Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, my home town of Shrewsbury, Vermont, can be a good way farther from Plymouth than it looks, at first glance, on a map. Though the towns' borders touch, Plymouth is on the east side of the Green Mountains in Windsor Country, Shrewsbury's in Rutland County high on the mountains' west side. In the winter the drive is about 25 miles, though it shortens to seven in the summer, when the old CCC Road is open. But the two old Vermont mountain towns are, in reality, close in spirit, due in considerable part to the ``Coolidge connection''. I thought about this last week on receiving the sad news of the death of John Coolidge, at 93, the son of President Calvin Coolidge. I had seldom been to The Notch without seeing John, and his greeting was always warm and I usually heard another fascinating story about his father, Calvin, or his mother, Grace. Though father and son shared reputations for being men of few words as Calvin's autobiography shows, he was capable of true eloquence, as was John. Read his introduction to the book ``Your Son Calvin Coolidge'', if you doubt it. But as I was saying, the Coolidges helped make Plymouth and Shrewsbury close. Calvin's sister Abbie taught school in Northam, before her early death. Aurora Pierce, the long-time housekeeper at the Coolidge homestead was a product of Shrewsbury. Her cousin Marjorie Pierce, of Shrewsbury, recalls that John Coolidge often stopped by on his annual summer visit to Aurora's grave in the Northam Cemetery. Aurora lived at the homestead long after Calvin Coolidge's death and jealously guarded its historic contents. We owe much to her for preserving, virtually intact, the contents of the house. She was, in her own unique way, a preservationist. So, too, was John. John once told me that his grandfather, Col. John Coolidge said that to keep the Notch looking as it was would be the best memorial to President Coolidge. The Notch today remains virtually as it was when Calvin Coolidge was president. John Coolidge, working closely with the State of Vermont and through the wonderful Calvin Coolidge Memorial Foundation, which he and his wife Florence, were instrumental in founding, saw to that. It is comforting to know that a Vermonter like myself can always drop in on The Notch and see the Vermont of olden times, of open fields, farm homes, barns in good repair, all living on, and to know what a remarkable event in our nation's history happened in that remote setting-the 1923 homestead inaugural. I was happy three years ago to be able to deliver a federal appropriation to the Coolidge Foundation and I know it is being well used, continuing the legacy of Calvin Coolidge, a legacy so well carried on by his son. John Coolidge left many legacies. He nobly and eloquently bore the mantle of first son, which came so suddenly upon him with his father's early death. He had a successful career in business, including the restarting of the Cheese Factory at the Notch. Time and again through countless interviews he showed the world what a true Vermonter was all about. And he made sure that the world ``let Plymouth be'' as it was in his father's time. John Coolidge had always lived in Plymouth from spring until after the autumn leaves were gone. Then, two years ago, he came home to Plymouth Notch to live full time. One paper said he'd come home to die, but he really came home to live. He was proud that he spent his first two winters at The Notch and was added to the Plymouth checklist. Now he will rest at the Notch Cemetery, besides his father and mother, his wife, his brother Calvin Jr., who died during the Coolidge presidency, and long generations of Coolidges. He will rest in a green and peaceful setting, in a valley he did so much to preserve. Vermont needs to forge on preserving its wondrous landscape, for it is too precious and rare to lose. John Coolidge knew that well and his beloved Notch will long serve as an example for coming generations of Vermonters, indeed, for all Americans.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Vermont has passed many of the consumer protections contained in the two bills. However, it has not enacted all. As Vermont's employers struggle with 20-percent to 30-percent premium increases, and the State adjusts to the departure of a major carrier, the Governor and the State legislature have agreed to a moratorium on the passage of additional consumer protections. Under the House approach, the Vermont legislature's decision would be overridden, and they would be forced to pass additional congressional insurance mandates. We in Congress cannot be working at cross-purposes with respect to our States, which are best positioned to understand the needs of the local health care markets. This is not an issue of States' rights--it is an issue of who is best situated to determine what's right for our States. On Sunday, House and Senate Republican staffers offered new proposals on managed care legislation in the key areas of liability, scope, and access. The offer would provide for a new Federal cause of action in ERISA to allow for lawsuits for failure to comply with the decision of the independent medical reviewer. On the issue of scope, the Republican conferees offer the new protections would be extended to ``all 193 million Americans covered by health insurance.'' We believe that this should be achieved through a combination of Federal and qualified State protections that takes into account a consideration of market composition and fee for services issues. We have yet to hear back from the Democrats on our offer. I don't underestimate the difficulty of our task--especially in the three critical areas of the external appeals process, the appropriate remedies when the external appeals process fails, and the scope of the legislation. Fortunately, we can, I believe, provide the key protections that consumers want at a minimal cost and without disruption of coverage--if we apply these protections responsibly and where they are needed-- without adding significant new costs, increasing litigation, and micro- managing health plans. Our goal is to give Americans the protections they want and need in a package that they can afford and that we can enact. This is why I hope we will be successful in our efforts to develop a conference committee report that provides a true Patients' Bill of Rights, which can be passed and signed into law by the President.