Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

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, 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 will briefly speak to thank the staffs on both sides. They worked so hard on this bill. When we went to the conference with the House, there were many things that had to be worked out and they worked extremely fast and very competently to allow us to have this bill passed and on to the President as soon as possible. I especially thank all of the staff who worked on this bill: Meredith Medley and Lori Meyer with Senator Frist, Danica Petroshius with Senator Kennedy, Suzanne Day with Senator Dodd, Denzel McGuire and Townsend Lange with Senator Gregg, and Lindsay Rosenberg with Senator Wyden. I also thank Susan Hattan and Sherry Kaiman with my staff. I thank all the Members for their excellent cooperation on this bill, which will do a lot to help our local schools in particular to be able to better face the problems they encounter. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have checked with the minority, and I yield back all remaining time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on that time, no one could talk about education today without thinking of the tragedy yesterday in Colorado. As Members have expressed their sorrow over yesterday's events and the five earlier school tragedies, the same question comes to everyone's lips: What can we do to prevent this from happening again? The contribution of the Federal Government towards State schools has been defined in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act. It has always been my intention, as a part of the hearings being held by the Health and Education Committee toward reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, that I would hold hearings especially examining the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act. So, to those who have asked me today what is the Federal Government doing, or what can we do, I want to inform my colleagues that the Health and Education Committee will have hearings addressing the problem of drugs and violence in schools and I will hold the first hearing early next month. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

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 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. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I also report favorably a Public Health Service list which was printed in full in the Record of January 19, 1999, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that the nomination list lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of the Senators.

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 22, 1999, 10 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.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a comprehensive child care bill, the ``Caring for America's Children Act''. This legislation recognizes that quality child care is a shared responsibility that ultimately benefits government, communities, and, most importantly, families and their children. Parents know best how to care for their children, and will choose the best if it is affordable and accessible. This legislation increases the opportunities for American children and their parents to choose the best care for their children, including the choice to forgo a second income to stay home with their children. But for many families, staying home is simply not an option. Today, more than 12 million children under the age of five--including half of all infants under one year of age--spend at least part of their day being cared for by someone other than their parents. In Vermont alone, there are approximately 22,000 children, under the age of 6, in state- regulated child care. There are millions of school-aged children who are in some form of child care at the beginning and end of the school day as well as during school holidays and vacations. And just as many six to twelve year olds are latchkey kids--returning home from school with no supervision until their parents get home from work. Far too many of these children spend that time in front of the television with a soda and a bag of chips. Child care is a necessity for most working parents and high quality child care is a critical investment in our country's future. In the first three years of life, the brain either makes the connections it needs for learning or it atrophies, making later efforts at remediation in learning, behavior, and thinking difficult, at best. The experiences and stimulation that a caretaker provides to a child are the foundations upon which all future learning is built. The brain's greatest and most critical growth spurt is between birth and ten years of age--precisely the time when non-parental child care is most frequently utilized. A Time magazine special report on ``How a Child's Brain Develops'' (February 3, 1997) said it best, ``. . . Good, affordable day care is not a luxury or a fringe benefit for welfare mothers and working parents but essential brain food for the next generation.'' The ``Caring for Children Act'' embodies two important goals. First, to expand the choices available to parents--including the most basic choice--to stay at home and care for their children. And second, to move child care from babysitting to early childhood education and positive youth development. How does the ``Caring for Children Act'' accomplish this? By increasing the tax benefits for all families with children we provide more opportunities for families, whether they stay at home or place their children in the care of others. We provide families with additional income to spend on child care or to manage the household budget without a second income. Through state incentives to improve the quality and remove barriers to higher quality care the legislation provides the opportunity to improve child care for everyone. By creating more after school activities