Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is the Jeffords amendment relating to title VI of the bill. It takes money which is dedicated to school construction and puts it into IDEA and special education. We have over and over again pledged to fully fund up to 40 percent of the cost of educating children in special education. We have not done that. All of you committed to doing that. We have no comparable historical obligation to contribute money for school construction. That is an option under title VI and will remain an option even if my amendment is approved. We believe we should fund and pay for our current Federal obligations first before we take on new and open ended obligations. It is a promise we have all made. It is a promise we should keep.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Right.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I did not say it was. I carefully deleted that and said it is the cost of educating a child.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest to the Senator from Iowa, perhaps we can add a phrase to this amendment that says the communities should make it a high priority to fix any problems with access. Would he then support this amendment?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Again, I want to point out that the people's understanding of our responsibilities are pretty clear in this case. If there is a statutory obligation and a commitment to fully fund a program--as there is in IDEA--this should be our highest priority. And again, I remind my colleague that this body has gone on record in vote after vote that we should fully fund IDEA. To suggest that fully funding IDEA should not be given higher priority than our desire to create a new construction program, is to abandon our original commitment. Certainly, if you owe money to a bank, that is a first priority over putting money in your savings account. We made these pledges. The people back home know that the best way to improve education using Federal money is to have financial relief from the pressures of IDEA. It should be obvious what our conscience is telling us. We should fully fund the obligations we made back in 1975. That should be our primary priority. We said it over and over again and now we are turning our back on our commitment. We say: No, we are going to use it for other things, and we are going to use it for things for which we have not already made a commitment, and that is to help with the construction of schools. School construction has always been a state and local responsibility. Fully funding IDEA will allow local communities to fund their own priorities, including construction. I urge my friends to recognize our commitment to fulfill the promise we made and to use these funds to fund IDEA. Look at these petitions from every single school board in my state. Every school district in the state says that the first thing we should do is fulfill our promise to fully fund IDEA. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. If I may respond.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I say to the Senator, as you know, I have voted that way. In fact, I offered the amendment to the budget resolution that would have done that. My amendment would have made mandatory money available for IDEA. But it was rejected. I agree with my friend from Iowa that we should dedicate more of the surplus to fully funding IDEA. It is the right route, but we were turned down by three votes. It failed. Now I am trying to use a different route. I am interested in offering an amendment that I hope will be supported by a simple majority of this body. An amendment which funds education using the surplus is in violation of the budget resolution and must be approved by a sixty vote majority. The Senate has repeatedly voted to reject similar amendments. This amendment is the one that has a chance to succeed in spite of the limitations imposed by the budget resolution. We can take the money from a brand new program, which we are doing, and shift it over to IDEA where I believe it ought to be our first priority. That is something we can do on this bill. We can't tap the surplus now, as I tried during the budget resolution. That was turned down.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Good.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am willing to yield back my 1 minute.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I further ask consent that Diane Lenz be granted access to the floor during consideration of my amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to make a statement for myself as well as Senator Edward Kennedy, Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee; Senator Susan Collins; Senator Christopher Dodd; Senator Olympia Snowe; Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan; Senator Carl Levin; Senator Charles Schumer; Senator Paul Wellstone; and Senator Patrick Leahy. First, we would like to take this opportunity to commend the hard work and dedication of Senator Arlen Specter. As Chairman of the Labor- HHS Appropriations Committee, he has the formidable task of crafting legislation which funds many of the programs under the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee, which I chair. This year's bill, like many in recent memory, has proven challenging for Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Tom Harkin, and they have done their best to deliver a fair bill. There is no doubt; funding is tight. However, we would like to make a plea to appropriators as they put the finishing touches on the Labor- HHS Appropriations bill. This year, 46 Senators signed a letter in support of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Specifically, we asked for $1.4 billion in regular LIHEAP funding, along with $300 million in emergency funding. In addition, we urged $1.5 billion in advance LIHEAP funding for fiscal year 2002. While funding was not as much as we had hoped for in FY2001, our concern centers around the lack of advance FY2002 LIHEAP funding. As you know, the importance of LIHEAP funding has been demonstrated this past year as many states have faced extreme temperatures and high fuel costs. The clear need for timely energy assistance in the form of consistent regular LIHEAP funding has been demonstrated. For planning purposes, the states have come to rely on the knowledge that our advance funding mark provides them. An advance appropriation allows for orderly planning of programs, as well as creating administrative systems for more efficient program management. Advance appropriations for LIHEAP has been an effective tool that allows states to determine eligibility, establish the size of the benefits, determine the parameters of the crisis programs and enable the states to properly budget for staffing needs. In addition, states need an idea of the anticipated program's size in order to effectively meet their obligations under the law. In conclusion, we appreciate the difficult work facing the Appropriations Committee. However, we feel strongly that this advance funding allocation is a critical tool in assisting our states to have the most effective LIHEAP programs possible, and we look forward to working with Chairman Specter to restore this funding in conference. