Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Wyoming for his work not only on this bill but on the other legislation he discussed. I also commend him for his help in the review of existing labor laws. The Senator understands the import of bringing our labor laws in line with the needs into the 21st Century. I depend upon him, and he produces.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, what is the order of business?

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the next 5 minutes the time be held open, and then at 2:05 p.m. I will yield back all the time on the measure, and I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning business from 2:05 p.m. until 2:30 p.m., with the time equally divided.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to add my voice to those who have already spoken eloquently about the need to increase funding for America's veterans. While I appreciate Senator Domenici's efforts to provide the increase requested by the administration, many of my colleagues agree with me that this is not sufficient to meet the needs of America's veterans. Years of underfunding coupled with spiraling health care costs have left the system struggling to provide the quality care that veterans expect and deserve. This trend must be stopped and reversed. We owe it to future generations to keep federal spending under control. But we must first recognize the prior claim of veterans who have already given of themselves and who expect to receive the medical care and benefits they are promised. Mr. President, veterans in my State of Vermont are very lucky. They have been served for many years by a very dedicated and high quality VA system, headquartered in White River Junction with clinics in Burlington and Bennington. But this system is being stretched to the limit. Numbers of veterans wanting to use the services of the VA are increasing. While the cost of providing quality medical care has risen less at our VA hospital than it has in the private sector, more funding is still required just to provide the same services this year as last. Budget shortfalls of about 10 percent per year for several years have forced administrators to demand sacrifices of their personnel that would not be tolerated in many other systems and make cuts in services that are regrettable. Thanks to our dedicated staff, Vermont veterans are still receiving quality health care, but these trends can't continue. It is high time the system was given the funding it needs to do the job right. In an improvement over last year, the President's budget for fiscal year 2001 requested an increase of $1.3 billion for veterans health care. But that is still about $600 million below the amount that is needed to maintain existing programs and fulfill the funding requirements of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act, passed by Congress last year. This amount, $21.2 billion, has been identified by the Independent Budget coalition as the minimum acceptable funding level for veterans health care programs. While veterans, just like all Americans, would love to see their benefits increase, this request does not do that. Funding the Veterans Health Administration at $21.2 billion would merely take a bite out of the increasing cost of medical care, particularly pharmaceutical costs, for an aging veterans population. Demand for VA health care continues to rise and enrollment is going up at many facilities, with no corresponding increase in funding to cover those veterans. The Millennium bill authorized better nursing home care, home health and long-term care services, greatly needed by veterans. It also provided veterans with long-desired emergency room coverage, and recognizes the imperative of covering the increasing number of hepatitis C cases among veterans. But if additional funds are not provided to cover these costs, these promises will be hollow. I am very pleased to join Senators Johnson and Wellstone in offering this amendment to add $500 million to the budget for the Veterans Health Administration. I urge all my colleagues to support this worthy effort. This is the very least we can do!

