Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if we go into a quorum call, is the time equally divided?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator from Washington 5 minutes.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I have remaining.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Lieberman amendment. I want to be sure that all my colleagues understand that what the amendment would do is wipe out everything in S. 2--the bill we have been debating for the past week. The amendment would put in the provisions of S. 2254, a bill which was introduced about two weeks after the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions completed its work on S. 2. I believe that my colleagues should also understand that, if the Lieberman amendment is adopted, all amendments which were approved over the past week will be discarded along with S. 2. Moreover, no further amendments would be in order. I know that many members have prepared amendments which they wish to see considered. Should a substitute amendment be adopted, this will simply not be possible. There may very well be ideas in the Lieberman amendment which are worth considering, but using it as the basis to scrap 18 months worth of hearings and other committee deliberations and to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Education Act on the floor of the United States Senate is hardly the way to pursue those ideas. A major function of the committee system in Congress is to assure that a bipartisan group of members have the opportunity to devote extra time and study to particular issues. There may be disagreements among committee members and Members who do not serve on the committee may disagree with some of the conclusions reached by those who present a bill for the consideration of the full Senate. Nevertheless, there is a clear understanding of the issues at hand--so that a rational debate of differences can be held. The danger in dismissing the work of a committee entirely in order to adopt something which may appear more appealing is that serious problems may well go unnoticed. I believe there are numerous aspects of the substitute amendment which illustrate this point. For example, the amendment makes significant changes to the title I formula. Proposals to alter the formula by which title I funds are distributed are among the most difficult to analyze. Changes which at first glance appear to represent sound policy often have unintended consequences that do not become evident until actual runs are performed. Senator Lieberman has proposed a significant change to the way that title I funds are to be distributed within states. Currently, the vast majority of funds are distributed through the Basic Grant Program 85%, and the Concentration Grant Program, 15%. No funds have been made available for either the Targeted Grant Program or the Education Finance Incentive Grant Program. Importantly, the amount received by each state is determined by totaling amount that each eligible school district within the state is eligible to receive. If the Lieberman amendment were adopted, the most dramatic changes would be experienced at the school district level. Under current law, the states distribute 85% the money to local educational agencies, LEAs, in accordance with the Basic grant formula and 15% of the money through the Concentration Grant formula. This structure is retained under the committee bill. Importantly, the amount of funding to each state is based upon the amount that eligible school districts within the state are entitled to receive. Under the Lieberman proposal, money would be received by the state on the basis of one formula and then distributed to LEAs on the basis of a modified version of the Targeted Grant Program. This establishes a new precedent and raises basic questions of fairness. For the first time, the amount that a state receives will be based upon the eligibility of school districts which shall not be given the funds. Let me state this again. States will receive money on the basis of the eligibility of certain school districts. These school districts will not, however, receive the money. The money that the state received on the basis of their eligibility will be diverted to other school districts within the state. It may be argued by some that this improves targeting by sending money to high-poverty school districts. An examination of the actual numbers reveals that the proposal would establish deep inequalities among school districts across the Nation. It turns out that not all poverty is treated equally. In fact, it depends upon which state you happen to be fortunate enough to reside in and even which school district governs your school. Let me provide some examples. These examples were selected simply by going through the LEA lists in alphabetical order to select districts with comparable poverty rates. In Alabama the Thomasville City School District has a poverty rate of 30.3% and would lose 21.6% of its title I funding. In California, Burnt Ranch with a poverty rate of 30.5% would only lose 16% of its funding. New London School District in Connecticut with a poverty rate of 30.6% would receive an increase of 11.9% while Bridgeport with a poverty rate of 35.5% would be cut by .5%. The disparity in the dollar amounts of the reductions is even greater. My point is this. Many school districts which currently receive funding under the Basic and Concentration Grant Programs would receive steady annual cuts in their title I funds under this proposal. These would not be potential cuts--these would be real cuts. Cuts that would have to be made up by raising property taxes or cutting services. The Congressional Research Service has done runs for each LEA in each state. These runs reflect annual projected increases or decreases for each of the next three years. There is nothing magic about three years. Districts which are gaining funds would presumably continue to gain them and districts which are losing funds would presumably continue to lose them until an equilibrium is established in the out years. Our goal during this reauthorization