Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate begin consideration of Calendar No. 23, S. 1, the education bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, in light of the objection, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period for morning business until 12:30 p.m., with the first half of the time designated for the majority leader, or his designee, and the second half of the time controlled by the minority leader, or his designee.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I have no objection so long as it is coming out of your time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. the Senate resume morning business until 5:15 p.m., with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each and the time be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, negotiations are continuing on the education bill. It was hoped that negotiations could be completed this morning with the understanding there would be amendments offered to the legislation. However, the time between 2:15 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. is expected to be used for the initial discussion of the education legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, in response to the nursing shortage, I am joining Senators Kerry, Hutchinson, Daschle, and other in introducing the Nurse Reinvestment Act. Our legislation increases the number of qualified individuals entering the nursing profession and provides them with the skills they need to provide care in the twenty- first century. We are facing a looming crisis. There is a need to encourage more dedicated Americans to enter the profession, and to support them once they are there. 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. Yet, the size of our nursing workforce is remaining stagnant, while its average age is increasing rapidly. In 1980, 53 percent of all nurses were under the age of 40. In 2000 that percentage dropped to 32 percent. In Vermont the numbers are even lower, where only 28 percent of nurses are under the age of 40. The major medical advances of the nineteenth century were in the area of public health. The world population growing exponentially as we expanded access to clean water, sanitary environments, and immunization. Later, driven by numerous wars, the twentieth century saw advances in surgery and clinical care for specific conditions. Likewise, pharmaceutical therapies have improved our ability to cure or manage hundreds of diseases and conditions. All of these developments mean that more of us are living, and we are living longer. This leads us to the twenty-first century, where I believe we will face the challenge of providing quality long-term care to the very elderly and the chronically ill. We know the population of people over the age of 85 is growing and we know the ``Baby-boom'' generation is approaching retirement. Much of the care for this population will need to be provided by a skilled nursing workforce. I would now like to enumerate some of the ways in which the Nurse Reinvestment Act expands and improves the federal government's support of ``pipeline'' programs which maintain a strong talent pool and develop a workforce that can address the increasingly diverse needs of America's population. First and foremost, our legislation creates a National Nursing Service Corps that provides scholarships to nursing schools in exchange for a commitment to serve two years in a health facility determined to have a critical shortage of nurses. We have developed this scholarship program to mirror the current Nursing Loan Repayment Program, and we specify that these nursing scholarships shall be qualified as non- taxable income. The Act authorizes two new grant programs under the Health Resources and Service Administration's Division of Nursing. The first program, Initiatives to Combat Nursing Shortages, develops national, state, and local public service announcements to enhance the profile of nursing. It conducts outreach at primary and secondary schools, and provides appropriate student support services to individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. The second grant program, Initiatives to Strengthen the Nursing Workforce, provides financial incentives for the pursuit of additional education across the nursing career ladder. It also helps schools develop curriculums in gerontology, and establishes distance learning partnerships between schools and providers to improve access to care in underserved communities. Such measures recognize the changes in the delivery of care that nurses will face in the coming decades. Finally, the Nurse Reinvestment Act expands and adjusts the Medicare payments for clinical nurse education to reimburse qualified hospitals for the costs of training nurses in hospital-affiliated provider sites, such as federally qualified community health centers, rural health clinics, nursing homes, home health care agencies and hospices. Nurses will therefore be able to receive their clinical training in the settings in which they are increasingly likely to practice. I am aware that there is other legislation being introduced today that addresses the nursing shortage. I applaud that action. I believe the numerous nursing bills demonstrate the deep congressional interest in reducing the nursing shortage, and the broad choice of policy proposals available. This is an issue that rises above partisanship and I anticipate that we will be able to work together to produce the very best policy. Adequate health care services cannot survive any further diminishing of the nursing workforce. All patients depend on the professional care of nurses, and we must make sure it will be there for them. Once again, I want to thank all my fellow cosponsors, and I urge my colleagues to support the Nurse Reinvestment Act.