Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. But 40 percent of what, though? That is the problem.

Mr. JEFFORDS. That may be. But in the interim it has gone down, so you have not gotten to ground zero yet.

Mr. JEFFORDS. But a lot lower than it should have been relative to what it has been, is my point. In fact, mine is low, if you consider that my amendment is to help the small farmers out. So in the sense that you want to help out the small farmer, as I do, then perhaps you would want to vote for this amendment so that you can improve that aspect of the amendment. I do not have a problem with that, because that is not my problem. My problem is with giving a huge subsidy, which would happen without my amendment, to the corporate entities and the large owners that are going to get a huge benefit without any need or any rationale for it. The Senator from Arkansas has gone through, and I went through yesterday, the people that are going to be benefited by this. Yesterday, you heard on the floor a great deal about the merits and detractions of the underlying bill. Whether or not we agree on the merits of the bill, I think the majority of this body can agree on the merits of this amendment, which is now included in the amendment you will be voting on, that is, the Bumpers amendment. My amendment is very simple. It protects 90 percent of the ranchers. So, I do not understand why anyone can disagree with it. Small ranchers, who embody the history of the West, are going to get a benefit better than the underlying bill. But it also rectifies an ongoing injustice relative to the large users of the AUM's. For 9 percent of the ranchers, the large, wealthy corporate ranchers that consume over 60 percent of the total AUM's--over 60 percent of the total AUM's--who forage on public land, this amendment will simply have them pay the same price--the same price--that they would pay if it were State lands, that the rancher using the rangeland next to them are currently paying to the States. Now, how in the world can that be inequitable, wrong or inappropriate to say that those on Federal lands who are huge corporate owners should not pay the same as they are paying on the State lands? Organizations who have been calling for sound spending in the balanced budget, such as the Cato Institute--that is a conservative organization--believe it is time to change the fee structure. I was told several years ago, ``Yeah, we're going to change the fee structure.'' The Cato Institute has been promoting grazing fee reform for years, highlighting the need to adjust needs to reflect their true value so you would not have that inequity between those that are grazing on State lands and those that are grazing on private lands and the rest of the beef farmers of this country. I spoke to this issue yesterday, as did my colleague from Arkansas, quite thoroughly, I might add. I want to reiterate that this amendment not only makes good budget sense, but it makes good common sense. There is no reason why a large rancher on Federal land should be paying up to five times less to use what is basically the same land that his neighbor is grazing just because he is sending his check to Washington instead of to the State capital. The point has been made that there are a lot of wild animals grazing on this. There are a lot of wild animals grazing on the State lands and a lot of wild animals grazing on the private lands. So there is no inequity to be rationalized out by giving a lower fee on the Federal lands. But there are other benefits of this amendment I want to discuss today. Farmer protection, land stewardship, and local input. First, as I mentioned, this bill protects the small rancher by keeping the grazing fee he or she pays low. We are all aware of the plummeting beef prices and the economic hardships facing these ranchers. I firmly believe that we have a responsibility for the success of small ranchers. But I tell you, my dairy producers, they do not get a higher milk price when the price of grain goes up. No way. But they are trying to say now, when the price of the beef goes down, they should allow the price of the rangeland to go down. That does not happen to those on State lands or private lands. Not only by keeping their fee low for the small farmers, but by raising additional revenue that we could return to the local governments--this money would go back to the local governments for range improvements, most of it--by increasing the fee to the large ranchers, additional revenue will come into the Range Betterment Fund, a program that has helped countless ranchers. Second, by addressing the large ranchers, this amendment will begin to reduce the significant proportion of the environmental degradation taking place on the public lands. Studies have shown that it is the large ranchers who are causing ecological degradation of the public lands. So the ones we are giving the most benefit to are the ones that are causing the most damage. Currently, the low Federal grazing fee encourages overstocking on Federal lands, which has been shown to be detrimental to the environment and the grazing lands. A comparison of the size of herds on Federal lands versus the average size on private and State lands shows that Federal lands bear a much higher number of large ranching operations than the other lands. Why? Of course; it is cheaper. Third, this amendment brings the Federal grazing program closer to the local level. In the past years, on numerous issues, we have heard from State and local government that they want greater participation in the decisionmaking. This amendment accommodates this request by saying the fee will be at the State level. My amendment will make the system more equitable and make it more responsive to local ranchers. Yesterday, Senator Domenici discussed how one program cannot fit all ranchers. But by leaving the fee schedule as it is in the Domenici bill, we are making one size fit all. This amendment will put more flexibility into