Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am sorry, but I am just about out. Mr. President, how many minutes do I have?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, earlier I recognized the many contributions made by Senator Gregg to the provisions contained in our bill. We were glad to add those provisions. I regret that my colleague does not find them sufficient. But I must say that his amendment goes too far, and if adopted it will kill any chance of reauthorizing the Older Americans Act this year. I urge all of the Senators to vote against the amendment. On its face, this proposal may look reasonable, but it is not. It sets standards that would penalize all grantees and would preclude them providing these valuable services without the opportunity to have what are book keeping disputes adjudicated. Moreover, the bill expressly requires each grantee to comply with OMB circulars and rules and requires the grantees to maintain records sufficient to permit tracing of funds to ensure that funds have not been spent unlawfully. The bill institutes and requires performance outcome measures, annual grantee evaluations, grantee accountability and it creates a new grant competition for those not meeting performance measures. It provides Governors and States greater resources and influence over job slot allocations, but also requires broad stakeholder participation in a State Senior Employment Services Plan coordinated through Governor's offices. Our bill introduces performance measures and competition into the senior employment program for the first time. The bill would establish a `three strikes and you're out' policy to ensure performance goals are met. Failure to pass these reforms this year will maintain the status quo. It will only continue a system that does not serve the job placement needs of seniors in many states, and will not correct the deficiencies in the administration and planning of the program. The only way these improvements will be realized is to pass the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000, a bipartisan, bicameral initiative. This amendment is not opposed by just the aging organizations like AARP. It is also opposed by the Southern Governors Association. Yesterday, Governor Bush of Florida urged us to pass this bill and send it the President for his signature. Governor Huckabee of Arkansas said. The Senate must move expeditiously to pass this bill without any amendments. I urge all the Senators to vote against the Gregg amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 5 minutes to the good Senator from Maryland.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure that the Senate has passed the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000. This year is the 35th anniversary of the Older Americans Program. Since 1965, the Act has provided a range of needed social services to our Nation's senior citizens. It is the major vehicle for the organization and delivery of supportive and nutrition services to older persons, and it has grown and changed to meet our citizens' needs. In 1972, we created the national nutrition program; in 1978, we established a separate title for Native Americans; and in 1987, we authorized programs to prevent elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. The Act has been reauthorized 12 times, most recently in 1992. Reauthorization legislation was considered in the 104th and 105th Congresses but did not pass due to controversy about a number of proposals. But those controversies were addressed and the Senate has voted unanimously to pass this Act and provide our elderly with desperately needed help. The Older Americans Act programs play a vital role in all our communities. Because of the Older Americans Act, millions of nutritious meals are delivered each year to the generation that served our country in World War II. It funds the operations of senior centers and other supportive services to enhance the dignity and independence of the Nation's elders; and it provides part-time employment opportunities to tens of thousands of senior citizens. Indeed, virtually all of our Nation's elderly are benefitting from the Act. However, more could be done to help our senior citizens and their families. This is why we are here to pass the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000. I want to commend all of the members of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions for their work and contributions in this effort. Senator DeWine and Senator Mikulski led the way on this reauthorization effort early in this Congress. Beginning on March 3, 1999, the Subcommittee on Aging held a series of hearings, receiving testimony from over 30 witnesses. The first hearing presented Subcommittee members with an overview of the various Older Americans Act programs. Subsequent Subcommittee hearings covered other important issues, including elder abuse, supportive services, State and local views, longevity in the workplace, and long-term family caregiver programs. In March, 1999, we were very fortunate to hear testimony from Ms. Reeve Lindbergh of St. Johnsbury, Vermont. She spoke to our Committee about the unacceptable problem of elder abuse which confronts some of our most fragile elders. Then, in April, we heard from another Vermonter, Mr. John Barbour, who serves as the Director of the Champlain Valley Agency on Aging, in Winooski, Vermont. He alerted the Committee to changes needed in the nutritional programs outlined in Title III of the Act. This bill improves the Older Americans Act in several key areas. For example, Title I sets out broad policy objectives related to income, health, housing, long-term care, employment, retirement, and community services that will improve the lives of all older Americans. Modifications under this title establish a Federal definition of ``in- home services'' and give both State units and area agencies on aging the ability to include locally significant in-home services in their service definition. Title II identifies the Administration on Aging as the chief Federal agency advocate for older persons and also establishes the Eldercare Locator Service and Pension Rights and Counseling as ongoing programs. Significant modifications have been made to Title III, grants for State and community programs. One of the most important aspects of this Act is the establishment of the Grassley-Breaux National Family Caregiver Support Program. According to the 1994 National Long Term Care Survey, there are more than 7 million informal caregivers-- including spouses, adult children, other relatives, and friends who provide day-to-day care for most of our Nation's elders. The National Family Caregiver Program authorizes $125 million in Federal assistance to help families care for their elderly by providing a multifaceted system of supportive services, including information, assistance, counseling, and respite services. Moreover, it will help older individuals who are caring for relative children, such as their grandchildren. According to the United States Census Bureau, in 1997, almost 4 million children were living in homes maintained by their grandparents. This program will also extend to older folks who are caring for their adult children with mental retardation and developmental disabilities. Other changes to this title clarify the role of area agencies on aging with respect to case management, information and referral services, and also strengthen their obligations to coordinate volunteer programs and efforts with other community organizations providing similar services. In addition, the interstate formula allotments are updated, with appropriations being tied to minimum-growth hold harmless amounts, so that no State receives less than it did in FY 2000. Title V authorizes community service employment for older Americans to provide part-time community service jobs for unemployed, low-income persons 55 years old and over. There will be 1.4 million more low- income persons over the age of 55 in the year 2005 than there were a decade earlier, and many of them will continue working. Employment obtained through this program provides these workers with needed economic support. It keeps them active and involved in their communities, and it provides them with the opportunity to make important contributions to their communities, learn new skills, and enhance their sense of dignity and self-esteem. The changes made in Title V by this bill are a critical part of this legislation, because they strengthen and modernize the Senior Employment Program. To begin, the purpose statement is amended to stress economic self-sufficiency and to increase the number of placements in public- and private-sector unsubsidized employment. The employment program is integrated with the Workforce Investment Act, including one-stop delivery systems and participant assessments and services, while the program itself and the administrative costs are codified. Also, under this title, the State Senior Employment Services Plan is established which provides Governors with greater influence and responsibility concerning the allocation of job slots. The newly established State Plan ensures for the first time a planning process with broad participation by representatives from State and area agencies on aging; State and local workforce investment boards; public and private non-profit providers of employment services; businesses and labor organizations; and other aging network stakeholders. The remaining sections have also been modified. Title IV, training, research, and discretionary projects and programs, authorizes the Assistant Secretary for Aging to award funds for training, research, and demonstration projects in the field of aging. This Act consolidates the demonstration programs from 18 to 10 categories, including sections on violence against older Americans, rural health, computer training, and transportation. Title VI, grants to Native Americans, authorizes funds for social and nutrition services to older Indians and Native Hawaiians. The modifications by this Act authorize the Family Caregiver Support Program for tribal organizations. Then, a provision is added under Title VII, vulnerable elder rights protection activities, which authorizes funds for activities that protect the rights of the vulnerable elderly. The new provision requires that ombudsman programs coordinate with ``law enforcement'' agencies. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the many other individuals and organizations that have contributed to this effort. In addition to leadership Senator DeWine and Senator Mikulski, Senator Kennedy contributed his long experience to this effort. He helped us find the middle ground and solutions to many thorny issues. Senator Gregg was instrumental in focusing the Committee's attention on the much-needed reforms in the employment services program, and the program is much strengthened by his work. Senator Hutchinson was especially active on these efforts to address the employment and services needs of the rural elderly. Among the groups in the network of aging organizations, special recognition must go to the National Council of Older Americans and the National Association of State Units on Aging for their insight in proposing a compromise to the employment services program. AARP, with the leadership of Horace Deets, undertook the difficult task of seeking consensus among the many aging organizations. Green Thumb tirelessly educated members of Congress about the importance of these aging populations, especially those members representing rural constituencies. The Leadership Council of Aging Organizations, currently being chaired by the Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, provided a continuous forum for many issues to be addressed. Others contributing to this effort include the National Caucus on Black Aging, the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, and Meals on Wheels. Finally, the Administration on Aging, headed by Jeanette Takamura, provided ongoing leadership and continuous expert support in strengthening these programs. Many of our staff deserve considerable recognition for their dedicated work. Daphne Edwards in the Office of the Legislative Counsel worked tirelessly on countless drafts of this legislation. Carol O'Shaughnessy of the Congressional Research Service lent her counsel, as well as her years of experience with aging programs, to this bill. Abby Brandel and Rhonda Richards of Senator Mikulski's office, and Jeffrey Teitz of Senator Kennedy's staff, worked diligently to reach accords on many of these difficult issues. Alan Gilbert with Senator Gregg provided invaluable guidance on the employment services program. Kate Hull, of Senator Hutchinson's staff, also dedicated many hours of effort to the final product. Recognition is deserved especially by Karla Carpenter, the staff director of the Aging Subcommittee, who with Senator DeWine developed the framework for this modernization bill and who stuck with the effort to see it finished. Finally, on my own staff, I want to acknowledge and commend the efforts of Hollis Turnham and Sean Donohue. Hollis came to my office as the Senator John Heinz Fellow on Aging, and her extensive experience with these programs was invaluable to the completion of the bill. Hollis brought with her years of experience in serving our Nation's elders and a full knowledge of just how the Older Americans Act affects our older Americans. After several years of trying, this effort to reauthorize the Older Americans Act could have gone astray at countless points over these past two years. Therefore, much credit must go to Sean Donohue, whose focus, experience, and sheer tenacity guided this successful effort. In summary, our bill goes a long way to improving supportive, employment, and nutritional services for the elderly. This legislation updates the Older Americans Act, making it more relevant and useful to our country's senior citizens. All of these individuals have worked hard to develop innovative strategies to strengthen and modernize the Older Americans Act, and I know that through these efforts our Nation's elders will be better served by this legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on October 11, 2000, I filed Report No. 106-496 to accompany S. 1495, a bill to establish, wherever feasible, guidelines, recommendations, and regulations that promote the regulatory acceptance of new and revised toxicological tests that protect human and animal health and the environment while reducing, refining, or replacing animal tests and ensuring human safety and product effectiveness. At the time the report was filed, the estimate by the Congressional Budget Office was not available. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the CBO estimate be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass the final version of fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Included in the legislation is a provision that requires the Department of Energy to spend not less than $2 million on the Small Wind Turbine Project. This effort is vitally important to our Nation's continued development of American wind technology for consumer use. It was added as a program at the Department of Energy in 1995, to develop cost- effective, highly reliable Small Wind Turbine systems for both domestic and international markets. In fact, due to the Small Wind Turbine Program, U.S. companies have been able to advance the performance and cost-effectiveness of small wind turbine systems. The participants in the Small Wind Turbine Project are Windlite Corp, a subsidiary of Atlantic Orient Corp, Bergey Windpower Co., and World Power Technology. Through the Small Wind Turbine Project, these three companies are advancing the technology of wind energy for homes, small businesses, rural development and export. To end the effort that these three companies are undertaking at this time would be a giant setback and for this reason the Congress has included funding to continue the project under their guidance. I worked closely with Senators Domenici and Reid and Assistant Secretary of Energy Dan Reicher in developing the language in this legislation related to small wind. The language is clear, that the department should spend no less than $2 million on the Small Wind Turbine Project. We must continue to develop, test and certify the wind turbines being developed under this program to date.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to urge my colleagues to support this Agriculture appropriations conference report. I want to thank Senator Cochran, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committee, for his work on this important legislation. In particular, I want to thank him on behalf of the dairy farmers across the nation, New England and Vermont. Included in this agriculture spending bill is badly needed support for dairy farms. These dairy assistance payments will bring approximately six thousand, four hundred dollars for the average 80-cow dairy farm. At a time when the nation's dairy farmers are facing low milk prices, these payments will help make ends meet. In Vermont, these payments will give our dairy farmers a much needed boost heading into the long winter. I also want to make a few brief remarks to reiterate my support for the prescription drug provision included in this bill, and to address some of the unfortunate rhetoric that I have heard during this debate. We all know why this provision is in this bill. The American people are fed up with the situation that exists today, where Americans pay far more for FDA-approved, American-made prescription drugs than patients in any other country in the world. I am not here to demonize the drug industry. It's true that these companies are making some miraculous breakthroughs and improving the lives of many Americans. But why must Americans have to shoulder seemingly the entire burden of paying for research, development and a healthy return to shareholders? I believe it is time we put an end to this unfair burden. I don't think it is fair to expect Americans, especially our senior citizens living on fixed incomes, to pay the highest costs in the world for prescription medicines, many of which are manufactured within our borders. That's why more than a year ago I started working with the Food and Drug Administration, the agency responsible for overseeing the safety of the drug supply in this country to see if there were a way we could safely reimport prescription medicines into our country. In July, on an overwhelming vote of 74-21, the United States Senate agreed to an amendment I offered with Senators Wellstone, Dorgan, Gorton, Snowe, and others to do just that. Just three weeks ago, President Clinton endorsed the Jeffords language, saying ``I support the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000 which the Senate passed'' and ``I urge you to send me the Senate legislation.'' The negotiators for the House and Senate on the agriculture appropriations bill have now completed their work. Unfortunately, the process used in reaching this agreement was marred by partisanship. That is regrettable. But the product is as strong as the one endorsed by the Clinton administration, and even stronger in some respects. Some of my Republican colleagues have criticized this proposal for going too far. My Democratic friends have criticized this for not going far enough. The legions of lobbyists for pharmaceutical industry vigorously oppose this proposal, and tried their best to get it stripped from this legislation. I continue to believe that the proposal before the Senate today, while slightly different from my