should be to strengthen educational opportunities for all students. This proposal pits poor children in one school against poor children in another and should be soundly rejected. Proponents of the Lieberman substitute have spoken to the need to increase accountability. I do not believe there is any disagreement at all in this body that recipients of federal education funds must be held accountable. As I noted in my opening remarks when we began floor consideration of this bill, through a bipartisanship effort in 1994, we in the Congress decided that title I should carry out its mission of improving learning by assisting state and local efforts in the development of standards and assessments. Congress completely rewrote Title I in 1994 and made the program more rigorous--requiring States to develop both content and student performance standards and assessments. Congress gave the states seven years to complete this difficult task. We are mid-stream in this process. In the name of accountability, the Lieberman substitute rewrites many of the standards, assessment, and school improvement provisions that were included in the 1994 law. I fear that rewriting these sections will not lead States down the path toward greater accountability, but rather will create detours for the states and school districts that have already spent several years going in the right direction. Developing and implementing standards-based reform and assessments is not a simple task. It requires sustained and consistent effort. Loading up States and school districts with new regulations, new reporting requirements, and more mandates is a distraction at best and a step backward at worst. Finally, I believe it is important to point out that most of the individual programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act outside of title I are repealed by the Lieberman substitute. A notable exception is that the amendment does authorize the President's class-size reduction program as a separate activity. Apparently, some merit is seen for that separate program which is not seen for programs such as the Reading Excellence Act, Gifted and Talented Education, Reading is Fundamental, or Character Education--to name just a few of the programs which are repeal by the substitute amendment. It is my understanding that the funds from the various programs which are repealed are to be used within four general categories: school improvement, innovative reform, safe learning environments, and technology. For example, the substitute amendment would repeal title IV of ESEA , the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities program. title IV funds would be pooled with the other funds allocated to repealed programs, and 15% of the funds in the pool are to be used for safe learning environments. The substitute amendment completely tosses overboard the Title IV reforms in S. 2 which were developed by a bipartisan group of members--spearheaded by Senators DeWine, Dodd, and Murray. These reforms were designed to assure that drug-free schools funds are used for proven, effective programs--rather than being used in some of the frivolous ways we have seen in the past. The Lieberman amendment sets back the clock on these important revisions to the bill. As I indicated at the outset, it is important that we take great care in crafting changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The programs in this Act represent virtually all the support provided by the Federal Government in support of elementary and secondary schools. Although the federal share is small relative to the contributions made by States and localities, it is a substantial investment--approaching $15 billion a year. I believe that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions has taken its responsibilities seriously in developing S. 2 over the past 18 months. We held 25 hearings on all aspects of the Act and have spent considerable time discussing the issues it includes-- with much of this work being done on a bipartisan basis. I am pleased to have heard so much today about bipartisan cooperation with respect elementary and secondary education. Although the final vote out of committee was on a party-line basis, the fact of the matter is that much of the bill was developed through bipartisan discussions. I have spoken many times on this floor on behalf of bipartisan efforts to help our nation's school children, and I remain willing to engage in such efforts. I am not, however, willing to turn my back on the work the committee has put into S. 2 in order to embrace a proposal which reduces title I funding for many school districts throughout the country, imposes additional reporting burdens on States and localities, and repeals many programs which have been of value to our nation's schools and students. I want to say again that I strongly oppose the Lieberman amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as we work to address the problems of health care in the new millennium, we are blessed and we are cursed: blessed with the promise of new research capabilities and the knowledge gleaned from the human genome, and cursed with the high costs of all medicines, new and old. Today, I come to the floor to introduce a bill that will help address the curse of out-of-control drug prices, the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000, or MEDS Act. There is no question that prescription drugs cost too much in this nation. During a time when we are experiencing unprecedented economic growth, it is not uncommon to hear of patients who cut pills in half, or skip dosages in order to make prescriptions last longer, because they can't afford the refill. The question that we should ask is, can we put politics aside and work in a bipartisan manner to deal with this national crisis? I say we must. And I am hopeful we can. Prescription medicines have revolutionized the treatment of certain diseases, but they are only effective if patients have access to the medicines that their doctors prescribe. The best medicines in the world will not help a person who cannot afford them. And they can actually