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as Americans, we have two vital tasks in our relations with Colombia. We are obligated to help a neighbor that is struggling to build democracy and civil society, and it is in our best interest to assist them in halting the flow of lethal narcotics from the Andean mountains of Colombia to American communities. These are the two underlying grounds for the Clinton Administration's ``Plan Colombia,'' a request for $1.07 billion in emergency supplemental funds over the next two years to aid Colombia. After a painful decade of violence, the Colombian people have boldly elected an unassailable ally of democracy and reconciliation, President Andres Pastrana, and they are demanding an end to human rights abuses and impunity by both the paramilitaries and the FARC guerillas. At the same time, the lawlessness and violence of southern Colombia have permitted the narcotics dealers to widen their cultivation and consolidate their delivery routes into the U.S. With the remarkable success of U.S. Government anti-narcotics programs in Peru and Bolivia, eighty percent of the heroin consumed in the U.S. is now cultivated in Colombia. We have no choice now but to focus our anti-drug efforts in Colombia. While I realize that we must bring pressure to bear on the drug cartels, my experience with Central America in the 1980s leads me to be very skeptical about the utility of the military response to social and political problems. I therefore have been wary of the Administration's Plan Colombia. My chief concerns with it have been the Colombian military campaign against narcotics cultivation, and the abysmal human rights record of paramilitary groups that have frequently been linked to the military forces. I am also concerned that we not get dragged into a major, long-term counter-insurgency effort which is not our fight. In the end, though, I decided to go along with the Administration's proposal as significantly improved by the Senate Foreign Operations Subcommittee. The Subcommittee downsized the scale of the Colombian military effort, and shifted the funding from Blackhawk to Huey helicopters. Smaller and more agile, the Hueys are more suited to fighting narcotics cultivation, while the Blackhawks are more suited to counter-insurgency combat. The Subcommittee also increased the bill's sizable human rights component, including new programs to bolster the rule of law and fight corruption. The Subcommittee also shares my concern for U.S. Government responsibility for this expensive anti- narcotics effort by increased funding for end-use monitoring. Given the well-documented human rights problems in Colombia, heightened monitoring is an extremely important component of this program. Although we will be funding a military effort, I note that U.S. military personnel are barred from any military operation, and that the Leahy Amendment puts strict safeguards on the activities of any U.S. funded partner, so that the human rights behavior of the Colombian military will now be under a microscope. An integral component of the final legislation is sizable funding to encourage judicial reform, strengthen the rule of law, and improve the quality of life for all Colombians. Without greater social and income equality and greater respect for human rights, all our efforts will fail. The military aid can only provide an opening for those who are trying to build the foundation for civil society. By electing President Pastrana, the Colombian people have indicated their desire for a future free of drugs and violence. We must ensure that U.S. assistance is instrumental in helping them achieve that goal. Let's make no mistake. If this bill becomes law, the U.S. will have made a major commitment to helping Colombia eradicate the narco- business that plagues both it and us. We are pledging to stand beside President Pastrana, an enlightened and popular leader with a broad mandate to pursue this campaign, while he also resolutely holds negotiations with entrenched but highly unpopular insurgents. I think that, for his sake and ours, we must give him the tools and the confidence to see this through.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me take just a brief moment to explain to my colleagues why they should join me in opposing the Robb amendment. I am going to vote against this amendment because this amendment would stall a very important bill, the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill, and send it back to go through the process again. I have been meeting on a bipartisan basis in the Finance Committee, working in good faith, to come to an agreement to provide prescription drugs through Medicare. I am disappointed that my colleagues have decided to throw bipartisanship aside and offer this politically motivated amendment. The fact is, Mr. President, I got this amendment only a few minutes ago, and it has not even been printed in the Congressional Record. I have always been very clear that I support a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries, and I have several well drafted bills that would help seniors with their drug costs now. I have been working on a bipartisan basis to address the issue of coverage for seniors as well as the issue of the inequity of international pricing disparities for prescription drugs. It is very difficult to understand this amendment because it is actually missing several pages, but from what I can tell, this bill has serious problems that need to be addressed. First, this amendment is drafted in such a way that would threaten the solvency of a Medicare program that is already in financial trouble. This proposal contains no reforms that would make the program more efficient, and in fact could cost as much as $300 billion over 10 years--far more than has been set aside in the Budget. The fact is, this amendment has not been considered by any Committee, and has only been considered for 30 minutes on this floor. In short, Mr. President, this is no way to pass landmark legislation that will affect all of our senior citizens. For these and other reasons that I do not have time to list, I will join a bipartisan group of Senators in voting against this ill-advised procedure and against a politically motivated amendment that will keep us from accomplishing a real, bipartisan prescription drug benefit that will help our seniors right now. It is my intent to vote on a real prescription drug benefit that will benefit all seniors, and to complete legislation this year that will address the inequity of international pricing disparities.