Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. It took 5 years and was founded upon discussion, debate, and compromise.

Mr. JEFFORDS. It was founded upon discussion, debate, and compromise. Let me be clear that I am not advocating we take 5 years to debate the proposal before us, only that we ought to be thoughtful and deliberative. This current reorganization will affect the lives of every American for years to come. Unfortunately, the current administration has made it clear it will veto any legislation that is not almost identical to its proposal.

Mr. JEFFORDS. It is clear it will veto any legislation that is not almost identical to its proposal. Recently, President George Bush, speaking about this legislation, said: The Senate had better get it right. I agree with the President that we do have a solemn responsibility to consider, debate, amend, and strengthen this legislation. I am sure the President understands that the Senate's deliberate consideration of this bill is an integral part of the process of ``getting it right.'' As the President's father said, a time of historic change is no time for recklessness.

Mr. JEFFORDS. A time of historic change is no time for recklessness.

Mr. JEFFORDS. As my friend from West Virginia knows, when Congress created the Department of Defense, the affected agencies had input into the process. Here is another significant difference between the development of the Department of Defense and the current debate over homeland security. In the 1940s, the executive branch agencies affected by the proposed reorganization were participants in the process. The Army, the Navy, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed specific plans for reorganizations as early as 1945. And the Army and Navy were consulted prior to the President submitting draft legislation in 1947, 2 years later. This cooperative approach in developing a workable new Department contrasts starkly with the way the administration developed homeland security draft legislation. A small group of advisers, which the Senator has explained well, working in secret in the White House, developed the present Bush proposal. Members of Congress and the Secretaries of the affected Cabinet agencies were reportedly not even informed about the proposal.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Amazing. As I have said many times, I understand, in the wake of the horrific events of September 11, we would look for ways to strengthen our Nation's defense to prevent any further catastrophe. I fully support that goal, but we must be cautious, to make sure that we work to correct what went wrong and not interfere with what went right. We know what went wrong, and I firmly hope we, as a nation, will develop a comprehensive plan to address the shortcomings of our intelligence gathering and communication efforts which, to me, were the core of the problem.

Mr. JEFFORDS. We know what went wrong, and I firmly hope that we, as a nation, will develop comprehensive plans to address the shortcomings in our intelligence gathering and communication efforts. Because of the similarity of the September 11 attacks and the attack on Pearl Harbor, over 60 years ago--which I am just barely old enough to remember, being 5 at that time, but I remember that day to this moment--we should remember the finding of the Joint Congressional Committee that investigated Pearl Harbor, that: . . . the security of the nation can be ensured only through . . . centralization of responsibility in those charged with handling intelligence. That, to me, is the key that we have to look at for a resolution of this problem. I hope we will learn a lesson after the tragic events that occurred on September 11. Correcting intelligence failures must be the hallmark of any new Department of Homeland Security. I thank my colleague for yielding, and I look forward to continuing this debate and considering this important legislation. In closing, I hope we will take our time in creating this new Department and that we will protect the role of the legislative branch throughout this process. I commend Senator Lieberman for leading debate on this important topic, but I also thank my friend from Virginia. In the 200-year history of this body, there has never been a more vigilant defender----

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes, right. I also thank my friend, the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. In the 200-year history of this body, there has never been a more vigilant defender of the legislative branch than the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I wanted to repeat it for that part.

