Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I want a rollcall vote.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Frances Coleman and Andrew Hartman, both assigned to my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 1.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 46, 66, 67, 68, 69, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative business.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 3, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in open and closed sessions to receive testimony on the lessons learned from the attack on U.S.S. Cole, on the Report of the Crouch/Gehman Commission and on the Navy's Judge Advocate General manual investigation into the attack, including a review of appropriate standards of accountability for our military service.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 3, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., on pending committee business.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 3 at 2:30 p.m., to conduct an oversight hearing. The committee will review FERC's April 26, 2001, order addressing wholesale electricity prices in California and the Western United States.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 3 at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a joint oversight hearing. The committee will receive testimony on the state of the nuclear power industry and the future of the industry in a comprehensive energy policy.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 3, 2001, at 10 a.m., for an oversight hearing on Federal election practices and procedures.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, May 3, 2001, at 10 a.m., in SD-226.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 3, 2001, from 2:30 p.m.-5 p.m, in Dirksen 608 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Thursday, May 3, 2001, at 2 p.m., in SD- 226.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 82 submitted by Senators Lott and Daschle.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10 a.m. on Friday, May 4. I further ask unanimous consent that on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1, the education bill, as under the previous order.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume the education bill tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. The next two amendments in order will be a Craig amendment and an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy or his designee. Votes ordered on those amendments will be stacked to occur on Tuesday morning. On Monday, the Senate will consider the budget conference report beginning at 10 a.m. Monday afternoon the Senate will consider the Bolton nomination with both votes scheduled to occur in a stacked sequence beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday. The order of the votes on Tuesday morning is as follows: confirmation of the Bolton nomination; adoption of the budget conference report; the Craig amendment regarding ESEA funding; and the Kennedy or designee amendment. No votes will occur on Friday or Monday.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. The minority manager has offered me 5 minutes of his time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first of all, I commend the Senator from Maine for not only her excellent presentation but for her work on the committee. She is an invaluable member of our committee. I want to give her the accolades she deserves for what she has done to help us during this difficult time of trying to define how we can best improve the educational capacity of our Nation. Today, the Senate begins its consideration of the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act. The BEST Act is an opportunity to combine our efforts with those of President Bush to guide the course of the No. 1 issue facing our Nation today: the education of our children. The BEST Act represents a bipartisan blueprint for meaningful education reform. We are putting forward an elementary and secondary education initiative that provides the necessary tools for every child to receive a quality education. The BEST Act will strengthen accountability across the board to improve student performance, expand assessment programs so that parents and schools will have an accurate measurement of how well their children are learning, provide the funds necessary to prepare, recruit, and train highly qualified teachers, develop reading programs to ensure that all students will be able to read by the third grade, create partnerships for States and colleges and universities to strengthen K- 12 math and science education, and provide for emerging technology activities that will boost student achievement. BEST builds upon current law and requires States to create a single accountability system which will provide the mechanisms for moving all students toward proficiency. States must assess students in grades 3-8 annually in mathematics, reading and science. The results of these assessments will provide parents and the public an effective, highly visible measure of success and failure. Just as parents receive report cards to see how their children are performing in school, they will now be able to get report cards to see how the school is performing for their children. If schools are not measuring up to the standards, BEST requires States, local education agencies, and schools to improve overall performance. These tough, new accountability standards are the cornerstone of BEST. BEST creates new programs to help our children learn to read at an early age. These programs are Reading First and Early Reading First. President Bush has set as a goal for the Nation that all students be proficient readers by the end of the third grade. This is critically important. An engineer will tell you that without a deep and strong foundation, you cannot build a tower. An educator will tell you that without strong and deeply rooted reading skills, you cannot reach a high academic level. Young students who cannot read--with speed, accuracy and understanding--are likely to fall further behind from their peers in reading ability and in all other subjects. Research has proven that the sills which make learning to read possible develop at a much earlier age. The Early Reading First demonstration program in BEST will provide preschool-age children who are 3 and 4 years old with the opportunity to gain the important language and pre-literacy skills identified by rigorous research. BEST also recognizes that an investment in better teachers is an investment in our Nation's young people. Children can make greater academic gains if they have a knowledgeable and caring teacher leading their classroom. The bill takes a flexible approach that allows States and educational agencies to adopt successful models that will best meet their needs. Previous programs are combined to lessen the burden on schools and States. BEST puts an emphasis on innovative professional development program to maximize opportunities for teachers. At the same time, the bill requires professional development to be tied to effective strategies for increasing teacher