|
You are here:
Home :
Top : politics-and-political-groups :
Obscure Senator, Small State
Obscure Senator, Small State
By U.S. Senator, James Jeffords
Today I am going to discuss what led to my difficult decision to leave the Republican Party and how that decision has influenced the political agenda on Capitol Hill. For the past 26 years in Congress I have been labeled many things, a moderate, a liberal, a maverick, an independent - and at least until May 24 of last year - always with the party affiliation "Republican."
I have always done what I believed was right for the nation and best for my constituents in Vermont, rather than toe the partisan party line. In a city that is known for its partisan rancor, I always sought to be a champion of consensus and bipartisanship.
In many ways, my maverick spirit was, and is, a reflection of my home state. Independence has always been the Vermont way. Vermont was the first state to abolish slavery. Vermont actually declared its own independence from the United States from 1781 to 1791, on the slavery issue. Vermont's legislature declared war on Nazi Germany well before Pearl Harbor, in June of 1941. And just a few years ago, Vermont became the first state to recognize same-sex civil unions.
Vermont's politicians also have a history of moderation and independence. The Republican Party I grew up in was the party of George Aiken, Ernest Gibson, Ralph Flanders, Winton Prouty, and Bob Stafford. These names may not mean much today outside Vermont, but each served Vermont with distinction in Congress and held the principles of moderation, tolerance, and fiscal responsibility. They were all Republicans, but they were Vermonters first. As we began last year I was hopeful. With a 50-50 Senate, one would expect that the moderates would be a strong force, and bipartisanship would prevail. In fact, this proved true as the Senate considered the budget proposal in early April. Moderate Senators from both parties worked together to make significant changes to the President's budget. We were able to reduce the size of the tax cut from 1.6 trillion to 1.25 trillion dollars and to add an additional 450 billion dollars for education. To fully understand my motivations, you must understand my involvement in federal education issues. Historically, Vermonters have always played a leading role in education. Justin Smith Morrill served as a Senator from Vermont for 43 years in the late 1800's and gave America the land grant college system - for the first time opening the door to higher public education to every American child. He also created the historic black college system. In the 1920's John Dewey, one of our nation's greatest educational theorists and a Vermonter, gave us the notion that schools should not just educate and train students for careers, but that schools should educate students about the experience of life that encompasses both knowledge and character.
More recently, Vermont Senator Bob Stafford - my predecessor in the Senate - along with Senator Pell, created the Stafford loan program, providing grants to millions of students each year -- and thus making it easier for them to attend college. They also created the Pell grants for millions of needy students.
My own experience in federal education issues began immediately when I first arrived in Congress more than 26 years ago. Out of 92 new members elected to the House of Representatives in November of 1975, in the wake of Watergate, I was one of only 17 Republicans. Having so few party colleagues gave me immediate seniority, which I often joke about, and led me to become the ranking member on the House Select Committee on Education on my first day in Congress.
We wrote I.D.E.A. - the federal special education program. The Chairman was John Brademus, one of the finest legislators I have ever known. That position, and later as Chairman of the Senate Health and Education Committee, put me in a unique position to understand what this nation's educational system faces.
In 1983 Terry Bell, then Secretary of Education under President Reagan released the famous "Nation At Risk" report that shockingly stated, "if a foreign power had imposed upon our country our present education system we would have declared it an act of war." The report created quite a stir along with some action toward reform.
President George Bush, Sr., got the states together and created Goals 2000 - laying out the goals that our education system should meet. The Goals panel was created to measure success. President Clinton helped in several areas. In spite of these efforts, no improvement was realized. The only answer was to get rid of the Goals panel - to shoot the messenger.
Results from the 1993 Third International Mathematics and Science Study had shown that performance in math and science by U.S. students declines as students move up through the grades of our school system. More importantly, it shows that relative to our international competitors, by the time our students graduate they have fallen well behind.
I vividly recall, standing with Secretary Bell at a national education summit we held together in 1995, sorely lamenting the lack of measurable change since he issued that national wake-up call 12 years earlier.
In fact, in 1995 when I took the reigns of the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee I became deeply involved in the schools here in Washington, which had some of the worst schools in the nation.
To better understand our nations education problems I have visited our nation's school systems. I have been to more than 10 states and toured more than one hundred schools and community education programs. I learned from the best and I have learned from the worst. I have traveled to China, Russia and Germany to learn why they do so much better than we do. So I have a good idea about what I am talking about.
And today, sadly, we still do not have the kind of measurable improvement in student achievement that Terry Bell wanted to catalyze through his work, and we must have it to be internationally competitive. I am proud of the progress made in the DC schools in the last five years, but they still have a long way to go. And as a nation we still have a long way to go.
The latest Math and Science "TIMS" exams from 2000 showed that not only had we not improved, but we had slipped as compared to our competitors since 1993. I had the opportunity to serve on the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century - more commonly known as the Glenn Commission. The title of the commission's recently released report - "Before It's Too Late" - kind of says it all.
