Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the chairman of the committee as well as the ranking member for their assistance in this. I am hopeful we are making an important step forward here in our energy self-reliance. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, is my amendment at the desk?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for his very eloquent statement and for his dedication to trying to get this Nation on the course it needs to be, to get off its dependency on oil. It has been a pleasure working with him over the years, and I look forward to continuing to do so. I also would like to add two other Senators as cosponsors of this amendment: Senator Moynihan of New York, and also Senator Allard from Colorado. Mr. President, when I turned over the discussion to Senator Roth, we were in the middle of going through charts which demonstrate right now the tremendous effort that is going on, and what needs assistance to make it even better, because we are sliding behind the results at this point of where we ought to be from these charts. The last one I showed, to start over again, is the Waterfront Office Building in Louisville, KY, where they are using geothermal--which, incidentally, can use heat to cool, which is sometimes a little confusing. But the way it uses its geothermal, it saves this hotel $25,000 a month. Now, let us take a look at some of these other charts so everyone here has a better opportunity to understand the depth of interest and the depth of participation in this Nation by private enterprises which are trying to reduce the Nation's dependence upon oil. That enthusiasm is out there, but it needs to be assisted. It needs to be demonstrated that we can even do better than we are doing, and we are nowheres doing as much as we used to be. The next chart, chart 11, indicates several States have greater wind potential than California, where the vast majority of wind development has occurred to date. The top 20 States for wind energy potential include North Dakota, Texas, Kansas, South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Michigan, New York, Illinois, California, Wisconsin, Maine and Missouri. That just gives you an idea. We should add Vermont to that. Recently, we have opened our own wind production in the southern part of the State. But this shows the States right now, the top 20 States, as measured by their energy projections for wind. Obviously, wind is pretty free and there is a lot of it in this country. In fact, there is a lot of it right here in this Chamber, but we do need to better utilize it for a more effective presentation of our efforts to be able to save energy. Now, let's look at the next chart we have, chart 12. Consider the two quotes on this chart. The first quote reads: In 1995, worldwide wind-power generation capacity was 4,900 megawatts. . . . That is 1 million watts. That was China alone. The second quote reads: In the past 10 years, PV sales worldwide have more than quadrupled . . . In developing countries, demand has risen significantly, fueled by the recognition that PV systems are an attractive option to rural electrification in isolated, inaccessible communities that are distant from the power-- Sources. Those are photovoltaics. PV is photovoltaics, taking the Sun and converting it, through utilization usually of silicon, to electricity. It is a wonderful source. It is free. It comes from the Sun, and it is increasing worldwide. As it says here: In the past years, PV sales worldwide have more than quadrupled . . . In developing countries, demand has risen significantly, fueled by the recognition that photovoltaic systems are an attractive option for rural electrification in isolated, inaccessible communities that are distant from the power grid and have small electric requirements. This is a tremendous source for exporting our technology and our systems around the world. In fact, when I was in the House, I did get an amendment attached which made demonstration projects at our embassies throughout the world to demonstrate how usable the Sun is to produce power and how effective it is. In the past 10 years alone, photovoltaic sales worldwide have more than doubled. That is chart No. 12. American renewable businesses are taking advantage of these markets. Consider this chart, chart No. 13. This chart shows a wind turbine produced by a small wind turbine manufacturer in my State. This turbine was built in Vermont and exported to Ontario, Canada. There is a large market for export of U.S. wind turbines to northern communities in Alaska, Canada and Russia. This is a picture of one. We have several of these in Vermont now. They are throughout the world, and they are not at all offensive. They are quiet. They make a lot of energy. This is a large market for companies in this country. Although America is still a leader in developing renewable energy technologies, this lead may slip if we lower our renewable research and development funding. Europe and Japan continue to subsidize their renewable industry, putting U.S.-based companies at severe disadvantage. For example, Japan, Germany and Denmark use tied aid, offer financing and provide export promotion for their domestic industries, and our industries have to compete with that. It is very difficult to do, but because of the success and the fact that we have advantages, they have been able to survive with great difficulty without having that assistance or loans. This is not the time to lose our lead or to cut funding out to this important industry. Mr. President, there is one final reason why my colleagues should overwhelmingly support this amendment. This amendment is a vote for the environment. Renewable energy is largely free of the pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act. Chart No. 14 demonstrates this. Consider this geothermal power plant in Dixie Valley, NV. This plant, which produces electricity for 100,000 people produces no NOX emissions