Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank my leader for his very eloquent statement on the status of education and the importance of this legislation. I am hopeful we will all work together in a bipartisan manner to come out with legislation on which we can all agree. Today, the Senate begins debate of S. 2, the Educational Opportunities Act. This legislation deals with every aspect of federal assistance to our nation's elementary and secondary schools. There is perhaps no subject more on the minds of the American public than education. As a nation, we have long recognized that the quality of our future depends upon the quality of the education provided to our children. From our very earliest days, schoolhouses were among the first buildings to spring up in budding communities. Federal involvement in elementary and secondary education can be traced back to the enactment of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, one of the first laws passed by the Continental Congress. The Northwest Ordinance required each township within the territory to reserve one square mile for the establishment of public schools. Under the Northwest Ordinance law, 77 million acres of land were set aside for public education. Since 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, has provided the foundation for Federal efforts to help children succeed in school. Currently, we provide about $14.3 billion annually for ESEA programs. This is a substantial investment which deserves the careful attention of all Members. Over half, $7.9 billion, of these funds is used on behalf of disadvantaged children under the title I program. Congress created the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in order to serve these children, and they remain the primary focus of our efforts. Other activities supported through ESEA include professional development, literacy, safe and drug-free schools, bilingual education, impact aid, aid to special populations, and technology. In preparation for this legislation, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions held 25 hearings on ESEA programs to examine each aspect of the Act with a view toward keeping what works, revising what does not, and adding what is necessary to meet emerging needs. In addition, I have devoted a great deal of time talking with students, parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, school board members, state-level school officials, and Governors. I have traveled all over the country doing this. In particular, I have listened to those in my home state of Vermont who work every day to make elementary and secondary school the best it can be. What I have heard from Vermonters and others around the country is that schools need to be held accountable for the performance of all their students, that education programs must show positive results, and that quality teachers and school leaders are essential to the success of any school. I have also been reminded that the 7-cents on the dollar provided by the Federal government is not going to do the job singlehandedly. To achieve these objectives, states and localities must have sufficient flexibility to tailor solutions to meet their individual circumstances. The advice I received is reflected in the programs and themes included in the Educational Opportunities Act. The primary objectives of this bill are: One, to maintain and strengthen the title I reform process initiated in 1994 which emphasizes the establishment of high standards and assessments designed to measure progress towards those standards; Two, to promote the sustained professional development of teachers and school leaders; Three, to help assure that students are provided a safe and drug-free learning environment; Four, to place an emphasis on getting results by insisting that activities and programs supported with federal funds are based on theory, research, and evaluation showing them to be effective in meeting their objectives; and Five, to increase State and local flexibility in the use of Federal funds in exchange for greater accountability for improving student performance. We would all agree that our schools must be held accountable for ensuring the academic success of all students. Like many others, I am disappointed that our students are not performing at the levels they should be and that Federal efforts to serve disadvantaged students have not shown better results. Congress has long recognized the need to raise standards. The alarm was raised in the Nation at Risk report issued in 1983. The admonition was given in these terse words: If a foreign government had imposed on us our educational system we would have declared it an act of war. In 1989, then-President Bush called together the Nation's Governors to an education summit from which national education goals for the year 2000 were set. In 1994, Congress substantially revised the title I program by focusing on standards, assessment, and professional development. The 1994 legislation set out a 7-year timetable for States to develop student content and performance standards and assessments aligned to those standards. The idea was to determine what students should know and be able to do and then to hold schools accountable for results by testing students against these standards. In addition, States and local school districts are to identify failing schools, known as schools in need of improvement, to offer extra assistance to those schools, and to take corrective action if the schools fail to improve over a 2-year period. Corrective action may include implementing a new curriculum, restructuring the school, implementing a joint plan that addresses specific student performance problems, reconstituting school staff, or decreasing decisionmaking authority at the school level. If permitted under State or local law, corrective action at the school district level may also include reducing or withholding funds from a school or abolishing the school. At the State level, again subject to State and local law, corrective action may include reducing or withholding funds from a school district, abolishing the district, removing particular schools from its jurisdiction, or appointing a receiver or trustee. We are now midstream in this reform process. To date, 48 States have approved content