Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. JEFFORDS. If the Senator will yield, I would say it is getting close, anyway. It was, I think, an official 17 inches. I would just comment, before I came down I shoveled off the roof of my house in Vermont. There was almost 4 feet of snow on the roof that I shoveled off. So, when I say it is getting there, it still has a ways to go. On the other hand, I have noted drifts in front of my house here that have totally buried the car, which makes it drifting over 5 feet. I think the drifts are more significant than the snowfall and that has certainly created a lot of problems.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague, Senator Simon, to introduce the Pension Audit Improvement Act of 1995. I'd also like to thank the Department of Labor and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants who have worked very closely with us to produce this bill. The primary purpose of this legislation is to repeal the limited scope audit exception currently in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA]. Similar bills have been introduced by my colleagues Senators Kassebaum and Hatch in previous years. The current bill has the added feature of putting some teeth into private auditor enforcement efforts and responsibilities. Limited scope audits are audits where independent accountants are not required to examine, test, or evaluate funds or assets held in trust by banks or other regulated financial institutions. This provision in ERISA has created a major loophole in the oversight of pension plans. While the assumption is that these institutions are adequately audited by federal agencies, these audits are generally done only once every two years. More significantly, when an independent auditor is restricted from examining significant information in an audit, she generally disclaims any opinion about whether that plan's financial statements are correct. Workers and retirees have the right to except that somebody is making sure that their pensions are there when they retire. The sheer numbers of private pension plans over 900,000, make it virtually impossible for the government to possibly maintain a viable enforcement effort without the help of private plan auditors. Also, is it realistic to expect an accountant, who has continuing ties with an employer, to identify and report to the Department of Labor questionable transactions between the plan and plan sponsor? The current enforcement system incorrectly assumes, to a large degree, that independent public accountants will detect serious violations in a timely manner. A 1987 report, by the Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General found that in 71% of their reviews, that the independent auditors had failed to discover existing ERISA violations. In a more recent 1989 report, the Inspector General found large numbers of audits didn't adequately examine or test plan assets and lacked timely reporting of ERISA violations. Furthermore, these studies indicate a number of problems with the detection of potential ERISA violations, including: incomplete or inadequate information being reported, the ability of the government to examine only about one percent of these plans per year, and that private plan audits do not consistently meet generally accepted professional accounting standards. The intent of the Pension Audit Improvement Act is to increase the overall integrity of private pension plan auditing enforcement practices. To enhance the integrity of audits this bill will subject qualified public accountants to external peer review. In addition, public accountants performing ERISA audits will be required to satisfy continuing education requirements emphasizing employee benefits ERISA rules. In addition, this bill will place new, expedited reporting duties on auditors whose services are terminated by the plan administrator before the audit is completed and, for those auditors who discover evidence of serious violations such as theft, embezzlement, bribery or kickbacks. Auditors will be required to report these violations directly to the Department of Labor only if the administrator fails to notify the Department within a specified time frame. The primary reporting, of any violation, still remains with the plan sponsor. I look forward to working with all interested parties in turning this bill into a first step toward strengthening our current pension enforcement system. Although, these changes to ERISA's reporting rules may seem minor they have the potential to create lasting reform with respect to the enforcement of Title I of ERISA. Giving private sector auditors the tools and responsibility of early detection of violations will prevent workers from losing hard earned pension benefits. We simply must do a better job of safeguarding the pension benefits of a growing number of workers and pensioners. The economic security of tens of millions of Americans depends on these benefits being adequately protected.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on this vote I have a pair with the Senator from Texas, [Mr. Gramm]. If he were present and voting he would vote ``aye.'' If I were permitted to vote, I would vote ``nay.'' I therefore withhold my vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, it is cold outside. This morning in my home State of Vermont it was minus one degree in Burlington, minus 9 degrees in our capital city of Montpelier and in the Northeast Kingdom, there were 18 inches of snow on the ground. This weekend the temperature fell below zero in Minnesota. It was 20 degrees in Delaware and it has even dropped to below freezing in Atlanta, GA. With these cold temperatures, and the subfreezing days that are sure to follow, one has to wonder how nearly 6 million low-income American families are going to make it through the winter. In past years, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP] has provided aid to these families. LIHEAP is a block grant provided to the States that help low-income Americans with an average income of $8,000 heat their homes. This year however, states have not received sufficient funds to meet the needs of their low-income citizens. Since we have yet to pass a fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Resources, and Education, LIHEAP has been funded by the two continuing resolutions [CR's] that we have passed and the President has signed. These two CR's funded LIHEAP at 90 and 75 percent of last year's level respectively, but, and this is the key, the CR's limited LIHEAP spending to the proportional daily rate of the duration of the CR. This cap on the spend-out rate means that States have received only 75 days' worth of funds. In past years States received 60 percent of their allotments in the first quarter. This year, they have received only slightly greater than 20 percent. The vast majority of LIHEAP funds are used for heating assistance. Requiring that LIHEAP funds be spent out evenly throughout the year makes no sense. While it may leave LIHEAP funds available in June, many low-income families would not be able to heat their homes this winter. Last year at this time, the Department of Health and Human Services had dispersed around $800 million to the States. So far this year, States have received only $230 million. As Senator Kennedy pointed out yesterday, LIHEAP funds were to be reduced by 10 or 25 percent, not 70 percent. What has this meant in Vermont? Instead of the $4.5 million we had received last year by this time, Vermont has received only $1.3 million. This is not enough to meet the needs of the 25,000 low-income Vermonters who rely on LIHEAP to avoid freezing in the winter. Gov. Howard Dean has had to delay the start of this year's program until December, and I can assure my colleagues that it can get quite cold in Vermont in October and November. I think it is fairly clear that we are not going to be able to pass all the remaining appropriations bills by the end of this week, so we are going to have to take up another CR. It is critical that this CR not include the spend-out limitation on LIHEAP. Last week Senator Kennedy and I sent a letter to Appropriations Committee, Mark Hatfield, asking him to address this problem. Fifty-two other Senators, Republicans and Democrats joined us in signing this letter, and although the Northeast/Midwest Senate Coalition, which I cochair, coordinated the effort, Senators from all over the Nation cosigned. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter along with the 54 Senators who cosigned the letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Although most Senators who signed the letter would like to see LIHEAP increased, the letter does not ask for additional LIHEAP funding. It simply asks that States be allowed to spend the LIHEAP funds that have been appropriated under the two CR's this winter when the funds are needed. There are similar efforts being undertaken in the House. In addition to Senator Kennedy, I want to thank Senators Abraham, Cohen, Snowe, Moynihan, Kohl, Leahy, and Wellstone for their assistance in gathering support for this letter. I also want to thank Senator Specter for his continued support of LIHEAP. I think we have made it very clear that this spend-out restriction cannot be included in the next CR. Mr. President, LIHEAP is a lifeline for many seniors and families with small children, and cutting LIHEAP will drastically increase the energy burden of many American families. Some Members of the House have argued that LIHEAP is no longer needed, but for many low-income Americans, the energy crisis is not over. In some areas of the country, energy prices are still increasing; in Vermont over the last 3 years, prices have gone up 21 percent. Since 1980 however, real LIHEAP funding has gone down 65 percent. In fact, no other discretionary formula grant program has seen its funding reduced as much as LIHEAP. The Congressional Research Service [CRS] performed a study of energy prices and LIHEAP funding. CRS concluded that, even taking changes in real energy prices into account, LIHEAP would have to be funded at between $1.75 and $2.39 billion to provide the same level of benefits as it did in 1980. Last year, over 25,000 low-income Vermonters received a total of $7.5 million in assistance. The average amount was $75 a month for the 5 winter months. The average AFDC recipient only has $43 a month left over after paying the energy bill. Without LIHEAP assistance, many recipients will not be able to afford to pay their heating bills this winter, and many would be forced to choose between heat and food. As I stated earlier, LIHEAP is a block grant. Each State decides for itself how to structure its program and how to get the resources to those that need it. It is also a program that has no history at all of any fraud or abuse. Without LIHEAP energy providers, many of whom are small, unregulated businesses, may have to choose between not getting paid for the energy they provide and cutting off their neediest customers. Mr. President, winter is upon us. People are freezing. We must free up LIHEAP funds so that low-income Americans will be able to heat their homes this winter. We must remove the spend out rate limitation. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C, December 5, 1995. Hon. Mark Hatfield, Appropriations Committee, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Hatfield: We would like to call your attention to a serious problem with the interim funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). We believe that if we are to continue funding programs under the FY96 Labor/HHS Appropriations bill through a Continuing Resolution (CR), states must be allowed to draw down LIHEAP funds at a higher rate which takes into account their historical spending practices and which is sufficient to ensure the program's viability. Temperatures have dropped below freezing and there is snow on the ground in many parts of the country, but the language in both CRs that limits state draw downs to a proportional annual rate does not provide states sufficient funds to operate programs and meet the heating needs of their low income families. In past years, states have drawn down a majority of their LIHEAP funds during the fall. This allows states to purchase fuel at lower rates, maintain continuity of service, avoid shut offs, and plan for the upcoming winter. Furthermore, nearly 90 percent of LIHEAP funds are used for heating assistance during the coldest months. The CR language requires that LIHEAP funds be spent out over a twelve month period. While this may leave funds for heating assistance in June, many low income families may not be able to heat their homes this winter. We believe it is critical to safeguard this program which protects the elderly, the disabled, the working poor, and children. When it gets cold, these vulnerable Americans should not be forced to choose between heating and eating. Continuing delays in funding and limits on the payout rate will hamper states' ability to help the 5.6 million LIHEAP households survive the winter. We ask your assistance in ensuring that the bulk of LIHEAP funds can be spent during the cold weather months at a rate sufficient to meet the needs of low income families this winter. Thank you. Sincerely, Jim Jeffords, Ted Kennedy, Herb Kohl, Bill Cohen, Paul D. Wellstone, Daniel P. Moynihan, Patrick Leahy, Olympia Snowe, Carl Levin, Christopher J. Dodd, John F. Kerry, Larry Pressler, Wendell Ford, Rick Santorum, Claiborne Pell, Alfonse D'Amato, Spencer Abraham, Carol Moseley- Braun, Byron L. Dorgan, John H. Chafee, Paul Simon, Dick Lugar, J. Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Tom Daschle, Bob Kerrey, Tom Harkin, John Glenn, Jeff Bingaman, Max Baucus, Bob Smith, Paul Sarbanes, Dale Bumpers, Jay Rockefeller, Jim Exon, Howell Heflin, Russ Feingold, Daniel K. Akaka, Harry Reid, Dan Coats, Richard H. Bryan, David Pryor, Joe Biden, Patty Murray, Mitch McConnell, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Judd Gregg, Mike DeWine, Bill Bradley, Barbara A. Mikulski, Kent Conrad, Chuck Robb, D.K. Inouye, Chuck Grassley.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am voting for this legislation with a number of reservations. This bill provides funding for important programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA], Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] and the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. I supported this legislation when it passed the Senate in September, with the understanding that Senate negotiators would maintain funding for our Nation's veterans, maintain adequate levels for housing, protect funding for the EPA and oppose the 17 anti- environment legislative riders included in the House version of this bill. After the most recent conference on this legislation between the Senate and House, it is my belief that the bill has emerged better than both the original House and Senate passed versions. Funding for veterans' health is now higher than last year's levels. EPA spending levels, originally slated for a 33 percent cut in the House bill, have been increased, resulting in only a 14 percent reduction. A number of other important programs and agencies received a similar reduction this year. Finally, almost all of the environmental legislative riders I found most objectionable have been dropped. Mr. President, I believe the managers hands were tied in this situation. The allocation for this entire account was reduced to such an extent that they were forced to make some difficult choices. The overall allocation was reduced by close to 10 percent from fiscal year 1995. The fact that EPA received a 14 percent cut is very unfortunate but understandable considering the overall reduction for this bill. I hope that the ongoing budget negotiations will yield more funding for environmental protection. I agree that Congress must reduce Federal spending in order to gain control of our growing budget deficit. We must reorder our spending priorities and makes every effort to cut wasteful expenditures throughout the Federal budget. Although savings can be found in the Department of Energy, Department of Interior and EPA budgets, I will strongly oppose a complete gutting of the funding for important environmental programs. Finally, included in this legislation is an amendment which will remove EPA from the process of protecting many of our Nation's wetlands and rivers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Last year, under this section of the Clean Water Act, EPA assisted the State of Vermont in protecting one of our State's most valuable river ecosystems. I remain hopeful that during future consideration of funding for EPA we not further weaken EPA's ability to protect our Nation's rivers and wetlands. Mr. President, I am voting for this legislation in order to move the process forward. In the event that the legislation is vetoed by the President, I would hope my colleagues would seriously consider some the few concerns I have raised here.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I join my fellow Senator from Vermont to express my interest in these important community efforts in the State of Vermont. I am glad that the chairman concurs with our understanding.