Jim Jeffords

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 Labor and Human Resources will be held on Thursday, September 17, 1998, 10:00 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Professional Development: Incorporating Advances in Teaching. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224- 5375. subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation and recreation

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the amendment being offered by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold to motivate the Senate and conclude action on campaign finance reform legislation. Before I proceed, I would like to point something out about the decision the Senator from Alabama referenced to defend nondisclosure. The Supreme Court in that case said if the people were threatened with bodily injury or death, they did not have to disclose their names. That is hardly, I hope, the case that we have here. I hope people would not rely upon that Alabama decision to say that the present procedure that we have here, allowing people to hide themselves behind their ads, is legitimized by that decision. I also thank the Senator from Maine, who worked very strenuously on this amendment with respect to disclosure. To me, it is incredible to think anybody can object to what we are suggesting, which is that if people put something on the air obviously aimed at candidates, we ought to know who they are. I just cannot understand how anybody can take the position that is a violation of the freedom of speech. Also, let me congratulate the House of Representatives for passing campaign finance reform legislation shortly before the August break. This was a first step toward achieving our mutual goal of having a campaign finance system that is fair and equitable. Such a system should ensure that the electorate is fully informed and that the pool of potential candidates is not limited by financial barriers. Earlier this year we fell eight votes short of passing the McCain/ Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. During consideration of this bill an important amendment offered by Senator Snowe and I was adopted, and I am pleased that Senators McCain and Feingold have included this language in the amendment we are considering today. I think it is a critical amendment. The willingness of my colleagues to include this language and the leadership of the Vermont legislature on this issue last year has convinced me that it is time to move forward and pass this amendment. The McCain-Feingold amendment with the Jeffords-Snowe language boosts disclosure requirements and tightens expenditures of certain funds in the weeks preceding a primary and general election. The last few election cycles have shown that spending has grown astronomically in two areas that cause me great concern. First, issue ads that have turned into blatant electioneering. Second, the unfettered spending by corporations and unions to influence the outcome of an election. This amendment with the Jeffords-Snowe language addresses these areas in a reasonable, equitable and last but not least, constitutional way. Mr. President, reform of the campaign finance system is long overdue. The litany of problems and short comings of our current system is long and well known, but the full Congress has so far been reluctant to act. Since my election to the House in the wake of the Watergate scandal, I have worked with my colleagues to craft campaign finance reform legislation that could endure the legislative process and survive a constitutional challenge. We came close in 1994, and I believe circumstances still remain right for enactment of meaningful campaign finance reform during this Congress. This belief has only been strengthened by the recent actions taken by the House. The Senate is known for its ability to have full and complete debates on any issue, and campaign finance should be no different, but debate on this important topic should eventually reach an end. We may not agree on the solution, but we must move forward, debate the issue and ultimately reach a conclusion. Let the process run its course, let Senators offer their amendments and get their votes. But, in the end let the Senate complete consideration of this issue. Mr. President, if Mark McGwire can hit 62 home-runs, Congress can surely pass this important legislation and hit one home-run for cleaner campaign financing. I remain hopeful that my colleagues will join me in allowing the Senate to conclude debate on this issue.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment and against the motion to table. This amendment was worked on by many of us who sincerely believe that the future of this Nation must rely, to a certain extent, on our good understanding of the past and of history and of the battles that this Nation fought in its infancy--basically, the Civil War battlefields. As we approach the next millennium, many of these battlefields are very critical in understanding the history of the Civil War. And in understanding the sacrifices made by so many Americans, Senator Torricelli, myself and others, with the great cooperation of the Senator from Washington, worked out a plan where we could raise a sufficient amount of money to really work with States and local governments to be able to take care of and preserve those battlefields that are so important in understanding the history of the Civil War. So I have opposed the motion to table and support very strongly the underlying amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to direct my colleagues' attention to report language accompanying this legislation supporting U.S. ratification of an important treaty--the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification, also known as the ``Drylands'' Convention. The term desertification is often mis-associated with the expansion of deserts. Rather, it is the loss of soil fertility in dryland agricultural areas. Most of the world's basic food crops are grown in dryland areas. Poverty, population pressure and unwise government policies often drive farmers to use unsustainable farming practices on marginal lands just to survive. Over time, desertification deepens poverty. It undercuts economic growth and triggers social instability in poor countries lacking resources to combat it. The American Dust Bowl of the 1930's is a prime example of desertification. The hunger, poverty and migration spawned by the Dust Bowl left an indelible mark on our national psyche. In 1939, John Steinbeck depicted the tragedy so well in his great American novel, The Grapes of Wrath: And then the dispossessed were drawn west--from Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico; from Nevada and Arkansas, families, tribes, dusted out, tractored out. Car-loads, caravans, homeless and hungry; twenty thousand and fifty thousand and a hundred thousand and two hundred thousand. They streamed over the mountains, hungry and restless-- restless as ants, scurrying to find work to do--to lift to push, to pull, to pick, to cut--anything, any burden to bear, for food. The kids are hungry. We got no place to live. Like ants scurrying for work, for food, and most of all for land. Every student of U.S. history studies the economic and social impact of the Dust Bowl. U.S. history textbooks feature photos similar to these behind me. Our national response to this disaster was a successful