Jim Jeffords

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, April 29, 1999, 10:00 a.m., in SD-628 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``ESEA Reauthorization.'' For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a Executive Session of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will be held on Wednesday, April 28, 1999, 9:30 a.m., in SD-628 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The Committee will consider S. 385, ``The SAFE Act.'' For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

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 Tuesday, April 27, 1999, 9:30 a.m., in SD-628 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``Medical Records Privacy.'' For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation introduced by Senator Roth that would permanently protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The fate of the Arctic Refuge has been one of the highest profile natural resources issues of the past 20 years and will continue to be a key issue in the environmental debate. The Refuge is one of the last unspoiled wilderness areas in the United States, and is most often referred to as the ``biological heart'' of Alaska and ``America's Serengeti.'' The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the only place in the United States where a full range of sub-arctic and arctic ecosystems are protected in one unbroken stretch of land. This 1.5 million acre coastal plain is home to a vast number of species including arctic foxes, musk oxen, wolves, polar and grizzly bears, wolverines, and more than 135 varieties of birds. The area is also the main calving ground for the 120,000 head porcupine caribou herd, which migrates each spring to feed on the vegetation found there. In the summer of 1997, I traveled to the refuge and was able to see first hand how beautiful and important this land is to both Alaska and the Nation. As part of a Senate delegation, I visited the port of Valdez, where oil is loaded onto tankers, and I traveled along the pipeline that brings oil from the north. I also flew over the refuge itself, including the Mollie Beattie Wilderness. I was astounded by the natural beauty of this area that is home to such variety of plants and animals that rely on the delicate balance that exists in this pristine wilderness. I also visited a number of native communities along the North Slope and spoke to the inhabitants about their life in this unique environment that they depend on for both their cultural identity and their survival. As a nation we must continue to protect this vital ecosystem and work to bring good jobs, education, and health care to these native communities. I continue to believe that the United States dependence on oil and its byproducts cannot overshadow the importance of keeping ANWR free from the traditional impacts of oil drilling and exploration. The technological improvements within the oil industry make it possible for the oil companies to use a slant drilling technique to harvest the oil in a manner that may not impact the ecosystem to the degree traditional techniques would. But drilling and exploration in this gentle Arctic wilderness at this time could have a lasting impact that would forever damage the environment of this region. I applaud the Senator from Delaware's commitment to permanent protection for this unique linkage of ecosystems upon which the local communities depend, and the American community as a whole should value as a national and natural treasure.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of Earth Day to introduce the National Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of 1999. I introduce this bill again today because I firmly believe that deposit laws are a common sense, proven method to increase recycling, save energy, create jobs, and decrease the generation of waste and proliferation of landfills. Unfortunately, recycling rates for beverage containers have recently dropped, making this legislation even more important. The experience of ten states, including Vermont, attest to the success of a deposit law or bottle bill as it is commonly called. The recycling rates in these states for aluminum cans is 80 percent, while the overall national average in 1998 was only 55 percent. Cans recycled in deposit states accounted for half of all cans recycled in the country during this period. Although a national recycling rate of 55 percent may seem significant, every three seconds, 14,000 aluminum cans are discarded as waste. Such waste is rapidly overflowing landfills, washing up on our beaches, and piling up on our roadways. Our country's solid waste problems are very real, and they will continue to haunt us until we take action. The throw-away ethic that has emerged in this country is not insurmountable, and recycling is part of the solution. The concept of a national bottle bill is simple: to provide the consumer with an incentive to return the container for reuse of recycling. Consumers pay a nominal cost per bottle or can when purchasing a beverage and are refunded their money when they bring the container back either to a retailer or redemption center. Retailers are paid a fee for their participation in the program, and any unclaimed deposits are used to finance state environmental programs. Under my proposal, a 10-cent deposit on certain beverage containers would take effect in states which have beverage container recovery rates of less than 70 percent, the minimum recovery rate achieved by existing bottle bill states. Labels showing the deposit value would be affixed to containers, and retailers would receive a 2-cent fee per container for their participation in the program. This legislation I introduce today is consistent with our nation's solid waste management objectives. A national bottle bill would reduce solid waste and litter, save natural resources and energy, and create a much needed partnership between consumers, industry, and local governments. I urge my colleagues to join these ten states, including Vermont, and support a nation-wide bottle deposit law. Because for our children, the health of the planet may be our most enduring legacy.