Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I note that a quorum is not present.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McCain amendment. I want to commend the previous speakers who have emphasized very eloquently what this will do for the critical areas, especially of education. I am, as my colleagues know, the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Education. I have just completed a number of trips around this country visiting the schools in the urban areas of this Nation, from Baltimore to New York to Detroit to Washington, DC, as well as Los Angeles and San Diego. I have also examined the statistics of where our schools are at this particular point in our history when it is so essential and so important that we improve our educational system to be competitive in the world that awaits us out there and the markets that are necessary for this Nation to expand its economy. The number one problem we see is the ability of our schools to be able to take advantage of the wonders that can come about through the information age. As I talk with them and travel with them, there is no question but that one of the most critical and important barriers they have to being able to participate in a meaningful way by the utilization of computer technology to provide the education through the software that would be made available and the opportunities that come through that is the inability to have affordable telephone communications. Without that, there is no hope that they will be able to make the kind of leap that we have asked them to make, for, as you know, we have passed Goals 2000, strongly indicating that we must by that time improve substantially the education of our young people. I have been through my charts. I have gone through them many times, and I will many more times, to try to let everybody know the serious problems we are having. First, I pointed out over and over again, when you compare our young people in the younger groups with competitor nations across this world, those nations which we would be competing with and gradually losing our competitive edge, we are last--last--in math and science among 14 of those nations. Most probably, the most devastating statistic that we have facing us is the knowledge that 55 percent of our young people now that go through the school system come out functionally illiterate, because if you are not going to college, we do not worry about you. They are going to be the skilled work force of tomorrow in America. But if we do not furnish them the tools in schools and are not able to provide the kind of software that is out there and the ability to bring them up to speed on skills and on education, math, reading and all, we will not make it. This is the best and biggest step forward we can make, by ensuring that there will be access to telephone lines. Let me give you an example of how bad off it is. About 3 percent of our schools in this Nation right now have access to internet or outside communications for the utilization of the information age. When I go around to cities, I say, ``I want to see your best and your worst.'' I have seen the best, and I have seen what they can do with the information age. I have seen so many young people sitting there with eyes lit up and looking at fantastic software and learning well above the capacity that we have ever had before. Do you know how many of those schools there are in this Nation? Maybe 1 percent. Then I said, ``I want to go to the worst that you have.'' I remember very vividly in the city of New York going down to a school on the lower east side. We went in there, and I think it was an old factory building. There were six floors that you have to walk up and down. I said, ``Let me see what you have to offer your young people.'' She showed me four computers. I said, ``How old are these?'' She said, ``I think they were from the 1970's.'' I asked, ``What kind of software do you have?'' She said, ``Let me show you.'' It was something I had seen back in the mid-1970's. But she said, ``I am excited. We just got a grant for $250 to upgrade our software.'' Well, anybody that knows anything about computers and software knows what you are going to get for $250 is not going to do much for anybody. I saw similar things in Los Angeles and San Diego. I saw the best and the worst. This one provision in the bill will do as much as we can do for education as anything else--the dimensions of what it will cost in these schools to be able to bring the communications in without this kind of help is devastating. For instance, there is $300 million in backlog of repairs and renovations needed in the city of Washington in order to upgrade structure to do the things that are needed to be done. It is $100 billion nationwide. But if you can afford to get the phone lines in and give them a reasonable rate, then we have an opportunity to take advantage of that tremendous software that is out there. I have seen systems which are imaginative and wonderful. But it will not work unless there is access to it. The only way we can start making that access--and we need to worry about the ability to have power to run these and other things that go along with it. But if do you not have the phone access, you will not get there. So I urge very strongly, if you believe as I do that education is so critical and important to the future of this Nation, the one best thing you can do right now is to vote against the McCain amendment and make sure the provisions are in here to assist our country, to be able to elevate our educational system on a fast track instead of the slow, slow snailpace process we are undergoing now. I yield the floor. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, with Senators Kassebaum, Kennedy, Pell, Simpson, and Dodd, I am introducing today the Reauthorization of the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965. This bill provides authorization for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the newly consolidated Institute for Museum and Library Services, and the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act, through the year 2000. Mr. President, this has been a controversial bill I know, and we have done our utmost in the committee, and will continue to do so through the markup, to restore the kind of confidence that this act in these various endowments deserve. The subject of government sponsorship of the arts and humanities evokes great disagreement and spirited debate from thoughtful people. My colleagues here in the Senate are certainly no strangers to the controversies and discussions associated with the National Endowment for the Arts. I must say that throughout the process of drafting the bill this consideration has been on my mind. I worked in consultation with my Republican and Democratic colleagues on the Labor Committee in hopes of addressing concerns and incorporating constructive suggestions as to how to improve each of the agencies. At each subcommittee hearing, we had opportunities to discuss fundamental issues related to the NEA, NEH, and IMS with a host of individuals each with very different perspectives. Some spoke of the merits of the Endowments, others proposed significant change, still others advocated total elimination of the Endowments as we now know them. We had the opportunity to see the work of the IMS first hand. The hearing on the Institute for Museum Services was held at the Alexandria Black History Resource Center--a center that serves the community, is home to a wonderful collection of photographs and objects, supports education and lifelong learning initiatives, and is there for the enjoyment of all of the people of Alexandria, and others who visit. The exchanges at each of the hearings were enlightening, lively, and I believe in the end, very productive. We were able to discuss ideas and concepts which challenged the way we have thought of these agencies. I believe we successfully broadened this discussion from that of simply all or nothing--elimination versus no change--and created an opportunity to improve upon these agencies. We have sought to do something very different with this bill. We have made changes that will lead to substantial improvement in terms of how these agencies work and made it even more clear in the legislation as to the priority of who they serve. I learned a great deal from the hearings and feel certain that we have incorporated some of the valuable and thoughtful ideas that were shared during these discussions. There was room for improvement at the NEA and NEH. In addition, there is a clear and direct connection to learning between the IMS and libraries. We have worked very hard on this bill, for very simple reasons, in my opinion. The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, libraries and museums make enormous contributions to vibrancy and greatness of our society. They enrich the fabric of this Nation, they bring us together, enable us to better express ourselves and better understand each other and many times, through the arts and humanities we reach those who have been written off. Simply, the arts and humanities are an integral improvement in terms of how these agencies work and make even more clear that legislation is needed as to the priority of those who they serve. I learned a great deal from the hearings and feel certain that we will have incorporated some of the most valuable and thoughtful ideas that were shared during these discussions. There was room for improvement in the NEA and the NEH. In addition, it is clear that direct connection to learning between the NEH, the NEA, and the libraries is enlightening. We have worked very hard on this bill for very simple reasons, in my opinion. The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities and the institute for Museum and Library Services make enormous contributions. Encouraging curiosity, thought, learning, dialog, and understanding are endeavors that the Federal Government should have a role in supporting. In fact, I believe the Federal Government should have a leadership role in fostering and preserving the unique cultural heritage of the Nation. And to give credit where credit is due, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Institute for Museum Services and libraries have made the arts and humanities more accessible to all people of our Nation and have created innovative and exciting ways of learning to the lives of many, old and young. My support of these agencies is based on what I have witnessed and learned over the years--facts about what they really do and who they really serve. I have seen the many ways the Endowments' and the IMS' programs have touched people's lives. Their programs have reached children who, prior to their involvement with the arts or humanities had little interest in learning and less hope. Each of these agencies have enabled individuals to gain a better understanding of their neighbors and their communities through participation in community festivals and other outreach activities. They have brought the beauty and the magic of the Nation's rich culture to even the smallest corners of the Nation. My own State of Vermont, while unique in so many ways, is part of a common phenomenon--when the arts, humanities, museums, and libraries are introduced to a community--that community comes alive, its people come alive. There are examples of excellence in the arts and humanities in Vermont which deserve mention. Book Discussion for General Audiences, which began from a small grant from the Vermont Council for the Humanities at the suggestion of a local librarian in my home town of Rutland, VT, has become a integral component of the agenda in many of the State humanities councils. The Shelburne Museum has received grants from the NEA, NEH, and IMS. It is a showcase and a leading institution of American folk art and decorative arts and artifacts-- visited by Vermonters and other visitors from across the country and around the world. It has worked in partnership with local libraries, local schools, and with adult education projects. These are but two examples of thousands which have enhanced the experiences of people in a State. It has been my intention to preserve what the agencies do well, yet provide them with greater guidance and direction