Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have a managers' amendment at the desk which has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today is a special occasion for me and I am proud to be with my distinguished colleagues to consider S. 717, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. I was there in the beginning, in 1975, Congress faced with a patchwork of court decisions, first took the historic step in assuring educational opportunities for some of the most vulnerable in our society, children with disabilities. In 1975, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, or Public Law 94-142, was enacted to assist States in meeting the goal of providing a free appropriate public education and offering an equal educational opportunity to all children. Public Law 94-142 has done much to meet the educational needs of children with disabilities. Over the life of this historic legislation we have seen many advances toward the attainment of these goals--advances in educational technique, advances in technology, advances in opportunity, and advances in our expectations. Children with disabilities are now being educated alongside their peers in unprecedented numbers. Children with disabilities are now achieving beyond our wildest dreams. Before Public Law 94-142, society placed little value on the lives of children with disabilities. Millions of children with disabilities were denied access to education, and we invested few resources in anything more than simple caretaking. We have now learned that investment in the education of children with disabilities from birth throughout their school years has rewards and benefits, not only for children with disabilities and their families, but for our whole society. We have proven that investment in educational opportunity for all of our kids enriches society. We have proven that promoting educational opportunity for our children with disabilities directly impacts their opportunity to live independent lives as contributing members to society. Most importantly, we have learned to value all of America's children. Public Law 94-142 was written in different times to address basic concerns. Concerns that have evolved into expectations. With this evolution in expectations has come an evolution in other concerns that its drafters could never have anticipated. Concerns that must be addressed if we are to continue in the advancement and development of educational programs that have done so much for America's children, our children. This year, Mr. President, I have worked hand in hand with majority leader Trent Lott and Chairman Goodling in the development of this agreement. We have also worked hand in hand with Senators Kennedy and Harkin here in the Senate. A bicameral, bipartisan agreement has been reached. The process in itself is historic, one in which Democrats, Republicans, the House and Senate, worked together alongside the administration in crafting this consensus bill. We held weekly townhall-type meetings that enabled varying stakeholders to provide their input. These stakeholders included parents of the children with disabilities, school administrators, special educators, general educators, and children with disabilities themselves. The principal members of the working group were Senator Coats, Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, and their staffs; Members of the House of Representatives, Mr. Riggs, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Scott, and their staffs; the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education, Judith Heumann, and the Director of Special Education, Tom Hehir. I would like to thank each and every one of them for their efforts. It was an incredible effort. We owe much to Senator Frist, who laid the groundwork last year upon which we were able to build this consensus agreement, and for his unwavering support in our efforts this year. We were further aided in our efforts this year by Senator Gregg and Senator Ashcroft and their staffs. I would like to thank the following organizations for their participation, guidance and support during our efforts this year. Their support for the final passage of S. 717 is crucial to the overall success of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. I wish to commend them for this support. The National Parent Network on Disabilities, the Learning Disabilities Association, the ARC, the National Easter Seal Society, the American Association of School Administrators, the National Education Association, the Autism Society of America, the National Association of the Deaf, the National Down's Syndrome Society, the Epilepsy Foundation of America, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Association of University Affiliated Programs, the American Foundation for the Blind, the American Physical Therapy Association, the American Speech-Language- Hearing Association, the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired, the National Association of Developmental Disabilities Councils, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, the National Coalition of Deaf- Blindness, the National Mental Health Association, the National Therapeutic Recreation Society, the United Cerebral Palsy Associations, the Council of Great City Schools, Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Disorders [CHADD], the Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America, the National Association School Psychologist, the Higher Education Consortium for Special Education, the Council for Exceptional Children, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, Federal Advocacy for California Education [FACE], and the American Federation of Teachers. I would like to take my colleagues through the steps we took to strengthen and improve IDEA. These steps were not taken lightly. They built upon the procedural protections expressed and the flexibility inherent in current law. I anticipate that when parents and educators have a full and accurate understanding of what we have done, they will embrace this law and these amendments as tools for making the future what it could be, what it should be, for the over 5 million children with disabilities. First, we invested in the principle of prevention. No child should have to fail in order to be helped. No child should need a label of disability in order to be helped. We reauthorized the early intervention program for infants and toddlers with disabilities. This very successful program, originally authorized in 1986, gives parents direct support and infants and toddlers appropriate services from the moment a disability is known. Over the years, and recently by Rob Reiner, Americans have been told of the consequences of investing and not investing in the earliest years of a child's life. By assisting families with infants and toddlers through IDEA's early intervention program in the last 11 years, we have brought quality of life opportunities to these children and their families that they would not have had. We have mitigated or reduced the effects of disabilities, so that later in life, the children are more successful and less in need of special education and related services. In S. 717 we retain this vital program, and add provisions to encourage States to identify and assist, to the extent they are not doing so now, infants and toddlers who are at risk of developing developmental delays. Such children are those whose special needs are not easily detected in the earliest years, but who clearly do not develop at the same rate or degree as their same age peers in terms of physical, cognitive, emotional, and social development. We also add a provision encouraging States to provide early intervention services to infants and toddlers in natural environments where such children are typically found--the home and with other children of the same age. We invested in prevention in other ways as well. S. 717 gives States and local school districts the option of referring to children, eligible for services, as developmentally delayed if they are between the ages of 3 through 9. I believe this simple step will move us a way from investing resources in confirming a specific disability and stamping a specific disability label on a child, and move us toward concentrating our resources on what we can do to help a child succeed in school. For the first time, we authorize school-based improvement plans to encourage educators and parents at the school building level to work together to set goals to help children, with and without known disabilities succeed. For the first time, we authorize State improvement plans to be developed in collaboration with State and local educators, parents, and others interested in improving educational opportunities and results for children with disabilities. The emphasis in such plans is to ensure better trained and equipped personnel, especially regular education personnel. If teachers are prepared to detect and address a child's problem when it first appears, and make appropriate adjustments in the child's instructional program, the child is less likely to experience failure, and less likely to need special education and related services. The focus we bring to prevention in S. 717, means increased flexibility and cost savings for school districts. But more importantly, this focus creates new opportunities for partnerships between parents and educators, and more opportunities for children, all children, to experience a greater degree of success while in school and later in life as well. Second, the bill reflects the principle that procedures and paperwork should be driven by common sense, a need to know, and accountability for results that matter. Should parents participate in establishing their child's eligibility for special education and related services? Should parents influence what goes into their child's IEP? Should parents influence the selection of the educational placement of their child? Should a child's regular education teacher influence what goes into a child's IEP? S. 717 dictates that the answer be yes, but so does common sense. Should educators and parents share information, including evaluation information, with each other in a timely manner? Should parents know what the rights and protections that IDEA guarantees their child as early as possible, in language that they can understand? S. 717 dictates that the answer be yes, but so does common sense. Should educators have an opportunity to offer a free appropriate public education to a child with a disability, before the child's parents place the child in a private school and send the school district the bill? Should educators have a timely, clear, and specific indication that parents intend to request a due process hearing, before they actually do it? S. 717 dictates that the answer be yes, but so does common sense. Should educators have the opportunity to explain the benefits of mediation to parents before proceeding to due process? Should educators be responsible for reporting on a child's progress to the child's parents? Along with other children, to the community? To the State? S. 717 dictates that the answer be yes, but so does common sense. The third principle that influenced this legislation was that educators and parents need, in fact desperately deserve, the codification of all Federal policy governing how and when a child with a disability could be disciplined by removal from his or her current educational placement. Right now, parts of that policy are in IDEA, parts are in informal policy guidance prepared by the U.S. Department of Education, and still other parts are found in case law. The effects of this have been both