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join a number of my colleagues in introducing the National and Community Service Amendments Act of 2000. This legislation will reauthorize the National and Community Service Act and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act. The idea of the Federal government becoming a partner in community service originated with President Franklin Roosevelt's creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps. It was continued with President Kennedy's development of the Peace Corps and President Johnson's VISTA initiative. President Nixon contributed to the community service movement by expanding senior volunteer programs. In the 1990s, both a republican president and a democratic president strengthened the community service structure. President Bush established the Points of Light Foundation and President Clinton created the Corporation for National Service. The Corporation for National Service not only incorporated the community service programs previously established, but also created AmeriCorps. Since AmeriCorps began more than six years ago, over 40,000 individual shave become AmeriCorps members, serving local and national organizations. Recently, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, which I chair, held a hearing regarding the reauthorization of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973. One of the witnesses who testified was Emily Zollo, an AmeriCorps member from Cabot, Vermont. Emily serves with the Northeast Kingdom Initiative AmeriCorps Program in Lyndonville, Vermont. Her assignment involves the Cobleigh Public Library in Lyndonville where she works with the ``Books on Wheels'' bookmobile program. Emily drives the bookmobile and as she eloquently stated, ``brings books and stories to seven rural villages and towns that vary in population from 350-5,000 residents.'' Emily Zollo eloquently summed up her AmeriCorps experience by stating: ``Although the best part of my AmeriCorps experience has been meeting with kids at the various stops, learning how they see the world and introducing them to books which help them see a wider world, I have also learned some better ways to work and serve in the community. I feel that service has become a part of me and will be incorporated into my life and career. It's great to feel good about what you do, knowing you are making a difference in your community.'' Other community service programs include Learn and Serve America which provides assistance to over one million students from kindergarten through college who participate in community service activities that are aligned with the students' academic programs. In my home State of Vermont, Learn and Serve is making a difference in a number of elementary and secondary schools, including vocational technical educational centers. Another service program, the National Senior Service Corps, serves nearly half a million Americans, age fifty-five and older, who use their talents as Foster Grandparents, serving as mentors to young people with special needs. In addition, the Senior Companions program helps other seniors live independently. Retired and Senior Volunteer Program members provide an array of services for unmet community needs. The senior programs are very essential to rural communities. In Springfield, Vermont, the Windsor County Retired and Senior Volunteer Program provides services to isolated seniors and persons with disabilities. A key aspect of the National and Community Service Act is the State Commissions. The State Commissions decide which programs are to be funded, recruit volunteers, and evaluate and disseminate information about community and domestic service opportunities. The important role of States was also discussed at the hearing by several witnesses who represented various regions of the country. We heard about the positive impact of organizing service activities in a small rural State from Jane Williams, the executive director of the Vermont Commission on National and Community Service. Under Jane's leadership, the Vermont commission has been instrumental in getting 10,000 Vermonters of all ages and backgrounds involved in 31 community service projects. Governor Marc Racicot of Montana gave an excellent presentation regarding the importance of community service in ``building unique partnerships between public and private agencies by engaging particularly young people in service to their communities.'' Community service is not a democrat, republican, or independent issue--it's an ideal--an ideal that is central to the philosophy of America--neighbor helping neighbor. It is in that spirit that I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the National and Community Service Amendments Act of 2000.