Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, that the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I was proud to submit S. Res. 207 on April 2nd of this year, and I am very pleased to mark its adoption tonight. Tonight's action by the Senate is but one small step to redress the very reason why the founders of the Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) felt compelled to take action 20 years ago. In 1978, Vietnam Veterans were suffering under the wave of anti-Vietnam sentiment that had swept the nation. Little recognition was given to their sacrifices during the war. And in fact, there was even a great deal of official denial about the extent of the price that had been paid by these veterans, both physical and emotional. For instance, it would be years before Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder was a recognized condition for many veterans and before the Federal Government admitted that our use of Agent Orange had left a terrible legacy of continued suffering for our veterans. The founders of the VVA felt that they needed an organization to speak directly to those needs. The outpouring of enthusiasm from the veterans themselves demonstrated the depth of these feelings. I am also very proud that Chapter One was founded in my home town of Rutland, Vermont. Vermonters have maintained a prominent voice in the organization, and are active in defining its future direction. The VVA is not focused just on the three decades behind us. It continues to look to the large challenges ahead both for veterans as a group and Vietnam Veterans in particular. Just as the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is a permanent reminder of the sacrifices of the past, the VVA will be a continual voice for pragmatism and commitment to the needs of the veteran. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, a motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and a statement of explanation appear in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar 476, S. Res. 207.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that Senate passage of S. 777 be vitiated.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the amendment of the House.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 2022) to provide for the improvement of interstate criminal justice identification, information, communications, and forensics. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2022) entitled ``An Act to provide for the improvement of interstate criminal justice identification, information, communications, and forensics'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 686, S. 2358.

Mr JEFFORDS

Mr JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4558, just received from the House.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration S. Con. Res. 120, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back on the conference report to accompany H.R. 1853, the vocational education bill. I further ask that the conference report be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the conference report appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Let me first join my good friend from Oklahoma in his accolades for Senator Bumpers. I expect that I, as a Republican, probably supported some of Senator Bumpers' pieces of legislation more than any other Republican. And I had an opportunity to work with him on many that were not popular with some of the people, especially in the far West. But I point out that I have enjoyed so much working with him, especially on things which most all of us agreed on, as the preservation of Civil War sites and other of our historical aspects which are so important to this Nation. I am going to be so sorry to see him leave. We had many wonderful times together. And I expect we will have some more out in his great State.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. For the information of all Senators, when the Senate reconvenes on Friday, a rollcall vote will occur at 9:45 on passage of H.R. 2431, the religious freedom bill. Following that vote, the Senate may consider any available appropriations conference reports and any other items cleared for action. Therefore, votes can be expected to occur throughout the day and into the evening on Friday in an effort to consider the continuing resolution and any other legislative or Executive Calendar items.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 9:30 a.m. on Friday, October 9. I further ask that the time for the two leaders be reserved. I further ask there be 15 minutes to be equally divided between Senators Nickles and Lieberman prior to the vote in relation to H.R. 2431.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the conference report on the Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998 includes the Head Start program, the Community Services Block Grant, and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Through this reauthorization, these programs can continue to provide vital assistance to the neediest of Americans. The Assets for Independence Act, also included in this bill, is a new way of helping low-income individuals and families to achieve economic self-sufficiency. For three decades, Head Start, CSBG, and LIHEAP have effectively helped many low-income families and individuals throughout America. In this legislation, we have used the lessons learned over the past thirty years to reaffirm what is working well, make improvements where necessary to better meet today's challenges, and eliminate what no longer achieves our goals. This