the fee system. Large ranchers will be paying what their neighbors on State lands are paying, not what everyone else in the West is paying. As land costs and transportation costs, fee costs and beef prices in the State change, all things will be taken into consideration, and the State fee will change, and the Federal fee for large ranchers will also change. Again, in summary, let me emphasize how this amendment not only makes good balanced budget sense, but also good environmental and economic sense. Although this amendment is fairly simple in its concept, it builds upon many of the themes in Senator Domenici's bill. It protects the small rancher and promotes good land stewardship, and it brings the Federal grazing program closer to the local level. It is time we face this issue. We have been talking about it for years and years and years with promises of review and promises of change and promises otherwise. What has happened? Nothing has happened. The fee is going down again. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is not the first time we have had these issues raised. I have been here, now--this is my 8th year. I do not know how many times we have had this issue raised. I remember when I first raised these issues in the early 1990's, I learned a lot about what the situation was in the West. In fact, I even traveled out to Wyoming and met with ranchers and saw the land and examined the situation. At that time there were assurances from those who were out there saying, ``Yes, we know we have to raise the grazing fees. We know that they are too low. We know that it is not fair, relative to those who graze on private lands and State lands.'' What has happened since that time? Have the rates gone up? Have they made an effort to try to remove the inequities between these beef producers and other beef producers who are grazing on State lands and private lands? No. The fee has gone down, whereas, the private land fees have gone up. The State land fees have gone up; the fees on the Federal lands have gone down. I also just point out for those who wonder what happened between the time I offered this amendment yesterday and now--I want to thank Senator Bumpers and Senator Domenici for incorporating my second-degree amendment into the original Bumpers amendment--it is that yesterday I had second-degreed the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas. They agreed that my concept of trying to help the small farmers out was a valid one and ought to be adopted. So that was done. So you have now the Bumpers-Jeffords amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if you only listened to the facts right now, you would come out with completely different conclusions than you would from the positions people have been taking here. Let us remind ourselves, as far as this class warfare argument, just yesterday all of my friends voted in favor of the product liability bill, which has quite a different situation for small and big business. Why? Because small business obviously gets a greater hit, with a smaller amount of money. Well, the measure we are dealing with now will have a fee lower for the small farmers, the small users. All your small farmers--the only ones you are going to benefit, or the only ones my friends arguing so strongly against me are going to benefit, are the large corporate guys, the ones that do not need any help, the ones getting a benefit far above what the present price is for State lands, which we would charge them for private lands. So why in the world do my colleagues, who want to give all their smaller farmers a lower rate, want to vote against the amendment that would do that, when it only charges the wealthy and huge corporate ranchers the same as they pay on State lands? It does not make any sense at all. I do not understand it. It is just because we are so used to taking positions on one side or the other, and you cannot recognize when we are doing something to benefit you. It is purely to establish a system of equity and sense in the fee system. I urge all my colleagues to vote for the Bumpers-Jeffords amendment. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is kind of bringing back memories to me here today. I remember fondly my first year in the U.S. Senate. After 14 years as a Member of the House of Representatives, I came to the Senate in 1991, excited to represent my State. Respecting the customs of this honorable institution, I worked to learn the rules and procedures of the Senate. It was not until September of my first year that I actually made a speech longer than 5 minutes on the Senate floor. During this first long speech--it was long, as many may remember, or maybe somebody remembers--I discussed the issue we are here debating today, that is grazing fees. At the time, in September 1991, I authored a grazing fee amendment that would have increased the fee from $1.97 per AUM, or animal unit month, to $5.13 per AUM, in 5 years. We did this in response to a similar amendment which passed the House overwhelmingly during that summer, which would have raised the fee to $8.70 per AUM. The amendment I offered in 1991 failed, and the House proposal was removed in conference. The primary argument against this first grazing amendment was that such a fee would have bankrupt many small ranchers. We revisited the grazing fee issue 1 year later, in August 1992. Again, we offered a proposal which would have required those ranchers grazing on Federal land to pay their fair share of its use. This time, however, we exempted the small farmers, about which so much concern was expressed, those having fewer than 500 head. Therefore, the increase would only have affected the largest of the ranchers. This amendment also failed, but by a smaller margin. The opponents of the second grazing fee amendment argued that a grazing fee increase should not be included on an appropriations measure, but considered only during debate on grazing reform legislation. Today is the day when that