community- based soil and water conservation effort that is still fighting the threat of desertification in areas of the American West today. While we have grappled with this problem and won, the rest of the world is not so fortunate. Imagine our own Dust Bowl if we did not have the technological know-how or the economic resources to deal with it? The risk of new dust bowls is increasing at an accelerating rate in over ninety developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Billions of tons of topsoil are washed or blown away every year. The U.S. is feeling the fallout from desertification abroad. Thousands migrate over our borders from land-degraded countries such as Mexico. We spend millions on humanitarian aid for drought-affected countries in Africa. Desertification leads to even more costly and frequent food aid programs. Dwindling land and water resources frequently ignite regional conflict. Desertification abroad will also continue to pose risks to our environmental health and contribute to the loss of plant and animal species which may hold the keys to future sources of food and medicine. To address the problem, in 1994, the United States participated in negotiating the Drylands Convention. By the time negotiations began, developed nations were weary of carrying huge loads in support of environmental treaties. U.S. negotiators insisted that no new responsibilities be placed on our government. The result is that this treaty is the first of its kind. It does not establish a big, new U.N. program. No army of U.N. employees will be deployed to fight desertification. The treaty uses a bottom-up approach where the solutions are devised and then carried out by people at the local community level. National action plans required of all donee states by the treaty will add greater cohesion and coordination to existing efforts. The treaty's financial mechanism is unique as well. No new U.S. foreign aid funding is required under the Convention. The U.S. currently contributes roughly $30 million per year to fight desertification. So why do we need the treaty? Because it gives U.S. foreign aid dollars ``more bang for the buck.'' Existing U.S. foreign aid resources would be used more efficiently by better matching of donors with areas of need through the establishment of a Global Mechanism. It does NOT impose any international mandates on U.S. funding. But more importantly, the Convention would be good for U.S. business. It would increase opportunities for American agribusiness to export technology and expertise to developing countries affected by desertification through networks established by the treaty. Clearly, there is no bar to marketing these outside the framework of the Convention. But working within the Convention offers distinct advantages. It establishes networks like the Science and Technology Committee, the Roster of Independent Experts, donor coordination groups and partnerships with local community organizations. If the U.S. is not a party to the Convention, U.S. businesses and consultants will be barred from these lists. Helping to fight desertification and poverty abroad is good for U.S. exports and the U.S. trade balance. Rising incomes in the agricultural sector of developing countries generate a higher demand for U.S. exports of seeds, fertilizer, agro-chemicals, farm and irrigation equipment as well as other U.S.-produced goods and services. The United States signed the Drylands Convention in 1994. It has been approved by all the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) members except the U.S. and Japan. And Japan is expected to ratify it soon. If the U.S. does not ratify by November 1998, we will not have a voice in establishing the detailed mechanism that is at the heart of the Convention. If we want this treaty to work for us, then we must have a seat at the table in two months. Ratification of the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification is a win-win for the United States. We must not let this opportunity slip away from us.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, ten years ago Congress passed the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act, referred to as the ``Tech Act''. My friend, Senator Harkin, was the principal sponsor in the Senate. I was the principal sponsor in the House. Both Houses of Congress worked together and passed the same legislation on the same day. Once again, Senator Harkin and I, with our colleague Senator Bond, joined forces to draft the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (ATA), which we are introducing today with the co-sponsorship of Senators Kennedy, Frist, Collins, McConnell, Reed, and Kerry. Once again, we are working toward expeditious consideration of legislation that promotes access to assistive technology for individuals with disabilities. With the assistance of our colleagues in the Senate and the other body, I am confident that the ATA will become law. The ATA authorizes funding for assistive technology activities for fiscal years 1999 through 2004. The ATA builds on the success of its predecessor, the Tech Act. The Tech Act sunsets September 30, 1998. This will result in the termination of federal assistance to nine states for promoting access to assistive technology for individuals with disabilities, and place the remainder of the states in jeopardy of diminished or no funding during or after fiscal year 1999. Through the ATA the Senate has the opportunity to reaffirm the federal role of promoting access to assistive technology devices and services for individuals with disabilities. The bill allows States flexibility in responding to the assistive technology needs of their citizens with disabilities, and does not disrupt the ongoing work of the 50 State assistive technology programs funded under the Tech Act. These programs make a difference. Access to assistive technology for an individual with a disability means independence, ability to work or attend school, and the opportunity to participate in community life. Lack of access to assistive technology means dependence and isolation. In my State of Vermont, Lynne Cleveland is the project director for our Tech Project. Lynne testified before the Labor and Human Resources Committee on April 29, 1998 on the impact of the Vermont Tech Project on the lives of Vermonters with disabilities. For example, one of the many things the Vermont Tech Project supports is a rehabilitation engineering technician program, the only one in the nation, at Vermont Technical College. Graduates of the program work for schools, non- profit agencies, state agencies, and vendors helping others make appropriate, cost-effective decisions regarding assistive technology for individuals with disabilities and educating others about the need for and value of the individual with a disability having a central role in such decisions. The Vermont Tech Project touches and changes the lives of individual Vermonters of all ages and walks of life. For Bill, a man in his mid- thirties who suffered a stroke, the Tech Project helped secure assistive technology that enabled him to obtain employment designing web pages. Equally important to Bill is that assistive technology enables him to talk again with his children. For Ray, who lost his vision in mid-life, acquiring assistive technology has allowed him to continue as a snowplow dispatcher for the State of