that promote positive youth development and making them more affordable for low-income families, the bill increases gives parents and their children the opportunity to choose activities that will be fun and help in the acquisition of the skills necessary to become a productive, happy adult. The ``Caring for Children Act'' is good for families. The legislation creates more equity between the tax benefits received by working parents who pay others to care for their children, and parents who stay home to care for their children. It increases the Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC) for low- and middle-income families who use child care while they work. It increases current $500 Child Tax Credit to $900 per child. It increases the Dependent Care Assistance Plan (DCAP) for two or more dependents and permits DCAP funds to be used to reimburse a parent or grandparent who provides full-time care for a child under the age of mandatory school attendance. Taxpayers are given the opportunity to select the best tax benefit option for each of their children, based on the individual family's economic and child care circumstances. The ``Caring for Children Act'' expands current consumer education services so that parents have better access to information on high- quality child care and can feel more confident as they make decisions about who will care for their children. It creates new opportunities to meet the needs of school-aged children and their parents during the non-school hours. The ``Caring for America's Children Act'' is good for child care providers. Almost every child care provider that I have talked with over the past few years wants the opportunity to expand their services, increase their skills, and improve their facilities. But the child care business is a financially unstable endeavor. Child care centers and home-based providers are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain staff, to buy the supplies and equipment that will promote healthy child development, and even to keep their doors open. The Shelburne Children's Center in Vermont closed earlier this year because it could not afford to stay open. Nearly forty percent of all family-based child care and ten percent of the center-based care close each year. Parents can only pay what they can afford, and far too often that is barely enough to keep the child care provider in business. The ``Caring for America's Children Act'' creates the opportunities that will help keep current providers afloat and encourage more people to enter the business. It creates a high-tech infrastructure for the training of child care providers --and makes that training more accessible for providers in every community. It establishes a block grant to help states improve the quality of child care. Funds can be used to provide salary subsidies and more training for providers, to improve the enforcement of state regulations, to help providers better care for children with special needs, or to increase the supply of infant care. States will have the opportunity to try innovative approaches designed to improve the quality of child care. The legislation also creates financing mechanisms to support the renovation and construction of child care facilities. The ``Caring for America's Children Act'' is good for business. Child care is a growing concern for businesses, large and small. In my home state of Vermont, companies have learned that being ``family friendly'' is good for business. It increases employee retention, improves job satisfaction, and lowers absenteeism. The legislation encourages businesses to take an active role in the child care needs of their employees and in the community-at-large. It provides a tax credit to employers who contribute to child care arrangements for their employees. The legislation expands the charitable deduction to encourage businesses to donate equipment, materials, transportation services, facilities, and staff time to public schools and child care providers. In short, it creates the opportunity for companies to make an investment in their future, by becoming involved in child care. I have divided the ``Caring for America's Children Act'' into four smaller, more narrowly focused bills, which I also am introducing today. The ``Tax Relief for Families with Children Act'' combines all of the tax provisions (Title I and Subtitle A of Title II) of the ``Caring for America's Children Act.'' The ``Child Care Construction and Renovation Act'' focuses exclusively on the financing of child care facilities contained in Title VII of the larger bill. ``The ``Federal Employees Child Care Act'' deals exclusively with ensuring the safety and quality of child care facilities operated for employees of the federal government. The ``Creating Healthy Opportunities and Improving Child Education'' or ``CHOICE'' Act combines the remainder of the ``Caring for America's Children Act.'' It focuses on improving the quality of child care, expanding non-school hours care for older children, increasing professional development for child care providers, and helping low- income families who will not benefit from the tax provisions. As we all know, quality child care costs money. It costs money to parents who bear the biggest burden for the expense of child care. It costs businesses both through the direct assistance that they provide to employees to help with the expense of child care, and through their ability to hire and retain a skilled workforce. It costs government through existing tax provisions, direct spending, and discretionary spending targeted at child care. But we must remember that the costs of not making this investment are even higher. Those costs can be measured in the expense of remedial education, the cost of having an unskilled labor force, the increase in prison populations, and most importantly, the blunted potential of millions of children. Not only must we engage in a public debate on ``who cares for