Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the key to our children's future, and to commemorate an individual who dedicated his life's work to this great cause. Through a resolution sponsored by my good friend Senator Chuck Robb, and co-sponsored by myself and 91 other Senate co-sponsors, today has been proclaimed Read Across America Day. The day to celebrate the 94th birthday of Dr. Seuss and a day when all across the country adults will be reading out loud to children. In fact, Senator Robb is unable to join me right now because he spent the morning reading to kids at a local elementary school, but I know that you will be hearing from him later. First, I would like to say a few words about the crisis we face as a nation if we don't all work toward improving literacy in this Nation. Reading is the key to our children's future. There is an easy way to think about this: from first to third grades you learn to read--from third grade on you read to learn. Now, we have heard some frightening statistics as of late, about our children's performance in various subjects compared to other nations. I want to remind my colleagues and everyone in every community around the country--we have a 51 percent functional illiteracy rate in kids who are graduating from high school. That means, these kids can't read a newspaper, balance a checkbook or read a bus schedule to get themselves to a job, let alone hold down a good job. This, in America, is a tragedy. And we must stop it. We must all be a part of the solution. Reading aloud to children, beginning at the youngest age, is a big part of the solution. A national commission on reading found that reading out loud to a child for at least 30 minutes a day is the single most important factor to the child learning to read and loving to read. And so, on what would have been his 94th birthday, I say thank you to Dr. Seuss, whose given name was Mr. Theodor Geisel, for all the fantastic, creative and wonderful books he gave to countless numbers of parents and children to enjoy in this most significant activity for a child's success. Many pro-literacy groups have sponsored activities so that every child in the country is read aloud to by an adult for at least a half hour today. I endorse this activity whole-heartedly--and I try to lead by example by read-ing to my reading partner in the Everybody Wins! program that I launched here in Washington three years ago. The Everybody Wins! program pairs adult reading mentors with young children in elementary schools to foster a love of reading and of learning and to provide that critical reading aloud activity. I am so proud of all the Congressional Members and staff participating in the program--now totaling more than 450 reading every day of the week during lunch hour at two schools here on Capitol Hill. In all we now have 10 schools and 1200 reading partners and students participating in the Everybody Wins! program. But we must reach many, many more children. We need 10 times that if we are going to do what we should be doing in the District of Columbia. The Everybody Wins! program has benefitted enormously from corporate support to help us reach more children. As it happens, tomorrow night is the third annual event that makes expansion of Everybody Wins! possible--it is called Links to Literacy and takes place just a stone's throw from here in Union Station. With complete bi-partisan support, and sponsored by the PGA tour we hope to be able to impact many more children in the year to come. I want to thank all of my colleagues who joined with me in lending their names to Links to Literacy and I look forward to seeing all of you tomorrow night. Also, I want to commend some extraordinary programs at work in my home state of Vermont: Mother Goose Logs On, a collaborative effort between Nynex and IBM that improves literacy through interactive technology; the America Reads program that so many of our college students are tutoring in and the Vermont Center for the Book which has worked to improve access to books for kids in so many ways. When everyone in the community becomes involved and when adults read aloud to children--Everybody Wins! I thank all my colleagues who helped pass this resolution. I just want to indicate we have a number of these Links to Literacy '98, Everybody Wins invitations available to those who would like to participate tomorrow night. The Singing Senators will be there to make sure the event is enjoyable for everyone. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I believe we are in morning business, is that correct?

