Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 4, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of Robert Gee to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy for Fossil Energy.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 4 for purposes of conducting a full committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet on Thursday, March 4, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. on Internet filtering.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 4, 1999, to conduct a markup of the committee print on ``The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.''

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 4, 1999, in open session, to receive testimony from the unified and regional commanders on their military strategy and operational requirements in review of the fiscal year 2000 Defense authorization request and future years Defense program.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, climate change poses potential real threats to Vermont, the Nation, and the World. While we cannot yet predict the exact timing, magnitude, or nature of these threats, we must not let our uncertainty lead to inaction. Preventing climate change is a daunting challenge. It will not be solved by a single bill or a single action. As we do not know the extent of the threat, we also do not know the extent of the solution. But we cannot let our lack of knowledge lead to lack of action. We must start today. Our first steps will be hesitant and imperfect, but they will be a beginning. Today I am joining Senator Chafee, Senator Mack, Senator Lieberman and a host of others in cosponsoring the Credit for Early Action Act in the United States Senate. Credit for Early Action gives incentives to American businesses to voluntarily reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. Properly constructed, Credit for Early Action will increase energy efficiency, promote renewable energy, provide cleaner air, and help reduce the threat of possible global climatic disruptions. It will help industry plan for the future and save money on energy. It rewards companies for doing the right thing--conserving energy and promoting renewable energy. Without Credit for Early Action, industries which do the right thing run the risk of being penalized for having done so. We introduce this bill as a signal to industry: you will not be penalized for increasing energy efficiency and investing in renewable energy, you will be rewarded. In writing this bill, Senators Chafee, Mack, and Lieberman have done an excellent job with a difficult subject. I am cosponsoring the Credit for Early Action legislation as an endorsement for taking a first step in the right direction. I will be working with my colleagues throughout this Congress to strengthen this legislation to ensure that it strongly addresses the challenges that lie ahead. The bill must be changed to guarantee that our emissions will decrease to acceptable levels, and guarantee that credits will be given out equitably. These modifications can be summarized in a single sentence: credits awarded must be proportional to benefits gained. This goal can be achieved through two additions: a rate-based performance standard and a cap on total emissions credits. The rate-based performance standard is the most important item. A rate-based standard gives credits to those companies which are the most efficient in their class--not those that are the biggest and dirtiest to begin with. Companies are rewarded for producing the most product for the least amount of emissions. Small and growing companies would have the same opportunities to earn credits as large companies. This system would create a just and equitable means of awarding emissions credits to companies which voluntarily increase their energy efficiency and renewable energy use. The second item is an adjustable annual cap on total emissions credits. An adjustable annual cap allows Congress to weigh the number of credits given out against the actual reduction in total emissions. Since the ultimate goal is to reduce U.S. emissions, this provision would allow a means to ensure that we do not give all of our credits away without ensuring that our emissions levels are actually decreasing. With these two additions, Credit for Early Action will bring great rewards to our country, our economy, and our environment. It will save money, give industry the certainty to plan for the future, and promote energy efficiency and renewable energy, all while reducing our risk from climate change. This legislation sends the right message: companies will be rewarded for doing the right thing--increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy use.