Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to thank the staff who have worked to make this bill possible. In the office of Senate Legislative Counsel, Robin Bates, Elizabeth Aldridge, and Bill Baird worked tirelessly to produce countless bill drafts and amendments. I would also like to commend House Legislative Counsels David Meade and Pete Goodloe for their work on the conference report. The staff at CRS, especially Donna Vogt, and at GAO, including Bernice Steinhardt deserve thanks for their willingness to provide essential information and documents on extremely short notice. The staff to the members of the committee contributed greatly to the success of this bill. Vince Ventimiglia with Senator Coats' staff worked closely with mine in a true partnership on all aspects of S. 830. In addition, Kimberly Spaulding with Senator Gregg, Sue Ramthun with Senator Frist, Saira Sultan with Senator DeWine, and Kate Lambrew-Hull with Senator Hutchinson all played important roles in fashioning compromises on key provisions of this conference report, as did Dave Larson and Barry Daylin. Similarly, three staffers for members of the minority on the committee played pivotal roles throughout the process--from the premarkup stage through the development of this conference report. Their assistance was critical to making this bill a bipartisan success. Lynne Lawrence with Senator Mikulski deserves special mention in recognition of her hard work both in the last Congress and in this one on FDA reform. Following passage of this conference report, Lynne will be leaving Capitol Hill. I am extremely pleased that she will be leaving on a high note, and we all wish her the best with future pursuits. Jeanne Ireland with Senator Dodd and Linda Degutis, a fellow with Senator Wellstone also provided invaluable assistance throughout the process. Finally, I thank, of course, the Labor and Human Resources Committee majority and minority staffs. On the minority staff, I would like to thank Nick Littlefield and David Nexon and two minority fellows Diane Robertson and Debbie Kochever. On my own staff, I would like to thank the majority staff director Mark Powden, Jay Hawkins, and majority fellow Sean Donohue. All have devoted substantial portions of their time over the past 10 months to this effort. Jay Hawkins, in particular, has been key to making this conference report a reality. His tireless efforts, his unfailing good humor, and his patience have allowed this process to maintain steady forward progress to a highly successful outcome. The round-the-clock work, particularly over the past few days, of all the staff involved in the conference is greatly appreciated. Mr. President, I could not be happier with this moment and at this time will happily leave the floor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the conference report accompanying the FDA reform bill; that it be considered as having been read; that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member, with an additional 5 minutes for Senator Reed of Rhode Island; and that following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the conference report, all without further action or debate.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Half hour; 30 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the conference report to accompany the FDA bill, and the conference report be considered as having been read, and that there be 40 minutes of debate equally divided, and that following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote for adoption of the conference report, all without further action or debate.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Then I will amend it to ask unanimous consent to add an additional 5 minutes for the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Reed.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Right.

Mr. JEFFORDS. No, it will not be. It depends on the body, but it is intended to be a voice vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Does that include the Senator from Iowa?

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.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Quality Child Care for Federal Employees Act. This bill was drafted with an eye toward several serious incidents which occurred earlier this year in federal child care facilities. At that time, it came to my attention that child care centers located in Federal facilities are not subject to even the most minimal health and safety standards. As you know, Federal property is exempt from State and local laws, regulations, and oversight. What this means for child care centers on that property is that State and local health and safety standards do not and cannot apply. This might not be a problem if federally owned or leased child care centers met enforceable health and safety standards. I think most parents who place their children in Federal child care would assume that this would be the case. However, I think Federal employees will find it very surprising to learn, as I did, that, at many centers, no such health and safety standards apply. I find this very troubling, and I think we sell our Federal employees a bill of goods when federally-owned leased child care cannot guarantee that their children are in safe facilities. The Federal Government should set the example when it comes to providing safe child care. It should not be turn an apathetic shoulder from meeting such standards simply because State and local regulations do not apply to them. In 1987, Congress passed the Trible Amendment which permitted executive, legislative, and judicial branch agencies to utilize a portion of federally-owned or leased space for the provision of child care services for Federal employees. The General Services Administration [GSA] was given the authority to provide guidance, assistance, and oversight to Federal agencies for the development of children centers. In the decade since the Trible Amendment was passed, hundreds of Federal facilities throughout the Nation have established onsite child care centers which are a tremendous help to our employees. The General Services Administration has done an excellent job of helping agencies develop child care centers and have adopted strong standards for those centers located in GSA leased or owned space. However, there are