bill leaves present law largely intact, but it does make some important changes to improve program accountability, expand services to meet the changing needs of today's families, and to increase the capacity of these programs to reach each of the program's purposes. The reauthorization of Head Start expands the Early Head Start program for our youngest children, in a manner which balances the desire to make this program available to more children and families and the need to ensure that every Head Start program meets the high standards of quality that we have demanded. The new evaluation and research provisions will provide much-needed information about how the program operates, help identify the ``best practices,'' and will guide the grantees, the Department of Health and Human Services, and Congress to continue the improvements in Head Start which began four years ago. This legislation expands the Head Start competitive grant process to include for-profit service providers. All Head Start grantees must meet the same high level of performance standards and outcome measures. Tax status does not guarantee the quality of a program---good or bad,. The most important issue is selecting the best possible provider, non- profit or for-profit, public or private, to deliver Head Start services. That is what this legislation does. The second major program authorized under this legislation is the Community Services Block Grant, or CSBG. This program provides funding to States for work in local communities to alleviate the causes of poverty. That's an easily defined goal, but getting there takes lots of work, and diverse communities across the nation are taking equally as diverse approaches to meeting it. Local Community Action Agencies, working with other groups and individuals in their communities, are helping people find and keep a job. They are helping them go back to school or get their GED. Provisions in this legislation will help States and local communities to continue this important work. For almost two decades, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) has provided a lifeline to countless Americans who cannot pay their fuel bills. The program works very well. It is widely regarded as a model block grant program that gives states the flexibility to meet the needs of their low-income residents while ensuring an appropriate level of accountability for federal dollars. The reauthorization of LIHEAP will help about four million low- income, disabled, and elderly households pay their fuel bills so they won't have to struggle to keep warm in the winter or to avoid heatstroke in the summer. They won't be forced to choose between heating and eating. Although some four million households received LIHEAP benefits this year, if we had the resources, some 30 million households would be eligible for LIHEAP assistance. This legislation establishes an authorization level that will permit Congress to increase funding for LIHEAP, a goal towards which I will continue to work. I know some of our colleagues in Congress wonder whether we still need a LIHEAP program. Today I think we send a strong message that the program is more important than ever, especially in light of welfare reform efforts. Low- and fixed-income households still spend at least 18 percent of their income on energy bills, a proportion virtually unchanged since LIHEAP was created. The Assets for Independence Act represents an important new approach to helping low-income families and individuals. Through Individual Development Accounts, the saving, investment, and accumulation of assets is encouraged as a way to increase economic self-sufficiency and build a future. Senator Coats crafted this portion of the legislation. His work in the development of asset-based policies to help low-income individuals and families has helped us approach an old problem from a new angle. Senator Coats took the lead in shepherding this bill through the legislative process, from the first draft to the conference report. When the Committee on Labor and Human Resources marked-up the bill, they unanimously voted to change the name of the legislation to the Coats Act as a tribute to Senator Coats' dedication to issues affecting children and their families. In both his personal and professional life, Senator Coats has been a longstanding activist on behalf of American families. He was a Big Brother in Indiana long before his political career began, and was recently elected President of the Board of Directors for Big Brothers/ Big Sisters of America. Early in his congressional career, Senator Coats served as the Republican leader for the House Select Committee on Children, Youth And Families. Upon arriving in the Senate in 1989, he became the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Children and Families of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Serving as the subcommittee's Chairman since 1995, Senator Coats has been a voice of reason and a tireless advocate for children and families. His compassion and caring is evident in every piece of legislation that has come out of that subcommittee since Senator Coats became a member. When he leaves the Senate, I will miss his leadership and most of all, his friendship. The Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act will serve to remind us all of his contributions to the Labor Committee and the Senate. This legislation is the result of months of hard work, negotiation, and compromise. It has been a truly bi-partisan, bicameral effort that has resulted in good public policy. The legislation reinforces what