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure today that the Senate is considering the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources and Emergency Act Amendments of 2000, a measure that will reauthorize a national program providing primary health care services to people living with HIV and AIDS. I especially want to commend Senators Hatch and Kennedy for the leadership they have provided since the inauguration of the legislation establishing the Ryan White programs over a decade ago. I also want to commend Senator Frist whose medical expertise played a critical role in key provisions of the bill and continues to be an invaluable resource to our efforts on the range of health issues that come before the Senate. I want to recognize Senator Dodd for his unwavering support for this legislation and people living with HIV and AIDS. Finally, I want to acknowledge Senator Enzi's recognition of the growing burden that AIDS and HIV have placed on rural communities throughout the country and the need to address those gaps in services. Since its inception in 1990, the Ryan White program has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. During the last reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act in 1996, the measure garnered a vote of 97 to 3 on its final passage. As evidence that strong bipartisan support continues, I am happy to report that last month this reauthorization bill was passed unanimously out of committee. The bipartisan support for this important legislation underlines the critical need for the assistance this Act provides across the nation. With this reauthorization, we mark the ten years through which the Ryan White CARE Act has provided needed health care and support services to HIV positive people around the country. Titles I and II have provided much needed relief to cities and states hardest hit by this disease, while Titles III and IV have had a direct role in providing healthcare services to underserved communities. Ryan White program dollars provide the foundation of care so necessary in fighting this epidemic and have allowed States and communities around the country to successfully address the needs of people affected by HIV disease. In a recently released report, the General Accounting Office found that CARE Act funds are reaching the infected groups that have typically been underserved, including the poor, the uninsured, women, and ethnic minorities. In fact, these groups form a majority of CARE Act clients and are being served by the CARE Act in higher proportions than their representation in the AIDS population. The GAO also found that CARE Act funds support a wide array of primary care and support services, including the provision of powerful therapeutic regimens for people with HIV/AIDS that have dramatically reduced AIDS diagnoses and deaths. Much has occurred to change the course of the AIDS epidemic since the last reauthorization. During the last reauthorization, Congressman Coburn and our colleague, Senator Frist, focused our attention on the needs of women living with HIV/AIDS and the problems associated with perinatal transmission of HIV. Since then, the CARE Act has helped to dramatically reduce mother-to-child transmission through more effective outreach, counseling, and voluntary testing of mothers at risk for HIV infection. Between 1993 and 1998, perinatal-acquired AIDS cases declined 74% in the U.S. In this bill, I have continued to support efforts to reach women in need of care for their HIV disease and have included provisions to ensure that women, infants and children receive resources in accordance with the prevalence of the infection among them. Another key success has been the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. This program has provided people with HIV and AIDS access to newly developed, highly effective therapeutics. Because of these drugs, people are maintaining their health and living longer. The AIDS death rate and the number of new AIDS cases have been dramatically reduced. From 1996 to 1998, deaths from AIDS dropped 54% while new AIDS cases have been reduced by 27%. However, these treatments are very expensive, do not provide a cure, and do not work for everyone. AIDS, HIV, the people it infects and families that it has affected are not in the news today as often as they have been in the past. But for too many of us, this lack of bad news has created a false sense of complacency. While the rate of decline in new AIDS cases and deaths is leveling off, HIV infection rates continue to rise in many areas; becoming increasingly prevalent in rural and underserved urban areas; and also among women, youth, and minority communities. Local and state healthcare systems face an increasing burden of disease, despite our success in treating and caring for people living with HIV and AIDS. Unfortunately, rural and underserved urban areas are often unable to address the complex medical and support services needs of people with HIV infection. Thus, Ryan White programs remain as vital to the public health of this nation as it was in 1990 and in 1996. As the AIDS epidemic reaches into rural areas and into underserved urban communities across the country, this legislation will allow us to adapt our care systems to meet the most urgent needs in the communities hardest hit by the epidemic. The bill being considered today was developed on a bipartisan basis, working with other Committee Members, community stakeholders and elected officials at the state and local levels from whom we sought input to ensure that we addressed the most important problems facing communities of people with HIV infection. I held a hearing in March before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions to learn whether the program has been successful and whether it needed to be changed. We received testimony from Ryan White's mother, Jeanne White, from Surgeon General David Satcher, from a person living with AIDS, as well as state and local officials familiar with the importance of this program. I especially want to commend Dr. Chris Grace of Vermont who testified as to the particular challenges of providing care to people living with HIV/AIDS in rural, and sometimes remote, parts of the country. It was clear from our witnesses' statements that, despite the successes, challenges remain. To address these challenges, we have developed a bill that will improve access to care in underserved urban and rural areas. My bill will double the minimum base funding available to states through the CARE Act to assist them in developing systems of care for people struggling with HIV and AIDS. The bill also includes a new supplemental state grant to target assistance to small and mid-sized metropolitan areas to help them address the increasing number of people with HIV/ AIDS living outside of urban areas that receive assistance under Title I of the Act. Rural and underserved areas receive a preference for planning, early intervention, and capacity development grants under title III. In order to assist states in expanding access to appropriate HIV/AIDS therapeutics to low-income people with HIV/AIDS, a supplemental grant has been added to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. The bill remains primarily a system of grants to State and local jurisdictions, thereby ensuring that grantees can respond to local needs. States, EMAs, and the affected communities will still decide how to best prioritize and address the healthcare needs of their HIV- positive citizens. This bill reinforces the ability of States and EMAs to identify and meet local needs. Finally, in recognition of the changing nature of the epidemic, I have asked the Institute of Medicine to complete a study of the financing and delivery of primary care and support services for low income, uninsured, and under-insured individuals with HIV disease, within 21 months after the enactment of this Act. Changes in HIV surveillance and case reporting, and the effects of these changes on program funding, will be included in this study. The recommendations from this study will help Congress and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure the most effective and efficient use of Federal funds for HIV and AIDS care and support. I intend to see this bill become law this year so that the people struggling to overcome the challenges of HIV and AIDS continue to benefit from high quality medical care and access to lifesaving drugs. We have made incredible progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS and I want to be sure that every person in America in need of assistance benefits from our tremendous advances. Many groups and individuals have contributed significantly to crafting this bill, but I want to acknowledge those at the Health Resources and Services Administration, especially Dr. Joseph O'Neill, Associate Administrator of the HIV/AIDS bureau; John Palenicek, Director of the Office of Policy and Program Development; Doug Morgan, Director of the Division of Service Systems; and Howard Lerner, Principal Adviser for Telehealth and International Collaboration, HIV/ AIDS. All of the groups united under the umbrella of the National Organizations Responding to AIDS (NORA) deserve recognition. Representing a diverse community of people with AIDS, CARE Act service providers, and administrative agencies, NORA clearly and effectively communicated to Congress the needs and priorities of their constituents. I also want to thank several staff members who have worked long and hard to craft this bill and to address the concerns and needs of the affected communities. Sean Donohue and William Oscar Fleming have guided this effort from the beginning, building consensus across the many policy issues, resulting in a bill that meets the pressing needs of people with HIV and AIDS and enjoys broad bipartisan support. Stephanie Robinson and Idalia Sanchez, for Senator Kennedy, were key to reaching agreement on this bill and have provided invaluable assistance and support throughout the development of this legislation. I would also like to recognize Dave Larson and Mary Sumpter Johnson, of Senator Frist's office, for their support for the needs of rural and underserved communities throughout the nation. Similarly, Jeannie Ireland with Senator Dodd's office, Helen Rhee, working for Senator DeWine, Libby Rolfe, for Mr. Sessions, and Raissa Geary and Mary Jordan in Senator Enzi's office, provided valuable input. Without the efforts of these staff members, we would not have such a strong, well-balanced, and targeted reauthorization bill before us today.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is a great honor for me to represent the people of the state of Vermont. On this occasion, I rise to pay tribute to two health care institutions in Vermont that add so much to their communities and make ``the Green Mountain State'' such a wonderful place to live. This year Porter Hospital is celebrating its 75th anniversary and Helen Porter Nursing Home is celebrating its 30th anniversary of providing quality health care to the people of Addison County, Vermont. Together these two institutions have played a vital role in delivering a continuum of care to thousands of people. They have demonstrated their commitment to serving as catalysts in the development of health services for the people of this region. Porter Hospital has been caring for its community since 1925 and is a full service, community hospital, providing emergency services and comprehensive medical care. Helen Porter Nursing Home provides skilled and intermediate care to residents in a home-like environment where privacy is honored and individuality respected. The devoted and professional staff of both institutions provide the full range of health care from outpatient services and rehabilitation, to long-term care and Wellness programs. Additionally, Porter Hospital and Helen Porter Nursing Home have contributed significantly to the economic vitality of the region as major employers and active members of the Addison County business community. In a rural state such as Vermont, we count our successes one community at a time. We hold our institutions dear and we thank the men and women who devote their lives to improving the health status of our state. Porter Hospital and Helen Porter Nursing Home have displayed a steadfast commitment to improving the quality of life for the people of Addison County. The citizens of Vermont are tremendously grateful for that commitment, and I join them in sharing gratitude. Thank you.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett, for his excellent work on the FY 2001 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill and the attention he and his staff have paid to my concerns. I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with Senator Bennett on one of my priorities, the issue of extending health and retirement benefits to employees of the Library of Congress' child care center. As the Senator knows, providing quality and affordable child care is a very important issue to me. I was, therefore, shocked to learn that child care workers in the Legislative Branch are not all afforded the same benefits. While employees of both the Senate and the House child care centers receive Federal health and retirement benefits, employees of the Library of Congress' child care center, the Little Scholars Child Development Center, do not. I ask Senator Bennett if he agrees that employees of all Legislative Branch child care centers should be provided benefits in a consistent manner?