Vermont. For Ty, a teenager born with a visual impairment, access to assistive technology means she can pursue her goal of becoming a lawyer. For Annie, a first grader with Downs Syndrome, having assistive technology means that she can use the computer in a regular education classroom, learning and playing games with her classmates. For Lillian, a senior citizen, access to and training on a closed circuit television, enables her to stay in her home rather than living in a nursing home. The Vermont Tech Project has touched each of these individuals by working with others to change policies, improve coordination, pool resources, and educate people about the benefits of assistive technology. Across the U.S., state assistive technology programs have brought about a wide range of improvements in the last decade. State assistive technology programs have contributed to changes in state laws, improved coordination among state agencies and between the public and private sector, all of which have expanded access to assistive technology. These programs have increased public awareness of the value of assistive technology, have educated individuals with disabilities about how to select and purchase appropriate assistive technology, and expanded the number of individuals in schools, the workplace, and other settings of community life that can provide assistance in selecting, securing, and using assistive technology. The ATA allows this important work to continue. Title I of the bill supports states in sustaining and strengthening their capacity to address the assistive technology needs of individuals with disabilities; title II brings focus to the federal investment in technology that could benefit individuals with disabilities; and title III supports micro-loan programs to provide assistance to individuals who desire to purchase assistive technology devices or assistive technology services. The legislation also draws attention to and promotes consideration of the principles of universal design in the design of future technology and using the power of the INTERNET to bring best practices related to assistive technology to anyone's keyboard. In title I the ATA streamlines and clarifies the expectations, including expectations related to accountability, associated with continuing federal support for state assistive technology programs. It targets specific, proven activities, as priorities, referred to as ``mandatory activities''. All state grantees must set measurable goals in connection to their use of ATA funds, and both the goals and the approach to measuring the goals must be based on input from a state's citizens with disabilities. If a state has received fewer than 10 years of federal funding under the Tech Act for its assistive technology program, title I of the ATA allows a state, which submits a supplement (a continuity grant) to its current Tech Act grant for federal funds, to use ATA funds for mandatory activities: a public awareness program, interagency coordination, technical assistance and training, and outreach. Such a state also may use ATA funds for optional grant activities: alternative state-financed systems for assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, technology demonstrations, distribution of information about how to finance assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, and operation of a technology-related information system, or participation in interstate activities or public-private partnerships pertaining to assistive technology. If a state has had 10 years of funding for its assistive technology program through the Tech Act, the state may submit an application for a noncompetitive challenge grant under the ATA. Grant funds must be spent on specific activities--interagency coordination, an assistive technology information system, a public awareness program, technical assistance and training, and outreach activities. In fiscal years 2000 through 2004, if funding for title I exceeds a certain level, states operating under challenge grants may apply for additional ATA funding, provided through competitive millennium grants. These grants are to focus on specific state or local level capacity building activities related to access to technology for individuals with disabilities. Title I of the ATA also authorizes funding for protection and advocacy systems in each state to assist individuals with disabilities to access assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, and funding for a technical assistance program, including the National Public Internet Site, and specifies administrative procedures with regard to monitoring of entities funded under title I of the ATA. Title II of the ATA authorizes national activities, including increased coordination and communication among federal agencies with regard to addressing the assistive technology needs of individuals with disabilities. Title III of the Act authorizes a broad range of alternative financing mechanisms to assist individuals with the purchasing of assistive technology through micro-loans. Providing access to assistive technology for individuals with disabilities was a simple promise in 1988. Today it is much, much more. The ATA represents the bridge to the next century for individuals with disabilities. Across that bridge lies increased independence, realized potential, new partnerships, unimagined challenges, and unlimited opportunities.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent I may proceed as if in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Member of my staff, Hilary Hoffman, be granted floor privileges for the rest of the day's session of the Senate.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, ten years ago Congress passed the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act, referred to as the ``Tech Act''. My friend, Senator Harkin, was the principal sponsor in the Senate. I was the principal sponsor in the House. Both Houses of Congress worked together and passed the same legislation on the same day. Once again, Senator Harkin and I, with our colleague Senator Bond, joined forces to draft the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (ATA), which we are introducing today with the co-sponsorship of Senators Kennedy, Frist, Collins, McConnell, Reed, and Kerry. Once again, we are working toward expeditious consideration of legislation that promotes access to assistive technology for individuals with disabilities. With the assistance of our colleagues in the Senate and the other body, I am confident that the ATA will become law. The ATA authorizes funding for assistive technology activities for fiscal years 1999 through 2004. The ATA builds on the success of its predecessor, the Tech Act. The Tech Act sunsets September 30, 1998. This will result in the termination of federal assistance to nine states for promoting access to assistive technology for individuals with disabilities, and place the remainder of the states in jeopardy of diminished or no funding during or after fiscal year 1999. Through the ATA the Senate has the opportunity to reaffirm the federal role of promoting access to assistive technology devices and services for individuals with disabilities. The bill allows States flexibility in responding to the assistive technology needs of their citizens with disabilities, and does not disrupt the ongoing work of the 50 State assistive technology programs