Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words today about the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC], which has been submitted to the Senate for advice and consent. Various aspects of this historic treaty are now being debated. However, I would maintain that one of the most important considerations for the Senate is how the CWC will affect our military forces in the field. Will it or will it not help reduce the threat of a poison gas attack against U.S. troops? As the Persian Gulf war demonstrated, this threat is real and must be addressed. After reviewing the accord, I have concluded that the CWC will indeed help to protect U.S. fighting forces from chemical attack. But don't just take my word for it, consider the opinion of several respected veterans groups and military associations who have come out in favor of the CWC, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the American Ex-Prisoners of War, AMVETS, the American G.I. Forum, the Korean War Veterans Association, the Jewish War Veterans of the U.S.A., and the National Association of Black Veterans. VFW Commander in Chief James E. Nier, in calling for Senate ratification of the CWC, said: ``This treaty will reduce world stockpiles of [chemical] weapons and will hopefully prevent our troops from being exposed to poison gases as we believe happened in the Gulf War.'' The Vietnam Veterans of America lists ratification of the CWC among its top legislative priorities, noting that the treaty would be ``a substantive step toward preventing chemical weapons exposure problems for veterans in the future similar to those experienced by Persian Gulf War veterans and the veterans of prior wars.'' As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I can vouch for the fact that these groups are among the most unflinching supporters of American national security interests and would not support the CWC if they believed that it put America's fighting forces at greater risk. Several of our Nation's best-known and most decorated veterans have spoken out in their own right in support of the CWC, including Gen. Colin Powell, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, and Adm. Elmo Zumwalt. In a hearing before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee in January, General Schwarzkopf made no bones about his views on the matter. ``We don't need chemical weapons to fight our future warfares,'' he told the committee, adding ``By not ratifying the [CWC] we align ourselves with nations like Iran, Libya, and North Korea, and I'd just as soon not be associated with those thugs in this particular matter.'' Admiral Zumwalt, in an editorial in the Washington Post, stated that those who oppose the CWC ``do a grave disservice to America's men and women in uniform.'' ``Militarily,'' he wrote, ``this treaty will make us stronger.'' Those who now lead our troops have also registered their unequivocal support for the treaty. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Shalikashvili testified last year that the CWC is ``clearly in our national interest'' and ``would reduce the probability that U.S. forces would encounter poison gas in future conflicts.'' The influential Reserve Officers Association of the United States, representing over 100,000 active-duty, Reserve, and retired military officers, declared in a February 19 resolution that ``ratification of the CWC will enable [the U.S.] to play a major role in the development and implementation of CWC policy, as well as providing strong moral leverage to help convince Russia of the desirability of ratifying the convention.'' Mr. President, even the treaty's supporters admit that the CWC is an imperfect treaty. However, all international agreements, by their very nature, involve some compromises. This particular treaty has been signed by 161 countries and involves the most comprehensive verification regime of any international arms control accord to date. Moreover, 68 countries have already ratified the CWC, which means that the treaty will come into effect on April 29 whether or not the United States ratifies it. In view of this, the only issue at hand is whether the United States is better off within the treaty regime, working with others to reduce the threat, or on the outside, with a handful of rogue states like Libya and North Korea. Almost 6 years ago, then-President Bush foreswore the use of chemical weapons under any circumstances and began efforts, supported by Congress, to destroy our existing stockpiles of chemical arms. That remains U.S. policy. Doesn't it make sense, as long as we're destroying our own chemical weapons, to do everything we can to make sure that others follow suit? The CWC is our most effective tool for accomplishing this task. Those who oppose the treaty have come up with no better alternative than to have us sit on our hands. Negotiating another treaty is out of the question--there is no international interest in a new treaty and, even if there were, such a treaty would take years to negotiate. So why not embrace the strong treaty we have now and make the best use of it? Failure to ratify this treaty will have serious negative consequences for the United States. We would cede our longstanding international leadership on multilateral arms control issues and lose influence over the way the CWC is implemented. And, ironically, the U.S. chemical industry, which strongly supports the treaty and which participated in the negotiations leading up to it, would be subject to trade restrictions that could cost it up to $600 million a year in sales. However, the greatest consequence of failure to ratify the CWC would be that U.S. military forces would be placed at increased risk of poison gas attack. In fiscal year 1997, the United States will spend over $800 million on chemical and biological weapons defenses. This is money well spent. Our troops must be prepared to deal with this horrible threat. However, it would be folly to spend these funds without doing something concrete to reduce the long-term threat posed by chemical weapons. Mr. President, veterans groups and military associations have spoken with a clear voice. They want the scourge of chemical weapons eliminated and agree that the Chemical Weapons Convention advances this goal. Let's not ignore their pleas. Let's ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention as soon as possible so that we can get down to the business of rolling back chemical arms programs worldwide.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I introduce the Scenic Highway Protection Act, legislation that will control billboard blight and put a stop to the policies that have actually encouraged billboard construction and destroyed rural vistas across America. Every year hundreds of miles of rural scenery disappear, millions of taxpayer dollars are spent, and thousands of trees on public lands are unnecessarily cut. Why? Because billboards continue to proliferate along our Nation's highways. During debate on the National Highway System Act in 1995, billboard proponents pushed an amendment that would have forced States and localities to allow billboards on Federal aid highways. Fortunately, this proposal was defeated. My legislation attempts to give States the necessary tools to regulate and end the growth of billboards and protects the strict billboard controls enacted in Vermont and many other States. In the coming months, Congress will consider reauthorization of the Nation's transportation law, the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act. Proponents of billboard proliferation will most likely try again to override State billboard control laws. This time, we are prepared to enact legislation that will reduce and control billboards nationwide. My legislation will send a signal to billboard owners that America is ready to end uncontrolled billboard blight. The language in my bill will place a permanent freeze on the number of new billboards placed along Federal aid highways. for a new billboard to go up, an old one must come down. The legislation will also prohibit billboards in unzoned areas, eliminating the ability to randomly place billboards in rural America. My bill will end the practice of cutting trees on public lands for the sole purpose of better billboard visibility and reinstate the requirement that Federal and State funds be used to remove billboards when communities decide the sign violates local zoning laws. Finally, the legislation will place a 15-percent gross revenue tax on all billboards, ending the free ride for billboards. The money will be used to remove billboards in our Nation's most scenic areas. This legislation will move the 1965 Highway Beautification Act closer to its original intent of preserving the public's investment in our highways by protecting scenic areas and natural resources. Let us end the taxpayer subsidized proliferation of billboards.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I introduce the Scenic Highway Protection Act, legislation that will control billboard blight and put a stop to the policies that have actually encouraged billboard construction and destroyed rural vistas across America. Every year hundreds of miles of rural scenery disappear, millions of taxpayer dollars are spent, and thousands of trees on public lands are unnecessarily cut. Why? Because billboards continue to proliferate along our Nation's highways. During debate on the National Highway System Act in 1995, billboard proponents pushed an amendment that would have forced States and localities to allow billboards on Federal aid highways. Fortunately, this proposal was defeated. My legislation attempts to give States the necessary tools to regulate and end the growth of billboards and protects the strict billboard controls enacted in Vermont and many other States. In the coming months, Congress will consider reauthorization of the Nation's transportation law, the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act. Proponents of billboard proliferation will most likely try again to override State billboard control laws. This time, we are prepared to enact legislation that will reduce and control billboards nationwide. My legislation will send a signal to billboard owners that America is ready to end uncontrolled billboard blight. The language in my bill will place a permanent freeze on the number of new billboards placed along Federal aid highways. for a new billboard to go up, an old one must come down. The legislation will also prohibit billboards in unzoned areas, eliminating the ability to randomly place billboards in rural America. My bill will end the practice of cutting trees on public lands for the sole purpose of better billboard visibility and reinstate the requirement that Federal and State funds be used to remove billboards when communities decide the sign violates local zoning laws. Finally, the legislation will place a 15-percent gross revenue tax on all billboards, ending the free ride for billboards. The money will be used to remove billboards in our Nation's most scenic areas. This legislation will move the 1965 Highway Beautification Act closer to its original intent of preserving the public's investment in our highways by protecting scenic areas and natural resources. Let us end the taxpayer subsidized proliferation of billboards.