works in these programs, and discards what does not, which is the whole purpose of a reauthorization. It continues the mission that we began many years ago of empowering communities to help their most vulnerable populations, and it does this in a responsible manner. This bi-partisan effort would not have been possible without the hard work of many outstanding staff members. With this legislation, Stephanie Monroe, the Staff Director for the Subcommittee on Children and Families, has added one more piece of effective public policy to her already impressive portfolio. Her work in researching, drafting, and negotiating this bill has been invaluable. Stephanie has been working in the Senate for fourteen years and I hope she will seriously consider continuing on here, after Senator Coats retires. I want to thank Stephanie Robinson and Amy Lockhart, of Senator Kennedy's staff and Suzanne Day and Jim Fenton of Senator Dodd's staff for their contributions and their commitment to keeping this legislation a bi-partisan effort. Conferencing a bill always involves long hours, hard work, and much patience. I appreciate the efforts of Denzel McGuire, Mary Gardner Clagett, and Sally Lovejoy on the staff of the House Committee on Education and Workforce. I also want to thank Jackie Cooney of Senator Gregg's staff, Alex Nock and Marcy Phillips with Representative Martinez, Melanie Marola with Representative Castle, Amy Adair and Randy Brant with Representative Souder for their work on this legislation. Brian Jones recently left my staff on the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, but before he left, he contributed enormously to the crafting of this legislation. I wish him well in his new venture, and appreciate his contributions to this and other legislation while on my staff. Geoff Brown, who is on my personal staff was instrumental in crafting and negotiating the LIHEAP portion of the bill. Working with Cameron Taylor, Legislative Director of the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coaltion, Geoff made sure that this critical program will continue to meet the needs of millions of low-income families. Kimberly Barnes-O'Connor provided valuable and tireless counsel throughout this process, proving once again her capacity to put the interests of children and families first. I commend her for her exemplary service to me, the committee, the Congress, and the constituents we serve through these critical human services programs. Mark Powden, the Staff Director for the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, as always, helped to clear the obstacles and push this legislation forward. Thank you, Mark. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Coats, who is worthy of all the praise possible with respect to this legislation and his total service to this Nation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will eliminate unnecessary distinctions drawn by the Internal Revenue Code for the tax treatment of payments received by families and individuals who open their homes to care for foster children and adults. Currently, the law allows an exclusion from income for foster care payments received by some providers, while denying eligibility for the exclusion to other foster care providers. My bill expands the law's exclusion of foster care payments. Under my bill, foster care payments to providers made by placement agencies that contract with, or are licensed by, State or local governments will be eligible for the exclusion, regardless of the age of the individual in foster care. This bill is a companion to H.R. 3991, introduced by Congressman Jim Bunning of Kentucky. By simplifying the tax treatment of foster care payments, the bill will remove the inequities and uncertainties inherent in the current tax treatment of foster care payments. Under current law, foster care providers are permitted to deduct expenditures made while caring for foster individuals. Providers must maintain detailed records to substantiate these deductions. In lieu of this detailed record keeping, section 131 of the Internal Revenue Code allows certain foster care providers to exclude from income the payments they receive to care for foster care. Eligibility for this exclusion depends upon a complicated analysis of three factors: the age of the person in foster care; the type of foster care placement agency; and the source of the foster care payments. For children under age 19 in foster care, section 131 permits providers to exclude payments when a State (or one of its political subdivisions) or a charitable tax-exempt placement agency places the individual in foster care and makes the foster care payments. For persons age 19 and older, section 131 permits providers to exclude foster care payments only when a State (or one of its political subdivisions) places the individual and makes the payments. This bill will simplify these anachronistic tax rules by expanding the tax code's exclusion to include foster care payments for all persons in foster care, regardless of age, even if the foster care placement is made by a foster care placement agency and even if foster care payments are received through a foster care placement agency, rather than directly from a State (or one of its political subdivisions). To ensure appropriate oversight, the bill requires that the placement agency be either licensed by, or under contract with, a State or a political subdivision thereof. Increasingly, State and local governments are relying on private agencies to arrange for foster care services for children and adults. While foster