Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I listened very carefully. I think when you get right down to it the basic question is, in the final analysis, should the school have to afford an alternative education situation and pay for it. It is a matter of dollars and cents. It has nothing to do with the safety of the children or anything else. Under the circumstances you are dealing with here, if a child comes in with a gun, if it is somebody without an IEP or whatever, they can be thrown out of school and they can be let back into school. That is entirely the discretion of the school officials. They can say this is an aberration or whatever. If a child with a disability comes in, then you go through the 45 days to assess as to whether or not it was as a result of a disability. If it was not the result of a disability, then the child can be disciplined as any other child. If, on the other hand, it was the result of a disability, then they are required to provide an alternative educational situation. It may or may not cost something. But that child is not in the classroom. So no child goes back into the classroom if they are a threat to the classroom. What it comes down to, and what the school officials object to, as I understand it, is they have to set up a special 45-day program for this child, and pay for it. The reason is not to protect the school or protect the kids; it is to make sure they do not have to provide the funds. You can keep those 45 days going forever. Then that costs money. So this is not a safety question. This is a money question. The school boards are saying they don't want to pay for those 45 days. That is what they are saying.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced a bill to assist in the preservation of the great apes. The bill, the ``Great Ape Conservation Act of 1999'', is modeled after the highly successful African and Asian Elephant Conservation Acts, and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. It will authorize up to $5 million per year to fund various projects to aid in the preservation of the endangered great apes. Great ape populations currently face many threats, including habitat loss, population fragmentation, live capture, and hunting for the bushmeat trade. Of all these threats, the danger posed by the increasing bushmeat trade is the most severe. This trade is being facilitated by the construction of inroads to logging areas, which allows once remote forests to be linked directly with urban markets. Chimpanzees, gorillas, and bonobos, once hunted sustainably, now face population destruction due to increased illegal trade, powerful weapons, and high market prices. This consumption of ape meat not only threatens ape populations, but poses severe health risks to humans. Human contraction of many viruses, including the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) has been linked to the slaughter and consumption of apes. With the loss of ape populations, comes the loss of critical medical knowledge that can be obtained through simple, noninvasive research on wild populations. Some estimates suggest that several thousand apes are killed every year across West and Central Africa, a level that is unsustainable and means the certain destruction of viable populations in the very near future. If we do not act now, not only will great apes face extinction, but the ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local farming, education and enforcement projects that can have the greatest positive impact. This small, but critical investment of U.S. taxpayer money, matched with private funds, could secure the future of these extraordinary animals.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Leahy, Senator Feingold, Senator Kohl, and Senator Harkin as an original cosponsor of the Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999. This issue is so important to the health and well being of our nation's school children. The Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999 is about good nutrition--and a little about milk. The Vermont and Wisconsin Senators at times have a hard time agreeing on federal milk policy, but we all agree that good nutrition plays an important role in the health and education of our children. As chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I recognize the importance of having a proper and nutritionally balanced diet in our school lunch programs. A well nourished child is a child more healthy, energized, focused and able to learn. When school children receive a large amount of their daily caloric intake from sugary soft drinks, they are not receiving the fruits, vegetables, vitamins, minerals, and perhaps most importantly--calcium that they need. Soda and other sugary junk foods squeeze more nutritious foods out of their diet. Since many school children may consume between one-third and one-half of their daily intake at school, it is important that we do not allow them to substitute good nutrition with empty calories. Mr. President, teens, in particular, should be drinking milk instead of soft drinks. Twenty years ago, teens drank twice as much milk as soda. Today, the average teenager drinks twice as much soda as milk. The Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999 helps close the empty calorie loophole. Soft drinks, sugar candies, cotton candy and the like are already banned from being sold during lunch. This bill would simply ban the free distribution of these ``competitive foods not approved by the Secretary'' before and during lunch at schools participating in the federal school lunch or breakfast programs. Mr. President, I commend Senator Leahy for his continued leadership in improving the nutrition of America's school children and will work with him and others to see that this bill becomes law.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Leahy, Senator Feingold, Senator Kohl, and Senator Harkin as an original cosponsor of the Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999. This issue is so important to the health and well being of our nation's school children. The Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999 is about good nutrition--and a little about milk. The Vermont and Wisconsin Senators at times have a hard time agreeing on federal milk policy, but we all agree that good nutrition plays an important role in the health and education of our children. As chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I recognize the importance of having a proper and nutritionally balanced diet in our school lunch programs. A well nourished child is a child more healthy, energized, focused and able to learn. When school children receive a large amount of their daily caloric intake from sugary soft drinks, they are not receiving the fruits, vegetables, vitamins, minerals, and perhaps most importantly--calcium that they need. Soda and other sugary junk foods squeeze more nutritious foods out of their diet. Since many school children may consume between one-third and one-half of their daily intake at school, it is important that we do not allow them to substitute good nutrition with empty calories. Mr. President, teens, in particular, should be drinking milk instead of soft drinks. Twenty years ago, teens drank twice as much milk as soda. Today, the average teenager drinks twice as much soda as milk. The Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999 helps close the empty calorie loophole. Soft drinks, sugar candies, cotton candy and the like are already banned from being sold during lunch. This bill would simply ban the free distribution of these ``competitive foods not approved by the Secretary'' before and during lunch at schools participating in the federal school lunch or breakfast programs. Mr. President, I commend Senator Leahy for his continued leadership in improving the nutrition of America's school children and will work with him and others to see that this bill becomes law.