Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Marlene ``Molly'' Burke of Rutland, VT. After 40 years of dedicated service to the teachers and students of Vermont, Molly has decided to retire. Molly began her distinguished career, inspired by her father, in 1956 at Pittsford High School when she was 22 years old. After a summer abroad, she taught at Essex Junction High School for a short while, then moved to Proctor High in 1959. In 1964, she began teaching at my alma matter, Rutland High, where she remained for three decades. Molly taught history in the classroom, however her interaction with her students did not end in the classroom. Molly coached cheerleading, and directed class plays as well. Her commitment to excellence and dedication to the students beyond normal classroom hours is in the finest tradition of Vermont's educational system. It was in recognition of her excellence that the Vermont teachers elected Molly president of the State chapter of the National Education Association in 1989. She moved to Montpelier where she headed the largest teachers union in Vermont because she believes that people should be treated fairly and equally and she made enormous efforts to improve the working conditions within all of Vermont's schools. Molly Burke embodies what all educators should strive to achieve. Once again, I would like to extend my thanks for her service to Vermont and best wishes in her retirement. Mr. President, I ask that an article from June 2, 1997, in the Rutland Daily Herald be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Rutland Daily Herald, June 2, 1997] Goodbye, Molly (By Kevin O'Connor) Here in history class, Rutland High teacher Marlene Burke is relating the story of a seemingly hapless rookie instructor of 40 years ago. Miss Reichelt, age 22, taught English, math and social studies, coached cheerleading, directed class plays, snuck short afternoon naps and spent long nights marking papers and lesson plans, all for $8,000 a year. Miss Reichelt, barely afloat by June, decided to bail out. Escaping to Europe, she capped her summer with a startling revelation: She was born to teach. Burke laughs at the punch line. Before she married, she was Miss Reichelt. She gave the classroom another chance. It, in return, gave her a career. Burke has taught history for four decades, three of them at Rutland High. Colleagues elected her president of the state's 7,000-member teachers union three times from 1989 to 1995. She now heads the association's 200-member local arm. Call her The Unsinkable Molly Burke. But exactly 40 years after first leaving the classroom, the teacher has decided to do it again. She's retiring. ``I love what I do,'' she says, ``but I think it's time.'' Burke's career was inspired by her father, a German immigrant who believed in the American dream. ``He said with education you can do everything, without it you can do nothing,'' she recalls. Burke entered public school after graduating from the parochial St. Michael's High School in Montpelier and Trinity College in Burlington. She started teaching Sept. 4, 1956 at Pittsford High, long since replaced by Otter Valley union High in neighboring Brandon. Students couldn't pronounce ``Miss Reichelt,'' so she wrote a few hints on the chalkboard: Rye (like bread) Kelt (like felt) They worked too well. ``Some of them would spell it Ryekelt.'' Miss Reichelt returned from Europe to teach at Essex Junction High before marrying Robert Burke and moving to Proctor High in 1959 and Rutland High in 1964. Make that the ``old'' Rutland High. Burke taught at the Library Avenue campus until 1989, when Vermont teachers elected her president of their chapter of the National Education Association. Moving to Montpelier, she headed the state's largest teachers union for six years. ``Working conditions are big issues with teachers,'' she says. ``I believe people need to be treated fairly and honestly.'' (U.S. Sen. James Jeffords, R-Vt., confirmed the union's influence in an impromptu comment last week: ``Teachers can really move things if they get together--Molly Burke can tell you that.'') When Burke returned to Rutland High in 1995, her colleagues had moved to an $8.7 million facility on Stratton Road. Times had changed from her days at Pittsford High, where her old classroom featured a bulletin board. ``I used to try to change it at least twice a year.'' Burke's new classroom has a bulletin board--and a computer with e-mail, a telephone with answering machine, a television with video-cassette recorder. ``The good old days.'' she concludes, ``were terrible.'' Burke may teach the past, but she touts progress. She likes today's longer class periods. Today's collaborative contract negotiations. And, an occasional nose ring or tongue stud aside, today's students. ``They say kinds have changed--they really haven't. Kids are kids. There were kids who misbehaved then, there are kids who misbehave now. Most of them are good.'' Burke teaches a 130-year period of American history from the end of the Civil War to the end of the Cold War. For her, the last half isn't a lecture, it's her life. ``I remember exactly where I was when Kennedy was assassinated, when the space shuttle Challenger blew up . . . I try to give the kids the facts, and then bring in the emotions because I lived through it. I think it brings it alive.'' And sparks questions. Take a recent lesson on the Vietnam War. ``One of my 16-year-olds said, You were alive then? You were teaching school?' I could have been talking about the Peloponnesian War.'' That happens right up to Reagan's election in 1980--the year most of her juniors were born. ``I always say, `You remember when . . .' Of course, they don't.'' That's why students must study. ``If you don't learn from history, you're condemned to repeat it.'' she says, paraphrasing the famous quote. Several of Burke's past students are parents of her present students. Alumni also sign her paycheck. Michael Dick, class of 1966, is president of the School Board. David Wolk, class of 1971, is school superintendent. Although graduates always recognize her, she doesn't always recognize them. ``You had one history teacher for a year,'' she replies. ``You forget I had 120 students a day.'' They also forget she has a life outside the classroom. Burke recalls shopping with her son and daughter when a student approached. ``She said, `Whose are these?' She never thought of me as anything but a woman in a room teaching history.'' (Let alone a grandmother to a 2-year-old boy.) Retirement will bring the former Miss Reichelt full circle. ``I want to go to Europe,'' she says, ``and out West, and ski in the middle of the week, and not get up at 6 o'clock.'' Once more she won't be teaching history. ``I'll be living it.''