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am disturbed at the DeWine attempt to solve a problem that is not there. I was one of those back in my last election--not the last but the one before that--who was exposed to this kind of advertising, who has had to face seeing ads on television which totally distort the facts and say terrible things. You watch a 20- percent lead keep going down and you do not know who is putting them on. You know what they are saying is totally inaccurate, but you have no way to refute it, other than to try to get people convinced that nobody knows who put it there, who is behind it. The constitutionality of our provisions is common sense. How can you say that something which merely asks the person who put out the ad to let everybody know who they are is unconstitutional? How in the world can you say that it is unconstitutional to require somebody to disclose who they are and what they are? That is all we are doing in Snowe-Jeffords. The Wellstone amendment does make things a little more confusing in that regard. Let's remember what we are doing if we vote on this bill without leaving in the very critical provisions of Snowe-Jeffords, which say that anyone who does ads and does so in a way to attack a candidate, they have to let people know who they are. What is wrong with that? I think everybody believes that is a positive addition. The Snowe-Jeffords provisions also make sure that when the time comes down to the very end, that unions and corporations are not precluded from ads by any means. But they are required to disclose from where the money came and use individually donated hard money. It can't be unconstitutional in the sense of the corporations or unions using individually donated funds instead of their own funds to run these ads. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, It is with great pleasure that Senator Leahy and I today to introduce the National Guard Competitive Sports Equity Act. Passage of this bill will allow the National Guard to utilize appropriated funds in support of National Guard Sports Programs, National Guard Bureau sanctioned competitive events and associated training programs. The National Guard Competitive Events and Sports program adds value to the National Guard by enhancing the National Guard's competitive training programs through participation in military, national and international sports competitions. The National Guard Competitive Sports Program trains, coordinates and participates in events such as the Pan Am Games, World Championships and Olympic Games, Competition International Sports Militaire, CISM, and manages the World Class Athlete Program. The National Guard Sports Office manages four core programs that include marksmanship, biathlon, parachute competition and marathon programs. This legislation is important because it will allow these programs to continue to flourish and provide the National Guard training resource equity on par with similar programs available to active duty soldiers. Under current law, active component services are able to utilize Morale, Welfare and Recreation, MWR funds for training, allowances, entry fees, personal clothing and specialized equipment in support of training and competitive events. The Guard does not receive or have access to similar funding sources. The Guard is forced to use training funds potentially earmarked for other events or not participate. This important legislation will allow this program to continue and provide the National Guard with the funding flexibility it requires to maintain this highly successful program.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to once again discuss the Snowe-Jeffords provisions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. My focus today will be rassuring you that the Snowe-Jeffords provisions are constitutional. We took great care in crafting our language to avoid violating the important prrinciples in the first amendment of our Constitution. In reviewing the cases, limiting corporate and union spending and requiring disclosure have been areas that the Supreme Court has been most tolerant of regulation. Since 1907, federal law has banned corporations from engaging in electioneering. In 1947, that ban was extended to prohibit unions from electioneering as well. The Supreme Court has upheld these restrictions in order to avoid the corrupting influences on federal elections resulting from the use of money by those who exercise control over a large amount of capital. By treating both corporations and unions similarly we extend current regulation cautiously and fairly. We also worked to make our requirements sufficiently clear and narrow to overcome unconstitutional claims of vagueness and overbreadth. This required us to review the seminal cases in this area, including Buckley v. Valeo. I have heard some of my colleagues argue that Buckley clearly shows that the Snowe-Jeffords provisions are unconstitutional. I must disagree most strongly with that reading. In fact, the language of the case should--must be read to show that the Snowe-Jeffords provisions are constitutional. In Buckley the court limited spending that was ``for the purpose of influencing an election.'' As I noted in my speech last Friday, 80 percent of the voters, an overwhelming majority, see these sham issue ads as trying to influence their vote and the outcome of the election. Buckley also allowed disclosure of all spending, ``in connection with an election.'' As I discussed last Friday, 96 percent of the public sees these ads as connected with an election. In addition, the chart my colleague Senator Snowe presented on the Senate floor last Monday clearly demonstrates that these ads are run in lock step with the candidate's own ads. This makes sense this clearly proves that these sham issue ads are well connected with the election. A final point concerning the Buckley decision. The Supreme Court was concerned about both deterring corruption and the appearance of corruption, plus ensuring that the voters were properly informed. The Snowe-Jeffords provision satisfies the Court's concerns. We deter the appearance of corruption by shining sunlight on the undisclosed expenditures for sham issue advertisements. Corruption will be deterred when the public and the media are able to see clearly who is trying to influence the election. In addition our provisions will inform the voting public