and 5 percent as much SOX and CO2 as a coal-fired power plant of the same size. Five percent, that is 95 percent reduction in the production of those pollutants. We need more of these plants, like the one in Dixie Valley, NV. Renewable energy can have other environmental benefits as well. Consider the following projects, all of which turn waste products into energy. Chart No. 15: Westinghouse Power Connection. This one is a biomass gasification test facility in Paia, Island of Maui, HI. A pilot project demonstrates potential to convert agricultural waste--sugar cane--into electricity. Again, back to biomass which has incredible use available to us. The next chart shows Wheelabrator Shasta Energy Co., a biomass project in Shasta County, CA. This project converts wood wastes that would otherwise end up in landfills into 49 megawatts of electric power. The next chart--if I am right, we should have 50, one for every State. We will see how we turn out here. This is the BC International Corporation biomass ethanol plant in Jennings, LA. This plant will be retrofitted to produce ethanol from sugar cane, bagasse and rice waste. The next chart will also demonstrate the number of plants we have spread throughout the country. This is in Connecticut; a fuel cell power plant, Groton, CT. The fuel cell plant uses hydrogen from landfill gas that otherwise would be wasted to create electricity. It is another indication of the tremendous breadth of expertise we have in this Nation to produce. All we have to do is make sure we don't cut back in their planning and ability to create many of the experimental plants. Let me now conclude by, again, reminding everyone, we are proposing to add $70 million in our amendment to the Department of Energy's solar, wind and renewable budget. Federal support for renewable energy research and development has been a major success story in the United States. Costs have declined, reliability has improved, and a growing domestic industry has been born. More work still needs to be done in basic research at our national labs and applied development to bring down the costs of production even further. This is a tremendous opportunity for this Nation to develop industries which will help us reduce our trade deficits. This is not a vote which pits Senators from one region of the country against Senators from another region. I think I have shown that all regions of the country benefit from renewable energy. This is not a vote which pits probusiness Senators against proenvironmental Senators. I think I have shown that renewable energy is a clean, environmentally beneficial industry. This is not a vote which pits Democrats against Republicans. Chart No. 19: Consider this quote from former President Bush in September 1991. President Bush stated: We must encourage environmentally responsible development of all U.S. energy resources, including renewable energy. Renewable energy does reduce demand upon our other finite natural resources. It enhances our energy security, and clearly, it protects the environment. So just before I offer the amendment, I would like to thank my colleagues who are cosponsoring it with me and urge--urge--my colleagues to sincerely consider the tremendous advantages which this amendment will have and to remind you, at present, we are cutting back--while going forward on other less necessary projects--we are cutting back on that which is most critical to the future of this Nation in its ability to gain the semblance of energy independence. We are slipping behind the chart and the goals that we have established. We cannot cut back in the funding that will help us get there. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a table which sets forth the provisions in the amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I intend to offer an amendment at an appropriate time, probably around noon. What I want to talk about is national policy with respect to renewable energy. I started on this issue back when I first came to Congress, which was in 1975, when this Nation woke up and realized that we were very vulnerable to the supply of oil. At that time, you may remember, we had lines of cars waiting for gasoline. We had terrible shortages. We realized that this Nation, in order to make sure that it had a future, had to do something about it. Working with my friends in the House, at that time we established a wind energy program, which is still going strong. We also increased the funding in research into solar energy and the advantages that it gives to our society to recognize that the Sun is a tremendous source of energy and that it can be harnessed. We also looked at biomass options as well. Subsequent to that, when I came to the Senate, I also worked with the committee that handles it on the authorizing side. We developed a national policy. I had hoped that national policy would have mandated the course of action necessary to get this Nation to have 30 percent of its energy supplied by renewable sources. However, every word of my amendment was adopted except one, and that one was, instead of ``shall,'' it said ``may.'' That kind of switched things around as far as its importance. But the importance to continue to move forward to shift our dependence on foreign oil is something that has not gone away. At that time, we established a chart of where we ought to be. Right now, under that chart of going towards 30 percent of our energy to come from renewable, it is at 10 percent. That is where we are supposed to be on course. We are not. We are at 8 percent. What has happened now in this bill is that we have seen that renewables are cut and whereas, although things are perhaps more popular, or whatever items are increased, renewables are cut. Last year we got an additional $20 million approved, but when it got to conference, it disappeared. We are not making the kind of progress that this Nation needs in order to be able to become less dependent and, hopefully, someday