Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first of all, everyone should realize this is the year we start reevaluating the educational programs of this country. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is up for reauthorization. This is most comprehensive. It is the one bill we look at to try and get guidance from the Federal Government in the area of elementary and secondary education. There are many things we must be concerned about. One of those has been raised by the Senator from Washington--class size. There are many other issues to be involved. In addition, this is an attempt to authorize on an appropriations bill. It is not the time. The time is when we take up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We have begun doing that. The committee has been very active. We held over 20 hearings on what should be done to make the Elementary and Secondary Education Act more successful. This Nation, as everyone has articulated, is in an educational crisis situation. We have many wonderful schools and many wonderful teachers, but relative to our competition in other areas of the world, we could be doing much better. The question is, What do we do and how do we do it? On the 23rd of June this year, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee held a hearing on the class size proposal. We have had this under review. Statements were heard from an expert panel of witnesses who offered an array of views on the merits of creating a Federal program that mandated local communities use funds to lower class sizes. We examined important issues, including the impact of reducing class size on student achievement and other factors impacting student achievement; the tension between quantity and quality with respect to hiring teachers; whether large class sizes are the biggest obstacle to improving student achievement; and the value and role of schoolteachers in making decisions for providing the best education to young people in their schools. What did the witnesses who came before the Committee have to say? Dr. Eric Hanushek, a respected professor at the University of Rochester stated, for the record: a move to mandate smaller classes . . . is misguided and could even hurt students and student achievement; . . . the accumulated evidence on the impact of reduced class size on student performance gives no reason to expect that the current wave of class size reduction will have an overall effect on student achievement; and that class size is very expensive and takes resource and attention away from potentially more productive reform efforts. He based his views on extensive research and historical evidence. In U.S. history, between 1965 and 1995, pupil-teacher ratios have fallen from 25:1 to 17:1 yet performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has remained roughly constant. That produces no evidence that class size makes a difference. He noted that while pupil-teacher ratios are defined somewhat differently than class- size, the two measures do move together. International comparisons suggest no relationship between pupil-teacher ratios and student performance. So in Europe their studies show the same as reported in ours: It doesn't make a difference. In looking at some 300 advanced statistical studies, the studies show an equal number of studies that suggest positive improvements as suggest negative effects. We also heard from Dr. Randy Ross, who spoke not from a research- based perspective but from the heart and common sense. He has witnessed the results of class size reduction efforts in California first hand and is concerned about what he saw. He stated: A wholesale reduction in the sizes of classes in schools throughout a state predictably nibbles away at the chances that students in poor, inner city neighborhoods will get a better education. He watched the better teachers in low-income neighborhoods be lured away to higher paying suburban schools, leaving the inner-city schools to fill vacancies which those individuals that did not make the cut in other school districts. It is a policy that has hurt students, not helped them. At this same hearing, we talked at length about the Innovative Education Program Strategies, or title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Witnesses on that panel told us how states and local education agencies are improving student achievement by investing in reform efforts, education technology, professional development, school library activities, and support for at-risk students. I would argue that investing in any one of these activities may have a more profound and significant impact on helping students achieve at higher levels than mandating that a local school hire one more ``teacher''-- qualified or not. Let's not forget our common sense in this debate. My common sense says the quality of the teacher does matter. Common sense tells me that local leaders in schools across the country have the student's best interest at heart and must have a say in implementing programs that will provide the greatest benefit to their students. If class size reduction is the greatest need in a community, we can all rest assured that local leaders throughout the country will direct their portion of the $1.2 billion made available in this bill to that effort. There is no need for my colleagues to worry. If on the other hand, local leaders have other ideas for ways to vastly improve the educational opportunities of young people in their communities, in their classrooms, I think we should provide them with some flexibility to do what is best for the student, and what is best in accordance with that community. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am forced to vote against the Energy and Water conference report. Not to do so would be to break a commitment to small businesses across America, to hurt farmers and ranchers and rural communities, and to threaten the energy security of the United States. The people across the United States demand increased funding for renewable energy. Poll after poll shows that our citizens believe we should spend more on renewable energy. A majority of the United States Senate--54 Senators--believe we should increase funding for renewable energy. This bill defies the will of the American people and a majority of U.S. Senators. It does not provide more money for renewable energy. It provides less money. It provides 130 million dollars less than the administration's request. It cuts funding for renewable energy by 30%. Mr. President, by decreasing funding for renewable energy, we jeopardize the security of our Nation, we hurt small businesses, ranchers, farmers, and rural communities, we hurt our ability to compete internationally, and we hurt the environment. Mr. President, our Nation needs to increase domestic energy production--not cut funding for developing an unlimited source of energy made in America. Our Nation needs a lower balance of payments-- not an increased trade deficit. We need to help farmers, ranchers, and rural communities develop affordable, reliable, locally produced energy--not cut it off. We need to stand up for U.S. companies selling U.S. manufactured energy technologies in overseas markets--not leave them dangling in the wind while the Japanese and Europeans grossly outspend us. We need to spur job markets in every state in the Nation-- not send our good jobs overseas. Apparently there are still some who fail to realize that clean, domestic energy production is important. Perhaps they have not noticed that the U.S. has a trade deficit larger than any other nation, ever. Or maybe they have forgotten that imported foreign oil is the number one contributor to our trade deficit. Or maybe they just do not realize what the rest of the nation has long ago realized--that clean, made in America renewable energy can give us the energy security, jobs, and healthy environment that our people demand. I am deeply disappointed in the severe cuts to renewable energy in this bill. I vow to fight even harder next year to give renewable energy the funding it deserves. burbank hospital regional cancer center

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, September 23rd was the 2-year anniversary of submission of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the US Senate for ratification. Both Republican and Democratic presidents over the span of 4 decades have worked to enhance our national security by negotiating limits on nuclear testing. Progress has been slow and halting, but the inescapable logic of improving security by banning nuclear tests has prevailed. The successful negotiation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, signed by 152 countries, was the culmination of these decades of effort on the part of the United States. Ratification and entry into force of this treaty is in our best interest and in the best interest of nuclear non-proliferation and international stability. Mr. President, I have urged the Committee on Foreign Relations to hold hearings on this treaty. I know the Chairman has concerns about the treaty. I hope he will air them in a forum that will allow discussion of his concerns and those of other Members of the Committee. And I urge the Majority Leader to bring this treaty to the Senate floor. Time is of the essence on this matter. America has been the world leader on this issue and was the primary architect of this treaty. We have an obligation to take up this treaty in the Senate, to educate ourselves on its provisions and to debate the merits of its ratification. The eyes of the world are on our actions as the 44 countries who have ratified the treaty prepare to meet on October 6th in Vienna, Austria, to discuss implementation of the treaty. I would vastly prefer that the United States were sitting as a party at that meeting. But at a minimum, we should use this opportunity to make progress on the treaty here in the Senate. We have an obligation to future generations to improve the national security of our nation. It would be irresponsible of us to let slip out of our grasp a very important tool in the fight against nuclear proliferation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to publicly acknowledge the five Vet Centers from around this country that are being recognized for their superior services as ``Vet Centers of Excellence.'' While I am proud of the fine facilities located in California, Arizona, Georgia and West Virginia, the one I want to praise today is in my state of Vermont. Vermont is very fortunate to have two Vet Centers--in fact we boast the first in the nation back in the days when the Readjustment Counseling Service (RCS) was just getting started with pilot sites strategically located around the country. The nation's first Vet Center, an excellent facility, was designed to help veterans in the Burlington, Vermont area. The Vet Center we honor today opened in mid-1981 and is located in White River Junction, Vermont. It serves veterans on both sides of the Connecticut River in Vermont and New Hampshire. The team leader, Tim Beebe, assesses their work modestly, saying ``we are just doing our job.'' Maybe they don't understand the impact they have. This incredible staff go so far above their ``job''. They are caring, involved and understanding friends, devoted to offering a safe haven to those veterans suffering the emotional wear and tear of battle, often thirty years after leaving the service. I am sure I don't need to remind my colleagues in Congress that the work being done at Vet Centers throughout the Country is enormously important. Over the years, the Vet Center program has been so successful in meeting the readjustment needs of Vietnam veterans that the VA Readjustment Counseling Service expanded the scope of their good work to veterans of all eras. This move was heartily endorsed by Congress and is now law. Long before this mandate, however, the White River Junction Vet Center subscribed to an open door policy to all veterans. Their message was simply put: ``Welcome home--you are not alone.'' Mr. President, I believe in the great work being done by Vet Centers everyday throughout this country. I also know, however, that a ``Vet Center of Excellence'' award is only given to the those centers that stand a little taller than the rest. The White River Junction Vet Center staff exemplifies excellence. I want to offer my warmest congratulations to this incredibly talented group of professionals and remind them that they are shining examples to their colleagues in the 206 Vet Centers around the United States.