Mr. JEFFORDS. No. I am very pleased to have been able to have this time with the Senator, and I look forward to working with him.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, I rise on behalf of myself and Senators Leahy, Clinton, and Schumer to introduce the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Lake Champlain Basin Program Act of 2002. This legislation will bring the Lake Champlain Basin Program into the 21st century. In 1990, along with Senators Leahy, Moynihan, and D'amato, I introduced the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act which designated Lake Champlain as a resource of national significance. The program began as a management conference with a charter of developing a comprehensive pollution prevention, control, and restoration plan for Lake Champlain. The management conference began work immediately after passage of the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act of 1990 and developed the Plan entitled, ``Opportunities for Action.'' The conference evolved into today's Lake Champlain Basin Program which works cooperatively with partners throughout the region to protect and enhance the environmental integrity and the social and economic benefits of the Lake Champlain Basin. A key element of the success of this program is the active participation of the local partners. State and local governments, nonprofit entities, and the regional representatives of the Federal agencies involved in the Basin Program are the best fuel behind this program's success. It is their efforts that have made this program an international model for lake restoration programs. The program completed its first 5-year update of ``Opportunities for Action'' in January 2002. Our legislation authorizes the implementation of this plan through a partnership between the Basin Program and the Federal Government. Before I get into the specifics of the legislation, let me take a minute to describe the Lake Champlain Basin to you. For those of you who have not visited either the Vermont or the New York side, I recommend that you take the time to see this magnificent spot which is the sixth largest freshwater lake in the world, after only the Great Lakes. Lake Champlain flows north along the borders of Vermont, New York, and Canada. It is 120 miles long and just 12 miles wide at its widest point. Lake Champlain is home to a diverse array of 81 species of fish, 318 species of birds, 56 species of mammals, 21 species of amphibians and 20 reptile species. The floor of Lake Champlain boasts some of the best-preserved submerged cultural heritage resources in North America. Shipwrecks in the lake reflect virtually every era of human activity in the Basin. The Lake Champlain Basin stretches from the Adirondacks to the Green Mountains and north into Quebec. It is an area about the size of Massachusetts with 56 percent of the Basin in Vermont, 37 percent in New York, and 7 percent in Canada. The Basin not only offers natural beauty, but also plays a key role in the life of Vermonters, New Yorkers, and Canadians. It is a recreation mecca in the region with over 7,500 motorboats, more than 3,000 sailboats, and thousands of swimmers, windsurfers, kayakers, canoers, and scuba divers visiting Lake Champlain on a typical summer day. Recreation generated $3.8 billion in the Basin in 2000. The population in the Basin has been steadily growing over the last 40 years. Today, approximately one-third of the Basin's over 600,000 residents use the lake as a source of drinking water. It is also a key source of water for agriculture and industry. All of this human activity has taken a toll on Lake Champlain. Although it remains a generally healthy lake today, it is plagued by excess phosphorous loadings, toxics such as mercury, and invasions of nonnative species such as the zebra mussel and sea lamprey. We must take action to prevent future degradation. The Lake Champlain Basin Program issued a revised Plan in January 2002, also entitled ``Opportunities for Action,'' that provides a path to protect the health of the lake well into the future. The bill we introduce today, the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Lake Champlain Basin Program Act of 2002, authorizes the Federal side of the partnerships required to implement Opportunities for Action. This legislation authorizes $5 million per year for 5 years for the Environmental Protection Agency to make grants to implement Opportunities for Action. These funds will be coupled with a 25-percent local match as well as with $6 million per year for 5 years from the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Agriculture. This bill also revises an authorization that Congress passed in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 for the Army Corps of Engineers to provide design and construction assistance of up to $20 million for implementation of Opportunities for Action to make it more usable for ``Vermont-style'' projects. These funds will be used to protect and enhance the environmental integrity and social and economic benefits of the Lake Champlain basin and to achieve the environmental goals described in the plan, including: the reduction of phosphorous inputs; the reduction of toxic contamination; the control of the introduction, spread, and impacts of nonnative nuisance substances and species; the minimization of risks to humans from water-related health hazards, and the protection of natural, recreation, and cultural heritage resources. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Washington, in New York, and, most of all, in Vermont to pass this legislation and to implement this program that is so critical to the long-term health of Lake Champlain.