plan, is a strong and workable proposal. Critics have argued that the proposal has been weakened because it allows drug companies to frustrate the intent through manipulations of sales contracts. The fact is, this bill is stronger than either the House-passed or Senate-passed versions because it includes a clear prohibition of such agreements--something that was missing in the House and Senate bills. In fact, let me quote from that section of the bill: ``No manufacturer of a covered product may enter into a contract or agreement that includes a provision to prevent the sale or distribution of covered products imported pursuant to subsection (a).'' I don't know how to be more clear and simple than that. But just in case my colleagues think that stronger language is needed, the bill grants to the Secretary the ability to react to unanticipated challenges through language in another section which requires that the Secretary issue regulations containing any additional provisions necessary ``as a means to facilitate the importation of such products.'' Such broad authority will ensure that this provision works. In fact, less than 10 days ago, at the very time that the Clinton administration was changing its position on the Jeffords amendment, the New York Times reported that it planned to implement the Patient's Bill of Rights by regulation. It is hard to understand why the administration so eagerly sees regulatory authority where many do not, yet cannot see it when plainly written in the statute. Critics have claimed that the latest version of the bill contains a loophole regarding the labeling requirements. The fact is, the bill requires manufacturers to provide all necessary labeling information, and the provision that I just quoted gives the FDA very broad power to write any other rules necessary to accomplish the intent of the provision. Moreover, this labeling language is unchanged from the version that adopted by the Senate and endorsed by President Clinton. Critics have claimed that the bill unfairly restricts the countries from which these products may come. The fact is that the bill lists 23 countries to start the process, and lets the FDA expand the list at any time. Critics have complained that this bill will expire after about 7 years. The fact is that this is a vast improvement over the House- passed version which would have expired after only one year. As we all know, major legislation is frequently required to be reauthorized on 5 year cycles in order to force Congress to make improvements, and popular effective laws always survive this process. Mr. President, this bill, like any other, may not be perfect, but the fact is that it is stronger than the original Jeffords amendment. That is why John Rector, senior vice president for the National Community Pharmacists Association who has been a leader in the effort to reimport lower cost drugs and whose members would be importing under this provision. Mr. Rector recently indicated that this bill, ``will result in the importation of far less expensive drugs.'' This is a workable bill, and that is why the pharmaceutical industry is fighting this tooth and nail--they know it will work. They would like nothing more than to see us to kill this bill. One of our colleagues in the House, who has complained that this provision does not go far enough, noted that this is ``the first defeat ever suffered by the pharmaceutical industry in memory.'' Now I ask you, if this bill is unworkable as the critics have charged, why is the pharmaceutical industry so opposed to the bill, and why are even our critics calling this a defeat for the industry? That should tell you something about what they really think the effect will be of this provision. As I said before, Mr. President, I am disappointed with how partisan this issue has become, but I am glad that the President has said he will sign the bill. I am calling on Congress to put partisanship aside and pass this bill. And I am calling on the Clinton administration to quickly write these regulations so that ordinary Americans can realize savings on prescription drugs as soon as possible. Mr. President, I rise also today in support of two important food stamp provisions included in this conference report. These provisions are based upon S. 1805, the Hunger Relief Act of which I was proud to be an original cosponsor. The language in the bill will allow low-income people who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing to receive food stamp benefits at a level that more accurately reflects their need. Additionally, it will allow low-income people who need a car to find or keep work to still receive food stamp benefits and continue to own a reliable car. These provisions will provide important relief for needy families in Vermont and all around the United States. In Vermont alone, 42,000 people, the great majority families with children or senior citizens, are on food stamps. Both provisions in this conference report are important to my state of Vermont. First, the increase in the maximum amount of excess shelter expense deduction to qualify for food stamps is important as we have lately seen housing prices increasing rapidly in Vermont. Without the increase contained in the conference report, rapidly rising housing prices are diluting the effectiveness of the food stamp program because the true need for food stamps is not being adequately represented. The vehicle allowance provisions are vital in a rural state like Vermont where a reliable car is almost a necessity to get to or find work. Providing flexibility in the vehicle allowance will allow low-income individuals to qualify for food stamps while being able to continue to own a reliable car. While I would have liked to have seen the entire Hunger Relief Act included in this appropriations bill, the inclusion of these two provisions is an important first step forward. I will continue to push for Congressional passage of the entire Hunger Relief Act, but wanted to express my gratitude to the conferees for the inclusion of these provisions which are so important to my constituents. Mr. President, as the principal author of the drug importation amendment included in the Agriculture Appropriations bill, I am taking this opportunity to provide a detailed explanation of the provisions of the drug importation section. The conference report to H.R. 4461 amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and expands the entities permitted to import certain drugs into the U.S. under Section 801 of the Act, to include pharmacists and drug wholesalers. The Secretary of Health and Human Services will promulgate regulations to carry out the importation provisions after consultation with the United States Trade Representative and the Commissioner of Customs. Under the new section 804(b), the regulations promulgated by the Secretary must ensure that each drug product that is imported under this section complies with section 501, 502, and 505, and any other applicable provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FFD&C Act) and is safe and effective for its intended use, as well as the provisions of this section. This provision also grants broad discretionary authority to the Secretary to include any additional provisions in the regulations that are necessary to protect the public health and to facilitate the importation of drug products under this section. Subsections (c) and (d) outline extensive record keeping requirements that must be met in order to import under this law, including: (1) the name, amount and dosage description of the active ingredient; (2) the shipping date, quantity shipped, and points of origin and destination for the product, price paid by the importer, and price sold by the importer; (3) verification of the original source and amount of the product received; (4) the manufacturer's lot or control number; (5) the name, address, and telephone number of the importer, including the professional license number of the importer (if any); (6) lab records assuring that the product is in compliance with established standards; (7) proof that testing was conducted at a qualifying laboratory; and (8) any other information the Secretary determines is necessary to ensure the protection of the public health. For a product that is coming from the first foreign recipient, the importer must also demonstrate: (1) that the product was received from a U.S. manufacturer, (2) the amount received and that the amount being imported into the U.S. is not more than the amount received, (3) for the first shipment, documentation showing that each batch was statistically sampled for authenticity and degradation, (4) for all subsequent shipments, documentation that a statistically valid sample of the shipments was tested for authenticity and degradation, and (4) that the product meets labeling requirements and is approved for marketing in the U.S. For a product not coming directly from the first foreign recipient, the importer must have documentation demonstrating: (1) that each batch is statistically sampled and tested for authenticity and degradation, and (2) that the product meets labeling requirements and is approved for marketing in the U.S. All testing must be performed at an FDA- approved U.S. laboratory. Subsection (e) requires that manufacturers provide information to importers sufficient to authenticate the product being imported and to meet the labeling requirements of the FFD&C Act. This provision is understood and intended to require manufacturers to provide such labeling information as is necessary for importers to comply with applicable labeling requirements sufficient for sale and marketing in the U.S. It is also understood and intended that the requirements and authority granted in this provision are supplemented, if necessary, by the broad discretionary authority