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Graham, to introduce the Medicare Wellness Act of 1999. This legislation will modernize Medicare benefits and improve the preventive care received by our nation's seniors. The Medicare program was designed in 1965 to provide seniors with access to the same health care services enjoyed under private health insurance plans. Medical science has grown by leaps and bounds in the decades since that time. Most of the private sector acted swiftly to cover preventive benefits when they realized that it is cheaper to screen for an illness and treat its early diagnosis than to pay for drastic procedures in a hospital later on. Congress has been too slow in extending to Medicare beneficiaries the same advances in quality care enjoyed throughout the rest of the health care system. The Medicare Wellness Act adds to the Medicare program those benefits recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. These include: screening for hypertension, counseling for tobacco cessation, screening for glaucoma, counseling for hormone replacement therapy, screening for vision and hearing loss, expanded screening and counseling for osteoporosis, and cholesterol screening. These are some of the most prominent risk factors facing Medicare beneficiaries. If these symptoms are addressed regularly, beneficiaries will have a head start on fighting the conditions they lead to, such as diabetes, lung cancer, heart disease, blindness, osteoporosis, and many others. Beyond the eight new preventive benefits under this bill, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) will conduct a study every five years to assess the scientific validity and cost-effectiveness of the preventive benefits package. When presented to Congress, the study will recommend what, if any, preventive benefits should be added, or removed from the Medicare program. By facing such regularly scheduled considerations of preventive benefits, Congress will do a much better job of keeping the Medicare program up to date with the rapid advances in medical science. The Medicare Wellness Act also instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to coordinate with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Health Care Financing Administration to establish a Risk Appraisal and Education Program. This program will target both current beneficiaries and individuals with high risk factors below the age of 65. Outreach to these groups will offer questions regarding major behavioral risk factors, including the lack of proper nutrition, the use of alcohol, the lack of regular exercise, the use of tobacco, and depression. State of the art software, case managers, and nurse hotlines will then identify what conditions beneficiaries are at risk for, based on their individual responses to the questions, and inform them of actions they can take to lead a healthier life. Any modern health care professional can tell you that effective health care addresses the whole health of an individual. A lifestyle that includes proper exercise and nutrition, and access to regular disease screening ensures attention to the whole individual, not just a solitary body part. It is time we reaffirm our commitment to provide our nation's seniors with quality health care. I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Graham, Chafee, Bryan, Rockefeller, and Kerry for their dedication to the idea of changing Medicare from a sickness program to a wellness program. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Graham, to introduce the Medicare Wellness Act of 1999. This legislation will modernize Medicare benefits and improve the preventive care received by our nation's seniors. The Medicare program was designed in 1965 to provide seniors with access to the same health care services enjoyed under private health insurance plans. Medical science has grown by leaps and bounds in the decades since that time. Most of the private sector acted swiftly to cover preventive benefits when they realized that it is cheaper to screen for an illness and treat its early diagnosis than to pay for drastic procedures in a hospital later on. Congress has been too slow in extending to Medicare beneficiaries the same advances in quality care enjoyed throughout the rest of the health care system. The Medicare Wellness Act adds to the Medicare program those benefits recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. These include: screening for hypertension, counseling for tobacco cessation, screening for glaucoma, counseling for hormone replacement therapy, screening for vision and hearing loss, expanded screening and counseling for osteoporosis, and cholesterol screening. These are some of the most prominent risk factors facing Medicare beneficiaries. If these symptoms are addressed regularly, beneficiaries will have a head start on fighting the conditions they lead to, such as diabetes, lung cancer, heart disease, blindness, osteoporosis, and many others. Beyond the eight new preventive benefits under this bill, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) will conduct a study every five years to assess the scientific validity and cost-effectiveness of the preventive benefits package. When presented to Congress, the study will recommend what, if any, preventive benefits should be added, or removed from the Medicare program. By facing such regularly scheduled considerations of preventive benefits, Congress will do a much better job of keeping the Medicare program up to date with the rapid advances in medical science. The Medicare Wellness Act also instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to coordinate with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Health Care Financing Administration