As proof, last year we had to raise the cap on H1-B visas - because this nation is lacking the skilled workforce, especially in Math and Science, necessary to address the high-tech and health care industries. We brought in nearly 100,000 people from other countries to keep our nation competitive. This is inexcusable.
Fortunately our universities are still the best in the world and our best math students are on par -- or better -- with any student in the world. But the average High School student in our country is still woefully behind our major competitors.
I praise the testing program in the recently enacted Education reform bill. Those tests will clearly show the serious situation our educational system is in. But to pass that bill without the resources and funds to help school districts pay for the tests and pay for the mandatory improvements that must be made by schools was a grave mistake.
Why? The biggest problem is obvious, but try and solve it. This chart shows the difference in our school schedules and those of our competitors.
It shows China with 235 school days, other Asian and European countries at 190 and 195 days -- and the United States at 180 days. Further, and more importantly, these countries never take a vacation longer than 20 days. Studies show that after 30 days retention begins to fall steeply. For too long our summer vacations have gone for 60 days or more. I am pleased that over the last several years, some school systems are shortening their summer breaks to less than two months.
But much more needs to be done. For example, I helped start a literacy program here in Washington's public school system called Everybody Wins. Each week I join Senate colleagues and staff and read to young students for one hour at lunch time to help build reading skills.
Back to 1975 for a moment: My instant seniority in the House of Representatives gave me a key role in writing the law for the education of individuals with disabilities, better known as special education. A continuation of the civil rights legislation of the 1960's, special education was an important Congressional issue in 1975. The law contains a promise by Congress to fund 40 percent of the costs of providing a free and appropriate education for children with disabilities.
Congress has never lived up to this promise. Today the federal government pays only 15 percent of that commitment This saddles the states with enormous financial burdens that drain funds from other educational needs and impeding the ability of the states to provide the programs and services needed to improve overall student achievement. Increasing federal funding for special education remains one of my highest priorities today. Ironically it is not the special education students that suffer. They have enforceable constitutional rights. It is the whole school system that suffers.
A year ago, as we faced some of the biggest federal budget surpluses in history, I asked - "if not now, then when, will we fully fund special education?"
An even more critical and time-sensitive issue involves early education which begins at the moment of birth. Recent studies indicate early education should begin prior to a child's first birthday. The brain develops more between the ages zero to five than it ever will again. A failure to nurture that development is a lost opportunity forever.
Shortly after these studies came out, all industrialized nations, but unfortunately not the United States, made the education of toddlers and pre-schoolers a mandatory part of their public education system and paid for it. Child care is available in the United States to young parents, but in many cases costs more than ten thousand dollars per year. This is almost twice the cost of going to many public colleges. The great majority of child care in this country has inadequate educational components, especially Head Start. There is a huge shortage of well-trained professionals in this area. This is the primary reason forty percent of fourth graders can't read at the third grade level.
Some states are trying. Vermont hopes to start implementing three-and-four-year-old education next year. But this is hampered by the federal government's refusal to fund special education as we promised to do more than 25 years ago.
I praise President Bush and the First Lady Laura Bush for recently raising public awareness on this issue. But, I challenge the Bush administration to sit down with those of us in Congress to hammer-out an early childhood education bill this year - preferably prior to the beginning of the 2002-2003 school year. There are many of us Congress who have been working on these issues for over two decades. The costs to society are far too great not to act.
In addition, today I announce that Senator Chris Dodd and I are forming an Early Education working group, which will put together a proposal to connect all of our young children to high-quality early care and education. We will work to include this proposal as part of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families reauthorization - the formal name for welfare reform -- which will be considered later this year. As more mothers of young children enter the workforce, the availability, costs and quality of early childhood education and care becomes even more important.
Now, going back to last year's budget battles. After making significant improvements to the President's budget last April, and dramatically increasing federal education spending by 450 billion dollars, I felt pretty good. Maybe for the first time in decades the federal government was going to make a meaningful investment in education funding.
However, when we sent that budget bill to the House-Senate conference committee, all of our good work, the 450 billion dollars, was stripped out of the final budget proposal - it was completely zeroed out. There were no moderates included as members of the conference committee. In fact, astoundingly for this incredibly important bill, there were only six members - four Republicans and Two Democrats.
For the Republicans: the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, the Majority Leader of Senate, Trent Lott, and the House and Senate Budget Committee Chairmen. For the Democrats -- the House and Senate Budget Committee ranking members. It was totally controlled by the Republican leadership and the White House. Further, under the rules the only option to members is an up or down vote on a conference report, no changes, no amendments, just one vote.
To say I was disappointed is an understatement -- the entire 450 billion dollars for education was gone. It was a clear signal to me that the Republican leadership had no intention, nor need, to work with the moderate-wing of the party, and that something radical needed to be done.