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, I rise on behalf of myself and Senators Leahy, Clinton, and Schumer to introduce the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Lake Champlain Basin Program Act of 2002. This legislation will bring the Lake Champlain Basin Program into the 21st century. In 1990, along with Senators Leahy, Moynihan, and D'amato, I introduced the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act which designated Lake Champlain as a resource of national significance. The program began as a management conference with a charter of developing a comprehensive pollution prevention, control, and restoration plan for Lake Champlain. The management conference began work immediately after passage of the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act of 1990 and developed the Plan entitled, ``Opportunities for Action.'' The conference evolved into today's Lake Champlain Basin Program which works cooperatively with partners throughout the region to protect and enhance the environmental integrity and the social and economic benefits of the Lake Champlain Basin. A key element of the success of this program is the active participation of the local partners. State and local governments, nonprofit entities, and the regional representatives of the Federal agencies involved in the Basin Program are the best fuel behind this program's success. It is their efforts that have made this program an international model for lake restoration programs. The program completed its first 5-year update of ``Opportunities for Action'' in January 2002. Our legislation authorizes the implementation of this plan through a partnership between the Basin Program and the Federal Government. Before I get into the specifics of the legislation, let me take a minute to describe the Lake Champlain Basin to you. For those of you who have not visited either the Vermont or the New York side, I recommend that you take the time to see this magnificent spot which is the sixth largest freshwater lake in the world, after only the Great Lakes. Lake Champlain flows north along the borders of Vermont, New York, and Canada. It is 120 miles long and just 12 miles wide at its widest point. Lake Champlain is home to a diverse array of 81 species of fish, 318 species of birds, 56 species of mammals, 21 species of amphibians and 20 reptile species. The floor of Lake Champlain boasts some of the best-preserved submerged cultural heritage resources in North America. Shipwrecks in the lake reflect virtually every era of human activity in the Basin. The Lake Champlain Basin stretches from the Adirondacks to the Green Mountains and north into Quebec. It is an area about the size of Massachusetts with 56 percent of the Basin in Vermont, 37 percent in New York, and 7 percent in Canada. The Basin not only offers natural beauty, but also plays a key role in the life of Vermonters, New Yorkers, and Canadians. It is a recreation mecca in the region with over 7,500 motorboats, more than 3,000 sailboats, and thousands of swimmers, windsurfers, kayakers, canoers, and scuba divers visiting Lake Champlain on a typical summer day. Recreation generated $3.8 billion in the Basin in 2000. The population in the Basin has been steadily growing over the last 40 years. Today, approximately one-third of the Basin's over 600,000 residents use the lake as a source of drinking water. It is also a key source of water for agriculture and industry. All of this human activity has taken a toll on Lake Champlain. Although it remains a generally healthy lake today, it is plagued by excess phosphorous loadings, toxics such as mercury, and invasions of nonnative species such as the zebra mussel and sea lamprey. We must take action to prevent future degradation. The Lake Champlain Basin Program issued a revised Plan in January 2002, also entitled ``Opportunities for Action,'' that provides a path to protect the health of the lake well into the future. The bill we introduce today, the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Lake Champlain Basin Program Act of 2002, authorizes the Federal side of the partnerships required to implement Opportunities for Action. This legislation authorizes $5 million per year for 5 years for the Environmental Protection Agency to make grants to implement Opportunities for Action. These funds will be coupled with a 25-percent local match as well as with $6 million per year for 5 years from the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Agriculture. This bill also revises an authorization that Congress passed in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 for the Army Corps of Engineers to provide design and construction assistance of up to $20 million for implementation of Opportunities for Action to make it more usable for ``Vermont-style'' projects. These funds will be used to protect and enhance the environmental integrity and social and economic benefits of the Lake Champlain basin and to achieve the environmental goals described in the plan, including: the reduction of phosphorous inputs; the reduction of toxic contamination; the control of the introduction, spread, and impacts of nonnative nuisance substances and species; the minimization of risks to humans from water-related health hazards, and the protection of natural, recreation, and cultural heritage resources. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Washington, in New York, and, most of all, in Vermont to pass this legislation and to implement this program that is so critical to the long-term health of Lake Champlain.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Jan Rasgus, a congressional fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today we as a nation commemorate a most unfortunate milestone, the 1-year anniversary of the tragic attack of September 11, a day that will sadly live in infamy. Since that time, much has been said and written about the terrible events of that day. As we reflect on the events of the past year, I would like to commend the thousands of rescue workers, volunteers, and countless others who helped rebuild our Nation in the months following the attacks. In particular, I would like to especially commend the work of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, fondly known as FEMA. To give some background, on August 15, 2001, I became chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over FEMA. A short month later, terrorists attacked the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Later that day, following the attacks, I visited the Pentagon. I was amazed that literally overnight FEMA had established a well-coordinated Federal response at the Pentagon. Virginia, Maryland, and other first responders came--from as far away as Nebraska. As soon as possible, they were all working, as coordinated as I have ever seen. As soon as possible after that, I traveled to the World Trade Center--again to take a look at FEMA's response. Again, I was overwhelmed by the organizational capacity of FEMA and the fine work being done by that agency's men and women, under the guidance of FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh. There, on the piers of Manhattan, FEMA had quickly created a disaster field office that was a small city unto