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I introduce the ``Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1999,'' with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Frist, Hagel, and Collins. These protections will give all Americans the assurance that the scientific breakthroughs in genetics testing are only used to improve an individual's health and not as a new means of discrimination. On May 21st of last year, I held a Labor and Human Resources Committee hearing on ``Genetic Information and Health Care,'' which proved to be one of the most important of the Committee's hearing during the 105th Congress. At that hearing, the Committee was presented information regarding the enormous health benefits that genetic testing research may contribute to health care, particularly in preventative medicine. Additionally, we heard compelling testimony from witnesses who fear that genetic testing will be used to discriminate against individuals with asmyptomatic conditions and to deny them the access to health insurance coverage that they have traditionally enjoyed. Following that hearing, I directed my staff to work with the offices of Senator Frist and the other members of the Labor Committee, together with the office of Senator Snowe, to draft legislation that build on Senator Snowe's bill, S. 89, to ensure that individuals would be able to control the use of their predictive genetic information. The results of these efforts are reflected in the genetic information provisions of S. 300, ``The Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act.'' Our legislation addresses the concerns that were raised at the hearing: 1. It prohibits group health plans and health insurance companies in all markets from adjusting premiums on the basis of predictive genetic information. 2. Prohibits group health plans and health insurance companies from requesting predictive genetic information as a condition of enrollment. 3. It allows plans to request--but not require--that an individual disclose or authorize the collection of predictive genetic information for diagnosis, treatment, or payment purposes. In addition, as part of the request, the group health plans or health insurance companies must provide individuals with a description of the procedures in place to safeguard the confidentiality of the information. For a society, it is often said, demography is destiny. But for an individual, as we are learning more and more, it is DNA that is destiny. Each week, it seems, scientists decipher another peace of the genetic code, opening doors to greater understanding of how our bodies work, how they fail, and how they might be cured. Everyday we read of new discoveries resulting from the work being conducted at the National Center for Human Genome Research. As our body of scientific knowledge about genetics, increases, so, too, do the concerns about how this information may be used. There is no question that our understanding of genetics has brought us to the brink of a new future. Our challenge as a Congress will be to help ensure that our society reaps the full health benefits of genetic testing and also to put to rest any concerns that the information will be used as a new tool to discriminate against specific ethnic groups or individual Americans. With the enactment of the ``Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1999'' as a part of S. 300--``The Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act''--we will be able to ensure that these scientific breakthroughs stimulated by the Human Genome Project will be used to provide better health for all members of our society and not as a means of discrimination.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will not resist the opportunity to make a few comments about what we have been doing here today. Both sides are very much interested in improving education. I don't think the enthusiasm of one side is outweighed by that of the other side, or vice versa. But the question of how to do it at this particular moment is the question with which we are faced. This side believes very strongly that we need to ensure when we vote for new programs, when we vote billions of dollars for the existing programs, we ought to know whether or not they are working. Our system is set up in a very logical way. Every 5 years we take a look at programs, and we reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is up this year. It is the most important piece of education legislation we have. It is not something which should be ignored, saying, ``We don't need any hearings. We don't need to worry about anything. We know the answers already.'' Let's examine where the ``already'' is, and what has happened. We had notice in 1983 that we had a terrible educational crisis in this country. The Nation at Risk report came out during the Reagan administration. The Governors got together in 1988, and they formulated the goals that we ought to be meeting. Here it is in 1999--and I sit on the Goals Panel--and there is no evidence that we have made any improvement in anything that is measurable. So why would we go racing out to fund programs about which we have had no hearings at this time? That is neither an appropriate nor a logical way to proceed. What do we know? We know a couple of things. First of all, we know from the experiences we have had with the experimental programs in six, and then twelve, States that more flexibility in existing program regulations will enable States to more efficiently and effectively use that money. All of the Governors say, ``Please, help us and release us from the growing volume of burdensome regulation.'' That is all we are trying to do. It is something we can do quickly, now, and get action immediately. Second, where is the greatest need for resources right now in this country? It is at the local level. The programs that are being discussed are dealing with matters which are primarily