over 100 child care centers located in Federal facilities that are not subject to the GSA standards or any other laws, rules, or regulations to ensure that the facilities are safe places for our children. Most parents, placing their children in a Federal child care center, assume that some standards are in place--assume that the centers must minimally meet State and local child care licensing rules and regulations. They assume that the centers are subject to independent oversight and monitoring to continually ensure the safety of the premises. Yet, that is not the case. In a case where a Federal employee had strong reason to suspect the sexual abuse of her child by an employee of a child care center located in a Federal facility, local child protective services and law enforcement personnel were denied access to the premises and were prohibited from investigating the incident. Another employee's child was repeatedly injured because the child care providers under contract with a Federal agency to provide onsite child care services failed to ensure that age-appropriate health and safety measures were taken--current law says they were not required to do so, even after the problems were identified and injuries had occurred. As Congress and the administration turn their spotlight on our Nation's child care system, we must first get our own house in order. We must safeguard and protect the children receiving services in child care centers housed in Federal facilities. Our employees should not be denied some assurance that the centers in which they place their children are accountable for meeting basic health and safety standards. The Quality Child Care for Federal Employees Act will require all child care services located in Federal facilities to meet, at the very least, the same level of health and safety standards required of other child care centers in the same geographical area. That sounds like common sense, but as we all know too well, common sense is not always reflected in the law. This bill will make that clear. Further, this legislation demands that Federal child care centers begin working to meet these standards now. Not next year, not in 2 years, but now. Under this bill, after 6 months we will look at the Federal child care centers again, and if a center is not meeting minimal State and local health and safety regulations at that time, that child care facility will be closed until it does. I can think of no stronger incentive to get centers to comply. Now, just as there have often been difficulties with Federal facilities ignoring State and local standards simply because of a division of power between the Federal and State governments, so, too, do divisions in the Federal Government--what we call the separation of powers--help create chaos in enforcement at the Federal level. Who has oversight of the facilities in the Federal Government, and who is responsible for monitoring and enforcement? Mr. President, this legislation respects the separation of powers within the Federal Government, but it also makes it very clear where the oversight and responsibility for meeting health and safety standards lies. For the most part, centers located in agencies within the executive branch--within, for example, the Department of Veterans' Affairs--will retain responsibility for monitoring and ensuring compliance. For centers within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, including the Library of Congress, this responsibility will lie with the Architect of the Capitol or his designee. In the judicial branch, monitoring and compliance will fall under the jurisdiction of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The GSA will continue to monitor centers it owns and leases in the judicial and executive branches. The costs of this monitoring are already included in this year's appropriations bills and will not add to the deficit. It should also be made clear that State and local standards should be a floor for basic health and safety, and not a ceiling. The role of the Federal Government--and, I like to think, of the U.S. Congress in particular--is to constantly strive to do better and to lead by example. Federal facilities should always try to meet the highest possible standards. In fact, the GSA has required national accredition in GSA-owned and leased facilities, and has stated that its centers are either in compliance or are strenuously working to get there. This is the kind of tough standard we should strive for in all of our Federal child care facilities. Federal child care should mean something more than simply location on a Federal facility. The Federal Government has an obligation to provide safe care for its employees, and it has a responsibility for making sure that those standards are monitored and enforced. Some Federal employees receive this guarantee. Many do not. We can do better. I urge swift passage of this legislation, and thank my colleagues for their attention to this matter. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation appear in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I enthusiastically join my colleagues in offering legislation that would allow wind and biomass energy to continue to advance as commercially viable renewable energy sources. This legislation will allow wind and biomass energy to play a competitive role in the growing domestic energy market. Through the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress established a mechanism to increase investments in new or emerging energy technologies. In 2 years, this credit will expire. Companies developing wind energy, who require a 2-3 year lead time for installing new wind machines, were not able to take advantage of the available credit before it expired. Congress should extend the credit program to allow continued efforts to increase production of electricity from wind and biomass. To date, significant progress has been made in the development of wind energy, and this industry is poised to further increase its production capacity. With support from Congress through research and development funding and tax credits wind energy has become more competitive and the technology has improved in designs and operation. Generation costs from wind have dropped from 25 cents per kilowatt hour in 1980 to a low of 7 cents per kilowatt hour today