Jim Jeffords

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 Tuesday, February 10, 1998, 10:00 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Tobacco Settlement IV. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. subcommittee on public health and safety

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be held on Wednesday, February 11, 1998, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR). For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on labor and human resources

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 4, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. to hold an open hearing.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, February 4, 1998 beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

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 Wednesday, February 4, 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 that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 4, 1998, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 4, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of Donald J. Barry to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior; and Margaret Hornbeck Greene to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 4, 1998, at 10:00 a.m. in open session, to consider the nomination of General Joseph W. Ralston, USAF, for reappointment as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his very excellent words about the nominee, Dr. Satcher, as we work in order to, hopefully, bring about his confirmation. I would like to make a few comments while we wait and see if someone else is ready to talk. I think it is important to briefly go through, and I am going to do it again another time with perhaps a little visual presentation of what we are talking about when we talk about the AZT trials and the responsibility of Dr. Satcher and Dr. Varmus, who is the head of NIH. We are talking about trials which were designed in Africa, by Africans, for Africans, after the review of many boards and groups that were working toward a solution to this problem. We are not talking about trials in the United States. Those of you who have visited Africa know the incredible AIDS epidemic that is going on in those nations. We think we have a problem here. The problems in the African nations where there is some evidence that the AIDS epidemic started--there are millions of pregnant women who are in danger of transmitting HIV to their children--are unimaginable. The question was, how do you handle that situation? It was decided by doctors and health officials in the host countries that they had to design some sort of a treatment protocol where they would know what would happen when they administered certain doses of drugs. So what they did--out of the huge pool of HIV infected pregnant women--was invite a group of them to participate in this trial. They invited these women--who were not going to receive any treatment for their HIV infection--and they said to them that, ``We would like you, if you are willing, to participate in our trial; some of you will get medicine which might help your baby, some of you will receive a sugar pill. You may stop participating in this trial anytime you want. The only way we can determine whether the medicine is safe for you and your baby, however, is to do it in this way.'' So it is not a question of whether these HIV infected pregnant women had an alternative to go out and get help someplace else. They did not. Participation in this trial was the best hope for getting any treatment that might prevent them from giving HIV to their babies. Not only that, most of these women were not in a situation, for instance, where they could have used the 076 regimen even if it had been made available as part of the drug trial. They could not buy infant formula; thus, they ended up having to nurse anyway. The 076 regimen requires that women give up nursing. There are a lot of differences--differences in culture and differences in circumstances--between here and in Africa. The host countries and the international organizations involved discussed all of these issues and finally agreed on this regimen for testing. They did so because they believed it provided the greatest hope for their own people. Now they get criticized because these pregnant women who would never have gotten any help were invited to participate in a trial where they might get some help. They are criticized for doing this, because the participants didn't know whether they would receive the medicine or the sugar pill. It is a difficult situation, but it can be misleading if you don't understand the dynamics of the situation which the various countries were facing. I hope as we go forward to make an additional point to my colleagues--and I am going to try to explain this a little more articulately and specifically later. The heads of CDC and NIH were separated a long, long ways from what was going on, and they had all sorts of review boards and organizations approving this regimen. It is not like Dr. Satcher and Dr. Varmus were over there in Africa conducting these trials. It was something that Dr. Satcher and Dr. Varmus have responsibility for as leaders of CDC and NIH, but certainly the design was something which came about by virtue of the many U.S. and international organizations trying to figure out how to take care of this terrible epidemic and how to, hopefully, save as many of the young babies as they can from being infected. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first, I commend the senior Senator from Virginia for his very helpful remarks. I am a very strong believer that we must take immediate action on ISTEA. I think it is critical for the Nation, especially in my State, which as the Senator pointed out, those of us in the northern tier probably have about the shortest season, along the State of Maine and the top of New Hampshire. So we are desperate for action.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to my friend from Missouri. I was disturbed about these matters, as he was, when I initially looked into the background of Dr. Satcher. These were fully investigated. They were answered in detail by the nominee. The record of those requests, involvement in these particular issues--the two most dramatic ones being perhaps the so-called free needles, clean needles, and also the AZT trials--the answers to those interrogatories are a matter of record and available to all Senators. In addition to that, they are on the Internet so the public can freely look into them. Let me very briefly give you an idea of the nature of the situation. The Senator referred to the New England Journal of Medicine. That would give you considerable credibility. But you should know that two members of the editorial board who were familiar with the AZT trials, which were in Africa, and were familiar with the methodology used resigned from the board as a result of that journal editorial. They understood. And I will go into length later on these trials, but I do not desire to do so now. Also, the question of needles and drugs is a matter of AIDS as well, AIDS prevention, and therefore when you understand fully the issue you will understand that this is a defensible way to prevent the spread of AIDS. But with that brief discussion, I will yield to my good friend who has been so very helpful on my committee, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for a well-documented, very thorough and careful examination of the nominee. I now yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts, my esteemed ranking member.