being addressed at the local level. But where Federal support is needed most is where we promised it would be provided back in 1975-76 when we passed the bill to open up vistas for children with disabilities so they had an opportunity for the kind of education which was appropriate for them. We guaranteed--quote-unquote, I suppose, from a Federal perspective-- that we would provide 40 percent of that funding. Yesterday's Supreme Court case has greatly, incredibly worsened that situation by requiring that not only do we have to provide an appropriate education at the State level, but also that somebody has to provide the health care to ensure that when that child is in school, he or she receives the best health care to enhance their education. Where is that burden going to be? Right now it has just been placed right at the local level, where it remains if we do not do something about that as soon as possible. What we have been saying today, and what we have been dedicated to as Republicans for the last 3 years, is that we must ensure that those communities that are trying to provide educational opportunity for children with disabilities have money enough, as promised to them by the Federal Government, to enable them to meet those needs. It would take $11 billion to raise that level now to what we promised back in 1976. What we are saying is, before we go off into untried programs which have not even had hearings, we ought to provide that money immediately or make it available for the process of appropriations immediately. So, we will take the money that is in these programs that are untried--the authorizations--and say: Give it to where it is really needed, to the local governments and the States so they can provide an education for the young people, all of the young people, which they cannot do by themselves because the demands are so high and because we have failed to provide to them the $11 billion they are entitled to under our promise. So I implore, my good friends on the other side, we are not trying to in any way hold anything up. What we are trying to do is to get a straightforward bill passed which will immediately help the States to maximize their resources. That's what we want to do. Instead, rather than being able to take this small step forward, we are having to go through this whole process of being asked to adopt all these programs about which we have no evidence whether or not they will work. The Department of Education now is spending, I think, $15 billion under Federal programs supporting elementary and secondary education, and we do not know if they are working. As far as we can tell, little or nothing is working. So we have to get in there and make a careful examination of these programs. That is what we should be doing--and what we are doing--through the reauthorization process. We have already had hearings to find out what is working, what is not working, and why is it not working. We will have further hearings to explore these issues. I cannot even tell now, from reading reports, from research, or anything, what impact this money is having. Before we start new programs with large sums of money, we ought to at least know whether the ones we are supporting now are working. We simply cannot go charging off to try to grab scarce resources to fund programs that are not effective. We in no way are trying to hold things back. We want to give help immediately to the States in order to loosen up existing resources to help the local communities improve their schools. I really get a little bit excited when the claim is made that we are trying to stop things from happening, when our whole purpose here is to try to make available to all 50 States the opportunity to improve their ability to deliver quality education. Then, we must have the hearings we need so we can go forward responsibly in reviewing Federal efforts in elementary and secondary education in their totality and do what our job is supposed to be. Some examples: The program which has been mentioned with respect to afterschool activities is one which I authored in 1994 and which was enacted as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization bill that year. That program--21st Century Schools-- already exists. The President has embraced it as his own. He now thinks it is a great initiative, after previously refusing to put any money in it at all. I am happy that that program is now funded and is likely to receive further funding increases. I am also aware that the President would like to see changes in the program, but this is not the time to try to suddenly put them in place. We need to go through the regular authorization process. I am anxious to do just that, but I want to do it right. We are just trying to proceed in an orderly fashion. I hope that we have an opportunity, even tomorrow, to move this bill forward. We can pass it tomorrow. Then, let us put all our effort into hearings on elementary and secondary education so that when we do things, we know what we are going to do, and hopefully we will find some things that will work. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be postponed until 5:20 and that Senator Burns be able to proceed for 5 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arkansas be allowed to speak and that the vote occur at 5:15.