Mr. JEFFORDS. I call up amendment No. 2984.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Lieberman be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment by Senators Jeffords, Dodd, Stevens, Kennedy, Collins, Snowe, L. Chafee, and Feingold. We have voted many times, often 99-0, to fully fund IDEA. Failure to agree to this amendment will tell the Nation we do not ever intend to make good on this pledge. We have unprecedented economic prosperity. We have surpluses well into the future. We can do it now. For 25 years, we have promised to pay 40 percent of the cost of educating students with disabilities. Today, we pay 13 percent. The chart behind me shows the truth about the budget resolution. It proposes to move us from 13 percent to 18 percent. It says clearly to the Nation, despite all our rhetoric, we never intend to keep our word. Our amendment will fully fund our promise. I ask my colleagues: If not now, when? The time is now. Mr. VOINOVICH addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to table the second-degree amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, when a pension plan is converted, long- time loyal employees should not see their normal retirement benefits frozen. I believe ``wear away'' is wrong and Congress should act this year. I hope the majority of my colleagues will join.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the permanent protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I certainly understand the concerns raised by those calling for more domestic energy production. I don't disagree that this nation should do more to kick our addiction to foreign oil. I agree it's time to develop more of our nation's clean, renewable energy resources. I urge my colleagues to look carefully at creating incentives for clean, domestically produced energy such as ethanol, methanol, natural gas, wind, solar and biomass power. However, we must withhold efforts to drill in one of our nation's most pristine nature preserves and instead look at alternatives. It may be easy for some to look at maps of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and envision it as an empty expanse of land that should be valued only for its small and scattered oil pockets. However, this is a beautiful stretch of land that contains an incredible variety of plant and animal life. This is the only national conservation area that provides a complete range of arctic ecosystems, and it is home to two large caribou herds and 72 species of land mammals and fish. The founders of the Refuge recognized the special characteristics of this land and its value to the American public as a wild and free land. In the summer of 1997, I traveled to the Refuge and was able to see first hand how beautiful and important this land is to both Alaska and the Nation. As part of a Senate delegation, I visited the Port of Valdez, where oil is loaded onto tankers, and I traveled along the pipeline that brings oil from the north. I also flew over the Refuge itself, getting a perfect birds-eye view of this quiet, peaceful landscape. In particular, I was silenced by the beauty of the Mollie Beattie Wilderness. As my colleagues will remember, we dedicated a large portion of the refuge to Mollie Beattie, a friend and fellow Vermonter. Mollie oversaw all of Vermont's public lands as Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, instituting policies which today are a model of environmental protection. She then brought her passion and extensive knowledge of the natural world to Washington to head the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I was astounded by the natural beauty of this area and proud as I reflected back on Mollie's contribution and dedication to preserving wildlife and wildlife habitat. I could not think of a better tribute than to have named the eight million acres of wilderness in the Arctic Refuge after Mollie. It's been three years since she passed away and we miss her dearly. Although I can no longer work by her side in common cause, her spirit and enthusiasm for preserving our nation's wildlife is always with me. While in Alaska I also visited a number of native communities along the North Slope and spoke to the inhabitants about their life in this unique environment, one that they depend on for both their cultural identity and their survival. I understand the needs these people have and they must be addressed. As a nation we must continue to protect this vital ecosystem while working to bring good jobs, education, and health care to these native communities. Our nation's dependence on oil and its byproducts cannot overshadow the importance of keeping ANWR free from the traditional impacts of oil drilling and exploration. Drilling and exploration in this gentle Arctic wilderness could have a lasting impact that would forever damage the environment of this region. I applaud Senator Roth's commitment to permanent protection for this unique linkage of ecosystems upon which local communities depend, and the American community as a whole should value as a national and natural treasure.