Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent--

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, may I make an inquiry? Is it in order for me to ask unanimous consent to offer my amendment at this time?

Mr. JEFFORDS. We will discuss the amendment which we will be offering on the floor at the appropriate time. Mr. President, it is difficult to find high quality child care that is appropriate, affordable, and convenient for children today. How government can help parents achieve that goal is a very difficult and compelling question. I have, with my cosponsors Senators Dodd, Roberts, Kohl, Snowe, Landrieu, and Johnson put together an amendment which we will be offering. On the one hand the amendment will make it easier to find better child care that is more affordable. At the same time the amendment does some engineering by making it possible for more child care facilities and individual providers to improve their services and receive higher tax deductions for those efforts. My amendment also to shifts the amount of money that is available to parents in the child care tax credit and the dependent care assistance program to help them afford a better quality of care they may now be available to them. This combination of assistance for providers and parents will encourage that the child care facilities and individual providers will provide better care for the 12 million children who are in child care. How we accomplish this is: First of all, to help middle- and low- income families, the amendment increases the level of income which qualifies for the maximum amount of the child care tax credit benefits $10,000 to $20,000. We make the child care tax credit refundable for low-income working families who qualify for the EITC. Then we go to the other end of the scale and phase the tax credit down, but not out, for wealthier people with incomes over $70,000, then we can pay for the increases at the lower end. I also feel strongly that it is important to assist those businesses that are providing child care for their employees. The amendment creates an incentive which will allow businesses to receive a 50 percent tax credit for up to $150,000 in expenses to operate, improve, and develop appropriate child care for their employees. As we all know from recent studies, the healthy development of children can very dramatically enhance, including their potential for future educational and social achievement, depending upon the kind of nurturing and affection they receive early in life, and the developmental and educational activities they are exposed to at birth. In order to make sure that kind of care is available for those children who need to be in child care while their parents work. This amendment provides the necessary incentives so they can find and afford to receive the care that will be safe and provide their children with a better chance for healthy development. That will be required if we expect to have a skilled workforce in the new world of the future. What we are trying to do here is to balance the need to reduce the deficit and get the budget under control, with the need to improve the quality of child care for all children who must use it. Keeping in mind the funds that are available. We have offsets to pay for this child care amendment, which I think are very appropriate. I yield to the Senator from Connecticut for a further explanation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JEFFORDS. There is nothing the Senator says that we disagree with. But if you take a look at the studies that give you an idea of children who are being placed in situations which do not have that kind of care, the question is whether you should reward them the same as you do others that do have good health care. In this study, 40 percent of the health care provided infants in child care centers was potentially injurious. Fifteen percent of center-based child care for all preschoolers was so bad that the child's health and safety were threatened; 70 percent were mediocre. This is the study. If you are faced with those, and you understand the dramatic problems that can cause in a child, then you ought to have some way to give the parents of children a means of determining that they can be assured they are not going to have their child damaged. Granted, family situations or whatever else is some of the best care, obviously, and loving and nurturing. A parent is probably better than most child care things you can do. But at least people ought to know that there is someone who is saying your child is not going to be injured in that care. That is all we are trying to do.