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Subcommittee on Children and Families, will be held on Thursday, March 5, 1998, 10:00 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is After School Child Care. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 17, I am recorded as voting ``yes'' when I actually voted ``no.'' I ask unanimous consent that the record of my vote be changed to ``no.'' This will in no way change the final outcome of the vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I join in the remarks of my friend from Maine.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support this fair and reasonable amendment. I think it is important for us to take a close look at what this does to make sure that we understand that it is really hard for anyone to be against it as near as I can tell. It is not the end-all of the situation that we face or the problems that need to be handled, by any means, but it does take into consideration doing something where nothing is done now to alert the public to who is behind the things that are being thrown on television. I can just imagine a candidate, and this happens now, I am sure, when they think they are running their campaign, they had it all organized and they are watching carefully the amount of money their opponent has, and then they wake up one morning thinking they are in fine shape and every channel they turn on on the television has this ad attacking them at the last moment, the last couple of weeks before the election, and they don't know who it is coming from or what to do about it; they were not aware of it. All we say is, OK, that can happen; but at least 45, 50, 60 days before it happens, you know it will happen. That is all we are saying. So that you don't get the surprise attacks by somebody who is running so-called issue ads that did not place them under the FEC regulations with respect to supporting that candidate. That is the real world we are faced with. It happened last time. It happened to the tune of $135 million. The least we could do, the very least, is to say at least you ought to know it is coming, first; and No. 2, where it is coming from so you have an idea when you get this last-minute flurry of advertising you are ready to do the best you can to protect yourself against it. Again, I want to commend the Senator for the continued leadership on this very important issue. Senator Snowe mentioned yesterday and today it is the duty of leaders to lead, and that means making some difficult choices in doing the right thing. On the issue, Senator Snowe has been a true leader. Crafting a compromise is often difficult. I thank the Senator from Maine for leading this body to a logical resolution, one which is sensible and one which is so commonsensical it is hard to understand why anybody would be against it, As was discussed yesterday, the basic tenets of the Snowe amendment are boosting disclosure requirements and tightening expenditures of certain funds in the weeks preceding a primary and general election. The amendment strengthens the McCain-Feingold bill in these areas in a reasonable manner. I could not support the McCain-Feingold bill until something was put into that area which is going to be the most used area. It is the first time it was used in the last election and we saw $135 million or more come in to the election. You have to remember that power is what those who are spending money seek. The money is going to follow that group which is most effective in gaining that power. Our job is to know where it comes from. The last Presidential election shows how terrible our means are to trace the money now. This is an opportunity to trace effectively, to know where it is coming from, you have a chance to understand where it came from. The last few election cycles have shown the spending has grown astronomically in two areas that cause me great concern: First, issue ads that have turned into blatant electioneering; second, the unfettered spending by corporations and unions to influence the outcomes of elections. As an example of how this spending has grown, a House Member from Michigan in 1996 faced nearly $2 million in advertisements alone before the fall campaigning season had begun. Campaigning really starts early and then there is a big boost at the end. Early on you want to knock the candidate out before he has a chance to get on the scene, and at the end it is because you know a large percentage of the people who vote really don't pay much attention until the last couple of weeks. The Snowe-Jeffords amendment addresses these areas in a reasonable, equitable, and, last but not least, constitutional way. Mr. President, citizens across this Nation have grown weary of the tenor of campaigns in recent years. This disappointment is reflected in low voter participation and the diminished role of individuals in electing their representatives. Increasing the information available to the electorate will help return the power of this democratic aspect to the people who should have it--the voters. Expanded disclosure will bring daylight to this process. Increased disclosure will rid corruption; more disclosure will protect the public and the candidates. How can we deny our electorate the ability to know the sponsors of electioneering communications? Give the people the information they need to better evaluate those Federal candidates that they will be voting on. Each of us should ask or be fully informed before we vote on a bill or amendment. How can we as Members of Congress stand here and say that the public should not have all the information they need before stepping into the voting booth? Additionally, the disclosure required in the Snowe-Jeffords amendment will help deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of impropriety that many feel pervades our campaign finance system. Armed with this information, voters are guaranteed access to the truth. This change will restore the public's confidence in the election process and their elected representatives. As noted yesterday, the Annenberg Public Policy Center report figured there were somewhere between $135 to $150 million spent during the 1996 elections on so-called issue ads. This is a conservative estimate prepared very specifically not to lead to any exaggeration. The Annenberg report found that nearly 87 percent of these ads mentioned a candidate of office by name, and over 41 percent were seen by the public as pure attack ads. You ought to know who paid for them so we can better judge whether or not to believe them. This is the highest percentage recorded among a group that also included Presidential ads, debates, free time segments, court candidates, and new programs. Clearly, these ads were overtly aimed at electing or defeating targeted candidates, but under current law these ads were not subject to disclosure requirements of any nature. The second part of our amendment considers an area Congress has long had a solid record on: imposing more strenuous spending