Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am here to announce the introduction of the Clean Power Act of 2001 which reduces emissions from power plants of the four primary air pollutants. These four pollutants, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide are the major cause of the nation's most serious public health and environmental problems: smog, soot, acid rain, mercury contamination, and global warming. The Clean Power Act set standards for these four serious pollutants that are both cost-effective and technologically feasible. The 1970 Clean Air Act, and its subsequent amendments, were enacted to improve the quality of our nation's air. This was a major milestone in environmental legislation. I was proud to be one of the principle negotiators of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Those were important steps to take to improve the quality of our Nation's air and since that time we have made significant headway in that direction. Although current legislation sets standards for nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, they are at levels that we now know are far too high to protect us from the devastating effects of resulting smog, acid rain, and increased respiratory disease. Currently, there is no standard for carbon dioxide pollution, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for global warming, and no standard for mercury emissions, a dangerous pollutant linked to cognitive and developmental ailments in children and responsible for fish advisories in forty states. Therefore, there is still much to be done to protect the quality of our nation's air and now is the time to take the next step. Electric generating power plants are our nation's single largest source of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Annual power plants emissions are responsible for 64 percent of the nation's sulfur dioxide, or 13 million tons, 26 percent of the nitrogen oxides, or 6 million tons, 40 percent of the carbon dioxide, that's over 2 billion tons, and 52 tons of mercury. Updating electric power plants represent the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. Many of the most polluting power plants were exempt from stringent controls imposed by the original Clean Air Act and today, after more than 30 years, they are still in use. As a result, these outdated power plants can emit between 10 and 100 times the amount of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide pollution emitted by a modern power plant. Sulfur dioxide fine particle pollution for U.S. power plants cuts short the lives of over 30,000 people each year. Ground-level ozone smog triggers over 6.2 million asthma attacks each summer in the eastern United States alone; another 160,000 people are sent to the emergency room and 53,000 are hospitalized due to smog induced respiratory distress. The National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council has concluded that over 60,000 children are born in the U.S. each year at risk for adverse neurodevelopmental effects due to in utero exposure to mercury. Over forty states have issued fish consumption advisories to mitigate this threat. Power plants are our nation's largest unregulated source of mercury emissions. Fortunately, we now have technologies available that will permit power plants to reach the levels set in the Clean Power Act. The nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury reductions are set at levels in the Clean Power Act that are known to be cost effective with available technologies. The Clean Power Act will allow power plants to use market-oriented mechanisms in order to reach these much needed emissions standards for nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. Therefore, with new technologies at our disposal and trading mechanisms providing flexibility to the utilities, we no longer need to compromise the health of our great nation; neither it's citizens nor it's environment. We only need the will to act.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am here to announce the introduction of the Clean Power Act of 2001 which reduces emissions from power plants of the four primary air pollutants. These four pollutants, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide are the major cause of the nation's most serious public health and environmental problems: smog, soot, acid rain, mercury contamination, and global warming. The Clean Power Act set standards for these four serious pollutants that are both cost-effective and technologically feasible. The 1970 Clean Air Act, and its subsequent amendments, were enacted to improve the quality of our nation's air. This was a major milestone in environmental legislation. I was proud to be one of the principle negotiators of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Those were important steps to take to improve the quality of our Nation's air and since that time we have made significant headway in that direction. Although current legislation sets standards for nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, they are at levels that we now know are far too high to protect us from the devastating effects of resulting smog, acid rain, and increased respiratory disease. Currently, there is no standard for carbon dioxide pollution, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for global warming, and no standard for mercury emissions, a dangerous pollutant linked to cognitive and developmental ailments in children and responsible for fish advisories in forty states. Therefore, there is still much to be done to protect the quality of our nation's air and now is the time to take the next step. Electric generating power plants are our nation's single largest source of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Annual power plants emissions are responsible for 64 percent of the nation's sulfur dioxide, or 13 million tons, 26 percent of the nitrogen oxides, or 6 million tons, 40 percent of the carbon dioxide, that's over 2 billion tons, and 52 tons of mercury. Updating electric power plants represent the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. Many of the most polluting power plants were exempt from stringent controls imposed by the original Clean Air Act and today, after more than 30 years, they are still in use. As a result, these outdated power plants can emit between 10 and 100 times the amount of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide pollution emitted by a modern power plant. Sulfur dioxide fine particle pollution for U.S. power plants cuts short the lives of over 30,000 people each year. Ground-level ozone smog triggers over 6.2 million asthma attacks each summer in the eastern United States alone; another 160,000 people are sent to the emergency room and 53,000 are hospitalized due to smog induced respiratory distress. The National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council has concluded that over 60,000 children are born in the U.S. each year at risk for adverse neurodevelopmental effects due to in utero exposure to mercury. Over forty states have issued fish consumption advisories to mitigate this threat. Power plants are our nation's largest unregulated source of mercury emissions. Fortunately, we now have technologies available that will permit power plants to reach the levels set in the Clean Power Act. The nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury reductions are set at levels in the Clean Power Act that are known to be cost effective with available technologies. The Clean Power Act will allow power plants to use market-oriented mechanisms in order to reach these much needed emissions standards for nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. Therefore, with new technologies at our disposal and trading mechanisms providing flexibility to the utilities, we no longer need to compromise the health of our great nation; neither it's citizens nor it's environment. We only need the will to act.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the amendment before us is the continuation of a debate that began in 1999. The bankruptcy bill contains a provision that would place a $1 million cap on voluntary contributions in an IRA owned by a bankrupt debtor. While this provision is aimed at the same problem as the ``homestead exemption cap,'' it misses the mark. IRAs already have a cap on voluntary contributions of $2,000 per year so it is impossible to ``stuff'' significant funds into an IRA in advance of filing for bankruptcy. In fact, the annual $2,000 contribution limits are generally viewed as being too low. In order to accumulate $1 million in voluntary $2,000 contributions, it would take roughly 40 years, even with a 10% rate of return. I believe that this $1 million cap is practically impossible to administer. The cap does not apply to rollover funds from a pension plan. There are thousands of rollover IRAs in excess of $1 million. As Baby Boomers retire and take lump sum distributions from retirement plans, the number of $1 million IRAs will skyrocket. However, tax law does not require that IRA rollover accounts be separated from voluntary tax-deductible IRA contributions. The principal and interest in these accounts is also co-mingled. But, in order satisfy orders from Bankruptcy Courts to disgorge assets in co- mingled accounts, IRA Administrators will be forced to engage in costly and time consuming audits of the accounts to distinguish the funds. I am most concerned, however, about the impact of this amendment on rollovers from retirement plans. Last year, we were successful in preventing the bankruptcy bill from the unprecedented breaching of the anti-alienation provisions of ERISA. The $1 million cap on IRAs will discourage retirement savings and pension portability by introducing uncertainty in the system. It will encourage individuals who change jobs to simply take the cash and spend it, rather than roll their funds into an IRA that would no longer be completely inviolate. For all the potential harm that this provision of the bill would do, its benefits are only theoretical at some point in the future. I believe that the cost of this provision is too high and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to strike Section 224(e) of the bill