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, once again, this body is discussing the difficult issue of U.S. policy toward Bosnia. I regret that we are still here wrestling with this issue. I regret that American troops are on their way to Bosnia. I regret that peace has yet to come to the former Yugoslavia. Americans have watched while some of the greatest atrocities since World War II have been committed in Europe. We have watched in despair as brutal strife has sundered families, neighborhoods, towns and cities, and the peoples of an entire region. We have recoiled in horror at the summary executions of draft-age-men, the rape and murder of women and children, and discoveries of mass graves. An inhumanity which we thought long behind us has resurfaced with a shattering savagery. It did not have to come to this. Ever since my first trip to the former Yugoslavia in August 1992, I have been convinced that the U.N. or NATO needed to take a more aggressive role in enforcing U.N. mandates, protecting U.N. personnel and at certain critical moments, reducing Serb military capabilities through selective aerial bombing. Yet, as we all know, international reluctance to take bold action, lack of consensus within NATO and the U.N. and political caution in Europe and the U.S. doomed any timely efforts to bring peace to the region. I have also advocated lifting the arms embargo against Bosnia for several years. to me it is unconscionable that we would prevent Bosnia from defending itself against a vastly superior force, while at the same time refusing to step in, or allowing others to step in, and stop ethnic cleansing and the perpetuation of horrible atrocities against the Bosnian people. This proved to be a disastrous policy with tragic consequences. The only viable option seemed to me to be to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia. Over the last year, we have watched the European community struggle once again to find a solution to this seemingly intractable problem. But, as with past efforts, they fell apart in spite of strong U.S. support. It became clear to all involved that the only hope of ending this tragedy was to have the U.S. take the lead in facilitating negotiations between the parties. A belated but herculean effort by the Clinton administration resulted in the Dayton discussions, and the personal commitment of both the President and Secretary Christopher helped bring the parties together at last. I applaud the administration's intense efforts and believe the Dayton agreement provides the proper framework for a viable peace if all parties to the agreement are committed to working for peace. I continue to be reluctant to see U.S. ground troops sent to Bosnia. Just as we took the lead in Haiti, I believe the Europeans should take the lead in the implementation of the Dayton agreement, particularly in providing ground troops. The U.S. has been providing air cover and surveillance for the past few years. And we provided much of the firepower when the U.N. decided it would allow aggressive action against certain targets. I approved of these actions and believe we should continue to play that role in the Dayton agreement implementation force. I do not think that U.S. leadership at the bargaining table required us to assume responsibility for providing one-third of all ground troops. But the President made this commitment, and the option now before Congress is to support him at this stage in the process or perhaps precipitate the collapse of the most promising chance for peace. Given circumstances that we now cannot change, I do not believe there is really a choice here. If we care about the moral principles on which this Nation is built, if we care about the stability of Europe, for which we gave so many lives in two world wars, and if we take seriously the full responsibility of world leadership, then we must act to support the President's commitment. He should have come to Congress earlier in the process. But he didn't, and this is not the time to debate that issue further. I am opposing the Hutchison resolution because I do not think anything productive comes from saying now that we oppose the commitment of U.S. troops. The time for such a statement has long passed. And stated in isolation from any constructive discussion about what our role should be, I feel this approach is not helpful to resolving the tragedy of Bosnia. I will support the Dole resolution, because I believe it moves us in the right direction. I do this with reluctance on one point, however. This resolution calls on the United States to lead an immediate international effort to provide equipment, arms and training to the Bosnian Government Forces. I appreciate that this is seen as a way of addressing the military imbalance that now exists between the parties. Obviously, rough military parity is a critical requirement for a successful NATO troop withdrawal. But I believe that balance ought to be achieved by bringing down the level and sophistication of arms in the region--not by raising it. Part of the problem in achieving peace and now enforcing it is that there are too many weapons in the region. I am very concerned that focusing our efforts on arming the Bosnian Government instead of working to disarm and curtail arms flows into the area will merely stoke the fires for another explosion in Bosnia after we leave. What good is rough parity if all it does is set the stage for a resumption of the conflict after the withdrawal of the international force? After speaking today with Strobe Talbott, Acting Secretary of State, and Admiral Owens, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I am reassured that the administration is aware of the dangers of arming of the region and that every effort is being made to draw down the quantity of arms in the region, not to build them up. I also understand that General Shalikashvili is acutely aware of the potential danger to United States troops of direct United States involvement in arming, equipping, and training of the Bosnian Government Forces. Tomorrow the President will witness the formal signing in Paris of the Dayton agreement. It is crucial to American credibility that the U.S. Senate go on record supporting his efforts prior to that time. I have received assurances that one area that will receive intense scrutiny in the coming weeks is this critical question of military balance. The Dole resolution requests a plan from the administration in 30 days. And it is critical to the safety of our troops that this issue be successfully resolved in that time frame. Therefore, I will cast my vote today to advance this process--to Paris and the signing of an accord--with the support of the U.S. Senate. Finally, let me say that none of this would be possible without the professionalism, dedication, and commitment of the U.S. Armed Forces. The men and women who voluntarily serve under the Commander in Chief and who are now leaving their homes and families for a dangerous mission just before the holidays are the ones who make it possible to bring this hope of peace to Bosnia. We owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude and our hearts are with them. For it is they who put a face on what America stands for, and who are willing to take risks to see that others who want to live by these ideals are given a chance.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that the Congress should not criminalize a specific medical procedure, and that the States should not be prohibited from regulating or restricting postviability abortions to the extent that the Constitution permits them to do so. I also want to state again my firm belief in the wisdom of the Supreme Court decision Roe versus Wade, which held that under the constitutional right to privacy, a woman has a right of self- determination with regard to her pregnancy and reproductive health. In November I spoke in support of referring this bill to the Judiciary Committee for a hearing, and I'd like to thank my colleagues for joining me to support the passage of that motion. I think we learned a great deal from the hearing. One of the things that struck me was that the term ``partial birth'' is not a term that is clearly defined in the medical profession. This bill purports to be a very narrow measure that outlaws only one alternative to a woman who learns late in her pregnancy that it is not possible for her to carry her child to term. But we've learned that there is not a medical procedure known as a partial birth abortion. I suppose you can argue that those of us on this side of the issue shouldn't have a problem criminalizing a procedure that doesn't really exist. My response to that argument is predictable: why bother to criminalize a procedure that doesn't really exist? [[Page S 18226]] Moreover, rules of statutory interpretation will demand that the courts find some meaning in this law, because Congress is assumed to do nothing in vain. Somehow, the courts will have to put some definition on the term ``partial birth abortion,'' even though a clear understanding of what we're outlawing has eluded many of us. I'd like to quote briefly Dr. J. Courtland Robinson, who spoke at the hearing a couple of weeks ago and highlighted this point: I have to wonder what you are really trying to ban with this legislation. It sounds as if you are trying to leave any later abortions open to question. Dr. Robinson continues: I know that a number of physicians who have performed abortions for years, who are experts in the field, look at this legislation and do not understand what you mean or what you are trying to accomplish. It seems as if this vagueness is intentional, and I, as a physician, cannot countenance a vague law that may or may not cut off an appropriate surgical option for my patients. Sometimes, as any doctor will tell you, you begin a surgical procedure expecting it to go one way, only to discover that the unique demands of the case require that you do something different. Dr. Robinson highlights a point I've made many times before. We can't adequately define the procedure we mean to outlaw because we're not doctors. I share Dr. Robinson's fear that because this law is so vague and because we are denying doctors the ability to use their best medical judgment, physicians will be deterred from performing any late term abortion procedure. Late term abortions will be unavailable and women will die. This is an unprecedented intrusion into the practice of medicine. In my view decency and common sense would require us to recognize that it is not the job of the Congress to come between physicians and their patients. I