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank Senator Bennett for his attention to this important matter and am pleased that he shares my belief that the Legislative Branch should set an example of high child care standards for the rest of the Federal government to follow.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will help small health and educational institutions more effectively finance the cost of essential services and new facility construction. By modifying the laws that restrict the deductibility of ``bank eligible'' bonds, the bill I am introducing today will increase access to tax-exempt financing for small non-profit organizations that need it most, like small local hospitals and small institutions of higher education. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 unintentionally discriminated against small educational, health care and other non-profit institutions that want to sell small amounts of tax-exempt debt to community banks. Before 1986, banks and financial institutions could deduct the interest incurred to carry a tax-exempt bond. This benefit enabled banks to purchase tax-exempt bonds at attractive rates. The 1986 tax act repealed bank deductibility, although an exception was retained for small issuers that issue bonds of $10 million or less each year. This exception was designed to preserve bank deductibility for small beneficiaries, but in practice is of assistance only to private placements issued by small local issuers. The small issuer exception has proven to be of little value in many States, like Vermont, where statewide health care and higher education bond issuing authorities typically issue many millions of dollars of debt each year. My bill will modify the small issuer exemption by granting the bond issuers the right to apply the small issuer exemption at the level of the ultimate beneficiary of the funding. Consequently, a small college or health care facility borrowing less than $10 million in tax-exempt debt in any one year could elect tax-exempt status for the debt, even if it is issued by a statewide issuing authority. This would make the debt more attractive to local banks, and could result in significant savings for the beneficiary institution over the life of the bond. My bill focuses the benefit of the small issuer exemption on smaller non-profits, without regard to whether the bond issuer is government entity issuing more than $10 in bonds per year. Small non-profits are important community institutions; they stand to benefit from greater access to tax-exempt debt. Wall Street and large banks may have little interest in small amounts of debt from small institutions, which can prove costly to administer. The bank across the street from a local college or health care clinic, however, may have greater confidence and insight in the institution. My bill would allow those banks to carry tax-exempt debt at attractive rates and maintain commitments to the people and institutions in their local communities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will help small health and educational institutions more effectively finance the cost of essential services and new facility construction. By modifying the laws that restrict the deductibility of ``bank eligible'' bonds, the bill I am introducing today will increase access to tax-exempt financing for small non-profit organizations that need it most, like small local hospitals and small institutions of higher education. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 unintentionally discriminated against small educational, health care and other non-profit institutions that want to sell small amounts of tax-exempt debt to community banks. Before 1986, banks and financial institutions could deduct the interest incurred to carry a tax-exempt bond. This benefit enabled banks to purchase tax-exempt bonds at attractive rates. The 1986 tax act repealed bank deductibility, although an exception was retained for small issuers that issue bonds of $10 million or less each year. This exception was designed to preserve bank deductibility for small beneficiaries, but in practice is of assistance only to private placements issued by small local issuers. The small issuer exception has proven to be of little value in many States, like Vermont, where statewide health care and higher education bond issuing authorities typically issue many millions of dollars of debt each year. My bill will modify the small issuer exemption by granting the bond issuers the right to apply the small issuer exemption at the level of the ultimate beneficiary of the funding. Consequently, a small college or health care facility borrowing less than $10 million in tax-exempt debt in any one year could elect tax-exempt status for the debt, even if it is issued by a statewide issuing authority. This would make the debt more attractive to local banks, and could result in significant savings for the beneficiary institution over the life of the bond. My bill focuses the benefit of the small issuer exemption on smaller non-profits, without regard to whether the bond issuer is government entity issuing more than $10 in bonds per year. Small non-profits are important community institutions; they stand to benefit from greater access to tax-exempt debt. Wall Street and large banks may have little interest in small amounts of debt from small institutions, which can prove costly to administer. The bank across the street from a local college or health care clinic, however, may have greater confidence and insight in the institution. My bill would allow those banks to carry tax-exempt debt at attractive rates and maintain commitments to the people and institutions in their local communities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, Senator Hatch and I, together with Senators Rockefeller, Chafee, Bryan, and Kerry are introducing a bill which we believe will serve two important national interests: air quality and energy security. We call it the ``Alternative Fuels Tax Incentives Act,'' and it consists of a series of temporary tax provisions to encourage purchases of cars and trucks operating on alternative fuels, and to promote the retail sale of these fuels. The sharp gasoline price spikes earlier this year were a reminder of what can happen when the United States is not in control of the source of the energy it consumes. Some of us remember the long lines in the mid-1970s, when the Middle East pipeline was shut down, when service