Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend and great Vermonter, Gerald T. ``Giggy'' Lloyd. After 40 years of dedicated service as fire chief for Rutland, VT, Giggy retired this summer. Giggy's memorable career has been spent protecting the people of Vermont against fires. However, his concern about safety extends beyond the people he protects. He is also concerned about the safety of the people in his department. After 13 years as fire chief, Giggy has accomplished many remarkable tasks. When he first became fire chief in 1985, his first concern was for the members of his department. He set out to improve their equipment and better train the employees to protect them against harm, and he has accomplished that task. Since Giggy has been fire chief, there have been no serious injuries within the department. Giggy's dedication and concern for others is an outstanding example for everyone to follow. Giggy has extended himself beyond being fire chief as well. He became the city's fire prevention officer in 1976 and worked tenaciously to increase the use of safety features such as smoke alarms and fire resistant doors. Giggy Lloyd has courageously committed his life to protecting the people of Vermont, and he is the finest example of Vermont 's commitment to excellence. Once again, I would like to extend my best wishes on Giggy Lloyd's retirement and congratulate him on a job well done.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend and great Vermonter, Henry Carris. Henry died on June 25, 1997, at the age of 85. As founder of Carris Reels, a nationally recognized enterprise, Henry was the epitome of everything that is good about business. He understood the importance of appreciating his good fortune and giving something back to the community. Henry was an active advocate for improved educational opportunities in the Rutland area. Accordingly, he served on the Rutland School Board and was instrumental in developing the Rutland Area Art Association. In addition, Henry 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 light of his outstanding achievements and dedication to the people of Vermont, Henry was named ``Man of the Year'' for Rutland and ``Citizen of the Year'' for the State. At a ceremony recognizing his achievements, he stressed the importance of family and friends. Henry clearly understood the secrets to success and was more than willing to share the wealth of his wisdom. For those of us who had the good fortune to know him, Henry Carris' energy and enthusiasm left an indelible impression. He exemplifies what all of us should strive to achieve. I would like to extend my condolences to his family and friends.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate yesterday passed S. 537, the 5-year reauthorization of the Mammography Quality Standards Act. The original statute, now 5 years old, passed in 1992 with broad bipartisan support. Through the tireless efforts of Senator Barbara Mikulski, the lead sponsor of the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act, we will be able to continue this critical program for women's health. Prior to the passage of this legislation, breast tumors in women were often missed because of defective x ray equipment or inadequately trained personnel. Today, to operate lawfully, a mammography facility must be certified as providing quality mammography services. That means that a national uniform quality standard for mammography has been established. It requires that facilities use only properly trained personnel, establishes a control program to ensure the reliability, clarity, and accurate interpretation of the mammogram, and now each facility undergoes an annual inspection. Breast cancer is currently the second leading cause of cancer deaths among American women. One woman in eight will develop breast cancer during her lifetime, and, during the nineties, it is estimated that 500,000 women will die from the disease. If breast cancer is detected early, however, the probability that a woman can survive is greater than 90 percent. Currently, the most effective technique for early detection of breast cancer is mammography, an x ray procedure that can often locate small tumors and abnormalities up to 2 years before they can be detected by physical examination. However, mammography is one of the most technically challenging x ray procedures, and ensuring the quality of mammography services is difficult. To address concerns about variations in the quality of mammography service provided by the more than 10,000 facilities throughout the United States and its territories, the Congress passed the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992. This reauthorization continues an important program that gives the women of America and their families an assurance that the quality of services for this vital test has improved, and will, hopefully, encourage even greater numbers to take advantage of this life saving diagnostic tool.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this week Senator Leahy and I addressed the Senate about our concerns and disappointment with the recent order by the U.S. District Court of Minnesota which enjoined the Secretary of Agriculture from enforcing class I differentials in 28 of the current 33 Federal milk marketing orders. If the November 3, 1997, ruling stands, it will throw the entire milk pricing system into chaos threatening the continued existence of thousands of dairy farms nationwide. Mr. President, it is imperative that Secretary Glickman move immediately to seek a stay and file an appeal to the court's decision. I am joining several of my colleagues in a letter to Secretary Glickman to formally request that the U.S. Department of Agriculture appeal the decision. I urge others to contact Secretary Glickman to recommend that he act swiftly in this request as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter being sent to Secretary Glickman appear in the Record. This ruling should not impact the current reforms of the Federal milk marketing orders with respect to the basic formula price and class I differentials. It is important that the Department of Agriculture continue to use sound public policy in determining a pricing structure that is in the best interest of dairy farmers and consumers alike. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have expressed in overwhelming fashion to the Secretary of Agriculture the support and importance of maintaining our class I differentials. Recently, 48 Senators wrote to Secretary Glickman supporting class I differentials and endorsing the Department's option 1-A proposal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter of October 10, 1997, regarding overwhelming support for option 1-A appear in the Record. Mr. President, those of us who value dairying in our States should recognize the dangerous precedent of this ruling. The success of an appeal to overturn in this case is of vital importance to the survival of dairy farmers across this Nation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. The Senator from Hawaii is correct in his reading of the bill. It is our intent to assure that .25 percent of appropriated funds are reserved to provide services to Hawaiian Natives. This authority did exist under the Library Services and Construction Act.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am pleased to answer any question that the Senator from Hawaii may have.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on Veterans' Day, I will be participating in a very special ceremony for a very special individual. The occasion is the presentation of a Silver Star Medal 53 years after the event to a World War II veteran named Albert Sponheimer. It gives me great pleasure to submit, for the Record, the text of my remarks: The remarks follow: Silver Star Medal Presentation to Albert Sponheimer, Jr. I am so proud to be here today to honor Al Sponheimer in front of his family and friends and, of course, all of you in the audience--students who are fortunate enough to witness this historic event. This is the part of my job I love the most--the fact that we are all here today, 53 years, 5 months and 5 days after the event to witness the presentation of a Silver Star Medal for heroism. Al Sponheimer, a veteran of the Second World War, is a testament to the saying that perseverance pays off. Al Sponheimer first contacted my office back in December 1994. In a characteristically modest manner, he asked for information about how he might get his Silver Star, in the absence of official documentation, 50 years after the fact. I could see that Al was not comfortable pursuing this, but was probably goaded into it by the four gentlemen sitting next to him today. Anyway, back to the story. Soon after, we received a letter from Captain Heitz outlining Mr. Sponheimer's heroic actions on June 6, 1944. He wrote: ``PFC Sponheimer was one of two aides men assigned to my battery. In fact, I was his first battlefield patient. He was seen giving first aid to anyone who needed it, not necessarily Battery A personnel. He roamed almost the full length of Omaha Beach, helping where he could while many around him were wounded by flying shrapnel or ricocheting bullets fired from the Germans on the bluff of Omaha Beach'' Once the Army read this letter, I thought for sure they would send Mr. Sponheimer's medal by return mail. This was not the case. The time for consideration of WWII medal requests had expired. We had to apply to the Board for Correction of Military Records where the average length of time for consideration of these requests is about 2 years. The application was sent in on February 7, 1996. 18 months later the Board made a favorable decision--Al would finally receive his Silver Star. And that is what brings us here today--appropriately on Armistice Day--to correct a 53-year-old record and honor a person who, under enemy fire, performed heroically. Mr. President, thank you again for this opportunity to submit my remarks for the Record. I hope Mr. Sponheimer's story will inspire other veterans to pursue their entitlement to military medals or awards, even if the lapse in time seems insurmountable. I also want to extend my condolences to the Sponheimer family at the recent and untimely passing of Al's wife, Audrey. I know her absence will be deeply felt by Al, their children and grandchildren on this special day.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield Senator Coats 4 minutes. He is a man whose tenaciousness and ability have made this a better bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Reserving the right to object, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I object. I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the bill (S. 830) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Service Act to improve the regulation of food, drugs, devices, and biological products, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, before us is the conference report on S. 830, the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act. This is really an excellent moment to bring this up and consider what has been accomplished. This bill represents the first major reform of the Food and Drug Administration in some 30 years. For our committee, it is the second major reform that we have accomplished this session, the first one being special education, which was the first major reform for that program in some 20 years. I am very pleased to be able to say to my colleagues that the FDA measure embodies the objectives we originally sought to accomplish. This legislation achieves two important goals. First, it helps the FDA to get medicine and medical devices to patients and doctors sooner and safer. And, second, it will extend and improve the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, commonly known as PDUFA. I am pleased to report that the conference report has the unanimous support of the conferees. It deserves the unanimous support of this body as well. The conference report is the culmination of 3 years of hard work by dozens of Senators. It offers the most substantial reform of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in decades and will have a positive impact on the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come. Think how the world of medicine has changed