Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Majority Leader in introducing the ``Educational Opportunities Act.'' This legislation extends programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and will serve as the foundation for our efforts this Congress to expand and strengthen those programs. The 106th Congress will see the close of the 20th century and the birth of the new millennium. At such a time, one quite naturally begins to imagine the advances and challenges--the promises and perils--which lie ahead. As a nation, we have viewed the future with optimism. We know the march of civilization may at times be uphill, but we see it as nevertheless moving upward. We know as well that the success of our efforts will not rely upon luck, but upon hard work and thoughtful planning. It comes as little surprise, therefore, that at this time in history our thoughts turn to education. From the kitchen table to the board room to the halls of Congress, education heads the agenda. That is as it should be, as we rediscover the truth in Aristotle's observation that ``all who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth.'' Reauthorization of federal elementary and secondary education programs offers this Congress an opportunity to make a lasting mark on the programs and policies which will define the role of the United States in the coming century. Our international competitors have long observed and admired our system of education. Unfortunately, in all too many cases, the pupils have surpassed the teacher. We lag behind many of our competitors. We must pick up the pace, and we must do so without delay. The renewed emphasis on education has stimulated thinking and has produced a wealth of ideas regarding the paths we should follow. As chairman of the Senate committee charged with pulling these ideas into a sound and coherent package, I am looking forward to a Congress which is both challenging and productive. It is my hope that the Educational Opportunities Act will build upon the education successes of the 105th Congress. We enacted nearly a dozen important initiatives which touched the lives of students of all ages--from youngsters in Head Start and Even Start, to special education students, to high school vocational students, to college undergraduates and graduate students, to adults in need of remedial education. These successes were possible because of a willingness to work together towards common objectives. In the United States Congress, we begin with 535 individual road maps marking a course to our destination. Arriving there will require the good faith give-and-take which has characterized our finest moments as a democracy. The legislation which Senator Lott and I are introducing today does not fill in all the blanks regarding federal elementary and secondary education policy. What it does do is set the cornerstone for a final product in which I believe each and every member of Congress will take pride. The findings and purposes contained in this legislation are intended to underscore the basic building blocks of success; parental involvement, qualified teachers, a safe learning environment, and a focus on high achievement by all students. Everyone has a role to play in assuring our students acquire the knowledge and skills they need to make the United States number one in the world. Parents are the first and most consistent educators in a child's life. Reading to young children and emphasizing the importance of education instils a love of learning which lasts a lifetime. The teacher in the classroom is at the core of educational improvement. Without a strong, competent, well prepared teaching force, other investments in education will be of little value. It has been 15 years since the national crisis in education was raised by the ``A Nation At Risk'' report. The admonition was given in these terse words: If a foreign government has imposed on us our educational system we would have declared it an act of war. Yet little has changed. There is some improvement in science but little in math. Children are coming to school slightly more prepared to learn, but this is primarily in the area of health. It is obvious that nothing is going to change unless it changes in the classroom. And nothing will change in the classroom until the teachers change. And the teachers can't be expected to change until they have help in knowing what is expected of them. The Higher Education Amendments enacted into law last October took significant steps towards demanding excellence from our teacher preparation program. With the Educational Opportunities Act, we now have the opportunity to focus on those already in the teaching force. State and local officials are also important players. Not only do they provide the bulk of financial support for elementary and secondary education in the country, they are also undertaking significant initiatives to determine what children should know and to assess whether they have mastered that material. The federal government, since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was initiated in 1965, has offered support for these efforts--as well as providing critical additional resources to offer extra help to educationally disadvantaged students. In addition, the federal government makes a significant investment in research. A key challenge for us will be determining how the federal investments can be most effectively targeted. The research we support must not only be sound but must also be useful and readily available to states and localities. Ultimately, the focus of all of our efforts must be on the student in the classroom. The training of teachers, the establishment of expectations, and the development of assessments are all pieces of the puzzle which take shape in the classroom itself. If we keep that objective foremost in mind, we will build the educational system we need and that our children deserve.