stations rationed the amount of gas you could buy, and when fistfights broke out over gasoline purchases. Science is now taking us to a point where we can develop other sources of energy and free ourselves from this over-reliance on foreign oil. Imports of foreign oil now exceed 50 percent of our oil consumption. Most of the oil that we use--more than two-thirds--is used for transportation. But there's some good news: cars and trucks that operate with alternative fuels are rapidly becoming a fact of life. Each of the major automobile manufacturers offers alternative fuel vehicles, but low production volume and high initial costs have impeded their widespread use and adoption. Consumers and businesses are receptive to alternative fuel vehicles and electric vehicles, but are often reluctant to pay the additional costs manufacturers charge for them. This bill's tax incentives will make those vehicles more cost competitive. With their environmentally-friendly fuels, these vehicles will mean significant benefits to the air we breathe. The levels of pollutants emitted by these alternative fuels vehicles are a tiny fraction of those released from a conventional gasoline or diesel engine. Some of these cars don't even have tail-pipes. To assure that owners of alternative fuel vehicles can find fuels for their cars, the bill also provides for two incentives to encourage the retail sales of alternative fuels: a tax credit for retailers for each gasoline gallon-equivalent of alternative fuel sold, and a provision allowing retailers to immediately expense up to $100,000 of the costs of alternative fuel refueling infrastructure. Passing this bill would mean cleaner air, energy independence, and more jobs in a developing sector of the auto industry. We have the technology and the resources to accomplish these goals. And we have manufacturers ready to deliver. It shouldn't take another oil crisis for us to get moving on this.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, Senator Hatch and I, together with Senators Rockefeller, Chafee, Bryan, and Kerry are introducing a bill which we believe will serve two important national interests: air quality and energy security. We call it the ``Alternative Fuels Tax Incentives Act,'' and it consists of a series of temporary tax provisions to encourage purchases of cars and trucks operating on alternative fuels, and to promote the retail sale of these fuels. The sharp gasoline price spikes earlier this year were a reminder of what can happen when the United States is not in control of the source of the energy it consumes. Some of us remember the long lines in the mid-1970s, when the Middle East pipeline was shut down, when service stations rationed the amount of gas you could buy, and when fistfights broke out over gasoline purchases. Science is now taking us to a point where we can develop other sources of energy and free ourselves from this over-reliance on foreign oil. Imports of foreign oil now exceed 50 percent of our oil consumption. Most of the oil that we use--more than two-thirds--is used for transportation. But there's some good news: cars and trucks that operate with alternative fuels are rapidly becoming a fact of life. Each of the major automobile manufacturers offers alternative fuel vehicles, but low production volume and high initial costs have impeded their widespread use and adoption. Consumers and businesses are receptive to alternative fuel vehicles and electric vehicles, but are often reluctant to pay the additional costs manufacturers charge for them. This bill's tax incentives will make those vehicles more cost competitive. With their environmentally-friendly fuels, these vehicles will mean significant benefits to the air we breathe. The levels of pollutants emitted by these alternative fuels vehicles are a tiny fraction of those released from a conventional gasoline or diesel engine. Some of these cars don't even have tail-pipes. To assure that owners of alternative fuel vehicles can find fuels for their cars, the bill also provides for two incentives to encourage the retail sales of alternative fuels: a tax credit for retailers for each gasoline gallon-equivalent of alternative fuel sold, and a provision allowing retailers to immediately expense up to $100,000 of the costs of alternative fuel refueling infrastructure. Passing this bill would mean cleaner air, energy independence, and more jobs in a developing sector of the auto industry. We have the technology and the resources to accomplish these goals. And we have manufacturers ready to deliver. It shouldn't take another oil crisis for us to get moving on this.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would first like to thank Senator Lieberman for his hard work in focusing the attention of the nation on the problems Section 527 organizations are creating in our campaign finance system. Today, I join Senator Lieberman and others in introducing two legislative vehicles to address the problems these organizations are bringing to our already troubled campaign finance system. 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, most people don't know what a section 527 organization is, and that is understandable as 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. I have 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. Mr. President, the passage of either of these important pieces of legislation would help arm the people with the knowledge they need in order to exercise their civic duty and sustain our popular government. 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. Doing so would be an important first step in helping restore the public's confidence in our political system. Mr. President, passage of this legislation would be one small step in eventually achieving our ultimate goal, which is enactment of meaningful campaign finance reform that includes increasing disclosure requirements and the banning of soft money. It is time to work together. It is time to act. It is time to pass campaign finance reform.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would first like to thank Senator Lieberman for his hard work in focusing the attention of the nation on the problems Section 527 organizations are creating in our campaign finance system. Today, I join Senator Lieberman and others in introducing two legislative vehicles to address the problems these organizations are bringing to our already troubled campaign finance system. 