do more harm than good if taken with the improper dosage. Mr. President, it is well documented that the average price of prescription medicines is much lower in Canada than in the United States, with the price of some drugs in Vermont being twice that of the same drug available only a few miles away in a Canadian pharmacy. This is true even though many of the drugs sold in Canada are actually manufactured, packed, and distributed by American companies that sell the same FDA-approved products in both markets, but at drastically different prices. This pricing disparity unfairly places the heaviest burden on the most vulnerable Americans--hardworking, but uninsured Americans who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, yet still cannot afford the high cost of lifesaving drugs. The legislation I am introducing today will allow pharmacists and wholesalers to get the same FDA-approved drugs sold at lower prices in other countries, and pass the savings on to consumers in the U.S. This bipartisan proposal builds on legislation I introduced last year, S. 1462, that would allow imports from Canada for personal use, and borrows from another bill cosponsored by Senator Wellstone, S. 1191, that would allow reimportation of prescription drugs that were made in U.S. facilities. The most important aspect of this bill, Mr. President, is safety. We all want to find ways to bring drug costs down for all Americans, but the concept of reimportation has been criticized as compromising the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) world-renowned gold standard for safety by opening the American market to foreign counterfeiters who will attempt to flood the market with fake drugs. This bill is simple in its approach. It would empower pharmacists and wholesalers to purchase FDA-approved medicines in Canada and pass the discounts along to American patients, and would let the experts at Health and Human Services (HHS) determine the best mechanism for allowing such imports while preserving the gold standard for safety. The discretionary authority granted to the Secretary of HHS would be subject to a few important requirements, such as identification of the importer and the product, but would require the Secretary to promulgate regulations setting up a safe system for allowing the reimportation of prescription drugs as long as the importer has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of HHS, that the product being reimported is safe, and is the same product that is being sold in the United States at a higher price. Mr. President, I have said before and I will say again, this is not the only solution, and it may not be the best solution to this problem. I strongly believe we need to enact a broad prescription drug benefit, and I believe we need to find ways to encourage more insurance coverage for more Americans that covers the cost of drugs. But this is a positive, bipartisan measure that we can implement now that will bring prescription drug prices down for all Americans, and I encourage your support.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as we work to address the problems of health care in the new millennium, we are blessed and we are cursed: blessed with the promise of new research capabilities and the knowledge gleaned from the human genome, and cursed with the high costs of all medicines, new and old. Today, I come to the floor to introduce a bill that will help address the curse of out-of-control drug prices, the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000, or MEDS Act. There is no question that prescription drugs cost too much in this nation. During a time when we are experiencing unprecedented economic growth, it is not uncommon to hear of patients who cut pills in half, or skip dosages in order to make prescriptions last longer, because they can't afford the refill. The question that we should ask is, can we put politics aside and work in a bipartisan manner to deal with this national crisis? I say we must. And I am hopeful we can. Prescription medicines have revolutionized the treatment of certain diseases, but they are only effective if patients have access to the medicines that their doctors prescribe. The best medicines in the world will not help a person who cannot afford them. And they can actually do more harm than good if taken with the improper dosage. Mr. President, it is well documented that the average price of prescription medicines is much lower in Canada than in the United States, with the price of some drugs in Vermont being twice that of the same drug available only a few miles away in a Canadian pharmacy. This is true even though many of the drugs sold in Canada are actually manufactured, packed, and distributed by American companies that sell the same FDA-approved products in both markets, but at drastically different prices. This pricing disparity unfairly places the heaviest burden on the most vulnerable Americans--hardworking, but uninsured Americans who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, yet still cannot afford the high cost of lifesaving drugs. The legislation I am introducing today will allow pharmacists and wholesalers to get the same FDA-approved drugs sold at lower prices in other countries, and pass the savings on to consumers in the U.S. This bipartisan proposal builds on legislation I introduced last year, S. 1462, that would allow imports from Canada for personal use, and borrows from another bill cosponsored by Senator Wellstone, S. 1191, that would allow reimportation of prescription drugs that were made in U.S. facilities. The most important aspect of this bill, Mr. President, is safety. We all want to find ways to bring drug costs down for all Americans, but the concept of reimportation has been criticized as compromising the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) world-renowned gold standard for safety by opening the American market to foreign counterfeiters who will attempt to flood the market with fake drugs. This bill is simple in its approach. It would empower pharmacists and wholesalers to purchase FDA-approved medicines in Canada