for wind power. Investments in new technological improvements will further reduce the cost of this energy source and will enable the industry to play a key role in the new competitive electric utility environment. Likewise, biomass energy technologies, which are derived from any plant material and some forms of animal waste, are continuously improving in performance and cost. Madam President, I want to emphasize the importance of using renewable energy to meet our growing demand for energy. Renewable energy is important for several reasons: First, it does not produce harmful, life-threatening pollution; second, it is capable of providing ample energy to meet the huge amount of demand that is forecasted; third, it increases our energy and economic security; and fourth, since more than 2 billion people in the world live without electricity, it creates jobs in the United States. I thank my colleagues for working with me to extend the credit program for producing energy from wind and biomass.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I enthusiastically join my colleagues in offering legislation that would allow wind and biomass energy to continue to advance as commercially viable renewable energy sources. This legislation will allow wind and biomass energy to play a competitive role in the growing domestic energy market. Through the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress established a mechanism to increase investments in new or emerging energy technologies. In 2 years, this credit will expire. Companies developing wind energy, who require a 2-3 year lead time for installing new wind machines, were not able to take advantage of the available credit before it expired. Congress should extend the credit program to allow continued efforts to increase production of electricity from wind and biomass. To date, significant progress has been made in the development of wind energy, and this industry is poised to further increase its production capacity. With support from Congress through research and development funding and tax credits wind energy has become more competitive and the technology has improved in designs and operation. Generation costs from wind have dropped from 25 cents per kilowatt hour in 1980 to a low of 7 cents per kilowatt hour today for wind power. Investments in new technological improvements will further reduce the cost of this energy source and will enable the industry to play a key role in the new competitive electric utility environment. Likewise, biomass energy technologies, which are derived from any plant material and some forms of animal waste, are continuously improving in performance and cost. Madam President, I want to emphasize the importance of using renewable energy to meet our growing demand for energy. Renewable energy is important for several reasons: First, it does not produce harmful, life-threatening pollution; second, it is capable of providing ample energy to meet the huge amount of demand that is forecasted; third, it increases our energy and economic security; and fourth, since more than 2 billion people in the world live without electricity, it creates jobs in the United States. I thank my colleagues for working with me to extend the credit program for producing energy from wind and biomass.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today we move another step closer to preserving our Nation's passenger rail system. The desperate call for action signals the importance of rail travel and the severe impacts a shutdown of Amtrak would have on the daily lives of millions of Americans. We live in a nation that prides itself on independence. For many Americans, their personal automobile grants them the ability to travel unincumbered for work and pleasure. But as we all know, this freedom is slowly ebbing as our Nation's highways and skies become more and more congested. Our roadways and runways are at capacity and growth opportunities are severely limited. A drive through and around any major American city today will leave most drivers frustrated by delays. This constant automobile congestion slows commerce, reduces worker productivity, and limits travel independence. In fact, highway congestion now costs the United States $100 billion annually, not including the economic and societal costs of increased pollution and wasted energy. The American solution has been to find alternatives. Our road options are limited. Ten-lane highways cannot be expanded, and new highways are difficult to site and result in the destruction of irreplaceable land and neighborhoods. Congestion in the air is also a major issue. Slots at airports are filled. Runways are backed up. Air space is busy. A recent safety study reported that 21 of the 26 major airports experienced serious delays, costing billions of dollars. New airports are expensive and only add to the problems we face today. Rail remains the one underutilized infrastructure available to our Nation. Railroads offer us the opportunity to move cars off the highways and planes from the air. Rail is efficient, cheaper and more environmentally preferable than our other options. We must now begin the careful process of retaining and rebuilding passenger rail in our country. Created in 1970, Amtrak serves millions of passengers each year. For 10 million households that have no car, and many communities without air or bus service, Amtrak is their lifeline. Amtrak connects 68 of the 75 largest urban areas in the United States, and serves many of the 62 million Americans living in rural areas. According to the Journal of Commerce, without Amtrak there would be an immediate need for 10 new tunnels under the Hudson River between northern New Jersey and New York City and 20 new highway lanes in New York. If Amtrak disappeared tomorrow, there would be an additional 27,000 cars on the highway between New York and Boston every day. In my home State of Vermont, passenger rail has been rediscovered. We launched a new passenger service, the Ethan Allen Express last year, to complement the already existing Vermonter. Both trains have been immensely successful, brining passengers from New England, New York, and across the Nation to our beautiful State. These trains have relieved highway congestion, given an economic boost to the State and offer travelers an alternative to