Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Amendment be agreed to, the committee amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill be considered as read the third time and passed, as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed in the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire that one of the main obstacles to the adoption of the loan flexibility proposal was the cost implications raised by CBO. In fact, budget considerations prevented us from making a number of beneficial changes in the Act which I know members would have liked to have provided. I am favorably disposed to the loan flexibility proposal on a substantive policy basis, and I am willing to continue to work with the Senator from New Hampshire and other interested parties to gain its enactment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I think they would certainly qualify and I would urge them to participate whenever they can.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am proud to say again that this bill preserves the focus on students, who are the primary reason we have a Higher Education Act in the first place. Students now in school will be assured of receiving the lowest interest rate on their loans in nearly two decades. Students now in high school who aspire to a college education will benefit from an expanded early intervention program known as Gear Up, as well as continuing to receive services from the time-tested and highly regarded TRIO programs. The new Gear Up Program combines features of the existing National Early Intervention Scholarship Program, which I sponsored in 1992, with recommendations proposed by the administration and included in the House bill. The Gear Up Program preserves the best features of the program now operating successfully in nine States while expanding the pool of participants and approaches involved in early intervention. Students who have graduated and are faced with exceptionally high loan burdens will be able to take advantage of extended repayment options under the Guaranteed Loan Program. In addition, the measure provides a 4-month window within which borrowers now in repayment may refinance their loans through either the Federal Direct Loan Program or the Federal Family Education Loan Program. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Senator Coats is on his way. Let me, in the interim, mention that education, as we know now, is a top interest in poll after poll of Americans. They want to see their educational system reformed in a way that can lead them into a position where this Nation has the best educational system in the world. Unfortunately, that is not the case right now. But we are taking a huge step forward with the higher education bill, not just in that matter which affects the students in higher education, but also the second title of the bill which deals with reforming teacher preparation. Nothing is going to change in the classroom until the teacher changes, and the teacher isn't going to change until the teacher knows what he or she has to do in order to make our system better. As we move into the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization next year, we want to make sure that the universities are aware that they have a role to play in ensuring that every new teacher who comes into the system is ready for the changes which are necessary to make our educational system the best in the world. I look forward, as we move forward into next year, to continuing the effort that our committee has taken to make this Nation's educational system the best in the world. I am confident we can do that. But right now we do know we have much left to do. But hopefully working first with those who are teaching the teachers, we can make sure that we stop the flow in of young people who want to teach but do not have an adequate education at the universities and colleges that they should have in this day and age.

Mr. JEFFORDS. It is my understanding that the Budget Committee has asked CBO to conduct a broader-based study on student loan interest rates, subsidies, and the larger student aid program. I expect that study to be a valuable as well, and it is my view that the knowledge gained through this work could be of great benefit to the Department of Education and the Comptroller General as they undertake their own study. The role of CBO in the study contained in the conference agreement is to assist the other participants ask the right kinds of questions, use valid research and analytical tools, analyze the validity of the study's design or conclusions, where objective analysis can be brought to bear, and be an overall, non-partisan, resource for participants in the study.