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, March 6, 1997, 10 a.m., in DS-106 of the Senate Dirksen Building. the subject of the hearing is health care quality and consumer protection.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I will vote to pass the balanced budget amendment. This is a vote for a stronger America, for responsible Government, and for our children. In 1982, I approached the constitutional amendment with a certain degree of skepticism. My vote against the amendment at that time reflected my belief that Congress could and would correctly eliminate our budget shortfall. Since that time, however, we have come to a point of national financial crisis. In 1982, we had a Federal debt of less than $1 trillion. This year, we have more than $5 trillion in Federal debt. This debt is crippling our Government's ability to solve our difficult problems. Like many, I wish there was a way to make Congress and the administration balance the budget without amending the Constitution. But we have tried, over and over and over, and we have failed. These measures have always fallen short. We must have in Washington what we take for granted in Montpelier, VT, and State capitals across the country--a balanced budget. This Congress must be remembered as the one that made life better in America.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to introduce legislation that will repeal section 217 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act [HIPAA]. As enacted last year, this provision for the first time creates Federal criminal penalties for elders who transfer their assets and who subsequently apply for Medicaid but are deemed ineligible for nursing home benefits. I believe the goal to stop fraud and abuse in the Medicaid Program is laudable and must be pursued. However, there is a growing consensus that section 217 is a vague, unenforceable, criminal sanction misdirected at the elderly. It is unduly threatening to the Nation's senior citizens. We are sending the wrong message by implying there is something wrong or illegal with obtaining sound financial advice and estate planning to legitimately protect the assets that senior citizens have spent a lifetime accruing. During a recent hearing before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, on the implementation of HIPAA, several concerns were raised about this issue. Ms. Gail Shearer, the director of health policy analysis of the Consumers Union, testified that section 217 was ``leading to considerable alarm among seniors'' and that she was ``deeply troubled by the prospect of HIPAA leading to the transfer of elderly nursing home residents from their nursing home to prison.'' At that same hearing, Mr. Bruce Vladek, the administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration, pointed out that there is no evidence that large numbers of the elderly are impoverishing themselves to become Medicaid eligible. He expressed his belief that a few people doing something egregious can create the perception of a widespread problem. It is especially unclear how pervasive this practice is, particularly in light of actions already taken by Congress to curb these asset transfers. Repeal of section 217 would not affect several other restrictions now on the books designed to close loopholes and stop the inappropriate transfer of assets. People found to have transferred nonexempt assets within a look-back period are determined ineligible and denied Medicaid nursing home assistance for the period over which their assets would have paid. The look-back period for asset transfers is 36 months, with a 60-month period for trusts. States are also required to establish estate recovery programs to compensate for nursing home services paid for by the Medicaid Program. There is no systematic study that has determined or recommended that the addition of criminal sanctions to the penalties which already exist are necessary to address inappropriate asset transfers by the elderly. In the absence of a demonstrated need for criminal penalties, we believe that section 217 holds the potential to do more harm than good. No one really wants to send Granny to jail. In fact, it has been reported that the intended targets of section 217 are those who have created a cottage industry, and made substantial sums of money, from advising the elderly on how to transfer their assets to become Medicaid eligible. Ironically, section 217 has had the opposite effect. Recent newspaper ads placed by these advisers from Portland, ME, to Phoenix, AZ, now use this very law to drum up business. The bold-print headlines of these ads read: Sneaky New Law Buried in the Health Insurance Bill Can Put Unsuspecting Seniors and Retirees Behind Bars!, and You Only Have Until December 31st, 1996, To Avoid Making the Mistake That Could Toss You in Jail . . . Congress' Sneaky New Law Is the Most Vicious Attack on Retirees Yet! Mr. President, fraud and abuse in the Medicaid Program must not be tolerated, and taxpayers should not have to pay nursing home bills for persons who have the wherewithal to pay for their own care. But neither should confusing, unenforceable laws be in place that impose Federal criminal penalties on elderly individuals where there is no clear understanding of what does and what does not constitute a criminal activity. Organizations urging repeal of the provision include: the American Association of Retired Persons, the Alzheimer's Association, the Leadership Council on Aging--a group of more than 40 national organizations in the field of aging--and the American Bar Association. I believe that we in the Congress owe it to our senior citizens to stop their needless anxiety over this misdirected, confusing law. We need to repeal section 217. I urge my colleagues to join me in repealing this unnecessary and unworkable law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to introduce legislation that will repeal section 217 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act [HIPAA]. As enacted last year, this provision for the first time creates Federal criminal penalties for elders who transfer their assets and who subsequently apply for Medicaid but are deemed ineligible for nursing home benefits. I believe the goal to stop fraud and abuse in the Medicaid Program is laudable and must be pursued. However, there is a growing consensus that section 217 is a vague, unenforceable, criminal sanction misdirected at the elderly. It is unduly threatening to the Nation's senior citizens. We are sending the wrong message by implying there is something wrong or illegal with obtaining sound financial advice and estate planning to legitimately protect the assets that senior citizens have spent a lifetime accruing. During a recent hearing before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, on the implementation of HIPAA, several concerns were raised about this issue. Ms. Gail Shearer, the director of health policy analysis of the Consumers Union, testified that section 217 was ``leading to considerable alarm among seniors'' and that she was ``deeply troubled by the prospect of HIPAA leading to the transfer of elderly nursing home residents from their nursing home to prison.'' At that same hearing, Mr. Bruce Vladek, the administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration, pointed out that there is no evidence that large numbers of the elderly are impoverishing themselves to become Medicaid eligible. He expressed his belief that a few people doing something egregious can create the perception of a widespread problem. It is especially unclear how pervasive this practice is, particularly in light of actions already taken by Congress to curb these asset transfers. Repeal of section 217 would not affect several other restrictions now on the books designed to close loopholes and stop the inappropriate transfer of assets. People found to have transferred nonexempt assets within a look-back period are determined ineligible and denied Medicaid nursing home assistance for the period over which their assets would have paid. The look-back period for asset transfers is 36 months, with a 60-month period for trusts. States are also required to establish estate recovery programs to compensate for nursing home services paid for by the Medicaid Program. There is no systematic study that has determined or recommended that the addition of criminal sanctions to the penalties which already exist are necessary to address inappropriate asset transfers by the elderly. In the absence of a demonstrated need for criminal penalties, we believe that section 217 holds the potential to do more harm than good. No one really wants to send Granny to jail. In fact, it has been reported that the intended targets of section 217 are those who have created a cottage industry, and made substantial sums of money, from advising the elderly on how to transfer their assets to become Medicaid eligible. Ironically, section 217 has had the opposite effect. Recent newspaper ads placed by these advisers from Portland, ME, to Phoenix, AZ, now use this very law to drum up business. The bold-print headlines of these ads read: Sneaky New Law Buried in the Health Insurance Bill Can Put Unsuspecting Seniors and Retirees Behind Bars!, and You Only