care for children has been in existence for decades, foster care for adults is a more recent phenomenon. Sometimes referred to as ``host homes'' or ``developmental homes,'' adult foster care facilities have proven to be an effective alternative to institutional care for adults with disabilities. My home State of Vermont, at the forefront of efforts to develop individualized alternatives to institutional care, authorizes local developmental service providers to act as placement agencies and to contract with families willing to provide foster care in their homes. The tax law's disparate tax treatment of foster care payments, however, impedes alternative arrangements. Persons providing foster care for individuals placed in their homes by the government can exclude foster care payments from income. For providers receiving payments from private agencies, however, the exclusion is not available (unless the individual in foster care is under age 19 and the placement agency is a nonprofit organization). These rules discourage families willing to provide foster care in their homes to persons placed by private placement agencies, thus reducing the availability of care alternatives. Because of the complexity of the current law, providers often receive conflicting advice from tax professionals regarding the proper tax treatment of foster care payments they receive. Mr. President, this bill will advance the development of family-based foster care services, a highly valued alternative to institutionalization. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Michael S. Daley who is retiring from over 30 years as an orderly at Fletcher Allen Hospital in Burlington, Vermont. Michael joined the hospital in the late 1960's and began his career as a health care worker. After a few years, he thought he would try his luck in California. He soon realized that Vermont was where he wanted to be. He rejoined the workers at the hospital in October 1970 and continued to be a care giver in every sense of the word. Michael is my wife, Liz's, bother. I can not count the number of times Vermonters' have come up to me to tell me how kind Michael had been to them when they were ill or injured. Being an orderly was more than a job to Michael. It was a vocation. He was ever mindful of the importance of medical care, however, he never neglected the soul. Every one of his co-workers would tell you that Michael brought a sense of humor to everything he did. He would often bring his lunch to a patient's room and visit during this lunch break. Doctors, new to the O.R. or leaving for other assignments, were regularly treated to lunches prepared by Michael in their honor. ``Michael knows everyone'', a co-worker stated. I think that Michael made it his business to get to know everyone. He would note when someone from our hometown of Shrewsbury, Vermont was hospitalized and he would pay them a visit. If a person wanted to talk, Michael would be there. Michael is a religious man who lives his faith. His work in the Episcopal church in Milton, Vermont kept that small community alive for years. Along with his wife, Alice, and their three children, Michael is and has been very active in Saint Andrews Church in Colchester, Vermont. His faith has helped Michael go the extra mile in the care and comfort of his fellow Vermonters. His sense of humor has added sunshine to the lives of those he meets. Michael represents the millions of unsung heros who care for and comfort our neighbors, family and friends. I wish to honor him and his life's work.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will eliminate unnecessary distinctions drawn by the Internal Revenue Code for the tax treatment of payments received by families and individuals who open their homes to care for foster children and adults. Currently, the law allows an exclusion from income for foster care payments received by some providers, while denying eligibility for the exclusion to other foster care providers. My bill expands the law's exclusion of foster care payments. Under my bill, foster care payments to providers made by placement agencies that contract with, or are licensed by, State or local governments will be eligible for the exclusion, regardless of the age of the individual in foster care. This bill is a companion to H.R. 3991, introduced by Congressman Jim Bunning of Kentucky. By simplifying the tax treatment of foster care payments, the bill will remove the inequities and uncertainties inherent in the current tax treatment of foster care payments. Under current law, foster care providers are permitted to deduct expenditures made while caring for foster individuals. Providers must maintain detailed records to substantiate these deductions. In lieu of this detailed record keeping, section 131 of the Internal Revenue Code allows certain foster care providers to exclude from income the payments they receive to care for foster care. Eligibility for this exclusion depends upon a complicated analysis of three factors: the age of the person in foster care; the type of foster care placement agency; and the source of the foster care payments. For children under age 19 in foster care, section 131 permits providers to exclude payments when a State (or one of its political subdivisions) or a charitable tax-exempt placement agency places the individual in foster care and makes the foster care payments. For persons age 19 and older, section 131 permits providers to exclude foster care payments only when a State (or one of its political subdivisions) places the individual and makes the payments. This