and pass the discounts along to American patients, and would let the experts at Health and Human Services (HHS) determine the best mechanism for allowing such imports while preserving the gold standard for safety. The discretionary authority granted to the Secretary of HHS would be subject to a few important requirements, such as identification of the importer and the product, but would require the Secretary to promulgate regulations setting up a safe system for allowing the reimportation of prescription drugs as long as the importer has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of HHS, that the product being reimported is safe, and is the same product that is being sold in the United States at a higher price. Mr. President, I have said before and I will say again, this is not the only solution, and it may not be the best solution to this problem. I strongly believe we need to enact a broad prescription drug benefit, and I believe we need to find ways to encourage more insurance coverage for more Americans that covers the cost of drugs. But this is a positive, bipartisan measure that we can implement now that will bring prescription drug prices down for all Americans, and I encourage your support.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have an engagement pending, so I will proceed now. I would love to be able to stay and listen to my friends. I certainly thank the Senator from Alaska for his very fine words. He has been an inspiration to all of us in bringing this forward. Without his help and support, I am not so sure that we would be here today. I appreciate his efforts in making sure that our amendment be heard in a timely manner.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator very much. Mr. President, I am very happy to join a strong bi-partisan group of my colleagues in introducing the ``Early Learning Opportunities Act'' amendment. The twenty-eight co-sponsors of the amendment are: Senators Stevens, Kennedy, Jeffords, Dodd, Domenici, Bond, Kerry, Voinovich, Lautenberg, Murray, Cochran, Bingaman, Smith of Oregon, Durbin, Chafee, Baucus, Murkowski, Robb, Rockefeller, Roberts, Wellstone, Feinstein, Mikulski, Snowe, Boxer, Kerrey, Specter, and Warner. In 1989, President Bush met with Governors from across the nation and identified a set of educational goals for our nation's children. The first national educational goal was that ``By the year 2000, all children in America will start school ready to learn,'' We have unfortunately failed to meet that critical goal. Early childhood learning plays a key role in a child's future achievement and is the cornerstone of education reform. I am absolutely convinced that we must invest in early childhood learning programs if we are to have every child enter school ready to learn and succeed. We know that from birth, the human brain is making the connections that are vital to future learning. We know that what we do as parents, care providers, educators, and as a society can either help or hurt a child's ability to gain the skills necessary for success in school--- and in life. Many of America's children enter school without the necessary abilities and maturity. Without successful remediation efforts, these children continue to lag behind for their entire academic career. We spend billions of dollars on efforts to help these children catch up. As we demand that students and schools meet higher academic standards, these efforts become much harder. An investment in early learning today will save money tomorrow. Research has demonstrated that for each dollar invested in quality early learning programs, the Federal Government can save over five dollars--spend one, save five. These savings result from future reductions in the number of children and families who participate in Federal Government programs like Title I special education and welfare. This amendment is designed to help parents and care givers integrate early childhood learning into the daily lives of their children. Parents are the most important teachers of their children. If parents are actively engaged in their child's early learning, their children will see greater cognitive and non-cognitive benefits. Parents want their children to grow up happy and healthy. But few are fully prepared for the demands of parenthood. Many parents have difficulty finding the information and support they need to help their children grow to their full potential. Making that information and support available and accessible to parents is a key component of this amendment. For many families, it is not possible for a parent to remain home to care for their children. Their employment is not a choice, but an essential part of their family's economic survival. And for most of these families, child care is not an option, but a requirement, as parents struggle to meet the competing demands of work and family. Just as it is essential that we provide parents with the tools they need to help their children grow and develop, we also must help the people who care for our nation's children while parents are at work. Today, more than 13 million young children--including half of all infants--spend at least part of their day being cared for by someone other than their parents. In Vermont alone, there are about 22,000 children, under the age of six, in state-regulated child care. This amendment will provide communities with the resources necessary to improve the quality of child care. Funds can be used for professional development, staff retention and recruitment incentives, and improved compensation. By improving local collaboration and coordination, child care providers--- as well as parents--- will be able to access more services, activities and programs for children in their care. Our ``Early Learning Opportunities'' amendment will serve as a catalyst to engage all sectors of the community in increasing programs, services, and activities that promote the healthy development of our youngest citizens. The amendment ensures that funds will be locally controlled. Funds are channeled through the states to local councils. The councils are charged