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Majority Leader in introducing the ``Educational Opportunities Act.'' This legislation extends programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and will serve as the foundation for our efforts this Congress to expand and strengthen those programs. The 106th Congress will see the close of the 20th century and the birth of the new millennium. At such a time, one quite naturally begins to imagine the advances and challenges--the promises and perils--which lie ahead. As a nation, we have viewed the future with optimism. We know the march of civilization may at times be uphill, but we see it as nevertheless moving upward. We know as well that the success of our efforts will not rely upon luck, but upon hard work and thoughtful planning. It comes as little surprise, therefore, that at this time in history our thoughts turn to education. From the kitchen table to the board room to the halls of Congress, education heads the agenda. That is as it should be, as we rediscover the truth in Aristotle's observation that ``all who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth.'' Reauthorization of federal elementary and secondary education programs offers this Congress an opportunity to make a lasting mark on the programs and policies which will define the role of the United States in the coming century. Our international competitors have long observed and admired our system of education. Unfortunately, in all too many cases, the pupils have surpassed the teacher. We lag behind many of our competitors. We must pick up the pace, and we must do so without delay. The renewed emphasis on education has stimulated thinking and has produced a wealth of ideas regarding the paths we should follow. As chairman of the Senate committee charged with pulling these ideas into a sound and coherent package, I am looking forward to a Congress which is both challenging and productive. It is my hope that the Educational Opportunities Act will build upon the education successes of the 105th Congress. We enacted nearly a dozen important initiatives which touched the lives of students of all ages--from youngsters in Head Start and Even Start, to special education students, to high school vocational students, to college undergraduates and graduate students, to adults in need of remedial education. These successes were possible because of a willingness to work together towards common objectives. In the United States Congress, we begin with 535 individual road maps marking a course to our destination. Arriving there will require the good faith give-and-take which has characterized our finest moments as a democracy. The legislation which Senator Lott and I are introducing today does not fill in all the blanks regarding federal elementary and secondary education policy. What it does do is set the cornerstone for a final product in which I believe each and every member of Congress will take pride. The findings and purposes contained in this legislation are intended to underscore the basic building blocks of success; parental involvement, qualified teachers, a safe learning environment, and a focus on high achievement by all students. Everyone has a role to play in assuring our students acquire the knowledge and skills they need to make the United States number one in the world. Parents are the first and most consistent educators in a child's life. Reading to young children and emphasizing the importance of education instils a love of learning which lasts a lifetime. The teacher in the classroom is at the core of educational improvement. Without a strong, competent, well prepared teaching force, other investments in education will be of little value. It has been 15 years since the national crisis in education was raised by the ``A Nation At Risk'' report. The admonition was given in these terse words: If a foreign government has imposed on us our educational system we would have declared it an act of war. Yet little has changed. There is some improvement in science but little in math. Children are coming to school slightly more prepared to learn, but this is primarily in the area of health. It is obvious that nothing is going to change unless it changes in the classroom. And nothing will change in the classroom until the teachers change. And the teachers can't be expected to change until they have help in knowing what is expected of them. The Higher Education Amendments enacted into law last October took significant steps towards demanding excellence from our teacher preparation program. With the Educational Opportunities Act, we now have the opportunity to focus on those already in the teaching force. State and local officials are also important players. Not only do they provide the bulk of financial support for elementary and secondary education in the country, they are also undertaking significant initiatives to determine what children should know and to assess whether they have mastered that material. The federal government, since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was initiated in 1965, has offered support for these efforts--as well as providing critical additional resources to offer extra help to educationally disadvantaged students. In addition, the federal government makes a significant investment in research. A key challenge for us will be determining how the federal investments can be most effectively targeted. The research we support must not only be sound but must also be useful and readily available to states and localities. Ultimately, the focus of all of our efforts must be on the student in the classroom. The training of teachers, the establishment of expectations, and the development of assessments are all pieces of the puzzle which take shape in the classroom itself. If we keep that objective foremost in mind, we will build the educational system we need and that our children deserve.