Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, with great reluctance I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do so only because, with the necessities of education, we have to establish certain priorities. There is no question but that rebuilding the infrastructure is an important priority. But there are others that at this particular time I think have to take priority. I do appreciate, for instance, in the city of Washington this body, Congress, has a certain obligation to restore the schools. That is about $2 billion that we are going to have to find a way to fund in order to bring this city back to where it ought to be. On the other hand, there is somewhere around $120 billion in infrastructure repairs necessary in this country. How we get that I do not know. I do know that $5 billion would start it, but there are other priorities--and I will tick off a number of those priorities--for which we could use these resources better. First of all, as the body probably knows, I voted in favor of expanding the amount of money that will be available by supporting the Hatch-Kennedy bill. If that money were available, it might tend to change my position. But when I look out there right now, our most immediate needs are trying to get the educational system in order to provide the kind of skilled labor we need in this Nation. That means we have to change the K through 12 programs by professional development in order to give us the math standards we need in order to provide the skilled labor force. This is going to take a considerable amount of immediate resources. In addition to that, getting our schools up to speed with respect to the technical aspects of computers and other means of being able to improve access to modern technology, to improve the schools, would take about $16 billion. In addition to that, it would take about $8 billion a year to keep them up to snuff. Another area we have to deal with is higher ed as well. We already know that we have incredible problems in that respect. Most importantly are worker training areas. Right now, in order to provide the work force for the future, we have to find ways to, first of all, provide sufficient additional remedial help so that our young people who graduate will be ready to go to work in skilled labor. We do not have those resources yet. We will be passing out a worker training bill, and we will be needing resources in order to do that. We have created another huge priority in this Nation, and that is taking the welfare people who are involved in receiving benefits, to train them and retrain them in order to have jobs. That is incredibly important, and it has to be done. That is going to take other billions of resources. So although I sympathize with the amendment, I strongly believe the resources at this time that we do have available would have to be placed in slightly different order than would enable us to try to take care of the huge backlog and which has traditionally been accepted as the responsibility by the State and local governments. For those reasons, Mr. President, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I would again ask Members to keep in mind the 99 to 0 vote which occurred last year that said we should not do anything that impacts in the ability of our students to attend higher education. So I will ensure that the reconciliation that we send, if anything, will make sure that it does not in any way hinder the ability of students to attend higher education. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion at this time.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the children of America need our help. Nearly 10 million children have no health insurance. Many of these children live in families with working parents who simply do not make enough money to afford health insurance. In order to help address this national problem, I have cosponsored both the Hatch-Kennedy CHILD Act and the Children's Health Insurance Provides Security [CHIPS] Act. The CHILD Act would establish a State health insurance grant program and the CHIPS Act encourages States to provide uniform Medicaid coverage up to 150 percent of poverty for children of all ages. The combination of these two bills provides an integrated approach to ensuring that our Nation's uninsured children have health care coverage and does so in a way that is completely consistent with the policy language in the budget agreement. I have serious concerns, however, that $16 billion is an insufficient amount to meet the health insurance needs of the 10 million uninsured children. I, therefore, will support raising an additional $20 billion through a cigarette tax. I believe using an increased cigarette tax as the revenue source is especially appropriate since it will have the added health benefit of helping to deter children from starting to smoke in the first place. If the Hatch-Kennedy amendment does not pass, I will continue to work with my colleagues to develop a multifaceted approach that has as its first priority the strengthening of the existing Medicaid Program.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today we will vote on the legislation offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] to ban the dilation and extraction, or D&X, procedure used by doctors. I will be voting against this ban for the third time in as many years. My reasons for opposing this legislation are many. Most have been discussed on the floor since the debate began last week. First, and most importantly I believe that this bill undermines the Supreme Court's decision in Roe versus Wade to leave these critical matters in the hands of a woman, her family, and their doctor. The pending legislation is an effort to chip away at these reproductive rights established in that 1973 decision and upheld by court cases since 1973. I understand many people disagree with my position. This issue has been contentious since I came to Congress in 1975. Second, with the Roe decision, the Supreme Court wisely gave States the responsibility to restrict third-trimester abortions, so long as the life or health of the mother were not jeopardized. As of 1997, all but nine States have done so. To me, the rights of States to regulate abortions, when the life or health of the mother are not in danger, is an adequate safeguard. In the event the States pass unconstitutional regulations on this point, the appropriate remedy is with the courts. I realize that this policy leads to differences in law from State to State, but just as families differ, so too do States. As I said during debate on this topic in 1995: When the Roe versus Wade decision acknowledged a state interest in fetuses after viability, the Court wisely left restrictions on post-viability abortions up to states. There are expert professional licensing boards, accreditation councils and medical associations that guide doctors' decision-making