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to address S.J. Res. 6, which provides for congressional disapproval of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's recently promulgated ergonomics standard. This action is being taken pursuant to the Congressional Review Act provisions incorporated into the APA in 1996. If successful, it will be the first time that the CRA has been used to invalidate an agency regulation. It will send a strong message to Federal agencies that Congress is serious that the intent of the CRA--that agencies issue more flexible and less burdensome rules, and be more responsive, and open, to input from the regulated public--is followed. I will leave it to my colleagues to discuss the numerous problems with the Clinton Administration's regulation, such as its flawed rulemaking process, its extraordinary potential costs, its encroachment on state administered workers compensation programs, and its complexities and vagueness to the point of unworkability. I have to note, however, that the ergonomics rule certainly qualifies as a ``midnight'' regulation, which is exactly the sort of rulemaking that, in great part, led to enactment of the CRA. And I note further that the CRA is not radical legislation. In fact, it passed with broad bipartisan support, was signed by a Democratic President, and earlier versions of the legislation twice passed the House and four times the Senate. Passage of the CRA was an exercise by Congress of its oversight and legislative responsibility. It was intended to compel bureaucrats to consider the economic effect of their regulations and to reclaim some of Congress' policymaking authority which had been ceded to the executive branch because of the increasing complexities of statutory programs, and the resultant reliance on agency rulemaking. But my purpose today is not to focus on the merits of the Congressional Review Act. OSHA has admitted that repetitive stress injuries have declined 22 percent over the last five years. This statistic proves two things: One, that there is a musculoskeletal disorder problem in the workplace. And two, that employers are cognizant of the problem, and addressing it. Further, the dramatic reduction illustrates that there are ways to reduce, and perhaps eradicate, MSDs in the workplace, in part by use of the science of ergonomics. OSHA, unfortunately, has continued to ignore these lessons and refuses to revise its approach that the stick is more effective than the carrot. This is proven by the very standard that is before us today. Again, however, the most important fact that can be taken from the employers' successes in combating repetitive stress injuries over the past few years is that apparently there are methods available to attack this severe problem. We must continue to encourage the development of these innovative approaches. At the same time, we must not lose sight of the fact that the administration and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have a role, and a responsibility, in leading the attack on these crippling workplace injuries. OSHA must not give up its place at the vanguard of the assault on workplace MSDs because of the shortcomings of the Clinton Administration's ergonomics standard. I urge Labor Secretary Chao, in the strongest possible way, to investigate and consider all options, including initiation of additional rulemaking, if warranted, as part of an all out effort to seek solutions for this type of debilitating injury. I have received a letter from Secretary Chao. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am heartened by the letter from the Secretary of Labor. It indicates that the Administration recognizes there is a problem and is committed to finding the answer. To this end, I am dismayed by what appears to be a systematic campaign of misinformation, and I would like to dispel the myth being perpetuated by those who oppose enactment, that adoption of this Resolution of Disapproval will sound the death knell for any future ergonomics regulation. That is not accurate. Contrary to the misinformation being circulated, passage of the resolution of disapproval will not prevent OSHA from undertaking rulemaking regarding repetitive stress injuries. As I have already stated, I believe that rulemaking is an option that should be given serious consideration by the Administration. Secretary Chao agrees. In fact, by jettisoning this burdensome and unworkable standard, we will be eliminating a roadblock to consideration of more responsible approaches directed at resolving the workplace MSD puzzle. One approach could well include promulgation of a more reasonable and workable ergo standard. The Congressional Review Act provides, in relevant part, that a rule vitiated by enactment of a Joint Resolution of Disapproval ``. . . may not be reissued in substantially the same form, and a new rule that is substantially the same as such a rule may not be issued, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule.'' While this language appears clear on its face, it is being misinterpreted to mean that OSHA cannot regulate in the ``area'' covered by the disapproved rule. There is no basis nor justification for this interpretation of the CRA provision. Where I have seen it mentioned--for example, in a March, 1999 CRS report--there is no citation of authority to support that interpretation. Indeed, it appears to have been created out of whole cloth or thin air. The better--in fact, correct--interpretation, provided by the actual language of the Statute is that a disapproved rule cannot be issued ``in substantially the same form.'' The intent, and thrust, of this language is made clear in a joint statement, by Senators Nickles, Reid of Nevada, and Stevens, submitted for the Record on April 18, 1996. The purpose of the Joint Statement was to provide a legislative history for guidance in interpreting the terms of the Congressional Review Act. The Joint Statement indicates that the ``substantially the same form'' language that I quoted above, was ``necessary to prevent circumvention of a resolution [of] disapproval.'' Thus, the concern clearly was that an agency should not be able to reissue a disapproved rule merely by making minor changes, thereby claiming that the reissued regulation was a different entity. This interpretation is confirmed by further discussion in the joint statement about the differing impact a disapproval would have depending upon whether the law that authorized the disapproved rule provided broad or narrow discretion to the issuing agency regarding the substance of such rule. Where such underlying law provides broad discretion, the agency would be able to exercise that discretion to issue a substantially different rule, but where the discretion is narrowly circumscribed, the disapproval might work to prevent issuance of another rule. OSHA, of course, has enormously broad regulatory authority. Section 6 of the OSH Act is a grant of broad authority to issue workplace safety and health standards. To prove this point, one need look no farther than the scope of the ergonomics regulation before us. OSHA, in fact, considers its authority so broad that it ignored, in issuing its ergo standard, the clear statutory mandate in section 4 of the OSH Act not to regulate in the area of workmen's compensation law. And the definition of ``occupational safety and health standard,'' in section 3(8) of the Act, is further indicative of the discretion granted to the agency. I am convinced that the CRA will not act as an impediment to OSHA should the agency decide to engage in ergonomics