bill will simplify these anachronistic tax rules by expanding the tax code's exclusion to include foster care payments for all persons in foster care, regardless of age, even if the foster care placement is made by a foster care placement agency and even if foster care payments are received through a foster care placement agency, rather than directly from a State (or one of its political subdivisions). To ensure appropriate oversight, the bill requires that the placement agency be either licensed by, or under contract with, a State or a political subdivision thereof. Increasingly, State and local governments are relying on private agencies to arrange for foster care services for children and adults. While foster care for children has been in existence for decades, foster care for adults is a more recent phenomenon. Sometimes referred to as ``host homes'' or ``developmental homes,'' adult foster care facilities have proven to be an effective alternative to institutional care for adults with disabilities. My home State of Vermont, at the forefront of efforts to develop individualized alternatives to institutional care, authorizes local developmental service providers to act as placement agencies and to contract with families willing to provide foster care in their homes. The tax law's disparate tax treatment of foster care payments, however, impedes alternative arrangements. Persons providing foster care for individuals placed in their homes by the government can exclude foster care payments from income. For providers receiving payments from private agencies, however, the exclusion is not available (unless the individual in foster care is under age 19 and the placement agency is a nonprofit organization). These rules discourage families willing to provide foster care in their homes to persons placed by private placement agencies, thus reducing the availability of care alternatives. Because of the complexity of the current law, providers often receive conflicting advice from tax professionals regarding the proper tax treatment of foster care payments they receive. Mr. President, this bill will advance the development of family-based foster care services, a highly valued alternative to institutionalization. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 404, H.R. 2614.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is an important bill. It is a bill that is designed to address what is probably the most serious problem we have in the United States in our educational system, and that is the inability of our school system to provide young people who graduate from high school with the skills necessary, in just the very basics of reading. To enable our nation to proceed into the next century as we should and to maximize the potential of these young people, we must assure that our high school graduates have these essential skills. Back in 1983, the Reagan administration, through Education Secretary Terrel Bell, delivered a report to the Nation called ``A Nation At Risk.'' That report outlined the serious problems we have in our educational system and observed that the output of our primary and secondary educational schools was not anywhere near what it needed to be in order to meet the challenges posed by our Asian and European competitors. Many problems were delineated in that report. One on which we have focused a great deal of attention is performance in mathematics. The United States, among all the industrialized nations, was at the bottom in tests given to our young people to determine their abilities in mathematics. We were dead last among our competitor nations. So, in a number of ways, we have tried to improve the results of our educational system with respect to mathematics. The studies have also shown that our industries have found that problems are not limited just to mathematics. Rather, they found that the basic problem was that their workers could not read the problems in order to determine the mathematics necessary to solve them. Mastering the very basics of reading was essential before they could understand how to answer the problems in mathematics. We have been trying to make improvements since 1983. In 1988, the Governors met with the President and established national goals-- sometimes referred to as Goals 2000--to try to emphasize that changes must be made in our educational system in order to make this Nation what it ought to be as we go into the next century. As a result of that initiative, in 1994, we established a goals panel in order to determine whether or not we were making any improvement in these essential areas. I sit on that goals panel. I have been a member now for some 4 years, and I am sorry to report--and this has already been reported--that, in those 4 years, there has not been any indication that we have made any progress toward these goals, even in the area of reading. And the same is true with respect to mathematics. In fact, just recently, the last IMS study--International Mathematics Study --showed that our students graduating from high school were again at the bottom of all industrialized nations, as far as their capacity to solve mathematical problems. That same study indicated that our fourth graders were the best in the world, and our eighth graders were average. But, by the time they graduated from high school, they were well behind. Part of that problem stems from problems with reading and the ability to understand problems. I point out another situation with respect to reading that is very instructive in this regard. Motorola, back in the early 1980s, was in a real fight