Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator for his remarks. I know we are both concerned about this issue and want to make sure that all the young people of this country, including the children of military personnel, receive the best education possible. And that can only be done if we all work together and share costs in an equitable fashion. I look forward to working with the Senator on this issue. As I said, I also intend to offer this amendment before the authorizing committee at the appropriate time to stimulate a similar discussion and perhaps pursue it further. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Let us step back for a moment and think about the big picture here. Our job is to set the priorities for the Nation, and in doing so, restore the economic health of our Nation by putting the budget on the path towards balance. If we fail to make spending cuts, our children will pay a terrible price. And if we make those cuts inappropriately, or by some strict formula without regard to merit, they will pay an equally harsh price. Our job is to prioritize, to carefully scrutinize the relative value of the various functions of Government and to decide how a shrinking resource base should best be divided. To do this exercise properly requires the ability to examine each area of the budget on its own merit and to move funds appropriately. Personally, I believe that the construction of firewalls hinders that ability. Firewalls separate off certain areas of the budget and remove them from consideration, forcing us to make tradeoffs within certain limited areas of the budget. However, I am aware that the Senate went on record again last week in support of retaining the firewalls between defense and domestic spending. And while I disagree with this decision, since it has prevailed, we must look carefully at the full implications of that policy. The premise of firewalls is that the Department of Defense should not have to pick up the tab for nondefense spending. And should not the reverse also then apply--that other departments should not be picking up the tab for costs incurred by the Department of Defense? I believe so, and I think the majority of my colleagues will agree with me. One area where the Department of Defense has traditionally enjoyed a reprieve from carrying its full weight is that of impact aid. Current law recognizes that local communities surrounding military installations incur costs in the education of military dependents that are not collectable in the traditional manner of local governments because the installations do not pay taxes to the towns. Impact aid was designed to offset these costs and ensure that military children are not relegated to a second-rate education. But, Mr. President, the funding for impact aid currently comes entirely out of the Department of Education. Yet, this is clearly a cost incurred by the Department of Defense. DOD has accepted the responsibility of bearing the full costs of educating military dependents overseas--why should it be allowed to shirk its responsibility for offsetting the costs that it incurs at home? The amendment that I am offering on behalf of myself and Senators Harkin and Simon does not increase Federal spending by one dime. Nor does it effect in any way the formula devised for distributing aid to impacted communities. All it does is to ensure that DOD pick up the costs it incurs instead of continuing to pass those costs off to the Department of Education. If we are to have firewalls, Mr. President, then it is only fair that they be respected in each direction. It is important that my colleagues recognize the backdrop against which we are operating. While defense spending has declined in the past decade, it has done so only moderately, particularly in the context of a greatly reduced threat to the security of the United States. The disappearance of our chief adversary entitles the American people to reap some of the fruits of this hard won victory. And this must translate into being able to direct some of our national investment away from armaments and into the real bulwarks of national defense--a sound economy, a vibrant technological base and a topnotch educational system. But this is not what we see happening here. Federal spending for education has been cut. Since 1983, education's share of total Federal expenditures decreased by more than 25 percent, falling at a time when poverty is on the rise. More than one-quarter of all our future front- line workers are now growing up in poverty, a statistic unparalleled among advanced industrialized nations. And compared to these competitors, our students are failing. Thirteen-year-olds in the United States are at the bottom in math and science performance, subjects which are key to our future economic viability, scoring lower than 15 competitor nations. We have already begun to see the consequences as our students fall farther behind. Over the past 20 years, real income in the United States has grown at a rate 5 times slower than in Canada, 6 times slower than in Germany, 7 times slower than in Italy, France, and Japan, and 8 times slower than the United Kingdom. More than half a trillion dollars in GDP is lost each year because we fail to educate our people. We spend $208 billion in welfare expenditures and $200 billion for employment training. In addition, the fact that 50 percent of adults in this country are functionally illiterate costs the marketplace $225 billion in lost wages each year. Thus, this amendment goes beyond the Washington rhetoric of arcane budgetary terms such as fire walls. This goes to the heart of the defense of our country--our education. Mr. President, I offer this amendment because I think it is an incredibly important issue of concern to a great number of Members. However, let me inform my colleagues that it is my intention to withdraw the amendment and to propose it on the authorization bill when it comes