Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, last year Congress passed and the President signed a significant measure that will, as funds are provided, provide compassionate compensation payments to hundreds of individuals. Public Law 105-369, the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Act of 1998, authorizes payments for hemophiliacs treated with blood products infected with HIV during the 1980s as well as their infected spouses and children. Last year, Mr. President, you and I, and all of our colleagues gave our unanimous consent to this measure because we all knew it was the right thing to do. But we accomplished only part of the job. We provided compassionate compensation to only a portion of the Americans who, through indecisiveness and inaction on the part of federal government, became infected with HIV. So today I am introducing legislation that will set the record straight and finish what needs to be done, and I hope that our colleagues will once again in the name of fairness and compassion give this measure their unanimous support. I am on the floor today to introduce legislation that will bring much needed fairness to hundreds of our citizens. This bill, the Ricky Ray Fairness Act of 1999 will finally include those people, other than hemophiliacs, who were infected with HIV and contracted AIDS through HIV contaminated blood products or tissues. The blood crisis of the 1980s resulted in the HIV infection of thousands of Americans who trusted that the blood or blood product with which they were treated was safe. The tragedy of the blood supply's contamination has brought unbearable pain to families all over the country. I have heard from dozens over the past months. These are people like any of us--like our children and our grandchildren--who went to hospitals for standard procedures, emergency care, or were transfused due to complications in childbirth. Many children and adults were secondarily infected: children through childbirth or HIV-infected breast milk and adults through their spouses. Lives were lost and futures were ruined. Not only were there physical and emotional costs, but there exists a tremendous drain on personal finances as a result of lost income and extreme medical expenses. In the minds of these and in the minds of members who advocated for the Ricky Ray bill, the federal government played the determining role in the tragedy. Mr President, these people were infected with HIV because the federal government failed to protect the blood supply during the mid-1980s when it did not use its regulatory authority to implement a wide range of blood and blood-donor screening options recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Had the federal government taken the recommendations of the CDC, thousands of American men, women and children would not have contracted AIDS through HIV-contaminated blood and blood products. Sadly, and unfairly, the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act as passed last year does not include all victims of the blood supply crisis. I feel strongly that the Act must be amended to include compensation for not only hemophiliacs, but also people who received a blood transfusion or blood product in the course of medical treatment. Though it was right for us to pass the Ricky Ray Act last year, it remains an inequity and a tragedy that the federal government did so without including victims of transfusion-associated AIDS. Unlike a few individuals, most people infected with HIV through blood and blood products have been unable to track the source of their infection; nor have they been able to obtain some judicial relief through the courts. The community hit by this tragedy has found it nearly impossible to make recovery through the courts because of blood shield laws in most states that raise the burden of proof for product liability claims for blood and blood products. In addition, all States have statutes of limitations that prohibit litigation if the suit was not filed within a certain period of time. I am introducing today what can be the final chapter in our Country's responsibility for not adequately protecting the blood supply during the 1980s. The Ricky Ray Fairness Act of 1999 provides compassionate payments to those infected with HIV contaminated blood, blood components, or human tissues. While the change to include transfusion cases increases the cost of this bill, many have already noted that this bill is not about money, it's about fairness. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the terrible tragedy the blood supply crisis of the 1980s cast upon all of its victims.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to an extraordinary Vermonter, a gifted parliamentarian, and a true friend, Robert Gibson. Bob Gibson served the Vermont Legislature for over 35 years, first as Assistant Secretary of the Senate, and then as Secretary of the Senate. In these positions, he provided invaluable advice and counsel to every Senator who has served Vermont, from 1963, until his death in October. Bob Gibson was born in Brattleboro in 1931, into one of Vermont's most distinguished families, a family dedicated to serving the public good. Bob's grandfather, Ernest Gibson, was president of the state Senate in 1908, a U.S. Congressman and a U.S. Senator. His father, Ernest Gibson, Jr., was an appointed U.S. Senator, Governor of Vermont, a U.S. District Court judge, a decorated war hero and a close friend of my father. And both of Bob's brothers are exceptional citizens and public servants. His brother, Ernest III, is a former Vermont Supreme Court Justice and his other brother, David, is a former state's attorney for Windham County. Both Bob Gibson and his father helped me immeasurably in my early years as a lawyer and a legislator. I clerked for Bob's father after law school, and was impressed by his vast knowledge of and respect for our laws, and his dedication to making Vermont a better place. And when I was elected to my first public office in 1967, as a Senator from Rutland County, it was Bob who steered me through the legislative process and set a standard of bipartisanship that has guided me throughout my career. With a rare sense of fairness and a vast knowledge of the Vermont Legislature, Bob extended the same helping hand to every Senator that served in the Chamber during his tenure. Current Vermont State Senator from Caledonia County, Robert Ide, recently stated, ``Bob Gibson's reputation for fairness and honesty was above reproach from any member of the Senate. His guidance and respect from the leadership of both parties was unparalleled in the Vermont statehouse. He was a true friend and mentor for everyone who served in his classroom, and he will be sorely missed.'' Bob Gibson was a positive force in the Senate, who kept lawmakers moving forward in an orderly fashion. He was a positive force in his native Brattleboro, serving the community in a variety of ways before moving to Montpelier and becoming Assistant Secretary. He was a positive force in his family, dedicated to his wife, daughters, parents and brothers. And he was a positive force to all those who had the privilege of calling him a friend. I pay tribute today to a man who paid tribute every day, to the values that Vermont holds dear--hard work, honesty and fairness. We have lost a Vermont institution, but Bob Gibson's legacy lives on in the laws he helped to enact and the lives that he touched.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank my distinguished colleague from Connecticut for his acute remarks. He is quite right: at root, this is a question of equity, and it is a question of fundamental importance in a deregulated power market. The Nation's dirtiest power plants have abused loopholes in federal law to dirty our air, pollute our lungs, and kill our most vulnerable citizens. With one set of loopholes about to close, these power plants now seek to create new ones. These power plants have exploited the law for nearly 30 years. Now, EPA is exposing their effort for what it is: a blatant violation of the public trust. In response, these dirty polluters are pushing appropriations riders that would justify and permanently extend their unlimited ability to pollute. Haven't these power plants done enough damage already? Isn't it enough that they have been allowed to pollute 10 times more than our plants in the Northeast for years and years? Couldn't they now apply the same pollution control equipment that our plants in the Northeast employ? The problem is growing even worse with the deregulation of electricity markets. In the five years since deregulation of the wholesale electricity market, increased generation at coal fired power plants has added the equivalent of 37 million cars worth of smog to our air. These power plants are now seeking to permanently extend their unfair advantage. We need a level playing field. The nation's dirtiest power plants should not be able to exploit loopholes in federal law at the expense of the rest of the nation. We need to pass laws to clean up our air, not make it dirtier. I strongly oppose any attempt to make it easier for the nation's dirtiest power plants to continue their excessive pollution.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, for years small communities across the United States have labored to meet environmental regulations written for major cities. They have struggled unduly with complicated regulations designed for Chicago or Los Angeles. Today I am introducing legislation designed to end this problem: the Small Community Assistance Act of 1999. We who live in small towns such as my home town of Shrewsbury, Vermont are proud of our community and our environment. We want to comply with reasonable health and environmental standards in order to leave a healthy legacy for our children. But we do not have the staff or financial capacity of larger communities to respond to far-reaching regulations. We are concerned about standards written without consideration for the special circumstances small towns in America face. While we recognize the importance of environmental regulations in safeguarding our air and water, we need the ability to respond intelligently to local priorities and needs. We want to comply with environmental regulations, but we need some flexibility in order to comply in a reasonable manner. We do not want preferential treatment, we want treatment that recognizes our unique size and fiscal situation. In 1991, I authored the Small Town Environmental Planning Act. This act passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate and was signed into law by President Bush in 1992. This act mandated that the Environmental Protection Agency give more assistance to small towns. It created a task force comprised of representatives from small communities across the nation. These small town representatives developed a list of ways in which the EPA can better help small towns enjoy and maintain a healthy environment. It is now time to take their advice. The Small Community Assistance Act of 1999 will give much needed assistance to small towns and communities in Vermont and across the nation. This bill will give small communities more input into the regulatory review process, clearer and simpler environmental guidelines, and more assistance in meeting environmental obligations. This legislation acts on the recommendations of people from small communities throughout the United Stats. Small community members provided the impetus for this bill, helped write the bill itself, and provided numerous helpful comments. To these small community members I offer my sincere appreciation. I would especially like to thank the members of EPA's Small Community Advisory Subcommittee for all of their help, and I thank the committee for its unanimous endorsement of this bill. I would like to thank the original cosponsors of this bill, Senators Crapo, Murkowski, Schumer, Harkin, Bryan, Burns, and Reid. Their leadership on this bill underscores their dedication to helping people in our small towns. I urge every one of my colleagues to cosponsor this bill. Together, we can improve the quality of life and further environmental protections in our small communities nationwide.