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that I believe will be beneficial to the continued success of our nation's medical schools and teaching hospitals. The bill will provide for a new tax credit, the ``Medical Innovation Tax Credit,'' which will serve as an incentive for private sector firms to invest in clinical research at these important institutions. Medical schools and teaching hospitals fulfill a unique societal and economic role in the United States today. They are not only the training ground for health care professionals but are also centers for important research and development activities that lead to crucial medical breakthroughs. Because they link together research, medical training and patient care, these institutions are incubators of new life-saving drugs, medical services and surgical techniques. Due to the changing health care marketplace these institutions have come under increasing cost pressures that threaten their future. In fact, a recent study by the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) noted an alarming 22 percent decline in clinical research conducted at member hospitals. I believe the medical innovation tax credit would help reverse this disturbing trend, and I am pleased that the AAMC endorses this legislation. The medical innovation tax credit is a targeted, incremental 20 percent credit for qualified medical innovation expenditures on biopharmaceutical research activities, like clinical trials performed at qualified educational institutions. The tax credit would enhance the flow of private-sector funds into medical schools and teaching hospitals by providing an important incentive for companies to perform more clinical trials research at these non-profit institutions. This credit will encourage pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to develop research partnerships with medical schools and teaching hospitals. The influx of funds from this research will help counteract some of the financial pressures these institutions have been experiencing. To qualify for the credit, research would have to be performed in the United States, so companies will not have an incentive to utilize lower-cost foreign facilities for research activities. It is significantly more expensive for companies to perform clinical trials at teaching hospitals than at commercial research organizations. The medical innovation tax credit will reduce this cost differential. By leveraging additional private-sector support for these institutions in the form of clinical trial research, this new credit will also help these hospitals make the adjustment to the reduction in Medicare payments mandated by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This legislation is critically important to institutions like Fletcher Allen Health Care in my home state of Vermont. Linked with the University of Vermont's Division of Health Sciences, Fletcher Allen's hospitals combine teaching and research. They are vital training sites for the next generation of physicians, nurses and other health professionals. In Fletcher Allen's nationally known Clinical Research Center, researchers seek to solve the mysteries of cancer, heart attacks, Alzheimer's disease, chronic obesity, cystic fibrosis and other illnesses. The medical innovation tax credit would help Fletcher Allen and hundreds of other institutions across the United States continue in their role as incubators of vital, innovative medical teaching and research technologies. Legislation similar to this was introduced last year; the Joint Committee on taxation estimated that the bill would result in lost revenues of approximately one million dollars per year over the next five years. The bill I am introducing today is substantially similar to the bill introduced last year, although there have been technical changes to the definition of ``qualified academic institution'' to clarify that research expenditures at Veterans' Administration hospitals and certain non-profit research foundations qualify for the credit. As these changes are expected to affect a relatively small number of institutions, I do not expect substantial changes in the cost estimate. I believe this is a small price to pay for the favorable impact this credit will have on research at medical schools and teaching hospitals.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to our nation's law enforcement officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. Res. 22, a resolution passed earlier this year by the Senate to commemorate and acknowledge the dedication and sacrifice made by these men and women. The resolution declared this Saturday, May 15th, as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. Currently, there are more than 700,000 men and women who serve this nation as the guardians of law and order. The duties of a law enforcement officer are both vitally important and extremely dangerous. Officers place themselves between our communities and the criminals who would do us harm. Every year, approximately 1 in 9 officers is assaulted, 1 in 25 officers is injured, and 1 in 4,400 officers is killed in the line of duty. In 1998, 156 federal, state and local law enforcement officers lost their lives in the line of duty. My home state of Vermont is familiar with the sacrifices made by law enforcement officer. Since 1965, the nine Vermont law enforcement officers listed below have lost their lives in the line of duty. July 9, 1965, Chief Alexander Pontecha, Lyndonville Police Department. December 12, 1972, Chief Dana L. Thompson, Manchester Police Department. January 17, 1978, Deputy Sheriff Bernard J. Demag, Chitternden County Sheriff's Department. April 27, 1978, Game Warden Arnold J. Magoon, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. October 1, 1982, Deputy Sheriff George J. Bent, Chittenden County Sheriff's Department. May 13, 1983, Lieutenant Arthur L. Yeaw, Vermont Department of Public Safety. June 14, 1987, Detective Sergeant William J. Chenard, Vermont Department of Public Safety. June 25, 1989, Investigator Eugene N. Gaiotti, Vermont Department of Liquor Control. May 12, 1992, Sergeant Gary Gaboury, Vermont Department of Pubic Safety. It is my hope that the National Peace Officers Memorial Day will remind Vermonters and Americans everywhere of the sacrifices made by law enforcement officers, and of the vital duties they perform every day. Whether by apprehending dangerous felons, assisting stranded motorists on the side of the road, or improving the lives of our young people, law enforcement officers make our towns, cities, states, and Nation safer places to live and work. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to those officers, and their families, who have given so much to improve all of our lives.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his very kind words. I want to express my deep appreciation for his efforts throughout his time here in the Senate to assist those people with difficulties and disabilities. Mr. President, let me pose a question. What would most people do if they had health insurance coverage if they stayed home but not if they worked? Believe it or not, this is exactly the dilemma that many individuals with disabilities face today. They must choose between working or having health care. This is an absurd choice. Current federal law forces individuals with disabilities to make this choice. The Work Incentives Improvement Act, S. 331, bipartisan legislation, with 75 cosponsors, addresses this fundamental flaw. Reaching this day has taken 2 years of hard work. Over 100 national organizations endorse our legislation and many helped us craft a consensus-based bill. Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan of the Finance Committee joined Senator Kennedy and I as original cosponsors along with 35 of our colleagues. The cooperation and support we received, helped us move this important legislation from introduction on January 28, to a full Finance Committee hearing on February 4th, a Finance Committee markup on March 4, and filing of the committee report on March 26. It is time for the Senate to complete its work on S. 331. Many of our constituents are watching and waiting for us to make this bill a law. In my state, Vermont, 24,355 Social Security disability beneficiaries are waiting for S. 331 to become law. There are 9.5 million people waiting across the country. Under current law, if these people work and earn over $500 per month, they lose cash payments and health care coverage under Medicaid or Medicare. This is health care coverage that they simply cannot get in the private sector. S. 331 allows them to work and have access to health care coverage. It also provides them choices regarding job training and placement assistance. Do Social Security beneficiaries with disabilities really want to work? The answer is a resounding ``Yes.'' Over the last 10 years, national surveys consistently confirm that people with disabilities of working age want to work, but only about one-third are working. I have heard many compelling stories from individuals with disabilities. Some sit at home waiting for S. 331 to become law, so they can go to work. Others work part-time, careful not to exceed the $500 per month threshold which may trigger a cut-off of their health care. Each of us has received letters in support of S. 331. Let me share one story with you. Don is a 30 year-old man, who has mild mental retardation, cerebral palsy, a seizure disorder, and a visual impairment. Don works, but only part-time. At the end of his letter, Don wrote: The Work Incentives Improvement Act will help my friends become independent too. Then they can pay taxes too. But most of all they will have a life in the community. We are adults. We want to work. We don't need a hand out . . . we need a hand up. We should give Don and his friends a hand up. Doing so would be good for Don and good for the Nation. The hard facts make a compelling case for S. 331: As I indicated, there are 9.5 million Social Security beneficiaries. Of those who work, very few make more than $500 per month. In fact, of working individuals with disabilities on supplemental security income, only 17 percent make over $500 per month and only 10 percent make over $1,000 per month. Another 29 percent make $65 or less per month. Let's assume that S. 331 becomes law, and just 200 Social Security disability beneficiaries in each State work and forgo cash payments. That would be 10,000 individuals across the country out of 9.5 million disability beneficiaries. The annual savings to the Federal treasury in cash payments for these 10,000 people would be $133,550,000. Clearly, the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 is targeted, fiscally responsible legislation. It enables individuals with disabilities to enter the workforce for the first time, re-enter the work force, or avoid leaving it in the first place. These individuals would not need to worry about losing their health care if they choose to work a 40-hour week, to put in overtime, or to go for a career advancement. Individuals who need job training or job placement assistance would get it. S. 331 reflects what individuals with disabilities say they need. It was shaped by input across the philosophical spectrum. It was endorsed by the President in his State of the Union Address. S. 331 will give us the opportunity to bring responsible change to Federal policy and to eliminate a perverse dilemma for many Americans with disabilities--if you don't work, you get health care; if you do work, you don't get health care. S. 331 is a vital link in making the American dream an accessible dream, for Americans with disabilities. In closing, I would like to tell you about a young constituent of mine. Her name is Maria, and she faces many daily challenges as a result of her disability. She recently contacted my office to let me know that she is counting on S. 331. Maria is a junior majoring in Spanish at a college in Vermont. She plans to graduate to become a billingual teacher for children and adults from Central and South America. Maria has her whole life ahead of her. She has dreams and she has contributions to make. Enactment of S. 331 will make Maria's dreams possible. She will be able to pursue a career without fear of losing the health care she needs. Let's enact S. 331 now.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 75th anniversary of the Vermont State Park System. In 1924 Frances Humphreys donated the peak of Mt. Philo and surrounding lands to the State of Vermont as the first State Park. Mt. Philo was the perfect location for the first park; looking east from the summit one views Lake Champlain, North America's most beautiful lake stretching as far as the eye can see to the north and south; looking west one views the Green Mountain range rolling across Vermont to the Connecticut River. There are limitless recreational opportunities within and surrounding our first park. After 75 years, Vermont now has 50 State Parks, from Alburg Dunes on Lake Champlain, to Wilgus on the Connecticut River; from Mount Mansfield, Vermont's highest peak to Quechee, our deepest gorge. Vermont's State Parks are rich in history. Many of the nation's first ski trails were carved out in Vermont State Parks by the Civilian Conservation Corps, creating the New England ski industry. Under the direction Perry Merrill, who oversaw the State Parks for 37 years, more than 40,000 ``CCC Boys'' created a parks infrastructure that is intact, and unparalleled even today. Recognition should also go to the many Vermonters who, over the years, have followed the example of Frances Humphreys in donating land to become state parks, including one of our newest parks, Sentinel Rock, which was recently donated by Windsor and Florence Wright. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I recognize 75 years of visionary conservation and recreation development by the State of Vermont, and by those who have conceived and built the State Park System.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the Public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will be held on Wednesday, May 12, 1999, 9:30 a.m., in SD-628 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``ESEA: Title I: Evaluation and Reform.'' For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the Public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will be held on Thursday, May 13, 1999, 10 a.m., in SD-628 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is the nomination of Richard McGahey. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. subcommittee on energy research, development, production and regulation, committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gramm for allowing me to discuss an important issue that is quickly becoming a serious national problem--American families, elderly and disabled are increasingly unable to afford, or continue to live in, privately-owned housing units. Several recent studies have shown that low-income housing opportunities are on the decline nationwide. In Vermont, rents for housing have increased 11 percent in three years, making it increasingly difficult to find affordable shelter. The need to also expand the number of housing units for low-income families is critical as the vacancy rate in areas such as Burlington has fallen to less than one percent. On any given day there are only 60 available rental units in a city of over 40,000 people, making it simply impossible to find a place to live, much less one that is affordable. Such problems are reflected in increased rates of homelessness, as the number of families seeking help from Burlington's emergency shelter rose from 161 in 1997 to 269 in 1998. Even though additional Section 8 federal subsidies will be available next year, the 800 Vermonters on the Section 8 waiting list would be hard pressed to find somewhere to use this voucher should they receive one. Fewer opportunities for affordable housing are also due to inadequate maintenance. Vermont and the nation desperately need legislation that increases new low-income housing opportunities--whether through new housing construction, rehabilitation of