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am joining with my colleague from New York, Senator Moynihan, to introduce a bill that will eliminate an aspect of our internal revenue laws that is fundamentally unfair to taxpayers with income from foreign sources. Under our system of taxation, U.S. citizens and domestic corporations earning income from sources outside the United States are subject to U.S. tax on that foreign-source income. In all likelihood, that income will also be subject to tax by the country where it was earned. Thus, the same income could be taxed twice, by two different countries. To guard against the double taxation of this income, the tax code allows taxpayers to offset their U.S. tax on foreign-source income with the foreign taxes paid on that income. This is accomplished by means of a foreign tax credit; that is, the foreign tax paid on foreign source income is credited against the U.S. tax that would otherwise be payable on that income. The details of the foreign tax credit rules are extraordinarily complex. (Indeed, virtually all of the Internal Revenue Code's provisions governing international taxation are complex.) The basic principle underlying the foreign tax credit rules, however, is simple: to provide relief from multiple taxation of the same income. Many U.S. taxpayers have to perform two tax computations. First, they compute their ``regular tax.'' Then, they compute their ``alternative minimum tax'' (AMT). As a rule, taxpayers pay the larger of these two computations, the ``regular tax'' or the AMT. The AMT was enacted to ensure that taxpayers qualifying for various tax ``preferences'' allowed by the Internal Revenue Code must pay a minimum amount of tax. While foreign tax credits guard against double taxation in the ``regular tax'' computation, the principle of providing relief from double taxation falls by the wayside in the AMT computation. Under AMT rules, the allowable foreign tax credit is unlimited to 90 percent of a taxpayer's alternative minimum tax liability. Because of this limitation, income subject to foreign tax is also subject to U.S. tax. This rule operates to ensure double taxation, and the result is double (and even triple) taxation of income. There is no sound policy reason for denying relief from double taxation to taxpayers subject to the AMT. The foreign tax credit is not a ``preference'' that serves as an incentive for a particular activity or behavior, rather, it simply reflects the fundamental principle that income should not be subject to multiple taxation. The 90 percent limitation was enacted as part of the 1986 tax bill solely as a method of raising revenue. The bill that Senator Moynihan and I are introducing today will eliminate the AMT's 90 percent limitation on foreign tax credits. Eliminating this limitation will mean that taxpayers subject to the AMT will get the same relief from double taxation allowed to taxpayers subject to the regular tax.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a good neighbor and a man who was the best of the best. His name is Peter J. Carrara and he passed away suddenly on August 20th. However, he will be remembered by everyone who knew him as the epitome of good humor and optimism. Or as co-workers put it, ``If you didn't like Peter, you didn't like life.'' Peter was a man who loved his country and dreamed of serving the US Navy since he was a child. He fulfilled his dream, served with honor, and became a highly decorated officer. In fact, he retired in 1992 with the rank of Senior Chief Yeoman on a Ballistic Missile Nuclear Submarine, one of the greatest accomplishments a Navy man can achieve. For his service he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, five Navy Achievement medals, five Good Conduct Medals, Enlisted Submarine Breast Insignia, and the SSBN Deterrent Patrol Insignia. Following his retirement, he held several jobs, including second constable for the Town of Shrewsbury for the last four years of his life. In addition to serving his country, Peter served his community in many ways. He was a member of the Shrewsbury Community Church, Rutland Fleet Reserve Association, American Legion Post 31, the Shrewsbury So- Birds, and a volunteer fireman. He would approach any situation, especially challenging ones, with a calmness and strength which was reassuring to everyone around him. To quote his fellow town constable, ``He could approach hostile people as if he knew the angel of God was on his shoulder.'' As I read through the eulogies given and letters written about Peter, I was struck by how many people mentioned his kindness, caring, and compassion for others. Friends praised and remembered his big heart and giving spirit. For example, when he worked for UPS, he stayed late one Christmas Eve so families would have their presents for the next day. He was devoted to his friends and family and would do anything for them. When they were sick in the hospital, he would visit with them and bring them great comfort. In fact, his ability to comfort and bring a smile to people's face will be how Peter is remembered. My wife Liz said, ``You could never feel down around Peter. His smile and warmth picked your spirits up and you went on your way smiling.'' But the biggest tribute came from a childhood friend. ``You were my hero. I really enjoyed growing up with you, and today you are still my hero.'' Farewell, Peter. You will truly be missed.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear neighbor and lifetime friend. Vincent D'Acuti passed away on September 23th. However, his sense of humor and his devotion to his community will keep him in the hearts and minds of those who knew and loved him. Often called ``Mr. South Burlington,'' Vincent served his community in a variety of ways. He was a selectman in South Burlington for 10 years during the transition from town to city in the 1970's. While he was on the board, the population doubled and numerous improvement projects were undertaken. He was on the Burlington International Airport Commission, helped form the Burlington Boys and Girls Club, and was an active member of the Kiwanis club for over fifty years. He was a fixture at the annual pancake breakfast and charity auction run by the Kiwanis, served as their lieutenant governor for New England, and received a national Kiwanis award for 50 years of service. He also served his country in the army, including a stint in Normandy. While stationed at Fort Ethan Allen in Colchester, he met his future wife, Lillian Langlois of South Burlington. After he was discharged, he returned to the Burlington area to work and raise his family. Vincent approached his service of both country and community