over the past two or three decades. The law that governs much of that world, and nearly $1 of every $3 spent by consumers, must change and adapt as well. The measure makes scores of changes in the law that ensures the safety of the food we eat, of the drugs we use to fight disease, and the medical devices we use to improve the health of Americans. It will help patients gain access to new therapies sooner without weakening either safety requirements or the authority of the FDA. It gives the agency needed tools and resources to manage an increasing workload more efficiently. In addition, it contributes to our maintaining America's technological leadership in producing pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Achieving these reforms is a win-win-win situation for consumers, for the FDA, and for manufacturers. It is a win for patients and consumers, who will gain access to previously unavailable information and obtain better therapy sooner. It is a win for the FDA, which will receive new, sorely needed resources and streamlining and modernization of bureaucratic processes that have not changed in decades. And it is a win for the manufacturers, who will have a certainty that the review and approval processes applied to their innovative products will be applied in a collaborative and consistent manner. About 10 months ago, Mr. President, we embarked anew on an effort that some characterized as foolish--an effort to modernize the regulatory processes of the FDA. Many thought it could not be done. Some urged we merely extend PDUFA or we tackle only a few issues related to drug regulation and leave the comprehensive modernization to another day. I am glad we did not choose either of these paths. Instead, we chose to forge a bill with broad, bipartisan support, one that took a broad view of the changes needed at the FDA. In that regard, I particularly want to acknowledge the Democratic members of the Labor Committee, and especially Senators Dodd, Mikulski, Wellstone, and Murray. They have made countless contributions to this legislation, large and small. Their tireless support has been critical in our success. This measure is the result of the process to consult with individuals of all points of view and to benefit from the expertise needed to craft legislation on this complex issue. Patients, physicians, consumer groups, the FDA, and the manufacturers of medical devices and pharmaceuticals all contributed to this effort through their participation in hearings and in discussions with the staffs. This effort was parallel to that of our colleagues in the House of Representatives, which, under the outstanding leadership of Chairman Bliley, also produced a strong bipartisan bill with overwhelming support. The collaboration and consensus building has continued right up to the present, and the quality of this conference report we are considering today reflects that process. Mr. President, we would not be here today if it were not for the effort of my predecessor as the chair of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kassebaum. Her efforts to advance reform in the last Congress paved the way for our work here today. We owe her an enormous debt. This year, there have been many Members in both Chambers who have contributed to this effort. Foremost among them has been Senator Coats. The list of provisions of this bill that bear his imprint is far too long to recite. But, as an example, the third-party review provision has been developed under his leadership, and he has played an important role in advancing FDA modernization throughout this process. Senator Gregg is to be commended for his proposals to streamline the FDA process for consideration of health claims based on Federal research and his amendments to establish uniformity for the over-the- counter, OTC, drugs and cosmetics. Senator McConnell also suggested improvements in the regulation of food. I am especially grateful to Dr. Frist. He and Senator Mack led the way to compromise on the issue of the dissemination of medical information to health professionals, an important advance forward. Senator DeWine, joined by Senator Dodd, offered an important amendment to establish incentives for the conduct of research into pediatric uses for existing and new drugs, a needed change. The bill was improved by Senator Hutchinson's amendment to establish a rational framework for pharmacy compounding, which respects the State regulation of pharmacy while allowing an appropriate role for the FDA. And Senator Harkin has made many contributions to this legislation. Finally, the ranking minority member, Senator Kennedy, has played an important role in bringing this conference report to the floor in a manner that draws support from all quarters. In the House, Chairman Bliley and Congressmen Dingell, Burr, Burton, Greenwood and Whitfield have contributed immense energy and leadership in reaching this agreement. Mr. President, it has been a remarkable year, crowned by a remarkable, bipartisan achievement. And I thank my colleagues for their support. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will now yield to the Senator from Utah, who has been a tremendous help over the years on FDA. In fact, I am going to give him all the rest of my time --all 3 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes. I have an objection to the request from the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I have no objection to the Senator from Iowa being recognized as in morning business for a period of 10 minutes after the vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS. It would have to be in morning business.