For the first time since the Eisenhower administration, Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House all at the same time. Because of this, partisans in the Republican party were able to have complete control over the very influential conference committees - controlling all of the seats at the table - and having final say in how any legislation is shaped before it is sent to the President for signature into law. As you can see, there is a good reason the conference committees are known as the third House of Congress.
It became clear to me that the role of the moderates would be limited in the Senate, and any influence we were able to garner would be over-ridden by conference committees stacked with partisans. You might say any moderation accomplished in the Senate would go to conference and be "house cleaned." The Republicans could slam-dunk any bills going to conference. Under the rules no amendments are allowed, only a yes or no vote.
So many of the issues I have so deeply cared about for my entire career -- education funding, child care quality, rights for the disabled, environmental protection, issues of choice, campaign finance reform -- were being pushed aside. There was a feeling of extreme partisanship from those in the majority, almost a lust, with little reason or need for compromise. I was very concerned that unless someone stood-up to change the course of events, these priorities would continue to fall by the wayside and partisanship would rule the day.
With the Senate evenly split for the first time since the 1880's, and one party controlling both Houses of Congress, one Senator could shift control of the Senate and change the agenda of the entire legislative body. One person could make a dramatic difference. This was the first time in history that this situation has occurred. It is unlikely it ever will happen again.
Yet most members of my staff, all but one of my family, all of my Vermont advisors said I should not leave the Republican party. My son went so far to suggest that if I did switch parties he would name his first child, my grandchild, Reagan Nixon Jeffords.
In the face of this, my conscience pushed forward a question -- what would the consequences be if I did not take action? If you have the power to dramatically change the course of history, and if you do not, you and you alone have to accept responsibility for the results.
What will happen with the direction of the judiciary? Roe v. Wade? Women's choice has a precious one-vote margin in the present Supreme Court. On tax and spending issues? missile defense? energy and the environment?
The consequences of doing nothing weighed heavy on my conscience. My conscience said you must act. You won't be able to live with yourself if you do not do it.
So on May 24, I traveled from Washington D.C. to Burlington, Vermont to make my declaration of independence. I said, "I have spent a lifetime in the Republican Party, and have served for twelve years in what I believe is the longest continuously held Republican seat in the United States Senate. Increasingly, I find myself in disagreement with my party.
Given the nature of the national party, it has become a struggle for our leaders to deal with me and for me to deal with them. Looking ahead, I can see more and more instances where I will disagree with the President on very fundamental issues.
In order to best represent my state of Vermont, my own conscience, and the principles I have stood for my whole life, I will leave the Republican party and become an Independent. I have changed my party label, but I have not changed my beliefs.
"My decision is about affirming the principles that have shaped my career."
Those words changed the nation's balance of power, changed our national agenda, and changed my life forever. My switch became official June 6, ending six years of Republican control of the Senate.
The media swirled for days with stories about who lost Jim Jeffords following my announcement. Did I switch because I had been snubbed by political operatives and not invited to the annual White House event honoring the nation's teacher of the year event? Which by the way was Michele Foreman from Middlebury, Vermont.
Did I switch because I had been threatened with retribution against my Vermont dairy farmers because I held my ground and forced the White House to compromise and reduce the size of the tax cut? None of this mattered. What did matter was that the issues I so deeply cared about would be back on the agenda, would be given due consideration, would be advanced. My decision to become an Independent brought accolades from across the nation and across the globe - from editorial writers and columnists, from people on the street and through cyber-space. I'll never forget getting off a plane, with my wife Liz in Italy right after my switch to see my photograph and name plastered in headlines of newspapers from across Europe.
I even had a beer named after me. Magic Hat, a brewery based in Burlington Vermont, created a beer called Jeezum Jim, they dubbed it , "a celebration of conviction, courage, and the difference one man can make."
My decision also brought severe criticism and anger. I had around-the-clock police protection for weeks following the decision due to the numerous threats.
The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page said of me: "Not everyone gets to wake up one morning and decide an inner voice had told him to overturn the results of a national election, an unprecedented legal struggle and a decisive Supreme Court decision to form a government." Not that the Journal's editorial page has all that much credibility, but these criticisms have not gone unnoticed.
Many people have asked me given everything that has happened, if I would do this all over again. My answer is - absolutely.
I have never felt more confident or secure about any decision in my life. As Congress debates the economic stimulus package, the annual spending bills, a
national energy policy - because of my switch - the Democrats have a seat at the table and will be part of the final decision making process. It is not that I believe the Democrats should get their way on every issue, or that the Republicans should get their way on every issue. My decision to become an independent has forced all branches of government to compromise, to seek moderation, and to find a balanced consensus.
Even in the wake of September 11, I feel that my decision has required a working partnership to be forged among the Democratic and Republican leadership in the Senate. The road ahead is uncertain, the legislative outlook for 2002 is just beginning to emerge.
I can only hope that my decision has brought more balance to our national debate and that more Americans feel they have a voice in Washington, D.C. Thank you. - 30 -
|