of who is sponsoring and paying for an electioneering communication. Unlike what our opponents may say, the Supreme Court using the standards articulated in the Buckley decision would uphold the Snowe-Jeffords provision as constitutional. Our opponents also point to the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts Citizens For Life as demonstrating that the Snowe- Jeffords provisions are unconstitutional. I would agree with my opponents that the MCFL decision seems to reaffirm the express advocacy test articulated in Buckley, but I would argue in upholding this test that the Court actually made it even more likely that the Snowe- Jeffords provisions would be upheld as constitutional. The MCFL decision broadens the standard articulated in Buckley by analyzing the context of a communication and divining its ``essential nature.'' As the results from the BYU Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy study I discussed earlier show, the esential nature of these sham issue-ads is to influence the outcome of an election. Presented with all of the facts provided by myself and Senator Snowe, the Supreme Court would be consistent only in finding our provisions constitutional under the standards laid out in Buckley and MCFL. So rather than strengthening their case, the MCFL decision shows that the Court is willing to examine the issue closely and look beyond a strict interpretation of the magic words test that some have said the Buckley decision created. A final court decision my opponents point to as supporting their position that the Snowe-Jeffords provisions are unconstitutional is the recent Vermont Right to Life decision in the second circuit. I must first point out that as a circuit court opinion it is not the law of the land. That can only come from the decisions of the Supreme Court, on which the provisions of the Snowe-Jeffords provisions are built. Additionally, the facts that faced the second circuit in the Vermont Right to Life case are clearly distinguishable from the Snowe-Jeffords provisions. Unlike the Vermont statute that was vague and overbroad, our provisions are narrowly tailored to avoid overbreadth, and create clear standards about what is allowed or required by our provisions, thus avoiding the vagueness in the Vermont statute. In addition, the court focused much of its discussion in declaring the Vermont statute unconstitutional on the effects of the provision on modes of communication not covered by Snowe-Jeffords. As the Snowe-Jeffords provisions do not cover these types of communication, our language is distinguishable from the facts faced by the second circuit. So, don't be fooled when the opponents of our provision say that the Vermont Right to Life case clearly shows that the Snowe-Jeffords provisions are unconstitutional. They are comparing apples with oranges, and such a conclusion in inappropriate. In conclusion, James Madison once said, A popular government without popular information is but a prologue to a tragedy or a farce or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. The Snowe-Jeffords provisions will give the voters the knowledge they need. I ask for my colleagues continued support in this vital effort to restore faith in our campaign finance laws. It is time to restore the public's confidence in our political system. It is time to increase disclosure requirements and ban soft money. It is time to pass the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Work Opportunity Improvement Act of 2001, which will permanently extend both the work opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit. The bill will also modify eligibility criteria for the work opportunity tax credit, to strengthen efforts to help fathers of children on welfare find work. Over the past five years, these tax credits have played a crucial role in helping 1.5 million low-skilled, undereducated persons dependent on public assistance enter the work force. The work opportunity tax credit was first enacted in 1996, to provide employers with financial resources to recruit, hire, and retain individuals who have significant problems finding and keeping a job. The welfare-to-work tax credit, serving a similar purpose, was enacted the next year. Traditionally, employers had been reluctant to hire people coming off the welfare rolls, both because they tended to have less education and experience than other job candidates, and because they tended to have less education and experience than other job candidates, and because welfare dependence was seen as fostering a poor self-image and work habits. These tax credits, however, have demonstrated that employers can be enticed to overcome their resistance to hiring less skilled, economically dependent individuals. No other incentive or training program has been nearly as successful as these tax credits in encouraging employers to change their hiring practices. Over the past five years, government and employers have developed a partnership that has led to significant changes in hiring practices. Many employers have established outreach and recruitment programs to identify and target individuals whom employers could hire under these tax credit programs. States have made the tax credit programs more employer-friendly by continual improvements in the way the programs are administered. Still, we repeatedly hear both from employers and State job service agencies administering the programs that continued uncertainty about the programs' future impedes expanded participation and improvements in program administration. Making the work opportunity and welfare-to-work tax credits permanent would induce employers to expand their recruitment efforts and encourage States to commit more time and effort to further improve the programs. This, in turn, would mean that more individuals would be helped to make the jump from welfare dependency to work. Because these programs have proven so successful over the past five years, I believe they should be made permanent and am today introducing a bill to achieve this end. In addition to making these two tax provisions permanent, my bill will