independent of foreign sources. If we look at the world situation now, we should understand that the largest amount of oil right now to take out of the ground, so to speak, is not available. The Crimean, which is one of the most volatile areas in the world, has the most oil that has to be looked to for the future. I think it is about 70 percent of what is available at the world level. The second area is the Persian Gulf. Obviously, neither of those is very close to us. So our dependency is increasing. If you want to take a volatile area, you ought to take Crimea, right in the middle of one of the most volatile situations right now, including the areas of Pakistan all the way up through to Russia at the other end. And you have Iran and Iraq in the area. Those are areas that the pipelines would have to go through. Incredibly, also with expanding availability of nuclear weapons, these are very fragile areas. To think that we would have to rely upon them is very difficult. The same is true also, of course, with the Persian Gulf. Everyone is familiar with the problems we had in the Persian Gulf and the nonreliability at certain times of the availability of that oil. The question is, What should we do? We decided years ago that we could get to 30 percent, really, with utilization and to a large extent of biomass, as well as wind and solar energy, and that we could do it with little or no increase in the cost of availability of the fuel, but it could give us the kind of utility we need. As I pointed out, we have not made any progress in recent years. In fact, we are sliding back from where we ought to be. So the amendment that Senator Roth and I will offer today is about priorities. I think we all agree that increased domestic energy production should be a priority. We would agree that a lower balance of payments should be a priority. We would stand up to U.S. companies selling U.S. manufactured energy technologies in overseas markets. We would cheer the increased jobs, which would mean for every State in the Nation. We would support the small companies across this Nation working to capture the booming global energy market. We would make it a priority to increase domestic energy production and promote clean air. But that is not what has happened here. The bill before us further whittles away at our Nation's efforts to wean itself from foreign oil. The priorities in the bill for our Nation's energy policy go back years. This legislation will erode our efforts to develop technologies that increase domestic energy production. This bill ends commitments made to small energy companies that depend on Federal assistance to enter the giant global energy market. The funding levels contained here reduce our Nation's efforts to make major advancements in energy development, energy that is affordable, that is a clean, and, most importantly, made in America. Today, Senator Roth and I offer an amendment to increase our Nation's investment in clean domestic production. The amendment would restore funding to the Department of Energy's renewable research and development budget. Mr. President, the fiscal year 1999 energy and water appropriations bill cuts funding for solar, cuts funding for wind, cuts funding for biomass, cuts funding for hydrogen, cuts funding for geothermal, and cuts funding for hydropower research and development by $120 million, or 33 percent below the administration's request, and $20 million from the fiscal year 1998 level. This $380 million account takes a $120 million cut. The amendment we offer today simply attempts to add back half this level, or $70 million, to the renewables budget. A vote for this amendment is a vote to reduce our country's dependence on foreign oil from rogue nations like Iraq. A vote for this amendment is a vote to support small businesses all across the United States that produce clean renewable energy products. A vote for this amendment is a vote to help the same small businesses grab onto a chunk of that rapidly growing export market for renewable products. A vote for this amendment is a vote for cleaner air for our children. Mr. President, I am going to address each of these reasons of why my colleagues should support this bill in turn. Nearly half of all of our Nation's oil is imported today. These imports account for almost $60 billion, or 36 percent; 36 percent of the trade deficit is in this one area. These are U.S. dollars being shipped overseas to the Middle East which could be put to better use here at home. Consider the following chart, chart No. 1. This chart shows that the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that we will import even more of our oil, two-thirds of all oil we consume, by the year 2020. That means we will continue to be held hostage by oil-producing nations, including rogue nations like Iraq. This chart, as you can see way out here, shows we are just going to have increased prices in oil and all sorts of difficulty as we get out to 2020. U.S. petroleum imports are expected to reach two-thirds of consumption in the year 2020. Our second chart, Mr. President, shows that we are not alone in our increasing dependence on foreign sources of oil. The Energy Information Administration also predicts that by the year 2020 the Persian Gulf will supply one-half of the world's oil exports--one-half. Why would we continue to increase our addiction to that very volatile area of the world? We can reduce our dependence on Persian oil by continuing our investment in a clean domestic energy. I believe that these charts demonstrate very clearly that action must be taken. The goals that we set a few years ago to say that we should be at 30 percent of renewables must be adhered to. Chart No. 3 shows that the United States currently obtains 8 percent of our energy from renewable sources. That is OK, but we can do better. We should do better. We must do better. In fact, in 1991, during consideration of the Policy Act, the Congress agreed to an amendment to