as to the purpose of their work. Today we are putting forward a proposal that consolidates programs, streamlines functions, restructures and provides clear guidelines for the agencies. It recognizes that there are initiatives that are best done best locally and other initiatives that are clearly national in scope and benefit a broad audience. This bill makes the agencies more accountable and more responsive to the American public while enabling them to continue to do what they do best--provide and enhance access to the best of the arts and humanities to all the people of this Nation. It comes to a very fundamental question, should this Nation care and support those who want to nurture its heart and soul, to provide the opportunity for those who would not otherwise have it, and to best demonstrate the beauty and greatness of our fabulous country. I think it is important to go into some detail as to the extent of the changes we have proposed. They are far reaching and go to the basis of the operation of these agencies. It is our hope that these changes will provide clear guidance as to how the Endowment funds are spent and sets a clear priority which meet the standard of artistic excellence and artistic merit, benefit and reach the widest possible audience. First, we have cleaned up much of the clutter and confusion regarding grant programs, primarily as this relates to the National Endowment for the Arts. We have imposed a new structure by establishing three grant programs at the Arts Endowment: partnership grants, national significance [[Page S7521]] grants, and direct grants. At the Humanities Endowment, we have adopted this same structure. We have consolidated the Institute for Museum Services with the Library Services Act and changed the focus of the latter to technology and access and literacy programs for undeserved communities. Forty percent of NEA's program funds must now be spent on partnership grants. Local initiatives make up the partnerships block. Projects funded under this block include the basic State grant at an increased level as well as competitive grants to State agencies and local and regional groups to establish local acts activities with particular emphasis on arts education and projects that reach rural and urban undeserved areas. Funds will be matched on a 1:1 ratio. Forty percent of all program funds must be used for national significance grants. These are grants to organizations of demonstrated and substantial artistic and cultural importance for projects that will increase access of the American people to the best of their arts and culture. Within this block, priority will be given to those projects that will have a national, regional, or otherwise substantial artistic and cultural impact. Matching requirements are increased within the block to 3:1 or 5:1 dependent on the size of the institution's annual budget. Finally, 20 percent of funds for grants must be spent on direct grants to groups or individuals that are broadly representative of the cultural heritage of the United States and broadly geographically representative for projects of the highest artistic excellence and artist merit. Again, within this block, priority is given to those projects that will have a national, regional, or otherwise substantial artistic and cultural impact and the match is 1:1. Some administrative changes apply to both Endowments. We have merged many of the administrative functions of the Endowments with the intent of eliminating duplication and saving money. In addition, we have placed a cap on what can be spent on administration for both Endowments at 12 percent. We have decreased the number of members that make up the national councils to streamline and cut bureaucracy. We have instituted a provision which enables both the NEA and NEH to recapture funds if a grant supported by the Endowment becomes commercially successful. We have prohibited any funds from either Endowment to be used for lobbying. Some administrative changes apply specifically to the NEA. We have incorporated administrative provisions that make the chairperson more accountable and given her greater decisionmaking responsibilities. It limits the number of grants an individual can receive in a lifetime and the number of grants an institution can receive in a year. We have eliminated seasonal support and eliminated subgranting--areas of great problem and concern in the past--making an exception only for States and regional groups. We have increased turnover in the panel system and increased lay person participation to ensure greater community involvement. In addition, panels will be prohibited from recommending specific amounts for grants and required to recommend more grants than funding available. We have made substantial structural changes as well as the Humanities Endowment. We have mandated that 25 percent of program funds be used for Federal/State partnership. Included in this block is the basic State grant to State humanities councils which represents an increase in their funding. NEH funds must be matched dollar for dollar. We have mandated that 37.5 percent of all program funds at the NEH be used for national grants to support groups and individuals for programs in education and the public humanities that have a national audience and are of national significance. Projects within the block used for endowment building or capital projects must be matched 3:1 by private funds. Finally, research and scholarship grants will constitute the final 37.5 percent of program funds at the Humanities Endowment. These funds will be awarded to groups and individuals to encourage the development and dissemination of significant scholarship in the humanities and will be matched 1:1. The consolidation of the Institute of Museum Services and the Library Services Act reflects efforts to unite programs that have a direct connection to one another. More than simply a connection is the potential for invaluable collaboration and partnership especially in the areas of technology and access. Last but, in my opinion one of the most important changes to this bill is the broadening of the Arts and Artifact Indemnity Act. This change will enable domestic exhibitions to be eligible for insurance and allow for more Americans to have access to the great treasures of this Nation. I have laid out a great deal in this statement. It is my hope it provides a general sense of the direction we have moved the agencies and the efforts we have made in consolidating programs to better serve the American people. We have focused on what is done best at each level and made each responsible for projects to serve the large constituency--the citizens of this Nation. Access to the name of the game in my opinion and we have a responsibility to provide direction and guidance to ensure that the Endowments and the Institute of Museum Library Service reach every corner of the country.