Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, for nearly 5 years, Congress has debated how best to enhance protections for patients enrolled in managed care plans without unduly increasing health care costs, imposing significant burdens on America's employers, and adding to the ranks of the uninsured. Our debate over the last two weeks has given us ample opportunity to thoroughly discuss these critical issues. Through the amendment process the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill has been significantly improved. I particularly commend Senator Snowe for her amendment on employer liability and Senator Thompson for his amendment on exhausting the appeals process. However, I believe the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill is still fundamentally flawed in two critical areas. First, the bill would subject plans to excessive damages in the new federal cause of action. And second, by subjecting plans and employers to a new State cause of action, the bill destroys the current national uniformity for employers. The bill would subject employers or their designated agents to lawsuits in 50 different States. The better alternative to the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill is our amendment. It is based on the legislation that I introduced with Senator Frist and Senator Breaux. It has much in common with the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill. They share 11 provisions that provide new patient protections. Each provides for information to assist consumers in navigating the health care system. Most importantly, the bills provide for an internal and external independent review process with strong new remedies when the external view process fails. Our primary area of disagreement lies in the degree that employers are protected from multiple causes of action in multiple venues and the provision of a reasonable cap on damages. President Bush has made clear that our amendment meets the principles he has outlined for patient protection legislation that he would sign into law. This balanced legislation also is supported by a wide range of groups representing nearly 400,000 of America's physicians and health professionals. Our amendment protects all Americans in private health plans and at the same time, it gives deference to the states to allow them to continue enforcing managed care laws consistent with the new federal rules. Under our amendment health plans that fail to comply with independent review decisions or that harm patients by delaying coverage will be held accountable through expanded federal court remedies, including unlimited economic damages. In addition, patients can go to court at any time to get the health benefits they need through injunctive relief if going through the internal or external review process would cause them irreparable harm. We hope that everyone who is committed to passing legislation that can become law this year will join us in supporting this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I rise today to express my support for the Dairy Consumers and Producers Protection Act of 2001, important legislation that would re-authorized and expand the Northeast Dairy Compact, and ratify a Southern Compact. Growing support and recognition of the effectiveness and ingenuity of the Northeast Dairy Compact has led twenty-five States to enact compact legislation. These States now look to Congress to grant them the right to join the Northeast Compact, or to form a Southern Compact. It is critical that we keep pace with the demands of State governments, and provide them with the authority to develop a regional pricing mechanism for Class I (fluid) milk. Farmers across our Nation face radically different conditions and factors of production. Differences in climate, transportation, feed, energy and land value validate the need for regional pricing. Compacts allow States to address these differences and create a price level that is appropriate for producers, processors, retailers, and consumers. The Northeast Dairy Compact was originally authorized as a three-year pilot program in the 1996 Farm Bill. Sine July of 1997, when the Compact Commission first set the Class I over-order price at $16.94, the Northeast Dairy Compact has proven to be a great success, providing farmers with a fair price for their milk, protecting consumers from price spikes, reducing market dependency upon milk from a single source, controlling excess supply, and helping to preserve rural landscapes by strengthening farm communities. And, unlike so many of our country's agricultural programs, the benefits of the dairy compact are realized at no cost to the Federal Government. The Northeast Dairy Compact is managed by the Compact Commission. The Commission, comprised of 26 delegates from the six New England member States, includes producers, processors, retailers and consumer representatives. Each State governor appoints three or five delegates to represent their State's vote on the Commission. The Commission meets monthly to evaluate and establish the current Compact over-order price for Class I (fluid) milk. Using a formal rule-making process, the Commission hears testimony to establish a price that takes into account the purchasing power of the public, and the price necessary to yield a reasonable return to producers and distributors. Any price change proposed by the Commission is subject to a two-thirds vote by the State delegations as well as a producer referendum. The Compact Commission's price regulation works in conjunction with the Federal Government's pricing program, which establishes minimum prices paid to dairy farmers for their raw milk. Under the Compact, processors pay the difference between the Compact over-order price for fluid milk, currently $16,94, and the price established monthly by federal regulation for the same milk. The over-order premium is paid on class I (fluid) milk, and is only paid when the Compact over-order price is higher than the price set by the Federal milk marketing orders. Processors purchasing milk for other dairy products such as cheese or ice cream are not subject to the Compact's pricing regulations, although all farmers producing milk in the region, for any purpose, share equally in the Compact's benefits. In order to protect low-income consumers from any increases in cost caused by the Compact, the Compact legislation imposes regulations on the Commission requiring that the Women, Infants and Children, WIC program, as well as School Lunch Programs, must be reimbursed for any additional costs they may incur as a result of compact activity. Three percent of the pooled proceeds are set aside to fulfill these obligations. Compact legislation also contains a clause that holds the Commission responsible for any purchases of milk or milk products by the Commodity Credit Corporation, CCC, that result from the operation of the Compact. The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to determine those costs and ensure that the Commission honors its obligations. After money is withheld for the WIC and School Lunch programs, as well the CCC, the Compact Commission makes disbursements to farmer cooperatives and milk handlers. These entities then make payments to individual farmers based on their level of production. These payments are only made when the Federal market order price falls below the price set by the Compact Commission, effectively creating a floor for milk prices. This, in turn, decreases price volatility in the region. The stability created by the Compact pricing mechanism is important for several reasons. It guarantees farmers a fair price for their product and allows them to plan for the future. Farmers, knowing that they can count on a fair price, can allocate money to purchase and repair machinery, improve farming practices, and above all, stay in business. Throughout our great Nation, the family farm continues to be a vital part of our rural community and agricultural infrastructure. In New England, and across our country, farms continue to support our rural economies. Farms create economic stability by supporting local businesses such as feed stores, farm equipment suppliers and local banks. The continuing disappearance of small farms is making life very difficult for agri-businesses and disrupting the overall rural economic infrastructure. The importance of the family farm extends well beyond the rural economy, however. Preservation of the family farm has important environmental consequences as well. Numerous environmental organizations have expressed their support for dairy compacts. They recognize the ability of compacts to protect our farms and preserve our dairy industry. These organizations include the Sierra Club, the Conservation Law Foundation and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. These groups, as well as numerous other environmentally conscious organizations, recognize farmers as good stewards of the land, and value the ability of farms to sustain productive use of the land, while preserving open space. Even though compacts enjoy widespread support across much of our country, opponents have worked tirelessly to discredit the merits of dairy compacts. These critics, however, must contend with the strong record of success that the Northeast Dairy Compact has put forth. During its first four years, the Northeast Compact has stood up to numerous legal challenges. Courts have ruled in favor of the Compact on every level, including the U.S. Supreme Court. The courts have recognized the Compact as a proper and constitutional grant of congressional authority, permitted under the Commerce and Compact clauses of the U.S. Constitution. These decisions have upheld the Commission's authority to regulate milk within the region, as well as milk produced outside of the region. Concerns have also been raised about the Compact's effect on interstate trade. Opponents of the Northeast Compact argue that compacts restrict the movement of milk between States that are in the Compact, and States that lie outside the Compact. Compacts, however, do not restrict the movement of milk into the region. For example, producers in eastern New York State benefit from the Northeast Compact. By shipping their milk in the region, farmers are eligible to receive the Compact price for their products. Another common misconception is that the Compact leads to overproduction. The Northeast Dairy Compact, however, has not led to overproduction during its first four years. In fact, during 2000, the Northeast Dairy Compact states produced 4.7 billion pounds of milk, a 0.6 percent reduction from 1999. Since the Northeast Dairy Compact has been in effect, milk production in the region has risen by just 2.2 percent. Nationally, milk production rose 7.4 percent from 1997 to 2000. Over this same period, California, the largest milk producing Sate in the country, increased its milk production by 16.9 percent. To protect against overproduction, the Compact Commission has developed a supply management program that rewards farmers who do not increase production. Under the program, 7.5 cents per hundred-weight is withheld by the Commission. This money is refunded to producers that have not increased their production by more than 1 percent during the given year. While this program has only been in place since 2000, we believe that it will be a useful tool in preventing overproduction. Finally, opponents argue that compacts are harmful to consumers, especially low-income consumers. The facts show that this not the case. On May 2, 2001, an independent study out of the University of Connecticut's Food Marketing Policy Center offers new evidence regarding the impact of the Northeast Dairy Compact on consumer prices. The Food Marketing Policy Center performed a four-year analysis of retail milk prices using supermarket scanner data from 18 months prior to Compact implementation, up through July of 2000. This period of time captured the volatile prices preceding Compact implementation, as well as the pricing behavior that followed. The study found that the Northeast Dairy Compact was responsible for only 4.5 cents of the 29- cent increase in retail prices following Compact implementation. The study concludes that wider profit margins by processors and retailers account for 11 cents of the 29-cent increase. Since the Compact went into effect, these wider profit margins have drawn nearly $50 million out of the pockets of New England consumers. The study suggests that retail stores and processors have used price gouging and ``tacitly collusive price conduct'' to lock in wider profit margins. The study states: ``Leading firms in the supermarket-marketing channel have used their dominant market positions to elevate retail prices in the Northeast Compact Region.'' In conclusion, the study contends: ``The major policy now facing New England consumers of fluid milk is not the Northeast Dairy Compact. It is the exercise of market power by the region's leading retailers and milk processor.'' While this study raises some serious concerns regarding the New England dairy industry, it illustrates that the effects of the Compact on consumers have been benign. A May 11, 2001 article in Cheese Market News written by Jim Tillison, Chairman of the Alliance of Western Producers, further addresses the consumer issue. Mr. Tillison writes: ``Now, unless I am wrong, in every dairy state there are many times more consumers than dairy farmers. It would seem that it would be very difficult to get compact legislation passed if consumers were strongly opposed to it. That must not have been the case if some 25 state legislatures have passed compact legislation. What's more, 25 governors who have had the power to veto state compact legislation haven't. (Cheese Market News, May 11, 2001) Tillison continues by examining the reasons why consumers support the Compact. These include decreases in retail price volatility and the need for a fresh supply of milk. Tillison states, ``Consumers like the idea of milk for their kids being produced locally. Even though the milkman delivering ``fresh'' milk to the consumer's doorstep is a thing of the past, that doesn't mean that consumers don't want fresh milk.'' At this time, I would ask unanimous consent that Jim Tillison's article, ``Let's Talk About Compacts'' be submitted for the Record. Under our legal system, individual states have the authority to establish their own dairy pricing mechanism. Because of the nature and size of the dairy industries in the Northeast and South, states in these regions are better served by coming together to form a unified pricing mechanism. By supporting the rights of states to form dairy compacts, we maintain the safety and continuity of our milk supply, protect consumers from volatile milk prices, and conserve open land. Originally created as a three-year pilot program, the Northeast Dairy Compact has been extremely successful in demonstrating the merits of compacts. We no longer need to speculate about the potential effects of compacts. We now have the hard evidence, they are good for farmers, good for consumers, and good for the environment. I ask that the Senate recognize this by extending and expanding the Northeast Dairy Compact, and ratifying a Southern Compact. In closing, I urge the Senate to support this important legislation. Our States have come to us, and asked us to grant them the right to regulate the minimum farm price of milk, the right to save their family farms. We must grant them that right.