contained in 804(b)(3) to facilitate the importation of drug products under this section. This information shall be kept in strict confidence. Pursuant to the ``Enhanced Penalties'' subsection below, violation of this subsection is punishable by 10 years in prison or a fine of $250,000 or both. Subsection (f) refers to an initial list of countries with recognized regulatory structures from which drugs may be imported under this section. The list includes Canada, Australia, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, South Africa, and the EU (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, England, Liechtenstein, and Norway). The Secretary may expand the list at anytime, taking into consideration protection of the public health. Subsection (g) requires the Secretary to suspend imports of specific products or by specific importers upon discovery of a pattern of importation of counterfeit or violative products, until an investigation has been completed. Subsection (h) prohibits contracts or agreements that include any provision preventing the sale or distribution of imported drugs under this section. This provision is understood and intended to prevent manufacturers from ``gaming'' the system or interfering with importation under this section through contractual arrangements that utilize restrictions or disincentives for reselling the drugs into the U.S. Subsection (i) requires the Secretary to conduct a study regarding the compliance of importers with the requirements of this section, and the incidents of importation of noncompliant shipments of prescription drugs under this section, as well as the effect of importations under this section on trade and patent laws. The Comptroller General will study the effect of this provision on prices of covered products. Subsection (k) provides definitions for a number of terms in this act, and includes several changes and additions from Senate-passed version. The definition of ``covered product'' clarifies that certain controlled substances are not eligible for importation, and that biological products are also ineligible. In order that this act not create a disincentive for charitable contributions of drugs to foreign countries or humanitarian organizations, this subsection excludes such products from eligibility under this act. This provision also recognizes that many parenteral drug products (drugs that are administered through IVs, injections, or other means other than orally) are considered by the Secretary to be more sensitive to improper storage and handling, and may be at a higher risk of degradation or present more difficulty in testing for authentication or degradation. Therefore, the 801(d)(1) importation restriction shall continue to apply to parenteral drug products, the importation of which, according to the Secretary, may pose a threat to the public health. The definition of pharmacist is similar to that in the Senate-passed bill, and is presumed to include a licensed pharmacist, since such a pharmacy is required to have a licensed pharmacist of record. Subsection (1) is similar to the amendment offered by Senator Cochran and adopted unanimously by the Senate during the floor debate. The provision, as included in this conference report, has been changed to require the Secretary to ``demonstrate'' (instead of ``certify'' in Senate-passed version) that implementation will ``pose no additional risk'' (instead of `` pose no risk'' in the Senate-passed version). The provision is otherwise identical to the Senate-passed version. This act is no longer effective after 5 years from the effective date of the regulations promulgated hereunder. The 5 year clock will begin to run after the regulations are finalized and any litigation is completed. The conference report includes a new subsection which clarifies that a violation of this section is a prohibited act under the FFD&C Act. This new provision also provides for enhanced penalties (10 years in prison and/or $250,000 fine) for manufacturers who fail to provide information necessary for testing or labeling of imports, and importers who divulge such information for any purpose other than verifying authentication or degradation tests. The conference report includes a provision that passed the House earlier this year pertaining to the importation of prescription drugs imported for personal use. Current FDA practice has been to not confiscate certain drugs re-imported for personal consumption, but, in many cases, to send intimidating warning letters that do not specify how the law is being violated. This bill includes provisions prohibiting the FDA from sending warning notices unless it includes a statement of the underlying reasons for the notice. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues that worked so closely with me on this issue. Specifically, I would like to thank Senators Gorton, Welstone, and Dorgan, and their staffs, Kristen Michal, John Gilman, and Stephanie Mohl for their countless hours of work on this provision. Without the bipartisan cooperation of my collegues, passage today of this provision would have been impossible. I urge my colleagues to support this provision and support this Agriculture appropriations conference report.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I would like to echo my colleagues' support of the National Rural Development Partnership and its affiliates, state rural development councils. These councils, in Vermont and over 35 other states, are playing an important role bringing together the many governmental and non-governmental entities that work to improve conditions in rural areas. I sincerely hope that Secretary of Agriculture will continue to support this program while authorization legislation is finalized by the Congress.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am here today to join with my colleagues in the Senate and House in a bipartisan effort to address the relatively new development of Internet pharmacies. The ever- increasing cost of prescription drugs has led a growing number of Americans to turn to Internet pharmacies to try to find savings. Our goal with the Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act is to allow American consumers to place the same confidence and trust in Internet pharmacies as they do in traditional brick-and-mortar pharmacies. The bill we are introducing today is a starting point in addressing this issue. If there is not enough time to pass this bill in the remaining days of the session, then I hope to return to this issue early in the next Congress and finish what we have started. We are well aware that the explosion of Internet commerce has put all manner of goods and services literally at our fingertips. In this respect, health care products and prescription drugs are no different from books, compact disks, or the many other products sold online. But there is a potential for very serious dangers when purchasing prescription drugs online. On March 21 of this year, I chaired a hearing of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to examine this issue. In the search for lower-priced prescription drugs, American consumers can, unwittingly, order prescription drugs from rogue web sites that appear to be American-based companies, but are actually overseas sites offering low-priced prescription drugs that are unapproved, counterfeit, contaminated, expired, mislabeled, manufactured in unapproved facilities, or not stored or handled in a proper manner. I believe legitimate Internet pharmacies that operate legally and ethically can offer valuable services to many Americans and have an important role in E-commerce. But there must be an appropriate regulatory system that protects American consumers from illegal and unethical behavior which can endanger lives, and which combats any rogue Internet operators. Our legislation contains several provisions to protect consumers. But the most important is clearly the one that allows states to obtain nationwide injunctive relief against unlawful Internet sellers, as requested by the National Association of Attorneys General. Currently, in their efforts to combat illegal actions by a few Internet pharmacies, several states' Attorneys General have filed suit against the same companies and the same doctors. To simply prevent those bad actors from doing business in their state, each Attorney General has to file an action in his or her state court. This duplication of effort drains resources that could be utilized against other offenders. Since the states' primary goal is to prevent rogue sites from harming citizens, nationwide injunctive relief would allow each state to help protect all the citizens of this nation. This power would be directly analogous to the national injunctive relief contained in the federal telemarketing statute. A number of witnesses at our hearing testified that the most prominent danger presented to consumers is the rogue pharmacies operating in countries other than the United States. In this case, the federal government is clearly the most appropriate entity to deal with international rogue pharmacists, and this legislation provides remedies. Our bill also provides for better coordination between federal and state authorities. Mr. President, this legislation represents a great deal of work by Senator Kennedy and myself. Representatives Bliley, Klink, and Upton have worked on this issue as well, and I understand that they are introducing companion legislation in the House. I am pleased that we have been able to work in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion on such a complicated issue. Any time Congress attempts to respond to emerging technologies, similar challenges are faced. I recognize that we are introducing this bill late in the session and that several members have expressed concern with certain aspects of our proposal. I want to assure my colleagues that this legislation is a starting point. This will provide my colleagues with the opportunity to make comments and suggestions on the different policy areas. We have written this bill with bipartisan cooperation, and I look forward to continuing in that spirit as we work to ensure the safety of Internet pharmacies.