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to address a problem that has enormous significance for the future of this Nation and the prosperity of our citizens. This legislation will create a regional Education and Workforce Training Partnership for the Washington Metropolitan Area. The partnership created in the Washington Metropolitan region would serve as a national model and would address the infrastructure crisis that exists in the District of Columbia Public Schools. Let me take a moment to explain the importance of this legislation as a national model. We face a national economic crisis if we fail to prepare our workforce for the high-paying technology jobs of the future. As a nation, we are currently enjoying an extended period of economic strength, and that is terrific. But we mustn't be lulled into a false sense of complacency. We have all read and digested the theory of how the foundation of our economy is shifting from a manufacturing base to what is now called the global knowledge economy. In the global knowledge economy, the ability to use critical thinking skills with advanced technology and information will be at a premium. Technology proficiency will be required to get and keep a good job. Now, I ask you, are we really prepared as a nation to be a leader in the global knowledge economy? Will our workers be surpassed by the workforces of our competitors overseas? At present there are 190,000 unfilled high-skilled information technology jobs at large and mid-sized U.S. companies. These vacancies are almost equally divided between information technology (IT) and non- IT companies that rely heavily on advanced technology skills to get the job done. This shows us, that as we approach the 21st century technology skills are a must. In the Washington Metropolitan Area alone there are at least 50,000 jobs--with an average annual salary of $40,000--that cannot be filled by the local labor market. Local area students are not being prepared to fill these jobs. Companies have complained to me in meeting after meeting that they are forced to recruit from other States or from other countries to try and find people for these positions--and that tactic is entirely too cost-prohibitive. The Metropolitan Washington Education and Workforce Training Improvement Act of 1997 authorizes the establishment of a regional education and work force training partnership. This partnership is to be composed of 13 members representing business and education, together with a government official from the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. The partnership will chart a course for reforms and investments in education and work force training for the D.C. metropolitan area, making recommendations to the Secretaries of Education and Labor for grants to fund specific activities so that the skills of the regional work force will meet the needs of the regions employers. By filling the 50,000 IT jobs in the Washington metropolitan area an additional $3.5 billion annually would be injected into the region's economy. And, the partnership created by this legislation with its unique focus on business-education collaboration, would serve as a model for other regions in the Nation that are facing the same pending crisis in labor market shortage and economic development. In addition, this legislation will fulfill another long awaited promise that we as national leaders living and working in Washington must see through. I believe we have an obligation to make the Nation's Capital a model of what education must be as we enter the next century. The D.C. schools have made administrative progress recently, but the infrastructure problems are still appalling--requiring, according to a 1996 GSA report, an additional $2 billion for reconstruction and repair of dilapidated buildings. We must not let the students of the District of Columbia be sentenced to learning in buildings that would be found in a war zone. We owe more to the students of our Nation's Capital. I want to be clear that this legislation would provide initial Federal funding to help finance the bonding required to reconstruct the D.C. school infrastructure. No funds would be used towards the present school administration as they have adequate receipts. The legislation would also provide funding for the D.C. school reform legislation passed by the Congress last session. I want to see this Metropolitan Washington Education and Workforce Training Act enacted to help correct our regional labor market shortage and to serve as a model for the Nation. Through this legislation we can help fill the high-paying jobs we have available in this region, known as the Golden Crescent of Maryland, Virginia, and the District, and in so doing we will make our capital's education system one that is effective and one we can be proud of. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important effort.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to address a problem that has enormous significance for the future of this Nation and the prosperity of our citizens. This legislation will create a regional Education and Workforce Training Partnership for the Washington Metropolitan Area. The partnership created in the Washington Metropolitan region would serve as a national model and would address the infrastructure crisis that exists in the District of Columbia Public Schools. Let me take a moment to explain the importance of this legislation as a national model. We face a national economic crisis if we fail to prepare our workforce for the high-paying technology jobs of the future. As a nation, we are currently enjoying an extended period of economic strength, and that is terrific. But we mustn't be lulled into a false sense of complacency. We have all read and digested the theory of how the foundation of our economy is shifting from a manufacturing base to what is now called the global knowledge economy. In the global knowledge economy, the ability to use critical thinking skills with advanced technology and information will be at a premium. Technology proficiency will be required to get and keep a good job. Now, I ask you, are we really prepared as a nation to be a leader in the global knowledge economy? Will our workers be surpassed by the workforces of our competitors overseas? At present there are 190,000 unfilled high-skilled information technology jobs at large and mid-sized U.S. companies. These vacancies are almost equally divided between information technology (IT) and non- IT companies that rely heavily on advanced technology skills to get the job done. This shows us, that as we approach the 21st century technology skills are a must. In the Washington Metropolitan Area alone there are at least 50,000 jobs--with an average annual salary of $40,000--that cannot be filled by the local labor market. Local area students are not being prepared to fill these jobs. Companies have complained to me in meeting after meeting that they are forced to recruit from other States or from other countries to try and find people for these positions--and that tactic is entirely too cost-prohibitive. The Metropolitan Washington Education and Workforce Training Improvement Act of 1997 authorizes the establishment of a regional education and work force training partnership. This partnership is to be composed of 13 members representing business and education, together with a government official from the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. The partnership will chart a course for reforms and investments in education and work force training for the D.C. metropolitan area, making recommendations to the Secretaries of Education and Labor for grants to fund specific activities so that the skills of the regional work force will meet the needs of the regions employers. By filling the 50,000 IT jobs in the Washington metropolitan area an additional $3.5 billion annually would be injected into the region's economy. And, the partnership created by this legislation with its unique focus on business-education collaboration, would serve as a model for other regions in the Nation that are facing the same pending crisis in labor market shortage and economic development. In addition, this legislation will fulfill another long awaited promise that we as national leaders living and working in Washington must see through. I believe we have an obligation to make the Nation's Capital a model of what education must be as we enter the next century. The D.C. schools have made administrative progress recently, but the infrastructure problems are still appalling--requiring, according to a 1996 GSA report, an additional $2 billion for reconstruction and repair of dilapidated buildings. We must not let the students of the District of Columbia be sentenced to learning in buildings that would be found in a war zone. We owe more to the students of our Nation's Capital. I want to be clear that this legislation would provide initial Federal funding to help finance the bonding required to reconstruct the D.C. school infrastructure. No funds would be used towards the present school administration as they have adequate receipts. The legislation would also provide funding for the D.C. school reform legislation passed by the Congress last session. I want to see this Metropolitan Washington Education and Workforce Training Act enacted to help correct our regional labor market shortage and to serve as a model for the Nation. Through this legislation we can help fill the high-paying jobs we have available in this region, known as the Golden Crescent of Maryland, Virginia, and the District, and in so doing we will make our capital's education system one that is effective and one we can be proud of. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important effort.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join my colleagues today in marking the 34th anniversary of President Kennedy's historic call for negotiations aimed at reducing the risk of nuclear war. President Kennedy's June 10, 1963, address at American University marked the beginning of serious international efforts to limit the nuclear arms race and to avert the nightmarish possibility of a nuclear war. His initiative resulted a few months later in the Limited Test Ban Treaty, which brought about the first pause in the nuclear powers' efforts to construct bigger, better, and more nuclear weapons. It's worth noting that President Kennedy's objectives were more ambitious. He had hoped to enact a comprehensive nuclear test ban, but was unable to win agreement for such a bold step. Now, more than three decades later, we have an opportunity to realize this objective. Following several years of negotiations in the U.N. Conference on Disarmament, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [CTBT] was completed and opened for signature in September 1996. Since then, over 140 countries have signed the document, including all five declared nuclear weapons states. For the treaty to enter into force, 44 key signatories, including the United States, must ratify the agreement prior to September 1998. Mr. President, over the past few years I have had the privilege of participating on a steering committee of a project organized by the Henry L. Stimson Center on Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction. The objective of the group, which included such authorities on foreign policy and national security as Gen. Andrew Goodpaster and Ambassador Paul Nitze, was to consider concrete measures the United States could undertake to work toward the long-term goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. In our third and final report, released in March, we laid out several steps President Clinton and Congress can take now to ensure that future generations are safe from the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. Ratification of the CTBT was one of the three most urgent measures we recommended. Enactment of a comprehensive test ban would do more to stem proliferation and reduce the nuclear threat than any other action we could take at this time. The details of the CTBT are technical and complex but the effect of the treaty is pure and simple: it would ban all nuclear test explosions. Not only would this constrain the development of more complex weapons but it would also protect our environment. The United States already has a moratorium in effect on nuclear weapons tests and has not conducted such a test since 1992. It's time to make this moratorium permanent and ensure that others follow suit. The administration has indicated its intent to present the CTBT to the Senate for advice and consent. However, to date it has not done so. I appreciate that the treaty is likely to be controversial in some quarters and that the Senate has only recently concluded a hotly contested debate on another important arms control treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC]. However, one of the problems we faced with the CWC was that it was not brought before the Senate as quickly as it could have been. For that and other reasons, we found ourselves in late April facing a deadline affecting our participation in the treaty. Let's not put ourselves in that position again. Let's begin the debate on the treaty now so that our decision on ratification--which I fervently hope will be a positive one--can serve as a signal of encouragement to other countries. Thirty-four years ago today, President Kennedy called on us to pause and consider the effects of a devastating nuclear conflict. He put us on a path to eliminating this threat. Let's honor his memory by fulfilling one of his grandest objectives. Let's act on and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today to introduce the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1997 [ENDA]. As many of you recall, my colleagues and I introduced similar legislation in the last Congress. While we were unable to pass ENDA in the last Congress, I was encouraged that ENDA was only narrowly defeated, by a vote of 50 to 49. It is my hope that in the 105th Congress, we can bridge that narrow gap and pass this legislation. By extending to sexual orientation the same Federal employment discrimination protections established for race, religion, gender, national origin, age, and disability, this legislation will further ensure that principals of equality and opportunity apply to all Americans. I believe that all Americans deserve to be judged at work based on their ability to do their jobs and not their sexual orientation. People who work hard and perform well should not be kept from leading productive and responsible lives because of an irrational, non-work- related prejudice. Unfortunately, many responsible and productive members of our society face discrimination in their workplaces based on nothing more than their sexual orientation. Because this insidious discrimination persists, there is a need for Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Mr. President, the Senate's vote last Congress is no doubt reflective of the American people's support of the concept behind ENDA. In a recent poll, 83 percent of the respondents support the passage of a law extending civil rights and preventing job discrimination against gays and lesbians. While ENDA will achieve this goal of equal rights for job opportunities, it does so by not creating any special rights for gays and lesbians. Specifically, this legislation prohibits preferential treatment based on sexual orientation. In addition, ENDA does not require an employer to justify a neutral practice that may have a statistically disparate impact based on sexual orientation, nor provide benefits for the same-sex partner of an employee. Rather, it simply protects a right that should belong to every American, the right to be free from discrimination at work because of personal characteristics unrelated to successful performance on the job. Since ENDA's narrow defeat last September, we have taken a fresh look at this important legislation in an attempt to allay some of the concerns raised by ENDA's detractors in the last Congress. I am pleased to announce that we have made several significant improvements in the bill. Our first change is intended to address the concern raised that employees' privacy rights would be violated if the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] required employers to provide the Government with data on the sexual orientation of their employees. As a result, the bill now prohibits the EEOC from collecting such statistics and from compelling employers to do so. Opponents of the previous legislation were also concerned that the EEOC would require employers who have violated ENDA to hire gay and lesbian employees as part of its enforcement scheme. To alleviate that possibility, the new legislation precludes the EEOC from entering into a consent decree that includes quotas, or gives preferential treatment based on sexual orientation. In addition, we have narrowed the language of the previous bill so that only actual paid employees are protected and we have attempted to ensure that exempted religious organizations from coverage. In today's global economy, our Nation must take full advantage of every resource that is at our disposal if we want U.S. companies to maintain their competitive advantage over their international competitors. The fact that a majority of Fortune 500 companies have incorporated many of ENDA's policies, clearly indicates the acceptance of these changes within the workplace. In fact, it can be stated that without these American companies, on their own, undertaking these actions to insure adequate working protections for all of their employees they would be less competitive and may even be unable to maintain their existence within this fiercely competitive international environment. Mr. President, some concern has been raised by my colleagues that passing ENDA will create a new wave of litigation. I am proud to say that my home State of Vermont is one of several States and localities that have enacted a sexual orientation anti-discrimination law, and it is no surprise, to me, that the sky has not fallen. Since the enactment of Vermont's law in 1991 the Vermont Attorney General has initiated only 17 investigations of alleged sexual orientation discrimination. Seven are pending at this time. Five have been closed with determinations that unlawful discrimination cannot be proven to have occurred. Four have been closed for miscellaneous administrative reasons, unrelated to the merits of the charge, and one resulted in a settlement. In addition, I am not aware of a single complaint from Vermont employers about the enforcement of the State law. However, I do know that thousands of Vermonters no longer need to live and work in the shadows. The facts bear out my belief that the effect experienced in Vermont on litigation has been experienced in other States and the District of Columbia that have implemented policies similar to the one of my home State of Vermont. As I have stated before, success at work should be directly related to one's ability to do the job, period. The passage of ENDA would be a significant step toward ensuring the ability of all people, be they gay, lesbian, or heterosexual, to be fairly judged on their work product, not on an unrelated personal characteristic. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today to introduce the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1997 [ENDA]. As many of you recall, my colleagues and I introduced similar legislation in the last Congress. While we were unable to pass ENDA in the last Congress, I was encouraged that ENDA was only narrowly defeated, by a vote of 50 to 49. It is my hope that in the 105th Congress, we can bridge that narrow gap and pass this legislation. By extending to sexual orientation the same Federal employment discrimination protections established for race, religion, gender, national origin, age, and disability, this legislation will further ensure that principals of equality and opportunity apply to all Americans. I believe that all Americans deserve to be judged at work based on their ability to do their jobs and not their sexual orientation. People who work hard and perform well should not be kept from leading productive and responsible lives because of an irrational, non-work- related prejudice. Unfortunately, many responsible and productive members of our society face discrimination in their workplaces based on nothing more than their sexual orientation. Because this insidious discrimination persists, there is a need for Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Mr. President, the Senate's vote last Congress is no doubt reflective of the American people's support of the concept behind ENDA. In a recent poll, 83 percent of the respondents support the passage of a law extending civil rights and preventing job discrimination against gays and lesbians. While ENDA will achieve this goal of equal rights for job opportunities, it does so by not creating any special rights for gays and lesbians. Specifically, this legislation prohibits preferential treatment based on sexual orientation. In addition, ENDA does not require an employer to justify a neutral practice that may have a statistically disparate impact based on sexual orientation, nor provide benefits for the same-sex partner of an employee. Rather, it simply protects a right that should belong to every American, the right to be free from discrimination at work because of personal characteristics unrelated to successful performance on the job. Since ENDA's narrow defeat last September, we have taken a fresh look at this important legislation in an attempt to allay some of the concerns raised by ENDA's detractors in the last Congress. I am pleased to announce that we have made several significant improvements in the bill. Our first change is intended to address the concern raised that employees' privacy rights would be violated if the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] required employers to provide the Government with data on the sexual orientation of their employees. As a result, the bill now prohibits the EEOC from collecting such statistics and from compelling employers to do so. Opponents of the previous legislation were also concerned that the EEOC would require employers who have violated ENDA to hire gay and lesbian employees as part of its enforcement scheme. To alleviate that possibility, the new legislation precludes the EEOC from entering into a consent decree that includes quotas, or gives preferential treatment based on sexual orientation. In addition, we have narrowed the language of the previous bill so that only actual paid employees are protected and we have attempted to ensure that exempted religious organizations from coverage. In today's global economy, our Nation must take full advantage of every resource that is at our disposal if we want U.S. companies to maintain their competitive advantage over their international competitors. The fact that a majority of Fortune 500 companies have incorporated many of ENDA's policies, clearly indicates the acceptance of these changes within the workplace. In fact, it can be stated that without these American companies, on their own, undertaking these actions to insure adequate working protections for all of their employees they would be less competitive and may even be unable to maintain their existence within this fiercely competitive international environment. Mr. President, some concern has been raised by my colleagues that passing ENDA will create a new wave of litigation. I am proud to say that my home State of Vermont is one of several States and localities that have enacted a sexual orientation anti-discrimination law, and it is no surprise, to me, that the sky has not fallen. Since the enactment of Vermont's law in 1991 the Vermont Attorney General has initiated only 17 investigations of alleged sexual orientation discrimination. Seven are pending at this time. Five have been closed with determinations that unlawful discrimination cannot be proven to have occurred. Four have been closed for miscellaneous administrative reasons, unrelated to the merits of the charge, and one resulted in a settlement. In addition, I am not aware of a single complaint from Vermont employers about the enforcement of the State law. However, I do know that thousands of Vermonters no longer need to live and work in the shadows. The facts bear out my belief that the effect experienced in Vermont on litigation has been experienced in other States and the District of Columbia that have implemented policies similar to the one of my home State of Vermont. As I have stated before, success at work should be directly related to one's ability to do the job, period. The passage of ENDA would be a significant step toward ensuring the ability of all people, be they gay, lesbian, or heterosexual, to be fairly judged on their work product, not on an unrelated personal characteristic. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be held on Thursday, June 12, 1997, 10 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Higher Education Act reauthorization: opportunity programs. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a Executive Session of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be held on Wednesday, June 11, 1997, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The following are on the agenda to be considered: budget reconciliation; S. 830, the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997; and Presidential nominations. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on labor and human resources

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as we are now within 1,000 days of the new millennium, we need to begin to think about what our Nation should look like in the next 1,000 years. For in the last 1,000 years we have discovered new continents and new planets, we have conquered deadly diseases and created new technology. As we stand at the threshold of the next century we need to take the steps to prepare the Federal Government and all Americans for the path that lies ahead. This budget resolution is based on principles which are reasonable, credible, solution-oriented, and are based on common sense. It is because of those principles, Mr. President, that I rise today to support this bipartisan balanced budget resolution. For today we begin the process to bring fiscal security and greater economic opportunity to our children. For over 25 years, the Federal Government has been unable to balance the budget. We now owe more than $5.3 trillion. Therefore, we spend over $900 million on interest every day. We send more to our bondholders in 3 days than we do to every man, woman, and child in Vermont over the course of an entire year. The interest payment on our national debt is five and half times more than we spend on all education, job training, and employment programs combined. If one was to ask the question what should be the Federal priorities of this Nation? Should we spend more money on education for the future of this Nation, or more money on interest? Well, it is clear what our choice would be--education. Yet, we have precisely reversed our priorities because we