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I rise today to express my support for the Dairy Consumers and Producers Protection Act of 2001, important legislation that would re-authorized and expand the Northeast Dairy Compact, and ratify a Southern Compact. Growing support and recognition of the effectiveness and ingenuity of the Northeast Dairy Compact has led twenty-five States to enact compact legislation. These States now look to Congress to grant them the right to join the Northeast Compact, or to form a Southern Compact. It is critical that we keep pace with the demands of State governments, and provide them with the authority to develop a regional pricing mechanism for Class I (fluid) milk. Farmers across our Nation face radically different conditions and factors of production. Differences in climate, transportation, feed, energy and land value validate the need for regional pricing. Compacts allow States to address these differences and create a price level that is appropriate for producers, processors, retailers, and consumers. The Northeast Dairy Compact was originally authorized as a three-year pilot program in the 1996 Farm Bill. Sine July of 1997, when the Compact Commission first set the Class I over-order price at $16.94, the Northeast Dairy Compact has proven to be a great success, providing farmers with a fair price for their milk, protecting consumers from price spikes, reducing market dependency upon milk from a single source, controlling excess supply, and helping to preserve rural landscapes by strengthening farm communities. And, unlike so many of our country's agricultural programs, the benefits of the dairy compact are realized at no cost to the Federal Government. The Northeast Dairy Compact is managed by the Compact Commission. The Commission, comprised of 26 delegates from the six New England member States, includes producers, processors, retailers and consumer representatives. Each State governor appoints three or five delegates to represent their State's vote on the Commission. The Commission meets monthly to evaluate and establish the current Compact over-order price for Class I (fluid) milk. Using a formal rule-making process, the Commission hears testimony to establish a price that takes into account the purchasing power of the public, and the price necessary to yield a reasonable return to producers and distributors. Any price change proposed by the Commission is subject to a two-thirds vote by the State delegations as well as a producer referendum. The Compact Commission's price regulation works in conjunction with the Federal Government's pricing program, which establishes minimum prices paid to dairy farmers for their raw milk. Under the Compact, processors pay the difference between the Compact over-order price for fluid milk, currently $16,94, and the price established monthly by federal regulation for the same milk. The over-order premium is paid on class I (fluid) milk, and is only paid when the Compact over-order price is higher than the price set by the Federal milk marketing orders. Processors purchasing milk for other dairy products such as cheese or ice cream are not subject to the Compact's pricing regulations, although all farmers producing milk in the region, for any purpose, share equally in the Compact's benefits. In order to protect low-income consumers from any increases in cost caused by the Compact, the Compact legislation imposes regulations on the Commission requiring that the Women, Infants and Children, WIC program, as well as School Lunch Programs, must be reimbursed for any additional costs they may incur as a result of compact activity. Three percent of the pooled proceeds are set aside to fulfill these obligations. Compact legislation also contains a clause that holds the Commission responsible for any purchases of milk or milk products by the Commodity Credit Corporation, CCC, that result from the operation of the Compact. The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to determine those costs and ensure that the Commission honors its obligations. After money is withheld for the WIC and School Lunch programs, as well the CCC, the Compact Commission makes disbursements to farmer cooperatives and milk handlers. These entities then make payments to individual farmers based on their level of production. These payments are only made when the Federal market order price falls below the price set by the Compact Commission, effectively creating a floor for milk prices. This, in turn, decreases price volatility in the region. The stability created by the Compact pricing mechanism is important for several reasons. It guarantees farmers a fair price for their product and allows them to plan for the future. Farmers, knowing that they can count on a fair price, can allocate money to purchase and repair machinery, improve farming practices, and above all, stay in business. Throughout our great Nation, the family farm continues to be a vital part of our rural community and agricultural infrastructure. In New England, and across our country, farms continue to support our rural economies. Farms create economic stability by supporting local businesses such as feed stores, farm equipment suppliers and local banks. The continuing disappearance of small farms is making life very difficult for agri-businesses and disrupting the overall rural economic infrastructure. The importance of the family farm extends well beyond the rural economy, however. Preservation of the family farm has important environmental consequences as well. Numerous environmental organizations have expressed their support for dairy compacts. They recognize the ability of compacts to protect our farms and preserve our dairy industry. These organizations include the Sierra Club, the Conservation Law Foundation and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. These groups, as well as numerous other environmentally conscious organizations, recognize farmers as good stewards of the land, and value the ability of farms to sustain productive use of the land, while preserving open space. Even though compacts enjoy widespread support across much of our country, opponents have worked tirelessly to discredit the merits of dairy compacts. These critics, however, must contend with the strong record of success that the Northeast Dairy Compact has put forth. During its first four years, the Northeast Compact has stood up to numerous legal challenges. Courts have ruled in favor of the Compact on every level, including the U.S. Supreme Court. The courts have recognized the Compact as a proper and constitutional grant of congressional authority, permitted under the Commerce and Compact clauses of the U.S. Constitution. These decisions have upheld the Commission's authority to regulate milk within the region, as well as milk produced outside of the region. Concerns have also been raised about the Compact's effect on interstate trade. Opponents of the Northeast Compact argue that compacts restrict the movement of milk between States that are in the Compact, and States that lie outside the Compact. Compacts, however, do not restrict the movement of milk into the region. For example, producers in eastern New York State benefit from the Northeast Compact. By shipping their milk in the region, farmers are eligible to receive the Compact price for their products. Another common misconception is that the Compact leads to overproduction. The Northeast Dairy Compact, however, has not led to overproduction during its first four years. In fact, during 2000, the Northeast Dairy Compact states produced 4.7 billion pounds of milk, a 0.6 percent reduction from 1999. Since the Northeast Dairy Compact has been in effect, milk production in the region has risen by just 2.2 percent. Nationally, milk production rose 7.4 percent from 1997 to 2000. Over this same period, California, the largest milk producing Sate in the country, increased its milk production by 16.9 percent. To protect against overproduction, the Compact Commission has developed a supply management program that rewards farmers who do not increase production. Under the program, 7.5 cents per hundred-weight is withheld by the Commission. This money is refunded to producers that have not increased their production by more than 1 percent during the given year. While this program has only been in place since 2000, we believe that it will be a useful tool in preventing overproduction. Finally, opponents argue that compacts are harmful to consumers, especially low-income consumers. The facts show that this not the case. On May 2, 2001, an independent study out of the University of Connecticut's Food Marketing Policy Center offers new evidence regarding the impact of the Northeast Dairy Compact on consumer prices. The Food Marketing Policy Center performed a four-year analysis of retail milk prices using supermarket scanner data from 18 months prior to Compact implementation, up through July of 2000. This period of time captured the volatile prices preceding Compact implementation, as well as the pricing behavior that followed. The study found that the Northeast Dairy Compact was responsible for only 4.5 cents of the 29- cent increase in retail prices following Compact implementation. The study concludes that wider profit margins by processors and retailers account for 11 cents of the 29-cent increase. Since the Compact went into effect, these wider profit margins have drawn nearly $50 million out of the pockets of New England consumers. The study suggests that retail stores and processors have used price gouging and ``tacitly collusive price conduct'' to lock in wider profit margins. The study states: ``Leading firms in the supermarket-marketing channel have used their dominant market positions to elevate retail prices in the Northeast Compact Region.'' In conclusion, the study contends: ``The major policy now facing New England consumers of fluid milk is not the Northeast Dairy Compact. It is the exercise of market power by the region's leading retailers and milk processor.'' While this study raises some serious concerns regarding the New England dairy industry, it illustrates that the effects of the Compact on consumers have been benign. A May 11, 2001 article in Cheese Market News written by Jim Tillison, Chairman of the Alliance of Western Producers, further addresses the consumer issue. Mr. Tillison writes: ``Now, unless I am wrong, in every dairy state there are many times more consumers than dairy farmers. It would seem that it would be very difficult to get compact legislation passed if consumers were strongly opposed to it. That must not have been the case if some 25 state legislatures have passed compact legislation. What's more, 25 governors who have had the power to veto state compact legislation haven't. (Cheese Market News, May 11, 2001) Tillison continues by examining the reasons why consumers support the Compact. These include decreases in retail price volatility and the need for a fresh supply of milk. Tillison states, ``Consumers like the idea of milk for their kids being produced locally. Even though the milkman delivering ``fresh'' milk to the consumer's doorstep is a thing of the past, that doesn't mean that consumers don't want fresh milk.'' At this time, I would ask unanimous consent that Jim Tillison's article, ``Let's Talk About Compacts'' be submitted for the Record. Under our legal system, individual states have the authority to establish their own dairy pricing mechanism. Because of the nature and size of the dairy industries in the Northeast and South, states in these regions are better served by coming together to form a unified pricing mechanism. By supporting the rights of states to form dairy compacts, we maintain the safety and continuity of our milk supply, protect consumers from volatile milk prices, and conserve open land. Originally created as a three-year pilot program, the Northeast Dairy Compact has been extremely successful in demonstrating the merits of compacts. We no longer need to speculate about the potential effects of compacts. We now have the hard evidence, they are good for farmers, good for consumers, and good for the environment. I ask that the Senate recognize this by extending and expanding the Northeast Dairy Compact, and ratifying a Southern Compact. In closing, I urge the Senate to support this important legislation. Our States have come to us, and asked us to grant them the right to regulate the minimum farm price of milk, the right to save their family farms. We must grant them that right.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Maine for keeping this issue alive. It is critically important that we defer as much as we can to the States because they are already set up for it. Why not let them do it? On the other hand, this is a Federal Patients' Bill of Rights. That means equal rights to everyone in this country, so there is a requirement for uniformity as well as to make sure we get a firm and even enforcement of this bill. A lot has been said about HIPAA and using HIPAA as an example of bad policy, and it was bad policy, but it was totally different. HIPAA dealt with portability of insurance in the case of people being laid off work. They said, if you do not do it, HCFA will come in and do it, and five States said let HCFA do it, and it made a mess of it. This is different. We are talking about the enforcement of rights, an even enforcement across the country. Yet we do recognize it is important for the States to do it themselves. Many, if not most of them, are already doing a legislative enforcement to require the appropriate and fair enforcement of the rights of individuals on health care. This is an important difference. HIPAA was a mess, but this has nothing to do with that. This is quite different from HIPAA. We all support the Patients' Bill of Rights. The question is who ought to enforce it. We say, yes, let the States that want to do it do it. On the other hand, we need to make sure it is done fairly and uniformly across this country. We do give the authority to the Secretary to review it, and we also say he should lean over backwards to make sure the States do it if at all possible. It is not a HIPAA-type situation; we ought to differentiate that. It is important that we also recognize that the compromise requires States to have protections that are ``substantially compliant with'' Federal protection and defines this standard as having the ``same or similar provisions and the same or similar effect.'' The Secretary must approve the State's certification of compliance in a manner that is in deference to existing State laws. If he does not act on the State application within 90 days, it is automatically approved. States that have their certification disapproved may challenge that disapproval in court. The amendment developed by Senator Breaux and myself requires States with additional flexibility to implement strong patient protections while guaranteeing a basic level of protection for all Americans in all health plans. Requiring the States to be in substantial compliance with the Federal law--not exact compliance but substantial compliance-- provides States with the flexibility they need to implement strong patient protections while ensuring that all patients receive the Federal floor of protections. Under this amendment, States can keep their own laws as long as their basic intent is similar to the Federal standard and will have a similar effect. The Secretary is required to be deferential to the States--give them every break you can but make sure that the bill of rights will be enforced. Give them every possible opportunity to do it themselves rather than having to go to court. However, this requirement does not infringe upon the Secretary's authority to determine whether current State laws will provide the basic level of protection promised to all Americans in the health plans under the Patients' Bill of Rights. So HIPAA is just a totally different situation. It is a mess; we agree with that; but it is totally different. Do not get confused on the HIPAA example. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I will follow up on the Senator's explanation of what we are trying to do, to make sure we have a less complicated situation with respect to who is in charge and with whom to deal. We have some problems, but the biggest problem, in what was the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill called HIPAA, was we made the mistake of using such language that it ended up that many of the States declined to do anything, in which case the Federal Government, under the bill, came in and tried to do it. That has not worked out. This comes from experience in trying to recognize the States will do good a job and want to do a good job and this is the best place to do it. We will do nothing that prevents that from continuing. Senator Collins has worked hard on this over the year to make sure we come up with something that will be signed into law and allow the President to sign it into law. The protections in the Frist-Breaux- Jeffords Patients' Bill of Rights apply to all 170 million Americans covered by the private sector group health plans, individual health plans, and fully insured State and local government plans. It covers all of them. At the same time, our legislation recognizes the Federal Government does not have all the answers. States need to play the primary role in enforcing the bill's requirements with respect to health insurers. However, if a State does not have the law or does not adopt the law similar to the new Federal requirements, Federal fallback legislation will apply. Our amendment strikes a new compromise under scope between the Frist- Breaux-Jeffords standard of ``consistent with'' and the much more preemptive standard in the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill that states laws ``be substantially equivalent to'' and ``as effective as'' the new Federal patient protections. This leaves a lot of indefiniteness in the situation. The Breaux-Jeffords amendment uses a new standard that the State law would be certified if it ``substantially complies,'' meaning that the State law has the same or similar features as the patient protection requirements and has a similar effect. Also, we require that the Secretary give deference--try your best to make sure the State can do it if they want to do it --to the State's interpretation of the State law involved and the compliance of the law with the patient protection requirement. This amendment represents a true compromise. We believe it will make it less likely that the Federal Government will have to enforce these new standards and more likely that it will get signed into law. I think we have made a good improvement. I am hopeful it will be accepted. I urge its acceptance. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Levin, in introducing two legislative initiatives that will expand upon the resources available for brownfields revitalization. The first bill, the Brownfields Site Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2001, provides the Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration (EDA) with a dedicated source of funding for brownfields. EDA can currently assist communities with brownfields redevelopment when these projects involve infrastructure development or economic adjustment activities, however there is no specific authority or funding for brownfields revitalization. The second bill, the Brownfields Economic Development Act of 2001, addresses requirements on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's, HUD, Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, BEDI, grant program that are hampering small city brownfields revitalization efforts. BEDI's required link to Section 108 loan guarantees demands that future Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, allocations be pledged as collateral. BEDI's required link to Section 108 serves as a deterrent to many small towns in Vermont and throughout the nation, who do not have the resources to commit to brownfields. Our bill would permit HUD to make grants available independent of economic development loan guarantees. The legislation also provides a 30 percent set aside for small communities and federally-recognized Indian tribes. This legislation would help communities in Vermont reclaim their older underutilized sites. A prime example is an old mill in the heart of Ludlow, VT which occupies 30,000 square feet of prime downtown land. It is next to residential properties and again, ripe for redevelopment. There are currently Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, funds for assessment to investigate what is in the ground and how much it will cost to clean up. But the owner, the bank and the town are reluctant to act if the site is contaminated. These bills will assist many small towns such as Ludlow access the clean up funding they need to revitalize contaminated sites. Since the inception of the Senate Smart Growth Task Force in 1999, Senator Levin and I as co-chairs, have been working to expand funding sources for brownfields. This legislation is just one component of the overall effort to restore brownfield sites to productive use in our cities and towns. By advancing this legislation, we will address a critical gap in brownfields' funding for site assessment and clean up, while promoting economic development as well as preservation of farmland and open space.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Levin, in introducing two legislative initiatives that will expand upon the resources available for brownfields revitalization. The first bill, the Brownfields Site Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2001, provides the Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration (EDA) with a dedicated source of funding for brownfields. EDA can currently assist communities with brownfields redevelopment when these projects involve infrastructure development or economic adjustment activities, however there is no specific authority or funding for brownfields revitalization. The second bill, the Brownfields Economic Development Act of 2001, addresses requirements on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's, HUD, Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, BEDI, grant program that are hampering small city brownfields revitalization efforts. BEDI's required link to Section 108 loan guarantees demands that future Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, allocations be pledged as collateral. BEDI's required link to Section 108 serves as a deterrent to many small towns in Vermont and throughout the nation, who do not have the resources to commit to brownfields. Our bill would permit HUD to make grants available independent of economic development loan guarantees. The legislation also provides a 30 percent set aside for small communities and federally-recognized Indian tribes. This legislation would help communities in Vermont reclaim their older underutilized sites. A prime example is an old mill in the heart of Ludlow, VT which occupies 30,000 square feet of prime downtown land. It is next to residential properties and again, ripe for redevelopment. There are currently Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, funds for assessment to investigate what is in the ground and how much it will cost to clean up. But the owner, the bank and the town are reluctant to act if the site is contaminated. These bills will assist many small towns such as Ludlow access the clean up funding they need to revitalize contaminated sites. Since the inception of the Senate Smart Growth Task Force in 1999, Senator Levin and I as co-chairs, have been working to expand funding sources for brownfields. This legislation is just one component of the overall effort to restore brownfield sites to productive use in our cities and towns. By advancing this legislation, we will address a critical gap in brownfields' funding for site assessment and clean up, while promoting economic development as well as preservation of farmland and open space.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I join my colleagues in explaining and hopefully alleviating the concerns of Members with respect to the question of malpractice and lawsuits. I am probably the only one who was here back when ERISA was written. ERISA was dealing, not with these kind of parties but with pensions. But it was realized that employers need a common place to go to make sure, when they have their pension plan, there is just one jurisdiction that can take care of the complications and legal aspects. The decision there was to make it the Federal court to have exclusive jurisdiction. We are still involved, in this case, with employers. Again, it is a different issue from pensions, but it is a very important one for employers. From World War II on, because of some special provisions for getting advantages to businesses being able to provide health insurance which would be nontaxable, it has been quite advantageous for employers to provide health care. We do not want to disturb that. In order to not disturb that, we should follow what happened in the pension area, and that is to make sure there is uniformity of decisions across this country when we get involved with whether or not an employer would be found liable under the circumstances. We want to distinguish that from the malpractice suits with which we are involved most of the time. I guess people get to thinking, as we talk here, that we are talking about the malpractice situation. The malpractice suits because of doctors performing improper care, or nurses, or even the overall operation by not giving the proper medical care is one situation. That goes to State courts. If one is only talking reserving for the Federal courts as to whether or not there really was a decisionmaker who was properly put in place, or other operations totally outside of the delivery of health care, it is a very small and narrow area where you are limited to Federal courts. That is because you have to have uniformity. That is because, if an employer has a business all across this Nation, the employer doesn't have to worry about 50 different jurisdictions as far as where the law applies. The same is true for pension plans. One Federal rule should apply in those very rare situations where there is a dispute over how much control there is and whether the business had control over the operation of the medical side. I want to make sure it is clear. For the ordinary case where there is a problem of care, all of those will go to State courts. All we are talking about is this very limited area where the jurisdiction will be in the Federal court only. I want to straighten that out because I think people are concerned about not being able to go through the court in their hometown where the doctor is practicing. That is absurd. I think it is important we understand that. The best way to make sure we have good care is to make sure we have a clear idea of where these laws are going and how they are handled in the court system. There is really little difference in our bills, if any. I don't understand what the arguments are with respect to the malpractice situation, as our plan and their plan are very similar in that regard. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, with the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, there has always been broad support for the Federal Government to provide assistance and leadership to the States and localities, the entities that serve as the primary sources for implementing our education system. Over these past 36 years, we have had thoughtful debates regarding the Federal role in both establishing and overseeing education policy. Through these spirited discussions, we have tried to create initiatives that emphasize excellence for all students. Over the past 3 years, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has closely examined elementary and secondary education. In the 106th Congress, two dozen hearings were held regarding the ESEA reauthorization. One of the very first hearings the committee held this year featured Secretary Paige and focused on the President's education initiative. All 20 members of the HELP Committee worked together to draft S. 1 and unanimously voted the bill out of committee. Following committee action, I and several of my colleagues worked with the White House to further refine the committee bill that has now passed the Senate. S. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, begins a new chapter that not only sets goals designed to improve student performance, but provides a road map for achieving those goals. With the leadership of President Bush, and the leadership of many Senators from all parties, we have, before us, legislation that better targets resources and provides greater accountability at both the State and local levels. Our goal must be to ensure that every child will obtain the knowledge necessary to succeed in our society and in our economy. To ensure progress toward this goal, the legislation before us will establish accountability measures for every school, school district and State in the country, so that the public can see whether or not they are making annual academic progress. The House and Senate conferees will soon begin their work in putting together a final product that will hopefully not set unrealistic goals and undermine our overall goal of leaving no child behind. If we are not very careful, the result of our efforts might be havoc rather than help for our education system and the students it is designed to serve. I look forward to continuing to work with all of my colleagues in writing a conference report that will provide the foundation for every child in this Nation to receive a quality education. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg, and the other members of the committee. I would like to join the managers in thanking all of the committee staff for their hard work. Particularly, I would like to thank my staff, Sherry Kaiman, Susan Hattan, Scott Giles, Jenny Smulson, Andy Hartman, Justin King, Carolyn Dupree, Leah Booth, Ann Clough, Sallie Rhodes, and Frances Coleman for their efforts. I also want to thank Wayne Riddle and Jim Stedman from the Congressional Research Service and Mark Koster, Liz King, and Bill Baird from the Office of Legislative Counsel for their tremendous contribution in shaping S. 1.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Health and Higher Education Facilities Improvement Act of 2001. This legislation will help small non-profit health and educational institutions more effectively finance the cost of essential services, and lead to new facility construction. By modifying the laws that restrict deductibility or ``bank financing for small non-profit organizations that need it the most: small local hospitals and colleges. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 unintentionally discriminated against small non-profit educational and health care facilities that want to sell small amounts of tax-exempt debt to community banks. Before 1986, banks and financial institutions could deduct the interest incurred to carry tax-exempt bonds. This allowed banks to purchase tax-exempt bonds at attractive rates. The 1986 tax act repealed bank deductibility, but an exception was retained for small governmental issuers that issue bonds of $10 million or less each year. This exception was designed to preserve bank deductibility for small local governments, but does not help small non-profit institutions. The small issuer exception to be of little value in many States, like Vermont where statewide health care and higher education bond issuing authorities typically issue many millions of dollars of debt each year. The legislation I am introducing today will modify the small issuer exception by granting bond issuers the right to apply the small issuer exception at the level of the ultimate beneficiary of the funding. Consequently, a small college or health care facility borrowing less than $10 million in tax-exempt debt in any one year could elect tax-exempt status for that debt, even if it is issued by a statewide authority. This would make the debt more attractive to local banks, and could result in significant savings for beneficiary institutions over the life of the bond. The Health and Higher Education Facilities Improvement Act of 2001 focuses the benefit of the small issuer exemption on smaller non- profits, without regard to whether the bond issuer is a government entity issuing more than $10 million in bonds per year. Small non- profits are important community institutions; they stand to benefit from greater access to tax-exempt debt. Wall Street and large money center banks may have little interest in small amounts of debt from small institutions. The bank across the street from a local college or health care clinic, however, may have greater confidence and insight into the community value of the institution. This bill would allow those banks to carry tax-exempt debt at attractive rates and maintain commitments to the people and institutions in their local communities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Health and Higher Education Facilities Improvement Act of 2001. This legislation will help small non-profit health and educational institutions more effectively finance the cost of essential services, and lead to new facility construction. By modifying the laws that restrict deductibility or ``bank financing for small non-profit organizations that need it the most: small local hospitals and colleges. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 unintentionally discriminated against small non-profit educational and health care facilities that want to sell small amounts of tax-exempt debt to community banks. Before 1986, banks and financial institutions could deduct the interest incurred to carry tax-exempt bonds. This allowed banks to purchase tax-exempt bonds at attractive rates. The 1986 tax act repealed bank deductibility, but an exception was retained for small governmental issuers that issue bonds of $10 million or less each year. This exception was designed to preserve bank deductibility for small local governments, but does not help small non-profit institutions. The small issuer exception to be of little value in many States, like Vermont where statewide health care and higher education bond issuing authorities typically issue many millions of dollars of debt each year. The legislation I am introducing today will modify the small issuer exception by granting bond issuers the right to apply the small issuer exception at the level of the ultimate beneficiary of the funding. Consequently, a small college or health care facility borrowing less than $10 million in tax-exempt debt in any one year could elect tax-exempt status for that debt, even if it is issued by a statewide authority. This would make the debt more attractive to local banks, and could result in significant savings for beneficiary institutions over the life of the bond. The Health and Higher Education Facilities Improvement Act of 2001 focuses the benefit of the small issuer exemption on smaller non- profits, without regard to whether the bond issuer is a government entity issuing more than $10 million in bonds per year. Small non- profits are important community institutions; they stand to benefit from greater access to tax-exempt debt. Wall Street and large money center banks may have little interest in small amounts of debt from small institutions. The bank across the street from a local college or health care clinic, however, may have greater confidence and insight into the community value of the institution. This bill would allow those banks to carry tax-exempt debt at attractive rates and maintain commitments to the people and institutions in their local communities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to James P. Leddy, an outstanding Vermonter and humanitarian. In recognition of his retirement as Executive Director of The Howard Center for Human Services in Burlington, VT, it is important to reflect on how much one person can accomplish in serving others. From the beginning of his career, Jim was drawn to serving the most needy, most isolated, and often the most misunderstood and underserved people in our society. His work took him to individuals who were incarcerated, living with illness or disability, and to those recovering from addiction. Jim began his 30-year history of compassionate service to Vermonters as a direct-service provider and quickly rose to leadership positions. His vision for improving the lives of individuals with disabilities put him at the helm of The Howard Center for Human Services. Under his direction ``community inclusion'' and ``self-determination'' became the guiding principles for serving individuals and their families. Those who had historically been sheltered from society began to live, work and recreate in their communities. Not only has The Howard Center for Human Services been recognized for developing new and innovative programs, but Vermont also gained recognition for showing the way to other States in the country. Jim is to be commended for the part he played in national movement to provide community-based services to people with disabilities. Under Jim's leadership, The Howard Center grew from a budget of $1.6 million with a staff of 55 to a budget of $30 million and a staff of over 550 individuals. While Jim was growing a mental health service, he also advocated for relationships and wrap-around services with other providers. In this, as in every other capacity, his mark has been felt far beyond the boundaries of Chittenden County, VT. Vermont has much to be grateful for, in view of Jim's steadfast commitment to improving the quality of life in our State. He was a founding member of programs such as the Champlain Valley Crime Stoppers and Dismas House, a residential program for ex-offenders. He has served on boards, such as the Mayor's Council on Human Services for the City of Burlington, the Governor's Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Problems, and the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, to name a few. Jim is a true public servant, and in 1999, he became a member of the Vermont State Legislature and brought his knowledge, experience and deep commitment to Vermont to all its citizens. It is reassuring to know that his legacy will lead The Howard Center for Human Services and the greater community of Vermont itself for years to come. Jim's unwavering commitment toward improving the status of Vermont and its citizens serves as a testament to us all. Vermont is truly indebted to him. His deep commitment to the citizens of the Green Mountain State has endeared him to us. He has our sincerest good wishes for the future.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, there is a great need to improve child care in this country. America lags far behind all other industrialized nations in caring for and educating our pre-school aged children. We have the opportunity to make improvements, and we need to act now. I rise today, to introduce two small, but vitally important child care bills: the Child Care Construction and Renovation Act and the Federal Employees Child Care Act. The Child Care Construction and Renovation Act is as much a small business assistance bill as it is a child care bill. Child care providers are small business owners. Almost every child care provider that I have talked with over the past few years wants the opportunity to expand their services, increase their skills, and improve their facilities. But the child care business is a financially unstable endeavor. Child care centers and home-based providers are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain staff, to buy the supplies and equipment that will promote healthy child development, and even to keep their doors open. The Shelburne Children's Center in Vermont closed a couple of years ago because it could not afford to stay open. Nearly forty percent of all family-based child care and ten percent of the center-based care close each year. Parents can only pay what they can afford, and far too often that is barely enough to keep a child care provider in business. This legislation also creates financing mechanisms to support the renovation and construction of child care facilities. First, it amends the National Housing Act to provide mortgage insurance on new and rehabilitated child care facilities. It creates a revolving fund to help with the purchase or refinancing of existing child care facilities. Second, it provides funds for local, non-profit community development organizations to provide technical assistance and small grants to child care providers to help them improve and expand their center- or home-based child care facilities. Without some government help, child care providers cannot expand their services to provide care for many families seeking affordable, quality care for their children. They cannot upgrade their equipment or make improvements to better ensure the safety of children in their care. Just as the government provides funds and services to encourage the building and renovation of low-income housing, child care, with its low-profit potential needs a similar helping hand. The second bill which I am introducing today is the Federal Employees Child Care Act. The Federal Government is the largest American provider or employer-sponsored, on-site child care. Congress has acted affirmatively with an extensive commitment to on-site child care for its employees. The General Services Administration, (GSA), has developed considerable expertise in helping agencies start and maintain quality child care services for the children of Federal employees. However, there are some problems which we, as an employer, need to address. As you know, federal property is exempt from state and local laws, regulations, and oversight. What this means for child care centers located on that property is that state and local health and safety standards do not and cannot apply. This might not be a problem if federally-owned or leased child care centers met enforceable health and safety standards. I think most parents who place their children in federal child care would assume that this would be the case. However, I think Federal employees will find it very surprising to learn, as I did, that, at many centers, no such health and safety apply. I find this very troubling, and I think we sell our Federal employees a bill of goods when federally-owed leased child care cannot guarantee that their children are in safe facilities. The Federal Government should set the example when it comes to providing safe child care. It should not turn an apathetic shoulder from meeting such standards simply because state and local regulations do not apply to them. In 1987, Congress passed the ``Trible amendment'' which permitted executive, legislative, and judicial branch agencies to utilize a portion of federally-owned or leased space for the provision of child care services for federal employees. The General Services Administration, (GSA), was given the authority to provide guidance, assistance, and oversight to Federal agencies for the development of child care centers. In the decade since the Trible amendment was passed, hundreds of Federal facilities throughout the nation have established on-site child care centers which are a tremendous help to our employees. The General Services Administration has done an excellent job of helping agencies develop child care centers and have adopted strong standards for those centers located in GSA leased or owned space. However, there are over 100 child care centers located in Federal facilities that are not subject to the GSA standards or any other laws, rules, or regulations to ensure that the facilities are safe places for our children. Most parents, placing their children in a federal child care center, assume that some standards are in place, assume that the centers must minimally meet state and local child care licensing rules and regulations. They assume that the centers are subject to independent oversight and monitoring to continually ensure the safety of the premises. Yet, that is not the case. In a case where a Federal employee had strong reason to suspect the sexual abuse of her child by an employee of a child care center located in a Federal facility, local child protective services and law enforcement personnel were denied access to the premises and were prohibited from investigating the incident. Another employee's child was repeatedly injured because the child care providers under contract with a Federal agency to provide on-site child care services failed to ensure that age-appropriate health and safety measures were taken, current law says they were not required to do so, even after the problems were identified and injuries had occurred. It is time to get our own house in order. We must safeguard and protect the children receiving services in child care centers housed in Federal facilities. Our employees should not be denied some assurance that the centers in which they place their children are accountable for meeting basic health and safety standards. The Federal Employees Child Care Act will require all child care services located in Federal facilities to meet, at the very least, the same level of health and safety standards required of other child care centers in the same geographical area. That sounds like common sense, but as we all know too well, common sense is not always reflected in the law. This bill will make that clear. Further, this legislation demands that Federal child care centers begin working to meet these standards now. Not next year, not in two years, but now. Under this bill, after six months we will look at the Federal child care centers again, and if a center is not meeting minimal state and local health and safety regulations at that time, that child care facility will be closed until it does. I can think of no stronger incentive to get centers to comply. The legislation makes it clear that State and local standards should be a floor for basic health and safety, and not a ceiling. The role of the Federal Government, and, I like to think, of the United States Congress in particular--is to constantly strive to do better and to lead by example. Federal facilities should always try to meet the highest possible standards. In fact, the GSA has required national accreditation in GSA-owned and leased facilities, and has stated that almost all of its centers are either in compliance or are strenuously working to get there. This is the kind of tough standard we should strive for in all of our Federal child care facilities. Federal child care should mean something more than simply location on a Federal facility. The Federal Government has an obligation to provide safe care for its employees, and it has a responsibility for making sure that those standards are monitored and enforced. Some Federal employees receive this guarantee. Many do not. We can do better. I urge swift passage of these important child care bills and hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in this effort.