with assessing the early learning needs of the community, and distributing the funds to a broad variety of local resources to meet those needs. Local councils must work with schools in the community to identify the abilities which need to be mastered before children enter school. Funds must be used for programs, activities and services which represent developmentally appropriate steps towards acquiring those abilities. This amendment will expand community resources, improve program collaboration, and engage our citizens in creating solutions. It will will help parents and care givers who are looking for better ways to include positive learning experiences into the daily lives of our youngest children. When children enter school ready to learn, all of the advantages of their school experiences are opened to them---their opportunities are unlimited. I urge all my colleagues to vote for the ``Early Learning Opportunities Act'' amendment. I urge you to give our nation's children every opportunity to succeed in school and in life. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, we are awaiting the arrival of the Senator from New Hampshire. I would like to say, in the interim, we would like to proceed today with other amendments. I hope by the end of the day we will be able to establish a program for the coming week, which will put us in a position where we can move the education bill forward. At this time, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all pending amendments be temporarily laid aside, and it be in order for Senator Collins to call up her amendment, re: Straight A's, which is filed, amendment No. 3104. I further ask unanimous consent that there be up to 10 minutes for debate on the Collins amendment, to be equally divided in the usual form, and following the use or yielding back of time, the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and the Senate resume the pending question, all without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join in commending the Senator from Maine for this amendment. It certainly removes a serious problem I had in the bill. We have removed that from the bill, and it will be very helpful in making sure our vocational education programs can do the best possible for our young people. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for his usual eloquence, as well as for his understanding and perception of the education problems in this country. I would like to speak about other areas I think are important. We must look closely at these two areas during consideration of this legislation. We are talking today about the need for improving the quality of teacher education and further improvements in the legislation before us for that purpose. I think we will find that we have reached agreement on that. One of the most critical parts of the equation in improving education is ensuring classrooms are led by quality teachers. I am a member of the Goals 2000 panel. Here we are already in 2000 and we haven't reached these important education goals. I want to share with you some of the concerns about some of the areas in education where we need improvement, and what we intend to do through amendments to try to move us forward in these most critical education areas. We received notice in 1983. President Ronald Reagan called on the Secretary of Education to convene a panel to examine the quality of education in our Nation. It was very tersely stated in a phrase that says it all, if a foreign nation had imposed upon us the educational system that we had in the country especially our elementary and secondary education, it would be considered an act of war. Since 1983, we have seen measurable improvement across this Nation in reaching the goals that we set at that time. This bill provides us with an opportunity to reevaluate where we are. It is the year 2000 and we have not achieved many of our most important and pressing educational goals. Still, we have learned a great deal since that time about the area of huge need in this Nation involving preschool children--the 0 to 3, or 0 to 5 age group, depending on what you want to talk about. These are problems that are created when the parents do not take a leadership role in educating the children. Often times, sadly, it is because they don't have a strong educational backgroud themselves. Some are illiterate and do not have the tools to help their children as they grow up to enter school ready to learn. The amendment that will be offered by Senator Stevens and myself, and others will, on a voluntary basis--I want to emphasize over and over again that it is a voluntary basis--to provide information for parents, information for child care providers, and information to schools to ensure that as a child grows, they all have the basic educational opportunities to learn to read and achieve academically. The successful passage of this amendment will make sure that we take care of those children who currently do not have that kind of assistance and educational support in a variety of ways. It is a critical issue that must be addressed. Some years ago, studies were done on the impact to the growth and development of a child's brain. A comparison was done between the brain of a child who received attention, support, nurturing and good care, and one who unfortunately, like too many, had little or no real nurturing as children. The brain of the well-developed child who had all the nurturing necessary was what we would like to see--a large healthy brain. For comparison, they showed you one of an old man in his eighties or nineties which was shriveled up and shrunk. The other picture was the brain of a child that was not nurtured and did not receive the care that a normal child should receive from a parent. That child's brain was just as shriveled up as the old man's. That is what can happen to a baby, a very young person that does not receive the care, attention and nurturing at home that it should. We will have an amendment which will assist us in understanding that, and which will make sure that throughout that period of time, in a voluntary way, the information will be available. I ask unanimous consent that the document explaining the Early Learning Opportunities Act amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the Gregg amendment occur at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, May 9. In addition, it would be my hope that by late morning tomorrow the Senate would be in a position to conduct a second vote to be scheduled following the 2:15 vote which will be relative to the Lieberman amendment. However, while that consent is being worked out, I ask unanimous consent that the next two first-degree amendments in order to S. 2 be the following, limited to relevant second degrees following a vote in relationship to the amendment. The amendments are the Stevens-Jeffords amendment on early childhood investment, and the Kentucky amendment on teacher quality.