boost our percentage of renewable power to 20 percent by the year 2000 and 30 percent by the year 2010. How will we ever get there if we keep cutting our commitment to the small businesses across the Nation that are moving forward with these technologies? Chart No. 3, as you can see, indicates what we had in 1996. We had petroleum, 38.1 percent; nuclear, 7.6; renewables, 7.9; coal, 22.4; natural gas, 24 percent. This percentage--7.9--if we were on target, if we were doing what we agreed to do when the act was passed, would now be 10 percent. It is not approaching the goal that we have agreed upon as a national priority. Chart No. 4 shows that renewable energy is produced in every State in the United States. I think all Senators ought to take that into consideration. What you are doing is hurting the small businesses located in every State in the United States. Every Senator in the United States is a stakeholder in the debate we are having on the floor today. Let us take a look now at the next chart that we have. I think pictures make points better than words. I want to share with you pictures of a variety of renewable energy projects across the country. This is chart No. 5. It shows the Kotzebue Electric Association village power project. It is in Alaska. It is a wind project coming about from the bill that was put into effect at the end of the 1970s. This project will reduce emissions from diesel power and will reduce fuel transport costs to villagers. It is in existence. It is one that is easily replicated. It should be available, but we need to have more assistance, and we cannot cut back on that assistance which has been so productive in getting us the improvements we have had. Chart No. 6, this shows you the geographic distribution throughout our Nation. It shows that in the State of Oklahoma we have taxpayer dollars employing a geothermal heat pump in the State capitol building. This is geothermal, which obviously is another available energy supply, but we still need to have the research and the ability to replicate and duplicate and to find out better ways to be able to tap and utilize geothermal. Chart No. 7 gets to another--this one is where we have the most availability in this Nation and where we can proceed without in any way hampering the present energy sources. We have the ability in this Nation with all its agricultural resources to produce biomass energy which would allow us to go forward to get to the targeted goals. But that is cut back. This is the Bioten Biomass Plant, Red Boiling Springs, TN. This project produces energy from sawdust and will test other biomass fuels including wood residues and agricultural wastes. The next one we have is chart No. 8, which is the Stirling Dish Concentration Engine at Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, NM-- a great State, New Mexico. This system, created through a public/ private partnership, uses heat generated by the Sun's rays to produce utility grade electric power. The next is a solar-powered school speed limit sign. This is an interesting use of solar energy--reducing dependence on electric power and ensuring that it works anytime the Sun is up, whether there are clouds or not. Chart No. 10 is entitled ``Waterfront Office Buildings.'' Mr. President, not only do these projects currently help, but they will not be moving forward as fast as they could if we don't at least put some of the money back that is used to fund it. Waterfront office buildings, these are located in Louisville, KY. These buildings are heated and cooled by geothermal heat pumps, saving the hotel $25,000 per month in utility costs. Mr. President, these are the types of things we are looking at. I see my good friend and cosponsor is here. If he would like to take some time, I am happy to yield the floor to him.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I appreciate that.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I withdraw my request.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, after discussions with the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, I understand that we are in a position where the amendment can be accepted with striking a certain provision. I am doing that and am going to accept that proposition with the understanding that there will be a strong effort to fight to maintain the amendment as best they can in the committee of conference, because the history has been that on these amendments, which have been accepted in the past, they kind of disappear in conference. But I have the good-faith-effort commitment of the Senator from New Mexico, and I accept that, as I know him and I know his character; and the same with the Senator from Nevada. So, Mr. President, I now move to amend my amendment by striking all after line 8 on page 3 of the amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to hold an executive business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 18, 1998, at 10:00 a.m., in room 226, of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 18, 1998 at 2:00 p.m., in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services to meet on Thursday, June 18, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. for a hearing on ``The Adequacy of Commerce Department Satellite Export Controls.''