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Jeffords pertaining to the introduction of S. 856 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support as a cosponsor of the Hatfield amendment. I also want to commend the Senator from Florida for his very eloquent statement on why the NIH is so important to this Nation, and I do not have too much to add to that. But I will point out that this is a perfect example of what can happen if we are not careful as we go forward with the debate on the budget and agree to cut things without recognizing that, in many cases, those things that we seek to cut to try to reduce the deficit, in effect, will add to the deficit. That is certainly true when it comes to medical research. Time and time again, we have been able to make breakthroughs through the research by the NIH. Those breakthroughs have resulted in considerable, if not substantial, and gigantic savings in the cost of health care. We all know that as we move forward, the most essential area that we have to control costs in is the health care area. So I would say that the NIH is clearly an entity that must be maintained because this is one area where they have a role and a role that must be maintained to not only do the research that they do at the NIH but, in addition to that, to take care of the research that is done in the hospitals, the training schools and the training universities, so that our whole area of health care can improve as we move along. This creates many jobs through the biomedical research and technology transfers and all this adds, again, revenues to our deficit. The resulting knowledge is essential from these entities for established industries such as DNA and other areas of research. In other areas, we have saved already billions of dollars with respect to psychoactive drugs that save over $70 billion a year in hospitalization of mental patients. Vaccines and fluoridation save countless health care dollars and, again, help reduce the deficit. The recent discovery of bacterial causes of peptic ulcers will save millions in chronic care costs. As I said over and over again, the same is true in education generally, not just medical education; that if we cut those things which are resulting in savings, then our job to solve the deficit problem will get worse and worse instead of better. So I commend the Senator from Oregon for this amendment and support it with enthusiasm. If I have any time remaining, I yield it back.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Well, it will not take that long. What this chart shows here is, before, you know, we used to have all the foreign students come here. They used to get educated and they stayed. You saw them at IBM and all over the country allowing us to be more productive. Now what is happening, because of the debt load, fewer and fewer of our kids are going to graduate school and more foreign students are going to graduate school. The blue indicates the ones that are going home and the red indicates the ones that are staying here. More and more are going home. So what we are doing now is we are seeing almost all of the graduate students are being foreign students, a majority are, and they are all going home. Ours are staying here, but we do not have enough to fill the slots. So that one little thing in this budget proposal would probably do more damage to our competitiveness than about anything else. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in favor of the amendment. I also want to echo the accolades for my patriot on the Education Committee, Senator Pell, who has done so much over the years. I stand here as the new subcommittee chairman of the Committee on Education, because I feel, as he does and others have, that we must be sure of what we do now. This is serious business. Everybody recognizes that finally we have to balance the budget. But if we do not do it carefully, what we do will be counterproductive and will result in increased costs and decreased revenues. It is so simple and easy for us to all hold hands, close our eyes, and cut across the board. But that will not do it. This will not do it if you get into the area of education. Education has always been bipartisan and it should remain so today. So let us strike any partisanship out of here and take an examination of what will happen if we do not do this carefully. Let us talk about the counterproductive aspects of cutting education. First of all, the business community came to me a year ago and cried to me, ``You have to do something about increasing our productivity, of helping us improve the education of this Nation, because we are not any longer as competitive as we used to be.'' And unless we improve things, we will be less competitive in the next century and this Nation will slip into a Third World capacity. Why? [[Page S7090]] Let us take a look at this chart. A chart is worth a thousand words. The first chart is high school graduates unable to perform basic tasks. Just take our standards, forget about the international standards. Over half of our kids graduate unable to do simple functions that would mean that you are at least basically literate. I will show you later what that has an impact on. Let me take the next chart. Let us take a narrow look at the international scene, where we stand in the world with respect to our education system. And I will end up with it in another area. We