existing housing, additional incentives to keep landlords in the Section 8 market, and expansion of existing tax incentives such as the Private Activity Bond Cap and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am developing legislation that will help preserve existing low-income housing stock, promote the development of new affordable housing, and increase opportunities for the purchase of housing projects by resident councils through a dollar- for-dollar matching grant program. My bill will establish a grant program for states to promote cooperation and partnership among Federal, State and local governments, as well as between the private sector in developing, maintaining, rehabilitating, and operating affordable housing for low-income Americans. These types of initiatives are critical components to meet the growing needs of low-income housing in Vermont and the nation. While the State of Vermont has largely avoided an overwhelming dislocation of tenants from opt-outs and mortgage prepayments, it is unable to accommodate the hundreds of families that seek new federally subsidized housing opportunities in the State. Reform efforts must focus both on preservation of existing federally subsidized housing units, as well as the creation of new opportunities for families seeking an affordable place to live.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I look forward to working with the chairmen of the Banking Committee and the Housing Subcommittee to address this growing problem. I thank Senator Gramm and Senator Allard for their kind remarks and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue on the floor today.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to join my colleague from Connecticut in introducing the Children of Substance Abusers Reauthorization Act (COSA). Senator Dodd is to be saluted for his keen ability to identify conditions that place families and children at risk and for developing innovative solutions and strategies for alleviating those conditions. Substance abuse affects us all. Many of us have a close friend or family member who is a substance abuser or is in recovery. Even those of us not familiar with the personal struggles of substance abuse are affected. My office just received a report from General McCaffrey at the National Drug Control Policy Office that states that drugs play a part in virtually every major social issue in America today, be it health care, crime, mental illness, the dissolution of families, or child abuse. There is no question that Americans want to do ``something'' about substance abuse, but 78 percent of Americans think that the ``War on Drugs'' has failed. So what options for combating substance abuse and addiction should policy makers explore? My state of Vermont has an innovative strategy it is eager to employ. Vermont has done its research and learned that among its school-aged youth a significant portion used illicit drugs; 51% used alcohol, 32% used marijuana, and 5% used cocaine. Twenty-nine percent of Vermont 9th graders (those are 14-15 year-olds!) used marijuana in the past month. About 49% of Vermont students in grades 8 through 12, (almost 19,000 youth) were in need of substance abuse treatment or intervention in 1996. Yet only about 10% of the youth in need of treatment or intervention indicated having received the services. Now the really striking results. Youth in need of alcohol, drug treatment, or intervention services were significantly more likely than those not in need of services to report an array of other school- and health-related problems. Twice as likely to report fighting in the last year; twice as likely to report being threatened or injured with a weapon at school in the past year; two to three times as likely to report having ever had sex; six times more likely to report having ever had sex with four or more people; and three to four times as likely to report having been pressured or forced into having sex. The Vermont report underscored clearly the challenges posed to primary care and substance abuse treatment and intervention providers in Vermont and indicated the wide range of services that are needed to identify and respond to the multiple needs of these kids and their parents. So what options for combating substance abuse and addiction should policy makers explore? We know that prevention is most effective when it is directed at impressionable children. Just as adolescents are the most susceptible to the allure of illicit drugs, so too is it the most imperative to delay or prevent the first use of illicit drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Case studies from the national Centers for Substance Abuse Prevention demonstrate that prevention programs work, especially when the prevention message is reinforced by parents, teachers, clergy, mentors and other role models. The options we policy makers explore must include a comprehensive strategy that provides the constellation of prevention services needed by children of substance abusers and their families. Vermont is ready to implement just such a strategy. Working with the national Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), Vermont has confirmed that it's adult based substance abuse treatment models are not age appropriate, they don't work for adolescents, and they need to be redeveloped specifically for youth. Problems with engagement, retention in treatment, and relapse have been chronic in our current system. The CSAT treatment needs assessment determined that almost 40% of youth leave treatment after only one session, or leave against medical advice. Vermont has developed and is ready to implement a strategy but it needs assistance. Vermont would like to build on the demonstrated success of the wraparound models of youth services. Adolescents will receive expanded case management, a broader array of outpatient options, easy access to intensive outpatient care, residential treatment, and encouragement to participate in collateral family treatment. The focus would be on ease of movement between levels of care, case management and integration of community based treatment plans. The bill introduced today can provide States like Vermont much needed assistance in these areas. COSA will provide grants to nonprofit and public entities to provide a constellation of services needed by children and affected families to prevent substance abuse and stop the devastation it causes. Those services can include chid care, remedial education, counseling, therapeutic intervention services, job training. The children of substance abusers and their families is a group that desperately needs help. If we start now, we can begin to bring a close to the endless cycle of inter-generational drug abuse and this measure is the start we need to prevent further substance abuse by the next generation. Mr. President, I would hope that my colleagues will not let this opportunity go unheeded.