Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to present this conference report to the Senate today, at long last. It has been some 90 days that we have been trying to reach agreement. I hope my colleagues will listen very closely to what I have to say, and I hope very strongly that we will be able to pass this conference report. I do so with the confidence that this is the best compromise we can achieve at this time. It is important that we enact this bill and provide the D.C. city government with a remainder of the Federal payment and bring to an end the uncertainty about fiscal year 1996 appropriations. We are already partially through the year, and we still have not met our commitment to the city. This bill contains some very important and long overdue educational reforms. However, it contains a couple of provisions that were very contentious. I will explain those briefly. I think we have reached an accommodation on one. There is an abortion provision in there that says, ``No funds, Federal or local, covered in this appropriations bill can be used for abortion, except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.'' Also, there is a provision which was not intended to be controversial--I want to clear that up--with respect to Davis-Bacon. There is no intention in this bill to waive the Davis-Bacon Act, except with respect to donated services to repair school facilities. I wanted to make it clear that they were not covered by the Davis-Bacon Act. It appears that in so doing, we perhaps created an interpretation that would say it also applied beyond what we intended. There is no intention to do that. So we will fix that at the appropriate time. The controversial provision I am referring to is the portion that permits the use of taxpayer dollars to pay tuition vouchers at private and religious-affiliated schools. I urge you to pay close attention to what we have done here. The conference agreement allows for two different types of vouchers--one to be used for tuition, which is the controversial part. The other is to be used for after-school enrichment programs. Keep this latter one in mind. There is no controversy over this at all. There are some 20,000 D.C. students right now who are in need of remedial help. We have a 28-percent dropout rate in the city right now. We need to do something about that. Also, as is true nationwide, about 50 percent of the kids who graduate from high school are functionally illiterate. I do not intend to allow that to continue. I do not think anybody in this body wants to do that. So we allow for the vouchers to be used--or scholarships, as some prefer to call them--to help the kids after school who are having remedial problems. However--and this is critical--in no case can any Federal funds be allocated for any voucher program until the D.C. Council approves of such expenditure. Schools participating in the voucher plan are required to comply with Federal civil rights laws. There is total local control here and no Federal mandate that they must be used. This agreement reinforces the fundamental principle of local control and allows the D.C. Council to determine if vouchers are appropriate for the District of Columbia public schools and to determine the appropriate split between tuition vouchers and the noncontroversial after-school vouchers. Mr. President, I do not want to let the voucher piece overshadow the other educational provisions that are contained in the bill. The conference agreement includes a number of education initiatives designed to improve the public education and help all the children in the public schools in the District of Columbia by making it possible for them to compete in the future work force. This is a critical problem in the District of Columbia and a critical problem in this Nation. The District of Columbia public schools have a proud academic tradition. They have produced prominent Americans and local leaders. Our former colleague, Senator Edward Brooke, graduated from Dunbar High School, as did Dr. Charles Drew, the founder of the blood bank; and current D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton is also a graduate of the D.C. public schools. Space shuttle astronaut Col. Fred Gregory; former police chief Maurice Turner; former president of Howard University, Franklyn Jenifer; Gloria Steinem; and Austin Kiplinger, publisher of the Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine, are all graduates of the D.C. public schools. I do not intend for our heritage to be the destruction of the public schools in the Nation's Capital, but rather to provide the framework for its return to a tradition of excellence. When this bill left the Senate, we had provided the most important components for that framework. We included a provision that would establish a Commission on Consensus Reform to review, comment, and advise District officials on the long-term education reform plan, public school budgets, and other activities of the board of education and the superintendent. The Consensus Commission is made up of local citizens and D.C. school officials. Its mandate is to ensure that the reform plan that is agreed upon and developed by the public schools and officials is implemented. The decline of the quality of the District of Columbia's public schools has been punctuated by study after study, reform plans, and good intentions, but none of these studies has been notable in any followthrough or have resulted in any significant improvement of the schools. The long-term reform plan provided for in this agreement will be implemented. The Consensus Commission will fulfill the necessary step of monitoring and oversight of school officials' actions. If city officials do not listen to its directives, the Commission will turn to the District control authority to implement the required action, and it will be implemented. There