unfair and unfortunate. Many educators, unaware of or unsure of their range of discretion when a child with a disability breaks a school rule, do little or nothing. Many parents, unaware or unsure of the protections IDEA affords their child, allow their child to go without educational services. We could not let the current situation stand. S. 717 attempts to correct it, through a balanced approach, an approach which recognizes both the need to maintain safe schools and the need to preserve the civil rights of children with disabilities. When a child with a disability violates school rules or codes of conduct through possession of weapons, drugs, or demonstration of behavior that is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others in the school, the bill provides clear and simple guidance about educators' areas of discretion, the parents' role, and procedural protections for the child. If we adopt this legislation, dangerous children can be removed from their current educational placements. Specific standards must be met to sustain any removal. If a behavior that is subject to school discipline is not a manifestation of a child's disability, the child may be disciplined as children without disabilities. If parents do not agree with the removal of their child from his or her current educational placement, they can request an expedited due process hearing. If educators believe that a removal of a child from his or her educational placement must be extended, they can ask for an extension in a expedited due process hearing. If S. 717 is enacted, under no circumstances would educational services to a child with a disability cease. If a child with a disability violates a school rule, and the child's behavior is not a manifestation of the child's disability, the local educational agency, in which the child attends school, must continue educational services to the child. If the policy of the local educational agency, in which the child attends school, prevents it from doing so, the State must assume the responsibility to continue the child's education. This obligation under section 612(a)(1) should not be construed to prevent schools from suspending children with disabilities for up to 10 days, consistent with the provisions in section 615(k)(1)(A)(i). The fourth principle which influenced our efforts was that local school districts need options for fiscal relief. Over the life of IDEA they have borne the lion's share of the costs. While retaining a single line of authority, we direct governors to devise ways for noneducational agencies, which could or should bear costs of certain special educational and related services to children with disabilities, to assume responsibility for these costs. We clarify State and local maintenance of effort requirements. States must maintain the State level of dollars spent on special education and related services. Local school districts must maintain local dollars spent on special education and related services. In addition, once IDEA funding reaches $4.1 billion, local school districts may treat as local dollars 20 percent of IDEA dollars that represent an increase from their previous year IDEA allotment. The amendments we are considering today, in so many ways, are not only based on common sense, but common practice, on best practice. We do not and would not impose on educators or parents the specific means by which they should respond to these amendments. Their responses will be shaped by local resources and relationships. Such responses, whatever form they actually take in communities across this Nation, will have positive consequences. And that leads me to my fifth, and last point. Most children with disabilities are being educated and are succeeding because of IDEA. Less than 1 percent of these children and their families are experiencing disagreements with educators about whether a child has a disability, how a child should be educated, or where a child should be educated, because of the child's disability. However, increasingly, actual disagreements and the likelihood of disagreements are shaping how parents and educators view each other and each other's motivations and actions. This trend is not healthy for the children involved, nor their families, nor their teachers, nor their principals. We must create an atmosphere in which the event of designing a child's education is premised on constructive dialog, common goals, and the child, not premised on the avoidance of a lawsuit. In S. 717 we require States to offer voluntary mediation to parents. We attach specific consequences for educators and parents, who fail to share or disclose information that, if provided, may lessen disagreements and legal disputes. We retain provisions added in 1986 to IDEA, that put limits on the conditions under which prevailing parents may receive reimbursement of attorneys' fees. We add other provisions that reflect current policy and legislative history with regard to the use and reimbursement of parents for attorneys' time spent in IEP meetings or mediation. I would like to thank the staff members also: Pat Morrissey and Jim Downing, from my staff, Townsend Lange and Bobby Silverstein, Danica Petroshius, Sally Lovejoy, Todd Jones, Bob Bacon, Alex Nock, Theresa Thompson, and most importantly, Dave Hoppe, for without his hard work we could not have achieved our goal. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, and ask unanimous consent that my full statement be included in the Record as if read. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I yield to my colleague from Iowa. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jim Downing, a fellow with the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, and Mark Hall, a fellow with the leader's office, be accorded privilege of the floor during Senate consideration of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, S. 717.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank wholeheartedly the Senator from Missouri for his comments. I also want to thank him for his introduction of the legislation last year which we found immensely helpful in being able to amend the present law and used to make sure that we did a better job in handling the very difficult situations which the Senator from Missouri referred to. He has been a tireless worker in many areas. This is one of those where he has demonstrated his keen ability to be of assistance in very difficult areas. I thank the Senator very much for his statement. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New Hampshire for his amendment, although I will have to oppose it for reasons unrelated to its value. The situation is this, and I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues the situation we face with respect to any amendments. As I earlier expressed and took some time to disclose the tremendous difficulty we have had in getting a consensus--and the Presiding Officer knows how difficult it was because he worked long and hard to obtain a consensus last year, and we thought we had a consensus. At the last moment, it dissolved, it disappeared. Why? Because some people went out and really distorted the great work that had been done--this is such an emotional issue with educators and parents of the disabled--and the whole thing unraveled. This year, we started where Senator Frist's efforts stopped and built on that, and not only that, but in the leadership's office with the data, we went the furthest mile possible to make sure everybody understood exactly what was in the bill. It was argued and debated. It was from one part of the country to another. Finally, it was agreed that we would all hold hands and work until the last hour of the time possible to make sure that we had every amendment that could be agreed upon done. We finished that effort earlier. However, the situation is this. The House has passed the bill. We will pass that bill on the suspension calendar with the little amendment we had this morning. Once that is done, then it will come over to us and we intend to pass ours. If they are identical, there is no chance of this falling apart. However, if there is an amendment that is of significance, even though I agree with the intent of the Senator from New Hampshire, the thing will fall apart. There is a chance that it won't, but having gone through that experience last year, I don't want to go through it again. Let me explain, also, why the Gregg amendment is not necessary. First of all, there are no set authorization levels in the bill, nor have there been in previous legislation. It says such sums as are appropriated and defined. So there is no limit. There is no limit down; there is no limit up. So everything that the Senator from New Hampshire wants to accomplish can be accomplished without his amendment. I want to reassure everyone that if the Appropriations Committee decides that it will follow, as it did last year, to add the additional billion dollars, that will be done. On the other hand, if we don't, if we can't agree, we could really have an impasse here. I want to commend the Senator from New Hampshire because I was present in the leadership office when we were discussing these matters at the end of last year when we were trying to reach agreement on the total amount of money that would be spent. He was the one that brought to the attention of Senator Lott the great need--and I backed him up on that--that if we wanted to help the local school districts in this country and really improve the ability to improve education, what we had to do was live up to our commitment to the 40 percent. I was on the conference committee that made that commitment we should provide 40 percent. I also want to explain, though a little differently than the Senator from New Hampshire, that, in my mind, this is not a Federal mandate. There were 26 State cases where it was determined there was a constitutional right for an appropriate education. That right included mainstreaming. As a result of that difficulty created throughout the country, the Congress decided that what had to happen was for the Congress to step in and establish those principles that would comply with the constitutional mandate of an appropriate education containing mainstreaming. So that is why, in 1975, we spent many days putting together the legislation which has finally resulted in being here today. The mandate is on the States to provide an appropriate education. We devised 94-142 in this law in order to ensure that there were a sense of generally agreed upon principles as well as specific approaches on how to put a bill together that would ensure that the States comply with a constitutional mandate, and everyone would agree upon that. So I understand the call for mandate. But I wanted to give that history because I think that is important. Also, under the leadership of Senator Gregg some time ago--back about 3 years ago--he came forward with an amendment that we agreed to work on, one that we could pass. I think all of my colleagues should remember this. Hopefully, we will remind you today and tomorrow that Senator Gregg and I passed an amendment that said as soon as reasonably possible we will fully fund IDEA. In my mind, that time is here. It is reasonably possible. The money is there. We just have to do it. So we don't need another amendment because we voted 93 to 0 in this body to say as soon as reasonably possible we will fully fund it. So we don't need the Gregg amendment. But we need to bring it out of the Appropriations Committee in order to bring that to a reality. As has been pointed out, that is part of the majority view on what should happen this year with respect to the