Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the welfare reform bill tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. Following 10 minutes of debate the Senate will begin a series of rollcall votes on or in relation to amendments to the welfare reform bill. All Senators should therefore expect the first rollcall vote on Thursday at approximately 10:10, to be followed by a series of votes with only 10 minutes of debate between each vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, since there are no further Senators planning to offer their amendments tonight, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until the hour of 9:15 a.m. on Thursday, September 14, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date; the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there be a period for morning business until the hour of 10 a.m. with Senator Byrd to be recognized for up to 45 minutes; I further ask that at 10 a.m. the Senate immediately resume consideration of H.R. 4, the welfare reform bill under the provisions of the previous consent agreement; further, that if Senator Dodd has not offered his amendment and therefore is not pending following the last rollcall votes in Thursday's series of votes, Senator Shelby shall be recognized to call up amendment No. 2526.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I end by saying that I agree what we should do is have help in the States on ways to change behavior such that we no longer have out-of-wedlock births. I am afraid what this will do which States are good at, that is, in fact, very innovative in the ability to fiddle with statistics and records and gain billions of dollars. That, the States have always been very, very good at. Amendment No. 2625

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Michigan for his excellent statement, and there is little that I disagree with in what he said. However, I point out that he has not, in any way, answered any of the questions I raised about how this would work and that the figures I gave were inaccurate. That is, very simply, that if a State, one time, reduces its rates in order to comply with the bill and never does anything more, but holds them where they are, they would be able to get the full 10 percent bonus for the full term of the bill, which could mean as much as--totally, if all the States did it, $1.6 billion a year; and that there is no provision in the bill for that money, other than it is entitlement and therefore it would be taken from other areas in order to fund it. I think that is one area that ought to be remembered. Secondly, also, the base year--there was no correction in the facts I gave about the fact that there is no accurate data available for the 1995 base year, which would be used for that. Nor was there any contradiction to my statement that by shifting out of wedlock births to other States, or Canada, or wherever else, it would not be possible to reach that ratio with no real decrease in out of wedlock births; nor the fact that there is no definition here for abortion, so that the results of what would happen for a State could well be determined entirely upon abortion definitions, which are nowhere included, and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I would like to join my good friend from Michigan in trying to find ways that we could provide workable and appropriate incentives to be able to reduce the out of wedlock births, especially among our young people. But I just urge my colleagues to realize that this one has some serious problems, and I hope they will remove it from the bill with my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Breaux amendment. I listened to the very eloquent and excellent statement of the former Governor of Missouri, and there is no question in my mind that if all the Governors of this Nation were like the former Governor of Missouri, we might not need this amendment. My memory goes back to the 1960's, when we started the welfare reform. It was because there were many areas of this Nation where the States dropped the ball with their responsibility on welfare, and the Federal Government came in to try to get some uniformity of standards in the ability to take care of the people of this country who were unable to take care of themselves or needed help in getting into a position where they could do so. I point out that in the Breaux amendment here, we are dollar for dollar, not percentage. So you could eliminate all your State moneys and, in many cases, end up with plenty of Federal funds left, so you are only going down dollar for dollar. I think that is an important concession to those of us who want to see this; that is, not to go over the formula reduction, so if they go down 1 percent, we go down 1 percent. It is a modest proposal in that respect. Second, the 90 percent is, I think, a reasonable figure to utilize. It does allow some drop in State effort, without losing Federal funds. I would like to also emphasize how critically important this amendment is to some of us who want to reach a consensus on welfare reform. There are about three areas, to me, which make the difference on whether I will support the bill or not. This is one of them. It is critical in the length of time, as well as percentage. But we cannot reduce the participation of States as an important part of the welfare reform and make it important that they continue to participate in the financing of that. Without a partnership provision like this, States could