standards, 25 States have approved performance standards, and no States have approved assessments. Assessments are not required under the law until the 2001-2002 school year. The proposal approved by the committee ``stays the course'' with respect to these fundamental reforms, while building upon them in ways which will not sidetrack the activities well underway at the State and local levels. The revisions made to title I are designed to demonstrate that we are serious about holding children to high standards and pressuring for reform of failing schools--without creating mandates that force States and localities to start all over under a new set of rules and reporting requirements. Recognizing the expense of these endeavors, the measure also offers additional assistance for school improvement and assessment activities so that schools will be able to keep in stride with the 7-year reform schedule. Other revisions in title I emphasize the importance of parental involvement, including the creation of a separate part in the Title which is exclusively devoted to this issue. Title I also contains a new part which highlights the Comprehensive School Reform program. This program provides support for schools to put in place schoolwide reform programs which are backed up by research showing them to be effective. Not just in title I, but throughout the bill, there is an emphasis on getting results. Activities and programs supported with Federal funds are to be based on theory, research, and evaluation showing them to be effective in meeting their objectives, particularly as they relate to improving student achievement and performance. The bill also supports efforts to enhance teacher quality, which is one of the most critical tasks facing us. Nothing will change in the classroom until the teachers change. And the teachers can't be expected to change until they have help in knowing what is expected of them. We made a strong start in this regard during the last Congress by completely revamping federal support for teacher preparation activities as part of our work on the Higher Education Act. We now have the opportunity to focus on the professional development of teachers already in the classroom. This legislation is designed to step away from one-time, short-term activities and, instead, promote the sustained professional development shown to be effective in improving teacher skills and content knowledge. Recognizing that the need for professional development is not limited to teachers, the bill includes a new professional development initiative directed toward principals and superintendents. As we all know, a good school always has a first-rate principal, and a first-rate school district always has an outstanding and innovative superintendent. Funding for professional development activities is increased by including funds currently allocated for the class-size reduction program. Schools will still have the ability to hire teachers with Federal funds. If that is where their need lies, I am sure they will do just that. What I have heard in Vermont, however, is that the biggest need is not for more teachers--but rather for better ones. That is a choice that I believe Vermont and the other States across the country are in a better position to make than we are here in Congress. This bill leaves that choice squarely in their hands. The goal of assuring a safe and drug-free learning environment is promoted in this legislation through a strengthening of the provisions of title IV, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities. These improvements are the result of the bipartisan efforts of several Members, spearheaded by Senators DeWine, Dodd, and Murray. Modifications are made to increase accountability, to ensure that researched-based programs are funded, to provide States with greater flexibility in targeting violence and drug use, and to increase community participation in prevention programs. Finally, this legislation takes a number of significant steps to increase flexibility in exchange for greater accountability. It does so in the recognition that national programs which offer assistance for specific activities are limited in their ability to capture the diversity of individual needs in States and localities throughout the country. The bill substantially increases funding for the Innovative Education Program Strategies provisions of title VI. This program is the most flexible of all current Federal education programs, permitting local schools to undertake the activities most likely to improve their schools and enhance the performance of their students. These funds are put to work where the need is greatest--be it technology or library books or teacher training. The bill consolidates into title VI the waiver and related authorities now located in various titles of current law, making it easier for States and localities to find and review their options for making Federal dollars work more effectively for them. Title VI also includes several new options for flexible use of Federal funds. For example, a new rural flexibility initiative offers small rural districts the chance to combine the small amounts they might receive under specific categorical grant programs to amass a chunk of funds large enough to really address a priority need. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act authorizes formula and competitive grants that allow many of our local school districts to improve the education of their students. These federal grants support efforts to promote goals such as the professional development of teachers, the incorporation of technology into the classroom, gifted and talented programs, and making sure our schools provide safe learning environments for our children. Schools receive several categorical grants supporting these programs, each with its own authorized activities. As valuable as these programs are for thousands of predominantly urban and suburban school districts, they simply do not work well in rural areas. This is because the grants are based on school district enrollment. These individual grants confront smaller schools with a dilemma; namely, they simply may not receive enough funding from any single grant to carry out meaningful activities. The rural flexibility initiative allows a district to combine the funds