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am here today to join with my colleagues in the Senate and House in a bipartisan effort to address the relatively new development of Internet pharmacies. The ever- increasing cost of prescription drugs has led a growing number of Americans to turn to Internet pharmacies to try to find savings. Our goal with the Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act is to allow American consumers to place the same confidence and trust in Internet pharmacies as they do in traditional brick-and-mortar pharmacies. The bill we are introducing today is a starting point in addressing this issue. If there is not enough time to pass this bill in the remaining days of the session, then I hope to return to this issue early in the next Congress and finish what we have started. We are well aware that the explosion of Internet commerce has put all manner of goods and services literally at our fingertips. In this respect, health care products and prescription drugs are no different from books, compact disks, or the many other products sold online. But there is a potential for very serious dangers when purchasing prescription drugs online. On March 21 of this year, I chaired a hearing of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to examine this issue. In the search for lower-priced prescription drugs, American consumers can, unwittingly, order prescription drugs from rogue web sites that appear to be American-based companies, but are actually overseas sites offering low-priced prescription drugs that are unapproved, counterfeit, contaminated, expired, mislabeled, manufactured in unapproved facilities, or not stored or handled in a proper manner. I believe legitimate Internet pharmacies that operate legally and ethically can offer valuable services to many Americans and have an important role in E-commerce. But there must be an appropriate regulatory system that protects American consumers from illegal and unethical behavior which can endanger lives, and which combats any rogue Internet operators. Our legislation contains several provisions to protect consumers. But the most important is clearly the one that allows states to obtain nationwide injunctive relief against unlawful Internet sellers, as requested by the National Association of Attorneys General. Currently, in their efforts to combat illegal actions by a few Internet pharmacies, several states' Attorneys General have filed suit against the same companies and the same doctors. To simply prevent those bad actors from doing business in their state, each Attorney General has to file an action in his or her state court. This duplication of effort drains resources that could be utilized against other offenders. Since the states' primary goal is to prevent rogue sites from harming citizens, nationwide injunctive relief would allow each state to help protect all the citizens of this nation. This power would be directly analogous to the national injunctive relief contained in the federal telemarketing statute. A number of witnesses at our hearing testified that the most prominent danger presented to consumers is the rogue pharmacies operating in countries other than the United States. In this case, the federal government is clearly the most appropriate entity to deal with international rogue pharmacists, and this legislation provides remedies. Our bill also provides for better coordination between federal and state authorities. Mr. President, this legislation represents a great deal of work by Senator Kennedy and myself. Representatives Bliley, Klink, and Upton have worked on this issue as well, and I understand that they are introducing companion legislation in the House. I am pleased that we have been able to work in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion on such a complicated issue. Any time Congress attempts to respond to emerging technologies, similar challenges are faced. I recognize that we are introducing this bill late in the session and that several members have expressed concern with certain aspects of our proposal. I want to assure my colleagues that this legislation is a starting point. This will provide my colleagues with the opportunity to make comments and suggestions on the different policy areas. We have written this bill with bipartisan cooperation, and I look forward to continuing in that spirit as we work to ensure the safety of Internet pharmacies.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to support the Agriculture appropriations conference report that will be considered by this body in the next few days. I think it is a good bill with a number of desperately needed aid provisions for our Nation's farmers. The provisions included in the bill for prescriptions are also desirable. First, though, I want to talk a little about my own family history and why I am so proud and honored to be the author of the legislation with respect to prescription drugs and pharmacies. My family, on the Jeffords side, came to Vermont back in 1794. At least, that is the first time they bought a piece of land. They settled in the northern part of Vermont up on the Canadian border. Gradually, they moved down to a community a little further south, about 20, 30 miles from the Canadian border. The family ran a drugstore in Enosberg Falls called Jeffords Drug Store for over a hundred years. I remember the summers so vividly. We always spent 2 weeks in Enosberg Falls, spent a week on the family farm, and then spent a week down in town with Roger Pratt and Cora Pratt, my uncle and aunt who ran the drugstore. I remember some wonderful times there. I could go up to the soda fountain, without having to do anything, and I could get a soda. Sometimes, I would be given the job of trying to swat the flies and keep the flies away. That was before we had insecticides. I know sometimes I would probably get a little annoying when I was 8 or 9 years old while swatting them too close to the patrons sitting at the little tables where they got sodas. Later, I had the great thrill of being able to stand behind the pharmacy's soda fountain and make sundaes and all sorts of things. It was a wonderful experience. But what I learned more than anything else was the importance of a pharmacy to a small town. In those days, it was probably as much of the health care plan as you could get, along with the local doctor. The pharmacy was your health care, unless you got really sick and you would go to the hospital. But more people came in to get advice from the pharmacist as to what they should take for this or for that. Things went along very fine for many years. As time went on, my uncle died. My aunt, who was not a pharmacist, was working the drugstore and she had to hire a pharmacist to do that work. Unfortunately, she died. When she died, the question was, Who is going to get the drugstore and the property? I took the position that I would be willing to sell it to the pharmacist. I got it appraised, and a price was set. He said, ``I'm sorry, but I'm going to go down the street and open a pharmacy and I will run you out of business.'' I said, ``Okay, go right ahead''--because I am a stubborn Vermonter--``I will run you out of business.'' So I had to go around the State and find a pharmacist. So we kept the competition going. I finally sold the drugstore for twice what he wanted to pay, and I learned important things such as if you want a generic aspirin, you can look right next to the Bayer aspirin, and you will find an aspirin that is identical but in a different bottle, and it is cheaper. I have used that knowledge all through the years to save a buck on aspirin and other things. Many useful lessons have come from that experience. What I also understood by being near the Canadian border was what it meant to that pharmacist in recent years. The drugs his pharmacy purchased cost twice as much as the pharmacist paid across the border in Canada. It is more than just a casual knowledge that led me to become deeply involved in the bill which we now have as part of the appropriations bill. I thank Senator Specter and Chairman Cochran for their very kind words about me and my work in this area. I deeply appreciate that. Mr. Jeffords. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to support the Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report that will be considered by this body within the next few days. I think it is a good bill, with a number of desperately needed aid provisions for our nation's farmers. But today I would like to address the Prescription Drug Importation provision included in the bill. We are all familiar with the problem. The cost of drugs, as a percentage of our health care dollar, is skyrocketing to the point of unaffordability for average Americans. During a time when we are experiencing unprecedented economic growth, it is not uncommon to hear of patients who cut pills in half, or skip dosages in order to make prescriptions last longer, because they can't afford the refill. Prescription medicines have revolutionized the treatment of certain diseases, but they are only effective if patients have access to the medicines that their doctors prescribe. The fact is, failure to take certain medicine can be just as deadly as taking the wrong pill. Today we are confounded by the question: Why do drugs cost so much more in the U.S. than in Canada or abroad? It's a good question--one for which the drug companies don't have any good answers. It's true that these companies are making some miraculous breakthroughs. But why must Americans have to shoulder seemingly the entire burden of paying for research, development and a healthy return to shareholders? I believe it is time we put an end to this unfair burden. I don't think it is fair to expect Americans, especially your senior citizens living on fixed incomes, to pay the highest costs in the world for prescription medicines, many of which are manufactured within our borders. That's why more than a year ago I started working with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency responsible for overseeing the safety of the drug supply in this country, to see if there were a way we could safely reimport prescription medicines into our country. In July, on an overwhelming vote of 74-21, the United States Senate agreed to an amendment I offered, based on S. 2520, cosponsored by Senators Wellstone, Dorgan, Snowe, Collins, and others, to do just that. Importantly, for the first time, we had developed and passed a proposal that did not, in the eyes of FDA, present public health and safety concerns. This was critical to me, because we have the gold standard in the U.S. when it comes to drug safety, and I don't want to do anything to undermine it. Over the past few months, the drug companies have waged a furious campaign against my amendment, taking out advertisements and sending legions of lobbyists to Capitol Hill to argue that it would undermine safety. I don't think my amendment will undermine safety, but I do think it will undermine the price Americans pay for prescription drugs. I was heartened by the positive movement in the Clinton administration over the past few weeks, from neutrality in July to outright support for my amendment, provided Congress gave enough money--$23 million this year--to FDA to carry out its responsibilities. Congress has agreed to do so, and if my proposal works out as I hope, it will be a small price to pay on the potential billions of dollars that Americans will save on prescription drug costs. The negotiators for the House and Senate on the agriculture appropriations bill have completed their work. Unfortunately, the process used in reaching this agreement was marred by partisanship. But the product is as strong as the one endorsed by the Clinton administration, and even stronger in some respects. The proposal before Congress, while slightly different from my plan, is a strong and workable proposal. Critics have argued that the proposal has been weakened because it allows drug companies to frustrate the intent through manipulations of sales contracts. The fact is, this bill is stronger than either the House-passed or Senate-passed versions because it includes a clear prohibition of such agreements-- something that was missing in the House and Senate bills. Critics have claimed that the latest version of the bill contains a loophole regarding the labeling requirements. The fact is, the bill requires manufacturers to provide all necessary labeling information, and gives the FDA very broad power to write any other rules necessary to accomplish the intent of the provision. How much stronger can we get than that. Critics have claimed that the bill unfairly restricts the countries from which these products may come. The fact is that the bill lists 23 countries to start the process, and lets the FDA expand the list at any time. Critics have complained that this bill will expire after about 7 years. The fact is that this is a vast improvement over the House-passed version which would have expired after only one year. As we all know, major legislation is frequently required to be reauthorized on 5 year cycles in order to force Congress to make improvements, and popular laws always survive this process. This bill, like any other, is not perfect. But critics are wrong to suggest that it is weaker than the original Jeffords amendment. I ought to know. And so should John Rector, senior vice president for the National Community Pharmacists Association who has been a leader in the effort to reimport lower cost drugs and whose members would be responsible for making this proposal work. Mr. Rector recently took the position that the bill, ``will result in the importation of far less expensive drugs.'' Might the drug companies try to evade the spirit of this legislation? some probably will. Have we anticipated every action they might take? Of course not. But I am confident that our proposal will work, and that the process has improved it. That is why the pharmaceutical industry is fighting this tooth and nail--they know it will work. They would like nothing more than to see us defeat this bill. That should tell you something about what they think the effect will be of this provision. Mr. President, I must say--I am disappointed with how partisan this issue has become, and I am disappointed that the White House has moved the goal posts on this issue. In fact, I'd like to quote from the letter that President Clinton sent to Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Lott less than 3 weeks ago. In that letter, he said ``I support the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000 which the Senate passed'' and ``I urge you to send me the Senate legislation--with full funding.'' Mr. President, that is exactly what we are doing, except that the bill we are sending the President is even stronger than the original language. But I am glad that the President has said he will sign the bill. I think this is because he knows that, at the end of the day, this provision will work, despite all of the political rhetoric. I urge my colleagues to support this provision and support this Agriculture appropriations conference report. I also would like to discuss the chart that is behind me that very succinctly asks and answers questions about the differences between the House amendment, the Senate amendment, and the conference agreement. I think you will find by just looking at the complete list on the conference agreement, the important improvements that were made as it wondered through the normal legislative process which we all have to follow. I ask unanimous consent a letter from the White House of September 25 be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent to have printed a side-by-side comparison, which is the chart I have behind me.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my profound disappointment that the Conference Report to the Fiscal Year 2001 Department of Defense Authorization bill does not contain language that was in the Senate passed bill to expand Federal jurisdiction in investigating hate crimes. The language in the Senate passed bill was adopted by the Senate on June 20th by a vote of 57-42, and endorsed in the House on September 13th by a vote of 232-190. This language would expand Federal jurisdiction in investigating hate crimes by removing the requirement in Federal hate crime law that only allows federal prosecution if the perpetrator is interfering with a victim's federally protected right like voting or attending school. It would also extend the protection of current hate crime law to those who are victimized because of their gender, sexual orientation, or disability. Mr. President, any crime hurts our society, but crimes motivated by hate are especially harmful. Many states, including my state of Vermont, have already passed strong hate crimes laws, and I applaud them in this endeavor. An important principle of the amendment that was in the Senate-passed bill was that it allowed for Federal prosecution of hate crimes without impeding the rights of states to prosecute these crimes. The adoption of this amendment by the Senate was an important step forward in ensuring that the perpetrators of these harmful crimes are brought to justice. The American public knows that Congress should pass this legislation, and it is unfortunate that the conferees did not retain this important language. Congress should pass this legislation, and I will continue to work to ensure that this legislation is enacted into law.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to enthusiastically support this conference report which contains the important reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Over five years ago, Congress recognized the need for the Federal Government to take action and help combat domestic violence by passing VAWA. I was proud to be a cosponsor of that important legislation and have been pleased with the positive impact it has had in Vermont and around the United States. The Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault has been a leader in creating innovative and effective programs toward our goal of eliminating domestic violence. Vermont has used funding under VAWA to provide shelter to battered women and their children and ``wrap-around'' services for these victimized families. Through VAWA, Vermont has also been able to help victims access legal assistance in the form of trained attorneys and advocacy services. In addition to fully utilizing funding available to train and educate law enforcement and court personnel, I am proud to say that Vermont is a national leader in the education and training of health care, welfare and family service workers who are likely to come in contact with victims of domestic violence. While we have made advances in combating domestic violence in Vermont and all around the United States by programs funded through VAWA, there is still more work to be done. Every nine seconds across the country an individual falls victim to domestic violence. Recently, this statistic was brought home when churches and town halls in Vermont rang their bells in recognition and to raise awareness of this tragic violence that impacts so many lives. We must continue and strengthen our focus on this important issue. I was proud to