Mr. JEFFORDS. That is correct.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Pam Moran, a fellow with the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, be allowed the privileges of the floor during consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, in closing, I am extremely pleased that the Senate with this vote, will have completed action on the conference report accompanying H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. The scope of the Higher Education Act is so broad that the reauthorization of all the programs it covers is necessarily a demanding and time-consuming task. Bringing this process to a conclusion would not have been possible without the concerted efforts of members of both parties in both the House and the Senate. I express my particular gratitude to the members of the Labor and Human Resources Committee and their staffs, who have pulled together over the past 18 months to help shape a bill which will help ensure that our nation remains a leader in educational excellence for all of our citizens. Each and every member of the committee made a positive contribution to the development and refinement of this measure. I very much value the time, effort, and commitment they have brought to this task. I also extend my sincerest thanks to the many staff people who contributed to this product. I particularly recognize the efforts of Marianna Pierce and Jane Oates with Senator Kennedy, Townsend Lange with Senator Coats, and Suzanne Day and Megan Murray with Senator Dodd. These individuals-- along with my own staff members, Scott Giles, Susan Hattan, Cory Heyman, Pamela Moran, and Jenny Smulson--went ``above and beyond'' in terms of their diligent work on each and every aspect of this measure. I would also like to acknowledge the work of Heidi Scheuerman, Carolyn Dupree, and Leah Booth of my staff--who brought a semblance of control to the vast quantities of paper produced throughout this process. I also recognize and thank the staff of other members of the committee--all of whom have shown great dedication to this cause: Jackie Cooney with Senator Gregg; Lori Meyer with Senator Frist; John Connelly with Senator DeWine; Chad Calvert with Senator Enzi; Jenny Saunders and Rhett Butler with Senator Hutchinson; Julian Haynes with Senator Collins; Angie Stewart and Chas Phillips with Senator Warner; Robin Bowen and Holly Hacker with Senator McConnell; Bev Schroeder with Senator Harkin; Deborah Connelly with Senator Mikulski; Alexander Russo and Rena Subotnik with Senator Bingaman; Roger Wolfson and Robin Burkhe with Senator Wellstone; Mike Egan with Senator Murray; and Elyse Wasch with Senator Reed. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary assistance offered by Debb Kalcevic, Robin Seiler, Josh O'Hara, and Justin Latus with the Congressional Budget Office, Mark Sigurski with Senate Legislative Counsel, and Margot Schenet, Jim Stedman, and Barbara Miles, with the Congressional Research Service. This process has been a collaborative and bipartisan one every step of the way. It has produced a measure of which we can all be proud. Mr. President, I have no other requests for time. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I think all you need to do is take a look at the conference report as it sits on the desk to understand the amount of work that has gone into this bill. This is an extremely important bill, and I am extremely pleased that the Senate is on the verge of sending to the President the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. Today marks the culmination of 18 months of hard work that, for me, began with the Labor Committee's hearing in Burlington, Vermont last February. The Higher Education Act is among the most significant statutes under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Since its inception in 1965, the Act has been focused on enhancing the opportunities of students to pursue postsecondary education. The grant, loan, and work study assistance made available by this Act has made the difference for countless millions in pursuing their dreams for a better life. The legislation we are considering today builds on the proud legacy of this Act. In the face of rising college costs, Congress will provide students with the lowest cost loans in nearly two decades. With increasing concern about the quality of our nation's teachers, this bill will take giant steps in improving teacher preparation. And with students, parents, and--frankly--Senators concerned about the delivery of student aid, this bill completely overhauls the federal role by placing it in the hands of a professional and accountable agency within the Department of Education. Getting to this point has been a challenging, but rewarding, journey. The process in both the House and Senate has been characterized by a spirit of bipartisanship, with members sharing the basic objective of making higher education programs work better for students and their families. I commend the work of the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Representative Bill Goodling, and the committee's ranking member Representative Bill Clay. The House subcommittee leadership, Representative Buck McKeon, and ranking member Representative Dale Kildee have also done a yeoman's job throughout the process. I would also like to acknowledge in particular the contributions of the labor committee's ranking minority member, Senator Kennedy, and the efforts of Senator Coats and of Senator Dodd. From the beginning, these three members have been steadfast in their commitment to work through differences and to craft a solid piece of legislation. At the start of the reauthorization process, we set out to achieve a number of important goals designed to strengthen higher education programs. I am pleased to say that this conference report achieves the major objectives identified at the beginning of our efforts: to assist students, to improve the quality of teaching, to maintain two viable loan programs, and to improve the delivery of student financial aid. First, the final bill preserves the focus on students--who are the primary reason we have a Higher Education Act in the first place. Students now in school will be assured of receiving the lowest interest rate in nearly two decades on their loans. Students