to establish a Risk Appraisal and Education Program. This program will target both current beneficiaries and individuals with high risk factors below the age of 65. Outreach to these groups will offer questions regarding major behavioral risk factors, including the lack of proper nutrition, the use of alcohol, the lack of regular exercise, the use of tobacco, and depression. State of the art software, case managers, and nurse hotlines will then identify what conditions beneficiaries are at risk for, based on their individual responses to the questions, and inform them of actions they can take to lead a healthier life. Any modern health care professional can tell you that effective health care addresses the whole health of an individual. A lifestyle that includes proper exercise and nutrition, and access to regular disease screening ensures attention to the whole individual, not just a solitary body part. It is time we reaffirm our commitment to provide our nation's seniors with quality health care. I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Graham, Chafee, Bryan, Rockefeller, and Kerry for their dedication to the idea of changing Medicare from a sickness program to a wellness program. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Slade Gorton, Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, for his, as well as his staff's, efforts to work with me and my staff to address concerns regarding a potential funding freeze for the Weatherization Assistance Program. I am very pleased that the Chairman was able to obtain an additional $2 million, at my urging, for the Weatherization Assistance Program, increasing the FY 2000 funding level to $135 million. Weatherization is an especially critical program to the Northeast- Midwest region. It increases energy efficiency in low-income homes, reducing energy use by up to one-third. More than four and a half million households have been weatherized through this program over the past twenty years. Weatherization returns $1.80 in energy savings for every dollar spent; and provides an additional $0.60 in employment and environmental benefits. This year, 31 Senators voiced support for an increase in weatherization funding. In light of recent forecasts of rising fuel costs, weatherization funding has never been more critical. By providing targeted support in anticipation of extreme weather conditions, we can ensure the health, safety, and well-being of millions of low-income families, including the especially vulnerable populations of low-income children and elderly.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, plaintiffs from my home State of Vermont made opening arguments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs, representing the New England Council for Energy Efficiency and the Environment, have raised serious questions about the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's decision in 1997 to grant power marketer status to a subsidiary of the Canadian company Hydro-Quebec. The Council is protesting that Hydro-Quebec was unlawfully granted the ability to buy and sell power in the U.S. without regulatory oversight. According to expert testimony in that case, Hydro-Quebec already exercises too much control over Northeastern energy markets, and Vermont ratepayers will have to pay higher energy bills if this license is upheld. Hydro-Quebec's ability and willingness to exert undue influence on electricity markets in the United States is of serious concern. The company's request last month that the Canadian government sue the United States over fair trade practices is a clear infringement of the legitimate rights of Vermonters to set Vermont electric rates. The Vermont Public Service Board sets rates equally for all companies, be they foreign or domestic, yet Hydro-Quebec is using its status as a semi-governmental foreign company in an attempt to control these rates. It is deeply ironic that Hydro-Quebec, a monopoly protected by Quebec law against all retail and virtually all wholesale competition in Quebec, should utilize principles of ``fair trade'' to lodge a complaint against the United States under NAFTA. Entrepreneurs in New England and New York who want to compete in Quebec are prohibited from doing so, thus precluding meaningful international competition in energy. Yet Hydro-Quebec is able to freely sell its energy in the U.S. I call upon Hydro-Quebec to come out from behind its monopolistic shield and act like a true competitive utility. Drop your NAFTA lawsuit. End your efforts to undermine Vermont law. Stop using international law to threaten Vermont ratepayers. We want to do business with Hydro-Quebec, but we cannot do so while it tries to exert undue influence in Vermont and New England markets. In Vermont, the Public Service Board sets electric rates, not foreign companies. We will never, ever let a foreign entity write our rules on power sales. I further call upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to thoroughly examine all means by which a foreign utility may exert influence in the United States. Foreign companies should not be given carte blanche to sell energy in the U.S. until all impacts of that decision are considered--not only market share, but also environmental impacts and means outside of the market by which a foreign company may exert influence. Hydro-Quebec is taking advantage of its enormous size and semi-governmental status to gouge ratepayers in Vermont. This issue is of enormous importance to the people of Vermont, and I hope the Commission will thoroughly examine all of these issues. Mr. President, I will do all in my power to protect Vermont electric ratepayers from unnecessary manipulation and threats. I am carefully reviewing the law related to wholesale and retail power sales and will be sure to work for a revision of this law if we see that a region of this nation, or a particular state, is being treated unfairly.