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico, especially for his leadership on the Budget Committee and for his efforts in 1997 which greatly contributed to the fiscal policy that has led this country from an era of deficits to an era in which we anticipate budget surpluses for the foreseeable future. He has had a challenging job crafting budget resolutions that balance the many real and competing needs of the Nation. He has been a strong advocate for education and an even stronger advocate for funding IDEA. In fact, last year, I joined him in calling for an increase in education funding of $40 billion over five years. Regrettably our colleagues on the House Budget Committee did not share this commitment. This year he has, once again, taken up the challenge of balancing the competing needs. The budget resolution that he has brought before us is a product of difficult negotiations between competing viewpoints. Because of my deep respect for him, I do not come to the floor with an amendment lightly. I come to the floor with an amendment only because of my conviction that there is a Federal obligation that must now be met in full. This amendment, which I will offer tomorrow, has been cosponsored by Senators Dodd, Stevens, Kennedy, Collins, Feingold, Snowe, Chafee, Harkin, Leahy, Kohl, and Mikulski, among others. I will begin my remarks with a question to which I will time and time again return. In 1974 we made a commitment to fully fund IDEA. If 25 years later we cannot meet this commitment in an era of unprecedented economic prosperity and budgetary surpluses, when do we plan to keep this pledge. The American people have a right to ask us--If not now, then when? In the early years, when we were running large budget deficits, it was understandable that we couldn't meet those commitments. During those same years this body, by almost unanimous votes, voted-- 99 Members sometimes--that ``when feasible'' we would fully fund our commitment to our States and our school districts. That time has come. We now have large surpluses with more than enough resources to meet our commitment now and well into the future. I have behind me a chart which compares the funding levels in my amendment with the funding levels in this budget resolution and with the levels that will be required to fully fund IDEA. This shows where full funding is. This shows the bipartisan amendment I will be offering and how it will take us to full funding. And this is where we will be if we do nothing but live within this budget that is before us. Make no mistake. The budget resolution before us does not fully fund IDEA. Despite the repeated pledges we have made to fully fund IDEA, this budget resolution sends a clear message that this body has no intention of fulfilling this commitment anytime in the next five years. I was one of the few, now in this body, that were present at the time that P.L. 94-142, The Education of all Handicapped Act was passed. As a freshman Member of Congress, I was proud to sponsor that legislation and to be named as a member of the House and Senate conference committee along with then Vermont Senator Bob Stafford. At that time, despite a clear Constitutional obligation to educate all children, regardless of disability, thousands of disabled students were denied access to a public education. Passage of the Education of All Handicapped Act offered financial incentives to states to fulfill this existing obligation. Recognizing that the costs associated with educating these children was more than many school districts could bear alone, we pledged to pay 40% of the costs of educating these students. We pledged to pay 40% of these costs but we never have. We have continuously claimed that we couldn't afford to. We started in 1976 with 12.5%. Then we slipped to 6%. Those were tough budget deficit times. Lately we have come up to 13 percent--still less than \1/3\ of our pledge. Today, however, instead of making good on our promise now, those who object to my amendment cry, that would be mandatory spending--that's bad. How can it be bad policy to fund this vital program that we have guaranteed to fully fund--over and over again? It is now feasible. It is now painlessly possible and it must be done. We must pay our share of educating children with disabilities. No more excuses. The time is now. I know that there is some disagreement about whether or not a commitment was made. I want to tell you as someone that was there at the time that we made a pledge to fully fund this program. The time is now. I didn't have to ask my constituents in Vermont whether the Federal government made a commitment. I will show you what I got when I was home. This is a petition from every school district in the State of Vermont that says: Do what you promised to do; fund IDEA; fund special education. The chart behind me shows you what those petitions look like. Vermonters know that we made that commitment. Passing this amendment will do more to help our school districts meet their obligation to improve education in this country than nearly anything else we can do. Our amendment will triple what they presently receive. We promised. We should deliver it. The time to make good on this promise is now. Now some of you may think that because you were not here in 1975 that you were not party to a pledge to fully fund IDEA. In 1997 Congress once again took up this landmark legislation. This is a complex bill that has profound impact on classrooms across the Nation. With the strong leadership of Senator Lott, Senator Frist, Senator Gregg, Senator Kennedy, Senator Dodd, Senator Harkin, Senator Collins and others on my Committee, we passed the first reauthorization of IDEA in 22 years. It is an accomplishment that we are all very proud of. At that time, we reaffirmed our commitment to pay 40% of the costs of educating these children. We made this pledge to families, to school boards, and to the Governors of our States. Over the past three years, with the leadership of my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, we have made some progress. But as he has pointed out several times over the past year, we are only supporting 13 percent of these costs. In 1975, we made a pledge which we did not keep. In 1997 we made that same pledge once again when we reauthorized IDEA. I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle; If not now, then When? In the 105th Congress we felt it important to reaffirm our commitment to full funding for IDEA. We added language to the FY 1999 Budget that stated that IDEA should be fully funded as soon as feasible. This language was