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that an Executive Session of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be held on Wednesday, February 4, 1998, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The Committee will consider S. 1579, Rehabilitation Act amendments. 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. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for a period of time not to exceed 5 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, winter is only half over, and even though there has been some stormy weather here in the Nation's Capital, sections of the Northeast experienced the ice storm of the century, maybe the millennium, earlier this month. For 2 days straight, freezing rain, snow and sleet battered the Champlain Valley of Vermont, upstate New York and parts of New Hampshire, Maine and the Province of Quebec. Tens of thousands of trees buckled and shattered under the stress and weight of several inches of ice that coated their branches. Power lines were ripped down by falling branches and the weight of the ice, leaving hundreds of thousands of people without electricity for days and even weeks. In fact, some are still without electricity. Roads were covered with ice and rivers swelled and overflowed with heavy rain. The crippling ice storm brought activity in the area to a grinding halt. Just a few days after the storm, Senator Leahy and I visited the hardest hit areas of Vermont. The storm's damages were the worst I have ever seen. In the Burlington area, 20 to 25 percent of the trees in that city were toppled or must be chopped down. Another 25 percent were damaged. The storm also destroyed sugar bushes and dropped trees across hiking trails and snowmobile trails. Mr. President, local and State emergency officials acted quickly to help their fellow Vermonters and to assess the damage. Soon after the storm, the President declared six Vermont counties a disaster. The response from FEMA was impressive, and I thank Director James Witt for standing behind Vermont. Vermonters rallied, with the help of the National Guard, led by Adjutant General Martha Rainville, to help themselves and their neighbors. As the temperatures dropped below zero days after the storm, with thousands still without power, volunteer firefighters, police officers and National Guard troops and every able-bodied citizen came together working day and night to help feed, heat and care for the people in their community. Hardest hit were dairy farmers. Already struggling to make ends meet due to low milk prices, the ice storm left farms without power to milk their cows. Cows need to be milked twice a day every day. At times, cows went for hours and even days without being milked. Fortunately one of the missions of the National Guard was to get power generators to farms and to keep them running so that farmers could milk their cows and keep their milk cool and preserve the health of the cows. One unit of the National Guard became known as the ``Mobile Milking Team''--or the MMT, as is usual in the military sector to have acronyms--by going farm to farm with their generators. However, despite the efforts to bring generators to farmers, for many the damage was already done. Because the margins are already so close for many farmers, the loss of a single milk check could mean staying in business or selling out. Mr. President, the organized and volunteer responses to this disaster were incredible. The Vermont Petroleum Association, in conjunction with Mobile Oil and R.L. Vallee Petroleum, came to the aid of the farmers and the homeowners who were relying on their generators to run their businesses and to heat their homes by graciously donating 8,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Stories of Vermonters helping Vermonters were commonly told throughout the disaster counties in the State. Utility companies worked long hours in the cold to help clear debris and restore power. Lines men and women came from as far away as Hawaii to help repair the damage. Let me tell you, the ones from Hawaii had an adventure they will never forget. Vermonters also helped their neighbors to the north just across the Canadian border. Two weeks after the storm first hit, over 700,000 citizens in the Providence of Quebec were still without power and over 30,000 people were relying on meals from local food shelves. I teamed up with Cabot Creamery and H.P. Hood to help get 20,000 pounds of cheddar cheese, yogurt, and cottage cheese and 1,000 cases of water so necessary through the many restrictions at the border to help feed the Canadians who were driven from their homes. Many Vermonters helped by sending firewood and heating oil. Thousands of cords of wood were shipped over. Mr. President, the citizens and trees of Vermont as well as upstate New York, Maine and New Hampshire have suffered enough from this storm. Local and State assistance will help communities and individuals get back on their feet. But Federal relief is needed to ensure that the disaster areas are not overwhelmed by their recovery. I know I speak for Senator Leahy and my colleagues from New York, Maine and New Hampshire when I say we all will do what we can to help. We look forward to the coming spring. But before the arrival of warm weather, months of hard work to restore Vermont to its pristine beauty is needed. And we will all be helping, I assure you. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators DeWine, Kennedy, Wellstone, Harkin, Frist, Collins, Chafee, and Reed in introducing the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998. We began the process of drafting this bipartisan, consensus-based legislation shortly after completing the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Just as we sought the assistance of the disability community and professionals who serve individuals with disabilities in determining the direction we took in drafting the IDEA legislation, so we did with this bill. Just as we welcomed the assistance of the Administration in drafting the IDEA legislation, so we did with this bill. As a result, this legislation will open up more employment opportunities to individuals with disabilities. It will also provide State vocational rehabilitation agencies and others who provide employment-related assistance to individuals with disabilities with the tools they need to provide appropriate, timely help to individuals with disabilities who want to work. The combination of the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA and this reauthorization brings us closer to a seamless system in which parents of children with disabilities will envision and expect greater opportunities for their children to have productive and satisfying lives as adults. The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1997 will increase opportunities for individuals with disabilities to prepare for, secure, maintain, and regain employment by linking vocational rehabilitation services to those services that are available