address an oversight. Currently, the work opportunity tax credit gives employers an incentive to hire individuals on food stamps between ages 18 and 24. No sound policy reason exists for not extending the tax credit's eligibility criteria to people on food stamps over age 25. Lifting the work opportunity tax credit food stamp age ceiling would mean that many more fathers of children on welfare could be hired under the credit. These individuals often face significant barriers to finding work. Increasing the age ceiling for food stamp recipients is consistent with the tax credit's underlying objectives, as many food stamp households include adults who are not working. Moreover, over 90 percent of those on food stamps live below the poverty line. My bill will include among those eligible for the work opportunity tax credit persons in households receiving food stamps, as long as they are 50 years old or younger. I believe that this will have the effect of making the tax credit available with respect to fathers of children on welfare who aren't otherwise eligible. I urge my colleagues to support and co-sponsor this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Work Opportunity Improvement Act of 2001, which will permanently extend both the work opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit. The bill will also modify eligibility criteria for the work opportunity tax credit, to strengthen efforts to help fathers of children on welfare find work. Over the past five years, these tax credits have played a crucial role in helping 1.5 million low-skilled, undereducated persons dependent on public assistance enter the work force. The work opportunity tax credit was first enacted in 1996, to provide employers with financial resources to recruit, hire, and retain individuals who have significant problems finding and keeping a job. The welfare-to-work tax credit, serving a similar purpose, was enacted the next year. Traditionally, employers had been reluctant to hire people coming off the welfare rolls, both because they tended to have less education and experience than other job candidates, and because they tended to have less education and experience than other job candidates, and because welfare dependence was seen as fostering a poor self-image and work habits. These tax credits, however, have demonstrated that employers can be enticed to overcome their resistance to hiring less skilled, economically dependent individuals. No other incentive or training program has been nearly as successful as these tax credits in encouraging employers to change their hiring practices. Over the past five years, government and employers have developed a partnership that has led to significant changes in hiring practices. Many employers have established outreach and recruitment programs to identify and target individuals whom employers could hire under these tax credit programs. States have made the tax credit programs more employer-friendly by continual improvements in the way the programs are administered. Still, we repeatedly hear both from employers and State job service agencies administering the programs that continued uncertainty about the programs' future impedes expanded participation and improvements in program administration. Making the work opportunity and welfare-to-work tax credits permanent would induce employers to expand their recruitment efforts and encourage States to commit more time and effort to further improve the programs. This, in turn, would mean that more individuals would be helped to make the jump from welfare dependency to work. Because these programs have proven so successful over the past five years, I believe they should be made permanent and am today introducing a bill to achieve this end. In addition to making these two tax provisions permanent, my bill will address an oversight. Currently, the work opportunity tax credit gives employers an incentive to hire individuals on food stamps between ages 18 and 24. No sound policy reason exists for not extending the tax credit's eligibility criteria to people on food stamps over age 25. Lifting the work opportunity tax credit food stamp age ceiling would mean that many more fathers of children on welfare could be hired under the credit. These individuals often face significant barriers to finding work. Increasing the age ceiling for food stamp recipients is consistent with the tax credit's underlying objectives, as many food stamp households include adults who are not working. Moreover, over 90 percent of those on food stamps live below the poverty line. My bill will include among those eligible for the work opportunity tax credit persons in households receiving food stamps, as long as they are 50 years old or younger. I believe that this will have the effect of making the tax credit available with respect to fathers of children on welfare who aren't otherwise eligible. I urge my colleagues to support and co-sponsor this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from West Virginia for making us aware of the situation which we are coming into. I speak as a committee chairman who is deeply concerned about the process and how we are going to be meaningful in our participation to handle some of the very serious issues of this country. I thank him very much for his help.