Mr. JEFFORDS. If I may follow on that just very briefly, again, studies say--

Mr. JEFFORDS. I would like to point out that one-quarter of all parents contacted in a nationwide survey said they would like to change their present child care arrangements, but they cannot find or afford better quality care. This is big reason for this amendment. We are trying to help people with limited resources by shifting the money where it will do best, provide access to best child care.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is a scaled-down, in fact, a way scaled-down version of an amendment that I offered in the Finance Committee markup. It failed on a very close vote, with the full amount of close to $900 million. This is an attempt to ensure that this next winter we do not have the kinds of emergencies we have faced with the inability to finance the school repairs necessary to keep the DC schools open. This amendment is to the provisions in the bill dealing with the District of Columbia. What this will do--hopefully, if accepted--is also place in the hands of those at the conference an amendment to help in the most critical area this city faces, and that is the decreasing capacity of its schools to even stand up, to keep the kids out of rain, and to protect the boilers from blowing up, and everything else. It is a modest start of only $70 million, but it will open a path, hopefully, that may be utilized in case these emergencies continue to increase. What it strikes is a provision in the bill that is only a $75 million provision. The provision that is in the bill attempts to set up some sort of tax credit system for businesses and people in the District of Columbia interested in having assistance in developing businesses. That is all very fine. I point out and emphasize again and again that that provision is in the House bill. So if mine does pass, it still will be in the committee of conference, and the members, then, will have a choice of whether they desire to try and protect the city schools from shutting down, or whether they prefer to use this provision with respect to tax credits. Let me give you the dimensions of the school problems in this city. First, very briefly, we have, for better or worse, one of the worst school systems in this country--and this is the Nation's Capital. I remind all of my colleagues that we have accepted responsibility for those schools. We have basically replaced the city council with the control board. We have replaced the school board with the board of trustees. We have given authority to the control board to basically run the city. Yet, the capacity of the city to do anything about its schools is greatly limited. Although they have substantial revenues, those revenues are critical and important to just keeping the schools open. They have $2 billion in necessary code repairs in order to make these schools up to code. Each year, we have had emergency appropriations to try and handle this situation. Those emergency appropriations have been in the terms of $20 million, $30 million, $40 million, $50 million a year. This is in an attempt to find a way to take care of those problems through the appropriations process in its normal form. I point out that these tax breaks that are included, which I will strike, really do nothing to bring middle-class families back to the District. The only thing that will bring families back to the District is a school system that will provide them with schools in which their children will learn something. We have one of the worst records, as far as our students go, of any city in the country. Without that, all the other things we try to do here will not bring back the middle-class families, unless we take care of the school system. I point out that Andrew Brimmer, chairman of the DC Control Board, says that the impact of the tax break provisions in this bill will do little or nothing. We must improve the schools and public safety. Let's get real in the efforts to help the city. Every week I travel the DC schools I see leaky faucets and roofs, broken boilers, and I could go on. The boilers are going to be the critical problem this next year. They are likely to shut the schools down in the middle of winter unless we do something. The students are suffering every day. All my amendment will do is allow the committee of conference to have another option, along with the one I am striking, in order to be able to take care of some of the emergency repairs for the schools. So, Mr. President, I also point out what has been lost and how we have hamstrung this city to do anything about it. The District has lost more than 200,000 residents since 1970; 200,000 people have moved out. And 50,000 have moved out in this decade alone. The only way to stem this tide is to improve the District services. There is a time and a place for tax breaks. Again, this is just putting another option on the table. But you don't offer tax breaks to attract residents back to a city where the schools are collapsing around them. That is like giving free popcorn to keep people in the seats in a burning theater. This isn't going to work. It is important that we do something about it. So, Mr. President, I want to make sure that we have an opportunity to give a seat to that conference committee for the kids in this city so that they may have a chance to see their schools restored to the point where this city can be proud of them and proud of their school system. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am not clear on the situation. The point of order does not lie at this time?