also want to speak briefly in support of section two of Senator Feinstein's amendment. I think her amendment is entirely consistent with the thinking in much of the legislation we have debated recently. On a number of matters we are choosing to leave regulation to the States; indeed, we are deregulating at the Federal level so that we may leave the States the flexibility to enact their own laws on welfare, Medicaid, and so forth. I must admit that it seems strange to me that in this area alone we are undertaking Federal regulation where there has been none. In doing so we are taking away from the States the right to legislate on this issue as they see necessary. In fact, we know that 41 of the States already have laws regulating access to post-viability abortions. I have expressed before my support for the enduring wisdom of Roe versus Wade decision. I think Senator Feinstein's amendment is consistent with that decision. In Roe, the Court found that under the constitutional right to privacy, a woman has the right to make her own decisions where her pregnancy and reproductive health are concerned-- especially, the Court said, ``when her right to life is threatened.'' The bill we are now considering is a direct challenge to that historic decision's protection of a woman's life and health. Concern about a woman's life has been abandoned in the partial birth abortion legislation we've been discussing, but Roe versus Wade requires that even where a state chooses to outlaw post-viability abortions, it may not under any circumstances outlaw abortions necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. I will say again that I believe doctors must be able to put the welfare of their patients first. Doctors should be able to use whatever procedure will, in their professional judgment, be safest for the mothers, their patients. Toward this goal, I wholeheartedly support the sense-of-the-Senate amendment that Congress should not criminalize a specific medical procedure, and the rule of Construction permitting the States to regulate post-viability abortions to the extent permitted by the Constitution.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, in one of his books, Dr. Halverson wrote, ``It is foolish to say there is no God. But it is infinitely more foolish to say there is and to live as though there were not.'' Dr. Halverson's special grace was in his way of helping us to bridge the gap between faith and practice. As a preacher, Chaplain Halverson fought against unbelief but, as a pastor, he was equally concerned about hypocrisy. Dick, as he was known to all of us in the Senate, loved his country, loved the Senate as an institution, but more importantly he loved us as individual Members of the Senate. His deep caring spirit was evident in his availability at all times to attend to the needs of Senators and our families. He knew us all and, even so, managed to love us whatever our backgrounds may have been. And, not only the Senators, Dick loved the staffers, the elevator operators, the police officers, and everyone he met in the course of a day on the Hill. No one knew more people than did Dick. His daily prayers in the Senate acted as a reality check for each of us. One morning his prayers began: Gracious Father in Heaven, help us to keep our priorities straight. In this center of power, secondary matters have a way of preoccupying our attention and preempting our time. Help us not to take ourselves too seriously, forgetting that we are fallible human beings with many needs. Deliver us from VIP syndrome which expects or demands preferential treatment. It is these actions and thoughts which live on in our hearts and minds as we think of Dick. His words and love taught us much and each of us is the better for having known him. He was a special gift to us and we shall remember him.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the managers' amendment accepted earlier today to the Interstate Commerce Commission Sunset Act of 1995 will greatly assist Vermont in maintaining its intercity passenger rail service. I want to thank the managers of the bill for working with me on this important amendment. Almost 1 year ago, residents of Vermont were informed that they would lose their passenger rail service. In an effort to cut costs and revitalize our struggling national passenger rail corporation, Amtrak announced a major restructuring. This effort included cutbacks in service, downsized management, streamlined operations, and retirement of older equipment. This plan also called for elimination of certain routes, including the Montrealer, which had served Vermont for many years. Ending Vermont's connection to our national passenger rail system would certainly have hurt our small State. An integral component of our transportation infrastructure, Amtrak brought skiers, business people, and leaf peepers to our beautiful State. In addition, Amtrak allows residents of Vermont to travel economically to nearby destinations and across the country. In an effort to save this service, I worked with Senator Leahy, Governor Dean, the Vermont State Legislature, and many dedicated Vermont citizens to develop a plan to continue passenger rail in Vermont. Amtrak became an active partner in assisting with this goal, and early last spring the new Vermonter began service from Washington, DC to Burlington, VT. The Vermonter has become a model for how Amtrak and States can work together to preserve passenger rail service. Monthly ridership on the Vermonter has increased over 60 percent since April. The train allows residents of New York City to reach the ski slopes of Vermont in a few hours. A baggage car was added to the train, with state-of-the-art ski and bike racks designed by Vermont crafts people and Vermont-made food products are served in the dining car. Vermonter's are proud of this train and we will do all we can to see it survive for the long term. The plan establishing the Vermonter required the State of Vermont to pay any costs over and above the revenue generated by the train. For 1995, the State agreed to pay $750,000 to support the train. Like all States, Vermont responsibly maintains a balanced budget. This task is becoming more and more difficult, as there are increasing demands on the State to provide services. To assist States such as Vermont, Senator Roth offered an amendment to the National Highway System Designation Act, NHS, which would have granted States the flexibility to use highway funds to support Amtrak service. This effort had the strong backing of many State legislatures and the National Governors Association. When brought to a vote in June, the amendment passed by an overwhelming margin here in the Senate, giving States hope for preserving their passenger rail service. However, during conference negotiations on the NHS bill, Senate leaders were forced by the House to drop this important provision. My amendment will allow Vermont to use unobligated highway funds to pay its portion of the Vermonter's operating costs. In fiscal year 1996, Vermont will obtain over $71 million under the Federal-aid highway program. This funding comes from the highway trust fund, paid for by motor fuel taxes. Vermonter's pay into the trust fund each time they fill their cars with gasoline. I believe these same Vermonters would strongly support using this funding to maintain our passenger rail service. All States should be granted this flexibility, and the success in utilizing this flexibility in Vermont should prove to skeptics the value of giving all States the authority to spend their Federal transportation dollars to support passenger rail. Mr. President, I hope in the future we are successful in providing this flexibility to all States. But for now, without the authority provided by my amendment, Vermont may risk losing the Vermonter. This would be a tragedy. I thank my colleagues for considering this provision, and I appreciate their support.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate and pay tribute to the members of the Agri-Mark/Cabot Cooperative. On November 13, 1995, the hardworking Agri-Mark framers dedicate the newly renovated state-of-the art cheddar cheese production facility in Middlebury, VT. For over 75 years Cabot Creamery has produced superior dairy products from local Vermont farms. Today, only the size of Cabot has changed. Farmers from throughout New England and New York have joined the farmers from Vermont with great pride in producing the highest quality products. Farm fresh milk will be churned into Cabot's award-winning cheeses for stores throughout the country and around the globe. Mr. President, Cabot products are in high demand. Cabot's special detail to quality gives their products the edge over the competition. In fact, Cabot's own sharp cheddar was acclaimed the best cheddar in the country by the U.S. Cheese Makers Association in Green Bay, WI. That's right, even the competition agrees that Cabot farmers produce the best. In addition to the overwhelming satisfaction of real cheddar lovers, just this year Cabot's Vermont cheddar won first place at the American Cheese Society's annual contest. Throughout my years in Congress, I have been proud to represent the Vermont dairy farmer. I have worked to protect farmer income, bring stability to the dairy industry, and preserve Vermont's agricultural landscape. This investment of money and sweat from the farmers of Agri- Mark/Cabot comes at a time when Congress is making sweeping changes to the Government's involvement with the dairy industry. I am confident that the farmers of Agri-Mark/Cabot will adapt to the changes of the industry, becoming more efficient, competitive, and productive. I will continue to give the support that the farmers deserve and respect in Congress to allow them to succeed. Mr. President, I join with the 1,800 Agri-Mark/Cabot farmers in a ``Milk Toast to the Future.'' One hundred years from today, the farmers of Agri-Mark will open a time capsule. In it they will find the past that helped build the future. The dedicated members of this farmer owned cooperative believe that their hard work in the first 75 years is the key to the success in the next 100 years. We must all work together and recognize the value of the family farm to our State and our country. Vermont's farms will survive and remain the backbone of Vermont's heritage.