be an original cosponsor of this reauthorization when it was introduced this June, and feel that this legislation made many important improvements and additions to the programs and funding of VAWA while ensuring the maintenance of its core focus of combating domestic violence. Some important provisions of this legislation to Vermont include: Reauthorization of current domestic violence programs through the Department of Health and Human Services and increasing funding for these programs so they can provide more shelter space to accommodate more people in need; Extension of the discretionary grant program which mandates and encourages police officers to arrest abusers; Creation of a five percent set aside towards State domestic violence coalitions; Extension of state programs that deal with domestic violence in rural areas; and Establishment of a new grant program to educate and train providers to better meet the needs of disabled victims of domestic violence. In addition, I want to thank Senator Hatch and Senator Biden for including a reauthorization of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act in the Violence Against Women Act. As the primary source of funding for local shelters, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act is a vital cornerstone in the Federal response to domestic violence. This reauthorization ensures that this program can continue to grow with an increased authorization level. The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act is normally part of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act reauthorization process which is scheduled to be completed next year. As Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, I will be working with domestic violence organizations to see what, if any, changes need to be made in the Family Violence Prevention and Treatment Act to increase its capacity to serve the victims of family violence. I am pleased with the fine work of Senators Biden and Hatch in crafting the original VAWA, and that these two Senators were able to further formulate a bipartisan, compromise version of this reauthorization which I was happy to cosponsor. Since July, I have both written and talked to the Majority Leader calling for Senate consideration of this important legislation. While it was somewhat delayed, I am grateful that the Senate will be endorsing the reauthorization of VAWA today. While the reauthorization of VAWA is an important step, I remain committed to continuing to enact legislation to eliminate domestic violence in Vermont and all around the United States.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the excellent service of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan as co-chair of the bipartisan Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition. Senator Moynihan, as we all know and regret, will be retiring from the United States Senate at the end of this year. Many people have commented on his excellent service to the nation and to New York State. I want to pay tribute to his leadership on regional issues. Senator Moynihan was elected co-chair of the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition in April 1987. A bipartisan group of senators had formed the Coalition in 1978 with the goal of promoting regional economic and environmental interests. Senator Moynihan replaced Senator Alan Dixon, and served for several years with Senator John Heinz. Upon his election as co-chair, Senator Moynihan said, ``States in the frost belt have of late shared a burden of heavy losses in manufacturing jobs, military installations and contracts. Environmental concerns, from the rising waters of the Great Lakes to acid rain, occupy us all.'' Over the past seven Congresses, Senator Moynihan persistently has advanced investments in our region's infrastructure, job-training and education programs, and basic industries. A stickler for accurate and timely data in order to judge our challenges and progress, he has documented the flow of federal funds from the Northeast and Midwest. Working with both Republicans and Democrats, he also has been a champion of the Great Lakes and the region's other great environmental assets. Now, Lake Champlain may not be a great Lake to the rest of you, but in our part of the world, it is revered in the same way. And it is the reason behind my earliest work with Senator Moynihan. In the summer of 1989, when I was a freshman Member of the minority party and Senator Moynihan was Chair of the Environment Subcommittee on Water Resources, he scheduled a field hearing to gather information on the water quality status of Lake Champlain. The hearing was split into two sessions, one on each side of the lake. We heard from Vermonters in Burlington, then enjoyed a boat ride across the lake to hear from upstate New Yorkers in Plattsburgh. As his first act after commencing the hearing in Burlington, Chairman Moynihan graciously handed the gavel to me so that I might preside over the Vermont portion of the hearing. That marked the first time I ever chaired a Senate hearing, and was made ever more memorable by the fact that Daniel Patrick Moynihan had bestowed the honor. We had an enjoyable, productive day, during the course of which Chairman Moynihan entertained and enlightened the participants with his intimate knowledge of the history of Lake Champlain, one our nation's most historic water bodies. Moreover, he demonstrated a keen knowledge of the science, hydrology and ecology of Lake Champlain. Senator Moynihan was bestowed a hero's welcome by his constituents upon disembarking on the Adirondack coast of Lake Champlain that day. He earned an everlasting respect among all who participated in the hearing. We returned to Washington to draft the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act, in concert with Senators Leahy and D'Amato, and promptly moved the bill through the scrutiny of the Water Resources Subcommittee, then the full Environment Committee and on to the Senate floor. Before the year had ended, that bill had become law. And it has proven to be a great success for the benefit of Lake Champlain, as well as a model for cooperation between different states, distinct federal regional jurisdictions and separate nations. Senator Moynihan, I commend you for your leadership on this important law. And I thank you for the latitude you gave me, in my first year in this United States Senate, to put my mark upon this legislation which continues to have a profound and positive influence on the ecology of Lake Champlain and the quality of life for the hundreds of thousands of people who live, work and recreate. Aside from this example, there are many others. Senator Moynihan took his assignment as co-chair of the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition during a time when our region was being less than affectionately referred to as the ``rust belt.'' Manufacturing plants were closing, unemployment was high, and many workers needed to be retrained for new challenges. Senator Moynihan led the Coalition in trying to identify and promote public policies that would take advantage of the region's common assets--its plentiful natural resources, distinguished university and research centers, significant financial centers, and a history of entrepreneurship. Although he would be the first to admit that challenges remain, this region's progress over the past decade and a half results, in part, from Senator Moynihan's consistent leadership. With Senator Moynihan's leadership, the Coalition has advanced numerous policy initiatives. It authored the nation's first pollution prevention law and promoted the National Invasive Species Act to block the proliferation of biological pollution. The Coalition has protected the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and achieved increased appropriations for several energy efficiency programs. It held the first hearings and developed legislation on brownfield redevelopments, as well as on leaking gasoline storage tanks. The Coalition advanced increased trade with Canada, our nation's largest trading partner, and it spearheaded a range of initiatives to enhance the region's and the nation's economic competitiveness. Mr. President, allow me to highlight a few other of Senator Moynihan's specific efforts to advance economic vitality and environmental quality in the Northeast-Midwest region. In recent days, for instance, Senator Moynihan has helped lead the Coalition's efforts to prepare for this winter's pending fuel crisis. Noting the rise in prices for heating oil and natural gas, he argued effectively for an emergency allocation of Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program funding. And he has been a consistent champion of Weatherization and energy conservation programs that help our region and nation to use energy more efficiently. In order to block the introduction of invasive species in ballast water, Senator Moynihan helped lead the charge for the National Invasive Species Act. He continues to work to expand that legislation beyond aquatic nuisance species to address the array of foreign plants and animals that cause biological pollution and economic loss throughout this country. Senator Moynihan and the Northeast-Midwest groups have highlighted the economic and environmental benefits of cleaning and redeveloping the contaminated industrial sites that plague our communities. He has sponsored Capitol Hill conferences on brownfield reuse, and distributed scores of Northeast-Midwest publications, including case studies of successful redevelopment projects. Senator Moynihan also has helped push several bills that would provide financial, regulatory, and technical assistance for brownfield reuse. To help provide financing and technical assistance to manufacturers, which remain critical to our region's economy, Senator