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Pension ProSave Act with Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. Senator Bingaman has done yeoman's work in drafting this bill. I hope my colleagues will take time to read the bill and join us as cosponsors. As the average age of Americans is rising at a steady rate, we all have become more aware of the importance of retirement programs and retirement security. At the same time, only about half of all workers are covered by a retirement program--and of those, many who are covered, work for a Federal, State, or local government entity. An incredible 87 percent of workers employed by small businesses, those with fewer than 20 employees, have no private retirement or pension coverage. Less than 40 percent of the 33 million Americans aged 65 and older collect a pension, other than Social Security. These numbers are cause for concern. There are three sources for retirement security: Social Security, personal savings and a pension. Our bill has been offered in an effort to expand pension coverage, especially among small business establishments where coverage and participation is least likely to occur. The complexity and expense involved in setting up a pension plan is daunting. It is outside the grasp of many small businesses. In addition to administrative complexity and the cost of hiring an actuary, accountant and a lawyer to set up a plan, a small business often decides against plan sponsorship because of laws and regulations that actually discriminate against them, such as the prohibition on matching contributions for self-employed individuals, or limitations on contributions for small plans that are even lower than those permitted for the medium-sized or large pension plan. Pension ProSave would permit the establishment of either a simplified defined contribution or a defined benefit pension plan or both, with greatly reduced recordkeeping, reporting and regulatory requirements. The ProSave system encourages thrift, through its defined contribution provisions, which are individual account plans and similar in concept to an IRA or a 401(k) plan, and through its simplified defined benefit plan provisions which are traditional pension plans promising a specific benefit payment upon retirement. In addition, one of the most appealing features of Pension ProSave is the portability clearinghouse. The clearinghouse would make it easier for workers with ProSave accounts to take their pensions with them as they change jobs. True pension portability has been a most elusive objective for policymakers and yet it is one of the most important features that Americans want in pension programs. A lack of portability also discourages long-term pension savings because it can encourage leakage. Pension system leakage occurs when a worker changes jobs and either cashes out a pension benefit or receives a lump sum distribution from a retirement plan and spends the money, rather than saving it. Taxing distributions has not stopped leakage from the system. The more difficult it is for that worker to transfer his account from one plan to another, the more likely it is that the worker will just spend the money. The more complicated and punitive the laws and regulations surrounding pension rollovers, the less likely a worker is to bother to make one. He or she will simply pay the penalty tax and spend the money. Consequently, pension experts have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to figure out ways to ease these pension rollovers and overcome obstacles to portability so that people can save their all retirement money in a single account. Let me pause for a moment to say that while Pension ProSave's portability feature is the result of many years of consultation and careful drafting, we realize that it would be quite difficult to justify a new government sponsored entity in these days of fiscal stringency. Our experience with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. leads me to suggest that there could be a more efficient means of making Pension ProSave accounts portable than by establishing a new government sponsored entity to manage and invest them. Individual retirement accounts (IRAs) are portable and yet can be invested in banks, certificates of deposit, mutual funds, equities or any number of other investment vehicles. Should we permit Pension ProSave accounts to be managed and invested in the private sector and if so, how should that be accomplished? By leveraging the power of the private sector, savers have the potential for more investment choices, and for higher rates of return on their investments. In addition, there currently exists in the private sector, mutual fund/401(k) clearinghouses which are used to track individual accounts and keep records of investments and account balances. Are these models for the Pension ProSave clearinghouse? I look forward to hearing about these and other substantive and drafting issues from experts who are concerned about increasing retirement savings at the individual level and in increasing retirement coverage among small businesses where it is needed the most. I am especially interested in the concept of a simplified defined benefit plan which is portable and hope that we can explore that issue when hearings are held on this bill in the Labor and Human Resources Committee. Pension ProSave Act is a good bill. I am proud to cosponsor it and thank Senator Bingaman for his leadership in bringing us together to introduce it.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Pension ProSave Act with Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. Senator Bingaman has done yeoman's work in drafting this bill. I hope my colleagues will take time to read the bill and join us as cosponsors. As the average age of Americans is rising at a steady rate, we all have become more aware of the importance of retirement programs and retirement security. At the same time, only about half of all workers are covered by a retirement program--and of those, many who are covered, work for a Federal, State, or local government entity. An incredible 87 percent of workers employed by small businesses, those with fewer than 20 employees, have no private retirement or pension coverage. Less than 40 percent of the 33 million Americans aged 65 and older collect a pension, other than Social Security. These numbers are cause for concern. There are three sources for retirement security: Social Security, personal savings and a pension. Our bill has been offered in an effort to expand pension coverage, especially among small business establishments where coverage and participation is least likely to occur. The complexity and expense involved in setting up a pension plan is daunting. It is outside the grasp of many small businesses. In addition to administrative complexity and the cost of hiring an actuary, accountant and a lawyer to set up a plan, a small business often decides against