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, most people don't know what a section 527 organization is, and that is understandable as 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. I have 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. Mr. President, the passage of either of these important pieces of legislation would help arm the people with the knowledge they need in order to exercise their civic duty and sustain our popular government. 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. Doing so would be an important first step in helping restore the public's confidence in our political system. Mr. President, passage of this legislation would be one small step in eventually achieving our ultimate goal, which is enactment of meaningful campaign finance reform that includes increasing disclosure requirements and the banning of soft money. It is time to work together. It is time to act. It is time to pass campaign finance reform.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I rise today to recognize the young men and women of our great nation who have earned the honor of receiving the Boy Scout Eagle Scout Award and the Girl Scout Gold Award. As a former Boy Scout, I have a great appreciation for the duties, obligations, and benefits that Scouting offers to boys and girls. Scouting helps to shape our nation's youth into proud and civic-minded adults. Recipients of the Eagle Scout and Gold Awards not only meet the challenges presented to them, but they surpass the expectations of their leaders and their peers. In order to receive the highest honor, each Scout must design and execute a project that will benefit others in their community. Through initiatives such as teaching music to children, hosting an educational seminar, or building a neighborhood playground facility, the recipients display selfless commitment and integrity--qualities they will carry with them for the rest of their lives. The contributions that these youth have made to their communities, and to our nation, are invaluable. Their hard work and devotion warrants great commendation. I am grateful for this opportunity to offer my appreciation and my congratulations to the recipients of the Boy Scout Eagle Scout Award and the Girl Scout Gold Award.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Senator Stafford, my Vermont colleague whose seat in this body I am honored to hold today, authored the legislation creating FEMA more than 25 years a go. Thanks to his foresight and leadership in this area, the federal government has helped thousands of ordinary citizens recover from disasters and other incidents beyond their control. Today we have a chance to build on the legacy of Senator Stafford by adding airline and rail accidents to the list of ``major disasters'' defined in the act that governs the Federal Emergency Management Agency. While extremely rare occurrences, major airline and rail disasters place an incredible burden on the states and municipalities in which they occur. Due in part to the extraordinary level of national attention these accidents receive, states and municipalities face millions of dollars in unexpected and unbudgeted expenditures that often cripple local finances. Fees associated with initial response, security, and other health and safety measures often cost several million dollars. This legislation standardizes procedure for federal reimbursement of affected communities. While the federal government has regularly reimbursed states and municipalities during the 1990s for their role in these most national of disasters, the process is an ad hoc one. This body has considered and approved at least three special line item appropriations for areas affected by the recent ValueJet, TWA, and COMAIR accidents. A bill to reimburse Rhode Island for its costs associated with last fall's Egypt Air disaster is currently working its way through the Congress as part of the appropriation for the National Transportation Safety Board. This process causes needless headache and anxiety for local communities, as well as unnecessary chores for the NTSB and Congress. It forces states and municipalities to wait as reimbursement requests find their way through the complicated appropriations process while creating more work for our overburdened appropriators. The numbers speak for themselves. States and local communities spend millions of dollars to respond to these accidents. While they are ultimately reimbursed by the federal government, the uncertainty and slow pace of the process often places affected communities in a financial bind. Money that could be spent on education, health care, or public safety is lost in an unnecessary limbo. Under this bill, airline and rail accidents will be treated like any other disaster under the Stafford Act. Like an earthquake, blizzard or any other disaster, FEMA, upon the request of a governor, will examine the scene of such an accident and advise the President on whether federal reimbursement is appropriate. Mr. President, this bill simply standardizes procedure for a commitment already made by the federal government. It requires to new costs or expenses and actually saves money by streamlining a bureaucratic and complicated process. The International Association of Emergency Managers and the NTSB supports this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join these groups in supporting this bill that will bring standardization to an ad hoc process that has the potential to cause so much harm to our states and communities.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Senator Stafford, my Vermont colleague whose seat in this body I am honored to hold today, authored the legislation creating FEMA more than 25 years a go. Thanks to his foresight and leadership in this area, the federal government has helped thousands of ordinary citizens recover from disasters and other incidents beyond their control. Today we have a chance to build on the legacy of Senator Stafford by adding airline and rail accidents to the list of ``major disasters'' defined in the act that governs the Federal Emergency Management Agency. While extremely rare occurrences, major airline and rail disasters place an incredible burden on the states and municipalities in which they occur. Due in part to the extraordinary level of national attention these accidents receive, states and municipalities face millions of dollars in unexpected and unbudgeted expenditures that often cripple local finances. Fees associated with initial response, security, and other health and safety measures often cost several million dollars. This legislation standardizes procedure for federal reimbursement of affected communities. While the federal government has regularly reimbursed states and municipalities during