adopted unanimously by the Senate. At that time, we still faced budget deficits and it was argued that full funding was not feasible. Today, however, in an era of unprecedented economic prosperity and with budget surpluses projected far into the future, full funding is within our grasp. If not now, then when? In the 106th Congress we continued to press for full funding for IDEA. The FY 2000 budget resolution made room for about a $500,000,000 increase in funding for IDEA. Once again, the Senate adopted language that I advocated with Senator Gregg calling for full funding of IDEA as soon as feasible. The House of Representatives adopted a bipartisan free standing resolution that called for full funding. The budget resolution that is before us assumes that funding for IDEA will increase by $1 billion in FY 2001 and $2.5 billion in FY 2002. If there is time remaining, I will take time later on to discuss my concerns about whether these assumptions require cuts in other programs that we will not have the will to make at the end of the day. What is very clear, however, is that this budget resolution does not claim to fulfill our obligation to fully fund IDEA. The budget resolution assumes that the Federal government will never fund more than about 20% of the costs of educating disabled students. One half of what we have promised over and over again. If our amendment fails, adoption of this budget resolution will state clearly to the Nation that this Congress does not intend to fulfill its commitment any time in the next five years. Our amendment is simple. It provides a path by which we will achieve full funding for IDEA in fiscal year 2005. It sends a clear message to the Nation that we, as a body, make good on the commitments we make. I want to tell you that I am tired of being party to promises that this body hasn't kept. The time is now. I urge you to ask your people back in your state. Ask parents, teachers, and education administrators. Ask your governors. ``What would you prefer--the possibility of a future tax cut, or fully funding IDEA so you can have more money for education, and pay less property taxes?'' Fulfill the pledge that you made to your people. I tell you that if you want a hero's welcome, you will vote in favor of this. If it wins, let me tell you that they will be out on the streets marching to meet you when you come home. If you do not, I wouldn't want to go home. Tomorrow morning I will have a chance to drive this point home once again. Tonight I want to close by thanking my cosponsors for their stalwart commitment to fully funding IDEA. Senator Stevens, Chairman of the Appropriations, has been a strong advocate for IDEA. Senator Feingold has worked closely with me on this amendment and has been instrumental to getting us to the place we are today. Senator Collins has worked long and hard to persuade members of this body that we should fully fund IDEA. I also want to thank Senators Dodd and Kennedy and Harkin with whom I have worked for many many years to improve educational opportunities for disabled students. Similarly, I am grateful for the efforts of Senator Snowe and Senator Chafee. I feel confident that with their efforts, our amendment will prevail. Thank you.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Children and Families, will be held on Tuesday, April 11, 2000, 9:30 A.M., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``Early Childhood Programs for Low Income Families: Availability and Impact''. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on rules and administration

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that an Executive Session of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will be held on Wednesday, April 12, 2000, 11:00 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The following is the committee's agenda. agenda S. 2311, The Ryan White CARE Act. S. , Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Act Amendments of 2000. Presidential Nominations. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will be held on Thursday, April 13, 2000, 10:00 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Protecting Pension Assets. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, there is strong bipartisan support for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). To date, 45 Senators have signed a letter in support of $1.4 billion in regular funding, and $300 million in emergency funding, for LIHEAP during Fiscal Year 2001. I, along with my colleagues from the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition, will offer this Sense of the Senate to demonstrate the broad support for increased LIHEAP funding. The amendment expresses the sense of the Senate with respect to increasing LIHEAP regular funding from the current level of $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion. In my home State of Vermont, this past winter brought temperatures of fifteen below zero; and home heating oil prices soared to $2 a gallon. Approximately 11,400 Vermont families received benefits, which averaged $310 in regular funding for the entire season. Emergency funding contributed an additional $50-$135 depending on the fuel source. These numbers reveal the frugalness with which this program now has to operate. I am concerned that emergency LIHEAP funding is being used to make up for regular appropriations funding shortfalls. During the first four and half months of FY2000, all available emergency LIHEAP funding ($300 million) was released. There are requests for additional emergency funding. This situation demonstrates the need to increase regular funding to at least the sum of last year's regular and emergency funding amounts. There is no doubt that emergency funding was critical during this past winter's severe weather conditions and volatile fuel prices. However, LIHEAP funding