are now in the area of math, and the same is true in science, dead last when we compete with those other countries that are giving us competition in the international fields. That is shameful. Are we going to do something about it? We cannot, if we cut education. Let us take a look at what this failure of education has to do with our budget situation right now. We have a loss, through education failure, of $\1/2\ trillion in our GDP. That is because we are slipping behind with respect to productivity. We have problems. Eighty percent of those incarcerated in jails, costing $20,000 to $60,000 a year to incarcerate, are school dropouts; 60 percent of the teenage pregnancies are school dropouts. In addition, the literacy level reduces our productivity level, losing more, and we have $208 billion a year through lost productivity through welfare. And it costs us another $200 billion for remedial training to bring our students up to the capacity where they can be productive in our industrial society. In addition to that, because they earn less money being nonproductive citizens, it costs us $125 billion in lost revenue. So let us take a look at the next chart and see what this has done to the median family income in this country and why we are losing that revenue. Two-thirds of our society over the last 20 years--over the last 20 years--have had a decrease in their family income. And that is true even though we now have more two-worker families than ever before. Education is related to what you earn. You will see the only ones now that are increasing their income in this decade are those that have had post-graduate education in college. Now let us take a look at what is happening with respect to another area. One area in here, which is part of this proposal as well, but one that seems to be the easiest thing to do--our graduate students. Why do we not just increase their debt load a little bit? Why allow them to get subsidies for interest while they are in graduate school? Seems like an innocuous thing to do. Well, this Nation has the best graduate schools in the world. Everybody wants to come here. However, over the last several years, a decade, the debt load of our college students has gotten so high now, it is estimated it will be up around $22,000 when they get out. Well, they cannot go on to graduate school. We have fewer and fewer and fewer people that are going to graduate school. Now what has that done to us? Let us take a look at what it has done to us in a competitive area. Mr. President, I ask Senator for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. JEFFORDS. My punch line is all I wanted to get out.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, a national deposit law is a commonsense, proven method to increase recycling, to save energy, to create jobs, and to decrease waste generation. The experience of 10 States, including Oregon and Vermont, attest to the success of a deposit law or a bottle bill as it is commonly called. Bottle bills work. These laws have been successful in every State that has one. Recycling rates of over 70 percent have been achieved for beverage containers in the bottle bill States. The rate is over 90 percent in Vermont. Furthermore, jobs have been created by this legislation, not lost, and a majority of Americans support a national deposit law. There is a misconception in some people's minds that deposit legislation is not compatible with curbside recycling programs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nine of the 10 States with deposit laws have vibrant curbside recycling programs. Mr. President, both Senator Hatfield and I have been working on this issue for more than 20 years. In both of our States, curbside recycling programs are working in tandem with beverage container deposit systems. In today's world, we must make every effort to conserve precious natural resources and reduce our use of energy. I ask my colleagues to support this measure and thank the managers for considering our amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Senator Leahy wishes to speak. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am happy to yield to my good friend from South Dakota.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me answer the arguments that have been put forth by my good friend from Rhode Island. I think if you examine our situation, it does not in any way fly in the face or raise any concerns. The question is: Is our system working? It is. It is reducing waste, it is bringing about recycling, and most importantly, it does allow competition. There is competition among the haulers. The only thing is, every hauler has to pay the tipping fee. But there is no problem. We have haulers that are bidding on it. We have put contracts out for bid. There is no problem with any interference with competition. Now, what the Supreme Court said was that the Federal Government can allow this, they just have to do it because a State cannot do it under the commerce clause without the authority of the Federal Government. All we are asking for is a simple exception for a system that is working well. And there is no way it will work in rural areas unless you can have tipping fees; that is, getting the people in the areas sharing the cost of this to have a way to participate, in other words, in order to get the haulers to come in. So I think this is a perfect example of what happens when Congress gets to look at a problem and gets carried away with some study done by EPA which is irrelevant to the situation and tramples on States rights to do what is right for the Nation and right for Vermont. I understand--and this is the basic problem--that my colleagues are afraid of opening this bill up for exceptions. Well, if anybody can come with an exception as we have, fine. But I do not think you will find anybody.