restrictions on corporations and labor unions. Remember, under the law, these are not given the same freedom of speech rights that individuals are, and rightfully so. Corporations have been banned from electioneering since 1907; unions, since 1947. As the Supreme Court pointed out in United States v. UAW, Congress banned corporate and union contributions in order to ``avoid the deleterious influences on Federal elections resulting from the use of money by those who exercise control over large aggregations of capital.'' Our amendment would ban corporations and unions from using General Treasury funds to fund electioneering communications in the last 60 days of the general election and the last 30 days before a primary. They still have the right to foster and to approve PACs, organizations for their employees or members of the union, to contribute to, in order that they individually, working together in the PACs, can influence the election process. The Snowe amendment takes a reasoned, incremental and constitutional step to address the concerns many of my colleagues have voiced on campaign finance reform proposals. Mr. President, some of our colleagues have expressed constitutional concerns with our amendment. Let me assure Members that we have taken great pains to craft a clear and narrow amendment on this issue in order to pass two critical first amendment doctrines that were at the heart of the Supreme Court's landmark Buckley decision, vagueness and overbreadth. Vagueness could chill free speech if someone who would otherwise speak chose not to because the rules aren't clear and they fear running afoul of the law. We agree that free speech should not be chilled and that is why our rules are very clear. Any sponsor will know with certainty if their ad is an electioneering ad. There would be no question the way we have delineated within the bill. Overbreadth could unintentionally sweep in a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech. Our amendment is so narrow that it easily satisfies the Supreme Court's overbreadth concerns. We have asked the experts to check and give us advice on this. It is not just merely our opinion. We strictly limit our requirements to ads run near an election that identify a candidate--ads plainly intended to convince voters to vote for or against a particular candidate. As the Court declared in Buckley, the governmental interests that justified disclosure of election-related spending are considerably broader and more powerful than those justifying prohibitions or restrictions on election-related spending. Disclosure rules, the Court said, enhance the information available to the voting public. Who can be against that? Disclosure rules, according to the Court, are ``the least restrictive means of curbing evils of campaign ignorance and corruption.'' And our disclosure rules are immensely reasonable. As James Madison said: A popular government without popular information is but a prologue to a tragedy or a farce or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. Mr. President, our amendment will arm the voters in order to sustain our popular Government. I fear that without our amendment, and campaign finance reform generally, the disillusionment of the voting public will grow, along with the scandals, and the participation of our voting public will continue to decline, to the extent that we will be embarrassed. It is close to that point now when, many times, only half of the people even bother to go to the polls. I ask that each Senator carefully consider the beneficial effects that our amendment will have and support us in moving this debate forward.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator from Maine yield on that point?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I have known my good friend from Washington for 30 years, I guess. He is a master of the facts. Let us take a look at one of the glaring examples of that in his dissertation. He takes a case involving the NAACP during the 1950s, when we had huge racial unrest, and the Supreme Court, in examining the case to expose all of the members of the NAACP in the South, said, when you have a paramount interest here of protecting people from bodily harm, then there is no way that you can require them to expose their membership so that you can go beat them up. This is a paraphrase. In Buckley--someone raised that issue in this case--it said no. We are talking about different rights. We are talking about the rights of the public and the sacred right of casting a vote to know all of the information that can be available to them when they make decisions. That is a vital right, a sacred right. So that right overcomes any concern about releasing the names. You have to know. The voting public can't make decisions if they hear all of this coming out of the air at them and they do not know who said it. So I don't think there is any question. But that is just an example of the erudite on constitutional law running through all of this, because I think this is clearly a situation where it is not in violation of the Constitution.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, there is an adage in the legal debate that when the facts and the law are not in your favor you tend to shout loudly and improperly about irrelevant principles of free speech. The opposition has done a masterful job on that. The issue is simple. In an election, does the public have the right to have disclosed in a timely fashion who is paying for an attack ad attacking a candidate? It is a matter of right to the voter and the election process. It is a matter of fairness to the attack candidate. More correctly stated, does the attacker have a constitutional right not to disclose who they are? The answer is a clear no. The public yes, the attacker no.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I understand what my good friend from Kentucky is saying, but I remind everyone what the real issue is, and that is elections. We are talking about a system which has developed over the past couple of years which has seriously imposed upon us unfairness as far as candidates are concerned who find themselves faced with ads, and other areas of expression, to change the election. Why would they spend $135 million to $200 million unless it was successful? Let us get a real-life situation of what we are talking about. I have been in the election process for many, many years, and I know from my own analysis--and I think it probably is carried forward everywhere-- that the critical time in an election to make a change in people's minds is the last couple of weeks. Basically, I find that probably of the electorate, only about 50 percent care enough about elections to even go. That is the average across the country. Of that 50 percent, probably half of them will make up their minds during the last 2 weeks. So you are out and have a well-planned campaign and everything is coming down to the end. You can go and find out what your opponent has to spend, and you can try