is most effective when states have it in the form of regular funding, allowing proper advance budgeting and providing funding assistance to low income households before a crisis situation. In addition, it is critical that we maintain the integrity of the LIHEAP program through the regular funding cycle. The decision was made last year to consider the program an additional non-routine expense. I am concerned that this designation threatens the foundation of the program. This amendment seeks to return LIHEAP to its regular funding structure. LIHEAP is an effective tool for maintaining the basic needs of low- income households. Nevertheless, stagnant funding has resulted in a growing eligible population not receiving benefits due to lack of funding. The safety net for our low-income households is getting ever smaller and ever thinner. The statistics demonstrate the need for LIHEAP best. More than two- thirds of LIHEAP-eligible households have annual incomes of less than $8,000, approximately one-half have annual incomes below $6,000. It has been estimated that low-income households typically spend four times what middle-income households spend on utility services. Middle-income households spend about four percent of their income for energy purposes, whereas low-income households spend between 14% and 16%, and in many instances up to 25% for utility costs. Thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to address the funding needs of this important program. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am here today to join in introducing the Home Health Payment Fairness Act of 2000. This important bill has been crafted to protect the Medicare home health services that our seniors depend upon. I want to recognize the leadership of Senators Collins, Bond, Baucus, Reed, and the many others who are original cosponsors of this effort to protect access to home health services. My own state of Vermont is a model for providing high-quality, comprehensive care with a low price tag. For most of the 1990's, the average Medicare expenditure for home health care in Vermont has been the lowest in the nation. Vermont's home care system was designed to efficiently meet the needs of frail and elderly citizens in our largely rural state, but it, like home care across the country, has been put under tremendous pressure. Since the enactment of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) and imposition of the interim payment system (IPS), the Medicare home health benefit has been seriously eroded. The BBA failed to recognize how the new home health reimbursement would affect small, rural home health care providers. The IPS has caused such significant cash flow problems, that many agencies are struggling to make meet their payroll needs. Now, because of the BBA, agencies are facing the prospect of 15 % cut in Medicare funding in October of 2001. With providers already struggling to survive, any further cuts could spell disaster for low- cost, efficient providers, non-profit agencies, and patients. That is why we are introducing the Home Health Payment Fairness Act to eliminate the 15% reduction. The original budget target for home health expenditures from the BBA has already been far exceeded. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that the total home health cuts from BBA will total $69 billion in five years. That's more than four times what was originally estimated when BBA was passed. The Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 contained a provision requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to Congress in 2001 on whether the 15% reduction is still considered necessary. I think the answer is becoming more and more clear. We don't need it, and the Home Health Payment Fairness Act is designed to stop it. Adequate home health care services cannot survive any further reductions. Seniors depend on the home health benefit offered by the Medicare program, and we must make sure it will be there for them. Once again, I want to thank all the cosponsors for giving this legislation such broad, bipartisan support. Our seniors are depending on that kind of support more than ever before.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join my colleagues today in introducing the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources and Emergency Act Amendments of 2000; a measure that will reauthorize a national program of providing primary health care services for 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. Finally, I want to acknowledge Senator Enzi's recognition of the growing burden that AIDS and HIV is having 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. When I looked back to the last time the Ryan White CARE Act was reauthorized in 1996, I was heartened to see that the measure had garnered a vote of 97 to 3 on its final passage. I urge my colleagues to examine this bill we are introducing today and to join me in working toward its passage. 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. Fortunately, we have experienced significant success over the last decade, and especially over the last five years. The General Accounting Office recently released a report that found that CARE Act funds are reaching the infected groups that have generally been found to be 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. Mr. President, there have also been successes in the reduction of HIV/AIDS among women, infants and children. 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. New therapies and improved systems of care have led to impressive reductions in the AIDS death rate and the number of new AIDS cases. 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. Much has occurred to change the course of the AIDS epidemic since the last reauthorization. A whole new class of therapeutic drugs called anti-retrovirals have been developed and people are living longer and the rate of increase of the number of new AIDS cases has begun to level off. 