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join a number of my colleagues in introducing the National and Community Service Amendments Act of 2000. This legislation will reauthorize the National and Community Service Act and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act. The idea of the Federal government becoming a partner in community service originated with President Franklin Roosevelt's creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps. It was continued with President Kennedy's development of the Peace Corps and President Johnson's VISTA initiative. President Nixon contributed to the community service movement by expanding senior volunteer programs. In the 1990s, both a republican president and a democratic president strengthened the community service structure. President Bush established the Points of Light Foundation and President Clinton created the Corporation for National Service. The Corporation for National Service not only incorporated the community service programs previously established, but also created AmeriCorps. Since AmeriCorps began more than six years ago, over 40,000 individual shave become AmeriCorps members, serving local and national organizations. Recently, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, which I chair, held a hearing regarding the reauthorization of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973. One of the witnesses who testified was Emily Zollo, an AmeriCorps member from Cabot, Vermont. Emily serves with the Northeast Kingdom Initiative AmeriCorps Program in Lyndonville, Vermont. Her assignment involves the Cobleigh Public Library in Lyndonville where she works with the ``Books on Wheels'' bookmobile program. Emily drives the bookmobile and as she eloquently stated, ``brings books and stories to seven rural villages and towns that vary in population from 350-5,000 residents.'' Emily Zollo eloquently summed up her AmeriCorps experience by stating: ``Although the best part of my AmeriCorps experience has been meeting with kids at the various stops, learning how they see the world and introducing them to books which help them see a wider world, I have also learned some better ways to work and serve in the community. I feel that service has become a part of me and will be incorporated into my life and career. It's great to feel good about what you do, knowing you are making a difference in your community.'' Other community service programs include Learn and Serve America which provides assistance to over one million students from kindergarten through college who participate in community service activities that are aligned with the students' academic programs. In my home State of Vermont, Learn and Serve is making a difference in a number of elementary and secondary schools, including vocational technical educational centers. Another service program, the National Senior Service Corps, serves nearly half a million Americans, age fifty-five and older, who use their talents as Foster Grandparents, serving as mentors to young people with special needs. In addition, the Senior Companions program helps other seniors live independently. Retired and Senior Volunteer Program members provide an array of services for unmet community needs. The senior programs are very essential to rural communities. In Springfield, Vermont, the Windsor County Retired and Senior Volunteer Program provides services to isolated seniors and persons with disabilities. A key aspect of the National and Community Service Act is the State Commissions. The State Commissions decide which programs are to be funded, recruit volunteers, and evaluate and disseminate information about community and domestic service opportunities. The important role of States was also discussed at the hearing by several witnesses who represented various regions of the country. We heard about the positive impact of organizing service activities in a small rural State from Jane Williams, the executive director of the Vermont Commission on National and Community Service. Under Jane's leadership, the Vermont commission has been instrumental in getting 10,000 Vermonters of all ages and backgrounds involved in 31 community service projects. Governor Marc Racicot of Montana gave an excellent presentation regarding the importance of community service in ``building unique partnerships between public and private agencies by engaging particularly young people in service to their communities.'' Community service is not a democrat, republican, or independent issue--it's an ideal--an ideal that is central to the philosophy of America--neighbor helping neighbor. It is in that spirit that I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the National and Community Service Amendments Act of 2000.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. I applaud Senators Kennedy and Smith of Oregon, and others for providing us an amendment on the Department of Defense authorization bill which will be of great assistance in the prosecution of hate crimes. This legislation will provide the Federal Government a needed tool to combat the destructive impact of hate crimes on our society. The amendment also recognizes that hate crimes are not just limited to crimes committed because of race, color, religion, or national origin, but are also directed at individuals because of their gender, sexual orientation, or disability. Any crime hurts our society, but crimes motivated by hate are especially harmful. Hate crimes not only target individuals but are also directed to send a message to the community as a whole. The adoption of this amendment would help our State and local authorities in pursuing and prosecuting the perpetrators of hate crimes. Many States, including the State of Vermont, have already passed strong hate crimes laws. I applaud them for their endeavor. An important principle of this amendment is that it allows for Federal prosecution of hate crimes without impeding the rights of States to prosecute these crimes. Under this amendment, Federal prosecutions would still be subject to the current provision of law that requires the Attorney General or another senior official of the Justice Department to certify that a Federal prosecution is necessary to secure substantial justice. Such a requirement under current law has ensured that the States are the primary adjudicators of the perpetrators of hate crimes, not the Federal Government. Additionally, Federal authorities will consult with the State and local law enforcement officials before initiating an investigation or prosecution. Both of these are important provisions to ensure that we are not infringing on the rights of States to prosecute these crimes. Senate adoption of this amendment will be an important step forward in ensuring that the perpetrators of these harmful crimes are brought to justice. I urge my colleagues to take a strong stand against hate crimes by supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes. I have yielded the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my good friend Senator Frist to announce the introduction of the Patient Safety and Errors Reduction Act, a bill which will work toward increasing patient safety for all Americans. Late last year, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report citing medical errors as the eighth leading cause of death in the United States, with as many as 98,000 people dying as a result each year. More people