itself. Thousands of workers from around the country came together to bring calm and order to an otherwise chaotic situation. Visiting the Pentagon this morning brought back a flood of memories for me about my own visits to the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Just days after those attacks, I vividly remember the sights and sounds and smells. The devastation I witnessed was incredible, and difficult to put into words. Thousands of people lost their lives due to the cruel and cunning acts of evil perpetrated by a few. The victims of these attacks were men, women, and children, people with well-laid plans for their pleasant futures. Although I left both the Pentagon and the World Trade Center with a heavy heart, I also left with a profound sense of gratitude for the gallant efforts of these rescuers and volunteers who tirelessly, and mostly anonymously, worked in places reserved only for the Ground Zero heroes. In the year following the attacks, I have spoken with many people, Vermonters and others, about the attack. We have all expressed profound sadness for our Nation's great loss. They have also left me with the confidence that freedom will prevail, that good will triumph over evil, that these horrible attacks cannot break our resolve to stand together as free Americans. Abraham Lincoln once said: Freedom is the last best hope of Earth. Time is a great healer. The passage of time has brought thoughtful recollection. The passage of time has not dulled my recollection of what I saw and felt in those days following September 11. For me, this healing process has brought a renewed commitment to move forward with the hope that freedom prevails. In closing, I would also like to pay tribute to the work of the Vermont Air and National Guard, which did an outstanding job of protecting our skies and our borders and our airports in the days after September 11. When our Nation was most in need, we pulled together successfully to bring this Nation into a position where it feels secure and with hope for the future. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns about a central component of the proposed Department of Homeland Security--the inclusion of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the new department. I understand that in the wake of the horrific events of September 11, we would look for ways to strengthen our Nation's defense to prevent any future catastrophe. I fully support that goal. But we must be cautious, very cautious, to make sure that we work to correct what went wrong and not interfere with what went right. We know what went wrong, and I firmly hope that we, as a nation, will develop a comprehensive plan to address the shortcomings in our intelligence gathering and communication efforts. That, I believe, should be the prime goal of any new homeland defense effort. What went right after September 11 was the response of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In the days after the September 11 terrorist attacks I visited the Pentagon and World Trade Center. I saw firsthand how well FEMA responded to a horrific scene that all of the disaster drills and training exercises could not have prepared anyone for. I was incredibly impressed by what I saw. Thousands of workers from around the country came together to bring calm and order to an otherwise chaotic situation. Of nearly 400 disasters that FEMA has responded to since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, only the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were acts of terrorism. Through the coordination of FEMA's director, the agency demonstrated that it was capable of responding in such cases, and responding well. Yet things have not always gone so smoothly with the Agency. We need only to look back to the 1980s, when FEMA's focus shifted to civil defense and left the Agency ill-prepared to respond to natural disasters. In 1985, after a tornado killed 65 people in Pennsylvania, FEMA's poor response prompted then-Congressman Tom Ridge to play a central role in efforts to refocus the Agency's mission on victims of natural disasters. But it took time. After seeing the bungled responses to Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992, my friend from South Carolina, Senator Hollings summed up FEMA's performance by saying, ``A major hurricane is not one disaster, but two: The natural disaster of the hurricane itself, and the unnatural disaster of Federal efforts to aid the victims.'' Over the last decade, with help from Congress and new leadership, FEMA has worked hard to regain the trust of its constituents, especially those Americans affected by a major disaster. Now we must maintain FEMA's independence to ensure that an increased emphasis on terrorism will be in addition to, and not at the expense of, the Agency's natural hazard programs. As it now stands, FEMA is a small, flexible agency with a director reporting directly to the President. This chain of command works well, but it would be lost if FEMA were moved into the Department of Homeland Security. Adding another layer of bureaucracy to the disaster declaration process can only slow vital response and recovery efforts. Again, I firmly believe that it is critical to prepare America to respond to terrorist acts, but we must not lose sight of the fact that FEMA's primary focus is to respond to nature's fury. We know that fires, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes will continue to cause injuries, deaths, and property damage every year. Jeopardizing FEMA's abilities to deal with disasters is not the best way to secure our homeland. As we move forward, we should be thoughtful and deliberate, and we should focus on fixing the failures and not tinkering with the successes. Accordingly, at the appropriate time I will offer an amendment to remove the Federal Emergency Management Agency from the Department of Homeland Security. Preserving FEMA's independence is the best way to prepare our nation to respond to natural disasters and any future terrorist attacks we may face. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2002.'' Marine turtles were once abundant, but now they are in serious trouble. Six of the seven recognized species are listed as threatened on endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and all seven species have been included in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, CITES. Because marine turtles are long-lived, late-maturing, and highly migratory, they are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of human exploitation and habitat loss. In addition, for some species, illegal trade seriously threatens wild populations. Because of the immense challenges facing marine turtles, the resources available to date have not been sufficient to cope with the continued loss of nesting habitat due to human activities and the resulting diminution of marine turtle populations. The Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2002 is modeled after the successful Asian Elephant Conservation Act, the African Elephant Conservation Act, and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. These acts have established programs within the Department of the Interior to assist in the conservation and preservation of these species around the world. More than 300 projects have been funded and generated millions of dollars in private matching funds from sponsors representing a diverse group of conservation organizations. The projects range from purchasing anti-poaching equipment for wildlife rangers to implementing elephant conservation plans to aerial monitoring of the Northern white rhinoceros. The Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2002 will assist in the recovery and protection of marine turtles by supporting and providing financial resources for projects to conserve nesting habitats of marine turtles in foreign countries and marine turtles while they are found in such habitats, to prevent illegal trade in marine turtle parts and projects, and to address other threats to the survival of marine turtles. The bill authorizes $5 million annually to implement the program. This legislation will help to preserve this ancient and distinctive part of the world's biological diversity.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2002.'' Marine turtles were once abundant, but now they are in serious trouble. Six of the seven recognized species are listed as threatened on endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and all seven species have been included in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, CITES. Because marine turtles are long-lived, late-maturing, and highly migratory, they are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of human exploitation and habitat loss. In addition, for some species, illegal trade seriously threatens wild populations. Because of the immense challenges facing marine turtles, the resources available to date have not been sufficient to cope with the continued loss of nesting habitat due to human activities and the resulting diminution of marine turtle populations. The Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2002 is modeled after the successful Asian Elephant Conservation Act, the African Elephant Conservation Act, and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. These acts have established programs within the Department of the Interior to assist in the conservation and preservation of these species around the world. More than 300 projects have been funded and generated millions of dollars in private matching funds from sponsors representing a diverse group of conservation organizations. The projects range from purchasing anti-poaching equipment for wildlife rangers to implementing elephant conservation plans to aerial monitoring of the Northern white rhinoceros. The Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2002 will assist in the recovery and protection of marine turtles by supporting and providing financial resources for projects to conserve nesting habitats of marine turtles in foreign countries and marine turtles while they are found in such habitats, to prevent illegal trade in marine turtle parts and projects, and to address other threats to the survival of marine turtles. The bill authorizes $5 million annually to implement the program. This legislation will help to preserve this ancient and distinctive part of the world's biological diversity.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the SCHIP Budget Allocation Bill of 2002. This important legislation addresses the allocation of budgeted but unspent SCHIP funds that are currently out of the reach of States and are scheduled to be returned to the treasury at the end of fiscal year 2002 under BIPA provisions. With our economy in recession, the healthcare needs of the pediatric Medicaid and SCHIP populations have not been in greater jeopardy in recent memory. Our bill will address several important and essential issues. First, it will financially reward those States that are doing an outstanding job with their SCHIP and Medicaid pediatric populations. Second, it will provide financial incentives to those States that have not yet achieved SCHIP eligibility standards. Third, it will provide additional Medicaid revenue, through an enhancement of the Federal Medicaid Assistant Percentage, FMAP, to States experiencing budget shortfalls due to the current recession. And lastly, it will protect children's healthcare services during this period of Medicaid cutbacks on benefits and services. SCHIP's first year of implementation was 1998. At that time program budgeting was not done based on an actuarial estimate of per capita program costs, but rather excessive funds were committed to insure adequate funding. What has evolved since 1998 is a surplus of budgeted funds whose allocation and fate has been determined by a complex State- by-State budgeting process that allows for cross subsidization between States and has resulted in large sums of unspent funds to accumulate. An unintended consequence of this intricate budgeting process is that it allows States with unspent allocated funds and States with unspent redistributed funds to lose access to these funds at the end of this fiscal year. In total, over forty States will lose access to allocated monies, only to see budgeted funds diverted back to the treasury; money that could be used to shore up the health care needs of children in Medicaid. In reviewing available options, we see the opportunity to merge the original goals of SCHIP, namely to provide for the health care needs of as many children as possible, while addressing the major budget problems currently being experienced by most States. Our bill would accomplish this by allowing unspent SCHIP monies to be used to enhance the FMAP for State Medicaid services for pediatric and pregnant women beneficiaries. Prior to initiating and introducing this bill, we evaluated the SCHIP budget, with CMS and CBO data, and found that the program had adequate residual funds to allow for these monies to be used by States to weather these difficult economic times without financially damaging the actuarially projected needs of SCHIP. Our proposal has been reviewed in detail and endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. This advocacy group shares our concern that unless decisive action is taken, access to health care for indigent children will suffer in our current economic climate. Today, please join with me and my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Lincoln, and Murray in supporting this bill. We can not and must not allow children's health care to suffer during these difficult economic times.