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 17, and Thursday, June 18, 1998, to conduct a hearing on H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act of 1998.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the House Commerce, Subcommittee on Health and Environment be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``Putting Patients First: resolving the Allocation of Transplant Organs'' during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 18, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 18, 1998, at 10:00 am to hold a hearing.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene tomorrow at 10 a.m. and immediately resume consideration of the energy and water appropriations bill. It is hoped that Members who wish to offer amendments to the energy and water bill will come to the floor during Thursday's session to offer and debate their amendments under short time agreements. Therefore, rollcall votes are possible during Thursday's session of the Senate. The leader would like to remind Members that the Independence Day recess is fast approaching and, therefore, the cooperation of all Members will be necessary to make progress on a number of important items, including appropriations bills, any available conference reports, the Higher Education Act, the DOD authorization bill and any other legislative or executive items that may be cleared for action.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, July 5, 1998, is a great day for Vermont as we celebrate the fiftieth birthday of the Newbrook Fire Department. On behalf of all Vermonters, I want to wish the department a very happy birthday. For a half-century, the volunteers at Newbrook's Fire Department have donated their time to provide fire protection to Vermonters living in the lower West River Valley area. These volunteers continually risk their lives to protect the welfare of others. The Newbrook Fire Department also responds to medical emergencies and, through the years, has earned the reputation as one of Vermont's most efficient volunteer response teams. This is truly admirable. I applaud such dedication and have the utmost respect for Newbrooks' courageous volunteers. The Newbrook Fire Department is a vital part of the Newbrook community and its surrounding areas. For fifty years, the Department has given prompt and reliable service to people in the most distressing situations. It gives me great pleasure to recognize today fifty years of service and achievement of the Newbrook Fire Department and, more importantly, the volunteers who support it.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to take just a few moments of the time of the Members to discuss a subject which I find probably no one has ever heard of but, nevertheless, is one of the very serious problems facing the world. I wish my colleagues a Happy World Day to Combat Desertification. I assume most Senators have never heard of this day, so let me explain. June 17 was established as World Day to Combat Desertification to promote awareness of dryland degradation. Few Americans today have an association with desertification. My parents and their contemporaries did: the great ``Dust Bowl'' that occurred in the western United States in the 1930s. Desertification is defined as land degradation in arid and semi-arid areas resulting from climatic variations and human activities. It can occur to such an extent that affected dryland can no longer sustain vegetation, crops, livestock or the people who depend on them for survival. In the 1930s, desertification forced farmers and their families off their land when topsoil--and their livelihood--blew away. Vermont is not arid. But as an agricultural State, Vermonters were pained by the plight of western farmers. The suffering of these farmers who became penniless migrants is still starkly visible in photos of the era. Hopefully, the U.S. will never experience another ``Dust Bowl.'' We have the expertise and resources to prevent such damage to U.S. agricultural lands. However, it threatens the way of life of one billion people worldwide in underdeveloped countries. The economic consequences of desertification are particularly devastating in regions that are both underdeveloped and arid. In these regions, much of the population relies on subsistence agriculture. Subsistence farmers do not have the means or incentives to make investments in proper land and water management. Poor land and water management, especially when combined with periodic droughts, are the primary causes of desertification. Other factors include overcultivation, overgrazing, single-crop farming on fragile soil, slash-and-burn land clearing methods, and improper irrigation practices. These factors are often compounded by unwise government policies and the pressure of explosive population growth. When formerly productive farm and pastoral land is degraded, it creates a downward spiral of poverty and rural out-migration--often to the already overcrowded cities. We saw this during our own ``Dust Bowl.'' I was only a small child in the 1930s. I never met impoverished farmers dislocated by the ``Dust Bowl.'' But I have witnessed first hand the effects of desertification in Indonesia and Africa. I saw first hand how hard farmers are fighting to hold on to arable land in the face of huge environmental changes brought on by cutting of the rainforests or overgrazing of arid lands. And I saw the resulting poverty and dislocation that then grip these areas. Through our foreign aid programs, we are assisting afflicted regions. But we could use our resources more efficiently by joining 124 other nations in ratifying the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and /or Desertification, Particularly in Africa. As the Administration began to sharpen its focus on Africa prior to the President's recent trip, it decided to make U.S. ratification a priority. On the occasion of World Day to Combat Desertification, I urge my colleagues to take a look at this treaty and reflect for a moment on the benefits to the U.S. of Senate ratification. The treaty is in the best interest of the United States. Our agriculture industry, American universities, and our non-governmental organizations have considerable expertise in combating desertification. Businesses like Monsanto, Land O' Lakes, and the Chocolate Manufacturers Association are supporting the treaty because it will increase U.S. business opportunities. Ratification will also increase export of American technical assistance in erosion control. The Irrigation Association supports it because many of its members produce world-class irrigation and water control equipment. After