rulemaking. Some might question why now utilize the Congressional Review Act disapproval procedures instead of reviewing or amending the ergo standard through other means, such as additional notice and comment rulemaking, or by permitting the legal challenges to be brought to conclusion. The answer is simple. The CRA is being used in precisely the manner Congress intended. As noted in the April 18, 1996 Joint Report, certain timing provisions in the CRA were put in place ``. . . to try to provide Congress with an opportunity to act on resolutions of disapproval before regulated parties must invest the significant resources necessary to comply with a major rule.'' And, I might add, scarce agency resources are also a concern. The standard before us certainly is a major rule, and the estimated compliance costs are huge. For all of the reasons stated above, I believe that OSHA's ergonomics standard presents the ideal case in which to exercise the disapproval provisions of the Congressional Review Act. An over broad, vague, and unworkable standard may act as a disincentive to development of reasonable and rational approaches to a serious problem. In addition, huge compliance costs do not encourage compliance and, in fact, may be beyond the resources of many small businesses. This may be the case where no standard is preferable to the standard promulgated by OSHA. But I am convinced that this is not the bottom line. OSHA can issue another ergonomics standard. I urge the secretary of Labor to consider this option. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today may be just another day in Washington, but it is a special day in Vermont. Today is town meeting day, when towns throughout Vermont go over their budgets line by line. This includes a review of school budgets in many towns. In Vermont, where special education referrals grow at a rate of about 3.5 percent per year. With the cost of special education rising at a rate that Vermont's 287 school districts can not sustain, the number one education issue that will be discussed at these town meetings will be Federal funding of special education. Vermonters, like so many Americans across the country, understand that these costs must be paid. All of our children, those with disabilities and those without, need and deserve the services and supports that will ensure that they meet their educational goals. In 1975, responding to numerous Federal Court decisions involving lawsuits against a majority of the States, and growing concerns about the unconstitutional treatment of children with disabilities, Congress passed Public Law 94-142, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. IDEA rightly guaranteed all children with disabilities a constitutionally required ``free and appropriate public education.'' As a freshman Congressman, I was proud to sponsor that legislation and to be a member of the Conference Committee that negotiated the differences in the House and Senate bills. In passing Public Law 94-142, Congress recognized that education is not free. We recognized that children with disabilities often require specialized services to benefit from education. Congress assumed that the average cost of educating children with disabilities was twice that of educating other children. At that time, 25 years ago, Congress authorized the Federal Government to pay up to 40 percent of the additional costs associated with educating children with disabilities. That amount--often referred to as the IDEA ``full-funding'' amount--is calculated by taking 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure, or APPE, times the number of children with disabilities being served under IDEA Part B in each state. While some may question whether Congress made a commitment or set a goal, I am here to tell you, as someone who was there at the time, we definitely made a pledge to fully fund the Federal share of special education. Thanks to teachers and administrators, advocacy organizations, parents of children with disabilities, and the children themselves, I believe that together we have made tremendous strides in assuring that we keep that promise. Since I became Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in 1997, there have been significant increases in special education funding. In fact, special education funding has increased by 174 percent since 1996. For Vermont, the Federal share has increased from $4.5 million to $13.2 million. Even with this substantial increase, the Federal Government still contributes less than 15 percent of the APPE. Failure to live up to the commitment of Congress means that the majority of the funding for special education for 8,000 Vermont students, and 6.1 million students across the country, currently comes from the States and from local school budgets. Last year, I led three congressional efforts to increase special education funding. In April 2000, I sponsored an amendment to the budget resolution. This amendment would have mandated that the Federal Government increase spending for special education by $2 billion each year, for 5 years. The amendment, which would have raised Federal special education funding from $5 billion per year to close to $16 billion per year, failed by three votes. In its place, the Senate approved, by a vote of 53 to 47, a substitute amendment that made my amendment a nonbinding sense of the senate resolution to fully fund special education. This was definitely not the outcome I was seeking. However, it was the second time the Senate has gone on record in support of fully funding the Federal Government's share of special education costs. After two decades in which full funding of IDEA was regarded as more of a pipe dream than a commitment to be honored, Congress finally seems to be taking its obligation seriously. Today, I am pleased to join my colleagues in introducing legislation that will provide for mandatory increases in special education funding at $2.5 billion a year for each of the next 6 years. This bipartisan effort sets the course to achieve full funding for Part B of IDEA by fiscal year 2007. The enactment of this bill will give relief to school districts, resources to teachers, hope to parents, and opportunities to children with disabilities. It will free up State and local funds to be spent on such things as better pay for teachers, more professional development, richer and more diverse curricula, reducing class size, making needed renovations to buildings, and addressing other needs of individual schools. To me, passage of this bill will provide the ultimate in local educational flexibility. Last week, Representative Burton, Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, held a hearing on IDEA. Every witness that testified identified insufficient special education funding as the number one barrier that prevents schools from fully meeting the needs of children with disabilities. Every congressional Representative who attended the hearing spoke to the issue. Representative Hooley and Representative Bass have both introduced bills in the House to fully fund Part B of IDEA. In 1975, we made a commitment to fully fund the Federal Government's share of special education costs. If, 25 years later, in this era of economic prosperity and unprecedented budgetary surpluses, we cannot meet this commitment, when will we keep this pledge? School districts are demanding financial relief. Children's needs must be met. Parents expect accountability. There is no better way to touch a school, help a child, or support a family than to commit more Federal dollars for special education. Personally, I do not believe anyone can rationally argue this is not the time to fulfill our promise. In America, education is viewed as a right. Across the country, our Governors, school boards, education professionals, and families of children with disabilities identify fully funding for special education as their number-one priority. The American people have a right to ask us, ``if not now, when?'' Six million American students with disabilities have a right to a free and appropriate public education. They deserve to participate in the American dream. This issue will not go away and neither will I. I intend to do all I can to make sure we keep our promise to fully fund the Federal share of special education. As we proceed with new initiatives and requirements for schools, let us also dedicate increased Federal funds to meeting our existing obligations to children with disabilities, families, and the State and local education agencies that serve them. I believe this is the most important education issue before our Nation, and I will continue to fight for it.