funded under the Tech Act. These programs make a difference. Access to assistive technology for an individual with a disability means independence, ability to work or attend school, and the opportunity to participate in community life. Lack of access to assistive technology means dependence and isolation. In my State of Vermont, Lynne Cleveland is the project director for our Tech Project. Lynne testified before the Labor and Human Resources Committee on April 29, 1998 on the impact of the Vermont Tech Project on the lives of Vermonters with disabilities. For example, one of the many things the Vermont Tech Project supports is a rehabilitation engineering technician program, the only one in the nation, at Vermont Technical College. Graduates of the program work for schools, non- profit agencies, state agencies, and vendors helping others make appropriate, cost-effective decisions regarding assistive technology for individuals with disabilities and educating others about the need for and value of the individual with a disability having a central role in such decisions. The Vermont Tech Project touches and changes the lives of individual Vermonters of all ages and walks of life. For Bill, a man in his mid- thirties who suffered a stroke, the Tech Project helped secure assistive technology that enabled him to obtain employment designing web pages. Equally important to Bill is that assistive technology enables him to talk again with his children. For Ray, who lost his vision in mid-life, acquiring assistive technology has allowed him to continue as a snowplow dispatcher for the State of Vermont. For Ty, a teenager born with a visual impairment, access to assistive technology means she can pursue her goal of becoming a lawyer. For Annie, a first grader with Downs Syndrome, having assistive technology means that she can use the computer in a regular education classroom, learning and playing games with her classmates. For Lillian, a senior citizen, access to and training on a closed circuit television, enables her to stay in her home rather than living in a nursing home. The Vermont Tech Project has touched each of these individuals by working with others to change policies, improve coordination, pool resources, and educate people about the benefits of assistive technology. Across the U.S., state assistive technology programs have brought about a wide range of improvements in the last decade. State assistive technology programs have contributed to changes in state laws, improved coordination among state agencies and between the public and private sector, all of which have expanded access to assistive technology. These programs have increased public awareness of the value of assistive technology, have educated individuals with disabilities about how to select and purchase appropriate assistive technology, and expanded the number of individuals in schools, the workplace, and other settings of community life that can provide assistance in selecting, securing, and using assistive technology. The ATA allows this important work to continue. Title I of the bill supports states in sustaining and strengthening their capacity to address the assistive technology needs of individuals with disabilities; title II brings focus to the federal investment in technology that could benefit individuals with disabilities; and title III supports micro-loan programs to provide assistance to individuals who desire to purchase assistive technology devices or assistive technology services. The legislation also draws attention to and promotes consideration of the principles of universal design in the design of future technology and using the power of the INTERNET to bring best practices related to assistive technology to anyone's keyboard. In title I the ATA streamlines and clarifies the expectations, including expectations related to accountability, associated with continuing federal support for state assistive technology programs. It targets specific, proven activities, as priorities, referred to as ``mandatory activities''. All state grantees must set measurable goals in connection to their use of ATA funds, and both the goals and the approach to measuring the goals must be based on input from a state's citizens with disabilities. If a state has received fewer than 10 years of federal funding under the Tech Act for its assistive technology program, title I of the ATA allows a state, which submits a supplement (a continuity grant) to its current Tech Act grant for federal funds, to use ATA funds for mandatory activities: a public awareness program, interagency coordination, technical assistance and training, and outreach. Such a state also may use ATA funds for optional grant activities: alternative state-financed systems for assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, technology demonstrations, distribution of information about how to finance assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, and operation of a technology-related information system, or participation in interstate activities or public-private partnerships pertaining to assistive technology. If a state has had 10 years of funding for its assistive technology program through the Tech Act, the state may submit an application for a noncompetitive challenge grant under the ATA. Grant funds must be spent on specific activities--interagency coordination, an assistive technology information system, a public awareness program, technical assistance and training, and outreach activities. In fiscal years 2000 through 2004, if funding for title I exceeds a certain level, states operating under challenge grants may apply for additional ATA funding, provided through competitive millennium grants. These grants are to focus on specific state or local level capacity building activities related to access to technology for individuals with disabilities. Title I of the ATA also authorizes funding for protection and advocacy systems in each state to assist individuals with disabilities to access assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, and funding for a technical assistance program, including the National Public Internet Site, and specifies administrative procedures with regard to monitoring of entities funded under title I of the ATA. Title II of the ATA authorizes national activities, including increased coordination and communication among federal agencies with regard to addressing the assistive technology needs of individuals with disabilities. Title III of the Act authorizes a broad range of alternative financing mechanisms to assist individuals with the purchasing of assistive technology through micro-loans. Providing access to assistive technology for individuals with disabilities was a simple promise in 1988. Today it is much, much more. The ATA represents the bridge to the next century for individuals with disabilities. Across that bridge lies increased independence, realized potential, new partnerships, unimagined challenges, and unlimited opportunities.