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to more fully discuss the Snowe-Jeffords provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Accountability and transparency are two of the most important principles in a democracy. The Snowe-Jeffords provisions will strengthen our campaign finance laws and democracy by ensuring the financial sponsors of sham issue ads are accountable to the voters through increased disclosure. I am concerned that the intent and effect of these provisions have been distorted by some of those who oppose campaign finance reform. I am here today to set the record straight. I have been proud to work with my good friend the senior Senator from Maine to develop these provisions that our citizens demand and that abide by the First Amendment. Senator Snowe has shown great leadership and dedication in developing a legislative solution that will fully and fairly address the proliferation of these sham issue ads. Let me begin with a discussion of what the Snowe-Jeffords provisions would do. First, they require disclosure of certain information if an individual spends more than 10,000 dollars in a year on electioneering communications which are run in the 30 days before a primary, or 60 days before a general election. Second, Snowe-Jeffords prohibits the direct or indirect use of union or corporate treasury monies to fund electioneering communications run during these time periods. For my colleagues and those watching on C-SPAN, an electioneering communication is any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which references a clearly identified federal candidate within the time period explained above. Now let me explain what the Snowe-Jeffords provisions will not do: The Snowe-Jeffords provisions will not prohibit groups like the National Right to Life Committee or the Sierra Club from disseminating electioneering communications; It will not prohibit such groups from accepting corporate or labor funds; It will not require such groups to create a PAC or another separate entity; It will not bar or require disclosure of communications by print media, direct mail, or other non-broadcast media; It will not require the invasive disclosure of all donors, and Finally, it will not affect the ability of any organization to urge grassroots contacts with lawmakers on upcoming votes. The last point bears repeating. The Snowe-Jeffords provisions do not stop the ability of any organization to urge their members and the public through grassroots communications to contact their lawmakers on upcoming issues or votes. That is one of the biggest distortions of the Snowe-Jeffords provisions. Any organization can, and should be able to, use their grassroots communications to urge citizens to contact their lawmakers. Under the Snowe-Jeffords provisions any organization still can undertake this most important task. My colleagues may wonder what led Senator Snowe and I to work so hard for the inclusion of these provisions in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Since the 1996 election cycle we have both seen, and experienced first hand, the explosion in the amount of money spent on these so-called issue ads. From the 135-150 million dollars spent in 1996, spending on these so-called issue ads has ballooned to over 500 million dollars during the last election cycle. It is not the increase in the amount spent on these so-called issue ads alone that concerns us. Studies have shown that in the final two months of an election, 95 percent of television issue ads mentioned a candidate, 94 percent made a case for or against a candidate, and finally 84 percent of these ads had an attack component. Does anyone think these statistics are just a coincidence? An overwhelming majority of the public recognizes this problem. They see an ad identifying, 90 percent, or showing a candidate, 83 percent, or an ad being shown in the last few weeks before an election, 66 percent, as ads that are trying to influence their vote for or against a particular candidate. Some of my colleagues are of the opinion that this increase in money spent on sham issue ads is fine. They believe that more money in the system will better inform the electorate about the candidates. Unfortunately, these sham issue ads are corrupting our election system and are not better informing the voters about the candidates. The public can differentiate between electioneering communications and other types of communications done to purely inform the public on an issue. A recent study done by the Brigham Young University Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy shows this, and the effect these ads are having on the public. As you can plainly see from this chart, I have beside me the public views electioneering communications as trying to persuade them to vote against a candidate. These ads--80 percent--evoke as strong of a reaction in the viewing public as the party advertisements--81 percent--and are even stronger than the candidate's own ads--67 percent. This chart also shows that the public knows when it is viewing a pure issue ad as compared to the other types of ads tested. Seventy percent of the public recognizes that. This next chart, chart No. 2, also demonstrates how the public views these ads, again showing what is the real purpose behind these electioneering communications. Here, like the first chart, you can see that the public is able to differentiate between ads run to help or hurt a candidate versus a pure issue ad meant to inform the public. What is interesting, or frightening, about this chart is that the electioneering communications generate a higher response from the viewing public--86 percent--than even the candidate--82 percent--or party ads--84 percent. My third chart shows the degree to which the public felt an ad was intended to influence their vote, with 1 being not at all and 7 being clearly intended to influence their vote. This chart again shows that the public is able to differentiate between the communications they receive. Like before, there is a stark difference in public perception between those ads which are seen as trying to influence a vote, election issue ads, party ads, and candidate ads, versus those seen as portraying a purely informational purpose, pure issue ads. The chart also shows that the public views the intent of these electioneering communications to be to influence their vote as strongly as a party ad--6.3 to 6.3; about even--and even more strongly--6.3 to 5.8--than the candidate's own advertisement. The chart also shows the stark difference in the public's mind between the intent of electioneering communications--6.3--and pure issue ads--3.7. While the public correctly perceives that electioneering communications are meant to influence their vote, the public is confused about the origin of these communications. As this chart shows, chart No. 4, an overwhelming majority--75 percent--of the public believe