reduce their welfare expenditures to zero and use only Federal dollars for the entire costs. But with this amendment, States will have a continuing incentive to use their own resources in conjunction with Federal funds. Without, I foresee a major shift of the entire financial responsibility for welfare onto our already overburdened Federal budget. I see us returning to the problems we had before the advent of the Federal help. Our efforts to reform the welfare system must not dismantle the current partnership by allowing this cost shift. We simply cannot afford it. Right now, the Federal Government funds only 55 percent of the total national welfare funding, while States contribute the remaining dollars, almost $14 billion in fiscal year 1994. While the exact State-by-State ratio of State to Federal dollars spent on welfare varies by State, depending on available resources, both overall and individually, States make a major contribution. This should continue to be the case even after welfare reform. Welfare is a joint State/Federal responsibility that will not be there if there is not a monetary commitment. While it is true that the leadership has incorporated a partial provision, an expectation of 75 percent effort from the States for the first 3 years of the bill, I believe that this provision for 90 percent for the full 5-year term of the bill is essential and critical to this bill being passed. Either we believe States have a responsibility to contribute State funds toward welfare or we do not. I do not think that responsibility somehow evaporates after the first 3 years. Some may argue States rights against this provision. That States must be allowed to decide how much to spend and on whom to spend it. Some may argue States must be able to innovate in their delivery of benefits to save money. I agree. I agree that States should be able to set their own funding levels, their own benefits, design their own programs, save money. As we know, perhaps too acutely right now, the appropriations process is a difficult one, requiring painstaking decisions. State budgets around the country are also under stress, some States may well decide that welfare is not a priority for them that it was in 1994, that they want to save money for welfare to use somewhere else in their budget. I believe that when money is saved, and less is spent on welfare, both the State and Federal taxpayers should share in the savings. If the State share goes down, so should the Federal dollar, on a dollar for dollar basis. The welfare partnership amendment has been called a maintenance of efforts provision. It is, in that it would encourage States to continue to contribute State dollars toward welfare costs. But it is not the same as many of the maintenance of effort provisions of the past that I think my colleagues are most familiar with. Under the partnership, we ask that the States maintain a spending level of only 90 percent, not 100 percent, only 90 percent of their 1994 fiscal year expenditures on cash benefits, job education, and training and child care. Most maintenance of effort provisions require 100 percent effort or penalize with a total withdrawal of all Federal funds. This partnership provision is much more reasonable. If a State chooses to go below the 90 percent of the fiscal year 1994 State funding levels, it will experience a dollar for dollar reduction in the Federal grant. For every dollar the State chooses not to spend, they will receive one less Federal dollar. Of course, the reduction does not even begin to occur until the State funding levels fall below 90 percent of the 1994 levels, and that is important to remember that baseline is there. If you create savings, if you were able to reduce your roles, then that baseline still is there. In other words, assume that Vermont, through its innovative demonstration program, becomes so adapt at moving people off welfare to work that they save money. They do not need as much as they did in 1994 because the caseload is dramatically reduced. So the State decides it can afford to spend less overall on welfare. Under this proposal, the first 10 percent of savings goes to the State alone. They we can reduce State spending by 10 percent without affecting their Federal [[Page S 13324]] grant. After that, as the savings grow, the Federal Government share will go dollar for dollar in that spending reduction, once it goes below 90 percent of the 1994 level. If it does not go below the 1994 level they can make the savings without the provision. Without this provision, we, the Federal Government, will continue to send the same amount to States while they cut back their own expenditures. However, I think that Vermont, like all other States, should continue in partnership with us for welfare spending. The States will be able to set levels of spending based on need. There is no financial cliff in this provision. No financial cliff as has been indicated by some. If you go one dollar below the 1994 levels you lose all your Federal funds. No, that is not the case. The reduction is gradual and proportionate to what the States set as need. The States currently have some flexibility in setting their benefit levels. Under this bill, the flexibility will be enhanced and expanded. I believe that many of these State flexibility changes are positive, that State innovation should be encouraged and the Federal requirement should not be overly prescriptive. The bill will allow States to experiment with benefit levels, benefits