driving or flying. Our dream in Vermont is to expand this service, linking a number of our larger cities and reestablishing rail service to Maine, New Hampshire, and Boston. And as we learned last winter in Vermont, rail keeps rolling regardless of weather. During the deep winter storms, as cars were snowbound and planes held on the ground, the trains were bringing business travelers and skiers to our State. We all remember when the eastern seaboard was hit with a major blizzard in in the winter of 1996 and the Federal Government was shut down for a solid week. But Amtrak kept running. In fact, my only means of getting to the Senate that week was on the train, as roads were blocked an planes grounded. Passenger rail service is the future. But many in this city have yet to recognize this reality. Amtrak has never been given the proper tools to bring the train into the modern age. The rail system operates on 1930's technology, with outdated engines, cars and maintenance facilities. While this system struggles, other nation's have invested heavily in technologically advanced high speed trains. France, Japan, and many other nations operate state-of-the-art trains, an efficient mode of travel in densely populated regions. Japan installed their bullet trains in the early 1960's, and Europe in the 1970's. The high-speed trains, cruising at 200 miles per hour or more, easily compete with cars, buses, and planes. Why has the United States fallen so far behind? Railroads in this country once had the prestige and financial capital to do nearly anything, but that changed over the years. Through mismanagement and limited public support we let our passenger railroads decay to the point of extinction. Today, we face the same choices. Should we support reviving and expanding advanced passenger rail through public financing or shut the system down? Let's not make a mistake that we would truly regret in the future. It's time to make this railroad work and maintain its role as a vital component of our Nation's transportation infrastructure. This Nation is on the verge of one of the most important transportation developments in its history. High speed rail should be operational from Washington to Boston by 1999. Other regions of the country are also working to develop high-speed train service, including California, Florida, and many other States. These trains easily compete with air travel and allow travelers a comfortable, fast and efficient means to reach their destination. High-speed rail will also aid Amtrak's bottom line. This new system will bring further profits to a business that badly needs the capital. Many critics will question the need for further public investment in Amtrak. As compared to other infrastructure programs, passenger rail gets little public support. Last year we spent $20 billion on highways, while capital investment for Amtrak was less than $450 million. In relative terms, between fiscal year 1980 and fiscal year 1994, spending on highways increased 73 percent, aviation increased 170 percent, while spending on rail declined by 60 percent. Without proper reforms and additional capital funding the future of this railroad is at risk. I commend members of the Senate Commerce committee who have worked to deliver a solid reform proposal to the Senate. My hope is that the House will accept these changes and send this bill to the President before we adjourn for the year. The plan we have developed offers serious reforms that will enable the railroad to modernize while reducing operating costs. Our Nation needs passenger rail. Together, we must move forward to preserve this important transportation option. The investments we are committing to today will increase our Nation's investment in the Amtrak rail system, and allow it to succeed in its efforts to continue to operate into the future.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Vermont for raising what could be a very important issue to all of the people of this country who like milk. I don't understand how a court could do that, other than the fact that, when I read he was from Minnesota, I new why it was done. The judiciary sometimes gets a little prone to its own constituency. But I want to tell you, I want to raise the danger that this precedent sets. I urge Secretary Glickman to appeal the judge's decision and to make sure that this does not maintain an existence. If this ruling survives, it could be the final financial blow to many farmers throughout the country. It could also lead to higher prices consumers pay for their milk. Senator Leahy and I have stood on the floor many times defending Vermont's dairy farmers and dairy farmers across the country. We have fought to give both the dairy farmers and the consumers a fair and stable milk price. At times, debates on dairy policy have pitted one region against the other. In this case, a group of Midwestern milk producers hope to eliminate the pricing structure for fluid milk that dairy farmers and consumers rely upon for stable prices. This methodology of creating a system to provide differentials was created way back in our history, at a time when the original milk acts were considered, recognizing that it's incredibly important that we have fluid milk available to the families all across the Nation. One only has to remember back a few years ago when there was a tremendous drought in Minnesota and Wisconsin, in the area where these farmers say they can produce it for all the country. As a result of that, we had the huge price increases. We had to supply milk to other regions because they could not produce it sufficiently in Minnesota and Wisconsin. That is a demonstration as to why the original dairy legislation in the acts of the thirties made sure that this fluid milk would be available across the Nation at all times, understanding the need for fresh milk. If this ruling of the judge from Minnesota prevails, the entire country may ultimately rely on Minnesota and her bordering States for their milk supply. This would be extremely dangerous to consumers for prices and not being able to get it because of the lack of milk. I know that in Vermont, every morning--and I am sure it's the same at breakfast tables across the country--people enjoy fresh milk that was produced and packaged within a reasonable distance of their home and at reasonable prices. There are many other reasons for maintaining a healthy dairy industry in each region. The economic and social benefits ripple through each farming community. Mr. President, the present system for pricing fluid milk is currently under consideration from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. There is tremendous support for maintaining the current pricing structure for fluid milk. Recently, as Senator Leahy mentioned, 48 Senators and 113 House Members sent a letter to Secretary Glickman urging him to keep the current system. It is critical that the Secretary act quickly to request a stay and appeal this decision. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Leahy and myself in that request. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Cuban Women and Children Humanitarian Relief Act. The objective of this legislation, quite simply, is to remove some of the more objectionable aspects of the standing United States trade embargo on Cuba, especially those that imperil the health of women, children, and other vulnerable groups. The bill would remove existing restrictions on the sale to Cuba of American food, medicines, and health supplies. Under current law, it is all but impossible for American companies to sell these items to Cuba. Mr. President, I have long held reservations about the effectiveness of our trade embargo on Cuba. After all, we have maintained a trade blockade on Cuba for 37 years and have little to show for it in terms of moving the Cuban Government in the direction of freedom or peaceful coexistence. However, this bill is not about how best to pressure the Castro government. Nor is it intended in any way to signal a change in overall United States policy toward Cuba. What this bill is about is making sure that children and other vulnerable groups do not bear the brunt of the trade embargo. The impact of the embargo on these groups has become more severe since passage of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, which tightened the restrictions on food and medical shipments to Cuba. The respected American Association for World Health concluded that these new, tougher trade sanctions have caused ``a significant rise in suffering--and even deaths--in Cuba.'' In particular, the AAWH found that the embargo on food and medicines has led to malnutrition, reduced water quality, and the unavailability or short supply of routine medical supplies. I do not believe that the American people intended that the trade embargo against Cuba lead to such demonstrable human suffering. Whether one supports the overall embargo or not, surely we can agree that the pain that this policy inflicts should not be borne by children. All of which is not to absolve Fidel Castro of much of the blame for the deteriorating state of health in Cuba. The OAS's Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has noted that many of the medical products manufactured in Cuba are reserved for hospitals that cater to foreigners. This has apparently caused much resentment among ordinary Cubans who feel discriminated against in their country. But we, too, are the target of much resentment owing to our trade restrictions on medicines and medical supplies. If a Cuban cannot gain access to an important drug--50 percent of the most important drugs in the world are available only from the United States or United States- licensed firms--or no longer has safe drinking water because water treatment chemicals or water supply spare parts cannot be obtained, he can quite credibly blame the United States for his plight. In fact, Castro has made the most of this situation by pointing to the United States embargo as the source of almost all of Cuba's health problems. The State Department maintains that the United States trade restrictions have not blocked medical shipments to Cuba and that many firms have successfully met the conditions required to obtain a permit for such trade. However, the reality is that the requirements to obtain such a license are so stringent that few drug companies are willing even to consider sales to Cuba. Those that do often find themselves investigated for technical and inadvertent violations of the embargo and ultimately abandon efforts to sell to Cuba. Moreover, relief groups such as Catholic Relief Services and Church World Services have found the licensing requirements cumbersome, complex, and costly. Sales of foodstuffs are barred altogether. And there is no way around it--no licenses, special permits, or other recourse. I think it's worth noting that our current embargos against Iran, Iraq, and Libya do not bar the sale of food or medicines to those countries. Mr. President, the American people are not mean-spirited. We want our Government to be tough-minded in protecting our interests but do not want innocent people to suffer. Even in the case of those countries adamantly opposed to United States interests and values, such as Iran and North Korea, we have reached out with humanitarian assistance in response to natural disasters and famines. We should treat Cuba no differently. We should not allow our political objectives undermine the health and well-being of those most in need, especially children.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Cuban Women and Children Humanitarian Relief Act. The objective of this legislation, quite simply, is to remove some of the more objectionable aspects of the standing United States trade embargo on Cuba, especially those that imperil the health of women, children, and other vulnerable groups. The bill would remove existing restrictions on the sale to Cuba of American food, medicines, and health supplies. Under current law, it is all but impossible for American companies to sell these items to Cuba. Mr. President, I have long held reservations about the effectiveness of our trade embargo on Cuba. After all, we have maintained a trade blockade on Cuba for 37 years and have little to show for it in terms of moving the Cuban Government in the direction of freedom or peaceful coexistence. However, this bill is not about how best to pressure the Castro government. Nor is it intended in any way to signal a change in overall United States policy toward Cuba. What this bill is about is making sure that children and other vulnerable groups do not bear the brunt of the trade