under current State workforce systems and those that will be available under the Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1997. It will simplify access to vocational rehabilitation services and streamline the administration of the vocational rehabilitation program. It makes additional improvements in discretionary programs related to personnel training, research, and demonstration projects and consumer-controlled Centers for Independent Living. It provides greater access to information technology. The reauthorization will extend through fiscal year 2004. The bill includes extensive links between vocational rehabilitation agencies and State workforce systems. For example, amendments related to linkage are found throughout the bill in sections pertaining to the findings and purposes of the legislation, definitions, program administration, reports, information dissemination, and State plan requirements, including those concerning data reporting. Complementary and parallel provisions to promote linkage between vocational rehabilitation agencies and State workforce systems also are included in the Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1997. The bill makes important changes in title I of the Act. The State plan requirements have been rewritten to simplify administration of the vocational rehabilitation program and reinforce its intent, helping individuals secure employment. The amendments reduce the 36 State plan requirements in current law to 24 and require the submission of one State plan, with amendments thereafter under certain circumstances. The bill allows, when a State is operating under an order of selection, for core services to be available to individuals with disabilities who do not meet a State's criteria for full services from the vocational rehabilitation agency. The legislation gives vocational rehabilitation agencies the ability to secure financial support from other entities who could or should pay for certain services needed by an individual with a disability, who is being assisted by the vocational rehabilitation agency to prepare for or secure a job. The bill requires State vocational rehabilitation agencies and State Rehabilitation Councils to jointly develop and conduct a comprehensive needs assessment every three years. Based on such an assessment, they will annually set and report on progress in achieving employment goals set for individuals with disability. The bill simplifies procedures for establishing eligibility, by requiring consideration of existing evaluating information in determining an individual's eligibility for vocational rehabilitation services. The bill strengthens eligible individuals' roles in developing their individualized rehabilitation employment plans. Such individuals will be given greater flexibility in how they develop their plans. The amendments give all States dollars for inservice training, and State allotments for training dollars will increase with increases in the Consumer Price Index. The bill requires that voluntary mediation be available for resolving disputes between vocational rehabilitation agencies and individuals with disabilities. The bill selectively amends other titles in the Rehabilitation Act. Title II, which authorizes the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, is amended to require that all funding priorities of the Institute be derived from a five-year plan that will be subjected to public comment and then submitted to Congress. The bill expands the authority of the Institute to allow funding of initiatives related to the quality assurance of assistive technology and the effectiveness of alternative medicine when used to treat individuals with disabilities. The legislation streamlines and updates title III of the Act, which authorizes training and demonstration activities, by clearly delineating funding priorities, simplifying the notification of interested parties about upcoming grant opportunities, and permitting funding for training of personnel in one-stop centers so that they will be more able to appropriately and effectively assist individuals with disabilities seeking employment-related assistance through such centers. With guidance from Senator Dodd, we strengthened the provisions in title V of the Act pertaining to the accessibility of electronic and information technology for individuals with disabilities by designating that the Access Board to write regulations and by requiring the Office of Management and Budget to oversee Federal agencies' compliance with such regulations. The legislation amends title VI of the Act by adding a new initiative, Projects in Telecommuting and Self-Employment for Individuals with Disabilities, and by permitting Projects with Industry to assist eligible individuals without waiting for referrals or eligibility status determinations from vocational rehabilitation agencies and to provide training and/or placement services. These amendments build on and complement those that were enacted in 1992. The 1992 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act had a significant, positive effect in my State, Vermont. There, one out of every eight residents is disabled. The Division of Vocational Rehabilitation has enabled many Vermonters with disabilities to exercise the choices the 1992 amendments triggered, to become employed, and to live successfully in their communities. In 1996, Vermont's vocational rehabilitation program provided an array of services to almost 5,000 Vermonters, while directly assisting 850 individuals with disabilities to become successfully employed. The benefits of Vermont's efforts are many. Most important is the fact that Vermont consumers of vocational rehabilitation services who secure employment enjoy an average increase in income exceeding $8,000 per year. Seventy-three percent of these individuals enter the workforce earning more than minimum wage. Seventy-eight percent of those Vermonters who were assisted by the Vermont Division of Rehabilitation in 1996 remain employed today. In addition, the Vermont Consumer Choice Project, made possible by the 1992 amendments, has allowed my State to create organizational structures, policies and practices that have resulted in a greater degree of informed choice for individuals seeking and receiving vocational rehabilitation services. The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 truly reflect a team effort by committed Senators, their staff, Federal officials, individuals with disabilities, rehabilitation professionals and others who know through experience that for individuals with disabilities, as for other individuals, having a job and liking it are the bottom line. Through these amendments we have secured and extended that bottom line for individuals with disabilities--more jobs, better jobs--into the next century.