ratification, the U.S. may submit names of its desertification experts and consultants for the international Roster of Independent Experts who are available to provide services. The treaty does not commit the U.S. to any specific level of foreign assistance. Rather, it asks governments of developed nations to channel existing bilateral and multilateral aid funds through a new mechanism that will provide improved coordination and better use of donor resources. The treaty obligates recipient nations to develop actions plans ``from the bottom up'' to combat regional and local desertification. The treaty is remarkable because it calls upon local communities to take the lead in identifying their problems and selecting the best solutions for their particular situations. On World Day to Combat Desertification, let's not forget our own grim experience with desertification and the ``Dust Bowl.'' Let's join the other nations that have ratified the Convention to Combat Desertification and prevent a reoccurrence of this tragedy elsewhere.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m. on Thursday, June 18. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 2138, the energy and water appropriations bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Subcommittee on Employment and Training, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be held on Thursday, June 11, 1998, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Child Labor. For further information, please call the committee, (202) 224-5375. subcommittee on water and power

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fallen hero. His name is Donald Bodette and he passed away last August 10th after a long battle with cancer. However, his legacy lives on and he will be honored on June 14th at the Dodge Development Center in Rutland. Don retired from the Marine Corps in 1968 and received a Purple Heart for wounds sustained in Vietnam. For those of us who knew Don, This information was a well kept secret. He was never inclined to tell you about his heroics. He did tell war stories as a way to draw other Vietnam Veterans out of their isolation. Don's theory was a very simple one and is the premise used today to help Vietnam Veterans worldwide-- discussing traumatic war experiences with another veteran with a similar experience is the best way to heal. An article in The Rutland Herald on August 12, 1997 announced that Donny had passed away, at age 48, at the VA hospital in White River Junction. As I read, I was struck by some of the tales recounted by his fellow veterans. Three of Don's best friends, Jake Jacobsen, Albert Trombley and Clark Howland, talked about meeting Don through a newspaper ad that only said, ``Vietnam Veterans, we need to talk.'' According to Trombley, ``He didn't have any master plan. He would stop and look for people, he would put advertisements in the paper to get veterans to come out, and once he found one or two, they would find two or three. He got all around the state of Vermont.'' In the late 1970s, Don was instrumental in shaping the course of a fledgling organization known as the Vietnam Veterans of America (VA). He believed that the VA should be more than an activist group, and Don was so successful in his efforts to establish local chapters that Rutland, Vermont boasts the first VA chapter in the country. According to Jake Jacobsen, ``Donny and I never worried about membership. If we're good enough, they'll want to join us.'' Don helped found the Veterans Assistance Office (VAO) in Rutland sixteen years ago. It was designed as a non-profit community based organization to support veterans in a variety of different ways. The VAO still serves in that capacity today. The VAO's current director, Clark Howland, says of Bodette, ``I owe him a lot. He helped an unknown number. I'd say it would run in the thousands of veterans. And what we're doing now is just to carry on for what Donny started.'' Farewell Don. Your legacy of service will live on through your selfless acts that improved the lives of countless Vermont veterans.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to June Salander of Rutland, Vermont. On May 9, 1998 June Salander celebrated her bat mitzvah at the remarkable age of 89. Mrs. Salander is a dear neighbor, mentor, and friend from my days growing up in Rutland, Vermont. It is believed she is the oldest Rutlander to celebrate a bat mitzvah. Over a hundred people attended the ceremony, one of many indicators of the inspiration she is to her family, friends, community, and faith. Born in 1908 in Poland, June Salander came to America in 1920 to New York City with her family via Ellis Island. In 1941 she married her husband and moved to Vermont where she has resided ever since. In her many years as a citizen of Rutland she has been an active member of the community. She has served as a volunteer at the Rutland Jewish Center, as a Hebrew School teacher, and at the Rutland Hospital with the Grey Ladies. In addition to filling the role as a bedrock member of her community she has also filled many stomachs with her famous cooking. Her strudel is legendary throughout the area and to the many people traveling through who she has opened her home to over the years. Her strudel recipe was even featured in a cookbook containing Jewish recipes honed in the United States. I can personally attest to the greatness of June Salander's cooking as I was able to eat breakfast at the Salanders when I was growing up as a boy on Kingsley Avenue in Rutland. She continues to teach cooking informally and will appear on a cooking video that will air on PBS in the near future. Perhaps her most admirable quality is the energy she continues to display as she reaches her golden years. For some it means an idle time in their life but not for June Salander. When she was sixty-two she received her real estate license and remained active until recently. She picked up tennis when she was seventy-three and played for almost ten years. This fall she will travel all the way to Israel to attend the wedding of a niece. I am glad my wife Liz was able to attend June's bat mitzvah on that Saturday and pass on our well wishes to June. I also wish her well as she approaches her ninetieth birthday on June 28, 1998. Mr. President, I would like to publicly recognize June's upstanding citizenship and the inspiration she is to the rest of us as she continues to embrace life into her nineties.