is an important relationship between the Consensus Commission and the city's financial recovery which must be understood. When we first started discussing control board legislation a year ago, we asked the General Accounting Office and Congressional Research Service to talk to those in other cities and States that have gone through financial crises. As part of the results of those findings, GAO and CRS reported that in each city those involved volunteered that one of the great impediments to economic recovery and community development efforts which would lead to financial health was the poor state of public education in the city school system of those cities. That is true of this city, and it is true of our Nation generally. The District must be no exception. If we do not improve the quality of education in this city, we cannot hope to attract people and businesses into the city. That means that the District will become a ward of the Federal Government. During the process of retrenchment at the Federal level, we cannot afford to allow the city to become more dependent upon us. Mr. President, the bill provides for the improvement of the overall D.C. educational system by requiring the superintendent of schools to create a District-wide reform plan. But broad plans are of little value if we fail individual children. The bill encourages a system to ensure that each child has a chance to succeed and no child is overlooked. To do this, we need to both help out teachers and hold them accountable for the achievement or deficiency of each student, and we need to hold the parents and students accountable so we can move forward to provide an education that is good for every child. We cannot do this unless we find a way to assess each student in his or her development. There are provisions in the bill to establish up-to-date performance- based District-wide assessments that will identify every student in the District of Columbia public schools who does not meet minimum standards in reading, writing, and mathematics and will provide the kind of remedial help necessary in order to bring that student back into the position they ought to be in. Once we have that assessment, we can apply the resources in this bill to those in need to get help after school, on weekends, or during the summer. We can no longer be content with knowing that the average number of students are performing satisfactorily. We must know that each child is succeeding and that none is left to fall through the cracks. Also important is the creation of the public charter schools in the District that provides an alternative for parents as competition for the public school system. The expected result is a choice in public education and an improvement in the public schools by creating an incentive to change. In contrast to the tuition vouchers, these public charter schools will be available to every student in the District regardless of income, academic achievement, or behavior problems. The operators of charter schools must be nonsectarian, nonprofit and will receive the same per-pupil funding from the D.C. government as each D.C. public school receives. The conference agreement also includes a $2 million additional appropriation for Even Start programs in the District. Even Start is that program which allows us to work both with the parents and with the child, that are all illiterate, to bring them into literacy and into a better future. Also included are funds to begin planning for a residential school for the District. Other school districts are experimenting with the concept of a residential school, and the superintendent believes if you can remove the influences of the mean streets it would make it easier to reach some of these kids. These funds will allow the superintendent to begin the planning process towards the establishment of a residential school. The creation of a business partnership is designed to leverage private-sector funds to purchase state-of-the-art technology for the D.C. public schools. Face it, when our local grocery stores have more computer technology than our schools, we must make improvements. Our world is already dominated by technology, and that trend will only increase. If our children do not have access to technology, they will be hamstrung in functioning and competing successfully in the business and academic world after high school. Not only is technology essential to remain competitive now and in the next century, it also is the gateway to new experience and knowledge for school children. In closing, Mr. President, I want to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the chairmen of the other side, Representative Jim Walsh of the D.C. subcommittee and Representative Bob Livingston of the full committee, for helping to bring this bill to this point. We have had many conversations and it has been a tough fight, but I believe we have a good bill. I also want to express special appreciation to Representative Steve Gunderson, whose hard work and dedication was instrumental in forming the House education reform package. On our side, our distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Wisconsin, has been supportive and helpful in each stage. At the full committee, I could ask for no more cooperation and support than I have received from the Appropriations Committee chairman. Senator Hatfield has convened and attended meetings with me in an attempt to reach an agreement. His help was indispensable. His counterpart on the minority side, the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, offered an amendment contained in this conference agreement and improves the bill in the important area of discipline. Mr. President, I am sure that some Senators can find things in this bill to oppose. However, we have spent 90 days in conference on this bill. I can assure my colleagues that unlike Vermont cheddar cheese, this agreement will not get better with age. It is time to move on, to give the District the remainder of the payment for the cash that they need in its strapped condition now and allow it to focus on implementing the meaningful education reform that the majority of the bill provides. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report. I yield the floor. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Steve Greene, a fellow serving on the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, be extended the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2546.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I believe that under the present order there are 2 hours allowed on the bill. I have 1 hour of that time, is that correct?