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators DeWine, Kennedy, Wellstone, Harkin, Frist, Collins, Chafee, and Reed in introducing the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998. We began the process of drafting this bipartisan, consensus-based legislation shortly after completing the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Just as we sought the assistance of the disability community and professionals who serve individuals with disabilities in determining the direction we took in drafting the IDEA legislation, so we did with this bill. Just as we welcomed the assistance of the Administration in drafting the IDEA legislation, so we did with this bill. As a result, this legislation will open up more employment opportunities to individuals with disabilities. It will also provide State vocational rehabilitation agencies and others who provide employment-related assistance to individuals with disabilities with the tools they need to provide appropriate, timely help to individuals with disabilities who want to work. The combination of the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA and this reauthorization brings us closer to a seamless system in which parents of children with disabilities will envision and expect greater opportunities for their children to have productive and satisfying lives as adults. The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1997 will increase opportunities for individuals with disabilities to prepare for, secure, maintain, and regain employment by linking vocational rehabilitation services to those services that are available under current State workforce systems and those that will be available under the Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1997. It will simplify access to vocational rehabilitation services and streamline the administration of the vocational rehabilitation program. It makes additional improvements in discretionary programs related to personnel training, research, and demonstration projects and consumer-controlled Centers for Independent Living. It provides greater access to information technology. The reauthorization will extend through fiscal year 2004. The bill includes extensive links between vocational rehabilitation agencies and State workforce systems. For example, amendments related to linkage are found throughout the bill in sections pertaining to the findings and purposes of the legislation, definitions, program administration, reports, information dissemination, and State plan requirements, including those concerning data reporting. Complementary and parallel provisions to promote linkage between vocational rehabilitation agencies and State workforce systems also are included in the Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1997. The bill makes important changes in title I of the Act. The State plan requirements have been rewritten to simplify administration of the vocational rehabilitation program and reinforce its intent, helping individuals secure employment. The amendments reduce the 36 State plan requirements in current law to 24 and require the submission of one State plan, with amendments thereafter under certain circumstances. The bill allows, when a State is operating under an order of selection, for core services to be available to individuals with disabilities who do not meet a State's criteria for full services from the vocational rehabilitation agency. The legislation gives vocational rehabilitation agencies the ability to secure financial support from other entities who could or should pay for certain services needed by an individual with a disability, who is being assisted by the vocational rehabilitation agency to prepare for or secure a job. The bill requires State vocational rehabilitation agencies and State Rehabilitation Councils to jointly develop and conduct a comprehensive needs assessment every three years. Based on such an assessment, they will annually set and report on progress in achieving employment goals set for individuals with disability. The bill simplifies procedures for establishing eligibility, by requiring consideration of existing evaluating information in determining an individual's eligibility for vocational rehabilitation services. The bill strengthens eligible individuals' roles in developing their individualized rehabilitation employment plans. Such individuals will be given greater flexibility in how they develop their plans. The amendments give all States dollars for inservice training, and State allotments for training dollars will increase with increases in the Consumer Price Index. The bill requires that voluntary mediation be available for resolving disputes between vocational rehabilitation agencies and individuals with disabilities. The bill selectively amends other titles in the Rehabilitation Act. Title II, which authorizes the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, is amended to require that all funding priorities of the Institute be derived from a five-year plan that will be subjected to public comment and then submitted to Congress. The bill expands the authority of the Institute to allow funding of initiatives related to the quality assurance of assistive technology and the effectiveness of alternative medicine when used to treat individuals with disabilities. The legislation streamlines and updates title III of the Act, which authorizes training and demonstration activities, by clearly delineating funding priorities, simplifying the notification of interested parties about upcoming grant opportunities, and permitting funding for training of personnel in one-stop centers so that they will be more able to appropriately and effectively assist individuals with disabilities seeking employment-related assistance through such centers. With guidance from Senator Dodd, we strengthened the provisions in title V of the Act pertaining to the accessibility of electronic and information technology for individuals with disabilities by designating that the Access Board to write regulations and by requiring the Office of Management and Budget to oversee Federal agencies' compliance with such regulations. The legislation amends title VI of the Act by adding a new initiative, Projects in Telecommuting and Self-Employment for Individuals with Disabilities, and by permitting Projects with Industry to assist eligible individuals without waiting for referrals or eligibility status determinations from vocational rehabilitation agencies and to provide training and/or placement services. These amendments build on and complement those that were enacted in 1992. The 1992 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act had a significant, positive effect in my State, Vermont. There, one out of every eight residents is disabled. The Division of Vocational Rehabilitation has enabled many Vermonters with disabilities to exercise the choices the 1992 amendments triggered, to become employed, and to live successfully in their communities. In 1996, Vermont's vocational rehabilitation program provided an array of services to almost 5,000 Vermonters, while directly assisting 850 individuals with disabilities to become successfully employed. The benefits of Vermont's efforts are many. Most important is the fact that Vermont consumers of vocational rehabilitation services who secure employment enjoy an average increase in income exceeding $8,000 per year. Seventy-three percent of these individuals enter the workforce earning more than minimum wage. Seventy-eight percent of those Vermonters who were assisted by the Vermont Division of Rehabilitation in 1996 remain employed today. In addition, the Vermont Consumer Choice Project, made possible by the 1992 amendments, has allowed my State to create organizational structures, policies and practices that have resulted in a greater degree of informed choice for individuals seeking and receiving vocational rehabilitation services. The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 truly reflect a team effort by committed Senators, their staff, Federal officials, individuals with disabilities, rehabilitation professionals and others who know through experience that for individuals with disabilities, as for other individuals, having a job and liking it are the bottom line. Through these amendments we have secured and extended that bottom line for individuals with disabilities--more jobs, better jobs--into the next century.