Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for all the work he has done. He deserves, and should get, accolades and helpful attention to this bill, because we do need help in making sure it gets into law. But the work he did last year has been incredibly helpful. It moves us a long way toward that goal.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, with my colleague, Senator Frist, I am introducing the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. This legislation is identical to S. 1578, which was reported out of the Labor and Human Resources Committee in the last Congress. Senator Frist did a tremendous job in assisting, getting that prepared and passed out of committee. Unfortunately, the bill did not pass in the last legislative session. We are introducing this legislation today so everyone will have a common frame of reference. However, I want to make it very clear to my colleagues in the Senate and to my colleagues and friends within the education and disability community across the Nation that this legislation is not perfect and it can and will be improved. This is the beginning of the process, not the end. I am well aware that there are still issues to be resolved and I intend to work with my colleagues to examine these issues and to move forward with revisions to this important law that are commonsense solutions to issues which are very real at the local school level. We are aided in this effort by the majority leader, who is committed to helping us achieve the broadest based consensus on a final project, one that has the support of families of children with disabilities and educators, but also of all Members of Congress and the President. We have set an ambitious schedule for completing our work on IDEA, and by introducing the IDEA Amendments of 1997 today, we are taking a very important first step. IDEA was originally enacted in 1975. I was a Member of the House at the time, and participated in the development of this landmark law. It was a response to court decisions that created a patchwork of legal standings, which in turn generated considerable uncertainty about rights and responsibilities. IDEA guaranteed each child with a disability access to a free, appropriate public education, and we all support that goal. In that sense, the legislation has clearly stood the test of time. But it has not in terms of the level of funding support that we promised to the States to assist them in meeting their obligation to educate children with disabilities. In IDEA, Congress promised to contribute 40 percent of the cost of educating children with disabilities. Our colleague, Senator Gregg, has kept our feet to the fire, reminding us that we should keep our promise. In last year's appropriations measure we were able to garner large increases for this program. We must continue our effort to reach our full Federal commitment. After 22 years, I think it is appropriate to thoroughly review the administrative and fiscal demands that are associated with providing a free appropriate education to children with disabilities. The population of students demanding assistance has changed significantly, but the law has not provided enough flexibility to States to meet those changing demands. The writing is on the wall. If we do not make needed changes to IDEA now, based on common sense, school districts and parents will increasingly turn to the courts to get the answers. School districts will do so in hope of getting relief from or clarification of their responsibilities. The parents will do so in hope of procuring the services that they believe their child needs. Since the genesis of IDEA lay in avoiding litigation, true to its intent to do so today, we have an opportunity, through the reauthorization of IDEA, to ensure the emphasis will shift once again and remain on educating children, well into the next century. If we work together, we have the power to ease the pressure on local communities and States. Through the reauthorization of IDEA, we have the power to give educators incentives and opportunities to educate children with disabilities, including those at risk of failing, with less bureaucracy and meaningful accountability. Let us do it now.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, last Thursday 48 Senators representing the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition, which I chair with Senator Moynihan, my colleague from Vermont Senator Leahy, and Senators from other States hard hit by skyrocketing heating prices and cold weather, sent a letter to President Clinton asking him to release $300 million in emergency low income home energy assistance funds [LIHEAP]. The 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Act allows the President to release up to $420 million in LIHEAP emergency funds. In the Northeast and Midwest, the price of home heating oil has jumped over 25 percent from last year, while natural gas and propane prices in all cold weather States are significantly higher. The Reverend Dr. Robert E. Martin of Newport, VT recently wrote me that the propane bill of the Lowell Congregational Church has risen 52 percent over last year. Any distribution of emergency LIHEAP funds must take into account this rise in fuel prices, which in Vermont, so far, has been worse than the weather. Mr. President, the rising cost of energy weighs heavy on low-income working Americans who devote about 12 percent of their income to energy bills. The elderly and disabled low-income individuals relying on supplemental security income spend on average 19 percent of that income on energy bills, and families with children living on Aid to Families With Dependent Children devote almost 25 percent of their benefits to energy bills. Although many State regulations prohibit utilities from terminating service for nonpayment during the winter, households that rely on home heating oil, propane, and wood do not have this same safety net. These households must pay for services up front or face fuel cut offs. With the prolonged spike in fuel prices, additional Federal funds are needed to prevent many families from having to face life threatening cold this winter. Mr. President, freezing temperatures and high fuel prices are a recipe for disaster for low-income Americans. Forty-eight Senators from both parties are urging President Clinton to act quickly so that low- income Americans do not have to choose between heating and eating this winter. Mr. President, I yield the floor for others who desire to speak on this important issue. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. The second bill I will be introducing today with Senator Frist. This bill is IDEA. Then, after that, I will briefly talk on low-income fuel assistance and put in the Record a letter which myself and 49 Senators have participated in. For now, I will go ahead and discuss and send to the desk the bill IDEA, for introduction. (The remarks of Mr. Jeffords and Mr. Frist pertaining to the introduction of S. 216 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Jeffords pertaining to the introduction of S. 215 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills. The first bill is the National Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of 1997.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I introduce the National Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of 1997. This bill is identical to legislation that Senator Hatfield and I have introduced in past Congresses. I introduce this bill again today because I firmly believe that deposit laws are a common sense, proven method to increase recycling, save energy, create jobs, and decrease the generation of waste and proliferation of overflowing landfills. The experience of 10 States, including Vermont, attest to the success of a deposit law or bottle bill as it is commonly called. Recycling rates of well over 70 percent have been achieved for beverage containers in bottle bill States. The rate is over 90 percent in Vermont. To put this in perspective, consider this: 30 percent of Americans who live in bottle bill States account for over 80 percent of beverage container recycling in this country. The concept of a national bottle bill is simple: To provide the consumer with an incentive to return the container for reuse or recycling. Consumers pay a nominal cost per bottle when purchasing a beverage and are refunded their money when they bring the bottle back either to a retailer or redemption center. Retailers are paid a fee for their participation in the program, and any unclaimed deposits are used to finance State environmental programs. Under my proposal, a 10-cent deposit on beer, water, and soft-drink containers would take effect in States which have beverage container recovery rates of less than 70 percent, the minimum recovery rate achieved by existing bottle bill States. Labels showing the deposit value would be affixed to containers, and retailers would receive a 2- cent fee per container for their participation in the program. We are constantly reminded of the growing problem of excess waste as we hear news reports of waste washing up on our Nation's beaches, pitched battles over the siting of landfills and communities lacking adequate waste disposal facilities. Our country's solid waste problems are very real, and they will continue to haunt us until we take action. The throw-away ethic that has emerged in this country is not insurmountable, and recycling is part of the solution. Finally, a national bottle bill serves a much greater purpose than merely cleaning up littered highways. Recycling creates jobs, saves energy, and preserves our Nation's precious natural resources. In fact, the demand for recycled glass and aluminum has grown to such a point that the Chicago Board of Trade now sells futures in these materials. Recycling makes good business sense. The legislation I introduce today is consistent with our Nation's solid waste management objectives. A national bottle bill would reduce solid waste and litter, save natural resources and energy, and create a much needed partnership between consumers, industry, and local governments. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for all the work he has done. He deserves, and should get, accolades and helpful attention to this bill, because we do need help in making sure it gets into law. But the work he did last year has been incredibly helpful. It moves us a long way toward that goal.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of S. 4, the ``Family Friendly Workplace Act of 1997.'' This legislation is designed to address the very pressing and legitimate needs of working families for more flexibility in their workplaces. We all know how difficult it is for working parents to balance the demands of work and family responsibilities. There are soccer games, parent-teacher conferences, and doctor's appointments that demand a few hours of time during the workweek. Our workplace laws should allow workers the flexibility to work a few extra hours one week, in order to take time off later when they need to for family or personal reasons. Ironically, current law inhibits more flexible schedules and compensation programs. While this may come as a surprise, it is really not all that hard to understand why. The world of the workplace has undergone a revolution in the last 60 years. In the 1930's, as the Roosevelt administration and the Congress sought to establish minimum wage and overtime standards, the last thing on their minds was finding free time for workers. With as much as one- third of the work force unemployed, the problem was far too much free time, not too little. The purpose of premium pay for overtime work was not to enrich already-employed workers, but to spread work to the unemployed, in effect reducing free time. The story of a woman from Poultney, Vermont, near my home town, brought this home to me. She was employed as a school teacher in the midst of the Depression, and had the further good fortune to fall in love and get married to a man who was also employed. Upon her marriage, she quickly resigned from her job. When asked why decades later, she explained it was simply understood that you would not have two full- time jobs in one family. Such taboos today are little more than an interesting historical footnote. With the rise of single parent families and two-parent families in which both spouses work, it is incredibly difficult to balance the demands of work and family. That difficulty is increased by the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] which was not designed with today's circumstances in mind. The law's minimum wage and overtime protections are just as important today as they were when enacted, but the law needs to be adjusted to the workplace of the 21st century. For example, the FLSA bars private employers from offering employees the choice of receiving overtime in the form of compensatory time off instead of cash wages. While Federal and public sector workers have had this option since 1985, private sector workers do not. Many employees do not necessarily want money as much as time to address family needs. A recent public opinion poll conducted by Penn & Schoen Associates found that workers strongly favor more flexibility in their work schedules. Seventy-five percent of those surveyed said they would prefer the option to choose to be compensated for overtime with compensatory time off or cash overtime. Now some of my colleagues may be familiar with what seems to be a contradictory poll conducted by Lake Research which found that nearly two-thirds of poll respondents opposed the policy we propose. Frankly, I would, too, if it was anything like what was described in the poll's question. The Lake Research poll describes compensatory time off as the employer's decision. It is not. It describes biweekly scheduling as the employer's decision. It is not. Indeed, the poll's question concludes by saying: Employers could schedule you to work 60 hours one week and 20 hours the next, but you would not earn overtime pay. Do you support or oppose such a policy? It comes as no surprise that most people would not support such a policy. As my colleagues know, you can structure a question on a poll to yield just about any result you want. This is a pretty good example of just that. What is interesting to me is that even when faced with such a slanted presentation, one-third of the people either supported such a policy or were unsure. It stands to reason that when presented with the facts-- that is, that each of these proposals is predicated on the employee's decision, not the employer's--three quarters of Americans support having the option of taking time off instead of cash. This bill incorporates provisions which passed the House of Representatives last year that would allow the payment of overtime with compensatory time off at a rate of 1.5 hours for each hour worked over 40 in a workweek. Just like in the public sector, however, no employee could be forced to accept comp time off instead of being paid for overtime. A written agreement between the employer and the employee is required, and there are strong penalties against any employer who coerces, intimidates, or threatens workers into accepting such an agreement. Not all employees want to work a traditional 8-hour day, 5 days a week, with no variation. Some employees would prefer to trade hours between weeks--e.g. work 45 hours one week, 35 hours the next and take every other Friday off--or shift to a schedule that compresses many hours at the front end of the week so that they can put together several days off later. However, companies would have to pay workers overtime for any hours over 40 in the first week, even if the employee would prefer to flex his or her schedule. Currently, only Federal workers can flex their schedules without their employer being subject to the overtime penalty. S. 4 would remove this limitation and permit employers and employees to mutually agree on a flexible, biweekly schedule consisting of any combination of 80 hours over a 2-week period. As with the comp time provisions, nothing would be forced upon the employer or the employee. If they agreed on such schedules, the employee could trade hours over a 2-week period without violating the FLSA. Any hours in excess of 80 hours would still be paid at 1.5 times the employee's regular rate of pay. If it's good enough for Federal workers, it's good enough for all workers. Finally, this bill corrects a flexibility problem for salaried workers in both the private and the public sectors. In many instances, salaried employees who want to take a few hours off for personal or family reasons must choose between two equally undesirable options: either to use a portion of their paid leave, that is, vacation or sick leave, or take a full day off without pay. If the employer grants an employee a few hours of unpaid leave--or merely has a policy which permits it--all the salaried employees may lose their exempt status under the FLSA. Thus, a policy that allows for a partial day of unpaid leave can convert an exempt worker to a nonexempt one who is then owed overtime, even if the worker has a six-figure income and is employed at the highest levels of the company. Multiply this over an entire salaried work force, and the liability to public and private employers soars into the billions of dollars. This bizarre situation does not apply, however, if an employee is taking leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 [FMLA]. This bill would merely extend this practice to accommodate the desire of many salaried employees to take time off for reasons other than family and medical leave, or for employees who work for small companies. In order to provide maximum flexibility to all salaried workers who wish to take partial day leave under any circumstances, this bill would clarify that salaried workers do not lose their exempt status under the FLSA as long as there has not been an actual reduction in pay. In effect, this provision would encourage the very type of leave that President Clinton feels needs to be accommodated in our workplace laws. Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and its Subcommittee on Employment and Training, chaired by Senator DeWine, will thoroughly and deliverately review and debate these proposals in the coming weeks. I am hopeful that we will reach agreement on the need to provide workers with more flexibility in their work arrangements, and will pass legislation that will achieve this goal.