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Campbell's motion to strike from the continuing resolution the language restricting political advocacy with private funds. I am opposed to the inclusion of this language in the continuing resolution, and in any bill. This provision is nothing more than a political slogan in search of a problem. There is probably not a Member of Congress that has not been on the receiving end of criticism from a group or groups that receive Federal funds. It is irritating at times, but it is hardly cause for closing down the Government. Nor is it sufficient justification for forcing organizations to choose between seeking grants to do work on behalf of the Federal Government and saying how they think that Government, or any government for that matter, can be improved. It seems to me that we should invite such criticism rather than discourage it. Instead, this provision is designed to dampen debate from some of the parties that are in the best position to add to it. Apart from being questionable public policy, I think this provision is of questionable legality. Everybody has a lawyer's opinion to buttress his or her position, but it seems strange to me how this provision can withstand judicial scrutiny. It must have seemed strange to its proponents as well, because they felt constrained to include section 306, which states that ``Nothing in this title shall be deemed to abridge any rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.'' I doubt this is a novel approach, but I cannot off the top of my head think of a similar situation where we have attempted to anticipate and decide a near certain legal challenge. I have my doubts how much deference the courts will give this provision. The Supreme Court has long held that it is an important first amendment right for individuals to be able to freely talk to their elected representatives. While the Federal Government is allowed to place restrictions on the use of the Federal money it grants, the Supreme Court has expressed concerns in the past with the Federal Government placing restrictions on the use of purely private money to talk to their elected representatives. The provision before us would change dramatically how private funds could be used by Federal grantees. Under current law, tax exempt groups do face limits on the amount of lobbying they may conduct. But those limits would undergo a wholesale transformation. Not just lobbying of Congress would be restricted, but so, too, would be lobbying of city councils, State agencies, and State legislatures. As a result, if your State chamber of commerce has an employee or two that lobbies in the State house, the executive branch or enters into judicial or agency proceedings, it might well be barred from seeking Federal funds to promote economic development or tourism. Further, the imposition of these restrictions will create a whole new practice for lawyers. This language provides incentives for lawyers to sue organizations by rewarding them with a substantial share of recovered dollars. Organizations could be sued for up to 10 years, further clogging up the American courts. In a time when the Congress is trying to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits, creating this new boon for lawyers is counter productive. There are many small organizations in my State of Vermont that receive Federal funds that would be unable to effectively communicate with their local officials because of the limits that these restrictions will place on them. These restrictions will keep my constituents from discussing such local issues as the school board, property taxes, and paving roads with their local or State representatives. I would like to include for the Record a brief description of some programs in my State of Vermont that will be affected by these restrictions if they are enacted. Mr. President, let me again reiterate my strong opposition to the inclusion of this language in the continuing resolution, and strongly urge my colleagues to support Senator Campbell's motion to strike. I ask unanimous consent a brief description of the programs be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. There are expert professional licensing boards, accreditation councils, and medical associations that guide doctors' decisionmaking in the complicated and difficult matters of life and death. Let us continue to leave it to the professionals.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the motion to commit the bill before us to the Judiciary Committee, and in defense of the constitutional right to privacy, as well as to protect the life of mother. This bill has not been considered by any Senate committee, nor have Senators had the benefit of learning more about this bill from Senate hearings. It passed the House less than a week ago. I suggest that we need more time to study the broad-ranging implications of this bill. This motion suggests a time limit of 19 days, a very short time considering the complexity of this issue. But at least we will have an opportunity to learn more about what this procedure is, and why it is being utilized. Mr. President, for the committee to consider and hold hearings on this far-reaching bill is of critical importance. I am disturbed by the misinformation that is floating around about this bill. This bill outlines a particular late-term abortion procedure subjecting the doctor who performs it to both criminal and civil suits. It matters not whether a procedure is medically necessary to save the life or health of the woman. That is the critical question here. We all need to be clear about what exactly it is that we are not voting on today. We are not voting on whether or not we believe in the sanctity of human life. We are not voting on whether or not certain medical procedures can be described in grisly detail. We are not voting on whether or not we will intercede between pregnant women and their doctors to determine what medical procedures are or are not personally medically and ethically appropriate for all women in all circumstances. No. The women who have had these procedures speak passionately about their children, their families, and their sorrow at losing their pregnancy. They also speak patiently in defense of keeping this procedure, this best of several difficult options for them and their families--to keeping it safe, available, and legal. Their lives were, and their lives are at stake. This is an unprecedented intrusion into the practice of medicine. Congress has never before acted to ban any medical procedure. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists, in writing about the bill--and I quote them: . . . does not support H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995. The college finds it very disturbing that Congress would take any action that would supersede the medical judgment of trained physicians and criminalize medical procedures that may be necessary to save the life of the woman. Twenty-two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, Roe versus Wade. The Court's decision established, under the right to privacy, a woman's right of self-determination in matters regarding her pregnancy and reproductive health, and I emphasize ``especially when her right to life is threatened.'' Since that time, we have seen many challenges to Roe in both Congress and in the courts, but the wisdom and structure of that decision has for the most part endured. This bill has been designed as a direct challenge to that historic decision's protection of women's lives and health. While the decision acknowledged a State interest in fetuses after viability, the Court wisely left restrictions on postviability abortions up to the States. This strikes me as quite consistent with much of the legislation we have recently considered on many other matters, choosing to leave regulation to the States. Roe versus Wade had a caveat, though, about these State-imposed postviability restrictions. States may not--may not--under any circumstances outlaw abortions necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman. Also, subsequent Supreme Court decisions have held that States may not outlaw using specific abortion procedures in cases that endanger the woman's life or health. These court decisions and, in my view, decency and common sense dictate that doctors must be able to put the welfare of their patient, the woman, first. Doctors must be able to use whatever procedure will, in their professional judgment, be safest for their patients. This is a basic tenet of the practice and regulation of medicine in this country.