plan sponsorship because of laws and regulations that actually discriminate against them, such as the prohibition on matching contributions for self-employed individuals, or limitations on contributions for small plans that are even lower than those permitted for the medium-sized or large pension plan. Pension ProSave would permit the establishment of either a simplified defined contribution or a defined benefit pension plan or both, with greatly reduced recordkeeping, reporting and regulatory requirements. The ProSave system encourages thrift, through its defined contribution provisions, which are individual account plans and similar in concept to an IRA or a 401(k) plan, and through its simplified defined benefit plan provisions which are traditional pension plans promising a specific benefit payment upon retirement. In addition, one of the most appealing features of Pension ProSave is the portability clearinghouse. The clearinghouse would make it easier for workers with ProSave accounts to take their pensions with them as they change jobs. True pension portability has been a most elusive objective for policymakers and yet it is one of the most important features that Americans want in pension programs. A lack of portability also discourages long-term pension savings because it can encourage leakage. Pension system leakage occurs when a worker changes jobs and either cashes out a pension benefit or receives a lump sum distribution from a retirement plan and spends the money, rather than saving it. Taxing distributions has not stopped leakage from the system. The more difficult it is for that worker to transfer his account from one plan to another, the more likely it is that the worker will just spend the money. The more complicated and punitive the laws and regulations surrounding pension rollovers, the less likely a worker is to bother to make one. He or she will simply pay the penalty tax and spend the money. Consequently, pension experts have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to figure out ways to ease these pension rollovers and overcome obstacles to portability so that people can save their all retirement money in a single account. Let me pause for a moment to say that while Pension ProSave's portability feature is the result of many years of consultation and careful drafting, we realize that it would be quite difficult to justify a new government sponsored entity in these days of fiscal stringency. Our experience with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. leads me to suggest that there could be a more efficient means of making Pension ProSave accounts portable than by establishing a new government sponsored entity to manage and invest them. Individual retirement accounts (IRAs) are portable and yet can be invested in banks, certificates of deposit, mutual funds, equities or any number of other investment vehicles. Should we permit Pension ProSave accounts to be managed and invested in the private sector and if so, how should that be accomplished? By leveraging the power of the private sector, savers have the potential for more investment choices, and for higher rates of return on their investments. In addition, there currently exists in the private sector, mutual fund/401(k) clearinghouses which are used to track individual accounts and keep records of investments and account balances. Are these models for the Pension ProSave clearinghouse? I look forward to hearing about these and other substantive and drafting issues from experts who are concerned about increasing retirement savings at the individual level and in increasing retirement coverage among small businesses where it is needed the most. I am especially interested in the concept of a simplified defined benefit plan which is portable and hope that we can explore that issue when hearings are held on this bill in the Labor and Human Resources Committee. Pension ProSave Act is a good bill. I am proud to cosponsor it and thank Senator Bingaman for his leadership in bringing us together to introduce it.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Kennedy]. Briefly, this amendment would rewrite title VII of the reconciliation bill, which includes the student loan provisions reported by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources by a vote of 17 to 1. I have two major reasons for opposing this amendment. First, it will harm students by destabilizing the guaranteed loan program; and, second, it addresses issues which belong in the debate of reauthorization of the Higher Education Act--not the budget reconciliation bill. Let me be clear. Adoption of the Kennedy amendment will harm students--not help them. No one in the Senate is more committed to improving educational opportunities than I am. I have worked to strengthen student loan programs for over 22 years. If I honestly believed that this amendment was in the best interests of students, I would support it. It is precisely because of my commitment to the well being of students, however, that I so strongly oppose this amendment. I want to take a few minutes to explain exactly why this amendment is not in the best interests of students or their families and why it was rejected when it was considered by the Labor Committee. First of all, it is important to understand that the proposal which was approved by the committee was carefully crafted to preserve two viable student loan programs--the Federal Family Education Loan [FFEL] Program, guaranteed loans, and the Federal Direct Loan Program. This proposal respects the so-called truce between the two programs which was reflected in the portion of the budget agreement calling for a fair distribution of savings between the two programs. The amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts breaks this truce. In the name of helping students, this amendment would drain such a substantial portion of funds from guaranty agencies that the Congressional Budget Office estimate of the amendment assumes the failure of many of these agencies. The provisions approved by the committee already recapture $1 billion in guaranty agency reserve funds over the next 5 years. The recall of these funds is conducted in such a way that guaranty agencies with low reserves--Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin--will