Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 250th anniversary of the Town of Bennington, Vermont. On behalf of all Vermonters, I want to wish this historical town a very happy anniversary. In 1749, the Governor of New Hampshire, Benning Wentworth, chartered the first town in the territory that would eventually become the State of Vermont. In 1761, the town was named Bennington in his honor. With its access to the Walloomsac River as a power source, the new town quickly built up industries such as paper mills, pottery, grist mills, and the largest cotton batting mill in the United States. It became an important gateway to the region. During the Revolutionary War, Bennington gained great notoriety with the Battle of Bennington. As the British General, John Burgoyne, marched his troops south from Canada with the plans to capture Albany, they stopped in Vermont intending to forage for supplies. However, they underestimated the strength of their enemy. On August 16, 1777, John Stark, leading a militia of 1500 men, including the Green Mountain Boys, attacked. After two days of fighting, the militia defeated the British with the first decisive victory for the Americans. This critical battle is seen as the turning point in the war because it greatly weakened the British forces, revitalized languishing spirit of the revolutionaries, and ensured another victory at Saratoga. Bennington was also the base of Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys who led the taking of Fort Ticondaroga. To celebrate Bennington's vital role in the American Revolution, I've enjoyed marching in many Bennington Battle Day parades. The Town of Bennington holds a special place in the Vermont history books. On Bennington's village green stands the meeting house where legislators in 1791 voted for the Independent Republic of Vermont to become the 14th state. In addition to the town's historical significance, Bennington has a rich cultural heritage. The buildings found in Old Bennington form one the greatest concentrations of early Federal and Georgian architecture in the state. In North Bennington is the Park-McCullough House, built in 1865, which served as home to two Vermont governors. The Bennington Museum houses a collection of paintings by the celebrated folk artist, Grandma Moses, known for her depictions of rural life and the countryside. Today, Bennington offers much to both its residents and to visiting tourists. Continuing a long tradition of artistic appreciation, the new Arts Center helps promote a variety of exhibits, threatre productions, literary readings, artists' work space, and dance and musical performances. Bennington also boasts two private colleges: Bennington College, a small liberal arts school with a strong performing arts program; and Southern Vermont College, a small college that prides itself on providing resources to and giving back to the Bennington community. But the heart of this small town has always been its indomitable people and its close-knit community. It is a community dedicated to improving the lives of all its citizens. This dedication can be seen in several innovative Bennington educational programs, in the town's collaborative approach to helping children and families, and in the significant progress made toward meeting the community's needs for affordable housing. It gives me great pleasure to recognize the Town of Bennington's 250th anniversary, its significant role in both the history of our country and of the State of Vermont, and its strong, diverse citizens.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I amend the earlier unanimous consent request to provide that immediately following the cloture vote on the House lockbox legislation, there then be a period of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senator Feingold in control of 20 minutes, 10 minutes under the control of Senator Daschle, and the remaining 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee.