with Japan on cellular phones. The CEO of Motorola said he had to develop a new factory employing individuals with the skills necessary to produce cellular phones that would be equal to or better than those of the Japanese. So a study group was established. The study group indicated that they had a problem with respect to trying to get the skilled workforce necessary in order to compete with the Japanese. They also took a look at Malaysia and other areas. They reported back to the CEO that our workers were not capable of the productivity necessary. So they opted to locate the plant in Malaysia. The CEO, being a strong American, said ``No. We are not going to locate a plant in Malaysia. I want to find out why we are unable to find and to train the workers necessary to get the best productivity.'' A study was conducted, which found out that the reason for the problem was the inability to answer math problems. That was one thing. But, then, they found that the reason workers were not able to solve the math problems was that they couldn't read the math problems. The company created the necessary remedial training first to train the workers how to read and then to allow them to do the math problems. Believe it or not, they were able to do that with the remedial training. So the CEO said, ``We are going to locate that plant in the United States.'' They did. It proved to be the most productive plant in all of the Motorola operations, with higher productivity than the Japanese. It is a long story about Motorola. But, finally, they were able to outdo the Japanese and to outsell them. In fact, they were even able to break into the markets in Japan and to outsell the Japanese. It goes back to the basics. The workers couldn't read. Another study which is instructional was done in, I believe, 1993. It was a national literacy study that showed that 51 percent of the high school graduates who were examined were found to be functionally illiterate. That is incredible. You wonder why our business people say they don't even bother to look at a diploma of a kid out of high school because it doesn't mean anything. That is another area that we are trying to improve and, at a minimum, to make sure that everyone who gets a high school diploma knows how to read. We looked into this and found what had happened. The reason this dismal result was appearing was that, back in the 1960s, studies were done at Cornell University. At that time, we had this big awakening about the problems of neurosis and young people and things that stimulated mental problems. Researchers concluded that the worst thing one could do was to fail a kid in school because that would create a neurosis and the child would have problems the rest of his or her life. That led to the development of so-called ``social promotion.'' In other words, the attitude was, ``Well, if they can't read, pack them on.'' That might have been fine from the second to the third grade and maybe even from the third or fourth grades if somebody would have picked them up and taught them how to read. But nobody ever picked them up. The teachers were busy teaching the ones who knew how to read. They did not have time for those who didn't know how to read. Social promotion is a reality in probably all of our schools. You wonder why our CEO's say, ``We don't even look at diplomas to determine whether the kids should come to us to work.'' Getting to today, this problem with reading was emphasized, and we determined that we had to do something. Working with the Administration, we prepared the reading bill before us today. This legislation provides for ample funding and lays out everything that we believe we need to do in order to take not only corrective action before students get out of the third and fourth grades to make sure that they read, but also to make sure we have remedial training for all of those in the higher grades who didn t master reading in their early school years. In the budget account, we attached $250 million for this bill to assist in trying to find a remedial program which will be successful in getting our young people to read. A number of people have worked very hard on this bill. Senator Kennedy, I expect, will be here before too long. Senator Coverdell and Senator Coats and Senators Gregg and Hutchinson all really worked hard to bring about this bill and to make sure that it received favorable consideration. On the House side Representatives Clay, Hilleary and Riggs, and especially my good friend Bill Goodling. Chairman Goodling has championed literacy throughout his tenure, and he has done a wonderful job in making sure that the reading bill got to us. I am now working very closely with him as we go towards the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In my view, the bill provides the necessary remedial help to get our schools on a path where we can assist substantially in getting young people to read and to graduate from high school in a manner which will be productive for them and for our society. I mentioned Senator Kennedy. He is here. The work that he has done in championing this cause is very notable.