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me briefly remind everybody that a while back, when we were dealing with the budget resolution, 67 of us voted not to cut more than $4 billion out of higher education. This amendment would bring this level closer to where we in the Senate voted earlier this year to be--a $5 billion cut from the $10.8 billion. I remind my colleagues of that. I hate to see anybody be inconsistent with their voting, and since 67 voted for something a little more draconian than this, I hope Senators will stay with us on this amendment. Our amendment restores the 6-month grace period, eliminates the .85 percent institution fee, and lowers the interest rate on PLUS loans, reducing the Labor Committee's instruction from $10.85 billion over 7 years to $5 billion. Let me lay aside the issue of reducing education cuts for one quick moment and explain why this amendment is so important. As I mentioned just a few moments ago, the amendment offered by my Democratic colleagues restores direct lending to current law--or a transition to 100 percent. I simply cannot support such a provision. I have always been a supporter of testing the direct lending program and am on record as opposing the Labor Committee's bill to limit it to 20 percent. Twenty percent in my view is too small, it cuts out schools that currently participate in the program, and that to me is wrong. However, as I stated during debate of the 1993 reconciliation, I believe in a slow, implementation of direct lending. It should be undertaken thoughtfully and carefully. The amendment offered by my Democratic colleagues is tantamount to a phase-in of direct lending. A phase-in suggests something very different than a thoughtful analysis of the two programs. My fear is that we have already made the decision to go full force without really looking at the advisability of such a move. It is like saying ``ready, fire--and then aim''. For this reason I support a firm cap on direct lending. That cap, in my mind should be set at a point which protects the schools that are current participants and allows some room for growth. I suggest that number be set between 30-40 percent. Mr. President, that is not the amendment we are currently considering. I offered that suggestion to my colleagues as a bipartisan approach. Unfortunately, that amendment coupled with billions of dollars in additional student aid, was rejected by the Democrats and interestingly also by groups purporting to represent higher education. In particular the American Council on Education. There is agreement that we must balance the budget and do so in a way that protects students, parents, and institutions. That is what this amendment does. It strikes the .85 percent institution fee, restores the 6-month grace period, and eliminates the increase in the PLUS interest rate. Support for this amendment will provide important savings to these students, their parents, and institutions of higher learning. Eliminating the interest subsidy during the 6-month grace period could increase the debt of an undergraduate who borrows the maximum $23,000 by almost $1,000, resulting in additional payments of nearly $1,400 over the life of the loan. For a graduate student who borrows the maximum $65,500, the result would be $2,700 in additional debt and almost $4,000 in additional payments. Raising the interest rate and the interest rate cap on PLUS loans would increase the total payments of parents who borrow $20,000 for their children's education by $1,300. It simply does not pay to cut education. Consider the following: More highly educated workers not only earn more, but they work and pay taxes longer than less educated workers. According to a recent study, between 1973 and 1993, median family income dropped by over 20 percent for families headed by a person with a high school diploma or less; but it held steady for those families headed by someone with 4 years of college; and increased for families head by someone with 5 years of college or more. We need to encourage our young people to pursue higher education both to keep us competitive and to help balance the budget. Unfortunately, the opportunity for individuals to go on to postsecondary education is getting slimmer and slimmer. Pell grant awards have not kept pace with college costs. Students have had to increase borrowing in order to make up the difference. In 1985-86, the actual maximum Pell grant of $2,100 paid 58 percent of the total annual cost of attendance for a 4-year public institution ($3,637). In 1993-94, the maximum Pell grant of $2,300 paid only 36 percent of the total cost ($6,454). Because Federal grant programs have grown much more slowly than the cost [[Page S 16657]] of attending college, loans now (1994-95) account for 56 percent of all student aid, up from 49 percent in 1985-96. Borrowing has skyrocketed in recent years to such an extent that the amount borrowed through the FFEL program from 1990 to 1995 is greater than the total amount borrowed from its inception in 1965 through 1989. With such statistics it is no wonder that polls show more and more students and families deciding that college is simply out of their reach. In fact, close to 20 percent of students consider leaving school because of debt. Considering the impact on our economy and the future earning potential of individuals with a postsecondary degree, this statistic is most disheartening. So again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and tell the Nation that the issue of education spending is a bipartisan issue.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, 35 years ago, the American Council for the Arts [ACA] was established under the name Community Arts Councils, Inc., as an organization supporting the arts and artists in this country. Over the three-and-a-half decades since its founding, the American Council for the Arts has played a major role in the dramatic increase in the availability of the arts to the American people. In the early 1960's, ACA served as one of the earliest advocates for the creation of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Nancy Hanks served as one of ACA's first presidents before becoming Chair of the National Endowment for the Arts in 1969. Over the years, ACA board members have included David Rockfeller, Jr., Joanne Woodward, Jane Alexander, Harry Belafonte, Ralph Ellison, Colleen Dewhurst, Joseph Papp, Lane Kirkland, and Kitty Carlisle Hart, among others. In the 1970's, due to the broadening of ACA's objectives and the increasing demand for special constituent services, two separate organizations were spun-off from ACA: the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies and the National Assembly of Local Arts Agencies. From arts advocacy to publishing, from founding the National Coalition of United Arts Funds, to working on behalf of arts education initiatives, ACA has worked tirelessly on behalf of the arts and culture of this Nation. Every spring, ACA mounts Arts Advocacy Day and the Nancy Hanks Lecture on the Arts and Public Policy in Washington, DC. Advocacy Day brings together arts advocates from across the country to work on behalf of a strong Federal role in funding the arts and culture, and the Nancy Hanks Lecture, now in its 9th year, has quickly become one of the most important public forums on the relationship between Government and the arts. Nancy Hanks Lecturers have included Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.--1988, Leonard Garment--1989, Maya Angelou-- 1990, John Brademas--1991, Franklin Murphy--1922, Barbara Jordan--1993, David McCullough--1994, and Winton M. Blount--1995. The 1996 lecturer will be Carlos Fuentes. ACA's National Arts Clearinghouse contains a wealth of arts policy information, and other arts studies, magazines, journals, and documents--an invaluable resource for the study of arts policy. Over the years, ACA has commissioned studies and produced books for artists, arts administrators, policymakers, students, educators, and others. ACA commissioned the first Lou Harris poll on ``Americans and the Arts'' in 1973 and has recommissioned the poll five times. ACA has made an enormous contribution to the wealth and vitality of our great Nation. Please join with me in celebrating ACA's 35 years of service to the arts.