with a sense of humor which endeared himself to everyone he met. As I read the article in the September 34th edition of The Burlington Free Press, I was struck at how many people mentioned this attribute. Frank Balch, a former employer of Vincent said, ``He loved his life and enjoyed it to the hilt. He was an unforgettable person.'' He loved to tell stories and most of them were about his wife and two daughters. The joy which Vincent shared with others grew from the joy he found with his wife their daughters, Donna and Diane. My wife Liz recalled a time when she was babysitting for his children. There was a huge storm, and as is typical in rural Vermont, the power went out. Liz wasn't expecting Vince or Lillian to be home for hours, so when she heard someone at the back door, she grabbed a vacuum cleaner and positioned herself by the door, ready to defend herself and Vince's two daughters. However, the mysterious noise she heard was Vince returning home early from his work as owner of the local Dairy Queen. Luckily, he said hello before my wife wacked him over the head with the Hoover! Through his commitment to his community, his friends, and his family, he showed us how one man can truly make a difference in the lives of others. Through his humor and charisma he showed us all how to live life to its fullest. Farewell Vincent. Your friendship meant a great deal to me, and to so many others whose lives you touched.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. The Springfield region of Vermont currently faces a crisis in the machine tool industries. Six major machine tool employers in the area indicate that more than 50 percent of their workforce will retire within the next five to seven years. This will create the need for highly skilled employees to fill more than 700 positions in machine technology. In addition, other employers in the areas of information technology, hospitality and travel, financial services and food services industries indicate that they have an urgent need for a responsive education delivery system designed to meet their growing demand for skilled labor. I understand that the conference report includes funds for the Springfield Workforce Development Center to implement innovative training and vocational education strategies to meet the education, workforce and economic development needs of the region.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to engage my good friend and colleague, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations in a colloquy regarding a provision in this legislation that is of great importance to me.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I rise to make remarks concerning the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act to provide compassionate payments to hemophiliac victims of the blood supply crisis of the 1980s. The House passed the bill last May; unfortunately the Senate may not be able to pass a bill this year. The tragedy of the blood supply's infection has brought unbearable pain to families all over the country. I have heard from hundreds of these individuals and families over the past months, and I had hoped this bill would bring some closure to the grief of thousands of families who have suffered because of the blood crisis of the 1980s. I am saddened, however, that the bill that passed the House acknowledged fewer than half the victims of the blood supply crisis. Along with Senators Warner and Faircloth, I have fought to include victims of transfusion-associated AIDS in the bill this year. They are victims of the same blood supply crisis and are just as deserving of acknowledgment and compassion from the federal government. I cannot overstate my disappointment, and I can only imagine their pain. This is a group of people that has suffered a great tragedy. In their minds, in the minds of the hemophiliac community, and in the minds of members who have advocated for the Ricky Ray bill, the federal government played a role in the tragedy. It would be bad enough for the federal government to never step forward and acknowledge the tragedy, but passing a bill without them would have been the worst kind of affront. We would have acknowledged the tragedy, but ignored the distress it has brought to this particular community. With commitment from a few of my key colleagues that we would pass a bill for transfusion-associated AIDS cases next year, I supported passage of H.R. 1023. I want to take this opportunity to discuss some of the background of the bill and the reasons that I have fought so hard to include the transfusion-associated AIDS community in the Ricky Ray bill this year. While financial need and simple compassion for the tragedy suffered may be two reasons of many to pass this bill, these reasons alone cannot justify government payments to victims of the blood supply. The bill is heavily rooted in the belief that in the early to mid-1980s the government failed to protect users of the blood supply. The record that has been built in the Senate in floor speeches and in testimony provided at the Labor Committee hearing reflects this reason above all others for passing this bill. Last October the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources held a hearing on ``HIV/AIDS: Recent Developments and Future Opportunities.'' A good portion of that hearing was devoted to a discussion on the blood crisis of the 1980s, resulting in the HIV infection of thousands of Americans who trusted that the blood or blood products with which they were treated was safe. Witnesses at the hearing included John Williams, the father of a child who contracted HIV from the clotting factor and died at the age of 18, and Donna McCullough, a young woman who contracted HIV when she received a blood transfusion after a miscarriage. Several witnesses at the hearing, including my colleagues Senator Mike DeWine and Congressman Porter Goss, testified that the federal government played a role in bringing on this tragedy and therefore owes this expression of compassion to the community affected. Witnesses testified that the federal government is the watchdog charged with protecting the blood supply and that the government failed