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, for years small communities across the United States have labored to meet environmental regulations written for major cities. They have struggled unduly with complicated regulations designed for Chicago or Los Angeles. Today I am introducing legislation designed to end this problem: the Small Community Assistance Act of 1999. We who live in small towns such as my home town of Shrewsbury, Vermont are proud of our community and our environment. We want to comply with reasonable health and environmental standards in order to leave a healthy legacy for our children. But we do not have the staff or financial capacity of larger communities to respond to far-reaching regulations. We are concerned about standards written without consideration for the special circumstances small towns in America face. While we recognize the importance of environmental regulations in safeguarding our air and water, we need the ability to respond intelligently to local priorities and needs. We want to comply with environmental regulations, but we need some flexibility in order to comply in a reasonable manner. We do not want preferential treatment, we want treatment that recognizes our unique size and fiscal situation. In 1991, I authored the Small Town Environmental Planning Act. This act passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate and was signed into law by President Bush in 1992. This act mandated that the Environmental Protection Agency give more assistance to small towns. It created a task force comprised of representatives from small communities across the nation. These small town representatives developed a list of ways in which the EPA can better help small towns enjoy and maintain a healthy environment. It is now time to take their advice. The Small Community Assistance Act of 1999 will give much needed assistance to small towns and communities in Vermont and across the nation. This bill will give small communities more input into the regulatory review process, clearer and simpler environmental guidelines, and more assistance in meeting environmental obligations. This legislation acts on the recommendations of people from small communities throughout the United Stats. Small community members provided the impetus for this bill, helped write the bill itself, and provided numerous helpful comments. To these small community members I offer my sincere appreciation. I would especially like to thank the members of EPA's Small Community Advisory Subcommittee for all of their help, and I thank the committee for its unanimous endorsement of this bill. I would like to thank the original cosponsors of this bill, Senators Crapo, Murkowski, Schumer, Harkin, Bryan, Burns, and Reid. Their leadership on this bill underscores their dedication to helping people in our small towns. I urge every one of my colleagues to cosponsor this bill. Together, we can improve the quality of life and further environmental protections in our small communities nationwide.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an increase in the Federal minimum wage. I strongly believe that the time has come to raise the minimum wage again and that we should raise the minimum wage by a $1.00 an hour increase over the next 2 years. The minimum wage is not the only way--or even the best way--to give folks in need a helping hand to get out of poverty. But I do believe that it should at least keep pace with inflation. Unfortunately, that is not happening. Today's minimum wage is 19 percent below the 1979 level. To give you a better idea of what this means for working families, consider that a minimum wage employee working full time earns about $10,700 a year--more than $3,000 below the $13,880 poverty line for a family of three. Workers deserve better. At a time when our economy is booming, we should not allow this trend to continue. Instead, we must continue to raise the minimum wage to keep pace with the rising cost of life's basic needs My home State of Vermont recently raised the minimum wage to $5.75 an hour in response to its awareness of the cost of living. Let's follow its lead, a dollar-an-hour increase in the Federal minimum wage will put $2,000 a year in the pockets of working families at or near the poverty line. And given that 2 years has passed since the last increase, small businesses have had the time to adjust. Although this money will not solve all the problems of the working poor, it will go a long way toward helping minimum wage workers obtain basic needs for themselves and their families. In addition to raising the minimum wage, there are many other things that Congress can and should do to assist low wage workers and their families. We must continue to search out and support targeted solutions such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The EITC provides some 20 million low-income households with a refundable tax credit. Last year, the EITC enabled a worker earning minimum wage, who was either a single parent or the sole wage earning parent of dependent children, to receive up to $ 3,816 in additional income. Along with measures that will raise take home pay, I know that we can do more to assist low-income families with their basic needs. Over the past few years, an organization in Vermont called the Peace and Justice Center has examined how low wage workers and their families were faring in my home State. The Vermont Wage Gap Study showed that while we are enjoying one of the most extraordinary economic booms in the history of our country, thousands of workers in my home State are having great difficulty making ends meet. The study found that the cost of meeting basic needs is more than many of Vermont's low income workers are earning. For example, the Vermont Job Gap Study indicated that child care and health care are among working families largest expenses. Over the past few years, I have been pushing for national child care legislation to assist these working families with their child care needs. On the health care side, we were able to enact the Children's' Health Insurance Program which is helping to improve children's health for working families who cannot afford health coverage for their children. In addition, we should help low income workers in obtaining health insurance. I am currently working on a proposal that would provide uninsured and under-insured workers with the money they need to buy health insurance. But the predominant factor influencing an individual's ability to support his or her family is not to be found in the minimum wage or the tax code. Study after study has found it is education. Simply put, you earn what you learn. I urge my colleagues to work with me on continuing to pass legislation aimed at improving our educational systems, and job training programs. It is my hope that these efforts will improve the skills and employability of our workforce and will enable low-wage workers to obtain better paying jobs. I would like to add that I think it is entirely appropriate that an increase in the minimum wage be accompanied by tax breaks for those who will have to shoulder higher wage costs, especially small employers. And I strongly favor several of the tax breaks in this amendment. In particular, I support acceleration of deductibility of health insurance costs for the self-employed; increasing the amount of equipment purchases that small businesses can deduct each year; and providing tax credits to employers who provide on-site child care. At the same time, some of the tax provisions bear little relationship to the impact of a minimum wage hike on small businesses. In addition, I am concerned that we have not had adequate time to explore the implications and effects of all of the tax provisions. My vote in support of this amendment should not be read as an endorsement of each and every tax provision, but rather reflects my fundamental belief that the time has come for a minimum wage increase. Lastly, I would comment on the language in Senator Kennedy's amendment increasing disclosure to participants of cash balance pension plans and prohibiting so-called benefit ``wear-aways''. This language is being offered in response to the conversion of hundreds of traditional defined benefit pension plans into cash balance or other hybrid arrangements. I believe that legitimate concerns have been raised that notices about the plan changes that were sent to participants have been insufficient. In fact, until recently many workers have been unaware that their plan was amended to significantly reduce the rate at which they are earning benefits. While pension law only requires employers to pay what an employee has actually earned under the plan, when these changes are made toward the middle of a worker's career, the effect can be devastating. This legislation will help workers better understand what the changes in their plan mean for their retirement plans. It requires plan sponsors to give participants notice of the conversions in a more timely fashion, in plain English and on an individualized basis. In the words of my colleague Senator Moynihan, this disclosure requirement helps to make cash balance conversions transparent for the plan participants. I feel this change is warranted and urgently needed. But this amendment does more. It also prohibits an unfortunate pension practice called the benefit ``wear-away''. When some plans are converted, workers with long-years of service may not earn any benefits for a number of years. I believe this practice is unfair. There is no reason why an individual with 20 years of service should not earn any benefits while a younger worker earns benefits immediately. The language in this amendment will effectively prohibit wear-aways. As we conclude the first session of the 106th Congress, I hold steadfast in my belief that Congress must do everything in its power to help working families. The time has come to raise the minimum wage and give the workers who are depending on it a better shot at self- sufficiency. I believe that a $1.00 increase over the next 2 years will certainly help. However, I also believe that a slower increase is better than none at all. Therefore if we do not have the votes in the Senate to pass a 2-year increase, I will also support a 3-year increase.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we were all deeply saddened just a few days ago at the death of Senator John Chafee. Certainly, that sadness can never diminish completely. But having his son with us today and starting right off by introducing an excellent piece of legislation certainly brings us strong hope for the future. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Rhode Island for introducing the Literacy Involves Families Together Act, the LIFT Act. This legislation reauthorizes one of the most effective education programs, Even Start. The Even Start Act was first introduced in 1985 by Representative Bill Goodling, chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, and our former colleague, Senator John Chafee. When first created, the goal of the Even Start program was to develop a comprehensive literacy program that improves educational opportunities for disadvantaged families by focusing on parenting education, early childhood education, and adult education. Since its establishment a little over a decade ago, Even Start has grown from 76 local programs serving 2,500 families to an estimated 600 programs assisting over 36,000 parents and 48,000 children. The most recent evaluation of the Even Start program illustrated that both the adults and children who participated in the program significantly improved their reading and basic education skills. The evaluation specifically pointed out that the educational gap that existed at the beginning of the school year for first term Even Start students was reduced by approximately two-thirds when the Even Start students were tested at the conclusion of the school year. The most recent national survey of reading achievement by fourth graders indicates that forty-four percent of school age children in this nation are reading below a basic level of achievement. Sadly, the statistics are also dismal when analyzing adult literacy skills. The most recent National Adult Literacy Survey found a total of 44 million adults, almost 25 percent of the adult population in the United States, were at the lowest literacy level. The lowest literacy level means that 44 million adults in this country have demonstrated difficulty in the reading and writing skills essential for carrying out daily routines. The uniqueness of the Even Start program is that it provides services to the entire family--it enables families to learn together. I commend my colleague from Rhode Island for making literacy a very high priority. I am especially pleased that he chose to sponsor the reauthorization of the Even Start program which was first introduced to this body by his father. I look forward to working with the Senator from Rhode Island on the Literacy Involves Families Together Act, the LIFT Act, as a part of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which the Senate will consider early next year and on other education and literacy initiatives that will enable all of our Nation's citizens to have the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in the global economy. I again commend the Senator from Rhode Island for being out here so fast and quick with a very important piece of legislation. I share his enthusiasm and look forward to working with him.