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to direct my colleagues' attention to an issue that has not been given sufficient attention during debate on this bill--funding for the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The legislation before us provides $47.5 million for the GEF, far less than the Administration's request and $145 million short of the amount necessary to cover our arrears to the GEF. The GEF was created because the world's developed nations sought to involve the developing world in improving the global environment, but realized that they lacked the resources and technology to make significant progress on their own. The GEF was designed to help these nations act in an environmentally responsible manner in areas where their actions would have a broad environmental impact. For we all know that if we are going to make significant progress in solving the world's most pressing environmental problems, there will have to be a collective effort by most of the world's nations. In 1994, developed nations pledged $2 billion to the GEF, payable over four years. The U.S. portion of that replenishment was $430 million. To date, Congress has appropriated substantially less, and total arrears amount to $192.5 million. And now several donor countries are beginning to condition their own contributions on payment of our past due amounts. Without new funding, the GEF's ability to implement its programs will end in about six months. Mr. President, the GEF has emerged as the principal international funding mechanism for global environmental protection. The organization works in four areas--biodiversity, energy, ozone protection, and international waters. Over 500 projects in 119 countries have been funded under GEF's own unique approach. To obtain the most impact for its limited resources, the GEF generally does not fund entire projects. Instead it funds the difference between what it would cost a country to do a project in the traditional manner without environmental safeguards, and the cost of doing that same project in an environmentally responsible manner. Mr. President, we are all becoming increasingly aware that our biggest environmental problems will require global solutions. And these problems will require financial commitments from many nations. The GEF is the only institution of its kind, and is pivotal to the success of these efforts. While it is making strides in resolving some of these very serious problems, it is being hobbled by America's failure to pay up. Donors are looking to the U.S. to resume its leadership, and because of the special provisions of the balanced budget act allowing payment of U.S. arrearages to international institutions, we now have an opportunity to do so. I urge the managers of this legislation to make this issue a priority in conference with the other body and to seize the moment to make good on our debts. Amendment No. 3506

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania has raised a very important issue, one that has not been given sufficient attention by this body this year--that of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Ratification of the CTBT is one of the single most important steps the Senate could take today to improve our national security and reduce the future threat of a missile attack. This treaty exists only because the United States made it a priority and put a lot of energy into its formulation. Entry into force of the treaty will now occur only if the U.S. Senate engages these issues directly and begins the ratification debate. I realize that many of my colleagues do not support the treaty. But I think most Senators would agree that this is an important debate, one that should not be allowed to slip off the Senate's fall agenda. The amendment before the Senate would fully fund the Administration's request for $28.9 million to cover the U.S. contribution to the Comprehensive Test Ban Preparatory Commission. This organization will be responsible for coordinating the efforts of the CTBT signatories to monitor compliance with the treaty and seek to prevent break-out of the treaty. The organization plans to build 171 monitoring stations around the world, greatly enhancing the ability of the U.S. and other countries to detect a nuclear explosion. Not only is this function critically important to our national security, it comes at a bargain price: the U.S. pays only 25 percent of the cost of the Preparatory Commission. The remainder is borne by the other signatories to the treaty. As we struggle to stretch every defense dollar a bit further, I don't think we can afford to let this bargain escape us. Mr. President, I know there are many obstacles to entry into force of the CTBT. And without active, engaged U.S. leadership, it might never happen. But we have a lot at stake here, both for today's security needs and to prevent future nuclear weapons threats. It is much easier to prevent the emergence of such threats than it is to protect against them once they have been developed. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is always a very difficult subject when we talk about nuclear waste. We all have a fear of nuclear waste and the thought of radiation emanating from the ground in our neighborhoods or visions of trucks driving down from Maine and Vermont and dumping waste into the fields of Texas. That is sometimes what is described. But we are talking here about a well-conceived law which has set out a process for low-level waste. What is low-level waste? Well, it is the gloves that come from the workers in the atomic energy plants. It may be waste from the utilization of radioactive materials in our hospitals. It is not the large nuclear rods that we are trying desperately to put somewhere. We are talking about something that is easily controllable. One would certainly ask this question: If there is so much problem, how come all the people in the area are voting and saying, yes, yes, bring it down? Why? Because there is a price tag to those States that have the waste. Vermont and Maine are not very big States. We are going to be spending $25 million sending it down, with other payments later, and creating a facility in this area that will provide jobs and economic help to an area that right now is very low income, with no real productivity or resources. So they will have an opportunity to benefit very substantially--maybe build a new school, or other things--which would not happen were it not for this compact. Also, we know well now how we can control the nuclear waste from facilities that have low- level waste. We know what to do with the high-level waste, but we just can't get the States to come around to accepting it. That is a problem for the future. Right now we are talking about low-level waste. The compact has the support of the Governors and the State legislatures of Texas, Vermont and Maine. Passage of this compact will allow these States to responsibly manage low-level waste produced by hospitals, power plants, industrial facilities, and medical research laboratories in our State where we do not have a place to do this, and it creates a danger. Whereas, if it is shipped and properly handled and placed in areas where there is no chance to get into the groundwater and all these things we have to worry about in our State, it can only benefit those, and especially in providing schools and other things. We come to the floor today asking that our states be given the same rights as forty-one other states. In 1980, and again in 1985, Congress declared that states must provide for the disposal of commercial low- level radioactive waste. Forty-one states have responded affirmatively to that mandate and formed nine regional compacts. These nine compacts have been approved unanimously by the Senate, without