from four categorical programs and use the funds to support projects that bring about improved academic achievement. If we are to ensure that our children have the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in an increasingly competitive world, we must all work together to lay a sound foundation at the elementary and secondary school level. The Federal Government is just one among the many partners with a responsibility to assure that we succeed. Although the total Federal investment pales by comparison to the support offered by State and local taxpayers, the $14 billion to $15 billion we do provide represents a substantial sum by anyone's accounting. Today, we have an opportunity to play a constructive role in helping to bring about the improvements we all want to see in elementary and secondary education. I realize there are many ideas regarding how we might achieve this goal. My hope is that, in debating our differences, we will not lose sight of our mutual goal of supporting a system of education which is second to none. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. That is the order in my mind.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I was alternating back and forth. We have not set time limits, but I urge people to keep it within 15 minutes. Nobody has yet.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Let's proceed the way we have been proceeding. It will be Senators Bingaman, Frist, the Senator from Minnesota, and I will be very accommodating to my good friend from Rhode Island.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, the senior Senator from Minnesota is next. We have about seven more Senators who desire to speak. We are not putting any time limitation on them. I am just making Senators aware of that.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I will make a unanimous consent request so we know where we stand. Next to speak is Senator Gregg; then Senator Dodd, Senator Reed, Senator Bunning, and then Senator Lieberman--three or four other Members--for a period not to exceed 45 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Senator Lieberman and his group. Others are flexible. But I suggest 15 minutes is an adequate time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator for her help and participation and also for her statement.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my good friend from Massachusetts, but I want to assure the American people that the majority of his criticisms are directed not toward the main body of the bill but toward a demonstration project contained within the bill. I think we have agreement on a great deal of the underlying bill. I would like to point out, for instance, that the bill contains a bipartisan proposal put forward by the Governors. Our heavily relying on the States is only appropriate, and it is the way to go. The Governors and the States are primarily responsible for education in this country. I also point out that this bill does not abandon the needs of homeless children and immigrants and other disadvantaged students. They are maintained about the same as they are now. There are some important differences, there is no question about it, with respect to parts of the bill. But the major of the criticisms offered by my colleague from Massachusetts were aimed at a demonstration project that might be used by 15 States. I think there is agreement on so much of this bill, I hate to see the debate entirely focused on those areas that were mentioned. I note the majority has consumed about 15 minutes, and the minority has consumed more than an hour. I have three of my people waiting who have been here for pretty much that time. I will recognize those three and then we will return to alternating.

Mr. JEFFORDS. That is in a special place.

Mr. JEFFORDS. We will listen to the three here. Senator Collins has been a leader in an effort to increase flexibility, particularly for our rural schools. I will yield her. I have a feeling she probably has something interesting to say and look forward to hearing her statement.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Arkansas such time as he may consume, hoping he will keep it at about 15 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for a well prepared and excellent statement.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I thank the Senator for his excellent statement. I know Kentucky has been a leader in this field. I appreciate Senator Bunning sharing his experience.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for sharing her valuable experiences with us and for her statement. I believe we have one more speaker who desires to speak before we close out. I ask that she be recognized.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding Vermonter and good friend, Larry Cooke, who recently died after a long illness. Born and raised in Vermont, Larry's love and devotion to his state and home town of Brattleboro framed all of his actions. We in Vermont are saddened by his loss but heartened by the legacy that he leaves behind. Larry's dedication to public service began early in his life. As an eighth grader, he was elected president of his class and never looked back. Like many of an earlier generation, Larry was a self-made man, going to work for his father immediately after graduating from Brattleboro Union High School. Demonstrating a devotion to his country that would extend throughout his life, Larry joined the Army and served in Germany before coming home to earn his real estate license. In this profession that he found his true calling, and it is here that he leaves his biggest footprint on the town of Brattleboro. Larry devoted his career to affordable housing and environmentally friendly developments. His most important projects have included renovating historic buildings to their original condition while making them viable for modern day usage. Larry was a consistent and important champion of affordable housing, taking the lead on the issue at the age of thirty as a candidate for Battleboro town selectman. He then went on to serve on the Brattleboro Housing Authority for two decades, building and renovating affordable housing and apartments throughout the area. As if his professional and private life did not take up enough of his time, Larry