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we were all deeply saddened just a few days ago at the death of Senator John Chafee. Certainly, that sadness can never diminish completely. But having his son with us today and starting right off by introducing an excellent piece of legislation certainly brings us strong hope for the future. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Rhode Island for introducing the Literacy Involves Families Together Act, the LIFT Act. This legislation reauthorizes one of the most effective education programs, Even Start. The Even Start Act was first introduced in 1985 by Representative Bill Goodling, chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, and our former colleague, Senator John Chafee. When first created, the goal of the Even Start program was to develop a comprehensive literacy program that improves educational opportunities for disadvantaged families by focusing on parenting education, early childhood education, and adult education. Since its establishment a little over a decade ago, Even Start has grown from 76 local programs serving 2,500 families to an estimated 600 programs assisting over 36,000 parents and 48,000 children. The most recent evaluation of the Even Start program illustrated that both the adults and children who participated in the program significantly improved their reading and basic education skills. The evaluation specifically pointed out that the educational gap that existed at the beginning of the school year for first term Even Start students was reduced by approximately two-thirds when the Even Start students were tested at the conclusion of the school year. The most recent national survey of reading achievement by fourth graders indicates that forty-four percent of school age children in this nation are reading below a basic level of achievement. Sadly, the statistics are also dismal when analyzing adult literacy skills. The most recent National Adult Literacy Survey found a total of 44 million adults, almost 25 percent of the adult population in the United States, were at the lowest literacy level. The lowest literacy level means that 44 million adults in this country have demonstrated difficulty in the reading and writing skills essential for carrying out daily routines. The uniqueness of the Even Start program is that it provides services to the entire family--it enables families to learn together. I commend my colleague from Rhode Island for making literacy a very high priority. I am especially pleased that he chose to sponsor the reauthorization of the Even Start program which was first introduced to this body by his father. I look forward to working with the Senator from Rhode Island on the Literacy Involves Families Together Act, the LIFT Act, as a part of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which the Senate will consider early next year and on other education and literacy initiatives that will enable all of our Nation's citizens to have the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in the global economy. I again commend the Senator from Rhode Island for being out here so fast and quick with a very important piece of legislation. I share his enthusiasm and look forward to working with him.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, and my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Frist, Collins, Wellstone, Reed, Dodd, Murray, and Enzi, I am pleased that we are considering S. 1809, the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1999. This legislation, commonly referred to as the DD Act, represents the reauthorization of a piece of legislation with a rich legacy, and a long history of bipartisan Congressional support. It was initially enacted as Title I of the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963 as part of the legacy of President Kennedy, and was last reauthorized in 1996 under the sponsorship of Senator Frist. It has always focused on the needs of our most vulnerable citizens, currently an estimated four million Americans with developmental disabilities, including individuals with mental retardation and other lifelong, severe disabilities. I am pleased to say that S. 1809 was reported out, unanimously, by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on November 3, 1999. I would like to take a moment to review the history of this legislation, and the programs in each State that it authorizes. The earliest version of this legislation focused on the interdisciplinary training of professionals to work with individuals with developmental disabilities by authorizing funding for University Affiliated Facilities charged with expanding the carde of professionals able to address the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities. Later, the name of the programs was changed to University Affiliated Programs (UAPs), and their mission was expanded to include community services and information dissemination pertaining to individuals with developmental disabilities. In 1996, after 33 years of planned expansion by Congress, the DD Act provided funding for at least one UAP in each State. The present reauthorization recognizes the development of these programs, adds research as a core function, and renames UAPs as Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service. In the 1970 reauthorization of the DD Act, Congress recognized the need for and value of strengthening State efforts to coordinate and integrate services for individuals with developmental disabilities. As a result, Congress established and authorized funding for State Developmental Disabilities Councils (DD Councils) in each State. The purpose of the Councils was, and continues to be, to advise governors and State agencies regarding the use of available and potential resources to meet the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities. Every State has a DD Council. The Councils undertake advocacy, capacity building, and systemic change activities directed at improving access to and quality of community services, supports, and other forms of assistance for individuals with disabilities and their families. In 1975, Congress created and authorized funding for Protection and Advocacy Systems (P & As) in each State to ensure the safety and well being of individuals with developmental disabilities. The mission of these systems has evolved over the years, initially addressing the protection of individuals with developmental disabilities who lived in institutions, to the present responsibilities related to the protection of individuals with developmental disabilities from abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and from the violation of their legal and human rights, both in institutions and other community settings. The 1975 reauthorization of the DD Act also established funding for Projects of National Significance. Through this new authority Congress authorizes funding for initiatives to address areas of national importance. Over the years, projects related to individuals with developmental disabilities and their treatment in the criminal justice system, their experiences with home ownership, in employment, their use of assistive technology, and their involvement in self-advocacy have been supported through Projects of National Significance. The legislation before us today, S. 1809, the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1999 builds on the past successes of these programs. Additionally, this bill reflects today's changing society and seeks to provide a foundation for the services and supports that individuals with developmental disabilities, their families, and communities need as we enter the next century. Let me take a moment to highlight the major provisions of this legislation. S. 1809 continues a tradition of support for DD programs in each State including DD Councils, Protection and Advocacy Systems, and University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service. The purpose of the DD programs in each State is to engage in advocacy, capacity building, and systemic change activities related to improving the quality of life for individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. This legislation seeks to ensure that individuals with developmental disabilities are able to fully participate in and contribute to their communities through fall integration and inclusion in the economic, political, social, cultural, and educational mainstream of our Nation. It also assists DD Act programs to improve the range and quality of supports and services for individuals with developmental disabilities and their families regardless of where they choose to live. This legislation recognizes that individuals with developmental disabilities often have multiple, evolving, life long needs that require services and supports from agencies and organizations that offer specialized and generic forms of assistance in their communities. The nature of the needs of these individuals and the capacity of States and communities to respond to them have changed. In the past 5 years, new strategies for reaching, engaging, and assisting individuals with developmental disabilities have gained visibility and credibility. These state of the art strategies are reinforced by and reflected in this bill. This bill also recognizes that individuals with developmental disabilities often are at greater risk of abuse, neglect, financial and sexual exploitation, and the violation of their legal and human rights, than the general population. Based upon this recognition, the bill supports the extra effort and attention needed, in both individual and systemic situations, to ensure that individuals with developmental disabilities are at no greater risk of harm than others in the general population. In the past, the Councils, P&A Systems, and Centers have been authorized to provide advocacy, capacity building, and systemic change activities to make access to and navigation through various service systems easier for individuals with developmental disabilities. Over time there has been pressure for these three programs to provide assistance beyond the limit of their resources and beyond their authorized missions. The bill clearly and concisely specifies the roles and responsibilities of Councils, P&A Systems, and Centers so that there is a common understanding of what the programs are intended to contribute toward a State's efforts to respond to the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. S. 1809 gives States' Councils, P&A Systems, and Centers increased flexibility. Each program in a State, working with stakeholders, is to develop goals for how to assure that individuals with developmental disabilities and their families participate in the design of and have access to needed community services, individualized supports, and other forms of assistance that promote self-determination, independence, productivity, integration, and inclusion in all facets of community life. Goals may be set in any of the following areas of emphasis: quality assurance, education and early intervention, child care, health, employment, housing, transportation, recreation, or other community services. Consistent with Congressional emphasis on strengthening accountability for all Federal programs, this legislation requires each program to determine, before undertaking a goal, how that goal will be measured. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is to develop indicators of progress to evaluate how the three programs in each State have engaged in activities to promote and achieve the purposes of the Act. In particular, the Secretary is to monitor how the three programs funded in each State coordinate their efforts, and how that coordination affects the quality of supports and services for individuals with developmental disabilities and their families in that State. In doing so Congress recognizes that the programs funded under the DD Act do not have day to day responsibility for the outcomes of the programs directly serving people with developmental disabilities in their States. Therefore, Congressional intent is that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services develop measures regarding the quality of program activities funded under Title I of this bill, to provide accountability in the areas of advocacy, capacity building, and systems changes as they relate to the areas of emphasis defined in Section 102(2), and that these measures are consistent with the purposes and policies articulated in Section 101. In recent years, a clearer picture has emerged of what individuals with developmental disabilities are able to accomplish, with the appropriate support, when they have access to the same choices and opportunities available to others. There has been increasing recognition of and support for self-advocacy organizations established by and for individuals with developmental disabilities, particularly individuals with cognitive disabilities. This bill reflects and promotes such efforts by authorizing DD Councils to support the establishment and strengthening of at least one statewide self-advocacy organization for individuals with developmental disabilities in each State. It also authorizes national technical assistance for self advocacy organizations. In addition to S. 1809 renaming the University Affiliated Programs as University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service, this legislation expands Centers' responsibilities to include the conduct of research, authorizes National Training Initiatives on Critical and Emerging Needs, and links the Centers to create a National Network. In doing so Congress recognizes that Centers have a long history of providing state of the art community education and training in a variety of areas related to improving the capacity of communities to meet the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. It is the intention of Congress that Centers will continue to provide this training. It is also Congress' intention to recognize and utilize the capacity of all Centers to meet critical and emerging training needs in accordance with Sections 152(c) and 153(b). It also anticipates that Congress will authorize Centers to meet other emerging and critical training and research needs related to individuals with developmental disabilities through other legislation. By administering the three programs specifically authorized under the DD Act and by funding Projects of National Significance to accomplish similar or complementary efforts, the Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) in HHS plays a critical role in supporting and fostering new ways to assist individuals with developmental disabilities and their families, and in promoting system integration to expand and improve community services for individuals with disabilities. The bill provides ADD with the ability to foster similar efforts across the Executive Branch. It authorizes ADD to pursue and join with other Executive Branch entities in activities that will improve choices, opportunities, and services for individuals with developmental disabilities and to fully utilize the potential of the entities authorized under title I to achieve these goals. Since this bill adds new responsibilities for tracking accountability and collaboration which may trigger the need for additional resources, Section 163(b)(2) authorizes funds for administrative purposes. The intent is that these funds supplement, but not supplant existing administrative funds provided to ADD. I would like to thank Senator Harkin, and Senators Frist and Wellstone for drafting provisions in Title II and Title III, respectively. Title II of this legislation addresses the critical need for family support for families of individuals with severe disabilities. The bill authorizes grants (one, 3-year grant per State, on a competitive basis) to assist States to provide services to families who choose to keep their children with disabilities at home. It gives support to States' efforts to assist families. Family support services are cost effective in reducing the costs associated with life- long disability, and in preventing the expense of out-of-home placement. Such services allow individuals with disabilities to stay at home with their families. Title II gives flexibility and authority to States in the design of statewide systems of family support services for families of children with disabilities. Family support activities supported through this bill should be family-centered and family-directed. This means families of children with disabilities have control over decisions relating to the supports that will meet the priorities of their family, and participate in the planning, development, implementation, and evaluation of the statewide system of family support. When applying for a grant, States are expected to demonstrate the nature and extent of the involvement of families of children with disabilities and individuals with disabilities in the development of the application and in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the statewide system of family support for families of children with disabilities. The bill requires States to designate a lead entity that will coordinate activities funded under the grant. The lead agency should have the capacity to promote a statewide system of family support services that is family-centered and family-directed; to promote and implement systems change activities; and to maximize access to public and private funds for family support services for families of children with disabilities. The application should also designate the involvement of other State or local agencies, including local councils, in both the preparation of the application and the continuing role of each agency in the statewide system of family support for families of children with disabilities. This legislation also gives States maximum flexibility in selecting activities they will implement in providing family support services for families of children with disabilities, including populations who are unserved or underserved. Activities may include training and technical assistance; the development or strengthening of family-centered and family-directed approaches to services, including service coordination services, service planning services, and respite care services; and assistance to families of children with disabilities in accessing natural and community supports and in obtaining benefits and services. A State may also conduct needs assessments; evaluations of data related to the statewide system of family support for families of children with disabilities; or pilot demonstration projects to demonstrate new approaches to the provision of family support services for families of children with disabilities. Title III recognizes and responds to a national need to increase the number of, and improve the training for, direct support workers who assist individuals with developmental disabilities where they live, work, go to school, and engage in other aspects of community life, consistent and in coordination with title I of this legislation. Title III acknowledges that direct support workers play essential roles in providing the support that individuals with developmental disabilities need, and in expanding community options for these individuals. Section 303 of title III authorizes the Reaching Up Scholarships Program to encourage continuing education for individuals who provide direct support to individuals with developmental disabilities. This scholarship program authorizes vouchers of up to $2,000 to an eligible direct support worker. Recipients of these vouchers will be direct support workers who assist individuals with developmental disabilities in a wide range of settings. This grant program will be administered through institutions of higher education, State agencies, or consortia of such institutions or agencies. It will enable direct support workers to access training related to providing state of the art supports and services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. Title III, section 304 of this legislation provides funding for the development, evaluation, and dissemination of a staff development curriculum, and related guidelines for computer-assisted, competency- based, multi-media, interactive instruction to provide staff development for individuals in direct service roles with people with developmental disabilities and their families. Title III also recognizes the potential contribution of individuals with developmental disabilities who themselves may choose to become direct service providers. This state of the art curriculum will allow direct service workers, including those with limited levels of literacy, access to and participation in, state of the art training that reflects the principles articulated in title I, particularly the principles of self- determination, independence, productivity, integration, and inclusion of individuals with developmental disabilities in all aspects of community life. The curriculum will also address the use of positive supports and interventions as alternatives to the use of aversive treatment, particularly the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion with individuals with developmental disabilities across the age span and in a variety of settings. The curriculum will be fully field-tested, evaluated, and nationally disseminated. Throughout the country, the DD Act programs have a long history of achievement. In Vermont, the DD Act programs make on-going contributions to major initiatives affecting individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. They play significant roles in many of Vermont's accomplishments, including: the inclusion of children with severe disabilities into local schools and classrooms; early intervention and family leadership initiatives that are national models; and innovative programs in the areas of employment, and community living options for individuals with developmental disabilities. Based upon the letters our office has received from across the country, it is clear that these DD programs make substantial, positive differences in all States. S. 1809 is bi-partisan, balanced, and responsive legislation that reflects months of discussion and collaboration among individuals and organizations representing a full range of opinion. I would like to recognize the contributions of the numerous disability and advocacy groups that provided public input, especially the Developmental Disabilities Task Force of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities and their co-chairs, who have worked with staff over nine months to develop this legislation. I would like to thank Senate staff including Connie Garner from Senator Kennedy's staff, Katie Corrigan and Tom Hlavacek from Senator Harkin's staff, Dave Larson from Senator Frist's staff, Cheryl Chambers from Senator Wellstone's staff, and Liz King from the Senate Legislative Counsel. I would also like to thank staff from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services including Sue Swenson, Reggie Wells, and Elsbeth Wyatt from the Administration on Developmental Disabilities, and Barbara Clark and Amy Lockhart from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation. And finally, I would like to thank my own HELP Committee staff particularly Pat Morrissey, Lu Zeph, Leah Menzies, Heidi Scheuermann, and Mark Powden who worked long and hard on this legislation. S. 1809 continues a long tradition of Congressional support for individuals with developmental disabilities, their families, and their communities and ensures that this support will continue to meet their needs into the next century. I ask my colleagues to join me today in voting to pass this bill out of the Senate.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to permit my home state of Vermont to enter the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) program. Before the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) all 50 states were qualified for SIB revolving funds. These funds are capitalized with federal and state contributions and used to provide loans and other sorts of non-grant aid to transportation projects. TEA-21 expanded the SIB program to California, Florida, Missouri, and Rhode Island. With this bill, I am proposing to add Vermont as a participant in the SIB program. The SIB program functions to authorize loans to public or private organizations to cover the whole or partial costs of an approved project, and to make allowances for the planning and development of funding streams for repayment, which would not begin until five years after the completion of the project. Also, there is a provision in the TEA-21 for the creation of a multistate infrastructure bank system among the pilot states. In this system, states are encouraged to share both funds and ideas for curbing pollution and traffic problems and encouraging other forms of transportation. It is my feeling that Vermont can be a national model on the efficiency of meeting clean air standards and managing sprawl while promoting economic growth. Under the SIB program the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAOT) will collaborate with other state agencies and local organizations such as the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) in order to reduce traffic, pollution, and growth problems that arise. In order to fulfill these goals through creative, cutting-edge projects, VAOT will require sufficient funds. To secure these funds, the legislation that I am introducing today would extend the SIB program to include Vermont. This program will be an invaluable resource in the funding of projects that will prevent our beautiful state from moving in the direction of gridlock and congestion. Vermont can be a model for the nation--an example for other states facing similar issues of finding a balance between growth and livability. Vermont's participation in the SIB program would provide more options to find the solutions that will permit this proper balance to be attained. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Oklahoma's bringing this matter to my attention. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is currently preparing legislation to reauthorize programs included in the elementary and Secondary Education Act. The reauthorization process offers an opportunity for congress to review the operations of these programs and to make appropriate modifications. During the last reauthorization of ESEA in 1994, we revised the Impact Aid Program in a way intended to target resources to districts based on their relative need in terms of serving federally connected children. I believe that is the right direction to take and am open to considering any proposal which assists us in better meeting this objective. I welcome the recommendations of all Members and look forward to further discussions regarding the problem which my colleague from Oklahoma wishes to address.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that an executive session of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will be held on Wednesday, November 3, 1999, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The following is the committee's agenda. 1. S. 1114, The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1999; 2. S. 1809, The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1999; and 3. Presidential nominations.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is with much pride, and a little sadness, that I rise today to pay tribute to one of Vermont's outstanding leaders in education. Marc Hull, who recently resigned his post as Commissioner of Education in my home state, deserves both praise and gratitude for all he has accomplished for the children and youth of Vermont. At a time when education rightly tops the state and national agenda, we have been fortunate to have his services. Marc has effectively advanced the education agenda of Vermont through his dedication and perseverence in making sure that every child achieves his or her highest potential, by setting high standards and giving children and teachers the means to reach them. To do so, he developed the Vermont Framework of Standards which is serving as the guide for improving the performance of all Vermont schools, and most importantly the performance of Vermont's students. I also want to take this opportunity to salute Marc for his prior service to Vermont as Director of Special Education. He has consistently spoken for those who at one time had no voice and helped individuals advocate for themselves and their children. For years he has labored tirelessly to provide appropriate education programs for children with disabilities. But despite these important positions and titles, I think of Marc as first and foremost a teacher. He has certainly taught me, and I think he has probably touched and inspired everyone around him. I am especially fond of the example that stemmed from his visit to Washington, D.C. this spring. Marc had led Vermont's efforts to implement the federal Ed Flex law, and was invited by the President to attend the signing ceremony in the Rose Garden. At the ceremony, the President graciously gave Marc one of the pens he used to sign the legislation. For most of us, the story would have stopped there, as the pen gathered dust on our bookshelf or in a drawer. Not so for Marc. He took the pen with him to classrooms throughout Vermont so that hundreds of students had the thrill of writing a word or two with the pen the President used to sign the Ed Flex legislation. As usual, their comments were priceless, ranging from ``This must be worth millions!'' to ``Can I use it to write my name in my baseball cap?" Marc Hull has written his name into the fabric of our state. With compassion for all whom he served, unique leadership skills and unsurpassed creativity, Marc has worked to make Vermont schools the best they can be. I am pleased that while he has left his post as Commissioner, he will not leave the field of education. And wherever he works, I know he will continue to have an impact on helping children to reach higher. His integrity, humility and humanity make Marc Hull a wonderful advisor, a good friend and an asset to the nation. He's not a bad politician either, in the best sense of the word. Throughout my term as chairman of the Senate's education committee I have relied on his good counsel. Though he will never get proper credit, his influence has been felt far beyond the Green Mountains. I thank him, I wish him well, and I plan to continue learning from him.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to commend the service of Patricia Moulton Powden and Sue Davenport, two New Englanders who are ending their terms on the Board of Directors for the Northeast-Midwest Institute. Both have provided exceptional service to the Institute, and in the process helped to improve our region's economic development and environmental quality. The Northeast-Midwest Institute provides policy analysis for the bipartisan Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition, which I co-chair with Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan from New York. Patricia Moulton Powden is a fellow Vermonter who has served for the past 4 years as Treasurer of the Northeast-Midwest Institute's Board of Directors. In that capacity, she provided careful oversight and helped the group's finances improve significantly. Within Vermont, Patricia is executive director of the Springfield Regional Development Corporation. She also has served as Commissioner of Economic Development for the State of Vermont and Director of the St. Johnsbury Area Economic Development Office. Sue Davenport has performed a variety of public service activities throughout New England. Currently, she is Executive Director of the Spurwink Schools-New Hampshire, which provide residential/day treatment programs for youngsters with emotional and behavioral handicaps, and their families. She has served as Commissioner of mental health and mental retardation for the State of Maine; adjunct faculty member at Suffolk University; Regional Director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and Acting Director of HHS's Regional Administrative Support Center. Mr. President, I again want to thank these distinguished New Englanders for their leadership on the Northeast-Midwest Institute's Board of Directors. They have provided valued service and helped increase that organization's reputation and effectiveness.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to an important article from the President of the Corporate Council on Africa, Dr. Mima S. Nedelcovych, concerning Africa's problem of severe dryland degradation (known as ``desertification'') as it affects our trade relations. The Corporate Council on Africa, CCA, includes 180 members with substantial business interests in Africa, including such industry giants as General Electric, Ford Motor Company, IBM, Citibank, ConAgra, Cargill, AGCO, 3M, Pfizer, Land O'Lakes, Chevron, Texaco, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Raytheon and Rhone-Poulenc USA. Recently Dr. Nedelcovych, who also serves as Vice President for International Business Development for F.C. Schaffer & Associates, published a short article entitled ``Africa's Creeping Desert, A Problem for the U.S. Too,'' in the CCA's Perspectives on Africa (Fall 1999). In it, Dr. Nedelcovych outlines clearly the extent to which the degradation of Africa's agricultural land is undermining one of the continent's most crucial natural resources, impeding economic growth, and slowing the hoped-for shift from aid to trade. Cocoa, coffee, cotton, cola nuts and spices grown in Africa end up in a myriad of everyday processed products on American store shelves, but land on which they are produced is increasingly threatened by a combination of bad management practices, drought and poverty. As a boost to U.S. trade relations with Africa, Dr. Nedelcovych makes a strong case for full U.S. participation in the 1994 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, not just because it seeks to help Africa's agricultural sector grow and achieve food self-sufficiency, but because it will also open greater opportunities for U.S. sales to Africa, including seeds, agricultural machinery, irrigation equipment as well as a wide range of automobiles, pharmaceuticals, electronic equipment and other goods to more prosperous African consumers. Dr. Nedelcovych ends with an urgent plea for the Senate to ratify this important agreement without delay. With a world population now over 6 billion and fertile farmland shrinking at an alarming rate worldwide, I heartily support Senate action on the Convention to Combat Desertification. I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Nedelcovych's article be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on October 19, 1999, I filed Report No. 106-196 to accompany S. 976, a bill to amend title V of the Public Health Service Act to focus the authority of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration on community-based services for children and adolescents, to enhance flexibility and accountability, to establish programs for youth treatment, and to respond to crises, especially those related to children and violence. At the time the report was filed, the estimate by the Congressional Budget Office was not available. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the CBO estimate be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to introduce today, for myself, and my colleagues from the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Frist, Collins, Wellstone, Reed, Dodd, and Murray, The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1999. This bill is the reauthorization of a piece of legislation with a rich legacy, and a long history of bipartisan Congressional support. Originally authorized in 1963 and last reauthorized in 1996, it has always focused on the needs of our most vulnerable citizens, an estimated four million individuals with severe disabilities, including individuals with mental retardation and other lifelong, pervasive disabilities. Initial versions of this legislation focused primarily on the interdisciplinary training of professionals to work with individuals with developmental disabilities. The University Affiliated Facilities (UAFs) were the first federally funded programs charged with expanding the cadre of professionals to address the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities. The name of these programs was changed to University Affiliated Programs (UAPs) in a subsequent reauthorization and their mission was expanded to include community services and information dissemination pertaining to individuals with developmental disabilities. Finally, in 1996, after 33 years of planned expansion by Congress, each State established and received core funding for at least one UAP. In the 1970 reauthorization of the DD Act, Congress recognized the need for, and value of strengthening State efforts to coordinate and integrate services for individuals with developmental disabilities. As a result, Congress established and authorized funding for State Developmental Disabilities Councils (DD Councils) in each state. The purpose of the Councils was, and continues to be, to advise governors and State agencies on how to use available and potential resources to meet the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities. Every State has a DD Council. The Councils undertake advocacy, capacity building, and systemic change activities directed at improving access to community services and supports for individuals with disabilities and their families. In 1975, Congress created and authorized funding for Protection and Advocacy Systems (P&As) in each state to ensure the safety and well being of individuals with developmental disabilities. The mission of these systems has evolved over the years, initially addressing the protection of individuals with developmental disabilities who lived in institutions, to the present responsibilities related to the protection of individuals with developmental disabilities from abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and from the violation of