to respond aggressively to the early signs of blood borne diseases. The government did not do all it could have done to screen donors and test blood. The government failed to recall potentially contaminated blood and blood products; and then, knowing that transfusion of HIV-infected blood and blood products led to HIV infection, knowing that some of the blood was contaminated, and knowing that people were using it, the government still failed to notify people who were at risk. The details of the government's role were outlined in an Institute of Medicine (IOM) report published in 1995. the institute of medicine report The IOM was commissioned to assess what happened in the 1980s with the hope of avoiding another crisis like the one that has devastated these families. The resulting report, ``HIV and the Blood Supply: An Analysis of Crisis Decisionmaking'' made criticisms of the government's handling of the blood crisis and has been cited many times in support of the Ricky Ray bill. Witnesses at the hearing spoke about the report and its findings, and it has been quoted repeatedly by advocates for the Ricky Ray bill. The report is usually quoted in a way that highlights the shortcomings of government decision-making as they affected the hemophiliac community. But there is more to the report, and I would like to outline some of the points that are made most often with regard to the IOM report--both because I think the findings of the report provide insight as to why the Ricky Ray bill has enjoyed the support it has, and also to demonstrate that the IOM findings applied equally to the transfusion community. The IOM Committee found a ``failure of leadership'' with regard to the government's role in ensuring the safety of the blood supply. We know that ``failure of leadership'' led to the HIV infection of more than one-half of the Nation's hemophilia population. In fact, the IOM Committee identified problems that: indicated a failure of leadership and inadequate institutional decision making processes in 1983 and 1984. No person or agency was able to coordinate all of the organizations sharing the public health responsibility for achieving a safe blood supply. The suggestion that only the hemophiliac community was affected by a ``failure of leadership'' is an inaccurate representation of the report's findings. More importantly, that representation tragically excludes transfusion-associated AIDS cases, a community that is equally deserving of acknowledgment. Any failings of the government with regard to ensuring a safe blood supply clearly affected transfusion recipients as well as hemophiliacs. The IOM Committee also concluded that: when confronted with a range of options for using donor screening and deferral to reduce the probability of spreading HIV through the blood supply, blood bank officials and federal authorities consistently chose the least aggressive option that was justifiable. The government's decision to use least aggressive options with regard to donor screening and deferral decisions not only bypassed an opportunity to slow the spread of HIV within the hemophilia community, it resulted in thousands of cases of transfusion-associated AIDS. If infected blood had not been donated, no one would have been infected. The IOM report outlined several specific areas where it found that the government failed to provide leadership, including: March, 1983 letters relating to donor screening were unclear and not specific in their directives. A July, 1983 decision not to recall plasma products automatically whenever linked to individual donors identified as having or suspected of having AIDS. Delay in FDA's formal decision to recommend tracing recipients of transfusions from a donor who was later found to have HIV. Each of these failures has been described on this floor with regard to how it affected the hemophiliac community, leaving the strong impression that only the hemophiliac community was affected. Again, with full understanding of the facts, it is obvious that each of these decision points affects not only a hemophiliac in receipt of an infected blood product, but any recipient of an infected blood transfusion, whether hemophiliac, surgical patient, or a mother who had just lost her first child to a miscarriage. The IOM used the phrase ``missed opportunities'' to characterize the government's activities during the early and mid-1980s. Advocates for the Ricky Ray bill have made much of how the ``missed opportunities'' affected the hemophiliac community. The IOM said: The Committee believes that it was reasonable to require blood banks to implement these two screening procedures [screening donors and testing blood for surrogate markers] in January 1983. The FDA's failure to require this is evidence that the agency did not adequately use its regulatory authority and therefore missed opportunities to protect the public health. Seen in context, the ``missed opportunities'' argument, like the ``failure of leadership'' argument, applies equally to the transfusion- associated AIDS cases. Legal Barriers Mr. Williams and others at the hearing last October testified that the hemophiliac community 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. These arguments also have been presented on the Senate floor in support of the Ricky Ray bill and the hemophiliac community. Again, these legal barriers also apply to the transfusion cases. Transfusion-associated AIDS victims are subject to the same blood shield laws and statutes of limitations that Mr. Williams mentioned at the Labor Committee hearing last fall. I heard from one father in Virginia who described the humility of being laughed at as the winning defense attorneys left the courtroom. He and his wife had filed suit after their three-year old son died of AIDS. The boy had been infected by a transfusion he received as an infant. Is he any less deserving? Furthermore, we must note that the hemophiliac community has settled a class action with the factor manufacturers for $100,000 per infected individual. The transfusion community has won no such class action award. Some people may think that most transfusion victims recovered millions of dollars in court, and