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we have debated the issue of restrictions on international family planning many times in this body, and I regret that at this stage in the process, this issue threatens to bring down an important foreign aid bill. This body voted by a significant margin just 1 month ago to preserve a reasoned family planning policy--one that supports important family planning work in the most needy areas around the globe. Population growth is a crisis that cannot be ignored, that will not wait for attention at a later date. Unchecked population growth will ultimately threaten every corner of the globe. And a withdrawal on our part from our current active role in education and technical assistance to successful family planning programs worldwide would be devastating. Experience has proven that it does not take a lot of money to have a large effect upon population growth. However, it does take efficient programming, consistency, and a commitment for the long term. We put that all at risk in this debate today if we back away from the longstanding position of this body, that restrictions on family planning funding to nongovernmental organizations overseas should be the same as those applied to U.S. organizations. Mr. President, the stakes in this debate are even higher today than usual. This is the only issue in disagreement between the two bodies on a large and substantive bill; 192 differences have been resolved, resulting in a reasonable bill that, with the exception of this [[Page S 16485]] issue alone, has broad support on both sides of the aisle in both bodies and is acceptable to the administration. Yet, failure to insist on the Senate position on this important issue, namely a continuation of current law, would doom this important legislation to a certain veto. We have enough issues in disagreement with the administration without adding this one to the list. I thank the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] for her consistent leadership on this issue and I urge support for the Leahy-Kassebaum amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues Senator Cochran, Senator Leahy, Senator Gorton, Senator Cohen, and Senator Snowe in supporting the creation of an export class for dairy products, and granting the consent of Congress to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. This amendment is vital to the future of the New England dairy industry and the national dairy industry as a whole. Mr. President, the Senate reconciliation bill cuts the cost of the dairy program by 49 percent over the next 7 years. This comes on top of a reduction of 69 percent in the last decade. While the dairy industry is willing to accept some cuts, and I realize the need to cut, the industry has already pulled its load. As it stands, this bill does not address the critical need to increase sales of butter and nonfat dry milk in the world market. As the support price for butter and nonfat dry milk are eliminated, their prices will fall and cause a glut of those products. This surplus will either be cleared on the world market at a very reduced price, or be converted into cheese. In either case, this will case a substantial drag on the return to dairy farmers and manufacturers of these products. This amendment will expand U.S. dairy markets by providing a way for all producers to share the cost of moving those products to the export market. It is GATT-legal, plus will reduce U.S. reliance on export subsidies. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the conversion from powder to cheese will increase Commodity Credit Corporation purchases by $230 million. This amendment will help farmers and taxpayers--by ensuring dairy products will be exported instead of being purchased by the Government. This amendment will also grant consent to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, an agreement among the six New England States to create a commission that will have the authority to oversee the pricing for fluid milk produced in the New England region. The compact will not affect milk prices outside the compact region. In fact, it will act as a useful pilot project for other regions, and is strongly supported by many groups and individuals across the country. Mr. President, the New England States have joined together to do what many States do already on their own. If America had grown from west to east I would not be standing here because New England would likely be one large State and would not have to ask for consent of Congress. All six States' Governors-Republican, Democrat, and independent and their legislatures strongly support this amendment. On vote after vote this year we have acted to give more responsibility back to the States. Here is an opportunity for the Senate to do just that--in precisely the manner the Founders laid out in the Constitution. Mr. President, the National Milk Producers Federation strongly supports this amendment as well as Mid-America, AMPI, Darigold, Milk Marketing Inc., and many other farmer cooperatives and dairy farmers from throughout the country. Supporting it is an opportunity to vote for State's rights, and to vote for dairy farmers and to vote for our taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me briefly remind everybody that a while back, when we were dealing with the budget resolution, 67 of us voted not to cut more than $4 billion out of higher education. This amendment would bring this level closer to where we in the Senate voted earlier this year to be--a $5 billion cut from the $10.8 billion. I remind my colleagues of that. I hate to see anybody be inconsistent with their voting, and since 67 voted for something a little more draconian than this, I hope those Senators will stay with us on this amendment. I will also say, while I believe that we should have direct lending stay in as it creates great competition for the programs, and am in favor of having a rate higher than 20 percent that is in the bill now, I could not go with the Democratic amendment because it essentially opens up direct lending fully. I will therefore be voting against the Kennedy amendment. But I will be voting in favor, obviously, of the Kassebaum-Snowe-Jeffords amendment. Our amendment restores the 6-month grace period, eliminates the .85 percent institution fee, and lowers the interest rate on PLUS loans. Reducing the labor committee's instruction from $10.85 billion over 7 years to $5 billion. Let me lay aside the issue of reducing education cuts for one quick moment and explain why this amendment is so important. The amendment offered by my democratic colleagues restored direct lending to current law--or a transition to 100 percent. I simply could not support such a provision. I have always been a supporter of testing the direct lending program and am on record as opposing the labor committee's bill to limit it to 20 percent. Twenty percent in my view is too small, it cuts out schools that currently participate in the program--that to me is wrong. However, as I stated during debate of the 1993 reconciliation, I believe in a slow, implementation of direct lending. It should be undertaken thoughtfully and carefully. The amendment offered by my democratic colleagues is tantamount to a phase-in of direct lending. A phase-in suggests something very different than a thoughtful analysis of the two programs. My fear is that we have already made the decision to go full force without really looking at the advisability of such a move. It is like saying ``ready, fire, and then aim.'' For this reason I support a firm cap on direct lending. That cap, in my mind should be set at a point which protects the schools that are current participants and allows some room for growth. I suggest that number be set between 30-40 percent. Mr. President, that is not the amendment we are currently considering. I offered that suggestion to my colleagues as a bipartisan approach. Unfortunately, that amendment coupled with billions of dollars in additional student aid, was rejected by the democrats and interestingly also by groups purporting to represent higher education. In particular the council on education. I am truly disheartened that today we may have lost an opportunity to demonstrate to this Congress, the administration and the people of this country that education is not a partisan issue. Unfortunately, we gave up the chance to show that politics takes a back seat to sound policy. I wish we could have put differences aside and discussed the real issue--reducing the labor committee's instruction and restore funding for education. Certainly, we must balance the budget but we must cut expenditure not investment. That is what this amendment does. It strikes the .85 percent institution fee, restores the 6-month grace period, and eliminates the increase in the PLUS interest rate. Support for this amendment will provide savings to parents, students, and institutions. Eliminating the interest subsidy during the 6-month grace period could increase the debt of an undergraduate who borrows the maximum $23,000 by almost $1,000, resulting in additional payments of nearly $1,400 over the life of the loan. For a graduate student who borrows the maximum $65,500, the result would be $2,700 in additional debt and almost $4,000 in additional payments. Raising the interest rate and the interest rate cap on PLUS loans would increase the total payments of parents who borrow $20,000 for their children's education by $1,300. It simply doesn't pay to cut education. Consider the following: More highly educated workers not only earn more, but they work and pay taxes longer then less educated workers. Between 1973 and 1993, median family income dropped by over 20 percent for families headed by a person with a high school diploma or less; but it held steady for those families headed by someone with 4 years of college; and increased for families head by someone with 5 years of college or more. (Mortenson, June 