die of medical mistakes than from motor vehicle accidents, AIDS, or breast cancer. The IOM report took a serious look at the problem of medical errors and provided some thoughtful recommendations for change. Last year I worked closely with Senator Frist to ensure that Congress pass Senate Bill 580, the Healthcare Research and Quality Act of 1999. This newly passed legislation reauthorized by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, renamed it the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and refocused its mission to support healthcare research on safety and quality improvement. I am pleased that AHRQ has decided to dedicate more than $20 million for research on medical error reduction. This shows a real commitment by Dr. John Eisenberg and his agency to address the problem of medical errors. Our bill will attack this problem in several ways. First, it will provide a framework of support for the numerous efforts that are already underway in the public and the private sectors. Second, it will establish a Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. And finally, it will provide needed confidentiality protections for medical error reporting systems. I believe we can save thousands of lives by substantially reducing medical mistakes over the next few years. We have a great opportunity to apply the safety lessons that we have already learned--both within health care and in other fields. How can we prevent these mistakes? One lesson we have learned that was repeated time and again in our hearings is that mandatory reporting of all errors and subsequent punishment of healthcare professionals doesn't work very well. Even good doctors and nurses make mistakes during the most routine of tasks. Clearly, the root cause of medical errors is more systemic. Medicine has some of the most advanced technology for treating patients and some of the most rudimentary systems for ensuring quality. Taking a look at the systems that ensure patient safety will go farther in addressing the problem of medical errors rather than reprimanding any one individual or group. Over the past few decades we have seen one industry after another adopt the principles of continuous quality improvement. The government itself has instituted these principles, notably in its regulation of aviation. Focusing on punishment will only deter improvement. Having said that, we are not interested in sweeping problems under the rug, but bringing them out into the open. And if an individual is harmed, this bill in no way limits the legal recourse that patients have now. The confidentiality protections are just for information that is submitted under quality improvement and medical error reporting systems. Patients and their lawyers will still have access to the entire medical record just like they do now. Our bill also creates a new center for patient safety through AHRQ as the IOM report recommended. This Center will collect information on medical errors and serve as a center to develop strategies to reduce them. It is likely that additional funding beyond the $20 million recommended by the President will be needed for AHRQ's new role overseeing this center for patient safety. We also need to allow for confidentiality--through peer review protections--for information that is voluntarily submitted regarding medical errors. This legislation provides for these protections. Once the information is collected and analyzed, either through AHRQ or another deemed institution, such as the Vermont Program for Quality in Health Care, recommendations on ways to prevent errors need to be developed and disseminated throughout the health care industry. It is my hope that these recommendations will continue to be incorporated into survey instruments by organizations such as the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, the accrediting body responsible for hospitals and other inpatient healthcare settings. In this way, the health care industry can engage in the kind of continuous quality improvement that is vital to curbing errors and saving lives. But a medical errors program will only succeed if hospitals, doctors and other health professionals support it and participate in it willingly. Neither the IOM nor Congress discovered this problem. Health care professionals have been at work for some time in trying to address medical errors. I hope that by becoming a partner in this process, the federal government can accelerate the pace of reform and provide the most effective structure possible. I am pleased that our legislation has the support of many, including the United States Pharmacopeia, the American Hospital Association, the American Health Quality Association, the American College of Physicians/American Society of Internal Medicine, the American Psychological Association, and the Institute for Safe Medication Practices. Mr. President, we cannot afford to wait on this issue. This legislation will raise the quality of health care delivered by decreasing medical errors and increasing patient safety and I will work to ensure its enactment this year.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary Vermonter, John James Daley, who passed away last night at the age of 76. Mr. Daley leaves behind a devoted wife, a loving family and a grieving community which will miss his leadership and example. Jack, as he was known, was born in my hometown of Rutland, Vermont on June 21, 1923 to John M. and Bridget C. Daley. He attended Norwich University and proudly served as a member of the United States Marine Corps in the Phillippines and other parts of Asia. He found his niche as a public servant in 1956 when he was elected to the Rutland Board of Aldermen. From there he served as mayor for two years from 1961 to 1965, becoming the youngest man ever to have held the position. In November of 1965 Jack was elected Lieutenant Governor of Vermont and served two terms with Governor Phil Hoff. Jack continued his career as a role model and advisor when he joined the Rutland Public School system as a teacher for many years. Through his lectures and by acting as a role model, he enriched the minds of our Vermont youth as he taught history, citizenship and American government. In 1981 Jack returned to the office of mayor and from there continued his legacy as he was reelected in 1983 and 1985. He continued to represent the interests of his hometown as he sought and served two terms in the Vermont House representing Rutland District 6-2. Jack was a devoted family man. More than fifty years ago he married another Rutland native, Mary Margaret Creed. Together they became the proud parents of eleven children, nine girls and two boys. Mary's everlasting energy allowed her not only to raise their own eleven children but tirelessly work as a nurse in the nursery at the Rutland Hospital helping to care for the children of others. Ceaseless in her dedication, she continues to help out when needed despite her retirement. Today, I pay tribute to the accomplishments of this public servant, father, husband and my friend, John James Daley. Today, Rutland and the entire state of Vermont grieve for a great man. Farewell, Jack. You will be truly missed.