amendment, and signed into law. We ask for nothing more than what Congress has already given these forty-one other states. This compact, like the nine others that precede it, took years of negotiating among the states. The Vermont legislature and the Governor carefully reviewed each provision before approval. In fact in 1990, under the leadership of then-Governor Madeline Kunin, the State of Vermont began a study to find a suitable site for a disposal facility in Vermont. After two years of exhaustive review, the State determined that a safe site could not be found in Vermont. It is understandable that we can't bury things. We have water that flows down on us and runs off. It is no place to handle this kind of thing. The agreement Vermont and Maine have reached with Texas is the best option for safe disposal. In fact, the compact we are debating requires that it is the policy of the party states to cooperate in the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens and the environment. We are here today because one Senator is questioning the science used to find a safe and suitable site for disposal of this waste. I commend him for questioning this, and I am glad we are having this debate, because people should be reassured and should know what happens in these cases. After the compact was signed into law by then-Governor Ann Richards, the State of Texas launched a rigorous process to assure that the site licensed to accept this waste would be safe. Prior to selecting the proposed site, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission spent four years reviewing the site before issuing a draft license and environmental assessment. Although this compact does not specify a site for the Texas waste facility, I trust that the State of Texas has used and will continue to use strict scientific criteria in selecting a disposal site. This compact has strong bipartisan support. The consent legislation was reported out of both the House Commerce Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee without amendment and without opposition. The Texas Compact was adopted by the House by a vote of 309 to 107. In the Senate it passed with unanimous support. Moreover, the Texas legislature, the Maine legislature, and the Vermont legislature approved the compact. Mr. President, we should continue to work together in a bipartisan manner and pass this compact. Let's ensure that institutions in Maine, Texas, Vermont and all across the United States have access to safe disposal sites for low- level radioactive waste. Let's treat this compact just like we have treated all of the other nine. This compact is not about the virtues or vices of nuclear power, industrial development or cancer research, it is about the safe disposal of low-level waste. Let's pass this compact. I yield the floor.

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 Labor and Human Resources will be held on Wednesday, September 2, 1998, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Dr. Jane Henney to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am releasing a new U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report entitled ``Private Health Insurance: Impact of Premium Increases on the Number of Covered Individuals Is Uncertain'' (GAO/HEHS-98-203R). In November, 1997, the Lewin Group published a study that estimates for every one percent increase in health insurance premiums, 400,000 people would lose their health care coverage. This GAO report assesses the methodology used in the Lewin Group report and evaluates the factors that could determine how premium increases relate to the number of individuals with health insurance coverage. Over the past 14 months, the Committee on Labor and Human Resources has held nine hearings on issues relating to health care quality and two hearings on ways to increase health insurance coverage. At each of these hearings, the point was made that proposed health care legislation could increase the cost of health care and have the unintended consequence of reducing the number of individuals covered by employer-sponsored health care. The GAO report found several problems with the original November, 1997, Lewin Group estimate. GAO concluded that, based on a more recent Lewin Group report, if health insurance premiums increase by 1 percent for only some types of insurance (for example, HMOs), then the coverage loss would be less than 300,000. The first concern identified by the GAO with the November, 1997, Lewin Group report is that it was based on the effects of insurance premium subsidies on an employer's decision to offer insurance. The Lewin Group concluded from its studies that a one percent decrease in premiums would induce employers to offer coverage to an additional 400,000 employees. The Lewin Group then assumed that this same relationship could be reversed to represent accurately the number of employees who would lose coverage if premiums increased. The GAO analysis concludes that a more important variable in assessing the impact on health insurance coverage is not whether an employer decides to offer insurance coverage, but whether an employee will choose to accept it. According to the Current Population Survey data, in 1996, about 70 percent of the population under the age of 65 was covered by health insurance purchased through an employer or purchased privately. About 12 percent of the population was covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services. And the remaining 18 percent of the population was uninsured. Between 1987 and 1996, the number of workers who were offered insurance by their employers rose from 72.4 percent to 75.4 percent; but, at the same time, the number of workers who accepted coverage actually fell from 88.3 percent to 80.1 percent. There could be several reasons for this declining acceptance rate. In 1988, employees in small firms with fewer than 200 workers paid an average of 12 percent of their premiums. However, by 1996, the employees' premium contributions had risen to 33 percent. Also, during this same period, the States were expanding the eligibility requirements for their Medicaid programs, and the real incomes of workers declined. The studies available to the Lewin Group in preparing their November, 1997, report were primarily focused on an employer's decision to offer coverage, not on the relationship between the cost of insurance and the number of individuals covered by insurance. These studies also varied widely in their research questions and their findings. Some of the older studies used data from 1971 and earlier. The second factor identified by the GAO was the release by the Lewin Group, in January, 1998, of a revised estimate of the coverage loss due to health care premium increases. The Lewin Group now believes that approximately 300,000 people could lose their employer-sponsored coverage for every one percent increase in premiums. The new estimate is based on a new statistical analysis of the relationship between what employees pay for health insurance, and the likelihood that their families have access to employer-sponsored health insurance. The Lewin Group estimates also assume equal premium increases for all types of insurance products. Since the legislation that Congress is considering will primarily affect HMO premiums, employees faced with higher premiums may switch to other types of insurance rather than drop coverage