delivery and eligibility, and do all they want within the guidelines to be able to bring about savings. Left to their own devices, States can probably show us here in Washington a thing or two about designing programs. I am sure they can. My own State of Vermont has been involved in a very interesting and successful demonstration project using a combination of sanctions and additional support services with its welfare population. I also believe that States may well be able to save money as they innovate and become more efficient. As they save money and are able to reduce their State welfare spending by moving people off welfare into work, this amendment would allow the Federal Government to share in those State savings. This provision allows us to share in those provisions. I want to emphasize that. Without it, States would no longer need to spend their State funds on welfare cash assistance, child care, education, and job training in order to receive Federal dollars. Regardless of State funding commitment, the Federal Government's funding stream will remain constant, frozen at the 1994 level. Mr. President I want to remind my colleagues that it is those very numbers, the 1994 Federal funding levels, that were set in proportion to the amount spent by the States in 1994. To continue at those same Federal levels without a requirement that States also spend seems very dangerous to me. Realistically, the entire responsibility for the welfare system would be shifted to the Federal Government. States would no longer have a financial incentive to use State dollars along with their Federal allocations. The incentives for making the system better would go away. If they wanted they could choose to narrow their welfare eligibility and reduce benefits and pay for it all with Federal dollars. I guess this amendment is about several things. It is about savings for the Federal Government as well as the States after reform. It is about fairness. And it is about continuing shared responsibility for welfare. It is ironic that we talk of the devolution to the States, the importance of governance at the local level, we simultaneously make welfare a solely Federal responsibility. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting what I believe is one of the most critical amendments we will have here today. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. So as we go forward with this welfare reform, let us keep in mind some things. I do not think there is a person here or the House who does not want welfare reform, including the White House. The question is, how do we reach a consensus? That is not going to be easy, there is no question about it. We have some people at the extremes of the process from no welfare to all welfare. But what we have to do is to try and reach that middle ground. We have to make some areas where we can have a consensus, and certainly one of those ought to be the provision of child care. There is not anyone in this body who does not believe there ought to be adequate child care. This amendment is the only thing which will bring us close to that. So, if we are going to have consensus on the issue of child care and if we really want to do what we are supposed to do here, and that is to break through the cycle of welfare, if we are going to give the children of those in the most desperate economic situations in this country the ability for them to have the education which is necessary, all the studies show if they [[Page S 13190]] do not get the early preschool education, they start out at a big disadvantage. Let me just end up by saying one of my most unusual experiences when I came to the Senate was I had a group of CEO's come into my office when I was first elected to the Senate. John Akers was the head of the group, the Business Roundtable. I expected them all to say, ``We need to get capital gains tax relief,'' blah, blah, blah. What happened? The first thing they said was, ``We need to fully fund Head Start. We need to make sure there is preschool education for every one of our kids if we are ever going to get our society in a position where we can be economically sound.'' Just recently, this IBM president said at the NGA, ``This Nation is in a crisis, and if we do not start the educational process we need, this Nation is not going to be the Nation it is today in the next century.'' I leave those words with you. Here is an opportunity to make sure the young kids will have the opportunity to get out of the welfare cycle. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we all are having a hard time with this amendment and with this bill. We all want to see welfare reform. We all want to see child care provided, and, thus, I rise in support of this amendment because I think it will help us move in that direction. We all agree that we want to see more welfare recipients in the work force. We all agree that the welfare cycle must be broken. I believe giving kids a good start through safe and healthy surroundings is essential to breaking the welfare cycle. In order to become productive, self-sufficient members of society, kids need quality care from the very beginning of their lives, either from their parents, in the child care setting or elsewhere. And a quality education must be provided from the beginning of their lives. What we are talking about, though, are the resources that will be available and should be available. We are all tied up with the problems of the deficit and the need to reduce the deficit. But there