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my good friend Senator Frist to announce the introduction of the Patient Safety and Errors Reduction Act, a bill which will work toward increasing patient safety for all Americans. Late last year, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report citing medical errors as the eighth leading cause of death in the United States, with as many as 98,000 people dying as a result each year. More people die of medical mistakes than from motor vehicle accidents, AIDS, or breast cancer. The IOM report took a serious look at the problem of medical errors and provided some thoughtful recommendations for change. Last year I worked closely with Senator Frist to ensure that Congress pass Senate Bill 580, the Healthcare Research and Quality Act of 1999. This newly passed legislation reauthorized by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, renamed it the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and refocused its mission to support healthcare research on safety and quality improvement. I am pleased that AHRQ has decided to dedicate more than $20 million for research on medical error reduction. This shows a real commitment by Dr. John Eisenberg and his agency to address the problem of medical errors. Our bill will attack this problem in several ways. First, it will provide a framework of support for the numerous efforts that are already underway in the public and the private sectors. Second, it will establish a Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. And finally, it will provide needed confidentiality protections for medical error reporting systems. I believe we can save thousands of lives by substantially reducing medical mistakes over the next few years. We have a great opportunity to apply the safety lessons that we have already learned--both within health care and in other fields. How can we prevent these mistakes? One lesson we have learned that was repeated time and again in our hearings is that mandatory reporting of all errors and subsequent punishment of healthcare professionals doesn't work very well. Even good doctors and nurses make mistakes during the most routine of tasks. Clearly, the root cause of medical errors is more systemic. Medicine has some of the most advanced technology for treating patients and some of the most rudimentary systems for ensuring quality. Taking a look at the systems that ensure patient safety will go farther in addressing the problem of medical errors rather than reprimanding any one individual or group. Over the past few decades we have seen one industry after another adopt the principles of continuous quality improvement. The government itself has instituted these principles, notably in its regulation of aviation. Focusing on punishment will only deter improvement. Having said that, we are not interested in sweeping problems under the rug, but bringing them out into the open. And if an individual is harmed, this bill in no way limits the legal recourse that patients have now. The confidentiality protections are just for information that is submitted under quality improvement and medical error reporting systems. Patients and their lawyers will still have access to the entire medical record just like they do now. Our bill also creates a new center for patient safety through AHRQ as the IOM report recommended. This Center will collect information on medical errors and serve as a center to develop strategies to reduce them. It is likely that additional funding beyond the $20 million recommended by the President will be needed for AHRQ's new role overseeing this center for patient safety. We also need to allow for confidentiality--through peer review protections--for information that is voluntarily submitted regarding medical errors. This legislation provides for these protections. Once the information is collected and analyzed, either through AHRQ or another deemed institution, such as the Vermont Program for Quality in Health Care, recommendations on ways to prevent errors need to be developed and disseminated throughout the health care industry. It is my hope that these recommendations will continue to be incorporated into survey instruments by organizations such as the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, the accrediting body responsible for hospitals and other inpatient healthcare settings. In this way, the health care industry can engage in the kind of continuous quality improvement that is vital to curbing errors and saving lives. But a medical errors program will only succeed if hospitals, doctors and other health professionals support it and participate in it willingly. Neither the IOM nor Congress discovered this problem. Health care professionals have been at work for some time in trying to address medical errors. I hope that by becoming a partner in this process, the federal government can accelerate the pace of reform and provide the most effective structure possible. I am pleased that our legislation has the support of many, including the United States Pharmacopeia, the American Hospital Association, the American Health Quality Association, the American College of Physicians/American Society of Internal Medicine, the American Psychological Association, and the Institute for Safe Medication Practices. Mr. President, we cannot afford to wait on this issue. This legislation will raise the quality of health care delivered by decreasing medical errors and increasing patient safety and I will work to ensure its enactment this year.