Mr. JEFFORDS. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will convene at 10 a.m. and, by previous consent, begin 15 minutes of debate on S. 1205, the military construction appropriations bill. Immediately following that debate, the Senate will begin 20 minutes of debate on S. 331, the work incentives legislation. Upon completion of debate on these two bills, the Senate will begin a series of stacked votes. Therefore, Senators can expect the first of two votes to start at approximately 10:40 a.m. on Wednesday. Also by previous consent, following the series of stacked votes, the Senate will debate the motion to invoke cloture on the House lockbox legislation for 1 hour, with that cloture vote to begin after all time has expired or been yielded back. Assuming cloture is not invoked, the Senate will turn to H.R. 1664 regarding steel, oil, and gas appropriations, with amendments in order. It is also hoped that the Senate will be able to complete action on the energy and water appropriations bill during the morning session of the Senate. If there is no further business to come before the Senate----

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 707 be star printed with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 16. I further ask that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 123, submitted earlier by Senator Daschle.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will be held on Thursday, June 17, 1999, 10:00 a.m., in SD-106 of the Senate Dirksen Buildings. The subject of the hearing is ``ESEA: Research and Evaluation''. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that an Executive Session of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will be held on Tuesday, June 15, 1999, 9:30 a.m., in SD-628 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The following is the committee's agenda. 1. S. , The Health Information Confidentiality Act. 2. S. Con. Res. 28, Urging the Congress and the President to Increase funding for the Pell Grant Program and existing Campus-Based Aid Programs. 3. Presidential Nominations: Zalmay Khalilzad, of Maryland, to be an Member of the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace; and James Roger Angel, of Arizona, to be a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Barry Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize the Vermont Council on the Humanities on the occasion of its 25th anniversary. In 1965, Congress created the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) with the goal of promoting and supporting research, education, and public programs in the humanities. The mission of the NEH was to make the worlds of history, language, literature and philosophy a part of the lives of more Americans. Over the past three decades, the NEH has lived up to its founding mission and has made the humanities more accessible. As Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which has jurisdiction over the agency, I have been extraordinarily proud to support NEH during my years in Congress. NEH brings the humanities to our lives in many unique and exciting ways. NEH makes grants for preserving historic resources like books, presidential papers, and newspapers. It provides support for interpretive exhibitions, television and radio programs. The agency facilitates basic research and scholarship in the humanities. And NEH strengthens teacher education in the humanities through its summer institutes and seminars. Yet, in my view, one of the most important ways that NEH broadens our understanding of the humanities is through the support it provides for state humanities councils. These state humanities councils, at the grassroots level, encourage participation in locally initiated humanities projects. Every state has one, but few are as innovative, creative and self-sufficient as the Vermont Council on the Humanities. Early on, the Vermont Council on the Humanities determined that the first step in engaging Vermonters in the humanities was to ensure that all Vermonters were able to read. The Vermont Humanities Council met this challenge head on and provided support for reading programs and book discussions targeted at people of all levels of literacy--from the Connections programs which serve adult new readers to the scholar-led discussions held in public libraries. In 1996, the Council initiated the Creating Communities of Readers program. Five Vermont communities received grants to help them achieve full literacy for their communities. This undertaking of ``creating a state in which every individual reads, participates in public affairs and continues to learn throughout life,'' involves an enormous commitment. Yet, undaunted by the enormity of the challenge, the Vermont Humanities Council stepped to the plate and hit a home run. Vermont has taken quite literally the mission of bringing the humanities to everyone and, in doing so, the Vermont Council has distinguished itself as a national leader in promoting reading as a path towards participation in the humanities. Recently, the Vermont Council received a national award of $250,000 from the NEH to implement humanities based book discussions for adult new readers nationwide. Through this national Connections program, 14,000 children's books will become part of the home libraries of adults who are learning to read. There is much we can gain from studying the humanities. The small amount of money that the federal government spends on NEH goes a long way toward building a national community. Coming together to learn from literature, learn from our past, and learn from each other is, in my view, an extraordinarily valuable use of our public dollars. Twenty-five years ago, the Vermont Humanities Council chose the road less traveled, and that has made all the difference in Vermont and in the nation. The Council, with its focus on literacy, chose to experiment by developing new and different ways of bringing the humanities to all Vermonters. By choosing to move to the beat of its own drum, the Vermont Humanities Council has become a unique and independent actor promoting the importance of literacy as a means of pursuing the humanities. In honor of this twenty-fifth anniversary, I offer my sincere congratulations to the Vermont Council on the Humanities for a job well done. I would also like to offer a special note of gratitude to Victor Swenson and the Council's extraordinary Board of Directors. Victor's leadership and the commitment of the Board has made our Council a shining example of excellence. Keep up the good work.