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the SCHIP Budget Allocation Bill of 2002. This important legislation addresses the allocation of budgeted but unspent SCHIP funds that are currently out of the reach of States and are scheduled to be returned to the treasury at the end of fiscal year 2002 under BIPA provisions. With our economy in recession, the healthcare needs of the pediatric Medicaid and SCHIP populations have not been in greater jeopardy in recent memory. Our bill will address several important and essential issues. First, it will financially reward those States that are doing an outstanding job with their SCHIP and Medicaid pediatric populations. Second, it will provide financial incentives to those States that have not yet achieved SCHIP eligibility standards. Third, it will provide additional Medicaid revenue, through an enhancement of the Federal Medicaid Assistant Percentage, FMAP, to States experiencing budget shortfalls due to the current recession. And lastly, it will protect children's healthcare services during this period of Medicaid cutbacks on benefits and services. SCHIP's first year of implementation was 1998. At that time program budgeting was not done based on an actuarial estimate of per capita program costs, but rather excessive funds were committed to insure adequate funding. What has evolved since 1998 is a surplus of budgeted funds whose allocation and fate has been determined by a complex State- by-State budgeting process that allows for cross subsidization between States and has resulted in large sums of unspent funds to accumulate. An unintended consequence of this intricate budgeting process is that it allows States with unspent allocated funds and States with unspent redistributed funds to lose access to these funds at the end of this fiscal year. In total, over forty States will lose access to allocated monies, only to see budgeted funds diverted back to the treasury; money that could be used to shore up the health care needs of children in Medicaid. In reviewing available options, we see the opportunity to merge the original goals of SCHIP, namely to provide for the health care needs of as many children as possible, while addressing the major budget problems currently being experienced by most States. Our bill would accomplish this by allowing unspent SCHIP monies to be used to enhance the FMAP for State Medicaid services for pediatric and pregnant women beneficiaries. Prior to initiating and introducing this bill, we evaluated the SCHIP budget, with CMS and CBO data, and found that the program had adequate residual funds to allow for these monies to be used by States to weather these difficult economic times without financially damaging the actuarially projected needs of SCHIP. Our proposal has been reviewed in detail and endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. This advocacy group shares our concern that unless decisive action is taken, access to health care for indigent children will suffer in our current economic climate. Today, please join with me and my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Lincoln, and Murray in supporting this bill. We can not and must not allow children's health care to suffer during these difficult economic times.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague and friend Sen. John Kerry and ten other Senators to submit a Sense of the Senate Resolution concerning United States policy at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, WSSD, an international conference to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa from August 24-September 4, 2002. The Kerry-Jeffords Resolution calls on the United States to reaffirm its current environmental and development commitments under and since the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, otherwise known as the Earth Summit. The Kerry-Jeffords Resolution also urges the United States to take its sustainable development commitments further through the full implementation of ratified treaties such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, two treaties of great importance to me. Implementation of these and other treaties should include commitment to real targets and timetables. At a recent joint hearing between the Environment and Public Works and Foreign Relations Committees, we learned that the United States has not maintained the spirit or the letter of its commitment under the Framework Convention. Other provisions in the Resolution call on the United States to be actively engaged in international negotiations that address the protection of oceans and freshwater, combating deforestation, preservation of biological diversity, increasing the use of renewable energy sources, and reducing the use of persistent toxic pollutants. The Resolution makes it clear that Presidential leadership of the United States delegation at the WSSD would send a strong signal of our Nation's support for the goals of sustainable development. President Bush's participation at Johannesburg would help rebuild alliances weakened by the Administration's diminished involvement in international climate change negotiations. His participation would also strengthen relationships that are becoming increasingly important in a world where any nation can face serious threats to its national security and its environmental and human security. This Summit is an important opportunity to demonstrate that we will not act unilaterally when our actions can permanently and negatively affect the global commons.