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. The epidemic of HIV continues to grow, to infect whole new groups of people, and to expand both within our urban areas and beyond to our rural communities. While the rate of decline in new AIDS cases and AIDS 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. The bill being introduced 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. Earlier this month, I held a hearing 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 that will target assistance to rural and underserved 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. Furthermore, these areas will be given preference for direct care grants and we have strengthened the AIDS Drug Assistance Program to supplement those states struggling to provide lifesaving drugs to their HIV/AIDS patients. We have not changed the unique flexibility of CARE Act programs; it remains primarily a system of grants to State and local jurisdictions. States and EMAs will still decide how to best prioritize and address the healthcare needs of their HIV-positive citizens. Today, there are few people who can say they have not been touched by this epidemic. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit with Jeanne White. We talked about the impact of this disease; about the loved ones it has taken, and the damage to the lives of those it has left behind-- about the infected, and about the affected. We talked about her son Ryan, and about my good friend David Curtis of Burlington, Vermont, who testified before my committee in 1995, but who passed away just last year. As an advocate of the program and as a person living with AIDS, David helped me to understand the terrible impact of this disease. Ryan White and David and countless others, worked long and hard to ensure that all people affected by AIDS could receive both the care and compassion they deserve. The AIDS epidemic, despite our success in developing treatments and providing systems of care, is still ravaging communities in this country. This program remains 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 being introduced today will allow us to adapt our care systems to meet the most urgent needs in the communities hardest hit by the epidemic. 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 that needs our assistance, benefits from our tremendous advances. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in introducing the Health Coverage, Access, Relief and Equity Act or Health CARE Act. This legislation will provide low-income Americans with a refundable tax credit for the purchase of health insurance coverage. This effort marks the first major bipartisan, bicameral, market-based initiative on behalf of the uninsured since 1994. I believe the issue of access to health coverage for the uninsured must be a top national priority. The uninsured often go without needed health care or face unaffordable medical bills. Insurance coverage guarantees providers reimbursement for their services, and it helps contain costs by encouraging more appropriate use of the health care system. Unfortunately, the main source of coverage--employer-based insurance--is simply not available to a significant number of working Americans and their families. High health care cost increases have caused more people to become uninsured. New Census Bureau data indicate that there are now 44 million Americans with no health coverage, an increase of one million from last year. This number is unacceptable for a prosperous nation with a strong economy. A new poll indicates that our bill is consistent with the main health care concern of average voters. When asked what they think is the most important problem about our health care system that the government should address, the top choice--selected by 29 percent of those sampled--was universal coverage. I believe the legislation we're introducing today can provide the necessary foundation for achieving the goal of expanded health coverage. The Health CARE tax credit is targeted to those who are most in need of help, due to their lack of income, access to subsidized employment-based coverage, and ineligibility for public programs. About one-half of the full-time working poor were uninsured last year. Many of these individuals work for small firms. In my own state of Vermont, only 27 percent of workers in firms employing fewer than 10 people are offered health insurance. These uninsured working Americans have one thing in common: they are low wage workers--with nearly 70 percent making less than two times the minimum wage. Without additional resources, health insurance coverage is either beyond their reach or only purchased by giving up other basic necessities of life. The Health CARE Act will provide a refundable tax credit to help low and moderate-income individuals and families purchase health insurance. The legislation will provide a refundable tax credit of $1,000 for the purchase of individual coverage to those with adjusted gross incomes of up to $35,000 and it will provide a $2,000 credit for the purchase of family coverage for those with AGI of up to $55,000. The initial estimates show that this proposal will help almost 9 million Americans. It will provide health coverage for 3.2 million Americans who are presently uninsured and give needed financial relief to another 5.5 million low-income Americans who are using their scarce dollars to buy individual health insurance policies. Realizing that insurance coverage is not the single answer for our nation's health access problems, we are also developing additional components to the Health CARE Act which will focus on improving access to health care services and safety net providers, such as community