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to join my colleague from Connecticut in introducing the Children of Substance Abusers Reauthorization Act (COSA). Senator Dodd is to be saluted for his keen ability to identify conditions that place families and children at risk and for developing innovative solutions and strategies for alleviating those conditions. Substance abuse affects us all. Many of us have a close friend or family member who is a substance abuser or is in recovery. Even those of us not familiar with the personal struggles of substance abuse are affected. My office just received a report from General McCaffrey at the National Drug Control Policy Office that states that drugs play a part in virtually every major social issue in America today, be it health care, crime, mental illness, the dissolution of families, or child abuse. There is no question that Americans want to do ``something'' about substance abuse, but 78 percent of Americans think that the ``War on Drugs'' has failed. So what options for combating substance abuse and addiction should policy makers explore? My state of Vermont has an innovative strategy it is eager to employ. Vermont has done its research and learned that among its school-aged youth a significant portion used illicit drugs; 51% used alcohol, 32% used marijuana, and 5% used cocaine. Twenty-nine percent of Vermont 9th graders (those are 14-15 year-olds!) used marijuana in the past month. About 49% of Vermont students in grades 8 through 12, (almost 19,000 youth) were in need of substance abuse treatment or intervention in 1996. Yet only about 10% of the youth in need of treatment or intervention indicated having received the services. Now the really striking results. Youth in need of alcohol, drug treatment, or intervention services were significantly more likely than those not in need of services to report an array of other school- and health-related problems. Twice as likely to report fighting in the last year; twice as likely to report being threatened or injured with a weapon at school in the past year; two to three times as likely to report having ever had sex; six times more likely to report having ever had sex with four or more people; and three to four times as likely to report having been pressured or forced into having sex. The Vermont report underscored clearly the challenges posed to primary care and substance abuse treatment and intervention providers in Vermont and indicated the wide range of services that are needed to identify and respond to the multiple needs of these kids and their parents. So what options for combating substance abuse and addiction should policy makers explore? We know that prevention is most effective when it is directed at impressionable children. Just as adolescents are the most susceptible to the allure of illicit drugs, so too is it the most imperative to delay or prevent the first use of illicit drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Case studies from the national Centers for Substance Abuse Prevention demonstrate that prevention programs work, especially when the prevention message is reinforced by parents, teachers, clergy, mentors and other role models. The options we policy makers explore must include a comprehensive strategy that provides the constellation of prevention services needed by children of substance abusers and their families. Vermont is ready to implement just such a strategy. Working with the national Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), Vermont has confirmed that it's adult based substance abuse treatment models are not age appropriate, they don't work for adolescents, and they need to be redeveloped specifically for youth. Problems with engagement, retention in treatment, and relapse have been chronic in our current system. The CSAT treatment needs assessment determined that almost 40% of youth leave treatment after only one session, or leave against medical advice. Vermont has developed and is ready to implement a strategy but it needs assistance. Vermont would like to build on the demonstrated success of the wraparound models of youth services. Adolescents will receive expanded case management, a broader array of outpatient options, easy access to intensive outpatient care, residential treatment, and encouragement to participate in collateral family treatment. The focus would be on ease of movement between levels of care, case management and integration of community based treatment plans. The bill introduced today can provide States like Vermont much needed assistance in these areas. COSA will provide grants to nonprofit and public entities to provide a constellation of services needed by children and affected families to prevent substance abuse and stop the devastation it causes. Those services can include chid care, remedial education, counseling, therapeutic intervention services, job training. The children of substance abusers and their families is a group that desperately needs help. If we start now, we can begin to bring a close to the endless cycle of inter-generational drug abuse and this measure is the start we need to prevent further substance abuse by the next generation. Mr. President, I would hope that my colleagues will not let this opportunity go unheeded.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to participate in honoring our teachers in National Teacher Appreciation Week. I think we all remember those early years of our lives when we started school. I still remember the first day of first grade. I remember going to school in my father's hand and fearing what was going to happen to me. I remember Mrs. Anderson who greeted us all individually at the door and how immediately I warmed up to her. It was then I realized this really wasn't going to be as bad as I thought. I can even remember where my seat was that year. Ms. Maughn, in second grade, was another wonderful person. The teacher I remember more was Viola Burns, my third grade teacher. That was the beginning of World War II. She realized I needed a little further work so she had me read Time magazine and come back to her to talk about it. I also had her in the sixth grade. She was an incredible individual who helped shape my life. Then fourth grade was ``teacher unappreciation year''--I don't want to remember that. We rebelled. We ran through five teachers before we settled down. I wiped that from my memory. I feel sorry for those five teachers. I think everyone has memories and understands what an incredible help a teacher can be in our lives. My mother was a music and art teacher; my sister, a third grade teacher; my niece is a teacher; the man across the street was the principal of our high school. Those schools are gone. My former elementary school is now a private school, a Christian church school; middle school is the fire station; my high school is now the middle school. I still remember the teachers. It is not brick and mortar but the teachers that make a difference. Dindo Rivera goes around the country talking about the changes in education and how important it is. If an office worker had fallen asleep 20 years ago, woke up and walked through a modern office, they would be in incredible despair. They wouldn't know what to do. They wouldn't know how to answer the phone. But he goes on to say that if a teacher had the same experience of falling asleep and waking up now, that teacher would walk into the classroom and find that not much had changed. But the world has changed and our teachers cannot be made the scapegoats. We should not indicate that it is their problem. We, as a nation, have to recognize the teachers need help and we have to give it to them. That means we have to develop professional training. We have to be sure our colleges are producing teachers who are well qualified. At the same time, we have to recognize that our Nation will not prosper if we do not realize it is the teachers who make the difference. We are increasing standards and doing all these things to envelop them with modern technology which is difficult to understand, especially if you don't have more than 10 minutes in a day to even think about those things. I think it is incredibly important we all remember the teachers, especially this year, since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is up for reauthorization. This is our moment, at a critical time in our history, when we must take a look at the problems and the demands and the difficulties that are presented to our teachers and devise the means to help them help us become the Nation we all want to be. Let's think about our teachers today, remember what they did for us, and think about what we can do for them. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``United Nations Population Fund Funding Act of 1999.'' Senators Chafee, Snowe, Leahy, Murray, and Durbin join me as original cosponsors. I will celebrate the memory of my mother this Sunday on Mother's Day. Very sadly, I know that there are millions of children in the developing world who have very few, or even no memories of their mothers. Nearly all maternal deaths are in developing countries. More than 585,000 women, many of them already mothers, die each year from causes related to pregnancy, including obstructed labor, hemorrhage and postpartum infection, and ectopic pregnancies caused by a sexually transmitted disease. Mothers also die from HIV, malnutrition and anemina, or complications of an unsafe abortion. These are only a few examples of how poverty, lack of knowledge, and lack of basic maternal health care claim the lives of millions of mothers all over the world every year. But the importance of maternal health care to the well-being of women and their families is clear. We can support mothers in poorer countries around the world by removing the ban on U.S. funding for UNFPA. UNFPA is currently the leading maternal health care provider around the world. During the heated debate surrounding international family planning and U.S. funding for UNFPA, ``the baby often gets thrown out with the bath water.'' The ``baby'' in this debate is the vast array of work UNFPA does around the world to improve pre- and post-natal mother's health, access to voluntary family planning programs, STD and HIV education and prevention, and programs to end the practice of female genital mutilation. UNFPA provides couples all over the world access to contraception. It seeks to reduce abortions and related deaths by improving access to family planning and to treatment for complications of unsafe abortion. UNFPA's priorities include preventing teen pregnancy. Too frequently, the bulk of UNFPA's work is overlooked in the international family planning controversy. Many people do not even realize that UNFPA also assists women in crisis situations. UNFPA recently announced it is sending emergency reproductive health hits, including equipment for safe delivery of babies and emergency contraceptives for rape victims, to Albania for thousands of Kosovar Albanian refugee women. The lives of pregnant women and newborns are at particular risk among refugees fleeing Kosovo. These kits include supplies for women who give birth in areas without medical facilities, including materials like soap, plastic sheeting, pictorial instructions for delivering a baby, and razor blades for cutting the umbilical cord of a newborn. These are the most basic of items. But they can mean the difference between life and death for mothers and their newborn babies. The U.S. should contribute to this humanitarian work. The whole world has been horrified by reports released by human rights organizations stating that the Serbs are using rape as a weapon of war. UNFPA has responded and is leading international efforts to help Kosovar Albanian women who have been raped by Serb forces. UNFPA provides trauma treatment and counseling for other mental health consequences of this form of human rights abuse. As the legislative year progresses, the controversy over international family planning programs will intensify. My legislation calling for renewal of the U.S. contribution to UNFPA will get caught up in the controversy as well. But I will not let one of the most important issues get lost--the health of mothers in poor countries. In the coming months I will work with the cosponsors to this bill and many health care organizations to keep the issue of maternal health visible in the international family planning debate.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``United Nations Population Fund Funding Act of 1999.'' Senators Chafee, Snowe, Leahy, Murray, and Durbin join me as original cosponsors. I will celebrate the memory of my mother this Sunday on Mother's Day. Very sadly, I know that there are millions of children in the developing world who have very few, or even no memories of their mothers. Nearly all maternal deaths are in developing countries. More than 585,000 women, many of them already mothers, die each year from causes related to pregnancy, including obstructed labor, hemorrhage and postpartum infection, and ectopic pregnancies caused by a sexually transmitted disease. Mothers also die from HIV, malnutrition and anemina, or complications of an unsafe abortion. These are only a few examples of how poverty, lack of knowledge, and lack of basic maternal health care claim the lives of millions of mothers all over the world every year. But the importance of maternal health care to the well-being of women and their families is clear. We can support mothers in poorer countries around the world by removing the ban on U.S. funding for UNFPA. UNFPA is currently the leading maternal health care provider around the world. During the heated debate surrounding international family planning and U.S. funding for UNFPA, ``the baby often gets thrown out with the bath water.'' The ``baby'' in this debate is the vast array of work UNFPA does around the world to improve pre- and post-natal mother's health, access to voluntary family planning programs, STD and HIV education and prevention, and programs to end the practice of female genital mutilation. UNFPA provides couples all over the world access to contraception. It seeks to reduce abortions and related deaths by improving access to family planning and to treatment for complications of unsafe abortion. UNFPA's priorities include preventing teen pregnancy. Too frequently, the bulk of UNFPA's work is overlooked in the international family planning controversy. Many people do not even realize that UNFPA also assists women in crisis situations. UNFPA recently announced it is sending emergency reproductive health hits, including equipment for safe delivery of babies and emergency contraceptives for rape victims, to Albania for thousands of Kosovar Albanian refugee women. The lives of pregnant women and newborns are at particular risk among refugees fleeing Kosovo. These kits include supplies for women who give birth in areas without medical facilities, including materials like soap, plastic sheeting, pictorial instructions for delivering a baby, and razor blades for cutting the umbilical cord of a newborn. These are the most basic of items. But they can mean the difference between life and death for mothers and their newborn babies. The U.S. should contribute to this humanitarian work. The whole world has been horrified by reports released by human rights organizations stating that the Serbs are using rape as a weapon of war. UNFPA has responded and is leading international efforts to help Kosovar Albanian women who have been raped by Serb forces. UNFPA provides trauma treatment and counseling for other mental health consequences of this form of human rights abuse. As the legislative year progresses, the controversy over international family planning programs will intensify. My legislation calling for renewal of the U.S. contribution to UNFPA will get caught up in the controversy as well. But I will not let one of the most important issues get lost--the health of mothers in poor countries. In the coming months I will work with the cosponsors to this bill and many health care organizations to keep the issue of maternal health visible in the international family planning debate.