up later. I am confident that there will be general support for this issue when it is fully understood. As I have said previously, my first concern is with education. I am not going to speak at length, as I have to my colleagues in the past, about the serious problems this Nation faces with respect to its educational programs. I only point out that our deficiencies seriously threaten our economic capacity and our ability to have the best trained people engaged in the defense of this Nation. Instead, I would like to talk about the children of military personnel and about the history of what this Nation did to make sure the communities in which they reside and are educated are not punished by a loss of property tax revenue. Some 40 years ago or more, I believe back as far as 1949, impact aid was designed to assist local communities educate the children of our military personnel. Impact aid makes payments to local education agencies to make up for the shortfall of funds to the communities in which they reside. The purpose, therefore, was to help military kids. After the creation of the Department of Education, funding for impact aid was transferred to the Department. However, the payments still are made to the local educational agencies. So I believe the history is clear that these costs are incurred by Department of Defense personnel, and the fact that it is now funded out of the Department of Education does not change that. I believe upon further study of this issue my colleagues will agree with my conclusion that this is not a firewalls issue. The House has made roughly a 10-percent cut in impact aid. Those of us who represent not only military children but all of the children of this country are going to look at areas where we can, under the force of the budget, shift the funding responsibilities for those programs which rightfully belong in other departments. There is no question that history establishes the obligation for impact aid with the Department of Defense. At this particular time in our history, to quote a very fine editorial from David Broder, it is ``just plain dumb'' to be cutting educational funds, whether those funds are used for establishing the necessary standards to make sure we are competitive worldwide or whether they are used for the general education and the general health of the Nation. It is just plain dumb to be cutting our investments in human capital--which would otherwise increase our revenues and decrease our social costs--while attempting to eradicate the deficit. So, Mr. President, I would like to say that it is an obligation of the Department of Defense to take care of its own children. They do that now in the DOD schools. They send direct payments to the DOD schools. The DOD also sends direct payments to local educational agencies, but those funds are being cut back. They are not, however, cutting back the funding for DOD schools. [[Page S 12157]] Hence, my goal is to ensure equal provisions for the education for the children of our military personnel. It is a perfectly legitimate issue to raise. Please note, though, that we are not discussing or considering other impact aid provisions which should rightfully be the responsibility of the Department of Education. Mr. President, I do not intend to speak much longer, but I want to reiterate that I do not believe this is a question of firewalls or anything else. This is a question of making sure that the Department of Defense lives up to its obligation, created in 1949, to pay for the cost and the impact of military children on local districts. I hope that we will consider this issue at the appropriate time and vote to ensure that DOD takes its money to help the children of its military personnel. That is my intent. At the appropriate time I will offer the amendment again.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this amendment will allow two airports in my region to continue to receive funding under the essential air service program. There two airports, in Rutland, VT, and Keene, NH, depend on this important funding to maintain commercial air service to our region. Without this subsidy, commercial air service would halt immediately to these communities. Mr. President, the city of Rutland is the second largest city in Vermont. Commercial air service is vital to ensure that Rutland can continue to expand its economy and reach out to businesses throughout the country interested in locating to this beautiful city. Two years ago, in August 1993, the small airlines serving this city went out of business. This left a major gap in the transportation infrastructure in Rutland. In December 1993, Colgan airlines revitalized the service to Rutland, recognizing that they would be assisted in their efforts to service this rural city by the essential air service funding. According to many experts, it takes close to 4 years to develop a steady clientele to a small, regional airport. Cologan airlines has increased ridership in Rutland by 21 percent in the last year. But they are not close to breaking even and depend on the subsidy provided by the essential air service to maintain service. Colgan predicts that they will not need this subsidy for more than 1 year. If we could protect this small airline route for 1 year, we would be assured a viable commercial passenger air service to this region of Vermont and New Hampshire. Mr. President, my amendment will grant Rutland and Keene 1 final year of essential air service subsidy. This amendment states that if a community has had their commercial air service interrupted during the last 24 months and is the only hub covered under the essential air service program in that State, then funding will continue for 1 final year. Mr. President, this air service is too important to Rutland to lose at this point. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. I thank the managers of this legislation for working with me on this important legislation.