are things we must consider when we go about providing resources, that if we do not make resources available for those things that will break the cycle, for those things which will allow our young children to have the possibility of breaking out of the cycle, sort of give the parents of the children the ability to provide the child care necessary, then one important segment of breaking that cycle will not come about. Let us take a look at the macro picture that we must have and what we have to deal with so that we can recognize what the savings are from improving the education of our society and, most importantly, from the beginning of life, in child care to be sure these young children have the opportunity to have the surroundings that will allow them to learn. This chart gives us an idea of what we are losing now because we have serious educational problems in our country. One-half of a trillion dollars in GDP is lost per year because we fail to educate our people. The cost to our economy is more than $125 billion, in addition to lost revenues; $208 billion is lost from the result of the problems of welfare. So when we are talking about $1 billion a year or more to try and get enough money available for child care, to give to the children, weigh that against what is lost. In addition to that, I will have an amendment that says, hey, we have a demand here, an important demand that says every person in training must have a GED, must have a high school equivalent education. There is not money for that either. So what we are going to be doing is either creating a huge mandate upon the States that is unfunded or going forward with expectations which will not be fulfilled. Let us take a look at the relationship of education to productivity, what is happening to those who do not have a good education. The only people who have increased their income over the past few years are professionals. This is over the last 20 years. In the last 20 years, the only people who have increased their standard of living is at the level of master's, doctorates, and professionals. Others have either stayed at the bachelor level or gone down. Then take a look at the comparison of what is earned by those who do not finish high school: $12,800 per family. That is incredibly low and is going down in the sense of percentage of income. How do we break out of this? How do we provide those resources? It is stupid to cut back on those things which is going to increase your deficit. If we do not provide the amount of money that is necessary for child care, there is no chance that we are going to raise this level up, until you get to the area where you have a high enough standard of living to survive. So what this amendment tries to do is to say, ``Look, we are going to make sure that our children will have an opportunity to have the kind of income that will bring them out of the welfare cycle, to place them in a position where they can earn what is necessary, to get us out of the position of losing all this money we do with the welfare situation.'' So when we talk in terms of $1 billion a year over the term of this, as compared to the $208 billion we are losing by the problems we have with welfare, it means we are just being, really, penny wise and pound foolish, and we must not do that. I recognize that my time has expired. May I have an additional 2 minutes?

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

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

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, there is a little confusion. Some time ago the Senator from Utah offered three amendments on my behalf. Only two were delivered in that package. This is the third amendment, so there is no confusion. This amendment will clarify the definition of maintenance of effort. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I will be happy to. Amendment Nos. 2582, 2583, and 2584, En Bloc, To Amendment No. 2280

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am proud to say that there is in this land a great wellspring of caring for the places where freedom was won and defended. Millions of Americans have, in recent years, become aware of the hallowed ground of our Civil War battlefields, have visited them, read of them, many have written of them. The clear and eloquent message I hear is that these treasured places should be saved, intact, for future generations. The preservation message goes forth from Gettysburg, Antietam, Manassas, Cold Harbor, Malvern Hill, Petersburg, Stones River, and dozens more Civil War places. It is heard from the banks of the Mississippi to the Atlantic Coast, from Mobile to the Monocacy. When battlefields become severely threatened, such as has happened at Brandy Station and Manassas, there quickly develops a continuity of Americans that spreads nationwide. The American people care about their history, look on these places as national treasures, and speak eloquently and effectively for their preservation. Five years ago, Congress responded to the growing awareness of our Civil War heritage and the concern for the sites where that heritage took form, by passing legislation that created a national Civil War Sites Advisory Commission. Composed of distinguished historians, supported by a staff of National Park Service experts, the Commission for 2 years studied the remaining Civil War battlefields. Civil War sites were visited, public meetings held, and in the end a report was written. In that report, Commissioner James McPherson