our children,'' but we also must take action to better support families in doing their most important work----raising our nation's children. Last year, child care legislation held a prominent place on the Congressional agenda. This year, little has been said, although the needs have not diminished. I hope that these bills can put child care back on the Congressional agenda where it belongs---because our children and families cannot wait much longer. As I said on Tuesday night during the debate on the Budget Resolution, I am not going to let the issue of child care go away. All of us here today, and all of the co-sponsors of this legislation are committed to whatever it takes to help our children maximize their opportunities. That is what this legislation is about--Opportunities. I urge my colleagues to join with me and Senators Dodd, Landrieu, Kennedy, and Kohl, as well as with Congressman Gilman and his House colleagues, in co-sponsoring and supporting this important legislation. To do nothing to improve the quality of child care and provide parents with more opportunities to choose the best care for their children is grossly unfair to the children and far too costly for our nation. I ask unanimous consent that a section by section description of the ``Caring for America's Children Act'' be placed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I 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 the budget resolution adopts my Senate-passed language that will provide funding to foster the employment and independence of individuals with disabilities. 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 educationally 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, today, joined by many of my colleagues, I am submitting a Senate concurrent resolution calling for a delay in authorizing or appropriating of funds for new educational initiatives until we fully fund IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. My colleague, Representative Goodling, is introducing a companion resolution in the House today as well. In 1975 Congress made a commitment to contribute up to 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure (APPE) for each child with a disability being educated by our Nation's schools. We are nowhere close to that target of 40 percent. We are committed to achieving that target, and until we do reach the target, we should refrain from undertaking major new education commitments. According to the latest estimates from the Department of Education, this school year there are 6.1 million children with disabilities being served by our Nation's schools. States and local communities are spending $72.9 billion of non-federal dollars to educate these children. The federal contribution available to use in this school year is $3.8 billion. That level of funding represents 10.8 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for each child with a disability. That represents a mere $635.83 per child. It's time to deliver on the missing 29.2 percent. In a letter of March 24, 1999, the National School Boards Association urges us to increase funding for IDEA by $2.1 billion a year for the next ten years. It reports that 38 cents of every new tax dollar is being spent on special education. Local school districts desperately need our help. If IDEA had been fully funded in fiscal year 1999, my State, Vermont, would have received $20 million more than the $5.7 million it will receive this July 1. By putting our urge to create and fund new initiatives on hold and by focusing on increased funding for IDEA as our first priority, we will be giving relief to school districts, resources to teachers, hope to parents, and opportunities to children with disabilities. Please join us in cosponsoring this important resolution.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rushed over here in hopes of getting to the floor on time, and I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. I have worked with the Senator from Connecticut for years on child care. Every time we think we have a victory, it somehow disappears. Yet the need for quality child care does not disappear. The need continues to increase. We must take advantage of the information we have learned and recognize that the early years of life are so incredibly important in a child's development. The first 3 to 5 years are critical. At this point, we do little or nothing for this age group and these are the most important years of your life in many respects. Fortunately, few babies get totally ignored during that period. But this is the period in time which the brain develops most rapidly. It is the one which can be most damaged by the lack of adequate child care. I will be introducing on Thursday and I thought it was going to be the filler for what we did on the budget bill. We were all ready to go, and now we are back to ground zero on this issue. Well, I am going to introduce the bill on Thursday in hopes that this issue does not go away and that it will continue to be heard before the conference. We must continue to try to do what must be done for the children of this country. In addition, we have to look at businesses and do something to give them the incentives to have their own child care. We have to make sure that we take care of the most critical thing and to make sure that we deliver quality child care and learn how to maximize the period of time in a child's life which is so critically important. I want to do everything I can, and I am sure the Senator from Connecticut joins with me in saying we are not going to let this issue go away. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this country is in a position to allow our children to maximize their opportunities in school by having the best child care possible. This is an incredibly important issue. I know that the Senator from New Mexico is with us in the sense that he understands the essential aspects of maximizing opportunities during the most critical period in a child's life. In the past, the Senator has been supportive of us, and I hope he continues to do so. At this point, I will close and say, I am going to plow forward. I know we will work with the Senator from Connecticut and we are not going to let this issue go away.