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that last night we passed S. 2432, the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, the ATA. In the spring of 1988, I made a commitment to individuals with disabilities. I said that I would, with their help, and that of my colleagues, develop and pass legislation that would provide greater access to assistive technology for people with disabilities. Between April and August of that year, we did just that. The Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities, commonly referred to as the Tech Act, became P. L. 100-407 and received its first appropriation. That legislation has had a successful 10 year run. It sunsets on September 30, 1998. This spring I made another commitment. I said I would, with the help of my friends in the disability community, my partners Senators Harkin and Bond, develop new technology legislation that would promote greater access to technology for people with disabilities, promote greater interest in and investment by the Federal Government and public and private entities in addressing the unmet technology needs of individuals with disabilities, and create expanded means by which individuals with disabilities could purchase assistive technology. We were joined in our efforts by Senators Kerry, McConnell, Collins, Kennedy, Reed, Frist, DeWine, Bingaman, Wellstone, Warner, Dodd, Faircloth, Ford, Mikulski, Sarbanes, D'Amato, Reid, Cochran, and Johnson. This legislation will equip individuals with disabilities through technology, to sustain their functioning, to expand their range of abilities, to be more independent, and to contribute at home, in school, at work, and in the community. S. 2432 builds on the success of the Tech Act. In recognition of the accomplishments of State Tech Projects, State protection and advocacy systems, and technical assistance provided by the Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA) and United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc., the bill continues federal support for activities proven to be effective in promoting access to assistive technology. It also sets policies and authorizes federal support for new challenges related to technology and its impact on individuals with disabilities. It encourages states, the Federal Government, public and private entities, individuals with disabilities and their families and advocates, to form new partnerships, to stretch expectations and to build consensus through common goals, to promote and to endorse meaningful accountability by measuring progress on common goals, and generally work together to make the environments and the technology of tomorrow accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The specific purposes of the bill are to: support states in sustaining and strengthening their capacity to address the assistive technology needs of individuals with disabilities; focus the federal investment in technology that could benefit individuals with disabilities; and support micro-loan programs to provide assistance to individuals who desire to purchase assistive technology devices or services. S. 2432 reaffirms the federal role of promoting access to assistive technology devices and services for individuals with disabilities. The bill allows states flexibility in responding to the assistive technology needs of their citizens with disabilities, and does not disrupt the accomplishments of states over the last decade through the state assistive technology programs funded under the Tech Act. Title I of the ATA authorizes funding for multiple grant programs from fiscal years 1999 through 2004: continuity grants, challenge grants, millennium grants, and grants to protection and advocacy systems, as well as funding for a technical assistance program. The bill streamlines and clarifies expectations, including expectations related to accountability, associated with continuing federal support for state assistive technology programs. The bill targets specific, proven activities, as priorities, referred to as ``mandatory activities''. All State grantees must set measurable goals in connection to their use of ATA funds, and both the goals and the approach to measuring the goals must be based on input from individuals with disabilities in the State. If a State has received less than 10 years of Federal funding under the Tech Act for its assistive technology program, title I of S. 2432 allows a State, which submits a supplement (a continuity grant) to its current grant for Federal funds, to use ATA funds for mandatory activities related to a public awareness program, policy development and interagency coordination, technical assistance and training, and outreach, especially to elderly and rural populations with disabilities. Such a State also may use ATA funds for optional grant activities: alternative State-financed systems for assistance technology devices and services, technology demonstrations, distribution of information about how to finance assistive technology devices and services, and operation of a technology-related information system, or participation in interstate activities or public-private partnerships pertaining to assistive technology. If a state has had 10 years of funding for its assistive technology program, the State may submit an application for a noncompetitive challenge grant. Grant funds must be spent on specific activities-- interagency coordination, an assistive technology information system, a public awareness program, technical assistance and training, and outreach activities. In fiscal year 2000 through 2004, if funding for title I exceeds $40 million, States operating under challenge grants may apply for additional ATA funding, provided through competitive millennium grants. These grants are to focus on specific statewide or local level capacity building activities in an area or areas related to access to technology for individuals with disabilities. Title I of the bill also authorizes funding for protection and advocacy systems in each State to assist individuals