Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join my colleagues today in celebrating the passage of Children's Health Act, which Senators Frist, Kennedy, myself, and many others introduced earlier this year. The Children's Health Act passed the Senate on September 22, the House on September 27, and is now one step closer to becoming law. The Children's Health Act will significantly improve the well-being of children in this nation. This bill authorizes prevention and educational programs, clinical research, and direct clinical care services for child specific health issues. President Clinton needs to sign this legislation into law now. Our nation's medical research and treatment systems must be encouraged to recognize that children have unique needs. Without the initiative of the Children's Health Act, research into many of the diseases and disorders that effect children will be overlooked and neglected. I am also excited that the Children's Health Act includes legislation that the Senate passed last year to reauthorize the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The Youth Drug and Mental Health Services Act is critically important for strengthening community-based mental health and substance-abuse prevention and treatment services. We introduced SAMHSA reauthorization with strong bipartisan cosponsorship of many members of the HELP Committee. The service and grant programs administered by SAMHSA have gone far too long without being reauthorized. We will now be able to improve access and reduce barriers to high quality, effective services for individuals who suffer from, or are at risk for, substance abuse or mental illness, as well as for their families and communities. This legislation includes the formula compromise for the Substance Abuse Treatment Block Grant that was originally included in the 1998 omnibus appropriations bill. This is an issue of paramount importance to small and rural states, and I am pleased that this legislation ratifies and continues the agreement reached in 1998. The Children's Health Act and the Youth Drug and Mental Health Services Act are both the product of many months of work and collaboration among its many stakeholders. We have come this far because of the bipartisan dedication of members of HELP Committee and especially the leadership of Senator Frist and Senator Kennedy. I commend them both for their considerable efforts to help so many children and American families. I also want to thank my colleagues in the House for their strong cooperation and support. I am so proud of being involved in this effort and I think the entire House of Representatives and Senate should be very proud of approving the Children's Health Act.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Educational Assistance for Military Connected Children Act of 2000,'' legislation that would transfer from the Department of Education to the Department of Defense financial responsibility for impact aid payments used to support the education of military dependents. The impact aid program is authorized as Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. Unlike other ESEA programs, however, impact aid payments are not used to support specific educational activities. Rather, these payments serve as general aid to local educational agencies to replace tax dollars which are foregone as the result of the presence of the Federal government. For example, Federal property--such as military installations--is not subject to property taxes. In addition, under the terms of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, many military personnel do not pay taxes in the States and localities where their children attend school. Replacing lost revenues that would otherwise have been available to support local schools is an obligation of the Federal government in those cases where the revenue loss is directly related to Federal action. The Department of Education, through the impact aid program, provides nearly $1 billion each year for this purpose. Over the past two years, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions has been reviewing all ESEA programs. In the course of that review, I have come to the conclusion that the children of military personnel would be better served if the impact aid provided on their behalf were offered through the Department of Defense. For one thing, DOD officials are in a far better position than are Education Department personnel to assess the needs of schools on or near military bases and to be aware of activities--such as downsizing or the construction or renovation of base housing--which can have a major effect on the amount of the impact aid assistance available to a school. In many cases, my committee has been asked, after the fact, to address specific impact aid problems which have confronted schools as a result of such decisions. In addition, problems such as inadequate funding, overcrowded conditions, and lengthy delays in the issuance of impact aid payments could be better addressed if their resolution were the responsibility of those who are most familiar with the needs of these schools and their students. On a number of occasions in the past, defense-related legislation has included provisions which have directly changed impact aid or have supported parallel programs. I do not see that the interests of schools or students are best served by this duplication of effort. The Department of Defense currently offers of variety of services to military dependents--ranging from child care to health services. I believe the education of these children to be equally important. The legislation I am offering today is, I believe, a good starting point for impact aid reform designed to improve the educational opportunities available to military dependents.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Carolyn C. Roberts, an outstanding Vermonter and a national leader in the area of health care reform. As she prepares to retire from her position as President and Chief Executive Officer of Copley Health Systems in Morrisville, Vermont, it is important to reflect on how much one person can accomplish in serving others. Carolyn was the first Vermonter and the second woman to serve as the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the American Hospital Association. While Carolyn worked to represent all hospitals in this country, she stressed the importance of ensuring residents of rural communities access to health services in their communities. Carolyn also fought hard to preserve the role of community hospitals by advocating for relationships with other health systems. In this, as in every other capacity, her mark has been felt far beyond the boundaries of Lamoille County, Vermont. Carolyn began her vocation as a nurse and quickly rose to leadership positions as a direct provider, clinical administrator, and executive. Since 1982, Carolyn has been at the helm of Copley, a rural, community- wide, health delivery system in Morrisville, Vermont. Under her leadership, Copley Hospital received the 1987 Foster G. McGaw Prize for Excellence in Community Service in 1987. During Carolyn's career, she has frequently held leadership positions on national boards, including the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, The Hospital Fund, the Commission on Professional and Hospital Activities, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, the American Academy of Medical Administrators, and the American College of Healthcare Executives. I must also acknowledge Carolyn's willingness to advise me personally over the years on critical health care policy issues. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I have been gratified to know that I could always rely on Carolyn's expertise in such arenas as rural health care, integrated systems of care, and Medicare reform. Vermont has much to be grateful for, in view of Carolyn's steadfast commitment to improving the quality of life in our State. Whether serving on Governor Snelling's Blue Ribbon Health Care Commission or on Governor Dean's Task Force on Medicaid Managed Care, she always brought a sense of knowledge, dedication, and grace to solving the problem at hand. It is reassuring to know that her legacy will lead Copley Health Systems and the greater community of Vermont itself into the next millennium. Mr. President, Carolyn's unwavering commitment toward improving the health status of Vermont and its citizens serves as a testament to us all. Vermont is truly indebted to her. Her deep commitment to the citizens of the Green Mountain State has endeared her to us. She has our sincerest good wishes for the future.