Have Until December 31st, 1996, To Avoid Making the Mistake That Could Toss You in Jail . . . Congress' Sneaky New Law Is the Most Vicious Attack on Retirees Yet! Mr. President, fraud and abuse in the Medicaid Program must not be tolerated, and taxpayers should not have to pay nursing home bills for persons who have the wherewithal to pay for their own care. But neither should confusing, unenforceable laws be in place that impose Federal criminal penalties on elderly individuals where there is no clear understanding of what does and what does not constitute a criminal activity. Organizations urging repeal of the provision include: the American Association of Retired Persons, the Alzheimer's Association, the Leadership Council on Aging--a group of more than 40 national organizations in the field of aging--and the American Bar Association. I believe that we in the Congress owe it to our senior citizens to stop their needless anxiety over this misdirected, confusing law. We need to repeal section 217. I urge my colleagues to join me in repealing this unnecessary and unworkable law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today works to end the illegal killing of rare and endangered species that are close to extinction. These species include rhinos, tigers, bears, and many other animals that are slaughtered for senseless reasons. The bill, titled the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act, seeks to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prohibit the sale of products labeled as containing endangered species. Since 1970, the world's population of rhinos has declined by 90 percent. Among the 5 species of rhinos, fewer than 11,000 individual rhinos exist in the wild. Tigers are facing a similar fate. At the turn of the century, as many as 100,000 tigers lived in the wild. Today, less than 5,000 tigers remain. Three subspecies are already extinct, and the remaining five subspecies are found only in sparse pockets of Asia. The greatest threat to the existence of rhinos and tigers in the wild continues to be the high demand for products containing rhino horn and tiger parts. The prohibition of the illegal trade in endangered species parts has not been well enforced in most Asian countries, where rhino and tiger products are valued for their medicinal value. Although the primary market for these illegal products continues to be in Asia, a large market has developed here in America. Investigators have found that in the United States, the trade in endangered species continues to be widely practiced. Many pharmacies in Los Angeles and New York offer rhino and tiger products for sale--a strong indication that it is time for the United States to concentrate on its role as a consumer nation of endangered species parts and products. In a recent survey, investigators found that 80 percent of pharmacies and supermarkets in New York's Chinatown district had tiger products openly for sale. Many of these products were imported from China. Demand for such products here in the United States is leading directly to the elimination of these species in their native habitat overseas. This trade must end. To curb this trade we need effective labeling laws and we must ban all products containing or claiming to contain ingredients derived from endangered species. Many products which advertise ingredients such as rhino horn or tiger parts do not even contain trace amount of these endangered species. However, the mere fact that they are on store shelves leads to increased demand for the real stuff. In addition, these products have been tested in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration and have been found to contain toxic metals that are harmful to human health if taken in the doses found in many traditional medicines. A ban on products containing ingredients from endangered species as well as those claiming to contain endangered species parts is vital to protect human health and to maintain the few remaining rhinos, tigers and bears in their wild habitat. My legislation will make it illegal to even intend to sell a product containing an endangered species. Today, Fish and Wildlife investigators are overwhelmed trying to control the illegal sale of endangered species parts and products. This bill will allow investigators to completely halt the sale of products labeled as containing endangered species. I am strong proponent of the protection and conservation of endangered species. If we do not act now, future generations will not be able to enjoy many of the species of wildlife now in existence. Currently there are insufficient legal mechanisms enabling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to forcefully interdict and confiscate products that are labeled as containing endangered species and to prosecute the merchandisers once the products are on store shelves. This bill seeks to close a significant loophole in the illegal trade in products containing or claiming to contain ingredients from endangered species. My hope is that this legislation, when passed in the 105th Congress, will help curb the escalating trade in wildlife and endangered species parts and stem the decrease in the populations of some of the Earth's most magnificent animals.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today works to end the illegal killing of rare and endangered species that are close to extinction. These species include rhinos, tigers, bears, and many other animals that are slaughtered for senseless reasons. The bill, titled the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act, seeks to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prohibit the sale of products labeled as containing endangered species. Since 1970, the world's population of rhinos has declined by 90 percent. Among the 5 species of rhinos, fewer than 11,000 individual rhinos exist in the wild. Tigers are facing a similar fate. At the turn of the century, as many as 100,000 tigers lived in the wild. Today, less than 5,000 tigers remain. Three subspecies are already extinct, and the remaining five subspecies are found only in sparse pockets of Asia. The greatest threat to the existence of rhinos and tigers in the wild continues to be the high demand for products containing rhino horn and tiger parts. The prohibition of the illegal trade in endangered species parts has not been well enforced in most Asian countries, where rhino and tiger products are valued for their medicinal value. Although the primary market for these illegal products continues to be in Asia, a large market has developed here in America. Investigators have found that in the United States, the trade in endangered species continues to be widely practiced. Many pharmacies in Los Angeles and New York offer rhino and tiger products for sale--a strong indication that it is time for the United States to concentrate on its role as a consumer nation of endangered species parts and products. In a recent survey, investigators found that 80 percent of pharmacies and supermarkets in New York's Chinatown district had tiger products openly for sale. Many of these products were imported from China. Demand for such products here in the United States is leading directly to the elimination of these species in their native habitat overseas. This trade must end. To curb this trade we need effective labeling laws and we must ban all products containing or claiming to contain ingredients derived from endangered species. Many products which advertise ingredients such as rhino horn or tiger parts do not even contain trace amount of these endangered species. However, the mere fact that they are on store shelves leads to increased demand for the real stuff. In addition, these products have been tested in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration and have been found to contain toxic metals that are harmful to human health if taken in the doses found in many traditional medicines. A ban on products containing ingredients from endangered species as well as those claiming to contain endangered species parts is vital to protect human health and to maintain the few remaining rhinos, tigers and bears in their wild habitat. My legislation will make it illegal to even intend to sell a product containing an endangered species. Today, Fish and Wildlife investigators are overwhelmed trying to control the illegal sale of endangered species parts and products. This bill will allow investigators to completely halt the sale of products labeled as containing endangered species. I am strong proponent of the protection and conservation of endangered species. If we do not act now, future generations will not be able to enjoy many of the species of wildlife now in existence. Currently there are insufficient legal mechanisms enabling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to forcefully interdict and confiscate products that are labeled as containing endangered species and to prosecute the merchandisers once the products are on store shelves. This bill seeks to close a significant loophole in the illegal trade in products containing or claiming to contain ingredients from endangered species. My hope is that this legislation, when passed in the 105th Congress, will help curb the escalating trade in wildlife and endangered species parts and stem the decrease in the populations of some of the Earth's most magnificent animals.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that an Executive Session of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be held on Wednesday, February 26, 1997, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The following are on the agenda to be considered. 1. S. 295, Teamwork for Employees and Managers [TEAM] Act. 2. S. 4, The Family Friendly Workplace Act. 3. Presidential nominations. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on indian affairs