Moynihan and the Northeast-Midwest Coalitions have advanced the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, trade adjustment assistance, and industrial technology programs. He has sponsored an array of Capitol Hill briefings on robotics, optoelectronics, machine tools, electronics, and other industrial sectors. In an effort to protect the Northeast and Midwest, Senator Moynihan has been willing to face the criticism that comes from highlighting egregious subsidies going to other regions. He has noted, for instance, that taxpayers in the Northeast and Midwest subsidize the electricity bills of consumers in other regions, only to have those regions try to lure away our businesses and jobs with the promise of cheap electricity. Senator Moynihan has paid particular attention to the flow of federal funds to the states, tracking both federal expenditures as well as taxes paid to Washington. In his own annual reports and those by the Coalition, he documented the long-standing federal disinvestment in New York State and throughout the Northeast and Midwest. The Northeast- Midwest groups, for instance, found that our region's taxpayers received only 88 cents in federal spending for every dollar in taxes that they sent to the federal Treasury. In comparison, states of the South received a $1.17 rate of return, while western states obtained a $1.02 return. In fiscal 1998, the Northeast-Midwest region's subsidy to the rest of the nation totaled some $76 billion. Senator Moynihan has led the effort to reverse this trend. It has been a pleasure to work in a bipartisan coalition with Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He has demonstrated that good public policy results from cooperation among Democrats and Republicans. His intellectual rigor and his demand for quality data have elevated policy discussions within both the Northeast-Midwest Coalition and throughout the entire United States Senate. My colleagues from northeastern and midwestern states join me in thanking Senator Moynihan for his consistent leadership and effective advocacy.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to file an amendment on behalf of myself, as chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and Mr. Kennedy, Ranking Member of the Committee to H.R. 1102, the Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000, as reported by the Committee on Finance on September 12, 2000. Our amendment concerns pension issues within our jurisdiction. It would simplify and modify provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 relating to employer pension plans. More specifically, the amendment would expand the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's (PBGC) Missing Participants program; reduce PBGC premiums for new plans of small employers; authorize the PBGC to pay interest on premium overpayment refunds; simplify the substantial owner benefit rules for terminated defined benefit plans; increase the PBGC guarantee of benefits in multiemployer plans; allow the Secretary of Labor to reduce or waive civil penalties for breach of fiduciary responsibility; make parties that are jointly and severally liable for fiduciary violations also jointly and severally liable for the related penalty; and improve and better target notices of benefit suspension to pension plan participants. Mr. President, I ask that our more detailed description of the amendment be entered into the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure that the Senate is moving to pass the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources and Emergency Act Amendments of 2000, a measure that will reauthorize a national program providing primary health care services to people living with HIV and AIDS. I especially want to commend Senators Hatch and Kennedy for the leadership they have provided since the inauguration of the legislation establishing the Ryan White programs over a decade ago. I also want to commend Senator Frist whose medical expertise played a critical role in key provisions of the bill and continues to be an invaluable resource to our efforts on the range of health issues that come before the Senate. I want to recognize Senator Dodd for his unwavering support for this legislation and people living with HIV and AIDS. Finally, I want to acknowledge Senator Enzi's recognition of the growing burden that AIDS and HIV have placed on rural communities throughout the country and the need to address those gaps in services. It is also important that we recognize the dedicated efforts of our colleagues in the House of Representatives. Chairman Bliley supported this bill through its passage and provided critical guidance through the negotiations. Representatives Bilirakis, Coburn, and Waxman have demonstrated time and time again their commitment to people living with AIDS and each has worked diligently to find a compromise to ensure the continued services for people with HIV/AIDS. Representatives Brown and Dingell have also played important roles in shepherding this bill through the legislative process. Since its inception in 1990, the Ryan White program has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. During the last reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act in 1996, the measure garnered a vote of 97 to 3 on its final passage. As evidence that strong bipartisan support continues, I am happy to report that this reauthorization bill was passed unanimously by this Chamber in June of this year. The bipartisan support for this important legislation underlines the critical need for the assistance this Act provides across the Nation. With this reauthorization, we mark the ten years through which the Ryan White CARE Act has provided needed health care and support services to HIV positive people around the country. Titles I and II have provided much needed relief to cities and states hardest hit by this disease, while Titles III and IV have had a direct role in providing healthcare services to underserved communities. Ryan White program dollars provide the foundation of care so necessary in fighting this epidemic and have allowed States and communities around the country to successfully address the needs of people affected by HIV disease. In recent months a number General Accounting Office studies have shown that the CARE Act is providing services and support to people with HIV who are most in need and most deserving of our help. The GAO found that CARE Act funds are reaching the infected groups that have typically been underserved, including the poor, the uninsured, women, and ethnic minorities. These groups form a majority of CARE Act clients and are being served by the CARE Act in higher proportions than their representation in the AIDS population. The GAO also found that CARE Act funds support a wide array of primary care and support services, including the provision of powerful therapeutic regimens for people with HIV/AIDS that have dramatically reduced AIDS diagnoses and deaths. Previous efforts to improve this legislation have led to incredible reductions in the number of HIV infected babies being born each year and, equally important, to increased outreach, counseling, voluntary testing, and treatment services being provided to women with HIV infection. Between 1993 and 1998, perinatal-acquired AIDS cases declined 74 percent in the U.S. In this bill, I have continued to support efforts to reach women in need of care for their HIV disease and have included provisions to ensure that women, infants and children receive resources in accordance with the prevalence of the infection among them. The AIDS Drug Assistance Program has been another critical success. This program has provided people with HIV and AIDS access to newly developed, highly effective therapeutics. Because of these drugs, people are maintaining their health and living longer. The AIDS death rate and the number of new AIDS cases have been dramatically reduced. From 1996 to 1998, deaths from AIDS dropped 54 percent while new AIDS cases have been reduced by 27 percent. In this reauthorization bill we have improved access for underserved and poor communities and increased support for services that help maximize the impact of these therapies. Despite our great success, the Ryan White program remains as vital to the public health of this Nation as it was in 1990 and in 1996. While the rate of decline in new AIDS cases and deaths is leveling off, HIV infection rates continue to rise in many areas; becoming increasingly prevalent in rural and underserved urban areas; and also among women, youth, and minority communities. Local and state healthcare systems face an increasing burden of disease, despite our success in treating and caring for people living with HIV and AIDS. Rural and underserved urban areas are often unable to address the complex medical and support services needs of people with HIV infection. As the AIDS epidemic continues to expand into these areas across the country, this legislation will allow us to adapt our care systems to meet the most urgent needs in the communities hardest hit by the epidemic. The bill being considered today was developed on a bipartisan basis, working with other Committee Members, community stakeholders and elected officials at the state and local levels from whom we sought input to ensure that we addressed the most important problems facing communities of people with HIV infection. Finally we have worked closely with our colleagues in the House of Representatives to produce this agreement. This morning, our colleagues in the House of Representatives unanimously passed this legislation that we have before us. The agreements we have reached with our House colleagues have been fully explained in an Statement of Explanation and I would like unanimous consent that this document be printed as part of the Record.