to be ready to match that. And then whammo, out of the blue comes all these ads that are supposedly issue ads, but they are obviously pointed at positions that are taken by you saying how horrible they are. So these are within the Snowe-Jeffords amendment. What can you do about it? You cannot do anything. You cannot even find out who is running them, unless you are lucky and have an inside source in the TV and radio stations to tell you who it is. You cannot find out. There is no disclosure. The most important part of our amendment is just plain disclosure. If it is far enough in advance, 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election, at least you have time to get ready for it. If you know you are going to get all these ads coming, then you can reorder your priorities of spending. You can say, ``Oh, my God, we have all this coming,'' and you never know until it is all over. You are gone. You lose the election and you didn't know. The opposition comes forth with this barrage and you are totally helpless. What we do is not anywhere near what we would like to do in the sense of protection against this kind of thing, because I am sure they will find ways to get around it and feel they do not have to disclose. But it is so simple. What is wrong with disclosure? What is wrong, if somebody is going to spend a couple of million bucks in the election against you, with at least knowing what is coming and who it is coming from? That is all we are asking for. We don't say you can't do it. Another thing we do, as explained very well by Senator Snowe, is deal in a constitutional way with the money coming from the treasuries of corporations or money coming from the treasuries of unions by restricting that even more so they cannot even intervene within that last 30 to 60 days. But there are other ways, through PACs and other ways the money can be brought into the election process, but it would be disclosed to the FEC and you have the ability to understand what you are going to be facing. I cannot understand why anybody would be against this amendment. It makes such common sense. It doesn't do anything. It doesn't create anything except it requires people to disclose their intentions and also prohibits the use of the treasuries of the corporations and unions. There is nothing very dramatic about that as a change in the law. I really take serious issue with my good friend, the Senator from Kentucky, on the questions he raised. Are these ads effective? Yes, I have talked with consultants, and I know one consultant who ran a lot of these ads. Obviously, what they were trying to do was win an election for their person who they were trying to help. No evidence of connection, but the people who wanted the ads sent the money for this purpose to defeat a candidate, and they felt those ads turned around at least five elections that would not have been turned around if it were not for use of these funds with no way for the poor candidate who is facing it to understand who it is, how much money is going to be spent and where it goes. I want to give real-world situations we are involved with. What is so unfair about being fair and getting full disclosure? I commend my good friend from Maine with whom I have worked very closely. I must say, this amendment is weaker than I would like to see, but I think we have done all we can do under the Constitution. I commend her for the presentation she has given and for her effort to raise the visibility to the Nation of the serious problems we have with these so-called advocacy or issue ads. It has been my pleasure to work with her on this important endeavor, and today the Senate has the opportunity to enact real campaign finance reform. The amendment we offer succeeds where others have failed in bringing the two sides closer to a workable solution. Combined with the underlying McCain-Feingold legislation, this amendment will ensure that all parties are treated equally in the reformed campaign finance structure. As my record has shown, I have long been a supporter of campaign finance reform. I have sponsored a number of initiatives in the past and have worked actively to enact campaign finance reform. I have been reluctant to cosponsor the McCain-Feingold bill this time around because of my concerns in two areas which I have just been discussing. First, issue ads that have turned into blatant electioneering with no meaningful disclosure of the source of the attack; second, the unfettered spending by unions and corporations to influence the outcome of an election, especially close to elections, without the ability to identify the source. Disclosure--how in the world can you be against disclosure? The amendment Senator Snowe and I are proposing strengthens the McCain-Feingold bill in a fair manner. Maybe too fair. That is the only criticism I can find of it. Mr. President, the work that Senator Snowe and I, as well as many other Senators, have done to develop an acceptable compromise is squarely within the goals of those calling for full campaign finance reform. We have been brought to this point by the disillusionment of the electorate. People across this Nation have grown wary of the tenor of campaigns in recent years. This disappointment is reflected in low voter participation and the diminished role of individuals in electing their representatives. Our efforts to reform the financing of campaigns should begin to reinvigorate people to further participate in our democracy. I am ashamed at the voter turnouts across the Nation. I am a little bit less ashamed of Vermont which has one of the highest, but we all should be working to get fuller participation, closer to 60, 70, 80, 90 percent. The 1996 election cycle reinforces the desperate situation we face. During this campaign, more than $135 million was spent by outside groups not associated with the candidates' campaigns. These expenditures indicated to the public that our election laws were not being enforced and the system was out of control. Additionally, recent hearings in both the Senate and the House point to the need for serious reform. Senator Snowe has clearly outlined the content of our amendment. Our proposal boosts disclosure requirements and tightens expenditures of certain funds in the weeks preceding a primary and general election. The amendment provides disclosure of the funding sources for electioneering communications broadcast within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The measure prohibits labor union or corporation treasury funds from being used for these electioneering broadcast ads 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. These two main provisions should strengthen the efforts put forward by the proponents of reform. Of equal importance is what this amendment will not do, and that was gone into in very great detail. In fact, we have so many things we will not do that it sometimes concerns me if we have done enough. The amendment will not restrict printed material nor require the text or a copy of a