opportunity has arisen again. I want to take this time to do what I have been told, and that is to bring it up on an appropriate piece of legislation and leave the small farmers alone. That is what my amendment does. I believe today it is time to finally change this longstanding inequity; an inequity because when you compare this to what private people have to pay or pay on State grazing lands, this is a real giveaway. I do not mind it for small farmers, but I do mind that the large corporate owners own 9 percent of the permits, but have 60 percent of the AUM. Senator Bumpers' amendment requires that all ranchers operating on Federal land pay a fee equal to the State grazing fee. His amendment says they ought to pay at least what they have to pay to the State, forget about private lands, but at least they ought to pay what is paid for using State land. The second-degree amendment I just offered exempts all small ranchers and allows them to continue to pay the lower Federal fee that is presently at dispute here. Mr. President, my second-degree amendment will protect small family ranchers who currently rely on Federal lands to support their business. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to tour several western ranches and visit with small family ranchers. I empathize with them and recognize that out in the West, so much land is owned by the Federal Government and if you do not have an opportunity to utilize that land, you have no opportunity. During this visit, I gained great appreciation and respect for the lifestyle of these small farmers. I made many friends in Wyoming. These ranchers embody not only a piece of our Nation's history, but also a piece of our Nation's future. I realize that these farmers are facing a daily struggle to keep their ranches operating, a fact I have taken into consideration in drafting this amendment. Keeping with the theme of Senator Domenici's bill, my amendment protects these farmers. In fact, my amendment places a lower fee on these farmers than the fee contained in the pending bill. So if you want to look out for the small farmers, this is the opportunity to do it, better than even the underlying Domenici bill. On my amendment, the fee for small ranchers will be $1.50 per AUM, animal unit month, in 1997. This is 20 percent less than the fee in the underlying bill--20 percent less. Instead, my amendment addresses the large ranchers who for years have been making millions off the public lands and costing taxpayers up to $200 million annually. Not only are these ranchers paying a grazing fee that is 60 percent less than what it was 10 years ago, but they are also the beneficiary of Federal programs for range improvements, predator control, and emergency feed programs. Mr. President, it is time to take a closer look at these large ranchers and start charging them an honest and equitable price for the land from which they are profiting. An interesting phenomenon has occurred in the Federal grazing program. Although the large ranchers hold only 9 percent of the Bureau of Land Management grazing permits, they comprise over 60 percent of the active use of animal unit months on public lands. Nine percent of the permit holders are big corporations owning 60 percent of the AUM's. Who are these ranchers? Let me give you some examples. One is Willard Garvey of Willard Garvey Industries, which recorded $80 million in sales in 1991. Wow, boy, do they need help from the Federal Government. One is J.R. Simplot, who has an estimated fortune of $500 million. Great one to give subsidies to. He was on the cover of Fortune magazine as one of the great entrepreneurs of our society, and we give him that kind of a break. Another is the Rock Springs Grazing Association that has over $1.6 million in assets. I have a list of large ranchers, including Texaco, Getty Oil, Hilton--wow, boy, do they need help. I ask you, why is it that these large companies are receiving Federal subsidies when, in many cases, small family ranches operating on private lands at many times the cost receive nothing? My amendment is a first step in remedying this obvious disparity. My amendment will raise the grazing fee for large ranchers who have permits holding more than 2,000 animal unit months. It will raise it to a level equal to the grazing fee charged by the State. This is all we are doing. This is for the big guys, the large ones, the huge guys who do not need help. We say, at least you ought to pay what other farmers are paying to the State. Not only will this bring the Federal fee to fair market value--that is what is charged by private owners--but will also give the States more control over grazing in their own State. By creating a two-tier program, my amendment protects the lifestyle of the small ranchers in the West who are more than worthy of Federal assistance. By creating a two-tier program, we will help do what should be done, and that is to get equity over the expenditure of Federal funds. The amendment will retain a low grazing fee for over 90 percent of the ranchers leasing public lands. Over 90 percent of the ranchers will be getting this assistance. It will raise the fee for the remaining 9 percent of the ranchers who operate the large and highly profitable ranches, and, in doing so, my amendment will raise approximately $13 million annually in revenue; that is, we are really converting and just giving the money that was going to those huge ranchers out there, with the exception of $13 million which will go to help defer the cost of the program, to the small ranchers. That, I believe, is a fair deal for the taxpayers and a real benefit to those small family ranchers out in the West who need the assistance, whereas the large corporate ones certainly need no assistance. Mr. President, let me summarize. My second-degree amendment exempts small ranchers. Only large corporate interests who hold Federal grazing permits will be affected by the underlying Bumpers amendment. Again, remember that 9 percent of the permit holders are large corporate entities, or wealthy individuals, and they control over 60 percent of the AUM's. And 91 percent of the ranchers holding permits to graze on Federal lands will pay less with my amendment than the pending legislation, and only those 9 percent, the very wealthy corporations and individuals, will have to contribute a fair cost of what they are getting at the State level, not at the private-lands level, which would even be higher. So let us vote for the small ranchers. I urge my colleagues to vote for my second-degree amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment which I send to the desk.