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be held on Thursday, February 27, 1997, 10 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Reauthorization of Higher Education Act. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of House Joint Resolution 36, which would approve the President's finding that the congressionally imposed delay in disbursement of international population funding is having a negative impact on the effectiveness of our population planning programs overseas. I have been a strong supporter of international family planning assistance and see this measure now before us as an important test of our Government's commitment to these important, lifesaving programs. Claims that this resolution somehow promotes abortion are completely unfounded. This resolution is about the health of women and children in the desperately poor corners of the world, and, if anything, it is about preventing abortion. At issue here is whether to begin releasing funds March 1, or delay the disbursement for another 4 months, until July 1. The 1997 fiscal year began October 1, but under the terms of the fiscal year 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Act, funding for this particular program was delayed for 9 months. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, a total of $385 million will be spent on bilateral family planning programs. In other words, we are not debating if these funds will be spent, but when they will begin to be released--July 1 or March 1. I would like to point out that an additional 4-month delay in funding would result in an actual reduction of $123 million in funds available for programming during fiscal year 1997. The President's finding states that at least 17 bilateral and worldwide programs will have urgent funding needs in the March-June period which cannot be met by remaining fiscal year 1996 funds. If fiscal year 1997 funds are withheld until July 1, these programs would need to suspend, defer, or terminate family planning services and other critical supporting activities. The continued disruption and possible termination of family planning services would have a devastating impact on the health of women, children, and their families in many parts of the world. Medical research shows that women who are able to space their children in at least 2-year intervals have children that are less likely to die at a very early age. Children born less than 2 years apart are more likely to have a low birth weight, making them more vulnerable to disease and illness. Moreover, births too close together affect older children in the family as well. Infection, malnutrition, and dehydration result from premature discontinuation of breast-feeding. The inadequate nutrition, sanitation, and crowded living conditions often found in poor countries, increase the likelihood that already vulnerable children will succumb to illness. For the health of their families, women in these circumstances turn to family planning services, when they can get them. UNICEF estimates that each year 600,000 women die of pregnancy- related causes, and 75,000 of these deaths are the result of self- induced, unsafe abortion. UNICEF also estimates that these women leave behind at least 1 million motherless children. In short, to continue to obstruct and delay family planning assistance is to contribute to the deaths of women and young children. Why would we delay the release of funds until July 1 when we could prevent more needless, tragic deaths by releasing funds March 1? Mr. President, no Senator in this body wants to promote policies that increase the incidence of abortion overseas. But by continuing to delay funding to clinics in the poorest countries in the world, that's exactly what we are doing--shutting off women from the only possibility they have of obtaining family planning services and contraception and forcing them to consider abortion as a last, desperate option. Very simply, to vote against this resolution is to vote against the health of women and children, and to force more women to have abortions. I do not believe this is the true intention of the Senate and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that William Jackson of my staff be granted privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of the joint resolution.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing, together with a number of my colleagues, the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1997. This bill is identical to the TEAM Act approved by the Senate last year. This bill responds to a series of decisions by the National Labor Relations Board which have cast doubt on the legality of many forms of workplace cooperation. Specifically, the Board held in the Electromation case that certain employer-employee committees violated the National Labor Relations Act's prohibition against employer- assisted labor organizations. This ruling has had a chilling effect on some 30,000 companies that have employee involvement programs. The TEAM Act amends Federal labor law to allow voluntary workplace cooperation to continue. The legislation allows employers and employees to meet together to address issues of mutual interest, including issues related to quality, productivity, and efficiency as long as the committees or other joint programs do not engage in collective bargaining. This last point is important. The bill does not allow employers to establish company unions or sham unions that undermined independent collective bargaining back in the 1930's. Under the TEAM Act, workers retain the right, as well they should, to choose an independent union to engage in collective bargaining. More importantly, the TEAM Act gives workers the opportunity for greater input and involvement in the workplace. Not only does this allow workers to improve and expand their skills, but workplace cooperation also increases our productivity and competitive edge in the global marketplace. This bill received bipartisan support in the last Congress, and I am confident it will again this year. This bill is not about labor versus management. It's about clarifying the law so that workers and management can work together to their mutual benefit and to the benefit of our economy as a whole. I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle so that the TEAM Act becomes law in the very near future.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Subcommittee on Employment and Training, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, will be held on Thursday, February 13, 1997, 2 p.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on small business

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing, together with a number of my colleagues, the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1997. This bill is identical to the TEAM Act approved by the Senate last year. This bill responds to a series of decisions by the National Labor Relations Board which have cast doubt on the legality of many forms of workplace cooperation. Specifically, the Board held in the Electromation case that certain employer-employee committees violated the National Labor Relations Act's prohibition against employer- assisted labor organizations. This ruling has had a chilling effect on some 30,000 companies that have employee involvement programs. The TEAM Act amends Federal labor law to allow voluntary workplace cooperation to continue. The legislation allows employers and employees to meet together to address issues of mutual interest, including issues related to quality, productivity, and efficiency as long as the committees or other joint programs do not engage in collective bargaining. This last point is important. The bill does not allow employers to establish company unions or sham unions that undermined independent collective bargaining back in the 1930's. Under the TEAM Act, workers retain the right, as well they should, to choose an independent union to engage in collective bargaining. More importantly, the TEAM Act gives workers the opportunity for greater input and involvement in the workplace. Not only does this allow workers to improve and expand their skills, but workplace cooperation also increases our productivity and competitive edge in the global marketplace. This bill received bipartisan support in the last Congress, and I am confident it will again this year. This bill is not about labor versus management. It's about clarifying the law so that workers and management can work together to their mutual benefit and to the benefit of our economy as a whole. I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle so that the TEAM Act becomes law in the very near future.