budget. We should get ourselves on a path to fully fund this over a reasonable length of time. We can't do it all in 1 year. We know that. But if we go forward and use the guidelines set out in the Gregg amendment we could get there. But we don't need this amendment to do that, it has already been done. This amendment raises this issue once again. I praise the Senator from New Hampshire for doing that. It makes it apparent to all of us what needs to be done. It lays the groundwork. So at the appropriate time I will ask hopefully that this amendment be withdrawn, or some other way taken to make sure that we do not add the amendment to the bill. So I want to again thank the Senator from New Hampshire who has been tireless in his efforts to make sure that we do adequately and appropriately fund 94-142. I would also like to point out what the bill does in that regard because I think it is important to know. As the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, the greatest burden has been placed not where it should be on the States but on the local communities. What we want to do--I agree with him on that--is try to make sure that any additional funds that are placed in the appropriations process must be passed through to the town. That is extremely important. That is in this bill. This bill say to the States that, if we give them more money, they can't just reduce their share. We say they have to maintain their share. Not only that, they have to flow that money through to the local governments where the greatest pressure problems are. So this bill I think accomplishes our goals already without this amendment, everything that the Senator from New Hampshire wants to accomplish. It has the flowthrough to make sure, as he wants to see and I want to see, that the local governments have adequate funding, and that the States can't hog it or reduce their own share. So I, unfortunately, must oppose the amendment. But, again, I praise the Senator from New Hampshire for bringing it before us. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator from Washington. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Just to get back to the Gregg amendment very quickly, there is no limit as to what we can appropriate by any authorization level that we could set. We could go for 40 percent tomorrow. There is no requirement. Even Senator Gorton voted back in 1994 when the vote was 93 to 0--I have not checked the seven absences, but I do not think the Senator was absent--that as soon as reasonably possible, we ought to fund IDEA. There is no necessity for the Gregg amendment. We can do that now. It does set out for my colleagues a very reasoned way to do it, which is in S. 1, a commitment that the Republicans here--that we do it. I think that is important to keep in mind. What the Senator from Washington has talked about, well, that would skew things. But look where the money would go. That money would go to the local school districts. That is where it goes. In the bill, right now, as this is written, if we went up to full funding, that money would all flow to local school districts that have any children at all with disabilities. That is where it would go. The States have to keep their levels. So we would help the local school districts so they could use the money and spend it on people you are concerned about that do not have adequate resources. This is an excellent way of pushing money to your local school districts. You ought to be yelling and shouting for it. It is exactly what you have always said, that we have to help the local school districts have more flexibility. This gives great flexibility. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess until 2:30 p.m. today.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the legislation that we are discussing today, S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act, is timely, commonsense legislation designed to give working families a much-needed option in balancing their busy work and family schedules. I am extremely pleased that the leadership has made passage of this bill a high priority. The Family Friendly Workplace Act is intended to provide private- sector employers and employees with the same optional workplace flexibility benefits that public-sector employees have enjoyed since 1978. S. 4 provides three alternative work schedule options: One, compensatory time off in lieu of monetary overtime pay; two, biweekly work schedules; and three, flexible credit hours. I will explain each of these in more detail in a minute. In addition to the workplace scheduling option, S. 4 offers much-needed salary basis reform, and this is a very important problem that we now have as a result of recent court decisions. Mr. President, there seem to be many misconceptions about what this legislation does and what it doesn't do. I appear today to clear that up. I wanted to go over, first, the four components of S. 4. I believe this will give some of my colleagues a better understanding of this bill. The first component of S. 4 is the compensatory time provision. S. 4 would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime provisions to allow employers to offer their employees the option of compensatory time off instead of traditional overtime pay. In other words, you can trade the time and a half pay for compensatory time off. This provision will allow hourly employees the ability to take time off as a result of having worked overtime. Like State and local government employees, private sector employees would accrue comptime at the same rate as an employer's normal rate of overtime pay, that is 1\1/2\ hours of compensatory time off for every hour of overtime worked. This legislation is not mandatory. It does not require employers to offer compensatory time off. If employers decide to offer the comptime option to their employees, it is up to the employees to decide whether or not to accept it. Employees who are members of unions will choose compensatory time through the collective bargaining process. Nonunion employees, on the other hand, must ``knowingly and voluntarily'' enter into an agreement with their employer for comptime before they perform any overtime work. Again, I want to stress that this provision is purely voluntary. Mr. President, this legislation goes to great lengths to protect employees. If a nonunion employee does not like the comptime program, he or she may withdraw at any time by providing his or her employer with written notice. The withdrawal of employees who are members of unions will be controlled by the collective bargaining agreement. I see no reason why unions should be in opposition to this bill. If an employer finds that its comptime program is not working out, it can cancel its compensatory time off policy by providing the employees who have elected to earn comptime with 30 days with written notice. Again, there is nothing compulsory about this law at all. Employees are also permitted to cash out--receive the case equivalent of their accrued comptime--at any time. Let me repeat that. Employees are permitted to cash out--receive the pay equivalent of their accrued comptime--at any time. So even if an employee selects the comptime option, if that employee decides at a later date that he or she needs the overtime pay instead of time off, the employee has the ability to cash out, to get cash for their overtime work. An employee will also receive the cash equivalent of any unused compensatory hours whenever an employer discontinues its compensatory time policy or in situations where an employee withdraws, resigns or is terminated. The employer must cash out the employee's compensatory time at either the employee's overtime rate or the employee's final rate of pay, depending on which is greater. The legislation allows an employee to accrue up to 240 hours of compensatory time during a 12-month period. If, after the 12-month period, an employee has not used his accrued time, the employer has 31 days to remit the cash equivalent of those hours. If an employee has accrued over 80 hours at any time, an employer may remit the cash equivalent of those excess hours, in lieu of the employee taking time off. While opponents of the legislation fear that employers will control when an employee will be able to use accrued compensatory time off, their concern is unfounded. The bill clearly states that an employee must be allowed to use his or her accrued compensatory time off within a reasonable period of time provided that the time off will not unduly disrupt the workplace. This portion of the bill mirrors what is already firmly established, strongly recognized, and upheld in the FLSA and the regulations applying to the public sector. Under a compensatory time off program, an employee enjoys the preexisting protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act, including prohibitions against violations of section 7 and FLSA's discrimination provision, as well as S. 4's anticoercion provision, which will be an additional provision of FLSA. No employee may be coerced, intimidated or threatened to accept any of the bill's flexible workplace options. Violation of any of these provisions submits an employer to additional liability including liquidated damages and any other viable remedy at law or equity. Biweekly Work Schedules The second alternative is a work scheduling option called biweekly work schedules. Biweekly schedules give employees the option of scheduling 80 hours at any time within a 2 week period rather than confining employees to scheduling 40 hours in 1 week. This greater flexibility gives employees the ability to create schedules that coordinate their work responsibilities with their personal obligations. That is an important thing to know. This gives the employees the flexibility to try to manage their hours within the 2-week period to take care of their own personal problems, whether it is with schools, day care, or whatever else it is--to make everything a little bit more flexible, a little bit more friendly to the family. Just as the election of compensatory time is voluntary, so too, is the election of biweekly work schedules. Employers do not have to offer biweekly schedules and any employee who is not interested in a biweekly schedule and may keep a traditional work schedule. Again, I want to emphasize that the biweekly schedule is completely voluntary. Employees who are satisfied with the existing 40 hour work week are under no obligation to enter into a biweekly schedule arrangement with their employer. An employee who wants to work under a biweekly schedule must meet with his or her employer prior to each 2-week work period and prearrange a schedule for that period. Regardless of how the hours are divided, the employee will not be required to work past 80 hours during the 2-week period. An employer will have to pay overtime for any deviations from the schedule. Any hours that an employer requests the employee to work beyond the predetermined 80 scheduled hours are considered overtime. So overtime provisions are maintained. Again, it is totally voluntary. So the employees have flexibility and have an understanding of what happens if the employer asks them to deviate from that schedule. Once the biweekly period begins, an employer cannot alter an employee's scheduled hours to meet the employer's overtime needs. Even if the employee has worked less than 40 hours during the week, if an employer asks the employee to work hours in addition to the preset schedule, the additional time is considered overtime. Under S. 4's biweekly work schedule provisions, employees enjoy the preexisting safeguards of the FLSA. Employees will also benefit from S. 4's