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend and great Vermonter, Herbert Cohen. Herbert died unexpectedly on July 27, 1997 at the age of 67. A respected entrepreneur in Rutland, Herbert owned and operated Vermont Contract Furnishings along with his wife Sandy. His business focused on interior designs for the condominium and vacation home markets. Accordingly, he was selected to provide these services for the 1980 Winter Olympic Games in Lake Placid. Herbert was a member of the board for Rutland's Regional Medical Center and was selected to act as president for the local Chamber of Commerce. In recognition of his outstanding achievements and dedication to the people of Vermont, Herbert was named ``Citizen of the Year'' in 1987. Herbert played an integral role in Rutland's revitalization. Through his efforts in restoring one of the areas most prominent storefronts, Herbert has left a lasting impression upon residents and visitors alike that will be slow to fade. Mr. President, I would like to extend my condolences to his family and friends.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on November 9 the Senate adopted Conference Report 105-399, that accompanied S. 830, the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997. This legislation puts into place long-needed reforms in FDA's regulatory procedures and also reauthorizes the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 [PDUFA] for an additional 5 years. The original PDUFA has brought faster reviews of drug applications. By all accounts the success is due to the underlying collaboration and partnership between FDA and the developers of innovative new medicines in using the fees paid by industry to bring the necessary review resources to bear on applications for new drugs. The 1992 act did not set the performance goals for activities funded by user fees into the law. Rather, these performance goals were set forth in a side-letter from the administration to the chairs and ranking members of the House Commerce and Senate Labor and Human Resources committees. These performance goals in the side-letter have stood the test of time--FDA has honored and met these goals as if they were in statute. Based on that experience, the Congress has agreed to use this approach again in establishing the performance goals for drug reviews funded by user fees over the next 5 years. Today, I am submitting for the Record a letter addressed to me and signed by Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna E. Shalala, dated November 12, 1997. This letter specifies the performance goals for the use of PDUFA fees for fiscal years 1998 through 2002. These goals, which were agreed to at the conclusion of negotiations between FDA officials and pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry representatives, are those referred to in section 101(4) of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997. Mr. President, it is my hope that the next 5 years will see reductions in the drug development time, as well as further reductions in the time taken to actual review an applications. The letter follows: The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, November 12, 1997. Hon. James M. Jeffords, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: As you are aware, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 (PDUFA) expired at the end of Fiscal Year 1997. Under PDUFA, the additional revenues generated from fees paid by the pharmaceutical and biological prescription drug industries have been used to expedite the prescription drug review and approval process, in accordance with performance goals that were developed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in consultation with the industries. To date, FDA has met or exceeded the review performance goals agreed to in 1992, and is reviewing over 90 percent of priority drug applications in 6 months and standard drug applications in 12 months. FDA has worked with representatives of the pharmaceutical and biological prescription drug industries, and the staff of your Committee, to develop a reauthorization proposal for PDUFA that would build upon and enhance the success of the original program. Title I, Subtitle A of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, S. 830, as passed by the House and Senate on November 9, 1997, reflects the fee mechanisms developed in these discussions. The performance goals referenced in Section 101(4) are specified in the enclosure of this letter, entitled ``PDUFA Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures.'' I believe they represent a realistic projection of what FDA can accomplish with industry cooperation and the additional resources identified in the bill. This letter and the enclosed goals document pertain only to Title I, Subtitle A (Fees Related to Drugs) of S. 830, the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997. OMB has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of these views from the standpoint of the Administration's program. We appreciate the support of you and your staff, the assistance of other Members of the Committee, and that of the Appropriations Committees, in the reauthorization of this vital program. Sincerely, Donna E. Shalala. Enclosure. PDUFA Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures The performance goals and procedures of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), as agreed to under the reauthorization of the prescription drug user fee program in the ``Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997,'' are summarized as follows: I. five-year review performance goals Fiscal year 1998 1. Review and act on 90 percent of standard original New Drug Application (NDAs) and Product License Applications (PLAs)/Biologic License Applications (BLAs) filed during fiscal year 1998 within 12 months of receipt. 2. Review and act on 90 percent of priority original NDA and PLA/BLA submissions filed during fiscal year 1998 within 6 months of receipt. 3. Review and act on 90 percent of standard efficacy supplements filed during fiscal year 1998 within 12 months of receipt. 4. Review and act on 90 percent of priority efficacy supplements filed during fiscal year 1998 within 6 months of receipt. 5. Review and act on 90 percent of manufacturing supplements filed during fiscal year 1998 within 6 months of receipt. 6. Review and act on 90 percent of all resubmitted original applications filed during the fiscal year 1998 within 6 months of receipt, and review and act on 30 percent of Class 1 resubmitted original applications within 2 months of receipt. Fiscal year 1999 1. Review and act on 90 percent of standard original NDA and PLA/BLA submissions filed during fiscal year 1999 within 12 months of receipt and review and act on 30 percent within 10 months of recept. 