was active in every aspect of town affairs. He has served as president of the Kiwanis Club and as a corporator of Brattleboro Memorial Hospital. Among other activities too numerous to mention, Larry was a Mason, a member of the American Legion, the Shriners, and the Elks. Before he died, this close friend of mine gave one last gift to his community. Larry donated a historic home in the center of Brattleboro to the town's historical society for use as its headquarters and museum. Although only a small part of Larry's life-long contribution to Brattleboro, the home will stand as a lasting monument to a man who devoted his life to the betterment of his community. It has been said that we live in deeds, not years. While Larry died young, his accomplishments rival those of the oldest of men. He will be missed not only by Brattleboro and Vermont, but also by this country, where his life stands as a shining example for us all. My deepest condolences go out to Larry's devoted Wide, Kathleen, and his four daughters.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President. I rise today to pay tribute to educators in five Vermont high schools whose collaborative work in school improvement will help high school teachers and administrators across the country understand how to support high school reform. The high schools and their educators include: Montpelier High School--Owen Bradley, David Gibson, and Charlie Phillips; Otter Valley High School in Brandon--Nancy Cornell, Ellie Davine, and Bill Petrics; South Burlington High School--Tim Comoli, Sheila Mable, and Janet Bossange; Essex High School--Kevin Martell, Sue Pasco, and Brian Nelligan; and Mount Abraham High School in Bristol--Tom Tailer, John Vibber, David Royce and Mary Sullivan. These people are outstanding educators who understand how to build partnerships between the community and school that enrich the experience of their students. All five of these high schools have Professional Development School partnerships with the University of Vermont, collaborating to prepare new teachers and support veteran teachers on behalf of school renewal. Each of them has learned to use local resources to bring high school students into meaningful contact with adults in the surrounding community, making learning a part of life. All five schools are discovering how to link local innovations with the national effort to help all high school students meet high standards of performance. The Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University (LAB), a program of The Education Alliance at Brown University, with the support of the U.S. Department of Education will publish and disseminate a description of their work and the results of the work in The Dynamics of Change in High School Teaching: Instructional Innovation in Five Vermont Professional Development Schools, which will be released this summer. (Clarke, et al, 2000) The Montpelier Story, a publication excerpted from the book and available now through the LAB, is the story of the success of dedicated educators in collaboration with community partners and other resources in providing new, student-centered learning opportunities to the young people they serve. At Montpelier High School, Owen Bradley, David Gibson, Charlie Phillips and the entire faculty have redesigned the curriculum to support Personal Learning Plans for each student in the school. Montpelier students use their Personal Learning Plans to select courses and to develop community-based learning projects that help them meet graduation requirements and carry them toward their individual goals in ways that fit their unique talents and aspirations. The work at Montpelier has already inspired schools across Vermont and spilled over the borders to Maine and beyond, where it serves as a model for redevelopment of curricula and advising to increase contact between students and adults. Under the leadership of Nancy Cornell, Ellie Davine and Bill Petrics formed a team at Otter Valley High School with the purpose of designing a standards-based course for students in the school who needed to understand how geography and local decision making affect land use in Vermont. By giving each student a topographic map of 100 acres in the State and leading them through the process of land-use assessment and planning required by Vermont's environmental laws, they illustrated the application of knowledge and skills in local community development efforts. Over a period of 15 years at South Burlington High School, Tim Comoli and Sheila Mable, both of the English Department, developed a state-of- the-art media lab that engages students in designing multi-media presentations of professional quality for public service organizations in their community. Development of the media lab provoked a complete revision of the district's technology education plan, creating a model technology program for the State. At Essex High School, Kevin Martell, Sue Pasco and Brian Nelligan have worked for more than a decade to design and refine an integrated course in history and English that engages students in examining the evolution of human culture from 10,000 BC to the present. By fitting course assignment to the individual learning styles of the students who fill their classrooms, they have been able to create a challenging course in which high school students teach each other, and learn to express their views in a wide variety of media. Tom Tailer, John Vibber and a host of partners at Mount Abraham Union High School developed a physics unit on Newton's Laws that they expanded over a decade into a simulation of armed, global aggression. Having made ``weapons'' that launch tennis balls over great distances, Mt. Abraham's physics students play out the implications of an unequal distribution of global power on the school's athletic fields, then compare their struggle to current wars and conflicts around the globe. The ``Physics War'' is part of a complete redesign of Mt. Abraham's science curriculum that bases student learning on performance measured against common standards. Each of these projects demonstrates that high school change occurs when individuals reach across the boundaries that separate them into departments and bureaucratic layers, forming partnerships that empower all participants to learn and grow through shared effort on behalf of a common goal: improved learning for young people.