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 2 of Senate rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent the rules of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions for the 107th Congress adopted by the committee on February 28, 2001 be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I stand before you today to pay tribute to Bernard R. Dick, a distinguished citizen of my hometown, Rutland, Vermont, and a man who I have deeply respected and admired my entire life. I thought highly of Bernie's talent as a lawyer, respected immensely his service to his country, and admired his devotion to family and community. I ask that The Rutland Daily Herald editorial from January 8, 2001, be included in the record as part of this tribute: The death of Bernard R. Dick this past weekend marks the end of another distinguished and longtime Rutland legal career. Only recently came the deaths of two other local attorneys of note--Bartley J. Costello and Thomas Ryan. Bernie Dick, born in 1909 to a Rutland family, was a whiz at baseball at Rutland High School, where he made his mark as varsity catcher. It was a role he remembered long after he reached adulthood, and for years he could be seen in the audience when the RHS baseball team played home games. His education was quite varied. After graduating from Rutland High he went to the University of Alabama. After college graduation in 1931 he studied law at New York University. He was admitted to the bar in Vermont in 1937. As with many young men of his time, Bernie Dick was swept up in the swirl of World War II. Eventually, after Pearl Harbor, he enlisted in the Army as a private in November 1942. Because of his law degree he was stationed in Hawaii, where by 1946 he had reached the rank of captain. In Hawaii he became chief of the claims division of the central Pacific area, and for his work received the `Army Commendation Ribbon.' The citation said, in part: `He reviewed and made recommendations for the payment, disallowance or collection of almost 1,000 claims. So expert were his decisions that no claim reviewed by him and subsequently appealed has been reversed. He demonstrated a high degree of professional skill and efficiency.' After his honorable discharge in 1946, Dick returned to Rutland and resumed his practice in the law firm of Bove, Billado and Dick. It was an active law firm in many fields, including politics. The senior partner, Peter A. Bove, was an active supporter of Gov. Ernest W. Gibson and U.S. Sen. George D. Aiken. Francis Billado ultimately went to the Legislature and was elected Vermont adjutant general, a post he held until his death. In legal practice Dick was the one who kept to the daily grind, but the three partners shared ownership with some Castleton people to run a popular summer dance hall at Bomoseen and the Crystal Beach facility on Lake Bomoseen, among several enterprises. In 1947 Dick was named judge of the Rutland Municipal Court, in line with the policy of Governor Gibson, himself a veteran, to name veterans to public posts. The municipal court system preceded the present system of district courts, and there was political guessing as to who would be named by the governor. His Army experience served him well, and Dick served four years. After the departure of Bove and Billado to other jobs, Bernie Dick ran his own practice for a while, and in 1949 formed a new legal association with Donald A. Hackel and Richard A. Hull. It was the latest step in a long and varied Rutland legal career. Bernie, you will be sorely missed by all those who knew you, and by an entire community who benefitted from your knowledge, hard work and many talents.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I rise today to pay tribute to a great Vermonter and a native son from my hometown of Rutland, Bartley J. Costello. Bart will be remembered by all who knew him for his commitment to church and family, dedication to community and country, and generosity to his fellow man. A lifelong resident of Rutland, he gave much of himself to our great city, through charities, community organizations and Christ the King Church. Bart was educated at Holy Innocents Primary School, Mount St. Joseph Academy, the University of Vermont and Albany Law School. His first job was as a teacher at the Muddy Brook School in Williston. He returned to Rutland to work at Howe Scale Co. and served as the assistant Rutland City Treasurer before joining the U.S. Army Air Corps and serving his country in World War II. He reached the rank of Captain before being discharged at the end of the war and returning home to Rutland. A lawyer in Rutland for forty years with the firm of Webber and Costello, later Webber, Costello and Chapman, Bart was a distinguished member of the Bar, deeply respected and admired by my father, Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court. Bart was an excellent trial lawyer and a match for the best. And he had a wonderful sense of humor. Bart loved to tell the story of a jury selection when an aunt of his on the panel remained silent when the opposing attorney asked if any of the jurors knew Mr. Costello. Later, after excusing his aunt for obvious reasons, Bart asked her why she had kept quiet. ``Well,'' she said, ``I felt you would need all the help you could get.'' I also knew him as an avid golfer and consummate sportsman. He and his lovely wife, Catherine, who survives him, were the perfect golfing couple, courteous and competitive, fun-loving and intense. Bart, as well as Catherine, were blessed with four outstanding sons, Bartley III and Thomas, who are trial lawyers in Albany, NY and Brattleboro, Brian, an award winning school teacher in Rutland, and Barry, a Rear Admiral in the U.S. Navy, currently with the Pentagon staff. He served his community on many boards and organizations. He was a past Grand Knight at the Knights of Columbus, President of Vermont State Holy Name Society, Rutland Chamber of Commerce, Rutland Country Club and Rutland Regional Medical Center. He was elected to and served on the board of directors of Marble Savings Bank and the Rutland City School Board. The Rutland Daily Herald had high praise for Bart, stating that he, ``. . . left lasting marks for good on [his] native city.'' He was a man who loved life and was loved by all who knew him. We won't forget you, Bart.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to a man of true courage, a man of boundless compassion, and a man of great character. Today, I rise to pay tribute to fellow Rutland, Vermont resident and friend to many, Tom Ryan. Tom was born October 14, 1930, the son of Charles F. and Mary Ryan. He graduated from Mt. St. Joseph Academy in 1948, from Georgetown University, Magna Cum Laude, in 1952 and the Wharton School of Business MBA program in 1955. Bound by a sense of duty and service to country, Tom courageously served as a captain in the U.S. Air Force during the Korean War, and later continued his service in the Reserves. Tom was a skilled banker and a businessman, yet he was always more focused on people than on profit. In his eloquent eulogy, Stephen K. Ryan called his father, Tom a ``leader,'' and I can't think of a more dedicated community leader than Tom. He served on numerous boards, including: the Vermont Achievement Center; Vermont Children's Aid Society; Small Business Investment Corp.; Economic Development Council for Southwestern Vermont; Vermont Development Credit Corp.; Vermont Bankers Association; Rotary Club; Rutland Downtown Development Corp.; Rutland County Solid Waste; United Way; Paramount Theatre; Rutland West Neighborhood Housing; and College of St. Joseph. I worked together with Tom in the effort to restore the Paramount Theatre to its original grandeur, and I'm so glad he was able to witness the fruits of his labor and the recent revitalization of our historic downtown. Stephen mentioned that Tom was ``proudest of the twelve years he served on the board of Rutland Hospital; bringing a better standard of care to the Rutland Region.'' As Chairman of the Senate Health Committee, I know that health care is one of the most important issues facing our country today, and I have enormous respect for those individuals working hard on the local level to improve the lives of patients and their families. Stephen stated that Tom ``was involved in politics, but he was not political.'' He ran for lieutenant governor in 1982, state senate in 1990, and was appointed to the state transportation board in 1991. In every political endeavor, Tom was passionate but respectful, tough but civil. My wife, Liz, knew Tom's lovely wife, Mary, through their mutual interest in quilting. Liz used to tell me how Tom was an avid gardener, constantly improving the landscape surrounding their house and tending to his gardens. He loved his gardens so much, in fact, that family and friends were known to give him rocks for his birthday! But Liz and I both know that his greatest love was for Mary and their wonderful children, Stephen of Reston, Virginia, Kate Ryan Whittum of Intervale, New Hampshire, and Maura C. Ryan of Portland, Maine. He had his priorities in line and was always there for his loved ones. The editorial in the Rutland Daily Herald on December 18th, stated, ``If any single word were appropriate for Tom Ryan, it would be 'kindness.''' For me, it would be hard to describe Tom in one word, for he exemplified so many qualities for so many people. You will be greatly missed, Tom, but your legacy will live on in our hearts, our minds and your work that we will strive to continue.