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of Earth Day to introduce the National Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of 1999. I introduce this bill again today because I firmly believe that deposit laws are a common sense, proven method to increase recycling, save energy, create jobs, and decrease the generation of waste and proliferation of landfills. Unfortunately, recycling rates for beverage containers have recently dropped, making this legislation even more important. The experience of ten states, including Vermont, attest to the success of a deposit law or bottle bill as it is commonly called. The recycling rates in these states for aluminum cans is 80 percent, while the overall national average in 1998 was only 55 percent. Cans recycled in deposit states accounted for half of all cans recycled in the country during this period. Although a national recycling rate of 55 percent may seem significant, every three seconds, 14,000 aluminum cans are discarded as waste. Such waste is rapidly overflowing landfills, washing up on our beaches, and piling up on our roadways. Our country's solid waste problems are very real, and they will continue to haunt us until we take action. The throw-away ethic that has emerged in this country is not insurmountable, and recycling is part of the solution. The concept of a national bottle bill is simple: to provide the consumer with an incentive to return the container for reuse of recycling. Consumers pay a nominal cost per bottle or can when purchasing a beverage and are refunded their money when they bring the container back either to a retailer or redemption center. Retailers are paid a fee for their participation in the program, and any unclaimed deposits are used to finance state environmental programs. Under my proposal, a 10-cent deposit on certain beverage containers would take effect in states which have beverage container recovery rates of less than 70 percent, the minimum recovery rate achieved by existing bottle bill states. Labels showing the deposit value would be affixed to containers, and retailers would receive a 2-cent fee per container for their participation in the program. This legislation I introduce today is consistent with our nation's solid waste management objectives. A national bottle bill would reduce solid waste and litter, save natural resources and energy, and create a much needed partnership between consumers, industry, and local governments. I urge my colleagues to join these ten states, including Vermont, and support a nation-wide bottle deposit law. Because for our children, the health of the planet may be our most enduring legacy.

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 second time in the 24-plus-year history of the Budget Act. I rise today to support the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution now before the Senate. I am pleased that this budget will pay down the Federal debt, boost education spending, and increase veterans health care spending. I am disappointed that budget conferees could only fund $6 billion of the $10 billion proposed by myself and Senator Dodd in child care grants for low-income families and child care tax cuts. However, I appreciate the hard work Senator Domenici and others put into getting these funds. While I realize that our amendment would not have guaranteed an increase in child care spending, Congress needs to face up to the reality that low-income mothers need to work, and to make work pay they need child care assistance. As Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I can assure supporters of child care subsidies that this will not be the last word on this issue during the 106th Congress. On a more positive note, this budget adheres to the historic Balanced Budget Act of 1997, while at the same time, over the next ten years, pays down $1.8 trillion of the $3.6 trillion in publicly held debt and provides for modest tax cuts until larger on-budget surpluses emerge. Additionally the Republican budget will fence off the portion of the surplus generated through Social Security payroll taxes. I would like to reassure all Vermonters that not a dollar of these funds will be used to fund tax cuts. Instead, Social Security payroll taxes will go towards shoring up the program and possibly go toward providing capital for an overhaul plan. While this alone will not ensure the long-term financial health of the program, it will have the effect of reducing Federal debt and extending the solvency of the program. Mr. President, the budget before the Senate also protects Medicare for our nation's seniors. Funding for Medicare is increased significantly, but like Social Security, the long-term health of the program is dependent not on providing additional funds, but on enacting needed structural changes. As the resolution indicates, Medicare beneficiaries must have access to high-quality skilled nursing services, home health care services and inpatient and outpatient hospital services in rural areas. The availability of these services is at risk, especially for rural populations, and I will do all I can to ensure that they are addressed as a part of any Medicare legislation. I am particularly pleased that the resolution includes a Medicare drug benefit reserve fund. The availability of a drug benefit for seniors is one of my highest priorities, and I plan to work