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of S. 4, the ``Family Friendly Workplace Act of 1997.'' This legislation is designed to address the very pressing and legitimate needs of working families for more flexibility in their workplaces. We all know how difficult it is for working parents to balance the demands of work and family responsibilities. There are soccer games, parent-teacher conferences, and doctor's appointments that demand a few hours of time during the workweek. Our workplace laws should allow workers the flexibility to work a few extra hours one week, in order to take time off later when they need to for family or personal reasons. Ironically, current law inhibits more flexible schedules and compensation programs. While this may come as a surprise, it is really not all that hard to understand why. The world of the workplace has undergone a revolution in the last 60 years. In the 1930's, as the Roosevelt administration and the Congress sought to establish minimum wage and overtime standards, the last thing on their minds was finding free time for workers. With as much as one- third of the work force unemployed, the problem was far too much free time, not too little. The purpose of premium pay for overtime work was not to enrich already-employed workers, but to spread work to the unemployed, in effect reducing free time. The story of a woman from Poultney, Vermont, near my home town, brought this home to me. She was employed as a school teacher in the midst of the Depression, and had the further good fortune to fall in love and get married to a man who was also employed. Upon her marriage, she quickly resigned from her job. When asked why decades later, she explained it was simply understood that you would not have two full- time jobs in one family. Such taboos today are little more than an interesting historical footnote. With the rise of single parent families and two-parent families in which both spouses work, it is incredibly difficult to balance the demands of work and family. That difficulty is increased by the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] which was not designed with today's circumstances in mind. The law's minimum wage and overtime protections are just as important today as they were when enacted, but the law needs to be adjusted to the workplace of the 21st century. For example, the FLSA bars private employers from offering employees the choice of receiving overtime in the form of compensatory time off instead of cash wages. While Federal and public sector workers have had this option since 1985, private sector workers do not. Many employees do not necessarily want money as much as time to address family needs. A recent public opinion poll conducted by Penn & Schoen Associates found that workers strongly favor more flexibility in their work schedules. Seventy-five percent of those surveyed said they would prefer the option to choose to be compensated for overtime with compensatory time off or cash overtime. Now some of my colleagues may be familiar with what seems to be a contradictory poll conducted by Lake Research which found that nearly two-thirds of poll respondents opposed the policy we propose. Frankly, I would, too, if it was anything like what was described in the poll's question. The Lake Research poll describes compensatory time off as the employer's decision. It is not. It describes biweekly scheduling as the employer's decision. It is not. Indeed, the poll's question concludes by saying: Employers could schedule you to work 60 hours one week and 20 hours the next, but you would not earn overtime pay. Do you support or oppose such a policy? It comes as no surprise that most people would not support such a policy. As my colleagues know, you can structure a question on a poll to yield just about any result you want. This is a pretty good example of just that. What is interesting to me is that even when faced with such a slanted presentation, one-third of the people either supported such a policy or were unsure. It stands to reason that when presented with the facts-- that is, that each of these proposals is predicated on the employee's decision, not the employer's--three quarters of Americans support having the option of taking time off instead of cash. This bill incorporates provisions which passed the House of Representatives last year that would allow the payment of overtime with compensatory time off at a rate of 1.5 hours for each hour worked over 40 in a workweek. Just like in the public sector, however, no employee could be forced to accept comp time off instead of being paid for overtime. A written agreement between the employer and the employee is required, and there are strong penalties against any employer who coerces, intimidates, or threatens workers into accepting such an agreement. Not all employees want to work a traditional 8-hour day, 5 days a week, with no variation. Some employees would prefer to trade hours between weeks--e.g. work 45 hours one week, 35 hours the next and take every other Friday off--or shift to a schedule that compresses many hours at the front end of the week so that they can put together several days off later. However, companies would have to pay workers overtime for any hours over 40 in the first week, even if the employee would prefer to flex his or her schedule. Currently, only Federal workers can flex their schedules without their employer being subject to the overtime penalty. S. 4 would remove this limitation and permit employers and employees to mutually agree on a flexible, biweekly schedule consisting of any combination of 80 hours over a 2-week period. As with the comp time provisions, nothing would be forced upon the employer or the employee. If they agreed on such schedules, the employee could trade hours over a 2-week period without violating the FLSA. Any hours in excess of 80 hours would still be paid at 1.5 times the employee's regular rate of pay. If it's good enough for Federal workers, it's good enough for all workers. Finally, this bill corrects a flexibility problem for salaried workers in both the private and the public sectors. In many instances, salaried employees who want to take a few hours off for personal or family reasons must choose between two equally undesirable options: either to use a portion of their paid leave, that is, vacation or sick leave, or take a full day off without pay. If the employer grants an employee a few hours of unpaid leave--or merely has a policy which permits it--all the salaried employees may lose their exempt status under the FLSA. Thus, a policy that allows for a partial day of unpaid leave can convert an exempt worker to a nonexempt one who is then owed overtime, even if the worker has a six-figure income and is employed at the highest levels of the company. Multiply this over an entire salaried work force, and the liability to public and private employers soars into the billions of dollars. This bizarre situation does not apply, however, if an employee is taking leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 [FMLA]. This bill would merely extend this practice to accommodate the desire of many salaried employees to take time off for reasons other than family and medical leave, or for employees who work for small companies. In order to provide maximum flexibility to all salaried workers who wish to take partial day leave under any circumstances, this bill would clarify that salaried workers do not lose their exempt status under the FLSA as long as there has not been an actual reduction in pay. In effect, this provision would encourage the very type of leave that President Clinton feels needs to be accommodated in our workplace laws. Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and its Subcommittee on Employment and Training, chaired by Senator DeWine, will thoroughly and deliverately review and debate these proposals in the coming weeks. I am hopeful that we will reach agreement on the need to provide workers with more flexibility in their work arrangements, and will pass legislation that will achieve this goal.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to rise today in recognition of the Green Mountain Power Corp. Green Mountain Power [GMP] was recently honored with the Edison Electric Institute Common Goals Special Distinction Award for energy efficiency. Douglas Hyde, GMP president and CEO, and a close friend of mine, was in Washington to accept the award which recognizes GMP's work as a part of EVermont. A public-private partnership, EVermont was formed to test and improve the winter performance of electric vehicles, or EV's. EV's provide clean, quiet, and environmentally sound transportation. For this service, we commend Green Mountain Power and EVermont and congratulate them on winning the EEI Common Goals Award.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I earlier spoke about the problems with this bill actually resulting in hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals actually being fired from their jobs. I would like to turn to some good news this time about the bill about the District of Columbia. It includes important provisions for the District of Columbia. In addition to provisions on school facilities, the conference agreement improves the ability of public charter schools to operate in the city. The condition of school facilities in the District of Columbia has reached a crisis stage. Those who live here know that. It has been front-page news in the papers for weeks. As of Friday, four public schools still remained closed due to fire code violations, displacing almost 2,000 students. A breakdown in oversight and accountability has occurred at the expense of the children in this city. Strong and immediate action must be taken to reverse this situation. This bill does it. Children in the District of Columbia must be able to attend public schools that are safe and free of facility deficiencies that lead to their closure. The General Services Administration estimates the cost of repairs at $88.6 million for severe facility deficiencies in fiscal year 1997. The total deficiencies are about $2 billion. As estimated, $40.7 million will be available from existing appropriations and borrowing. Additional resources are needed to prevent unsafe conditions and school closures. But these resources cannot be provided to a school system which has demonstrated an inability to effectively manage its resources. I