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the tobacco bill. As we all know, under the present circumstances, we don't seem to be making much progress. On the other hand, I have been here long enough to know that sometimes we go through these phases where we come to situations where we have sort of a partisan battle on how we should proceed, and then finally, after we do that for a while, we recognize that we both ought to sit down and try to reconcile our differences and join together to make sure we do not let this opportunity pass that we have before us, where we could do so much to help, on the one hand, stop teenagers from starting to smoke and, on the other hand, help those who are addicted to tobacco and do what we can to ensure that they are taken care of. One of the most sticky problems we have is what to do as far as how to compensate the victims of tobacco. We tried initially to have a system set up where the amount of money that would be subject to lawsuits and claims would be capped. That was killed with the Gregg- Leahy amendment. I have been involved in a number of issues over the years involving these kinds of matters, not the least of which was examining the situation with respect to asbestos, black lung disease, and other matters. And it seemed to me and to others that we ought to look at it as an opportunity to find a solution other than through the court system. I am here today to talk about an amendment that Senator Sessions, Senator Enzi, and I plan to offer in the Senate--in fact, it has already been placed on file--to see what we can do to try to find a more humane system to solve this very difficult situation. Hours, days, and weeks have been spent arguing about liability, per-pack tax levels, States rights, and other issues. But why are we really here? No. 1, to reduce teen smoking; and, most importantly, to assure that teens don't start smoking, because we know if they don't start smoking, the odds are they never will smoke. Also, to strengthen the public health program and to ensure that victims of smoking are compensated fairly. That is what I would like to concentrate on today. The amendment that we have will bring logic to the system of compensating individuals. As I mentioned earlier, throughout my time in Congress I have authored legislation to prevent smoking, supported increasing cigarette prices and requiring manufacturers to disclose the ingredients in cigarettes, and worked to reverse the impact of tobacco on the health of Americans. In fact, the present bill contains a substantial amount of the language that came from our committee in these areas. It has been adopted by the McCain bill. We have some very good provisions in the basic bill. We have a foundation to build upon. I have done all of these things hoping that together we could end the blight that cigarettes have brought to the lives of millions in this Nation. Any legislation that Congress approves must ensure that families and individuals harmed by tobacco receive compensation in a timely and equitable manner. I fear, though, that this legislation we are finally considering will not achieve that goal. I am sure it won't. That is why I am here today. With this bill, States are granted funds to begin to pay the health costs associated with smoking. Individuals, however, are left on their own to seek justice through the court system. You can only imagine the consequence of 50 million people bringing lawsuits. That is the number of potential claimants that you have. I know many lawyers out there are only all too ready to participate in this action. With up to 40 percent of the compensation going directly into their pockets, on the average, the lawyers in this Nation are happy to see this situation occur. But I am not sure that is the most equitable and fair way of doing it. Billions of dollars are at stake, and millions of people's lives are at stake. But if the legal profession benefits, who loses? Those truly deserving of compensation--smokers and their families facing serious health consequences from smoking--will be left counting pennies. Our amendment attempts to hand these funds to those Americans who must recover from the tragedy of their addiction, and their families. Our amendment would set up a compensation system designed by a bipartisan commission to award compensation to tobacco victims. This is not a situation where blame has to be determined--the tobacco companies admit to the linkage of smoking to illness. All we are concerned about here is how we should compensate. Also, there is a certain logic in one of the problems with bringing the court suits. It is a thing called ``assuming the risk,'' where the individuals have had years of looking at labels which tell them that it is a danger to their health. That creates a problem in the tort system as to how you award compensation. The asbestos cases, as I mentioned earlier, provide us with an example of what may happen if we rely only on the judicial system to resolve the millions of claims against the tobacco manufacturers. As I will show later, it shows you what kind of system came about from the asbestos cases because of the horrendous mess that occurred in the courts. In the asbestos situation, only hundreds of thousands of lawsuits were brought, and they brought the system to a stoppage. They created a catastrophe. When you think that tobacco could result in millions of cases, you can only imagine what would happen in the court system if this were allowed to