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Also, I have letters from the Governors to all of us with respect to that. We have brought this over here. We have explained it to staffs and they agreed with us, 65 to 35. I wanted you to keep that in mind. Second, we are a negative producer. What are they afraid of? We only produce 70 percent of the milk consumed in New England. We are not a threat to anybody. Mr. President, 30 percent of our milk comes from New York and Pennsylvania. It can come from Wisconsin. It can come from Minnesota. We are not creating any barriers to anybody. We say our consumers are so desirous of making sure that our farmers are there--they love the cows on the hillsides. That is New England. It is tradition. All we are asking is to be treated as any other big State can be. New York has an order that helps protect their producers, California does, other States do. Why can we not, as six little States up in New England tucked off up in the corner there, have the ability to protect our dairy farms? I yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as we bring this to a close, I know everyone is interested in saving their dairy farms. The question is whether you try to do it at the expense of some other dairy farmer. Vermont has lost one-third of its farms in the last 10 years. I know the Midwest has done likewise. But they are not hurt by us. As pointed out, they can ship to us now. They can ship at a higher price if this goes through. But they cannot do it; they are too far away. That is our problem. We are too far away from anything. We are at the end of the energy stream. We are at the end of everything. We are tucked up in that little corner barricaded from markets in Canada. We could get 50 percent more for our milk if we could go across the border. We want to stay alive, and our States and our State legislators want us to stay alive. When you get six States to approve something that helps the farmers primarily in two States, you have got to really believe that they are sincere in their efforts to try to do what is best for their State. Mr. President, I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to strike. By a vote of 65 to 35 the Senate voted against what they are being asked to do today. I hope they will recognize that and keep the same wonderful logic that they used for those 65 votes. I yield to the Senator from Vermont for a final comment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me make one comment. We are not ruling out anybody else flowing their milk in. Hey, guys, bring it up if you can get the price. Bring it in, Minnesota. You can get the price. We are not trying to lock anybody out. You can get the price, Pennsylvania, then ship milk in, come on in, and take advantage of the price. That is your right. We have not ruled anybody out, and we are not trying to make a market for ourselves. We are trying to be generous in helping the dairy farmers to stay alive in our area. If you can do it, if the price goes up, and it attracts you, what you are saying, and the end result is, we have to knock you out so that price gets even higher so we can ship in. If you cannot ship in with the high price, we will give you--you want it higher than that. You want to really rip our consumers off it you are going to get into our markets because you can get into them now. Mr. President, I retain the balance of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The Northeast interstate dairy compact is the remarkable product of 7 years of formal, interstate cooperation in New England. It has the bipartisan support of the region's six Governors--four Republicans, one Democrat and one Independent. And it is backed by the region's farmers, consumers, and milk processors alike. Mr. President, we have spoken often this past year in this Chamber about returning power back to our sovereign States, to allow the States to work together with the Federal Government to solve the problems we face. Here is a fine example of such a cooperative federalism, most appropriately presented in the context of this farm bill. The compact is a pilot project, with a 5-year sunset. It simply needs congressional consent to be approved. I urge this body to give the New England States an opportunity to implement this test program. Mr. President, the compact has had an impressive journey through the six New England State legislatures. In fact, it has passed with overwhelming margins in both producing and consuming States. The Rhode Island State Legislature, representing over 1 million consumers and only 31 dairy farms voted near unanimously to pass the compact. Some of my colleagues have been misinformed about what the compact would or would not do. Not surprisingly, the dairy processors' lobby have been promoting misguided information on how the compact will work. They have a long history of working against legislation that protects and improves dairy farmer income. However, the compact, which has been approved overwhelming in each of the six New England State legislatures is not the monster that a select few have made