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Bennett, Chafee, Kennedy, Moynihan, and Reed, I am pleased that the Managers of the bill have agreed to support our proposal for a funding increase for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. First let me commend Senators Gorton and Byrd for starting this discussion out on the right foot. They provided modest increases for the NEA, NEH and IMLS under very difficult circumstances. I applaud the leadership they have shown in recognizing the important role that each of these agencies play in strengthening our nation's cultural institutions and expanding opportunities for participation in cultural activities. My support for these agencies runs deep because I know that the grants that they make have a positive impact on the state of Vermont and nearly all who live there. The NEA and NEH make it possible for more Vermonters to have access to the arts and humanities in their many different forms and shapes--literature, art history, dance, music, folkarts, history and theater. In number terms, the positive impact of the arts and the humanities is statistically significant. It can be measured in terms of increased academic achievement and better outlook on life for those school-aged children that have the opportunity to participate in the arts or humanities experience. In terms of education, students of the arts outperform their ``non- arts'' peers on the SAT. Even when one takes into consideration the economic status of a family, kids from low-income families that participate in the arts had higher grades in English, were less likely to drop out by grade 10, were less ``bored'' in school, had a higher ``self concept,'' and placed a higher value on volunteerism than their low-income peers with low arts involvement. The arts have demonstrated effectiveness in making a difference for youth at-risk by decreasing truancy and increasing enthusiasm for learning. Students engaged in the learning process are less likely to get into trouble and the arts have proven themselves are one of our best tools in this effort. The hard data backs up these claims. In other instances, the positive impact of the arts and humanities can be ``measured'' by a smile that grows on the face of a person listening to the music of the Vermont Symphony at a free summer concert; it can be ``quantified'' by the deeper understanding one gains about storytelling and the New England folk culture thanks to programs sponsored by the Vermont Folklife Center; it can be ``gauged'' by a young person's spirit that soars to new heights from imagining worlds beyond their own while daydreaming at the Fairbanks Museum and Planetarium in St. Johnsbury. We must recognize and acknowledge the ways in which the arts expand the imagination of young people; broaden their interest in creating; introduce them to other worlds, other people, and other cultures; make learning other subjects generally more ``fun;'' and build their skills of cooperation that they must practice when performing a play, playing in a band, or singing in a choir. The NEA and NEH make these opportunities possible for the people of Vermont. With a little investigation, many of you will find that these agencies are doing the same in your home states. Because of the consideration shown by the Chairman of this subcommittee, each of the three agencies will be able to extend their grant programs more broadly. With the additional money that we are requesting today, NEA and NEH could further expand their outreach efforts with an eye towards introducing more Americans, many for the first time to the beauty of dance, the spectacle of theater, the enchantment of reading and the magic of the museum. We have new, visionary leaders at the NEA and NEH. Bill Ivey and Bill Ferris are Chairmen who have their ears to the ground and they are prepared to respond to the cultural needs of the people of this nation, regardless of where they live. They have made it their business to involve the grassroots. They fundamentally understand where congress is coming from both in terms of its support for the agencies and with regard to the criticisms of ``elitism'' and favoritism. To address concerns, they have focused on grassroots initiatives like: ``Challenge America,''--an effort to target grant dollars to communities that lack a significant arts presence and invest in arts education, preservation of cultural heritage and after school programming for young people-at-risk; ``Our History is America's History''--a program that will encourage all Americans to explore our family's history and stories, enter these stories to the Internet and connect these personal histories to the broad sweep of American and world history; and ``ED-sitement''--a partnership involving the NEH, MCI corporations and others designed to help humanities teachers use the Internet effectively in their teaching. Each of these programs better connect the local community with its rich and vibrant local history and cultural offerings. They draw upon the rich cultural heritage and traditions of a region and share those treasures and stories widely with our nation's community. I am anxious to support their efforts. It is due to their leadership and the leadership of my own Vermont Arts Council, Vermont Humanities Council and all of Vermont's museums and cultural institutions that I stand with confidence behind these agencies and call for a modest increase in their budgets. The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities are agencies with small budgets that provide extraordinary service to the people of this nation. I encourage my colleagues to support each of these agencies. In closing, I would like to applaud the leadership of my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran for his unwavering support for the NEH. In addition, I would like to publicly state my support for the Institute for Museum Services and hope that during conference negotiations with the House, we will adopt the highest appropriation possible for that important agency. Finally, I would like to thank Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd for their leadership on this issue and thank my colleagues for supporting this modest increase for NEA and NEH. amendment no. 1572, as modified (Purpose: To provide funding to carry out the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978, with an offset) On page 16, line 25, strike ``$49,951,000'' and insert $51,451,000, of which not less than $1,500,000 shall be available to carry out the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.)''