with disabilities to access assistive technology devices and services, and funding for a technical assistance program, and specifies administrative procedures with regard to monitoring of entities funded under title I of the bill. The bill contains an authorization for a National Public Internet Site on assistive technology as part of the technical assistance program. This site will have two distinct functions. First, once developed and operating, the site will have the capacity, through interaction with an individual, both to identify a profile of the individual's specific assistive technology needs and to recommend alternatives for addressing those needs. Second, once information is identified and links established, the site will be a location on the Internet through which individuals may access information about assistive technology devices and services and be linked to state Tech Projects and other sites to access additional information. S. 2432 treats year 1999 as a transition year for current grantees of federal funds for assistive technology. The bill provides the Secretary of Education with discretion to treat grantees who have completed 10 years of Federal funding in that year as if those states were in their tenth year of federal funding. In addition, grantees who have received less than 10 years of funding for assistive technology programs may elect in fiscal year 2000 only to transition from continuity grant status to challenge grant status by submitting a grant application for a challenge grant. The authorization level for title I of the bill is $36 million for fiscal year 1999, and such sums for fiscal years 2000 through 2004. Title II of S. 2432 provides for increased coordination of Federal efforts related to assistive technology and universal design, and authorizes funding for multiple grant programs from fiscal years 1999 through 2004. Title II strengthens the mandate of the Interagency Committee on Disability Research (ICDR) to include assistive technology and universal design research, and authorizes funding the joint research projects by ICDR members. Title II also provides for increased cooperation between the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), which oversees the State Tech Projects, and the Federal Laboratories Consortium. Title II of the bill also authorizes increased funding for Small Business Innovative Research grants (an existing program under the Small Business Act) related to assistive technology and funding to commercial or other organizations for research and development related to how to incorporate the principles of universal design into the design of products and buildings so they can be used without alteration by all people. This title also authorizes funding for grants or other mechanisms to address the unique assistive technology needs of urban and rural areas, of children and the elderly, and to improve training of rehabilitation engineers and technicians. Finally, title II of S. 2432 authorizes funding for the President's Commission on the Employment of People with Disabilities to work with the private sector to promote the development of accessible information technologies. The authorization of appropriations for title II is $15 million for fiscal year 1999, and such sums for fiscal years 2000 through 2004. Title II of the bill provides for alternative financing mechanisms for people with disabilities to purchase assistive technology devices and services from fiscal years 1999 through 2004. These funds are to be used to establish specified types of loan programs for individuals with disabilities, and not to be used simply to purchase assistive technology for individuals with disabilities. The authorization of appropriations for title III of S. 2432 is $25 million for fiscal year 1999, and such sums for fiscal years 2000 through 2004. We would not have been successful in passing S. 2432 without the technical assistance and cooperation from the U.S. Department of Education, the state Tech Projects, particularly, Lynne Cleveland, Director of the Vermont state Tech Project, the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems, and the Technology Task Force of the Consortium for Individuals with Disabilities, especially Jennifer Dexter, Jim Gelecka, Glen Sutcliffe, Sally Rhodes, and Ellin Nolan. I would also like to recognize the efforts of Senate staff, Lloyd Horwich with Senator Harkin, Dreama Towe with Senator Bond, and Pat Morrissey, Heidi Mohlman, and Carolyn Dupree of my staff. In addition to being supported by the disability community, S. 2432 has been endorsed by the Administration and the Chamber of Commerce and supported by the Administration. Moreover, the National Governors Association, and individual governors have urged the passage of assistive technology legislation this year. Everyone has worked especially hard to help us meet our ambitious, compressed time table. Along the way, every Senate office now has a better understanding and appreciation of assistive technology--what it means to an individual with a disability who has it and what it means to an individual with a disability who needs it, but can't get it. Technology has become commonplace and thus, is often taken for granted. Yet, the power of technology is, in many ways, our last frontier. As we push technology to do more for us, S. 2432 offers us the tools to ensure that individuals with disabilities also benefit. I appreciate the support of my colleagues in passing S. 2432.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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