entirely. Based on the work of the Barents Group, the GAO found that this change in plans by employees would further reduce the Lewin Group estimate to a number less than 300,000. In conclusion, the GAO report indicates that if health insurance premiums increase by one percent for only some types of insurance (for example, HMOs), then the coverage loss predicted by the Lewin Group would be less than 300,000. However, the GAO urges that this figure must be used cautiously. There are still many factors that were not included in the Lewin Group estimate, such as: changes in benefits offered by an insurance plan; changes in real wages; and what percentage of a premium increase is passed on from the employer to the employee. Mr. President, as we consider legislation to ensure that Americans have access to high-quality health care, we must also be concerned that new health plan requirements do not lead to increased numbers of the uninsured. The GAO report, ``Private Health Insurance: Impact of Premium Increases on the Number of Covered Individuals Is Uncertain,'' will be a valuable resource for the Congress in achieving an appropriate balance between these two important societal goals.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, in October of last year I 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 product 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. Although Ms. McCullough remains relatively healthy, she lost her only son to AIDS. Ms. McCullough did not know of her own infection until her infant son was diagnosed. The tragedy of the blood supply's infection has brought unbearable pain to families all over the country. I have heard from dozens, perhaps hundreds of them over the past months. As Mr. Williams testified, the community hit by this tragedy has found it nearly impossible to make recovery through the courts because of blood shield laws in most states that raise the burden of proof for product liability claims for blood and blood products. In addition, all States have statutes of limitations that prohibit litigation if the suit was not filed within a certain period of time. Other witnesses spoke of the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS and the hesitancy many felt to bring suit and thus be public about their infection. My heart goes out to the victims and families of this terrible tragedy. I sincerely hope that we will, in this Congress, bring some peace to these families with the passage of the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act. The House passed this bill by voice vote on May 19, 1998. Its companion in the Senate was introduced by Senators DeWine and Graham, and I have pledged to move that bill forward in my Committee. Sadly, the Ricky Ray bill as introduced does not include all victims of the blood supply crisis. I feel strongly that the bill we pass in the Senate must include not only hemophiliacs, but also people who received a blood transfusion or blood product in the course of medical treatment for other illnesses. Transfusion-associated AIDS victims are subject to the same laws that Mr. Williams mentioned. While in some cases individuals in this group were able to track the source of their infection and bring suit against the blood bank, the vast majority were not. There is the perception that most transfusion cases recovered millions of dollars in court, and that is simply not the case. Fewer than 10%--and the most credible estimates put the number at 2%--of transfusion cases made any financial recovery. Even among those transfusion cases who reached settlement the majority recovered far less than the reputed millions, the average settlement for transfusion cases is more like $40,000. I am introducing today an amendment to the House passed HR 1023 in the nature of a substitute. While the change to include transfusion cases increases the cost of this bill, many have already noted that this bill is not about money, it's about fairness. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the terrible tragedy the blood supply crisis of the 1980s bestowed upon all of its victims.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, last night, the Senate passed the Workforce Investment Act conference report, H.R. 1385. This legislation makes important reforms to our job training, adult education, and vocational rehabilitation programs. The Workforce Investment Act is one of the most significant proposals that has passed the Senate this year. H.R. 1385 proposes a streamlined, practical, business-oriented approach to job training which empowers states with the ability to transform a current patchwork of programs into a comprehensive system. This bill is the result of more than four years of hard work. The last Congress, under the leadership of Senator Nancy Kassebaum, spent a considerable amount of time on similar legislation. Senator Kassebaum did not act alone in championing the workforce legislation in the last Congress. Senator DeWine, Senator Kennedy and myself and many other members were also involved in that effort. Senator Kennedy and I have been working on job training legislation for over two decades. I count the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), which I co-authored along with Representative Hawkins and Senators Kennedy, Hatch, and Quayle as a significant legislative accomplishment. Today, over twenty years later, it is clear that JTPA is not sufficient to meet the increasing demands being made on our education and training system. The Workforce Investment Act conference report as passed by the Senate will enable states to better coordinate employment and training programs and related activities, with a special emphasis on coordinating adult education and job training initiatives. This coordination will lead to customer satisfaction--which is perhaps the most important aspect of this bill. Individuals seeking job training and adult education services will choose to enroll in high quality programs which will lead to better paying jobs. In addition, employers will also be satisfied customers because they will have the ability to hire better skilled employees. The Workforce Investment Act is a product of many efforts. In particular, I would like to thank Senator Mike DeWine, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment and Training for his leadership in this area. He has done an outstanding job in putting this bill together and his contribution regarding the redesigning of our youth training programs will be of great benefit to our nation's disadvantaged youth. I would also like to thank Senator Paul Wellstone, the Employment and Training Subcommittee's ranking member for his work on the bill. Senator Ted Kennedy and I have been working for many years on employment and training issues. The Workforce Investment Act has been a bipartisan effort. I would like to thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership. Not only has this been a bipartisan effort, but it has also been bicameral. Representative Bill Goodling, the chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee and the chair of this conference has also been working on job training legislation for over twenty years. I commend him on his leadership and thank him for all of his hard work in completing action on H.R. 1385. Chairman Goodling was joined by Representative Bill Clay, Representative Buck McKeon, and Representative