have, therefore, sought inclusion of a provision in the omnibus bill to provide resources to combat facility deficiencies while placing responsibility for the expenditure of funds with the DC Financial Control Board, not the school system. In addition, the General Services Administration will provide program management services for the repairs and capital improvements. The provision makes available an estimated $52.7 million to the control board to carry out a program of facility repairs and capital improvements. The bill makes these funds by reallocating $40.7 million to the Authority from operations funds appropriated, and capital financing authority provided, in previous appropriations acts. The provision also makes available an estimated $12 million from the privatization of both the Student Loan Marketing Association, fondly known as Sallie Mae, and the College Construction Loan Insurance Association, commonly known as Connie Lee, as the Senator from Connecticut, who is on the floor, is well aware. We acted at his request. The availability of these resources means that immediate action will be taken to repair facility deficiencies in DC schools. In addition, the Congress will closely monitor the progress of facility repairs and will consider providing additional funds in a supplemental appropriation during the spring of fiscal year 1997. This comes from my consultation with the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. In the interim, the control board will be able to reprogram funds for facility repairs, if necessary. Mr. President, I appreciate the concern that some of my colleagues, no doubt, have about any increase in Federal assistance for the District of Columbia, given its dismal track record in managing resources. However, I remind my colleagues that we have previously taken strong action to prevent future mismanagement by establishing the control board and the chief financial officer. The additional funds provided for improving school facilities, as well as previous funds provided, will be fully managed by the control board, not the school system nor the District of Columbia government. Moreover, I must also point out that we have an obligation to the well- being of the children in the Nation's Capital. We have accepted that responsibility. This obligation includes the condition of the schools they attend. I thank Chairman Hatfield for including a provision for the District of Columbia in the conference agreement, given that the regular appropriations bill for the District has already been signed into law. He recognizes, as I do, and as Chairman Livingston does, the obligation of the Congress to the children of the Nation's Capital. We have a joinder on that understanding and have acted quickly and decisively to make sure what happened this year does not happen next year. I would also like to thank the ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Senator Kohl, for working with me to include this provision. This is only a start. There is much more we need to do for the kids in this city. As long as I am in the Senate, I assure you I am going to do everything I can to make this a city we can be proud of, especially with respect to education. I yield the floor. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it will take weeks before we find out everything that has been included in the omnibus appropriations bill, but already we know it contains provisions that were not included in the appropriations bills of either body. One of these provisions is section 119 of the Department of Defense Appropriations conference report, which contains amendments to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. This section would reinstate and substantially broaden a temporary exemption from the provisions of the ADEA given to public safety departments from 1986 through 1993. Proponents of this language argue, and would probably like to believe, that this section does not amount to codification of discrimination. But here's how Webster's defines discrimination: ``To make a difference in treatment or favor on a class or categorical basis in disregard of individual merit.'' That is a pretty clear statement. It is also a pretty good summary of the section in question. It says, in essence, that no one who is older than 55 can effectively serve as a police officer or firefighter, regardless of whether they are fit or unfit. But you don't need to take my word for it, and you don't need to take Webster's. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, this country's preeminent civil rights organization, opposes this legislation as discriminatory. Let me read from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights' letter on the bill that formed the basis of section 119: This bill sanctions--indeed encourages--state and local governments to discriminate against their older workers. . . . Such conduct, which denies an individual a job based upon stereotypical and unproven assumptions about a class of workers, is precisely what Congress has prohibited in federal laws protecting employees' civil rights, e.g., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and other statutes. This is the same view held by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is charged with enforcing the ADEA. In its comment on this bill in an earlier Congress, the EEOC stated that: ``If signed into law, [the bill] would undercut years of EEOC litigation in which we routinely challenged the use of arbitrary age limitations by police and fire departments. Further, the proposed amendment to permit state and local governments to require the retirement of firefighters and law enforcement officers as early as age 55 is inconsistent with a substantial body of case law under the ADEA that prohibited mandatory retirement of law enforcement officers and firefighters on the basis of an arbitrary age cut-off. The EEOC is of course not the final word in adjudicating these matters. But the courts have generally agreed. In fact, the Supreme Court in 1985 rejected a mandatory retirement age for firefighters in the case Johnson versus Baltimore because Baltimore had failed to establish age as a bona fide occupational qualification, or BFOQ. This brings up the point that employers can use a mandatory retirement age under the law today if they can prove it is a BFOQ, that is, the employer is compelled to rely upon age because all or substantially all of the class would be unable to perform the work safely or because it is highly impractical to deal with employees individually. So we are left with two possibilities. Either public employers can prove age is a necessary proxy under the law and the Supreme Court precedents, in which case this bill is unnecessary, or they cannot, in which case the argument for this bill, that age is a necessary proxy, is unfounded. Civil rights are messy. Look at all the voting rights cases still being played out across the country today, some 6 years after the last census. The EEOC and the courts are swamped with cases of all kinds. From time to time there has been debate on the exact standards we should use in judging these cases, or what kind of damages should be available to plaintiffs. But today marks the first time in my two decades in Congress that we have stood on the verge of turning back the clock and rolling back civil rights protections for an entire class of individuals. Yes, individuals. Because our civil rights laws are not supposed to be about codifying group characteristics but about preserving individual liberties. Since Asian-Americans have a lesser risk of heart attacks than whites or blacks, should they be given preference in hiring as police or firefighters? Since women have a lower risk than men, should they be preferred? Of course not, since doing so would be rank discrimination. But by what leap of logic can we conclude that applying this same approach to age is not discriminatory? Of course there is none. Proponents of this bill claim that they don't want to discriminate, but that, in effect, the devil makes them do it. The devil in this case is allegedly a lack of tests that can determine individual fitness for duty. That would be a powerful and attractive argument but for one fact. It isn't true. This bill itself speaks to why it is not true. Unlike the temporary exemption enacted in 1986, which merely grand fathered the retirement policies in effect 3 years earlier, this bill would permit any police or fire department in the country to put in place mandatory retirement, whether or not it has even had such a policy over the last decade. The fact is, a lot of departments have not relied on mandatory retirement. Researchers from the EEOC study sent out a survey to over 400 departments across the country. It was not a scientific sample, but did produce a wide cross-section of respondents. Of the hundreds of departments that responded, 55 percent had maximum age entry limits or forced retirement policies, but more importantly, 45 percent did not. Some of these departments face challenges every bit as rigorous as any other. The Los Angeles County Fire Department, for example, does not have a mandatory retirement age, but relies on fitness testing to determine whether individuals can still do the work. That testing has survived judicial scrutiny and can be replicated or modified and put in place in every other city in the country. Reno, NV, a smaller city, has made the transition and is quite happy with it. Its system is based on the testing put together by the Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research, the same company that designed testing for Boston, New York, and jurisdictions across the