performance and student achievement. BEST demands strong accountability in combination with effective approaches to get the best from our teachers and students. Student achievement in the United States has fallen behind many other countries in the areas of math and science. BEST includes important new initiatives designed to improve upon performance here. An enormous improvement in math and science education at the K through 12 level is necessary if today's students want good jobs and the U.S. wants to stay competitive in the world economy. If American students are not prepared to fill high-tech jobs that require advanced math and science skills, then those jobs will go elsewhere or people will come from other countries to fill them. To achieve this, BEST will allow for the establishment of math and science partnerships between institutions of higher learning, States, and school districts. These partnerships will help our teachers become more effective, improve student achievement, and help keep our economy strong and vital. BEST will also provide assistance to help eliminate the digital divide in the nation's schools. It is very important that we not separate technology from learning. Technology must not be used for it's own sake. Technology must be used to improve student outcomes. BEST contains strong accountability provisions to ensure that this occurs. We are faced with an opportunity to do what is right for the children of our country. We have a chance to improve their education, and to improve their lives. This bill increases accountability in the education delivery system on all fronts. It provides strong new assessments to ensure that all of our children are well served by their schools. It authorizes the necessary resources required to have first rate educational opportunities available to all children in this nation. Mr. President, we are starting today on bringing forward the President's proposal which is the cornerstone of the future of this Nation's ability to improve its education. I praise the President for bringing this very excellent bill forward. We have worked hard on it on the committee. I am confident we will pass it and that it will become law. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am joining with four of my colleagues on the Finance Committee, Senators Conrad, Murkowski, Hatch and Breaux, to introduce a bill that will eliminate an aspect of our tax laws that is fundamentally unfair to taxpayers with income from foreign sources. Under our system of taxation, United States citizens and domestic corporations are subject to tax on income they earn from sources outside the United States. In all likelihood, foreign-source income will also be subject to tax by the country where it was earned. Absent an Internal Revenue Code measure providing for other treatment, the same income could be taxed twice, by two different countries. The tax code does have a provision to address this problem of double taxation: the foreign tax credit. This credit allows taxpayers to offset otherwise payable U.S. taxes with foreign taxes paid on the same foreign-source income. Like the other provisions governing international taxation, the details of the foreign tax credit are complex. The basic principle underlying the credit, however, is simple: relief from double taxation. The alternative minimum tax, AMT, requires taxpayers to compute their taxes twice, once under the ``regular'' method, and once using the AMT calculation. As a rule, taxpayers pay the larger of these two computations. When taxpayers become subject to the AMT, th protection against double taxation is undermined. In the ``regular'' tax computation, foreign tax credits protect against double taxation. This protection is only partial under AMT rules, however, where the allowable foreign tax credit is limited to 90 percent of a taxpayer's AMT liability. This limitation means that income subject to foreign tax is also subject to U.S. tax. There is no sound policy reason for denying relief from double taxation under the AMT. When first enacted, the AMT was designed to ensure that taxpayers claiming various tax ``preferences'' allowed by the Internal Revenue Code should pay a minimum amount of tax. The foreign tax credit is not a ``preference'' serving an incentive for a particular activity or behavior. Rather, it merely reflects the fundamental principle that income should not be subject to multiple taxation. The 90 percent limitation was enacted as part of the 1986 tax reform bill, solely for the purpose of raising revenue. The bill that we're introducing today will eliminate the AMT's 90 percent limitation on foreign tax credits. Elimination of this limitation will mean that taxpayers subject to the AMT will get the same protection against double taxation allowed to taxpayers subject to the regular tax. Repeal of the limit on foreign tax credits is not a revolutionary idea. In fact, Congress repealed the limitation in the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, which was subsequently vetoed. Legislation similar to the bill I'm introducing today has also been introduced in the House of Representatives. At this point in time, it is questionable whether the AMT still serves a valid purpose. In fact, in a study released last week, the Joint Committee on Taxation concluded that both the corporate and individual AMT should be repealed. In any event, the AMT's treatment of foreign tax credits serves no valid purpose. The 90 percent limitation on foreign tax credits is probably the most unfair aspect of the corporate AMT. Even those unwilling to support wholesale AMT repeal should support elimination of this most unfair aspect of the AMT. In the age of globalization, the AMT limitation on foreign tax credits can put U.S. corporations at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign rivals. The time has come to repeal this unfair tax provision.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am joining with four of my colleagues on the Finance Committee, Senators Conrad, Murkowski, Hatch and Breaux, to introduce a bill that will eliminate an aspect of our tax laws that is fundamentally unfair to taxpayers with income from foreign sources. Under our system of taxation, United States citizens and domestic corporations are subject to tax on income they earn from sources outside the United States. In all likelihood, foreign-source income will also be subject to tax by the country where it was earned. Absent an Internal Revenue Code measure providing for other treatment, the same income could be taxed twice, by two different countries. The tax code does have a provision to address this problem of double taxation: the foreign tax credit. This credit allows taxpayers to offset otherwise payable U.S. taxes with foreign taxes paid on the same foreign-source income. Like the other provisions governing international taxation, the details of the foreign tax credit are complex. The basic principle underlying the credit, however, is simple: relief from double taxation. The alternative minimum tax, AMT, requires taxpayers to compute their taxes twice, once under