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Five minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to vote in favor of this motion. It will keep the issue alive.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding Vermonter, Patricia Barr, of North Bennington, Vermont. Pat's commitment to improving the health status of Vermonters and all Americans, serves as a model to us all. She is a stunning example of how one person can have a positive effect on many others. Over the course of her life, she has been an advocate and strategic planner for breast cancer research and ethical issues. Pat has tirelessly championed these causes and for that, we are forever grateful. Pat has served on the national Breast Cancer Coalition Board, and currently serves as President of the Breast Cancer Network, which she founded in 1993. Her devotion to health, medical and ethical issues has landed her numerous other roles and responsibilities, including positions on the Center for Disease Control's Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection and Control Advisory Committee, the Human Genome Project's Task Force on Genetic Testing, and the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Breast Cancer Progress Review Group. She has also served on NCI's Cancer Genetics Working Group, and the National Action Plan on Breast Cancer's Biological Resources Working Group Subcommittee on Ethical Issues. In these and in other capacities, Pat has made numerous presentations in Vermont, throughout the Nation, and even outside of the country, regarding ethical and cancer issues. Through word and action, Pat has touched, and improved, the lives of many individuals. Of all those who have crossed my path over the years, few individuals have such a distinguished and proven track record of commitment to breast cancer and related issues. By helping to educate, promote and advocate for change through newsletters, grant programs, support groups, projects such as the Ladies First Program, and lobbying public officials, Pat's involvement helped blaze the trail for success. We have been well served by Pat and look forward to her continued leadership. Vermonters, and all Americans, owe her a debt of gratitude for her passionate, steadfast work on these vitally important issues.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the amendment that I offer with my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Roth, Moynihan, and Chafee, states that the Senate budget resolution assumes that the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, S. 331, will pass the Senate and be enacted early this year. S. 331 helps people with disabilities remain or become taxpayers. It has 70 co-sponsors. It gives people with disabilities, who are on the Social Security rolls, a reason to work. If they work and forego cash payments, they will have access to health care. They will contribute to the cost of that health care. Right now the federal government disburses $1.21 billion each week in cash payments--a real budget buster that S. 331 would fix. Mr. President, we have one broad, bipartisan initiative on health care reform, that we should take up and enact quickly. Along with my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Roth and Moynihan, I have introduced S. 331, legislation that would help individuals with disabilities go to work without being forced to sacrifice vital health care benefits. 70 Senators have joined us as co-sponsors of the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, S. 331. I have heard many compelling stories from individuals with disabilities. Some sit at home waiting for S. 331 to become law, so they can go to work. Some work part time being careful not to exceed the $500 per month threshold which would trigger cut off of their health care. Yesterday I received a letter from a young man, Don, 30- years of age, who told me he has mild mental retardation, mild cerebral palsy, a seizure disorder, and a visual impairment. Don works, but only part time. At the end of his letter he wrote, The Work Incentives Improvement Act will help my friends become independent too. Then they can pay taxes too. But most of all they will have a life in the community. We are adults. We want to work. We don't need a hand out . . . we just need a hand up. Well, we want to help people such as Don have a hand up. Not just for him, but out of self-interest as well. The hard facts make a compelling case for enacting S. 331 quickly. The rate in growth in these programs between 1989 and 1997 was 64 percent. Thus, it is not surprising that SSI and SSDI disbursements went from $34.4 billion in 1989 to $62.9 billion in 1997. For 1997, GAO estimated weekly disbursements to be $1.21 billion. Surplus or no surplus, we cannot afford these escalating costs. By adopting our resolution, the Senate sends an important message, we want individuals with disabilities to have an opportunity to contribute--to their own well-being, to that of their families, and to that of their communities. The 57,000 beneficiaries in Vermont are waiting for S. 331. A vote in favor of our Sense of the Senate amendment will send these beneficiaries and those in every State a clear, concrete signal. S. 331 will be enacted this year, and soon. amendment no. 222 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate with respect to maintaining at least current expenditures (including emergency funding) for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) for FY 2000) At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, there is strong bipartisan support for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Last