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Susanne Fleek, a fellow from the Department of the Interior, be granted the privilege of the floor during the debate on grazing legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer with my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, an amendment on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP]. The amendment is a sense-of-the- Senate resolution with two parts. The first calls upon the Senate to hold its position on advance appropriations for LIHEAP in fiscal year 1997 when we go to conference with the House. Advance appropriations allow States to plan properly for next winter and enable their programs to be fully operational by the time the cold weather begins. The second part calls upon the President to use the LIHEAP emergency funds to meet the energy needs of America's low income citizens. If this bill passes, there will be no additional LIHEAP funds available for the rest of this year. Under existing law, the President has the authority to use emergency funds to help low income families pay their energy bills. He should do so. I am very pleased that the chairman of the subcommittee was able to include $1 billion in advance appropriations for LIHEAP in this bill. The House bill does not include these funds and we must fight to keep them. The recent temporary funding bills severely limited the rate at which States could draw down their LIHEAP allocations and caused serious disruptions in States' ability to provide assistance to low income families. If LIHEAP funds had not been appropriated in advance in the fiscal year 1995 Labor-HHS appropriations bill, the President would not have been able to release $578 million in energy assistance in December. These funds enabled millions of low income households to keep their homes warm during the coldest winter months. Both the Senate fiscal year 1996 Labor-HHS appropriations bill and the administration's budget request for fiscal year 1996 included advance appropriations in fiscal year 1997 for LIHEAP. Last week I joined with 16 of my colleagues in writing to Chairman Hatfield asking that he include advance appropriations. I ask that a copy of this letter be included in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we must ensure that State LIHEAP programs can operate effectively next winter. Advance appropriations are essential in this regard. The other part of this resolution deals with funding for the rest of this fiscal year. With passage of this bill, LIHEAP funding for this year will only be $900 million--a 40-percent cut from last year. Let me say at this point that getting to the $900 million level has been quite a struggle. There has been an effort by some Members of the other body to abolish the program. I have worked very hard to combat these efforts as have the Senator from Minnesota and the chairman and ranking member of the Labor/HHS subcommittee--the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa. While $900 million is not sufficient to meet the energy needs of America's low income families, these funds have made it possible for States to provide energy assistance to many low income residents. The problem is that the money is all spent. Using the authority granted under the advance appropriations and the continuing resolutions we had previously passed, the President has already released $900 million so far this year, the amount this bill includes for LIHEAP. Almost all of these funds have gone out to the States and they have obligated the funds. There isn't any money left. There is currently available to the President up to $300 million in emergency LIHEAP funding. A portion of these funds could be made available to those areas with the greatest need in order to meet the urgent home heating needs of families eligible for LIHEAP. No emergency funds have been used so far this fiscal year. Mr. President, spring may officially start later this week, but for many parts of the country winter is not over. Last week we had lows in the twenties in Burlington, VT. Checking today's USA Today we see that people can expect lows of 28 degrees in Grand Rapids, MI; 18 degrees in Eau Clair, WI; 13 degrees in Duluth, MN; and 15 degrees in Rapid City, SD. I might also remind my colleagues that 3 years ago, the so-called Storm of the Century occurred, not in January, not in February, but in March. We are not out of the woods yet. How are low income families going to heat their homes? How are they going to pay their energy bills? How are they going to avoid having their heat shut off? Mr. President, there are no more LIHEAP funds available. Using the emergency funds is the only way to meet this need. And what about this summer? Traditionally, 10 percent of LIHEAP funds are used for cooling assistance during the warm weather months, but this year there is no money left. How are States going to help low income senior citizens and persons with disabilities keeps their homes cool this summer? This is not a trivial matter. High temperatures pose a serious health threat. Look at what happened last summer in Chicago. Hundreds of people died as a result of the extreme heat. There aren't any LIHEAP funds left, we are going to need emergency funds to meet this need. Mr. President, because of reductions in LIHEAP funding, most States have had to reduce benefit levels