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for not more than 10 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will proceed for 8 minutes. I first commend all of our colleagues who have devoted so much effort and leadership on the issue we have the privilege of debating today. It is largely through their collective efforts that we have the chance to provide our seniors with the most significant expansion of the Medicare program in over 35 years an opportunity to provide them with the most important weapon in our healthcare arsenal prescription medicines. This is an opportunity that we cannot let political differences block from going into law this year. Many of our colleagues have come to the Senate floor during this debate and voiced either opposition or support for the two amendments that we will vote on today. Our colleagues from both sides of the aisle have made pointed criticisms and voiced their strong objections over specific provisions in both of these measures. There are honest differences and disagreements over the details of how we should develop this Medicare prescription drug expansion. However, it is important that we recognize something that few have mentioned, and that is, there is extraordinary agreement that we should create this benefit. We are not debating the question of whether but instead, the question of how to best provide medicines for our seniors. Senators from across the political spectrum, liberal to conservative, Republican, Democrat and Independent have declared their support for providing prescription drugs. We should not let this opportunity pass today because we may not see it again for a very long time. Today, we will have the opportunity to vote on two approaches for creating this new entitlement. One approach has been offered by my friends, Senator Graham and Senator Miller, and others; and it is an approach with merit and one that I gave serious consideration to supporting. The other measure is one that many have come to call the Tripartisan Medicare bill. It is called the Tripartisan bill because it was developed by Senators who are Republican, a Democrat and myself, the lone independent in the U.S. Senate. But that is a bit of a misnomer, because it is not about being tripartisan--or even nonpartisan. This proposal should not be about politics. It is about providing older Americans with the medicines they need through the best Medicare program we can afford. We can only do that by finding a measure that at least 60 of our colleagues can support. We have to get 60 votes to get it out of here. I am very proud to join my colleagues here today in support of the tripartisan bill, the 21st Century Medicare Act. Senators Grassley, Snowe, Breaux, Hatch, and I have dedicated ourselves to this effort. We have had many policy discussions over the course of the last year and each have made their particular contributions to the underlying bill. I am honored to be a part of this outstanding group of legislators. I believe our bill is the best opportunity we have to enact a modernized and strengthened Medicare program that will for first time provide a meaningful and affordable prescription drug benefit for all of our seniors. This measure guarantees the promised care of the original Medicare program created in the mid-1960s and it delivers the benefits of today's modern health care system. These are the key provisions of the 21st Century Medicare Act. First, our legislation preserves the traditional Medicare program for our seniors today and tomorrow. Our bill does not weaken traditional Medicare, make it more expensive or less available. If the traditional Medicare program is what seniors want then it will be there for them plain and simple--guaranteed. Second, we create an all new voluntary enhanced fee-for-service part to the Medicare program that provides new benefits such as disease prevention screenings and coverage for catastrophic health care costs while continuing all of the services available under traditional Medicare. Our enhanced Medicare program protects our sickest seniors from the high costs of repeated hospitalizations that Medicare doesn't pay for at this time. Our enhanced Medicare would establish a single, $300 deductible that will save seniors hundreds of dollars in high hospitalization costs. In addition to better benefits for our sickest seniors, the enhanced Medicare plan provides better disease prevention benefits so our healthy seniors can remain healthy. These benefits, which are not now provided under traditional Medicare, include: tests to detect breast, prostrate, and other cancers early when they are most treatable; adult vaccines that prevent a host of diseases; tests to predict the loss of bone mass before people break their hips and other bones; and, medical nutritional therapy to make sure seniors are getting the nutrition they need to keep them healthy. Finally, the 21st Century Medicare Act ensures that seniors will have access to prescription drug coverage no matter where they live. I know my colleagues will spend the rest of today praising or criticizing the details of each other's proposal for providing the prescription drug benefit, but I want to be straight to the point: our plan is comprehensive, affordable and sustainable into the future. Is it perfect? No, it probably isn't perfect, but it is a good solid plan that will provide seniors with a significant drug benefit at an affordable cost. Yesterday, Senator Snowe, my good friend and co-sponsor of the 21st Century Medicare Act, pointed out that this language is not a line drawn in the sand. I agree with her. It is a legislative proposal that was developed, like the one our colleagues, Senators Graham and Miller have proposed, in a good faith effort. I think all of the principal cosponsors of these bills and many of our other colleagues are willing, and can agree to further refine this measure during a conference with the House, but let's get them out of here. Over the next hours there will be detailed descriptions of competing ideas and competing proposals debated here on the Senate floor, and I look forward to that debate. I have examined the proposals that are being proposed and this is what I found that is unique about our 21st Century Medicare Act. It strengthens Medicare by building on programs where patients and their doctors can choose the best course of treatment and it ensures that a better Medicare will be there for today's seniors. It improves Medicare by providing a comprehensive prescription drug benefit and new voluntary disease-prevention benefits that will help seniors live longer, healthy lives. And, it guarantees that the benefits of today will be there for seniors tomorrow. I am very proud to join my colleagues Senators Grassley, Snowe, Breaux and Hatch in support of the 21st Century Medicare Act. This legislation is the result of over a year of concentrated effort and it includes in it provisions that should garner the support of a wide majority of our colleagues. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to resolve our differences and enact this quality health care program and prescription drug benefit for our seniors. I urge my colleagues to begin that effort with their support of the 21st Century Medicare Act.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am especially pleased on this day that we are considering final passage of a long-awaited Nurse Reinvestment Act. When we pass this measure, it will represent a good day for the future of the nursing profession in America and an equally good day for the future of quality patient care. I want to take this opportunity to speak about this legislation, and to congratulate and complement my fellow Members of Congress who worked so hard to see this effort through. Back in April of 2001, together with my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, I was proud to sponsor the innovative set of solutions to the nursing shortage set out in our Nurse Reinvestment Act. Since that time, with extraordinary contributions on behalf of Senator Hutchinson and Senator Mikulski, as well as the cooperative spirit of our colleagues in the House, I believe that we have produced a piece of legislation that we can all be proud of. Today we have before us a measure that represents a truly bipartisan and bicameral effort to address a very serious nursing shortage in the United States. As I have stated before, we are facing a looming crisis in this country. The size of our nursing workforce remains stagnant, while the average age of the American nurse is on the rise. Over the past 5 years, enrollment in entry-level nursing programs has declined by 20 percent. Nurses under the age of 30 represent only 10 percent of the current workforce. By 2010, 40 percent of the nursing workforce will be over the age of 50, and nearing retirement. In Vermont, we are facing an even greater crisis. Only 28 percent of nurses are under the age of 40 and Vermont schools and colleges are producing 31 percent fewer nurses today than they did just 5 years ago. We have a compelling need to encourage more Americans to enter the nursing profession and to strengthen it so that more nurses choose to stay in the profession. All facets of the health care system will have a role to play in ensuring a strong nursing workforce. Nurses, physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, academia, community organizations and State and Federal Governments all must accept responsibility and work towards a solution. Part of the responsibility to launch that effort begins with us today as we vote affirmatively for this legislation. The Nurse Reinvestment Act expands and improves the Federal Government's support of ``pipeline'' programs, which will maintain a strong talent pool and develop a nursing workforce that can address the increasingly diverse needs of America's population. The Nurse Reinvestment Act provides for a comprehensive public awareness and education campaign on a national, State and local level. The campaign will help to bolster the image of the profession and highlight the advantages and rewards of nursing, attract more nurses to the workforce, and lead current nurses to take advantage of career development opportunities. This legislation creates a National Nursing Service Corps Scholarship Program that will provide scholarships to individuals to attend schools of nursing in exchange for a commitment to serve 2 years in a health care facility determined to have a critical shortage of nurses. This scholarship program is designed to recruit both full-time and part-time nursing students, and to complement the existing loan repayment program. The Nurse Reinvestment Act also provides for nurse education, practice, and retention grants. Specifically, the grants will be focused on internship and residency programs that encourage mentoring, development of specialties, and increased education in the area of new technologies like distance learning. It provides for career ladder grants to promote advancement for nursing personnel, including professional nurses, advanced education nurses, licensed practical nurses, certified nurse assistants, and home health aides. In addition, these grants aim to improve retention by enhancing collaboration among nurses and other health care professionals and by promoting nurse involvement in organizational and clinical decision-making. The legislation before us today goes even further by emphasizing preparation for the aging baby boomer population. With this legislation, we create a new program that provides for grants to train and educate individuals in providing geriatric care for the elderly. We also create a nurse faculty loan program in order to ensure that we have enough faculty to teach the nurses that we will so direly need in the years to come. The faculty loan program will allow for up to 85 percent loan cancellation for students in advanced degree programs who agree to serve as a faculty member at a school of nursing. Once again, I want to applaud my colleagues Senator Kerry, Senator Mikulski and Senator Hutchinson for their tireless work on the Nurse Reinvestment Act and for the work of their staffs. In particular, I want to recognize the efforts of Kelly Bovio in Senator Kerry's office, Kate Hull in Senator Hutchinson's office and Rhonda Richards with Senator Mikulski. This effort was also advanced with the help of Sarah Bianchi, Jackie Gran, Brian Hickey, and David Bowen who are members of Senator Kennedy's staff, Christina Ho of Senator Clinton's staff, Steve Irizarry with Senator Gregg and Shana Christrup with Senator Frist. Finally, in my own office, I want to note the efforts of Philo Hall, Angela Mattie, Eric Silva and Sean Donohue for their work throughout this process. Adequate health care services cannot survive any further diminishing of the nursing workforce. Today, we are taking a positive step forward to address the problem before us. I urge my colleagues to join me and the bill's cosponsors in support of this measure, and I trust that this Nurse Reinvestment Act will be given top priority when it comes time to adequately fund the programs set out in it. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.