the 1990s for their role in these most national of disasters, the process is an ad hoc one. This body has considered and approved at least three special line item appropriations for areas affected by the recent ValueJet, TWA, and COMAIR accidents. A bill to reimburse Rhode Island for its costs associated with last fall's Egypt Air disaster is currently working its way through the Congress as part of the appropriation for the National Transportation Safety Board. This process causes needless headache and anxiety for local communities, as well as unnecessary chores for the NTSB and Congress. It forces states and municipalities to wait as reimbursement requests find their way through the complicated appropriations process while creating more work for our overburdened appropriators. The numbers speak for themselves. States and local communities spend millions of dollars to respond to these accidents. While they are ultimately reimbursed by the federal government, the uncertainty and slow pace of the process often places affected communities in a financial bind. Money that could be spent on education, health care, or public safety is lost in an unnecessary limbo. Under this bill, airline and rail accidents will be treated like any other disaster under the Stafford Act. Like an earthquake, blizzard or any other disaster, FEMA, upon the request of a governor, will examine the scene of such an accident and advise the President on whether federal reimbursement is appropriate. Mr. President, this bill simply standardizes procedure for a commitment already made by the federal government. It requires to new costs or expenses and actually saves money by streamlining a bureaucratic and complicated process. The International Association of Emergency Managers and the NTSB supports this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join these groups in supporting this bill that will bring standardization to an ad hoc process that has the potential to cause so much harm to our states and communities.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to an extraordinary Vermonter and a determined leader, Edward Kehoe. Ed Kehoe was born in Rutland, my hometown, to the late James and Grace Kehoe and graduated from Rutland High School before serving in the U.S. Army with the 26th Infantry Regiment during World War II. As a decorated war hero, Ed Kehoe returned to Vermont to own and operate Kehoe's Diner in Hydeville. Ed Kehoe served as the town manager of Castleton from 1955 to 1965 before being elected the Vermont House for a single term. In August 1965, Ed Kehoe was appointed to head the Fish and Game Department where he served as the Vermont fish and wildlife commissioner under four governors until he retired in August 1982. He was an avid sportsman and member of an many Vermont sportsmen organizations until his death in late April. At the time of his appointment Ed Kehoe was initially troubled by his lack of a ``professional'' background in biology or wildlife management. However, his experience as a hunter and angler gave him the needed edge. Led by his ability to draw on experience and heed the advise of biologists, Ed Kehoe led the Vermont crusade to resist development pressures. During his 17-year tenure as commissioner, Ed Kehoe established two Green Mountain Conservation camps to help teach younger Vermonters how to fish and camp, helped to improve the state warden force, expanded the statewide Hunter Safety Program, and worked to restore Connecticut River salmon and wild turkeys throughout Vermont. Perhaps Ed Kehoe's greatest contribution to the state was his ability to push, acquire, and protect lands with significant wildlife and recreation value. Ed Kehoe's most recent award speaks to his accomplishments. Last year the Rutland Herald honored his visionary concerns about nongame species and protection of important property by naming him, ``Outdoorsman of the Century.'' John Hall, spokesman with Fish and Wildlife Department, recently alluded to Ed Kehoe's achievement, ``Ed wanted to make sure we were passing on the hunting and fishing traditions to future generations of Vermonter to enjoy. He always had the everyday Vermonter in mind, the average person of average means. He was the supreme steward of fish and wildlife resources.'' I pay tribute today to a man who paid tribute every day, to the values the everyday Vermonter holds dear. We have lost an extraordinary man, but his contributions to Vermont wildlife policy will live on.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I strongly believe we owe it to Americans to provide them the best educational opportunities. And as a Navy veteran, I feel we owe our military greater access to education by providing maximum flexibility to use the educational benefits they've been promised. Today, on behalf of Senators Allard, Bingaman, Kennedy, Leahy, and myself, I am introducing legislation that will provide more time for our National Guard and Reserves to utilize their current education benefits. Education benefits have proven to be one of the more important benefits offered by the U.S. military, both in terms of recruiting and retention, and as a means of upgrading the educational levels of our existing force. Currently, members of our uniformed services receive education assistance primarily through the successful Montgomery GI bill. While the Montgomery GI bill goes a long way toward helping to further the education of our hardworking men and women serving in the uniformed services, there is an important gap in the number of years they have to utilize these benefits. While active duty personnel are provided education benefits for up to ten years after they separate from active duty, National Guard and Reserve personnel are only entitled to these benefits for the first ten years of their service and not after they leave the service. Since our active duty servicemembers currently have up to ten years after they separate from active duty, they are eligible to utilize their education assistance for up to thirty years (twenty years service plus ten). Our National Guard and Reserve servicemembers' benefits currently end ten years from the date they complete basic training. The legislation I am introducing today would allow our National Guard and Reserves to use their Montgomery GI bill education benefits for the entire time they serve in the Selected Reserve. We are not asking for more benefits, just greater flexibility in the servicemembers' choice of when to use the education benefits that are already approved for them. In addition, the Selected Reserve members who become disabled are currently