.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Subcommittee on Public Health, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will be held on Thursday, September 16, 1999, 10:00 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Children's Health. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m., the Senate then resume debate on H.R. 2466, the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the second cloture vote occur notwithstanding rule XXII and that there be 5 minutes prior to the vote equally divided between Senators Hutchison and Boxer.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 12 noon on Monday, September 13. I further ask unanimous consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then be in a period for morning business until 2 p.m., with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Thomas, or his designee, for the first 60 minutes; Senator Durbin, or his designee, for the second 60 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today on an issue of the utmost importance to Vermonters. I recently returned from a wonderful month in my home State of Vermont. I visited farms and downtowns, talked to teachers, parents, and business men and women from all over our State, and enjoyed the beautiful Vermont summer. However, as I and countless of Americans know, nothing compares to Vermont in all of its autumn glory. I would like to read the following proclamation, that I received when I was visiting the picturesque town of Stowe, VT: Vermont Foliage Challenge Proclamation Inasmuch as Vermont is acknowledged throughout the known universe to be the home of the most spectacular fall foliage. And inasmuch as certain ill informed media reports have implied that Vermont's legendary foliage display this year may be less spectacular than usual. And inasmuch as Vermont's fall foliage display is always the best and brightest on this planet or any other. We, of the Green Mountain State, hereby issue a challenge, open to all Senators, to wit: That as of twelve noon on October 1, 1999, the fall foliage in Vermont will be the most colorful, most spectacular, and most photogenic of any venue on Earth. And inasmuch as any challenge worth issuing deserves to be honored with a prize, we of the Green Mountain State hereby offer as proof of our challenge the quality of ten gallons of last spring's Vermont's finest Grade A Fancy Maple Syrup from Nebraska Knoll Sugar Farm of Stowe, Vermont, to be collected in Stowe. Respectfully tendered, the Stowe Area Association. I don't know about where you come from, but 10 gallons of Vermont Fancy Maple Syrup are worth their weight in gold! I would like to see anyone try and meet that challenge. From Bennington to Derby Line, from Fair Haven to St. Johnsbury, in the months of September and October Vermont's Green Mountains become a painter's palette of rich colors. Nothing refreshes the soul as we head into the cold winter months like the invigorating rush one gets from a visit to Vermont when she is decked out in prime foliage. The brisk autumn weather and the breathtaking beauty of nature's fall canvass are unparalled anywhere in the 50 States, or even anywhere in the world. Come see for yourself. Mr. President, before I came to the Chamber, I received word that my esteemed colleague from the State of New York, Senator Schumer, has risen to the Vermont Foliage Challenge. Senator Schumer has offered 10 gallons of New York apple cider to our 10 gallons of Vermont Maple Syrup, stating that the foliage in the Empire State ``will outshine the challenging leaves found in Vermont during this and every October.'' Anybody who has looked at apple leaves in the fall and maple leaves in the fall realizes there is no way to compare them. I am sure he was not referring to that. I am delighted to hear that the challenge has been accepted, and I am looking forward to enjoying a nice, tall, cold glass of New York apple cider later in the fall. I would like to mention that 10 gallons of maple syrup is not quite comparable to 10 gallons of apple cider, especially considering that it takes 40 gallons of sap to make 1 gallon of maple syrup. But this evens the odds, as it is about a million-to-one chance that Vermont will come out on the short end of the stick in this wager. Mr. President, Mr. Schumer, who I think probably has some insecurity in making this challenge, whisked off to New York and is unable to be here to give his statement. But to acknowledge his courage in accepting the challenge, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Schumer's statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 12 noon on Monday and be in a period for morning business until 2 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Interior appropriations bill. As a reminder, cloture motions were filed today on S.J. Res. 33 denouncing the offer of clemency to Puerto Rican terrorists and on the Hutchison amendment regarding oil royalties. These cloture votes have been scheduled for 5 p.m. on Monday. For the remainder of the next week, the Senate is expected to complete action on the Interior appropriations bill and to begin consideration of the bankruptcy reform bill. The Senate may also begin consideration of any appropriations bills available for action.