2. Review and act on 90 percent of priority original NDA and PLA/BLA submissions filed during fiscal year 1999 within 6 months of receipt. 3. Review and act on 90 percent of standard efficacy supplements filed during fiscal year 1999 within 12 months of receipt and review and act on 30 percent within 10 months of receipt. 4. Review and act on 90 percent of priority efficacy supplements filed during fiscal year 1999 within 6 months of receipt. 5. Review and Act on 90 percent of manufacturing supplements filed during fiscal year 1999 within 6 months of receipt and review and act on 30 percent of manufacturing supplements requiring prior approval within 4 months of receipt. 6. Review and act on 90 percent of Class 1 resubmitted original applications filed during fiscal year 1999 within 4 months of receipt and review and act on 50 percent within 2 months of receipt. 7. Review and act on 90 percent of Class 2 resubmitted original applications filed during fiscal year 1999 within 6 months of receipt. Fiscal year 2000 1. Review and Act on 90 percent of standard original NDA and PLA/BLA submissions filed during fiscal year 2000 within 12 months of receipt and review and act on 50 percent within 10 months of receipt. 2. Review and Act on 90 percent of priority original NDA and PLA/BLA submissions filed during fiscal year 2000 within 6 months of receipt. 3. Review and act on 90 percent of standard efficacy supplements filed during fiscal year 2000 within 12 months of receipt and review and act on 50 percent within 10 months of receipt. 4. Review and act on 90 percent of priority efficacy supplements filed during fiscal year 2000 within 6 months of receipt. 5. Review and Act on 90 percent of manufacturing supplements filed during fiscal year 2000 within 6 months of receipt and review and act on 50 percent of manufacturing supplements requiring prior approval within 4 months of receipt. 6. Review and act on 90 percent of Class 1 resubmitted original applications filed during fiscal year 2000 within 4 months of receipt and review and act on 50 percent within 2 months of receipt. 7. Review and act on 90 percent of Class 2 resubmitted original applications filed during fiscal year 2000 within 6 months of receipt. Fiscal year 2001 1. Review and act on 90 percent of standard original NDA and PLA/BLA submissions filed during fiscal year 2001 within 12 months and review and act on 70 percent within 10 months of receipt. 2. Review and act on 90 percent of priority original NDA and PLA/BLA submissions filed during fiscal year 2001 within 6 months of receipt. 3. Review and act on 90 percent of standard efficacy supplements filed during fiscal year 2001 within 12 months and review and act on 70 percent within 10 months of receipt. 4. Review and act on 90 percent of priority efficacy supplements filed during fiscal year 2001 within 6 months of receipt. 5. Review and act on 90 percent of manufacturing supplements filed during fiscal year 2001 within 6 months of receipt and review and act on 70 percent of manufacturing supplements requiring prior approval within 4 months of receipt. 6. Review and act on 90 percent of Class 1 resubmitted original applications filed during fiscal year 2001 within 4 months of receipt and review and act on 70 percent within 2 months of receipt. 7. Review and act on 90 percent of Class 2 resubmitted original applications within 6 months of receipt. Fiscal year 2002 1. Review and act on 90 percent of standard original NDA and PLA/BLA submissions filed during fiscal year 2002 within 10 months of receipt. 2. Review and act on 90 percent of priority original NDA and PLA/BLA submissions filed during fiscal year 2002 within 6 months of receipt. 3. Review and act on 90 percent of standard efficacy supplements filed during fiscal year 2002 within 10 months of receipt. 4. Review and act on 90 percent of priority efficacy supplements filed during fiscal year 2002 within 6 months of receipt. 5. Review and act on 90 percent of manufacturing supplements filed during fiscal year 2002 within 6 months of receipt and review and act on 90 percent of manufacturing supplements requiring prior approval within 4 months of receipt. 6. Review and act on 90 percent of Class 1 resubmitted original applications field during fiscal year 2002 within 2 months of receipt. 7. Review and act on 90 percent of Class 2 resubmitted original applications within 6 months of receipt. These review goals are summarized in the following tables: ORIGINAL NDAs/BLAs/PLAs AND EFFICACY SUPPLEMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Submission cohort Standard Priority ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year: 1998.............. 90 pct. in 12 mos....... 90 pct. in 6 mos. 1999.............. 30 pct. in 10 mos....... 90 pct. in 6 mos. 90 pct. in 12 mos....... ........................ 2000.............. 50 pct. in 10 mos....... 90 pct. in 6 mos. 90 pct. in 12 mos....... ........................ 2001.............. 70 pct. in 10 mos....... 90 pct. in 6 mos. 90 pct. in 12 mos....... ........................ 2002.............. 90 pct. in 10 mos....... 90 pct. in 6 mos. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the bill before us is a remarkable achievement. It not only represents a true bipartisan effort to change a system that too often becomes mired in bureaucracy, but it also represents a significant change in the way that system works and what its goals should be. I am very proud to have played a part in negotiating a good bill, and I want to commend, in particular, my colleagues Senator Chafee, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Coats, and Senator Craig for their hard work on this bill. I also want to thank Senator Roth for his efforts in negotiating this legislation with our House counterparts. This legislation will lead to an improvement in the services we provide to nearly 100,000 children in the foster care system who are unable to return to their biological families because of threats to their health and safety. This bill guarantee as never before that their health and safety will be the ``paramount concern'' at every step of their stay in foster care, including in the development of their permanency plan. It also assures that every effort will be made to move children into safe, permanent homes as quickly as possible. Why is this important? Too often, children languish in foster care for years--years--before they find a safe, loving family. Many children, especially those with special needs, often never are placed with an adoptive family. Those children grow up in the foster care system, never knowing the security and warmth that a loving family provides. To help ensure that the child's safety remains the paramount concern, this bill changes the focus on the way states define the term ``reasonable effort.'' Too often, states have placed too much emphasis on returning a child to his or her biological family, even when doing so may mean endangering the child. This bill provides that states should still make every attempt to keep families intact, but--and this is a significant change in the current law--it also makes it very clear