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I join with Senators Stevens, Kennedy, Cleland, and Dodd to introduce the Younger American's Act. We launched this effort at the end of the last Congress, with the help of General Colin Powell. This legislation embraces the belief that youth are our Nation's most important responsibility and that their needs must be moved to a higher priority on our Nation's agenda. It is not enough that government responds to youth when they get into trouble with drugs, teen pregnancy, and violence. We need to strengthen the positive rather than simply respond to the negative. Positive youth development, the framework for the Younger American's Act, is not just about preventing bad things from happening, but giving a nudge to help good things happen. And we know that it works. Evaluations of Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Clubs, mentoring, and other youth development programs have consistently demonstrated how well these programs work. These programs lead to significant increases in parental involvement, youth participation in constructive education, social and recreation activities, enrollment in post-secondary education, and community involvement. Just as important, youth actively participating in youth development programs show decreased rates of school failure and absenteeism, teen pregnancy, delinquency, substance abuse, and violent behavior. We also know that risk taking behavior increases with age. One-third of the high school juniors and seniors participate in two or more health risk behaviors. That is why it is important to build a youth development infrastructure that engages youth as they enter pre- adolescence and keeps them engaged throughout their teen years. The Younger American's Act is targeted to youth aged 10 to 19. This encompasses both the critical middle-school years, as well as the increasingly risky high school years. The Younger American's Act is about creating a national policy on youth. Up until now, government has responded to kids after they have gotten into trouble. We must take a new tack. Instead of just treating problems, we have to promote healthy development. We have to remember that just because a kid stays out of trouble, it doesn't mean that he or she is ready to handle the responsibilities of adulthood. Kids want direction, they want close bonds with parents and other adult mentors. And I believe we owe them that. Ideally, this comes from strong families, but communities and government can help. In order to keep kids engaged in positive activities, youth must be viewed as resources; as active participants in finding solutions to their own problems. Parents also must be part of those solutions. This legislation requires that youth and parents be part of the decision- making process. The United States does not have a cohesive federal policy on youth. Creating an Office on National Youth Policy within the White House not only raises the priority of youth on the Federal agenda, but provides an opportunity to more effectively coordinate existing Federal youth programs to increase their impact on the lives of young Americans. The efforts of the Office of National Youth Policy in advocating for the needs of youth, and the Department of Health and Human Services in implementing the Younger American's Act will be helped by the Council on National Youth Policy. This Council, comprised of youth, parents, experts in youth development, and representatives from the business community, will help ensure that this initiative continually responds to the changing needs of youth and their communities. It will bring a ``real world'' perspective to the Federal efforts. The Younger American's Act provides communities with the funding necessary to adequately ensure that youth have access to five core resources: ongoing relationships with caring adults; safe places with structured activities in which to grow and learn; services that promote healthy lifestyles, including those designed to improve physical and mental health; opportunities to acquire marketable skills and competencies; and opportunities for community service and civic participation. Block grant funds will be used to expand existing resources, create new ones where none existed before, overcome barriers to accessing those resources, and fill gaps to create a cohesive network for youth. The funds will be funneled through States, based on an allocation formula that equally weighs population and poverty measures, to communities where the primary decisions regarding the use of the funds will take place. Thirty percent of the local funds are set aside to address the needs of youth who are particularly vulnerable, such as those who are in out-of-home placements, abused or neglected, living in high poverty areas, or living in rural areas where there are usually fewer resources. Dividing the State into regions, or ``planning and mobilization areas,'' ensures that funds will be equitably distributed throughout a State. Empowering community boards, comprised of youth, parents, and other members of the community, to supervise decisions regarding the use of the block grant funds ensures that the programs, services, and activities supported by the Act will be responsive to local needs. Accountability is integral to any effective Federal program. The Younger American's Act provides the Department of Health and Human Services with the responsibility and funding to conduct research and evaluate the effectiveness of funded initiatives. States and the Department are charged with monitoring the use of funds by grantees, and empowered to withhold or reduce funds if problems arise. The Younger American's Act will help kids gain the skills and experience they need to successfully navigate the rough waters of adolescence. My twenty-first century community learning centers initiative supports the efforts of schools to operate after school programs that emphasize academic enrichment. It's time to get the rest of the community involved. It's time to give the same level of support to the thousands of youth development and youth-serving organizations that struggle to keep their doors open every day. I remember a young man, Brad Luck, who testified before the H.E.L.P. Committee several years ago. As a 14-year-old, Brad embarked on a two- year mission to open a teen center in his home town of Essex Junction, Vermont. He formed a student board of directors, sought 501(c)(3) status and gave over 25 community presentations to convince the town to back the program. Demonstrating the tenacity of youth, he then spear- headed a successful drive to raise $30,000 in 30 days to fund the start-up of the center. Today, the center is thriving in its town- donated space. This is an example of the type of community asset building supported by the Younger American's Act. The Younger American's Act is about an investment in our youth, our communities, and our future. I want to thank America's Promise, the United Way, and the National Collaboration for Youth for their work in providing the original framework for the legislation. I am proud and excited to be part of this important initiative.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, there is a great need to improve child care in this country. America lags far behind all other industrialized nations in caring for and educating our pre-school aged children. We have the opportunity to make improvements, and we need to act now. I rise today, to introduce two small, but vitally important child care bills: the Child Care Construction and Renovation Act and the Federal Employees Child Care Act. The Child Care Construction and Renovation Act is as much a small business assistance bill as it is a child care bill. Child care providers are small business owners. Almost every child care provider that I have talked with over the past few years wants the opportunity to expand their services, increase their skills, and improve their facilities. But the child care business is a financially unstable endeavor. Child care centers and home-based providers are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain staff, to buy the supplies and equipment that will promote healthy child development, and even to keep their doors open. The Shelburne Children's Center in Vermont closed a couple of years ago because it could not afford to stay open. Nearly forty percent of all family-based child care and ten percent of the center-based care close each year. Parents can only pay what they can afford, and far too often that is barely enough to keep a child care provider in business. This legislation also creates financing mechanisms to support the renovation and construction of child care facilities. First, it amends the National Housing Act to provide mortgage insurance on new and rehabilitated child care facilities. It creates a revolving fund to help with the purchase or refinancing of existing child care facilities. Second, it provides funds for local, non-profit community development organizations to provide technical assistance and small grants to child care providers to help them improve and expand their center- or home-based child care facilities. Without some government help, child care providers cannot expand their services to provide care for many families seeking affordable, quality care for their children. They cannot upgrade their equipment or make improvements to better ensure the safety of children in their care. Just as the government provides funds and services to encourage the building and renovation of low-income housing, child care, with its low-profit potential needs a similar helping hand. The second bill which I am introducing today is the Federal Employees Child Care Act. The Federal Government is the largest American provider or employer-sponsored, on-site child care. Congress has acted affirmatively with an extensive commitment to on-site child care for its employees. The General Services Administration, (GSA), has developed considerable expertise in helping agencies start and maintain quality child care services for the children of Federal employees. However, there are some problems which we, as an employer, need to address. As you know, federal property is exempt from state and local laws, regulations, and oversight. What this means for child care centers located on that property is that state and local health and safety standards do not and cannot apply. This might not be a problem if federally-owned or leased child care centers met enforceable health and safety standards. I think most parents who place their children in federal child care would assume that this would be the case. However, I think Federal employees will find it very surprising to learn, as I did, that, at many centers, no such health and safety apply. I find this very troubling, and I think we sell our Federal employees a bill of goods when federally-owed leased child care cannot guarantee that their children are in safe facilities. The Federal Government should set the example when it comes to providing safe child care. It should not turn an apathetic shoulder from meeting such standards simply because state and local regulations do not apply to them. In 1987, Congress passed the ``Trible amendment'' which permitted executive, legislative, and judicial branch agencies to utilize a portion of federally-owned or leased space for the provision of child care services for federal employees. The General Services Administration, (GSA), was given the authority to provide guidance, assistance, and oversight to Federal agencies for the development of child care centers. In the decade since the Trible amendment was passed, hundreds of Federal facilities throughout the nation have established on-site child care centers which are a tremendous help to our employees. The General Services Administration has done an excellent job of helping agencies develop child care centers and have adopted strong standards for those centers located in GSA leased or owned space. However, there are over 100 child care centers located in Federal facilities that are not subject to the GSA standards or any other laws, rules, or regulations to ensure that the facilities are safe places for our children. Most parents, placing their children in a federal child care center, assume that some standards are in place, assume that the centers must minimally meet state and local child care licensing rules and regulations. They assume that the centers are subject to independent oversight and monitoring to continually ensure the safety of the premises. Yet, that is not the case. In a case where a Federal employee had strong reason to suspect the sexual abuse of her child by an employee of a child care center located in a Federal facility, local child protective services and law enforcement personnel were denied access to the premises and were prohibited from investigating the incident. Another employee's child was repeatedly injured because the child care providers under contract with a Federal agency to provide on-site child care services failed to ensure that age-appropriate health and safety measures were taken, current law says they were not required to do so, even after the problems were identified and injuries had occurred. It is time to get our own house in order. We must safeguard and protect the children receiving services in child care centers housed in Federal facilities. Our employees should not be denied some assurance that the centers in which they place their children are accountable for meeting basic health and safety standards. The Federal Employees Child Care Act will require all child care services located in Federal facilities to meet, at the very least, the same level of health and safety standards required of other child care centers in the same geographical area. That sounds like common sense, but as we all know too well, common sense is not always reflected in the law. This bill will make that clear. Further, this legislation demands that Federal child care centers begin working to meet these standards now. Not next year, not in two years, but now. Under this bill, after six months we will look at the Federal child care centers again, and if a center is not meeting minimal state and local health and safety regulations at that time, that child care facility will be closed until it does. I can think of no stronger incentive to get centers to comply. The legislation makes it clear that State and local standards should be a floor for basic health and safety, and not a ceiling. The role of the Federal Government, and, I like to think, of the United States Congress in particular--is to constantly strive to do better and to lead by example. Federal facilities should always try to meet the highest possible standards. In fact, the GSA has required national accreditation in GSA-owned and leased facilities, and has stated that almost all of its centers are either in compliance or are strenuously working to get there. This is the kind of tough standard we should strive for in all of our Federal child care facilities. Federal child care should mean something more than simply location on a Federal facility. The Federal Government has an obligation to provide safe care for its employees, and it has a responsibility for making sure that those standards are monitored and enforced. Some Federal employees receive this guarantee. Many do not. We can do better. I urge swift passage of these important child care bills and hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in this effort.