it out to be. The Northeast dairy compact is intended to help give farmers and consumers fair and stable milk prices. The compact has been carefully crafted so that it will not affect the national diary industry or burden the consumer. The compact can only regulate class I milk in New England, that is beverage or fluid milk, which makes up only 1.5 percent of the national milk supply. We are dealing with a very small amount of fluid milk. National processors will not be affected by this compact. It will have no affect on class II of class III milk which is used for manufactured products. Mr. President, my own State of Vermont has lost over 1,200 farms in the last 10 years. Today, Vermont dairy farmers are receiving milk prices well below the cost of production. Current milk prices for farmers are as low as they were over 10 years ago. I understand that Vermont is not the only State to witness a decline in its number of dairy farms. Dairy farms throughout the country deserve price stability and enhancement and I hope that a dairy compromise amendment will be offered and accepted today that will benefit farms across this Nation. Mr. President, New England is not asking Washington to solve its problem, it is asking Washington to allow New England to solve its problem on its own. The compact is a regional solution to a regional problem. The six New England States should not be denied the opportunity to do just that. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and allow the people of Vermont and New England the opportunity to help themselves protect the future of their dairy farms. Mr. President, let me remind everyone again, you have been reminded, you voted for this and I think you ought to keep that in mind. You voted for it in a very similar situation. It was a bigger bill, yes, but it was the same issue exactly. The New England States have taken 7 years to examine what they can do to help the dairy farmers. I have here, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, a letter from the six New England Governors to the leader here, telling him that they support this bill, together with some other material. It is very important.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we have spoken often in the past year, in this Chamber, about returning power back to the sovereign States to allow the States to work together with the Federal Government to solve the problems we face. Here is a fine example of such cooperative federalism. Most appropriately presented in the context of this farm bill here, the compact is a pilot project with a 5-year sunset. It simply needs congressional consent to be approved. Other States can do it by themselves. They are big enough. We cannot. I urge this body to give the New England States an opportunity to implement this test program. The compact has had an impressive journey through six New England State legislatures --six State legislatures. Two of them, primarily consumers have approved so they can help keep their dairy farmers and the rural life of Vermont alive. The Rhode Island State Legislature, representing over 1 million consumers and only 31 dairy farms, nearly unanimously passed this. Why should we be prohibited from doing what other States can do, merely because the Midwest believes and hopes that sometime in the future they can ship their milk to us because the price would get so high, because our farmers are out of business, that they could ship it over there to profit? They are welcome now. Why do they want to be so greedy? Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I believe I control the time on our side, Mr. President. Let us get down to what we are talking about. I think it was brought out well by the Senator from Minnesota. That is, they want to protect their farmers. That is understandable. They would like to have no milk orders. They would like to have nothing in this country because they believe they are lowest producers. That is fine. This issue was raised before. I want to remind everybody, the Senate voted 65 to 35 earlier this year to say that, yes, the six States of New England, a small area of our country, has the right to act like any big State, because California and several other States have done the same thing we seek to do. Many have said, ``We want to protect and help our dairy farmers stay in business.'' Little old New England, six States are no bigger than many of the other small States. We talk about the State's rights here. These six legislatures voted to do this. Two of those are metropolitan States. They said, ``We want to protect the farms of Vermont.'' We are tucked way up in there. We do not bother anybody with our milk supply. We could not. We are too far away. We are at the end of the energy, the end of everything up there. We are bordering on Canada that has milk prices 50 percent higher than ours. We cannot get into their markets. Hopefully with NAFTA we can. All we are saying, ``Let us do what any other State can do and let us get our producers a little more money for their milk that goes to the consumers.'' The consumers agreed, ``We are willing to pay it, we are willing to pay it.'' So why does Minnesota and Wisconsin--later on we will have a chance to vote for something to protect them, something to give them what they want. We are willing to go along with it if they leave us alone. They do not, no. We will have the ability to be able to help our producers. It is only 5 years, a sunset, that says try it for 5 years and keep it going until NAFTA or something comes by. It is hard to understand why they would pick on our farmers up there so far away. There is no way we are a threat to their markets. I cannot understand why they have taken this position. Fortunately, the Senate has already said 65 to 35 that you are right, New England, your States have a right to act like any big State. I yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, all we are asking is that Vermont be allowed to do what other States can do. Big States can do it. California does the same thing we want to do. We allow anybody to come in. If Minnesota or Wisconsin want to bring their milk in, they can. There are no barriers. All we are trying to do is make sure we protect the few farms that are left tucked way up at the border of the United States in the Northeast where we have a very, very difficult time being able to buy our grains and all that. So we urge you to vote as you did last time, and that is against the amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. That certainly is. I happen to have a chart here.