campaign advertisement to be disclosed. The amendment does not restrict how much money can be spent on ads, nor restrict how much money a group raises. In fact, our amendment clearly protects the constitutional prerogatives while promoting reform in a system badly in need of change. We have taken great care not to violate the important principles of free speech. In developing the amendment, we have reviewed the seminal cases in this area, particularly the Buckley case. The Supreme Court has been most tolerant in the area of limiting corporate and union spending and enhancing disclosure rules. We also worked to make the requirements sufficiently clear and narrow to overcome unconstitutional claims of vagueness and overbreadth. I have long believed in Justice Brandeis' statement that ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' That is what we are looking for here, just a little sunlight on some of the very, very devious types of procedures that are utilized to influence elections. Discloser of electioneering campaign spending will provide the electorate with information to aid voters in evaluating candidates for Federal office. As we have seen in the last few campaign cycles, ads appear on local stations paid for by groups unknown to the public. These ads reference an identified candidate with the result of influencing the voters. Giving the electorate the information required in our amendment will give the public the facts they need to better evaluate the candidates but, more importantly, evaluate what information they are receiving and whether it is biased or where it came from, to be able to at least check where it came from and make sure it did not come from Indonesia or China or some other place. Additionally, this disclosure, or disinfectant, as Justice Brandeis puts it, will also help deter actual corruption and help avoid the appearance of corruption that many feel pervades our campaign finance system. Delivering this information into the public purview will enable candidates, the press, the FEC and interest groups to ensure that Federal campaign finance laws are being obeyed. Our amendment will expose any corruption and help reassure the public that our campaign laws will be followed and enforced. The amendment will also prohibit corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to pay for electioneering communications in a defined period close to an election. By treating both corporations and unions similarly, we extend current regulation cautiously and fairly. This prohibition, coupled with the disclosure requirements, will address many of the concerns my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have raised on campaign finance reform proposals. This provision will help satisfy our goal of creating a fair and equitable campaign finance system. The amendment I am asking my colleagues to support will, hopefully, provide the additional momentum to bring this issue to closure. Although I am optimistic, I am not blind to the uphill battle we face in enacting appropriate change. I am encouraged by the fair and informative and productive debate we have had on campaign reform today. The proposal Senator Snowe and I are offering, built upon the McCain- Feingold legislation, should become law. I cannot conceive of how any legitimate objection can be made to the Snowe-Jeffords amendment. It is a step forward to making sure that elections are fair, that the public knows who it is trying to influence the elections, and that they have the right to find out that information. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be held on Thursday, February 26, 1998, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Health Care Information Confidentiality. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be held on Wednesday, February 25, 1998, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is The Non-School Hours: Mobilizing School and Community Resources. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224- 5375. Committee on Veterans' Affairs

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be held on Tuesday, February 24, 1998, 10:00 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Tobacco Settlement V. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. Committee on Labor and Human Resources

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the students, journalist, coach and business that have been recently recognized for their achievements in women's sports by the University of Vermont Women's Center in collaboration with the YWCA of Vermont as well as the Women's Sports Foundation. The recipients were selected from a long list of nominations based upon their contributions and support for women's athletics. Sports play an integral role in the development of our children and help to bring communities together. By participating in sports, student athletes are exposed to a variety of situations that help to develop the skills they will need to succeed. As such, community support for these programs is of the utmost importance. I am particularly pleased to see that the criteria for these awards included consideration of the students' academic performance, community involvement and leadership qualities. I am thrilled that these awards acknowledge the contributions made by coaches, journalists and local businesses as well. Each plays a critical role in promoting school athletics. Coaches provide students with mentorship while journalists supply the public recognition and businesses contribute financially. Without the assistance of each, Vermont's student athletes would not have the opportunity to excel that they enjoy today. In addition to the awards ceremony, the Professional Programs Division of Continuing Education hosted a teleconference for a number of recognized experts to discuss Title IX funding. Through our efforts in this field, significant progress has been achieved in providing women athletes with improved opportunities and better recognition, as is evident in this year's Olympic games. Once again, I would like to congratulate this year's recipients and wish them luck in their future endeavors. Those recognized include: High School Students Katy Perinea--Middlebury Courtney Swanda--Bennington Margery Bolton--Bennington Anne Dean--Burlington Elizabeth Smith--Burlington Laura Jagielski--Grand Isle Erin Mascolino--Jeffersonville Sara Stanley--Westfield Heather Moylan--Newport Elizabeth Smith--Saint Albans Krista Calano--Saint Albans Amber Atherton--Williamstown Elizabeth Burt--Hyderville Sarah Bourne--Pittsford Alyse Averill--Barre Hilary Goddrich--Northfield Erin Hazen--Richford College Student Aimee Becker--Southern Vermont College Coach Missy Foote--Middlebury Journalist Andy Gardiner--Burlington Free Press Business Howard Bank.