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I join with Senators Stevens, Kennedy, Cleland, and Dodd to introduce the Younger American's Act. We launched this effort at the end of the last Congress, with the help of General Colin Powell. This legislation embraces the belief that youth are our Nation's most important responsibility and that their needs must be moved to a higher priority on our Nation's agenda. It is not enough that government responds to youth when they get into trouble with drugs, teen pregnancy, and violence. We need to strengthen the positive rather than simply respond to the negative. Positive youth development, the framework for the Younger American's Act, is not just about preventing bad things from happening, but giving a nudge to help good things happen. And we know that it works. Evaluations of Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Clubs, mentoring, and other youth development programs have consistently demonstrated how well these programs work. These programs lead to significant increases in parental involvement, youth participation in constructive education, social and recreation activities, enrollment in post-secondary education, and community involvement. Just as important, youth actively participating in youth development programs show decreased rates of school failure and absenteeism, teen pregnancy, delinquency, substance abuse, and violent behavior. We also know that risk taking behavior increases with age. One-third of the high school juniors and seniors participate in two or more health risk behaviors. That is why it is important to build a youth development infrastructure that engages youth as they enter pre- adolescence and keeps them engaged throughout their teen years. The Younger American's Act is targeted to youth aged 10 to 19. This encompasses both the critical middle-school years, as well as the increasingly risky high school years. The Younger American's Act is about creating a national policy on youth. Up until now, government has responded to kids after they have gotten into trouble. We must take a new tack. Instead of just treating problems, we have to promote healthy development. We have to remember that just because a kid stays out of trouble, it doesn't mean that he or she is ready to handle the responsibilities of adulthood. Kids want direction, they want close bonds with parents and other adult mentors. And I believe we owe them that. Ideally, this comes from strong families, but communities and government can help. In order to keep kids engaged in positive activities, youth must be viewed as resources; as active participants in finding solutions to their own problems. Parents also must be part of those solutions. This legislation requires that youth and parents be part of the decision- making process. The United States does not have a cohesive federal policy on youth. Creating an Office on National Youth Policy within the White House not only raises the priority of youth on the Federal agenda, but provides an opportunity to more effectively coordinate existing Federal youth programs to increase their impact on the lives of young Americans. The efforts of the Office of National Youth Policy in advocating for the needs of youth, and the Department of Health and Human Services in implementing the Younger American's Act will be helped by the Council on National Youth Policy. This Council, comprised of youth, parents, experts in youth development, and representatives from the business community, will help ensure that this initiative continually responds to the changing needs of youth and their communities. It will bring a ``real world'' perspective to the Federal efforts. The Younger American's Act provides communities with the funding necessary to adequately ensure that youth have access to five core resources: ongoing relationships with caring adults; safe places with structured activities in which to grow and learn; services that promote healthy lifestyles, including those designed to improve physical and mental health; opportunities to acquire marketable skills and competencies; and opportunities for community service and civic participation. Block grant funds will be used to expand existing resources, create new ones where none existed before, overcome barriers to accessing those resources, and fill gaps to create a cohesive network for youth. The funds will be funneled through States, based on an allocation formula that equally weighs population and poverty measures, to communities where the primary decisions regarding the use of the funds will take place. Thirty percent of the local funds are set aside to address the needs of youth who are particularly vulnerable, such as those who are in out-of-home placements, abused or neglected, living in high poverty areas, or living in rural areas where there are usually fewer resources. Dividing the State into regions, or ``planning and mobilization areas,'' ensures that funds will be equitably distributed throughout a State. Empowering community boards, comprised of youth, parents, and other members of the community, to supervise decisions regarding the use of the block grant funds ensures that the programs, services, and activities supported by the Act will be responsive to local needs. Accountability is integral to any effective Federal program. The Younger American's Act provides the Department of Health and Human Services with the responsibility and funding to conduct research and evaluate the effectiveness of funded initiatives. States and the Department are charged with monitoring the use of funds by grantees, and empowered to withhold or reduce funds if problems arise. The Younger American's Act will help kids gain the skills and experience they need to successfully navigate the rough waters of adolescence. My twenty-first century community learning centers initiative supports the efforts of schools to operate after school programs that emphasize academic enrichment. It's time to get the rest of the community involved. It's time to give the same level of support to the thousands of youth development and youth-serving organizations that struggle to keep their doors open every day. I remember a young man, Brad Luck, who testified before the H.E.L.P. Committee several years ago. As a 14-year-old, Brad embarked on a two- year mission to open a teen center in his home town of Essex Junction, Vermont. He formed a student board of directors, sought 501(c)(3) status and gave over 25 community presentations to convince the town to back the program. Demonstrating the tenacity of youth, he then spear- headed a successful drive to raise $30,000 in 30 days to fund the start-up of the center. Today, the center is thriving in its town- donated space. This is an example of the type of community asset building supported by the Younger American's Act. The Younger American's Act is about an investment in our youth, our communities, and our future. I want to thank America's Promise, the United Way, and the National Collaboration for Youth for their work in providing the original framework for the legislation. I am proud and excited to be part of this important initiative.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Leahy to honor John C. Titchner, Vermont's State Resource Conservationist, who is retiring after thirty-six years with the United States Department of Agriculture. John Titchner's career is among the most distinguished in the history of the Soil Conservation Service and the Natural Resource Conservation Service, NRCS. He began his work with the USDA in 1965, and has served as Vermont State Conservationist since 1981. At the time of his retirement, he was the longest serving among all active State Conservationists. John has guided the Natural Resource Conservation Service in Vermont through many changes in agricultural policy and administration. Under his direction, the NRCS has handled an ever increasing number of programs and special projects to support farmers and conserve our natural resources. The lakes and streams of Vermont are clearer and cleaner today as a result of his work. For many years, Senator Leahy and I have each looked to John as an advisor on agriculture and conservation. In this role, he has had a significant impact on national agricultural policy. John has assumed many leadership roles in his profession and in his community. These include serving as a member of the Lake Champlain Steering Committee, Chairman of the Vermont Food and Agricultural Council, and President of the Vermont Federal Executives Association. John C. Titchner's career stands as an outstanding example for all who choose to serve their community and their country.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Graham today in introducing the Medicare Wellness Act of 2001. Our Nation's rapidly growing senior population and the ongoing search for cost- effective health care have led to the development of this important legislation. The goal of the Medicare Wellness Act is to increase access to preventive health services, improve the quality of life for America's seniors, and increase the cost-effectiveness of the Medicare program. Congress created the Medicare program in 1965 to provide health insurance for Americans age 65 and over. From the outset, the program has focused on coverage for hospital services needed for an unexpected or intensive illness. In recent years, however, a great escalation in program expenditures and an increase in knowledge about the value of preventive care have forced policy makers to re-evaluate the current Medicare benefit package. The Medicare Wellness Act adds to the Medicare program those benefits recommended by the Institute of Medicine and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. These include: screening for hypertension, counseling for tobacco cessation, counseling for hormone replacement therapy, screening for vision and hearing loss, cholesterol screening, expanded screening for osteoporosis, and nutrition therapy counseling or seniors with cardiovascular disease. These services address the most prominent risk factors facing Medicare beneficiaries. In 1997 and again in 2000, Congress added several new preventive benefits to the Medicare program through the Balanced Budget Act and the Beneficiary Improvement and Protection Act. These benefits included annual mammography, diabetes self-management, prostate cancer screening, pelvic examinations, glaucoma screening, and colorectal cancer screening. Congress's next logical step is to incorporate the nine new screening and counseling benefits in the Medicare Wellness Act. If these symptoms are addressed regularly, beneficiaries will have a head start on fighting the conditions they lead to, such as diabetes, lung cancer, heart disease, blindness, osteoporosis, and many others. Research suggests that insurance coverage encourages the use of preventive and other health care services. The Medicare Wellness Act also eliminates the deductibles and coinsurance for new and current preventive benefits in the program. Because screening services are directed at people without symptoms, this will further encourage the use of services by reducing the cost barrier to care. Increased use of screening services will mean that problems will be caught earlier, which will permit more successful treatment. This will save the Medicare program money because it is cheaper to screen for an illness and treat its early diagnosis than to pay for drastic hospital procedures at a later date. However, financial access is not the only barrier to the use of preventive care services. Other barriers include low levels of education or information for beneficiaries. That is why the Medicare Wellness Act instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to coordinate with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Health Care Financing Administration to establish a Risk Appraisal and Education Program within Medicare. This program will target both current beneficiaries and individuals below the age of 65 who have high risk factors. Outreach to these groups will offer questions regarding major behavioral risk factors, including the lack of proper nutrition, the use of alcohol, the lack of regular exercise, the use of tobacco, and depression. State of the art software, case managers, and nurse hotlines will then identify what conditions beneficiaries are at risk for, based on their individual responses to the questions, then refer them to preventive screening services in their area and inform them of actions they can take to lead a healthier life. The Medicare Wellness Act also establishes the Healthy Seniors Promotion Program. This program will bring together all the agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services that address the medical, social and behavioral issues affecting the elderly to increase knowledge about and utilization of prevention services among the elderly, and develop better ways to prevent or delay the onset of age- related disease or disability. Now is the time for Medicare to catch up with current health science. We need a Medicare program that will serve the health care needs of America's seniors by utilizing up-to-date knowledge on healthy aging. Effective health care must address the whole health of an individual. A lifestyle that includes proper exercise and nutrition, and access to regular disease screening ensures that proper attention is being paid to the whole individual, not just a solitary body part. It is time we reaffirm our commitment to provide our Nation's seniors with quality health care. It is my hope that my colleagues in Congress will examine this legislation and realize the inadequacy of the current package of preventive benefits in the Medicare program. We have the opportunity to transform Medicare from an out-dated sickness program to a modern wellness program. I want to thank Senator Bob Graham and all the other cosponsors of the Medicare Wellness Act who are supporting this bold step towards successful Medicare reform.