therefore need not be helped in this legislation. That is simply not the case. While in a very few cases individuals in this group were able to track the source of their infection and bring suit successfully against the blood bank, the vast majority were not. According to the book ``Transfusion-Associated AIDS,'' by Robert K. Jenner, an attorney who has represented both hemophiliac and transfusion victims, only 2-6% of transfusion victims have received any compensation through legal action. He cites a study conducted by Transfusion magazine, and notes that only 150-300 transfusion lawsuits were filed. Of those, only 40 went to trial, and only 14 resulted in awards. Many of the 14 awards were later reduced by the court or settled after trial for a lesser amount. Combining these numbers with CDC's estimate that there are 10,214 victims of transfusion-associated AIDS from the early and mid-1980s, we can calculate that somewhere between 1.5 to 3% of transfusion cases filed suit, and far less than 1% of those experienced recovery anywhere near the hundreds of thousands we have been led to believe they received in court. Compensation in Other Countries We have been reminded frequently that the U.S. is the last developed country to provide assistance/compensation to hemophiliacs who were infected with HIV by contaminated blood. What we haven't heard is that many of those countries included other victims of the blood supply crisis in their compensation programs, including Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, and Switzerland. Estimating Transfusion Victims I know some of my colleagues may be concerned that we don't know enough about the transfusion victim community to have confidence in the number of victims we have calculated. I believe we know quite a bit. The estimated number of transfusion victims, 10,214, is based on data obtained from the Centers for Disease Control, the federal agency charged with tracking incidence of AIDS. Further, the Congressional Budget Office has analyzed this number and concurs with the estimate. While we cannot identify these victims by name, I don't see how we could and I don't see why we need to. The legislation that was reported unanimously by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, S. 2564, establishes appropriate criteria that must be demonstrated in order to collect a compassionate payment. We know that the transfusion victims acquired AIDS through the same mode of transmission as the hemophiliac community and they have suffered greatly. Like the hemophiliac community, some of them passed the disease on to their spouses and children and must live with that pain. Like the hemophilia community, some of them have experienced extreme financial difficulty because of the combined effect of their underlying disease and AIDS. Regardless of our ability to generalize about this group of people, we know that they have suffered greatly because of the blood supply crisis, and we owe them the same acknowledgment and compassion that we have offered to the hemophilia community. No Washington Lobby There are roughly 10,000 people in addition to hemophiliacs who suffered extreme tragedy because of the blood supply crisis of the 1980s. The transfusion community is in fact somewhat bigger than the hemophiliac community. That fact may surprise my colleagues, because most of them have probably not been lobbied by this community. Upon reflection it will become clear why this community has not been actively lobbying. They have no political voice and no Washington office providing them with daily updates on the status of their bill. They don't have a lobbying voice in Washington or a strong grassroots network because they are not united by a single disease like hemophilia. There is one courageous individual working on behalf of this group who deserves mention. Steve Grissom is the President of a group called National Association for Victims of Transfusion-Acquired AIDS, or NAVTA. Steve is in his mid-40s and suffers from AIDS acquired from blood transfusions he received to treat his leukemia. Steve is a strong, proud man who certainly does not want our pity. I want to express my deep respect for the man Steve is and the work he has done to help the cause of thousands who suffer as he does. I met with Steve last summer in my office here in Washington. He drove from North Carolina with his wife and young daughter. Steve moves in a wheelchair and breathes with the assistance of an oxygen tank. I'm not sure whether he chose to drive rather than fly all the way to Washington because it's easier on his breathing or because of financial constraints, and I'm not going to ask. Either way, making that long drive is symbolic of his commitment. Steve works by himself out of his home with the assistance of e-mail, fax machines, and the internet. He has done everything he can think of and can afford to do to connect with other people who share his circumstances. It is more difficult than any of us can imagine to try organize the population that Steve is trying to reach. Except for HIV or AIDS, these people have nothing in common. And the one thing they do have in common--AIDS--carries enormous stigma. Privacy considerations make it nearly impossible for this community to network and form an effective grassroots lobby. How should these people go about finding each other? They also have no money. They have no substantial membership to support campaigns to alert other victims to their existence. They have no pharmaceutical or corporate partners who want to collaborate with them to advance a research or policy agenda related to their disease, or want to make contributions to the work of NAVTA in the name of good public relations. In addition to paying tribute to Steve and NAVTA for the enormous work he has done to support my efforts in the Senate, I also want to draw attention to the generous spirit of NAVTA. Transfusion-associated AIDS victims know they should have been included in the Ricky Ray bill. Even so, in their contacts with me they have always been clear that they did not want to be added to the bill if that would preclude passage. Theirs is a generosity of spirit seldom