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my thoughts on the nomination of Senator John Ashcroft to be the United States Attorney General. One of the first issues I faced as a new Senator in 1989 was the controversial nomination of former Senator John Tower to be Secretary of Defense. As this was the first time I was faced with the Senate's constitutional ``advise and consent'' role, it was incumbent upon me to learn more about this important role through study and through conversations with my fellow Senators. It was also important to devise a standard to evaluate Presidential nominations so as to treat nominees of both Republican and Democratic Presidents with consistency and fairness. I came to the conclusion that my general policy should be to support nominations made by a President, provided that the individual is appropriately qualified and capable of performing the duties of the position. A President is entitled to a Cabinet of his or her own choosing unless a nominee is proven unethical or unqualified. I would not oppose a nominee just because I disagree with them on a policy matter. For judicial branch nominations, however, I apply a different standard. I have made this distinction between executive and judicial nominees throughout my Senate career. For example, during the consideration of Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991, I argued that: By no means does a president, even one of my own party, have the right to pick virtually anyone he wants who meets minimal qualifications with respect to character, legal ability and judicial temperament. This is not a pass-fail test. In my mind, such a process is entirely proper for appointees to the executive branch of government. The president should be given wide latitude in selecting his Cabinet secretaries and key agency personnel. But under the Constitution, such deference is inappropriate in the confirmation of Supreme Court justices. I used this policy in evaluating Presidential nominations throughout the Bush Presidency and the subsequent Clinton Presidency, and will continue to use this standard to evaluate the nominations put forth by our current President. In order to determine a nominee's qualifications and capabilities, I review the statements of nominees, follow the hearings conducted on a nominee, and listen to the opinions expressed by my colleagues. I have done all of these in the case of this nomination and I am here today to express my support for the confirmation of John Ashcroft to be the next United States Attorney General. A review of Senator Ashcroft's record shows that he is qualified to serve in the position of United States Attorney General. He has a long and distinguished tenure in public service, serving as Missouri's Attorney General, Governor and Senator. During his terms as Governor, John Ashcroft served as Chairman of the Republican Governors' Association and as Chairman of the National Governors' Association. In addition, during his tenure in the Senate he served on the Senate Judiciary Committee and chaired the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. Senator Ashcroft is also capable of performing the duties of United States Attorney General as he is a fair and judicious individual. Some have raised questions concerning his ability to enforce laws he has opposed in the past, but during a meeting I had with him he assured me that as Attorney General he would work to uphold the laws of this nation, including those with which he disagrees. I believe that these qualities prove Senator Ashcroft to be capable of performing the duties of Attorney General and will serve him well in this role. As anyone can tell from our records, Senator Ashcroft and I have very different opinions on many important issues, including abortion, civil and gay rights, and environmental protection. I will continue in my role as a Senator from Vermont to support legislation upholding the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, protecting access to clinics that perform abortion services, combating employment discrimination and hate crimes based on sexual orientation, and protecting our environment. I will also closely follow the decisions Senator Ashcroft makes as Attorney General and speak out when I feel those decisions are wrong. However, while we may have different opinions on many issues, in my mind that alone is not enough to disqualify a nominee.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this morning, I, Senator Kennedy, Congressman Boehner, the Chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, and Congressman Miller, the ranking Democrat of that committee, met with President Bush to discuss his very ambitious education initiative. The package the President is putting forward today contains several areas where there is general, bipartisan agreement for providing the tools necessary for every child to receive a quality education. These areas include: strengthening accountability to improve student performance; providing the funds necessary to prepare, recruit, and train high quality teachers; developing reading initiatives to ensure that all students will be able to read by the third grade; strengthening early childhood programs; creating a math/science partnership for states, colleges, and universities to strengthen K through twelve math and science education; providing activities related to technology as a means to boost student achievement; and giving school districts the flexibility to be innovative in implementing reform. All Americans agree that every child in this country deserves a high quality education. We at the federal level must remember that we do not necessarily have all the answers for making high quality education accessible to all students. It is parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, school personnel, state and local school board officials, and students that have many of the answers. The proposal outlined by President Bush is a very good framework which will go a long way in providing the assistance that is needed at the state and local level to have a first-rate elementary and secondary educational system. It is critical that all of us in the Senate and in the House join with the President in making comprehensive education reform our top priority. It is essential to our economic survival. Almost half of all adults have neither completed high school nor have pursued any type of postsecondary education. Approximately twenty percent of all eighteen year olds do not graduate from high school. The most recent Third International Mathematics and Science Study indicates that fourth graders performed well in both math and science in comparison to students in other nations. U.S. eighth graders performed near the international average in both math and science, and U.S. twelfth graders scored below the international average and among the lowest of the participating nations in general science knowledge. It is perhaps this last statistic which has contributed to the fact that half of all college students must take at least one remedial course at an annual cost of one billion dollars to the nation's public universities. Last fall, Congress passed the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act. This initiative raises the cap on the number of H-1B visas to 195,000 a year for the next three years. The H-1B bill, which passed the Senate by a vote of 96-1, was needed because this nation is lacking a skilled workforce in the areas of high tech and health care. I hope that the sense of urgency that prevailed regarding the passage of the H-1B bill will lead all of us to pass an education reform package that will help create a workforce with the skills to meet the needs of our local, regional, national, and international economies. I look forward to working with the President, Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, all members of the Health and Education Committee, all members of this body and our counterparts in the House to develop a bipartisan bill that passes the Congress with a final vote tally similar to the final vote cast on the H-1B bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 to discuss my thoughts and hopes on the actions the Senate will hopefully be taking in the coming months on this important issue. First, let me thank the sponsors of the legislation, Senators McCain and Feingold, for their tireless perseverance to enact campaign finance reform. Without their hard work and vast knowledge, we would not be at this important point. The time has come to schedule a full and open debate on this important issue. I look forward to hearing and debating the many ideas of my colleagues and believe the Senate should strive to show why we are considered the greatest deliberative body in the world by fully debating this important topic. Mr. President, 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. These problems have led to a perception by the public that a disconnect exists between themselves and the people that they have elected. I believe that this perception is a pivotal factor behind the disturbingly low voter turnouts that have plagued national elections. While some may point to surveys that list campaign finance reform as a low priority for the electorate, I believe that the public actually strongly supports Congress debating and enacting comprehensive reform. It is important to reverse the trend of shrinking voter turnout by re- establishing the connection between the public and us, their elected representatives, by passing comprehensive campaign finance reform. 