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with one principal aim: to put an end to teenage smoking. I am honored to be joined by two other distinguished members of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Collins, and Senator Enzi. By now, we are all familiar with the grim statistics that tell the story of youth smoking in our country--the thousands of children that experiment with tobacco, the thousands that become addicted, and the thousands who will die prematurely as a result. For too long, the federal government has been of little assistance in combating the number one preventable disease in this country. Apart from the efforts of Surgeons General from Luther Terry to C. Everett Koop, and sporadic efforts by Congress, the federal government has barely acknowledged there's a problem. The states, especially my home state of Vermont, have been leaders in the effort to end teenage smoking. And last summer, the proposed settlement by the Attorneys General ignited a whole new debate on this issue by providing us with a template for action. Eight months later, it is easy for us to minimize that accomplishment, but by any fair appraisal the settlement was a tremendously important step. When the tobacco settlement was announced, some people thought it might be only a few months before it would be ratified by Congress. Today, people wonder whether it can be revived by Congress. I am confident that we can and will reach agreement on a national tobacco policy. But I am just as certain that we'll never do so if we pursue a partisan approach. Since the settlement, the Committee on Labor and Human Resources has held four hearings on this subject, and across Capitol Hill dozens of hearings have been held by other committees of jurisdiction. Today we take the next important step in this process, by introducing legislation that I hope will serve as the basis for a broad, bipartisan approach to the three basic public health issues of a national tobacco policy: prevention, safer products, and cessation. If we can achieve a national tobacco policy, it could be the biggest public health breakthrough ever achieved outside a lab. The settlement has been criticized as being too weak by some, too ambitious by others. I agree the settlement has flaws. But I think we must never lose sight of the ultimate goal--what is the best public health approach that we can enact to reduce teen smoking? I am less concerned about exacting the last measure of revenge for the past actions of the tobacco companies than I am about ensuring the future of the children who become addicted every day. We need to keep our priorities straight. It will take a broad, bipartisan consensus to pass tobacco legislation. Right now, that consensus seems entirely absent and is in danger of slipping into partisan grand standing over who loves kids and hates tobacco. That consensus can only come through compromise. There will be many opportunities to derail legislation of this magnitude if it is only supported by a slim majority. If we expect enactment, we must forge broad agreement in the Congress. The legislation we introduce today, called the Preventing Addiction to Smoking Among Teens, or PAST Act, will enact and improve upon the public health provisions of the tobacco settlement. It is not designed to solve every question before us, rather, it addresses the public health issues that are before the Labor Committee. It is no longer feasible for tobacco to escape the same type of regulation we require for foods and medicines. Our bill will give the Food and Drug Administration every bit of authority it needs to regulate tobacco products and their components. The tobacco industry will have to turn over all of its health documents to the FDA. FDA will be able to reduce or eliminate harmful ingredients or require safer technological improvements through informal rulemaking to achieve overall public health benefits. Of course, we will not achieve the public health benefits we seek from mandating safer products if the resulting products are unacceptable to consumers who can't quit smoking. Part of the process for setting these standards will be consideration of just this question. We encourage the development of safer products subject to the same type of scientific review for other FDA regulated products. And FDA can propose, after ten years, the outright prohibition of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco products. But our bill will not permit FDA to ban cigarettes or smokeless tobacco for adult usage on its own. That decision, in my opinion, is one that should be made by Congress, not a single government agency. Our bill adopts a comprehensive approach to preventing teens from smoking, and helping people to quit who are already hooked. And finally, our bill will provide for a coordinated regime to research the many unanswered questions about tobacco, its effects on us, and how to mitigate those effects. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of our bill be included at the end of my remarks. Next week, Senator Gregg and I will hold a hearing in New Hampshire to listen to state and local concerns on tobacco issues within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. And in a month, I hope to have found bipartisan support for my bill and to have moved it through the committee. Finally, I want to note that many of my colleagues are also working on legislation to help move the discussion forward, and there are many good ideas that deserve consideration. In particular, I look forward to working with Senator Enzi on his proposal to establish a fund supported by tobacco industry resources. This fund would be a sustainable way to provide compensation for treating tobacco-related diseases, and could also be used to pay for some of the prevention proposals I have outlined in my bill Even though we have much work to do before we decide the overall architecture of tobacco policy, it is not at all too soon to begin pouring the foundation. As in New England, we have a short building season. If we are to clear the committees, combine our approaches, clear the floor and conference, we must act now. I urge my colleagues to give me their support, and greatly appreciate those who have already done so. We need to make teen smoking a thing of the past. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation with my colleague Senator Kennedy that will improve the implementation of the interim payment system to home health agencies established under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It is imperative that we protect access to care for our most vulnerable populations--the elderly and the disabled. While I support the move to a prospective payment system for home care under the Balanced Budget Act, the payment system designed for the interim period is proving to be an intolerable burden for the home health agencies that serve Vermont's Medicare beneficiaries. This bill would do two things to remove the current threat to quality home care. First, the bill delays the implementation of the interim payment system for one year. This will minimize its impact on agencies as a prospective payment system is put in place. Second, the base year for establishing per patient limits will shift from the current designation of fiscal year 1994, to either fiscal or calendar year 1995. Care rendered in 1995 is a better reflection of the current mix of patients--and it captures the deterrent effect of Operation Restore Trust on fraud and abuse in areas where cost was inflated. My own State of Vermont is a good example of how the health care system can work to provide for high quality care for Medicare beneficiaries. Home health agencies are a critical link in the kind of health system that extends care over a continuum of options and settings. New technology and advances in medical practice permit hospitals to discharge patients earlier. They give persons suffering with acute or chronic illness the opportunity to receive care and live their lives in familiar surroundings. Time and time again, Vermont's home health agencies have proven their value by providing quality, cost-effective services to these patients. Yet time and again, federal policy seems to ensure that their good deeds should go punished. Furthermore, Vermont home health agencies have been able to provide quality service while consistently maintaining the lowest per capital reimbursement rates for home care in the country. The average Medicare payment per patient in Vermont is approximately $3,000 per year, one third lower than the national average, and far less than in high costs states where payments rise as high as $7,900 per patient per year. Now, Vermont agencies face a interim payment system established under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that is based on historical cost. Instead of being rewarded for their good work, Vermont agencies will have a much lower per patient limit under Medicare than agencies in high cost areas. According to a January 7 article in the Wall Street Journal, Vermont's 13 agencies could lose over $2 million next year by continuing to do what they always have done--providing efficient and essential services. Since the impact of the interim payment system became apparent, I have been in continuous contact with the Vermont Assembly of Home Health Agencies; the Vermont Agency of Human Services; and directors, trustees, employees, and patients of nearly every home health agency in the state. I firmly believe we must act to guard the health and welfare of a particularly vulnerable segment of the population. This legislation will help ensure that our home health care infrastructure is able to continue serving the patients that rely upon them.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with one principal aim: to put an end to teenage smoking. I am honored to be joined by two other distinguished members of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Collins, and Senator Enzi. By now, we are all familiar with the grim statistics that tell the story of youth smoking in our country--the thousands of children that experiment with tobacco, the thousands that become addicted, and the thousands who will die prematurely as a result. For too long, the federal government has been of little assistance in combating the number one preventable disease in this country. Apart from the efforts of Surgeons General from Luther Terry to C. Everett Koop, and sporadic efforts by Congress, the federal government has barely acknowledged there's a problem. The states, especially my home state of Vermont, have been leaders in the effort to end teenage smoking. And last summer, the proposed settlement by the Attorneys General ignited a whole new debate on this issue by providing us with a template for action. Eight months later, it is easy for us to minimize that accomplishment, but by any fair appraisal the settlement was a tremendously important step. When the tobacco settlement was announced, some people thought it might be only a few months before it would be ratified by Congress. Today, people wonder whether it can be revived by Congress. I am confident that we can and will reach agreement on a national tobacco policy. But I am just as certain that we'll never do so if we pursue a partisan approach. Since the settlement, the Committee on Labor and Human Resources has held four hearings on this subject, and across Capitol Hill dozens of hearings have been held by other committees of jurisdiction. Today we take the next important step in this process, by introducing legislation that I hope will serve as the basis for a broad, bipartisan approach to the three basic public health issues of a national tobacco policy: prevention, safer products, and cessation. If we can achieve a national tobacco policy, it could be the biggest public health breakthrough ever achieved outside a lab. The settlement has been criticized as being too weak by some, too ambitious by others. I agree the settlement has flaws. But I think we must never lose sight of the ultimate goal--what is the best public health approach that we can enact to reduce teen smoking? I am less concerned about exacting the last measure of revenge for the past actions of the tobacco companies than I am about ensuring the future of the children who become addicted every day. We need to keep our priorities straight. It will take a broad, bipartisan consensus to pass tobacco legislation. Right now, that consensus seems entirely absent and is in danger of slipping into partisan grand standing over who loves kids and hates tobacco. That consensus can only come through compromise. There will be many opportunities to derail legislation of this magnitude if it is only supported by a slim majority. If we expect enactment, we must forge broad agreement in the Congress. The legislation we introduce today, called the Preventing Addiction to Smoking Among Teens, or PAST Act, will enact and improve upon the public health provisions of the tobacco settlement. It is not designed to solve every question before us, rather, it addresses the public health issues that are before the Labor Committee. It is no longer feasible for tobacco to escape the same type of regulation we require for foods and medicines. Our bill will give the Food and Drug Administration every bit of authority it needs to regulate tobacco products and their components. The tobacco industry will have to turn over all of its health documents to the FDA. FDA will be able to reduce or eliminate harmful ingredients or require safer technological improvements through informal rulemaking to achieve overall public health benefits. Of course, we will not achieve the public health benefits we seek from mandating safer products if the resulting products are unacceptable to consumers who can't quit smoking. Part of the process for setting these standards will be consideration of just this question. We encourage the development of safer products subject to the same type of scientific review for other FDA regulated products. And FDA can propose, after ten years, the outright prohibition of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco products. But our bill will not permit FDA to ban cigarettes or smokeless tobacco for adult usage on its own. That decision, in my opinion, is one that should be made by Congress, not a single government agency. Our bill adopts a comprehensive approach to preventing teens from smoking, and helping people to quit who are already hooked. And finally, our bill will provide for a coordinated regime to research the many unanswered questions about tobacco, its effects on us, and how to mitigate those effects. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of our bill be included at the end of my remarks. Next week, Senator Gregg and I will hold a hearing in New Hampshire to listen to state and local concerns on tobacco issues within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. And in a month, I hope to have found bipartisan support for my bill and to have moved it through the committee. Finally, I want to note that many of my colleagues are also working on legislation to help move the discussion forward, and there are many good ideas that deserve consideration. In particular, I look forward to working with Senator Enzi on his proposal to establish a fund supported by tobacco industry resources. This fund would be a sustainable way to provide compensation for treating tobacco-related diseases, and could also be used to pay for some of the prevention proposals I have outlined in my bill Even though we have much work to do before we decide the overall architecture of tobacco policy, it is not at all too soon to begin pouring the foundation. As in New England, we have a short building season. If we are to clear the committees, combine our approaches, clear the floor and conference, we must act now. I urge my colleagues to give me their support, and greatly appreciate those who have already done so. We need to make teen smoking a thing of the past. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation with my colleague Senator Kennedy that will improve the implementation of the interim payment system to home health agencies established under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It is imperative that we protect access to care for our most vulnerable populations--the elderly and the disabled. While I support the move to a prospective payment system for home care under the Balanced Budget Act, the payment system designed for the interim period is proving to be an intolerable burden for the home health agencies that serve Vermont's Medicare beneficiaries. This bill would do two things to remove the current threat to quality home care. First, the bill delays the implementation of the interim payment system for one year. This will minimize its impact on agencies as a prospective payment system is put in place. Second, the base year for establishing per patient limits will shift from the current designation of fiscal year 1994, to either fiscal or calendar year 1995. Care rendered in 1995 is a better reflection of the current mix of patients--and it captures the deterrent effect of Operation Restore Trust on fraud and abuse in areas where cost was inflated. My own State of Vermont is a good example of how the health care system can work to provide for high quality care for Medicare beneficiaries. Home health agencies are a critical link in the kind of health system that extends care over a continuum of options and settings. New technology and advances in medical practice permit hospitals to discharge patients earlier. They give persons suffering with acute or chronic illness the opportunity to receive care and live their lives in familiar surroundings. Time and time again, Vermont's home health agencies have proven their value by providing quality, cost-effective services to these patients. Yet time and again, federal policy seems to ensure that their good deeds should go punished. Furthermore, Vermont home health agencies have been able to provide quality service while consistently maintaining the lowest per capital reimbursement rates for home care in the country. The average Medicare payment per patient in Vermont is approximately $3,000 per year, one third lower than the national average, and far less than in high costs states where payments rise as high as $7,900 per patient per year. Now, Vermont agencies face a interim payment system established under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that is based on historical cost. Instead of being rewarded for their good work, Vermont agencies will have a much lower per patient limit under Medicare than agencies in high cost areas. According to a January 7 article in the Wall Street Journal, Vermont's 13 agencies could lose over $2 million next year by continuing to do what they always have done--providing efficient and essential services. Since the impact of the interim payment system became apparent, I have been in continuous contact with the Vermont Assembly of Home Health Agencies; the Vermont Agency of Human Services; and directors, trustees, employees, and patients of nearly every home health agency in the state. I firmly believe we must act to guard the health and welfare of a particularly vulnerable segment of the population. This legislation will help ensure that our home health care infrastructure is able to continue serving the patients that rely upon them.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been requested?

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first I want to thank my good friend for allowing me to do this. Mr. President, this is one of the relatively few times in the Senate when we have had a cloture motion on a nomination. I want to remind everyone of the fine, fine man that we are voting on here today. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture, and then to confirm Dr. Satcher. When we opened this debate last week, I stated that Dr. Satcher's record of service to the people of the United States was exemplary. I noted that his character and integrity were absolutely without blemish. Nothing has been said over the past two days that has challenged these assertions. Not even Dr. Satcher's critics question his professional qualifications to serve in the positions for which he has been nominated. Senators Frist and Thompson, and others, have already spoken eloquently about Dr. Satcher's commitment and integrity. They described the unprecedented support Dr. Satcher enjoys within the medical community, the public health community, and the research community. They have also described firsthand their own experiences working with the nominee to address public health issues in the State of Tennessee. I wish to associate myself with their remarks and to urge my colleagues to support Dr. Satcher's nomination. I know of no reason why we should not vote for cloture, and then support Dr. Satcher. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time, if any.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be held on Thursday, February 12, 1998, 10:00 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Education of the Deaf Act. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on small business