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Graham today in introducing the Medicare Wellness Act of 2001. Our Nation's rapidly growing senior population and the ongoing search for cost- effective health care have led to the development of this important legislation. The goal of the Medicare Wellness Act is to increase access to preventive health services, improve the quality of life for America's seniors, and increase the cost-effectiveness of the Medicare program. Congress created the Medicare program in 1965 to provide health insurance for Americans age 65 and over. From the outset, the program has focused on coverage for hospital services needed for an unexpected or intensive illness. In recent years, however, a great escalation in program expenditures and an increase in knowledge about the value of preventive care have forced policy makers to re-evaluate the current Medicare benefit package. The Medicare Wellness Act adds to the Medicare program those benefits recommended by the Institute of Medicine and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. These include: screening for hypertension, counseling for tobacco cessation, counseling for hormone replacement therapy, screening for vision and hearing loss, cholesterol screening, expanded screening for osteoporosis, and nutrition therapy counseling or seniors with cardiovascular disease. These services address the most prominent risk factors facing Medicare beneficiaries. In 1997 and again in 2000, Congress added several new preventive benefits to the Medicare program through the Balanced Budget Act and the Beneficiary Improvement and Protection Act. These benefits included annual mammography, diabetes self-management, prostate cancer screening, pelvic examinations, glaucoma screening, and colorectal cancer screening. Congress's next logical step is to incorporate the nine new screening and counseling benefits in the Medicare Wellness Act. If these symptoms are addressed regularly, beneficiaries will have a head start on fighting the conditions they lead to, such as diabetes, lung cancer, heart disease, blindness, osteoporosis, and many others. Research suggests that insurance coverage encourages the use of preventive and other health care services. The Medicare Wellness Act also eliminates the deductibles and coinsurance for new and current preventive benefits in the program. Because screening services are directed at people without symptoms, this will further encourage the use of services by reducing the cost barrier to care. Increased use of screening services will mean that problems will be caught earlier, which will permit more successful treatment. This will save the Medicare program money because it is cheaper to screen for an illness and treat its early diagnosis than to pay for drastic hospital procedures at a later date. However, financial access is not the only barrier to the use of preventive care services. Other barriers include low levels of education or information for beneficiaries. That is why the Medicare Wellness Act instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to coordinate with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Health Care Financing Administration to establish a Risk Appraisal and Education Program within Medicare. This program will target both current beneficiaries and individuals below the age of 65 who have high risk factors. Outreach to these groups will offer questions regarding major behavioral risk factors, including the lack of proper nutrition, the use of alcohol, the lack of regular exercise, the use of tobacco, and depression. State of the art software, case managers, and nurse hotlines will then identify what conditions beneficiaries are at risk for, based on their individual responses to the questions, then refer them to preventive screening services in their area and inform them of actions they can take to lead a healthier life. The Medicare Wellness Act also establishes the Healthy Seniors Promotion Program. This program will bring together all the agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services that address the medical, social and behavioral issues affecting the elderly to increase knowledge about and utilization of prevention services among the elderly, and develop better ways to prevent or delay the onset of age- related disease or disability. Now is the time for Medicare to catch up with current health science. We need a Medicare program that will serve the health care needs of America's seniors by utilizing up-to-date knowledge on healthy aging. Effective health care must address the whole health of an individual. A lifestyle that includes proper exercise and nutrition, and access to regular disease screening ensures that proper attention is being paid to the whole individual, not just a solitary body part. It is time we reaffirm our commitment to provide our Nation's seniors with quality health care. It is my hope that my colleagues in Congress will examine this legislation and realize the inadequacy of the current package of preventive benefits in the Medicare program. We have the opportunity to transform Medicare from an out-dated sickness program to a modern wellness program. I want to thank Senator Bob Graham and all the other cosponsors of the Medicare Wellness Act who are supporting this bold step towards successful Medicare reform.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill that will simplify and make more fair the tax treatment of foster care payments. The bill will eliminate unnecessary distinctions drawn by the Internal Revenue Code in the treatment of payments received by people who open their homes to foster children and adults. I introduced this same bill in the 106th Congress, and it was passed by both Houses as part of a larger tax bill that was subsequently vetoed by the President. I am re- introducing the bill now, as I believe that this issue should not be overlooked as we debate tax reform this year. This bill not only simplifies the tax treatment of foster care payments, it will also remove inequities and uncertainties inherent in current law. In my home State of Vermont, we are proud that we have been able to reduce our reliance on the institutional care of children and adults. We have accomplished this by developing an array of services that can be provided in typical family homes, in a cost-effective and fiscally responsible manner. I believe that this is not only good public policy, but that whenever possible we should encourage these alternatives. Equal tax treatment for all tax families that provide foster care services should provide some encouragement. Under current law, foster care families are required to include foster care payments in income. They can offset this income with deductions for the expenditures they incur. Families must maintain detailed records to substantiate these deductions. In lieu of detailed record keeping, Section 131 of the Internal Revenue Code allows certain foster care families to exclude from income the payments they receive for providing 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 families to exclude payments when a State, or one of its political subdivisions, or a tax-exempt charitable placement agency places the individual in foster care and makes the foster care payments. For persons age 19 and older, Section 131 permits families to exclude foster care payments from income only when a State, or one of its political subdivisions, places the individual and makes the payments. This bill is designed to provide tax fairness; it will simplify the anachronistic tax rules by amending the tax code's current exclusion to include foster care payments for all persons in foster care, regardless of age. The exclusion will also be available when the foster care placement is made by a private foster care placement agency and even when the foster care payments are received through a private foster care placement agency, rather than directly from a State. To ensure appropriate oversight, the bill requires that the placement agency be either licensed or certified by a State. A qualified foster care payment under this bill must be made pursuant to a foster care program run by a State or county. My intention is for this bill to cover the wide variety of foster care programs developed by States. Recognizing foster care as an effective approach to provide support within the community to people with mental retardation and other disabilities, these programs place children, and in some cases adults, in homes of unrelated families who provide foster care on a full-time basis. Families providing foster care give those in their care the daily support and supervision typically given to a family member. Like traditional families, foster care families ensure that foster children and adults have a healthy physical environment, get routine and emergency medical care, are adequately clothed and fed, and have satisfying leisure activities. Foster families provide those in their care with stimulation and emotional support all too often lacking in large congregate and institutional settings. In some State, the State itself administers both child and adult foster care programs. Many States, however, are increasingly entrusting administration of these programs to private placement agencies, approved through licensing or certification procedures, or to government-designated intermediary tax-exempt organizations. Through the approval process, private placement agencies are accountable for their use of funds and for the quality of services they provide. This bill is intended to cover governmental foster care programs funded solely by State or political subdivision monies, and, especially in the case of adult foster care, programs funded by the federal government, typical through a State's Medicaid Home and Community-Based Waiver program. 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. In 1993, Vermont closed the State institution for people with developmental disabilities, choosing instead to rely on foster families. Under this approach, Vermonters with developmental disabilities can live in homes and participate in the routines of daily life that most of us take for granted. Vermont's approach has provided people with disabilities a cost-effective opportunity for successful lives in communities, with valued relationships with their foster families. Vermont authorizes local developmental disability service organizations to act as placement agencies and contract with families willing to provide foster care in their homes. The current tax law's disparate tax treatment of foster care payments impedes these types of arrangements. Persons providing foster care for individuals placed in their homes by the government can exclude foster care payments from income, while foster care families receiving the same payments through private agencies under contract with State or local governments are not eligible for this exclusion, unless the individual in foster care is under age 19 and the placement agency is a nonprofit organization. Because of the complexity of current law, families often receive conflicting advice from tax professionals regarding the proper tax treatment of foster care payments. In addition, the law's complex rules discourage willing families from providing foster care in their homes to persons placed by private agencies, reducing the availability of care alternatives. This bill will advance the development of family-based foster care services, a highly valued alternative to institutionalization. My home State of Vermont is proud of having closed its institutions and leading the nation in developing other support systems. The use of foster care services has facilitated this effort. I believe this represents good policy and is something to be encouraged. We should be removing disincentives and barriers to quality support for people with disabilities in our communities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill that will simplify and make more fair the tax treatment of foster care payments. The bill will eliminate unnecessary distinctions drawn by the Internal Revenue Code in the treatment of payments received by people who open their homes to foster children and adults. I introduced this same bill in the 106th Congress, and it was passed by both Houses as part of a larger tax bill that was subsequently vetoed by the President. I am re- introducing the bill now, as I believe that this issue should not be overlooked as we debate tax reform this year. This bill not only simplifies the tax treatment of foster care payments, it will also remove inequities and uncertainties inherent in current law. In my home State of Vermont, we are proud that we have been able to reduce our reliance on the institutional care of children and adults. We have accomplished this by developing an array of services that can be provided in typical family homes, in a cost-effective and fiscally responsible manner. I believe that this is not only good public policy, but that whenever possible we should encourage these alternatives. Equal tax treatment for all tax families that provide foster care services should provide some encouragement. Under current law, foster care families are required to include foster care payments in income. They can offset this income with deductions for the expenditures they incur. Families must maintain detailed records to substantiate these deductions. In lieu of detailed record keeping, Section 131 of the Internal Revenue Code allows certain foster care families to exclude from income the payments they receive for providing 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 families to exclude payments when a State, or one of its political subdivisions, or a tax-exempt charitable placement agency places the individual in foster care and makes the foster care payments. For persons age 19 and older, Section 131 permits families to exclude foster care payments from income only when a State, or one of its political subdivisions, places the individual and makes the payments. This bill is designed to provide tax fairness; it will simplify the anachronistic tax rules by amending the tax code's current exclusion to include foster care payments for all persons in foster care, regardless of age. The exclusion will also be available when the foster care placement is made by a private foster care placement agency and even when the foster care payments are received through a private foster care placement agency, rather than directly from a State. To ensure appropriate oversight, the bill requires that the placement agency be either licensed or certified by a State. A qualified foster care payment under this bill must be made pursuant to a foster care program run by a State or county. My intention is for this bill to cover the wide variety of foster care programs developed by States. Recognizing foster care as an effective approach to provide support within the community to people with mental retardation and other disabilities, these programs place children, and in some cases adults, in homes of unrelated families who provide foster care on a full-time basis. Families providing foster care give those in their care the daily support and supervision typically given to a family member. Like traditional families, foster care families ensure that foster children and adults have a healthy physical environment, get routine and emergency medical care, are adequately clothed and fed, and have satisfying leisure activities. Foster families provide those in their care with stimulation and emotional support all too often lacking in large congregate and institutional settings. In some State, the State itself administers both child and adult foster care programs. Many States, however, are increasingly entrusting administration of these programs to private placement agencies, approved through licensing or certification procedures, or to government-designated intermediary tax-exempt organizations. Through the approval process, private placement agencies are accountable for their use of funds and for the quality of services they provide. This bill is intended to cover governmental foster care programs funded solely by State or political subdivision monies, and, especially in the case of adult foster care, programs funded by the federal government, typical through a State's Medicaid Home and Community-Based Waiver program. 