provisions prohibiting an employer from directly or indirectly intimidating, threatening, or coercing an employee to participate in a biweekly schedule program. Again, there is very strong protection for the employee to be protected against any abuse by the employer. For union employees, the particulars of a biweekly work schedule, such as hours to be worked and methods of withdrawal, will be set forth in a collective bargaining agreement. There is no reason why any union should disagree with this. If unions do not care for the biweekly scheduling option, they do not have to select it. In the nonunion setting, an employee would enter into an agreement with his or her employer. Again, it is totally at the option of the employer and the employee. Because biweekly work schedule programs are voluntary, nonunion employees may withdraw their agreement to participate by providing written notice to the employer. Similarly, an employer may discontinue a biweekly work schedule program upon 30 days notice to all participating employees. The third provision may seem new to some of you but, again, we have taken this concept--that of flexible credit hours--from the public sector. Flexible credit hours It is not uncommon for employees to need to take unpaid leave for common life events such as caring for a loved one, assisting an elderly parent or studying for an exam. Employees may wish to work additional hours, in excess of the traditional 40 hour week, in order to bank those additional hours for future use. Under the FLSA, however, an hourly employee is not permitted to carry over additional hours for use in a future work week. Instead, the employer would have to pay overtime for the additional hours worked by that employee. Employers who have no need for their employees to work extra hours are unlikely to be willing to pay employees an overtime premium. As a result, there is really a disincentive under the FLSA for employers to provide employees with the flexibility that they demand. To assist employees who would like to accrue hours for future use, the third provision in this legislation is the flexible credit hour program. The flexible credit hour program would allow an employee to request to work up to 50 hours over his or her regularly scheduled hours. Flexible credit hours are awarded on a one-to-one ratio: 1 credit hour for one hour over an employee's regular schedule. Each hour is a flexible credit hour which is then banked for future use. When employees use their flexible credit hours they are compensated for their time off at their regular rate of pay. Therefore, employees wishing to take an additional week of vacation would have the ability to work 2 extra hours a week for 20 weeks and then use the 40 flexible credit hours that they have banked so that they collect a regular paycheck on their extra week off. It is very, very important for workers that are trying to plan their time off and who are trying to coincide with school vacations, or other family events that will require them to be away from work. Allowing employees to bank hours would also provide the millions of Americans who do not work overtime hours with more flexibility because it would give them the ability to work additional hours so that they could use the paid time off when necessary. As with compensatory time and biweekly programs, an employer has the initial decision of whether to offer the flexible credit hour program. However, once an employer offers the program, whether an employee participates is 100 percent voluntary. If an employee elects to participate, the employer and the employee jointly designate hours for the employee to work that are in excess of the basic work requirement of the employee so that the employee can accrue flexible credit hours. The anticoercion, remedy, and sanction provisions applicable to compensatory time-off options and biweekly work schedule programs apply to the flexible credit programs as well. Compensation for unused accrued credit hours is handled in much the same way that compensation for unused compensatory time is handled. If an employee has not used all his or her credit hours within a 1-year period, the employer is required to cash out the employee's remaining credit hours at the employee's normal rate of pay. An employee must be allowed to use accrued credit hours within a reasonable period of time following the request so long as doing so will not unduly disrupt the workplace. This program's particulars also track those of both the compensatory time off option and the biweekly work schedule program. Employees remain entitled to the same protections and remedies, agreement, accrual, withdrawal, and notice requirements. These are all just merely required because the FLSA and the 40-hour work week are so rigid that it is very difficult for employees and employers to arrange things such that they can help employees to better manage the obligations of work and family. The final provision of S. 4, the salary basis fix, may seem a bit arcane, but it is a very serious problem. The fourth provision impacts the treatment of salaried employees rather than hourly wage employees. The final portion of this legislation helps clarify a problem that has arisen under the ``salary basis'' test. In recent decisions, courts have clouded the salary basis test and caused unnecessary litigation and windfall awards for highly paid employees. This portion of the legislation simply clarifies who is and who is not an exempt employee to prevent additional unfair payments of overtime back pay to salaried employees. Under the salary basis test, an employee is considered to be paid on a salary basis, and thus exempt from FLSA, if that employee regularly receives a straight salary. The FSLA provides that an exempt employee's salary cannot be--subject to reduction for absences of less than a day. A number of court cases, however, have interpreted this language to mean that the theoretical possibility of a salary being docked--that is, decreased--for an absence of less than a day is enough to destroy the employee's exemption even if that employee has never experienced an actual deduction. It is one of those things where the Court has found something they believe to be an accurate interpretation of the law. When in fact it is not Congress' intent for the law to work this way. The impact that it has can be incredibly destructive. For more than 5 decades the ``subject to'' language generated little or no controversy. In recent years, however, courts began to interpret the salary-basis standard, seizing upon the ``subject to'' language, large groups of employees, many of them who are highly compensated, have won multimillion-dollar judgments. These awards have been granted in spite of the fact that many of the plaintiff employees have never actually experienced a pay deduction of any kind and have never expected to receive overtime pay in addition to their ``executive administrative or professional'' salaries. This problem has been particularly onerous in the public sector. I want to be clear that the bill is intended to clarify that an employee would not lose his or her exempt status just because his or her employer has a policy on the books that provides for a reduction in pay for absences of less than a full day or less than a full week. Those employees should remain exempt and this bill would ensure that happens. However, if an employee's salary was actually docked, the legislation would not affect the outcome as to that employee. Again, I want to emphasize that if an employer docks the pay of a salaried employee, that employee could still lose his or her exempt status, but only if it has been docked. The legislation also clarifies that employers may give bonuses and overtime payments to salaried employees without destroying their exemption from the FLSA. That is the opposite side of the equation. Finally, Mr. President, while the FLSA was enacted to protect workers, many of today's work force view certain of the FLSA provisions as harmful rather than helpful. Given the overwhelming success of public sector programs which S. 4 is modelled after here, I believe it is important that Congress now extend the same freedom and flexibility to private workers. Again, I emphasize this is voluntary for both parties. The flexible work schedules would give employees more control over their lives by giving them a better tool to balance their family and work obligations. Employers and hourly employees must be given the ability to reach agreement on flexible schedules beyond the standard of the inflexible 40-hour workweek and to bank compensatory time in lieu of cash overtime where such an agreement is mutually beneficial, and voluntarily entered into. Salary-basis reform for nonexempt employees would also increase flexibility options. The FLSA should be amended to assist workers in balancing the needs of an evolving work environment and quality family time. I thank most of all Senator Ashcroft, who has been the leader in this fight and who has done an outstanding job of bringing the attention to this legislation, not only to the Members, but nationwide. I look forward to working with him and Senator DeWine on this bill. Mr. President, as I discuss the wonderful provisions in this legislation I can't help but wonder why anybody could oppose it, but I expect that some of my colleagues will express a differing view. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are now on general debate on S. 4; is that the order of business?

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Fine. I will proceed anyway.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Tom Salmon, president of the University of Vermont, who will be retiring later this month. Tom and I have worked together for nearly three decades. First as young lawyers in our hometown of Rutland, VT, and then in the general assembly. While he went on to serve as Governor for two terms, I went to Washington to serve in Congress. Although we represented different political parties, we shared a love for Vermont which enabled us to work together and put politics aside. More recently, during Tom Salmon's tenure as president of the University of Vermont, we have had the opportunity to work closely again. His commitment to improving the quality of education has been outstanding, and I have watched with admiration as the university has flourished under his guidance. His capacity to make tough decisions while also connecting with students at the university has contributed to his success. No one could ever question Tom Salmon's dedication after hearing about the time he had to excuse himself from an important meeting of the Governor's council of economic advisors because it conflicted with his graduate school seminar. This has been a job that Tom has loved, and one that he has done well. As I think back over the years, one thing is very clear, Tom Salmon is a man who cares about the State of Vermont and its citizens. Be it as Governor, teacher, chairman of the board, or adviser, his outstanding ability always shines through making him one of Vermont's most successful leaders.