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

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as has been pointed out by the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington, we are in the process of trying to work out a solution to the very difficult questions of the fundings of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute for Museum Services. This is critically important because we must make sure that these very fine institutions survive. I am hopeful that we will reach an agreement, which will not make us all happy obviously, but which will allow us to go forward to reauthorize the endowments and to proceed on to conference, where we will at least know from both sides that the endowments will survive as will the museums services. So I think that is all of our desires. This is a very volatile issue and yet an extremely important one. I note, for instance that this topic of funding for the arts and humanities has made the cover of Time magazine, and the article asks the question as to whether or not this institution, the Congress, will support the Endowments and recognize the importance of that to our Nation. Let me give us all a little bit of a briefing on where we have gone this year relating to the concerns that have been expressed by Members. They are primarily related to grants that have been approved by the endowments which are considered by the American public as being less than acceptable, and concerns as they relate to the issue of pornography. This has been a plaguing matter, and we have tried to relieve the public of anxiety over the years. To a large extent, we have prevailed in the sense that very few items, if any, have come to our attention in recent years that in any way have offended the public. But under the leadership of Senator Kassebaum in our committee this year, we took up the Endowments and reauthorized them. In doing so, we also changed the law such that the chance of having the American public offended by grants for projects that they consider less than acceptable is totally eliminated. How have we done that? First of all, we have addressed the issue of individual grants, where many of the problems have been. Individual artists are chosen by peer groups to be awarded a grant, and sometimes the grantee, the person who gets the grant, does not necessarily come forth with the kind of art that was anticipated by the peers. Thus, we get into great disputes and embarrassments. As this body knows, we have displays on the floor showing the kind of art that was referred to and the offensive aspects of it. Under the leadership of Senator Kassebaum, we eliminated any possibility of that happening again. The individual grants to artists are limited only to the area of literature. That, in my opinion, goes a little too far, and it may end up being changed. Still, that action certainly responds to those concerns that have been raised. In addition to that, there have been problems with subgrants and some seasonal support grants where the NEA itself has no knowledge of what is going to be done with funds designated to an institution or for a season of productions. Many times it is just administrative expenses that have been supported by the national endowment. Yet, on the stage, if something occurs which is offensive and because there was a small amount of money that was spread throughout the whole budget of the institution which allowed this to occur on the stage, the national endowments have taken the rap and gotten a bad name. Such examples have been eliminated from having the possibility of receiving funds. There still will be grants available to individuals at the State level, and there will be a large number of challenge grants. All these things that are presently allowed under the national endowments, all the good works which have not proven to be offensive to anyone, will still will be able to go forward. On the other hand, unfortunately, due to these unfortunate matters, we have seen efforts to totally do away with the endowments. With that in mind, and without knowing for certain as to how this will come out in the House and the Senate--the thing we want to do today, the most critical thing, is to make sure that the endowments continue as strongly as possible this next year. We have in the committee, under the leadership of Senator Kassebaum, as I mentioned, changed the endowments significantly and have taken steps to prevent those kinds of embarrassing matters from occurring in the future. These changes were made to protect the public and protect the endowments, and those changes that I mentioned before have now been incorporated into the text of the subcommittee appropriations bill. So as well as appropriating funds to the endowments, we have changed the current law to prevent the kinds of grants that have, in the past caused a great deal of trouble. Many of us would like the endowments to receive more money, and in taking the action that we will today, I hope to assure that there will be more money available to those agencies, as compared to what the committee has recommended. This is not the first time we have confronted this type of crisis situation of severe budget cutting. Fourteen years ago we faced such a crisis and an attempt to eliminate the Endowments. We survived and survived with about half the funding. Unfortunately, that is nearly where we find ourselves today. For the endowments to exist, there is a great deal of pressure to try and make sure we