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will be held on Thursday, May 6, 1999, 10 a.m., in SD-628 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``ESEA: Safe Schools.'' For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is widely known that our nation can no longer commit military force to conflicts, national emergencies and contingency operations without the participation of our National Guard and Reserves. This is expressly provided in our national military strategy. It is confirmed by the 300% increase in the pace of operations for our National Guard alone since Operation Desert Storm. While I enthusiastically support the full integration of our reserve components into a seamless Total Force, I recognize its potential to seriously affect our nation's small businesses. In most communities across this nation small businesses sustain the local economy, yet many of these businesses rely upon key employees, owners or managers who are also Guard members or Reservists subject to being called away to active duty. On Tuesday, the President approved the call-up of 33,102 members of the Selected Reserve to active duty in support of NATO operations in Yugoslavia. We cannot ignore the impact of this on our small businesses. The challenge is upon us. That is why I am happy to join Senator Kerry in introducing the Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act. For eligible reservists called to active duty in support of a declared war, national emergency or contingency operation, the bill provides in part: 1. An authorization to defer loan repayments on any direct loan from the Small Business Administration (SBA), including disaster loans, to borrowers who are members of the Guard and Reserves called to active duty. 2. A low interest economic injury loan program, administered by SBA, which would provide interim operating capital to any small business likely to suffer economic harm caused by the departure of an employee, who is a member of the Guard or Reserves called to active duty. 3. Direction to the SBA and all of its private sector partners, such as the Small Business Development Centers, to offer business training and counseling to small business affected by a loss of an employee who is a member of the Guard or Reserves called to active duty. Given that our Guard and Reserve are shouldering an increasing share of our worldwide missions, we cannot overlook the effects of these operations on our civilian workforce and their civilian employers. This legislation ensures that we keep their interests in mind during periods of military conflict.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is widely known that our nation can no longer commit military force to conflicts, national emergencies and contingency operations without the participation of our National Guard and Reserves. This is expressly provided in our national military strategy. It is confirmed by the 300% increase in the pace of operations for our National Guard alone since Operation Desert Storm. While I enthusiastically support the full integration of our reserve components into a seamless Total Force, I recognize its potential to seriously affect our nation's small businesses. In most communities across this nation small businesses sustain the local economy, yet many of these businesses rely upon key employees, owners or managers who are also Guard members or Reservists subject to being called away to active duty. On Tuesday, the President approved the call-up of 33,102 members of the Selected Reserve to active duty in support of NATO operations in Yugoslavia. We cannot ignore the impact of this on our small businesses. The challenge is upon us. That is why I am happy to join Senator Kerry in introducing the Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act. For eligible reservists called to active duty in support of a declared war, national emergency or contingency operation, the bill provides in part: 1. An authorization to defer loan repayments on any direct loan from the Small Business Administration (SBA), including disaster loans, to borrowers who are members of the Guard and Reserves called to active duty. 2. A low interest economic injury loan program, administered by SBA, which would provide interim operating capital to any small business likely to suffer economic harm caused by the departure of an employee, who is a member of the Guard or Reserves called to active duty. 3. Direction to the SBA and all of its private sector partners, such as the Small Business Development Centers, to offer business training and counseling to small business affected by a loss of an employee who is a member of the Guard or Reserves called to active duty. Given that our Guard and Reserve are shouldering an increasing share of our worldwide missions, we cannot overlook the effects of these operations on our civilian workforce and their civilian employers. This legislation ensures that we keep their interests in mind during periods of military conflict.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to make permanent the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact and to ratify a Southern Dairy Compact. I am so pleased to be joined by 38 of my colleagues as original cosponsors of this important legislation. In 1996, Senator Leahy and I fought an uphill battle and secured eleventh hour passage of this landmark legislation. We were met with resistance in every step of the legislative process, yet we succeeded in passing the Compact as a three-year pilot program. The Northeast Compact has a proven record of effectiveness. All eyes have been on New England since the compact became law. The Compact has been studied, audited, and sued--but has always come through with a clean bill of health. Because of the success of the Compact it has served as a model for the entire country. Since the Northeast Compact was approved by Congress as part of the 1996 Farm Bill, it has been extremely successful in balancing the interests of processors, retailers, consumers, and dairy farmers by helping to maintain milk price stability. The 1996 Farm Bill authorized the Dairy Compact for three years and was originally due to expire in April of 1999. Senator Leahy and I, during the 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill, included language that extended the life of the Compact for six additional months. The Compact will expire on October 1, 1999, unless congressional action is taken. Mr. President, in addition to the six New England states, 23 states have either passed or are considering legislation for dairy compacts that would help both farmers and consumers in their states. During the past year Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia have passed legislation to form a Southern Dairy Compact. Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas are also considering joining the Southern Compact. The Oregon legislature is in the process of developing a Pacific Northwest Dairy Compact as well. New Jersey, Maryland and New York have passed state legislation enabling them to join the Northeast Dairy Compact. Delaware, Pennsylvania and Ohio may also join if passed in their states. These states have recognized how dairy compacts can help provide stability to the price paid to dairy farmers for the milk they produce, while protecting the interests of consumers and processors. The Dairy Compact Commission that was established by the 1996 Compact legislation is made up of 26 members from the six New England states. The members, which are appointed by each state's governors, consist of consumers, processors, farmers and other state representatives. The legislation being introduced today, establishes that the dairy compacts may regulate only fluid milk, or Class I milk. It ensure that the dairy compacts compensate the Commodity Credit Corporation for the cost of any purchases of milk by the corporation that result from the operation of the compacts. In addition, the legislation exempts the Woman, Infant and Children (WIC) program from any costs related to the dairy compacts. More importantly, the Daily Compact operates at no costs to the federal government. A 1998 report by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the economic effects of the Dairy Compact illustrates the Compact's success. The OMB reported that during the first six months of the Compact, consumer prices for milk within the Compact region were five cents lower than retail store prices in the rest of the nation. OMB concluded that the Compact added no federal costs to nutrition programs during this time, and that the Compact did not adversely affect farmers outside the Compact region. Helping farmers protect their resources and receive a fair price for their products in vital to Vermont's economic base and, indeed, its very heritage as a state. Establishing a fair price for dairy farmers has been an on-going battle throughout my time on Capitol Hill. Few initiatives in my long memory have sparked such a vigorous policy debate as the Northeast Dairy Compact. I am so pleased and proud