1995) We need to encourage our young people to pursue higher education both to keep us competitive and to help balance the budget. Higher education funds cannot be cut any further. Unfortunately, the opportunity for individuals to go on to postsecondary education is getting slimmer and slimmer. Pell grant awards have not kept pace with college costs. Students have had to increase borrowing in order to make up the difference. In 1985-86, the actual maximum Pell grant of $2,100 paid 58 percent of the total annual cost of attendance for a 4-year public institution $3,637. In 1993-94, the maximum Pell grant of $2,300 paid only 36 percent of the total cost, $6,454. Because Federal grant programs have grown much more slowly than the cost of attending college, loans now, 1994-95 account for 56 percent of all student aid, up from 49 percent in 1985-96. Borrowing has skyrocketed in recent years to such an extent that the amount borrowed through the FFEL program from 1990 to 1995 is greater than the total amount borrowed from its inception in 1965 through 1989. With such statistics it is no wonder that polls show more and more students and families deciding that college is simply out of their reach. In fact, close to 20 percent of students consider leaving school because of debt. Considering the impact on our economy and the future earning potential of individuals with a postsecondary degree, this statistic is most disheartening. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and tell the nation that the issue of education spending is a bipartisan issue. I see that the Senator from Maine has arrived. I am happy to yield to her.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in vigorous support of removing these provisions in this bill because we are dealing here with a very serious problem of pension plans. This will result in tens of billions of dollars being withdrawn from employee pension plans at a time when we are in absolute need of improving our pension capacity. It is done without any hearings. It is a matter that is within the jurisdiction of our committee. We would want desperately to make sure that what things are done are done correctly and appropriately. I vigorously oppose the provisions that are in the bill and support the strike amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on Friday, October 6, 1995, the Institute of Museum Services announced the winners of the 1995 National Awards for Museum Services. The awards were presented to five museums that demonstrated success in attracting new audiences, developing innovative programming which address educational, social, economic, and environmental issues, and entering into collaborations with other public institutions in the community. Winners received the awards at a special White House ceremony. I am so proud that one of the museums chosen to be honored this year comes from the State of Vermont. The Montshire Museum of Science in Norwich, VT is a recipient of the 1995 National Museum Service Award. Serving both Vermont and New Hampshire, the Montshire Museum is a model of creativity, usefulness, and public service. The Montshire Museum is an outstanding science museum that has enriched the cultural and educational life of the Norwich community and surrounding environs. It has set itself apart through a commitment to special activities and exhibitions, bringing unique vitality and purpose to innovative programming. For years, the Montshire Museum has been making learning science fun and accessible for people of all ages. For example, the Montshire has developed educational exhibitions that inform visitors about recycling and ``precycling,'' or making smart purchasing decisions as part of its work in partnership with the Hartford Community Center for Recycling and Waste Management. As a result of the Montshire Museum's commitment, thousands who have come to the center to dispose of waste have had an opportunity to learn more about recycling and making smarter, more environmentally friendly purchasing decisions. In addition, the Montshire has been a leader in creating a new community computer network housed in the museum--a great asset to all served by the museum. Clearly, this small science museum has taken a leadership role in making a difference to its community. Since it was established 20 years ago, the Montshire Museum has made an enormous impact on presenting unique educational opportunities for the people of Vermont and New Hampshire. It is truly an example of excellence in partnership and learning. My sincere congratulations to David Goudy, director of the Montshire Museum and to Bruce Pipes, chairman of the board--as well as to the all of the other committed individuals working at the Montshire Museum--for this exceptional honor. I am certain that it will continue to make a positive difference in our State that will last far into the future.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise with all due respect to my good friend, the Senator from North Carolina, whom I have worked with over many, many years. And certainly in the days of his chairmanship of the Agriculture Committee, we had many good times working together. However, I oppose this bill for many reasons. I was in the service of the United States Navy at the time that Fidel Castro assumed control of Cuba and have done everything since that time to try to bring about a change in that Government. I have a strong difference of opinion on the approach which is important for this Nation to take at this time to bring about the change of government there. For over 30 years, we have maintained an embargo against Cuba with a stated purpose of bringing about the demise of the totalitarian regime. However, our embargo has not brought about the political and democratic change legitimately desired by the Cuban people. I support the Cuban people in their desire to do that. It is just a question of how you do it. It is not a question of the goal here. It is a question of how we reach that goal. It harms a majority of the Cuban people without affecting the ruling elite, and the Cuban Government is a major impediment to the United States exerting positive pressure for change in Cuba. Further, Cuba today poses no strategic or political threat to our Nation. We ask ourselves, then, will the provisions of this bill hasten the change we all desire? I think the answer is clearly no. I believe the provisions of this bill are, in fact, harmful to U.S. interests. Many of our closest allies--Canada, Great Britain, and Mexico--vehemently oppose the extraterritorial provisions in this bill as infringing on their sovereignty. They oppose this bill even though they share our unstinting commitment to bring democratic change to Cuba. The bill would have little impact on non-United States investment in trade in Cuba, which is growing despite our embargo. Mr. President, the provisions of this bill regarding property confiscations set a dangerous precedent, moving far beyond any existing law we have had in the history of this Nation. Under this bill, claimants could sue individual companies or government entities-- foreign as well as domestic--regardless of whether the claimants were United States nationals at the time of the alleged confiscation. This bill attempts to confer retroactive rights of suit upon individuals and companies that were not U.S. nationals at the time their Cuban properties were taken. The ramifications of this in all other situations similar around this world are staggering. This bill would confer a right to sue upon a specific national-origin group, which has never been done before. The United States has never conferred such rights on any such group. The group that we refer to if this is opened up would be those that lost their property in China and Vietnam, Korea or anywhere else, who now came to this country--that is, those who fled the nations and came here, Vietnamese, too--and now have become United States citizens could go back as United States citizens to make claims. This has never happened before. This bill would dilute the certified claims. We will talk here about a pot of money, if there ever is one. And what it would do is dilute by so much those legitimate claims under existing law, it would be totally unfair to the legitimate rights of the U.S. citizens at the time. It would swamp the U.S. courts with thousands upon thousands of lawsuits, causing an explosion of litigation, costing programs billions of dollars. This possibility alone virtually ensures that the measure would be completely unwieldy. Citizens could have a hard time bringing any other matters before the courts. This measure could also wreak havoc with some of our most important allies and trading partners by exposing their nationals to a flurry of lawsuits in U.S. courts. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that this bill does nothing for our efforts to promote a democratic Cuba. It does nothing for U.S. economic interests. Most importantly, it does nothing but create a potential benefit for a small group of people at potentially great cost to the American taxpayers. Therefore, I must say I vehemently oppose this bill as being contrary to the interests of the United States and the citizens of the United States. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.