have been imprudent with our fiscal policy. Balancing the budget is what we need to do to ensure a brighter future for America. Lower interest rates will allow American families to purchase their first home, send a child to college, and buy a new automobile. The real benefits of a balanced budget will be realized in the increased standard of living for each American family. Mr. President I would now like to take a moment to speak about some of the provisions in this agreement. Medicare serves a 37.5 million elderly and disabled individuals in this country. For several years the trustees of the Medicare program have continued to send notice to Capitol Hill that steps needed to be taken or this program will go bankrupt. This budget resolution keeps this program solvent for the next 10 years. We now can take the steps to make fundamental changes to preserve and strengthen Medicare for the current recipients and future generations. Through the effort of several of my colleagues, children's health was put in the forefront during these first few months of the 105th Congress. Senators came up with different proposals due to one fundamental thing--the need to provide health insurance to the estimated 10 million low income children. I commend both the administration and the leadership for realizing the importance of this issue and to providing the needed resources for these children. In many families today, both parents need to work in order to get by. They work in order to give their children a chance at a better future. Dinner tables in the past were filled with lively conversation. Conversation centering on discussions of values and goals and the other important issues which bring a family together. These tables are now silent. Empty tables due to the fact parents come home from work just too tired. It is time for we in Congress to take some steps to provide relief for the American family. The tax reduction package is not going to solve all the problems that each family faces in this country. But what it will do is leave some additional dollars in the pockets of our hard- working Americans in order for them to spend those funds on their family needs. As a member of the Finance Committee, I look forward to working with Chairman Roth on the specific provisions dealing with tax relief. One of the reasons I first got involved in public service was to make a difference in the educational system of our Nation. As chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee I feel that it is important that we continue to improve our school system. We have all read stories about children who go to class but just don't learn. Each day is a lost opportunity to shape and prepare these children for the future. A generation is leaving high school unable to meet the challenges that lay ahead. When a high school graduate is unable to read, what we find is that we sent an individual into the world who will live a life of missed opportunities. Every year America becomes a more technological country. Distances which used to be measured in the time it took for a plane travel across this country are now measured in the time it takes for a signal to be bounced off a satellite. Children need to graduate from high school not just able to read but to understand the changing nature of the workplace. Over my many years in Congress, I have championed educational opportunities for our children. This budget provides additional funding for programs that will help students throughout this Nation prepare for the future. Even though, for every dollar of increased spending for certain specific programs, this budget has made a $15 reduction in spending. Today we begin to prepare our students with greater educational opportunities and our Federal Government will lower deficit spending, both which will help meet the demands of a global economy. Mr. President, in closing, the American people in 1996 sent a message to our Nation's Capital. They wanted an administration and Congress of different political parties to work together to solve common problems. Though this agreement is not perfect, and there are some in this Chamber that feel that we have gone too far and some who feel we have not gone far enough, it is an important step forward. This is not a budget based on party, or one that was written exclusively in the Halls of Congress or in the Oval Office, this is a budget of compromise. This is a first step toward a new millennium. A time where America is going to need the ability to meet the challenges that lie ahead. I want to commend Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici and Majority Leader Lott for their determination, their hard work, and their vision in putting together this historic budget resolution. This is the first step to ensure a brighter tomorrow for our nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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, June 10, 1997, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Divided Loyalties: The Impact of Salting in the Workplace. For further information, please call the committee, (202) 224-5375. committee on energy and natural resources--subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to modernize the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] and reauthorize the Prescription Drug User Fee Act for 5 years. This legislation comes as result of over 3 years of consideration by the Congress on steps that could be taken by the agency that would contribute to its mandate to protect the American public while ensuring that life-saving products could be made more readily available. FDA acknowledges that its mandate also requires it to regulate over one-third of our Nation's products. Within its purview the FDA regulates virtually all of the food and all of the cosmetics, medical devices, and drugs made available to our citizens. I believe, and several members of the Labor Committee share my belief, that in an organization the size of FDA there is always room for improvement and modernization. Our objective, which this legislation achieves, was identify areas where improvements could be made that will strengthen the agency's ability to approve safe and effective products more expeditiously. Last year, both the House and the Senate held numerous and extensive hearings on countless proposals for modernizing and reforming the FDA. The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee successfully reported a bipartisan bill that sought to accomplish many of those reforms. But last year, acrimonious issues remained, time ran out and the bill did not receive floor consideration. This year I have resolved to move forward. I have been committed to addressing last year's most controversial issues. I believe that the legislation I am introducing today addresses virtually all of objections raised last year both in process and in content. This is a better bill and I believe that upon examination, my colleagues will agree that it accomplishes its goal. I want to comment a moment on the open, consensus-building process we followed in developing this legislation. The Labor Committee held two hearings. During the first the committee received testimony from the principal FDA Deputy Commissioner, Dr. Michael Friedman, and all of the FDA Center Directors. The second hearing included representatives from patient and consumer coalitions and from the food, drug, and medical device sectors regulated by the FDA. Committee members learned from the agency of the administrative reforms and the progress it has already undertaken, areas that remain a challenge, and those areas that require legislative authority to change. The committee listened to consumers' concerns with provisions that were considered last year that they felt would weaken the FDA's ability to protect the public health. Finally, the committee learned of the ongoing and needless delays and frustrations facing health care and consumer product sectors of our economy in working with the FDA. The committee learned of the frustrated attempts to work through the bureaucratic labyrinth of needless regulatory delays. Delays that prohibited people from getting access to vitally needed, life saving medical treatments, drugs, and devices. Since the finish of the committee's hearings we have engaged in an open, collaborative process that has given voice to each party wishing to be heard. For many of these meetings it is worth noting that the agency was a full, cooperating participant and we would not have been able to make the progress made without FDA's collaboration. Several meetings, essentially roundtable discussions, have occurred with bipartisan committee staff, the FDA, and each of the several sectors regulated by the agency. These meetings have given all the participants an opportunity to discuss problems and potential solutions and have been the basis for the consensus bill I am introducing today. Finally, committee staff have had numerous meetings to discuss key provisions in the bill with a wide range of consumer groups including, among others, the Patient Coalition, Public Citizen, the