with other members of the Finance Committee to have it included as a part of any Medicare reform effort. Mr. President, I am very pleased that section 210 of the budget resolution sets forth a reserve fund ``to foster the employment and independence of individuals with disabilities.'' The language makes clear that, in the Senate, revenue and spending aggregates and other appropriate budgetary levels and limits may be adjusted and allocations may be revised for legislation that finances disability programs to promote employment. This direction will facilitate the consideration of S. 331, the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, which now has 72 cosponsors. I am also pleased that the resolution contains Senator Collins and my Sense of the Senate in support of increased funding for the Pell grant program, the campus based programs, LEAP and TRIO. These programs have helped make the dream of college a reality for many of our nation's neediest students. Providing an increase in funding for these tested and proven programs will open the doors of higher education to more academically motivated young people, specifically those who have the most financial need. Lastly, Mr. President, given world events and the ever increasing demands we place on our military, I am pleased that this budget calls for an increase in military pay. We need to do more to alleviate the quality of life concerns of our men and women in uniform. However, I am concerned that some of the military increases in this budget are not going to the things that the military needs most, as evidenced by the current crisis in Kosovo. This budget, like all budgets passed by Congress, is an expression of political intent 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. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 20 minutes be added to the time, divided equally, 10 minutes a side, between Senator Kennedy and myself.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, we are considering the conference report to the only outstanding education issue remaining from the last Congress--the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. Today, we will complete last year's unfinished business. Over a year ago, the President told the Nation's Governors that passage of this legislation ``would dramatically reduce the regulatory burden of the federal government on the states in the area of education.'' The National Governors' Association has strongly urged the Congress to pass Ed-Flex this year and today we will act on their request. The Education Flexibility Partnership Act, H.R. 800, will give States the ability, if they so choose, to make limited resources go further toward the goal of improving school and student performance. It offers a deal no one can refuse--results rather than red tape. Under Ed-Flex, the Department of Education gives a State authority to grant waivers within a State, affording each State the ability to make decisions about whether school districts may be granted waivers pertaining to certain Federal requirements. It is very important to note that States cannot waive any Federal regulatory or statutory requirements relating to health and safety, civil rights, maintenance of effort, comparability of services, equitable participation of students and professional staff in private schools, parental participation and involvement, and distribution of funds to state or local education agencies. Currently 12 States have Ed-Flex authority which was created through a Federal demonstration program, originally created in 1994. My home State of Vermont is one of the twelve using Ed-Flex authority. Vermont has used Ed-Flex to improve and maximize Title I services for those students participating in Title I programs in smaller rural school districts. In addition, my home state has also used their Ed-Flex authority to provide greater access to professional development, which is essential to educational reform and improvement. Two weeks ago, the Independent Review Panel, which was created under the 1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act for the purpose of reviewing federally funded elementary and secondary education programs, issued its report. One of the sections of the report focuses on waivers including the use of waiver authority by the current 12 Ed-Flex States. The report states: Waivers also encourage innovation; they allow educators to focus first on identifying the most promising strategies for improving academic achievement and then on requesting waivers to remove obstacles to their efforts. I believe H.R. 800 is structured to ensure that the primary function of issuing waivers is to positively impact overall school and student performance. The bill before us today, H.R. 800, under the sponsorship of Senator Bill Frist and Senator Ron Wyden, has significantly improved the accountability aspects of the 1994 Ed-Flex demonstration program. This legislation emphasizes that flexibility is a tool in helping States and districts achieve education goals and standards. It also highlights the importance of States having, in place, first-rate accountability systems that will track the progress of schools and students impacted by the waivers granted under Ed-Flex. I believe passage of this legislation also gives us an excellent introduction to the debate we must have on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the law which contains most of the federal programs designed to assist students and teachers in our elementary and secondary schools. This law must be renewed in this Congress. Through the Ed-Flex debate, we have discussed the importance of accountability, the roles that the various levels of Government play in the elementary and secondary education system, professional development activities