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. In 1993, Vermont closed the State institution for people with developmental disabilities, choosing instead to rely on foster families. Under this approach, Vermonters with developmental disabilities can live in homes and participate in the routines of daily life that most of us take for granted. Vermont's approach has provided people with disabilities a cost-effective opportunity for successful lives in communities, with valued relationships with their foster families. Vermont authorizes local developmental disability service organizations to act as placement agencies and contract with families willing to provide foster care in their homes. The current tax law's disparate tax treatment of foster care payments impedes these types of arrangements. Persons providing foster care for individuals placed in their homes by the government can exclude foster care payments from income, while foster care families receiving the same payments through private agencies under contract with State or local governments are not eligible for this exclusion, unless the individual in foster care is under age 19 and the placement agency is a nonprofit organization. Because of the complexity of current law, families often receive conflicting advice from tax professionals regarding the proper tax treatment of foster care payments. In addition, the law's complex rules discourage willing families from providing foster care in their homes to persons placed by private agencies, reducing the availability of care alternatives. This bill will advance the development of family-based foster care services, a highly valued alternative to institutionalization. My home State of Vermont is proud of having closed its institutions and leading the nation in developing other support systems. The use of foster care services has facilitated this effort. I believe this represents good policy and is something to be encouraged. We should be removing disincentives and barriers to quality support for people with disabilities in our communities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today to introduce legislation that will restore to state employees the ability to bring claims of age discrimination against their employers under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967. The Older Workers Rights Restoration Act of 2001 seeks to provide state employees who allege age discrimination the same procedures and remedies as those afforded to other employees with respect to ADEA. This legislation is needed to protect older workers like Professor Dan Kimel, who has taught physics Florida State University for nearly 35 years. Professor Kimel testified at a recent hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that, despite his years of faithful service, in 1992 he was earning less in real dollars than his starting salary. To add insult to injury, his employer was hiring younger faculty out of graduate schools at salaries that were higher than he and other long-service faculty members were earning. In 1995, Professor Kimel and 34 colleagues brought a claim of age discrimination against the Florida Board of Regents. Dan Kimel and his colleagues brought their cases under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967, ADEA. In 1974, Congress amended the ADEA to ensure that state employees, such as Dan Kimel had full protection against age discrimination. I stand before you today because this past year the Supreme Court ruled that Dan Kimel and other affected faculty do not have the right to bring their ADEA claims against their employer. The Court in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, held that Congress did not have the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity to individuals under the ADEA. As a result of the decision, state employees, who are victims of age discrimination, no longer have the remedies that are available to individuals who work in the private sector, for local governments or for the federal government. Indeed, unless a state chooses to waive its sovereign immunity or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decides to bring a suit, state workers no longer have a federal remedy for their claims of age discrimination. In effect, this decision has transformed older state employees into second class citizens. For a right without a remedy is no right at all. Employees should not have to lose their right to redress simply because they happen to work for a state government. And a considerable portion of our workforce has been impacted. In Vermont, for example, the State is one of our largest employers. We cannot and should not permit these state workers to lose the right to redress age discrimination. This legislation will resolve this problem. The Older Workers Rights Restoration Act of 2001 will restore the full protections of the ADEA to Dan Kimel and countless other state employees in federally assisted programs. The legislation will do this by requiring the states to waive their sovereign immunity as a condition of receiving federal funds for their programs or activities. The Older Workers Rights Restoration Act of 2001 follows the framework of many other civil rights laws, including the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. Under this framework, immunity is only waived with regard to the program or activity actually receiving federal funds. States are not obligated to accept such funds; and if they do not they are immune from private ADEA suits. The legislation also confirms that these employees may bring actions for equitable relief under the ADEA. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with Senators Clinton, Leahy, Lieberman, and Schumer, the Combined Heat and Power Advancement Act of 2001. This legislation ensures that highly efficient sources of electricity, such as combined heat and power systems, are able to interconnect nationwide with the electricity grid by establishing uniform and nondiscriminatory interconnection standards. Enabling these innovative, clean, and efficient technologies to come online will reduce energy costs and help protect public health and the environment. Last week, President bush released the National Energy Policy Development Group's comprehensive energy plan. I am pleased this plan includes recommendations related to increasing energy conservation and efficiency. Specially, the plan recommends the development of well- designed combined heat and power, CHP, systems. I am heartened that President Bush recognizes the positive impact that CHP systems can have on our nation's energy needs. These innovative systems produce both electricity and steam from a single fuel source in a facility located near the consumer. By recovering and utilizing waste heat, these systems save fuel that would otherwise be needed to produce heat or steam in a separate unit. CHP systems can reach energy efficiency levels in excess of 80 percent. This is well above the 33 percent average for conventional electrical generation technologies. In short, the U.S. can obtain more than twice the power from the same amount of energy by widely implementing combined heat and power technologies and applications. Unfortunately, several regulatory and policy barriers block the widespread use of these innovative technologies. The bill would ensure that CHP systems and other innovative technologies can interconnect with a local distribution utility and that the costs of such interconnections shall be just reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory. Currently, there are roughly 50 Gigawatts, GW, of energy produced from CHP systems annually. If this barrier is removed, 50 GW of additional CHP electrical generating capacity could be brought to market by 2010. To illustrate the magnitude of potential savings to the entire nation, the result of this additional capacity is equal to all the energy needed to power Massachusetts. Most of these systems are targeted for industry, where thermal and electrical needs are most often located close together. However, there is also tremendous potential for CHP in homes. Fifty GW of CHP could light and heat 50 million homes, or 43 percent of all U.S. homes, for the same energy that the central station plans could only light the homes. With removal of regulatory barriers, these efficient systems may begin to be economical at the small sizes suitable for homes. We cannot solve today's energy problems with yesterday's solutions. CHP represents an innovative approach to expanding energy supply by maximizing energy efficiency. These systems will encourage technological innovations, reduce energy prices, spur economic development, enhance productivity, increase employment, improve environmental quality, and advance energy security and reliability in the United States. I invite my colleagues to join me in my efforts to promote combined heat and power by co-sponsoring this important legislation. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today to introduce legislation that will restore to state employees the ability to bring claims of age discrimination against their employers under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967. The Older Workers Rights Restoration Act of 2001 seeks to provide state employees who allege age discrimination the same procedures and remedies as those afforded to other employees with respect to ADEA. This legislation is needed to protect older workers like Professor Dan Kimel, who has taught physics Florida State University for nearly 35 years. Professor Kimel testified at a recent hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that, despite his years of faithful service, in 1992 he was earning less in real dollars than his starting salary. To add insult to injury, his employer was hiring younger faculty out of graduate schools at salaries that were higher than he and other long-service faculty members were earning. In 1995, Professor Kimel and 34 colleagues brought a claim of age discrimination against the Florida Board of Regents. Dan Kimel and his colleagues brought their cases under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967, ADEA. In 1974, Congress amended the ADEA to ensure that state employees, such as Dan Kimel had full protection against age discrimination. I stand before you today because this past year the Supreme Court ruled that Dan Kimel and other affected faculty do not have the right to bring their ADEA claims against their employer. The Court in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, held that Congress did not have the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity to individuals under the ADEA. As a result of the decision, state employees, who are victims of age discrimination, no longer have the remedies that are available to individuals who work in the private sector, for local governments or for the federal government. Indeed, unless a state chooses to waive its sovereign immunity or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decides to bring a suit, state workers no longer have a federal remedy for their claims of age discrimination. In effect, this decision has transformed older state employees into second class citizens. For a right without a remedy is no right at all. Employees should not have to lose their right to redress simply because they happen to work for a state government. And a considerable portion of our workforce has been impacted. In Vermont, for example, the State is one of our largest employers. We cannot and should not permit these state workers to lose the right to redress age discrimination. This legislation will resolve this problem. The Older Workers Rights Restoration Act of 2001 will restore the full protections of the ADEA to Dan Kimel and countless other state employees in federally assisted programs. The legislation will do this by requiring the states to waive their sovereign immunity as a condition of receiving federal funds for their programs or activities. The Older Workers Rights Restoration Act of 2001 follows the framework of many other civil rights laws, including the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. Under this framework, immunity is only waived with regard to the program or activity actually receiving federal funds. States are not obligated to accept such funds; and if they do not they are immune from private ADEA suits. The legislation also confirms that these employees may bring actions for equitable relief under the ADEA. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with Senators Clinton, Leahy, Lieberman, and Schumer, the Combined Heat and Power Advancement Act of 2001. This legislation ensures that highly efficient sources of electricity, such as combined heat and power systems, are able to interconnect nationwide with the electricity grid by establishing uniform and nondiscriminatory interconnection standards. Enabling these innovative, clean, and efficient technologies to come online will reduce energy costs and help protect public health and the environment. Last week, President bush released the National Energy Policy Development Group's comprehensive energy plan. I am pleased this plan includes recommendations related to increasing energy conservation and efficiency. Specially, the plan recommends the development of well- designed combined heat and power, CHP, systems. I am heartened that President Bush recognizes the positive impact that CHP systems can have on our nation's energy needs. These innovative systems produce both electricity and steam from a single fuel source in a facility located near the consumer. By recovering and utilizing waste heat, these systems save fuel that would otherwise be needed to produce heat or steam in a separate unit. CHP systems can reach energy efficiency levels in excess of 80 percent. This is well above the 33 percent average for conventional electrical generation technologies. In short, the U.S. can obtain more than twice the power from the same amount of energy by widely implementing combined heat and power technologies and applications. Unfortunately, several regulatory and policy barriers block the widespread use of these innovative technologies. The bill would ensure that CHP systems and other innovative technologies can interconnect with a local distribution utility and that the costs of such interconnections shall be just reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory. Currently, there are roughly 50 Gigawatts, GW, of energy produced from CHP systems annually. If this barrier is removed, 50 GW of additional CHP electrical generating capacity could be brought to market by 2010. To illustrate the magnitude of potential savings to the entire nation, the result of this additional capacity is equal to all the energy needed to power Massachusetts. Most of these systems are targeted for industry, where thermal and electrical needs are most often located close together. However, there is also tremendous potential for CHP in homes. Fifty GW of CHP could light and heat 50 million homes, or 43 percent of all U.S. homes, for the same energy that the central station plans could only light the homes. With removal of regulatory barriers, these efficient systems may begin to be economical at the small sizes suitable for homes. We cannot solve today's energy problems with yesterday's solutions. CHP represents an innovative approach to expanding energy supply by maximizing energy efficiency. These systems will encourage technological innovations, reduce energy prices, spur economic development, enhance productivity, increase employment, improve environmental quality, and advance energy security and reliability in the United States. I invite my colleagues to join me in my efforts to promote combined heat and power by co-sponsoring this important legislation. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.