that these communications are being paid for by the party or the candidate themselves. The voters deserve to know who is trying to influence their vote, and the Snowe-Jeffords provisions will give them that information. My final chart, chart No. 5, shows that the public craves the information that the Snowe-Jeffords provisions would provide them. Eighty percent of the public believes that it is important or very important that they know who pays for or sponsors a political ad. I ask our opponents, do they not believe that the public deserves to know who is trying to influence their vote? The public both wants and deserves that information, and Senator Snowe and I provide it to them with our provisions. I think this is an incredibly important part of the bill. I strongly urge all of my patriots to study the Snowe-Jeffords provisions to make sure they fully understand that all we are requiring is disclosure. We want to make sure people know from where the information to influence them is coming. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately resume consideration of the campaign finance reform legislation. Debate will continue on Senator Torricelli's amendment regarding broadcasting. If all debate time is used, a vote may be expected around 12 noon. However, some time may be yielded back, and therefore the vote could occur earlier. Progress is being made on the bill, and further amendments will be offered throughout the day. As a reminder, votes will occur throughout the day approximately every 3 hours. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am happy to yield.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I wish to add my voice to the many who have come before the Senate to honor the brave men and women who served our nation so honorably in the Persian Gulf War. March 3, 2001 marked the tenth anniversary of the end of the Persian Gulf War. I pay special tribute to the families of those who gave their lives in this effort. I would like to draw my colleagues attention to an important event that will be taking place this Sunday, March 25th, 2001, in Manchester, NH. A group of dedicated Americans is gathering to observe the 10th anniversary of the Persian Gulf war, to honor those who served, and to evaluate the fulfillment of our promise to care for those who suffered as a result of their service. A driving force behind this event is the New England Persian Gulf Veterans Inc., NEPGV, and its dynamic founders, David and Patricia Irish. Since the NEPGV's inception in 1996, David and Trish have worked tirelessly to promote the issues and challenges of Gulf War Veterans in New England and beyond. I want to publicly thank them for their efforts and let them know that I will be with them in spirit on the 25th of March. This is an appropriate time to remember the outstanding job our service men and women did in liberating Kuwait from occupation. Together with our allies, this action stated that in the post Cold War world, the unprovoked conquest of one's neighbors would not be tolerated. The unprecedented coalition of twenty six nations rolled back a tyrannical dictator and a military ill prepared for the determination of the United States and its allies, nor the might and professionalism of the soldiers involved. In the face of the poor performance of old Soviet equipment, the Gulf War firmly established the military superiority of the United States and confirmed our status as the world's lone superpower. Our willingness to work together with our friends in the Arab world set a new tone in the region and ushered in a new era of respect for international cooperation. The Gulf War coalition also laid a foundation for a remarkable United Nations operation that for the first time, aggressively sought to identify and destroy any potential capability for development of weapons of mass destruction or manufacture of chemical or biological agents. While UNSCOM had a very difficult time carrying out its mission and was eventually forced to leave Iraq, the world community learned a great deal from the experience, and set any potential future proliferations on notice that these types of actions will not be tolerated. While peace process in the Middle East is at a low ebb right now, it is also appropriate that we remember how the Gulf War was a critical catalyst for the Oslo Peace Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, the cornerstone for the wave of peace that swept the region during the 1990s. While subsequent agreements have been shattered by the recent violence, all sides still stand by Oslo, as do the moderate Arab nations who continue to insist that the risks they have taken for peace are worth it. Had it not been for US leadership and the success of the Gulf War, this would not be the case. As a senior member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, I take very seriously my obligation to address the needs of all our Veterans. Although it has been 10 years since this decisive victory in the Persian Gulf, servicemen and women continue to step forward with symptoms of illnesses and disease likely attributable to serving in Southwest Asia during the war. This was brought home to me by the death of a friend of my son Leonard, John Clark, Jr. A Gulf War veteran, John was stricken with colon cancer at age 31, two short years after his return home from the Gulf. John's case is similar to other service members coming back from the Gulf War. John passed away in 1996. For John and his family, as for many veterans, the war continues well after they have taken off their uniforms and returned to life as civilians. I will continue to work to insure that Gulf War veterans obtain access to VA health benefits and that meaningful research continues to determine treatment for these troubling medical problems. Our Gulf War veterans, having served in Active, Reserve and National Guard units, must know that we here in Washington will continue to fight for them as they fought for us. Once again, I remember, commemorate and congratulate the members of our Armed Forces who served with distinction during the Gulf War. I sincerely thank them for their service to our country on this, the tenth anniversary of this victory.