their legal and human rights, both in institutions and in the community. The 1975 reauthorization of the DD Act also established funding for Projects of National Significance. Through this new authority Congress authorized funding for projects that would support national initiatives related to specific areas of need. Over the years, projects related to areas such as people with developmental disabilities and the criminal justice system, home ownership, employment, assistive technology, and self-advocacy for individuals with developmental disabilities have been initiated through these projects. The 1999 reauthorization of the DD Act builds on the past successes of these programs, reflects today's changing society, and seeks to provide a foundation to provide the services and supports that individuals with developmental disabilities, their families, and communities will need as we enter the next century. Let me take a few moments to highlight the major provisions of this bill. The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1999 continues a tradition of support for a DD Network in each State that is able to provide advocacy, capacity building, and systemic change activities in quality assurance, education and early intervention, child care, employment, health, housing, transportation, recreation and other services for individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. This approach reflects current trends in society and in the field of developmental disabilities in that it emphasizes the empowerment of individuals with developmental disabilities and their families and joins it with state flexibility and increased accountability. The bill continues and further develops the important work of the DD Act programs in each State. It seeks to ensure that more individuals with developmental disabilities are able to fully participate in and contribute to their communities through full integration and inclusion in the economic, political, social, cultural, and educational mainstream of our nation. It also assists DD Act programs to improve the quality of supports and services for individuals with developmental disabilities and their families regardless of where they choose to live. Unfortunately, in keeping with other realities of our time, the bill also recognizes that individuals with developmental disabilities are at greater risk of abuse, neglect, financial and sexual exploitation, and the violation of their legal and human rights, than the general population. Based upon this recognition, the bill supports the extra effort and attention that is needed, in both individual and systemic situations, to ensure that individuals with developmental disabilities are put at no greater risk of harm than others in the general population. The bill recognizes that individuals with developmental disabilities often have multiple, evolving, life long needs that require interaction with agencies and organizations that offer specialized assistance as well as interaction with generic services in their communities. The nature of the needs of these individuals and the capacity of States and communities to respond to them have changed. In the past 5 years, new strategies for reaching, engaging, and assisting individuals with developmental disabilities have gained visibility and credibility. These new strategies are reinforced by and reflected in this bill. In the past, the Councils, Centers, and P&A Systems have been authorized to provide advocacy, capacity building, and systemic change activities to make access to and navigation through various service systems easier for individuals with developmental disabilities. Over time there has been pressure for these three programs to provide assistance beyond the limit of their resources and beyond their authorized missions. The bill clearly and concisely specifies the roles and responsibilities of Councils, Centers, and P&A Systems so that there is a common understanding of what the programs are intended to contribute toward a State's efforts to respond to the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. The bill gives States' Councils, Centers, and P&A Systems more flexibility. Each program in a State, working with stakeholders, is to develop goals for how to assure that individuals with developmental disabilities and their families participate in the design of and have access to needed community services, individualized supports, and other forms of assistance that promote self-determination, independence, productivity, integration, and inclusion in all facets of community life. Goals may be set in any of the following areas of emphasis: quality assurance, education and early intervention, child care, health, employment, housing, transportation, recreation, or other community services. Consistent with Congressional emphasis on strengthening accountability for all federal programs, this legislation requires each program to determine, before undertaking a goal, how it will be measured. Measurement of a goal must reflect the impact of the goal on individuals with developmental disabilities. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is to develop indicators of progress to evaluate how the three programs in each State have engaged in activities to promote and achieve the purpose and policy of the Act in terms of choices available to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families, their satisfaction with services, their ability to participate in community life, and their safety. In addition, the Secretary is to monitor how the three programs funded in each State coordinate their efforts, and how that coordination affects the quality of supports and services for individuals with developmental disabilities and their families in that State. During the past several years, a clearer picture has emerged of what individuals with developmental disabilities are able to accomplish when they have access to the same choices and opportunities available to others and with the appropriate support. There has also been increasing recognition of and support for self-advocacy organizations established by and for individuals with developmental disabilities. This bill reflects and promotes such efforts by authorizing State Councils in each State to support self-advocacy organizations for individuals with developmental disabilities. The legislation renames the University Affiliated Programs as University Centers for Excellence for Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service, expands their responsibilities to include the conduct of research, and links them together to create a National Network. By administering the three programs specifically authorized under the DD Act and by funding projects of national significance to accomplish similar or complementary efforts, the Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) in HHS plays a critical role in supporting and fostering new ways to assist individuals with developmental disabilities and in promoting system integration to expand and improve community services for individuals with disabilities. This bill provides ADD with the ability to foster similar efforts across the Executive Branch. The bill authorizes ADD to pursue and join with other Executive Branch entities in activities that will improve choices, opportunities, and services for individuals with developmental disabilities. The bill recognizes that forty-nine States have begun to develop family support programs for families with children with disabilities. This supports States by providing grants (one, 3-year grant per State, on a competitive basis) to assist States to provide services to families who choose to keep their children with disabilities at home and not be forced to place their children in institutions due to the lack of support. The bill gives States maximum flexibility to use targeted funds to strengthen or expand existing State family support programs. Finally, in response to a national need to increase the number and improve the training of direct support workers who assist individuals with developmental disabilities where they live, work, go to school, and play, the bill includes provisions proposed by Senators Frist and Wellstone. One provides funding for the development and dissemination of a technology-based training curriculum to provide state of the art staff development for individuals in direct service roles with people with developmental disabilities and their families. The other is a scholarship program to encourage continuing education for individuals entering the field of direct service Throughout the country, the DD Act programs have a long history of achievement. In Vermont, the DD Act programs make ongoing contributions to major initiatives affecting individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. They play significant roles in many of Vermont's accomplishments, including: the inclusion of children with severe disabilities into local schools and classrooms; early intervention and family leadership initiatives that are national models; and innovative programs in the areas of employment, and community living options for individuals with developmental disabilities. Based upon the letters our office has received from across the country, it is clear that these small programs make substantial, positive differences in their states. The bill we present today reflects the foundation of what Congress has supported over the past 36 years, combined with our best efforts to support individuals with the most severe disabilities, their families, and their communities into the next century. It represents the best of what we in Congress have the opportunity to do . . . to ensure that those who are among our most vulnerable citizens, are protected, supported, and encouraged to achieve their potential. My colleagues and I are proud to present it to you today and hope to see it enacted as soon as possible.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to introduce today, for myself, and my colleagues from the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Frist, Collins, Wellstone, Reed, Dodd, and Murray, The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1999. This bill is the reauthorization of a piece of legislation with a rich legacy, and a long history of bipartisan Congressional support. Originally authorized in 1963 and last reauthorized in 1996, it has always focused on the needs of our most vulnerable citizens, an estimated four million individuals with severe disabilities, including individuals with mental retardation and other lifelong, pervasive disabilities. Initial versions of this legislation focused primarily on the interdisciplinary training of professionals to work with individuals with developmental disabilities. The University Affiliated Facilities (UAFs) were the first federally funded programs charged with expanding the cadre of professionals to address the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities. The name of these programs was changed to University Affiliated Programs (UAPs) in a subsequent reauthorization and their mission was expanded to include community services and information dissemination pertaining to individuals with developmental disabilities. Finally, in 1996, after 33 years of planned expansion by Congress, each State established and received core funding for at least one UAP. In the 1970 reauthorization of the DD Act, Congress recognized the need for, and value of strengthening State efforts to coordinate and integrate services for individuals with developmental disabilities. As a result, Congress established and authorized funding for State Developmental Disabilities Councils (DD Councils) in each state. The purpose of the Councils was, and continues to be, to advise governors and State agencies on how to use available and potential resources to meet the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities. Every State has a DD Council. The Councils undertake advocacy, capacity building, and systemic change activities directed at improving access to community services and supports for individuals with disabilities and their families. In 1975, Congress created and authorized funding for Protection and Advocacy Systems (P&As) in each state to ensure the safety and well being of individuals with developmental disabilities. The mission of these systems has evolved over the years, initially addressing the protection of individuals with developmental disabilities who lived in institutions, to the present responsibilities related to the protection of individuals with developmental disabilities from abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and from the violation of their legal and human rights, both in institutions and in the community. The 1975 reauthorization of the DD Act also established