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first I must congratulate the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, for producing an on-time budget for only the third time in the 24-plus-year history of the Budget Act. Thrifty, cautious, and conservative. These adjectives describe the Yankee qualities of many Vermonters when someone tries to get them to open their wallets, and are in the genes of anyone who represents our great state in Congress. I am pleased that this resolution protects social security. Not one penny of the social security surplus is touched. Second, it balances the budget every year without using the social security surplus. Thirdly, this resolution retires the national debt held by the public--nearly $170 billion in the first year and $1 trillion over the next five years. I am greatly troubled, however, about certain elements in the budget, and will vote against the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution now before the Senate. What would a cautious farmer do when times are good--invest in new equipment to become more efficient, pay off debts, and put some away for a rainy day. There is no question that tax relief is warranted, but not at the expense of education, veterans health, job training, child care and other important discretionary programs. A farmer cautiously guards his seed corn for future harvests. Our nation's seed corn is its youth and investments in education are needed to protect our prosperity. The conference report now before us rejects funding added on the floor of the Senate for three important education programs. It not only rejects funding that a majority of this body supported but it takes a giant step backward by reducing funding for education $3 billion below what was contained within the original Senate-passed resolution. When I first arrived in Congress, one of the very first bills that I had the privilege of working on was the Education of All Handicapped Act of 1975. As a freshman Member of Congress, I was proud to sponsor that legislation and to be named as a member of the House and Senate conference committee along with then Vermont Senator Bob Stafford. At that time, despite a clear Constitutional obligation to educate all children, regardless of disability, thousands of disabled students were denied access to a public education. Passage of the Education of All Handicapped Act offered financial incentives to states to fulfill this existing obligation. Recognizing that the costs associated with educating these children was more than many school districts could bear alone, the Federal government pledged to pay 40 percent of the costs of educating these students. The budget resolution that is before us makes a mockery of this pledge. The original Senate budget resolution assumed that the Federal government would only fund between 15 and 18 percent of the cost of educating disabled students. My amendment to increase this percentage was narrowly defeated last week and was then watered down by an amendment by my colleague Senator Voinovich. I had hoped, nonetheless, that passage of the Voinovich amendment meant that a serious effort would be made in conference to increase funding for IDEA. This hope was clearly misplaced. Let me also speak for a minute about early childhood education. Research into the development and growth of the human brain clearly demonstrates that learning begins at birth. The sheer magnitude of this scientific research is difficult to fathom. When talk turns to 100 billion neurons or connections with axons and dendrites, confusion is the most likely outcome. What this research basically says is something that parents and grandparents have know for decades, very young children need a nurturing, stimulating environment in order for their brains to make the myriad of connections they need to grow into competent, caring adults. Research on the brain has shown that the years between birth and six are critical for future success in school, at work, and in society. I believe that education provides the cornerstone from which all other things become possible. Our Nation's first educational goal is that all children should begin school ready to learn. In order to achieve that goal, parents and caretakers need support and assistance to better ensure that they have the tools necessary to incorporate early childhood learning into the daily lives of our Nation's children. Senator Stevens offered an amendment that was adopted by unanimous consent that provided mandatory funding for this program. This funding was rejected in conference and is not contained within this budget resolution. Senator Kennedy and I offered an amendment that provided for a $400 increase in the maximum Pell Grant. These funds make it possible for millions of students to attend college each year. Again, this funding was rejected in conference and is not contained within this resolution. Prosperity also dictates that we redouble our efforts to protect society's most vulnerable. Unfortunately, this budget does not go far enough to provide drugs to seniors who need them now. I agree with Vermonters who tell me that prescription drug costs are too high, and that it doesn't make sense for Medicare to cover hospital charges, but not cover the drugs that could keep beneficiaries out of the hospital. Let me be clear, Mr. President, I believe that we need Medicare reform that includes a broad prescription drug benefit. But even if we are not able to enact Medicare reform this year, I believe we need to provide sufficient funds now, in this budget, that will provide relief to Medicare beneficiaries that need help the most--those low-income seniors whose income is high enough that they don't qualify for Medicaid, but still do not have enough income to afford the prescription drugs that they need. Mr. President, I am very disappointed with the prescription drug provision in this Budget Resolution. I supported the approach of Senator Snowe's amendment in the Budget Committee that would have provided $40 billion for prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries even if Congress is unable to enact Medicare reform. We should not let Congress' inability to enact broad Medicare reform stand