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have just been discussing the amendment which we just got unanimous consent to consider. I would like to briefly discuss another amendment that I am hopeful that I will have an opportunity to offer this week. It addresses another significant educational problem we face in this nation. As I said, on the goals panel we studied what is happening with our young people. It is telling when one considers those young people who end up incarcerated. Eighty percent of the individuals incarcerated in jail in this country are school dropouts. Consider those students that don't drop out. Far too many of our students who stay in high school are not receiving the kind of education they need to prepare them to enter the workforce. Therefore, I will have an amendment that tackles these critically important problems. We must do what we can to make sure that young people stay in school and we must do what we can to ensure that students receive a relevant education in high school. Students graduating from high school must be literate. At the same time, we have got to strive for improvement in our high schools so that our nation's young people will have the skills they need to graduate and get a job. Since 80 percent of people incarcerated in our institutions are school dropouts, it is essential we pay more attention to those young people as well. Those institutions must have the capacity to provide those completing their sentences with literacy skills and are job skills so that they can enter the workforce and not return to crime. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator for those pertinent and eloquent remarks. I deeply appreciate the effort the Senator has gone to, making sure the talented and gifted program is improved to meet the goals for which it was intended. We have a tremendous opportunity now with modern technology to be able to link people up and broaden the availability of gifted and talented programs through the State and the country. If we fail to do that, we will not be maximizing the opportunities we have to give these young people who are the best hope--in many cases, for leadership in the future--to be able to reach the goals they choose. I thank the Senator for the excellent words and what he has given to this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I know all of us share in Senator Wellstone's grief. I know I have lost, in the past, one of my chief staff persons. You never know how important they are until they are not with you. I know the Senator's chief of staff was an outstanding person whom we all appreciated for his ability. I am sure I speak for all Members on this side of the aisle: We share in the Senator's grief. We want him to know that. I yield to Senator Kennedy.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor an organization that has served the state of Vermont, and the nation, for 150 years. National Life has served the needs of millions of Americans during this time, starting with its first policy, issued in 1850, and continuing into the contemporary insurance business. As Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, I can personally attest to how valuable their services have been and continue to be. However, National Life is more than just a business, it is an archetype of community relations and a leader in the promotion of ethical market conduct. National Life was founded in 1848 by Dr. Julius Dewey as a mutual life insurance company. The first claim was paid to a policy owner who had traveled to California for the Gold Rush. From this beginning, National Life has expanded to include 800 career and general agents, and over 3,000 independent brokers. National Life has also grown to include some of the most prestigious services in America, including the Sentinel Fund--established in 1968, the American Guaranty and Trust-- chartered in Delaware in 1914, and the national Retirement plan Advisors--founded in 1940. In 1998, National Life joined the Insurance Marketplace Standards Association. This group promotes ethics in market conduct of the life insurance industry. Among the criteria that National Life had to meet were high standards of honesty in fairness to customers, fair competition, quick resolution of customer disputes and complaints, and customer-focused sales and service. Needless to say, National Life met the criteria in 1998, as they have throughout their long and prestigious history. This 150th Anniversary also marks a rare meeting of past, present, and future, in 1960, the National Life building was opened. At the dedication ceremony, a time capsule was interred in the floor of the lobby. This time capsule will be opened on May 12, 2000, and we will be able to compare where we are today with where we thought we would be. The hopes and wishes of yesterday have evolved into today's reality, and the year 2000, once an incomprehensible milestone, is no longer the distant future. While the past and present will merge at this ceremony, the anniversary also provides an opportunity to look forward. True to form, National Life again initiates a bond with the community; among the entries in the Year 2000 time capsule will be the predictions of children of Central Vermont. The hopes and wishes of these children for the future are significant, as they will be the ones living it. Recognizing this, National Life is also contributing money to each participating public elementary school. The students' whose predictions will be included in the time capsule, along with their respective schools, will receive an additional contribution. On this occasion of celebrating the venerable and storied past of National Life, let us pay tribute to their Vermont roots and their contributions to the Vermont economy during the past century and a half. Far from simply administering to their community, National Life is a part of it. National Life has realized from the start that the investment we make in the children of today will pay dividends in the leaders of tomorrow. For their continued commitment to the community and their customers, they should be commended.