Centers for Science in the Public Interest, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the National Organization for Rare Diseases. It should be clear that no person or group was excluded from this deliberative process. Let me turn to the content of this measure and the steps we have taken to respond to the controversies raised last year. Five key objections were raised against the FDA reform bill that had been reported on a strong bipartisan vote from the Labor and Human Resources Committee during the last Congress. In that vein, we have sought to and have accomplished addressing each of the substantive concerns raised by the minority. Last year's measure was criticized by some for the number of mandatory, but shortened, product review time frames that critics said would overburden the FDA and for the hammers that would have required FDA to contract out some product reviews or to give priority to products approved abroad. Today's legislation eliminates most of the mandatory time frames and retains only those necessary to ensure collaborative, more efficient reviews or to facilitate quick reviews of low risk products. The contracting out and European review hammers that would have forced FDA actions have been eliminated. Last year's provision allowing for third party, outside expert review were criticized for turning central regulatory authority decisions over to private industry, creating conflicts of interest, and depriving FDA of resources and expertise. Today's legislation adopts FDA's current system for accrediting and selecting third-party review organizations. The bill expands FDA's current pilot third-party review program beyond just the lowest risk devices and FDA retains final approval for all devices. Devices that are life- supporting, life-sustaining, or implantable are excluded from third- party review. FDA may allow third-party review for higher risk devices at its sole discretion. This approval will allow FDA to retain, augment, and focus its expertise, at its discretion, on critical areas of its expanding workload. Last year's bill would have required FDA to contract out review of food additive petitions, medical devices, and drugs. Critics argued these changes would weaken consumer protections. We have modified these provisions to give FDA express authority to contract out when deemed by FDA to be more efficient or to add needed expertise. Thsi year the collaborative effort has continued. During our meetings FDA identified a number of enforcement powers that the agency believes will enhance its ability to protect the public health. We have included a number of FDA's specific requests. Many patient and consumer groups raised concerns about insufficient safeguards related to the fast-track drug approval process and the provision improving accelerated access to investigational products and we have adopted several of their key concerns. I would close by saying that this measure embodies a reasonable, moderate approach to balancing the agency's mandate to regulate over one-third of our Nation's economy and provide for the public health and safety with the compelling need to provide new, improved, safe, and effective products to the American public. It is a good bill and I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve it even further.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to modernize the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] and reauthorize the Prescription Drug User Fee Act for 5 years. This legislation comes as result of over 3 years of consideration by the Congress on steps that could be taken by the agency that would contribute to its mandate to protect the American public while ensuring that life-saving products could be made more readily available. FDA acknowledges that its mandate also requires it to regulate over one-third of our Nation's products. Within its purview the FDA regulates virtually all of the food and all of the cosmetics, medical devices, and drugs made available to our citizens. I believe, and several members of the Labor Committee share my belief, that in an organization the size of FDA there is always room for improvement and modernization. Our objective, which this legislation achieves, was identify areas where improvements could be made that will strengthen the agency's ability to approve safe and effective products more expeditiously. Last year, both the House and the Senate held numerous and extensive hearings on countless proposals for modernizing and reforming the FDA. The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee successfully reported a bipartisan bill that sought to accomplish many of those reforms. But last year, acrimonious issues remained, time ran out and the bill did not receive floor consideration. This year I have resolved to move forward. I have been committed to addressing last year's most controversial issues. I believe that the legislation I am introducing today addresses virtually all of objections raised last year both in process and in content. This is a better bill and I believe that upon examination, my colleagues will agree that it accomplishes its goal. I want to comment a moment on the open, consensus-building process we followed in developing this legislation. The Labor Committee held two hearings. During the first the committee received testimony from the principal FDA Deputy Commissioner, Dr. Michael Friedman, and all of the FDA Center Directors. The second hearing included representatives from patient and consumer coalitions and from the food, drug, and medical device sectors regulated by the FDA. Committee members learned from the agency of the administrative reforms and the progress it has already undertaken, areas that remain a challenge, and those areas that require legislative authority to change. The committee listened to consumers' concerns with provisions that were considered last year that they felt would weaken the FDA's ability to protect the public health. Finally, the committee learned of the ongoing and needless delays and frustrations facing health care and consumer product sectors of our economy in working with the FDA. The committee learned of the frustrated attempts to work through the bureaucratic labyrinth of needless regulatory delays. Delays that prohibited people from getting access to vitally needed, life saving medical treatments, drugs, and devices. Since the finish of the committee's hearings we have engaged in an open, collaborative process that has given voice to each party wishing to be heard. For many of these meetings it is worth noting that the agency was a full, cooperating participant and we would not have been able to make the progress made without FDA's collaboration. Several meetings, essentially roundtable discussions, have occurred with bipartisan committee staff, the FDA, and each of the several sectors regulated by the agency. These meetings have given all the participants an opportunity to discuss problems and potential solutions and have been the basis for the consensus bill I am introducing today. Finally, committee staff have had numerous meetings to discuss key provisions in the bill with a wide range of consumer groups including, among others, the Patient Coalition, Public Citizen, the Centers for Science in the Public Interest, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the National Organization for Rare Diseases. It should be clear that no person or group was excluded from this deliberative process. Let me turn to the content of this measure and the steps we have taken to respond to the controversies raised last year. Five key objections were raised against the FDA reform bill that had been reported on a strong bipartisan vote from the Labor and Human Resources Committee during the last Congress. In that vein, we have sought to and have accomplished addressing each of the substantive concerns raised by the minority. Last year's measure was criticized by some for the number of mandatory, but shortened, product review time frames that critics said would overburden the FDA and for the hammers that would have required FDA to contract out some product reviews or to give priority to products approved abroad. Today's legislation eliminates most of the mandatory time frames and retains only those necessary to ensure collaborative, more efficient reviews or to facilitate quick reviews of low risk products. The contracting out and European review hammers that would have forced FDA actions have been eliminated. Last year's provision allowing for third party, outside expert review were criticized for turning central regulatory authority decisions over to private industry, creating conflicts of interest, and depriving FDA of resources and expertise. Today's legislation adopts FDA's current system for accrediting and selecting third-party review organizations. The bill expands FDA's current pilot third-party review program beyond just the lowest risk devices and FDA retains final approval for all devices. Devices that are life- supporting, life-sustaining, or implantable are excluded from third- party review. FDA