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak of a pressing problem that affects not only the streams and rivers of Vermont, but the land and people who live and work along their winding routes. Vermont is home to over 2,000 dams of all sizes that clog Vermont's 5,000 river miles. Many of these dams were built in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when industries were located along rivers to utilize dams for running machinery, dispose of waste, and transport raw materials and goods. Currently, most of these dams no longer serve any commercial purpose and sit in disrepair, posing a significant safety threat and fundamentally altering the surrounding environment. There are 150 dams in Vermont listed as either ``high'' or ``significant'' hazard, meaning that the failure of one of these dams presents a real threat to human life, property, and the environment. Last week, a Vermont newspaper highlighted the extreme danger if one of these dams were to fail by describing the 80 feet high wall water that would crash down the river valley if the Waterbury dam were to fail. Such a structural failure would mean that 22 square miles would be flooded, and a 15 foot high wall of water would hit the city of Burlington. A disaster of this scope would be caused by the breakage of only a few dams across the state, but serious and extensive damage could also be caused by many smaller, similarly weak dams. Not only could damage occur due to failure, but many of the dams pose a significant threat to people using rivers for recreational purposes. The dams contain broken concrete, protruding metal, rotted timber cribbing and other hazards that threaten fisherman, boaters and swimmers with a serious threat of injury or death. Not only are people and property at risk, but significant harm is being inflicted on the environment. Dams alter the basic characteristics of the rivers in which they are constructed and directly affect the features that comprise a riverine habitat. Non- functioning dams unnecessarily block wildlife, including fish that are attempting to migrate to spawn. The Vermont Dam Remediation and Restoration Program allows the Army Corps of Engineers to enter into partnership with State, municipal, and private dam owners to assess and modify dams. The expertise and resources of the Corps would provide the much needed assistance to dam owners who would otherwise be unable to properly assess and modify dangerous, structurally unsound or environmentally harmful dams. I urge my colleagues to join me in addressing this critical problem and quickly pass this much needed authorizing legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to the 99 Vermont Farms that have been recognized by the Northeast Dairy Farms Beautification Program and received the Dairy of Distinctions Award. The Dairy of Distinction Awards are given in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Vermont. The award was originally designed to help boost confidence in the quality of the milk, therefore increasing the milk sales. This is the fifth year that the honor has been bestowed on Vermont. The criteria each farm must meet in order to receive this award are extremely stringent. According to the Vermont Department of Agriculture, Food, and Markets, the farms must include: clean and attractively finished buildings; neat landscaping, ditches, roads, and lanes; and well-maintained fences. Also taken into account are the conditions of other aspects of the farm operations such as cleanliness of animals, the barnyard, feed areas and manure management. This is a great feat considering that the average farm in Vermont is 217 acres. Vermont is fortunate to have so many citizens who hold such pride in the presentation of their farms. I offer my congratulations to all of the farms that received the Dairy of Distinction Award, and may they be a shining example to all of the farms in Vermont. The winners are: Addison County Ernest, Earl, and Eugene Audet, Earl, Alan, and Edward Bessette, Herman and Gretta Buzeman, Paul Bolduc, Eric Clifford, Jeffery and Mary Demars, John and Rusty Forgues, Gerardies Gosliga, Dean Jackson, Peter James, Gerrit and Hank Nop, Thomas Pyle, Richard and Jodie Roorda, Tom and Shaina Roorda, Gerald and Judy Sabourin, Raymond Van Der Way, Loren and Gail Wood. Calendonia County William and Edith Butler, Paul and Rosemary Gingue, David and Mary Rainey, Bruce and Catherine Roy, Bebo and Lori Webster, Mary Kay and Dennis Wood. Chittenden County June, Charles, and Mark Bean; David and Kate Cadreact; David and Kim Conant; Claude and Gail Lapierre; Donald Maynard; Larry and Julie Reynolds. Essex County Hans and Erika Baumann; James Fay; K. Dean and Claudette Hook; William F. and Ursula S. Johnson; Louis and Nancy Lamoureux; Bernard Routhier; Stephen and Carla Russo. Franklin County Kristen Ballard; Robert A. Beaulieu; Scott Bessette; Germain Bourdeau; Robert E. Brooks; Richard and Andrew Brouillette; Ricky Doe and Alan Chagnon; Fournier Family; Wayne and Nancy Fiske; Gary and Olive Gilmond; Patrick Hayes; Paul and Karen Langelier; Robert, David and Sandra Manning; Ronald Marshall; Jacques and Mariel Parent; Philip and Suzanne Parent; Robert and Linda Parent; John Carman and Everett Shonyo; Paul and Linda Stanley; Garry and Eileen Trudell; David Williams. Grand Isle County Joyce B. Ladd; Louis E. Sr. and Anna S. Martell; Andrew and Ellen Paradee; Roger and Clair Rainville. Lamoille County Frederich B. Boyden; Russell Lanphear. Orange County Katherine Burgess; Karen Galayda and Tom Gilbert; Herbert and Beverly Hodge; Alan Howe; Robert and Anne Howe; Linwood Jr. and Gordon Huntington; Paul and Martha Knox; Larry and Sue Martin; Ron Saldi; David P. and Louise B. Silloway; Scott and Fred Smith Steve; Lynn and Alice Wakefield. Orleans County Robert and Michelle Columbia; Paul and Nancy Daniels; Bryan and Susan Davis; Andrew and Kathy DuLaBruere; Robert Judd; Roger and Deborah Meunier; Richard and Helen Morin. Rutland County Martha Hayward; Neal and Julanne Sharrow; Holly Young. Washington County David and Susan Childs; Austin C. Cleaves; Everett and Kendall Maynard; Stuart and Margaret Osha; Douglas H. and Sharon A. Turner. Windham County R. Edward Hamilton; Steve and Terry Morse; Alan Smith; Leon and Linda and Roy and Vanessa; Robert Wheeler. Windsor County Robert and Elizabeth Kennett Robert A.; and Gail J. Ketchum; James Lewis; Amy M. Richardson.