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today along with 16 of my colleagues, I am introducing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. This legislation is the product of 4 months of intensive discussion among members of the committee, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and officials from the U.S. Department of Education. The process followed in developing this legislation was unprecedented and demonstrates the high priority all involved place on the importance of the education of children with disabilities, their parents, and their educators. Many people and organizations have helped us to develop this legislation. I would like to name just a few. First and foremost, I wish to thank the Majority Leader Trent Lott for his unwavering support, and, in particular for the assistance of his Chief of Staff, Dave Hoppe. It is my firm belief that without their commitment to the process that we could not have produced this bill. I would also like to thank my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Coats, Harkin, and Gregg, and especially, Chairman Goodling, Mr. Clay and our other colleagues in the House, and Secretary Riley, and Assistant Secretary Heumann. I also wish to especially thank Senator Frist, who set the direction and standard that led us in our efforts to reauthorize IDEA in the last Congress. I introduce this bill in a much different climate than the one in which Congress first addressed the issue. In 1975, responding to numerous Federal court cases, Congress passed Public Law 94-142 which guaranteed all children with disabilities a ``free and appropriate public education,'' and promised that the Federal Government would contribute 40 percent of the costs of special education. It is 22 years later and today we are on the threshold of honoring that commitment. Our efforts in drafting this legislation are driven by a common belief that education is our No. 1 national priority, and that meeting the needs of our children includes meeting the needs our 5.1 million children with disabilities. In this bill we address several important issues: How to increase the flow of Federal dollars to local school districts; how to expand opportunities for children with disabilities to participate and succeed in the classroom along with their nondisabled peers; and how to ensure the appropriate participation of children with disabilities in State and district-wide assessments of student progress. I hope all of my colleagues will support this legislation when it is considered. It's importance has been demonstrated by the collaborative process in which it was developed, and the valuable group of Americans it is intended to serve. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today along with 16 of my colleagues, I am introducing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. This legislation is the product of 4 months of intensive discussion among members of the committee, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and officials from the U.S. Department of Education. The process followed in developing this legislation was unprecedented and demonstrates the high priority all involved place on the importance of the education of children with disabilities, their parents, and their educators. Many people and organizations have helped us to develop this legislation. I would like to name just a few. First and foremost, I wish to thank the Majority Leader Trent Lott for his unwavering support, and, in particular for the assistance of his Chief of Staff, Dave Hoppe. It is my firm belief that without their commitment to the process that we could not have produced this bill. I would also like to thank my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Coats, Harkin, and Gregg, and especially, Chairman Goodling, Mr. Clay and our other colleagues in the House, and Secretary Riley, and Assistant Secretary Heumann. I also wish to especially thank Senator Frist, who set the direction and standard that led us in our efforts to reauthorize IDEA in the last Congress. I introduce this bill in a much different climate than the one in which Congress first addressed the issue. In 1975, responding to numerous Federal court cases, Congress passed Public Law 94-142 which guaranteed all children with disabilities a ``free and appropriate public education,'' and promised that the Federal Government would contribute 40 percent of the costs of special education. It is 22 years later and today we are on the threshold of honoring that commitment. Our efforts in drafting this legislation are driven by a common belief that education is our No. 1 national priority, and that meeting the needs of our children includes meeting the needs our 5.1 million children with disabilities. In this bill we address several important issues: How to increase the flow of Federal dollars to local school districts; how to expand opportunities for children with disabilities to participate and succeed in the classroom along with their nondisabled peers; and how to ensure the appropriate participation of children with disabilities in State and district-wide assessments of student progress. I hope all of my colleagues will support this legislation when it is considered. It's importance has been demonstrated by the collaborative process in which it was developed, and the valuable group of Americans it is intended to serve. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a valued member of the Vermont community, and a true friend, John W. ``Jack'' Barry, who passed away last Sunday at the age of 70. I had the pleasure of working with Jack for over 20 years as he hosted numerous radio and television shows in Vermont. He was a consummate professional with an amazing knack for the interview. When I was on the other side of Jack's mike, I felt as though we were just chatting--kind of catching up on what I'd been up to in Washington. I wouldn't want to give any of my colleagues the impression that Jack didn't ask the tough questions because he did. He asked many of them but he passed no judgment on the answers. Although some would say that Jack began his illustrious career in 1948 as a radio show host at WJOY in Burlington, it actually started at the age of 4 when ``Little Jackie Barry'' performed recitations for his hometown radio station, WDEV of Waterbury. Over the years Jack worked for numerous radio stations in Vermont and around the Nation, and served for 2 years as Press Secretary for U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy. In the early 1970's he joined the State's public television station to moderate a wide array of programs to include, ``Vermont this Week'', ``Vermont Report'' and ``Call the Governor''. During the last 3 years, Jack served in public office as a State senator from Chittenden County. Among his many honors, Jack was named Vermont's Sportscaster of the Year in 1972, elected to the Vermont Association of Broadcasters' Hall of Fame, selected as the Rutland Herald's Vermonter of the Year in 1991 and 1995, as well as being chosen to receive the Vermont Association of Broadcasting Award in 1981. True to his nature, Jack took the time to give back to the community by serving as a board member and trustee of several organizations to include the Medical Center Hospital of Vermont, the Vermont Special Olympics, the United Way and the national board of the American Heart Association among many others. I extend my most sincere condolences to his wife Bunny, his three daughters; Kathy Yagley, Maureen Ravely, and Bridget Barry Caswell as well as the entire Barry family. Jack had the deepest feelings for Vermont and its people. He was always respectful of others and their differing beliefs. It didn't matter whether they were the frequent callers on his radio show or constituents from Chittenden County, he called them by name, heard them out and genuinely thanked them for expressing their views. Jack Barry exemplified what we should all strive to achieve.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a executive session of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be held on Wednesday, May 6, 1997, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The following are on the agenda to be considered. 1. S. : Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. 2. Presidential nominations. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the Public that a hearing of the Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be held on Tuesday, May 5, 1997, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``Protecting Public Health: CDC Project Grants for Preventable Health Services.'' For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on labor and human resources

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to proceed to the motion to proceed to S. 4. However, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senator Dodd be allowed to talk for 2 minutes and 1 minute to----

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we are now proceeding on the motion to proceed to S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. First of all, I wish to commend Senator DeWine, who is the chairman of the subcommittee which very dexterously handled this bill in committee. I would also like to thank Senator Ashcroft, the original author of the bill, who has done so much to bring, not only the attention of Congress to the problems we are addressing in the Family Friendly Workplace Act, but also helped and assisted in bringing the attention of this body to the problems that are created by the current law. I am pleased to be on the floor of the Senate today for the opening debate on the motion to proceed to S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of many other colleagues and the effort that went into S. 4 by the committee who was able to bring out a piece of legislation which I am confident will have the support of the Senate. I am extremely excited about this legislation because I believe it will positively affect the lives of millions of Americans. Today, there are more working single parents and dual-income families in America than ever before. The Family Friendly Workplace Act represents an important step in providing employees in the private sector greater latitude to balance the conflicting demands of work and family. This legislation provides men and women working in the private sector the opportunity to voluntarily choose compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay as well as to voluntarily participate in biweekly and flexible credit hour programs. It does so by giving employees the opportunity to choose to take paid leave time instead of cash compensation for overtime worked and to work out more flexible schedules with their employers if it suits their needs. These same options have been available to State, local and Federal employees for some time and they have been enormously popular with these public sector employees. Mr. President, since this bill was first introduced, it has met with opposition. I believe the opposition stems from the political positions of big labor unions rather than the needs of working men and women. I imagine that S. 4's opponents are concerned, in part, because it is the first piece of legislation in nearly six decades that makes any significant modification to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. While I understand the concern of S. 4's opponents, I believe that it is misplaced. The Fair Labor Standards Act was, and still is, an important piece of legislation because it provided much needed protection to American workers at the time when their welfare was often disregarded, in the horrible period of the Depression. While the principles behind the Fair Labor Standards Act have not changed, its stringent provisions make it difficult to accommodate the needs of today's work force. Since the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, there have been considerable changes in our Nation's economy, labor market conditions and labor-management relations. One of the greatest transformations has been in the composition of the U.S. labor force. More women are working than ever before. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women now account for 46 percent of the labor force. Between 1948 and 1995, women's labor participation rates almost doubled from 33 percent to 59 percent. The increase of women in the workplace has had a significant impact on the day-to-day activities of the American family. The stay-at-home mom is now the exception rather than the rule. Indeed, in 1995, only 5.2 percent of all American families mirrored the traditional ``Ozzie and Harriet'' family structure of a wage-earning father, a nonworking mother, and two children. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 62 percent of two-parent families with children have both parents working outside the home. The makeup of the American work force has changed dramatically, yet few provisions of the FSLA have been updated to reflect these changes. The needs of today's work force are different than the needs of the work force of the 1930's. Although employees are demanding more flexible work schedules and compensation packages, the FSLA and its underlying regulations preclude employers from complying with employee needs. This need for a change in the existing law was exhibited in a recent poll conducted by Penn & Schoen for the Employment Policy Foundation. The poll indicates that 88 percent of all workers want more flexibility through scheduling and/or the choice of compensatory time. Another national poll revealed that 65 percent of Americans favored changes in the labor law that would allow for more flexible work schedules. It is not surprising that the private sector is demanding change. In a 1985 survey of Federal employees participating with flexible work schedules, 72 percent said that they had more flexibility to spend time with their families, and 74 percent said that having a flexible schedule had improved their morale. Over the past several years, the committee has heard compelling testimony from workers about the difficulty of balancing work and family responsibilities. For example, Christine Korzendorfer, who works for TRW Systems in Fairfax, VA, testified that she works a lot of overtime hours. Her husband, who is self-employed, also works 7 days a week making caring for their two children a constant struggle. Ms. Korzendorfer said that while the overtime pay is important to her, having extra time off to be with her family is more important. She wants the choice to be able to take comp time off instead of overtime when it best fits her needs and her family's needs. In addition, the committee heard from Sallie Larsen, vice president, Human Resources and Communication, TRW Systems Integration Group, about TRW employees' frustration with the rigidity of the current law. Ms. Larsen explained that it was important for her business unit to understand their employees' work patterns because the work patterns factored into how TRW bid for new work. To meet the needs of its employees, TRW saw an opportunity to add flexibility for all of its salaried employees and managers in its work scheduling. As a result, TRW invented a program called the Professional Work Schedule which gives salaried employees the ability to participate in 2-week flexing, partial-day time off and additional time off. However, the restrictions of the Fair Labor Standards Act prevented TRW from offering the program to its hourly employees. Ms. Larsen testified that TRW's hourly employees were amazed to learn that it is a 60-year-old law that is substantially unchanged since it was passed that stands in their way of becoming a full member of the team. When the employees ask, ``Why am I treated as a second-class citizen?'' TRW explains, ``It is the law, not the company's unwillingness to offer the professional work schedule to them.'' As I mentioned earlier, employees in the public sector have had this option since 1985, and it has been very popular. Unlike in the public sector, however, S. 4 would prohibit employees from forcing workers to accept comp-time off instead of being paid overtime as a condition of employment. That is a change from the public law. In fact, under S. 4, an employee's participation in any flexible work arrangement would be totally voluntary. We have worked hard on the language since its introduction to make this crystal clear and to provide strong penalties against any employer who coerces, intimidates, or threatens a worker into accepting such an agreement. This is true flexibility for workers and not the heavy hand of the employer. Providing families more flexibility in the workplace to help meet family needs should be a bipartisan goal. In the last year, President Clinton has acknowledged the importance of work force flexibility. For instance, in his recent State of the Union Address the President said, ``We should pass flextime so workers can choose to be paid overtime in income, or trade it for time off to be with their families.'' Because S. 4 will assist American workers to balance the needs of an evolving work environment and quality family time, I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Middlebury College and its student production of ``The Last Supper Restoration.'' This group of fine arts students will be one of eight participating in this year's American College Theater Festival at the John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts from April 14 to April 22, 1997. The production was chosen from among 900 presented on campuses throughout the United States in 1996. The student playwright, Michael Kanin, was presented with the National Student Playwriting Award and has been recognized for his tremendous efforts by the Association for Theatre in Higher Education. The students' work is in the finest tradition of Vermont and truly represent the creative spirit of our Green Mountain State. This accomplishment is testimony to the outstanding education and diverse opportunities provided by a true center of excellence, Middlebury College. Once again, I would like to extend my best wishes and congratulations to the Middlebury College thespians.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, America is currently considering an extremely important and contentious issue: Should we restructure the system by which we obtain our electric energy? And if so, how should we go about doing this? Hardly a day goes by in which one cannot find a news article on this subject. Across our Nation, 44 States have taken on the issue of restructuring, either in legislative debate or through the implementation of pilot programs. And even here in Congress, there are a number of proposals, in both the House and Senate, which address the various factors affecting the electric industry. Advocates on all sides are debating whether the Federal Government should direct States to move to a restructured system, both in terms of how they should do it and when. There are a number of ideas being offered as to whether utilities should be allowed to recover costs that were incurred under a regulated system, and if so, in what manner and to what degree. Who should bear the burden? The rate payer? The tax payer? The share holder? Arguments have been made for and against Federal protection of public power, both in terms of market power and fiscal subsidies. Must companies divest according to function? Does a municipality's tax exempt bond authority give it an advantage over the tax deferrals of the utility, or the less-than-cost loans to the cooperative? Mr. President, we continue to hear a great deal about how the effort to restructure the electric power industry may affect the Nation's economy. What is not being discussed, and what I believe is equally important, is how these changes will affect our society as a whole. How will it impact on the Nation's poor? How will it affect our children's health? How will restructuring affect our environment? Well, it doesn't have to be an either/or choice. In fact, it can't be. As we move towards a restructured industry, we must consider the issues not only in terms of what they mean to our economy, but also in terms of what they mean to our society. We must secure and enhance the public benefits that until now have been provided by the electric industry's unique structure and regulatory traditions. This can only be achieved by including certain safeguards in any new regulatory structure from the outset, before dramatic changes unravel the gains this industry has made. I rise today to introduce the Electric System Public Benefits Protection Act of 1997. This bill acknowledges the responsibility we have to our Nation, to its people and to the environment as we reassess the future of the electric power industry. It directly addresses the numerous public benefits we enjoy from our electric power structure, a system that has a unique impact on how we live. And it does this while creating a setting within the electric industry which promotes competition. Under the system in effect today, electric utilities have been granted franchises in order to serve the public good. In return for a guaranteed return on their investments, the utilities have, to varying degrees of success, implemented many public purpose programs from which we benefit. These initiatives have addressed the need for alternative fuels, assistance to needy and remotely located consumers, energy efficiency projects, and environmental safeguards. While the industry has made significant progress in the past few decades, recent years have seen a steady decline in investments relating to these initiatives. As the electric industry moves closer to competition and deregulation, utilities are becoming less inclined to support public purpose programs without a guaranteed return. My legislation creates a national electric system public benefits fund to enable and encourage State programs for renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency, low-income assistance, and universal access. It is supported by a broad-based, competitively neutral, systems benefits charge levied as a wires charge on all interconnected generation for sale on the electricity market. Revenues from the fund will be used to match funds raised by the States for the same public purposes and support the continuation and expansion of the benefits we enjoy today. A study of history divulges two important facts about energy efficiency. The first is that the potential for cost-effective savings from accelerated investments in energy efficiency is very large. Yet trends over the last few years raise serious questions about utilities' commitments to energy efficiency programs. Based on the uncertainty surrounding the change within the industry, many utilities have admitted that they have already cut programs and are planning on reducing or eliminating more. While this uncertainty makes long-term predictions in this area difficult, the Energy Information Administration has projected a 13-percent reduction in direct utility expenditures on energy efficiency programs during the period 1995 until 1999. My bill affords States the opportunity to make necessary investments in efficiency technologies. The second important fact we have learned is that there exist significant structural and informational market barriers to the deployment of investments in energy efficiency in the absence of targeted programs. My bill will help negotiate these barriers within the industry. One of the benefits of energy efficiency is that reduced consumption avoids many of the environmental impacts associated with electric generation. The alternative is potentially devastating. In a recent national survey, respondents were advised that changes in how the utility industry operates could lead to further cutbacks in traditional efficiency