that there are a number of circumstances in which a state does NOT have to make a reasonable effort to reunite a child with the biological family. For example, if a parent has been found to have murdered another child in the family, or has subjected a child to chronic abuse, it is unreasonable--and irrational--to insist that the state return that child to the family. That seems like common sense, but, as we all know, the law doesn't always lead to common sense conclusion. This legislation clarifies this. I also want to point out that this bill requires, for the first time, states to implement procedures by which they will perform criminal background checks on potential foster and adoptive parents. I think the average citizen would be very surprised to learn that we do not currently require states to do such checks. While some states check prospective adoptive parents for evidence of past criminal activity which might indicate that it would be dangerous to place a child in their care, most states do not. This bill would change that situation. The original House bill did not contain this provision, and I want to commend the Senate conferees, especially Senator Coats, for insisting the Senate's language remain intact. It makes good sense. Another hard-fought provision that the Senate can be very proud of provides that when a special needs child is adopted--that is, one who is hard to place because of a physical or mental disability--then the state must ensure that the child will have health insurance coverage. Too many of these special needs children have found that when they are adopted, their access to health care disappears and the adoptive family must shoulder the entire financial responsibility for the child. That can create a huge disincentive for an otherwise loving family to adopt a child with a physical disability. Our bill says that when a child is adopted, he or she will have the health insurance needed to meet his or her needs. That is a significant step, and, again, I am pleased the Senate remained steadfast in its insistence on this provision. Mr.. President, this bill is a victory for children and adoptive parents nationwide. There are more than 100,000 children awaiting adoption or other permanent placements, and this bill is a good step toward moving many of them into safe, loving, permanent homes. Again, I extend my deepest thanks to Senators Chafee, Rockefeller, Craig, Coats, DeWine, Kerrey, and Roth for their hard work on this bill. We have been working to come to this agreement for months, and this bill is the hard-fought result of those efforts. I urge all my colleagues to give their support to this legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I compliment the Senior Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, and the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell for the excellent job they have done in shepherding the Foreign Operations appropriations bill along it's difficult journey. While I would have written some sections differently, I believe that on balance this is a reasonable product of compromise that advances the primary goals of U.S. foreign policy. I am, however, very disturbed to see that the compromise on U.N. funding that was contained in the State Department authorization bill has now been dropped. While I was not pleased with some aspects of the Helms-Biden compromise, at least it provided a way to start meeting our obligations to the United Nations. I am disturbed, Mr. President, that greater thought has not been given by those who oppose this provision to the timing of this move. We are teetering on the brink of hostilities with Iraq over Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow entry to American members of the U.N. weapons inspection team. The United Nations has insisted that the integrity of its teams be respected and Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to pick and choose who he lets in. Last week, Secretary General Kofi Annan sent a three-member delegation to Iraq to impress upon Saddam Hussein the necessity of complying with United Nations requirements on access for inspectors. Unfortunately, they came away empty handed. But the United Nations Security Council continues to meet daily in an effort to counteract Iraq's intransigence. I think most of my colleagues realize that this would be a very inappropriate time to suddenly be forced to go it on our own. We may decide at some point that unilateral action against Iraq is the most appropriate, but that should only come after careful consideration of all policy options available to us. And quite frankly, Mr. President, I believe that some of our best options involve working closely with our allies and our friends in the Arab world to present a united front to Saddam Hussein. With all its warts, the United Nations is still the best mechanism for consulting quickly with all the parties involved and negotiating possible courses of action. This is always a difficult task, but it would be made many times more difficult if we were not able to work through the United Nations. While nothing in the legislation before us today says we must pull out of the United Nations, the refusal of a small number of members to let a broadly agreed-upon package of reforms and arrearage payments move forward is a de-facto renunciation of the United Nations just as we are again turning to that body for assistance in keeping one of the world's worst scofflaws in line. Getting other nations to join us in these efforts takes carrots and not just sticks. Our diplomats need to bring more to the table than the threat of military retaliation. That should be our last resort, and not before. If we are not willing to put our money where our mouth is at the United Nations, how can we expect Saddam to take our threats seriously? I know that efforts are underway at this very moment to reverse this unfortunate decision by the House of Representatives. And I hope they succeed. Not just today, but increasingly in the future, we are going to need more tools of diplomacy at our disposal, not fewer. I urge my colleagues in the House to take this into account before it is too late.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on September 11, 1997, the Community on Temporary Shelter [COTS] held its annual meeting in Burlington, VT. The keynote speaker was Rita Markley, the director of COTS. Through her hard work and dedication to the needs of the homeless in Vermont stands as a glowing example of the value of community service. Her efforts have made a tremendous difference in the fight to end homelessness. It gives me great pleasure to submit, for the Record, the text of her remarks. The text of the remarks follows: [Sept. 11, 1997] Committee on Temporary Shelter Annual Meeting--Where Are We Now (By Rita Markley) Good morning and welcome to our annual meeting and volunteer recognition. This is the day when we thank all of you for giving your support to COTS. It's the time when we reflect on what that contribution means and why it matters. I think it's too easy these days to forget that there was a time in this country, just 20-25 years ago, when being poor did not mean being homeless. There was a time when retail clerks, gas station attendants, waitresses could afford to pay for their rent and their