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I hope this amendment will not take very long. I think it is a very sensible one. I will explain to my colleagues what the amendment does, and I believe they will find it acceptable. I understand the position of the chairman of the committee, who is reluctant to grant any exceptions to the bill because there would be two other exceptions. But to my knowledge the exceptions are that the State of Vermont and some municipalities in two other States have a situation which I think this body would agree deserves an exception. Let me review very briefly what we are talking about here. The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision which said the States themselves had no right to be able to control the flow of solid waste, that this has to be approved by the Federal Government because it was an interference with interstate commerce. That decision by the Supreme Court created a serious problem for the State of Vermont and some political subdivisions in West Virginia and Michigan. The purpose, and what we are trying to accomplish in this Nation with respect to solid waste, is to do three things, basically. First of all, we are trying to reduce the amount of solid waste that we have. Second, we are trying to improve the ability to recycle and to build a system in this Nation which will recycle and, therefore, reduce the demand on resources and reduce costs. Third, to find an equitable way to do it looking toward those that who create the trash ought to pay for it. So Vermont, in view of these national purposes--and I was a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I know we were trying very desperately to set standards for recycling to try to get this country to move up gradually. Vermont, in pursuant of that, passed a plan and program statewide that sets up districts for solid waste. In these districts, the system is set up which allows for haulers to get a tipping fee in order to take care of the additional costs of recycling the materials that were delivered to them. The only way it will work is if we have that ability. There is no other way they can do it other than to require the State of Vermont to provide the tipping fees and to take care of those people that are in those districts, and not others. And it would be very cumbersome. There are districts in West Virginia and Michigan that have a similar problem. So all we are trying to do here is to make sure that this national goal, which everyone agrees ought to be reached, can be reached by the State of Vermont, which is leading the way in this. Right now we have a system which is recycling 25 percent of our waste. This amendment is limited and says that we might continue forward in pursuance of that goal, and we may continue with our present system, and, if we reach the goal, that we be permitted to do so. We have established a goal of 30 percent, which was the national goal which was in RCRA which was never passed. Why should a State be penalized which has done what everyone in the Nation believes should be done, and then to turn around in an amendment by the committee to try to help those who have made investments but limit it to those on a temporary basis? In Vermont there are only two areas which qualify when the whole State is doing it. It makes no sense at all. I can understand the committee saying, if we give you an exception, then somebody else is going to come in for an exception. I say if other communities have an exception like we do and like we are talking about which furthers the national goal, reduces waste, takes care and improves recycling, then sure, maybe they ought to have that. However, I do not know of any in that category. So I would like to say that I hope the body will recognize that people who are trying to do what is right in this country should not be forced to buy onto a bill which is attempting to help in this area but just by the nature of things makes it impossible for those who are really leading out front doing what is in the national interest, and who would be foreclosed, destroys their system, and makes it impossible for the States to continue to pursue those goals. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. That is agreeable to me.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I had several people who asked to speak. I do not see them present, but I think we could finish in 15 minutes on our side.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have a modification of my amendment at the desk.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would also point out that this does not interfere in the sense of competition. There are bids that go out for those who want to bid. The only problem that is created is the tipping fee, which has to eventually, of course, be paid by the people that are getting the advantage of the waste disposal. And that helps in paying for the recycling programs. In rural areas where you do not have large amounts of trash that is recyclable in the sense that it can be sold, you have to make up that cost some way. The question is, is it not better to put that cost on those that are getting the advantages of the waste disposal system? I think everyone would agree, the answer is yes. And if the answer is yes, then why should we not be allowed to do it? It is not in any way interfering with the problems that the Supreme Court handled, which was interfering with respect to fair and open competition Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, hopefully we will be able to reconcile our differences that we have right now with respect to the pending bill. Vermont, I think, is a pioneer in this area. Some years ago, it set up a methodology of trying to reach what we believed were national goals as well as our own State's goals, and that was to try and develop recycling to reduce the amount of solid waste that enters into our waste system. Thus, we organized districts throughout the State. And also to try to enhance the ability to recycle, we have allowed some tipping fees to be exacted in order to take care If my memory serves me right, when I was on the committee that is handling this legislation, we had set or were going to set national goals that we ought to try to reach a 30-percent goal of recycling. Vermont right now is over 25 percent and moving toward 30 percent. What would happen, if this bill passes and if the existing Supreme Court decision is not changed, is that Vermont