of Princeton University noted that while Americans no longer have the power to consecrate their historic sites, they clearly have the power to desecrate them. A plan of action was presented for protecting what remains of the Civil War battlefields. It is a plan now being discussed in the Halls of Congress, a plan that I strongly favor and which I hope will be acted upon. Thanks in large part to the work of Ken Burns, before he turned to baseball, this Nation is now highly aware of its Civil War history and the places where that history took place. That war, in Lincoln's words, brought forth a new birth of freedom. It was a freedom won initially, of course, four score years earlier on the battlefields of the American Revolution. Somewhat sadly, the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 has not had, of late, a bard the equal of Mr. Burns to sing its praises, reawaken the awareness of its history. The people nowadays do not go forth in anywhere the numbers to the Revolutionary battlefields, as they do to our Civil War fields. Nonetheless, the Revolutionary and War of 1812 sites offer experiences full well as intriguing, meaningful, even haunting, as the scenes of the Civil War. Many of the key sites of the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 still exist, though some are in jeopardy and some are much in need of enhancement. A half million people do visit the Saratoga Battlefield each year--scene of the war's decisive battle. Yet the battlefield of Hubbardton in Vermont, a key prelude to Saratoga, and once called by National Park historian Edwin Bearss the best preserved of all American battlefields, is visited by only about 2,500 people annually. It just isn't very well known. Fort Ticonderoga, both a French and Indian War and Revolutionary War site, receives more than 100,000 visitors annually. Yet just across Lake Champlain on the Vermont shore, Mount Independence receives only about 3,000 visitors. And it lacks a museum, even permanent toilet facilities. Yet it has been called the least disturbed major Revolutionary War site, a place where as many as 1,000 American soldiers may be buried. In the winter of 1776-77, Mount Independence was garrisoned against a British invasion from Canada. The troops there probably spent a harder winter than Washington's men at Valley Forge. Earthworks, a hospital site, blockhouse foundations, the abutments of a military bridge, all survive on the Mount. Thousands of artifacts have been dug and preserved, awaiting a proper facility for display. This is a major American historic site that needs the caring attention of this Nation. At the very least it would seem to qualify as a national cemetery. It is part of the American freedom story, a story that, sadly, is very hard to follow today. While a great chapter of that story was written along Lake Champlain, finding the places where the story happened, following the military routes, is a near-impossible job for anyone seeking history. That is but one example of why our Revolutionary War sites need attention. It is time to take a thorough look at our Revolutionary War places, to make a thorough study of what remain, even of what has been lost. This Nation continues to grow, the heaviest concentrations of population being along the east coast corridor. And this, of course, is where the old and fragile sites of the Revolution exist. There needs to be done, I believe, a thorough study of Lexington and Concord, Cowpens and Brandywide, Yorktown and Saratoga. We need an assessment of Mount Independence and Crown Point, Valley Forge, and Germantown. We need to know what we have and what needs doing so that those wondrous sites are preserved and made understandable and accessible to the American public. The American people are ever more interested in the story of their Nation's past--want their history protected and interpreted. So I say today that Congress should act now to create a Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Sites Commission. This Commission should go forth to the places where independence was won, determine what remains, and what is needed to make sure our founding heritage is not lost. It is a task that history calls upon us to make, so that our present generations can pass on to the Americans of the fast approaching new millennium a wondrous gift of history. That gift would be the landscape where the Nation that our Civil War President called the last best hope of mankind was born in fire and blood and bravery, thus establishing the glowing promise of freedom that yet abides across this great land.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation known as the Champlain Valley Heritage Corridor Inventory Act. The legislation that I am introducing is very similar to legislation that I have introduced in the past, with minor alterations to reflect the many comments I have received on this matter. The corridor bill would inventory the many historically significant cultural resources which make up the Upper Hudson River Valley, the Champlain Valley, and the Lake George region. This would be accomplished by the Secretary of the Interior working with officials of State and local government, local historians and archaeologists, owners of historic sites, native Americans, local and regional planning commissions, local and regional chambers of commerce, interstate citizen groups, and any other interested parties. This is to be a grass roots coalition intended to benefit individuals and communities