country. The Massachusetts Police Association, with 17,000 members, also supports performance based retirement, as does the Police Executives Research Forum. The fact that this testing exists should not come as a great shock. Testing is used to screen applicants in virtually every department in the country. It is used widely to certify individuals as ready for return from disability. And as I have mentioned, it is used to certify continued fitness for duty as well. It is simply untrue that testing does not exist. This testing has both costs as well as benefits. Obviously setting up such a system, and requiring periodic screening, takes some time and money. And it cannot be easy to confront a longtime colleague with the news that he is no longer fit to serve. But these costs are minimal compared to the benefits of avoiding a patently discriminatory approach. And if the real purpose behind this legislation were the safety of officers and the public, there is little doubt we should engage in health screening rather than arbitrary retirement. Why? Well, let's look at the facts. Proponents of this legislation make a lot of arguments about the potential for catastrophic health accidents amongst older firefighters or police. That sounds reasonable, as we know firefighters and police work in very hazardous environments. But as it turns out, the rate of fatal injuries is as much as 6 times greater in industries such as logging, fishing and construction. A taxicab driver is twice as likely to be killed on the job as a firefighter. Yet all those industries operate without mandatory retirement. Firefighting is a high risk occupation, with a fatality rate 4 times the national average. But what is the best way to combat this risk? In 1994, the last year for which data are available, there were 42 deaths for all reasons among career firefighters, while the total number of these paid, permanent positions was 265,000. Thus, the total death rate for all reasons was .0001, or 1/100 of 1 per cent. Of these deaths, a little more than half, or 26, were at the fire scene. Most of the deaths have nothing to do with this debate. They are the result of suffocation or trauma, accidents that happen without regard to age. At the same time, there were 13 heart attacks, and 1 stroke. But contrary to the claims of proponents of this bill, none of these heart attacks occurred in firefighters over the age of 60, and the incidence for firefighters in the age 56 to 60 cohort was the same as in the 31 to 35 age cohort. In fact, the heart attacks were spread fairly evenly over all age cohorts. Out of the thousands of firefighters over the age of 55, there were two deaths due to heart attack. This is less than the death rate for heart disease in the population as a whole, which is 357 per 100,000 for Americans aged 55 to 64. But most importantly, most of the heart attacks among firefighters occurred in people with known heart conditions. According to the National Fire Protection Association, which gathered and studied the data: . . . a large proportion of the heart attack victims (approximately 8 of 13 paid firefighters) were known to have had heart conditions that should have precluded them from engaging in active firefighting duties. If this bill were designed to improve public and occupational safety, it would attack the biggest problem, people with heart conditions that continue to fight fires. It does absolutely nothing to combat this problem. In fact, it probably makes it worse. Fire departments now lack the authority to rely on mandatory retirement as a bad proxy for fitness. If they are going to act responsibly, they have instituted or will institute screening that should prevent people with known heart conditions from staying on the job. Such screening could have prevented 60 percent of the firefighter heart attacks in the last year for which we have data. This bill, on the other hand, would make matters worse. Those departments that now monitor health would lose a major reason for maintaining their fitness programs, and other departments would have less reason to institute them. This is exactly what happened in departments after the 1986 amendments, and it will happen again if section 119 is adopted. If we want to prevent heart attacks and strokes, the effective avenues are not mysterious and do not include age discrimination. We should set up fitness programs and attack known risk factors like smoking and obesity and cardiovascular fitness. We should reward individuals who maintain their fitness for duty rather sending them the message that it does not matter what kind of shape they are in, that they can just limp along until their mandatory retirement age. I wish my colleagues could have heard the testimony we did in the Labor Committee from one of those individuals, Detective Bill Smith. Detective Smith is 55 going on 40. He weighs almost exactly what he did when he entered the Indiana State Police years ago, and when he testified that he remains physically and mentally fit, there was not a doubter in the audience. Detective Smith is the State's senior hostage negotiator, and has years of training and experience that we will lose if we pass this bill. In fact, one of the witnesses on the other side of the debate made clear that he would be proud to serve with Detective Smith, and that he didn't think that this legislation was about exceptional individuals such as the detective. That is not an uncommon sentiment. But of course it goes to the very heart of this debate, whether we are interested in protecting the rights of those few officers who want to continue to work and are fit enough to do so. Proponents of this legislation seem unconcerned about the individual rights at stake in this debate. Instead, they want to fire Detective Smith and thousands of other dedicated officers across the country in the interest of administrative convenience. But it gets worse. Since 1986, state and local police and fire departments knew that mandatory retirement would become unlawful at the end of 1993. Apparently some jurisdictions maintained mandatory retirement policies, because this bill would reach back and extinguish the legal claims of individuals who were unlawfully fired over the past 3 years. This is an extraordinary step. Under the ADEA, an individual is entitled to recover double back wages where the violation is willful, which I should think would be the case here for anyone terminated after the exemption expired. Thus, we could be denying tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in back wages rightfully owed to individuals by jurisdictions that have flouted the law over the past 3 years. We struggled mightily with the issue of retroactivity when Congress considered the Civil Rights Restoration Act a few years ago. There, the issues were fairly subtle, the courts narrowly divided, the changes by degree. Here, there is no subtlety whatsoever, there is no room for interpretation. Mandatory retirement became illegal in January, 1994-- period. For any of my Republican colleagues concerned about retroactive taxation, this provision amounts to as much as a 200-percent retroactive tax on the wages due American workers. And as for my Democratic colleagues, I would draw their attention to the Senate Democratic Action Agenda they unveiled with much fanfare some time ago. It promised action on three fronts: paycheck security, health security, and retirement security. Any of my colleagues who are truly concerned about that agenda will oppose this legislation, because it represents a retreat on all three fronts. Paycheck security. This bill is a legislative pink slip for thousands of hard working, dedicated and able Americans. No security there. Health security. Public police and fire departments have almost universal coverage. What kind of jobs 55-year-olds will land, if any, is anybody's guess. Health coverage goes from a sure thing to a roll of the dice. Not much security there. Retirement security. Detective Smith, if he could work a few more years, would add more than $6,000 a year to his pension. He doesn't need more laws from Washington to promote his security, he just needs us to let him do his job. Little security there. As a footnote, one of the things the Democrats want to do is pass a tax deduction for education costs. That's great. One of the reasons Detective Smith wants to stay on the job is to help pay for his daughter's college education. Proponents of this legislation argue that Detective Smith is simply an unfortunate casualty for the greater good, collateral damage in the words of the military. But the tragedy is that the greater good does not require putting Detective Smith out on the street. The greatest good comes from treating him as an individual, from strengthening our public safety departments through a rational rather than an expedient personnel process. I think the adoption of this provision is shameful. Mandatory retirement is age discrimination. If public employers could not convince the EEOC or the courts otherwise, they should not convince us. But apparently they have. It is a sad day in the history of civil rights in this country. We have turned the clock backward. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, with the recent passage of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, and the possible enactment of several health benefit provisions, I'd like to draw my colleagues' attention to a recently completed GAO report that surveys similar State health insurance regulations and their impact on the cost of health insurance. I asked the GAO to examine the added costs associated with: First, premium taxes and other assessments; second, mandated health benefits; third, finanancial solvency standards; and fourth, State health insurance reforms affecting small employers. The report examines the impact of these requirements on the cost of insured health plans compared with the cost of self-funded health plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 [ERISA]. Although States regulate health insurance, the study indicates that State regulation does not directly affect 4 out of 10 people. ERISA preempts States from directly regulating employer provision of health plans, but it permits States to regulate health insurers. Of the 114 million Americans with health coverage offered through a private employer in 1993, about 60 percent participated in insured health plans that are subject to State insurance regulation. However, for plans covering the remaining 40 percent, about 44 million people in 1993, the employer chose to self-fund and retain some financial risk for its health plan. Because self-funded health plans may not be deemed to be insurance, ERISA preempts them from State insurance regulation and premium taxation. Although ERISA includes fiduciary standards to protect employee benefit plan participants and beneficiaries from plan mismanagement, in other areas, such as solvency standards, no Federal requirements comparable to State requirements for health insurers exist for self-funded health plans. Most States mandate that insurance policies include certain benefits, such as mammography screening and mental health services, which raises claims costs to the extent that the benefits would not otherwise have been provided. In general, the report indicates that the costs are higher in States with more mandated benefits and in States that mandate more costly benefits. State financial solvency standards have limited potential effect on costs because many insurers already exceed the State minimum requirements. In addition, due to their recent enactment, the cost implications of small employer health insurance reforms, such as guaranteed issue, portability and rate restrictions, remain unclear. Mr. President, I feel this report provides useful information regarding the benefits associated with State health insurance regulation and their impact on the cost of health insurance. Further, it points out the lack of similar requirements for self-insured plans and that more and more small employers are self-funding their health plans. As we continue our efforts to ensure that all Americans have access to health care services, this report will help us better understand the experiences of the States and build upon them. I ask that the executive summary of the report be printed in the Record. The summary follows: Health Insurance Regulation: Varying State Requirements Affect Cost of Insurance

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have spoken at length on this issue previously so I will not extend my remarks to any great extent. I remind people what we are talking about here. First of all, we ought to have a sense of the public; 84 to 85 percent of the people in this country say, ``What is the issue? Pass the bill.'' Nobody should be inquired of about their sexual preference or whatever in getting employment. They ought to be allowed to work. The questions about all these things that have been brought up--there are exceptions to almost all of them. The religious organizations are excepted, nonprofits are excepted. The rights of employers in all these areas are protected. There is no question here. My question is why should I or why should my wife or my kids be asked, when they go to get a job in this Nation, ``Where are you living and who are you living with?'' And, if it is of the same sex, be inquired of as to what their sexual preferences are, their sexual activities? To me, that is a disgrace, to allow that to happen in this Nation of freedom, where working is so important, where our people ought to be free to work where they please and ought to be able to have a life they want and to live free from that kind of intimidation. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today Senator Daschle has brought before us an issue that provokes much emotion and raises more questions about the use of agent orange in Vietnam. Senator Daschle amendment would treat and compensate Vietnam veterans' children with spina bifida, a terrible defect of the neural tube, the embryonic structure that extends from the spinal cord to the brain. Compensation would entail a monthly monetary allowance, depending on the degree of the condition. About 2,700 children with spina bifida are estimated to be entitled to care and compensation under this amendment. The amendment has the support of the Vietnam Veterans of America, the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Senator Daschle's amendment responds to the administration's announcement in April, following the release of a National Academy of Sciences report in March, listing spina bifida as having limited/ suggestive evidence of an association with herbicidal exposure in Vietnam. The VA does not currently have the authority to extend health care or compensatory benefits to the children of veterans. This amendment would provide that authority. I have fought for years for equitable treatment for Vietnam veterans afflicted with conditions associated with agent orange exposure. I was very pleased that in 1991 Congress passed the Agent Orange Act. Under this act if there is adequate evidence of a link between military service in Vietnam and a medical conditions, benefits are provided by the Veterans' Administration. Opponents of the Daschle amendment argue that the evidence supporting this amendment is fragile. I have looked at the evidence myself and I must admit, I cannot disagree with them. The estimates of how many children will be affected by this legislation are not firm because there are no reliable means of determining if a parent of a spina bifida child actually served in an area affected by agent orange. The evidence may not improve much because of the inadequacies of the records kept by the Department of Defense [DOD] in tracking veterans during their service in Vietnam as well as the rate of birth defects in their children. Thankfully, it seems the DOD avoided this for veterans of the gulf war and, with the Persian Gulf Registry, for their children. Another cause for concern in supporting this amendment is the precedent it sets by providing a new entitlement to the children of veterans. Some may use this amendment as a tool to obtain Federal compensation to other veterans' children suffering from a medical illness and Congress should avoid providing entitlements to more groups without some evidence. In crafting statutes for presumptive treatment for agent orange veterans, I believed treatment is necessary because the Government has an obligation to treat ill veterans if reasonable evidence suggests there is a causal relationship between service and a medical condition. By definition, presumption is subject to question. Countless families of Vietnam veterans have suffered because of agent orange. The lack of irrefutable scientific evidence had long delayed many of the benefits to which Vietnam veterans are entitled. This amendment will provide assistance to some of these families and, although will not take away the pain caused by spina bifida, it will at least ease the financial burden. This is the least we can to for this group of veterans that have suffered so much already.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. In today's global economy our Nation must take full advantage of every resource that is at our disposal. We want U.S. companies to maintain their competitive advantage over their international competitors. This statement from Mr. Gifford, combined with the fact that a majority of the Fortune 500 companies have incorporated many of ENDA's policies, clearly indicates that these changes will not disrupt but improve the workplace. At this time in our country when we are short of skilled workers, we should not have anything that bars those skilled workers from an opportunity to have a job to assist us in our society. Mr. President, some concerns have been raised by my colleagues that passing ENDA will create a new wave of litigation. I am proud to say that my home State of Vermont is one of several States and localities that have enacted a sexual orientation antidiscrimination law. It is no surprise to me that the sky has not fallen. Since the enactment of Vermont's law in 1991, 5 years ago, the Vermont attorney general has initiated only 14 investigations of alleged sexual orientation discrimination. Six are pending at this time. Four have been closed with determinations that unlawful discrimination cannot be proven to have occurred. Three have been closed for miscellaneous administrative reasons unrelated to the charge, and one resulted in a settlement. There has been no huge litigation involved in Vermont. It has little or no burden when you figure how many that is per year, about three a year in the State. In addition, I am not aware of a single complaint from Vermont employers about the enforcement of the State law. However, I do know that thousands of Vermonters no longer need to live and work in the shadows. Vermont's experience is not unique. Other States and the District of Columbia have implemented policies similar to the one of my home State of Vermont with similar results. As I have stated before, success at work should be related to one's ability to do the job and nothing else. The passage of ENDA would be one step toward ensuring the ability of all people, be they gay, lesbian or