do not end up having to account for or explain questionable grants as we have had to in the past. So I am hopeful we will reach a resolution which will be acceptable to Members and that we will not run the risk of losing the Endowments. There are a number of Senators who have been helpful. At this time, I would like to yield the floor so that Senator Pell, one of the great defenders and also creators of the endowments, could make his remarks. I want to, again, pay my respects to the incredible work that he has done in the area of the arts and humanities and the museum services over the years. He kept them alive and strong and has defended them with all the vigor possible. At this time, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to explain what we are doing here. Our main concern and main desire and the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the endowments go forward and that we will have in conference comparable bills which ensure the existence of the endowment and the Museum Services Institute. That is the essence of the amendment though we may have a change in just how the offsets are crafted for the increase in funding--but the level of the endowments will be raised to $110 million each. Also, there are two amendments that were added at the request of Senator Helms dealing with pornography and dealing with the inappropriate depiction of religious items which will be made a part of the agreement. I am hopeful that by doing this we can lay to rest the fear that many have that this Congress and the Senate in particular is going to step back from its commitment to the arts. Nothing could be further from the truth. And I hope with the near unanimity that we have on this amendment it would indicate appropriate guidance with respect to what is a proper utilization of money from the arts endowment, an issue that Senator Helms has addressed with his language and idicate as well that there is a desire to continue the operation of the endowments. The endowments will be operating at a greatly reduced level, though our amendment today will put them at a significantly higher level than the House has offered. We will have to discuss that issue further in conference. I should also like to point out how important the continuation of the endowments is. I will later make a part of the Record an article in the Smithsonian from May of this year: ``Deep in the North Country They Danced Their Hearts Out,'' which highlights the important ways endowment funds have been put to use. Also, as I mentioned, Time magazine had on its cover this week an indication of how incredibly important it is for this Nation to stand behind its commitment to the arts, for a nation without art and without a commitment to the arts, is really a nation without soul. And it is important that that is demonstrated by Congress, in particular. So with that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Will my senior colleague yield?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank my senior colleague from Vermont for the effort he has put in over the years in this matter. We have worked very closely on this, and I can assure you that back in Vermont it is no political liability to do what we are doing here today as our State is very much involved in the arts and maintaining them. I know there are others who wish to speak. I know the junior Senator from Texas is here, and so I yield the floor at this point.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to modify my amendment. The modification is at the desk.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this amendment, sponsored by myself and Senators Leahy, Simpson, Pell, Bumpers, Kennedy, and Dodd, restores funds to the National Endowment for the Arts. This amendment does restore modest funds to the agency, but still in making this effort, the endowments will still carry the burden of greatly reduced budgets. As I rise today, I must say that I am somewhat disappointed that we are not restoring even more funds to these agencies. I am well aware that cuts are inevitable this year, but I do not believe that these agencies should be singled out for a disproportionate share of reductions. The proposed reduction of 40 percent to the NEA will devastate the Endowment. More importantly, this reduction will have an enormously negative impact on communities throughout the Nation, especially rural communities. It is very necessary and appropriate for our Government to support these agencies that encourage learning and support scholarship, preserve paintings and writings for future generations, bring the beauty and magic of art to all Americans as well as preserve and nurture our cultural heritage. The small contributions we make to these agencies go a very long way in preserving our history and investing in our future. This mission has been at the heart of both Endowments since their creation. Federal support has been under attack and criticism from those who perceive the Endowments as nothing more than Federal support for the rich and cultural elite. But nothing could be further from the truth. We can point to many examples of the very real ways in which all of our States as well as local communities benefit from Endowment or IMS supported projects. The Endowments and the IMS support projects that invigorate our downtowns. The Shelburne Museum in Vermont attracts visitors from across the State, around the country and from abroad to see the wonders of this renowned folklife center. The