embargo. The impact of the embargo on these groups has become more severe since passage of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, which tightened the restrictions on food and medical shipments to Cuba. The respected American Association for World Health concluded that these new, tougher trade sanctions have caused ``a significant rise in suffering--and even deaths--in Cuba.'' In particular, the AAWH found that the embargo on food and medicines has led to malnutrition, reduced water quality, and the unavailability or short supply of routine medical supplies. I do not believe that the American people intended that the trade embargo against Cuba lead to such demonstrable human suffering. Whether one supports the overall embargo or not, surely we can agree that the pain that this policy inflicts should not be borne by children. All of which is not to absolve Fidel Castro of much of the blame for the deteriorating state of health in Cuba. The OAS's Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has noted that many of the medical products manufactured in Cuba are reserved for hospitals that cater to foreigners. This has apparently caused much resentment among ordinary Cubans who feel discriminated against in their country. But we, too, are the target of much resentment owing to our trade restrictions on medicines and medical supplies. If a Cuban cannot gain access to an important drug--50 percent of the most important drugs in the world are available only from the United States or United States- licensed firms--or no longer has safe drinking water because water treatment chemicals or water supply spare parts cannot be obtained, he can quite credibly blame the United States for his plight. In fact, Castro has made the most of this situation by pointing to the United States embargo as the source of almost all of Cuba's health problems. The State Department maintains that the United States trade restrictions have not blocked medical shipments to Cuba and that many firms have successfully met the conditions required to obtain a permit for such trade. However, the reality is that the requirements to obtain such a license are so stringent that few drug companies are willing even to consider sales to Cuba. Those that do often find themselves investigated for technical and inadvertent violations of the embargo and ultimately abandon efforts to sell to Cuba. Moreover, relief groups such as Catholic Relief Services and Church World Services have found the licensing requirements cumbersome, complex, and costly. Sales of foodstuffs are barred altogether. And there is no way around it--no licenses, special permits, or other recourse. I think it's worth noting that our current embargos against Iran, Iraq, and Libya do not bar the sale of food or medicines to those countries. Mr. President, the American people are not mean-spirited. We want our Government to be tough-minded in protecting our interests but do not want innocent people to suffer. Even in the case of those countries adamantly opposed to United States interests and values, such as Iran and North Korea, we have reached out with humanitarian assistance in response to natural disasters and famines. We should treat Cuba no differently. We should not allow our political objectives undermine the health and well-being of those most in need, especially children.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise again today to speak about the state of the District of Columbia public schools, an issue that is extremely important to me. And I am happy to say, that for the first time in the months that I've been bringing this issue to the attention of my colleagues, that there is some good news to report. Behind me there are two articles from yesterdays papers declaring the news that the advocacy group Parents United has settled its 5-year old lawsuit against the District over school repairs. I want to commend Parents United, Judge Kaye Christian, Gen. Julius Becton, and the many staff who were finally able to come to an agreement. The settlement outlines how repairs for these schools can take place as quickly as possible, with the least interruption of the school year as possible. On paper, that is a good first step. But in concrete terms, the only thing this deal has done is to stop unnecessary school closings, which are clearly having a detrimental effect on morale and achievement. What about the money and the orderly process for seeing that these repairs get accomplished? Look at Dr. Brimmer here and see what it boils down to: Congress. It boils down to us. Yes there is included in this settlement a commitment on the part of the control board to allocate money that the city borrows for school repairs, but let me remind my colleagues that unless the city has a sustainable dedicated revenue stream to be used for bonding credit, who knows how much the city will be able to borrow? In years past the city was considered essentially bankrupt, allowing for zero borrowing. How will the school system be able to execute repairs on schedule with an orderly process when they can't project a consistent budget? Let's look at the money that is needed to get the schools fixed. Based on a GSA report, and the D.C.P.S. 2010 long range facilities master plan--we need a total of $2 billion to get the D.C. schools repaired to code and modernized. The D.C.P.S. plan is a solid one, and it is broken into three phases: stabilization, functionality, and modernization. The total cost is estimated at $200 million a year over 10 years. Will Congress appropriate that kind of money? I think not-- and history shows us so. Look at the money that D.C.P.S. had available--through congressional appropriation and city borrowing--for school infrastructure improvement over the last few years: In 1996--$14.9 million; in 1995--$21.1 million; in 1994--$9.5 million; and in 1993--$8.8 million. As you can see, Mr. President, this yearly allocation falls far short of $200 million. In fact, the average amount of money the District was able to spend on school repairs, over the last 10 years was $13.4 million. If we keep driveling money to the schools at that rate it will take the school system 150 years to meet their 10 year plan. How many children will have to suffer if we wait 150 years? There is a way for Congress to act responsibly. We must