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment following the remarks of Senator Specter, and I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Pennsylvania be recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to legislation Senator Akaka and I are introducing today. Entitled ``Permanent Eligibility of Members of the Selected Reserve for Veterans Home Loans,'' this important legislation does not change existing law, but rather makes permanent a critical benefit for the National Guard and Reserve personnel. Under current law, selected Reservists and National Guard personnel who complete six years of service are eligible for guaranteed home loans. This is a significant benefit that has been enjoyed by active duty personnel for many years and has proven to be very effective. In 1992, there was broad bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate for extending this benefit to the hard working men and women of the Reserves on a trial basis until 1999. Last year the program was extended to the year 2003. However, as we near that date, no potential recruit may participate in the program because it expires before they are able to complete six years of service. Therefore, we introduce this bill in an effort to make this benefit permanent. Our Reserves and National Guard are being called upon more and more today. They are a crucial asset to our Nation's military, but the Reserves are not exempt from problems such as low recruiting that currently face our military. This legislation will give the Reserve Component an added recruitment incentive to offer potential service members. Mr. President, more and more of our service members are taking the giant step of buying a home. Since the start of the VA Home Loan Program in 1992 through 1996, 33,224 loans have been guaranteed by the VA. Only 93 of those have been foreclosed upon; an incredibly low rate of .37 percent; The foreclosure rate for loans made to other veterans was .97 percent (two and a half times more). In 1996 alone, over $1.1 billion was given out in home loans under this program. This legislation is good not only for our veterans and Reserves, but it is good for our economy as well. I hope there will be support from both sides on this issue.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Natural Resources Reinvestment Act of 1999 (NRRA) and thank Senator Lieberman for his leadership on this issue. The purpose of this bill is to reinvest revenues from oil and gas production on outer continental shelf lands to establish a reliable source of funding for State, local and Federal efforts to conserve land and water, provide recreational opportunities, preserve historic resources, protect fish and wildlife, and preserve open and green spaces. This Congress, the subject of permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has received significant attention. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, a special account created in 1964, is the primary vehicle for funding land conservation efforts in the United States and is used for acquisitions and maintenance for our national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. Four federal agencies--the Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service--receive these funds. In addition, the Park Service has administered a matching grants program to assist states (and localities) in acquiring and developing recreation sites and facilities. The fund accumulates money from diverted revenues from off- shore oil leases. Unfortunately, the main fund has not recently been fully funded and the state grant program has not received any funding since 1995. The promise of this worthy program has never been fully realized and many opportunities to conserve precious lands and to work with our state and local partners have been lost. People across the country are realizing that they cannot afford to lose more opportunities to protect the lands they consider important to their quality of life. Many of us think of large tracks of land, like the Green Mountain National Forest in my home state of Vermont, when we think about federal conservation programs. When we think about the Land and Water Conservation Fund, however, we should also envision soccer fields, swing-sets, picnic areas, town beaches and wildlife preserves across the country. The LWCF has made it possible to protect some of the most valuable wildlife habitat in the United States, and also for small communities to afford public recreation facilities that would otherwise not be possible, bringing the benefits of outdoor recreation close to where we live and work. In addition to the LWCF, the NRRA establishes permanent funding for Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery, the Historic Preservation Fund, and creates several new open space initiatives. The bill also establishes an Environmental Stewardship Fund for states to conserve, protect, and restore their natural resources beyond what is required by current law. The Fund is designed so that states have the flexibility to create their own plans that address their particular needs, while including citizens through a comment process. The Natural Resources Reinvestment Act demonstrates a commitment to conserving and protecting our national natural and historical resources. I urge my colleagues to support this bill that would secure the funding of our conservation and open space programs for the future.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to legislation Senator Akaka and I are introducing today. Entitled ``Permanent Eligibility of Members of the Selected Reserve for Veterans Home Loans,'' this important legislation does not change existing law, but rather makes permanent a critical benefit for the National Guard and Reserve personnel. Under current law, selected Reservists and National Guard personnel who complete six years of service are eligible for guaranteed home loans. This is a significant benefit that has been enjoyed by active duty personnel for many years and has proven to be very effective. In 1992, there was broad bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate for extending this benefit to the hard working men and women of the Reserves on a trial basis until 1999. Last year the program was extended to the year 2003. However, as we near that date, no potential recruit may participate in the program because it expires before they are able to complete six years of service. Therefore, we introduce this bill in an effort to make this benefit permanent. Our Reserves and National Guard are being called upon more and more today. They are a crucial asset to our Nation's military, but the Reserves are not exempt from problems such as low recruiting that currently face our military. This legislation will give the Reserve Component an added recruitment incentive to offer potential service members. Mr. President, more and more of our service members are taking the giant step of buying a home. Since the start of the VA Home Loan Program in 1992 through 1996, 33,224 loans have been guaranteed by the VA. Only 93 of those have been foreclosed upon; an incredibly low rate of .37 percent; The foreclosure rate for loans made to other veterans was .97 percent (two and a half times more). In 1996 alone, over $1.1 billion was given out in home loans under this program. This legislation is good not only for our veterans and Reserves, but it is good for our economy as well. I hope there will be support from both sides on this issue.