the ``regular'' method, and once using the AMT calculation. As a rule, taxpayers pay the larger of these two computations. When taxpayers become subject to the AMT, th protection against double taxation is undermined. In the ``regular'' tax computation, foreign tax credits protect against double taxation. This protection is only partial under AMT rules, however, where the allowable foreign tax credit is limited to 90 percent of a taxpayer's AMT liability. This limitation means that income subject to foreign tax is also subject to U.S. tax. There is no sound policy reason for denying relief from double taxation under the AMT. When first enacted, the AMT was designed to ensure that taxpayers claiming various tax ``preferences'' allowed by the Internal Revenue Code should pay a minimum amount of tax. The foreign tax credit is not a ``preference'' serving an incentive for a particular activity or behavior. Rather, it merely reflects the fundamental principle that income should not be subject to multiple taxation. The 90 percent limitation was enacted as part of the 1986 tax reform bill, solely for the purpose of raising revenue. The bill that we're introducing today will eliminate the AMT's 90 percent limitation on foreign tax credits. Elimination of this limitation will mean that taxpayers subject to the AMT will get the same protection against double taxation allowed to taxpayers subject to the regular tax. Repeal of the limit on foreign tax credits is not a revolutionary idea. In fact, Congress repealed the limitation in the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, which was subsequently vetoed. Legislation similar to the bill I'm introducing today has also been introduced in the House of Representatives. At this point in time, it is questionable whether the AMT still serves a valid purpose. In fact, in a study released last week, the Joint Committee on Taxation concluded that both the corporate and individual AMT should be repealed. In any event, the AMT's treatment of foreign tax credits serves no valid purpose. The 90 percent limitation on foreign tax credits is probably the most unfair aspect of the corporate AMT. Even those unwilling to support wholesale AMT repeal should support elimination of this most unfair aspect of the AMT. In the age of globalization, the AMT limitation on foreign tax credits can put U.S. corporations at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign rivals. The time has come to repeal this unfair tax provision.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes, I agree with the view of the North Dakota and New Mexico delegations. The 1998 amendments to the Perkins Act made no substantive changes to the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions section of the law concerning eligibility. The section that authorizes the grants retained the purpose of providing assistance solely to institutions whose focus is vocational and technical education.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr President, I rise today to bring attention to the single most common chronic infectious childhood disease, namely dental decay. In fact, it is five times more common than asthma and seven times more common than hay fever. Young children with severe decay, affecting multiple teeth, may need to be treated in a hospital under general anesthesia. This level of treatment is unnecessarily costly. An estimated $100 million each year is spent for operating room charges associated with treating severe decay in very young children. One of the most cost effective ways to reduce the burden of tooth decay, before it starts, is community water fluoridation. Since 1945, water fluoridation has been the cornerstone of the nation's oral health, by safely, inexpensively and effectively preventing tooth decay regardless of an individuals' socioeconomic status or ability to obtain dental care. Today, close to 144 million Americans receive this benefit through fluoridated water. Unfortunately, more than 100 million others do not. This is especially disturbing, because water fluoridation remains the most equitable and cost-effective method of delivering fluoride. The average life-time cost of fluoridation per person is less than the approximate cost of one dental filling. In my home State of Vermont, three communities with over 7,000 residents, do not benefit from community water fluoridation. According to the Vermont Department of Health, high school students in one of these communities have the worse dental health in the State, by a significant margin. Because of the high disease rate in these three communities, they have responded by developing dental clinics to serve low-income residents. Although we applaud these communities for responding accordingly, the old adage holds true here, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Dental sealants have also proven to be an effective method of preventing tooth decay. Studies have shown that sealants can reduce tooth decay by over 70 percent. Despite the proven effectiveness of this method, only three percent of low-income children have had sealants applied to their teeth. The inequities in oral health care are especially apparent in Medicaid patients. In 1993, only 1 in 5 children and adolescents covered by Medicaid received preventive dental service such as application of fluoride or sealants. Alarmed by these statistics, Senator Russ Feingold and I, along with 26 of our colleagues, wrote to the Health Care Financing Administration asking that they explore what Medicaid could do to improve access to comprehensive dental services for underserved children. Oral health is a key determinate of overall health. It is essential that we continue to pursue these low-cost and effective measures to ensure that all children in this country, regardless of income and geography, are free of dental disease.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President I join my colleague, Mr. Levin, in commending Senators Smith of New Hampshire, Chafee, Reid, and Boxer for their efforts to promote brownfield revitalization. I am a co-sponsor and strong supporter of S. 350, and believe this legislation is long overdue. Senator Levin and I have been working on complementary legislation. The proposal would provide the Economic Development Administration (EDA) with a formal channel of funding to help communities turn brownfields environmental liabilities into economic assets. This legislation would provide targeted assistance to projects that redevelop brownfields. EDA funding for brownfields will help communities get the financial assistance needed to leverage private investment in brownfields. With over 450,000 brownfields sites nationwide, it is imperative that the federal government assist local cleanup efforts that in turn will stimulate economic revitalization. The second legislative proposal 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 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. I am very hopeful that the Chairman and Ranking Member of Committee on Environment and Public Works will work with us to advance this important legislative initiatives.