Mr. JEFFORDS. It is my understanding from the majority leader that the 10 minutes the Senator is requesting should occur as in morning business. That is all I can tell you.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I believe the Senator would be recognized for 10 minutes, but it would be in morning business.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Objection. I object.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am today introducing the Workers' Pension Protection Act. This legislation will level the playing field for millions of American workers who currently participate in defined benefit multiemployer pension plans. As I am certain many of my colleagues are aware, there is a difference between multiemployer and single-employer pension plans. Multiemployer plans are maintained by a specific union, and supported by the various employers that union has organized, whereas single- employer plans are established by one company for its own employees. Thus, the Central States Teamsters pension fund covers individuals who work for employers the Teamsters have organized in the Midwestern United States. By contrast, General Electric has its a single-employer plan, or plans, that it established for its own employees. This bill is only concerned with multiemployer pension plans. It protects workers' benefits by making sure that multiemployer plans are funded so that benefits promised today will be available when workers retire in the future. Many of this country's multiemployer pension plans are underfunded by billions of dollars. It is true that a plan can be underfunded by billions of dollars but the relationship of assets to liabilities can still be relatively high. However, we are looking at plans that are not only underfunded by large amounts, but also where liabilities seriously outstrip assets. This legislation both increases funding and reporting requirements on multiemployer plans, so that we know when plans are becoming riskier, and improves protections and benefits. American workers rely upon their pensions to support them through their twilight years. Unfortunately pension plans are not infallible and too often, the American workers discover that their plan is bankrupt and that all pension payments are now in the hands of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation [PBGC], the Federal agency charged with insuring defined benefit pension plans. What these workers may not realize is that under a single-employer plan, up to $33,132 per year is protected by the PBGC's pension insurance, but under the multiemployer pension insurance system, they can only receive $5,850. My legislation will not completely eliminate this unfairness, but it will slightly more than double the amount payable by the PBGC, by increasing benefits from $5,850 to $12,780. This change in the guaranty benefit amount would be the first increase to those benefits since the multiemployer program was enacted in 1980. Next, this bill will require plans to fund their current pension promises before making new ones. Pension plan trustees would be unable to grant benefit increases if a plan is less than 95 percent funded. This provision is needed to keep underfunded plans from going deeper in the red if collective bargaining ignores the underfunding problem. Third, this legislation will require multiemployer pension plans to use single, identified interest rate and mortality table assumptions in all calculations. As in the single-employer pension plan reform legislation of 1994, the interest rates and mortality tables must be standardized and must conform to the most recent data available. With this change, plans may not use one set of numbers when reporting the level of funding in their plan to the PBGC, and another set of numbers when determining liability associated with a withdrawal from the plan. That amounts to manipulating interest rates to game the system. We require single-employer pension plans to use a specific interest rate and a mortality table. I believe it should apply to multiemployer plans, as well. Fourth, the bill will require that plan trustees notify participants, annually and in plain English, of how well or poorly funded their plans are. Once and for all, multiemployer pension plan participants and beneficiaries will have a chance to learn how secure--or insecure-- their retirement benefits are. It is one thing to tell a plan participant what his or her expected benefit will be upon retirement. It is quite another to let a participant know that their pension plan could have 45 percent more in liabilities than it has in assets, or that it may have accumulated $5 billion in underfunding. The PBGC has told us that notification to participants of plan funding has worked well for single-employer plans. Since it has been a success for the single-employer insurance system, we should extend the same protections to participants in multiemployer plans. With a better understanding of the worth of their benefits, workers can make informed decisions about their retirement needs. I think such notification is a vitally important participant protection for multiemployer pension plan participants. Finally, the bill will increase premiums imposed by the PBGC upon sponsors of multiemployer pension plans. Currently, premiums are $2.60 per participant but they have not been increased since the multiemployer guaranty program was enacted in 1980. By contrast, the single employer premium has been increased by Congress eight times since ERISA was passed in 1974. The minimum premium for fully funded single-employer plans is now $19 per participant, but some underfunded plans are charged hundreds of dollars per participant for PBGC premiums. If we are going to raise multiemployer benefits, it is also time to raise multiemployer premiums. Over a 3-year period, my bill will double premiums, increasing them to $5.20 per participant. Mr. President, I realize that it is the end of the session. I am introducing this measure now in order to permit review and comment by interested parties in advance of hearings I will be holding on this issue next year. This bill takes modest, but overdue steps to protect participants of multiemployer pension plans. I hope that those concerned with the safety and security of, and equity in, multiemployer pension plans will not hesitate to step forward to be heard. There are slightly more than 1,800 multiemployer pension plans in this Nation providing benefits to approximately 8.7 million individuals. This bill protects those workers and retirees--and they need and deserve our oversight. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to join me in sponsoring this important piece of legislation.