programs. Seven out of ten Americans, polled across the Nation, stated that they support mandatory investments in energy efficiency, even if it means higher electric rates. They realize that what we invest today may save us billions of dollars during our lifetimes and those of our children. The loss of public purpose programs will affect one group in particular. For middle class families, the energy crisis of the 1970's is only a memory; for low-income customers, the energy crisis never ended. A recent study in my State of Vermont showed that residential customers in general spend 3.8 percent of their income on energy, while low-income households spend 15 to 20 percent, and in some cases even more. Unaffordable utility costs are a leading cause of loss of housing for low-income families. Yet another study found that visits by individuals from low-income households to emergency rooms increased after periods of severe weather, when those families had to make the choice to heat or eat. It is also clear that low-income families face greater barriers than other groups of customers to implementing the energy conservation measures I spoke of earlier, measures that would reduce their energy costs. Low-income families are more likely to live in rental property, in which they have neither the right to make major modifications themselves nor the ability to persuade their landlords to make energy conservation investments in their housing. While there are low-income homeowners, their incomes are generally insufficient to fund improvements in energy efficiency. My bill will provide a mechanism to help circumvent many of these barriers. In considering the impact of restructuring on the Nation's poor, we must also keep in mind that low-income customers are unlikely to be an extremely attractive and highly sought after segment of the electricity market. They are more likely than other customers to have difficulty paying their bills. They are more likely to require payment arrangements and other labor intensive involvement from the utility company. And they are less likely to use large quantities of electricity which might qualify them for volume discounts. We must accept the fact that access to electric power is a necessity in our society. My legislation will help guarantee that everyone has equal access to the benefits of the electric industry. It will target, through the encouragement and development of cooperatives and other market mechanisms, the millions of Americans who are from low-income families, remote rural areas and other groups who lack market power. In short, Mr. President, it ensures that essential services remain affordable and the benefits of competition are available to all utility customers. We have learned the hard way that the Nation's economic well-being can be put at risk by rapid spikes in world energy prices. Future dislocations could result from fossil fuel supply interruptions or problems associated with nuclear powerplants. History teaches us that a policy of prudent energy diversification is a form of national economic security that is well worth purchasing. Additionally, renewable energy sources are good for our environment. Every megawatt of electricity generated by a wind turbine displaces another from a fossil fuel source and lessens the environmental impact of the industry. Yet, the future of renewable energy is in doubt. I would like to direct your attention to this chart. Scientists tell us that, despite the obvious advantages I have cited, the amount of electricity from renewable sources is projected to remain stable at about 2 percent well into the future. My legislation establishes a renewable portfolio standard for all electric generation companies. It begins with 2.5 percent in the year 2000 and slowly grows to 20 percent in the year 2020. These are not arbitrary numbers. They are based on information provided by the electric industry and account for realistic constraints on how fast these sources can develop. This bill enables States to play an active role in the development and fielding of alternative fuels technology. It recognizes the importance of fuel diversity, and it guarantees that renewable energy sources will play a significant role in this diversification and in providing consumer choice in the restructured industry. Mr. President, I am particularly concerned about what may be the single greatest market failure of the electric power industry: the protection of our environment. The electric industry accounts for about 3 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product, yet it accounts for up to two-thirds of some of the country's deadliest pollutants. We have worked hard to reduce this problem, and there is no doubt that some success has been achieved. But it is not enough. Electric powerplants emit 65 percent of the Nation's annual total of sulfur dioxide, an invisible gas that adversely affects our health and environment. Asthmatics are particularly vulnerable to this pollutant. The leading cause of chronic illness in children, cases of this disease are climbing at a sharp rate and are exacerbated by our deteriorating environment. Sulfur dioxide also is the principal cause of acid rain. This chart illustrates the fact that while the annual emissions of sulfur dioxide are expected to come down slightly in future years, this decline is not sufficient. My bill would cause a dramatic change by the year 2005, decreasing the amount of this deadly gas from electric powerplants by roughly 60 percent. This next chart reveals the problem this Nation will face in the future as increasing amounts of carbon dioxide are released into the air from the electric industry. Powerplants currently generate close to 40 percent of the nationwide emissions of this pollutant, a gas chiefly responsible for global warming and the creation of a greenhouse effect. The resulting climate change has the potential to inflict devastating damage on our environment for many years, well into the future. Unlike other pollutants, carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for decades. If we are to protect our children's future, we must act now. As you can see, my bill, designed to bring the industry back to the 1990 standard, requires a significant 13 percent reduction by the year 2005 and will double that by the year 2015. This legislation would bring about a major reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions. The electric power industry is the single largest source of this pollutant. Nitrogen oxide emissions are particularly offensive to me as a Vermonter because of the extreme ozone problem they present. There are days now when, standing atop Mount Mansfield, I can not make out the water tower on Mount Elmore, not even 20 miles away. This is disgraceful, and it is a problem faced in many areas across this Nation. Nitrogen oxides are now blamed for significant health problems as well. Scientists recently discovered that this pollutant may be responsible for increasing levels of cancer cases and breathing disorders. As depicted on this chart, my legislation will mandate a 70 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants by the year 2005. Cognizance of these environmental problems cuts across party lines. A recent poll in the State of Texas shows that 7 out of 10 residents who define themselves as very conservative favor significantly stronger environmental standards. In fact, in the nationwide survey I spoke of earlier, 80 percent of the respondents agreed that we need to act on the problem. Mr. President, we need to fix the problems attributable to electric power production. But as we move to a restructured industry, we need to fix it in a fair, competitively neutral manner. This bill does just that. Setting a single, nationwide emissions standard for all generators which use combustion devices to produce electricity, it says stop to some of the Nation's dirtiest powerplants. It means we as Americans will no longer tolerate the idea of giving a free ride to those that can't meet the standard. It levels the playing field so that all generators can compete in the market on an equal footing and with the same environmental responsibilities as their competitors. Finally, we need to give people the information they need to make intelligent choices regarding their electricity. My bill directs the Secretary of Energy to establish a system whereby electric service providers must disclose to the consumer adequate information on generation source, emissions and price. Only when the consumer has the ability to compare can we say we have a truly competitive market. In closing, I want to emphasize that any restructuring of the Nation's electric power industry must address the economic and the social aspects of the issue. It is not an either/or choice. We must do both. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, America is currently considering an extremely important and contentious issue: Should we restructure the system by which we obtain our electric energy? And if so, how should we go about doing this? Hardly a day goes by in which one cannot find a news article on this subject. Across our Nation, 44 States have taken on the issue of restructuring, either in legislative debate or through the implementation of pilot programs. And even here in Congress, there are a number of proposals, in both the House and Senate, which address the various factors affecting the electric industry. Advocates on all sides are debating whether the Federal Government should direct States to move to a restructured system, both in terms of how they should do it and when. There are a number of ideas being offered as to whether utilities should be allowed to recover costs that were incurred under a regulated system, and if so, in what manner and to what degree. Who should bear the burden? The rate payer? The tax payer? The share holder? Arguments have been made for and against Federal protection of public power, both in terms of market power and fiscal subsidies. Must companies divest according to function? Does a municipality's tax exempt bond authority give it an advantage over the tax deferrals of the utility, or the less-than-cost loans to the cooperative? Mr. President, we continue to hear a great deal about how the effort to restructure the electric power industry may affect the Nation's economy. What is not being discussed, and what I believe is equally important, is how these changes will affect our society as a whole. How will it impact on the Nation's poor? How will it affect our children's health? How will restructuring affect our environment? Well, it doesn't have to be an either/or choice. In fact, it can't be. As we move towards a restructured industry, we must consider the issues not only in terms of what they mean to our economy, but also in terms of what they mean to our society. We must secure and enhance the public benefits that until now have been provided by the electric industry's unique structure and regulatory traditions. This can only be achieved by including certain safeguards in any new regulatory structure from the outset, before dramatic changes unravel the gains this industry has made. I rise today to introduce the Electric System Public Benefits Protection Act of 1997. This bill acknowledges the responsibility we have to our Nation, to its people and to the environment as we reassess the future of the electric power industry. It directly addresses the numerous public benefits we enjoy from our electric power structure, a system that has a unique impact on how we live. And it does this while creating a setting within the electric industry which promotes competition. Under the