in the way of providing seniors with the medicines that they need to live longer, healthier lives. I am further dismayed that this budget resolution does not fulfill our Nation's commitment to its veterans. Years of underfunding coupled with spiraling health care costs have left the veterans health care system struggling to provide the quality care that veterans expect and deserve. This trend must be stopped and reversed. We owe it to future generations to keep federal spending under control. But we must first recognize the prior claim of veterans who have already given of themselves and who expect to receive the medical care and benefits they were promised. This budget, like all budgets passed by Congress, is an expression of political intent, priorities, and a starting point for bargaining. Much work remains to be done to pass the 13 appropriations bills that actually fund the government. In areas where I disagree with the budget resolution, I plan to work hard with appropriators to adjust spending levels and turn this budget into reality. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President. Two years ago, I stood before you as the proud sponsor of a resolution commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA). Today I am here to honor the 20th anniversary of VVA's first chapter--born and raised in my home town of Rutland, Vermont. Twenty years ago, Vietnam Veterans were suffering under the wave of anti- Vietnam sentiment that had swept the nation. Little recognition was given to their sacrifices during the war. And in fact, there was even a great deal of official denial about the extent of the price that had been paid by these veterans, both physical and emotional. It would be years before Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder would be a recognized condition for many veterans and years before the Federal Government would admit that use of Agent Orange had left a terrible legacy of continued suffering for our veterans. The founders of the VVA felt that they must have an organization to speak directly to those needs. The outpouring of enthusiasm from the veterans themselves demonstrated the depth of these feelings. In 1979, during a trip to Vermont, VVA founder Bobby Muller met Don Bodette. Don supported the notion of an organization of and for Vietnam era veterans, but felt that it would only be truly successful if they mobilized locally and established chapters. The power of Don's logic and commitment persuaded Bobby Muller to adopt his model. On April 13, 1980, VVA Chapter One was established in Rutland, Vermont. Taking up the challenge, Don was joined by Jake Jacobsen, Albert and Mary Trombley, Mike Dodge, Dennis Ross and Mark Truhan, to name a few. Today, April 13, 2000, VVA Chapter One has 120 members hailing from 19 states and 3 other countries. I would like to add my voice to the multitudes both in and outside of Vermont who are celebrating this auspicious anniversary. I join in recognizing the tremendous work done by the VVA, both in Vermont and nationally. As a Vietnam era veteran myself, we all owe a debt of gratitude to VVA Chapter One's farsighted founders and the committed members who have followed their lead. Happy 20th Birthday, Chapter One! May you have many more!

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Weatherization Improvement Act of 2000. As this past winter has demonstrated, cold temperatures and high fuel costs can result in severe hardship for many of our low-income households, particularly those with children, elderly, and disabled members. Preventative energy efficiency measures are vital to ensure that low-income consumers spend less money keeping their families warm on cold winter nights. It is estimated that investments in Weatherization can save a typical household $193 in annual gas energy costs. While improving energy efficiency through work such as air- sealing and insulation work is an admirable goal, the Weatherization Assistance Program also has become an important tool in addressing the health and safely of our low-income families. The Weatherization Improvement Act of 2000 seeks to further this commitment. The legislation will amend the average per dwelling unit cost to incorporate intensive costs, such as costs of furnace or cooling replacements, reducing the administrative burden of tracking these costs separately; increase the average cost per home, beginning this year, to $2,500 (up from $2,032 for 1999); and eliminate the statutory requirement that at least 40 percent of funds be spent on materials. These changes are necessary to improve the effectiveness of the Weatherization, and are long overdue. Lastly, the legislation repeals the 25 percent state matching requirement for the Weatherization Assistance Program set to begin in FY2001, which was included in the FY2000 Interior Appropriations legislation. While many states, utilities, and private organizations have leveraged large amounts of money in support of the Weatherization Assistance Program, not every state is in the same financial situation. There needs to be national commitment to energy efficiency for low income Americans and affordable housing. This is part of that commitment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Weatherization Improvement Act of 2000. As this past winter has demonstrated, cold temperatures and high fuel costs can result in severe hardship for many of our low-income households, particularly those with children, elderly, and disabled members. Preventative energy efficiency measures are vital to ensure that low-income consumers spend less money keeping their families warm on cold winter nights. It is estimated that investments in Weatherization can save a typical household $193 in annual gas energy costs. While improving energy efficiency through work such as air- sealing and insulation work is an admirable goal, the Weatherization Assistance Program also has become an important tool in addressing the health and safely of our low-income families. The Weatherization Improvement Act of 2000 seeks to further this commitment. The legislation will amend the average per dwelling unit cost to incorporate intensive costs, such as costs of furnace or cooling replacements, reducing the administrative burden of tracking these costs separately; increase the