continue with this as the only option. With asbestos, Federal judges struggled with an overwhelming backlog of lawsuits filed across the country on behalf of the asbestos victims. Many of these victims contracted fatal lung disease in working with the product. I add as a side note, because there is somewhat of a linkage here, that those who suffered from asbestosis and smoked ended up with a much worse situation. So we even have a linkage in that respect. Many victims died before the courts considered their case. These people never received the compensation they deserved in these cases. We cannot let this happen again in the tobacco case. Lawsuits over asbestos claims have been mired in the Federal and State courts for over two decades. These lawsuits are few compared to the millions that will arise related to tobacco. In fact, 200,000 asbestos cases were filed in which compensation has been paid. Another 200,000 cases are pending, and another 200,000 are projected to be filed in the future. Many of the 200,000 claimants who have received compensation have only received about 10 cents on the dollar of what they deserve. It is not getting any better for the remaining claimants. I shudder to think how long victims of tobacco will need to wait to make it through the courts. Must we again allow individuals to die, waiting for their cases to be heard or settlement to be reached? No, and we have the solution. No lengthy depositions, years waiting to get to courts, weeks of trial and so on. But first of all, let me talk a little bit about what happened in the asbestos situation. First of all, when the cases were brought the system came pretty much to a screeching halt, there were so many cases filed. Then awards were granted, heavy damage awards for the first victims. And what happened? The companies were driven into bankruptcy. Finally, in order to allow those companies to at least continue in business, a trust situation was set up so they are run by a trust. A certain amount of the available profits were made available for compensation to victims. However, also, to allow you to see how appropriate this kind of system might be in this case, they also were allowed, if they were not happy with compensation through the commission proposal, to sue. In the meantime, which has been a couple of years now that this system has been in effect, only one person has gone to the court after going through the compensation commission. Similarly, our amendment will create a commission to review the research and documents of the tobacco companies that they have long kept secret and compile a list of diseases linked to smoking and develop the compensation that these individuals deserve for their injuries. An individual harmed by smoking can simply apply to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for compensation and receive it in an expedited manner. Also, we have it worded such that we want to make sure--although we are talking billions of dollars here, that could rise up to many, many billions, up to $25 billion that could be held in trust for this purpose--we would make sure that those who are most harmed would be considered first. The compensation may be so huge, as far as all of the individuals who may be affected, that you want to make sure those who are permanently disabled or those who are terminally ill would be fully compensated before you get into the lesser harmed individuals. The amendment also gives these individuals the ability to appeal the decision that was reached if they feel it is appropriate. The program is funded by voluntary contributions from the tobacco manufacturers. If they refuse to participate, as was in the original part of the bill, they would be subject to the current use of the courts to get the injured parties their just compensation. The method we have developed would put compensating funds in the hands of victims and not their lawyers. As the asbestos cases show, individuals received less than 40 cents on the dollar of the compensation for the harm they incurred. The lion's share of the money went to make lawyers very wealthy. Why should we do so again? Our approach will avoid costly lawyers' fees and get the compensation to people who deserve it the most. The asbestos cases will also illustrate what will happen if we rely on lawyers and the courts to strangle the tobacco companies. The asbestos companies eventually went bankrupt, as I mentioned earlier, because of a few earlier judgments that gave claimants such large sums of money. Unfortunately, after companies went bankrupt, individuals who had their suits settled or a judgment reached received only 10 cents on the dollar for damages suffered. A majority of the harmed individuals received almost nothing. In fact, people suffering almost identical symptoms from asbestos exposure received vastly different awards, depending on the jury that heard their case. These lessons outline for me the importance of the approach we are taking to provide proper compensation to tobacco victims. The amendment will allow the claims to be sorted through and the funds distributed in a timely manner. With this we avoid the huge backlog of cases in our state and federal courts. We grant compensation before the injured parties are no longer with us. We ensure that tobacco victims will be given their due without lawyers taking a major cut. Finally, all injured parties will be guaranteed a source of funds and all similar claims will be treated equally. I would strongly urge my colleagues to carefully consider our amendment as an alternative to insure that individuals harmed by tobacco manufacturers will receive the full compensation they deserve in a timely and efficient manner. For our country, we cannot allow a repeat of the asbestos catastrophe, and most especially for the people that were harmed by the tobacco manufacturers.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Senator McCain has said I may yield myself such time as I may consume.