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 work together to pass meaningful campaign finance reform. As I said earlier, I look forward to a full and open debate on the issue of campaign finance reform including the amendments that will be offered. At the end of this debate, the Senate should be able to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform. That to me is the most important aspect of any bill the Senate may pass, 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 in a systematic way, will not do enough to correct the current deficiencies, and may in fact create new and unintended consequences. Mr. President, 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 Olympia 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. I feel that we have crafted a reasonable, constitutional approach to this problem and am extremely pleased that this legislative solution is again included in the bill we introduce today. That does not mean, though, that we will stop working with our colleagues to craft additional, and perhaps different, ideas to address the problems with the current law on sham issue advertisements. My ultimate goal is to create a comprehensive campaign finance bill that will garner the support of at least 60 Senators, and hopefully more. Mr. President, 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.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the bill Senator Snowe and I are introducing and urge my Senate colleagues to join as cosponsors of this important legislation. Throughout the last Congress the Senate spent many legislative hours debating campaign finance reform. In fact, since my election to the House in the wake of the Watergate scandal, I have spent many long hours working with my colleagues to craft campaign finance reform legislation that could ensure the legislative process and survive a constitutional challenge. We have come close in the past, and I believe circumstances still remain right for enactment of meaningful campaign finance reform during this Congress. I believe that the irregularities associated with our recent campaigns point out the fact that current election laws are not being strongly enforced or working to achieve the goals that we all have for campaign finance reform. Without action, these abuses will become more pronounced and widespread as we go from election to election. The Snowe-Jeffords bill, the Advancing Truth and Accountability of Campaign Communications Act (ATACC), will boost disclosure requirements and tighten the rules on expenditures of corporate and union treasury funds in the weeks preceding a primary and general election. I would like to begin with a story that may help my colleagues understand the need for this legislation, and that many of my colleagues may understand from their own campaigns. Two individuals are running for the Senate and have spent the last few months holding debates, talking to the voters and traveling around the state. Both candidates feel that they have informed the voters of their thoughts, views and opinions on the issues, and that the voters can use this information to decide on which candidate they will support. Two weeks before the day of the election a group called the People for the Truth and the American Way, let's say, begins to run television advertisements which include the picture of one of the candidates and that candidate's name. However, these advertisements do not use the express terms of ``vote for'' or ``vote against.'' These advertisements discuss personal and family issues. The voters do not know who this group is, who are its financial backers and why they have an interest in this specific election, and under our current election law the voters will not find out. Thus, even though the candidates have attempted to provide the voters with all the information concerning the candidate's views on the issues, they will be casting their vote lacking critical information concerning these advertisements. Some people may say that voters do not need this information. But as James Madison 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.'' Mr. President, the ATACC act will arm the people with the knowledge they need in order to sustain our popular government. And the need to arm the people with this knowledge is becoming greater every year. The amount of money spent on issue advocacy advertising is increasing over time at an alarming rate. In the 1995-1996 election cycle an estimated $135-150 million was spent on issue advocacy, while in the 1997-1998 cycle an estimated $275-340 million was expended on these types of advertisements. There appears to have been no slowing of expenditures during the 1999-2000 election cycle as the most recent estimates show the previous election cycle's total being surpassed with the final two months of campaigning, where a large proportion of these advertisements are run, remaining. I have long believed in Justice Brandeis' statement that, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' The disclosure requirements in the ATACC act are narrow and tailored to provide the electorate with the important pertinent information they will need to make an informed decision. Information included on the disclosure statement includes the sponsor of the advertisement, amount spent, and the identity of the contributors who donated more than $500. Getting the public this information will greatly help the electorate evaluate those who are seeking federal office. Additionally, this disclosure, or disinfectant as Justice Brandeis puts it, will also help deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption that many already feel pervades our campaign finance system. This, too, is an important outcome of the disclosure requirements of this bill. Getting this information into the public purview would enable the press, the FEC and interest groups to help ensure that our federal campaign finance laws are obeyed. If the public doesn't feel that the laws Congress passes in this area are being followed, this will lead to a greater level of disillusionment in their elected representatives. Exposure to the light of day of any corruption by this required disclosure will help reassure our public that the laws will be followed and enforced. While our bill focuses on disclosure, it will also prohibit corporations and unions from using general treasury monies to fund these types of electioneering communications in a defined period close to an election. 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 deleterious influences on federal elections resulting from the use of money by those who exercise control over large aggregations of capital. By treating both corporations and unions similarly we extend current regulation cautiously and fairly. I feel that this prohibition, coupled with the disclosure requirements, will address many of the concerns my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have raised with regards to our current campaign finance laws. Mr. President, I think it is important to clarify at this time some of the things that this bill will not do. It will not prevent grass- roots lobbying communications, it does not cover printed material, nor require the text or a copy of the advertisement to be disclosed. Finally, it does not restrict how much money can be spent on ads, nor restrict how much money a group raises. These points must be expressed early on to ensure that my colleagues can clearly understand what we are and are not attempting to do with our legislation. We have taken great care with our bill to avoid violating the important principles in the First Amendment of our Constitution. This has required us to review the seminal cases in this areas, including Buckley v. Valeo. Limiting corporate and union spending and disclosure rules has been an area that the Supreme Court has been most tolerant of regulation. We also strove to make the requirements sufficiently clear and narrow