system in effect today, electric utilities have been granted franchises in order to serve the public good. In return for a guaranteed return on their investments, the utilities have, to varying degrees of success, implemented many public purpose programs from which we benefit. These initiatives have addressed the need for alternative fuels, assistance to needy and remotely located consumers, energy efficiency projects, and environmental safeguards. While the industry has made significant progress in the past few decades, recent years have seen a steady decline in investments relating to these initiatives. As the electric industry moves closer to competition and deregulation, utilities are becoming less inclined to support public purpose programs without a guaranteed return. My legislation creates a national electric system public benefits fund to enable and encourage State programs for renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency, low-income assistance, and universal access. It is supported by a broad-based, competitively neutral, systems benefits charge levied as a wires charge on all interconnected generation for sale on the electricity market. Revenues from the fund will be used to match funds raised by the States for the same public purposes and support the continuation and expansion of the benefits we enjoy today. A study of history divulges two important facts about energy efficiency. The first is that the potential for cost-effective savings from accelerated investments in energy efficiency is very large. Yet trends over the last few years raise serious questions about utilities' commitments to energy efficiency programs. Based on the uncertainty surrounding the change within the industry, many utilities have admitted that they have already cut programs and are planning on reducing or eliminating more. While this uncertainty makes long-term predictions in this area difficult, the Energy Information Administration has projected a 13-percent reduction in direct utility expenditures on energy efficiency programs during the period 1995 until 1999. My bill affords States the opportunity to make necessary investments in efficiency technologies. The second important fact we have learned is that there exist significant structural and informational market barriers to the deployment of investments in energy efficiency in the absence of targeted programs. My bill will help negotiate these barriers within the industry. One of the benefits of energy efficiency is that reduced consumption avoids many of the environmental impacts associated with electric generation. The alternative is potentially devastating. In a recent national survey, respondents were advised that changes in how the utility industry operates could lead to further cutbacks in traditional efficiency programs. Seven out of ten Americans, polled across the Nation, stated that they support mandatory investments in energy efficiency, even if it means higher electric rates. They realize that what we invest today may save us billions of dollars during our lifetimes and those of our children. The loss of public purpose programs will affect one group in particular. For middle class families, the energy crisis of the 1970's is only a memory; for low-income customers, the energy crisis never ended. A recent study in my State of Vermont showed that residential customers in general spend 3.8 percent of their income on energy, while low-income households spend 15 to 20 percent, and in some cases even more. Unaffordable utility costs are a leading cause of loss of housing for low-income families. Yet another study found that visits by individuals from low-income households to emergency rooms increased after periods of severe weather, when those families had to make the choice to heat or eat. It is also clear that low-income families face greater barriers than other groups of customers to implementing the energy conservation measures I spoke of earlier, measures that would reduce their energy costs. Low-income families are more likely to live in rental property, in which they have neither the right to make major modifications themselves nor the ability to persuade their landlords to make energy conservation investments in their housing. While there are low-income homeowners, their incomes are generally insufficient to fund improvements in energy efficiency. My bill will provide a mechanism to help circumvent many of these barriers. In considering the impact of restructuring on the Nation's poor, we must also keep in mind that low-income customers are unlikely to be an extremely attractive and highly sought after segment of the electricity market. They are more likely than other customers to have difficulty paying their bills. They are more likely to require payment arrangements and other labor intensive involvement from the utility company. And they are less likely to use large quantities of electricity which might qualify them for volume discounts. We must accept the fact that access to electric power is a necessity in our society. My legislation will help guarantee that everyone has equal access to the benefits of the electric industry. It will target, through the encouragement and development of cooperatives and other market mechanisms, the millions of Americans who are from low-income families, remote rural areas and other groups who lack market power. In short, Mr. President, it ensures that essential services remain affordable and the benefits of competition are available to all utility customers. We have learned the hard way that the Nation's economic well-being can be put at risk by rapid spikes in world energy prices. Future dislocations could result from fossil fuel supply interruptions or problems associated with nuclear powerplants. History teaches us that a policy of prudent energy diversification is a form of national economic security that is well worth purchasing. Additionally, renewable energy sources are good for our environment. Every megawatt of electricity generated by a wind turbine displaces another from a fossil fuel source and lessens the environmental impact of the industry. Yet, the future of renewable energy is in doubt. I would like to direct your attention to this chart. Scientists tell us that, despite the obvious advantages I have cited, the amount of electricity from renewable sources is projected to remain stable at about 2 percent well into the future. My legislation establishes a renewable portfolio standard for all electric generation companies. It begins with 2.5 percent in the year 2000 and slowly grows to 20 percent in the year 2020. These are not arbitrary numbers. They are based on information provided by the electric industry and account for realistic constraints on how fast these sources can develop. This bill enables States to play an active role in the development and fielding of alternative fuels technology. It recognizes the importance of fuel diversity, and it guarantees that renewable energy sources will play a significant role in this diversification and in providing consumer choice in the restructured industry. Mr. President, I am particularly concerned about what may be the single greatest market failure of the electric power industry: the protection of our environment. The electric industry accounts for about 3 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product, yet it accounts for up to two-thirds of some of the country's deadliest pollutants. We have worked hard to reduce this problem, and there is no doubt that some success has been achieved. But it is not enough. Electric powerplants emit 65 percent of the Nation's annual total of sulfur dioxide, an invisible gas that adversely affects our health and environment. Asthmatics are particularly vulnerable to this pollutant. The leading cause of chronic illness in children, cases of this disease are climbing at a sharp rate and are exacerbated by our deteriorating environment. Sulfur dioxide also is the principal cause of acid rain. This chart illustrates the fact that while the annual emissions of sulfur dioxide are expected to come down slightly in future years, this decline is not sufficient. My bill would cause a dramatic change by the year 2005, decreasing the amount of this deadly gas from electric powerplants by roughly 60 percent. This next chart reveals the problem this Nation will face in the future as increasing amounts of carbon dioxide are released into the air from the electric industry. Powerplants currently generate close to 40 percent of the nationwide emissions of this pollutant, a gas chiefly responsible for global warming and the creation of a greenhouse effect. The resulting climate change has the potential to inflict devastating damage on our environment for many years, well into the future. Unlike other pollutants, carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for decades. If we are to protect our children's future, we must act now. As you can see, my bill, designed to bring the industry back to the 1990 standard, requires a significant 13 percent reduction by the year 2005 and will double that by the year 2015. This legislation would bring about a major reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions. The electric power industry is the single largest source of this pollutant. Nitrogen oxide emissions are particularly offensive to me as a Vermonter because of the extreme ozone problem they present. There are days now when, standing atop Mount Mansfield, I can not make out the water tower on Mount Elmore, not even 20 miles away. This is disgraceful, and it is a problem faced in many areas across this Nation. Nitrogen oxides are now blamed for significant health problems as well. Scientists recently discovered that this pollutant may be responsible for increasing levels of cancer cases and breathing disorders. As depicted on this chart, my legislation will mandate a 70 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants by the year 2005. Cognizance of these environmental problems cuts across party lines. A recent poll in the State of Texas shows that 7 out of 10 residents who define themselves as very conservative favor significantly stronger environmental standards. In fact, in the nationwide survey I spoke of earlier, 80 percent of the respondents agreed that we need to act on the problem. Mr. President, we need to fix the problems attributable to electric power production. But as we move to a restructured industry, we need to fix it in a fair, competitively neutral manner. This bill does just that. Setting a single, nationwide emissions standard for all generators which use combustion devices to produce electricity, it says stop to some of the Nation's dirtiest powerplants. It means we as Americans will no longer tolerate the idea of giving a free ride to those that can't meet the standard. It levels the playing field so that all generators can compete in the market on an equal footing and with the same environmental responsibilities as their competitors. Finally, we need to give people the information they need to make intelligent choices regarding their electricity. My bill directs the Secretary of Energy to establish a system whereby electric service providers must disclose to the consumer adequate information on generation source, emissions and price. Only when the consumer has the ability to compare can we say we have a truly competitive market. In closing, I want to emphasize that any restructuring of the Nation's electric power industry must address the economic and the social aspects of the issue. It is not an either/or choice. We must do both. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.