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in introducing the Relief, Equity, Access, and Coverage for Health, REACH, Act, a bipartisan bill that will provide low and middle income Americans with refundable tax credits for the purchase of health insurance coverage. New Census Bureau data indicate that there are now 43 million Americans with no health coverage. And, for the third straight year, insurance premiums for employer-sponsored coverage have increased significantly, by as much as 10 to 13 percent. We know from past experience that premium increases cause people to lose their health insurance. By some estimates, as many as 3 million Americans will lose coverage for every 10 percent increase in premiums. With premiums increasing and the economy uncertain, the problem could worsen. The impact of these numbers is very real for American families. The uninsured often go without needed health care or face unaffordable medical bills. Access to health coverage for the uninsured must be one of our nation's top priorities. The REACH tax credit is targeted to those who are most in need of help, Americans who earn too much to qualify for public programs, but nevertheless struggle to pay for health insurance. Without additional resources, health insurance coverage is either beyond their reach or only purchased by giving up other basic necessities of life. The REACH Act makes a refundable tax credit available to more than 20 million Americans who do not have access to employer-sponsored insurance and who are ineligible for public programs. The amount of the credit for this group is $1,000 for individuals with adjusted gross incomes of up to $35,000 to purchase self-only coverage, and $2,500 for taxpayers with an AGI of up to $55,000 to purchase family coverage. We also want to help hard working Americans who have access to employer-subsidized insurance, but have difficulty paying for their share of the premiums. Over 7 million Americans decline insurance offered by their employers. To relieve their financial burden, the REACH Act provides a refundable tax credit of $400 for the purchase of self-only coverage and $1,000 for the purchase of family coverage under the employer's group health plan. Initial estimates indicate this legislation will provide coverage to more than 10 million Americans who are presently uninsured. In addition, it will give needed financial relief to over 60 million low and moderate income working Americans who are using their own scarce dollars to buy health insurance coverage today. The REACH Act provides a bipartisan, market-based solution to a complex problem. It will bolster the private health insurance market and strengthen employer-sponsored coverage, the cornerstone of our nation's health care system. While this legislation will not solve the entire problem, it is clearly a substantial step in the right direction. I will continue to work with my colleagues to tackle this problem on other fronts, including strengthening the safety net, working to make Medicaid and SCHIP more effective programs, and fighting to provide a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. I look forward to working with my colleagues on enacting the REACH Act into law this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in introducing the Relief, Equity, Access, and Coverage for Health, REACH, Act, a bipartisan bill that will provide low and middle income Americans with refundable tax credits for the purchase of health insurance coverage. New Census Bureau data indicate that there are now 43 million Americans with no health coverage. And, for the third straight year, insurance premiums for employer-sponsored coverage have increased significantly, by as much as 10 to 13 percent. We know from past experience that premium increases cause people to lose their health insurance. By some estimates, as many as 3 million Americans will lose coverage for every 10 percent increase in premiums. With premiums increasing and the economy uncertain, the problem could worsen. The impact of these numbers is very real for American families. The uninsured often go without needed health care or face unaffordable medical bills. Access to health coverage for the uninsured must be one of our nation's top priorities. The REACH tax credit is targeted to those who are most in need of help, Americans who earn too much to qualify for public programs, but nevertheless struggle to pay for health insurance. Without additional resources, health insurance coverage is either beyond their reach or only purchased by giving up other basic necessities of life. The REACH Act makes a refundable tax credit available to more than 20 million Americans who do not have access to employer-sponsored insurance and who are ineligible for public programs. The amount of the credit for this group is $1,000 for individuals with adjusted gross incomes of up to $35,000 to purchase self-only coverage, and $2,500 for taxpayers with an AGI of up to $55,000 to purchase family coverage. We also want to help hard working Americans who have access to employer-subsidized insurance, but have difficulty paying for their share of the premiums. Over 7 million Americans decline insurance offered by their employers. To relieve their financial burden, the REACH Act provides a refundable tax credit of $400 for the purchase of self-only coverage and $1,000 for the purchase of family coverage under the employer's group health plan. Initial estimates indicate this legislation will provide coverage to more than 10 million Americans who are presently uninsured. In addition, it will give needed financial relief to over 60 million low and moderate income working Americans who are using their own scarce dollars to buy health insurance coverage today. The REACH Act provides a bipartisan, market-based solution to a complex problem. It will bolster the private health insurance market and strengthen employer-sponsored coverage, the cornerstone of our nation's health care system. While this legislation will not solve the entire problem, it is clearly a substantial step in the right direction. I will continue to work with my colleagues to tackle this problem on other fronts, including strengthening the safety net, working to make Medicaid and SCHIP more effective programs, and fighting to provide a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. I look forward to working with my colleagues on enacting the REACH Act into law this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. He misses the point that all that it requires is disclosure. We would like to know who it is making the ads on television. It is a simple disclosure provision that says people ought to know, if somebody is making accusations, who is doing it.