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with my good friend Senator Rockefeller in introducing legislation that will improve upon the federal rules for reimbursement for telemedicine and help to ensure that all of our citizens have access to our great health care system. We are joined by a broad, bipartisan group of senators in this effort. In many ways we have the best health care system in the world. But increasingly fewer and fewer Americans actually have access to it. I recently introduced a tax-credit bill that will help some of these Americans and I anticipate supporting future measures aimed at increasing access to health care services. One important area that demands our attention is the problem of access for rural Americans. More than 25 percent of our Nation's senior citizens live in areas underserved for modern health care services. At the same time, telemedicine has come of age. We have moved beyond the feasibility stage and proven that this technology can provide real benefits to people in rural and underserved regions of our country. In my own State of Vermont, nearly 70 per cent live in rural areas. This is the highest percentage rural population of any state in the nation. In Vermont, specialists in more than twenty-five disciplines from Fletcher Allen Health Care in Burlington are made readily available to patients even in the most rural areas. I want to see this level of service expand and be made available to all Americans. We in Washington have made some good faith attempts to allow for the development of telehealth technologies but we have fallen short. In an effort to restrain the expansion of these programs, the Health Care Financing Administration's interpretation of the laws and its cumbersome rules for reimbursement have all but guaranteed the demise of current programs. Federally-funded telemedicine projects exist in almost every State in the Nation. These projects have proven that cost-effective, high- quality care can be delivered using this technology. The provisions in this bill will help to ensure that this care will be continued when the federal grants end. Why is this legislation needed now? Because current HCFA regulations concerning payment are unworkable in the real world. Less than 6 percent of all telemedicine doctor-patient visits last year provided to Medicare beneficiaries would qualify for reimbursement under HCFA's current guidelines. Now that we have more experience and understand better how telemedicine can be used, it is time to enact several changes to the law so that these programs can thrive and deliver on their promise of providing cost-effective, high-quality healthcare where it is needed the most. Rural healthcare providers and patients are eager for this legislation. Norman Wright, President of the Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, recognized the potential of Fletcher Allen's telemedicine program by describing it as one that ``provides incredible opportunities for rural providers and their patients because it links them to a network with access to the region's best authorities for any given condition.'' I have indeed heard an outpouring of support from healthcare providers across my own State on this issue. Gerry Davis, Professor of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Fletcher Allen Health Care, described ``appropriate and fair third party payment for telemedicine'' as ``essential in order to move this process beyond education, and to make the service truly useful for patients in remote locations.'' Telemedicine can be used in so many ways. It can be vital to a pediatrician from a rural area with a sick baby who needs to consult with a neonatologist from a tertiary care hospital in the dead of winter and the middle of the night. It can be also be crucial for a depressed senior citizen who desperately needs mental health services available in their own rural county. And it can be much needed help for a frustrated isolated primary care provider who longs to be able to provide for access to specialty services for her patients in their own community. All of these people need our help. While the changes included in this bill are relatively minor in the context of the Medicare program, the effect will be far-reaching. This legislation will allow us to avoid arbitrarily denying access to health care for our senior citizens and persons with disabilities just because of where they live. It will allow for fair and reasonable reimbursement for services that can be delivered appropriately in this way. It will also encourage the incorporation of telehealth technology in the care plans of home health agencies, an area that has already shown great promise for the future in terms of cost-effective disease management. In summary, it will allow us to begin to release the incredible potential of telemedicine. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join us in bringing HCFA's approach to the delivery of health care into the 21st Century. Any Medicare reform must include progress on telemedicine for our Nation's rural areas.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am not sure what happened in that last colloquy.

Mr. JEFFORDS. However, that time would be from the minority's time? I believe we are allocated time.