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Natural Resources Reinvestment Act of 1999 (NRRA) and thank Senator Lieberman for his leadership on this issue. The purpose of this bill is to reinvest revenues from oil and gas production on outer continental shelf lands to establish a reliable source of funding for State, local and Federal efforts to conserve land and water, provide recreational opportunities, preserve historic resources, protect fish and wildlife, and preserve open and green spaces. This Congress, the subject of permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has received significant attention. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, a special account created in 1964, is the primary vehicle for funding land conservation efforts in the United States and is used for acquisitions and maintenance for our national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. Four federal agencies--the Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service--receive these funds. In addition, the Park Service has administered a matching grants program to assist states (and localities) in acquiring and developing recreation sites and facilities. The fund accumulates money from diverted revenues from off- shore oil leases. Unfortunately, the main fund has not recently been fully funded and the state grant program has not received any funding since 1995. The promise of this worthy program has never been fully realized and many opportunities to conserve precious lands and to work with our state and local partners have been lost. People across the country are realizing that they cannot afford to lose more opportunities to protect the lands they consider important to their quality of life. Many of us think of large tracks of land, like the Green Mountain National Forest in my home state of Vermont, when we think about federal conservation programs. When we think about the Land and Water Conservation Fund, however, we should also envision soccer fields, swing-sets, picnic areas, town beaches and wildlife preserves across the country. The LWCF has made it possible to protect some of the most valuable wildlife habitat in the United States, and also for small communities to afford public recreation facilities that would otherwise not be possible, bringing the benefits of outdoor recreation close to where we live and work. In addition to the LWCF, the NRRA establishes permanent funding for Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery, the Historic Preservation Fund, and creates several new open space initiatives. The bill also establishes an Environmental Stewardship Fund for states to conserve, protect, and restore their natural resources beyond what is required by current law. The Fund is designed so that states have the flexibility to create their own plans that address their particular needs, while including citizens through a comment process. The Natural Resources Reinvestment Act demonstrates a commitment to conserving and protecting our national natural and historical resources. I urge my colleagues to support this bill that would secure the funding of our conservation and open space programs for the future.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on roll call No. 258, I was recorded as voting ``nay.'' I ask unanimous consent to change my vote to ``yea.'' This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Subcommittee on Interior, and particularly Chairman Gorton, for his excellent work on the FY 2000 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. I would especially like to thank the Chairman for encouraging the Department of Energy to consider the Vermont Agency of Transportation electric vehicle lease proposal. I would just like to clarify that the committee's recommendation refers to a request for $400,000 from the Vermont Agency of Transportation to develop an electric vehicle program, including the purchase and demonstration of electric vehicles, the creation of charging stations, reports documenting vehicle use, and the collection of experiential data, for the State of Vermont and its municipalities.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, the Weatherization Assistance Program is an investment. Its success is unparalleled--as a way to upgrade housing, increase energy efficiency, and assist low-income Americans. Weatherization enables very low-income people--including families with children, older Americans, and individuals with disabilities--to experience savings of 30 percent on their energy bills. For every federal dollar invested in this program, $2.40 in energy, health, safety, housing, and other measured benefits are achieved. The mandate that States provide a 25 percent state cost share contained in the bill passed by the other body may endanger states' use of this program. This provision causes great concern to me and other Senators of the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition, which I co-chair with Senator Moynihan. Such a fundamental change in the distribution of state Weatherization Assistance grants falls squarely under the jurisdiction of the authorizing committee.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, has the Senator from Wisconsin finished?