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Elliott Haynes, a great American and Vermonter, who passed away on May 19, of this year. Elliott served his country and his community in so many ways, and I feel blessed to have known him. Elliot and I came from similar backgrounds: he lived in my home town of Shrewsbury, Vermont, where we both served on the volunteer fire department; we received our BA's at Yale; and we both served our country in the Navy. The list of contributions Elliott made to the International, National, and local arenas is impressive not only for its length, but also for its variety. This tribute can only touch on a few of them, but I hope the highlights will give the Senate an impression of how great a man we have lost. He began his career writing for the United Nations World Magazine. In 1954, Elliott co-founded the Business International Corporation in New York. Its purpose was to provide information and to help those who worked in the worldwide economic market. In addition to being the co-founder, he also served as the Director, Managing Editor, Editor-in-Chief, and as Chairman of the Board. In 1959, Elliott joined a group of executives called the ``Alliance for Progress,'' who advised then President-Elect Kennedy on US business policy towards Latin America. He then served as the President of the Council for the International Progress of Management and as the Chairman of the Board of the International Management Development Institute, a non-profit organization devoted to managerial training in Africa and Latin American. Elliott was also the manager of numerous International business round tables held throughout the years. While all of these activities would be enough work for two people, Elliott found time to create the US branch of the AIESEC-US, an International organization which gave university students the opportunity to train in businesses throughout the world. Later on in his life, he served as their International Chairman and was inducted into their Hall of Fame. Throughout all of this, he served as an advisor and occasional lecturer for various business schools, including Indiana University, Pace University, and Harvard Business School. Elliott Haynes was also very active in the State of Vermont. He was a member the Rutland Rotary, served on the Board of Directors of the Visiting Nurses Association and was Chair of the Board of the Vermont Independence Fund, which provided seed money to organizations which helped the elderly and disabled lead more active and independent lives. And while Elliott's list of business accomplishments is phenomenal, it was his ability to turn a personal tragedy into an inspiration for others that is his greatest legacy. In 1994 he was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease, and from that moment on, he devoted his life to improving the lives of others with the disease. In 1997, Elliott founded the Rutland Regional Parkinson's Support Group in 1997. He brought the needs and concerns of those with Parkinson's Disease to the attention of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which I chair. Elliott was essential in getting legislation passed which provides federal money for research into this crippling disease. I am so proud to have worked with him on this landmark legislation and I only wish he could have lived to see the fruits of his labor. Elliott Haynes was a wonderful and influential man who's life touched thousands of people in direct and indirect ways. He will be remembered as a man who gave wholly of himself and who was willing to go the extra mile for his friend and neighbor, regardless of whether it was a neighbor in Shrewsbury or a ``neighbor'' halfway around the world. Elliott Haynes will be deeply missed.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will be held on Thursday, June 10, 1999, 10:00 a.m., in SD-628 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``ESEA: Special Populations''. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we all recognize that the bottom line of our national defense is quality of our men and women in uniform. They are the core of our security. They make a commitment to the defense of this nation, and we make a commitment to them that includes access to high quality health care. Women serving overseas are particularly reliant on this commitment, as they often have no alternative access to quality health care. The issue of abortion is a matter of individual conscience. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the decision whether to have an abortion belonged to the individual, not the government. Yet, for American servicewomen, that right to choose is effectively being taken away from them. They are being denied access, even at no expense to the Government, to a safe medical procedure. In most cases, the service woman does not have access to this procedure anywhere else. American servicewomen have agreed to put their lives on the line to defend this country. But yet we are denying them a basic right that all other women are allowed--one that could easily be granted to them at no expense to the federal government. The Murray-Snowe amendment provides that the woman involved would reimburse the government for the full cost of the procedure. In my mind, this is a basic matter of fairness. I would argue that our military women should not be singled out to be unjustly discriminated. I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to table the Murray-Snowe amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the vote we are about to take is about compromise. It is an attempt to try to get a bipartisan bill. It is about finding common ground to resolve an issue vital to the Nation. We should join together and show the American people that it is in a bipartisan manner that the Senate can responsibly deal with the issue of guns. As a Senator who voted for the Brady bill, I understand the importance of background checks. I understand