alike. Mr. President, the legislation that I offer today seeks to enhance something that, truly, already exists. Along Lake Champlain, Lake George, and the Upper Hudson River in my home State of Vermont, and in New York and the Province of Quebec, is a wondrous corridor of heritage, perhaps unrivaled for its historic richness in all of the Western Hemisphere. Americans wishing to discover the history, first hand, of the French and Indian wars, the decisive campaign of the American Revolution and of a key campaign of the War of 1812, must come to this area. Fort Ticonderoga, Crown Point, the Saratoga Battlefield, Mount Independence, Bennington Battlefield, Hubbardton Battlefield, the Plattsburgh battle sites are there, and nowhere else. It is a resource the people of the north country truly cherish, and long have shared with the rest of the world. Trouble is, it's not an easy task to guide oneself along those paths of history. I would like to change that. And if I can, it seems to me that all the people of the corridor, indeed all the people of this Nation, stand to benefit. One day in the not-too-distant future, I would hope to see the great historic sites of this corridor linked, made easy to discover and explore. Here and there we ought to have a visitors center to help the traveler, the historian, in their search for the storied places of the past. Here and there ought to be a pulloff by the roadside with explanations of the historic significance of the area, a map. Common signage would be a great help. A heritage corridor along these historic waterways would be a wonderful gift of our generation to future generations of Americans who would go forth to seek this Nation's fascinating past, indeed this continent's history. We should go forward in the spirit of those farsighted pioneer preservationists of this corridor, such as Ticonderoga's Pell family. Long ago they had the foresight to preserve and protect Ticonderoga, Mount Independence, Saratoga, Hubbardton, and dozens of other historic places. T.S. Eliot said that history ``is a pattern of timeless moments.'' We are indeed fortunate that a wealth of such moments were enacted in our corridor, and that many of their settings have survived. They constitute a valued bequest that carries a considerable responsibility. They constitute a heritage that should be shared with all Americans. Therefore, Mr. President, today I introduce this heritage corridor inventory bill. I do it in the name of the people of my home country who have long cared deeply about their history. Also, I do it in the name of those who wrote the history of the corridor that we seek to honor, preserve and make more accessible. Those names include Ethan Allen, Arthur St. Clair, Seth Warner, Robert Rogers, Philip Schuyler, George Washington, and a thousand more now forgotten, but never unappreciated, men and women who stood firm to make a new Nation called America. Those long-ago people, and the people who live along the storied waterways that are true paths of history, deserve no less.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to join those who are here today to speak their praises and feelings for the senior Senator from Rhode Island. Many eloquent speakers have preceded me. I do not intend to try to compete with them or make remarks of that nature. I have served some 24 years and perhaps the only one that served with the Senator across the table from the other side during this period of time. There is no person that I have come more to admire, respect, or feel affection for. There are many who have admiration for many others and there are those we have great respect for. There are some, sometimes too few, for whom we feel true friendship and compassion as an individual, someone who we know is in love with life and in love with his job and in love with the people that are around him. Senator Pell has all those characteristics. I know he has moved all Members in some way or another in that respect. In the House, he served with the senior Senator from Vermont, Senator Stafford. He and Senator Pell were a remarkable combination. I had the ability for a time to be able to serve, too brief a time, in this Senate with him. During that period of time, I again took the admiration and respect and affection that Senator Stafford held for him and carried it on in my own feelings. What he and I and others have done in the many areas that are critical to myself as well as to him, whether it be in education or the Endowment for the Arts, but most poignantly I will remember our recent trip to Africa where he and his wife Nuala and I and my wife went to nations far away from here. The love and affection that the people of those countries have for them demonstrates that his knowledge and his work is not only appreciated here in this country but throughout the world. It is with some sadness I am here to speak in this kind of praise in a way, but I will miss him and will miss his service. I wish him all possible good health in the days ahead and look forward to working with him as our monitor from afar. I yield the floor. Praise for Senator Pell

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes. I am going to offer an amendment and withdraw it.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator and yield the floor. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the existing pending amendment be set aside temporarily for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. The amendment is at the desk, I believe.