health centers and rural health clinics. We must do whatever we can to ensure that the Safety Net already in place becomes stronger and more reliable. Just last week, the Subcommittee on Public Health held a hearing on three of our nation's safety provider programs--the Consolidated Health Centers program, the National Health Service Corps, and the Community Access program. I look forward to working with Senator Frist on shoring up the Safety Net, and together we plan to introduce an additional component to the CARE Act on Safety Net providers that will become part of the larger health CARE Package. Our goal for this legislation is to maximize health coverage, tax equity, and cost efficiency, and we believe it should be included as an important element in any tax package that Congress enacts this year. The Health CARE Act will increase the number of Americans who have health insurance coverage by filling key gaps in the current system and supporting a system of health care financial and delivery that complements the employment-based system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will take a look at this. I hope they will join me in making sure we do what must be done to make sure the people who need it the most gets it.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in introducing the Health Coverage, Access, Relief and Equity Act or Health CARE Act. This legislation will provide low-income Americans with a refundable tax credit for the purchase of health insurance coverage. This effort marks the first major bipartisan, bicameral, market-based initiative on behalf of the uninsured since 1994. I believe the issue of access to health coverage for the uninsured must be a top national priority. The uninsured often go without needed health care or face unaffordable medical bills. Insurance coverage guarantees providers reimbursement for their services, and it helps contain costs by encouraging more appropriate use of the health care system. Unfortunately, the main source of coverage--employer-based insurance--is simply not available to a significant number of working Americans and their families. High health care cost increases have caused more people to become uninsured. New Census Bureau data indicate that there are now 44 million Americans with no health coverage, an increase of one million from last year. This number is unacceptable for a prosperous nation with a strong economy. A new poll indicates that our bill is consistent with the main health care concern of average voters. When asked what they think is the most important problem about our health care system that the government should address, the top choice--selected by 29 percent of those sampled--was universal coverage. I believe the legislation we're introducing today can provide the necessary foundation for achieving the goal of expanded health coverage. The Health CARE tax credit is targeted to those who are most in need of help, due to their lack of income, access to subsidized employment-based coverage, and ineligibility for public programs. About one-half of the full-time working poor were uninsured last year. Many of these individuals work for small firms. In my own state of Vermont, only 27 percent of workers in firms employing fewer than 10 people are offered health insurance. These uninsured working Americans have one thing in common: they are low wage workers--with nearly 70 percent making less than two times the minimum wage. Without additional resources, health insurance coverage is either beyond their reach or only purchased by giving up other basic necessities of life. The Health CARE Act will provide a refundable tax credit to help low and moderate-income individuals and families purchase health insurance. The legislation will provide a refundable tax credit of $1,000 for the purchase of individual coverage to those with adjusted gross incomes of up to $35,000 and it will provide a $2,000 credit for the purchase of family coverage for those with AGI of up to $55,000. The initial estimates show that this proposal will help almost 9 million Americans. It will provide health coverage for 3.2 million Americans who are presently uninsured and give needed financial relief to another 5.5 million low-income Americans who are using their scarce dollars to buy individual health insurance policies. Realizing that insurance coverage is not the single answer for our nation's health access problems, we are also developing additional components to the Health CARE Act which will focus on improving access to health care services and safety net providers, such as community health centers and rural health clinics. We must do whatever we can to ensure that the Safety Net already in place becomes stronger and more reliable. Just last week, the Subcommittee on Public Health held a hearing on three of our nation's safety provider programs--the Consolidated Health Centers program, the National Health Service Corps, and the Community Access program. I look forward to working with Senator Frist on shoring up the Safety Net, and together we plan to introduce an additional component to the CARE Act on Safety Net providers that will become part of the larger health CARE Package. Our goal for this legislation is to maximize health coverage, tax equity, and cost efficiency, and we believe it should be included as an important element in any tax package that Congress enacts this year. The Health CARE Act will increase the number of Americans who have health insurance coverage by filling key gaps in the current system and supporting a system of health care financial and delivery that complements the employment-based system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will take a look at this. I hope they will join me in making sure we do what must be done to make sure the people who need it the most gets it.