may allow third-party review for higher risk devices at its sole discretion. This approval will allow FDA to retain, augment, and focus its expertise, at its discretion, on critical areas of its expanding workload. Last year's bill would have required FDA to contract out review of food additive petitions, medical devices, and drugs. Critics argued these changes would weaken consumer protections. We have modified these provisions to give FDA express authority to contract out when deemed by FDA to be more efficient or to add needed expertise. Thsi year the collaborative effort has continued. During our meetings FDA identified a number of enforcement powers that the agency believes will enhance its ability to protect the public health. We have included a number of FDA's specific requests. Many patient and consumer groups raised concerns about insufficient safeguards related to the fast-track drug approval process and the provision improving accelerated access to investigational products and we have adopted several of their key concerns. I would close by saying that this measure embodies a reasonable, moderate approach to balancing the agency's mandate to regulate over one-third of our Nation's economy and provide for the public health and safety with the compelling need to provide new, improved, safe, and effective products to the American public. It is a good bill and I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve it even further.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Subcommittee on Children and Families will be held on Thursday, June 5, 1997, at 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``Pre-to-3: Policy Implications of Child Brain Development.'' For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. subcommittee on aging

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Subcommittee on Aging will be held on Thursday, June 5, 1997, at 2:30 p.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``Challenges of Alzheimer's Disease: The Biomedical Research That Will Carry Us into the 21st Century.'' For further information, please call the committee, 202/224- 5375. committee on small business

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Franklin ``Bill'' Billings on the occasion of his 75th birthday. In addition, I would like to take this opportunity and commemorate his distinguished service as a Federal judge. Bill's career has been dedicated to serving the people of Vermont in a wide array of positions. He first served the Green Mountain State as assistant secretary of the Senate from 1949 to 1953. He was later selected to represent the Woodstock area as a member of the Vermont House. During his tenure, Bill was elected speaker of the Vermont General Assembly in 1963 and 1965, which were tumultuous reapportionment years for the State. In 1975, he was appointed to the Vermont Supreme Court and subsequently chosen to serve as Chief Justice. He concluded his career as the U.S. district court judge for the district of Vermont. Throughout his efforts, Bill has remained consistently committed to standards of professionalism above reproach as well as an unwavering respect and dedication to ethics. His uncanny ability to see beyond the surface, while considering some of the most complicated legal matters, is testimony to a keen intellect. Once again, I would like to extend my best wishes and congratulations to Judge Bill Billings. He has set an example which we should all strive to emulate.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to six outstanding young women who are being presented with the Girl Scout Gold Award by the Vermont Girl Scout Council. They are Melissa Jones and Tina Newell of Vergennes, Kathleen Lomedico of Colchester as well as Jennifer Tobin, Vincenza Tortolano, and Lori Brown of Rutland. They are being honored on May 29, 1997 for earning the highest achievement award in U.S. Girl Scouting. The Girl Scout Gold Award symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning, and personal development. The award can be earned by girls aged 14-17, or in grades 9-12. To receive the award, these Girl Scouts first earned four interest project patches, the Career Exploration Pin, the Senior Girl Scout Leadership Award and the Senior Girl Scout Challenge as well as designing and implementing a Girl Scout Gold Award project to meet a special need in their communities. As members of the Vermont Girl Scout Council, Melissa and Tina first earned badges in understanding yourself and others, child care, games, creative writing, and reading. The girls then combined their efforts in a project to combat illiteracy. They designed a series of three workshops for young children about the magic of books which they put on at their local town library. The workshops featured a magician, hired with money the girls raised themselves, magic tricks and crafts taught by the girls, and wonderful stories featuring magic. They attracted a large number of youngsters. The girls reported ``everything we did interested and excited the children; they wanted to read more books and they now know the library and are planning to come to their future children's programs''. Jennifer and Vincenza put their efforts into making a special place for some elderly members of their community. The girls designed and established a conversation garden to give nursing home residents and their guests access to sidewalks, shade, and beauty, putting in two settees and planting bulbs and a flowering crabapple tree, all financed by the girls' sale of handmade cookbooks. To quote the nursing home administrator, ``these two young people have earned the respect and appreciation of 125 nursing home residents and 160 employees of Eden Park''. As a member of the Vermont Girl Scout Council, Lori first earned badges in child care, reading, music, games, well being and understanding yourself and others. She then used these skills to design and implement a series of Lenten workshops for the younger children in her parish church. Kathleen earned badges in artistic crafts and exploration among others. After learning leadership skills through Girl Scouting, she served as the editor of her high school yearbook. As her Girl Scout Gold Award project she spent the last year organizing and leading a youth group for teens which meets every other week and a youth band which plays every Sunday for her church parish. Kathleen wanted the young people in her parish to ``feel a sense of home in the church.'' Both girls used the skills they learned in Girl Scouting to help the church of their faith. These six Senior Girl Scouts have earned my respect and admiration. I believe all the girls should receive the public recognition due them for such significant services to their communities and their country.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I will be very brief. I thank my good friend from Florida for allowing me to do this. Amendment No. 337

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, so I do not sound totally inconsistent with the arguments I just made, I would let it be known that I intend to withdraw my amendment at the conclusion of my statement. I rise today with my good friend from Indiana, Senator Coats, to offer this motion. What this does is to remove the reconciliation instructions from the budget bill, the reconciliation instructions of my own committee. The reason for that is that this would require us to reduce the aid for our higher ed students. I would remind everyone that last year this body greatly reduced the instructions then of some many billions of dollars and sent it over to the House. They came back and refused to go along. And this body voted 99 to 0 to insist upon the Senate's position. That resulted in restoring almost all of the money to the higher ed area. The only area that my committee, the Labor and Human Resources Committee, has any money that is in the reconciliation area is with respect to the higher ed funding of our student loans. The budget agreement as recently written cuts the student financial aid account by $1.8 billion over 5 years. I would note that that is substantially lower than last year. We end up, even after all the reductions from about $19 billion down, we still ended up with $4 billion. So I commend the Budget Committee for coming back with half of what was required last year. Our motion would restore these funds however and remain budget neutral by providing for adjustment on the revenue side of the agreement. I think it is important to remind my colleagues of the central importance that student aid plays in our children's future. The balanced budget agreement is dependent upon increases in working productivity and in future economic growth. This growth in turn is dependent upon the quality and availability of a well-educated work force. Let us take a minute to reflect on the facts regarding the economic impact, the higher education impact upon Federal aid to student participation. Participation in higher education is one of the most dramatic predictors of economic success. As you can see from this chart--the chart I would have had but do not have--that shows dramatically that the more education you have, the more economic availability you have. With a high school degree, your high range is at $43,000. If you have a bachelor's degree, it is $73,000. And if you have a doctorate, it goes well above that. In the past years, only those that had postsecondary education have been able to stay even with the cost of living. And only those with doctorates and masters degrees have improved their standard of living. So it is incredibly important we provide the access of our young people to go to higher education. The postsecondary, as I referred to it now--we have given much emphasis on the higher education without keeping in mind the postsecondary training education that is available. Federal financial aid plays an essential role in allowing students from low and middle income families to attend community colleges and universities. Thirty-six percent of all students receive some form of Federal financial aid in order to allow them to attend college. This Federal investment is returned many times over in increased economic productivity and income in Federal taxes. Without this aid, however, many of the students would not be able to fulfill their dreams to attend college.