give the schools a dedicated revenue stream to bond with so that the $2 billion goal can be met. But at present Congress has its hands tied by its own actions. In 1974 when Congress created home rule we denied Washington the authority to be able to do what every other major city in an interestate area can do--and that is tax it non-resident workers. This is not some new fangled idea.It is what every other city in America can do to make sure its infrastructure and services are viable. I will speak about how Washington can accomplish this and a larger goal in a minute. But let's return to what happens when the schools don't have the money for repairs. The school year can't start on time. The upside of the severe disruption to the school year that has taken place is this September and October is that the focus of attention to the plight of our Nation's capital school system has never been greater. We have a lot of issues to deal with as national leaders, and bringing the focus to one school system is no easy task. But this is the school system of our Capital City--the school system that should be the flagship for education in our country, not the sinking vessel it has become. And as the leadership that created the control board, and created the emergency school board of trustees, and appropriates the city's funds each year we are responsible for turning this ship around. Now, let's look for a second at the academic ramifications of a school system in decay. Again, a piece of good news: the District of Columbia Public School system has a new chief academic officer, Arlene Ackerman, and I had the chance to meet with her last week and enjoyed that opportunity very much. Ms. Ackerman has done what any good manager would and prescribed an evaluation to see where the students in her charge are in terms of national standards. I have taken this information, which was released in the Washington Post last Thursday and let's see how that headline reads: ``Tests Indicate Many Students in D.C. Won't be Promoted. . . .''. Now, I know this is appalling, but let me take you quickly through some of the actual test results in reading and math. These statistics are based on the Stanford 9 Achievement Test that was administered last Spring. As Arlene Ackerman said in her remarks when releasing these sorry statistics, ``The lives of our children are at stake.'' And let me state, for everyone listening, these children, the children of the Nation's Capital, are our children. Every Member of this body has a responsibility for their well being. And as you can see from these statistics, we are not living up to that responsibility. Is there a connection between Congress' annual appropriation process, the D.C.P.S. infrastructure emergency and these unfortunate academic test scores? You bet there is. As we saw earlier, every year that Congress appropriates far far less than the schools need for infrastructure is like giving a dying man a drop or two of water. Eventually the systems just wear out. In the process, you get low morale, low academic achievement and outraged parents and students. Look again at this article. That $487 million is only part of the $200 million a year I mentioned earlier. How are we going to get there? The city needs to have a dedicated revenue stream so that they can bond for infrastructure improvement. Where will that dedicated revenue stream come from? A nonresident income tax that benefits the tax-payer, the Washington Metropolitan Region and the District schools is the answer. With my proposal, the economy in our ``Golden Crescent''--the area stretching from the District to Annapolis and as far west as Winchester, VA--gets an enormous boost. This bill creates an education and training partnership that would make it possible to fill the estimated 50,000 available jobs in the D.C. metropolitan area that rely on information technology skills. Filling these jobs would boost our regional economy by $3.5 billion annually. More jobs = a stronger tax base = more consumer spending = more home buying, and so forth. Leaders in the private sector know the direct correlation between those appalling test scores I just showed you and their bottom line. They know the cost in decreased productivity when jobs go begging for lack of skilled employees. They know how much it costs to start recruiting from all over the country and, some cases all over the world. The private sector I am speaking of resides in northern Virginia and southern Maryland. The payback to the counties in these States, if we fill these jobs and inject our local economy with that $3.5 billion a year will be manifold. Far greater than the outlay the nonresident income tax demands. And in the process we will be able, as a country, to feel pride in every aspect of our Nation's Capital. I know the pride I feel each time I fly back to Washington, especially at night, and see the beautiful monuments, all lit up. They symbolize this great country and the founding fathers who upheld the integrity and mission this country is built on. But I say to my colleagues, these monuments are made of stone. The living testament to the American system of government is it's children. Flesh and blood and the inheritors of all that our Founding Fathers dreamed of. If we as U.S. Senators cannot make the future a great one for the children of America's capital, then our pride in this city and its monuments is fraudulent. We must find a solution, and I challenge my colleagues to review my proposal or show me a better one. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent I may proceed for 10 minutes as in morning business