and restrict eligibility. There has been a 24-percent reduction in the number of households served by LIHEAP. In seven States that figure is 40 percent. I guess you can say Vermont has done well in this regard. Only 14 percent of the 25,000 households that received aid last year have not gotten heating assistance this year, but the benefit level has been reduced by almost half. I call to my colleagues' attention an article that appeared in yesterday's Providence Journal. It says that local agencies that provide heating assistance expect the need for heating assistance to continue well beyond April 1 but they do not have the money to meet the need. Mr. President, our amendment is simply a sense-of-the-Senate resolution calling upon the President to use the authority he already has to meet the energy needs of America's low income families. LIHEAP funds have been cut 40 percent from last year and there is no money left. We need to use the emergency funds. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. This winter is not over and we have to start thinking about next winter.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on this vote I have a pair with the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole]. If he were present and voting, he would vote ``no.'' If I were permitted to vote, I would vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I withhold my vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to explain my vote today in support of Senator Murray's amendment to the Omnibus Rescissions and Appropriations Act. A year ago this body passed what had become known as the salvage timber rider. Given the threats this provision posed to the health of many valuable forest environments and the potential impacts of harvesting timber under suspension of environmental laws on fish and wildlife habitat, I opposed that amendment. Today, I supported Senator Murray's amendment for the same reason. Senator Murray's amendment offered our Nation a reasonable, well thought out, environmentally and economically sound alternative to current law on timber salvage. Although many people feel that any timber salvage program threatens our natural resources, I believe our Nation needs an effective, environmentally sound timber salvage program that addresses the risks posed by persistent drought, disease, and insect infestation. Senator Murray has met the challenge of developing a reasonable and effective response to this issue. I am supporting Senator Murray's amendment for several reasons: First, it repeals the previous salvage timber amendment; second, it institutes a temporary program that increases public participation in salvage timber sales; third, it mandates compliance with all environmental laws; and, finally, it requires a comprehensive study of forest health by the National Academy of Sciences. I applaud Senator Murray for her diligence and hard work in bringing this amendment to the floor. Mrs. Murray developed an approach that garnered the support of a wide array of constituents, a formidable task on any issue. Our Nation has reached a point where we can no longer tinker at the edges of the forest management system of our country. For both economic and environmental reasons, we need to create certainty in how our forests will be managed. I believe that Senator Murray's amendment is a positive step in that direction and will resolve what has been a difficult and unsustainable situation. Joint Implementation Activities

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to the very eloquent statements of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle with respect to education. There is nothing that I disagree with. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to remember that the first vote this afternoon will move us from the macro responsibilities we have with respect to education to the micro responsibility we have for the District of Columbia. I hope when the fourth cloture vote comes up, on the D.C. appropriations bill, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will remember their responsibilities to the education of the children of Washington, DC, and will express that same compassion and vote for cloture so that we can move that conference report, which will do so much for the children of Washington, DC, on to the President. I want to remind everyone that we are coming to a crisis point. First of all with respect to the budget of the District of Columbia as they are fast approaching the point of bankruptcy, and will reach it very quickly, if we do not pass that bill. That bill is locked up because we are arguing about a small provision included in the conference agreement that deals with education on a very controversial issue. But one which has been worked out between the House and Senate conferees which allows the District of Columbia, if they so desire, to have a very small voucher program for the purposes of allowing kids to have an option of the school that they will attend. It is done in a way that is only a local decision. It is not anything which has been characterized on the other side as shoving it down the throats of the people of DC. So I urge you to keep in mind that we have this responsibility and that we are now over halfway through the school year. If we do not do something quickly, we will lose the whole school year. In fact, we will be into the next school year as far as planning goes and the inability to really enact anything which will help those kids. So I urge you to use compassion and express it today in the vote for the District of Columbia in order for those young people to get the tremendous advantages that will occur by virtue of the reform which is contained in that package. Do not deny the city the opportunity to start its education reform over one issue which has become a national symbol, for what reason I do not know because it has nothing to do with what would be a federally-imposed voucher system on a community, or a State, or the country. I urge you, please, when that vote comes up, vote for cloture today. Otherwise, we are going to find ourselves embroiled in even a greater conflict over the same DC appropriations bill in the large omnibus appropriations bill we are considering. The simple way to get out of the mess is to vote for cloture, and to get the DC bill out so we do not have to have the fight within the comprehensive package which is facing us today. So, Mr. President, I again urge all of my colleagues to support the cloture motion which we will be voting on as soon as we come out of our weekly Tuesday luncheons. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Hatfield's proposal in the omnibus bill before us to remove restrictions on U.S. funding of international family planning. These restrictions are part of the foreign operations bill which was folded into the last CR. Senator Hatfield's initiative is a necessary and welcome step: necessary because the restrictions risk the lives and health of women and children in the developing world; welcome because the United States should not be forced by these ill-conceived restrictions to abdicate its proven leadership in international family planning. Voluntary efforts to limit population growth must remain a principal priority of U.S. foreign assistance. The failure to fund adequately international family planning efforts in the developing world has dire consequences. The restrictions currently on the books will result in 4 million unwanted pregnancies in developing countries. Of these unwanted pregnancies, an estimated 1.6 million will end in abortions. Thus, these restrictions have as a direct and alarming consequence a result contrary to their purported purpose of trying to minimize abortions. The restrictions do not decrease abortions, they increase them. Other statistics speak for themselves. In Russia, a lack of family planning services has made abortion the chief method of birth control. The average Russian woman has four abortions over her lifetime. In countries with effective family planning, though, such as Hungary, abortion rates have dropped dramatically. But this debate is not just about abortion. A lack of adequate family planning and population efforts leads directly to a severe degradation of the lives and health of mothers and children. U.S.-funded programs, rather than promote abortion, seek to promote safe contraception, thus allowing women to space their pregnancies, a step crucial to the health of the mother and the survival of the child. If the CR funding restrictions are left in place, 8,000 more women will die in pregnancy and childbirth, including from unsafe abortions, and 134,000 more infant deaths will occur. Inadequate family planning also contributes to dangerous strains on already heavily taxed environments, while unbridled population growth has a serious impact on education efforts in countries where money for such programs is scarce. Such a strain on education is an indirect cost of these restrictions, but one with dire long-term consequences. It is worth emphasizing that prohibitions on U.S. funding for abortions have been on the books since 1973. USAID has consistently sought to prevent abortions by offering viable alternatives, alternatives available only through adequate education. AID's programs are widely recognized as the most efficient and effective population planning programs in the world. These shortsighted restrictions endanger the long-term goals of improving the lot of women and children in the developing world, with potentially catastrophic results. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Christian Science Monitor of February 9, 1996.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I urge my colleagues to support lifting these restrictions on programs with vital U.S. interests. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Iowa for some very explicit and appropriate comments on the situation that we are in. I hope that my colleagues will heed his words. I yield the floor, seeing there are speakers on the other side, I believe, ready to go.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I honestly hope this is the last time that we are called upon to debate the D.C. appropriations conference report. It is time to get beyond our differences and come to agreement. This conference agreement represents the best consensus that can now be achieved. To those who believe that by delaying or defeating this conference report they can somehow ensure a better deal, I can tell you that this is highly unlikely. I do not know what the House reaction is going to be, but I do know that we negotiated long and hard on this conference report which essentially gave total local control on the question of vouchers and, to my mind, brought it out of the specter of being a national test on your feelings on this issue. Mr. President, the Federal Government still owes the District government more than $254 million, of which $219 million is the remaining portion of the Federal payment. There are real human consequences to this delay. District vendors are carrying the city's debt. The city owes more than $300 million to its vendors. Partially as a result of not receiving the Federal payment, the city has taken steps to conserve cash including delaying payments to vendors. Many of these individuals are small businessmen who depend upon prompt payment to meet their own payroll and business expenses. When one of their customers is late, it causes a hardship. Some have gone out of business. Some have had to lay off employees, and some, like snowplow operators, refuse to do further business with the city. And let us hope we do not get another snowstorm. But it is still too early to be sure of that. Mr. President, each year we make an appropriation of $52 million to the District's retirement fund for police, firefighters, teachers, and judges, who were formerly Federal employees when the District government was a Federal agency. As a result of