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce the Home Health Care Protection Act of 2000. This legislation has been written to make sure that qualification for Medicare home health services does not negatively impact other area's of a patient's recovery process, or preclude participation in important personal activities, like religious services. The homebound requirement to qualify for Medicare home health services has been applied restrictively and inconsistently by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) and its various Medicare contractors. In April 1999, the Secretary of Health and Human Services sent a report to Congress on the homebound definition. The report identifies the wide variety in interpretation of the definition and the absurdity of some coverage determinations that follow. While I do not support all the conclusions of the report, I do agree with the Secretary that a clarification of the definition is needed to improve uniformity of application. Of particular concern to me is the disqualification of seniors who, through significant assistance, are capable of attending adult day care programs for integrated medical treatment that has been empirically recognized as effective for some severe cases of Alzheimer's and related dementia's. A close reading of current law does not preclude homebound beneficiaries from using adult day services, yet some fiscal intermediaries are establishing reimbursement policies that force beneficiaries to forgo needed adult day services in order to remain eligible for home health benefits. The Home Health Protection Act states that absences for attendance in adult day care for health care purposes shall not disqualify a beneficiary. It is inappropriate and counterproductive to force seniors to choose between Medicare home health benefits and adult day care services in circumstances where both are needed as part of a comprehensive plan of care. I have also heard from numerous beneficiaries who fear that absences from the home for family emergencies or religious purposes could disqualify them from the home health benefit. Current law attempts to address this situation by allowing for absences of infrequent or short duration. However, one Vermont senior, who suffers from multiple sclerosis and numerous complications, cannot leave the home without a wheelchair and a van equipped with a lift. She left the home once a week, for three hours at a time, to visit her terminally ill spouse in a nursing home and attend religious services there together. She was determined to be ``not homebound.'' There are more stories like this. At the same time, visiting nurses have identified individuals who are healthy enough to leave the home without difficulty, but because they never do, they retain home health benefits at the expense of the Medicare program. Our legislation specifically clarifies that absences from the home are allowed for religious services and visiting infirm and sick relatives. In a time of great need or family crisis, seniors should feel comforted that the government won't stand in their way. Federally funded home health care is an often quiet but invaluable part of life for America's seniors. We in Congress have an obligation to make sure that the Medicare program lives up to its promise and that home health will be available to those who need it. I would like to thank my cosponsors, Senators Reed and Leahy for their dedication to this issue. We look forward to working with the rest of Congress to turn this legislation into law.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Younger American's Act with Senators Kennedy, Cleland, and Murray. This legislation embraces the belief that youth are not only our nation's most valuable resource, they also are our most important responsibility. The needs of youth must be moved to a higher priority on our nation's agenda. It is not enough that government responds to youth when they get into trouble with drugs, teen pregnancy, and violence. We need to strengthen the positive rather than simply respond to the negative. Positive youth development, the framework for the Younger American's Act, is not just about preventing bad things from happening, but giving a nudge to help good things happen. And we know that it works. Evaluations of Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Clubs, and other youth development programs have demonstrated significant increases in parental involvement, youth participation in constructive education, social and recreation activities, enrollment in post- secondary education, and community involvement. Just as important, youth actively participating in youth development programs show decreased rates of school failure and absenteeism, teen pregnancy, delinquency, substance abuse, and violent behavior. We also know that risk taking behavior increases with age. One third of the high school juniors and seniors participate in two or more health risk behaviors. That is why it is important to build a youth development infrastructure that engages youth as they enter pre- adolescence and keeps them engaged throughout their teen years. The Younger American's Act is targeted to youth aged ten to nineteen. This encompasses both the critical middle-school years, as well as the increasingly risky high school years. The Younger American's Act is about framing a national policy on youth. Up until now, government has responded to kids after they have gotten into trouble. We must take a new tack. Instead of just treating problems, we have to promote healthy development. We have to remember that just because a kid stays out of trouble, it doesn't mean that he or she is ready to handle the responsibilities of adulthood. Research has shown that kids want direction, they want close bonds with parents and other adult mentors. And I believe we owe them that. Ideally, this comes from strong families, but communities and government can help. In order to keep kids engaged in positive activities, youth must be viewed as resources; as active participants in finding solutions to their own problems. Parents also must be part of those solutions. This legislation requires that youth and parents be part of the decision- making process on the federal and local levels. The United States does not have a cohesive federal policy on youth. Creating an Office on National Youth Policy within the White House not only raises the priority of youth on the federal agenda, but provides an opportunity to more effectively coordinate existing federal youth programs to increase their impact on the lives of young Americans. The efforts of the Office of National Youth Policy in advocating for the needs of youth, and the Department of Health and Human Service in implementing the Younger American's Act will be helped by the Council on National Youth Policy. This Council, comprised of youth, parents, experts in youth development, and representatives from the business community, will help ensure that this initiative continually responds to the changing needs of youth and their communities. It will bring a ``real world'' perspective to the efforts of the Office and HHS. The Younger American's Act provides communities with the funding necessary to adequately ensure that youth have access to five core resources: Ongoing relationships with caring adults; Safe places with structured activities in which to grow and learn; Services that promote healthy lifestyles, including those designed to improve physical and mental health; Opportunities to acquire marketable skills and competencies; and Opportunities for community service and civic participation. Block grant funds will be used to expand existing resources, create new ones where none existed before, overcome barriers to accessing those resources, and fill gaps to create a cohesive network for youth. The funds will be funneled through states, based on an allocation formula that equally weighs population and poverty measures, to communities where the primary decisions regarding the use of the funds will take place. Thirty percent of the local funds are set aside for to address the needs of youth who are particularly vulnerable, such as those who are in out-of home placements, abused or neglected, living in high poverty areas, or living in rural areas where there are usually fewer resources. Dividing the state into regions, or ``planning and mobilization areas,'' ensures that funds will be equitably distributed throughout a state. Empowering community boards, comprised of youth, parents, and other members of the community, to supervise decisions regarding the use of the block grant funds ensures that the programs, services, and activities supported by the Act will be responsive to local needs. Accountability is integral to any effective federal program. The Younger American's Act provides the Department of Health and Human Services with the responsibility and funding to conduct research and evaluate the effectiveness of funded initiatives. States and the Department are charged with monitoring the use of funds by grantees, and empowered to withhold or reduce funds if problems arise. The Younger Americans Act will help kids gain the skills and experience they need to successfully navigate the rough waters of adolescence. My twenty-first century community learning centers initiative supports the efforts of schools to operate after-school programs that emphasize academic enrichment. It's time to get the rest of the community involved. It's time to give the same level of support to the thousands of youth development and youth-serving organizations that struggle to keep their doors open every day. I remember a young man, Brad Luck, who testified before the H.E.L.P. Committee several years ago. As a 14-year-old, Brad embarked on a two- year mission to open a teen center in his home town of Essex Junction, Vermont. He formed a student board of directors, sought 501(c)(3) status and gave over 25 community presentations to convince the town to back the program. Demonstrating the tenacity of youth, he then spear- headed a successful drive to raise $30,000 in 30 days to fund the start-up of the center. Today, the center is thriving in its town- donated space. This is an example of the type of community asset building supported by the Younger Americans Act. The Younger Americans Act is about an investment in our youth, our communities, and our future. I want to thank America's Promise, the United Way, and the National Collaboration for Youth for their work in providing the original framework for the legislation. I am proud and excited to be part of this important initiative. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Younger American's Act with Senators Kennedy, Cleland, and Murray. This legislation embraces the belief that youth are not only our nation's most valuable resource, they also are our most important responsibility. The needs of youth must be moved to a higher priority on our nation's agenda. It is not enough that government responds to youth when they get into trouble with drugs, teen pregnancy, and violence. We need to strengthen the positive rather than simply respond to the negative. Positive youth development, the framework for the Younger American's Act, is not just about preventing bad things from happening, but giving a nudge to help good things happen. And we know that it works. Evaluations of Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Clubs, and other youth development programs have demonstrated significant increases in parental involvement, youth participation in constructive education, social and recreation activities, enrollment in post- secondary education, and community involvement. Just as important, youth actively participating in youth development programs show decreased rates of school failure and absenteeism, teen pregnancy, delinquency, substance abuse, and violent behavior. We also know that risk taking behavior increases with age. One third of the high school juniors and seniors participate in two or more health risk behaviors. That is why it is important to build a youth development infrastructure that engages youth as they enter pre- adolescence and keeps them engaged throughout their teen years. The Younger American's Act is targeted to youth aged ten to nineteen. This encompasses both the critical middle-school years, as well as the increasingly risky high school years. The Younger American's Act is about framing a national policy on youth. Up until now, government has responded to kids after they have gotten into trouble. We must take a new tack. Instead of just treating problems, we have to promote healthy development. We have to remember that just because a kid stays out of trouble, it doesn't mean that he or she is ready to handle the responsibilities of adulthood. Research has shown that kids want direction, they want close bonds with parents and other adult mentors. And I believe we owe them that. Ideally, this comes from strong families, but communities and government can help. In order to keep kids engaged in positive activities, youth must be viewed as resources; as active participants in finding solutions to their own problems. Parents also must be part of those solutions. This legislation requires that youth and parents be part of the decision- making process on the federal and local levels. The United States does not have a cohesive federal policy on youth. Creating an Office on National Youth Policy within the White House not only raises the priority of youth on the federal agenda, but provides an opportunity to more effectively coordinate existing federal youth programs to increase their impact on the lives of young Americans. The efforts of the Office of National Youth Policy in advocating for the needs of youth, and the Department of Health and Human Service in implementing the Younger American's Act will be helped by the Council on National Youth Policy. This Council, comprised of youth, parents, experts in youth development, and representatives from the business community, will help ensure that this initiative continually responds to the changing needs of youth and their communities. It will bring a ``real world'' perspective to the efforts of the Office and HHS. The Younger American's Act provides communities with the funding necessary to adequately ensure that youth have access to five core resources: Ongoing relationships with caring adults; Safe places with structured activities in which to grow and learn; Services that promote healthy lifestyles, including those designed to improve physical and mental health; Opportunities to acquire marketable skills and competencies; and Opportunities for community service and civic participation. Block grant funds will be used to expand existing resources, create new ones where none existed before, overcome barriers to accessing those resources, and fill gaps to create a cohesive network for youth. The funds will be funneled through states, based on an allocation formula that equally weighs population and poverty measures, to communities where the primary decisions regarding the use of the funds will take place. Thirty percent of the local funds are set aside for to address the needs of youth who are particularly vulnerable, such as those who are in out-of home placements, abused or neglected, living in high poverty areas, or living in rural areas where there are usually fewer resources. Dividing the state into regions, or ``planning and mobilization areas,'' ensures that funds will be equitably distributed throughout a state. Empowering community boards, comprised of youth, parents, and other members of the community, to supervise decisions regarding the use of the block grant funds ensures that the programs, services, and activities supported by the Act will be responsive to local needs. Accountability is integral to any effective federal program. The Younger American's Act provides the Department of Health and Human Services with the responsibility and funding to conduct research and evaluate the effectiveness of funded initiatives. States and the Department are charged with monitoring the use of funds by grantees, and empowered to withhold or reduce funds if problems arise. The Younger Americans Act will help kids gain the skills and experience they need to successfully navigate the rough waters of adolescence. My twenty-first century community learning centers initiative supports the efforts of schools to operate after-school programs that emphasize academic enrichment. It's time to get the rest of the community involved. It's time to give the same level of support to the thousands of youth development and youth-serving organizations that struggle to keep their doors open every day. I remember a young man, Brad Luck, who testified before the H.E.L.P. Committee several years ago. As a 14-year-old, Brad embarked on a two- year mission to open a teen center in his home town of Essex Junction, Vermont. He formed a student board of directors, sought 501(c)(3) status and gave over 25 community presentations to convince the town to back the program. Demonstrating the tenacity of youth, he then spear- headed a successful drive to raise $30,000 in 30 days to fund the start-up of the center. Today, the center is thriving in its town- donated space. This is an example of the type of community asset building supported by the Younger Americans Act. The Younger Americans Act is about an investment in our youth, our communities, and our future. I want to thank America's Promise, the United Way, and the National Collaboration for Youth for their work in providing the original framework for the legislation. I am proud and excited to be part of this important initiative. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we have had an invigorating debate on a very important and complex issue--whether to grant permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, status to China. There are many aspects to this debate: expansion and regulation of the international trading system; realignment of the US position within that system; review of China's internal policies--in particular its human rights record; assessment of the prospect for constructive and systemic change in China; and the effect of PNTR upon U.S. businesses and consumers. As many of my colleagues may remember, 2 months ago in the Finance Committee I cast the sole vote in opposition to granting PNTR to China. Although I believe in engagement with China, not isolating China, I felt strongly that I could not in good conscience vote to make this status permanent at that time. I told my colleagues about Ngawang Choephel, a Fulbright student from Middlebury College in Vermont, who was arrested by Chinese authorities while filming traditional song and dance in Tibet in 1995. Intent only on preserving traditional Tibetan music, Ngawang was charged with espionage and sentenced to 18 years in prison. I strongly protested his arrest and incarceration, together with the other Members of the Vermont delegation, the administration, and human rights supporters all over the world. For 5 years, we received virtually no information on Ngawang's whereabouts and his condition. In spite of a Chinese law guaranteeing every prisoner the right to receive regular visits from next of kin, Chinese officials ignored the repeated pleas from Ngawang's mother, Sonam Dekyi, to visit him. During Finance Committee discussion of the PNTR legislation, I made clear my anger over the Chinese Government's unconscionable refusal to adhere to its own laws. I am pleased to report that a couple weeks later, the Chinese Ambassador to the United States called to inform me that Sonam Dekyi would be granted permission to visit her son. I thank my many colleagues who raised this case with the Chinese, and I particularly thank the Chinese Ambassador for his efforts on Sonam Dekyi's behalf. Last month, Sonam Dekyi and her brother traveled to China to see Ngawang Choephel. They were treated very well and were allowed two visits with Ngawang. In addition, they had a meeting with the doctors at a nearby hospital who recently have treated Ngawang for several very serious illnesses. While Sonam Dekyi was very appreciative of the chance to see her son, she was disappointed to be granted only two visits and quite saddened to be denied her request just to touch her son after all these years. Most alarmingly, she found her son to be in very poor health. Despite receiving medical attention, he is very gaunt and reported ongoing pains in his chest and stomach. His mother fears for his life. I fervently hope that in the wake of his mother's visit, greater attention will be paid to Ngawang's health, and that every effort will be made by Chinese medical personnel to treat his illnesses. However, I believe that the only solution to his health condition is medical parole. Ngawang needs extensive treatment and considerable rehabilitation. This cannot be accomplished under the harsh conditions of prison, especially a Chinese prison. On humanitarian grounds, I appeal to the Chinese authorities to release Ngawang Choephel. This is the right thing to do, the decent thing to do, the human thing to do. Until Ngawang Choephel is released, I cannot in good conscience vote for PNTR. I urge the Chinese authorities to recognize the length of time Ngawang has already spent in prison and to move now before his 18 year sentence becomes a death sentence. I urge the immediate release of Ngawang Choephel. I have not come to this position of opposition to PNTR easily. For the past 10 years, I have supported engagement with China and renewal of most favored nation status. The benefits of international trade for the Vermont economy are very clear, and Vermont businesses have proved very resourceful at developing high paying and desirable jobs for Vermonters. In 1989, in the wake of the Tiananmen Square uprising, this was a particularly tough position. It was difficult to know how to channel my profound outrage over Chinese behavior and how to bring about the greatest degree of change in the shortest period of time. After considerable research and much discussion with people holding many points of view, I concluded that change in China would be most rapid if the channels of communication were open to the rest of the world. Engagement with China on all fronts, including economic engagement, is going to be necessary to produce the long-term, systemic change required for expression of personal freedom and personal initiative. The past decade has proven that change is slow and difficult. But there is progress, nonetheless. The reformers in the Chinese hierarchy are now pushing for membership in the World Trade Organization, WTO. They wish to be part of the global trading system and to open their country and their economy to international investment and influences. While there are some significant problems with the WTO system that need to be addressed, I am convinced that we must be a part of that system and we must exert a strong influence on its development. Our national interests are best served if all major economies are a part of this system, agree to play by the same rules, and are subject to the same enforcement mechanisms if they do not. We have a very strong interest in encouraging diversification and decentralization in the Chinese economy and greater freedom of expression for Chinese citizens. The less citizens are dependent directly on the government for their jobs and housing, the more likely they are to get involved in local issues, to advocate for causes that concern them, to develop advocacy and democracy at the grass roots. In the long run, I believe this is also the best way to improve the human rights situation. It will take time. It will be incremental. Chinese society will never look just like American society, but hopefully it will be reconfigured more to the advantage of the average Chinese citizen. Today, my overwhelming concern is for a young man who committed his life to the preservation of his own musical heritage. He found shelter in the green mountains of Vermont, even though his heart always lay in the rugged mountains of his homeland. Ngawang touched many Vermonters with his quiet manner and intensity of purpose. Vermont will not forget Ngawang Choephel. I have not forgotten Ngawang Choephel. I will not vote for PNTR until he is free. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to introduce today, along with Senators Enzi, Kennedy, and Reid, the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act. This legislation will ensure that our nation's health care workers, who tend to our citizens when care is urgently needed, will no longer be risking their own health, and, perhaps, their own lives, when providing this life giving work. Statistics paint a stark picture of the risks from accidental sharps injuries that health care workers face daily on the job, injuries that can be prevented, and, when Congress passes this legislation, will be prevented. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that as many as 800,000 injuries from contaminated sharps occur annually among health care workers. Due to these injuries, numerous health care workers have contracted fatal or other serious viruses and diseases, including the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. ``Needlesticks'' refer to the broad category of injuries suffered by workers in health care settings who are exposed to sharps, including items such as disposable syringes with needles, IV catheters, lancets, and glass capillary tubes/pipettes. The true shame in these alarming statistics is that accidental needlestick injuries can be prevented. Technological advancements have led to the development of safer medical devices, such as syringes with needle guards or sheaths. The heart of the ``Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act'' is its requirement that employers identify, evaluate, and make use of effective safer medical devices. And the legislation emphasizes training, education, and the participation of those workers exposed to sharps injuries in the evaluation and selection of safer devices. The Act also creates new record keeping requirements, a ``sharps injury log,'' to aid employers in identifying high risk areas, and in determining the types of engineering controls and devices most effective in reducing or eliminating the risk of exposure. Importantly, the legislation we introduce today will not impede, but will encourage technological development, as it does not favor the use of a specific device, but requires an employer to evaluate the effectiveness of available devices. I urge all my colleagues to join us in supporting the ``Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to introduce today, along with Senators Enzi, Kennedy, and Reid, the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act. This legislation will ensure that our nation's health care workers, who tend to our citizens when care is urgently needed, will no longer be risking their own health, and, perhaps, their own lives, when providing this life giving work. Statistics paint a stark picture of the risks from accidental sharps injuries that health care workers face daily on the job, injuries that can be prevented, and, when Congress passes this legislation, will be prevented. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that as many as 800,000 injuries from contaminated sharps occur annually among health care workers. Due to these injuries, numerous health care workers have contracted fatal or other serious viruses and diseases, including the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. ``Needlesticks'' refer to the broad category of injuries suffered by workers in health care settings who are exposed to sharps, including items such as disposable syringes with needles, IV catheters, lancets, and glass capillary tubes/pipettes. The true shame in these alarming statistics is that accidental needlestick injuries can be prevented. Technological advancements have led to the development of safer medical devices, such as syringes with needle guards or sheaths. The heart of the ``Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act'' is its requirement that employers identify, evaluate, and make use of effective safer medical devices. And the legislation emphasizes training, education, and the participation of those workers exposed to sharps injuries in the evaluation and selection of safer devices. The Act also creates new record keeping requirements, a ``sharps injury log,'' to aid employers in identifying high risk areas, and in determining the types of engineering controls and devices most effective in reducing or eliminating the risk of exposure. Importantly, the legislation we introduce today will not impede, but will encourage technological development, as it does not favor the use of a specific device, but requires an employer to evaluate the effectiveness of available devices. I urge all my colleagues to join us in supporting the ``Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution commemorating the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act--known today as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. I am joined in this effort by many of my colleagues in the Senate and by Chairman Goodling and others in the House, who are proposing a companion resolution today. On November 29, 1975, President Gerald Ford signed landmark legislation which became Public Law 94-142. With the stroke of his pen, he opened the doors of our public schools to millions of children with disabilities. Public Law 94-142 serves as the foundation of our national commitment to assuring that children with disabilities have the same opportunity as all other American children to develop their talents, share their gifts, and contribute to their communities. Over the years, we have built upon this foundation by expanding its reach to pre-school children through early intervention programs. This anniversary holds a special meaning for me. I am one of the few members now in this body who were present at the time the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was approved. It was one of the first pieces of legislation I worked on as a freshman member of the House of Representatives. At that time, despite a clear Constitutional obligation to educate all children, regardless of disability, thousands of disabled students were denied access to a public education. I was an original sponsor of Public Law 94-142 and had the opportunity to serve on the House-Senate conference committee which developed the final bill. Since then, I have actively supported the improvements made to the legislation over the past quarter century. I take great satisfaction in the extraordinary record of success this Act has built. IDEA currently serves an estimated two hundred thousand infants and toddlers; six hundred thousand pre-schoolers; and almost 5.5 million children aged 6 to 21. The drop-out rate for this population has decreased, while the graduation rate has increased substantially. The number of young adults with disabilities enrolling in college has more than tripled. The number of children with developmental disabilities who live in state institutions, away from their families, has also been dramatically reduced. Each one of these numbers represents a child whose life has been improved because we recognized the value of educating all our children. The contribution we made through legislation is an important one, but the real credit belongs to the people on the front lines who have seen to it that our goals have become realities. Teachers, related services personnel, administrators, professional and advocacy organizations, parents of children with disabilities, and the children themselves work each day to assure the promise of IDEA burns brightly. Today we celebrate the progress that we have made in special education since 1975. It is also an appropriate time to consider the challenges and opportunities which lie ahead. I cannot talk about IDEA without mentioning yet again our unfulfilled promise. In 1975, Congress promised our 16,000 school districts that we would provide special education funding at 40% of the national average per pupil expenditure. As we all know, IDEA has never been funded at that level. We have improved our record in recent years, with large increases in appropriations. Even with this infusion of funds, the federal government provides less than 13% of the cost of special education services. We need to do more, and now is the time to do it. The knowledge base we have developed over the past 25 years, coupled with continued advances in technology, hold the promise for astonishing progress in the future for students with disabilities. These students can now communicate, explore the world through the internet, and be mobile in ways we could not have imagined in 1975. If we are willing to commit the necessary resources, there is virtually no limit to the advances we could see over the next 25 years. I urge all my colleagues to join in supporting this resolution and in reaffirming the values and principles underlying IDEA.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr President, I rise today to join my good friend and colleague from Vermont in introducing a Resolution commending and congratulating Middlebury College on 200 years of providing quality higher education in Vermont. It gives me great pleasure in wishing this prestigious institution a very happy anniversary. When Middlebury College first opened, seven students and one professor made up the entire faculty and student body. Two hundred years later, this institution has grown to include over 2000 and nearly 200 professors, and continues to remain a top rated liberal arts school. As Middlebury College nears the culmination of their year-long celebration of their bicentennial, it is only fitting that we take this opportunity to recognize the accomplishments and achievements of Middlebury College and the many graduates thereof. Therefore it gives me great pleasure in joining Senator Leahy in introducing this resolution and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am announcing my support for the Medicare Temporary Drug Assistance Act, introduced by Senator Roth. The Act will immediately provide funding for prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries who are having difficulty paying for the medicines that they need to live longer, happier lives. Mr. President, we all know that as the baby boomers become eligible for Medicare the program needs to be reformed due to the increased population. As a part of Medicare reform, we must have a broad prescription drug benefit that ensures that all Medicare beneficiaries have access to affordable medications. It doesn't make any sense for Medicare to pay for the cost of hospital stays, but not cover the drugs that can keep patients out of the hospital. The best medicines in the world will not help a patient who can't afford to take them. That is why I will continue to do all that I can, as the Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and member of the Finance Committee, to assure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to affordable prescription drugs this year. Today Chairman Roth has introduced two bills--one version that stays within the Budget Resolution, and one that exceeds our budget restraints--and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, because I am convinced that it will immediately help millions of Americans who need but can't afford their medications. My own state of Vermont, which has already acted responsibly by extending prescription drug coverage to many low-income seniors through the Vermont Health Access Plan and the Vscript pharmacy program, will be rewarded with millions of federal dollars to extend its coverage to even larger numbers of Medicare beneficiaries. Under this bill, federal dollars will begin paying for prescription drugs for Vermonters on October 1 of this year--that's only about three weeks from now. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Roth for his outstanding leadership on this issue. Chairman Roth has worked tirelessly with me and the other members of the Finance Committee, clearly demonstrating that he supports Medicare reform, including coverage of prescription drugs, and that he believes that this can only be achieved through a bipartisan process. I have strongly supported his efforts to build a bipartisan consensus on this issue through the Committee process. Several weeks ago, Chairman Roth acknowledged the difficulty in finding a bipartisan consensus during this election year, and announced that if the Finance Committee is unable to report out a bipartisan Medicare reform bill, he would propose a plan to cover prescription drugs for the most needy Medicare beneficiaries, through grants to the states, as a stop-gap measure until Congress is able to pass larger- scale Medicare reform. He also acknowledged that even if we were able to enact a prescription drug benefit this year, it would be almost impossible to implement such a plan for at least two years. The bill he has introduced today addresses both of these problems. Mr. President, let me be clear. This proposal is a stop-gap measure that will be put into place only until we are able to achieve broad Medicare reform, including prescription drug coverage that benefits all Medicare beneficiaries. This is not a substitute for Medicare reform, and it does not mean that we have given up on enacting Medicare reform this year. We must also attack the problem of affordability by passing my bill, the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act (S. 2520), which already passed the Senate by a vote of 74-21 as a part of the Agriculture Appropriations bill. These efforts will be undertaken simultaneously. I consider this bill to be emergency aid for prescription drugs that will be the bridge to a comprehensive plan. It is a very important down payment that will benefit Vermonters and all Americans immediately. That is why I am an original cosponsor of Chairman Roth's proposal, I urge my colleagues support. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today to introduce legislation that will restore to state employees the ability to bring claims of age discrimination against their employers under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967. The Older Workers Rights Restoration Act of 2000 seeks to provide state employees who allege age discrimination the same procedures and remedies as those afforded to other employees with respect to ADEA. This legislation is needed to protect older workers like Professor Dan Kimel, who has taught physics at Florida State University for nearly 35 years. Despite his years of faithful service, in 1992, Professor Kimel found that he was earning less in real dollars than his starting salary. To add insult to injury, his employer was hiring younger faculty out of graduate schools at salaries that were higher than he and other long-service faculty members were earning. In 1995, Professor Kimel and 34 colleagues brought a claim of age discrimination against the Florida Board of Regents. Dan Kimel and his colleagues brought their cases under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967 (``ADEA''). In 1974, Congress amended the ADEA to ensure that state employees, such as Dan Kimel has full protection against age discrimination. I stand before you today because this past January the Supreme Court ruled that Dan Kimel and other affected faculty do not have the right to bring their ADEA claims against their employer. The Court in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, held that Congress did not have the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity to individuals under the ADEA. As a result of the decision, state employees, who are victims of age discrimination, no longer have the remedies that are available to individuals who work in the private sector, for local governments or for federal government. Indeed, unless a state chooses to waive its sovereign immunity or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decides to bring a suit, state workers now find themselves with no federal remedy for their claims of age discrimination. In effect, this decision has transformed older state employees into second class citizens. For a right without a remedy is no right at all. Employees should not have to lose their right to redress simply because they happen to work for a state government. And a considerable portion of our workforce has been impacted. In Vermont, for example, the State is one of our largest employers. We cannot and should not permit these state workers to lose the right to redress age discrimination. This legislation will resolve this problem. The Older Workers Rights Restoration Act of 2000 will restore the full protections of the ADEA to Dan Kimel and countless other state employees in federally assisted programs. The legislation will do this by requiring the states to waive their sovereign immunity as a condition of receiving federal funds for their programs or activities. The Older Workers Rights Restoration Act of 2000 follows the framework of many other civil rights laws, including the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. Under this framework, immunity is only waived with regard to the program or activity actually receiving federal funds. States are not obligated to accept such funds; and if they do not they are immune from private ADEA suits. The legislation also confirms that these employees may bring actions for equitable relief under the ADEA. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today to introduce legislation that will restore to state employees the ability to bring claims of age discrimination against their employers under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967. The Older Workers Rights Restoration Act of 2000 seeks to provide state employees who allege age discrimination the same procedures and remedies as those afforded to other employees with respect to ADEA. This legislation is needed to protect older workers like Professor Dan Kimel, who has taught physics at Florida State University for nearly 35 years. Despite his years of faithful service, in 1992, Professor Kimel found that he was earning less in real dollars than his starting salary. To add insult to injury, his employer was hiring younger faculty out of graduate schools at salaries that were higher than he and other long-service faculty members were earning. In 1995, Professor Kimel and 34 colleagues brought a claim of age discrimination against the Florida Board of Regents. Dan Kimel and his colleagues brought their cases under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967 (``ADEA''). In 1974, Congress amended the ADEA to ensure that state employees, such as Dan Kimel has full protection against age discrimination. I stand before you today because this past January the Supreme Court ruled that Dan Kimel and other affected faculty do not have the right to bring their ADEA claims against their employer. The Court in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, held that Congress did not have the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity to individuals under the ADEA. As a result of the decision, state employees, who are victims of age discrimination, no longer have the remedies that are available to individuals who work in the private sector, for local governments or for federal government. Indeed, unless a state chooses to waive its sovereign immunity or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decides to bring a suit, state workers now find themselves with no federal remedy for their claims of age discrimination. In effect, this decision has transformed older state employees into second class citizens. For a right without a remedy is no right at all. Employees should not have to lose their right to redress simply because they happen to work for a state government. And a considerable portion of our workforce has been impacted. In Vermont, for example, the State is one of our largest employers. We cannot and should not permit these state workers to lose the right to redress age discrimination. This legislation will resolve this problem. The Older Workers Rights Restoration Act of 2000 will restore the full protections of the ADEA to Dan Kimel and countless other state employees in federally assisted programs. The legislation will do this by requiring the states to waive their sovereign immunity as a condition of receiving federal funds for their programs or activities. The Older Workers Rights Restoration Act of 2000 follows the framework of many other civil rights laws, including the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. Under this framework, immunity is only waived with regard to the program or activity actually receiving federal funds. States are not obligated to accept such funds; and if they do not they are immune from private ADEA suits. The legislation also confirms that these employees may bring actions for equitable relief under the ADEA. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I agree with him 100 percent, and I am going to do all I can to assist him.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from New Mexico will allow me to add a glowing statement about the bill he is about to speak to?