will have to move away from what is a very desirable situation, and that is to be able to reduce our flow of trash by over 25 percent. Mr. President, in 1987 the State of Vermont passed a solid waste management act which allowed small rural towns and cities to band together to solve their solid waste problems. Building a landfill which complies with EPA standards under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is not cheap. Recognizing that landfills out of compliance would be shutting down, and facing the reality that landfill space was dramatically declining, Vermont acted to assist small communities in their effort to handle their solid waste. The 1987 solid waste management law allows Vermont towns the ability to band together. Passage of Vermont's solid waste law and the implementation of the State's solid waste plan has been incredibly successful to date in achieving this goal. But we are not finished yet. Mr. President, Vermont has spent over $20 million developing its district waste management plans. The vast majority of these plans rely on flow control. Without this ability, many small towns and cities would not have been able to plan for the future, reduce their production of waste or implement far reaching recycling and waste reduction programs. The communities in my State need to be able to count on the results of their investments. They need to continue to work to solve their solid waste problems together, in coordination with the State. The loss of local authority over solid waste planning would be disastrous. These solid waste districts have developed comprehensive waste reduction plans, in order to reduce the costs of disposal and remove the need to continually open new and costly landfills. Since 1992, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of households and businesses participating in local waste reduction and recycling programs. And it is working. Currently, Vermont recycles approximately 25 percent of its solid waste and over 40 percent of Vermont's towns have recycling programs in place. And these are rural towns. Recycling in rural areas is not easy, nor cheap. I am proud of what these Vermont communities have achieved and want to ensure the continued growth of this trend in the future. Mr. President, Vermont is among the most rural States in the Nation. Our solid waste districts generally have not financed disposal facilities, such as landfills, nor recycling infrastructure through the issuance of revenue bonds. Therefore, the exemptions in the bill will not hold. But the financial health of these communities necessitates the continuation of their ability to direct flows of waste. And these waste districts are just beginning to fully implement their waste management plans, which may include the sighting of safe, but expensive, waste disposal facilities. My State has chosen to manage its waste in this manner. Now, in this time when the theme is to reduce mandates from Washington, are we going to impose a Washington solution on Vermont and other States who are properly managing their waste? Essentially, Washington will be removing Vermont's ability to implement their solid waste management plan. Washington will dismantle Vermont's recycling program. Washington will increase Vermont's waste generation, thereby increasing costs associated with waste disposal. Washington will end Vermont's ability to safely manage its waste, waste which without my amendment can go to out-of-State incinerators and less preferable landfills. I ask my colleagues to let Vermont manage its waste as it chooses, not as Washington dictates. Do not impose a Washington mandate on Vermont. Let us maintain our extremely successful waste reduction and recycling programs. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

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

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will submit an amendment to the pending bill. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside temporarily.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Conrad's Childhood Supplemental Security Income [SSI] Eligibility Reform Act. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I would like to begin by acknowledging and thanking my colleague Senator Conrad for his hard work and dedication on drafting this bill to cure the problems in the children's SSI program. I am hopeful for this bill's quick consideration and adoption. In the welfare reform bill passed earlier this year by our colleagues in the House, substantial changes were made in the children's SSI program. However, I believe that the House version of this bill fails to address the criticisms leveled towards this program while at the same time ensuring that the children and families that rely on and need these benefits receive them. For example, a family I know of in Vermont has two young children with cystic fibrosis. They live in a very rural area of Vermont about 2 hours away from the specialty clinic and hospital they go to. This distance creates a constant expense of travel to this clinic and hospital. In addition, the medication costs for the two children are very high. The infant had growth problems related to malabsorption which required special formula. The older child had severe malabsorption that required surgery and requires subsequent close follow-up of his nutritional status. The father of these children works full time, but has to take time off to attend the clinics with the children and to transport and visit them in the hospital. Some of the time off is unpaid because he has limited vacation time. The children's mother had intended to return to work after they were born but cannot find a day care provider who is comfortable with the children's medical care needs. She undoubtedly would also have difficulty finding an employer who would allow her the necessary time off for appointments, hospitalizations, and so forth. Mr. President, this family has a clear need for the Medicaid coverage and extra income that SSI provides. It is difficult to imagine how they could continue to provide the medical care that their children need without these benefits. They