year, Congress unanimously passed a five-year reauthorization of LIHEAP. In addition, 52 Senators signed a letter in support of $1.2 billion in funding for LIHEAP. This year, the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition is circulating a similar letter, which has already garnered the support of 30 Senators. Support has not waned for the LIHEAP program since the May 1996 Sense of the Senate on LIHEAP. Eighty-eight Senators voted to maintain current expenditure levels for LIHEAP. Nevertheless, it appears time to re-confirm the Senate's commitment to LIHEAP. Last year, there was a failed attempt to zero out funding for LIHEAP. The threat looms again this year. I, along with my colleagues from the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition, offer this Sense of the Senate to demonstrate the broad, bipartisan support for the LIHEAP program. The amendment is simple. It maintains LIHEAP funding at a minimum of current levels, which is $1.1 billion. This is still 50% lower than LIHEAP funding was in 1985. I recognize that these are difficult budgetary times; however, LIHEAP is an effective tool for maintaining the basic needs of low-income households. It promotes self-sufficiency, something our welfare-to-work laws advocate; and it ensures that our nation's children, elderly and disabled never go to sleep in a freezing cold farmhouse or a stifling hot apartment. Some would argue that energy costs are low and winter temperatures have been milder. My response is that the need for LIHEAP has never been greater. The eligible population has grown; eligibility has been restricted; benefit levels have been reduced; and welfare rolls have been shrinking. LIHEAP provides a critical safety net to the working poor, the elderly and families with children. The statistics demonstrate the need for LIHEAP best. More than two- thirds of LIHEAP-eligible households have annual incomes of less than $8000, approximately one-half have annual incomes below $6000. It has been estimated that low-income households typically spend four times what middle-income households spend on utility services. Middle-income households spend about 4 percent of their income for energy purposes, whereas low-income households spend between 14% and 16%, and in many instances up to 25% for utility costs. The other argument I hear against LIHEAP is that only cold weather states reap its benefits. Wrong again. In 1998, eleven southern states received $150 million in emergency LIHEAP funding alone. I have seen news articles from Oregon, Georgia, Tennessee, and Kansas discussing the importance of LIHEAP. This is an important national program. amendment no. 223 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Congress should provide the maximum funding envisioned in law for Southwest Border law enforcement programs to stop the flow of drugs into the United States) At the end of title III, insert the following:

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am proud to stand with my colleague from Maine in offering this important amendment to the Budget Resolution. Senator Collins has been a leader in the area of higher education and she has contributed a great deal as a member of the Health, Education and Labor and Pensions Committee. Last year, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee reported and Congress passed the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. We adopted the conference report to accompany that bill by overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 96-0. Throughout the process, we were determined to craft legislation that offered students more opportunities. We kept our sights clearly focused on the goal of increasing educational opportunities for all our nation's students. We achieved our goal and as a result, students will receive significant benefits from the passage of that legislation. They will benefit from the lowest interest rate in 17 years on their new student loans. They will benefit from strengthened and improved student grant programs and campus based programs. They will benefit from the creation of a performance based organization housed in the Department of Education which will vastly improve the delivery of student financial aid. More of our nation's aspiring students will be prepared for and able to pursue higher education because of programs like TRIO and GEAR UP. Clearly, that bill went far in opening the door to all who dream of pursuing higher education. We have an opportunity today to take another step forward in meeting the goals that we set out in the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. The Sense of Senate offered by Senator Collins, myself and others follows the blueprint that we laid out during reauthorization and encourages the Appropriations Committee to increase funding for some of the most critical programs designed to help our neediest students succeed at the undergraduate level. Earlier this year 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 is has 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. This Sense of the Senate also calls on Congress to increase funds for other programs that have as their goal increasing access to post secondary study for our nation's neediest students. The SEOG program, Perkins Loans, LEAP, Federal Work Study and TRIO all are targeted to provide additional assistance, both financial and educational, 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. We are pleased to have the support of nearly all the major higher education groups on this amendment. These organizations represent the students and institutions and they have a deep, first-hand understanding of how important this federal investment is to today's undergraduate students. I applaud my colleague from Maine, Ms. Collins for her contributions to the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 and for the effort she is making today. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.