seen in Washington. As it happened, NAVTA copied the National Hemophilia Foundation on its June letter expressing NAVTA's wish that transfusion cases not be the reason the bill dies. Within a week the letter was being circulated on Capitol Hill as an argument for excluding transfusion victims. Timing and Procedure The House passed its version of the Ricky Ray bill in May, 1998. At the time of the Committee's hearing on this issue (October, 1997) I had asserted my view that the bill should extend its compassion to other victims, and immediately upon House passage I began work on that effort. The immediate message from the advocates of the bill was that there was not time to make these changes. I did not believe that then and I don't believe it now. The changes I proposed were simple in nature and I never heard a good reason that they couldn't be made. In June, I circulated draft language that would include the transfusion community. Early in July full-page advertisements ran in the Vermont Sunday papers asserting that I was holding up the bill in my Committee. This while I was still waiting for feedback on my language from the same group that ran the ads. Nonetheless, I continued to press forward and eventually received feedback from all interested parties. There were no substantive comments to the changes I proposed. In fact, advocates for the bill agreed that transfusion victims had suffered a tragedy similar to their own. The objection I continued to hear was that there wasn't time in the legislative session to complete the process. Once I had received feedback from all interested parties, I informally queried my Committee members about discharging the bill from the Committee--this was in July just before the August recess. I was told there would be objections; significantly, those objections were unrelated to the changes I had made to the bill. It became apparent that a mark-up would be required, so at the end of July my proposed language was published in the Congressional Record. I scheduled a Committee markup of the Ricky Ray bill for September 9. Because there was not a quorum present we were unable to conduct Committee business that day. I attempted to complete the markup two more times in the following week, but both times scheduling changes on the floor precluded our meeting. Early in the week of September 14, Senator DeWine and I agreed that the prudent next step would be to allow both my Chairman's mark and H.R. 1023 to be passed from the Committee. We rescheduled the markup for September 16, and on that day both bills passed the Committee by voice vote. I promised then that I would do everything I could to pass a bill that included both communities. I also promised that if it became clear that we couldn't get the changes passed this year, I would agree to passage of the Ricky Ray bill without the transfusion community. That is where we now find ourselves, so, with assurances that we will add transfusion victims next year, I support passing H.R. 1023. In closing, I would like to remind my colleagues who the transfusion victims are. They are pregnant Moms, accident victims, and people like Steve Grissom, mentioned earlier. Until now they were united only in their trust in a blood supply that gave them AIDS. I hope that, if nothing else, our efforts this year in the Senate will help other transfusion victims to find Steve and NAVTA so that, next year, my colleagues will hear from the other victims of the blood supply crisis. They are out there and they, too, deserve our acknowledgment and compassion.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will begin a period of morning business until 11 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will recess until 1 p.m., when it is expected that the House will send over another temporary continuing resolution. After the CR is agreed to, the Senate is expected to recess until Monday, October 19, to await action by the House of Representatives on the omnibus appropriations bill. The House leadership has indicated a final vote on the omnibus bill may occur on Monday or Tuesday. All Senators will be notified of the voting schedule as soon as it becomes available. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. President, I see no one seeking recognition, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to report to my colleagues that yesterday afternoon a tentative agreement on home health care was reached by negotiators from the House and the Senate. This agreement will throw a much needed lifeline to our Nation's senior citizens who rely on home health care to provide much needed health services within the surroundings of their homes. Home health care is the cornerstone of the health care safety net for senior citizens. It spares them the dislocation of moving to a hospital or nursing home, and it spares the taxpayers from paying for such costly services when they are not really needed. The administration has implemented reductions in home health care services that treat every agency exactly the same, regardless of whether the agency is efficient or wasteful. The result is that the most efficient agencies are being hit with cuts they cannot absorb. Vulnerable senior citizens in my State are on the brink--on the brink-- of losing their vital services. Under the proposal, payments to the older, low-cost home health agencies will be increased and an additional 15 percent across-the- board cut scheduled for next fall will be delayed for 6 months. That is the time when they say the proposed payments which will get us out of this mess will be available. Adoption of this bill will give home health agencies needed financial relief until a new prospective payment system is in place. All we need now is for the administration to also agree to help our senior citizens who rely on home health care, as was wrapped into the omnibus bill yesterday. I call upon the President in the strongest way I possibly can to join us in saving hundreds and thousands of home health care services from being forced to cut back on critical services. Today is a day of political spinning. The media will examine who won and who lost, what provisions are in and what