the need to keep firearms from felons. I have long supported the concept of background checks at gun shows. This amendment mandates that every gun transaction at a gun show must include a background check, period. There are no loopholes. This is not a smokescreen. This is strict language, strong language, that will force gun sellers and purchasers to follow responsible actions in trading and selling guns. The system we created with this amendment mandates that people purchase firearms legally and, therefore, go through the background check. It is time to tell gun owners and buyers to be responsible. It is time to show the Nation that we understand their concerns and we are acting. The tragic shooting at Littleton and today in Atlanta further demonstrates the need for both sides to come together and to work on this issue to find a common solution to the escalating level of school violence. The amendment Senator Smith and I are offering will help ensure that timely background checks are performed on a purchase of firearms at gun shows. The Smith-Jeffords amendment should bring this Senate together with the common goal of any illegal firearm sales. The amendment is a bold, bipartisan step and should be adopted. Now is the time for action. Now is the time for reason to prevail over rhetoric. Now is the time to show our Nation's parents that we can get together and end this senseless violence. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Frist- Ashcroft amendment pertaining to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. I respect my colleagues' intentions. They want to make schools safer. Their amendment would not make schools safer, nor the sidewalks leading to the schools, nor their communities. Their amendment would allow a child with a disability caught with a gun or a firearm, whether he knew what he was doing or not, to be suspended or expelled without educational services. If a child with a disability--if any child for that matter--is suspended or expelled for having a gun or firearm in school and subsequently not provided with educational services and adult supervision--Would schools be safer? Would communities be safer? Given what happened outside of Atlanta today, we must shift the debate. Yesterday, our colleagues from Tennessee, Missouri, and Iowa debated if, and for how long, a child with a disability could be removed from his school if he brought a firearm to school. I think they agreed that under IDEA and under the Frist-Ashcroft amendment a child with a disability could be removed from his school. The crux of the remaining disagreement was services--why a child with a disability who brings a gun to school should get services, while his peer without a disability in the same situation, would not get services. We don't solve anything by kicking any child out of school without educational services. There are two letters of opposition to the Frist-Ashcroft on your desk. One is from the National Association of State Boards of Education and one from the National Parent Teacher Association. They make that simple point very well. Ask yourself this question--If you could prevent a child from committing a violent act for the first time or a second time, by providing appropriate services, what would you do? The answer is obvious. You would provide the services--to make your school safe, to make your community safe, but most importantly, to save the child. In the rare instances when it occurs, IDEA provides schools with the tools to control and prevent gun and firearm use by children with disabilities. IDEA recognizes and promotes school safety. IDEA recognizes and promotes teaching consequences for wrongful behavior. IDEA recognizes and promotes adult supervision of, engagement with, and responsibility for children who break school rules or criminal laws. I would like to review some key facts about IDEA. IDEA permits school officials to immediately suspend a child with a disability with a gun or firearm for 10 days without educational services. During that time, a manifestation determination review must be conducted. First, to determine if the child with a disability understood the impact and consequences of having a gun or firearm. Second, to determine if the child's disability did or did not impair the child's ability to control his behavior. In effect, if the child knew what he was doing, the law allows the child to be disciplined in the same manner as other children caught with guns or firearms. One distinction applies. This child with a disability, perhaps unlike his peers, would continue to receive educational services. However, school officials have total discretion over the details associated with providing these educational services. If a manifestation determination review establishes that the child did not know what he was doing, the child could still be removed from his classroom and school and placed in an interim alternative educational setting for 45 days. After 45 days, if the child continued to be dangerous, the child's placement in the interim alternative educational setting could be extended with the concurrence of a hearing officer. In the wake of the tragedy in Littleton, Colorado, in the wake of Atlanta, hearing officers will give substantial deference to claims from school officials that a child with disabilities continues to be dangerous. Concurrence of a hearing officer at 45 day intervals is a reasonable standard and an appropriate check and balance on the continued use of an interim alternative educational setting. There is no forum or procedures for due process in the Frist-Ashcroft amendment. How is a child with a disability to prove his innocence? If expelled without education services for 12 months, what will be the impact on the child's family? What will be the reaction of the child's next teacher? What will be the impact on the child's neighborhood? What will be the impact on this child as an adult? The real driving force behind the Frist-Ashcroft amendment is the obligation to provide services, and not school safety. Local school districts do not want the responsibility for paying for new services. If school districts do not now have interim alternative educational settings that can accommodate children with disabilities, they do