for teachers and other school personnel, and most importantly, student achievement. All of these issues are essential elements to the structure of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization effort. As we embark on a new century, it is the perfect opportunity for us to examine the federal role in our education delivery system. At the beginning of this current century, the biggest education challenge facing this country centered around increasing the number of individuals graduating from high school. In the early 1900s, fewer than seven percent of seventeen year-olds graduated from high school. In 1999, that percentage has risen to slightly over eighty percent. Although continuing our efforts on increasing high school graduation rates is still important, our biggest challenge at the close of the 20th century is to ensure that our Nation's schools are all high quality academic institutions. The bill before us today gives states and towns greater flexibility in meeting that challenge. This legislation is not meant to serve as the sole solution for improving school and student performance. However, it does serve as a mechanism that will give states the ability to maximize various education initiatives through flexibility with real accountability. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the conference report to H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Bill Frist for his leadership in this area. He has worked tirelessly over the last year on this legislation with Senator Wyden. I thank both of them for their dedication and efforts. I would also like to thank the ranking member of the committee, Senator Kennedy. He has been especially helpful in adding many of the accountability provisions contained in the conference bill before us. I thank him for his cooperation and leadership. I also thank all of the Senate conferees for their assistance and cooperation. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of the chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, Congressman Bill Goodling and the House sponsors of this legislation, Representatives Mike Castle and Tim Roemer. They have worked very hard on this legislation. I would also like to thank Wayne Riddle with the Congressional Research Service and Mark Sigurski with the Senate Legislative Counsel Office. They have been very helpful with their technical advice and assistance. I also extend my appreciation to Gail Taylor and Bob McNamara with the Vermont Department of Education. They have been extraordinarily helpful with their technical assistance. Mr. President, we are now considering the Ed-Flex conference report which passed the House 368-57 about an hour and a half ago, so we are on our way, at this moment, to getting the bill down to the President, so that he can sign it. And, the President has agreed to sign this bill. This is the last unfinished business that we had on a number of education bills that we passed last year. This one passed the education committee, but did not go any further. The major changes that were made in conference dealt with the question of how much flexibility we should give the States in the utilization of funds for the purpose of the 100,000 teacher provisions that were attached to the bill. When the bill left here, the Senate gave the towns the flexibility to use the teacher hiring funds for IDEA if they felt it would be better utilized. That was objected to by the President, who felt it was more important to have the funds elsewhere other than to help with special education. We did reach an agreement, however, which was satisfactory, obviously from the vote in the House. This agreement is that those States which are already at the 1-teacher-to-18-students ratio would not have to utilize the funds to hire teachers. Rather, those States that have already reached the goal of 1 teacher per 18 students would be able to use the funds for professional development. We have, I think, a good compromise, though I am sure the Senate, as indicated by its previous vote, would prefer to help special education. Another very high priority is the question of improving teacher performance. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Frist such time as he may consume.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the bill (H.R. 800) to provide for education flexibility partnerships and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his thoughts.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 1999 at 10 a.m. to hold a markup.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 21, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on whether the United States has the natural gas supply and infrastructure necessary to meet projected demand.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 A.M. on Wednesday, April 21, 1999, in open session, to review the readiness of the United States Navy and Marines operating forces.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests & Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 21, for purposes of conducting a hearing Subcommittee on Forests & Public Lands Management hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to discuss the Memorandum of Understanding signed by multiple agencies regarding the Lewis and Clark bicentennial celebration.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 21, 1999. The purpose of this meeting will be to review the USDA Office of the Inspector General's report on crop insurance reform.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 21, 1999 at 3 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 21, 1999 at 10 a.m. in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold a hearing on: ``Privacy in the Digital Age: Discussion of Issues Surrounding the Internet.''