funding for Projects of National Significance. Through this new authority Congress authorized funding for projects that would support national initiatives related to specific areas of need. Over the years, projects related to areas such as people with developmental disabilities and the criminal justice system, home ownership, employment, assistive technology, and self-advocacy for individuals with developmental disabilities have been initiated through these projects. The 1999 reauthorization of the DD Act builds on the past successes of these programs, reflects today's changing society, and seeks to provide a foundation to provide the services and supports that individuals with developmental disabilities, their families, and communities will need as we enter the next century. Let me take a few moments to highlight the major provisions of this bill. The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1999 continues a tradition of support for a DD Network in each State that is able to provide advocacy, capacity building, and systemic change activities in quality assurance, education and early intervention, child care, employment, health, housing, transportation, recreation and other services for individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. This approach reflects current trends in society and in the field of developmental disabilities in that it emphasizes the empowerment of individuals with developmental disabilities and their families and joins it with state flexibility and increased accountability. The bill continues and further develops the important work of the DD Act programs in each State. It seeks to ensure that more individuals with developmental disabilities are able to fully participate in and contribute to their communities through full integration and inclusion in the economic, political, social, cultural, and educational mainstream of our nation. It also assists DD Act programs to improve the quality of supports and services for individuals with developmental disabilities and their families regardless of where they choose to live. Unfortunately, in keeping with other realities of our time, the bill also recognizes that individuals with developmental disabilities are at greater risk of abuse, neglect, financial and sexual exploitation, and the violation of their legal and human rights, than the general population. Based upon this recognition, the bill supports the extra effort and attention that is needed, in both individual and systemic situations, to ensure that individuals with developmental disabilities are put at no greater risk of harm than others in the general population. The bill recognizes that individuals with developmental disabilities often have multiple, evolving, life long needs that require interaction with agencies and organizations that offer specialized assistance as well as interaction with generic services in their communities. The nature of the needs of these individuals and the capacity of States and communities to respond to them have changed. In the past 5 years, new strategies for reaching, engaging, and assisting individuals with developmental disabilities have gained visibility and credibility. These new strategies are reinforced by and reflected in this bill. In the past, the Councils, Centers, and P&A Systems have been authorized to provide advocacy, capacity building, and systemic change activities to make access to and navigation through various service systems easier for individuals with developmental disabilities. Over time there has been pressure for these three programs to provide assistance beyond the limit of their resources and beyond their authorized missions. The bill clearly and concisely specifies the roles and responsibilities of Councils, Centers, and P&A Systems so that there is a common understanding of what the programs are intended to contribute toward a State's efforts to respond to the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. The bill gives States' Councils, Centers, and P&A Systems more flexibility. Each program in a State, working with stakeholders, is to develop goals for how to assure that individuals with developmental disabilities and their families participate in the design of and have access to needed community services, individualized supports, and other forms of assistance that promote self-determination, independence, productivity, integration, and inclusion in all facets of community life. Goals may be set in any of the following areas of emphasis: quality assurance, education and early intervention, child care, health, employment, housing, transportation, recreation, or other community services. Consistent with Congressional emphasis on strengthening accountability for all federal programs, this legislation requires each program to determine, before undertaking a goal, how it will be measured. Measurement of a goal must reflect the impact of the goal on individuals with developmental disabilities. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is to develop indicators of progress to evaluate how the three programs in each State have engaged in activities to promote and achieve the purpose and policy of the Act in terms of choices available to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families, their satisfaction with services, their ability to participate in community life, and their safety. In addition, the Secretary is to monitor how the three programs funded in each State coordinate their efforts, and how that coordination affects the quality of supports and services for individuals with developmental disabilities and their families in that State. During the past several years, a clearer picture has emerged of what individuals with developmental disabilities are able to accomplish when they have access to the same choices and opportunities available to others and with the appropriate support. There has also been increasing recognition of and support for self-advocacy organizations established by and for individuals with developmental disabilities. This bill reflects and promotes such efforts by authorizing State Councils in each State to support self-advocacy organizations for individuals with developmental disabilities. The legislation renames the University Affiliated Programs as University Centers for Excellence for Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service, expands their responsibilities to include the conduct of research, and links them together to create a National Network. By administering the three programs specifically authorized under the DD Act and by funding projects of national significance to accomplish similar or complementary efforts, the Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) in HHS plays a critical role in supporting and fostering new ways to assist individuals with developmental disabilities and in promoting system integration to expand and improve community services for individuals with disabilities. This bill provides ADD with the ability to foster similar efforts across the Executive Branch. The bill authorizes ADD to pursue and join with other Executive Branch entities in activities that will improve choices, opportunities, and services for individuals with developmental disabilities. The bill recognizes that forty-nine States have begun to develop family support programs for families with children with disabilities. This supports States by providing grants (one, 3-year grant per State, on a competitive basis) to assist States to provide services to families who choose to keep their children with disabilities at home and not be forced to place their children in institutions due to the lack of support. The bill gives States maximum flexibility to use targeted funds to strengthen or expand existing State family support programs. Finally, in response to a national need to increase the number and improve the training of direct support workers who assist individuals with developmental disabilities where they live, work, go to school, and play, the bill includes provisions proposed by Senators Frist and Wellstone. One provides funding for the development and dissemination of a technology-based training curriculum to provide state of the art staff development for individuals in direct service roles with people with developmental disabilities and their families. The other is a scholarship program to encourage continuing education for individuals entering the field of direct service Throughout the country, the DD Act programs have a long history of achievement. In Vermont, the DD Act programs make ongoing contributions to major initiatives affecting individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. They play significant roles in many of Vermont's accomplishments, including: the inclusion of children with severe disabilities into local schools and classrooms; early intervention and family leadership initiatives that are national models; and innovative programs in the areas of employment, and community living options for individuals with developmental disabilities. Based upon the letters our office has received from across the country, it is clear that these small programs make substantial, positive differences in their states. The bill we present today reflects the foundation of what Congress has supported over the past 36 years, combined with our best efforts to support individuals with the most severe disabilities, their families, and their communities into the next century. It represents the best of what we in Congress have the opportunity to do . . . to ensure that those who are among our most vulnerable citizens, are protected, supported, and encouraged to achieve their potential. My colleagues and I are proud to present it to you today and hope to see it enacted as soon as possible.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise to celebrate women in my home state of Vermont. It gives me great pleasure to speak in recognition of the Governor's Commission on Women of Vermont and to acknowledge their 35th anniversary. Over the last 35 years, the Governor's Commission on Women has accrued a long list of achievements in the state of Vermont. It is a vibrant and healthy organization, dedicated to ensuring that women's rights, health, life choices, careers and community service are in sharp focus for policymakers and citizens alike. Commission members know how to use their strength of advocacy to empower women and raise the profile and scope of key issues. To highlight a recent endeavor, the Commission made it a priority to give all Vermonters a better understanding of their health benefits by offering a series of educational materials on managed care plans. I have often said that community service is the cornerstone of democracy and I believe that each citizen has a responsibility to contribute to their community. The Governor's Commission on Women does just this, by addressing the pressing matters of concern throughout the state, such as poverty, child care and pay equity. For over three decades the Commission has taken on the ``tough to tackle'' issues. I was very pleased to partner with women's groups across Vermont, including the Commission, in the fight to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Although we suffered defeat on this particular issue, we knew we were successful in championing the message of equal rights. Through a combination of their hard work, commitment and vision, the Vermont Commission has surpassed all expectations and created new, and I believe lasting, community partnerships. I am proud of what they have been able to achieve and I hope that others throughout the state and nation will look to the Commission's accomplishments and be inspired to act as resourcefully. I have made it a personal priority to support the Commission's efforts to reach their goals and, because I am committed to raising awareness at the federal level about the needs of women, I rely upon them for guidance. From a woman's right to make her own reproductive health choices, to supporting efforts to thwart domestic violence, to addressing the life quality issue of retirement security, I have had the opportunity to listen, to learn and to act on each of these issues in Congress. I encourage my colleagues to forge the same relationship of mutual reliance with any organization representing women in their respective states. I firmly believe that we can never shy away from efforts to understand, and eventually ameliorate the impacts of discrimination, low wages and lack of opportunities. I extend my best wishes to the Governor's Commission on Women and to honor their very notable accomplishments over the past 35 years.