the delay in enacting this bill, the Federal Government has not paid $35 million of this amount for those pensioners. These funds are invested for the future benefit of retirees. Through the end of January, the retirement fund estimates that it has lost over $2 million in interest proceeds as a result of not having these funds to invest. That is not fair. I do not know what more can be said to convince Senators that this is the best deal possible under the circumstances and that the District desperately needs the money. Last week, the Chairman of the D.C. Control Board, Dr. Andrew Brimmer, visited me and gave me a letter concerning the effect of delay in enacting the D.C. bill. He stated that without the remainder of the Federal payment, the District could run out of cash this spring. He also noted that without the bill being enacted, the District cannot spend $42 million in new Federal grants identified after the 1996 budget was prepared. That authority is contained in the conference agreement. In closing, Dr. Brimmer states: The Authority has begun to make significant progress toward the goal of restoring financial stability to the District without sacrificing core public services or adversely impacting our disadvantaged citizens. . . All this is jeopardized by failure to enact the D.C. budget. I plead with you and your colleagues to adopt the District's FY 1996 appropriation bill without further delay. The White House has issued a statement which threatens that the President's senior advisers would recommend he veto this bill in its present form. The Mayor has written a letter to the President in which he appeals to the President's good sense and judgment as he weighs the advice of those senior advisers. The Mayor makes the case very well when he states, ``This appropriations bill is not a vouchers bill. It is a bill that only gives local officials the option to do so if they choose.'' Mr. President, we have come to another vote on this conference report. I hope my colleagues will heed the words of the mayor and the chairman of the control board and invoke cloture so that we do not have to wait for some other legislation to enact this bill. Time and the District's need for cash are of urgent concern. I ask my colleagues to support the conference agreement so that we may discharge our obligations to the city. Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleagues for their kind words about our relationship, which I cherish. I thank them for very eloquently making my arguments, because they have pinned it all on the fact that we are shoving something at a city that has no opportunity with their elected officials to say no. That is not the case. I wish they would read the bill. What it says is simply that we set up the operation, and there is a nonprofit corporation set up to handle private funds and public funds. Then there will be two voucher plans. One voucher plan nobody disagrees with. One is that every child that has problems with their education will have an opportunity to seek a voucher to go after school--or to go someplace to get the kind of remedial attention they need. Nobody disagrees with that. The bill further states that, however, the corporation can recommend that money would go for tuition vouchers. However, there must be agreement upon how much to spend on tuition vouchers, down to zero, and that is up to the elected city officials, the District Council. They can say no money. When we reached this agreement, I was fully aware there had been a referendum that said, 8 to 1, ``We do not want any vouchers.'' That simply means that I knew, and I am sure others that have agreed to this know, that many people in the District are against it. To make the presumption that the city council does not remember this vote, that was on the ballot, which said that the city voters do not want vouchers, 8 to 1, and they are going to say forget about that, forget about how you feel now--of course, they are not. So I appreciate Senators on the other side making the argument strongly that we should not have anything that is locally controlled. This conference agreement gives the city local control. So how can you say you are against it because it does not have local control when the whole thing is based upon local control? The other issues, we have argued before, with respect to Davis-Bacon may not be a problem. If it is, we will correct it. The abortion issue is a compromise between the language adopted in 1995, and which was adopted by the Senate this year and the more restrictive language of the House bill. The conference agreement states that no funds, either from the local government or the Federal Government, can be used to perform an abortion unless it is to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. That was the best we could do. Let us concentrate on the educational provisions now. Mr. President, we have done everything in this agreement we can to protect the people of this city from a mandatory Federal program which would violate local control. That is the case in this agreement. In addition, we must remember that there are many other important education reforms in this bill besides that one provision. We run the risk, as I mentioned earlier, of ending up with nothing here, and all the catastrophes that can come from that, including losing the funding for the reforms. I want to say briefly that I know there are several Members--enough to pass this bill--that are tortured by this vote right now, who want to support the cloture motion, but they know that the problem has been an agreement by the unions to hold the line. The White House is putting pressure on and saying they will veto it if it is presented in its present form. I urge those Members to look at the facts and get the grit to be able to do what you know you should do to help the city and to, most of all, help the kids get the education they need in this city. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. How much time remains?