are a hard-working and tax-paying couple who struggle to do the best that they can for their children. The effect of the House bill on this family would be devastating, while our bill would ensure that this family that needs to receive these benefits would still receive them. I believe that the bill being introduced today will meet both of these goals: preserve the essential parts of the children's SSI program, while, at the same time, addressing the concerns raised by its critics. I would now like to address the valid criticisms of the SSI program, and our specific solutions in the bill to these criticisms. First, our bill will address the issue that SSI's purpose for children with disabilities was never sufficiently defined. By defining the program as maintaining children with disabilities in the most appropriate and cost effective setting, and enhancing such children's opportunities to develop into independent adults, our bill will combat the old once-disabled-always-disabled way of thinking. This bill will also combat the current problem that children who are not severely disabled are drawing benefits. By tightening the SSI eligiibility requirements, our bill will ensure that children and families that truly need these benefits will be receiving them. In addition, by increasing penalties to parents and guardians that knowingly and willfully coach children to act in ways that render them eligible for SSI, and requiring greater use of standardized testing, our bill will stem the practice of children who should be ineligible for benefits being found to be eligible for SSI. Further, our bill will graduate payments to families for each additional child in the family receiving SSI benefits. This provision will ensure that families with multiple kids receiving SSI benefits will not be receiving the maximum benefit for each child. Finally, our bill will help children receiving SSI benefits move toward self-sufficiency. I, for one, find this to be one of the most important provisions of the bill. By ensuring that we move people toward self-sufficiency, we are helping reduce the number of children receiving SSI benefits, while increasing the possibility that these individuals will not require future governmental support. Mr. President, I believe that our bill changes what is wrong with the SSI program while maintaining legitimate benefits that children and their families rely on. We don't want to go back to a much more costly system that institutionalizes children rather than affording them an opportunity for productive and self-sufficient lives. Thus, I feel confident in stating that this bill will ensure that continued support of SSI benefits to families, like the one from Vermont I described earlier, while solving some of the problems currently plaguing the children's SSI system.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Green Mountain Boy Scouts and congratulate the Boy Scouts of America on their 85th anniversary. It seems fitting, indeed, that the Green Mountain Boy Scouts of America will hold its statewide camporee on the historic Rutland fairgrounds. While 10,000 Vermont scouts and 4,000 adult volunteer leaders will be marking the 85th anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America in June, the Rutland Fairgrounds prepares to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Vermont State Fair. To these fairgrounds in 1861 came 1,000 young men to form the First Vermont Regiment of infantry, the initial unit sent from Vermont to fight in the Civil War. It is my understanding that the first night in camp, a chill wind came down off Pico and Killington flattening many of their tents. It was a strong omen, for hard times were ahead for the Vermonters who went off to fight in that war. Before it was over, nearly 35,000 young men from Vermont would serve, and more than 5,000 would give their lives. Those lads, every one of them volunteers, established a model of service from which Vermont did not falter during four bloody years. It is a model that we still find personified by the young people, and their leaders, who fill the ranks of scouting in Vermont. they live, they are constantly acquiring knowledge and skills which will serve them well in later years--and make them better citizens. In scouting lies much of the hope for America in the fast approaching next century. It is reassuring to know that Vermont still has within its borders able young people willing to serve in the best interests of their State and Nation, as did the boys of the long ago Civil War days. I want to congratulate the Boy Scouts of America on their 85 years of excellent service to the United States and welcome the Vermont boy scouts to my home city of Rutland for their celebration. Rutland is where I served in my youth as a boy scout. I hope the Vermont camporee is as enjoyable and successful as it is historic.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join many of my colleagues today in commemorating one of history's greatest tragedies: The slaughter 80 years ago of more than 1 million Armenians. That brutal assault on the Armenian people was an unconscionable effort to deny Armenians basic political and social rights of self-determination, independence, cultural identity, and community. The atrocity could not extinguish the Armenian people's desire for freedom and justice. The Armenian community survives in many places around the globe, including, thankfully, the United States of America. In commemorating the immense tragedy which took place 80 years ago, we are honoring the achievements and lives of those who perished. We are also paying tribute to the perseverance and vigor of the Armenian people, who have maintained their cultural and historical identity despite oppression and diaspora. They continue to make positive contributions wherever they are, including in the United States and in the Republic of Armenia. Commemorating these tragic events of 80 years ago, we also recognize the need for vigilance and action in the face of ethnic intolerance and injustice. Failure to learn the lessons of such events in history will unquestionably lead to future tragedies.