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding Vermonter, Dr. John Frymoyer. John's unwavering commitment toward improving the health of all Vermonters serves as a testament to us all. His long and distinguished career began at the University of Vermont in 1964. Now, as he prepares for his retirement, he is a stunning example of how much one person can accomplish in a lifetime-- how one person can positively affect so many. John began his career specializing in orthopaedics and quickly became one of the world's leading authorities on lower back pain--something many of us can relate to. He served as Chairman of the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery from 1979-1987, and Chief Executive Officer of the University Health Center from 1987-1991. His leadership posts include the Director of the McClure Musculoskeletal Research Center and one of the founders of the Vermont Back Research Center. He also helped launch the acclaimed International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine. John was one of the key architects of Fletcher Allen Health Care, which in 1995 combined the Medical Center Hospital of Vermont, Fanny Allen Hospital and the University Health Center. In doing so, Fletcher Allen emerged as one of northern New England's preeminent health care providers. It was a very bold move, but a necessary one considering the dynamics of our health care system. John rose to the challenge, and it was no surprise that he served as Fletcher Allen's first chief executive officer, simultaneously while he was at the helm of the College of Medicine. Since 1991, John has served as Dean of the University of Vermont College of Medicine. Simply put, his accomplishments as Dean are far too many to list, but certainly, strengthening UVM's research programs, building a curriculum for the 21st century, and addressing the unique health care needs of our rural communities are among them. On a more personal note, whether as Dean, doctor or professor, John was always approachable, something I know his students, faculty and staff admired and appreciated. I should also acknowledge John's willingness to personally advise me over the years on critical health care and education matters. As a longtime member, and now Chairman, of the committee which oversees health care and education policy, it was comforting to know that I could always rely on John's competence and expertise in such areas as medical research, telemedicine, home health care, graduate medical education and Medicare reform. In this, as in every other capacity, his mark has been left far beyond that of the UVM campus. It is this deep commitment to his patients, students and the greater community that has endeared him to us. One might imagine that amidst all his responsibilities, John would find little time for extracurricular activities--not so. John is also an accomplished organist, a published author and a skilled woodworker. In fact, he designed much of the furniture adorning the Dean's office. He also helped design an extensive playground for Burlington's King Street Area Youth Program, and he served as a captain in the Vermont National Guard for eight years. Vermont has much to be grateful for when it comes to John's steadfast commitment to improving the quality of life in our small state. Although he is retiring on the last day of this century, it is reassuring to know that his legacy will lead the College of Medicine, Fletcher Allen and the greater community we call Vermont, into the next millennium. For that, Vermont owes a great deal of gratitude to John Frymoyer. We wish him well.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) for having won the 1999 Overall Achievement Award from the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations. In receiving this award, the CCMPO is being recognized by its peers for excellence in coalition building, innovative planning and programming, integration of transportation planning with land use and community development, and for implementation of the Surface Transportation Equity Act. Citizen participation, consensus building and pragmatic implementation have long been hallmarks of Vermont civic life. I am proud that the CCMPO has received such a prestigious award for bringing these qualities to their work. The Chittenden County Metropolitan Organization is an effective administrator of federal and state transportation funds, but has gone well beyond this basic role to also develop alternative transportation plans and support public transportation systems. The CCMPO has also taken an active role in exploring the relationship between transportation planning and smart growth strategies, helping to make Vermont a nationally recognized leader in this subject area. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations in honoring the members and staff of the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization for their significant achievements.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am here today with a saddened heart at the passage of probably my best friend in the Senate, and the House. It is not often we get to be close to someone in this body. Oftentimes, we have friendships, but they are not personal friendships. This was a personal one to me--starting from the time I first knew him in the House. When I came to this body in 1989, I was appointed to his committee, as I took the place of Senator Stafford from Vermont. And thus, I got to know John immediately and found there was little, if anything, on which we ever disagreed. His leadership on difficult decisions was without parallel to those I have known in this body. He was one of our greatest heroes in this Nation. I know others have exalted his wartime service at Guadalcanal as a marine. Also, I remember having met him when he was Secretary of the Navy. I was in the Navy at the time. So my memories go back a long time. But my friendship was mainly based upon John's tremendous personality and his dedication to work and his ability to get things done. He was a man of courage on the battlefield and in the political arena. I do not know anyone who did not like and respect John Chafee. When I first came to the Senate in 1989, I served on the Environment and Public Works Committee with John as my ranking member. He took me under his wing and helped guide me in the big shoes I had to fill in the wake of Bob Stafford, as I mentioned. We had many trying problems at that time. We had the reauthorization of the Transportation Act. But the most memorable experiences I had dealt with the Clean Air Act, and not only in the committee but also having been appointed, along with him, by the then-majority leader, George Mitchell of Maine, to be on the Clean Air Task Force. As one can remember, that was one of the most contentious pieces of legislation with which we have ever dealt. It took the holding of hands and nursing each other along to make sure we could get the votes necessary to pass that very controversial act. That placed me in even greater awe of John's capacity to lead and to be listened to. I also recall in 1995 and 1996 meeting day in and day out in John's office to develop a centrist health care package. We spent a year as John toiled trying to pull together a middle ground on a health care package. John's work to do that was well recognized. Although it never came to fruition at that time, it did give an alternative to the plan which had come from the White House and did give us all something to work on to try to develop a health care package that would serve this Nation. Although it did not work then, and did not work more recently, it was tried from the center, and it did give to us many thoughts and approaches which have been adopted in the health care package which did pass this body. John's work to preserve the environment, especially for New England, to me, again, showed he was a leader. John and I ate lunch together every Wednesday for the last 10 years, along with some others, especially from New England, and also Arlen Specter. But we always discussed the matters of policy on which we would have agreement. Also, I spent several evenings with John at dinner, when he would say, hey, let's go down to the Metropolitan Club, or elsewhere, and have dinner together. Those were also memorable moments in my life, as we had many things to discuss; but it was as much about ourselves and our families as it was about the great problems of the Nation. John Chafee represented the State of Rhode Island with distinction and represented what was best about this institution. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, Ginny, and their 5 children and 12 grandchildren, and also to his wonderful staff, who I have gotten to know over the years, who have most capably served him. John's memory also goes to the time he came and campaigned for me in my State, and all the other times we had a chance to work together. Most, I remember that if I ever had a question on how to vote or I came in at the last minute and did not know what the issue was--I hate to admit to that--I would first look to see how John voted. I knew, if nothing else, if I voted as he did, I probably would not get in trouble. I suppose we all have moments similar to that that we don't talk about politically, but when you have that kind of an individual whom you can count on to give you the right direction, it is very important here, especially on some of the tough issues we have where those of us who are called moderates have to cast votes at times where we don't get friends on either side of the aisle. I also want to speak out to John's staff. I know how sad and tremendously burdened they now feel at his passing. But if it was not for his staff and their tremendous capacity, I know John could not have accomplished the things he did as a Senator. They will miss him deeply, but so will I and so will the other Members who got to know him and his staff well over the course of time. I know all of us are sad today. I am getting to the point where I better quit. Mr. President, I yield the floor

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today we once again are debating legislation to ban the dilation and extraction, or D&X, procedure used by doctors. I am again opposed to this legislation and will once again be voting against this ban for the fifth time in as many years. My reasons for opposing this legislation are many. Most have been discussed on the floor during the many debates on this difficult issue. First, and most importantly I believe that this bill undermines the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade to leave these critical matters in the hands of a woman, her family and her doctor. The pending legislation is an effort to chip away at these reproductive rights established in that 1973 decision and upheld by court cases since 1973. I understand many people disagree with my position. This issue has been contentious since I came to Congress in 1975. Second, with the Roe decision, the Supreme Court wisely gave states the responsibility to restrict third-trimester abortions, so long as the life or health of the mother were not jeopardized. As of 1999, all but ten states have done so. To me, the rights of states to regulate abortions, when the life or health of the mother are not in danger, is an adequate safeguard. In the event the states pass unconstitutional regulations on this point, the appropriate remedy is with the courts. I realize that this policy leads to differences in law from state to state, but just as families differ, so too do states. As has been said before during the debate on this issue: When the Roe v. Wade decision acknowledged a state interest in fetuses after viability, the Court wisely left restrictions on post-viability abortions up to states. There are expert professional licensing boards, accreditation councils and medical associations that guide doctors' decision-making in the complicated and difficult matters of life and death. Third, the legislation before us would prevent doctors from using the D&X procedure where it is necessary to save the life of the mother. This clearly goes against the holding of the Supreme Court in Roe, as it required the health of the mother be safeguarded when states regulate late-term abortions. I will not vote for a bill that is neither Constitutional, nor takes into account those situations where carrying a fetus to term would cause serious health risk for the mother. This is simply unacceptable. My vote in 1997, in favor of the Feinstein substitute amendment underscored my commitment to safeguarding a doctor's options to protect the health of the mother in cases where a late-term procedure is necessary. Finally, I believe that women who choose to undergo a D&X procedure do so for grave reasons. We have established a delicate legal framework in which to address late-term abortions and we should not shift the decision making to the federal government.