn't provide much coverage at all when they needed it most. This HMO forced this family to jump through repeated hurdles. For example, after Melissa's first open heart surgery, the HMO wanted to transfer her to a nursing center for senior citizens. Can you imagine that, an infant being sent to a senior citizens nursing home facility where the only specialists are geriatricians, not pediatricians? That is what the HMO wanted to do to save some money. Of course, her mother had to fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening. This example illustrates something else that underlies my concerns: The presumption by many HMOs that a child is no different from an adult, and if there is an open bed in a senior nursing center, send the child there. That is not the type of care that those parents expected to get for their child when they paid their premiums and when they sought out the best coverage they could. During the course of Melissa's illness, oftentimes the HMO would try to switch her specialist or try to suggest she didn't need pediatric specialists. All of this added up to an ordeal on top of the basic ordeal of a very sick child. In this country, we should not tolerate that situation. I am happy to say, as Melissa's picture demonstrates, she is a thriving, beautiful child of 2 years--the result of her family's efforts, the result of many people, but certainly not the result of a health care system that was out there to assist her and to provide for her family. Her story illustrates all too well what we hear constantly: every day consumers face difficulties to get the services that they need, they face delays, complex rules and regulations which an average lay person can't understand. We can change this situation if we act promptly and timely, and if we act immediately to bring this legislation to the floor. Managed care has provided great benefits to our country, particularly when it comes to preventive services. The emphasis on prevention is good. But all too often we hear stories like Melissa's story, and other stories, where the system is not working to the benefit of the public, and where people are not getting the health care services they've paid for. It is our responsibility to make sure that this situation does not continue. We also sometimes look at HMOs and think, ``Well, maybe they've got some problems, but maybe the problems are not really being addressed here.'' There was a study done at the University of California at San Francisco by Elizabeth Jameson at the University of California. She compared the pediatric care provided to children by private and public managed care plans. Frequently people consider Medicaid and say, ``Well, that's not top- grade health care because that's a public health care program for low- income Americans and, you know, it is not good compared to some of the large employer programs, the blue chip HMOs.'' Her study was very revealing though. It found that low-income children in California s Medicaid program received age-appropriate care that is consistent with recognized clinical guidelines, while those in private health care plans often did not. In effect, there was a better chance for a child in the California Medicaid system to have access to a pediatric specialist, to have the kind of focused specialized care that we assume would be found in the HMOs. Certainly, both the employer and the employee are paying a lot of money for those HMO premiums. I assume that he or she believes that all that money is buying care at least as good and probably better than what you would find in a public program. But the reality is, that is not the case. This is another indication that we should act to improve the quality of health care that is delivered by HMOs throughout this country. That is, we should pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. This study in California also found that some managed care plans impose restrictions on referrals to pediatric specialists. Jameson also found that complex pediatric diseases are being treated by providers without pediatric expertise when, in fact, a pediatric specialist would provide more appropriate care. All of this, again, suggests that we have to act promptly to pass this bill to ensure that the American public gets what it is paying for: Good quality care through managed care plans. Again, I am particularly pleased that the Democratic bill incorporates many of the provisions from my legislation that would deal particularly with the problems of children and managed care. The Democratic bill includes, for example, a guarantee of access to necessary pediatric services, and appeal rights that address the special needs of children, such as an expedited review if the child's life or development is in jeopardy. Again, here is another example where adults and children differ. Children have special needs, not just with their present health state like adults, but also with their development. And if our insurance plans are not keenly attuned to the developmental aspects of children, they are going to provide inferior care. So this legislation would require HMOs, in the context of appeals rights, to consider not just the present health status of the child as they do with adults, but also with the child s development. Also, the Democratic bill would require pediatric expertise in staff performing utilization review. Under our proposal, when the HMO is examining the use of services for a child, the HMO would have to ensure that reviewers had pediatric expertise. Too often today HMO plans' utilization review is solely in the context of adults. This practice overlooks our children, and overlooks the fact that children often have very different health care needs than adults. The bill would also require that HMOs give information to parents about quality and satisfaction