now in high school who aspire to a college education will benefit from an expanded early intervention program known as GEAR UP, as well as continuing to receive services from the time-tested and highly regarded TRIO programs. The new GEAR UP program combines features of the existing National Early Intervention Scholarship Program, which I sponsored in 1992, with recommendations proposed by the Administration and included in the House bill. The GEAR UP program preserves the best features of the program now operating successfully in 9 states, while expanding the pool of participants and approaches involved in early intervention. Students who have graduated and are faced with exceptionally high loan burdens will be able to take advantage of extended repayment options under the guaranteed loan program. In addition, the measure provides a four-month window within which students may obtain Direct consolidation loans at an interest rate set at the 91-day Treasury bill rate plus 2.3 percent. Recognizing the toll which ever increasing colleges costs are placing on students, the bill builds on recommendations of the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education so that students and their families can obtain useful cost information. Second, perhaps the most exciting and far-reaching innovation in this legislation is its provisions dealing with teacher preparation. Numerous small, categorical--and unfunded--teacher training programs are repealed and replaced with a comprehensive model for change and improvement. The teacher quality provisions included in Title II of H.R. 6 are an important first step towards really improving teacher training. Working at both the state level to promote system-wide reforms and at the local level to develop partnerships to enhance the quality of teacher training, the bill offers a comprehensive and systematic approach to this pressing national need. At its foundation, these provisions embrace the notion that investing in the preparation of our nation's teachers is a good one. Well prepared teachers play a key role in making it possible for our students to achieve the standards required to assure both their own well being and the ability of our country to compete internationally. In fact, the continued health and strength of our nation depends on our country's ability to improve the education of our young people. Integral to that is the strength and ability of our nation's teaching force. Without a strong, competent, well prepared teaching force, other investments in education will be of little value. I think these provisions will be viewed as one of the lasting achievements of this reauthorization. In addition, the legislation provides loan forgiveness for students who go into teaching. It is my hope that this new benefit will expand the number of talented teachers serving school districts with large numbers of low-income children. Third, this bill reflects a strong commitment to the maintenance of two viable loan programs--the guaranteed or Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) and the Direct Loan Program. To the extent possible within budgetary constraints, the bill ``levels the playing field'' to assure the continuation of fair and healthy competition between the two programs. This bill extends the provisions of the Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act of 1997 which permit Direct loans to be included in FFELP consolidation packages. Following a four- month period (October 1, 1998, to January 31, 1999) in which Direct consolidation loans will be set at the 91-day Treasury bill rate plus 2.3 percent, Direct and FFELP consolidation loans will carry the same interest rate. That rate will be the weighted average of the loans consolidated, rounded up to the nearly one-eighth of a percent and capped at 8.25 percent. Among the most challenging tasks facing the committee was developing a student loan interest rate which could offer the lowest viable interest to students while assuring sufficient lender participation to preserve full access to loans. After extensive consultation with students, lenders, representatives of the higher education community, the administration and financial services experts, a compromise interest rate package was developed. Lender yield is reduced by 30 basis points, while students receive the significant interest rate reduction they have anticipated. This solution is by no means perfect, but it promises to preserve the stability of the FFEL program for the nearly 4 million students and their families who depend upon these loans each year. Fourth, the legislation includes a number of initiatives designed to improve the delivery of student financial aid services. It includes a new guaranty agency financing model--the goal of which is to achieve cost savings and efficiencies in the delivery and administration of student aid while ensuring that students, lenders, the Federal government, and institutions of higher education receive high quality service. Additional efforts to improve the delivery of student aid programs include the development of a Performance Based Organization (PBO) to strengthen the management of key systems within the Department of Education. A number of provisions in the legislation also pave the way toward taking advantage of the efficiencies made possible through electronic processing and other technological advances. Looking toward the future, the bill contains several provisions dealing with the Year 2000 computer