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Veterans' Disability Benefits Relief Act. This legislation would address an unfair provision that double taxes veterans who participate in military downsizing programs run by the Department of Defense [DOD]. Mr. President, since 1991, in an effort by the DOD to downsize the armed services, certain military personnel have been eligible for either the special separation benefit [SSB] or the voluntary separation incentive [VSI] program. However, SSB or VSI recipients who are subsequently diagnosed with a service-connected disability must offset the full SSB/VSI amount paid to that individual by withholding amounts that would be paid as disability compensation by the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA]. Additionally, veterans who participate in the DOD's downsizing by selecting an SSB lump sum payment or a VSI monthly annuity payment, are forced to pay back the full, pretax amount in disability compensation-- offsetting money that the veteran would never see with or without a service-connected disability. This is a gross injustice to veterans by double taxing their hard-earned compensation. My bill would ease this double taxation for all members who accept an SSB or VSI payment package and make these alterations retroactive to December 5, 1991. Thus, service members not able to receive payment concurrently since 1991 will be reimbursed for their lost compensation portion that was taxed. The cost of this bill was estimated by CBO to be only $195 million over 25 years. This is a fraction of a percentage of our annual spending on compensation and benefits for former military personnel. I urge Congress to correct this injustice to our Nation's veterans and provide these veterans with the proper compensation they deserve.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Veterans' Disability Benefits Relief Act. This legislation would address an unfair provision that double taxes veterans who participate in military downsizing programs run by the Department of Defense [DOD]. Mr. President, since 1991, in an effort by the DOD to downsize the armed services, certain military personnel have been eligible for either the special separation benefit [SSB] or the voluntary separation incentive [VSI] program. However, SSB or VSI recipients who are subsequently diagnosed with a service-connected disability must offset the full SSB/VSI amount paid to that individual by withholding amounts that would be paid as disability compensation by the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA]. Additionally, veterans who participate in the DOD's downsizing by selecting an SSB lump sum payment or a VSI monthly annuity payment, are forced to pay back the full, pretax amount in disability compensation-- offsetting money that the veteran would never see with or without a service-connected disability. This is a gross injustice to veterans by double taxing their hard-earned compensation. My bill would ease this double taxation for all members who accept an SSB or VSI payment package and make these alterations retroactive to December 5, 1991. Thus, service members not able to receive payment concurrently since 1991 will be reimbursed for their lost compensation portion that was taxed. The cost of this bill was estimated by CBO to be only $195 million over 25 years. This is a fraction of a percentage of our annual spending on compensation and benefits for former military personnel. I urge Congress to correct this injustice to our Nation's veterans and provide these veterans with the proper compensation they deserve.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Daniel Urban Kiley of Charlotte, VT, recipient of a 1997 National Medal of Arts. The National Medal of Arts is our Nation's highest honor in the arts, recognizing individuals and organizations who have made outstanding contributions to the excellence, growth, support and availability of the arts in the United States. Mr. Kiley is the first landscape architect to be honored with this prestigious award. Mr. Kiley, 84, has been called ``the most celebrated landscape architect of this century''. His many works include the setting for Dulles International Airport, the grounds for the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, the interior and exterior landscapes for the East Wing of the National Gallery of Art, and the Navy Pier in Chicago. Yet, despite his work all over the world, Mr. Kiley has stayed in close touch with the people and landscapes of Vermont. His work can be seen at Twin Farms Inn in Barnard, VT, the Lake Champlain Basin Region, and even at my own farm in Shrewsbury. Daniel Kiley's works have been likened to ``a walk through nature,'' reflecting his central tenet that designs should grow out of a landscape, not be forced upon it. His designs have been sought out by the leading modern architects and his unique vision celebrated and taught throughout the world. In addition to his long career as a landscape architect, Mr. Kiley served as an Army Captain in World War II. He was selected by President Truman and General Eisenhower to find a site to try the Nazi War criminals, and his selection of Nuremberg as the site as well as his courtroom design earned him the Decorated Legion of Merit. Once again, I rise to honor Mr. Kiley's many contributions and accomplishments, far too numerous to list today. As a Vermonter, and as one of the millions of Americans who have enjoyed Daniel Kiley's designs, I extend my most heartfelt congratulations on his receiving the National Medal of Arts, and I wish him many more years of continued success.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, in behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each until 3 p.m..

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to ``Jeopardy'' and its efforts in educational outreach. The show has been successful in providing more than just entertainment for its audience. In over 3,000 episodes spanning 14 years, ``Jeopardy'' has challenged viewers to expand their horizons and learn more about some fundamental fields of study. ``Jeopardy'' seeks and demands attentive participation. Accordingly, this forum has often been used by schools throughout the country to improve students' performance in a wide array of subjects. The show will be taping in 2 weeks worth of episodes from Washington, DC, at Constitution Hall. The first week will pay tribute to the educational accomplishments of our Nation's best and brightest children. The second week will spotlight members of the political community to raise more than $150,000 for worthy causes and stress the value of education. It seems clear that ``Jeopardy'' realizes the significance of learning for people both young and old. I salute ``Jeopardy'' for reaching beyond the television screen to provide quality programming with truly profound educational benefits for every community across the Nation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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