related to the treatment of children. This information should be easily obtainable so that when a parent signs up for a health care plan, they will know upfront what to expect for their children. They will not have to wait until that child has a serious, serious illness. All of these provisions are incorporated in the legislation that we should be debating here in the Senate today. All of this is incorporated in the legislation that has been endorsed by over 18 organizations whose sole commitment is to the health care quality of the American people. The Patients Bill of Rights legislation, too, will cover the vast majority of Americans. It will cover all who are in private health care plans, unlike the Republican alternative. In the days ahead, we have to make critical choices. I can think of no more important issue to debate, to discuss, and to act upon than improving the quality of health care in the United States, passing the Patients' Bill of Rights, giving each American family an opportunity to know what they are getting, and ensure that they are getting the health care they are paying for. I hope we can do that. I hope that this debate will begin. I hope that we can go back to our states in a very few weeks and report to the American people that we have listened to their concerns, we have listened to what they feel is important and that we have acted in their best interests by passing the Patients' Bill of Rights. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I first want to thank Senator Kennedy for yielding me time and I add my commendation along with that of my colleagues to both Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy for the remarkable work they have done. This has been a long process, but it has been one that has been very positive, collaborative, and collegial. Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy have been very supportive of efforts by all the members of the committee and Members of this Senate to incorporate, to improve, and to bring forth today legislation of which I think we can all be proud. This legislation does so much to improve the quality of educational opportunity in the United States. One of the keys to our country, not just its economic prowess but its social progress, is the ability of all of our citizens to go on to higher education. This bill will advance that goal significantly. I applaud all of those who participated in this process. As my colleagues have mentioned, there are many important aspects of this legislation that should be noted. First of all, there is an increase in the authorization of the Pell grant, which will allow, particularly many low-income students, further access to higher education. There is a reduction in the interest rates which students will pay on loans, which will help them bear the burden of the ever- increasing cost of college. There is loan forgiveness for teachers, a revamping of our early intervention efforts, and a strengthening of the TRIO Program, which is a very important program that targets low-income students who will be the first in their family to attend college. Without TRIO, these students may not have the guidance, the information, and the support to make it into and stay in college. Also, there has been some significant effort to begin to address cost issues with respect to college education. All of these are commendable, but there are two very important issues which I would like to stress. First, this Senate last year restored the State Student Incentive Grant Program, a very important program which takes limited Federal resources, matches them with State dollars, and provides grants to needy undergraduate and graduate students. The Conference Report contains legislation I introduced with Senator Collins to reform this program. It is now the LEAP Program, the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership Program. This revamped program will be a continuation and a strengthening of our commitment to ensure that all Americans have access to quality higher education. Also, there is a very, very strong teacher training title in this bill. Again, I thank both Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy for their efforts in this regard. We built on legislation I proposed, and we created a situation in which now there will be incentives for teacher colleges to have active partnerships with elementary and secondary schools. We are trying to move in a direction of more clinical training for teachers. One of the sad commentaries I have heard--and I am sure my colleagues have also--is that for so many teachers, on the first day of school, it is practically their first day in a classroom as a teacher. This should change. This approach of partnerships between higher education institutions and elementary and secondary schools, particularly one partnership model known as professional development schools, is a positive way to increase the professional development of our teachers, which could be the single most important factor in improving and reforming education in the United States today. This legislation is not perfect, but it is a remarkable achievement based upon cooperation and a collegial approach to this issue. I commend and thank my colleagues, particularly the chairman, Senator Jeffords, and the ranking member, Senator Kennedy, for all of their work. I look forward to the speedy acceptance of this conference report. I yield back my time to the Senator from Massachusetts. inclusion of the faculty retirement incentive provision

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. First, let me thank Senator Dorgan for his graciousness in allowing me to present my amendment and also thank Senator McCain and Senator Ford for their understanding and cooperation. I have an amendment at the desk which I call up now.