average cost per home, beginning this year, to $2,500 (up from $2,032 for 1999); and eliminate the statutory requirement that at least 40 percent of funds be spent on materials. These changes are necessary to improve the effectiveness of the Weatherization, and are long overdue. Lastly, the legislation repeals the 25 percent state matching requirement for the Weatherization Assistance Program set to begin in FY2001, which was included in the FY2000 Interior Appropriations legislation. While many states, utilities, and private organizations have leveraged large amounts of money in support of the Weatherization Assistance Program, not every state is in the same financial situation. There needs to be national commitment to energy efficiency for low income Americans and affordable housing. This is part of that commitment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator for his statement. We had an incredibly good breakthrough in negotiations, which is why I can reassure the Senator of my belief that we don't have to worry about it being changed, with the administration about 3 o'clock the morning before last, after long negotiations, and we came to a resolution which at least I know my critics in Vermont and everyone I know has agreed is a wonderful resolution of the problem. I am hopeful we will also be able to get the holds from the other side of the aisle removed expeditiously so this can be passed. I thank the Senator because he was a leader in this field, and the bill he brought out of the appropriations process was certainly one which was taken into consideration and utilized in the final resolution. With Senator Kennedy and Senator Frist agreeing to it, with the administration, I think we have, for the first time, a real hope this very difficult area of organ transplants and how they will be utilized may have a permanent solution--at least a solution for a foreseeable length of time. A lot of it is due to the efforts of the Senator, and I appreciate it.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I give the Senator those assurances.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Kentucky for their work on the bill being presented today. We are here today because we believe that all workers should have the opportunity to share in the success of their companies and it is incredibly important we do all we can to make sure that this legislation gets passed with the vote it deserves. More and more employers are providing equity ownership opportunities to all of their employees and we are here today because we want to foster this trend which is good for our workers and for our nation's economic growth. The Worker Economic Opportunity Act will encourage this trend by changing the Fair Labor Standards Act to address the needs of the 21st century. Over the last ten years, we have witnessed tremendous change in the structure of our Nation's economy in large part due to the birth of the internet and e-commerce. The vitality of our economy is a tribute to the creative and entrepreneurial genius of thousands of individual business people and the indispensable contribution of the American workforce. As legislators during this exciting time, we are challenged to maintain an environment that will foster the continued growth of our economy. We must work to ensure that our laws are in sync with the changing environment. However, many of the laws and policies governing our workplace have fallen out of sync with the information age and there has been particular resistance to changing our labor laws. As chairman of the Senate Committee with jurisdiction over workplace issues, I believe it is time to examine and modify these laws to meet the rapidly evolving needs of the American workforce. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for example, was enacted in the late 1930s, to establish basic standards for wages and overtime pay. While the principles behind the FLSA have not changed, its rigid provisions make it difficult for employers to accommodate the needs of today's workforce. In early January, we discovered the problem that we are addressing here today. It is extremely important. We learned that the sixty-year old law actually operates to deter employers from offering equity participation programs, such as stock options, to hourly employees. These programs are most prevalent in the high tech industry, yet increasingly employers across the whole spectrum of American industry have begun to offer them. And, while these programs used to be reserved for executives, recent data shows that they are making their way down the corporate ladder. A recent Federal Reserve Board of Governors study found that 17% of firms have introduced stock options programs within the last two years and 37% have broadened eligibility for their stock option programs in the last two years. Broad-based equity programs prove valuable to both employers and employees. For employers, these programs have become a key tool for employee recruitment, motivation and retention. Employees seek out companies offering these programs because they enable workers to become owners and reap the benefits of their company's growth. When I first heard about the FLSA's application to stock options, I became very concerned about its impact on our workforce. I was pleased to discover that Senators McConnell, Dodd, and Enzi shared similar concerns and that the Department of Labor also recognized that we had a problem on our hands that would require a legislative solution. Together we crafted the legislation we are debating here today. We have also worked together on a Joint Statement of Legislative Intent on S. 2323 which is intended to reflect the discussions the sponsors had with the Department of Labor during the drafting of the legislation, and the sponsors' intent and understanding of this legislation. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. It is a symbolic first step in the process of aligning our labor laws with the new economy. I commend the Senator from Wyoming who is one of the initial people who understood the importance of this issue and who came forward to help other Members understand the dangers of the present situation and to bring about the bill we have before the Senate. I am happy to yield the floor to my wonderful Senator from Wyoming.