problem. The Office of Management and Budget has raised serious questions about the Department of Education's ability to meet the timetable outlined by the General Accounting Office for the testing of software renovation work. Failure to renovate all mission critical systems could result in disruptions in the management and delivery of student financial aid to more than 8 million students. This is an area which the committee will be following closely in the months ahead. Finally, I would point out that this legislation complies with the Budget Act. In order to bring the bill into balance, the conferees had to make a number of difficult decisions. In making these decisions, we attempted to select options which would maintain the lowest possible interest rates for students and which would preserve new student benefits such as extended repayment options under the guaranteed loan program and teacher loan forgiveness. I recognize that particular concern has been raised about provisions in the bill which eliminate a provision of the bankruptcy law that permits individuals filing for bankruptcy to have their student loans canceled if the loans have been in repayment for seven years or longer. Individuals who file for bankruptcy may still have their student loans canceled if the bankruptcy court determines that repaying the loans would cause undue hardship. Currently, the undue hardship option accounts for 70 percent of all student loan discharges. In addition, a number of options are available to assist borrowers who are having difficulties repaying their loans, including deferment, forbearance, cancellation and extended, graduated, income-contingent and income-sensitive repayment options. In just about every case, these options are preferable to declaring bankruptcy. Over the years, the federal effort in higher education has been substantial, and this legislation will assure that it will continue to be so. The Higher Education Act currently provides $48.5 billion in student financial assistance for 8.5 million students and $216 million for institutional development. In 1995-96, 55 percent of undergraduate students received financial aid under this Act. Over the next ten years, the Federal government will guarantee over 88 million student loans--totaling over $383.5 billion. Over the next five years, the Federal government will provide more than 25.4 million Pell Grants. As I said before, Mr. President, this conference report to the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 is the culmination of almost two years of good bipartisan work. Not only does it represent a huge victory for America's students, but it represents a victory for all Americans as it shows that Democrats and Republicans can work together when it comes to the needs of our next generation. This legislation gives millions of students the financial key to unlock the door to higher education. By lowering the interest rate for student loans to the lowest levels in nearly 20 years and by increasing the level of Pell grants, we are allowing higher-learning to mean higher-earnings for more of our children. Vermont has a proud tradition when it comes to higher education in the United States Senate, from Bob Stafford to Justin Smith Morrill. I can only hope that, with the passage of this legislation, I will have helped continue that tradition. By increasing the access and quality of higher education, this bill will help ensure that our nation remains a leader in educational excellence for all of our citizens. It deserves the support of all members of the Senate.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Certainly, I will be happy to answer my colleague's question.

Mr. JEFFORDS. That is correct. The effort is to bring a broad range of opportunities to teacher preparedness and training.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes, I am well aware of the efforts of the state councils with respect to teacher institutes. Many of the Councils have worked closely with the school systems and local colleges and universities to present relevant and cost-effective teacher institutes. They have a long history in this effort and considerable experience.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator 1 minute.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I would object to further proceedings on the measure at this time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, there is a bill at the desk that is due for its second reading.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. This morning there will be a period of debate until approximately 10:40 a.m. in relation to the higher education and Department of Defense conference reports. At the conclusion of that debate time, the Senate will proceed to three stacked votes, the first on adoption of the higher education conference report, followed by a vote on the adoption of the Defense Appropriations conference report, followed by a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the Internet tax bill. Following these votes, the Senate will begin a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. and then recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow the weekly party caucuses to meet. After the caucus meetings, the Senate will resume morning business until 3:15 p.m., at which time the Senate could consider any legislative or executive items cleared for action. The leader reminds all Members that there will be no votes this afternoon and all day Wednesday in observance of the Jewish holiday. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first, let me thank the Chaplain for a powerful and an appropriate prayer.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have listened to my good friend from Minnesota, and certainly understand his concerns. But I think the picture he gives of the situation is somewhat different than what I perceive. I have faithfully supported minimum wage increases over the years, but there comes a time when we try to push things too fast and we could well destroy the very goals we are trying to reach. One of my major goals as chairman of the Labor Committee is to get people into the workforce and keep them there. That is why I worked so hard with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact legislation that will improve and streamline our adult education job-training programs. That is why I am working so hard on developing legislation that will improve our postsecondary, adult and vocational education. That is why I have, with my friend from Massachusetts, introduced legislation to help the disabled find jobs and get off the federal rolls while maintaining their health benefits. And that is why, although I have supported past minimum wage increases, I am concerned that if we raise the minimum wage too soon after the last increase, we may cause more harm than good. Here in Congress, we continually grapple with the issue of how to assist low-skilled workers--particularly workers who have to support a family--without destroying the very jobs they rely on to support themselves and their families. It is hard for people with families and low skills to get by. We have seen and heard a lot of evidence about this. But it is also hard for small businesses to get by. Business failures are commonplace and margins are thin. When we raise the minimum wage, we make it more difficult for these businesses to justify hiring inexperienced, unskilled, and untrained workers. For the past 60 years, we have relied upon the minimum wage to set a floor beneath wages. Every time we have increased it, we have given businesses five years or so to adjust from the last increase to the next enactment. The only exception was once during the 1970s when the real minimum wage declined even as the nominal wage was increasing. Those of us will remember, this was during a time of incredible inflation. However, before the last increase even took effect, the senior Senator from Massachusetts had launched a new campaign for another increase in the minimum wage. The net effect of these increases would be a 45 percent rise in the minimum wage over a four and a half-year period. I am concerned that saddling small business with this steep increase over a relatively short period of time will have some negative repercussions both on the business owners as well as workers who count on their minimum wage jobs, and perhaps on those individuals who are seeking their very first job. Although increases in the minimum wage have been important, they are not the only tool we have used to assist low-income workers who are supporting families. In addition, we have developed targeted government supports for the working poor, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Over the years, the EITC has been expanded to target and supplement the wages of low income families without threatening any job loss. This year, the EITC will enable a minimum wage worker who is either a single parent or the single wage earning parent of dependent children to receive 3,756 additional dollars, bringing that family's income to $14,468. In addition, the EITC is set up so that these families do not have to wait for a lump-sum tax refund; instead the workers can receive the tax credit in their weekly paychecks. A recent report released by the Center on Budget and Policies Priorities found that the EITC now moves more than two million children out of poverty. The report concluded that, ``the EITC is the most effective safety net program for children in working poor families.'' I strongly support the EITC because it is making a difference in the lives of working families. I also support the EITC because it provides an incentive to work, the incentive is specifically targeted to help workers from low income families, and it does so without threatening jobs, as a minimum wage increase will. Further, I am concerned that when we raise the minimum wage we are not targeting low income workers. Statistics show that more than half of the minimum wage workers live in families with yearly incomes over $25,000. In addition, statistics reveal that the majority of minimum wage earners are young, single and childless. I understand that in my home state of Vermont, only a small percentage of minimum wage workers are supporting their families on their wages. The fact that an increase in the minimum wage does not specifically target low income families becomes particularly significant when we consider the dramatic impact that a back-to-back increase will have on small businesses as compared to the actual number of low-income working families who will be helped by the increase. I believe that we should give the last minimum wage increase some time to be absorbed into the economy before we move to increase it again. I also think that we should continue to focus our efforts on assisting the working poor by working to improve and expand targeted approaches such as the EITC. Finally, I believe that before we open up the Fair Labor Standards Act to raise the minimum