not be forced to close their doors to the students who depend upon them. The Kennedy amendment would nearly double the savings expected from guaranty agencies--calling for an additional $960 million reduction over 5 years. Because the amendment eliminates any assurance that guaranty agencies will receive an administrative cost allowance [ACA] from section 458 funds, the reductions absorbed by guaranty agencies could well be even higher. The guaranteed student loan program serves 80 percent of the institutions of higher education in this country and provides over 60 percent of total student loan volume. Yet, the Kennedy amendment makes no provision whatsoever for mitigating the severe disruption to student borrowers which will occur when agencies inevitably fail. If the goal is to enhance the direct loan program by crippling the guaranteed program, this amendment will be remarkably effective. However, if the goal truly is to help students, we should be working together in the appropriate forum--which is reauthorization, not reconciliation. Moreover, I would note that the proposed reduction in the loan origination fee charged to students would not take effect until July 1998. There is no compelling reason to consider this provision outside of the current effort to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. Before closing, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the proposal that was approved by the Labor Committee and provide the history and context for this debate. The budget agreement approved by the Senate reflects the strong bipartisan support for education. The agreement provides for $35 billion in education related tax provisions, and assumes increased Federal support for special education, Head Start, and funding for literacy programs. The budget agreement supports providing an additional $7.6 billion for Pell grants allowing the maximum grant to grow from $2,700 to $3,000. In addition, the subsidy for student loans is assumed to grow from $3.9 billion in 1998 to $4.1 billion in 2002. This will support growth in Federal student loan volume from $28.8 billion in 1998 to $35.8 billion in 2002. These provisions provide an unprecedented level of support for educational opportunity for students at all levels of education. In order to accommodate this unprecedented level of support for students, the Senate budget resolution requires $1.792 billion in savings over 5 years from mandatory spending under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The savings required by the agreement and submitted by the committee will not increase costs, reduce benefits, or limit access to loans for students and their families. In accordance with the budget agreement, this proposal attempts to maintain an equitable balance in the savings that are taken from the Federal Family Education Loan Program [FFEL] and the Federal Direct Lending Program [FDLP]. The budget submission approved by the committee achieves the required savings by recalling $1.028 billion in excess guaranty agency reserves, eliminating the $10 direct loan origination fee, and reducing the Department of Education's entitlement for the administration of the Federal direct lending program by $604 million. This language preserves a very delicate balance--it achieves major savings and preserves the viability of both loan programs, so that students will not be at risk of losing access to loans. The key provisions of title VII as reported by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources include: A. Elimination of the Direct Lending Loan Origination Payment This proposal repeals the provision authorizing the Federal payment of $10 per loan to schools and/or alternate originators who make direct loans. This repeal will provide five-year savings of $160 million. B. Recall of Excess Guaranty Agency Reserves The committee proposal requires the recall of $1.028 billion in reserves and requires each guaranty agency to deposit its share of the total excess reserves into a newly created restricted account in annual payments over the next five years. C. Reductions in Section 458 Expenditures Section 458 of the Higher Education Act provides funds to the Secretary of Education for the administrative expenses associated with the direct lending program as well as the administrative cost allowance paid to guaranty agencies for administration of FFEL programs. The committee proposal reduces section 458 expenditures in conformity with the budget agreement resulting in savings of $603 million over 5 years. The Department will continue to receive over $3.3 billion in this account over the next 5 years. In order to ensure that these reductions are not redirected from direct lending to the FFEL program and to ensure that an equitable balance in savings is maintained between the two programs, the committee included a provision that reaffirms the Department of Education's obligation to continue to pay the administrative cost allowance to the guaranty agencies. This authority is capped at $170 million in each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999 and at $150 million in fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002. In summary, these provisions reflect a commitment to preserving two viable student loan programs. Second, they reflect the belief that substantive changes in student aid policy should not be included within reconciliation but should be fully and carefully considered as part our comprehensive effort to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. Consistent with these principles, our proposal meets our budget instruction, preserves two loan programs, and retains the framework of the budget agreement. It deserves the support of the full Senate. Finally, let me say that we are here today due to the budget agreement reached between the President and the leadership of the House and Senate. Whatever the disagreements may be about specific details, there is broad support for this agreement and its objectives. That is illustrated by the 17-to-1 vote for the Labor Committee's submission and by the similar margins of support for the proposals reported by other committees. Certainly, the agreement is a series of compromises. Implicit in compromise is the fact that neither party got everything it wanted. In the student loan area, the core compromise was that a truce was to be declared in the battle between the Federal Family Education Loan Program--guaranteed loans--and the Federal Direct Loan Program. The approximately $1.8 billion in savings was to be equitably divided between the two programs. The proposal reported by the committee honors that compromise: 57 percent of the savings are made in the guaranteed loan program and the remaining 43 percent come from direct lending. The amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts would destroy that balance. When filling in the detail of a broad compromise, there is always the urge to push further toward one's preference. What the Senator is attempting to do is therefore understandable. But, we need to recognize the amendment for what it is. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I believe we are all set with a colloquy that has clarified the language.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. JEFFORDS. The Senator from Delaware----

Mr. JEFFORDS. If the chairman of the Finance Committee would give me his attention, as I read the unanimous consent request, States would not be able to use the new funds under the children's health insurance initiative to provide health care coverage under either the block grant or to provide Medicaid for children over 200 percent of poverty. This creates a real problem for a number of States. Vermont is currently covering all children aged 18 that have family incomes of 225 percent of poverty through its Medicaid Program. I would like to be assured that we will work to address this concern in the conference so that States have the ability to use the new funds to provide health care coverage for children over 200 percent of poverty. There are children above this level that need the help badly.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I know it is too late for Chairman Roth to include this change in the manager's amendment, but I did want to raise it before we finish here today. As the chairman knows, thanks to a provision in both the Finance and Ways and Means packages, native Americans who are entitled to cross the U.S. border under the Jay Treaty are not affected by last year's welfare law restrictions on providing SSI to aliens. Unfortunately, due to jurisdictional considerations, neither the Finance nor the Ways and Means Committees included food stamps in this provision. Preliminary estimates indicate that such an inclusion would not incur significant cost. I understand Senator Lugar is supportive of the inclusion of food stamps and I hope the chairman and ranking member will work with me and other Members during conference with the House to include a food stamp modification.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, during the consideration of this important bill, I would like to bring to your attention developments regarding the administration's recently released SSI regulations for children. Through sections 211 and 212 of Public Law 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, Congress established a new eligibility test requiring that children show the presence of ``marked and severe functional limitations'' to become eligible for Supplemental Security Income [SSI] disability benefits. Additionally, under these new rules up to 300,000 children who are currently eligible for SSI will undergo a redetermination assessment over the next several months. On February 11, 1997, in an attempt to implement these provisions, the Social Security Administration issued interim final regulations that require a level of disability that meets or equals the listings of impairments criteria. As stated in a letter written by nine of my colleagues and me to the President in April, I believe this regulation establishes an overly severe standard that misinterprets the intent of Congress to reform the SSI program for children with disabilities. SSA's test would remove up to 135,000 SSI disabled children this year alone. Thus, thousands of severely disabled children would face a loss of needed SSI benefits--contrary to the will of Congress. I believe the Social Security Administration should establish a comprehensive functional test at a stricter severity level than the former individualized functional assessment test, but one that does not harm children with serious disabilities. A test protecting children with severely disabling conditions--including those with one marked and one moderate condition--would accurately reflect the intent of Congress. The administration has estimated this test would terminate 45,000 children this year, and close to 250,000 over 6 years. Mr. President, I have already heard from constituents in my State of Vermont whose children will soon lose their SSI benefits. These families have nowhere else to turn. Such predicaments present troubling moral and budgetary questions--how to provide for those families who are shut off from desperately needed SSI benefits, and whether these regulations will simply shift the costs of providing for children with disabilities from SSI to other Federal entitlement programs, or to the States as communities react to these troubling cases. Such cost shifting would eliminate any significant savings gained. Additionally, the loss of SSI benefits will force families to move their children to costly out-of-home placement, as parents would no longer have the financial support to stay at home and care for the disabled child. This is a matter that I will be pursuing with the Administration with the intent of reconciling the Administration's interpretation with the regulations passed by Congress during the welfare debate last fall. Welfare-to-Work Grant Program

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, my amendment tells Governors that they should report how well their child health development grant that we gave them--the block grant--how well it is working. That is basically what it does.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I support the amendment and have no problems with it being in our jurisdiction. Senator Chafee also supports it. He asked me to inform the Senate.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I waive explanation.