groceries. Sometimes they even had enough left over for a Saturday afternoon movie. There was a time when the mentally ill were not left to wander America's streets without housing or services. And there was a time, just 15 years ago, when this community did not need a place like COTS because homelessness was something that only happened in big cities. There have been enormous economic and social changes during the past 20 years that have displaced and uprooted millions of lives. Across the country and here in Vermont, the number of families and individuals without housing has increased tenfold during the past decade. Not since the Great Depression have there been so many homeless Americans. During the 1980's more than half a million units of low income housing were lost every year to condo conversion, arson and demolition. That rate of loss has been even higher during the 1990's. In Chittenden County, rents increased twice as fast as average income during the 80's. Not surprisingly, we now live in a time when homelessness has become so pervasive, so endemic, that we've all but forgotten that it was not always this way. One of my greatest fears is that we will come to accept that this is the way it must be. It seems impossible that it was less than 20 years ago that we first began to see vast numbers of families all over this country sleeping in abandoned buildings or huddled in doorways because they couldn't afford a home. Back then, we were deeply shaken by the image of small children doing their homework by flashlight in the backseat of cars, the idea of anyone sleeping under cardboard boxes in public parks was astonishing. Our hearts were broken by newspaper stories of entire families scouring through trash dumpsters for scraps of food. In 1997 the problem of homelessness in America remains one of our greatest challenges and yet we hear little or nothing about this issue in the national media. It's as if seeing those anguished images year after year has become so routine that we no longer see them at all. A few months ago my own sister told me that she was tired of seeing the homeless everywhere she went, that she couldn't look at their faces anymore because there were just too many of them, and it made her feel too sad. Either she forgot what I do every day or she wanted me to remind her that turning away from her own compassion means turning away from her humanity. My sister's reaction, though, is not uncommon. The homeless are increasingly invisible, untouchable. And they know it, they feel the distancing every time someone passes them by on the street without looking into their eyes. Even children living in desperate poverty know that they are regarded differently than cleaner, better dressed children. Here's a quote from a 15 year old girl that describes their experience poignantly: ``It's not like being in jail. It's more like being hidden. It's as if you have been put in a garage somewhere, where, if they don't have room for something but aren't sure if they should throw it out, they put it there in the garage where they don't need to think of it again. That's what it's like.'' (Kozol interview tapes) Since the mid-1980's there has been a growing inclination to ignore, conceal and even punish those without homes. Many people in this country have moved from pity to impatience to outright contempt for the homeless. In Fort Lauderdale, FL a city councilor proposed spraying trash containers with rat poison to discourage foraging by homeless families. ``The way to get rid of vermin,'' he said, ``is to cut off their food supply.'' (1986) In Santa Barbara, California grocers have sprinkled bleach on food discarded in their dumpsters. In Chicago a homeless man was set ablaze while sleeping on a bench early one December morning. Rush hour commuters passed his charred body and possessions for four hours before anyone called the police. In the first four months of 1992, 26 homeless people were set on fire while they were sleeping in New York City. Who are these faceless, forsaken people that they would provoke such hateful acts? They are the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society: they are the elderly and families with children, they are Korean and Vietnam war veterans, they are the mentally ill who were left to fend for themselves on city streets, they are women and children fleeing from violence. I wonder what kind of outcry there would have been if these acts of violence were inflicted on any other group but the most dispossessed. I'd like to read a few letters by some Vermonters who lost their homes this year. They wrote these last April during the HUD crisis when many of our services would have been wiped out by unexpected cuts in funding. ``Dear ---- I'd never been homeless before this winter. I was out of work suddenly, lost my apartment and had to find a place to stay. . . I was at the Waystation. . . where I met some people who took care of each other, no matter our differences in lifestyles, skills, education or so called sanity. I have a college degree, many skills and I want to work and to give to the community. What I'm saying is that almost anyone could become homeless after some unexpected misfortune. Whether they can work or not they still need food and clothing, safe shelter, and people who care about them. . . I started to work again last week and my home will be open for anyone who needs a place to stay. I won't forget.'' ``I lost the comfort of my affordable apartment when the building I lived in was closed because of fire. Also, 49 other families were displaced. The renovation of his building will take 18 to 24 months according to the owner. I have not had comfortable housing since that fire on September 7, 1996. My address was 127 St. Paul street where Vermont Transit was located. In the meantime, I'm number 1030 on the Burlington Housing Authority waiting list. What I miss most about my apartment was the peace of mind it gave me. Sincerely, Arlen

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to J. Fred Carbine. Fred died this summer at the age of 59. I had the honor of knowing Fred both as a partner and a friend. He will be remembered as much for his professional accomplishments as for his humor. Fred began his memorable career after passing the bar in 1962. He served as a Rutland County grand juror and was the first assistant clerk for the Vermont House of Representatives from 1963 until 1968. Fred then filled a seat on the board of aldermen until 1978, during which time he served as board president for 7 years. After his tenure as an alderman, he opened a law practice, at which I had the great pleasure of having him as a partner. Among his many interests, Fred was a member and governor of the Rutland Moose Lodge, for which he was awarded the order's highest degree in 1985. True to his nature, Fred gave a great deal back to his community. He worked with the Salvation Army, Knights of Columbus, and the Masonic Temple, among many others. Fred had a marvelous wit and a wonderful sense of humor. He loved to tell stories and always thought the best of everyone. Fred Carbine had many friends, and I consider myself lucky to be one of them. He was a brilliant lawyer and a wonderful man. I would like to extend my condolences to the family and friends of Fred Carbine.