in the complicated and difficult matters of life and death. Nothing has changed since then. My reasons for voting against Senator Daschle's substitute amendment last week included this very principle: That Congress should not restrict those reproductive health decisions made by a woman and her doctor. Third, the legislation before us would prevent doctors from using the D&X procedure where it is necessary to save the life of the mother. This clearly goes against the holding of the Supreme Court in Roe, as it required the health of the mother be safeguarded when States regulate late-term abortions. I will not vote for a bill that is neither constitutional, nor takes into account those situations where carrying a fetus to term would cause serious health risk for the mother. This is simply unacceptable. My vote in favor of the Feinstein substitute amendment underscored my commitment to safeguarding a doctor's options to protect the health of the mother in cases where a late-term procedure is necessary. Finally, I believe that women who choose to undergo a D&X procedure do so for grave reasons. If there are women who abort to fit into their prom dress, I trust the States to regulate these incidents--if they do, in fact, occur. We have established a delicate legal framework in which to address late-term abortions and we should not shift the decisionmaking to the Federal Government.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I was allocated 22\1/2\ minutes. I have used 15. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Maine be allowed to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will very brief. All of the arguments that have been given here against the Family Friendly Workplace Act are based on one fact: that an employer who is a real SOB is not going to give his or her employees the rights created in this bill. Why deny the 99.9 percent of the employees in this Nation who have good employers the ability to work these things out with their employers? So all of the arguments against S. 4 are based on one thing; that employers will not follow the provisions contained in the bill. The point is, Mr. President, that S. 4 contains provisions that will protect American workers. Since the bill does contain these protections, and 99.9 percent of employees work for good employers, it is completely unfair to deny all of the rest of the employees in the country the ability to participate in comptime, flex-time and bi-weekly work schedules. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time. cloture motion

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I think I have the right to close.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Fine.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from the State of Texas--I am not sure how much time she needs, 15 minutes?

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, today the Senate will resume consideration of S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. Under the previous order, at approximately 10 a.m., the Senate will vote on a motion to invoke cloture on S. 4. Following that vote, there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 11 a.m. to accommodate a number of the Senators who have requested time to speak. In addition, I remind all Members that they have until 10 a.m. to file second-degree amendments to S. 4. Also, by previous order, at 11 a.m., the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1122, the partial-birth abortion ban bill, with Senator Feinstein recognized to offer an amendment. Debate on the Feinstein amendment will last until approximately 2 p.m., with the time equally divided between Senator Feinstein and Senator Santorum. At approximately 2 p.m., a rollcall vote will occur on, or in relation to, the Feinstein amendment. Following the disposition of the Feinstein amendment, Senator Daschle will be recognized to offer his amendment to H.R. 1122, and under a consent agreement, there will be 5 hours of debate in order equally divided between Senator Daschle and Senator Santorum. Therefore, Senators can anticipate a vote on, or in relation to, the Daschle amendment later this evening. Consequently, Members can expect rollcall votes throughout today's session of the Senate. As always, Senators will be notified with as much notice as possible as to the exact time of these ordered votes. The majority leader reminds all Members that next week, as the last week prior to the Memorial Day recess, as Senators are aware, we have a number of important issues which we hope to complete action on prior to the recess, including the budget resolution, any conference reports that are available and any executive nominations that can be cleared. Therefore, the majority leader appreciates the cooperation of all Members in the scheduling of legislative business and votes next week. I thank my colleagues for their attention and yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I wish to speak in strong opposition to the amendment. I understand the emotionalism that has gone on in our States throughout this Nation over the years, and even up to the point that we speak, about the problems that were created, and which the Senator from Washington is attempting to address. I point out, first of all, that the bill tries its best to preserve the order in the classroom through uniform policies for all school districts, and to ensure that every child with a disability is treated fairly, but also balances the needs of those in the classroom to have a safe and peaceful, shall we say, learning environment. That is done. The House voted yesterday with only three dissenting votes on this bill, recognizing that those kinds of balances had been reached after an incredible effort on the part of so many to give us a bill that everyone who is deeply involved in this issue can agree with. I know this body respects the order that is necessary in the classroom and also the ability of local schools to be able to try and accommodate the interests of all, but I believe this bill, by doing this, what it says is, ``notwithstanding any other provision of this act, each State, educational agency or local educational agency may establish and implement uniform policies with respect to discipline and order.'' Now, what does that mean? I do not know. But if it means what it says, it wipes out everything. It would be contrary to what they want to do. That means we could have thousands or hundreds of different ideas on how to bring order to the classroom. It would set back the system. I know the Senator from Washington speaks sincerely, and I know that Washington had a terrible problem, initially, in the early parts of this decade. Almost half the cases, I believe, went to due process hearings and ended up in court. However, this past year, 96 percent of those cases that were heard in mediation were solved and did not go to court. So his own State, I think, has solved the problems he is trying to deal with. I hope Members would not vote for this amendment. At the appropriate time I will move to table it. This would create havoc in the whole system. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Could I inquire to the time remaining?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, very quickly, the balance has been reached in this bill. The most critical question is, what can you do with the dangerous child? It is very simple: If it is not a matter involved with the disability, that child could be disciplined like any other child. If it is related to the disability, as determined by a hearing officer, then there can be up to 45 days removal in an appropriate educational setting. If the problem still exists and the school can demonstrate that the child may be substantialy likely to cause harm to himself or others, the child will remain in an interim alternative educational setting for an additional 45 days, et cetera-- tremendous balance, tremendous help to the present situation. Mr. President, I urge the defeat of the Gorton amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you, Senator. Mr. President, last evening the House adopted H.R. 5 by a recorded vote of 420 to 3. Today we have voted 98-1. In the last week Congress has demonstrated once again, its willingness to invest in human capital--the children of today and the taxpayers of tomorrow, children with disabilities and children, who, if not helped, might develop disabilities. We have said in H.R. 5: children with disabilities will continue to receive a free appropriate public education, we do expect them to succeed in the general education curriculum, and we will be accountable for their progress. That is a clear, simple message, a message of power, potential, and promise. We invested in human capital in another way in H.R. 5. We recognized the range of decisions and obligations that fall to local school districts on a daily basis. We gave them flexible, practical guidelines on how and when they may discipline children with known disabilities. We gave them greater access to Federal dollars and greater discretion in how those dollars may be used. We directed more resources to personnel preparation and to technical assistance. We reshaped procedural requirements so school personnel may concentrate on children and teaching them. We invested in human capital through incentives for partnership between State educational agencies and local education agencies, and between parents and professionals. These partnerships will not only foster cooperative planning and problem solving, but innovation and expanded opportunities for children, with and without disabilities, to benefit from school. The process by which we arrived here today, for this vote, may be unprecedented and never be repeated, but it allowed us to achieve a consensus on a fundamental point. All children are entitled to a good education, we reaffirm that, and make it more likely for children with disabilities in H.R. 5. Although others may characterize our efforts differently, I would say that we were guided by the premise that special education is not a place but an attitude. It is an attitude that says children need not fail in order to be helped; that communication and partnership with parents is a commitment, not an accident; and that solutions to problems do not come from mandates, but from reaching common ground. I wish to thank my colleagues for their support in the passage of this historic legislation. idea reauthorization

Mr. JEFFORDS. I will take a moment and thank the Senator from Iowa for his most eloquent statement. I think for those of us who were involved in the original writing of it back in 1975, I think only we, perhaps, had the legal understanding of what has happened over the last 20-odd years now as to improving the lives of individuals with disabilities and to improve the confidence of our educational system in giving an appropriate education to all our students. I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. I agree with that interpretation and thank the Senator for this clarification.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for the tremendous vote and support for the legislation. This has been an incredible endeavor: So much effort, so much time. The vote that we have is certainly, percentagewise, perhaps at least identical to the House, and certainly with only one dissenting vote is a tremendous tribute to all those who worked to put this bill together. In particular, I wish to thank Senator Frist, who brought it almost to this point last year, and it fell apart at the last minute. His efforts were so paramount in bringing this bill to us this year. I thank the majority leader and Dave Hoppe for their help in getting all the groups together, and thank as well the work of both sides of the aisle, Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, all on my side, certainly Senator Coats and, as I mentioned, Senator Frist and Senator Lott, and all who have worked so hard--Senator Gregg in particular on the funding--this past year. We have had a real joint effort. And I am blessed and thank Pat Morrissey and Jim Downing of my staff who also did tremendous work, and also the staff on the majority side and the minority side. I yield to Senator Harkin. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their tolerance. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation that will do so much to straighten out the problems that we have with respect to special education in our schools. It allows much more flexibility in discipline in the schools. It takes care of the numerous problems that we have had. I will point out that Senator Lott and Dave Hoppe spent an infinite number of hours bringing these groups together. Senator Frist did so much last year to prepare us, but it fell apart at the last minute. Senator Coats also worked very hard on this. I commend all colleagues for their support. I point out that this passed the House yesterday 420 to 3. I hope we can do even better on this side. I thank all the staff who have helped us. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Let me speak to my colleagues very sincerely. Last year we came almost to the point where we passed a bill similar to this for the disabled community and for the schools. It broke down at the last minute because there was dissension over one issue. You have had your opportunity this time to show your concern about how the bill goes, but if we have one amendment, then it has to go back and there are those out there now who want to disrupt it. Senator Lott and Dave Hoppe spent hundreds of hours to bring these communities together to agree on this bill which is a tremendous step forward. If you vote no on the motion to table, you could kill this bill and we could start over again. Mr. President, I move to table.