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I have a chart that displays that fact. The farmers are the most important group that the consumers ever have to keep prices down, but they cannot do it if the retailers keep going up. Our farm prices have been going down for the last 10 years, and the retail prices have been going up. Every time we go down, they go up. Anybody that tries to say we are the cause of high retail prices, there is just no evidence of that whatever.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is with some sadness that I come to the floor this evening. Those of us who have been on the District of Columbia conference committee have now worked some 90 days in trying to get a conference agreement. We have had a very difficult time. We have at times reached an agreement and then had those agreements disappear. This Congress has placed itself in a special relationship with the District of Columbia by recognizing the incredible problems it has, both with its financing as well with education. We have taken the responsibility of doing what we can to make this city proud and to give it the wherewithal in order to improve its educational system. I think we have a conference report that certainly, although it is not perfect--and that is obvious from the situation we find ourselves in--is nevertheless one which could bring about a resolution of the problems involved with the educational system. It could also, in a noncontroversial manner, provide the economic wherewithal for the District to be able to move forward. This is an appropriations bill that includes nearly $5 billion in spending authority for the city of Washington. We were held up by disagreement over a provision of $5 million for a scholarship program, that represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the money involved with this bill. Yet, it does reach such an emotional state with respect to those people who feel one way or the other about the utilization of Federal funds for scholarships to allow young people to go and seek another school in order to, hopefully, advance their education. However, this disagreement over the scholarship program is such a matter. I had hoped very much, and had expected, that we would be able to take up the D.C. appropriations conference report today. The House passed it yesterday. They did so with a fairly good vote. But I find now, after having verified with my counterpart on the other side of the aisle, what would happen in the event that I attempted to bring up the conference report this evening. There would be no time agreement at all, there would be a filibuster, and there would not be any desire to move that conference agreement, in its present state out of this body. I wish that we would stop damaging the District of Columbia's efforts to revitalize itself. And keeping in mind that by grabbing control as we have--and I do not disagree with that--over the power to do things, we have taken the responsibility, and I am only thinking of the kids. I have spent many, many hours of my own time in this city by going around from school to school. I spend every Tuesday reading to a young man in the third grade whom I have seen change and he has become so much more able to participate in class in a meaningful way through knowing English. He is a student to whom English is a second language, I am incredibly impressed with his progress. We have 200 Senate staff members who are going every Tuesday and reading to kids. This program is going on. We are trying to do the best we can. But there is a lot that cannot be done without the ability to reorganize what is going on in the school system. So I just stand before you very, very discouraged at all the effort that we have put forth to try to bring about a resolution which this body could consider, and hopefully adopt, to now find that that cannot be considered. So I will continue to do all I can to find the answers. I know that they will not be easy. But I also will do everything in my power to assure that we can proceed as best we can under the circumstances. I will work to pass the conference report at some later date, but if that cannot be done, I will do my best to work within the structure we have created with the Control Board and others to see what we can do while we wait for this legislation to pass. I know the school board in Washington, DC, met today and had some concerns. Before I learned those concerns, I had initiated a call and a meeting with the chairwoman of the school board for tomorrow. I will be meeting with her tomorrow and we will look toward the future. I am hopeful still that we will find this matter, which is of great national concern, should not be used to deprive those who want to help the schools to move forward. We are nearly halfway through the school year now, much needs to be done, and I hope both sides of this issue will calm down and let us proceed in some manner so that we can help the children of this city. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Pennsylvania is aware of this, but we have not passed the appropriations bill out of the Senate yet in this area. So there is nothing in concrete yet. The Congress has not passed an appropriations bill for education. So there is nothing locked in concrete at this particular time. So there is certainly not only time but obviously the ability to modify the figures and not to have to cut back on these other programs. It will take some doing. But you still have to negotiate with the House. Changes can be made in the whole process on these things right now. It is not the fault of the Senator from Pennsylvania that the Senate has not acted on this, and we have a problem that everybody knows about in this area. But there is nothing locked in concrete at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment. I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for the work he has done. I am on the subcommittee. I know what an incredibly difficult job it is to try and divide too few dollars among too many very valuable and worthwhile programs. I also believe that at this critical time, in this year when all of the cities and towns of my State and others are trying to figure out what they are going to be doing with their education budgets for the next year. They have the problem of having to notify teachers of their plans. It appears that the track we're on now does not provide schools with sufficient information to make decisions. It would be much better to do what we are proposing in this amendment, and that is to let them know that at least is they should be able to plan on not having any substantial cuts in the educational programs. If I read the minds of the budgeteers as represented in their statements to the press, the only real agreement that has come out is there should not only be no cuts in education, but that education services should be increased to account for inflation. There seems to be unanimity even within the House on this point. I do not think we are in any way misrepresenting to our people if we say that this year we should at least have a freeze on funding at the 1995 levels. That is even less than it appears they have agreed to at the summit. What we have in Vermont, and I am sure across the country--we have all our town meetings in March. We have all the dates that we have to send out notices on contracts. The 45 days provided for in this continuing resolution will take us almost halfway through the fiscal year and yet this continuing resolution leaves the Senate on record saying to States figure it out for yourselves. If the budgeteers, in principle, have agreed to giving current services--it will create problems for the Appropriations Committee. However, those dollars do not necessarily have to come out of the allocation of the education subcommittee. There can be allocations from other subcommittees to fund education programs at the current services level. We can do anything in the Senate and the House if we work together to make promises and to keep promises to the people. In all 50 States, 14,000 school districts are currently developing their financial plans for the 1996-97 school year. As I said, it is extremely difficult to move forward on such planning without a funding resolution in place. It has been pointed out that 80 percent of those who are in favor of a balanced budget, those who are fiscally conservative, have said, ``Do not cut education.'' Passage of this amendment would show that the Congress of the United States is living up to what has already been agreed to in principle in the budget discussions. For instance, if you have to lay off 10 percent of your teachers, who do you notify? You have to notify them all, probably, because you do not know which ones you will pick--the terrible dilemmas that will go on if we do not give them an idea if there will be funding available. In Vermont, layoff notices will have to go out in March. In Vermont, we lose $2.4 million for title 1, which accounts for 2,000 students. The current budget situation creates chaos in Vermont's town meetings because they have little guidance in setting their budgets. I am hopeful this amendment will pass. I cannot believe that the Congress, working with the President, will not agree to what they have already agreed to in the budget discussions. That is, we should not cut education, at least carrying through another 45 days, and hopefully, then, of course, we can get a further commitment to the funds that are necessary to do what must be done.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator from Alabama for that generous offer, and I assure him that we will take him up on it. We will use every bit that we can.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would also like to add my comments on the death of Mike Synar, who was a good friend of mine in the House at the time I served there. He and I worked on many controversial projects and programs. I believe very strongly that there have been few people who have been as dedicated in handling and facing difficult and tough issues as Mike Synar. I was saddened by his death at a very premature age, and wish to express my condolences to his family. Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I also want to make a couple of other comments which I am sure my senior colleague will agree with. One which proved to me the importance of Amtrak was how I got back here on Sunday night. I came all the way down from basically Vermont on through Massachusetts. The efforts which those crews put on, and how packed that train was when it finally got to New York City, and then on to Washington, emphasized how important that means of travel is in times of crisis like this. Without Amtrak passenger service we would be in trouble.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to also comment on the budget negotiations. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the state of current budget negotiations. First, I would like to thank Senator Dole and Senator Domenici for their leadership and fortitude in pursuing a balanced budget in the next 7 years. They have been working hard during this past year at finding common ground with the President to reach a budget agreement. Further, I am pleased that the President has recently agreed to balance the budget during the next 7 years using CBO scoring. I understand the importance that this step has in reaching a final agreement. With this in mind, I remain hopeful that an agreement can be reached quickly. Mr. President, however, I look on with regret as the current negotiations are under suspension. It is vitally important that both sides quickly resume discussions. Like many of my colleagues, I am committed to balancing the Federal budget. I have been working with several Senate Members for the past few weeks from both parties to forge a compromise budget that balances in 7 years and uses CBO for scoring. We have recently offered this bipartisan plan to our congressional leaders that is both reasonable and plausible. I was very pleased to see that the Republican budget negotiators have incorporated many of these suggestions from this bipartisan plan in their latest proposal to the President. With these latest proposals it now appears that Congress and the President are close on many items. In many cases the two sides are off by only 1 percent in nominative terms on many budgetary items. Mr. President, I will continue to work with my colleagues to forge a compromise agreement in the near term. Finally, I believe that during this process of working on a budget agreement Congress and the President must keep the Federal Government fully operating. It is unnecessary and wrong to penalize Federal workers for the Congress' and White House's inability to reach agreement. I want to again commend, as others have, the majority leader, Senator Dole, for ensuring that we did not have a breakdown yesterday. There were rumors flying around this city that it was expected that one or the other side would just decide that we ought to end the negotiations. I conversed with several of my moderate companions who have been moving and trying to get a moderate budget proposal there for others to look at, and I found that such a breakdown of the negotiations would have been a serious, serious mistake. There are issues on both sides from individuals that feel that it would be politically advantageous for each side to have the negotiations break down. I think that would be a horrible mistake. It is for the good of the country. And we are right now in the position that we can really have a breakthrough on what will make the future of this country brighter, and we should work all we can. The same is true on welfare as well. I also would say that in the negotiations one of the areas of major consideration is Medicare. I hope and urge that both Houses resume negotiations on health care reform because, if we can get the breakthroughs which I know are there in health care reform--to get the cost of Medicare under control so that we do not get all the cost shifting with the fee-for-services system--we can make that almost a nonissue in the near future. If that becomes a nonissue in the sense that it is under control, then the budget reconciliation, budget problems, diminish very substantially.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me also make a couple of comments about the District of Columbia, being the chairman of the subcommittee on District of Columbia appropriations. This also points out how hard strapped the District is with respect to meeting emergencies such as we have had recently. I know I personally have not seen a single snowplow in the days that I have been walking back and forth. I do know that we have a fleet of 50 snowplows, 8 of which are out of service because of mechanical failure. Usually in the past they have had funds available to be able to hire plows. In fact, 4 years ago over 200 private plows were hired to clear the streets. However, sufficient funds were not available. Only 55 private plows have been able to help out. In addition to that, we have another 30 trucks that are sitting there idle because of the failure of the mechanical parts. So I think it is important that we keep in mind that for the District that we have to get their physical matters in shape so that we can handle these kind of problems. I also point out with respect to the District of Columbia that I will be meeting this afternoon with Congressman Gunderson in the House, and we will be communicating with subcommittee Chairman Walsh on trying to bring a reconciliation to our difficulties over the changes that are being recommended with respect to the District of Columbia educational system. I will be proposing to them a hopeful compromise which will on the one hand allow us really to do something substantial to improve the educational capacity of our schools in the District of Columbia but at the same time will make it unlikely that we will have a filibuster in the Senate on the controversial issue of vouchers. So I am hopeful that we will be able to take care of that. I anticipate that when we come back on the 22d of January that we will have a budget agreement for the House and Senate to vote on.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, one other item which I would like to point out relative to Vermont and other areas of the country is the importance of dairy. I did not realize it until I struggled home last Sunday night and went to the convenience store. I found they had adequate food. However, the dairy case had but one quart of milk left. When I arrived again the next morning, it had been replenished, and there was only one gallon of milk left. I point that out as to how important obviously in our lives dairy is; the dairy industry. So keep that in mind as we go along and take up the dairy program later this year.