Endowments and the IMS enrich the learning experiences of young people in small communities, through grants to programs such as the Music, Words, Opera in schools throughout the State of Delaware, or the Artist in Residence Program which brought the Quantum Brass Quartet to Big Sandy, TX. They support projects to protect our most venerable works and texts for all to appreciate and see. A grant to the Historical Society of Iowa will go to preserving Iowa newspapers and a grant to Johns Hopkins University will go toward preparing an edition of papers of President Eisenhower. The Endowments make available projects and programs which make learning our history accessible and engaging such as the Civil War series, the Baseball series and other series on FDR and on the American Revolution. The agencies have proven effective in nurturing our cultural heritage, making the arts and humanities accessible to all the corners of the Nation, providing learning opportunities for young and old and generally encouraging a growth and flourishing of the arts and humanities in this country. We should not take for granted the importance of the work of these agencies, especially in the difficult times that face our Nation. The benefit to Vermont from these agencies is immeasurable, and Vermont, while unique in so many ways has that in common with all the other States in the country--they are well served by the programs supported by the NEA, NEH, and IMS. The projects and programs that the NEA, NEH, and IMS support are important and consequential. We can look at specifics, and we must today understand the impact of the cuts we are considering today. These drastic cuts will jeopardize both the important work being done by States in supporting local projects which the strengthen and enhance the education of our young people and provide learning opportunities for those not in school. One cannot minimize the impact that arts has on increasing the level of participation, the level of interest, the level of commitment of children in school. One cannot minimize the value of having exceptional, world acclaimed dance companies like Mark Morris Dance Group and the Trisha Brown Company visit and perform to people in small communities in Vermont, or being able to participate in a cultural festival which brings people in the community together like the one in Rutland, my hometown, funded in part by the NEA--all in Vermont, all thanks to the support of the NEA, NEH, and IMS, and all of which are of significant importance and value to the people of the State. I am not willing to jeopardize the availability of the Vermont Council on the Humanities and their Beginning with Mother Goose Program; the Ethan Allen Homestead Trust in Burlington, and the Brattleboro Museum and Art Center, in Brattleboro supported by the IMS; and the Flynn Theater, the Vermont Council on the Arts in Montpelier and Crossroads Arts Council in Rutland supported by the NEA. I would like to share an article with you that appeared in Smithsonian magazine which was given to me by the Executive Director of the Vermont Council on the Arts, Nicki Clarke. It is about the Wolcott Children's Ballet, which sprang up in 1980 thanks to the incredible commitment of people in this community. It has continued on a shoe string budget and continues to have an enormous impact on the lives of all who are part of it--the young dancers, volunteers, instructors, Vermonters from Wolcott, Hardwick, and other towns. This ballet school has enriched the community, and made so many lives more full. It has received some of its much needed support from the Vermont Council on the Arts. Projects such as this are far too important to underestimate or ignore. So I ask for your support today of this modest effort to make sure these agencies can continue to do their good works. I will yield to the floor manager soon for his comments. What we have done here, through an error, we took the money from the wrong accounts. Looking at all the figures, I did not notice that. I apologize to my colleagues for that error. I think we have now adjusted the amendment to take the money from where everybody thought it was coming from. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Smithsonian Magazine article to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to say one word. I thank certainly my colleague who I have known for many, many years, for all his assistance in bringing about what I believe we have as a consensus on passing this legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2303

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have listened to the statement of my good friend from New Mexico on the amendment. I personally support it. I do not believe in any way it goes against what we intended to do in the committee, with respect to individual artists and the questionable works of some. The purpose and intent of reducing those who are eligible for individual grants was to protect the integrity of what we are trying to do in preserving the endowment. I personally believe that the amendment represents an improvement in the bill. I have notified the chairman of the committee [Senator Kassebaum], who may or may not have an objection to it--notified her some time ago, Senator Kassebaum. I do not know her feelings. In committee she was very restrictive, and understandably so. But I support the amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending amendment so that I might offer my amendment.