allowed to use the GI bill education benefits only during the first ten years of service, regardless of what year they become disabled. For example, if a servicemember becomes disabled during the first two years of service, he has eight more years of education assistance eligibility. But if he becomes disabled after nine years of service, he would have one year of eligibility left. After ten years of service, the National Guard and Reserve have no education benefits if they become disabled. This legislation would allow any unused portion of their 36 months of GI bill educational assistance to be utilized through the later of the original ten-year period of eligibility or a four-year period beginning on the date the person is involuntarily separated from the Selected Reserve. This adjustment also pertains to servicemembers whose unit is inactivated during a force drawdown if they have any unused months of educational assistance remaining. As we have seen, our National Guard and Reserve continue to be tasked more and more as our nation calls on them to support missions around the world. The Selected Reserve makes up almost half of our Uniformed Services today. They, too, leave their families behind to meet the call of serving our nation. In addition, they leave their full-time employers for months on end to perform their `part-time' jobs. This makes it even more difficult for them to take advantage of employer- provided opportunities to further their education. How can we continue to expect them to utilize their current Montgomery GI bill benefits within the current time limitations while being tasked to work two jobs, maintain a family and deploy overseas on short notice? They've earned the right to have an equitable amoun6t of time to utilize their Montgomery GI bill educational assistance. This is the right thing to do. I hope my colleague will join me in cosponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I strongly believe we owe it to Americans to provide them the best educational opportunities. And as a Navy veteran, I feel we owe our military greater access to education by providing maximum flexibility to use the educational benefits they've been promised. Today, on behalf of Senators Allard, Bingaman, Kennedy, Leahy, and myself, I am introducing legislation that will provide more time for our National Guard and Reserves to utilize their current education benefits. Education benefits have proven to be one of the more important benefits offered by the U.S. military, both in terms of recruiting and retention, and as a means of upgrading the educational levels of our existing force. Currently, members of our uniformed services receive education assistance primarily through the successful Montgomery GI bill. While the Montgomery GI bill goes a long way toward helping to further the education of our hardworking men and women serving in the uniformed services, there is an important gap in the number of years they have to utilize these benefits. While active duty personnel are provided education benefits for up to ten years after they separate from active duty, National Guard and Reserve personnel are only entitled to these benefits for the first ten years of their service and not after they leave the service. Since our active duty servicemembers currently have up to ten years after they separate from active duty, they are eligible to utilize their education assistance for up to thirty years (twenty years service plus ten). Our National Guard and Reserve servicemembers' benefits currently end ten years from the date they complete basic training. The legislation I am introducing today would allow our National Guard and Reserves to use their Montgomery GI bill education benefits for the entire time they serve in the Selected Reserve. We are not asking for more benefits, just greater flexibility in the servicemembers' choice of when to use the education benefits that are already approved for them. In addition, the Selected Reserve members who become disabled are currently allowed to use the GI bill education benefits only during the first ten years of service, regardless of what year they become disabled. For example, if a servicemember becomes disabled during the first two years of service, he has eight more years of education assistance eligibility. But if he becomes disabled after nine years of service, he would have one year of eligibility left. After ten years of service, the National Guard and Reserve have no education benefits if they become disabled. This legislation would allow any unused portion of their 36 months of GI bill educational assistance to be utilized through the later of the original ten-year period of eligibility or a four-year period beginning on the date the person is involuntarily separated from the Selected Reserve. This adjustment also pertains to servicemembers whose unit is inactivated during a force drawdown if they have any unused months of educational assistance remaining. As we have seen, our National Guard and Reserve continue to be tasked more and more as our nation calls on them to support missions around the world. The Selected Reserve makes up almost half of our Uniformed Services today. They, too, leave their families behind to meet the call of serving our nation. In addition, they leave their full-time employers for months on end to perform their `part-time' jobs. This makes it even more difficult for them to take advantage of employer- provided opportunities to further their education. How can we continue to expect them to utilize their current Montgomery GI bill benefits within the current time limitations while being tasked to work two jobs, maintain a family and deploy overseas on short notice? They've earned the right to have an equitable amoun6t of time to utilize their Montgomery GI bill educational assistance. This is the right thing to do. I hope my colleague will join me in cosponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dianne Lenz, a fellow of my staff, be granted floor privileges while S. 2 is pending.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 10 minutes to Senator Bunning.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if there are no supporters of the bill, I would like to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee. Mr. REED addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I think I represent those in opposition. If the Senator is in support of the amendment, then I believe he is right.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 1 minute.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator from Tennessee 10 minutes.