to overcome unconstitutional claims of vagueness and overbreadth. Mr. President, I wish I could guarantee to my colleagues that these provisions would be held constitutional, but as we found out with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, even with near unanimous support, it is difficult to gauge what the Supreme Court will decide on constitutional issues. However, I feel that the provisions we have created follow closely the constitutional roadmap established by the Supreme Court by the decisions in this area, and that it would be upheld. I know that campaign finance reform is an area of diverse viewpoints and beliefs. However, I feel that the ATACC act offers a constructive and constitutional solution that addresses some of the problems that have been expressed concerning our current campaign finance system. The American people are watching and hoping that we will have a fair, informative and productive debate on campaign finance reform. I know that the proposal that Senator Snowe and I have put forward will do just that. The electorate has grown more and more disappointed with the tenor of campaigns over the last few years, and this disappointment is reflected in the low number of people that actually participate in what makes this country and democracy great, voting. I feel that giving the voters the additional information required by our legislation will help dispel some of the disillusionment the electorate feels with our campaign system and reinvigorate people to participate again in our democratic system. In conclusion, the very basis of our democracy requires that an informed electorate participate by going to the polls and voting. The ATACC act will through its disclosure requirements inform our electorate and lead people to again participate in our democratic system.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 to discuss my thoughts and hopes on the actions the Senate will hopefully be taking in the coming months on this important issue. First, let me thank the sponsors of the legislation, Senators McCain and Feingold, for their tireless perseverance to enact campaign finance reform. Without their hard work and vast knowledge, we would not be at this important point. The time has come to schedule a full and open debate on this important issue. I look forward to hearing and debating the many ideas of my colleagues and believe the Senate should strive to show why we are considered the greatest deliberative body in the world by fully debating this important topic. Mr. President, 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. These problems have led to a perception by the public that a disconnect exists between themselves and the people that they have elected. I believe that this perception is a pivotal factor behind the disturbingly low voter turnouts that have plagued national elections. While some may point to surveys that list campaign finance reform as a low priority for the electorate, I believe that the public actually strongly supports Congress debating and enacting comprehensive reform. It is important to reverse the trend of shrinking voter turnout by re- establishing the connection between the public and us, their elected representatives, by passing comprehensive campaign finance reform. 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 work together to pass meaningful campaign finance reform. As I said earlier, I look forward to a full and open debate on the issue of campaign finance reform including the amendments that will be offered. At the end of this debate, the Senate should be able to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform. That to me is the most important aspect of any bill the Senate may pass, 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 in a systematic way, will not do enough to correct the current deficiencies, and may in fact create new and unintended consequences. Mr. President, 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 Olympia 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. I feel that we have crafted a reasonable, constitutional approach to this problem and am extremely pleased that this legislative solution is again included in the bill we introduce today. That does not mean, though, that we will stop working with our colleagues to craft additional, and perhaps different, ideas to address the problems with the current law on sham issue advertisements. My ultimate goal is to create a comprehensive campaign finance bill that will garner the support of at least 60 Senators, and hopefully more. Mr. President, 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.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the bill Senator Snowe and I are introducing and urge my Senate colleagues to join as cosponsors of this important legislation. Throughout the last Congress the Senate spent many legislative hours debating campaign finance reform. In fact, since my election to the House in the wake of the Watergate scandal, I have spent many long hours working with my colleagues to craft campaign finance reform legislation that could ensure the legislative process and survive a constitutional challenge. We have come close in the past, and I believe circumstances still remain right for enactment of meaningful campaign finance reform during this Congress. I believe that the irregularities associated with our recent campaigns point out the fact that current election laws are not being strongly enforced or working to achieve the goals that we all have for campaign finance reform. Without action, these abuses will become more pronounced and widespread as we go from election to election. The Snowe-Jeffords bill, the Advancing Truth and Accountability of Campaign Communications Act (ATACC), will boost disclosure requirements and tighten the rules on expenditures of corporate and union treasury funds in the weeks preceding a primary and general election. I would like to begin with a story that may help my colleagues understand the need for this legislation, and that many of my colleagues may understand from their own campaigns. Two individuals are running for the Senate and have spent the last few months holding debates, talking to the voters and traveling around the state. Both candidates feel that they have informed the voters of their thoughts, views and opinions on the issues, and that the voters can use this information to decide on which candidate they will support. Two weeks before the day of the election a group called the People for the Truth and the American Way, let's say, begins to run television advertisements which include the picture of one of the candidates and that candidate's name. However, these advertisements do not use the express terms of ``vote for'' or ``vote against.'' These advertisements discuss personal and family issues. The voters do not know who this group is, who are its financial backers and why they have an interest in this specific election, and under our current election law the voters will not find out. Thus, even though the candidates have attempted to provide the voters with all the information concerning the candidate's views on the issues, they will be casting their vote lacking critical information concerning these advertisements. Some people may say that voters do not need this information. But as James Madison 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.'' Mr. President, the ATACC act will arm the people with the knowledge they need in order to sustain our popular government. And the need to arm the people with this knowledge is becoming greater every year. The amount of money spent on issue advocacy advertising is increasing over time at an alarming rate. In the 1995-1996 election cycle an estimated $135-150 million was spent on issue advocacy, while in the 1997-1998 cycle an estimated $275-340 million was expended on these types of advertisements. There appears to have been no slowing of expenditures during the 1999-2000 election cycle as the most recent estimates show the previous election cycle's total being surpassed with the final two months of campaigning, where a large proportion of these advertisements are run, remaining. I have long believed in Justice Brandeis' statement that, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' The disclosure requirements in the ATACC act are narrow and tailored to provide the electorate with the important pertinent information they will need to make an informed decision. Information included on the disclosure statement includes the sponsor of the advertisement, amount spent, and the identity of the contributors who donated more than $500. Getting the public this information will greatly help the electorate evaluate those who are seeking federal office. Additionally, this disclosure, or disinfectant as Justice Brandeis puts it, will also help deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption that many already feel pervades our campaign finance system. This, too, is an important outcome of the disclosure requirements of this bill. Getting this information into the public purview would enable the press, the FEC and interest groups to help ensure that our federal campaign finance laws are obeyed. If the public doesn't feel that the laws Congress passes in this area are being followed, this will lead to a greater level of disillusionment in their elected representatives. Exposure to the light of day of any corruption by this required disclosure will help reassure our public that the laws will be followed and enforced. While our bill focuses on disclosure, it will also prohibit corporations and unions from using general treasury monies to fund these types of electioneering communications in a defined period close to an election. 