not want to spend money to create them. If school districts do not now have home-based programs or alternative school programs, they want additional money to have them. School districts do not see a windfall of new Federal dollars on the horizon. So in the name of school safety, they bless the Frist-Ashcroft amendment. In the name of school safety, school districts say it is acceptable for Federal policy to close the school house door on the back of a child with a disability, whether the child knew why the door slammed shut or not. In the name of school safety, they say it is acceptable for Federal policy to leave open whether any agency gives the child and the child's family help, so that they can recover from a gun or firearm episode that profoundly altered their lives. Helping children and their families in these situations is a community responsibility. Schools are part of communities. They must do their part. Other agencies and organizations must do their part. To abdicate responsibility or shift responsibility is not acceptable. It makes no sense. All parents want their children to be safe in school and out. All parents want their children to have due process when they are accused of wrong doing. All parents want their child's education to continue, even if their child did wrong. Are we going to disregard some of America's most vulnerable children in the name of political expediency, by pretending that the Frist- Ashcroft amendment will make schools and communities safer. In an ideal world, we would find a way to work together to develop or expand, and fund, local agencies and organizations that would work collaboratively to assist families and children in crisis, so that the crisis does not reoccur. In an ideal world, teachers and administrators in America's schools would be thoroughly versed in the referral procedures associated with IDEA; and, if IDEA were fully funded, tragedies with guns and firearms could be prevented. We don't have an ideal world, but we must try to make a positive difference, one day at a time, especially in the lives of children.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I agree very strongly with Senator Boxer's goal of increasing the availability of positive, engaging activities for school-aged children and youth during the nonschool hours. This is a very important issue that cannot, and should not, be decided within the context of a floor amendment on the juvenile justice legislation. Even without this year's Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, I would have reservations about this amendment. But we do have the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization in progress, and that is the time when this amendment, or something similar to it, ought to be considered. As the author of the original 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act, I have an enormous interest in any changes to this legislation, much less changes as dramatic as those proposed in this amendment. When Congressman Steve Gunderson and I drafted the 21st Century Learning Centers legislation, our purpose was to promote the broader use of school facilities, equipment, and resources. Our largest investment in education is for buildings and equipment, and in most communities these resources are closed more than they are open. By encouraging schools to share their facilities, equipment, and other resources to meet the broader needs of the community, these centers can expand educational and social service opportunities for everyone in the community. Until 2 years ago, the Clinton administration failed to support the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, even to the point of repeatedly requesting that funds for the program appropriated by Congress be rescinded. Then, last year, the administration, through the competitive grants process, substantially changed the focus and indeed, the very nature, of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program. Overnight, this initiative to expand the use of existing facilities became an afterschool program, almost to the exclusion of the multi-purpose community centers which were envisioned when I wrote the legislation. This dramatic change in direction for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program raises questions which must be answered before we can consider such a huge expansion of the program. We will be doing that during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is now being considered in the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. We need to address questions such as: Can the legislation still serve the purposes for which it was originally intended, with the current, overwhelming focus on providing afterschool programs? If it is to be an afterschool program, are there changes needed in the legislation to make it more effective? If this program is to serve primarily as an afterschool program, where do community organizations such as the Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCAs, fit in? Public schools currently provide less than one-third of the afterschool care, with other community groups providing most of the care. The current grant program clearly demonstrates that schools are, by and large, failing to coordinate their afterschool services with those of other care providers in the community. And the Boxer amendment does nothing but perpetuate that situation. The amendment by Senator Boxer proposes changes that will eviscerate the act.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I have the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Under these circumstances which we are talking about-- expelled but not a manifestation--then a child is expelled from school but is still entitled to educational services. That is the difference. That means an additional expense. The child who does not have a disability and is thrown out of school has to find another school, has to get a tutor or do something else. We are all talking dollars and cents. We are talking about a cost that is added by virtue of the fact that you must provide special services.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. That goes back to the 14th amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to the Senator from Alabama.