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to praise the managers of this bill for their commitment to renewable energy. I particularly want to thank Senator Harry Reid for his leadership in bringing additional funding to advance the cause of clean energy in this nation. Earlier this year the Senate renewable energy caucus, led by Senators Roth, Bingaman, Allard and myself, sent a letter to the bill managers asking that they put the U.S. Senate on record in support of wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and other renewable energy resources. Mr. President, 54 of our colleagues signed that letter and they should know that the bill before us today boosts funding for renewable energy by $87 million over last years levels. This is a great achievement. And unlike in past years, I come to the Senate floor without the annual renewable energy funding amendment but with what will hopefully be an annual effort praising the managers of this bill. We thank you Senator Reid for your vision and commitment to reducing this nation's reliance on foreign oil and advancing our investment in clean, domestic energy resources. This increase puts our country back onto the path of a sustainable energy policy. In recent years, the U.S. trade deficit has soared. The number one contributor to the trade deficit is imported foreign oil--and its contribution has reached record levels. Since the oil embargo of 1973-74, imports of foreign oil have risen from a little over 30 percent to 55 percent, and will hit 65 percent in a decade. By then, most of the world's oil will come from potentially unstable Persian Gulf nations. These imports account for over $60 billion. That is more than 36 percent of the U.S. trade deficit. These are U.S. dollars being shipped overseas to the Middle East when they could be put to better use here at home. In 1976, myself and a number of freshmen Members of the House of Representatives proposed such a provision and nearly passed it to the exact same 10 percent. Unfortunately, that failed. But at that time we, a number of us working together, did start the wind energy program, which is now blossoming, with Vermont being the leader in that field, and also, with a very good amendment I was able to get on, we started, really, the solar voltaic program at that particular time. During the period since that time, a couple of times we have come very close to putting into a mandatory situation where we would decrease the consumption of oil by 10 percent through renewables. Now we are on our way, finally. Hopefully, this bill will pass. We are lowering our balance of payments. We are providing an invaluable insurance policy to enhance our national security. And we are protecting our environmental and reducing air pollution. Federal support for renewable energy research and development has been a major success story in the United States. Costs have declined, reliability has improved, and a growing domestic industry has been born. Through this boost in the renewables budget, we are building upon our successes. We are helping to develop industries which reduce our trade deficit and boost national security. We are helping farmers, ranchers, rural communities, and small businesses. The 54 Senators who signed this letter--and in particular--Senator Reid, deserve a great deal of credit for protecting the environment, promoting job growth, and advancing America's future. Again, I thank the two sponsors of the bill, Senators Reid and Domenici. I praise them for their efforts and helping in any way possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I introduce the Wage Awareness Protection Act. We have made great strides in the fight against workplace discrimination. The enactment of the Civil Rights Act more than 30 years ago served to codify this Nation's commitment to the basic principles of equal opportunity and fairness in the workplace. At the time, we enacted not one, but two laws, aimed at ensuring that women receive equal pay for equal work: the Equal Pay Act (``EPA'') of 1963, and to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. More recently, Congress reaffirmed this commitment by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which expanded the 1964 Civil Rights Act and gave victims of intentional discrimination the ability to recover compensatory and punitive damages. Certainly a lot has changed since we first enacted these laws. It should come as no surprise that more women are participating in the labor force than ever before, with women now making up an estimated 46 percent of the workforce. Women are also spending more time in school and are now earning over half of all bachelor's and master's degrees. In addition, women are breaking down longstanding barriers in certain industries and occupations. Despite these advances, the unfortunate reality is that pay discrimination has continued to persist in some workplaces. In a recent hearing before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, we heard testimony that a principal reason why gender-based wage discrimination has continued is that many female employees are simply unaware that they are being paid less than their male counterparts. These unwitting victims of wage discrimination are often kept in the dark by employer policies that prohibit employees from sharing salary information. Employees are warned that they will be reprimanded or terminated if they discuss salary information with their co-workers. I believe that a fundamental barrier to uncovering and resolving gender-based pay discrimination is fear of employer retaliation. Employees who suspect wage discrimination should be able to share their salary information with co-workers. I am not alone in my belief. According to a recent Business and Professional Women/USA survey, Americans overwhelmingly support anti-retaliation legislation. And, 65 percent of those polled, said they believe legislation should protect those who suspect wage discrimination from employer retaliation for discussing salary information with co-workers. The Worker Awareness Protection Act will prohibit employers from having blanket wage confidentiality policies preventing employees from sharing their salary information. In addition, this new legislation will bolster the Equal Pay Act's retaliation provisions including providing workers with protection from employer retaliation for voluntarily discussing their own salary information with coworkers. I am excited about this legislation. It is my hope that it will help point the way to elimination of any pernicious discriminatory pay practices. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I introduce the Wage Awareness Protection Act. We have made great strides in the fight against workplace discrimination. The enactment of the Civil Rights Act more than 30 years ago served to codify this Nation's commitment to the basic principles of equal opportunity and fairness in the workplace. At the time, we enacted not one, but two laws, aimed at ensuring that women receive equal pay for equal work: the Equal Pay Act (``EPA'') of 1963, and to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. More recently, Congress reaffirmed this commitment by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which expanded the 1964 Civil Rights Act and gave victims of intentional discrimination the ability to recover compensatory and punitive damages. Certainly a lot has changed since we first enacted these laws. It should come as no surprise that more women are participating in the labor force than ever before, with women now making up an estimated 46 percent of the workforce. Women are also spending more time in school and are now earning over half of all bachelor's and master's degrees. In addition, women are breaking down longstanding barriers in certain industries and occupations. Despite these advances, the unfortunate reality is that pay discrimination has continued to persist in some workplaces. In a recent hearing before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, we heard testimony that a principal reason why gender-based wage discrimination has continued is that many female employees are simply unaware that they are being paid less than their male counterparts. These unwitting victims of wage discrimination are often kept in the dark by employer policies that prohibit employees from sharing salary information. Employees are warned that they will be reprimanded or terminated if they discuss salary information with their co-workers. I believe that a fundamental barrier to uncovering and resolving gender-based pay discrimination is fear of employer retaliation. Employees who suspect wage discrimination should be able to share their salary information with co-workers. I am not alone in my belief. According to a recent Business and Professional Women/USA survey, Americans overwhelmingly support anti-retaliation legislation. And, 65 percent of those polled, said they believe legislation should protect those who suspect wage discrimination from employer retaliation for discussing salary information with co-workers. The Worker Awareness Protection Act will prohibit employers from having blanket wage confidentiality policies preventing employees from sharing their salary information. In addition, this new legislation will bolster the Equal Pay Act's retaliation provisions including providing workers with protection from employer retaliation for voluntarily discussing their own salary information with coworkers. I am excited about this legislation. It is my hope that it will help point the way to elimination of any pernicious discriminatory pay practices. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as we consider preceding to legislation to grant permanent normal trade relations to China, I would like to alert my Colleagues to an important development. It is my understanding that a frail, elderly Tibetan woman will soon see her only son, who is in prison in Tibet. My colleagues on the Finance Committee may remember my raising my deep concern over the case of Ngawang Choephel, a former Fulbright student at Middlebury College in Vermont who is serving an 18 year sentence in Tibet on charges of espionage. As we debate entering a new relationship with China, based on mutual commitments to adhere to an international set of principles and regulations, I was increasingly angered by the refusal of the Chinese government to grant Ngawang's mother, Sonam Dekyi, permission to visit him in prison, a right guaranteed her by Chinese law. I spoke out about this case during the Finance Committee's mark-up of this legislation. I am pleased to inform my colleagues that thanks to the skillful intervention of the Chinese Ambassador, the Honorable Ambassador Li, Sonam Dekyi will soon be in Tibet for a rendezvous with her son. Many of my colleagues have expressed their support for Sonam Dekyi's request, and I want to make sure they are aware of the Chinese government's decision to allow this meeting. Sonam will be in Lhasa all next week, and we are hoping that she will be allowed several lengthy visits with her son. Because Sonam is in poor health and travel to Tibet is very difficult for her, we are hoping that her visits will be of appropriate length and quality. I will be happy to share with my colleagues Sonam's report of her visit upon her return to India. I continue to be worried about the health of Ngawang Choephel, and I will continue my efforts to obtain his release. But at this moment I wish to express my appreciation to the Chinese Ambassador for helping to make this humanitarian mission happen. I know that many Vermonters share my joy at this development and my hope that this is indicative of further progress in matters of great concern to our two countries.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to Henri Nsanjama, a champion of conservation who died on July 18, 2000. At the time of his death, Mr. Nsanjama was serving as vice president and senior advisor on Africa and Madagascar for the World Wildlife Fund here in Washington. Henri was an ardent supporter of measures to protect Africa's elephants and of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. I worked with him on both of these important issues. Henri would have been pleased to know that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote in September to recommend that the full Senate ratify the Desertification Convention. So far, 168 countries have ratified the Desertification Convention and the U.S. is the only major industrial nation that has not done so. Henri worked hard to change that and ensure that biodiversity is protected in Africa and other parts of the world facing desertification. A native of Malawi, Henri dedicated his life to the challenge of linking wildlife conservation with the needs of local communities. He believed that the most challenging aspect of his work was conserving wildlife without undue hardship to human beings. Henri built his distinguished career through formal education and hands-on field work. He served as a Trainee Game Ranger in his native Malawi, where he recalled being inspired by the sight of more wild animals than people. He attended the College of African Wildlife Management in Mweka, Tanzania, and became a Warden at Kasungu National Park in Central Malawi. Henri then moved to the United States, and earned a Bachelor's Degree in wildlife biology and natural resources economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. After Amherst, Henri returned home to Kasungu National Park and eventually was hired as Malawi's Deputy Director of National Parks and Wildlife. Three years later, he attended the University of Stirling, Scotland, where he received a Master's Degree in environmental management. Anxious to apply his new knowledge, Henri returned home once again to become the Director of National Parks and Wildlife for Malawi. He also served as the Coordinator of Wildlife Activities of the ten countries of the Southern African Development Coordination. In 1989, Henri was nominated Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, a post he held for a year before beginning work with WWF in 1990. Henri led WWF's program in Africa for 10 years. During that time he focused in particular on the areas of building the capacity of people and institutions to manage natural resources, community based natural resources management, protected areas management and species conservation. He was co-author of ``Voices from Africa: Local Perspectives on Conservation.'' A strong African voice for conservation, Henri also knew how to reach Americans. About Henri, Kathryn Fuller, President of WWF, said, ``Throughout his 10 years with WWF, Henri was an inspirational ambassador for conservation with the American public and our partners in Africa. He was also at the forefront of efforts to include women in conservation and increase their educational opportunities.'' Beyond his professional accomplishments, Henri is remembered as a gifted storyteller who touched the lives of everyone he encountered. In a profile five years ago, he was asked to describe his idea of perfect happiness. He answered, ``As a Christian, it's believing in what good was given to you and to be able to do good things for others. This is my 19th year of working in conservation. I've never done anything else and I never want to.'' In Henri's honor, the World Wildlife Fund will establish a fund to ensure that Africans are given the opportunity to care for and manage their natural resources, a fitting tribute for one who believed so strongly in the importance of empowering Africa's people to sustainably manage their natural heritage. Henri's funeral in Malawi this week was attended by 3,000 people, including eight ministers of the Malawian government. He was clearly loved and respected by many and has left a lasting legacy of sustainable management of wildlife and wildlands in Africa. For this we should all be enormously grateful.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes today to join in paying tribute to our former colleague, Paul Coverdell. Memories of Paul consistently paint a picture of a hard-working, even- tempered consensus-builder. He sought results, not headlines. He was not one who basked in a national spotlight, but his quiet influence within this body has made a profound impact on public policy affecting all Americans. My last opportunity to work with Paul was during consideration of the Educational Opportunities Act this spring. It is fitting that our final work together addressed the subject of education, as this is an area where we had many dealings over the years. We did not always agree on the specifics, but the one thing about which we wholeheartedly agreed is the importance of education. During the S. 2 debate, Paul made a compelling case for the need to assure a good education for all of our citizens. He said: From our very founding, we have understood that a core component of maintaining a free society is that the population is educated. To the extent that any among us who are citizens do not have the fundamental skills, the basic education, they are truly not free. They cannot enjoy the full benefits of American citizenship because they are denied the ability to think for themselves, for their families, for their communities, for the Nation. In all my work with Paul, I found him to be fair and accommodating. He was always one to search for the areas of consensus, and he was enormously successful in finding ways to reach accommodation to move things forward. His persistence and his commitment to making things happen--no matter how many obstacles were placed in the path--earned him the respect of all who had the privilege to work with him. I join in extending my deepest sympathy to his wife Nancy. I also offer my condolences to members of his staff, who have lost not just an employer but an inspiring example of the work and rewards of a life devoted to public service. We will miss Paul, but his inspiration to me and to all the others of this body will continue until we are gone from here also. I join all my colleagues in the deep sympathy that we feel at this moment. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on the critical provision, the bill now requires that the Food and Drug Administration's regulation contain such additional safeguards as the Secretary may specify in order to ensure the protection of the public health of patients in the United States so that it creates no risk above that which prevails today. I ask for a yes vote and I urge the question.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.