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 Wednesday, February 12, 1997, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``Teamwork for Employees and Managers (TEAM) Act.'' For further information, please call the committee, 202--224-5375. committee on rules and administration

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be held on Tuesday, February 11, 1997, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Oversight.'' For further information, please call the committee, 202--224-5375. committee on small business

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join Senator Leahy today in paying tribute to Vermont's new chief justice, Jeffrey L. Amestoy. Jeff is a good friend and a great Vermonter, and I know he will serve in his new post with distinction and honor. Jeff Amestoy and I have shared many life experiences. We were both raised in Rutland, VT. He served as an assistant attorney general under my stewardship as Vermont's attorney general in the early 1970's. And now, over 20 years later, he is serving in the position that my father, Olin Jeffords, once held: chief justice of the Vermont supreme court. As someone who has known Jeff for over 25 years, I can attest to his judicial knowledge, his keen sense of Vermont values, his modest demeanor and his dedication to the people of Vermont. I was fortunate to be able to attend the swearing-in ceremony for Jeff last Friday in Montpelier. It was a wonderful event, one that I will never forget. Jeff's comments were from the heart and I am pleased to join Senator Leahy in offering them today as part of the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Moseley-Braun, D'Amato, Abraham, and Lieberman in sponsoring the Community Empowerment Act of 1997, which will encourage the cleanup of abandoned industrial sites known as brownfields in Vermont and across the country. The term ``brownfields'' refers to contaminated industrial sites. Most of these sites were abandoned during the 1970's and 1980's, as industrial development migrated away from urban areas to the greener landscape of the suburbs. One such site in Vermont is the Holden- Leonard Mill, a 20-building complex in Bennington, VT, that is poised to become a brownfields success story after 10 years of work. Once employing one-quarter of Bennington's work force, the mill shut down in 1939 and then was owned by a patchwork of owners until the 1980's. After soil tests disclosed high levels of pollutants, the mill sat empty after 1986. Fortunately, a buyer of the site came forward in 1992 and with cooperation between the business, State agencies, and the EPA the mill has been refurbished and over 200 new employees have been hired. The process, however, of revitalizing this site began in 1986 and is still going on. Our aim with this legislation is to provide tax incentives to businesses willing to clean up and redevelop brownfields sites so that more brownfield sites can be returned to productive use and so that the process doesn't have to take 10 years. Last November, I sponsored a forum on brownfields redevelopment in Burlington, VT. There is only one unpolluted site in Burlington available for industrial development. Yet there are currently 17 brownfields sites in the city, all with great potential for development. I toured several of these sites and saw this potential first hand. Burlington is both an EPA brownfields pilot city and an enterprise community. Under our legislation, businesses that acquire these sites would be able to claim tax deductions for their environmental cleanup costs. With tax incentives for brownfields redevelopment, I am hoping that we will see more of these abandoned sites returned to productive use. We treasure our open spaces in Vermont, and we are looking at ways to give incentives to companies to invest in our downtowns. When a company builds a facility on a brownfield site it takes advantage of existing infrastructure. the revitalization of a brownfield site means one less farm or field is paved over or forest cut down for the sake of a new plant or facility. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, in accordance with Rule XXVI, paragraph 2 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby submit for publication in the Record the Rules of Procedure of the Committee of Labor and Human Resources. The rules follow: Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources rules of procedure (as agreed to january 22, 1997) Rule 1.--Subject to the provisions of rule XXVI, paragraph 5, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, regular meetings of the committee shall be held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building. The chairman may, upon proper notice, call such additional meetings as he may deem necessary. Rule 2.--The chairman of the committee or of a subcommittee, or if the chairman is not present, the ranking majority member present, shall preside at all meetings. Rule 3.--Meetings of the committee or a subcommittee, including meetings to conduct hearings, shall be open to the public except as otherwise specifically provided in subsections (b) and (d) of rule 26.5 of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Rule 4.--(a) Subject to paragraph (b), one-third of the membership of the committee, actually present, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business. Any quorum of the committee which is composed of less than a majority of the members of the committee shall include at least one member of the majority and one member of the minority. (b) A majority of the members of a subcommittee, actually present, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business: provided, no measure or matter shall be ordered reported unless such majority shall include at least one member of the minority who is a member of the subcommittee. If, at any subcommittee meeting, a measure or matter cannot be ordered reported because of the absence of such a minority member, the measure or matter shall lay over for a day. If the presence of a member of the minority is not then obtained, a majority of the members of the subcommittee, actually present, may order such measure or matter reported. (c) No measure or matter shall be ordered reported from the committee or a subcommittee unless a majority of the committee or subcommittee is actually present at the time such action is taken. Rule 5.--With the approval of the chairman of the committee or subcommittee, one member thereof may conduct public hearings other than taking sworn testimony. Rule 6.--Proxy voting shall be allowed on all measures and matters before the committee or a subcommittee if the absent member has been informed of the matter on which he is being recorded and has affirmatively requested that he be so recorded. While proxies may be voted on a motion to report a measure or matter from the committee, such a motion shall also require the concurrence of a majority of the members who are actually present at the time such action is taken. The committee may poll any matters of committee business as a matter of unanimous consent; provided that every member is polled and every poll consists of the following two questions: (1) Do you agree or disagree to poll the proposal; and (2) Do you favor or oppose the proposal. Rule 7.--There shall be prepared and kept a complete transcript or electronic recording adequate to fully record the proceedings of each committee or subcommittee meeting or conference whether or not such meetings or any part thereof is closed pursuant to the specific provisions of subsections (b) and (d) of rule 26.5 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, unless a majority of said members vote to forgo such a record. Such records shall contain the vote cast by each member of the committee or subcommittee on any question on which a ``yea and nay'' vote is demanded, and shall be available for inspection by any committee member. The clerk of the committee, or the clerk's designee, shall have the responsibility to make appropriate arrangements to implement this rule. Rule 8.--The committee and each subcommittee shall undertake, consistent with the provisions of rule XXVI, paragraph 4, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, to issue public announcement of any hearing it intends to hold at least one week prior to the commencement of such hearing. Rule 9.--The committee or a subcommittee shall, so far as practicable, require all witnesses heard before it to file written statements of their proposed testimony at least 24 hours before a hearing, unless the chairman and the ranking minority member determine that there is good cause for failure to so file, and to limit their oral presentation to brief summaries of their arguments. The presiding officer at any hearing is authorized to limit the time of each witness appearing before the committee or a subcommittee. The committee or a subcommittee shall, as far as practicable, utilize testimony previously taken on bills and measures similar to those before it for consideration. Rule 10.--Should a subcommittee fail to report back to the full committee on any measure within a reasonable time, the chairman may withdraw the measure from such subcommittee and report that fact to the full committee for further disposition. Rule 11.