heterosexual, to be fairly judged on the work product, not on unrelated personal characteristics. Passage of ENDA could be perhaps one of the most important things this Senate could do this year. Let me go back and summarize again and to straighten out some of the misconceptions regarding ENDA. First of all, this legislation does not create any special rights. Specifically, this legislation prohibits preferential treatment, including quotas based on sexual orientation. It simply protects a right that should belong to every American, the right to be free from discrimination at work because of personal characteristics unrelated to successful performance in the job. I also would like to point out that we have gone and looked at those areas which do create difficulties for business, areas which might lead to litigation. And for the reasons of those that hold a fear of that litigation, we have not provided all of the protections to sexual orientation that race, religion, gender and others have. ENDA, for instance, does provide for the same remedies--injunctive relief and damages--permitted under title VII and the Americans With Disabilities Act and also does apply to Congress with the same remedies as provided by the Congressional Accountability Act. This last application is very important to me because I believe it is very important that Congress not only live with the laws we pass, but I feel it is very important that an example should be set by Congress that gays and lesbians should not only be allowed to contribute to the economic life of the Nation but the political one as well. I once again point out that we have 66 offices that have already accomplished this. More importantly, for the specific areas that have created problems for employers, ENDA does not require an employer to justify a neutral practice that may have a substantial disparate impact based on sexual orientation. That means you do not have to prove by figures that you have hired enough gays and lesbians to show that you have complied with the law. Let me state again that ENDA does not require that. That requirement would be very difficult to meet. ENDA exempts small businesses, as do existing civil rights statutes. Thus, it does not apply to employers with fewer than 15 employees. Finally, ENDA does not require an employer to provide benefits for the same-sex partner of an employee. This is a requirement which would be problematical for many. So we have done everything we believe we can do to reduce the amount of litigation, to reduce the amount of concern of employers, and certainly small businesses, and as we do in other areas, to prevent any real burden on close working situations. As I have stated before, a successful workplace should be directly related only to one's ability to do the job, period. The passage of ENDA would be one step toward ensuring the ability of gays, lesbians, and heterosexuals to be fairly judged on their work product, not on an unrelated personal characteristic. Passing ENDA could perhaps be one of the most important things this Congress could do. Once again, I am pleased that we have this opportunity, and I want to thank, again, the majority and minority leaders for the system that has been set up to allow us to get a straight vote on this issue, and I look toward the day we succeed in getting ENDA enacted into law. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA). I introduced a bill this Congress with Senator Kennedy. We held a hearing in the previous Congress and came to the strong conclusion that the public support on the one hand is almost unanimous. Some 85 percent of the people support the concept, and second, that discrimination does go on and that it must have a remedy. I differ with the feeling of my esteemed chairman that all that is needed is more education and that the remedies are not needed. I point out also that the remedies provided for in this act are the same remedies that apply to all of the other acts that we have to prevent discrimination. I would like to first acknowledge the hard work of many Senators who have made it possible for us to debate, and next week vote on, this important piece of legislation. I commend the majority leader and minority leader for working out an arrangement which I think is fair. It does not give us what we had hoped for, to be very candid, that we could attach ENDA to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and, therefore, have a vehicle that might carry it on through to victory. But just having an opportunity to raise the issues on the Senate floor is an improvement over history and, thus, we must move on. I am very hopeful we will have a sufficient number of votes to pass the bill. As stated by Senator Kennedy, it also has been shown that 66 Senators already agree in their own offices that we should not have such discrimination. I was involved with crafting this legislation during the past few years and was pleased to join with almost one-third of my colleagues in introducing ENDA in the 104th Congress. I believe this is one of the most important civil rights initiatives before this Congress. This legislation will extend to sexual orientation the same Federal employment discrimination protections established for race, religion, gender, national origin, age, and disability. The principles of equality and opportunity must apply to all Americans. Like all other Americans, gays and lesbians deserve to be judged at work based on their ability to do the job. People who work hard and perform well should not be kept from leading productive and responsible lives, which includes paying taxes, meeting their mortgage payments, and otherwise contributing to the economic life of this Nation because of an irrational, nonwork-related prejudice. Mr. President, many may be wondering if this legislation is necessary. Let me share with my colleagues a few examples that demonstrate the need for this legislation. Earlier this week at a press conference, I was joined by Ms. Nan Miguel, a woman who was forced to leave her job--not because she was a gay or lesbian--even though her department was short-staffed, simply because she defended her decision to hire another female employee who was considered by her fellow employees to be a lesbian. No proof. She still does not know. Another example is John Howard, a student from Alabama who was giving tours of a regional paper company's large art collection in order to earn graduate school tuition. A coworker told his supervisor that he suspected that Mr. Howard was gay. The supervisor called him in, acknowledged that his work was ``perfect,'' and asked him whether he was gay or belonged to any gay organizations. After learning that Mr. Howard was president of the University of Alabama Gay and Lesbian Alliance, the supervisor fired him. These examples and many others show that Congress must pass the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Mr. President, it is not only needed, it is supported by the American people. And in a recent poll, well over three-quarters of the respondents stated that there should be equal rights for Americans, including gays and lesbians, on the job. While ENDA will achieve this goal for job opportunity, it does not do so by creating any special rights for gays and lesbians. Specifically, this legislation prohibits preferential treatment, including quotas, based on sexual orientation, and also does not require an employer to justify a neutral practice that may have a statistically disparate impact. This a very complicated area of the law and one which is very difficult for employers to meet. It does not apply to this. Rather, it simply protects a right which should belong to every American, the right to be free from discrimination at work because of personal characteristics unrelated to successful performance on the job. Securing this right benefits businesses as well as individuals. As Chad Gifford, CEO of the Bank of Boston, said recently: . . . there are compelling business reasons why we support ENDA and the workforce diversity it will engender. We want to see ENDA approved because we believe that it will help us as we advance a competitive business strategy--a strategy that not only embraces diversity, but also depends on it and takes full advantage of it. Many other businesses have joined the Bank of Boston in adopting similar sexual orientation antidiscrimination policies. In fact, over half of the Fortune 500 companies have such policies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of employers with nondiscrimination policies that include sexual orientation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank my friend. Also, I would like to mention the problems of the schools. We are well aware of them. The Senate tried to accommodate the problems with respect to the opening of schools, but we were unable to do so by the close of this last session. We are working very hard now, working with Senator Kohl and the House, to provide ways to fund the repairs to the schools without using Federal funds. But I will also say, it is obvious we need to have the management of the school system looked at and dealt with, as we have with the city itself. Second, we have to keep them separate from school reform, which is also essential and necessary. We have set up a process for doing that. So I am hopeful by next year we will not have to stand here and defend the serious problems that we have in the D.C. school system today. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before this body the conference report on the District of Columbia appropriations. Needless to say, the city is having difficult times, and it is important that we expeditiously dispense with the conference report. This report does not reflect my own views in each instance, nor the individual views of the Senate conferees. It is the result of true compromise with our colleagues in the House. The conference report provides for Federal funding of slightly less than $719 million and overall spending of $5.1 billion within the District of Columbia. I regret that, again, this year the conference report dictates to the city how it will spend its own funds on controversial social issues. The conference report continues current law on subjects of both abortion and the District's domestic partners legislation. Unlike the Senate-passed appropriations bill, the conference report provides that no funds, Federal or local, may be used to fund abortion except in the case of rape, incest or when the life of the mother would be endangered. Likewise, no funds may be used to implement the domestic partners legislation adopted by the District 4 years ago. I am pleased, however, that these were the only divisive issues in the conference this year and that we are bringing the conference report before the Senate in early September rather than the following April, as last year. The major budget differences between the House and Senate bills was the inclusion in the House bill of a deficit cap of $40 million. Under the consensus budget submitted to the Congress by the council, the financial authority and the Mayor, the deficit was projected to be some $99 million out of total spending of $5.108 billion in fiscal year 1997. The House bill permitted a deficit of only $40 million, leaving it to the city to determine where the additional savings would be found. The conference report adopts a modification of the House proposal with a deficit cap of $74 million for fiscal year 1997. This figure is roughly halfway between the House and Senate versions and represents the substantial progress toward a balanced budget that was called for in last year's legislation, establishing both the financial authority and the District's current budget process. While not explicitly addressed in this legislation, let me state my own view that the budget which will be developed for fiscal year 1998 should also show substantial progress towards fiscal balance. While I can only speak for myself, I believe the budget deficit for fiscal year 1998 should be in the $30 million to $40 million range, not the over $90 million deficit projected in the current financial plan. Let me briefly touch on two other issues. First, the conference report largely adopts the city's consensus budget, and the architects of that budget--the council, the financial authority and the mayor-- must be commended for working together to draft it. That budget process was sometimes bumpy, but no more so than our own. Second, while we need to achieve a balance of this budget by fiscal year 1999, that fiscal balance will be very tenuous until we provide the District with help on issues outside the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee. My colleagues know that we cannot balance the Federal budget in the Appropriations Committee. That committee cannot balance the District's budget for very long either. Once we have worked with the city's elected officials and the financial authority to squeeze every last penny out of the budget, I believe we will be faced with problems in entitlements programs, such as Medicaid and pensions, that will require Federal assistance to solve. I thank my colleagues on the committee for their cooperation. Senator Kohl, my ranking member, has been of great assistance, a great cooperator, as has Senator Campbell. I deeply appreciate the guidance and support from Senator Byrd and Chairman Hatfield. I am deeply sorry that this marks the last appropriations bill I will manage during Chairman Hatfield's tenure. I will miss his leadership. It has been extraordinary working with him, and he has been a comfort to me when I have faced difficult issues. Finally, I wish to recognize the excellent work of the staff of the subcommittee: Terry Sauvain of the minority and Tim Leeth of the majority. Had Tim delayed his departure to the control board a few weeks, he would have sat here and had all kinds of praise heaped upon him for his almost two decades of service to Members of both sides of the aisle. Instead, he will have to accept our thanks from afar. Mr. President, before I conclude, let me move on to the District of Columbia and its problems. The headlines have been speaking to us daily about the difficulties. Before we recessed for August, we already recognized that the city had water problems, and we appropriated in this bill a million dollars to try to help solve that.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on July 17, I flew home to Vermont to attend a funeral service for a man who passed away far too early. His name was Col. James D. Kneeland, a man in the prime of his life and career as a member of the Vermont National Guard. He will be remembered by all those whose lives he touched as a kind, honorable, and compassionate man. His legacy, a lifetime of extraordinary achievement. Colonel Kneeland had a distinguished military career that began in 1964. In 1968 he received his commission and continued to rise through the ranks of the Army National Guard and was awarded his final promotion to colonel last September. As a National Guardsman and helicopter pilot, Colonel Kneeland was en route to Macedonia when he died unexpectedly. A tragic loss, not only to his family and friends, but to his country. As I look through Col. Kneeland's long list of awards and decorations, it strikes me that his service was one marked by excellence. However, there is more to this tribute than to speak simply of his military career. Like many Vermonters, Jim had an abiding love of the outdoors and took pleasure in the simpler things, like chopping wood at his camp in Wolcott, or walking through the woods with family and friends. Many will also remember him as a man with a sense of humor who delighted in playing practical jokes and bringing a smile to those around him. I learned a lot about Jim Kneeland as I sat in Building 890, henceforth known as the Col. James D. Kneeland Aviation Facility, and listened as friends and family remembered and celebrated his life. Appropriately, the backdrop for his casket was the last helicopter he flew in, an OH6A Cayuse, as flying was both his occupation and his passion. Nearly 1,000 people came to pay tribute to Colonel Kneeland, some in uniform, some not, but all in tears. As Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Datillio said, Jim Kneeland was not your average officer. He was,'' an enlisted man's officer.'' As a retired Naval Reserve Captain, I know of no greater praise. Retired Gen. Benjamin Day had served with Jim and knew him for several years, both as a fellow officer and as a friend. General Day spoke of Jim fondly, and I was touched by some of his comments: Monuments to Jim will not be found in material form . . . rather, Jim's monuments will be in the less tangible, but more important forms such as the indelible and unhesitating friendship that he so generously and readily gave to us all. His legacy to us are those priceless memories of his dry wit, humor, easy handshake and friendly greeting. . . . With Jim there was no pretense, what you saw was exactly what you got. There was no smoke, no mirrors and no gilding the lilly. A handshake on a deal with Jim was as good as gold and a commitment that would be honored. Regardless of the circumstances it was going to be carried out fully and properly. . . . Jim's dedication to his family, friends, God and country knew no limits.'' I was pleased to know that the Vermont National Guard has paid further tribute to Colonel Kneeland by naming their helicopter hanger at the Burlington Airport after him. I was personally touched by the loss of Colonel Kneeland as he was the father of Jason Kneeland, a valued member of my staff. My heartfelt sympathy and condolences go out to Jim's wife, Jeannine, to Jason, and to all of Jim's family. He will be truly missed, and remembered by us all.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the conference report was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Maine, Senator Cohen. I think it's worth remembering that this $4 million increase at the Board of Veterans' Appeals [BVA] is supported by the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The administration asked for this money and the House of Representatives has included the increase in its bill. Thus, the support for this increase is substantial. I understand that there are various studies looking at the adjudication process at the VA, including the appellate process. The committee's report points that out. However, we will not receive these results until December, and although this and future studies are ongoing, we cannot delay addressing the horrendous backlog at the BVA. Studies are fine, Mr. President, but we have veterans that could benefit now with an increase of 50 BVA personnel for only $4 million within a $84.71 billion bill. According to the Department of Veterans' Affairs, failure to increase funding levels for the BVA would mean that veterans will have to wait an additional five months to have their appeals decided. To many, that may not seem like a long time. I believe that most surviving World War II veterans would disagree. So I will conclude by asking the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Bond, to support an additional $4 million for the BVA in the VA/HUD appropriations bill when it goes to conference with the House.