wage, we should take some additional steps to update the FLSA to better assist our working families. This update is sorely needed because, while the makeup of the American workforce has changed dramatically over the past 60 years, few provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act have been updated to reflect those changes. The needs of today's workforce are different than the needs of the workforce of the 1930s. Increasingly, employees are requesting that their employers offer more flexible work schedules and compensation packages. Unfortunately, the FLSA and its underlying regulations preclude employers from accommodating such requests. In other words, even though our workers are requesting more flexible working arrangements so that they can juggle work and family obligations--the arrangements that would be most helpful to these workers are actually prohibited under current law. And our attempts to change that were frustrated earlier in this past session. The Family Friendly Workplace Act would assist these working families by amending the FLSA to allow employees the ability to choose comp. time-- the opportunity to choose paid time off instead of cash compensation for overtime work. It would also allow employees to work a flexible biweekly schedule--to schedule their hours over a two-week period so that they can work additional hours during one week in order to take that time off during the second week. These same options have been available to Federal, State, and local employees for some time and they have been extremely popular with these public sector employees. Why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge this and allow us to bring the FSLA up to the present-day needs of this Nation I do not know. During the first session of the 105th Congress, we engaged in contentious and partisan debate over the Family Friendly Workplace Act. While we were able to pass the bill out of the Labor Committee, our Democratic colleagues prevented us from moving forward on the floor of the Senate. To be quite truthful, I still have a hard time fathoming why this issue has been so contentious. After all, we are talking about amending the law so that hourly employees in the private sector will be able to partake in some of the same scheduling options that salaried and public-sector employees currently enjoy. The public support for this bill has been overwhelming, and I am frustrated that we have been unable to move it forward. The point I am trying to make here today, Mr. President, is that while the minimum wage is important--and obviously it is--another increase at this time will not necessarily benefit our workforce. However, there are things that we can do today that will benefit working families. It is my hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will recognize this point and will begin working with me to help our workers meet the needs of their families by amending the FLSA to allow for more flexible work schedules. I hope my colleagues will lift their prohibition and allow us to consider this very important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to announce my full support for and co-sponsorship of legislation introduced yesterday by the Commerce Committee Chairman, Senator McCain, that will fix a vexing problem that is causing citizens in my state of Vermont and throughout the country to lose their access to television network programming. Mr. President, Vermonters are contacting me saying they are very frustrated to be caught in the middle of a legal battle between broadcast and satellite television providers. In many parts of Vermont, and especially in the winter, television is our access to the world. As a satellite dish owner myself, I know that in many parts of Vermont, it is impossible to view television progamming without cable or satellite television service. Vermont's many mountains and valleys can enable one homeowner at the top of a hollow to receive a broadcast signal just fine, but his neighbor down in the hollow needs a satellite dish to receive anything at all. I am hopeful that this legislation will fix these problems quickly and fairly. I believe Senator McCain's bill will both protect the rights of local broadcasters while ensuring that Vermonters do not have their satellite service unfairly cutoff. I urge its quick passage. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today we will vote once again on legislation offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania to ban the dilation and extraction, or D&X, procedure used by doctors, H.R. 1122. I will be voting against this ban for the fourth time in as many years. My reasons for opposing this legislation are well-known. First, I believe that this bill undermines the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade to leave these critical matters to the states. Those states who have chosen not to pass legislation banning late-term procedures leave the decision to the woman, her family and their doctor. Second, I believe that a woman's right to control her own reproductive destiny is protected as part of the Constitutional right to privacy. The Supreme Court under Roe has decided that the decision of whether to undergo an abortion is a matter of individual conscience and should be made by a woman in thoughtful consultation with her doctor. Third, preventing doctors from using the D&X procedure only when it is necessary to save the life of the mother clearly goes against the Supreme Court's decision in Roe. Roe requires the states to safeguard the life and health of the mother when they regulate late-term abortions. Because of the unconstitutionality of this legislation, I feel I cannot support its passage. Finally, I believe that women who choose to undergo a D&X procedure do so for grave reasons and I trust that those states that have chosen to regulate late-term abortions do so in a manner that both protects the mother and prevents unnecessary abortions. The Supreme Court has established a delicate legal framework in which to address late-term abortions and we should not shift the decision making to the federal government. Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. President, I believe I am the last speaker. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent the time run off the opposition's side.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior, Senator Gorton for his work, and the work of his staff in providing an increase in appropriations for the National Endowment for the Arts. I believe that the Committee recommendation reflects a sound understanding about what this public agency does. In recommending an increase in funding for NEA, the Committee has acknowledged the positive impact that the NEA has made to our nation, especially in the areas of education and exchange of cultural programs across the country. As I just mentioned, one area that deserves particular attention is education. Broad based activities involving the arts make a significant and positive difference in the lives of millions of children each year. It is in the national interest to provide support for programs which make the arts part of the education of our young people and NEA has funded extraordinary programs that do just that. By exciting students about learning--by making music, visual arts and song part of their lives--in school, afterschool or on weekends, we are strengthening their education. By strengthening their education, we are strengthening our nation. A recent study has shown that students of the arts are more successful on the SAT. In 1995, College Board figures showed that students who had studied the arts four or more years scored 59 points higher in the verbal and 44 points higher in the math portions of the SAT compared with students who had no course work or experience in the arts. Increasing our nation's young people's exposure to the arts has measurable good results. The NEA has also made a significant difference in extending the availability of the arts in communities throughout the country. There are programs supported by the NEA which are of immeasurable benefit to folks all across this nation--in every one of our States. Recently, the NEA has implemented the ArtsREACH program which is designed to increase the direct NEA grant assistance to underserved areas. ArtsREACH holds great promise in providing more American communities with the financial assistance that is necessary to strengthen their own locally-based arts endeavors. While federal funding for the arts is but a small part of overall funding for the arts, the federal funds distributed by the NEA make a BIG difference in spreading the cultural and artistic wealth of our nation to small towns and communities everywhere. This commitment to promoting outreach, accessibility and participation in the arts, in my view, is the most important mission of the NEA. And it is something that the NEA has done quite well since its creation in 1965. The NEA's commitment to excellence in and access to the arts is evident in the types of grants it made to Vermont. Vermonters--and others visiting the state--will now have an opportunity to learn more about the pottery produced in Bennington from the late 18th century thanks to a grant made to the Bennington Museum; they will have an opportunity to hear the Vermont Symphony Orchestra perform in rural communities as part of the statewide ``Made for Vermont'' tour; they will hear radio broadcasts on traditional storytelling as part of the ``New England Touchstones'' series produced by the Vermont Folklife Center. Another NEA grant will allow Vermont to export and share some of its talent with other states. NEA has provided support to the Manchester Music Festival so that the Music Festival Orchestra can play in schools in Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and Massachusetts. It is examples like the ones I mentioned from Vermont, which underscore the value of the federal government's role in fostering our cultural heritage. There is great value in ensuring that all individuals have an opportunity to experience the beauty of dance, the magic of theater, the enchantment of reading, and the wondrous way that visiting a museum can take you to another place. Our federal investment in the arts yields returns of immeasurable value. For those who have been skeptical of providing funds to the NEA in the past, I would hope that they would take note of the significant changes that have been made by Congress and the Agency itself to improve operations and make the NEA more responsive to the needs of the American people. Bill Ivey has recently taken over as Chairman of the NEA and I believe we should give him an opportunity to succeed. As I mentioned, the ArtsREACH program will go a long way in ``spreading the wealth'' of the NEA more widely. This program represents a step in the right direction taken by the agency. There are now members of Congress sitting on the National Council on the Arts who are able to participate ``first-hand'' in the grant making decisions of the Agency. Caps on funds available to any one State are in effect assuring a more fair distribution of funds to all States. These improvements thoughtfully and directly address criticisms that have been made in the past. Art is important to the people of this nation and the NEA helps make the arts a part of more peoples lives. Just two weeks ago, over 2,600 people waited in line for over six hours outside the National Gallery of Art to secure a ticket to the upcoming exhibition of works of art painted by Vincent Van Gogh. The temperature was 97 degrees! yet people braved the heat for hours just to have the opportunity to admire the works of this great master painter. This exhibition would not be possible without the support that the NEA provides though indemnity and clearly, this type of sponsorship is just the kind of thing the people of our nation want us to invest in--the numbers make that clear! Society, since the beginning of time, has left behind a chronicle of the past through its art. We will be remembered and understood by the architecture, monuments, arts and writing we pass on to the next generation. What we do today will have an enormous impact in the future and how we as a nation are perceived in the future. We must not be shortsighted and we should recognize that nurturing and preserving the heart and the soul of our country today will preserve the greatness of the nation for all time. It is my hope that the Senate will stand firm in and support the recommendation made by the Interior Appropriations Committee and support this modest increase in funding for the NEA. The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute for Museum and Library Services are agencies with small budgets that provide extraordinary service to the people of this nation. I encourage my colleagues to support each of these agencies. Again, I would like to thank Senator Gorton for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a true public servant, a dedicated husband and father, a Rutland, Vermont community leader, and a friend. I rise today to pay tribute to Al Beauchamp, who passed away on September 5, at the age of 72. The eloquent editorial printed in the Rutland Daily Herald on Tuesday, September 8, expresses best how much Al meant to the community of Rutland, and to the entire State of Vermont. I ask that the text of that editorial be included in the Record. [From the Rutland Daily Herald, Sept. 8, 1998] Al Beauchamp Alfred J. Beauchamp of Rutland, who died on the weekend at the age of 72, was one of those citizens who do a great deal of work for a community but in such a quiet way that many others in the community aren't aware of what he has accomplished. Whether it was in business, in civic work or in politics, he was a master craftsman at achieving consensus and getting things done. His Rutland High School yearbook entry (Class of 1944) gave a pretty good preview of what his career would be like. With the high school nickname of ``Al-bo'' the notation takes up 17 lines of participation from freshman to senior years for Alfred Joseph Beauchamp. Some examples: ``Class president, 2,3; orchestra, 1,2,3,4; pit orchestra, 2,3,4; band, 1,2,3,4; president of band, 3; Student Council, 1,2,3,4; Student Council president, 4; home room president, 1; home room basketball, 1,2,3,4; National Honor Society, 3,4; varsity basketball, 4; varsity track, 3; all-state band, 1,2,4.'' There are a number of other entries in the list, but the citations give an indication of very active participation in the school community, a proclivity for community work that was to continue throughout his life. In 1944, the year Al Beauchamp graduated from high school, the involvement of the United States in World War II was reaching its climax. In those days, every able-bodied male who reached the age of 18 knew what was in his immediate future--he would be taken into the military. The only question was whether the call would come in the July or August after high school graduation. Al Beauchamp didn't wait for the draft. He joined the Merchant Marine, and in the course of his service was in a number of wartime convoys. After that there was college, entering the insurance business, a family, and innumerable civic activities like the local Chamber of Commerce, where he eventually became president, and the United Way, to name just two. As a member of the state Senate from Rutland County, Al Beauchamp served two terms. He was also a trustee of his alma mater, the University of Vermont, and was a member of several other state boards. At the end of his second Senate term there were a number of people in Rutland, including the late publisher of the Herald, Robert W. Mitchell, who felt he could be in line to go on to be lieutenant governor, and eventually advance even further. But there was no question at the time, as is still the case today, that continued involvement in politics means more and more time spent away from close ties with family, so he chose not to continue in that line. True to his nature, he put family and community above personal ambition. That was Al Beauchamp all the way.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a conferee meeting of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce will be held on Tuesday, September 15, 1998, 2:00 P.M., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the meeting is H.R. 6, Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on rules and administration