--No subcommittee may schedule a meeting or hearing at a time designated for a hearing or meeting of the full committee. No more than one subcommittee executive meeting may be held at the same time. Rule 12.--It shall be the duty of the chairman in accordance with section 133(c) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, to report or cause to be reported to the Senate, any measure or recommendation approved by the committee and to take or cause to be taken, necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote in the Senate. Rule 13.--Whenever a meeting of the committee or subcommittee is closed pursuant to the provisions of subsection (b) or (d) of rule 26.5 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no person other than members of the committee, members of the staff of the committee, and designated assistants to members of the committee shall be permitted to attend such closed session, except by special dispensation of the committee or subcommittee or the chairman thereof. Rule 14.--The chairman of the committee or a subcommittee shall be empowered to adjourn any meeting of the committee or a subcommittee if a quorum is not present within fifteen minutes of the time schedule for such meeting. Rule 15.--Whenever a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part thereof shall be before the committee or a subcommittee for final consideration, the clerk shall place before each member of the committee or subcommittee a print of the statute or the part or section thereof to be amended or replaced showing by stricken-through type, the part or parts to be omitted and in italics, the matter proposed to be added, if a member makes a timely request for such print. Rule 16.--An appropriate opportunity shall be given the minority to examine the proposed text of committee reports prior to their filing or publication. In the event there are supplemental, minority, or additional views, an appropriate opportunity shall be given the majority to examine the proposed text prior to filing or publication. Rule 17.--(a) The committee, or any subcommittee, may issue subpoenas, or hold hearings to take sworn testimony or hear subpoenaed witnesses, only if such investigative activity has been authorized by majority vote of the committee. (b) For the purpose of holding a hearing to take sworn testimony or hear subpoenaed witnesses, three members of the committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum: provided, with the concurrence of the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee or subcommittee, a single member may hear subpoenaed witnesses or take sworn testimony. (c) The committee may, by a majority vote, delegate the authority to issue subpoenas to the chairman of the committee or a subcommittee, or to any member designated by such chairman. Prior to the issuance of each subpoena, the ranking minority member of the committee or subcommittee, and any other member so requesting, shall be notified regarding the identity of the person to whom it will be issued and the nature of the information sought and its relationship to the authorized investigative activity, except where the chairman of the committee or subcommittee, in consultation with the ranking minority member, determines that such notice would unduly impede the investigation. All information obtained pursuant to such investigative activity shall be made available as promptly as possible to each member of the committee requesting same, or to any assistant to a member of the committee designated by such member in writing, but the use of any such information is subject to restrictions imposed by the rules of the Senate. Such information, to the extent that it is relevant to the investigation shall, if requested by a member, be summarized in writing as soon as practicable. Upon the request of any member, the chairman of the committee or subcommittee shall call an executive session to discuss such investigative activity or the issuance of any subpoena in connection therewith. (d) Any witness summoned to testify at a hearing, or any witness giving sworn testimony, may be accompanied by counsel of his own choosing who shall be permitted, while the witness is testifying, to advise him of his legal rights. (e) No confidential testimony taken or confidential material presented in an executive hearing, or any report of the proceedings of such an executive hearing, shall be made public, either in whole or in part or by way of summary, unless authorized by a majority of the members of the committee or subcommittee. Rule 18.--Presidential nominees shall submit a statement of their background and financial interests, including the financial interests of their spouse and children living in their household, on a form approved by the committee which shall be sworn to as to its completeness and accuracy. The committee form shall be in two parts-- (I) information relating to employment, education and background of the nominee relating to the position to which the individual is nominated, and which is to be made public; and, (II) information relating to financial and other background of the nominee, to be made public when the committee determines that such information bears directly on the nominee's qualifications to hold the position to which the individual is nominated. Information relating to background and financial interests (parts I and II) shall not be required of (a) candidates for appointment and promotion in the Public Health Service Corps; and (b) nominees for less than full-time appointments to councils, commissions or boards when the committee determines that some or all of the information is not relevant to the nature of the position. Information relating to other background and financial interests (part II) shall not be required of any nominee when the committee determines that it is not relevant to the nature of the position. Committee action on a nomination, including hearings or meetings to consider a motion to recommend confirmation, shall not be initiated until at least five days after the nominee submits the form required by this rule unless the chairman, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, waives this waiting period. Rule 19.--Subject to statutory requirements imposed on the committee with respect to procedure, the rules of the committee may be changed, modified, amended or suspended at any time; provided, not less than a majority of the entire membership so determine at a regular meeting with due notice, or at a meeting specifically called for that purpose. Rule 20.--In addition to the foregoing, the proceedings of the committee shall be governed by the Standing Rules of the Senate and the provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended. [Excerpts from the Standing Rules of the Senate] Rule XXV standing committees 1. The following standing committees shall be appointed at the commencement of each Congress, and shall continue and have the power to act until their successors are appointed, with leave to report by bill or otherwise on matters within their respective jurisdictions: * * * * * (m)(1) Committee on Labor and Human Resources, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects: 1. Measures relating to education, labor, health, and public welfare. 2. Aging. 3. Agricultural colleges. 4. Arts and humanities. 5. Biomedical research and development. 6. Child labor. 7. Convict labor and the entry of goods made by convicts into interstate commerce. 8. Domestic activities of the American National Red Cross. 9. Equal employment opportunity. 10. Gallaudet College, Howard University, and Saint Elizabeths Hospital. 11. Handicapped individuals. 12. Labor standards and labor statistics. 13. Mediation and arbitration of labor disputes. 14. Occupational safety and health, including the welfare of miners. 15. Private pension plans. 16. Public health. 17. Railway labor and retirement. 18. Regulation of foreign laborers. 19. Student loans. 20. Wages and hours of labor. (2) Such committee shall also study and review, on a comprehensive basis, matters relating to health, education and training, and public welfare, and report thereon from time to time. Rule XXVI committee procedure 1. \1\ Each standing committee, including any subcommittee of any such committee, is authorized to hold such hearings, to sit and act at such times and places during the sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the Senate, to require by subpoena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such correspondence, books, papers, and documents, to take such testimony and to make such expenditures out of the contingent fund of the Senate as may be authorized by resolutions of the Senate. Each such committee may make investigations into any matter within its jurisdiction, may report such hearings as may be had by it, and may employ stenographic assistance at a cost not exceeding the amount prescribed by the Committee on Rules and Administration.\2\ The expenses of the committee shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the chairman. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ As amended. S. Res. 281, 96-2, Mar. 11, 1980 (effective Feb. 28, 1981). \2\ Pursuant to section 68c of title 2, United States Code, the Committee on Rules and Administration issues Regulations Governing Rates Payable to Commercial Reporting Forms for Reporting Committee Hearings in the Senate.'' Copies of the regulations currently in effect may be obtained from the Committee. * * * * * --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the rules, when the Senate is in session, no committee of the Senate or any subcommittee thereof may meet, without special leave, after the conclusion of the first two hours after the meeting of the Senate commenced and in no case after two o'clock postmeridian unless consent therefor has been obtained from the majority leader and the minority leader (or in the event of the absence of either of such leaders, from his designee). The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall not apply to the Committee on Appropriations or the Committee on the Budget. The majority leader or his designee shall announce to the Senate whenever consent has been given under this subparagraph and shall state the time and place of such meeting. The right to make such announcement of consent shall have the same priority as the filing of a cloture motion. (b) Each meeting of a committee, or any subcommittee thereof, including meetings to conduct hearings, shall be open to the public, except that a meeting or series of meetings by a committee or a subcommitte thereof on the same subject for a period of no more than fourteen calendar days may be closed to the public on a motion made and seconded to go into closed session to discuss only whether the matters enumerated in clauses (1) through (6) would require the meeting to be closed, followed immediately by a record vote in open session by a majority of the members of the committee or subcommittee when it is determined that the matters to be discussed or the testimony to be taken at such meeting or meetings-- (1) will disclose matters necessary to be kept secret in the interests of national defense or the confidential conduct of the foreign relations of the United States; (2) will relate solely to matters of committee staff personnel or internal staff management or procedure; (3) will tend to charge an individual with crime or misconduct, to disgrace or injure the professional standing of an individual, or other wise to expose an individual to public contempt or obloquy or will represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual; (4) will disclose the identity of any informer or law enforcement agent or will disclose any information relating to the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense that is required to be kept secret in the interests of effective law enforcement; (5) will disclose information relating to the trade secrets of financial or commercial information pertaining specifically to a given person if-- (A) an Act of Congress requires the information to be kept confidential by Government officers and employees; or (B) the information has been obtained by the Government on a confidential basis, other than through an application by such person for a specific Government financial or other benefit, and is required to be kept secret in order to prevent undue injury to the competitive position of such person; or (6) may divulge matters required to be kept confidential under other provisions of law or Government regulations. (c) Whenever any hearing conducted by any such committee or subcommittee is open to the public, that hearing may be broadcast by radio or television, or both, under such rules as the committee or subcommittee may adopt. (d) Whenever disorder arises during a committee meeting that is open to the public, or any demonstration of approval or disapproval is indulged in by any person in attendance of any such meeting, it shall be the duty of the Chair to enforce order on his own initiative and without any point of order being made by a Senator. When the Chair finds it necessary to maintain order, he shall have the power to clear the room, and the committee may act in closed session for so long as there is doubt of the assurance of order. (e) Each committee shall prepare and keep a complete transcript or electronic recording adequate to fully record the proceeding of each meeting or conference whether or not such meeting or any part thereof is closed under this paragraph, unless a majority of its members vote to forgo such a record. * * * * * Guidelines of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources With Respect to Hearings, Markup Sessions, and Related Matters hearings Section 133A(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act requires each committee of the Senate to publicly announce the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing at least one week prior to the commencement of such hearing. The spirit of this requirement is to assure adequate notice to the public and other Members of the Senate as to the time and subject matter of proposed hearings. In the spirit of section 133A(a) and in order to assure that members of the committee are themselves fully informed and involved in the development of hearings: 1. Public notice of the date, place, and subject matter of each committee or subcommittee hearing should be inserted in the Congressional Record seven days prior to the commencement of such hearing. 2. Seven days prior to public notice of each committee or subcommittee hearing, the committee or subcommittee should provide written notice to each member of the committee of the time, place, and specific subject matter of such hearing, accompanied by a list of those witnesses who have been or are proposed to be invited to appear. 3. The committee and its subcommittee should, to the maximum feasible extent, enforce the provisions of rule 9 of the committee rules as it relates to the submission of written statements of witnesses twenty-four hours in advance of a hearing. When statements are received in advance of a hearing, the committee or subcommittee (as appropriate) should distribute copies of such statements to each of its members. executive sessions for the purpose of marking up bills In order to expedite the process of marking up bills and to assist each member of the committee so that there may be full and fair consideration of each bill which the committee or a subcommittee is marking up the following procedures should be followed: 1. Seven days prior to the proposed data for an executive session for the purpose of marking up bills the committee or subcommittee (as appropriate) should provide written notice to each of its members as to the time, place, and specific subject matter of such session, including an agenda listing each bill or other matters to be considered and including: (a) two copies of each bill, joint resolution, or other legislative matter (or committee print thereof) to be considered at such executive session; and (b) two copies of a summary of the provisions of each bill, joint resolution, or other legislative matter to be considered at such executive session; and 2. Three days prior to the scheduled date for an executive session for the purpose of marking up bills, the committee or subcommittee (as appropriate) should deliver to each of its members two copies of a cordon print or an equivalent explanation of changes of existing law proposed to be made by each bill, joint resolution, or other legislative matter to be considered at such executive session. 3. Insofar as practical, prior to the scheduled date for an executive session for the purpose of marking up bills, each member of the committee or a subcommittee (as appropriate) should provide to all other such members two written copies of any amendment or a description of any amendment which that member proposes to offer to each bill, joint resolution, or other legislative matter to be considered at such executive session. 4. Insofar as practical, prior to the scheduled date for an executive session for the purpose of marking up bills, the committee or a subcommittee (as appropriate) should provide each member with a copy of the printed record or a summary of any hearings conducted by the committee or a subcommittee with respect to each bill, joint resolution, or other legislative matter to be considered at such executive session. committee reports, publications, and related documents Rule 16 of the committee rules, requires that the minority be given an opportunity to examine the proposed text of committee reports prior to their filing and that the majority be given an opportunity to examine the proposed text of supplemental, minority, or additional views prior to their filing. The views of all members of the committee should be taken fully and fairly into account with respect to all official documents filed or published by the committee. Thus, consistent with the spirit of rule 16, the proposed text of each committee report, hearing record, and other related committee document or publication should be provided to the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee and the chairman and ranking minority member of the appropriate subcommittee at least forty-eight hours prior to its filing or publication.