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on April 21, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing on S. 746, the Regulatory Improvement Act of 1999.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to hold an executive business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 21, 1999, at 2 p.m., in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 21, 1999, at 2:30 p.m., in open session, to receive testimony on ship acquisition programs and policy.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 1999 at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Ms. JEFFORDS

Ms. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, ``Education is a social process . . . Education is growth . . . . Education is, not a preparation for life; education is life itself.'' John Dewey, a distinguished Vermonter, philosopher and educator wrote these words decades ago, yet they ring true today. Education provides us with opportunities to explore, to experience, to grow, and to improve. Education is a great equalizer--it affords these positive opportunities to anyone who is able and interested in pursuing knowledge. Yet often times, young people in our country are discouraged from engaging themselves in learning because of financial hardship. It is with these thoughts in mind that I rise today to submit this Senate Concurrent Resolution--a resolution that calls on the Congress and the President to increase funding for the Pell grant program and for campus based student aid programs--programs that provide assistance to individuals with financial need to participate in higher education. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Collins, Kennedy, DeWine, Dodd, Hutchinson, Harkin and Reed in this effort. Last Congress we had a number of great successes in the area of education. Passage of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 is high on that list of important education bills that the Congress authored. With bipartisan backing and unanimous support, the Senate adopted the conference report to accompany the Higher Education bill. It is my belief that we achieved broad agreement on this bill because we all kept focused on the ultimate goal of crafting a bill that offered all our nation's students more opportunities to pursue post-secondary study. And in fact, as a result of this legislation, the window of opportunity for students has been opened wider than ever before. The Higher Education Amendments of 1998 lowered the interest rate for new students to the lowest level they have been in 17 years. It strengthened and improved grant aid and campus based programs. It will improve the delivery of financial aid for all students through the newly created performance based organization housed in the Department of Education. It invests in programs like TRIO and GEAR UP so that many more of our nation's young people who aspire to getting a college education will be able to pursue their dream. Finally, the bill reaffirms and strengthens the federal government's small but important commitment to graduate studies and will provide important support for our nation's neediest graduate students. In submitting this resolution today, we have taken another step forward in meeting the goals that we set out in the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. Our resolution follows the blueprint that was laid out during reauthorization. It follows up on the important work of Senator Collins who sponsored the Sense of the Senate amendment on Pell grants, campus based aid and TRIO that was included in the final budget resolution. As some of my colleagues may recall, in February I called for a $400 increase in the maximum Pell grant. The importance of this program cannot be overstated--it is the cornerstone of our federal investment in need-based grant aid. It has helped millions of young people obtain a degree. The Pell grant has made a positive difference in the lives of individual students who received it and it had made a positive difference in the well being of our nation. Thanks to the Pell grant, more Americans have received a post secondary degree, the knowledge base of our nation has been expanded and the earnings base of our nation has increased. Our resolution also calls on Congress and the President to boost funds for other programs that complement the Pell grant and provide needed supplementary aid to our nation's neediest students. The campus based programs are targeted to provide additional assistance to students who really need it the most. These funds often times make the difference for a student between making it through school or dropping out. Therefore, our efforts today in support of these programs are critical. It is my hope that we will be able to work together, in a bi-partisan fashion, as we did during consideration of the Higher Education Act and pass this resolution. It is my hope that in adopting this resolution, it will bring us one step closer to adopting higher levels of funding for these important programs. In funding these programs at a higher level we will be making the dream of college a reality for so many young people. We will be helping motivated and engaged young people to achieve to the full level of their potential. I urge my colleagues to join us in sponsoring this resolution.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am introducing today--along with Senators Hutchison and Warner--the ``Expanded Options in Higher Education for District of Columbia Students Act of 1999.'' The purpose of this measure is to provide citizens of the District with a greater range of options in pursuing postsecondary education by having the Federal government offer support that, in other areas of the country, is provided by State governments. Our legislation takes a three-pronged approach toward meeting this objective: First, it offers a broader array of choices available to students who wish to attend public institutions of higher education by picking up the difference in cost between in-state and out-of-state tuition for DC residents who attend public postsecondary institutions in Maryland and Virginia. Second, it provides additional support to the one public postsecondary education institution in the District, the University of the District of Columbia (UDC), by authorizing funds for the strengthening activities outlined in Part B of Title III of the Higher Education Act. Third, it offers support to those students choosing to attend private institutions in the District and neighboring counties by providing grants of up to $2,000 to help defray tuition costs. With respect to public postsecondary education, students exploring their options find they have a more limited set of choices than any other group of students in the country. A student in any of the 50 states who wishes to attend a public institution