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the McCain amendment on Section 527 organizations. I would first like to thank Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain for their work in focusing the attention of the nation on the problems Section 527 organizations are creating in our campaign finance system. Most people don't know what a Section 527 organization is, and that is understandable, it is a highly complex issue. But what many people do understand is that our campaign finance system is broken and that we must do something to fix it. A recent report by Common Cause reinforces the point that there are serious loopholes in our campaign finance system. We must close the loophole allowing so-called ``Stealth PAC's'' organized under Section 527 of the tax code, to hide their donors, activities, even their very existence from public view. Many years ago, James Madison said, ``A popular government without popular information is but a prologue to a tragedy or a farce or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.'' In clearer terms, Francis Bacon conveys the same principle in the saying, ``Knowledge is Power.'' Mr. President, the passage of this amendment would help arm the people with the knowledge they need in order to exercise their civic duty and sustain our popular government. I have also long believed in Justice Brandeis' statement that, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' People deserve to know before they step into the voting booth which individuals or organizations are sponsoring the advertisements, mailings, and phone banks they may see or hear from during an election. We need to shine some sunlight on these secretive Section 527 organizations so that people will know who or what is trying to influence their vote. I have watched with growing dismay the increase in the number of troubling examples of problems in our current campaign finance system. These problems have led to a perception by the public that a disconnect exists between themselves and the people that they have elected. I believe that this perception is a pivotal factor behind the disturbingly low voter turnouts that have plagued national elections in recent years. It is time to restore the public's confidence in our political system. It is time to increase disclosure requirements and ban soft money. It is time to work together to pass meaningful campaign finance reform. I urge my colleagues to support the McCain amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have been in Congress now for 25 years. During that period of time, I have sat on dozens of conference committees. I am, as most people know, somewhat towards the middle of the political spectrum. Thus, I am trying to make sure we don't do something which I think would be so counterproductive to the progress we want to make in the health care area if we pass this amendment. We have made substantial progress in this conference committee. We are near agreement on all of the critical issues: Access, liability, and scope. It has not been an easy process. Under the guidance of Bill Frist and others, we have established for the first time a principle that every American is entitled to the best medicine. That is a new standard. It is a high standard. It is guaranteed when it is most needed through the process we have set up while the patient is ill. It is not as Norwood-Dingell would provide, and that is the best lawsuit after the patient is dead or suffering from ineffective care. Ironically, that standard which they would use for that is a lower standard than certainly best medicine but one which is generally practiced in the area. Those who are looking at it from a legal perspective should recognize that a higher standard is going to be more protective than the standard that is being advocated by the other side. Yet we reasonably establish in the present draft reasonable availability of liability through the courts, including even, under certain circumstances, punitive damages when appropriate. That is a step we have somewhat reluctantly taken, but we have done it in a way that I don't think in any way interferes with what we want to do in the bill. Finally, which is very important before I go into some other aspects, the cost of the bill that we had will be very small relative to that which is proposed by the opponent. It would be probably less than 1 percent. For every 1 percent that we increase the cost over $300,000-- this came from the AFL-CIO--people lose their health insurance. We are looking at alternatives that go up as high as 6 percent on the other side, meaning almost 2 million people would lose their health care. I will strongly support Senator Nickles' motion to table the amendment offered by Senator Daschle. Under the able leadership of our chairman, Senator Nickles, I am committed to working with the other conferees from the Senate and the House of Representatives to find agreement on responsible legislation to regulate managed care plans. But any new protections cannot significantly increase the cost of health coverage and cause more Americans to become uninsured. The House-passed legislation, which Senator Kennedy is attempting to add to the Department of Defense reauthorization bill, mandates that the Health Care Financing Administration enforce the new insurance standards in those States that decide not to adopt the Federal laws. To date, 23 States have refused to enact one or more of the provisions contained in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and its amendments. For almost half the country, HCFA is the agency that consumers must turn to for help in enforcing these new Federal insurance mandates. The House-passed bill would continue this pattern and accelerate the creation of a dual system of overlapping State and Federal health insurance regulation that will only cause confusion for consumers and inefficiency for plans. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) agrees with me on this important point. In NCSL's action policy on managed care, they state: [T]he Senate-passed version of the ``Patients' Bill of Rights'' generally preserves the traditional role of States as insurance regulators, and focuses most of its attention on the federally regulated, self-funded ERISA plans. In sharp contrast to their support for the Senate bill's applicability, they believe the Norwood/Dingell bill: ``[W]ill largely preempt these important State laws and replace them with Federal laws that we submit the Federal Government is ill prepared to monitor and enforce.'' The National Conference of State Legislators goes on to say: ``[T]he Federal Government will not be able to deliver on the promise and may very well prevent States from delivering on theirs regarding patient rights.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the full text of the National Conference of State Legislatures policy statement be printed in the Record.