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, at this time I would like to enter into a colloquy with the managers of this appropriations measure regarding funding for the Department of Energy's retrofit program and interagency agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The buildings retrofit program within the Department of Energy's Office of Buildings Technology is currently undertaking an important initiative to save American taxpayers millions of dollars. The initiative, created 4 years ago under an agreement between the Department of Energy and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, works to reduce energy use at many of our Nation's public assisted housing developments. To cut off funding for this important program at this point would put to an end significant progress that has been made to date in reducing energy use in publicly funded low-income housing. Would the managers of this legislation support the following request? That within available funds in the Department of Energy's buildings programs, the Department of Energy be allowed to reprogram up to $3 million to continue implementation of the interagency agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development for public assisted housing and other low-income housing initiatives.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am concerned about the cuts this bill makes to the Energy Information Administration. The EIA maintains valuable and objective information on energy supply, consumption, production, and price. We must not lose this resource at a time when energy prices and supplies are so volatile and the country is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign oil. Vermont's average petroleum price is the highest in the Nation and EIA information helps our State plan for and respond to energy emergencies. This bill includes $63 million for EIA, a $21 million cut from last year. The House included $80 million for EIA. As we proceed, I hope we keep in mind the important role EIA serves. Naval petroleum and oil reserves

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the managers of this legislation for their assistance with this important matter. noxious weeds

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Reserving the right to object, I presume the amendment did not include the amendment relative to the National Endowment?

Mr. JEFFORDS. And the museum?

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Appropriations Committee amendment. Before I get into my statement, I would like to contest the position of the Senator from Oklahoma that somehow we are dealing with taxpayer funds in the sense that we are in a position where we ought to control how they are utilized. We are talking here about compensation which is given to a woman for services rendered and to extend beyond what normally we would consider appropriate to call these funds that should be controlled by the Government. We are not talking here about Medicaid, which is an entirely different issue. We are talking here about compensation entitled to a woman for health benefits, and then saying we should, on top of that, have a regulation or prohibition as to how that money can be spent for health care. The Federal policy here is to help provide health care for individuals, not to dictate how they spend their money. I raise that because to me it raises a dangerous proposition that somehow we can control the use of Federal employee compensation and whatever they do with it, and if we are moving in that direction, to say, my God, if they buy something, that is a violation of the law and their compensation should be denied. This is not about Medicaid. We decided in committee not to include the House language in the benefit plan that would keep it from covering legal medical procedures, because we did not want to replace a doctor's advice and counsel with our own. We did not want to dictate how an employee's compensation must be used in that difficult but constitutionally protected area of abortion. Currently, Federal employees can choose a health plan that covers a full range of reproductive services, including abortion. About half of the Federal employee health benefit plans offer the full range. These are mostly private plans they are purchasing, not Government plans. Women employed by the Federal Government currently have a choice. They can have a policy with abortion coverage, or they can opt out of it. I think that is appropriate. The issue, I think, is more the other way. We should not force a woman to buy a policy that covers abortion if that is against their beliefs. That is why I think this option approach, which is used in Missouri and in other States, is an entirely appropriate way to go. Women with full coverage can consult their doctors and choose appropriate health care services without the intrusion of our own political beliefs. In a national insurance market, abortion service is included in most plans. Nearly 70 percent of all health insurance plans offer such coverage. Why should we want to penalize a Federal employee by denying them and their families what is widely available to other employees with health care coverage? We must remember that abortion is a legal medical procedure. It is constitutionally protected under the right to privacy. The choice of a woman, with the help and the advice of a family doctor, to have an abortion is an intensely difficult and personal one. I would not presume to decide who should