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I must strongly condemn the Cuban Government for its gross violation of international law in shooting down two small, unarmed civilian aircraft last Saturday, resulting in the presumed loss of four American lives. This was a cowardly, cold- blooded act by Cuban authorities. There is no excuse for this violent act and no explanation that Cuba can offer which justifies such blatant disregard for international norms. I must note that Cuba's action on Saturday came on the very date that the Cuban Council, an alliance of human rights and dissident groups, had asked to hold a first-ever conference of such groups in Cuba. Beginning on February 15, the Cuban Government responded to the council's request, a request made in accordance with Cuba's Constitution, by retaining and arresting more than 50 people active in the council. I must also strongly condemn the Cuban Government of Fidel Castro for this crackdown. By these actions, the Cuban Government has once again demonstrated its fundamental disregard for internationally recognized humanitarian norms. These actions also sadden me because they have extinguished summarily the pin-pricks of light which were beginning to show, for the first time in many, many years, in our relations with Cuba. Recently, there had been an increased number of exchanges and visits, activities which I continue to believe are crucial to creating space for a democratic change in Cuba. The legislation before the Senate today, however, is not an appropriate, or even a relevant, response. As I noted during our consideration of this bill last October, instead of promoting democratic change in Cuba, this legislation, namely title III, creates a potential windfall for a small group of people at the expense of the greater interests of the United States. This bill alienates major allies and trading partners, such as Canada, Mexico, and France, with its clear extra-territorial application. Further, the effects of this legislation risk destabilizing Cuba to the point where we could face another exodus of boat people. We must ask ourselves: Are we ready to deal with such a crisis anew in order to serve the interests of a deep-pocketed few? I say we are not. The Presidential waiver provision for title III is not enough to overcome my deep reservations. This bill also carries with it a high human cost and I should note that the Cuban-American community is far from monolithic in its support for this bill. I am also deeply concerned by this bill's codification of the Executive orders and regulations that implement the existing embargo. In spite of Cuba's recent actions, codifying the embargo takes us in the wrong direction, making our eventual and necessary rapprochement all the more difficult. I also believe that a mandatory visa ban on officers and majority shareholders companies which are trafficking in such properties is an unnecessarily petty provision. I will vote against this legislation. draconian helms-burton cuba sanctions bill goes too far

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, once again the Senate has expressed its will on the conference report for the District of Columbia appropriations bill. Clearly there are provisions in the conference agreement that are not acceptable to a significant minority of the Senate, which makes it impossible at this time to pass the bill in its present form. I will work with my colleagues here in the Senate and in the other body to find a common ground. I want to assure the District officials I will seek every legislative vehicle to ensure that the remainder of the Federal payment to the city is provided as quickly as possible. I will discuss with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations the possibility of including the District in any omnibus bill or continuing resolution in the Senate, which we may consider, hopefully this week. I intend to get the money available for education reform so it is not lost to the city, and to secure as much education reform as possible. It is imperative for the kids--and that is why we are here, is for those kids--and essential to the District's ability to attract business and people. I thank the Senators who have supported us, the majority, in attempting to bring an end to this debate and encourage those who did not to keep an open mind and consider the larger issue of the needs of the Capital as we attempt to resolve this issue, and especially consider the children so badly in need of education reform. Mr. President, I am concerned about where we have gone. I still have hopes we will be able to resolve this. I will keep doing that until such time as we have reached the kind of solution that we need for this city. I yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.