provisions are out. We must take that time to make things right for senior citizens who need our help. Over the last 8 months, I have been working as hard as I know how to find a solution for the crisis faced by our home health care agencies in Vermont. Our 13 home health agencies are model agencies that provide high-quality, comprehensive home health care with a low price tag. However, under Medicare's new interim payment system, the payments to the agency are so low that Vermont seniors may be denied access to needed home health services. They are the lowest cost in the whole United States. For the past 7 years, the average Medicare expenditures for home health care in Vermont have been the lowest in the Nation. However, rather than being rewarded for this cost-effective system, Vermont has been penalized by the implementation of the current interim payment system. In June 1998, Vermont's home health agencies projected the statewide impact of their current interim payment system was a loss of over $4.5 million in Medicare revenues for the first year. These are nonprofit agencies in our little State. This represents a loss of over 11 percent on an annual base of $40 million statewide. Vermont is a good example of how the health care system can work to provide for high-quality care for Medicare beneficiaries. Home health agencies are a critical link in the kind of health system that extends care over a continuum of options and settings. New technology and advances in medical practice permit hospitals to discharge patients earlier. They give persons suffering with acute or chronic illness the opportunity to receive care and live their lives in familiar surroundings. Time and time again, Vermont's home health agencies have proven their value by providing quality, cost-effective services to these patients. Yet, time and time again, Federal policy seems to ensure that their good deeds will go punished. The home health legislation is the product of a great deal of hard work by the majority leader, Senators Roth and Gramm, and Congressmen Thomas and Bilirakis. I worked with them yesterday before we reached our conclusion. The signing of this bill will mark a victory for our State and also reflect a strong nationwide commitment to high-quality, cost-effective home health agencies such as those in Vermont. I anguish as I wait today to know what will happen at the White House. I ask the President, call upon him, to make sure that they do not destroy this wonderful work that was accomplished yesterday to save our home health care system.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess until 1 p.m. today.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to support the passage of S. 1754, the Health Professions Education Partnerships Act of 1998. This legislation reauthorizes the health care training programs contained in titles VII and VIII of the Public Health Service Act and its enactment will improve health workforce quality, diversity, and the distribution of funds--while requiring greater accountability of both the grant recipients of federal funds and the agency that administers them. I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the Act. Senate bill 1754 reauthorizes and consolidates 37 categorical grant and contract authorities of title VII and VIII of the Public Health Service Act into 8 clusters to provide for the support of health professions training programs and related community-based educational partnerships. To preserve the integrity of the programs, 15 funding lines will continue. This legislation provides comprehensive, flexible, and effective authority for the support of health professions training programs and the related community-based educational partnerships. In my own State of Vermont, the students of the University of Vermont's College of Medicine have benefited from a number of these programs and scholarships, including those relating to family medicine and professional nurse and nurse practitioner training. The newest title VII program in Vermont is the Area Health Education Center (AHEC) which opened its first site in April 1997 in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont. The AHEC will decentralize health professions education by having portions of the training provided in primary medical personnel shortage areas and by improving the coordination and use of existing health resources. Over the next two years, two additional sites are planned in other underserved areas of the State. These efforts have contributed to making Vermont a better place to obtain health care services and they have improved the quality of life for its residents. I want to thank Senator Frist and his excellent staff for their dedication and hard work in drafting the Health Professions Education Partnerships Act of 1998. The enactment of this act will improve the training of our nation's health workforce and, also, provide for greater accountability of the public funds used to support these educational programs.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 12 noon on Thursday, October 15. I further ask that the time for the two leaders be reserved.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, on Thursday, there will be a period for morning business until 1 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate may consider any legislation that can be cleared by unanimous consent. Negotiations are still ongoing with respect to the omnibus appropriations bill, and it is still the leader's hope that the bill can be passed without a rollcall vote. Once again, Members will be notified if a rollcall vote is necessary on passage of the funding bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment be agreed to.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Senators Helms and Biden have a substitute amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4660, which was received from the House.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4151, which was received from the House.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3723 and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendments with a further amendment by Senators D'Amato and Sarbanes.