Dale Kildee. This bill is a product of their expertise and commitment to improving job training and adult education. In addition, I would like to thank the staff of the Congressional Research Service: Ann Lordeman, Rick Apling, and Paul Irwin. I would also like to thank the Legislative Counsel staff: Liz King, Mark Sigurski, and Mark Synnes. Their dedication and hard work were essential in completing the Workforce Investment Act Conference Report. In May of 1997, I held a hearing at Vermont Technical College in Randolph, Vermont. The testimony that I received at that hearing was my touchstone for the Workforce Investment Act. Witness after witness discussed the urgency for a skilled workforce. I would like to thank my home state of Vermont for serving as an inspiration for this legislation. I would especially like to thank Susan Auld, the Commissioner for Vermont's Department of Employment and Training, and Kathy Finck, the director of Vermont's Adult and Vocational Education program for their contributions to this legislation. As I mentioned earlier, customer satisfaction, flexibility, and stronger accountability are the themes of H.R. 1385. A provision of the bill which relates to these issues is the ability of states to submit one plan to Washington for a variety of federal programs. This encourages states to coordinate their programs; also cuts through bureaucratic red tape by giving states the option to submit one plan versus several plans. Another provision which emphasizes the importance of customer satisfaction and accountability is the opportunity for states to be rewarded, through incentive grants, for exceeding their performance standards in delivering employment and training and education related services. When this bill originally passed the Senate, vocational education was a major section of the legislation. The one disappointment I have is that we were unable to include vocational education in this conference report. However, I do hope that the House and Senate conferees will be able to bring a vocational education conference report to the Congress before the October adjournment. The final section of the conference report is the reauthorization of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. The rehabilitation provisions in this bill will open up more employment opportunities to individuals with disabilities. They will also provide state vocational rehabilitation agencies and other agencies and organizations that offer employment-related assistance to individuals with disabilities with the tools they need to give appropriate, timely help to individuals with disabilities who want to work. These provisions bring us closer to a seamless system for job training and employment assistance for individuals with disabilities. The Workforce Investment Act lays the groundwork to establish an outstanding employment and training system nationwide that will meet the economic demands of the next century. The business community and the Administration have been very helpful in this endeavor. I want to especially thank Secretary Herman and Secretary Riley and their staffs for their work and who literally worked on this legislation up to the last minute. The passage of H.R. 1385 means that this nation will have a better skilled workforce.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today with my friend and colleague, Senator Leahy, I introduce the Rural Opportunities Empowerment Act of 1998--a bipartisan bill that will do a great deal to assist urban and rural areas develop communities in economic need. The legislation will do a number of things. It builds off the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which authorized 20 rural and urban Empowerment Zones, and creates new opportunities for those communities desperately in need of federal assistance, but unable to access those funds. Our legislation will help scores of communities across the country seeking to improve their local economy through desperately needed federal funds. Within our legislation, monies are provided for the 20 Empowerment Zones authorized last year. Also, new grants are created for communities that are not able or eligible to compete for the EZ Round II competition this fall. Additional points will be given to those Enterprise Communities who have met a high standard of performance and who are seeking to be designated as an Empowerment Zone. Finally, a small amount of money will be provided to the Secretary to reward so-called ``Top Performers,'' and allow them to be able to continue their operations so additional goals of their strategic plan are met. Mr. President, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities provide critical resources for those rural and urban areas in economic distress. Many of these communities intend to apply for a Round II Empowerment Zone designation. Vermont's old North End in Burlington, for example, has met numerous milestones in their strategic plan by successfully leveraging additional monies from the private sources. If Congress does not pass this legislation there will be no funding. Burlington's application for an Empowerment Zone designation under Round II this fall will be useless. Providing rehabilitation and tax breaks to businesses who are interested in investing in a depressed area has been an impressive success in Burlington and elsewhere and my legislation will not only allow Burlington to compete for Empowerment Zone status in Round II, but it will also require HUD to disseminate best EC practices to other ECs around the country who may not be performing as impressively. This legislation is not only good for rural and urban communities, it is good government. I ask my colleagues to work with me and with Senator Leahy to ensure that this legislation is passed in the short time we have left in the 105th Congress. I will be working with the Finance Committee to ensure that this Congress does not forget those communities who look toward the federal government to provide incentives for the private sector to invest in economically depressed areas.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the vote on the conference report to accompany H.R. 629, the Texas compact, previously ordered to occur when the Senate reconvenes following the August recess, the Senate turn to consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4059, the military construction appropriations bill. I further ask unanimous consent that the conference report be considered as having been read; further, the Senate immediately proceed to a vote on the adoption of the conference report without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I understand that earlier today, Senator Murkowski introduced S. 2393. I now ask for its first reading.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 115, submitted earlier by Senator Warner.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 263, submitted earlier by Senator Warner.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 342, S. 1360.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: 605, 616, 617, 618, 652, 709, 711, 716, 719, 720, 721, 722, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744 through 778, 779, 780, and 781, and all the nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, and Marine Corps and Navy. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate then return to legislative session.