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, my amendment is a very straightforward attempt to find additional resources to help neighborhoods that surround airports and are confronting the problem of airport noise. My State of Rhode Island is home to one of the fastest growing airports in the country, T.F. Green Airport. Indeed, over the past two years, T.F. Green has seen roughly an annual increase of 55 percent in passenger traffic. This is compared to a national average increase of 4 percent a year. So you can well appreciate that the impact of additional flights coming in has caused severe noise problems around the airport. This has been a source of great strength, the growth of T.F. Green, in terms of our economy; it has brought visitors; it has become a gateway to New England. It has created jobs. All of these are extremely positive. But it has also generated increased noise with increased numbers of flights. The Rhode Island Airport Corporation, the city of Warwick, and community groups are working together. We have been successful in securing grants from the FAA for noise abatement. But I think we have to do much more to ensure that all the homes that need soundproofing with all of the techniques that we can use to mitigate and minimize noise are effectively employed to assist the people of Rhode Island. I am very pleased with what has already been done in this legislation. Both Senator McCain and Senator Ford have taken a very strong, positive step to ensure that we are sensitive to the noise problem at airports. This legislation includes a set-aside for noise abatement of approximately 35 percent rather than the 31 percent in the bill that has been passed by the other body. This is a very, very positive development, but I think we can do more. I would also be very supportive of Senator McCain and Senator Ford's efforts to maintain that 35 percent set-aside. What my amendment does is simply lift the existing cap on the total amount of funds that the FAA may spend on noise abatement when the FAA distributes unexpended funds at the end of a fiscal year. This, we hope, would allow for additional resources to be devoted towards noise abatement. It would be consistent with and within the confines and framework of the existing appropriations bills. It is a modest, but I think very important step forward to help address the problem of noise around airports. I, indeed, am very pleased that Senator McCain and Senator Ford have taken such a strong step in this bill to protect airport neighborhoods from the increased level of noise. With this, I urge passage of the amendment.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an issue which affects many of our nation's air travelers. I am pleased to offer an amendment to the Senate's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill which requires the Secretary of Transportation to implement regulations that ensure airline passengers are more aware of the true corporate identity of the airline on which they are flying. I am pleased that the managers of the FAA reauthorization legislation have agreed to accept my amendment to their bill. I believe this amendment will go a long way to ensure that airline passengers are better informed. As you know, Mr. President, following the deregulation of the airline industry in the late 1970's, major airlines began to enter into cooperative agreements with smaller airlines to offer air transportation service to smaller, underserved areas. Common in such agreements is the practice of ``code-sharing,'' where the smaller independent airlines use the name and identification code of the larger airline. For example, for a two-leg ``code-shared'' flight, where a large air carrier operates one leg and a smaller commuter carrier operates the other, air service for both flight segments is listed under the same identification code. As such, consumers purchasing ``code-shared'' air service are frequently unaware of the actual corporate identity of the smaller commuter airline on which they are flying. Mr. President, this lack of disclosure can cause consumers to be completely unaware of the true identity of their transporting air carrier, and therefore, lessen a consumer's ability to make the most informed transportation decision. Mr. President, under current law, U.S. air carrier ticket agents are required to verbally indicate to consumers the corporate identity of the airline they are flying on, when a ticket is purchased. However, in practice, Mr. President, these verbal disclosure rules are difficult to enforce. Furthermore, the rules are not applied universally because they do not cover travel agents, who sell a majority of the airline tickets issued in the United States. As a result, Mr. President, consumers are often surprised to discover that a segment of their flight, although listed under the ``code'' or name of a large air carrier, could be serviced by a different airline. Now, Mr. President, I do not mean to suggest that smaller commuter airlines are not safe, nor, do I mean to diminish the valuable service ``code-sharing'' arrangements bring to many smaller and rural areas in the nation. Rather, I want to help ensure that consumers are aware of the true identity of the airline they are scheduled to fly on. For these reasons, I offered this amendment to require stronger airline ticketing disclosure rules, an issue the Department of Transportation recently considered. Indeed, in 1994, the Department of Transportation proposed a rule to require that at the time of sale, travel or airline ticket agents provide consumers with written notification of each airline's corporate name that participate in ``code-sharing'' agreements. The Department asserted such steps would help to ensure that a consumer had a complete understanding of the transportation they were purchasing. However, to date, the Department has not issued a final rule on this matter. Mr. President, the Department of Transportation was on the right track, and we need to encourage the DOT to follow through and implement better ticketing disclosure regulations to help better inform consumers. My amendment is simple and straightforward, and does just that. It requires the DOT to implement regulations 90 days after enactment of this bill requiring improved written and oral notification of the corporate name of ``code-sharing'' airlines. Such requirements would inform consumers of the identity of the air transportation carrier actually providing service, and thereby allow consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions. My amendment also grants the DOT flexibility in this process, and allows the Department to choose the method it deems most appropriate to achieve this goal. Mr. President, the basis for my amendment is also straightforward: Just four years ago, a constituent of mine, Ms. Pauline Josefson, of Warwick, Rhode Island died in a commuter airline crash. The airline she flew on was listed under a major carrier's identification code. Ms. Josefson had every reason to assume that the air service she had purchased was that of the major carrier, as her airline tickets indicated. However, she was flying on a plane piloted by an individual who had been repeatedly criticized by other airlines for poor performance and flying ability. If the little known airline's actual corporate name had been disclosed when the ticket was purchased, Ms. Josefson would have had an opportunity to make a fully informed travel decision. I share the concerns of the Josefson family and others that airline consumers deserve greater disclosure. That is why I have offered this amendment today, Mr. President, which is supported by the Aviation Consumer Action Project, a non-profit organization dedicated to the safety and protection of the flying public, and I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for this amendment be printed in the Record.