and should not have access to a legal medical procedure. Health care decisions are, by their nature, very sensitive and very personal. Reproductive health matters are even more so. Since I am not a doctor, I am not qualified to decide which health services are appropriate for someone else--even someone who is female and works for the Federal Government. We are not considering which health services generally should be covered. This, rather, deals with a restriction on an employee's compensation as to their ability to do what we want them to do, and that is to provide themselves with health care. We will help provide that. Medicaid would bring out this discussion of the Senator from Oklahoma. But there will be an appropriate forum for that issue. Why should we here single out Federal employees' reproductive health as an area for excessive governmental intrusion merely because they get some compensation to help them do what we want to do, to provide health care for themselves. I am disturbed by the trend I am seeing. The House almost zeroed out funding for family planning services, an essential component of women's health. How can we say we care about out-of-wedlock births and teenage pregnancy when we eliminate family planning? Now we are considering taking choice away from Federal employees as to how they may use their compensation, which we give them to purchase medical care. This is not an appropriate role of the Federal Government. We must allow Federal professionals to seek appropriate care without our interference. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting against any amendment to remove the committee amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will strengthen the Federal law that regulates billboards on our Nation's highways and scenic byways. My bill will close the loophole in the 1965 Highway Beautification Act that permits billboards in unzoned areas, a fact that clearly violates the spirit of the 1965 act. I have been a strong supporter of strict billboard controls even since I represented Rutland County as a Vermont State senator. During my tenure as a State senator, I served as vice chair of the special committee that wrote Vermont's law banning billboards from our Federal highways and rural routes, and as state attorney general, I successfully defended the law in the Federal courts. New billboards are being constructed along the U.S. Federal aid interstate and primary highways at record rates. In fact, based on estimates by the Congressional Research Service, one billboard is erected every 30 minutes all year long--a total of 15,000 to 16,000 annually--along Federal aid highways. Currently, the Highway Beautification Act allows new billboards to be constructed in zoned and unzoned commercial and industrial areas. In theory, this limits billboards to areas with substantial bona fide commercial or industrial activity. In practice, however, this means that wherever there is any industrial or commercial use--for example, a single gas station--several bill billboards may be erected. Many of these signs have messages that are not even related to the adjacent business. Mr. President, by bill will close this legal loophole by only allowing billboards to be constructed in those areas that are zoned for commercial or industrial use. Mr. President, my bill will also require that the Federal Highway Administration keep track of the number of billboards on our Nation's highways. In 1991, the Congressional Research Service estimated that there were between 425,000 and 450,000 billboards in existence on Federal aid roads, but admitted that no one really knew how many billboards were along these roads. Right now States are only required to report to the Federal Government the number of illegal and nonconforming billboards on their roads. Decent public policy cannot be made in the absence of information. My bill will require that States and the Federal Highway Administration track the number of conforming billboards along Federal aid highways and scenic byways. Finally, Mr. President, my bill will prohibit the removal of trees and other types of vegetation for the sole purpose of improving billboard visibility. The idea that publically owned trees, many planted with public beautification funds, should be destroyed to enrich billboard owners is ludicrous. What is worse is that many of these billboards are nonconforming and are required by law to be removed anyway. Mr. President, my bill will move the 1965 Highway Beautification Act closer to its original intent of preserving the public's investment in our highways by protecting scenic areas and natural resources and giving Congress the information it needs to make well-informed public policy. I urge my colleagues to become cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I will be proposing an amendment very shortly which will help maintain the United States support for its solar and wind power. It would restore $25 million and offset this by reducing funding for the Department of Energy's operations budget. Mr. President, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 began to outline an energy security strategy for our country. As I have argued many times before, energy security is vital to our economy and our national security. I believe that renewable energy resources are important components of our energy security strategy and must not be compromised. The United States now imports in excess of 50 percent of the oil we use to power