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

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

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

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Not at this point. I am ready to offer the amendment. Amendment No. 38

Mr. JEFFORDS. That is no problem. I will go forward under either circumstance and do the same thing. I certainly commend the Senator from the State of Washington for presenting the results of the study. I understand that is the only study that has been done. Obviously, considerable effort was put into doing that. Again, I emphasize, as I have to all Members, that I want to keep this bill, the Ed-Flex bill, clear of amendments in order that we can expedite its passage. This will have good reception in the House. I want to get this done so the Governors can, as soon as possible, have the flexibility to be able to handle the problems created in the present law--especially title I. I am not going to accept any amendments that are related to the elementary and secondary education reauthorization. Otherwise, we will be here all the rest of this year talking and blocking all other legislation because we cannot get this little Ed-Flex bill out, which is small but is really important. I have alerted everyone that I will not accept and will oppose any amendments which are related to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization on which we are presently holding hearings. We have already had several hearings and we will have more hearings. To do it piecemeal, as Members are attempting to do, to do things in this piecemeal fashion before we have held the necessary hearings is very counterproductive at this particular time. Also, I remind Members, for those amendments which do set forth an authorization for the expenditure of funds, I will second degree those amendments and have that money go not to the intended purpose of the amendment but, rather, to fully fund the IDEA; that is, money for special education. If there is a shortfall in funding, there is no question that the shortfall in funding is in IDEA. Behind me, Senators can see a chart that demonstrates how incredibly stingy the Federal Government has been in meeting its obligations. I was on the committee that wrote the original IDEA in 1976, and I remember when we made the pledge to make sure that the Federal Government was responsible for 40 percent of the cost of special education. As Members probably realize by this time, yesterday a Supreme Court decision greatly expanded the potential for expenditure of funds by saying that under IDEA, we have the obligation now--the States do; I think the Federal Government as well--to pay for health care costs related to special education children. That is a great expansion of the present situation. This is not a mandate, as someone called it, of the Federal Government. This is a constitutional requirement. Any State that offers free education must offer the free and appropriate education to special education children. Thus, this is a constitutional requirement which we agreed to pay 40 percent. Now, what our goal is--the Republican goal--we have increased the funding by some 85 percent over the last 3 years. That was all done by Republicans for the purpose of trying to get us closer to that 40 percent that we agreed to do back in 1976. I want to make that clear as we try to move forward on this bill. I know there are a number of amendments that have been put forward contrary to my feeling that we should not be amending the Elementary and Secondary Education Act until such time as we have held the appropriate hearings, and that we should only concentrate on the Ed- Flex bill to free the Governors of the kind of complications they have now with respect to trying to get through the maze of regulations, in order to free up flexibility to help more of their communities with the limited funds they have. Hopefully, we will be offering an amendment in the not-too-distant future that will assist in moving toward improving the Ed-Flex bill, so that we can bring it to an end and be able to pass it out in an expeditious way to help the States be able to handle the problems from which they are suffering. I am hopeful Members will understand. I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will not try to take advantage of this opportunity to prematurely amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I hope they will wait until the hearings are finished, and until such time as we have an orderly process, to delineate what the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act should contain. In a moment I will send an amendment to the desk in order to make progress on the Ed Flex bill. This amendment is drafted to the text of S. 280 rather than the pending substitute. Members should be aware that we will vote shortly after that--depending, of course, on debate--in relation to the amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, my understanding is that under the present situation we are in debate only until 5 o'clock, is that correct?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the floor with the understanding I can regain the floor at 4:55.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to state where we are and what we hope to accomplish the rest of the day. Unfortunately, we have broken down in the sense of being able to efficiently and effectively consider amendments on the Ed-Flex bill. I remind everyone, the Ed-Flex bill is a very limited bill which is supposed to assist States to manage their educational systems better by having a waiver capacity in title I particularly. Just to give some examples of what we run into on that bill, at this point the State of Vermont has found with Ed-Flex--we are one of the six States that has Ed-Flex--to be at a great advantage in making modifications without the necessity of a waiver, and those modifications can be made within the State. What this does is allow, in certain circumstances where we have specific percentages set forth which must be reached or you cannot do certain things--.5 percent is an important one with respect to poverty. Thus, communities that have slightly less than .5--say in our case like .48--it is just impossible for you to do anything even with the next- door school which has .5. And there is no reason why those schools should be treated differently. You have to have waiver authority for that outside of the State. So this bill just makes it so much better for Governors to be able to administer and to be able to take advantage of Federal programs within their States. Thus, it really isn't creating for us any problem at all. That is all we are talking about. I want to keep reminding people that this bill is something which the Governors, every single Governor wants, and I think everyone here in the Senate should. I understand Senator Murray would like some time. I would be happy to yield to her if I could regain the floor at 4:55. Would that be all right?

Mr. JEFFORDS. The Senator has until 5.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Fine, I have no objection.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I have no problem as long as it is for debate only and it won't be offered. I have a request to limit Senators to 5 o'clock; apparently, there is something else that needs to be done at 5 o'clock.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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