of higher education has a number of institutions among which to choose. That student can base his or her decision on considerations such as the size of the institution and the strengths of the various programs it offers. A student in the District of Columbia finds that only one public institution is available. As a practical matter, the District cannot expand its boundaries, nor can it establish a system of public higher education that can offer the diversity of offerings available in the various states. Every State provides support for higher education from which their residents benefit through lower in-state tuition, while out-of-state residents pay a premium to attend. I believe it is appropriate for the Federal government to assume the role of the State, effectively pushing the boundaries to a point where District students are placed on an equal footing in terms of the public education choices available to them. The legislation also makes additional support available to the District's public institution, UDC. Although UDC is a Historically Black College and University (HBCU), it has been precluded from obtaining the support made available to other HBCUs under Part B of Title III of the Higher Education Act. Part B funds are designed to enable institutions to strengthen their programs through activities such as acquisition of laboratory equipment, renovation and construction of instructional facilities, faculty exchanges, academic instruction, purchase of educational materials, tutoring, counseling, and student activities. The funds made available to UDC under my legislation are to be used for activities authorized under Part B. Finally, the legislation recognizes that many District residents choose to attend one of the many private postsecondary institutions in the DC area. Many of these institutions have made extraordinary efforts to enable District residents to succeed in their pursuit of advanced education. A number of states have developed programs, such as the Virginia Tuition Assistance Grant (TAG), to assist students at private institutions in defraying costs. The program authorized in this bill is modeled after these initiatives. An investment in education is one of the most important investments we as a society and we as individuals can make. There are boundless opportunities in the DC area for individuals with education and training beyond high school. DC residents should not be left behind in obtaining the capacity to take advantage of these opportunities. There is a need at every level of the education system to improve the opportunities available to District students. Throughout my career in Congress, I have made support for education one of my top priorities, and I have regarded the education of DC students as being an important component of my efforts. The legislation we are introducing today complements not only those programs such as ``Everybody Wins!'' and the Potomac Regional Education Partnership (PREP) with which I have been directly involved, but also the many other initiatives undertaken by individuals and institutions who work tirelessly to nurture the potential of the children of our Nation's capital. Members of the business community have recently launched a program known as the D.C. College Access Program (DC-CAP) which will offer both financial support for students pursuing postsecondary education and assistance to high school students to assure they are prepared to tackle the challenges of higher learning. I am encouraged by the positive response which I have received in discussing this concept and which has greeted similar legislation put forward by Representative Tom Davis. I look forward to working with all my colleagues in advancing this proposal. Mr. President, I ask that a summary of my legislation appear in the Record. The material follows: Expanded Options in Higher Education for District of Columbia Students Act of 1999--Summary of Provisions public institution tuition provisions The Secretary of Education is authorized to make payments to public institutions of higher education located in Maryland and Virginia to cover the difference between in- state and out-of-state tuition charged to residents of the District of Columbia attending those institutions. The legislation does not alter in any way the admissions policies or standards of those institutions. Students eligible to participate in the program include DC residents who begin postsecondary study within 3 years of high school graduation (excluding periods of service in the military, Peace Corps, or national service programs) and who are pursuing a recognized educational credential on at lease a half-time basis. Individuals who have already obtained an undergraduate baccalaureate degree or whose family income exceeds the level at which eligibility for the Hope Scholarship tax credit is set are not eligible to participate. The program will be administered by the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Mayor of the District of Columbia. The Secretary is authorized to delegate the administration of the program to another public or private entity if he determines it would be more efficient to do so. The Secretary will report annually to Congress regarding the operation of the program. Funding of $20 million in fiscal year 2000 and ``such sums as may be necessary'' for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years are authorized for the program. University of the District of Columbia Funding of $20 million in fiscal year 2000 and ``such sums as may be necessary'' for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years authorized to enable UDC to carry out activities authorized under Part B of Title III of the Higher Education Act. Private Institution Provisions The Secretary of Education is authorized to make awards of up to $2,000 per academic year on behalf of students to help defray tuition costs for attendance at private postsecondary education institutions. The student eligibility requirements are identical to those provided for the public institution tuition program. Private postsecondary education institutions which are eligible to participate in the program include non-profit institutions of higher education and degree-granting proprietary institutions which are located in the District of Columbia or in neighboring counties. The program will be administered by the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Mayor of the District of Columbia. The Secretary is authorized to delegate the administration of the program to another public or private entity if he determines it would be more efficient to do so. Funding of $10 million in fiscal year 2000 and ``such sums as may be necessary'' for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years are authorized for the program.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?