our homes, automobiles and workplaces. This is a national security concern, and our dependence on foreign sources of energy is an economic security risk. Mr. President, every month the Commerce Department releases its statistics on the balance of our trade. The numbers are very grim. We are running huge trade deficits, and oil imports are a major reason why. Imports of oil constitute an enormous drag on our balance of payments and serve only to export U.S. jobs abroad. In contrast, more than one-half of the manufacturing capacity of the U.S. solar industry is geared to exports. Northern Power Systems from my State of Vermont markets wind turbine technologies around the globe. If a city, town or power system in Saudi Arabia wants to build a wind turbine, they call Waitsfield, VT. Nevertheless, without adequate Federal support, the United States leads in developing renewable energy technologies will slip. The U.S. Information Agency predicts that the worldwide market for renewables and efficiency technologies will equal $280 billion through the year 2010. However, they also point out that at the current rate of growth, the United States will capture less than 8 percent of this market. Why? Because Europe and Japan are funneling more and more money to their renewable companies in the form of capital financing and export promotion. And that export promotion is what does the most damage, especially deals they can give. Mr. President, despite the proven successes of renewable energy programs and their overwhelming public support, the renewable accounts have been hit disproportionately hard in this bill. Funding for wind, solar, and biomass programs have been cut 27 percent from the fiscal year 1995 levels compared to a 15-percent cut in the Department of Energy's overall energy supply research and development accounts. We have made commitments to many small companies through public and private partnerships to drive renewables research and development to the marketplace. We are just entering year 3 of a 5-year commitment to the solar and wind field. To pull the plug now would constitute a serious abrogation of our commitment and undermine much of the progress we have witnessed in the past few years. In this time of fiscal constraint, hard choices must be made, and I agree with many of them. But solar and wind programs are working. These programs have enormous nationwide benefits for a very small investment. For example, the DOE wind program is working closely with Kotzbue Electric Association 30 miles inside the Arctic Circle in Alaska to supply reliable wind energy and reduce dependence on diesel generators. The Florida Solar Energy Center in Cape Canaveral works with more than 100 solar manufacturers, resulting in significant exports to Latin America. The AWT-26, one of the world's most advanced wind turbines, is being developed by former Boeing engineers outside of Seattle, WA. Mr. President, we are pushing forward, working to lead this booming global market, and we will succeed if Congress maintains its commitment to wind and solar research and development. The money that is spent on renewable energy programs has a direct impact on this country's bottom line. Overall, we can expect more than $4 billion in annual fuel cost savings by the year 2000, more than $8 billion by the year 2010, and nearly $26 billion by the year 2020. Solar, biomass, wind and geothermal energy systems will also create many thousands of jobs by the year 2000. This amendment simply asks the Department of Energy to speed up implementation of the strategic alignment and downsizing plan, thereby reducing administrative costs. Currently, the Department spends $377 million for general management and program support functions. One of the largest pieces of this budget is the field operations offices. These offices are the paperwork side of our national labs. A less than 10 percent cut of $25 million will help do what needs to be done to keep us on track. My amendment would shift this amount from administrative functions to support for solar, wind, and biomass programs. This money would not be used for overhead and paperwork but to finance important programs that assist small companies in the development of advanced renewable technology. The goal we seek to accomplish today with this amendment has been recommended by the Galvin task force, which reviewed our national labs, and the Daniel Yergin task force, which advised DOE on how to best downsize. Mr. President, we may hear arguments today that downsizing the operations office in this matter is not wise. However, this Friday Secretary Hazel O'Leary will announce additional components of her strategic realignment plan. I expect a major component of her plan is to downsize the operations office, saving millions and millions of dollars in overhead costs. Mr. President, what we are doing is moving money from paperwork and bureaucracy to technology and the development of science from top-down, command-and-control administration to technology transfer and international competitiveness and from duplicative management to small business. Clean economic growth is not a contradiction in terms. New generations of environmental technologies are making it possible to have both. To be truly strong, the U.S. economy must be efficient, clean, and fueled by stable supplies of energy. By voting for this amendment, the Senate will help ensure that we attain these goals. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.