Mr. JEFFORDS. There is no prohibition 60 days prior to the election.

Mr. JEFFORDS. If the Senator from Utah will yield, I had an opportunity to listen to some of his comments about the Snowe-Jeffords provisions. They were amusing, but far from accurate.

Mr. JEFFORDS. First of all, there is nothing in Snowe-Jeffords that prohibits or prevents ads to be purchased in newspapers. There is no problem there.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Television and radio, probably.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. I also thank the Senator from California for her very astute comments, especially relative to the amendment of my good friend, Senator Pete Domenici. I think that is an excellent start. We are going to have a better bill. We have a great bill right now. I thank also Senators McCain and Feingold for the tireless devotion they have shown to this issue, ensuring the Senate would be able to fully consider this very important legislation. I especially thank my colleague, Senator Snowe, for her work and for her very excellent presentation. I know she has even more to say about the amendment on which she and I have worked so hard for so many years. Hopefully, we will see a good result this year. I have heard some of my colleagues question the importance the American public places on passing campaign finance reform legislation. Not only do I think the American public believes this issue needs to be addressed by Congress, I believe the desire has only increased following the controversy surrounding the pardoning of Marc Rich. Our current campaign finance system has left many Americans disillusioned with the political process and feeling disconnected from their elected representatives. This is an important factor in leading people to opt to stay on the sidelines rather than participate in the electoral process. Passing campaign finance reform will help boost our disturbingly low rate of voter turnout in national elections. I was first elected to Congress following the Watergate scandal, right around the time Congress last enacted comprehensive reform of our campaign finance system. I have watched with growing dismay during my over twenty-five years in Congress as the number of troubling examples of problems in our current campaign finance system have increased. We were close to enacting comprehensive campaign finance reform in 1994, and I am the most confident now since that time that we will enact this important legislation. I look forward to a full and open debate on the issue of campaign finance reform in the coming days, and believe at the end that the final bill should have certain characteristics: It must be comprehensive in nature; It must increase disclosure requirements on sham issue ads; It must ban soft money; and It must help restore the public's confidence in our political system. In order to accomplish these goals, we must come together to work for passage of meaningful campaign finance reform. I am heartened by the wide bipartisan group supporting our legislation. We have members from the right, left and middle in support of this bill. That does not mean, though, that we will stop working with our colleagues to craft additional ideas to address the problems with the current campaign finance system. My ultimate goal is to create a comprehensive campaign finance bill that will garner the support of at least 60 Senators, and hopefully more. One of the most important aspects of any bill the Senate may pass, is that it must be comprehensive. If we fail to address the problems facing our campaign finance system with a comprehensive balanced package we will ultimately fail in our mission of reforming the system. Closing one loophole, without addressing the others, will not do enough to correct the current deficiencies, and may in fact create new and unintended consequences. We have all seen first-hand the problems with the current state of the law as it relates to sham issue advertisements. I have focused much time and effort on developing a legislative solution on this topic with my colleague Senator Snowe, and was pleased that this solution was adopted by the Senate during the 1998 debate on campaign finance reform. I was also proud to cosponsor the comprehensive campaign finance bill Senators McCain and Feingold introduced last Congress that included this legislative solution. I feel strongly that the legislation the Senate must ultimately vote on include some kind of changes to the current law concerning sham issue advertisements. We have crafted a reasonable, constitutional approach to this problem. Our provision will require disclosure of certain information if you spend more than $10,000 in a year on electioneering communications which are run 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. It also prohibits the direct or indirect use of union or corporate treasury monies to fund electioneering communications run during these time periods. I will come to the floor at a later time to more fully discuss our provision, including the need for this provision, why it is constitutional, and to address some of the arguments our opponents continue to raise concerning these provisions. I look forward to a full and open debate on this important issue, and pledge to continue working with my colleagues to enact comprehensive campaign finance reform into law this year. I yield the floor.