at how industry and government leaders from throughout Vermont and the New England region pulled together to pass the Compact. I am also impressed by the tremendous coalition of support for permanent authorization of the Northeast and Southern Dairy Compacts. The adoption of the Northeast Compact in 1996 simply could not have happened in Congress without the help and dedicated work for the veritable army of Compact supporters from throughout Vermont and the country. This year, our legislation again is supported by Governors, State legislators, consumers and farmers from throughout the country. Mr. President, on March 5, 1999, the Basic Formula Price (BFP) paid to farmers dropped from $16.27 to $10.27, the largest month to month drop in history, bringing the lowest milk price in about 20 years to dairy farmers. In the beginning of April the full impact to farmers was $7.07 per hundredweight loss from December of 1998's BFP. This drop in price will have a severe negative impact on dairy producers from throughout the country. In New England, the Dairy Compact that currently exists will help cushion the price collapse, with no cost to the federal government. Farmers from throughout Vermont and New England have praised the Compact for helping maintain a stable price. ``Without the Northeast Dairy Compact, we would be in real trouble, the price drop would put a lot of people of out business.'' Simply it's a blessing--no, that's an understatement--it's a lifesaver''. Mr. President, earlier today, I joined several of my Senate and House colleagues on the Capitol lawn to announce the introduction of this important legislation. I was so pleased to see the support and interest for this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Give the states their right to join together to help protect their farmers and consumers by supporting this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to make permanent the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact and to ratify a Southern Dairy Compact. I am so pleased to be joined by 38 of my colleagues as original cosponsors of this important legislation. In 1996, Senator Leahy and I fought an uphill battle and secured eleventh hour passage of this landmark legislation. We were met with resistance in every step of the legislative process, yet we succeeded in passing the Compact as a three-year pilot program. The Northeast Compact has a proven record of effectiveness. All eyes have been on New England since the compact became law. The Compact has been studied, audited, and sued--but has always come through with a clean bill of health. Because of the success of the Compact it has served as a model for the entire country. Since the Northeast Compact was approved by Congress as part of the 1996 Farm Bill, it has been extremely successful in balancing the interests of processors, retailers, consumers, and dairy farmers by helping to maintain milk price stability. The 1996 Farm Bill authorized the Dairy Compact for three years and was originally due to expire in April of 1999. Senator Leahy and I, during the 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill, included language that extended the life of the Compact for six additional months. The Compact will expire on October 1, 1999, unless congressional action is taken. Mr. President, in addition to the six New England states, 23 states have either passed or are considering legislation for dairy compacts that would help both farmers and consumers in their states. During the past year Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia have passed legislation to form a Southern Dairy Compact. Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas are also considering joining the Southern Compact. The Oregon legislature is in the process of developing a Pacific Northwest Dairy Compact as well. New Jersey, Maryland and New York have passed state legislation enabling them to join the Northeast Dairy Compact. Delaware, Pennsylvania and Ohio may also join if passed in their states. These states have recognized how dairy compacts can help provide stability to the price paid to dairy farmers for the milk they produce, while protecting the interests of consumers and processors. The Dairy Compact Commission that was established by the 1996 Compact legislation is made up of 26 members from the six New England states. The members, which are appointed by each state's governors, consist of consumers, processors, farmers and other state representatives. The legislation being introduced today, establishes that the dairy compacts may regulate only fluid milk, or Class I milk. It ensure that the dairy compacts compensate the Commodity Credit Corporation for the cost of any purchases of milk by the corporation that result from the operation of the compacts. In addition, the legislation exempts the Woman, Infant and Children (WIC) program from any costs related to the dairy compacts. More importantly, the Daily Compact operates at no costs to the federal government. A 1998 report by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the economic effects of the Dairy Compact illustrates the Compact's success. The OMB reported that during the first six months of the Compact, consumer prices for milk within the Compact region were five cents lower than retail store prices in the rest of the nation. OMB concluded that the Compact added no federal costs to nutrition programs during this time, and that the Compact did not adversely affect farmers outside the Compact region. Helping farmers protect their resources and receive a fair price for their products in vital to Vermont's economic base and, indeed, its very heritage as a state. Establishing a fair price for dairy farmers has been an on-going battle throughout my time on Capitol Hill. Few initiatives in my long memory have sparked such a vigorous policy debate as the Northeast Dairy Compact. I am so pleased and proud at how industry and government leaders from throughout Vermont and the New England region pulled together to pass the Compact. I am also impressed by the tremendous coalition of support for permanent authorization of the Northeast and Southern Dairy Compacts. The adoption of the Northeast Compact in 1996 simply could not have happened in Congress without the help and dedicated work for the veritable army of Compact supporters from throughout Vermont and the country. This year, our legislation again is supported by Governors, State legislators, consumers and farmers from throughout the country. Mr. President, on March 5, 1999, the Basic Formula Price (BFP) paid to farmers dropped from $16.27 to $10.27, the largest month to month drop in history, bringing the lowest milk price in about 20 years to dairy farmers. In the beginning of April the full impact to farmers was $7.07 per hundredweight loss from December of 1998's BFP. This drop in price will have a severe negative impact on dairy producers from throughout the country. In New England, the Dairy Compact that currently exists will help cushion the price collapse, with no cost to the federal government. Farmers from throughout Vermont and New England have praised the Compact for helping maintain a stable price. ``Without the Northeast Dairy Compact, we would be in real trouble, the price drop would put a lot of people of out business.'' Simply it's a blessing--no, that's an understatement--it's a lifesaver''. Mr. President, earlier today, I joined several of my Senate and House colleagues on the Capitol lawn to announce the introduction of this important legislation. I was so pleased to see the support and interest for this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Give the states their right to join together to help protect their farmers and consumers by supporting this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Aging will be held on April 30, 1999, 10:00 a.m., in SD-628 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``Older Americans Act.'' For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on energy and natural resources