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Moseley-Braun, D'Amato, Abraham, and Lieberman in sponsoring the Community Empowerment Act of 1997, which will encourage the cleanup of abandoned industrial sites known as brownfields in Vermont and across the country. The term ``brownfields'' refers to contaminated industrial sites. Most of these sites were abandoned during the 1970's and 1980's, as industrial development migrated away from urban areas to the greener landscape of the suburbs. One such site in Vermont is the Holden- Leonard Mill, a 20-building complex in Bennington, VT, that is poised to become a brownfields success story after 10 years of work. Once employing one-quarter of Bennington's work force, the mill shut down in 1939 and then was owned by a patchwork of owners until the 1980's. After soil tests disclosed high levels of pollutants, the mill sat empty after 1986. Fortunately, a buyer of the site came forward in 1992 and with cooperation between the business, State agencies, and the EPA the mill has been refurbished and over 200 new employees have been hired. The process, however, of revitalizing this site began in 1986 and is still going on. Our aim with this legislation is to provide tax incentives to businesses willing to clean up and redevelop brownfields sites so that more brownfield sites can be returned to productive use and so that the process doesn't have to take 10 years. Last November, I sponsored a forum on brownfields redevelopment in Burlington, VT. There is only one unpolluted site in Burlington available for industrial development. Yet there are currently 17 brownfields sites in the city, all with great potential for development. I toured several of these sites and saw this potential first hand. Burlington is both an EPA brownfields pilot city and an enterprise community. Under our legislation, businesses that acquire these sites would be able to claim tax deductions for their environmental cleanup costs. With tax incentives for brownfields redevelopment, I am hoping that we will see more of these abandoned sites returned to productive use. We treasure our open spaces in Vermont, and we are looking at ways to give incentives to companies to invest in our downtowns. When a company builds a facility on a brownfield site it takes advantage of existing infrastructure. the revitalization of a brownfield site means one less farm or field is paved over or forest cut down for the sake of a new plant or facility. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, with my colleague, Senator Frist, I am introducing the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. This legislation is identical to S. 1578, which was reported out of the Labor and Human Resources Committee in the last Congress. Senator Frist did a tremendous job in assisting, getting that prepared and passed out of committee. Unfortunately, the bill did not pass in the last legislative session. We are introducing this legislation today so everyone will have a common frame of reference. However, I want to make it very clear to my colleagues in the Senate and to my colleagues and friends within the education and disability community across the Nation that this legislation is not perfect and it can and will be improved. This is the beginning of the process, not the end. I am well aware that there are still issues to be resolved and I intend to work with my colleagues to examine these issues and to move forward with revisions to this important law that are commonsense solutions to issues which are very real at the local school level. We are aided in this effort by the majority leader, who is committed to helping us achieve the broadest based consensus on a final project, one that has the support of families of children with disabilities and educators, but also of all Members of Congress and the President. We have set an ambitious schedule for completing our work on IDEA, and by introducing the IDEA Amendments of 1997 today, we are taking a very important first step. IDEA was originally enacted in 1975. I was a Member of the House at the time, and participated in the development of this landmark law. It was a response to court decisions that created a patchwork of legal standings, which in turn generated considerable uncertainty about rights and responsibilities. IDEA guaranteed each child with a disability access to a free, appropriate public education, and we all support that goal. In that sense, the legislation has clearly stood the test of time. But it has not in terms of the level of funding support that we promised to the States to assist them in meeting their obligation to educate children with disabilities. In IDEA, Congress promised to contribute 40 percent of the cost of educating children with disabilities. Our colleague, Senator Gregg, has kept our feet to the fire, reminding us that we should keep our promise. In last year's appropriations measure we were able to garner large increases for this program. We must continue our effort to reach our full Federal commitment. After 22 years, I think it is appropriate to thoroughly review the administrative and fiscal demands that are associated with providing a free appropriate education to children with disabilities. The population of students demanding assistance has changed significantly, but the law has not provided enough flexibility to States to meet those changing demands. The writing is on the wall. If we do not make needed changes to IDEA now, based on common sense, school districts and parents will increasingly turn to the courts to get the answers. School districts will do so in hope of getting relief from or clarification of their responsibilities. The parents will do so in hope of procuring the services that they believe their child needs. Since the genesis of IDEA lay in avoiding litigation, true to its intent to do so today, we have an opportunity, through the reauthorization of IDEA, to ensure the emphasis will shift once again and remain on educating children, well into the next century. If we work together, we have the power to ease the pressure on local communities and States. Through the reauthorization of IDEA, we have the power to give educators incentives and opportunities to educate children with disabilities, including those at risk of failing, with less bureaucracy and meaningful accountability. Let us do it now.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I introduce the National Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of 1997. This bill is identical to legislation that Senator Hatfield and I have introduced in past Congresses. I introduce this bill again today because I firmly believe that deposit laws are a common sense, proven method to increase recycling, save energy, create jobs, and decrease the generation of waste and proliferation of overflowing landfills. The experience of 10 States, including Vermont, attest to the success of a deposit law or bottle bill as it is commonly called. Recycling rates of well over 70 percent have been achieved for beverage containers in bottle bill States. The rate is over 90 percent in Vermont. To put this in perspective, consider this: 30 percent of Americans who live in bottle bill States account for over 80 percent of beverage container recycling in this country. The concept of a national bottle bill is simple: To provide the consumer with an incentive to return the container for reuse or recycling. Consumers pay a nominal cost per bottle when purchasing a beverage and are refunded their money when they bring the bottle back either to a retailer or redemption center. Retailers are paid a fee for their participation in the program, and any unclaimed deposits are used to finance State environmental programs. Under my proposal, a 10-cent deposit on beer, water, and soft-drink containers would take effect in States which have beverage container recovery rates of less than 70 percent, the minimum recovery rate achieved by existing bottle bill States. Labels showing the deposit value would be affixed to containers, and retailers would receive a 2- cent fee per container for their participation in the program. We are constantly reminded of the growing problem of excess waste as we hear news reports of waste washing up on our Nation's beaches, pitched battles over the siting of landfills and communities lacking adequate waste disposal facilities. Our country's solid waste problems are very real, and they will continue to haunt us until we take action. The throw-away ethic that has emerged in this country is not insurmountable, and recycling is part of the solution. Finally, a national bottle bill serves a much greater purpose than merely cleaning up littered highways. Recycling creates jobs, saves energy, and preserves our Nation's precious natural resources. In fact, the demand for recycled glass and aluminum has grown to such a point that the Chicago Board of Trade now sells futures in these materials. Recycling makes good business sense. The legislation I introduce today is consistent with our Nation's solid waste management objectives. A national bottle bill would reduce solid waste and litter, save natural resources and energy, and create a much needed partnership between consumers, industry, and local governments. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Jim Downing, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the IDEA legislation, when it occurs.