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 315 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Federal commitment to biomedical research should be doubled over the next 5 years)

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I understand that under the unanimous- consent order, the Moseley-Braun amendment is now set aside.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I would point out that the primary responsibility for this construction lies with the States, and that if we were to go on in a new venture to pick up the responsibility of reconstructing the schools in this country of about $115 to $120 billion, that obviously would create a huge change in our priorities.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill along with Senator Kohl and several of my colleagues which will amend the earned- income credit to restore fairness to low-income dairy farmers across the country. Last year during the debate over welfare reform, Congress tightened up on the requirements for eligibility for the EIC. The law was amended to prevent taxpayers with investment assets from claiming the EIC, our rationale being that taxpayers with substantial investment assets should sell those assets rather than rely on the EIC to supplement their income. Specifically, the law now reads that if you have over $2,200 in disqualified income, you cannot claim the EIC. The earned-income credit (EIC) is a credit against tax available to low-income working taxpayers. The credit is refundable; in other words, even if you don't owe any income tax, the Government may still give you a refund. In this way, the credit is a kind of income assistance to low-income taxpayers, encouraging them to keep working. Mr. President, the problem lies in that the IRS has interpreted the term disqualified income to include gains realized by dairy farmers when they cull and sell cows no longer suitable for dairy farming. I disagree with the IRS' interpretation, as do many of my colleagues. In my view, culled dairy cows are not investment assets. When farmers cull and sell cows no longer fit for dairy farming, they're not cashing in on their investments. To the contrary, they're cutting their losses. And we should not automatically expect proceeds from these sales to be available to support the farmer's day-to-day living expenses. Farmers may not be able to use this money to put food on his or her family's table or clothing on his family's back. He or she may have to pump these funds back into the dairy operation. If the farmer intends to maintain a viable dairy farm, he or she may use proceeds from the sale of a culled cow to acquire another cow suitable for dairy farming. So, I think it is wrong that these sale proceeds should make the low-income dairy farmer ineligible for the EIC. The IRS' interpretation will result in the loss of income from thousands of struggling dairy farmers across the country. Dairy farmers have experienced a 25-percent decline in milk prices in recent months and for years have been faced with unstable and low milk prices. Based on the Farm Credit's analysis, the current IRS position would cost Vermont dairy farmers nearly $1 million in refunds and/or increased tax bills. Dairy farmers across the country will be adversely impacted by the current position of the IRS. The greatest impact will be in States that have a high number of small- and mid-sized family dairy operations. Losses to the Nation's dairy farmers have been estimated to be as much as $76 million. In short, in my view, when the income generated by a farmer's dairy operations is otherwise modest, he or she should not become ineligible for the EIC when he or she has the misfortune to discover that some of his or her dairy cows are nonproductive and disposes of those nonproductive assets at a profit. Because I disagree with the IRS interpretation, I, together with 16 colleagues, wrote to IRS Commissioner Margaret Richardson on March 13, 1997, to challenge the IRS interpretation of the EIC. Unfortunately, the IRS has maintained that its interpretation is correct. Accordingly, today I am introducing this bill, along with several of my colleagues, to overturn what we believe is an unwise and unwarranted interpretation by the IRS. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill along with Senator Kohl and several of my colleagues which will amend the earned- income credit to restore fairness to low-income dairy farmers across the country. Last year during the debate over welfare reform, Congress tightened up on the requirements for eligibility for the EIC. The law was amended to prevent taxpayers with investment assets from claiming the EIC, our rationale being that taxpayers with substantial investment assets should sell those assets rather than rely on the EIC to supplement their income. Specifically, the law now reads that if you have over $2,200 in disqualified income, you cannot claim the EIC. The earned-income credit (EIC) is a credit against tax available to low-income working taxpayers. The credit is refundable; in other words, even if you don't owe any income tax, the Government may still give you a refund. In this way, the credit is a kind of income assistance to low-income taxpayers, encouraging them to keep working. Mr. President, the problem lies in that the IRS has interpreted the term disqualified income to include gains realized by dairy farmers when they cull and sell cows no longer suitable for dairy farming. I disagree with the IRS' interpretation, as do many of my colleagues. In my view, culled dairy cows are not investment assets. When farmers cull and sell cows no longer fit for dairy farming, they're not cashing in on their investments. To the contrary, they're cutting their losses. And we should not automatically expect proceeds from these sales to be available to support the farmer's day-to-day living expenses. Farmers may not be able to use this money to put food on his or her family's table or clothing on his family's back. He or she may have to pump these funds back into the dairy operation. If the farmer intends to maintain a viable dairy farm, he or she may use proceeds from the sale of a culled cow to acquire another cow suitable for dairy farming. So, I think it is wrong that these sale proceeds should make the low-income dairy farmer ineligible for the EIC. The IRS' interpretation will result in the loss of income from thousands of struggling dairy farmers across the country. Dairy farmers have experienced a 25-percent decline in milk prices in recent months and for years have been faced with unstable and low milk prices. Based on the Farm Credit's analysis, the current IRS position would cost Vermont dairy farmers nearly $1 million in refunds and/or increased tax bills. Dairy farmers across the country will be adversely impacted by the current position of the IRS. The greatest impact will be in States that have a high number of small- and mid-sized family dairy operations. Losses to the Nation's dairy farmers have been estimated to be as much as $76 million. In short, in my view, when the income generated by a farmer's dairy operations is otherwise modest, he or she should not become ineligible for the EIC when he or she has the misfortune to discover that some of his or her dairy cows are nonproductive and disposes of those nonproductive assets at a profit. Because I disagree with the IRS interpretation, I, together with 16 colleagues, wrote to IRS Commissioner Margaret Richardson on March 13, 1997, to challenge the IRS interpretation of the EIC. Unfortunately, the IRS has maintained that its interpretation is correct. Accordingly, today I am introducing this bill, along with several of my colleagues, to overturn what we believe is an unwise and unwarranted interpretation by the IRS. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.