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 deleterious influences on federal elections resulting from the use of money by those who exercise control over large aggregations of capital. By treating both corporations and unions similarly we extend current regulation cautiously and fairly. I feel that this prohibition, coupled with the disclosure requirements, will address many of the concerns my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have raised with regards to our current campaign finance laws. Mr. President, I think it is important to clarify at this time some of the things that this bill will not do. It will not prevent grass- roots lobbying communications, it does not cover printed material, nor require the text or a copy of the advertisement to be disclosed. Finally, it does not restrict how much money can be spent on ads, nor restrict how much money a group raises. These points must be expressed early on to ensure that my colleagues can clearly understand what we are and are not attempting to do with our legislation. We have taken great care with our bill to avoid violating the important principles in the First Amendment of our Constitution. This has required us to review the seminal cases in this areas, including Buckley v. Valeo. Limiting corporate and union spending and disclosure rules has been an area that the Supreme Court has been most tolerant of regulation. We also strove to make the requirements sufficiently clear and narrow to overcome unconstitutional claims of vagueness and overbreadth. Mr. President, I wish I could guarantee to my colleagues that these provisions would be held constitutional, but as we found out with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, even with near unanimous support, it is difficult to gauge what the Supreme Court will decide on constitutional issues. However, I feel that the provisions we have created follow closely the constitutional roadmap established by the Supreme Court by the decisions in this area, and that it would be upheld. I know that campaign finance reform is an area of diverse viewpoints and beliefs. However, I feel that the ATACC act offers a constructive and constitutional solution that addresses some of the problems that have been expressed concerning our current campaign finance system. The American people are watching and hoping that we will have a fair, informative and productive debate on campaign finance reform. I know that the proposal that Senator Snowe and I have put forward will do just that. The electorate has grown more and more disappointed with the tenor of campaigns over the last few years, and this disappointment is reflected in the low number of people that actually participate in what makes this country and democracy great, voting. I feel that giving the voters the additional information required by our legislation will help dispel some of the disillusionment the electorate feels with our campaign system and reinvigorate people to participate again in our democratic system. In conclusion, the very basis of our democracy requires that an informed electorate participate by going to the polls and voting. The ATACC act will through its disclosure requirements inform our electorate and lead people to again participate in our democratic system.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of a young man who passed away unexpectedly on Saturday, December 2, 2000. Gregory W. Moyer was the nephew of my friend and former staffer Pat Morrissey. Greg was a 15-year-old basketball player, honor student, and community volunteer from Shawnee-on-Delaware, Pennsylvania. He collapsed during a high school basketball game, victim of an undetected heart defect. At six-foot-three-inches and 220 pounds, his classmates knew him as a ``gentle giant.'' Greg's Aunt Patricia says that, ``He could read hearts, young and old alike. He knew what was important.'' Pat, please know that our thoughts and prayers are with you and your family.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public Broadcasting Integrity Act of 2000, legislation that would make the Federal Communications Act's political broadcasting provisions inapplicable to noncommercial educational broadcasting stations. I believe the current law is well-intentioned to serve the public interest by allowing federal candidates to communicate their views to the general public. However, these provisions are having some unfortunate side effects as federal candidates are exploiting loopholes in the Act to the detriment of public broadcasting. Many Vermonters and my colleagues have seen in recent news reports that public radio and television stations are being forced to give free, uncensored air time to any Federal candidate under provisions of the Federal Communications Act. As a strong supporter of public radio and television, I find this phenomenon disturbing. I an concerned that this valuable public resource is being commandeered and exploited as a way to get free advertising. Unlike commercial stations, public radio and television are heavily dependent on listener contributions. Many of these listeners are reconsidering their future financial support of these stations if this loophole is not closed and programming is replaced by a flood of political advertising. It seems inevitable that the number of candidates using this avenue will increase dramatically in the next federal election unless we make this minor but important legislative correction. Mr. President, we can not allow this to happen which is why I am introducing this bill today. I believe this narrowly tailored legislation will close this loophole and preserve the integrity of public broadcasting. I call on my colleagues to join me and support this legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public Broadcasting Integrity Act of 2000, legislation that would make the Federal Communications Act's political broadcasting provisions inapplicable to noncommercial educational broadcasting stations. I believe the current law is well-intentioned to serve the public interest by allowing federal candidates to communicate their views to the general public. However, these provisions are having some unfortunate side effects as federal candidates are exploiting loopholes in the Act to the detriment of public broadcasting. Many Vermonters and my colleagues have seen in recent news reports that public radio and television stations are being forced to give free, uncensored air time to any Federal candidate under provisions of the Federal Communications Act. As a strong supporter of public radio and television, I find this phenomenon disturbing. I an concerned that this valuable public resource is being commandeered and exploited as a way to get free advertising. Unlike commercial stations, public radio and television are heavily dependent on listener contributions. Many of these listeners are reconsidering their future financial support of these stations if this loophole is not closed and programming is replaced by a flood of political advertising. It seems inevitable that the number of candidates using this avenue will increase dramatically in the next federal election unless we make this minor but important legislative correction. Mr. President, we can not allow this to happen which is why I am introducing this bill today. I believe this narrowly tailored legislation will close this loophole and preserve the integrity of public broadcasting. I call on my colleagues to join me and support this legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. JEFFORDS. How much time does the Senator desire?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The Senator's words have kind of strayed a little bit from the Older Americans Act. Perhaps I could put in a unanimous consent request so that the Senator from Massachusetts is aware and so that we perhaps can do something else.

Mr. JEFFORDS. On the Older Americans Act, I believe.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am just asking what happens at the end. I would like to put a unanimous consent request in to make sure that we have time available before we vote.